City officials say original 3 at 50 plan approved for police
– the plan that firefighters now seek – was a ‘mistake’
Gilroy – The city “made a mistake” four years ago when it allowed police officers to retire at age 50 with 90 percent of their pay, at least according to city officials now eager to prevent firefighters from doing the same.
Negotiators for City Hall and Fire Local #2805 spent five hours Friday before an outside arbitrator, hoping to sort out a year-long dispute over the city’s ability to grant firefighters the ‘3 at 50’ program. The benefit package pays three percent for each year worked, up to 30 years, and allows participating public safety employees to retire as early as age 50. Currently, firefighters receive ‘2 at 50,’ which forces them to wait until age 55 or later to hit the 90 percent mark.
“The city has conceded in negotiations (with the fire union) that they made a mistake in conferring 3 at 50 on the (Police Officers Association),” city labor attorney Jeff Sloan said Friday, drawing a burst of laughter from union attorney Chris Platten.
Following the meeting, union vice president Mark Ordaz said he too found the comment amusing.
“They never addressed that comment – that it was a mistake – to us during negotiations,” he said. “We were laughing. It doesn’t change our opinion. We feel that for the sake of equity, we should get the same thing they’ve offered the other bargaining units. … They also admitted that it wouldn’t bankrupt the city.”
But since labor negotiations deadlocked in February 2005, city officials have painted a bleak picture of the budget effects that could result from expanding the 3 at 50 program.
On Friday, city consultant John Bartel laid out the city’s case in its minutiae over the course of four hours of testimony.
Bartel pointed out that $4.1 million in “excess” funds reserved to pay out retirement benefits had vanished in four years, a change he attributed to the wave of police retirements following the start of the 3 at 50 program. Meanwhile, he calculated that a retiring firefighter with 3 at 50 would receive roughly $91,000 a year in annual benefits, whereas a firefighter with 2 at 50 would receive roughly $81,000.
“If an individual saves appropriately at 2 at 50, it gets you to an average retirement benefit that is a more than adequate standard of living,” Bartel concluded.
Union attorney Platten sought to undermine the city’s arguments by pointing out that investment returns from the California Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) have increased in recent years.
In addition to questioning the city’s financial predictions, Platten invoked the union’s basic demand for equal treatment.
“Wouldn’t you say that internal equity and fairness concerns would certainly have a role to play in determining whether or not employees receive a benefit enhancement of 3 percent at 50?” he asked Bartel, pointing out that an article co-authored by the consultant stressed the importance of equal treatment.
Bartel attributed the portion of the article to his co-author.
In addition to 3 at 50, the 36-member fire union has requested an 11-percent pay raise over three years and an increase in the percentage the city pays for health-care benefits. The city has countered with a 4.5-percent pay increase and has asked for a cap on medical-benefit contributions. Both sides will continue presenting evidence to the three-member arbitration panel, headed by attorney John Kagel, through Wednesday.
Kagel, who has more than three decades of experience sorting out labor disputes, interjected occasionally Friday with a number of technical questions and the occasional observation.
As Bartel explained the formulas used to assess the impact of granting firefighters 3 at 50, city attorney Sloan asked for clarification: “These fire impacts are ‘what ifs’?”
Before Bartel could reply, Kagel chimed in: “Everything he does are ‘what ifs’.”
