Utica Observer Dispatch, June 24, 2008, Tuesday

Utica Observer Dispatch

June 24, 2008, Tuesday

Utica Observer Dispatch

Firefighters to earn more for ambulance duty, inspections
Utica also considering upgrading pensions

By RENEE GAMELA

UTICA — Utica firefighters who are assigned to ride an ambulance will receive more money, one benefit of a newly ratified contract with the city.

The Utica Professional Firefighters Association voted 102-18 in favor of the new contract, which the Board of Estimate & Apportionment recently approved unanimously. The previous contract expired March 31, 2007, but the terms remained in place during negotiations.

COUNCIL TO HOST SPECIAL MEETING
UTICA — The Common Council will host a special meeting at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at City Hall, 1 Kennedy Plaza.

The agenda includes consideration of an ordinance to purchase sweeper equipment for the Department of Public Works without competitive bid.

The council Finance Committee will meet at 5:30 p.m. to discuss approval of a bond ordinance to pay for a retirement plan in the city firefighters’ new contractual agreement.
Highlights of the new agreement include:

* Firefighters who are assigned to ride an ambulance on a normal duty day will receive a stipend of $50. That’s a $15 increase over the previous contract agreement. Only four firefighters will receive that stipend during a 24-hour period, city officials said.

* Firefighters who conduct inspections will receive a stipend for the work. The recently ratified contract gives firefighters $250 for inspecting commercial sites in the city. The state recently mandated a Commercial Code Enforcement fee program, but it has yet to begin in Utica.

Twelve months after the first commercial inspection, firefighters who conduct inspections will receive the stipend. That is in addition to the $500 stipend firefighters receive for the rental-occupancy-permit program, which inspects rental dwelling units.

* The city agreed for the term of the contract, until sunset on March 31, 2011, no member of the firefighters’ union will be laid off.

The Common Council Finance Committee will discuss Wednesday night whether it will bond for firefighters to receive the upgraded pension plan. Firefighters agreed to take a 2 percent salary increase each year for the next four years if the council approves the 384-e state pension plan.

That pension plan allows union members to add the additional benefit of 1/60th of their pay for service in excess of 20 years to their total final average salary. The final average salary determines what figure will be used to calculate a retiree’s pension.

For now, the 2 percent salary increases, rather than a 4 percent increase each year, is beneficial for the city, union president Bob Wenner said.

“That’s far below the inflation rate, so it was a good deal for both sides,” Wenner said.

Frank Meola, Finance Committee co-chairman, said he’s not convinced he’ll support the resolution.

“I don’t believe the 384-e, which the city has to take a loan out for, is in the best interest of the financial future of the city,” said Meola, D-at-large. “The firefighters already have a very good retirement program.”

Tony Arcuri, city budget director, said the city will see immediate savings if firefighters receive a 2 percent salary increase over the length of the contract. He strongly recommended the council approve the bond resolution.

The city wouldn’t have to make any payments on the pension bonds until the 2009-10 fiscal year, Arcuri said.

Firefighters are currently working under the newly ratified agreement and are waiting for the council to render its decision on the pension plan, Wenner said.

Mayor David Roefaro said there is a minimum complement the city must maintain for firefighters, so no layoffs were predicted.

Lee Adler, who teaches public sector collective bargaining at Cornell University’s School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said nothing in the contract seemed unusual.

On the pension issue, Adler said it could be a good agreement for the city not to “burn cash on the short term.”

“What the city gets from that, again, in a short-term budget situation, they look better because they’re not paying higher wages,” Adler said. “But, in the long-term it’s not so good for the city because they’ll be paying it out in the future.”

Meola said his concern is the future burden on city taxpayers. The Finance Committee will review the issue, but the whole council will weigh-in, he said.

“All the financials concerning the future debt of the city versus salary increases will be discussed with the council in its entirety,” he said.