HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2009, B4 - BINDING ARBITRATION ELECTION OPTIONS council Dap 3-3-09
j acEnaa Report �N
CITY OF SAN LU I S O B 1 S P O
FROM: Ken Hampian, City Manager
Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney
Audrey Hooper, City ClerV4_
SUBJECT: BINDING ARBITRATION ELECTION OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION
Review options relative to the binding arbitration provision in the City's Charter.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City Charter currently includes a provision requiring binding arbitration to resolve labor
disputes between the City and the San Luis Obispo Police Officers Association (POA) and the
San Luis Obispo Firefighters Association, IAFF Local 3523 (Fire Union). On January 31, 2009,
the Council directed staff to place consideration of options regarding this Charter provision on a
future Council agenda for discussion.
This report outlines options ranging from taking no action to placing an amendment to remove
binding arbitration from the Charter on a future election ballot for consideration by voters. The
cost and timing associated with election options are outlined, with costs ranging from a low of
$6,000 to a high of approximately $130,000, depending upon timing. Sample options for
changing binding arbitration through a ballot measure are also outlined, along with
corresponding legal and labor relations considerations. The alternative of conducting public
opinion research prior to deciding on an election option is also discussed, with a survey estimated
to cost $25,000 requiring 60 to 90 days to complete.
DISCUSSION
Background
During the Council's January 31, 2009, Goal-Setting Workshop, a Council member suggested a
goal related to holding an election to allow voters to consider repeal of the binding arbitration
provision of the City Charter. Later, during public comment, a citizen urged the Council to
initiate a public opinion survey (or "study") of community interest regarding the binding
arbitration issue. While the Council did not support establishing a major City goal to refer the
binding arbitration provision to voters for a decision, the Council did direct staff to place options
relative to binding arbitration (including the option to complete a survey) on a future agenda for
Council discussion and consideration. This report will briefly describe binding arbitration and
how it became part of the City's labor relations process relative to negotiations with the POA and
Fire Union. In the remainder of this report staff outlines five fundamental options for Council
consideration.
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 2
About Binding Arbitration
City Charter Governs City Operations. San Luis Obispo is a Charter City. As a Charter City,
residents define how their governing system will operate via the Charter. A Charter sets forth the
supreme law of a city, subject only to conflicting provisions in the state or federal constitutions.
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, which must
follow state laws for governance. The Charter provides that the general laws of the state shall be
applicable to the City provided they are not in conflict with the City Charter or ordinances and
resolutions adopted.pursuant to the Charter.
Voter Approval of Binding Arbitration via Charter Amendment in 2000. In 2000, an initiative
measure was placed on the ballot to amend the City's Charter to establish binding arbitration as a
method of dispute resolution for both the POA and Fire Union. This provision outlined a process
that is different than what is provided under state law. The City has three other employee
organizations: San Luis Obispo Police Staff Officers (SLOPSOA), consisting of sworn and non-
sworn police managers); Fire Battalion Chiefs (BCs); and San Luis Obispo City Employees
Association (SLOCEA). Binding arbitration does not apply to those three employee
organizations or the City's unrepresented management and"confidential" employees.
Key Elements of Binding Arbitration in the City Charter. The City is obligated by law to
negotiate in good faith on all matters related to wages, hours and other terms and conditions of
City employment with all of its employee organizations. However, the Charter amendment
passed in 2000 provides for binding arbitration as the dispute resolution process if impasse in
negotiations is reached with the POA or Fire Union. Any unresolved issues are submitted to an
outside arbitrator to make final and binding decisions. For each unresolved issue, the arbitrator
selects either the City's proposal or the employee organization's proposal. The arbitrator may not
suggest a compromise or middle ground. The City is then obligated to implement the arbitrator's
decision. This is different than the process available in negotiations with other represented
groups, whereby state law provides that if agreement cannot be reached and a declaration of
impasse is declared, the Council may unilaterally implement a solution.
June 2008 Binding Arbitration Decision. Negotiations for the current POA contract began in
April 2006. After nine bargaining sessions over six months, an impasse was reached in
November 2006. The parties agreed to first attempt resolution through mediation. When that did
not result in resolution, formal arbitration hearings began. During arbitration hearings, the City
and POA presented evidence on a total of 44 unresolved issues. With the arbitrator's award in
June 2008, the Council must implement the terms of the ruling and has no power or authority to
reject or revise any aspect of the award: the arbitrator's ruling is final. Additional information
about binding arbitration and the results of the June 2008 arbitration decision are available on the
City's web site at www.slocitv.org. (Note: The City and Fire Union have never engaged in the
binding arbitration process.)
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 3
Five Options for Council Consideration
Outlined below are five options that staff has surfaced for Council consideration, followed by a
discussion of each:
1. Take No Action. The Council could take no further action regarding the City's binding
arbitration provision.
2. Table the Matter. The Council could take no action at this time but reconsider its options if
and when a grassroots community effort emerges to amend the Charter's binding arbitration
provision. Some past and present Council members have expressed the view that a measure
asking voters if they wish to remove binding arbitration from the City Charter should only be
pursued if initiated by the community and not by City government.
3. Public Opinion Research. The Council could direct staff to enter into a contract with a
consultant to complete formal public opinion research regarding binding arbitration and
return to Council with the results, which the Council could then use to determine whether or
not to take any further steps regarding a possible vote on the Charter provision.
4. Stand Alone Election. The Council could choose not to complete public opinion research
but decide to schedule a special election to ask voters to consider an amendment to the
Charter to remove binding arbitration as a component of the City's labor relations process.
5. Consolidated Election. This is the same as Option 4 above except to defer the election to the
next regularly scheduled election in November 2010.
Public Opinion Research
Contracting with a professional public opinion research firm will cost about $25,000 and take 60
to 90 days to complete. The City has used the firm of Fairbanks, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
(FMMA) several times in the past for scientific public opinion research. Given its excellent
work in the past and their familiarity with the City, staff would recommend contracting with
them for this work if the Council chooses this option. Based on past experience, several weeks
would be spent by staff and FMMA in developing the survey questions, which would then be
administered by FMMA to likely voters. It would take 60 to 90 days to negotiate and execute a
contract, develop and administer the survey, and analyze and present the results.
Election Options
The City's Charter sets forth the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each even-
numbered year as the date on which a general municipal election is to be held for the purpose of
filling elective offices. This City election is always consolidated with other elections that are
occurring within the State and the County. It is not uncommon for Council to add a ballot
measure to this election. However, the City's Charter and the California Elections Code provide
the Council with flexibility for setting other election dates for ballot measures. If the Council
chose a date when no other election is held statewide or within the County, a "stand-alone"
6L(-3
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 4
election would be held, most likely directly administered by the City. If the Council chose a date
when other elections were being held statewide or within the County, a "consolidated" election
would be held and the election would be conducted by the Registrar of Voters.
There are meet and confer obligations that are likely to be triggered if the election alternatives set
forth here were implemented, as discussed more fully in the section below entitled "Meyers-
Milias-Brown Act."
Election Dates
Stand-Alone Election Dates. The Council has the greatest flexibility in choosing an election date
for a stand-alone election. The only requirement is that an election cannot be held sooner than 88
days following the date on which the Council adopts a resolution calling said election. As the
Council considers whether to proceed with a stand-alone election, it may want to take into
consideration the following factors:
1. Elections are typically held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of a given month. To
minimize confusion on the part of the voters, staff recommends continuing with this practice,
regardless of when an election may be held.
2. Holding an election the month preceding or following a State or County election may confuse
voters, as there will be an overlap in the issuance of voter information pamphlets and ballots.
If the Council wants to expedite a stand-alone election, the earliest date the City could conduct
this election would be July 7. In order to hold an election on July 7, the Council would need to
adopt a resolution calling the election at its April 7 meeting. Other possible stand-alone election
dates in 2009 that the Council might consider are August 4 and November 3. 'The deadlines to
adopt a resolution calling these elections are May 5 and August 4 respectively.
Consolidated Election Dates. A special statewide election has been called by the Governor for
May 19, 2009. The State is not bound by the above-referenced 88-day deadline. However, the
City is and, therefore, cannot consolidate with the May 19 statewide election.
At this time, no other elections have been scheduled in 2009. However, should the State call an
election to be held in November 2009, a City election could be consolidated with that statewide
election.
A Primary Election will be held on June 8, 2010. The deadline for placing a measure on this
ballot is March 12, 2010. A City election on this date would be consolidated with and conducted
by the County Registrar of Voters.
84-
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 5
Election Costs
There are three standard methods for conducting an election:
1. Traditional polling place.
2. All-mail ballot.
3. Combined mail ballot/polling place election. (This method usually provides one polling place,
such as City Hall, where voters may either drop off ballots or cast their votes using a voting
booth.)
The cost will be driven by which of these methods is used.
Stand-Alone Election Costs. A stand-alone election is the most costly since expenses cannot be
prorated and shared among other agencies. Because the City Clerk's Office is not staffed to
conduct a stand-alone election, assistance would be required from the County Registrar of Voters
and/or an elections firm and consultant that offers similar services.
While the County Registrar of Voters is not mandated to conduct a stand-alone election for the
City, she has indicated that, depending on the election date chosen, her office may be able to
conduct such an election in 2009. The County has estimated the cost for a traditional, stand-
alone polling place election to be approximately $130,000. (All figures provided here are
estimates and vary depending on voter turn-out and the number of ballots that must be
processed.) Were the County to conduct an all-mail ballot election or a combination of an all-
mail ballot election with one polling place, these costs could be reduced to approximately
$100,000.
The estimated cost for a traditional polling place election conducted by City staff and using the
services of outside consultants is $125,000. Based on current information, this cost could be
reduced to approximately$106,000 for an all-mail ballot election or a combination all-mail ballot
with one polling place.
The above estimates do not include City staff time that would have to be dedicated to a stand-
alone election. The amount of staff time required for this purpose would be minimal if the
Registrar of Voters Office conducted a stand-alone election. It would greatly increase if the City
Clerk's office were required to conduct it. Additionally, the dedicated staff time would decrease
if an all-mail ballot or combination all-mail ballot with one polling place election were
conducted.
Consolidated Election Costs. A consolidated election is one that is conducted by the County
Registrar of Voters. The cost to consolidate with another election will vary greatly depending on
the election itself as costs are prorated between the agencies calling the election. The cost
estimates indicated below could also vary depending on the type of election that is conducted
(i.e., all-mail ballot election or a full precinct/mail ballot election).
The City cost for holding a consolidated election in June or November 2009 is estimated at
approximately $88,000. In addition, should the State call a special election, the County will
0 5
r
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 6
request approval to conduct an all-mail ballot election for a State measure. This may impact the
type of election the County is willing to conduct for the City in June or November and could,
therefore, impact the City's cost as well.
Because the costs for the Primary Election to be held in June 2010 will be prorated among the
County and cities, the cost for placing a measure on that ballot is estimated at $53,000. Placing a
measure on the City's November 2010 ballot, which will, be consolidated with the County and
prorated among other cities, is estimated at $6,000.
Several Options for Changing Binding Arbitration Provision
If the Council is interested in pursuing an election, there are several approaches to changing the
binding arbitration provision in the Charter. They are listed below with brief explanations of
each. However, all of these options are impacted by the necessity that the City comply with the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act requirement of meeting and conferring with each affected group. The
options are also impacted by a recently enacted statute that affects any charter city that modifies
or repeals an existing binding arbitration provision concerning labor disputes with public safety
personnel.
1. Repeal provision entirely. This should result in applying the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act
governing labor negotiations with public safety employee organizations in the same way it
does with other City employee organizations. However, see section below entitled
Application of New Code of Civil Procedure section 1299 et seg.
2. Leave binding arbitration in place but modify provision to require that an arbitrator's
decision be approved by a majority of the voters in order to implement it. This would
continue to call for an outside arbitrator to make a decision in the event of impasse but allow
voters to have the final say whether or not to approve the decision. This option raises issues
of election costs. Thus, language could be crafted to place such matters on a consolidated
election ballot only and/or to use mail ballots only. In addition, the Council should recognize
that the City cannot expend public funds on ballot measures while there is no limit on
independent expenditures on ballot measures. Thus, were this option implemented and an
arbitrator's decision placed before the voters, the City would have no involvement in any
ballot measure campaigning while many other interests., local and otherwise, could campaign
strongly.
3. Leave binding arbitration in place but modify provision to require a super majority (four-
fifths) vote of the Council to ratify the arbitrator's decision. This raises a similar concern as
discussed below about the unconstitutionality of a new state law requiring a unanimous vote.
A compelling justification must be provided for why a super majority is required.
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 7
Effect of Meyers-Milias-Brown Act Requirement to Bargain in Good Faith
The California labor relations statute applicable to local government is the Meyers=Milias-Brown
Act. While the City Charter controls with regard to resolution of labor disputes between the City
and the POA and Fire Union, state law applies to other aspects of labor relations with those
groups. Under state law, the City must meet and confer with all employee groups concerning
matters relating to wages, hours and working conditions. A Council decision to place a measure
on the ballot modifying or repealing binding arbitration can be made without need to meet and
confer(as case law has determined this is a management right the City may exercise).
However, the effects upon wages, hours and working conditions of such an action are subject to
meet and confer requirements. So, Council action to place a measure on the ballot would then
require subsequent meeting and conferring with the POA and the Fire Union regarding the
potential effects on wages, hours and working conditions posed by such a measure. Reasonable
time must also be allowed to pursue meet and confer discussions.
A Catch-22 situation could arise if a resolution is not reached through the meet and confer
process, in that, if the Council unilaterally proceeds with placing the matter on the ballot, it could
result in the POA or Fire Union seeking a Court order directing the City to first submit the issue
to binding arbitration and removing the measure from the ballot until such binding arbitration is
concluded. However, if such a measure is placed on the ballot by citizens, rather than by the
Council, then the meet and confer requirement is not triggered.
Application of New Code of Civil Procedure Section 1299 et seq.
As the Council will recall, state law was amended in 2001 by Senate Bill (SB) 402 to make
binding arbitration applicable to general law cities regarding labor disputes with public safety
employee organizations. The rationale for this change from the procedure followed under the
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act for many years was that public safety employees are prohibited by law
from striking, while other public employees have the right to strike. (Actually, various public
employees in key positions can be prohibited from striking, but a city may have to obtain a Court
order to that effect.)
In 2004, the California Supreme Court ruled SB 402 unconstitutional on the grounds that it took
constitutionally delegated fiscal authority away from local elected officials and placed it in the
hands of outside arbitrators. In response to that decision, the state legislature adopted a new law
that requires binding arbitration of labor disputes with public safety employee organizations but
allows for a city council to overrule a decision of an arbitrator provided there is a unanimous vote
to do so. The new law applies to general law and charter cities, including charter cities with
existing binding arbitration provisions, should those provisions be subsequently amended. Thus,
under new Code of Civil Procedure 1299 et seq., should the City modify or repeal its Charter
provision on binding arbitration, the new law would still apply notwithstanding the will of the
voters.
Binding Arbitration Election Options Page 8
The City Attorney advises that the same argument that resulted in the invalidation of S13 402
should apply to the new law as the constitutionally delegated fiscal authority to city councils is
still being placed in the hands of someone other than a majority of the City Council, that is, in the
hands of one dissenting individual council member, under the new law. Thus, the
constitutionality of the new statute is highly suspect.
To date there have been successful challenges to this statute at the trial court level in different
parts of the state; and there has been one appellate court case filed, which was subsequently
settled prior to adjudication. As such, there is no relevant appellate court law to provide
guidance. This suggests that it is possible that if binding arbitration is removed from the Charter
by the voters, and later impasse is reached in labor negotiations and the City decides not to utilize
arbitration in resolving the matter, then a court order could be sought by an employee
organization to compel the City to use binding arbitration.
It is also possible that before the above fact situation arises in the City, there could be some
resolution of this question stemming from a labor dispute in another jurisdiction. Thus, if
removal of binding arbitration from the Charter is pursued at this time, that course of action
brings with it a potential for legal challenge and consequent legal defense costs of an unspecified
amount that could increase considerably should the matter end up in the appellate court.
FISCAL IMPACT
As discussed above, there are three cost areas depending on the direction of the Council:
I. Public opinion research will cost about $25,000. This amount is within the City Manager's
contracting authority and funds are available in the Ventures & Contingencies account.
Accordingly, no subsequent follow-up action would be required by the Council if it directs
this option.
2. Conducting an election will cost between $6,000 and $130,000 depending on the
circumstances. A number of subsequent actions would be required to implement this option.
3. Significant legal costs might be incurred in an unknown amount depending on the Council's
action.
T:\Binding Arbitration Election Options\Council Agenda Report,Binding Arbitration Election Options.doc
F' l � V
HIND
FOUNDATION
Preserving our Cultural Heritage
March 3,2009
To: San Luis Obispo City Council
Ref: Matching Funds
The Hind Foundation is interested in helping to restore the old Southern Pacific Railroad
Freight House. It would be our intention to provide up to a $100,000 matching grant to the
SLO Railroad Museum should a Community Block Grant be approved for an equal amount
for sidewalk, railing and handicap ramp installation.
4A42.b
COUNCIL Q"CDD DIR
r' eA-&(//+Ind E TFIN DIR
(-7_D FILE L'AGAOf }Grjq El"FIRE CHIEF
Z-ATTORNEY Q-PW DIR
MEE i IVIG AGENIDA Er CLERK/ORIG ZTOLICE CHF
Greg Hind, CEOn S 91 El DEPT HEADS n-REC DIR
TATE3 SIE 1 ;,� #0/6 L'-UTIL DIR
Hind Foundation _-L�,a4r�u [SHR DIR
P c rzj /tt62
� SLC-rLl�
C 4Y10 , h O ue- Lo
�U C462V9
HIND FOUNDATION I P.O. BOX 13259
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93406
PH/FAX:805-544-0914
EMAIL: greghind�indfoundation.org
v!
IP
CiVy
h'/p Cop'
FEf�COUNCIL ADD DIR
(L., t✓!FIN DIF
g4tC-'FIRE CHIEFFEB ZFebruary 20, 2009 a-PW DIR
2-POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS O-REC DIA
San Luis Obispo City Council [I-DTIL 61R
990 Palm St. —rT!&"-!-^�F- al-1 DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 7�mEs �wc.IL ' RED FILE
Co'4 ck, MEETING AGENDA
ii -fjL
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses DATEf"�`' ITEi�7
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
On behalf of the California Professional Firefighters' (CPF) Executive Board and over 30,000 front line firefighters and
emergency medical service personnel statewide, including those first responders protecting San Luis Obispo City, let
me open by saying we commend the citizens of San Luis Obispo and value their forward thinking in approving binding
arbitration as a fair and impartial dispute resolution process. Specifically, a process that provides for the use of an
unbiased arbitration procedure as a fair and peaceful method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the
City and the City's public safety employee organizations, while at the same time protecting the rights and safety of the
public.
Nine years ago San Luis Obispo City voters adopted a binding arbitration process, by which public safety personnel,
such as firefighters, and their management can resolve contract disputes. This process ensures that firefighters and
police officers provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens and remain focused on their sworn duty-protecting the
public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive protracted labor disputes.
At the state level, CPF has taken an active lead in sponsoring legislation over the course of previous legislative
sessions to provide local firefighter and law enforcement organizations access to this fair dispute resolution process.
Binding arbitration is an appropriate use of legislative authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a
process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared and where all mutual efforts to reach a collective
bargaining agreement have failed.
RECEIVE®
FEB z 5 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
Assuredly, arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by
prohibiting local firefighters and law enforcement officers from striking and instead, encouraging all parties to be more
realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
For these reasons, we strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s) that would rescind the City's
voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
C/T<(2,,
Lou Paulson,
President
LP:lf
Cc: The Honorable Dave Romero, Mayor, City of San Luis Obispo
Ken Hampian, CAO City of San Luis Obispo
Andrew Carter, Council Member City of San Luis Obispo
RECEIV
FEB 2 5 2069
TY CLERK
TRI-COUNTIES
CENTRAL LABOR COUNCIL
VENTURA SAMA BARBARA - SANTA MARIA - SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 South Dos Caminos Avenue - Ventura,CA 93003
Affigfed&OAFL-00 and Caffm is L or Federation
MARILYN F.VALENZUELA Teleptaa (805)6413712
Executive Sec a -Treasurer Fa)c (805)643-9426
Emal: marewo @aoLoom
MARTEL Presdent FRASER FEB 0 2009
DARAKA LARIMOREa1ALL
Vice President
WALT MANKINS
VioePresklent February 18,2009
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
Tri-Counties Central Labor Council,AFL-CIO which represents approximately 78,000 union and family
members in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura Counties strongly supports the existing dispute
resolution process in the City of San Luis Obispo. The impartial arbitration procedure is a fair and peaceful
method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City and the City's public safety employee
unions,while at the same time protecting the rights and safety of the public. Assuredly, arbitration has
protected the safety of San Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and
law enforcement officers from striking and instead, encouraging all parties to be more realistic and honest
in their demands at the bargaining table.
More than two dozen states currently provide arbitration as a means of fairly resolving public employees'
collective bargaining disputes. Thus,the outcome is a positive one. It ensures that firefighters and police
officers provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens, remaining focused on their swom duty, protecting
the public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive protracted labor disputes.
We strongly urge the Council to reject any proposals that would rescind the City's voter approved
arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
Marilyn Valenzuela
Executive Secretary-Treasurer
RECEIVE®
FEB 2 5 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
i
February 18, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council Ftq 9 0 ZU�y
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute
resolution process, which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a
fair and peaceful method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City
and the City's public safety employee unions, while at the same time protecting the rights
and safety of the public. Assuredly, arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San
Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and law
enforcement officers from striking and instead, encouraging all parties to be more
realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration
as a means of fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact,
voters in over 20 local agencies statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate
delegation.of legislative authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a
process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared and where all mutual
efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
We have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an
equitable bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file, as well as management
a fair shot at having their issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and
posturing. Furthermore, binding arbitration ensures that firefighters and police officers
provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens, remaining focused on their sworn duty-
protecting the public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive
protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons, we strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)
that would rescind the City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law
enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
Dr. Christopher Gilbert
Social Sciences Division
Cuesta College
RECEIVE®
FEB 2 5 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
February 13, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council FEB 19 2009
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute
resolution process, which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a
fair and peaceful method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City
and the City's public safety employee unions, while at the same time protecting the rights
and safety of the public. Assuredly, arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San
Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and law
enforcement officers from striking and instead,encouraging 411 parties to be more
realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration
as a means of fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact,
voters in over 20 local agencies statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate
delegation of legislative authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a
process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared and where all mutual
efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
We have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an
equitable bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file, as well as management
a fair shot at having their issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and
posturing. Furthermore,binding arbitration ensures that firefighters and police officers
provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens, remaining focused on their sworn duty-
protecting the public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive
protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons, we strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject anyproposal(s)
that would rescind the City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law
enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
RECEIVE®
FEB 2 5 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
February 13, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute
resolution process,which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a
fair and peaceful method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City
and the City's public safety employee unions, while at the same time protecting the rights
and safety of the public. Assuredly,arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San
Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and law
enforcement officers from striking and instead,encouraging all parties to be more
realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration
as a means of fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact,
voters in over 20 local agencies statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate
delegation of legislative authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a
process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared and where all mutual
efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
We have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an
equitable bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file, as well as management
a fair shot at having their issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and
posturing. Furthermore,binding arbitration ensures that firefighters and police officers
provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens,remaining focused on their sworn duty-
protecting the public,rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive
protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons,we strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)
that would rescind the City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law
enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
Derek L. Tisinger
President—Bakersfield Firefighter Labor Organization Local 246
tCiEVED
FEB � 5 20H
SLO CITY CLERK
A
LONG BEACH I F FIRE
FIGHTERS
m OpG BEPO�6
SAE FIGM�EP
Oy P
February 17,2009
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
RE: ARBITRATION AS A FAIR, IMPARTIAL RESOLVE TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IMPASSES
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute resolution process,
which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a fair and peaceful method to
resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City and the City's public safety employee unions,
while at the same tie protecting the rights and safety of the public. Assuredly,arbitration has effectively
protected the safety of San Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and
law enforcement officers from striking and instead,encouraging all parties to be more realistic and
honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration as a means of
fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact,voters in over 20 local agencies
statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate delegation of legislative authority to assure that
fair negotiations take place and it's a process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared
and where all mutual efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
We have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an equitable
bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file,as well as management a fair shot at having their
issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and posturing. Furthermore, binding arbitration
ensures that firefighters and police officers provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens, remaining
focused on their sworn duty—protecting the public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and
unproductive protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons,we strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)that would
rescind the City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
Respectfully,
4RicB!ra4ndt, President
Long Beach Firefighters, Local 372
International Association of Fire Fighters, AFL-CIO-CLC
Calif i fesIVrFi—fighters
FEB 2 5 2009 UU
3333 EAST S G I 222 • LONG BEACH, CA 90806 • PHONE (562) 989-3667 • FAX (562) 989-3664
February 18, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council
990 Palm St. ��Oy
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Bargaining Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute
resolution process, which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a
fair and peaceful method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City
and the City's public safety employee unions,while at the same time protecting the rights
and safety of the public. Assuredly, arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San
Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and law
enforcement officers from striking and instead, encouraging all parties to be more
realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration
as a means of fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact,
voters in over 20 local agencies statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate
delegation of legislative authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a
process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared and where all mutual
efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
I have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an
equitable bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file, as well as management
a fair shot at having their issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and
posturing. Furthermore, binding arbitration ensures that firefighters and police officers
provide uninterrupted protection to our citizens, remaining focused on their sworn duty-
protecting the public, rather than become distracted by unnecessary and unproductive
protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons, I strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)
that would rescind the City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law
enforcement officers.
Respectfully.
Andrea Devitt
Cuesta College Counselor
805-546-3100 x2164
RECEIVE®
FEB 2 5 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
Kern County Fire Fighters Union, Inc. ,A
Representing Professional Fire F-Witen of Kern County I e F
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS NO. 1301 ••
Hpi_Gio
CILC
President
Derek P Robinson February 18, 2009
Secretary/rrensurer rep q
Sam Scoles i
Past President San Luis Obispo City Council
clay YO1IIw 990 Palm St
via Presidents San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
T®Holliday
Allen Mordes
MU Slayton Dear Mayor and Council Members:
Directors
Chris Stroub The Kern County Fire Fighters wish to express their support for San Luis
Dean Boller
Mark PPdom Obispo's existing dispute resolution process. A process that has been used in
Bryan Rico Kern County, as well as many other county's Statewide, whereby providing for
MarBen �Fowler"°
Ben the use of an impartial arbitrator as a fair and peaceful method to resolving col-
lective bargaining impasses.
With the current arbitration procedures in place, it provides a fair and equitable
bargaining resolution, without an interruption or distraction from the protection
of your citizens, or political intervention into the process.
Again, we support your current dispute resolution process, and would urge you
to reject any proposals that would rescind the city's voter-approved arbitration
process for public safety officers.
Respectfully,
Derek P Robinson,President
Local 1301
CC:Eric Baskin—President
Loca13523
Ken Hampian, CAO
_ Dave Romero, Mayor
Andrew Carter, Council Member
City of SLO
S1.0 C ry CLERX
Affiliated with California Professional Firefighters *State Federation of Labor*A.F.L.—C.L a
Phone(661)871-1301 *FAX(661)871-6932*E-Nfafladhiin 1301@bak.rr.com*3615 Mt Vernon Avenue Bakersfield, CA 93306
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Raquel Elias[1623e[ias@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 1:05 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Mayor Romero,Mr.Carter and Mr.Settle FIREFIGHTERS
Attachments:
We support San Luis Fire Department and binding arbitration.
Thank You,
Patrick and Raquel Elias
San Luis Obispo
H�R o PoP7 /rj,ML
L1-COUNCIL L'CDD D!R
La 6*0-QTy rnGe2 0-FIN D I R
FiED FILE 2-AGR0,%r"ft& -FIRE CHIEF
_—
MEETING AGENDA �ERROR Q 1!r PW DIR
pATEJ) 0J, I'TE A 15Jr ^ ❑ DEPT HEADS m8C DIP
CHF
CT_P_L5t Or-yTIL DIR
'!_7121 li►.S "FIR DIR
IV614)vM65
Cinj /Y16/L
https://mail.s locity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Mayor%2ORomero,Mr.Carter%20a... 2/25/2009
Page 1 of 1
v
Council, SloCity
From: Grant Himebaugh [Ghimebaugh@waterboards.ca.gov] Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 1:21 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration for fire fighters and police
Attachments:
City Council Members,
As a 13-year city resident and 11-year property owner, I fully and actively support Mayor Romero in seeking to rescind the City's
requirement to use binding arbitration in determining compensation for any City employees. The current salaries for police and fire
fighters are not commensurate with benefit to the City, and constitute a disproportional drain on finances at a time the City can least
afford it.
David G. Himebaugh
1100 Fletcher Ave.
San Luis Obispo
41ft2D 49P E-M iL
RED FILE 2-COUNCIL 2 CDD DIR
ETeA-eC/7Y&a-e— D'FIN DIR
MEETING AGENDA ff-AGA6fsTct*9rtkZ-FIRE CHIEF
Q ATTORNEY Q'PW DIR
DATE I T 0Alr ETICLERK/ORIG 12'POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS 1!rREC DIR
Fi 3 ETUTIL DIR
2 HR DIR
�Clnf 0162,
� CLL/tt;
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxB inding%2OArbitration%20for%20f... 2/25/2009
s
Cuesta College
F'ed'eration of Teachers
LOCAL 4909 &_7flR/L SiMcni THRoucm UNrrY
2r00UNCIL [Hr-CDD DIR
2-CAG C'*1NG2 Z-FIN DIR
gliGAOASWC"Mca 2-FIRE CHIEF F,EI] FILE
February 21,2009 O'ATTORNEY 2�' W DIR
13"CLERKIORIO L3 POLICE CHF — MEETING AGENDA
San Luis Obispo City Council 0 DEPT HEADS LTR8O,DIA
pig 3<0%151H DATE 3 3 o ITEI!9 Er$Y
990 Palm St. � 'TJZ(g.0 AIL
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 = ' L "R DIS
4/b01741 �Ceu�raL - i
,C.Yy Ate-",.._
RE: Arbitration as a Fair, Impartial Resolve to Collective Barga n ng Impasses
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
We are writing to express our strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute resolution
process,which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a fair and peaceful
method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City and the City's public safety
employee unions, while at the same time protecting the rights and safety of the public.
Assuredly, arbitration has effectively protected the safety of San Luis Obispo's citizens for nearly
a decade by prohibiting local firefighters and law enforcement officers from striking and instead,
encouraging all parties to be more realistic and honest in their demands at the bargaining table.
San Luis Obispo is not alone. More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration as a
means of fairly resolving public employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact voters in over
20 local agencies statewide have approved arbitration as an appropriate delegation of legislative
authority to assure that fair negotiations take place and it's a process that is initiated only when an
impasse has been declared and where all mutual efforts to reach a collective bargaining
agreement have failed.
We have always been proud to support processes that allow labor unions to have an equitable
bargaining resolution because it provides rank-and-file,as well as management a fair shot at
having their issues heard in an environment that is free of politics and posturing. Furthermore,
binding arbitration ensures that firefighters and police officers provide uninterrupted protection to
our citizens, remaining focused on their sworn duty-protecting the public, rather than become
distracted by unnecessary and unproductive protracted labor disputes.
For these reasons,the Cuesta College Federation of Teachers Executive Board strongly and
respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)that would rescind the City's voter-
approved binding arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement officers.
R pectfully,
I 'so Merz n
Presid esta College Federation of Teachers
Health and Physical Education Faculty Member
Page 1 of 1
• Council,Slocity
From: Richard N. Racouiilat[RNR@dshlawfirm.com] Sent: Thu 2/26/2009 7:47 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Reject Mandatory Arbitration for Firefighters
Attachmeffts:
My wife, Pam, and I strongly oppose mandatory arbitration to set compensation our fire and police personnel.
And we sincerely hope that you do as well.
Richard N. Racouillat
511 Serrano Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Rej ect%20Mandatory%20Arb itratio... 2/26/2009
Page 1 of I
Council,SloCity
From: mane[ccroslo@att.net] Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 11:55 PM
To: Council,VoCity; dave romero@slocity.org
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
616 Mission
SLO, Ca.
Dear Mayor Romero and City Council members,
I was dismayed to arrive home from work today and discover that the.Firefighters' president Eric something
had left a message on my answering machine urging me to contact Mayor Romero and Council Members
Carter and Settle to urge them to not launch an "expensive" fight against our hard-working firefighters regarding
Measure S, which was passed 9 years ago. I am on a the "Do Not Call List"and should not be receiving calls
of this nature, for one thing. I hesitate to write to you,just in case I ever need the Fire Department, which I
haven't in 43 years in S.L.O.; I'm afraid that I'll end up on some sort of a"Do Not Respond List" due to this
email.
I think that the voters in S.L.O. were duped by the S.L.O. Police and Fire Departments when they so skillfully
massaged the citizens into thinking that this was necessary. They had always been treated fairly by our city.
What happened with the Oakland judge and the SLOPD and dispatchers is NOT what the voters had imagined
and could end up bankrupting our city, or at least in a substantial reduction in quality of life in SLO and loss of
jobs for other city workers.
I am urging you to fight for the repeal of Measure S. You offered the SLOPD a VERY generous raise before
they chose to go to binding arbitration and now the Fire Dept. is obviously waiting to take their tum. As for
Council Members Ashbaugh and Marx, I would urge you to consider the welfare of the citizenry of SLO. I think
we need to go back to the old rule... police and fire personnel were required to reside in the city where they
were employed. As you may notice, most live outside of SLO and have no vested interest in our city. The
police chief lives in Orcutt, I believe, and don't we provide gas and vehicle for her long commute?
Police and Fire personnel are not like their inner-city counterparts. Police are more likely to be dealing with
stolen bicycles and loud parties (thank God)than murders. Fire personnel do not have to go fight fires in
abandoned wharehouses in a ghetto. They, like the rest of us, are fortunate to live here, but right now it feels
like the SLOPD is biting the hand that's feeding them. Please see your way clear to help the citys'voters
overturn Measure S. Thank you.
Sincerely,
C. C. Mclean
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxB inding%20Arbitration-2.EML?Cm... 2/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
i
Council, SloCity
From: Kevin P. Rice [kriceslo@gmail.coml Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 7:33 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: OPPOSE--BINDING ARBITRATION
Attachments:
As a full-time career firefighter in the state of California and a resident of San Luis Obispo I oppose binding arbitration. I must
always consider the ramifications of my positions on my fellow citizens first before myself. I believe it is the taxpayer and their
elected representatives'choice as to how much fire and police protection is desired and affordable.This is not in anyway to
disparage the good men and women working for our public safety.We would all love to have unlimited emergency protection,
however it is simply not possible to have.police and fire at the ready on every street corner.
As a taxpayer,I believe good decisions require a thoughtful and unemotional wst-benefit analysis.As a first responder I know first
hand that very rarely do seconds count in any given emergency. If they did, I know all of us could work harder to shave thirty
seconds off our response times. In practice,thoroughly checking maps, knowing our response areas,and driving to calls for service
safely are much more important. Public safety members know very well that 95%of calls for service are more routine in nature than
a threat to life. Service calls that are true emergencies are still best handled with methodical proficiency. I have trust in our public
safety employees that they are, in fact,true professionals and are capable of any emergency.
In regards to providing adequate emergency services to San Luis Obispo's citizens,the true questions are:
(1)Is the city of San Luis Obispo equipped and able to respond and handle the calls for service encountered?This does not mean
that the city should be-self-equipped for any and every conceivable emergency.There are always imaginable circumstances that
could and do occur.The important thing is that agreements are in place to bring in outside resources when the worst happens. If
we can handle 99.99%of our emergencies--and I think we can and do--then we are very well prepared.
(2)Are public safety employees compensated with a package that attracts and retains quality professionals?Far residents that
attain a job, but eventually leave,are not a concern to me.Their employment was simply a stepping stone as their hearts were
never in San Luis Obispo. I also do not find any logic,other than emotional,that any employment should include a guarantee of
affording a home within city limits.That desire is more than possible given patience and financial self-restraint, but does not,and
should not,come on a platter.The only measurement of compensation I find worthwhile is whether our city is attracting and
retaining competent and professional personnel to meet our needs. In fact, if we never lose any employees maybe the
compensation is too much. I also don't care what Petaluma or Santa Cruz pays their employees.
(3)What is the current balance between benefit to the citizens and affordability to taxpayers?Even when specific needs can be
identified as lacking does not mean we should move"at all cost"to meet those needs. Our elected representatives and their
constituents need the latitude to make tough decisions to simply accept certain deficiencies. Every family faces budget limits,and all
of us have items such as roof leaks,termites,wom tires on our car, unaddressed health concerns,worn kids'shoes and every other
concern in life that forces us to accept shortcomings or defer expenditures.
We do not live in utopia (in which case we would not need a city council),and thus our council needs the authority to make budget
decisions.Such decisions should not be imposed upon us by outsiders who do not also endure the outcome of their impositions.We
need services that meet our needs and means, not our dreams.
Kevin P. Rice
San Luis Obispo
(805) 602-2616
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/OPPOSE%20--%20BINDING%20... 2/26/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Niel Dilworth [ndilworth@charter.net] Sent: Wed 2/25/2009 5:13 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
I support the Counsel's efforts to end the binding arbitration agreements with the police and firefighters. The City does not need this
agreement to attract or retain quality public safety personnel and this process has been abused by the police union in the conduct or labor
negotiations. The single fact that they are public safety personnel is not adequate justification for the requirement for binding arbitration,
which is an all or nothing decision process.
If you want to retain a binding process I believe that binding mediation is more capable of producing an equitable agreement and is more like
what most people who supported the original arbitration measure thought they were supporting.
Niel Dilworth, Architect
1198 Lexington Court
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
805.704.1817
https:Hmail.slocity.orglexchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/B inding%20Arbitration.EML?Curd... 2/26/2009
C.,ttiiturnia atat a arrttt#r
ABEL MALDONADO
FIFTEENTH SENATE DISTRIGT
O—MD E%MAIL
RED FILE 2-COUNCIL EI-CDD DIR
3-FINDIR
February 20, 2009 MEETING AGENDA Ai5rct'YWW IT-FIRE CHIEF
DATE I T E!!I !L0 U ATTORNEY p'ISW DIR
(3 CLERK/ORIG 7-POLICE CHF
❑ DEPT HEADS p REC DIR
The Honorable Dave Romero, Mayor :� �G' p-R-EC-OTfL DIR
San Luis Obispo City Council TLr F--r-iR DIR
990 Palm Street AmIEs �Cou L-u.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 C, -if M6A-
�eti��
Dear Mayor Romero and Members of the Council:
I am writing to express my strong support for San Luis Obispo's existing dispute resolution
process,which provides for the use of an impartial arbitration procedure as a fair and peaceful
method to resolving collective bargaining impasses between the City and the City's public safety
employee organizations, while at the same time protecting the rights and safety of the public.
More than two-dozen states currently provide arbitration as a means of fairly resolving public
employee collective bargaining disputes. In fact, voters in over 20 local agencies statewide have
approved arbitration as an appropriate delegation of legislative authority to assure that fair
negotiations take place. It is a process that is initiated only when an impasse has been declared
and where all mutual efforts to reach a collective bargaining agreement have failed.
Binding arbitration ensures that our firefighters and police officers provide uninterrupted
protection to our citizens,remaining focused on their sworn duty protecting the public,rather
than becoming distracted by unnecessary and unproductive protracted labor disputes.
I strongly and respectfully urge the Council to reject any proposal(s)that.would rescind the
City's voter-approved arbitration process for firefighters and law enforcement officers. I
appreciate, in advance, your consideration of this important public safety issue.
Sincerely,
ZA%ra
RECEIVED
ABEL MALDONADO
Senator, 156' District FEB 2 G 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
POST OFFICE Box 948 SAN LUIS OBISPO, cA 93406 (831 ) 759-2577
NOT PRINTED AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE
Page 1 of 1
From: Connie [connie@jmadonna.com] Sent: Thu 2/26/2009 4:41 PM
To: Settle,Allen; Carter,Andrew; Romero, Dave;jashbaugh@slocity.org; Manx,Jan
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for serving on the Council for San Luis Obispo. I appreciate your efforts and the time you devote to helping maintain the
quality of life in San Luis Obispo. I am writing you today regarding the upcoming meeting that will address the Binding Arbitration
issue for the police officers and firefighters of San Luis Obispo. I want to encourage you to continue the effort to investigate the
Issue and gain a better understanding of how the community feels about arbitration. I was at home last night when I received a
phone call from the firefighter's union asking me to email you in support of their cause—I cannot support such a blatant
endorsement for fiscal irresponsibility.Arbitration places cities at risk of bankruptcy and requires that they lay off other employees to
meet unreasonable demands for increases in salaries and benefits for these select groups-ultimately at the expense of the entire
organization. I believe the City has in place excellent leadership with Ken Hampain and Bill Statler who are doing a great job leading
a difficult budget balancing process in order to sustain a viable organization. I also believe they have been fair in determining
adequate pay for professional positions held by city employees.They have been consistent in their approach to monitoring the State
for current salary ranges paid by competing cities of the same size and economic climate in an attempt to be reasonable and fair in
determining salaries and benefits for those employed by the city. I appreciate the services provided by the police and fire as much
as I appreciate the services provided by the water department,the public works department,the planning department, and those
that administer the organization and I do not believe special treatment of the fire and police sectors is necessary—these two groups
need to embrace more of a team attitude and work with the city, not against it. I believe binding arbitration is a critical issue an
issue the entire community should be allowed the opportunity to decide--and reconsider if fiscal responsibility demands
especially now that we have seen the impact.Thank you in advance for your consideration of my request.
Connie Walter
Chief Financial Officer
John Madonna Construction Co., Inc
P.O. Box 5310
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
805-543-7751 phone
805-543-7754 fax
II LLIL� �u�17
FEB 2 E 2009
SLO CITY CLER;'
Page 1 of 2
' This message was sent with high importance.
Council, SioCity
From: Justesen,Erik P. [EPJustesen@rrmdesign.coml Sent: Thu 2/26/2009 4:30 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Fire department robo call very unsettling
Attachments:
Dear Council members,
Last night I received a robotic call from Eric Baskin representing the SLO Fire fighters. I must say it disturbed me greatly to witness
first-hand the aggressive politicking efforts of the Fire Fighters to lobby you(our Council) in favor of maintaining binding arbitration.
I realize the voters spoke to enact it many years ago, probably without the necessary clarity of the implications that is normally
associated with complex public policy in our Initiative addicted state. However,times are a changing folks and our City cannot
simply stand by and let this super charged powerful union steam roll us into bankruptcy.
I find their tactics insulting,threatening and Indicative of their bullying posturing on this issue.They display no community minded
concern in their pursuit of the richest benefit package they can wrest out of the City.
It is time to put this issue back to the voters starting with a community survey and moving on from there. My intuition tells me they
will eventually kill their own golden goose(public support of police/fire) by causing severe economic harm to our government....only
then I time of acute crisis when all are effected will we make meaningful fair changes.The pendulum is in full swing to the unions
favor and will one day swing back, but not before causing severe long term financial damage.
I like most rational citizens fully support our public safety personnel, but feel they are seriously over stepping their bounds. We need
local elected control on this issue.
Sincerely,
Erik Justesen
Erik P.7ustesen,ASLA, LEED AP
CEO
rrmdesigngroup
RECEIVED
3765 S.Higuera St,Ste.102 FEB 2 6 2009
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
SLO CITY CLERK
P:(805)543-1794 1 F:(805)543-4609
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycouncil/Inbox/Fire%20department%20robo%20cal... 2/26/2009
r
F._D FILE RECEIVED
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII I
MEETING AGENDA FEB 2 7 2009
DATE �.3 d ITPA { �— SLO CITY CLERK
MEMORANDUM
From the Office of the City Attorney
February 26, 2009
To: Mayor and City.Council
Via: Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer woo'�
From: Jonathan P. Lowell, City Attorney
Subject: Business Item B-4, Binding Arbitration election Options
A typographical error was discovered in the March 3, 2009 agenda report on Binding
Arbitration Election Options. At page 6 (page 134-6 in the agenda packet), option 3 should read
as follows (changes indicated by strikeout and underlined text):
3. Leave binding arbitration in place but modify provision to require a super majority (four-
fifths) vote of the Council to mtify rgiect the arbitrator's decision. This raises a similar
concern as discussed below about the unconstitutionality of a new state law requiring a
unanimous vote. A compelling justification must be provided for why a super majority is
required.
There are other variations of this option 3 that Council may consider, some of which will
be discussed briefly at the meeting on March 3. �.9 O
OUNCIL
q"nqAO +CDD DIR
4-�'ACAO FIN DIR
'ATTORNEY 'FIRE CHIEF
'
QPCLERK/ORIG PW DIR
f ❑ DEPT�HEADS POLICE CHF
�j 5AEC DIR
UTIL DIR
`P IR DIR
e(�ax >c
FED FILE
MEETING AGENDA`- RECEIVED
;; I��IIIIIIIIIIIIII��1°�°°I�����
DATE 114k9 ITE�:`] ;=_$ FEB 2 7 2009
C*4*.a H640RANDLIH
[City of San Luis Obispo E(
February 27, 2009
TO: Mayor Romero & Members of the City Council
FROM: Audrey Hooper, City Clerk G r
VIA: Ken Hampian, CA:
SUBJECT: Binding Arbitration (134) — Measure T
Council Member Marx has requested the following information regarding the number of
voters for and against Measure T, which was presented to the voters in 2000:
No 9477 61.64%
Yes 5898 38.36%
A copy of the text of Measure T is attached for your reference.
G:1City Clerk Agenda Reports-General Correspondence103-0309 Red File Binding Arbitration.doc
oZ02
L- COUNCIL jO CDD DIR
CAO -f-. FIN DIR
�$2PACAO -j�?FIRE CHIEF
`WATTORNEY 9 PW DIR
"-CLERK/CRI G POLICE CHF
DEPT HEADS REC DIR
UTII_ DIR
KAI&W 77mES Y- LL)t-L"
FULL TEXT OF MEASURE T
A CHARTER AMENDMENT ADDING SECTION 1106 TO THE
CHARTER OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
IMPLEMENTING THE TAXPAYERS' RIGHT TO DECIDE
Section 1106. The Taxpayers' Right to Decide
To protect the public health, safety and welfare, to ensure responsible fiscal authority,
and to require the highest standards of public safety employee performance, the binding
arbitration established by Section 1107 of this Charter shall be subject to the following
provisions notwithstanding any provision to the contrary contained within that Section:
(A) To protect the financial health of the City, any decision resulting from arbitration
that would result in the payment of an across-the-board salary increase greater
than the City's last offer of settlement made pursuant to Section 1107 (d) (4), will
not become effective unless and until approved by a majority vote of the voters.
The City Clerk and City Council shall expeditiously take all steps necessary to
submit the matter to the voters. The City Council shall not be required to call a
special election for the approval of arbitrated agreements more than once a year
and may consolidate such elections with elections held for other purposes.
(B) Arbitration shall be limited to across-the-board salary increases only. To provide
the Police Chief, Fire Chief and other city management with the ability to
maintain the highest standards for public safety service, other issues besides
salary related to working conditions, management rights, employee discipline and
other employment benefits, including the assignment or deployment of personnel,
will not be subject to arbitration.
(C) The San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose Consumer Price Index(CPI) shall not be
used as a factor by the arbitrator.
(D) Mediation as a form of alternative dispute resolution and as described in
Resolution 6620, 1989 series, shall be a requirement prior to binding arbitration.
(E) If any provision or portion of this measure or the application to any person or
circumstances is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect any other portion,
provision, or application of this measure.
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Matt Quaglino[mq@quaglino.com] Sent, Mon 3/2/2009 8:41 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject, Binding arbitration issue
Attachments:
Mayor and City Council Members:
I see you will be discussing the issue of binding arbitration on Tuesday. The following are my two cents.
When the citizens of SLO voted on binding arbitration I would have to guess the vast majority had no idea what
they were voting for or the disastrous results of the same. As far as I am concerned the issue should have
never been on a ballot and should have been decided by the city council or an educated committee
recommending a direction to the council and not a vote of the people who decision was based solely on a diet
of rhetoric from the unions.
Sounds a little like the vote against state water?
Matt Quaglino
Matthew Quaglino
Quaglino Properties
815 Fiero Lane
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.543.0560 P
805.543.0214 F
6-^q IL
2-COUNCIL CDD DIR
CTe*e' Ci�iM6t [Y-FIN DIR
D D FILE ErACAOassrcmy,,,,L'FIRE CHIEF
-
MEET ING AGENDA PfC ERK/ORIG R-POLICE CHF
DATE 3 D ITE ' J6q ED PTT HEADS 2-'REC DIR
E—UTIL DIR
2" IR DIR_
NhJT7.71ges iCeuLC1, .
C/Ty MG..
C zc�rz rc
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2009
SLO CITY CLERK.
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInboxB inding%20arbitration%20issue.EM... 3/2/2009
LOIS CAPPS
23RD DmTmT,CALIFORNIA DISTRICT OPMCCE:
1Q11 MARSW STREET,SUYTE 205
SAN Lute OSISPq CA 83x01
1110 LoNQwom HousE OFFIcE Buimma
IBMWAswweroN,DC 20515 OS22
(202)2263601
((�� }}�� pp �,1 /� e ��Ipyw e A p ❑ rbr WEST ANA-AMU Sn+EET,SUITE C
V/oJ gree; of the �i+vnIteb state SANrA205 w7 -11710 for
EOMMI'(TEE ON (8051730-1710
ENERGY AND COMMERCE
gouge of mentatibe� ❑ 2675 Nowrr HUENEME, CA 93041 106
COMMITTEE ON PDR*HUENEME, CA 93041
NATURAL RESOURCES 1805)985-M7
March 3,2009
Mayor Dave Romero
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401
Dear Mayor Romero,
I am writing to respectfully ask for your full consideration of the importance of binding
arbitration and the implications of pursuing a repeal of the initiative passed in 2000.
As a long time member of a collective bargaining unit as a nurse,I understand first-hand the
importance of having a fair process for both rank-and-file members and management to discuss
and agree on important contract issues. This is especially true for members of our workforce
who are not able to demonstrate in more traditional ways, such as firefighters and police, as they
are continually on the front line protecting the community. 'These individuals are dedicated to the
community they serve and literally put their lives on the line to protect our citizens and their
property.
Binding arbitration is intended to serve as an incentive for both sides to find consensus and
bridge any divides. Firefighters and police depend on the opportunity to negotiate in good faith
and work with the City to ensure that San Luis Obispo continues to have a top notch system of
first responders.
As you consider the most appropriate way to negotiate future contracts with,these public safety
organizations, I hope you will join me in recognizing the important work they do each and every
day,both on and off duty, as members of our community.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely, RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2009
LOIS CAPPS SLO CITY CLERK
Member of Congress
CC: Vice Mayor Allen Settle
Council Member Andrew Carter
Council Member Jan Howell Mark
Council Member John Ashbaugh
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: bob Nicholson [bnicholson@jps.net] Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 10:25 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc.
Subject: Binding arbitration
Attachments:
Greetings!
I am writing as a private citizen to encourage you to support efforts to eliminate binding arbitration. I know of no
functional business that could survive in which the management has no choice in the amount ultimately paid to
their employees in salary and benefits; particularly when the employees can require that an outside third party,
completely unrelated to the parties in the dispute, has ultimate authority to set compensation rates. Such an
arrangement seems almost insane to me. As a part of the community, I watched as the initiative for binding
arbitration was passed with little debate of the ensuing consequences. With the change in the economic
climate, I am certain that binding arbitration would receive little support from the community.
It appears that the results of binding arbitration account for about 50%of the City's current budget crisis.
I appreciate the necessity of severe cutbacks in a severe economic climate, and I certainly understand that
positions may ultimately have to be cut- If layoffs for the private sector are necessary,those who serve them
should not be immune either. What saddens me is that if there are future layoffs,those losses to the families
involved might have been avoided if the unchecked salary demands of a few City employees had not been
binding. In my mind, I cannot in any way justify an unelected individual making such decisions on behalf of this
community. As a private citizen, I will offer my support to those who take a similar stand. Thanks for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Bob Nicholson
3629 Lawnwood Drive
SLO, CA 93401
440-6977
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 2009
SLO CITY CLERK
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciUInboxB inding%20arbitration-6.ENM?Cmd... 3/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Tres Feltman [trestile@charter.net] Sent: Sun 3/1/2009 8:26 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding arbitration
Attachments:
Dear council members,
I hope you will all read the excellent article about binding
arbitration in Sunday's Tribune by Kevin Rice. It reflects accurately
my own, as well as all my friend's feelings about binding arbitration.
We live in a unique and wonderful city and we should never lose
control of self direction. I have and will continue to vote and fight
against binding arbitration.
Respectfully yours,
Charles Feltman
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
RECEIVED
MAR 0 2 7009
SLO CITY CLEF"K
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInboxB inding%20arbitration-5.EML?Cmd... 3/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Kerry and Kent Taylor[kkpt3@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Sat 2/28/2009 11:22 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: B-4 Binding Arbitration
Attachments:.
Hello,
Regarding item B-4 on your upcoming agenda dealing with binding arbitration, I urge you to vote to do a
community survey. I have received a phone message from the fire union urging me to call you and to oppose
any action to remove binding arbitration for police and fire. I find this offensive and urge you to spend the
money to survey the community.
Thank you.
Kent M. Taylor
RECEIVE®
MAR 0 2 7-009
SLO CITY CLERK
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/B-4%20B inding%20Arbitration.EM... 3/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: jell Deffswine@charter.net] Sent: Fri 2/27/2009 5:39 PM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: binding arbitration
Attachments:
Council members, I have lived in SLO for over 25 yrs,and voted for the arbitration initiative.That was a HUGE mistake. Stick to your
guns, I think most people that voted for this had no idea it might bankrupt the city.These are greedy people.Thank you jeff wolcott
1230 iris slo
RECEIVED
MAR 0.2 2009
S!O CITY CLF :;;
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/binding%20arbitration-4.EML?Cmd... 3/2/2009
Page 1 of 1
From: Cydney Holcomb [cholcomb@charter.net] Sent: Mon 3/2/2009 11:09 AM
To: Settle,Allen; Carter,Andrew; Romero, Dave; Marc,Jan; 'John Ashbaugh'
Cc:
Subject: CC MEETING DATE: MARCH 3, 2009, ITEM # B4
Attachments:
SUBJECT: BINDING ARBIRATION ELECTION OPTIONS
MEETING DATE: MARCH 3,2009
ITEM # B4
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I believe that your council should move forward with this matter by first conducting a clear, scientific survey
that is MAILED.to all resident/voters of the city.
The questions should be fair, balanced, and framed so that you can gauge the depth of the voters' knowledge
of this issue.
If the survey shows interest on the part of the respondents then the matter should be placed on the ballot. The
estimated costs, as stated in the staff report, of hiring a consulting firm to perform the survey, doing the public
outreach, and conducting an election pale in comparison to the price of what another binding arbitration award
will cost the City of San Luis Obispo and its residents.
Respectfully submitted,
Cydney Holcomb
RECEIVED
MAR 0 ? 2 0 D 9
SLC CITY r__ .:
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Diane Uchty [dlichty@charter.net] Sent: Fri 2/27/2009 10:40 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Binding arbitration is a fair way to negotiate labor contracts. Stop wasting your time trying to change what was
approved by the voters.
Diane Lichty
RECE V ED
MAR 0
SLO CITY CLER <
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/sloc itycouncil/InboxB inding%20Arbitration-3.EML?Cmd... 3/2/2009
s _
o l�
H��io copy _
JJN'CIL 0 CDD D!R
J CAO ❑ FIN DIR
-- — — ❑ ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
0 ATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
r ❑ CLERK/ORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
__ __ DEPT HEADS C7 AEC DIR
DAT- ������ — i o� _ Ll uTn F)IF1
THE TRIBUNE
O C T O B E R Z ¢ , 2 0 0 8
FRIDAY ,
,Ra,,,,....«..."..,....,.. ...
Rethinking arbitration
Pencils do not cause mis-
people> .Arb}
halion did notcause an etccew
sive award,it was how the at* —_
dation agteemeatwas wrtU . Change arbitration
An arbitration agreement a wtwith a floor In order to solve the po-
and a
can ingat as to the lice-benefits arbitration prob.
t the
the away It can
arbitrator to hire Iem,the arbitration clause
require h
amount d. needs to be amended
an independent expert and Any arbitration agree.
determine the method of the meat can be made to give
=pwes selection.It can give; the arbitrator broad or lila-
more Wdght to Cert8in facts ° ited powers.In the police
and figures,and discard oth- wry dispute,the arbitra-
ets.If crafted property,arbi- ' i tot's powers seem to have
nation can do the job eco-
nomically, been limited to either the
Sp an L Mayer ctfy�s offer or the police de
wand in order to force the
Parties to come to a settle-
ment.
If the arbitrator had been
given the power to reject
both,hire an independent
expert and choose an
amount between them,this
city fiscal event might have
been avoided
Allan J. Mayer
San Luis Obispo
- Page 1 of I
f
Chippendale, Sue
From: Hooper, Audrey
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:24 PM
To: Chippendale, Sue
Subject: FW: Anonymous Red File Item B4
Attachments: REDanonymousb4.pdf
Please see the following e-mail. Please provide me with one of the copies of the attached and put one in the
public review binder. No other action is needed.
Thanks,
Audrey
From: Hooper, Audrey
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:22 PM
To: Romero, Dave; 'Allen K. Settle'; Ashbaugh, John; Carter, Andrew; Marx, Jan
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Lowell, Jonathan P
Subject: Anonymous Red File Item B4
Please note that staff does not generally process red file items that have been submitted unanimously(i.e.
distribute to long list of recipients who have previously requested notice) items. Still, we are providing you with
the attached communication and will make copies available for interested parties at the meeting. If a Council
member feels it important to acknowledge this communication, he or she can do so at the meeting on the record.
Audrey
3/2/2009
/A
Hooper, Audrey_
From: Lowell, Jonathan P
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:12 PM
To: Marx, Jan
Cc: Hampian, Ken; Council ALL; Hooper, Audrey; Statler, Bill
Subject: RE: Expenditure of public funds for or against ballot measures
Jan,
As you know, arguments were made before the California Supreme Court in the
Vargas v. City of Salinas case on February 3, 2009, and a decision is expected
in early May of this year. Thus, for now we are guided by existing statutory
and common law, to wit: Government Code section 54964, Stanson v. Mott and
subsequent decisions. Once a decision is rendered in Vargas, I will revisit
the advice I have previously given on this subject. Until then, my advice
remains as in the past.
What I have told the City Council and City staff over the years is that once a
measure is placed on the ballot, public resources can no longer be used to
advocate for the measure. However, one exception under Stanson is that a
local government pursuing an informational role may prepare and distribute an
impartial analysis of a ballot measure that provides a fair presentation of
the facts.
Applying that same advice as in the past, if the City Council pursues a ballot
measure relating to modifying or repealing the binding arbitration provision,
once a decision is made to place the issue before the voters, the prohibition
against expenditure of public resources would apply. If there is Council
direction to disseminate impartial information about the issue, I would
analyze the request, depending upon what sort of information and means of
distribution are being proposed. In Vargas, the city of Salinas posted
information on its website about the financial impacts of repeal of a utility
users tax, which was the subject of a ballot measure in that community. In
San Luis Obispo, we would be very cautious in pursuing dissemination of
information in light of a pending ballot measure. While there is currently
information on the City's website about the financial effects stemming from
the recent binding arbitration provision, much of it is simply reflected in
past agendas, staff reports and minutes, all of which are existing public
record not created in anticipation of any defined ballot measure. The
addition of new information could be suspect, depending on the nature and tone
of the information, but it is my opinion that a means of directing people to
that existing information would be permissible and appropriate.
Thus, I will monitor the Vargas case, but in the meantime my counsel will be
fairly conservative and consistent with the Government Code and the Stanson
decision. I do not contemplate the City of San Luis Obispo placing itself on
the "cutting edge" of developing law in this area.
�14►1D CoP E-rrlt�r�-
Jonathan I COUNCIL, E CDD DIR
i � B'C�rr ✓mcg i3"FIN DIR
Jonathan P. Lowell 12�Ae*&AsYrc"rnc22 rFIRE CHIEF
City Attorney I ISATTORNEY 1rPW DIR
990 Palm Street C'I'CLERK/ORIG 12TOLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805) 781-7140 El DEPT HEADS ClRECDIR
PI y
jlowell@slocity.org TIL DIRice.T12�auaG HR Din
FIIED FILE + r7m6:v c�
-- MEETINGAGELNDA 'Grr�r.Kc2
—c%cc�rc
DATE ITE�.9 ,` 54
_
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail message contains work product or other
information which is privileged, confidential and/or protected from
disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or
entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error,
please e-mail or phone the sender. If you are not the intended recipient any
dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited.
-----Original Message-----
From: Marx, Jan
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2009 7:44 AM
To: Lowell, Jonathan P
Cc: Hampian, Ken
Subject: Expenditure of public funds for or against ballot measures
Hello Jonathan,
The head line in today's Tribune (City Considers Actions against Binding
Arbitration) raises the issue of how far the council can permissibly go
without violating Stanton. Below is an excerpt from the Colantuno newsletter
regarding Vargas. Could you please give us a more detailed opinion regarding
the legal implications of COUNCIL putting a measure on the ballot which would
remove binding arbitration from the city in light of these cases, and any
other you may find relevant? I am very concerned SLO may place itself on the
"cutting edge" of this area of developing law.
Thanks,
Jan
"Fiscal Elections. Lastly, the California
Supreme Court heard Vargas v.
City of Salinas in early February. The
case challenges the City' s proposal of
substantial cuts if an initiative proposal
to repeal the City' s utility tax were to
pass and City efforts to inform the public
of those proposed cuts. The case
tests the longstanding rule of Stanson
v. Mott that a public agency may not
use public funds to engage in "express
advocacy" for or against a ballot measure
but may provide "neutral public education"
about its implications. Press reports
indicate the Court was sympathetic to
the City' s position, but struggling with
whether and how to state a bright-line
rule for permissible public expenditures.
The League of California Cities, California
State Association of Counties,
and League of Women Voters of the
Salinas Valley submitted amicus briefs
for the City. A decision is due May 4th. "
2
Page 1 of 1
Coundl,SloCity
From: George Newland[gnewland@qualitysuitesslo.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 12:19 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding arbitration
Attachments:
City Council persons:
I would like the Council to revisit the biding arbitration. Given the City goals and current economic concerns the
binding arbitration is costing us more than what our city is benefiting in return. There is no shortage of qualified
applicants for the positions in our police and fire departments so I do not understand why we have had to pay
such large wage increases for their services. To be stuck with large wage increase because of binding
arbitration is going to hurt the city and the residents in these time of financial duress.
Please make a change or give the residents a chance to vote on this issue.
Thanks
George Newland
SLO City resident
https://maii.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/Binding%20arbitration-l O.EML?Cm... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: ]on Pollock[pollockslo@hotmail.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 1:24 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Dear Council Member,
As I will not be able to attend the city council meeting tonight,I wanted to express my views on the issue of
binding arbitration. First off, I have the highest respect for our public safety personnel. My experience has
found them to be both professional and highly trained. There is no doubt that our community benefits from
their service.
That said, I believe that,as they serve the local community,the local community should in turn have the
authority to determine their pay, benefits and working conditions. It seems grossly inappropriate, undemocratic
really,to remove that power away from the local government. (Although, it was the voters who gave up that
power in 2000 when they voted to add binding arbitration to the city charter.)
The decision by the arbitrator to increase their salaries during what was the beginning of the worst economic
environment since the Great Depression illustrates the ineffectiveness of the current process. During a the
recession that continues to put downward pressure on the incomes in the private sector,a third party has decided.
without voter input,to increase public safety salaries thus increasing the financial burden on the taxpayers.
The voter's commitment the community and generosity was recently highlighted by the passing of Measure Y.
This measure was endorsed by the city to pay for traffic congestion relief, road maintenance and infrastructure
improvements. With the increase in revenues being offset to pay the increased salaries,how can the voters not
feel like bait and switch was pulled on them?
You did not create this problem. Regardless, I call on you as our elected officials to help solve this problem. I
encourage you make your position know on this subject. If you believe that the public safety salaries are fair in
light of the current economy and salaries of private sector jobs available in the city, I would encourage you to
say as much. If you believe the binding arbitration is a helpful tool to ensure that our public safety personnel
continue to receive fair pay while being fair to the taxpayer, I would encourage you to defend.the current city
charter.
I do not pretend understand the intricacies involved union negotiations. Over the long term,the policy may in
fact be beneficial to both the city (taxpayers)and the men and women who serve in our fire department.
However, the current situation does not seem to pass the smell test. It does not appear to be"fair"to the
taxpayers.
Ultimately,the responsibility of the binding arbitration falls on the voters and change may be spurned by a
citizens group. Nonetheless, we look to our leaders for guidance on such matters. As a resident and taxpayer,I
would be interested in knowing your opinion and possible solutions.
All the best,
Jon Pollock
Hotmail®is up to 70%faster. Now good news travels really fast.Finc_out more.
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxBinding%20Arbitration-I I.EML?Cm... 3/3!2009
Page 1 of 1
Council, SloCity
From: Amy K. Kardel [Amy.Kardel@cleverducks.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 11:48 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration: Please Research Public Opinion
Attachments:
Dear Mayor and Council,
As a resident and business owner in the City who was deeply involved in the campaign to pass Measure Y, I am very concerned that
our citizens are not seeing the benefits of the money they voted to raise. If police and fire,whom we all love,get an unfair share, it
will reflect badly on the Measure Y effort and negatively affect our ability to pass it again when the sunset approaches. I urge you to
research how the people feel about binding arbitration so you can decide how to act on it.This is a key issue and I appreciate your
consideration. I would be there tonight for the meeting but we have a family obligation,so I hope this letter has the same impact!
Amy Kardel
Past Co-Chair Measure Y Campaign and concerned citizen
Clever Duets
Amy Kardel,COO/Business Development
1413 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
main 805.543.1930
direct 805.547.2361
www.cleverducks com
C E RIHIf.7W V�� �� , : .: -
Partner
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInboxB inding%2OArbitration:%2OPlease%... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
i
Council, SloCity
From: Lynne Biddinger[lynne@2020designgroup.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 11:38 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Dear City Council members,
As a small business owner in San Luis Obispo I feel it is extremely
important that the council take action leading to the possible
reversal of the binding arbitration provision.
As any business owner knows, expenses must be managed responsibly to
sustain a viable operation.
The city of SLO is no different and the current binding arbitration
provision cripples the council's ability to act in the city's best
interest.
This is unacceptable.
I do not believe the general public is aware of how serious the
implications of the binding arbitration provision are.
It is time to let the citizens of our community better understand what
binding arbitration means, how it effects them and let them decide if
this is what they want.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful consideration,
Sincerely,
Lynne Biddinger
...............................
Lynne Biddinger
20-20 Creative Group
954 Toro St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805.542.0707 phone
805.801.9403 cell
805-542-0703 fax
www.2020creativegroup.com
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/B inding%2OArbitration-9.EML?Cmd... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Carolyn Biedinger[markncamlyn@hotmail.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 10:43 AM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding Artbitration
Attachments:
To Mayor Dave Romero,Councilmen Andrew Carter and Alan Settle:
We both want to let you know we support our firefighters and law enforcement officers and believe that Balanced Binding
Arbitration is fair and democratic.
These people put their lives on the line for us and deserve a level playing field.
Thank you,
Mark and Carolyn B!edinger
1265 Kendra Court
San Luis Obispo,CA
Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail@. See how.
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxB inding%2OArtbitration.EML?Cmd=... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Rollie McCormick[RMcCormick@stmjappraisers.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 10:09 AM
To: Council, SloCity
Cc:
Subject Binding arbitration
Attachments:
Council members,
I want to voice my opposition to binding arbitration, as I think it goes too far and has
exceeded its purpose. I completely support our police and fire fighters and believe they do a
wonderful job in protecting our city. Having said that, these are difficult economic times
and the binding arbitration agreement has proven itself to not be in the community's best
interest.
Rollie McCormick
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciMnboxB inding%20arbitration-8,EML?Cmd... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Richard Kriet[rkriet@charter.net] Sent Tue 3/3/2009 8:07 AM
To: Council,SloOty
Cc:
Subject: Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Dear Council Members-
I will be unable to attend tonight's meeting, but wish to offer my Input regarding the process of binding arbitration.
I have believed for several years that the salary and benefits offered to public workers(city and state) is far out of line with the rest
of the work force. This has recently been aggravated by the arbitration settlement reached for the police officers of our city. As
someone who participated on the citizen's advisory committee,walked precincts,and made a cash donation towards the passage of
Measure Y, I am sorry to inform you that if the sunset election came up today I would vote against Its extension. Assuming that I
am not alone in my assessment that most of these funds are being gradually directed towards raises for municipal workers I think
you can assume that bankruptcy for our city is easily foreseeable unless you take immediate steps to get salary costs under control.
Having said that, I do not believe that a ballot initiative for the repeal of binding arbitration Is worth the money and effort that its
passage would require. Instead I would encourage you to set a city policy that funding for public safety be limited to 50%of the
city's budget over any two year period. This would encourage unions and the city to bargain in good faith to reach an appropriate
balance between wages and safety. If city revenues go up,so would total dollars devoted to public safety.
The city needs to publically acknowledge that public safety encompasses far more than police officers and fire crews. Flood
protection, road maintenance,and recreational opportunities for our citizens are every bit as critical.
I urge you to take a positive longterm step towards controlling the slide towards increasing benefits and wages for city workers at
the expense of vital city programs.
Thanks for your consideration.
Rich Kriet
206 Marlene Dr.
SLO
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycounciVInboxB inding%2OArbitration-7.EML?Cmd... 3/3/2009
N
LW a
■_
i
[A p z
■� ■_ � W W
W f-
� Gn �
V m �
•- = of
C �
IL M
(A o
4� m
s
N
I
I �
d
COD
r 3 co
M 2
OLit
N
co
ID
� w I
N I m
V r � -
w+ N m
O N v
LL
L
o
r ffl
' N ,
AI
ANN
r
r � I
N
♦..+
V
o I
r_
imcs
O r
Gi
N
j i I
--------------
0 N to co
619. fR Eft � r
fR fR
UOI I c c
M
0
a
� o
N O u
L ' O
M O
m
� C m
N of Z
x
N OR C
O °D m
M O
,m a
A M U
m O ti m
La O O
0 0
N
■
O O
M
M
i
O CD 1•
0
MI 0 O
co
Co
Cy
o
i
°
CIM
0 0 %cl! o o e o o
00
0 It N O N OQ O
sn a6ue ,
�JHJI � 4 J
60-Uer
s0-po 0
s0-mr
so-jdd o
G1 ° 80-uer 2.
I ;
w
' LO-300 g
j 10-Inr
QLo-Jdd E
10-uer o
C ! 90-130
•— a�
90-Inr
p 90-jdH
� I �
90-uer
p g0-Inr
E g0-jdV
M g0-uer
' VO-430
a>' VO-Inr
L g0-AV
IL li vo-uer
£0-300
p EO-Inr
_ ............... ................... £0-AV
C
£0-Uer
,m ! Z0-3o0
d
ZO-Inr
L Zo-'db
ZO-uer
LO-Inr
C
0 LO-AV
O w-uer
J 00-300
00-Inr
00-jdH
00-uer
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 Ln 0 a 0 uo 0 Ln 0 In 0 Ln 0
1� w co to in It le M M N N T- %-
d! fH H% fA hA 401 fi? 44 40 </! d! ti? fR
r �
I
as
n m cc
O UJ d
O
N � cc
0
I
NCV ❑ o
M
r
—
N
L o �
0 N 4a
4a
LL '
Cf
/' N
r �
r
r pp
j N O
m
0
d � a
c os co
W N ci
�' O
I �
AW
m
V C
LO
40 CIO
g C m
N O ii
� m
Co
O N co 00 O N It co co
fA 4w 44 49 EA T- P V- T-
69 4� 43 d4 40
uo!II!W $
co
0 ■
4WI >M
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ LM
L 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
L E E E E E E E
a ^ N � leGocc0
cV cV LA O LA W4 le O
Go
•= LL o
O
,_ � o
0�0 M
0 ,= N
N 4 V O cn0 4wO
O o i '
E m m °�'
E _
OOC V V1 V 1= � � �
H p =
N �
■
ti
M c c c c c c c
(' O O O O O O O
E E E E E E E
0 Go Go 0 0 Go Go
oo
in �
m
01
oao
00 E a�
L a = a� a
N ra " .— 4W o[ m
>mi
pia i V 0m
LL _ = O CL O
Q F- 0 O V I-
O
V
0
O O O O
■� Vol w
E E E L
L L ' O
am
3
L = C C =
O o •2 '° '° c
LL
00 E �E E 0
= O
= 0 0 74 00 M o
O
O
cn cn
E 4w -a
_ C _
O O O O O
u O E E E E
> 00 M o� �n Ln �' o
N o Evi- iov-
V
so
4w C = r. _ E
Q
O N M O rV O > Ln
V } in O rl
C
-a >, E >% m
= a� = E
w N 4
con 4W cn
CL a 4W
m .v E Q E "=
0 m � 0
a V =
O
r
L_
LAM Ul
s O
L Ln
O
m 4 L
L >
.O
O L = L
OLm 4w
0 4w
M V V _
L Lm — O
�+ m 4w Q
O' fA _
�• N rl E V
4w p s 3 O
S = c 'Q
00 � �O
Ch
L II = m 41
._ 0 4w
m ' _� M
.
V oG 0 oL
Von
Von
L
O .,
0
41 v
3
O
O
(n m o
Mi t0 I� rl 41
t L O N O
N rl rl v4 IT
E = rel iol- �-
O
V —
o
oL O o
ce
N V4 � 0 kh
le N a,
N
0 w .-i a W a
J n to t0 C6 o. _
� o .-
._
LM
M CL
V •� M ca
■ i. 1 �V m
01
O c •� 0 LoCL 0 o
n Vl CA a a�
N
v
c V
O Ei
L C1 N 74
N 00 N
M _ Ln 00 O N
E _ ml- �
O ._
V CoW
ol �O N 0 L 0 � o
N N N
%%LA %0 w IH
VJ N M
H m
L
a N _ ce j
_ = V) C 0 .�
Mi CL Ic Ic,
M
r
EMIN 01M SEEMS
i1110111 -
cm 0 0 _
L O
Lo
4001 4001
i O O s
V
s ^ O0• Ln _
O
R N iow' N en ._
s II II cn
m m 4W
LIM N
4WO N �
i O rl N
i
O
i& LA E
Imin�L Vfift-H V
O
m � - . . INNERV = m m a
m ° 4W 4W
_ ° o = ° w
i oc
i
ly 3 V � i
m O mmsO
c
CLI va 1=4ua o
CL a
O
CD
O
O t�
O i4
CD
N
N cep
v
O p
CD.
�+ N
CD
C1 wpb = CD N m
C a
L i i 3
c
a
m Q N
.0.. Q •C
Q c
MooN � .
.b 0 O
0
CCL
a m c 2
N Q. o
o 0
CD
J _ cn U
C p
� Z3
.O Q c
C P-
7 c 0
0 Ir-
El
m CD
OU Q i cn
0) v
Lc)
_ d os
c _j im a m as
(L co r
os
M
os
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0
O C) 00 Pl �O tp- M N r O
N
xapul
co
C �
to
O
f� m
t0Lo
V.
NO
L G
IL o 0
�o
M
•� o n
O
C N
O
O o
a
.a o
CD
N �
•L O
O
• � O
� T
CD
Oct
07
O
L C�
)
t0
m cm CD
m o
°iS m 3 L t
N m q)
r oL. s
0 O. 1- e
c
to O O O 9n O O O O O L O O O
N O f- O N O 1 O N O N to N
M M N N N N �.
xapul
m
m
M � �
N � �
t d '41
O
{ s s
N
N O
EA
L
O
LL
LM
w± N r
W � �
TV-
0 O O
Nco
01
o
a
++ c 1
N m
1 O
MM
W
I u'�
O
ik
O O
CIDQ)
6 m
I I 5
C2
0 C4 EA IA w 0O C4 It fa
r It r
I I 1 I IIA IA (�? IA Ifl•
t 1 t 1 t
UOIIIIW
ti
c W
Lo
.0 co
Q1 N 4w
y N O i
L Z
,..� .� O
m
L G�
Ln
LCD
n %0
co=
4A- O
._ _
00 O
4� N _ 4W4W
at � —
s = C o
M
cn J a s
r
O
13
O
4
O
O
L
m
O
13
4W
m
s
SAN Luis OBISPO C
Democratic Party*
1110 Morro Street• San Luis Obispo• CA • 93401 • 805 546-8499 •www.siodemocrats.org
March 1, 2009
San Luis Obispo City Council and Mayor LIAR 0 3
990 Palm St. LUUy
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
It is with deep regret that we have to write this letter. We, the voters, believed the issue of binding arbitration was
discussed, taken to the public and voted, debated by lawyers and finally put into effect. But here we are again facing the
same discussions.
Why?
Even the city's top official, City Administrator Ken Hampian said June 2008, in a letter to the public:
1, as City Administrative Officer, do not intend to make further statements regarding my views on the arbitration ruling
or on the binding arbitration provision of our Charter. Again, binding arbitration is the process chosen by City voters
for resolving differences with two of our public safety unions (Police and Fire). This recent process involved only the
POA (the Fire Association has never initiated binding arbitration) and the results are now official and binding. My
efforts shall now be directed toward faithfully implementing those results."
There is much this city must do to prepare for the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes, but one place that we cannot
scrimp is in our fire fighting and police protection. Our fire fighters are already working with equipment that needs
replacing. If we loose them to other cities or towns, who will replace them? Binding arbitration is not an aberration, 20
cities rely on it to keep public safety on the streets and not negotiating needlessly.
If the city, fire fighters and police are forced to spend time and energy each year on contracts, then that is time and money
taken from more important issues. The public and the City Administrator have already spoken on this issue and it is wrong
of the City Council on their own to open this issue again. No group of citizens has complained. There is no outcry from the
public:
The public and we would rather see our fre fighters and police on duty and not on picket lines. We strongly oppose re-
opening this is hen a public has already given the City Council direction.
-1 �qV
fA Mark Buchman Lo' A/
Chair, San Luis Democrats ! 220UNCIL [3'CDD DIR
L �GAe"M6e aFIN DIR
r,'—Q FILE IRE CHIEF
MEET IP�!G /`Cil=C� 3!; O'ATTORNEY QT�W DIR
EIICLERK/OF11G B-POLICE CHF
DATE 3 O 0 DEPT BEADS B REC DIR
I .-
Q'UTIL DIR
/ &rli /!?GL
FPPC # 742552, Federal ID# 00276659
Page 1 of I
Council,SloCity
From: John Ewan Dewan@alteryourenergy.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 3:09 PM
To: Council,ToCity
Cc:
Subject: Binding arbitration
Attachments:
Dear Council Members
I have had a wide range of emotions and concerns regarding the issue of binding arbitration and its'effects on the
City. I have concluded that the situation will not improve with time, and that binding arbitrating does not act as an
"equalizer" but rather as a large hammer-to be used by either party to achieve their own goals.
Many people voted for binding arbitration mistaking it as a mediation tool,which we now know through experience, is
not the case. If this were "binding mediation"then the mediator would be in the position of reviewing the issues
before them and creating a wining situation. Unfortunately as "binding arbitration"there is no winner-only losers,
since there is no option for negotiation, only an option to choose between what so often is bad or worse for either
party-
Ultimately
artyUltimately it would be far better for both the City and the safety unions if this process were to be changed to one of
mediation. Now is our opportunity to recognize the flaw in the current arbitration process, and for both the safety
unions and the city to embark on a course of change and correction for the betterment of our city as a whole. I would
hope that our council-as our elected leaders-recognize there responsibility to pursue a rational change, and take
the steps necessary to do so.
Please work to resolving the current situation and replace the ill conceived process of "binding arbitration"with a
sensible mediation process for the City of San Luis Obispo.
Thank you
John Ewan
Former Council Member
San Luis Obispo
John R. Ewan
Pacific Energy Company
2121 Santa Barbara St
San Luis Obispo
CA 93401
Vc. 805-544-4700
Fx. 805-5444411
Hours 10-5:30 M-F 11-4.-00 Sat.Closed Sundays
https://mail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/InboxB inding%20arb itration-13.ENIL?C m... 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Council,SloCity
From: Sally Newland [newlandzoo@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 3:07 PM
To: Council,SloCity
cc:
Subject.
Attachments:
City Council Members,
I voted for binding arbitration and have been horrified by the results. When I voted, if I had known the potential for the results we
are living with today, I would never have supported it.There are many citizens that feel the same way.
We support the police and fire personnel, but not to the detriment of our entire community.The unions have a loud voice, but they
are not representative of our community as a whole.This issue needs to be brought before the community for a vote.
Thank you,
Sally Newland
https:Hmail.slocity.org/exchange/slocitycouncil/Inbox/No%2OSubject-257.EML?Cmd=open 3/3/2009
Page 1 of 1
Coundl,SloCity
From: Kristen Yetter[kristen.yetter@promega.com] Sent: Tue 3/3/2009 2:53 PM
To: Council,SloCity
Cc:
Subject Binding Arbitration
Attachments:
Dear City Council Representatives,
Unfortunately I am unable to make the meeting tonight,but wanted to share my thoughts with you regarding binding arbitration.
First let me say that I have a number of friends on the city police force,city fire and county fire. I think very highly of these individuals and
appreciate all they and their departments do for my family and the entire community. I have also had the opportunity to participate as a
community member on the hiring board for the San Luis Obispo Police Department. I came away from that experience with a increased
appreciation of the finesse that Police Officers need to handle various situations that arise on a daily basis. It is important that the City's
compensation and benefit practices attract and retain the best and brightest. However,I also know from this same experience,that SLO has
attracted the best and brightest,even before the substantial salary increases awarded under binding arbitration. My recollection is that there
were at least.15 qualified candidates for two or three open positions. So my question is,what improved value am I,as a community member,
receiving as a result of binding arbitration? None,I would argue.
As a business manager, I understand the incredible challenge in balancing the internal and external pressures that.impact operations on a daily
basis. The foremost of these pressures is almost always financial,especially in this economy. How can City Managers and you as City Council
Representatives be held accountable for the smooth running of our city when you do not have control over a significant cost center? Without
fiduciary control,your ability to assure adequate city services must be considerably compromised.
As a long time resident of the City of San Luis Obispo, I have worked at a number of local startup companies and am an active community
member. I believe that residents did not realize the long term impact of binding arbitration when they voted for it in 2000. At a minimum it is
the responsibility of City Council Representatives to find out how city residents feel today about the binding arbitration requirement. Please
take action todayl
Sincerely,
Kristen Yetter
President
Promega Biosciences LLC
277 Granada Dr.,San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
805/544-8524x612
Please consider the environment before Prin[itlg this email
https://mail.slocity.orglexchange/slocitycouncil/InboxBinding%20Arbitration-12.EML?Cm... 3/3/2009
by Bennett Engineering, the City Of Lincoln, and LincoNEV August 28, 2008
w6�i L
LENOO][ N, Oalifoumia—While dependence on foreign oil, rising energy prices, and the threat of
global warming continue to burden Americans,the City of Lincoln has embraced an alternative
mode of transportation—the Neighborhood Electric Vehicle(NEV). A NEV is a fully-electric
passenger car, designed to be used around town. While inexpensive to operate and earth-friendly,
these little cars are also a lot of fun to drive!
In addition to saving money on gas and reducing pollution, NEVs benefit the community. When
residents own a NEV,they tend to shop locally. This helps foster a sense of community. To
encourage patronage by NEV owners, many Lincoln merchants even offer special parking and
charging station outlets in commercial centers throughout town. Charging is easy and
convenient, using standard 110 Volt outlets.
NEVs have a top speed of 25 mph, and typically have a range of about 20-30 miles. NEVs are
ideal for short local trips such as running errands, taking the kids to school, or visiting friends.
According to a recent report to the legislature, NEV users average 15 trips per week(one-way),
and the majority of trips are 6 miles or less.
The California Streets and Highways Code allow NEVs to travel on roads with a posted speed
limit of 35 MPH or less. However, with higher-speed roads between residential areas and
shopping areas, NEV transportation was historically confined, and impractical for daily driving.
Groundbreaking legislation was passed(Assembly Bill 2353, and the subsequent AB 2963)
allowing the cities of Lincoln and Rocklin the flexibility in planning for NEV use within city
limits.
The City of Lincoln's Neighborhood Electric Vehicle(NEV) Transportation Plan was adopted in
2006. Since that time, city engineers and consultants have begun work on city streets, such as
Joiner Parkway—a major thoroughfare in Lincoln, to include new signage and striping for shared
NEV/Bike lanes. The City plans to continue to expand NEV routes by adding striping and
signage, and expects this will promote the use ofNEVs throughout the City.
Of course, with any new transportation paradigm, safety is of utmost importance. Lincoln's
Police Chief Brian Vizzusi, likes to point out that there hasn't been an injury accident involving
NEVs.
At first glance, many mis :NEVs for golf carts, but there are im .ant differences. By law, `
NEVs must meet higher satety standards. NEVs must be equipped with: seat belts, headlights,
rear/brake lights, side and rear view mirrors, safety glazed windshield, front and rear turn signals,
rear reflectors, a horn, a parking brake, and a covered passenger compartment. Additionally,
while golf carts are limited to two occupants,NEVs have no such restrictions, with models
ranging from two to eight passengers.NEVs must be registered with the Department of Motor
Vehicles, and NEV drivers must be insured and possess a valid driver's license.
So who are buying NEVs? Studies estimate there are over 600 NEVs in the City of Lincoln, and
that number is growing. Of course,the vehicles are tremendously popular in retirement areas
such as the Sun City Lincoln Hills development. In fact,the enthusiasm for these vehicles is so
high, that residents formed a club that currently boasts over 300 members. However,NEV use is
hardly limited to retirement areas. Instead of waiting in an idling car for school to release, some
parents have chosen to "spare the air", and drive a NEV instead.
City Councilmember Kent Nakata states, "The City definitely promotes NEVs as a smart method
of travel. NEVs are very beneficial in the reduction of pollution in our region." Mr. Nakata also
serves on the Placer County Air Pollution Control District Board of Directors.
A survey of NEV owners was conducted by the City of Lincoln in 2003. Applying recent data
collected by Global Electric Motorcars, at projected buildout of 5000 NEVs, 2.5 tons of cold-
start pollution per year will be eliminated.
Another result of the 2003 survey indicated the participants' primary purpose of trips in NEVs'
are as follows: 54%of the trips taken were classified as leisure, 43%were for purposes'such as
trips to doctor, shopping, and bank errands, meaning trips of necessity; and 3%were designated
as business or commuting.
While NEVs are environmentally friendly, they are also budget-friendly. NEVs require very little
maintenance, and cost less to drive than a traditional car. In addition, insurance rates are typically
much less expensive. Used NEVs start at around $3,000, and new vehicles can be purchased for
as little as $6,250. Ryan Kugel, owner of Electrick Motorsports in Loomis explains, "With the
cost of gas approaching$3 per gallon, people are looking for any way to reduce their
consumption of gas, and one way to save is by purchasing a NEV.NEVs are great for short trips
under 30 miles to local stores,parks; school or a friend's house. NEVs also cost very little to
maintain with a typical vehicle only being serviced once a year for$75. With the City of Lincoln
investing in NEV-friendly roads, and local shopping centers installing free charging stations to
accommodate these types of vehicles, it's a great opportunity for people of Lincoln to take
advantage of and have fun doing it."
City officials would like to remind golf cart users to stay within the Golf Cart Transportation
Plan in the Sun City Lincoln Hills development. Commercial centers within the Golf Cart
Transportation Plan include the Safeway shopping center(but not Raley's). The intent of the
NEV plan is to provide safe routes throughout the City to accommodate licensed Neighborhood
Electric Vehicles. NEVs are equipped using the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards,
whereas golf carts are not. Please contact us at the Lincoln Public Works Department for more
information by calling(916) 434-2450.
Electric vehicles(EVs)are cars that ran on electricity stored in batteries.EVs are often confused with hybrid electric vehicles,
which combine an internal combustion engine with a batten.EVs are truly-zero emission cars because they have no tailpipe .
exhaust and no evaporative emissions from fuel systems.Manufacturers have de-eloped a broad spectrum of EVs-from
neighborhood electric cars which can be used for short trips around town to full function electric cars which can be used for
longer trips and baye the body of conventional cars.The m ailabdm.and shies of these vehicles Nary from year to rear,but
with batter} technology-getting more sophisticated.manufacturers will have the ability to design electric vehicles with
extended range,faster charging times and more power at a lower cost.
M h Mz W . coawara o aacaar�a>¢m Q �irsac$af£�:
no tail pipe exhaust
no evaporative emissions
no emissions system which can degrade or fail with time
no emissions from the refining of fuel and service stations
�I 'c fA OULAc3ltsa c�04 ac.4 c L,a C Mp :
reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.a green house gas that contributes to global warming
lessen our cancer risk from exposure to toxic air contaminants such as benzene
reduce oil consumption and dependence on imported oil
9Zacrse. ccrx.c sura rsosgg. IIA%-Fa AL.& recd !Pa. &sarrzoag aaae c�c�Eh R T c�rz:
• Drive alone in the HOV lane--bypass all that traffic(not available for NEW
• Free parking and free charging in some areas
• Cash incentives towards the lease or purchase of an EV from ARB and some local agencies
• Tax incentives from the Federal government
• You can recharge at your home. work or at any I l h-out let—you don't have to make a trip to the gas station
• Fuel costs are less than a conventional car estimated at$1 to$2 a day for a?0 to 70 mile commute
• Maintenance costs are lower because there are fewer moving parts to service and repair
• No noisy engine.no tunc ups,no oil changes and no smog test requirements
EVs are fueled by electricity and can be recharged at a charger installed at your home or workplace.or can be found at main
other locations such as Costco and your local shopping mall. Charging time varies depending on how empty"the batten is,
how much energy the batten holds(or how big the tank is)and other factors.In general.it takes approximately two to five hours
to recharge vehicles that are 1/4 to 3/4 frill and approximately six to eight hours to recharge vehicles that are on-empty.-However.
you'll probably be working.sleeping.shopping or watching a movie so it really doesn't seem that long.
The heart of an EV has three main components:the batteries.the electric motor controller.and the electric motor.The controller
takes power from the batteries and delivers it to the motor.The batteries of an EV can vary in type.number,voltage and
placement.The different battery types available now are Nickel-Cadmium.Nickel metal hydride.Lithium Ion.and Lead acid.To
recharge the batteries,there is a charger component in the car which takes the electricity from a power source(ultimately the
power plant)and converts the current from alternating current(AC)to direct current(DC).
gra.c�
- Electric-chicles are one of the cleanest and most environmentally friendly cars around
Electric vehicles reduce pollutants by more than 90 percent when compared to the cleanest conventional gasoline-powered vehicles
(even when factoring in the emissions from power plants generating the electricity-to the charge the vehicle).
By driving an electric vehicle with a?0-mile commute.you can reduce gasoline consumption by an estimated 750 gallons anmtally.
Fuel costs for a gasoline vehicle can be over five times greater than an electric vehicle.
Plotting the long r,_A to one million electric __gars
Meeting the Obama Administration's goal of putting 1 million plug-in electric vehicles on the
road by 2015 will only happen with a coordinated set of policies and technology advances,
according to an electric vehicle association.
The Electric Drive Transportation Association(EDTA)on Tuesday is expected to release a set of
policy recommendations for ushering in what auto industry executives call a major technological
shift away from gas-only cars to electrics.
EDTA members include auto manufacturers, battery companies, a number of electric utilities,
and other industry associations. The group is lobbying for policies to boost domestic
manufacturing industry, fund technology research, and launch wide-scale testing of electric
vehicles. It said tax incentives, which currently give consumers up to a$7,500 rebate depending
on battery size, should be extended to a higher number of cars and private fleet purchases.
On the technology side, batteries remain the biggest hurdle. The EDTA said the Department of
Energy should fund to develop and test energy storage and fuel cells systems.
"Energy storage capability is the key to the success of the vehicles and also is the enabling
technology for using renewable power as a transportation fuel," according to the EDTA's policy
recommendation report.
In an indication how of important battery technology is, General Motors decided to manufacture
the battery pack for the Chevy Volt and other electric-gas cars itself, rather than purchase the
packs from a supplier. The battery cells will be supplied by LG Chem.
In addition to technology progress, battery and auto company executives say that establishing a
supply chain of electric vehicle components will require collaboration among different
companies. Fourteen U.S. companies have established an alliance to lobby the U.S. government
for$1 billion in federal aid to build up U.S. battery manufacturing, according to a Wall Street
Journal report published last December.
Car manufacturers will need to provide warranties on batteries which have not yet had years of
testing among consumers, the EDTA said. Some automakers have considered leasing batteries,
which will allow consumers to upgrade to newer batteries_
The EDTA also argues that new business models are required to prompt consumers to purchase
electric vehicles, even though they promise a;nip in fuel efficiency.
The group recommends setting up an infrastructure for charging stations, coordinating with
utilities and companies that test fleets of plug-in electric vehicles, including government
agencies.
"By helping public and private entities to build coherent alternative vehicle and infrastructure
solutions, the federal government can help the industry to move beyond the 'chicken vs. eul'
uestion," according to the report.
Staff Presentation 03-03-2009 Item B4
1
Binding Arbitration
Election Options
2
Background
City Charter governs City operations
Voters amended Charter in 2000 to provide for
binding arbitration with certain public safety
employee organizations
Unresolved negotiations with Police Officers
Association resulted in June 2008 binding arbitration
decision
Fire Association has never utilized binding
arbitration
At January 31, 2009 Budget Study Session, after
public inquiry, majority of Council asked this matter
be agendized for discussion
1
2
Staff Presentation 03-03-2009 Item B4
2
3
Overview
Options
Election Requirements and Calendaring
Legal Issues
4
Options for Council Consideration
1.Take no action
2.Table the matter
3.Conduct public opinion research
4.Hold stand alone election
5.Hold consolidated election
3
4
Staff Presentation 03-03-2009 Item B4
3
5
Election Dates
Stand-alone Election: July 7, August 4,
November 3, 2009
Consolidated Election: June 8 or November
2, 2010
Per EC sections 1405, 1415 and 9255, election may not be
held sooner than 88 days after it has been called.
6
Estimated Methods and Costs
Stand-alone, traditional polling place -
$130,000
Stand-alone, mail-ballot with one polling
place/drop off center - $100,000 - $106,000
Consolidated - November 2009 – $88,000
Consolidated - June 2010 - $53,000
Consolidated - November 2010 - $6,000
5
6
Staff Presentation 03-03-2009 Item B4
4
7
Options for Changing Binding
Arbitration Provision
Repeal provision entirely
Modify provision to require an arbitrator’s
decision be approved by voters
Modify provision to require an arbitrator’s
decision be rejected by super majority of the
Council (legal issue raised)
Other
8
Legal Issues
Meyers-Milias-Brown Act obligation to
bargain in good faith: must meet and confer
on potential effects of ballot measure, but not
on decision to place measure on ballot
Application of new Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1299 et seq.
7
8
Staff Presentation 03-03-2009 Item B4
5
9
Questions
9