Draft Min - Impasse Hearing 5-5-08MINUTES OF THE HEARING HELD IN ATLANTIC BEACH COMMISSION CHAMBERS AT
6:06 PM ON MONDAY, MAY 5, 2008 TO SETTLE THE IMPASSE IN NEGOTIATIONS
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AND NORTHEAST FLORIDA PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' LOCAL 630, LNNA, AFL-CIO BLUE COLLAR AND WHITE COLLAR
UNIONS
Present: John S. Meserve, Mayor
Mike Borno, Mayor Pro Tern
John Fletcher, Commissioner
Absent: Paul B. Parsons, Commissioner (excused absence)
Carolyn Woods, Commissioner
Also: Jim Hansan, City Manager
Alan C. Jensen, City Attorney
Nancy Bailey, Administrative Assistant to City Clerk
Andy Bemis, Union Negotiator
Jack Baldwin, Union Steward
George Foster, City Negotiator
The Mayor called the meeting to order at 6:06 pm and explained this hearing was for the purpose of
resolving an impasse in contract negotiations with the City and Northeast Florida Public Employees'
Loca1630, LIUNA, AFL-CIO Blue Collar and White Collaz Unions and asked the City Attorney to
explain the legal standpoint of the hearing.
Alan Jensen explained, under Chapter 447 of the Florida Statutes, there is a procedure set forth for
the resolution of impasses which requires, at this stage, for the City Commission, acting as a
legislative body, to conduct a public hearing. He stated at that public hearing both sides are required
to explain their positions with respect to the impasse issues after which the floor will be open to
public comments. The Commission will then take action as it deems to be in the public interest,
which would include the interest of the public employees involved, to resolve all disputed issues.
The Mayor reiterated it is the duty of this legislative body to take such action as it deems to be in the
public interest, including the interest of the public employees, to resolve all disputed impasse issues,
stating these procedures are intended to provide the parties with an opportunity to present their
position and have their position fully and fairly considered. He stated there aze two issues, (1)
pension vesting change from five to ten yeazs for new employees, and (2) the effective date of the
employee pay raises. Mayor Meserve explained the procedures that would be used tonight, stating
each party would have ten minutes to present their case with three minutes allowed for rebuttal,
following which the public would be given an opportunity to address the City Commission and
would be asked to limit their remarks to three minutes. He explained the City would go first since
they declared the impasse. Fallowing the presentations and public comments, the City Commission
may ask questions and then will render a decision on the issues at impasse.
George Foster, Chief Negotiator for the City, stated prior to addressing the impasse issues he
would address the issues within the Union letter dated Apri14, 2008, as provided to the City and City
Commissioners on the impasse items. He explained the date of the letter is Apri14, and it`was his
understanding that it was hand delivered to the Commissioners on April 11, but was not received by
the City until April 16, with a postmark of April 1 S, 2008. He stated the letter indicates the City
came to negotiations with six items, plus wages to negotiate, which is in violation of the Union
contract. He stated this was not correct, there were only three articles plus wages presented for
negotiations. He stated, in the City's August 2 letter to the Union, it identified Articles 7,1 1, and 20,
plus wages for negotiation. Mr. Foster further stated the Union did not propose to open any Articles
at the first negotiation session. He stated the Union further incorrectly indicated within their letter
that the City proposed changes to health insurance. He stated the City did discuss with the Union the
changes being made to health insurance and the options the City considered and the City did propose
changing general employee pension vesting for new hires from five years to ten years. He stated the
Union's letter indicates they accepted the City's pay proposal, however, they did so only after they
had pay proposal increases submitted that were higher than those proposed by the City and only later
agreed to accept the City's wage offer. He stated the Union letter indicated they pulled the top out
bonus item off the table, which he stated was withdrawn at one meeting but was reintroduced at the
next meeting. He stated this item was also listed within those items for impasse in the Union's
summary of open items for the Special Magistrate hearing. He explained during negotiations the
Union requested five items: a higher pay increase than proposed by the City; an increase to
employee comp time accrual rates; an increase to longevity pay; an addition to a cost of living top
out bonus for employees at the maximum pay; and a shift differential pay. He explained the City did
declare impasse in writing only after the Union had consistently stated they would never agree to
change pension vesting for new employees to ten years. Mr. Foster then presented the City's
position on the issues at impasse, as follows:
Pension vesting:
Referring to Tab 8, Exhibit PV 7 in the green notebook (which is attached and made part of
this Official Record as Attachment A), Mr. Foster explained the reasons the City wanted to
change pension vesting from five to ten years was to reduce the overall cost of the pension
plan to the City and to ensure pension benefits are provided to long term employees rather
than short term employees. He stated the funded ratio (the extent that the plan assets cover
the plan liabilities) has been relatively steady and is currently '72.4%. He stated the unfunded
actuarial accrued liability (which indicates the excess of any of the plan liabilities over
assets) has been increasing and is currently at 90.6%. He stated generally the smaller these
numbers, the stronger the pension plan but both of these numbers have trends that have been
going in the wrong direction. Mr. Foster also referred to Tab 8, Exhibit PV 8 (which is
attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment B), which he stated indicates
2
an example of the benefit for an employee with five yeazs of service upon retirement and
believes the current plan provides for a relatively generous benefit. He stated the City is
recommending pension vesting be changed for new employees only from five years to ten
years.
2. Effective date of pay increases for employees
Referring to the City Manager's letter, dated Apri17, Mr. Foster read the following excerpt,
"The past practice of the City Commission has been to provide retroactivity for pay when the
impasse is resolved. Non-union City employees received raises on October 1 ~' and the raises
are budgeted for all City employees for a full year. However, full retroactivity does not
encourage timely resolution of Union issues. Input from the Unions should be received prior
to the budget workshops in August so that the Mayor and Commissioners can take their
concerns into consideration. During negotiation sessions last year, the first meeting could
not be scheduled until August 2 and the Union came to the first negotiation session with no
items to negotiate. At the following negotiating meetings, the Union added items and/or
changed items, but never had any counter proposals for the City's request to change pension
vesting for new employees. At the special magistrate hearing, the Union submitted a verbal
counter proposal that they would be willing to have employee pension contribution rates
increase in order to maintain the current five year pension vesting. The City Commission
should determine if any, or full, retroactivity of pay is appropriate." Mr. Foster reiterated the
union requested a higher pay increase than proposed by the City, an increase to employee
comp time accrual retention, an increase to longevity pay, an addition to an increase in the
cost of living, a top out bonus for employees at their maximum pay and a shift differential
pay.
Andy Bemis, Business Manager and Chief Negotiator for Loca1630, explained the City and the
Union hit a deadlock in negotiations which led the City to declare impasse. He stated the Union did
not feel as though negotiations had reached that point. He stated both sides then presented their sides
to the Special Magistrate who rejected the Union's proposal for top out bonus and increase in
longevity but agreed that the pay increase should be retroactive to October 1, 2007. He stated the
Special Magistrate compromised on the pension vesting for new employees by recommending seven
years. At that point the Union was willing to accept the Special Magistrate's recommendations, but
the City rejected them, which is why they are here tonight. He stated the pay increase was budgeted
effective October 1, 2007 but what is in question is the fact that the City's pay proposal and the
pension vesting proposal were presented as a package deal. He stated he contests that, stating they
were presented at the same time, but were not presented as a package deal. Refemng to Exhibit H of
the Union's package (which is attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment C) he
stated the Union agreed to the City's proposals in September. Referring to Exhibit R (which is
attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment D), he stated it never implies that the
two proposals are a package deal until the minutes from the October 1, 2007 meeting. He stated the
3
Union had already agreed to the City's proposal, prior to the October 1 meeting. Mr. Bemis
presented the Union's position on the issues at impasse, as follows:
1. Pension vesting:
The Union opposed the pension proposal because they have already made several
concessions to the pension plan in the last few years. Mr. Bemis referred to Exhibit 8, PV-1
(which is attached and made part of this Official Record as Attachment E) which indicates
the history of the changes made to the pension plan in the past. He also stated the funded and
unfunded liabilities did change in the year after that for the better. He stated the Union does
not believe the changes made over the past few years have been given enough time to have
the effect as intended. He stated the new proposal has come too soon.
2. Effective date of pay increases for employees
Mr. Bemis stated he believes the City is threatening the Union and the employees with no
retroactivity to send a message that if they don't agree with what the City wants there will be
a penalty, which is an act of retaliation. He requested the Commission make an unbiased,
fair and just decision as the morale and financial stability of many of the employees depend
on it.
During rebuttal, Mr. Foster stated Union negotiations this year have been very disappointing and
frustrating due to misinformation being distributed. He stated the Union stated they would never
agree to change the vesting to ten years and at some point during negotiations you have to declare an
impasse when there are no counter proposals. He stated the City asked the Union to waive the
Special Magistrate hearing and come directly to the Commission but the Union did not agree. He
stated based on funding levels and trends, it was recommended by the pension committee to change
the pension plan from a defined benefit plan to a defined contribution plan. He stated the City does
nat believe that is in the best interest of the employees and would like to keep the current plan, but
must get the costs under control.
During rebuttal, Mr. Bemis addressed the issue of the City contesting bringing six articles to the
negotiations. Referring to Exhibit A (which is attached and made part of this Official Record as
Attachment F) of the Union package, he stated it shows more than six articles and although some are
listed as for discussion, when they were brought forward to the negotiations, the Union saw them as
potential articles of negotiation. He stated because of this excess, it created a situation where the
Union was not ready to bring forward their articles because the City's proposal was vague. Referring
to Mr. Foster's statement that retroactive pay does not promote timely resolution of the issues, he
stated the Union agreed to the pay proposal prior to October 1, 2007. He also contested the fact that
the Union extended the negotiations because of going to the Special Magistrate. He stated there was
a period of approximately 1 1/2 months where there were no meetings because Mr. Foster chase to
wait for the new City Commission elections so they could have a shade meeting with the new
4
Commission. He stated he believed Mr. Foster could have met with the prior Commission. He
believes the Union did not delay the negotiations any more than the City did. He agreed the
negotiations were disappointing this yeaz, but believes the Union has been upfront and honest. He
stated if impasse had not been declared by the City, they may have been able to come to a
compromise about the vesting which would have been favorable to both sides.
The Mayor opened the Public Hearing, explained the procedures and invited comments from the
audience.
Susan Gorman, 201 Colima Ct., Ponte Vedra, addressed the Commission requesting they consider
the proposal by the Special Magistrate.
Gil Flores, 271 Sailfish Drive E., addressed the Commission regazding the retroactive pay.
Michael Fields, Jacksonville, spoke in support of the retroactivity of the pay increases back to
October 1.
Jack Baldwin,1516 Bentin Drive N., Jacksonville Beach, stated the Union was misled and all he
is asking for is retroactive pay back to October 1.
Patty Drake, Neptune Beach, believes the employees should be paid retroactive and stated the City
has a lot of hard working dedicated employees who deserve the raises they were promised in an
email from the City Manager on August 24, 2007.
Glen Spencer, 2652 Moorefield Lane, Jacksonville, stated the Commission passed a budget on
September 24 for fiscal yeaz 2007-2008 which included all raises for both union and non-union
employees but 64% of the City's dedicated employees still have not received their raises.
Desmond Green, 6935 Alana Road, stated he believes the City threatening to not pay retroactivity
is wrong and believes the pension issue should be the only issue on the table.
Karen Kempf, 1501 Challenger Ct. W., addressed the Commission regazding retroactivity stating
the merit pay was based on the previous year's evaluations that were approved by the City Manager
and Commission. She stated in all fairness the retroactivity should be paid as of October 1, 2007.
Jeri Benjamin, Deputy Finance Director, addressed the Commission regarding the pension
vesting. She believes ten-year vesting would put the City in a competitive disadvantage with the
other neighboring cities because both Jacksonville Beach and Jacksonville have five-year vesting.
Regarding the retroactivity, and speaking as a supervisor, she also stated there has been very poor
employee morale for the past eight months. She stated she believes the employees truly deserve
retroactivity back to October 1, 2007.
5
Since no one else wished to speak the Mayor closed the public comments and the City Commission
addressed each issue individually.
1. Pension Vesting
Commissioner Fletcher stated it was his understanding that the vesting issue affects nobody
currently employed by the City and believes a defined benefit pension plan will eventually
bankrupt the City. He stated the City should look at moving to a defined contribution plan.
He believes the 10-year vesting should be approved.
Commissioner Borno stated the Pension Review Committee suggested the pension plan be
reviewed after five years and that time is here. He also believes it is unfair that one issue is
being held hostage by the other issue and this should not happen in the future.
Commissioner Fletcher stated, during the budget process, the funds were determined for
merit and cost of living increases and asked whether that was affected by the decision to go
from a five to ten year vesting schedule. City Manager Jim Hanson stated there were several
cuts and changes proposed for the City budget and he and George Foster worked up a plan to
provide the recommended merit and cost of living raises. One of the budget items those
funds came from was the savings anticipated from the change in the vesting from five to ten
years.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it was true that when the Union came to the table on August
2, it had no issues. Andy Bemis stated the Union held everything back until they were clear
regarding the issues brought up by the City proposal.
Commissioner Borno stated the issue of benefits will have changes in the future that will
have to be looked at but believes during future negotiations it needs to be done with an open
mind, rather than the way this vesting issue was handled, which only affects new hires.
Jack Baldwin stated the Union understands there will be changes in the future, but they ask
that they be presented on the table in a straight forward manner. He also stated on the
recording of the budget meeting there is no mention that the two items, vesting and pay
raises, were connected.
Commissioner Borno moved to adopt the City's position regarding changing the
pension vesting from five to ten years for new employees. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Fletcher. The motion carried unanimously.
2. Retroactive Pay Raises
Regarding the merit pay raises, Mayor Meserve recommended it be paid retroactive from
October 1, 2007. Since the delay was the fault of both parties, he recommended retroactivity
6
for the cost of living raise be from January 1, 2008.
Commissioner Borno moved to make merit pay raises retroactive to October 1, 2007
and cost of living raises retroactive to January 1, 2008. Commissioner Fletcher
seconded.
Mayor Meserve asked whether the merit pay raise is for work done previously and judged at
the end of the year. Mr. Foster stated merit pay is based on the evaluation of the previous
twelve months.
Following a brief discussion, the motion carried unanimously.
Mayor Meserve adjourned the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
John S. Meserve
Mayor/Presiding Officer
ATTEST:
Nancy E. Bailey
Administrative Assistant to City Clerk
7
ATTACHMENT A
~E{~dJ~, { D SUPPLEMEN'I'A1ZY INFORMATI{~N
SC~DULE OF FUNDING PROGRESS@ ,
Actuarial
Accrued Active Unfunded AAL as
Actuarial Liability Participan# a Percentage of
Value of (AAL) Entry Unfunded &'unded Covered Active Member
Valuation Assets age AAL Ratio Payroll Covered Payroll
Date @ ~a)# (b) ~)-~a) ~a)~~) Cc) ~~-a~c)
1994 $4,549 $6,061 $1,512 75.1 % $3,068 49.3
1995 5,546 7,200 1,654 77.0 3,054. 54.2
1996 6,517 8,290 1,773 78.6 3,107 57.1
1997 7,435. 9,275 1,840 80.2 3,305 55.7
1998 8,457 10,404 1,947 81.3 3,609 53,9
1998(w/o Fire) 7,127 9,144 2,017 .77.9 3,007 67.1
1999 4,650 5,796 1,146 $0.2 2,185 52.4
2000 5,229 6,462 1,233 80.9 2,330 52.9
.2001 * 5,587 6,986 1,399 80.0 2,462 56.8
2002 5,747 7,479 1,732 76.8 2,768 62.6
2003 * 5,951 8,186 2,235 72.7 2,856 78.3
' 2004 6,273 9,005 2,732 69.7 3,051 89.5
2005 * 6,802 ~ 9,822 3,020 69.3 3,182 94.9
2006 * 7,609 10,505 2,896 .72.4 3,195 90.6
;Dollar amomsts are in thousands.
• After changes to benefits and/or actuarial assumptions and/or actuarial cost methods.
# The actuarial value of assets used before 9/30/97 plan year tivere at market value; the asset method used after that
date is shown on page B-4.
(a~ Includes Police andl±<re prior to 1999 except one case in 1998.
Analysis of the dollar amounts of the actuarial value of assets, actuarial accrued liability, or unfunded
actuarial accrued liability in isolation can be misleading. Expressing the actuarial value of assets as a
percentage of the actuarial accrued liability provides one indication of the system's funded status on a
going-concern basis.. Analysis of this percentage over time indicates whether the system is becoming
financially stronger or weaker. Generally, the greater this percentage, the stronger the plan. The
unfunded actuarial accrued liability and ~ annual covered payroll are both affected by inflation.
Expressing the unfunded actuarial accrued liability as a percentage of covered payroll approximately
adjusts for the effects of inflation and aids analysis of the progress being made in accumulating
sufficient assets to pay benefits when due. Generally, the smaller this percentage, the stronger the
plan.
City of Atlantic Beach General Employee Retirement System D-3
City of Atlantic Beach Pension Vesting -Blue Collar Union EXI:IIBIT: PV - 7
ATTACHMENT B
1~ETIl~Ei1~SEl'~T' EYANII'EE
STATEMENT: The current City Defined $enefit pension system is costly and should be utilized
to award long-term employees of the City.
Years of Service:
Salary at time of hire:
Salary at time of retirement:
Total paid (5 yrs 7 days:
5 years 7 days
$ 35,880.00
$ 46,259.20
$ 213,04266
Age at retirement: 66 years 1 month
Retirement pay per mo~rth: $ 502.70 '
Retirement pay per year: $ 6,032.40
Projected years of retirement: 14 years i 1 months (using life expectancy of age 81)
Total projected retirement paid: $ 89,9$3.30
City of Atlantic Beach Pensioa Vesting -Slue Collar Union .E~~IT: PV - S
ATTACHMENT C
BLUE COLLAR -STATUS AFTER 09 / 1Z / 07 MEETING
BLUE COLLAR - 09/12/07
~~'• C'IT!' PROPOSAL. UNION PROPOSAL
~ _
Art 7.4
'Artll
Art 17.417.4
Art 17.20
Art. 20
]fa
Delete paragraph on
probationary period.
Change method of selecting
Party far arbitration
Change pension vesting for
new employees from 5 years
to 10 years.
Change health insurance
provided to employees
Increase maximum Comp Time
hours from 50 to 80 hours
Provide shift differential of+5%
for all hours worked other than
on the normal day shift.
t'~ Pay Scale increase of 3%
Pay increase for employees with
:less than six months service of
3%
09/12/0?
Pay increase for employees with
more than six months of service
of 6%
09/12/07
#1=2.7%
#2 = 2.7'/0
ess thaw six months sernce
Of _%
0~8~07 ~ No Proposal
#3. Pay increase for employees
with more thatt six months of
service of _%
08-02-(-7' = No Propose!
1. Pay Scale increase of-"°a
08-02-07 = No Proposal
#2. Pay increase for employees
with 1
STATUS
09!1,2/07 - Union - No
09/12/07 • Union - No
09/12/07 - 'R'ithdrawn by
Union
09/12!07 - WitLdrAwn by
Union
09!12/07 - Union - No
09/12/07 -
Being Implemented
~~_.~ .
../12/07 -Union agrees to -' ` ~ t
City Proposal
ATTACHMENT D
BLUE COLLAR -STATUS AFTER 06 / 27 / 06 MEETING
BLUE COLLAR - 48102/07
ART. CiT~ PROPOSAL UNION PROPOSAL ~ STATUS
Art 7.4 Delete paragraph on
probationary period.
Art 11 Change method of selecting
for arbitration.
Art. 20 Change pension vesting for
new employees from 5 years
to 10 years.
Art 24 Change health insurance
provided to employees
,:Art 2b.1{a) Pay Scale increase of % ; :~'.
48-02-07 = No Proposal
Pay increase for employees with
less than six months service of
o/Q
08-0Z-07 = No Proposal
Pay increase for employees with
more than six months of service
of
..08.02-07..= No.>Pro osa1..~., .
Ail 26:6 Cfiaage wording an page
adjustment for an employee
that is demoted due to no fauh
of their own.
Signature Administrative update.
page
Exhibit A Admnaistrative update.
BLUE COLLAR -STATUS AFTER 09 / 12 / 07 MEETING
BLUE COLLAR - 09/12/07
ART. CITY PROPOSAL UNIOPd PROPOSAL STATUS
Art 7.4 Delete paragraph an 49/12147 -Union - No
probationary period.
Art 11 Change method of selecting 09!12/07 -Union - No
for arbitration.
Art 17.4 09/12/07 09/12/07 - Withdrawn by
Increase maxamum Comp Time Union
hours from 50 to 80 hours
Art 17.20 09/12/07 09/12/07 -Withdrawn by
Provide shift differential of+S% Union
for all hours worked other than
on the normal day shift.
Art. 20 Change pension vesting for 09/12/07 -Union - No
new employees from 5 years
to l o years.
Art ZO Change health insurance 09li2/07 -
4
Y. provided to employees Being Implemented
25.1{a) #1. Pay Scale increase of % 09/12/07 '~"'- Union agrees to
08-02-07 = No Proposal ; Pay Scale increase of 3% _ City proposal
`
#2. Pay increase for employees 09112/07
with less than six months service Pay increase for employees with
of _% less than six months service of
88-~0?r07 = No Proposal 3%
#3. Pay increase for employees '' fi 09/1ZJ07
with more than six months of ~ Pay increase far employees with
+„ service of _% more thaw six months of service
08-02-07 = No Proposal of 6%
o9nZ/o7
#1=2.r/°
#2 = a.r/°
_.
#3 = s.r/° of new mi oi~rt.-
r..,,v. . ,.,::... .... ......
BLUE CQLLAR - ST~iTUS AFTER, 09I i7 / 07 MEETIN€'r
BI.L'E CQLLA.R. - {~~/I7107
AR'$'. rt~~v ~a~u,
Art 7,4
C
Art 1 i
~ Art i 7.4
Art 17.20
ArtArt 4
26.1(x)
I~olete paragraph oa
probationary period.
Chxngc method of selecting
P~ for arbitration.
t%3~~,nge pension vesting for
new employees fxom 5 years
to 10 years.
Increase ma7cimum Cep Time
hoeus from 50 to 80 hours
t?9/I2147
Provide shift differential of +S°l
for all hauzs worked other than
oa ~e normal day shift.
t;tta,nge heaitlt insurance
grcvided #o emgloyees
# 1. Pay Scale increase of
OS-0Z-117 = AIo Proposal!
Pay Scale iitca~ase of 3%
#2. Pay increase for employees
with less than six months service
of ~o
0~8-0,2-07 = iYo Proposal
#3. Pay zncrease for employees
with nioce than siac m,oatha ~
service of
48-0?~Q7 = No Proposal
09112,107
#1= 2.7°10
#2 =z.r~a
~3_. =. 5 _~~w !1f nom ,..:
U9/12!07
Pay increase for employees with
less tt~aa six mates service of
3%a
09112/07
Pay f+ar er~loy~ with
mote than six months of service
of 6%
'1'US
09112107 - UnlOn - No
09/17/07 - 1Tnion - No
09/12/Q? - Union - No
(19117!07 - iTnion - No
!19112/11? ~- ~-'t#hdra~vn by
i~Inion
09112/07 - 'Withdraw by
17nian
09112107 - un,
t19117f417 -union -1~'0
U9/I2107 --~'~'
being Implemented
~~M- .
'f 12107 - Union +tgrees to
~Citp Proposal
%17/07 -Open
BLUE COLLAR -STATUS AFTER 10 / 01 / 07 MEETING
BLUE COLLAR - 10/01/07
ART. CITY PROPOSAL UNION PROPOSAL STATUS
Art 7.4 Delete paragraph on 09!12107 -Union - No
probationary period. 09/17107 -Union - No
10!01/01 -Withdrawn 6y
Ci
Art 11 Change method of selecting 09/12/07 -Union - No
party for arbilxation. 09/17/07 -Union - No
10!01/Ol -Withdrawn by
Art 17.4
09/12/07 Ci
09/12/07 -Withdrawn by
Increase maximum Comp Time Union
hours from 50 to 80 hours
Art 17.20 09/12/47 09/12/07 - Withdrawn by
Provide shift differential of +5% Union
for alI hours worked other than
on the normal day shift.
Art. 20 Change pension vesting for 09/12/07 - Union - No
new employees from 5 years 09/17/07 -Union - No
to 10 years. 10/01/07 -Union - No
Art 20 Change health insurance 09/12/07 -
pravided to employees Being Implemented
26.1(a) #i. Pay Scale increase of % 09112/07 _/i"2/ 7` - Union agrees to
08-02-07 = No Proposal Pay Scale increase of 3% ., .. , C' Pro
ih' p
oast..- ~
#2. Pay increase for employees ~ ,
`7/17/0?"=' G'pen
wide less than six months service ~' 09/12107
~ % ~ Pay increase for employees with
OS-02x07 = No Propose! ~ less than six months service of
#3. Pay increase for employees 3%
with more than six mouths of
service of _% ` 09/iZ107
OS-02-07 = No Proposal Pay incxease for employees with
more than six months of service
09/22/07 of 6%
#1= 2.7%
#2 = 2.7%
#3 = 5.7% of new midpoirrt
o~ . ~,
~~
10/OL07
Above pay proposal based
upon agreement to Pension
vesting changes for new
ens to ens.
~iLUE COLLAR -1Z/03/07
CLOSED ITEMS:
Art 7.4 Delete paragraph on 09/12/07 -Union - No
probationary period. 09/17/07 -Union - No
10/01/01 -Withdrawn by
C'
Art I 1 Change method of selecting 09112(47 -Union - No
party fvr arbitration. 09/17/47 -Union - No
10/01101 -Withdrawn by
C'
Art 17,4 09/12/07 09/12!07 -Withdrawn by
Increase maximum Comp Time Union
howl frown SO to 80 hours
Art 17.20 09112/07 09/12/07 -Withdrawn by
Provide shift differential of +5% Union
for all hours worked other than
oa the normal day shift.
Art 20 Change health insurance 09/12/07 -
;..:
_ provided to employees
;
,, Being Lmplemented
o .
" ~26.1(a}
#1. Pay Scale increase of %
/12107 .
lT2'107°- ilnion agrees to
OS-02-07 = No Proposal ,Pay Scale inpease of 3% City Proposer,
#2. Pa uicrease for
~ ~ ,L ~.
with less rhea six monxhs service 09/L2J07 12/03/07 - Union agrees
of _/° Pay increase for employees with
OS-02-07 = No Proposal ~ less thaw six mouths service of
#3. Pay increase for employees 3%
with more ~ six mouths of
service of _% '' Q9/12/07
0~8-02-07 = No Proposal Pay increase for employees with
more than six mouths of service
09/12/07 of 5°!0
#1= 2.7%
#2 =2.7%
#3 = 5.7% of new audpoint
10!01!07 't
Above pay proposal based upon
agreement to Pension vesting
Cltaage wording on Pay 09/12/D? - Opea
adjustment for an employee 09/17/07 -Union - No
that is demoted due to no fault lOro1/Oi - withdra~va by
of their own Ci
BLUE COLLAR -12/43/07
OPEN ITEM:
ART. ;CITY PR@P05AI. UNION PROP4?SAL STATUS ~
Art. 20 i Change pension vesting for 09/12107 -Union - No '
new employees frotn 5 years 09/17/07 -Union - No
0 10 years.
t 10/01/07 -Union - No
12/03!07 -Union - No
j Art 26.1(x) j 09/12107 09/12!07 -Open
Add a lump sum "Top Out" 09/17/07 -City - No
bonus of $1,000 if employee at f0/01/07 -Withdrawn by
? top of pay scale. Bonus would Union
be in addition to any COLA 12/03/07 -Reintroduced by
received Union
~ 09!12107
Changed Top C)ut bonus to $S00 -City - No
~ 12103!07
~ Changed Top Out bonus to
$1000
~ Art 26.1 {b) 12/03!07 NE~'V ITEM 12/03/07 -New item
j Increase monthly Longevity Pay -City - No
by $5 per each five years of
' service;
YOS FRAM TO
0-S 0 0
6-i0 25.00 30.00
11-IS 50.00 b0,04
Ib-20 75.00 90.00
21+ 104.00 120.00
ADM Admini~sirative issues, dates, Completed after contract
signatures, etc, agreement
ATTACHMENT E
PENSION ACTIONS TAXEN
GENERAL EMPLOYEE
PENSION PLAN
03/08/04 Established a "cast neutral" ,Age 55 Early Retirement
Established a "cost neutral" self directed 5 year DROP program
04/i 1105 Decreased multiplier from 2.85% to 2,5% £or new employees (savings: $27,238)
Increased employee contribution rate by 1% to 3% (savings: $24,762)
05/07/06 Increased employee contribution rate by 1% to 4% (savings: $24,762)
09/24/06 Increased employee contxibution rate by 1% to 5% (savings: $24,762)
Proposed: Change vesting to 10 years (savings: $14,500)
(Total annual savings:
$116,024)
City of Atlantic Beach Pension Vesting -Blue Collar IInion EXHIBIT: PV -1
ATTACHMENT F
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACII
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
800 SEMINOLE ROAD
ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA 32233-5455
TELEPHONE: (904) 247-5824
FAX: (904) 242-3498
www coab.us
August 2, 2007
Mr. Andy Benis, Business Manager
Northeast Florida Public Employees Local 630
550 Balmoral Circle North, Suite 101
Jacksonville, FL 32218
RE: Union Negotiations - (Blue Collar)
Dear Andy:
Following is a summary of Articles submitted by the City for negotiation:
1. Article 7 Delete Article 7.4
2. Article 11 Change arbitrator selection
3. Article 12 Discussion on Christmas
4. Article 13 Discussion on Personal Leave Cash In
5. Article 17 Discussion on overtime
6. Article 20 Change Pension Vesting and discussion on Health~suran
7. Article 26.1 ce
Wages
8. Article 26.6 Demotion
9. Signature Page Administrative
10. Exhibit A To be updated after agreement on Art 26
Sincerely,
George A. Foster
City Negotiator