Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1358) AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET STUDY SESSION MAY 16, 2002 ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOPI ROOM 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION — AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. REVIEW OF BUDGET FOLLOW-UP ISSUES FROM MAY 13, 2002 BUDGET STUDY SESSION 2. POLICE Page 159 • Seizures & Forfeitures — Justice Funds Page 167 • Seizures & Forfeitures — State Funds Page 175 3. ORO VALLEY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE REQUEST - BUDGET FY 2002/2003 4. LEGAL Page 181 5. MAGISTRATE COURT Page 189 ADJOURNMENT The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700. Posted: 05/10/02 4:30 p.m. Ih AGENDA ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL BUDGET STUDY SESSION MAY 16, 2002 ORO VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOPI ROOM 11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE STUDY SESSION — AT OR AFTER 6:00 PM CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL 1. REVIEW OF BUDGET FOLLOW-UP ISSUES FROM MAY 13, 2002 BUDGET STUDY SESSION 2. POLICE Page 159 • Seizures & Forfeitures — Justice Funds Page 167 • Seizures & Forfeitures — State Funds Page 175 3. ORO VALLEY FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE REQUEST - BUDGET FY 2002/2003 4. LEGAL Page 181 5. MAGISTRATE COURT Page 189 ADJOURNMENT The Town of Oro Valley complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). If any person with a disability needs any type of accommodation, please notify the Oro Valley Town Clerk, at 229-4700. Posted: 05/10/02 4:30 p.m. lh 3 A op* %IPIV * 7.:'7":c I ---446, ,.....A To: Honorable Mayor Loomis, Council Members Johnson, Rochman, Wolff, LaSala From: FOP Negotiations Committee: President Williams, Michael Stevenson, Jason Larter, Tom Buvik, Joe Corona, Robert Goddard, Chris Olson, Date: May 6, 2002 Re: Proposed employee pay and benefit plan. The FOP is committed to ensuring the members of this community receive unparallel service from the members of your police department. To do this it is necessary to have open communications to ensure all governing bodies understand the issues being brought to the Town by our committee. In doing so we keep the interests of the Town in mind in an attempt to come up with a compromising solution to the issues involving the members of the police department. The past year we have all been pushed to the limits and we understand the impact the incidents of September 11, 2001 had on our community not only emotionally, but fiscally. We also know that this created a demand for our officers to rise to the call service and excel in the additional demands from the public and our own Town's requests. It is this commitment of our dedicated officers that make the Oro Valley Police Department the most professional and recognized agency in Arizona. We have met numerous times with the management team to attempt to resolve some of the labor issues through good faith negotiations. Unfortunately we have not been able to reach a resolution to the issues. •Page 1 Our focus is to attract and retain quality individuals to ensure that the high quality of service to our community is not compromised. To do this we bring the following items to you to help resolve these issues. 1 . Cost of Living Increase of 2.5%. a. (attachments) 2. Wage Market Adjustment 4.0°/o. a. (attachment charts) 3. Maintain integrity of our establish step plan. 4. Conclusion of the discrepancy in the 480 hours, 720 hours, 90 days for sick time buy back. a. (attachment Letter to council dated February 25, 2002) 5. Sick-time buy back plan: a. Part 1 incremental steps base on hours accrued. b. Part 2 incremental steps during employment to reduce liability to Town after 17 years of service to the Town and prior to retirement. 6. Medical Retirement Benefits 7. Increase in vacation to 5 weeks after 15 years of service. Our committee feels that the package we have presented is a comprehensive plan to remain competitive in the law enforcement market for both lateral and new hire employees. We thank you for the opportunity to address Council on May 16th, 2002. We sincerely hope you will consider each of the above listed items and look forward to providing you with detailed explanations and information that will assist you in your decision to support the members of your police department. • Page 2 Adjustment Page 1 of 1 Automatic Cost-of-Living is Cost-of-LivingAdjustmentAutomat USA ?61,, 1111111 "yrs-nu- • 2.6P ercent COLA--see how the most recent COLA was calculated • COLA history for values of past Social Security COLAs (1975-present) • Social Security program o How the COLA is applied to Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability(OASDI)benefits o Effect of the COLA on average OASDI benefit amounts and on certain benefit tables • Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program o Effect of the COLA on SSI payment amounts o COLA used to determine SSI earned income exclusion for students • Other information o The next COLA will be announced on October 18, 2002 o Fee for servicesP erformed as a representative payee o Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W)--data used to O ll e^L'{ t v;} L�determinenCOLAs after fter 1987 rattif*WAWAII J, January 8,2002 SSA Home I Actuary Home I Feedback I Actuary Sitemap (Privacy policy Actuarial Publications I Compute Your Benefit 1 Automatic Increases Trust Fund Data I Beneficiary Data I Actuaries at SSA s:. a^^� _•tc. s .,s.,s; � a -fir. .z ,sss r .:'�:Yw X!•.., ::::.,�. ^':^" ...�.'1.... �` ..�""".�rKA:._.t .",fit!... .^.'#. �":JC."'Z.w. . �.:.. ^•> ...: :. ;;rr7�'> �� ss:r.. ......:, .:;.; . .^�:s:;;.;;,;;.,..." .,•�,,:r:;�!;;.-:x,r,s."::..» :ics.»K..."......,,..._..:....ss:�s Y» ...?..1,t 'y4......,-,::.......:................. „/:.............. ....w.:......... .....t."f:�c:�S:tt....."t.. .r. tn'*, -,- ---sf4.,,,,w;: R3S5... ..., rt.s :. si^'�.. %'sµr. 3. Yi' s�F..: ....,tea .,.. .. :....�,......,,... . ,.... ..,.".:^,,...�"sr»!,,. �-s`^^^.•^ss.»^'^'...,.s...,,.-."....�.«....x. r- "..'�.; Forecasts for Arizona 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Personal Income($mill) 130,042.6 136,401.9 140,063.7 148,846.9 159,470.5 169,958.1 179,835.8 percent change 9.0 4.9 2.7 6.3 7.1 6.6 5.8 Per Capita Personal Income 25,159 25,623 25,699 26,725 27,868 28,871 29,710 percent change 5.8 1.8 0.3 4.0 4.3 3.6 2.9 Aggregate Retail Sales($mill)* 54,282.1 54,985.7 54,482.7 57,716.0 63,285.7 67,995.3 72,671.5 percent change 8.8 1.3 -0.9 5.9 9.7 7.4 6.9 Population(000s,mid-year) 5,168.9 5,323.5 5,450.2 5,569.6 5,722.3 5,886.8 6,053.1 percent change 3.0 3.0 2.4 2.2 2.7 2.9 2.8 Net Migration(000s) 108.4 101.1 69.2 94.4 117.3 121.3 120.2 Wage&Salary Employment(000s) 2,249.1 2,276.7 2,277.3 2,337.5 2,419.2 2,502.7 2,580.9 percent change 4.0 1.2 0.0 2.6 3.5 3.5 3.1 Goods-Producing 386.6 388.0 371.9 374.2 390.1 409.7 427.2 percent change 2.4 0.4 -4.2 0.6 4.3 5.0 4.3 Construction 161.1 165.6 161.7 160.4 172.2 182.9 191.1 percent change 4.2 2.7 -2.3 -0.8 7.4 6.2 4.5 Manufacturing 215.7 213.0 201.2 205.0 209.3 218.2 227.4 percent change 1.9 -1.2 -5.6 1.9 2.1 4.2 4.2 Service-Providing 1,862.5 1,888.7 1,905.5 1,963.4 2,029.0 2,093.1 2,153.8 percent change 4.4 1.4 0.9 3.0 3.3 3.2 2.9 Trade(Wholesale&Retail) 527.1 532.9 533.5 551.1 568.5 584.3 599.8 percent change 3.5 1.1 0.1 3.3 3.2 2.8 2.7 Services 715.0 722.6 731.5 761.6 793.9 826.0 857.7 percent change 5.5 1.1 1.2 4.1 4.2 4.1 3.8 Forecasts for Phoenix-Mesa Metro Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Personal Income($mill) 89,237.7 93,433.2 95,474.5 101,415.6 109,953.7 118,736.3 127,593.1 percent change 7.2 4.7 2.2 6.2 8.4 8.0 7.5 Per Capita Personal Income 27,232 27,620 27,535 28,554 30,026 31,355 32,583 percent change 3.7 1.4 -0.3 3.7 5.2 4.4 3.9 Aggregate Retail Sales($mill)* 37,333.7 37,917.4 37,875.4 40,203.0 45,124.8 49,369.6 53,386.9 percent change 8.8 1.6 -0.1 6.1 12.2 9.4 8.1 Population(000s,mid-year) 3,277.0 3,382.8 3,467.4 3,551.7 3,661.9 3,786.9 3,915.9 percent change 3.4 3.2 2.5 2.4 3.1 3.4 3.4 Net Migration(000s) 75.5 71.9 51.0 51.8 77.1 90.5 93.5 Wage&Salary Employment(000s) 1,580.0 1,592.4 1,590.8 1,632.0 1,698.0 1,775.2 1,849.1 percent change 3.6 0.8 -0.1 2.6 4.0 4.5 4.2 Goods-Producing 286.9 287.5 278.3 276.9 286.4 304.5 321.2 percent change 1.6 0.2 -3.2 -0.5 3.4 6.3 5.5 Construction 118.5 123.6 119.9 121.1 130.3 142.3 152.5 percent change 4.2 4.3 -3.0 1.0 7.6 9.1 7.2 Manufacturing 165.8 161.4 155.8 153.1 153.4 159.6 166.0 percent change 0.8 -2.7 -3.4 -1.7 0.2 4.0 4.0 Service-Providing 1,293.1 1,304.9 1,312.5 1,355.1 1,411.6 1,470.7 1,527.9 percent change 4.1 0.9 0.6 3.2 4.2 4.2 3.9 Trade(Wholesale&Retail) 372.8 375.9 374.9 384.8 403.9 423.2 442.3 percent change 2.7 0.8 -0.3 2.6 5.0 4.8 4.5 Services 519.0 520.5 525.6 546.3 566.7 590.1 613.8 percent change 5.4 0.3 1.0 3.9 3.7 4.1 4.0 Forecasts for Tucson Metro Area 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Personal Income($mill) 20,696.3 21,829.7 22,307.1 23,670.7 25,441.0 27,056.9 28,650.3 percent change 7.7 5.5 2.2 6.1 7.5 6.4 5.9 Per Capita Personal Income 24,415 25,135 25,251 26,281 27,553 28,569 29,539 percent change 5.7 3.0 0.5 4.1 4.8 3.7 3.4 Aggregate Retail Sales($mill)* 8,499.3 8,667.0 8,633.3 9,140.5 9,711.0 10,242.4 10,742.0 percent change 8.2 2.0 -0.4 5.9 6.2 5.5 4.9 Population(000s,mid-year) 847.7 868.5 883.4 900.7 923.3 947.1 969.9 percent change 1.9 2.5 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.6 2.4 Net Migration(000s) 11.1 15.4 9.5 11.7 17.1 18.1 17.1 Wage&Salary Employment(000s) 350.1 353.1 351.1 360.1 373.0 384.8 395.0 percent change 4.1 0.8 -0.6 2.6 3.6 3.2 2.6 Goods-Producing 56.9 57.2 55.7 56.4 58.1 60.0 61.2 percent change 5.3 0.4 -2.6 1.2 3.1 3.1 2.1 Construction 21.7 21.6 21.4 21.7 23.1 24.7 25.7 percent change 1.1 -0.6 -0.8 1.4 6.4 6.6 4.0 Manufacturing 33.3 33.8 33.0 33.4 33.8 34.1 34.4 percent change 8.8 1.3 -2.2 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.8 Service-Providing 293.2 295.9 295.4 303.7 314.9 324.9 333.8 percent change 3.8 0.9 -0.2 2.8 3.7 3.2 2.7 Trade(Wholesale&Retail) 72.7 73.2 71.9 73.8 76.9 79.7 82.0 percent change 2.6 0.7 -1.8 2.6 4.3 3.6 2.9 Services 118.5 118.6 119.5 123.9 129.0 133.7 138.2 percent change 5.0 0.1 0.8 3.7 4.1 3.6 3.3 •Aggregate Retail Sales includes retail,food,restaurant&bars and gasoline sales. Source:Economic and Business Research Program,Eller College of Business and Public Administration,The University of Arizona 7..t tc� '.`"'�F" ;S. �,�S'R, ^.z' �. A R?at O N A :S 1... M:00.40 �����.«: ��..i"�(�. .p'4'� �'^s•',. .ara.�a�Yd�m..,��x'�i�a'•,Y...r„'w�x '"<, .. ' _..._. � .. 0 I". O.CO G) C/) N N- CO O Ln LU O CO C3) r O C3) ,I. Ln C) M M LL O CO 6 CO o N N N 0 CN 4 , Ln O) O CO in I` CO O N r• CD 10000) 11) 0 (0 O O 00 10 O M I` O 'r0 Ln !t CO CO Ln r0 I` M , CY) .a. O O co r.: 4 Lo O CD N M 00 CD co N M 4 C?) Ln 1: L- N N N t7' O 00 N N O N CO M ,- co CL N N N N C) p M CO r. c?) co M ' N.N O C� 0) - N �-- N 00 Q) CO I` N. O N V- Ln Cn Ln to CO CO V. I- Co O r-- to Ln V- Q) 1.0 N r- ca 0 N-ce) CV. O) O LU N co ,-- N0 V- t., co N. r- e- O 0) co N- r- N M I` 00 Qi 'r- O) O N C?) CO 6 M N M M Ln O 1` N N N N O_ N N N M M Ln 00 i O) N N N 00 N- 00 CO LU CO Co N 0- 0 N D N N. 00 Q) V' d- e. CO CO co V• Vt Nt O N N- O O p 0 00 '- Co O M M O Ln O) 'Tii O 1,- CO O CY) M O N N O N- N CD O O c) -- CO N 00 O V' N Co ‘-- N O Ln pj V' 00 C3) O N C3) C M ,- N N cM N r CD Tr N N N 0 CM in 00 N N M 0 N 0 N N N M to cn et N 0 CO cooN V- V* C3) 01 0 O M co Ln 00 O - O 0) p O N N Lo O Ln O) r- V' O O a) co N- O Ln Cr) O O M CO CO N N- O CO N to O O e- Ln -4' .4: C3) 00 00CON O) CC I O O ,-- r C3) Ln O) N N N C7) N N C3) N N N O L p N N N N 00 d' N a.M C3) CO p O d' N N O r- N �1. N 00 C3) N N N '' LU V• V- 44• Ln Ln CO N ,- 000 ,-- -,... 00) 0N- 01,-- Nin 'd' r- N O N N ,- CO r O M CD L O CD O 0 r- CD O O 1 N CO O C3) (0 I` cr) 00 r O Ln ,, Ln CO N N- O 00 00 O 00 CD O N T" Ln Q) O 0 V- Q) O M 'a' • C7) Q) O 4 C3) ' Ci N- N- O r- Ln 00 C3) O O I` M M Q) O O O N- O O O O LO N- ti Ln to C. N �- N N O igt 0 N N C") V- Co N N LO Co N N O r r- �-- N C� C7) � � N N N t� N � � O 00 cp 00 G) N co C� 0 0 N O N N O N M N M N- CO V- co N '� �' 'T' CO CO Co d' d' in to Ln In � CO 'd' 1` O O to Ln C?) C) N- O I- 1- O O Ll) M O cf) M co 4 Lo O N Q) CO (3) 00 O N CO I` r- '1 O C3) 00 C3) N N ti O 00 00 CO d' r O O O) C?) 00 00 O) M t.C) try O CO N- 00 0o M o) cd Oa; N - I` Ln C3 � cd O) C3) h: CL T.- r- r r- C3) V' N N N C3) N.. r- r- e- O V' N N N ti Ln M W T- 000 0)CO M Ln CO cy) N 000 O 0 1,--0 ) O co co . Ln Ln co M V' V• Ln Lf) CO 1 1- r O CO co Ln I` CO CO O Cn p O ,- M Q) O tet' et' N C3) CD O Ln N p) N r- O .1. N- O N- O CO to co 00 CO 1` O Ln to CO O N. O CO CVRI r- I` 00 00 C� 'd' d" CD t� 1` C3) N e" C1 I` 00 O Ln N- p Lf) N N N N O O ,- �-- r- r M M N N N CO '�' to O.Q , ,- r �-- N- fit. CO N N N N M co C•- r- CO CO N. ,�,,, 1,-- N 0�0 V'N 0 N N ON- 00 CO V- CDLr) to U/) NO CO CO MLO L) to C?) CO M a N- M Q) O CO M O V• N O) O CO co Li) CO CO O O Ln N CO O ' O ti LU V' N- O 0 CO I` O et d N Ln M O 00 p er Oo 0 O N- 4} N. C3) tet' Q) O co co O co 'd' O d' O) �t N- 000) M O N r' •: I� I` 00 N O CO Ln Ln 1` li) 00 In CO f` N- Ln CO CO Ln Lt) CO N C3) O CO CO O '� a s r r-- r N CO co C) N N N - O LU 4 r co co N N N N CO 0 ON COo N N - N • 3 Lf) Co coN CO N. to N Ln CO 1` N CO O d' �t LC) Co 11) C/) co Co M Ln Ln In CO C'r) moi' 4 � � CO CO M � � p z c =+r N N N N N Cy N N N N O 0 O O O o ON O O N O O O 0 O ONa N ♦, N �, N C�1 .. N N N C .� C P r. r- a. C 0. r- N p ., p N p -, p N C 'a G) v >, >' �,O p > O co r M O M >, M O < < •- L. a) �` O N O -- O NC Q Q 04 5 L4. LL N V >, to to a) Q. N o �- O c = _) c r = = O O o o N a) +r O O Ln �� U d' A A < _ V U - c QCO O T..: LL _ N w N N - r- _ _ •�+ (0 a L- Q (t3 11:1 N Q (0 a An = = - p. =i--i mo -I = Tm_121.11. a) > o > c o z a) = c o0 •- = -v -oc -Or� W -a0 c0a. CO c c� oO c OOE-- OQE-- 'SOU) , -, < LL0 I- OQQQQF- cn < < < < 2000Ev) UQ2 N O O N N >% O D O -7 N \° 0 LC) >> C 0 O a_ I-- H • V O) i I. N 96'9996t7 • l•£'b8£Z5 o 99.9P6LV w ti 1Z./.896P . !:::1•11'.801.917cn LI I— � co 8Z I.I.SLP oo. a� > cs -z eii 0 to QY O 4 6Z'6t�ZSt7 a a CL 6'trZ9Z� w O Z8'£bOZP ci 4. I6 6668 } , � f yA ^ h -d0 Mr,`'' sS�'s co £8.1.P0017 a_ 0Z.96E6E y V-! ri r:+ 77 .. - 2 675'67£�8£ N Q. EL'PLBLE Z8'9ZZl£ o_ E8'09P9E i 111 O O It oOo O Lo N Aieles lenuuv Q. N L.L.o 8 N N O .' N A r" >, o 0- -) I-- a ■ CD _ , a) 5P'£Z£Z9 r i 1 4 co L.£`1.8£Z9 c- a) 417'10£05 , 1.Z1886Pa. . -9-;--,4- 61E8# ". u) O 0_ co I— I p, r> 3rd �C v t-.,._ gr• � 7M4 L L 0 o �� Q 2,- 6Z 6fiZ O i- cn 0. 89 ZLi z. :.,. , _ 0- 0 u.. > Z8'£t'OZV 35a 0 1.9'6 40£ 1 _ . ,- £8'Lt'00t7 co �aJ - T 58`5 x. (n N t75`t7£1.13£ N W017/6€ ,- Z8'9ZZ1£ a) £6`9928£ r = cn , o oo 0 o o o o 0 OO O O O O w w w O Lt) -t CO N O CO /JeIeS Ienuud C a) E U) 0 N J O O N > U = Co >, Q T_ CO El ■ ❑ Q) Q Isp.cztz, -_,-..,-,,-„,- ,_-..,,,'-'4:4*t*l;:,! tk4i.'''''',-.ii :w*':'''';'-''' ---7--'7'777'. i (/)..-1 MM I 00'9Z£Z5 a i P ��'10£09 ti ia- IZ'L8961P a) C 91'61£817 4,--4,,,,,,,, cn ca - L ca CO Q L 0 SZ'1.l.51t7 a) eOn Ian U) C3 - a O I- > I 6Z'6tZ5b a) 0. 99.17211717CO LL . O - L OW509£17 d- Z8'£t70ZP Q. a) 0 M a £8'14700P0 r� '. ) mss K c rr _ r ., _ _ VI iiii, N a VST£t.8£ cp v 3 s✓k.:x Oxy t s a'<.� 4D / t�s 001788P£ Q Z8'9ZZ1£ a .---S6'909e,„:„ _:._,-e...::---,:.---,c-,,,,;_::::,,. --.A.r, i-,.4.-,:‘,-:-ZirgrittriMlfrfe#*. 0 0 15 O 0 CD 00 0 0 0 0 O � 0 O O O 0 OO O O O (0 O ., OO Lo d' M N • N O o E N ♦"' X8 1-5 u- N J o O U� ON A 0 • C >, Q L O 0.. C° • ❑ ❑ i 96'9986P � 00'9Z£Z9 co 1•E'�8£ZS a" a� t.b'LOEOS (n 9S'9P61t► ti = Z'L8!•' a) 91'61E8b ca 1,x'80 I,9 1 co > L. to CI OZ'S£ ► 8Z' IS/17 CO On IS9P v I- EL. EL 6 '•I' 9t7 �" 4) 89'bZLUfi £67" Iooso9p 8'£' a) F- 1,9'6IMEt7 e/ 0 E8'�'OOfi a CO S8'S£E I t 866£6£ - N d :£ CO 8rot•L6E £L-PL9LE I 003788KZ8'9ZZL£ a- a) £6'9928£ £8'09 £ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 M N /C ed esee �enuud N O O N N A O O (Ni 0 In _>% C o O 0- i-- F- D 111 I ti 0. a) 1,6.99/z9v) i co a a) £6'69L09 Ci) LCA 0_ a) 0 '6079Z65 a a: Q. ca a) cn co > L. CD > Cn O 9 VOL9£9 o- L5'9Z9L� g 66'L£909 coi_ a) 16`1£1799 cn ZtVl.5LL5 a. a) 6£'6£059 c 56.00055 £1'90L£S 7. co 0 o O oo o o 0 0 0 O o 0 0 0 o O 60 o o o 0 0 0 o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C6 �fi N O O � � � � � co co co (0 Ames enuud A ` f • Y N N O O O O N N w w N.- ,-- >, ›N I I 0_ 0 O LI- U_ F- © ■ r • f L �J Fi9.62.999- u) CO CI- t I .. - CD CO'E9LE9 u) I :6E.zozze„.„,,, ,.,.„,,, , , ,,,:,,,,,,,,*,.1„:"sf,,f,o,,,ti,,:,-,i,,,,,:,„or,:;.5*!,";,,,i,,,,;:11,..,;;:.z,.-4,.,1-6,-,,s„,.,-,ifi{.1," ca/)) , s *-,i,0 C co 0) > I 91:0/.9£9a_ L. I u) p Z 1.'VL909 1 u. 66'L£909 co Q. .i.--,,., a) LS'41.Z69u) Zt7'1.9t19 Q a) 69'09LL9 u) 56'00055 Q a) 817-P9E99 u) O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 O o 0 0 o o o o o o 00 Cfl d- N O cc (fl d co- CO CO CO CO CO in if) '1- ieIeS ienuuv 1 w w O Q_ o p o £ 0 o o- o ca (1) LL. N i— CV 2 •_ o ■ 0 1 iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii 9£'98169 co a a) cn r-- a_a a) 99'6/1199 1 co a a) ca £ ' 9 } to L 111111111 Lr) E ca a co p 6£Z+ Z9 LI- Milli _ CD 0 (i) 0£>> 11991,99 ,4.p_ � a- 9t'0L9£9 a' O .� L.L. Z1,11/4909 u) > 0 r co a 66'L£909 a' `LS'11,Z69. .,_ N Z17't•SLL9 aQ) y 69'0941.9 u) Milli! PZ't7Z99t7 a 96'00059 a' 8P 19£9 0 0 oo 0 0 0 0 o 00 o 0 0 o O O o 0 0 o 0o o o o o o O 0 0 0 o O o O o co ti Co co N Ames Ienuud a N a' O a) N T N N >, O O • O O .. .. o ,_ r- 0 A A 0 co c a. 0 (o o 0 a_ co H L.L. H 2 • ■ 0 0 9£'98169 , co a_ a) co N.. a_ 98'61859a) 16'98/Z9 cn /� r \V C a 2 £0•£51£9a) (n m j-. 64/09 > C C� Ln CO a- a CO s£•zozz9 a, > 6078Z69 Ci) CL O LL. IOSI99 > 9 V019£9 a Z�'b1909 a)> � cn I—. , co 66'1£909 a. L8'14a) Z6S js L/y�_J��7/�C r •�L6'IYr r ,rf t ' ate: r' n '' c r N ZP'I.GLLS a_ 69'OSLLS cn IPP9P 96'00099 Q. 8Vt'S£9S 0 ::£1'841£9 .- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 o O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 o O 00 I` CO ( Tr C') N /CieleS jenuuv To: Mayor Loomis and members of the Council From: Michael Stevenson Date: 022502 Re: Sick-time buy back 480 hours vs. 720 hours Thank you for allowing the employees to voice concerns in an open forum. I am here as a representative of the FOP and as a concerned town employee. We feel that this provides for a positive opportunity to ensure that there is clear understanding of the obligations of Town employees as well as the management's positions. This is also an opportunity to clarify our understanding of various topics. After careful review of the new Town policies received January 28, 2002 it was noticed that the information about the sick leave buy back after 480 hours has not been included as discussed in last years (2000/01) negotiations. It was clear to the members of the negotiation committee that the amount of time accrued above 480 hours was bought back at 50% upon separation of service. I addressed this with Jeff Grant on January 30t" 2002, Jeff stated that he did not have a recollection of this being discussed nor did he have any notes on this agreement. He also stated that he thought this was the sick-time conversion annually up to 56 hours time for the employees that qualified. This is included in the Ordinance dated October 27th, 1999. (attached) which is based on a standard of 480 hours for our long term disability to begin. Further investigation shows that the policy/understanding (email dated January 30, 2002) from Jeff Grant now states 720 hours of accumulated sick time and not the 480 hours as previously agreed for the 50% buy back. I addressed this matter with other members of last year's committee (2001 Jones, Holdinsky, Wright, and Corona) and they agreed that Jeff was very matter of fact that the agreement was for the 50% buy back above 480 hours at the time of separation of service. When this was brought up during negotiations in 2000/01 Jeff was insistent that he had "not gotten around to it" and that it will be in the new policy being Page 1 of 2 .4 updated in July 2001. This was agreed upon by all members present by both management and FOP. I also discussed this with the members of the 1999/2000 committee (Bloomfield, Larter, Trujillo) who in turn agreed that this was discussed and agreed upon in 1999/2000, and the formal information needed to be put into the Town policy. We have recently received the information given to the acturial for evaluation and finalized estimates for various retirement benefits and in this information from Jeff Grant it clearly states, "Currently, the Town provides a payout of all hours in excess of 480 at the time of separation of employment (voluntary or involuntary)". There are discrepancies on various documents. On one document the information states 720 hours, on another 480 hours, and another 90 days. What is the correct information? This needs to be addressed for all employees and we are requesting that Jeff Grant follow up on the agreement from the last two years and make the necessary corrections to reflect the 480 hours of sick time payout at 50% upon separation of service voluntarily or involuntarily. We request this amendment to policy be corrected within the next two scheduled council meetings. On behalf of the FOP and employees of the Town of Oro Valley, I thank you for allowing me to voice these concerns. • Page 2 f w� i � MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: The Management Team DATE: May 10, 2002 SUBJ: Response to the FOP Proposal dated May 6, 2002 The Management Team met with the FOP committee members twice in response to the FOP requests for consideration for their numerous proposals. While we understand the interest of the FOP in bringing forward their requests, it must be stressed that the Management Team is equally concerned with the ability of the Town to attract and retain the best possible employees throughout our entire multifaceted workforce. We are also concerned with the Town's mission of serving the citizens of the Town in the most professional manner possible. The following provides the Management Team's response to the FOP requests: 1. COST OF LIVING INCREASE OF 2.5%. The Town Manager's budget includes a COLA for all Town employees of 1.5%. While some Federal COLA estimates are marginally higher than the 1.5 % figure, the town Manager's recommended budget includes a COLA which is clearly based on the Town's ability to pay. Interestingly, the FOP has included two different bases for their COLA figure, the Social Security COLA figure of 2.6%, and"Forecast Tables" from the University of Arizona College Of Business. The University of Arizona table is not dated,but includes "forecasts" from 2000 through 2006. We assume that the data for 2002 is a current projection for the 2002 calendar year. The 2002 projection of a 2.2% increase in Tucson area personal income is less than the FOP COLA request of 2.5%. The Bureau of Labor Statistics data for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (the index used for increases in the Federal retirement system) indicates that the increase in the Consumer Price Index from March 2001 to March 2002 has been 1.4%. The Town of Marana is considering a request for a 1% COLA adjustment for the next fiscal year. The Management Team feels strongly that the Manager's budget request of a 1.5% COLA for FY 2002-2003 is competitive and reflective of the Town's current ability to pay. 2. WAGE MARKET ADJUSTMENT OF 4.0% and 3. MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF OUR ESTABLISH(ED) STEP PLAN. In addition to the FOP request for a 2.5% COLA adjustment, they have also requested a market adjustment of 4.0%. We assume this entails increasing the step plan by the requested 2.5% COLA amount, and by the 4.0% market adjustment amount. In addition, coupled with the 4.0% step increases included in the Police Pay Plan(for all officers who have not attained Step 9), most officers would receive 6.5%pay increases effective July 1, 2002, and another 4.0% effective with their anniversary date. (Sergeants normally receive 2.5% step increases until they reach the top of their pay scale.) Two years ago (FY 2000-2001) Oro Valley's Police Officers received raises entailing 2.5% COLA adjustments, 10%market adjustments, and 4% step adjustments—an amount, for most of the officers, equal to 16.5%. As a result of those actions, the average Police Officer in Oro Valley is currently paid more than the average Police Officer for either the City of Tucson or the Town of Marana. While the recent actions by the City of Tucson may elevate the salary ranges for Tucson officers slightly higher than those utilized in Oro Valley, officers in the City of Tucson are still paid lower within their ranges than their counterparts with OVPD. Since 1994, records reflect that only four officers from the Oro Valley Police Department have left our agency for police positions with other jurisdictions. We clearly do not appear to have a retention problem. In addition, the City of Tucson has publicly stated that their goal is to create police salary ranges that are 95% of the ranges used in the Phoenix Metropolitan area. Does the Town of Oro Valley want adopt a similar philosophy? The Town Manager's budget proposal for the Town of Oro Valley is based on our current competitive position and our ability to pay. 4. CONCLUSION OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE 480 HOURS, 720 HOURS, 90 DAYS FOR SICK TIME BUY-BACK. Officer Stevenson's memo dated February 25, 2002 was discussed at the second of the 2002 meetings between the FOP committee and the Management Team. It was pointed out to the FOP committee members that the issue addressed in the changes to the Town's Attendance and Leaves Policy (Policy 10) related to the initiation of the plan permitting the conversion of unused sick leave to vacation/annual leave (the "buy-back"process) at the end of each fiscal year. The change was memorialized in Ordinance No. 99-55. Significantly, Ordinance 99-55 retained language relating to the "payout" of unused sick leave at the time of separation for employees. This was, and is, a process which is distinct from the process created by 0 99-55, in that employees may continue to accrue sick leave beyond the 480 hour level which triggers the annual conversion of sick leave to vacation, and receive a benefit for it at retirement. While the Management Team recalls discussion relating to this issue during FY 2001- 2002 meetings with the FOP, nothing was memorialized at that time. In fact the written records of those meetings do not include references to the issue. As noted, this was discussed with the FOP Committee members during the most recent meeting. If the FOP wishes to bring this issue forward, Council needs to be aware that the added liability for paying out unused sick leave at a 480 hour threshold ($114,630) instead of the 720 hour threshold ($27,133) is approximately $87,497. 5. SICK LEAVE BUY-BACK PLAN: a. Part 1 incremental steps based on hours accrued. b. Part 2 incremental steps during employment to reduce the liability to Town after 17 years of service to the Town and prior to retirement. Both of these requests emulate programs in place at the City of Tucson. In Part 1, Tucson has had a policy in place for approximately 12 years which allows the payout of unused sick leave at retirement on a sliding scale with threshold accruals of 720, 480 and 240 hours. The cost of implementing a similar plan for Oro Valley would most likely have a liability higher than that that noted in#4, above, in that the lowest threshold for qualifying for pay out for unused sick leave would be reduced from 720 hours to 240 hours. While the amount paid out at 480 hours is slightly lower in this proposal (40% vs. the 50%payout requested in#4, above), any reduction in the liability under that scenario is lost in the 30%payout requested for the 240 hour threshold. The Part 2 request emulates a program initiated at the City of Tucson two years ago. In that program, Police and Firefighters are allowed to sell back unused sick leave in varying amounts after attaining years-of-service "thresholds." Under the FOP proposal, Police Officers attaining 17-19 years of service would be allowed to sell-back up to 160 hours of unused sick leave each year while maintaining a minimum balance of at least 480 hours. Under this proposal, for higher service levels, employees would be able to sell back higher annual amounts of unused sick leave. Assuming that all existing qualifying balances were sold back in the first two years of eligibility, the costs for the 11 immediately eligible employees would be approximately $102,000. The ongoing costs of the program would dramatically increase as more employees become eligible. r n 6. MEDICAL RETIREMENT BENEFITS. During the February Annual Employee Forum, the representative of Actuarial Business Solutions presented the results of the actuarial study which was conducted during 2001. The cost of implementing the referenced retiree health benefit plan for all Town employees was considered prohibitive by management. Subsequently, the FOP has requested that the existing study be"piecemealed" for application to the sworn Police Staff only. In fact,because the population for the first study was considered as a whole (and the identity of individual employees protected)to determine applicability for the FOP, the study would have to be conducted again, using that population only. The Management Team feels that while Mayor and Council should resolve the original request,the proposal should continue to address the entire employee population of the Town of Oro Valley. 7. INCREASE IN VACATION TO 5 WEEKS AFTER 15 YEARS OF SERVICE. Currently, policy provides for employees to accrue 80 hours of vacation per year for the first five years of employment, 120 hours for years 6-10, and 160 hours for the 11th and succeeding years. The FOP proposal would have an immediate impact of approximately$16,000 per year in costs. This cost would grow appreciably in the next few years,because of the number of employees approaching the 15 year service threshold. It is significant to note that the Town currently grants all employees up to two Personal Days per year. Based on the fact that vacation is accrued in hours and Personal time is granted in days, the two personal days represent the equivalent of one half week of vacation, which is already granted to all town employees. The Management Team does not feel that the 5th week of vacation is necessary or cost effective at this time. 7/1\ , /at/ Jeff Grant, Human Resources Director ` , r 1 Ilk/ L-e , til I k-ii, D, ie S► rp, aP; is Chi /i, Chuck Sweet, To n anager