Macomb County delays vote on sheriff labor deals after debate over pension, local costs

Macomb County commissioners on Dec. 4 voted to move consideration of a fiscal‑year 2025 budget amendment tied to labor agreements for the sheriff’s deputies and dispatchers to the county Records and Public Safety Committee meeting on Dec. 11, after prolonged discussion about a 5% wage settlement and reinstating a defined‑benefit pension.

The budget amendment presented to the Government Oversight Committee reflected the settlement with the Fraternal Order of Police deputies and dispatchers unions and the additional cost of a negotiated 5% increase for 2025, above the 3% already built into the county’s 2025 budget. County staff said the total cost across both groups is $575,800 and that the cost would be split between the general fund and the dispatch fund.

Why it matters: Commissioners raised concerns that the change — especially reinstating a defined‑benefit (DB) pension for ranks that had been on a defined‑contribution (DC) plan — could set a precedent for other bargaining units, create added long‑term liabilities, and oblige townships and cities that contract with the county to absorb higher charges.

County staff described the cost and scope. "The cost of this proposal across both groups, the dispatchers and the deputies, is $575,800," said Steve Smiekle, a county staff member who presented the budget figures. He told commissioners the net effect for the general fund is a planned use of fund balance of about $295,000, after anticipated chargebacks to local units. "We charge out about 41% of our deputies to local units and about 60% of our dispatchers to local units," Smiekle said.

Carlin Semlo of the county human resources department said staffing difficulties helped prompt the move to restore the pension. "We have lost 37 deputies alone in the last seven years," Semlo said, adding that nearby municipalities that still offer DB pensions — Sterling Heights, Warren, Clinton Township, St. Clair Shores — were drawing applicants away. "We're losing our deputies to other agencies," she said.

Commissioners asked for more analysis and time. Commissioner Kraft and others said the 5% settlement — and the pension change — arrived late in the budget cycle and that local municipalities and townships did not have notice. "We were under the understanding that it would be 3% and we budgeted as such," Commissioner Kraft said. Commissioner Sabatini and Commissioner Van Sickle urged more detailed actuarial projections of future pension liabilities before a final vote.

Several commissioners also pressed county staff on whether alternatives — such as multi‑year signing or retention bonuses or an escrowed payment — had been considered. County staff said signing bonuses had been discussed in the past but deemed not an effective long‑term retention strategy. "Yes, we've discussed signing bonuses in the past. We don't believe that it's actually an effective way to keep employees," Semlo said.

Questions about timing and local impact were central to the discussion. Commissioners expressed concern that many contracting local governments have different fiscal years and would learn of added costs late in their own budget cycles. Several said that, even if the county absorbs some of the cost this year from reserves, the restoration of a DB plan could prompt other bargaining units to seek similar treatment.

After more than two hours of debate and multiple calls for more information, the committee voted 11‑0 to refer items B through E (including the sheriff labor agreements and related budget amendments) to the Records and Public Safety Committee meeting on Dec. 11 so commissioners could review actuarial analyses, cost projections and the tentative agreements (TAs) in detail before a county‑wide vote.

What was decided: The committee did not approve the budget amendment or ratify the labor agreements on Dec. 4. Instead it voted to table and move the items to a committee meeting where finance and HR staff will present more detailed financial projections and the associated contract language.

Context and next steps: County staff said the TAs are available for commissioners to review in the administration office and offered to circulate summaries and meet with individual commissioners. Commissioner Brown suggested routing the materials through the Records and Public Safety Committee and the Finance Committee so the board would have actuarial reports and long‑term cost projections before a final decision. The full board will next consider the matter after committee review.

No formal final contract ratification occurred at the Dec. 4 meeting; staff said, if the bargaining units do not ratify a TA, the parties must return to bargaining.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff to distribute the TAs and financial analyses in advance of the Dec. 11 committee meeting. The committee’s 11‑0 vote to move the items gives members additional time to review actuarial estimates and to discuss how costs would be split between county funds and contracting local governments.