03/20/2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Attorney Mandel explained the County's proposal was to change the language in Paragraph 33.10. He said the County has a lead paramedic that is assigned to each piece of apparatus, and that person is paid an incentive ranging from $3,000 to $47,000 per year, to provide Lead paramedic service. He described the qualifications and functions of a lead paramedic, how individuals were selected, what they were responsible for, and the process for filling vacancies. He felt that funding 86 solo paramedic slots was a reasonable number, which covered the 60 people required for each shift, plus an additional 26 people that would cover all the vacancies. He said the cost to make all the folks who were eligible to become lead paramedics, would cost the County about $200,000+ a year. He relayed that the Special Magistrate recommended against this, and asked the Board to approve the County's proposed language, with a caveat to change the incentive to be paid from an hourly rate to a day rate. Attorney Mierzwa questioned why the department could overrule the decision of the Medical Director, and stressed that protocol medics should be allowed to function as protocol medics. I. Article 34 — Salaries 15 minutes each, County presents first 9:07 p.m. Attorney Mandel said the only Paragraph in Article 34 that was in dispute was Paragraph 34.02, the amount of the wage increases for each of the fiscal years of the contract, and whether the wage increases should be applied prospectively or retroactively. He provided past history relating to full- time personnel; proposals from Fiscal Years 2013 through 2015; and the Emergency Services District Fund Balance/Reserves. He informed the Board that the County was recommending the Special Magistrate's proposal; effective upon ratification, through September 30, 2015, a 3% COLA increase, a 5% step increase under the existing step plan, and a $1,500 lump sum payment for topped -out employees. He urged the Board to reject the Union's proposal and adopt the County's proposed language in Paragraph 34.0, Exhibit P. Attorney Mierzwa did not agree that characterizing the proposal as 8% was correct since a step increase is not the same as a pay increase, and only half the employees get the step increases. He reviewed the County Administrator's proposals and changes since Fiscal Year 2013, and proposed a continuation of the step plan that was frozen many years ago. He presented history and salary comparisons with neighboring Counties; spoke about the individuals who left Indian River County to work elsewhere; emphasized that Local 2201 had not received a pay increase in 7% years; and reiterated their proposal for a 3% pay increase. He concluded by stating that the Indian River County firefighters were on the bottom in all comparisons, and were not asking for a catch-up raise of 10%, Impasse Hearing March 20, 2015 Page 7