El Mirage council approves three-year police memorandum of understanding amid fiscal questions

The El Mirage City Council on April 15 approved Resolution 205-43 adopting a memorandum of understanding between the City of El Mirage and the El Mirage Police Employees Association covering July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2028. The council vote followed several hours of staff presentation and council discussion about pay steps, benefits and budget priorities.

Council member Gentry had asked that the item be removed from the consent agenda for discussion. Dawn, presenting the tentative MOU, told the council the agreement reflected multiple changes recommended by the city manager and association bargaining representatives following the city—ode meet-and-confer process. Key changes described by staff included revisions to disciplinary and tuition-reimbursement language to align with city policy, adjustments to vacation leave language, a change from payroll-deducted to direct-deposit association dues, removal of release-time language, and step-pay changes for officers and sergeants to align with market percentiles. Other provisions included a cost-of-living adjustment in the second and third years, inclusion of officers in any citywide compensation studies, an increase in deferred-compensation employer contribution (from $35 per pay period to $100 per pay period), specialty-assignment pay, modest increases in on-call pay, an increase in guaranteed callback hours, an association leave-donation option, a rise in uniform allowance to $1,400 annually, changes to sick-leave conversion at retirement eligibility, and a voluntary vaccination statement.

Council member Gentry raised concerns that residents had called asking why contracts routinely appear on the consent agenda and questioned several substantive provisions. The city attorney, Justin, and staff explained the meet-and-confer process: the police association submits requests to the city manager, who then negotiates with HR and management to reach a tentative agreement to present to council. Don, who described compensation comparators, said the city uses a comparator group of 10 cities based on geography and recruitment competition to set pay plans. Council members pressed staff about fiscal impacts and how many employees the changes would affect; staff said about 57 employees would be affected by the $100 deferred-compensation change and that the projected three-year cost shown in public materials was $410,400.

Council member Gentry moved to table for further negotiation; the motion failed for lack of a second. Council member Norton McDaniel argued the changes were needed to retain and recruit officers, noting the department had 10–12 vacancies. Norton McDaniel made a motion to approve the resolution; Council member Winston seconded. In a roll-call vote the measure passed with six ayes and one nay (Gentry).

The record shows a mix of support and concern: supporters said the MOU aimed to address retention and recruitment challenges in a competitive regional market; critics urged fiscal caution and clearer prior outreach to residents. The council did not adopt additional amendments at the meeting.

Votes at the April 15 meeting: Ayes — Mayor Hermosillo; Vice Mayor Parsons; Council members Dorsey, Aldridge, Norton McDaniel and Winston. Nay — Council member Gentry. Outcome: approved, Resolution 205-43 adopted.

Council and staff said the MOU will be implemented per its terms if no further council action is required; staff also noted officers will be part of future compensation studies and that any implementation costs will be reflected in future budget adjustments.