Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/15/2008, B2 - RESULTS OF BINDING ARBITRATION DECISION I� council Meemg� 7-15-08 j acenaa aepont " " B CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Bill Statler, Director of Finance & Information Technology SUBJECT: RESULTS OF BINDING ARBITRATION DECISION CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss a report on the results of the recent binding arbitration proceedings with the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association and provide direction to staff regarding short and long-term budget-balancing strategies. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The purpose of this report is two-fold: 1. Report on the Results of Recent Binding Arbitration Decision. The City recently received the results of a binding arbitration decision with the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association using the process for dispute resolution set forth in the City's Charter. Under this process, the arbitrator's decision is final. Additional information is provided in this report on the background of how binding arbitration came to be in the City Charter; the events leading to the use of this process; the issues in dispute at the time of impasse; and the outcome. The Short Story: Largely due to salary increases, the arbitrator's binding decision is estimated to result in $4.4 million in added costs in 2008-09 beyond those projected in the 2007-09 Financial Plan; and have ongoing unanticipated costs of$1.8 million annually thereafter. Moving Forward. While there may be differences of opinion on the binding arbitration process and these recent results, the fact is that binding arbitration is the process that the community voted for in 2000 and it is presently the "law of the land" in San Luis Obispo. The results are official and binding: the Council has no ability to reject or alter any aspect of the arbitrator's decision. Accordingly, City staff efforts are now directed toward faithfully implementing those results. 2. Present Short and Long-Term Strategies in Responding to Budget Impacts. Along with processing required payroll actions, implementing the results of this binding decision also means responding to its significant fiscal impacts in both the short and long-term. Short-Term Actions. Under the City's Fiscal Health Contingency Plan, short-term actions include a "hiring chill" under which filling any regular positions requires CAO approval in order to "bank" vacant positions in the event that staffing reductions become necessary; and 13Z- I Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 2 deferral/deletion of selected capital improvement plan (CIP) projects and operating programs. On September 16, 2008, we plan to provide the Council with recommend short-term budget actions in light of this decision along with an analysis of preliminary fiscal results for 2007-08 and key fiscal trends since adoption of the 2008-09 Budget. This will include the impact of any State budget takeaways, if known at that time. Long-Term Actions. We will present a comprehensive five-year fiscal forecast to the Council in December 2008; and based on its results, we recommend addressing the City's longer-term fiscal challenges as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan. DISCUSSION What is binding arbitration? As set forth in the City Charter, binding arbitration is the resolution process for disputes over wages, hours, and/or working conditions between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Police Officers Association (POA) and the International Association of Firefighters, Local 3523 (Fire). The City's Charter outlines the process that is triggered when the parties reach impasse after bargaining in good faith. An arbitrator is selected who hears each party's justification for their final offer of settlement. The arbitrator selects one party's offer for each of the disputed items and cannot suggest a compromise. The arbitrator's award is final; there is no appeal process if either party is dissatisfied with the decision. The Council has no authority to reject or revise any aspect of a binding arbitration award. How did binding arbitration come about in the City of San Luis Obispo? The residents of San Luis Obispo define their governing system by a document called the City Charter. A majority vote of the City's residents can modify the Charter, thereby changing how the City defines and governs itself. This is distinguished from California general law cities that must follow a state"format"for local governance. In November 2000, a majority of San Luis Obispo voters (57%) approved a change to the City's Charter that established binding arbitration as the final dispute resolution method between the City of San Luis Obispo and the POA and Fire. In 2003, the California Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional the state law imposing binding arbitration on general law cities. However, this ruling had no affect upon binding arbitration in charter cities like San Luis Obispo, where voters enacted this process via a charter amendment. Prior to the 2000 Charter amendment, disputes involving wages, hours, and working conditions could be mediated and, ultimately, the Council had the authority to decide what was appropriate to implement. They could do this based on a wide variety of factors, including market data, internal relationships, fiscal health, or local acceptability as are now set forth in the City's compensation philosophy. Since the 2000 Charter amendment, the City has successfully negotiated two long-term contracts with Fire (July 2001 through December 2005 and January 2006 through December 2009). The City and POA have attempted to negotiate three contracts since 2000 with two proceeding to binding arbitration. In the first case, impasse in negotiations with the POA resulted in binding 132-- 2- i i Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 3 arbitration hearings in December 2001. Ultimately, the City and the POA settled the contract (July 2000 through June 2004) prior to the arbitrator's decision. What events led to this binding arbitration decision? The City negotiating team and representatives of the POA began negotiations in April 2006 for a successor agreement to a contract that expired in December 2005. The POA represents 49 sworn officers and 21 non-sworn positions including Communications Technicians (Dispatchers), Evidence Technician, Field Service Technicians; Police Records Clerks and Police Cadets. Nine bargaining sessions were held during the next six months until the parties declared impasse in November 2006. Before going to arbitration, the parties agreed to attempt resolution through mediation. Eight mediation sessions were held during August and September 2007. Although a number of issues were tentatively agreed to through the mediation process, numerous other issues; including several significant cost items, remained unresolved. During seven days of arbitration hearings in October and December 2007, the arbitrator heard arguments and rebuttals on 44 issues; 38 initiated by the POA and six by the City. At the conclusion of the hearings, the City and POA had reached tentative agreements on ten of the issues and each withdrew two proposals, leaving 30 disputed proposals remaining for the arbitrator to consider. Final Proposals for Arbitration Each party submitted its final proposals and arguments in February 2008. The City's final proposal, which was better than the offers that resulted in successful contracts with other City employee associations, included the following: 1. 20% in salary increases compounded over the four-year term. 2. Educational incentive for sworn employees of 5.26% for a bachelor's degree and 2.63% for an associate's degree (non-sworn employees already had a similar benefit). 3. 14% increase in health insurance contributions. The POA's final proposal included the following- 1. 30% in sworn salary increases compounded over the four year term. 2. 37% in non-sworn salary increases compounded over the four year term. 3. Fully-paid post-retirement medical coverage for future retirees, estimated by an independent actuary to cost$1 million annually(about 14% of payroll costs). 4. Increase in the City contribution to health insurance. 23 3 C Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 4 5. Educational incentive for sworn employees with college degrees, equivalent units, or Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) certificates. 6. Compression of steps in the salary range from seven steps to six, resulting in a 5.26% salary increase for about 20 officers; and, 7. Paid lunch period for investigators, even when not interrupted by a duty call; There were numerous other issues submitted to the arbitrator that had additional financial and operational implications for the City. Rebuttals to final arguments were submitted to the arbitrator on March 18, 2008. The arbitrator considered the evidence for approximately eleven weeks before his award was delivered to the City and the POA on June 4, 2008 (Council Reading File Item 1). Consistent with the terms of the City Charter and agreement of the parties, the award was not publicly disclosed until ten days later on June 14, 2008. This "quiet" period provides the parties ample time to review the award and decide whether they want to meet and negotiate some other resolution. If the parties do not mutually agree on another course of action, the arbitrator's decision is final on the tenth day. After several telephone conferences between representatives for the City and POA, neither party felt there was further opportunity for negotiation and, therefore, the arbitrator's award became final and binding on June 14, 2008. What are the results of this binding arbitration decision? As outlined in the attached summary, of the 30 disputed proposals submitted, the arbitrator found in favor of the City on 17 and in favor of the POA on 13 of them. Of the two issues with the most significant financial consequences — retiree medical and salary - the arbitrator rejected the POA's request for fully-paid retiree medical coverage and granted the POA's salary proposal. Although the estimated cost of fully-paid retiree medical coverage was significant, the salary increases awarded by the arbitrator account for 83% of the estimated annual ongoing cost of the $2.8 million total award. Below is a brief summary of the more significant items in the award. Retroactivity The arbitrator granted the POA's request that retroactivity include all POA members who were employed on January 1, 2006 or thereafter, including those who have left City employment for any reason since that date. Salary Related Items As noted above, the arbitrator granted the POA's salary proposal, which includes across-the-board salary increases as follows: Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 5 January 2006 5.28%increase for sworn POA members 10.82% increase for non-sworn POA members January 2007 6.00% increase for all POA members July 2007 6.00% increase for all POA members January 2008 5.00% increase for all POA members January 2009 5.00% increase for all POA members As previously noted, this will result in a base salary increase of 30% for sworn employees over the four year term, increasing the top step of Police Officer from $78,650 to $102,596 by January 2009; and a 37% salary increase for all other members of the POA. An updated salary schedule for all POA classifications is incorporated in the Memorandum of Agreement (Council Reading File Item 2). The arbitrator did not grant the POA's request to compress the number of steps in the salary range, which would have increased the officers' salaries an additional 5.26% above the increases imposed. However, the arbitrator granted the POA proposal to include the following list of agencies for the purpose of external comparison of compensation: Gilroy, Monterey, Napa, Petaluma, Pleasanton, Salinas, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Santa Maria. Prior to this award, the POA MOA stated external salary considerations would be based on the same survey agencies used for other City employee associations and groups. The use of this alternate list likely will result in a higher median for purposes of future compensation comparisons to be used in contract negotiations with the POA. Education Incentive The City and POA agreed on providing an educational incentive for sworn officers with an associate's or bachelor's degree of 2.63% and 5.26% respectively. However, the arbitrator accepted the POA proposal to also include the attainment of POST certificates as a basis for education incentive pay. The arbitrator accepted a City proposal related to the education incentive for non-sworn employees that simplifies the program and aligns it with the degree requirement for sworn employees. Health Insurance The arbitrator accepted all of the City proposals related to health insurance, including increases to the City contribution to health insurance (cafeteria contribution), except for those employees who opt out of City medical insurance. The contribution for opt outs will be "frozen" at $479 per month. The arbitrator adopted the City's proposal on post-retirement health benefits which allows the City to continue contributing the minimum amount allowed by the Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) or $97.00 per month for active employees and $72.75 per month for retirees as of January 1, 2008. Time-Off Benefits There were several proposals regarding sick leave and family leave. The arbitrator split the sick leave proposals, granting two POA proposals and two City proposals. The award increases the amount of accrued sick leave paid out upon death of an active employee to 50% from 25%. It also allows 75% of accrued sick leave, with a maximum of 1,000 hours, to be paid out upon industrial disability retirement. However, sick leave cannot be used to postpone the effective date of an 32_ S 1 r Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 6 date of an industrial disability retirement as had been proposed by the POA. The arbitrator granted the POA proposal to restrict supervisors from commenting on an employee's sick leave usage in their regular performance evaluations unless there is proof of sick leave abuse. POA proposals increasing the number of hours of sick leave that can be used for family care were accepted by the arbitrator. POA members will be allowed to use 48 hours of sick leave to care for an immediate family member. Overtime Issues The arbitrator granted the City's proposal to reduce the maximum allowable accrual of compensatory time off for Communications Technicians from 480 hours to 240 hours, consistent with all other non-sworn POA members. Work Schedules/Paid Lunch Periods The arbitrator accepted City proposals on work schedules for investigators, maintaining the City's flexible work schedules and not guaranteeing paid lunch periods, unless an employee is called back to work during the lunch period. Summary of Tentative Agreements Tentative agreements were reached throughout the negotiation, mediation and arbitration process. In many cases the tentative agreements involved minor changes to existing MOA language, or issues that had lesser financial implications than those submitted to the arbitrator. Operational issues included the addition of assignments qualifying for credit toward the Master Police Officer (MPO) program; clarification on the sergeant promotional process; agreement to provide bi- monthly performance feedback to employees; and clarification regarding City-provided equipment. Cost items included an increase in uniform allowance from $900 to $1,000 per year, an increase in overtime minimums for training and range qualification from two to three hours; and minor changes to leave conditions. Implementation of the Award City staff is working diligently to implement the various provisions of the arbitrator's award and the tentative agreements reached between the parties. Several operational issues have already been implemented and Finance staff`are working on the necessary payroll calculations. Due to the complexity and retroactivity of many of the provisions, the Finance Division estimates new pay rates and retroactive payments will take effect by the September 11, 2008 payroll. An updated Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and the POA will be finalized that reflects the provisions from the arbitrator's award and tentative agreements. A draft of the MOA has been sent to the POA for review and is available in the Council Reading File Item 2. Upcoming Contract Negotiations The modified POA MOA will expire on. December 31, 2009. Negotiations for a successor agreement should commence no later than 90 days prior to the end of the contract but may start t�z- � Results of Binding Arbitration_Decision Page 7 earlier. Agreements with Fire and San Luis Obispo City Employees Association (SLOCEA) also expire on December 31, 2009. Historically, negotiations for successor agreements may start as early as April to ensure a smooth transition from one contract to another. Therefore, staff anticipates preparation for negotiations with multiple employee groups commencing in less than one year, in spring 2009. FISCAL IMPACT The 2008-09 Budget Message described the City's fiscal situation as stable but stressed that there were three key uncertainties facing us: 1. Unknown impacts on cities as the State addresses its very serious budget problems. 2. Direction of the economy and its impact on key City revenues such as sales tax, property tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT). 3. Results of binding arbitration with the Police Officers Association. We now know the impact of the binding arbitration decision, summarized as follows: Impact in 2008-09. Accounting for retroactivity back to January 2006, the estimated cost of the arbitrator's decision for 2008-09 is $5.8 million. (These are estimates at this time: we will have better information once we have processed the retroactive pay increases. However, while the final cost may be slightly higher or lower, we believe that this estimate is within 90% of the final cost.) Based on the cost of packages recently negotiated with other employee groups, the 2007-09 Financial Plan included $1.4 million for POA compensation adjustments, resulting in added costs of$4.4 million in 2008-09 beyond original projections. Ongoing Costs. The 2008-09 cost estimate of $5.8 million includes one-time costs for retroactivity back to January 2006. On the other hand, since it is prepared on a fiscal year basis"it only includes six months of the salary increase that will be effective in January 2009. Adjusting for these two factors, the annual ongoing costs of this decision are estimated at $2.8 million. The 2007-09 Financial Plan reflected ongoing costs of about $1.0 million in POA compensation adjustments, resulting in ongoing unanticipated costs of about $1.8 million annually. Related but Unknown Costs at this Time. The San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers' Association, which represents most sworn and non-sworn supervisors and managers in the Police Department (Sergeants, Lieutenants„Captains, Communications and Records Supervisors and the Communications/Records Manager), has a re-opener in its contract to address salary compaction issues as a result of this binding arbitration decision. Pending meet and confer with this group, it is not possible to assess this cost at this time;however, given legitimate salary compaction concerns, it is likely that there will be added costs for this group as a result of the binding arbitration decision. C; Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 8 Responding to These Impacts in the Short and Long Term The first step in responding to this budget impact is activating our Fiscal Heath Contingency Plan (Council Reading File Item 3). Along with others, one of the triggers in the Plan is "large unexpected costs"—and the result of this binding arbitration decision certainly qualifies. What Does Activating the Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Mean? While the Plan has a number of features, the key action steps at this point are to begin preparing both short-term and long-term response strategies. Short-Term Steps The Plan identifies the following short-term steps: 1. Hiring "Chill." This is not an absolute freeze in filling vacant positions. However, CAO approval will be required to fill all vacant regular positions. To do so, Department Heads must demonstrate that it is necessary in meeting public health, safety or other high-priority service needs that cannot be met on an interim basis through contract, overtime or temporary staffing. In implementing the "chill," the goal is not just short-term savings, but preserving future options in the longer term. This applies to regular positions in the enterprise and other funds as well as the General Fund. It does not apply to filling temporary positions, as this may be one of the strategies for short-term mitigations of the hiring chill. By "banking" vacant positions, this strategy has been a key factor in avoiding lay-offs in the past when responding to tough fiscal times. While we made position reduction decisions based solely on service priorities and minimizing community impacts (not on vacant positions, which are solely due to serendipity), we banked enough vacant positions during the "chill" to avoid regular staff lay-offs. 2. Travel Chill. We will limit travel and training: CAO approval will be required for all Travel Authorizations. 3. Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Deferrals and Deletions. The CIP Review Committee, composed of the Assistant CAO, Directors of Public Works, Finance & Information, Utilities, Community Development, Parks & Recreation and the Fire Chief, will identify candidate projects for possible deferral or deletion. 4. "One-Time" Operating Cost Review. The, Budget Review Team (also a staff committee composed of the Director of Finance & Information Technology, Assistant CAO, Director of Human Resources and Finance Manager) will identify special projects in the operating budget for possible deferral or deletion. 5. Fund Balance (Reserves). The City will consider use of fund balance below policy levels (20% of operating expenditures). 52- 2, Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 9 6. Other Steps. The City will consider other short-term expenditure curtailments as appropriate. This includes short-term budget that may be placed in effect by department heads pending subsequent Council approval. For example, the Police Chief has deferred moving forward with the new four-officer Neighborhood Policing Team and the enhanced graffiti abatement program until more is known about the specific budget reductions we will be making. To this end, we plan to present a comprehensive report to the Council on September 16, 2008 that will: 1. Identify the scope of the fiscal challenges facing us in 2008-09, based not just on the results of binding arbitration, but also the other fiscal uncertainties as discussed above: State budget actions and key revenue trends. We will also include a report on interim financial results for 2007-08. 2. Recommend CIP and operating budget deferrals and deletions; and other short term budget actions, including appropriate use of reserves. 3. Provide a preliminary assessment of the general fiscal outlook for 2009-11. Longer-Term Steps Based on the results of the five-year fiscal forecast that we will plan to present to the Council in December in assessing the size of the longer-term problems facing us, we recommend developing longer-term strategies for balancing the budget as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan. How Will This Affect Measure Y Priorities? Measure Y Priorities The Short Story: It is too soon to tell. These Public safety, including remain high community and Council priorities. increasing neighborhood patrols, However, the fact is that we now have fewer improving traffic safety and General Fund resources available in responding to adding Fire Marshal and fire training positions them as a result of the arbitrator's decision: $4.4 million in 2008-09 and $1.8 million annually Neighborhood street paving and thereafter. pothole repair • Traffic congestion relief Stated simply, there will be an impact: we just don't Flood protection. know how large at this point, although we will strive Senior citizen services and to minimize the effect on the community. facilities We will have a better idea of the short-term impacts Neighborhood code enforcement by the September 16 report; and an assessment of • Open space preservation the longer term impacts as part of the 2009-11 Financial Plan process. 132- 9 Results of Binding Arbitration Decision Page 10 ATTACHMENT Summary of Arbitrator's Opinion and Award, San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Associations and the City of San Luis Obispo, CSMCS ARB 06-0315 COUNCIL READING FILE (COPIES AVAILABLE FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY ATTORNEY,CAO AND CITY CLERK'S PUBLIC BINDER) 1. Arbitrator's Opinion and Award CSMCS No. ARB 06-0315 2. Draft Memorandum of Agreement between the City of San Luis Obispo and the Police Officers Association, January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009, Incorporating Tentative Agreements and the Arbitration Award Dated June 4, 2008 3. Fiscal Health Contingency Plan T:Council Agenda Reports\Human Resources CAR\Binding Arbitration Update.doc B2- 10 Summary of Arbitrator's Opinion and Award San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association and the City of San Luis Obispo CSMCS ARB 06-0315 AWARD m ISSUE # ISSUE FOR DESCRIPTION 1 Term Association Jan 1, 2006—Dec 31, 2009 2 Preamble Association Agreement effective January 1, 2006. 3 Preamble Association Provisions apply to unit members employed on January 1, 2006, or thereafter. 4 Salary City Number of steps in salary range remains at seven. 5 Salary City No to top step Police Officer as benchmark for all salary comparisons. 6 and 7 Salary— Sworn Association January 2006 5.28% Sworn and Non-Sworn January 2006 10.82%Non-Sworn January 2007 6.00%All July 2007 6.00%All January 2008 5.00% All January 2009 5.00% All 8 Master Police Association Eligibility requirements effective Jan 1, 2006, Officer Program 9 Overtime- Sworn Withdrawn 10 Overtime—Sworn TA 100 hours comp time limit(increase from 80) 11 Overtime—Sworn TA Minimum pay for court appearance cancelled same day. 12 Overtime—Sworn Association No change to pay for telephonic DMV hearing (minimum court time payment applies). 13 Overtime - Sworn City Police Officer can decline non-emergency overtime shift if s/he has worked an overtime shift in last fourteen days. 14 Overtime—Non- Withdrawn sworn TA= Tentative agreement by the parties Prepared by: City of San Luis Obispo 06/14/2008 Page I of 4 T32-- 11 SunCmary of Arbitrator's Opinion and Award San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association and the City of San Luis Obispo CSMCS ARB 06-0315 = AWARD ISSUE # ISSUE FOR DESCRIPTION $ 15 Overtime—Non- City Max accrual of comp time 240 hours for all sworn non-sworn (decrease from 480 for Communications Technicians). 16 Overtime—Non- Withdrawn sworn 17 Overtime—Non- TA Minimum pay for court appearance cancelled sworn same day. 18 Overtime—Non- Withdrawn sworn 19 Education TA/City Tentative agreement to provide education Incentive incentive for AA/AS degrees and BA/BS degrees to all employees (previously non- swom only). Provision applies retroactively to Jan 1, 2007. 20 Education Association Intermediate and advanced POST certificates Incentive qualify an employee for education incentive. 21 Education City Non-sworn employees hired after 1/1/2008 Incentive are not eligible for 5% increase for one fiscal year if they have successfully completed at least 9 units during prior fiscal year. Non- sworn employees hired before 1/1/2008 retain this benefit. 22 and 23 Education TA If City sends employee for training that eams Incentive college-level credits, those credits count toward education incentive. Retain language removing education incentive if employee is promoted to a position that doesn't receive the benefit. TA= Tentative agreement by the parties Prepared by: City of San Luis Obispo 06/14/2008 Page 2 of 4 [?)z.- �. Summary of Arbitrator's Opinion and Award San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association and the City of San Luis Obispo D CSMCS ARB 06-0315 C7 AWARD ISSUE # ISSUE FOR DESCRIPTION 24 and 25 Health Care City Monthly contributions: Insurance 2007 2008 2009 Employee 479.00 507.00 533.00 Empl. + 1 855.00 900.00 968.00 Family 1,188.00 1,188.00 1,277.00 Contribution is intended for purchase of medical, dental, vision and life insurance. Employees who "opt out" of medical insurance receive contribution described in issue#27. 26 Health Care City City may continue "unequal contribution Insurance option" to retirees' medical insurance premiums ($72.75 in 2008). 27 Health Care City Employees who opt out of medical insurance Insurance receive contribution fixed at $479.00 per month (and no assessment of$16.00). 28 Health Care City No contribution for post-retirement medical Insurance premiums (other than the minimum amount required by PEMHCA [Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act] in issue#26). 29 Health Care TA Increase basic life insurance from $20,000 to Insurance $35,000 paid by employees through cafeteria plan. 30 Health Care TA One year of health, dental and vision benefits Insurance for surviving family of active employee who dies as a result of job-related illness or injury. 31 Sick Leave City Pay out 50% of sick leave upon death of active employee. 32 Sick Leave Association Pay out 75% of sick leave at industrial disability retirement. 33 Sick Leave City Sick leave may not be used to postpone effective date of industrial disability retirement. TA= Tentative agreement by the parties Prepared by: City of San Luis Obispo 06/14/2008 Page 3 of 4 Summary of Arbitrator's Opinion and Award San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association and the City of San Luis Obispo CSMCS ARB 06-0315 C' AWARD ISSUE # ISSUE FOR DESCRIPTION 34 Sick Leave/ Association Use of sick leave is not subject to reporting in Performance monthly or annual performance evaluations Evaluations without proof of abuse. 35 Family Leave Association 48 hours sick leave/year to care for immediate family member(increased from 16 hours) 36 Family Leave Association 48 hours sick leave/year to care for household family member(increased from 40 hours). 37 Family Leave TA Add domestic partner to list of eligible family members. 38 General Association Salary Survey agencies: Gilroy, Monterey, Provisions Napa, Petaluma, Pleasanton, Salinas, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, Santa Maria. 39 Grievance City Disciplinary matters excluded from the Procedure grievance procedure. Rules for disciplinary matters are contained in Section 2.36.320 through 2.36.250 of the Personnel Rules. 40 Work Schedules City No change to Field Service Tech work schedules (no 4/10 schedule). 41 Work Schedules TA Paid lunch for Field Service Technicians assigned to field duties. 42 Work Schedules City Investigators may work a 4/10 schedule, paid lunch if called back to work during lunch period. 43 Work Schedules City Investigative Lieutenant determines work days and hours; daily briefings are part of regular work days. 44 Appendix TA Incorporate Appendices C, E, and F in appropriate place in Memorandum of Agreement. TA= Tentative agreement by the parties Prepared by: City of San Luis Obispo 06/14/2008 Page 4 of 52— (4 Page 1 of 1 i Council,SloCity From: Tim Williams[tim@digitalwest.net] Sent: Tue 7/15/2008 2:05 PM To: Council,SloCity Cc: RECEIVED Subject. We need to correct the Binding Arbitration problem Attachments: JUL 15 2008 Dear Mr. Mayor and esteemed Council Members, SLO CITY CLERK First, congratulations on getting some of the road projects done,specifically the Santa Barbara Street widening.It looks great and will be a huge improvement. I'm strongly in favor of correcting and removing Binding Arbitration from our City's charter. I respect and appreciate the Police and Fire as much as the rest of our community,but the process for balancing our budgets,determining the rate of pay and finalizing contracts should be in the hands of our elected Council,with the assistance of the City staff recommendations. Just before the recent decision to promote Measure Y,I was involved in a meeting where the benefits packages for our City and State workers was being questioned."That's just the way it is"I was told by some in attendance. I understand that we need competitive salaries and we want good people.here.in SLO. But we're now faced with the results of something that we have no control to change."That's just the way it is"is not acceptable. We're bound by law to keep what's been negotiated. We can deal with that. Let's act now to correct this so that our long term sustainability as a City is not jeopardized. Anytime I see the word Vallejo used when discussing San Luis Obispo(as seen in recent articles)I know we've got to take action. Thank you for your dedication to our City,and your time. RED FILE Tim Williams MEETING AGENDA DATE 7/52061TEM At BZ- Tim Williams Digital West Networks, Inc. http://www.digitalwest.net 14Rp n 60 tel(805)781-9378--fax(805)781-9379 toil free(888)781-9378 g'COUNCIL Z CDD DIR .6 CAO B FIN DIR 2 ACAO 0 FIRE CHIEF JZATTORNEY 2 PW DIR •- SCLERK/ORIG ZPOLICE CHF 0 DEPT HEADS Z REC DIR J2 Z UTIL DIR �t'i Ih Arno1HR DIR g ✓WUmc, ✓ 4-4O dl erk https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/W e%20need%20to%20correct%20t... 7/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 From: Coney Holcomb [cholcomb@charter.net] Sent: Tue 7/15/2008 2:54 PM To: Settle,Allen; Carter,Andrew, 'Christine Mulholland; Romero, Dave; Brown, Paul Cc: Subject: Meeting Date: 7-15-08-Item: B-2, Results of Binding Arbitration,Decision Attachments: RECEIVED 1,11- 15 2008 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: SLQ CITY CLERK I believe our community spoke loud and clear during the Measure Y campaign when they said they did not want generated revenues to be used for salary increases and retirement plans. As an neighborhood advocate in this City I am incensed. We have worked many years for the neighborhood policing program to approved and become a reality. Now with the stroke of some unelected, out of-town, arbitrator's pen our local, elected decision makers will be stripped of their ability to fulfill that pledge. Sincerely, RED FILE MEETING AGENDA Cydney Holcomb DATEJLfZaITEM # ErCOUNCIL ;�-CDD DIR ICAO a^FIN DIR R'ACAO I2-FIRE CHIEF E'ATTORNEY 5-PW DIR 47 CLERK/ORIGPOLICE CHF. EI DEPT HEADS �REC DIR G-UTIL DIR V C�^HR DIR too Pri �A d https://mail.slocity.org/exchan€ -)x/Meeting%20Date:Oo2O7-15-08%20-%20Ite... 7/15/2008 Page 1 of 1 Hooper, Audrey From: Hampian, Ken RECEIVED Sent: Monday, July 14, 200811:52 AM To: Council ALL JUL 15 2008 Cc: Hooper,Audrey SLO CITY CLERK Subject: Compensation Study vs. Binding Arbitration Attachments: Comp Study Vs. Binding Arb Comparison Chartdoc A council member has asked for a "side-by-side"comparison of the 2007 Compensation Study process vs. the 2008 Binding Arbitration award. Attached is such a comparison, which could be discussed tomorrow night, should there be any questions about the similarity or differences between these two under takings. E?C�o OUNCIL CDD DIR FA AOFINDIRCA. FIRE CHIEF RED FILE TTORNEY PW DIR MEETING AGENDA CLERK(ORI® POLICE CHF DEPTRTC DIR DATP 'TrEM #�� UTIL DIR HR DIR y G�ac 7/14/2008 2007 Compensation Study Compared to 2008 Arbitration Process 2008 Compensation Study for POA Arbitrator's Award Management and SLOCEA employees Who Decided, The elected City Council of San One arbitrator Whose is Luis Obispo (unanimous agreement Accountable? on study implementation) . The Decision- Open and transparent public Hearings open to public,but no making Process process,with input from advisory public input allowed. Award issued body(Personnel Board),private by arbitrator with no community sector,and general public. Guided input or recourse. by consultant to provide objectivity Last time survey 10 years ago 4 years ago(regularly surveyed with done each negotiation). Across the Board No. Adjustments applied to only Yes-increases apply to 100%of increases? classifications that had significantly POA positions and classifications. fallen behind comparable market comparison(20%of classifications in SLOCEA; 58%in management). Position in market Median(50th percentile) 85th percentile measurement standard Comparison Cities Agencies were selected based on List selected by POA;accepted by several demographic factors; arbitrator including population, number of employees,agency services,median home sales price,median family income,education level in the community,etc Retroactive Salary None Yes, 22.28%increase in sworn Changes? officer pay and 27.82%increase in non-sworn over January 2006 to January 2008 time period(also applies to those who retired during that time) Future pay 71/o to 179/o increases phased in over 5.00%January 2008 for all adjustment time approximately 2-3 years for only employees; compounded with Jan frame positions requiring adjustment, e.g. 06-08 increases noted above,30% management salary ranges fully for sworn and 37%for non-sworn increased,but employees received total salary increases 5%max pay increase, except Police Chief received 8 %. Council's role in Complete control over entire Decided by arbitrator without public implementation process from beginning to end, comment or input. Council's role is including how study was to make budget reduction decisions approached and if and how to accommodate award recommendations are to be implemented. Adequate Money in Yes. No. Budget Measure Y Impact None Undetermined, but likely to be significant Page 1 of 1 l� LJ Coundl,SloCity .. From: Greg O'Kelly[gokelly@charter.net] Sent: Mon 7/14/2008 10:17 PM To: Council,SloCity Cc: Subject: sllnding arbihation RECEIVED Attachments: JUL 15 2008 Honorable elected persons, SLO CITY CLERK I understand that on the evening of the 15th of July the issue of binding arbitration and its impediment to city planning and to the fulfillment of the fiduciary trust of the city's council people, will be discussed in a meeting of that city council. The plundering of the city budget to give pay raises to a minority of the city's RED FILE employees, madepossible by a bad decision to resort to binding MEETING AGENDA EM #AGENDA arbitration, will prevent the ongoing installation of curb cutouts �Y1�` '�' _ needed for those in wheelchairs or those who can only walk with DAT walkers and prosthetic canes. The reason this is important to me is that in 2002 I broke both legs in a fall from a wheelchair upon crossing a street and trying to mount a driveway. The side of the street I was on did not have a sidewalk that spanned the block, and [ACAO L WCDD DIR on the other side of the street there was not cutout at the point AO FIN DIR where I entered the block. The street is Carmel, between Pacific and FIRE CHIEF Pismo. This shortcoming in pavement remediation is still there. The EY PW DIRwhimsy of binding arbitration guarantees this state of affairs will ORIG POLICE CHF continue at a time when retirement homes in the area are filling up, DS REC DIR and the feeble are more prevalent on the streets. The pavement is UTIL DIR heaving from tree roots on Carmel between Pacific and Marsh, to the HR DIR point where they are arduously passable to wheelchairs. Will the L?O un.r e-c< police take care of this? What is public safety about? The citizens e,&o and home owners of this city deserve better than this. 04— Gregory C. O'Kelly https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInboxBlinding%20arbitration.EML?Cmd... 7/15/2008 ' s San Luis Obispo RED FILE MEETING AGENDA RECEIVED Property Owners Association DAA nr�„�ITEM # C3Z. JUL 0 9 2006 t P.O.Box 12924 � �0 San Luis Obispo,CA 93406 h g t d o PV sL 0 CIN COUNCIL e-mai Id COUNCIL �C CDD DIR g CAO �FIN DIR July 7,2008 $ACAO 5 FIRE CHIEF Honorable Mayor David Romero and Irk ATTORNEY 2 PW DIR Honorable Members of the San Luis Obispo City Council ZCLERK/ORIG C� POLICE CHF The City of San Luis Obispo ❑ DEPT D5 - 990 Palm Street -P C�REC DIR San Luis Obispo,CA 93401-3249 UTIL DIR L�'rri bwnt_, (Z HR DIR RE:Recently Announced City of San Luis Obispo General Fund and City Payroll and Benefit Issues o C p V hCI ` Dear Mayor Romero and City Council Members: f C O d.lerK It has recently come to the attention of the San Luis Obispo Property Owners'Association.(SLOPOA),that the decisign of the arbitrator assigned to the binding arbitration with the SanLuis Obispo Peace Officers'Association(SLOPOA I and the City of San Luis Obispo predominantly favored SLOPOA's base salary agreements resulting in approximately$5,800,000 in an immediate additional salary obligation (plus benefits and resulting retirement pensions and allied obligations)to the City of San Luis Obispo's General Fund,including retroactive salary increases since January of 2006. The San Luis Obispo Property Owners'Association has become all too aware of the potential fiscal impacts of increases in city employees' salaries and associated benefits,retirement pensions,and ancillary obligations in a period of slowing and/or contracting growth in the private sector,which is the source of the funding for these salaries and benefits. The concern about the long term salary and retirement pensions and related obligations prompted SLOPOA,at its own expense,to commission the Center for Government Analysis and Dr.Steven B.Frades of Newport Beach,California,to produce a comprehensive,impartial"outside analysis"of the City of San Luis Obispo's past,present and future vulnerability to an economic slowdown and/or a prolonged recession independent of the passage of Measure Y,which occurred in late 2006. The Center for Government Analysis,as many of you already know,based its comprehensive assessment of the City of San Luis Obispo's long term financial picture on the actual.City CERTS(Certified Financial Statements)along with the approved City Annual Budgets for the throe previous,years prior to the completion and presentation of"An Analysis of the City of San Luis Obispo City Finances"in May of 2006. Clearly SLOPOA had no preconceived notions of the potential results or possible impacts of the consultant's findings. In fact the consultant received no input whatsoever from SLOPOA during the course of his work and only had a brief opportunity to review the"Report Final Draft" with SLOPOA Board members prior to the report being made public.to the City of San Luis Obispo staff and council members. The unbiased results of the consultant's report were not only illuminating but raised a cautionary flag for the potential of anEconomic"Perfect Storm"for local municipalities such as the City of San Luis Obispo with its"Charter City"requirements(rather than a general law type of city). SLOPOA Officers and Board Members could never have imagined the extent,scope and prolonged duration of the economic slowdown which' has now been labeled.a legitimate"economic recession"by almost all national,state and regional economists. The short and long term effects of the mortgage industry meltdown and our local"housing bust,"which.is resulting in lower local property taxes, and the ripple effects of the stagnant retail and hospitality industries on city retail sales and TOT taxes now appear to be rather significant issues affecting the City of San Luis Obispo's economic health. Throw in the increased city operating costs and the recent arbitration ruling obligating the City of San Luis Obispo to immediately outlay at least an additional$5,800,000 for police officers'salary increases plu police personnel benefits(of approximately an additional 40%of increased salaries pl an additional base salary increase of at least$2,700,000 plus related personnel benefits in each successive fiscal year).These additional unanticipated costs can easily exceed$13,000,000 within the next 18 months,and more than negate the initial economic impacts of additional Measure"Y"funds and reduce Measure"Y's"economic benefits by over 50%in future years.The consequences of these unforeseen budget impacts also jeopardize the City of San Luis Obispo's future capital improvement plans and budgets for the foreseeable future. Additionally,SLOPOA is concerned about the significant increase for city staff pensions and allied benefits as an ever increasing percentage of the City's General Fund in a period of limited revenue enhancement opportunities,especially during the present protracted economic slowdown. SLOPOA is more than ever before concerned about the City's current predicament of possibly having to deal with other local employee unions and trade organizations'future salary requests in light of the current collective bargaining and binding arbitration requirements successfully employed by SLOPOA.. Perhaps it is now time to consider immed}ate and significant meagures to control and/or reduce the City of San Luis Obispo's operating expenses. Our city is limited in how it can mise additional revenues at a rate commensurate with the city's ever-increasing expense obligations,which now appear to be accelerating even faster than in prior years. tom- i 2 In response to SLOPOA's short and long range concerns,members of SLOPOA's Board of Directors have prepared a short list which defines some of the more realistic ways to save at least$5,000,000 from the City of San Luis Obispo's overall budget in the wake of the outcome of the recent binding arbitration ruling. The attached"List of Possible Cost-Saving Suggestions"is by no means comprehensive in nature but merely represents a starting point to evaluate the short term cost savings in light of some very troublesome long term city expenditure problems. In the words of our independent consultant,'Me City of San Luis Obispo does not have a significant revenue problem but rather the City has a significant expense problem" that will worsen if major steps are not taken to control its ever-increasing expenses in the future. Remember,everything ism and no idea should be automatically refected in kind. The"Rules of Brainstorming"suggest that every idea invariably leads to another idea which may be considered plausible and/or usable under different circumstances. It is SLOPOA's opinion that in light of our current economic circumstances,nothing is sacred and no cost-saving idea or opportunity can be overlooked. Sometimes small cost- saving suggestions can lead to significant cost-related savings over time. Respectfully yours, Marco Rizzo,President Leslie Halls,Immediate Past President Stephen Barasch,Treasurer On behalf of the San Luis Obispo Property Owners'Association Board of Directors San Luis Obispo Property Owners Association P.O.Box 12924 San Luis Obispo,C193406 POSSIBLE COST SAVINGS SUGGESTIONS FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO'S IMMEDIATE CONSIDERATION 1. Review how the police are scheduled.Are there three 12 hour.shifts? How much is overtime consuming the budget? Redoing the schedule will help: Is this possible:under the binding arbitration? Put limits on overtime. If this cannot be done immediately,do so in January or whenever the binding arbitration agreement will allow. Give overtime to youngest officers first to prevent"spiking"for additional pension increases. 2. Review the need for the additional new hires in fire and police personnel. The money is simply not there! 3. Review the need for the current volume of planners and building staff members. With the downturn this staff is not needed. The city has been planned already. Annexation of Santa Margarita can wait until the economy picks up. 4. Review cutting.every department budget by 5%-10%. Review the possibility of promoting staff based on performance reviews rather than-seniority.' 5. Review the need for every non-safety position that was added in the past two-five years. (Look at these objectively,as we lived without them before and can do so again. 6. Review the need for non-essential staff positions and the possibility of making some city staff positions part time. 7. Review reducing fringe benefits for staff including gym memberships,parking,city cars,car allowances,etc.Eliminate nonessential vehicle allowances for all city departments and all city council members. 8. Review the need for the city to pay city employees' share of PERS contributions,and require city staff to pay a greater percentage of their health care plan costs. 9. Review reducing benefits for part-time employees such as those in the parking and traffic enforcement departments. 10. Encourage city employees such as police,fire and essential management positions to live in the city. If they live in the city they are more.invested in it,will shop here,etc. This will bring in more tax money. They should be put on notice that this will be a job requirement starting in the next fiscal year,if they haven't relocated by then,they no longer qualify for the job and will be let go.. This will go into the next cycle,.too. I L Review eliminating or reducing benefits for city council members as a good faith effort to show you are sharing in•ihe pain. Eliminate travel budgets,conferences,etc.- 12. Review and/re-evaluate the basis of retirements from highest years'salary to average of last five years of employment. Exclude overtime. Raise the age of retirement for non-safety personnel back to 65 from 55. 13. Review the need for unnecessary city publications and public relations pieces including repetitive newsletters,etc. 14. Review the need for nonessential subsidies to various community-based organizations and groups that do not"directly"benefit the city on a long term civic and/or economic basis. 15. Review the city's long term debt structure and the possibility of refinancing some existing long-term debt. 16. Review selling off under-utilized city-owned property where feasible such as the Jack House. This saves on long term maintenance costs. Lease open space to environmental groups to save the city maintenance costs.Review leasing out any under-utilized open and recreational.space or areas. 17. Re-evaluate the ban on drive-throughs for restaurants,banks, &other businesses. Adopt a flat"drive-through"fee to add a drive- through as a small additional immediate source of revenue,($10,0007),get it through quickly so it can be built,and it will increase overall sales tax revenues. 18. Review the current city billing practices and make it easy to pay all city bills online.In fact,offer an opportunity to prepay water and sewer bills,much like the post office has its"Forever"stamp:This will bring in more money immediately,since water rates are rising later.It will.help us get over the hump and while it means a slight decrease in income later,by then we should be on a better footing. 19. Outsource as in*ny non-essential city-related functions as may be deemed appropriate,including general roadwork repairs and park maintenance in order to save the city additional funds and eliminate unnecessary overhead costs. „ 20.Appoint a broad-based local Task Force representing a diverse range of community-based organizations,to eliminate potential internal conflicts of interest,to evaluate possible changes to the city employee retirement programs and employee benefits structure. Implement the Task Force's recommendations,with the City Council's concurrence,as soon as possible. .ble 4-1: San Luis Obispo City Total Employee Pension Costs,by Plan,2000-2001 to 2004-2005 Safety Miscellaneous Annual Plan Plan Total Change / 2000-2001 $0 $0 $0 2001-2002 $0 $0 $0 / 2002-2003 $667,300 $0 $667,300 - V7,03q 03-2004 $1,541,600 $1,364,700 $2,906,300 335.53% 2004-2005 $2,534,500 $2,134,000 $4,668,500 60.63% -t yn;coo / S 6oA=014-2005 Costs Per Capita $56.93 $47.93 $104.87 / / 4# Qaja70 cart 4-1: San Luis Obispo City Total Employee Pension Costs,by Plan,2000-2001 :f, 20M200R �PYojcc+ S3.000.000 r3 cco�' 52.500,000 ------- - - ---------- - —...---.-------- / 52.000.000 . 51.500,000 � r -�-- '' $500,000 / .#. so 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 o Safety Plan❑Miscellaneous Plan li CI::\'l'I':R FOR GO\'I?RNMI•:N'I' ANALYSIS, MAY 2006 11AG1': 65 of 71 ANALYST.CO\f .1 1, ±Ig,sc90 , hart 4-2:San Luis Obispo City Total Employee Pension Costs as a Percent of Tb'tal City Governmental Activity Expenditures,2000-2001 to 2068-2009 Nlake 12.00% •t�;� ,: • ' 10.00°i° I 8.00% i 6.00°i° -- --------- - -- - ; 'i :j '" • / :�jW� I i 4.00% 4 II 2.00% 0.00% 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 U0642W7 hart 4-3: San Luis Obispo City Employee Pension Plan Funded Level,2000-2001 to 140.0°r° — - - - — — — 120.0% - \ - - - --- - -- - - - -- 1000% 800% 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 'IWO'74r7 YDc'£•7re" 0 Safety Plan ❑N scellaneousPlan IF: ,:F:N'1'I.'.R FOR GO\'I;RN,\IICN"1' ANALYSIS, MAY 2006 PAG 1; G of D\"AXALYSTCOM COUNOL HEHONPANDUH L'. "% �s/�.1.L4..1 ot�, A,ctH.;d.,/Y�IO,.a�zfk►.: . . .. '' . -. . RED FILE DATE: July 15, 2008 MEETING AGENDA TO: City Council DATE '?//S/ ITEM # AII�p H COUNCIL 0 CDD DIR E VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO 0 CAO �FIN DIR �PY ACAO 2r FIRE CHIEF ZATTORNEY 2 PW DIR FROM: Monica Irons, HR Director 8 CLERK/ORIG 12POUCE CHF ❑ DEPT HEADS 0 REC DIR SUBJECT: Ability to Pay Question -- 2 UTIL DIR (] ^Tr_ L3 HR DIR Dick Whitmore of Liebert, Cassidy and Frierson was asked to provide his comments on why-the V twric City did not argue "inability to pay" or that the award would be "fiscally irresponsible to grant" in our arbitration case. As outlined in the email below, "inability to pay" is an almost impossible standard to prove and while the City may have not used the words "fiscally irresponsible" in its arguments (bottom of page 23 of the arbitrators findings), the City did strenuously argue that the award would be fiscally extreme and difficult to address. Here is Mr. Whitmore's more thorough email reply to the question: Email dated July 15, 2008 8:58 a.m. Monica - "Ability to pay" is a term of art that is applied by arbitrators very literally. The only way to succeed with an 'inability to pay' argument is to persuade an arbitrator that the City literally does not have the money to pay for the award and cannot possibly make the financial arrangements to come up with the money to pay for it. This would require the City to make an evidentiary showing by demonstrating a complete absence of reserve funds, an inability to make internal budget transfers or take any other steps to.locate funds to pay for the award. In our case, of course, the City does have the funds, albeit only after making a series of budget adjustments. Over the years, in dozens of interest arbitrations, I have never seen the 'inability to pay' argument succeed because cities invariably can find some way to make the fiscal arrangements to meet the award. I suppose this year that the City of Vallejo might have been able to succeed with an 'inability to pay argument, but I do not think San Luis Obispo could have. Instead of arguing the City's 'inability to pay,' we argued that the Association's salary proposal would cost too much, would be fiscally imprudent and would be contrary to the standards set forth in the Charter. We argued that it would substantially exceed what the Firefighters had voluntarily agreed to and thereby granting it would adversely affect internal labor relations. We argued that it would be unreasonable as compared to salary levels in comparable cities. We argued that it substantially exceeded prior raises and the CPI. We argued that it would guarantee both Police and Fire will go to arbitration rather than settle in the future. CADocuments and Settings\ahooper\Loeal Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK9C\Inabi11ty to Pay f Council Memorandum July 15, 2008 Page 2 We did not argue 'ability to pay' because the City is not on the verge of bankruptcy. The City can pay the award but it is excessive and unreasonable and to comply with the arbitrator's award the City will have to make some painful budget adjustments that will have City-wide consequences. The real culprit in this negative situation is the process itself. An arbitrator has no responsibility to assess what is in the best overall interest of all of the citizens of San Luis Obispo. Instead, this process requires the arbitrator to focus narrowly on the specific issues before him/her like salary and then allows very substantial discretion to evaluate that evidence and decide as he/she sees fit. Page 1 of 1 This message was sent with high importance. Council,SloCity From: Justesen,Erik P. [EPJustesen@rrmdesign.com] Sent Tue 7/15/20084:44 PM To: Council,5loCity Cc: Subject Binding arbitration issue Attachments: Dear city council members, Thank you for doing the good work for our beautiful town....you did ask for it! I will keep it short. NO ON BINDING ARBITRATION. As it has been said by many well meaning and rational citizens,binding arbitration is not about the police and fire departments and their committed forces. It is about local decision making responsibility. Please know that I join my fellow SLO Chamber Board Members and many fellow business affiliates in declaring complete opposition to a future where your authority to decide on issues so important is obfuscated. I firmly support and encourage you to stand up against this Flaw and work to find a sensible voter initiative to amend our city charter giving the power to ultimately decide the deal points of labor negotiations to the Council or the people...not a unaccountable third party. Best wishes Erik P.3ustesen,ASLA CEO �./� rrmdesigngroup /2. 3765 S.Higuera SL,Ste.102 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 P:(805)543-1794 1 F:(805)543-4609 www.rrTndgsian.com Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounci YlnboxBinding%20arbitration%20issue.E... 7/16/2008 Page 1 of 1 Council,SloCity From: Paul Marcotte[paul93401@yahoo.com] Sent: Tue7/15/2008 4:53 PM To: Council, SloCity Cc: dan Hinz Subject: Ballot Measure Attachments: TO: SLO Councilmen/Woman FROM: Paul&Jean Marcotte-San Luis Obispo Re: Binding Arbitration Please step up to the plate and place the Binding Arbitration problem on the November ballot, if the Council can legally do so. Don't proscratinate and wait to see if some citizens group will take up this initiative. You are our elected officials and if you do oppose the current arbitration procedure,you should take the proper steps to proceed to the ballot box. Paul&Jean Marcotte. San Luis Obispo https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciLInboxBallot%2OMeasure-2.EML?Cmd=o... 1/16/2008 Page 1 of 2 Council,SloCity From: Dan Hinz[dhinz805@charter.net] Sent: Tue 7/15/2008 9:52 PM To: paul93401@yahoo.com; Council,SloCity Cc: Subject: RE: Ballot Measure Attachments: Here! Here! Dan Hinz From: Paul Marcotte [mailto:paul93401@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday,July 15, 2008 4:54 PM To: slocitycouncil Cc: dan Hinz Subject: Ballot Measure TO: SLO Councilmen/Woman FROM: Paul &Jean Marcotte- San Luis Obispo Re: Binding Arbitration Please step up to the plate and place the Binding Arbitration problem on the November ballot, if the Council can legally do so. Don't proscratinate and wait to see if some citizens group will take up this initiative. You are our elected officials and if you do oppose the current arbitration procedure, you should take the proper steps to proceed to the ballot box. https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/RE:%20Ballot%20Measure.EML?C... 7/16/2008 'LAW OFFICES- WIL-LIAM 5. WALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE (805) 541-6601 THE BELLO HOUSE EMAIL FACSIMILE (BOB) 541-6640 679 MONTEREY STREET WWALTERQTCSN.NET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 March 26, 2008 VIA FACSIMILE (805) 544-5329 AND US MAIL Clayton U. Hall, Esq. Hall, Hieatt & Connely, LLP 1319 Marsh Street, Second Floor San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 e Re: Settlement Proposal Re: Secrest vs. City of San Luis Obispo; Superior Court, County of San Luis Obispo, Case No.: CV 060225 Dear Mr. Hall: As you know, this office represents Steve and Jeanne Secrest in the above referenced matter. This letter is written for settlement purposes only and may not otherwise be used in the proceedings. Itis our belief that there is a general agreement between the parties about how to proceed to solve these serious drainage problems. In addition, it behooves the parties to avoid additional and unnecessary legal fees and expenses. We would propose entering into a settlement agreement now embodying the following proposals: 1. Implement/ construct the drainage mitigation improvements in the public drainage easement pursuant to plans prepared by Garing & Taylor before the next rainy season. 2. Clear the public drainage easement as required in the Garing & Taylor plans. 3. The City will proceed with expeditiously completing the Andrews Street Structure/rock catcher, but will not delay item#1 above while obtaining approvals and constructing those improvements. Clayton Hall, Esq. March 26 2008 Page 2 4. Since the City is seeking indemnification from the uphill owners for the damages caused to our clients, we can enter into a monetary settlement, move the court for a determination of good faith settlement, and then the City can proceed to obtain that amount from the cross-defendants. This saves the City legal expenses and reduces the total damages. 5. The Superior Court would retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement. We look forward to your consideration of this proposal. Very truly yours, I William alter cc: Steve Secrest Jeanne Secrest r LAW OFFICES WILLIAM S. WALTER A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION TELEPHONE (SOS) S41-6601 TME BELLO MOUSE. EMAIL FACSIMILE (GOBI 541-6640 - 679 MONTEREY STREET W ALTER( TCSN.NET SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 June 23, 2008 VIA FACSDAME (805) 5445329 AND US MAIL Clayton U.Hall,Esq. Hall,Hieatt&Comely, LLP 1319 Marsh Street, Second Floor San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: Settlement Proposal Re: Secrest vs. City of San Luis Obispo; Superior Court, County of San Luis Obispo, Case No.: CV 060225 Dear Mr.Hall: On March 26, 2008 we sent to you a settlement proposal to resolve this action. Can you tell us when this proposal was considered by the City Council and whether the Council has accepted this proposed settlement? The counsel for the Motts has insisted that depositions of our clients be completed quickly. The protraction of the litigation would be unnecessary if we had a response from the City Council. Our clients would request that you try to resolve the matter and arrange the postponements of our clients'depositions. It is important to make these efforts now and in advance of the judicial mediation. We will be forwarding a proposed stipulation regazding the current status of the litigation, bifurcation, and recognition of the statutory stays previously agreed to. V tru q ours, William S. Walter cc: Steve Secrest Jeanne Secrest J . J - i- cdln j F (e p CU knK ,V MATTHEW GOLDBERG O Arbitrator ♦ Mediator ♦ Attorney at Law 130 Capricorn Avenue Oakland, California 94611 IN INTEREST ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO CHARTER SECTION 1107 In the Matter of a Controversy between: ) SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS ) ASSOCIATION, ) ARBITRATOR'S OPINION AND AWARD Union, ) CSMCS No. ARB 06-0315 and ) ) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, ) Employer ) ) Re: Interest Arbitration ) This interest arbitration arises pursuant to Charter Section 1107 between SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION (referred to below as"Union"or"Association"), and the CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (referred to below as "Employer' or "City"). Under its terms, MATTHEW GOLDBERG was selected from a panel submitted by the California State Mediation and Conciliation Service to serve as Neutral Chair of the Arbitration Board and render a final and binding decision.' Hearings in this matter was conducted on October 15 and 16,and December 17 through 21, 2007 in San Luis Obispo, California. All parties had full opportunity to examine and cross- examine witnesses, and to submit evidence and argument. The parties submitted Final Proposals and Argument on February 22, 2008. The Union also submitted supplemental evidence on that same date, to which the City responded and presented its own supplemental evidence on March 10. Rebuttals to the respective Final Arguments were submitted to the Arbitrator on March 18, 2008. 'The parties stipulated that the decision of the Neutral Chair would constitute the decision of the Board.. O i i O APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Association: ALLISON BERRY WILKINSON,Esq.of BERRY WILKINSON LAW GROUP,4040 Civic Center Drive, San Rafael, California 94903 On behalf of the Employer: RICHARD S.WHITMORE,Esq.of LIEBERT,CASSIDY,WHITMORE,LLP,153 Townsend Street, Suite 520, San Francisco, California 94107 CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Section 1107. Impartial and Binding Arbitration for San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association and San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association,IAFF Local 3523, Employee Disputes (D) Impasse Resolution Procedures (4) In the event no agreement is reached prior to the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, the Board of Arbitrators shall direct each of the parties to submit, within such time limit as the Board of Arbitrators may establish, but not to exceed thirty (30) business days, a last offer of settlement on each of the remaining issues in dispute. The Board of Arbitrators shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting whichever last offer of settlement on that issue most nearly conforms to those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of public and private employment, including, but not limited to the following:changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose index, as reported at the time impasse is declared for the preceding twelve (12) months, the wages, hours, benefits and terms and conditions of employment of employees performing similar services in comparable cities; and the financial condition of the City of San Luis Obispo and its ability to meet the costs of the decision of the Board of Arbitrators. (5) . . . . The decision of the Board of Arbitrators shall not be publicly disclosed and shall not be binding until ten (10) days after it is delivered to the parties. During that ten (10) day period the parties shall meet privately, attempt to resolve their differences, and by mutual agreement amend or modify the Decision of the Board of Arbitrators. At the conclusion of the of the ten (10) day period, which may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, the decision of the Board of Arbitrators, as it may be modified or amended by the parties, shall be publicly disclosed and shall be binding upon the parties. The City and the employee organization shall take whatever action is necessary to carry out and effectuate the arbitration award. No other actions by the City Council or by the electorate to conform or approve the decision . . . shall be permitted or required. O 2 G1. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT After mediation resulted in resolving some but by no means all of the issues in dispute, the parties presented evidence over the course of seven hearing days in support of their various proposals for the Collective Bargaining Agreement which is to succeed that which expired on December 3.1, 2005. As the record closed, 44 separate issues remained to be resolved by this Award. A number of these have been settled since then. The issues are discussed in the order numbered by the parties. The proposals are set forth under the,heading of the party propounding them. New language is designated in italic bold. Where are party proposes to delete a particular phrase or provision, the deletion is designated in strikeout format. Following a summary of the evidence and the position of the parties on each issue,the Analysis and Conclusions will indicate which proposal will be granted. A summary of all the proposals to be implemented and made part of the Agreement will be submitted at the end of the Award. The City asserts that the party seeking a change in the status quo has the burden of proof and persuasion,and must present sufficient evidence to persuade the Arbitrator to grant the requested change. The failure to meet the moving party's burden should result in a rejection of the proposal. The Association does not dispute this basic notion, and in fact adopts it whenever appropriate. The City further argues that the fact it is not making an "ability to pay" argument with regard to the Association's various economic proposals does not render the cost of these proposals irrelevant. The distinction between ability to pay and financial condition of the City C made in Charter Section 1107(D)(4) clarifies that cost and financial impact are relevant considerations in accepting or rejecting a given proposal. Moreover, cost is a factor "traditionally taken into consideration" in making decisions with regard to wages, hours, and terms-and conditions of employment. A central principle of contract interpretation is that the Agreement must be read as a whole. Proposals which conflict with one another create ambiguities not contemplated by the parties. Anything unforeseen is naturally inconsistent with their contractual intent as expressed during these proceedings. In a rights arbitration, the arbitrator's primary function is to enforce contractual intent. While the Charter requires an issue by issue submission, some issues necessarily have an impact on others. Therefore, in determining that one proposal is preferable to another, internally consistency and clarity will be two factors "traditionally taken into consideration" in addition to the others spelled out in the Charter. 2. The Issues ISSUE 1: ARTICLE 47 -TERM OF AGREEMENT City: This Agreement shall become effective as of the date this Agreement is formally approved by the city Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration 3 award is issued, whichever islater, and shall continue in full force and effect until expiration at midnight,December 31, 2009. Association: This Agreement shall become effective January 1,2006 and shall continue in full force and effect until expiration at midnight,December 31, 2009. ISSUE 2: ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE City: 1.1 This Agreement is effective and entered into as of the date of this Agreement and is formally approved by the City Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration award is issued, whicheveris later,by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as City, and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association; provided however,individual sections of this Agreement may designate other individual effective dates. Association: 1.1 This Agreement is effective the 1s`day ofJanuary2006 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as the City, and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association. ISSUE 3: ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE City: New Section 1.2 The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all employees in the bargainingunitemployedbyihe Cityon the date this Agreementis formally approved by the City Council or ten(10) days after an arbitration award is issued whichever is later. The provisions of this Agreement shall also apply to employees honorablyretired from the Citybetween the expiration . date of the proceeding contract(12131/2005) and the later of the effective dates described above. [Re-number current sections 1.2 through 1.4] Association: This Agreement is effective the 1"day of January 2006 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as the City,and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all unit members a G employed on January 1, 2006, or thereafter. G Each of the first three issues pertain to the date that the Contract is to become effective. This naturally has an impact on the retroactivity of certain provisions. The parties accordingly argue the acceptability of their proposals in those terms, as well as in terms of the burden of proof. Final proposals memorialized the parties'agreement on the length of the Contract term 2 No evidence was presented at the hearing from either side in conjunction with Issue 1. The Association asserts that the City's language departs from the status quo and the pattern developed in prior Agreements, and has not been adequately justified. It maintains that in practical effect,it would shorten the term of the Agreement from four years to less than two,thus conflicting with the stated purpose of creating a four year agreement. The Association further urges that the City is not only modifying its original proposal,without justification,from language identical to that submitted by the Association, it is also seeking to blend this issue with Issue 2 (retroactivity). This has the potential of creating an internal conflict within the Agreement if the City's retroactivity proposal is not adopted. As concerns Issue 2, the City argues that the Association's proposal is impossible to implement, as many of the proposals in controversy cannot be applied retroactively, such as changes to the grievance procedure,and the amountof life insurance employees can purchase. The City's proposal, it asserts, provides for the flexibility essential to crafting a Contract that is internally consistent. The Association states that absent specific language. in tentative agreements or in proposals adopted by the Arbitrator to the contrary, all provisions should be retroactive to January 1,2006. As with Issue 1, it argues that its proposal maintains the status quo,while the City changes it,thus placing the burden of proof on the City. The City,the Association argues, has failed to identify any reason to divert from the status quo, while its modifying language is redundant and potentially confusing. Its proposal is unnecessary because the language of any provision providing for a specific implementation date will override the general language of the preamble. In its rebuttal,the City argues that the Association's blanket retroactivity clause may have unforeseen and unintended consequences which could lead to potentially costly unfunded liabilities. The City should be clear on is contractual obligations, rather than guessing on how to retroactively implement each provision. It will create additional disputes between the parties. Examples of provisions which would be impossible to implement retroactively would be, in addition to those above, extending the cap on compensatory time off. Retroactive application of court appearance payments(Issue 11)would require the City to reconstruct every cancelled court appearance over the last two years. Applying Issue 41retroactively would require it to calculate the cost of FST lunches over the last two years. The City further asserts that the Association's proposal re-writes negotiating history and ignores the long process which was necessary to reach a final agreement. The Association counters that it is not seeking to make all provisions retroactive,as there =The City's argument on the Union's former proposal for a shorter term is therefore moot,and not discussed. 5 G have been a number of tentative agreements which have been reached which have effective dates after the term of the Agreement begins. It asserts that the City failed to present any evidence to show that there were sections in dispute where retroactivity might be an issue. The City's argument regarding the grievance procedure ignores language that a grievance must be filed within "15 business days of the occurrence." Its argument "is nothing other than a manipulative effort to create uncertainty by crafting an illusory issue." Concerning Issue 3, the City maintains that there is no compelling reason to provide retroactive pay or benefits to non-employees who were terminated or left voluntarily. It would be a burden on the City to track these employees down. Benefits are offered to those who left honorably in the interest of fairness. Reviews of comparable agencies have not shown any other that includes such a provision in their Contract. The Association supports the status quo here. Accepting the City's proposal would allow it to profit from its protracted negotiations strategy. It maintains that the City has not carried its burden of proof because it produced no external data supporting it. It attempts to shift the burden to the Association by urging that it has not put forth any evidence why the City should be required to use its finances in this manner. The Association was not required to do so. Nothing but speculation about expense and difficulties was offered in support of the City's argument. The City responds that the Association's proposal here highlights the absurdity of its proposal for blanket retroactivity. It would be extremely burdensome to track down former employees. Compensation for former employees falls outside the scope of representation. The principles of fairness,contractual stability and responsible government req uire that the Arbitrator grant the City's proposal. To accept the proposal offered by the City would reward any exercise in protracted negotiations. It would in effect lessen the value of any economic concessions. The City further acknowledges that issue 3 is plainly interconnected with Issues 1 and 2, and must be determined in a way which is consistent with the determinations reached on those issues. Analysis and Conclusions The language of Article 47 must necessarily conform to that in the Preamble. While the parties up to this point have viewed the retroactivity issue as separate from Contract term,the practical effect of the two proposals, as the Association suggests, is to merge this issue with Issue 2. Accordingly, any conclusions with regard to Article 47 must be based on the same considerations which are used to determine Issue 2. Similarities in the language of all three proposals require that they be determined in a way which is consistent with one another. Accordingly, a decision on Issue 3 would be necessarily driven by those in Issues 1 and 2. The City's various proposals with regard to the effective date of the Agreement cannot be adopted because they conflict with the specific wording of the Charter. As such, implementing them would.exceed the Arbitrator's authority. The Charter provides that the parties must have a minimum of ten days in which to consider modifying the conclusions of the Arbitrator and/or Arbitration Board. If they wish to take additional time, they may do so. The 6 O Contract thus cannot be effective ten days after the Award is issued, as the parties may take additional time to amend or modify the Agreement. It is only after they have concluded that process that the Agreement is "binding." The Charter also provides that any act of the City Council with regard to approvingthe Agreement shall only be ministerial in nature: The City and the employee organization shall take whatever action is necessary to cant' out and effectuate the arbitration award. No other actions by the City Council and the electorate to conform or approve the decision . . . shall be permitted or required. The Agreement is thus effective when the process described above is concluded, and at no other time. The City urges, nonetheless, that the Association's proposal would create ambiguities insofar as the retroactive effect of many provisions is concerned. However,as the Association points out,retroactivity is specifically designated in various provisions. The specific language of these provisions would override the general language in Article 47 and.the preamble. The City's argues that if the Association's proposal were adopted, it might face some unfunded liability or have to go some length to locate people who left after the last Contract expired. Lack of evidence renders these contentions speculative. It is also noteworthy that turnover in the Department was exceedingly low during the time-in question,with two disability retirements and only one resignation. OThe change in the status quo phraseology has not been demonstrated to be warranted. ISSUE 4: ARTICLE 7 - SALARY Section 7.1 City: No change to current language and number of steps. Association: B. Effective January 1, 2006, Step progression for all represented employees shall be at twelve-month intervals except for progression to Master Police Officer,step 6. Those requirements are identified in Article 8.4. The salary range for Police Officer consists of seven six steps (1 through 7 6). Steps 1 through B 5 equals 95% of the next highest step, computed to the nearest $1.00. The parties deployed a series of lists of other agencies which were used for the purposes G 7 i of external comparisons. As more fully described belowin the discussions of Issues 6 and 7, the City relied on a list of 9 entitled the "Chico 9" or the "Fire List"; the Association used a list entitled the"Gilroy 9." The lists differed only in the respect that the City's contained Chico and Davis, while the Association's list substituted Santa Barbara and Gilroy for them. Combined, the lists consisted of eleven entities. 8 comparable jurisdictions out of this 11 use 5 salary steps. Only Chico and Santa Cruz have 7 steps,while Salinas has six. Union president and chief negotiator Dale Strobridge,who also served in the Department for 30 plus years and held various Union offices over the period, stated that the incentive for compressing steps began with the institution of the Master Police Officer classification ("MPO" below). He characterized the program as a longevity scheme which currently requires one year at step 6, as well as multiple years in three speciality assignments. The Association agreed to add two steps to the salary schedule for police officers in 1991 because salaries were straying farther from their benchmark, a comparison between top step police officer and top step sergeant. In an effort to close that separation, as the City appeared unwilling to agree to compress the steps, it chose to add two more via the MPO program. An additional step for"MPO III"was added in subsequent negotiations.Another step was added in the 1998-2001 MOA. A settlementwas obtained in the 2001 negotiations which resulted in a compression of the salary schedule to the current number, 7. This was accomplished by eliminating Steps 1 and 2, and moving everyone at those levels to Step 3. The Association proposes the same process here. The net effect would be that nearly everyone would advance one step on the salary scale. Those MPO's in Step 7 would receive the same amount; but it would be C designated at Step 6.. Strobridge added thatthe MPO III was the equivalent ofthe corporal rank in other jurisdictions,as officers at that level are permitted to wear corporal stripes,and occupy a lead person role. Strobridge testified that.the Association proposed the change because journeyman officers quickly progressed through the lowest steps. Instead of these journey officers reaching the top level in five years, it was now taking 12 to 16 years, if it ever happened. There have been hundreds of thousands saved by this longevity scheme. He.added that he advocated against it, even though he attained that status and benefitted from the program. Eight comparable jurisdictions have also identified Level 5 as journey level as well as a number of others which created for Strobridge the "industry standard." Each step on the salary schedule increases pay by 5.26%. Should the Association's proposal be adopted, everyone currently employed would receive an increase in that amount, except those who were MPO's, and those who were at Step 5 but had not qualified for MPO. The City presented evidence should the Association's proposal be adopted, 20 employees would receive a 5.26% increase, which,when combined with the Association's wage demand, would amount to a 10.54%'increase for those individuals. The total cost tothe City, including salary driven benefits, would be $112,680. The Association argues that the purpose of its proposal is to continue step compression in order to return to the historic practice of maintaining five salary steps. The Association presented ample evidence demonstrating this practice,which was modified and expanded with a G r' `a O the MPO program. The City asserts that the salary increases would be in addition to those already proposed. In its view,the Association has not demonstrated the necessity for such an expensive change. Nor has it put forward any evidence explainingwhy it is better to have six rather than seven steps. While the Association presented some evidence discussing the negative aspects of the MPO program,the program was only implemented at the Association's request during previous negotiations. The proposal is a transparent attempt to secure salary raises outside of the salary proposal. In addition to those increases, the City also will have higher salaries to pay at entry level. The Association has not demonstrated why such compression is necessary. Even assuming it were, that goal could be reached without an increase by simply deleting the top step. The Association further neglects to explain how this proposal impacts its survey analysis data. As is evident from that data, there is nothing to support the additional 5.26% increase for twenty officers. Analysis and Conclusions The evidence demonstrated that additional steps were added to the salary schedule, at the behest of the Union,with the introduction of the MPO classification. That classification was clearly intended to reward officers who had achieved certain levels of experience, education, and training,and to distinguish these officers from those who had attained journey level status. Nothing intrinsic to the program would appear to have an effect on the salary schedule other than introducing additional higher pay steps in recognition of those achievements. Stated differently,the introduction of a classification at a higher pay rate which one could attain after fulfilling certain qualifications has no demonstrable negative impact on lower classifications. Officers would still rise to journey level at the same pace. Those who wished to progress beyond that could do so by meeting the requirements of becoming an MPO. C As the City points out,while there was evidence that the three-quarters of the combined universe of comparable districts plus the City utilize a five-step salary progression, there has been no showing what impact this proposal would have on relative salary levels, or how this proposal would effect the comparisons which the Association advanced in support of its salary increase proposal. The City stresses that the proposal will result in a 5.26% increase for 20 of its 44 officers, or slightly less than half of them. The Contract requires time in grade and an evaluation of"Meets Performance Standards" for advancement on the salary schedule. The Association's proposal thus arguably conflicts with this language by proposing step advancement which has no such longevity and performance qualifications. There has been no showing that the compensation for officers with up to five years' experience or less is substandard, or does not compare favorably with that offered in comparable jurisdictions. In addition, there has been no demonstration that the City has experienced difficulties recruiting because of non-competitive entry-level salaries. Insufficient evidence has therefore been presented to support changing the status quo. U 9, O ISSUE 5: ARTICLE 7 - SALARY Section 7.1 City: No change to current language or current practice Association: Salary Increases for Term of Agreement Top step Police Officer designated as benchmark for all classifications. A composite list of all 15 comparable agencies (described below in the succeeding section) demonstrates that in about half, non-sworn, miscellaneous personnel are included in the bargaining unit. However, of the seven agencies which do not include non-sworn classifications in the unit,five(Monterey,Napa; Palm Springs, Pleasanton and Salinas)appear on the comparability lists of both parties. In only two agencies, Gilroy and Santa Cruz,do non- sworn receive the same salary increases as sworn personnel. Strobridge testified that the purpose for placing this wording in the Agreement was to memorialize the practice that has been in effect for the past 30 years, namely that salary increases apply equally to all classes across the board,sworn and non-sworn alike. There have been some exceptions, but these have occurred when there have been equity adjustments in C! certain classifications or where there have different.benefit allocations, such as occurred with retirement benefits in March,2003 and in July,1987. He added that he is currently the president of the San Luis Obispo County Deputy Sheriff's association, an agency on the composite list, and that contrary to the City's evidence,the increases given to non-sworn personnel are equal to that of sworn, with the tops step deputy sheriff classification as the benchmark. Strobridge noted that the top step police officer salary is thetotal compensation amount that is surveyed to establish a benchmark for all classifications. The City maintains that the Association has not met.its burden of proof on this issue to show that this change is necessary or even preferable for unit members. Setting the benchmark at top step police officer would unnecessarily limit the City's discretion with respect to salary increases. The Association's own data demonstrates that it is occasionally necessary to provide additional increases to certain classifications that may have fallen be market-level compensation. On no less than eleven occasions were increases granted that were not applied equally to all classes in the unit, representing close to one-third of all increases that were granted from July, 1979 to December, 2005. The Association's current proposal provides for different increases for sworn and non-sworn in January, 2006. This data shows that the City does not have an unequivocal practice of granting uniform increases to all unit members.. Additionally,there was no evidence to show that all wage increases were based solely on salary surveys of the police officer classification alone. The Association proposes that the City end its practice of conducting various salary surveys among different classifications. This O10 O would severely limit the City's ability to recommend salary adjustments on the basis of market data, and potentially cause severe misalignment for other job classes, both internally and externally. There is no past practice to memorialize. The proposal will severely skew salary equity within the unit, and cause real potential harrh to the City's compensation system. The City further asserts that the comparability data does not support the Association's proposal. While only Gilroy and Santa Cruz provide the same raises to sworn and non-sworn, it is not reasonable to conclude that they use the top step police officer as the benchmark for all classifications. The Association counters that enacting a benchmark would not prevent equity . adjustments in the future should a classification fall below market-level. The benchmark is nothing more than a measure to evaluate the current market, not a ceiling on what can be imposed or agreed upon. Analysis and Conclusions Data from comparable agencies was insufficient to establish that there was any wide- spread practice among them to link salary increases of non-sworn employees to that of sworn. More importantly,none were shown to contain language in their respective MOU's regarding a benchmark classification for determining the level of increases. Although the City maintained that the exceptions to the linking of increases proved the rule, and that there was no consistent practice in this regard, the evidence shows that in more than a majority of cases, the increases granted to sworn were identical to those granted Ci miscellaneous employees. In other cases,adjustments were necessary in certain instances due to market forces, or to offset differences in benefits. Accordingly,the parties have recognized that salary increases will be across-the-board except when circumstances dictate otherwise. The parties have also assumed that there is some sort of benchmark classification which is used for the purposes of analyzing comparative salary data. There has been no evidence presented that there has been extensive disagreement as to the classification which would be appropriate to use for comparisons, and that such disagreements have unduly protracted or hindered negotiations. Nor has it been shown that non-sworn personnel are consistently granted lesser increases than sworn. The question then arises why the Association now believes it is necessaryto include language in the MOAwhich will provide a restrictive approach to salary negotiations, especially when there has been no demonstrable difference of opinion about the approach which is taken during these negotiations. As the saying goes,"if it ain't broke, don't fix it." The Association's proposal introduces language into the Agreementwhich the parties negotiating practices have rendered superfluous. Additionally,the language is somewhat ambiguous, and may create uncertainty as to whether increases in various classifications are irrevocably tied to one another into the future. As such, the Association has not sustained its burden of proving why this change to the Contract is justified. tt G J OISSUES 6 AND 7: ARTICLE 7 SALARY Section 7.2 City: Salary Increases for Term of Agreement Salary increases will be effective on the first day of the first full pay period following the . dates listed below: January 2006 3% July 2006 2% July 2007 4 July 2008 5% July 2009 5% Association: January 1, 2006 5.28% Swam Classifications (Police Officer) 10.82% Non-sworn Classifications January 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications July 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications January 1,2008 5.00% All Classifications OJanuary 1, 2009 5.00% All Classifications Throughout the course of the presentation of evidence on the salary issue, the parties referred to various "universes" of comparable jurisdictions against which they measured and attempted to provide support for their proposals. Those universes had various designations. The POA list was commonly referred to as the "Gilroy 9." That used by the City was referred to as the "Chico 9" or "Fire List," as it was the list that was used in the negotiations with the City's firefighters. Additional lists of comparables were used in support of a recent sales tax initiative, Measure Y,and in a compensation study conducted in 2007 for managerial and non- safety employees. Issue 38,discussed and determined below,found that the most apt universe for the sake of comparing bargaining unit compensation with that of other agencies should be that designated as the "Gilroy 9." Nevertheless, argument in favor of the parties' various economic proposals can be found in other universes, or a combination thereof. The lists of comparables are as follows: Gilroy 9: Chico 9: Measure Y: Salary Suryey: Gilroy Chico Ventura Ventura Santa Barbara Davis Davis Davis Monterey Monterey Monterey Monterey Napa Napa Napa Napa Petaluma Petaluma Petaluma Petaluma Pleasanton Pleasanton Pleasanton Pleasanton Salinas Salinas Salinas Salinas Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Cruz Santa Maria Santa Maria Santa Maria Santa Maria Paso Robles SLO County 12 O The City first presented comparisons between the two proposals and the average in its universe with the 9% PERS pick-up included as part of compensation, then as compared with total compensation, which included PERS pick-up, cafeteria contribution, education incentive, and uniform allowance. With PERS pick-up alone,the City's proposed increases put it slightly above the mean (in the 2-3% plus range) on every list except the POA list. Using. total compensation,3 the City increases were between 4 and 5% plus above the Compensation Study mean, and between 2.5% and 3.73% above the Measure Y list mean. Comparing total compensation on the Fire List, City proposed increases for sworn personnel would place the Association at 1.18%, .02% and 2.03%. above the average in the first three years of the Agreement. City proposed increases were-3.3%,-4.469%, and-2.33%below the average on the Gilroy 9 list in January, 2006, January, 2007, and July, 2007 respectively. The City's combined wage offer of 19%was roughly equivalent to that provided its other bargaining units(Firefighters Local 3523,General(SLOCEA), Fire Battalion Chiefs,and Police Managers (SLOPSOA). The City asserted that no bargaining group has received more than the City is proposing. The Consumer Price Index from the prior 12 months rose in December, 2005 to 2%; December, 2006, to 3.4%; and in August, 2007, to 2.6%. The City has hired a total of 8 officers from outside agencies, four of whom were from out of the area. There was one disability retirement in 2006 and one in 2007, and only one resignation in 2006. Turnover generally is lower in the Police Department than anywhere else in the City: In July, 2007, the Department was authorized to add six new sworn positions and one non-sworn. At the time of these hearings, two of the police officer vacancies are unfilled. In one of these a lateral transfer is scheduled to interview. It was fairly common for the O Department to hire lateral transfers. One lateral in the past five years declined a job offer for salary-based reasons. Over the next few years,about five officers will become eligible to retire, thus creating five vacancies. As far as non-sworn classifications are concerned, using communications technician as the benchmark, the City's proposed increases will put them at-3.87% and-3.64%from the Fire List average for 2006 and January, 2007, and at -.58% in July, 2007. With total compensation, non-swom will be-2.26%, -2.14%, and .40% in each of these three periods. The increases put them over 10% above average on the Compensation Study and Measure Y lists, using total compensation. With the City's proposed increases, Communications Technicians are-5.49%, -5.21%, and-4.11%below the average of the Gilroy 9 list for the three periods,respectively. Applying the Association's proposed increases,the classification is.37%, 6.25% and 5.56% above the average on the Fire List, and 4.14%, 6.97%, and 4.89% of the average of the Gilroy 9 data set. There was only one non-swom resignation in 2006. Three communications technicians were hired from other local agencies in 2006, and one was hired from that source in 2007. In response, Union president Strobridge first challenged the assertion that firefighters had received a total 19% wage increase package. In 2006, the firefighters received a 5% increase, but there was an additional 6% that was paid inspectors as of July, 2006. In July, 'City Risk Manager Karen Jenny noted,however,that the City and the Association had not come to agreement in prior negotiations as to what elements should be included in total compensation G 13 �1 2007 there was an additional 3% for paramedic incentives for top firefighter, as well as an increase of two slots for compensated firefighter/paramedic. In 2008, inspectors received an additional 6% salary increase,° plus two more paramedic slots were added. In the final year, there was a hazmat incentive added, although there was no specific percentage indicated. What makes the firefighter/paramedic compensation significant is that this is the classification that the firefighters have identified as their benchmark. Thus, the firefighters have arguably received a 22% increase over the life of their contract. This would place them third in their data set of comparable agencies. The Association maintained that the purpose behind its numbers was to bring department salaries within 85"' percentile of the Gilroy 9 data set. The proposed increase for 2006 reached the average of that data set, while the proposals for subsequent years resulted in achieving that ranking. Total compensation used for purposes of the Association's calculations included salary, educational incentive, longevity, uniform allowance, PERS contribution, health, dental and vision. The difference between the sworn and non-sworn increases in the first year is the inclusion of the educational incentive package,which amounted to 5.26%. Strobridge testified that the rationale behind the 85" percentile ranking was that in agreements which were effective for more than two years, the Association had lost ground relative to the market because of economic conditions. As of January, 2006, sworn officers received less total compensation than any comparable agency in the Gilroy 9, and w ere second from the bottom, ahead of Chico, on the Fire List. Other than attempting to guess at some number, the Association worked to develop a methodology whereby it could preserve its market position. The goal was to be in the top quartile of the appropriate comparable universe, which equates to the 85"'percentile mark, or in the number three position among the agencies listed. Strobridge stated thatthe firefighters pursued a similar strategy:identifying a benchmark position (firefighter/paramedic), and raising their incentive pay to fix it at a certain market position within their comparable data set. It was his understanding that they have reached that goal, and will be in the top three of their data set. There were other considerations as well. Most agencies in the data set have contracts which expire at the end of theirjurisdiction's fiscal year. This Agreement expires December 31. Accordingly, there are six months where the Association's market position is eroding relative to these other agencies. The Association's strategy is to capture that lag. Although raises might be adjusted in July rather than January, Strobridge stated that many of the comparable agencies have been without contracts for long periods due to unresolved bargaining issues, and it is difficult to assemble their data. Availability of health insurance data also posed a problem, as rates for the new calendar year are not typically published until late September or October. Bargaining on a fiscal year basis places organizations at a disadvantage, as they have already concluded salary negotiations when these rates come out,and face the possibility that health benefit increases might be substantial enough to nullify wage gains. 'There are three or four inspectors in the fire department. Strobridge believed that the increase was an equity adjustment. 14 There are a number of elements of compensation which are not accounted for in a total compensation survey. Strobridge stated that a common element for miscellaneous employees is shift differential pay. This element plus an equity increase for dispatchers in Santa Maria has created a substantial difference in pay between what they receive and what they are paid in the City. This had led to recruitment and retention issues for these positions in the City, where a high rate of turnover has made a dispatcher with seven years' experience the most senior in the Department. The City has a mandatory shift rotation in the patrol division and in dispatch. There are only two shifts on a 3/12 plan, and these individuals work either days or graveyard. Thus everyone would be eligible for shift differential pay if it were an element of compensation in the City. Another element common to comparable agencies is special assignment pay. In the City, all swom officers engage in some form of special assignment. Ten are on the SWAT team, five are motor officers, four are field training officers, five are detectives, four are assigned as crime scene investigators. They do not receive special assignment pay, in part due to the MPO program, where officers do not receive the additional compensation until they have worked three special assignments over the span of nine years. Affordability of living in the City was another factor in the Association's wage demand. Strobridge stated that the area is one of the least affordable in the state if not in the nation, as shown by the cost of housing relative to what average earnings are. Very few officers live in the City itself. Minimum response time has changed from thirty minutes to an hour because / most officers live some distance outside the City. In addition, there are recruitment and retention issue fueled in part by an aging work force which will be retiring in significant numbers from City service. The problem is not unique to the City, and there are thousands of police officer vacancies in the state. Attracting high quality candidates has become more competitive, especially because the City, unlike other jurisdictions, has maintained high standards for those it recruits. Strobridge disagreed with the City's evidence that indicated that there was no retention problem. The Department has hired many new people since he retired in 2003. He anticipated that five or six more will leave the Department shortly...Nonetheless, about three quarters of the officers are lateral transfers. One possible lateral transfer, Kevin Rhyne,testified about his decision not to accept the City's offer of employment. Rhyne works for the Santa Barbara Police Department. He was interested in working for the City because it is closer to his home, and to relatives that live in Atascadero. He testified that he would have had to take a significant pay reduction if he were to change jobs, and that salary was the only factor that made him decide against coming to work in the City. Strobridge stated that the 2007 increase was split to reduce the total cost of the package while maintaining the City's relative position among the comparable agencies in the Gilroy 9. With the Association's proposed increases, the total compensation package will place the City 4" on the Gilroy list, second on the Chico 9 list, and 4`" on the combined list. G 15 � I After hearings in this matter were concluded, the City granted significant increases to its managers. A January 22, 2008 article in the local newspaper pointed out that the raises, in the 12 to 17% range, were"a necessary remedy if the city is going to attract and retain top- flight candidates." The news article further points out that many of the City's top employees were"significantly underpaid"when compared with cities in the area,and that it has been losing employees to those neighboring cities. A compensation study released in November whose recommendations were approved by the City Council December 20, 2007 revealed that although salaries "within market," considerable adjustments had to be,made to enhance recruitment and retention. As a result, it was recommended that 86% of the managerial classifications needed adjustments, and that 81% of these employees under consideration would receive these adjustments. The compensation survey also found that 22% of the SLOCEA classifications, comprising 43% of the employees in the unit, would receive adjustments over and above the 19% increase they received in contract negotiations, and that there would also be an adjustment in their health plan contributions, as it was not competitive in the amount paid for family coverage.' More specifically, an 8% adjustment was recommended for engineering and biologist classifications and 14% was recommended for utilities classifications. 50%of the proposed adjustments were to be implemented in January, 2008, while the remainder were to be phased in the following year. Position of the Association The Association's goal of being in the top quartile in the Gilroy 9 data set is proposed in a series of incremental steps. The 2006 increase brings it to the average in that data set, and above average in the Chico 9 and combined list of comparables. In the year following, a 12% increase is required for it to reach its goal. To reduce the cost of the proposal, the Association has split the raise into two segments. This brings the City to the top quartile in both the Gilroy 9 and the combined list of comparable agencies. As the data set for comparison cities in 2008 and 2009 is not complete, the Association was required to project a percentage increase which would maintain its position in the market. The adjustments it requests are identical to those proposed by the City in the last two years of the Contract. Positioning the Association in the top quartile is critical for recruitment and retention. Indeed, there is a recruitment and retention problem for police officers state-wide. Artificially low salaries paid to City police are a.deterrent to lateral hires. Part of reason for the reduced salaries is market erosion. Additionally, City police officers do not receive specialty or shift differential pay at the same frequency as other agencies. The Association is seeking to insure that the City will continue to attract and retain higher quality candidates rather than being forced, as other agencies have been, to lower standards. Attracting and maintaining qualified communications technicians has become such a problem that the City authorized over-hiring in that classification. This issues have become more acute as baby boomers retire and there is a smaller labor pool to draw from. As noted 'increases and adjustments were subject to the meet and confer process. The eventual outcome of that process is unknown. 1 in an August, 2006 article in the San Luis Obispo Tribune which described the hiring crisis at the county level, paying average wage levels has a downside. The City's proposal thus will spark a recruitment crisis similar to that faced by the County, whereas the Association's proposal will ensure that qualified candidates will have an incentive to work for the City instead of the County. As shown by the supplemental evidence, at the same time that the City was promoting keeping police salaries at the average, it was preparing to grant huge increases to management staff. Although balking at the Association's proposal, it granted a 15%immediate salary adjustment for the Chief. The evidence also showed that the City is one of the least affordable areas to live in the nation. Home and gasoline prices are among the highest anywhere. In addition, internal comparisons justify placing Association salaries in the top quartile, as that is the same comparative position that the firefighter contract places its personnel. The City does not challenge the fact that it has the ability to pay its officers at the top quartile. Its healthy financial condition has not been eroded by current budget issues in the state. The recent sales tax increase has resulted in higher than expected revenues. There is thus no justification for the City's proposals which keep Association member salaries artificially compressed at or below the average of comparable cities. The City's salary proposals contained misleading information, relied on inaccurate data, and artificially attached the proposed increases to inappropriate data sets. Contrary to its argument,the Association's proposal for sworn personnel is not fatally flawed. The Association has submitted a final offer that can be independently adjudicated. It does not wish to manipulate the issue-by-issue process by accepting the City's educational incentive and then asking for a 10.82% increase,which would have placed its wage proposal considerably above its stated goal. Since the City has agreed to extend the education incentive to sworn officers, the issue can be decided as submitted and the offset will automatically be applied.' The City's proposal artificially delays and compresses salaries to be paid its police officers. Applying the City's proposed increase and including the applicable educational incentive, sworn personnel would remain well below the Gilroy 9 average, and only slightly above the averages of the Chico 9 and combined data sets. If the City's proposal for 2006 is adopted in would ultimately result in a total compensation adjustment that would be slightly less than that requested by the Association. However, while the differences are slight in the first year, they become incredibly significant in the second. In contrast to the Association's 12% proposal for the second year,the City's July,2007 proposed 4%increase places sworn officers well below average on all comparable jurisdiction lists. Its assertion that its salary offer places the Association "comfortably above average" on any list is patently incorrect. °The Association presented its salary proposal for the first year with two alternatives,depending on whether the educational incentive was adopted for sworn personnel. This contingency has been withdrawn as a result of the City's agreement on educational incentive. Additionally, it Is unclear whether the Charter permits alternate proposals when the items are to be adjudicated on an issue-by-issue basis. The contingency could not have been considered in any event. 17 The proposed increases for 2008 and 2009 are at the same level, with the main C; difference between them when they are implemented. Both are clearly designed to keep the Association in the market position established in year 2 of the Contract. Thus, in determining which proposal is most appropriate,this second year becomes the deciding factor. It will mean the difference between being competitive at the top quartile, or well below market average. The City additionally claims that its offer is internally appropriate as the percentage raises it is offering are similar to those provided to other bargaining groups. Looking at the pure percentages is deceiving. Fire is in the top quartile, and requires only a minimum adjustment to stay there, whereas police require a significant adjustment to attain that goal. The City further maintains that it does not have a recruitment and retention problem. Even assuming that to be true, it is undisputed that there is such a problem state-wide in law enforcement. The City points to anecdotal information in its brief that Monterey,Santa Barbara, and Santa Cruz are experiencing significant recruiting issues, and are understaffed. Using these agencies for comparison, adoption of the Association's proposal would enable it to maintain its market position relative to these agencies, while adoption of the City's proposal would drop salaries well below the average and well below those paid by these three agencies. By so dramatically altering the Association's position in the market, it is reasonable to forecast that significant recruitment and retention problems suffered in these comparable agencies are only a hair's breadth from occurring here. Similarly,the Association's proposal for non-sworn personnel is fairand reasonable,and achieves ultimate goal of bringing its members into the top quartile. The City's proposed salary increases would place it well below average in 2007,creating a hole that it would be impossible to climb out of. The City argues that there is no justification for the 10.82% raise for non-sworn in the first year. However, that amount is justified as the equivalent value of those who are getting a part of their adjustment through the educational incentive, as well as the severe staffing problem in the Communications Technician classification. Although the City claims that its raises would place Communications Technicians slightly above the average in its data set,the City has influenced the statistics by not including.salaries paid in three of the nine comparable agencies, Monterey,Salinas and Santa Cruz. Once these. are factored in,the City's proposal drops Communications technicians to 2%below the average in July, 2007. The 10.82% increase is necessary to keep the Communications Technician competitive. As shown by its exhibits,this classification will have fallen well below the average in both data sets by November, 2007. Thus, the City's argument that its proposal meets the average and is fair when external comparisons are made is patently incorrect. There is no justification for dropping the Communications Technician 6% below the average on the City's list, and the City's non-sworn wage proposal should be rejected. Position of the City The Association's salary proposal contains a fatal flaw that requires its rejection. The Charter provides that a decision must be made on each issue separately. Under the Charter, arbitration proposals cannot be made contingent on other proposals. To award this contingent package or to allow the Association to condition one proposal on the granting or rejecting of 0 18 another violates the Charter Section which requires the parties to submit a last offer on each individual issue. The proposal is additionally confusing because it is unclear whether the lower salary would apply if the City's proposal on Issue 20 were adopted. It is so unclear as it would likely lead to future disputes. Should the proposal be awarded, it is highly probable that the City will pursue litigation to correct its illegality. Even absent this fatal flaw, the City's proposal is preferable because it reasonably incorporates the internal and external salary survey data, represents a fair increase that adequately protects the interests of both parties with respect to morale and recruitment issues, and ensures equity among City bargaining units. No other city employee group has received a higher salary offer than that being offered the Association. The City's offer also exceeds the CPI increases in the San Francisco/Oakland/San Jose area,which increased 2.6%from August,2006 to August,2007. The Charter requires that the decision take into consideration that factor,which conclusively establishes that the City's salary proposal should be rejected. The City's offer is also competitive with respect to external comparables. The current Contract and past practice has been to use a list of comparables used for other city employees. Comparing the offer to any of the lists, the City's is comfortably above average. It is only in comparison to the Association's handpicked list, which has never been used for comparison purposes, that the City's proposal falls below average. The City's offer is also well above the Fire List average for salary. Comparability is only one of the many considerations that go into any salary decision. One such factor is whether the unit is experiencing problems in recruitment and retention of employees. Turnover within the Association's unit has been lower than that which is City-wide. There is no indication that officer salaries are creating any difficulties for the retention of Department employees. The Department excels in recruitment and filling vacancies forsworn staff. It has filled four of the six newly created positions, with one of the two remaining about to be filled. The City has regularly recruited laterals, and has hired four in two successive years from other agencies. The Association witness who turned down a job offer admitted that he had not done a full analysis of the total compensation package, and that morale is high in the Department. This success is in stark contrast to the status of many other law enforcement agencies. Monterey, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz have reported significant recruitment and retention issues. Compared with this experience,the.City is doing an extremely good job recruiting and retaining officers. The only possible justification of a pay increase as significant as the Association is proposing would be that the City is currently paying well below the market rate. Its success recruiting and retaining indicates that its current compensation and benefits package is competitive. It is also significant that even though officers in the City have not received a raise since 2005, it has been able to retain and recruit with salary levels from 2005.- The Association's proposal is simply unreasonable. It has not articulated any G19 justification why City police should be paid salaries that are far above average. Although the City is expensive to live in, cheaper housing is available in other areas outside the City. Most officers take advantage of that fact by living in those areas. High housing costs do not support the Association's proposed increase. The Association has also failed to put forward any evidence explaining why its sworn members should receive raises that are so much higher than that received by other bargaining units. It would be disastrous for the City's ongoing labor relations to grant such a windfall to the Association. It would create a strong incentive for other units to holdout for arbitration in hopes of getting a similar deal. The City is offering sworn officers a proposal that is in line with internal and external comparables. It is the same as the firefighter increase, and falls squarely within or above the average salaries in comparable cities. It meant to keep salary competitive while maintaining positive labor relations with other units. The Association's proposal would create an uneven pay structure where sworn officers received a disproportionate share of the City's resources. The proposal is especially unreasonable given current uncertainties in state and local budgets. The reasons advanced for rejecting the Association's proposal for sworn employees apply equally to rejecting its proposal regarding non-sworn personnel. It has not presented any evidence to support such a large increase, amounting to a 32.82% increase over the life of the Agreement, which would place Communications Technicians into the second position on the Fire List and the third position on the Association's list. The City's offer is the same as that received by Firefighters and Battalion Chiefs, the same percentage increase over the term of the Contract to SLOCEA, and 1.5% higher than that provided Staff Officers. The increase is greater than the increase in the CPI, and competitive with respect to external comparables. Only on the Association's list does the City's proposal not meet the average. For reasons stated above, it makes no sense to grant a windfall to a single group of employees. The City's supplemental exhibits,which include the Council resolutions adopted by the City, demonstrate that the representations made by the Association are erroneous and misleading. The raise given the Police Chief, rather than "whopping" as described by the Association, was justified because the salary was below the median of cities in the survey. Even at that, the recommendation was to increase the salary range,which would not mean an immediate raise for the incumbent. It is only the opportunity to earn it over time. They advance in range only if their performance is evaluated positively and they are granted discretionary salary advancement. The Chief did receive a raise because of salary compaction between her classification and that of captain. The Study confirms that about 60%of the City's classifications are competitive, including police. While top management jobs may be difficult to fill with lateral hires, police officer positions have been filled with lateral transfers without difficulty. It interesting to note that the Association now feels that the list used in the compensation study is relevant and useful in comparing salaries. The City adopted salary adjustments for job classes that were significantly below market and for which the City has had difficulty recruiting and retaining employees. O20 U Analysis and Conclusions Fundamental differences arise in the appropriate level of increase in the second year of the Agreement, and as to the dates when the increases shall become effective in each Contract year. The City places the effective date for all of its increases save one in July of each year. The Association's demand seeks implementation of increases as of January,thus making its proposal more costly not simply from the standpoint of percentage amount, but also from the standpoint of the number of months over which the increase shall be paid. Salary demands and offers are presented within a multi-year group as part of a single proposal. As the Charter requires an issue-by-issue decision on each proposal, there is no means for adopting the City's offer in part and the Association's demand in part, regardless of the merits of particular components of each proposal. Either must be implemented in toto. The City advances the position that the Association's proposal for sworn officers must be rejected because rather than presenting an issue which could be determined in and of itself, it initially contained alternative positions contingent on whether proposals on other issues were accepted or rejected. The Charter clearly states that submissions must submit"a last offer of settlement," and thus only one offer, on each issue, and that"each issue" must be decided by itself. Accordingly, as the City suggests, a party may not submit an issue which is contingent upon the resolution of a separate issue. The question remains whether such a proposal was "fatal" to the Association's entire demand. This question must be answered in the negative. A number of reasons compel this conclusion. Perhaps the most significant centers on a question of due process. These negotiations have taken more than two and a half years. Wages and benefits of bargaining unit members which have remained stagnant at pre-2006 levels have been actually declining in value as the process drags on. They are the lynch-pins around which this Contract turns. To nullify, rather than weigh,a party's wage demand after such a long period,and essentially grant the opposing side its proposal by default, would promote protracted negotiations and a reluctance to come to terms. It would further encourage a party to keep its legal arguments against a proposal close to the vest, and postpone until the 111' hour the submission of those arguments which might convince the other side to modify demands and finalize an Agreement. The record is unclear whether the City asserted the "fatal flaw" argument consistently through the negotiations. When the Association realized that there was some logic to the City's assertions, it modified its final proposal to conform to the Charter. This is not unlike agreeing to any other part of the Contract, as has occurred in a number of instances. Preservation of the collective bargaining process here, as well as morale, are too important to be left to "gotchas." The City has not been prejudiced by this modification, and asserts that its proposal should be accepted on the merits alone. In sum, the Association has corrected the flaw contained in its original proposal, without prejudice to the City. Even if it had not, the objectionable portion of the demand is severable from the remainder so as to preserve the Association's fundamental collective bargaining right to negotiate wages. Given the Charter's requirements, the proposal must be determined without any contingency attached, and the demand weighed after it is stricken. Consequently, only that part of the Association's proposal requesting a 5.26% increase for sworn officers in the first year of the Agreement may be 21 Gconsidered as part of the Association's wage demand.' Changes in the CPI justify no less than an 8%increase through 2007,assuming wages were static. This Agreement goes two years beyond that. There is no reason to believe that the CPI in these outer years would not continue to grow at the same if not greater pace as it has in the past, particularly in light of the significant recent rise in the cost of food and energy. Thus, salary increases in the neighborhood of 12% to 14%, or slightly higher, are amply supportable on the basis of CPI alone. Both parties, however, are not interested in merely preserving the value of employee compensation. Both seek to elevate the rank of their agency from the relative market position it has occupied since before 2006. The City offers increases which would place the Association roughly in the middle of its universe. The Association proposes increases which will place it in the "85"' percentile," or top three, on its nine-agency list of comparables. There is nothing intrinsically persuasive about which relative position this Department should occupy on a selected list, especially where that position has not been'established by custom or practice. Establishing a pay scale in the top third appears no more meritorious than establishing and preserving one at average, regardless of the universe. The Association must therefore demonstrate why compensation that is above average is warranted. Simply put,they must show why their members need to be among the highest paid around. Recruitment and retention is most often cited as a rationale why employees should be paid more than their counterparts in similar agencies. Here, such problems do not to appear nearly as acute as elsewhere. Lateral transfers are common. Jobs do not stay vacant long. The City asserts that the Association's significant pay increase could only possibly be justified if the City were paying well below market rate, and was experiencing difficulties recruiting and retaining employees. Yet the Association established that there are some imminent retirements, and a need to attract from a state-wide pool that is failing to meet demand for qualified officers. While recruitment does not appear to be a problem now, at least for sworn officers, it may well become one into the future. Higher wages may attract better candidates, or at least more of them to choose from. They also encourage employees to remain with the City by placing the City among the more greener pastures in the State. Furthermore, as the Association points out, similar coastal communities such as Monterey, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara, which provide compensation at or below the average of the Gilroy 9 data set, are having difficulties recruiting sworn personnel. The City stresses that its proposal is more in line with the increases offered to other bargaining units, and should be adopted for the sake of internal consistency. However, the evidence showed that managers and supervisors, though not in a group of represented employees, recently received significant increases, in some cases between 12% and 17%. These- increases, or "adjustments," were over and above any increases that these classifications had received in 2006 and 2007. A sizeable percentage of SLOCEA members received salary adjustments as the result of a wage survey which were in addition to the 19% 'The Association's withdrawal of the alternative proposals arguably rendered this discussion moot. u they had achieved via contract negotiations. Firefighters also received compensation above the 19%level if one factors in the raises given inspectors and the 3%paramedic incentive. The Association was further able to demonstrate that the increases attained by Firefighters placed them at a level in their list of comparable agencies that was roughly equivalent to the relative position that the Association will achieve on its list of comparables should its proposal be granted. When assessed from this standpoint, the Association's proposed salary increase is consistent with that awarded to the Firefighters. The City argues that it would be "disastrous" for its internal labor relations to grant increases which were significantly greater than those granted other bargaining units, and that it would encourage others to hold out for arbitration in the hopes of getting increases of this magnitude. Nonetheless, there can be no perceived premium in protracted negotiations and in the postponement of wage increases which inflation alone would justify. Even with retroactivity,the amounts paid out in salaries for prior years are worth less than they would be if a Contract had been concluded sooner. As noted, the additional 8% which the Association requests above the City's offer is not that far different from total augmentations paid to other employees via wage increases combined with salary "adjustments." Though the City asserts that granting the Association's proposal would create an imbalance among the City's bargaining units and force it to devote a disproportionate amount of resources to the Association's members, the increases paid to unit members must be determined not only by what it has been agreed upon by other employee groups, but also by reference to overall market standards for the specific type of work which the Association's members perform. As determined below,it was concluded that the"Gilroy 9"list of comparable agencies was a more appropriate measure of relative market position than the "Chico 9" list. When the City's proposal is compared with the compensation paid in those agencies on the Gilroy 9 list,sworn personnel receive well below average compensation in the data set after the second year of the Contract. It is also below average on the combined lists through 2007. The situation is more acute when the City's proposal is applied to non-sworn personnel and compared with the agencies on the Gilroy 9 list. Parenthetically, the City's proposal for non- sworn leaves their compensation for the benchmark non-swom classification below average until July, 2007 even when compared with its own Chico 9 list. The Association was also able to demonstrate that certain elements of compensation that are paid in other jurisdictions are not compensable in the City. These included shift differential pay and special assignment pay. These augmentations provide an additional rationale for compensating sworn personnel at a level which is relatively higher than that of most comparable jurisdictions. Other support for the Association's proposal can be found in the relatively higher cost of living in the area in and around the City. A lack of affordable housing within the City has necessitated increasing the response time for the bulk of officers who must commute to work. Providing a higher level of compensation might enable some unit employees to live in closer proximity. The City acknowledges that it is able to meet the Association's demand with available resources, and does not assert that it would be fiscally irresponsible to grant the Association's proposal. Given the Charter's requirement that the matter of salary must be decided on a package basis, it is concluded that the Association's proposal, overall, most nearly conforms 23 Oto those factors detailed in the Charter. ISSUE 8: ARTICLE 8 - MASTER POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM Section 8.4 Master Police Officer [Tentative Agreement regarding subsection (3) of Section 8.4. Remaining issue concerns whether provision will apply retroactively.] City: Eligibility requirements for the position of Master Police Officer are as follows effective dentia ry-13,2965 upon the date this Agreement is formally approved by the City Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration award is issued, whichever is later. Association: Eligibility requirements for the position of Master Police Officer are as follows effective January !a, 200 ; 01, 2006: The Association maintains that the distinction between the parties' proposals is de minimis, as there is only.one officer, Gregg Dunn, who would actually be affected by the retroactive application of this provision. Dunn has worked for the City since 1994, and was hired as a lateral from another agency, Riverside, where he had worked for 15 years. While at Riverside, Dunn worked on the SWAT team for 11 years,� on assignments similar to the' SORT squad, as well as on a Narcotics Task Force. He has fulfilled all the MPO requirements save one: he is missing a third special assignment. However, while with the City, he worked on SORT and the Narcotics Task Force, but chose not to work in a third special assignment. If given credit for work while in Riverside, Dunn would achieve MPO status. The Association therefore asserts that as the cost to the City for this proposal would be relatively small, there is no justification for denying its retroactive application. The City argues that despite his time with the Department, the reason Dunn has not attained MPO status is because he has chosen not to complete a third specialty assignment. Thus, there is no compelling reason to provide him with pay he was not expecting, and no reason why he should not wait until the date that an arbitration award is entered before using his prior specialty assignment to qualify under this provision. Unlike Officer Dunn,other officers have pursued third specialty assignments and are actively working toward the MPO requirements. The Association ignores the unfairness of according him MPO status through a retroactive rule change. Applying the change prospectively to all is more equitable and fair. The Association counters that the purpose of this provision is not to punish individuals for their career choices, but to expand the availability of the benefit to those who have achieved the skills, experiences, and education necessary to qualify them for MPO, even if one of those specialty assignments was performed at a prior agency. In some sense, granting the Association's proposal on this issue will result in a minor G 24 O windfall for Officer Dunn. Nevertheless, the City was not opposed to the principle of recognizing service in other agencies in specialty assignments, and to giving credit towards attaining MPO status by virtue of such service. Officer Dunn will be in effect"made whole"for the delay in the renewal and implementation of this Agreement, not unlike other unit members will be made whole for the increases in compensation that they would have received had this Contract been concluded in due course and coincidental to the prior Agreement's expiration. Additionally, this article will be modified in such a manner as to make it consistent with the determinations and retroactivity aspects of Issues 1, 2, and 3. ISSUE 9 ARTICLE 10- OVERTIME -SWORN Withdrawn by both parties; status quo ISSUE 10: ARTICLE 10 -OVERTIME -SWORN Section 10.3 - Compensation City: A: Overtime hours shall, at the employee's option, be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. However, no employee shall accumulate and have current credit for more than 88 100 hours of compensatory time off. The Association accepts the City's proposal. C ISSUE 11: ARTICLE 10 - OVERTIME -SWORN Section 10.6 Court Time City: D. Effective upon the date this Agreement is formally approved by the City Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration award Is issued whichever is later,If a scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee is to appear, s/he shall be eligible for the minimum payment in this Section. Association: The Association accepts the City's final proposal. G 25 ISSUE 12: ARTICLE 10 - OVERTIME -SWORN G Section 10.6 Court Time City: E. Effective upon the date this Agreement is formally approved by the City Council or an arbitration award is issued, pay for a DMV hearing by telephone shall be made for actual hours worked and shall not be subject to the minimum payment in this Section. .Work time starts at scheduled subpoena time and ends at the conclusion of the employee's testimony on that day. Association: No change In-person appearances before the DMV are no longer required in all cases, and may be accomplished via telephone, as noticed on the subpoena. Over the last three years, the Department has averaged about 20 DMV appearances per year when officers received extra compensation. The amount of time it took for such an appearance averaged 45 minutes. About 30 members of the bargaining unit would be involved. On occasion, an officer working night shift who cited someone for a DUI would not be called to testify during his/her normal working hours. Lieutenants and sergeants also might be called to testify at such hearings. Their recently concluded MOA contained no such similar restrictions. Were the change not adopted here, officers would continue to receive the current minimum, pay for three hours, if they are not on duty. Officer Thomas King has been contacted for telephonic hearings during his off hours on two occasions following a graveyard shift. On one occasion, the hearing took about 40 minutes after he had gotten off at 7:00 a.m. He could not go. to sleep until after the call process, which began at 8:45. However, he did go home. Officer John Villanti also worked nights when he was called for a DMV hearing. He spent about 15 minutes at the hearing, and about one hour on stand-by. However,Villanti stated that it was unusual to be on stand-by for so long. In the combined list of 11 comparative agencies,6 agencies paid 3 hours OT minimum, and three paid 4 hours OT. Only one, Santa Maria, paid for hours worked. The City urges that court appearances involve a great deal more than telephonic ones. Appearing in uniform and commuting to the court house are required in addition to testimony. The only obligation in a telephonic hearing is to call at a particular time and present testimony. There was only one isolated instance of having to be on standby. The City's modified proposal clarifies that officers will be compensated for waiting time as well. It is an attempt to. differentiate between the court/DMV appearance compensation offered in a fair manner. Under the City's proposal, officers will not receive a windfall for a brief telephone conference. O26 I O The Association maintains that the City has not sustained its burden of proof in seeking to change the status quo. There is no identifiable.reason for the disparity between ranks when performing identical work. This contrary to any notions of fair compensation for DMV telephonic appearances. The only difference for the City is attire., which the Association maintains is a de minimis task in another context. A graveyard officer still has to stay awake, interfering with the ability to get sufficient rest before the next shift. It is precisely this type of. inconvenience that the compensation for court time is supposed to address. The City counters that the disparity between sergeants and officers is justifiable, as there are far fewer sergeants, and disparities elsewhere, such as in uniform allowances. Ultimately,the proposal makes good economic sense. The impact on free time of a DMV court appearance is negligible and does not warrant pay beyond the time worked. Analysis and Conclusions Comparisons both internal and external demonstrate that the distinction between telephonic appearances and court appearances is one which is recognized only by the City. A substantial portion of other jurisdictions is willing to compensate their sworn officers with guarantees of three or four hours, regardless of the type of appearance. The City is also willing to compensate staff officers at the three-hour level. This indicates that this level of compensation is widely recognized and acknowledged as fair and reasonable for the inconvenience of performing work while one would otherwise be off duty. Accordingly, the Association's proposal most nearly conforms to the Charter factors, and will be adopted. ISSUE 13: ARTICLE 10: OVERTIME—SWORN Article 10.10 Overtime-Assignment City: (New Section) B. An officer may decline a non-emergency overtime shift if s/he has worked an overtime shift of at least eight hours in the last fourteen days. if no volunteers are available from the list, the Watch Commander may then move up to the next least senior officer on that shift for mandatory overtime. Association: No change This proposal is intended to address the concerns about mandatory overtime when there are not enough volunteers to fill the assignments. Typically,the most junior officers volunteer for overtime work. To avoid the possibility that they work an excess of overtime, the City proposes to allow the lower seniority officer to decline a non-emergency shift if they had already worked an extra shift in the past two weeks. "Non-emergency" was something defined as projected or planned overtime, meaning a shift filling in for some one out on leave. "Planned overtime," under Section A, is filled from an overtime list. 01 27 Strobridge testified, however, that absolute seniority has been the paradigm in the Department. Junior officers, typically needing the extra compensation,volunteer for overtime. The City's proposal forecloses the Department's ability to use half of the total staffing in the Department, as there are two shifts, and a list for each shift. If the Department may only designate overtime from a shift, it forecloses them from working on days off. It also conflicts with the nonsworn overtime provisions and the seniority clause. However, Capt. Parkinson stated that the practice was to get someone voluntarily first, regardless of what shift they happened to work on. If there were no volunteers,the Department tries to work within the shift, and has followed this practice for the past six years. The City asserts that its proposal provides additional rights to officers and addresses safety concerns. The Association surprisingly opposes the change,which would help prevent overburdening less senior officers with overtime. The second part of the proposal prevents serious safety concerns from arising when an officer who works nights is forced to work on a day shift by virtue of strict seniority. It would not prevent officers from volunteering. It simply addresses the safety concerns which arise when officers are ordered to work overtime shifts that are opposite their current schedules. The provision is important to allow the City to maintain positive morale among less senior officers in conjunction with the highest safety and service standards. The Association maintains that this change to the status quo is unjustified, and seeks to correct a non-existent problem. The provision would also conflict with Article 18, which states that "overall seniority in a specific job classification . . . will prevail as the standard" for determining"days off,vacation,holidays,and shift selection." The seniority system should only be modified when there is a tangible, demonstrable reason for doing so. The City was unable to cite one instance where a junior officer was overburdened with overtime, or where safety issues were raised. The evidence demonstrates the opposite: that the City permits officers to sign up for voluntary overtime even when it is opposite their regular shift. The City has a longstanding requirement to give an officer at least ten hours' rest between shifts. These factors mitigate the purported problem. In addition, the Association urges that the proposal would create an inequity between sworn and non-sworn, in that overtime assignment provisions are currently identical. No evidence was submitted as to why the two groups should be treated differently. The City argues that the language of Article 18(Seniority)is narrowed to certain aspects of employment such as vacation, holidays, and shift assignments. No mention is made of overtime assignments, thus giving rise to the implication that the parties did not contemplate using seniority as a controlling basis in assigning overtime. The City's concerns are not trivial. It has had problems with the least senior person being overwhelmed with overtime. Analysis and Conclusions The Association maintains that the City's proposal runs counter to the Contract's recognition of seniority rights. However, as the City points out, these seniority rights apply to certain discrete situations, and not to the assignment of mandatory overtime. The thrust of the 0 28 Association's position appears to be a concern that seniority that has been earned will not be respected in the event that a junior officer is able to decline a mandatory overtime assignment. In so arguing, the Association is seeking to implement an absolute right where none had existed previously. The City's proposal allows it a degree of flexibility in assigning overtime, and has the legitimate effect of shielding the most junior officers from excessive overtime and the morale issues which result from it. The Association claims that the proposal unduly restricts overtime assignments to those on a particular shift, foreclosing officers from working on their days off. Nothing in the language of the proposal suggests that officers wishing to work on those days cannot signify their interest by volunteering. The City's proposal meets a legitimate safety and operational need. It also preserves seniority rights to the extent that mandatory overtime, when no volunteers are available for it, will be assigned to the least senior individual on theshiftwho has not worked on overtime shift in the previous two weeks. The City's proposal thus most nearly conforms to the Charter factors. ISSUE 14: ARTICLE 11 - OVERTIME - NON-SWORN Status quo— Proposals withdrawn by both parties ISSUE 15: ARTICLE 11 - OVERTIME - NON-SWORN Section 11.3 Compensation City: A. Overtime hours shall, at the employees option, be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. Maximum accrual of compensatory time shall be 480 hears for GernmuMeation 240 hours for all ether non-sworn classifications. Association: No change' In a 2004 supplemental agreement, the City agreed to increase the number of accruable hours from 240 to 480. Overtime in dispatch during 2007 totaled 2,182.75 hours. Only one communications tech has accumulated more than 240 hours, with that individual at 262.06 hours. The next three closest were at 203.19, 178.34 and 116.2 hours, while the remaining dispatchers were well below those levels. None of the departments in any comparative district have comp time for dispatchers at the level which currently exists in the City. In point of fact, even an accrual level of 240 hours for dispatchers is more than double that of any other agency, save Petaluma. °In its rebuttal,the Association submitted a modification to its proposal on Issue 15 which would have allowed accrued time off to be reduced to 360,rather than 480 hours. As discussed below,this revised offer may not be considered in this Award. 29 O Dispatcher Shaana Lichty testified that the same staffing issues which existed in 2004 continue to exist at present. The City knows a year in advance how much time the dispatchers plan to take off. The master schedule issues in September. Because of staffing shortages, there are few opportunities to take time off which has not previously been requested. The large accrual enables dispatchers to take time off to deal with family medical issues. Dispatchers are primarily female, and may need the time for pregnancies. Lichty stated that there would also be a reluctance among employees to sign up for overtime if there were a cap on accruals. Nevertheless, coverage problems would be exacerbated, and more comp time/overtime required, if a dispatcher took a large amount of time off, such as two or three months. The City points out-that the City's proposal would maintain an accrual cap more than twice the average of 106 hours in comparable cities. Allowing employees to accrue high levels of comp time is potentially very costly. It creates large banks of unmanageable liabilities when employees separate from City service. This comp time becomes more expensive as salaries increase over time. The accruals also can create scheduling nightmares if employees take large amounts of time off. The communications unit already suffers from staffing issues,which would be exacerbated by the large leave banks. As there is only one employee with a large leave balance over the 240-hour threshold, the proposal would not be difficult to implement. The Association asserts that the City failed to sustain its burden of proof in seeking to alter the status quo. The same staffing issues exist now as they did in 2004, when the number, of hours was increased to 480. As noted, in its rebuttal,the Association offered a compromise which would reduce maximum accrual to 360 hours. It also asserted that the City proposal would have a negative impact on one member of the bargaining unit, who worked long hours to assist in the staffing crisis,given the incentive provided by the high number of hours she could accrue. Analysis and Conclusions The external comparisons demonstrated that the number of hours dispatchers were permitted to accumulate was inordinately high. The City has offered convincing proof that continuing to allow that level of accumulation would aggravate the problem the level was designed to solve,i.e., staffing shortages. Should a dispatcher take off as much as 12 weeks, this would necessarily require other dispatchers to work overtime to fill in..Additionally, as the City asserts, a 480 hour accumulation would create a large unfunded liability, compensated at a rate which would steadily increase as wages rose. Although the Association maintains that conditions are the same as when the 480 accrual was implemented, the City has had the benefit of the experience of working under the proposal, and has discovered that it has not worked to its advantage. The Association's rebuttal offer to lower the accumulation to 360 hours may not be considered. While there is no apparent obstacle in the Charter to a party withdrawing a proposal or signifying tentative agreement prior to the issuance of the Award, the Charter directs the parties to submit a"last"offer of settlement. The Award may only be based on that last offer. Notably, the Charter provides the parties with ample opportunity to present and try to come to terms on any subsequent modifications after the Award has been issued. 30 O There is an employee who has accumulated in excess of 240 hours, and the adoption of the City's proposal arguably reneges on the promise that it made that she would be able to accumulate(and thus use)such hours. Reducing the amount removes the opportunity that the time might be taken all at once, thus providing for an extended leave. It also denies . dispatchers the chance to build up a large bank of time to be used for unforeseen circumstances, such as health issues. Nonetheless, the value of the hours worked will not be eliminated, as employees will be able to cash out whatever amount exceeds 240. Additionally, it is somewhat speculative to assume that the Department, due to operational necessity, could afford to grant a leave for as long as 12 weeks(or longer if combined with other leave), or even that the employee would wish to take the time all at once. The City's proposal thus most nearly conforms to those factors traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages,hours, benefits and terms and conditions of public and private employment. ISSUE 16: ARTICLE 11 -OVERTIME - NON-SWORN Withdrawn—status quo ISSUE 17: ARTICLE 11 —OVERTIME NON-SWORN Section. 11.6 Court Time The parties have reached tentative agreement on the following new language: C" D. If a scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee is to appear,s/he shall be eligible for the minimum . payment in this Section. ISSUE 18: ARTICLE 11 - OVERTIME - NON-SWORN Withdrawn — Status Quo ISSUES 19 & 20: ARTICLE 14 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE City: The educational incentive pay plan shall continue as described below for sworn and non-sworn personnel for the term of this agreement. A. BASIC BENEFITS. Education incentive pay shall not begin until one year after employment with the City of San Luis Obispo, but credit will be given for approved education obtained prior to that time. Effective January 1, 2007,the basic benefit will consist of one-half step above the base salary for possession of an A.A. or equivalent degree from an accredited community or junior college, or 60 or more semester units, or a 31 City-approved equivalent; one full step for a B.A. or equivalent degree from an accredited college or university. Association: The educational incentive pay plan shall continue as described below for sworn and non-swom personnel for the term of this agreement. A. BASIC BENEFITS. Education incentive pay shall not begin until one year after employment with the City of San Luis Obispo, but credit will be given for approved education obtained prior to that time. The basic benefit for employees hired prier to duly 1, ,will consist of an adjustment equal to one-half step above the base salary for possession of an Intermediate POST certificate, A.A.,or equivalent degree from an accredited community orjunior college,or 60 or more semester units,or a City-approved equivalent;an adjustment equal to one full step for an Advanced POST certificate,B.A.or equivalent degree from an accredited college or university. Association president Strobridge testified that the Educational Incentive for sworn officers was originally eliminated when the MPO program was adopted in the 1988-93 Agreement. Because there are additional requirements beyond certificates for MPO's, Strobridge did not believe that educational incentive was folded into that program. The additional requirements include three specialty assignments, as well as one year at Step 6 of the salary range, which itself takes 6 years to attain. C11 Both the intermediate and advanced certificates require a certain number of years experience, in addition to possession of or eligibility for the Basic Certificate. An Intermediate Certificate may be obtained with a Bachelor's Degree and 2 years experience,or an Associate Degree and 4 years experience. It may also be obtained by various combinations of Education and Training Points, .coupled with a certain number of years of experience: the lower the number of points accumulated, the greater the amount of experience is required. Advanced Certificates may be obtained with 4 years experience and a Master's Degree, 6 years experience and a bachelor's degree, and nine years experience with an A.A. degree. The 2004-2006 Contract reinstated educational incentives for non-swom personnel who had not been grandfathered. Due to fiscal constraints during that collaborative negotiations process, Strobridge did not seek the incentive for sworn officers at that time. However, an inequity has been created. As indicated, both the City and the Association agree that educational incentive pay should be provided to sworn as well as non-sworn personnel. Where they differ is on the criteria for eligibility, as well as the date on which the proposal becomes effective. The Association seeks to add both Intermediate and Advanced POST certificates to those criteria. There are educational incentives for POST certificates in all of the 15 agencies used in 0 32 comparability surveys except two, Monterey and Petaluma.' A good number of these provide for a maximum of 5% for the Advanced certificate,which is roughly equal to the two half-steps (2.53% each) proposed as incentives by the Association. An MPO with a bachelor's degree may earn a combined 10% incentive. Another agency is at 7%, while two more are at 7.5%. Other jurisdictions provide a dollar amount, which may equal between 2% and 9% of base salary. However,the large majority of these agencies do not have an MPO program,which the Association views as the equivalent of a corporal or police agent rank. Strobridge added that many POST courses can be taken and training points earned while on duty, and that the intent of the Association's proposal was to allow the college credits thus earned to apply towards earning the incentive. The City asserts that it has chosen to reward officers for Advanced POST training through the MPO program. The Association's proposal, it argues, is not supported by comparables and would undermine the MPO program and the core purpose of the educational incentive, which is to encourage employees to complete college degrees. Officers would be tempted to simply complete POST training rather than complete the additional requirements of the MPO program. Only two of the cities surveyed by the City, Gilroy and Santa Cruz, provide identical increases for POST certificates as college degrees, and most differentiate between the two. Only three(Davis, Napa,and Santa Maria)offer education incentives for both POST certificates and advanced degrees simultaneously. None provides paying twice for the POST certificates, as does the Association's proposal,and no other agency provides for a 10% increase for an advance POST certificate. None of the comparable agencies on the Fire List have an MPO program. As some POST training is done on City time, it makes no sense to provide an incentive and pay for such training.The City's proposal enables MPO status based Con advanced POST certificate, plus educational incentive based on advanced degrees. The Association bears the burden of demonstrating that the current language should be changed to include POST certificates as part of the educational incentives. It has not put forth any evidence to suggest that such certificates are comparable to A.A. or bachelor's degrees.. The City believes that both types of training . are important, and has thus provided encouragement for such attainments through the education incentive and the MPO program. With regard to the effective date of this proposal,the City argues that the Association's proposal is problematic because it does not state an effective date. Depending on which proposal on Issue 2 is accepted, the Association's proposal might actually provide a lesser benefit with respect to retroactivity. The Association argues that all but two of the combined eleven survey agencies provide educational incentives for POST certificates. Accordingly, the inclusion of POST certificates in an educational incentive program is standard in the industry. While the City argues that including these certificates will undermine its education goals, there is no data in the record indicating that the inclusion of the benefit will increase its availability to Association members. Some years of experience are required for an Intermediate or Advanced certificate. Coupling "Education Points," which are earned by acquiring college credits and experience, has 'These provide incentives for BS and AA degrees only. 33 transformed the POST Certificate process into one that encourages sworn personnel to gain a greater level of education. Thus, the City's goals to provide incentives for education are easily met by including these certificates in the program. Analysis and Conclusions As there was no proof presented on the fiscal impact of this proposal, it must be assumed that it will be minimal. The evidence amply demonstrated that the great bulk of comparable agencies provide an educational incentive for POST Intermediate and Advanced Certificates. Compensation for these. Certificates through incentive pay is thus a widely accepted and typical benefit among law enforcement personnel. The City's principal argument against the adoption of the Association's proposal,which includes POST certificates among the eligibility criteria forthe incentive,is that itwill discourage individuals from seeking advanced education and/or from participating in the MPO program. Yet the POST Regulations permit college degrees, college courses and training courses to be used interchangeably in satisfying certificate criteria. An officer with a BA and two years of experience meets the qualification for an Intermediate Certificate. So does an officer with 15 Education points, 15 Training Points, and 8 years of experience. The City asserts that the Association has not shown that such certificates are comparable to A.A. or bachelor's degrees. POST views them otherwise.. One can get a POST certificate with some education and training and a lot of experience, or one can reach that goal more quickly with more education. Either way, O employees are encouraged to enhance their knowledge and applicable skills. The Association explained that it wished to get credit for the incentive when participating in City-directed training. The City urges that there is no reason to provide an incentive where the officer is being paid. The structure of the POST Certificate program indicates that it was designed to do exactly that: enable officers to work toward incentives while being trained on the job. As noted, POST allows experience to substitute for formal classroom instruction. The City maintains that including POST in this provision will lessen enthusiasm for one of the"purposes"of the incentive, the completion of college degrees. While the completion of a degree is certainly may be one purpose of an educational incentive, it is not the only purpose. Officers are clearly encouraged to take college courses, as this will shorten the time needed to meet the Certificate requirements, and enable them to start earning the incentive that much faster. The City expresses concern that providing compensation for POST Certificates alone will lead to diminished interest in its more rigorous MPO program. The MPO incentives are still intact, and still require an Advanced Certificate. The compensation offered remains over and above what one would receive on the basis of the certificate alone. The Association's proposal to include POST certificates in the educational incentive is in general conformity with provisions in agreements in comparable agencies. In Issue 20, the City sought to make the benefit retroactive only from January 1, 2007. This will lessen the financial impact of the provision somewhat,and is a reasonable compromise given the fact that 01 34 the broader applications of the Association's proposal have been adopted. ISSUE 21: ARTICLE 14 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE City: Section F. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 1. The basic benefit for non-sworn employees hired on or after duly 1, 1981 prior to January 1, 2008, shall be a five percent step increase for a period of one fiscal year if during the previous fiscal year the employee has successfully completed -i.e., grades of "C" or better in all courses.— a minimum of nine semester units of college level classroom work,or City-approved equivalent,approved by the Chief of Police,provided that this benefit shall be payable only for classroom work done after completion of the probationary period. 2. Employees hired after duly 4, 1981 shell be elig.blefer eermpemaistiom as set forth Quaffiffleefien on a fiseal year basis with first qualifies�om dtirimg 2805 2V00,06 2. The maximum benerit under this article is the equivalent to the one-step increase for possession of one B.A. or equivalent degree(5.26%) 3. Sworn and non-sworn employees are eligible to participate in the Tuition Reimbursement program as set forth in City Policy. Association: 2. Employees hired after July 1, 1981 shall be eligible for compensation as set forth in paragraph A effective Jenroary-13, 2965, January 1, 2006 with the following requirements: Qualifiesfion on a fiscal yeaf besis With first qualifiestion dufing 2005 2666 . • Tuition reimbursement as set forth in City policy Strobridge testified that the reason fo deleting the 3 semester unit requirement was that none of the comparable agencies had an ongoing course requirement to maintain the incentive. Experience has shown that the continuing qualification issue has become problematic. For example,dispatchers have critical staffing issues. If they are attending classes to maintain the benefit; they are not available for call back. A number of employees are duplicating prior work, finding it difficult to locate additional courses which qualify. The City also must pay for the work under the tuition reimbursement program. Lichty corroborated this information. She has a BA in English from UCSB, yet must continue to take course to qualify for the incentive. She is O 35 { even taking courses that she once taught. 'Shift rotations also make it difficult to find courses G which fit into her schedule over two rotations. Both sides obviously agree that there are convincing reasons for eliminating the annual qualification requirement. The City argues that it met the Association halfway and met the concerns expressed by one of its members about this requirement. Under its proposal,current employees hired before January 1, 2008 will keep the benefit. The City does not seek to eliminate the benefit for any current unit employees. The program from the City's standpoint was a nightmare to administer, as it required a yearly assessment of qualifications. It maintains that the two types of educational incentives operate in a way which could lead to ridiculous results. For example, if an employee had an AA degree and was enrolled in 9 units, the employee would earn more than someone with a bachelor's degree. It rewards those who do not work towards a degree., The language changes address this issue, as well as the concerns expressed by one unit member that they would lose the benefit. Administration difficulties would be phased out as current, non-sworn personnel complete their degrees. The Association responds that the City is eliminating a significant benefit, although it maintained that at the outset that its proposal was a simplification. The final proposal it presented at impasse was simply that. The new proposal was targeted at a single Association member, and is a thinly disguised form of regressive bargaining. While the City claimed simplification, there is only this one member who is eligible for the benefit. The City has failed to sustain its burden of proving that a change to the status quo is warranted. 01Its modified final proposal eliminates the benefit as it applies to future non-sworn employees who have not obtained a degree. It runs counter to the City's position in response to Issues 19 and 20, that it values educational achievement. The City also failed to produce any evidence that employees use the provision to "double dip" and take advantage of the incentives under the scenario described. Analysis and Conclusions The City proposes to eliminate, or more properly sunset, the educational incentive earned by non-sworn employees for successfully completing nine semester units in the previous fiscal year. Unlike the circumstances presented for Issue 19,where POST certificate, A.A. and B.A.. incentives were a common benefit in other agencies, neither side presented evidence on whether the benefit was available for non-sworn personnel in comparable jurisdictions. While the City bears the burden of proving a sufficient basis for changing the status quo, the absence of evidence on the point shows that the benefit is not a typical one. Notwithstanding the elimination of the current year 3 credit requirement,the program would still be difficult to administer,requiring monitoring each year to determine whether employees would qualify. The City is willing to continue allow current employees to remain eligible for the benefit. Although the Association maintains that City's position is contrary to that urged in support of other educational incentives, the City will clearly encourage employees to complete their degrees, or to have them when hired, by implementing changes to the Basic Benefits which will result from this process. The City's proposal on this issue is accordingly adopted. 36 C I OISSUES 22& 23: ARTICLE 14 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT Section E. NON-APPLICABILITY. Educational incentives shall generally not be paid for education on City time. However, if the City sends an employee for training on City time and college-level credits are earned during that training,those credits shall count toward education incentive. The education incentive will be removed if the employee is promoted to a position that does not entitle employees to such incentives. ISSUES 24 & 25: ARTICLE 16 - HEALTH CARE INSURANCE City: Section 16.1 CONTRIBUTION Effective December 2006 (for the January 2007 premium), City shall contribute the monthly amounts as set forth below for Cafeteria Plan benefits for each regular,full time employee covered by this agreement. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City's contribution. Employee: $479.00 Employee Plus One $855.00 Family $1,133.00 The Cafeteria Plan amount is inclusive of mandatory dental, vision and life coverage. Effective December 2007, (for the January 2008 premium), the contributions shall be as follows: Employee Only: $507.00 Employee Plus One $900.00 Family $1,188.00 Effective December 2008, (for the January 2009 premium), the contributions shall be as follows: Employee Only: $533.00 Employee Plus One $968.00 Family $1,277.00 The Cafeteria Plan amount is inclusive of mandatory dental, vision and life coverage. Q 37 O Employees shall be eligible for the City contributions set forth above based on the number of dependents they enroll in the PERS Health Benefit Program. Employees opting out of health coverage as provided for below, shall also reeeive payment at the ernpleyee level eMY receive a contribution as described in Section 16.2.8 below.10 Association: Section 16.1 CONTRIBUTION City shall contribute the monthly amounts as set forth below for Cafeteria Plan benefits for each regular, full time employee covered by this agreement. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City's contribution. Effective the first full pay period of December 2006 and each subsequent December first full pay period thereafter, the City contribution shall include the 100% employee and 90%Dependant formula asset forth in the Association August 29, 2006 Cafeteria Plan Insurance Proposal. Employee: $478.22 Employee Plus One $879.67 Family $1,152.20 The Cafeteria Plan amount is inclusive of mandatory dental, life, and vision Ocoverage. Two bargaining units within the Fire Department have a formula which provides for prospective increases in a tiered benefit structure. Rates are published in September and October. The Association believes that a formula is best mechanism to capture the prospective increases, and wishes to more or less guarantee that the premium for employee only will be fully covered. It includes dental, vision and life insurance and the Cafeteria Plan for purposes of evaluation. Information obtained from PERS and the City produced an average of the 2007 rates for the three health plans in which members are enrolled plus the remaining cafeteria components. The Association's proposal is based on these averages for employee only, employee plus one and family coverage, the latter two being paid at 100% of employee only plus 90% of the difference between the tier level and the employee only averages. Applying the formula to premium amounts for 2008,the City would contribute$504.05 for employee only, $931.99 for employee plus one, and $1,221.42. The 2008 calculations included a 4t° health care plan recently made available to members. The combined list of survey cities shows that the average health plan contribution at the family level was $1,086.13 for 2006, and $1,207.56 for 2007. Santa Maria, at $545.71 and "The Employer's opt-out proposal is designated Issue 27. G 38 \} $586.66, was the lowest; Napa at $1,284.64 in 2006, and Santa Cruz at $1,473.99 in 2007, �J were the highest in those respective years. In the City, the 2008 insurance benefit for firefighters and battalion chiefs was $824 a month, $870 a month for SLOCEA, and under a tiered system for the Police Staff Officers Association, $489, $889 and $1,178. As noted, after the first contract year's contributions are specified, the firefighters and battalion chiefs use a formula to determine contributions for succeeding years. For firefighters, it is "one-half of the average percentage change for family coverage in the PERS health plans available in San Luis Obispo County." Should a single employee opt out in the units which do not have a tiered system, they would be at a disadvantage because of a lower payout. The City derived its compensation numbers using the same formula for successive years that it uses in other public safety units. That method splits the cost of the average increase between the City and the employee. As different units have different plans available, the percentages would not necessarily be the same for every unit. However, in those units . where a formula is applied, the employee only category would have sufficient contribution to pay for their entire benefit. The City's 2007 number includes the average cost increases in prior years back to 2006, the last time the contribution was set. For those years, the average cost increase was 21.5%. Thus,the City's proposed increase for contributions was 10.7%, bringing the employee only and opt out number up to$470 per month, etc. It was slightly higher due to an adjustment to make it equal to the SLOPSOA contribution. The figures for the years following are based on a 3.2% increase and a 7.5% increase. The figure for 2009 was based on a projection. If Othe increase turns out to be less, the proposal would not change. Strobridge agreed that some time in the past rates were based on a formula that was incorporated into the MOA. However, as the Association moved from a flat dollar amount to a tiered contribution, the formula language was removed. The City's raised _contribution in its final proposal for 2008 fully covers the single employee. It points out that the Association has done no calculation for 2009. The City argues that its proposal for these two years is based on an equitable concept where the health premiums for single employees are paid at 100%,while increases in premiums for employee plus one and family coverage are shared equally. Both employees and the City share the burden of ever-increasing health-care costs. Co-pays are minimal. The City further urges that the formula concept has several serious flaws. It is confusing and will take several years to work out.There is already confusion regarding the unworkability of this formula when applied to Retiree Health proposals. It will be a constant source of dispute that 90% is not 90% of the dependent coverage, but rather 90% of the difference between employee and employee plus dependent coverage. No other agency in the set of comparables has such a convoluted benefit. The Association has the burden of establishing by preponderance of the evidence that its proposal should be granted. Lack of evidence on this point demonstrates a failure to meet that burden. 0 39 CThe proposals for 2008 premiums are very close. Single employee rates are actually higher under the City plan. The Association's proposal should be rejected because it will cause too many problems in the final year of the Contract. Its formula will saddle the City with an unknown liability moving forward, forcing the City to bear the entire risk of future increases. The Association's proposal places all the risk on the City, while under the City's proposal the risk is shared. The City bears the risk that the premium will be lower than projected, the employees bear the risk that it might be higher. Finally, the City maintains that the proposal is too difficult to implement. PERS does not release its premium costs for the next year until October. This would prevent the City from having hard numbers to complete their annual budget. Additionally, the proposal refers to a separate document. The parties may be familiar with that document, but it is uncertain whether the leadership in 2009 will be so familiar. The Association argues that internal and external comparables support the conclusion that its proposal is reasonable and justified. The City's fixed amount is set without regard to potentially escalating health care costs. The City's proposal thus causes an erosion in benefits over the life of the Contract, while the Association's provides a method of maintaining the benefit at a reasonable level. The formula is not confusing, as shown by the Union's example provided in Exhibit 247. Analysis and Conclusions Both parties present good faith solutions to a problem over which neither has any control, namely, the ever-escalating cost of health care insurance. Interestingly enough, the parties' view of a reasonable benefit level is fairly equal, although hindsight has been dispositive in determining benefits for years which have already elapsed. These levels are also generous when compared with external agencies and even with public safety units in the City. The point of departure for the parties is, however,a fundamental one:who is to bear the burden of the risk of the inevitable increase in premiums? In one sense at least, both parties are seeking to change the status quo. They are both seeking to augment premiums from the current levels. However,the Association's proposal seeks to change the method by which benefits are calculated from a negotiated flat dollar amount to a formula where the actual level of benefits is unstated. As the City points out, this method places the risk of premium increases entirely on the City. The Association thus bears the burden of showing that its formulaic approach is a reasonable one,considering the Charter factors. While units within the City use a formula to determine medical premium levels, the formula is that more or less applied by the City to determine the levels here,with the exception of the final year of the Agreement. Both firefighters and supervising police officers share the increase, as each year their benefits are modified "by an amount equal to one-half of the average percentage change for family coverage in the PERS health plans available in San Luis Obispo County." Battalion chief MOA language is similar, but takes. an,average of the increases "available" health plans, rather than simply family coverage. In the final year of its proposal,based on its own projections,the City has set a benefit amount. The Association has C� 40 not shown that its estimate of potential costs is arbitrary or unreasonable. The equitable arguments in favor of the City's proposal are considerable. The cost of employee only premiums is covered in the first two years, a goal which the Association's proposal is designed to meet. In the third year, the cost of any increases is equally borne by employees and the City, and barring some catastrophe, will only require a modest co-pay, if any. Other considerations with regard to the City's approach contribute to its acceptability under the Charter factors: Although the Association maintains that its formula is not a confusing one; unlike the formulae in other public safety contracts, it is not spelled out. It is unclear what the-August 29, 2006 Cafeteria Plan Insurance Proposal" said, as it was not put in evidence. Moreover, the benefit level cannot be calculated without reference to a specific sum. This presents a significant drawback to the City,which cannot budget for the amount but has to engage in some guesswork to determine how much money is needed to fund the benefit. Accordingly, it is concluded that the City's proposal is more closely aligned with the factors in the Charter. ISSUE 26: ARTICLE 16 - HEALTH CARE INSURANCE Section 16.2 - Insurance Coverage City: A. PERS Health Benefit Program The Ci has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program Public City P P 9 ( Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA))with the"unequal contribution option" at the PERS minimum contribution rates, $88:89 97.00 per month for active employees and$20.38 72.75 for retirees as of January 1,2008. The City's contribution toward retirees shall be increased by 5%per year of the City's contribution for the active employees multiplied by the number of years the City has been in the PEMHCA program until such time as the contributions for employees and retirees are equal. The City's contribution will come out of that amount the City currently contributes to employees as part of the Cafeteria Plan. The cost of the City's participation in PERS will not require the City to expend additional funds toward health insurance beyond what is already provided. In summary, this cost and any increases will be borne by the employees. Association: A. PERS Health Benefit Program "unequal Fates, eurrently$48.40 retirees shall be inefeased by 5% per year of the Gity's eontfibution for the setive 41 empleyees until sueh tirme as the eontributions for employees and retifees are equal. employees as part of the Gafetefia PI n. The eest of the Gity's partieipation in PERS will not require the Gity to expemd additional funds toward health insuranee beyomd who , this cost and any inereases will be borne by the employees. [New] The City provides health benefits through the California Public Employee's Retirement System (Ca1PERS) Health Benefits Program under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). The City's contribution shall be an equal amount forboth employees and annuitants, but may not be less than the following. • January 1. 2006 $64.60 per month • January 1. 2007 $80.80 per month • January 1. 2008 $97.00 per month The Association argues that the purpose of its proposal is to secure compliance with Government Code §22892. That code provision sets minimum contribution levels for entities participating in PERS system health plans in the amounts specified by the proposal. The City began its participation under PEMHCA in 1993. At the time, it had an option whether to make equal or unequal contributions on behalf of annuitants. The law was modified in 2007 to :increase the maximum contribution where they are unequal by multiplying the annual percentage increase by the number of years that the agency was in the PEMHCA system. The Association's goal is to reach equal contribution for retirees. Comparable agencies vary as to whether they have equal or unequal contribution. However, one agency entered PEMHCA in 1986, so that the contributions would still be equal for both groups of employees. The City asserts that the Association has failed to explain how adding the new Contract language would modify the current relationship between PERS and the City. City enrollment is governed by Contract and by City resolution. The City Council resolution provided that its enrollment would be under the unequal contribution option. The relationship between the City and PERS cannot be changed by any provision in the Contract between the City and the Association. The Association may attempt to bargain for greater contributions from the City towards the cost of retiree health care, as it has done in Issue 28. However, it cannot change the minimum that the City is required to pay PERS. The language in the Contract reflects the status of the relationship between the City and PERS. The Association's proposal must be rejected because it would misrepresent that relationship. The City further asserts that language in the Association's proposal is problematic as A deletes language that clarifies that the City's payment comes out of the cafeteria contribution for employees. The Association has not put forth any evidence justifying such an expensive change. The City's proposal includes current minimums required under the unequal plan. The 42 difference between the two contributions will equalize in about 2013, according to the City's C calculations, the 20"'year it has been enrolled in PEMHCA. Analysis and Conclusions Minimum contributions for a portion of the cost of providing benefit coverage for employees are set byGovemment Code§22892. The Association's proposal spells out what those minimum contributions were in 2006 and 2007, thus indicating that the increases are to be retroactive. The City's proposal only states the contribution amount for 2008, yet it is obliged by statute to provide the 2006 and 2007 contributions in the amounts set forth in the Association's proposal. In otherwords,while the City's proposal does not indicate retroactivity for rate changes, such changes are required by statute. Nor does the City's proposal set forth a contribution rate for 2009, even though the statute requires the contribution to be "adjusted annually by the [Board of Administration of PERS] to reflect any change in the medical care component of the Consumer Price Index and shall be rounded to the nearest dollar." This proposal accordingly contains an ambiguity which needs to be rectified. Nonetheless, the Association's proposal represents a fundamental change in the contribution level for annuitants, requiring it to be equal to that provided for employees. The City maintains that its contract with PERS was made on an "unequal contribution" basis, and that modifying the Collective Bargaining Agreement in the manner the Association suggests could not have an impact on its relationship with PERS. Thus, if the Association's proposal were adopted, the City would necessarily have to renegotiate its arrangement with PERS, if possible, and pass the necessary resolution. Moreover, as the City points out, its proposal makes clear that its contribution"will be borne by employees." The elimination of this language carries the implication that it will not. Because the Association proposal is a change in the status quo, it bears the burden of proving that its changes are consistent with the criteria set forth in the Charter. External comparisons were inconclusive on the issue. There was no particular pattern among PERS health plan participating comparable agencies regarding equal versus unequal contribution. Some had it, while others did not. No evidence was offered with Hurd to contribution levels within the City. Nor was there any indication of the expense that the proposal might entail. It is noteworthy that contributions will become equal in any event by operation of law,four years after the Contract under consideration has expired. As the Association has not sustained its burden of proof on this issue, the City's proposal will be adopted. ISSUE 27: ARTICLE 16 - HEALTH CARE INSURANCE Section 16.2 - Insurance Coverage B. Health Insurance Coverage Optional Participation City: Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program and may receive the unused portion of the City's O 43 O Cafeteria Plan contribution 'of $479.00 per month (after dental, vision and life insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City's Cafeteria Plan. Those benefits.employees wall also be assessed $416.00 per month to be p1seed im the Retiree I lealth Insurance Amount This seeotint will be used to fund the Gity's eentfibution toward Fund and the Administrative Gosts. 116wev6r,there as mo requirernemt that these fumds betisedexelus*velyfo this iDurpose nor any guarantee that they wiH be suffleient to fund retiree health eosts, although they will be used for negotiated employee Association: Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program and may receive the unused portion of the City's contribution (after dental and vision insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City's Cafeteria Plan. Those employees will also be assessed$16.00 per month tod be p1seed in the Retiree I lealth Insurance Aeectint. This secot I int will be used to fund Emple ee's Gontingeney Reserve Fund and the Administrative Gosts. 1 lowever,there ;equirement that these funds be used exelusively for this purpose nor any guarantee that th eey wto fundre`,"ree, health eests, although they will be used for negotiated ernployee benefits. Those employees who were not covered under PEMHCA were still being charged for participation. The Association sought a clarification from PERS on the issue,which informed the Association that there was no such requirement placed on employees.. Both the City and the Association's proposals accordingly delete the language which refers to A.. What the parties do not agree on is whether there shall be a cap on the benefit based on the single-only rate for 2007. The City argues that its language is an equitable compromise that addresses its concern about the rising cost of health care, as well as removes the $16 assessment that was viewed as unfair. The current open-ended provision could result in windfall to employees and a significant liability for the City. A defined amount will assist in budget projections, as well as limit liability. It also benefits those who stay in City plans, as it enables the City to put health care dollars toward health coverage, rather than provide a windfall to employees. The City's proposal,it asserts, makes good economic sense,and treats all employees fairly. Among the combined 15-agency list of comparables, only four agencies do not address the issue in their agreements. The highest payout is $1121 plus dental in Davis. The next highest is Petaluma at $970, then Monterey at $470, with a number of agencies below that. The Association responds that the City is seeking to establish a quid pro quo for the$16 assessment elimination by establishing a cap. It has failed in its burden of proof, as there was no evidence at the hearing in support of such a cap: no internal or external data or financial analysis. The number of people receiving the benefit was not shown. The City's proposal was supported by no evidence or justification other than it prefers to have a cap. O44 I Analysis and Conclusions Since there was no cap in the prior Contract, the institution'of one here would change the status quo. The City thus has the burden of proof on this issue. Although there was some evidence that the bulk of comparable agencies have.a cap at$470 or lower,there has been no showing of the cost to the City of this proposal, and whether it would have the dire impact on the budget which it predicts. Absent such evidence, an inference must be drawn that there would be little impact, if any, if no cap were imposed. The City urges that the cap is an equitable offset to its relinquishing the$16 assessment from those who opt out. However, the Union demonstrated that the. City was under no obligation from PERS to furnish this money. More importantly, a health benefit is as much a component of compensation as wages. Arguably, those who have the good fortune to have spouses or domestic partners with health coverage should not be penalized by receiving a lesser benefit package than their co-workers. Nor has it been shown how the cap assists those who remain in City-sponsored plans. While the City urges that the maximum enables it to put more money in health coverage, it actually results in a savings to the City which is not paid out as employee compensation. The City's asserts that the lack of a cap might result in a windfall to certain employees. It is unlikely that opt-outs would decide not to have any health insurance whatsoever. Most probably, they would be covered as a dependent under someone else's policy. This necessarily means that were the City to pay opt-outs at employee plus one or family rates, it would be paying for double coverage, rather than providing compensation which is earned in the form of a basic benefit. This fits the City's "windfall" description of the Association's G, proposed benefit. The City's proposal thus more nearly conforms to the considerations stated in the Charter, and will be adopted. ISSUE 28: ARTICLE 16 - HEALTH CARE INSURANCE City: Increase monthly City contribution for retirees from $20.30 per month under the current contract to $72.75 per month as of Jan 1, 2008 -see Issue 26. Association: Post-Retirement Health Benefit Coverage Notwithstanding Article 16.2(A) [PER Health Benerit Program], the percentage of employer contribution payable for post retirement health benefits for a unit member subject to this section shall be,based on the member's completed years of credited City service" at retirement as "The proposal begins vesting after a minimum of 10 years of City service at 50%of the benefit. it would not include work at another PERS agency. O 45 shown in the following table: Credited Years of Service Percentage of Employers Contribution 10 50 11 55 12 60 13 65 14 70 15 75 16 80 17 85 18 90 19 95 20 100 This subdivision shall apply to: • All employees who retire from City service for service or disability after this section becomes applicable: The City's contribution with respect to each annuitant shall be adjusted by the Cityeach year. Those adjustments shall be based upon the principle that the City contribution for each annuitant may not be less than the amount equal to 100 percent of the weighted average of the health benefit plan premiums for an employee orannuitant enrolled forself-alone,during the benefit yearto which the formula is applied for the four health benefit plans that had the largest unit memberenrollment,excluding familymembers,during the previous benefit year. The Association's Position and Evidence Language in the Association's proposal regarding increasing employer contribution based on years of service is taken from Government Code§22893. Although it initially sought annuitant benefits at the same level as those for active employees, its final proposal limits the contribution to the employee-only level. The Association urges that this significantly reduces the cost of retiree health care, since its application is limited to those with ten or more years of service and provides no benefits for spouses or dependents. The modification provides an incentive for employees to remain with the City. The Association maintains that the City has the financial ability to provide this benefit. The Association supplied comparative data which demonstrated that among the combined eleven-agency list, all paid some form of retiree health benefit. The highest was paid by Pleasanton, at 100% of employee + 1 with 25 years of service. Davis provides 100% of Kaiser-North up to employee plus 2. Santa Barbara is the next highest, at$318.15 per month, based on years of service. Gilroy pays $300 per month at age 50 with 15 years. One pays $139 per month, another $100 for ten years, while another pays $50. Three agencies 0 46 contribute $100, $50, and $30 per month, respectively, into a defined contribution trust. The C' Association argues that the fact that all comparable jurisdictions provide some form of retiree health benefit in excess of- that provided the City justifies the benefit requested. The Association further asserts that as a result of the substantial modification of its proposal, its cost has become "staggeringly smaller." The City's Evidence John Bartel,president of an actuarial consulting firm,was retained by the City to analyze the retiree health benefit proposal. Bartel performed various calculations to determine the potential liability that it would entail. Assuming a 4.25% discount rate, and.a 30-year amortization, the annual required contribution ("ARC") to fund the current benefit amounts to 3.9% of payroll, or $173,000, even though the cash requirement on a pay-as-you go basis would be $12,000. Funding the benefit contained in the Association's final proposal (i.e., actually setting the money aside in an internal account)would have an ARC of an additional $924,000, or 21.1% of payroll, and would add another $14,000 to the cash requirement. Presuming the City would move money into an irrevocable trust and pre-fund the benefit, at a 7.75% discount rate, the ARC would be $499,000, or 11.4% of payroll. The ARC figures represent what the payout commitment would be some time in the future,even though it does not have to be backed by cash. As Bartel explained, the ARC are the amounts which, under the "GASB 45" new accounting standards,would have to be recognized on the City's financial statement as a"book accrual."12: "You don't have to fund for it, but you have to tell your[financial statement] readers what you have not funded for." It is a type of disclosure, describing a City obligation"over and above what it has already." Benefit pay-outs would naturally increase as more and more active employees retire. The calculations also take into account certain assumptions regarding the increase in health care costs. The net obligation for the retiree health benefit currently offered ("net Other Post-Employment Benefits"or"OPEB"), or the difference between what has beep paid and what a i actuary determines should be set aside, will grow to$1.7 million by 2017 on a pay-as-you-go basis. Bartel projected this amount to accumulate to $11.8 million by 2017 were the Association's proposal to be adopted. Such disclosures are necessary for bond rating purposes. Bartel testified that they would focus on the issue whether the entity agency could afford to pre-fund or pay the ARC. If not, it becomes a question of whether the entity can afford the benefit: There are also fluctuations in the numbers due to experience, investment return and health care costs. Pre- funding naturally eliminates the OPEB obligation,but it would cost 13.5%of payroll every year. Bartel noted further that the changes which took place under AB 2544 render the Association's proposal impossible to administer under PEMHCA. The proposal only recognizes "City service,"as opposed to PERS service,and would thus lead to an unequal benefit,contrary to PEMCHA's requirements for enrollment. Bartel noted, however,that it would be possible to "As Bartel noted further,the amounts would be a"message to the reader of the financial statement"to the effect that"there is this promise to make. We don't have money set aside to pay for that promise. But just be aware that we have this obligation to make these payments down the road." 0 47 Oadminister the plan outside the PEMCHA system. He testified further that of the 175 or 200 agencies that he works for, only 10% have Adopted the benefit under the 100/90 formula set forth in Government Code 22893. He also detected a trend away from defined benefit to defined contribution accounts, and very little interest in expanding the benefit. Position of the City The City proposes merely to raise the PEMHCA contribution it makes on behalf of annuitants to $72.75 per month. It maintains that the Association's proposal would require it to leave the PEMHCA system and create a completely separate retiree health plan: Moreover, the proposal was presented poorly; is very confusing, extraordinarily expensive, and so unsupportable that the Association's own evidence shows why it should be rejected. Accordingly, the City argues, the Association has fallen well short of meeting its burden of proof. No witnesses were galled by the Association to justify its proposal. The City asserts that although Strobridge tried to explain what the Association wanted, he never testified why the Association proposal should be granted, or tried to explain the comparability evidence." However,the Association called Officer James Fellows,'"who stated that an officer who, after seven years, retired from the Department on disability and had to relocate because his- retirement compensation did not cover the cost of expenses and medical insurance premiums. The City maintains that while the Association alluded to retiree health benefits as a"major item" for laterals in deciding to move, the fact remains that the City has successfully recruited a number of these individuals. The Association's evidencewith regard to comparability does not contain a single agency that provides the benefit it seeks. In fact,this evidence supports the City's position and demonstrates that the proposal should be rejected. Some agencies have a benefit similar to that in the City (Napa and Santa Cruz), while others provide a lesser benefit (Chico and Monterey). A majority have a fixed dollar amount rather than a percentage of a premium average. Apparently aware of the contradictions presented by this proof, counsel for the Association listed a number of State of California departments that provided the benefit sought. This was not substantiated by any documentation or testimony to establish its accuracy. Nor, as counsel conceded, was it among "our comparables." Bartel's testimony strongly suggests that the Association's proposal is headed in the wrong direction. Although the Association acknowledged there was a "substantial cost" in connection with the proposal, it provided no evidence as to that cost. It was Bartel who "In her opening statement,counsel for the Association represented that various state agencies from which City employees might be recruited provide 100%retiree medical benefits. The agencies cited included the Highway Patrol, the Department of Corrections,State Parks, Department of Justice,Alcohol Beverage Control, State Police,Fish and Game, State Fire Marshals,and University of California and California State University police. However,no evidence was offered in support of this claim. "Fellows is a member of the.Association's Board of Directors. G 48 O provided such evidence. He established that the proposal would, by year 2017, create a financial obligation for the City which would be more than twice the payroll for active employees. Even if the benefit were pre-funded, it would require setting aside a dollar amount for the ARC which was the equivalent of 13.5% of payroll every year. The benefit sought is staggeringly expensive, and should be rejected on that basis alone. Even though the Association maintains that the,City can afford its new proposal, this argument says nothing about why the proposal should be granted. Additionally, the proposal contained many uncertainties which were not clarified, such as its relationship with Government Code 22893. While the"formula" Strobridge cited is from the code, it is apparently not part of the current proposal. It is unclear whether the Association wants the average of three City plan premiums, or the four most popular in the state. The "election"in the statute may or may not apply to the new proposal. Ambiguities in the proposal virtually guarantee that litigation would result if were granted. Although Strobridge implied that the proposal would grant the same benefits as provided in 22893, the proposal appears to include provisions that are completely different from that statute. These include City vs. State service, averaging premiums from a different set of plans, and whether current retirees are covered. Bartel's testimony was uncontradicted that PEMHCA would not allow the plan to be administered under it. The burden of creating an entirely new retiree health care system on top of the one in existence is a compelling reason to reject the proposal. The administrative, staff and fiscal impacts on the City would be monumental. The Association does not suggest how the new system could or would work. The modifications to the initial proposal do not solve its fundamental problems nor clarify the confusion resulting from it. Even though it maintains that the cost of the program has been C' substantially reduced in the final offer, the Association has failed to demonstrate the fiscal impact that it would have on the enormous costs associated with earlier versions. To the contrary, the City has shown that limiting the proposal to active employees does not substantially reduce costs. The Association also has not met its burden of showing that limiting coverage to employee only would have a material effect on the cost of the proposal. The proposal's reference to the average of "four health plans" creates additional confusion. It is unclear which four plans the Association means. The City now has five plans, and the number fluctuates from year to year. Litigation would be the only means of clarifying .that the proposal means, and litigation is in neither party's interest. Analysis and Conclusions The importance with which both sides view this proposal merited the extensive review of the evidence and arguments presented in support of and contrary to it. The complexities of the issue were also, it is hoped, made apparent. Focus on first principles provides the decisive element here. The Association is seeking to obtain a new benefit for its members. It bears the burden of justifying it by reliance on the factors in the Charter. The Association was unable to show that "employees performing similar services in comparable cities"were paid this benefit to any major degree. Only two cities out of eleven surveyed provided full premium costs. Two others had a plan similar to that being adopted by O 49 o\` the City. A number paid benefits near or below City levels. The absence of proof that any unit in the City enjoys retiree health benefits at this level demonstrates that the proposal is not supported by internal comparisons either. The proposal thus cannot be justified on a comparative basis. As the City pointed out in its broad approach to these proceedings, while it has not raised "ability to pay" as a reason for denying this proposal, cost of this item, especially when compared with costs associated with other parts of this Agreement, is a factor commonly weighed in interest arbitration. The lack of cost information from the Association speaks as much to the issue as the blizzard of actuarial data and the painstaking efforts of the City's witness to explain it to all involved. Simply put, the ultimate expense of the retiree health benefit as currently proposed would place an unreasonable burden on City's resources. While the Association asserts that its reduced demand, limiting the proposal to active employees and eliminating dependent premiums from coverage, substantially lowers the expense, the City's expert provided data assuming that only active employees would be eligible. Even at that point,the projected liability was prohibitive. Two areas of comparison well illustrate the point. Should the proposal be implemented and put on a pay-as-you-go basis, by the year 2017 the City would have obligations as a result which would amount to more than double its payroll. Should the City decide to pre-fund the benefit, it would be required to devote 13.5% of the unit payroll to it. Absent any evidence that this benefit is typical in comparable agencies or within the City,this huge potential expenditure cannot be justified. The City's arguments with regard to the ambiguities of the language proposed are also well taken. The Association clearly attempted to conform certain aspects of the provision to state statutory language. However, this led to additionally uncertainty as to Mow the amount of the City contribution would be determined. There were also doubts raised as to whether the proposal could be administered under PEMHCA, as it determines percentage of benefits according to City, as opposed to PERS service. The City's proposal accordingly most nearly conforms to the Charter factors, and will be adopted. ISSUE 29: ARTICLE 16 -HEALTH CARE INSURANCE City: Section 16.2 Insurance Coverage E. Life Insurance Employees shall pay for life insurance coverage of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000) through the cafeteria plan. The effective date of the increase in coverage from $20,000 to $35,000 will depend on approval from Standard Insurance Company. o 50 OAssociation: The Association accepts the City's proposal. ISSUE 30: ARTICLE 16.5—HEALTH INSURANCE FOR UNIT MEMBER SURVIVORS Tentative Agreement The City shall maintain and pay for the existing level of health, dental and vision benefits for one (1) year for the surviving family of a-tint- an active employee who dies while in the line of du as a result of a job-related illness or injury. ISSUE 31: ARTICLE 21 -SICK LEAVE Section 21.2 City: Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, or the designated beneficiary of beneficiaries, according to the following schedule: A. Death - 25% 50% Association: Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, or the designated beneficiary of beneficiaries, according to the following schedule: A. Death -25% 100% Two public safety units in the City,the Firefighters and the Battalion Chiefs,have a 50% sick leave payout at death. SLOPSOA has a 25% payout, while SLOCEA has a 30% payout. As the benefit is available only to those who die while on active duty, there has been only one employee in the last 15 years who would have been eligible for it. The Association argues therefore that the proposal would have minimum cost to the City. The City maintains that the Association has failed to sustain its burden of demonstrating that such a dramatic change to the language of the Contract is warranted. The benefit would be far out of line with the death benefit provided by the City in other bargaining units,while the City's proposal is in line with internal comparables. O 51 OAnalysis and Conclusions Although the potential cost of this proposal was minimal, internal comparisons, particularly with other public safety employees of the City, underscore the reasonableness of the City's proposal. No data from external agencies was provided. An inference can therefore be drawn that the 50% payout proposed compares favorable with that offered in similar jurisdictions. The City's proposal will therefore be adopted. ISSUE 32: ARTICLE 21 — SICK LEAVE Section 21.2 City: Upon termination of employment by . . . retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, [etc.,] according to the following schedule: B. Retirement and actual commencement of PERS benefits. 1. After twenty years of continuous employment-20% 2. After twenty-five years of continuous employment- 25% 3. After thirty years of continuous employment - 30% 4. Job-related disability retirement and actual commencement of PERS �\ benefits - 50% with maximum of 750 hours payoff (50% of 1,500 accrued hours) effective January 1, 2008. Association: C. Job-related disability retirement and actual commencement of PERS benerrts— 75% with maximum of 1000 hours payoff. Both proposals add a sick=leave cash-outwhen a job-related disability retirement occurs. Within the eleven comparable agencies, five do not provide such a benefit. Only two others provide for an actual cash out: Petaluma(50%,maximum 700 hours with 10 years'service)and Santa Maria(50% between 240 and 1300 hour maximum). The remainder provide benefits to be paid to retiree health funds, insurance,or as a 500 hour annuity. SLOFD has a 75%payout, with a maximum of 1000 hours, the SLOBC a 50% maximum of 750 hours, while neither SLOPSOA nor SLOCEA have the benefit. The Association argues that the proposal is justified by internal comparisons with the fire unit. Externally, six of the eleven comparable agencies provide for a sick leave cash out upon disability. The City maintains that the language proposed by the Association is ambiguous and should be rejected on that basis, as it may be interpreted to mean either 750 hours or 1000 hours. Although the City's position has been that no additional benefit is warranted,it has modified its position in efforts to reach a compromise. While firefighters have a 75% payout with a maximum of 1000 hours, they receive a significantly lower payout for G 52 O years of service at non-disability retirement.15 Granting the Association's proposal, the City urges, would provide this unit with benefits that far exceed all other bargaining units. In addition, no other comparable agency provides for the level of benefits which the Association seeks. The City's proposal more closely resembles that paid by agencies that do provide the benefit, and is more generous. Analysis and Conclusions It must be inferred that considerations of potential liability would not be significant were either proposal to be adopted, as no evidence was presented on the point. Both parties rely on comparables to argue in favor of their respective proposals. Although the pay-out at the level proposed is not common among outside agencies, the Association seeks the same level of benefit as that available to. City firefighters. The City counters that this argument is undermined by the fact that the firefighters have a"significantly lower"payout at a non-disability retirement. This payout is actually 25% less after 20 years. It is also at the maximum level for firefighters at the point,whereas percentage payout for Association members increases by 5% at 25 and 30 years, respectively, to a maximum of 30%, or double what firefighters may receive. Notwithstanding this distinction, the issue here involves retirement because of job- related disability. The City has recognized that while employees may not use sick leave for job- related disabilities under the Charter(see discussion below), they may be compensated with a sick leave payout should they be injured on the job and forced to retire. It provides an incentive for employees to maintain steady attendance. GThe internal comparison with the Firefighters demonstrates that the Association's level of payout, though unusual, is appropriate in this City. The Association's proposal on this issue thus most nearly to the Charter factors. ISSUE 33: ARTICLE 21 -SICK LEAVE Section 21.2 City: Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, . . . 5. Sick leave cannot be used to postpone the effective date of an industrial disability retirement. This provision is intended to reiterate past practice and to exercise the employer's rights under Govemment Code, section 21163. "Firefighters with 20 years are eligible for a 15%payout. 53 Association D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, the medical retirement of an employee who has been granted or is entitled to-sick leave shall not become effective until the expiration of such leave with compensation unless the member consents. Government Code 21163 allows members to postpone retirement until sick leave or comp time is exhausted, unless the member consents otherwise or there is a local ordinance or resolution to the contrary. Under Charter Section 1107,2.36.420,which contains Personnel Rules and Regulations, sick leave is defined as absence from work for reasons which are not the result of an on-the-job injury. Additionally, a public safety employee may not receive sick leave payments while receiving Worker's Comp. Nonetheless, Strobridge testified that a past Association president was allowed to postpone retirement and utilize accrued sick leave after exhausting his 4850 benefits. There is considerable diversity regarding the benefit among comparable jurisdictions. Gilroy allows members to use sick leave,while the MOU's in Santa Barbara and Salinas are silent, thus the accrual usage.is as permitted by statute. Three others provide that the leave may not be used after the member has attained permanent and stationary disability status. Four others provide no benefit, while one allows it in conjunction,with temporary disability payments. The Association maintains that its proposal is consistent with the Government Code and similar to benefits provided by external, comparable jurisdictions. While the Personnel Rules prohibit an employee from getting sick leave benefits while receiving worker's comp,sick leave would not be utilized until workers compensation benefits have expired. The City is permitted to negotiate greater benefits in the MOA than are provided for in the Personnel Rules. The Association argues in addition that this is simply"the right thing to do." Employees who have their careers shortened due to injuries or other life-altering circumstances should be entitled to accrued sick leave while an active employee. The City argues, however, that the Association's proposal directly conflicts with City Personnel Rules regarding the use of sick leave. Nor is it supported by comparability data. The City proposes to add clarification language which reflects both past practice and the City's right to exclude sick leave from being used for industrial injuries. Because job-related injuries are excluded from the definition of sick leave, the City is not required to allow employees to postpone industrial retirement in the manner proposed. Nor has the Association put forward any evidence explaining why it should be allowed to use sick leave in a way which contradicts City personnel rules. It is not inequitable to restrict sick leave in this way as significant other benefits exist for industrial injuries. Analysis and Conclusions The Preamble to the MOA (Article 1) contains the following: 1.4 Nothing in this Agreement between the parties shall invalidate or be substituted for any provision in Charter Section 1107. . . unless stipulated to by provision(s) contained herein and agreed to. Although the Association asserts that the parties may negotiate greater benefits than are provided for in the Personnel Rules, the above language of the MOA requires that if they do so, they must stipulate and agree to the modification. Here, the parties are not agreeing or stipulating, but presenting conflicting proposals as to whether sick leave may be used to postpone a disability retirement. Nor does the provision submitted by the Association contain the necessary language to make it consistent with Article 1.4. Though the Arbitrator possess broad authority, it is unclear whether an Award can substitute for the party's "stipulation" or "agreement"within the meaning of Article 1.4, despite the fact that it may verywell be the"right thing to do." Comparability evidence was inconclusive on this issue. Accordingly,the City's proposal on this issue most nearly conforms to the Charter factors. ISSUE 34: ARTICLE 21—SICK LEAVE&ARTICLE 30—PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS Association Section 21.2 C. Employee use of sick leave shall be deemed confidential and not subject to reporting in monthly or annual personnel evaluations without proof of abuse. City: Section 30.3 Sick leave usage may be documented in performance evaluations where there exists an indication of abuse orwhen the use ofsick leave negatively impacts work performance. Documentation of sick leave usage shall be' in conformance with privacy and leave laws. There is no dispute that the City cites sick leave usage within its evaluations. No comparable agency has language in their MOU about the confidentiality of sick leave usage: The Association takes exception to the practice because an employee may legitimately have been required to use an above-average amount of sick leave which may result in a negative mark on his/her record because of an unexplained series of unfortunate events. The Association submitted two evaluations citing sick leave usage. One was very positive, and indicated that the employee's use of sick leave was normal The other was from 1995 and notes that the employee would have been rated"exceeds expectations"forwork habits had she not been forced to take considerable time off. The City asserts that the Association's evidence does not support an inference that the Department has a pattern of misusing sick leave information. Additionally,the proposal would be impossible to implement. Sick leave misuse is an important issue that needs to be reported in evaluations. In an effort to meet the Association's concerns,the City proposes language that O 55 Gsick leave documentation be in accordance with privacy and leave laws. The Association counters that the language proposed by the City is too uncertain and ambiguous to be of any real value. An"indication"of abuse may simply be the number of hours taken. The meaning of"negatively impact work performance" is uncertain, as any absence creates a negative impact in that work is not completed or must be accomplished by another employee. The Association's language is a more reasonable means of resolving the problem of negative inferences based on legitimate use of sick leave. The City responds that removing the word "conclusive" from the proposal rendered it unclear as to what would constitute"proof." The City cannot presume the meaning, and the provision could generate a grievance each time sick leave is referred to in an evaluation. The City must have some recourse to deal with employees whose constant absences make it impossible to meet staffing levels and provide an appropriate level of service. Evaluations are a tool for management to address poor performance and behavioral issues,as well as a means for putting employees on notice that their conduct needs improvement. The Association's proposal would force the City to abandon this non-disciplinary tool and resort to discipline to address attendance problems. Performance evaluation is also the starting point for management's interactive exchange with employees facing a disability. Limiting the City's ability to raise the issue during the evaluation process would hamper the interactive mechanism required by law. The City has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate a need for this proposal, one which creates ambiguous restrictions on management, while limiting its ability to address performance issues and disabilities in the workplace. CAnalysis and Conclusions Although the City urges that the Association bears the burden of proof, both parties are seeking to add language to the Contract. The two proposals have a common element, in that both agree to implement a new employee right. What the parties disagree on are the dimensions of that right. There are no comparable jurisdictions whose Contracts spell out restrictions on references to sick leave use in evaluations. The right is therefore a unique one. The Association wants to make sick leave use "confidential," and hence excludable, from evaluations, unless there is proof of abuse. The City agrees to do this, but seeks to add another exception: when sick live use "negatively impact[s] work performance." The Association asserts that this phrase is hopelessly vague. Admittedly, there is a great deal of ambiguity in it. More importantly, the Employer is already free to comment on poor work performance in an evaluation. Adding this language would be superfluous, and create confusion among employees and management as to its application. Another addition in the "this goes without saying"category is the phrase: "Documentation of sick leave usage shall be in conformance with privacy and leave laws." The City already has mechanisms for dealing with absence issues, and for deficiencies in performance. Employees are subject to progressive discipline. Clearly, evaluations may address poor performance and behavioral issues. The Association objects to citing sick leave use in evaluations as a means of demonstrating of poor performance. Employees may be put 56 on notice through a host of other means that their conduct needs improvement, The City asserts that remarks in an evaluation are,"non-disciplinary." Many would differ with that assessment, as indications of poor performance typically lay the ground-work for more serious discipline for recurring offenses. Finally,the City urges that evaluations are the beginning of a dialogue with employees facing potential disability, and eliminating such references would hamper the interactive mechanism required by disability law. No evidence was offered on the point. The proposals, for the most part, are two ways of saying the same thing. The Association's proposal is just a simpler way of saying it. Accordingly, the Association's proposal most nearly conforms to the Charter factors, and will be adopted. ISSUE 35: ARTICLE 22 - FAMILY LEAVE Section 22.1 City: No change to current language Association: An employee may take up to+6 48 hours of sick leave per year if required to be away from the job to personally care fora member of his/her immediate family. The Association relies on comparative data to support its proposal. Both firefighters and battalion chiefs may use more than 16 hours for family care, 24 and 33.6 hours, respectively. Eight of 11 comparable jurisdictions provide for more than 16 hours. Two allow use of all leave for this purpose, four more have the same benefit as that asked for, while two others substantially similar. The applicable MOU's are silent with respect to the remaining three. The City argues that the Association has failed to provide evidence supporting a reason for the change. The Labor Code and the Contract both provide that employees may use up to 48 hours to care for a child, parent, spouse or domestic partner. If the family member is part of the employee's household, the employee may take 40 hours sick leave to care for him/her. The 16 hour restriction applies only to more distant family members, such as siblings or grandparents who are not part of the household. The City further asserts that internal comparisons do not support the change. No other unit receives 48 hours. It is the same benefit paid to SLOPSOA and SLOCEA. Firefighters and battalion chiefs have 56-hourwork-weeks,and their benefits are adjusted accordingly. The proposal is not without cost: the City must pay overtime to fill shifts. Analysis and Conclusions External comparisons lean heavily in favor of the Association's proposal. Seven of the eleven provide the benefit at the level sought or above, while an eighth provides a 40-hour O 57 benefit, considerably greater-than the one currently in effect in the City. In other words, 16 C' hours is well below the average, while 48 approaches it very nearly. Regardless of the level of wages and benefits in comparative jurisdictions, it is widely recognized that this particular aspect of compensation is appropriate. The City, in contrast, seeks to apply internal comparisons to justify the status quo. If granted, this proposal would place the Association at the highest level of leave the City allows to take care of a an immediate family member. The City also cites potential cost generated by overtime. There has been no evidence that costs would increase significantly, if at all, especially because state law and other portions of the Agreement allow sick leave to be used to care for a number of different categories of relations. Additionally, in urgent situations, employees might use other leave to absent themselves, thus requiring an equal amount of overtime to be paid to cover for them. The Association's proposal on this issue thus most nearly conforms to the Charter factors, and will be adopted. ISSUE 36: ARTICLE 22 -FAMILY LEAVE Section 22.2 City: No change to current language OAssociation: An employee may take up to 46 48 hours of sick leave per year if the family member is a part of the employee's household. The Association argues that the proposal would bring consistency to the sick leave provisions and is also justified by external comparisons. Comparable agencies have the same allowances described above under Issue 36. The.City maintains that the Association failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the change is needed,employees are already able to use 48 hours to care for most family members living in the same household. The consistency which the Association seeks is that with their proposal in Issue 35. The City further points out that the current language complies with Labor Code Section 233. If the care is for someone other than those listed in the statute, namely child, parent spouse or domestic partner, the 40 hour limit would apply. For the reasons stated above in considering Issue 36, it is determined that the Association's proposal is more nearly in line with the Charter factors. ISSUE 37: ARTICLE 22: FAMILY LEA VE Tentative Agreement 58 I� oSection 22.3 If the family member is a child, a .parent, spouse, or domestic partner, an employee may use up to forty-eight(48) hours annually to tend to the illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner, instead of the annual maximums set forth in paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2 and in accordance with Labor. Code Section 233. ISSUE 38: ARTICLE 27-GENERAL PROVISIONS Section 27.2 - Salary Survey Agencies City: No change to current language. City proposes using same cities as were used in negotiations with the Fire Union. Association: For the purposes of external comparisons the agencies to be used for review of compensation shall be: • Gilroy • Monterey Oa Napa • Petaluma • Pleasanton • Salinas • Santa Barbara • Santa Cruz • Santa Maria the sarne survey ageneies as the Gity uses for other Gity employees. Parties agree that this survey shall be based ontotal compensation and shall only be one of the considerations used to determine compensation. As previously noted, the Association has utilized the above-named agencies, denominated the"Gilroy 9," for wage and benefit comparisons in these proceedings. The list used by the City for such comparisons, entitled the "Chico 9"substitutes Chico and Davis for Gilroy and Santa Barbara. Simply put, the parties are in agreement about seven of the nine agencies which provide for appropriate comparisons, and differ only on the issue of whether Gilroy and Santa Barbara, as opposed to Chico and Davis,are more appropriate for to include on the comparisons list. The City has utilized comparative data from four separate sets of municipalities in different wage and benefit surveys, as described above. The list it seeks to apply here is the same as has been used in its 2006 negotiations with Firefighters. That list was agreed upon Q 59 O by the parties. Another list was used for a compensation study performed in 2007 for the purpose of determining appropriate compensation levels for managerial and general, non- safety employees.16 As detailed in the "Wages" section above, besides the seven cities common to the Association and City surveys, this list included Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo County, Davis and Ventura. The City's finance director also compiled a list of comparable entities which was submitted to the City Council in support of Measure Y, a voter initiative to increase the sales tax by one half-cent. This list contained Davis and Ventura in addition to the seven mutually selected cities. The City,through its Risk Manager Karen Jenny,asserted that Davis, which is included on every City list and not on the Association's, has similar demographics, including population,"university town"aspects, home prices,average age,and education level of residents. The Battalion Chiefs agreed to use the same survey set that had been used by the Firefighters. The survey set agreed upon by the Firefighters and the City in 2006 was different from the one that had been used and agreed upon for their 1999-2001 Contract. SLOCEA and the City agreed to conduct a"benchmark compensation study"which resulted in the list referred to above. Association evidence showed demographic data for the eleven survey cities combined. The City was near the bottom in population and geographic size,necessarily putting it near the bottom in swom and total personnel. It is also second to the bottom in ratio of officers per 1,000 people at 11.9%. The two entities which the City adds to the core 7 are the farthest distance from it, as well as farthest from what the Association entitles the"Highway 101 Corridor." They are also two of the three lowest paying agencies on the list. The City is 4th from the top when ranked within the 11 survey cities in property and property plus violent crimes. It was in the middle of median price of homes in 2006. Changes in values place it fourth from the bottom in July,2007 even though the median price increased. By October, 2007, median home prices surged to where the City was now fourth on the list. Strobridge testified that Davis and Chico should be excluded because they are not tourist destinations, like-most of the cities on the agreed list, and their sources of revenue are different. He included Gilroy because it was used by the City's management and confidential employees in 1999 to justify their own pay and benefits, and subsequently by staff police officers." The list was used further in the 2001 Association interest arbitration. In the next round of negotiations, the list was expanded to the "Gilroy 12." For purposes of the current. negotiations, Strobridge removed Davis and Tracy from the Gilroy 8 list, and substituted Salinas,Pleasanton,and Santa Barbara. Santa Barbara was included because of laterals from that agency, and that it was in the City's labor market. The two were also connected by proximity and a tourist economy. Salinas and Pleasanton were included because they were on the various fire surveys. Strobridge noted that he had spoken with the Fire Association president,who explained that they agreed on the Chico 9 data set because it produced a favorable outcome, providing increased compensation for their survey benchmark, firefighter/paramedic. The Fire contract 16rhat list was selected by a Labor/Management Committee with the assistance of a consultant, "He entitled this list the"Gilroy 8." 0 60 O has premium pay above salary for specialty classifications. An information request established that numerous salary surveys have been conducted since 1998 in the negotiations with the City's various bargaining units. For example,there were two data sets prepared by the City for the 1998 police negotiations, four in 2001, and six in 2004, three for police officers, one for records, and two for comm techs. The City council conducted its own surveys in 2004. The Gilroy 8 was used in the 2005 SLOPSOA negotiations. A different set was used for the June, 2007 SLOPSOA negotiations. In 2005,the firefighters used a 37-agency survey. In the current negotiations, the City surveyed six different data sets. In 2007, the survey for appointed officers included Santa Barbara'as well as Chico and Davis. TheAssociation argues that survey agencies used by the City have constantly changed. The status quo is no longer viable. To facilitate negotiations, it is 'important to identify the universe. Internal comparisons support listing an identified set of agencies, though each one has a different comparative data sets. Chico and Davis do not comport to the index.factors. The City's list was one tailored to provide a favorable outcome to fire personnel,specifically the result of the existence of a benchmark classification. The Association adds that it has used standard comparability criteria in assembling its list:proximity to 101, revenue from tourism, and per capita revenue streams. Neither Chico or Davis compare to the City. The City's 2006-07 per capita figure is more than double for that of Davis, and slightly greater than Santa Barbara. The City maintains that the change the Association seeks is a"dramatic departure"from past practice in that the proposed list is not one used by any City department. It has shown O neither that it is preferable to set such a list in stone that will be used by the parties in the future, or that the cities it chooses are proper. Many factors determine what are the best comparables, and these factors change over time. The Association's proposal seems based on a short-term goal to get preferable salary comparisons. There is no guarantee that such a universe will continue to support the Association's goals. It is impossible to tell what would result from including this list in the Contract. The City adds that the Association's main justification for including the list appears to be that it would avoid conflict on the issue during negotiations. However, once the Contract expires, there is nothing to prevent the parties from arguing that the list no longer represents the best comparables. Nothing would be served by providing this list in the Agreement, as the Association agreed to delete the reference to it in its salary proposal. The City maintains that the Association did not sustain its burden of proving that its list provided the best comparisons. City salary proposals are much more competitive when compared with City lists. The City did not unilaterally create any of these lists. The only way that the Association could justify its wage proposal was to hand pick its own list. There is a strong inference that it was used to arrive at a specific result, not based on analysis of comparability data. Chico and Davis are university towns. Many others on the Association's list are not, in effect, "tourist destinations." Finally, the City asserts that per capita revenue was incomplete, and not directly linked to the survey cities proposed. It is also not a good salary indicator. The Association has failed O61 O to demonstrate that its list represents the best possible comparables. The Association responds that it is no longer possible to identify a set of"same"survey agencies. The data set it proposes most closely parallels those traditionally used in prior negotiations. The proposal that the fire list should be used was unsupported by any data from those jurisdictions. The Gilroy 9 contains more comparable jurisdictions than the fire-centric Chico 9. The City counters that the proposal would not forestall protracted negotiations. Contracts often are delayed until other negotiations are concluded. The Fire list contains jurisdictions comparable to the City in population, demographics, public safety and job characteristics. The Association used Chico to support its argument in Issue 35. Proximity to 101 has no bearing on comparability, and there is nothing standard about determining whether the City economy is driven by tourism. Many agencies, such as Napa, Pleasanton, Santa Cruz and Monterey are not in proximity to 101. This demonstrates that the agencies were hand-picked to support its proposals. Analysis and Conclusions This proposal is clearly linked to other economic items in the Agreement. Both parties seek justification for their various economic proposals by reference to some list of comparable agencies. Often, support for a proposal can be found regardless of what list is used. There is thus some agreement between the parties that the combined list of 11 comparable jurisdictions contains many points of similarity with the City. More importantly, the mutual inclusion of the same seven jurisdictions on the respective lists reflects*the parties' intent that O these agencies are in fact comparable, and should be used in assessing the acceptability of any proposal. Thus, the argument that certain jurisdictions on this list are not "tourist - destinations" is unavailing, since both sides have agreed that they should be used for comparisons, non-tourist designation notwithstanding. It is abundantly clear that the inclusion of Chico and Davis,which are in the lower third in compensation on the Chico 9 list, necessarily drags down the average compensation in the data set. Gilroy is the highest paid agency in its group, and Santa Barbara is above average, thus necessarily raising the average compensation in that group. The City maintains that the Association's list is simply offered to justify its economic proposals, and that for the sake of internal comparisons, its "fire list" is most appropriate. Obviously, each party devises a comparative universe that produces the most favorable outcome for their point of view. The fact that the Association's list supports their argument is no less a reason to consider it than the fact that the City's list supports its own. The two cities that the Association substitutes for Chico and Davis on the fire list are Gilroy and Santa Barbara. These two cities are 154 and 95 miles, respectively from the City; Chico and Davis are 286 and 382 miles away, respectively, the farthest away of any cities on the list. Gilroy and Santa Barbara, like the City, are on 101; Davis is 50 miles away, Chico 75. Davis, Gilroy and the City have departments whose numbers of sworn personnel are roughly equivalent. The City was between Santa Barbara and Gilroy.in 2005-06 per capita revenue; Chico and Davis ranked considerably lower, at or near the.bottom of the list. January, 2007 O62 G O population,in the City is 44;239, in Gilroy(the next largest) it is 49, 649, Davis, 64, 938, Chico 84,396,and Santa Barbara, 89,458. Geographically,Chico leads the list in size,while the City ranks third from the bottom at 10.7 sq. miles, slightly larger than Davis at 10.4. It ranks just below Santa Barbara, or 4'h on the list, in ratio of peace officers per 1,000, at 1.37. Chico has 1.2, Davis .92. Although the City argues that the fact that Chico and Davis are comparable because they are college towns, like the City, Santa Barbara shares that designation as well. Santa Barbara is appropriate to consider as a comparable agency for a variety of other reasons, not the least of which is its proximity, in addition to the other factors cited above. Strobridge testified without contradiction that there have been several lateral transfers from that department, and thus the City has to compete with Santa Barbara for the same pool of employees. As far as Gilroy is concerned, that municipality compares well with the City in population, size of department, and per capita revenue. In other words, the City has a department with an equivalent number of personnel, serving nearly equivalent numbers of people,with an equivalent amount of money, per capita. Moreover, Gilroy has been included on lists which the City has used with other bargaining units; most notably, the police staff officers. The City argues that the Association must compile a list which approaches perfection in terms of comparability. An impossible burden, all that is necessary is that the agencies on a given list are not chosen arbitrarily, i.e., that there must be a reasonable basis for including them. Commonly accepted methods of comparison necessarily involve demographics, crime rates, geographical proximity, and cost of living. Weighing these factors, a reasonable basis O exists for including Gilroy and Santa Barbara on any comparative list. The City's asserts that its list and the Contract language which supports it should be accepted because the list was not created unilaterally. In advancing the point, the City's argument for its version carries the seeds of its own refutation. Each of the survey lists used for other units was negotiated. In this case, the City seeks to remove the issue from negotiations by tying the results here to what other units have agreed upon. While the City asserts that it is appropriate to obtain bargaining representative input on the survey question in every other case, it maintains an altogether different stance here, arguing that the Association should be bound by what others have agreed to, and not provide such input. Additionally, the language which the City seeks to retain is wholly ambiguous, as there is no uniformity among the lists used in other negotiations. The phrase"the same survey agencies as the City uses for other City employees" can have no meaning when each unit uses a different list, and each time the issue arises in negotiations, variations are made to the list. In sum, Gilroy and Santa Barbara contain more points of similarity to the City than do Chico and Davis, and thus provide more appropriate bases for comparisons and inclusion within the group of comparable agencies. Internal consistency within the City underscores the importance of subjecting the question of comparable agencies to negotiation, rather than imposing the result without input from the subject bargaining unit. Rather than setting the list in stone by spelling it out in the Agreement, its inclusion as a provision of the Contract reinforces the fact that it is subject to negotiations, and may be modified as circumstances dictate. The Association's proposal thus most nearly conforms to the Charter factors. O 63 OISSUE 39: ARTICLE 31 -GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE City: NEW ARTICLE Disciplinary matters are excluded in Section 31.1. The rules governing disciplinary matters for employees covered by this MOA are contained in Sections 2.36.320 through 2.36.350 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations for the City of San Louis Obispo. Association: 31.9 Binding Arbitration Grievance Disciplinary Appeals Procedure: A. Definition. For the purpose of this article, disciplinary action shall mean counseling memorandum, written reprimand, disciplinary reassignment, suspension, demotion, disciplinary reduction in salary of discharge. B. It is the expressed intent of the parties that employees shall receive fair treatment and shall be disciplined only for just cause. C. Employees on probationary status (entry-level or promotional) may not appeal under this agreement rejection on probation. D. Counseling memoranda and written reprimands may be appealed under this article only to the City Administrative Officer level. E. Disciplinary reassignment, suspension, demotion, disciplinary reduction in salary or discharge may be appealed under this article to a hearing officer. F. Nothing herein constitutes a waiver of rights of employees otherwise granted by law (e.g.,, Government Code Sections 3300, 3500, 3508.1 et. Seq.). 32.0 Pre-Action Procedure: A. Prior to the imposition of disciplinary action, the employee shall first be provided a preliminary written notice of the proposed action stating the. effective date and the specific grounds and particular facts upon which the action will be taken. The employee shall have access to any known, written materials, reports or documents upon which the action is based. The employee shall have the right to respond to the charges within fifteen (15) business days from receipt of the notice either orally, in writing, or both to the Chief of Police. If the department head is personally involved O 64 O L , O in the initial investigation and notice process, the City Administrative Officer shall appoint a designee to hear the response. B. The employee may request an extension of the time to respond for justirrable reasons. Failure to respond within the time specified will result in the employee's waiver of her/her procedural rights and final action will be taken. C. Following a review of a proposed disciplinary action, the Chief of Police, within five(5)business days ofreceiving the employee's response, . shall render a written decision and send it by registered mail and Email to, the employee. A copy shall also be Emailed and mailed to the employee's representative. 32.2 Post Action Discipline Appeal Process: A. Disciplinary action including counseling/training memoranda or a written reprimand imposed upon an employee may be appealed through the Grievance Procedure as set forth in Sections 31.1 through 31.6 of this article. The City Administrative.Officer's decision shall be final. B. Disciplinary action including disciplinary reassignment,suspension, demotion, disciplinary reduction in salary or discharge may be appealed through the Grievance Procedure to a hearing officer as set forth in OSections 31.1 through 31.7, following completion of the Skelly process. C. The decision of the hearingofficer shall be rendered after the evidence and arguments are presented to him/her by the parties in the presence of each other and in post-hearing briefs, if necessary. The decision of the hearing officershall be final and binding upon the parties. Simply put, the Association seeks to submit disciplinary matters to binding arbitration. Currently,employees who are"removed, reduced in compensation,demoted or suspended for more than five days"are entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond. Three days after the response,the appointing authority issues its decision. Employees may appeal those decisions to a hearing officer selected through State Mediation, who conducts a hearing, then issues findings and recommendations to the Council, which makes the final decision on the matter. Serious discipline is rare in the Department. A composite comparison list of 15 separate jurisdictions which includes San Luis Obispo County, Ventura, Palm Springs, and Paso Robles in addition to the 11 jurisdictions on the combined City/Association lists shows that in only four — Gilroy, Petaluma, Pleasanton and Santa Cruz— may discipline be appealed to an arbitrator. The remaining 11 do not address the issue in their respective.MOU's. The Association points to the fact that its proposal codifies the rules which apply to 0 65 O disciplinary action in one location. It establishes the same appeal provision as for Contract grievances. It will bring stability to discipline appeals and provide for uniform grievance handling, as well as conforming to present industry standard. The City notes that the proposal would "dramatically change" discipline appeal procedures for unit members. It not only would submit them to binding arbitration. It would expand appealable discipline to include written reprimands and counseling memos, creating a process which would be extremely burdensome. It would also remove the City Council's oversight over disciplinary decisions. The City urges that the Association has not presented any evidence which would support such drastic changes. The City provides employees with a far and equitable disciplinary appeal procedure. In order to address concerns raised by the Association that members might not readily realize the location of the applicable discipline appeals rules, the City is proposing to add a provision to provide that reference. In addition, employees have a right to appeal to a hearing officer, and may file a writ of mandate to challenge a City Council decision. The Association's attempt to paraphrase Skelly rights creates a potential litigation risk. Trying to memorialize a concept like "due process" is difficult if not impossible. The proposal has the potential of wreaking havoc with the process. There is no support for the claim that the proposal conforms to industry standard. The Association responds that the City's attempt at compromise does not cure the defect in the process: employees will still have to slog through the code to find out what their O rights are. The City is also preventing any proposed modifications which might have an impact on non-sworn personnel. Its proposal is impractical for this reason. Analysis and Conclusions Convincing an arbitrator to impose a system of binding arbitration is a little like convincing someone in the oil business of the virtues of starting a war to secure the supply of oil. As might be expected, arbitrators are firm believers in the process, and perhaps prone to expand it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Given this fact, any arbitrator before whom this question is raised needs to be especially conscious of his/her own particular biases on the subject. Nonetheless, any system.of arbitration derives its authority from the fact that it has been mutually agreed upon by the parties as a means of resolving disputes and avoiding labor unrest. In this Arbitrator's view, imposing.it through the mechanism of interest arbitration, absent compelling circumstances, would diminish that authority. The Association's proof fell far short establishing such circumstances. There was no evidence that the process currently in place produced arbitrary results, or was administratively so deficient that it effectively nullified the appeal process. Comparisons, both internal and external,were unavailing in demonstrating that the right to appeal serious discipline to binding, neutral arbitration was as widely-conferred contract right. To the contrary, the overwhelming bulk of jurisdictions do not even address the issue in their MOU's. In addition, the right does not exist in any other City bargaining unit. 0 66 C O The City's proposal thus most nearly conforms to the Charter_ factors, and will be included in this Award. ISSUE 40: ARTICLE 38— WORK SCHEDULES Section 38.4 City: No change Association: Field Service Technicians Alternative Work Schedule shall be defined as a 4110 workplan consisting of four days worked on a Monday through Friday schedule. . . . Field Service Technicians schedules shall be coordinated to provide maximum coverage during a defined 0700 hours to 1800 hours work period. Work periods shall consist of four consecutive days. Days off shall not be split. Field service technicians ("FST's") perform a variety of functions with regard to the handling and processing of evidence. While there are three in the classification, one FST works in the evidence room and not in the field. The remaining two have a choice of either a 8%5 or a 9/80 schedule, and both are on the 9/80, with one being off every Friday. Capt. Parkinson stated that under the current arrangement, there is only one FST one day per week. O If the change to 4/10 occurred,there would be one FST on two days of the week. Vacation and sick leave would further complicate matters. Because the Department is so small,the revision to the schedule, Parkinson stated, would not be in its best interest. The Association asserts that while Article 38 contains specific work schedule provisions for other classifications, it is silent with regard to schedules for FSTs. The Association seeks to cure this oversight. The City responds that the proposed scheduling change would leave little flexibility when an FST is sick or on vacation. It would also decrease productivity and place heavier burdens on the FST who might be the only one on duty. Additionally, the City asserts that the Association has failed to present any evidence that contradicts or overrides the Department's strong concerns about the scheduling change. The Association responds that the City is incorrect when it argues that additional burdens would be placed on the FST's when one is on vacation or sick. The current schedule presents the identical problem, as there are only two FSTs. The City counters that the. omission from the MOA was not an oversight, but a purposeful means of refraining from permitting the 4/10 work schedule. Analysis and Conclusions As the party seeking to change the status quo,the Association has the burden of proof as to establishing the rationale for the change. No evidence was submitted to support its view that FSTs should be allowed to work a 4/10 schedule. On the other hand,the City established 0 67 V/ O that the modification would result in scheduling inflexibility, decreased productivity, and place a heavier burden on the one FST at work on each of two days during a two-week period as opposed to the one day that exists under the current arrangement. The City's proposal to leave the Contract's language unchanged in this regard thus most nearly conforms to the Charter factors. ISSUE 41: ARTICLE 38 -WORK SCHEDULES Section 38.4 City: Field Service Teehnieians wl" be entitled to a thirty mintite unpaid luneh break. Field Service Technicians assigned primarily to field duties will receive a 30-minute paid lunch break as part of their regular shift as staffing and calls permit. They will remain subject to call and interruption during their lunch period. Association: The Association accepts the City's proposal. ISSUE 42: ARTICLE 38—WORK SCHEDULES Section 38.5 Investigations - Division Work Schedule O City: A. The Gity will eernmenee a trial 4/10 work sehedule the pay pe following Gouneil ratifiestion of this agreement in secordenee with Investigators may participate in a 4110 work schedule in accordance with the City's alternate work schedule policy. The schedule will include a 30 minute unpaid lunch. If investigators are called back to work during the lunch period, the time will be considered time worked. Association: The City will commence a trial 4/1.0 work schedule the pay period following Council ratification of this agreement in accordance with the City's alternate work schedule policy. The schedule will include a 30 minute tmpaid lunch. Officer Charles Ridel,who is currently assigned to investigations, is also vice president of the Association. He tested that two officers in investigations work a 9/80,while three work a 4/10. They could also work a traditional 5/8 if they chose to. Those on the 9/80 work from 68 U' O 7:45 to 5:30, while those on the 4/10 work from 6:45 to 5:30. For Ridel, the biggest concern is being on call during lunch. Detectives are assigned a cell phone and have to be available at all times. On occasion, they need to work through lunch. For example, they may contact witnesses who call them back during the lunch period. Ridel has been instructed to respond to calls during lunch. A number of investigative officers do have paid lunches. They would include the investigator in the narcotics task force and the three officers assigned to SORT, a narcotics and vice-related unit which has an off-site office. These individuals generally work out in the field. Currently, if an investigator's lunch break is interrupted, they are permitted to alter their shift somewhat by taking their break later or go home early. Capt. Parkinson testified that while there may be times when investigators are called out during their lunch period, they should be compensated for that time. This rarely occurs, and compensation would be on an overtime basis when it does. He stated further that members of the SORT team work predominantly out in the field, and much of their work is self-initiated. In contrast, an investigator works primarily in the station,and their work is assigned. The Association asserts that because the investigation unit must remain available to respond to calls and witnesses during lunch, and there are frequent interruptions during their lunch break, they should be compensated during this 30 minute period. Under the FLSA, Section 785.19 of the DOL Regulations, if an employee is not "completely relieved of duty" during meal periods, payment for that period is required. To be excluded from the FLSA definition of"hours worked," meal periods must be at least 30 minutes long and actually be provided for employees. Those who actually perform work during their meal periods usually have those periods counted as hours worked. OThe City did not rebut any of the Association's evidence, and in effect concedes the issue by agreeing that interrupted time should be paid. Rather than simply incorporating the lunch period into the regular work day, the City proposes to increase its costs by paying for overtime during interrupted lunches. This is fiscally imprudent and will create an administrative burden, including an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and thus escalated costs for the preparation and processing of overtime requests. The Association considers the City's proposal well-intentioned but impractical and unreasonable. While the City is maintaining the position that the lunch period should remain unpaid, it proposes the above language to clarify that they will be paid if they work through that period. The Association has not shown that there are any concerns about investigators not receiving their uninterrupted 30 minute lunch, there is no reason for the period to be paid. The Association offered no argument in opposition to the clean-up of"trial"language,which reflects that the work week is no longer in the trial stage. As it is rare for detectives to get called out at lunch,their time is primarily used for private pursuits and for their own effective use. To pay them for every lunch period would not be an effective use of City resources. Analysis and Conclusions The Association's proof lacked any quantification as to how serious the problem of working through lunch is for detectives. On the other hand, Capt. Parkinson testified without contradiction that such interruptions are rare, and that when they do occur, investigators are o 69 O duly compensated. Nor has it been shown that paid lunch breaks for investigators are common in comparable jurisdictions. The Association's proposal thus addresses a problem which does not appear to exist. The City's proposed language will accordingly be adopted. ISSUE 43: ARTICLE 38 •WORK SCHEDULES Section 38.5 - Investigations -,Division Work Schedule City: B. The Investigative Lieutenant will determine the work days and hours for those employees who work the 4110 schedule based on the coverage needs of the entire unit. The schedule may include shifts beginning at 6:45 a.m. with attendance at patrol briefings. Investigators who attend patrol or other daily briefings shall do..so as part of their regular shift hours. Association: Status quo As noted above, there are three shifts that are available to investigators. The 5/8 shift. has traditionally started at a quarter to the hour for briefing, similar to the briefing for patrol. The 15 minutes are paid at overtime rates. The City is recommending that the 4/10 shift begin O at 6:45 to facilitate attendance at the detective briefing. Time in briefing is mandatory. In patrol,it is necessary to have an overlap between shifts to cover the briefing period. Under the proposal, investigators would leave 15 minutes earlier at the end of the day, thus avoiding overtime. The City argues that the proposal is necessary to prevent investigators from working what amounts to regularly scheduled overtime. If their schedule does not start before briefing, the officer is required to work an additional 15 minutes in order to attend. The proposal saves the officers' time, and allows the City to redirect resources into areas that better serve the public and its employees. The Association maintains that because the City's proposal changes the status quo, it bears the burden of proving that the change and the resulting reduction in benefits is warranted. The City introduced no evidence in support of its proposal. It presented no cost savings information, or identified any problem or reason why eliminating attendance at roll call briefing was necessary or appropriate. The City is proposing to exchange a long-standing practice and benefit for a provision that gives the City the ability to change investigator schedules at whim. Additionally, the City's creation of a new proposal at the last minute effectively deprived the Association of the opportunity to present evidence that would show that the proposal was ill- advised and impractical. o70 ,J OAnalysis and Conclusions The authority to determine shift starting times is a generally accepted prerogative of management. It may be described as in Article 5, the Contract's managements rights clause, as the right to "direct" employees, "maintain the efficiency of government operations," and to "determine the . . . means and personnel by which government operations are conducted." Appendix E of the prior Agreement, which is to be incorporated into Article 38, specifically "reaffirms" that "scheduling is a management responsibility," and provides that "shift assignments for special units or assignments are not covered by this guideline and remain the discretion of the Unit Supervisor or Bureau Commander." The City's proposal underscores this authority. Investigator positions are recognized as specialty assignments in the MPO Article. The proposal is clearly designed to maintain efficiency in operations and to effectuate a cost savings by eliminating what has become a built-in overtime expense. Though the Association argues that the provision changes a long-standing practice and gives management the right to change investigator schedules"at whim,"there is nothing in the prior Agreement which would restrict management's ability in this regard. Thus,the Association is not being forced to surrender any rights that it previously enjoyed. While the thrust of this proposal may be to eliminate overtime payments which had been regularly paid to investigators, overtime cannot be guaranteed, and may legitimately be eliminated as part of management's authority to maintain the efficiency, or cost-effectiveness, of its operations. The City has demonstrated that its proposal codifies a well-recognized management right, and is offered for the sake of efficiency and cost savings. As such, the City's proposal most nearly conforms to the Charter factors. ISSUE 44—Appendix Clean-up Tentative Agreement AWARD The Agreement which was in effect from July 1, 2004 to December 31, 2005, will be. modified in the following particulars, with the formatting system described above indicating additions, deletions and modifications. These changes will be incorporated in the new Agreement, effective January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009: ARTICLE 47 -TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective January 1, 2006 and shall continue in full force and effect until expiration at midnight,December 31, 2009. ARTICLE 1 - PREAMBLE 1.1 This Agreement is effective the V day of January 2006 by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as the City,and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to '^ 71 all unit members employed on January 1, 2006, or thereafter ARTICLE 7 -SALARY 7.1 [Status quo] 7.2 Salary Increases for Term of Agreement Salary increases will be effective on the first day of the first full pay period following the dates listed below: January 1, 2006 5.28% Sworn Classifications (Police Officer) 10.82% Non-sworn Classifications January 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications July 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications January 1, 2008 5.00% All Classifications January 1, 2009 5.00% All Classirications ARTICLE 8 -MASTER POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM 8.4 Eligibility requirements for the position of Master Police Officer are as follows effective January 13, 2ee5; 01, 2006: C [Tentative Agreement regarding subsection (3)] ARTICLE 10 - OVERTIME -SWORN 10.3 Compensation A. Overtime hours shall, at the employee's option, be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. However, no employee shall accumulate and have current credit for more than Be 100 hours of compensatory time off. ARTICLE 10 -OVERTIME -SWORN 10.6 Court Time D. -Effective upon the date this Agreement is formally approved by the City Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration award is issued whichever is later,if scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee 72 C• ,J O is to appear, s/he shall be eligible for the minimum payment in this Section. ARTICLE 10— OVERTIME—SWORN 10.10 Overtime Assignment B. An officer may decline a non-emergency overtime shift if s/he has worked an overtime shift of at least eight hours in the last fourteen days. If no volunteers are available from the list, the Watch Commander may then move up to the next least senior officer on that shift for mandatory overtime. ARTICLE 11 -OVERTIME - NON-SWORN 11.3 Compensation A. Overtime hours shall, at the employee's option, be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. Maximum accrual of compensatory time shall be 489 hours for Gernmungeefim 240 hours for all other non-swom classifications. 11.6 Court Time OD. If a scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee is to appear,s/he shall be eligible for the minimum payment in this Section. ARTICLE 14 - EDUCATION INCENTIVE The educational incentive pay plan shall continue as described below for sworn and non-sworn personnel for the term of this agreement. A. BASIC BENEFITS. Education incentive pay shall not begin until one year after employment with the City of San Luis Obispo, but credit will be given for approved education obtained prior to that time. Effective January 1, 2007,the basic benefit for employees hired prior to duly .1, 1196i, will consist of an adjustment equal to one-half step above the base salary for possession of an Intermediate POST certificate, A.A.,or equivalent degree from an accredited community or junior college, or 60 or more semester units, or a City-approved equivalent; an adjustment equal to one full step for an Advanced POST certificate, B.A. or equivalent degree from an accredited college or university. Section E. NON-APPLICABILITY. Educational incentives shall generally not be paid for education on City time. However,if the City sends an employee for training 0 73 O on Citytime and college-level credits are earned during that training,those credits shall count toward education incentive. The education incentive will be removed if the employee is promoted to a position that does not entitle employees to such incentives. Section F. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 1. The basic benefit for non-sworn employees hired on or after duly 1, 198i prior to January 1, 2008, shall be a five percent step increase for a period of one fiscal year if during the previous fiscal year the employee has successfully completed - i.e., grades of "C" or better in all courses — a minimum of nine semester units of college level classroom work, or City-approved equivalent, approved by the Chief of Police, provided that this benefit shall be payable only for classroom work done after completion of the probationary period. 2. Employees hired after july 1, 1981- shali be eligible 2005 with the following requiremen s: Qualification on a fiseal year basis with first qualifleation during 2805 2 Tuition re*rnbursernent as set fi 2. The maximum benefit under this article is the equivalent to the one-step increase for possession of one B.A. or Oequivalent degree(5.26%) 3. Sworn and non-sworn employees are eligible to participate in the Tuition Reimbursement program as set forth in City Policy. ARTICLE 16 - HEALTH CARE INSURANCE 16.1 CONTRIBUTION Effective December 2006(for the January 2007 premium), City shall contribute the monthly amounts as set forth below for Cafeteria Plan benefits for each regular,full time employee covered by this agreement. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City's contribution. Employee: $479.00 Employee Plus One $855.00 Family $1,133.00 The Cafeteria Plan amount is inclusive of mandatory dental, vision and life coverage. Effective December2007, (for the January 2008 premium),the contributions shall be as follows: �.J 74. O Employee Only: $507.00 Employee Plus One $900.00 Family $1,188.00 Effective December 2008,(for the January 2009 premium), the contributions shall be as follows: Employee Only. $533.00 Employee Plus One $968.00 Family $1,277.00 16.2 Insurance Coverage A. PERS Health Benefit Program The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program (Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA))with the "unequal contribution option" at the PERS minimum contribution rates, $-W86 97.00 per month for active employees and $ 2630 72.75 for retirees as of January 1, 2008. The City's contribution toward retirees shall be increased by 5% per year of the City's contribution for the active employees multiplied by the number of years the City has been in the PEMHCA program until such time as the contributions for employees and retirees are equal. The City's contribution will come out O of that amount the City currently contributes to employees as part of the Cafeteria Plan. The cost of the City's participation in PERS will not require the City to expend additional funds toward health insurance beyond what is already provided. In summary, this cost and any increases will be borne by the employees. B. Health Insurance Coverage Optional Participation Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program and may receive the unused portion of the City's Cafeteria Plan contribution of$479.00 per month (after dental, vision and life insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City's Cafeteria Plan. Those employees will alse be assessed V6.80 month to be placed an the Retiree I lealth Insuranee Aeeount. This seeount WiH be used to fund the Gity's contribution toward retiree premiums and the Gi" eests for the Pub'*e Employee's Gontingeney Reserve Fund emd the Administrative . 1 'ewever, there is no requirement that these funds be tised exelusively for this purpose nor any guarantee that they will be sufficieftt to ftjmd retiree health eests, although they will be used fbr negetietted employee benefits. O 75 OE. Life Insurance Employees shall pay for life insurance coverage of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars ($35,000) through the cafeteria plan. The effective date of the increase in coverage from $20,000 to $35,000 will depend on approval from Standard Insurance Company. 16.5 HEALTH INSURANCE FOR UNIT MEMBER SURVIVORS The City shall maintain and pay for the existing level of health, dental and vision benefits for one (1) year for the surviving family, of a-tinit- an active employee who dies while On the lime of duty as a result of a job-related illness or injury. ARTICLE 21 -SICK LEAVE 21.2 Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, or the designated beneficiary of beneficiaries, according to the following schedule: A. Death - 25% 50% C. Job-related disability retirement and actual commencement of PERS Obenefits- 75% with maximum of 1000 hours payoff. 5.18 Sick leave cannot be used to postpone the effective date of an industrial disability retirement. This provision is intended to reiterate past practice and to exercise the employer's rights under Government Code, Section 21163. C.J9 Employee use of sick leave shall be deemed confidential and not subject to reporting in monthly or annual personnel evaluations without proof of abuse. ARTICLE 22 - FAMILY LEAVE ` 22.1 An employee may take up to+6 48 hours of sick leave per year if required to be away from the job to personally care for a member of his/her immediate family. 22.2 An employee may take up to 49 48 hours of sick leave per year if the family member is a part of the employee's household.. 101-his provision should be lettered either"D"or"BA"to conform with the rest of the Article. "This provision should be re-numbered either"D"or"E;depending on the designation of the preceding paragraph. o 76 22.3 If the family member is a child, a parent, spouse, or domestic partner, an O employee may use up to forty-eight (48) hours annually to tend to the illness of a child, parent, spouse, or domestic partner, instead of the annual maximums set forth in paragraphs 22.1 .and 22.2 and in accordance with Labor Code Section 233. ARTICLE 27 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 27.2 - Salary Survey Agencies For the purposes of external comparisons the agencies to be used for review of compensation shall be: • Gilroy • Monterey • Napa • Petaluma • Pleasanton • Salinas • Santa Barbara • Santa Cruz • Santa Maria . Parties agree that O this survey shall be based on total compensation and shall only be one of the considerations used to determine compensation. ARTICLE 31 - GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Disciplinary matters are excluded in Section 31.1. The rules governing disciplinary matters for employees covered by this MOA are contained in Sections 2.36.320 through 2.36.350 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations for the City of San Louis Obispo. ARTICLE 38 -WORK SCHEDULES 38.4 Field ervece TeehnAeisns will be entitled to a thirty mintife unpaid luneh break-. Field Service Technicians assigned primarily to field duties will receive a 30-minute paid lunch break as part of their regular shift as staffing and calls pennit. They will remain subject to call and interruption during their lunch period. 38.5 Investigations - Division Work.Schedule A. The Gity will eernmenee a tFial 4/10 work sehedule the pay period. G unpakid lumeh. Investigators may participate in a 4/10 work schedule in accordance with the City's alternate work schedule policy. The schedule will include a 30 minute unpaid lunch. If investigators are called back to work during the lunch period, the time will be considered time worked. B. The Investigative Lieutenant will determine the work days and hours for those employees who work the 4110 schedule based on the coverage needs of the entire unit. The schedule may include shifts beginning at 6:45 a.m. with attendance at patrol briefings. Investigators who attend patrol.or other daily briefings shall do so as part of their regular shift hours. APPENDICES C, E AND F [Incorporate Appendices C and E in Article 38 and Appendix F in Article 7] The Arbitrator retains jurisdiction in this matter over any questions arising from the interpretation or implementation of this Award. Dated: June 4, 2008 O MATTHEW GOLDBERG Arbitrator 78 O MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND THE POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION O 1111 Ng 280^ nGr�nnn�o �g �nnG 11 T�VCV CtVIVLT\VTL�VV January 1, 2006— December 31, 2009 Incorporating Tentative Agreements and the Arbitration Award Dated June 4, 2008 I�i1�IlIIIII�i�IIlI1�jI�III Ill�ll�lllll��l u;lllll I�liII�I city O I' III II�II II II 'I Idl mill y san IUI s OBISPO O U 01 TABLE OF CONTENTS Fro be Updated in final MON Article No. Title Page No. 1 Preamble...........................................................................1 2 Recognition........................................................................2 3 Check Off/Dues Deduction................................................3 4 Employee Rights ...............................................................4 5 Management Rights ..........................................................5 6 Representative Role..........................................................6 7 Salary ................................................................................8 8 Master Police Officer Program ........................................12 9 Bilingual Pay....................................................................14 10 Overtime- Sworn.............................................................15 11 Overtime— Non-Sworn....................................................18 12 Work Out-Of-Grade.........................................................21 13 Standby—Sworn and Non-Swom. ..............................22 O ....14 Education Incentive.........................................................23 15 Uniform Allowance...........................................................25 16 Health Care Insurance.....................................................26 17 Retirement................................................................. 18 Seniority...........................................................................31 19 Holidays...........................................................................32 20 Vacation...........................................................................34 21 Sick Leave.......................................................................35 22 Family Leave...................................................................36 23 Bereavement Leave........................................................38 24 Catastrophic Leave..........................................................39 25 Workers' Compensation Leave.......................................41 26 Jury Duty and Military Leaves .........................................42 27 General Provisions..........................................................43 0 C OArticle No. Title Page No. 28 Residency Requirements................................................44 29 Promotional Policy...........................................................45 30 Definitions........................................................................50 31 Grievance Procedure.......................................................51 32 Layoffs.............................................................................53 33 Work Actions ...................................................................55 34 Communication Process .................................................56 35 Notice to the Association.................................................57 36 Equipment.......................................................................58 37 Light Duty ........................................................................59 38 Work Schedules ..............................................................60 39 SWAT..............................................................................65 40 Traumatic Incidents.........................................................66 O 41 No Discrimination ............................................................67 42 Staffing ............................................................................68 43 Continuing Negotiations ..................................................69 44 Full Agreement................................................................70 45 Savings Clause................................................................71 46 Renegotiations.................................................................72 47 Term of Agreement..........................................................73 Appendix"A" - Classification ...........................................74 Appendix"B"-Grievance Forms....................................75 !l endi* "6" Patrol 3/12 Werl<< Pia ..............................78- Appendix"QC"- Flexible Benefits Plan ..........................86 Appendix "F." Shift Adjustment......................................9- ... iU O ii J ARTICLE 1 PREAMBLE 1.1 This Agreement is effective and entered into this 1st day of JWy,--2884January, 2006, by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, hereinafter referred to as City, and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association. The provisions of this Agreement shall apply to all =it members employed on January 1, 2006, or'thereaftergkj21. 1.2 The purpose of this Agreement is to promote the improvement of personnel management and employer/employee relations, provide an equitable and peaceful procedure for the resolution of differences and establish rates of pay and other terms and conditions of employment. 1.3 The City and the Police Officers'Association agree that all employees of the City share in the important responsibility of providing superior service to the public and that every job Oand position is considered to be important. 1.4 Nothing in this Agreement between the parties shall invalidate or be substituted for any provision in City Charter Section 1107 or Resolution No. 6620 (1989 Series) unless so stipulated to by provision(s) contained herein and agreed to. O 1 o �J O ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION The City hereby recognizes the San Luis Obispo Police Officers' Association as the bargaining representative for purposes of representing regular and probationary employees, occupying the position classifications set forth in Appendix A, in the Police Unit with respect to their compensation, hours and other terms and conditions of employment for the duration of the Agreement. 0 0 2 o � o • ARTICLE 3 CHECK OFF/DUES DEDUCTION 3.1 The City shall deduct dues from City employees and remit said dues to the Association treasurer, which dues shall not include assessments. 3.2 Dues deduction, additions, and/or deletions shall be recorded by the City's Finance Officer and a notification of all dues transactions shall be sent monthly to the Association President. 3.3 The Association shall hold the City harmless from any and all claims, and will indemnify it against any unusual costs in implementing these provisions. o . • 3 ARTICLE 4 • EMPLOYEE RIGHTS Employees of the City shall have the right to form, join and participate in the activities of employee organizations of their own choosing for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations including, but not limited to, wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment. Employees of the City also shall have the right to refuse to join or participate in the activities of employee organizations and shall have the right to represent themselves individually in their employment relations with the City. No employee shall be interfered with, intimidated, restrained, coerced or discriminated against because of the exercise of these rights. o 4 o • ARTICLE 5 MANAGEMENT RIGHTS The rights of the City include, but are not limited to, the exclusive right to determine the mission of its constituent departments, commissions and boards; set standards of service; determine the procedures and standards of selection for employment and promotion; direct its employees; take disciplinary action; relieve its employees from duty because of lack of work or for other legitimate reasons; maintain the efficiency of government operations; determine the methods, means and personnel by which government operations are to be conducted; determine the content of the job classifications; take all necessary actions to carry out its mission in emergencies; and exercise complete control and discretion over its organization and the technology for performing its work. The City's exercise of its rights under this section are subject to the provisions of City Charter Section 1107 and applicable State law. 0 • 5 J J O ARTICLE 6 REPRESENTATIVE ROLE As established by Article 44 of this Agreement, in the event any new practice or subject matter within the scope of representation arises during the term of this Agreement and an action concerning that practice or subject matter is proposed by the City, the Association will be afforded notice and shall have the right to meet and confer upon request. In this event, as well as for renegotiations under Article 46 of this Agreement, members Mesber-s-of the Association may, by a reasonable method, select not more than dhFee five (5) employee members e d eae empieyeeebsep,&ff-to meet and confer with the Municipal Employee Relations Officer and other management officials (after written certification of such selection is provided by the Association). b Such meet and confer sessions under both Article 44 and Article 46 of this Agreement shall be considered hours of work for the designated Association representatives. The Association shall, whenever practicable, submit the name(s) of Ueach employee representative to the Municipal Employee Relations Officer at least two working days in advance of such ImeetingsINs1. Provided further: (A) That no employee representative shall leave his or her duty or work station or assignment without specific approval of the Police Chief or other authorized City management official. if empleyee representatives eannet be released; date a '41-That any such meeting is subject to scheduling by City management consistent with operating needs and work schedules. Nothing provided herein, however, shall limit or restrict City management from scheduling such meetings before or after regular duty or work hours. (B) Association members will donate a total of 250 hours per year (inclusive of any carryover time) of vacation time, holiday time, and compensatory time off to an Association "time bank" under the following guidelines: • 6 c During the first full pay period of July each calendar year, the POA President • shall determine the number of hours remaining in the Association time bank. That number shall be subtracted from the maximum number of time bank hours of 250 hours. The difference between the actual number of hours and the 250 hour maximum will be divided by the number of POA represented employees. Each represented employee shall then contribute an equal number of leave hours to be debited by the City to maintain the 250 hours time bank. Employees shall have the option to designate vacation,holiday or CTO leave time. 1. Only Association officers or bargaining team members may draw from the bank. 2. Requests to use time from the bank must-be made reasonably in advance of the use. Approval is subject to the operational necessity-of the department and normal time off approval processes. • 7 0 0 O ARTICLE 7 SALARY 7.1 Rules Governing Step Increases %ith the "1ewiag faedi fie tier..: The following rules shall govern step increases for employees: A. The first step is the minimum rate and shall normally be the hiring rate for the class. In cases where it is difficult to secure qualified personnel, or if a person of unusual qualifications is hired, the City Administrative Officer may authorize hiring at any step. B. The second step is an incentive adjustment to encourage an employee to improve his/her work. An employee may be advanced to the second step following twelve months satisfactory service upon recommendation by the Police Chief and the approval of the Human Resources Director. C. The third step represents the middle value of the salary range and is the rate at (v) which a fully-qualified, experienced and ordinarily conscientious employee may expect to be paid after a reasonable period of satisfactory service. An employee may be advanced to the third step after completion of twelve months service at the second step, provided the advancement is recommended by the Police Chief and approved by the Human Resources Director. D. The fourth step is to be awarded only in case of work which is well above average for the class. An employee may be advanced to the fourth step after completion of one year of service at the third step, provided the advancement is recommended by the Police Chief and approved by the Human Resources Director. E The fifth and sixth steps are intended as a reward for performance sustained above satisfactory. An employee may be advanced to the fifth step after completion of one year at the prior step, provided the advancement is recommended by the Police Chief and approved by the Human Resources birectorA- 5]. • 8 C ,D O AF. Efketil�xe jaaaaFy 13895, Step-pregessien ®r ait eseated p s13,41 rogression to Master Police Officer, step 7—. —These will occur when the employee has satisfied the requirements age identified in Article 8.;461. 4G. The Police Chief shall be authorized to reevaluate employees who reach top step in their pay range. An employee who is not performing up to standard for the top step shall be notified in writing that the Police Chief intends to reduce him one step unless his job performance improves significantly within a 60-day period. Unless the employee's job performance improves to an acceptable level by the end of 60 days, the pay reduction shall then become effective. The top step may be reinstated at any time upon recommendation of the Police Chief. If the Police Chief deems it necessary to again remove the top step during the same fiscal year, he/she may make the change at any time with three business days' advanced written notice. The salary range for Police Officer consists of seven steps (1 through 7). Steps 1 through 6 equal 95%of the next highest step, computed to the nearest $1.00. The salary range for Communications Technician, Evidence Technician,Field Services Technician, Police Records Clerk and Police Cadet consists of five steps(1 through 5). Each across-the-board % salary increase shall raise each step of the range by the %. Step 5 of each successive salary range will be 2.63% above step 5 of the next lower range. After all steps of each salary range have been established, each shall be rounded off to the nearest $1.00. Employees who are eligible for advancement to top step must receive a "Meets Performance Standards" or better on the overall rating on their most recent Performance Appraisal prior to or coincident with their being eligible for advancement by time in grade. • 9 C :D • Employees who are eligible for advancement to step 4 or 5 must receive a "Meets Performance Standards" or better on the overall rating on their most recent Performance Appraisal prior to or coincident with their being eligible for advancement by time in grade. 7.2 Salary Increases for Term of Agreement Salary increases will be effective on the first day of the first full pay period following the dates listed below: Sween NOR-&were de15�, 2094 2.0°0 2:970 del 2005 1.3°0 i.5% January 1, 2006 5.28% Sworn Classifications(Police Officer) 10.82% Non-Sworn Classifications January 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications July 1, 2007 6.00% All Classifications Janury 1, 2008 5.00% All Classifications January 1, 2009 5.00% All Oassificationsikj7l The Field Service Technician job descriptions shall be modified to eliminate the requirement of emergency medical dispatch certification and dispatch relief. 7.2.1 Salary—Police Records Clerk A. Police Records Clerks shall receive a 5.0% equity salary increase effective January 13, 2005. 0 10 • #.3 Salary Range Listing - January 2006 Through December 2009 1 4anuary 2006 5.28% increase-Sworn; 10.82% increase- Non-sworn I Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 $alary Position Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Flange Title Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly 1700 Records Clerk 1 3,155 3,321 3,496 3,680 3,874 I 1,456 1,533 1,614 1,699 1,788 I 1704 Records Clerk II 3,496 3,680 3,874 4,078 4,292 I 1,614 1,698 1,788 1,882 1,981 1705 Police Cadet 3,888 4,092 4,308 4,535 4,773 I 1,794 1,889 1,988 2,093 2,203 1707 Field Service 4,103 4,319 4,546 4,786 5,038 Technician 1,894 1,993 2,098 2,209 2,325 I 1708 Communications 4,205 4,427 4,660 4,905 5,163 Technician 1 1,941 2,043 2,151 2,264 2,383 I V20 Evidence 5,615 5,911 6,222 6,550 6,894 Technician 2,592 2,728 2,872 3,023 3,182 1750 Police Officer 5,073 5,340 5,621 5,917 6,228 6,556 6,901 2,341 2,464 2,594 2,731 2,874 3,026 3,185 I • 11 �4anuary 2007 6% Increase all classifications I Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 $alary Position Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ lunge Title Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bl-Weekly Bi-Weekly B Weekly Bi-Weekty 700 Records Clerk 3,344 3,520 3,706 3,901 4,106 1,543 1,625 1,710 1,800 1,895 �04 Records Clerk II 3,706 3,901 4,106 4,323 4,550 1,710 1,800 1,895 1,995 2,100 705 Police Cadet 4,121 4,338 4,566 4,806 5,059 1,902 2,002 2,107 2,218 2,335 �07 Field Service 4,350 4,579 4,820 5,074 5,341 Technician 2,008 2,113 2,225 2,342 2,465 V08 Communications 4,458 4,692 4,939 5,199 5,473 Technician 1 2,057 2,166 2,280 2,400 2,526 V20 Evidence 5,953 6,266 6,596 6,943 7,308 Technician 2,747 2,892 3,044 3,204 3,373 150 Police Officer 5,377 5,660 5,958 6,271 6,601 6,949 7,315 2,482 2,612 2,750 2,894 3,047 3,207 3,376 C4uly 2007 6%Increase all classifications Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 $alary Position Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Unge Titte Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly �00 Records Clerk 1 3,545 3,732 3,928 4,135 4,353 1,636 1,722 1,813 1,909 2,009 104 Records Clerk II 3,928 4,135 4,353 4,582 4,823 1,813 1,909 2,009 2,115 2,226 V05 Police Cadet 4,368 4,598 4,840 5,094 5,363 I2,016 2,122 2,234 2,351 2,475 V07 Field Service 4,611 4,854 5,110 5,378 5,662 Technician 2,128 2,240 2,358 2,482 2,613 V08 Communications 4,726 4,975 5,237 5,512 5,802 Technician 1 2,181 2,296 2,417 2,544 2,678 720 Evidence 6,309 6,641 6,991 7,359 7,746 Technician 2,912 3,065 3,226 3,396 3,575 V50 Police Officer 5,700 6,000 6,316 6,649 6,998 7,367 7,755 2,631 2,769 2,915 3,069 3,230 3,400 3,579 G 12 �J 4anuary 2008 5% Increase all classifications Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 $alary Position Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Lange Title Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly V00 Records Clerk 1 3,722 3,918 4,124 4,341 4,570 1,718 1,808 1,903 2,004 2,109 104 Records Clerk II 4,124 4,341 4,570 4,810 5,064 1,904 2,004 2,109 2,220 2,337 V05 Police Cadet 4,587 4,828 5,082 5,350 5,631 2,117 2,228 2,346 2,469 2,599 V07 Field Service 4,843 5,097 5,366 5,648 5,945 Technician 2,235 2,353 2,476 2,607 2,744 �08 Communications 4,963 5,224 5,499 5,788 6,093 Technician 1 2,290 2,411 2,538 2,671 2,812 V20 Evidence 6,625 6,974 7,341 7,727 8,134 Technician 3,058 3,219 3,388 3,566 3,754 V50 Police Officer 5,985 6,300 6,632 6,981 7,348 7,735 8,142 2,762 2,908 3,061 3,222 3,392 3,570 3,758 Wanuary 2009 5% Increase all classifications Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 $alary Position Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Monthly/ Flange Title 61-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekiy Bi-Weekly 700 Records Clerk 1 3,907 4,113 4,329 4,557 4,797 1,803 1,898 1,998 2,103 2,214 VO4 Records Clerk II 4.331 4,559 4,799 5,051 5,317 1,999 2,104 2,215 2,331 2,454 �05 Police Cadet 4,816 5,070 5,336 5,617 5,913 2,223 2,340 2,463 2,593 2,729 V07 Field Service 5,084 5,352 5,634 5,930 6,242 Technician 2,347 2,470 2,600 2,737 2,881 �08 Communications 5,211 5,486 5,774 6,078 6,398 Technician 1 2,405 2,532 2,665 2,805 2,953 V20 Evidence 6,957 7,323 7,708 8,114 8,541 Technician 3,211 3,380 3,558 3,745 3,942 V50 Police Officer 6,285 6,616 6,964 7,330 7,716 8,122 8,550 O 2,901 3,053 3,214 3,383 3,561 3,749 3,946 13 C C ARTICLE 8 MASTER POLICE OFFICER PROGRAM 8.1 The Master Police Officer Program shall be as follows: The specialty assignments included in this program are: Field Training Officer 3 years S.O.R.T. 3 years Traffic Officer 3 years Investigator 4 years Narcotics Task Force Investigator 4 years(effective January 1, 2006) DARE and SRO 3 years Crime Scene Investigator 3 years Defensive Tactics Instructor** 3 years(effective January 1, 2007) Hostage Negotiator** 3 years(effective January 1,0076-81) Range Master* 4 years G Downtown Officer 3 years Swat Team Operator** 3 years Bomb Technician** 3 years * Mandatory Rotational position—qualifies only as a third assignment. ** Non-mandatory Rotational position. 8.2 To be eligible for compensation under this program, an employee must receive and maintain at least a "Meets Performance Standards" rating on their evaluation. 8.3 Compensation under this program shall in no case exceed two steps on the salary range. 8.4 Master Police Officer Eligibility requirements for the position of Master Police Officer are as follows effective January 13, 28A31, 20066-91: 1. One full year at Step 6 of the salary range. 2. Must have obtained an advanced POST Certificate 14 O O 3. Must have successfully completed two specialty assignments and two years in a third specialty assignment. Lateral Officers having completed two comparable specialty assignments at their prior agency shall receive credit for a third specialty assignment. The comparability of specialty assignments shall be determined by the Police Chief in his/her discretion. The Chief may require an employee seeking credit for prior agency specialty assignment credit to submit satisfactory proof of successful performance in such sssignmentsp,101. 4. Reassignment, with a break in service, to the same assignment will be credited as a third assignment. To be credited for the purposes of compensation, an officer- shall be required to complete the terms of any specialty assignment unless early departure for good cause is/was authorized by the Chief of Police. Departure for any other reason will forfeit MPO compensation at the time of departure. 5. The Department may, at any time, temporarily remove an employee from a specialty assignment to meet operational needs. If the cumulative total time of removal from the assignment prior to the employee's scheduled rotation date O exceeds 90 days,the employee shall have the option of extending the rotation date by the total time of removal or accepting that amount of time as credit towards completion of the specialty assignment. 6. Qualified Master Police Officers will be permitted to wear a two-stripe insignia (otherwise recognized as Corporal stripes) recognizing their status as determined by Department uniform policy. 7. Compensation: Police Officer Step 7. 8. The employee is responsible for requesting advancement to Master Police Officer. The Department will, once annually, remind employees to make such requests. Retroactive payments will not be made if the employee fails to make a timely request 0 15 G J O ARTICLE 9 BILINGUAL PAY 9.1 Employees certified as bilingual in Spanish through a testing process administered by the City Human Resources Department shall receive a bilingual payment of $35 per pay period. Effective January 13, 2005, bilingual pay shall increase to $50 per pay period. Additional languages may be approved by the City based upon demonstrated need. Regardless of certification, all employees shall use any language skills they possess to the best of their ability. O O 16 ARTICLE 10 O OVERTIME - SWORN 10.1 DEFINITION Overtime is defined as all hours worked in excess of 160 hours worked in the employee's 28 day work period. Vacation, holidays, sick leave, IOD, and compensatory time off shall be considered hours worked when computing overtime. 10.2 ELIGIBILITY All sworn employees covered by this Agreement shall be eligible for overtime pay. 10.3 COMPENSATION A. Overtime hours shall, at the employee's option, be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. However, no employee shall accumulate and have current credit for 01 more than 89-*_4JnI hours of compensatory time off. B. The Association and the City agree that CTO usage is subject to normal time off approval processes and may be denied if it would result in the need for overtime coverage (except when scheduled in conjunction with approved vacation during the annual vacation sign-ups). 10.4 GUARANTEED MINIMUMS FOR RETURNING TO WORK Whenever an employee is required by the department to return to work outside of the employee's normal work hours, if a minimum applies as found in this article, then the employee has the choice of taking the minimum or taking the pay for the work actually performed. 10.5 CALLBACK Employees called back to work at hours not contiguous to their normally scheduled shift shall be guaranteed a three-hour minimum payment at time and one half. Unanticipated 0 17 O emergency call-backs (criminal investigations, emergency evacuations, natural disasters, civil unrest, SWAT, etc.)will include a total 30 minutes for travel time. 10.6 COURT TIME A. Effective the first full pay period upon ratification, employees reporting for court duty shall be guaranteed three hours minimum payment at time and one-half. B. Employees required to work through the lunch break while on court duty shall be credited with time worked. Duty free lunch periods shall not be compensable, to a maximum of thirty (30)minutes. C. Two or more court cases occurring within the minimum time period shall be subject to a single minimum payment. D. Effective upon the date this Agreement is formally approved by the City Council or ten (10) days after an arbitration award is issued, whichever is later, if a scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee is to appear, she shall be eligible for the minimum payment in this Sectior*KAJ121. O10.7 ROLL CALL BRIEFING Employees who are required to attend roll call briefing and do, shall be paid for such attendance. Payment shall be considered overtime and paid as such if the hours fall within the definition of overtime. 10.8 TRAINING A. Empleyees—Effective January 1, 2007, employees called back for training sessions, authorized by the Police Chief or designee shall be guaranteed twe heerthreehourpw13l minimum payment at time and one hal£ B. The City shall provide each employee with paid independent living hotel/motel accommodation when assigned to a POST reimbursable training course or City required training course requiring overnight stay. Daily meal reimbursement provided shall either be a flat $36 per day or the actual amount spent as evidenced O 18 o • by receipts subject to the following maximum amounts (unless increased by City Policy). ■ Breakfast - $10.00 (regardless of whether or not a continental breakfast is provided) ■ Lunch - $15.00 ■ Commuter Lunch - $8.00 ■ Dinner- $25.00 ■ Mileage at the prescribed IRS mileage reimbursement rate. 10.9 RANGE QUALIFICATION A. I eyees—Effective January 1, 2007, employees required to qualify with department approved firearms shall be guaranteed V*&4hrejKmi4l hours at time and one-half when participating in range qualification training when off duty. B. Each employee who shoots for qualification shall be provided 100 rounds of practice handgun ammunition each month upon request. Employees may only Oreceive the current month's handgun;allocation3i51. 10.10 OVERTIME ASSIGNMENT A. The Department, prior to each shift rotation, will post an overtime interest list. Planned overtime will be called from this list in order of seniority. Employees may add and/or delete their names from this list at any time. B. An officer may decline a non-emergency overtime shift if s/he has worked an overtime shift of at least eight hours in the last fourteen days. If no volunteers are available from the list, the Watch Commander may then move up to the next least senior officer on that shift for mandatoryovertimeiIjiel. O 19 0 O ARTICLE 11 OVERTIME -NON-SWORN 11.1 DEFINITION Overtime is defined as all hours worked in excess of 80 hours worked in a pay period. Vacation, holidays, sick leave, IOD and compensatory time off shall be considered hours worked when computing overtime. 11.2 ELIGIBILITY All non-sworn employees covered by this Agreement shall be eligible for overtime pay. 11.3 COMPENSATION Overtime shall be compensated in cash at time and one half the employee's regular rate of pay or in time off compensated at time and one half. Maximum accrual of compensatory time shall 240 hours for all edw-non- Oswom iclassificafionSN17]. 11.4 GUARANTEED MINIMUMS FOR RETURNING TO WORK Whenever an employee is required by the department to return to work outside of the employee's normal work hours, if a minimum applies as found in this article, then the employee has the choice of taking the minimum or taking the pay for the work actually performed. 11.5 CALL BACK Employees called back to work at hours not contiguous to their normally scheduled shift shall be guaranteed a three-hour minimum payment at time and one half. Unanticipated emergency call-backs (criminal investigations, emergency evacuations, natural disasters, civil unrest, SWAT, etc.)will include a total 30 minutes for travel time. O 20 0 O11.6 COURT T1ME A. Employees reporting for court duty shall be guaranteed three hours minimum payment at time and one-half. B. Employees required to work through the lunch break while on court duty shall be credited with time worked. Duty free lunch periods shall not be compensable, to a maximum of thirty(30) minutes. C. Two or more court cases occurring within the minimum time period shall be subject to a single minimum payment. D. If a scheduled court appearance is canceled on the day the employee is to appear, s/he shall be eligible for the minimum payment in this$ectionktwial. 11.7 ROLL CALL BRIEFING O Employees who are required to attend roll call briefing and do, shall be paid for such attendance. Payment shall be considered overtime and paid as such if the hours fall within the definition of overtime. 11.8 TRAINING A. EmTEffective January 1, 2007, employees called back for training sessions, authorized by the Police Chief or designee shall be guaranteed twe heufthree-,iougKAn91 minimum payment at time and one-half. B. The City shall provide each employee with paid independent living hotel/motel accommodation when assigned to a POST reimbursable training course or City required training course requiring overnight stay. Daily meal reimbursement provided shall either be a flat $36 per day or the actual amount spent as evidenced by receipts subject to the following maximum amounts (unless increased by City Policy). ■ Breakfast - $10.00 (regardless of whether or not a continental breakfast is O provided) 21 0 � O Lunch - $15.00 ■ Commuter Lunch- $8.00 ■ Dinner- $25.00 ■ Mileage at the prescribed IRS mileage reimbursement rate. 11.9 OVERTIME ASSIGNMENT A. The Department, prior to each shift rotation, will post an overtime interest list. Planned overtime will be called from this last in order of seniority. Employees may add and/or delete their names from this list at any time. 11.10 RANGE QUALIFICATION A. £ffqIeyees--Effective January 1, 2007, employees required to qualify with department approved firearms, shall be guaranteed tu�KAno] hours at time and one-half when participating in range qualification training when off duty. B. Each employee who shoots for qualification shall be provided 100 rounds of O practice handgun ammunition each month upon request. Employees may only receive the current month's handgun allocationjx921l. 0 22 O ARTICLE 12 WORK OUT-OF-GRADE Employees temporarily assigned to work in a higher classification shall receive one step (5.26%) additional pay but in no case more than the top step for the higher classification under the following conditions: A. The assignment exceeds ten consecutive workdays, or eighty consecutive work hours, in which case the step increase becomes effective on the first workday. B. The person being temporarily replaced is on extended sick or disability leave or the position is vacant and an examination is pending. O O 23 O O O ARTICLE 13 STANDBY - SWORN AND NON-SWORN 13.1 DEFINITION Standby is that circumstance which requires an employee assigned by the department to: 1) be ready to respond immediately to a call for service; 2) be readily available at all hours by telephone or other agreed upon communication equipment; and 3) refrain from activities which might impair his/her assigned duties upon call. The parties agree that employees on standby, as defined above, are "waiting to be engaged." The parties further agree there is no intent to waive any individual rights under FLSA. 13.2 COMPENSATION Hourly Standby A. Personnel placed on standby shall be compensated one-hour's pay for each five O hours standby. B. Such employees shall be paid a minimum of three hours straight time when on standby. Each calendar day starts a new standby period. Investigator/Bomb Technician Weekly.Standby A. Effective January 13, 2005, Investigators/Bomb Technicians placed on standby shall be compensated $30 per day Monday through Friday, and $35 per day for other days of standby and holidays. B. Standby shall be rotated among the assigned investigators. Normally, the standby assignment shall be for a period of one week. O 24 I O ARTICLE 14 EDUCATION INCENTIVE The educational incentive pay plan shall continue as described below for sworn x 221 non- sworn personnel for the term of this agreement. A. BASIC BENEFITS. Education incentive pay shall not begin until one year after employment with the City of San Luis Obispo, but credit will be given for approved education obtained prior to that time. Effective January 1, 2007, the basic benefit for employees hired prior to July 1, 1981, will consist of an adjustment equal to one-half step above the base salary for possession of an Intermediate POST certificate, A.A. or equivalent degree from an accredited community or junior college, or 60 or more semester units, or a City-approved equivalent; an adjustment equal to one full step for an Advanced POST certificate, B.A. or equivalent degree from an accredited college or umversltyfkj231. O B. JOB RELATED FIELDS. Degrees must be either in directly job related fields or include at least 30 semester, or City-approved equivalent, units of job related coursework in the case of an A.A. degree and at least 60 semester, or City-approved equivalent, units in the case of a B.A. Should an employee qualify for the one-half step basic benefit by having completed 60 or more semester units or City-approved equivalent, at least 30 of those units must be in job related coursework. All qualifying coursework must be graded at "C" or Pass or better. It is understood that general education courses required for a degree are compensable under this section. C. APPLICATION AND APPROVAL. Application for the incentive pay shall be made by the employee to the Chief of Police at least 30 days before the date the payment of the incentive pay is to be effective. Approval of the Chief of Police and the Director of Human Resources shall be required. D. UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE. To be eligible for compensation under this O program, an employee must receive and maintain at least a "Meets Performance 25 O Standards" rating on their annual evaluation. The Chief of Police, with the concurrence of the City Administrative Officer, may suspend payment of the incentive pay or Step 5 of the salary range, but not both, until such time as the employee's performance comes up to the standard level, in the opinion of the Chief of Police and in concurrence of the City Administrative Officer. E. NON-APPLICABELITY. Educational incentives shall generally not be paid for education received on City time. However, if the City sends an employee for training on City time and co:'.ege-level credits are earned during that training, those credits shall count toward education �'ncentiveq_Kv24;. The education incentive will be removed if the employee is promoted to a position that does not entitle employees to such incentives. F. NEW EMPLOYEES. 1. The basic benefit for non-sworn employees hired ^;; ..� ^"e- °•A'y ' 1°8 prior to C January 1, 2008, shall be a five percent step increase for a period of one fiscal year if during the previous fiscal year the employee has successfully completed—i.e., grades of"C" or better in all courses — a minimum of nine semester units of college level classroom work, or City-approved equivalent, approved by the Chief of Police, provided that this benefit shall be payable only for classroom work done after completion of the probationary period. 2.Empleyees after duly 1, 1481 shall be eligible €eF eempeasa4iea as sotfefth m ye R, b 2095 29 251-. 2. The maximum benefit under this article is the equivalent to the one-step increase for possession of on B.A. or equivalent degree(5.26%). O 26 J O O 3. Sworn and non-sworn employees are eligible to participate in the Tuition Reimbursement program as set forth in cityPolicyJkjz6l. O i 27 of 0 o ARTICLE 15 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 15.1 Each employee required to wear a uniform shall receive an annual uniform allowance as provided below and is expected to purchase and maintain in good repair all required uniform pieces. 15.2 The uniform allowance shall be S9W$1,000 per year, with $450$500 issued to the employee with the first payroll period in June and $450-$500 issued to the employee with the first payroll period in December. New hires will receive a prorated 41noun4KAJr27l. 15.3 All represented employees shall be eligible for uniform allowance without regard to duty status interruption if in paid status, including 4850 Pay. Uniform allowance shall be reported to CalPERS as special compensation. Uniform allowance will not be pro-rated upon separation from employment. 0 0 28 G � O ARTICLE 16 HEALTH CARE INSURANCE 16.1 CONTRIBUTION Effective December 2006 (for the January 2007 Premium, City shall contribute the monthly amounts as set forth below for Cafeteria Plan benefits for each regular, full time employee covered by this agreement. Less than full-time employees shall receive a prorated share of the City's contribution. Employee $413:00$479.00 Employees Plus One $754.80$855.00 Family $995.90-$1,133.00 The Cafeteria Plan amount is inclusive of mandatory dental, a.Pd—vision, and life coverage. • Effective December 2007, (for the January 2008 premium), the contributions shall be as follows: Employee $507.00 Employee Plus One $900.00 Family $1,188.00 Effective December 2008, (for the January 2009 premium), the contributions shall be as follows: Employee $533.00 Employee Plus One $968.00 �amiln"2s] $1,277.00 Employees shall be eligible for the City contributions set forth above based on the O number of dependents they enroll in the PERS Health Benefit Program. Employees 29 `J G opting out of health coverage as provided for below, shall receive a contribution as Odescribed in Section 16.2.B below. 29r 16.2 INSURANCE COVERAGE A. PERS Health Benefit Program The City has elected to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program with the "unequal contribution option" at the PERS minimum contribution rates, currently $48-4897.00 per month for active employees and $49-0-372.75 for retirees as of January 1, 2008.. The City's contribution toward retirees shall be increased by 5% per year of the City's contribution for the active employees multiplied by the number of years the City has been in the PEMHCA program until such time as the contributions for employees and retirees are equal. The City's contribution will come out of that amount the City currently contributes to employees as part of the Cafeteria Plan. The cost of the City's participation in PERS will not require the City to expend additional funds toward health insurance beyond what is already provided. In summary, this cost and any increases will be borne by the OCmployeeSN301. B. Health Insurance Coverage Optional Participation Employees with proof of medical insurance elsewhere are not required to participate in the PERS Health Benefit Program and may receive the unused portion of the City's Cafeteria Plan contribution of $479.00. (after dental and vision insurance is deducted) in cash in accordance with the City's Cafeteria Plan. q:hese empleyees %411 a4se be assessed $16.09 per- mea4h te be plaeed in th D:cciacc-14eaM Insufanee AeeewA Phis . FA will be used to fund the riWs c .Fi t a r-etir-ee and d the QP/s .ests c the A is Employee's , e they%411 be used fer-negotiated empleyee 31r O 30 O O O C. Dental and Vision Insurance/Dependent Coverage Employees will be required to participate in the City's dental and vision plans at the employee only rate. Should they elect to cover dependents in the City's dental and vision plans, they may do so, even if they do not have dependent coverage under PERS. D. Long Term Disability Insurance (LTD) Sworn employees are covered for Long Term Disability Insurance through the Association and are responsible for premium payments. Non-sworn employees continue to be covered under the City's Long Term Disability Insurance Program. E. Life Insurance Employees shall pay for life insurance coverage of Thirty-five Thousand Dollars $35,000) through the cafeteria plan. The effective date of the increase in coverage from $20,000 to $35,000 will depend upon approval from Standard Insurance iCompanyjKM32]. Q16.3 FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN The 1988-1993 addendum outlining the flexible benefits plan is incorporated herein as Appendix PCj_k]33]. The non-reimbursed maximum medical cost will be $3,000 per calendar year. 16.4 REPRESENTATION ON A MEDICAL PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE The Association shall appoint one voting representative to serve on a Medical Plan Review Committee. In addition, the Association may appoint one non-voting representative to provide a wider range of viewpoint for discussion. A. Duties and Obligations of the Medical Plan Review Committee The duties and obligations of the Medical Plan Review Committee shall be to: 1. Review and suggest changes for the City's flexible benefits plan and the O insurance plan offered under the MOA. 31 O 2. Submit to the City and its employee associations recommendations on proposed changes for the City's flexible benefits plan and the insurance plans offered under the MOA. 3. Disseminate information and educate employees about the City's flexible benefits plan and the insurance plans offered under the MOA. 4. Participate in other related assignments requested by the City and its employee associations. B. Miscellaneous 1. The actions of the Medical Plan Review Committee shall not preclude the Association and the City from meeting and conferring. 2. No recommendation of the Medical Plan Review Committee on matters within the scope of bargaining shall take effect before completion of meet and confer requirements between the City and the Association, including Charter Section 1107. O 3. If changes to the City's flexible benefits plan are subject to meet and confer requirements, the City and the Association agree to meet and confer in good faith. 4. In performing its duties, the Medical Plan Review Committee may consult independent outside experts. The City shall pay any fees incurred for this consultation,provided that the City has approved the consultation and fees in advance. 16.5 HEALTH INSURANCE FOR UNIT MEMBER SURVIVORS The City shall maintain and pay for the existing level of health, dental and vision benefits for one (1) year for the surviving family of a unit membeFan active employee who dies im the line of dat5 as a result of a job-related illness or injurjJKAJ341. O 32 o10 • ARTICLE 17 RETIREMENT 17.1 The City agrees to provide the Public Employees' Retirement System's (PERS) 3% at age 50 plan to all sworn personnel and 2.71/o at age 55 for all non-sworn personnel. The 3% at age 50 plan includes€pAe-the following amendments,namely,Post Retirement Survivor Allowance, the 4`h level 1959 Survivor's Benefit, military service credit, one-year final compensation, affd-conversion of unused sick leave credit to additional retirement credit, and Pre-Retirement Opt;onal Settlement 2 Death Benefit. The 2.7% at 55 plan has €waf the following amendments, the 4t' level 1959 Survivor's Benefit, one year final compensation, military service credit, and-conversion of unused sick leave credit to additional retirement credit, and Pre-Retirement Optiona; Settlement 2 Death �BenefigKAJ35]. 17.2 Effective January 1, 2000, the City discontinued paying the sworn employees' share of O the PERS Contribution (9%) and the non-sworn employees' share of the PERS Contribution (8%). The 9% and the 8% were added to the employees' base salaries and reported as compensation to PERS. The employee pays to PERS their contribution; as allowed under Internal Revenue Code Section 414 (h) (2) the contribution is made on a pre-tax basis. 17.3 The Givy V44, emetive ap r r-e3iin�tely juiy 1, 2095, implement the Pfe Re4emew Optienal Settlement-2 Death 36]: O 33 O C O ARTICLE 18 SENIORITY 18.1 Overall seniority in a specific job classification (i.e., Police Officer, Communications Technician, Field Service Technician, Evidence Technician, Police Records Clerk, etc.) will prevail as the standard. All days off, vacation, holidays, and shift selections will be determined by overall seniority in a specific job classification, in compliance with department policy. The department will continue to designate the shifts to be available; including the days off and shifts starting and stopping times. Employees will choose from those shifts designated by the department as available. 18.2 Seniority as it applies to special assignments for the officers will also fall under this standard regardless of seniority in the special assignment. This shall include all current incumbents in specialty assignments as outlined in Article 8. 0 0 34 c o O ARTICLE 19 HOLIDAYS 19.1 For all employees, holiday leave shall be accrued as earned each payroll period at a rate of eight hours per month. The following thirteen days of each year are designated holidays for non-shift employees: January 1 —New Year's Day Third Monday in January—Martin Luther King's Birthday Third Monday in February—Presidents' Day Last Monday in May—Memorial Day July 4—Independence Day First Monday in September—Labor Day September 9—California Admission Day Second Monday in October—Columbus Day November 11—Veteran's Day Fourth Thursday in November—Thanksgiving Day Friday after Thanksgiving Day December 25—Christmas One-half day before Christmas One-half day before New Year's 19.2 When a holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday shall be observed. When a holiday falls on a Sunday, the following Monday shall be observed. 19.3 Except with the prior approval of the Chief, non-shift personnel shall take the holidays as scheduled above. 19.4 Each employee shall earn 4.33 hours of holiday leave semi-monthly, in lieu of fixed holidays. Such employees shall receive payment at straight time hourly rate for a portion of their earned holiday leave�hours) each payroll O periodX371. 35 O O O19.5 Effective January 2002, the remainder of the employee's annual holiday leave (52 hours) shall be advanced to the employee effective the first payroll period in January of each year. Such holiday leave may be taken off by the employee with the approval of the Police Chief or his designee. 19.6 Each calendar quarter, an employee has the option of receiving payment for one-fourth (1/4) of his/her advanced holiday leave. The combination of holiday leave taken off and payment of advanced holiday time may not exceed 52 hours. Any holiday leave remaining as of the last payroll period in December of each year will be paid to the employee at the straight time rate. The T,,...e,..ber- 2002 ash ut .;,, imelude Femakning., heliday heu#s, even these that had been eamed und@F the pr-eN4etts h6kd" a}If an employee terminates for any reason, having taken off hours in excess of his/her prorated share, the value of the overage will be deducted from the Oemployee's final paycheck. 0 36 ARTICLE 20 VACATION 20.1 Full time employees shall accrue vacation leave with pay at the rate of 96 hours per year of continuous service since the benefit date for the first five years, 120 hours per year upon completion of five years, 144 hours per year upon completion of 10 years, and 160 hours upon completion of 20 years. 20.2 All employees may accrue a maximum of vacation time not to exceed twice their annual rate. 20.3 Vacation Sellback All employees in this unit are eligible, once annually in December, to request payment for up to 80 hours of unused vacation leave provided that an employee's overall performance and attendance practices are satisfactory. Payment for unused vacation leave is subject to the availability of budgeted funds. O111420.4 Patrol Vacation Assignment I The master vacation schedule shall provide that two officers per watch shall be allowed to sign up for priority vacation. Officers shall only be required to sign up for regular workdays. Two additional officers (a total of four) shall be allowed to sign up on the master vacation schedule. The Department, under normal circumstances, dependent upon staffing level needs, may accommodate up to a maximum total of two officers per day per shift vacation leave. Subject to the limitations above, after the posting of shifts/days off for each shift rotation, employees shall be allowed to request, by seniority, for additional available vacation days. O 37 � J O ARTICLE 21 SICK LEAVE 21.1 Sick leave is governed by Section 2.36.420 of the Municipal Code. 21.2 Upon termination of employment by death or retirement, a percentage of the dollar value of the employee's accumulated sick leave will be paid to the employee, or the designated beneficiary or beneficiaries, according to the following schedule: A. Death—2"1 50% B. Retirement and actual commencement of PERS benefits: 1. After twenty years of continuous employment—20% 2. After twenty-five years of continuous employment—25% 3. After thirty years of continuous employment—30% C. Job related disability retirement and actual commencement of PERS benefits — 75%with maximum of 1000 hours�ayO*jNj. O D. Sick leave cannot be used to postpone the effective date of an industrial disability retirement. This provision is intended to reiterate past practice and to exercise the employer's rights under Government Code, Section.j11630i4ol. E. Employee use of sick leave shall be deemed confidential and not subject to reporting in monthly or annual personnel evaluations without proof of;abuse6'41l. • 38 o13 O ARTICLE 22 FAMILY LEAVE 22.1 An employee may take up to 446-48hours of sick leave per year if required to be away from the job to personally care for a member of his/her immediate family. 22.2 An employee may take up to 4048 hours of sick leave per year if the family member is a part of the employee's�ouseholdjkJ421. 22.3 If the family member is a child, a parent espouse or domestic partner, an employee may use up to forty-eight(48) hours annually to tend to the illness of a child,parent, espouse or domestic partner, instead of the annual maximums set forth in paragraphs 22.1 and 22.2 in accordance with Labor Code Section 233. 22.4 An employee may take up to 56 hours of sick leave per year if the family member is part O of the employee's household and is hospitalized. The employee shall submit written verification of such hospitalization. 22.5 The amounts shown above are annual maximums, not maximums per qualifying family member. A member of the employee's immediate family shall mean spouse, domestic partner, child, brother, sister, parent, parent-in-law, step-parent, step-brother, step-sister, grandparent, grandchild or any other relative living in the same�ouseho*AJ43]. 22.6 In conjunction with existing leave benefits, unit employees with one year of City service who have worked at least 1280 hours in the last year may be eligible for up to 12 weeks of Family/Medical Leave within any 12 month period. Family/Medical leave can be used for: A. A new child through birth, adoption or foster care (maternal or patemal leave). B. A seriously ill child, spouse or parent who requires hospitalization or continuing treatment by a physician. C. Placement of an employee's child for adoption or foster care. 39 o ,o D. A serious health condition, which makes the employee unable to perform the Ofunctions of his or her position. This leave shall be in addition to leave available to employees under the existing four- month Pregnancy Disability Leave provided by California law. Paid leave, if used for family leave purposes or personal illness, will be subtracted from the 12 weeks allowed by the Family/Medical Leave Program. Employees must use all available vacation, compensatory time off and holiday leave and, if appropriate, sick leave prior to receiving unpaid Family/Medical Leave. 22.7 Employees on Family/Medical Leave will continue to receive the City's contribution towards the cost of health insurance premiums. However, employees who receive cash back under the City's flexible benefit Plan will not receive that cash during the Family/Medical Leave. The City will pay only City group health insurance premiums. O 22.8 If an employee does not return to work following Family/Medical Leave, the City may collect the amount paid for health insurance by the City during the leave. There are two exceptions to this rule. A. The continuation of a serious health condition of the employee or a covered family member prevents the return. B. Circumstances beyond the employee's control. Further details on Family/Medical Leave are available through the City's "Guide to Family/Medical Leave Program". O 40 c ;0 • ARTICLE 23 BEREAVEMENT LEAVE At each employee's option, absence from duty due to the death of a member of the employee's immediate family, meaning spouse, child, brother, sister, parent,parent-in-law, step-parent, step- brother, step-sister, grandparent, grandchild, or any other relative living in the same household, provided such leave as defined in this Article shall not exceed 40 hours for each incident. The employee may be required to submit proof of relative's death before being granted sick leave pay. False information given concerning the death of relationship shall be cause for OchargeiKm44i. O c 41 O ARTICLE 24 CATASTROPHIC LEAVE 24.1 Upon request of an employee and upon approval of the Chief of Police, leave credits (vacation, compensatory time of, or holiday time) may be transferred from one or more employees (donors) to another employee (recipient). The recipient may participate in the program under the six following conditions: A. The recipient is a regular employee. B. The recipient has sustained a life threatening or debilitating illness, injury or condition (The Chief may require that the condition be confirmed by a doctor's report.); or, C. A member of the recipient's immediate family, as defined in Article 23, has sustained a life threatening or debilitating illness, injury or condition (The Chief may require that the condition be confirmed by a doctor's report.). D. The recipient has exhausted all paid leave; or, in the case of illness of or injury to O a recipient's immediate family member, all allowed leave. E. The recipient inust be prevented from returning to work for at least 30 days and have applied for a leave of absence without pay for medical reasons. This condition does not 'apply when the illness or injury involves a member of the recipient's immediate family,rather than the recipient. F. The request for participation in the program shall be made on an Application for Catastrophic Leave Program form. 24.2 Transferring Time The following rules apply when donations of time occur: A. Vacation, compensatory time off', and holiday leave may be transferred by regular employees. B. The time will be converted from the type of leave given (i.e. vacation, holiday, etc.) to sick leave or family care leave, whichever is appropriate, and credited to the recipient's leave time balance on an hour-for-hour basis and shall be paid at G the rate of pay of the receiving employee. 42 • J O C. The donations must be a minimum of four hours and, thereafter, in whole hour increments. D. The total leave credits received by the employee shall normally not exceed three months; however, if approved by the Chief, the total leave credits received may be up to a maximum of six months. E. Recipients of family care leave will be allowed to use all hours received, up to the limits of this policy (see D. above), even though such use exceeds the limits for family care leave found in Article 22. F. Donations approved shall be made on a Donation of Time Credits form signed by the donating employee. These donations are irrevocable under any conditions. 24.3 Appeal Rights If an employee is denied participation in the program by the Chief, he/she may appeal this initial decision jointly to the Director of Human Resources and the City Administrative Officer. Article 31—Grievance Procedure shall be used for final Oresolutiorv(kj457. 43 i O ARTICLE 25 WORKERS' COMPENSATION LEAVE Any employee who is absent from duty because of on-the-job injury in accordance with State Workers' Compensation law and is not eligible for disability payments under Labor Code Section 4850 shall be paid the difference between his base salary and the amount provided by Workers' Compensation law during the first 90 business days of such disability absence. O 0 44 O ARTICLE 26 JURY DUTY AND MILITARY LEAVES 26.1 JURY DUTY Any regular or probationary City employee, when duly called to serve on any jury, and when not excluded there from, or when subpoenaed to appear as a witness at any trial, shall be compensated for the time required to be spent under the jurisdiction of the court by an amount equal to the difference between the pay he/she received as a juror and his/her regular daily rate received from the City. The difference between the time required to be spent on jury duty and the normal'workday of the employee shall be spent performing the employee's regular job assignments unless the department head, upon approval of the Director of Human Resources, determines this not to be practical. 26.2 MILITARY LEAVE Any line-item employee shall receive normal.salary and fringe benefits during the first C thirty days of any period of temporary military leave. Such compensation shall not exceed thirty calendar days in any one fiscal year. 'Any temporary military leave in excess of thirty days in one fiscal year shall be taken as vacation leave or leave of absence without pay. O 45 ARTICLE 27 GENERAL PROVISIONS 27.1 Pavdav Paychecks will be disbursed on a bi-weekly schedule. Payday will be every other Thursday. This disbursement schedule is predicated upon normal working conditions and is subject to adjustment for cause beyond the City's control. 27.2 Salary Survey Agencies For the purposes of external comparisons the agencies to be used for review of compensation shall be: • Gilroy • Monterey • Napa O • Petaluma • Pleasanton • Salinas • Santa Barbara • Santa Cries • Santa Maria Gh es as the City uses fer- ether- Git-y i467. Parties agree that this survey shall be based on total compensation and shall only be one of the considerations used to determine compensation. O 46 ARTICLE 28 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS An officer's place of residence shall be within a eye-hour-one and one-half(1 %z) hour driving radius from the San Luis Obispo Police epartment(xaJ47l. 47 O ARTICLE 29 PROMOTIONAL POLICY Promotions from Police Officer to Police Sergeant shall be subject to the following: 1. Job Announcement. When the Police Department notifies the Department of Human Resources of a Sergeant position vacancy, the Department of Human Resources will publish a job announcement. The job announcement will identify the selection procedure, which includes the application process, test components with their weights expressed as a percentage of the total score, and tentative dates of the testing schedule. Whenever available, the City will identify study materials at least 60 days in advance of a test. 2. Application Process. A completed City application must be received in the Department of Human Resources by the filing deadline. The filing deadline will be at least 30 days Ofrom the date the job announcement is released by the Department of Human Resources. 3. Testing Components. A. Written Test: The written test will count as 20%of the final score. 1. A standardized Police Sergeants multiple-choice test as provided by a testing service, such as Cooperative Personnel Services (CPS) or International Personnel Management Association (IFMA). If available, the City will provide a list of suggested study materials. 2. A score of 70% or better on the written test will enable a candidate to proceed in the testing process. A score below 70% will disqualify a candidate from further consideration. 3. All candidates will have the right to review with a representative from the Department of Human Resources their own written test results so that the candidate may have the opportunity to improve in the future. 48 - U 4. The Chief or his/her designee will review the test before it is given to ensure that the exam contains material relevant to a supervisory position in San Luis Obispo. A-.B. Assessment Center will count as 60% of the final score. 1. The Assessment Center may consist of 2 or more exercises. One of these exercises will be a traditional oral board interview. Other exercises may include a situational role-playing, oral resume, simulation exercises; and a supplemental questionnaire to assess written communication, critical thinking, problem solving and leadership skills, or other testing instruments as determined by the Human Resource Director in consultation with the Police Chief. The Human Resources Director shall determine the weight of each Assessment Center activity. In no case shall the oral interview count less than 60% of the total Assessment Center score. 2. The evaluators will be members of the law enforcement community. Selection of the evaluators will be made by the Human Resources Director in consultation with the Chief of Police. The Human Resources Director or his/her designee from the HR Department will be responsible for instructing the raters on how to conduct interviews and the scope of the interviews. 3. A Police Department observer as appointed by the Chief of Police and an Association observer as appointed by the Association may monitor the Assessment Center. The Association observer must be a neutral, non-unit member not a part of, nor directly impacted by the testing process. Both observers shall be subject to approval by the Human Resources Director. The Chief of Police or his/her designee will provide the evaluators and observers with information about the qualifications desired for the position being tested. 4. At the conclusion of the testing process, each candidate will be asked to G complete an anonymous evaluation of the testing procedure. This will be 49 used to make improvements on the process. The evaluation will not be Gused in determining the final outcome of the testing process. A-C. Staff Evaluation will count as 20% of the total score. In addition to this review, the Chief shall review the candidate's personnel files prior to making an appointment. The staff evaluation will not be provided to the oral panel. 1. Past and present day performance is a significant factor, which should be considered when determining a candidate's promotability. 2. Each candidate who passes the written test will be evaluated by all sworn members of the Department with the rank of sergeant or lieutenant, excluding the Captains and the Chief of Police. 3. Subject to the approval of the Police Chief, if a supervisor feels he or she is unable to conduct an impartial evaluation due to unfamiliarity with a given applicant,he or she may opt not to evaluate the candidate but will be required to document the lack of familiarity on the evaluation form. O 4. Staff evaluators will be able to review the three (3) most current performance evaluations and documentation from the last 24 months of counseling sessions. 5. Staff evaluations are to be in writing on a form developed by the Director of Human Resources and signed by the evaluator. 61. ♦ FF ,u t'eas wi;1 t e diseuss eal st—a F... -r:.. .481-. -7�.6. Each applicant's evaluation forms shall be available for review by the applicant. The applicant shall not have access to the other applicants' evaluation forms. 9-.7. Final scores will be tabulated by the Department of Human Resources. Prior to the score tabulation, applicants will have the opportunity to request in writing that the Department of Human Resources correct any factual errors contained in the applicant's staff evaluation. A-D. Peer evaluation is not compulsory, is only advisory to the Chief of Police and does not count toward the final score. 50 O 1. Peer evaluation is limited to those candidates who pass the Assessment Center. 2. All regular Department employees below the rank of Sergeant may complete a peer evaluation on a form developed by the Director of Human Resources. 3. Participants must verify their eligibility to participate in the peer review process. 4. The results of the peer evaluation will be tabulated by the Department of Human Resources. All forms will be anonymously forwarded to the Chief of Police. 5. The tabulated results of the peer evaluation for each individual candidate shall be released to the individual candidate upon request of the Human Resources Director after the eligibility list has been certified. 4. Final Selection. O A. Upon completion of the testing process, the Department of Human Resources shall tabulate the scores. B. Candidates will be ranked by total score. Candidates scoring below 70% will be ranked unqualified and not placed on the eligibility list. Each candidate will be individually given his/her score in writing. Candidates who are ranked 1 through 3 (plus one for each additional vacancy if there is more than one vacant position) will be considered equally qualified for promotion and eligible for appointment by the Police Chie6491. C. Final selection by the Police Chief will be in accordance with the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations following a discussion of the staff evaluations at the Chief's regularly scheduled staff meeting with sworn and non-sworn managers and a final selection interview with the top three candidates (plus one for each additional vacancy over 9nekj5oj). D. The eligibility list shall be valid for one year unless extended, in accordance with the City's Personnel Rules and Regulations. O E. Announcements for promotional opportunities for members of the Association 51 U U O will list testing and scoring processes that will be followed. Once defined, testing and scoring processes will not be modified. Ther-e m411 be , ' 'f any of the top three candidates is 1}}-paSsednot selected during the selection process, that person will be given a written reason by the Police Chief as to why he/she was dnot selected. The City agrees to an opener to discuss the promotional process if the Police Chief goes below the top three (3) candidates in making his/her selection on promotional exams two (2) or more times during the term of thiscontractl(xlsil. O 0 52 OARTICLE 30 DEF144TIONSPERFOIZMANCE EVALUATIONS 30.1 All regular full-time employees shall receive an annual written performance evaluation from their supervisor within thirty (30) days of the employee's anniversary date absent exceptional circumstances. All regular full-time employees shall also receive bi-monthly written performance feedback from their p' Uperviso�521. 30.2 For purposes of uniformity in the performance evaluation process, the following definitions are provided: UNACCEPTABLE Consistently fails to meet performance standards and objectives for the position. Performance indicates serious lack of knowledge of basic skills or lack of application of Cskills. Requires immediate attention and improvement. RvIPROVEMENT NEEDED Performance is frequently less than expected of a competent employee for the position. Performance indicates some deficiency in basic skill, knowledge or application. Specific efforts to improve desired. MEETS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance indicates competent and effective adherence to expected standards. Performance indicates fully acceptable demonstration of knowledge and skills. EXCEEDS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Performance consistently above standards for position. Performance indicates superior knowledge and application of skills. G 53 OUTSTANDING OExceptional performance. Application of knowledge, skills and results are consistently well beyond the expected standard for position. 30.3 All regular full-time employees shall receive their annual step increase on the employee's anniversary date regardless of whether the evaluation process has been completed, absent exceptional circumstances. 30.4 Employees shall have the right to review their personnel file or authorize, in writing, review by their representative. No adverse material will be placed in an employee's personnel file without prior notice and a copy given to the employee. An employee shall have 30 days within which to file a written response to any evaluation and/or adverse comment entered in his/her personnel file. Such written response shall be attached to, and shall accompany, the adverse�ommenjkjDj. O v 54 J � O ARTICLE 31 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 31.1 A grievance is defined as an alleged violation, misinterpretation or misapplication of Charter Section 1107, the Employer-Employee Resolution, the Personnel Rules and Regulations, this MOA or any existing written policy or procedure relating to wages, hours or other terms and conditions of employment excluding disciplinary matters. A grievance filed by an individual employee should be clearly identified as a formal grievance. This will be accomplished through the use of a formal grievance form (See Appendix B). 31.2 Any employee may file and process a grievance by providing the time, place and circumstances of the action prompting the grievance. A formal grievance should be filed only after the employee has attempted to resolve the disagreement with his/her immediate supervisor. As a courtesy, the employee should advise his/her supervisor of any intention to file a formal grievance. This action must take place within 15 business days of the occurrence of the grievance. Employees may be accompanied by a representative at each step of the process. If a specific action to be grieved affects several employees, those employees may consolidate their grievances and be represented. 31.3 After consideration of a formal grievance, which could include consultation and/or further discussion, the Chief, within 15 business days of the filing of the formal grievance, will provide a written response to the employee.representatives advising of his declslowms41. 31.4 .After consideration of a formal grievance, which could include consultation and/or further discussion, the Chief, within 15 business days of the filing of the formal grievance, will provide a written response to the employee representatives advising of his/her decision. If the employee accepts the Chief's decision, the grievance shall be considered terminated. 55 O31.5 If the employee is dissatisfied with the Chief's decision, the employee may immediately submit the grievance in writing to the Human Resources Director within five business days of receiving the Chief's decision. The Human Resources Director shall confer with the employee and the Chief and any other interested parties, and shall conduct such other investigations as may be advisable. 31.6 The results or findings of such conferences and investigations shall be submitted to the City Administrative Officer in writing within fifteen business days of receiving the employee's written request. The City Administrative Officer will meet with the employee if the employee so desires before rendering a decision with respect to the complaint. The City Administrative Officer's decision shall be in writing and given to the employee within fifteen business days of receiving the Human Resources Director's results and findings. Such decision shall be final unless the employee requests an appeal of the 4ecis1*0W551. 31.457 Hearing Officer - A grievance is appealable, following several preliminary steps, to a Hearing Officer whose decision shall be final and binding: A. The employee will have five business days following receipt of the City Administrative Officer's decision to submit a written request to the Human Resources Director for review of the decision. The Human Resources Director will obtain a A-list of five potential hearing officers from the State Mediation and Conciliation Service. by Fact al eensei34. Then following a random determination of which party (City or appellant) begins, parties shall alternately strike one name from the list until only one remains. B. Within thirty business days the hearing officer shall review the record and conduct a hearing on the matter. Within ten business days the hearing officer shall render a decision, which shall be final and; indinglxjMj. O 56 C. Any dispute regarding the eligibility of an issue for the grievance process may be C appealed through the process ultimately to the Hearing Officer who shall decide on the eligibility prior to ruling on the merits. D. Any fees or expenses of the Hearing Officer shall be payable one-half by the City and one-half by the appellant. 31.8 Provided that implementation processes are correctly followed, amending the Employer- Employee Resolution or the Personnel Rules and Regulations or creating new or amended written policies or procedures may not be grieved but shall first be subject to notice and consultation or meeting and conferring with the Association as provided in City Charter Section 1107, S,.,...eas ', 8 and 9 of D,..s,.'.•.en Ne 6620 the Employer— Employee Relations Resolution, MOA Article 35 "Notice to the Association", and/or by State�awW571. 3-" Any dispute r-egafdiag the eligibility of an issue fer- the �ss Ena), be appealed-#1 9> the gr-esess •el •ha u,,,,fiag Offieser- h shall a •a on the eligibility Prier-te nalin� 58r 31.9 Disciplinary matters are excluded in Section 31.1. The rules governing disciplinary matters for employees covered by this MOA are contained in Sections 2.36.320 through 2.36.350 of the Personnel rules and Regulations of the City of San Luis Obispc.N591. O 57 O ARTICLE 32 LAYOFFS 32.1 Layoffs shall be governed by job performance and seniority in service within the department and job classification. For the purpose of implementing this provision, job performance categories shall be defined as follows: Category 1: Performance that is Unacceptable or Improvement Needed. Performance defined by this category is evidenced by the employee's two most recent performance evaluations with an overall rating that falls within the lowest two categories of the performance appraisal report. Category II: O Performance that Meets Performance Standards, .Exceeds Performance Standards, or is Outstanding. Performance defined by this category is evidenced by an employee's two most recent performance evaluations with an overall rating that falls within the top three performance categories of the performance appraisal. 32.2 A regular employee being laid off shall be that employee with the least seniority in the particular job classification concerned who is in the lowest job performance category. Employees in Category I with the lowest seniority will be laid off first, followed by employees in Category H. Should the two performance evaluations contain overall ratings that are in the two different Categories as defined above, the third most recent evaluation overall rating shall be used to determine which performance category the City shall use in determining order of layoffs. 0 58 323 The parties agree that employees who are laid off pursuant to this Article shall have Oreemployment rights prior to the employment of individuals on an open or promotion list. The employee to be rehired must, at the time of rehire, meet the minimum qualifications as stated in the appropriate class specifications. Employees will be rehired on the basis of last out, first in. 0 O 59 ARTICLE 33 OWORK ACTIONS 33.1 Participation by an employee in a strike or a concerted work stoppage is unlawful and shall terminate the employment relation. Provided, however, that nothing herein shall be so construed as to affect the right of any employee to abandon or to resign his employment. 33.2 The Association shall not hinder, delay, interfere, or coerce employees of the City in their peaceful performance of City services by strike, concerted work stoppage, cessation of work, slow-down, sit-down, stay-away, or unlawful picketing. 33.3 In the event that there occurs any strike, concerted work stoppage, or any other form of interference with or limitation of the peaceful performance of City services prohibited by this Article, the City, in addition to any other lawful remedies or disciplinary actions, may by the action of the Municipal Employee Relations Officer cancel any or all payroll O deductions, prohibit the use of bulletin boards, prohibit the use of City facilities, and withdraw recognition of the Association. 33.4 Employee members of the Association shall not be locked out or prevented by management officials from performing their assigned duties when such employees are willing and able to perform such duties in the customary manner and at a reasonable level of efficiency. 33.5 Any decision made under the provisions of this Article may be appealed to the City Council by filing a written Notice of Appeal with the City Clerk, accompanied by a complete statement setting forth all of the facts upon which the appeal is based. Such Notice of Appeal must be filed within 10 working days after the Association first received notice of the decision upon which the complaint is based, or it will be considered closed and not subject to any other appeal. 60 � 5 ARTICLE 34 OCOMMUNICATION PROCESS 34.1 Conferences There will be meetings as needed between the Chief of Police and management member(s) and at least two Association representatives to discuss problems or other subjects of mutual interest. Minutes of the meeting will be maintained to reflect topics discussed, actions to be taken, the party responsible for any action and the expected completion date. 34.2 Quarterly Meetings Two to four representatives of the Association, the City Administrative Officer (or designee), Chief of Police (or designee), and management representative(s) designated by the City will meet quarterly if there are issues of concern to the parties. No issues will be brought to this quarterly meeting without first having been discussed with the Chief of Police at a previous conference. O G 61 C J O ARTICLE 35 NOTICE TO THE ASSOCIATION Prior to making changes directly and primarily relating to matters within the scope of representation, the City shall give the Association advance notice and the opportunity to meet and confer with City representatives prior to making the change(s). O 62 O ARTICLE 36 EQUIPMENT A. The City agrees to provide each sworn employee of the Association a Bianehi ylon basket weave duty gun belt as their primary duty gun belt. Upon request, the City also agrees to provide each swom employee of the Association a smooth nylon utility belt and related accessories. The smooth nylon utility belt will only be worn as directed by the Chief of Police. The nylon basket weave duty gun belt and nylon smooth utility belt will become the property of the employee and the employee agrees to maintain this pieeethese pieces of kUipmentjkj60]. The smooth nylon utility belt will consist of belt, handcuff case, chemical spray holder, baton holder (to fit the baton carried by the employee), magazine case (to fit the magazines carried by the employee), holster(to fit the weapon carried by the employee), radio holder (to fit the radio carried by the employee), and four belt keepers. Any other Oaccessories will be the responsibility of the employee. B. All appropriate classifications shall be issued A-Level IIIA Ballistic Helmet with riot face shield fixed. C. All appropriate classification shall be issued a chemical protective breathing mask fitted with belt mounted carrying bag. All protective masks shall be in compliance with CalOSHA minimum standards including employee training. D. Non-sworn employees not subject to assignments necessitating helmets/chemical masks will not have them issued. E. All appropriate classifications shall be issued a Stream Light model SL-20 or technologically similar rechargeable flashlight with 12V/120V charging systems. O F. Each marked police unit assigned to unit members shall be equipped with: 63 O1. A Patrol rifle fitted with a hands free assault sling and stock mounted weapon light. 2. A 12-guage pump shotgun fitted with an extended magazine, hands-free assult sling and stock-mounted weapon light; and 3. A 12-guage pump shotgun designated "less lethal" fitted with a hands-free assault sling and stock-mounted weapon light. Notwithstanding the above, the City retains the right to select the specific equipment necessary to fulfill its obligation to provide necessary and appropriate safety equipment. G. Effective July 1, 2008, all department owned firearms are to be subject to annual inspection by a certified department armorer or independent Gun Smith. The certified department armorer or independent Gun Smith shall provide an inspection report for each firearm inspected. Firearms with noted defects, wear and tear, or questionable serviceability shall be replaced and not returned to�erviceiki6i1. O 64 O ARTICLE 37 LIGHT DUTY The City and the Association have met and conferred on a light duty/return to work policy, which is established by mutual agreement as Police Department Operations Directive L-02, dated May 12, 1999. 65 O ARTICLE 38 WORK SCHEDULES existing39.1 Phe agfeement fef sehedules iRpatFMis ineerpeFated Awe 38.1 Patrol 3/12 Work Plan. A. In an effort to improve scheduling, the Chief of Police desires to implement a 3/12 Work Hour Plan. This plan will be implemented beginning January 1, 1988, and will remain in effect until such time that it is no longer determined to be beneficial to the City and/or the Police Officers' Association. B. The basic work pattern for sworn officers on patrol shall be three 12-hour days each week, plus assigned pay back. Employees will normally be assigned to work 160 hours in a 28-day work cycle. In addition employees who attend shall be compensated for briefing time. CC. If an employee does not work the full 160 hours in a 28-day work cycle, the City shall deduct the unworked hours from an employee's accrued holiday or vacation balances, unless the unworked hours result for reasons of excused paid absence or because the City did not assign a pay-back�h*,6i1. [Note: Language for other divisions/assignments moved to end of Article.] 392 Shifft adjustmeptgaidelmes are iaee peraced herein as :appendix E. 38.2 Shift Adjustment Management and the POA reaffirm that scheduling is a management responsibility. However in the matter of shift adjustment policies, it is agreed that the following guidelines will be followed: A. In any situation necessitating a shift adjustment, volunteers will first be sought. O B. Shift adjustments will not be for more than two hours. 66 O C. Shift adjustments for special units or assignments are not covered by this guideline and remain the discretion of the Unit Supervisor or Bureau Commander. D. Whenever volunteers cannot be located, Officers assigned will be chosen sequentially by seniority. E. Generally, no more than two Officers per shift should be ordered to adjust unless a specific event necessitates it. F. At least 14 days notice will normally be given, but in no event will less than seven days notice be given, for an ordered shift adjustment. G. An Officer authorized to shift adjust will not suffer loss of briefing pay or other normal benefit. H. Officers will be given at least ten hours between shifts for ordered non- emergency shift adjustments. I. Shift adjustments will not be ordered to deal with court or shift continuation unless it is necessary to insure the Officer has adequate rest. �\ If court or another assignment prevents an Officer from getting proper rest �J between shifts, the Officer and the Watch Commander may arrange a shift adjustment to meet this need. With approval, the Officer could opt to use adjusted court time towards normal work hours instead of overtime, or to adjust shift start time up to four hours. In cases shere the Watch Commander determines an adjustment is warranted but does not have sufficient manpower, s/he is authorized to bring in a replacement (on O/T) for up to four hours. J. Shift adjustments will not be limited by day or time except as articulated above. K. It is noted that either party may reopen these issues at the time of contract j eenew4ki0l. 67 C3&-23 8.3 Communications Technician 3/12 Work.Schedule I. SHIFT ASSIGNMENTS: A. Work shift assignments will consist of Day Watch and Day Watch relief, 0700 hours-1900 hours, Night Watch and Night Watch relief, 1900 hours-0700 hours (with the exception of shift adjustments as defined in Section VI). B. The work period is defined as eighty (80) hours during a fourteen (14) day period. The eighty hour work period shall consist of a total of six (6) twelve (12) hour shifts with one eight (8) hour payback shift. A work week is defined as three (3) twelve (12) hour shifts with one eight (8) hour payback shift attached during the fourteen (14) day work period. Days off shall be in conjunction with the employee work week and not split unless there is consent by the employee. Example: Week one, M, T, W, week two, M, T, W, TH (8 Hour Payback.) C. Paybacks shall be scheduled for eight (8) hours during the employee's normal work hours in conjunction with workdays by seniority. D. Every employee shall sign up for a relief shift before another employee is assigned to work a second relief shift. 1. The day watch relief will be assigned to cover absences for Communications Technicians on day watch and the night watch relief will be assigned to cover absences for Communications Technicians on night watch. Relief will only be assigned to cover the opposite shift by seniority (e.g. day covers for night) when staffing vacancies exist or when necessitated by special events or circumstances (e.g. Mardi Gras). Permanent and temporary shift vacancies may be staffed by reassignment of the relief shift with seven (7) days prior notice or by voluntary agreement. 2. Relief will not be scheduled to work a shift in the middle of days off. Example: Week one, M, T, W, off, F, off, off. 3. Relief will have at least two (2) days off in between work weeks. Example: M, T, W, T,off, off, S,M, T. 4. Communications Technicians assigned to relief dispatch work schedules shall be compensated for hardship duties by receiving five (5%) percent additional salary while assigned, effective January 13, 2005. G 68 1 _ O II. SHIFT SIGN UP: A. The Communications Manager will post the annual shift and leave sign up schedule by September 15`h each year for the following year. Communication Technicians sign up for shift selection, selected days off, vacation, compensatory time off(CTO) and holiday time. B. Employees will sign up by seniority for their choice of shifts, payback hours, and leave hours for each of the three annual rotations. Shift selection will be by seniority, including relief shift. C. Employees shall have three days (72 hrs) from :the date of receipt of the schedule to make their selection for work shifts, days off and annual vacation accrual. Employees are entitled to sign up for the total of their annual accrual of vacation time utilizing coding"V'`. 1. Communications Technicians will sign-up for "V" days with the expectation that the center is fully staffed and the relief from that watch is available to cover. Communication Technicians may not sign up for vacation time during the initial sign-up if it will incur overtime. First draft vacation requests shall be approved with mandatory overtime in the event of unit vacancies after the master..schedule is completed. D. Once all unit employees have had the opportunity to sign up for their maximum accrual of vacation time, they shall be entitled to again sign up by seniority for all accrued compensatory time off (CTO), holiday hours and previously unselected leave time,they will have accumulated by the date requested. Compensatory time off shall be coded "CTO", holiday leave and all,other previously unselected leave time shall be coded"H". 1. Second draft CTO, holiday and previously unselected leave time may be granted and overtime considered for unit vacancies. Overtime will be posted to accommodate such leave requests. Should the overtime remain unfilled, the requested leave time shall be cancelled. 2. In the event that scheduled CTO time is cancelled, the affected employee shall be paid for the CTO hours scheduled, work the shift and be compensated with overtime as defined in Section 11.3. E. The Communications Manager shall approve leave time by seniority and post same on the electronic schedule by the start of each rotation. F. Employees generally will not be allowed to work more than two consecutive shift assignments without rotation to an alternate shift. The Communications Manager may consider requests to work more than two consecutive rotations for hardship and.educational purposes. In no case will a senior employee be 69 i 1 adjusted from shift preference without their consent to mitigate requested hardship or educational requests. 1. Any request for a change or deviation between employees (i.e. shift rotation trade) must be submitted in memo form signed by both affected employees within one week of posting the tentative schedule. Requests will be forwarded through the chain-of-command for a final decision by the Bureau Commander or designee. If approved, affected employees will also trade seniority for selection of days off. For scheduling purposes, the shift change will affect only the two employees involved. Affected employees will receive credit for the shift they signed up for. III. SHIFT REASSIGNMENT CREATED BY UNDER STAFFING: A. If an employee is reassigned to a long term vacancy and the absent employee returns to duty, both employees shall return to their originally selected shift. B. In the event of a staffing vacancy the reassigned employee who was reassigned shall have the option of returning to their originally selected shift or remaining for the duration of the designated shift once the vacancy is filled. C. In the event an employee is reassigned=from 'a selected shift to a designated O shift, the employee may elect to receive`work credit for either shift to meet rotation requirements. IV. SHIFT TRADE: A. All requests for shift trades between employees shall be submitted utilizing the Substitute Work Agreement form. Requests will be approved by a Bureau Commander or designee. V. LEAVE TIME.CANCELLATION; A. In the event an employee opts to cancel scheduled time off, they will by email notify the Communication Manager. The Communications Manager will by email, notify all unit members of the available cancelled leave time. By seniority, employees junior to the employee canceling leave time may request time off utilizing the cancelled dates. If the cancelled time was priority signup, the department shall grant such time off with the same consideration as originally scheduled as outlined in II. C., as long as the employee has the vacation time and does not exceed their annual allotment. If the cancelled leave time was secondary signup, the overtime consideration articulated in II. D. shall be applied. O VI. SHIFT ADJUSTMENTS: 70 C A. Shift adjustments on a regular scheduled day required to staff Communication Technician vacancies or sick leave will not exceed four (4) hours without the consent of the affected employee. When shift adjustments are required, there shall be a minimum of ten (10) hours between shifts without loss of compensation. B In any situation necessitating a shift adjustment, volunteers will first be sought. Whenever volunteers cannot be located, employees will be chosen sequentially by seniority. 1. At least fourteen (14) days notice will be given on planned leave. 2. An employee authorized to shift adjust will not suffer loss of briefing pay or other normal benefit. C. The Communications Manager and/or Supervisors shall notify employees via email of all changes made to their work schedule at the time said change is made. VII. MEAL AND REST PERIODS: A. Meal periods shall consist of not less than thirty (30) minutes paid subject to interruption, as staffing permits. Two fifteen (15) minute rest periods (breaks) shall be provided, as staffing permits. Breaks may be taken using any combination of the total time allowed. Meal and rest periods (breaks) are subject to interruption and must be taken within the building. 38.9 Shift adjustment guidelines are ineer-pemted hefain as Appefi&i E. 38.4 -.Field Service Technician assigned primarily to field duties will receive a 30-minute paid lunch break as part of their regular shift as staffing and calls permit. They will remain subject to call and interruption during the lunch periO4Kv641. 38.5 Investigations—Division Work Schedule A. sehedulepelie}.-Investigators may participate in a 4/10 work schedule in accordance with the City's alternate work schedule policy. The schedule will 71 C include a 30 minute unpaid lunch. If investigators are called back to work during the lunch period, the time will be considered time[vorke4W651. B. The Investigative Lieutenant will determine the work days and hours for those employees who work the 4/10 schedule based on the coverage needs of the entire unit. The schedule may include shifts beginning at 6:45 am. with attendance at patrol briefings. Investigators who attend patrol or other daily briefings shall do so as part of their regular shift ►ourj"661. 38.6 Other division/assignments may be provided alternate work schedules under the following language: Employees may request that the Department Head or his/her designee consider alternate work schedules. Examples of alternate work schedules include 4/10 schedules, 9/80 schedules, 12-hour schedules, flexible schedules, etc. Alternate schedules may provide for paid or unpaid lunch periods of 30, 45 or 60 minutes. OExcept in cases of emergency, employees will be provided advance notice of at least thirty calendar days prior to having an alternate work schedule discontinued. Such notice does not apply to moving between alternate schedules, temporary schedule changes, flexible schedules, etc. If an alternate schedule is discontinued, the Department will notify the Association of the reason(s) for ending the schedule. Employees on flexible/alternate schedules shall continue to accrue time on the standard eight (8) hour day. Accrued leave shall be charged based on the number of hours missed due to a flexible scheduleK,.r67]. Flexible/alternate schedules implemented for non-sworn employee(s) may have a different FLSA seven(7) day work cycle established. Once established, the FLSA work schedule shall not be changed on a frequent or routine basis. G 72 ARTICLE 39 O SWAT SWAT team members are required to maintain a higher standard of physical fitness than the normal employee. The City will reimburse each SWAT team member who voluntarily joins a physical fitness gym for the cost of the membership and monthly charges up to a maximum yearly rate of $375.00 per member. At the City's request each member requesting reimbursement may be required to provide proof of membership and active participation. c G 73 O ARTICLE 40 TRAUMATIC INCIDENTS Employees involved in a traumatic critical incident as defined by Operations Directive T-12, where the employee may be subject to investigation, shall be advised of his/her right to representation. G O 74 O ARTICLE 41 NO DISCRIMINATION 41.1 There shall be no discrimination by the City of San Luis Obispo in employment conditions or treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, association membership or non-membership, or participation in the activities of the Association. 41.2 There shall be no discrimination by the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association in treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, physical or..mental disability, Association membership or non-membership, or participation in the activities of the Association. O G 75 o' O ARTICLE 42 STAFFING The current number of positions in the Police Department represented by the Association is Forty-Four (44) Police Officers, Ten (10) Communication Technicians, Three (3) Field Service Technicians, Four and one-half(4.5) Police Records Clerks and One(1)Evidence Technician. If it becomes necessary for the City to exercise its management right to change those staffing levels, the City acknowledges its responsibility to meet and confer with the Association on the impacts of any such changes. 76 0 O ARTICLE 43 CONTINUING NEGOTIATIONS The City and Association agree to continue negotiations on the issue of credit for special assignments for the MPO program only. If the parties are unable to reach agreement on this issue, all normal impasse procedures will apply. / 77 C ARTICLE 44 OJ FULL AGREEMENT It is understood this Agreement represents a complete and final understanding on all negotiable issues between the City and the Association. This Agreement supersedes all previous Memoranda of Understanding or Memoranda of Agreement between the City and the Association except as specifically referred to in this Agreement. The parties, for the term of this Agreement, voluntarily and unqualifiedly agree to waive the obligation to negotiate with respect to any practice, subject or matter not specifically referred to or covered in this Agreement even though such practice, subject or matter may not have been within the knowledge of the parties at the time this Agreement was negotiated and signed. In the event any new practice or subject matter arises during the term of this Agreement and, an action is proposed by the City, the Association will be afforded notice and shall have the right to meet and confer upon request. 0 0 78 O ARTICLE 45 SAVINGS CLAUSE If any provision of this Agreement should be held invalid by operation of law or by any court of competent jurisdiction, or if compliance with or enforcement of any provision should be restrained by any tribunal, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby, and the parties shall enter into a meet and confer session for the sole purpose of arriving at a mutually satisfactory replacement for such provision within a 30 day work period. If no agreement has been reached, the parties agree to invoke the provision of impasse under Charter Section 1107. O O 79 O ARTICLE 46 RENEGOTIATIONS If either party wishes to make changes to this Agreement, that party shall serve upon the other its written request to negotiate, . Such notice and proposals must be submitted to the other party not less than 105 days prior to the end of the Agreement. If notice is properly and timely given, negotiations shall commence no later than 90 days prior to the end of the[Agreement}w681. 0 0 80 J ARTICLE 47 C TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective July 1, 2004, and shall continue in full force and effect until expiration at midnight, December 31, 2005. SIGNATURES 1. Classifications covered by this Agreement and included within this unit are shown in Appendix "A". 2. This Agreement does not apply to temporary employees. This Agreement was executed ea August 16,4885r,by the following parties in accordance with the arbitrator's award dated June 6, 2008: CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION O Monica Irons, Director of Human Resources Dale Strobridge, SLOPOA President/ Chief Negotiator Richard S. Whitmore, Esq., City Representative James Fellows,Negotiator Shaana Lichty,Negotiator Chad Pfarr, Negotiator Charles Riedel,Negotiator Barbara Sims,Negotiator 0 81 G APPENDIX A CLASSIFICATION Non-Sworn Communications Technician Evidence Technician Field Service Technician Police Cadet Police Records Clerk Sworn Police Officer O , O 82 C APPENDIX B OGRIEVANCE FORMS O O 83 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PAGE_OR oFORMAL GRIEVANCE INSTRUCTIONS: Grievance must be filed within 15 business days of the occurrence. First discuss with your Immediate Supervisor,then with your Supervisor's Superior. If not resolved, complete this form and distribute in accordance with departmental procedures. Grievant's Name(PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE) Class Title Has this grievance been discussed with your Immediate Supervisor? Date of Discussion Name of Immediate Supervisor Tibe Has this grievance been discussed with your Supervisor's Superior? . Date of Discussion Name of your Supervisor's Superior Title 1. What is the action or situation about which you have a grievance? (Be specific, give: date, time, location, and witnesses.) 2. What do you think should be done about it? o 3. What was your Supervisor's response? What provision of the Rules, Regulations, or Agreement was violated? Article of MOA Department Rule Date of Grievable Incident What other person do you want.notified of any hearings held or actions taken on this grievance? Name: Mailing Address: His/her role in grievance: Grievant's Signature: Date: Received by: Date: 0 84 C C CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO OGRIEVANCE APPEAL INSTRUCTIONS: Appeal to the City Administrative Officer must be filed within five (5) business days of receipt of the Chief of Police's decision.Appeal to the Hearing Officer must be filed within five(5) business days of receipt of the decision of the City Administrative Officer. Complete form and distribute in accordance with departmental procedures. Grievant's Name(PLEASE PRINT OR Class Title Date of Grievance Initiation TYPE) I wish to appeal the Grievance Response signed by: Name: Title: Date: Level to which grievance is being appealed: (CHECK ONE) ❑ City Administrative Officer via Personnel Director ❑ Hearing Officer Reason for Appeal: Grievant's Signature: Date: OReceived by: Date: 0 85 C � o D A TROT 342 T71 O V PLAN LANGUAGE INCORPORATED INTO MOA O 0 78 y APPZO= C AMENDIIM TO THE 1985-88 MMORARDUM OF AGREZWW SMUS THE CITY Or SAH LUIS OSISPO AND THE SAN LOIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION PREAMBLE C Association, In an effort to improve sehedvlimg o time off for sworn emp mea, has reQsestad the implementation of a 3/ 2 work hour plan. The has agreed to use this plan on a trial Bis. The test period will Las up to eight months. The City has he right to tacminate the us of the 3/12 work plan sad reassign employee to the 5/8 work week a any time during the test period if the City belie s the 3/12 is to costly, too cumbersome, or unacceptably reduces the le 1 of servi provided to the community. The Associatfoce hss the ght terminate the use of the 3/12 work plan, if the plan as implemented comes uaatceptable. The addendum shall terminate on the Lost day of 28- y cycle following a 30-day written notice from the Association o the City After the test per- d, the parties w ll evaluate the results of the plan. Such evaluati period shall last at 1 at three months. Both parties will oval the results of the test, b t the final determination as to whether or not the plan Is used after the or uation period shall be made by the Cy. If, on the baste of the analyaes o the test, the Cl'iy determines it may reimplement a 3/12 work plan, prior to king a final determi ties the City &hall first nest and confar,vith the asociatlon abou the specifics of such 3/L2 work plan and any revisions the fh randum of Agreement needed to implement such a plan. It Is further understood and agreed that all employees in the dapartwnt retogni:e and accept thuir responsibility to make rise 3/12 p a work. In this spirit, the employees will cooperate In making themselves 1 79 vailable for and respond to all requests or orders concerning shift ad stments, utilization of pay back days, subpoenas, training, or amerg y call backs made by management during the test period as is necessar to effectuate this agreement. EFFECT OF THIS ADDENDDH The 198 88 Agreement shall remain in full force And of ct except as specifically dified below. The modifications below s 11 terminate on the last date o the effectiveness of this Addendum o any earlier date upon which the Citjf o the Association decides to ter inate the cost ported and all the provi ems of the 1985-88 Agree eat shall once again become fully operative. T OF TEST PER The test period shall comm to prio to December, �1 and shall :%;:ly terminate eight mon s ram date of commencement, l J YOA7t MW ALL MEW) v The basic work peteero tar worn o ieers out patrol shall be three 12 hour days each week, plus signed cosy k. Employees will normally be assigned to work 160 he a in a 26-day work yet*. In addition. employees who attend a i be compensated for bri ting time. if an employee oes not work the full 160 how in a 28-day work cycle. the City sh 11 deduct the unworked hours from a employee's accrued holiday or vacs ton balances, unless the unworked hours r ult for reasons of excused d abaoncs or because the City did not assign a pay back shift. ring the test period, the City shall have complete flexib icy to cha a work hours. The City's intent, however, is to give roasoaabl for notice whenever possible. G2 80 J J o OVERTIRE -- SHORN (NO GRANGE EXCEPT FOR:) 3 Alt hours worked through the first 16S hours in tlw eOployee's 2g-day work period shall be paid in Cash at the employee's s Sight me base hourly rate. Ali hours worked above lbs in the mployee's 29- y work period shall be paid in cash at time and on half the employ e'a regular rate of pay. CiIARANTEED MIMIJIUMS FOR RETURNING TO (REPLACt CURRENT WITH:) Whenever an bm oyes is required by the dopa Vent to return to work outside of the employee. normal work hours, if minimum applies as found in this article, then the ployee shall rete a the ,minimum at pay for the work actually performed, hichevet is rger. The City shall have the Option of psyta& thw minimun in ash or a an adjustment to the employee's work shift if the work shift Comma a within twelve (I2) hours of the Jscheduled return to work. 11-t SCHEDULED RPTURN TO WORK Court .Time (a) Employees porting for court oty shall be guaranteed two boors m taus payment at Strait time. (b) Two o acre court cases otcurrfog thin the minimum time pe od shall be subject to a single is lmum payment. Trai a Ea layaex called back for training sessions aut rised by the log of Police or chs Watch Comizender shstt be gas anteed cwo-hour minimus payment at straight time. Range qualification (a) Sworn personnel below the rank of Captain shall be guaranteed twu hours at straigbt time when participating G 81 0 in range qualification training when off duty. (b) Foch sworn employee who shoots for qualification shat be provided 100 rounds of practice amnunitiw during t month. 11.1 NON- CNEOt1LED RETURN TO YORK Ca 1 Back Empl nes called back to work at other than it normally schedul shut shall be guaranteed Lwo-ho r minimum payment at titre-ana- a-half. ST BY (90 CHA=E EXCEPT :) t).l COMPENSATION Non-investigator (a) Swore petsosnol bolo the ra of Lieutenant, placed on standby, shall be conpe a ed one hour's pay for .oach five ohours standby. (b) For any calendar day NT par of which an et*loyao is scheduled to work, the empl ee shall rcc -ve no minion, pay for standby. For y calendar day NO art of which an employee is acheduled to rk, the employee shat receive a mlaimum of three hou of pay at straight time, ra tot standby. lavesti to No change HOLIDAYS. VACATION, SLCK L.EM Eac of the above shall continue to accrue as provided n the cbrran Agreement, except that, where the accrual or use Is ata in days such accrual or use shall be converted to hours by using sig t (B) r?, for each day provided. When An employee takes time off from a one of these benefits, tot each hoar taken 01i an.- hour shall be subtracted 4 0 82 C� �J o - rem the employee's accrued balance. MEAVEHLUT LEAVE No age except the tie# off ahslt not exceed 40 war na hours per incident. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION r a �b �'.5- • ti. Ann Crosser Da Cle Jo a Date Personnel Director President Don rc Qa u Terry Cempbe k to Chia f. Poii' Vice President SLOPOA O S O83 � C SM i R TO ADDENDUM Of 1989-88 M900randus of Agreemerit Betwaon tho City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association Mutual consent of the City and the Police Officers Associat on, the attached ndum with .sidelottpr adapted May 19, 1987 by Rasolut 6216 41987 sari ) is hereby aodifiod to read as follows: A. Page Ocie, Paragraph Ono In an fort to improve scheduling, the Chief Of PoliC desires to implement a 3/12 York !tour Plan. This plan will be i4pleriontod beginning ! ary 1. 1988 and will remain o offaCt until uch time that it is IMM I* or deterained to o beneficial to the City and/or the PaliCe Off) rs' Association. 8. Pago One. Pdregra Two, Three. F f and iivo: All Paragraphs dolpt C. Page Two. Paragraph One: Deleted. C D. Page Paragranh Thr Doleteo. The ,, t• ane the Pols, Officers 4-.socia or. agree to continue atl oth.+r asoects or ir:o IM-88 as written through _Lane Y... 1988. rhe Cit: anr! f ,ice tlfftcvrs' •:c.cciatlor. oiso ag as that all other provisions af' t current MGA. not effected by the addo C, will remain the same. ' Mothi herein should be construed to indicato that the C y will, in any way, r linQuish currant or future management prerogatives to establish cessary work plans appropriate to tho mads of the Departmont. 0 84 C� J 0 of San Luis Obispo Poli f' Police Officers association Ann Crossey Director of Persorm resident. San Luis Ob o PDA i es M. Gardiner CSief of Polite John ity inistrativo Diff O 0 85 APPENDIX$C v FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN 86 APPENDIX PC �; aIIDPdPDVIC TO TSS 1988-1993 MMWVAMM OF AGRZMMT ZZIN32H THE CITY o8 an LIIIB OzISPo a1P0 POLICE OPPICSRS ABBOCIaTION FLExI8L3 9En ZTB PLh8 A. PURPOSE OF THIS ADDENDUM To protect the non-taxable status of city contributions for insurance under the memorandum of agreement (MOA), the City and the Association here 1) modify the MOA provisions about refunding unused contributions and 2) outline the intentions and contents of a flexible benefits plan (sometimes referred to as a "cafeteria plan"), which shall include a salary reduction plan component and/or Other mutually agreeable provisions. B. DELETION OP EXISTING REFUND PROVISIONS Article 17.3 of the MOA is deleted. C. INTENTIONS AND CONTENTS OF THE FLEXIBLE BENEFITS PLAN The City and the Association shall adopt a flexible benefits plan which shall: 1. take effect retroactively frog January 1, 1990. 2. comply with applicable Internal Revenue Code sections, including Section 125 3. allow an employee to: a. avoid taxation on portions of salary (the amount of the employee share of the benefit) and City contributions used for insurance premiums through a salary reduction plan b. purchase additional group teres life insurance d. provide for an employee to receive any unused City Contributions in cash each pay period (a change from previous practice) S. through amendment of the plan as soon as reasonable, allow an employee to avoid taxation an salary and City contributions used for other permitted 'purposes, subject to the provisions of.paragraphs D.1 and D.2 of this addendum. The Association shall meet and confer with the City to achieve such mutually acceptable amendments. 87 I: APPENDIX PC OAddendum Flexible Benefits Plan. Page 2 6. allow the city, as plan aftinistrator, to establish administration procedures and to make amendments to the plan (which amendments may be implemented during the term of this MOA) subject to Sections CS, 6, and B; and including all required meet and confer procedures 7. reasonably protect an employee's benefits under the plan if the employee cannot manage his or her personal affairs S. not. supercede any contrary provision contained in the HOA (including this addendum) nor limit the rights of any ecployee under the !layers-Milias-Brown Act. D. MISCELLANEOUS r 1. The provisions of paragraph C6 of this addendum, regarding amendment of the flexible benefits plan, shall not preclude the Association and the City from meeting and conferring. 2. No recommendation of the Medical Plan Review Co=ittee on matters Within the scope of bargaining shall take effect before completion of meet and confer regvirements between the City and the Association. 3. The City shall direct its tax attorney to obtain an Opinion letter from the Internal Revenue Service about qualification of the flexible benefits plan document under the internal Revenue Code. 4. Should any employee association or any of its employees, be allowed to withdraw from participation in the City's health insurance plans, or be determined to have such right of withdrawal, the City and the Association shall meet and confer about the effects of such a withdrawal. This addendum is executed by the following authorized agents: FOR THE CITZ of SAN LUIS OBISPO; n �cl�Cr Ann McPike, Personnel Director . 3-4;61-�o Date FOR THE ASSOCIATION: ry Nano , President 1 a Date t 88 Cu7L'T A T1'f TC TA.it'wi"i' INCORPORATED INTO MOA O G 89 APPENDIX E 0 and the POA te�mm�scheduling is a management rotpaneVity. in the mems of ddfk poiicim u is meed do&a Mowing wE ba tbllawed A. In sibm6m a shift adjusunent,vohmeem will fast be soot EL Shift wiD net be for more tlum two boat C Shift for special units or essigmaents ese not coveted by this and remain the of the Unit Sgavbw or Bateau Cel. A Whenever eamot bo located.Officers assigned will be mgmaatially by sealaty. E C enas>ty,no toore tbsc aper shift sbomld be to adyust as specific event amemsitates it F. At beat 14 days n otnce wiD be Suer,but in nn• wiq lees thus saves days notice be given,for as shift t Q An Ofldrxr wed t D shift adjust not ofbQk ft pay as o&e oomtai benefit CIL Officers at least un bun drifts fr ordered L S M willbe caderad deal with or�condmod os unless,it is necessmy to immae 1= ade�ate mat. at ami pasvoma an Offnxr fig ge-N— res bmwem the O�and the Womb Glnmmaoder may a:sany a . meat to meet this With approval,dee Offceer owmidd opt to ass coo=t time wwmds normal boots finned of ovaWme,or to e4just shift time up to font baurs. in casae The Watch Cmmaandder detennines is wanrantad but does net &Mdm meopowa,he is m bring in a replac®erst(on OM Sow to fim boots. J. Shin a4nstamear not be limited by day or time a wqt a 4 abovae. S. It is noted that party.may roopittt tie iesass at the tiro of oo M21 O 90 C � DTTT CC /"Jll7TrDATTATf_ C AT ADV THT!`D T;ACL'C INCORPORATED INTO MOA G 91 APPENDIX F LUTIOK NO. 4272(1980 Series) ---- - v Section 3. Rules Governing Step •iner.;z=s. The following rules shall govo step in eases for employees other than those spec fied. in Section 4: (1) The irst step is the mini=m rate and shall normally be the Airing to for the a In cas-z where it is difficult to secure qualified pe onaal, or If a pe of unusual qualifications is hired, the Administra ve 01.0fieer ea) authorize bi ng at any step. (2) The second step an incentive adjustment to encourage 'employee to improve • L Us work. An emp may be advanced to the second following the cocpletion of six ¢moa he satisfactory service -upon eeoamendat£on by his department bead and the proval of the P Director. (3) . The third step rc raseats middle value o the salary range and is the rate at vbicb a fully qualified, need ordinarily conscientious aployee say expect to be paid after a onab period od satisfactory service. Au employee may be advanced to the thi step after eoaplation of six =nth& 4-- service at the sacoad•stept p ad advancement is recommendod by the department bead and approved the Pore 1 Director. . (4) The fourth step is to be rded only to of cork which is well above average for the class. employee may be ad eed to the fourth step after eaapletian of oao of service at the third a provided the advancement is rounded by a departmmet bead and approved the Personnel Director. (5) The fifth step a intended as a reward for perforaance twined above satisfaeto An employee may be advanced to the fifth s after campletior. of two s service Cone year for Voliee Officers, bogieei level, or for emp s who were at fifth step in one cj:%ssificaiion and than ro=ted to a r step in a higher classificacton) at the fourth step provt the advancement is recacmaaded and justified in writing by the departmen head n- and approved by the Personnel Director. _ 92 '-- ; City of san lues osispo yy__ Fiscal Health Contingency Plan October 2001 ■ Whenever there are two consecutive quarters of adverse fiscal results in top five revenues: sales • RPOtax,property tax,transient occupancy tax(TOT), utility users tax and vehicle license fees (VLF). The purpose of this plan is to establish a framework and general approach in responding to adverse fiscal Adverse results include: circumstances. ■ Actual declines in revenues. What It's Not: This plan is not intended to be a ■ Significant variances from projected revenues. specific"recipe" for expenditure cuts or revenue increases: this needs to be determined on a case-by- GENERAL FUNs FOCUS case basis. Preparing detailed reduction options before they are truly needed is not recommended for This plan is focused on the General Fund,but three reasons: Enterprise Funds (water, sewer,parking,transit and ■ If not taken seriously, quality thought will not be golf) will also fully participate for two key reasons: given to them. ■ We are one organization: all parts need to �il If taken seriously,this is likely to result in participate. \� needless anxiety, and sends,a conflicting ■ It is strategically important to limit Enterprise message if"times are good." Fund rate increases (rate decreases would also be nice) at a time when we may be considering ■ And even if these were not constraints, they General Fund revenue increases. would have a short shelf-life: needs and priorities change over time. KEY - LAN ELEMENTS However, this plan does set forth the foundation of principles and values upon which specific responses There are six key elements to this plan: will be based. ■ Maintaining minimum fund balance at policy levels. This plan will be"triggered"by any of the ■ Following other key budget and fiscal policies. following: ■ Monitoring the City's fiscal health on an ■ Any adverse fiscal circumstances as determinedongoing basis. by the City Administrative Officer(CAO), such ■ Assessing the challenge: short or long-term as: problem? • Natural or human-made disasters. ■ Identifying options. • State takeaways. . Large,unexpected costs. ■ Preparing and implementing the action plan. �./ • . Economic downturns. Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 2 O Minimum Fund Balance Interim Reporting O First Line of Defense in Adverse Circumstances ® Reliable automated financial management system Maintaining minimum fund balances at policy ■ On-line access organization-wide via the levels: network ■ Allows continued operations and projects in ■ Monthly financial reports responding to short-term problems. ■ Quarterly "Newsletter"(provided electronically ■ Provides a bridge—"breathing room'—in to all employees) addressing longer-term problems while ■ CIP project-to-date expenditure report comprehensive response plans are developed. ■ Mid-Year Budget Review This is especially important under Proposition 0 Special Reports: Sales Tax, TOT, Investments 218, since there are limited opportunities to implement new revenues. Annual Reporting © Other Key Budget and Fiscal Policies Preparing audited financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and Following our other key budget and fiscal policies highest standards. will prevent problems to begin with,and keep them from getting bigger when they do happen. These are Q Assess: Short or Long-Term Problem? set forth in Section B of the Financial Plan, and include: Different Strategies for Different Problems M Balanced budget ■ Short-Term: One-time event or downturn that ■ Conservative investment practices is not likely to continue indefinitely. ■ Diversified revenues ® User fee cost recovery "One-time" fixes are an appropriate response for ■ Enterprise funds "one-time"problems. ■ New development pays its own way ■ Long-Term: Ongoing downturn in revenues or ■ Limited use of debt financing increases in costs that are systemic. ■ Fleet replacement E Contracting for services In this case, "one-time" fixes won't work: this ■ Productivity improvements requires new ongoing revenues or ongoing expenditure reductions. © Fiscal Health Monitoring Assessment:Short-Term Problem In accordance with our budget and fiscal policies, a Hiring Chill. CAO approval will be required to the City will develop and implement effective fill vacant regular positions. To fill a vacant ongoing systems for reporting and monitoring our position, department heads must demonstrate fiscal condition. These include: that it is necessary in meeting public health, safety or other high-priority service needs that cannot be met on an interim basis through contract, overtime or temporary staffing. In implementing the"chill,"the goal is not just short-term savings, but preserving future options if the problem turns-out to be ongoing. - Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 3 U■ Travel Chill. We will limit travel and training: reduces future year operating costs or increases CAO approval will be required for all Travel ongoing revenues. Authorizations. Expenditure Reduction Options ■ CIP Project Deferrals. The CIP Review Committee will identify candidate projects for Tough But Simple Fact: Meaningful ongoing possible deferral or deletion. expenditure reductions require reductions in regular staff costs, including public safety personnel: ■ "One-Time" Operating Cost Review. The Budget Review Team will identify special ■ 90% of General Fund costs are operating. projects in the operating budget for possible ■ 80% of General Fund operating costs are for deferral or deletion. staffing. ■ Fund Balance. The City will consider use of ■ 90% of General Fund staffing costs are for fund balance below policy levels. regular staffing. ■ Over 50%of General Fund staffing costs are for ■ Other. The City will consider other short-term public safety. expenditure curtailments as appropriate. Assessment. Long-Term Problem General Strategy Department Heads are responsible for crafting ■ Implement"short-term"actions. operating expenditure reduction options that: ■ Prepare long-term forecast to define the ■ Are real and"doable." problem. L'J ■ Reflect the least service impacts to the ,N Prepare revenue increase and expenditures community—no game-playing in proposing reduction options tailored to problem definition least-likely reductions and non-starters. via the forecast. • It is likely to take 3-6 months to prepare ■ Are ongoing. plans; and another 3-6 months to implement ■ Describe service impacts. them. ■ Are within the City's ability to do • This underscores the importance strong independently—no speculative reductions fund balance and short-term expenditure contingent upon actions by others. reductions to create the time needed to prepare and implement reasonable long-term ■ Can be implemented within three months after plans. adoption. © Identify Options ■ Are net of any related revenues from fees or grants. In the long-term,there are only two basic budget- balancing options: ■ Maintain essential facilities, infrastructure and equipment at reasonable levels—no deferred ■ Increase revenues. maintenance posing as genuine cost reductions. ■ Reduce expenditures (and related service levels). ■ Reflect participation from throughout their In the short-term,use of fund balance is an option, organization. out not it is not a viable long-term solution. An exception is the strategic use of fund balance that IL 1 Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 4 Option "Targets" • Direct adverse impacts to public health and safety. Targets for surfacing operating expenditure • Outstanding contractual commitments. reduction options will generally be: o Significant outside resources or related one- ■ Based on percentage reductions from current time revenues. operating budgets, less significant one-time costs. Revenues:Limited Options ■ The same for all departments. The Budget Review Team, working with representatives from the operating departments,will Targets are likely to exceed the"gap" identified in have the lead responsibility for identifying revenue forecast in order to surface an array of reasonable options. However, it is likely that any new policy choices based on priority considerations, and significant revenues will require voter approval not driven by arbitrary across-the-board decreases. under Proposition 218; and most likely, this election Operating expenditure reductions are not likely to be cannot be held until the next regular municipal sole "budget-balancers,"but identifying their service election (November of even-numbered years). impact is critical to attracting support for new There are two exceptions when revenue elections revenues and other mitigation strategies. can be held at any time: Key Principles in Preparing Operating Expenditure ■ Emergency declared by unanimous vote of the Reduction Options Council. ■ Any service reductions will be balanced, and • Two-thirds voter approval for"earmarked" ensure that highest priority services are retained. revenues. ■ Reductions will be based on service priorities, Significant New Revenues: Voter Support Required O not vacant positions: attrition is a helpful tactic, ■ Voter approval will require time for effective but will not be the driving strategy in reducing preparation before a measure is placed on the costs. On the other hand, one of the key ballot. purposes of the"hiring chill'is to create flexibility in making reductions based on ■ Critical Success Factor: An effective, priorities while mitigating the need for lay-offs. community-based group that will work hard to pass measure. ■ Our focus will be on retaining"front-line"core services, and reducing services with the least Legislative Advocacy impact on the community at-large. Depending on the reason for the adverse ■ On the other hand, we need to preserve circumstances (and especially if they are driven by "organizational'infrastructure, and ensure that state or federal budget actions), the City will work appropriate and necessary internal review closely with its elected representatives and others functions remain. (such as the League of California Cities) in mitigating service(and related cost)reductions. CIP Projects Unlikely Long-Term Budget Balancers ■ The CIP Review Committee will be responsible for identifying ongoing reduction opportunities. ■ Fund balance below policy levels. Using fund is balance is a one-time course of action; it ■ Projects intended to maintain existing cannot fix a structural imbalance. infrastructure and facilities will generally have higher priority over"new"facilities. Likely IN Significant reductions in training. With fewer exceptions include: employees, it will be even more important to Fiscal Health Contingency Plan Page 5 ensure that we have a highly-skilled, well- ■ Periodic "newsletters." trained work force. ■ Ongoing briefings with employee association Involvement and Participation representatives. ■ Special organization-wide briefings as The City will actively solicit and encourage appropriate. participation by key stakeholders in the budget- balancing process including: Community ■ Organization as a whole. ■ Viewpoint articles in The Tribune. ■ Employee associations. ■ New releases. ■ Community groups. ■ Presentations to interested community groups. This will require effective and ongoing ■ Periodic"newsletters"via direct mail or utility communication with them. billing inserts. ■ Web site updates. Employee Involvement ■ Community forums and workshops. ■ Department heads will encourage employee participation and involvement in preparing Possible Formation of Community Advisory Group expenditure reduction options. We may form an "ad hoc"advisory group depending ■ The City will strive to identify likely position on the circumstances,with careful consideration of: reductions resulting from this plan six months ■ When should they become involved in the before implementation in order to: process? �/ • Be straight forward with affected employees ■ Who should be on it? about their employment outlook. ■ What's their role? • Provide transfer opportunities. • Allow affected employees a reasonable 0 Finalize and Implement Action Plan amount of time to make other plans. ■ With advice from Department Heads and the Key Value: Respect. There are downsides to this Budget Review Team,the CAO is responsible approach, and many organizations consciously keep for preparing the recommended action plan. force-reduction actions under wraps as long as possible because of them. However,treating ■ Council approval is required for implementation. employees with respect means informing them about City plans that affect them as soon as possible. ■ Finance will closely monitor results of the action plan in achieving its goal, and will quickly Communication Strategies report any significant deviations to the CAO and Council. The following identifies possible communication strategies with employees and the community. Employees . : �: {L�q-�,=:� � . • � �t.�`r� '�;X,;,� ,,-' .� ■ Ongoing employee briefings with CAO,Finance &IT Director and Department Heads. �;M Ongoing updates via voice mail or email.