[0:00] We will begin the working
[0:07] session of the Council of the Association of
[0:08] Police
[0:09] Charities
[0:10] on
[0:11] Thursday, September 3,
[0:13] 2026. Please
[0:14] stand for the oath.
[0:19] I pledge
[0:20] allegiance to the flag of the
[0:21] United States of
[0:22] America and to
[0:23] the republic it
[0:24] represents. One nation
[0:26] under God, indivisible
[0:27] , with liberty and
[0:28] justice for
[0:29] all.
[0:33] Secretary, please
[0:35] take a
[0:35] roll call.
[0:36] Mayor John Cooper is
[0:37] here.
[0:38] Vice Mayor Chris Meyer is
[0:39] here.
[0:40] Councilman Robert
[0:41] Hubbard is
[0:41] here. Council member Lisa
[0:43] Burke is
[0:43] here.
[0:44] Council member Christine
[0:45] Sullivan is
[0:46] here.
[0:46] City Attorney
[0:47] Nancy Meyer is here.
[0:48] Acting
[0:49] City Manager
[0:50] Salikeri is
[0:50] here.
[0:51] Thank you. The first point
[0:52] is comments from
[0:53] the public. And
[0:54] we still don't have any
[0:55] public representatives at the
[0:55] meeting. So I'm
[0:56] closing the time for
[0:57] public comment.
[0:58] Let's move on to the
[0:58] city
[0:59] manager's comments. I'll give the
[0:59] floor to Mr. Carey for
[1:00] his comments.
[1:01] They are gone now.
[1:02] OK. Moving
[1:02] on to the
[1:03] city prosecutor's comments.
[1:04] Miss, do you have any
[1:04] comments?
[1:05] No.
[1:05] OK. Thank you.
[1:06] Next up is
[1:07] Council agenda item
[1:08] number one: an agreement between the
[1:10] Police
[1:10] Benevolent Association
[1:11] (PBA) and
[1:12] the City of Port Richey for
[1:13] 2026-2029. I will hand it over to
[1:14] Mr. O'Carey for
[1:15] presentation.
[1:17] Port Richey Police Association,
[1:18] oh my god.
[1:19] Thank you, gentlemen,
[1:21] the Association (PBA)
[1:22] has opened seven articles
[1:23] for discussion as
[1:25] part of negotiations
[1:26] for a new
[1:27] contract for 2026-2029
[1:29] . The negotiations
[1:31] were conducted with the participation of myself
[1:33] , the city prosecutor,
[1:34] and the
[1:35] police chief. As
[1:37] a result of these
[1:38] discussions, the
[1:40] city's negotiating team and
[1:40] PBA representatives
[1:41] reached a preliminary
[1:42] agreement on a contract
[1:43] that would remain
[1:45] in effect without review
[1:46] until 2029 unless the
[1:48] November
[1:49] property tax measure is approved
[1:50] . So, we have a
[1:52] preliminary agreement for
[1:54] three years with a
[1:54] provision for
[1:55] increased payments.
[1:59] If this
[2:00] issue passes in November, we
[2:01] will be able to open
[2:02] negotiations and
[2:03] discuss the next
[2:05] two years of the agreement.
[2:08] If the City Council
[2:09] agrees to the
[2:10] proposed
[2:11] terms, the agreement will be
[2:13] submitted to
[2:14] Port Richey police officers,
[2:15] represented by
[2:16] the union, for
[2:17] ratification. After
[2:18] ratification
[2:18] by the union, the contract
[2:20] will be presented to
[2:21] the city council for
[2:22] final
[2:22] approval. So, I
[2:25] can go through
[2:26] specific articles
[2:28] if you want me to
[2:29] point out the changes. Um,
[2:32] yes,
[2:32] please do that
[2:33] . Give me a
[2:35] minute.
[2:40] So, let's start with
[2:41] article one, the
[2:42] preamble, we're
[2:43] actually just
[2:44] changing a few words here. There's nothing there
[2:47] that would actually
[2:48] affect the
[2:49] contract one way or the
[2:50] other. It's just that the PBA
[2:52] noticed that it
[2:54] said "Hillsboro County
[2:55] Police
[2:56] Benevolent Association
[2:58] " and they
[2:59] wanted to remove it.
[3:01] So, this is article one.
[3:05] Was this in our contract all this time
[3:06] ?
[3:08] Yes. And they just,
[3:09] they noticed it.
[3:10] So, uh, same thing with
[3:14] article six,
[3:16] basically wording changes.
[3:17] Um, they removed
[3:18] Hillsborough County,
[3:19] maybe that's what they were
[3:20] known by
[3:21] . I actually, I do
[3:23] n't, I don't remember if
[3:24] we asked about it or
[3:25] not. Were they, were
[3:26] they known as the
[3:27] Hillsborough County Association? That
[3:28] has changed, or that's what they
[3:29] used to
[3:29] be called. Good.
[3:30] So, it wasn't
[3:32] always like this.
[3:32] Official documents
[3:33] change. It was
[3:35] n't that long ago. So
[3:36] maybe this is the first
[3:37] time they've had the
[3:38] opportunity to
[3:38] do this. Article 10 is
[3:50] essentially their, uh,
[3:52] complaints procedures, and there were
[3:53] a few, uh,
[3:54] crossed out words that
[3:56] they pointed
[3:57] out, uh, that we
[3:58] completely agreed with. Um
[4:03] , the main addition
[4:04] starts, uh, on
[4:06] line 96, where, uh, during
[4:14] discussions with the
[4:15] city attorney, uh
[4:16] , and our
[4:18] arbitration procedure is much more
[4:19] efficient than what
[4:21] was before. Um, as
[4:25] you can see, what was
[4:26] crossed out, there was
[4:27] just, you know, there
[4:29] wasn't a lot of
[4:29] wording regarding, uh, the
[4:31] arbitration process.
[4:32] So we agreed to
[4:33] just spell out everything in
[4:34] detail: the number of
[4:36] arbitrators who should
[4:37] be present, uh, where
[4:38] it would take place, uh
[4:40] , what the
[4:40] city would be responsible for, what
[4:43] the union would be responsible for, and
[4:44] basically all of it is
[4:45] clearly spelled out.
[4:46] Now, and this also
[4:47] continues in
[4:49] line 109. What was the
[4:53] justification for changing the
[4:54] deadline from 5 to 10 and from 10
[4:56] to 15 days?
[4:58] This is for appeal,
[5:01] right?
[5:01] Yes. Um,
[5:02] just give me more
[5:03] time to write
[5:04] the appeal.
[5:05] Yeah, we just, we
[5:06] just gave them more
[5:07] time, you know,
[5:08] weekdays, weekends, stuff like that
[5:09] . So we just
[5:10] extended the deadline, and
[5:11] we both agreed
[5:12] that it was better to provide
[5:13] more time, uh, for
[5:14] both parties. And that was the
[5:24] main section,
[5:25] really everything else—
[5:26] it's just, uh, simple
[5:27] word substitutions or something
[5:29] like that that just
[5:30] caught my eye. It was
[5:32] Article 10. Uh, Article 14
[5:47] , which deals with
[5:48] the workweek and
[5:50] overtime, uh,
[5:51] just, essentially, uh,
[5:52] there were just some changes to
[5:54] the numbers, uh, actually,
[5:55] to write the number in
[5:57] words. Um,
[5:58] write this down. Uh,
[5:59] word changes, uh,
[6:00] you know, minimum 48
[6:01] hours, like in line 21,
[6:03] just to put
[6:04] it in words. Uh, 28. So there
[6:07] really wasn't
[6:08] any difference there. um,
[6:11] scrolling down the
[6:12] text, and the same thing as
[6:15] we get to
[6:17] the end of this article,
[6:18] just writing the number in
[6:19] words. So, there
[6:20] really
[6:21] weren't any significant
[6:22] changes to this article.
[6:26] It looks like they shortened, uh,
[6:28] chapter six.
[6:30] Instead of eight hours of
[6:32] compensatory time,
[6:33] they get
[6:35] four, and instead of 28
[6:36] days for each, it's
[6:37] now 14, right?
[6:40] What is my number?
[6:41] Uh, that's 142. Yeah, we
[6:50] went from 8 to 4, and
[6:52] then from 28 to 14.
[7:13] Vacation and
[7:14] sick leave. Article 16.
[7:18] Uh, the same, uh, as in
[7:20] lines 13, 32, 34, just the
[7:24] wording was actually written out. Uh,
[7:29] one specific
[7:31] addition, uh, in
[7:32] lines 35 through 36—it's
[7:33] just during the
[7:35] second pay
[7:36] period in October. Uh,
[7:40] previously, it did
[7:42] n't seem to specify a
[7:43] specific time of
[7:44] year, but we wanted to
[7:45] make sure it was
[7:46] done at the beginning of the
[7:47] fiscal year. So
[7:49] , since October
[7:50] is our fiscal year
[7:51] , we extended this to the
[7:52] second pay
[7:53] period. Uh, so
[7:54] they don't
[7:55] expect it in the
[7:56] very first
[7:56] payment period of the
[7:57] fiscal year. That
[7:58] gives us that month
[7:59] to actually
[8:00] pay off any,
[8:01] you know, time or anything
[8:02] like that that we have to
[8:03] do. So it was
[8:05] just an addition.
[8:10] Uh, line 78—it's
[8:11] just added
[8:12] wording about,
[8:13] you know, a death in the
[8:14] family. Uh, lines 64-65
[8:17] — they just wrote
[8:19] the numbers in words. Uh, and
[8:26] lines 79 through 81 are
[8:27] simply a strikethrough with
[8:28] the addition of
[8:29] wording about
[8:30] organizing and
[8:31] attending a
[8:32] funeral for
[8:33] family events. Uh-huh.
[8:39] We were discussing,
[8:40] you know, just
[8:41] situations where someone
[8:42] dies and you can't
[8:43] , you know, we can't
[8:45] attend the event immediately.
[8:48] Usually, a funeral
[8:49] is not organized
[8:50] in a few days. Sometimes
[8:51] it will be out of
[8:52] state or city. So
[8:54] we actually agreed on
[8:55] their, uh, allowed
[8:57] time, but they don't
[8:57] have to take
[8:59] it immediately, on the day,
[9:00] you know, or the
[9:01] day after
[9:02] someone dies. We
[9:03] can, if, you know,
[9:04] agreements
[9:05] are reached, for example,
[9:06] next week
[9:07] or something, that's when it
[9:09] will start. And
[9:14] lines 93 through 99 were
[9:17] added. Uh-huh. Just
[9:22] clarifying, uh,
[9:23] maybe paid
[9:24] compensatory time
[9:25] instead of
[9:26] overtime.
[9:28] It used to be very
[9:29] blurry. So the union and I
[9:32] agreed to write down
[9:33] specific
[9:34] wording for
[9:35] this process, and
[9:36] now that it's there, you
[9:37] know, it's here.
[9:42] Does this, uh, repeat
[9:43] what, uh, non-
[9:44] union
[9:45] employees have
[9:46] regarding, uh,
[9:48] bereavement leave? Is
[9:53] it significantly
[9:54] different?
[9:56] Um, let me
[9:57] take a look at these
[9:58] wordings.
[10:00] Most of these
[10:01] formulations, um,
[10:02] you know, refer to
[10:03] family members. It's all pretty much the same thing
[10:04] ,
[10:06] yes, one day for
[10:07] everyone. I'm just
[10:10] wondering if the staff
[10:12] had it too or if it
[10:13] was just for the PBA.
[10:17] Um, I believe the
[10:19] staff has
[10:19] at least three non-
[10:20] contractual days. So
[10:27] but, of course, if they
[10:28] need to use the
[10:29] time, they have time off,
[10:30] they have
[10:31] compensatory time,
[10:32] you know, personal time
[10:33] , if they need it.
[10:34] So, the union
[10:35] only asked to, you know,
[10:36] keep the same
[10:37] editorial as before.
[10:54] Article 19, which is
[10:55] included, um, in this
[10:56] document because I
[10:57] didn't highlight it separately, is
[10:59] essentially just a
[11:00] mimic of what we
[11:01] had to go back to
[11:02] , um, the city manager had
[11:04] previously added Emancipation Day
[11:06] , which
[11:07] wasn't in the manual. Um,
[11:11] so we agreed on
[11:13] this when Liberation Day happened
[11:14] this
[11:15] year, but since we
[11:16] were negotiating
[11:17] this in the middle of the year,
[11:18] the union wanted to
[11:19] bring the article back to
[11:21] essentially bring the
[11:22] holidays into
[11:23] line with the
[11:24] manual. So, um, I'm
[11:27] trying to work
[11:28] with the city attorney and,
[11:29] um, personnel to
[11:30] put together a new
[11:32] personnel handbook
[11:33] that would move us
[11:34] to the federal
[11:35] calendar. It's just
[11:37] because, you know, I
[11:38] agreed to some extent with my
[11:40] predecessors that, um,
[11:41] they all noticed that,
[11:42] you know, Newport County
[11:44] -Mitchie, a lot of
[11:45] our other institutions—they all
[11:46] follow the
[11:47] federal
[11:48] calendar. We have
[11:49] some holidays that aren't,
[11:50] um, you know, like the day
[11:52] after Thanksgiving,
[11:53] technically not a holiday.
[11:54] It's just, you know, you
[11:55] just do it on a 40-
[11:56] hour weekend,
[11:57] and it's right after
[11:58] that. So
[11:59] it's usually there. Um, here
[12:01] Good Friday is a
[12:02] holiday that has always
[12:03] been in the personnel
[12:04] handbook, but it is not a
[12:05] federal holiday.
[12:07] So, moving
[12:07] forward, I'm trying to,
[12:08] you know, work out a
[12:09] federal calendar
[12:10] , but I'll have to
[12:11] present that to
[12:12] the union when it's
[12:13] ready. But
[12:14] now we're just
[12:15] back to what we
[12:16] have in the current
[12:17] personnel handbook.
[12:33] Article 20 essentially
[12:34] covers
[12:35] wages for both, um,
[12:37] officers and
[12:38] dispatchers. So, for the
[12:42] first year, um, for the
[12:44] first year of
[12:45] the raise, we
[12:46] agreed on a
[12:47] 3.7% increase for
[12:49] officers and a 3% increase for, um
[12:50] , dispatchers. Um, this is
[12:54] all within your
[12:56] budget that you
[12:57] just approved. Um,
[13:00] this was discussed
[13:01] during the negotiations
[13:02] between me and the
[13:03] union. Um, we, I
[13:04] mean, the city
[13:05] attorney and the
[13:06] police chief, you know, we both
[13:08] discussed it back and forth
[13:09] . Um, and we got
[13:11] to this, um, we
[13:12] got to these
[13:12] negotiations. Ahem. I
[13:16] think this is another step
[13:18] in what we're doing with the
[13:19] police
[13:20] department. So,
[13:21] this is where we
[13:23] are now.
[13:25] is that... is that 3%-- is
[13:29] that a straight
[13:30] 3% hourly increase, because I
[13:32] just did a quick
[13:33] calculation, taking
[13:34] 23.22, which was the first
[13:36] increment of the hourly
[13:37] rate on October 1,
[13:39] 2025. With a
[13:42] 3% increase, it should be
[13:45] 23.9166 or 23.92, but here it is 24.07.
[13:54] Maybe this refers to the
[13:55] annual amount?
[13:56] You start from the number
[13:58] 23.22.
[13:59] Yes. Let me take a
[14:00] quick look at the
[14:01] annual amount.
[14:10] Yes, it's not 3%, it's more
[14:12] . It
[14:12] should be 3.7%.
[14:14] Oh, 3.7%.
[14:16] Yes, 3.7% for officers
[14:18] for the first year.
[14:19] Good. So, for the
[14:20] first stage, for the
[14:22] first year, for
[14:23] 2026, it will be 3.7%, and for the
[14:25] next two years of
[14:26] this contract—3%.
[14:29] So, these 3.7% bring the
[14:31] first degree to a
[14:32] salary level of
[14:34] $50,000. Um,
[14:37] the union originally
[14:38] wanted a lot
[14:39] more, but this is what
[14:41] we came to as a
[14:42] result of
[14:43] negotiations, and for the
[14:44] next two years, the 27th
[14:46] and the 28th, it's just 3%.
[14:49] Now, if the
[14:50] November
[14:51] vote is
[14:52] successful, then 2027 and 2028
[14:54] will be
[14:55] put on hold until we can come to an
[14:56] agreement on
[14:58] those two years.
[15:18] Of course, Article 27
[15:19] only concerns
[15:21] the duration and
[15:22] termination of this
[15:24] particular
[15:25] contract, changing
[15:27] it from 2026 to 2029. Um
[15:30] , but lines 17-22
[15:32] basically describe...
[15:42] We both
[15:43] agreed on
[15:44] the wording that
[15:45] in the event that we
[15:46] need to...
[15:50] revise the agreement
[15:51] or in the event that
[15:53] any disputes arise
[15:54] or anything like that,
[15:55] we both agreed on that
[15:57] wording in
[15:58] lines 19-22.
[16:11] Where exactly is it written down that what
[16:12] will happen in
[16:13] November?
[16:16] Go back,
[16:17] I'm sorry,
[16:18] go back to
[16:19] article 20.
[16:21] And then on the last
[16:23] page, lines 122-129.
[16:31] Good. So, as I
[16:52] said, Nancy Meyer,
[16:53] Rob Ashenfelder, myself, and the
[16:54] police chief—
[16:55] we all agree that these are
[16:57] acceptable terms for
[16:59] moving forward. As I
[17:01] said, this is within
[17:02] our budget
[17:03] parameters. Um,
[17:05] you know,
[17:06] it was mostly changes. Um, the
[17:09] raise negotiations were all within the
[17:11] planned range. So,
[17:13] if you don't have
[17:14] any specific
[17:16] questions, I've included the entire
[17:17] agreement as an attachment
[17:18] in case you wanted to
[17:19] discuss anything else,
[17:20] but none of those
[17:21] articles will change.
[17:24] The ones I read to
[17:25] you tonight are the
[17:27] only ones that will
[17:28] change. Have a question?
[17:42] Tom? That was good.
[17:49] Just wanted to be
[17:50] aware.
[17:56] Good. So, do
[17:57] we need
[17:58] a vote of
[17:59] approval?
[17:59] This is a working meeting. This
[18:01] issue will return to the
[18:03] agenda for formal approval in
[18:04] the near future. Yes
[18:05] , they will have a
[18:06] vote on
[18:07] ratification by
[18:08] officials.
[18:09] If it passes, we
[18:11] will prepare a final
[18:12] agreement and present
[18:13] it to the council at the
[18:15] September meeting. I hope
[18:16] we can
[18:17] wrap this up by the end of
[18:18] this month, and it
[18:19] will be a closed
[18:20] session.
[18:21] No.
[18:21] So there is no
[18:23] closed session,
[18:25] since the agreements
[18:26] have been signed, even if they are
[18:27] preliminary.
[18:28] Good. So,
[18:29] this never happens to us
[18:30] . No. Of course. I
[18:31] spoke to both
[18:32] attorneys about this
[18:33] , and we could, you
[18:35] know, we probably should have
[18:36] held a
[18:37] closed session.
[18:41] But the fact that we
[18:42] have a preliminary
[18:43] agreement means that
[18:44] if you disagree with something
[18:45] now, I
[18:46] can still go back to
[18:48] negotiations, but we have
[18:49] almost everything
[18:50] agreed. But they have
[18:54] n't held a
[18:55] vote on
[18:56] ratification or anything yet
[18:57] . So if we
[18:58] needed to
[19:00] discuss something, I could
[19:01] notify
[19:01] the union and do
[19:03] it. But it was the
[19:05] lawyer's suggestion
[19:06] to hold it as a
[19:07] working meeting or
[19:08] closed session.
[19:10] I think last time
[19:11] we held a closed
[19:12] meeting because the issue
[19:14] was controversial and not
[19:15] agreed upon.
[19:15] Right.
[19:16] I think there
[19:18] was more
[19:19] debate last time. Yes. We could
[19:21] do the same this
[19:22] time. But again
[19:24] , since many of
[19:26] the changes concerned
[19:27] wording, not
[19:28] substance. I thought this was the
[19:32] best way to
[19:33] move forward.
[19:36] Good. I mean,
[19:37] just my thoughts for the
[19:38] future. Um, I think
[19:40] that before—I mean,
[19:41] of course,
[19:42] if an agreement is reached,
[19:44] that's great, but I
[19:45] think that before we
[19:46] , the city side,
[19:47] agree, it should
[19:48] go back to the council
[19:50] in closed session
[19:51] so we can
[19:52] discuss it and
[19:53] make sure, because right
[19:54] now we... if we
[19:55] want to open up
[19:56] or discuss something, it's in
[19:58] public, and we can't have
[19:59] those
[20:00] discussions. So I
[20:01] think in
[20:02] the future, if we
[20:03] do
[20:03] contracts, we should
[20:04] have closed
[20:05] meetings where before the
[20:06] city... I mean,
[20:07] you could
[20:07] work together
[20:08] to prepare something,
[20:09] but I think it
[20:09] should go back to the
[20:10] council so we can have
[20:11] our say
[20:12] before it's
[20:13] finally agreed to, those are
[20:13] my thoughts.
[20:14] And we could
[20:15] do it. It's just, um,
[20:16] as I've said in my
[20:18] discussions with Nancy
[20:19] and Rob...in their
[20:22] opinion, since I'm essentially the
[20:25] negotiating representative,
[20:26] and I signed the
[20:27] preliminary agreements that
[20:29] I submitted there. Um, like I
[20:30] said, they're still
[20:31] preliminary. So
[20:33] if there's anything we
[20:34] should bring back for
[20:35] discussion, we
[20:36] can.
[20:36] Um, but in their opinion,
[20:38] it was just...
[20:39] not to hold a closed
[20:40] session, but to just
[20:41] hold it as a
[20:42] working session. So that's why
[20:43] we're here tonight
[20:44] .
[20:45] And it works both
[20:46] ways. As a council, we
[20:47] say we want
[20:48] more than 3%, right? Or
[20:49] we may want to...
[20:50] So I think it's
[20:51] good practice
[20:51] because we have the
[20:52] appropriate
[20:53] authority
[20:53] to hold these sessions,
[20:54] and we should
[20:55] take advantage of this
[20:56] discussion because
[20:56] it's part of the
[20:57] discussion, I think.
[20:58] Yes. Longevity bonus
[21:00] , how long has it
[21:01] existed in this
[21:01] form? And was
[21:02] this discussed?
[21:03] This was not discussed.
[21:04] This was already in
[21:05] the contracts before. Um
[21:06] , and they didn't ask for
[21:07] any changes.
[21:08] They didn't...they didn't
[21:09] want any changes.
[21:10] Yes.
[21:11] And actually, we just
[21:12] performed it for
[21:13] Sergeant S.
[21:14] Sergeant Cox. He has been with
[21:16] us for 15 years.
[21:18] So, are there any more questions?
[21:23] Good. If not, then I'll move on
[21:24] . Are there any
[21:25] comments from the
[21:26] public? I don't
[21:27] see it, then I'll move on to
[21:28] the comments from the mayor and
[21:29] city council. Uh,
[21:30] let's start with Councilman
[21:31] Burke. That is, with Councilwoman
[21:32] Burke.
[21:34] Let's go back to the
[21:35] council member. I got it all
[21:36] mixed up again. I will do
[21:38] everything right. I'll
[21:39] talk to the
[21:40] council member.
[21:41] Now, I wish
[21:42] we could pay them
[21:44] more.
[21:44] Yes, I hope
[21:45] we can someday.
[21:46] Me too. I wish
[21:47] we could pay them
[21:48] more, but, uh,
[21:49] nothing more.
[21:50] Good. Vice Mayor,
[21:51] I just want to say
[21:52] that they are doing a great
[21:53] job in their
[21:54] city. The police are
[21:55] constantly everywhere, and you
[21:56] see them. They are
[21:57] present. Cars on
[21:58] the streets, just
[21:59] great work.
[22:00] Okay, Card.
[22:04] No, it's just that the seniority bonus
[22:06] seems too small, but
[22:08] they didn't ask for it
[22:09] and no, they're
[22:11] doing a great
[22:12] job. They
[22:13] deserve the
[22:14] best too. They
[22:15] do a great
[22:16] job. What is, is what is.
[22:19] Gladly. Yes, and that's an apt
[22:23] observation, since
[22:24] we've worked it out. It would be
[22:25] good
[22:26] to meet as a council in
[22:27] closed session
[22:28] to be able to
[22:29] discuss things. So
[22:30] I definitely think that
[22:31] depending on what
[22:32] happens in
[22:32] November, let's
[22:33] make sure that we
[22:35] all have a say on
[22:35] this so that we
[22:37] can
[22:37] I think, uh, then in
[22:38] November we'll
[22:39] keep an eye on it, and if
[22:40] we have to
[22:41] reopen the contract
[22:42] , we can as well
[22:43] , and the thing is,
[22:44] the review doesn't
[22:45] necessarily
[22:46] just have to be about
[22:47] salaries. We can
[22:48] review
[22:49] almost anything.
[22:50] So I'll do this, and this will
[22:51] become our
[22:52] practice, I'll just
[22:53] call a closed
[22:54] session right away.
[22:56] That way, since
[22:57] the contract is in front of us,
[22:58] we can discuss
[22:59] anything we
[23:00] want to move forward on.
[23:02] So, and then
[23:02] move on from this
[23:03] point. So before
[23:04] I sit down with them
[23:05] at the negotiating table,
[23:06] we will first
[23:07] hold a closed
[23:08] meeting.
[23:08] And you guys did a
[23:09] great job. So don't
[23:11] get this
[23:11] wrong. As I
[23:13] said, you know, I think
[23:15] that myself, the chief, and our
[23:16] city lawyers—they all
[23:17] did a great
[23:19] job. The union
[23:22] was very open
[23:23] to our proposals,
[23:24] and we were very open to theirs. So I
[23:27] think we were able to
[23:29] negotiate a good
[23:30] contract and move
[23:31] on. So,
[23:35] I guess the
[23:37] fire department salary structure and so on
[23:39] also need to be
[23:40] reviewed. It would be possible to
[23:41] do both
[23:43] things at the same time
[23:43] next year.
[23:46] Well, actually, I'm
[23:47] in the process of working with
[23:48] our new HR
[23:49] person right now, we're going to
[23:50] look at
[23:51] doing a new
[23:53] salary survey,
[23:54] because the last
[23:55] survey we
[23:56] did was four or
[23:57] five years ago, so it's
[23:58] time to do a new one. And,
[24:00] of course, I will
[24:01] coordinate with
[24:02] all
[24:02] employees to move forward
[24:04] with this
[24:05] issue. So, um, that's what
[24:06] I told her
[24:08] as soon as she came in,
[24:09] actually, what I
[24:10] recommended doing
[24:12] . Um, but of course, Gee,
[24:14] given our
[24:15] scale, given
[24:17] our situation, um,
[24:18] of course,
[24:19] we're going to have to
[24:20] make some serious
[24:22] decisions in November if this
[24:23] goes through. But, um,
[24:24] regardless,
[24:25] if we can
[24:27] do it, we'll
[24:27] do it. Good.
[24:30] OK. Nothing more
[24:32] . So I make a
[24:32] suggestion.
[24:34] Motion to
[24:35] close the meeting. I
[24:36] support.
[24:37] The offer is accepted.
[24:38] Second proposal. Those who are
[24:40] "in favor", please say "
[24:41] yes". Yes. Yes. Yes. You.