HomeMy WebLinkAboutHBFA - Firefighters Association - 1996-02-05Council/Agency Meeting Held: �d-,�d� 96
to:
`Deferred/Continued
Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied
City Clerk's Signat6re
Council Meeting Date: February 5, 1996
Department ID Number: AS96-001
SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, CITY ADMINISTRATOR-
PREPARED BY: WILLIAM H. OSNESS, PERSONNEL DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF IMPASSE RECOMMENDATION OF
HEARING OFFICER REGARDING IMPASSE BETWEEN CITY AND
HBFA Aea, %20. ?, - 7 ato
Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action, Alternative Action(s), Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s)
Statement of Issue: Whether to resolve the current impasse between the City and the
Huntington Beach Fire Association by unilateral action of the City Council.
Funding Source:. That $20,000 be appropriated from the General Fund Reserve to
fund the bilingual pay and family health plan costs.
Recommended Action:
a) adopt Res. No. 96-7 and
b) approve appropriation of $20,000 from the General Fund Reserve to fund
the bilingual pay and family health plan costs.
Alternative Action(s): Continue to meet and confer with HBFA to reach a mutual
agreement of these six (6) issues.
Analysis: The City current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covers the term of
October_ 1, 1990 to September 30, 1993. The City and HBFA met on more than a dozen
occasions between June, 1993 and` July 1994 in an effort to agree to a successor MOU.
However, after agreeing to a number of items, six (6) issues remained unresolved and
an impasse was declared on July 10, 1994. Final efforts to reach an agreement failed
and the City and HBFA agreed to set the matter for advisory arbitration in accordance
with the City's Employer -Employee Relations Resolution. The matter was heard before
a mutually agreed upon arbitrator, Joseph F. Gentile, on August 1, 1994. Post hearing
briefs were filed and the attached decision of February 17, 1995 was issued by the
arbitrator.
REQUEST FOR ACTION
MEETING DATE: February 5, 1996 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: AS96-001
Upon receipt of the arbitrators advisory recommendations the City and HBFA continued to
meet, but have been unable to mutually agree upon a resolution to the six (6) issues at
impasse. Therefore, it is proposed that the City Council unilaterally adopt one through five
of the arbitrators recommendations. Recommendation six pertains to the term of the
M.O.U. and therefore is not applicable.
1. TERS Rollover" - To cease this benefit effective January 31, 1994.
2. Bilingual Pay - Permanent employees who are required by the Fire Chief to use their
bilingual abilities as part of their job assignment are to be paid five percent (5%) over
their regular monthly salary after being tested and certified by the City Personnel as to
their language proficiency, effective October 1, 1993.
3. Education Incentive Program - Maintain the status quo, namely, that an employee be
employed by the Fire Department for a minimum of three (3) years before being eligible
for this program.
4. Grievance Arbitration Procedure - Maintain the status quo and continue the current
method of handling grievances as specified in the City's Personnel Rules.
5. Health Cost Containment - That the maximum contribution toward employer's health
premium be increased from $525 to $544 per month; the optical maximum contribution be
increased from $12.00 to $13.00; and, the dental maximum City contribution be set at
$99.00 per employee, effective January 1, 1996.
Analysis:
Environmental Status:
Attachment(s):
1 Resolution
0016454.01
-2-
01/22/96 11:40 AM
RESOLUTION NO. 96-7
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION
ON FIVE ISSUES AT IMPASSE BETWEEN
THE CITY AND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION
WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach (City) and the Huntington Beach Firefighters
Association (HBFA) met and conferred on a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) governing
their respective obligations and responsibilities under California Statutory Law and City
resolutions, since the expiration of the current MOU on September 30, 1993; and
After protracted meetings, impasse was reached on six (6) issues; and
Both City's and HBFA's positions were presented to a mutually agreeable Hearing
Officer; and
The Hearing Officer, Joseph F. Gentile, considered both the City's and the HBFA's
positions; and
On February 17, 1995, the Hearing Officer ruled on the six (6) impasse issues as contained
in Exhibit l; and
The City and the HBFA, after additional meetings, could not reach a final agreement and
could not agree on the Hearing on December 19, 1995. The City notified the HBFA that it
intended to adopt the hearing officer's recommendations of February 7, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby unilaterally adopt the Hearing Officer's recommendations 1 through 5 as
contained in his February 17, 1995 report, and attached hereto.
S Fps: PCD: Resol: HBFAimpa
RLS 96-039
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that recommendation 6 is not adopted. Recommendation
6 concerns the term of the MOU. This Recommendation is inapplicable because the decision of
the City Council to unilaterally implement the Hearing Officer's recommendation does not
constitute a MOU, and has no term.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of February, 1996.
ATTEST:
G�
City Clerk
City Administra or
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
t C2 GAi� H-v7-0�
City Attorney - � Y Ah
SF\s:PCD:Reso1: HBFAimpa
RLS 96-039
Res. No. 96-7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of
the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said
City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed
and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said
City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th of February, 1996 by
the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Leipzig, Bauer, Sullivan, Dettloff,
Green
NOES: Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: None
ABSTAINED: Councilmember Garofalo
eA�ao�-
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach, California
G/resoluti/resbkpg
IMPASSE ARBITRATION
(FACTFINDING)
In the Matter of the Factfinding
-between-
THE CITY OF HIINTINGTON BEACH,
the City,
-and-
THE HUNTINGTON BEACH F IREFIGETERS
ASSOCIATION (HBFA) ,
the Association.
RP: Findings and Conclusions as to
the six (6) Issues at Impasse.
February 17, 1995
Los Angeles, CA
19502018)
RECO_**1ENDATIONS,
FINDINGS AND
CONCLUSIONS
OF THE
ARBITRATOR/FACTFINDER
Joseph F . Gentile
Asbi trator
Factfinding Rej ^}t IHB & EBFA) p. 2 of 11
February 17, 1995
STATEMENT OF THE MATTER
The City of Huntington Beach (-''City" or "H33" )
and the'Euntington Beach Fire Fighters Association ("RBFA")
have had for a nu-nber of years a Memorandum of Understanding
("MOU") governing their respective obligations and respon-
sibilities under California's statutory scheme and HB' s local
resolutions. Those provisions relevant to the instant fact-
finding processes were made part of this record evidence.
The current YOU covers the term of Oc sober 1,
1990 io September 30, 1993. It was approved by the City Council
in its Resolution No. 6406 following an "advisory arbitration-
factfirding" by Louis M. Zigman ("Zigrraan Rexrt") . Parenthe-
tically, the Zigman Report was made a part of the extensive
evidence- record in this matter.
The City and the EBFA negotiated with respect `Co
a sl:ccessor MOU; however, after reaching agreement on a nuI:iDer
Of, items, six (6) eluded resoluticn. Thus, inocsse was declared
and she at imaasse moved to the advisory arbitration-
factfhnding forum before the undersigned. e
The issues were presented during evidentiary
heafi-gs and thoroughly briefed by the City and •HBFi�. tensions
-were granted wit! in which to _:.le these doc'.ments. Changes
in 1--he -r i e_s were submitted into October of 1:1�1 as new
information was vrovided relative to the "TIERS Rollover'
i ssue. Brie; s 'ere exc-anged by the Factfinder shortly be-
fore the issuance of this Factfinding Report. As noted ante,
the evidence record was extensive, detailed and contained a
of references to statutory, decisional and regulatory
law. The _B A' s . Brief was particularly eXDansive in providing
t?':ese references.
During the cC,;rse or the hearing both Parties
were afforded a -full and complete opportunity to be heard,
exaMine ar.d cross-examine witnesses, develop arcuments and
Factfinding Re; :t [HB & HBFAJ p. 3 of 11
February 17, 19Y5
present relevant evidence. Uo official transcript was made
of this process; however, the extensive nature of the docu-
mentation did not make this necessary.
Submitted into this evidence record, in addition
to the informal on cited, was a host of documentation. One
particular issue, the "PERS Rollover," was complex and mace
complex by the somewhat unsettled nature of how certain
aspects would be handled. Given this unsettled character, the
Factfinder, given the understanding that further guidance may
be forthcoming from either PERS or the courts, delayed in
issaing this Report; however, this did not --develop as anticipated.
Thus, this Report is issued as further delay does not serve the
best interests of the Parties.
The approach -followed by this Factfinder will
be to take each issue, brie_r7y state the City's position, the
HB_ A 5 pos3 ti on and then the Factfinder' s finding and conclu-
sion on that issue.
For the City:
APPEARrLACES BY COUNSIET,
For ther.BFA:
Dan Cassidy, Esc. Richard J. Silber, Esq.
Llebert, Cassidy n Frierson nt%Crney--at-i,cW
6033 west Century Blvd. 2134 thin Street
Suite 601 Suite 130
?.os rncele5, CA 00045 Seacliff Office ?arK
Funtirgton Beach, CA
92648
ISSUES, POSITIONS, FINDINGS CONCLUSIONS
As stated ante, the Factfinder will be brie_` and
concise in addressing each of the six (6) issues at impasse.
Experience has taught this Factfinder that it 1s best to answer
the question :,resented with a minimum of cornrjent in order to
avoid protracted disputes as to "what did he mean by that"!
Factfinding Report IRB & EBFA) p. 4 of 11
February 17, 1995
Issue #1 -- "PERS Rollover13
To place this issue in proper focus, definitions
are in order: the word "rollover" (aka "pickuD" or "si)iking"),
as used in the context of the Public Employees' Retirement_
System ("P RS") refers to the practice of converting employer -
paid employee contributions to compensation during an em-
ployee's last twelve njonths of employment. This means that
the employee's salary is "artifically" inflated for retire-
ment purposes and, in the Case of HBFA members, it constitutes
a 9` increase.
Article IX, Sections B.1, 2 and 3 of the MOU
address this practice. The *.BF1? proposed to maintain the P P:.-.S
"rollover" or "�i ckup" -for the entire nineteen (19) -month
"grace period" from December IS, 1992 through June 30, 199 .
7Z the vie:.' of the F.BFA, as argued in Considerable detail in
its ?ri e_ , -t-his Was permiiL ted by s £RS' s Policy and SB 53.
The Ci tv - ronoseo that 1J Gn e--ry J 1 , 1994 be the
cutod= datefor the above described practice. The City argued
this was supported by decisiopal and regulatory law.
Again, "rollover" occurs under circumstances
„I erein an e:^Dloyee, el i g_'Jle for service retirement, may
:a1�e hi s%her P>ERS's "pickup" reported as con -pen -cation _or al 1
Gr �nV pert of the t we ve (1 L) month DeriOd Sri Gr to his/her
service retire-ment date, upo:7 wr].tten recuest. t0 the Direc-t-fir
Of F i n a n c e .
At issue iswhether the cutoff date for the
above practice be Janaury 31, 1994, as the City argued or
June 30, 1994 as the SBFA argued.
Factfinding Rej� t [HB gBFA] J p. 5 of 11
February 17, 1995
Findings and Conclusions of Factfinder:
Based on a careful evaluation of all the argument,
authority cited and attendant documentation, the Factfinder found
the City's position to be well taken, notwithstanding the argu-
ments or the HBFA; therefore, January 31, 1994, should be the
cutoff for` the above described practice.
In reaching the above finding and conclusion, a
number of factors were very persuasive. Four of the dominant.
factors which were Persuasive in reaching this finding and con-
clusion were t?:ese: first, every emp?ogee organization in the
City had agreed to end the "rollover" effective January 31,
1994; second, only one (1) member of the F.BFA who elected this
"rollover" Option would not complete one full year of "enhanced"
credit, while thlrty-t-hree (33) memb;ers of the HB n who opted
for this Drocram have completed the enhanced year during or prior
to vanuary 31, 1994; third, the state of the law at this ti-me
and fourth, _ .a "unfunded 11abi1-ity" elemQ::t.
issue f2 -- "Bilingual Pay'
The HB_A aronosed that the City provide to its
menbers tn_ sane bii i??ci:Zl . av—rocra-Til that the City 'orcv_des
to the Mum c_pa1 :,mrloyees' Association and the Policy Officers
Association. Ire City ag_Eed t0 provide the same bilingual
yay DrOcrc_Z effective in the month following ratification Of
the OU .
t the core of the disagreement over thi S i SSue
was tree role, i r any, of t:j
he _=?. in the testing and certiricat_on
elennents of the C? ty' s bilingual pay program. The FBFA also
addressed what it consicerBd to bo a "d_is-Dute concerning Co,^,tract
Ter:P.s f :�anac :ace recardi ng employee eligibility and 'proficiency'."
Jkrticle V, SeCtionl E. ( was noted.
Bilingual pay is granted to eligible employses
at the rate o`. 5. over their -:onthly pay for proficiency in
Factfinding Rer t (HB s EBFA) p. 5 of 11
February 17, 1995
Spanish, Vietnamese or Sign language. This.51 proposal will
replace the current $50.06 allowance. Apparently, only five
(5) employees of the Fire Depart;�ent receive the current $50.00
bilingual pay stipend.
Findings and Conclusions of Factfinder:
Given this evidence record, -he Factfinder found
the City's position to be well taken, notwithstanding the argu-
ments presented by the hY._A; therefore, permanent employees who
a -re required by the Fire Chief to use their bilingual abilities
as part of their job assignment should be paid an additional
five percent (5%). over their regular monthly salary and em-
ployees who are required by the Fire Chief to utilize their
bilingual skills shall be required to be tested and certified
by the Personnel Department as to their language proficiency
in order to be eligible for the 5% bilingual pay stipend.
1n reaching the above finding and conclusion,
the F actin:der foiind two factors particularly persuasive: first,
the need for valid, reliable and consistent testing and cer-
tification for any Ci — e-mo ogees ell Bible for Such bilingual
stipend; and, second, the conclusion that the City's Personnel
Dena rtrient was best equip -pea to provide the language proficiency
testi-c and Certif"ication. is to this fatter point, should the
Personnel Department fail in this regard, the HBFA has access
to the ar ; evance proced-ore to ensure testing and cer-4 catio::
are adnniiini stered in accord with the recuire-ments and in an
evenhanded :Harmer.
Issue =3 -- ".Educational Incentive Program"
This issue is reasonably straichtfor: ard: t:??
City wants to =maintain the status quo, namely, that an employee
be c::,ploved by the Fir e Depa. ;.rent for ' a min_ -mum of Lhree (3)
Sears before eligible fog this ?rocra.-,, and the HBFA proposed
this rC C11i renei?t be rEdiiCEd tO one (1) year and that
the to'D Ste-,) be available to all uersonnel.
The morits of such a program Need not be stated,
for they are o�vious; he e%er, costs are pi%'Ctal!
Factfinding Rejx 1 (HB & RBFA1 7 of 11
February 17, 1995
Article V, Sections A.l.a, b and c are the
references.
This proposal has a cost impact estimated dur-
ing the hearing to be about $8,5000.00. Though relatively
shall, it must be treated as an economic issue and viewed in
the context of other economic issues, particularly the health
cost containment proposal with proposed increases in the pre-
*a.iur.s .
Findings and Conclusions of Factfinder:
Though the HM-FA's arguments and position are
contrary, the Factfinder respect -fully concluded that the City's
position on this issue was the most. persuasive and thus found
to be well taken; therefore, this Program should not be amended
to reflect the proposed changes submitted by the HBFA at this
time. As the City argued, status quo should be maintained.
Issue r4 -- "Grieva_uce-Arbitration
Procedures`
As with Issue =3, Issue vg is s -rai gh tiorward
di- ect_c.n. In. simple terms, the -HBF.A wants 1%s own crieV-
a::Ce-arhi trati 07: procedures and these should Lie Dlaced i n i is
M0U With 16:he City. In effect this would remove hBS k frD,- n
coverage by Rules 19 and 20 c the Governing Personnel Rules
(::=solution 3960) .
The Citj'' S pOSiti On rested on Two, Drimary factors:
first, t.^.ere was no "justification" for the C ance and, more
lmport ntly, second, all other City employees are subject- CO
Rules 19 and 20. In ter: -,is of administration and evenhanded
treat:.,ent, the City seemed to argue that the naintenance of
the current dispute resolution procedures prcvided a uniform
to 'i Cr E rt N tv 'J �; '0
0 0-
t 1 :-1 11. 1-1,
'! to G P. p' O, ti 0 0 K
K ':)'
5
7 p► to (D
In a rt 0, P. <' 0, e. 0.
m ro
m a: ►i
Cl* In (U K P. 11.10 m 0
01
rt
►j m 1; A'
0 O 1-10 p, In CI- ►D 111, m
P. ',1
,'T m 0 :J
:nil O O O 'j 1-1 oo rt N
m
1-t► rt 1-1 0
11 1-1 N N P. c.
n
0
E tr K r► tC ►i tr :3 hi
rh rt
m
1i rl1 N
O I-'10 :'C' M rt ID
0 1-11
iC
tD rl ri• .
K '-<: 0 (0 rD 0,- In O N
1'.
Y•
` n,
t In Ii
to ^i N I-• m 0 n• , rt J' 0 n.
tt
rt :7' m J'
• ,o I-•• :J ► I`.t (1) •I' n1
rt m
tom•
•3' 0 :3 Ii-
1� U, I-•• in 10 m 4
::r I-i
J
m 0
m ►-' rt In P. Ij In m
0 0' :X
N (D J' O 'h'• J' to
rt is 1A
'11 f; N 7;
K 1-'• (n J 0 O t< f:
J' N ::1
p,
n1 I-t (n ro O
w (lr to O N 1-'• s (n 0
m In
P.
0 Ii m ti 0-
to J O P. 0- K
ht
In
Co- m 0- m:r,
rt to r7 fi U' c: :i m ;pv'
171 P- m
td
1-(r 1 1'•
O 11 N• rt '-< to tq J. ((1
tt1 =) N
C
W CI- O P- (+
►i rt j' 1 p,
1-1110 0
rt
:J 0 0 :7'
(•,) N '-< W • 11I rt ti'
:0 hi ::l'
(D
m .J In
G t+ • :j 1-( 0 :'1' m N
m I-•
m m rt rt rh
'rt I-,• ul tl' '-I n1 rt. (n
N (n :)
hi
Ii rh :7• N nr
'tJ 0 I-'• rt J:�
•1 N tq
m
'7 1 °• :-I • 1
0 :j ► ( rt rt I; m to
0, to
to
ro O N ().a.
I t (n U O ti 9 i t (D c;
0. rt
O
O O. (b 1 ••
ri At li '_t' :J 1-•.
rt •l.
W
•i m ) •.1
(n 13' rt (D •
m h
:)r LI m
c:
r)O .4 -.0
rt M P. to O Iv I-• rD
rn "C
rt
I- I -I, I- L
m n "0 N A 0 (17 to 0
r) r-11
0
0, Z3' m rt :3,
I— IV ) 4 K m
P. _r �
:1
m (1, :7 J lam.
n fi Imo• N N (n 13,
rt m 41
p. J ro VI
W (11 at ;J tl' 0 n1
'<: N (D
1d
Cl, m rt
r+ (n rt 1), ►-' J 'J tf
- m
K
h• J' "J
►� m rt m :3 10,'<
1-11
O
O 1-i (D pf
to -f ij N to �j l_ -'
.`-r pI 0
0
0 tQ 0 :7: rh
M N rt N M ko
N 0 o-
ch
l7' O W 1-I1
nI 11 :i (7 to K
rt• p
tinli vo) 1.,.
N W- :J 0 L. m
at 0 .-1`
r7 H 0. )y J
tq y ft 'J (0 •1 <:
N• 11 %Q
m
to I.,... p,
J' G tq 1i J I-,•
(n m on
N
m m m
m j m
10 ..
.
N C rt Co- 1-1
m P- O t-,• N m s.
r; N
N J' :7,
:J 1; = Hr I -A J (n 0
Co. 1•h ;3
N J 111 0 0
rt (n rt 0 hh P. 0 0
m W 0.
(n
V I-i ►-i I.,. tom• O : 1-1,
10
a
hi N 00
N 11.
: 0 m (A rt
m rt O
W w rt 11
rr rD ew (o It N :f
to . 7
p, rj' 1•C (n
rt 0 k (n hi 0 rh 0
0 0
(D hh - O
P. 1*1 N m rt J In
I-, $ I—
t� Ii• N J
rt In to Cf. N e- 0 (D m
G I-'• G
( ro 1.3 01
J' h'• 0 (0 'J N• 01 ti
rt rf N
0 C1/UV I—
m 0 O ;A Is, (D ro :j
)�•-.T 11.
I3 P. O
0 1-1 - ;: I-,• n1
0 0
� rt 7 (n 110
0,0 :l E r1
::I :J
at p-(tl 1-'• I-i
it, N• C) N rt
to
(p J rt m
rr lit Ib (n t0
r, I-•• I-
'1. :J 1-1
11) In 0
(n
n rf rf G N
N rt ro 0 I~
on
►V M
n :.Y O :3
w c: J' :3 hi m
W, .
m Al
Ic1 N 00 0
n, rh m q, 1'1
v.
Or 0
n m J'
(D 01..3, m
rt
N rt
F-'n 0 K N
O w tf m
m
C hh
0 r :3
b• ti a ► -• 01 rt
rj
t►' r-
w t j ► tt rl' tC1
m W v ti
Jf m
Col N• 0`1 P.
m K m
m 14 to )•'• U In
I'•
f,•
:i jj N
I-• •• 0 :J tQ m
f t•
w `�
0 rt r N
Iw• K to • •
`C
� tq
C + F-
'd Ii rt
•' �' ttI
E
Sd
1*1
0 0 w N rt h+
rt :3 ro p, 0 to ►-3
m
r•
0mro J'9
(11 (1) mrt:'
Lntt
:y C], Pilo ro ro
O, m Iv
a 0 to
h'•
11. O .• 1•-'
rf m N rt (t
:1
aOU no 1-'
,nrn n :::rs
W
to
G N J 010 N
O ht O m (D 0
bd
N
m In •Li I
ti !j m
I�
O' p, ro 1UH
PI
rt III—► N
ry a
ppR+qq
Do
1d rt, = 0
ti rt $1- t-•• P. ;:I
b' m K rt
N :7' :J 0 In W -
td
(�
(D rt J' ht rI.
0 m :J 0 hj
O
P. r m ►...
rt In K tC
._..
rh r•t () %Q F'
J n/ tv tC
(i
:J I-•• It C J' N
m K :y O Iir
w
m 0 (n rl-
W t r 0, ti J m
N
Mt
I• N N Id-(
n rh U 0 rfi rt
p•
r: 1.11 ODI— rt 0
0 ►-t lu G
O
rb00 010
IvEw►iti
G7
N- I-i N 0
R rt P. J m m
rn
0 m 0 fi• to
r-1. 0 rt p- to
w• ro rt fh J- (D
in K J' 0 0
O
N P. m p,
(n - :3 t-tt 0
HI
I— S, in 0'
P. N rt N ►-fi
S m :3 t-1• 0
0 J' rt
t>tt
tt 11. ►Q G :3,
J 0 m s J' rt
a
rort. Ean'
K m�
0
<; 0 t-•• :J
I-( m r r
rt
1-••0 N c: 0to
m ::'►-'1_w
lit
m hit 7 w M• m
m P. d Ii x
P.
;crfi, t]. N
H,. fv 'ri b' w
Do
li ro ur O
E 1-•• :3 . ro rl.:Do
m
0 d to 0 t-h G
:3 N 0 K
11
0 0; M 0 I_i
:ctQ rt 0 w In
00
C
(Pro-0
0 0 O 0 010
0
° (D :j 1- i _,I n1
I- rh :3 hj K
►-tr
p, m ...I-,
la, F1t = -0
r; rt (n
W•0 ►-h N10
w
y P. ► h 0
e-, ro 1,41 h• O
w
m r ►i b'
x K n1 w
K O, O In tD
m -- W W
to :y rfi
I (A
Ij .
Factfinding Rep t [HB & BBFA)
February 17, 1995
P. 9 of 11
Issue 15 -- "Health Cost Containment"
in terms of co;nplexity, Issue 45 is second only
to Issue 11; in terms of economic impact and implementation
given the time frame involved, Issue #5 carries considerable
cost in-cact and administrative difficulties in implementation.
The HBFA and the City briefed the Factfinder in considerable
detail, almost overwhelming in volulnn; however, for the.pur-
uoses of this Report, the Factfinder will not become entangled
n the detail, but address this issue in concluslonary terms
at its Core. The details, however, were care -fully evaluated.
The City reached agreement with every other
employee organization in the City on the cost containment
and premiu.-n cap issues, except the HBFn. For co5t contain-
IAen'C and Aremi um caps, the City increased premium pay-ments
e®Tective aa:uary o_` 1994. -
Because or implement ati.on difficulties, such
as actual realization of savings from cost contairme?:L for
the whole vear and. difficulty ,n retroactive implementation,
the City proposed that the loss of savings caused it t0^,'Z"o-
pose that it. vay the increased medical pre:n_`, .s effective the
=1rs , 01 the month the-:mDasse 1S settled.
Accord.'. ng to the evidence record, the actual
or000sa.l by t e City for the maxim -am Contributicn toward an
employee's :eai th premiu,-ns be increased from 5525. 00 to 554; . 00
per mo--th and the i.^crease nroposed by the C t,• for the optical
plan be increased from a n:axirum of S12.00 to 513.00- per month.
1': maxi mu-m monthly Contribution toward den ta� .Lremi::.�ls Was
set at $99.00 per emplovee.
Findings and Conclusions of Factfinder:
Notwithstanding the H_FA's arcuments end allegations
Cf "bad faith" in the =ee'i- and confer processes, the Factfinder
Factfinding Rej _ t [HB & HBFA]
February 17, 1995
P. 10 of 11
found the City's proposal to be well -taker, and therefore con-
cludes that the City's proposal as to Issue #5 be adopted.
A number of factors influenced' this ultimate
finding and conclusion, such as the adoption by other bar-
gaining units, though the HBZA has the right �o negotiate
its own terms and conditions, of this cost containment/pre-
mium, adjustment approach on a city-wide basis.
Issue 16 -- "Term"
issue #6 is a troubling issue for it.goes to
the heart of the "meet and con.-ier" processes. The "term"
proposed by the ?=FA for this riOU was October, 1, 1993 to
Septe=:Der 30, 1994. she City's proposal- was that the MOU.'s
term ruz� for a full 12 months after the HBFA has ratified
the
This matter was not fu11 v sL'bi�i ttEd for cO n
�` r A E G 'proposed
s3de2'ction �y the Fact -finder Paler until after L!1E ?I p_CDO..ea
terminal date. The City argued that to adOp t t!.e ::BFii' s pro-
posal would be to encourage protracted negotiations and pro-
tracted _:,�. rise resolution processes.
Findings and Conclusions of Factfinder:
Having fully considered the times ,.nvolved in
t li s Natter, , the Factfinder is hardpressed t0 find a term_;;a1
date _`or this ?OI+ orior to its submission to the Factfinder
pursL'a.nt to the i:'.lpasse Procedures. The Factfinder also finds
16 difficult to agree with the City ' s view t?ict the terminal
date shc,,_,ld be a =L'11. 12 months after ra -ificction. Th-0sI in
the int.rest and rope t0 DULi. these negotiations back on a
,,lore so i d time table and with respect for the processes in-
volved, t_^.e F zctfinder found that a comuronise of terminal
dates was in order and thus concluded that the terminal date
for this HOU be March 31, 1995 -- the midpoint between the
HBFA's suggested date and one year following that date. This
is the recommendation of this Factfinder on Issue :6!
Factfinding Re* 7t (HB & $BFAJ
°'February 17, 15 v 5
P. 11 of 11
RECOMM M ATION S
The Recommendations of this Factfinder are con-
tained in the body of this Report; thus, they need not be re-
stated other.than to point to the precise page where the actual
recommendation on each issue is made:
Issue
tl --
p.
5, supra;
Issue
f2 --
p.
6, supra;
Issue
$3 --
p.
7, supra;
Issue
44 --
p.
8, supra;
Issue
Y5 --
p.
9, supra;
Issue
46 --
V.
10, supra.
Res ri
v' o h
Fac in
.7 FG : kk
February 1-7,
1995
Los Angeles,
C:
�95G101E)
Gen -I., i le
INITIATING DEPARTMENT:
Administrative Service/Personnel
SUBJECT:
City Council Adoption of Impasse
Recommendation of Hearing Officer
COUNCIL MEETING DATE:
February 5, 1996
RCA ATTACHMENTS ST..
Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable
Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached
Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable
Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable)
(Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc.
(Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable
Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable
Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable
Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable
Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable
Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable
��� �° i °� I �®' FOR.... I® �-UR ®'
F4fl
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
HUNTINGTON BEACH
TO: Michael T Uberuaga City Administrator
FROM: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator
SUBJECT: Requested Appropriation for Impasse
Resolution Between City and HBFA
F.I.S. 96-17
DATE: February 1, 1996
As required by Resolution 4832,1a Fiscal Impact Statement has been prepared
for the proposed appropriation of $20,000 for purposes of resolving the current
impasse between the City and the Huntington Beach Fire Association for the
Memorandum of Understanding covering the one year term of October 1, 1993
through September 30, 1994.
Upon approval of the City Council, the balance of the unaudited, undesignated
General Fund including the Economic Contingency Fund would be reduced to
$2, 922, 000.
TgBERTS J. FRANZ,
Deputy Cyy Admihni
for
FJ
General Fund (at 02/01/96)
Audited Fund Balance at Sept. 30, 1994
Plus:
Budgeted Revenues 95,292,754
Less: 7/17/95 Updated Status (2,181,294)
Deferred 93/94 Prop, Tax Revenues 6,418,000
Less:
Budgeted Expenditures 94/95 96,075,781
Less: 2/06/95 C/C Action (1,600,207)
General Fund Transfer to CIP Fund 482,105
Appropriated Since 10/1/94:
FIS 94-51
75,000
FIS 94-53
551000
FIS 94-57
26,200
FIS 94-58
15,000
FIS 94-59
15,000
FIS 94-60
18,600
FIS 95-02
40,000
FIS 95-04
20,000
Reappropriate TX -Fund
69.506
Print Zone Code
3,050
FIS 95-05
17.250
FIS 95-13
100,000
FIS 95-14
25,000
FIS 95-15
39,929
Non -Resident Lib. Card
57.000
FIS 95-16
9,500
FIS 95-17
100,000
FIS 9548
50,000
FIS 95-19
7.000
FIS 95-21
9.000
FIS 95-23
244.417
FIS 95-26
10.000
FIS 95-27
95,400
Seapoint Street Extension
4,874
Pier Repair/Accident
4,400
FIS 95-32
35,226
FIS 95-34
50.000
FIS 95-37
10,000
FIS 95-39
14,000
FIS 95-43
25,000
FIS 95-44
40.000
FIS 95-45
40,000
FIS 95-47
41,262
FIS 95-52
33.300
FIS 95-54
23,000
FIS 95-56
37,000 1,459,914
(3,995,274)
99,529,460
Appropriated (Continued)
FIS 95-60 10,000
FIS 95-61 198,449
Settlement/Lawsuit 340,000
FIS 95-63 100,000
Supplementary Expenses 12,300
2,120,663
Not Appropriated:
FIS 95-06-City Svcs/July 4th Event
35,141
FIS 95-22 Delinquency Prevention Grant
50.000
FIS 95-42 Funds for Advertising
9,()0()
FIS 95-53 Full -Time Alarm Office Assistant
28,104
97,200,587
Unreserved Undesignated General .Fund Balance at 9/30/95 ( 1,666,401 )
Plus:
Economic Contingency Fund 5,000,000
Combined Unaudited Gen. Fund & Econ. Contingency Balance at 09/30/95 3.333,599
Plus:
1995/96 Budgeted Revenues 95,562,500
Phis: C/Council Action (M'thly Billing) 131,250 95,693,750
Less:
1995/95 Budgeted Expenditures
95,619.916
Appropriated since 10/1/95:
FIS 95-55 22.600
FIS 96-02 30,000
FIS 96-04 34,347
FIS 96-10 12,500
FIS 96-11 131,250
230,697
Not Appropriated:
FIS 96-12 Surf City Store Budget
9,580
FIS 96-13 Addt'l Funding for Narcotics Overtime
110.000
FIS 96-15 Prof. Svcs/Legal Counsel
100,000
FIS 96-16 Mobile Home Survey
15,000
FIS 96-17 Fire Impasse Expense
20,000 96.1.05,193
Combined Unaudited Gen. Fund & Econ. Contingency Balance at 2/01/96 2.922.156