Police union presents multi-article pay-and-benefits package, cites retention needs

Union negotiators and city officials met to review a multi-article police contract proposal that the union said is focused on recruiting and keeping officers, particularly early-career patrol personnel.

The union representative said the package would result "a 13% pay raise over the four years" for most patrol ranks and proposed moving longevity pay from fixed dollar amounts to a percentage-based system tied to multi-year milestones. The proposal would also add intermediate pay steps for investigators and other mid-rank positions and tie certain longevity payouts to a five‑year service anniversary as an explicit retention incentive.

Negotiators emphasized certification pay for intermediate, advanced and master peace officer credentials, describing a tiered, percent-based schedule (transcribed in bargaining materials as "6810" for certain certification tiers and noted as matching the fire department structure). The union argued certification and milestone pay would reward training and encourage officers to remain on the job while they earn credentials.

The city’s bargaining team asked for clarifications about how certification and longevity pay would be calculated and paid (monthly percentages converted to biweekly checks) and whether the contract should include reopener dates limited to compensation. Both sides discussed contract length options; the union said it would consider a longer agreement only if both parties agreed to limited reopeners and agreed language to trigger them.

Several articles in the package addressed non‑wage compensation: shift and division differentials were proposed so officers working day, evening or night patrols would receive additional pay; the union proposed adding Easter Sunday to the list of premium paid holidays and increasing pay for certain major holidays from time‑and‑a‑half to double time. Negotiators said these premium pay changes target patrol officers, who are most affected by holiday staffing and response-time concerns.

On leave and retirement issues, the union proposed raising sick‑leave buyback caps for some employees (a proposed 720‑hour threshold was discussed), clarifying eligibility for serious‑illness leave, and offering a three‑year catch‑up/rollover option to let officers convert leave to deferred compensation in the three years prior to retirement. The union also sought adjustments to a retiree dependent fund to better serve longer‑tenured retirees amid rising medical costs.

Negotiators discussed deferred compensation (457) matching and the city’s retirement plan (TMRS). The union asked the city to study raising the city contribution level toward an illustrated target and requested a public cost analysis to understand fiscal impacts. City staff said they were already reviewing health‑fund and retirement costs and projected a significant health‑fund shortfall if no changes are made during the budget process.

Neither side reached final agreement. Bargaining focused on drafting specific contract language and estimating costs; negotiators set follow‑up negotiation dates to refine articles and deliver cost figures for council briefing. The parties agreed to continue talks in late June/early July to prepare a package for council consideration.

"We're trying to think outside the box and keep people working here," the union representative said, framing the proposals as retention measures rather than pay demands alone. A city official noted the need to balance those goals with broader budget constraints and the city's existing obligations.

Next steps: negotiators agreed to produce a more concrete costed package for city review and council briefing before any final agreement is reached.