Police department rejects contract

The Sarasota Police Department’s union unanimously rejected a contract by the city of Sarasota that included pension-ordinance modifications staff made at the direction of the Sarasota City Commission.

In total, Sarasota Police Benevolent Association President Mick McHale told the Sarasota Observer that 90% of the eligible members participated in the vote.

All 142 police officer union votes cast and all six police lieutenant votes cast were against the contract.
The city was made aware of the union’s ratification rejection in a Thursday, June 7, letter sent to interim City Manager Terry Lewis by the Southwest Chapter of the Florida Police Benevolent Association Inc.

McHale said the contract was soundly rejected because of changes proposed to a city ordinance that outlines police union pension benefits.

The city and the police union have been at impasse on a new contract since Sept. 30, and discussions will continue in an attempt to reach an agreement, even if the commission decides this summer or fall to approve police pension modifications.

McHale said what worries officers the most is the issue of Social Security.

If the commission modifies their pension plan, McHale said officers have no other safety net to fall back on, because they initially agreed decades ago to give up their right to Social Security benefits in exchange for pensions into which they invest 8% of their salaries each year.

“We are not steadfast against any pension changes, and we realize some changes are warranted,” McHale said. “But, we don’t believe the changes need to reach this far.”

The revised pension ordinance, which will come before the Sarasota City Commission this summer at two separate meetings for readings and public hearings regardless of the union’s decision to reject the contract, calls for the following changes for future police retirees:

• Modifying a final compensation pension payout average calculation from three years to five years;

• Capping overtime at 300 hours per year. Currently, overtime is not capped;

• Modifying a cost-of-living adjustment from its current 3.2% a year after a member retires to 1%, while also delaying the time a member starts receiving that 1% increase until age 65;

• Modifying guaranteed spousal or other listed survivor benefits to a 10-year-only certain in life benefit;

• Reducing a 6.5% Deferred Retirement Options Program (DROP) benefit to 2.5%.

McHale also said that a major issue police officers have with the contract is the elimination of supplemental pension funding the state will no longer give the city to help invest in the pension plans if it makes such modifications. Currently the city receives roughly $600,000 to $700,000 a year in supplemental funding, which is dubbed as Chapter 185 insurance dollars.

McHale estimates the loss of such funding over the next 30 years in the pension plan to be “as low as $20 million and as high as $60 million.”

City Human Resources Manager Kurt Hoverter said commissioners are aware that state money may no longer be available if such changes are made.

“We made these proposed changes assuming those revenues would no longer be available to us,” Hoverter said.

The changes proposed to the pension plans, though, are estimated to save the city $500,000 to $1 million a year.

The police members who voted also took a straw vote that states they would like the state Chapter 185 monies that have been collected in the plan to be distributed to the members if the city forfeits its right to future insurance dollars.

“We believe our members earned those dollars, and we realize it’s a future fight we’ll have to take up to see it through if this does occur,” McHale said.

Commissioner Terry Turner said this contract represented modifications and concessions that are significantly less than what the city proposed and officers rejected in the fall.

“This is the result of three years’ worth of work,” Turner said. “These pension modifications are critical to the future health of this city’s financial state.”