Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. The first item on the agenda is discussion and adoption of ground rules. So, I have a copy of those here. Does everyone else have a copy? Okay. I'm going to kind of go through and point out some things that we felt it was important. If you guys have anything at any point along the way, please stop me. All right. Um section A SPAC and meet and confer team shall consist of no more than five standing members including the chief spokesman with one designated alternate. The meet and confer team shall consist of no the city's meet and confer team shall consist of no more than four standing members including the chief spokesperson with four designates. Um I don't believe in the past we've actually assigned our design. So, I thought maybe we should go ahead and um discuss that item. So, for the city's team, it will be um a member of HR as the spokesperson. Um Tina, do you want to go down with your designs? Um just another member of city manager staff.

Uh would be Shane. Okay. And then for city attorney's office, it would be Holly Krooks. Okay. And then for finance, it would be the assistant finance director, Sheney Jordan.

Um, as as far as um, SPAC, um, Jeff can't make it today because we didn't think there's any bargaining. So he will be on the team representing cleat. Um one or more of us will always be present. So we don't have a designated individual alternate but Kelsey will be a fill in in the event the table's not full on the side.

Does anyone else have anything for section A? All right. Um, anything else under the meeting and confer team or authority of chief spokespersons? Yes, I do apologize. Um, in case y'all were unaware, uh, we would like to introduce Jonathan Flores as our finance director. Um, Tina has promoted as our ACM. So, we have a little bit of rearrangement on the side, but all familiar faces. All right. Veronica or myself.

Uh, nobody's posing any question on that side. So, I think we can go on to All right. Meet and confer sessions. any topics there, schedule of presentation or request. The one thing I did want to note on this one, I think it kind of came up last year, was um all parties mutually agree to order of discussions of the issues. No new isu issues will be brought to the table after the third meeting. Do we have any amendments to the third meeting?

No, I don't believe so. Do you? Obviously, any rule can be amended as long as both parties agree. So, if we have something that comes up later that we need to talk about, I think that's the way to handle it. Brandon, we good with that? Yeah.

Okay. All right. Um, notetaking. Um obviously the meetings are recorded open meetings. Um I would like to read section B. Subcommittees of SAP and the city meet and confer team negotiating teams may meet no more than two meetings of I'm sorry no more than two members from SAP team and no more than two members from the city team to attempt to resolve differences in positions on varying items being negotiated. No tenative agreements may be made during subcommittee meetings. Subcommittee meetings are not open meetings. Other staff members with relevant information may be requested to present at subcommittee meetings. Any issues there? Okay. Any updates for news release or printed matter? Okay. Contracts um while meet and confer discussions are ongoing. I want to read this section. and SAP agrees that it will not contact or discuss contact discuss negotiate or attempt to negotiate any issue that has been put on the table or may be put on the table with members of the city council, city manager or anyone other than the city appointed negotiating team except that it may discuss the issues with its members. The city negotiating team agrees that it will not contact, discuss, negotiate, or attempt to negotiate any issues that has been put on the table or may be put on the table with anyone other than the city council, police administration, city manager, and so SAP appointed negotiating team. This agreement does not preclude either party from discussing any matter that is otherwise

permitted by law with those from whom the negotiating teams are preluded from discussing meet and confer issues. I I have a just a quick clarification question on point A. Police administration is not mentioned in A. If the chief has a clarification point, should we not talk to him. Right. The way this is worded that it would that y'all would not discuss anyone that's not one of your members. Okay. Brandon, do you want to

Yeah. No, I agree. Um I mean there are some issues that I guess are somewhat related but can also be outside the scope of this I think C covers. So going and the the one of the clarification reasons is he's he's oddly enough technically a part of our local he gets represented by the state representation but for business purposes

he's not cuz he's exempt with the city. So, um, and the the point is like, you know, we we had talked about a couple things last year like discipline and education stuff like that. So, if he has a question just referring to somebody on the table or what what would

that would be my preference. Yeah. I mean, and we can, you know, talk to him on the back end that, you know, he shouldn't be putting y'all in that position coming to y'all directly. I mean, likewise, we could, you know, relay anything from him. Okay, next section is time off for SPAX meet and confer team members. We did discuss this briefly with chief prior to today's meeting um just to have reasonable accommodations so that y'all can be here. Um duration of rules. I think that's the last item. Any amendments to the no

ground rules? All right. I can have a motion. I'll motion to accept. All those in favor? I I I. All those opposed and ground rules are approved. Okay. The next item is discussion and possible action on items to be considered for the 2027 meet and confer agreement.

Um we we have a PowerPoint presentation that we want to just lay out for clarity and um I I didn't intend to bargain anything today. So what we have presented here are things that we're um putting on for number two for asks and things research and things like that. So um like I said I don't intend to bargain today. So um what Lieutenant Kenny's going to present is something that we are looking forward to for the contract. Okay.

Okay. So where are we at right now? We have 151 sworn officers that are functional. Uh we have five that are in PTO phases. We have two that are still in the academy. Uh and we have 14 empty positions. According to our metric, we're an average of 12 to 14% behind market as of 101 of 25. Um I had a chance to go through the pay study and I'll get to that in a second. As far as Can I ask a question on that first slide? Does that include the frozen positions? the six that are frozen. Correct.

H they're unfunded. there. Oh, that's actually

No, there's five. Yes, Hannah. She's stuck. Give me a second. I can get you that answer. And also for clarifi clarification, Brandon just mentioned that we did technically unfreeze those positions in the last contract, but they are unfunded. So that's probably how we should refer to them.

Yeah. So that that total is for 174. What's up there? So, if you added six more positions, it'd be 20 empty positions. Um, so what our needs moving forward are, um, we're looking for a three-year contract, um, with the increase to base salaries to bring us to market, um, an increase in the daily rate on the PTO program, uh, night differential, and then the sick time buyback to increase overtime. um kind of each year. Anything on that slide? So depending on the metrics, we're 12 to 15% below market as of 101 of 25. Conservative estimate for fiscal year 27 of as of 101 of 26 being another 4% behind. Um, everything that we see shows about a 4% increase in the benchmarks. So, I went through the pay study and here are some of our issues with it. Um, for civil service, it only uses the minimum salary for positions. And if you put the minimum salary at 100% but the maximum's at 90%, you're still behind. I mean, that's just a fact. Um, there's some

I'm sorry. Who's using minimum salary for positions? The pay study that y'all paid for. I thought you all used the midpoint. For civilian positions, we use the midpoint. For civil service positions, we do use the minimum because all officers in that rank make the same salary. So, the minimum, max, and mid would all be the same number. Okay. Thank you for clarifying. except you're using they don't make them the same because your minimum is for officers. You don't adjust for the scale, right?

The um steps aren't taken into consideration. Um so it's on the rank,

right? So all on the on the scale it's all officers make the same even though there's four different levels of officer. All sergeants make the same even though there's three different levels and all lieutenants make the same even though there's two different levels. So if the bottom's at 100% but the top's at 90%. That's not I mean your your stud is going to be wildly different than than what the reality is. Um, so there's also some incorrect, incomplete or outdated data. Um, for example, Bowmont, Denton, Lewisville, McKini, Odessa, Temple, DPS, Waco are all incorrect information as of 101 of 25.

Yes. Was that information included in the study? And you are saying y'all have separate information? Yes, this is just based on the on the cities that were provided in the study. Um, and then double checking through them. Um, the numbers are off from what they currently are. And I don't know, can y'all share those with Veronica? Okay. Yeah. Um, would y'all be interested in doing a subcommittee with the consultant who actually provided this information?

Sure. Okay. Um so continuing on, um the city council obviously made it apparent that they want to exclude the DFW DFW area, um the four cities that are in the DFW area. And while we don't necessarily agree that that's the right thing to do considering just last week we lost somebody to the DFW area. Just last week we lost somebody to DPS. Um we understand that they're outliers in in the whole grand scheme of things. Um, but there's also agencies in the pay study with different job functions, missions, and requirements, which is DPS, ASUPD, which didn't return any data, and then Tom Green County. Um, DPS is highway patrol, wildly different job function. Um, and they're also a outlier on the top end of pay. Um, Tom Green County. So has a range of things um that their deputies, sergeants, lieutenants do that aren't that don't match up. But then even when they do match up, they have sergeants doing what our officers do. They have lieutenants doing what our sergeants do. They have captains doing what our lieutenants do. So, their rank structure just isn't conducive to a one forone comparison. Um, and then there's also agencies included with significant population differences such as LOC and Brownsville. They're both very close to 200,000 or more. Um so the recommendation is eliminate the DFW

metroplex cities even though we do compete with them and then eliminate DPS Tom Green County SO and ASU as well as Lach and Brownsville from the benchmarks which would leave 11 benchmarks of Abalene, Bowmont, College Station, Colleen, Midland, Odessa, Round Rock, Temple, Tyler, Waco, and Witchah Falls. and I'll share this whole presentation with y'all. Any questions on

I'm I'm just curious how Leach and Brownsville how did they skew the data? Just so I understand. Um, Leach is is at the top end of the benchmarks that would be left outside of DFW and uh, DPSSO and then Brownsville is the absolute last other than SO. Thank you.

So, our proposal is for a recruit to make $71,30, basic officer to make 76691. Intermediate makes 86698. Advanced makes 9475. Master makes 101712. And then sergeants start with an intermediate at 10297. Advanced at 109224. Master at 116 and $16. Lieutenant advance starts at 120 and $57. And uh Lieutenant Master makes 133187. that would put it at 100% of average of those 11 cities as of 101 of 25. So we'd we'd still be a year behind, but um at least that gets us to 100% of last year. And it gives us a a solid metric to go forward with that each year we gather the 11 cities top and bottom create an average smooth out the other steps to maintain 100% of the average for the year before which realistically is 95 or 96% of their current average for the current fiscal year. The cost for that is $2,334,440 with our current uh current officers where they currently are.

So for each of those levels, you did the average, the top and bottom, and is that where you got to these numbers? Yeah. So the recruit obviously there's one level that's just set. Um, and then the bottom of the average is what the peace officer the police officer basic, the top is what the P police officer master, and then it's just smoothed out in between. Um, and then Same for sergeants. The bottom is the what the intermediate set at, the top's what the master's set at, and then advanced is in the middle.

And for the smoothing out, did you just do like incremental equal? Yeah, it's pretty it's pretty well equal. Um it's a little bit and this was this was uh something that um the chief had talked about a couple of months back of where we're losing people on the on the peace officer scale is usually when they're at intermediate. So we felt that it probably would be better to give a little bit more weight to that intermediate um to try and keep people here. And then as you see it's it goes down from there. That first that first step is 10 and then and then eight and then uh seven and then I think the sergeant is smack in the middle of the two for the advanced and I ran it a couple of different ways. The cost obviously changes but it doesn't change a tremend tremendous amount because of the the number of officers at those stages. Um, for the PTO program, we're suggesting an increase uh from $50 per day of train that they train someone to $70 per day. Uh, the total number of days trained from October 1 of last year through March 15th of this year would be 300. The total number of days forecast for fiscal year 26 is 654 days that that people are training people. Um the cost per $10 is $6,540 is estimated. Um so it'd be 1380 $13,80 for uh moving to 70

night differential. We brought this up last year. We're just bringing it up again. Uh $100 per month for any sworn officer who works at least half their normal workday between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. Um there's 63 eligible officers, sergeants, and lieutenants. Uh the cost per eligible officer is $1,200 and the total cost is 73,200. uh sick time buyback proposal. We're requesting an increase increasing the maximum of the 20 plus year uh retirees from 960 by 60 hours each year of the contract. So it' go 1020 the first year, 1080 the second year, 1140 the last year. So, the total total cost for everything we've asked for is $2,418,448. Um, and so I want to just circle back to uh a couple things. The nighttime differential, that's something that's already in civil service law. So that's not something we have to go around and um investigate, look at. The uh biggest thing though for our team anyway is a multi-year contract cuz you know come back every year and hashing things out. You know it it's a process. Um but the second biggest thing is our pay scale. Um, and one of the things that comes to mind when we first started all this and all the work that this body has done has

really put us in a winable position because we we have seen um really really good efforts in recruiting laterals and experienced police officers because we want them to come here. One of the things that um we want to forecast for the future is if we cannot or do not do anything upfront to get marketable and comparable for West Texas, it's going to be unintentionally difficult to continue to recruit laterals, especially if we're losing locally locally worked officers who've been here less than 5 years. They're ready to just stop and leave. So, I don't know if we would actually have that ability if we were to go recruit somewhere else. So, um, our team has talked in lengths about this. It would be really good if we could, um, go ahead put all the money towards our 100% average cuz to Lieutenant Kenny's point, we're going to be a little bit behind anyway because fiscal years change. If we could put all the money up on the front end, every year after this, we'll essentially just be a maintenance work to see where comparisons lie. And I think that's where we want to continue to grow towards that as the years um move on. Um and then the last thing is the uh the sick time buyback. I think that's really important especially for our retirees and it could be also beneficial for everybody in the city if it chooses to go that way as well.

Just to clarify, sick time would be your third preference and rank I mean all all of it is important. I just wanted to opine about what what what is important but I mean all of it is nighttime differential I mean all of it's important to us. So as items come on I think lengthy discussions about those key areas are important to us. Yeah. Do you have any other items you would like to add to the T table? Okay. for the city side. Um the items that we noted were we would like some clarification on the lateral transfers versus rehires um for returning officers and who was actually eligible for that um lateral transfer program. I I think the issue may be that it there's kind of a conflict um maybe not a conflict but the mean confer agreement doesn't really address it but in the civil service rules I think there's like a reappointment provision where you know they've uh come back after like within a 2-year period and then are those people reappointed are they also considered laterals or not and I think our preference is to they um that they're not um but I don't know

is I'm just going to ask a question. Is there a a difference between if somebody comes back part-time or full-time or you just in general? Is there is there a TMRS rule about coming back full-time after you've retired or or we just talking about leaving totally? We're talking about those officers who completely leave the organization, potentially go to another uh department or agency, and then return to SAPD. So, when when we're asking whether they're treated the same or differently as laterals in in which like in what aspect?

I think the lateral bonus was one issue. It was never our intention that somebody leave and come back and get a sign on bonus. Right. I I don't think it's ours either. Correct. But however, we would need to clarify that in the the document of, you know, do you have to be gone 2 years, 5 years? At what point do you re-qualify for that? Or do you ever Did we Well, I thought we included in there that if they went if they were hired and went through the academy with us and left that I think we brought that up and it was never put in language. Okay.

Um because that was I believe I think that's probably on a recording where we said like yeah no if we train them we should never give them a bonus. However, the bonuses were completely between the chief and the city manager and was not included in the contract at all. Yeah. I don't think we've got bonus language in the contract. That's right. Yeah. Because there's different levels to those to what bonuses because it's based it's tied to their license and everything else. But that was a the PDF that I got was like I said it's directly between the chief and city manager. Certainly I I think I can speak for this since we've already talked about it before. Um it's never our intention that we we pay to train somebody and then they leave and come back and get a

get a sign on bonus or somebody else pays to train them, we pay a sign on bonus, then they leave and come back and get another sign on bonus. That's not Yeah, I think we share that. Okay. I'm not sure about what the language looks like, but that's just something we want to Yeah, some clarification there in writing. Um, the only other item I had on my list to discuss was the city would like to request physical fitness requirements and I think that was a request previously brought up. Um, and so how that process looks, we're open to whether it's a day off or an additional payer. Um, but that is something that the city would be interested in adding. Okay.

Did I miss anything for the city's team?

I don't think so. All right. Is there anything else we would like to discuss today? Okay. If following the meeting, we could set a time for a subcommittee meeting while we're all here, that would be helpful. Okay. All right. If I can get a motion to adjurnn a motion. Do we want to set the next

Oh, yeah. Yeah. Do we want to set the next actual meet bargaining meeting? How does the last week of April look for you guys? Potentially Tuesday the 28th. Just something to think about though is our budget workshops. So we have one Friday and then I think official budget workshops start in July. So

general fund budget workshops will start August first week of August. August. So so we want to

just if we want to plan around that too of course I agree. So I think meeting at the end of April is probably a good start towards that timeline. That the 28th I think you said. Yeah. Unless you want to do the subcommittee on the 28th and push her meet and confer out. You could do that as well.

Yeah. Can we do that? Could we set the subcommittee because I'd hate to have a whole meeting without anything to any meat and potatoes. So, could we meet I'm sorry. Could we subcommittee on the 28th and then push the general meeting later? That' be okay. That would work. Maybe May 12th day and then we'll kind of see if the consultants available on the 28th. Okay. So on the 28th we'll have to get back to you with a time when our consultants available for the actual meet and confer meeting. Um we're looking at May 12th.

That's police. Yeah, the second week of May is um police week statewide. So, we have things 26th. Is y'all's intent to have a contract sign by May or June, or are we waiting till closer to October? Yeah, there there's for sure a portion of like especially the pay plan negotiations and some of the additional pays that we'd like to have in place or at least uh somewhat agreed upon tenative.

Yeah, tentative at least by August. Um but I don't believe the contract needs to be executed until September in order for it to be effective in the October budget. Jonathan, what would the timeline look like if we have to go to an election?

If we go to an election, that that actually does push everything up pretty significantly. That means that we would have to have a general fund workshop at the end of July, I believe. Um, and the budget would need to be approved um and voted on by city council by the second week of August. So, that that could push up this um the timeline when it comes to approving the budget and getting the contract agreed upon. But I think we'd have the opportunity, especially if we met at the end of uh at the end of May, um to have a real good sense not only where the pay plan is going, but also what our capacity is from a revenue side of things. So that we could probably make a decision on future meetings there as well. But we may we may have to expedite some some of the meetings and some of the negotiations depending on whether or not um we take a vote for additional public safety expenditures or something like that

like a tax election. A tax election. Yes. Yeah. So in the event that we didn't have enough revenue to cover whatever the requests were and that city council directed us to fund it, we may have to go to a property tax election in November. Okay. So, yes, I would say our goal would be to have a TA um by July just in case that were the the case. Okay. So, it we might have several meetings between the end of May and July to work out those details, but I do think finance may not have enough information prior to the end of May to actually have numbers.

Yes. Unfortunately, we don't get property tax valuations until July 25th at at the earliest. Um, and you know, the state legislature has put in place a 3 and 12% cap on property tax revenue increase anyway. Um, so given that we can have some general idea what we may get to without going to an election, but we won't really know until, you know, because new properties added to the role are not capped. So in the event that we had significant increases there, we may have more than we expect, but we really don't know for sure until that date.

Yeah. Unfortunately, between July 25th and when we have to go to an election's only a matter of weeks.

Okay. Um yeah, so just circle back. I think the 28th will be a good starting point for meeting with the consultant and then um as this progresses we'll we'll stay moving. Um so did we come to a conclusion on the next meeting and confer actual meeting? Um is there a reason we can't do it the week of the 18th sometime or um HR is unavailable that week. Okay. So the 26th. Okay. We at least we just need we need to see our schedule first.

Well, I I'll tell you what. That 11th through the 15th, let's schedule something for that week. That way we can cuz I'm I'm only saying I I don't want to be in a time crunch. So if let give us some time to look at our schedules and things, but that 12th or the 14th, is that possible? The 11th through the 12th is for me, but it would have to be any to Okay. And just as FYI,

Kimberly and I are going to be alternating meetings. Um, and so I'd be the one for the next meeting. So, um, for my schedule, it could be anytime on the 11th or the morning of the 12th. The rest of the week I'm not available, but if Kimberly has to step in for those, she can if it's later in the week. Okay. I'm available anytime except the morning of the 13th. I think the same for Jonathan probably. Yes. Yeah, I'm good with any day that week, but Wednesday morning. Okay. Yeah, I think I'm good any day that week, too.

Okay. Can I um can I pull all pull all of our availability and then send it and then we'll communicate through email and then set it that way. Is that okay? That'd be great. Yeah, if you'll send it to Veronica and I will coordinate that.

Okay. Thanks. Well, I think scheduling is okay. Um, do y'all have anything? Think we can probably I had a draft of the ground rules already done. I I think I still had Nol's name on it, but if we just sign that before we get out of here. All right. If that's the case, we can have a motion to adjurnn. All motion.

Second. All those in favor say I. I. And meeting adjourns at 9:40.