The Provo Municipal Council on Wednesday confirmed their vote to spend at least $500,000 a year to cover retirement costs for police officers.

The meeting was necessary because without specific changes to the parity ordinance, the Dec. 18 changes would have required the city to give all its employees a similar boost to the tune of about $3 million a year.

Council members Midge Johnson and Steve Turley changed their mind from a Dec. 18 vote and provided the dissenting votes.

Mayor Lewis Billings is also opposed to the move, saying after the meeting that he would look at all possible options, including vetoing the change.

"Until I sign it, it's on the table," he said of a veto.

Arguments for:

Officer after officer spoke Wednesday about the direct cost and burden of their retirement plan.

Because police have a 20-year retirement plan, versus 30 years for other city employees, they have been required to pay a percentage out-of-pocket every year to keep parity. This year that amounts about 9 percent of their salaries. That, in and of itself, is a disparity, they say. The 9 percent comes out to $440 per month for the average officer and is taken after taxes, not before.

Retirement benefits is the department's No. 1 issue, said police chief Craig Geslison, affecting everything from morale to the ability to effectively recruit.

"I want the right thing to be done. I want the fair thing to be done. I'm just saying at this point something has to be done," he said.

It's the goal of the council to get 100 officers hired, but they've been stuck at around 90 for some time and they view the change as a way to attract more recruits.

"I hope other employees don't feel they're somehow shafted by this," said Councilwoman Cynthia Dayton, who was immediately scoffed by many in attendance.

Dayton, undeterred, retaliated: "For you to laugh at my comment does not reduce the fact that we can't get our police force up to snuff."

The council and police also argued that Provo is the last large city in Utah not to offer non-contributory retirement for law enforcement, including Orem, which hasn't seemed to have any problems hiring officers.

Arguments against:

Those employees feeling shafted include those from public works, fire, parks and rec and others who stood Wednesday to decry the council's decision.

Almost to a person, they praised the police for their work and said they deserved more compensation, but they also chastised the council for fiddling with the parity ordinance.

City Employee Association President Skip Tandy said when dealing with employees, parity is a must. He then cited his holiday gift-giving process.

"We try to even things out, keep everyone equal," he said.

The association also was left out of any discussion about retirement changes.

"We want to maintain that two-way street of respect," he said.

Respect for the value of all city employees bubbled up again and again Wednesday, as many said they felt police were being treated as more important and deserving of better benefits.

Timing

Why wait until the last council meeting of the year to make such a big decision?

When the issue was presented to the council on Dec. 18, it was presented as something that had to be handled before the end of the year, as mandated by House Bill 21. That bill allowed for a contributory to non-contributory move until Dec. 31.

"Given what we were given that night, it was very compelling," said Councilwoman Cindy Clark. "I have no second thoughts on my feelings."

But Clark did complain that the council should have heard about the issue well before the end of the year. Chairman George Stewart read a letter from the Human Resources department in May that talked about that retirement issue, suggesting that a meeting be held "in the fall." The council never saw the letter.

Billings said he had no answer, other than decisions such as this were typically done at the end of the year.

Billings said he would like to see police officers be funded at better levels, but that the change to the ordinance was too rushed and carries too many unintended consequences. He also cited numbers that show salary combined with a yearly bonus and sick pay buyback puts Provo right in the thick of total compensation.

"There seems to be a prevailing sense that we're somehow off in our compensation. There's a holistic issue."