Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHR MOU SEIU 2002 Impassecfrr of Agenda Item No: 16 Meeting Date: October 21, 2002 SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Department: MANAGEMENT SERVICES Prepared by: Ken Nordh Assistant Citv Manager City Manager Approval: SUBJECT: LABOR CONTRACT IMPASSE MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAPE/SEIU LOCAL 949, REPRESENTING THE MISCELLANEOUS AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEE BARGAINING (MS) BACKGROUND: The City of San Rafael has several bargaining units that represent various employees. These groups include the San Rafael Police Association, San Rafael Fire Association, San Rafael Police Mid Managers Association, San Rafael Fire Chief Officers Association, and MAPE/SEIU for miscellaneous, supervisory and child care units. With the exception of childcare, all of the other bargaining unit contracts lapsed as of June 30, 2002. To date, the City has completed agreement with the Police and Fire mid managers (agreement of October 21St agenda for City Council approval). The City is still negotiating with the Police and Fire Associations. Meetings with MAPE for miscellaneous and supervisory units commenced in April of this year. For the past few months, both parties have spent numerous hours at over a dozen meetings meeting and conferring on a variety of issues. A number of issues, some of which were initiated by MAPE and some by the City, have been tentatively agreed to as part of an overall contract. Compensation issues have been the key focus of the negotiations, primarily related to health care benefits, retirement plan options and salary increases. Management staff representing the City has worked within the City Council's authorized compensation authority to attempt to and reach agreement with MAPE. We have been unsuccessful in resolving compensation issues. Pursuant to the City's Employee/Employer Relations Ordinance, Section 13, MAPE declared impasse in a letter dated September 19, 2002. The first step in the impasse process was to set a meeting and review agreed upon and unresolved issues. City representatives and MAPE held that meeting on September 26, 2002. The next step in the impasse process is an 'executive session' to be held at a meeting of the City Council (pursuant of Section 13(A) of the Employee/Employer Resolution). This report will outline the major points of disagreement and provide a recommendation. The City Council's role in this process is to hear both parties and determine if there is any differences can be reconciled. l�FOR CITY CLERK ONLY File No.: 1.3Y X 7-9-Z Council Meeting: I0/"/o'Z Disposition:. After receiving testimony, Council approved Option 3— Refer this Item to a Mediator pursuant to Section 13 (b) of the Employer/Employee Relations Resolution (No. 4027) (Counellmembar Miller absent.) SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 2 ANALYSIS: Attached to this report is a handout that summarizes several key areas related to these negotiations. Staff will present this information in full detail at the impasse hearing. Key components of the handout include: ➢ Financial Overview, including the City's current financial condition, tax revenue projections and results, plus expenditure trends. ➢ Unknown external or internal elements that may adversely impact the City's financial condition. ➢ A historical perspective on compensation, including the established 'goal', revenue sharing and resulting changes in salaries. ➢ Current issues regarding health care benefits and retirement plans. ➢ A summary of the City proposal and authority, MAPE's last offer and the resulting differences. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW The City experienced some fairly rapid growth in major taxes (sales, property) up through the late nineties and the year 2000. Thanks to a rapidly expanding economy, buoyed by a strong stock market and highly optimistic consumers, the City was able to accomplish a number of projects and initiatives. Results for fiscal year 2001-2002 reflected a big change in our financial outlook. Our seven major tax revenues, declined one million dollars, or 2.9% when compared to the prior year (2000-2001). Sales tax dropped 10%, or $1.8 million, and hotel taxes plummeted by 24%. Property and business license taxes, and vehicle license fees, all increased, but not sufficiently to avoid an overall revenue decline. Taxes are needed to grow in order to continue paying of services and operations. The City Council looked ahead when adopting the two-year budget and was cautious in embarking on new projects or expanding services. This status quo approach to service delivery has proven to be a wise decision. In spite of this cautious approach, the City budget required adjustment by $1.5 million last June in order to keep the 2002-2003 fiscal year budget balanced. Council took action to raise revenues by $327,000 (apartment inspections, traffic enforcement and master fee update). Over one million dollars of expenses were reduced. Three General Fund positions were eliminated (transportation planner, police communication specialist, police dispatch supervisor). $381,000 was eliminated for the street paving and sidewalk replacement projects. Reduction in operating expenses and utilities occurred through numerous departments. San Rafael, like other California cities, held its breath while the State sorted out a $24 billion deficit. Many expected cities to receive another whack at local revenues. For now, cities got off fairly lightly in the Governor approved budget. Redevelopment agencies were hit for property taxes, and the price tag for us is $175,000 (and remains to be resolved in our current budget). The State budget gap still remains $8 to $14 billion, depending on the source of this analysis. Cities are by no means out of the woods. Many expect, and staff in San Rafael would agree, that the Legislature is likely to convene after the upcoming election, and make some difficult and potentially catastrophic decisions. Vehicle license fees remain a likely target. If San Rafael loses the license fee 'backfill', $2,000,000 is yanked for the General Fund. S,N RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 3 Economic recovery is slow, and no real momentum is expected unit the middle of 2003. Development of new major sales tax retailers, hotels or office complexes will be slow in coming. These could produce bumps in our tax base, but are not expected in the next couple of years. Rising costs of liability and workers compensation are adversely impacting our financial picture. Both of these self- insurance programs required reserve increases of over $500,000 n this last fiscal year. COMPENSATION - HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE: The City Council established a compensation goal in 1996. This goal stated that in each bargaining union, the members were to be paid at the highest level among Marin County agencies, AND $1 above a ten city survey average. The goal was measured by conducting annual compensation (salaries and benefits) surveys. To the extent tax revenues grew under an agreed upon formula, the excess taxes were shared (revenue sharing) with bargaining units under a specified formula. If gaps existed between surveys results and the goal, revenue sharing dollars were applied to get employees to the goal. For the last few years, the City has been able to achieve this goal, thanks in large part to significant growth in sales and other taxes. Data supplied in the handout shows annual average CPI changes around 3.5% from 1996 thought his year. Employees have received annual pay increase that average from 3.34% to 12.11 %. No question this goal/survey/revenue sharing formula has proven successful. The City's proposal is to continue this goal formula and revenue sharing process. Although results are not guaranteed, this program has served San Rafael extremely well over the past six years. Health care benefits vary by bargaining group. This is because each group has traditionally been allowed to decide how to spend money within prior contract authority. Some have chose to increase members' health benefits at varying levels. MAPE went through a three-year period from 1996-1999 when it chose to make no changes to cafeteria and flexible spending allocations. Costs of health plans are climbing 20% this year. When looking back over the past seven years (including rates for 2003), average plan changes range from 10 % to 16%. As the health care industry muddles through its own problems, one would expect similar average increases in health insurance to occur in the coming years. Recent changes in State law have allowed for improved pension plans for both safety and miscellaneous members of our County retirement system. Any changes to current retirement benefit plans are a negotiated issue between the City and a union. Recognizing that many of our survey cities have made plan changes through PERS for safety (police and fire) employees, the City commenced some actuarial studies to determine the cost of plan changes for employees. The miscellaneous employees study was completed in January 2002. This study was distributed to MAPE and other bargaining units who have non -safety employees. Informal meetings were held with City employees to explain the results and significant financial impacts to the City is these plans are implemented. Plan options and costs (citywide) for miscellaneous pension plan changes are as follows: 2.0% @ 55 plan tier - $204,000 per annum for 16 years 2.7% @ 55 plan tier - $1,309,000 per annum for 16 years 3.0% @ 60 plan tier - $1,481,000 per annum for 16 years S,AN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 4 The cost of implementing either the 2.7% @ 55 plan or the 3% @ 60 plan represents over 8% of total compensation in the year any plan may choose to be implemented. Given these significant costs, the City has made it clear that if these plans were to be considered, MAPE and other unions would have to pay for this cost out of the total compensation authority determined by the City Council. Pension plan costs are dynamic in nature. Since retirement benefits are guaranteed under prescribed formulas and laws, funds must be collected over a period of time in order to make sure benefits can be paid over a retiree's lifetime. Only three sources of funds contribute to pension resources available for benefits: employee contributions (defined by statute), investment earnings and City contributions. Employee rates are prescribed in law and do not change unless court rulings or new laws occur. Investment earnings are calculated to be 8.25% in the Marin County Employee Retirement program. Investment earnings and employer contributions have an inverse relationship. If investments are above the 8.25% (mid to late nineties), employer rates fall. When investments are down, employer rates rise. Holding aside the discussion of plan tier changes above, rates for the MCERA and PERS plans will rise, and rapidly, in the coming years. Attached is a three-page introduction to the MCERA fiscal year 2001-2002 audit report. Please note that investment losses for the year were 8.5%. Investment losses were $61.6 million, an increase of $30.6 in losses from the prior year. These are dramatic performance outcomes, and will certainly lead to higher pension costs for San Rafael in the coming years. To assure you we are not standing alone when facing rising pension costs, PERS expects similar changes in the coming years (see attachment). PERS agencies with miscellaneous members could be double- digit beginning in fiscal year 2003-2004. CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS - MAPE/SEIU The latter part of the handout shows a summary page of the cost differential between the City's last offer and MAPE's last counterproposal. The City Council authorized 4% compensation increases per year, plus an additional 1% over the four-year term. The City's offer includes salary increases in each of the four years. Also, we are proposing the 2.7% @ 55 retirement plan, with the full cost to be borne by MAPE employees over the four year term. The MAPE employees would contribute 8.46% of salaries toward paying for this benefit. This new plan would raise retiree pensions anywhere from 23% to 60% after individuals left City employment (results vary depending on length of service and age when a person was hired in San Rafael). Also, The City has proposed changes that would bring average health benefit increases for MAPE members from $484 per month to $742 at the end of a four-year contract. This represents a 53% increase in health benefit payments at the end of a proposed agreement. This City has been willing to work with MAPE in adjusting salaries, health, retirement and other benefits within the scope of our authority (17%). Staff calculates the cost of the four-year proposal to be $1,646,075. The MAPE counterproposal cost is $2,190,932, or a 22.62% proposal over the four-year term. It is simply not possible to meet the salary, health and retirement demands of the MAPE supervisory and miscellaneous units. SA,N RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT / Page: 5 FISCAL IMPACT: Much of the report and related handouts are intended to demonstrate the City's current financial picture and what it can afford to offer MAPE for employee compensation. The 17% authority is clearly a financial stretch. Any number of uncertainties could come home over the next four years that would require budget action. Uncertainties include: ✓ An unbalanced State budget in the billions of dollars ✓ A floundering economy ✓ War in Iraq? ✓ Current pension program rate increases ✓ Rising liability and workers compensation costs. The four-year term is needed in order to meet the MAPE union's request of an improved pension plan (2.7% @ 55). Staff believes this 17% four year proposal, with the added possibility of revenues sharing to meet the compensation goal, is the maximum financial exposure the City of San Rafael can assume at this time. RECOMMENDATION: Given the data represented in this report and related attachments, and not knowing how any number of uncertainties may unfold, staff recommends that the City Council not change the current compensation authority. Pursuant to the Employer/ Employee Relations Resolution, you have the authority to direct this impasse procedure to a neutral third party mediator. MAPE has contacted State Mediation services to initiate the mediation process. Both MAPE and the City understand that a mediator has been assigned and all parties have agreed to a mediation date of November 12th. ACTION REQUIRED: Consider this report and the information provided by MAPE/SEIU and either: 1. Stay with the current authority and proposal by the City. 2. Modify the last City proposal based upon information received at the meeting. 3. Refer this item to a mediator pursuant to Section 13 (b) or the Employer/Employee Relations Resolution. ATTACHMENTS WAManagement Services- WorkFile\Finance- WorkFile\Council Material\Staff Reports\2002\City\MAPE impasse hearing.doc LOCAL 9491MAPE PWT�&W— h.— %-- SEIU Stronger Together KRIS ORGAN Executive Director representing public employees in the following jurisdictions. CENTRAL MARIN SANITATION AGENCY CITY OF NOVATO CITY OF SAN RAFAEL CITY OF SAUSALITO COLLEGE OF MARIN COUNTY OF MARIN LAS GALLINAS VALLEY SANITARY DISTRICT MARIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY MARIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT MARIN/SONOMA MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT MARIN SUPERIOR COURT NORTH MARIN WATER DISTRICT TIMOTHY MURPHY SCHOOL TOWN OF CORTE MADERA TOWN OF FAIRFAX TOWN OF SAN ANSELMO TOWN OF TIBURON Marin Association of Public Employees/Service Employees Pnternational Union Local 949 AFL CIO, CLC 4340 Redwood Highway A37 San Rafael. CA 94903-1104 4 f 5.479.0949 Fax 485.479 0963 6'. J qezHvr— September 19, 2002 Daryl Chandler Personnel Director City of San Rafael P.O. Box 151560 San Rafael CA 94915 Re: Impasse in Contract Negotiations Dear Daryl, Per the City's Employee Relations Ordinance, Section 13, I am requesting an impasse meeting. We have already discussed this matter and tentatively set Thursday, September 26, 2002 for that meeting. We have developed a list of items for impasse that we will review on that date. The Union accepts the City proposal for 4.8.1 on Paid Holidays with the City proposal for Compensatory Time Policy on 5.3. We tentatively agreed on the plans for the 125 Plan and for Voluntary Payroll Deduction. We withdrawn the work week issue. We believe the transfer of the EPMC will enable us to drop the 4.1.6, Pro Rata Benefit Rules. Our members have not voted on this matter formally. However, the City's offer has changed little from when our members met and rejected that offer in our Union meeting. We all believe that the length of the contract helps us achieve the 2.7% at 55 retirement but raises greater concern over inadequate increases in the medical payment and small cost of living increases. We hope to resolve some of these issues. Sincerely, Kris Organ MAPE/SEN 949, Executive Director cc: Union Bargaining Team SECTION 13. RESOLUTIONS OF IMPASSE Impasse procedures may be invoked only after the possibility of settlement by direct discussion has been exhausted or at the time of expiration of negotiation period. Any party may initiate the Impasse procedure by filing with the other party (or parties) affected a written request for an impasse meeting, together with a statement of its position on all disputed issues. The fees and expense, If any, of mediation and/or fact-finding, or of any other impasse procedure, shall be payable one-half by the City and one-half by the employee organization or employee organizations. An impasse meeting shall then be scheduled by the Municipal Employee Relations Officer forthwith after the date of filing of the written request for such meeting, with written notice to all parties affected. The purpose of such impasse meeting is two fold: (1) to permit a review of the Position of all,parties in a.final effort to reach agreement on disputed issues, and (2) in the absence of agreement between the parties at this point, the matter shall then proceed in accordance with the procedures as set forth in Section 13 (A). The impasse procedures are as follows: (A) EXECUTIVE SESSION A meeting of the City Council with the interested parties in an executive session in an attempt to resolve the differences of the impasse. (B) MEDIATION OR FACT-FINDING (Defined in Section 3-M) All mediation and/or fact-finding proceedings shall be private. The Mediator and/or Fact -Finding Board shall make no public recommendation nor take any public position concerning the issues. (Should the impasse not be resolved pursuant to Section 13 (A), the parties shall have the right to mediation and/or fact-finding). (1) The Mediation or Fact -Finding Board shall consist of three (3) persons, one (1) person to be selected by the City, one (1) person to be selected by the formally recognized employee organization, those two (2) mediators shall then select an impartial third person; however, if an impasse is reached that affects more than one (1) recognized employee group, the employee groups shall then agree on their mediator to represent their organizations. Mediators must be selected and the Board constituted within five (5) days by either interested party for mediation. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS We are pleased to provide this overview and analysis of the financial activities of the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association's (MCERA) for the year ended June 30, 2002. Financial Highlights MCERA's net assets as of June 30, 2002 were $833,821,520. All of the net assets are available to meet MCERA's ongoing obligations to plan participants and their beneficiaries. MCERA's net assets decreased by $77,302,053, or 8.5%, primarily as a result of market declines and payment of benefits. MCERA's funding objective is to meet long-term benefit obligations through contributions and investment income. As of June 30, 2001, the date of our last actuarial valuation, the funded ratio for all MCERA agencies was 101.6%. This indicates that for every dollar of benefits due we have approximately $1.02 of assets to cover it. The funding ratios of the employer entities included in MCERA were: 98.4% for the County of Marin and agencies, 107.6% for San Rafael, and 118.7% for Novato. Revenues (additions to plan net assets) for the year were $(30,981,382), which includes member and employer contributions of $30,302,348, and investment losses of $(61,283,730). Expenses (deductions in plan net assets) increased from $39,703,328 to $46,320,671 over the prior year. Overview of the Financial Statement The following discussion and analysis are intended to serve as an introduction to MCERA's financial statements, which are comprised of these components: 1. Statement of Plan Net Assets 2. Statement of Changes in Plan Net Assets 3. Notes to the Financial Statements Please note, however, that this report also contains other supplementary information in addition to the basic financial statements themselves. i j l - o fc- ' u THE STATEMENT OF PLAN NET ASSETS is a snapshot of account balance at year-end. It indicates the assets available for future payments to retirees and any current liabilities that are owed at this time. Below is a comparison of selected current and prior year balances: The increase in liabilities relates to security purchases before the end of the year and settled after the year-end and increased security -lending activity. THE STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PLAN NET ASSETS, on the other hand, provides a view of current year additions to and deductions from the plan. Both statements are compliance with Governmental Accounting Standard Board Statements (GASB) Pronouncements 25, 26, 28, 33, and 34. These pronouncements require certain disclosures are require the state and local governments to report using the full accrual method of accounting. MCERA complies all material requirements of these pronouncements. The Statement of Plan Net Assets and the Statement of Changes in Plan Net Assets reports information about MCERA's activities. These statements include assets and liabilities, using the full accrual basis of accounting, which is -similar to the accounting used by most private -sector companies. All of the'current year rcvenues and expenses are taken into account regardless of when cash is received or paid. All investment gains and losses are shown at trade date, not settlement date. In addition, both realized and unrealized gains and losses are shown on investments. These two statements report MCERA's net assets held in trust for pension benefits (net assets) the difference between assets and liabilities - as one way to measure the system's financial position. Over time, increases and decreases in MCERA's net assets are one indicator of whether its financial health is improving or deteriorating. Other factors, such as market conditions, should also be considered in measuring MCERA's overall health. f#9 Increase 2002 2001 (decrease) Investments at fair value $831,255,954 $907,871,566 $(76,615,612) Cash and short-term investments 111,329,919 29,054,645 82,275,274 Other assets 27,728,134 4,604,833 23,123,301 Total assets 970,314,007 941,531,044 28,782,963 Total liabilities 136,492,487 30,407,471 106,085,016 Net assets $833,821,520 $911,123,573 $(77,302,053) The increase in liabilities relates to security purchases before the end of the year and settled after the year-end and increased security -lending activity. THE STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PLAN NET ASSETS, on the other hand, provides a view of current year additions to and deductions from the plan. Both statements are compliance with Governmental Accounting Standard Board Statements (GASB) Pronouncements 25, 26, 28, 33, and 34. These pronouncements require certain disclosures are require the state and local governments to report using the full accrual method of accounting. MCERA complies all material requirements of these pronouncements. The Statement of Plan Net Assets and the Statement of Changes in Plan Net Assets reports information about MCERA's activities. These statements include assets and liabilities, using the full accrual basis of accounting, which is -similar to the accounting used by most private -sector companies. All of the'current year rcvenues and expenses are taken into account regardless of when cash is received or paid. All investment gains and losses are shown at trade date, not settlement date. In addition, both realized and unrealized gains and losses are shown on investments. These two statements report MCERA's net assets held in trust for pension benefits (net assets) the difference between assets and liabilities - as one way to measure the system's financial position. Over time, increases and decreases in MCERA's net assets are one indicator of whether its financial health is improving or deteriorating. Other factors, such as market conditions, should also be considered in measuring MCERA's overall health. f#9 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provide in the financial statements. OTHER INFORMATION. In addition to the financial statements and accompanying notes, this report presents certain required supplementary information concerning MCERA's progress in funding its obligations to provide pension benefits to members. Financial Analysis As previously noted, net assets may serve over time as a useful indication of MCERA's financial position. The assets of MCERA exceeded its liabilities at the close of the fiscal year. Currently, $833,821,520 in net assets are held in trust for pension benefits. All of the net assets are available to meet MCERA's ongoing obligations to plan participants and their beneficiaries. Despite variation in the stock market, MCERA's management and actuary concur that MCERA remains in a financial position to meet its obligations to the plan participants and beneficiaries. The current financial position results from a very strong and successful investment program, risk management, and strategic planning. Revenues — Additions to Plan Net Assets The reserves needed to finance retirement benefits are accumulated through the collection of employer and employee contributions and through earnings on investment income (net of investment expense). Losses for the year ended June 30, 2002, totaled $30,981,382. Below is a comparison of selected current and prior year balances: iii Increase 2002 2001 (decrease) Employer contributions $21,985,559 $18,064,245 $3,921,314 Members contributions 8,316,789 7,324,467 992,322 --� Net investment loss $(61,283,730) $(30,665,187) (30,618,543) Total revenue (loss) $(30.981,382) $(5,276,475) $(25,704,907) iii CSMFO Teleconference October 9, 2002 The following example shows the dramatic effect, in overly simplistic terms of Ca1PERS' recent investment returns. 7. "Typical" PERSable Wages Safety Miscellaneous $ 12,000,000 $ 20,000,000 8. Contribution Rate Impact 20.6% 12.3% a. Above rate impact (because of smoothing) will not happen immediately b. Uses gain/loss amortization method c. Ignores plan funded status Expected Actual Difference 1. 6/30/01 8.25% -7.23% -15.5% 2. 6/30/02 8.25 -5.97 -14.2 3. How far is Actuarial Value of Assets from Market Value at June 30, 2000? 5.0 [e.g. AVA = 95% of MVA at 6/30/00] 4. Net difference 24.7% [(I) + (2) + (3)] 5. Actuarial Value of Assets $ 100,000,000 6. Asset Loss 24,700,000 [(4) x (5)] 7. "Typical" PERSable Wages Safety Miscellaneous $ 12,000,000 $ 20,000,000 8. Contribution Rate Impact 20.6% 12.3% a. Above rate impact (because of smoothing) will not happen immediately b. Uses gain/loss amortization method c. Ignores plan funded status OD N d- O 07 O Z) N W U) N W O Q O U O N U)U) coQ v art t W ^cn W O W . _ M W O O o. — cn •� =3o M o o -0 O .� o cn ° ii E LL .0>1 -0 o c:E_ .0 cn a) -1--j 4 -Ma a) --a .— .� 0 Cf) U) 0 C.) C: C/) m o o a o 4� o 0 >. x .i .. i IMMEMEM � 0 C:4-cn cu cn 0 E (� O a . O N •cn �cu O .0 C: o 4.- co a� C:, c� o IDID 0 > N N Q. o c�a) O E o — U to- O E c N O N O O O E o ry LL Z U Cl) N U >1 LL 000 U co O N U �E cn (n 6 4— cn0 v O E M p C: a) :�-CD. Oo e o N -4-a 0 o ° -� 0. > O p � � cn o ° E.0 o 4. -0 LO -� 0 — U o � 0 U U M C: 73 0 4—c� ��� m m — .— 0 o m .� C: 1--0 C: O 0) 0 m cu 06 > " 4"0 N C� W Cn D oN p x N �, p LLQ N O O d H O 0 E W% cn _O C� cn %%mmoo, ■ W cn co o E C: cna� o cn > C: o 0 o N .0 o p m CU o N C: o o O �° O .0 UL U. p cn U L d- -cn O O LO � '0M � DO 00 d7 C:-� ti co p cu o O ti 00 O cn C CO N O N C co co NCD Kel k� O 1 O O >. � � O O E N p `- 4 O O o O i i U � a� O �� Eo p co > o O U O c o W O O C: CY)N 4� M AlNp (n O CD C)O J I I 0 N 0 LL. r L N T K U) d w O O O 0 N 64 O O O O O O O O O o o O co co d N O co 64 suoill!W M N � O N o N O :3 cm LP O O d O O (0 O O O O O O L O O L I_ _ O O m N CO V' O O r 01 1T LO a cn W i _0 o, Qi Cu M E N U) rn W I - N 0 :3 U rn Q co O 1 4—a C 0 >- E 1 U. ca. L O U OO L > > O O � Ocm N O 70 0 O U -�-' cn C:' C O r' _ U. O >1_ o O U cn 0 �4-- ctp C .� O },(1) .� .� w � o� c� � C� O o o qj- =3 --4-0 w � cv � o o00 4-a a (n Q U 0 CM O O CD N (n Co U O o t�U C d L N r W d x F- 4) a 0 L a 0 0 o Un 64 6A suoipiw M -� C) »� N N O N O O O O O O O 0) O O co 0 L 0 CD >- rn �_ N 0 LL CD rn LO rn LO m 4 0) Nt M M N O O 0 N 0 O 0 p 0 vt N r o i v LL CO cn ca O co +� m O .CQ o p C� C). — i 4-:� CU LL 0 c: E0 0 N� 0 0 0 4-0' o U o .� N O O �, • - Cn O cu — -� — �'' ..� to O O � O y- Ua) 0 d' � O O 69- CL c) U Cn N C/] ek 0 Md N O O N ti O r� I �' 11 �����N ��l���f /"'u�11i1A����uI911���� .• I��YJ�!I�iJI f,.. ff 110� d' • r� i N O O N ti O r� I N V♦ >% -0 E O OO C: I -� p O i _ U C: O OO Co > E 4> cu O to O co0 cu -1-a co cn I -a It 4) p CU d- —• CCS U • - � � 4- • — �' N0 O O I ca. v 4-a C p O C6v C6 -0 O N � o O C:� 0 x o-0 (n LL cu 4-� p O O 4) cn C: C= 4.-a 'o p O� p p to o Cn OC\1 0 i i ' t, oi� , M T- N O O N r C) r M dam' y �i N a) ER p v LO N �fl M OEM r � pp � 0 p ti o rn co N =3 C to C d L 0) rn m c Li00 p � o 1 Luro) i , R CV 04 c U, R Ci iTL p V Ln p C R rn = N i 7 V rn coLO N t1 �,6 m p E ... •— mu N w �! r ., � M i p M N G� p C N EA rn m LO rn N rn +� U a 0 09 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Un o Un o Un N N r r p 64 EA di fA H9 ''............ suoill1w i i ' t, oi� , M T- N O O N r C) r V 1 ^♦ � W x — C� N O � O O i .0 N O O 0)L. I >- U. E E CO CO O -� C U co cn N Irl- cn C: co0 0 o0 CL �D Np %%MOOO OT �n.�..� s.. cn s.. ol a) — co .cn O Co U W O41.1 EO -0a� cn cn O i>> ca O U 4-0 c: C: -,-j cn OU) � O O C� O � 00 O O O o c� Z Z — IL CD N O LO T- r e O 0 ., � U a� ti E N C: Uc� . CU ^ cU 00 � 4� o N \ � ^ M � 4-j CO cn C: N.� Co C: E d: p L� �- N E fes- co m qt Q U N _ Q 64n CC5 cn 1E'~ p a) . — U �. U C:4— 0 cyi J -t, 12 0 a) 4� � �. p (ny— .o CU 0.� o T4 U) 4-a ca. 4� -i5 o M �. o � J N 0 Pool', ti U 4� v� U mo E O LL �. E -� E O U') cyE M d' tn cn M N va) cn Cf)' -0 1 C: C) �-LL CoCn ' m � O — co x E U � CO E 0 M_ � Za C M m m N C: Cn Cn CIO o 4> (D I I I I I I LL U. M � (D o00 O U•— � CD 0 E d. Ci O cn tiO cn 0 a�Eo%-ft.000 CN E w o L. L C N � o -~ � o O � � co E0 E V •— :� N UD�-' N Co}} ' N U 00 (n O C:L — 0•� U) m 0- LL 0 0 M N N O m N CDLE O U 0 cm 0 Rn A, u U m Lr— cn O U Lf. - C6 L .C: 0- E O U CD C� cn U N • of -6--+ 0 E a� ■ cn N �U cn W a- �4, GO cn W cn � N O C: .� %-ft.0000 U M ■ cm .C: E U N 0 0 N ti r O i Ir- N 4J O ca �CLO W ■ O m N CDLE O U 0 cm 0 Rn A, u U m Lr— cn O U Lf. - C6 L .C: 0- E O U CD C� cn U N • of -6--+ 0 E a� ■ cn N �U cn W a- �4, GO cn W cn � N O C: .� %-ft.0000 U M ■ cm .C: E U N 0 0 N ti r O i Ir- o N O Q - C: ^, }+ to � U Cn � CY) � m— L U — O 0 -1--# cn O � � O 73O �- U) O O 4) Co ._ > I C O o cn UCU m -cn E U O —cn ._ cll*-- a)1 cr -� CD. U a) M d. cn U O M — ._ 1 0 ■� m — Cu O 0 C L.Q Q Q C6 4� A. -a (.) O U N 0 00 II I I N Cn W 0 T— c cu c6 2 0- E O U C� O O cn 0 U cn cn m a) 4D m C/) c O O 0. m E C:U N 00 cn a) cn m U O 0 O 0 cu O O i� 0 U c� N -}-a cn m c U) m CC3 U O � � o � a� Cn Ct � cn O U � C.0 ODO T— c cu c6 2 0- E O U C� O O cn 0 U cn cn m a) 4D m C/) c O O 0. m E C:U N 00 cn a) cn m U O 0 O 0 cu O O i� 0 U c� N -}-a cn m c U) m Six Year Average Salary Increases - Results by Bargaining Group Job Class Benchmarks January 2002 Top Step Salary January 1996 Top Step Salary Difference $ Difference % Average Annual % Increase MAPEISEIU Misc. & Supv. Units Parking Enforcement Officer $4,251 $2,681 $1,570 58.56% 9.76% Supervisor — Street Maintenance $5,424 $3,665 $1,759 47.99% 8.00% Administrative Assistant II $3,974 $2,755 $1,219 44.25% 7.37% Accounting Assistant II $3,651 $2,572 $1,079 41.95% 6.99% Library Assistant II $3,304 $2,401 $903 37.61% 6.27% Assistant Engineer (formerly Jr. Engineer) $4,948 $3,771 $1,177 31.21% 5.2006 Associate Planner $5,687 $4,469 $1,218 27.25% 4.54% Police Association Police Sergeant $6,850 $4,538 $2,312 50.95% 8.49% Police Officer $5,680 $3,866 $1,814 46.92% 7.82% Communications Dispatcher $4,483 $3,071 $1,412 45.98% 7.66% Police Mid -Managers Association Police Captain $9,351 $6,047 $3,304 54.64% 9.11% Firefighters' Association Firefighter $5,354 $3,630 $1,724 47.49% 7.92% Fire Dispatcher $4,350 $2,993 $1,357 45.34% 7.56% Fire Chief Officers' Association Fire Battalion Chief $8,525 $4,938 $3,587 72.64% 12.11% Fire Division Chief $9,423 $5,676 $3,747 66.01% 11.00% Un -represented Mgrs/Mid Mgrs Community Services Dir. $9,051 $5,925 $3,126 52.76% 8.79% Police Chief/Fire Chief $10,354 $7,702 $2,652 34.43% 5.74% Library Director $8,633 $6,459 $2,174 33.66% 5.61% Public Works Dir $10,354 $8,6271 $1,727 20.02%1 3.34% 22 City of San Rafael Job Class Benchmarks - Six (6) Year History - Average Salary Increases (results displayed high to low) Job Class Benchmarks January 2002 Top January 1996 Top Step Difference Difference Average Step Salary Salary $ % Annual % Increase Fire Battalion Chief $8,525 $4,938 $3,587 72.64% 12.11 Fire Division Chief $9,423 $5,676 $3,747 66.01% 11.00% Parking Enforcement Officer $4,251 $2,681 $1,570 58.56% 9.76% Police Captain $9,351 $6,047 $3,304 54.64% 9.11% Community Services Dir. $ 9,051 $ 5,925 $3,126 52.76% 8.79% Police Sergeant $6,850 $4,538 $2,312 50.95% 8.49% Supervisor — Street Maintenance $5,424 $3,665 $1,759 47.99% 8.00% Firefighter $5,354 $3,630 $1,724 47.49% 7.92% Police Officer $5,680 $3,866 $1,814 46.92% 7.82% Communications Dispatcher $4,483 $3,071 $1,412 45.98% 7.66% Fire Dispatcher $4,350 $2,993 $1,357 45.34% 7.56% Administrative Assistant II $3,974 $2,755 $1,219 44.25% 7.37% Accounting Assistant II $3,651 $2,572 $1,079 41.95% 6.99% Library Assistant II $3,304 $2,401 $903 37.61% 6.27% Police Chief/Fire Chief $10,354 $7,702 $2,652 34.43% 5.74% Library Director $ 8,633 $ 6,459 $2,174 33.66% 5.61% Assistant Engineer (formerly Jr. Engineer) $4,948 $3,771 $1,177 31.21% 5.20% Associate Planner $5,687 $4,4691 $1,218 27.25% 4.54% Public Works Dir $10,354 $ 8,627 1 $1,727 20.02% 3.34% daryl/excel/council/history of benchmark increases MAPE/SEIU Miscellaneous and Supervisory Units - Six Year History of Salary Range Increases With Comparison to CPI Job Class Benchmarks January 2002 January 1996 Difference $ Difference % Average Annual % Top Step Top Step Increase Salary Salary Parking Enforcement Officer $4,251 $2,681 $1,570 58.56% 9.76% Supervisor — Street Maintenance $5,424 $3,665 $1,759 47.99% 8.00% Administrative Assistant II $3,974 $2,755 $1,219 44.25% 7.37% Accounting Assistant II $3,651 $2,572 $1,079 41.95% 6.99% Library Assistant II $3,304 $2,401 $903 37.61% 6.27% Assistant Engineer (formerly Jr. Engineer) $4,948 $3,771 $1,177 31.21% 5.20% Associate Planner $5,687 $4,469 $1,218 27.25% 4.54% *CPI - August o 3.46 /o *CPI - June 3.43% *CPI - April 3.41 `Note: average % based on history from 1996 through 2002 - using CPI History: SF -Oak -San Jose, CPI (W) - Month to Month Tables 24 O n N U V _� >1o O Q O C) N � o (D - Fu > q N CY) Q o += O N cup o o U con a)r-- 0 cn LO O O Co � E cn _c ~ cu cj� �E uj to O o �.,,,, O coo co O o .o E . C: E c: c +_ O +_ c� ca cn Cry -17 N ^^♦♦ N 0 tlo N F d i+ W aR 00 9 ll� a � aR Ci o w Cl y o V I tjA C14 D y ro O ai Ln 4J ~ ' V N !0 � � d a (UM �o ZD y 00 ro w ro CU >' o VT a Ol y V v in q v 00 � ro v �.� ox c � A as ,� .G L 00 O b [y o Ln COC Gl F 2- Gi p! r w O 4J •� bD CJ b u D >+o y,a b y Oci ro v � y C1 a O ra 4Oi V GL CA ro x 7J aE M O � y cu V (. > O 00 �� r. � G � .oma w o y p r o ro 0 ',D �r ro w w LO M LO rn o CD N t�a. y d 0 V N v N cu if3 di LO Efi cu O O, U P. W O 000 00 O ID ce) IDCd ro LO K 1. Nw P. O\ if) EfLf) as V-1 y CU U � N v 00 cy r-4 O N V L`r W O � W C. ►��+ W O x x V tlo N CC G7 d i+ W b a � O .4 Cl y CU V I tjA D 0 � O ai Ln ro � d a (UM �o y ro w ro CU >' o o a � y V v in q v 00 � y r b v �.� ox � O as ,� .G L � O b [y o Ln COC Gl F 2- Gi p! r w O 4J •� bD CJ b D >+o y,a b y Oci ro v � y C1 a O ra 4Oi V GL CA ro x itl w 954 UI y cu V (. > O .� V 0 .1.. Qy p w iVq O ro � G U .oma w o y p r o ro 0 CD r-4 tlo N City of San Rafael Benefit Contribution* by Bargaining Unit Bargaining Unit Monthly Annual MAPE/SEIU Miscellaneous and Supervisory Units $554 $63648 MAPE/SEN Child Care Unit $470 $5,640 Police Association $488 $5,856 Police Mid -Management Association $492 $5,904 Firefighters' Association $502 $6,024 Fire Chief Officers' Association $492 $5,904 Exempt Management/Mid-Management Group $580** $6,960 * Includes Health, life, long term disability and dental insurance. **Based on current payroll information. \\Sr_fsI\User\Dary1C\COUNCIL\Benefit cost per MOU per group.doc 27 Agency Retirement Plans Information as of August 2002 Bay Area Cities City Miscellaneous Alameda 2%(o),55 Fairfield 2.7% 55 Hayward 2.5% 55 Napa 2%P,55 San Leandro 2.5% 55 Santa Rosa 2%(P,55 Note: 3.0% 60 scheduled for implementation May 4, 2003 South San Francisco 2%(o),55 Vallejo 2.7%(@,55 Marin County Agencies Beleverde 2% 55 Corte Madera 2% 55 Fairfax 2%9,55 Larkspur 2%(@,55 Marin County Tier Programs Mill Valley 2%@,55 Novato 2%(@,55 San Anselmo 2%(@,55 Note: 2.7% 55 scheduled for implementation July 1, 2004 Sausalito 2% 55 Tiburon 2%(@,55 San Rafael 2%(o),58.5 \\Sr_fsl\User\DarylC\COUNCIL\Retirement Plans Survey Cities Misc..doc I ■ O V .U) A. -a 000�co C� ,_ � O LLJ 'o 0.. C/)C/) 73 A. -O Q U) C c I .Cl) O ° — � ti m 0 (1) C/) cf) 0 _ cn Q Cn ECn �--� L }, Cn > a) 4-0 cn O � v •� O m ._ > mo a) 4-0 a) 4-0 0 m cn 4-4 a) a) co C: m cn _ >% to O ._ ._ O U) p U U r Mm N C0 N N O .cn U) 7D m m N . O 73 cN O N O City of San Rafael and MADE/SEN Miscellaneous and Supervisory Units Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Negotiations Summary of Impasse Items Category MAPE/SEN Misc. & Supervisory Units City of San Rafael Proposal Salary Year 1 3.0% July 1, 2002 1.75% July 1, 2002 Salary Year 1 1.5% on Adoption of MOU 1.0% on Adoption of MOU Salary Year 2 4.4% July 1, 2003 4.4% July 1, 2003 Salary Year 3 5.0% July 1, 2004 3.0% July 1, 2004 Salary Year 4 4.5% July 1, 2005 3.0% July 1, 2005 EMPC Shift Year 1 1.5% on Adoption of MOU 1.0% on Adoption of MOU EMPC Shift Year 2 No change 1.0% July 1, 2003 EMPC Shift Year 3 2.0% July 1, 2004 1.5% July 1, 2004 EMPC Shift Year 4 1.5% July 1, 2005 1.5% July 1, 2005 COLA Shift Year 2 1.34% shift from Employer Paid to Employee Paid 1.34% shift from Employer Paid to Employee Paid Health/life/Itd Year 1 Increase 101/mo. Increase 72/mo. 12/15/02 Health/life/ltd Year 2 Establish formula indexing increases to Blue Shield HMO 2-Party - estimated $72/mo. Increase $68/mo. 12/15/03 Health/life/Itd Year 3 Establish formula indexing increases to Blue Shield HMO 2-Party - estimated $82/mo. Increase $63/mo. 12/15/04 Health/life/ltd Year 4 Establish formula indexing increases to Blue Shield HMO 2-Party - estimated $93/mo. Increase $55/mo. 12/15/05 Cost of Proposals Dollars $2,190,932 $1,646,075 Difference $544,857 or 5.62% excel/summary of MAPF impasse Issues 30 tu 4.A O a 0 c ca o U ,-r .W .S4 O 3U 3 En En cn En IL) ap U U Cd ••b Cd C+ �U�+• �UEn aw a s a W aCU O o L. .0 . U .0 FUi Obi q y .U'i rn h O , U u 0000 �. n� bo bo 5a aaaa En ca o 0 h �aq+ �❑a id U O b❑a En Gb ❑ F F7 F. Fr U C,3 Ca cd� y � C� pcn ti h .0 f. .� .� .� Ll. LL f� P. ? •� •� Q cO_� > VJ y VJ N N Y L 69 b 69 69 69 L Y b O U w w w w cd ti a y cd O — b O g a a a 0 0 0 0 r : CCd o uG U m L U o a O >� �� z y y a m y O O o N N Y W .O .� .O •,p O ? 'n o 6 \ ��•�ovoo 0 0 0 0ts F .� .� M M •r � �,0a U .--i SSA N U U U U O 0 cd En o L pppp n es c4 0 y> a Cd o on r > acdi ami R2q u v v u N i p h u •� •o chi 4 4V W ~ N C E O O H 04 C Q �; C a a 0 ai ~ ai aai M W • 0 O v a a> v a0i W q c 'd O O �bA 'N +� 64 Com /] U U y N M V1 tm ?? p• Z, Lt v $ 0000 OOOO N N N N 4 U p" b No p ,o N M d• Ln og000 O0 n a>i•�" O 0 O hrq O 0 0 0 O h et 0 �+ �••7 N >i A i, >, •b N N N U U U U U L q y'7 U q q 0 0h �, a�.-�►,•, m � a~+ .y. a p N N N N AAAA •O :. U O65 4yi n IMco 0 4 ^d b b b b L �gu O a� y 'd C b C 0 0 0 0 0 ca 0 0 0 0 �+ 04 04 04 0 a. "rte m � U 04 a a co a a' L ca >, >, >, >, >, � ca �> w AAAA � • 04 04 oc 0w�w7w7 c c cw�w0w0 o o w a - Z v" Z a.cd1t; 0 d a� F y U � -.5 Cd 0 y ami ,+ H al 3 cd c0 cd xav 0 p U w� I I § � \ ■ k ■ S \ ( o f ts /ƒ to J § \5 © _Q 2 � W 3 @ w % \ w S $ cl� k \ � //\ƒK 2 a§ o e e o 0 � / 2 � � a / § S 8 8 Q� \�// \ * r 02 P. IW ��0�± § \ tbUuuco ■ /0 8[ 8 8 '§ 2 3 El 2 /\/\\ S N ESSSS __ C14 C14 C14 c § \ \\\\ \\u �\ § B 8 8 8 2 m 1124 \\\\\ 2k � k gi A �w I f+"i. a OO U t ci O U eq o v v •b N.--� .--� U Fw Ed NN— > N Cd n 'b O .O q ,O >o 'b O 0 N �., �O1yy E yW �•'' rij � UO or.. U.FW/i U�+ �d 0CnwA w vl o o � OYiy Ov1 YN 17 0 V1 •Qi E $ N .moo y ami Cd b 4 W a' ,J u W 0 Cd w '�• 0 � ° O y o 0 C14 Ogwv O �9 g cqs •. [ UP4 0 cd Cd a)y •� Ou ... a b c� U O � � U3 > a o��'� Ld N U �o ' y C O AU Cd > .+ P. yCK � •-d)-y� -0 .Q7 � N Q ca Cd � 4••� Cd 0 f�A G U U 0 a v' a a r U3 u Cd C .o 'b t) o v 5'n p ° G a• aRi y O W fQ 0 p" i +� O r N N O O 0) b N � >, a a 0.) . 134 Cd L C� o a Co 0 .0 �+o dcr ,O P. W 0 c �d = d ti O N cd +� y A k id 7 V,C •b N v td ti U`n. .y4 N '• 7 C N en N L)b a• O N Cd O C d •� •-" 01 cd '� a v� R• y W y O N H ��r k N v p - 'U > q Obi ct,.'�'� `n 6ri cd 3 .b .b a O ��aba�oi0°'a�0 0 W 1° �y iO �64 as 0 ca 0 1 � C co a ca Cd' ° ? � w ° n �•�� � � � �0q N O 6-5 �% p�yy 't ti q W 1 .0 9 m u u N .-i .b := r h Cd 4i w b 04 0 a �; 1� � m ` r h q a� mom. G a� oA �'° �° O � � � G. aR'i o �n � � • q � y oA 4q..., 'LG7 O O u u° (u A N cd �i t�i� bC�p c 3 cti v� cd N W +'�.• p Y y �I 0 •cd •� ca 0 •� UU3� r o a A a., W o U ++ ct4tn O N t, w —1 N f+"i. d U 3 N `� a`di U on A oR � � O a) .a � clq C to O U a) U N cd O N O C Cd N ON cli ° U y abi � ° N Fy ' ppm a 3N�o a•� a' o Cd prn tri o cl En d d a s b� ° 0 °d U In � o O a 0 •.) cda) NO d N En a) O c>y1 qCd tw O p y O cy� 'b Nqb a ^ CV yON En > Q O 6! v N bio a) -. o0 �n N >, A. .� o� oo ti 8k. .D m oo p a) aUi tl a) b OO a> C .10 Cd Ua N 0 U cd < il a &. Q v Cd bi) m v g 1. c N N td y fi ° c+°- q O C O G�L ° p O U O a N N P� Uw ' D Ucd . ta c� y �I '� cd% O aki °p, a'aai toU G� abi abi aCb =G� y.o U � Cd Cd C-4 ;b o ed o h 0 U o Cd o ° w w o U .a a o 3 a a o� .0 a cd a a'bi .� .a; tooUC ���+toaai 4-4 Cd q i ° U U� Cd cd cd ) v U cd �+ _ �, U rh W ti ~ cd C `n in ++ EnW A. O O b p of aai of of p, o; ;d O w H v a° cp I ar. O .r.r � >, v c .+ cd U ❑fna Ffn U O a '^ .� N .b cy C U U�� v�� w v� 3 OU �M av � v 4 �wi z .b N O O _U CdC 9 p Ln fn v 'D q 4 c0 y CO O 6l U � a O .0 w i � m O PI C bOA W V pb O N w yy O 0,0 \ O m U O CO b y y N W y a[i N Oto Cd a a 0 0 o a s o Ol 04 d [� O U3 > r r ,o o 3 G Cd U G� rn u U M N v r o� �-1 Ei 3 42 y ` u ,I> ,y m O o Q >Q Aa°,P4 az z z .b N O O _U CdC 9 p Ln fn