HomeMy WebLinkAbout26-Human Resources � ORIGINAL
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Linn Livingston Subject: IMPASSE HEARING - SAN
BERNARDINO FIRE SAFETY
Dept: Human Resources EMPLOYEES NEGOTIATIONS.
Date: January 26, 2011
M/CC Meeting Date: February 2, 2011
Synopsis of Previous Council Action:
On January 24, 2011, the Mayor and Common Council scheduled the impasse hearing
for February 2, 2011.
Recommended Motion:
Signat
Contact person: Linn Livingston Phone: 384-5161
Supporting data attached: Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: No Cost
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No._ � Z
E v1ausL *-2 2 -z-
y
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO — REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Staff Report
Subject:
Impasse Hearing - San Bernardino Fire Safety Employees Negotiations.
Background:
Past Efforts to Meet and Confer with the Firefighters Union regarding a successor Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU)
The Human Resources Department sent an initial e-mail to Mr. Cory Glave, Chief Negotiator for
Fire Safety Employees, on May 12, 2010 requesting dates to begin negotiations due to the
expiration of the Fire Safety Employees MOU on June 30, 2010. No response was received from
Mr. Glave.
On May 24, 2010, Irma Rodriguez Moisa notified Mr. Glave she had been retained by the City of
San Bernardino to serve as Chief Negotiator in the upcoming negotiations for a successor MOU.
She requested that the current side letter be extended for 60 days to provide the parties sufficient
time to negotiate a successor contract and requested available dates. The Fire Safety Unit
refused to extend the concession agreement and provided July 7, 2010 as a meeting date.
The City issued numerous proposals in an effort to reach agreement on a successor MOU. As
the Fire Safety Employees did not accept the City's need for labor concessions, City Negotiators
offered to go to mediation in November 2010; the Fire Safety Employees rejected this offer.
Instead, the Fire Safety Employees presented a new proposal which contained numerous cost
items at the next session on December 15, 2010. As a result, the City negotiators declared
impasse and on December 15, 2010, the City contacted Mr. Glave to schedule an impasse
meeting per Resolution No. 10584, Section 13: Resolution of Impasses. The City requested Mr.
Glave inform the City of their interest to meet and schedule a meeting: however, the City was not
contacted on or before the requested deadline. On January 12, 2011 Mr. Glave was given
notification that the Mayor and Common Council would be presented with the selection of the
impasse resolution for consideration at their January 24, 2011 meeting.
At the Impasse Resolution Meeting held on January 24, 2011, the City attempted to review the
different provisions of its Last, Best, and Final offer in an effort to assess whether any of the
particular provisions could be agreed to or if it could resolve the impasse. After discussing the
salary reduction proposal, Mr. Glave indicated that they did not need to discuss the other
provisions as they had already rejected the proposal in its entirety. The Fire Safety Employees
did not raise any issues it wanted to discuss during this meeting.
During the meeting it was also clarified that the City's salary proposal was to be in effect from
the date of imposition, if such action is taken by the Council, to June 30, 2011. The City
negotiators explained that the City wanted to ensure that the Fire Safety Employees understood
that the City was open to discussions about salary and other items prior to its adoption of its FY
.ANN
2011/12 budget, as required by the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act (MMBA); the Fire Safety
Employees made no comment about this clarification during this meeting. The City also remains
open to meeting with the Fire Safety Employees should there be "changed circumstances" that
would end this impasse.
Further, the City inquired if they had any input as to whether the retroactive salary deduction
calculations to November 1, 2010 should be taken in the first payroll period that the provision is
implemented, should the Council take action to impose, or if the retroactive portion should be
spread across the pay periods remaining through June 30, 2011. Mr. Glave responded that they
were not agreeable to retroactivity.
At the Council meeting on January 24, 2011 the Mayor and Common Council scheduled an
Impasse hearing for Fire Safety Employee Negotiations for 5:30 p.m., February 2, 2011, in the
Council Chambers of City Hall.
Financial Impact:
No financial impact.
Recommendation:
rCD—GG—GVJ11 YJ7.4G I".VJG
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FRESNO RIV_ERaI__QE
16601226.0700 ATTORNEYS AT LAW tO61)e03-I 1 za
rAx(680)226-341 a FAX 19611 ee3-1 144
1 2800 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SUITE 300
IRVINE CERRrrOS, CALIFORNIA 90703-9384 3ACR. MENTQ
(049)463.4260 (50 21 633-3200-(71 4) 82e-5480 w 101 013.1 200
FAX(9491 463.4202 PAX tole)023-i 222
PLEASANTON r SAN_D(E6_O
(9281 2z7.9z00 FAX(662)853-3333 (0681 466.0620
rAX(92 6)227,0902 WWW.AALRR,COM FAX 18061 480.04 1 2
OUR F#69 NUMBER;
January 31, 2011
Cos 1 73489040005 vi
E-MAIL CLARK RA@WBC1TY.ORG
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
CIO City Clerk Rachel Clark
300 N. 1 " Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Fghruary 3,2011 Impasse Resolution Msetinl:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council:
I write to provide information regarding the negotiations between the City and the San
-Bernardino City Professional Firefighters Association ("SBCPFA") to assist you in making a
determination at your February 2,2011 meeting.
City's Finan ial Situation
Over the past three years, our nation has experienced a historic downturn in the national
economy. This development has had a significant negative impact on the Southern California
region and on the City's financial condition. To address this continuing financial decline, the
City implemented numerous actions to constrain General Fund spending, including imposing a
freeze on most hiring, asking vendors to take a voluntary five percent(5%) reduction in contract
costs and asking employees to agree to wage concessions in FY 09-10.
Notwithstanding these efforts, in April 2010, the Finance Director projected a deficit of over$24
million for FY 10-11, with an estimated five-year cumulative deficit of$188 million. (Exhibit 1)
According to the Finance Director, the deficit was due to projected declining revenues and
anticipated increased costs in personnel compensation, retirement, and other benefits. To
address this projected deficit, the Council directed, in part, that City negotiators obtain ten
percent(10 %) in salary, pension and other benefit reductions from its bargaining units estimated
at a savings of approximately $10.7 million for FY 10-11. The Council also directed the
implementation of aggressive strategics to increase revenue.
In August 2010, Council was informed that the personnel cost savings would fall short of the
$10.7 million goal, by approximately $1.1 million. The shortfall was due primarily to the fact
that savings from the change in overtime compensation for fire safety employees would not be
implemented over the entirety of the fiscal year.
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0002/0104
rGL-UG-GU1l UJ•YO UJ
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya,Ruud& Romo
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
C/O City Clerk Rachel Clark
January 31, 2011
Page 2
Based on this projected shortfall, staff was requested to provide an additional eight percent (8%)
reduction of their budgets over the FY 10-11 and 11.12 years. The August 2010 update also
recognized, that the Fire Department would receive a SAI;R grant that would offset existing
personnel costs in FY 10-11 and 11.12, and assumed that there would be no Charter 186 salary
increases until FY 12-13. Despite the SATR grant, and the additional eight percent reduction to
all departments, and the assumption that there would be no Charter 186 salary increases,the City
still faced a $2.1 million budget deficit for FY 10-11. It should be noted that this updated budget
deficit was still conditioned on obtaining approximately $9.6 million in personnel cost savings.
(Exhibit 2)
Baraainitxg HistoLy and proposals
The Human Resources Department sent an initial e-mail to Mr. Cory Glave, Chief Negotiator for
SBCPFA, on May 12, 2010 requesting dates to begin negotiations due to the expiration of the
Fire Safety Employees MOU on June 30, 2010. No response was received from Mr. Glave.
On May 24, 2010, Irma Rodriguez Moisa notified Mr. Glave she had been retained by the City of
San Bernardino to serve as Chief Negotiator in the upcoming negotiations for a successor MOU.
She requested that the current side letter be extended for 60 days to provide the parties sufficient
time to negotiate a successor contract and requested available dates. The Fire Safety Unit
refused to extend the concession agreement and provided July 7, 2010 as a meeting date,
On July 7,the City made an initial proposal to the SBCPFA which included a proposal for a two-
year successor MOU and would result in over $2.5 million in savings to the City in FY 10-11.
$1 million in savings would be realized by changing the calculation of overtime pay to comport
with the FLSA. The City and SBCPFA met again on July 28, and August 6, 2010, but the
SBCPFA indicated that they could not respond to the City's proposal until they canvassed their
membership, which they could only do via snail, As a result, the SBCPFA did not provide their
initial proposal until August 20, 2010, (Exhibit 4)
At the August 20, 2010 meeting, the City responded to SBCPFA's initial proposal, and after
SPCPFA modified its initial proposal, the City issued a Third Proposal. The SBCPFA asked that
the City negotiation team present their modified proposal to the City Council as they believed the
Council would support it. (See Exhibit 5 for August 31, 2010 correspondence to Mr. Glave
memorializing the August 20, 2010 negotiation session and his request to take the SBCPFA
modified proposal to the Council) The Council, at its September 7, 2010 meeting, re-confirmed
the direction to City negotiators and asked that the parties continue negotiating. 1 informed Mr.
Glave of the Council's decision and asked that a subsequent meeting be scheduled promptly,
(Exhibit 6)
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF 5, BERNARDIN P0003/0104
f CD-CJG-G'Ul l CJ7•"f r• "
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud&Romo
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
C/O City Clerk Rachel Clark
January 31, 2011
Page 3
The City and the SBCPFA met again on September 15, 2010. The new SBCPFA proposal --
which was never reduced to writing -- was based on the framework of the successor MOU
between the City and the San Bernardino Police Officers Association. In essence, the proposal
asked that the personnel savings be obtained by a "no impact" Charter 186 provision and a $400
reduction in healthcare premiums, which would be taken on the "right side." The City shared
with the SBCPFA that it was not open to a proposal that would increase the cost of premiums to
employees as this change would impact its "grandfathered" status under the Healthcare Reform
Act. (Exhibit 7) The City reiterated its Fourth Proposal from the August 20, 2010 meeting was
still open. (Exhibit 8)
Due to Mr. Glave's calendar,the City and SBCPFA were unable to meet until October 19, 2010.
At that meeting the SBCPFA maintained its Charter 186 and health care deduction proposals and
offered a different proposal regarding the EPMC retirement payment. The City issued a Fifth
Proposal at the October 19, 2010 meeting that amended the salary reduction and adopted the
SBPCFA's EPMC retirement proposal. The SBCPFA stated that they could not respond to the
City's Fifth Proposal as they needed to do more research regarding the "right side" deductions
and were considering whether to offer the salary concession as union dues.
After the October 19, 2010 negotiations session, I learned that the SBCPFA had had numerous
discussions with the City Attorney's Office regarding the "right Side" deductions and was
concerned that the SBCPFA's failure to provide a counter-proposal was a delay tactic.
Therefore, the City issued to the SBCPFA a Last, Best and Final Offer ("LBFO") via email on
October 20, 2010. (Exhibit 9) The LBFO included a provision, which had initially been
proposed by the SBCPFA for "vacation sell back." Despite the City's efforts to schedule
another session in October, Mr. Glave informed the City negotiation team that he was scheduled
to take a vacation and would be unavailable until after November 9, 2010. Mr. Glave also stated
that the SBCPFA was not going to agree to a salary reduction or a change in the overtime
calculation policy.
Despite the lack of response from the SBCPFA, the Council directed the negotiating team to
offer to go to mediation in November 2010. (Exhibit 10). The SBCPFA rejected the invitation
for mediation. Instead, at a meeting on November 15, 2010, the City reiterated its LBFO and the
SBCPFA requested an opportunity to take the City's LBFO to a vote of the membership.
(Exhibit 11) The City agreed to this request,
On December 15, 2010, the SBCPFA informed the City negotiators that the LBFO had been
overwhelming defeated by the membership. At the December 15, 2010 meeting, the SBCPFA
stated that it was withdrawing all concession proposals and was instead requesting that the City
institute a new retiree medical benefit, consistent with the benefit in place for the POA, create a
new sick leave benefit that would allow an employee to bank hours in excess of 1000 in a 401k
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0004/0104
1 I.L vt_. LV 11 VJ•`71 i .CJJ
Atkinson, Andelson,Loya,Ruud& Romo
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
C/O City Clerk Rachel Clark
January 31, 2011
Page 4
program, modify the uniform policy to increase the reimbursement for certain items, including
sunglasses to be more consistent with actual replacement costs, modify the lost, damage and
stolen equipment policy so that the minimum would be at least $100, as opposed to $25, and
change offsite training and compensation for travel time, and change the maximum consecutive
hours worked policy. The SBCPFA did not reduce any of the proposals to writing. As a result,
the City negotiators declared impasse and on December 15, 2010, the City contacted Mr. Glave
to schedule an impasse meeting per Resolution No. 10584, Section 13: Resolution of Impasses.
(Exhibit 12) The City requested Mr. Glave inform the City of their interest to meet and
schedule a meeting: however, the City was not contacted on or before the requested deadline.
On January 12, 2011 Mr. Glave was given notification that the Mayor and Common Council
would be presented with the selection of the uxrpasse resolution for consideration at their January
24, 2011 meeting.
At the Impasse Resolution Meeting held on January 24, 2011, the City attempted to review the
different provisions of its Last, Best, and Final offer in an effort to assess whether any of the
particular provisions could be agreed to or if it could resolve the impasse. After discussing the
salary reduction proposal, Mr. Olave indicated that they did not need to discuss the other
provisions as they had already rejected the proposal, in its entirety. The Fire Safety Employees
did not raise any issues it wanted to discuss during this meeting.
During the meeting it was also clarified that the City's salary proposal was to be in effect from
the date of imposition, if such action is taken by the Council, to June 30, 2011. The City
negotiators explained that the City wanted to ensure that the Fire Safety Employees understood
that the City was open to discussions about salary and other items prior to its adoption of its )+Y
2011/12 budget, as required by the Meyers-Mi lias-Brown Act (MMBA); the Fire Safety
Employees made no comment about this clarification during this meeting. The City also remains
open to meeting with the Fire Safety Employees should there be "changed circumstances" that
would end this impasse.
Further, the City inquired if they had any input as to whether the retroactive salary deduction
calculations to November 1, 2010 should be taken in the first payroll period that the provision is
implemented, should the Council take action to impose, or if the retroactive portion should be
spread across the pay periods remaining through June 30, 2011. Mr. Glave responded that they
were not agreeable to retroactivity. (See Exhibit 13 for correspondence to Mr_ Glave
summarizing the January 24, 2011 meeting)
Conclusion
Based on the City's budget situation and the good faith efforts described above to reach
agreement for a successor MOU with the SBCPFA, I recommend the Council adopt the LBFO,
as outlined in Exhibit 13.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0005/0104
"r vc cvti v�•-,i r.C1O
Atkinson,Andelson,Loya, Ruud&Romo
Mayor and Members of the Common Council
C/O City Clerk Rachel Clark
January 31, 2011
Page 5
1 look forward to the meeting of February 2,2011 and to answering your questions.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON,ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD&ROMO
Irma Rodriguez oisa
HWab
Enclosures
cc Linn Livingston(via email only)
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P00O6/0104
1-LD-CJG-GCJ1l YJ7••-1 1 r �
EXHIBIT 1
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0007/0104
rCD-VG-GYJl l CJ7'-i V�
City of San Bernardino
General Fund Financial Projections
Fiscal Years 2010 to 2015
General Overy
Effective businesses must continually analyze operations and develop financial plans that
address the short term, mid-range, and long-term time frames.. This type of analysis is
critical for an organization to maintain its financial strength and stability. A financial
analysis that reinforces a long-range focus allows an organization to systematically
identify, plan and achieve goals within its available financial resources.
A long range financial focus becomes even more critical in the face of the devastating
economic decline that our country has faced since the fall of 2008. Our city has had to
respond to changing financial conditions in a manner and speed that is unprecedented.
The stock market incurred record losses, housing values experienced steep declines,the
foreclosure rate skyrocketed and unemployment rates dramatically escalated. The State
of California continues to wrestle with multi-billion dollar deficits and the national, state
and regional economy is still volatile and unstable,
In response to this economic tailspin, the City has depleted most of its financial reserves
and has been forced to balance its budget on a year to year basis using one time
resources, employee 10%concessions, and loans. In order to gain financial stability, a
long range financial projection is being presented for the City's General Fund. The
projections cover six fiscal years beginning with the current Fiscal Year 2009-2010 and
goes out to Fiscal Year 2014-2015. Detailed below are the main financial assumptions
and analysis that were used to prepare a best,most likely and worse case scenario for the
City's General Fund,
)Fiscal Year 2009-2010:
On August 17, 2009 the City adopted its final budget for FY 2009-2010 that included
10%employee concessions,a loan from EDA, and one time property sales to help
balance the budget. As the economic conditions continued to decline,the City had an
additional $4.9 million budget short fall to address at the first quarter budget review. In
the Mid-Year report an additional budget short fall had to be addressed in the amount of
approximately $3.4 million.
In order to address these continued economy driven budget short falls, the FY 2009-2010
budget includes approximately$13 million of one time, non-recurring items. Listed
below is a summary those major non-recurring budget balancing measures; none of these
measures have been included in the 5 year financial projections starting with FY 2010-
2011.
1. $2 million of revenue from sale from property to EDA and the County.
2, $2.6 million of one time revenue identified through various audits and analysis of
City funds
3. $2.9 million from one time loans from EDA and City Regional Development
Impact Fee Fund
4. $.5million of available fund balance from various Internal Service Funds
5. $5 million from employee MOU concessions that end 6/30/10
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0008/0104
W..
I-LL VG-GfJ11 WWI Y 1 1 •NJ
Revenue Assumptions:
After deducting the various one-time revenue items from the FY 2009.2010 budget, the 5
year projection model employs a range of assumptions as to how revenues will perform.
These assumptions were placed into three categories of projections which included best
case,most likely and worst case, The following provides the percent change in revenues
that was assumed in each of the scenarios.
Best Case Most L,i ely Wort Case
FY10-11 -.5% -1% -2,5%
FYI 1-12 .5% -1% -1.5%
FY 12-13 1% I% 1%
FY13-14 2% 1.5% 1%
FY14-15 3% 2% 1.5%
Expenditure_Assumption
s:_
Unlike revenues that had different assumptions for each of the three financial scenarios,
the expenditure assumptions are the same for each scenario. The expenditure
assumptions used in all the financial projections assume that everything authorized in the
FY 2009.2010 adopted budget will continue into the future. For example, the same
number of authorized positions, using the current pay scale, was assumed, Also assumed
in the financial projections were the same,operating Departments doing the same amount
and type of work.
Items that have not yet been included in the 5 year financial projection at this point is a
plan to replenish the General Fund Reserve,funds for the replacement of old and out
dated equipment/facility items, costs to implement the IT Strategic Plan, and set aside
funds to cover such expenses as pay off costs of vacation, sick, and holiday time when
employees terminate. It is assumed these costs will continue to be funded from savings
generated by keeping positions vacant. Once the economy and City budget begin to
stabilize, these items need to be added into the financial projections.
In order to be as accurate as possible on future year's projections, the expenditures were
broken down into various budget expenditure categories. The following provides a brief
explanation of the content and assumptions for each of the categories.
Salaries;
1. 10% MOU concessions were not assumed to continue beyond FY 2009-2010.
These concessions saved the City approximately $5 million annually.
2. Charter 186 salary increases for Safety were calculated at about 3% each year
with a small additional amount assumed each year for step increases.
3. Sixteen additional Police positions from the COPS Rehiring Grant were added
into the projections starting in FY 2009-2010. Grant credits were also included to
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0009/0104
1 LL VG GVil VJ•Y1 .iV
reflect grant funds paying for the additional 16 positions through the first six
months of FY 2012-2013. It has been assumed that all 16 positions will be
retained by the City after the grant credits end, as a result in FY 2012-2013 there
is an additional $1 million for these positions and $2.2 million in FY 2013-2014
and beyond.
4. For FY 2010-2011 and all future years it has been assumed that SB621 Indian
Gaming Grant Funds will not be received. This assumption increased Police
Safety salaries for the General Fund by $961,200.
5. For all other non-safety positions, a small increase has been included each year
for step increases. No additional salary increases resulting from MOU
negotiations were assumed.
6. Special Pays are all assumed to stay constant with no major changes. The major
items included in this category are auto allowances, uniform allowances for
Safety, and education incentive pay for Safety.
7. Part-Time salaries were assumed to have a slight increase each year due to step
increases and possible minimum wage adjustments.
8_ Overtime costs were assumed to increase each year due to Safety Charter 186 pay
increases. Approximately $6.7 million of the$6.9 million overtime budget is
spent in the Police and Fire Departments and all but a very small part is paid to
the Safety employees in those Departments.
Retirement:
1. Since the City has two separate PERS plans, one for Safety employees and one
for all other employees (Miscellaneous employees), the costs have been broken
down into these two categories.
2. PERS provided the City with their best estimate as to what the PERS rates would
be in future years for both plans.
3. After FY 2010-2011 the PERS rates for both plans start to increase by large
amounts until FY 2014-2015. The Safety rate increases about 4%per year and
the Miscellaneous rate increases about 3% per year. These large rate increases are
needed to off set the major investment losses that PERS had during the economic
down tum.
4. Included in the Safety retirement numbers is the $3 million payment for the
Safety Pension Obligation Bonds that the City sold in order to fund some of the
Safety PERS unfunded liability costs.
Other Personnel Costs:
I. City paid Health Costs include health costs the City currently pays for all
employees and retirees,
2. The City currently budgets about$450,000 per year for retiree health costs. For
most employees the City follows the PERS policy and currently contributes the
minimum amount of about $105/month to retiree health costs. Each year this
amount increases by a CPT-Medical Component and for FY 2010-201 ) it will
increase to $108/month according to PERS.
3. City-Health cost for current employees are assumed to increase each year for
those bargaining units that have their city contribution tied to the Kaiser rate. For
those groups that have a flat monthly contribution from the City, no increase has
been assumed.
4. Currently, Safety employees can also receive a higher City contribution to their
retiree health costs if they have received enough service years with the City as
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0010/0104
rCD-CJG-GCJ11 'V7'1I0
negotiated in the current Memorandum of Understanding. These added costs
would also be covered by the annual projected increases in this category.
5. Other taxes the City is required to pay are the Unemployment Tax and Medicare
Tax. The City only pays its share of these costs and the employee is responsible
for his or her share.
Other Operational Costs.
For Maintenance&Operations costs, Contractual, Internal Service Charges, and Capital
Outlay a 2% increase has been factored into each year. This increase is to cover any
price increases or replacement costs for current items.
Debt Service Charges are assumed to stay about the same. The Safety Pension
Obligation Bond costs are not included here as they are included with the Safety
Retirement costs discussed above. The remaining major debt charges currently budgeted
and paid by Elie City are;
1. City Hall Building$1 million per year.
2. Fire Equipment Leases and Fire Station Lease about$900,000 per year
3. HUB project debt payment$150,000 per year
Budgeted Expenditure Savings:
The estimated budgeted expenditure savings.each year after FY 2009-2010 is $1 million.
FY 2009.2010 is anticipated to have a much higher expenditure savings than $l million
due to some positions being kept vacant to help balance the budget and some positions
simply being filled slower than originally anticipated; however these savings can not be
assumed for future years.
Transfers:
Transfers Out is estimated to stay about the same with about a 2% increase, It is also
assumed that the General Fund will resuine appropriating approximately 5300,000 per
year into Fleet for vehicle replacement_ Also assumed is that the Cultural Development
Fund will no longer continue to fund $250,000 a year for some of the cultural activities at
the Library; the assumption is that the General Fund will pay for all these costs_
Summary:
Based on all the assumptions discussed above, for FY 2010-2011 the City is projected to
have revenues short of expenditures by about$23.7 million under the best scenario, $24.3
million under the most likely scenario and $26.2 million under the worst case scenario.
All of these scenarios assume the current budget reserve of just under$1.8 million
remains untouched. Without additional revenues over the current projections, the City
will have to either reduce its total expenditures by about 15.17% or reduce its labor costs
by 20-22% in order to bring the FY 2010-2011 budget into balance.
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0011/0104
rL-w Wa-GCJ11 CJ7•"'0 r.1G
City of'San Bernardino
General Fund Financial Projection Best Case
Updated Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2009.2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012.2013 2013.2014 2014.2016
Beginning Fund Balance
Estimated Revenue:
Property Taxes 29,517,000 29,367.000 20,917,000 29,812100 30,408,300 31,320,500
Solve Taxes 21,499,000 21,389,000 21,499,000 21.714,000 22,146,300 22,812,700
Utility Users Tares 22,585,900 22,453,000 22,665,900 22,792.000 23,247,800 23,946,200
Measure Z District Tax 5,250,000 5.226,000 5,250,000 6,302,500 6,408,600 5,570,800
Other Taxes 5,532,000 5,500,000 5,532,000 6,667,300 5,699,000 5,870.000
Total Taxes 84,363,900 63,934,000 84,363,900 86,207,900 86,812,000 09,619,200
Licenses and Permits 8.072,600 8,032 000 0,072,500 8.153,200 8,316,300 8.565,600
Fines and Penalties 3,521,900 3,600,000 3,521,900 3,557,100 3,628,200 3,737,000
Use or Money 3 Property 2.713,700 730,000 770,600 776,300 793,600 817,700
Intergovernmental 7,088,800 7,050,000 7,086,800 7,160.000 7203,200 7,522,300
Charpes for Services 6.088,300 6,038,000 6,066,300 6,129.000 6,251,600 6,439,100
Miscellaneous 7,469,400 4,846,100 4,889,300 4,918,000 5,016,300 5,188,000
Transfers In/Loan Proceeds 15.534,900 12.000,000 12,114,200 12,235,300 12,480,000 12,854,400
Total Other Revenues 60,469,600 42,196,100 42,606,600 42,930,900 43,799,400 46,103,100
Total Estimated Revenues
Expenditures:
Salaries:
Full Time 67,222 400 75,482,000 77,987,000 81,306,200 64,026,000 84,687,000
Part•Tlme 1,858,200 1,875,000 1,900.000 1,925,000 1.950,000 1,975,000
Spoclal Pays 1,463.800 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500.000 1,600,000 1,500.000
Overtime 6,935,500 7,500,000 8,000 000 0,400.000 8.800,000 9.200,000
Subtotal Salaries 77,477,900 66,367,000 80,387,000 98,130,200 97,076,400 97,662,000
Retirement=
Safety Retirement 14,270,000 16,000,000 16,776,000 19,600,000 22.700,000 23,700,000
Miscellaneous Retirement 51139,600 5,500,000 6,000.000 6,700,000 7,500,000 7,800,000
Subtotal Retirement Costs 19,417,800 20,600,000 22,775,000 28,900,000 30,200,000 31,300,000
Other Personnel Costs;
City Paid Health Costs 8,912,000 9.200,000 9.400,000 9,800.000 10.200.000 10,600,000
Mine.Other Taxes 1,257,900 1,281.800 1,324,800 1,364 400 1,404,000 1,443,500
Subtotal Other Personnel 10,169,900 10,481,800 10,724,800 11,164,400 11,604,000 12,043,600
Maintenance 8 Operation 5,457,100 5,586,200 5,677,500 5,791,000 5,906.800 6,025,000
Contractual Services 7,039,600 7,180,40D 7,324.000 7,470,500 7,620,000 7,772,400
Internal Service Chargee 13,539,100 13,810,000 14,086,200 14,367,900 14,665,300 14,948,400
Capital outlay 756,200 773,400 786,900 804,700 820,600 837,200
Debt service Charges 2,259,600 2,259,800 2,259,600 2,259,600 2.259,600 2,259,600
Loan Repayments 1,308,700 1,629,400
Est Expenditure Savings Factor (2,680.400 1,000,000 1,000.000 1.000,000 1,000,000 (1,000,000)
Transfers Out 2,182,100 2,600,000 2,062.000 2,705,000 2,759,100 2,814,300
Total Estimate Expenditures I W, ;o"A 1 Ifflow
Revenue Ovor(under)Expenses y)Is';�?;,�;;�(7, a�;, ,� 1d"°�• �;ti1� �' w+y�'"` q
Reserve Fund Balance ; 'ti+ z�
F8 as a%of Expenditures 1.31% -14,64% •17,70°/a -20.309/0 -22.94% -21,67%
Oebt Sery as%of Expenditures 1.67% 1.51% 1.459b 1.39% 1.31% 1.29%
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0012/0104
f"CD—GIG—GCJl l l:J7•X10 r ,1J
City of San Bernardino
General Fund Financial Projection Most Likely Case
Updated Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
2009.2010 2010-2011 2011.2012 2012.2013 2013-2014 2014.2015
iv O
Beginning Fund Balance , sx" 'k� �e4' +au,.�r �r. 9 �.'I;�f� Iy" ,i,�'
Estlmated Revenue:
Property Taxes 29.517,000 29,221,800 P59 0,000 29,219,300 29,658,600 30,291,800
Sale6 Texe6 21,499,000 21,284,000 ,100 21,281.200 21,600.400 22,0$2,400
Utility Users Taxes 22,565.900 22.340,200 6,800 22.338,000 22,673,000 23,128,500
Measure Z District Tex 5,250,000 5,197,500 5,500 5,197,000 5,274,900 5,360,400
OtherTaxee 5.532,000 5,476,700 ; 1,900 5,476.100 5,558,200 5,669,400
Total Taxes 84,363,900 63,620,200 82,686,300 83,611,600 84,766,100 66,460,600
Licensee and Permits 8,072,500 7,991,800 7,911,900 71991,000 8,110,900 8,273,100
Fines and Penalties 3,521,900 3,486.700 3,451,800 3,488,100 3,538.900 3.810,000
Use of Money&Property 2,713,700 725,000 717,800 725,000 735_R00 750,600
Intergovernmental 7,088 800 7,016,000 6,947,800 7,017.300 7,122,600 7,265,100
Charges for Services 8,068,300 6,007,600 5,947,500 6,007,000 8,087,100 8.219,000
Miscellaneous 7,469,400 4,820,700 4,772,500 4,820,200 402,600 4,990,400
Transfers InfLoan Proceeds 15,534,000 11,933.500 11.814,500 11,832.600 12,111,600 12,361600
Total Other Revenues 60,499,600 41,983,300 41,663,600 41,979,200 42,609,600 43,462,000
Total Estimated Revenues k A";74. , "17
TAT";
Expenditures:
Salaries:
Full Time 67,222,400 75,482,000 77,987,000 81,305,200 84,026,400 84,887,000
Part-Time 1,668,200 1,875,000 1.900,000 1,025,000 1,960.000 1 975,000
special Pays 1,463,600 1,500 000 1,600,000 1,600.000 1,500,000 1,500.000
Overtime 6,935.500 7,500,000 8,000,000 8,400,000 8,800,000 9,200,000
Subtotal Salaries 77,477,900 66,367,000 89,387,000 93,130,200 67,076,400 97,662,000
Retirement:
Safety Retirement 14,278.000 15,000,000 16.775,000 19.600,000 22,700,000 23,700,000
Miscellaneous Retirement 5,139,800 5,500.000 6,000,000 6,700,000 7,500,000 7,800,000
Subtotal Retirement Coate 19,417,800 20,600,000 22,776,000 26 300,000 30,200,000 31,300,000
Other Personnel Coate:
City Paid Health Costs 8,912,000 9,200.000 9,400,000 9,800,000 10,200.000 10,600,000
Misc.Other Taxes 1,257,900 1,281,800 1,324,800 1,364,400 1,404,000 1,443,500
Subtotal Other Personnel 10,169,900 10,481,800 10,724.800 11,164,400 11,604,000 12 043,600
Maintenance d,Operation 6,457,100 5,586,200 6,677,500 5,791.000 5,905,800 6,025,000
Contractual Services 7,039.600 7,180,400 7,324,000 7,470,500 7,820,000 7,772,400
Internal Service Charges 13,539,100 13,610,000 14,088,200 14,387,900 14,655,300 14,948.400
CepitalOutlay 756,200 773,400 788,900 804.700 820,800 837,200
Debt Service Charges 2,259,600 2,259,800 2,259,800 2,259,600 2,259,600 2,269,800
Loan Repayments 1,308.700 1,629 400
Est.Expenditure Saving$Factor 2,680,400 1,000,000 (1,000000 1,000,000 1,000,000 (1,000,000
Transfers Out 2,182,10D 2,600,000 2,852,000 2,705,000 2,759,100 2,814,300
Total Estimate Expenditures ,
Revenue OverlUnder)Expensee 775,W W'l %44,,i <;tn; 400"'7505417, t" );'
Reserve Fund Balance k i„7c7AFF0 �dt",'22; 0 0, a�:'a: T,s1i f�i f;1 r .,�11'7;4'� 1=
2 :;o, a�4
Fe as a%of Expenditures 1.31% •15,0896 -19.38° •21,92° I •24.87% -24,56%
Oebt Sery as%of Expendlturea 1.67% 1.51% 1,45° 1.3996 01% 1,29
RECEIVED 02-02—' 11 09;53 FROM— TO— CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0013/0104
1 L.L VG GVil VJ""V iT
City of San Bernardino
General Fund Financial Projection Worst Case
Updated Projected Projected Projected projected Projected
2009.2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012.2013 2013-2014 2014-2016
Beginning Fund Balance 97�9.Ot! �' '; ':R+" p�, "i:' ,� ifrr.,b;; ;
Estimated Revenue:
Property Taxes 29,517,000 26,779,100 28,347,400 28.630,900 28,917,200 29,350,900
Sates Taxes 21,499,000 20,961,500 20,647,100 20,653,600 21,062,100 21,378,000
Utility Users Taxes 22,565,900 22,001,800 21.671,800 21,688,600 22,107,400 22,439,000
Moasure 2 District Tax 5,250,000 5,118,600 6,042,000 5,092,400 6,143,300 5,220,500
Other Taxes 6,632,000 5,393,700 6,312,600 5,365,900 5.419,600 5,500,900
Total Taxes 84,363,800 82,264,900 61,021,100 81,831,300 62,649,600 83,689,300
Licenses and Permits 8,072,500 7,870,700 7,752,600 7,630.100, 7,906,400 8,027,100
Fines and Penalties 3,621,900 3,433,900 3,382,400 3,416,200 3,450.400 3,502,100
Use of Money&Property 2,713,700 695,900 885,500 892,400 699,300 709,600
Intergovernmental 7,088,800 8,911,600 6.607,900 6,876,000 6,944,700 7,048,900
Charges for Services 6.068,300 5,918,600 5,827,900 5.888,200 51945,000 6,034,200
Miscellaneous 7,469,400 4,747,700 4,676,500 4,723,300 4,770,500 4,842,000
Transfers In►Loan Proceeds 15,534,900 11.794,400 11,617,500 11,733,700 11,661,000 12,028,800
Total Other Revenues 60,469,600 41,370,800 40,760,300 41,167,600 41,669,300 42,162,600
Total Estimated Revenues r;<<,t;�t ,�, „y,) , f" ,4 b E� ,• +; l ��,�.' Cdr
Expenditures:
Salaries:
Full Time 67.222,400 75,482.000 77 987,000 81,305,200 84,828,400 84.887,000
Part-Time 1,858,200 1.875,000 1,900,000 1,925,000 1,950.000 1,975,000
Special Pays 1,463,600 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Overtime 8,936,600 7,500,000 8,000,000 8,400,000 6,800,000 0.200,000
Subtotal Salaries 77,477 900 88,367,000 69,387,000 93,130,200 97,076,400 97,662,000
Retirement:
Safety Retirement 14,276,000 15.000,000 16,775,000 18,800,000 22,700,000 23,700.000
Miscellaneous Rottrenlent 5,139.800 5,500,000 6,000,000 6,700,000 7,500,000 7,600,000
Subtotal Retirement Costa 19,417,600 20,600,000 22,776,000 26,300 000 30,200,000 31,300,000
Other Personnel Costs
City Pald Health Costs 8.912.000 9.200,000 9,400,000 9,800,000 10,200,000 10,600,000
MISC.Other Taxes 1,257,900 1,261,600 1,324,800 1.364,400 1,404,000 1,443,500
SubtoUl Other Personnel 10 169,900 10,481,800 10,724,800 11,164,600 11,604,000 12 043,300
Maintenance&Operation 5,467,100 5.566,200 5.677,500 6,791.000 5,006,800 6,026,000
Contractual Services 7,039,600 7,160,400 7.324.000 7,470,500 7,620,000 7,772,400
Internal Service Charges 13,539.100 13,810,000 14,086,200 14,367,900 14,655,300 14,948,400
Capital Outlay 756,200 773,400 788,900 604,700 620,800 837,200
Debt Service Charges 2,259,600 2.269,600 2,250,600 2,259,600 2,259,600 2,259,600
Loon Repayments 1,308.700 1,629.400
Eat,Expenditure Savings Factor 2,680,400 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 (1000,000)
Transfers Out 2,182,100 2,600,000 2,652,000 2,105,000 2,759,100 2,814,300
Total Estimate Expenditures 74M f, �s•„
Revenue Over(Undor)Expenses ;'lar";1i787r'`6 ?�,,.e 1e., i'`'';:: �3.i�� i. �,k„�.. �t:4a`r�1 ,9�,t♦
Reserve Fund Balance ;r @°9rtia it`: ' '' t3.•.y�'�st e ” ;3�Sa w' I; i ''90 ;w^ '�e;io�;aob'
FB as a%of Expenditures 1,31°b 16.31°k -20.96% '23.48% -26.71% -26.76%
Deot Sery as%of Expendltures 1.67% 1.51% 1.45% 1.39% 1 31%1 1,29%
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF 5, BERNARDIN P0014/0104
rCD-CJC-CCJ11 YJ7•�FO •1�
EXHIBIT 2
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0015/0104
-
I .iv
I LL VL GVii VJ'-1V
City of San Bernardino
Updated General Fund
Financial Projections
Fiscal Years 2011 to 2015
General Overview:
Effective businesses must continually analyze operations and develop financial plans that
address the short term, mid-range, and long-term time frames. This type of analysis is
critical for an organization to maintain its financial strength and stability. A financial
analysis that reinforces a long-range focus allows an organization to systematically
identify,plan and achieve goals within its available financial resources.
A long range financial focus becomes even more critical in the face of the devastating
economic decline that our country has faced since the Fall of 2008. Our city has had to
respond to changing financial conditions in a manner and speed that is unprecedented.
The stock market incurred record losses, housing values experienced steep declines, the
foreclosure rate skyrocketed and unemployment rates dramatically escalated. The State
of Califomia continues to wrestle with multi-billion dollar deficits and the national, state
and regional economy is still volatile and unstable.
In response to this economic tailspin,the City has depleted most of its financial reserves
and has been forced to balance its budget on a year to year basis using one time
resources,employee 10%concessions, and loans. In order to gain financial stability, a
tong range financial projection is being presented for the City's General Fund. The
projections cover five fiscal years beginning with the current Fiscal Year 2010.2011 and
goes out to Fiscal Year 2014-2015.
Detailed below are the main financial assumptions and analysis that were used to update
the original General Fund financial projections that were presented to the Mayor and
Council back on March 11, 2010. Of the three scenarios originally presented to the
Mayor and Council back in March,the worse case scenario was determined to be the
most likely to occur so therefore that is the only scenario that is being updated at this
time.
Fiscal Year 2010-2011:
On June 30, 2010 the City adopted its final budget for FY 2010-2011 that included
Personnel Cost Savings assumptions worth$10.7 million and various revenue strategy
assumptions worth about$10.2 million. Listed below is a summary of the major budget
balancing strategies that were included in the FY 2010-2011 adopted budget.
1. $2.4 million of revenue from the sale of the Convention Center to EDA.
2. $62 million from a Utility Fee Study of Water, Refuse and Sewer operations.
3. $1.6 million from an increase to the Property Transfer Tax
4. $10.7 million of Personnel Cost Savings
5. $1.3 million savings from deferral of repayment of a loan from EDA
6. $1.8 million increase in assumed expenditure savings.
7. $1.3 million savings from a new Fire SAFR Grant.
S. $1.0 million savings from a Police Indian Gaming Grant.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09; 53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0016/0104
1 LL VG -GV11 VJ•'yJ •j
Also at the June 30, 2010 Council Meeting, staff requested authorization to proceed with
preparation of the necessary documents to submit the Real property Transfer Tax for
voter approval. In addition, at the same meeting staff also requested authorization to
proceed with the formation of a City-wide Maintenance Assessment District. After
further consideration of these items,the Council determined that these two budget
strategies were no longer a viable option and instead requested staff to work on a half
cent increase to the Local Transaction and Use Tax as well as bring back the Police
Impound Yard proposal for further review and discussion.
On July 6, 2010, staff requested authorization to proceed with preparation of the
necessary documents to submit the half cent Local Transactions and Use Tax for voter
approval. After further discussion at the July 6`h meeting,the Council decided this
budget strategy was also not a viable option to be considered any further. The Police
Impound Yazd is still being reviewed and discussed by the Council at this time. Based on
these actions the City's FY 2010-2011 budget now has an estimated shortfall in revenues
of about$1.6million due the Council deciding not to pursue these various options.
Human Resources started the negotiations process with all the bargain groups with the
goal of getting agreemcnt on the implementation of the $10.7 million of Personnel Cost
Savings. Unfortunately at this point in time it is estimated that the Personnel Cost
savings will fall short of projections by about$1.1 million.
With only a small amount of new revenue identified at this time to help reduce the total
anticipated General Fund shortfall there is a net shortfall projected for FY 2010-2011 of
just over$2.1 million. The updated projections for FY 2010.2011 included in the attached
spreadsheet reflect the net projected shortfall for FY 2010-2011 and all years after that to
FY 2014-2015,
Revenug A!sumptions:
After deducting the one-time revenue items from the FY 2010-2011 budget,the 5 year
projection model employs a range of assumptions as to how revenues will perform each
year based on predictions of how the economy will recover each year. The following
provides the estimated percent change in revenues that was assumed for each year in the
updated financial projection, These percent changes are the same ones that were used in
the original March 11, 2010 financial projection. At this point in time the original
percent changes are still deemed to be most likely to occur.
Worst Case
FY 10-11 -2.5%
FYI 1-12 -1.5%
FY12-13 1.0%
FY13-14 1.0%
FY 14-15 1.5%
In addition to applying the above assumptions to the revenue estimates, the estimates for
Property Tax, Sales Tax, and Utility User Tax were adjusted to reflect the increase in
revenues projected from the Kohl's E-Commerce Center as approved by Council at the
August 2,2010 Council Meeting.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0017/0104
rGD-'VG-GYJ11 V7•'47 r.10
Expenditure Assumptions:
The expenditure assumptions used in the financial projections assume that everything
authorized in the FY 2010.2011 adopted budget will continue into the future. For
example,the same number of authorized positions, using the current pay scale,was
assumed.Also assumed in the financial projections were the same operating Departments
doing the same amount and type of work.
Items that still have not yet been included in the 5 year financial projection at this point is
a plan to replenish the General Fund Reserve, funds for the replacement of old and out
dated equipment/facility items, costs to implement the IT Strategic Plan, and set aside
funds to cover such expenses as pay off costs of vacation, sick, and holiday time when
employees terminate. It is assumed these costs will continue to be funded from savings
generated by keeping positions vacant. Once the economy and City budget begin to
stabilize,these items need to be added into the financial projections.
In order to be as accurate as possible on future year's projections,the expenditures were
broken down into various budget expenditure categories, The following provides a brief
explanation of the content and assumptions for each of the categories.
Salaries:
1, In the Updated FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011.2012 projections it was assumed
there would be about$9,6 million is Personnel Cost Savings in the General Fund
(about$675,000 of these Personnel Cost Savings are reflected in the Internal
Service Charge line budget for FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011-2012). This
assumption is about$I.I million less than what was originally included in the FY
2010-2011 adopted budget. Since not all bargain groups have completed the
negotiation process and we are already two months into the fiscal year, an
assumption is being made that not all personnel cost savings are going to be
realized.
2. There are no additional Charter 186 salary funds assumed at this time until FY
2012-2013 in which a 5% increase for Safety was included and a 3% increase for
each of the following years.
3. Sixteen additional Police positions from the COPS Rehiring Grant were added
into the budget starting in FY 2009-2010. Grant credits were also included to
reflect grant funds paying for the additional 16 positions through the first six
months of FY 2012-2013. It has been assumed that all 16 positions will be
retained by the City after the grant credits end in FY 2012-2013. As a result in
FY 2012-2013 there is an additional $1.2 million cost for these positions and $2.2
million in FY 2013-2014 and beyond.
4. For FY 2010-2011 and all future years it has been assumed that Police will
continue to receive about $I million from the Indian Gaming Grant.
S. For FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011.2012 it has been assumed that the Fire
Department will receive funds from the SAFR Grant that will offset existing
personnel costs. Starting in FY 2012-2013 this grant credit ends so the City will
have an additional cost of about$1.4mitlion in Fire Salaries.
6. For some Non-safety positions, a small increase has been included each year for
step increases and then starting in FY 2012-20113 all step increases are assumed.
No additional salary increases resulting from MOU negotiations were assumed,
7. Special Pays are all assumed to stay constant with no major changes. The major
items included in this category are auto allowances, uniform allowances for
Safety, and education incentive pay for Safety. .
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0018/0104
rca-va-cuii V�7•c+7
8. Part-Time salaries were assumed to stay relatively constant each year with only
regular step increases included starting in FY 2012-2013. No increases in the
number or pay rate of Part-time employees have been assumed at this time.
9. Overtime costs were assumed to stay relatively constant through FY 2011-2012.
Starting in FY 2012-2013 an increase each year has been assumed due to Safety
Charter 186 pay increases. Approximately $6.8 million of the$7.3 million
overtime budget is spent in the Police and Fire Departments. In the Safety
Departments all but a very small part is paid to the Safety employees in those
Departments.
Retirement:
1. Since the City has two separate PERS plans, one for Safety employees and one
for all other employees (Miscellaneous employees), the costs have been broken
down into these two categories.
2. PERS provided the City with their best estimate as to what the PERS rates would
be in future years for both plans.
3. After FY 2010-2011 the PERS rates for both plans start to increase by large
amounts until FY 2014-2015. The Safety rate increases about 4%per year and
the Miscellaneous rate increases about 3%per year. These large rate increases are
needed to off set the major investment losses that PERS had during the economic
down turn.
4. Added into this updated five year projection is the assumption that the City will
implement a two-tier retirement system for both safety and miscellaneous
employees and this action would generate some savings for the City in the future.
Also assumed are new employees hired in future years will be paying either all or
some of the employee's retirement costs.
5. Included in the Safety retirement numbers is the$3 million payment for the
Safety Pension Obligation Bonds that the City sold in order to fund some of the
Safety PERS unfunded liability costs.
Other Personnel Costs:
1. City Paid Health Costs include health costs the City currently pays for all
employees and retirees.
2. The City currently budgets about$533,000 per year for retiree health costs. For
most employees the City follows the PERS policy and currently contributes the
minimum amount of about$108/month to retiree health costs. Each year this
amount increases by a CPI-Medical Component. It has been assumed.this cost
will continue in future years.
3. City Health cost for current employees are assumed to stay about the same. Any
increase in cost for health care is assumed to be paid by the employee and not the
City.
4. Currently, Safety employees can also receive a higher City contribution to their
retiree health costs if they have received enough service years with the City as
negotiated in the Memorandum of Understanding, These added costs would also
be covered by the annual projected increases in this category.
5. Other taxes the City is required to pay are the Unemployment Tax and Medicare
Tax. The City only pays its share of these costs and the employee is responsible
for his or her share_
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0019/0104
rG8-YJG'G✓J11 YJ7.47 r•G�
Other Operational Costs:
For Maintenance& Operations costs, Contractual, Internal Service Charges, and Capital
Outlay about a 1%increase has been factored into each year. This increase is to cover
any price increases or replacement costs for current items. In addition to the 1% increase
the Contractual budget has also been increased to reflect the cost sharing payments that
the City will make to Kohl's each year per the Council approved item at the August 2,
2010 council meeting.
Debt Service Charges are assumed to stay about the same. The Safety Pension
Obligation Bond costs are not included here as they are included with the Safety
Retirement costs discussed above. The remaining major debt charges currently budgeted
and paid by the City are:
t. City Hall Building$1 million per year,
2. Fire Equipment Leases and Fire Station Lease about$900,000 per year
3. HUB project debt payment $150,000 per year
The updated projections now assume that the City will repay the $1.6 million loan from
the Regional DIFF Fund in FY 2011-2012 and will repay the $1.3 million loan from EDA
in FY 2012-2013.
Budgeted Expenditure Savings:
The estimated budgeted expenditure savings each year for FY 2010-2011 and FY 2011-
2012 is just under$2.9million. Starting in FY 20122013 the savings has been reduced to
$2million per year. The reduction is based on the assumption that fewer positions will be
held vacant for shorter periods of time.
Transfers:
Transfers Out is estimated to stay about the same with about a 2%increase. This
increase would cover anticipated higher costs in Libraries,Animal Control, etc.
Summary:
Based on all the assumptions discussed above, for FY 2010-2011 the City has a projected
shortfall of just over$2.lmillion. In FY 2011-2012 the shortfall increase§to about
$7.8million and then drastically increases starting in FY 2012-2013 after the current
Personnel Cost Savings are projected to end. In order to bring the City budget into
balance either additional revenues need to be generated or expenditures will need to be
reduced. If neither of these actions is taken starting this fiscal year the City will be out of
funding and will not be able to operate and pay for any services to the community.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0020/0104
rCD—YJC—ClJll tJ7• i7 � G1
City of San Bernardino
General Fund Updated Financial Projection Worst Case
Adopted Updated Projected Projected Projected Projected
2010.2011 2010.2011 2011.2012 2012-2013 2013.2014 2014.2016
Beginning Fund Balance
Estimated Revenue:
Property Taxes 27 740,060 27 740,000 27,600,000 27 947 100 27,873 100 28,291,200
Sales Taxes 20,511,600 20,811,600 21,100,000 21,405,900 21,630,000 2-119-5-9-12-0 0
Utility Users Taxes 22,700,000 22,750,000 22,500,000 22,583,100 22,808,900 23,151,100
Messum Z District Tax 5,120,000 5,120,000 5,043,200 5,093,600 5,144,600 5,221,700
Other Taxes 6,956,000 5,376,400 5,295,800 5,348,700 5,402.200 5.483,200
Total Taxes 83,027,800 81,798,000 81,639,000 82,378,400 82,868,800 84,106,400
Licenses and Permits 7,812,000 7,812,000 7,694,800 7,771,800 7,849,500 7,967,200
Fines and Penalties 3,493,600 3,493,600 3,441,200 3,475.600 3,510,400 3,563,000
Uee of Money&Property 3,195,000 3,195,0 747,100 754,500 762,100 773,500
Intergovernmental 5,349,100 5,349.100 5,266,900 5,321,600 5,374,800 5,455,400
Charges for Services 5,918,000 5.916,000 5,629.2 5,887,500 5.946,400 6,035,600
Miscellaneous 6,916 900 6916,900 8,783,100 8,870,900 8,959 700 9,094,100
Transfers Inlloan Proceeds 13,449,000 13,449,000 13,200,000 13,250.000 13,300,000 1 13,350,000
Total Other Revenues 48,133,600 46,133,600 44,964,300 46,331,9DO 45,702,900 46,238,600
Total Estimated Revenues
Expenditures:
Salaries:
Full Time 71,113,800 71,113600 71048,200 77,348,200 80,648,200 82,448,200
Pam,-Time 2,126,600 2,128,600 2,130,000 2,150,000 2,160,000 2,175000
Special Pays 1,568 300 1,568,300 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,575,000 1,575,000
Overtime 7,328,600 7,328,800 7,330,000 7,500,000 7,600 000 7,700,000
MOU Concessions 10,024,800 6,924,600) (8,924,800) -
Subtotal Salaries 72,114,700 73,214,700 73,168,400 88,673.200- 91,983,200 93,898,200
Retirement:
Safety Retirement 14,357,000 14,357,000 14,600,000 15,160,000 15,675 000 15 775,000
Miscellaneous Retirement 5,319,100 5,319,100 5,320,000 5,582,300 5,752,300 5,800,000
Subtotal Retirement Costs 19,676,100 19,676,100 19,920,000 20,742,300 21 427,300 21,676,000
Other Personnel Coate:
City Paid Health Costs 9,294,700 9,294 700 9300000 9,350,000 9,400 000 9,450,000
Mlsc,Other Taxes 1,367 500 1,367,500 1,370,000 1,400,000 1,425,000 1,450,000
Subtotal Other Personnel 10,662,200 10,662,200 10,670,000 10,760,000 10,825,000 10,900,000
Maintenance&OperatJon 5,282,600 5,282,600 5,300,000 5,350,000 5,400,000 5,450,000
Contractual Services 6,900,100 7,060,100 7,300,000 7,625.800 7,771,000 7,903,800
internal Service Charges 14,010,000 14,010,000 14,124,800 15,280,000 15,585 600 15,897,300
capful outlay 91,600 91,600 100,000 110,000 115 000 120,000
Debt Service Charges 2171,400 2,171,400 2,171,400 2171,400 2.171,400 2,171,400
Loan Repayments 1,629,400 1,350,000 -
Est.Expenditure Savings Factor 2,863,400 2 663,400 (2,863,400) (2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Transfers Out 2,789,600 2,769,800 2,800,000 2,850,000 2,900,000 2,950,000
Total Estlmate Expenditures
Reserve Fund Balance
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0021/0104
f CG-ue-eul 1 uv•ou
EXHIBIT 3
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0022/0104
1-tti-b�-G!'J11 F�7•JIO r.c..i
City of San Bernardino Proposal 41
Fire Safety Unit
July 7,2010
10% 1Bu4pet Crisis Concession
Effective July 1,2010 through June 30, 2012, all members of the Fire Safety Croup will
participate in a program equal to a ten percent (10%)pay reduction.
Artie're-W-'Com ensatioia-Section 7A Retirement Plan
NEW -H
Effective June 16, 2011, the City of San Bernardino's employer paid contribution
towards PERS shall be capped at 25%. All future PERS increases exceeding the 25%cap
will reduce the employer paid EPMC contributions for employees.
Article III-Corn1jensation-Section 7A Retirement Plan
NEW A-1
Effective July 1, 2010 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current PERS contract
to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3% @ 55 for all employees in the bargaining
group hired on or after July 1, 2010.
Article IV-Fringe Benefits-Section 1A Health/Life Insurance
Delete:
A. "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One(1) dependent, at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium
and the Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an
additional $100/month for the employee plus one (1) dependent. The City's
contribution will change to equal the cost in the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan or its equivalent during the term of the MOU.
The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees with
Employee Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South
premium for employee only and the Delta Dental High Option plan premium or
its equivalent for Employee Only plus an additional$100/month".
Replace with.
A. Effective January 1, 2011 the City shall contribute a flat rate of $469.25 for
employee only and $792,15 for employee +1/family per month for each employee
1
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0023/0104
rttf-bG-�bll b7•JIO F'.G4
to be used to purchase City-sponsored medical, dental, vision, and life insurance.
The City contribution amount will be based on the employee's medical selection.
Any City contribution not utilized by the employee shall revert to the City.
Article V—Leaves -Section 3—Sick Leave
Employees hired after July 1, 2010 shall have a sick leave maximum accumulation of 480
hours.
Article III—Compensation—_Section 4—Education Incentive Pay
Delete compensation for A(Firefighter II Certificate),
Reduce Fire Officer Certificate from$150 to $100 per month,
Reduce Chief Officer Certificate from$250 to $200 per month,
Article III—Compensation— Section6—Overtime
Delete:
B. Definition: Overtime is defined as all hours worked in excess of the regularly
scheduled workweek_ All overtime shall be reported in increments of six(6)
minutes and is non-accumulative and non-payable when incurred in units of less
than six (6)minutes. Holiday leave, sick leave, vacation leave and coup time
shall be considered as time worked for the purposes of computing overtime
compensation.
Replace—Add to C:
Overtime will be paid in accordance with FLSA standards.
i
Article II—Employee Relations—Section 17—Workers'Compensation Inyun
New
Effective July 1,2010, members who are injured in the course and scope of employment
shall participate in the City modified duty/return to work program,
2
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. SERNARDIN P0024/0104
rc�—roc—cr�t1 U.7 Z)U .c.r
Alvarado Ka
From: Irma Rodriguez Moisa <IMoisa@aalrr.com>
)t: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:18 AM
Corey Glave (poaattorney@aol.com)
Cc: Livingston—Li: Alvarado Ka
Subject: City of San Bernardino[AALRR-CERRITOS.005119.00005]
Attachments: fire.7.21,10.xlsx
Corey:
Attached is the financial costing/savings information requested by the Fire Safety Bargaining Unit.
We are still holding Wednesday July 28, 2010 for our next bargaining session. Please let us know as soon as possible if
your client will NOT be ready to meet on that day. If they are not, can you please provide several alternate dates. As we
have discussed, given the City's economic situation, the City wants to proceed in a timely manner,
Thank you.
Irma ,Rodriguez Moisa
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703-8597
Direct Dial: (562)653.3503
Direct Fax: (562)653-3657
This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s)and may contain privileged and confidential
information, Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited,
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the
sender by reply emall and destroy all copies of the original
message. Thank you.
i
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0025/0104
t'C�—'VG—GVJ11 YJ7•JYJ f•.GO
c N t1 c
fu M 0 ID A ~ { CU < O 'C
ro m G 1D r9 p O 'p "O M N
v v' oa o ro i o 3 o d °, v' 3 v
i• m
C n ro
y°'D r?o O n a ro � ° �p o
Q. < O
ro o3a 0 � � � e ro 3 s r5 3 ooa a a o "
tin ° o o rD o � m o c o fD f►
f9 t� N 7 c 9 CT ro N �, C9 VI ,
u, 0o 4 0, Q 0
m
rao 'P - w x. ?
.y a, 7' fD = C O. a VI r C •-r IA
CFO lu cm
r° 3' R0s o V^ '^ n v a �^
rp rD a
M tU _ •T m ^' m
m
rm
4 — D
m rn °'
!P r C N C
N ° O
° a
n,
go
�. T
0o
C Ib
m
'�•r r+ � 0
a a
N 3
° ° O r1
� � N
C � N
N
T
N
V► r
N V1 G ON v C V, O CD
O
0 O
c
N Q N
4 0 p lA O
N
T
�
3
rD
� N
<
0A U5
N 4A !- M 7' V
I.n r r N N N
O C) O p $ O
C2 0
O 0
O O O O
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0026/0104
r��-r�c-cr�11 v��•�r� r.c r
EXHIBIT 4
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0027/0104
rtt3-VJG-GVJ11 107•J10 r.co
Local 691_ Zb ! 0
Counter Proposal —:6 1
Concessions-$1.4 Million Annually
Annual Employee concessions of$480.00 per employee per month
$840,960
Concession days (SO% of 56 hr work week.6hrs) 1) shifts per year
6 shifts per year to be eligible for sell back-at straight time, or use
Agree to 2 tier PERS retirement trial, implementation based upon survey $future
The city will provide accounting of all employee concessions received, and if the city
reaches a savings of$1.4 million dollars annually, the concession will terminate for
' that year.
If concessions do not reach $1.4 million, then employees shall return up to 6 shifts of
concession time to reach the $1.4 million dollar value. $1,047,796
Continue MOU until June 30", 2013
y Include articles B, C, F, G from the side letter agreement In the MOU.
Effective June 301h, 2012, City will provide a uniform allowance of $80.00 per month,
per employee. Thereafter the city is no longer obligated to provide uniforms to
employees, with the exception of safety items.
Provlsions,
Employee concessions will apply to all members of L891, with the exception of any
member who is on 4850 Injury leave, modified work schedule due to Injury, sick
leave greater than 3 days, or approved long term leave with pay. Exception periods
will begin on the first day of the payroll period Immediately following the leave, and
will terminate the first day of the payroll period Immediately following return to work.
New members for the purpose of applying the two ti 0e PERS retirement system, will
be determined by agreeing that a new employee is an employee who Is not currently
a member of PERS upon approval of the MOU.
City agrees that during the term of this MOU, no member of the city will use his / her
position, title, or likeness to endorse, support, or.otherwise advocate any effort to
modify,.ellminate, or otherwise change any portion of Section 186 of the city charter.
1
RECEIVED 02-02-` 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0028/0104
rcB-vJC-cr�11 ��•�r� •��
EXHIBIT 5
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0029/0104
rtts-b�-�101'1 b7 Jb r•��
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD S ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
F102S.N_D RIVERSIDE
ISMae6-6700 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 10611 as 3.1132
FAx(66o)226.0016 FAX,03 I10a3,, 164
1 2000 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SUrtE 300
)AY)NF. CERRITOS,CALIFORNIA 90703-9304 ,AAGRAMCtI
10491 463.4t60 �6az,es3 saoo ��14, 926 64eo role,923-1 goo
FAX,0401 403 47eY FAX 191 a)OL3.1 Lee
EyEASANTON �AN DIEGO '
(0261 227-9eoO FAX(1362) 063.3333 Ease)406-0626
FAX L9Ee1 287.0202 WWW.A,ALR1R,C0M FAX Ie ee1 0&6'9.1 2
OUR FItf NUMBER!
005110,02 v5
August 31,2010
E-MAIL p08attorneY9,001.com
& FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Glave,Esq.
Attomey at Law
1042 2nd Street
14ernmosa Beach, CA 90254
Re; City of San Bernardino
Dear Mr, Glave: �L
5
This letter shall memorialize the 4 20, 2010 negotiations between the City and Local 891. On
this date, Local 891 provided a written proposal in response to the City's July 7, 2010 initial
proposal. After caucusing, the City verbally advised you of its Second Offer as follows:
fah /Concesaioln: Effective September 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, all members
of the Fire Safety Croup shall have a monthly deduction of$958.90. From July 1 to June
30, 2012, all members of the Fire Safety Oroup shall have a monthly deduction of
$799.08.
PERS:Article III-Compensation-Section 7 Retirement Plan
NEW: Effective July 1, 2011 the City of San Bernardino will cap the employer paid
contributions towards PERS at 25% (employer rate). All future PERS increases
exceeding the 25% cap will reduce the employer EPMC contributions for employees; at
no time will the amount paid by the employee exceed 9%.
Article III- Compensation-Section 7 Retirement plan
NEW: Effective January 1, 2011 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current
PEKS contract to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3% @ 55 for all employees in
the bargaining group hired on or after January 1,2011.
Continuation of Certajq Provisions of Expired Side Letter 2009-144_
Amend MOU to include articles B,F and 0 of Side Letter 2009-140.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0030/0104
Fttt—e�—�e11 �y 5e r..sl
Atkinson, Andelson,Loya,Ruud &Romo
Corey Glave, Esq.
August 31, 2010
Page 2
MOU Chances Proposed by City
Amend MOU language as previously proposed by City.
Healt
Delete Article 1V, Section 1 A:
A. "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One dependent at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month.
The Ciry shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees with Employee
Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium ,or its equivalent, plus an additional
S 100/month".
Replace with:
"A. Effective January 1, 2011 the City shall contribute a flat rate of $469.25 for
employee only and $792.15 for employee+I/family per month for each employee
to be used to purchase City-sponsored medical, dental, vision, and life insurance.
The City contribution amount will be based on the employee's medical selection.
Any City contribution not utilized by the employee shall revert to the City."
Term of MOU: July 1,2010 to June 30,2012
Sick Leave,Education Incentive Pay, Overtime LangM„age: remain the same as the
City's July 7,2010 proposal.
Your team then caucused and made the following modifications to your initial proposal:
Salary Concession: No change from original proposal, Clarified that the salary
concession was for two years from date of implementation.
Concession Days: The six days will be available for use,but not for Sell back.
2-Tier Retirement: No change to original proposal and clarified that no interest in the
PERS cap. Also clarified that new employees are those who are
new to City employment.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0031/0104
1-tt5-l�JG-GF711 F�7 J1 r.�c
Atkinson, Andelson,Loye, Ruud&Romo
Corey Glave, Esq.
August 31, 2010
Page 3
Concession Savings: No change to original proposal. Clarified that the $1.4 million
concession savings were intended to be calculated each fiscal year.
Term of MOU. No change from original proposal
Side Letter: In addition to articles B, C, F, and G, also continue the second
paragraph of article D.
Uniform Allowance: Withdraw proposal for creation of uniform allowance
Concession Exemption: Modified original proposal from three (3) pay days to two
(2) pay periods for sick leave to qualify from exemption to salary
concession exemption.
186 Change Guarantee: Withdrawn.
The City team caucused to consider your modified proposal and then made the following Third
Proposal:
Sala /Concession: No change from Second Proposal.
PERS: : Agree to Local 891's proposal as to two-tier retirement system with review,
Maintain proposal on 25%City cap contribution.
Continuation of Certain Provisions of Expired Side Letter 2009-140; Amend MOU
to include articles B,F and G of Side Letter 2009-140. Agee to add entirety of Article
D, with changes in applicable dates,
MQU Cha_n_ees Proposed by Ci!X: Withdraw MOU language change proposals, with
exceptions as to those provisions that are agreed to in this proposal.
Health: Freeze health contributions at July 1, 2010 levels. Delete Article IV, Section
IA and replace with:
"A. Effective January 1, 2011 the City shall contribute a flat rate of $571.66 for
employee only and$992.56 for employee+1/family per month for each employee
to be used to purchase City-sponsored medical, dental, vision, and life insurance.
The City contribution amount will be based on the employee's medical selection.
Any City contribution not utilized by the employee shall revert to the City."
Term of MQU: July 1, 2010 to June 30,2012
EducatLonjtbcentive Pav: Withdraw proposal
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0032/0104
a�
rtr�—e�—yell ey �l r.��
Atkinson,Andelson,Loya,Ruud&Romo
Corey Glave,Esq.
August 31,2010
Page 4
Sick Leave Ov mime Language: remain the same as the City's July 7,2010 proposal.
After the City team presented this proposal,Local 891 caucused. Your team then requested tb.at
we take your modified proposal to the City Council as you believe there is Council support for it.
I informed you that our Third Proposal was consistent with Council directive, but that I,would
consider your request.
After consideration,I will present Local 89 I's modified proposal on Tuesday September 7, 2010.
I am presenting it to the Council in good faith as the City's fiscal emergency requires timely
action. If the Council agrees to your proposal then we will have a deal. If the Council does not
agree to your proposal, the City expects that Local 891 will move rapidly to schedule additional
sessions so that we may meaningfully move towards agreement. To that end, .the City is
available to meet with you after the City Council meeting on the following dates and times:
September 9 --anytime up to 2pm
September 10--any time
September 14-- after l lam
i
September 1S •- after loam
September 16-- after 2pm
September 17-- after I pm
Please let me know which of these dates and times work for your team as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA,RUUD&ROMO
k44/*
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
IRM/ab
cc: Linn Livingston
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0033/0104
EXHIBIT 6
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0034/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:51
ATKINSON. ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A PAORESSIONAL CORPORATION pIV Rat f!RESNO 10601 C215-0900 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ioellvea-11at
NM 100 1 0e3• 1 194
PAX 16091 02e-341 e
1 2600 CENTER COURT DRIVE. SURE 300 4AC RAM 070.
IRV I N E CERRI1703, CALIFORNIA 00703-9364 10101 oea-1 ao0
1040Ige9-ae00 c5eZ7 653.3200•I714I a20.5400 FAXt9lelot3-leee
FAX 19401 463.4802
PjF kAANTON Ieee14 0
(0261 E87.9300 FAX 161581 ee3-3333 r/x9ee1 4ee•941 e
P"19te1 ee7-9eoe WWW,AAOR.COM
OVR ftr NVMSCR!
006 110-00005
September 8, 2010 1015438v I
&MAIL poeattorney(gao%cam
VIA FACSIMILE(310)379.0456& FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Glave, Esq.
Attorney at Law
1042 2nd Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: Ciry of San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Glave:
I write to inform you that the City Council has considered Focal 891's modified initial proposal.
The Council re-confirmed its prior direction. Therefore, I write to schedule another session so
that Local 891 may make a response to the City's third proposal. As previously indicated, time is
of the essence. Our team is available to meet on the following dates and times: Thursday
September 9, after 2:30pm, Friday September 10, anytime, Monday September 13, anytime,
Tuesday September 14, any tine after 10:30am, Wednesday September 15, anytime after
10:30am, and Friday September 17, after 2pm. As I had previously given you dates to consider,
I trust your team can provide me with a proposed meeting time by close of business this Friday
September 10, 2010. If I do not hear from you by then,the City will conclude that your team is
not interested in further discussions.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA,RUUD&ROMO
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
IRM/ab
cc: Linn Livingston
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0035/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:51 P.36
EXHIBIT 7
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0036/0104
t-tai—b�—�b11 by�51 F'.Sf
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
From: Irma Rodriguez Moisa(IMoisa@aalrr,com)
Sent: Wednesday, September 22,2010 6:36 AM
To: Corey Glave(poaattorney@aol.com)
Cc: Linn Livingston (livingston liCsbeity,org): Anne Alvarado
Subject: Health Insurance Issue--Grandfathered Status (AALRR-CERRITOS,005119.00005J
Attachments: ppaca HR 3590.PDF, hcera HR4872.pdf, hcera amendments.pdf; HCR Grandfather
Status,pdf
Im
7-LI Flu
ppaca HR hcera MR4872,pdf hoera HCR Grandrather
3590.PDF amendments.pdf Statm.pdf
Corey:
I wanted you to be aware that we have received an opinion from Mercer that if the City
decreases its health insurance premiums for employees in excess of 5%, the City's health
insurance plan will not be considered a "grandfathered" plan and therefore subject the
City to even greater health insurance premium increases under the new health care reform
legislation,
I thought you would want this information as soon as possible as this impacts the City's
analysis as to whether your team's proposal re $400 monthly deduction in health insurance
premiums is viable, Based on the attached information, the Cicy is not interested in
pursuing any revisions to the MOU that would question the "grandfathered" status of ita
health insurance benefits.
If your team has any questions, they are free of contact Anne Alvarado.
Thanks.
Irma
1
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0037/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:51 P,38
MERCER
., MARSH MERCER KROLL
GUY CARPENTER OUVER WYMAN
GRIST InDepth: What is grandfathered status, and what does
it mean for group health plans? (revised)
By Kelly Traw,Amy Bergner, Fran Bruno, 1 ami Simon, Barbara McGeoch and Cathy Stamm of Mercer's
Washingron Resource Group
June 24, 2010;revised June 18, 2010
In This Article
Surnmary I Grandfathcre njonS and Ite10th care reform (Dees grandfathered stecus matter?I What Along are
arpn}ifarltered'!�How trandfatherin�tfe�th colleetivcly boranined coveraec I Somo retiree-cntly�,Ji AL,e and excepted
c, ft¢get a pass I Plan chanxc,�i } t jcoVgxdi?&krandfathered staRts I f'1� r i'•e
arandt'athsred status I S�teciel lr n i icin rul�E fir some changcs I Administrnrivo_stsi2x for mairlmni�SEsodfathered
6tB(Uti I fjpnaON A' Which PPnf'A stuntigot M'"J,jzEon0 FUhered plans" Appendix B; Gxsmntes ot�dpllar
wst-sha jo j li t ^nyv
Summary
Under the recent health care reform law, some new requirements will apply to all employer
group health plans in specific plan years, but others won't affect a plan as long as it maintains so-
called grandfathered status. Recently released interim final regulations give insight on when a
plan has grandfathered status, how a plan might lose grandfathered status, and why
grandfathered status may matter. This article discusses those regulations and how they may apply
to employers' health benefit programs.Revisions to this GRIST's discussions of"Special$S rule
for copay increases"on page 8 and "Contributions based on total coverage cost" on page 9
correct typographical errors that affect the results of the calculations described.
Grandfathered plans and health care reform
With limited exceptions, insured and self-insured group health plans will face new coverage and
cost-sharing standards under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act(PPACA, PL 111-
148). The first changes will take effect for plan years starting on or after Sept, 23,2010, and a
second round will come into play for plan years beginning in 2014(GR,I&T#2Q10Q0U_, April 6,
2010, and GRIST 1#20100098, April 21, 2010). Among other reforms, these new requirements
extend coverage for children to age 26, remove lifetime limits on the dollar value of benefits,and
limit waiting periods to 90 days. Plans also will face new reporting and disclosure obligations as
early as the plan year beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010 (GRIST#20100120, May )8, 2010).
While many health care reforms apply to all plans,certain coverage and cost-sharing standards
do not affect plans that have grandfathered status. A recently issued interim final rule gives
insight on which plans have grandfathered status, what may cause loss of grandfathered status,
and how grandfathered status affects compliance. The rule generally took effect June 14, and a
comment period is open until Aug. 16. Regulators have specifically asked for input on what the
Consulting,Outsourcing.Investments.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09; 53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0038/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:51 P•39
GRIST imDepth:What is grendfr thered status,and what does a moan for group hesan plans?(revised) Page 2
required Iptice of grandfathered plan status should say and whether grandfathered status should
be affected by changes to these plan elements:
• plan structure(such as switching from insured to self-insured or from a health reimbursement
arrangement to major medical coverage),
provider network,
• prescription drug formulary,or
4 any other"substantial change to the overall benefit design."
This article addresses why grandfathered status may matter to employers, which plans are
grandfathered,how grandfathered status is determined for collectively bargained plans,whether
retiree-only plans and HIPAA-excepted benefits are affected,when a plan change may alter
grandfathered status, and what administrative steps grandfathered plans must take.
Does grandfathered status matte
While grandfathered status has no bearing on many health care reforms-such as the high-cost
plan excise tax stated to take effect in 2018-it may affect which coverage and cost-sharing
standards and reporting and disclosure obligations apply to a plan,as illustrated by the following
chart, (A similar chart in Appendix A provides links to additional resources.)
Effective for P11,111 year-, -startmg on or after
l,. rigral�d p here ail t1 '; Varandfathdred plane
Extend child coverage to age 26 Sept. 23, 2010 Sept.23, 2010
• For any child lacking access
to other employer coverage
Jan, 1, 2014
• For any child, regardless of
access to other coverage
Ban lifetime dollar limits on"essential Sept. 23, 2010 Sept.23, 2010
health benefits"
Restrict annual dollar limits on Sept. 23, 2010 Sept.23, 2010
"essential health benefits"
Ban pre-existing condition exclusions Sept.23, 2010 Sept. 23,2010
• For children up to age 18 • For children up to age 19
Jan. 1, 2014 Jan, 1, 2014
• For all covered individuals • For all covered individuals
Ban rescissions Sept. 23,2010 Sept.23, 2010
Comply with minimum medical loss Jan. 1, 2011 (insured only) Jan. 1, 2011 (insured only)
ratio rules
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.ail rights reserved. Washington Resource Group+i 202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0039/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:51 P.40
GRIST InDepth:Whet Is grandrethered status,and what does h mean For group health pran37(revised) Page 3
birt'b1�a�+ � tAtJl'°" .r3r fired1Y��`
Provide uniform summery of benefits Expected by March 23, 2012 ExpeCted by March 23, 2012
Ban waiting periods exceeding 90 Jan. 1, 2014 Jan, 1,2014
days
Ban annual dollar limits on"essential Jan. 1, 2014 Jan.1,2014
health benefits"
Ban pre-existing condition exclusions Jan, 1, 2014 Jan, 1, 2014
Give notice on availability of health By March 1, 2013 By March 1, 2013
insurance exchanges
Cover mandated preventive services Sept.23,2010 N/A
with no cost-sharing
Adopt designation rules for primary Sept.23,2010 N/A
care physician
Comply with rules on emergency Sept.23,2010 NIA
services benefits
Establish internal and external Sept.23,2010 N/A
appeals procedures and give notice
Comply with new nondiscrimination Sept. 23, 2010(insured only) N/A
rules
Disclose plan data Sept. 23, 2010 N/A
Report on quality-of-care measures Sept. 23,2010 N/A
and give employee notice ,
Cover routine patient costs for ellnleal Jan. 1,2014 N/A
trial participants
Limit annual cost-sharing amounts Jan. 1, 2014 N/A
and deductibles
Comply with new provider Jan. 1, 2014 N/A
nondiscrimination rules
Ban eligibility terms that discriminate Jan. 1, 2014 NIA
based on health status
Many reforms required even for grandfathered plans. Many health care reforms apply to
employer-sponsored health coverage,regardless of grandfathered status, including these
requirements:
• ban on health flexible spending arrangement(FSA) Or other tax-free reimbursements of drugs
not prescribed by a physician (beginning Jan, 1, 2011) (GRIST t/20100153,June 18, 2010);
• $2,500 cap on annual health FSA,contributions (beginning Jan. 1, 2013);
auto-enrollment of now full-time employees in health plan (effective date to be determined);
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All 69htsr reserved. wasnington Resource Group+1 202 283 3980
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0040/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:52 P.41
GRIST InDepth:What is grandfalhered etetus.and what does it mean for group health plane?(revlaed) Page 4
• Form W-2 reporting of an employee's health coverage(beginning in 2012 for coverage
provided in 2011);
• employer shared-responsibility penalties(beginning in 2014);
P free-choice voucher obligations (beginning in 2014); and
• excise tax on high-cost plans(beginning in 2018).
Value of grandfathered status will vary by plan. Because many new standards will apply to all
plans,the value of grandfathered status depends on how the requirements for nongrandfathered
plans might affect a particular plan As employers consider plan changes for 2011 and beyond,
they should weigh the financial, administrative and other implications of retaining grandfathered
status against the benefits of contemplated changes. For example, a plan that now covers a wide
array of preventive services without any cost sharing may be unaffected by the mandate to cover
certain preventive services with no cost sharing. In contrast, a plan that imposes cost sharing on a
narrow set of preventive services may see a financial impact from complying with that mandate.
What plans are grandfathered?
Insured and self-insured plans with at least one enrollee on March 23, 2010,are grandfathered.
This means that new plans,established after March 23 will never be grandfathered. To retain
grandfathered status, a plan must continue to cover at least one individual-even if that person
wasn't enrolled on March 23 - and avoid certain changes set forth in the interim final rule.
Status applies to benefit package, Although the new rule covers group health plans,
grandfathered status is determined on a benefit package basis. Unfortunately, this term isn't
defined but appears to mean each separate option under which an individual can elect coverage.
If one benefit package loses grandfathered status,the grandfathered status of other plan benefit
packages generally won't be affected, even when they are all part of the same ERISA plan.
Example. Treynor Pillows Inc, sponsors an ERISA plan offering employees the choice of
enrolling in a HMO or a consumer-driven health plan(CDHP). Both the HMO and CDHP
operate on a calendar-year basis and have grandfathered status. For the 2012 plan year, no
changes will be made to the CDHP, but coinsurance rates under the HMO option will
increase, causing that option to lose its grandfathered status. The loss of grandfathered status
for the HMO option will not affect the CDHP's grandfathered status,
How grandfathering affects collectively bargained coverage
Many had believed that plans maintained under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA)had a
delayed effective date for complying with PPACA's cost-sharing and coverage standards.
However, the regulations do not allow such a delay for the general standards that apply even to
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rignls reserved, Washinglon Resource Group+1202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0041/0104
rttl—e�—yell ey�5� r.4�
GRIST InDepth:what is grandfathered statue,and what does ii mean for group health plans?(revised) Page 5
grandfathered plans- As a result,collectively bargained plans must satisfy the provisions
described above that apply to grandfathered plans by the relevant effective date, For example,
insured and self-insured collectively bargained plans must comply with the ban on lifetime dollar
limits for plan years beginning on or after Sept. 23,2010.
Self-insured collectively bargained plans will keep or lose grandfathered status based on the
same factors and timing that apply to other self-insured plans, as discussed later in this article.
For insured collectively bargained plans,however, a special rule applies to the timing of
grandfathered status determinations,
Determining when insured collectively bargained plans lose grandfathered,status. Insured
coverage maintained pursuant to a CBA ratified before March 23,2010,will retain grandfathered
status at least until the termination date of the last CBA relating to the coverage.Though insured
collectively bargained coverage must meet the new standards that apply even to grandfathered
plans (at the same time as noncollectively bargained plans), any coverage or cost-sharing
changes made during the CBA's period will not affect grandfathered status. However, once the
CBA terminates, grandfathered status will be determined by comparing the plan on that date
against the plan's coverage on March 23,2010, Thus, loss of grandfathered status because of
changes made during the CBA period won't actually occur until the termination date of the CBA.
On the other hand, if no disqualifying changes were made during the CBA period, then
grandfathered status continues after the CBA's tenmination until impermissible changes are made
or until the employer or union enters a new insurance policy,certificate or contract.
Some retiree•only plans and excepted benefits get a pass
The regulation's preamble notes that PPACA's new cost-sharing and coverage standards or
reporting and disclosure obligation do not apply to retiree-only plans and HIPAA excepted
benefits governed by ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code. for example, if a private-sector
employer sponsors a separate ERISA plan that covers only retired(and no active) employees,
that plan will not be subject to the new standards,just as it isn't subject to HIPAA portability,
mental health parity or certain other group health plan laws, (For more on the retiree-only plan
exemption, see GRIST #20100154,June 22, 2010.)The same is true for HIPAA excepted
benefits (such as stand-alone dental and vision benefits) in an ERISA-or Code-govemed plan.
(For information on HIPAA excepted benefits, see GRIST#20050021, Jan. 28, 2005.)
Uncertainty for state and local government plan sponsors. The health care reform law removed
a parallel exception for retiree-only plans and excepted benefits from the Public Health Service
Act(PI-ISA), which governs insurers and state and local governments. However, the preamble to
the grandfathered plan rule says that federal regulators will not apply the new cost-sharing and
coverage standards (or any other group health plan laws) to PHSA-governed retiree-only plans or
excepted benefits,and they encouraged state insurance regulators to take the same approach.
Nonetheless, state officials may take a different enforcement or regulatory approach, and
individuals in plans subject to PHSA may be able to sue to enforce PPACA's provisions and
Copyright 2010 Mercer Lt_C.All rights reserved, Washington Resource Group*1202 263 3960
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0042/0104
rttt—l7�—�td'1"1 107 JG r•`r•)
GRIST InDepth�What is grandfathered alatut,end whet does It mean For group health plans?(revised) Page 6
other group health plan laws. State and local governmental plan sponsors should consult with
legal counsel before deciding whether to rely on the exception.
Plan changes that don't jeopardize grandfathered status
Plans generally must preserve the coverage that was in place on March 23, 2010, to keep
grandfathered status. However, some limited changes to plans, such as adding certain new
enrollees and voluntarily increasing benefits,won't adversely affect grandfathered status.
Adding new enrollees, Because adding new enrollees generally doesn't change existing
coverage, allowing the following individuals to enroll after March 23,2010, won't cause a loss
of grandfathered status:
• family members, including children newly eligible under PPACA's mandate to cover
children up to age 26 (GRIST Ir20100104.,May 12,2010);
• new hires;
• employees who previously opted out of coverage; and
• employees (and family members)'previously enrolled in a different plan or benefit package
(with certain exceptions, discussed below)_
Other permirled changes. To encourage plans to enhance coverage-either voluntarily or to
comply with legal requirements-the regulations provide that certain changes won't affect
grandfathered status:
0 Voluntary changes. Plans can voluntarily increase benefits, such as adding coverage for
hearing aids, or adopt now consumer protections stemming from the health care reform law,
such as allowing a participant to designate a pediatrician as a primary care doctor,
• Conforming changes required by state or federal law, Changes made to comply with a
federal or state law, such as removing a lifetime dollar limit, will not affect grandfathered
status. However, it's not clear whether conforming to all legal requirements that might apply
to a plan could somehow cause loss of grandfathered status. To comply with mental health
parity regulations, for example, some plans may have to adjust cost-sharing requirements,
which might run afoul of the restrictions on coinsurance increases for grandfathered plans.
Regulatory guidance clarifying whether plans making such otherwise-disqualifying changes
to conform to a federal law retain grandfathered status would be helpful. (For background on
the parity rules, see GRIST#20100024, Feb. 4, 2010,)
• Change In third-party administrators, If coverage remains the same, switching third-party
administrators will not alter grandfathered status. Howcvcr, fully insured plans will not be
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reserved. Washington Resource Group•1 202 263 3850
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0043/0104
I-lZb—od—Gull by;
GRIST inDepW Whet is prandfathered Status,and what does It mean for group health plans?(revised) Page 7
able to change insurance carriers without losing grandfathered status, In addition, employers
entering into new policies or contracts-even with the same company that provided
insurance coverage on March 23, 2010- generally will lose grandfathered status for the plan.
Losing some or all participants covered on March 23, 2010. As long as at least one person
is covered at all times,phanges in participant composition will not affect a plan's
grandfathered status. This rule could allow plans with limited enrollment-like executive
medical plans--to maintain grandfathered status,despite changes in enrollees.
Plan changes that can Jeopardize grandfathered status
Aside from the limited exceptions described above, the regulations significantly restrict plans'
ability to make coverage and cost-sharing changes without losing grandfathered status.The
permitted and impermissible changes reflect an attempt to balance the dual policy aims of
expanding and enhancing coverage,while allowing people to keep the coverage they had on
March 23, 2010. Regulators also tried to account for sponsors' regular annual adjustments, need
to mitigate potential premium increases and other transition issues caused by health care reform.
Eliminating benefits causes loss of grandfathered status. A plan that eliminates all or
substantially all benefits to diagnose or treat a particular condition will lose grandfathered status.
Eliminating any element necessary to diagnose or treat a condition also will cause loss of
grandfathered status,
Example. Jimmy's Tires health plan covers cystic fibrosis. For the plan year starting Jan. 1,
2011, Jimmy's eliminates coverage for that condition, The plan loses grandfathered status,
The rule doesn't explain how to determine whether an element is necessary to diagnose or treat a
condition, and the example below, adapted from one in the regulations, doesn't shed much light
on that question.
Example. Oprah's Spark plugs health plan covers counseling and prescription drugs for a
mental health condition. For the plan year starting Jan. 1, 2011,Oprah's eliminates coverage
for counseling. The plan loses grandfathered status because counseling is necessary to treat
this mental health condition.
Any coinsurance increases causes loss ofgrandfathered status, Coinsurance-and any other
cost sharing expressed as a percentage-can't be increased without forfeiting the plan's
grandfathered status. The regulations don't distinguish between coinsurance for in-network and
out-of-network coverage, so it appears that any coinsurance increases will result in loss of
grandfathered status.
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reserved. Washington Resource Group i1 202 263 3960
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0044/0104
t-tt—e�—�ei1 ey 5� V.a�
GRIST Inpepth:What Is grandfathered status,and what does it mean for group heelth plens7(revised) Page a
Example. Sandra's Sweets health plan imposes 20 percent coinsurance for in-network
hospitalizations- For the plan year starting Jan. 1, 2011, Sandra's increases the coinsurance to
25 percent, causing a loss of grandfathered status.
Fixed-dollar cost sharing!nay reflect increase in medical inflation. The regulations limit
changes to fixed-dollar,cost-sharing amounts, such as copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket
maximums. In general, any increase in a fixed-dollar, cost-sharing amount as of March 23, 2010,
cannot exceed a factor equal to(i) the increase in the medical care component of the Consumer
Price Index—AII Urban Consumers (CPT-U) for any one month since March 2010 plus(ii) 15
percentage points. For more details on medical inflation factors and examples, see A2nendix B.
Special$5 rule for copay increases. The regulations create a special rule limiting copayment
increases to the greater of
• 15 percentage points (adjusted for the increase in medical inflation from March 2010); or
• $5 increased by medical inflation(i.e., $5 times the increase in medical inflation from March
2010, plus$5).
Under this special rule, if the above calculation yields a permitted copay increase that is less than
$5 adjusted for medical inflation since March 2010, then the permitted increase is $5 adjusted for
medical inflation (but not an additional 15 percentage points).
Rule of thumb. To help make decisions about fixed cost-sharing increases for plan years starting
on Jan. 1, 2011, employers may want to consider applying the following"rule of thumb":
Copayments of$40 or less can be adjusted in 2011 by no more than $5, and eopayments of more
than $40 by 15 percent. The rationale behind disregarding the medical inflation component and
applying just a 15 percent increase to amounts beyond$40 is that this year's medical inflation
component only spans the months from March until May. Therefore, the added medical inflation
amount is too modest to offer much advantage to employers.
Maximum permitted copayments and deductibles for 2011. The table below shows the maximum
permitted 2011 copay and deductibles, based on CPI-U values published to date, for a range of
common current copays and deductibles:
Cop#iry exi);P62{,using special$5 ru e) Dedwctible exam
March 23, 2010 2011 maximum" March 23, 2010 2011 maximum'
$20 $25.00 $100 $115.16
$25 $30.00 $500 $575.60
$35 $40.30 $1,000 $1,151.60
$40 $46.06 $2,t)00 $2,303-20
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reserved. Washington Resource Group*1 202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0045/0104
Ftli—b�—�b11 by 5� r.4b
GRIST InDepth,What is grandfathored status,and what does it mean for group health plans?(revised) Pogo 9
' op�y.!�txeii' les(usln •spei:iI ftui F>: d,
a,
March 23,2010 2011 maximum' March 23, 2010 2011 maximum'
$50 $57,58 $2,500 $2,879.00
$100 $115.16 $5,000 $5,758.00
'Based on 2010 CPI-U values for January through May;waives for later months in 2010 may support higher 2011 maximums
Employers with HSA-compatible High-deductible health plans may be constrained by other Code
requirements that set minimum annual deductibles and maximum cost-sharing amounts (_GRIST
#20100096,April. 21, 2010).
Cuts in employer contribution rate are capped. Changes in employers' contributions toward the
total cost of group health plan coverage also are limited by the new rules. Any decrease of more
than 5 percentage points below an employer's contribution rate as of March 23, 2010,will cause
a loss of grandfathered status. The same cap on lowering the contribution rate applies to unions
that contribute toward the total cost of grandfathered coverage.
Contributions based on total coverage cost. To determine their contribution rate-and whether a
decrease exceeds the 5 percentage point cap-employers or unions must compare their
contributions to the total cost of coverage(using the same cost calculation for determining
COBRA's applicable premium). Self-insured employers' contributions are equal to the total cost
of coverage minus employee contributions. This limitation applies to employer or union
contributions toward any tier of coverage for any class of similarly situated individuals. For
example, if an employer shrinks its family contribution by more than 5 percentage points but
leaves its single contribution unchanged from March 2010 rates, the plan will lose grandfathered
status.
Example. Helen's Hub Caps contributes 75 percent of the total cost of group health plan
coverage in 2010. Helen's will not be able to decrease its employer contribution below 70
percent in any future year without the plan losing grandfathered status.
Contributions based on a formula. The 5 percentage point cap on contribution cutbacks applies
to employers or unions making formula-based contributions-such as a fixed contribution per
hours worked or tons of coal mined-toward any tier of coverage for any class of similarly
situated individuals.
Example. Barry's Batteries makes a health plan contribution of$1.00 for each hour its union
members work. Barry's cannot decrease its contribution below 95 cents per hour without
causing the plan to lose its grandfathered status.
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.An rights reserved, Washington Resource Group•1 202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-` 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0046/0104
f_IZb_Wd_dW11 by; r.w r
GRIST in0epth;What to grandfathered status,and what noes It mean for group health plane?(revlsad) Page 10
New or lower annual limit on total benefits forfeits grandfathered status, A plan that wants to
retain grandfathered status faces restrictions on imposing new overall annual limits on benefits.
Specifically, a plan will not keep grandfathered status if it
did not impose overall'annual or lifetime dollar limits on March 23, 2010,but later imposes
an overall annual limit on the value of benefits (lifetime limits are not permitted for plan
years starting on or after Sept 23, 2010);
Y imposed an overall lifetime dollar limit on March 23, 2010, but no overall annual dollar limit,
and later imposes an overall annual dollar limit that is lower than the lifetime dollar limit; or
0 imposed an overall annual dollar limit on March 23,2010,but later decreases the dollar value
of the limit.
These restrictions suggest that even if an employer adopts permitted restricted overall annual
dollar limits on benefits, implementing such limits for the first time after March 23, 2010, will
cause a plan to lose grandfathered status. This forecloses options for employers considering new
limits to offset cost increases from the ban on lifetime dollar limits and the restrictions on annual
dollar limits on essential health benefits that will apply to all plans,regardless of grandfathered
status, for plan years starting on or after Sept. 23, 2010 ((jRlST#20100 $1_, April 6, 2010, and
GRIST #20100155, June 22, 2010).
The regulation doesn't appear to apply to annual dollar or other limits on specific benefits, such
as an annual cap on physical therapy visits. So plans may be able to adjust annual limits on
particular benefits without jeopardizing grandfathered status.
Changing plan availability. Employees can move among available benefit packages during open
enrollment or after a life event without affecting grandfathered status. For example, at open
enrollment, employees can choose from the PPO, CDHP and HMO options offered by a plan.
In addition, if employees are transferred from one benefit package to another for a bona fide
employment-based reason, the package to which they are transferred won't lose grandfathered
status. For example, if an HMO option is available only at a specific location that closes down,
transferring any remaining employees to the PPO will not adversely affect the PPO's
grandfathered status According to the regulations,coverage changes due to mergers and other
corporate transactions are considered bona fide employment-based reasons unless the primary
purpose was to circumvent the grandfatherin6 rules.
Eliminating a beneffl package may cause loss ofgrandfalhered status. A special "anti-abuse"
rule will greatly limit employers' ability to stop offering a benefit package and retain grandfather
status. Under this provision, a grandfathered benefit package will lose that status after employees
are transferred from another grandfathered benefit package that's being eliminated if(i) there is
not bona fide employment reason for the transfer, and(ii)the eliminated package would have
Cooyrlgnt 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reserved. wa9hington Resource Group+9 202 263 3960
RECEIVED 02-172-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0047/0104
l-Lb—ud-2011 r.wo
GRIST InDeplh:What is grendfatmraa 9latu3,and what doe9It mean for group health plena?(revised) Pepe 11
lost grandfathered status if it had been changed to include the provisions of the remaining benefit
package.
Example. On March 23, 2010, Pinky's Poodle Inc. sponsored a calendar-year group health
plan with two benefit options-a HMO and a CDHP. Among other differences, the HMO
deductible is$250, and the CDHP deductible is $1,200. For the 2011 plan year, Pinky's
Poodle plans to retain the CDHP unchanged but eliminate the HMO. If employees formerly
covered by the HMO are transferred to the CDHP,the plan will lose its grandfathered status.
This is because if the HMO deductible had increased to match the CDHP's $1,200
deductible, the HMO would have lost grandfathered status.
Special transition rules for some changes
One public policy objective behind the grandfathered plan rule was to help people keep the
coverage they had coverage on March 23, 2010, Consequently, many regulatory provisions look
back to the coverage in place on March 23 to determine whether changes will affect its
grandfathered status Special rules apply for some recently adopted changes.
Transition rules for changes adopted before March 23,2010. A change adopted before but not
effective until after March 23, 2010,does not affect a plan's grandfathered status, as long as the
change was adopted through one of the following:
9 a written plan amendment adopted on or before March 23, 2010;
6 a binding contract entered into on or before March 23, 2010; or
a riling on or before March 23, 2010,with a state insurance department.
Special rules for changes adopted after March 23, 2010. Two special rules will preserve
grandfathered status for changes adopted after March 23 but before June 14,2010 (the date the
rules were issued). A change will be treated as adopted before June 14,2010, if any of the
following conditions apply:
The change took effect before June 14, 2010.
• The change took effect on or after June 14, 2010,pursuant to
- a written plan amendment adopted before that date;
- a legally binding contract entered into before that date; or
- a filing submitted to a state insurance department before that date.
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reaerved. Washington Resource Group+1202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0048/0104
Ft1j—b�—�b11 t7y 5 3 r.947
GRIST Int)epft What Is grandfathered slaws,and what does it mean for group health plans?(revised) Page 12
Grace period. A change adopted after March 23 but before June 14,2010, will not affect
grandfathered status as long as the change is revoked or modified effective by the first day of the
first plan year beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
Example, Marilyn Marbles sponsors a calendar-year PPO plan. On April 1, 2010;Marilyn
Marbles' board of directors approved a written plan amendment providing that the PPO's
coinsurance rates would increase from 15 percent to 25 percent,effective Jan. 1, 2011. On
June 20,2010,the board of directors voted to revoke the plan amendment, leaving the
coinsurance rate at 15 percent. The grandfathered status of the PPO plan will not be,affected,
since the written plan amendment with the coinsurance increase was adopted before June 14,
2010, but revoked before the start of the plan year beginning on or after Sept. 23, 2010.
Good faith compliance, If changes adopted after March 23 but before June 14, 2010,"only
modestly exceed"the types of changes that don't affect grandfather status under the regulations,
Then a plan may be able to remain grandfathered. Regulators will "take into account good-faith
efforts to comply with a reasonable interpretation"of the health care reform law when assessing
whether a change affects grandfathered status. Unfortunately,regulators did not indicate the
scope of"only modestly exceed" or elements that will be considered to show a good-faith effort
or a reasonable interpretation of the law, Consequently, employers should consult with legal
counsel when determining whether to take advantage of this good-faith compliance provision.
Observations, Because many plan changes aren't made pursuant to written plan amendments,
these transition rules may be of limited utility to many employers, Agreements with third-party
administrators or union contracts may fall into the safe harbor for binding contracts, and insured
plans may be able to rely on the safe harbor for binding contracts and/or state filings.
Administrative steps for maintaining grandfathered status
Besides the health care reform reports and disclosures broadly required of plans and employers
(GRIST 020100120,May 16, 2010), additional obligations apply to plans claiming grandfathered
status.
Notice. Any materials describing a grandfathered plan's benefits must include a statement that
the employer believes the plan is grandfathered and not subject to certain health care reform
provisions. Regulators have released modet lan rtti4Ae and invited public comment on whether
more information should be required. Among other things, the notice must include the plan
administrator's contact information.The regulations do not specify any timing or delivery
requirements, so it isn't clear when this notice must be provided. For administrative ease,
employers with plans that are likely to be grandfathered in 2011 may wish to include the notice
in upcoming open-enrollment materials.
Record retention and disclosure. Plans must maintain records of plan terms in effect on March
23, 2010, and any other documents necessary to verify, explain or clarify their grandfathered
Copyright 2010 MOrCO►LLC,All 09Rls reserved, Washington Resource Group*1 202 203$950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0049/0104
GRIST InDepth;Wnal Is grandfathered status,and what does It mean for group health Plana?(reels®d) Page 13
status. Examples include current and intervening plan documents and summary plan descriptions
(GRIST#,200.79148, Aug, 1, 2007); health insurance policies, certificates or contracts; schedules
of benefits documentation of premiums or cost of coverage; and required employee contribution
rates. The materials must be made available on request to covered individuals, federal agencies
and, for insured plans,state governments. Employers with grandfathered plans will need to
identify the appropriate documents and determine how to provide access to covered individuals.
GRIST is prepared by Mercer's Washington Resource Group,For more information, contact WRG at+1202 263
3950,
WRG only;#70100156
Copvrlght 2010 Mercer LLC.all rights reserved, Weshing on Resource croup*1 202 253 3850
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0050/0104
rtti—b�—G1011 b��5s r.�1
GRIST Inoepth:What is granerathered status,and what does it mean for group health ptans7(revised) page 14
Appendix A: Which PPACA standards affect grandfathered plans?
This chart identifies cost-sharing and coverage standards and certain reporting and disclosure
obligations applicable to grandfathered and nongrandfathered plans,indicates when plans will be
subject to each requirement, and provides links to additional resources,
irlaia year beiinning on or it'ter 6 pt.'23,
Extend child coverage to age 26 Yes GRIST 92010010
0 Until 2014, grandfathered plans may exclude May 12, 2010
children eligible for other employer coverage
Ban on lifetime dollar limits Yes GRIST 20100103,
April 29, 2010
Restriction on annual dollar limits Yes GRIST#20100103,
April 29, 2010
Ban on pre-existing condition exclusions for children Yes GRIST#2010Q081,
up to age 19 April 6, 2010
Ban on rescissions Yes C„�RISTA20100061.,
April 6,2010
Minimum medical-loss ratio(insured only) Yes GRIST#20100112,
May 13,2010
Cover mandated preventive services with no cost. No GRIST 5201000.61,
ahaNng April 6,2010
Designation rules for primary care physician No GRIST#r`201 0 081,
April 6, 2010
Rules on emergency services benefits and cost- No GRIST#20100061,
sharing limits April 6,2010
Internal and external appeals procedures and notice No GRIST#20100081,
April 6, 2010
Nondiscrimination rules (insured only) No GRIST 020100061,
April 6,2010
Disclosure of plan data No GRIST 920100120.
May 18, 2010
Quality of care reporting and employee notice No GRIST#20100120,
May 18, 2010
'014b'"are b?eginning on or al�#i jah. ll,2414
Ban on walling periods exceeding 90 days Yes GRIST#20100098,
April 21, 2010
Ban on annual dollar limits Yes GRIST#2010QM.
April 21, 2010
Ban on all pre-existing condition exclusions Yes GRIST 0$2010401
April 21, 2010
Cover routine patient costs for clinical trial participation No GRIST#20100098,
Apri 121, 2010
Copyright 2010 Mercer I.I.C.A4 rights reserved. Washington Resource Group Tt 202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0051/0104
t-tG-F9G-GJ11 b7•J3 r.at
GRIST InDep(h:Whet is grandfatlhered status,and what does It mean for group health plans?(revlseo) Page 15
D.
Plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1,2 1(cont'd)
Annual cost-sharing and deductible requirements No GRIS 20100098,
April 21,2010
Provider nondiscrimination No GRIST#201 0098,
April 21,2010
Ban on eligibility discrimination based on health status No GRIST#2010009_8,
April 21,2010
Additlona(Orovislons
Uniform summary of benefits(by March 23, 2012) Yes GRIST_ 20100120,
May 18,2010
Notice of availability of health insurance exchanges Yes GRIST#20l0L 0,
(by March 1,2013) May 18,2010
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC.All rights reserved. Washington Resource Group r1 202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0052/0104
F-tlj—b�- 1711 by��J r••�•�
GRIST InDepth:Whal is grandfalhared etetus,and what does It mean for group heattn plans?(revlwd) Page 1e
Appendix B: Examples of fixed-dollar, cost-sharing adjustments
Example. Terry's Transmissions' health plan had a$1,000 deductible on March 23,2010,
The sponsor wants to know,based on CPI•U values published to date,the maximum
deductible that can be used for the 2011 plan year without affecting grandfathered status. The
table below shows the calculation of the maximum 2011 deductible of$1,115:
(1) Deductible at March 23,2010 $1,000
(2) Maximum percentage increase factor
(a) Medical care component of CPI-U for March 2010 367.142
(b) Highest medical care CPI-U for all months in 2010(387.762 for May 2010 387.762
based on CPI-U values published to date)
(c) Increase factor:((b)/(a)]+0.15 1.1516
Maximum 2011 deductible to preserve grandfathered status(based on CPI-U
values known to date):
■ (1) x (2c), rounded down to next lower multiple of$1 for this example $1,151
Example. Bills' Brakes' health plan had a$20 copay on March 23, 2010. The sponsor wants
to know,based on CPI-U values published to date, the maximum copay that can be used for
the 2011 plan year without losing grandfathered status. The table below shows the
calculation of the maximum 2011 copay of$25:
(1)Copay at March 23, 2010 $20
(2)2011 copay based on maximum percentage Increase factor
(a) Medical care component of CPI-U for March 2010 387.142
(b) Highest medical care GPI-U for all months In 2010 (367.762 for May 2010 387.762
based on CPI-U values published to date)
(c) increase'factor: ((b)/ (a)]+ 0.15 1,1516
(d) 2011 copay based on maximum percentage increase factor:
(1):(2c), rounded down to next lower multiple of$1 for this example $23
(3)2011 copay under$5 rule
(a) $5 adjusted for inflation since March 20% $5 x(2b)/(29),rounded down to $5
next lower multiple of$1 for this example
(b) 2011 copay based on $5 rule:(1)+(30) $25
Maximum 2011 copay to preserve grandfathered status (based on CPI-U
values known to date):
• Greater of(2d)and(3b) $25
Copyright 2010 Mercer LLC,All rights reserved. Washington Resource Group-1202 263 3950
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0053/0104
ftii-b�-�b11 by53 r.�4
EXHIBIT 8
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0054/0104
1-tti-UG-Gbl l b7�J.5 r•��
Irma Rodriguez Molsa
From: Irma Rodriguez Moisa[IMoisa@aalrr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 5:48 PM
To: Corey Glave (poaattorney®aol.com)
Cc: Linn Livingston (Ilvingstcn_Il@sbcity.org),Anne Alvarado
Subject: City Proposal (AALRR-C ERR ITOS.005119.000051
Attachments: City Proposal with Highlight of Future Changes.DOC
1636123_100C
trey:
I have taken the liberty of placing the City offer in the attached MSWORD document. I
have highlighted in yellow, the areas where the City' s proposal will need to be changed.
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
12800 Center Courc Drive, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703-8597
Direct Dial: (562) 653-3503
Direct Fax: (562) 653-3657
====-am----a .cc"wows=om.romc ===
This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient (s) and may contain privileged and confidential information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you -are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and
destroy all copies of the original message. Thank you.
1
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0055/0104
rtt-e�-Gb11 b7J4 r.�b
1
CITY PROPOSAL
Emailed to C. Glaye SEPTEMBER 29, 2010
1. Salary/Concession: Effective September 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011, all members of
the Fire Safety Group shall have a monthly deduction of$958.90. From July 1 to June
30,2012, all members of the Fire Safety Group shall have a monthly deduction of
5799.08. Nt CITY WILL AMEND THIS PROPOSA,� FOR IMPLEMENTATION
ON NOVEMBER 1,201.0. THE AMOUNT OF THE SALARY DEDUCTION NEEDS
TO BE CALCULATED.
2. PERS: Article III-Compensation- Section 2F PERS/Retirement Plan
NEW: Effective June 16, 2011 the City of San Bernardino will cap the employer paid
contributions towards PERS at 25%(employer rate). All future PERS increases
exceeding the 25% cap will reduce the employer EPMC contributions for employees, at
no time will the amount paid by the employee exceed 9%.
Article III-Compensation-Section 2 PERS/Retirement Plan-C
NEW: Effective July 1, 2010 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current PERS
contract to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3% @a 55 for all employees in the
bargaining group hired on or after July 1, 2010. The City shall conduct a review of 186
agencies in August 2012 to assess if a majority of them offer 3% at 55 benefits for fire
fighter employees.
3. Continuation of Certain Provisions of Expired Side Letter 2009-140
Amend MOU to include articles B, F and G of Side Letter 2009-140. Agree to add
entirety of Article D, with changes in dates.
4. Health
Delete Article IV, Section 1 A:
A. "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One dependent at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
S 100/month.
The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees with Employee
Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month".
005119,00005/1636123v1
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0056/0104
rcD-v 4-4vi l WV• 7)1+ r.J r
Replace with:
"Health: Freeze health contributions at July 1, 2010 levels. Delete Article IV, Section
1A and replace with:
"A. Effective January 1, 2011 the City shall contribute a flat rate of$571.66 for
employee only and $992.56 for employee+1/family per month for each employee
to be used to purchase City-sponsored medical, dental, vision, and life insurance.
The City contribution amount will be based on the employee's medical selection.
Any City contribution not utilized by the employee shall revert to the City."
S. Term of MOU: July 1, 2010 to June 30,2012
6. Sick Leave and Overtime Lan ua e: remain the same as the City's July 7,2010
proposal. CITY WILL AMEND THIS PkOPOSAL TO ADDRESS I M LACK Ot
SAVINGS-1N FIRST QUARTER OF YEAR DUE TO NO'CHANGE IN OVERTIME
CALCULATION
005119.40005/1636I29�1
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0057/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:54 F.!Db
EXHIBIT 9
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0058/0104
i Fttl—b�—�b11 0y;54 r ��
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA. RUUD 6 ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1a581 t �i010 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1v RIVE
ee�llOitt
r"($59)6E0-3410 FAX(Q5I1 0911-1 144
1 2000 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SUME 300
IRV1Nr CERRMOS, CALIFORNIA 90703.4364 -R&QRAMENTO
(9481403.4940 t50E1OS3.3200 (71a10�C•6a00 1016,020•,200
FAX 10401 AtO-dZ02 FAX 101 a1 ata-1 ett
PLJ ASANTQN SAN DIEGO
maw 827,O90o FAX(5e2) 003-3333 I6e0)48a.008e
FAX Iota)3e7-ee0a WWWAALRR,COM FAX 19 681 485-OA 10
OVR ALE NUmeCR:
October 20,2010 °O,Qe;oo°aOOOb
E-MAIL poaattorney®eol.com
KA FACSIMILE(310)379-0456& FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Glave, Esq.
Attorney at Law
1042 2nd Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: City of San Bernardino
Dear Mr. Glave:
After our bargaining session yesterday, I was infonned that the City has had extensive
correspondence with you and the Fire Safety Employees regarding its concerns regarding the
legal issues surrounding the payroll deduction concession. Attached is a copy of correspondence
from PERS that confirmed the City was properly calculating PERS pension contributions which
was provided to you and officers of the Fire Safety Employees in February of this year,
Additionally, attached are emails between Assistant City Attorney Stephanie Easland and Eric
Chappelle outlining the City's legal concerns about the payroll deductions. Based on these
documents, 1 find your representation at our bargaining session yesterday that you could not
respond to the City's fifth offer because you needed to conduct further research as to whether
there are legal issues with the, "left hand" side deductions disingenuous and solely intended as a
dilatory tactic. This conclusion is patently reasonable in light of your sudden unavailability until
November 10, 2010 -- a whole three weeks from today -- and your unilateral cancellation of our
September 30,2010 bargaining session.
As 1 stated yesterday, because due City has significant concerns about whether the "right side"
deductions are legal, the City wants to avoid the uncertainty and is not interested in a proposal
that would include "right side" deductions. Hence, the City proposal for salary concessions on
the"left side."
You further justified your refusal to make a counter offer to the City's last proposal and the delay
in meeting by stating that the Fire Safety Employees wanted to explore whether to take the salary
concession deductions as a union dues. The City is not interested in discussing this option as it
creates its own uncertainties and enforcement issues. You also stated that your team wanted
more time to consider the City's counter-offer to assess whether any increases or decreases are
forthcoming under Charter Section 186. As I shared yesterday, the City has rejected the Fire
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0059/0104
FtJi-��-�t�11 by 54 W.bb
Atkinson, Andelson,Loya,Ruud&Romo
Corey Glave,Esq.
October 20, 2010
Page 2
Safety Employees Secdon 166 "no impact" proposal as the City wants certainty as to the payroll
concessions,
Therefore, based on your dilatory tactics, there is no need to delay the City's Last, Best, and
Final Offer. Attached is the City's Last, Best, and Final Offer. Based on the points stated above
and your statements that the Fire Safety Employees would not agree to the concessions that the
City is proposing and the additional charges to health insurance, sick leave and overtime
calculations, it appears that we are at impasse.
The Last, Best, and Final Offer will be open until next Thursday October 26, 2010. if the Fire
Safety Employees are not agreeable to the attached Last, Best, and Final Offer or no response has
been received,the City will conclude that it has been rejected.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON,ANDELSON, LOYA,RWD&ROMO
P/a f.A -X2Ze-
lima Rodripe oisa
IRM/ab
Enclosures
cc*. Linn Livingston
Charles McNeely
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNAMDIN PO060/0104
FE13-d�-�b11 by 54 h'.b1
CITY LA§T,BEST ANU F]<N,�,�, AL OFFER
1;mWed to C.Glove QfjQ_Ba 20,2010
1. Salary/Concession: Effective November 1,2010 through June 30,2012, all members of
the Fire Safety Group shall have a monthly deduction of$806. Sbould this proposal not
be implemented by November 1,2010,this deduction will be taken retroactively.
2. Vacsog Sell Back: Effective November 1, 2010, all members of the Fire Safety Group
shall sell back two shifts of vacation leave before June 30,2011. From July 1, 2011 to
June 30, 2012, all members of the Fire Safety Group shall sell back two shifts of vacation
leave.
3. ]HERS: Article III-Compensation-Section 2F PERS/Retirement Plan
NEW: All individuals hired on or after January 1, 2011 shall contribute 9%towards the
payment of EPMC. After one year of employment,the City shall pay 1%of the EPMC.
After five years of employment,the City shall pay an additional 26/0 of the EPMC, After
ten years of employment, the City shall pay an additional 3%of the EPMC. After 15
years of employment,the City shall pay an additional 3 %of the EPMC.
NEW: Effective January 1,2011 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current
PERS contract to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3%@ 55 for all employees in
the bargaining group hired on or after January 1, 2011. The City shall conduct a review
of 186 agencies in August 2012 to assess if a majority of them offer 3%at 55 benefits for
new fire fighter employees.
4. Continuation of Certain Provi to of Ex fired Side Le ter 2009-140
Amend MOU to include articles B, F and G of Side Letter 2009.140. Agree to add
entirety of Article D, with changes in.dates-delete see item 2
5. H allh
Delete Article IV, Section M.
A. "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One dependent at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month.
The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees witli Employee
Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
S 100/month".
005119.00005/1653699v I
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P006110104
FEB-fd2-2C'J 11 dy�54 r.oG
Replace with:
"Health: Freeze health contributions at July 1,20101evels. Delete Article IV, Section
lA and replace will,:
"A. Effective January 1, 2011 the City shall contribute a flat rate of$571,66 for
employee only and$992.56 for employee+I/family per month for each employee
to be used to purchase City-sponsored medical, dental,vision, and life insurance.
The City contribution amount will be based on the employee's medical selection.
Any City contribution not utilized by the employee shall revert to the City."
6. Ter!M of MOU: July 1,2010 to June 30, 2012
7. Sick Leave and Overtime Lantruaae: remain the same as the City's July 7,2010
proposal.
005119.0000 3/1 6 5 36 99v i
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0062/0104
t-tY,—b�—�b11 b'J:54 N.W
Employer Services Division O
IT)
P.O.Box 942709 ► �t,;h:fii.1;N(
Sacramento,CA 94229.2709
��- Telecommunlcatlons Devine For the Deaf-(91 E,)795.3240
Cal.PFRS gee.alPERS(or 868-225-7377) FAX(010)795.3005 1 Q JAN 25 PM St I p
RECEIVEC
January 19, 2010
I
Barbara Pachon, Finance Director
City of San Bernardino
300 N."D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92416
Dear Ms. Pachon:
This letter is in response to your inquiry regarding the correct way to report the value of
Employer Paid Member Contributions (EPMC) as compensation.
The current method used by the City of San Bernardino (City)to report the value of
EPMC is correct. Members pay contributions on earnings, not on payrate. Employers
may elect to pay afl or a portion of those member required.contilbutions and may report
that same value of contributions as compensation for retirement purposes pursuant to .
Govemment Code Section 20636(c)(4).
The value of EPMC should be reported as a separate fine Item from regular payrate and
earnings and sho.uld be.reflected on our payroll system as follo'yw („
Pay_Co_de Payratte Earnings Contlbutlon$ Service Cr®dit•
01 $6775.00 $3387.50 $304.86 .500
09' $201.10 $201.10 $18,10
09" $322,90 $322.86 $29.07 '
01 $6775.00 $3092,78
$278,35 ,458
09' $201.10 $201.10 $16,10
09" $296.45 $296.45 $26.68
In these two examples, please note that when the earnings and service credit are
reduced, so is the third reporting line, which is the value of EPMC, This reduction in the
value of EPMC will reduce the one-year final compensation calculation, If this period Is
selected as the single highest year. However,your employees may request a different
final compensation period to be used in their retirement benefit calculation, ff there Is a I
higher period, They may verify their highest one-year final compensation period by
requesting a retirement benefit estimate, i
SpWal compensation such as BHinpual pay.Firt,OlSoer P-rifurn,ono PLEA
" vylue of ep Mc rrtporlsd es speclol compenst uon
C.elifornia Public Employees'Retire-mcat System
tivww.cntpers.c►•guv
i
I
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P006310104
I-tti-b�- 1411 IOy�J4 r.b4
Barbara Pachon r -2- January 19, 2010 ,
I
I hope this information answers your questions. However if you require further
clarification or have further questions, please feel free to contact us toll free at(888)
CaIPERS(225-7377).
Sincerely, I
Carlous John on,Compensation Review Analyst
Employer Services Divtslon
i
1
I
1
I
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0064/0104
t-ttc-b�-�b11 by 55 r.00
Page 1 of I
Andree H. Bsumler
From: Chappell Er(Chappell_Er@600ity.org)
Seen: Friday, December 16, 2009 9:1e AM
To: 'ST.eas1and@ve6zon.net'
Cc: 'Moss RI';'McMullen_Ja': 'Lentlne_Ftl', 'Brown—St'
Subject: PERS issue
Hi Stephanie, I am hearing through the grape vine that a meeting took place yesterday with
finance regarding the PERS issue. Can you please send me an update on what was discussed
and the outcome? 1 am a little bewildered that Chief Moon was invited but nobody from our
bargaining group was informed about the meeting from what I am hearing. I know I wasn't and
I am the co-lead on this issue for the San Bernardino Professional Firefighters local 691.
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)435=5830
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0065/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:55 r.00
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Baumler
From: Chappell_Er(Chappell Er@sbcity.org)
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 200911:25 AM
To: 'ST.essland@verlaon.net'
Cc: McMullen &: 'Moon-De'
Subject: Spread sheets for PERS contributions
Attachments: Explanatlon of sheets for Steffanie.doc:PERS concession short.xls
Here Stephanie, I have Woo Included an explanation sheet to try to make some sense of it all.Thanks for
your help on all of this. I have also Included In the spread sheets one with employee base rates and one
with an incentive of fire officer pay just to get a range of how much may be owed.
If you have any questions foal free to call me at(809)438.6830
Eric Chappell
I
! 10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0066/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:55 r.br
The attached spread sheet contains the numbers that I believe to be true.They do not Include
any/all Incentives such as state certifications, specialty or FLSA. So the chart Is based solely on
your base rate of pay per Charter 166 agreements.
Explanation of Spread sheets:
The numbers were derived by subtracting your concession agreement from the 186 rate plus
Incentives. For the ranks of P1 through P4 that rate was 6.7% of your base salary. For the ranks
of B/C through Chief that rate was 10%of your base salary. Currently the City Is subtracting this
amount prior to computing your City PERS contribution and before computing your 9% EPMC
(Employer Pain Members Contributions)"bump'. Prior to the concession the 9%was computed
on your full reportable base salary(plus incentives).
I then figured out what your EPMC should be based on your full reportable base salary and
subtracted what they are now reporting to PERS as your EPMC.This is the difference that you
are being shorted for your retirement per month(without any incentives added as everyone Is
different).An easy example of how to figure this out is to compare your 5/15/2009 paycheck to
your first concession paycheck on 6/15/2009. Before the current 186 rates, my MOU incentive
(bump]decreased by$69.62 per month from May to June. And Is$58.00 since 1 August 2009.
If you want to be more accurate then the spread sheet, add In any incentive pays that you may
have to your base rate. Multiply that by 9%and set it aside. Now multiply your base rate by 8.7%,
this is your concession number. Subtract your concession amount from your base rate plus
Incentive payments, Now multiply this new number by 9%, this Is the amount that the City Is using
for your EPMC. Now take that first 9% that you set aside and subtract the City EPMC bump from
It.This Is the amount that you are being shorted in your retirement. (I know It sounds complicated
but If I can do it....)
Further beokground:
According to Anne Alvarado in Human Resources, the City is paying Its 23% PERS based on this
lower number as well as us paying the 9%"bump". She stated that they are still reporting the
higher base salary to PERS but are paying based on the lower number as It Is the"actual earned
Income". I stated that that did not sound correct to be able to say we Sam X dollars but to pay on
Y dollars.She said that they believed that they had permission from PERS to do so.
Upon contacting PERS San Bernardino office,they confirmed the drop in EPMC but said that the
City of San Bemardlno is not allowed to report a higher amount than they are paying on.
This will cost each employee between $202.32 and $460.00 to be made whole with PERS for
pack payments that were shorted Just since the 186 raise. It will cost the City of San Bernardino
between $116,795 and$135,000 dollars for members to be made whole with PERS for beck
payments that were shorted since the 186 raise.These numbers are only for the ranks of P1
through P4. They would owe an additional$12,000 to$17,000 for the management group and the
management employees would owe an additional$1,350 to$2,400 each for the last 5.5 months
of shorted payments as well.
Eric Chappell
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BEBNABDIN P0067/0104
Ftt�-b�- 1711 by�55 r.bb
N h O C
I IT WWI
tin w M n N N
fir C {(Q�Op7 � ecN+pd� w C 0 �M N (q�p� W) � O �aupq� �c(DC
N v- "
tf 11V (D t01��i tp Lfi I.f) tO cD cD (D (0 ti � N c(y)ri tp
MNNrp (ylnl- Och (D. t? d' O Nth
CDN (DO 1f70MMNe- NN co m
'c} to 1C1 (D tD 47 to (D (D 1~ f� 170 CO O r- � o
1-: r r- 1-
i}' Cf (7 Sri r' t` M01CO NN QOOO
t� � 1.C) O� c�i � OQD c� t(Jy? Uq') �
NP- 000NhN 0000
O (fl cOpp-
07 Co In th
O C7 CTi Iyd� dr'� tai lA �. (M
'G tfIT � to (D O) O � O
7
ADm0f'- 1AN o0 � �} CAMM a- pC0rn
r r
OC •- r~ e- etf� tif` a- 1� � ((7
O (� .T- 0 (o O CD
CC ez f- CG C 6 cl L
44 � � r r r•
MWON (NCOefiMh0. 0� 1n (M a0
a v N u 7 c b t f 7' u7 (D c ii�� c c o t r. °r° N m
r r r+ r
O N Q w f�. N- Lc)
I` O cn O0M11.104 mCOe— M
MN (D � r- <UC7LoCD0) v- T- ON- 0) 7
l() Cp (D h (O CO ti 00 P- c 0 (q C tt P.
O 0 O 0 r (7 N 117 O C4 f- f` U') r-- N
N O M N W 0 1� (h O oopp 8 r (D o�
N (Oa117OmetOstOpOOO � M (Df-�
L1 1r1 kA (O (D (l pl fl C7) a i N Q' (p
T- e- r v--
a 4o. CL CL N � 05 N cq N
'cc
mUOwQmUCLui UUw
LL 1u1,. 1L' 1L U. ^ � ^ / a`� Op �
LL u. LL U.. LL. CL 0. 1 CL 1i w U w U
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0068/0104
FtJi-b�-�b11 10`j 55 r.o�
Page 1 of 1
Andreo H. Baumler
From: Chappell_Er[Chappell—Er@sbcity,orgj
Sent: Friday, December 18, 2009 6:41 PM
To: 'Stephanie Easland'
Subject: RE; PERS Issue
Thank you very much Stephanie for the quick response and for correcting the misinformation about Chief Moon
being in attendance. I look forward to reviewing the information tnat Barbara gathers from PERS. Have a great
Vacation and put work out of your head while away. I will not bother you until after the 111. :")
Eric
From: Stephanie Easland [mallto:st.easland@verizon.net]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2009 4:27 PM
To: Chappell-Er
Subject: Re: PERS Issue
Hi Eric,
The meeting I had yesterday on the PBRS issue was with Barbara Pachon and Anne Alvarado. Chief
Moon was not invited to the meeting nor have I spoken to him in regard this issue. Barbara is gathering
correspondence from PERS which she has received from them re calculating contributions with pay
reductions and furloughs. We also have some questions that we need to ask PERS(maybe a formal
opinion) as to their interpretation of certain language in the statutory definition of pay rate. Hopefully
the info Barbara has received from PERS will answer this. Barbara said she would have copies of what
she has received from PERS to me the first of January. I also spoke to Jim McMullen yesterday and
informed him of all of this. I am on vacation the next two weeks but will be checking my email if you
need anything further in the meantime. Thanks,
Stephanie
On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Chappell Er<ChV e) t ac y.org>wrote:
Hi Stephanie, I am hearing through the grape vine that a meeting took place
yesterday with finance regarding the PER$ issue. Can you please send me an
update on what was discussed and the outcome? I am a little bewildered that Chief
Moon was invited but nobody from our bargaining group was Informed about the
meeting from what I am hearing. I know 1 wasn't and I am the co-lead on this issue
for the San Bernardino Professional Firefighters local 891,
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909) 435=5630
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0069/0104
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Baumler
From: Attorney[Attorney@sbclty,org)
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Stephonle Easland; Edna Di Vellis
Subject: FW:Meeting with Barbara Pachon
----Orlglnal Message-----
From: ChappelLEr
Sent:Tuesday,January 05, 2010 8:40 AM
To: Easland_St
Subject: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Happy New Year Stephanle,I was wondering if you have any minutes of your discussion with Barbara Pachon, If
not could you send me a quick synopsis of what was discussed so that I don't misrepresent anything to the rest of
the Union body? In particular you made mention during our phone conversation that Barbara had stated
something about not being able to do the concession as an itemized deduction as agreed to in the MOU side
letter contract,
Also have you heard back from her on the"language"that she had concerns about with PERS?
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)435-5830(cell)
(909)880-2137(station 232)
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0070/0104
Page l of 2
Andree H. Baumlor
From: Chappell_Er[Chappell Er @sbclty.org[
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:20 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE- Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Okay, thank you Stephanie. One more Item though,did she state that there was a reason that they couldn't do the
concession as a line item deduction as is stated In the contract agreement? Or was that what she was eluding to
with the concession dollars being implemented as pursuant to instructions given by PERS?
Thank you again,
Eric Chappell
Prom:Stephanie Easland [ma[IW.,seasland®sbcityatWrney.org]
Sent; Wednesday, January 06, 2010 3:26 PM
To.,Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
HI Eric,
My meeting with Barbara Pachon was very short and informal, thus no minutes. Anne Alvarado was also present
since she Is a much better numbers person than me. Basically, Barbara told us that the way the concession
dollars are being Implemented is pursuant to Instructions and guidance given by PERS. She Is In the process of
gathering the correspondence her department has received from PERS regarding this Issue and will forward up to
me to review. I want to see exactly what PERS Is saying in regard to these concession amounts and the Impact
on contribution calculations, There is some definite ambiguitylvagueness in the applicable code sections which
may need to be formally interpreted by PERS in an opinion,which we will need to request, I will have a better
idea after I see what PERS has already given to Finance on this issue, Barbara told me before I left for vacation
that she hoped to have everything to me the first couple of weeks In January,due to the holidays and everyone's
vacations. I will be making this a priority as soon as I get these documents. Thanks for your patience and Happy
New Year,
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Easland
Assistant City Attorney
Clty of Son Bernardino
300 North"D'Sheet
Son Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384.5355(voice)
(909)3845236(fox)
----Original Message----
From: Attorney [mailto:Attomey@sbc:ty.org]
Sent:Tuesday,3anuary 05, 2010 9:01 AM
To; Stephanie Easland;Edna DI Velils
Subject: FW: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
-Original Message-----
From: Chappell_Er
Sent. Tuesday, January 05, 2010 8:40 AM
To: I:asland_St
Subject: Meedng with Barbara Pachon
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0071/0104
FtJ:3-b�-�b11 by�55 r. rc
Page 2 of 2
Happy New Year Stephanie, I was wondering If you have any minutes of your discussion with Barbara
Pachon. If not could you send me a quick synopsis of what was discussed so that I don't misrepresent
anything to the rest of the Union body? In particular you made mention during our phone conversation
that Barbara had stated something about not being able to do the concession as an Itemized deduction
as agreed to In the MOU side letter contract.
Also have you heard back from her on the "language"that she had concerns about with PERS?
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)436-5830(cell)
(909)680.2137(station 232)
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0072/0104
FEtl-b�-�t�11 dy�55 r. r�
Page 1 of 2
Andree H. Saumler
From: Chappell Er(Chappell_Er@sbcq.oig)
Sent: Wednesday,January 06, 2010 4:07 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
LOL. Okay, I guess I see the problem then. This is NOT a pay/salary reduction, It can't be because of 186. It is a
employee payroll"give back"to the City,And I guess we don't cane if we are taxed on the full amount. It Is a 100%
deduction anyway.What we don't want is our retirement decreased.This Is what was agreed to to the
negotiations and why it was written the way it Is. So I guess If she is stating that the City can't do it as agreed to,
the contract should have been voided and renegotiated.So I am wondering who Barbara informed that they
would not be able to adhere to the contract and when she notified them.Also I am wondering then why the City
has Illegally garnished our wages If the contract was voided?
Maybe this should be asked by you to Barbara?Or should the Union get Cory to ask these questions?
Again, think you for following up on this matter and I guess for being the go between,
Eric
From: Stephanie Easland [malb:seasland @sbcltyattomey.org]
Sent: Wednesday,January 06,2010 4:02 PM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Mewing with Barbara Pachon
If I can articulate it correctly, I was told that since this Is a pay/salary reduction,It has to stay on the pay side (the
left side of the paycheck,) If it was taken out on the deduction side, and did not reduce your pay before the
deductions,you would be taxed on the full amount before the removal of the concession amounts. This way,you
are only taxed on the reduced pay amount.
Stephanie
Stephonle D. Easland
Asslstont City Attomey
City of Son Bemordlno
300 North"D"Street
Son Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384-5355(voice)
(909)364-5238(fox)
-----Original Message-----
FrOM: Chappell—Er(malito:Chappel)_Er®sWty.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January Db,2010 3:20 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Okay, frank you Stephanie. One more item though,did she state that there was a reason that they
couldn't do the concession as a line Item deductlon as Is stated in the contract agreement? Or was that
what she was eluding to with the concession dollars being Implemented as pursuant to instructions given
by PERS?
Thank you again,
Eric Chappell
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF 5, BERNARDIN P0073/0104
FtL—b —�f�11 by 56 F.Y4
Page 2 of 2
From: Stephanie Easland (mallto:seasland@sbcltyett3omey.org)
Sent: Wednesday,January 06, 2010 3:26 PM
To: Chappell Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Hi Eric,
My meeting with Barbara Pachon was very short and Informal, thus no minutes. Anne Alvarado was also
present since she is a much better numbers person then me. Basically, Barbara told us that the way the
concession dollars are being Implemented Is pursuant to Instructions and guidance given by PERS. She
fa in the process of gathering the correspondence her department has received from PERS regarding this
issue and will forward up to me to review. I want to see exactly what PERS is saying In regard to these
concession amounts and the Impact on contribution calculations. There is some definite
ambigulty/vagueness In the applicable code sections which may need to be brmally Interpreted by PERS
in an opinion, which we will need to request, I will have a better idea after I see what PERS has already
given to Finance on this Issue. Barbara told me before I left for vacation that she hoped to have
everything to me the First couple of weeks in January, due to the holidays and everyone's vacations, I will
be making this a priority as soon as I get these documents. Thanks for your patience and Happy New
Year,
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Eosiond
Assistant City Attorney
City of Son Bernardino
300 North"D"Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384-5355(voice)
(909)384.5238 (fax)
StgnjS1.t1oay.ga? .mt
-----Original Message-----
From:Attorney[mellto:Attorney@sbco.org)
Sent: Tuesday,January.05, 2010 9:01 AM
To: Stephanie Easland; Edna DI Veills
Subject:FW: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
•Orlgtnal Message----�
From: Chappell_Er
Sent: Tuesday,Janudry 05, 2010 6;40 AM
To: Easland_St
Subject: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Happy New Year Stephanie,I was wondering if you have any minutes of your discussion with
Barbara Pachon. If not could you send me a quick synopsis of what was discussed so that I don't
misrepresent anything to the rest of the Union body? In particular you made mention during our
phone conversation that Barbara had stated something about not being able to do the concession
as an Itemized deduction as agreed to In the MOu side letter contract.
Also have you heard beck from her on the`language"that she had concerns about with PERS?
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)435-5830 (cell)
(909)880.2137(station 232)
I
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0074/0104
rtti-t7�-�t�11 k97�Jb r. r�
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Baumler
From: Chappell—Er(Chappell Er @sbclty,org)
Sent: Monday, January 11, 201012;35 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
NI Stephanie, I just thought I would follow up with you as requested by my union executive board. Have you found
out anything additional from Barbare yet?My E-board is also asking for a time frame as to when this will be fixed
to reflect the negotiated contract and. We have people that are holding off on there retirement plans because of
this Issue and desire to be made whole with PIERS before continuing.Also,dust for your information the Union
attomey has been brought up to speed on this Issue but is not getting involved until I tell him you have done all
you can do. (I thought that was only fair and why 1 am giving you the heads up on It,)
Thank you,
Eric
From: Stephanie Easland (mallto:seasland®sbcltyattorney.org)
Sent;: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:31 PM
To: ChappeI—Er
Subject: RE, Meeting with Barbara Pachon
I will run this by Finance and NR. Thanks,
Stephanie
5tephonle D, Easicind
ASSistont City Attorney
CIN of Son Bernardino
300 Norm"D'Street
San Bernardino,CA 92418
(909) 394-5355(voice)
(909)384-5238(fax)
tom,easlond!A rizpa.net
----Original Message-----
From: Chappell_Er[mallto:Chappell Er®sbdty.org]
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 4:07 PM
To:Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
LOL. Okay, I guess I see the problem then, This Is NOT a pay/salary reduction. It can't be because of
186, It is a employee payroll"give back'to the City.And I guess we don't care if we are taxed on the full
amount. It is a 100%deduction anyway.What we don't want Is our retirement decreased.This is what
was agreed to in the negotiations and why It was written the way It is, So I guess if she Is stating that the
City can't do It as agreed to, the Contract should have been voided and renegotiated. So I am wondering
who Barbara Informed that they would not be able to adhere to the contract and when she notified thorn.
Also I am wondering then why the City has illegally garnished our wages if the contract was voided?
Maybe this should be asked by you to Barbara? Or should the Union get Cory to ask these questions?
Again, thank you for following up on this matter and I guess for being the go between,
Eric
(908)880-2137(station 232)
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0075/0104
I-tli-b�-�b11 bJ;Sb r. ro
Page 1 of I
Andree H. Baumlor
From: Chappell Er(Chappell Er@sbclty.org)
Sent: Tuesday,January 19, 2010 7.17 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Cc: Moss_Ri; Parker Gr, Lentine_Rl; Brown_St; Bush_MI; Crowell_Br;Moon—De; Conrad_MI; Cory
Glove(CoGlavo@aol.com)
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Hl Stephanle, I will be off work until Sunday January 24". If you receive any updates If you could send me an
email to both this address and$1g=LgUa ner.com I would appreciate It,The personnel that are holding on
their retirement are getting a little impatient to say the least with this process. I know you can't speed It up any
with regards to Barbara but should we suggest putting a hold on the concession until MIS is settled?It could
reduce the amount of back monies that the City will need to come up with to maKe the personnel whole with
PERS.As an attorney, you can sea that the language In the contract between the fire safety bargaining unit and
the City is very clear, and that it has not been followed,
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
Front: Stephanie Easland (mallto:seasiand @sbcltyattomey,org]
Sent'. Monday, 3anuary 11,2010 3:23 PM
To: Chappell Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
HI Eric,
I recelved an email From Barbara today. She Is still waiting for a formal written response from PERS In regard to
this issue. She Is hoping to get the response from PERS by the end of this week or next week. She told me that
she is going to contact PERS and try to get a tlmellne/estimated date from them,
Stephanie
Stephonle D.Easland
Assistant City Attorney
City of Son Bernardino
300 North"D"Street
Son Bernardino,CA 92418
(909) 384.5355(voice)
1909) 384.5238(tax]
sL&oelanaQy9=n net
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BEPNABDIN P0076/0104
Fitt-b�-�b11 by�56 r• ��
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Baumler
From: Chappell_Er[Chappell Er@sbcity,org)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:30 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Hi Stephanie, I have just returned from being off with pneumonia for a couple of weeks and I was wondering If
any more information has come to you regarding our PERS deductions and pay?
It's been nearly 1 month since I last received any dialogue from you or anyone else on this issue and the union
membership is wanting to move forward with a lawsuit since it would appear we are being ignored or
stonewalled at this point.
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)435-SS30(cell )
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0077/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:56 r. rtt
Page i of 2
Andree M. Baumler
From: Chappell Er(Chappell_Er@sbcity.org)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 1112 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Cc: Moss RI; Parker Gr: Engllsh_Th; Lentine_Ri; Bush_Mt: McMullen is Brown_St
Subject: RE; Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thank you Stephanie. I apologize if you took my email to mean that we thought YOU were the one stonewalling.
That Is not the case at all.We sincerely appreciate your help with this Issue. I guess that with the information
that you have listed below,it is up to us now to decide whether or not the terms of the agreement have been
violated or not. I believe that they have and that with this information the contract should have been voided and
renegotiated,As far as NR's statement, nothing could be further from the truth, we were Informed on numerous
occaslans and "a€cured" that the contract would NOT effect our retirement by the City negotiations team,
Again, thank you for your help with this matter.
Eric Chappell
6065 N Palm Ave
San Bernardino,Ca. 92407
909 880-2137
From: Stephanie Easland (malito;seasland@sbcltyattomey.org)
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE; Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Good Morning Eric,
It is not my intent to Ignore or stonewall this issue, I too have been out sick and apologize for any delay that has
been perceived as stonewalling or ignoring this Issue. I have received from Barbara lest week a copy of the letter
she received from PERS in response to this issue. To quote the letter from PERS,"The current method used by
the City of San Bernardino(City)to report the value of EPMC is correct Members pay contributions on earnings,
not on psyrats." This letter was In response to Finance's formal request dated January 71h, 2010 to PERS
requesting verification that the City was calculating and reporting the 9% EPMC correctly, As such, Finance is
calculating and reporting the subject EPMC in compliance with PERS'dlrectlone. Addidonal(y, the concession
amounts are being deducted as a line item on the income side as the Labor Code precludes such a deduction
from paid wages(the right side of the check.) I have also been informed by HR that curing negotiations, all of this
was discussed and Fire Safety members were told to check with PERS in regard to any effect the negotiated
concessions would have on their retirement, before entering into the agreement. PERS does state in thelr letter to
Finance that a reduction in EPMC will reduce the one-year final compensation calculation, if this period is
selected as the single highest year. However,the letter goes on to state that employees may request a different
final compensation period to be used in their retirement benefit calculation, Employees can verify their highest
one-year final compensation period by requesting a retirement benefit estimate_ Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephonle D. Easiond
ASsIsTant City Attorney
City of Son Bernardino
300 Noah"0"Street
Son Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384.8365(voice)
(909)384-8238(fox)
Sf.ed5londfa?�rerizon.n9t
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF 5, BERNARDIN P0078/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:56 r. �7
Page 1 of 2
Androo H, Elaumler
From: Chappell Er[Chappell_Er@sbcity,orgJ
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:21 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbera Pachon
Oh, I definitely would like a copy Stephanie.Thank you for the offer. Do you have it on email or should we send
someone by your office to pick It up?
Eric
From; Stephanie Easland(maflto:seasland @sbcityattorney,org)`
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:27 AM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thanks Eric,
Let me know if you want a copy of PERS'letter regarding this issue.
Stephanie
Stephonle 0.Eoslond
Assistant City Attorney
Clly of Son Bernardino
300 North'0"Street
Son Bernardino,CA 92418
(909) 384-5355(voice)
(909) 384.5238(fox)
---Original Message-----
From: Chappell_Er (maflto:Chappell_Er @sbcity.org)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:12 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Cc: Moss_RI; Parker 6r; Engifsh_Th; Lenbne_Rl; Bush_Mf; McMullen-]a; Brown St
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thank you Stephanie. I apologize if you took my email to mean that we thought YOU were the one
stonewalling.That is not the case at all.We sincerely appreciate your help with this Issue. I guess that
with the information that you have listed below, it Is up to us now to decide whether or not the terms of
the agreement have been violated or not. I believe that they have and that with this Information the
contract should have been voided and renegotiated.As far as HR's statement;nothing could be further
from the truth,we were Informed on numerous occasions and "assured"that the contract would NOT
effect our retirement by the City negotiations team.
Again, thank you for your help with this matter.
Eric Chappell
6065 N Palm Ave
San Bernardino, Ca. 92407
909 880-2137
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0079/0104
FEB-02-2011 09:56 r ��
Page 2 of 2
From: Stephanie Easland [mailto:seasland @sbcltyattomey.org]
Sent; Wednesday, February 10, 2010 9:56 AM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Urbara Pachon
Good Moming Eric,
It is not my Intent to Ignore or stonewall this issue. I too have been out sick and apologize for any delay
that has been perceived as stonewalling or ignoring this Issue. I have received from Barbara last week a
copy of the letter she received from PERS In response to this issue. To quote the letter from PERS,"The
current method used by the City of San Bernardino(City)to report the value of EPMC Is correct,
Members pay contributions on earnings, not on payrate.' This letter was in response to Finance's formal
request dated January 71h, 2010 to PERS requesting verification that the City was calculating and
reporting the 9%EPMC correctly. As such, Finance is calculating and reporting the subject EPMC In
compliance with PERS'directions Additionally, the concession amounts are being deducted as aline
Item on the Income side as the Labor Code precludes such a deduction from paid wages(the right side of
the check.) I have also been Informed by HR that during negotiations, all of this was discussed and Fire
Safety members were told to check with PERS In regard to any effect the negotiated concessions would
have on their retirement, before entering into the agreement. PERS does state in their letter to Finance
that a reduction in EPMC will reduce the one-year final compensation calculation, If this period Is selected
as the single highest year, However,the letter goes on to state that employees may request a different
final compensation period to be used in their retirement benefit calculation. Employees can verify their
highest one-year final compensation period by requesting a retirement benefit estimate. Thank you,
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Easland
Asststont City Attorney
City of San Bernardino
300 North°D"Street
Son Bernardino, CA 92419
(909) 364.5355(voice)
(909) 364.5238(fax)
, a la d verizon�n l
.._._Original Message--•--
From: ChappelLEr [maJ1to:ChappelLEr @sbc1ty,orgJ
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 7:30 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject; RE: Meetjng with Barbara Pachon
Hi Stephanie,l have just returned from being off with pneumonia for a couple of weeks and I
was wondering If any more information has come to you regarding our PERS deductions and
pay?
It's been nearly 1 month since I last received any dialogue from you or anyone else on this issue
and the union membershlp is wanting to move forward with a lawsuit since It would appear we
are being Ignored or stonewalled at this point.
Thank you,
Eric Chappell
(909)435-SE30(cell )
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0080/0104
FEB-02-2011 03:56 �1
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Baumler
From: Chappell Er(Chappell ErQsbclry,org)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:13 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Cc: Moss-Ri; Parker Cr
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thanks Stephanie, someone will be by in the morning to collect the letter,Also, Barbara didn't happen to say
what labor Code precludes them From taking out the employee concession as a deduction or makes them take it
out before figuring our PERS rather than after did she?Or if you know which one It is by chance that would be a
great help as well as we have been unable to locate a labor code with that specific reference.
Thank you again,
Eric Chappell
6065 N Palm Ave.
San Bernardino,Ca. 92407
(909)435.5830(cell)
From: Stephanie Easland (malito:seasland @sbcltyattor•ney.org]��~
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:14 PM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Mewing with Barbara Pachon
I only have a hard copy so you will need to send someone over to pick it up. I'm In meetings this afternoon, so if
you come over then,Just ask for my secretary Edna. I will leave a copy with her,
Stephanie
Stephanie D, Eosiond
Assls•tant City Attorney
City of Son Bernardino
300 North"D'Street.
San Bemardlno,CA 92418
(909) 384-5355(voice)
(909) 384.5238 (fox)
��QS)SX�d�(Ir*S?J1fP�
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0081/0104
rt13-b�-�b11 by�5� r.L3G
Page I of t
Andres H. Boumler
From: Chappell Er(Chappell_Er(psbclty.org)
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:06 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Cc; Moss—RI; Parker—Or, Lentine-111; McMullen Ja; Bush_MI; BroWn_St; English Th
Subject; RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Good morning to you too Stephanie.And thank you for the sections, I too will research those to see If they apply
to public entities,On another note,do you have a copy of the side letter to our MOU dealing with the
concession?And in your opinion as a member of the City attorneys' office, if the contract could not be carried
out as agreed due to a labor code conflict,shouldn't that Information have been transmitted to the appropriate
parties and the contract renegotiated or modified to meet those labor codes?
Just seeing if I'm not understanding some power that the City finance director has that I am unaware of.
Eric Chappell
6505 N Palm Ave
San Bernardino,Ca. 92407
From: Stephanie Easland(mallto:seasland @sbcltyattorney.org)
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2010 9:36 AM
To: Chappell—Er
Subject: RE: Meeting With Barbara Pachon
Good morning Eric,
Barbara did not refer me to any specific code section(s), but based on my research, Labor Code sections 221 and
224 may apply, although I need to verify that they apply to public entities.
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Eoslond
Assistant Clty Attomey
City of San Bernardino
300 North°D°Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384.8356(voice)
(909)384-5238 (fox)
st eoaf nd@.)Mo rIMI
-----Original Message-----
From: Chappell Er[mallto:Chappeil_Er@sbclty.org)
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 10:13 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
CC: Moss-111; Parker Gr
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thanks Stephanie,someone will be by In the morning to collect the letter.Also,Barbara didn't happen
to say what Labor Code precludes them from taking out the employee concession as a deduction or
makes them take It out before flguring our PER$rather than after did she?Or if you know which one it is
by chance that would be a,great help as well as we have been unable to locate a labor code with that
specific reference.
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09; 53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0082/0104
FEB-fez-z�s s ey�5•r �.�-'
Page 2 of 2
Thank you again,
Eric Chappell
6065 N Palm Ave.
San Bernardino,Ca.92407
(909)435.5830(cell)
From: Stephanie Easland [maiito:seasiand @sbdtyattorney.org] Y -
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:14 PM
Tot Chappell-Er
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
I only have a hard copy so you will need to send someone over to pick It up. I'm in meetings this
afternoon,so if you come over then,just ask for my secretary Edna. I will leave a copy with her.
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Easland
Assistont City attorney
City of Son Bernordino
300 North"D"Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
(909)384-5355 (voice)
(909)384-6238 (fox)
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S• BERNARDIN P0083/0104
rttt-bG-�b11 by f r.aw
page 1 of I
Andree H. Bawler
From: Chappell—Er(Chappell—Er@sbcity.org]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 11:22 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Stephanie, thank you very much for those labor codes, It appears now much worse than I originally thought and
that a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the City finance director has occured.Has your boss(Jim)been
brought up to speed on this issue?
Eric
0/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BEANARDIN P0084/0104
FttJ-b�-�r�11 dy�5� r.oa
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Saumler
From: Chappell_Er(Chappell_Er@sbcity.orgj
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2010 7:19 PM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject; RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Thanks Stephanie,I have a copy.I was wondering if you needed one,but I should have known better. LOL
I too have seen differing views, but I also know what was written into the contract and that is what I see as has
been breeched.
Thank you again for the follow-up.
Eric
From: Stephanie Easland [mallto:seasland@sbcityattorney.orgI
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2010 3;12 PM
To: Chappell_Er
Subject: RE: Mewing with Barbara Pachon
I discussed the Issue with Mr, Penman when it first came up but I have not yet briefed him on the response from
PERS, As for Finance, the way I see it is that they are doing what is required by PER$and the law,so I don't see
how that Is a dereliction of duty. What I do see Is differing views as to what was discussed/agreed upon during
negotiations,and unfortunately, I have been told that there are no tapes of these discussions, although I have
asked HR to compile their notes and emails so that I can get an Idea of what occurred. As for the side letter, I can
get a Copy for you, but you can 8150 get it from the City Clerk--it Is Resolution 2009-140.
Stephanie
Stephanie D. Eoslond
Assistant City Attorney
City of San Bernardino
300 North"D°Street
San Bernardino,CA 92418
(909( 384-5355(voice)
(909) 384.8238(fax)
3L.�1�ClSdC�,YAAli?Il.C1Qt
----Original Message----
From: Chappell_Er[mallto;Chappell_Er*sbcity,org]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 201011:22 AM
To: Stephanie Easland
Subject: RE: Meeting with Barbara Pachon
Stephanie,thank you very much forthose labor codes, it appears now much worse than i originally
thought and that a complete dereliction of duty on the part of the City finance director has occured. Has
your bass(Jim)been brought up to speed on this issue?
Eric
i
10/20/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF 5, BERNARDIN P008510104
FEB-02-2011 05:5'r r•oo
EXHIBIT 10
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0086/0104
rttt-b�-�b11 by5'f r.esr
ATKINSON, ANOELSON, LOYA, RUUD S ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FR 25
(660)e oo ATTORNEYS AT LAW rosy 683"1 -
Oar 16601 2 Z6•3.1 e FAX 105 1 GO. 44
2900 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SUITE 300
IFLVINE CERR(TOS. CALIFORNIA 90703.9364 SAGRAMfyNTO
191497 91 463.42 (5821 553.3200-27 1 4) 92e-548p (a i 61 9ea-1 zoo
FAx v4o1 46J•4zoe PAX 10 1 6)923-1 eel
PLEASANTON RAN DIE00
(Qz6)287.0200 FAX(see) 063-3333 loss)46"bee
FAX 102 61 Z27-0202 Y".AALRR-COM FAX 18661•*6.0412
OUt1 PEE NUMBER;
November 2, 2010 1 1 oo 30 6
UA EMAIL poaattorney aoLcom
FACSIMILE(310) 379-0456
AND FIRST CLAM'S MAIL
Corey Glave, Esq.
1042 Second Street
Hermosa Beach,CA 90254
Re: City of San Bernardino and Fire Safety Ernplovees Bargaining
Dear Mr- Glave:
As the City did not get a response from you or the Fire Safety Unit to the City's Last, Best, and
Final Offer, we have concluded that it has been rejected. It is my understanding that members of
your bargaining team have iltformed some councilmembers that the Fire Safety Employees Unit
("FSE") would like to engage in further negotiations.
Based on our past negotiations, the City believes we have three fundamental differences that are
impediments to our reaching agreement. First, the FSE completely disagrees with the City's
need for$1.4 million in concessions for both fiscal year 10-11 and fiscal year 11-12, Second, the
FSE is unwilling to reach agreement on salary concession issues and changes to the MOU, such
as changing the manner in which overtime is calculated and the sick leave maximum accrual.
And, finally, the FSE wants an agreement that would allow it to reach the salary concession
numbers prospectively, over 24 months from the date of agreement. The City has been clear that
it needs the savings within the fiscal year 10-11 and fiscal year 11.12 time frames,
Because of these fundamental differences,the City believes the parties are far apart and therefore
issued its Last, Best, and Final Offer. However, in light of the representations made to some
Councilmembers by the FSE, the City proposes that we engage the services of an outside
mediator from State Mediation and Conciliation Service ("SMCS") to assist the parties at the
next negotiation session on November 15, 2010. 1 have made contact with SMCS and am
advised that Loretta VanDeTP001 may be available on that date. I will confirm her, or another
mediator's, availability in the next few days- Please advise by November 9, 2010 whether the
FSE is agreeable to mediation on November 15. if I do not hear from you by November 9,2010,
the City will conclude that the FSE is not interested in mediation and will proceed accordingly.
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0087/0104
rte-e�-�e11 ey �r r.Litt
Atkinson,Andel son, Loya, Ruud &Romo
Corey Glave,Esq.
November 2,2010
Page 2
As you sent me an email last night on another.matter, I am having this letter sent to you via
email, fax, and U.S. Mail. If you would like the City to inform your team of this letter,just let
me know and we will make those arrangements.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON,ANDELSON, LOYA, RUIJD&ROMO
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
IRM/ab
cc: Linn Livingston (via email: Livingston Li @sbcity.org)
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0088/0104
FE1i-b�-�b11 17y�5'� r.i37
DATE NC)U-M-2011 am TtPM 09135 romwoM:b a
MME - MBIE 2Y TMG41ESION 9tA"wM)4'Q 09:34 Bc"01-02 09:33
F 1 LE h0.-209
STN.NE). C". POW NO. STATION NVE/TEL M. PPIES DLA4T1W
001 0( 8 3+r5119*S310S196a56 0030023 00:00:28
- ynce:lot — - fOOIPpYL�il01c
ATKINSON, ANOmsON, LOYA, RUUD at Ra40
A PROresmoNAL CORroRAT1oN
ATM14m rre AT t.Aw
12000 CR11Tl K COVRT DRIve. surge 300
CBRRM39, CA 00703.03154
(5132)030.3200 - (714) 026-6400
FAX: (46t) 053.3333
FACSIMILE TRANSMITTAL COVER SHEET
o+M Ft wwa
ooe i 19400"
November2,2010 ette7wl
1.0i COMPANY EAM PHONE
Corey Gbve 310.379-0456 323.547.0472
FROM: Irma Rompoz Moim
RE! City of Sin Bt mardino
MESSAGE:
ORIGINAL WILL FOLLOW BY MAIL: -YES-
NUMBER OF PAGES(including(his slaw): -3-
If you do not fecolve the corroot numbor of pages,
please contain Androe Batunlor at(562)653.3429.
nue 11amw1e we M waned only for on naWnwi or endty mined toow end fey omom prix"and m�*1�nIW Momrdfon Ir
you N n41 the intended ndPWnL or Me amplolee or eooni roep"Ibie ib,deevorinp No neweep0 to"kdtnet rM"K Neu th herogy
nrallw(bel"diWinlnsom d1oftuden or may ft of flab oonMnllniwon is medy p.ONMd.N you ben sc* floe paeetf:npdJyi N
IRV pfeW nedy Ihle deft 6;;-dwy toy rolepnone end retum ne Orglnei trenem"al to us d the above PddAM At Me U.N.otetatl
siQ0 nrdnr"v,
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0089/0104
Ftli—b�—�b11 by�5'r r.7v�
Page 1 of 1
Andree H. Bawler
From: Andree H. Baumler
Sent: Tuesday, November 02, 2010 10:38 AM
To: 'poaattomey@aol.com'
Cc: Irma Rodriguez Moisa; 'living ston li @sbcity.org'
Subject: City of San Bernardino
Attachments: 11-2-10 Glave.pdf
Attached is a letter from Irma Rodriguez Moisa regarding City of San Bernardino and Fire Safety Employees
Bargaining.
Andree Baumler, CCLS
Legal Assistant I Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo
Direct(562)653-3429 t Main(562)653-3200• Fax(562)653-3333
abaumler @aalrr,.com I website I subscribe
boa,Andolton Cardift
� oya,Ruud as Rotuo 12800 Center Core 06yo
auk&$oo
A Profeerlonst Low Carper+tlen QOf1�100 O�l007a9
Ccrfflos,froana#frwfia• Pleasantem i Rtverslde•S,uromento•$on Diego
Tht9 electronic me&eage UYheminion oontaht6 lnfotmallon from the Fft of Atkinson, d Roma which may oe eonfioenllal or prNkpoo The mformaabn
is Intended to be for the ute of tho Inalvlauel or entity nemed above,If you are not the Intandod recipient,be aware that any dtsciosvre,copying or dtetrmition of use of Ina
Contents of this information ie prohtbhe d,If you have received bud eleenronlo transmission In error,piesee noUN ua by leleDhone(562-853-5200)or by electrons mall
Immediately.Thenk you,
11/2/2010
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0090/0104
Fttf-b�-�b11 by 5'f r.�t
EXHIBIT 11
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09; 53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0091/0104
rtlj-I,�-�e1i ey �.r r-.7c
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FRESNO RIV F-RSIOi
1a001 eta-6700 ALTO R N EYS AT LAW roe 11 883-1 1 2e
FAR'15501 faa•a4 0 FAX too 1 I ee3-1 144
12800 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SUITE 300
IRVINE CERRMOS, CALIFORNIA 90703-0354 SACRAMENTO
ZOD
(040)463-4280 (50M)003.3200-(714) 825.5480 (0181929•i-12
FAX 10401 aeJ-4202 FAX(01 C1 o29-1 222
PLEASANTON SAN DIEOO
roast E27.9200 FAX(502)053.3333 lose)486.0520
FAX tDAZI 2x7-0202 WWW,AALRR.COM FA;;0501 4es o4 t x
November 23,2010 oos I t 8700 I s
Iese �ey
VIA EMAIL poaaftorney@aoLcom
FACSIMILE(310)379-0456
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Olave,Esq.
1042 Second Street
Hermosa Beach,CA 90254
Re: City of San Be MRrdino and Fire Safety Employees Bargaining
Dear Mr, Glave:
Enclosed is the City's Last, Best and Final Offer, as requested by the FSE unit at our last session.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Y look forward to our next
meeting on December 15,2010.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD &ROMO
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
HWab
Enclosure
cc: Linn Livingston (via email: Livingston Li @sbcity.org)
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0092/0104
I
CITY LAST, BEST AND FINAL OFFER
Emailed to Corey Glave --November 2 ,2010
1, Salary/Concession: Effective November 1, 2010 through June 30, 2012, all members of
the Fire Safety Group shall have a monthly deduction of$806. Should this proposal not
be implemented by November 1,2010, this deduction will be taken retroactively.
2. PER, Article III—Compensation—Section 2F PERS/Retirement Plan
NEW: All individuals hired on or after January 1, 20 1.1 shall contribute 9%towards the
payment of EPMC. After one year of employment, the City shall pay 1%of the EPMC.
After five years of employment, the City shall pay an.additional 2%of the EPMC. After
ten years of employment, the City shall pay an additional 3%of the EPMC. After 15
years of employment,the City shall pay an additional 3 %of the EPMC.
NEW: Effective January 1, 2011 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current
PERS contract to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3% @ 55 for all employees in
the bargaining group hired on or after January 1, 2011. The City shall conduct a review
of 186 agencies in August 2012 to assess if a majority of them offer 3% at 55 benefits for
new fire fighter employees.
3. Continuation of Certain Provisions of)Expired Side Letter 2009=140
Amend MOU to include articles B, D, F and G of Side Letter 2009-140, with changes, as
follows-..
B. ARTICLE IV, FRINGE BENEFITS: SECTION 1,HEALTHJRELATED
INSURANCE SUBSECTION(C):
"On or before January 1, 2010, the City will establish a medical benefit
cash-out program for employees who opt out of the City's healthcare
platy."
D. ARTICLE IV,FRINGE BENEFITS: SECTION 7, VACATION SELL-
BACK
"Effective November 1, 2010, employees will sell back a minimum of 48
hours of vacation leave on or before June 30, 2011. Beginning July i,
2011, employees will sell back an additional 48 hours of vacation leave
before June 30, 2012, For fiscal year 2010.11, all sell back forms will be
submitted to the Finance Department by May 31, 2011.
A minimum of 24 hours must be requested per sell back and employees
will be allowed to sell back vacation time anytime throughout the fiscal
year; Beginning July 1, 2012, employees may sell back holiday andJor
vacation time up to six shifts of holiday and ten (10) shifts of vacation on
OOS119.00005i16e2829v1 - 1
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0093/0104
Ftlj-b�-�b11 by 5� r.74
I
a fiscal-year basis at anytime throughout the fiscal year as long as a
minimum of 24 hours is requested per sell-back and does not result in a
negative vacation balance."
F. ARTICLE IV,FRINGE BENEFITS:
"SECTION 9, POST EMPLOYMENT HEAL—Di PLAN(PEHP)
PROGRAMS
"The City will establish the following Poste Employment Health Plan
(PEHP) programs:
1. 401(a)Accumulated Benefit Conversion Program
2. Universal Reimbursement Account
3. Insurance Premium Reimbursement Account
G. ARTICLE V, LEAVE PROVISIONS: SECTION 1, SUBSECTION(E)
"Effective June 1, 2009,vacation credits may accumulate an additional
15%as follows:
,Cap with 15%
Current_C_p Increase
240 276
360 414
460 552"
4. Health
Delete Article 1V, Section IA:
A, "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One dependent at'the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental Nigh Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month.
The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees with Employee
Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plats premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month".
Replace with:
"Health: Freeze health contributions at July 1, 2010 levels. Delete Article IV, Section
lA and replace with:
"A. Beginning health plan year 2011, effective January 1, 2011 the City shall
contribute a flat rate of $571.66 for employee only and $992.56 for employee
005119.0000$/1682829v1 ` 2 .
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0094/0104
+l/family per month for each employee to be used to purchase City-sponsored
medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. The City contribution amount will be
based on the employee's medical selection. Any City contribution not utilized by
the employee shall revert to the City."
5, Term of MOU: July 1, 2010 to June 30,2012
6, Sick Leave Language Change:
ARTICLE V --LEAVES -- SECTION 3 -- SICK LEAVE
Revise the sixth paragraph in the section titled"Sick Leave Guidelines"as follows:
Employees hired on or before June 30. 2014, , will
accrue sick leave at the rate of 4.0 hours per semi-monthly pay period for employees
scheduled to work 40 hours per week, or 6.0 hours per semi-monthly pay period for shift
employees, with no limit as to the number of days/shifts that may accrue. Employees
hired after lulu 1. 20 10 shall have a sick leave maximum accumulation_9f_480 hours."
7. Overtime Lan2_uage Chanlze
ARTICLE III--COMPENSATION--SECTION 6 -- OVERTIME
Revise Section B as follows:
B. - Definition: ' Overtime is defined as all hours worked in excess of the
established 7_(k)work period. . All overtime shall
be reported in increments of six (6) minutes and is non-accumulative and non-
payable when incurred in units of less than six (6) minutes. Holiday-leave;siek
Overtime will be paid in
accordance_with FLSA standards."
005119.0000511682829v1 - 3
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0095/0104
Ftli-b�-�b11 by 5� t'.7b
EXHIBIT 12
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0096/0104
FtJ3—b�—�b11 by 5ti r.�r
ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FRFSNO RIVERSIDE
16691225.6700 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (0611004-12e
FAX 16691 826.341 0 FAX(IDS 11 087.1 144
1 2800 CENTER COURT DRIVE, SOME 300
L�YJ CERRITOS, CALIFORNIA 00703-9304 SACFt4Wj4T0
(040)483.4 ZOO (5152) 653-3200-(71 4) 82e-5450 19101 023-1200
FAX 19401453-420? FAX(0 10)023-1 222
PL,EASANTON SAN 01FOO
10251 227-9200 FAX(582) 883-3333 (0501 48 5-96 20
FAX 10231 227.9202 WWW.AALRR,COM FAX 10561 40 5-94 1 B
OUR MILE WMBERt
December 15, 2010 '� O 105 eflz�g
E-MAIL peenttorney@sol.com
VIA FACSIMILE(310)37R-0456&FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Glave, Esq.
Attorney at Law
1042 2nd Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: City of San Bernardino and Fire Safety Employee Vmit
Dear Mr- Glave:
Pursuant to the-City of San Bernardino Employer-Employee Relations Resolution, Section 13, on
behalf of the City, I write to initiate the impasse procedure and request an impasse meeting. If
you are interested in' an impasse meeting, please inform Ms. Livingston by December 23, 2010
of your availability to meet before January, 7, 2011. As I stated at our bargaining session earlier
today,the possibility of settlement by direct discussion has been exhausted.
The disputed issue is the City's proposal asking for labor concessions. As the FSE has stated at
previous meetings—and as reflected in your proposal of earlier today!--the FSE does not accept
that the City needs labor concessions during this unprecedented fiscal situation. The FSE's
proposal today was a gigantic step backwards as it reversed all other previous FSE proposals that
did contain some concessions. Today, the FSE issued a proposal that contained several
significant cost items (retiree health, in particular) and no concessions and thus is a regressive
proposal. Given the proposal, the City is also concerned that the purpose of the proposal today
was simply to delay.
I am enclosing the Last, Best, and Final Offer that was emailed to you on November 20, 2010 as
it is the basis of the impasse.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON,ANDELSON,LOYA, RUUD &ROMO
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
IRMIab
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0097/0104
FEB-C�2-2f�11 l�5�58 r.�o
Atkinson, Andelson,Loya,Ruud&Romo
Corey Glave,Esq.
December 15, 2010
Page 2
Enclosures
cc: Linn Livingston
Charles McNeely
RECEIVED 02-02-`11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0098/0104
CITY LAST, BES1 AND FINAL OFFER
Emailed to Corey Glave --November 23, 2010
1. Salary/Concession: Effective November 1, 2010 through'June 30,2012, all members of
the Fire Safety Group shall have a monthly deduction of$806. Should this proposal not
be implemented by November 1,2010,this deduction will be taken retroactively.
2, PERS: Article III—Compensation—Section 2F PERS/Retirement Plan
NEW: All individuals hired on or after January 1,2011 shall contribute 9%towards the
payment of EPMC, After one year of employment, the City shall pay 1% of the EPMC,
After five years of employment,the City shall pay an additional 2%of the EPMC. After
ten years of employment,the City shall pay an additional 3%of the EPMC. After 15
years of employment, the City shall pay an additional 3 % of the EPMC.
NEW: Effective January 1, 2011 the City of San Bernardino will amend the current
PERS contract to provide a two-tier retirement benefit of 3% @ 55 for all employees in
the bargaining group hired on or after January 1, 2011. The City shall conduct a review
of 186 agencies in August 2012 to assess if a majority of them offer 3% at 55 benefits for
new fire fighter employees.
3. Continuation of Certain Provisions of Elpired Side Letter 2009-140
Amend MOU to include articles B, D,F and G of Side Letter 2009-1.40, with changes, as
follows:
B, ARTICLE IV,FRINGE BENEFITS: SECTION 1, HEALTH/RELATED
INSURANCE SUBSECTION (C):
"On or before January 1,2010,the City will establish a medical benefit
cash-out program for employees who opt out of the City's healthcare
plans."
D. ARTICLE IV, FRINGE BENEFITS: SECTION 7,VACATION SELL-
BACK
"Effective November 1, 2010, employees will sell back a minimum of 48
hours of vacation leave on or before June 30, 2011. Beginning July 1,
2011, employees will sell back an additional 48 hours of vacation leave
before June 30, 2012. For fiscal year 2010-11, all sell back forms will be
submitted to the Finance Department by May 31, 2011.
A minimum of 24 hours must be requested per sell back and employees
will be allowed to sell back vacation time anytime throughout the fiscal
year. Beginning July 1, 2012, employees may sell back holiday and/or
vacation time up to six shifts of holiday and ten(10) shifts of vacation on
005 119.00005/1682829v1 - 1
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0099/0104
Ftli-b�-�b11 by��r3 r.e�r�
a fiscal-year basis at anytime throughout the fiscal year as long as a
minimum of 24 hours is requested per sell-back and does not result in a
negative vacation balance."
F. ARTICLE IV,FRINGE BENEFITS:
"SECTION 9,POST EMPLOYMENT.HEALTH PLAN(PEHP)
PROGRAMS
"The City will establish the following Poste Employment Health Plan
(PEHP) programs:
1. 401(a)Accumulated Benefit Conversion Program
2. Universal Reimbursement Account
3, Insurance Premium Reimbursement Account
G. ARTICLE V, LEAVE PROVISIONS: SECTION 1, SUBSECTION (E)
"Effective June 1,2009,vacation credits may accumulate an additional
15% as follows:
Cap with 15%
C=ent Cap Increase
240 276
360 414
480 552"
4. Health
Delete Article IV, Section 1A:
A. "The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for the Employee Plus
One dependent at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month.
The City shall contribute monies toward health premiums for employees with Employee
Only coverage at the rate equivalent to the total of the Kaiser South premium and the
Delta Dental High Option plan premium or its equivalent, plus an additional
$100/month".
Replace with:
"Health: Freeze health contributions at July 1, 2010 levels. Delete Article IV, Section
IA and replace with:
"A. Beginning health plan year 2011, effective January 1, 2011 the City shall
contribute a flat rate of $571.66 for employee only and $992.56 for employee
005119.00005/1662829v1 2 `
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BERNARDIN P0100/0104
r.r�t
rtt3-YJG-Gbll b7•J7
+1/family per month for each employee to be used to purchase City-sponsored
medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. The City contribution amount will be
based on the employee's medical selection. Any City contribution not utilized by
the employee shall revert to the City."
S. Term of MQU: July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2012
b. Sick Leave Language Change:
ARTICLE V -- LEAVES -- SECTION 3 -- SICK,LEAVE
Revise the sixth paragraph in the section titled"Sick_Leave Guideline "as follows:
Employees hired on or before June 30, 2010, will
accrue sick Jeave at the rate of 4.0 hours per semi-monthly pay period for employees
scheduled to work 40 hours per week, or 6.0 hours'per semi-monthly pay period for shift
employees, with no limit as to the number of days/shifts that may accrue. Employees
hired after July 1, 2010 shall have a sick leave maximum accumulation of 480 hours."
7. Overtime Language Chang
ARTICLE III --COMPENSATION -- SECTION 6-- OVERTIME
Revise Section B as follows:
B. Definition: Overtime is defined as all hours worked in excess of the
established 7_0k_)_work period.yeguluLy seb efkweek. All overtime shall
be reported in increments of six (6) minutes and is non-accumulative and non-
payable when incurred in units of less than six (6) minutes. Heliday-leave,
Overtime will be paid in
accordance with FLSA standards."
005119,00005/1682829v1 ' 3
DECEIVED 02-02-` 11 09;53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S, BEDNADDIN P0101/0104
rCD-YJG-CVJ1l VJ7•�7 r.CIG
EXHIBIT 13
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0102/0104
t-tti—IOG—GU'11 b7•J7 r•�`
ATKINS'ON, ANDEIrSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
FRE-9 O RIVERRIOE
(9501225.4700 ATTORNEYS AT L.AW (0511003.1122
FNS 15691 ZEE-34145 FAX(96 11 053-1 1.64
1 2000 CEWMR COURT ORIVe, SUITE 300
IMYItiC CERRMS, CALIFORNIA 90703-0364 SACB6MENTO
19401 453-4280 (5021 653.3200-(7 141 825.5400 (9 et 023-,200
FNS 1049)463.4209 FAX 10161 023.1ZEE
PLIZASAN70N SAN OIEOO
(9201 tt7.9200 FAX(562) 653-3333 (0601405.90to
PAX(0251 EE7-0202 1MNW.AALRR,COM FAX 15 551 485-0-41 2
' DLAFIL MSCR
January 25, 2011
C75 1 v,0000s
1730362v1
VIA EMAIL poacattorne @=Lcom
FACSIMILE(310) 379-0456
AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Corey Glave,Esq.
1042 Second Street
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Re: City of San Bernardino and San Bernardino City Professional Firefi bters
Association Nezotiations
Dear Mr. Glave:
This letter shall memorialize the status of the City's Last, Best, and Final offer, At the Impasse
Resolution Meeting held on January 24, 2011, the City attempted to review with SBCPFA the
different provisions of its Last, Best, and Final offer in an effort to access whether any of the
particular provisions could be agreed to or if we could resolve the impasse. After discussing the
salary reduction proposal, the SBCPFA indicated that it did not need to discuss the other
provisions as the SBCPFA had already rejected the proposal, in its entirety. The SBCPFA did
not raise any issues it wanted to discuss during this meeting.
During the meeting,I also clarified that the City was withdrawing section 5 of the Last, Best, and
Final offer as the City cannot impose a term of an MOU as part of the,impasse procedure. The
SBCPFA had no comment to this change. Additionally, I clarified that the City's salary proposal
was to be in effect from the date of Imposition--if such action is taken by the Council--to June
30, 2011. 1 explained that the City wanted to ensure that the SBCPFA understood that the City
was open to discussions-about salary and other items prior to its adoption of its FY 11-12 budget
as required by the MMBA. The SBCPFA made no comment about this clarification during our
meeting. The City also remains open to meeting with the SBCPFA should there be "changed
circumstances"that would end our impasse.
Further,the City inquired as to whether the SBCPFA had any input as to whether the retroactive
salary deduction calculations to November 1, 2010 should be taken in the first payroll period that
the provision is implemented --should the Council take action to impose--or if the retroactive
portion should be spread across the pay periods remaining through June 30, 2011. The SBCPFA
response was that it was not agreeable to retroactivity,
RECEIVED 02-02-' 11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0103/0104
1 LL VG GV11 VJ•JJ f •V1
f
Atkinson, Andelson,Loya, Ruud&Romo
Corey Glave,Esq.
January 25,2011
Page 2
Enclosed for ease of reference is the City's Last, Hest, and Final offer with these clarifications.
Sincerely,
ATKINSON,ANDELSON, LOYA,RWD&ROMO
Irma Rodriguez Moisa
cc: Linn Livingston(via email only)
RECEIVED 02-02-'11 09:53 FROM- TO- CITY OF S. BERNARDIN P0104/0104