Dearborn Heights officials and union debate ratified police contract as finance and pension questions surface

Dearborn Heights — City and union negotiators ratified a tentative agreement for the police department on Dec. 19 that would raise pay and change benefits, but council members and finance advisers told a study session they were not consulted on affordability and that procedural steps tied to pension costs appear not to have been completed. The union has filed for mediation with the Michigan employment-relations authority.

The agreement as described at the meeting would give officers a 5% raise each year of a three-year contract (15% total), increase the city match to the existing MERS retirement contribution from 1% to 3%, and expand retiree health-care subsidy provisions to cover 60% of a retiree’s premium up to $7,000 annually. It would also add two paid holidays (Juneteenth and Eid), provide overtime/time-and-a-half for specified working holidays, create a $1,500 maximum stipend for certain certifications (evidence technician, range staff, honor guard, lock‑picking school), allow limited furlough roll-over with payout above 244 hours, and include other language changes the city said were intended to limit overtime and tighten sick‑leave rules. The city negotiators sought removal of the contract’s minimum‑staffing clause and offered a $4-per-hour night shift premium as an alternative.

"Finance was not a part of any conversation. It was never consulted," said Brian, a Plante Moran financial consultant who reviewed the signed agreement and the city’s budgets. He told the council the city faces a projected FY‑26 deficit in the low millions and that the budget being discussed at the same meeting included a sensitive $1.5 million revenue estimate tied to the sale of city property that may not materialize.

"The primary economics of the contract are as follows. It will be a 5% increase every year of the contract, which is a three‑year contract. So it'll be 15% over three years," said a union representative (POAM business agent) who detailed the economic terms on behalf of the membership.

Pension board member Laurie said she and pension board counsel saw provisions that could create "new roll‑ins" to officers' final average compensation. "To me and to our lawyers, it looks like there's new roll ins. So that would require the city to have an actuarial opinion," Laurie said, and she offered to obtain a cost estimate if the city requested one.

Council members repeatedly asked who authorized the attorneys and administrators who negotiated the deal. The record at the meeting, as described by participants, shows the tentative agreement was signed by then‑Chief Kevin Swope and city representative Roger Farina; Ken Wilson was named at the meeting as the city's negotiating attorney from Perkins Law. The mayor did not sign the agreement, and finance staff said they were not involved in the negotiations.

A union attorney representing bargaining interests said the union followed the statutory bargaining notice process and that the union would pursue mediation and, if necessary, arbitration. "We send, which is required by law, a notice of intent to bargain a successor agreement to the mayor's office," the attorney said. The union confirmed it has filed for mediation with the state labor agency; the parties said Wanda Mays had been assigned as mediator.

City finance and council members warned the contract’s cost may outstrip available funds. Brian of Plante Moran told the panel: "This is a very generous contract ... I fully support our public safety. It was purely a question of who approved this and was any consideration given to whether or not the city could afford it." Councillors and the finance consultant said previous calculations showed a current‑year deficit and that a ratified agreement with retroactive pay could push deficits higher unless offsetting cuts or additional revenue are identified.

Union negotiators said they accepted concessions in other areas in exchange for pay and benefit improvements and that members voted to ratify the agreement. The union also said language changes were intended to limit overtime by tightening sick‑leave usage and other work rules.

Several members of the public addressed the meeting. Sue Kaminski urged the council to compel the mayor to appear and answer questions about authorization; other commenters urged the council to secure funding to retain officers. The union said it will continue bargaining through mediation and then arbitration if needed; council members were told that, procedurally, the council can accept or reject a tentative agreement when it is presented.

Next steps identified at the study session: the pension board said it can provide an actuarial estimate if the city requests it; the union has moved the matter to state‑appointed mediation; and council members said they will seek answers from the administration about who authorized the negotiators and what fiscal plans exist to pay any retroactive or ongoing costs.

If mediation does not resolve the dispute, the union said it expects arbitration and that the clock is running on any retroactive pay that is part of the ratified tentative agreement.

(Reporting note: direct quotes and details are drawn from a Dearborn Heights City Council study session transcript.)