Last week, the Oro Valley Town Council became directly involved in decisions regarding a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Oro Valley Police Officers Association (OVPOA). The MOA defines pay, benefits, and working conditions for sworn police personnel. The current agreement, negotiated in 2021, expires on June 30, 2025.
This is the first time the Council has cut at the new MOA. As we previously reported, last week, after extensive discussion, the Council requested additional financial analysis and asked staff to present side-by-side comparisons of the union’s proposal and the Town’s most recent offers. Council members are expected to review this information and may decide on the terms of a new agreement at their next meeting.
Three proposals under discussion
Three proposals are currently under consideration. One is the union’s most recent offer, presented on April 21. Another is the Town’s “bridge plan,” also presented on April 21, which staff described as a short-term compromise to keep negotiations moving after earlier terms were withdrawn. The third is a proposal from April 14 that was later withdrawn by the Town due to concerns about its long-term financial impact, particularly its effect on pension liabilities. The union supported that offer and indicated they were close to accepting it before it was pulled.
 |
| Hard to see? Click to enlarge |
All three proposals reflect agreement that police compensation must increase to remain competitive. Each includes a raise of approximately 13 percent for entry-level officers in the first year, along with annual step increases, cost-of-living adjustments, and a structured pay scale designed to attract and retain qualified personnel.
And differ in important ways
The panel at right highlights five key differences among the three proposals, ranging from the size of salary increases to long-term pension costs. In essence, the union proposal offers the most generous across-the-board increases, the withdrawn April 14 offer falls in the middle, and the bridge plan is the most modest. Each reflects a different balance between competitiveness, affordability, and long-term fiscal impact.
Union questions pension analysis... incorrectly included DROP officers in pension impact calculation
During the Council meeting, union representative Sgt. Durbin expressed concerns about the pension analysis provided by Stifel. Durbin noted that the union had not received the report in advance and questioned its accuracy, suggesting it may have included individuals outside the bargaining unit. Durbin also stated that the modeling appeared to mischaracterize the union’s April 21 proposal, potentially overstating its long-term cost. These concerns are central to the union’s position that the Town’s decision to withdraw the April 14 offer was based on incomplete or flawed financial assumptions.
More specifically, Durbin stated that six DROP officers (Deferred Retirement Option Plan) were included in the Stifel pension liability calculations, even though their pension benefit levels are already locked in and should not factor into projected pension increases. She expressed concern that while the Town removed some DROP participants from the modeling, six remained included, potentially inflating the projected pension impact of the union’s proposal. (Updated 5-14-25)
Why the Council is now involved
Negotiations began in September 2024 and progressed steadily until mid-April. According to the union, they were close to accepting the April 14 offer when the Town withdrew it based on updated pension analysis from its consultant, Stifel. The Town then introduced the bridge plan, which is less costly primarily because it offers smaller raises across most pay steps, especially for senior officers—reducing both wage costs and pension obligations. The union viewed the withdrawal as a breach of trust and declared an impasse on April 28. That action activated Section 3-5-6 of the Town Code, requiring that unresolved issues be submitted to the Town Council for final determination.
Budget impact in FY 2026 and 2027
Any Council decision will require a modification to the Town Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY 2026, which was developed without including major changes to police compensation. Depending on which plan is adopted, the added costs in the first year are approximately $1.48 million for the union proposal, $630,000 for the withdrawn offer, and $408,000 for the bridge plan. This is a LOVE estimate and it includes the cost of increased non pension fringe benefits. These costs can be covered by reallocating funds within the proposed budget or by increasing the overall budget limit, potentially through the use of reserves.
Council’s focus: fiscal responsibility
No member of the Council has proposed reducing police staffing or underfunding public safety. While there is discussion about the pace and structure of compensation increases, their commitment to supporting the Oro Valley Police Department remains strong. The Council’s focus is not on whether to raise police pay—all proposals include significant increases—but on how to structure those raises in a way that rewards officers, manages pension obligations, and ensures long-term town fiscal sustainability.
Why the Council is now involved
Negotiations began in September 2024 and progressed steadily until mid-April. According to the union, they were close to accepting the April 14 offer when the Town withdrew it based on updated pension analysis from its consultant, Stifel. The Town then introduced the bridge plan, which is less costly primarily because it offers smaller raises across most pay steps, especially for senior officers—reducing both wage costs and pension obligations. The union viewed the withdrawal as a breach of trust and declared an impasse on April 28. That action activated Section 3-5-6 of the Town Code, requiring that unresolved issues be submitted to the Town Council for final determination.
Any Council decision will require a modification to the Town Manager’s Recommended Budget for FY 2026, which was developed without including major changes to police compensation. Depending on which plan is adopted, the added costs in the first year are approximately $1.48 million for the union proposal, $630,000 for the withdrawn offer, and $408,000 for the bridge plan. This is a LOVE estimate and it includes the cost of increased non pension fringe benefits. These costs can be covered by reallocating funds within the proposed budget or by increasing the overall budget limit, potentially through the use of reserves.
Concerns about how pension costs are being represented by town staff
Some observers have questioned how Town staff are presenting the pension impact of the police union proposal, particularly a staff graphic projecting an $8–10 million drawdown in the Capital Fund by FY 2029–30. Critics note that the $7.82 million pension liability under the union proposal is not a one-time payment but a long-term cost spread over decades, reflected in gradually increasing annual contributions to the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). These contributions are operating expenses, not capital outlays, and accurate projections would require actuarial input from PSPRS. In FY 2026, the actual added pension payment under the union plan would be about $423,000, with lower amounts under the other proposals.Council’s focus: fiscal responsibility
No member of the Council has proposed reducing police staffing or underfunding public safety. While there is discussion about the pace and structure of compensation increases, their commitment to supporting the Oro Valley Police Department remains strong. The Council’s focus is not on whether to raise police pay—all proposals include significant increases—but on how to structure those raises in a way that rewards officers, manages pension obligations, and ensures long-term town fiscal sustainability.
- - -
Clarification:
Town staff presented four scenarios for comparison during the May 7 meeting: the union proposal, the withdrawn April 14 offer, the Town’s bridge plan, and a status quo scenario with no new MOU. Our article focused on the three proposals that were actually negotiated and discussed. The status quo was not formally proposed by either side and is considered a fallback rather than an active option. (Updated: May 17, 2025)
