Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board In the Matter of the Impasse Between ) Bangor Area Education Association ) And ) Bangor Area School District ACT-88-19-15-E ) FACT FINDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY LARRY CHESKAWICH APPEARANCES: For the Association: For the District: -Jolene Vitalos -Braden Hendershot UniServe Representative Assistant to the Superintendent Pennsylvania State Education Association, Bangor Area School District 4950 Medical Center Circle 123 Five Points Richmond Road Allentown, PA 18106 Bangor, PA 18013 Page 1 of 36 BACKGROUND On August 20, 2019, the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board (PLRB) appointed the undersigned as fact finder pursuant to ACT 88 and the Public Employee Relations Act (PERA) in the impasse between the Bangor Area Education Association (Association) and the Bangor Area School District (District), for the District’s professional employees. The parties to this dispute have a long collective bargaining relationship. The most recent Agreement between the parties was a two (2) year agreement that expired June 30, 2019. The parties have been bargaining since October 2018, but have been unable to amicably reach a successor agreement. The Association declared an impasse and requested fact finding on August 14, 2019, and subsequently, the PLRB granted the request and ordered fact finding. Pursuant to this order, the above listed fact finder was appointed on August 20, 2019 to serve all involved parties. The fact finding hearing was held on September 9, 2019 at 10:00 AM at the Bangor Area School District Administrative Building in Bangor, PA. At that time, the parties were afforded a full opportunity to present extensive testimony, cross examine witnesses and introduce documentary evidence in support of their respective positions. The Association was admirably and professionally represented by Ms. Jolene Vitalos and Ms. Ruthann Waldie of the Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA). The District was represented in a likewise effective and commendable manner by Mr. Braden Hendershot, Superintendent Dr. William Haws, and Mr. Mark Schiavone of the Bangor Area School District. Indicative of the parties’ diligent efforts in negotiations prior to fact finding, tentative agreements were reached on a substantial number of issues. Among remaining open items, there was dispute regarding two matters (Insurance Benefits and Extracurricular Schedule) as to whether or not tentative agreements were reached. At the conclusion of the hearing, the record closed and the matter is now ready for the within report of Recommendations. Page 2 of 36 OVERVIEW The Bangor Area School District is rural in nature, comprised of seven (7) small municipalities encompassing eighty-six (86) square miles. What once was open farmland has evolved over the years to housing developments and bedroom communities for people commuting to larger cities such as New York, for work. Within the town of Bangor there has been some recent growth in previously vacant buildings turned into small business locations, some successfully, some otherwise. Some of the land near the Delaware River and Interstate 80 has seen growth of warehousing and industry due to the ease of highway and city access; however, there are few, if any retail stores or malls located within the District. The majority of the small municipalities in the District host most of the households who rent and/or have lower incomes. As of a July, 2019 real estate information site, the District’s population is slightly over 24,000 residents. Of that population, the median age is forty-four (44); the number of households is 9,136, of which 2,595 have school age children. About seventy-five percent (75%) of the households are owner-occupied; the remaining twenty-five percent (25%) are rentals. Of significance to this matter, while the overall County unemployment rate hovers around six percent (6%), the school District experiences a range of five (5) to fourteen (14) percent unemployment, with the town of Bangor suffering at the eleven percent (11%) level. Additionally, from seven (7) to twenty (20) percent of the District’s citizenry have no insurance, above the County-wide average of nine percent (9%). The County poverty level stands around six and a half percent (6.5%); however, in three (3) of the District’s municipalities, the level rises higher than the County average. In a 2018 published article listing the thirty (30) poorest towns in the Lehigh Valley and northwest New Jersey, four (4) of the towns were contained within the District.1 The County median income is approximately $65,000 annually, while the range of about $41,000 to $78,000 annually exists in the District. Finally, according to 2017-2018 records, the average salary of a bargaining unit member is slightly over $72,000. 1 Miller, Rudy; 2018; https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/news/2018/01/the_30_poorest_towns_in_lehigh.htm/ Page 3 of 36 Based on information provided by the parties this bargaining unit is comprised of 227 members. This report relies upon that benchmark number in the submission of my Salary recommendations to follow. OPEN ISSUES The Association and the District identified the following issues remaining in dispute and open at the time of the fact finding hearing: 1. ARTICLE II - DURATION OF AGREEMENT 2. ARTICLE III - NEGOTIATION OF A SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT 3. ARTICLE XIII - TEACHER WORK YEAR/DAY A. TEACHER WORK YEAR 1. TENURED TEACHERS 2. NON-TENURED TEACHERS 3. PART-TIME TEACHERS B. TEACHER WORK DAY 1. PREPARATION TIME 4. ARTICLE XVI - PERSONAL/EMERGENCY LEAVE 5. ARTICLE XXI - MILEAGE 6. ARTICLE XXII - COMPENSATION; APPENDIX B - SALARY SCHEDULES 7. ARTICLE XXIV - RETIREMENT BENEFITS 8. ARTICLE XXVII - LONG-TERM SUBSTITUTES The parties disputed at the hearing as to whether a previous tentative agreement had been achieved during negotiations on the following, and whether or not the issues were properly before the fact finder to resolve. Specifically, the Association contended these issues were not yet resolved. The District protested that early in negotiations these matters were agreed upon. Page 4 of 36 1. ARTICLE XVIII - INSURANCE BENEFITS A. MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUM SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS B. PRESCRIPTION DRUG DEDUCTIBLE 2. APPENDIX A - EXTRA - CURRICULAR SCHEDULE 3. APPENDIX E - HEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM Based on a thorough review of the testimony elicited at the hearing; a review of pertinent documents submitted at the hearing (including documents labeled as “tentative agreements”); email exchanges with attachments; and most importantly an email to all involved parties sent from the District at 3:24 PM on August 26, 2019 with attachment entitled “BASD-BAEA OPEN”, I conclude the above items are also considered open and will be subject to my Recommendations in this report. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS To arrive at the following recommendations, this fact finder relied upon, among other things, the following criteria: 1. The reliable and credible testimony provided, the evidence presented at the Fact Finding hearing and further clarifications given to questions of this fact finder. 2. The expired collective bargaining agreement. 3. Comparisons of unresolved issues relative to the employees in this bargaining unit and how those issues related to other districts and employees doing similar work, giving consideration to factors peculiar to the Bangor Area School District. 4. The interest and welfare of taxpayers and the ability of Bangor Area School District to finance and administer the Recommendations proposed. 5. The understanding that each individual issue has been reviewed for its relative individual merit; at the same time, each individual issue has also been reviewed with consideration given to whether or not it appropriately fits into the collective bargaining agreement created through this process. Page 5 of 36 The Recommendations that follow constitute the settlement proposals upon which the parties are now required to act as directed by PLRB regulation and statute. A vote to accept the report does not constitute agreement with, nor endorsement of the rationale contained therein. Rather, it represents only an agreement to resolve the issues by adopting the Recommendations. The parties are directed to review the report and within ten (10) days of its issuance, notify the PLRB of their decision to “accept” or “reject” the recommendations. The report will be released to the public if not accepted by one or both parties. ARTICLE II–DURATION OF AGREEMENT Association Position: The Association proposes a five (5) year Agreement (July 1, 2019-June 30, 2024). The Association believes a five (5) year term would contribute to stability and assurances that the work efforts of this bargaining unit are valued and appreciated. While this term is proposed, it is contingent upon the final agreed-upon Salary provisions. District Position: The District proposes a five (5) year Agreement. All proposals submitted at the hearing reflected the desire of the District for an Agreement of this term length. Recommendation and Rationale: Both parties seek the stability and security of a five (5) year Agreement, especially in light of the fact the previous Agreement spanned only two (2) years. I recommend adoption of a five (5) year Agreement. Subsequent Recommendations in this report reflect provisions extending five (5) years. Page 6 of 36 ARTICLE III–NEGOTIATION OF A SUCCESSOR AGREEMENT Association Position: Deadline Date - “The parties agree to enter into collective bargaining over a successor agreement no later than October 15, 2023.” (Relevant portion) The Association pointed out this change reflects updated contractual changes and allows for both sides to have sufficient time for meaningful discussions months prior to the mandatory January start date as provided for in ACT 88/195. District Position: Deadline Date - “The parties agree to enter into collective bargaining over a successor agreement no later than October 15, 2023”. (Relevant portion) Recommendation and Rationale: As both parties are in agreement to exercise foresight in beginning successor negotiations prior to mandatory deadlines, I recommend adoption of this provision, reflective also of a Recommendation of a five (5) year term of Agreement. ARTICLE XIII–TEACHER WORK YEAR/DAY A. Teacher Work Year-Tenured Teachers/Non-tenured Teachers Association Position: The Association rejects any proposed change to language pertaining to length of work year for Tenured or Non-Tenured Teachers. Current amount of work days, including in-service days prior to and during school year is sufficient. The Association stressed that the compensation package offered by the District does not adequately offset the increase in number of days requested. Further, the Association contended that the Bangor educators work day currently exceeds that of neighboring districts by ten (10) minutes. Page 7 of 36 District Position: The District proposes to increase the total work days for Tenured teachers to 186 in 20202021; to 187 in 2021-2022; to 188 in 2022-2023; and 189 work days in 2023-2024. Furthermore, the District wants to increase in-service days for this group to 6 in 2020-2021; 6 in 2021-2022; 7 in 2022-2023; and 7 in 2023-2024, grouping the days as “in service” without current contractual distinction of which days are prior to the school year, and which days are during the school year. The District proposes to increase the total work days for Non-Tenured teachers to 188 in 2020-2021; to 189 in 2021-2022; to 190 in 2022-2023; and 191 work days in 2023-2024. Furthermore, the District wants to increase in-service days for this group to 8 in 2020-2021; 8 in 2021-2022; 9 in 2022-2023; and 9 in 2023-2024, grouping the days as “in service” without current contractual distinction of which days are prior to the school year, and which days are during the school year. The District presented a passionate plea to increase teacher work days for several reasons. In comparison to surrounding districts, most notably Nazareth, Easton and neighboring Wilson, Bangor teachers work less days and have a resultant higher per diem when factoring in average salaries. The District asserted that the time administration can spend with teachers on factors that result in higher student achievement is the top priority. The District also pointed out that a correlation exists between increased work days and higher rank among Pennsylvania high schools. Specifically, it cited Nazareth with 189 days and a ranking of 74 out of 500 schools. Neighboring Wilson ranked 107 while it employs teachers for 186 days. On the other end of the spectrum, both Bangor and Pen Argyl with a 185 work day year, ranked 377th and 396th, respectively. The District highlighted its commitment to improving student academic achievement by citing its already comprehensive and sustained literacy professional development for teachers of early readers; its new mathematics and reading materials; wireless learning solutions; personal student devices; and Apple TV’s, among other accomplishments. The District protested that with only 185 teacher work days, and 180 student days, it only has five (5) days to in-service, train and develop skills with staff per school year, and it has had to apply to the Pennsylvania Department of Education for additional Page 8 of 36 ACT 80 days to provide sufficient professional development to staff. Finally, the District is seeking flexibility vis-à-vis scheduling in-service days either prior to start of school or during the year. Recommendation and Rationale: I am persuaded that the District proposal, to phase in gradually an increased number of teacher work days in the school year should be accepted. The District has presented evidence that suggests additional days can provide important skills training to an already highly professional unit, resulting in higher academic achievement for students. Therefore, I recommend adoption of the District proposal regarding Teacher Work Year in totality: Tenured 2019-2020-185 days/5 in-service days 2020-2021-186 days/6 in-service days 2021-2022-187 days/6 in-service days 2022-2023-188 days/7 in-service days 2023-2024-189 days/7 in-service days Non-Tenured 2019-2020-187 days/7 in-service days 2020-2021-188 days/8 in-service days 2021-2022-189 days/8 in-service days 2022-2023-190 days/9 in-service days 2023-2024-191 days/9 in-service days B. Teacher Work Day, II. Preparation Time Association Position: The Association has proposed language that uniformly applies provisions concerning uninterrupted preparation time during the instructional day across all grade levels and support service departments. Their proposal specifically focuses on provision of preparation time for secondary instructors, to be treated similarly to elementary instructors. The Association objects to the District proposal to re-define student hours via a contractual provision, and additionally, it Page 9 of 36 objects to the District proposal to remove limits upon pre-instructional day administratively directed meetings. Finally, the Association is seeking no changes to language pertaining to clarification of two (2) reserved days per month for planned, professional activities as referenced in the current contract. District Position: The District proposes to more precisely define student hours as “the officially announced time of student arrival and dismissal.” The District is not interested in extending the possibility of pre-instructional time to secondary educators in the unit. The District seeks to eliminate the limitation of the current four (4) pre-instructional days per month as well as two (2) per week. Finally, the District seeks to clarify language pertaining to two (2) reserved monthly days for planned professional activities. Recommendation and Rationale: A recurrent theme presented by both parties to this process concerned a desire for uniformity and consistency. That is, all members of the bargaining unit should be treated equally as to pay increase, working conditions, etc. Further, policies, procedures and contractual provisions should apply uniformly to all unit members. The Association is seeking to insert language to provide equal opportunity for thirty (30) minute preparation time for secondary instructors, as currently enjoyed by elementary members. As no strong evidence has been presented to indicate this would create operational problems, I recommend adoption of this proposal, effective with the 2020-2021 school year. Regarding the remaining proposals pertaining to Preparation Time as proferred by the District, I see no evidence of persistent, systemic problems with current language. Therefore, with the exception of the recommendation cited above, I propose no change to the remainder of Article XIII, Teacher Work Year/Day. 2019-2020 - No change to language under B. Teacher Work Day, II. Preparation Time. Page 10 of 36 2020 and subsequent contract years: B. II. Preparation Time: a. Definition of types of prep time: Instructional day preparation time occurs during student hours. Pre/post instructional preparation time occurs 30 minutes before or after student hours. b. Definition of student hours: Secondary 7:00 AM - 2:05 PM, Elementary 8:10 AM3:20 PM. (Changes to student hours upon request of district with approval of BAEA.) c. Each member will be provided with 40-80 continuous minutes of uninterrupted preparation time during the instructional day (instructional day preparation time) and 30 minute pre/post-instructional day preparation time. Members may be asked to attend up to four (4) pre/post-instructional day administrative directed meetings per month, not to exceed two (2) per week. d. Bangor Area Education Association shall furnish a Letter of Intent to the Bangor Area School District stating that individual teachers will give up these periods in situations of an unusual or emergency nature, as determined by Administration. It is understood that teachers will continue to contribute time toward professional responsibilities and curriculum development efforts as in the past. However, two (2) days each month will be reserved for planned, district-wide or school-wide professional activities. These professional activities may include faculty meetings, curriculum meetings, and department and/or grade level meetings. These activities will begin at the conclusion of the workday and last no longer than forty-five (45) minutes in length. Page 11 of 36 ARTICLE XVI—PERSONAL/EMERGENCY LEAVE Association Position: The Association argues that the current language significantly limits the use of personal days at the beginning and end of the school year (10 days). The Association proposes limiting the restriction to only the first and last days of the student year. The Association cites the restrictive language effect on returning family members to college, as example. As advance notice is not often provided for these necessary trips, it affects pre-planning and quality of life for the family unit. As for the end of school year, parent/grandparent employees are limited as to attendance of younger family members’ functions and events due to restriction currently in place. The Association does not object to the District’s position on limiting leave for emergencies to 1/2 day increments nor, when applicable, to requesting emergency leave with a minimum of three (3) working days in advance. District Position: The District proposes maintaining current language which provides that Personal days will not be granted during the first ten (10) or last ten (10) days of the student school year. The District argued that obtaining substitute teachers to fill-in early in the school year has become increasingly difficult. Furthermore, continuity and familiarity is extremely important for students at the beginning of the school year. The District also proposes that the use of Personal and Emergency leave must be taken in 1/2 day increments, in order to minimize operational inefficiencies. Finally, the District seeks modification of current language regarding prior notification for Personal leave requests to be at least three (3) working days advance notice. Recommendation and Rationale: The Association is seeking quality of life enhancement and more flexibility in enjoying a Personal day for a variety of reasons, including familial obligations for transporting children to required events, as well as optional but equally important life events. The District, in its responsibilities to maintain efficient operations by ensuring sufficient staffing is available, contends the first-ten/last-ten day restrictions in current language is vital to maintaining these efficiencies, as well as continuity and familiarity for students. Furthermore, the parties seem very much on “the Page 12 of 36 same page” as far use of leave in 1/2 day increments requiring three (3) working days notice for use of appropriate leave. After due consideration and appreciation of both parties’ positions, I find the District obligations to maintain efficient operations and continuity and familiarity overrides the Association position. I recommend no change to current language regarding Personal days not being granted during the first ten (10) or last ten (10) days of the student school year. I am not unsympathetic to the position of the Association, and I do note the current language provides for the possibility, at the discretion of the Superintendent, the use of an emergency day exclusive of a Personal day for certain situations. Therefore, I recommend: 2019-2020 -No change to current Article XVI language. 2020-2021 and subsequent contract years: Article XVI - Personal/Emergency Leave Use of Personal or Emergency leave must be taken in 1/2 day increments. Requests for Personal or Emergency leave require three (3) working days advance notice. ARTICLE XXI–MILEAGE Association Position: The Association initially argues that the current language supports members of the bargaining unit where they travel daily between the Five Points Complex and Washington Elementary (approximately five (5) miles). Because there is an increase in members of this bargaining unit having to travel daily between the Complex and Washington Elementary, some with preparation time at a separate location, mileage at the IRS rate should be compensated. Wear and tear on vehicles as well as gasoline costs should be reimbursed for the employee in the course of said employee completing required services for the District. District Position: While the District avers employees in the past have not been compensated for this travel between the Complex and Washington Elementary, it seeks to clarify the practice of not paying Page 13 of 36 mileage by deleting the “Five Points Complex” reference in paragraph one of the Article. It argues that only a small number of employees will be required to travel during their work day to Washington Elementary, and furthermore, this may in fact shorten the distance they have to travel to their homes at the end of the day. Furthermore, the District asserts time is set aside during the employee’s work day to account for this travel, in some instances while being “on the clock”, and finally, other districts experience this same situation, with no mileage reimbursement for travel between locations being offered. Recommendation and Rationale: A peculiar scenario exists regarding this Article, in that both parties believe current language and/or practice supports their respective position. Because of this situation, and because a potential increase in the amount of teachers travelling between Five Points Complex and Washington Elementary in and of itself does not change the current language or its meaning, I recommend no change to current language in Article XXI. ARTICLE XXIV–RETIREMENT BENEFITS Association Position: The Association contends that the amount reimbursed for retirees for health insurance has remained at $4,000 for a decade. Because of the increase in health insurance costs during this period, this amount is insufficient. The Association proposes a graduated scale of payments to encourage longevity of service to the District, with the assurance of affordability for employees who have dedicated their careers to the District/community. The Association also seeks adjustment to the retirement notification deadline because decisions to retire vary from planned to unexpected, based on individual circumstances. As this life-changing decision is extremely critical, consideration needs to be given to members who have reached this point in their careers. Page 14 of 36 District Position: The District seeks a language change clarifying service with PSERS, given a certain minimum number of years of service with the District is required. The District also seeks clarification of language stating these payments are contributions towards payments, and also seeks adjustment to retirement notification deadline date. The District seeks to maintain the $4,000 annual payment ceiling, as it stated that retiree health care costs the District approximately $96,000 per year. Recommendation and Rationale: As the Association points out, and as it comes as no surprise to anyone, the $4,000 reimbursement figure for retiree health insurance may have been adequate a decade ago, but it does not cover premium cost now. This is also reflected in the District proposal to change the wording from “pay premiums” to “contribute towards premiums”. While not in agreement to recommend the proposed Association graduated structure and increase of maximum payment, I do recommend an increase in maximum annual contribution at some future point. I concur with the District that this amount represents a contribution rather than a payment of premium. While I am sympathetic to the Association’s argument that retirement is a critical life-changing decision, and circumstances change, I can appreciate the District’s decision-making processes that need to be put into action when a member retires, and the amount of time that is necessary to secure adequate replacement(s). Therefore I recommend the following: 2019-2020 -No change to current language. 2020-2021 and subsequent contact years: Article XXVI- Retirement Benefits • An employee who has a combined total retirement score of 75 or higher (score is based on employee’s age plus number of years of service with the District) shall be eligible for the below District retirement benefits. Ten years of service shall have been with the Bangor Area School District. The Employer agrees to contribute towards premiums for Medical/Major Medical, Prescription and Dental Insurance coverage for the employee, single coverage, for five (5) years or until a federally funded insurance program takes over. Page 15 of 36 The total premium contribution shall not exceed a maximum of $4,500 per year. The Employer agrees to pay a Sick Leave Accumulation/Severance Payment at retirement, calculated at Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per day times the number of days of accumulated sick leave as an employee of the Bangor Area School District, but not to exceed two hundred ten (210) days. The employee must notify the School District of the employee’s retirement plans, in writing, with not less than 90 calendar days’ notice of the effective date of retirement, or later than March 31 in the year preceding the retirement, whichever is lesser. APPENDIX A–EXTRA-CURRICULAR SCHEDULE Association Position: The Association stated that while there were tentative agreements reached concerning many of the positions on the current Extra-Curricular schedule, there remained open twenty-three (23) assignments, mainly Advisor and Coach positions. The Association stated many bargaining unit members support academic focus through their roles as class advisor, academic and department team leaders, and mentor teachers. The Association feels that the total dollars offered by the District needs to be reallocated for the remaining open assignments in a more equitable manner. Rationale for this requested reallocation was not provided at the hearing. District Position: The primary argument of the District is that all assignments on the Extra-Curricular schedule have been tentatively resolved. Furthermore, they state compensation provided to these positions is competitive with surrounding districts. Finally, they contend that the Association is seeking higher salaries earmarked for certain individuals without providing supporting rationale. Recommendation and Rationale: As stated earlier in this report, my review of the evidence submitted leads to the conclusion this is an open item. In reviewing these open items, the Association is seeking approximately Page 16 of 36 $7,000 in additional compensation to be allocated as they feel appropriate over the remaining twenty-three (23) assignments. Based on the lack of supporting rationale for the suggested reallocation of compensation for these remaining assignments, I recommend adoption of the District Proposed Stipend with the exception of one position. As equality in salary for similarly situated members has been an underlying theme echoed by both parties to these negotiations and hearing, I recommend one deviation from the District Proposed Stipend, that being COACH: GOLF HEAD VARSITY. In reviewing Head Coach assignments in both open items and where it is undisputed that tentative agreements have been reached, I believe it is an appropriate recommendation for a Proposed Stipend of $4,000 to be allocated to this assignment. Otherwise, the District’s Proposed Stipend should be adopted for the other twenty-two (22) Extra-Curricular assignments. ARTICLE XXII–COMPENSATION/APPENDIX B–SALARY SCHEDULES Association Position: Citing financial reports from the Pennsylvania Department of Education as well as the District, the Association presented information indicating the District ended the 2017-2018 school year with a surplus of over $6,000,000, and based on budget figures received, an expected surplus of approximately $5,500,000 existed in 2019-2020. Furthermore, based on these reports, an anticipated $57.39 million in total revenue for the 2019-2020 fiscal year was projected for the District. The Association stated that over the past five (5) years, the District has been conservative in raising taxes, a levy less than the average County or State rate. The Association reported that the actual District fund balance was $6,214,128 on June 30, 2018; that the market value of taxable property in the District has increased slowly but steadily since 2013-2014; that the District has $100,000 of unallocated funds in a budgetary reserve account for 2018-2019; and that the priority of bargaining unit salary accounts has declined over the past six (6) years, as the budgeted increase for 2019-2020 is $282,990 or 1.5%. The Association also asserted that based on reports for the previous five (5) years, the District has exhibited a pattern of spending more than what they budgeted for, but also receiving more than what is expected, to offset the spending pattern. The Page 17 of 36 conclusion to be reached is there are no “red flags” to report budget-wise, as reflected by Standard and Poor’s satisfactory rating, revealing a fiscally healthy District. The Association reported that the District recently approved a tax hike of 1.9% in balancing its budget for 2019-2020, but noted this was lower than neighboring County districts, and lower than the maximum rate it could have levied. Focusing on its specific salary proposal, the Association argued that salaries and benefits in the 2017-2019 contract were significantly less than what the District budgeted. Specifically, the 2018-2019 salary increase without step increment was lower than the neighboring district average, while the salary plus step movement increase in both 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 was lower than neighboring district average. Over the terms of the last two (2) collective bargaining agreements, bargaining unit members have experienced freezes and salary schedule expansion and compaction, resulting in unequal step increment values, and hence unequal pay increases for the members, a problem for which a solution is top priority in this contract. In comparing its salary proposal with the District’s proposal for the period 2019 through 2024, the Association proposal is only approximately $800,000 richer in total dollar increase over the five (5) year period. A major difference between the two proposals is that the Association seeks to maintain a traditional fair and equitable salary–scale structure with equal step increments. The District opposes a traditional salary-scale structure. The Association strongly believes that fairness and career equity, as well as predictability for both parties are critical in maintaining the traditional salary schedule. All employees should be compensated equitably based on education and experience because they indeed perform the same work for the District. The Association’s proposal is a series of salary schedules over five (5) years that work to adjust incremental differentials to be equal by the third year. This includes a series of deleting the previous year’s lowest step on the schedule, while utilizing a “jump step” to achieve incremental equity. This proposal corrects a relatively low entry-level step and also corrects the low maximum Masters column step relative to other County districts. Specifically, the Association is seeking: 2019-2020- 3.00% increase 2020-2021- 2.91% increase Page 18 of 36 2021-2022- 2.83% increase 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 - open, unable to make proposal because of philosophical difference. Step movement for those not at maximum beginning in 2022-2023 and 2023-2024. Column movement in all years of term of contract. Wages to be retroactive to July 1, 2019. District Position: While strongly disagreeing with the Association’s report of the fiscal health of the District, specifically the amount of reported surplus, the District stated that its financial position is strong, rated “A+ stable”. It was recently upgraded to “good” based on its fiscal practices. The District did however caution that there is a “downward” trend and that caution in spending must be exercised. As budgets normally need to be established before prior year audit report results are disclosed, many times districts can be slow to react if there isn’t a surplus from a previous year. Furthermore, the District stated that had it used up all of the previous year’s surpluses, there would not be a current positive balance to be enjoyed. The District’s position of avoiding significant tax increases or layoffs is one it hopes to maintain for the future. The District agreed that the current salary schedule is rife with inequities due to compacting steps and questionable and disproportionate distribution of monies by the Association in years prior, and resultant feelings of resentment by some veteran members must be remedied. The District agrees that equal pay and pay increases should be available to employees doing the same type of work. To that end, the District proposal provides the same base salary increase to all members every year. Additionally, it provides more substantial raises to novice and “career rate” bargaining unit members than previous contracts. It abolishes the traditional salary schedule, and provides for significant payments for teachers who move from Bachelor’s Degrees to Master’s Degrees, with increases in between upon attainment of certain credit levels. Furthermore, it provides for base rate increases upon attainment of Pennsylvania Department of Education teaching certificates and a Doctoral Degree. The District is seeking equity within its three (3) employee groups (administrative, professional and support staff) and contends its salary proposal achieves that equity within this unit and amongst all District employees. Page 19 of 36 The District presented a comparative analysis of neighboring districts, which revealed starting salaries and maximum Masters steps are competitive, especially with comparable districts such as Wilson and Pen Argyl. Furthermore, the District explained that the average member of this bargaining unit moving across the salary schedule earns significantly more than neighboring districts that are comparable. The District’s proposal allows all presently employed certificated District teachers to earn more than $62,000, with a minimum increase of $5,000 over five (5) years for every employee. Currently, the District pointed out that 12% of the bargaining unit earns salaries exceeding $90,000. Specifically, the District is seeking: 2019-2020 - $900 base compensation increase. 2020-2021 - $900 base compensation increase. 2021-2022 - $1,000 base compensation increase. 2022-2023 - $1,100 base compensation increase. 2023-2024 - $1,100 base compensation increase. No step or column increases, as traditional salary schedule is abolished. All years 2019-2024: Movement from Bachelors to Masters - $12,000 base compensation increase. Movement from Bachelors +15 to Masters - $3,000 base increase. Movement from Bachelors+24 to Masters - $3,000 base increase. Movement from Bachelors +30 to Masters - $500 base increase. Movement to Doctoral Degree - $5,000 base compensation increase. Earning one (1) new active and valid teaching certificate - $1,500 base increase. Earn second active and valid teaching certificate - $2,500 base increase. No wage retroactivity. The District made argument that it strongly opposes retroactivity, and it has communicated this at the negotiation table and at the hearing on September 9th. The District feels the Association has been a passive participant during these negotiations, specifically, they did not present any Page 20 of 36 salary-focused proposals, nor enter into any serious salary negotiations until July 10, 2019, subsequent to the June 30, 2019 expiration date of the prior contract. Recommendation and Rationale: Both the Association and the District are of one accord in that they seek equality in pay raises and opportunities for increases. Both agree that the inequalities created in past contracts regarding compensation are in dire need of repair. The parties could not be any farther apart in their positions on how to accomplish these repairs, one side adamant about maintaining a traditional schedule, one side arguing for abolition of such a schedule. Additionally, the Association argues for retroactive salary adjustments; the District argues retroactivity should not be granted to this unit. After review of both side’s arguments, evidence and rationale for their respective proposals, I am convinced that while the compensation structure is in need of corrective adjustment, equity and fairness can best be achieved by maintaining the traditional salary schedule, and my recommendation to follow reflects that conviction. I am convinced that the basic template of deleting lower steps while adding steps at the top of the scale, as proposed by the Association, along with collapsing steps and “jump-stepping” certain individuals accomplishes equity in a satisfactory manner in a short time. While the District proposal provides ample opportunity for generous base compensation increases for individuals not holding a Master’s Degree, employees currently holding a Masters inherently have less opportunity of increase, especially if they are at a point in their career where they have no interest in obtaining a Doctoral Degree. Furthermore, the District proposal offers no guidance as to where newly hired employees would be placed. This lack of specificity and unequal opportunity for compensation increase between Masters Degree and Bachelor’s Degree can only exacerbate present-day salary inequalities. I am not convinced percentage increases as proposed by the Association are in order for this unit, at least in the early years of this Agreement, and I am convinced increases similar to neighboring Districts, comparable to Wilson and Pen Argyl, are appropriate. These recommended increases are also consistent and comparable with average salary increases with and without an increment in neighboring Districts over the five (5) year span of the recommended Agreement. Most importantly to the parties, a $1,650 salary difference between steps will be achieved by the third contract year (2021-2022) and no employees will suffer a decrease in compensation due to “manual adjustment” of steps, which includes deleting and adding of steps. Therefore, I recommend: Page 21 of 36 2019-2020 - $921 increase to most cells. Further explanation will follow in attachment to salary schedules. 2019-2020 is the year individual adjustments to steps on schedule will be implemented. Normal column movement. No step movement. Delete/add one step. 2020-2021 - $1,000 increase to cells on schedule. Normal column movement. No step movement. Delete/add one step. 2021-2022 - $1,000 increase to cells on schedule. Normal column movement. No step movement. Delete/add one step. 2022-2023 - $1,100 increase to cells on schedule. Normal column and step movement. 2023-2024 - $1,100 increase to cells on schedule. Normal column and step movement. In order to facilitate migration to this schedule, I have attached to each year’s respective scales in Appendix B a more detailed explanation page. With the recommendation of maintaining a traditional salary schedule, this encompasses rejection of the District salary proposal (except for the base compensation increases) including proposed changes to Article XXII-Compensation, Professional Compensation: grammatical and paragraph structure changes. In regards to retroactivity to July 1, 2019, I have thoroughly considered the positions of both parties and I am sympathetic to the frustration expressed by the District. However, based on all the factors presented and in light of my salary recommendation including no step movement for bargaining unit members for the first three (3) years of the Agreement, as well as recommendation of yearly increases closely associated with what the District is proposing, I recommend the salary proposal to become effective retroactive to July 1, 2019. Page 22 of 36 ARTICLE XXVII–LONG-TERM SUBSTITUTES Association Position: The Association argues this proposal goes hand-in-hand with its salary proposal to maintain a salary schedule, as it reflects their desire to retain such schedule. While there has been tentative agreement regarding elimination of the phrase “not to exceed Step 5”, the Association opposes the District proposal to hire Long-Term Substitutes “according to practices established by the District”, and proposes Long –Term Substitutes will be placed up to Step 5. District Position: The District proposes to hire Long-Term Substitutes in accordance with established past practices. The District primary salary proposal eliminates a salary schedule as currently exists in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the District is proposing annual compensation increases rather than percentage increases or movement “on scale.” Finally, the District seeks to utilize its prerogative in placement of a Long-Term Substitute on a salary schedule, so long that it is done in a just and equitable manner. Recommendation and Rationale: In accordance with the Compensation recommendation above, the salary schedule is to be retained. While the District advocates for placement in accordance with established practices, no evidence of these practices was submitted. Therefore, I recommend adoption of the Association position of placement on the applicable salary schedule up to Step 5. This replaces the word “may” with the word “will.” This is in addition to the previous Article XXVII tentative agreement reached prior to fact finding. Page 23 of 36 ARTICLE XVIII–INSURANCE BENEFITS B.MEDICAL INSURANCE PREMIUM SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS Association Position: While the Association acknowledges annual costs of the medical plan has increased over the last several years, it is strongly opposed to the District’s two (2) tiered proposal to eliminate participation in Wellness activities and the opportunity to receive an annual premium share reduction. The Association proposes to maintain the current five (5) tiered option which differentiates family structures and provides a lower and more reasonable and realistic option for the multiple types of family arrangements that exist. Because family structures can change quickly and often, the current structure provides a fair option for members. Furthermore, the District proposal places an undue net compensation burden on current subgroups who are not associated with the highest costs of the plan. Finally, the Association contends a significant and increasing number of bargaining unit members participate in Wellness activities and should be able to realize a reward for participation in a program that can have long-term positive impact upon benefit utilization and costs. District Position: In addition to contending this matter had been resolved previously in negotiations, the District proposes reducing the current five (5) tiered program to a two (2) tier premium share contribution structure, namely “Single Monthly” and “Non-Single Monthly”. In addition to increasing the premium share for both groups in order to account for rising annual costs of the selfinsured medical plan, the plan proposed by the District is competitive if not less than the plans offered by neighboring districts. The District proposal provides low-cost benefits to employees, is the basic platform that is in existence for other staff in the District, and is extremely affordable when combined with the compensation package offered by the District. Recommendation and Rationale: The Association proposal of maintaining the current five-tier structure while affording opportunity to engage in voluntary Wellness programming proposes reasonable 5% per year Page 24 of 36 increases to premium share contributions. The proposal rewards employees willing to engage in health-enhancing activities and can reasonably lead to lower future medical costs. The proposal also provides for premium contributions higher than what the District seeks in employee shares for subgroups not willing to participate in health-related Wellness activities. The Association makes a meritorious point that multiple variations of family make-up exist today, and to not recognize these various sub-groups places unequal financial strain on those perhaps least able to afford the “NonSingle Monthly” premium. Finally, no evidence was presented to indicate Wellness activities place an undue administrative or otherwise hardship upon the District. Therefore, I recommend adopting the Association’s proposal which maintains the current five (5) tier structure, with annual contributions as proposed by the Association, reflecting a 5% increase annually. Consequently, this also results in a recommendation to maintain current Appendix E-Wellness Activities. July 1-November 30, 2019: Maintain current 18-19 contributions and tiers (w/Wellness). December 1, 2019 and subsequent contract years: with Wellness Activities: Single EE and Spouse Parent and Child Parent and Children Family 12/1/196/30/20 $22 $40 $26 $33 $49 20-21 20-22 $23 $42 $27 $35 $51 $24 $44 $28 $37 $54 20-21 20-22 $34 $62 $41 $50 $77 $36 $65 $43 $52 $81 22-23 $25 $46 $29 $39 $57 23-24 $26 $48 $31 $41 $60 without Wellness Activities: Single EE and Spouse Parent and Child Parent and Children Family 12/1/196/30/20 $32 $59 $39 $48 $73 Page 25 of 36 22-23 $38 $68 $45 $55 $85 23-24 $40 $71 $47 $58 $89 ARTICLE XVIII- INSURANCE BENEFITS F. PRESCRIPTION DRUG DEDUCTIBLE Association Position: The Association acknowledges an increased cost for brand name formulary and nonformulary drugs, although not to the extent as to what the District is proposing in co-pays. The Association proposes a decrease in generic prescription co-pays, as over 75% of all members’ prescriptions filled are with generic and not name-brand products. District Position: In addition to contending this matter was resolved previously during negotiations, the District proposes increase in co-pays for generic, brand name formulary and non-formulary prescriptions. Recommendation and Rationale: While it is contested as to what percentage prescriptions have risen in recent years, there is no dispute they have increased dramatically. In light of the parties’ presentations and in comparison with neighboring districts, most notably Wilson and Pen Argyl, I recommend the following: July 1, 2019-November 30, 2019: Maintain current co-pays for generic, brand name formulary and non-formulary prescriptions. Mail Order/3-month supply - 2x monthly. December 1, 2019-June 30, 2024: Generic: $12.00 Brand Name Formulary: $40.00 Brand Name Non-Formulary: $70.00 Mail Order/3-Month Supply: 2x Monthly Page 26 of 36 ALL OTHER MATTERS Any other matters not specifically addressed are recommended to be withdrawn. Additionally, as noted above, any tentative agreements mutually made prior to the commencement of fact finding that are not specifically addressed in this report are recommended to be included, as agreed upon, in the new Agreement. September 23, 2019 Respectfully submitted, Allentown, PA Larry Cheskawich, Arbitrator/Fact Finder _________________________________ Page 27 of 36 APPENDIX B AND IMPLEMENTATION INSTRUCTIONS INSTRUCTIONS FOR MIGRATION TO 2019-2020 SALARY SCHEDULE The following is based on scattergram of bargaining unit member placement-227 members: 1. Initial emphasis placed on moving employees on Steps 1, 2 and 3 to Step 4 in their respective columns. a. Three (3) employees move from Bachelors column, Step 1, to Step 4. b. Five (5) employees move from Bachelors column, Step 2, to Step 4. c. One (1) employee moves from Bachelors column, Step 3, to Step 4. d. Three (3) employees move from Masters/ME column, Step 2, to Step 4. e. Two (2) employees move from Masters/ME column, Step 3, to Step 4. f. One (1) employee moves from Masters +15 column, Step 2, to Step 4. g. Two (2) employees move from Masters +45 column, Step 3, to Step 4. 2. Step 1 from 2018-2019 schedule is deleted. 3. Step 2 and 3 from 18-19 schedule becomes new Step 1 and 2, respectively. No dollar value added to cell, no employees on these Steps, no employees harmed. 4. Step 4 through Step 13 from 18-19 schedule are re-numbered to new Step 3 through 12. Employees remain at dollar value, only the number of the Steps decreases. 5. Add $921 dollar value to new Steps 3 through 12 6. Second emphasis focuses on properly adjusting Bachelors and Bachelors +24 columns. Bachelors +15 column can be eliminated from schedule, as no employees currently occupy that column, nor is movement there permitted. 7. Four (4) current employee placements from the 18-19 schedule in Bachelors column at 1819 Steps 4 through 6, and two (2) from Bachelors +24 column at 18-19 Steps 4 and 12 will have a “manual adjustment” to their step placement. This is followed by “manual adjustments” to cells in Bachelors and Bachelors +24 columns where no employee occupies the cell. No employee will experience a negative financial impact. 8. Two (2) employees on Bachelors Step 4, 18-19 schedule move to new Bachelors Step 4, 1920 schedule. 9. One (1) employee on Bachelors Step 5, 18-19 schedule moves to new Bachelors Step 5, 1920 schedule. Page 28 of 36 10. One (1) employee on Bachelors Step 6, 18-19 schedule moves to new Bachelors Step 6, 1920 schedule. 11. Bachelors column Steps 7 through 12 on 19-20 schedule are “manually adjusted” to reflect $1,650 difference between Step increments. No employee currently occupies these cells; therefore, no employee is financially impacted. 12. New Step 13 is added to Bachelors column (no employee occupies), with a $1,650 dollar value more than Bachelors column new adjusted Step 12. 13. One (1) employee on Bachelors +24 Step 4, 18-19 schedule moves to new Bachelors +24 Step 4, 19-20 schedule. 14. Bachelor +24 column Steps 5 through 12 on 19-20 schedule are “manually adjusted” to reflect $1,650 difference between Step increments. No employee financially impacted. 15. New Step 13 is added to Bachelors +24 column, with a $1,650 value more than new adjusted Step 12. 16. One (1) employee on Bachelors +24 Step 12, 18-19 schedule moves to new Bachelors +24 Step 13, 19-20 schedule. 17. New Step 12, 19-20 schedule in Bachelors +30, Masters/ME, Masters +15, Masters +30, and Masters +45 columns has cell dollar amount reduced (subsequent to above steps taken) by $350. 18. Sixty-four (64) employees who occupied old Step 13 on 2018-2019 schedule each receive a one-time lump sum payment of $350. 19. New Step 13 is added to Bachelors +30, Masters/ME, Masters +15, Masters +30, and Masters +45 columns, with a $1,650 value more than the new adjusted (as described in step 17 above Step 12. Page 29 of 36 INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 2020-2021 SALARY SCHEDULE 1. Delete 2019-2020 Step 1, all columns from schedule. 2. Renumber Steps to next lowest number. Ex. 19-20 Step 2 becomes 20-21 Step 1; 19-20 Step 3 becomes 20-21 Step 2, etc. 3. No employee Step movement. Ex. any employee on Step 1, 19-20 schedule, remains on Step 1, 20-21 schedule. 4. Increase each cell value on schedule by $1,000. 5. Add new Step 13 to all columns on schedule; new (20-21) Step 13 value is $1,650 over new Step 12 value. (ex. Bachelors at $67,232). INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 2021-2022 SALARY SCHEDULE 1. Delete 2020-2021 Step 1, all columns from schedule. 2. Renumber Steps to next lower number. Ex. 2020-21 Step 2 becomes 2021-22 Step 1; 2020-21 Step 3 becomes Step 2, etc. 3. No employee Step movement. Ex. Any employee on Step 1, 20-21 schedule, remains on Step 1, 21-22 schedule. 4. Increase each cell value on schedule by $1,000. 5. Add new Step 13 to all columns on schedule; new Step 13 value (2021-22) is $1,650 over new Step 12 value. (Ex. Bachelors at $69,882) Page 30 of 36 INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 2022-2023 SCHEDULE 1. Eligible employees advance one Step. 2. Increase each cell value on schedule by $1,100. 3. Deletion of lowest Step and addition of new Step ceases. 4. Example: a. Bachelors Step 1 2021-2022 schedule ($50,082), eligible for Step, moves to Bachelors Step 2 2022-2023 schedule ($52,832) or $2,750 increase. b. Masters +45 Step 6 2021-2022 schedule ($81,784), eligible for Step, moves to Masters + 45 Step 7 2022-2023 schedule ($84,534) or $2,750 increase. INSTRUCTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING 2023-2024 SCHEDULE 1. Eligible employees advance one Step. 2. Increase each cell value on schedule by $1,100. 3. No deletion of lowest Step/addition of new Step. Page 31 of 36 APPENDIX B SALARY SCHEDULES 2019-20 Salary Schedule *Normal column movement; no step movement. *No further movement into B+30 column. Step B B+24 B+30 M/MEQ M+15 M+30 M+45 1 46,547 54,011 63,322 63,905 65,490 67,463 69,999 2 46,854 54,318 63,629 64,212 65,797 67,770 70,306 3 48,082 55,546 64,857 65,440 67,025 68,998 71,534 4 49,732 57,196 66,507 67,090 68,675 70,648 73,184 5 51,382 58,846 68,157 68,740 70,325 72,298 74,834 6 53,032 60,496 69,807 70,390 71,975 73,948 76,484 7 54,682 62,146 71,457 72,040 73,625 75,598 78,134 8 56,332 63,796 73,107 73,690 75,275 77,248 79,784 9 57,982 65,446 74,757 75,340 76,925 78,898 81,434 10 59,632 67,096 76,407 76,990 78,575 80,548 83,084 11 61,282 68,746 78,057 78,640 80,225 82,198 84,734 12 62,932 70,396 79,707 80,290 81,875 83,848 86,384 13 64,582 72,046 81,357 81,940 83,525 85,498 88,034 Page 32 of 36 2020-21 Salary Schedule *Normal column movement; no step movement. *No further movement into B+30 column. Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B 47,854 49,082 50,732 52,382 54,032 55,682 57,332 58,982 60,632 62,282 63,932 65,582 67,232 B+24 55,318 56,546 58,196 59,846 61,496 63,146 64,796 66,446 68,096 69,746 71,396 73,046 74,696 B+30 64,629 65,857 67,507 69,157 70,807 72,457 74,107 75,757 77,407 79,057 80,707 82,357 84,007 M/MEQ 65,212 66,440 68,090 69,740 71,390 73,040 74,690 76,340 77,990 79,640 81,290 82,940 84,590 Page 33 of 36 M+15 66,797 68,025 69,675 71,325 72,975 74,625 76,275 77,925 79,575 81,225 82,875 84,525 86,175 M+30 68,770 69,998 71,648 73,298 74,948 76,598 78,248 79,898 81,548 83,198 84,848 86,498 88,148 M+45 71,306 72,534 74,184 75,834 77,484 79,134 80,784 82,434 84,084 85,734 87,384 89,034 90,684 2021-2022 Salary Schedule *Normal Column Movement; No Step Movement. *No further movement into B+30 column. Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B 50,082 51,732 53,382 55,032 56,682 58,332 59,982 61,632 63,282 64,932 66,582 68,232 69,882 B+24 57,546 59,196 60,846 62,496 64,146 65,796 67,446 69,096 70,746 72,396 74,046 75,696 77,346 B+30 66,857 68,507 70,157 71,807 73,457 75,107 76,757 78,407 80,057 81,707 83,357 85,007 86,657 M/MEQ 67,440 69,090 70,740 72,390 74,040 75,690 77,340 78,990 80,640 82,290 83,940 85,590 87,240 Page 34 of 36 M+15 69,025 70,675 72,325 73,975 75,625 77,275 78,925 80,575 82,225 83,875 85,525 87,175 88,825 M+30 70,998 72,648 74,298 75,948 77,598 79,248 80,898 82,548 84,198 85,848 87,498 89,148 90,798 M+45 73,534 75,184 76,834 78,484 80,134 81,784 83,434 85,084 86,734 88,384 90,034 91,684 93,334 2022-23 Salary Schedule *Normal step and column movement. *No further movement into B+30 column. Step B B+24 B+30 M/MEQ 1 51,182 58,646 67957 68540 2 52,832 60,296 69,607 70,190 3 54,482 61,946 71,257 71,840 4 56,132 63,596 72,907 73,490 5 57,782 65,246 74,557 75,140 6 59,432 66,896 76,207 76,790 7 61,082 68,546 77,857 78,440 8 62,732 70,196 79,507 80,090 9 64,382 71,846 81,157 81,740 10 66,032 73,496 82,807 83,390 11 67,682 75,146 84,457 85,040 12 69,332 76,796 86,107 86,690 13 70,982 78,446 87,757 88,340 Page 35 of 36 M+15 70125 71,775 73,425 75,075 76,725 78,375 80,025 81,675 83,325 84,975 86,625 88,275 89,925 M+30 M+45 72098 74634 73,748 76,284 75,398 77,934 77,048 79,584 78,698 81,234 80,348 82,884 81,998 84,534 83,648 86,184 85,298 87,834 86,948 89,484 88,598 91,134 90,248 92,784 91,898 94,434 2023-24 Salary Schedule *Normal step and column movement. *No further movement into B+30 column. Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 B 52,282 53,932 55,582 57,232 58,882 60,532 62,182 63,832 65,482 67,132 68,782 70,432 72,082 B+24 59,746 61,396 63,046 64,696 66,346 67,996 69,646 71,296 72,946 74,596 76,246 77,896 79,546 B+30 69,057 70,707 72,357 74,007 75,657 77,307 78,957 80,607 82,257 83,907 85,557 87,207 88,857 M/MEQ 69,640 71,290 72,940 74,590 76,240 77,890 79,540 81,190 82,840 84,490 86,140 87,790 89,440 Page 36 of 36 M+15 71,225 72,875 74,525 76,175 77,825 79,475 81,125 82,775 84,425 86,075 87,725 89,375 91,025 M+30 73,198 74,848 76,498 78,148 79,798 81,448 83,098 84,748 86,398 88,048 89,698 91,348 92,998 M+45 75,734 77,384 79,034 80,684 82,334 83,984 85,634 87,284 88,934 90,584 92,234 93,884 95,534