Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/14/1980CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 14, 1980 The City Council of South Burlington held a meeting with the Police Association on Thursday, February 14, 1980 at 7:00 pm in the Assessor's Office, City Hall, 1175 Williston Road Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Martin Paulsen, Kenneth Jarvis Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Douglas Bouvier, Gregory Mitchell At 7:00 pm, Mr. Flaherty moved to go into executive session for the purpose of discussing the police union contract. Mr. Jarvis seconded the motion and all were in favor. At 7:55 pm, the Council came out of executive session and met with the police association. Mr. Farrar said that as part of the total financial package offered by the city, they would agree to 4 weeks vacation time after 12 years, as the union suggested at the last meeting, and they would also offer 8 hours personal time per year. There has also been a change in the salaries offered. This year's base level would be increased 1/2%, with no change in the longevity increase. This 1/2% is on top of the 8.9% base increase offered already. For people in the midrange, the increase would now be 9.6%. If the police stay on the merit plan and the appraisals are about the same next year as this, there would now be a 9.7% increase on the base plus the longevity increase (see sheet entitled "Salary Proposal 1980-81" attached to these minutes). The city also made a second year proposal on salaries entitled "Salary Proposal 1981-82". The city sees problems with offering such a proposal, but it felt the association wanted one, so it took the best guess. At 8:20, Mr. Reinholz left to discuss the proposal with the members, but he returned shortly and requested more information so the members could figure out each individual's salary. Mr. Farrar gave him the information requested - the year end salaries of this year and next year and the percentage increases, which were 11.68% for the man who had been with the department the longest, and 11.04% for the two newest men, assuming their appraisals remained 1, which they probably will not do. At 8:35 Mr. Reinholz left again to discuss the proposal, and he and the officers returned at 8:45 pm. Mr. Reinholz noted that the city had addressed the personal time request, but not the holiday pay rate or the reduced request for 3 credits for courses. The clothing allowance issue will be modified. Mr. Reinholz said the officers did not think a 2-year contract was a good idea. He accepted the city's first year proposal if the city also had the second year as previously proposed (open on economic issues with binding arbitration on those issues), and he said the union would like to include Appendix A in the second year. Appendix A changes the salary structure considerably from the current one, but Mr. Reinholz did not think the city would be exposed to a financial liability because the money spent would still be negotiated. He said he was proposing to accept the city's salary plan for 80-81, and in the second year use Appendix A and have economic issues open, with binding arbitration. Appendix A proposes a 10 step plan with 4% raises on each step. Mr. Reinholz said that as part of this package the union would drop its request to include sergeants in the unit. He explained that, using Appendix A would mean that the base pay for July 1, 1980 would be whatever salary is negotiated this year on step 1. Next year a new base would be negotiated and each step would move up in 4% increments from that. Mr. Farrar preferred to leave year 2 open and undefined, rather than Mr. Reinholz' proposal to change the pay plan for 81-82 to a 10 step plan. Mr. Reinholz asked if any language on binding arbitration had been worked out yet and was told it had not, but should be before the next meeting. Mr. Farrar felt that "economic issues", which would be subject to such arbitration, should be specifically defined. At 9:00 the police left the room, but were back at 9:05 pm. Mr. Reinholz asked whether, in an effort to reach a 2 year agreement, the city would be willing to put Appendix A in in 1981-82 with its salary proposal. Mr. Farrar did not think so. He said that the amount of increases would be considerably more than the city thinks it is reasonable to propose. There would be increases of 8-25%. It was also noted that the 4% increments were 4% compounded. Mr. Farrar said that a man with 5 years experience at the end of 1981-82 would go to step 6 the year after that, and he would receive a 20% increase in pay. Mr. Farrar asked if the pay would be with or without merit and was told the officers accepted the merit. Mr. Reinholz said that the proposal was to redline the salaries so they did not become skewed. Mr. Farrar noted that, in that case, the person with 6 years experience would only be eligible for 4 4% step increases, while the new man would be eligible for 9, which would result in the new man making considerably more money in the long run. Mr. Reinholz said that, when a person reached the maximum pay, that could be negotiated. Mr. Farrar noted that changing to Appendix A would result in either a 20% increase for the person with 5 years experience, or in him receiving fewer 4% step increases than a new man. This was discussed at some length and the officers stated that they felt that they would receive more honest appraisals if they were not tied to salaries under the merit plan. It was noted that the department average was higher than an average appraisal. Mr. Reinholz felt that the most anyone would receive with the second year use of Appendix A would be 12.4% - 8.4% on the base plus a 4% increment. He understood that the person with 5 years experience would receive fewer 4% steps, but said the union wanted to upgrade the salary schedule. At 9:40 the union members again left to discuss salaries and they came back at 9:50 pm., and Mr. Reinholz asked what issues would be subject to negotiation in 1981-82. Mr. Farrar said they could be listed and that language on that could be worked out. Mr. Reinholz agreed that the union would accept the proposal for this year if there is reasonable language worked out concerning the economic issues to be open next year, subject to binding arbitration. Mr. Farrar said he would like to clean up some language and have another meeting in the next two weeks. It was hoped this could be the last meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:00 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.