Report: Give cops pay raise of 10.5%

The fact finder sided with the city on most of the contract issues.

By DAVID SKOLNICK

CITY HALL REPORTER

YOUNGSTOWN — A fact finder’s report recommends that the city give its police patrol officers a 10.5-percent raise over three years and that the union members pay more of their health-insurance premiums.

City council will vote Wednesday to authorize the board of control to approve the contract.

Law Director Iris Torres Guglucello, a board of control member, called the fact finder’s report “favorable” and recommends its approval.

Edward Colon, president of a police union, the 117-member Youngstown Police Association, declined to comment Monday on the report.

Either side can reject the 44-page nonbinding report from fact finder Michael Paolucci of Cincinnati, who held closed-door hearings with city and union officials May 7 and 9 and June 15.

If the report is rejected, the contract’s terms are resolved by a binding arbitrator.

The union’s contract expired Nov. 30, 2006.

The two sides had 32 unresolved issues, including salary, health-care contributions, residency, sick leave, retirement and severance, discipline, tuition reimbursement and employee parking.

Of the 32 issues, six were resolved since the June 15 meeting.

Paolucci sided with the city on most of the 26 other issues.

Insurance premiums

A major fact-finder recommendation is an increase in the health-insurance premiums paid by the patrol officers.

The members currently contribute 7 percent of the premium cost with a $25 monthly cap for single coverage and $50 for family coverage. The city’s current monthly health premiums are $412.16 for single and $1,042.45 for family.

The union wanted to keep the same 7-percent contribution and increase the monthly caps to $30 single and $55 family in the contract’s second year and to $35 and $60 in the third year.

The city countered with a 10-percent premium contribution, the amount nearly all full-time city employees currently pay, with monthly caps of $35 for single and $75 for family this year, increased to $65 and $115 next year and $80 and $150 in 2009.

“To grant this bargaining unit a different benefit than everyone else has already agreed to would be unwieldy, unreasonable, and unwise,” Paolucci wrote. “This bargaining unit has benefited from having a very modest participation in the premium costs when across the state similar bargaining units have been paying higher contributions for many years. It is time for this bargaining unit to join the other officers in the state and pay more of the premium costs.”

Salary proposals

The city had proposed 1.5-percent salary increases annually, effective at the signing of the contract, for the patrol officers. The union countered with 4.5-percent annual raises, retroactive to Dec. 1, 2006, the first day of a new contract.

Paolucci recommended the union receive a 3-percent raise, retroactive to Dec. 1; then a 4.5-percent raise in the contract’s second year and 3 percent in the last year. That’s the same amount the city gave its ranking-officers union in June.

Union officials complained that not enough money is being spent on the police force, and the city had told them that there would be at least 145 officers on the force if a 0.5-percent income tax increase was approved in 2002. The proposal passed but the union’s membership is at 117.

The city counters that there are 190 officers in the department counting the higher ranks and that it has more officers per capita than any comparable city.

Residency requirement

The union proposed removing the city residency requirement from the contract. The city charter requires all city employees hired after 1988 to live in Youngstown.

The state Legislature eliminated the residency requirement effective May 1, 2006. But chartered cities such as Youngstown contend the state doesn’t have the authority to supersede its charter requirements.

The police union wanted to require only that officers live in Mahoning County and contiguous counties, which is the state law.

City officials said the proposal would put the two sides “at odds legally immediately after the agreement is signed. It argues that the union’s proposal would be invalid as a matter of law,” Paolucci wrote.

Based solely on the legal issue, the fact finder declined to permit union members to live outside of the city. But he added that he thinks it would be reasonable to permit officers to live in Mahoning County.

skolnick@vindy.com