The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolutions - 1987.11.05 - 18037REPORT BY: IN RE: FINANCE COMMITTEE DR. G. WILLIAM CADDELL, CHAIRPERSON MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #87254 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY - RETIREMENT SYSTEM COVERAGE FOR ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: The Finance Committee, having reviewed Miscellaneous Resolution #87254, Prosecuting Attorney - Retirement System Coverage for Assistant Prosecutors, reports with the recommendation that the resolution be amended in the second BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED paragraph, line 5, to have that sentence now read: "these changes by the Retirement Board, Oakland County Corporation Counsel and the County Pension Plan Committee..." MR. CHAIRPERSON, on behalf of the Finance Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. FINANCE COMMITTEE October 8, 1987 Miscellaneous Resolution # 87254 BY: PERSONNEL COMMITTEE - John P. Calandra, Chairperson IN RE: PROSECUTING ATTORNEY - RETIREMENT SYSTEM COVERAGE FOR ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: WHEREAS, on December 22, 1971, the "Oakland County Government Bar Association" was certified by the State of Michigan as the bargaining unit for all Oakland County Assistant Prosecutors; and WHEREAS, on December 31, 1974, a two-year labor contract for Assistant Prosecutors expired. During the ensuing contract negotiations, there was a proposal from the Assistant Prosecutors to withdraw from the Retirement System as the Assistant Prosecutors felt that a retirement program would not benefit them; and WHEREAS, on November 14, 1975, a lawsuit was filed by the Oakland County Government Bar Association and the individual Assistant Prosecutors against the County and the Retirement Commission (Oakland County Circuit Court Case No. 75-132866) seeking to exempt Assistant Prosecutors from the Retire- ment System; and WHEREAS, on December 4, 1975, the Oakland County Board of Commissioners passed Miscellaneous Resolution No. 7352 exempting all attorney members of the Prosecutors Office from the Retirement System; and WHEREAS, on December 10, 1975, the County entered into a stipulation pursuant to Resolution No. 7352 with the Oakland County Government Bar Associ- ation to exempt all Assistant Prosecutors from the Retirement System and on that same day, pursuant to the stipulation, a court order and final judgment was entered exempting the Assistant Prosecutors from the Retirement System; and WHEREAS, on February 23, 1979, the Oakland County Bar Association was dissolved as the exclusive bargaining agent by the Assistant Prosecutors; and WHEREAS, on August 22, 1985, a request was made to the Oakland County Retirement Commission to reinstate all current Oakland County Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 1986, the Oakland County Retirement Commis- sion denied a request for reinstatement referring the matter to the Personnel Committee of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners; and WHEREAS, considerable discussions between the Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, the Oakland County Prosecutor, and the Personnel Department have resulted in a proposal that the Assistant Prosecutors again be permitted to participate in the Retirement System; and WHEREAS, the Personnel Committee has reviewed this proposal and recommends this Resolution in the interest of avoiding further dispute and retaining experienced Assistant Prosecutors in the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, subject to subsequent approval of the County Pension Plan Committee (MCLA 46.12(a) et seq.) which includes the Attorney General of the State of Michigan: 1. The Assistant Prosecutors, (I, TT, ITT and TV), Principal Attorneys, and Division Chiefs currently employed in the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, be admitted into the Oakland County Retirement System with retirement service credit awarded only for eligible service time after February 23, 1979, or from their date of hire, whichever is later; and 2. Prosecuting Attorneys appointed or re-appointed after the date of this Resolution, subject to Retirement Commission Rules, be admitted to the Retirement System in accord with the terms and conditions to be applied to current Assistant Prosecutors (I, IT, ITT and TV), Principal Attorneys and Division Chiefs; and 3. That the Oakland County Retirement Commission Rules No. 16(b) and No. 19(b) shall be amended to reflect the intent of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Oakland County Corporation Counsel's Office is hereby authorized to take all steps necessary and proper, including the initiation of litigation, to effectuate the intent of the Resolution and to protect the County with respect to the admission of the Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the admission of the Assistant Prosecutors, in accordance with the intent of this Resolution, into the Retirement System, as well as the final transfer of the funds necessary to effect this Resolution, is contingent upon the approval and concurrence of these changes by the County Pension Plan Committee which includes the Attorney General of the State of Michigan. If it should be determined that the intent of this Resolution cannot be implemented for any reason, the Board of Commis- sioners shall reserve the right to reconsider and/or rescind this Resolution in its entirety. Mr. Chairperson, on behalf of the Personnel Committee, I move the adoption of the foregoing resolution. PERSONNEL COMMITTEE THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION FISCAL NOTE BY: FINANCE COMMITTEE, DR. G. WILL= CADDEU,, CHAIRPERSON IN RE: PROSECUTING ATTORNEY - RETIREMENT SY5TE1:; COVERAGE FOR ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR - MISCELLANEOUS RESOLUTION #87254 TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Rule XI-O of this Board, the Finance Committee has reviewed Miscellaneous Resolution #87254 and finds: 1) The Personnel Committee has recommended that the Assistant Prosecutors be readmitted to the Oakland County Retirement System, with retirement service credit awarded for eligible service time after February 23, 1979, or from the date of hire, whichever is later. 2) The proposal is calculated to cost at least $450,000 per year, representing $300,000 annual current year cost and $150,000 per year for thirteen (13) years to cover the unfunded liability for the period 1979 - 1986. 3) $450,000 is recommended to be transferred from the 1987 Prosecutor's Salaries Accounts to the 1987 Prosecutor's Budget - Fringe Benefits (per the following schedule) to cover the 1987 current cost as well as the first year of the unfunded liability payback: From Salaries - Regular Amount 4-10100-411-01-00-1001 Prosecutor - Administration $(34,666) 4-10100-41L-02-00-1001 Case Records Unit (14,336) 4-10100-411-10-00-1001 Police Training Unit (12,944) 4-10100-411-20-00-1001 Victim/Witness Unit (6,770) 4-10100-412-01-00-1001 Warrants Division (82,492) 4-10100-413-01-00-1001 Circuit Court Division (115,834) 4-10100-414-01-00-1001 Appellate Court Division (36,951) 4-10100-417-02-00-1001 District Court Unit (14,851) $(450,000) To Fringe Benefits - Retirement 4-10100-411-01-00-2077 Prosecutor - Administration $ 16,667 4-10100-411-10-00-2077 4-10100-412-01-00-2077 4-10100-413-01-00-2077 4-10100-414-01-00-2077 4-10100-417-02-00-207/ 4-10100-417-03-00-2077 Police Training Unit Warrants Division Circuit Court Division Appellate Court Division District Court Unit Juvenile Court Unit 8,333 58,333 133,333 66,667 133,333 33,334 $450,000 -0- 4) The 1988-1989 Biennial Budget be appropriately adjusted to reflect the cost of this charge by transferring $450,000 from the propozed Contingency Account to the Prosecutor's Budget in 1980 and 1989, respectively. FINANCE COMMITTEE RESOLUTION # 87254 November 5, 1987 Moved by Calandro supported by Crake the Finance Committee report be accepted. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the report was accepted. Moved by Calandro supported by Rowland the resolution be adopted. Moved by Caddell supported by Gosling the resolution be amended to conform with the report from the Finance Committee. A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the amendment carried. Vote on resolution, as amended: AYES: McConnell, McDonald, Angus McPherson, Ruel McPherson, Moffitt, Page, Price, Rowland, Skarritt, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Crake, Doyon, Gosling, Hobart, Jensen, Richard Kuhn, Susan Kuhn, Lanni, Law, Luxon. (23) NAYS: None. (0) A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution, as amended, was adopted. STATE OF MICHIGAN) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal, do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of this Miscellaneous Resolution adopted by the Oakl and Count Board of Commissioners at their meeting held on November 5, 1987 with the orginial record thereof now remaining in my office, and that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the whole thereof. In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan• 5th day of November 1987 MP' - -" i. ALLEN Cour-I/Ey Clerk/Register of Deeds this REPORT ON RET I REMENT SYSTEM COVERAGE AND 1987 SALARIES FOR ASS I ST ANT PROSECUTORS Proposed Board Resolution 6 - ()a OUTLINE Pa ges T. Executive Summary Report A. Issues , 1 B. Recommendations 2 - 3 C. Rationale 3 - 4 D. Cost 4 - 5 IV. Appendices A. Chronology Related to Issues 7 - 9 B. Actuarial Report 10 - 15 C. Salaries Cost Sheet 16 D. History of Salary Increases 17 E. St. Louis County Salary Survey 18 F. Michigan Area Survey 19 - 21 I I. REPORT A. Issues The issues can be briefly described as follows: 1. Should the Assistant Prosecutors, currently excluded from County Retirement System coverage, be re-admitted to the County Retirement System. If the answer is yes, there is a further question as to whether admission should be retroactive to some past date, and if so which date, or whether admission should be from this date forward with only prospective retirement credits being earned. 2. Given the decision on retirement, and any other factors which might affect a salary increase, what, if any, salary increase should be granted to Assistant-Prosecutors for 1987. At this point Assistant Prosecutors have not received any adjustment to their salary schedule. For convenience a chronology of events related to these two issues, particulary the retirement issue, is attached as Appendix A (pages 7 - 9). A brief review of this chronology should help in a better under- standing of the issues. The Assistant Prosecutors, through collective bargaining and a stipulated court settlement were successful in having themselves removed from re- tirement system coverage effective December, 1975 and in obtaining refunds for retirement contributions they had made. They also negotiated a larger wage increase than non-represented employees effective January, 1975, the date the County began assuming full funding of the retirement for other County employees. Non-represented employees received a 3.5% wage increase effective January 1, 1975 and ceased contributing 6.07 of their wages to the retirement system. Assistant Prosecutors received an 11.0% wage increase and ceased their contribution to the retirement system while also losing their retirement coverage. The County ceased making any retirement contributions for the Assistant Prosecutors. Be- ginning in 1975 the County contribution level for non-represented employees was over 14%. Current Assistant Prosecutors now indicate the decision made in 1975 is not appropriate. They assert that other Assistant Prosecutors and attorneys for both the state and federal government are covered by retirement systems and that retirement coverage is necessary to maintain reasonable stability of the Assistant Prosecutor. workforce. They also assert that any additional increase their classes received in 1975 (see Appendix D, page 17) has since eroded and that current comparisons war- rant both a wage increase and admission to the retirement system (see Appendix E and F, pages 18 and 19 to 21). The Assistant Prosecutors are requesting admission to the system with full retirement credits back to date of hire. -1 H- 7 B. Recommendations 1, Retirement It is recommended that current Assistant Prosecutors employed in the office of the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney be admitted to the Retirement System effective immediately with service credit awarded for service time only since February 23, 1979 (the date of union decertification). Crediting of service subsequent to February 23, 1979 should be done consistent with crediting of ser- vice time for other employees covered by the system. It is also recommended that consistent with other non-represented employees no contributions be required from Assistant Prosecutors. 2. Salary It is recommended that a new salary structure with longer salary ranges be established. The new ranges provide for: 1) a higher starting salary for Assistant Prosecutor I employees; 2) smaller Step increases at annual intervals; 3) retitling of Senior Trial Lawyer to Assistant Prosecutor IV; a new non-supervisory class of Principal Attorney for only the most competent attorneys in the Prosecutors Office. It is recommended that the number of positions at each level continue to be restricted as defined in the Budget document and that the number of positions authorized at the Princi- pal Attorney level be drawn from the current Senior Trial Lawyer (new Assistant Prosecuting Attorney TV) number. The current and proposed rates and ranges are shown below along with the recommended number of positions at each level. For comparison the current sche- dule is also shown with a flat 3.3570 increase to each step. Current Rates Base 6 Mo. 1 Year 18 Mo. 2 Year Asst Pros I 25,019 26,577 28,150 27 <Asst Pros II 29,521 32,276 35,129 13 Asst Pros III 37,699 39,189 40,711 43,065 43,820 12 Sr Trial Lawyer 46,578 48,207 49,859 51,536 53,243 5 Chiefs 53,202 54,412 55,620 56,829 58,037 II of Pos. H 8 Current 3.35% # of Pos. Base 6 Mo. 1 Year 18 Mo, 2 Year 27 Asst Pros I 25,857 27,467 29,093 < Asst Pros II 30,582 33,357 36,306 13 Asst Pros III 38,962 40,502 42,075 44,508 45,288 12 Sr Trial Lawyer 48,138 49,822 51,529 53,262 55,027 5 Chiefs 54,984 56,235 57,483 58,733 59,981 Proposal # of Pos. Base 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 27<t Pros I 29,000 30,582 Asst Pros II 31,997 32,859 33,721 34,583 35,445 36,306 13 Asst Pros III 37,381 39,362 40,843 42,324 43,805 45,288 7 Asst Pros IV 48,138 49,516 50,394 52,272 53,650 55,027 5 _ Principal Atty 51,561 52,748 53,936 55,124 56,312 57,504 5 Division Chief 54,984 55,983 56,982 57,982 58,982 59,981 3, Waiver It is further recommended that the Personnel Committee not give formal approval to these recommendations until such time as each present Assistant Prosecutor provides the Prosecuting Attorney with a signed document individually requesting reinstatement to the Retirement System and waiving any and all claims for additional retirement credits or any other wage or retirement considerations other than those contained in this report. Upon authorization of the Personnel Committee, the Personnel Department and Chief Assistant Prosecutor will work with Corporation Counsel and labor counsel to prepare a waiver form for use by the Prosecuting Attorney with his staff. At this time it is recommended that the Committee authorize obtaining of the waivers only and any formal consideration of recommendations one (1) and two (2) be held until the waivers may be presented to the Committee. C. Rationale The reasons for the recommendations given in this report can be briefly described as follows: -4 11- 10 I.) The Assistant Prosecutors negotiated themselves out of the retire- ment system twelve (12) years ago while they were represented em- ployees. They gave up that representation over eight (8) years ago and, except for retirement, positioned themselves with other County non-represented employees; 2.) Of the thirty nine (39) then represented employees, only eight (8) remain with the Prosecutors Office. With turnover and growth of staff over the twelve years, there are 45 of the 53 current staff members who had nothing to do with the original decision to withdraw from the system; 3.) By recommending that coverage begin with the cessation of union representation, those -.still with the Prosecutors Office who were involved with the original decisioh-and those represented from 1975 to 1979 continue to be governed by the negotiated agreement during that period: No service tiMe prior to March, 1979 will be recogni- zed for those employees as negotiated. Only time they have worked since that time will be credited; 4.) Recent turnover indicates that the once high salary rate may no longer be as competitive, or at least when combined with a lack of retirement benefits may not be adequate to maintain turnover at an acceptable level; • 5.) Other Michigan Counties, the State government and the Federal government all provide retirement for their prosecutors; 6.) Two salary surveys, one conducted by St. Louis County of 25 other counties nationwide, and one conducted by the Oakland County Person- nel Department of other larger Michigan Counties and the state and federal government (see Appendices E and F, pages 18 and 19 to 21), reveal that while our rates currently are not severely deficient neither are they sufficiently high to offset the absence of a retirement benefit. D. Cost Details regarding the costs of the retirement proposal are contained in the actuarial report, Appendix B, pages 10 to 15. Cost of the pro- posed salary change is contained in Appendix C, page 16. 1.) Retirement Cost - As with any set of figures they can be viewed in several ways. Referring to Appendix B, pages 12 and 13, cost data for five proposals was requested. The actuary submitted this data along with information for all general employees. Proposal 1 would give retirement credit only from today forward. Proposal 2 provides credit from February, 1979 as recommended in this report. Proposal 1 would cost approximately $300,000 annually. Providing service credit back to 1979 adds another $150,000 to the cost for the next 13 years for a total annual cost of $450,000 annually for 13 years. However, it is also interesting to note that due to the younger age and shorter average service time for Assistant Prose- cutors the total required contribution under proposal 2 is 2049.% compared with 18.82% for general employees. This difference of 1.67% results in a contribution level of only $37,000 more annually than the amount for general employees. One further note is that if the amortization period were increased to 25 years from the cur- rent 13 years, the cost of proposal 2 combined with the contribution for all general employees would be $11,675,000 or $206,000 less that the current contribution of $11,881,000 for general employees under the 13 year amortization of unfunded liabilities. No recom- mendation is being made in this report however regarding the length of the amortization period. 2.) Salary Cost - Details of the salary recommendation cost are given on Appendix C, page 16. The actual anticipated increased cost is $87,598 or 3.7% greater than the 1986 salary schedule cost. This is slightly over the 3.35% increase to the salary grade tables for 1987 but significantly below the 4.5% average cost of wage increases for 1987. The average cost of 4.5% takes into account all those getting less than the 3.35% who were above their targeted rate and all those receiving greater than 3.35% who were below their targeted rates on salary grades 1 - 21. III. PROPOSED BOARD RESOLUTION SUGGESTED COMMITTEE RESOLUTION A draft of a suggested committee resolution is presently under review. Because formal action is not expected on this issue at the August 5 meeting, the suggested committee resolution will be presented at a later date. - 6 - as IV. APPENDICES ATENDIII CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE SALARIES AND RETIREMENT OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTORS Listed below is a chronology of events felt by the Prosecutor and County Executive to be pertinent to the current issues of salaries and retirement system coverage. December 22, 1971 January 1, 1973 December 31, 1974 April 21, 1975 November 12, 1975 The "Oakland County Government Bar Association" was certified by the State of Michigan as the bargaining unit for all Oakland County Assistant Prosecutors. The only lawyers in the Prosecutor's Office who were not represented by this. bargaining unit were the Prose- cutor and the Chief Assistant Prosecutor. ' L. Brooks Patterson assumed office as the Oakland County Prosecuting Attorney and Richard Thompson was appointed the Chief Assistant Prosecutor, A two-year employment contract for Assistant Prosecutors expired. Ongoing contract negotiations led to a stale- mate. The help of a mediator from the Michigan Employment Relations Commission did not lead to a resolution. The County offered to begin fully funding the retirement program for Assistant Prosecutors. The County planned to begin fully funding retirement for all County em- ployees. Up to that time, 6% was being deducted from paychecks for retirement. The County also funded a portion. The Assistant Prosecutors felt that full fund- ing of retirement would be an illusory benefit. The Prosecutor's Office was not perceived as a lifetime career. During the contract negotiations, there was a proposal from the Assistant Prosecutors to withdraw from the Retirement System. The reasoning was that the 6% the County would have been paying into the Retirement Plan, plus a portion of the amount the County had previously funded, could be applied to pay raises. Robert P. Allen, then Oakland County Civil Counsel, in an opinion letter to John Witherup, then Director of Personnel, stated that the Assistant Prosecutors • must belong to the Oakland County Retirement System and could not be exempted. Robert P. Allen, in a letter to L. Brooks Patterson, reaffirmed his opinion that the Assistant Prosecutors must be members of the Retirement System. H- 15 -7 November 14, 1975 December 4, 1975 December 10, 1975 January 19, 1976 A lawsuit was filed by the Oakland County Government Bar Association and individual assistant prosecutors against the County and the Retirement Commission (Oak- land County Circuit Court Case Number 75-132866). The lawsuit sought a judicial ruling which would exempt Assistant Prosecutors from the Retirement System. The County through then Civil Counsel Robert Allen apparent- ly agreed that it would not object to such relief. However, it would indicate to the Court that in the opinion of County Civil Counsel such relief violated the state law. [Thirty-six (36) of the thirty-nine (39) Assistant Prosecutors signed the complaint, Of those thirty-six signers, only eight (8) remain with the Prosecutor's Office today.] The Prosecutor and the Chief Assistant Prosecutor were not parties, nor were they members of the group represented in the law- suit. The Oakland County Board of Commissioners passed Resolu- tion Number 7352 exempting the Prosecuting Attorney, the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and all attor- ney members of the Prosecutor's Office from the Retire- ment System. The County entered into a stipulation, pursuant to Resolution Number 7352, with the Oakland County Govern- ment Bar Association to exclude all Assistant Prosecu- tors from the Retirement System. On the same day, in accord with the stipulation, an order and final judgment by Judge William Beasley was entered excluding the Assistant Prosecutors from the Retirement System. After sixteen months of negotiations, the Assistant Prosecutors accepted the County's final contract offer. The bargaining agreement provided for an 11% raise retroactive to January 1, 1975. A 5% raise was estab- lished for 1976. February 5, 1976 The Board of Commissioners approved the bargaining agreement with the Assistant Prosecutors. December 31, 1978 The last bargaining agreement negotiated by the Oakland County Government Bar Association expired. February 23, 1979 The Oakland County Government Bar Association was dis- solved by the Assistant Prosecutors. October 10, 1980 By letter from Civil Counsel Robert Allen the Prosecutor was readmitted to the Retirement System with retroactive service credit of over ten (10) years, provided he repay the County for funds received from the Retirement System plus interest. - 8 - 11- 16 July 29, 1985 A formal request was made to James B. Dunkel, Jr., Director of the Personnel Department, to reinstate all Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System, August 22, 1985 A request was made to the Oakland County Retirement Commission to reinstate all Oakland County Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System. November 15, 1985 All Assistant Prosecutors were required to choose by this date between their old fringe benefit package and the new one offered by the County. One of the pluses of the new plan for those covered by retirement was an 11% increase in the retirement benefit formula from 1.8% to 2.0%. January 23, 1986 September 25, 1986 November 4, 1986 The Oakland County Retirement Commission denied a re- quest for reinstatement of all Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System. The Commission referred the Assistant Prosecutors to the Personnel Committee of the Board of Commissioners. The Oakland County Retirement Commission readmitted the Chief Assistant Prosecutor to the Retirement System with retroactive service credit of over ten (10) years, provided he repay the County for funds received from the Retirement System plus interest. On behalf of the Assistant Prosecutors, a letter was sent by attorneys Robert B. Webster and Robert B. Stevenson to County Executive Daniel Murphy and to Richard R. Wilcox, the Chairman of the County Board of Commissioners, requesting the reinstatement of the Assistant Prosecutors into the Retirement System on the same terms and conditions which governed the re- instatements of the Prosecutor and the Chief Assistant Prosecutor. The letter contended that the exclusion of the Assistant Prosecutors from the Retirement System had never become operative or effective under Michigan law. EB -1- F! 18 PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Mr. Douglas J. Williams Chief Deputy Treasurer County of Oakland FROM: Gerald B. Sonnenschein Gabriel, Roeder, Smith & Company SUBJECT: Retirement System Coverage for Assistant Prosecutors DATE: April 27, 1987 A. BW.I Submitted in this report are the results of actuarial valuations to determine the required Employer contribution rate for proposed benefit coverage for Assistant Prosecutors. The valuations were based upon the data submitted by the Retirement System for the annual valuation as of December 31, 1986. The actuarial assumptions and methods were the same as those used for that valuation. The increases in the unfunded accrued liability were amortized over a period of 13 years, the same period used for the 1986 valuation, and alternatively over a period of 25 years. This report shows the required contribution rate, and the first year dollar con- tribution. As you know, the contribution rate is anticipated to remain level; the contribution amount varies with the size of the payroll. GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY - 10 - B. DATA The data submitted included 54 Assistant Prosecutors. Certain information for the Assistant Prosecutors is shown below in comparison with similar information for County General employees. Assistant General Item Prosecutors Employees Number 54 2,591 Payroll $2,2.07,642 $63,133,494 Averages - Age 34.8 41.6 - Service 5.4 9.8 - Salary $ 40,882 $ 24,366 GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY - 11 - -3- Ii- 20 C. PROPOSALS Present retirement benefits (General Employees): Years of service multiplied by 2% of Final Average Compensation (FAC), available at age 55 with 25 years of ser- vice or age 60 with 8 years of service. FAG is highest 5 out of last 10 years' compensation. There are annual cost of living increases not in excess of 1.5% of the base benefit. Proposal 1: Cover Assistant Prosecutors for General Employee benefits with ser- vice from January 1, 1987. Proposal 2: Cover Assistant Prosecutors for General Employee benefits with ser- vice from February 1979 or date of hire, if later. Proposal 3: Cover Assistant Prosecutors for General Employee benefits with ser- vice from date of hire. Proposal 4: Cover Assistant Prosecutors for General Employee benefits with ser- vice between date of hire and December 31, 1986 credited after 8 years. Proposal 5: Cover Assistant Prosecutors for General Employee benefits with ser- vice between February 1979 or date of hire, if later, and December 31, 1986 credited after 8 years. GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY - 12 - 13.45 20.49 23.28 21,96 19.83 296,928 452,346 513,939 484,798 437,775 Proposal 1 13.45 -- -- Proposal 2 15.65 1,234,887 4.84 Proposal 3 15.83 1,902,367 7,45 Proposal 4 15.83 1,565,383 6,13 Proposal 5 15.65 1,066,189 4.18 13.45 18.38 20.03 19.30 18.00 Proposal 1 13.45 -- -- Proposal 2 15.65 1,234,887 2.73 Proposal 3 15.83 1,902,367 4.20 Proposal 4 15.83 1.565,383 3.46 Proposal 5 15.65 1,066,189 2.35 296,928 405,765 442,191 426,075 397,376 -4- H-21 D. VALUATION RESULTS - The results of the proposal calculations are shown below compared to present Retirement System costs for all General Employees. 13 Year Amortization Cost Normal Unfunded Amortization Required Employer Contribution Basis All Gen, Emp. 16.60% $16,216,904 2.22% 18.82% $11,881,724 Cost Liability Payment. $ First Year .r• ------- ------ - Re .9 ----- 25 Year Amortization Cost Normal Unfunded Amortization Required Employer Contribution Basis Cost Liability Payment $ First Year All Gen. Emp. 16,60% $16,216,904 1.25% 17.85% $11.269,329 ----- - 0 ------------ ------ ----- " - 7 ------- ----- - • GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH 8, COMPANY - 13 - -5- H - 22 E. VALUATION NOTES The contribution rates for present benefits take account of your request that the annual valuation allow for a special contingency .reserve. The Retirement System amortization period has decreased to 13 years, a fairly short period. This tends to make any proposal establishing new liabilities relatively costly. As discussed with you, we have shown an alternate set of costs using a 25 year amortization period. GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY - 14 - GABRIEL, ROEDER, SMITH & COMPANY - 15 - H - 23_ F. ACTUARIAL ASSUMPTIONS The actuarial assumptions used for these valuations were the same as the assump- ti ons used for the regular valuation of the Retirement System as of December 31, 1986, -6- Comparison of Possible Salary Increases for Prosecuting Attorney Classes Currented Actual Salaries Dollars for Asst. Pros. I, II, III., Senior Trial Lawyer and Chief Positions* 3.35% Increase on Current Salary Ranges for Asst. Pros. I, II, ITT, Senior Trial Lawyer and Chief Positions* . Proposal* Total .Salaries Cost . $2,391,576 2,471,694 2,479,174 $ Increase % Increase $ 80,118 3.35% 87,598 1.7 % *Includes Service Increment. NOTE; The proposal cost represents anticipated actual cost based on persons employed as of the date prepared. Change in funding to the budget will he less than the amount shown inasmuch as some Assistant Prosecutor positions are currently underfilled. 6/19/87 H - 24 - 16- COMPARISON OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTOR INCREASES WITH COUNTY GENERAL INCREASES (MAXIMUM RATES) PROSECUTORS INCREASES COUNTY GENERAL INCREASES 1975 11.0%* 3.5% 1976 5.0% 5.0% January 1977 5.0% 5.0% July 1977 1.0% 1.0% January 1978 4.0% - 10.6% 6.0% July 1978 2.0% - 0.0% ' ' 0.0% January 1979 7.0% ' 7.0% August 1979 2.5% 2.5% January 1980 5.0% 5.0% July 1980 4.0% 4.0% 1981 8.5% 8.5% 1982 6.0% 6.0% January 1983 0.0% 0.0% July 1983 3.5% 3.5% 1984 3.5% 3.5% 1985 4.6% 4.6% 1986 3.0% 3.5% *Assistant Prosecutors removed from retirement system through court order. - 17- Average Number of Salary Range Counties Minimum Maximum Class Title Apia ND II NATIONWIDE COUNTY SALARY SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS OF JANUARY 1, 1987 ATTORNEY: Performs legal research work and conducts litigation in trial and appellate courts and before various quasi-judicial bodies. Involves a wide range orassignments but employees normally do not have ultimate responsibility for important legal decisions and trial work. ATTORNEY- PRINCIPAL: Supervisory and highly responsible professional legal work. Plans, organizes and directs the activities of a major legal function or the employees assigned to a division or a legal office. Formulates procedures, makes work assignments and serves as leader on special legal problems. Supervises a staff of subordinate attorneys and clerical and investigative personnel. COMPARISON OF SALARY RANGES 1 Attorney 25 28,697 40,214 Attorney - Prinaipal 25 41,390 55,571 1 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF ACTUAL PAY RATES Class Title Attorney Attorney - Principal 387 29,370 35,967 38,687 213 51,784 58,651 62,949 34,866 ' 56,874 Annual Annual Annual Number of First Annual Third Weighted Employees Quartile Median Quartile Average APPENDIX F SURVEY OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEY (MICHIGAN) W Salaries Eff. County Longevity Cost-of- Other Title Pos. Minimum - Maximum Date Comments Retirement Car? Formula Living? Payments Oakland =, Chief-Dist & Juv et 1 53,202 - 58,037 1/4/86 Attorneys are not Yes 7 yrs . 2% . No $300/wk 1.,hen a.F.sign-- Chief-Warrants 1 53,202 - 58,037 in County retire- Yes 10 yrs . 4% ed 24 hr. on call Chief-Circuit Ct 1 53,202 - 58,037 1 ment system. No 13 yrs . 6% duty for 7 day con- Chief-Appellate 1 33,202 - 58,037 Yes 16 yrs = 8% secutive period. Chief-Family Support 1 53,202 - 58,037 Nd 19 yrs = 10% Limited weekend Sr. Trial Lawyer 12 46,578 - 53,243 No supv. responsibility No (For those hired Office hours. Asst Prosecutor III 13 37,699 - 43,820 No supv. responsibility No prior to 7/1/84) Asst Prosecutor IT 26 29,521 - 35,129 No supv. responsibility No Asst Prosecutor I 1 25,019 - 28,150 No supv. responsibility No State Attorney General's Office Attorney VIII N/A 54,664 - 73,727 10/1/86 Bureau Chief State pays fully. No Depends on salary No Eff. 10/1/87 state Attorney VII N/A 52,054 - 69,530 Division Chief 1.5% x yrs of svc. No grade and yrs of pays imsic Bar dues Attorney VT N/A 49,569 - 64,310 2nd line Supervisor x FAC No service. Begins of $150 yr. No out-. Attorney V N/A 46,333 - 60,114 Spec. or 1st line Supv No at 6 yrs and peaks side practice Attorney IV N/A 42,867 - 56,209 Senior Attorney FAC = 5 best yrs. No at 30 yrs. Can allowed. Attorney III N/A 37,375 - 50,446 Fully Exp. No range from $196 at . Attorney II N/A 33,241 - 45,435 Inter. Level 60 and 10 or 55 No grade 11 with 6yrs Attorney I N/A 28,230 - 37,751 Entry Level and 30. No serv. to $942 at grade 20 with 30 yrs. service. - U.S. Attorney 5,01) Trial lawyers General'- Office 22,351 for attys with less than 1 yr experience to 22,351 - 72,500 Unavailable Unavail Unavailable Unavail Unavailable 62,006 for attys with 7 or more yrs exp, Attys nny be hired above the established ranges at a max of 3,000 nore than his/her most recent salary. For speci- ally qualified applicants, fray pay up to 72,500 with no supervisory responsi- bility. N/A . Not Available SURVEY OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS (MICHIGAN) -2- # Salaries Eff. County Longevity Cost-of- Other Title Pos. Minimum - Maximum Date Comments Retirement Car? Formula Living? Payments Wayne Chief of Operations 1 50,800 - 68,560 1/1/84 Attys pay 5% of No 5 yrs = $150 Attys I-TV Compenstion for on- Division Chief 3 48,150 - 65,000 (In negot) first 13,500 yr. No 10 yrs --,, $300 receives canon wEends. Deputy Chief 8 45,920 - 61,800 nit Supervisor plus 3% of rest of NO 15 yrs = $450 3!"11r. AP-1,4552/yr Principal Attorney 5 43,380 - 58,590 o supv. responsibility salary. County No 20 yrs = $600 AP11.4662/yr Asst Prosecutor IV 59 43,226 - 51,871 o supv. responsibility matches. No APIII=S772/yr Asst Prosecutor III 23 35,022 - 42,026 o supv. responsibility 2%x FAC x yrs of APIV-2/yr Asst Prosecutor II 30 28,185 - 33,822 o supv. responsibility They are allowed to la Asst Prosecutor I 13 22,488 - 26,985 o supv. responsibility svc. Best of 5 yrs practice w but not 50 and 25 or 60 and crigdnal law and not 5 yrs. duringvAc Imrs. Genesee Attys pay 5% of thpir salary. O Deputy Chief 2 49,857 - 55,637 1986 Dunty pays therest No 7 yrs = 2% 4th qtr. No . Unit Chief 7 40,985 - 55,118 upv. responsibility No 10 yrs = 4% of 1986 Asst Prosecutor III 11 37,130 - 50,984 o supv. responsibility 2% x yrs scTv x FAC No 13 yrs = 6% 220/hr. Asst Prosecutor II 5 32,727 Flat Rate lo supv. responsibility FJAC= Best of 5 yrs. No 16 yrs = 8% Asst Prosecutor I 0 28,324 Flat Rate to supv. responsibility 60 and 8 or any age No 19 yrs = 10% and 25. Macomb Chief-Appellate 1 35,115 - 49,559 1/1/87 Attys pay 2.5% of No 5-10 yrs = 2% 20/hr. No Chief-Trial Lawyer 1 36,119 - 50,550 their salary. Cty. No 10-15 yrs .-- 4% paid Principal Trial Lawyer 4 37,169 - 49,559 Supv schedules & a.ssigning <ot case toads matches. No 15-20 yrs = 6% quarterly Asst Prosecutor IV 6 33,790 - 45,053 No supv. responsibility 2% x yrs svc x FAC N° 70-25 yrs = 87 Asst Prosecutor II1 8 32,180 - 42,907 No 25 + yrs = 10% FAC - Best of 5yrs Asst Prosecutor II 14 29,254 - 39,006 No 60 and 8 or 55 and Based on annual Asst Prosecutor I 5 26,595 - 35,460 25 No cap of $15,000 SURVEY OF ASSISTANT PROSECUTING ATTORNEYS (MICHIGAN) -3- # Salaries Eff. County Longevity Cost-of- Other Title Pos. Minimum - Maximum Date Comments Retirement Car? Formula Living? Payments Washtenaw First Asst Pros Atty N/A 31,751 - 39,490 1/87 Supv. Responsibility Attys pay 5%, Cty No 5 yrs = 3% No No Asst Pros Attorney ITT N/A 26,000 - 34,276 1985 No supv responsibility matches. When em- No 10 yrs = 5% Asst. Pros Attorney IT N/A 23,223 - 30,383 1985 Na supv. responsibility ployees resign, No 15 yrs = 7% Asst Pros Attorney I N/A 22,357 - 29,205 1985 No supv. responsibility they take 10% of No 20 yrs = 9% 16 their salary in- (Based on prior total vested over the year's W2 form) pos. years. Kent Attys pay 4.5% of , Chief-Appellate 1 Flat Rate 41,700 1/5/87 their salary. 2% x yrs serv x FAC. No 6 yr - $120 No No Senior Attorney 8 45,720 - 52,335 Supv. responsibility FAC = Best of 5yrs No 11 yr = $240 Asst Prosecutor IT 8 26,457 - 43,971 No supv. responsibility 60 and 5 or any No 16 yr = $360 Asst Prosecutor T 3 22,817 - 30,451 No supv. responsibility age and 25. No 21 yr = $480 26 + = $600 Ingham Principal Attorney 8 32,600 - 48,138 1/3/87 Chief level. Cty pays fully. No 4- 8 yrs = 3% Yes. $2750n call pay, 4 hrs Attorney 17 22,660 - 41,500 No supv, responsibility Yrs of svc x 1.2% No 8-12 yrs = 5% quarterly pay at tine and on of first $4,200 12-16 yrs = 7% half for Sat, and plus 1.7% of FAC 16 4.- yrs = 9% holiday warrant in excess of $4,200 Annual cap of duty. In addition, $18,000 receives 11 tiffes hourly rate for hrs, ' worked in addition to warrant duties. . - N/A . Not Available 7/23/87