The URL can be used to link to this page

04/22/2003 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 22 , 2003 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Dale Lambert. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Council Executive Director; David Nimkin, Mayor's Chief of Staff; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Lyn Creswell, Assistant City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Marge Harvey, Council Constituent Liaison; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Jim Lewis, Public Utilities Finance Administrator, Stephanie Duer, Water Conservation Coordinator, John Campbell and Jill Carter, Citizens Advisory Committee, Brenda Hancock, Human Resource Director; Vic Blanton, Classification and Compensation Program Manager; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy Recorder. Council Chair Christensen presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See file M 03-5 for announcements. #2. RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED WATER RATE STRUCTURE. View Attachment LeRoy Hooton, Stephanie Duer, and Jim Lewis, briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Lambert asked if Public Utilities had budget cuts could they also lower rates. Mr. Hooton said the rate structure could be changed but because of the drought it would be difficult. He said rates had been significantly changed to reflect conservation. He said they were trying to assess the impact of the drought. He said revenue had been lost last year because of the drought and based on current snow pack, water supply revenue would be lost this year. A discussion was held regarding the possible budget cut of $946,274. Councilmember Lambert asked what the difference was for County residents receiving City water. Mr. Lewis said the difference was a decrease for City residents and an increase for County residents. Mr. Lewis said a 1% increase in rates generated approximately $440,000. Councilmember Lambert asked if a change from 29 to 30 CCF' s would destroy the structure of the conservation incentives. Mr. Hooton said the total package was very well thought out. He said numbers had been structured carefully and one change would change others. Ms. Duer said the number 29 for CCF' s was based on the average consumption for Salt Lake City and County residents. She said the goal was a 10% reduction in volume of use for outdoor water. She said less could be used. She said the determination was that it was important as a community to identify a goal which was achievable and substantive. She said 29 represented a compromise of outdoor City and County water consumption with goal of 10% reduction. Ms. Duer said numbers of households were lost as each increment was increased. Mr. Hooton said the reason a goal was set was so everyone could contribute to the 03 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 22 , 2003 conservation of the area. Ms. Duer said typical residential use in Salt Lake City used in excess of 20% to 40% of water out doors. She said a 10% goal was not unreasonable. She said based on water audits much of the water over use was not based on lot size but scheduling and maintaining a watering system. Councilmember Buhler asked if Urban Forestry had been involved in the schedule. Ms. Duer said the Urban Forestry Department had been a part of the process. She said the typical reason for the death of a tree was over watering or lawnmower damage. She said Tree Utah had written a letter to the Council in support of the rate structure. Councilmember Turner said the need to conserve was bigger and that meant a loss of revenue to Public Utilities. He asked if Public Utilities would be financially stable. Mr. Hooton said the budget was built into the rate structure. He said once the drought lifted the structure would change. He said the goal was for a conservation rate that provided long-term benefits and conservation ethics. A discussion was held regarding the block structure. Ms. Duer said the sub- committee had asked as part of the recommendation that a periodic review take place of the blocks and rate structure. #3. RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES ON MILITARY LEAVE OF ABSENCE. View Attachment Brenda Hancock, Vic Blanton, Lyn Creswell, John Campbell and Gary Mumford briefed the Council with the attached handout. Councilmember Turner asked for explanation regarding the death benefit to employees on military leave. Councilmember Lambert said the proposal was for two weeks full pay and after that no payment. Ms. Hancock said that was correct. Councilmember Lambert asked if the City would make up the difference as long as the employee was on active duty. Ms. Hancock said that was not in the proposal but Council could consider it. Councilmember Saxton asked if reservists received medical benefits if they were not on active status. Mr. Creswell said active duty would be a weekend or a two week drill and at that time the reservist and family were covered by the military medical program. He said the ordinance addressed individuals called for 180 days or more. Councilmember Buhler asked what the fiscal impact would be if the policy made up the difference while the individual was on active duty. Mr. Blanton said the estimate was 25% difference. He said for those currently activated the estimate was $222,000. He said salary was already budgeted the argument could be that in affect it cost nothing and by paying the difference it cost less. Mr. Blanton said if duty was extensive some positions would have to be replaced. He said that would cause additional expenses, such as increased overtime. Councilmember Christensen said the direction of the ordinance favored the return of the employee to Salt Lake City. Mr. Mumford said since salaries were fully budgeted, the impact would be for next year. All Council Members were in favor of moving the ordinance forward. #4. HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE COUNCIL OFFICE BUDGET. View Attachment Mr. Mumford and Ms. Gust-Jenson briefed the Council. Ms. Gust-Jenson said the Council 03 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH TUESDAY, APRIL 22 , 2003 Office would have a staffing change. She said Ms. Nelson would be leaving the City and wanted to do some work at home for the Council. Discussions were held regarding a 3% budget cut, all departments being asked to cut approximately 3% and cutting employees pay. Councilmember Lambert said he was concerned with the 3% cuts until the Council was able to review department cuts and the Mayor' s Office cuts. He said further cuts could be made in legal and profession services, travel, City conventions, and workshops and communications. Ms. Gust-Jenson said historically, the Council Office had tried to preserve enough money between the audit line item and the legal line item for an urgent audit or legal action. She said any unspent funds were carried over to the audit fund to be used the next year. Councilmember Saxton said now was the time for leadership and salaries should be cut at the top. She said she would rather cut a salary than a position. She said cutting positions diminished services. She said she did not want to wait to review department cuts and the Mayor' s Office cuts. Councilmember Buhler asked that the Council budget be left with some flexibility. He said the budget was all the Council had as far as flexibility. He said this would show leadership. Councilmember Turner said he agreed with Councilmember Buhler and the 3% cut. He said the Council needed to be independent and flexible. Councilmember Jergensen said he supported a 3% cut and the budget as presented. He said the Council should lead the way. Councilmember Love said she agreed with the 3% but wanted to look at the budget numbers for the City. Councilmember Christensen said the issue would be forwarded to the administration for further study. The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m. cm 03 - 3 CO—t/U 4f2Z16)3 Salt Lake City Public Utilities Possible Budget Cuts As in any proposed budget there are a few programs which could be considered non core or non emergency programs.The budget items listed below could be eliminated or delayed without interrupting basic water,sewer or stormwater services during the budget year 2003-2004. Water Utility 1 As requested a zero increase in our personnel budget $541,274 Result-The options will be decided on a City wide basis 2 Landscaping at the Day Riverside Detention Basin $30,000 Result- Possible loss of matching funding from Central Utah Water Conservancy District 3 Landscaping at the Administration Building $30,000 Result-Possible loss of matching funding from Central Utah Water Conservancy District 4 Watershed educational Program $165,000 Result-This is the last major component of our Watershed education program which could provide the highest results for watershed protection and reduce future costs 5 Funding for safety incentive program $25,000 Result-Elimination of a very effective program which has reduced accidents and costs. 6 Reduction in travel and conventions&workshops $16,000 Result-Reduction in the level of technical skills and expertise 7 Reduction in chemical purchases due to delayed implementation of fluoridation $20,000 Result-The actual cost of chemical is not known at this time and might increase 8 Department Annual Report $8,000 Result- Loss of ability to educate and inform the public on city public utility issues 9 Two Educational Brochures $14,000 Result- Loss of ability to educate and inform the public on city public utility issues 10 Reduction in the number of technical books purchased $3,000 Result-Loss of educational material 11 Delay construction of canyon restrooms $45,000 Result-Restrooms need to be upgraded to provide adequate facilities to maintain water quality 12 Delay purchase of a TOC analyzer for water treatment plant $25,000 Result-The Department will use the old TOC analyzer with potentially less realizable results 13 Delay purchasing 1/2 ton full size truck $24,000 Result-A reduction in vehicle replacement program Total possible budget cuts $946,274 Sewer Utility 1 As requested a zero increase in our personnel budget $173,285 Result-The options will be decided on a City wide basis 2 Reduction in travel and conventions&workshops $15,000 Result- Reduction in the level of technical skills and expertise 3 Department Annual Report $5,000 Result- Loss of ability to educate and inform the public on city public utility issues 4 Funding for safety incentive program $10,000 Result- Elimination of a very effective program which has reduced accidents and costs. 5 Delay in computer replacement program $12,000 Result- Delay in computer upgrades at the Water Reclamation Plant 6 Delay the replacement of golf carts at Reclamation Plant $12,000 Result-A reduction in vehicle replacement program 7 Reduce chemical usage at the plant $5,000 Result- Delay the response to odor events 8 Reduce cost of sludge management by retaining sludge longer on site $50,000 Result-Inability to pay disposal fees if the current contract with Kennecott is terminated. Total possible budget cuts $282,285 Stormwater Utility 1 As requested a zero increase in our personnel budget $31,011 Result-The options will be decided on a City wide basis 2 Reduction in travel and conventions&workshops $5,000 Result-Reduction in the level of technical skills and expertise 3 Department Annual Report $5,000 Result- Loss of ability to educate and inform the public on city public utility issues 4 Funding for safety incentive program $5,000 Result-Elimination of a very effective program which has reduced accidents and costs. Total possible budget cuts $46,011 Total Possible budget cuts for Public Utilities $1,274,570 In addition there are a few items which where not included in the proposed budget 1 Additional security measures and security systems. 2 Additional employees to handle the increase in phone calls and services required by the implementation of the new rate structure. Items to consider: 1 Currently our training and travel costs are below national standards for utilities of comparable size. 2 Watershed education helps in protecting water supplies from pollution and keeping down long term treatment costs. 3 The safety incentive program has been very effective in reducing the number of accidents and reducing costs if To: Salt Lake city Council Members From: Gary Mumford Date: April 18,2003 Re: CITY COUNCIL OFFICE BUDGET Each year the Council establishes an office budget for the next year to be included in the Mayor's citywide recommended budget. The budget is not usually analyzed or altered by the Administration, but rather is funded at the level directed by the City Council. Each year the Council Office submits a budget to the Administration that doesn't include employee pay increases. If the Mayor recommends a citywide pay increase for the Council's consideration, the salary increase will be added to the budget submitted by the Council Office and included in the Mayor's recommended budget book, Attached is a schedule showing the detailed Council Office budget that the Council adopted for the 2002-03 fiscal year, estimated expenditures through June 30, 2003, and a proposed budget for your consideration. This proposed budget results in a $46,700 decrease, which is a 3% decrease to the base budget(before any salary adjustments). The following changes to the budget are proposed: • $41,450'reduction for personal services relating to eliminating a vacant part-time staff assistant position and reductions to the retirement premium budget to reflect actual payments. Some longevity payments were also budgeted in error by the citywide salary budget system for this current year. "Unclassified"employees are not eligible for longevity payments. • $500 reduction in the budget for books and periodicals. • -$1,200 reduction for office supplies. • $1,500 reduction for copy center charges. A large portion of costs for printing is now charged to Council Members'communication budget. • $1,500 reduction for postage. Again, a large portion of postage expense is charged to the Council Members'communication budget. • $2,400 reduction for Other materials & supplies. In the recent past, this budget was used to purchase pins for the Olympics and National League of Cities conference. The Council Office doesn't anticipate the purchase of pins during fiscal year 2003-04. • $1,050 increase to the appropriation for auditing. This increase will restore the auditing budget to the level before a slight reduction to absorb some of the proportional cuts that were included in the biennial budget for the second fiscal year. The auditing budget consists of$102,500 for the annual financial audit and$217,500 for small studies and a major management audit. • $3,500.reduction to cell phone and other telephone costs to reflect an estimation of annual costs based on recent actual costs. • $3,900 increase to computer lease and maintenance. Actual costs are exceeding the current year budget. • $1,400 increase to Council Members' communication;budget. After the biennial budget was adopted,the Council increased the communication budget from$3,500 to$3,700 per district. • $1,000 reduction to the meeting expense budget. The resulting budget equals actual estimated costs for the current fiscal year. • The Council may want to discuss the proposal and make any changes to the budget. Staff will then forward the Council Office budget to the Administration to be included in the overall citywide budget. No motion is necessary at this time since the Council will adopt a Council Office budget at the same time that the citywide budget is adopted. During the Council's review of the citywide budget, if additional citywide reductions are necessary, the Council may wish to ask staff to take a more decisive look at the office budget for possible additional budget cuts. In the budget reduction scenario for the current fiscal year the Council decided to make cuts to its own budget at approximately the average amount that other City Departments were being reduced. If the Council would like to take this approach, it could direct Council staff to submit something less than 3 percent(2 percent, for example)and be prepared to make additional cuts during the budget if it is necessary to reduce budgets of other City departments at a higher percentage. • `• 4/18/2003 PROPOSED COUNCIL OFFICE BUDGET Fiscal Year 2003-04 Adopted Projected Proposed Budget Actual Budget Comments FY02-03 FY02-03 FY03-04 (3/o reduction) Salaries $ 790,100 $ 759,100 $ 759,100 Elimtion of vacarrt part-time position • &otherina salary savings FICA 58,180 56,100 56,100 Retirement 73,080 67,600 67,600 Health insurance 113,090 110,200 110,200 Personal leave conversion 1,000 950 1,000 Total Personal Services 1,035,450 993,950 994,000 Books&periodicals 2,500 1,850 2,000 Reduction of$500 Office supplies 7,700 6,200 6,500 Reduction of$1,200 Copy center charges 6,500 4,800 5,000 Reduction of$1,500 Postage 6,500 4,700 5,000 Reduction of$1,500 Other materials&supplies 7,600_ 6,200 5,200 Reduction of$2,400 Total Materials&Supplies 30,800 23,750 23,700 Auditing 318,950 359,500 320,000 Financial audit fee for FY04 8102,500 Legal&professional services 50,000 26,400 50,000 Telephone basic service 11,900 11,400 11,900 Cell phones&other telephone costs 11,000 6,800 7,500 Reduction of$3,500 Microcomputer lease&maintenance • 8,100 11,900 12,000 Increase of$3,900 Office equipment contracts 2,100 2,100 2,100 Communication Budget($3700 each) 24,500 19,600 25,900 $3,700 x 7 Council Members=$25,900 City Council meeting expense 13,000 12,000 -12,000 Reduction of$1,000 Memberships 950 950 950 In city conventions&workshops 7,700 4,600 7,700 Out of town travel 26,180 18,300 26,180 Auto allowance 4,800 4,800 4,800 Other charges for services 3,000 13,900 3,000 Total Charges for Services 482,180 492,250 484,030 Office furniture&equipment 7,000 - _ 7,000 Total $ 1,555,430 $ 1,509,950 $ 1,508,730 Proposed reduction over FY03 budget $ 46,700 Percent reduction 3.0% • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: April 18,2003 SUBJECT: Military Leave Benefits • AFFECT hD COUNCIL DISTRIC1b: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Gary Mumford ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Management Services AND CONTACT PERSON: Brenda Hancock KEY ELEMENTS: In response a Council Member's inquiries regarding the City's military leave benefits,the Administration looked at how the City's military benefits compare with that of other employers. The City's Human Resource Division surveyed 23 city and county governments and a couple of private employers. Although the survey showed that Salt Lake City's practice measured up to the general practice,follow-up discussions with these employers indicated that several were considering enhancing military benefits. Salt Lake City's military benefits were not always consistent between employee groups. After further analysis including calculating cost estimates, the Administration is proposing several modifications to military leave benefits. The City's Citizen Compensation Advisory Committee discussed the survey and endorsed the Administration's recommendations. The Administration is proposing the following military leave benefits: • Provide two weeks of full pay per year. (No change from existing practice except for operations/maintenance and technical/clerical employees that received supplemental pay -the difference between their City salary and their military salary—for 15 calendar days rather than full pay.) This change is not included in the proposed ordinance. The Administration proposes to open the union contract to make this change. • Prior to leaving for active duty,an employee may request that accrued vacation,holiday and personal leave be paid in cash. • Upon the employee's return,the City's pension contributions will be paid to the employee's retirement plan for military time. (No change from existing practice.) • Upon the employee's return,vacation,holiday,and sick leave will be restored for up to one -year's accrual. At the discretion of the Mayor,the employee would have the option to receive the vacation and holiday leave in cash. • Upon the employee's return,post employment medical reimburse plan contributions would be made by the City for military time. Employees may continue their life insurance by agreeing to be responsible for premium costs. (No.change from existing practice.) • Employees may continue in the City's health insurance plans by agreeing to be responsible for premium costs. (No change from existing practice.) • OPTIONS: The Administration is requesting that the Council consider an ordinance setting forth certain benefits for employees on military leave of absence. The Administration considered other benefits but did not include them in this proposal. Other options that the Council may wish to consider. include: ➢ Supplement military pay by doing one of the following: (a)pay the difference between City pay and military pay,(b)pay a set amount such as$800 per month,or(c)allow the employee to use vacation or other available leave to supplement military pay. D. Continue the employee's regular City life insurance($50,000)at no cost to the employee. ➢ Continue health insurance for the employee's family at no cost to the employee or family. MATTERS AT ISSUE: The survey results of 25 employers are contained in the information provided to you by the Administration. The Human Resource Division estimated the cost of providing additional military leave benefits. Since the City usually does not replace the military person,most costs are already in the budget. In Police and Fire Departments,the employees in military leave may result in considerable overtime paid for with the unused salary and benefits costs of those who are absent. 1. Supplemental pay-The City provides two weeks of full pay per year in addition to military pay with the exception of employees represented by AFSCME that receive the difference between City pay and military pay. The survey of 25 employers shows that one employer supplements the pay for up to 2 years;one employer for up to 90 days;two employers provide an$800 monthly supplement;and eight employers allow employees to supplement military pay by cashing vacation leave. Thirteen employers provide no pay or only two weeks pay. It is very difficult to calculate the cost to the City to supplement military pay because military pay varies based on rank and types of differentials or allowances provided. In addition,military pay in a war zone is not taxable. There are about 20 City employees that have been activated with about 26 more who are subject to activation. Supplemental pay of$800 per month for 20 employees would cost the City $16,000 in salary costs per month or$192,000 annually plus FICA and other benefits. The Administration is proposing to bring AFSCME's two-week military pay benefit in line with other employee groups by opening up the contracts. Estimated one-year cost of this change is approximately$69,000. Each year reservist or National Guard members participate in a two week summer camp except for years in which the units are call to active duty. Since the salaries for these employees are fully budgeted,there is not an additional budget needed to implement this change. 2. Accrued vacation/personal/holiday leave-The proposed ordinance will allow employees to receive cash for accrued vacation,holiday and personal leave prior to departing for active duty. Personal leave is to be paid at 50%of the employee's hourly.rate. Accrued holiday leave applies to city employees that are required to work certain holidays. The Administration has not estimated the value of this cash payout,but it could be substantial. According to the proposed ordinance,in the event an employee dies while on military leave of absence,the City will pay the value of any previously accrued vacation and holiday leave to the employee's beneficiaries,plus the additional vacation and holiday leave accrued during the absence. 2 • 3. Pension Contribution-Federal law requires the City to make contributions to the employee's pension benefit plan for the period of time the employee was activated. The proposed ordinance is not a change from the City's current practice. 4. Accruals of vacation/holiday/sick leave while on active duty-The survey showed that 17 of the 25 employers do not continue to accrue vacation. Some Salt Lake City Police Department employees have received accrued vacation,holiday and sick leave while on • active duty. This has not been the case for other Salt Lake City employees. Because a precedent has been set in the Police Department and for other"equity-based reasons,"the Administration is proposing that upon the employee's return,vacation,holiday,and sick leave be accrued for up to one year. The proposed ordinance states that at the discretion of the Mayor,the employee would have the option to receive the vacation and holiday leave in cash. The estimated one-year cost of accruing vacation,holiday,and sick/personal leave for the 20 presently activated employees is approximately$135,000; If the Council supports this approach, you may want to add that for employees-in the,�legislative branch the option to receive the vacation and holiday leave in cash would he at the discretion of the Council(rather than Mayor)just to keep the ordinance consistent with other compensation ordinances relating to the legislative branch. 5: Post employment medical reimbursement contributions-According to the proposal,upon the employee's return,the City would contribute to the 501(c)9ip1an for military time on active duty. The Administration's paperwork states that post-employment medical .reimbursement plans.are similar to pension plans for Which federal law requires continued contributions.. The City contributes$600 per employee each year. The cost for 20 ' employees activated for an entire year would be$12,000. 6.. Life insurance-The City provides employees with$50;000 of basic life insurance at no Cost to employees: Employees on active duty can continue the basic life insurance by agreeing to be responsible for premium costs. The annual cost to the City for the basic'$50,000 life insurance is$47 per employee: Additional optional life insurance is available lo an : employee with the entire premium being paid by the employee. Employees on military ry active duty can continue any optional life insurance by:agreeing to pay the premium cost., The City's basic life insurance and optional life insurance does not-have a war exclusion. The City's accidental death and dismemberment insurance does have a war ekclusion. 7. Health insurance-Salt Lake City continues health insurance for 30 days after military, activation. Of the 25 employers surveyed,12 do not continue the employee'sfamily insurance beyond 30 days. One employer continues it for 90 days.:The other 12 employers continue health insurance for one year,two years,or the duration of the leave:.The attached paperwork from the City'a Human Resource Division states that most employees activated did-not express an interest in continuing the City's insurance because the military coverage is considered good and employees do not have to pay their share of the City's insurance. Council staffs understanding is that the familycan arrange for primary care from a doctor near their home,or the family can visit.,the cl nic_at Hill:Air Force Base without paying any copays. There are no copays for prescription drugs under military health insurance. Employees may continue inn the City's health insurance plans for their families by agreeing to be responsible for premiunf costs. This may be particularly , ,_ _ 3 ti important if a family member doesn't want to change doctors or medical providers. The ordinance doesn't propose any changes to this practice. One-year cost to the City for continuing medical health insurance benefits would be$109,200 for 20 employees($5,60 per employee per year). cc: Rocky Fluhart,David Nimkin,Brenda Hancock,Vic Blanton,DJ Baxter • • • APR 1 5 2003 M'1 a ,;Ctra Lego: �'NONE ROCKY J. FLU HART `� ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES MAYOR BRENDA R. HANCOCK DIVISION OF HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT DIRECTOR,HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer T-7/),..,DATE: April 14, 2003 FROM: Brenda Hancock Pf, u,,,\c_tr _ RE: Military Leave Benefits Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) Report Proposed Ordinance STAFF CONTACTS: Vic Blanton, Compensation Program Manager Brenda Hancock, Human Resources Director Lyn Creswell, Senior City Attorney Jamey Knighton, Labor Relations DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Report/Ordinance BUDGET IMPACT: Funding impact would occur with Council approval of the proposed ordinance. Costs are estimated to vary between $100,000 and $400,000 for one year. Depending on duration of military leave and number of employee reservists activated, costs could be more or less. Funding for pension benefits is required by law. (See the estimates attached to the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee report.) DISCUSSION: Council Chair Carlton Christensen asked the Citizens Compensation Advisory Committee (CCAC) and the City Administration to evaluate how the City's military leave benefits program compares with that of other employers, and to estimate costs for enhanced benefits. The CCAC report is attached. Based on a survey of local and national agencies, the committee concluded that SLCC's program is competitive overall, but that there might be justification—depending on cost—for enhancing benefits. City Human Resources researched the cost question (which turned out to be quite complex), audited the survey responses, and worked with the City Attorney and others in the Administration to address military leave legal requirements. Staff also examined the implication of a precedent in the Police Department regarding the accrual of vacation, holidays and sick leave. Result is the Administration's proposal to enhance benefits as reflected in the attached ordinance. AWARD v'. p_�44' GA� UTAH QUALITY AWARD 1995 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 1 1 5, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7900 • FAX: 801-535-661 4 Gi RECYCLED PapeR The CCAC considered recommending supplemental pay, i.e., paying the difference between the employee's military pay and their usual City pay. Upon seeing potential cost of the Administration's proposal, the CCAC withdrew consideration of the supplemental pay enhancement. The ordinance recognizes the City's responsibilities to comply with Federal law, and also acknowledges the City's desire to enhance or continue to enhance leave benefits for employees called to military service. In addition to the benefits required by Federal law, the proposed ordinance includes the following provisions: 1. In accordance with its compensation plans and union agreements, as well as our past practice, the City will provide full pay (military leave pay) for approximately two weeks. The amount of time will vary slightly, depending on the agreement or plan. The Administration intends to provide this pay to all employee groups, including AFSCME-covered employees. 2. During the first year of military leave, the City will provide the military leave pay when the employee is called to active duty. During the second and subsequent year (s) of military leave, the City will pay the annual military pay benefit each January. If the employee's death occurs while on military leave and the annual military pay benefit has not yet been paid, the City will pay the benefit to the employee's beneficiary, 3. Upon the employee's return to City service, the City will restore vacation, holiday, and sick/personal leave benefits for up to one year's accrual. If this provision is approved, the Administration will develop procedures whereby the City will provide these benefits either in restored leave balances or, in the case of vacation and holidays, provide an option for restored or cashed out benefits. Leave balances accrued in this manner would not be subject to our usual "use of lose" limits for one year after the employee returns to employment. Restoring leave balances will be an enhancement for most City employees, though there is a precedent in the Police Department wherein some employees have received such restored accruals. The City will treat its 501(c) (9) the same as other pension contributions and will restore contributions which would have accrued when the employee returns. The 501(c) (9) contributions will be available for medical reimbursement upon the employee's retirement or termination, or for the employee's dependent's usage upon the employee's death. r We believe this proposed ordinance builds upon the CCAC study, is sensitive to City employees' situations, and recognizes the City's fiscal constraints in providing unlimited benefits. We are prepared to discuss this proposal with the City Council, at their convenience. cc: Steve Fawcett, Ed Rutan, Lyn Creswell, Vic Blanton, Jodi Langford, Jamey Knighton Enclosures: CCAC Report with attachments, Proposed Ordinance SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2003 (Adding New Chapter to Title 2, Administration and Personnel, of the City Code) AN ORDINANCE SETTING FORTH CERTAIN BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES ON MILITARY LEAVES OF ABSENCE. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation applauds the sacrifice made by its employees who request leaves of absence to serve in the uniformed services; WHEREAS, when these employees leave and return from service with the uniformed services Salt Lake City Corporation has certain legal obligations under federal and state law, and under agreements with its certified bargaining units; WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation intends to provide certain additional benefits that are not required by law or contract to employees returning from a military leave of absence; NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. The following new chapter shall be added to Title 2 (Administration and Personnel) of the Salt Lake City Code: Chapter 2.51 MILITARY LEAVES OF ABSENCE 2.51.010. Benefits when an employee departs on military leave. A. Use of vacation and personal leave time. A full-time employee who requests a military leave of absence from City employment and who receives orders to serve with a uniformed service may request compensation for all or any portion of the employee's unused vacation and personal leave time accrued prior to departing for military service. 1 Upon request by a full-time employee taking a military leave of absence, the City will compensate the employee based on the employee's hourly rate of pay for each hour of unused vacation time. Upon request by a full-time employee taking a military leave of absence, the City will compensate the employee at a rate of fifty percent of the hourly rate for each hour of unused personal leave time. B. Use of unused holiday time. A full-time employee who requests a military leave of absence from City employment and who receives orders to serve with a uniformed service may request compensation for all or any portion of the employee's unused holiday time accrued within the twelve months prior to departing for a military leave of absence. Upon request the City shall compensate the employee based on the employee's hourly rate of pay for each hour of holiday time requested. C. Life insurance and health care benefits. A full-time employee who requests a military leave of absence from City employment and who receives orders to serve with a uniformed service may, as the employee departs, request limited continued enrollment in the City's health care or life insurance programs. The employee shall be responsible for the premium costs of such programs for the period the employee is in an unpaid status on a military leave of absence. 2.51.020. Benefits while an employee is on military leave. A. Military leave pay. A full-time employee who requests a military leave of absence from City employment and who receives orders to serve with a uniformed service shall receive his or her military leave pay, as provided in the relevant labor agreement or compensation plan. Such military leave pay shall be paid each year to a full-time employee on a military leave of absence as set forth in the relevant labor 2 agreement or compensation plan. In the event an employee dies while on a military leave of absence, the City shall pay any unpaid military leave pay to the employee's beneficiary or beneficiaries. B. Benefits during a military Ieave of absence. Except for benefits under 2.51.010 and 2.51.020 A, an employee on a military leave of absence is not eligible for any other City compensation during his or her service with the uniformed services. 2.51.030. Benefits upon reemployment. A. Benefits set forth under federal and state law. Full-time employees returning from a military leave of absence shall receive all benefits required by federal and state law, including City contributions to the employee's pension benefit plans for the period of time the employee served with a uniformed service. B. Additional benefits for employee returning from military leaves of absence. Full-time employees who return from a military leave of absence and who qualify for reemployment benefits under federal law shall receive the following additional benefits. The City shall calculate the amount of vacation, holiday, sick leave, and personal leave hours the employee would have earned had the employee remained with the City for the period of one year from the date the military service began, prorated if the employee's military leave of absence is less than one year. After calculation, the resulting additional vacation, sick leave, holiday, or personal leave time will be added to the employee's leave accounts upon reemployment with the City. At the discretion of the Mayor, the City may within a reasonable period of time after an employee returns from a military leave of absence compensate the employee for the value of the employee's vacation and holiday leave that is added to the employee's leave account. If the addition 3 of these added leaves to an employee's leave accounts would cause the employee,by labor agreement or City policy, to forfeit or lose any portion of the added leave the employee shall have at least one additional year after his or her return from a military leave of absence to use such added leave before being subject to the forfeit or loss provisions of applicable policy or labor agreement. In the event an employee dies while on a military leave of absence, the City shall pay the value of any previously accrued and unused vacation and holiday leave, plus the additional vacation and holiday leave the City would have added to the employee's leave accounts upon a return io City employment at the time of the employee's death, to the employee's beneficiary or beneficiaries. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2003. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date /1/ APrtI c. Zoo 3 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER By 4 Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approve Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Bill No. of 2003. Published: 5 Salt Lake City Corporation Citizens Com-pensation Advisory Committee INTERIM REPORT Evaluation of City's Compensation Benefits for Employees on Military Leave April 2003 INTRODUCTION When we presented our February 1 Annual Report, the City Council asked us to look at how the City's military leave benefits program compares with that of other employers. Council's concern apparently is whether the City's approach measures up to the general practice. To address the issue, we met on February 20 to review a survey previously prepared by Human Resources. Based on this survey, which went to both national and local employers, we concluded that the City's approach is at least as liberal as the general practice. Nevertheless, for reasons explained below, we considered a recommendation to provide a pay supplement during extended military leave. This would depend on the City's ability to fund such a benefit. Military reservist and Police Union President Lee Dobrowolski, who attended the meeting, offered to help HR's Vic Blanton determine the cost of paying the difference between City pay and military pay. Subsequently, while Vic and Lee pursued the cost-estimate task, new information and issues arose. In follow-up with survey respondents on the cost question, several indicated that after they answered our survey their own programs came under review. Enhancements could well be in the making, they advised. Though yet undefined, such information suggested that our survey results might soon need revision. Also, employee representatives pointed to a precedent in the police department wherein—contrary to generally-understood policy—the City had allowed uninterrupted accruals of vacation, holiday and sick leave credits during military leave. For this and other equity-based reasons, Administration proposed certain enhancements to the City's program after our February meeting. These developments have caused delay for which we apologize. An earlier report, however, would have been incomplete. CURRENT POLICY AND PRACTICE The following outlines current policy regarding the City's military leave benefits, compares that approach with the general practice, and summarizes Administration's recommendations for change. Military Leave Pay • Police - Full pay for all time not in excess of 90 working hours per calendar year • Fire - Full pay for all time not in excess of 15 continuous calendar days (7.5 shifts) per year • 600/300 (Professionals) - Full pay for all time not in excess of 11 working days per calendar year • 800 (Police Sergeants, Lieutenants, Captains) - Full pay for all time not in excess of 11 working days per calendar year • 900 (Fire Captains, Battalion Chiefs) -full pay for all time not in excess of 11 working days per calendar year • Unclassified (Appointed non-executive) - full pay for all time not in excess of 11 working days per calendar year • Executive and Elected Officials - full pay for all time not in excess of 11 working days per calendar year • 100/200 (AFSCME-Covered) - Difference in pay between the regular rate of pay and the base pay received while on active duty, not to exceed 15 calendar days per year. Currently, in second and subsequent years of military leave, this "annual" benefit is paid only if and when the employee returns to City employment. Note that the benefit for the AFSCME-covered group is significantly less than the benefit provided to all other groups. The Department of Labor has suggested that this needs to be corrected, to be in legal compliance. Administration also believes it should be corrected for equity reasons. Vacation, Holiday and Sick or Personal Leave Accrual By contract or compensation plan, there is currently no accrual of vacation, holiday, or sick leave/personal leave benefits during an unpaid military leave of 2 absence. However, notwithstanding the contracts and compensation plans, some police department employees have been awarded such accruals. Although these accruals are not legally required, the administration believes the precedent is compelling. City-paid 501(c)(9) Medical Savings Plan Contribution All City employees receive a city-paid annual 501(c)(9) contribution of approximately $600 (AFSCME-covered group receives slightly more). Military leave raises both practical and legal questions about the disposition of this benefit, which the City considers to be in the category of pension plans. SURVEY RESPONSE COMPARED WITH CITY'S CURRENT PRACTICE HR conducted a survey of cities locally and nationally and brought the results to the Committee in our February 20th meeting. Returns included 23 comprehensive responses. Data from Questar and Cole Vision (furnished through committee members Mansfield and Johnson) raised the number to 25. Overall, responses supported the conclusion that SLCC's practice was as liberal as or more liberal than that of the respondent majority. The survey results report, which has been recently updated, is attached. Highlights: • In the category of leave accrual benefits (vacation, holidays and sick leave), SLCC's position of providing no accruals is in line with 70 to 80 percent of the survey responses. • Salt Lake City does not continue employer-paid health care insurance during extended military leave. Only in this category, does the City join the respondent minority. HR is reviewing this issue, but notes that nearly all employees who are activated do not express interest in receiving such a benefit. Apparent reason: the military coverage is considered good by most, and employees are relieved of having to pay their usual share of the cost of City coverage. • For most employees on military leave, SLCC pays full salary for approximately two weeks per year. So, the employee receives regular city pay in addition to military pay. Seventeen of the 25 survey respondents (including Murray, Sandy, West Valley, Davis County, Salt Lake County, and state of Utah) provide no such benefit. • SLCC supplements the military pay of AFSCME-covered employees for up to 15 calendar days per year. Six respondents reported paying no supplemental benefit; seven more reported paying it for two weeks. Thus 3 the City's practice is as liberal as that of 13 of 25 respondents (52 percent). ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED CHANGES Administration proposes the following: 1. During the second and subsequent year(s) of military leave, pay the annual military pay benefit each January. If the employee's death occurs while on military leave, pay the benefit (if not previously paid) to the employee's designated beneficiary or beneficiaries. 2. Upon return to City employment, or in the event of the employee's death while on military leave, calculate for up to one year of military leave the hours of vacation, holiday and sick/personal leave hours the employee would have accrued had he or she been regularly employed with the City. Add the hours to the employee's accumulated and unused leave account balances. If such additions cause any accumulated balance to exceed a year-end limit established by the respective collective bargaining agreement or compensation plan, allow the employee the following full calendar year (or plan year, in the case of personal leave) to use the excess leave hours. 3. Pay 501(c)(9) contributions when employee returns to City employment or if employee's death occurs during military leave. 4. Bring AFSCME's annual, military pay benefit in line with that of the other employee groups. ESTIMATED COST OF ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED CHANGES The attached spreadsheet shows estimated costs for one year if all the City's reservists are called, vs. if expense is only for the presently activated roster. Administration does not propose a change in continuation of medical insurance (nor do we), but the cost estimate is included on the spreadsheet for informational purposes. • Currently, 20 City employees have been activated. There are 26 more who are subject to call. Estimated total one-year cost of accruing vacation, holiday, and sick/personal leave for the 20 presently activated is approximately $135,000. If all reservists are activated, the estimated one-year cost of accruing these leaves is approximately $331,000. • Estimated one-year cost to bring the annual military pay benefit for all AFSCME-covered reservists in line with that of the other groups is 4 approximately $69,000. Currently activated estimate: approximately $26,000. • Estimated one-year cost of 501(c)(9) benefits (not shown on spreadsheet): $27,600 all reservists; $12,000 currently activated only. • Estimated cost of providing the annual military pay benefit in all years of military leave without regard to whether the reservist returns to City employment: Unknown. Based on history, this is likely to be nominal. Most reservists return. The speculative nature of these cost estimates should be emphasized. See discussion under ANALYSIS, "Additional Note on Cost," on page 7. NOTES AND OBSERVATIONS Based on the survey information, we conclude that SLCC's current approach, overall, is as liberal as or more liberal than the general practice. We recognize that being called to military duty can place serious financial hardship on some employees and their families. This initially directed our attention to the supplemental pay issue, and to those cities that reported paying the difference when military pay is less than city pay. West Valley City, San Diego and San Antonio pay such difference for the duration of the military leave. Anaheim does likewise, and so do Houston and Las Vegas, depending on a periodic review. Hartford pays the difference for 90 days; and Chattanooga and Memphis pay a monthly supplement of$800. Phoenix conditions the benefit on exhausting vacation and comp banks. (We note, however, that of these 10 cities, only 3 provide pay full pay for an initial period.) We considered the possibility of recommending to the Mayor and City Council a provision to supplement military pay during the period of the reservist's activation. Caveat was that the proposal would depend on the City's fiscal ability, and that any such payment would be reviewed every 90 days to decide whether it would be continued or discontinued. Subsequently, the following points came into focus: • During previous periods of activation, some police officer reservists have continued to accrue sick leave, personal leave, vacation and holidays. We were not aware this was the case when we considered the supplemental pay enhancement. Current legal opinion is that neither the federal government nor the state requires such generous treatment, but the 5 Administration doesn't want to create internal conflict by going against precedent. • A recently acquired opinion from the Department of Labor's field investigator for the Salt Lake area, supports the conclusion that if the City provides such accrued leave benefits to police officers, it should do likewise for the remaining employee population. • If all or most of the City's employee reservists are activated for one year, the cost of accruing sick leave, personal leave, vacation and holidays could exceed $300,000. Even the one-year cost for just the presently activated employees could be more than $100,000. • Estimating the cost of paying the difference during military leave when military pay is less than City pay proved difficult. Many factors are left to speculation, including number of personnel called to active duty, length of assignment, whether or not replacement personnel must be hired, insufficiency of pay information in military orders, and a myriad of special military pay allowances. Ultimately the effort resorted to reliance on rough averages drawn from questioning previously activated employees, survey respondents who provide such benefit, and magazine and Internet information. Resultant best guess: Military pay is about 75 percent of City pay, on average. Based on this, the City's one-year cost of providing such a benefit if all reservists are activated exceeds $500,000; more than $200,000 if provided only to the currently activated roster. • Given such potential, and resolve on the Administration's part to honor precedent by accruing leave credits during military duty absence, it would not appear feasible to create additional costs by providing a supplemental pay benefit. Again, the speculative nature of these cost estimates should be emphasized. See discussion under ANALYSIS, "Additional Note on Cost," on page 7. ANALYSIS As a citizen committee, we advise the City on competitive practice to attract and retain qualified personnel. Typically, we look to market indicators for guidance. In doing so with regard to military leave benefits, we find the City's present program to be more liberal than the general practice. But the general practice may soon look differently, as the Iraqi War stimulates a resurgence of patriotic spirit in this country, and increasing support for our military personnel. Moreover, the issue at hand is not the typical circumstance. Our attention turns from indexes and averages to the sacrifices and hardships the call to military duty places on City employees and their families. The concern 6 is not whether the City is competitive, but rather what it can do to support these courageous individuals. We Support the Administration's Proposals Accordingly, even though the City's military leave benefits are already competitive, we support Administration's proposals for further enhancements. In this regard, we suggest only one amendment. Upon the reservist's return to City employment, Administration proposal # 2 (page 4) calls for adding to any previously accumulated and unused balances up to one year of vacation, holiday and sick or personal leave credits accrued during military leave. A one-year, use-or-lose grace period would be provided if the additions put the employee's accounts over any accumulation limits. We believe this could prove problematic in cases where an employee's extended military leave has created a staffing shortage and/or work backlog that will be seriously compounded by yet more leave. Adding up to a full year's leave accruals upon return to employment, and then evoking a use-or-lose provision may be impractical. This potential problem could be remedied with a provision calling for cash out of all or part of the subject leave hours—as an alternative to the one-year use-or- lose grace period—if the employee so elects or if necessary to avoid understaffing in the affected work unit. Sick leave would be excluded from this provision. Additional Note on Cost On the matter of cost, the Committee can only assist through estimation, much of which is based on conjecture. The subject takes us in a guesswork cycle. How many reservists will be called and how long will they be gone? Clearly, worse case scenarios could be expensive, so there appears to be merit in limiting leave accruals to one year. On the other hand, is it cost or savings? Providing even the most liberal of benefits to an employee on military leave is likely to be less expensive than his or her regular salary and benefits that have already been budgeted. But what if he or she must be temporarily replaced? What about overtime and other pay premiums made necessary to cover the employee's absence? What is the cost, politically or otherwise, of not going to the limit in supporting our military men and women? Like most public agencies today, the City is facing tough economic challenges. But any notion of using "savings" gained from the absence of employees called to military leave is not likely to be widely acceptable. 7 CONCLUSION Through survey, we have compared the City's approach to providing military leave benefits with that of 25 other employers located locally and nationally. Based on this comparison, we conclude that not only does SLCC's practice "measure up," it is more liberal than most. Thus, the general practice, as gauged by said survey, does not support further liberalization of the City's program. However, follow-up questioning of survey respondents indicates that the "general practice" may be in flux. An article in this month's WorldatWork issue reinforces such impression. The article notes an apparent trend among employers toward enhancement of military leave programs, reflecting resurgence in the nation's patriotic spirit. Repeating the City's survey later could possibly lead us to a different conclusion about how SLCC's program compares. Perhaps Administration's proposed enhancements will turn out to be steps that keep the City's program in stride. In any case, for the reasons cited herein, we support them. In conclusion, we refer to a principle the Committee has always emphasized: Provide competitive compensation and benefits within fiscal ability. Regarding support for the men and women who serve in this country's uniformed services, being merely "competitive" may fall short of that which is called for by moral and patriotic considerations. We have given you information on what is presently perceived as the general practice. The City must decide what it can afford. We would be pleased to discuss this report with Council Members or the Mayor, and provide any follow-up that may be requested. CCAC members: Tom Bielen, Chair John Campbell, Vice Chair Jill Carter Ron Coleman Lourdes Cooke Cori-Dawn Johnson Diane Mansfield 8 Military Leave Survey Summary Total Respondents: 25 Utah Cities & Counties: 8 Utah Private Companies (Members of Citizens Compensation Committee): 2 Nation-wide Cities: 15 Summarization of the Results: Do you pay salary in addition to military pay? No = 17 Yes, for 2 weeks = 5 Yes, for 3 weeks = 1 Yes, for 4 weeks = 1 Yes, for 30 days over a 2 year period = 1 Salt Lake City (Police, Fire, and 300/600 series) pays up to 15 days annually. Therefore, we pay the same/or are more liberal than 88% of the respondents. Do you pay salary to supplement military pay? No = 6 Yes, for 2 weeks = 7 Yes, for 90 days = 1 Yes, for 2 years = 1 Yes, up to $800 month additional for 1 year=1 Yes, up to $800 month additional for duration of leave =1 Yes, for the duration of the leave = 7 Yes, for the duration of the leave (up to 5 years) = 1 Salt Lake City supplements the pay of employees (represented by AFSCME) up to 15 days annually. Therefore, we pay the same/or are more liberal than 52% of the respondents. Do you pay certification or other pay premiums? No = 22 Yes, during the 11 days of paid leave = 1 Yes, for the duration of the leave = 2 Salt Lake City does not pay certification or other pay premiums. Therefore, we are consistent with 88% of the respondents. Do Employees continue to accrue vacation? No = 17 Yes, up to the annual carryover limit = 2 Yes, up to one year = 1 Yes, up to two times the annual carryover limit = 1 Yes, for the duration of the leave = 4 Salt Lake City does not pay vacation accrual. Therefore, we are consistent with 68% of the respondents. Do Employees continue to accrue holidays? No = 19 Yes, during the paid 2 week leave = 1 Yes, during the paid 30 day leave = 1 Yes, up to annual carryover limit = 1 Yes, for duration of leave = 3 Salt Lake City does not pay holiday accrual, except during the two weeks' paid leave. Therefore, we are consistent with 80% of the respondents. Do Employees continue to accrue sick leave? No = 19 Yes, during the paid 2 week leave = 1 Yes, during the paid 30 day leave = 1 Yes, up to annual carryover limit = 2 Yes, for duration of leave = 2 Salt Lake City does not pay sick leave accrual, except during the two weeks' paid leave. Therefore, we are consistent with 80% of the respondents. Does employer-paid group health care insurance continue? No = 10 Yes, for 30 days; then employee has option of paying 100% of premium = 1 Yes, for 31 days = 1 Yes, for 90 days = 1 Yes, for one year = 2 Yes, for two years = 1 Yes, for the duration of the leave = 9 Salt Lake City does not pay for extended health coverage. Therefore, we are consistent with 40% of the respondents. 60% do provide some additional coverage. Salary and Benefits Continuation During Military Leave m.; ,n 1. k ' ,�' Ya., �, �'�rJ a?7 �� o re>l�t,i n r rX � l �r yf .... .. _.e.u.. ,.,. � .. .�.,.. .._ Murray, Utah No Only for 2 weeks No No No No No per year Ogden, Utah Only for the 15 No No No No No No Consecutive Day Leave per year for training/military encampment. Provo, Utah The city pays up to 3 No No No No No No weeks per military pay per year. Sandy, Utah No Only for 2 weeks No No No No No per year West Valley City, No Yes; makes up Pays everything Yes; no limit as to Yes; No limits Yes; No limits No Utah difference for the except Uniform amount or length duration of the Allowance Pay of time. military leave; No limit Davis County, Utah No Only for 2 week No No No No No training/encamp ment .er ear Salt Lake County, No Only for 2 weeks No No No No No Utah per year State of Utah No Only for 2 weeks No No No No No per year • Salary and Benefits Continuation During Military Leave ..; :� 1 , a a;.; '. PS a`�;%>•, f r, �� )F 'b'f "�f4`r'�".lv.� x�' 1 r ,: w '�� " b :, Yy. :;, � n:.7;.r F7k w,,..�E :. ✓ wv'?i �k 1.{� ' < • }:. ti f i' x , � t v^r y , Ir ,. ,`:'I.r.. •.•' ,� �(, iota ��i :',,.: li{r%t'i f� ��,j ° ::i: Is: E� � '.=t ('°(r, -�--" � /°f,'',d., z�a s�„N ,� 11 Anaheim No Yes; for the No No No No Yes; for the duration of the duration of the Military Leave Mry Yes;ilita for theLeave. Boise 80 Hours No No No No No da Militaryurtion Leaveofthe. Chattanooga No Yes; City Council No No Personal Leave Personal Leave Yes;for one approved accrues up to accrues up to year. supplemental pay annuallimit carryoverandstops annuallimitand carryover up to$800 month for one year if City pay is higher than military pay. Dallas No No No No No No Yes; The City continues to pays ofiits the insuranceshare premium. It is completely up to the employee's discretion if they wish to continue city health insurance. Salary and Benefits Continuation During Military Le J av e o�� {II x or"+t za " �� x vcp-� , �o . 12 Y; ✓"� ✓i 74(do .f,�,m'''n a ✓ �,;` N' i '� ;r Yw n�sl � 61 itl`' ✓,,;� pR ffp�Y� vn "r f 1 r, '.I 1 y G �o�a Yf 'r' y_y ✓ w i Ir Hartford No 90 Days No No. Vli S lvys accrued only acation earned only when accruedick only when m employeeNo. Ho isdays in whenNo. employee 90 Da in pay e statusployee is No pay status is in pay statuse Houston Yes; program is No No No No No reviewed every 90 days and may be renewed/ extended, so could be for duration of leave. Kansas City, KS No No No Yes; limited to No No No 2 x Annual Accrual Las Vegas No Yes; program is No No No No Yes; program reviewed every 6 is reviewed months and may every 6 months be extended by and may be City Council, so extended by could be for City Council, so duration of leave. could be for duration of leave. Memphis Yes, up to 15 days Yes; City pays No Yes; up to one No No Yes;for the per year $800 mo. year duration of the Supplemental Military Leave. pay while on active du . Salary and Benefits Continuation During Military Leave -- _ I: , ` a'' iZ �, I�� .,u d o t d'a v c C � � ! " u*4 1 .+.. �,�i �.rt�ZlJ'u� f ' ,� dl �+° 6{ I-a ,. ✓ vy j .��C '3 n�e'�:4 ,.;..�..... R.,,.,kik -° g,<c 'd 1 .. d F ; � c�- Phoenix Yes; 30 days every 2 Employee Longevity Pay Yes; it is given Only when using Only when using Employees are years. receives 30 days only. (Is paid when they return their 30 days of their 30 days of moved into a of paid military upon return) to work. paid military paid military COBRA status, leave every 2 service. service. but they only years. After this, pay their they must regualr exhaust their premiums in vacation &comp the event of a are eligible for banks--then they Presidential call-up. supplemental pay (indefinately) Portland Paid for 11 days per No (Only for the 11 Employees They are entitled Employees City continues year days) accrue vacation to holiday pay accrue sick coverage for pay only when only when they leave only when 31 days--then they are in pay are in pay status they are in pay employee has status the full work day status option of before and the COBRA day after the holiday. San Antonio No Yes; for the No Yes;Accrues and No No Yes;for the duration of the carries over as if duration of the Military Leave. Military Leave employe was not absent Salary and Benefits Continuation During Military Leave ... . .,�d i; a.<r° !. ('• r �i 3Fl Y:� 11.? ef'r der la;e�e4 r� id w n<„i'S'i �oyG �' �,k'��/ d s t Ic r` San Diego Yes,for 30 days. In the event of a N/A Yes;Accrues and Yes;for the Yes; for the Yes; for the Presidential Call- carries over as if duration of the duration of the duration of the up, the city employe was not military leave. military leave. military leave. supplements the absent pay(after the 30 days is exhausted)for the duration of the Military Leave Tempe,AZ No Up to 24 months No No No No Up to 24 months Questar No Employer pays No Yes;Accrues to No Yes; Up to Individual can Corporation -SLC difference annual carryover annual continue between reg limit and stops maximum coverage for salary&military 12 months for pay for 2 wks per normal rate; year for military then may reserve extend encampment. cor using veCOBageRA. Cole Vision -SLC No Two weeks No No Yes; for the No Yes--for the duration of the duration of the milita leave. the leave. Estimated Potential One-Year Cost of Military Leave Benefits 1. If All Reservists Called to Active Duty 2. Currently Activated Roster Only(Shaded Rows) April 2003 Vacation Maximum '$Value-Max. $Value of Accrual $Value Accrued Accrued One Year One Year's $Value of Rate Per Per Vacation Vacation Hours Sick or PL One Year's Monthly City Yrs. Pay Vacation Hours Per Hours One $Value of 12 Accrual Leave Leave Salary Title Service Period Hour Year Year Holidays SUPL Accrual Accruals $ 3,768.26 Police Officer 8.0 4.62 $ 21.74 120.12 $ 2,611.40 $ 2,087.04 96 $ 2,087.04 $ 6,785.48 $ 4,071.60 (Police Officer 14.511 6.15 I $ 23.49 I 159.90 I $ 3,756.05 $ 2,255.04 96 I $ 2,255.04 I $ 8,266.13 $ 3,678.13 Police Officer 5.92 3.69 $ 21.22 95.94 $ 2,035.84 $ 2,037.12 96 $ 2,037.12 $ 6,110.08 $ 4,099.33 Police Officer 8.78 3.69 $ 23.65 95.94 $ 2,268.98 $ 2,270.40 96 $ 2,270.40 $ 6,809.78 $ 3,317.60 Police Officer 4.20 3.69 $ 19.14 95.94 $ 1,836.29 $ 1,837.44 96 $ 1,837.44 $ 5,511.17 $ 4,071.60 Police Officer 25.41 6.77 $ 23.49 176.02 $ 4,134.71 $ 2,255.04 96 $ 2,255.04 $ 8,644.79 $ 3,816.80 Police Officer 6.61 3.69 $ 22.02 95.94 $ 2,112.60 $ 2,113.92 96 $ 2,113.92 $ 6,340.44 $ 4,274.40 Police Officer 12.52 6.15 $ 24.66 159.90 $ 3,943.13 $ 2,367.36 96 $ 2,367.36 $ 8,677.85 $ 4,274.40 Police Officer 12.76 6.15 $ 24.66 159.90 $ 3,943.13 $ 2,367.36 96 $ 2,367.36 $ 8,677.85 $ 3,905.20 Police Officer 8.05 4.62 $ 22.53 120.12 $ 2,706.30 $ 2,162.88 96 $ 2,162.88 $ 7,032.06 $ 4,071.60 Police Officer 25.41 6.77 $ 23.49 176.02 $ 4,134.71 $ 2,255.04 96 $ 2,255.04 $ 8,644.79 $ 4,274.40 Police Officer 10.201 5.54 I $ 24.66 I 144.04 I $ 3,552.03 I $ 2,367.36 I 96 I $ 2,367.36 I $ 8,286.75 $ 3,029.26 Police Officer 2.94 3.69 $ 17.48 95.94 $ 1,676.70 $ 1,677.74 96 $ 1,677.74 $ 5,032.18 $ 4,071.60 Police Officer 13.21 6.15 $ 23.49 159.90 $ 3,756.05 $ 2,255.04 96 $ 2,255.04 $ 8,266.13 $ 3,905.20 Police Officer 8.78 4.62 $ 22.53 120.12 $ 2,706.30 $ 2,162.88 96 $ 2,162.88 $ 7,032.06 $ 3,905.00 Police Officer 8.78 4.62 $ 22.53 120.12 $ 2,706.17 $ 2,162.77 96 $ 2,162.77 $ 7,031.70 $ 3,042.49 Crime Lab Supv. 6.88 4.62 $ 17.55 120.12 $ 2,108.45 $ 1,685.07 120 $ 2,106.34 $ 5,899.86 $ 3,484.00 'Police Officer 4.20 3.69 $ 20.10 95.94 $ 1,928.39 $ 1,929.60 96 $ 1,929.60 $ 5,787.59 $ 3,480.00 Police Officer 21.71 6.77 $ 20.08 176.02 $ 3,533.94 $ 1,927.38 96 $ 1,927.38 $ 7,388.71 $ 3,726.66 Police Officer 8.78 4.62 $ 21.50 120.12 $ 2,582.58 $ 2,064.00 96 $ 2,064.00 $ 6,710.57 $ 4,002.26 Police Officer 8.78 4.62 $ 23.09 120.12 $ 2,773.57 $ 2,216.64 96 $ 2,216.64 $ 7,206.84 $ 4,071.60 Police Officer 11.79 5.54 $ 23.49 144.04 $ 3,383.50 $ 2,255.04 96 $ 2,255.04 $ 7,893.58 $ 4,761.96 Police Sergeant 11.79 5.54 $ 27.47 144.04 $ 3,957.19 $ 2,637.39 120 $ 3,296.74 $ 9,891.32 $ 4,881.02 IPolice Sergeant 10.501 5.54 I $ 28.16 I 144 I $ 4,056.13 I $ 2,703.33 120 I $ 3,379.17 I $10,138.63 $ 3,975.86 Comm.Spec. III 13.68 6.15 $ 22.94 160 $ 3,667.73 $ 2,202.01 80 $ 1,835.01 $ 7,704.76 $ 4,357.60 Firefighter Para 7.45 4.62 $ 25.14 120 $ 3,019.82 $ 2,413.44 120 $ 3,016.80 $ 8,450.06 $ 4,000.53 Firefighter Eng. 6.51 3.69 $ 23.08 96 $ 2,214.29 $ 2,215.68 80 $ 1,846.40 $ 6,276.37 $ 2,847.86 'Firefighter I 1.921 3.69 I $ 16.43 I 96 I $ 1,576.29 I $ 1,577.28 I 120 I $ 1,971.60 I $ 5,125.16 $ 3,898.26 Firefighter 8.44 4.62 $ 22.49 120 $ 2,701.49 $ 2,159.04 80 $ 1,799.20 $ 6,659.73 $ 5,519.41 IFire Captain I 26.601 7.69 I $ 31.84 I 200 I $ 6,366.64 I $ 3,056.90 I 120 I $ 3,821.13 I $13,244.67 $ 2,706.00 Firefighter 0.61 3.69 $ 15.61 96 $ 1,497.77 $ 1,498.71 60 $ 936.69 $ 3,933.17 $ 4,659.20 Firefighter 26.60 7.69 $ 26.88 200 $ 5,374.39 $ 2,580.48 120 $ 3,225.60 $11,180.47 $ 2,440.53 Graffiti Resp. Field TE 2.17 3.08 $ 14.08 80 $ 1,127.52 $ 1,351.68 120 $ 1,689.60 $ 4,168.80 $ 3,981.18 Fac. Maint.Supv. 24.62 7.69 $ 22.97 200 $ 4,592.29 $ 2,204.96 120 $ 2,756.20 $ 9,553.45 $ 3,678.15 Elect.Sys.Tech II 9.35 5.54 $ 21.22 144 $ 3,056.54 $ 2,037.13 80 $ 1,697.61 $ 6,791.28 $ 3,496.13 AP Police Officer 8.05 4.62 $ 20.17 120 $ 2,422.82 $ 1,936.32 120 $ 2,420.40 $ 6,779.53 $ 2,452.66 Shuttle Driver II 3.65 3.08 $ 14.15 80 $ 1,133.13 $ 1,358.40 80 $ 1,132.00 $ 3,623.52 $ 2,452.66 Shuttle Driver II 10.47 5.54 $ 14.15 144 $ 2,038.16 $ 1,358.40 80 $ 1,132.00 $ 4,528.55 $ 2,496.00 AP Landside Op.Off( 1.65 3.08 $ 14.40 80 $ 1,153.15 $ 1,382.40 120 $ 1,728.00 $ 4,263.55 $ 3,411.65 Prop.&Contracts.Si 2.71 3.08 $ 19.68 80 $ 1,576.18 $ 1,889.53 120 $ 2,361.91 $ 5,827.62 $ 3,295.00 AP Police Officer 5.18 3.69 $ 19.01 96 $ 1,823.78 $ 1,824.92 80 $ 1,520.77 $ 5,169.47 $ 4,609.73 Principal Planner 23.90 7.69 $ 26.59 200 $ 5,317.32 $ 2,553.08 80 $ 2,127.57 $ 9,997.97 $ 3,939.36 PLS/GIS Spec. 17.87 6.77 $ 22.73 176 $ 4,000.42 $ 2,181.80 80 $ 1,818.17 $ 8,000.39 $ 3,939.36 PLS/GIS Spec. 18.76 6.77 $ 22.73 176 $ 4,000.42 $ 2,181.80 120 $ 2,727.25 $ 8,909.47 $ 2,925.86 Asphalt Equip Op. 5.72 3.69 $ 16.88 96 $ 1,619.46 $ 1,620.48 80 $ 1,350.40 $ 4,590.34 $ 3,295.06 Metal Fab.Tech. 29.82 7.69 $ 19.01 200 $ 3,800.85 $ 1,824.96 120 $ 2,281.20 $ 7,907.00 Vacation Holida s SL/PL Total Est.One Year Cost-All Reservists $136,284.62 $ 95,462 $ 99,005 $ 330,752 All Reserv. Est.One Year Cost-Activated Ees $ 53,800 $ 40,950 $ 40,033 $ 134,783 $ 517,087 Est. AFSCME Suppl.Pay Insurance Pay Parity All Benefits G.Total Act.Only Est.One Year Cost-All Reservists $ 251 160 $ 68,562 $ 650,473 $ 221,812 1 Est.One Year Cost-Activated Ees 109,200 , $ 270,133