Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - City Council - 02/02/1982CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 2, 1982 ADDITION On page 3, at the beginning of the second paragraph, it should be noted that Mr. Reinholz proposed that the Council furnish a proposal to the union. The South Burlington City Council held a special meeting on Tuesday, February 2, 1982 at 7:30 pm in the Mini-conference room, City Hall, 575 Dorset Street. Members Present Paul Farrar, Chairman; Michael Flaherty, William Burgess, Hugh Marvin Others Present William Szymanski, City Manager; David Minnich, Assistant City Manager; Lansing Reinholz, Kevin Hayes, Charles Balserus, Thomas Fraga Meet with police association to continue review of contract Mr. Farrar noted that there was a typed copy of the amendment to the contract negotiated recently, dealing with persons on a shift acting as shift commanders. Mr. Burgess moved to sign the amendment and Mr. Flaherty seconded. The motion passed unanimously. Mr. Farrar noted that the Council had spent several hours going over the proposal. He said the Council felt it was an expensive proposal - so expensive, in fact, that he wondered if the union had calculated the costs of the various items. He noted that the salary changes would be an increase of 16-17%, the additional grade increases would cost an extra 20%, and the total package could cost the city upwards of 50%, which he felt was unreasonable. Mr. Farrar noted that the city had looked into the insurance question and had found that they have coverage for $500,000 per person with an additional $2 million coverage under the umbrella policy. The city is looking into increasing that amount. Mr. Farrar noted that, looking at the other proposed benefit changes, the city felt that all of them could be handled on an individual basis by the police members, since they will cost the city the same amount they would cost an individual. He said that, in light of that, the Council wondered if the union was interested in looking at salary increases only and leaving the benefit package as it was. If the union wants to bargain over every item, he said the Council was willing to do that, but if a speedier solution can be found, there would be advantages to that for both Sides. Mr. Reinholz said the union was willing to discuss salaries only if the offer were reasonable in terms of what the police might receive in both salary and benefits. He said the union would be receptive to a proposal, without saying that they were willing to take it. Mr. Reinholz said the union had costed out the proposals and that the 50% figure exceeded what they had felt would be the cost. The disability proposal was discussed. Mr. Szymanski noted that for 50% of gross salary after 1 month for a period of 6 months would cost the city 11,400 per year. Mr. Reinholz mentioned a cheaper plan Colchester has, for $340 per year per person. It was mentioned, however, that according to Colchester, the cost is going to increase dramatically this year. Mr. Farrar noted that the increased cost for the retirement benefit would be 300%, and he felt that kind of increase was hard to justify. At this point, the union left the room to discuss the contract among themselves. Mr. Reinholz, when the union returned, said that they had costed every item except retirement. The Blue Cross/Blue Shield riders, they were told, would cost pennies per person. Course reimbursement would cost $3500, pay for degrees $6500, ammunition $1000, the detective stipend $250, salaries $32,500, shift differential $3000, motorcycle and emergency relief team $5000, retirement annuity $7680, motorcycle and clothing allowance $500, holiday $1100, BCI clothing allowance $100, and equipment for the vehicles $1525, for a total cost of $62,705. This figure does not include retirement, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, or the retirement disability. Mr. Flaherty noted that the Blue Cross cost was going to increase 28% this year just for inflation, and the Council had to consider that. Mr. Farrar noted that, using the union's costs, the proposal was a 26% increase without the items mentioned above. Mr. Reinholz said the cost of the proposals might be up, but he did not think they had asked for anything outrageous. The union is looking for protection for its members, their families and adequate income to raise a family on. He added that some of the items he did not feel the union should have to bargain for, such as new ammunition. He said that request would be dropped if the union could be sure it would be done. Mr. Farrar said he did not believe what the union had told the Council about ammunition spoiling, and that he would like to see evidence that it spoils in less than a year. Mr. Fraga said the information came from the firearms instructors. He said he had been on the force for 6 years, and the only time he had received enough ammunition for his belt and weapon was when the police transferred from the old building to the new one and his ammunition was lost in the move. It was noted that the police had to qualify once a year with their own weapons, but after some discussion on this point, Mr. Farrar asked whether the union was telling the Council that they take their ammunition out of their guns and replace it, and they then fire and reload their guns with the old ammunition at the yearly qualifications. Mr. Fraga said that was correct - they use reloaded ammunition. Mr. Farrar said he would like to get some more information on the procedure involved here. Mr. Reinholz said he would get some information on ammunition spoiling. Mr. Farrar stated that, whatever figures the Council took, the union's or its own, the cost would be a 26% increase at least, and that figure did not take into account the cost of one benefit which will be very expensive according to the Council's figures. The costs of the pension and disability plans will bring the union's estimates close to a 50% increase, and Mr. Farrar had a hard time understanding the need for an increase in that range. He said the Council would like to hear some arguments as to why 50% was rational, or they would like to see a somewhat different proposal. Mr. Reinholz noted that bargaining was give and take and that no one went into it asking only for what they were willing to settle for. He noted that 3 of the department's best people had recently left for better salaries and benefits elsewhere. He felt the increases requested were reasonable given the positions the salaries paid for. Looking at what the members work for, he felt they were underpaid to start and were underpaid for their responsibilities and longevity. He noted that there were ways to have a less expensive police force, such as hiring only new people, but these people devoted time and energy to the department. He felt that South Burlington could afford to pay more than some communities, based on its per capita wealth. Mr. Reinholz said most communities were starting to pay for educational benefits if people get credits in their areas. He said it was recognized across the country that it was an asset for an officer to have an advanced education. As far as the medical riders, with the high incidence of alcoholism in this profession, he did not feel those were outrageous benefits. He stated that every other place where people worked second and third shifts, they were paid a shift differential. Motorcycle and SWAT-type activities were highly visible and dangerous and he did not feel extra pay for them was outrageous. As far as the retirement system, Mr. Reinholz wondered what it was. He said the police could not get answers on it. He felt the system was not such that a person could work 20 years and survive on the pension. He also did not know whether the benefit was 1.2 or 1.4. Mr. Farrar said the Council would have a proposal for the union the next time the groups met. He said he had hoped for some indication of the form the union wanted it framed. Mr. Reinholz said the union had no idea what kind of increase the city felt was rational and he said that if they would make a proposal, the union would entertain it. It was tentatively decided to meet on February 9 at 8:00 pm, or on the 16th if the 9th is not possible. The meeting would be at 7:30 on the 16th. Mr. Reinholz asked about the proposed groundrules. Mr. Farrar brought up the term "TA". He said that if that meant that an agreement was reached on a section, but either side had the right, in light of future agreements to go back to the section and discuss it again, there would be no problem with it. Mr. Reinholz said usually an item was bargained to conclusion and then closed. Not "TAing" sections would mean there was no agreement on anything. He did not want to bargain an item and then have someone say he did not like the conclusion and open it back up again for no reason at all. If the article in question is affiliated to another one being bargained, he did not object to opening it up, such as money issues related to money issues. Mr. Farrar felt that if, in order to reach agreement on point #2, the Council felt it had to look at point #7 again, that was something they wanted the right to do. Mr. Burgess did not like the rule stating that sessions would be held for a minimum of 3 hours once a week, at 7:30 pm. Mr. Reinholz said they would be flexible on that. He suggested 2 hours, at 7:30 pm. Mr. Marvin asked about the rule governing press releases. Mr. Reinholz said that was just in there so the Council realized that the union might go to the press. Mr. Burgess felt that what it meant was that there was no agreement to handle press releases jointly. Mr. Burgess did not like the rule regarding the records. He noted that by law minutes of the meeting would be kept, but Mr. Reinholz noted that those were official minutes of the Council meeting, not a record of the negotiations. Mr. Farrar said the union did not have to recognize these minutes as their record. Mr. Marvin questioned making the negotiations closed sessions. Mr. Reinholz said the union had agreed to have, open meetings. At this point, the union left. Meet in executive session to discuss the police contract Mr. Marvin moved to go into executive session to discuss the police contract. Mr. Flaherty seconded the motion and all voted aye. At 9:40 pm, the Council came out of executive session. Mr. Flaherty moved to tentatively schedule a meeting for Saturday, February 6, 1982 at 10:00 am. Mr. Burgess seconded and it passed 4-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm. Clerk Published by ClerkBase ©2019 by Clerkbase. No Claim to Original Government Works.