Loading...
Minutes 1986/11/24 " r:::.t13"l ,__J "1, '"-) November 24, 1986 Special Meeting Gilroy, California Mayor Hughan led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Posting The City Clerk reported that the Agenda had been posted on November 18, 1986 at 11:25 a.m. 5434 Roll Call POA Hearing Present: Councilmembers: Sharon A. Albert, Donald F. Gage, Paul V. Kloecker, Larry Mussallem, Daniel D. Palmerlee, Pete Valdez, Jr. and Roberta H. Hughan. (7:03 p.m.) Mayor Hughan stated that it was the time and place scheduled for a hearing to consider setting compensation for the City's Police Unit. Mayor Hughan noted that because of the failure of negotia- tions the City Council is considering taking unilateral action in setting compensation for the sworn officers and non-sworn personnel of the Police Department. She further noted that as a result of this proposed action there was a request from the Police Officers' Association for this hearing. -- Mayor Hughan made the following comments before proceeding with the hearing: She noted available copies for the public of a current salary survey for the 1980 original 10 cities and 7 city survey of cities of comparable size to Gilroy; copies of the press release compiled several weeks ago; and a copy of the 2- year package that constitutes this particular MOU. She further noted charts on the wall prepared by the City Staff and that any of this materials is available. -- The Mayor opened the Hearing and requested the audience refrain from clapping, etc. after each individual speaker. She further noted that following the speaker's presentation she will inquire if anyone in the audience wishes to support the speakers by standing and clapping at that time. She noted that the City Council is willing to take the required time necessary in order to clarify all issues. She noted that the issue is not what the Council thinks of its Police Department. She stated that the Council thinks highly of its Police Officers and that salary negotiations have to take place in every city. She further stated that the Council is very appreciative of the work the Police Department does and how its officers serve the City. She further stated that the Council is considering what they can afford to pay, what is fair, what is competitive, and Council needs to see what the actual compensation is when the entire benefit package is taken into account. Based on Council's instructions to their negotiating team and for the record, the compensation proposed is as follows: - -- For Sworn Officers: 1) The 2% at 50 police retirement plan to go into effect January 1, 1987; 2) The City will pay an additional 3.25% of the employees' retirement contribution obli- gation (max. 9%) effective January 1, 1987; 3) A bonus of $938.00 per employee to make up the difference in cost between the above and the cost of implementing the retirement plan change on July 1st as called for in the current agreement, noting that the plan implementation was delayed by mutual agreement and because of not being able to get the PERS package put together. For the Non-Sworn Members of the Police Department: 1) An additional 3 1/4% PERS payment effective January 1, 1987; 2) A cash bonus equivalent to 3 1/4% of salary from July 1st to December 31st, to make up the difference between July and January. The Mayor called upon the City's negotiator, Mr. Bill Avery to give some history of the negotiations. Mr. Bill Avery addressed the Council and noted that they have not been successful in completing negotiations under the re- opener in the 2nd year of the two-year agreement with the Police Association. He noted that the first meeting was in June and the last mediation session in October. He further noted that he was optimistic in mid-September that they had an agreement. He noted that basically came about when the City largely accepted a pro- posal advanced by the Association Attorney...A proposal that had two options. He noted that the City accepted both of those two options; the employee association however did not. He noted that thus, there was no agreement at that time. Since then he noted that they have met again to try and find other ways to reach an rl""..... '"""'" 5435 ,"","'" agreement; they have not been able to do so. He noted that in the absence of that agreement he stated that they are recommend- ing implementation of the 2% at 50 retirement plan, effective January 1, 1987, futher noting that it was agreed to delay implementation of that plan by mutual agreement. He noted due to that delay they are also recommending the payment of 3 1/4% additional employee retirement contribution for the sworn members of the Department; payment of that contribution for the non-sworn from January forward and then equivalent cash payment for them for the period from July through December. And because those two items cost less and simply implementing the 2% at 50 retirement plan effective July, a cash bonus to the sworn members of the Department to make up the difference and that difference is $938.00. He noted that had they simply implemented the 2% at 50 retirement plan in July, the employees would have been obligated to pay the 3 1/4% out of their pocket. That cost plus the absence of the $938.00 bonus would have been a difference to each sworn employee of about $2000.00 over the one year. He noted that they agreed to delay the implementation of the 2% at 50 and their attempts to work out a reasonable settlement have led to the modification and the City's position and refiguring the package to make up that $2,000.00 to the employee. He noted that this negotiation has focused around the issue of parity; that is, fair compensation. The employees, the Association want fair compensation; the City wants to pay fair compensation. He noted that their unfortunate difficulty has been getting an agreement on just what fairness is in this particular case. He noted that the Association is currently defining parity as looking at the salary and retirement pick-up of all the police agencies in Santa Clara County except Sunnyvale and the Sheriff's Department. He noted that the City has consistently held that they are willing to look at compensation data for those agencies, but that they think other factors are involved in a decision as to what parity or fair compensation is. He noted that those other factors in- clude internal salary relationships, that is among the different City employee groups, supervisory and management differentials, the City's Budget, total compensation, that is the cost of all direct wages and benefits, not just salary. He noted that he thinks it particularly appropriate in a year when a significant improvement is being made in the retirement plan to realize that all benefits have costs, not just salary. He noted that the City has consistently held for the past several years that we need to look at other agencies other than simply those in Santa Clara County. He noted that they have presented data along those lines at least for the past four years. He noted that they have up- dated, some of the survey data used in this and other negotia- tions, and that data he noted, is on charts behind him. He first noted the old ten city comparison. He noted that reference has been made to commitments the City made in 1980. He noted that said contract has expired but what it provided for was the total compensation comparison of ten agencies, listed behind him. The agencies of Santa Clara, Milpitas, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Gatos, Los Altos, Campbell, Morgan Hill, Salinas and Watsonv- ville. He noted that the contract provided for Gilroy Police being brought to the average compensation of those agencies at the end of the three year contract. He noted that with data as of last Friday, November 21, taking into account the January 1 adjustments for the Association were 1.2% behind on total com- pensation or virtually at the average. He noted that agencies that the City uses in setting the salary ranges for its manage- ment personnel are reflected in the other chart or what has been called the "7 City." He noted that those are agencies which are felt to be approximately Gilroy's size and are geographically closest to Gilroy. He noted that the reason the group of agencies is taken instead of simply those of Santa Clara County, is it is felt that agencies in its geographic area more accurately reflect cost of living here, than the City of Santa Clara or the City of Palo Alto. Money's only value is in what it buys and you do need to take a look at the cost of things when you decide what salary value should have. He noted that although the City uses the City of Hollister in setting ranges for management personnel, for our purposes, let's drop Hollister out. Looking at those same agencies show us to be 9.6% ahead on salary; 9.3% ahead on total compensation. He noted that it has not been their position that they wish to ridgedly establish a - ftiW\"J!1IlII - - ..... r "'3 c" :.) It () new formula here. Rather they're saying that formulas aren't appropriate in any case; that all data is appropriate to look at. He noted that they don't however, agree that they are paying unfair salaries if they simply don't meet the averages of county agencies, which probably don't very accurately reflect the cost of living here. He noted that this is a two-year agreement, when implemented it totals salary adjustments of 6 1/2%, pick-up of employee's contribution of 3 1/4%, or total of slightly over 15%, that is not counting either the increases in medical insurance given over the last two years or the one time cash bonus. He noted with average wage adjustments and California Public Agencies, the last two years, running in the 3-5 percent range, they think it is clear that it is a very competitive package adjustment and looking at agencies simply beyond those in Santa Clara County they feel that it does result in fair compensa- tion to the employees. He asked if there were any questions. .... ...... The Mayor asked if there were any questions of Mr. Avery by the City Councilmembers. Councilman Kloecker noted that he believes it important that Mr. Avery outline for the record the two alternatives which were presented to the Council and, in turn, gave Mr. Avery direc- tion to proceed on both or either one which might be acceptable. Mr. Avery noted that the alternatives were on simply a one year agreement to implement the 2% at 50 and pick up the 3 1/4% employer retirement contribution November 1, or in the alternative to move those adjustments to January in the first year of the two year agreement with the second year providing for, depending on cost of living, either a 5 or 6% across the board increase. In fairness the original proposal from the Association Attorney was that calling for a flat 6% adjustment in the second year and they discussed the possibility of changing to 5 or 6% based on cost of living and that was accepted. The Mayor asked if there were any other questions of Mr. Avery. There was no comment. The Mayor asked if there was a POA spokesperson. She also requested that Mr. Avery keep track of any questions in his area to respond to. ... -.- Officer Robert Cooke, POA Negotiation Chairman, addressed the Council and commented that 5 or 6% raise was to take place on the very last day of the contract, June 30 of next year. He stated that they hoped to open up the communications gap that they haven't had with Council when negotiations began. He noted that it is the opinion of the Association that negotiations were put off this year or delayed. He noted that they didn't even begin until June and by then they should have already reached an agreement or at least have been close. He noted that they had a lot of problems in discussions within the Association about the tactics employed during the meetings this year and some included the following: problems of hearing some sort of an agreement that they had entered into confidentiality with the people on the City's negotiating team and he noted that they did not. He noted that they were told by Mr. Avery that the Council did not want to negotiate directly with the POA, and that it was suggested that the Council would not listen to them and did not want any contact with them. He noted that they were also asked to not speak with members of the media and that was another problem. He noted that the association members felt that they were being cut off from everybody concerned. He noted that they never entered into that agreement and made that clear, but somebody from the City's negotiating team told the newspaper that they did have an agree- ment of confidentiality and noted that same person was quoted in the newspaper that they have not reached impasse after they had reached impasse. He noted that was really tearing into them and couldn't understand how come the City would now think they were at impasse when there at the same table with them, was the State mediator. He noted that as far as putting off the implementation data, the CHP retirement plan, they didn't have much choice in that matter. He noted that the study that was done, was done late and believes that most of that is the fault of the PERS retirement system. He noted that they were suppose to get the ..... .... r:. ,1 3 "j -,.,,1 t . - CHP plan, regardless of what happened by July 1 of this year, and they didn't get it. He noted that every time that they met all they heard was the CHP plan, and that they just couldn't give it to us yet; can you put it off; can you put it off? and that's all they discussed. He noted that it became so disgusting having to put up with this at every single meeting; talked for hours on end about implementing the CHP Plan and the great cost it was going to impose upon the City, that the members were getting up in arms, asking why are you still discussing this. We told them that we didn't know. But every time we had a meeting, that's all we talked about and it was something we already negotiated. He noted that a raise was never offered at any of the negotiating meetings; not once. He noted that when they went in to begin negotiating, they put down what they wanted and all they heard was, well we want you to put off the CHP Plan, it's a lot of money. He noted that at the first couple of meetings they couldn't even get an answer as to how much? He noted that they couldn't get a copy of the budget, had a hard time getting that; took some doing. He noted that their membership was upset at the first or second meeting by one of the negotiating members telling them that they should'nt need or ask for a raise, that he gets by just fine on what he makes. He noted that was like a slap in the face. He noted that this employee has since got a raise and he doesn't believe that he turned it down, even though he didn't need it. He spoke to the parity of the other cities, noting that it has historically since 1980 been used when they believed that they had a good contract and they had hoped to maintain that parity and being a comparative police agency as far as attracting qualified and experienced people. He noted that since that contract has expired they have fallen behind again in what they considered parity and what is considered to be competitive. He noted that they hired a number of qualified and experienced people from other surrounding agencies that have come to work here and have stayed. He noted that they came to work here because they saw what we were getting and they were very interested and it was very competitive at that time. He noted that now the gap is widening and we can't attract qualified experienced people any more. He noted that on the last exam eight people showed up for the test. When he tested in 1979 he noted that he was a lateral and had to compete against 50 or 60 applicants. He noted that it's the opinion of the POA that in essence what we're doing is dropping our standards. He noted that if we can't pay to get the good experienced people, we'll pay to get the inexperienced. That's fine, we do have some good people that have come to work here that were inexperienced, but it does cost the City a lot more money. He noted that Sgt. Guisiana will explain that and the cost involved in hiring a rookie, someone that has to go through the academy and what it costs for a training period. He noted that those on the nego- tiating team know that the 6 1/2% so-called raise because 3% was received in one point in time and then six months later another 3 1/2%. So over the life of the contract, or over the year that was actually less than 5% (4.8). He noted that that was disputed back and forth across the negotiating table, but don't know if the Council was aware as to how it was looked at. He noted that they have never asked to be the highest paid law enforcement agency in the County; never once. Neither have they asked or do they expect to be the lowest paid agency in this County. And the longer they wait to get parity or comparable worth the further and further behind they slip. He noted that they don't want to get into another situation like in 1980, so far behind that the City Council was afraid they were going to burst if they paid us what was considered to be fair and parity at that time. He noted that even at that time in the 3 yr. contract they didn't quite reach parity, they were within 1 1/2%, but the problem of it was they got to reach parity, they were almost at parity at June 30th; July 1st every other single city with maybe the exception of one, was negotiating again for a new contract and for another raise on that day, the day after their last raise. So he noted that all the other cities got their raises a day after Gilroy got their raises. So on January 1 they were moving up again and Gilroy is falling behind again. He noted that's what happened when they got the 6 1/2% indicated on the chart; the raise was split so it widen the gap a little further. He noted that most of the people in the audience are members of their association. ....... .,..,,_T~ - - - r) t:" 3 8... ,,_ t. ( He further noted that there were people from the Sheriff's Office, people living in the City, merchants, employee of the State Parole Board, people from the Fire Department. He further noted that there is no one saying that they don't like the job and don't like doing what they are doing; but there's not too many jobs where a person can get as much in the form of rewards as they get. He noted that it's about one night in four now where some times it can be a life or death struggle. He noted that the PCP problem in this City is so severe that he is tired of having to fight and chase down people who are under the influence of drugs. He noted that when he comes back and sits down he thinks I could have really got hurt and could I get by on what my salary could give me. He noted that if the City thinks he is really worth it then let him make what the other people in this area make. They are fighting the same problems that they are. As far as Mr. Avery said, that all data should be included in his comparisons, the one major item that was left out was the attrition rate. He noted that he taught part-time at the Central Coast Police Academy for a long time and can remember seeing six people, all at one time from Watsonville Police Department, all going through the academy together; all rookies and no experi- ience. Two got dumped - flunked out. It meant they had to go rehire again. Seaside constantly has people going through the academy at great expense to the City. It's at least $40,000.00 to put somebody through the academy. Hollister, it's a joke. Mr. Avery knows how many people they're hiring. Constantly hiring. Santa Cruz is constantly hiring. Monterey has some serious internal problems right now. Santa Cruz in a constant state of hiring. Morgan Hill, up until very recently has been lower paid than the City of Gilroy in going through people. He stated that he would like to defer to Greg Guisiana. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Officer Cooke. There were no comments. Sergeant Greg Guisiana addressed the Council and noted that he has been employed with the City for 13 years. He noted that he has been a sergeant for the last 2 years, during which he has been assigned to the administrative unit of the department. He noted that he was asked to speak because he was directly involved with the negotiations and the contract in '79 and '80. He noted that the issue of their parity was brought up at that time, initially. He noted that all the Council are new with the exception of Mayor Hughan; and therefore desires to bring some background into this discussion. First of all he refers to the department in 1979. He noted that they did a survey at that time to determine how many of the people in the department had experience; 27 people, ten had less than 3 yrs. experience and 17 had under 5 years. Which works out to 63% of their employees under 5 years. He noted that a check of the roster at that time shows that of those officers who were working with under 3 years of experience, none of them had previous experience. They had all come on as new officers with the department. He noted that currently they have 24 patrolmen and refers to them because those are the recent hires. Of the 24 patrolmen 10 are laterals, 42% came to the Gilroy Police Department with experience from other agencies. The difference if they come with experience or not - excluding the time it takes to hire, if an officer is hired with no experience and no academy training, he is sent to 14 weeks of Central Coast County Police Academy. When he is a graduate of the academy he's brought on to the department and put through 12 more weeks of field training; or a total of 26 weeks training - 1/2 year; 6 months training time just to get the officer ready to work on his own. That's 6 months of unproductive time for the City, paying and supporting this officer without getting any return. He noted that in addition to that, the time spent with the field training officer, his intense training, which takes away from the field officer's ability to perform his job. In other words, the field training officer can't do his job ascan't do his job as efficiently because he is not only doing his job but he is training someone else to do it. So efficiency is lost and the department is not as efficient as it would have been if the officer had some experience. He noted that when lateral officers are hired they know the job. They are put through 9 weeks of training with the field training officer, but for the IIIlIlI ... ... .... ... -- 5439 ....... most part it's just familiarizing him with City procedures and the town and effectively his performance of his job as a law enforcement officer is almost already up to standard when he first comes on. He noted if the 10 officers with under 3 years of experience are looked at, that means a rotation of almost 2 officers a year. Two officers a year out of sworn officers that are being rotated through and hiring and training would pay for more positions if they would come on with experience. He referred to what it would cost to hire an officer and noted that he spoke to Lieutenant Davidson at Monterey County Sheriff's Office, because they had done a survey on this. He noted that their hiring costs, bringing a person on board and sending them through the academy is $40,000.00. He noted that the Police Association is trying to get a pay raise and trying to get a level of compensation where they can keep their personnel; where they don't have to go through constant rehiring. He noted that they feel that it's penny wise and pound short to be hiring and hiring and having personnel leave. He noted that there's another aspect that has to be looked at and that is what does the public feel about the department. He noted that since they have been drawing more people into the department with experience they feel that they have become a much more professional police depart- ment. He noted that the Chief of Police sends out letters to people that the police officers contact and asks them those questions to determine what kind of job they are doing. In the last survey 99% of the people when asked did the officer perform his job in a professional manner; 99% said yes. 99% responded that the officer did an average or above average job in dealing with their problem. 74% feel that the officer handled his call well, and an additional 25% felt that it was at least average. He noted that they feel that they are professional because they are gaining experience; they are bringing people who know what they are doing. They are not going through this constant unknown of hiring someone who has no experience. He noted that in addi- tion during the period when they had come close to reaching their parity, they were capable of drawing in laterals officers to test and were hiring exclusively laterals. He noted that the last three officers hired, only one was a lateral; two had gone through the academy but had not had experience at all; they were brought on from ranks of the reserves. He noted that they feel they are seeing a slipping back. They went from where they couldn't hire any laterals to where they were hiring exclusively laterals; now they are slipping back to where they are having to drop their standards and go for just people from the academy with no experience. He noted that they are getting back into that realm of unknown again. He noted for that reason, they need for the City and the Police Association, to get a fair and equitable raise within the areas of the people they are competing with to hire officers. - ,.,.,4.11: - Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Sgt. Guisiana. There was no comment. .... Officer Joe Ramirez, addressed the Council on behalf of the POA. He noted that he is currently assigned to the Detective Division. He noted that he like many of his fellow officers, came to Gilroy with prior police experience and are referred to as lateral officers. He noted that they came to Gilroy for a whole variety of reasons, but the common denominator in all of them coming over here was the competitive wage. He noted that the last few years they have been having problems. He noted that they want to make Council aware of their concerns, because Coun- cil is the only one that can solve these problems. He noted that last year, they have been losing ground with other law enforce- ment agencies in this County. He referred to the problems noted by Sgt. Guisiana of recruiting qualified personnel. He noted that the City is in danger of losing some experienced people. He noted that they have attracted a lot of young, professional, agressive police officers, which is great for the City and great for the Police Department, but it is hard getting promoted when there are no openings in the promotional list. He noted there's no where to go. He further noted that he works with a lot of sharp guys. At any other agency they would be in line for promotions. He noted there's no way to go up the ladder. Lower their expectations on wage parity and you give them an excuse to ,...... r- II /l '") :J I:j' "f l jump right into the arms of a waiting police agency. He noted that Gilroy is a city in transition; we are no longer the sleepy agricultural base community at the south end of the County. He noted that Gilroy is competing right along with the other Silicon cities and you know that the competition is tough. He noted that most of the citizens work up in the Silicon Valley; they know competition is tough. He further noted that we take our direc- tion from the north. He noted that they don't see anything progressive coming from the east, the south or the west. Santa Clara County is the cutting edge for professionalism in law enforcement. He noted that allover the country they are looking what's going on in this county - parity. He noted that they have embraced parity. It's not today's battle cry; it's not just tomorrows; it's going to be here. He noted that they are dealing with parity; that their association is committed to this. He noted that some people will say that they are just greedy, that they want to squeeze every last cent they can out of the City. And that they are not concerned with anything else. He noted that was not true. He noted that they want what's best for the City. He noted that Guisiana told the Council that the profes- sionalism of the department increased by leaps and bounds; by the hiring of laterals and he believes that. He noted that when a lateral is hired there is reduced training costs because after a short orientation period he is ready to hit the streets; but what happens when you hire a rookie? He noted as Sgt. Guisiana stated, it takes 6 months of training and they in law enforcement know that it takes 2 to 3 years before they have encountered enough situations out there in those streets that you can be considered an experienced officer. He noted that is a long time, but he can blossom into an asset and then your only problem is to keep that asset. He stated that maybe we'd like to go back to the good old days when we didn't attract laterals; when we couldn't keep young, good cops here because two or three years under their belt and they're gone. They've gone to a department that pays a better wage, that has better promotional opportuni- ties. He stated that he can't help believe that the City does want to return to those days. He noted that at a recent job fair in Oakland, that was for law enforcement personnel, there were over 6,000 openings across the State. Every major agency and little agency from allover the State of California was repre- sented. He noted that the State Department of Corrections has announced that they intend to hire 5,000 correctional officers. In this County, San Jose has announced that they plan to hire 50- 75 officers. The Sheriff's Department intends to hire 285 deputies. And he noted that if you throw in the other agencies in this County, you're over 350 openings. And now that's the competition. Where do you want to draw from? He noted that if the City is going to stand a chance in that competition you have to offer a competitive wage; there's no two ways about it. He noted that they are here because the negotiation process did not work. The majority of their members felt that they needed to address Council personally, to make Council aware of their con- cerns. He stated that cops are kind of cynical; that's a fact. And there are some members that said they are wasting their time being here; Council's decision is made and are really just giving them time to get their concerns off their chest and that's it. He noted maybe so, he doesn't know, but both sides want the best for this City. He noted that Council has spent alot of money on a new police building; on a new computer system and requests that the Council spend a little money on the people that are in that building and they're going to work with that computer system because without the people Council doesn't have anything. He further requested Council to listen to Dave Clisham because he is going to show Council these figures that Mr. Avery or Mr. Booth, prepared and show how close the City is; they believe they're close and requests Council to please vote for the police officers and approve their pay package that they are asking because when Council does this they are voting for their officers, voting for the citizens of this community and voting for the future of this department. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions. Councilman Palmerlee inquired of Officer Ramirez' reference to in Gilroy there really isn't any way to move up and asks why that is true in Gilroy and not in other cities. .... .... ... ..... IIIIIlIlI - r; 4 41 "'1 .......' .. Officer Ramirez noted that one of the biggest problems, actually an asset, there are young officers who maybe have been promoted to sergeant. In the prior years everyone was leaving and the young officers made rank right away. They are young, they are just as old as he is, so they are going to be in their positions for a long time. And unless Council plans to hire or fire the Chief and the two Commanders, but there's really nothing else. The oldest person is Sgt. Rowan and he has told him that he's not leaving. So there's no way to go. Mayor Hughan stated that the point is good that there aren't vacancies here. ....... - Councilman Kloecker stated that he, and he doesn't think anyone else here, believes that this session is a waste of time. He thinks it's beneficial and a lot of it he has heard before in one form or another, but he believes that it's always beneficial to hear things first hand. Officer Ramirez stated that he hopes that they can talk to one another more often. He stated that he has never met some of the Councilmembers and would like to know all the members so when they have concerns they can discuss it on a one to one basis; after all they are just trying to better the City. - Mr. David Clisham, P.O.A.'s Negotiator, addressed the Council and referred to the Mayor's statement that referred to the concept of two sides and noted in a sense there are not two sides, because everybody works for the City and they all are attempting to work for the common good. He noted in negotiations however, there are two sides. He noted that if one buys a car and you have a car picked out, you walk onto the floor and the salesman comes up to talk to you and if you're really interested in buying that car, you start engaging in some form of negotia- tions as a kind of give and take. The car salesman wants your money and you want the car. And so you take about concepts, you talk about figures. Most of us don't trust used car salesmen or new car salesmen but we always buy cars nevertheless and we always buy cars from a salesman, so we don't deal with the people that we allegedly don't trust. You sometimes talk about how much some kind of a delux package costs, or whitewall tires. He is always amazed that the steering wheel is an option. He doesn't know how you can have a steering wheel as some kind of an option. He believes that what happened in negotiations here, at least from their perception since June of 1986, is that there has been absolutely no give and take at all. There has been only one position, and he supposes as what he would describe as a minus position, that's been articulated by the City and that's what has caused this anger and frustration and why they are here tonight. He stated that the negotiations have not gone smoothly. It's not like buying a car where you finally arrive at a price and we both make a deal and we shake hands and we work as a partnership. He noted that they don't have a partnership on this deal yet and he believes it's because of the nature of the negotiations. He stated that he wants to explain that. He noted that last year's negotiations were very important and they are partly described on the board. He noted that on the third chart to his right it says Two Year Package - July 1st 1986 or July 1, 1985 - 3% and then it's got January 1, 1986 - 3.5%. He noted that they wanted at least a 6 1/2% raise for the whole year; that was their bottom line goal. But he noted that a year ago they compromised, be- cause the City put in that two year package, a guarantee that the CHP Plan would be implemented by July 1, 1986. He noted that they compromised and felt that was reasonable. The City talked about the cost of it, they analyzed the cost and they said that's fine let's take it. It puts us to where we want to be on July 1, 1985, but it's six months late. So we've lost 6 months of that 6 1/2%. That's why you heard them talk about 4.8%. So they lost 6 months of a 3 1/2% raise and they did it as a compromise because the City's negotiator said that the CHP Plan costs a lot of money. He further noted that they also put in that contract that there would be a salary reopener on July 1, 1986. They went for a salary reopener because if all the salaries stayed the same then in terms of comparability and in terms of parity then the Association wouldn't need a raise on July 1, 1986. He noted that p"'", "..- - ri4L1? ,. . I ~_. a salary reopener is good for the City to a certain extent and it is also good for them. He noted that if salaries do go up and if there is alot of money available then they can try to get a raise. And he noted that's how they went into negotiations in June 1986. He noted that's what happened in salary reopeners, the first, second, fifth, eighth and there were probably eleven meetings, they did not talk about salary reopeners for one minute, they talked about the CHP Plan. They were told that the CHP Plan was so expensive that the City was not going to give the officers a raise for the 1986-87 year. It was so expensive that you can't give a raise and the CHP Plan at the same time. He noted that's like going in to buying a car and you have the deal all made and you go out the door to get your checkbook and you come back in and the guy says the steering wheel was so expense that we can't give you the tires. The deal of last year was made, but they were forced to renegotiate the CHP Plan. All ten or twelve meetings, however many there were. He noted that they never once talked about real salary reopeners. He noted that this raise as seen on the third chart that adds up to 15% is not really 15%; the first raise is not 6 1/2 it's really 4 1/2 in terms of money; 3 1/4% is not really 3 1/4% because it's the payment of the employee's PERS pick-up which the City is not really paying right now so that's really money that would have been out of their pocket; it doesn't cost the City 3 1/4%, it costs more like 2 1/2% because you don't have to pay that money on overtime or on the actual overall retirement, there's all kinds of costs saved at that 3 1/4%. He noted that it's a mutual benefit both ways. He noted that 5.3% of the CHP Plan is some- thing that's a cost to the City and it's not really a raise to the employees. So even if you take any form of numbers and add them up it can come up to 15% but it's not a real 15% increase on the salary schedule. He stated that they felt at the same time, that he wants to reemphasize that when they started negotiations in June 1986 they did not expect at all to renegotiate the CHP Plan. That was already in the package. They did not expect the City to claim inability to pay because they knew that the City had a lot of money. They did not expect the process to be diffi- cult at all, because the City had money and because the salaries in the County were up. He noted that may not mean much to Council, because you are still talking about these 7 cities and these 10 cities, but it means a lot as already explained. He noted that when salaries go up around you, you have to take a look at those salaries and make adjustments. He noted that southern Santa Clara County probably has the highest salaries in northern California and possibly in the State, but that's where Gilroy is. He noted that Gilroy is not in Watsonville, Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, or San Diego, right here in this County. He stated that the salaries did go up, so they thought that it wouldn't be hard to get a raise. He stated that when you are in negotiations there are really two majors things that you look at. One is comparability and that's the competitive wage; the second thing is, can the employer afford to pay the kind of raise that the officers are requesting. He shows charts of the treasury surplus of the City compiled from the budget given to them that explains how much money the City has. He noted that from year to year the City is carrying approximately a $12 million surplus; coming into this year a $15 million dollar surplus; in the 2 year budget, adopted this year, it projects a $12 million dollar surplus that means money at least from their analysis of the budget that the City has in the bank, not money that you are going to spend; in bank accounts. He noted that it is probably not all available for salaries, but when the overall budget is below $30 million and you've got this much money in the bank that means that this City has a lot of money. He stated that he believes that the City should spend that money; that the taxpayers expect the City to spend that money and doesn't know why the City is keeping it in the bank. It's not the Council's own savings account, it's not the taxpayer's saving account - you're suppose to spend it or give it back to the taxpayers. He further noted that it appears that the City has a lot of money. He noted that the City of San Francisco has about a $2 billion budget; it's the equivalent of the City of San Francisco keeping $1 billion in the bank and that's the amount of money it appears that the City of Gilroy has. He noted that about a week and a half ago there was an article in the newspaper that the sales tax ..... ...... ... -- .... -- ,f) L1. 4 7- -.. "J ...... revenue was about doubled what was projected in the budget. He noted that they were told at the beginning of negotiations that the City was going broke and the figures that they were given showed that the amount of revenue in the General Fund budget was projected to decline a bit in the next two years; not a deficit in the balance but it was declining. It wasn't declining even in the projection 1/5th of the amount of money that this seemed to be under estimated by the City's budget people. He noted that the City projected for July, August, and Septemer 1986 over 1/2 million dollars in Sales Tax revenue and actually received over $1 million; that's over 1/2 million dollars more in this years budget that the City is realizing over what was projected. He notes that he is not being critical, that's great, but it shows that the City has a lot of money. He believes that they have demonstrated that the City of Gilroy is certainly able to afford the kind of increases requested. He refers to what the City of Morgan Hill is paying its police officers. Top step Police Officer as of July 1, 1986 was $29070.; the top step Police Officer in February 1, 1987 is going up at $3,089.per mo. He noted that Council can look at the figures and there is no way that he is going to say that Mr. Avery's figures or Mr. Booth's figures are wrong, but they don't project any kind of a longi- tudinal thing. It doesn't say when those raises started, it doesn't say when the next raise begins. It simply puts down one figure and one date. And you can never look at just the one figure and the one date. He again refers to the amount of money that the City of Morgan Hill is going to pay its police officers next February. He refers to the amount of money the City of Gilroy is going to pay their officers as of February 1st. ........ The Mayor inquires if this is straight salary that Mr. Clisham is talking about or salary and PERS. - Mr. Clisham notes that it is salary and PERS. He noted that what they tried to do is add the two figures together to create some kind comparison and the $3,089. includes 9% contri- bution of the employee's obligation to the PERS program. He noted that they have had the CHP Plan for a long time so they didn't have to buy it just this year. He noted that that has become a standard item in all of the police packages which is why they resented being reminded that it cost money this year when they were trying to simply negotiate a salary reopener. .'''.. Mayor Hughan notes that on their chart it shows Morgan Hill getting a total compensation of $38068. Mr. Clisham noted that is going up February 1st. He stated that he has no doubt that those figures are accurate. Mayor Hughan noted that the figures are higher than his figures. - Mr. Clisham stated that is total compensation. That includes what it costs for a city to hire a police officer and this is not a total comp figure. He noted that the figure for Morgan Hill on the City's chart is going up by about $100. per month on February 1 if not more. He noted that it's certainly going up with the actual salary and the PERS contribution by $119.00. He noted that they are going up because the County is going up. The salaries in the County have gone up. He presented a chart of what they were talking about in salary reopeners. He noted that the average is $3,072. per month that was paid for police officers in those cities; it's an average. He refers to what the City is proposing to pay Gilroy police officers, that the City proposes that the salary go between $28085. and $29073. on January 1st; already the average police officer in the County has been making this $3,072. for almost 6 months at this point; 5 months as of next Monday and 6 months as of January 1st; so that the Gilroy Police Officer's salary right at this moment is $200 per month below the average; the City is fixing to raise it up to within $100, but it's still $100 per month for six months. He stated that even though the salary, because of the 3 1/4% pick- up that the City is proposing, is going to raise the base salary up to $29073., it's still behind what they consider the County- wide average and when somebody comes in to look at the salary - 5444 structure, they're going to look at Milpitas and they're going to compare it to Gilroy; they're going to look at Morgan Hill, Santa Clara and these other cities and compare it to Gilroy. He noted that some of these people at the beginning have no particular loyalty to Gilroy unless they are unusual or have a relative here; they're going to go to where the money is. He noted that last year Milpitas changed its formula and added 1% to it because they were having trouble competing and they have been on a formula for a long time. They were having trouble competing with Santa Clara and San Jose and some of these other cities. He presented another chart that shows what the salary is right now for Gilroy as of July 1 and how far below it was. He noted that it doesn't show how far below the projected it is and you can't really tell because on January 1 he knows that Milpitas is going to go up and so is Santa Clara. He refers to what the City is paying a Gilroy Police Officer right now. He believes that there has really been no settlement this time, mainly because of the figures that are on their posters, but he noted that not at one point in their negotiations except for the cash deal and the figure of $938. is the first time that he has heard that that figure was going to be that. He noted that not once was that amount of money, which they regard now, as to what they already negotiated a year ago, not once was that same money offered to them. It was not offered to them in those kinds of structures. They never got one cent put on the table for salary reopeners. He noted that once they saw that it was the City's position that the CHP Plan was too expense, they tried to enter into some kind of negotiations that would take some new money, maybe $25 or $30,000. and combine it with the cost of the CHP Plan because it didn't need to be implemented July 1, to try to combine that new money and do something on January 1st that would raise the salaries up to be competitive. He noted that not once was that offered to them. He stated that he doesn't know why that happened, but their perception of this entire process is essentially that it has been a waste of time. He noted that the figures that he has given are going to be out of date. It's one thing to say what shall we do for January 1st, but as soon as you bring it up to what the County-wide average is on July 1st, it's already been 6 months out of date so they've lost 6 months already. He noted that it's not even being brought up to the County-wide as it existed on July 1st. He noted that he hopes that the Council understands why there is so much anger on their side of the table. He doesn't feel that they have been lied to, he thinks that they have been told very directly right from the very beginning that this City did not want to give any kind of a raise to these officers and in terms of the officers it came across the table, it took to the very end, until the amount of money that was in their package already, it began to appear. He stated that the $938.00 is a very emotional issue. The officers do not want a cash settlement of the amount of money that they negotiated for in last years contract. They want that put on the salary schedule. He noted that the $938. cash won't bring anybody to Gilroy as a recruit; they won't see that on the salary schedule. He noted that they are urging and have urged the negotiator to recommend that that money be put on the salary schedule. He noted that that has been flat outright refused; it's never been there; the actual figure was not produced until after negotiations were over. He noted that they are still in the process of trying to buy this car. They have not made a deal yet. He noted that he is hopeful that a sale can be made. He stated that there should be a meeting of the minds; they are all trying to pull together. He noted that there are two sides right now; there should be one side. He believes if this problem is not resolved now it's going to go on. He noted that this deal does not resolve the problem. It's resented bitterly because there's no new money in there. There has been no salary negotia- tions for this year; not any whatsoever. He further noted that there is heavy resentment. He noted that at one time he was the one that made the recommendation on two different options and believed that it was a way to try to resolve the City's problem of not wanting to have an amount of money rolled over into next year's budget and believed that the recommended 6% raise for next year would attempt to take care of that. He noted that he under estimated the feeling of the rank and file however, and they overwhelmingly voted that down. He noted that they voted it down ..... ... ... ...... ... .... 5445 because they know that salaries at least at this point are going to continue to go up in Santa Clara County. He noted that it is a fact of life. He noted that it is something that they feel strongly that Council has not dealt with. He noted that if the salaries around us had not gone up, they wouldn't be here at this meeting and ~he negotiations would not have been so difficult. - He stated that it doesn't make any $ense to talk about City Manager's 7 City Salary. He noted that obviously this Council has been able to rec-ruit an outstanding City Manager following that survey and you can't do that with poli~e officers because there is a fundamental difference here. He stated that the City does have a professional police force and good administration here, but there's been a failure to communicate here and there certainly has been a lack of understanding on their part as to why there have never been any form of salary reopeners this year. - ! The Mayor asked if there were any questions of Mr. Clisham. Councilman Kloecker inquired as to what Mr. Clisham thought the prevailing rationale was among the POA members for rejecting the option which incorporate the raise on July 1, 1987. - Mr. Clisham believed that the rationale was the following: He thinks that they felt that they should get some kind of a financial equivalent at the very least for what was already in the contract. And that would have compromised that because it would have had the City spend less money in this fiscal year; and secondly he believes that it was rejected because they didn't want to take the gamble that the salaries outside the City would remain stable throughout the next two years, or at least the next 1 1/2 yrs. He noted that they felt by July 1, 1987 San Jose is up for negotiation, and so if the County's salary (the Sheriff's Office) is up for negotiation, Milpitas is scheduled to get raises every six months, they simply didn't trust the economy that the salaries would continue to escalate. He believes it was for those two reasons that they rejected it. He stated that he thought that they might not reject it because of the fact that it would put the salary over and above where they wanted to go on July 1, 1987. But he noted that he believes there has been a four or five year history of bringing the officers up to some form of parity, but late. It's one thing to talk about what salaries are being paid on July 1st and then finally being given that on November 1, or December 1, or January 1 and thereby losing four or five months. It's one thing to do that but they would have lost for a whole year. They would have lost $150. per month for a whole year, and they feel that that kind of a sacrifice wasn't enough to be put into an additional third year of a new contract. He stated that he thought it was a good deal when he first looked at it. But noted that he was bombed at the membership meeting and noted that he was glad to get out of there alive; and he wasn't wearing a gun. - Mayor Hughan commented that they do not accept the $12 million as being available in the General Fund and noted that a lot of that money almost all of that money is money that cannot by law be spent on anything that is not already been designated to be spent on. It's enterprise funds, depreciation funds, those funds are by law not available for salaries. ,..- Mr. Clisham noted that he understands that. He also noted that the sales tax revenue is available to spend and when under 1/2 million dollars is under-estimated for one quarter that in itself is a source of funding for whatever you want to do. He noted that when you're talking about a major responsibility of a city is to hire and maintain a police department and keep its morale high, that should be one of the Council's options to take a look at those funds and see what you can do with them. -- Officer Cooke referred to the question of extending the contract by one year with the 5 or 6% raise, another real problem that the Association saw was that they would be giving up their right to negotiate other items in June. It would have been two years already since they negotiated and it would have been three to negotiate for other benefits other than salaries. This would have to be given up and that is a lot to ask. He further noted 5446 that last year during negotiations the POA did contact several Councilmembers and did talk with them about what they wanted to give them last time. At that time the Councilmembers were very concerned about the possible closing of the canneries which would have resulted in a reduction of the 5% energy use tax and were asked to bear with them. The POA did bear with Council and the canneries are still here. He further re-emphasized the cash bonus that the membership is absolutely 100% negative in receiv- ing a cash bonus. He noted that they came here to negotiate in June and tried to negotiate earlier but couldn't get to for salary; this was a salary reopener and they wanted salary and they still want salary. He noted that Watsonville right now has six openings. He noted that they have one or two background investigators from their association and asks their Association President how many hours does it take to do a background. (He responded approximately 80 hours). Officer Cooke noted that is the investigators portion, plus there is a polygraph, psycholo- gical, physical. He noted that if the City had to hire six people at one time the police department wouldn't have any detec- tives working, because as it stands now the City takes a detec- tive out of his position to do background investigations. He further noted that if a detective is taken off the street for 6 weeks there will be a lot of people upset because the City only has four detectives. He noted that if a quarter of the detectives are taken out of the office to do backgrounds what happens to the other cases that need to be investigated. He noted that one of the people that Watsonville is doing a back- ground on is someone who left the Gilroy Police Department some years ago. He noted that he used to be a used car salesman and they had all hoped that he would go back to that. He noted that Watsonville is considering hiring him and he believes that the City would never consider hiring him. He noted that non-sworn personnel in the Association are also represented here tonight. He noted that they have been offered a 3.25% PERS pick-up. He noted that he believes that would make them the only miscella- neous personnel in the City that have to pay any portion of their retirement. He noted that the City pays retirement for the miscellaneous, the Attorney, some people 7, some people only 5%. He noted that the 7 Cities for the Department Head salaries were used and one can see where the City had to go to get a department head; not from one of those cities; the City had to go out of the State. He noted that before the Council imposes something upon the POA and it's too late to do anything about it they would like to have the opportunity just the members of the association, the select few and the members of the Councilor a few, to sit down without Mr. Avery and without Mr. Clisham and talk this out because they don't want to be cut off from the Council again. He noted that there are other people present that came and want to speak. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Officer Cooke. There were none. The Mayor asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. .. """'" .. """'" Robert Cicero, Deputy Sheriff for 13 years, resident of Gilroy over 3 years, noted that he left San Jose because he got tired of the crime. He noted that he found Gilroy and was very much pleased with the City and with the City's Peace Officers, noting that they are very professional and make living here a pleasure. He noted that he works a patrol unit at night, a one car, so if he needs help he has to call on whoever is available. He noted fortunately for him when he has had to call the City's Police Department, they have come with a lot of expertise, ... professionalism and they have literally saved him out of many life threatening situations. He noted that the City is gifted ... because they have the quality and caliber of people. He noted that the charts do not include the salaries of the sheriffs. He noted that this year with his overtime he will be earning more than any officer in the City of Gilroy; he noted that they have deputies that will earn more than the City's Chief of Police; deputies of $80,000-$90,000 annually. He noted that there are numerous deputy sheriffs that are willing to give up that job to come and work for the City, but they are not crazy, and will not turn in their pay check and look and see what the City is r 11 4'-7 "") ll- 4 ' ',>. I - offering their personnel, because they have families and bills to pay too. He noted that they are willing to give up some but don't want to get stuck out there in the cold. He noted that the City is fortunate to have the expertise, laterals and they lost a lot of their personnel to the City's Police Department and the City got what the County really needed. He noted that they don't want the City to make the same mistake and lose them to somebody else. He noted that it's going to happen. He noted that they couldn't keep them with their salary and asks what makes the City think that they will keep them with what is being offered here. He noted that he looked at the City about a year and one half ago and since he lives in the City and is a patrol deputy would like very much to enforce the laws within the City that he resides, but can't in all good conscientiousness tell his wife and family that he is willing to give up what he has and take a pay cut and then have nothing else to offer them. He noted that there is no positive feed-back between the POA and Council. He stated that he can't in all good conscientiousness do that. He noted that he is not alone; it's officers from the Sheriff's Office, San Jose and other agencies. They want to live in a small community, Gilroy and this area. He noted that there are alot of officers from different agencies that would like to come to Gilroy but they look at this and they see the problems that they have with the City's Association and they say forget it. They will go somewhere else where there isn't a pay problem. He noted that the City can't expect his department to compete with Hollister or Seaside, Watsonville and yet he and other officers would be willing to come and work for Gilroy with a fair wage, a fair contract. He noted that would be the only way that the City would be able to attract them. - Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions of Mr. Cicero. There was no comment from anyone. - Officer Ron Latham, POA President, addressed the Council and noted that a great deal of time has been spent this evening, basically speaking about pay parity and comparing theirselves with other salaries. He noted that he too is one of those laterals from the Sheriff's Office back in 1981 when they were probably a good percentage of the laterals the City got were during that time frame. He requested that Chief Cowart give some of the inside or the benefits of being able to hire people with experience and do to being able to pay a comparable worth compared to other agencies, can attract those people here. """.,,,,- Mayor Hughan noted that Council did hear from Sergeant Guisiana who explained quite extensively what the problems were with hiring new people, and how much training and cost that would be. She noted that this is basically the POA's Hearing at this time. She inquired as to what cities the POA is comparing salaries with at this time. - Officer Latham noted that they are comparing with all of the Cities in Santa Clara County with the exception of the Sheriff's Department and Sunnyvale; the reason because the Sheriff's Department has a lot of different pay scales built in for hazardous duty for working the jail; night time differentials and Sunnyvale is both fire and police combined. He noted that Sunnyvale has a very high tax base and has been known for being one of the highest paying agencies in the County. He noted that job description-wise, they wanted to stay basically with police departments with the same functions. ....... Mayor Hughan noted that they are eliminating quite a few of the small cities because many contract with the Sheriff's Depart- ment and inquires as to what cities are not being considered. Officer Latham stated that the cities that the Sheriff's Office contracts with and were not compared with were Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and Los Altos Hills. Mayor Hughan asked why the POA has rejected basically the ten cities survey that show them currently at parity. ~\44g Officer Latham noted that one of the biggest problems, is that in Santa Clara County they are subject to a higher tax base; paying a flat 7% as compared to 6 or 6 1/2% with other outlying cities. He noted that the second problem that they had was that during compiling the package they did surveys and as far as hous- ing costs compared with other jurisdictions such as Hollister, Seaside, Santa Cruz, i.e. the average median cost of housing in Santa Cruz was $110,000., about the same for areas of Seaside and Watsonville. He noted that the median price in Gilroy was approximately $140,000. He stated that they feel that that is a big difference; to be able to buy and live in Gilroy they feel that it is much more expensive than it would be in Watsonville or Hollister or other areas. He noted that their main concern since it costs them that much money to live in this County that they should be compared with other agencies within the County since they are basically paying the same for housing as all the other agencies are. IIlIIlIl .... Councilman Palmerlee inquired as to how far apart were they when negotiations ended and what separated same. Officer Latham stated that probably $100.00 per month, somewhere in that area. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any more questions. There was no comment and she asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. Mr. Thomas Carmichael, 7700 Santa Barbara Drive, addressed the Council noting that he is a father and businessman. He noted a hit and run accident involving his son and spoke with the Officer that made the report and stated that they don't have enough time to go after something that isn't fact. His son was able to identify the vehicle and Secret Witness can't put that in the newspaper because the only thing that they can put into the newspaper is that which enough evidence can result in a convic- tion. He noted that as a father that hurt him and he went to the newspaper and offered a $500 reward. The newspaper inadvertently omitted the phone numbers. He noted another incident that occurred of a dishonest person no longer under his employment. He noted that he is working with a division of the detectives and they have given all of the time that they have and he believes that they don't have enough time to take care of him. He noted that he is a taxpayer, a businessman that pays license fees. He stated that he believes that the City has a first class City Council, Fire Department, City Manager, everything in Gilroy is first class. He further proposed to Council that they think strongly before a first class Police Department is taken away. - ... Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions. There was no comment. She asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. Mr. Clisham responded to the question as to how far they are apart. He believes that a part of their problem is what's before Council was never really offered to them; at all, not those figures. He noted that what they wanted Council to do was take that $938., which represents about $37,000. and if that had been offered to them they would have calculated it out and said put it on the salary schedule. If it is put on the last 6 months, we would take a look at that. If you then determine that it costs about $16,000 for a 1% raise, if you took a mere $32,000 and imposed that in July or August or September, that would bring them up to where they wanted to go. He stated that he is not trying in any way to carry out negotiations in public, but is just using that for an example. He noted that they calculated that if the total budget is looked at and the total amount of money spent on police services, number one. Number two, he noted that it costs about $40,000. to hire somebody if they are inexperienced. He stated that it costs $40,000. more than if a lateral is hired. He stated that if 75% of the $40,000. is taken, which will be spent because the City will have to recruit somebody in May and put that on the salary schedule with the $938.00 he believes that the Council would probably have some kind of a deal. He noted that they never got to that point. He ... ..... ~)4 49 has no idea why they didn't. He noted that the kind of figures that came across the table at them fell far short of that the entire time. The Mayor asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak. - Officer Cooke, Negotiations Chairman, thanked the Council for their time and noted that what Mr. Clisham said, they never had any figures, they never had any offer. He noted that if the figures that are on the board were taken they would have been close, but they didn't know how close they were because they didn't have an offer. He noted that they were never told of the $938.00. He stated that he thought he heard Mr. Avery say that there was something similiar to this proposed before and they never had any dollar amount ever proposed. He noted that the big problem that they have with any cash bonus is that it is not on the survey and they were suppose to have reopeners for salary to take effect July 1st. Salary was never discussed, the Associa- tion discussed salary and what they wanted but they never got anything in return. .'_',;,'" Mayor Hughan stated that the $938. was just a number that came up because the POA wasn't able to get this in July and since that amount had already been budgeted for the CHP Plan and will not take effect until January 1st, it's what seems fair for the POA to have because they didn't get it when they should have. It was noted that it is just a one time bonus in lieu of the CHP. Officer Cooke stated that regardless the bonus is not going to be in the salary and that is where they would like to see it. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any other questions. -... Officer Don Kludt noted that the bonus is the money that the City obligated to pay the Association members in last years contract and is money that is owed them already because of the committment by the Council last year. He noted that this is not a bonus and stated that he resents the fact that it is called a bonus; it's money owed him, it's a payment. He stated that all they are requesting is to give the bonus in a salary percentage and the members would agree to it. He stated that the $938. forget the bonus. It's owed money and give them a pay increase. ,,-.", Councilman Kloecker noted that he agrees with Officer Kludt; that it is improperly termed a bonus, it's termed a payment. Officer Kim Merrill addressed the Council noting that he has been here 9 years and the City has treated him very well during that time. He stated that right now is the lowest point he has ever seen the Police Department. He stated that in 1979 was the second lowest point. He noted that they were losing people on the average of four a year. He stated that if this continues and if they feel that they don't have any input to the City Council they are going to leave. He noted that he has considered it and so have many of his fellow workers. He stated that he believes that they have a serious problem unless they start communicating and noted that they haven't been. - The Mayor asked if there were any questions. There was no comment. She asked if there was anyone else that would like to speak on the matter. There was no further comment. Mayor Hughan gave the audience the opportunity to stand or clap for support to their spokespersons. The audience responded by clapping and standing. """"'" Mayor Hughan thanked all for refraining from demonstrations during the presentations by the speakers. She noted that there may be some questions that were asked that need to be answered by Mr. Avery. She asked if Council wished to have any questions that were brought up during the presentation clarified. She inquired about the question of the 3 1/4% being offered sometime during the negotiations and was an offer that was made. c: ,-1 C, In ~__J t,: V LJ Mr. Avery addressed the Council noting that a series of offers were made in terms of picking up portions of the employee's retirement contributions, during the negotiations. He noted that the offer which the City accepted which involved picking all of it up came from Mr. Clisham. He noted that the 3 1/4% is obviously a pay raise. He noted that employees have presented a series of figures which take retirement pick-ups and add them to the salaries to show what the true salary is. He further stated that was offered in negotiations, agreed to in negotiations and is a pay raise. He noted that the City's on- going cost in agreeing to do that in addition to the retirement plan is approximately $50,000. per year. Councilman Palmerlee asked if the 3 1/4% as opposed to the 2% at 50 was not part what had been promised as of July 1st. ... ,.",. Mr. Avery answered in the affirmative. The Mayor stated that traditionally the City had paid 5 3/4% of retirement and now to go to 9 the City is offering a whole 9%? Mr. Avery stated that would be the entire employee's contribution. The Mayor asked if there was any further clarification anyone would like. There was no further comment. Mr. Clisham addressed the Council and noted that what Mr. Avery has said is not incorrect but it is not complete at all. He noted that that money was the cost to the City of the CHP for the whole year and they didn't get the CHP for the whole year. He stated that it wasn't new money. They started in June and were told that the CHP Plan was too extensive and they should have done something crazy then, but they didn't. They said alright it's so expensive let's take some of that money and put it on the salary schedule. He stated that from their point of view it was already their money. It was simply renegotiating what they had already done. He stated that it was no new money. He stated that if salary reopeners didn't occur it's because this is what they already had going in. It's rearranged and they like it better, but it didn't do anything for the salary schedule. It has put the Officers in a position of being $200. per month less than the County-wide average for six months and $100.- less for six months. He stated that is what he means that there was no salary offer over and above the money that they had already negotiated and was already in the contract. He stated that this hasn't cost the City a cent over what the City had planned to do a whole year ago in buying the CHP Plan. He noted that not one nickel was spent in addition to what the City had going in July 1, 1986. He stated that it has been a waste of time for them to even sit down and talk. ... IIlIIlIW Councilman Palmerlee stated that what Mr. Clisham is saying that the 3 1/4% was not additional money on the City's part? Mr. Clisham stated that is correct. He further stated that what the City is doing is adding the thing twice. He stated that the 5.3% is the cost of the CHP Plan for a whole year and the 3 1/4% is part of that 5.3%. He further stated that the $938.00 is part of the 5.3%. He stated that's where that money came from. It came from money that they had alredy made a deal for a whole year ago. He stated that they bought the whole car a year ago and now the City is selling it back to them at the same price. That's why they feel that they got left out of the process. He stated that one nickel hasn't been spent for salary reopeners; the City has rearranged the money that was already given. ... ... Mr. Avery stated that cost figures shown for that package represent the cost when fully implemented. For example, a 6 1/2% was not given July 1st, the City gave 3 1/2% July 1 and then 3% . in January. He noted that cost 5% for the first 12 months and thereafter, it cost the City the full 6 1/2%. He noted that similiarly the 2% at 50 retirement plan cost the equivalent of a 5.3% pay increase. He noted that they are not starting it until ~,~ - ...-"''''''\ ..... Landscape Maint .Dist. Adjournmt. ,..,... ....... ~~)451 January so that halves their cost for the first year, but when it's implemented in January the cost is 5.3% on-going; same with the 3 1/4%. He noted that this package over two years when implemented costs the City, on-going in excess of 15%. It doesn't cost that much over the 2 year period but it costs that much when implemented. He stated that was done very conscien- tiously because the Council wanted them to structure the package to be of the maximum advantage to employees. He stated that if all that could be afforded was 5% last year Council allowed them to split it so that they raised salaries by 6 1/2% when fully implemented. He noted that if he tells an employee group that they could have 1% in July or 12% June 1st, even though they both cost 1% for the year, everyone understands that it is to the benefit of the employee to take the 12% June 1st because it's the on-going benefit to the employee and the on-going cost to the agency. Mayor Hughan asked if there were any questions or clarifications that Council needs. The Mayor stated that there are several options. The Council can take a unilateral position supporting their package presented by the Negotiators to the Police Officers' Association and which was not accepted or can go back into negotiations. The City Attorney noted that Council could also go back into a Closed Session based upon the information presented at this hearing and can go back into consultation with the City's representative. Motion was made by Councilman Kloecker seconded by Councilman Palmerlee and carried that Council conduct a Closed Session with their negotiator to discuss the matter and take everything at the hearing under consideration prior to making a decision on the matter. It was noted that said closed session would follow the Special Meeting Agenda, time permitting. At 8:46 p.m. the Mayor declared a Recess and reconvened the meeing at 8:59 p.m. Scoping/Defining Landscape and Maintenance District was presented and further explained by City Administrator Baksa noting options and alternatives. Mr. Philip D. Assaf, Bond Attorney, explained the procedure required to form the proposed district. Discussion was had by Council on the matter. Motion was made by Councilman Kloecker seconded by Council- man Palmerlee and carried that the City Administrator obtain estimated costs for engineering the following alternatives for a proposed Landscape & Maintenance District: $200,000.00 - Gas Tax benefitting; $35,000.00 - Gas Tax/Traffic Signal Maintenance; $60,000.00 - General/Street Sweeping; and $170,000.00 - General/ Street Trees. At 9:36 p.m. the Mayor adjourned to a Closed Session regarding Meet & Confer Matters and reconvened the meeting at 10:40 p.m. and further adjourned. Respectfully