HomeMy WebLinkAboutPackets - Council Packets (1501) AGENDA
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL
BUDGET STUDY SESSION
MAY 24, 2000
ORO VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11,000 N. LA CANADA DRIVE
STUDY SESSION
CALL TO ORDER — AT OR AFTER 6:30 P.M.
ROLL CALL
1. BUDGET REVIEW:
A. Review of Follow-up issues from 5/22/00 Budget Review Session
6:30 p.m. Police Department - General Fund Pages 249-326
7:15 p.m. Police Department - Seizure Funds Pages 327-340
7:30 p.m. Fraternal Order of Police #53 Wage and
Benefit Negotiations Proposal
7:45 p.m. Legal Department — General & Seizure Funds Pages 124-145
8:00 p.m. Magistrate Court Pages 341-350
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: 05/23/00
10:00 a.m.
LH
I tib
A .
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
afr21/
FROM: Chuck Sweet, Town Mana
David Andrews, Finance Director D')c'
DATE: May 24, 2000
SUBJ: Follow-up Issues from May 22 Budget Review Session
A number of issues were raised during the Mayor and Council's Budget Review
Session of May 22. This memorandum serves as staff follow-up to those issues.
1. Issue: First aid kits in addition to fire extinguishers in all Town
vehicles
Response: Staff will research and implement this suggestion and ensure
that all Town employees are properly informed of the appropriate use of
fire extinguishers in the event of a vehicle fire.
2. Issue: Funding for GIS Master Plan
Response: Concern was expressed that the redirection of the $12,000
in funding originally identified as consultants for Sierra permitting
applications would hinder Planning & Zoning's enforcement efforts. The
Community Development Director has indicated this would not be the
case and supports the recommendation to redirect the funding for a GIS
master plan.
3. Issue: Public Works — Rubber Tire Compacter/Pickup Trucks
Response: The Town Engineer has requested that $68,000 in CIP
funding for a rubber tire compacter be redirected toward the acquisition of
three pickup trucks. Staff is recommending that this request be approved.
4. Issue: Oracle Road Roadway Improvement District —Administrative
Costs
Response: Estimated administrative/engineering costs of $375,000 will
be shown in the budget as a separate line item. Total budget will remain
at $2.5M for the project.
5. Issue: Contract Janitorial Services
Response: Funded amount should be reduced from the original $80,000
amount to $46,000 pursuant to the recent award of bid. Resultant
savings is $34,000.
6 Issue: Additional facilities maintenance employee
Response: Staff believes that the need exists but that an additional
employee should not be added this upcoming fiscal year due to budgetary
constraints.
7. Issue: Budget on Laptop
Response: Staff will explore the feasibility of delivering the budget on
laptop computers.
Staff appreciates the opportunity to review these items with the Town Council.
CC: Bill Jansen, Town Engineer
Brent Sinclair, Community Development Director
Air 0
A Fraternal Order of Police #53
--,,,L, s.�spR`
_ r�� , Oro Valley Lodge
—4-,,, 4,..3
V ''44::::: 1
poR,'
P.O. Box 68382 Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
TO: Chuck Sweet, Town Manager
Paul Parisi, Council member
Jeff Grant, Human Resource Director
Daniel Sharp, Chief of Police
FROM: F.O.P. Negotiating Committee
RE: 2000/2001 Wage and Benefit Negotiations Proposal
DATE: May 22, 2000
Gentlemen,
On 5-17-00 the commissioned officers of the Oro Valley Police Department met to discuss the
Wage and Benefit proposal response from the Town of Oro Valley. The packet was discussed
and voted on by a majority of the commissioned officers. A consensus decision was reached
and is as follows.
2.5% of salary— COLA $ 68,333
10.0% of salary -- pay parity adjustment to the current pay scale $ 273,334
(Includes town proposal of$136,667)
Current assignment pay classifications
remain at the current flat dollar rate. $ 0
$ 341,667
FY 2000-2001 $ 173,642
Additional Funding Requirements $ 168,025
Town's proposal additional funding requirements $ 101,050
Total adjustments needed $ 67,025
The other parts of the original proposal submitted to the town could be reviewed in the next
fiscal year. (Excluding the public safety retirement adjustments, which should be adjusted as
soon as possible)
The officers felt that while the original proposal would be the most effective in keeping the Oro
Valley Police Department competitive, more importantly, it would enable us to maintain a high
level of professionalism and the quality service that our community has come to expect. We are
also keeping in mind the current fiscal situation of the town and wanted to show our support.
Respectfully Submitted,
James Bloomfield, F.O.P. 53 President
Charles Trujillo, Negotiating Committee Chairman
Ed Holdinski, Negotiating Committee member
Liz Wright, Negotiating Committee Member
Jason Larter, Negotiating Committee member
A
Alf9,3,*.
�� Ivi%„....4„: '�� Fraternal Order of Police #53
,k
Oro Valley Lodge
ei.ivo
frArsA
P.O. Box 68382 Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
Oro Valley Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #53
Wage and Benefit Proposal
Fiscal Year 2000/2001
Respectfully Submitted,
James Bloomfield, F.O.P. 53 President
Charles Trujillo, Negotiating Committee Chairman
Ed Holdinsky, Negotiating Committee Member
Liz Wright, Negotiating Committee Member
Jason Larter, Negotiating Committee Member
This packet replaces all previous documents received prior to 3-20-00
1
APT°efRT�
_ ov- Fraternal Order of Police #53
JS
y eS-:.� s 3
�; Oro Valley Lodge
p4ur
P.O. Box 68382 Oro Valley, Arizona 85737
TO: Town of Oro Valley Wage Negotiation Committee
FROM: F.O.P. Negotiating Committee
RE: 2000/2001 Wage and Benefit Negotiations Proposal
DATE: March 15, 2000
Gentlemen,
Enclosed is the complete version of the F.O.P. wage and benefit proposal for fiscal year
2000/2001. The F.O.P. has identified several areas which we feel will directly affect our
ability to maintain the high quality service currently provided to the community.
The first part of the plan addresses pay parity issues which are developing between the
Oro Valley and Tucson Police Departments. It is anticipated that T.P.D. is going to
become much more attractive to potential and current police officers living in the metro
area. This will adversely affect our ability to attract and retain quality personnel, which
the community has received in the past.
The next concern addresses methods to retain the people who currently possess the
training and expertise that is needed to maintain the level of service that the community
has grown to expect. The F.O.P is proposing several incentive-based pay programs that
will encourage officers to continue to improve their abilities, skills and experience. It is
the feeling of the F.O.P. that by encouraging retention and growth with our current
officers we can reduce the amount of turnover, maintain morale and better serve the
community we work for.
The F.O.P. hopes that the partnership formed last year with the Town of Oro Valley can
serve as the foundation for the future. It is in both our interests to prevent foreseeable
issues from allowing the safety and lifestyle of the community to be adversely affected.
Other communities in the metro area have allowed this to happen and have not yet
caught up or recovered from declines in quality-of-life issues.
Respectfully,
F.O.P. Negotiating Committee
2
Table of Contents
Cover Sheet Page 1
Executive Summary Page 2
Table of Contents Page 3
Table of Graphs Page 3
Problem Statement Page 4
Goal Statement Page 4
Problem Analysis Page 4
Recommendation Page 4
Implementation Plan Page 5
Project Evaluation Page 5
Proposed Assignment Pay Page 6
Proposed Pay Adjustments Page 7
Projected Costs Page 8
Table of Graphs
Oro Valley/TPD Officer Pay Comparison Page 9
Oro Valley/TPD Detectives Pay Comparison Page10
Oro Valley Cpl. / TPD LPO Pay Comparison Pagell
Oro Valley/TPD Sgt.'s Pay Comparison Page 12
Appendix A
Wall Street Journal Article, Tuesday, March 14, 2000
Section B, Column 1
3
Problem Statement
The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #53 has identified several employment
parity areas that, if not addressed, could hamper the ability of the police
department to recruit and retain the quality of employees it has in the past. The
F.O.P. is also looking at new ways to retain employees who have the training and
experience that contribute to the health and wellness of the Town of Oro Valley.
Goal Statement
The F.O.P. and the Town of Oro Valley will work in a collaborative effort to
maintain parity and address retention issues that will enable both parties to
continue to provide the high level of service which Oro Valley expects and
deserves.
Problem Analysis
Current pay scales are not in parity with the Tucson Police Department. The
Tucson Police Department and other agencies with whom we compete for
qualified officer candidates, offer a greater variety of additional pay incentives to
encourage current employees to learn new skills and keep experience from
leaving the department.
Recommendation
The F.O.P. is proposing the following adjustments for the fiscal year 2000 /2001:
• A ten percent pay parity adjustment and cost of living increase to our current
pay scale.
• An education incentive program
• Modification of the current assignment pay amount from flat dollar amount to
five (5) percent of base pay.
• Additional assignment pay status for three assignments.
4
Implementation Plan and Project Evaluation
A council approved plan would be implemented on the first day of the fiscal year.
The proposal would be evaluated by the following means:
• Comparison of staffing and retention levels of current employees at the Oro
Valley Police Department.
• Comparison of the high quality level of service currently provided from the
department.
The following pages and pay scales illustrate pay and assignment discrepancies.
5
Proposed Assignment Pay
Oro Valley Police Department
Assignment Pay Scale
Assignment Percentage Ofc. Cpl. Det. Sgt.
K-9 5% 2 1
Motor 5% 4
Bicycle 5% 2 1 1
SRO/ Dare 5% 4
Investigator 5% 1
SWAT 5% 5 1 2 1
Total By Rank 18 2 2 3
Department Total 25
Percentage of Officers with Special Assignments 41%
Field Training Officer Assignment Pay
Field Training Officers will be paid at a rate of 5 percent per pay period when they are
field training beginning officers.
(4 hours per pay period or 0.5 hours per day based on a 10-hour workday)
The percentage of Field Training Officers varies depending on the need.
Education Incentive Pay Scale
Degree Percentage Total
AA Degree 2.50% 9
Bachelors Degree 5.00% 14
Masters or Above 7.50% 1
Department Total 24
Percentage of Officer with Degrees 39%
6
Oro Valley Police Department
Proposed Pay Plan
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Current Pay Current Pay _Current Pay Current Pay Current Pay
Proposed Adjustment 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%
OFFICER 14.85 16.335 15.43 16.973 16.05 17.655 16.7 18.37 17.37 19.107
DETECTIVE 15.79 17.369 16.37 18.007 16.99 18.689 17.64 19.404 18.31 20.141
CORPORAL 15.79 17.369 16.37 18.007 16.99 18.689 17.64 19.404 18.31 20.141
SERGEANT 22.61 24.871 23.17 25.487 23.76 26.136 24.35 26.785 24.96 27.456
Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9
Current Pay Current Pay Current Pay Current Pay
Proposed Adjustment 10% 10% 10% 10%
OFFICER 18.06 19.866 18.79 20.669 19.54 21.494 20.32 22.352
DETECTIVE 19.00 20.9 19.73 21.9 20.48 22.73 21.26 23.59
CORPORAL 19.00 20.9 19.73 21.9 20.48 22.73 21.26 23.59
SERGEANT 25.58 28.138 N/A 0 0 0
Oro Valley Police Department/ Tucson Police Department Pay Scale Comparison
Step I Step 2 Step 3 _Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Step 8 Step 9
Current OV Sgt. 47,028 48,200 49,415 50,653 51,914 53,206 _
Proposed 0 V Sgt. 51,731 53,020 54,357 55,718 57,105 58,527
TPD Sgt. 50,028 52,529 55,156 57,914
TPD Sgt.Assign. Pay 52,560 55,188 57,947 60,845
Lead Officer(Cpl.) 32,843 34,050 35,339 36,691 38,085 39,520 41038 42,598 44,221
Proposed Cpl. 36,127 37,455 38,873 40,360 41,894 43,472 45142 46,858 48,643
TPD LPO 40,006 42,006 44,106 46,312 48,627 52,491 55,116 57,871
Detective 32,843 34,050 35,339 36,691 38,085 39,520 41038 42,598 44,221
Proposed Det. 36,127 37,455 38,873 40,360 41,894 43,472_ 45142 46,858 48,643
TPD Detective 35,607 37,387 39,256 41,219 43,280' 45,444 47716 50,102
Current P. Officer 30,887 32,103 33,385 34,736 36,132 37,573 39,082 40,635 42,260
Proposed P. Officer 33,976 35,313 36,724 38,210 39,745 41,330 42,990 44,699 46,486
TPD Police Officer 33,915 35,611 37,391 39,261 41,224 43,285 45,449 47,722
TPD P.O.Assign. Pay 37,389 39,258 41,221 43,282 45,446 47,719 50,105 52,610
Recruit 23,920
7
Oro Valley Pay Step Plan Mar-00
Proposed Ten Percent
Increase of Current Base Salary
Cost per step
Officer Cpl. Det. Officer Cpl. /Det. Sgt.
Step 1 2 $6,085.00 $9,402.00
Step 2 9 $28,829.00
Step 3 6 $20,093.00
Step 4 5 $17,368.00
Step 5 3 $10,858.00 $5,200.00
Step 6 4 2 $15,059.00 $7,904.00 $26,624.00
Step 7 0 2 2 $16,390.00
Step 8 1 $4,077.00
Step 9 13 1 $54,891.00 $4,430.00
,,•. d fid.:.^x ,
,.�.����. �5'-3♦�,tet.7�1i,.}.1>sV v5!..^r �t..tC.:.'�.<.•♦C:�':•;;eyi++ -,y;.-:v WY.'..♦tic•�t;;i j•e•,,Z.r.'lz
r"..,af•_'...r y�..:'o.,l:h,.`�.�.•..c♦.c.,..gr-.j'ik a♦' .. T i...r$.� {. :: $
J 4,�'t
n`ry
41 / Y
a
.-
Tote $P74;19,90
..._.._.
Sgt.
Step1 2
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 5 1
Step 6 5
Percentage of Officers Topped Out 35%
Percentage of Sgt.'s Topped Out 63%
Avg. step level in years/Ofc. 5
Avg. step level in years/Cpl. 7
Avg.step level in years/ Det. 8
Avg. step level in years/Sgt. 5
Officer Corporal Detective Sergeant Total
Avg. current cost $1,553,573 $164,154.00 $127,794.00 $415,336.00 2,260,857.00
Avg. proposed cost $1,709,198 $180,544.00 $140,586.,00 $456,9,34.00_ 2,487,262 00
..ac...Y, .u. «♦.,t•, _�`...>i�' �'n.,. 1�.-1t;(',.>•...-.�, `^'.>. � a�;t^� ,:�." _2,,487,262:p0
,�_v.�r�-_yf
1 2
a�. ,/,�,.�t. ♦.Fc> �.+'� .'�5`• :��7�.a�y�r��.�, � y ,.......!..rs..,:�J�.'>�.,,�+�....,..,.\....�•..,.,...�. ..����i'".;�:'a...t�f���F�...**
8
Oro Valley Police Officer Pay Comparison
60,000— ._____.__..._
50,000—/
c
40,000—L t=7"' __ , -�---'�
Q 4 ::: •
ri
: : .;,,,
00 1
30,000—r' ` D Current Police Officer
O op;0. O
❑TTP PolicePolice Officer
, i'.:
, _
i.
❑TPD P.O.w e /Assign. Payfficer
`
20,000—
, [4
10,000—- A, ,' i,'
1
{
i
' trt .
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Steps
Graph 1. Illustrates the pay discrepancies between the Oro Valley and the
Tucson Police Department. Currently the Oro Valley Police Department has 43
Officers. They are at the following pay steps:
Step 1 2 Step 6 4
Step 2 9 Step 7 0
Step 3 6 Step 8 1
Step 4 5 Step 9 13
Ste. 5 3
Officers step level information is correct to the best of our records. Step adjustments may be necessary in a
few cases. TPD pay scale only goes up to step 8
9
Oro ValleyPolice Department Detectives PayComparison
,_
60,000-
. ._.:.
50,000-r ,
: - id,,,
40000- ...r -: -
{,
, -
'. i . ".
30,000-v 11 I - : � � � " ' '_
0 Detective
1 ill Proposed Det.
Y 0 TPD Detective
'':,
g i
1:1'',,r,
20,000-f t i E
I.
PPI 1 i ,a
p
t P y
_ ;. r a
10,000-
1 i , ,
Fj
,' r,
i ..."'.-*'" I —..'*--.11r.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Steps
Graph 2. Illustrates the pay comparison between the Oro Valley Police
Department Detectives and the Tucson Police Department Detectives. Currently
the Oro Valley Police Department has three Detectives at the following steps:
Step 7 2
Step 9 1
Detectives step level information is correct to the best of our records. Step adjustments may be necessary in a few
cases. TPD Pay scale only goes to step 8
10
CpI. LPO PayComparison
___
60,000—
- 1
50,000—
I
0,000—
I jffiri3
, / ,
40,000—' ••�
° - i 4
a
•
` i ??Bili ,
30,000 f z ;:
{ D Lead Officer(Cpl.)
, i '''i
EN Proposed Cpl.
� ❑TPD LPO
i i
4, •y r ,,
, ,,.
____. , , 4
20
,000—v' F;
_
y g
10,000—ft
Is ;". ,
.
0_ ' l'tkit,--., ._ _ 1,:,,t;..._ —- . t'-':,t3—...i.'__—____ , -'! ._.....' ".,'',...,,,____.;,...--____:____' - ,
I t I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Steps
Graph 3. Illustrates the pay discrepancies between the Oro Valley Police
Department and the Tucson Police Department. Currently the Oro Valley Police
Department has four Cpl.'s; They are at the following pay steps:
Step 6 2
Step 7 2
Cpl,s,step level information is correct to the best of our records. Step adjustments may be necessary in a few cases,
TPD pay scale only goes up to step 8
11
Oro Valley Sgt.'s PayComparison
70,000
:',
I
.Q
60,000— J
50,000— . -
.
I
8
ill 7,1. ii,
40,000—v
xL '
. ..;,,
9
❑Current OV Sgt.
; ,.
{ i ®Proposed OV Sgt.
30,000—
0 TPD Sgt.
; v r. . 11''-
0 TPD Sgt.w/Assign. Pay
N
0 .
20,000-7
i
,
: '.%.i
0,000-
4
'
i
10,000—
' ' ' ' —At ——-ri_. ____, — _ -
1 2 3 4 5 6
Steps
Graph 4. Illustrates the pay discrepancies between the Oro Valley Police
Department and the Tucson Police Department. Currently the Oro Valley Police
Department has eight Sgt.'s. They are at the following pay steps:
Step 1 2
Step 5 1
Step 6 5
TPD Sgt s currently begin at step five on their scale. For comparison sake, the graph was adjusted to illustrate a similar
comparison for beginning Sgt.'s, TPD also has only four steps in their pay plan.
Sgt.'s,step level information is correct to the best of our records. Step adjustments may be necessary in a few cases.
12
Appendix A:
Wall Street Journal Article, Tuesday, March 14, 2000
Section B, Column 1
13
Holding Onto Talent:
The Best Defense Is
A Pre-Emptive Strike
These Days, It seems that hardly a week goes by without a friend or colleague announcing that he or she is
taking a job with a new employer.
Some are launching new careers at dot-corn start-ups. Others are moving to more traditional companies, lured
by promotions, better pay or sometimes just the chance to be someplace new. Regardless of where they are
going, their departure stirs consternation among those who remain behind.
The feeling goes beyond the immediate aggravation of having to do extra work until replacements are found.
Those not heading for the door invariably question why they haven't gotten offers.They begin to wonder whether
they should be calling headhunters and networking with prospective bosses. They worry that by sticking with one
employer, they are hurting their chance to advance. As one of my friends confided,"I feel jealous, even though I
don't want to go anywhere. I can't help thinking why did he get tapped and not me?I worry that nobody knows I
exist."Those who are left behind in the greatest American job test in history can't help but feel like a wallflower.
They're standing still while others are ring new frontiers.
For managers who aren't eyeing the door themselves, the rapid staff turnover in their midst presents a double
challenge: Just when they are devoting more time to finding new talent, they have to find ways to encourage old
ones to stay. Often, that second challenge gets short shrift. Some managers dangle money in front of departing
employees in an effort to woo them back, but fail to reward those who haven't left their desks.They take them for
granted, providing little in the way of mentoring or appreciation.The job of retaining talent must begin long before
a valued employee is weighing another offer.
At Shaw Supermarkets in Boston, Ruth Bramson, senior vice president of human resources, is urging every
manager to become more retention focused. `Competition for people is so great today that trying to retain them is
an uphill battle,"she says. Shaw has become a hunting ground for other supermarket chains and retailers, she
notes. It also is struggling to retain employees acquired with its takeover of star Markets last year.
What does she recommend? For one thing, compensation packages that are at least on par with competitors.
"You are not even in the game if you don't offer that,"Ms. Bramson says."Employees want the opportunity to
enrich themselves through options these days,"she adds, and will go where they can get them.
But money isn't everything."People don't work for companies so much as they work for other people,"Ms.
Bramson says. As much as they want D be fairly paid, they also crave recognition, the opportunity to develop their
skills, and the chance to work they find meaningful.Those who don't feel that their assignments are challenging or
fun are much more likely to put themselves into play than
At SHAW, Ms. Bramson urges managers, in individual coaching sessions and group training seminars, to make
certain they are mentoring their employees and giving them lots of opportunities to grow. She recommends
frequent cross-functional transfers so employees can move from working in stores to marketing and technological
jobs—and acquire a range of experience."People need newness to feel excited about what they are doing,"she
says.;She also warns managers not to hang on to talented employees but to make certain they get promoted.
"You'll ll lose people a lot quicker it you hold them back,"she says.
Shaw ties a portion of managers'compensation to their ability to retain employees. "We've seen that most of our
high potential people come from managers who truly nurture their people,"says Ms. Bramson.
Other companies, such as Target Stores, United Technologies and Hartford Life Insurance are coaching
managers to do a better job of retaining staff. In training seminars they are reminding managers to make sure
employees have the chance to speak up and be listened to. It isn't rocket science,"says Karen Grabow, vice
president of human resources at Target, which asks employees, "Does your supervisor care about you as a
person?"A more difficult challenge is making sure talented employees get the chance to do work that makes them
feel they are making a difference.
Certainly, every boss can expect to lose some employees.Talented workers are bound to get offers so lucrative
there is no way to keep them. Others need a change of venue to advance their careers. "But managers who do
nothing to care for employees are going to lose them in droves,"says Beverly Kaye, a consultant whose basic
advice to companies is also the title of her book,"Love'Em or Lose'Em."
The worst boss is the one who says of a departing employee,"I'll replace him easily,"or"he didn't fit in
anyway."If colleagues overhear remarks like that they'll wonder if they, too, are considered expendable.
The rapid turnover at most companies today can be an opportunity for managers to help their employees, and
themselves, grow. By allowing the question,"Should I leave?"to surface, both managers and employees can
define what exactly they need to stay.
Wall Street Journal Article
Tuesday, March 14, 2000