Meeting of 1999-11-16 Special Meeting

Month 1999-11 November

MINUTES

SPECIAL CALLED MEETING

LAWTON CITY COUNCIL

NOVEMBER 16, 1999 - 6:00 P.M.

WAYNE GILLEY CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER

Mayor Cecil E. Powell, Also Present:

Presiding Bill Baker, City Manager

John Vincent, City Attorney

Brenda Smith, City Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Mayor Powell. Notice of meeting and agenda were posted on the City Hall notice board as required by State Law.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: G. Wayne Smith, Ward One

Richard Williams, Ward Two

Glenn Devine, Ward Three

John Purcell, Ward Four

Robert Shanklin, Ward Five

Charles Beller, Ward Six

Stanley Haywood, Ward Seven

Randy Warren, Ward Eight

ABSENT: None.

BUSINESS ITEMS:

Mayor Powell welcomed those in attendance. He asked everyone involved to focus on a solution, and not on the problem. Mayor Powell said all meetings are important, but in view of the fact that this one may place a new meaning on importance, he would request the legal counsel seated to his right to intervene before the Mayor or Council takes any action that is illegal or out of order.

1. Pursuant to Section 307B.1, Title 25, Oklahoma Statutes, consider convening in executive session to discuss the continued employment of Mr. John H. Vincent, Jr. as City Attorney, and in open session, take appropriate action. Exhibits: None.

MOVED by Williams, SECOND by Warren, to convene in executive session to consider Item 1 on the agenda. AYE: Williams, Devine, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

The Mayor and Council convened in executive session at approximately 6:02 p.m. and reconvened in special, open session at approximately 7:30 p.m. with roll call reflecting all members present.

Mayor Powell reported on Item 1 there is no action to be taken.

2. Consider amending Council Policy 1-6, Council Rules of Procedure, to allow for temporary suspension of the rules by a majority vote of the Council members present. Exhibits: Council Policy 1-6 with proposed amendment.

Purcell said he requested this item, and stated he understood the policy provided that the majority of the members present could suspend its rules to allow persons in the audience to speak, some go over three minutes although that is in the rules, and items have been brought back for reconsideration before. He said somehow the policy got changed and Council approved it but it reads 2/3rds majority vote of the members present. Purcell suggested it be amended to state what had been the practice all along, which was a vote of the majority of all of the members present.

MOVED by Purcell, SECOND by Smith, to amend Council Policy 1-6, Council Rules of Procedure, to allow for temporary suspension of the rules by a majority vote of the Council members present.

Williams asked if a majority vote only was needed on this motion and Purcell said yes.

VOTE ON MOTION: AYE: Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams, Devine. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

3. Consider suspending Council Policy 1-6, City Council Rules and Procedures for purposes of considering the rescission of Resolution No. 99-135. Exhibits: None.

Mayor Powell said the City received an amended Arbitrator's Award on November 13, 1999.

MOVED by Beller, SECOND by Warren, to suspend Council Policy 1-6, Council Rules and Procedures, for purposes of considering the rescission of Resolution No. 99-135.

Shanklin asked what we were trying to do here and if it was to rescind the resolution without any discussion being held. Beller said no, it is to discuss the resolution; to discuss the rescission of the resolution and that this action had to be taken before the discussion could be held. Shanklin said he wanted to make sure it would be discussed.

VOTE ON MOTION: AYE: Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams, Devine, Purcell. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

4. Pursuant to Title 25, Oklahoma Statutes, ss. 307(B)(2) and (B)(4), consider convening in executive session for purposes of conferring with the City Attorney regarding a pending investigation, claim or action resulting from the reconsideration of the award of the arbitrator for the Employment Agreement for FY 1999-2000 between the IAFF, Local 1882, and the City of Lawton, to discuss with the City Attorney whether the resulting appropriations will violate the Debt Limitation Act then take appropriate action in open session. Exhibits: None.

Beller said he would move to go into executive session but would like to hear some of the positions first. Vincent said that would be appropriate.

Mayor Powell asked Gary Brooks to come forward and stated three names were submitted to speak.

The following portion of the meeting is included verbatim:

Brooks: My name's Gary Brooks. I represent Lawton firefighters. I guess the, everyone has been reworking the numbers so here we are again asking to be treated like everyone else. When the Council voted to give the general employees their new pay plan, they didn't do the projections the same way they've done for us in the last week. In the Council minutes from the August 24th 1997 meeting, after Councilman Purcell made the motion, Councilman Shanklin asked if $412,000 for the remainder of the year wouldn't be $800,000 new money for the next fiscal year. The City Manager stepped in on the general employees' behalf and explained that it would only be $265,000 for the next fiscal year, that the year of implementation was the most expensive year. I would agree and I believe the Council agreed at the time. Now there's a different method being used. Under this new method, the general employees' raise would have been $800,000 plus the next fiscal year.

When I was first hired by the City of Lawton, I made $391 bi-weekly. Under the new method, everything I make above that is new money. If the City increases the budget by 3% for this fiscal year, and next year they project 3% again, they should have 6% new money the next year but that's not really how it works. Argue it when you want to. This isn't about money; if it was about money, the Council would have voted to accept our last best offer last year and we didn't ask for any money but you didn't. In the end, you didn't vote to call for an election but there were several votes prior to that where you forced us to that point. There's been a conscious decision to spend money on litigation rather than salaries and hire outside personnel to do it. This year the City expended in excess of $20,000 for negotiations and arbitration of the firefighters and I'm sure they haven't received all the bills yet. The money flows out of Lawton.

There appears to be some indication from the Council that they should re-enter negotiations. We've been to arbitration, the arbitrator selected our last best offer after carefully weighing both awards. That is binding on the firefighters, we're bound by statute, you have accepted the award. I read in the newspaper that the City Manager believes there is a vehicle to re-enter negotiations after calling for an election. I don't know about such a vehicle. We will have another chance to negotiate in the spring.

During our investigation about where the revenue should come from we attempted to get the October revenue and expenditure report. It's our understanding that the report's completed but the City will not release it until it's been viewed by the Council. I don't believe that is what the open records act states.

Shanklin: Excuse me. You said that you couldn't get the, are you talking about our sales tax return for October that comes in on the 10th of the month?

Brooks: The revenue and expenditure report.

Shanklin: They're not privy to do that?

Baker: When they had asked for that the last report that had been done was September. We had not finalized the October report and it had not been distributed to the Council yet so I was informed that it was not a public document until it had been released and the day that they came in for that the latest document was September.

Shanklin: Bill, I'm down there in Mr. Livingston's office quite often on the 9th and 10th trying to find out what it is. Isn't that right, Mr. Livingston? Before any of the other Council or you ever see it. To me that's one of the most important things that I, as far as I'm concerned, the City progresses on is that sales tax. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Brooks: During negotiations every year the City won't bring proposals dealing with money because the budget hasn't been completed yet. Once the budget is completed, they find there is no money because they didn't budget any. They claim it would be improper to budget money for raises for represented employees. The way to do things is to budget annual increases to reflect increases in the cost of living. When you pass up these opportunities to bargain, we're left having to catch up and that's where we're at now is trying to catch up. I guess that's all I have right now. We'd ask that you not rescind this resolution.

Mayor: OK, thank you, Gary. Remain there for a second please if you would. Is there any question for Mr. Brooks?

Beller: I remember when we were discussing this, was it two weeks ago when we talked about if we went to a vote and if we set a date for the vote would we still be able to arbitrate with the union in this window, if you will, between the action we took to set an election and I think your response was, was it not, that yes, it's possible that we could?

Brooks: I said it may be possible. I didn't know for sure.

Beller: But you did tell us it was possible?

Brooks: I said it may be possible. I just didn't know what the rules were.

Mayor: Any other questions?

Shanklin: Yes, do you have these pay raises programmed out for the next five years?

Brooks: Dewayne Burk has that information on the pay raises and programmed out.

Shanklin: But you did do that?

Brooks: Yes sir.

Shanklin: And the staff has done this too, right, John?

Purcell: Yes, that's correct.

Shanklin: OK, we're going to get to compare them.

Beller: Could I ask something here?

Mayor: Sure.

Beller: If we may, could we maybe have a copy of you all's....

Brooks: We have copies.

Purcell: The same thing, I was going to ask if we could get a copy. Could you tell me what your calculations are for...

Mayor: Mr. Burk's going to speak here in just a minute.

Purcell: Oh, OK, I'm sorry.

Brooks: I leave that to Dewayne. He's a little better with the figures than I am. We'd also like to see a copy of the other figures...

Mayor: Thank you very much, Gary. At this time I would like Dewayne Burk, if you would still like to speak to come up please, state your name, your address and your concern please. (Burk distributed three sheets of paper to each person seated at the Council table.)

Shanklin: Mayor, while he's handing that out, I'd just like to point out to the Council that I have a 1989 budget and a 1999 to compare not only the fire and the police, wastewater, field utilities, personnel, you'd be surprised how those numbers jumped in 100 accounts in relationship to this number here that you're going to see. You'll be real surprised.

Burk: I have overhead transparencies made if you want to put it out here for the audience to see.

Mayor: Let's just go ahead from here.

Burk: My name's Dewayne Burk. I live at 1335 Ash. I'm here on behalf of the Lawton firefighters. Does everybody have a copy?

Shanklin: Is there three sheets?

Burk: There should be three, yes sir.

Mayor: Stanley, do you have all three copies?

Haywood: Yes.

Mayor: OK.

Burk: OK, if you'll pick up this sheet right here, this cost of raise over five years. OK, the charts that I've given you will basically show you how this flows for the next five years. In the fiscal year 1999-2000, your budget, less the wage increase, is $5,091,210 but the proposal to cost out that using the City's numbers on the cost out for the union's proposal, the actual increase for this year will be $440,224. If you add that to the budget, less the wage increase, you'll come up with the adjusted budget with the wage increase, $5,531,434. For the year 2000 and 2001, you come back over to the left hand side there, it says budget less wage increase. Normally, and I say this normally, adjusted budget with wage increase becomes your new budget for the next year, subsequent year. However, the year 1999-2000 has 27 pay periods, approximately $200,000 extra in this year's budget that will not need to be, or that wouldn't need to be there next year. So what I did was I subtracted that off the adjusted budget with the wage increase to give you $5,334,000. Then you come over, if you take that, the next step raise, our step raises are 5% between each one, you take that number times 1.05, that gives you a 5% step increase, subtract that from the actual budget, the $5,334,000, gives you $266,670, would be the total increase for the next year. If you apply the 27th pay period then the number of roughly, I want to say it's $197,434 is the way we calculated it, you apply that to the $266,670 new dollars you would need $69,236 for next year for the new budget. That would accommodate the 5% pay increase for next year.

Now back to the 2001-2002, the adjusted budget with wage increase is $5,600,701. That now becomes your budget less any wage increase for the next year. With a 5% step increase that will go to $5,880,000, the difference being $280,035, that's the total new money for that next year. And you can follow the chart all the way down, it works the same way from that point on, every year for the next five years, or until fiscal year 2003-2004 there's a 5% step increase. What this does is basically build equity, to use the City Manager's terms, builds equity into the pay plan. When the City had the survey done, we were found to be approximately 27% behind in wages. We knew we couldn't get all this up-front so we tried to figure out a way to come up with this and when we watched the City Manager propose the pay plan for the general employees, it appeared to us. The way to do this is to use his methodology and you use the 80-120 method, if you take 100% of what we are behind today and you apply that over the next five years, by the time you get to the fifth year, you are now five years behind again but if you use the 120 method, the 80-120 method, you take the percent that we are behind right now times 120%, you apply that over the next five years, by the time you get to the fifth year, you're caught up, you're still with the market, and you're not five years behind. That was the whole method behind this.

If you'll notice on the graphs, each one of these should correspond with the actual proposal or the cost of the raise over the next five years. If you'll go to the actual graph here, the line graph, it will show you the difference in the amount between years for 99-2000 and it graphs and you can see it's a steady increase. Between each fiscal year there is a 5% pay increase and that's what it comes out every year, that's, and the numbers down here at the bottom, the bottom line of what it costs is the actual new dollars per year. You cannot, cannot set there and try to compound that year after year after year because just like President Brooks said, if you did that back in 1980 and you took 19 years of pay increases and you started compounding it, the numbers would become astronomical. No one would ever vote for a raise if that's the way it was done. Once those numbers go into the budget, they are not new dollars anymore. You can't, it doesn't make any sense to do it that way. That's our numbers.

Beller: Can I ask a question here though?

Mayor: Sure, go ahead.

Beller: But if you bring that out to the end of the year, aren't you saying to us though that those increases have to be paid next year, on top of what you've got this year, so why wouldn't that be added together? Am I asking a silly question?

Burk: From what I understand of the State Statute, and I'm not an expert, we can negotiate one year at a time.

Beller: So what you're saying is then just this particular contract?

Burk: This particular contract basically sets a wage chart in place. If we go to negotiations next year and nothing is modified, yes, we would get another 5% pay increase next year. If we go to contract negotiations next year and something comes up and everybody gets a decrease in wages, and you can prove that or we can, you know, if we can come together on that, hey, it's changeable, you can change it at that time, but for the time being, we are presently approximately 27% behind in pay. We're not asking for all of it up front, a little bit at a time is all we're asking, just to get caught up.

Beller: That answers it.

Mayor: OK, proceed on, please.

Burk: That's all I have. I'd be willing to answer questions.

Beller: I've got one other question. Has anyone looked to see whether we hit another 27th pay period in the next few, does that happen, like leap year, 12 years?

Shanklin: Ten or twelve years. We had one in 89.

Beller: OK, that was the short fall year.

Shanklin: They had one in 99.

Beller: 12 years?

Shanklin: It would be ten years.

Beller: It won't come in this five year period is what my question was.

Mayor: No sir. Yes sir, Mr. Purcell.

Purcell: Yes, Mr. Burk, I just have a question. I think you're, the way you computed out your increases each year I think's outstanding, and let's say, for the sake of argument, that's very close to what the City did and so, but I'd like to ask you a question. This year you agree that the increase is going to be $440,000, that's your numbers.

Burk: That's the City's numbers.

Purcell: Oh, I thought these were your numbers.

Burk: That $440,224 is the City's cost out of our proposal.

Purcell: What do you think it ought to be?

Burk: My numbers, our accountant came up with $396,000, so we give you the benefit of the doubt basically.

Purcell: Let's, for the sake of argument then, let's use a round number, $400,000, that's closer to yours, lower than ours.

Burk: Sure.

Purcell: If you get a $400,000 pay raise in total in this year, I'm talking about the total amount that the citizens have to spend in order to do this. Let's just talk about this year. Would you not agree that you're going to keep that $400,000 pay raise, and if you never got another step increase or you never negotiated a further pay raise, that you would continue to get the same pay raise, the same amount being paid for the following year, or are you planning in your discussion to take a $440,000, or $400,000 in my example, pay cut the following year or would you not be expecting to keep the same dollar amount that you get next year that you got this year.

Burk: It would have to stay in the budget.

Purcell: OK, OK, now let's carry that one step further. I'm trying to understand what you all are saying.

Burk: You're compounding it.

Purcell: I'm not compounding it, I'm saying that go three years from now. If you get $400,000 more this year and you don't change anything the following year, there's still a $400,000 we're paying more than we are right now today and so now you have three years at $400,000 more each of those three years than we're paying today. What does that total amount come to that the City has to pay? I'm not talking about percentage increases but how much money would that be over and above what we're paying today?

Burk: I'm not sure I'm following your question. I know that this year would be the most expensive year.

Purcell: Right, and then the rate goes down.

Burk: Right, the average over the five years is $278,454.

Purcell: Well, I'm sorry, I disagree with that number and that's what I'm trying to get at. It's $400,000 pay raise this year.

Burk: Right.

Purcell: We all agree to that set of numbers.

Burk: OK, we'll buy that.

Purcell: And the following year, let's say you don't negotiate anything and you don't have, no one gets a step increase just for the sake of argument for just a second, so you don't get an extra $266,000 next year. Now, can you please tell me what it's going to cost for two years for this year and next year assuming there's a $400,000 pay raise this year. What extra is it going to cost the City over that two year period of time?

Burk: The same $400,000.

Purcell: No sir. I'm saying, unless you're going to take a $400,000 cut in year two, you're going to expect $400,000 this year, the same exact salary next year, I agree no increase, but the total amount of output is going to be $800,000 over what you have right now, $400,000 this year and....

Burk: I understand what you're saying, yes.

Purcell: OK, now you may disagree with that, but I'm just trying to get the math, and then if you carry that out for five years, you're still going to get that $400,000 that the City's going to have to come up with for all five years and just that number makes it $2 million.

Burk: Well, and like I said before, if you use that methodology, then we could go back however many years you want to and every pay increase from back to 1950 to now, you would be considering compounding, you would be compounding that and that's what I'm saying, the numbers would become astronomical if you continued to compound. What, it's just like your City budget grows every year that the City grows, OK? You don't consider that new growth next year. If the City all of the sudden made an extra $5 million this year in revenues and next year it made another $5 million in revenues extra, well you wouldn't say next year that we've received $10 million in new revenue, you would say $5 million.

Purcell: How much would we have received extra over those two years in extra revenues? $5 million this year and $5 million next...

Burk: I understand what you're saying, but that goes along with the growth of the City, just like this goes along with the growth of the pay. It stays with it.

Purcell: I'm not suggesting that this is what we use to do pay raises. You need the pay raises, that's not, my only question is how much extra does it cost the citizens to do this?

Burk: You're wanting me to say $800,000 the next year.

Purcell: Well, I think that's what it is.

Burk: If you compound it using your methodology I would say yes.

Purcell: That's all I was trying to get at. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, I'm not saying that's the way we ought to do pay raises, I'm just trying to determine a number of how much additional it costs, that was all I was trying to do. Thank you.

Mayor: OK, any other questions for Mr. Burk while he's there? Thank you very much sir. I appreciate it.

Burk: You're welcome.

Mayor: There's one last gentlemen that has asked, Mr. Jim Moore, if he's in the, yes sir.

Moore: Thank you Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Yes sir.

Moore: Members of the Council. My name is Jim Moore, I'm an attorney, I represent the firefighters here and have for years, I also represent the police. I represent firefighters and police around the State of Oklahoma and deal with these issues frequently and although I have never had this come up before so it's always a surprise sometimes when some of these questions get brought up, or different methods of accounting get brought up that we've never seen before, too, Mr. Purcell. (audience comments) No, I'm being very serious about that.

Mayor: (Gavel) No, no, no. We will not call names and get offensive in any manner whatsoever in this meeting this evening. Please...

Moore: I certainly did not intend for that to be offensive.

Mayor: Please continue, sir.

Moore: And I would like to address certain members because if someone has a question, I do want to address their questions.

Mayor: I won't allow you, us to attack them and I will not allow you to attack the Councilmen up here in this meeting this evening. I set the tone for the meeting in the beginning and we will stay within those bounds.

Moore: And I'm talking about accounting, Mr. Mayor.

Mayor: Thank you sir.

Moore: And the way it's being done.

Mayor: Continue with your accounting.

Moore: Pardon me?

Mayor: Continue with your accounting.

Moore: I am. The City, if we're going to talk about expenditures in a way that we talk about multi years then certainly we've got to talk about revenues over multi years, and that's I think the point that Dewayne was just trying to make. We don't say we've got an 18% revenue increase over the last three years, we go from year to year, and there's a reason for that. It's because we budget from year to year and we contract from year to year and that's what we're doing here. We're contracting from year to year. The first year is the expenditure that we've talked about, the relatively approximate $400,000 figure. When we talk about out years, we're talking about possibilities, we're not talking about exact numbers or exact obligations because, as they pointed out to you just a moment ago, those can change from year to year depending on negotiations. You've got a multi step pay plan right now in the contract, in all of your contracts, for all City employees, multi years. That doesn't mean that you are guaranteeing that you're going to pay X number of dollars in ten years to someone if they stay in a particular classification. Those numbers change. They change based on revenues, they change based on expenditures, sometimes they're frozen, sometimes people get frozen in a step and don't move, there's a lot of things that can change from year to year. I think it's unfair to say we're looking at five years and then we're going to stop and for the next five years it's going to cost X number of dollars and gee whiz, we're shocked, we didn't know that was going to happen. It's been very clear from day one from what I understand I don't think there's been any mystery about it, the pay plan itself really didn't change. People move to different classifications in the pay plan. The steps are the same as they've always been, 5% steps, 5% per year. What we're talking about is a 5% wage increase per year for firefighters unless something else gets negotiated next year to stop that from happening or to change it in some way, shape or form. That's, I assumed that the Council was very aware of that when it passed this resolution and adopted this arbitrator's award, that that's what the obligation was. Now, you can talk about changing the numbers around and manipulating them and adding them all together to make it look huge over a period of time, but that's just manipulating. We don't do that with revenues, why should we do it with expenditures? It's still 5% per year unless it gets changed at the table.

I know that the Council, a couple of things shocked me about what you've done. One, it seems to me you rather easily suspended your 2/3rds rule. Right now your rules don't even permit you to reconsider this contract that you adopted at your last meeting. There's three exceptions where you can reconsider making a contract like you did and this situation does not fit into any of those three. Those are your rules, yet, your rules can be suspended, according to your rules, if you have a 2/3rds vote, but I heard you just vote to suspend the 2/3rds so that now you're changing the rule to allow maybe a simple majority to undo what a majority did at the last meeting, and I think that's very questionable. I think we're a country of laws and rules and it was very apparent last meeting what the contract was, the contract was 5% per year and I don't know what's happened in the mean time, other than someone who was opposed to it last time recalculating the numbers to make it look larger than it is, even though the numbers are still the same.

Mr. Vincent testified in the arbitration case. Apparently the Manager told you what the amount was that this contract was going to cost for this fiscal year. I am sure, I'm certain that you members who voted in favor of this resolution last time did not do so lightly, that you wanted to be sure the revenues were there this year to fund this contract, that $440,000 wouldn't cause a deficit or you wouldn't have done it. I'm sure, I know you're more responsible than that. So, which means that there are revenues available to fund the contract this year, and in fact we know from looking at the audits that there's far more than enough to fund the contract for this fiscal year and that's really all we're talking about is this fiscal year's contract.

And I know that what, the item that's on your agenda is to go back in executive session and talk about the Debt Limitation Act, which is a Constitutional provision which says you can't, you can't go in the hole in any fiscal year, and I know that you wouldn't have passed it last week if you thought you were going to go in the hole this fiscal year. So I know there's not going to be a problem with that provision and if that's the reason that you're talking about trying to rescind this contract, it's not, it's not a legitimate reason because the money is there this fiscal year. If you're worried about future years, then that's what future contract negotiations are about. That pay plan has been in that contract for years, we're just talking about how people move through it, where they end up in a particular year if they get an increase.

One other thing I think you need to consider that may not be clear from the numbers you have and Mr. Purcell, I don't know if you've analyzed this or not, as I indicated, firefighters get a step, a 5% step in a year and on their anniversary date if they've reached a certain level of performance and that's all we're talking about here. I don't think there's any dispute about that. This decision of the arbitrator didn't really affect all of the firefighters in the department, and if you rescind that contract that I would take strong issue with the fact that you have the ability to do that, but if you do that, 35% of this department is still going to continue to get those 5% steps over the years and I don't know if you've taken that into consideration or not because they're not at the top of their pay scale so they're going to continue to get those steps. Your calculations assume 5% step for everybody in the unit as if that were something new and that's not the case. It is not something new. Over 35% of the money you were saying is new money is already built in even if you rescind the contract and I think that needs to be analyzed seriously.

One final thing and that is if the numbers I've heard are the ones that you have, i.e. that it costs approximately a million dollars a year new money over the next five years, I look at this year's fire budget, which is approximately five million dollars. A million a year added on to that is about 20% per year. That means if your method of calculation is right, in five years at 20% per year, that equals 100%, and you can't tell me that in five years the firefighters are going to be making 100% more than they are this year and I think that points out the fallacy in the way you're doing your numbers. Just count it up. A million over five, 20%, 20% per year, five years, that's the numbers you're being given and asked to accept but I can guarantee you if you look at that pay plan, firefighters are not making 100% more in five years, they're making about 27% more in five years. There's no mystery to it. Thank you.

Mayor: Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Moore while he's at the podium?

Beller: Are we back to this old thing that numbers don't lie or whatever, but we look at that and you said there's a 5% over the years and I saw in some of our figures it says it was an average of nine, nine and a half percent. How do we...

Moore: Mr. Beller, the first year, in order for people to move into it, it's more than 5%. That's where the 440 comes from, but years after that, as Dewayne told you, it's about 270 because after that everybody just moves 5%, they just get a step like they always have done in every contract you've approved.

Beller: Well, you just told me though you said it's only 5% every year so now you're telling that the first year it could be the nine and a half percent.

Moore: It's 440, whatever those percents are, yes sir. That's why it's 27-1/2 instead of 25; the first year of implementation I think everybody understands is the more expensive year to get people where they're supposed to be.

Beller: I think I'd take issue to one other thing that you said that we knew the money was there, and I know we didn't know the money was there and I'm not one of the most learned members of this Council but I for one didn't realize it. I thought when we were shown the figures that there would be an increase of two hundred plus thousand dollars. Isn't that about what we arrived at, two hundred and something thousand, what it would cost, the difference? So it went from the two hundred and something thousand to 440,000 and in my mind I couldn't put the two together. We did not have the $400,000 and we're relying on figures given to us by our Finance Director and by the City Manager and they tell us that the money is not there.

Moore: I think if you look at your fund balance to start this year, you'll find it. It's over $2 million.

Beller: Well, we have to have a carry over. I understand, I'm certainly, I wish I was as versed in this as Mr. Purcell, but I'm not. I'm not an accounting scholar.

Moore: I'm just sorry we can't go back in executive session and have this discussion so I know what everybody's thinking and have a chance to respond to it, but, but I can tell you that Mr. Vincent testified at the hearing that it was $440,000 under oath. Now, the difference between the two proposals might have been less than that, but it's not going to put the City in the hole to pay this over the fiscal year because the reserves are there, and as I understand it, the October revenue picture is better than expected as well, so there's new revenues coming in that have not been budgeted.

Mayor: OK, any other question while he's here?

Shanklin: Yes, I have one.

Mayor: OK.

Shanklin: Is this contract good for five years?

Mayor: Oh, Mr. Beller, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Shanklin: Is or is not this contract good for five years?

Moore: It's good for one year, sir.

Shanklin: One year.

Moore: Yes sir.

Shanklin: I wish you hadn't said that.

Moore: Well, that's the truth. It's good for one year and if the parties agree, it will continue to the next year and the next year. What I said was, this pay plan, this pay grid with the steps and the classifications in it is the same one that's been in this contract for years. You all have approved this year after year. Contract allows people to move through their classification a step at a time based on performance. All it does is give them some more steps to grow into because as I said about 65% are topped out and have no place to go.

Shanklin: Well, we'll renegotiate every year?

Moore: Yes sir, we do.

Shanklin: OK, I knew that but I thought this was going to be a grand daddy for five years but it's not.

Moore: Well, it will be if it doesn't get changed, and the only way it can be changed is through negotiations and negotiations for this year are through, so we'll talk again next year.

Mayor: Any other questions of Mr. Moore while he's at the podium? Thank you very much sir.

Moore: Thank you.

Mayor: OK. Those are the three that have requested to come forward this evening. Is there anyone else that would like to come forward and make a statement of any kind?

Shanklin: Well, is Mr. Livingston, do we need him now or later or in executive session or what?

Mayor: He'll be in there and then that will be discussed out here, Bob.

Shanklin: Sir? I've got it right here.

Mayor: OK.

Beller: Do we need to go into executive session?

Mayor: Need a motion for executive session, please.

Beller: I would make a motion that we go into executive session to discuss the pending contract.

Williams: Second.

Mayor: We have a motion on the floor and also a second to executive session. Call the roll, please.

Shanklin: To do what?

Mayor: To go to executive session.

Beller: To discuss the contract.

Shanklin: To suspend, discuss.

Beller: Discuss. (end verbatim portion)

ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION: AYE: Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams, Devine, Purcell, Shanklin. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

The Mayor and Council convened in executive session at approximately 8:10 p.m. and reconvened in special, open session at approximately 8:55 p.m. with roll call reflecting all members present.

Verbatim portion:

Mayor: I would like to move to number four and ask the City Attorney to speak to this please, sir.

Vincent: Pursuant to Title 25 Oklahoma Statutes 307B2 and B4, the Council convened in executive session and had discussions as outlined in the agenda commentary. No action is required as a result of those discussions at this time. (end verbatim)

5. Consider adopting Resolution No. 99- rescinding Resolution No. 99-135, which adopted the award of the arbitrator in FMCS #99-0628-13269-8 as the employment agreement FY 1999-2000 between the IAFF, Local 1882, and the City of Lawton. Exhibits: Resolution No. 99-135; Resolution No. 99- .

MOVED by Beller, SECOND by Warren, to consider adopting Resolution No. 99-136 rescinding Resolution 99-135, which adopted the award of the arbitrator in FMCS #99-0628-13269-8 as the employment agreement FY 1999-2000 between the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1882, and the City of Lawton, move for approval. AYE: Warren, Smith, Devine, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood. NAY: Williams. MOTION CARRIED.

(Title only) Resolution No. 99-136

A resolution rescinding Resolution 99-135 adopting the award of the arbitration panel in FMCS #99-0628-13269-8 as the employment agreement by and between the City of Lawton and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1882, for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

6. Consider approving Resolution No. 99-____ which authorizes the Mayor to call for an election to determine whether the Last Best Offer of the City should be accepted or the Last Best Offer of the Union should be accepted; consider approving Resolution No. 99-____ which sets the ballot proposition and election date; and to authorize staff to resume negotiations with IAFF, Local 1882. Exhibits: Resolution No. 99-_____; Resolution No. 99-____.

MOVED by Purcell, SECOND by Warren, to approve Resolution No. 99-137 which authorizes the Mayor to call for an election to determine whether the Last, Best and Final of the City should be accepted or the Last, Best and Final of the Union should be accepted. AYE: Smith, Devine, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren. NAY: Williams. MOTION CARRIED.

(Title only) Resolution No. 99-137

A resolution authorizing the Mayor to call a special election on the last best offers of IAFF, Local 1882, and the City of Lawton and related matters.

MOVED by Purcell, SECOND by Warren, to adopt Resolution No. 99-138 which sets the election date and authorizes the staff to resume negotiations with IAFF, Local 1882.

Mayor Powell asked if the election date would be January 11, 2000, and Purcell and Warren said yes.

ROLL CALL VOTE ON MOTION: AYE: Devine, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith. NAY: Williams. MOTION CARRIED.

(Title only) Resolution No. 99-138

A resolution calling for a special election on the adoption of an employment agreement by and between the City of Lawton and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 1882, for the fiscal year 1999-2000.

7. Pursuant to Section 307B.2, Title 25, Oklahoma Statutes, consider convening in executive session to discuss the negotiations for a Collective Bargaining Agreement for FY 1999-2000 between the Police Union IUPA, Local 24, and the City of Lawton, and take appropriate action in open session. Exhibits: None.

MOVED by Beller, SECOND by Smith, to move into executive session to discuss the bargaining agreement with the police union, IUPA, Local 24. AYE: Devine, Purcell, Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

The Mayor and Council convened in executive session at approximately 8:55 p.m. and reconvened in special, open session at approximately 9:25 p.m. with roll call reflecting all members present.

Vincent said pursuant to Title 25, Section 307B2, the Council entered into executive session to discuss negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with IUPA, Local 24. He asked if there was a motion.

MOVED by Beller, SECOND by Smith, to authorize the negotiating team to enter into negotiations with the proposal of the counter offer. AYE: Shanklin, Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams, Devine, Purcell. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

Vincent said that would conclude his report.

Mayor Powell invited everyone to the Christmas Parade on Friday at 7 p.m. at the Boulevard of

Lights.

Williams said the Heart and Soul of the Great Plains will kick off on Friday evening. He said it is a joint collaboration between the Leslie Powell Foundation and the Museum of the Great Plains.

MOVED by Beller, SECOND by Warren, to adjourn. AYE: Beller, Haywood, Warren, Smith, Williams, Devine, Purcell, Shanklin. NAY: None. MOTION CARRIED.

Meeting adjourned at approximately 9:29 p.m.