The Haines Borough will spend an additional $351,600 on its employees over the course of the next three years following the assembly’s ratification of a new labor contract Tuesday.
That’s on top of the $4.12 million the borough is currently spending on its employees’ wages, health insurance and other miscellaneous expenses like retirement, according to chief fiscal officer Jila Stuart.
On a 5-1 vote, the assembly approved the three-year collective bargaining agreement between the borough and Local 71 workers’ union. Assembly member George Campbell was opposed.
The contract will cost the borough an additional $97,200 in employee compensation for the current fiscal year, $117,200 in the following fiscal year, and $137,200 in fiscal year 2019.
The assembly discussed the contract for nearly 45 minutes, although the conversation didn’t involve objections to the contract’s terms.
Some assembly members were concerned they didn’t have enough time to analyze how the increased expenses would affect the budget.
A proposed contract settlement appeared in the borough’s packet Thursday, July 7, for ratifaction five days later.
Though the borough and union negotiating teams came to a tentative agreement on the contract on June 16 and the union membership ratified the contract June 28, the assembly didn’t receive the proposed contract until July 7.
Manager Bill Seward relayed a message from union representative Tom Brice regarding the consequences of the assembly delaying ratification of the contract. Brice told Seward that if the assembly delayed action beyond 30 days after the June 16 tentative agreement, the contract would automatically be ratified.
Seward added he believed the borough got “a steal” on the contract, considering how underpaid Haines municipal employees are compared to counterparts elsewhere in the state. “If you guys end up not ratifying this tonight, the message you are going to send to your employees is not going to resonate very well. I can assure you that the effect on morale is going to be detrimental,” Seward said.
Assembly member Ron Jackson said he found the situation was “a really frustrating position to be in.”
“It puts us in an awkward situation. We can’t even assess the impacts of the proposal, spend any time evaluating it. Nobody gets to see this until the last minute,” Jackson said.
Jackson said he would like the next agreement to allow more time for both parties to ratify the contract.
Campbell said he liked the contract and would probably vote on it “eventually,” but wanted more time to look at it, especially in light of the borough’s deficit spending.
“This is insulting to get this kind of a contract where all we can do is pass/fail. I think we need to vote it down, we need to discuss it, and offer this very same contract to our staff after we discuss it within our budget,” Campbell said.
Assembly member Diana Lapham because visibly frustrated by the discussion.
“I don’t know what a few extra days would have done. The contract is ratified. That means there is no going back, unless you want to break it open again. I don’t want to do that. I don’t want to go down that road,” Lapham said. “We’re giving these employees the ways and the means to continue living in this community and contribute to this community.”
Assembly member Mike Case, who sat on the borough’s negotiating team, said the assembly to a certain degree puts its trust in the negotiating team to come up with the best contract they can, and that some assembly members seemed to be “second-guessing” and “micromanaging” a process they weren’t privy to.
“Any reasonable company or organization looks to increase their payroll year by year if cost of living is increasing, and it certainly is,” Case said.
Negotiations, which take place behind closed doors, began in February. The borough’s negotiating team consisted of Mayor Jan Hill, public facilities director Brad Ryan, chief fiscal officer Stuart, assembly member Case and clerk Julie Cozzi.
Stuart said although the assembly ratified the contract Tuesday, the funds would be formally appropriated via a budget amendment at the July 26 meeting. If the assembly for some reason rejected the budget amendment, the borough would likely have to cut hours or positions, she said.
“I guess (if the assembly ratified the contract but rejected the budget amendment) their message would be, ‘We want higher wages with less hours,’ or something,” Stuart said.
Stuart said she believed the contract is fair and represents a “compromise” in light of the tight fiscal situation. “Turnover is very expensive and it’s expensive to train people and recruit people. It’s expensive when mistakes are made because a position is vacant or someone is new. So, it’s important to pay a somewhat competitive wage so we can retain good people,” she said.