CMS Report 2

FILED
CHief OF THE CITY CLER':

')f.Ht.ND
01 NOV 29 PH 6: 48
CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA. 6TH FLOOR. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Office of the City Attorney
John A. Russo
City Attorney
Barbara J. Parker
Chief Assistant City Attorney
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Oakland, California
December 4,2001
(510) 238-3601
FAX: (510) 238-6500
TTYITDD: (510) 238-3254
(510)238-3815
Subject: Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding Living Wage and
Labor Standards at Port-Assisted Businesses
Dear President De La Fuente and Members of the Committee:
Introduction
At its December 4, 2001 meeting, the Council will consider the subject proposed
charter amendment. To facilitate that discussion we are furnishing you the language
changes that have been proposed by the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
on behalf of the "Port Living Wage Coalition". Proposed language changes to section 5
of the subject charter amendment, entitled "Preventing Displacement of Workers" are
set forth below..Proposed language changes are in bold face. Proposed language
changes to sections 1 and 2 to clarify who is exempted from the measure's coverage
also are set forth below with changes in bold face.
"5. Preventing Displacement of Workers
(A) Each PAB which is to replace a prior PAB shall offer employment to the Heft-
management and nonsupervisory Service Employees of the prior PAB, if these
Employees worked for the prior PAB for at least 90 calendar days. Such Employees
may be not be terminated by the new PAB during the first 90 work days except for just
cause. The new PAB may operate at lower staffing levels than its predecessor but in
such event, shall place the prior Service Employees on a preferential reinstatement list
based on seniority. For purposes of this Agreement, a PAB "replaces" another if it (1)
assumes all or part of the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior employer or obtains a
new lease, contract, or sublease, and (2) offers employment which Service Employees
of the prior PAB can perform. In the case of a replacement connected to the new PAB
relocating from another location, in staffing decisions the new PAB may recognize
seniority from its prior locations in addition to the seniority of the prior PAB's workforce.
S- '-f r S-4-1
ORA/COUNCIL
DEC 04 2001
Oakland City Council
December 4,2001
Page Two
professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees."
(B)Notwithstanding Section 902(e) or any other provision of the City Charter, except in
an emergency the Port shall not enter into any private contract for regular (non-
temporary) work which is not of a professional, scientific or technical nature and
which was performed by persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for the
same class of work, including such work at new or expanded Port facilities."
"1. Scope and Definitions
The following definitions shall apply throughout this Section:
A. "Port" means the Port of Oakland.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person receiving in
excess of $50,000 worth of financial assistance from the Port, or (2) any Port Contractor
if the person employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12
pay periods the person has not had more than 20 such employees and will not
have more than 20 in the next 12 pay periods. A PAS shall be deemed to employ
more than 20.persons if it is part of an "enterprise" as defined under the Fair
Labor Standards Act employing more than 20 persons... "Port Contractor" means
any person party to a Port Contract as herein defined.
C. "Port Contract" means:
(1) Any service contract with the Port for work to be performed at
the Port under which the Port is expected to pay more than $50,000
over the term of the contract;
(2) Any contract, lease or license from the Port involving payments
to the Port expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of
the contract, lease or license, or (b) during the next 5 years if the
current term is less than 1 year but may be renewed or extended,
either with or without amendment;
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement
or other transfer or assignment of any right, title or interest received
from the Port pursuant to any of the foregoing contracts, leases or
licenses.
A contract, lease or license with the Port or any agreement derived therefrom shall not
be deemed a Port Contract unless entered into after enactment of this Section or
,
City C.Q.uncil I
Item -:::>-'-1, Srtf-f
12-04-0\
01270435
December 4, 2001
Page Three
amended after enactment of tl"lis Section to benefit in any way the party dealing with the
Port.
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAS in Port-related
employment. If the PI\B employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the
prior 12 pay periods the PI\B has not had more than 20 such employees and will not
have more than 20 in the next 12 pay periods. 1\ PAB shall be deemed to employ more
than 20 persons it is part of an "enterprise" as defined under the Fair Labor Standards
Act employing more than 20 persons.
2. Exemptions 'from coverage
In addition to the above exemption for worl<Jorces of fC'tver than 20 workers, tIhe
following persons shall also be exempt from coverage under this Section:
A. An Employee who is (1) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2)
employed by a nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for
a period not longer than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
S. An Employee who spends less than 25 percent of his work time on .
Port-related employment.
C. A person who employs not more than 20 employees per pay period.
Conclusion
None of the proposed languages change our legal conclusion regarding the
legality of the proposed charter amendment, which we restate here.
The proposed charter amendment contains three provisions that raise legal
issues: Living Wage, Worker Retention and Labor Peace (now called "Labor
Standards") .. The Living Wage provision is supported by substantial legal authority and
similar provisions have been adopted in many jurisdictions. Although fewer decisions
have addressed the validity of the second provision, Worker Retention, the authority
that does exist, from the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, provides strong support
for its validity. Little case law exists in regard to the third provision, Labor Peace (now
Labor Standards). Although a federal district court in this Circuit upheld a Labor Peace
(now Labor Standards) provision which is similar in pertinent respects to the Labor
Peace (now Labor Standards) provision in the charter amendment, no appellate court
279352
01270435
City Council I .
Item LLf, S"'Y-J
12-04- f!) I
December 4,2001
Page Four
has issued a decision squarely addressing the validity of such provisions. Therefore,
although it is difficult to predict the outcome of a legal challenge, based on the analysis
provided in this report, we believe the City could present a solid basis for defending the
labor peace provision.
Very truly yours,

City Attorney
Attorney Assigned:
Barbara J. Parker
01270435
City Council I
Item S -L.f, SorLf-r
12-0.f-'01
I
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
CITY OF OAKLAND
AGENDA REPORT
Office ofthe City Manager
Robert C. Bobb
Community & Economic Development Agency
November 29,2001
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT REGARDING
LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED BUSINESSES
SUMMARY
The City Council Rules Committee has asked the Community and Economic Development Agency
to analyze the economic impact of a proposed ballot measure entitled, "Charter Amendment
Regarding Living Wage and Labor Peace at Port Assisted Businesses", should it be adopted. While
there has not been adequate time to complete a thorough economic analysis, we offer the following
report. The proposed ballot measure significantly differs from the Living Wage Ordinances
adopted by the City of Oakland and the Port of Oakland. The City's ordinance applies to businesses
receiving $100,000 or more in financial assistance from the City (city financial aid recipients, or
CFARs) and service contractors receiving $25,000 or more for the furnishing of services to the City.
It does not apply to the purchase of products, equipment, or commodities or to construction
contracts. The Port ordinance is based upon the City's and has nearly identical provisions, with
some minor differences
1
. Neither ordinance applies to tenants of the City or Port of Oakland. City
and Port staff have written reports during the process of adopting the existing living wage
ordinances that indicated that, while there would be some increased costs to the CitylPort and the
affected businesses, the public interest outweighed these impacts. The same cannot be said of the
proposed ballot measure before the City Council.
The ballot measure under consideration would affect a much larger group of businesses and non-
profits in ways that cannot be immediately tabulated. This report attempts to provide a quick
assessment of the potential impacts.
FISCAL IMPACT
While staff has not had adequate time to provide a thorough economic analysis ofthe fiscal impact
of this proposed measure on the City of Oakland, we make the following general observations:
Several of the provisions provide a disincentive for new tenants to locate in Port properties.
To the extent that this results in increased vacancies and businesses locating outside of the
Port and outside of Oakland, this will reduce Port revenues and could impact the City
through reduced sales taxes and business license fees;
The new provisions applying to Port contractors goes far beyond what other cities are doing
and could increase the Port's cost of doing business; and,
1 For example, per the Tidelands Trust, the Port cannot offer a subsidy to a private, for-profit business. Therefore, the
Port ordinance indicates that covered activities include non-profit organizations that receive port assistance, pposed
to referring to for-profit and non-profit organizations. . 11
(: _l I S_LL.\ Item: rr-
o r I " Rule 0 'ttee
ORA.!COUNGI\.iove er 29,2 1
DEC 04 2001
Robert C. Bobb
November 29, 2001 Page 2
Several of the provisions have the potential to impact highly paid professional workers who
typically do not receive protections from public agencies because the charter amendment
requires retention of non-management and non-supervisory employees of a prior employer.
BACKGROUND
Entities, including for profit and non-profit business, must comply with the "Living Wage and
Labor at Peace at the Port" measure if they:
1) Receive more than $50,000 in fmancial assistance from the Port;
2) Receive a contract of more than $50,000 from the Port;
3) Pay the Port in excess of$50,000 for a lease, license, contract (the dollar figure is calculated
over the lifetime ofa lease, license or contract or for the next 5 years ifthe agreement is for
less than one year, but may be renewed); or,
4) Are sub-lessees and/or subcontractors of entities that must comply.
The ballot measure refers to these entities as "Port-Assisted Businesses" (PABs) even though under
number 3, above, the tenants are paying the Port market rate rent.
Exemptions are provided for:
Businesses with fewer than 20 workers;
An employee who is under 20 years of age and employed by a non-profit for less than ninety
(90) days; and/or,
An employee who spends less than 25% of work time on Port-related employment.
The provisions of the ballot measure require that:
1) Living Wage: All applicable PABs must pay the living wage of$10.50 per hour to all their
employees, with a credit of $1.37 per hour for providing health benefits;
2) Worker Retention: If a new PAB replaces a prior contractor, subcontractor or lessee, then
the new PAB must retain the prior contractor's employees for 90 days, unless just cause
exists to discharge them; and,
3) Labor Peace: All hospitality and/or retail food PABs that either pay to or receive from the
Port of Oakland $50,000 during the length of the agreement must "be or become a signatory
to a valid collective bargaining agreement or other contracts under 22 USC section 185(a)
with any labor organization representing or seeking to represent any ofthe PABs employees
on the Port property." The agreement must contain a no-strike pledge for 5 years or for the
length of the Port's interest in the business, whichever is less.
The ballot measure goes on to prohibit contracting out work that Port employees perfonned as of
June 30, 2001, except in an emergency situation. This is more restrictive than the current charter
provision (applying to the City and Port), that allows contracting out so long as the contract is for
professional, scientific or technical work that is temporary in nature and does not result in the loss
of employment or salary of permanent civil service employees.
Robert C. Bobb
November 29,2001 Page 3
For Port contracts and leases, including renewals and/or amendments, the ballot measure would
only apply to agreements entered into after its adoption.
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Although the exact dollar impact cannot be determined at this time, each of the proposed elements
of the ballot measure will likely result in some increased costs to entities with a financial
relationship with the Port of Oakland. In general, businesses and non-profits affected by the
proposed ballot measure can respond in one of four ways:
raise prices - this could involve increased prices to the Port for service contracts, increased
costs for other businesses in the Port area (e.g. airlines) and/or to individual customers. For
non-profits, it would mean increased fund raising and/or grant writing;
lower costs - cost reductions could involve the lowering of personnel costs; including laying
off workers. Employers may also provide fewer and smaller raises to employees, or reduce
overtime opportunities. Businesses could also seek to lower costs by asking the Port to
reduce their rental payments to compensate for the increased costs associated with the ballot
measure;
reduce profit - a business could reduce profits in order to absorb the costs of a living wage
requirement. Some businesses may do this, especially if the added cost is extremely low.
However, small and start-up firms may already have a minimal profit structure that prohibits
absorbing those costs. In many cases, those are the types of finns that Port of Oakland tries
to support through its Non-Discrimination and Small Local Business Utilization Policy; or,
refuse to compete - this could involve refusing to compete for a Port contract or deciding
that being a Port tenant was not viable financially.
Each of the various elements and their potential impacts are described below.
~ Living Wage Salaries
Port Contractors
Given the fact that the existing Port living wage ordinance applies to contractors with contracts in
excess of $25,000, the salary requirement of the ballot measure applying to contractors is .
duplicative of existing law.
Port Tenants
Per the Port of Oakland, the Port currently has over 1,000 lease and other type of agreements with
businesses and individuals. These entities range from American Lung Association of California and
Alaska Airlines to Yoshi's Japanese Restaurant and United Parcel Service. The agreements include
lease agreements, terminal operating agreements, management agreements, and tie down
agreements for private airplanes stored at the airport (see attachment A for a partial listing of Port
Robert C. Bobb
tenants). With few exceptions, rents are as high as the market will bear
l
. Pursuant to the ballot
measure, all tenants will be required to comply with the living wage because they are in a lease
agreement with the Port. Their sub-lessees would similarly be required to comply.
CEDA staff has reviewed a June 6, 2000 analysis of impacts upon Port tenants of living wage salary
positions and how they would address the increased costs. A total of 51 businesses responded to a
survey designed by Port staff which was sent to tenants ofthe Aviation, Maritime, and Commercial
Real Estate divisions of the Port. Collectively, the respondents employed 2,455 workers. The study
found that:
Nearly %of Aviation and Commercial Real Estate respondents would be impacted by the
living wage salary provisions; only one Maritime respondent would be affected;
Nearly 20% of the employees of the respondents would potentially benefit from the salary
provisions; and,
The total annual costs to the affected respondents would be $1,745,600.
To address the increased costs, the businesses indicated they may take a number of actions. The
survey found that:
72% of the businesses would charge customers more;
39% would move away from the Port area or stop doing business with Port tenants;
36% would reduce their number of employees;
32% would reduce other operating costs
29% would absorb the increased costs out of profits; and,
7% would increase revenue by other means
3
.
Another option expressed in the written comments would be to ask for a reduction in the rent paid
to the Port.
A DC Berkeley study prepared at the request of State Senator Don Perata surveyed 168 tenants and
service contractors of the Port ofOakland
4
The report found that:
About 2,600 low-paid workers at the Port ofOakland would directly benefitfrom the
proposed living wage ordinance. They would receive an average pay and benefits
increase of$2.25 per hour, and up to 12 days ofpaid leave per year
5
. In total, these
low wage workers would receive an additional $4. 7 million in wages and $3.3
million in health benefits each year.
2 The City of Oakland and East Bay Regional Parks (EBRP) both benefit from $1 annual rent for the parkland under
their management. If the reduced rent has a value of $50,000 or more over the life of the agreement (or over a 5 year
then the City and EBPR may be subject to the proposed ballot measure.
The total is greater than 100% because respondents were allowed to give multiple answers.
4 The report does not distinguish between contractor and tenant which limits its usage for this report. Is not possible to
determine if contractors, which receive payment from the Port, .view the measure differently than tenants, which make
payments to the Port. The contractors have the capacity to return some of the increased costs directly to the Port by
increasing their contract costs while most tenants do not have this option available to them.
5 Not part of the proposed ballot measure.
Item:

Novem
4-- ,
Robert C. Bobb
In addition, approximately 500 more workers would benefit indirectly because ofa
"wage push" effect. They would receive an average pay increase of$1.16per hour.
The total indirect wage pushfor workers just above and below the living wage level
amounts to a $2.1 million increase each year.
The 3,100 living wage beneficiaries would comprise about 27percent ofall non-
supervisory employees ofPort leaseholders.
6
The study further found that, "the total cost of the living wage policy would be about $13 million
per year". Excluding the cost of the 12 days of paid leave, which is not part of the ballot measure
(total cost of$2 million), the cost of the salary component ofthe ballot measure would be $11
million per year. Cost increases would occur primarily at the airport and with the commercial real
estate tenants due to the fact that nearly all maritime salaries already exceed the living wage. It
concludes that, "these costs will be absorbed easily by Port leaseholders, visitors to the waterfront,
and passengers at the Oakland airport. Business will not be driven away and Port revenues will not
go down. Bond ratings for the Port should remain unaffected,,7. .
The conclusion is based upon the finding that the provisions would increase leaseholder's aggregate
wage bill by 4.4 percent, which is 1.1 percent of gross revenue. However, given that not all
leaseholders will be affected, an aggregate assessment of this type minimizes the impact on any
individual business. When considering specific employment sectors, the report found that airport
security, airport curbside assistance, and entertainment and personal services would experience
costs increases greater than 10 percent of their gross revenues. "Restaurants, hotels, warehousing,
retail stores, car rental agencies, and parking lots would all experience smaller, but significant,
increases in costs".
8
.
In considering the impacts to the Port's commercial real estate revenues, the report found that about
a dozen firms would experience impacts in excess of 10 percent of their business costs. At least
three of these are national businesses, Best Western, Motel 6 and the Old Spaghetti Factory. The
report was confident that the increased costs could be absorbed by these businesses, however, the
businesses themselves are not quoted.
Businesses Contracting with the Port
Pursuant to the proposed ballot measure, businesses that contracted with the Port for services in
excess of $50,000 per year would be required to comply with the salary provisions. When
questioned about what services the Port provides for a fee other than being a landlord, Port staff
were unable to identify any services other than the provision of electricity to some of their tenants.
Although implementing an expanded living wage salary provision involving all Port tenants would
have clear positive impacts upon workers earning less than the living wage, it could negatively
impact existing businesses during the current economic downturn. Those tenant industries that
would be most impacted by the living wage salary provision are those that are also feeling some of
6 Zabin, Carol, Michael Reich, Peter Hall, Living Wages at the Port of Oakland, Institute of Industrial Relations, U.C.
Berkeley, CA, December 1999, page 2.
7 Ibid., p. 4.
8 Ibid, p. 20.
Robert C. Bobb
the most severe negative impacts ofthe current economic downturn, i.e., the hospitality, aviation,
and entertainment industries. Many ofthese are already engaged in worker layoffs; the increased
salary costs could result in further layoffs.
Afurther point ofconcern is that the ballot measure specifically states that tips or gratuities are not
to be considered when determining ifan employee is paid below the living wage. As a result,
individuals whose actual income is greater than the living wage, will receive an hourly increase in
pay rate. Should tips be included as wages, this could reduce some ofthe costs to the impacted
businesses.
~ Worker Retention
As presently written, the worker retention provision will apply to all PABs, including Port
contractors, tenants, and businesses contracting with the Port for Port services. It mandates that a
new Port contractor, tenant, or business contracting with the Port hire the employees of its
predecessor for a 90 day period. Termination during this time can only occur for just cause.
The District of Columbia and the City of Philadelphia have worker retention provisions that apply
throughout those cities. However, upon review of the ordinances, it was discovered that they only
apply to contracts relating to specific types of industries that typically employ low wage workers
while the Port of Oakland ballot measure would apply to all industries and all incomes, so long as
the position was non-management and non-supervisory.
The Philadelphia ordinance only relates to contracts for security, janitorial, building maintenance,
food and beverage, hotel service, or health care services, including any subcontracts for these
services (Section 9-2302 ofthe Philadelphia Code of Ordinance and Home Rule Charter).
Likewise, the Washington D.C. ordinance applies to contracts involving: (1) food service workers
in a hotel, restaurant, cafeteria, apartment building, hospital, nursing care facility, or similar
establishment; (2) employees hired by a contractor to performjanitorial or building maintenance
services in an office building, institution, or similar establishment; (3) nonprofessional employees
hired by a contractor to perform health care or related support services in a hospital, nursing care
facility, or similar establishment (Section 32-101 ofTitle 32, Chapter 1, Displaced Worker
Protection). The ordinances require that when a new contractor in the above-listed industries takes
the place of another, the new contractor must offer employment to the predecessor's employees. If
fewer positions are required than before, the positions must be filled based upon seniority.
The proposed ballot measure, as written, would apply to all types of contracts with the Port of
Oakland, including contracts involving highly salaried professional positions, so long as they are
not managers or supervisors. Consider a scenario in which the Port decides to no longer contract
with "AB Architects" to design the airport roadway street improvements and instead wishes to work
with "CD Architects". Under the ballot measure, "CD Architects" would be required to hire the
other firm's non-management and non-supervisory staff for 90 days, even though they may have a
full contingent of staff in their offices.
The proposed measure, as written, would also apply to businesses leasing space from the Port. As
part of entering into a lease agreement, new tenants will be required to hire the prior tenant's staff if
the new business has jobs the prior tenant's employees can perform. It is highly unlikely that
Item: - f
Rules C ittee
Novem r 29, 001
Robert C. Bobb
prospective tenants will find it acceptable to be forced to hire the previous employer's staff as part
of entering into a lease agreement. The ballot measure does allow the businesses to acknowledge
seniority, but the requirement will place the businesses in a situation where if they wish to maintain
their existing staff and comply with the measure they may be forced to pay increased labor costs for
a 90 day period. For new businesses that may be operating on a small budget with a limited time
period to make a profit, the worker retention provision could preclude them from locating in the
Port area.
Furthermore, the measure is silent on the issue of who will determine whether the prior PABs
employees can do the work ofthe new PAB. Both the Washington, D.C. and the Philadelphia
ordinances require that employees are informed oftheir right to file a wrongful discharge suit if
they believe the new employer did not follow the ordinance provisions. Applied as proposed in
Oakland, this will expose prospective tenants to wrongful discharge litigation, a further disincentive
to locating in the Port. On the other hand, if an administrative appeal procedure were created, this
would likely create an increased cost burden to the Port and may result in appeals extending for
lengthy periods of time.
While data does not exist regarding the specific impact ofthis provision, it will likely provide a
severe disincentive to businesses currently doing business or considering doing business with the
Port ofOakland. For tenants, this provision may encourage them to lookfor rental locations that
do not involve the Port ofOakland. They could remain in Oakland, but they may also be
encouraged to consider locations in other parts ofthe Bay Area. For contractors, the provisions
may prevent themfrom working with the Port in the future, even ifthey are qualified to perform the
service. Lastly, the ballot measure, does not compare to the Philadelphia and Washington D.C.
models as it significantly expands the number and type ofbusinesses affected by the worker
retention provision. Even ifit did emulate the other cities, adoption ofsuch a measure during this
time ofeconomic uncertainty could result in a negative impact on the Port, its tenants and
contractors that would outweigh the benefits to the workers.
>- Labor Peace
The Labor Peace provisions will require that all hospitality and retail food industries enter into
collective bargaining agreements or other contracts with each labor organization representing or
seeking to represent the employees. The labor provisions must have no-strike agreements for 5
years or for however long the entity has a fmancial relationship with the Port.
According to the East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy (EBASE), several hotels already
have collective bargaining agreements or neutrality agreements indicating that they take no steps to
oppose unionization of their workforce. The Oakland Airport Hilton, for example, is unionized,
while neutrality agreements exist for Homewood Suites and Simeon development at 1-880 and
Hegenberger Road.
The Port has experience requiring collective bargaining agreements for maritime and aviation
construction projects. Their current contracts require that if a selected construction contractor is
not unionized, the contractor needs to pay union wages and pay into the union pension fund. The
contracts also include no strike provisions.
, 1+- ,
Rule mittee
Novem er 2 ,2001
Robert C. Bobb
Insufficient data exists to determine the potential impacts ofthis provision upon the hospitality or
food industries.
);> No Contracting Out
The contracting out provision proposed in the ballot measure is significantly stronger than the
existing charter provisions the City and Port share. At present, both agencies are precluded from
contracting for a service if it would result in loss of employment or salary of permanent civil service
employees. The proposed language prevents contracting for a class of work currently performed by
Port staff whether or not existing positions would not be impacted by the proposed contract.
Implementation of this provision would prevent the Port from contracting out design work related to
temporary construction projects leading them to significantly increase staff for a limited duration
project.
For example, the Port currently has one licensed structural engineer on staff. As part of the $1.4
billion airport expansion, the Port estimates that approximately 20 structural engineers will need to
be involved in the design and construction of the airport terminal complex alone. This work will
last only a limited number of years and the end result would likely be employee layoffs. In contrast,
any private engineering firm that receives the contract would continue to secure additional contracts
that would allow it to maintain the existing workforce. Under the airport expansion project, the Port
anticipates entering into up to 5,000 contractual agreements for design, construction, security, etc.
The Port also relies on several specialized outside counsel for lawsuits, such as the recent airport
litigation and when issuing bonds, which does not occur with great frequency.
One can surmise that this provision will dramatically increase the operating costs for the Port, as
they will be required to hire additional staffevenfor limited duration projects. The current charter
provision is sufficient to prevent contractingfrom adversely impacting the existing workforce.
);> Potential Economic Impacts
The proposed ballot measure equally applies its provisions to Port contractors and Port tenants even
though each has a significantly different financial relationship with the Port. The provisions may be
particularly problematic for tenants who lli!Y the Port for the opportunity to locate their business on
Port property, as opposed to contractors who receive financial benefit fromtheir relationship with
the Port.
Pursuant to the proposed ballot measure, businesses and non-profits seeking to lease a space in
which to operate would be forced to pay a minimum salary to their workers, potentially hire the
employee of the previous tenant and/or be subject to wrongful discharge litigation, and allow
collective bargaining among its workforce if it is a hospitality or food service business. Evidence
does not suggest that in the increasingly competitive Bay Area commercial rental market, the
desirability of Port property is so high that businesses will be willing to accept the resulting
increased costs and administrative requirements. Instead, there is potential that businesses will
locate elsewhere. Should this occur, it will have a negative impact upon Port revenues and may
impact the City of Oakland through reduced sales taxes and business tax fees.
Robert C. Bobb
Under the proposed ballot measure, contractors would be subject to two new provisions, the worker
retention and the labor peace provisions. While it is not unusual to place expectations upon
contractors receiving financial benefit from a public agency, as opposed to tenants paying for a
lease, the worker retention provision proposed in Oakland goes far beyond what has been
implemented in other cities and could significantly increase the Port's cost of doing business. In
addition, the provision is not limited to historically low wage industries, as is done in Philadelphia
and Washington, D.C. This could result in considerable benefit to highly paid professionals who
typically do not need government protection.
To the extent that businesses vacate the Port rental spaces and are not replaced or that the Port is
forced to reduce rental rates, Port and City revenues could be impacted. The Port will experience a
loss in rental income, while the City could experience a loss of sales tax and/or business license tax
revenue if the businesses leave Oakland. If customers refuse to accept the increased costs, the
businesses may ultimately fold.
Further loss of rent will occur due to the way some of the leases are structured. Some of the Port
leases are for a percentage of gross profit above the break-even point. If costs increase for these
businesses, it will result in reduced rental payments to the Port.
On the other hand, little or no impact to City revenues could occur ifthe displaced Port tenants
instead lease in other parts of Oakland. However, given the current economic market and the fact
that the Port offers a unique leasing product in Jack London Square and at the airport, that may not
be likely for many of the displaced tenants.
~ Ballot Language
Before the proposed measure is forwarded to the Oakland voters, the synopsis included in the draft
resolution needs to be changed so that it is more reflective ofthe proposed measure provisions. The
existing language shown does not refer to the fact that tenants would need to comply with the
provisions, does not accurately describe the no contracting out provisions, and is inaccurate in its
description ofthe labor peace provisions, i.e., it makes no mention ofthe fact that hospitality and
food businesses will be required to enter into collective bargaining agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES
The proposed measures are designed to improve economic sustainability by increasing the income
of low wage earners. However, they have additional impacts that could result in employee layoffs
and other cost cutting measures. Further analysis is needed to evaluate the environmental and
sustainable opportunities.
DISABILITY AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACCESS
The proposed measure will not affect disability and senior citizen access.
I t e m : ~ - '
Rules 0 ittee
Novemb r 29,2001
Robert C. Bobb
November 29,2001
RECOMMENDATION(S) AND RATIONALE
Page 10
The proposed ballot measure includes several potentially significant changes to the contracting and
leasing environment within the Port of Oakland. The full impacts ofthese changes are not known at
this time. Staff recommends that City Council accept this informational report.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that City Council accept this informational report.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Executi ve Director
Prepared by:
Monica R. Lamboy, Chief Administrative Officer
APPROVED AND FORWARDED TO THE
RULES COMMITTEE
_ ~ O f>r,Q6- ~
OFFICE OF THE CITY M A N A G ~ r
S-Lf,
S-L/- . I
OPAiCOur\,CIL
DEC 0 4 2001
Port of OaklandTenants (partial listing)
ttee
November 29,2001
ATIACHMENTA
AFI Marketing (Mingles) 370 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94607
Alameda City of Bureau of Electricity Underground below estuary
American Lung Association of California 424 Pendleton Way Oakland, CA 94621
Artship Foundation Adjacent to Ninth Avenue Terminal
Athens Baking Company, LLC Vacant land on Embarcadero near Diesel St.
Bank of America (ATM) Washington Street Garage
Barnes and Noble Bookstore 98 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607
Barnes and Noble Coffee Shop 98 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607
Bay Area Rapid Transit Open area south side of 7th Street
Beverages and More! 525 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94607
Blickman Turkus DBA BT Commercial Real Estate 530 Water Street #750 Oakland, CA 94607
Butterflies and Critters 423 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Buttner, Edgar L. Trustee 7717 Oakport Land at 7717 Oakport
Buttner, Edgar L. Trustee 7719/21/23 Oakport 7719/21/230akport
Buttner, Edgar L. Trustee 7729 Oakport 7729 Oakport
California Alliance for Jobs 70 Washington Street #425 Oakland, CA 94607
California Canoe & Kayak, Inc. 409 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
California Canoe & Kayak, Inc. 415 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
California Canoe & Kayak, Inc., Storage 409 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Cavin, Lyle C., Jr. Law Offices 70 Washington Street #325 Oakland, CA 94607
City of Oakland Estuary Park
City of Oakland DBA Police Training Center 70 Washington Street #210 Oakland, CA 94607
City of Oakland, A Municipal Corp. DBA Port of Oakland 530 Water Street 1st - 6th Floors
Concept Marine Associates, Inc. Port Building J-120, 2nd Floor, 1853 Embarcadero
Cost Plus Parking Lot 2nd & Embarcadero
Creamer, J. Fletcher & Son, Inc. Land at 2121 Diesel Street
D. Philbrick (philbrick Boat Works) 603 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Dealey, Renton & Associates 66 Jack London Square, #210 Oakland, CA 94607
Dockside Boat and Bed Potomac Yard Oakland, CA 94607
Dockside Boat and Bed-Boat Concession Agreement Various vessels in the Jack London Marianas
Dow-Pac Properties 100 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
East Bay Regional Park District-Easement
East Bay Regional Park District-Park Area
EBMUD-Estuary Park Estuary Park Easements
EBMUD-Roadway Easement near 5th Avenue San Antonio Creek near 5th Avenue Oakland
EBMUD-San Antonio Wet Weather Facility
Creek Plant
EBMUD-Wet Weather Dechlor Easement
Edgewater Associates 8407 Edgewater Drive Oakland, CA 94621
EI Torito Restaurants, Inc. 67 Jack London Square Oakland, CA 94607
Embarcadero Business Park, LLC 1900 Embarcadero-Cove
Ericksen, Arbuthnot, Kilduff, Day & Lindstrom, Inc. 530 Water Street #720 Oakland, CA 94607
Executive Inn 1755 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94607
Forman, William & Shannon (Courtyard on the Cove) 1940-1946 Embarcadero
Fraser Mechanical Dennison and Embarcadero
G.K.W., Inc. One Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606
G.K.W., Inc. One Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606
~ I
Item ber
R U ~ s C mi
ee
01
G.K.W., Inc. Berth One Embarcadero Cove Oakland, CA 94606
Golden State Diesel Marine 351 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Hahn's Hibachi 66 Jack London Square Oakland, CA 94607
Heinolds 90 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607
Hilken-Hansen Enterprises 295 Hegenberger Road Oakland, CA 94612
II Pescatore Ristorante 75 Jack London Square Oakland, CA 94607
ILWU Local 91 1851 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Intigre Marine, Ltd. 1155 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Intigre Marine, Ltd. 1155 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
J.W. Silviera Company One Fifth Avenue Oakland, CA 94606
Jal Vue Window 295 6th Avenue Oakland, CA
John Baker,DBA Oakland Marine Service Water/Land @ foot of 5th Avenue Oakland, CA
Joyce S. Hooks DBA Time Out for Fun and Games 435 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Kaiser Sand and Gravel 5th and Embarcadero
Karibu Ethnic Gifts and Accessories 425 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
KTVU, Inc. 296 5th Avenue Oakland, CA 94606
Lad Food Services 66 Jack London Square, #200 Oakland, CA 94607
Lakeside Metals 455 Ninth Street Oakland, CA 94606
Lee, Laura DBA Oyster Reef 1000 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Ma. Teresita E. Banguis DBA ORCS Mgmt. Systems 70 Washington Street #215 Oakland, CA 94607
Main Street California Inc. DBA TGI Friday's Water Street II 450 Water Street
Marine Max Bldgs. P-I04,P-1l3,P-1l4,P-108,P-106, + water/vacant land
Motel 6 (Formerly Apple Inn Motel) 1801 Embarcadero Oakland, CA
Murasaki Jack London Square 419 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Murphy, Kerry J. 7727 Oakport Oakland, CA
Narin, Norman et al 105 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
INational Furiture Liquidators, Inc. 845 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
National Railroad passenger Corp.-Amtrak 530 Water Street 5th Floor Oakland, CA 94607
New York Life Insurance Company 70 Washington Street #200 Oakland, CA 94607
Northern California marine Assn-Boat Show Center Basin Marina JLS
Northern California Marine Association-Fuel Dock 2 Webster Street Oakland, CA 94607
Oakland Airport Hilton One Hegenberger Road Oakland, CA 94614
Oakland Hospitality LLC Homewood Suites Hotel 714 Franklin Street
Oakland International Trade & Visitors Center 530 Water Street #740 Oakland, CA 94607
Oakland Telecard, LLC Ports Bldgs. FIll & F601
Oakland, City of -City Service Center 7101 Edgewater Drive Oakland, CA
Oakland, City of -Fire Station and Fire Boat #2 Building E-503
Oakland, City of-San Antonio Sewer pipeline Ease Easement near San Antoino Creek
OFD Historical Society 2400 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Orient Reefer Container Services Vacant land, foot of 5th Avenue
OSF International, Inc. Old Spaghetti Factory 61 Webster Street Oakland, Ca 94607
Out and About 476 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Pacific Bell Mobile Services Pacific Bell Mobile Services
Pacific Coast Container 70 Washingto Street #450 Oakland, CA 94607
Park Tilden Corporation 2400 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
Patelco Credit Union Pavillion Kiosk 1 98 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607
Peninsula Holdings, Inc. DBA Tony Roma's 55 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
Port of Oakland Commercial Real Estate 70 Washington Street #205 Oakland, CA 94607
Port of Oakland Crane Division 70 Washington Street #495 Oakland, CA 94607
Port of Oakland-Equal Opportunity 70 Washington Street #205 Oakland, CA 94607
Praxair Distribution 901 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
~
es mitt
ATIACHMENT A
vember2 20
Restaurants Unlimited Kincaids 1 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607
Samuel Fredericks DBA Samuel's Gallery 70 Franklin Street Oakland, CA 94607
Score Holdings, Inc. DBA Score! 66 Jack London Square 3rd Floor Oakland, CA
Scotland Gifts Dot Com LLC 472 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Scott's Jack London Square 2 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607
Scott's Jack London Square-Banquet Facility 2 Broadway Oakland, CA 94607
Seabreeze Cafe 280 6th Avenue Oakland, CA 94606
Ship Shape Marine 280 6th Avenue Oakland, CA 94606
Sonni of California Inc. DBA Hat Generation 431 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Telemedia Communication Systems, Inc. 351 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94606
The Assoc. For the Preservation of the Potomac 540 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Thunderbird Properties 296 6th Avenue Oakland, CA
Two Dog Net, Inc. 70 Washington Street #310 Oakland, CA
United Parcel Service, Inc. 8400 Pardee Street Oakland, CA
Uno's Jack London Square 70 Washington/499 Embarcadero West
VanMatre Lumber Company 251 5th Avenue Oakland, CA 94606
Waterfront Plaza Hotel-West Basin Parking 10 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
Waterfront Plaza Hotel-Jack Bistro 10 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
Waterfront Plaza Hotel 10 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
Waterfront Plaza Hotel-Banquet and Meeting Rooms Water Street II 473 Water Street Oakland, CA 94607
Waterfront Plaza Hotel-Expansion 10 Washington Street Oakland, CA 94607
Waterfront Plaza Hotel-Gift Ship Water Street ill # 493
Waterfront Valet Parking Service Parking Lot, Broadway
Wells Farge ATM 70 WashingtonIWashington Street II Oakland, CA
Wulfing, Elam & Associates Service Station-Business Park, 451 Hegenberger Rd
Yoshi's Japanese Restaurant, Inc. 510 Embarcadero Oakland, CA 94607
ATTACHMENT A
ttee
001
-I
~ ~
."-'.
AP Enterprises P.O. Box 281943 San Francisco, CA 94128
Aero Nova, Inc. 905 E. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive #270
A2Z Aircraft Services P.O. Box 250368 San Francisco, CA 94028
Air Terminal Services, Inc. (ATS) #1 Airport Drive, Box 42 Oakland, CA 94621
Airborne Freight Corporation 7683 Earhart Road, Hangar 9 Oakland, CA
Airport Tenninal Service, Inc. 500 Northwest Plaza, Suite 1100 Saint Louis, MO
Airwell, Inc. 8300 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Alaska Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 24 Oakland, CA 94621
Allegro Air 2787 Sussex Way Redwood City, CA 94061
Aloha Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 32 Oakland, CA 94621
American West #1 Airport Drive, Box 26 Oakland, CA 94621
American Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 14 Oakland, CA 94621
American Building Service P.O. Box 32 San Leandro, CA 94577
Ameriflight 9717 Earhart Road, Hangar 2 Oakland, CA 94621
A.O.G. Services P.O. Box 57041 Hayward, CA 94545
Argenbright Security, Inc. 1860 EI Camino Real, #300 Burlingame, CA 94010
Artisan Manufacturing Company P.O. Box 2653 Bldg. L-553 Oakland, CA 94614
Astro-Aire Enterprises P.O. Box 2335 Bldg. L-820 Oakland, CA 94614
Avis Rent A Car Systems, Inc. P.O. Box 2521 Oakland, CA 94614
Bank of America P.O. Box 4127 Bldg. L-810 Oakland, CA 94614
l
Bayair, Inc. 7951 Earhart Road Bldg. L-810/L-71OILand
I
Bay Avionics P.O. Box 6636, Airport Station Oakland, CA 94603
Budget Rent A Car Systems, Inc. #1 Airport Drive Oakland, CA 94621
Cal-Air Aviation Service P.O. Box 281103 San Francisco, CA 94128
Chevron Real Estate Mgmt. Co. 7799 Earhart Road Bldg. L-8811 (Hgr. 10)
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. P.O. Box 6565 Bldg. L-503 Oakland, CA 94621
Civil Air Patrol P. O. Box 1596 Bldg. L-631 San Leandro, CA 94577
Continental Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 26 Oakland, CA 94621
Delta Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 38 Oakland, CA 94621
Dollar Rent A Car System, Inc. P.O. Box 2642 Oakland, CA 94614
Enterprise Rent A Car Company of S. F. 192-98th Avenuen Oakland, CA 94603
Federal Express Corporation #1 Sally Ride Way Oakland, CA 94621
Hallmark Aviation Service 5757 W. Century Blulevard, # 860 L. A. CA 90045
Hilltop Aviation Service 9351 Earhart Road, # 113 Oakland, CA 94621
Huntleigh USA Corporation 10332 Old Olive Street Road St. Louis MO 63141
JetBlue Airways Corporation #1 Airport Drive, Box 9 Oakland, CA 94621
Kaiser, Inc. P.O. Box 2626 Bldg. L-310 Oakland, CA 94614
Link Services P.O. Box 6605 L-710 Oakland, CA 94621
LSG/SKYCHEFS P. O. Box 14088 Oakland, CA 94614
Mexicana Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 27 Oakland, CA 94621
Mosher Management 8517 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Mosher Management 605 Chenery Street #B San Francisco 94131
National Car Rental System, Inc. #1 Airport Drive, Box 36 Oakland, CA 94621
Next Century 123 Second Street L-820 Sausalito, CA 94965
Night Hawk, Inc. 1070 Beachy Street L-629 Oakland, CA 94621
North Field Aviation P.O. Box 6087 L-908 Oakland, CA 94603
Oakland Flyers P.O. Box 6033 Oakland, CA 94603
$f5
Ite mber
les mi
ATTACHMENT A
N ember 2 ,2
Ogden Aviation Services #1 Airport Drive, Box 33 Oakland, CA 94621
One Source Building Services, Inc. 1735 E. Wilshire Avenue Santa Ana, CA 92705
Pacific Gas & Electric P.O. Box 2641 L-81O Oakland, CA 94614
Pegasus Aviation 8991 Earhart Road L-31O Oakland, CA 94621
Rainin Instrument 7951 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Rolls-Royce P.O. Box 6069 Oakland, CA 94603
Runex Enterprises 5061 Toyon Way Antioch, CA 94509
Safeway, Inc. 7843 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, Inc. P. O. Box 2429 Oakland, CA 94614
SkyWest Airlens, c/o Delta Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 38 Oakland, CA 94621
Southwest Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 25 Oakland, CA 94621
Space Air Supply, Inc. 9260 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Swissport Fueling P.O. Box 6366 Oakland,CA 94614
Tag Aviation USA 7951 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
The Hertz Corporation #1 Airport Drive, Box 40 Oakland, CA 94621
Thrifty Car Rental 70 Hegenberger Loop Oakland, CA 94621
Today's Aircraft 7683 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
Today's Aircraft Maintenance Contracting Org. P.O. Box 2237 Vacaville, CA 95696
Trans-Box Systems P.O. Box 6278 Oakland, CA 94603
Trans-Pacific Aviation Services P. O. Box 282656 San Francisco 94128
United Airlines #1 Airport Drive, Box 2 Oakland, CA 94621
United Airlines OAKFL 1100 Airport Drive Oakland, CA 94621
United Parcel Service, Inc. 8400 Pardee Drive Oakland, CA 94621
United States Postal Service 7201 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
USS/FAAIDOT 8250 Earhart Road Oakland, CA 94621
USS/FAAIDOT 1027 Grumman Street Oakland, CA 94621
USS/FAAIDOT 1029 Grumman Street Oakland, CA 94621
USS/FAAIDOT 8517 Earhart Road #100 Oakland, CA 94621
Western Aerospace Museum P. O. Box 14264 Airport Station
Worldwide Flight Services #1 Airport Drive, Box 5 Oakland, CA 94621
ATTACHMENT A
CHART - EXHIBIT C
Proposed Port Living Wage Oakland Living Wage
and Labor Peace Charter Ordinance, O.M.C. Chapter
Amendment 2.28
Service Contracts Service Contracts
Applies to all contracts for Applies to all contracts for
services over $50,000 services over $25,000
Sees. 2.28.010, 2.28.020
Service contract threshold Service contract threshold
$50,000 $25,000
Sees. 2.28.020
No explicit provision Wages and other benefits
regarding duration of requirements last for
requirement to pay living duration of service contract
wages. See. 2.28.040(B)
Applies to all employees of Applies to employees of
PABs with > 20 employees/pay contractors or
period who spend 25% or more subcontractors who actually
time on Port-related perform work for the City
emploYment, unless PAB has See. 2.28.020(2) (1)
not employed > 20 employees
for prior 12 pay periods,
and will not employ that
number for future 12 pay
periods.
Applies automatically to an
"Enterprise" as defined
under FLSA
Applies to contracts and Applies to contracts and
amendments executed after amendments executed after
effective date of Charter effective date of ordinance.
Provision.
Port Assisted Business City Financial Assistance
("PAB") Recipient ("CFAR")
Applies to Port Agreements Applies to City and
and sub-agreements involving Redevelopment Agency
1
R ~
Ite H,H,f
11-2 - 1
01
real property interests when
certain threshold is met
Applies to Port leases and
licenses
Threshold $50,000*
*No time limit on
calculating receipt of
threshold amount
No definition or description
of events that trigger
threshold
Applies to all employees of
PABs with> 20 employees/pay
period who spend 25% or more
time on Port-related
employment, unless PAB has
not employed > 20 employees
and will not employ that
number for future 12 pay
periods.
Applies automatically to an
"Enterprise" as defined
under FLSA
Applies to employees of PABs
that spend 75% or more of
their time on "Port-related
employment"
No such limit on PABs.
No duration of requirement
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
development projects when
receiving "financial
assistance" from the
City/Agency
Secs. 2.28.010 & 2.28.020
Does not apply to Ci ty
leases and licenses
Financial assistance
threshold is $100,000 during
12 month period
Sec. 2.28.020
Detailed description of
circumstances or situations
considered "financial
assistance"
Sec. 2.28.020(1)
Applies to CFAR tenants and
leaseholders with at least
20 employees for each
working day in 20 calendar
weeks during 12 months after
occupation or use of
property
Sec. 2.28.020(2)
Applies to employees of
CFARs that spend 50% or more
of their time on funded
program/activity or property
Sec. 2. 28 . 020 (2) (2)
Applies to employees of
service contractors (greater
than $25(000) of CFARs that
spend 50% or more of their
time on funded
program/activity or property
Sec. 2.28.020 (2) (3)
Duration of requirement for
-2-
1<
u s
It Ha H#J
11- 9-0
life of assistance contraqt
-
Or, 5 years in cases of
assistance for real or
tangible property purchase
or for construction
Sec. 2.28.040(A)
Applies to contracts, Applies to contracts and
leases, licenses and amendments executed after
amendments executed after effective date of Charter
effective date of Charter Provision.
Provision.
No requirement Service & CFAR Subcontractor
Duty
N/A Duty to pay living wage
extends to employees of
Subcontractors of Service
Contractors & certain CFAR
Tenants/Leaseholders
Sec. 2.28.110 (B) I (C) I (D) &
(E)
No Requirement RFP, Contract & Declaration
Sec. 2.28.100
N/a Requires City and Agency to
include specific language in
contracts and RFPs to put
contractors and CFARs on
notice
Sec. 2.28.100
N/a Requires contractor to sign
declaration of intent to pay
prevailing wage
Sec. 2.28.110(A)
wages/Benefits Wages/Benefits
Wage/health benefit Wage/health and other
requirement not limited to benefits limited to
employees performing work employees performing work
under Port contract under City Contract.
Sets apparent "credit"* up Provides initial
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
-3-
to $1.37/hour for wages
w/out h.b.
*"Credit" is not defined as
part of "wages"
Not provided
Not provided
No post-execution
requirement
Displacment of Workers
Requires PAB that replaces a
PAB to offer jobs to prior,
non-management, non-
supervisory workforce, for
at least 90 days (if workers
worked for prior PAB for 90
days or more) ;
Termination for just cause
during first 90 days;
Replacement PAB must
maintain seniority list* and
reinstate prior PAB's
employees.
Defines what constitutes
replacement
*Unclear whether list must
be maintained for first 90
days or some longer period.
Contracting Out
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
differential between wages
w/h.b. and wages w/out h.b.
of $1.25/hour
Sec. 2.28.030 (A)
Provides 12 compensated days
off per year
Sec. 2.28.030(B} (1)
Provides 10 uncompensated
days off per year for
employee or family member
sick leave
Sec. 2.28.030(B} (2)
Evidence of health insurance
due 30 days post-execution
of contract
Sec. 2.28.030(C}
DISPLACEMENT OF WORKERS
No requirement
Contracting Out
-4-
~
e s
It m H, I-J.-. I
11- 9-
Prohibits contracting out of
work if Port employees
performed work as of
6/30/2001, except if
emergency
Labor Peace Provisions
Requires that Port Contracts
in which Port has
proprietary interest* and
which are involved in
hospitality or retail food
industry sign labor
agreements that include no-
strike clauses.
**Proprietary interest is
defined in section 6(B).
Provides relief from
requirement if 3
rd
party
neutral makes certain
findings
Waiver by Labor Agreement
Waiver prohibited except
that employees may waive
provisions other than labor
peace (section 6) in a valid
collective bargaining
agreement.
Exemptions
Exempts PABs that have not
employed > than 20 people
and will not employ> 20
persons for future 12 pay
periods
Youth employees under 21 -
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
No such requirement - City
is subject to current
Charter 902(e) which
allows contracting out if no
loss of employment or salary
to pennanent employees.
Labor Peace Provisions
No requirement
Waiver by Labor Agreement
Living Wage ord. may be
explicitly, clearly and
unambiguously waived by
employees in collective
bargaining agreement
Sec. 2.28.160
Exemptions
Sec. 2.28.090
Employers with fewer than 5
employees
Sec. 2.28.090(A)
Trainees in a City-approved
job training program - for
training period
Sec. 2.28.090(B)
Youth employees under 21 -
-5-
~
u 5
It ) 1-1-1
11- !1-0
after school, summer work,
less than 90 days employed
PAB employees who spend less
than 25% time on "Port
related employment"
No right of Port to waive
N/A
N/A
Enforcement
City Manager may promulgate
implementation rules &
regulations
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
after school, summer work;
less than 90 days employed
Sec. 2.28.090(C)
CFAR employees who spend
less than 50% time on City
funded program/activity or
property
Employees of service
contradtors (greater than
$25,000) of CFARs that spend
less than 50% of their time
on funded program/activity
or property
Employees of CFAR tenants
and leaseholders who employ
fewer than 20 employees for
each working day in 20
calendar weeks during 12
months after occupation or
use of property
One-year Waiver by Council,
Renewable
Sec. 2.28.080
CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDATION & CITY
COUNCIL FINDING: 1) ECONOMIC
HARDSHIP, 2) WAIVER WILL FURTHER
CITY'S INTERESTS IN CREATING
TRAINING JOBS LIKELY TO LEED TO
PERMANNENT LIVING WAGE JOBS, 3) NO
DISPLACEMENT OR REPLACEMENT OF
EXISTING EMPLOYEES, 4 ) BALANCE OF
COMPETING INTERESTS WEIGHS CLEARLY
IN FAVOR OF WAIVER
CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT ITS IN THE
BEST INTERESTS OF THE CITY TO WAIVE
Enforcement
Secs. 2.28.120, 2.28.130,
2.28.140
City Manager required to
promulgate implementation
rules and regulations, &
-6-
~
U l
Ite , ,..t-/
~ ~ - 2 -0
provide reports to City
Council
Sec. 2.28.120
Not provided Authorizes City to take
action/remedies against
contractor/CFAR (e.g. ,
suspend paYments; get money
back; debar contractor/CFAR;
$500/week fine; wage
restitution)
Sec.
Not provided City process for reviewing
employee complaint
Sec. 2.28.140
Savings Clause Savings Clause
Not applicable to extent This Ord. is applicable to
will cause loss of any all City, Federal and State
federal or state funding of funded contracts/CFARs to
Port activities. the extent that it is
consonant with laws that
authorize the funding
Sec. 2.28.170
S_L( I

ORA/COUl\IelL
DEC 04 2001
DRAFT: 3:17 PM
11/20/01
-7-
It H
J
H-I
11- 9- 1
REVISED 11/20/01
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION No. C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER _
RESOLUTION SUBMITTING, ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S OWN
MOTION, A PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT, ENTITLED,
"LIVING WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES", TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORS AT THE
NOMINATING MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON MARCH 5, 2002;
DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FIX THE DATE FOR
SUBMISSION OF ARGUMENTS, TO PROVIDE FOR NOTICE AND
PUBLICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATEWIDE
PRIMARY ELECTION, EACH TO BE HELD ON MARCH 5, 2002
WHEREAS, Oakland City Charter Article VII specifies the role and
responsibilities of the City's Port Department and created the Board of Port
Commissioners; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Port Commissioners oversees the operations of
the Port Department which includes the Port of Oakland and the Oakland airport;
and
WHEREAS, with certain exceptions the ordinances passed by the Oakland
City Council do not apply to the Port Department; and
WHEREAS, due to the Board of Port Commissioners' role and
responsibilities under the current City Charter, the City of Oakland's living Wage
Ordinance does not apply to the Port of Oakland; and
WHEREAS, contractors and lease holders receive a substantial benefit
from doing business at the Port of Oakland, in part because of the large
public investment in infrastructure, such that it is fair to require them to
adhere to certain minimum labor standards in dealing with their employees at
the Port; and
S-LJ-
S-Lf - I
ORAlCOUNlilL
*
c04 2001
Ru
He -1
-29-
WHEREAS, the Port has a substantial proprietary interest in certain
contracts with employers in the hospitality and retail food industry because
the Port will receive a percentage of the revenues or income from the
business, and that proprietary interest would be affected by labor
273787
disruptions at the Port; and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the Oakland City Charter adding section 728
to Article VII would:
(1) require payment of a "living wage" of not less than $10.50 without health
benems, which is the same amount the City of Oakland Living Wage ordinance
currently requires, by Port tenants and contractors doing more than $50,000 in
business with the Port,
(2) require, with certain exceptions, that new Port contractors doing more than
$50,000 with the Port, who replace a prior Port contractor; hire the non-
management and non-supervisory employees of the prior Port contractor for a
period of not less than 90 days and terminate such employees only for just
cause during the 90 day period if the employees can perform the new
contractor's work; and
(3) prohibit the Port Department from entering into private contracts to perform work
that Port employees performed as of June 30, 2001 except in the case of an
emergency; and
(4) require that in exchange for a no-strike agreement, future Port contractors in the
hospitality (e.g. hotel or motel businesses) or retail food industry, shall be or
become signatory to valid collective bargaining agreements or other contract
with each labor organization representing or seeking to represent any of that
contractor's employees on Port property, if over the term of the Port contract the
Port is entitled to receive a percentage of the revenues or income of the
contractor's business as rents, royalties or other income equal to at least
$50,000; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Charter amendment would provide for a living
wage for employees of Port contractor who do significant business with the Port;
protect workers from displacement by private contractors by requiring that Port
contractors who replace a prior Port contractor assume the non-management and
non-supervisory workers of the prior Port contractor and limiting contracting out of
work performed by Port employees; and prevent labor disputes from injuring the
Port's revenue stream by requiring no strike clauses in the Port contractor's
agreements with labor organizations; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Oakland City Charter is amended to add the
following section which shall read as follows:
"Section 728. LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES
1. Scope and Definitions.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person receiving in excess
278512 l.DOC 2
:F
es
He -1
1 29-
of $50,000 worth of financial assistance from the Port, or (2) any Port Contractor. "Port
Contractor" means any person party to a Port Contract as herein defined.
(1) Any service contract with the Port for work to be performed at the
Port under which the Port is expected to pay more than $50,000 over the
term of the contract;
(2) Any contract, lease or license from the Port involving payments to the
Port expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract,
lease or license, or (b) during the next 5 years if the current term is less
than 1 year but may be renewed or extended, either with or without
amendment;
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement or
other transfer or assignment of any right, title or interest received from
the Port pursuant to any of the foregoing contracts, leases or licenses.
A contract, lease or license with the Port or any agreement derived therefrom shall not be
deemed a Port Contract unless entered into after enactment of this Section, or amended after
enactment of this Section to benefit in any way the party dealing with the Port.
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAB in Port-related
employment if the PAB employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the PAB has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have more than 20 in the
next 12 pay periods. A PAB shall be deemed to employ more than 20 persons if it is part of an
"enterprise" as defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act employing more than 20 persons.
E. "Person" include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited liability
company, joint venture, sole proprietorship, association, trust or any other entity.
F. "Valid collective bargaining agreement" as used herein means a collective
bargaining agreement entered into between the person and a labor organization lawfully serving
as the exclusive collective bargaining representative for such person's employees.
G. "Contract under 29 U.S.C.185(a)" as used herein means a contract to
which 29 U.S.C. 185(a) applies, as that provision has been interpreted by the United States
Supreme Court.
2. Exemptions from coverage
In addition to the above exemption for workforces of fewer than 20 workers, the following
persons shall also be exempt from coverage under this Section:
A. An Employee who is (1) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2) employed
by a nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for a period not longer
than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
B. An Employee who spends less than 25 percent of his work time on Port-
related employment.
3. Payment of minimum compensation to Employees
Port-Assisted Businesses shall provide compensation to each Employee of at least the
following:
278512 l.DOC 3
~
e s
He -1
1 -29-
A. Minimum Compensation
The initial minimum compensation shall be wages and health benefits totaling at least ten
dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per hour, or if greater, the rate of any living wage ordinance of the
City of Oakland.
B. Credit for Health Benefits
The PAB shall receive a credit against the minimum wage required by this Section of up
to $1.37 per hour for the amount it spends on average for health benefits for all Employees
covered by this Section and their dependents. For example, if an employer spends an average of
$1.25 per hour for health insurance, then the employer need only pay each Employee at least
$9.25 per hour in wages.
C. Adjustments
Beginning one year after the effective date of this Section, the above rates shall be
upwardly adjusted annually, no later than April 1st, in proportion to the increase as of the
preceding December 31st over the prior year in the Bay Region's Consumer Price Index as
published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Tips or gratuities received by Employees shall
not be credited or offset against the rates of compensation required by this Section. The Port
shall publish a bulletin by April 1st of each year announcing the adjusted rates, which shall take
effect upon such publication. Such bulletin will be distributed to all PABs covered by this and to
any other person who has filed with the Port a request to receive such notice. A PAB shall
provide written notification of the rate adjustments to each of its Employees and to its covered
tenants, contractors and subcontractors, who shall provide written notices to each of their
Employees, if any, and make the necessary payroll adjustments by July 1 following the Port's
notice of the adjustment.
4. Notifying Employees of their potential right to the federal earned income
credit.
Each PAB shall inform each Employee who makes less than twelve dollars ($12.00) per
hour of his or her possible right to the federal Earned Income Credit ("EIC") under Section 2 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. 32, and shall make available the forms required
to secure advance EIC payments from the business. These forms shall be provided to the eligible
Employees in English (and other languages spoken by a significant number of such Employees)
within thirty (30) days of employment under this Section and as required by the Internal Revenue
Code.
5. Preventing Displacement of Workers
(A) Each PAS which is to replace a prior PAS shall offer employment to the
nonmanagement and nonsupervisory Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for
the prior PAB for at least 90 calendar days. Such Employees may be not be terminated by the
new PAB during the first 90 work days except for just cause. The new PAB may operate at lower
staffing levels than its predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior Employees on a
preferential reinstatement list based on seniority. For purposes of this Section, a PAB "replaces"
another if it (1) assumes all or part of the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior employer or
obtains a new lease, contract, or sublease, and (2) offers employment which Employees of the
prior PAB can perform. In the case of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from
another location, in staffing decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its prior
locations in addition to the seniority of the prior PAB's workforce.
(B) Notwithstanding Section 902(e) or any other provision of the City Charter,
except in an emergency the Port shall not enter into any private contract for work which was
performed by persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for the same class of work,
including such work at new or expanded Port facilities.
278512 I.DOC 4
6. Agreements required to protect Port's proprietary interests from effects of
labor disputes
(A) As a condition precedent to any Port Contract in which the Port has a
proprietary interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAB shall
be or become signatory to valid collective bargaining agreements or other contracts under 29
U.S.C. 185(a) with each labor organization representing or seeking to represent any of that
PAB's Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision
limiting the ability of the labor organization and its members (and in the case of a collective
bargaining agreement, all employees covered by the agreement) to engage in picketing, work
stoppages, boycotts or other economic interference with the Port for the duration of the Port's
proprietary interest in such PAB's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No-Strike
Pledge"). Each such PAB shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors,
subcontractors, tenants, subtenants, licensees or sublicensees in the Hospitality or Retail Food
Industry which are likely to impact the Port's proprietary interest will also be covered by No-Strike
Pledges.
(B) For purposes of this subsection, "Hospitality or Retail Food Industry" includes
hotels, motels or similar businesses, or on-site preparation, service or retailing of food, beverage
or medication. A "proprietary interest" shall not be deemed to exist without (1) the Port being
entitled to receive a percentage of the revenues or income of a business as rents, royalties or
other income, and (2) the Port being expected to receive $50,000 or more in such rents, royalties
or other income over the duration of the contract, lease or license.
(C) A PAB shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of
time during which a third-party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAB and the Alameda Central
Labor Council has found, after notice and hearing, either (a) that the labor organization is placing
unreasonable conditions upon its No-Strike Pledge, or (b) that the Port lacks a legally-sufficient
proprietary interest in such PAB's operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
unlawful. If the parties are unable to agree upon a neutral, the PAB may contact the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to obtain a list of seven arbitrators affiliated with the
National Academy of Arbitrators, from which the parties shall select a neutral by striking off
names. At the PAB's request, such proceeding shall be conducted according to the FMCS
expedited arbitration procedure. The Port shall bear the neutral's fees.
7. Retaliation and discrimination barred; no waiver of rights.
A. A PAB shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of or otherwise
discriminate against any person for making a complaint to the Port, participating in any of its
proceedings, using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or
her rights under this Section.
B. Any waiver by an individual of any of the provisions of this Section shall be
deemed contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable, except that Employees
shall not be barred from entering into a written valid collective bargaining agreement waiving a
provision of this Section (other than subsection 6) if such waiver is set forth in clear and
unambiguous terms. Any request to an individual by a PAB to waive his or her rights under this
Section shall constitute a violation of this Section.
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAB shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a
record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAB claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid
by the PAB for the employee's health benefits. The PAB shall submit a copy of such records to
the Port at least by March 31
S
t, June 30
th
, September 30
th
and December 31
st
of each year,
unless the PAB has employed less than 20 persons during the preceding quarter, in which case
278512 l.DOC
5
~
e s
He -1
-29-
the PAB need only submit a copy of such records every December 31 st. Failure to provide a copy
of such records within five days of the due date will result in a penalty of five hundred dollars
($500.00) per day. Each PAB shall maintain a record of the name, address, job classification,
hours worked, and pay and health benefits received of each person employed, and shall preserve
them for at least three years.
B. If a PAB provides health benefits to persons in Port-related employment but
does not pay for them on a per-hour basis, then upon the PAB's request, the amount of the hourly
credit against its wage obligation shall be the Port's reasonable estimate of the PAB's average
hourly cost to provide health benefits to its Employees in Port-related employment. The PAB shall
support its request with such documentation as is reasonably requested by the Port or any
interested party, including labor organizations in such industry.
C. Each PAB shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to
each new Employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall
be in the form provided by the Port in English, Spanish and other languages spoken by a
significant number of the employees, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work
site where it will be seen by all Employees.
D. Each PAB shall permit access to work sites and relevant payroll records for
authorized Port representatives for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this Section,
investigating employee complaints of noncompliance and evaluating the operation and effects of
this Section, including the production for inspection and copying of its payroll records for any or all
persons employed by the PAB. Each PAB shall permit a representative of the labor organizations
in its industry to have access to its workforce at the Port during non-working time and in non-work
areas for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Section.
E. Notwithstanding any provision in Article VI of this Charter to the contrary, the
City Manager may develop rules and regulations for the Port's activities in (1) Port review of
contract documents to insure that relevant language and information are included in the Port's
RFP's, agreements and other relevant documents, (2) Port monitoring of the operations of the
contractors, subcontractors and financial assistance recipients to insure compliance including the
review, investigation and resolution of specific concerns or complaints about the employment
practices of a PAB relative to this section, and (3) provision by the Port of notice and hearing as
to alleged violations of this section.
9. Private Rights of Action.
A. Any person claiming a violation of this Section may bring an action against
the PAB in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the State of California, as appropriate, to
enforce the provisions of this Section and shall be entitled to all remedies available to remedy any
violation of this Section, including but not limited to back pay, reinstatement or injunctive relief.
Violations of this Section are declared to irreparably harm the public and covered employees
generally.
B. Any employee proving a violation of this Section shall recover from the PAB
treble his or her lost normal daily compensation and fringe benefits, together with interest
thereon, and any consequential damages suffered by the employee.
C. The Court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and costs to
any plaintiff who prevails in an action to enforce this Section.
D. No criminal penalties shall attach for any violation of this Section, nor shall
this Section give rise to any cause of action for damages against the Port or the City.
E. No remedy set forth in this Section is intended to be exclusive or a
prerequisite for asserting a claim for relief to enforce any rights hereunder in a court of law. This
2785 I2 I.DOC
6
I ~
~
Section shall not be construed to limit an employee's right to bring a common law cause of action
for wrongful termination.
10. Severability
If any provision or application of this Section is declared illegal, invalid or inoperative, in
whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions
thereof and applications not declared illegal, invalid or inoperative shall remain in full force or
effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this Section, including limiting
the scope of coverage or striking the five-year provision of subsection 6, in order to preserve the
maximum permissible effect of each subsection herein. Nothing herein may be construed to
impair any contractual obligations of the Port. This Section shall not be applied to the extent it will
cause the loss of any federal or state funding of Port activities.". ; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That in accordance with the Elections Code and
Chapter 3 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall fix and determine a
date for submission of arguments for or against said proposed charter amendment,
and said date shall be posted in the Office of the City Clerk; and be it
Chapter 3 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the City Clerk shall provide for notice
and publication as to said proposed charter amendment in the manner provided for
by law; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED: That each ballot used at said municipal election
shall have printed therein, in addition to any other matter required by law the
following:
278512 l.OGe
7
~
s
It H-l
-2
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
MEASURE PROVIDING FOR LIVING WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS
AT PORTASSISTED BUSINESSES
MEASURE _
Measure . Shall the Oakland City Charter be Yes
amended to add section 728 to
(a) require that specified Port of Oakland contractors pay a
minimum living wage of $10.50 and retain qualified
employees of the previous contractor for at least 90 days;
(b) prohibit contracting-out of Port employees' work except in
emergencies;, and
(c) require that certain hospitality and retail food contractors
sign labor agreements with labor organizations that include
no-strike pledges?
No
I
FURTHER RESOLVED: that the City Clerk and City Manager are
hereby authorized and directed to take any and all actions necessary under law to
prepare for and conduct the March 5, 2002 election and appropriate all monies
necessary for the City Manager and City Clerk to prepare and conduct the March 5,
2002 election, consistent with law.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, , 2001
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES- BRUNNER, CHANG, MAYNE, NADEL, REID, SPEES, WAN AND
PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE
'fi
s
He -1
11 9-0
8
S-Lf
s -4- I .
OPAfCOU L
ATTEST: __ __-_DEC 0 4 2001
CEDA FLOYD
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
NOTES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
278512 l.DOC
CITY OF OAKLAND
ONE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA. 6TH FLOOR. OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Office of the City Attorney
John A. Russo
City Attorney
Barbara J. Parker
Chief Assistant City Attorney
November 29, 2001
(510) 238-3601
FAX: (510) 238-6500
TTY/TOO: (510) 238-3254
(510)238-3815
City Council Rules and Legislation Committee
Oakland, California
Subject:
Proposed Charter Amendment Regarding Living Wage and
Labor Peace at Port -Assisted Businesses
Chairman Spees and Members of the Committee:
Introduction
The Council has been asked to place a proposed charter amendment on the
March 5, 2002 ballot. The measure, entitled "Living Wage and Labor Peace at Port-
Assisted Businesses," includes four provisions:
(1) Living Wage: requires that Port tenants, contractors and assignees of such
contractors whose contracts exceed $50,000, pay a "living wage" of not less
than $10.50 per hour without health benefits (contractors receive a credit
against the living wage of up to $1.37 per hour for the average amount they
expend for health benefits for employees covered by the measure.);
(2) Preventing Worker Displacement ("Worker Retention"): requires, with
certain exceptions, that a new Port contractor, doing more than $50,000 of
business with the Port of Oakland, retain for 90 days the non-management, non-
supervisory employees of the Port contractor it replaces if the employees can
perform the new contractor's work, and permits termination of such employees
only for just cause during the 90-day period if the employees can perform the
new contractor's work;
(3) Contracting Out: prohibits the Port from entering into any private contract
for work that was performed by Port employees as of June 30, 2001, except
in the case of an emergency;
(4) Labor requires that future Port contractors in the hospitality (e.g. hotel
or motel businesses) or retail food industry, shall be or become siqnatorv tn ::l
S-L/ c;A-1 .
)
.. DEC 042001
November 29,2001
Page Two
valid collective bargaining agreement or other labor contracts containing no-strike
provisions with each labor organization representing or seeking to represent any
of that contractor's employees on Port property, if over the term of the Port
contract the Port is entitied to receive a percentage of the revenues or income of
t h ~ contractor's business as rents, royalties or other income equal to at least
$50,000. This requirement also applies to subcontractors, sUblicensees, etc., in
the hospitality or retail food industry in which the Port has a proprietary interest.
This report outlines the provisions of the proposed charter amendment,
compares its provisions to the City of Oakland Living Wage Ordinance and provides the
City Attorney's analysis of the legal issues pertaining to the amendment.
A copy of the proposed charter amendment is attached as Exhibit A. Attached
as Exhibit B is a copy of the Port's Living Wage Ordinance which was adopted in
October of this year and the Port's Quality Standards Program for Checkpoint security
Screeners which was adopted by the Port Board on October 2, 2001. Exhibit C is a
chart comparing the provisions of the City of Oakland Living Wage Ordinance and the
proposed Charter amendment
Summary Conclusion
Preliminarily, we note that there are no cases directly on point in the state
(California) or federal appellate courts (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit) regarding the legality of the living wage, worker retention or labor peace
provisions of the proposed Charter amendment. Therefore, we can not say with
absolute certainty that those provisions would be upheld against a legal challenge.
Nonetheless, we believe there are strong legal arguments that support the legal
validity of the living wage provision. Living wage laws have been adopted by more than
60 jurisdictions, including the City of Oakland. We are not aware of any successful
challenges to such laws that could be used to invalidate the terms of the proposed
charter amendment.
We also believe that there is a strong legal basis for the worker retention
provisions of the proposed charter amendment. Rejecting a legal challenge, the federal
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit recently upheld a similar law passed
by the District of Columbia.
There is less [egal guidance regarding the labor peace provision of the proposed
charter amendment. There are two decisions in the California federal district courts
(Northern District of California) on somewhat similar, but not identical, labor peace
provisions. Those decisions reached opposite conclusions about the validity of those
laws. Because the labor peace provision in the proposed charter amendment is more
similar to the law that was upheld, we believe there is a solid basis for defending the
278511
November 29,2001
Page Three
proposed labor peace provision. We also believe the provision has been crafted in a
way to minimize the bases for a successful legal challenge by addressing issues that
have been raised in other cases.
The fact that the labor peace provision applies only to the Port - rather than to the
entire City of Oakland's contracts - should make it easier to establish that the labor
peace provision is designed to protect the Port's proprietary interests (e.g. revenues
and rental income from its contractors and tenants) rather than as an impermissible
regulatory activity. The Port is generally viewed as a business entity that is involved in
maritime and other business/commercial activities. By contrast, the City of Oakland
regularly serves the interests of its residents through the exercise of its police powers,
enactment of ordinances, development of affordable housing, issuance of loans and
establishment of programs and policies that protect the health, safety and welfare of its
citizens.
The contracting out provision in our view is legally defensible. It gives the Port
the option to contract out work in an emergency. Current Charter provisions allow the
Port to contract with private parties if the contracts will not result in the loss Of
employment or salary by permanent civil service employees. Section 902(e) of the
Charter.
If the proposed Charter amendment were adopted, and the City or Port were
successfully sued in a legal challenge to its provisions, the City and/or Port could be
held responsible for the costs of defense and for attorneys' fees.
Finally, we point out that it is not customary to have within the City Charter
detailed provisions such as those in the proposed charter amendment. When times
change and amendments to the provisions are warranted, voter approval of any
amendments would be required. l\Ievertheless, although the proposed charter
amendment could be cast as an ordinance, the measure might be declared invalid by
the courts because the charter provisions would override any contrary ordinance. The
provisions of the charter give the Board of Port Commissioners the exclusive authority
and control over many aspects of the operations of the Port. The measure does
address the issue of future changes in two ways: (1) it proVides for a cost of living
increase in the living wage provision; and (2) it permits the City Manager to promulgate
rules and regulations pertaining to the implementation of the measure. The increases in
the living wage to offset inflation are self-executing and would not require a charter
amendment; nor would the establishment or amendment of rules and regulations
promulgated by the City Manager require a charter amendment.
278511
November 29,2001
Page Four
Summary of the Provisions
1. Who's Covered by the Proposed Charter Amendment? - The proposed
Charter amendment applies to Port-Assisted Businesses (PABs), which are defined as
any Port Contractor and any person who receives in excess of $50,000 of Port financial
assistance. A Port Contractor is de-fined to mean a party to a Port Contract, which is
defined in turn to mean "any service contract with the Port for work to be performed at
the Port under which the Port is expected to pay more than $50,000 over the term of the
contract; (2) any contract, lease, or license from the Port involving payment to the Port
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract, lease or license, or
(b) during the next 5 years if the current term is less than 1 year but may be renewed or
extended, either with or without amendment; or (3) any subcontract, sublease,
sublicense, management agreement or other transfer or assignment of a right, title or
interest received from the Port pursuant to any of the foregoing contracts, leases or
licenses." (Section 1(C).) The measure applies only to new contracts and leases and
contract amendments that benefit "in any way the party dealing with the Port". (Section
1. )
2. Exemptions - Businesses with fewer than 20 employees, youth trainees and
employees spending less than 25% of their time on Port-related business. (Section 2.)
3. Requirements:
a. Living Wage: PABs must pay their workers at least $10.50 per hour, or
the wage level of the Oakland Living Wage, whichever is greater ("living
wage"). The living wage adjusts annually to offset inflation. PABs may
receive a credit of up to $1.37 per hour against the living wage level for
health benefits payments. The $10.50 is the same as the amount currently
provided under the City of Oakland Living Wage Ordinance. (Section
3(A).)
b. Worker Retention: A PAB that replaces a prior PAB is required to retain
non-management, non-supervisory employees of the prior PAS for at least
90 days, unless just cause exists to discharge them. To qualify for
retention the prior PAB's employees must have been employed for the
prior PAB for at lease 90 calendar days and must be able to perform the
work of the replacement PAB. A PAB replaces another PAB if (1) it
assumes all or part of the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior
employer or obtains a new lease contract, or sublease, and (2) offers
employment which employees of the prior PAB can perform. This
provision allows the PAS to operate at lower staffing levels but the PAB t
must place the prior employees who are not retained on a preferential
reinstatement list based on seniority. The provision also proVides for
merger of the seniority lists of the prior PAB's employees and the
278511
November 29,2001
Page Five
replacement PAS's employees when the replacement PAS relocates from
another location. (Section 5 (A).)
c. Contracting Out: Except in the case of emergency the Port is prohibited
from contracting out work that Port employees performed as of June 30,
2001. This provision would limit the Port's ability to contract out. The
current charter provision allows contracting out so long as the contract
does not result in loss of employment or salary to permanent civil service
employees. (Section 5(S).)
d. Labor Peace: PASs in the hospitality and retail food industries which have
contracts in which the Port has a "proprietary interest" (at a minimum, the
Port receives a percentage of the employer's income or profits) are
required to "be or become a signatory to a valid collective bargaining
agreement or other contracts under 22 USC section 185(a) with any labor
organization representing or seeking to represent any of the PAS's
employees on Port property". Such agreement must contain a no-strike
pledge that lasts for five years or the length of the Port's proprietary
interest, whichever is less. The labor peace requirements also apply to
any work that will be done by any PAS's "contractors, subcontractors,
tenants or subtenants, licensees or sublicensees in the hospitality and
retail food industry that are likely to impact the Port's proprietary interest".
The PAS is relieved of this duty if an arbitrator finds that a union is placing
unreasonable conditions upon its no-strike pledge, or that the Port lacks a
proprietary interest, or that the proposed agreement is otherwise unlawful.
Proprietary interest is defined to mean "at a minimum that the Port be
entitled to receive as rents, royalties or other income a percentage of the
revenues of a business; and that such amounts are expected to be at least
$50,000 over the duration of the contract, lease of license." (Section 6.)
4. Enforcement:
a. PAS Reporting and Notification Requirements:
(1) The PAS is required to maintain records documenting the name, pay
rate and health benefit payments for each person in Port-related
employment and the PAS is required to submit such records to the
Port by the end of each quarter of the calendar year. There is an
exception to the quarterly reporting requirement for businesses that
employed fewer than 20 persons during the preceding calendar
quarter; such businesses' reports are due at the end of the calendar
year. (Section 4.)
278511
November 29,2001
Page Six
(2) The PAS must notify each current employee and new employee at
their time of hire of rights under the charter amendment and of the
possible right to federal Earned Income Credit under the federal tax
laws if the employee makes less than $12.00 per hour.
(3) The PAS must permit access to its work sites and relevant payroll
records for Port representatives to monitor compliance with the
provisions of the charter amendment, and to investigate complaints
and evaluate the operation and effects of the provisions.
(4) The PAS must produce to Port representatives, upon request, for
inspection and copying, its payroll records for all persons employed by
the PAS
(5) The PAS must permit a representative of the labor organizations in its
industry to have access to its workforce at the Port during non-working
time and in non-work areas for the purpose of ensuring compliance
with the provisions of this charter amendment.
b. Right of PAS Employee to Sue PAS in Court to Enforce Provisions:
The Charter amendment creates a private right of action in the Superior
Court against the PAS to enforce the provisions of this Charter
amendment. No cause of action is available against the Port. Upon proof
of a violation, the PAS employee is entitled to treble the amount of the
employee's daily compensation and fringe benefits, plus interest and
consequential damages. Attorneys' fees, witness fees and costs are
awarded if the employee prevails in the enforcement action.
5. Other
a. Severability Clause: The proposed Charter amendment includes a
clause which provides that if any provision of the measure is held invalid
or declared illegal by a court, the remaining provisions shall remain in full
force and effect. This provision allows a court to reform or amend the
provisions or portions of the provisions to insure compliance with
applicable law.
b. The Port Cannot Waive the Provisions, But the Provisions Are
Inapplicable to the Extent Port Would Lose Federal or State Funding
The measure does not apply if its application would cause the Port to lose
state or federal funding.
278511
November 29,2001
Page Seven
c. No Retaliation or Discrimination:
The proposed Charter amendment prohibits retaliation and discrimination
against an employee who complains about noncompliance by a PAB.
d. City Manager's right to issue rules and regulations:
The proposed charter amendment allows the City Manager to promulgate
rules and regulations pertaining to the proposed charter amendment. These
rules and regulations would be used by the Port in reviewing contracts, to
insure compliance with the charter amendment and for purposes of the Port's
monitoring and review of violations of the proposed charter amendment.
Analysis
I. Charter Amendment vs. Ordinance; Single Subject Rule
The existing Charter provisions concerning the Port Department make it self-
governing except as to certain issues on which City policies govern. (Article VII of the
Oakland City Charter.) Section 706 enumerates the complete and exclusive powers of
the Board of Port Commissioners. For that reason, an ordinance enacted by the voters
could be superseded by the Charter powers granted to the Port Board. Although it is
not customary to place in the Charter detailed provisions such as those proposed in the
measure, a charter amendment is the only means to insure that the Port would be
subject to the measure. For example, the Port is not subject to the City's Living Wage
Ordinance.
If the Council declines to put the measure on the ballot, proponents could place it
on the ballot by collecting signatures from 15% of the voters.
The State Constitutional provisions and statutes concerning amendment of local
charters do not expressly limit each proposed amendment to a single subject. (Article
XI section 3.) According to the League of California Cities Municipal Law Handbook,
2000 Edition, Section 111-25, most city attorneys have advised local officials that local
initiatives are not governed by the single-subject rule that applies to statewide initiatives.
The single subject rule is contained in a separate provision of the state constitution that
provides for statewide initiatives (Article II section 8(d).) Article XI section 3 gives local
voters the power to approve or amend their charter and the Legislature did not include
in that provision a single-subject limit as it did elsewhere in the Constitution for
statewide matters. (Article II section 11 and Article IV section 9.)
The California Attorney General has approved the practice of placing several
charter amendments before the voters in one proposal. The Attorney General opined:
278511
November 29,2001
Page Eight
"Extensive reVISions of an existing city charter may be placed before the
electorate as proposed amendments under Constitution, Article XI, section 8,
subdivision (h) without going through the freeholder procedure provided for new
charter proposals. The revisions may be in the form of a single proposal or
broken into several individual proposals. Both types of proposals may appear on
the same ballot,even though one may be included within the other". (58 Ops.
Cal. AG 208,209 (Oct. 24, 1969.)
The Attorney General concluded that statewide initiatives are governed by different
authorities and are distinguishable because they are authorized under a different article
of the state constitution than the provision that applies to city charter amendments.
Even if a single subject limit were applied to a city charter amendment, we
believe the provisions of the proposal are sufficiently interrelated to pass muster under
the approach traditionally used by the California courts in applying the single subject
rule. The courts have found it permissible to combine distinct measures into one, as
long as there is some logical thread or interrelationship between them. Only recently
has the California Supreme Court upheld a single subject challenge to a state initiative.
In Senate v. Jones, 21 Cal.4
th
1142, 1157 (1999), the court rejected Proposition 24
which included legislative salaries and reapportionment. The COL!rt determined that
that there was an insufficient connection between the two provisions where the
proponents argued the link was "legislative self-interest", despite the fact that salaries
were set by an independent commission appointed by the Governor. The Jones Court
explained the test set by prior cases:
"In the past we have upheld a variety of initiative measures in the face of a
single-subject challenge, emphasizing that the initiative process occupies an
important and favored status in the California constitutional scheme and that the
single-subject requirement should not be interpreted in an unduly narrow or
restrictive fashion that would preclude the use of the initiative process to
accomplish comprehensive, broad-based reform in a particular area of pUblic
concern [citations omitted]. In articulating the proper standard to guide analysis
in this context, the governing decisions establish that 'an initiative measure does
not violate the single subject requirement if, despite its varied collateral effects,
all of its parts are reasonably germane to each other, and to the general purpose
or object of the initiative.' [citations omitted] As we recently have explained, 'the
single subject provision does not require that each of the provisions of a measure
effectively interlock in a functional relationship [citation omitted]. It is enough that
the various provisions are reasonably related to a common theme or purpose."
21 Cal. 4
th
at 1157.
278511
November 29, 2001
Page Nine
II. Charter Amendment Provisions
A. Executive Summary
The proposed charter amendment contains three main substantive provisions
that raise legal issues: a "living wage" requirement (Section 3), a "worker retention"
requirement (Section 5), and a "labor peace" provision (Section 6). We believe there is
no controversy about the legal validity of the fourth provision, which limits contracting
out by the Port to emergency situations if the type of work to be contracted. was
performed by Port employees as of June 30, 2001. Accordingly, we do not address that
provision in our analysis.
There is no controlling precedent from the Ninth Circuit or the California appellate
courts regarding the legality of living wage, worker retention, or labor peace provisions,
so any conclusions must necessarily be circumscribed. However, as we explain in
more detail below, there is a strong basis for believing that the living wage and worker
retention provisions would survive legal challenge. Living wage laws have been
adopted by more than 60 jurisdictions, including Oakland, and we are not aware of any
successful challenges to these laws that would have application to the living wage
provision in the proposed charter amendment. There is a pending lawsuit that
challenges a living wage ordinance recently adopted by the City of Berkeley, but the
living wage provision of the proposed charter amendment does not include the features
of the Berkeley ordinance that are the focus of that pending legal challenge.
There also is a strong basis for believing that the worker retention provision of
the charter amendment would survive legal challenge. A very similar law passed by the
District of Columbia was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
It is more difficult to predict the outcome of any legal challenge to the labor peace
provision because there is little appellate authority addressing analogous laws. There
are two decisions on somewhat similar labor peace ordinances by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and they reached opposite
conclusions about the validity of the ordinances they reviewed. We believe that the
provision in the proposed charter amendment is closer to the ordinance that was upheld
because of its similarly close nexus between the labor peace requirement and
protection of the Port's proprietary interests. Accordingly, the City would have a solid
basis for defending the labor peace provision.
The Council may wish to consider making findings about the proprietary interests
that support the labor peace requirement so that they can be relied upon if a legal
challenge is brought.
278511
November 29, 2001
Page Ten
B. Legal Issues
A number of possible legal challenges would apply equally to all three provisions
of the Charter Amendment. First, a challenge could assert that imposing labor-related
requirements on businesses that contract with (or receive financial assistance from) the
Port, but not on other businesses, violates the Equal Protection Clause. In order to
uphold economic legislation such as the Charter Amendment against such a challenge,
however, a court would merely need to find that applying these requirements only to
Port-Assisted Businesses (PABs) has a rational relationship to some legitimate state
interest. See Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U. S. 1, 14 (1987). Because PASs
receive substantial benefits from their presence in and/or relationship with the Port, and
because the Port's financial health is dependent in part upon the success of these
businesses, the Charter Amendment could easily pass such a deferential legal test.
Second, the Charter Amendment could be challenged as violating the "dormant"
Commerce Clause, which prohibits state and local legislation that discriminates against
out-of-state businesses. The clause allows even-handed regulation to have incidental
effects on out-of-state commerce as long as the burden imposed is not "clearly
excessive in relation to the putative local benefits." Air Transport Ass'n of Am. v. City
and county of San Francisco, 992 F. Supp.1149, 1161, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 1998), aff'dand
remanded, 266 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2001). Under this clause, a city or state may
"impose burdens on commerce within the market in which it is a participant," as long as
it does not "exert a substantial regulatory effect outside that particular market." South-
.Qharter amendment does not appear to raise any serious Commerce Clause concerns,
because it makes no distinction between in-state and out-of-state businesses and
applies only to employees engaged "in Port-related employment." (Section 1(0).)
Therefore, it is analogous to portions of an anti-discrimination ordinance that were
recently upheld by the Ninth Circuit. See Air Transport Ass'n, 992 F. Supp. at 1163-65
(upholding application of anti-discrimination ordinance to contractors working in San
Francisco, for the City and County of San Francisco, or operating elsewhere in
California).
Third, an affected business could argue that the charter amendment is
preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and/or the Railway Labor Act
(RLA) (which applies to railroads and airlines). The same standard applies to NLRA
and RLA preemption claims, but the nature and analysis of the preemption argument
would differ for each of the Charter Amendment's provisions.
Under some circumstances, laws that impose substantive terms on collective
bargaining agreements are preempted by the NLRA, because Congress intended to
leave resolution of such matters to the bargaining of the parties. See Machinists v.
Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm'n, 427 U.S. 132, 140, 153 (1976); Local 24,
Teamsters v. Oliver. 358 U.S. 283, 295-96 (1959). The living wage provision might be
challenged under this rule. However, the Supreme Court has made clear that states
278511
November 29, 2001
Page Eleven
and localities may adopt "minimal . . . labor standards" that grant protections to
individual workers, even if such minimums apply to the negotiated terms of collective
bargaining agreements. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Massachusetts Travelers
Insurance Co.. ,471 U.S. 724, 755 (1985). While the Ninth Circuit has found that one
ordinance that set minimum wage and benefit standards did not to fall under the
Metropolitan Life rule, this ordinance was unlike the charter amendment in that its wage
and benefit levels were based on collectively bargained rates in each locality, varied by
location and by craft, and applied only to certain construction projects. See Chamber
of Commerce v. Bragdon. 64 F.3d 497, 502 (9th Cir. 1995). The charter amendment, in
contrast, establishes a single standard that applies to all job classifications and to all
businesses of a certain size that have contracts with or receive significant financial
assistance from the Port. It is therefore similar to the type of minimum labor standards
laws that have been held to be consistent with federal labor law.
An NLRA preemption challenge to the worker retention provision would argue
that mandating that a new contractor hire the employees of its predecessor effectively
requires the new contractor to become a "successor employer" for purposes of the
NLRA (which means that the new contractor would have a duty to bargain with the
union representing its predecessor's employees).. However, a very similar law,
adopted by the District of Columbia, was upheld in Washington Service Contractors
Coalition v. District of Columbia, 54 F.3d 811 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied 516 U.S.
1145 (1996), which held that the law did not require new contractors to become
successor employers, but merely that the employees be retained, and that it was
analogous to other minimum labor standards under Metropolitan Life. See Washington
Service Contractors, 54 F.3d at 817-18. There do not appear to be any relevant
differences between the Charter Amendment and the District of Columbia law, and so
similar reasoning should apply here.
The labor peace provision could be challenged as NLRA-preempted because it
requires PABs to negotiate and enter into either a collective bargaining agreement or
another contract with a labor organization that falls within 29 U.S.C. 185(a). However,
in Building & Construction Trades Council v. Associate builders and Contractors. 507
U.S. 218, 231-32 (1993), the Supreme Court held that the NLRA does not preempt state
action when the state is acting in its proprietary interests as an owner and manager of
property. The key question is therefore likely to be whether the courts view the labor
peace provision as a permissible effort by the Port to protect its proprietary interests
rather than an impermissible effort by the Port to regulate labor relations matters
already regulated by federal law.
Two district court decisions have reached opposite conclusions in ruling on
preemption challenges to similar labor peace provisions. In Hotel Employees &
Restaurant Employees Union. Local 2 v. Marriott Corp.. 1993 WL 341286 (N.D. Cal.
1993), a labor peace provision was upheld as an appropriate exercise of proprietary
power because the local agency that imposed the requirement would receive a
278511
November 29, 2001
Page Twelve
percentage of the business's revenues as part of lease payments and so had a
substantial proprietary interest in labor peace. In Aeroground, Inc. v. City of San
Francisco, 2001 WL 1048459 (N.D. Cal. 2001), in contrast, a labor peace provision
which applied to most employers that operated at an airport was struck down as
preempted because the provision had a weak nexus to the airport commission's
proprietary interests. Here, the strong nexus between the labor peace requirement and
the Port's proprietary interest makes the labor peace provision of the Charter
Amendment closer to the provision that was upheld as permissible in Hotel Employees
than to the one at issue in Aeroground. Further protection against such a challenge is
provided by the Charter Amendment's statement that its labor peace provision will not
apply to a particular situation if a neutral decisionmaker concludes that "the Port lacks a
legally-sufficient proprietary interest." Section 6(b). 1
Conclusion
The proposed charter amendment contains three provISions that raise legal
issues: Living Wage, Worker Retention and Labor Peace. The Living Wage provision
is supported by substantial legal authority and similar provisions have been adopted in
many jurisdictions. Although fewer decisions have addressed the validity of the second
provision, Worker Retention, the authority that does exist, from the Court of Appeals for
the D.C. Circuit, provides strong support for its validity. Little case law exists in regard
to the third provision, Labor Peace. Although a federal district court in this Circuit
upheld a Labor Peace provision which is similar in pertinent respects to the Labor
Peace provision in the charter amendment, no appellate court has issued a decision
1 A challenge to the Berkeley living wage ordinance, which is currently pending in
federal court, raises two additional legal arguments. First, the plaintiff argues that the
Berkeley ordinance violates the Contracts Clause by imposing new requirements upon
parties to eXisting lease agreements. However, this theory is inapplicable to the Charter
Amendment, which, by its terms, applies only to businesses that enter or amend
contracts after its enactment. (See Section 1(C)(3).) Second, the plaintiff in the
Berkeley case argues that allowing these provisions to be waived by a collective
bargaining agreement impermissibly delegates governmental authority in violation of the
Due Process Clause. However, provisions that allow unionized workforces to opt out of
otherwise applicable labor standards are commonly included in labor legislation, see,
e.g., Viceroy Gold Corporation v. Aubry, 75 F.3d 482, 489-91 (9th Cir. 1996), and the
argument that such provisions involve the delegation of government authority is without
any apparent legal merit.
278511
November 29,2001
Page Thirteen
squarely addressing the validity of such provisions. Therefore, although it is difficult to
predict the outcome of a legal challenge, based on the analysis provided in this report,
we believe the City could present a solid basis for defending the labor peace provision.
Very truly yours,
j_tJ?
4
Q-
0" aty Attorney
Attorney Assigned:
Barbara J. Parker
278511
~ - ' +
S-,-( ~ I
ORA/Cau, ,lei L
DEC 0 4 2001
Rev. 11/14/01 - EXHIBIT A
The Charter of the City of Oakland is hereby amended to add the following section:
728. LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE
AT PORT-ASSISTED BUSINESSES
(I) Any service contract with the Port for work to be performed at the Port
under which the Port is expected to pay more than $50,000 over the term
of the contract;
than I year but may be renewed or extended, either with or without
amendment;
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement or other
transfer or assignment of any right, title or interest received from the Port
pursuant to any of the foregoing contracts, leases or licenses.
I
s-'t
S-if -I

DEC 0 4 2001
G. "Contract under 29 U.S.c. 185(a)" as used herein means a contract to which
29 U.S.c. 185(a) applies, as that provision has been interpreted by the United States Supreme
Court.
In addition to the above exemption for workforces of fewer than 20 workers, the
A. An Employee who is (l) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2) employed
by a nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for a period not
longer than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
B. An Employee who spends less than 25 percent of his work time on Port-related
employment.
following:
The initial minimum compensation shall be wages and health benefits totalling at least
ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per hour, or if greater, the rate of any living wage ordinance
of the City of Oakland.
C. Adjustments
2
notice of the adj ustment.
credit.
. hour of his or her possible right to the federal Earned Income Credit ("EIC") under Section 2 of
Code.
(A) Each PAB which is to replace a prior PAB shall offer employment to the
nonmanagement and nonsupervisory Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked
for the prior PAB for at least 90 calendar days. Such Employees may be not be terminated by the
(B) Notwithstanding Section 902(e) or any other provision of the City Charter, except in
an emergency the Port shall not enter into any private contract for work which was performed by
persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for the same class of work, including such
work at new or expanded Port facilities.
3
labor disputes
(A) As a condition precedent to any Port Contract in which the Port has a proprietary
interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAB shall be or
become signatory to valid collective bargaining agreements or other contracts under 29 U.S.c.
185(a) with each labor organization representing or seeking to represent any of that PAB's
Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision limiting
the ability of the labor organization and its members (and in the case of a collective bargaining
agreement, all employees covered by the agreement) to engage in picketing, work stoppages,
boycotts or other economic interference with the Port for the duration of the Port's proprietary
interest in such PAB's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No-Strike Pledge"). Each
such PAB shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors, subcontractors, tenants,
subtenants, licensees or sublicensees in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry which are likely
to impact the Port's proprietary interest will also be covered by No-Strike Pledges.
(B) For purposes of this subsection, "Hospitality or Retail Food Industry" includes hotels,
motels or similar businesses, or on-site preparation, service or retailing of food, beverage or
medication. A "proprietary interest" shall not be deemed to exist without (1) the Port being
(C) A PAB shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of time
during which a third-party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAB and the Alameda Central Labor
Council has found, after notice and hearing, either (a) that the labor organization is placing
umeasonable conditions upon its No-Strike Pledge, or (b) that the Port lacks a legally-sufficient
proprietary interest in such PAB' s operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to obtain a list of seven arbitrators affiliated with
the National Academy of Arbitrators, from which the parties shall select a neutral by striking off
names. At the PAE's request, such proceeding shall be conducted according to the FMCS
A. A PAB shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of or otherwise discriminate
against any person for making a complaint to the Port, participating in any of its proceedings,
using any civil remedies to enforce his or her rights, or otherwise asserting his or her rights under
this Section.
B. Any waiver by an individual of any of the provisions of this Section shall be deemed
contrary to public policy and shall be void and unenforceable, except that Employees shall not be
4
barred from entering into a written valid collective bargaining agreement waiving a provision of
this Section (other than subsection 6) if such waiver is set forth in clear and unambiguous terms.
Any request to an individual by a PAB to waive his or her rights under this Section shall
constitute a violation of this Section.
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAB shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a record of his
or her name, pay rate and, if the PAB claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the PAB
for the Employee's health benefits. The PAB shall submit a copy of such records to the Port at
least by March 31st, June 30
th
, September 30
th
and December 31st of each year, unless the PAB
has employed less than 20 persons during the preceding quarter, in which case the PAB need
only submit a copy of such records every December 31st. Failure to provide a copy of such
records within five days of the due date will result in a penalty of five hundred dollars ($500.00)
per day. Each PAB shall maintain a record of the name, address,job classification, hours
worked, and pay and health benefits received of each person employed, and shall preserve them
for at least three years.
B. If a PAB provides health benefits to persons in Port-related employment but does not
pay for them on a per-hour basis, then upon the PAB's request, the amount of the hourly credit
against its wage obligation shall be the Port's reasonable estimate of the PAB's average hourly
cost to provide health benefits to its Employees in Port-related employment. The PAB shall
C. Each PAB shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to each new
Employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in the
form provided by the Port in English, Spanish and other languages spoken by a significant
number of the Employees, and shall also be posted prominently in areas at the work site where it
will be seen by all Employees.
this Section, including the production for inspection and copying of its payroll records for any or
all persons employed by the PAB. Each PAB shall permit a representative of the labor
organizations in its industry to have access to its workforce at the Port during non-working time
and in non-work areas for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Section.
E. Notwithstanding any provision in Article VI of this Charter to the contrary, the City
Manager may develop rules and regulations for the Port's activities in (1) Port review of
5
A. Any person claiming a violation of this Section may bring an action against the PAB
in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the! State of California, as appropriate, to enforce the
provisions of this Section and shall be entitled to all remedies available to remedy any violation
of this Section, including but not limited to back pay, reinstatement or injunctive relief.
generally.
B. Any employee proving a violation of this Section shall recover from the PAB treble
his or her lost normal daily compensation and fringe benefits, together with interest thereon, and
any consequential damages suffered by the employee. .
C. The Court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, witness fees and costs to any
plaintiff who prevails in an action to enforce this Section.
D. No criminal penalties shall attach for any violation of this Section, nor shall this
Section give rise to any cause of action for damages against the Port or the City.
E. No remedy set forth in this Section is intended to be exclusive or a prerequisite for
asserting a claim for relief to enforce any rights hereunder in a court of law. This Section shall
not be construed to limit an employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for wrongful
termination.
10. Severability
effect. The courts are hereby authorized to reform the provisions of this Section, including
limiting the scope of coverage or striking the five-year provision of subsection 6, in order to
preserve the maximum permissible effect of each subsection herein. Nothing herein may be
construed to impair any contractual obligations of the Port. This Section shall not be applied to
the extent it will cause the loss of any federal or state funding of Port activities.
6
S-4-,
3-4 -I
or>AiCou "et L
DEC 0 4 2001
NQV-08-2001 THU 02:32 PH PORT OF OAKLAND COHH DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 02
Port of Oakland's Quality Standards Program for Checkpoint Security Screeners
On October 2, 2001, the Port of Oakland's Board of Port Commissioners adopted a Quality Standards Program for
Checkpoint Security Screeners ("Program
R
) that sets minimum standards for hiring practices, training, equipment.
and compensation by finns that employ persons who perform checkpoint security screener services. The Program
reinforces FAR Part 108 reqUirements and sets total minimum houny compensation for covered employees at $1 0.00
per hour with benefits, and $11.25 without benefits. Benefits include HMO membership, 12 paid days off per year
and 10 unpaid days off per year.
Covered Include any firm. inclUding airlines and third party vendors, that employs personnel involved in
performing checkpoint security screening services. Currently. Part 108 of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR)
governs air carriers and their covered employees, some of whom are also covered by the Program.
Qgyft[8d are those who work as checkpoint security screeners at Oakland International Airport.
atandards that must be met encompass the following areas;
1. Hiring practices
o Most of the specified hiring requirements, such as high school diploma or equivalent work experience, match
Federal regulatory requirements (FAR Part 108)
o Additionaf requirements address employees' communications, interpersonal. observational and crisis-
management skills. The Program also requires that each employee achieve a score of 85% on tests of
detection and judgmental skills. Aremedial testing program is provided for employees involved in checkpoint
failures.
2. Trainlng
() Initial and recurrent traininll programs and employee records management must comply with Federal and
other applicable regulations.
3. EqUipment
o Use and maintenance of equipment must meet Federal and other applicable requirements
4. Compensation
o Minimum hourly wage is $10.00 if health and time-off benefits are provided; $11.25 if health and tJrne-off
benefits are not prOVided, with annual CPt adjustments on January 1. Employees are not entitled to the
higher wage if they reject the employer's offer of benefits.
o Benefits are defined as:
Company-paid membership in a group medical plan
Twelve days of paid leave per year
Ten days of unpaid leave per year
In addition, each employer is required to establish an intemal quality assurance program that meets the
specifications of the Program.
S,,4,
>-4 -,
OPA/cnu ,'ell
DEC 0 4 2001
.
.
NQV-08-2001 THU 02:33 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COMM DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 03
BOARD OF PORT COMMISSIONERS
CITY OF OAKLAND
PORT ORDINANCE No. 3666
AN A LIVING
iWZ MQUINlMEN'l'.
WHEREAS the Board of Port Commissioners desires to establish
a policy for payment of a prescribed minimum level of
compensation to employees of Port contractors and recipient.s of Port
subsidies; and
WHEREAS the following conditions and procedures are hereby
adopted: now therefore,
BE IT ORDAXNEn by the Board of Port Commissioners of t.he City
of Oakland a$ follows:
Statement of
1. The Board of Port Commissioners is vested with the
complete and exclusive power to make decisions concerning the
expenditure of Port funds, whether such funds are expended within the
Port. the Port Area.
2. The Port of Oakland awards many contracts to private
firms to prOVide services to the pUblic and to the Port.
3. The Port of Oakland provides subsidies and grants to
nonprofit organizations and goverrunental for the benefit of
the public.
4.. The Port of Oakland has an interest in promoting an
employment environment in which less than a prescribed minimum
level of compensation is paid to employees of firms contracting with
the Port to proviae services to the Port.
5. The Port of Oakland also has an interest in promoting
an employment environment in which nothing less than a minimum level
of compensation is paid to the employees of nonprofit organizations
receiving SUbsidies or grants from the Port.
6. The Port of Oakland has an interest in encouraging
contractors or SUbsidized organizations to provide healt.h care
benefi ts to their employees or to provide their employees with an
contribution toward the cost of health benefits.
34836
N9V-08-2001 THU 02: 34 PM PORT OF COMtt DIV
FAX NO, 510 839 1766
P, 04
1 T.itle and Pu=p0$e
This ordinance shall be known as the "Port ot Oakland Living
Wage Ordinance." The purpose of this Ordinance is to require that
nothing less than the prescribed minimum level of compensation (living
wage} be paid to employees of Port service contractors and recipients
of Port financial assistance and their respective subcontractors.
Section :2. Def:i.n:i't.ioftS
\\ Contractor" means any person employing five (5) or more
indi viduals that enters into a service contract with the Port in an
amount equal to or greater $25,000.
"Covered Activities" means the activities funded by the Port:
service contract or the activities for which a nonprofit organization
receives Port Assistance.
"Employee" means any indiVidual who is employed as a service
employee of a cont.ractor or subcontractor under the authority of one
or more Service Contracts and who expends, any of his or her time on
Covered Activities, including but'not limited to clerical and support
staff; provided, however, shall not include any individual
who expends less than twenty five percent of his or her
compensated time on Covered Activities.
"Employer" means any person who is a Port Assistance
recipient, Contractor or subcontractor.
"NQnprofit organization" means a nonprofit organization
described in Sect.ion 501 (c) (3) of the Int.ernal Revenue Code which is
eJ<:empt from taxation under Section 501 (c) (3) of that code, or any
nonprofit educational organization qualified under Section 23701(d) of
the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
"Persorr' means any indiVidual, propriet.orship, partnership,
joint venture, corporation, limited liability trust, association, or
other entity that may employ individuals or enter into contracts.
"port Assistance" means direct assistance in the form of
grants financial subsidies in an amount of $100,000 or more in any
fiscal year.
"Ser'lrice Contract" means a contract by the Port for the
funding of services to or the Port, except where services are
incidental to the delivery of products, equipment or commodities, and
th<lt involves an expenditure equal to or greater than $25,000. A
contract for the purchase or lease of goods, products, equipment,
supplies or other property is not a "service contract" for purposes of
this definition. A construction contract covered by a local, state or
federal prevailing wage statute is nat a "service contract".
2 34836
NQV-08-2001 THU 02:34 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COMM DIV
FAX NO, 510 839 1766
P, 05
"Subcontractor' means any person who enters into a
wi th a to assist the Contractor in performing a Service
Contract or with a Port Assistance recipient to assist the recipient
in performing the work for which the Port Assistance is being given or
to perform services on the property, which is the subject of Port
Assistance.
"Trainee" means a person enrolled in a bona fide job
training program recognized. as such by the Port.
Section 3. of Minimum Compensation to
(a) Wages: Employers shall pay employees a wage of no
less than the hourly rates set under the authOrity of this Ordinance.
The inidal rate for fiscal year 2001-2002 shall be $9.13 per hour
worked with health benefits, as described below, or otherwise $10.50
per hour. Such rates shall be upwardly adjusted annually in
proportion to the increase on December 31 of each year over the
immediately preceding December 31 of the Consumer Price Index U for
the San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose Area. The Port Shall pUblish a
bulletin by April 1 of each year announcing the adjusted rates, which
shall take effect on the following JUly 1. The adjusted rates or
fisCdl year 2001-2002 are $9.13 per hour worked with health benefits
and $10.50 health benefits.
(b) Health Benefits: Health benefits required by this
Ordinance shall consist of the payment of at least $1. 25 hour
worked toward the provision of health care benefits for employees
and/or their dependents. Employees who decline health benefits shall
not qualify for the higher wage rate establiShed in (al above.
(c) Compensated Days Off: Employees shall be entitled to

at least twelve (12) compensated days off for sick leave, vacation or
personal necessi t.y upon reasonable request. Employees who work part
time shall be entitled to accrue compensated days off in increments
proportional to that accrued by full-time employees. Employees shall
be eligible to use accrued days off after the first 6 months of
satisfactory employment or consistent with employer policy, whichever
is sooner. Paid holidays, consistent with established employer
policy, may pe counted toward provision of the required 12 compensated
days off.
Section 4. Exemptions
The Requirements of this Ordinance to pa.y minimum
compensation shall not be applicable to the employees;
(a) Employees of
concessionaires, franchisees,
entry.
Port tenants,
permittees or
subtenants,
grantees of
licensees,
rights ot
(b) . Employees of subtenants or licensees of the City of
Oakland Port property pursuant to an aqreement which is
covered by the City of Oakland's Living Wage Ordinance.
3
f
NOV-08-2001 THU 02:35 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COtltl DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 06
(c) An employee participating in a bona fide temporary job
t.raining program in \oI'hich a significant component. of the employees'
compensation consists of acquiring specialized knowledge, abilities or
skills in a recognized trade.
(d) An employee who is under 21 of age, employed by
a governmental agency or nonprofit organization for after school or
summer employment, or as a trainee for a period of not longer than 90
days.
(e) An employee working for the employer less than 20
hours per week for a period not longer than 6 months.
(f) An employee working for an employer who employs 5 or
fewer 'employees.
(g) Employees of employers who have obtained a waiver from
the Port of the applicability of this 'Ordinance as provided herein.
(h}
determines that
this Ordinance
ineerest of the
When the Board of Port Commissioners and
waiver of the applicability of the requirements of
to a particular service contract is in the best
Port.
(i) Volunt.eers who are not co.mpensated for their work
other than for incidental expenses or stipends.
(j) Employees of contractors on Port pUblic works projects
subj ect to the requirements of Division 2, Part 7, of the California
Labor Code, or sul:lject. to the provisions of a comparable federal,
state or loca! prevailing wage requirement.
Section 5. Waivex-
A service contractor or Port. assistance recipient may apply
to the Executive Director or his assignee for a waiver of t.he
applicabili ty of the requirements of this Ordinance to a particular
service contract or award of Port assistance. Such application for
waiver shall set forth with specificity the reaSons Why the service
cont.ractor or Port. assistance recipient is unable to comply with the
requirements of this Ordinance. Any application for waiver must be
made and acted upon prior to execution of a service contract or award
of Port assistance.
Section 6. Emergency; SusPlimsion
(al. Emergency: The Executive Director may suspend the
applicability of this Ordinance in whole Or in part for a maximum ot
thirty (30) days upon finding of an emergency.
(b} Suspension: The Board of Port Commissioners reserves
the right. to suspend the applicability of t.his Ordinance by adoption
4
(
NpV-08-2001 THU 02:35 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COl1l1 DIV
FAX NO, 510 839 1766
P. 07
of a Resolution setting forth the basis suspension and the
duration of the suspension.
Section 7. !tetaliation and Di.sori.J:ldnation Prohibi.ted
(a) No employer shall retaliate or discriminate against an
employee in his or her terms and conditions of employment by reason of
the individual's st.atus as an employee protected by the requirements
of this Ordinance.
(b) No employer shall retaliate or discriminate against an
individual in his or her terms and conditions of employment by reason
of the individual reporting a violation of this Ordinance or for
prosecuting an action for enforcement of this Ordinance.
Section B. Emp20Yee to "Pgrt
(a) An employee who alleges violation of any provision of
the requirements of this Ordinance may report such acts to the Port.
The Executive Director may establish a pr-ocedure for receiving and
investigating such complaints and take enforcement action.
(b) Any complaints shall be tre"ated as confidential
matters, to the extent permitted by law. Any complaints received and
all investigation documents related thereto shall be deemed exempt
from disclosure pur-suant to California Government Code, Sections 6254
and 6255.
Section 9. P3:'a.vate Riqht of Action to Enforoe
th.is Ordinance; Damaqes, Back Pay, Reinstat.ement, Reasonable
FGtilS and. Casu
(a) An employee claiming violation of this Ordinance may

bring an action in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the State
of California, as appropriate, against an employer and obtain the
following remedies:
(1) Back pay for each day during which the employer-
failed to pay che compensation required by this Ordinance.
damages.
(2) Reinstatement, compensatory damages and punitive
,(3) Reasonable attor-ney's fees and costs.
(b) Notwithstanding any provision of this Ordinance or any
other ordinance to the contrar-y, no criminal penalties shall attach
for any violation of this artiCle. .
(c) No remedy set forth in this Ordinance is intended to be
exclusive Or a prerequisite for asserting a claim for r-elief to
enforce any rights hereunder in a court of law. This Ordinance shall
not be construed to limit an employee's right to bring a common law
Cause of action for wrongful termination.
5
NOV-08-2001 THU 02:36 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COMM DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 08
(dl Nothing in this Ordinance any to bring
an action against the Port and nothing in this Ordinance authorizes a
right of action against the Port for the Port's failure to take action
hereunder.
(e) Nothing in this Ordinance shall
any action authorized herein, and nothing
interpreted as requiring the Port to take or
action.
require the Port to take
in Ordinance shall be
refrain f;r;om taking any
Seet;i.on 10. Monitoring, Investiqation and Compliance
(a) The Executive Directo;r; is authorized to develop and
implement procedures to carry out the purposes of this Ordinance, and
is authorized to promulgate regulations to insure the implementation
of this Ordinance, including but not limited to regulations for
resolution of employee complaints and regulations fo;r; monitoring the
operations and compliance of employers, which may include establishing
for employers submission to the Port of
records and requirements for uncompensated days off.
Ordinance
following:
(b)
shall
Penalties imposed on employers who violate
include but not be limited to" any or all of
this
the
Secti.on 11.
(l) Suspension and/or termination of the service
contracc, subcontract or Port Assistance.
(2) Repayment of any or all sums paid by the Port.
(3) Deeming the employer ineligible fo;r; future Port
contracts Or Port Assistance.
(4) Payment of a fine payable to the Port of $500 for
each week fo;r; each employee found by the Port not to have been paid in
accordance with this Ordinance;"
(5) Payment of wages to affected employees in
accordance with this Ordinance, inclUding wage restitution.
Obligations of Employer$
(al Employers shall inform all employees earning less than
$12 per hour of their possible right to the earned income credit.
(b) Employers shall file a declaration of compliance with
their obligations under this Ordinance under penalty of perjury and as
consideration for receipt of payment from the Port, in sUbstantially
the form of the Certificate of Compliance set forth in Section 17, as
it may be modified from time to time by regulations adopted
Section 12.
aarqaini.nq Agreem.nt
6 34836
-r
NOV-08-2001 THU 02:37 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COliM DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 09
The of this Ordinance, or any hereof, may be
waived by a bona fide collective bargaining but only if the
waiver is explicitly set forth in such agreement.
Secti,ct1 13. Effective Date
This Ordinance shall apply to service contracts and awards
of Port assistance entered into after the effective date of this
Ordinance. In event that a is amended after the
effective date and such results in expenditure of Port funds
in an amount otherwise covered by this Ordinance, the terms of this
Ordinance 5hall apply to wages payable to employees from and after the
date of such amendment.
Secti.on 14. Revi.aw
The Executive Director shall periodically report to the
Board on the effects and implementation of this Ordinance .
..
7
NOV-08-2001 THU 02:37 PM PORT OF OAKLAND CONN DIV
FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 10
section 15. Re9J1lations
The Execut.ive Director is hereby authox-ized to adopt and
promu'lgate regulations, consistent with 'this Ordinance, as shall be
necessary or convenient to implement this Ordinance.
Sec::tion 16. Severabili!-y
In the event any provision of this Ordinance is held invalid
or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, such holding
will not invalidate or render unenforceable any other provisions .
. hereof.
Section 17. For.m of Certificate of Compliance with Port
of Oakland Wave Ordinance
(a) The undersigned (hereafter "Contractor")
certificate under penalty of perjury and as a condition
its invoice(s) for services provided under the
agreement between the Port and Contractor .
submits this
of payment of
. (b) Contractor hereby certifies that all Employees of
Contractor engaged in Covered Activities (both as defined in Port
Ordinance No. (her@after the "Port' s Living Wage O:tdinance" )
shall be compensated in compliance with the requirements of the Port's
Living Wage Ordinance.
(e) Contractor acknowledges that the Port is relying on .
. Contractor's certification of compliance with the Port's Living wage
Ordinance as condition of payment of Contractor's invoice(s).
(d) Contractor hereby certifies that. records and
st.atements relating to Contractor's compliance with the Port' $ Living
Wage Ordinance are true and accurate, that such claims, records and
statements are made with the knowledge that the Port will rely on such
claims, reco:cds and statements, and that such claims, records and
statements are submitted to the Port for the express benefit of
Contractor's Employees engaged in Covered Activities.
e
,
NOV-D8-2DD1 THU D2:38 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COMM DIV

FAX NO. 510 839 1766
P. 11
(e) All t.enns used herein and not defined shall have the
meaning ascribed to such terms in the Port's Living Wage Ordinance.
In Board of Port CoIl'1Illissioners, Oakland, California, October 2,
2001. Passed to for one day oy the following vote: Ayes: Commissioners
Ayers-Johnson, Kiang-, Protopappas, Scates, Uribe and Presi.dent Tagami - 6.
Noes: None. Absent: Commissioner Kramer - 1.
Christopner C. Marshall
Secretary of the Board
Adopted at & requ1ar
By the following Vote:
meetingheld October 16, 2001
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstained:
Absent:
Ayers-JohnsoD, KiAng, Protopappas, Scates,
U:ribe and Pre:aident Taq.a.mi - 6
None
Kramer - 1
None
35751
9
s-t./
s -4-- ,

DEC 0 4 2001
DRAFT
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILlV1EMBER, _
"LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES", TO BE SUBMITrED TO THE ELECTORS AT THE
Commissioners; and
and
responsibilities under the current City Charter, the City of Oakland's Living Wage
the Port; and
the Port will receive a percentage of the revenues or income from the t
__ IL_
business, and that proprietary interest would be affected by labor J .,..
273787
o ; - ~ ; C')U,,'CIL
DEC 0 4 2001
benefits, which is the same amount the City of Oakland Living Wage ordinance
emergency; and
$50,000; and .
"Section 728.
LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES
278512 l.DOC
2
amendment;
Supreme Court.
related employment.
following:
278512 I.DOC 3
City of Oakland.
C. Adjustments
preceding December 31st overthe prior year in the Bay Region's Consumer Price Index as
effect upon such publication. Such bulletin will be distributed to all PASs covered by this and to
any other person who has filed with the Port a request to receive such notice. A PAS shall
credit.
Code.
another location, in staffing decisions the new PAS may recognize seniority from its prior
278512 I.DOC
4
labor disputes
proprietary interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAS shall
PAS's Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision
proprietary interest in such PAS's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No-Strike
Pledge"). Each such PAS shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors,
Pledges.
(S) For purposes of this subsection, "Hospitality or Retail Food Industry" includes
. or other income over the duration of the contract, lease or license.
(C) A PAS shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of
time during which a third-party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAS and the Alameda Central
proprietary interest in such PAS's operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
unlawful. If the parties are unable to agree upon a neutral, the PAS may contact the Federal
names. At the PAS's request, such proceeding shall be conducted according to the FMCS
A. A PAS shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of or otherwise
S. Any waiver by an individual of any of the provisions of this Section shall be
unambiguous terms. Any request to an individual by a PAS to waive his or her rights under this
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAS shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a
record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAS claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid
by the PAS for the employee's health benefits. The PAS shall submit a copy of such records to
S
t, June 30
th
, September 30
th
and December 31
st
of each year,
unless the PAS has employed less than 20 persons during the preceding quarter, in which case
278512 l.DOC 5
the PAS need only submit a copy of such records every December 31
st
Failure to provide a copy
($500.00) per day. Each PAS shall maintain a record of the name, address, job classification,
S. If a PAS provides health benefits to persons in Port-related employment but
does not pay for them on a per-hour basis, then upon the PAS's request, the amount of the hourly
credit against its wage obligation shall be the Port's reasonable estimate of the PAS's average
hourly cost to provide health benefits to its Employees in Port-related employment. The PAS shall
C. Each PAS shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to
D. Each PAS shall permit access to work sites and relevant payroll records for
persons employed by the PAS. Each PAS shall permit a representative of the labor organizations
practices of a PAS relative to this section, and (3) provision by the Port of notice and hearing as
the PAS in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the State of California, as appropriate, to
generally.
S. Any employee proving a violation of this Section shall recover from the PAS
278512 l.DOC
6
10. Severability
Chapter 3 of the Oakland Municipal Code, the City Clerk shalt fix and determine a
by law; and be it
following:
MEASURE PROVIDING FOR LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE
MEASURE __
Measure . Shall Oakland City Charter be amended Yes
to add section 728 which would
1) require that certain Port of Oakland contractors pay
employees at least $10.50 per hour;
2) require that certain new Port contractors retain their
predecessors' nonmanagement and nonsupervisory
employees for 90 days;
3) prohibit the Port from contracting out work performed
by Port employees as of June 30, 2001, except in an
278512 l.DOC 7
emergency;
4) require that certain Port contractors in the hospitality
and retail food industry obtain no-strike agreements from
labor organizations to protect the Port's proprietary
interests?
No
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, (DATE), 20(YEAR)
NOTES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
ATTEST: _
CEDA FLOYD
278512 l.DOC
8 S -Lf-\
O ; : C , ~ C'JU \'Gll
DEC 0 4 2001
(ast Bay Alliane' for aSustainabl, (eonomy
548 20
TH
STREET, OAKLAND, CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 893-71 06, FAX (510) 893-5362
November 21,2001
City Clerk Ceda Floyd
City of Oakland
HAND DELIVERED
Dear Ms Floyd:
The following letter and attachments were hand delivered by us to each of the City
Council members. We are enclosing copies for the official record.
'")
0
(")
-
no':
..-'"-
0
0
c::::
N
:- -4-n
CT'
.;><: .J:;::
r-fTl
-,. I'Tl
-0
on
3':
z-C
Q-"
N
-<
r"",
U1
r-
r-":
;0
:J".
Sincerely,

Co-Director

Cross
Co-Director
Attachments: Summary of Poll Findings on Port Living Wage Initiative
Summary of DC Berkeley Report on Port Living Wage Impact
Comparison of Living Wage Policies- Port, City, Initiative
Analysis of Port Initiative Implementation Timeline
Summary of Existing Living Wage Laws
DC Berkeley Report on Port Living Wage Impact
S-Lf-
S-y-\
ORAlCOU\\!ClL
DEC 04

/
.-
E5
)ld7- /
November 21,2001
Dear Council Member:
Council Member
HAND DELIVERED
(ast Bay lilianc' for aSustainabl, (conomy
548 20
TH
STREET. OAKLAND. CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 893-71 06. FAX (51 0) 893-5362 0
%
o
.c:::
N
C1'
We are writing on behalf of the Port Living Wage coalition, the alliance of labor unions,
community organizations and faith-based institutions who are advocating for placing the
Port Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative on the March 2002 ballot. We have
reviewed the staff report prepared by the Community and Economic Development
Agency on the impact of the Port Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative. We
found the report to be biased, engaged in speculation without a factual basis
(particularly with regards to the impact on Port-assisted businesses) and factually
inaccurate on several key points (particularly with regards to what the initiative does
and does not require and which businesses would and would not be covered).
We will be issuing a detailed response to the CEDA report prior to next Thursday's
meeting of the Rules and Legislation Committee. In the meantime, we urge you to
review the following materials, which we are providing in response to the request of
members of the Rules and Legislation Committee. We particularly draw your attention to
the report prepared by the University of California at Berkeley Institute for Industrial
Relations on the impact of a Living Wage policy at the Port of Oakland, which we
believe to be more comprehensive and methodologically rigorous than either the City or
Port staff reports.
Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions regarding these issues.
Sincerely,
Amaha Kassa
Co-Director
Kirsten Cross
Co-Director
Attachments: Summary of Poll Findings on Port Living Wage Initiative
Summary of UC Berkeley Feport on Port Living Wage Impact
Comparison of Living Wage Policies- Port, City, Initiative
Analysis of Port Initiative Implementation Timeline
Summary of Existing Living Wage Laws
UC Berkeley Report on Port Living Wage Impact
Attachment A
(ast Bay Alliance for aSustainable (conomy
548 20
TH
STREET, OAKLAND, CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 893-71 06, FAX (51 0) 893-5362
"Port Living Wage and Labor Standards" Initiative
Summary of Poll Results
J. Moore Methods of Sacramento conducted an opinion poll in October, 2001 on the Port Living
Wage initiative with a representative sampling of Oakland voters. Support for the Port Living
Wage is high, ranging from 63% to as high as 78%, depending on the specific question posed.
After hearing all arguments pro and con, 70% of respondents supported the initiative.
Answers to Key Questions:
1. "A group of Oakland City elected leaders are considering the idea of placing a measure
on the ballot next year which would require any company doing business with the Port of
Oakland, through a contract or lease, pay their employees a minimum "living wage" of at
least $10.50 an hour. What is your opinion of this ballot initiative idea. Would you
likely support or oppose it?"
Support 75% Oppose 20% No opinion 5%
2. Proponents of this Oakland "living wage" ballot measure proposal are considering asking
the Oakland City Council to place this measure on the ballot in time for the upcoming
March election. Would you support or oppose the Oakland City Council placing this
"living wage" measure on the ballot, rather than requiring proponents to gather signatures
to qualify the measure themselves?"
Support 65% Oppose 28% No Opinion 7%
3. The Port of Oakland recently adopted a policy to pay 150 of the 3,000 low-wage
employees working at the Port, a $10.50 an hour "living wage". Would you support or
oppose adopting the "living wage" salary levels for the remaining Port of Oakland
employees, including janitors, hotel maids, parking lot attendants, waiters and
waitresses?"
Support 78% Oppose 17% No opinion 5%
Key Reasons for Support for the Initiative
86% of those polled thought that the high cost of living in the Bay Area is a reason to
support the initiative.
78% thought that helping "low-paid immigrants and minorities who are working to stay
off welfare and improve life for their families" was a reason to support it.
Attachment B
Economic Impact of a Living Wage at the Port of Oakland
Summary
In December 1999, the Center for Labor Education and Research at U. C. Berkeley published a report on
the costs and benefits ofa living wage law at the Port of Oakland.
1
The study was funded by the U.c.
California Research Seminar at the request of State Senator Don Perata. The findings are summarized
below.
Background
The Port of Oakland generates over 11,000 jobs directly and 11,000 indirectly.
28% of Oakland workers earn below Oakland's living wage level.
The median household income in West Oakland, the Port's neighboring community, is $14,788.
Benefits
3,100 workers would be affected by a Port living wage policy that covered contractors, financial
assistance recipients and leaseholders at the same wage as the City's policy.
2,600 making less than the living wage would receive an average of $2.25 an hour increase in wages
and benefits. Another 500 making just above the living wage would receive a "wage push" of $1.16.
41 % of the beneficiaries would be African American, 25% Latino, and 19% Asian.
65% would be Oakland residents.
Some firms would benefit from reduced employee turnover.
County, State and Federal governments would see some increases in taxes and $250,000 savings in
social services.
Costs
Total cost of wages, benefits and payroll taxes to employers and the Port would be $13 million.
The average cost to Port leaseholders would be I % of annual business revenues.
The cost to the Port Airport Division would amount to $0.59 per passenger departure. Most ofthe
low-wage jobs are related to large airline firms.
The cost to the Real Estate Division would amount to $0.66 per visitor to Jack London Square.
Employment growth at the Port would not likely be affected by a living wage policy.
1 Carol Zabin (Ph.D.), Michael Reich (Ph.D.) and Peter Hall (Ph.D. candidate), Living Wages at the Port of
Oakland, Center for Labor Research and Education, Institute oflndustrial Relations, V.c. Berkeley, December
1999. Website: http://violet.berkeley.edu/-iir/clre/cire.html.
"'
Comparison of Key Provisions - City of Oakland Living Wage Ordinance, Port Living Wage Ordinance and
Port Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative
City of Oakland Port Living Wage Ordinance Port Living Wage & Notes
Living Wage Labor Standards
Ordinance Initiative
Covered Contractors over Contractors over $25,000 Contractors over
*Employers covered by
Employers $25,000 Only applies to non-profit subsidy $50,000
Living Wage and
Subsidy recipients recipients over $100,000. Subsidy recipients over
Worker Retention. A
more limited group of
(CFARs) over Definition of subsidy is much more $50,000
employers is covered
$100,000 limited than the City's. Tenants over $50,000 by labor peace
Subcontractors & Subcontractors of the above (no Subcontractors &
requirements- see
tenants of the tenants) tenants of the above*
below.
above
Estimated 500 150 2,600*
*An additional 500
Workers
workers will benefit
Covered
through the "wage
push" effect.
Wage Level $1 0.50/hr. w/o health $1 0.50/hr. w/o health benefits. $10.50/hr. w/o health
*The Port Ordinance is
benefits. $9.13 w/health benefits. * benefits.
written so that an
$9.13 w/health $9.13 w/health benefits.
employer gets credit for
paying $1.37/hr.
benefits.
towards insurance
while only paying
$1.25/hr.
Exemptions Firms with fewer Firms with fewer than 5 employees Firms with fewer than
*'Covered work" is work
than 5 employees Trainees, youth workers 20 employees
related to the contract,
(20 employees for Employees spending less than 25% Trainees
project, or property for
which the business has
tenants of CFARs) of time on "covered work" Youth workers
an agreement with the
Trainees, youth Temporary workers Employees who spend City or Port. In the
workers Prevailing wage workers less than 25% of their
City's ordinance,
Employees of Anyone deemed "in the best time on "covered work"
employees of service
CFARs and their interest of the Port" to exempt
contractors who spend
any of their time on
subcontractors and ALL tenants, subtenants, licensees,
"covered work" are
tenants who spend concessionaires, franchisees, covered.
less than 50% or permitees or grantees of rights of
more of their time entry- even if they are also
on "covered work" * contractors or subsidy recipients
>
~
~
=-
8
~
a
("'l
City of Oakland Port Living Wage Port Livi ng Wage & Labor Notes
Living Wage Ordinance Standards Initiative
Ordinance
Monitoring, The City The Executive Director may The City Manager shall
Enforcement Manager shall develop rules & regulations develop rules & regulations
develop rules & to implement the law and a to implement the law and a
regulations to complaint procedure. complaint procedure.
implement the law The Port is not required to
and a complaint comply with or enforce the
procedure. law: "Nothing in this
Requires City to Ordinance shall require
pursue "all the Port to take any action
available legal authorized herein, and
remedies" when an nothing in Ordinance shall
employer violates be interpreted as requiring
the law. the Port to take or refrain
from taking any action."
Worker N/A N/A Requires employers who
Retention take over a contract to retain
qualified employees for 90
days, unless they have just
cause to do otherwise. Also
limits contracting out of Port
work to emergencies.
Labor Peace N/A N/A Requires employers in whom
"Applies only to employers in
the Port has a proprietary
the hospitality & retail food
interest to insure against
industries from which the Port
receives more than $50,000 in
labor disruption & loss of
revenue. Thresholds of 20
revenue to the Port by employees and 25% of time
securing an agreement that
spent on "covered work" apply.
includes a "no-strike" pledge
from any labor organization
seeking to represent their
employees. *
>
......
......
~
~
S
a
(1
,. Attachment D
Bay Allianc' for aSustainabl,
548 20
TH
Timetable for Living Wage Initiative Effect on Airport and Real
Estate Division Tenants
Airport Businesses to Be Affected Soon-Others Affected Over 40 Years
November 21, 2001
Summary
The Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative will have an immediately affect on most major
firms operating at the Airport but few operating under the Real Estate di vision. Most Airport
related businesses hold short-term licenses to use the airport's facilities that will tum over in one
to two years. However, real estate agreements with major businesses, falling in the Jack London
Square and Embarcadero areas, tend to be longer in duration and most would not be affected for
five to six years. In some cases, leases will not expire in 20 to 40 years. This means that many
firms will fall under the requirements after shorter-term fluctuation of the economy.
Background
This report assess how soon major employers at the Port will be affected by the requirements of
the Port Living Wage Initiative, if it is placed on the ballot and approved by Oakland voters.
The Port Living Wage Initiative covers all businesses that have financial agreements of some
form with the Port of Oakland. This includes firms that are contracted for services, firms
receiving financial assistance and firms that pay the Port to use land or facilities. The first two
categories currently include only a handful of businesses, and have been assessed elsewhere. I
The last category, which can be referred to as tenants of the Port, includes the majority of
businesses covered by the Port Living Wage Initiative. A study by D.C. Berkeley estimated that
2,500 employees of tenants of the Port would be affected while the Port estimates that only 100
employees of contractors would be affected.
Under the proposed initiative, existing agreements between tenants and the Port would not be
affected. Only new agreements are affected. If a lease expires in 2010, the tenant would not be
expected to meet the living wage requirements for another nine years, assuming they stay in that
location. Thus, the costs of the initiative would not be incurred immediately, but as agreements
expire and are renewed over time.
Because implementation depends on how quickly tenant agreements with the Port are renewed, it
is important to understand the structure of lease agreements at the Port. Below, we explore lease
renewal.
1 Port of Oakland, Living Wage Costs and Benefits Staff Report, January 18, 2000.
East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy
Public Records Request - July 9,2001.
Port Agreement Tum-over: A 15 Month Snapshot
Page 2
Between March 31
S
t, 2000 and July 10,2001 (15 month period), the Port of Oakland signed 85
agreements with 69 private firms for use of Port land or facilities.
2
These agreements are in the
forms of lease, ground lease, right-of-entry and indemnity, license, concession, and rental
agreements. Nearly all agreements were renewals or amendments of existing ones.
These 85 agreements were split between the Port's divisions as follows:
Division
Airport:
Maritime:
Real Estate:
Jack London Square:
Embarcaderro
Other
Agreements
60
2
10
9
4
Many major airport-related businesses received new or amended agreements from the Port
Commissioners. These included Air Terminal Services (the master lessor for all airport
concessions), all of the rental car enterprises, the two largest flight schools, several non-
commercial aviation operators, Ontario Aircraft Service (handles cargo), Rolls Royce Engine
Services, Sky Chefs (in-flight catering) and United Airlines.
Only one major business at the Embarcadero signed a new or amended an old agreement-the
Executive Inn leased additional land for expansion, with the new entire lease expiring in 2040.
Other agreements included several temporary uses of vacant parcels for storage and transfer of a
lease to new owners of the Reef Restaurant.
Only one major business at Jack London Square required a new or amended agreement-II
Pescatore Restaurant leased additional storage from the Port. The other nine agreements were
with businesses that are so small, they would likely fall under the size threshold-two are with
Jack London Air, three with Dockside Boat and Bed, one with Samuel's Gallery and one with
Jack London Water Taxi Service.
Airport
Most businesses at the airport will be affected by the Living Wage Initiative in one to two years.
Although many large operations at the airport hold long-term leases or storage agreements (up to
30 years), nearly all also hold short-term agreements to use Port facilities that tum over every
one or two years (called license and concession or right-of-entry agreements).3
2 Board of Port Commissioners of the Port of Oakland Calendars, March 31
s
t, 2000 through July 10, 2001.
3 Master Lease Printout, dated 1 July 2001. '
Page 3
For example, Federal Express has agreements to park aircraft at North Airport that expire in
2020. However, leases for office/warehouse space and a license and concession agreement for
use of the heavy aircraft apron are on a month to month basis. These qualify under the
initiative's dollar threshold (more than $50,000 over the life of the agreement) and would take
place immediately.
Major operations that will likely be affected within one or two years:
Major Airlines
Alaska Airlines
America West Airlines
American Airlines
Continental
Delta Airlines
Southwest Airlines
United Airlines
Rental Car Companies
Hertz
Avis
Budget
Dollar
Enterprise
Other
Federal Express
Kaiser Air
PG&E
Rolls Royce Engine Services
Sierra Academy of Aeronautics
Air Terminal Services (CAl)
Oakland Fuel Facilities
Sky Chefs
UPS
Real Estate Division
The three major real estate areas are Jack London Square, the Embarcadero and near the airport.
Although the Port does own some commercial space buildings (such as the old Tribune offices at
Jack London Square), most of the real estate holding is land. Many major businesses operating
on Port land lease the land and own their buildings. These ground leases are typically long-term,
usually in proportion to the amount the business has invested in their own buildings.
Examples of major businesses under lease with the Real Estate Division are:
Major Businesses
Barnes and Noble
TGI Friday's
Pizzeria Uno
Old Spaghetti Factory
Yoshi's
EI Torito Restaurant
Oakland Airport Hilton
Motel 6 (Embarcadero)
Scott' Seafood Restaurant
Executive Inn (Embarcadero)
Waterfront Plaza Hotel
Page 4
Lease Expires
4
2002
2004
2006 (with two 5-year options to
extend-up to 2016)
2007
2007
2010
2031
2032
2041
2040
2045
As shown here, some businesses would be affected soon, but most would not be affected for five
or six years. In some cases, up to 40 years.
Other business actions may result in a new agreement, however, before the expiration of the
lease agreement. This includes amendments for adding space or making improvements and
change of ownership, though in some previous cases the existing lease simply changed hands
without amendment.
4 Expiration dates are from Port leases documents for each business.
Attachment E
Summary of Living Wage Laws in the U.S.
By Geography
66 local governments have adopted living wage ordinances in some form, including cities, counties and
school districts.
Large living wage cities include Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and Boston.
14 California local governments have adopted living wage laws, including 7 in the Bay Area: Oakland,
Berkeley, Hayward, Richmond, San Jose, Santa Clara County and San Francisco.
By Coverage
57 living wage laws cover outsourced service contractors.
36 cover recipients of financial assistance or subsidies. Most of these extend to the tenants and
contractors of subsidized businesses. Cities include Oakland, Los Angeles, Detroit, Minneapolis and San
Francisco.
5 cover leaseholders and tenants. These are Los Angeles, Berkeley, Richmond, Pittsburgh, PA and San
Francisco. The San Francisco law applies a health benefit requirement of tenants at the Port of San
Francisco.
5 living wage laws cover either ports or airports, including the following:
Los Angeles covers the harbor and the airport. The harbor is primarily a real estate operation.
San Jose covers the airport.
Miami-Dade County Florida covers the airport
San Francisco covers both the port and airport. The Port of San Francisco is primarily a real estate
operation.
By Additional Provisions
8 cities have passed some form of a worker retention law, either concurrently with living wage ordinances
or independently.
Cities with worker retention requirements on city-related contracts include the City of Los Angeles,
San Jose, Santa Cruz, Multnomah County OR (Portland), and Los Angeles County.
City-wide worker retention laws, that cover all businesses, include the District of Columbia and the
City of Philadelphia.
6 cities have some form of labor peace or clauses that assess company labor practices prior to financial
agreements-also known as "third tier review" and "responsible bidder"---embedded within living wage
ordinances. Labor peace can be found in San Francisco Airport's "Quality Standards Program" and
Hartford's and Santa Cruz's living wage ordinances. Third tier review and responsible bidder clauses can
be found in San Jose, Minneapolis, and Pittsburgh's living wage laws. Other cities have separate labor
peace ordinances, including Marina, CA and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania.
Living Wages at the Port of Oakland
Carol Zabin***
Michael Reich**
Peter Hall*
with the assistance of
Melanie McCutchan, Christopher Niedt and Egon Terplan
Center for Labor Research and Education
Center on Pay and Inequality
Institute of Industrial Relations
DC Berkeley CA 94720
December 1999
***Ph. D., Economist, Center for Labor Research and Education
**Ph. D., Professor of Economics
*Ph. D. candidate, Department of City and Regional Planning
Contents
Summary and Main Findings
Page
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Introduction and overview of living wage ordinances
Purpose ofthis report
The Oakland Living Wage Ordinance in national perspective
Oakland's wage standard and coverage
Recent growth and income distribution trends in Oakland
Economic growth in Oakland
Those left behind
Employment and pay at the Port of Oakland
The Port's transformation
The Port's expansion
Current Port employment patterns
The benefits of the proposed Living Wage Ordinance
Benefits to workers
Benefits to employers
Benefits to governmental entities
The costs and affordability of the ordinance
Costs to employers
Costs to workers
Affordability
Affordability at the Airport
Affordability at the maritime Division
Affordability at the Real Estate Division
Conclusion
5
5
6
7
9
9
9
11
11
12
13
15
15
16
18
19
19
20
20
21
23
24
26
Appendices
A.
B.
Survey method and data sources
Supplementary wage calculations
28
28
32
Acknowledgments and author biographies
References
List of tables
35
36
39
Summary and Main Findings
In June of 1999, a coalition of citizen groups proposed that the City of Oakland's
Living Wage Ordinance should be extended to cover workers employed by leaseholders
and contractors of the Port of Oakland. The Port is currently excluded from the City law.
The Port of Oakland is the city's biggest public asset and is frequently touted as the city's
principal engine of economic growth. Businesses at the Port's three divisions-- the
maritime port, Oakland International Airport, and the waterfront real estate division,
which includes Jack London Square-- employ over 11,000 workers and generate
indirectly another 11,000 jobs. The Port is planning expansions that will increase these
numbers dramatically.
This study estimates the costs and benefits of implementing a specific living wage
policy proposal which would cover the leaseholders and on-site service contractors of the
Port of Oakland. We based our analysis on the assumption that the living wage policy
would follow the provisions of the Oakland law, except that the Port policy would
include the category of leaseholders. Leaseholders are only covered in the Oakland law
if they receive direct city financial assistance. Following the Oakland law, the proposal
we analyzed would require covered businesses to pay their workers $8.30 per hour if they
provide health benefits or $9.55 per hour without benefits, with wages indexed to cost-of
-living adjustments every year. The proposal would also provide a floor of 12 days of
paid leave (and 10 days unpaid leave) for illness, holidays and vacation.
The information used in this analysis is based largely on contract and economic
data that we obtained from the Port and from a detailed survey that we conducted of the
Port's leaseholders and on-site contractors. Our survey examined the 140 businesses at
the Port who would be covered by the proposed ordinance because they are leaseholders
or on-site subcontractors, and who employ over five workers. The survey compiled
extensive information on firms, jobs and workers, supplemented when necessary by
estimates derived from government data sources, by a briefer survey we conducted of
firms located near Jack London Square and by selected on-site interviews. We also
obtained useful comments from Port officials and other stakeholders.
What kinds a/jobs does the Port create and who holds them?
Thirty years ago much of the employment at the Port consisted of highly-paid
longshoring jobs in the maritime division. Since then, the number of longshoring jobs in
the Bay Area has fallen by half, while employment at the Port's airport and real estate
divisions both have increased and are expected to continue to grow in the coming decade.
As a result, the maritime division currently contains the lowest number ofjobs at the
Port (about 2,050), although at the highest average wages (about $32 per hour). The
airport is by far the biggest job generator at the Port, with almost 7,300 employees and
average wages of $14.50. The real estate division, with 2,100 jobs, produces the lowest
wage employment, with an average wage just under $11. Unionized jobs are concentrated
Living Wages at the Port of Oakland 2
in the maritime division and pay much higher wages than non-union jobs, which are most
concentrated in the real estate division. The individual economic sectors with the lowest
average wage rates at the port are the hotel, restaurant, parking, security and skycaps, and
other services sectors.
Approximately 54 percent of Port workers live in Oakland and about 35 percent
are women. About 36 percent of Port workers are African American, about the same as
their representation in Oakland as a whole. Asian Americans and Latinos comprise 14
percent and 24 percent of Port workers, respectively.
Average wage disparities among ethnic groups in the Port as a whole are fairly
small, with the notable exception of Asian Americans, who earn substantially less than
other groups. Within the Port's divisions, however, racial wage disparities have been
overcome only in the maritime division, where African Americans constitute about half
of the highly-paid longshore workers. In both the airport and the real estate divisions,
average wages of whites are about 50 percent higher than those of African Americans.
What would be the benefits ofa living wage policy at the Port?
About 2,600 low-paid workers at the Port of Oakland would benefit directly from
the proposed living wage ordinance. They would receive an average pay and benefits
increase of $2.25 per hour, and up to 12 days of paid leave per year. In total, these low-
wage workers would receive an additional $4.7 million in wages and $3.3 million in
health benefits each year.
In addition, approximately 500 more workers would benefit indirectly because of
a "wage push" effect. They would receive an average pay increase of $1.16 per hour.
The total indirect wage push for workers just above and below the living wage level
amounts to a $2.1 million increase each year.
The 3,100 living wage beneficiaries would comprise about 27 percent of all non-
supervisory employees of Port leaseholders.
About 41 percent of the direct beneficiaries would be African American, 25
percent would be Latino, 19 percent would be Asian American and 15 percent would be
white. People of color, especially African Americans, are represented in greater
proportions among the benefiting workers than among Port workers as a whole, because
currently they are over-represented in low wage jobs. Oaklanders would also benefit
disproportionately, comprising 65 percent of the beneficiaries.
What are other benefits ofthe ordinance?
Firms would receive some benefits due to lower turnover costs and higher
productivity among workers earning the living wage standard.
The ordinance would contribute to the county, state and federal public coffers
through savings in county health expenditures for the uninsured and increased revenues
from income and payroll taxes. This is a small but positive but effect on public fmance.
What would be the costs ofa living wage policy at the Port?
Living wage costs would increase Port leaseholders' wage bill by 4.4 percent and
comprise about 1 percent of leaseholders' annual business revenues.
3
The total cost to employers of the living wage policy would be about $13 million
per year. The cost of increasing wages to $8.30 an hour is about $4.7 million; the costs of
providing more health care coverage is $3.3 million; the costs of paying an indirect wage
push is $2.1 million; and the costs of paying 12 days of paid leave is $2 million.
Employers would also pay an additional $1 million in payroll tax, bringing the total cost
increase to about $13 million.
Since not all leases are up for renewal every year, the costs would be phased in
over time.
Who would bear the costs and would business growth in Oakland be hurt?
The maritime division would experience almost no increase in cost. Cost
increases in the airport and real estate divisions would constitute about 1.5 percent and
4.3 percent of leaseholders' business revenues, respectively.
For the airport, this cost amounts to $0.59 per passenger departure, not enough to
change passenger preference for flying out of Oakland. Low wages are concentrated in a
few firms who are subcontractors to the major airlines. The airlines could easily absorb
these small cost increases and would pass some of them on to consumers.
For the real estate division, the increase in wages and benefits amounts to $0.66
per visitor to Jack London Square annually. The increase in costs to the affected
restaurants and hotels is smaller than the premium they get for locating near the
waterfront and in Jack London Square, compared to similar businesses in less desirable
locations. With business growing in the area, the relatively small increase in costs should
not affect the overall business climate.
Employment at the Port would continue to grow and at a rate that is unlikely to be
affected by the proposed ordinance. Revenues collected by the Port are also likely to
continue to increase.
Conclusions
Enacting a living wage ordinance at the Port of Oakland would help increase the
incomes of3,100 low-wage workers. The costs of the proposed ordinance are about $13
million and comprise only about 1 percent of Port leaseholders' business revenues.
We conclude that these costs will be absorbed easily by Port leaseholders, visitors
to the waterfront, and passengers at the Oakland airport. Business will not be driven
away and Port revenues will not go down. Bond ratings for the Port should remain
unaffected.
The Port will continue to generate large numbers ofjobs for Oakland and the
region but, without public policy intervention to affect the quality ofjobs, many of these
will be low-wage jobs. Moreover, racial wage disparities will be perpetuated by this
pattern of growth. The structure ofjob growth at the Port is not unique; it parallels the
private economy as a whole. The question facing policy-makers is whether or not a
public agency like the Port should act to reverse this pattern of increasing wage
polarization as well as the growth of the working poor.
4
1. Introduction and overview of Living Wage Ordinances
Purpose ofthis report
This report estimates the costs and benefits ofa Living Wage Ordinance that
would cover the Port of Oakland. The Oakland City Council unanimously passed a
Living Wage Ordinance in March of 1998. Oakland is one of forty cities and counties
across the United States that have adopted living wage laws; over fifty others currently
are in the process of considering such an ordinance. The Oakland Ordinance did not
include the Port of Oakland, which is a semi-autonomous department of the city,
governed by an appointed Port Commission.
In June of 1999, a number of citizen's groups, under the banner of the Coalition
for an Accountable Port, proposed that the Oakland Ordinance should be extended to
cover contracts, rental agreements or leases with the Port of Oakland. The basis for the
extension is that the Port of Oakland is the city's biggest public asset and it is frequently
touted as the city's principal engine of economic growth. The Port's three divisions-- the
maritime port, Oakland International Airport, and the waterfront real estate division,
which includes Jack London Square-- generate over 22,000 jobs and the Port is planning
expansions that will increase this number dramatically.
The proposed living wage ordinance is designed to increase the pay and benefits
of low-wage workers by requiring covered employers to pay a "living wage. Absent a
specific written policy proposal from the citizen's groups, we evaluated a living wage
proposal that assumed the same wage and benefit provisions as those stipulated in the
City of Oakland's ordinance. This would set a wage floor of$8.30 per hour if the
employer also pays for health benefits, or $9.55 without health benefits, to be is indexed
to inflation in future years. The proposed ordinance would also mandate a floor of 12
days of compensated time off for illness, holidays and vacation. However, it should be
noted that the City of Oakland ordinance currently covers leaseholders only if they
receive direct public assistance, while the proposal we analyze includes all leaseholders
at the Port of Oakland.
Living wage campaigns have arisen in response to the growing problem of
inequality and of poverty even among full-time workers. The idea of a living wage is
simple. Workers should be able to support themselves and their dependents at a basic
self-sufficiency standard on the earnings they receive from full-time employment.
5
At one time, the minimum wage was set to provide self-sufficiency but it no
longer does so. The real buying power of the California minimum wage in 1999 is three-
quarters of what it was in 1968, despite the fact that the U.S. economy is 54 percent more
productive in 1999 than it was in 1968. If the 1968 minimum wage had kept pace with
inflation and productivity growth, it would now be about $11.80 per hour. Since the
statewide minimum wage has not been raised to a level sufficient to support a family, the
Living Wage campaign represents an attempt to use local government to reinstate a
meaningful minimum wage.
A weakness of living wage laws is that in some cases they cover a small number
of workers. Estimates of the impact of the City's ordinance have ranged from 400 to
2,200 employees (City of Oakland, 1998). However, only 56 workers on service
contracts and 31 workers employed by City financial assistance recipients had received
wage increases as of October 1999. I This figure is expected to rise as contracts are
executed, but even when fully implemented, City personnel have concluded that the
number of affected workers will be much closer to the estimate of 400 than to the larger
estimate of 3,000.
In some cities, the numbers of workers benefiting from living wage policies
is much greater. In Los Angeles, about 9,000 workers may benefit, largely because
leaseholders at the Los Angeles International Airport are covered (Uchitelle, 1999).
Living wage proponents in Oakland targeted the Port as a way to extend the benefits of
the living wage idea to more workers.
This study estimates both costs and the benefits of the proposed ordinance, in the
hopes of promoting informed debate among Oakland residents, elected officials, and Port
commissioners. While proponents see the living wage as a way to bring low-wage
workers out of poverty, there are costs. Opponents are concerned that the proposed
policy could drive business away from the Port of Oakland, or could lower revenues for
the Port, which is self-supporting. We analyze who is likely to bear the costs of the
proposed living wage policy, and whether or not the costs are affordable.
The study was carried out by a team of economists and students from the
University of California, Berkeley. It was funded by the UC California Policy Research
Seminar, at the request of Senator Don Perata.
We organize the report as follows. We first provide background information on
Living Wage ordinances around the country. We then discuss Oakland's economy, with
emphasis upon how recent economic growth continues to generate inequality. Next we
profile the employment created by businesses who hold leases at the Port of Oakland,
using data from a survey of employers that we conducted over the spring and summer of
1999. Using this survey data, we then estimate the benefits and costs of the proposed
ordinance and examine the affordability of the ordinance in the context of the Port's
overall economic activity.
The Oakland Living Wage Ordinance in national perspective
6
The Oakland Living Wage Ordinance covers all private businesses and non-profit
organizations that have city contracts worth at least $25,000 or receive at least $100,000
in city subsidies per year (and their tenants and leaseholders). The Ordinance initially
required a wage of$8.00 per hour with health benefits, and $9.25 without, and is adjusted
each year in accordance with the Bay Region Consumer Price Index. The 1999 adjusted
I Personal communication, Vivian Inman, Office of Contract Compliance, City of Oakland.
wage level is $9.55 an hour, or $8.30 if the firm provides health benefits.
2
The Ordinance
also entitles covered workers to 12 paid days off per year (and 10 days unpaid leave) and
it contains an "opt out" provision by which a collective bargaining contract can supersede
the requirements of the ordinance.
Oakland's wage standard and coverage
The wage standard in Oakland's Ordinance is lower than estimates of a self-
sufficiency wage for the city and lower than the levels mandated in some of the living
wage ordinances elsewhere. The California Budget Project has estimated a self-
sufficiency wage for Alameda County at $12.92 per hour, substantially above the current
Oakland living wage (California Budget Project, 1999). This self-sufficiency wage is
based on a family with two parents who are both working and with two children who
squeeze into a one-bedroom apartment and use family day care (generally the most
inexpensive kind of childcare).
The Oakland standard is also modest compared to other cities that have adopted
living wage ordinances, once Oakland's high cost of living is taken into account. As
Table 1-1 shows, Baltimore's living wage of$7.90 is equivalent in purchasing power to a
wage of$13.27 in Oakland, and Boston's living wage of$8.23 would be $9.29 in
Oakland. The $7.51 Los Angeles living wage is equivalent in purchasing power to a wage
of $9.52 in Oakland. This ordinance includes workers at LAX airport. The recently
announced living wage agreement at the SFO airport provides for $9 per hour, increasing
to $10 per hour after one year (Epstein, 1999). This level is equivalent to purchasing
power of $8.62 in Oakland.
The City of Oakland's Living Wage Ordinance covers the city's contractors and
subsidy recipients. The proposed living wage policy for the Port would include
leaseholders, a category of employers not currently covered by the City's Ordinance
unless they are also city financial assistance recipients (CFARs) or their tenants.
Leaseholders have been included in a number of other living wage policies around the
country, including the Los Angeles and Miami airports, and have been proposed for San
Francisco's airport and maritime port.
Living wage ordinances around the country vary with respect to the set of
employers they cover. However, the underlying principle is similar in all cases: the
ordinances recognize the impact oflocal governments' business decisions onjob
creation. The living wage mandates that public entities directly or indirectly create good
jobs in a particular locality, whether through direct expenditures on contractors or the
opportunities created by publicly owned assets such as waterfront property or port
facilities.
7
2 An official at the Port of Oakland has questioned the accuracy of the cost of living adjustment of the
current City of Oakland Living Wage. The small adjustment suggested - to 58.22 rather than $8.30 - does
not materially affect the estimates presented here, and thus we have used the official living wage.
Some living wage ordinances contain additional provisions, such as local hiring
requirements, and public disclosure and/or enforcement stipulations. Most living wage
laws provide exemptions for small firms: Oakland's Living Wage Ordinance, and the
proposal evaluated here, only applies to firms with more than five employees.
8
2. Recent growth and income distribution trends in Oakland
The Oakland economy is currently undergoing an upswing, with high rates ofjob
and income growth. However, this economic prosperity is distributed unevenly and the
area faces a legacy of inequality that will be exacerbated by the current growth trajectory.
In this context, policies such as a living wage ordinance can help to distribute the benefits
of growth more equitably.
Economic growth in Oakland
9
Like the rest of California, Oakland experienced an economic recession in the
early 1990s. From 1990 to 1993, employment among Oakland residents fell from
167,600 to 162,700, while the city's unemployment rate increased from 6.4 percent to
10.3 percent. With the state's economic recovery in recent years, job and income growth
in Oakland has also resumed and the ingredients for a substantial economic boom are in
place. In 1998, employment had risen to 174,000; the unemployment rate had fallen to
6.5 percent, and by the third quarter of 1999 it was down to 5.3 percent (Employment
Development Department, 1999). Between 1998 and 1999, the Oakland MSA created a
net 28,100 new jobs, for a growth rate of 2.9 percent
3
(CB Richard Ellis, 1999).
Oakland's central location, good public transportation infrastructure, strong maritime port
and air cargo airport, potentially highly valuable housing stock and a number of other
elements have combined to create strong growth.
This growth is reflected in rising commercial and residential property values.
Class A rents in the East Bay office market have increased 9 percent in the past year, and
are projected to increase further (CB Richard Ellis, 1999). Nonresidential construction
grew 68 percent between 1996 and 1997, more than double the statewide average of 28
percent, although lagging the Bay Area rate of 83 percent (SF Airport Commission,
1999). The residential housing market is also healthy. Median home prices in Alameda
County rose to $247,000 in 1999, nearly double the U. S. urban average, and grew 7.4
percent over the previous year. These real estate statistics provide evidence that Oakland
is becoming a more attractive investment and development location.
Those left behind
California has experienced substantial increases in income inequality over the last
two decades, even more than the nation as a whole (California Budget Project, 1998;
Daly and Royer, 1999). Although we have no detailed studies of recent patterns of
inequality in the Bay Area, there are strong indications that the Bay Area is still
experiencing growing inequality. We can document continuing inequality both between
Oakland and other Bay Area cities and within Oakland itself.
Although Oakland's economy as a whole has begun to catch up to other Bay Area
cities, income in Oakland is still lower than elsewhere in the Bay Area. Average wage
J The Oakland MSA includes Alameda County and Contra Costa County. Wherever possible, we use data
for the City of Oakland.
data also indicate an ongoing between Oakland and its richer neighbors, San Francisco
and San Jose, as is shown in Table 2-1.
A large fraction of Oakland residents earn low wages. The latest government
survey data show that 45 percent of Oakland workers earn below the self-sufficiency
wage of $12.74 per hour while 28 percent earn below the Oakland's living wage of
$8.30.
4
By contrast, 40 percent of workers in the Bay Area earn below $12.74 and less
than 20 percent earn below the $8.30 wage.
10
Paralleling the rest of California, wage rates of local jobs are increasingly
polarized. Many middle-income jobs have declined in number and the new jobs that are
being created are concentrated at the high and low ends of the income scale. As Table 2-2
shows, the two occupations with the greatest projected job growth between 1995 and
2002 in Alameda County are cashiers and retail salespersons, both of which paid on
average less than $8 per hour in 1997. Among the top ten occupations in Oakland, about
half the total projected number of jobs in 2002 and half of the projected increase from
1995 to 2002 are in jobs earning less than $20,000 per year (in 1997 dollars).
Low wages and poverty are still concentrated in communities of color. African
Americans represent 44 percent of the city's total population, but comprise 56 percent of
those living below the federal poverty level (Bay Area Economics, 1999). Substantial
inequality also exists within Oakland, with significant numbers of the working poor and
pockets of poverty concentrated among certain neighborhoods and ethnic groups,
especially among African Americans and Latinos. The West Oakland neighborhood that
abuts the Port suffers from many of the negative side effects of a successful port, such as
traffic congestion, noise, dust, and air pollution. In 1998, median household income in
West Oakland was $14,788 and an estimated 22 percent of West Oakland residents
received welfare (Bay Area Economics, 1999).
4 The percentages are calculated in constant 1999 dollars using the CPS March Supplement sample of
Oakland and Bay Area residents between 1996 and 1999.
3. Employment and pay at the Port of Oakland
11
In 1995, as Table 3-1 indicates, about 22,500 jobs were directly or indirectly
attributed to the Port of Oakland, according to surveys carried out by consultants to the
Port (Martin Associates, various years). This estimate includes Port tenants, leaseholders
and contractors, and other firms whose businesses are directly dependent on the Port of
Oakland.
5
At one time, the Port provided mainly middle-income jobs in its main activity,
maritime shipping, where largely unionized longshore and trucking jobs provided
important opportunities for upward mobility, particularly for African American workers
in Oakland. As we discuss below, the transformation of the Port's uses and its projected
expansions have resulted in the growth of low-wage jobs and will continue to do so in the
future.
The Port's transformation
The Port has undergone substantial change over the past thirty years. During this
period, revenues and shipping volume have grown rapidly in the maritime port, as San
Francisco traffic has shifted to Oakland and trade volumes have risen. However, the
number ofjobs created for each dollar of goods shipped has declined, and the number of
longshore jobs in the Bay Area has fallen to half the level of thirty years ago (Pacific
Maritime Association, various years). In contrast, the Port's air and real estate divisions,
while producing smaller revenue growth, have created growing numbers ofjobs and will
continue to do so in the future. The real estate division, and to a lesser degree the airport
division, create substantial numbers of low wage jobs.
In the maritime port, automation in containerized shipping has sharply reduced
the number ofjobs generated per ton of cargo moved. The San Francisco Bay longshore
workforce fell from 5,366 in 1951 to 1,049 in 1998, while throughput increased from 7
million to 23 million tons during the same period (Pacific Maritime Association, various
years).6 The leading West Coast ports in Southern California and Seattle have
maintained longshore employment only because of tremendous growth in the volume of
cargo. Cargo throughput in Oakland has grown at a healthy 2.5 percent per year since
1992, but this growth is much less than the annual growth at Long Beach (14 percent),
Los Angeles (6.7 percent) and Seattle (5.0 percent) (Port of Oakland, 1998). The Port of
Oakland expects to increase cargo throughput as a consequence of its expansion plans,
which may lead to a one-time jump in maritime jobs, but long-term employment growth
remains limited by on-going automation and constraints on increasing Oakland's market
share.
5 The latter category comprises port-related businesses such as freight forwarders, customs brokerage
houses, and trucking and warehousing firms. These businesses would not be located in the Bay Area
without the Port of Oakland, but may not be located on Port land or have a direct financial relationship to
the Port. Consequently, they would not be affected by a Living Wage ordinance.
6 A significant portion of the loss of longshore jobs occurred in San Francisco, although we cannot give an
exact breakdown because of lack of data. Oakland essentially has taken over shipping from San Francisco.
Besides stevedoring, short haul trucking is the main on-site occupation in the
maritime port (Thurston, 1999). As a consequence of deregulation and de-unionization,
about 85 percent of these workers are now owner-operators. While their employment
status disqualifies them from coverage under a typical living wage policy, it should be
noted that their annual net earnings are quite 10w.
7
12
At the same time, air transport has grown tremendously. Centrally located,
Oakland is well situated to serve Alameda and Contra Costa County, which in 1997-8
had the highest population growth in the Bay Area (Willis, 1999). In the last ten years,
the number of passengers at Oakland grew by 130 percent, and Oakland's market share
for passenger travel for the three major Bay Area airports increased from 10 percent to 15
percent. More dramatically, Oakland has become the main air cargo terminal in the Bay
Area. In 1998 Oakland International Airport managed around 50 percent of all Bay Area
domestic air cargo, up from around 20 percent in 1987 (Port of Oakland, 1999).
Alternative uses of the Port of Oakland's waterfront real estate have also grown,
and created many more jobs in entertainment, leisure and recreation activities. As in
other urban areas, there are mounting pressures to make waterfront land accessible for the
public use. Over the next few years, uses that are compatible with public access, such as
Jack London Square and similar developments, are likely to be supported and prosper.
Indeed, after many years of disappointing activity, Jack London Square is becoming a
lively commercial and entertainment locale, producing $60 million in business revenues
in 1996, with further growth projected (Howe, 1997). Embarcadero Cove, on the southern
tip of the estuary, is also slated for mixed use development in the coming years.
The Port's expansion
The Port of Oakland has just begun an unprecedented expansion that involves up
to two billion dollars of capital improvements over the next five years. The maritime
expansion plan includes the Vision 2000 program of building new berths and a new joint
intermodal terminal, and dredging the channel to 50 feet. The expansion plan for Oakland
International Airport includes new terminal buildings, a parking garage, and a cross-
airport roadway. Revenue bonds will finance maritime and airport expansion. The Port
has also recently proposed a $200 million plan for developing the waterfront in the Jack
London Square area and has requested bids from private developers (DelVecchio, 1999).
The Port does not expect to borrow funds to support this development.
8
Port expansion is projected to lead to over 5,000 new jobs in the airport and close
to 5,000 jobs in the maritime port.
9
Job projections are not yet available for the real
estate division.
7 A recent survey of short-haul independent operators in Seattle found that average hourly wages were
about $8.50 (Farb and Tomescu, 1999).
8 Personal communication, Omar Benjamin, Director of the Port of Oakland's Real Estate Division.
9 Personal communication, Ann Whittington, Strategic Planner, Port of Oakland.
Current Port employment patterns
The process of transfonnation and growth described above has created many
more low-wage jobs, while many well-paid, largely unionized jobs have been lost. Here
we analyze the current employment and workforce profiles of Port leaseholders in more
detail. We find a pattern of high wages in the maritime division, low wages in the real
estate division, and a range of wages in the airport division.
13
This analysis is based on a survey carried out by the UC Berkeley research team.
The survey was necessary because the Port does not maintain detailed infonnation about
the employment generated by their tenants. (See Appendix A for a detailed description of
our survey methodology.) Our survey comprises all businesses that hold leases with the
Port and draws upon a list of tenants provided to us by Port officials. Contractors are
included only if they have a substantial on-site presence or are direct subcontractors of
leaseholders. We excluded building contractors and professional services finns because
they are unlikely to employ workers at less than Oakland's living wage level. We did not
include any port-related employers that were off-site, since they would not be covered by
the proposed ordinance. We excluded employers with five employees or less, since
Oakland's Living Wage Ordinance exempts such employers.
After these exclusions, we obtain a total of 140 Port leaseholders who employ
about 11,400 workers (see Table 3-2a). These are the employers who would be covered
by the proposed ordinance. In Section 4 we will analyze which of these employers would
actually be affected by the ordinance because they currently pay low wages.
As Table 3-2a shows, the maritime division generates the highest average wages
(about $32 per hour), but the lowest number ofjobs, about 2,050. The real estate division
produces slightly more jobs, but at much lower average wages, under $11. The airport is
by far the biggest job generator, with 7,270 jobs, at average wages of$14.50. The wage
differences among the Port's divisions correlate with widely different unionization rates.
The maritime division is highly unionized, and the real estate division mostly non-union.
We provide a more detailed breakdown of employment, by economic sector rather
than port division, in Table 3-2b. The lowest average wage rates at the port are
concentrated in the hotel, restaurant, parking, security and skycaps, and entertainment
d 1
10
an persona servIces sectors.
The Port's workforce is unevenly distributed across ethnicity, gender, and
residence. These patterns are presented in Table 3-3. About 54 percent of Port workers
live in Oakland and about 35 percent are women. About 36 percent of Port workers are
African American, similar to their representation in Oakland as a whole (US Bureau of
the Census, 1990).
10 Since retail, restaurant, car rental and parking establishments are located in both the airport and real
estate divisions, the sectoral breakdowns do not correspond to different port divisions.
Average wages within Port divisions also vary by demographic group. Table 3-4
presents these patterns, weighted by the number of workers in each category. The wage
gap between white and African American workers has been overcome only in the highly
unionized maritime division. While overall average wages for African Americans are
only slightly lower than for whites ($18.75 compared to $19.73), the wage gap is greater
for the airport division ($10.96 compared to $15.80) and the real estate division ($8.88
compared to $12.53). The small number of women in the maritime division partly
accounts for their low overall wage relative to workers as a whole.
A relatively small number ofjobs and sectors account for most of the low-wage
employment. Table 3-5 illustrates the kinds of low wage jobs that exist at the Port.
Prominent low-wage occupations include restaurant waiters, rental car agents, airport
ramp agents, and entertainment and personal services.
In sum, the survey data tell a powerful story about the types ofjobs that are
generated by the Port of Oakland. Clearly, the highly unionized maritime division
provides the best-paid jobs for Oakland's diverse (male) population. However, these jobs
stand in sharp contrast to the many low-wage jobs created in the real estate and airport
divisions. Without public policy intervention to affect the quality ofjobs, the Port will
continue to contribute to the polarized growth trajectory of Oakland and the region.
Moreover, racial inequities will be perpetuated by this pattern of growth.
4. The benefits of a living wage ordinance
Enacting a living wage ordinance at the Port could change the mix ofjobs and
increase wages for the lowest-paid workers. However, such a policy will generate costs
as well as benefits. In this section we present our best estimates of the benefits to
workers, to employers and to governmental entities of a living wage ordinance at the
Port. The benefits for workers are the pay and health coverage increases among workers
employed by Port leaseholders, including the indirect pay increases that result from wage
push. We discuss how different demographic groups would benefit from the living wage
ordinance. Benefits to employers consist of reduced turnover costs and increases in
worker productivity. Benefits to governmental entities include reduced demands upon
public health facilities and increased income and payroll taxes. We present our estimates
of the costs in the succeeding section. Our estimates of both benefits and costs are the
most careful that can be developed from the available data.
Benefits to workers
We present the number of low-wage workers who will be affected by the living
wage ordinance in Table 4-1. The first and second columns estimate the direct
beneficiaries of the ordinance. The first column shows that about 1,750 workers currently
earn less than the living wage ($8.30 per hour) and would thus become eligible for a
wage and benefit increase. This increase would bring them up to $8.30 per hour with
health benefits or $9.55 without health benefits. The second column shows an additional
815 workers currently earn $8.30, but do not receive full health benefits. They are
eligible for an improvement in their health benefits or for an increase in their wage to
$9.55 per hour. We assume, following the proposed ordinance, that health benefits cost
employers $1.25 per hour worked.
Table 4-2 indicates the demographic composition of the workers who would
benefit directly from the living wage ordinance. African Americans, Latinos and Asian
Americans, comprise a disproportionate number of living wage beneficiaries because
they are currently over-represented in low wage jobs. For example, as is shown in Table
4.2b, African Americans comprise 36 percent of all workers at the Port, but 41 percent of
workers making less than $9.54 per hour. Whites are over-represented among higher
wage workers who would not be affected by the proposed ordinance. Women are over-
represented among low-wage workers. Oakland residents are also over-represented
among the low-wage category, and thus will also benefit disproportionately from the
living wage ordinance.
Following previous research, we estimate that those workers who earn between
$7.65 and $11.44 receive a wage increase due to the effect of a "wage push." This effect
occurs because employers tend to raise the wages of the next tier of workers when the
lowest paid workers in a finn receive a wage hike. Employers do this in order to
maintain some of the relative pay differences for those with longer service, more skills or
responsibility, or other job-related factors. Studies of wage-push effects find that wage
push pressure is generally confined to wage rates just above the floor wage (see
Appendix B). To estimate this effect, we have drawn on research by Card and Krueger
(1995), and followed the methodology used in the San Francisco living wage study by
Reich et al (1999a and 1999b).
16
Table 4-3 summarizes the benefits for workers. About 2,600 workers will be
directly affected by an increase in wages and/or benefits; and an additional 550 workers
will be affected due to the wage push effect, bringing the total number of beneficiaries to
over 3,100 workers. Directly affected workers will experience, on average, an increase of
$2.25 in their hourly wage, totaling an additional $4.7 million in wages and $3.3 million
in health benefits each year (see Table 4.4). Indirectly affected workers will gain $1.16
per hour. The total indirect wage push for workers just above and below the living wage
level amounts to a $2.1 million increase each year. These total benefits to workers add up
to $10.1 million. The 3,100 living wage beneficiaries would comprise about 27 percent of
all non-supervisory employees of Port leaseholders. In addition, employees in covered
firms would receive 12 days paid leave per year.
Benefits to employers
The living wage ordinance will increase worker pay, which frequently leads to
some savings for employers. We examine here two sources of such savings: the reduced
employee turnover costs and the increased productivity that economists expect to occur
when wages are increased. These benefits to employers from paying higher wages will
offset some of the increased costs, especially among the lowest-paying employers, and it
is useful to consider the amounts involved.
Our best data on potential savings concern turnover, which we obtained through
our employer survey. According to our summary calculations from the survey data,
employee turnover at the Port averages about 25 percent per year, but it is nearly 20
percentage points higher among low-wage firms than among high-wage firms. A recent
National Restaurant Association annual survey also found that turnover is about 20
percentage points lower in higher-wage establishments (Restaurants USA, 1999).11
Using the 20 percent expected decline in turnover, we calculated the savings in
turnover costs as follows. According to the findings in the previous section, we estimate
that the proposed ordinance would create an average wage increase of about $2.05 for
over 3,000 workers. Increasing pay from $7.50 to $9.55 is equivalent to an increase of
about 27 percent. According to the current research literature, as summarized by Card
11 The same survey reports annual turnover rates among low-wage restaurants that are often in
excess of 100 percent (see also Card and Krueger, 1995). The reported turnover rates in our sample may
understate considerably the true turnover, especially at low-wage firms at the Port. Some of the respondents
may have misinterpreted the survey question on this topic and reported monthly rather than annual turnover
statistics. For this reason, we do not present a table with the turnover data, and we use only the summary
figures to generate an estimate of the savings that are likely if turnover were reduced. Our calculations do
not depend upon the turnover level, only the reduction, and this figure is likely to be robust.
and Krueger, this increase should reduce quits by an equal 27 percent. To be
conservative, we use an estimate of 20 percent instead.
17
This reduction of 20 percentage points in turnover means that in a workplace of
100 people, there will be 20 fewer quits and consequently 20 fewer replacement hires
will take place to keep the firm at the same size. Each quit that does occur generates a
cost to the firm to replace the worker. This replacement cost consists of lost output while
the vacancy has not been filled as well as the recruiting, interviewing, screening and
training costs of filling the vacancy and then bringing the new worker up to speed. The
training costs usually involve both formal and informal on-the-job training and take the
time both of coworkers and the new workers. Replacement costs generally are a higher
proportion of pay for occupations higher on the skill ladder, but an estimate of 20 percent
of annual salary for each replacement is in the middle of a range for low-paid and
unskilled jobs (Brown et al 1997). We use this figure of 20 percent as the replacement
cost per replaced worker.
The firm's overall turnover costs consist of the replacement cost per replaced
worker multiplied by the number of replaced workers. If 20 fewer workers out of a
workforce of 100 have to be replaced, the firm saves the replacement cost per replaced
worker (20 percent) multiplied by the 20 percent reduction in the replacement rate, for a 4
percent saving of its labor costs. Since the wage bill usually amounts to 25 to 50 percent
of business costs for these firms, a 4 percent saving on labor costs translates into a 1 to 2
percent offset to increased business costs. In other words, the 1.1 percent increase in
business costs could be offset entirely by reduced turnover costs.
Productivity is also known to respond to wage increases, as recent economic
theory and research findings have emphasized (Freeman and Medoff, 1984; Katz, 1986).
This research literature on efficiency wages identifies a number of possible channels
through which wage increases generate productivity improvements. For example, higher
wages can increase productivity through improved management incentives and efforts to
utilize labor more efficiently and to economize on nonlabor inputs. Some of the increase
can arise because new hires may come from a more experienced or skilled labor pool.
Other productivity improvement sources that are associated with higher wage rates
include lower employee supervision costs, increased morale and lower absenteeism and
greater amounts of informal and formal training.
Improvements in productivity are particularly important in creating room for
firms to increase wages without having to reduce employment or profits or to increase
prices. Whenever productivity growth occurs, by definition output per worker hour goes
up. Also by definition, wage costs per unit of output are equal to wages per hour divided
by output per hour. Consequently, wages per hour can increase at the same rate as output
per hour without increasing wage costs per unit of output. Wage costs per unit of output
are also known as unit labor costs. If unit labor costs do not increase, firms can maintain
profit margins without increasing prices.
Without much more data than are available, we cannot quantify the magnitudes of
these effects for firms at the Port. We do know that labor productivity improvements
have averaged 2 percent per year in the nonfarm private economy over the past 4 years.
An older literature (reviewed by Freeman and Medoff, 1984) showed that firms
experienced even greater productivity increases when unionization created a one-time
shock to pay of20 percent or more. More recently, when minimum wages in California
went up by 27 percent in 1988 and by 35 percent in 1996-98, low-wage sectors such as
restaurants and retail did not experience declines in employment and their prices did not
increase faster than overall inflation. In the current era of rapid technological change
associated with the computer and the Internet, many establishments have been able to
achieve cost reductions in purchasing of supplies, management of records and a host of
other improvements. These cost reductions have occurred in low-wage sectors such as
restaurants and would be further accelerated by pay increases.
Benefits to governmental entities
The proposed living wage ordinance will also have some impact on public
finances. In general we find that these effects will be positive but small. The public sector
will collect more revenue as a result of the proposed ordinance, and will contribute less to
various subsidy programs.
Increasing pay will mean that the Federal and state governments will collect
higher payroll and income tax revenues. We estimate that employers will pay an
additional $1 million in payroll taxes (see Table 4-4). This amount includes social
security payments, and training, disability and unemployment insurance levies. Individual
employees .will also pay higher taxes, and/or qualify for a smaller Earned Income Tax
Credit. We have not calculated the changes in individual tax payments since we do not
have data on the household and tax status of employees.
Public agencies will see savings as some low-wage workers reduce their usage of
various public assistance programs. The main decreases probably involve reduced usage
of county public health services and reduced food stamp usage. We have not attempted to
estimate the reduced food stamp usage since we do not have data on the household
characteristics of employees or on program uptake rates. We can, however, indicate the
order of magnitude of the impact on the public health system.
Using data provided by the Alameda County Health Department and the state's
Medically Indigent Care Reporting System, we estimate that indigent health care
currently costs Alameda County approximately $160 annually for each person who does
not have private insurance or HMO/prepaid plan. Since we have estimated that the Living
Wage Ordinance would extend health benefits to at least 1,550 currently uninsured
people, the County's public health savings could amount to some $250,000 per year. This
relatively small financial impact is likely to be felt as a positive reduction in waiting
times and in the burden on over-worked public-sector health care providers.
5. The costs and affordability of the proposed ordinance
19
In this section we examine the increased costs to Port leaseholders and the portion
of these costs that are likely to be passed on to the Port of Oakland or to consumers. We
begin by presenting our estimates of the aggregate costs of complying with the proposed
ordinance, in both absolute dollars and relative to the magnitude of Port businesses. We
then examine the distribution of those costs among Port divisions and economic sectors.
We also consider the impact of higher pay upon employment trends at the Port.
To analyze the affordabilityofthe proposed ordinance we focus on how many
firms in each sector would experience cost increases of different magnitudes. We can
then consider how the costs might be shifted and borne by the various parties. Finally, we
address whether Port firms would lose business or leave the Port and whether other firms
would be deterred from locating on the Port because of the proposed ordinance.
Costs to employers
A first approximation of the total cost of the proposed ordinance is equal to the
direct and indirect wage and benefit increases documented in the previous section. These
costs are shown in Table 5-1. The cost of bringing wages up to $8.30 an hour is about
$4.7 million, the costs of providing more health care coverage is $3.3 million, the costs of
paying an indirect wage push is $2.1 million, and the costs of paying 12 days of paid
leave is $2 million. These costs add up to a total of $12.1 million. In addition, employers
must also pay an additional $1 million in payroll taxes, bringing the total cost of the
proposed ordinance to about $13 million.
To put this figure in perspective, we have computed the cost as a percentage of
the total wage bill that Port leaseholders paid to their workers and as a percentage of the
business revenue received by the leaseholders. As Table 5-1 indicates, our calculations
show that enacting the living wage ordinance would increase leaseholders' aggregate
wage bill by 4.4 percent and that the increase would constitute 1.1 percent of their current
revenue. These aggregate figures indicate that the overall cost increases could be
absorbed relatively easily. However, the costs of complying with the living wage
ordinance will be felt unevenly, and some sectors will experience smaller impacts than
others.
We present the distribution of the costs by Port division and economic sector in
Table 5-2. As Table 5-2a shows, the maritime division would bear less than $2 million of
the cost and the airport and real estate divisions would each bear close to $6 million. To
place these absolute dollar amounts in context we also present the increases as
percentages of the relevant leaseholders' wage bill and business revenue. Using this
yardstick, the real estate division, with an increase equivalent to 14.4 percent of the wage
bill and 4.3 percent of revenue, would be most affected by the proposed ordinance. The
effect on the airport would not be as great: 4.9 percent of the wage bill and 1.5 percent of
revenue. The effect upon the maritime division is nearly insignificant: 1.2 percent of the
wage bill and 0.25 percent of business revenue.
20
Table 5-2b presents a breakdown in the costs of complying with the living wage
ordinance by economic sector. Several activities and industry sectors account for the
lion's share of low-wage workers, and therefore of the costs of the proposed ordinance.
The sectors that would experience a cost increase greater than 10 percent of their business
revenues are airport security, airport curbside assistance, and entertainment and personal
services. Restaurants, hotels, warehousing, retail stores, car rental agencies and parking
lots all would experience smaller, but significant, increases in costs.
Costs to workers
Economics students are taught that the quantity of labor demanded by firms goes
down when the price of labor goes up. Much of the evidence for this prediction comes
from past studies of minimum wage increases, which reported declines of about one to
three percent in employment for each 10 percent increase in the minimum wage.
However, more recent studies have found no measurable decline in employment resulting
from minimum wage increases, even when they were comparable in percentage terms to
the increases that the living wage ordinance would generate (for a survey, see Card and
Krueger, 1995). When studies did find employment reductions, they tended to be
concentrated among teenagers.
The relevance of the minimum wage literature for the proposed ordinance is only
suggestive, since the pay rates considered here are at higher levels and are greater in
absolute terms. Nonetheless, the recent studies indicate that employment reductions are
likely to be much smaller than is often considered. The earlier literature neglected to
examine the savings in turnover and the increases in productivity that permit wage
increases to occur without employment declines. The Port has smaller than average rates
of teenage employment, even in the commercial real estate division, which also mitigates
employment effects. Finally, since employment at the Port is projected to grow in coming
years, we do not expect employment declines to result from a living wage ordinance,
although there could be a small decline in the rate of growth of employment.
Affordability
We have estimated that enactment of the proposed living wage ordinance would
cost about $13 million in the aggregate. To put this figure in perspective, it amounts to
about 8.5 percent of the overall revenue generated by the Port in 1998 (Table 5-3), and
1.1 percent of Port leaseholders' annual revenue. It is also equivalent to the Port's
biennial growth rate in revenue over the past five years.
Another perspective on the affordability of a living wage ordinance relates the
cost for each of the port's divisions to the business done per customer in each division.
These comparisons indicate that living wage costs are equal to 59 cents per passenger
departure at the airport, 6 cents per ton of containerized cargo at the Maritime Port, and
66 cents per visitor to Jack London Square. These figures, while small, are not definitive,
as we have not yet considered who would actually bear these costs. Nonetheless, their
modest size suggests that enacting a living wage for the Port of Oakland could have a
minimal financial impact on the Port while benefiting over 3,000 low-wage workers and
their families.
For a fuller affordability analysis, we supplement these aggregate costs and the
costs per customer figures with a more analytical discussion and examine the
affordability issues separately for each of the Port's divisions.
The logical place to begin the analysis is with the firms. To simplify the analysis,
we first consider the proportion of firms that would experience little or no direct cost
impact from the proposed ordinance and we then turn to the firms that would experience
a greater impact. Based upon our survey data and as reported in Table 5-4, 43 percent of
all the firms at the port would experience a direct impact that amounted to less than 1
percent of their business revenue. About 14 percent of firms would experience an impact
greater than 1 percent but less than 3 percent of business revenue. For this combined 57
percent of the firms, we expect that reductions in turnover costs and normal productivity
improvements alone would mean that the firms could offset the entire cost without
reducing sales, employment or profits.
A second group in Table 5-4 consists of firms that would experience moderate
cost increases. We estimate that 21 percent of the firms would have increases of more
than 3 percent but less than 6 percent and that 9 percent would see increases between 6
and 10 percent. A combined 30 percent of firms thus falls into this second group.
Finally, some firms in Table 5-4 would see higher cost increases. About 12
percent of the firms would experience an increase of between 10 and 15 percent of their
costs. Only one firm would face a cost increase over 15 percent; as we discuss below, this
firm is a subcontractor to the airline companies.
We turn next to considering the likely behavioral response of the firms, separately
by port division and economic sector, limiting the discussion to the firms with moderate
or greater costs.
AfJordability at the Airport
As mentioned, the aggregate cost of the proposed ordinance at the airport amounts
to $0.59 per departing passenger. This cost to pay for the living wage will not affect
airport demand. Even if passengers were to absorb the entire increase, they would not
choose to fly out of another airport to avoid paying this minor expense. The costs to the
Airport Division of the Port consequently will be small.
At the airport, the major sectors are the airlines themselves, airline servicing,
airport security and curbside assistance, parking, car rental and retail. Of these, the airline
companies generally face very small direct cost increases, under 2 percent in Table 5-1b.
This sector consists of very large companies that can absorb these costs easily. Southwest
Airlines, the Oakland Airport's largest airline and second highest revenue source,
accounts for nearly 13 percent of all the airport's revenue. Southwest has had significant
growth in recent years as net income in 1998 increased to $433 million, up from $207
million in 1996
12
. Oakland's second largest airline, United, had net earnings in 1998 of
$6.83 billion, up from $5.06 billion in 1996.
22
The airline service sector (fuelers, cabin cleaners, caterers, baggage handling)
generally faces slightly higher costs increases of 1.2 percent of business revenue (see
Table 5-1b). These costs are distributed unevenly, but are never greater than 6 percent per
firm. The cost increases for these firms presumably would be passed on to the airlines
themselves. Some of the firms in this sector are also large. For example, LSG Sky Chef
has annual sales of$1.6 billion and is owned by Lufthansa, the German airline company.
The same pattern of small increases applies for airport security. Most of the
employment in this sector is for baggage screeners. Again any increased costs are likely
to be passed on to the airlines. If the Port pays a security company for overall guard
service, it should be possible for the Port to easily pass increased costs to the airlines as
well. For example, the landing fees the Airport charges to airlines currently are much
lower than for other leading airports: one-half lower than at LAX and one-third lower
than at SFO (Reich and Hall, 1999b).
The biggest costi increase-- 40 percent of business costs-- in our sample is for a
firm that provides curbside and wheelchair assistance. This firm operates as a
subcontractor for the airline companies. Although the cost increase to the firm is
substantial, insofar as the organization of work does not permit improving productivity,
the firm is likely to pass its increased costs to the airlines, who have a much greater
ability to pay. The cost for the airlines would constitute a minimal increase of 1 percent
or less. Whether the full cost increase would in turn be passed onto airline passengers and
to cargo customers is difficult to determine. Although a partial pass-through is more
likely, even a full pass-through would not be noticeable to the airlines' customers.
The other low-wage workers in the Aviation Division are located primarily in car
rental, parking and restaurant sectors. Six car rental companies operate at the airport:
Alamo, Avis, Budget, Dollar, Hertz, and National. Half of the rental companies in our
sample would experience a cost increase ofjust over I percent, an easily-absorbed
amount. One company would experience a 4 percent increase, which is also easily
affordable. Each of the car rental companies is a well-known national corporation. For
example, the parent company of National Car Rental, one of the largest car rental
employers, had revenues of nearly $10 billion in the first six months of 1999 alone.
National Car Rental sales at the Oakland location are over $10 million per year.
Many of the other low-wage employers at the airport are likely to have a
significant ability to pay. Such firms include Huntleigh and ABC Security. Huntleigh
Corporation has sales of over $5 million per year. 13 ABC Security has annual sales in
12 Company revenue details provided in this section are drawn from the American Business Directory.
13 This is the figure for the Los Angeles office.
Oakland of over $5 million. California One Services has subsidiaries or branches at 17
other airports. At most of these they have a very similar presence to Oakland: $1-2.5m
sales and 50-99 employees.
23
The implementation of the proposed ordinance at the airport would not occur in a
single year. Since the air passenger license and temporary use agreements typically are
renewed annually, the Airport has significant flexibility in setting rates and it is not
locked into long-term contracts. Consequently, without long lease durations in the way,
the implementation of a living wage ordinance could take place rather quickly for this
group of airport workers. But the rental car, air cargo, air maintenance, and restaurant and
bar facilities typically have long-term lease agreements. For these sectors, the
implementation of an ordinance is likely to take place over time. Such a phase-in implies
that the costs per year would also be phased in over time.
In summary, only a few firms at the airport will actually have significant cost
increases. Demand for departures from Oakland is not likely to be affected by a 59 cent
increase. Airline services will be able to pass on increases to the airlines, and the airlines
will be able to pass on increases to their customers. Many of the firms at the airport have
a high ability to pay a living wage. The revenue implications for the Airport consequently
are minimal and should not affect any bond-financed expansion costs.
Affordability at the Maritime Division
The impact of a living wage on the Maritime division will be significantly less
than in the other divisions. According to Table 5-1a, the cost will be $1.68 million,
equivalent to 0.25 percent of business revenue. As is shown in Table 5-1b, the impact
within the maritime division upon maritime shipping activities themselves is 0.02
percent, which is essentially zero.
The impact on trucking and warehousing within the maritime division will be
larger, about 4.2 percent of business revenue. Some of the trucking companies that will
experience a cost increase are large firms that may be able to pay higher wages. For
example, according to publicly available business sources, Pacific America, a trucking
company and a major employer in the Maritime Division, has over $5 million in sales.
From our survey (but not reported in the table), we know that the bulk of the costs
of enacting the living wage will be carried by non-maritime businesses that are located on
maritime port land, such as a car rental agency and a restaurant.
In summary, taking all the sectors within the maritime division into account, the
overall costs are so small and the pass-through and impact upon the firms' revenue is
likely to be even smaller. Consequently, there should not be much impact upon the Port's
revenues or bond ratings.
Affordability at the Real Estate Division
24
The affordability issues at the Real Estate Division are somewhat different from
those at the Airport and Maritime Divisions of the Port. First, the overall percentage cost
increase is larger: 4.3 percent of business revenue. Second, many of the activities at the
port are more subject to competition from nearby businesses. Location at the airport and
the port is essential to most of the activities there, so the issue of competition with offsite
businesses that pay lower wages is small. At the waterfront, offsite competition is a
greater issue. Nonetheless, location of restaurants and other retail businesses at the
waterfront provides them with competitive advantages: scenic views, city and port-
supported infrastructure created by previous public investment, and a critical
concentration of retail businesses. Whether this premium is sufficient to offset the cost
increases is the principal issue.
The Port's revenue from the real estate division is also much lower than in the
other two divisions. Not counting the revenue growth related to Oakland Portside
Associates, operating revenue in the commercial real estate division has hovered at about
$10 million in recent years, or one-seventh of the operating revenue in each of the other
two divisions. More disturbing, the real estate division has been losing money. Its net
operating income has been negative, even before taking depreciation and interest
expenses into account (Table 5-3). Any possible reduction in rents in this division
consequently generates a great affordability concern for the Port.
Our findings suggest that most of the firms that would be significantly affected by
the proposed ordinance are concentrated in the real estate division. Except for about a
dozen of these firms, the impact is less than 10 percent of their business costs. To
examine whether the Port location provides a corresponding premium, we examined
prices charged by businesses at Jack London Square to others at nearby locations.
Businesses on Port-owned land do charge more for their services than in nearby
locations, presumably because of the locational advantages. For example, the Motel 6 on
Port property is 18 percent more expensive than the Motel 6 adjacent to Port property.
Additionally, the Airport Hilton, the Waterfront Plaza Hotel, and the Embarcadero
Executive Inn charged on average 32 percent more than hotels immediately adjacent to
Port property. Compared to similar hotels in surrounding cities, the three hotels on Port
property charged 6 percent more. 14
For another comparison, we sampled the prices of restaurants in and near Jack
London Square. Comparing similar menu items, we found that restaurants on Port land
charge on average 16 percent to 30 percent more than restaurants in the surrounding
area.
15
These differences are greater than the cost of the proposed ordinance to
14 Comparable hotels are Radisson, Clarion Suites, Four Points Hotels-Sheraton, and Holiday Inn in the Berkeley
Marina. Lake Merritt, and Emeryville respectively.
15 We compared prices at five restaurants in Jack London Square with prices at five restaurants in the surrounding area.
The methodology involved comparing menu prices among the restaurants for both the least expensive seafood and the
cost of dinner with the seafood entree and a caesar salad.
restaurants. They suggest that an increase in costs of 66 cents per customer is affordable
without hurting revenue.
25
Some of the employers in this division are large and profitable companies with a
regional or national presence. Potentially affected companies leasing property from the
commercial real estate division include Best Western, Motel 6 and the Old Spaghetti
Factory. Best Western is an independently owned member of Best Western International,
whose hotels had sales in 1998 of $70 million. The Motel 6 on Port property has sales of
over $1 million per year while the Motel 6 not on Port property has sales of less than $1
million. The Old Spaghetti Factory has annual revenues of between $2.5 and $5 million
and is part of a private company with over 40 total restaurants and $54.6 million in sales.
Vacancy rates at Jack London Square are currently low, which supports recent
publicity suggesting that retail establishments at or near Jack London Square are facing
increasing market rents. The rent increases reflect the success of local economic
development and again indicate that a living wage ordinance can be absorbed by this
sector. Indeed, cost increases as a result of rising rents may well dominate any labor cost
increases in coming years. It does not seem likely that businesses would be deterred from
locating at Jack London Square in such an environment.
In summary, the cost increases for leaseholders in the commercial real estate
division are greater than in the other divisions, but are below 10 percent of current
business revenue for all but a dozen firms. Even without taking into account the likely
business savings due to lower turnover costs and higher productivity, most finns should
be able to adjust to the higher labor costs without reducing their workforce or relocating
from the Port. Of the dozen firms with greater impact, most will be able to pass on
increases to consumers without hurting sales.
In a context of rising rents near Jack London Square, the finns that are most
affected are much more likely to increase prices than to obtain reductions in the rent they
pay to the Port. Firms that are less affected are also not likely to obtain rent reductions.
We conclude that Port revenues in the commercial real estate division should not decline
significantly as a result of the proposed ordinance.
6. Conclusion
The Port of Oakland is Oakland's largest public asset and is one of the most
important generators ofjobs in the City and its environs. In the past, work in the
maritime industry provided substantial numbers of well-paid jobs, which provided a path
to the middle class for many Oaklanders, especially. for African Americans, who
currently comprise 50 percent of the Port's longshore workers.
26
In the future, however, the greatest job growth will occur in the airport and real
estate divisions, not the maritime division. The lowest average wage rates at the port are
concentrated in the hotel, restaurant, parking, security and skycaps, and other services
sectors. These sectors are all part of the growing airport and real estate divisions, where
we see both lower average wages and higher wage disparities between whites and people
of color.
Without public policy intervention to affect the quality ofjobs, the Port will
continue to generate large numbers ofjobs for Oakland and the region, but many of these
will be low-wage jobs. Moreover, racial wage disparities will be perpetuated by this
pattern of growth.
Enacting a living wage ordinance at the Port of Oakland would help increase the
incomes of 3, 100 low-wage workers. The average affected worker will see an increase in
income including health benefits of $2.06 per hour. Employees will also get paid leave.
The costs of the proposed ordinance are about $13 million and comprise only
about 1 percent of Port leaseholders' business revenues. The maritime division would
experience only a very small increase in cost, with shipping activities essentially
unaffected. Cost increases in the real estate and airport divisions would constitute about
4.3 percent and 1.5 percent of leaseholders business revenues, respectively.
For the airport, this amounts to $0.59 per departure, certainly not enough to
change passenger preference for flying out of Oakland. Low wages are concentrated in a
few firms, many of whom are subcontractors to the major airlines. Since they provide
essential onsite services, they will be able to pass most cost increases to the airlines, who
can easily absorb them and/or pass them on to passengers.
For the real estate division, the increase in wages and benefits amounts to $0.66
per visitor to Jack London Square annually. The increase in costs to the affected
restaurants and hotels is smaller than the premium they get for locating near the
waterfront and in Jack London Square, compared to similar businesses in less desirable
locations. With business growing in the area, the small increase in costs should not affect
the overall business climate.
We conclude that the increased wage bill costs can be absorbed by the Port's
leaseholders, visitors to the waterfront and passengers at the Oakland airport. Businesses
should not be driven away, Port revenues should not go down and bond ratings for the
Port should remain unaffected. The overall effects of a living wage ordinance--
considering the benefits and as well as the costs-- should be to redirect economic growth
at the Port toward the more equitable path that it had sustained in previous decades.
27
Appendix A: Survey method and data sources
28
The primary data source for the Port of Oakland study was a telephone and in-
person survey of Port leaseholders and their on-site subcontractors that we conducted in
the spring and summer of 1999. Where necessary, we collected supplementary data from
a variety of official sources. This appendix discusses the sample universe, sample
realization, weighting, estimation procedures, survey methodology, the survey instrument
and the supplementary data.
Sample universe and realization
The universe - the list of all firms that are tenants of the Port of Oakland - for the
sample survey was generated from the following sources. First, we obtained a list of
tenants compiled by the Government Affairs Division of the Port of Oakland. When it
became clear that some gaps existed in this data source, requests were directed at the Real
Estate and Airport Divisions for further information. Their responses to our requests
provided the second source of information. Third, we conducted field visits to complete
the universe, in particular to complete the lists of sub-tenants at 80 Swan Way,
Embarcadero Cove and Jack London Village and subcontractors such as security and
skycap firms at the airport.
From these sources, we generated a list of leaseholders of the Port of Oakland.
After duplications, name changes and other sources of error had been identified and
corrected or removed, we were left with a list of 278 firms.
We attempted to survey all 278 firms on the list and continually monitored
progress in order to ensure a balanced sample realization across port divisions, sectors
and geographic areas. Our interviews revealed that 30 firms were no longer tenants of
the Port, leaving a total of248 firms in our universe. About one-third of the firms were
not surveyed because they refused to answer our questions or were not traceable. Table
A-I shows the sample realization results.
Weighting procedure
The 168 surveyed tenants / service contractors of the Port of Oakland employ
some 9,518 people (both managerial and non-managerial). When data from the American
Business Directory for unsurveyed firms is added to this, the total estimated employment
at the Port of Oakland is 13,787. The gap between these figures is explained by the fact
that we successfully surveyed 68 percent of the possible firms. To adjust for this
discrepancy, we weighted each surveyed firm.
The goal of weighting is to determine how many actual firms or employees is
represented by each surveyed firm or employee. We generate a factor by which to
'expand' each surveyed firm and employee to generate the actual number of firms and
employees. Following standard sample survey methodology, we tried to increase the
accuracy of our weighting (or expansion) factors by comparing apples with apples. For
example, a restaurant in the airport should not be taken to represent a trucking firm in the
port.
Thus, in the weighting procedure, we used 11 industrial classes (construction,
manufacturing, truck, maritime, air, retail, restaurant, finance and related, hotel, services
and other) and 7 port regions (Hegenberger, Airport, Embarcadero, Jack London Village,
Jack London Square, Port). This means, for example, that each surveyed retail worker in
Jack London Square is taken to represent 1.25 actual retail workers in Jack London
Square. The weights thus vary by sector and region, thus minimizing the errors in the
weighting process.
Once the weights had been applied, we estimated that there were 13,010 people
working in the Port of Oakland. This is only slightly lower than the estimate that includes
ABD data. Once managerial employees, and those working for firms employing fewer
than 5 people are excluded, we are left with II ,430 people. These are the workers who
would be covered by a Living Wage Ordinance.
Our overall employment estimate compares well with a combination of
employment estimates derived from the Martin Associates (various dates) reports for the
Real Estate, Airport and Maritime Port Divisions. This data source is out of date - the
reports are dated from 1992 to 1997 - and includes all employment related to port
activity, regardless of whether it is on Port property or not. However, a realistic estimate
of on-site employment from this source ranges between 11,000 and 18,000.
The reported number of firms is also affected by weighting. The 123 surveyed
firms that employ one or more non-managerial worker represent 174 firms when weights
are applied. Of these, 140 have five or more employees (see Table 3.1). The 45 surveyed
firms that have no employees represent 74 actual firms. Thus the weighted number of
firms equals the universe of248 firms.
Questionnaire
The questionnaire for the survey was designed and pilot-tested with restaurant and
retail sector employment as the primary target. With minor modifications we made it
applicable to other employment sectors. Survey interviews took between 10 and 20
minutes, depending on the number ofjob titles in the firm. Questions were directed only
towards the employment at the establishment on port property (or on employment linked
to port-related service contracts) and not the entire firm.
The first section of the questionnaire dealt with the employment profile of the
workforce in terms ofjob permanence, demographic characteristics, unionization levels
and benefits. In order to reduce the length of the questionnaire, these questions were
applicable only to the non-managerial workforce, and thus demographic profiles per job
title I occupation are estimates.
In the second section of the questionnaire, information was collected on each non-
managerial job title. This included the number of people with the job title, minimum
educational and other qualifications, and starting and average pay. In one-third of all job
titles, the average wage was not provided, requiring supplementary information (see
below).
The third section of the questionnaire dealt with the recruitment and training
practices of the establishment. The questionnaire concluded with two very sensitive
questions - the revenue and labor share of business costs - questions which most
respondents would not or could not answer.
Supplementary data
Given these and other gaps it became necessary to supplement the survey data in
four ways. First, we used the American Business Directory to identify the location,
sector, employment and revenues of 190 of the firms. This information helped us to
complete the sample universe, to identify potential respondents, to fill information gaps
in the interviews, for purposes of weighting the sample, and to check the survey-based
total employment estimate.
Second, as noted above, in about one-third of (119 out of 360) job titles surveyed
we were not provided with average wage data. To fill this gap, we searched for
comparable job titles in comparable firms within the sample, and where appropriate used
this source. This filled 34 of the missing average wage rates. In a further 42 cases, we had
been provided with the starting wage but no average wage. We multiplied the starting
wage by a factor of 1.559 in the case of unionized job titles, and 1.341 in the case of non-
unionized job titles to estimate average wages. These factors were generated from the
available survey data, and reflect the fact that tenure-based pay increases are larger for
unionized than for non-unionized workers. Finally, in 33 cases we were able to fill the
average wage gap using average wage data for the 1997 Occupational Employment
Series for the Oakland Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area. This left 10 job titles for
which we were unable to generate an average wage.
Third, most of the firms employing members of the ILWU (i.e., stevedores and
terminal operators) were unable to provide information on the number oflongshoremen
and clerks they employ, and their pay and benefit scales. This employment is
distinguished from other (generally administrative) employment within such firms, and
for which we generally were provided full information. In order to complete this
component of employment by port tenants, we collected wage and demographic
information from the Pacific Maritime Association and from Lawrence Tiebout, the
President ofILWU Local 10, and his staff. Although this data is subject to inaccuracy
because the San Francisco ILWU hiring hall covers the entire Bay Area, wage rates for
these workers are all above $20 per hour. Thus this supplementary data will not bias
estimates of the cost and benefit ofa Living Wage Ordinance.
Fourth, we extracted microdata from the March Supplement of the Current
Population Survey for 1996-9 for the Bay Area Statistical Area. This data provided
hourly wage data for the entire Bay Area, for Alameda County and for the City of
Oakland.
31
We also used this data source to supplement our health benefit coverage
information. In the questionnaire, we did not distinguish whether employers or
employees paid for health coverage, and thus we could not use our survey data to
estimate this aspect of the impact of a Living Wage Ordinance. For each job title, we
estimated the value of health benefits paid by the employer for each job title based on the
average health coverage rates for similar job titles and sectors in the Bay Area.
Appendix B: Supplementary wage calculations
32
This appendix is devoted to two technical issues in the study. The first issue
concerns the impact on wage scales within a firm when the lowest paid workers receive a
wage increase. We discuss our methodology and assumptions for estimating these so-
called wage push effects of the proposed living wage ordinance. The second issue
concerns tip income. Our discussion highlights the complexities of this issue, although
our estimates indicate that including a tip credit in the proposed ordinance would make
little difference in the aggregate.
Wage push calculations
Although the proposed ordinance mandates pay increases only for workers who
are paid less than $8.30 per hour, it is reasonable to ask whether employers would feel
pressure to raise the pay of other workers as well. Such wage push pressure would be
expected to arise primarily from workers whose wages fall just above the living wage
level, since most pay comparisons involve workers in closely related job classifications.
Pay increases might be required in order to maintain relative pay differences for those
with longer service, more skills or responsibility, or other job-related factors. These
indirect effects, which we have called "wage push," have also received such labels as
"wage creep," "ripple effects" and "wage contour effects".
An accurate accounting 0 f such increases depends upon our knowledge of the
rigidities and flexibilities of the occupational wage structure. The current state of such
knowledge is imperfect. Although relative wage structures have compressed in the past,
notably in the 1960s and 1970s, in more recent decades they have widened. In the past
three years they have stabilized and in some instances have narrowed. A large literature
by economists has debated the relative importance of market-based and institutional-
based causes of these patterns. Nonetheless, we can draw upon recent experience with
minimum wage increases and with living wage ordinances in other cities to develop some
reasonable estimates.
The best wage-push analysis of minimum wages is by Card and Krueger (1995),
who examined the impact of minimum wage increases upon the pay of above-minimum
workers. They found that the indirect effects did indeed concentrate at just above the new
minimum. The percentage pay increase for those just above the new minimum averaged
less than half of what the workers at the old minimum received. In other words, recent
minimum wage increases have led to some compression of the wage structure. 16 This
compression is not surprising in historical perspective, since wage inequality in the 1990s
has been higher than at any other period since the Bureau of the Census began collecting
reliable data in 1947.
16 Sachdev and Wilkinson (1998) obtain similar findings for the United Kingdom. Both studies find
negligible adverse employment effects. See also Reich (1999).
Card and Krueger's results do not apply directly to a living wage ordinance, but
they are very suggestive. Since the increases contemplated by the ordinance are greater,
in percentage terms, than the minimum wage increases studied by Card and Krueger, the
indirect effects may also be greater. On the other hand, minimum wage increases apply to
all low-wage workers in the labor market, while living wage ordinances apply only to a
small percentage. Consequently, the indirect effects may be restrained by larger labor
market forces and could be somewhat smaller. These two considerations work in opposite
directions and probably cancel each other.
It therefore seems reasonable to translate Card and Krueger's fmdings as
suggesting that if the largest wage increase at the Port of Oakland were about $4 per
hour, an increase of up to $2 per hour might occur for workers currently paid $9.55 per
hour. The total wage bill would not go up proportionately, however, because there are
fewer workers at the more skilled and supervisory levels that receive higher pay.
Using the underlying survey data on the proportion of workers at each pay level,
we have assumed that each worker currently earning between $7.65 to $9.55 would
actually receive $10.03 per hour after the Living Wage is implemented. We have also
calculated the cost of bringing all workers who are currently paid between $9.55 and
$11.44 up to $11.45. We estimate that these indirect wage gains could amount to $2.2
million for employees of Port tenants.
Tip income calculations
The impact of the Living Wage Ordinance depends in part on how tip income is
treated. This is a complicated issue that can become a source of controversy. In this
appendix we present and discuss our findings in the interests of a more informed debate
on this topic, without making a specific recommendation for dealing with tip income. We
show that the overall impact of a tip credit would be relatively modest, although it may
be important for specific sectors or employers.
Tips constitute an important source of income for employees in various service-
sector occupations. In the Oakland Port context, over 1,000 restaurant workers, skycaps
and parking valets may earn up to half their income in tips (see Table B-1). For this
reason, employers may resist increasing the wages of workers who earn above the living
wage level when tips are taken into account. A solution to this problem may be to
estimate the value of tip income earned by each employee and allocate this as a tip credit.
However tips are by their nature highly irregular, prone to under-reporting and
often inequitably distributed. These features make regulation very difficult and could in
restaurants create great inequities since not all employees collect tips directly. Bussers,
cleaners and cooks only receive tip income where a pooling system operates. Tips also
vary considerably across different restaurants, and workers in fast-food and cafeteria-
style restaurants generally do not receive tips. I? Enacting and enforcing an equitable tip
credit system would be very complicated, and the impact on costs would be modest.
34
We estimated the value of tips for certain categories of workers. In the case of
waiters, bartenders and cocktailers, we assumed that tips added a further 70 percent to an
individual's wage. We based this estimate on interviews with restaurant workers and a
review of the limited literature on this subject. For other restaurant workers, including
bussers, food preparers and other employees, we assumed that tip income would increase
an individual's earnings by 10 percent. This amount takes account of the tip sharing that
occurs in some establishments. For skycaps and parking valets at the airport, we assumed
tips to value of $2 per hour. This assumption was based on interviews with airport
workers. In the report, wage data and estimates of the costs and benefits of a Living
Wage Ordinance are generally presented without including tips as income
Table B-2 shows that the number of workers benefiting from the Living Wage
Ordinance would only fall marginally with a tip credit - from 3,100 to 3,050. This small
effect occurs because the estimated value of tip income brings most employees closer to
the living wage level without taking them above it. However, the average hourly wage
increase per worker falls from $2.06 to $1.67.
A tip credit would result in a decrease in the annual cost of the proposed
ordinance of almost $2 million (see Table B-3). Most of this decrease - some $1.5
million - occurs within the restaurant sector. The decrease in costs for the Security and
Curbside Assistance sector is small in absolute terms, but it is relatively important since it
represents 10 percent of the wage bill in this sector.
17 The 1988 bill to raise the California minimum wage originally contained a tip credit, but this provision
was eliminated by a court decision.
Acknowledgments and author biographies
We would like to thank officials at the Port of Oakland for providing the list of
leaseholders and other infonnation. We also thank the California Policy Research
Seminar and Senator Don Perata for their support of this project. Finally, we appreciate
the assistance of UC Berkeley students in the Spring 1999 Economics 153 class for their
enthusiastic interviewing of employers.
35
Carol Zabin is a labor economist at the Center for Labor Research and Education
in the Institute for Industrial Relations at UC Berkeley. She received her Ph.D. in
Economics from UC Berkeley in 1990. She has previously held faculty positions at
Tulane University and UCLA. She has published numerous articles and reports on labor
markets, immigration and other subjects. She is the author of two other reports on living
wage ordinances in California.
Michael Reich is Professor of Economics at UC Berkeley and Director of the
Center on Pay and Inequality at the Institute of Industrial Relations at UC Berkeley. A
specialist in labor economics, he has published dozens of scholarly articles and nine
books, including Labor Market Segmentation; Racial Inequality; Social Structures of
Accumulation; and Work and Pay in the United States and Japan. He received his Ph.D.
in Economics from Harvard University in 1974, has served as Editor of the scholarly
journal Industrial Relations and as Research Director of the National Center for the
Workplace. In 1999 he was lead author of two reports on the proposed Living Wage
Ordinance in San Francisco.
Peter Hall received a M. Sc. from the London School of Economics in 1995 and
is also a graduate ofthe University of Cape Town in South Africa. He has worked as a
research consultant and in local government economic development. He is currently a
Ph.D. candidate in City and Regional Planning at UC Berkeley.
Melanie McCutchan is a 1999 UC Berkeley graduate. She co-authored a student
report on the proposed Living Wage in Richmond, California.
Christopher Niedt is a Ph.D student in Geography at UC Berkeley. He received
a BA degree from Johns Hopkins University. He has worked as an economic
development consultant and was lead author of a report on the Baltimore Living Wage
ordinance.
Egon Terplan is a graduate student in City and Regional Planning at UC
Berkeley. He received a B.A. from Swarthmore College and has worked as a trade union
researcher and organizer, and in local government.
References:
American Business Directory (ABD). Commercial CD-ROM directory of company
infonnation, accessed UC Berkeley Libraries 1999.
Bay Area Economics, 1999. i
h
Street / McClymonds Neighborhood Improvement
Initiative: Community Plan. Consultants report submitted to the William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation, Bay Area Economics.
Brown, Clair, Yoshifumi Nakata, Michael Reich, and Lloyd Ulman 1997. Work and Pay
in the United States and Japan. New York: Oxford University Press.
36
Card, David and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Myth and Measurement: the New Economics of
the Minimum Wage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
California Budget Project, 1998. Unequal gains: the state ofwork in California.
California Budget Project: Sacramento.
California Budget Project, 1999. Making Ends Meet: How much does it cost to raise a
family in California. California Budget Project: Sacramento.
CB Richard Ellis. 1999. Oakland-East Bay Real Estate, First Quarter 1999. National
Real Estate Index.
City of Oakland, 1998. "Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Living Wage
Ordinance". Agenda Report from the Contract Compliance Division, June 16.
Daly, Mary and Royer, Heather. 1999. "Who has benefited from California's recovery?"
FRB-SF Economic Letter no. 99-26,3 September. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank
of San Francisco.
DelVecchio, Rick 1999. "$200m plan for Jack London Square", San Francisco Chronicle
28 October.
Employment Development Department, 1999. Web site of California Labor Market
Infonnation, Employment Development Department, State of California
(http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/).
Epstein, Edward 1999. "Brown raises pay for lowest-paid airport workers", San
Francisco Chronicle 22 November.
Farb, Julie, and Phil Tomescu. "Bustling ports, suffering drivers". King County Labor
Council, Seattle, August 24, 1999.
Freeman, Richard and James Medoff. 1984. What do unions do? New York: Basic
Books.
Howe, Kenneth 1997. "Renaissance in Oakland: Jack London Square becoming a
commercial center", San Francisco Chronicle 27 June.
Katz, Lawrence 1986. "Efficiency Wage Theories: a Partial Evaluation." in Stanley
Fischer ed. NBER Macroeconomics Annual. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Martin Associates 1994. "The Economic Impact of the Port of Oakland's Commercial
Real Estate Tenants." (Consultant report prepared for Port of Oakland).
37
Martin Associates 1996. "The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of Maritime
Activity at the Port of Oakland, 1995." (Consultant report prepared for Port of Oakland).
Martin Associates 1997. "The Local and Regional Economic Impacts of Oakland
International Airport." (Consultant report prepared for Port of Oakland).
Restaurants USA 1999. Restaurant Industry Operations Report, 1999. Report CS959.
National Restaurant Association.
Pacific Maritime Association (various years). Pacific Maritime Association, Annual
Report. San Francisco.
Pollin, Robert and Stephanie Luce 1998. The Living Wage: Building a Fair Economy.
New York: The New Press.
Port of Oakland 1998. "Capital Improvement & Financing Plan: Fiscal Years 1998-99
through 2002-03."
Port of Oakland 1999. "Year-to-date Air Passenger and Air Freight Activity Reports for
Bay Area Airports, 1998 and 1988". Unpublished report of the Port of Oakland.
Reich, Michael, Peter Hall and Fiona Hsu. 1999a. Living Wages and the San Francisco
Economy: the Benefits and the Costs. Center on Pay and Inequality, Institute ofIndustrial
Relations, University of California, Berkeley.
Reich, Michael and Peter Hall 1999b. Living Wages at the Airport and Port ofSan
Francisco: the Benefits and the Costs. Center on Pay and Inequality, Institute of
Industrial Relations, University of California, Berkeley.
Sachdev, Sanjiv and Frank Wilkinson 1998. "The Labour Market, the Minimum Wage
and the Low Pay COIIimission Report." ESRC Working Paper 110, ESRC Centre for
Business Research, University of Cambridge.
SF Airport Commission 1999. Official Statement ofAirport Commission City and County
ofSan Francisco. $250,000,000 San Francisco International Airport Second Series
Revenue Bonds.
Spain, Selena, Tse-Ming Tarn and Chris Thomas. 1997. Living Wage Policies
Nationwide: An Analysisfor the City ofOakland. National Economic Development and
Law Center: Oakland.
Thurston, Jack. 1999. "Sitting on the Dock of the Bay? Policies to increase the local
economic benefit of maritime activity at the Port of Oakland." Goldman School of Public
Policy, unpublished Master's thesis.
Uchitelle, Louis 1999. "Minimum wages are being set city by city." New York Times 17
November.
u. S. Bureau of the Census, 1990. 1990 US Population Census Data accessed from the
US Bureau of the Census Web Site, STF3A Series (www.census.gov).
West Oakland Anny Base Task Force. 1997. "A Community-Based Reuse Strategy:
Homeless, Public Benefit, and Economic Development Proposals for the Oakland Anny
Base." (Unpublished report submitted to Oakland Base Reuse Authority).
Willis, D. 1999. "State finds population up 537,000 in 1997-8", Orange County Register,
28 January.
Zabin, Carol. 1996. "Assessing the Costs and Benefits of the 'Living Wage Ordinance'; a
Review of the Evidence." Policy Brief#l, UCLA Labor Center.
Zabin, Carol. 1999. "Living Wage Campaigns in the Economic Policy Arena: Four Case
Studies in California". The Phoenix Fund for Workers and Communities, The New
World Foundation.
List of Tables
Table 1-1
Table 2-1
Table 2-2
Table 3-1
Table 3-2a
Table 3-2b
Table 3-3a
Table 3-3b
Table 3-4
Table 3.5
Table 4-1a
Table 4-1b
Table 4-2a
Table 4-2b
Table 4-2c
Table 4-3
Table 4-4
Table 5-1a
Table 5-1b
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table A-I
Table B-1
Table B-2
Table B-3
Cost of Living and Living Wage comparisons
Comparison of wage rates for selected Bay Area Central Cities
Top Ten Occupations with greatest absolute job growth in Alameda
County 1995-2002
Port-related employment
Tenants of the Port of Oakland: firms and employment by revenue
division
Tenants of the Port of Oakland: firms and employment by sector
Port employment and demographic profiles by revenue division
Port employment and demographic profiles by industry sector
Average wage by revenue division and demographic group
Low-wage employment at the Port of Oakland
Number of employees by wage category and revenue division
Number of employees by wage category and sector
Wage groups by gender
Wage groups by ethnicity
Wage group by place of residence
Affected workers and wage and benefit increases
Total annual costs
Cost summary, by revenue division
Cost summary, by sector
Port of Oakland Revenue Divisions: Annual Revenues 1993-1998
Distribution of firms by increase in business costs
Sample realization
Tipped employees
Wage and benefit increases (with and without tip credit)
Cost summary for sectors with tipped employees
39
Table 1-1 Cost of Living and Living Wage Comparisons
Living wage} Wage adjusted with
(unadjusted) Oakland Cost of
Living
2
Oakland $8.30 $8.30
National
Comparisons
Baltimore $7.90 $13.27
Boston $8.23 $9.29
Miami $8.56 $12.96
Regional
Comparisons
Los Angeles $7.51 $9.52
San Francisco
3
$11.00 $9.48
San Jose $9.50 $8.35
40
Sources: ACCRA Cost of Living Index and Wider Opportunities for Women, Self-Sufficiency Worksheets.
Notes:
1. Living wage with health benefits.
2. Adjusting factor = Oakland CofL/City's CofL (using ACCRA Composite Index for Baltimore, Boston, Los Angeles and Miami,
and W.O.W. index for San Francisco and San Jose).
3. Proposed Living Wage.
4. Cost data are for the city, except for Boston (PMSA) and Miami (Dade County).
Table 2-1 Comparison of wage rates for selected Bay Area Central Cities
Average hourly
wage, 1996-9
Oakland $14.52
San Francisco $15.97
San Jose $18.99
All Bay Area Central Cities $17.68
41
Source:
Hourly wage from authors analysis of March Supplement of the BLS Current Population Survey, Bay Area Counties, 1996-9
extraction. Adjusted for inflation using the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose CMSA all urban consumers consumer price index.
Table 2-2 Top Ten Occupations with greatest absolute job growth in Alameda County 1995-2002
Median Mean
Total Hourly Annual
Job Title 1995 2000 Change Wage!
Low-w a ~ e occupations
Cashiers 13,450 15,410 1,960 $7.65 $19,190
Retail Salespersons 19,500 21,450 1,950 $7.78 $19,910
Assemblers and Fabricators 7,720 9,210 1,490 $9.21 $20,550
WaiterslWaitresses 6,240 7,480 1,240 $5.67 $13,110
Low-wage total 46,910 53,550 6,640 - $18,904
Medium-wage occupations
Sales Representatives
2
8,350 9,370 1,020 $19.17 $44,910
Secretaries
3
11,810 12,700 890 $14.16 $29,870
Teachers (Secondary) 5,170 5,950 780 $24.29
4
$50,530
Medium-wage total 25,330 28,020 2,690
-
$39,045
High- wage occupations
General Managers 17,450 19,380 1,930 $36.93 $74,660
Computer Engineers 1,660 2,800 1,140 $33.81 $65,710
Systems Analysts 1,820 2,870 1,050 $31.41 $61,860
High-wage total 20,930 25,050 4,120
-
$72,837
Source: California Employment Development Department.
Note:
I. 1997 wage rates for the Oakland PMSA.
2. Sales representatives not including retail or scientific.
3. Secretaries not including legal or medical.
4. No median wage available for teachers. Median hourly wage given is mean yearly wage divided by 2080 hours.
Table 3-1 Port-related employment}
1995 Projected 2010
Airport 10,200 16,500
Maritime 8,800 12,700
Commercial real estate 2,900 Not available
Port staff 580 Not available
Total port employment 22,480 32,680
Total Alameda County employment 525,444 784,840
Sources: County Business Patterns, ABAG web site, Martin and Associates
Note:
I. Includes off-site employment.
43
Table 3-2a Tenants of the Port of Oakland: firms and employment by revenue division
Percentage of Average Percent of
Revenue Division Firms
l
Employees
2
total wage
4
, employees
workforce
3
$/hour unionized
Airport 36 7270 63.6 14.50 44.1
Maritime port 20 2050 17.9 31.66 80.5
Real estate 84 2110 18.4 10.54 4.9
Total 140 11430 100.0 16.80 43.4
Table 3-2b Tenants of the Port of Oakland: firms and employment by sector
Percent of Average Percent of
Industry Sector Firms
l
Employees
2
total wage, employees
workforce
3
$/hour
4
unionized
Air Cargo 4 4164 36.4 15:84 34.8
Passenger airlines 6 1109 9.7 16.00 82.3
Airline support services 8 745 6.5 12.91 27.5
Security and curbside assistance 3 223 2.0 7.02 0.0
Car rental 6 445 3.9 10.15 57.5
Parking services 3 300 2.6 9.90 69.3
Retail 22 371 3.2 10.65 5.4
Restaurant 16 918 8.0 8.07 23.5
Hotel 16 324 2.8 9.30 0.0
Maritime 9 1601 14.0 37.99 98.0
Trucking and warehousing 10 365 3.2 12.76 7.1
Construction and Manufacturing 4 113 1.0 12.54 72.2
FIRE' 7 146 1.3 18.4 0.0
Professional services 21 257 2.2 19.14 5.4
Entertainment and personal 5 350 3.1 7.32 0.0
services
Total 140 11430 100.0 16.80 43.2
Source: DC Berkeley (CLRE) Employer Survey
Notes:
I. Excluding firms with fewer than 5 employees.
2. Non-managerial employees only.
3. Non-managerial employees in sector / total non-managerial employees.
4. Including health benefits. Based on the occupation-weighted sample.
5. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
Table 3-3a Port employment and demographic profiles by revenue division
45
Percent of employees who are:
Revenue Division
Women Oakland African- Asian- Latino White
residents American American
Airport 7,270 40.8 69.0 41.9 22.0 16.4 19.6
Maritime Port 2,050 11.3 27.7 37.0 2.4 34.1 26.4
Real Estate 2,110 55.1 64.3 29.1 17.9 23.4 29.6
Total 11,430 35.8 53.9 35.8 14.0 23.8 26.5
Table 3-3b Port employment and demographic profiles by industry sector
Percent of employees who are:
Industry Sector
Women Oakland African- Asian- Latino White
Air Cargo
4,164 25.5 60.0 12.1 0.9 2.8 84.1
Passenger airlines
1109 63.6 75.5 28.3 24.1 23.5 24.1
Airline support services
745 45.1 66.7 57.4 9.8 8.8 23.9
Security and curbside assistance
223 27.1 74.3 65.6 26.6 6.0 1.8
Car rental
445 43.9 81.4 63.7 13.8 16.0 6.5
Parking services
300 72.4 40.3 40.2 46.3 1.5 11.1
Retail
371 45.2 72.4 35.3 7.6 18.1 39.4
Restaurant
918 52.3 56.1 23.0 13.3 38.2 25.5
Hotel
324 67.8 85.0 30.0 16.6 40.9 12.4
Maritime
1,601 7.4 31.7 39.8 1.6 21.8 36.9
Trucking and warehousing
365 33.6 10.4 15.1 6.0 63.4 15.2
Construction and Manufacturing
113 4.2 15.7 3.6 4.2 71.4 20.3
FIRE
l
146 60.5 27.0 14.6 4.9 3.5 77.0
Professional services
257 62.1 28.2 10.6 35.3 9.9 44.2
Entertainment and personal
services 350 41.7 92.5 57.2 28.9 3.5 10.4
Total
11,430 35.8 53.9 35.8 14.0 23.8 26.5
Source: UC Berkeley (CLRE) Employer Survey
Notes:
I. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
2. The number of employees by sector and the percent of employment by demographic group were calculated based upon the firm-
weighted sample universe. See Appendix A.
Table 3-4 Average wage by revenue division and demographic group
46
Average wage, $/hr
J
All
Women Oakland African- Asian- Latino White Unionized
Revenue Division Employees
Airport 14.50 13.42 12.18 10.96 11.80 13.07 15.80 14.91
Maritime Port 32.12 23.60 37.29 37.48 21.03 26.27 34.41 37.87
Real Estate 10.27 10.88 8.58 8.88 10.70 9.15 12.53 13.70
All Divisions 16.81 13.41 15.27 18.75 11.88 17.89 19.73 22.19
Notes:
I. Including health benefits, not including tips.
2. Average hourly wages are weighted by the number of employees in each category.
Table 3.5 Low-wage employment at the Port of Oakland
1
47
Industry Sector Job Title Employees
Average wage, Wage range,
$/hour
2
$/hour
3
Airline
Fueler / Ramp agent
250 8.40 6.50-9.15
Support services
Food preparation
90 9.10 6.40-10.20
Skycap and screeners
160 5.95 5.75-6.25
Security and skycap
Security
60 9.00 6.50-9.00
Rental Cars
Rental and service agents,
shuttlers 350 8.90 5.75-12.85
Parking Services Cashier, Valet
225 8.55 5.75-9.05
Retail Cashier and sales
200 8.25 5.75-12.00
Busser
45 5.90 5.75-7.70
Dishwasher
90 7.60 5.75-9.40
Restaurant
Cook, food preparation
190 8.20 5.75-10.70
Waiter, cocktail server,
bartender, host 490 7.45 5.75-15.00
Hotel
Housekeeper / room cleaner
150 7.15 5.75-9.50
General Maintenance
30 7.90 5.75-8.50
Desk clerk
60 8.55 5.75-9.25
Trucking
Packagers and general labor
And warehousing 200 6.75 5.75-8.50
Entertainment and
Customer services, cleaning
personal services 240 6.25 5.75-6.25
Notes:
I. Low-wage job titles are defined as those where the starting wage is below $8.30 per hour. Due to tenure-based pay scales, average
wage rates for some of these job titles may exceed $8.30 per hour. Since we do not have detailed data on wage scales, the number
of workers reported includes all employees within the firm in the relevant job title.
2. Average hourly wages are weighted and do not include tips.
3. Minimum of wage range is lowest starting wage and maximum of wage range is highest average wage.
4. All numbers have been rounded.
Table 4-1a Number of employees by wage category and revenue division
48
Industry All Earning Earning below the Indirectly Vnaffected by
Employees below the proposed living affected by the the proposed
proposed wage plus health proposed living living wage
living wage
l
benefit levee wage ordinance
3
ordinance
4
Airport 7265 551 513 321 5880
Maritime Port 1979 175 66 50 1688
Real Estate 2050 1032 236 167 615
Total 11294 1758 815 538 8183
Table 4-1b Number of employees by wage category and sector
Industry All Earning Earning below the Indirectly Unaffected by
Employees below the proposed living affected by the the proposed
proposed wage plus health proposed living living wage
living wage
l
benefit levee wage ordinance
3
ordinance
4
Air Cargo
4164 4164
Passenger airlines
1109 54 22 178 855
Airline support services
745 48 66 127 504
Security and curbside assistance
223 157 66
Car rental
445 86 193 166
Parking services
300 50 176 74
Retail
371 119 60 56 136
Restaurant
918 691 65 38 124
I
Hotel
324 171 26 66 61
Maritime
1509 45 1464
Trucking and warehousing
362 140 65 157
Construction and Manufacturing
101 5 96
FIRE)
146 146
Professional services
252 20 232
Entertainment and personal services 325 242 76 3 4
Total 11294 1758 815 538 8183
Notes:
I. Earning below $8.30 per hour.
2. Earning between $8.30 and $9.54 per hour.
3. Earning between S9.55 and $11.44 per hour.
4. Earning more than S11.45 per hour.
5. Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate.
Table 4-2a Wage groups by gender
Directly benefited All employees
employees (percent) I (percent)
Mpn 'i4 i fi40
Wompn 45.7 16.0
Total 100.0 100.0
Table 4-2b Wage groups by ethnicity
Ethnic Group Directly benefited All employees
employees (percent) 1 (percent)
Whitp (nonHismmic.) 14.7
?(i 'i
A A 411 ViR
Asi:m ::mrl 1R9 140
T.:!tino 2'12 2iR
Total 100.0 100.0
Table 4-2c Wage group by place of residence
Directly benefited All employees
employees (percent) I (percent)
O"k1:mci rpsiopnts fi4fi 'ii 9
Non-Oak1"nr1 rpsiopnts i54 4(;1
Total 100.0 100.0
49
Notes:
L Those earning less than $9.55 per hour, including health benefits, not including tips. Those workers whose wage plus health
benefits are greater than $9.55 are excluded.
Table 4-3 Affected workers and wage and benefit increases
50
Average hourly Average annual Number of
Wage Category
1 2
employees wage Increase wage Increase
Directly affected workers Full-time: $4,500
(earning under $9.55/hr.) $2.25 2,573
Part-time: $2,300
Indirectly affected workers
3
Full-time: $2,400
(earning between $9.55 and $1.16 538
$11.44/hr. )
Part-time: $1,200
Full-time: $3,800
Total affected workers $2.06 3,111
Part-time: $2,00
Notes:
I. Average wage increase attributable to the proposed living wage ordinance, including health coverage but excluding paid days off.
2. Ful1-time employees are assumed to work 2000 hours per year; part-time employees work on average 1070 hours per according to
survey data.
3. Indirectly affected workers are those workers who would benefit from upward wage push pressure with the new higher wage
floor.
Table 4-4 Total annual costs
Total Costs Percent of original
$ millions wage bill
Original annual wage bill,
including health insurance 296.5 100.0
Cost of increasing
Wages to $8.30 4.7 1.6
Cost of providing health
insurance ($1.25/hour)! 3.3 1.1
Cost of the indirect wage push
2
2.1 0.7
Cost of paid days leave)
2.0 0.7
Subtotal (benefits to workers)
12.1 4.1
Cost of employer-paid taxes on
. 4
1.0 0.3 mcrease
Total cost
13.0 4.4
51
Notes:
I. Health insurance costs are the cost of raising each employee's total compensation to $8.30 per hour with health benefits or $9.55
per hour, less the direct costs of raising workers' wages to $8.30 per hour.
2. Indirect wage push refers to upward wage pressure with the higher floor wage ofa living wage. We assumed that wages between
$7.65 and $11.44 would be subject to wage push effects.
3. Paid leave costs provide all employees with a leave benefit at the post-ordinance wage rate, taking into account currently received
paid leave. Full-time workers are to get 12 days paid leave per year and part-time workers get 6 days.
4. Employer paid taxes are 11.15% of wage bill, including health insurance. Oakland payroll taxes are fixed per employee and are
thus unaffected by the living wage ordinance.
Table 5-1a Cost summary, by revenue division
Total cost
As percent As percent
Revenue Division
$ millions
of old wage of business
bill revenue
Airport 5.84 4.92 1.52
Maritime Port 1.68 1.21 0.25
Real Estate 5.53 14.37 4.31
Total 13.0 4.41 1.11
Table 5-1b Cost summary, by sector
Total cost
As percent As percent
Industry sector
$ millions
of old wage of business
bill revenue
Air cargo 0.11 0.32 0.10
Passenger airline 1.34 3.63 1.45
Airline services 0.88 4.03 1.21
Security and curbside
assistance 1.38 40.0 28.0
Car rental 0.82 9.69 1.94
Parking services 0.55 8.58 6.00
Retail 0.76 10.8 2.15
Restaurant 3.44 28.1 6.56
Hotel 1.11 17.2 5.17
Maritime 0.10 0.08 0.02
Trucking and warehousing 1.41 14.0 4.20
Construction and
Manufacturing 0.05 1.91 0.76
FIRE 0.04 0.92 0.37
Professional services 0.06 0.57 0.17
Entertainment and
personal services 0.98 29.9 12.0
Total 13.0 4.41 1.11
52
Notes:
Estimated using labor shares of business revenue derived from the 1998 American Restaurant Association Survey, and the Economic
Censuses of Construction, Service Industries, Retail Trade, Manufacturing and Transportation, Communication and Utilities as
reported in the US Bureau of the Census web site and the Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1997 and adjusted according to
authors' survey.
Table 5-2 Port of Oakland Revenue Divisions: Annual Revenues 1993-1998 (millions $)
Revenue Years Property Parking Dockage and Other Total Net Operatinlf
Division ended Lease wharfage, and Operating Operating Income (loss)
June 30 Rentals
l
landing fees
2
Revenue
3
Revenue
Aviation 1993 25.9 14.3 7.9 8.8 56.9 4.9
1994 25.9 15.5 8.4 8.4 58.0 (0.2)
1995 26.9 17.6 10.2 8.2 62.7 4.6
1996 28.2 19.1 10.2 8.7 66.1 3.1
1997 29.3 21.6 9.6 8.4 69.1 6.2
1998 30.7 21.9 9.9 8.9 71.3 5.4
Maritime 1993 1.7 - 42.6 7.2 51.5 15.6
1994 1.5 - 43.7 7.1 52.3 11.1
1995 2.5 - 49.3 8.3 60.1 11.5
1996 4.6 - 51.9 9.4 65.9 13.8
1997 6.0 - 53.5 8.2 67.6 11.9
1998 6.8 - 56.7 9.2 72.6 14.7
Commercial 1993 6.7 0.9 - 1.0 8.6 (6.2)
Real Estate
5
1994 6.9 0.9 - 1.0 8.9 (5.8)
1995 7.0 1.0 - 1.0 9.0 (12.1)
1996 7.5 1.3 - 1.0 9.7 (8.4)
1997 7.8 1.9 - 1.0 10.7 (8.8)
1998 6.9 2.6 - 1.1 10.6 (9.0)
Total 1993 34.3 15.2 50.5 17.0 117.0 14.3
1994 34.3 16.1 52.0 16.5 118.9 5.1
1995 36.4 18.6 59.4 17.4 131.8 4.0
1996 40.2 20.3 62.1 19.0 141.7 8.5
1997 43.1 23.5 63.1 17.6 147.4 9.3
1998 44.4 24.5 66.6 19.1 154.6 11.1
Source: Port of Oakland Supplementary Schedule of Revenues and Expenses
Notes:
I. Includes airport terminal rental, concessions and other aviation rentals, maritime space assignments and rentals, and lease rentals.
2. Includes dockage, wharfage and related accounts and landing fees.
3. Includes airport field revenue and ground access revenue, cranes, storage and demurrage, marinas and utilities.
4. Net operating income is Total Operating Revenue less Operating Expenses, Depreciation, Amortization and Interest Expense.
5. Excludes Oakland Portside Associates, a subsidiary property management company of the Port of Oakland. According to port
officials, Oakland Portland Associates has made a loss during recent years.
Table 5-3 Distribution of firms by increase in business costs
Costs of living wage Percent of Percent of Percent of non-
as percent of firms increased managerial
business revenue costs employment
0-1% 43.1 5.8 62.9
1-3% 13.8 15.4 12.8
3-6% 20.6 23.7 9.1
6-10% 9.0 19.5 6.6
10-15% 12.6 26.1 7.1
15%+ 0.9 9.5 1.4
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
Notes:
For details of business revenue estimates, see Table 5- I.
54
APPENDIX TABLES
Table A-I Sample Realization
55
Firms
Survey Result
Number Percent
Interview completed 123 44
Done
No employees on site 45 16
Refusal 58 21
Not Done
Not traceable 22 8
Closed / no longer tenants 30 11
Total 278 100
Table B-1 Tipped Employees
Occupation Number of Average Average wage,
workers wage
1
, $/hour with tips2,
$/hour
Waiters, bartenders, cocktail server 420 7.87 13.63
Other restaurant employees 500 8.24 9.04
Valet parking 40 7.19 9.19
Skycaps, curbside assistants 100 5.94 7.94
Notes:
1. Including health benefits. Based on the occupation-weighted sample.
2. See Appendix A for details.
56
Table B-2 Wage and benefit increases (with and without tip credit)
57
Without tip credit With tip credit!
Wage Category Average hourly Number of Average hourly Number of
2
workers
2
workers wage Increase wage Increase
Directly affected workers
(earning under $9.55/hr.) $2.25 2,573 $1.89 2,192
Indirectly affected workers
J
(earning between $9.55 and $1.16 538 $1.09 855
$11.44/hr.)
Total affected workers $2.06 3,111 $1.67 3,047
Notes:
1. Tip credit added to employer-provided wage including health benefits. Hourly tips were estimated for waiters, valets, and
skycaps. See Appendix A.
2. Average wage increase attributable to the proposed living wage ordinance.
3. Indirectly affected workers are those workers who would benefit from upward wage push pressure with the new higher wage
floor.
Table B-3. Cost summary for sectors with tipped employees
58
Total cost As percent of
As percent of
Industry sector
$ millions old wage bill
business
revenue
Security and curbside Without tip credit 1.38 40.0 28.0
assistance
With tip credit 1.04 30.2 21.2
Parking services Without tip credit 0.55 8.58 6.00
Restaurant Without tip credit 3.44 28.1 6.56
All Sectors Without tip credit 13.0 4.41 1.11
Notes: See Table 5-1 b.
5-'+
S -Lf-l
OPAiC()U\\,IC\\"
DEC 04 2001
From: Howard Greenwich To: f<onkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 1 of 12
" for aSustainable (conomy
Of H,,- .\,
'J ,'." c..... D 548 20th St., Oakland, CA 94612
0\ DEC -4 PM \2: 34Phone: (510) 893-7106 Fax: (510) 893-5362
Fax Cover Sheet
To:
Fax Number: 238-6699
I,
Company: Office of the City Clerk Date: 12/4/01
From: Amaha Kassa
Company: EBASE
Subject:
Comments:
Pages including cover page: 12
Fax Number: (510) 893-5362
Please find attached three items sent to City Councilmembers December 3rd, 2001.
1. An EBASE brief responding to the CEDA staff report on the Living Wage Initiative that was submitted to
:he November 29th Rules Committee.
2, An EBASE response to Councilmembers Spee's questions that he raised at the Rules Committee meeting.
3. Proposed changes to the Initiative that narrows the scope of who is covered and affected by the
3nti-displacement provision and that creates a waiver process similar to the City's Living Wage Ordinance.
f you have any questions abuot these materials, please feel free to call our Director of Research, Howard
3reenwich, at 893-7106 ext 17.
Thank you.
Il.maha Kassa
:o-Director
Win Fax PRO Cover Page
S-LJ
Cc-
r840/
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 2 ot l ~
East Bay Alliancf for aSustainablf Economy
548 20
TH
Response to Concerns Raised by the CEDA Staff Report
on the Port Living Wage
December 3, 2001
SUMMARY
This report responds to concerns raised about the Living Wage and Labor Standards at Port-
Assisted Businesses Initiative by CEDA staff in a report to City Council dated November 29
th
,
2001. Some of the CEDA report's conclusions go unreasonably beyond the evidence and should
be considered speculation. Other conclusions appropriately point out vague language in the
Initiative to which clarifYing language is proposed and explained in this response. Overall, we
conclude that the costs of the living wage are affordable and will be outweighed by the benefits.
BACKGROUND
Whether the Port of Oakland should adopt a living wage policy has been debated and pUblicized
for over two years at more than 20 public events. Several studies and reports have attempted to
answer questions about the impact and it is useful here to briefly review their timeline. These
reports include:
Living Wages at the Port ofOakland, a study conducted by the D.C. Berkley Center for
Labor Education and Research (CLRE) at the request of State Senator Don Perata and
published in December of 1999.
A Port staff report submitted to the Port Commissioners in January 2000 that assessed the
economic impact to the Port of a living wage that covered contractors only.
A Port staff report submitted in June 2000 that assessed impacts of the living wage on Port
tenants. It relied on a partial survey of Port tenants.
CEDA'S OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The CEDA staff report makes sweeping claims that the Initiative's costs to the public outweigh
the benefits, but neither provides solid evidence for the costs, nor attempts to estimate the
benefits. For example, the report asserts, "While data does not exist regarding the specific
impact of this provision [worker retention], it will likely provide a severe disincentive to
businesses currently doing business or considering doing business with the Port of Oakland."l
The authors provide no negative evidence from other cities or airports with worker retention laws
or similar labor standards. Instead, the report simply speCUlates about employer behavior under
1 Page 7.
From: How"rd Greenwich To: Debor"h Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM PO:lge 3 of 12
Page 2
the requirements. The report makes no attempt to either balance the speculation by exploring the
benefits ofthe provision or clarify that the conclusions are based mostly on conjecture.
Furthermore, CEDA relies primarily on evidence from a poorly implemented Port survey of
tenants while ignoring the conclusions of a more empirically reliable survey conducted by UC.
Berkeley. The Port survey was hastily conducted in the Spring of2000 with few resources
granted to Port staff. Because Port staff were unable to follow-up with phone calls, the overall
response rate was a low 29%? In contrast, the U.C. Berkeley survey was conducted over the
course ofhalf a year by six researchers and obtained a response rate of 68%.3 "''bile the CEDA
staff report uses determinations of costs from the U.C. Berkeley study, the University's
conclusions about the affordability of the living wage are not reflected in CEDA's conclusions.
The most speculative conclusion of the CEDA staff report is the following statement:
City andPort staffhave written reports during the process ofadopting the existing living
wage ordinances that indicated that, while there would be some increased costs to the
City/Port and the effected businesses, the public interest outweighed these impacts. The
same cannot be said ofthe ballot measure before the City Council.
Considering that the report did not adequately explore the initiative's benefits to workers and
employers, it seems unreasonable to make a conclusion about weighing costs and benefits. In
fact, the Initiative will provide enOlIDOUS benefit to the public through increased income, benefits
and job security to 3,000 low-wage workers who are primarily Oakland residents (65%).4
Growing economic inequality in the East Bay and the US. has created a crisis of low-wage
poverty that local governments across the US. have responded to with living wage and labor
standard policies.
5
FurthemlOre, Port businesses will pass on, at the most, 66 cents per visit to
Jack London Square and 59 cents per ticket for passengers at the Oakland Airport.
6
These seem
reasonable costs for the public benefit.
2 Port of Oakland Tenant Responses to Proposed Living Wage Ordinance, Port of Oakland, June 6, 2000,
~ g 2.
Zabin, Carol, Michael Reich, Peter Hall, Melanie McCutchan, Christopher Niedt and Egan Terplan,
Living Wages at the Port of Oakland, U.C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, December
1999. (VvWW. http://violet. berkeley. edu/-iir/files/portoak. PDF)
4 Ibid, pg 49.
5 For evidence of growing inequality, see Greenwich, Howard and Christopher Niedt, Decade of Divide.
Working, Wages and Inequality in the East Bay, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable E ~ o n o m y , .
September 2001 and Bernstein, et.al, state of Working America 2000/2001, Economic PoliCY Institute,
2001.
6 Ibid, pg 3. Figures are in 1999 dollars.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 40; L
Port Living \Vage and Labor Standards Initiative
CEDA'S PRIMARY CONCERNS
Page 3
The body ofCEDA's staff report focuses on three areas of concern with the Initiative. They are:
1. Several of the Initiative's provisions will reduce tenancy in Port facilities and consequently
reduce Port and City revenues.
2. The requirement that the Port use public employees for existing and future services will
increase the costs of obtaining technical and professional services.
3. The application of the worker displacement provisions to highly paid professional workers
goes beyond other cities' laws by applying to highly-paid professionals.
Changes to Preventing Displacement of Workers Clause Eliminates CEDA Concerns
The second and third concerns raised by CEDA staff are effectively eliminated by language
changes that have been presented to City Council by the City Attorney in the supplemental
agenda packet. The section of concern here is number five, "Preventing Displacement of
Workers."
CEDA believed that the broad definition of work under the requirement to not contract out
public services would hinder the Port's capacity to expand. The new language would defme
"work" as non-temporary and not of a professional, scientific or technical nature. This brings the
Initiative's scope of services in line with existing City Charter provisions.
CEDA also raised concerns that the worker retention provisions were phrased broadly and would
cover professional employees not in need of protection. The new language narrows the scope of
the provision to apply to "Service Employees" only, defined as all workers except managers,
supervisors, professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees. The new
language exempts professional service contractors as well as office tenants of the Port and any
professional firm leasing space or land. Firms covered will include parking attendants at the Port
and Jack London Square, shuttlebus drivers at the Airport and non-Port employed security
workers. The narrower scope of this provision brings the Initiative more in line with worker
retention laws in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., both of which cover all employers in their
respective cities. .
No Real Disincentives for New Tenants
The CEDA staff report raises three possibilities where prospective tenants would be dissuaded
from locating on Port land. They are discussed in turn, below.
1. Concern: Small businesses and start-ups will be unable to pay the living wage costs and will
choose to not rent from the Port.
The Initiative clearly exempts businesses with 20 or fewer workers. Several small gift shops at
Jack London Square and the See's Candy carts at the Airport are examples of exempt businesses.
From Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 5 at 12
2. Concern: Living wage costs will be a disincentive fOr tenants to locate at the Port.
Page 4
CEDA emphasizes two points under this concern. First is that tenants may refuse to do business
with the Port as a response to the Initiative's requirements The second is that businesses facing
the highest costs are those already facing hardship during the recession and after 9/11, e.g.,
hospitality, aviation and entertainment.
The question foremost in many public officials' minds regarding this issue is, how will the
stores, restaurants and hotels on Port land respond to the living wage requirements? Will
existing tenants leave and will new ones go elsewhere?
The D.C. Berkeley study determined that Port of Oakland restaurants and hotels were already
charging more than nearby businesses for the proximity to the waterfront and would be able
to pass additional costs on to consumers as well. 7 Cities such as Emeryville and San
Leandro, frequently mentioned as competitors to Oakland, do not have facilities on the same
scale as the Port from which Commercial Real Estate (CRE) tenants can benefit.
Nearly all major hotels in Oakland are already under union contract and have higher wage
and benefits standards, including the Airport Hilton on Port land. Some smaller hotels on
Port land will be affected, including Motel 6, Executive Inn and the Waterfront Plaza Hotel.
These businesses have very long-term ground leases, benefit from proximity to the
waterfront and would lose considerable money in facility investment if they left.
Nearly all airport retail and restaurant tenants already operate under a collective bargaining
agreements and have higher wage and benefits standards. What modest costs are incurred
will likely be passed on to consumers, who represent a captive market. The D.C. Berkeley
study estimates that the total cost of the living wage at the airport, including concessionaires,
would be 59 cents per ticket if the costs were passed through to passengers. Compare with
this with the over $2 per ticket costs imposed by new security requirements. Futhennore,
living wage requirements at SFO and LA..X have not driven away concessionaires.
Businesses that employ low-wage workers will likely experience a cost savings from reduced
turnover and increased worker productivity. The D.C. Berkeley study showed that higher
wages and benefits resulted in lower quit rates, in tum saving employers re-training costs.
The study estimated that, on average, 4% of labor costs will be saved, or about 1.1~ / O of gross
revenue. The rate is higher for finns with more low-wage workers. A more recent study of a
living wage and labor standards program at San Francisco Airport showed that in one year,
tum-over reduced by up to 80%, with the greater reduction occurring in low-wage finns.
8
One-third of all SFO employers, together accounting for over half of all employees, reported
improved overall job performance among workers covered by the new standards program,
while the rest reported no deterioration.
7 Zabin, et.a!., pg 24.
B Reich, Michael, Peter Hall and Ken Jacobs, Living Wages and Airport Security Preliminary Report, UC
Berkeley Institute for Labor and Employment, September 2001 with "Additional Tables."
, From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date 12/4/01 Time 10:35:22.AM
Page 5
In a Port of Oakland survey of tenants, 63% of employers responded that they would
experience lower tum-over and 58% said it would be easier to attract new employees. This is
an example where the CEDA report emphasized the negative responses from the tenant
survey and ignored positive responses.
CEDA staff pointed out that CRE tenants, including Jack London Square and the
Embarcadero, would experience higher percentage costs than airport tenants, including 12
employers that would pay over 10% of gross revenues.
9
These firms, which are mostly
restaurants, hotels and stores, face nearby competition and are more limited than airport
tenants in passing costs on to consumers. Given their circumstances, it is likely that they will
seek a reduction in rent for the amount not saved or absorbed otherwise. Even if the Port
reduces rent for CRE tenants, the overall revenue generated by the CRE is only 11% of total
Port revenues.
Increases by a cluster of Port tenants in Jack London Square or Embarcadero will also push
up wages and benefits for surrounding businesses as they compete for quality labor. This
partially addresses the issue of tenants having to compete with businesses that are not on Port
land but are near by.
The likely scenario for restaurants and retail on Port land is that tenants will absorb the costs
in a myriad of ways that will spread it out among their owners, consumers and the Port.
Some tenants may decide not to move to Port property, but others will take their place. The
Port may experience a modest loss in revenues, but this is weighed against the enormous
benefits of the Initiative on the City of Oakland and the region.
It is useful to compare the cost of the Port's donation of land to other governments, including
East Bay Regional Parks and Amtrak. These annual donations cost the Port $33 million a
year, a price for a public benefit far in excess to the price of a Port living wage.
3. Concern: Worker retention may expose Port tenants to employee litigation and dissuade
location on Port property.
The CEDA report conjectures that prospective tenants would find the worker retention provision
onerous and choose not to lease from the Port. Of primary concern is twofold: 1) employers
with pre-existing staff would have to hire a second set of workers and 2) employers may be more
vulnerable to wrongful termination litigation.
Extending worker retention to Port leasholders provides considerable public benefit. Port
leaseholders are responsible for much of the Port's key operations for which they hire contractors
to perform. Baggage handlers, in-flight catering, fuel handlers and rental car "hikers" are
examples of operators that contract not with the Port but Port tenants. The existing workforce
could, for any reason, be replaced overnight if the tenants who contract these services change
contractors. Basic port operations could lose experienced workers who have decades of
experience, are trusted employees and provide high-quality service. Furthermore, it seems
9 These numbers are also from Zabin, et.a/..
From. Howard Gr<oenwich 10: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 7 of 12
Port Living 'Vage and Labor Standards Initiative
Page 6
unreasonable that workers with years of experience could be dismissed overnight because a
contract changes hands. The worker retention provision protects both the Port and Port-related
workers. Worker retention laws in both San Francisco and Los Angeles cover airport tenants for
the same reasons cited here. Additionally, the Los Angeles worker retention law covers
concessionaires at the airport.
Cases where the retention of workers creates a burden on leaseholders seem rare. First, a large
number of tenants will be excluded under the small business exemption and the proposed,
narrower definition of employees affected by worker retention. Insurance brokers, software
engineers, small gift shop employees and aviation instructors would not be affected. Second,
new tenants would only have to offer work "which employees of the prior PAB can perfonn." A
finn would need to be in a nearly identical industry and specialization to trigger the requirement.
Furthennore, it is hard to imagine a scenario where workers of one tenant would not follow their
current employer and instead seek employment with the new tenant. \Vhy would a worker risk
leaving a current employer only to be let go from the new one after 90 days? It may occur in the
case where a tenant is going out of business or is being bought by another finn. But unless the
new finn begins operating within 90 days, the workers will not have an opportunity to start
working with the new finn. Most restaurants and retail stores need several months to remodel.
If the tenant is being bought out and operation ofthe facility will continue as before, it seems
reasonable that the new tenant could actually use the fanner tenant's workers for an interim
period and the workers would be well served to keep what is essentially the same job. In all of
these scenarios, the likelihood of a fanner tenant's employee suing a new tenant seems remote.
Finally, we could not verify any lawsuits pending against worker retention laws in other cities.
CONCLUSION
The Living Wage and Labor Standards at Port-Assisted Businesses Initiative will provide
enonnous public benefit relative to the costs, which can be absorbed without disruption ofthe
Port's mission and operations. Costs, born by the Port, businesses and consumers will be
affordable and not cause a major disincentive to potential Port tenants. In response to the CEDA
staff report, we make the following points:
The CEDA staff report's overall critique relies heavily on conjecture without seriously trying
to weigh the costs with the benefits.
Specific critiques about the anti-displacement provisions are solved by simple language
changes that narrows the scope of workers covered.
Small businesses with 20 or less employees are categorically exempt from the Initiative.
Many of the Port's largest tenants, including Airport concessionaires and two hotels, are
already under union agreement.
Evidence suggests that living wage costs will be absorbed by reduced turnover and higher
worker productivity.
Worker retention coverage of Port tenants will greatly benefit the Port and Port-related
workers.
The worker retention provision is highly unlikely to cause undue litigation for Port tenants.
From HOWiird Greenwich To Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Timp. 1035:22 AM Page 8 oT 12
Bay Alliancf for aSustainablf
548 20
TH
STREET, OAKLAND, CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 893-71 06, FAX (5 10) 8935362
Answers to Eight Questions Raised in Rules and Legislation Committee
On the Port Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative
December 3, 2001
Following are eight specific concerns raised by Councilmember Spees at the November 29
th
Rules and Legislation Committee meeting regarding the Port Living Wage and Labor Standards
Initiative. We respond to each in turn.
1. Should these provisions be placed in the Charter or passed in an ordinance?
The Port Commissioners have had the living wage issue before them for over two years. They
have refused to consider passing a living wage ordinance that affects all 3,000 low-wage workers
at the Port. Because the City Charter sets up the Port as an independent agency, neither Oakland
City Council nor Oakland voters can impose legislation on the Port in the form of an ordinance.
If City Council finds the proposed legislation important, the only option is to place a charter
change on the ballot for the voters to decide.
2. What does Port-assisted business mean precisely and how does it relate to market rate
tenants?
A Port-assisted business includes a) contractors of the Port b) businesses subsidized by the Port
and c) business holding a lease or license agreement with the Port. We believe that the Port will
on occasion subsidize tenants by allowing them to pay sub-market rate rents as inducements for
leasing with the Port. However, we consider all lease and license holders Port-assisted
businesses as they are benefiting from the use of public resources and from the massive public
investment in Port infrastructure.
3. Does the Initiative contain a credit for tipped workers?
Under California law, tips are considered the property of the employee and it is illegal to credit
tips towards wages owed workers. We believe that prohibiting tip credit is legally necessary,
easier to implement and fair to workers. Allowing a tip credit creates more problems than it
solves, primarily because workers are tipped at widely varying rates. For example, airport
skycaps regularly receive substantially more in gratuities than airport wheelchair attendants.
Furthermore, within each job the amount any worker receives can vary greatly over time.
Therefore to implement a tip credit requires taking measures that can result in losses to workers.
This includes either estimating tipped income in advance, perhaps inaccurately, or withholding
some wages owed workers until the end of the year when they report total tipped income.
Finally, a poll of Oakland residents shows that 69% of voters support having a provision in the
initiative, which, like State law, does not credit tips towards wages.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date 12/4/01 Time: 10:3522 AM Page 9 af 12
4. Why is the youth worker exemption in the Initiative inconsistent with the City of
Oakland's living wage exemption for youth workers?
The Initiative's exemption for youth worker is identical to the City's Living Wage Ordinance-
workers under 21 that are working for a non-profit or are training for less than 90 days are
exempt. The CEDA staff report dated November 29
th
was in error on this point.
5. Should there be a waiver process for Port businesses as there is in the Cit)"S ordinance?
There may be rare and extenuating circumstances where a Port-assisted business faces undue
hardship under the Initiative. If the waiver process was as rigorous and accountable as in the
City's ordinance, the living wage coalition would be willing to amend the Initiative. The City's
waiver process requires a report from the City Manager, a set of criteria that must be met by the
businesses seeking a waiver and a vote by City Council. We would not accept a process set forth
in the Port's existing living wage ordinance which allows the Port Executive Director to issue
waivers without requiring businesses to meet any criteria and without any public process. We
have enclosed and sent to the City Attorney proposed waiver language to which we could agree.
6. The coverage of highly-paid professionals by the worker retention and anti-
displacement provision, as pointed out by CEDA, needs to be addressed.
We have proposed simple language changes that narrow the scope of work covered by these
provisions. Port contracts for non-temporary work of a technical or professional nature would
not be included. Likewise, only tenants that employ "service employees" are affected by worker
retention. "Service Employees" means all employees except managers, supervisors,
professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees. This effectively eliminates
most of CEDAs concerns.
7. Won't the Initiative be vulnerable to legal challenges?
The legal report prepared by the City Attorney's Office explored the legal issues regarding the
Initiative thoroughly and comprehensively. It concluded that while some provisions of the
initiative may draw suit, that the City was likely to prevail against any legal challenge.
Whenever elected officials create social policy, particularly legislation as important as this
initiative, they run the risk that those being regulated will take legal action against them. A case
in point is Oakland's anti-predatory lending ordinance, which lenders challenged in court and
which the City has successfully defended. The City Attorney's assurance that the City is on firm
legal ground is as close to a guarantee as the City is likely to get.
8. How will this affect the Metroport development at Hegenberger and I-88G?
The Port of Oakland is selling the land to the developer. It will be unaffected.
Please ,/eelji-ee to call EBASE with any question regarding this response at 893-7106.
, From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM , P 3 ~ e 10 of 12
Proposed language changes to the Living Wage and Labor
Standards At Port-Assisted Businesses Initiative
Proposed below are three changes that limit the scope of the Initiative. They are:
1. Clarifying language that exempts small business with less than 20 employees.
2. A more narrow defmition of workers covered by the "Preventing Displacement of
Workers" provision.
3. A new provision that provides for a waiver process under special circumstances (the
language closely follows the City of Oakland's Living Wage ordinance).
1. Scope and DefInitions.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (l) any person receiving in excess of
$50,000 worth of financial assistance from the Port, or (2) any Port Contractor if the
person employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the person has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have
more than 20 in the next 12 pay periods. A PAB shall be deemed to employ more
than 20 persons if it is part of an "enterprise" as defined under the Fair Labor
Standards Act employing more than 20 persons. "Port Contractor" means any
person party to a Port Contract as herein defined.
(1) Any service contract with the Port for work to be performed at the Port under
which the Port is expected to pay more than $50,000 over the term of the contract;
(2) Any contract, lease or license from the Port involving payments to the Port
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract, lease or license,
or (b) during the next 5 years if the current term is less than 1 year but may be
renewed or extended, either with or without amendment,
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement or other transfer or
assignment of any right, title or interest received from the Port pursuant to any of the
foregoing contracts, leases or licenses. .
From Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time 10:3522 AM Pagellot12
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAB in Port-related employment. if
the PAB employs more thafl 20 persofls per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the PALE has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have more
than 20 in the ne)rt 12 pay periods. ,Ai. Pi\B shall be deemed to employ more than 20
persons if it is part of an "eflterprise" as defined under the Fair Labor ~ t a n d a r d s .'\et
employing more thafl 20 persons.
In additiofl to the above exemption for workforces of fewer than 20 workers, the The following
A. An Employee who is (1) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2) employed by a
nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for a period
not longer than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
employment.
A. Each PAB which is to replace a prior PAB shall offer employment to the Service
Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for the prior PAE for at
least 90 calendar days. Such Employees may be not be terminated by the new PAB
during the first 90 work days except for just cause. The new PAB may operate at
lower staffing levels than its predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior
Service Employees on a preferential reinstatement list based on seniority. For
purposes ofthis Agreement, a PAB "replaces" another if it (1) assumes all or part of
the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior employer or obtains a new lease, contract,
or sublease, and (2) offers employment which Service Employees of the prior PAB
can perform. In the case of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from
another location, in staffmg decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its
prior locations in addition to the seniority of the prior PAB's workforce. "Service
Employees" means all employees except managers, supervisors, professionals,
paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees.
B. Notwithstanding Section 902(e) or any other provision of the City Charter, except in
From: Howard Greenwich To Deborah Konkol DatE: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 12 of 1:::
which was performed by persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for
the same class of work, including such work at new or expanded Port facilities.
New Section: Waivers.
A. A PAB who contends it is unable to pay all or part of the living wage must provide a
detailed explanation in writing to the Port Executive Director who may recommend a
waiver to the Port Board. The explanation must set forth the reasons for its inability to
comply, including a complete cost accounting for the proposed work to be performed
with the financial assistance sought, including wages and benefits to be paid all
employees, as well as an itemization of the wage and benefits paid to the five highest
paid individuals employed by the PAB. The PAB must also demonstrate that the waiver
will further the public interests in creating training positions which will enable employees
to advance into permanent living wage jobs or better and will not be used to replace or
displace existing positions or employees or to lower the wages of current employees.
B. The Port Board will grant a waiver only upon a finding and determination that the PAB
has demonstrated the necessary economic hardship and that waiver will further the public
interests in providing training positions which will enable employees to advance into
permanent living wage jobs or better. However, no waiver will be granted if the effect of
the waiver is to replace or displace existing positions or employees or to lower the wages
of current employees.
C. Such waivers are disfavored, and will be granted only where the balance of competing
interests weighs clearly in favor of granting the waiver. If waivers are to be granted,
partial waivers are favored over blanket waivers. Moreover, any waiver shall be granted
for no more than one year. At the end of the year the PAB may reapply for a new waiver
which may be granted subject to the same criteria for granting the initial waiver.
D. Any party who objects to the grant of a waiver by the Port Board may appeal such
decision to the City/Port Liaison Committee, who may reject such waiver.
Rev. 12/04/01 Proposal-
728. LIVING WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS
A. -"Port" means the Port of Oakland.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person involved in a
Port Aviation or Port Maritime Business receiving in excess of $50,000 worth of financial
assistance from the Port, or (2) any Port Contractor involved in a Port Aviation or Port Maritime
Business if the person employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the person has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have more than 20
persons in the next 12 pay periods. A PAB shall be deemed to employ more than 20 persons if it
is part of an 'enterprise' as defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act employing more than 20
persons. "Port Contractor" means any person party to a Port Contract as herein defined.
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract, lease or license, or (b)
during the next 5 years if the current term is less than 1 year but may be renewed or
extended, either with or without amendment;
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement or other transfer
or assignment of any right, title or interest received from the Port pursuant to any of the
foregoing contracts, leases or licenses.
employment
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
1
E. "Person" include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited
liability company, joint venture, sole proprietorship, association, trust or any other entity.
F. Valid collective bargaining agreement" as used herein means a collective
G. "Contract under 29 U.S.C. 185(a)" as used herein means a contract to
which 29 U.S.c. 185(a) applies, as that provision has been interpreted by the United States
Supreme Court.
_____....~ . "Port Aviation or Port Maritime business" means any business that
principally provides services related to maritime or aviation business related services or whose
business is located in the maritime or aviation division areas as defined by the Port.
A. -An Employee who is (l) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2)
employed by a nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for a
period not longer than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
related employment.
following:
The initial minimum compensation shall be wages and health benefits totalling at least
ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per hour, or if greater, the rate of ttny-the living wage
ordinance of the City of Oakland.
City Council
I tern 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
2
The PAB shall receive a credit against the minimum wage required by this Section for
health benefits in the amount provided by and in accordance with the living wage ordinance of
the City of Oakland. of IIp to $1.37 per hour for the amount it spends on average for health
benefits for all Employees covered by this Section and their dependents. For mcample, if an
employer spends an average of $1.25 per hour for health insurance, then the employer need only
pay each Employee at least $9.25 per hour in wages.
credit
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,26 U.S.C. 32, and shall make available the forms required
Code.
(A) Each PAB which is to replace a prior PAB shall offer employment to the Service
Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for the prior PAB for at least 90
calendar days. Such Employees may be not be terminated by the new PAB during the first 90
work days except for just cause. The new PAB may operate at lower staffing levels than its
predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior Employees on a preferential reinstatement list
based on seniority. For purposes of this Section, a PAB "replaces" another if it (1) assumes all or
part of the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior employer or obtains a new lease, contract, or
sublease, and (2) offers employment which Employees ofthe prior PAB can perform. In the case
of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from another location, in staffing
decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its prior locations in addition to the
seniority of the prior PAB's workforce. "Service Employees" means all employees except
manager, supervisors, professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees.
(B) Notwithstanding Section 902(e) or any other provision of the City Charter, except
in an emergency the Port shall not enter into any private contract for regular (non temporary)
work \vhich is not of a professional, scientific or technical nature and vihich was performed by
persons emplo)'ed b)' the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for the same class ofvlorlc, including such
worle at neVl or expanded Port facilities.
6. AgreemeRts required ta pratect Part's praprictar)' iRtcrests fram effects af labar
disputes
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-04-01
3
(A) As a condition precedent to any Port Contract in \vhich the Port has a proprietal)'
interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAB shall be or
become signatory to valid collective bargaining agreements or other contracts under 29 U.S.C.
l85(a) with each labor organizatioR representing or seeking to represent any of that PAB's
Employees on Port property'. Each such agreemeRt or cORtract must contain a provision limiting
the ability of the labor organizatioR aRd its members (aRd in the case of a collective bargaining
agreement, all employees covered by the agreemeRt) to eRgage in picketing, work stoppages,
boycotts or other economic interfereRce \'lith the Port for the duration ofthe Port's proprietary
iRterest iR such Pl\..B' s operatioR or for 5 years, vlhichever is less ("No Strike Pledge"). Each
such PAB shall also be required to eRsure that any of its contractors, subcontractors, tenants,
subtenants, licensees or sublicensees in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry '""hich are likely
to impact the POli's proprietary iRterest will also be covered by No Strike Pledges,
motels or similar businesses, or on site preparation, service or retailing of food, beverage or
medication. A "proprietary interest" shall not be deemed to exist without (1) the Port being
other income, and (2) the Port being CJtpected to receive $50,000 or more in such rents, ro)'alties
(8) A PAB shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of time
during 'vVhich a third part)' neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAB and the Alameda Central Labor
unreasonable conditions upon its No Strike Pledge, or (b) that the Port lacks a legally sufficient
proprietal)' interest in such PAE' s operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
unlavdul. If the parties are unable to agree upon a neutral, the PAE may' contact the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to obtain a list of seven arbitrators affiliated '.'lith
the National Academy of Arbitrators, from '""hich the parties shall select a neutral by striking off
names. At the PAB's request, such pmceeding shall be conducted according to the FMCS
6. Waiver
A. A PAB who contends it is unable to pay all or part of the living wage must
provide a detailed explanation in writing to the Port Executive Director who may recommend a
waiver to the Port board. The explanation must set for the reasons for its inability to comply.
including a complete cost accounting for the proposed work to be performed with the financial
assistance sought. including wages and benefits to be paid all employees. as well as an
itemization of the wage and benefits paid to the five highest paid individuals employed by the
PAB. The PAB must also demonstrate that the waiver will further the public interests in creating
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
4
training positions which will enable employees to advance into permanent living wage jobs or
better and will not be used to replace or displace existing positions or employees or to lower the
wages of current employees.
B. The Port Board will grant a waiver only upon a finding and determination that the
PAB has demonstrated the necessary economic hardship and that waiver will further the public
interests in providing training positions which will enable employees to advance into permanent
living wage jobs or better. However. no waiver will be granted if the effect of the waiver is to
replace or displace existing positions or employees or to lower the wages of current employees.
C. Such waivers are disfavored. and will be granted only where the balance of
competing interests weighs clearly in favor of granting the waiver. If waivers are to be granted.
partial waivers are favored over blanket waivers. Moreover. any waiver shall be granted for no
more than one year. At the end of the year the PAB may reapply for a new waiver which may be
granted subject to the same criteria for granting the initial waiver.
decision to the City/Port Liaison Committee. who may reject such waiver.
this Section.
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAB shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a record of
his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAB claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the
PAB for the Employee's health benefits. The PAB shall submit a copy of such records to the Port
at least by March 31 st, June 30
t
\ September 30
th
and December 31st of each year, unless the PAB
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
5
per day. Each PAB shall maintain a record of the name, address, job classification, hours
B. If a PAB provides health benefits to persons in Port-related employment but does
not pay for them on a per-hour basis, then upon the PAB's request, the amount of the hourly
hourly cost to provide health benefits to its Employees in Port-related employment. The PAB
shall support its request with such documentation as is reasonably requested by the Port or any
C. Each PAB shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to each
new Employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in
the fonn provided by the Port in English, Spanish and other languages spoken by a significant
D. Each PAB shall pennit access to work sites and relevant payroll records for
all persons employed by the PAB. Each PAB shall pennit a representative of the labor
contract documents to insure that relevant language and infonnation are included in the Port's
A. Any person claiming a violation of this Section may bring an action against the
PAB in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the State of California, as appropriate, to
enforce the provisions of this Section and shall be entitled to all remedies available to remedy
any violation of this Section, including but not limited to back pay, reinstatement or injunctive
relief. Violations of this Section are declared to irreparably harm the public and covered
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
6
employees generally.
B. Any employee proving a violation of this Section shall recover from the PAB
E. No remedy set forth in this Section is intended to be exclusive or a prerequisite
for asserting a claim for relief to enforce any rights hereunder in a court oflaw. This Section
shall not be construed to limit an employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for
wrongful termination.
10. Severability
whole or in part, by any court ofcompetent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
7

2. A more narrow definition of workers covered by the "Preventing Displacement of
Workers" provision.
(j) 1. Scope and Definitions.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person receiving in excess of
than 20 persons if it is part of an "enterprise" as defined under the Fair Labor
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract, lease or license,
renewed or extended, either with or without amendment;
5-4
C - ~
/eJ.- L./-{) I
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAB in Port-related employment. t.f
the PAB employs more than 20 persoas per pay period, ualess ia the prior 12 pay
periods the PAB has not had more than 20 such employees and will not haye more
than 20 in the next 12 pay periods. A PAB shall be deemed to employ more than 20
persoas if it is part of an "enterprise" as defiaed uader the Fair Labor Standards Act
employing more thaa 20 persons.
In addition to the above exemption for workforces of fewer than 20 workers, tfle The following
employment.
c. A person who employs not more than 20 employees per pay period.
CP5. Preventing Displacement of Workers
Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for the prior PAB for at
least 90 calendar days. Such Employees may be not be tenninated by the new PAB
lower staffing levels than its predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior
purposes of this Agreement, a PAB "replaces" another if it (1) assumes all or part of
can perfonn. In the case of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from
another location, in staffing decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its
which was performed by persons employed by the Port as of June 30,2001, nor for
New Section: Waivers.
comply, including a complete cost accounting for the proposed work to be performed
paid individuals employed by the PAB. The PAB must also demonstrate that the waiver
B. The Port Board will grant a waiver only upon a finding and determination that the PAB
decision to the CityfPort Liaison Committee, who may reject such waiver.
Fire Station 8
December 4, 2001
CITY COUNCIL PACKET FROM OPPOSITION TO CHIEF SIMON'S PLAN & REPORT:
1. COLOR PHOTO: Emergency Calls for Service (Actual Calls), Station 8, YR 2000* t\t- 'Pv
r
-
2. MEMO: To City Manager Robert Bobb from J. Hoeppner-Freitas, Chair, DMV -:- r. 1-
Neighbors Association in opposition to Chief Simon's plan
Exhibit A: Memo to Emeryville City Council from Local 55 -
Exhibit B: YR 2000 and 2001 runs dispatched, with notations (AttachJllen\
6 to Fire Department Supplemental Agenda Report) - p. \ 'P ,4-
Exhibit C: Calls per Firestation in 2000 and Other Quick Facts - _. --1
Exhibit D: September 25, 2001, letter from Chief Simon to Chiefs llltright p (5'
and Speakman, with attached map C3 pages) ,..- -
Exhibit E: Government Code 850.6 ....... p./
Exhibit F: Emer't'Ville Emergency Operations: 2001 (2 pages) -pj Iq
Exhibit G: Local 55 proposal (2 pages) - p. J..-I

Series of newspaper articles regarding Station 8 p_ 1-"
Selected letters from Oakland citizens
H: A')4-k- 12erHt- / f rnerjiWtk - p.
Bch:..Jn,f-- I.' "-&:vp (}t t. <1--1
COVer -(-mrt flrv,e,r':J VI tte C )
Submitted by:
Color photo for Councilmembers. Mayor. City Manager. and Fire Chief
1
l'
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DMV NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION
5133 Miles Avenue
Oakland, California 94618
(510) 428-2714
Fax (510) 653-9980
Office of the City Manager
Robert C. Bobb
Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas, Chair, DNA
For City Council, December 4, 2001
Response to Supp. Report on Fire Station 8 - Rebuilding Options
UPDATE "'UPDATE'" UPDATE'" UPDATE"'UPDATE'" UPDATE'" UPDATE'"
Just prior to printing, we have learned that there is a major discrepancy
between what Emeryville is being asked to cover, or what it thinks it's going
to cover, and what our Chief Simon's Agenda Report implies Emeryville will
cover. What this means is that not all of N. Oakland will have ladder truck
service under Chief Simon's plan. Because of the importance of this
information, I am inserting at the last minute this information at the front of
this document, even though some of my internal page references will be
"off." I also attach City of Emeryville Memorandum from Stephen L.
Cutright, Fire Chief, Emeryville to Emeryville City Manager John Flores as
Exhibit ''H'' and "Truck Response Coverage (Supplemental Agenda Report,
Attachment 5) with my additions as Exhibit ''1.''
The essence is that Emeryville is being asked to respond with its big
ladder truck to a small area of N. Oakland, not all of Station 8's ladder truck
territory. Therefore, there will be no ladder truck assigned to a portion of N.
Oakland. it's hard to tell how far Emeryville's possible coverage extends, but
Chief Simon estimates the Emeryville truck will take 526 non-medical calls
[Report, p.4) and Emeryville estimates it will take 266 [Emeryville Report, p. 5]
An additional problem is, as I mention below: How are the rest of Station 8's
over 1,000 yearly ladder truck calls to be handled? This question is still not
answered.
In Cutright's Memo, Cutright leaves the impression that Oakland
Truck 5 (which is housed at Station 8) has the same coverage of Oakland
Engine 8 (which is also housed at Station 8). Since we have 26 engines and
only 7 ladder trucks in Oakland, their respective territories are very different.
Engine 8's coverage area is outlined in black on Exhibit ''1.'' It may be,
however, that Emeryville will not even handle all of Engine 8's territory
(called its "still area" or "first response" area) - only the portion of Engine 8's
territory with very light shading that appears on Report, Attachment 5 (see
Downsizing the Oakland Fire Departtnent and the Impact on Emeryville:
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 2 oflO
my Exhibit "I"). Truck 5 from Station 8 covers N. Oakland from the
Emeryville border, into the Oakland hills and up to Moraga.
Please review the following:
1) Emeryville Memo, p. 4: Emeryvill will provide coverage in two
ways: 1) "Provide aerial truck company response from Emeryville fire station
2 to the "still district" (or first in district) formerly covered by Oakland Truck 8
before their station closure." There is no "truck 8," so the confusion begins
here.
2) Emeryville Memo, p. 5: Emeryville has counted up only a
portion of Engine 5's calls, and intends to cover about 266 of them.
3) Confirm the number of Truck 5 yearly calls in YR 2000 by
looking at Attachment 6 of Simon's Report. The official figues are actually
greater than the figures that the Fire Department gave to me and which I
included in my Exhibit "c."
4) Emeryville will only be required to respond to "actual fire
incidents," Le., confirmed fires, unlike the standard applied to Oakland truck
companies which have to instantly go out to evaluate the call (see last full
paragraph of p. 5).
5) Engine 5 at Station 5 will have to pick up additional calls in
Emeryville, although it is No.4 in call volume in Oakland and although it
will have to pick up a portion of Station 8's calls when it is closed. (See #4, p.
6 and elsewhere.)
I. Introduction. This document will serve as our response to
Council regarding our research on and evaluation of the Fire Department's
Supplemental Report on Fire Station 8 - Rebuilding Options.
The principal problem with Supplemental Report (hereafter, "Report")
is that there is no viable, credible plan for fire department emergency
coverage of North Oakland, yet the document attempts to make it appear that
there is. The Report's assertion, that the response times will be within
"acceptable response standards" under Fire Chief Gerald Simon's plan, is
belied by the fact that there are no data to support that conclusion.
ll. Key deficiencies in Chief Simon's plan.
1. Fifty per cent of District l's firefighting companies will be shut
down for 1-2 years to save citywide operational costs. This is a dispropor-
tionate "tax" on N. Oakland. To be done fairly, one firefighter would have to
be downsized out of each of the Council districts, rather than just one district.
2. Chief Simon's original plan included Piedmont being assigned
to a large area of Oakland. Now there is no mention of this assignment and
no explanation for its absence. The presence of Piedmont in the original plan
Page 2 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 3 of 10
suggests an inadequacy in the present plan. Emeryville will pick up
confirmed structure fires only. (@.TE: Emerrille will pick up a small
portion of EMS calls under the plan. This c o ~ c t s an error in my eaIier draft.)
3. There is both inaccurate data and missing data concer'hing
response times. Without data, the quality of coverage can not be measured.
4. The quality of contemplated coverage by Emeryville into N.
Oakland is compromised by the fact that Emeryville's ladder truck is housed
on the Bay side of 1-80, on Powell Street. Representative response times into
N. Oakland from Emeryville and Station 15 are not provided.
5. The loss of Station 8 firefighters will impact the districts of
Councilmembers Spees, Wan and Nadel because their districts' resources will
be drawn down and Station 8 will not be available for its usual backup. In
addition, Engine 5 in District 3 is expected to pick up Emeryville's medical
calls when Emeryville's ladder truck is handling Oakland's calls.
7. Contrary to expectations, Emeryville has provided more mutual
aid to Oakland in 2001 than Oakland has provided to Emeryville.
ill. Selected Observations.
Page 1, C)J2: Demolition time is not anywhere included in the 10 month
rebuild period.
Page 2, C)J1: This paragraph makes clear that the reduction in 8 firefighters
did not finance the building of Station 8, but rather is a citywide
operational savings. N. Oakland is taking a disproportionate ''hit,'' not
because we get a new firehouse (as billed), but because Chief Simon saw
the rebuild as a logistical opportunity to reduce personnel.
Page 2, C)J4: After much pressing, on November 3, Chief Simon explained
to those of us gathered at Councilmember Brunner's monthly meeting
that actually Station 8 personnel would be scattered about the City in
overtime slots. He explained that his previous explanation that they
would be placed at Stations 7 and 28, was simply the "functional
equivalent" of the actual facts. Here, Chief Simon has reverted to his
former explanation, which is only the "functional equivalent" of the
actual facts. Stations 7 and 28 will experience no change in personnel
because of Chief Simon's plan. Therefore, no advantage or disadvantage
accrues to these stations under Chief Simon's plan. See further references
to Stations 7 and 28, below.
Page 3, CJI2: The City never asked Children's Hospital whether they would
swap the land across the street from Station 8 with the land on which the
station now stands. On November 29, 2001, James Jackson, Director of
Page 3 of 10
Downsizing the Oakland Fire Department and the Impact on Emeryville:
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 4 of 10
Environment of Care, Children's Hospital, expressed willingness to
discuss such a swap, and confirmed this was the first mention of a swap.
Thus, the City did not fully explore options to keep Station 8 open until a
new station could be built. Interestingly, Station 8 used to occupy the
Children's Hospital site across the street before moving to its present
location 50 years ago.
Page 3, CJI6: Response times. The response times mentioned here and laid
out in Attachment 2 are not real time. Since no day and time of
measurement is mentioned, one must assume the response times were
measured on a Sunday, say around 10:00 a.m.
Actual response times vary from Attachment 2. For example, on
incident #153546, Tuesday, November 6, Station 8 response time to 1048
62
nd
Street, one block from 6r
t
and Baker, was 7 minutes from the time the
call came in to the time the rig pulled up on the scene, according to the
dispatch log (the response time into the house would be longer).
Attachment 2 shows a response time of 3 minutes and 44 seconds to 6r
t
and Baker, an unrealistically small amount of time. How much longer
will other stations take?
Station 19 at Miles above College is 2.1 miles from 6r
t
and Baker,
whereas Station 8 is only 1.65 miles. Recall that at 60 miles per hour it
takes 30 seconds to go 1/2 mile, but fire engines don't go that fast through
busy city streets. Thus, add approximately 1 minute to Station 8's response
time of 7 minutes. Is 8 minutes in response time acceptable? We think
not, especially in this area with all its medical responses (see our map with
blue pins at locations of medical calls).
Also unrealistic is that Station 19 could beat Station 8 to 6r
t
and
Baker. As mentioned above, that location is 1.65 miles from Station 8 and
2.1 miles from Station 19. Yet on Attachment 2, Station 19 is shown as
beating Station 8's time, 3:39 min. vs. 3:44 min.
Another example: On incident #129618 to 56
th
and Telegraph,
Station 8 took 4 minutes and 11 seconds according to dispatch logs. It
would take a little more to reach 57
h
Thus, the time of 2 minutes and 52
seconds on Attachment 2 is unrealistic.
The most glaring glitch on Attachment 2 is the claim that it takes 1
minute and 35 seconds less to go 8 more blocks to 6r
t
and Baker, which is
8 blocks further away from Station 19 than 60th and Whitney is (5 minutes
Page 4 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 5 of 10
and 14 seconds to 60
th
and Whitney but 3 minutes and 39 seconds to go to
the more distant location of 6r
t
and Baker).
In general, it must be remembered that east and west routes
between Alcatraz Avenue and 40th Street are very difficult to negotiate
quickly. There are no direct routes. In addition, many of those streets now
have speed bumps on them.
Although Station 15 at 27
h
and Telegraph has now for the first time
been brought into Chief Simon's plan (see p. 4, CJI2 [Attachments 4 and 5],
and p. 4 CJI4 [last sentence)) -- now that there is pressure to address the lack
of a ladder truck in N. Oakland - there is only one piece of data on
response times for the ladder truck from Station 15 into North Oakland,
and the time is unacceptable at 8 minutes and 11 seconds. However, to
make matters worse, that time is unrealistically short. How do we know?
Take a look at the recent Fenton's Ice Creamery fire as an example.
Fenton's is on Piedmont Avenue (4226 Piedmont), far closer to 27
h
and Telegraph than the example in Attachment 2 of 60
th
Street and
Whitney Avenue (8:11 min.).
Yet, from time of dispatch, Station 15 at 2J7lh and Telegraph took 7
minutes and 28 seconds, a full 3 minutes and 22 seconds slower than
Station 8, which made it in 4 minutes and 6 seconds. This is scary, because
Fenton's is on the 27
h
and Telegraph side of Station 8. What would it be
for parts further away - upper Rockridge, North Hills, Montclair? Could it
be that we have a lack of realistic response times for Station 15 going into
N. Oakland because they would be unacceptable by City standards? How
can the assertions that all response times will be within acceptable levels
be credible, when there is no data? (There is also no data for Emeryville;
see below.)
Such misleading and absent data does not aid Coundlmembers in
making difficult choices.
Page 4, CJI1 to page 5, CJI1: Temporary Coverage: There is no viable coverage
under Chief Simon's plan. Even if Emeryville were to agree to cover most
of Station 8's territory, Station 8's territory is large, extending over all of N.
Oakland to Tunnel Road and to Moraga. In addition, Station 8's ladder
truck provides coverage further on into the hills.
Do Emeryville firefighters think that Chief Simon's plan is viable?
Not according to Jim Phipps, Emeryville firefighter and Vice President,
Page 5 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 6 of 10
IAFF Local 55 in a memo to Emeryville City Council (see Exhibit A, memo
to Emeryville City Council dated December 4,2001). Phipps suggests that
the plan is not in the best interest of either Oakland or Emeryville citizens
because of many logistical problems enumerated in the memo.
To supplement Emeryville's potential coverage, Station 15 at 2?h
and Telegraph "will respond to a limited amount of Station 8's response
area during this interim rebuilding period." (P. 4, CJI4.) With Emeryville
responding to approximately 526 non-medical calls (p. 4, CJI4), who is going
to cover the other 500-600 yearly calls the Station 8 ladder truck receives
(1,011 in 2000; a likely 1,192 in 2001)? (See Exhibit liB," which is
Attachment 6 to Report, with extrapolating calculations.) Not Station 15,
by the terms of the Report alone, no doubt because Station 15 ladder truck
took 1,159 calls in 2000 (see Exhibit "C," Calls per Firestation in 2000 and
other Quick Facts). Thus, even with Emeryville's help, which we don't
have yet, there is no reasonable attempt to cover N. Oakland (see
information above about response times from Station 15).
Chief Simon originally requested that Piedmont cover a wide swath
of Oakland from 68
th
Street down to 3?h Street (see lavender and magenta
areas of map, Exhibit liD"). Now, because Piedmont has obviously refused,
we see in the Report that no coverage is required (p. 5, CJI1).
Problems with Emeryville coverage if Emeryville agrees to
participate:
1) Emeryville's ladder truck is not tillered, Le., it doesn't have
independent rear steering, so it cannot navigate the narrow hill streets.
Do we know which streets the Emeryville ladder truck can navigate and
which ones it cannot? Or do we find that out when first Emeryville
responds to a hill call?
2) Response times, Emeryville: Emeryville's response times into
some of the areas originally designated for coverage by Chief Simon (the
red and green portions of the map attached as Exhibit liD") were estimated
by a veteran Emeryville firefighter to be 10 to 15 minutes. This is because
Station 1, the station from which the ladder truck would respond, is on
the Bay side of 180, on Powell Street. The station indicated on Chief
Simon's maps is Station 2 (see Exhibit "D"). Even if Emeryville moves its
ladder truck to their Station 2, it will not solve response time problems for
those areas further from Emeryville.
Page 6 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 7 of 10
At an Emeryville Public Safety Committee meeting on November 1,
Fire Chief Cutright said he thought response times into certain of the
Oakland areas would be closer to 9 minutes rather than 10 to 14, but if it
were 10 or more, that would be "Oakland's problem."
It appears that Emeryville is being asked to cover all of N. Oakland,
minus a small portion covered by Station 15, possibly designated by the
arrow depicted on Attachments 4 and 5. There are no response time data
for Emeryville responding further than 8 blocks past its border. The only
response time available is to 6r
l
and Genoa (runs parallel to Market one
block east) at 5 minutes and 30 seconds. How long would it take
Emeryville to get to Children's Hospital, Station 8 on sri near Telegraph,
the Claremont Hotel and Tunnel Road? We don't know, but suspect it
may be 15-30 minutes or more, depending on time of day and amount of
traffic. However, lack of data does not prevent Chief Simon from
claiming that Chief Simon's plan maintains "acceptable response
standards" (see p. 10, JI3).
3) Emeryville firefighters do not have the experience of Oakland
firefighters. They do not know our streets, our structures, our citizens.
Their pay is the lowest in Alameda County. This is not what our tax
dollars are paying for. Mutual aid is one thing, but using Emeryville
firefighters as replacement for our exceptional firefighters is another thing.
4) We question whether under Government Code section 850.6
Emeryville loses its immunity as to "any injury for which liability is
imposed by statute caused by its act or omission or the act or omission of
its employee occurring in the performance of such fire protection or
firefighting service," since it would be providing "fire protection or
firefighting service outside of the area regularly served and protected."
Any indemnification agreement with Oakland places the burden of paying
off any Emeryville liability squarely on us Oakland taxpayers. (See Exhibit
"E.")
5) Oakland is already in debt to Emeryville for mutual aid (see Exhibit
''F,'' "Emergency Operations," an Emeryville document). It cites that
Emeryville provided Oakland with 11 mutual aid requests during 2001
and Oakland provided Emeryville with 3. This suggests that Oakland is
not in a position to downsize its fire department. It also suggests that
Emeryville is not beholding to Oakland, as Chief Simon asserts.
Page 4, Chart: Any distinction between "actual action responses" and
other types of responses is meaningless because a firefighter in Oakland or
Page 7 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 8 of 10
Emeryville can not wait around in the station to see if a call for help will,
in the end, require an "actual action response" or not. The firefighter is
going to have to hit the road, regardless of how the call turns out. The
category seems to be used in an attempt to make it appear that under Chief
Simon's plan Emeryville wouldn't be making as many trips to Oakland as
it would have to.
Page 5, CfiS: Staffing: This paragraph and chart are misleading and
inaccurate. There is a large core group of firefighters at Station 8, every
day, every shift. We see them so we know. If even one firefighter from
another station is swapping shifts, according to the Report, the house crew
falls under the definition of "Out of House Crew from Another Station."
This section denigrates the dedication of Station 8 personnel to the area
they serve.
Page 6, Cfi2: This paragraph is misleading and inaccurate. Under Chief
Simon's plan, response times will be greatly impacted because there will be
8 fewer firefighters. Response times tend to be impacted when there are
no firefighters nearby who are free to take the call. See Exhibit "C," which
indicates the number of emergency calls per station in Chief Simon's plan.
Another factor influencing response times from surrounding
stations is whether a station is out on training or not. In Oakland, one
company per day is designated for training, and up to six other companies
can accept training also. Thus, there is no guarantee that a nearby
company will be available at all. Nowhere does the Report address the
potential problems associated with multiple companies being out on
training.
Page 6, CfiCfi3-S: No amount of chronic staffing shortages, difficulty in
hiring, etc., can justify taking 8 firefighters out of just one section of the
City - Rockridge/Temescal, in this case. If overtime has to be adjusted, it
must be adjusted citywide, not just in N. Oakland. Since this has not been
done in a fair, systematic way, we doubt the credibility of this section of the
Report, particularly when Chief Simon early on accused the firefighters of
trying to protect their overtime, implying that it was a precious
commodity.
Page 6, Cfi4: Regarding staffing below minimum standards, unlike the police
department which has 15 minutes of line-up pay for overlap purposes, the
fire department releafes everyone at 8:00 a.m. Prior practice was to pay a
few standbys for unprojected vacancies. Recently, in a cost cutting
measure, the department decided not to pay standbys. As a result, when
Page 8 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 9 of 10
there is an occasional unprojected vacancy, there are no standbys to fill
those vacancies. Hence, the "problem" with unfilled vacancies. Note that
"mandatory overtime" and "vacancies" are mutually exclusive.
Page 7, CJIl: The Report here asserts that Emeryville will be responsible for
all of N. Oakland ladder truck responses except for "a small portion of the
area" which Station 15 will cover. This contradicts the map attached to the
Report, Attachment 3, and is clearly impossible. Station 8's truck related
calls require responses up to Tunnel Road, Montclair and beyond, into
hills the Emeryville equipment cannot reach (see discussion above).
There is no response time data for this proposition (see discussion above.)
More importantly, it's essential to understand that Chief Simon is
asking three Oakland companies (No.'s 5, 19 and 10) to pick up two
companies' worth of work (Station 8 is a 2 company station). Please note
that Station 5 handles 3,134 calls, and it's a one company station. It is as
busy as any station in Oakland.
The total calls for Station 8 is 3,789. The total call volume for the
other 3 stations is 6,501. Subtracting the 526 that Emeryville might cover
and, say, 50 for calls that Station 15 might cover, there is a 50% increase in
work for Stations 5, 19, and 10. For Chief Simon to maintain that a 50%
increase in emergency calls will not impact response times to the point
where they will become unacceptable is simply not credible.
Page 7, CJI2: There is a way to state the information in this paragraph that is
not misleading. Chief Simon consistently states it in this misleading
fashion. He is not talking about "bodies" on the street. The fact is that
there will not be a single extra firefighter on the street under his plan than
there is right now. And, for the duration of the rebuild, there will be 8
fewer. It's true there will be new firefighters, but they will take the slots
currently covered by firefighters working overtime. Thus, we have 141
per day now; we will have 133 per day during the rebuild; and we will
have 141 per day back after the rebuild, under Chief Simon's plan.
Page 7, Option 1 Pros and Cons: Option 1 is not workable because it provides
completely inadequate coverage to North Oakland and surrounding areas.
Page 7, Option 2: This is not an option, though building could be delayed.
Page 8, Option 3: It is not proved that bond funding is involved. The
firefighters' Local 55 proposal should be fully explored. (See Exhibit "G,"
Local 55 proposal.)
Page 9 of 10
10
fl
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 10 oflO
Page 8, Option 4: If a land swap cannot be managed (see below, "New
possible option," this option is the best. Although response times would
suffer because Station 8's personnel would be further away from large
portions of Station 8's area, at least the equipment would not be placed in
storage and our firefighters would be available to respond to our calls.
Page 9, Options 5 & 6:
needed.
These options do not provide the coverage that is
New possible option: A possible option exists, so far unexplored by the
City, to swap the land across the street from Station 8, owned by Children's
Hospital, for land on which the station now sits (see p. 2). This option is
the best of all because a land swap allows Station 8 to remain open in its
current location for the duration of the rebuild. Response times would
stay as they are, or slightly increase, because of the increase in calls likely in
2001 (see extrapolations on Exhibit "B.").
IV. Conclusion.
There are no data to support the Report's conclusion that there will
be safety for N. Oakland under Chief Simon's plan. Without the data, this
Report falls into the realm of wishful thinking. Since you have decided
that Chief Simon's proposal carries "acceptable risk," we'd like to know if
you have access to data that we don't have, because there is nothing in the
Report that can lead to the conclusion that the risk to our lives and
property is "acceptable" under Chief Simon's plan.
Page 10 of 10
FROM : EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 01:03PM Pi
1'0:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Emeryville City Council
Jim Phipps, Vice Preside] It IAFF Local 55
December 4,2001
The Closure ofEngine 8
Backjround
The City ofOakland has requested that Emeryville cover Engine 8's and Truck 5's
district during the rebuilding ofEngine f 's firehouse. Both Engine 8 and Truck 5 are
housed together in the firehouse located at 51
st
Street and Telegraph Avenue. The
closing ofthe firehouse is scheduled for January 20.02.. .The rebuilding will
take 10 months. For the year 2000, Engi ne 8 ran 2779calls and Truck 5 ran 1010 calls
for a total of 3789 calls. Oakland has re1luested Emeryville's truCk with four firefighters
to cover most all ofthe Truck 5's calls a Id a EmeIYville Engine to cover some ofEngine
8's calls. Engine 8's district will be divi jed between Oakland Engines 19,10,15, 5 and
Emeryville.
QuestiQn
Would this proposal be ofbenefit to Emt:ryville citizens?

NO. This proposal is not in the best ofeither Oakland or Emeryville citizens for
the following reaSOI1$:
1. For Emeryville to respond wi th four firefighters on our Truck we will have to
deadline an Engine Compau) .
2. When Truck to Oakland only THREE
FlREFIOHTERS and ONE:E NOINE will be left in Emeryville.
3. Emeryville will be subsidizing Oakland for about 3.2 million dollars with no
return on their investment. 1 his is the savings Oakland generates by reducing
their budget by the 32 firefighters needed to operate'Engine 8 and Truck 5.
4. Emeryville's Truck is 10 yea's old and will need to be replaced after running
additional calls in Oakland. .frock 5's disnict is very large. It runs from the
Emeryville line to the top of :he Oakland hills and from the Berkeley line to
downtown Oakland.
5. IfOakland removes Engine 8 and Truck 5from service, Emeryville will have
an increase in Mutual Aid calls to Oakland. because of the added workload
placed on the remaining Oak and Companies. The remaining Oakland Engine
companies that will respond 10 Engine BPs district are some ofthe busiest
engine companies in Oaklan(. Engine:5 ran 3134 calls in the year 2000.
6. Oakland may not be able to r to Emeryville for Mutual Aid as quickly
as they have in the past; beca.lSe Engine 8 and Truck 5are the companies that
nonnaUy would respond.
ExH'B,r "A A
ATTACHMENT '6
) \r1
l1

st")
. (U
D[' D vf;{ f0t.4-
o 'rrv-vJJ-
..-- , . L . I . olD I Y\
;), qofo (Ig " I
-z. /CfJ.. zFf '1", 'tV
::J I 8.-:r, I '(') ct. tJ j.1rv
Ct
qq. .,' ?1 "l,r )('JfI 1. )
-t .;" (6/10 lJ lj}lj
-;;,1 I '..-J 'b3
< 7
'_.j /
'l1J()Q__ . ;l3f<f>
'Jof/7'3
d. r"j q t-{ 1rtttJt.
} () I I
-+- I J,_ .-
-3-'- 8oS
I
100 I
----- ....----
1\ !fD!0
l' /36[0
YEAR 2000- RANKING BY NUMBER OF RUNS DISPATCHED YEAR 2001-RANKING BY NUMBER OF RUNS DISPATCHED
RANK ENGINE TOTAL RUNS TRUCK TOTAL RUNS RANK ENGINE OTAL RUNS TRUCKS OTAL RUNS
1 2560 3655 2577 1732 1 2560 3454 2576. 1559
2 2563 3571 2576 1611 2 2563 3163 2577 1426
3 2558 3209 2571 1572 3 2558 3074 2571 1388
4 2545 3133 2514 1559 4 2555 3016 2574 1263
5 2553 3098 2572 1315 5 2545 2675 2572 1056
6 2541 30B7

""A X"I 2575
.. ... . 1011.t' 6 2541 2829 ,:2575 993 c\
7 2569 2963 LO/.J 0::11 7 2569 2736 1:.;)1,;) U.J
B 2556 2956 8 2553 2706
9 2555 2864 9 2552 2635
10 2'i"i? 7639 10 2556 2594
-----
\ 11 2548 to. -..... IX'
''. .
11
..')5..r:,7 ?lilid
1<:: LObO c; :.-: 1
13 2557 2535 13 L:;'LJ4 .LJ.JO

14 14 2566
-
2567 2395 2310
15 2550 2384 15 2567 2206
-
16 2544 2373 16 2550 2005
.--
17 2543 2052 17 2543 1813
. .. _----
18 2559 18 2559
----
....
985 940
19 2542 969 19 2542 924
--_.- ---.
20 2565 920 20 2565 856
--------
21 2564 666 21 2564
---
&20
22 2562 517 22 2546
._-_.
307
23 2548 335 23 2561 302
--
24 24 2568
,'.
-
2545 335 293
._---/
25 2561 325 25 2547 187 ./{l (.,-
26 2547 201 26 2562 186
"
...
rAf) '1) / { U-t urI", 1 r
IV
.. v -______ J lA" t
--
--\

CALLS
AND
PER FIRESTATION IN 2000
OTHER QUICK FACTS
Station number Calls (engine/ladder truck)
#8 (2 company station, DIstrIct 1)
51st near Telegraph Engine 2,779
(8 person station) Ladder truck 1,010
4 firefighters/ladder truck Total: 3,789
4 firefighters/engine (80% of calls are medical)
#19 (t company statIon, DIstrIct 1)
Miles (near RR BARn Engine 983
(4 person station) (no ladder truck)
#5 (t company statIon, not In DIstrIct 1)
34
th
& Market Engine 3,134
#10 (1 company statIon, not In District 1)
Santa Clara Ave. Engine 2,384
Near Harrison (no ladder truck)
(4 person station)
Chief Simon's unprecedented plan
Personnel to be assigned
to slots elsewhere now
covered by overtime. Equipment
to be put in storage. Eight fewer
firefighters per shift (141-8= 133).
To pick up part of Station 8's
territory.
territory; among the busiest
in Oakland.
territory
#15
(2i
h
&Telegraph)
C9 person)
5 firefighters/ladder truck
4 firefighters/engine
Engine
Ladder Truck
Total:
Not included in plan. Will
not pick up part of Station 8's
territory (usual backup only).
Emeryville
(7 firefighters per shift, 2 stations)
Engines carry rescue equipment.
Their one ladder truck is "manned" by one firefighter.
Emeryville is undecided
whether to participate in plan
(vote of City Council required).
Chiers plan requires their help.
Piedmont
(7 firefighters per shift)
Piedmont has refused the request
for Piedmont to cover a portion
of Oakland. The original plan
required Piedmont's help.
O f f i ~ f u c t ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Station 8 is a first responder in North Oakland for fire, emergency medical services (EMS),
rescue and hazardous materials. It is the keystone of N. Oakland's emergency response.
-Station 8's ladder truck is assigned to all of North Oakland. It carries all rescue equipment.
-Station 8 is Emeryville's backup, as well as the backup for all the other above stations.
-Under Chief Simon's plan Oakland would drop from 141 firefighters on duty to 133 (per shift).
-Under Chief Simon's plan one of Oakland's seven ladder trucks and one of Oakland's twenty-
five engines would be put in storage. North Oakland would not have a ladder truck.
Information researched lJy Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas and Tony Freitas. (428-2714)
eX/1/f!;I, "C "
I
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 150 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA SUITE DS4 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA ')4(,1
Fire:' D"parlmenl
September 25. 2001
HAND-DELIVERED
(51012.16305(,
FAX (5101
TOO (5101238'00601
Chief Stephen L. Cutright
Emeryville Fire Department
2333 Powell Street
Emeryville. CA 94608
Chief John C. Speakman
Piedmont Fire Department
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont. CA 94611
SUbject: Interim coverage for Fire Station 8 district in Oakland
during station reconstruction
Dear Chief Cutright and Chief Speakman:
The intent of this letter is to re-affinn our agreement to have your departments assist the
Oakland Fire Department on an interim basis with partial district coverage, while we
replace our existing Fire Station 8 on its current site of 461 51
st
Street.
Attached you will find the current deployment plan that has already been approved by
our City Council last May during the public hearing and budget process related to this
issue.
For Emeryville. we are requesting your department to:
1) cover the area designated in red for EMS related calls; and.
2) cover the area designated in red and green for truck related responses with
four (4) personnel.
We agree to continue 911 dispatch services to Emeryville Fire without an increase as
previously contemplated. Oakland Fire will continue the current contract and price that
has been in force for the past ten years.
For Piedmont, we are requesting your department to cover all truck related responses in
the area designated by lavender and magenta. We appreciate your willingness to step
up in our time of need. as we have done for your community in the past.
" 'I
B<R,a,-r (), p. I
I
Chief John C. Speakman -2- September 25, 2001 .
We anticipate the length of assistance will be no more than one year, and fully expect
that the timeframe could actually be about ten months.
After your review, please consider affirming this contemplated interim agreement by
signing and returning a copy of this letter to me so that we can begin providing you with
accurate data and firm timelines.
On behalf of the Oakland Fire Department, thank you for assisting the Department
during this time of critical need.
Sincerely, rJ

GERALD A. SIMON
Fire Chief
Oakland Fire Department
GAS:rk
Attachments
"
My signature below indicates affirmation of the contemplated agreement as described in
this letter.
STEPHEN L. CUTRIGHT
Fire Chief
Date
------
JOHN C. SPEAKMAN
Fire Chief
Date _
...................
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. I
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
..................
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
"b:' p.
City Couneil
Budget
May 1,2001
!2/7 I A Le-t:? V)
hd u-'S ch Icr, VI
ffl10 rn:tp . cdtrrs
('V! bcj 0 F'O ,
Legend:
.. Oakland Fire Stations
Emeryville Fire Station
Cn Region covered by Emeryville

I \Region covered by Station 19
1'!ii,:iH Region covered by Station 5
, I'xo;. '01 Region covered by Station 10
;'>.., 1_"
pt;R1H -"
(1- gil
...... ,
, '.' . ""$
".. '-'" u, &
"'$,. "
,,' -".' t
= .. ( , It 71.J"''''EI
" ,,'g Ii

r

'\
-
Station 8 Construction Impact . \ .f
I
Berkel
.
\ ......
Cf'I " ,.. ,,,'
. '<N S1
'; --' f ,
--
=\

\.
l'

--...1
CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 850-850.8
850. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a fire department or otherwise to provide fire
protection service.
850.2. Neither a public entity that has undertaken to provide fire
protection service, nor an employee of such a public entity, is
liable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or
maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection
facilities.
850.4. Neither a public entity, nor a public employee acting in the
scope of his employment, is liable for any injury resulting from the
condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities
or, except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000)
of Chapter 1 of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code, for any injury caused
in fighting fires.
850.6. Whenever a public entity provides fire protection or
frrefighting service outside of the area regularly served and
protected by the public entity providing such service, the public
entity providing such service is liable for any injury for which
liability is imposed by statute caused by its act or omission or the
act or omission of its employee occurring in the perfonnance of such
fire protection or firefighting service. Notwithstanding any other
law, the public entity receiving such fire protection or such
firefighting service is not liable for any act or omission of the
public entity providing the service or for any act or omission of an
employee of the public entity providing the service; but the public
entity providing such service and the public entity receiving such
service may by agreement detennine the extent, if any, to which the
public entity receiving such service will be required to indemnify
the public entity providing the service.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any claims
against the state shall be presented to the State Board of Control in
accordance with Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) and Part 4
(commencing with Section 940) of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the
Government Code.
850.8. Any member of an organized fire department, fire protection
district, or other firefighting unit of either the state or any
political subdivision, any employee of the Department of Forestry and
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS:
INCIDENT ANALYSIS
2001
..-
.....
-
-
..

""'-
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
TOTAL INCIDENTS-- 150 128 136 155 126 109 131 132 142 125 1334
DUTIES PERFORMED ON CALLS:
FIRE SUPPRESSION - BUildings $ 5000) 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 6 22
Buildings (> $ 5000) 1 1 2
Vehicles 6 3 1 7 8 3 6 7 1 3 45
Outside Fires 3 2 6 2 5 5 3 4 30
INVESTIGATIONS - Smoke 1 1 2 5 1 10
Odor 6 1 1 1 1 3 13
FALSE ALARMS - Alarm Companies 37 40 41 27 27 15 26 18 26 32 289
Other 1 4 1 6
HAZ MATS-- Spill 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 13
Release 1 1 2 1 2 3 10
Other 1 2 3
MUTUAL AID-- 3 2 5 1 11
To Berkeley 1 1
From Oakland 1 1 1 3
Other 1 1 1 1 4
MEDICAL -- Dist rid # 1 33 31 37 36 29 34 43 31 45 30 349
Dist rid # 2 51 35 44 61 45 35 41 54 47 35 448
Out ofCily 1 2 1 3 7
RESCUE/EXTR. - 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 3 5 27
SERVICE -- 5 5 2 5 4 8 2 5 6 3 45
***TOTAL DUTIES PERFORMED*** 150 128 136 155 126 111 131 132 142 127 0 0 1338
RESOURCE COMMITMENTS:
FREEWAY CALL- Single Unit Response 6 10 1 1 16 5 4 7 9 4 63
Multi-Unit Response 15 15 13 20 11 4 18 3 13 7 119
SIMULT. ALARMS-- To Same Medical 2 3 1 6
To Separate Calls 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 19
TRUCK RESPONSE -- 42 16 56 59 39 24 36 23 14 17 326
***TOTAL RESOURCE COMMITMENTS*** 23 27 19 27 28 9 25 12 25 12 0 0 207
NOTE: The Emergency Operations sheet shows all operations conducted, not the individual responses provided within Emeryville. If multiple operations were conducted on any emergency responses
(calls), then the tally for emergency operations will be greater than the actual responses made by Emeryville fire units. If mutual aid calls were made to other jurisdictions, and during these
mutual aid responses an Emeryville fire unit responded to emergency calls within that jurisdiction, then the tally for emergency operations will be greater than the adual responses
reported within Emeryville's jurisdiction.
"0
11/1/01 7:37 AM Emergency Responses 2001 Ops Analysis

TYPE SUB-TYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
FIRES -- BUildings $ 5000) 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 6 22
Buildings (> $ 5000) 1 1 2
Vehicles 6 3 1 7 8 3 6 7 1 3 45
Outside Fires 3 2 6 2 5 5 3 4 30
INVESTIGATIONS -- Smoke 1 1 2 5 1 10
Odor 6 1 1 1 1 3 13
FALSE ALARMS-- Alarm Companies 37 40 41 27 27 15 26 18 26 32 289
Other 1 4 1 3 9
HAZ MATS-- Spill 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 15
Release 1 1 2 1 2 7
Other 1 1
MUTUAL AID -- To Oakland 3 2 5 1 11
Other 1 1 2 1 5
MEDICAL -- District # 1 33 31 37 36 29 34 43 31 45 30 349
District # 2 51 35 44 61 45 35 41 54 47 35 448
Out of City 1 2 1 3 7
RESCUE/EXTR. -- 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 3 5 27
SERVICE -- 5 5 2 5 4 8 2 5 6 3 45
MONTHLY TOTAL: 150 128 136 155 126 111 131 132 142 127 0 0 1338
TOTAL YEAR-TO-DATE: 150 278 414 569 695 806 937 1069 1211 1338
LOSS BY MONTH: ($) 7,500 1,000 205,000 20,000 500 10,000 2,000 20,000 1,000 15,000 $282,000
Prior Year Monthly Total: 112 102 115 125 158 129 127 139 86 110 148 152 1503
Prior Year To Date: 112 214 329 454 612 741 868 1007 1093 1203 1351 1503
~
~
3 ' ~
-..
"'
~
t'
::J
~
Emergency Responses: 2001
11/1/01 7:37 AM Emergency Responses 2001
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL 55
414-13Ih Street, Ste. 300
Oakland, CA 94612
(1:)10) 834-9072
FAY< (s10)834-0812
BY FAX AND EMAIL
Date: November 21, 2001
To: City Manager Robert Bobb
From: Steve Splendorio, President Local 55
Re: Proposal to the City from Local 55
The Cltys proposal
1. Build new Station 8 at a cost of $4.1 million from the capital Improvement Fund.
2. Close 2 companies at Station 8 for the 10 months of construction for a cost
savings from overtime budget of $2.6 million.
3. On January 1, 2003, add 32 permanent positions to the OFD budget which adds
$4.5 million per year to the budget, which in turn reinstates the 8 spots/day at
Station 8 that were eliminated.
Upside: New firehouse by November 2002.
Downside: 8 fewer firefighters/day in suppression - a reduction from 141/day to
133/day.
Conclusion: The downside risk far outweighs the upside potential and
Is unacceptable to Local 55 and the citizens of Oakland.
PROBLEM: HOW DOES THE CITY KEEP THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS ON DUTY AT
141 PER DAY (ADDITIONAL COST OF $2.6 MILLION) AND BUILD A NEW STATION?
Local 55S solution to the downside risk of CltVs proposal
Goal: Keep the 8 firefighters on duty everyday (funded through the overtime budget).
Cost: An additional $2.6 million from the overtime budget to pay for the 8
firefighters/day (keep our staffing at 141/day) for the 10 months they were to be
eliminated.
Solution:
1. Delay building of Station 8 until January 2005 (J year delay).
"/ II I
B<th B'I f:S'J p.
Proposal to the City from Local 55
Page 2 of 2
November 21, 2001
2. Borrow $2.6 million from the Capital Improvement Fund (total rebuilding fund
$4.1 million) to pay for the 8 firefighters/day for the 10 months they were to be
eliminated.
3. Pay back the Capital Improvement Fund by delaying the permanent funding of 32
new budgeted positions from january 2003 to january 2005, saving the cost
difference of the 32 permanent new spots -- $4.5 million per year -- versus the
cost of overtime -- $3.2 million /year -- for a savings of $1.3 million per year.
1.3 x 2 years = a $2.6 million savings. "
Upside: No fewer firefighters on the street.
Downside: New firehouse delayed.
cc: Mayor jerry Brown
All Councilmembers
Fire Chief Gerald Simon
"/- " ~
EXHIBIT CT/ p. ~
ijI'he <lDaldanb <rrribune
------
P. SCOll MeI,ihl",n
Preside"1 and Publisher
LOCAL 9
CONGRESS shall make 110 Llws respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freetkm ofspeech, or ofthe press, or ofthe right ofthe peopk peaceably
to tt.<se1l1bk, and to petition the Govern/lll'llt for a redn:ss ofgrievances.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITImON Of TIlE l:NITED STATES. RATIFIED DEC 15,1791
ANG NEWSPAPERS
PINION
Patrick IImwn
Executrve Vice Presidenl
Administration
.lim Do"c
Sr. Vice Presidenl/Circulalion
2001

Advertising/Marketing
Dcnnis Miller
Sf Vice President/ProduC1ion
Rohcrl .Icndusa
&. VICe Rescut:es
Nnncy Cun"':I,"
VteePresident,
Execu1ive EdilOf
Dian"a
Editor
Tom Tuttlc
AN(; Edlorial Page D<edo-
THURSDAY October
Oakland must provide the best fire protection
W
E'RE glad to hear a pro-
posal to move the Te-
mescal neighborhood's
firefighters to other Oak-
land stations while the fa-
cility is reconstructed is not a "final
plan."
Residents and firefighters say they
are concerned about the relocation,
even though irs supposed to be tempo-
rary as the fire station is razed and a
new one built over the next 10 months.
The entire city could lose under the
proposal. because eight fewer fire-
fighters would be on duty every day and
one engine and one ladder truck would
be taken off tilt' sl rcp! s.
OUR OPINION
Although the loss purportedly would
be made up by firefighters from Emery-
ville and Piedmont expected to respond
if the Temescal neighborhood needs
help. that assumes those firefighters
aren't needed in their own cities at the
time.
So what options does Oakland have?
For one, it could go back to the drawing
board and come up with a plan that is
acceptable to the Temescal community,
one that will provide the protection they
deserve as taxpaying reSidents.
City officials should H'nwmlwT the
primary purpose of a municipality is to
provide basic services, such as fire and
police protection. to the people.
Oakland residents, wherever they
live, have the right to the best fire pro-
tection possible. and we have seen in-
stances in which the city has changed
its course on fire stations after hearing
from residents. A couple of examples
are the North Hill and the Grass Valley
fire stations.
We realize the situation is different in
the case of this reconstruction project,
but the basic function of the fire depart-
ment remains the same - it must be at
full strength, at all times.
Resident Mary Clegg had it right
whcll shf' sairl: "To say we can affnrrl 10
take these men out to cover the over-
time for the rest of the city is to say this
is a sacrifice for this community."
Steve Splendorio. a 30-year fire-
fighter and president of International
Association of Firefighters Local 55,
suggested the city may be exposing resi-
dents to danger just to help its bottom
line.
We must all remember the East Bay
hills firestorm 10 years ago. the largest
urban fire in the history of the United
States, one in which 25 people died
and 3.200 homes were destroyed.
Before this goes any further, city offi-
cials must come up with a plan that
puts residents' safety at the top of the
priority list.
TIIE FIRESTORM OVER FIRE STATION 8 by Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas

Chair, DMV Neighbors Association (Submitted to Rockridge News)
By Tuesday, December 4, the fate of Fire Station 8, 463-51st Street just off
Telegraph Avenue, the only double fIre station in North Oakland, and the keystone of
Rockridge's emergency response system, may be known. In the latest development, on
Tuesday November 27 the Public Safety Committee of the Oakland City Council voted to
send the question of what to do about the rebuilding of the Station #8 fIrehouse back to the
City Manager Robert Bobb and then on to the Council for a review. Bobb was instructed
to draw up a report on fIve different alternatives to the initial plan proposed by Fire Chief
Simon and approved in the budget vote in June of this year.
The debate that has been going on subsequent to that vote has centered on the
questionable wisdom of reducing fIre services during the 10 month or more period of
Station 8 construction. North Oaklanders have mounted an opposition to the proposal on
the grounds that it would endanger the lives of Oaklanders, especially North Oaklanders,
who would experience the removal of half of their man/woman power and the heavy
equipment that goes with it.
Bobb is to provide pro and con analyses, recommendations, and potential funding
sources for six potential scenarios:
1. Not rebuilding Station 8 at all
2. Fire Chief Simon's original proposal
3. The proposal from Steve Splendorio and Local 55 (delay rebuild, retain current
strength, save money, rebuild later)
4. Closing Station 8 and transferring companies to other stations
5. 5. Assuming no cooperation from Emeryville, rebuilding Station 8 now and staffmg
Station 19 with an additional truck and company
6. Assigning an additional EMS unit to Station 5 while rebuilding Station 8
Brunner prefers option number 4.
She also stated at the Public Safety Committee meeting that she did not know in
June that she was voting to downsize the number of fIrefIghters on the street in Oakland by
eight per day, from 141 to 133, nor did she know all the cuts were coming in North
Oakland. Other Councilmembers were similarly confused, but are now saying that because
of the budget crunch, there may be no money to retain Station 8's eight fIrefIghters and
their equipment.
That all eight fIrefIghters are to be taken out of North Oakland, "isn't fair", Brunner
had earlier stated at a November 20 neighborhood "Meet the Mayor" night, arranged and
hosted by Rockridge resident Mike McDonald. The move mothballs North Oakland's only
ladder truck(one of seven citywide) and an engine. It also leaves a vacuum: Station 8
handled 3,789 emergency calls in year 2000, 80% of them medical.
Steve Splendorio, an Oakland fIrefIghter and FirefIghters' Union president, gave
Bobb and Mayor Brown a plan in November in which delaying the rebuild could insure
savings currently budgeted and yet maintain 141 fIrefIghters per day, eight in overtime
slots. The individuals who would be most impacted are the Station 8 personnel; yet, as one
fIrefIghter explained, "We would rather keep this fIrehouse and keep working overtime
than to risk lives in North Oakland."
Note: Some infonnation for this article was contributed by Susan Montauk, Chair,
Rockridge Community Planning Council.
HILLS NEWSPAPERS
Debaterages'dnoverFiJ:e Station 8
porters in the audience. Donald, who took an informal
Several residents spoke at the survey of firefighters at the meet-
meeting, including retired Oak- ing.
land police officer Tony Freitas, Olyer, a firefighter as-
who used a large map with multi '
I d'n ill' h I signed to Station 8 Concurred. "If
co ore pi s to !Jstrate t e those are my two choices, we're
of by Station " staying. And there's 23 other pea-'
and t larg covered by, pIe who would say the same"
that station. "Fmd the money.. . '
Find what it takes. Don't take 50 ' said to the rest
percent ofour firefighters away of the station s personnel.
from 'us," Freitas said; . Montauk urged the commit-
Hoeppner-Freitas, his wife, re- tee to ask the city manager to
iterated the idea that residents WTite a thorough report on the
were not informed of the reduc alternate proposals and postpone
tion of personnel when the topic the Dec. 4City Council vote un
was originally introduced in May til members have had time to
and used a current event to make consider all the options.
her plea. "Station 8 is the reason . . .
Fenton's is still standing today," There a dlScus.slOn
she contended, referring to the ' about movmg .thls agenda Item
fire at the ice cream parlor of' to a later .meetl.ng.But Bobb ex-
Nov. 21. Fire Station 8's response pressed hIS feelmgs that the mat-
time was quick enough to stop ter should be settled sooner than
the fire from spreading beyond later and vowed to get a. supple-
the rear storage area of the ment.al to counCil mem-
neighborhood establishment she In time for the Dec. 4 meet-
saL' "If ",,;e need to stay up all
Rockridge resident Mike Mc. mg,?t, 11 do what we need to
Donald said that the current con- do, said Bobb.
dition of Fire Station 8 is "pretty Asked later if 'she had any
gnarly." But, given the choice of concern about the preparation of
staying in the decrepit station for critical information for the Dec.
another two years while the city '4 City Council meeting on Fire
saves the money to fund there- Station 8, Hoeppner-Freitas said,
building or being temporarily reo "I think it can be done. (City
assigned to another house, the Manager) Robert Bobb seems
firefighters prefer to remain in very committed to getting a ...
the existing structure, said Mc- supplemental report out."
Safetycommittee asks
City Council to take a
second look at the issue
tauk, chairwoman of the Rock-
ridge Community Planning
Council, claim to have been left
in the dark when the budget,'in-
cluding this plan, was approved
in June.
By B. Roscoe Several council members, in-
STAFFWRm:R cluding Vice Mayor Brunner and
Decisions related to FireSta- Larry Reid of District 7 (who
tion 8's controversial rebuilding chairs the Public, Safety com-
took a turn Thesday that pleased mittee) have since explained they
some hills residents; as the City had less thana full understand-
Council's Public Safety Commit- ing ()f the implications of their
lee decided to recommend that initial vote.
the full council take a second At the meeting, Brunner said
look at the issue. she had reviewed the tape of the
Jackie Hoeppner-Freitas, head June council meeting when Si-
of Rockridge's DMV Neighbors mon made his presentation about
Association and a lawyer, said how the reconstruction would be
she was encouraged thatcoun- funded while maintaining a bal-
cil members present at the Nov. anced budget. "We were never
27 meeting seemed to admit they told this would create a shortage
didn't realize this past June that' of eight firefighters," Brunner
they were voting for a reduction said.
in firefighters. ' In the June meeting, Brunner
At the time, the council moved asked Simon, '''Are we funding
forward on a plan to pay for the the building of Station 8 by the
station's rebuild by assigning its savings in personnel?", Brunner
eight firefighter to two other sta claimed there was no definitive
tionsand cutting down on the answer to that question. She also
use of overtime at these locations litated that in light of a clearer
- reducing Oakland's understanding of what Simon's
ing force in the process. plan calls for, it is unfair that'
"We applaud (District 1 Coun, ,North Oakland will bear tpe bur-
cilwoma,n Jane Brunner) for den of a balanced budget by sac-
coming forward and saying, it rificing fire emergency services.
wasn't clear and that she didn't ' Brunner requested that the
understand the ramifications," Public Safety committee ask City
Hoeppner-Freitas said. , Manager Robert Bobb to provide
, The issues at hand have been more analysis, recommendations
on the table since City Council and possible funding sources as-
members voted in June to ap- sociated with six potential sce-
prove a strategy to maintain fire narios for the rebuild.
safety while the dilapidated fire Brunner recommended a sce-
station at 51st Street and Tele nario in which the station would
graph Avenue is rebuilt. be closed for the duration of its
In the original plan, devised reconstruction, with personnel
by Fire Chief Gerald Simon, the being transferred to fire stations
firefighters from Station 8 14- any result- ,
be temp6riuily reassigned to dif ing reduction in the city's fire-
ferent stations to relieve staff, fighting force. This plan was
working overtime, and the com greeted with applause from sup-
pany's engine and ladder truck '
would be left out of service for ==================================
the duration of the reconstruc-
tion. ' . ,
The motivation behind Si-
mon's plan was to cover the rna
jority of the station rebuilding
cost by saving money through a
reduction of staff and equipment
for the 10 months of the recon-
struction. What was not made'
clear is how that would be
achieved. ' .
Residents such as Susan Mon
, ~ - , --.__.. , , ~ - ~ - - - , , - - - _ . _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ITYSIDE
'_c. _
www.oaklandtribune.com
City editor
(510) 208-6447
FRIDAY November 23, 2001
Temescal
fire station
fray grows
Public hearings,on closure
to be ,held Nov. 27, Dec. 4
By Laura Casey .story beige station. MWe need
STAFF WRITER them."
OAKLAND - Opposition to Station 8, a two-company
the temporary closure of a Te- truck and ladder station, was
, mescal fire station is mounting supposed to be closed and re-
in North Oakland as a Fire De- built years ago. There waS never
partment plan works its way to any money in the budget to fund
the City Council for review. the $4.1 station until thJs year,
Signs ,reading .MDon't get when Fire Chief Gerald Simon
Burned" are popping up in developed a plan that would pay
storefront Windows along Col- for ,the station by saving the city
lege and Telegraph avenues, and $2.8 million in fire staff over-
there is a groWing concern time.
among, residents that their His plan not only . finds
safety may' be in Jeopardy if money to build the station, but
emergency response times grow also attempts to patch the de-
,during the station's demolition parbnent's overtimeproblem.
and rebuilding; . ' Simon said the department is
"It's going to be bad," said having a hard time.' 1llllng over-,
Clarke Street. resident I Marcel time slots in stations around the
Lewis,' whose home is., 'kitty- City. Some of that trouble comes
corner to Fire Station 8 on 51st from a budget decision to staff
Street and, Telegraph Avenue. two hills fire stations on an
Not too long ago, .she relied on overtime-onlYbasis.
the -nearby fire station's quick The city approved the year-
response to care for her ill round. stamng, of G r ~ s 'Valley
mother-in-law. Fire Station No. 28; and'the
MThere's a lot ,of elderly NorthHills Fire Station No.7 in
people in thJs neighborhood," 1999. ThJs decision costs $2.8
and they need 911 right there,"
she said,: poinUngto the single- ,Please see Cost, LOCAL-2
Cost: Not enough firefighters
for overtime, official says
Continued from LOCAL-1 Simon and City Manager Robert meeting and the following City
Bobb insist the plan provides Council hearing Dec. 4.
million annually and takes 24 adequate response from nelgh- Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas,
firefighters out of the overtime boring stations and city of Eme- a lawyer who has made a full-
relief pool. ryville firefighters. On the other time Job out of researching the
The result is stations work side, fire experts from the union Issue and presenting her find-
without enough firefighters on are telling residents that re- Ings to the community, is
some shifts because the depart- sponse times to flre and medical floored by the notion that fIre of-
ment is unable to find fire- calls will lag. ficlals are content With reducing
fighters to work mandatory On medical calls, minutes Oakland's daily staffing for 10
overtime. Simon expects the can often mean the difference months.
problem will exacerbate In 2002 between life or death, medical "This is a dubiOUS honor
as nearly' 50 firefighters leave experts contend. . Oakland will have, being prob-
the department through attrition There's an 80 percent chance ably the only City that is working
and retirement. a heart attack victim will survive on cutting Its firefighting force in.
WWe're covering another need If help arrives within six min- the wake of Sept. II, and Its
for the department, a need for utes. If help arrives In eight mln- own disastrous history," Hoep-
people to (overtime) slots," utes, chances of survival: plunge pner-Freltas Said.
Simon Said. "The. whole thing to 5 percent. She already .bent Bobb's and
has to be a balance."' Adding to the confusion, the Mayor Jerry Brown's ears at a
The overtime problem will be comprehensive emergency re-. house meeting Wednesday night.
partly solved by putting the 32 sponse pilill has not been flnal- Brown has yet to take a public
Station 8 firefighters In a city- lzed. Chief Simon assured the position on the plan.
wide overtime relief pool. But It council In April that It would be The $4.1 million station will
will mean fewer firefighters easy to carve the neighborhood be paid for out of the city's Cap-
on Oakland streets for nearly a Into pieces and have neigh- Ital Improvement Program
year and no fIrefighters speclf- boring Oakland and Emeryville Budget, part of the two-year
Ically asslghed to the North Oak- stations cover calls. budget the council approved In
land Rockrldge and Temescal. In a staff report Simon pre- June.
neighborhoods In 2002. pared for Public Safety Com- After the station Is built, the.
Steve Splendorlo, president mlttee review at its Nov. 27 city will add 32 firefighters to Its
of the Oakland firefighter's. meeting, he said Emeryvtlle. fire 492-person force, bringing da1ly
union Local 55, said Simon's offiCials are poised to sign an staffmglevels back up to 141.
plan Is putting people In North agreement dedicating Its truck If the council deCides to keep
Oakland and the city at risk .' and four firefighters .-: more the firefighters on the streets
",wSomehow or another,." .' thanhaJ,f,()f the small CIty s daily through 2002, then It will be at
doesn't want to face the Issue. staff - to respond to the expense of other resources,
Yes, we're going to have 'elgJ;1.t 426 annuall,adder Bohb Said. The city Is facing a
fewer firefighters, and yes, we:r:e Emeryville Vice $14 million to $27 million
Increasing the risk to the Mayor':Nqra Davis said thIs Is budget deficit and It cannot
fI th tid ftim'" not true. build the new station, mci.Jntaln
0 0". e, .: WI was a little taken aback by the fire department's current
the statement that there was' da1ly staffing levels and balance
Critics of the plan say,Simbn gOing to bea signed agreement," , the budget.
Is asking North Oakland, to she said. WFrom my perspective, WI personally and profession-
make up for a citywide staffing there Is not going to be adone ally don't think (temporarily
problem. ' deal of any means unless the. closing Station 8) Is a lot to ask
wIt's not fair," said Vice council looks at this more when we are going, to have a
Mayor Jane BrUIUler, who re- closely." better Improvement at the end
celved hundreds of responses Simon said the agreement Is . of the day," Bobb said. .
from a llier'she sent to her con- silll being worked out.. Splendorlo said his fire-
stltuents in mid-October about "This Is still a fluid process.' fighters are prepared to live in
the Station 8 closure. wInstead Since It Is not Imm1nent, It's not the old station for another two
of having.a budget problem and happening tomorrow, we're stlll .. years while the city saves money
fixing It citywide, we're flXinglt' trying to final1ze theac::tual mu- . to Bobb said'
In North Oakland." tual aid plan," he Said. he will consider that proposal.
Many residents said they are . In the meantime, area resl- .. The Public Safety Committee
confused and concerned about dents are prepared to wage a will hear Simon's report at 3
their safety while the station Is war of words at the Nov. 27 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall
being rebuilt. On one side, Public Safety Committee Hearing Room 1.
that overtime guy to No. 15," and

filling this slot with a Jell-O mold
.... yadda yadda, yadda. It had to
be explained three times before
it sunk into my head. But the gist
remains what I said at the begin-
ning - eight less firefighters per
shift, while North Oakland
burns, er closes.
A number of current and for-
mer firefighters were there to
reiterate the obvious. Don
Mathews, former Station No.8
chief, said that fire protection in
North Oakland will go "down,
down, down." "All I can say," he
said sardonically, "is good luck."
The BOO-pound gorilla that
nobody mentioned at the meet-
ing was Sept. 11 (and anthrax,
and the governor's bridge
warning just days before).
Prior to 9/11, I could see taking
a swing at this deal, keeping
our fingers crossed and hoping
no one gets burned. Now, fire.-
fighters may be our front lines
if anything goes down in the
terror war. This seems an odd
and inappropriate time to cut
services for any reason, don't
cha think? And keep in mind,
the reduction is city-wide.
North Oakland is only the ca-
nary in the coal mine. We are
all miners here.
Steve Splendorio, the Oak
land firefighters' union rep, was
adamant. "The community dee,
serves protection, " he said. "Sta-
. tion 8 should stay open one way
or another." He added, "It's a po-
litical issue. If enough heat is ap-
plied, they'll find the money."
Neighbors, apply your heat
to City Council. It will take five
votes to change it. And an addi-
tional $4 million. Is your life
worth four mil'? Your kids'?
Mr. Bobb - is your life
worth it?
Turchin
FROM PAGE A4
are for emergency medical ser-
vices. Frankly, my heart's fine,
but I've burned out three
whistling teapots in the last
year alone, so I'm a guy that
takes comfort from my local
firehouse. But I'm making light
of a life-and-death issue.
Jane Brunner is wisely mak-
ing the City Council take an-
other look at this project. There
will be a Public Safety Commis-
sion mel;lting on Nov. 27 to study
it. Apparently she was under the
impression that the funding was
from the city's capital improve-
ment program (CIP) when she
voted for it. No clue, 'she claims,
that the CIP money came from
cutting the fire department.
Hard to believe, but I spoke
to Councilman Larry Reid, and
he pretty. much pleaded igno-
rance, too. It was "never ex-
plained" that way, he told me.
So that's two council members
who didn't seem to know what
engine was driving the truck
when they voted. Councilman
Dick Spees concurred to some
degree. "It was probably not
made abundantly clear,II he told
me, "or maybe we didn't ask
the right questions." Either
way, it leaves a thick scull like
me to conclude that either the
City Manager's office and the
Oakland Fire Department were
playing three-card-Monty with
the council, or the council was-
n't, as Spees suggested, doing
its homework. Neither see- .
nario, of course, speaks too
highly of our "process."
To Brunner and the council's
defense, I will say that Chief Si
mon, who Spees called "very
straight and very good," looked
like Bill Walsh on steroids when
he did the X's and O's of the deal
at the Peralta meeting. "They're
moving this guy to No. 23, and
GARY TURCHIN
There There
as well, and response time is
the lynch pin of public safety.
(How long can you hold your
breath? That's how fast you
need help.) The area will have
.to rely more on Piedmont,
Emeryville and other Oakland
firehouses for coverage. Deals
with Piedmont and Emeryville
are in the works but are in no
way finalized.
Finally, there will also be
two trucks pasically mothballed
for the year, including one of
Oakland's seven ladder trucks
(for math freaks that's 14 per-
cent of the fleet). So the price
is pretty steep: less coverage,
loooonger response times,
fewer personnel and less equip-
ment ready to roll.
For the sake of full disclo-
sure, let me remind you that
my home is in Station No. 8's
district. They are my guys, and
if my heart ticker goes walla-
walla-bing-bang, it's probably
them that will provide the EMS
- 80 percent of firehouse calls
See TURCHIN, Page A.5
I{ Cf
Station' o. 8 the.
heat is on, and rising!
F
ire and the works were
on display at Jane Brun-
ner's community meeting
last Saturday at Peralta School.
Fire Chief Gerald Simon, City
Manager Robert Bobb, a whole
gaggle of firemen and a lot
concerned citizens were there
to discuss the one-year closing
of North Oakland's Fire Station
No.8 for its rebuilding.
The fire station issue is, sim-
ply put, one of dollars versus
sense. The dollars are about $4
million and change; the sense
is our public safety.
The city has arranged one of
those crafty "creative financ-
ing" deals that involves closing
the firehouse and financing the
new one on the backs of wages
saved by having eight less fire-
fighters on the streets for the
next year. The savings in wages
would net the city $3.2 million
of the $4.1 million needed to
build a new firehouse.
Nifty idea, and I can see
why it was tempting. It's al-
most like a free firehouse! H.ey,
let's close 'em all and build all
new ones!
But nothing is free. There
would, of course,be eight less
firefighters on the streets of
Oakland at any given moment
- 133 instead of the current
141. (Eight of the 141 are over-
timers, but that's another is-
sue). North Oakland will lose
something in its response time
11/30/2001 10:24 5105545155 DOWNS UMC PAGE 03
Q)owni d/(EJ120'l.iai.' rlJ.n.ite.d d1!lE.t/!u;>dij,t C!.hU'LCh
6026 Idaho Street
Church: (510) 654-5858
Fax: (510) 654-6156
ovember 20
1
2001
. .
KELvIN SAULS .
Min'ister
.Vice-Mayor JaneBrimri.er
One.FrankOgawa Plaza
. Oaklandj CA94612
. Dear Vice-MayorBrunnef=-
We .are Writing this.letter to aSk you to do everything in yoW" power -to reverse' the City
Council vote of this 'past .June regarding the method of financing most of the costs of
rebuilding Fire Station 8 on .51
81
. Street above Telegraph Avenue. .
.. .
We understand and wholeheartedly support the much needed replacement of Fire Station
8, but we have learned that. the financing plan will result in cutting eight fuefighters from
.. the available emergency response personnel and putting their engine and ladder
truck (the only one in'North Oakland) in storage for the rebuilding.period,: to
last a. year orm,ore, 'l'4is loss' of critical aid at potentially difficult times poses a grave .
dari.ger for the entire city and especially for my parish, which is now covered by Station
'8.' ..
The reason We aree.specially impacted by the current plan is, to put it'bluntly, that we .
may have more need than most for 8's presence when calamities The .
..parish.is horne to a predominance of elderly people,. many of them no 'in the best of .
health and many living in wooden structures. .
Station 8 knows our area and, of crucial importance, kIiows how to get to us fast.
More.over, our degree of alarm. rises exponentially at the thought that their engine, the
equipment most essential for emergency' medical response, will be in 'storage somewhere
when itmightbe most needed. .
In sum, our entire parish population is becoming extremely concerned at this danger to
their safety. We urge you to fmd another way to fInance the new Station 8 rather than by
endangering the well being Of citizens who may find it hard to fight for their right to
safety;but who arecitizens.uonetheless. .
Thank you for yoUr consideration.
Sincerely, .
Rev. Kelvin Sauls
Pastor
.'. 3\
y
JOAN E. ETTLINGER
481 A1catraz Avenue Apt. C
(510) 658-0572
November 25, 2001
Public Safety Committee
Counci1members Larry Reid, Henry chang,
Danny Wan, Moses Mayne
Oakland City Hall
Frank Ogawa Plaza
Re: Firestation #8
Dear safety Committee Councilmembers:
I am supporting the firefighters at Firestation 8 in their efforts to
remain in North Oakland while the new firestation is under construction.
The proposal by the Fire Chief to take 8 firefighters and two pieces of
firefighting apparatus off the street in order to fund the construction of a
modern firehouse through savings in the City's overtime budget is scary. The
Fire Department is understaffed now -- this plan only exacerbates the
situation. The Chief's proposal could better be referred to as the "Wing and
a prayer Plan" since it seems like North Oakland residents are being asked to
"wing it" and pray nothing catastrophic, like another hills fire or an
earthquake or a terrorist attack, takes place during construction.
In order to modernize one stationhouse, the Chief is proposing to
further understaff and underequip the Department through a plan that is so
circuitous and confusing it has literally taken more than a couple hours for
the community to understand but essentially relies on using overtime, the
relief pool and taking two pieces of firefighting equipment out of service
during construction.
I have seen the firestation. To say it is decrepit, would be a
compliment. However, the firefighters who work there want to remain as a unit
in North Oakland and are willing to continue living in deplorable conditions
if the Committee and Council will accept their proposal which will be
presented at the Public Safety Committee.

Jan E.
Jackie Hoeppner-Freitas, DMV Neighbors
If the firefighters are willing to continue living in these appalling
conditions in order to stay together, then I think the Committee and Council
should support them. It will mean a higher level of emergency medical service
and fire protection in North Oakland than the Chief's plan. It will keep two
pieces of firefighting apparatus in use. And, it will be a morale booster to
people who are already forced to work mandatory overtime because of chronic
understaffing and must be there for us 24/7 to save our lives in a medical
emergency or put their lives on the line in a fire.
cc:
p. ?/y
RCPC ROCKRIDGE COMMUNITY PLANNINGCOUNCIL
'.5856 COLLEGE AVENUE PMB 130 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618. 510 814-6060 www.rockridge.org
Council Member Lany Reid
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
November 19, 2001
Dear Council Member Reid:
The Rockridge Community Planning Council urges you and the other members ofthe Public Safety
Committee to reconsider the City Council's June budget vote to support Fire Chief Simon's plan for
personnel reassignment/reduction and warehousing of equipment during the Fire Station 8 rebuild. We
believe this proposal would result in the unnecessary loss of property and lives in North Oakland. We
also believe that at the May 1
8t
Budget Session Chief Simon did not made clear his intentions to reduce
fire fighting capacity. We ask you, therefore, to recommend a new discussion and a revote ofthis
proposal at the City Council.
It is apparent to RCPC that the response time to both fires and medical emergencies would be severely
compromised with a reduction offirefighting postitions and equipment. RCPC is also greatly concerned
that no formal agreements have been reached for backup support with the Piedmont or Emeryville
departments. In light ofthe November 8 residential fire in Temescal that required two ladder trucks and 8
engines, how could it be argued that the City can guarantee the safety ofits citizens without the heavy
equipment from Station 8 in use?
The construction ofthe new fire station has been estimated to take 10 months. Ifall goes well and
construction proceeds on time this retrenchment of available firefighters and equipment will extend into
and through the most hazardous time ofthe year, the dry season. At this 10
th
anniversary year ofthe
most disastrous residential fire in United States history the City Council should be especially mindful of
its obligation to ensure that Oakland residents never experience such a devastating loss again. RCPC
strongly urges the City Council to give more careful consideration to the potentially calamitous
ramifications of reducing fire protection in our city.
Respectfully,
Susan Montauk
RCPC Chair
cc: Council Members: Jane Brunner, Danny Wan, Nancy Nadel, Dick Spees, Ignacio de la Fuente,
Moses Mayne, Jr., Henry Wang,
Mayor Jerry Brown
.Page i 01 1
Ruth Finnerty
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Ruth Finnerty" <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>; <[email protected]>;
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11: 11 AM
Fire station 8
Dear Public Safety Committee members and/or all City Councilmembers:
I am writing to ask that you do everything in your power to ensure that the City Council rescinds its vote of this
past June regarding the method of financing the rebuilding of Fire Station 8 on 51 st Street above Telegraph
Avenue.
I am completely in favor of the much needed replacement of Fire Station 8, but I have learned that the
financing plan as approved in June will result in cutting eight firefighters from the city's available emergency
response personnel and putting their engine and ladder truck (the only one in North Oakland) in storage for
the rebuilding period, estimated to last a year or more. This loss of critical aid at potentially difficult times
poses a grave danger not just for the area I live in, but indeed for the entire city and its neighboring
communities, areas that Station 8 has itself historically been on call for.
Furthermore, the aid agreement with Piedmont and Emeryville that helped lead to the Council's vote has still
not come to pass. Fire Chief Gerald Simon presented it as a settled arrangement both to the Council in May
and to community meetings at the Temescal Library on September 27 and at Peralta Elementary School on
November 3, Councilmember Jane Brunner's community advisory meeting. At the November 3 meeting, City
Manager Robert Bobb contradicted Chief Simon, pointing out that he had told the Chief previously that the
agreement had to be in writing, but there was nothing in writing yet.
Indeed, recently we were told that Oakland's request to Piedmont for help has been withdrawn. And now, with
the City Council scheduled to meet on December 4 to reconsider its June vote, Chief Simon's Agenda Report
tells us that Emeryville will make the agreement final on December 7, three days AFTER the Council's vote.
We have heard, however, that the Emeryville city government knows nothing of this.
I urge you to investigate independently to determine whether the situation is as the Agenda Report claims.
The lives of the people of Oakland depend on the viability of Chief Simon's plan, a plan that was supposed to
exist on May 1, 2001, and still does not exist.
In any event, Emeryville is an unlikely candidate to help with replacements for Station 8. The number of calls
that Station 8 receives-nearly 4000 in the year 2000, 1,010 for the ladder truck alone--would overwhelm
Emeryville's ladder truck capabilities, and the necessarily longer response time could place citizens in serious
jeopardy. (NOTE: The 426 figure of "actual action" responses on pages 3 and 4 of the Agenda Report is
misleading because the truck has to respond as soon as each call comes in without waiting around the station
to see whether the call is "actual" or not.)
Please find a way to finance the new Station 8 that will keep us all, including our firefighters, as safe as
possible.
Thank you.
Ruth Finnerty
11/20/01
f , 3 ~
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786 Dec. 03 2001 08:07PM Pi
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MEI\fORANDUM
City
Deceu be.. 4,200]
john Flores) Chy Manager
Steph'" L. Cutri$ht, Fire Chidlit.
Approval of an Interim need Mottlll Aid Fire Departmem .Response
Agrecmc.nt witb tbe City of (Iakland during the re<!onstrue.tion of OaklAnd's
Fire S1.ntion 8
RECOMJ.1'lENDAnON
Stllff recD:nmcnds that the City CouTlCil autho:ize L'1e fire chiefto entC!r into an agrc:ement with
the Oak\.and fire chiefto inTerim c:nh;u,ccd mutual aid .fi:e department response to
designated areas of Oakland during the of Oakland's Fire Sta.tion S.

City of Oakland proposing a temporaI') en,"lancement: of our Intltual aid relationship. There
are two elements oftbeir proposa1. l-irst. they Slre asking Emeryvilie to provide temporary
coverage with our Truck 24'71 on a1l5tructurc fires occurring v.;thin a section oftheir city
alfecred by closure l!.71C recons- ruction oitbeir aging and inadequate fire station 8
locateQ i, 463 -51"' Street (near 51't 3nd the fire station 8
reconstruction will reduce Oakland resources lvailable for emergency nlcdica1 :>ervJce (EMS) calls
......ithir: a portion of their Cit; adjacent to Erner northeastern bcu."1G.ary. and they are asking
Emc:yville to provide interim E.:.\{S coverage . Oakland e.>..-pects the iritCl'im cO'\"erage to be
needed for 10 to 12 months. when they ...gain will fully stafFfiJ'e station S and provide it with
modern equipment and apparatus. Oa.kland is ;eeJ.dng help to till amicipated temporary gap in
fire protection and medical Sv"rvicc cove: a.ge.
An enhanced mund aid agreement will benef:t Emeryville in severa.! ways both short-term and
long-term. will be assured ofpTOmpt and continuous emergency covc;agc, even when
both fire "mit:; are busy on calls. Oakland ccntllrJc to provide iow-cost dispatch services.
Emer)"ville fire personnel will gain valuabk I:>.perience in a wider scope ofemergency calls and in
working closely and more frequently with tne larger opc;lrational teams in Oakland. An interi!n
enhanced mutual aid system will carry forwar.i into joint training and multi.company drills with
Oaklar,d. and the refinement of standards covering emergency scene
operations. This v..ill mean developing a close' and more effective working relationship ,\lith
Oakland, giving Enhanced fire and medical se: vice to the citizens ofbotb Eventually, when
fir>3 station 8 LS replaced will be ab e to utDiz:e better fire protection resources available
.for us from th:J.t fire station.
l 01 ,_0 .............. , _ ........
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:08PM P2
Staff Repon: Interim Enhanced Mutual Aid
Dece.mber 4, 2001
Page z
The section balow covering the analysis ofthe proposeci agreement wHl consider in depth its
merits and impacts upon Emeryville. Before tht discussioI:., however, a review the genera! mutual
aid \vill place the current proposal in stotical conrexr. The e:dstirlg mutual aid system,
after aU, has worked reasonably well for many years. Unfortunately :>-ystern ll.S it now exists has
some shortfalls and gaps in providing effective fire a.nd medical protectio:l. Indeed. part ofthe
appeal of the curre."lt proposal to enhance the' nutua! aid system between our two jurisdictions is
its value as a 'first step' toward a more compr automa.tic aid syStem.
Mutua! Aid:
Dating back to at least the early 1970
l
s when California a. series of catastrophic
conflagratiom. the mutual aid system !tI:1ong f i"e and law enforcement agt!ncies by now a ti:'ne-
tested and solidly proven method ofinteragenlY cooperation, mutual support. and group
prote.::tion. The concept ofmutual aid is basee on the much older of"collective
se::urity," no individual is deemed seCUJ Co unless oll members are secure. Specifically in the
case of the Ca.lifornia fire ser\1ce, local, l nd federal agencies h!ve agreed to pool their fire
re:>ources so that each agency '.."ould receive emergency help according to its need, and
:n tum CIlC!1 agency would give emergency he! ) to according lO its reasonable capacity to
d" so Resnurcc,,, are ient he,ween jurisdiction :; except on very few and specialized
:10 :s !x.ch211ged fo:- mutual 4l.jd service,. Above sIl, nJi.."t\;!al aid is a of protcdon
which pools the resources ofmany to COver tb eventuality that on occMion a member agency will
need to ask: for belp. Single fire det:lartments. tnd especially small ones, do not stand alone to
protect their citizens against all emergencies, l!.I'gc a.nd small. InsteAd they can rely upon a \icier
system of support, held together by common lrcfessional to provide for their
protection
Of course) as with any c.ollecrive security s)'stull,. mutual aid requiies giving as well as receivin,g.
How much and bow often onc gives a.nd largely depends upon the circumstances of
individual fire depart..-nents. 1n our ca>e, as to S":na}1 5re department, 'l;men'ville is fortunate to have
a relatively low emergeocy call volume, but 01 the other hand has. limited resources and carmOl
adequatl:Jy ha.'ldle larger emergency incidents .\'ith OILly ':wo ccropanies on duty (and seven
firefighters at a minimum). This means that Er;teryville is in a position to lend mutual aid support
to it.s neighbors (mainly Berkeley and Oak1a."tc) by sending a single company more frequeoTly.
Oakland, 00 the other ha..1d, is a laooge city wit) 1 vast rcsowoc::s but also a significantly higher
cali voh.:me than Emeryville:, Oaklc ad is in a better position to l(?.nd occasional massive
suppor. tc its neighbors in to a large sc,-Ie incident. Also, oftl'le e>..1ens:ve
breadth of resources available to a large fire d:partmeot, Oakland is a.ble to provide Emeryville
wirh sl'ecialized resources unavailabb to a,lY tmall fire department. Under the existing mutua; aid
arrar.gcment between Oakland a.'lO Emeryville Oakland gives the kind of support to Emeryville
that a small city tannor get any way 811d in sucr.. s. short time. On the other hend,
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STR 2 FRX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:09PM P3
StaffRepon: Interim Enhanced Mutual Aid
December 4, 2001
Page 3
gives Oakland the kind of suppcrt it needs ma:t: single unit responses to cover their di8tr'icts
their w1its busy on one of their own .!mergencies,
The mutual aid sys1em upon which EmeryviiJe relies is bastd upon three (3) underlying elements
1. Califbrnia established a cc\(' perative State Fire and Rescue Mutual .t.Jd System
under the authority of the GOVI Office 0[Emergen:;y Services (OES).
Although partic;pationis comp dd}' \"oluntary for local jurisdictions, the system
has the full participation of e'Je 'Y fire agency in the state.
Z, California OES has the State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System by
adminiscering a mutualnid syst':m '""hich encompasses Qfthe federal
govcrnmeuL the Fcresr Servicf, Bureau ofumd ManagemeLlI, and the Nc.rioIlaj
PArk Thig agreemen: i: cnJled the Cooperative Agreement for Local
Governmcm Fire Supprc:s)lOn.. ,hortened to the "Fi... Agrcemcnt"and
provides for federal and state ft,imbuTSerne:1t ofmuroaJ aid incurred by local
gover.rment agencies whl:IJ responding to em state or federal lands.
3 The cities, special districts, Ala neda County, CDF, the Univen:ity of California,
and the Urited States I'.rmy and Navy hltve established an Agreement for Mutual
Fire Assistance within Alamedc Count)', This agreement, to which Emeryville is a
signatory, was entered into on )ctober 28, 1993 and p:o"ices for mUUlal
reciprocal mutual in iemnification from li:tbili'ty and an agreement to
bold of the other parties hJ.rmless from claims for damages, From this county-
wide llrec;men1, the fire chiefs have developed ar. "A1ar:leda County Mutual .AJd
l)lan" which specifies the way r lutual aid for fire and medical resources ',liill be
organized. The County Mutual Aid Plan and its underlying agreement is the
backbone of the exiSting mulu!: Iai::l relationship betwee:l Emeryville r.nd Oakland..
Afte; the OctoOOr 1991 ust Bay Hills Fire, lb mu.uaI aid system was modified, this time
to Mut'Jal (MRA) between Emeryville, Oakland and Berkeley, Altho'Jgh
the concept was never actually impleme 1ted fo!' Emery\ille (Oakland and Berkeley ill fact
developed an MRA for the hills alea), the Emeryville City Council on June 17, 1997 a.dopted
Resolution 97-]17 autllOrizing the Lity Maml.!;-:cl to enter into !\-:!R.A.. agreemeDts v"lth :Berkeiey
and Oakland. Tne MILA,. mutual aid concept p ovidecl for fire units from each ofrhe parties to
respond directly to emergencies within t."rJe MRA'5 on an immcdia1<: basis, vrrthout
waiting for a forma; mutual aid request. The (IV; were the firS'! time that the cities of
Oakland, Berkeley and Emeryville an arr31\geme:nt Known 3.5 'automatic aid"' where
fin: and medical opetations conducted Oll the besis of the ne<uesr fire ul1ir wem immediately
to the emergency regardles ofjurisolctional b:mndanc5.
tE:81.-0Sir
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2
FAX NO.
510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:10PM P4
StaffReport: Interin, Enhanced Mutual .t...id
December 4,2001
Page 4
During the past several years, the Alameda C)Unty Fire Chief!; Associa.tion has recognized that
although the 1'v1RA mutual aid fuiled:o be implemented broadly b courrty. the
concept of automatic aid should be incorpor:a:ed into at! updated Alameda County Mutual Aid
Plan. F:om a va,'iety cfperspecti.vl!S and cirC\. rnstances the county fIre chiefs recognized tha.t the
existing mutual plan was slow and poorly res) .onsive to the immediate emergency needs which
often arise in each juriseiction.. A'c-etter systel nis curreotly under plan development. a system
which involves coordinated com.-nunlC3.tiOllS boundary drops, nearest unit response,
joint trabing. common operational standards, and a unifoJID. approach to p:-oviding acceptable
levcls -of coverage anu re..<:;ponse to cll particip 1ting jurisdictions. The vision now entertained by
coumy fre chiefs is that mllD..:2.1 aid ll3eds go to the nc:'ct step: toward an eventual functional
integration ofemergency operations.
Interim Agreement
The proposed interim agreement with Oakla1ld for enhanced mutual aid needs to be considered
withi.'1 this historical context. The agreement i ; not just about ElncryYll/e cove..-ing Oakland fire
station 8's still dimiet with a truck company 1t is aboU1 strengthening between Oakland
ano E.11eryville in the joint delivery Qffire and medical services. It is abot:.t ensuring that
Emeryville gives resources it has the capacity .0 give in e>:change for getting it
nave in a large emergency or when botb of its onits are busy, It 1S I\boul 5tarting"to craft a regional
system of fire prorection and not just rel)'wg upan our fire for all of our
protection. The enhanced mutual aid agreemellt is a first step> a carefully limiteo step, a step
w?-Jch car. heip us move toward a encoapassing systenl ofcoll<:ctive security.
The p:-oposed interim agreement would beve provide in two ways:
1. Provide aeriul tmek company from Eme!"f"ilJe fire station 2 to the ":)till
district" (or first ir. ::listrict) fOTmcrly c()verad by Truck 8 before their
station closure;
2. ?rovide EMS coverage to an 3J ea ofOaklilnd irrunediarely adjacent 10 the
northeast DoU:3Gary ofEmeryviHe, from Vallejo Street on the west, 53ft! Street on
the south. Lowell and Sacrarne: 110 On the east, aDd the Berk:cley border on
north. From E.meryville's Cf Sf border, fire units would respond up to ili: blocks
east into Oakland fOT EMS cC'J.:rage
!r, exchanse, Oakland to provide cover<-ge for Emeryville in the event we deplete our
n:'l the basis of the closest tnit. For nledica) calls, the engi.,c Out of
fin: station 5located at 934 34
11
Street be responding ...... a puamc:dic to that unit.
Further, during a significant nJutual aid event (Iak/and win provide coverage to Emeryville during
periods of omaustoo resources. The 9-1-1 disptch to Emeryville will continue without
any increase i.O the $ 30,000 per year COS1. The i.'ldemni5c;ation and hold ham,less of
Dec. 1213 21211211 1218:1I21PM P5
Staff Report: Interim Enhanced Mutuai Aid
December 4,2001
Page:: 5
the- AJameda County Mutual Aid al)o apply to this enhanced muru2.l aid agree:nel1t.
Emeryville and Oakiand 'Will develop je int training. joint recnlit academy and rtl.ulti-
company drills_
A.l'olALYSlS/DlSCUSSlON
The proposed interim agreement for enhanced nmual aid with Oakland raises several iSiUes which'
need to be addressed.
1. Whp.t is the e>:oected remon!le ach... .or Emerille in to Oak}81d? Please
rcl'er to the analysis sheet a.ttachcd to tl is !Zport cntit1.cd uProposcd Oah.-tand Fire Staticn S
Coverage: Emeryville Fire Mutual Aid. I The spread!)beet is divided into four
sectionsi direct your to the left section oftbc spreadsheet.
Taking calendar year 2000 emergency i.all statistics from the Oakland Fire Dispatch
Cet'ter, we were able to determine the llumber of calls fire Stmion g actually responded
within the district Emeryville i; being asked to cover. During the public deb:Lte
over this issue ll<"1 Oaldi!.lld resident llopcd figures for emergency calls from fire station
8which are at odds v-'ith ti .e figures we have from tbt dispatch
center." We sorted the station 8 calls by geographic area to determine: only those calls
within their "still district." The er'.0ne 2nc truck units out of !Ire SIAtion 8 responded to
areas of Oakland outside that still-distri :t. ami accounts for the; higher figures
promulgated by the OlUdand resident.
Our estim.....te. corrobororc:d by Oakland fire responsible for analyzing theit plan,'
shows that for 2002 Emeryville would expected to-respood lmder the interim
agreement to 704 cans: 266 truck respt'l1ses and 438 E.i."f.S As the starred
column (*. *) in the lc:ft section of the !:Ireadsheet shows, this will aDOunt to a total of
1/
slightly under two emenzency 24-hQUf day by the Emef]...-ille Fire Department
into Oakland. :EMS responses would account for 63% of tho added csll volume. Oakland
me officers have noted that although t} eEmeryville truck company might be
to 0.73 fire calls per day) based upon &eir actual fire incidents they estimate
will only lu.ve to work on act.,la] StrUcture firei 1.S times a week. This report seems
consiS:ent with our E!!).;perience with car cellations for fire calls due to false alarms and
cases where only minor fires are found wmch do not require a truck at the scene. .
2. \Vhat the e?ascted impact on the Fire Department's emergencv re!;Imnl:e
load? Again) refer to the analysi: sheer attached to this report entitled "Proposed
OaJ,;!and Fire Staticl\ 8 Coverage: Erne yvilic: Fir: MutLlal Aid." The right three reetions of
the spreadsheet ana.lyzethe impact of aiding Oakland's requested emergency responses
Dec. 03 2001 08:11PM P6
Staff Report: El1hal1Ced Mutual Aid
December 4) 2001
Page 6
under the interim agreement for enhant:ed mutual aid. Like a glass either half full or half
empty of water) it is to look a' the fire station 8 impacts upon Emeryville as either
very minor or very large. The facts strc'ngly:point to a very minor impact.
In the 2002 calcndaryenr we expect under the interim agreement tha.t the Emeryville Fire
Department'5 emergency call volume ,;,,'ill jump from around 1,600 calls tc 2,300 calls,
wout a 44% increase. VY;Ule h is. temp'. inS to regard this increase as a significant change!
in fact it has very litt!c upon tht 24-bOl!T daily work load of the fire department
. bocause the Emeljl'VilIe calls 'without Olkland rcspoIls:S are 50 low to begin \\oith. At only
., 4.3 5 ca!l.s per 24-hocr day from two fife stations, tire crews would be asked
under the ir.terim agreement to acd 1.92 calls per shift to their work load, for a
department total of6.1S calls per 24-h;)ur day. increase is hardly significant O\'etl fer
one fire company, let alone for two op.-:rational companies. When you consider that one of
Oakland'5 busier fire compa:lics respOl ded during the .2000 calendar year to over 8.5 calls
per day, [he impact upor. onl;' one Ernuyvillc: tire company is indeed minor.
3, Will..Emervville residen\9 sdfer when from Fire Station 2cannot
resuond to an F.mervville medical call 1ccausL'! that companv is a.....'3y on il fire !n
The is that a Triangle might get a. delayed Tcsponse from Station l's
(from the Peninsula) or that Oaljand wouldn't be eapable of providing paramedic
level EMS senice.
Under the principle that the nearest uni r responds, OaJcl:md's engine Swould respond to a
Triangle EMS calI Oakland hns staffed 5 with A paramedic .
firefighter, so unless they are busy on 3 Jother call, 5 will be able to cover the
Triangie and eastern section ofEmet)"l ille \With paramc::dicr-Icvd EMS service. In the event
C!1ginc 5 cannot TCSp.'Jnd from OakJand, Emeryville Will respond as it always bas, from
Station 1. The resp0:\5e times within E;neryville are historically well within the six-minute
standar'" even from across town.
4. Will Oakland provide for back COVeiaQ for Emeryville in ti,e event both tire
are on emerger.c
v
calls? This is Oilc.ot'the beST features ofthe ptposed enhanced
mutual aid arrangctoonr whh Oakland. Emeryville will obtain cove!'age :from Oakland
whenever Emeryville's resources are d.:plcted. In the past, Oakland has covered.
Emeryville whenever both Emeryville f re units were engaged on emergency calls within
our jurisdictlon, or 'or: request' whenc- :er an emergency incident was larger thar. OUT two
. fire compan.ies could handie. Oakland' nil continu.e as before, only nowthey will commit
this coverage in writing io Emeryville l,nd monitor EmtJ'y);lle's nre covera.ge so that
Emeryville will .QQ1 need to request sl:p Irately mut'.taJ aid Oakland coverage begins.
IfOakIanci cannot a timely resp mse from one of their units (because that unit is out
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:12PM P7
Staff'Report: Enhanced Mutua! Aid
December 4
1
2001
Page 7
of position or on an.other emergency c dl) then Oakland will the responsibility of
calling Be.rkele'"i for a mutual aid respc nse. Like a true joint operations or autol1'Wtic aid
system, Oakland's dispatch will be the guu:\lltor cfEmeryville's fire protection OQveragc.
They already do this for Oakland, oow tney'n include Emeryville.
5. Will there be QI2rntiona! continuity wr en the two 'fire dsamtmentLare working
an emergency together? Unde:- t existing mutual aid system, there already is a.
fundarner:ta1 degree of operational con:irruity. Under an enhanced mUtua! aid :oelationship,
.. thc;-e;.viII need to be better continuity lIn the fire g;ound. We will anain this continuity by
training, mUlti-company drills, develop ng common operational standards. and by regJ,11ar
interdepartmental cortsl.llta.tions and dicussion9 designed to deal with little problems
before they become la.rge problems.
6. Is interim agreemen: just a wavfo: En'er;viJ1c covering l:O that the" don'l
have to pa\' ovedime to their firefig:htc],? 1'hc public debate has cenr.inly cnst the
proposed fire station 8 coverage plan i'l this Gght A.nvther S'ta'lemen, ofthe issue is that
one area ofOak:Jand is suffering frOI!l1-.oorer fire protection because ofthe City of
problem i:l affording ovorW.1e salaries. Ule problem is m>..ch more
complicated than a reluctance to pay 0 ledme to firefighters and keep the same number of
firefighters on dutY.
The OakJaIld Fire Department is having a difficult time Staffing their fire companies. The
impact of it! the retirement SYSI em, the move to firefighter/paramedics shrinkin
the labor market, and historical staffinf. have combined to create !S significant
staffing shortfall. As a result, Oaklandl<lS for the past momh bt:e:1 unable to fill all of their
minimum firefighter positions on week even when they ordored manoatory
overtime for personneL The Onion (Lc:ca1 55) is r<;:sponsible for scheduling and
they have been unable to fin engille conpanies at scme stations. This situation wm only
worse with o.ddcd retirements in th December 2001 to Febn12.ry 2002 period.
If Oakland is in this )dnd of staffing en ;is, a.ddirion oftmck coverage for fire
station Sis not going to take av.-ay oYE::1ime work opportunities fur Oakland firefighters
so mueh as it will ensure that sections (}fOakl.md in fact remain adequately covered {(the
Enio!! cannot fill the positions minimal)' required to be filled on a daily basis, then it is not
reasonabie to accuse Oakland of :nerel. J trying to Eave money by asking Emeryville to
help. OUf help is directly to ens lring tnat our neighbors in fact oU1.imain their fire
prmecticn coverage. This is, after all, ; CClTe concept ofmutual aid
.? rl'- pro"idin,g greater value LI &crvices to Oakland th3l'J it 15 getting iT! return?
This question also cuts to the heart mutual aid concept. Each pam in a m:lturJ aid
T , '...... , ..... CIl '" , ,'''''.. ....
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:12PM P8
StafTRepon:: Intertn Enhanced Mutual Aid
Decemacr 4, 200 I
Page 8
relationship g-ives according to what i, can give, and receives according to its needs.
Mutual aid is like an insurance risk PO)!. has very few alarms
where both fire units are OUI of serviC{ at the same time. With Emeryville's relatively low
call volume, th.ere is exces:; response ca.pacity to provide fire unit
assistance regularly. "pays' every day in single fire unit "premiums, II When
Emeryville must make a. claim for resc from the mutual aid r:sIc pool, however, it ha.s
ofknc\l,'irg that risk pool 'will provide the resources needed in a tinlely
Oak:1and has the resoUl'ces JTovide to cover Emeryville \lIben
. an emergency octstrips Eme!)'Vitle's C Lpabili!ies. The attached "Comparison ofAid
Provided" speaks directly to relative b,:ncfits of our relationship fer 2001 to date.
More than this. however. Oakland has a myri:td of resources which EmeryviJle ItS
srnallfire department simply cannot afbrcL The at:achcd resource lisT from the Oakland
Fire: Department clearly s;hows the dep ,h of their ability to- as&st Emeryville botb on an
emergency and on A Many times over tbe years, Oald1l.od has
assisred Emeryville .....;th routine and nonem!:r'Sency services, The
point is that we must look at th.c mutu;J aid relationship on the ofwh:ther cur needs
are bemg rnC7, or alternatively whether we call tl1e.."ll f!tore efficiently other way
The historical record suppons the assertion that m....tual aid i5 both cheap and reliable
i:lsurance for
8. the <liSjng; mutual aid 5vrtem work JUST fine? Whv do we need to change it?
Given Etnetyvilie's considerable targe: hazards the Watergate Complex) and the
high rise buildings, the Erneryville Fire Department is seriously short on resources to
lumdle even moderaie1evel cmergenc) situations l'.lone. Mutual aid docs work. but it
dcc:;n't work well enough to cover eel rain ofcur fire protection needs.
Fires gt'C'w exponentially, grven Rvailat Ie fuei. TtJs Ineans that rapid and
imensive responses aTe what is needed to control end elCtinguish srnill but fast growing
fim before get to be big fires. In)rder to meet the requirements implied under NFPA
1710 (or avoid the liability), in order tt assemble G1.Iftkient resources at an emergency
scene before sending pe:sonnel into a f:re building, we need to bave a full structure fire
response from lI'jtial dispatc.'l. The cur; ent mt;tual systaD has too many ends,
ir.'Volving too much time delay, to be for Emeryville over the long term. Either we
make the mutu2.1 aid system meet our tbjcctive needs. or we need ro re-evaluate
reSO;.l.Tce posture for covering larger.s( ale emergencies.
Managing,
TI1c:re is ;nucn that needs to be managed and S' lpel"Vised with an mutU!.l aid
agreement 'W'i1h Oaldanc.. Asigniticant labor d:sagreement exists between Local 55 and the City of
..1_,... ....... ,.., ,",_
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:13PM P9
StaffRepcrt: lnterim Enhi;lnceC Mutual Aid
December 4, 200 I
Page 9
O!kland ovel' this agreement. The disp.lJ.teh sy :tem is critical to the effective working ofthe
enhanced mtmlaJ aid elements. and dispatch? lrformance must be monitoreD. Training must
adequate to cover operational needs and it i.s (Inly through effective mUlti-company t..--aining tha.t
we can hope to coordinate the opcratio::lal ofboth fire call volume
for Emeryville turns out to be significantly me re than expected, we have to be prepared to scale
back in planned ways. Oakland clearly set a priority on the tnlck coverag<) frcm Emel'y.,-ilJe,
and so if the call volume is excessive it is like}''' that the Erneryvil13 EMS response would be the
tC> be scaled back. Moreover, we will to carefully l'nonitOT the v...ay the Oakland Flre
provides coverli.&e for Emeryville Wtetl both OW" fire units are out of service. We expect
them to do well on this, since they provide co::tinuaJ coverage for Oakland alre!l.dy. But we must
remain vigilant. The same i." true with our e!Tl.{ rgency response times; we cannot afford to see a
marked deterioration in these 3.fter an interim J.grc:cment is in force.
are in a good position -:0 ffio:lrutor the :.uion \Jf an enhanced mutual aid agreement. \Ve
have benchmark da!a. on responsc:r.mes and c.Jl we ha.... e adcql.:!le repoi'ting systems
which will allow us to spot problems early an, track Trends. and we have open lines of
communication between the commar..d officen. ofboth fire Undoubtedly we will
to meet and collier witI1 0ur Union over he i.-npaCLs of s\lcb an We must monitor
the actual service delivery intO Oakland., reTlil.'rring accountable both to the Oakland residents of
tbe "DMV neighborhood" and OUT own citizeI:s and City Council. Above all, we must be prepRTed
to take aggressi\'e aetion to correct problems. and ifwe can't correct those problems. we must.
admit failure and try other ways to assure fire 3-rIC mwica: safety for both cities
Finaliza.tion
The requested in the attached rc io!ution and the attacho:i letter ofagreement
contemplates the two fire chiefs refining the o)erl1ttonal details enhanced Jl1utu21 aid
relationship before begin..,ins actual covl!.'rage, The prior Coumy MutUal Aid Agreement and the
draft MR.A. Asreeroent give \IS a AAlcmrc upc n v.1'Uch to build the program's operational plan.
FISCAL IMPACf
The proposed enhanced mutual aid agreement "'ill invo1"'e no direct cash outlay fot' the City, nor
will Emeryville be compensated directly from JakJ.and for emergency 3ervices the them.
There may be minor indirect savings r"alizcd and costs incurred, however. The emergency'
dispatch services provided by Oakland would iot increase in cost from the current level of
$30,000 per year and this would represent a k.nd of savings. On the other hand, thorc would be an
Increase in the wear and maintene lee co3ts associated with our appnretus (one engine
and the aerial truck) and some of the equipmel!. 5inee we are still tallcing abO\lt only a minor
upon the Emeryville Fire Departmem [,1 terms oItatal call volume and emergency sclVice
activity, the incremental COS! increase is likely to be minor, ifit is noticeable at all.
:ilifA
. ; \
tE8L-OS'"
FAX NO. 510-420-1785
Dec. 03 2001 08:14PM P10
StaffReport: Interim Enhanced Mutual Aid
4. 2001
Page 10
S1J13MITIED BY:
APPROVED AND FORWARDED
TO THE CITY COUNcn.:
.'
Comparison of Aid Provided: 1 ane Oakland
Letter of Intent, Nov<:mber 8, ::001J
Five-PiItY Agreement
Alameda Cout1tY Mutual Aid } greeroent
Resolution 97-117
Proposed Oakland Fire Station SCovera.ge:
Emeryville Fire Mutua.l Aid
cans Per riresration in 2000 ar.d Other Quick Fact$.
(Jt,equelinc Hoeppner-}rcitas. Oakland
Oakland Fire Department Erne:'gency Resource List
Map of Coverage
o t d
Dec. 1213 21211211 !2l8:14PM Pl1
OF AID PROVIDED
and Oakland
2001
'T .... .J
EmeO'1-jlle Gets From Oakland
Mutual aid coverage v.ilen
when both EFD ucits arc busy
(3 fire units Sdlt)
Mutual aid fire units for continued
. structure fires
(2 fires @3 units each ;; 6 (lIe unit"
sent)
Mutual aid !ire command on
c.onfll1Iled structur; fires
(2 tire:! @ ] Bat1:31ion Chief each)
Use ofFire Tnining Facility for
Recruit Physical Agility Testing
(One gHour Day)
Pa.-ticipation i.n Speciali7..ed Trainkg
Programs
- Weapon..::: ofMass DcS"tl\Iction Drill
- Medical Rosponsc Truinil1g-WMD
- Recruit Academy
Specialized Emergency
- Heavy R.escue Vl1it
- Fire Boat
- Air Supply Unit (SCBA refilling)
- Foam U:lit
- Hazardous Materials Unit
- Power Unit Oarge gencrttor)
- Command Unit (large
emergencies)
- Salvage lJnit
- Trauma
- Fire Investigator
Staff Assistance (Testing)
Oaklan9 Gets From Emerwille

Mutual aid coverage when om
units ill west-Oak1;md are busy
(9 fm unil.$
Muroa1 aid fire Wlits for confIrmed
structure fires at multiple alGU'1l1S
(l fires @1unit each 2 fire units
sent)
Not requested
t
occasionally resl-'Ond
voluntarily; no command
aVl1il:ihle IIfl.er-bO'ufs
None
Invi;ed to High
Rise Prills and Inspections (hosted in
E..-ncryville)
Nom:
Staff Assistan:e (Testing)
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
RESOLUllON NO.
DEC. 03 2001 08:15PM P12
RESOLunON OF THE CITY COUSClL OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE
THE FIRE CHIEF TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE
OAKLAI''D FIRE CBlEF TO PROVlDE lNTERJM MUTUAL AID FIRE
DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO OAKL. L1\"D DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
OAKLAND'S FlRESTATlON 8
WHEREAS. mutual a.i4 is a system of collet tivc security by which me may obtain
additional resources fo( responding to emcrge\cies within their individual communities; and
WHEREAS, the Emeryville Fire Dcpart'1len: requires prompt back up covera.ge by other cities,
including the City ofOakland, to ensure availal ,ility ofadoquate emergency persolulel; and
the City ofEme.ryv1De and thc::ity ot Oakland are parties to the Alameda. County
Mutual Aid Agreement initiated On October 1983, a.nd to the Alameda County Mutual Aid
and
WHEREAS, the CityofOakland desires to ret onstrt..!ct an oldand marginaUyflJIl,;tionai fire statioc,
Station 8at 463 - 5IIt Stroot. andthe Oakland it requesting Emeryville's assistance on ainterimbasis
\JJ'ltil reconstruction completed to provide cl;rtain specific emergency uria1 truck and fire engine
coverage info areh.S now covered by the fire Ui Jts housed at Fire Sta.tion S; and
WHEREAS, the: City of Oakland will provid'l to EmeryviJle certain ba.ckup emergency coverage
\lv'hen EmcIj'Ville's resources are depleted, and will pro\ide such services in the quantity and qua]ty
acceptable to EmeryviTIc in mcc11ng its ernergmcy fire a."'1.d medical service requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City ofOakland and contemplatefi.Jrthcr cooperation in devclopingjoint
training. multi-company drills. joint recmit a.cademy tcining and development of common
professional standards for their emergency opuatlocs;
TREREFOR't
1
BE IT RESOL'VED the Citv Council ofth: authorizes the
. ..
Fire Chiefto enter into an agreement with the Oakland Fire ChieftCi interimenhanced mutual
aid fire departmerrt response to Oakland the reconstruction :;If Oakland' s Fire Station 8.
Resolution
December 4, 2001
Page Two
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:15PM P13
EXCUSED: _
ADOPTEDby the City Council ofthe Cty oj Emeryville at a regular meeting held on December 4,
2001.
AYES:, _
NOES: _
ABSTAINED:
MAYOR
ATI'EST:
CITYCLERK

APPROVED AS TO FOR-\-!:
CITY ATTORNEY
aT'( , Ei.IlERVVIu..e

:'I"T 1 J"'" '*' .... - ......
,
'."
.. .
- .
."
,'1.: .. ;: .:-
'. ....., I .. r' '.

\';
. "" , .. '
...._..
I
i
,
I
.-' .

'LLi .'
..

.... _.
:' !
1f.1IJ=5 ,!, .
aH:- f I/. Ott 5
Response Coverage i "
..

it
t:
I
,
I ./ '. \_. ., ....
\ '-.I.. \"',
..-1;J1 (,
't-... <.. ( '(
,..to"" ,_'.
-- . . .
Oakland Fire Stations
ITruck
'" ..
e"IIlV\I'''
2
~ RED RAG fatality
LARGE PUSHPIN =10 calls
All medical w1111 ._atus
a r r l Y l . ~ on scene.
Examples: ringing alarms, Iock4n.
wires down and gae leaks
ArrI wOlldna flre, "sible smoke/flames.
Engjne and/'" 1_truck.
Examples: outside lIr.s, pol on II1e stove.
eteclJlcai and random smoke
Investllallon.
Hazardous malerlals and/", chemicals.
and all other unidentified.
utility
structure fires
medical
all other fires
hazmat
EXTRA LARGE PUSHPIN =100 calls
GREEN
,
,
AREHDUSE LOCATIONS
qD
/;).,( ()<-//0 I
CITY HALL OI\JE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Dick Spees
Councilmember
District 4
December 4, 2001
To: President Ignacio de la Fuente and City Councilmembers
From: Councilmember Dick Spees
Re: Item 12, Federal and State Legislative Agendas
(510) 238-3266
FAX (510) 238-6129
After consulting with our federal and state advocates, I would like to propose the
following motion. The effect of this motion is to allow the advocates to identify potential
sponsors and/or funding sources for all the items on the Council's agenda, and to return
with a follow up report in January.
MOTION:
1. Direct the Federal Lobbyist to seek funding opportunities for all budget
requests on the list through appropriations, grants or legislation and to
identity potential legislative advocates (sponsors) along with a detailed
political strategy for thcJe Oakland-specific items with the best
at &tjCC9SS ill FY 2e02:-- all %-Q (J.ht.VK.CX 1J (ClM/(!t4(),
2. Direct the Federal Lobbyist to advocate passage of all legislative and
administrative items, particularly where there is demonstrable positive
impact for Oakland.
3. On State Budget Requests, direct the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
to:
(A) Pursue funding for the following state budget requests through
general fund, grant funding, state park bond (Proposition 12), water
bond funds (Proposition 13), library bond funds (Proposition 14),
Proposition 42 - transportation funding initiative on March ballot,
.Proposition 40 - park bond on March ballot, and all other state
potential funding;
Oakland Airport Connector
Local Street and Road Rehabilitation
California Museum Collections Facility
Museum Hands-on Ecology Center
Studio One
African American Museum & Library
Oakland Zoo Wild California
Union Point Park

Go. t./; "'<001
Neighborhood Law Corps
Oakland Military Institute
After School Programs
Storm Drainage System
MacArthur Transit Village
Channel Connection
Waterfront Pathway/Shoreline Access
Lake Merritt Retaining Wall and Walkway Repair
International Blvd. Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Martin Luther King Freedom Center
(8)further research and prepare the following items for potential
funding;
Caldecott Park Project
San Pablo Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Open Space
( l . C ~ l 1 d focus on projects th an be completed . . the funding
cat ories a lor f mg lev sa' If Member e
quests are s cited.
4. On State Legislative Items, direct the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs to:
(A) pursue sponsorship for the following legislative items:
311 Response
Victims of Sexual Assault
Probation/Parole Programs
AB 381 - transit village development
Vehicle Impoundment Program
Housing Elements
(8) research and prepare the following Items for sponsorship when
appropriate;
Oakland Army Base Public Trust exchange
Costa-Hawkins Amendments to exclude inclusionary zoning
units from rent regulation
Inclusionary Zoning
Reimbursement for Local Clean up of Cal Trans Properties
Increase criminal penalties for illegal dumping
Establish clear stringent standards for liquor license revocation
(C) monitor legislation under General Matters and advocate for positions
as directed by the City Council.
Redlined Version of Charter Amendment re Elections to Fill Mayoral
Vacancies - Allows Vice Mayor to serve for unexpired terms of less than one
year.
Section 303. Vacancy, Filling of. Upon the declaration of vacancy in the office of
the Mayor, the office of the Mayor shall be filled by the Vice-Mayor of the Council.
Except as otherwise provided in this Section. wW-When the Vice-Mayor of the
Council assumes the uffice of Mayor upon declaration of a vacancy, she/he shall
serve for the unexpired term if such term is less than one year; otherwise she/he
shall serve until the vacancy is filled by the Council as provided herein.:.";";,:..:.until the
vacancy is filled by the Council as provided herein. Whenever. the period of
vacancy in a Mayor's term of office eguals or exceeds 120 days but is less than
one year. the vacancy may be filled by appointment through a majority vote of the*,
remaining Councilmembers. provided the appointee shall not be a candidate for the
next full term of the Office of Mayor. If at the time of a ARy-vacancy declaration
the unexpired term is at least one year. the vacancy occurring in the office of
Mayor shall be filled by appointment by the majority vote of the remaining
members of the Council; provided, that if two or less members remain, the
appointment of Mayor shall be made by the majority vote of a body consisting of
the remaining members and the members of the Alameda County Board of
Supervisors representing districts including apart of the City. In the event such
body is unable to or fails 'lJithin a period of five days to tal<e such action,
appointment shall be made by the Governor of California. special election within
120 days of such vacancy. An extension of up to 60 days may be allowed for
the express purpose of consolidating the special election with the next Municipal
Election. If no candidate receives the majority of the votes cast in the special
election. then a run-off election shall be held for the two candidates who received
the highest number of votes no later than 60 days after the date of the special
election; provided that all persons receiving a number of votes egual to the
highest number of votes received by allY candidate shall also be candidates at
such run-off election. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes cast
for all candidates for the office at the run-off election shall be declared elected.
The candidate elected to fill the vacancy An appointee to the office of Mayor fur
the balance of an unexpired term _shall hold office for the balance of the
unexpired termuntil the next general municipal election... Notwithstanding any
other provision of this section or the Charter, the Council shall have the authority
to provide for preferential voting procedures by ordinance as an alternative to a
run-off election. Alternative legal voting procedures shall be used to the greatest
extent feasible to increase voter participation in special elections including but
not limited to mail ballot voting, electronic voting. and extended voting period.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 1 of 12
for aSustainable
. OJ .'.:(, ",.D 548 20th St., Oakland, CA 94612
0\ DEC - 4 PM \2.: 34Phone: (510) 893-7106 Fax: (510) 893-5362
Fax Cover Sheet
To:
Company: Office of the City Clerk
From: Amaha Kassa
Company: EBASE
Subject :
Comments:
Fax Number: 238-6699
Date: 12/4/01
Pages including cover page: 12
Fax Number: (510) 893-5362
Please find attached three items sent to City Councilmembers December 3rd, 2001.
1. An EBASE brief responding to the CEDA staff report on the Living Wage Initiative that was submitted to
:he l\Iovember 29th Rules Committee.
2. An EBASE response to Councilmembers Spee's questions that he raised at the Rules Committee meeting.
3. Proposed changes to the Initiative that narrows the scope of who is covered and affected by the
3nti-displacement provision and that creates a waiver process similar to the City's Living Wage Ordinance.
'f you have any questions abuot these materials, please feel free to call our Director o'f Research, Howard
3reenwich, at 893-7106 ext 17.
Thank you.
'\maha Kassa
:o-Director
Win Fax PRO Cover Page
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM P?ge 2 of 12
East Bay Allianc, for aSustainabl, Economy
548 20
TH
STREET, OAKLAND, CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 89371 06, FAX (51 0) 8935362
Response to Concerns Raised by the CEDA Staff Report
on the Port Living Wage
December 3, 200 1
SUMMARY
This report responds to concerns raised about the Living Wage and Labor Standards at Port-
Assisted Businesses Initiative by CEDA staff in a report to City Council dated November 29
th
,
2001. Some of the CEDA report's conclusions go unreasonably beyond the evidence and should
be considered speculation. Other conclusions appropriately point out vague language in the
Initiative to which clarifYing language is proposed and explained in this response. Overall, we
conclude that the costs ofthe living wage are affordable and will be outweighed by the benefits.
BACKGROUND
'Wnether the Port of Oakland should adopt a living wage policy has been debated and publicized
for over two years at more than 20 public events. Several studies and reports have attempted to
answer questions about the impact and it is useful here to briefly review their timeline. These
reports include:
Living Wages at the Port ofOakland, a study conducted by the V.C. Berkley Center for
Labor Education and Research (CLRE) at the request of State Senator Don Perata and
published in December of 1999.
A Port staff report submitted to the Port Commissioners in January 2000 that assessed the
economic impact to the Port of a living wage that covered contractors only.
A Port staff report submitted in June 2000 that assessed impacts of the living wage on Port
tenants. It relied on a partial survey of Port tenants.
CEDA'S OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
The CEDA staff report makes sweeping claims that the Initiative's costs to the public outweigh
the benefits, but neither provides solid evidence for the costs, nor attempts to estimate the
benefits. For example, the report asserts, "While data does not exist regarding the specific
impact of this provision [worker retention], it wi11likely provide a severe disincentive to
businesses currently doing business or considering doing business with the Port ofOakland."j
The authors provide no negative evidence from other cities or airports with worker retention laws
or similar labor standards. Instead, the report simply speculates about employer behavior under
1 Page 7.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol
Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM
Page 3 of 12
Page 2
the requirements. The report makes no attempt to either balance the speculation by exploring the
benefits of the provision or clarifY that the conclusions are based mostly on conjecture.
Furthermore, CEDA relies primarily on evidence from a poorly implemented Port survey of
tenants while ignoring the conclusions of a more empirically reliable survey conducted by U.C.
Berkeley. The Port survey was hastily conducted in the Spring of 2000 with few resources
granted to Port staff. Because Port staff were unable to follow-up with phone calls, the overall
response rate was a low 29%.2 In contrast, the U.C. Berkeley survey was conducted over the
course of half a year by six researchers and obtained a response rate of 68%.3 While the CEDA
staff report uses determinations of costs from the U.C. Berkeley study, the University's
conclusions about the affordability of the living wage are not reflected in CEDA's conclusions.
The most speculative conclusion of the CEDA staff report is the following statement:
City andPort staffhave written reports during the process ofadopting the existing living
wage ordinances that indicated that, while there would be some increased costs to the
City/Port and the effected businesses, the public interest outweighed these impacts. The
same cannot be said ofthe ballot measure before the City Council.
Considering that the report did not adequately explore the initiative's benefits to workers and
employers, it seems unreasonable to make a conclusion about weighing costs and benefits. In
fact, the Initiative will provide enormous benefit to the public through increased income, benefits
and job security to 3,000 low-wage workers who are primarily Oakland residents (65%).4
Growing economic inequality in the East Bay and the U.S. has created a crisis oflow-wage
poverty that local governments across the U.S. have responded to with living wage and labor
standard policies.
5
Furthermore, Port businesses will pass on, at the most, 66 cents per visit to
Jack London Square and 59 cents per ticket for passengers at the Oakland Airport.
6
These seem
reasonable costs for the public benefit.
2 Port of Oakland Tenant Responses to Proposed Living Wage Ordinance, Port of Oakland, June 6, 2000,
r
g
2.
Zabin, Carol, Michael Reich, Peter Hall, Melanie McCutchan, Christopher Niedt and Egon Terplan,
Living Wages at the Port of Oakland, U. C. Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, December
1999. (INWW. http://violet.berkeley.edu/-iir/files/portoak.PDF)
4 Ibid, pg 49.
5 For evidence of growing inequality, see Greenwich, Howard and Christopher Niedt, Decade of Divide:
Working, Wages and Inequality in the East Bay, East Bay Alliance for a Sustainable Economy,
September 2001 and Bernstein, et.a!., State of Working America 200012001, Economic Policy Institute,
2001.
6 Ibid, pg 3. Figures are in 1999 dollars.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM PagF. 4 oi 12
East Bay Alliance for asustainable Economy
Port Living'Vage and Labor Standards Initiative
CEDA'S PRIMARY CONCERNS
Page 3
The body ofCEDA's staff report focuses on three areas of concern with the Initiative. They are:
1. Several of the Initiative's provisions will reduce tenancy in Port facilities and consequently
reduce Port and City revenues.
2. The requirement that the Port' use public employees for existing and future services will
increase the costs of obtaining technical and professional services.
3. The application of the worker displacement provisions to highly paid professional workers
goes beyond other cities' laws by applying to highly-paid professionals.
Changes to Preventing Displacement of Workers Clause Eliminmes CEDA Concerns
The second and third concerns raised by CEDA staff are effectively eliminated by language
changes that have been presented to City Council by the City Attorney in the supplemental
agenda packet. The section of concern here is number five, "Preventing Displacement of
Workers."
CEDA believed that the broad definition of work under the requirement to not contract out
public services would hinder the Port's capacity to expand. The new language would define
"work" as non-temporary and not of a professional, scientific or technical nature. This brings the
Initiative's scope of services in line with existing City Charter provisions.
CEDA also raised concerns that the worker retention provisions were phrased broadly and would
cover professional employees not in need of protection. The new language narrOws the scope of
the provision to apply to "Service Employees" only, defined as all workers except managers,
supervisors, professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees. The new
language exempts professional service contractors as well as office tenants of the Port and any
professional firm leasing space or land. Firms covered will include parking attendants at the Port
and Jack London Square, shuttlebus drivers at the Airport and non-Port employed security
workers. The narrOwer scope of this provision brings the Initiative more in line with worker
retention laws in Philadelphia and Washington D.C., both of which cover all employers in their
respective cities.
No Real Disincentives for New Tenants
The CEDA staff report raises three possibilities where prospective tenants would be dissuaded
from locating on Port land. They are discussed in tum, below.
1. Concern: Small businesses and start-ups will be unable to pay the living wage costs and will
choose to not rent from the Port.
The Initiative clearly exempts businesses with 20 or fewer workers. Several small gift shops at
Jack London Square and the See's Candy carts at the Airport are examples of exempt businesses.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 5 of 12
Port Living \Vage and Labor Standards Initiative
2. Concern: Living wage costs will be a disincentive tor tenants to locate at the Port.
Page 4
CEDA emphasizes two points under this concern. First is that tenants may refuse to do business
with the Port as a response to the Initiative's requirements The second is that businesses facing
the highest costs are those already facing hardship during the recession and after 9/11, e.g.,
hospitality, aviation and entertainment.
The question foremost in many public officials' minds regarding this issue is, how will the
stores, restaurants and hotels on Port land respond to the living wage requirements? Will
existing tenants leave and will new ones go elsewhere?
The D.C. Berkeley study determined that Port of Oakland restaurants and hotels were already
charging more than nearby businesses for the proximity to the waterfront and would be able
to pass additional costs on to consumers as well.
7
Cities such as Emeryville and San
Leandro, frequently mentioned as competitors to Oakland, do not have facilities on the same
scale as the Port from which Commercial Real Estate (CRE) tenants can benefit.
Nearly all major hotels in Oakland are already under union contract and have higher wage
and benefits standards, including the Airport Hilton on Port land. Some smaller hotels on
Port land will be affected, including Motel 6, Executive Inn and the Waterfront Plaza Hotel.
These businesses have very long-term ground leases, benefit from proximity to the
waterfront and would lose considerable money in facility investment if they left.
Nearly all airport retail and restaurant tenants already operate under a collective bargaining
agreements and have higher wage and benefits standards. What modest costs are incurred
will likely be passed on to consumers, who represent a captive market. The D.C. Berkeley
study estimates that the total cost of the living wage at the airport, including concessionaires,
would be 59 cents per ticket if the costs were passed through to passengers. Compare with
this with the over $2 per ticket costs imposed by new security requirements. Futhermore,
living wage requirements at SFO and LAX have not driven away concessionaires.
Businesses that employ low-wage workers will likely experience a cost savings from reduced
turnover and increased worker productivity. The D.C. Berkeley study showed that higher
wages and benefits resulted in lower quit rates, in turn saving employers re-training costs.
The study estimated that, on average, 4% of labor costs will be saved, or about 1.1% of gross
revenue. The rate is higher for firms with more low-wage workers. A more recent study of a
living wage and labor standards program at San Francisco Airport showed that in one year,
turn-over reduced by up to 80%, with the greater reduction occurring in low-wage frrms.
8
One-third of all SFO employers, together accounting for over half of all employees, reported
improved overall job performance among workers covered by the new standards program,
while the rest reported no deterioration.
7 Zabin, et.al., pg 24.
8 Reich, Michael, Peter Hall and Ken Jacobs, Living Wages and Airport Security Preliminary Report, UC.
Berkeley Institute for Labor and Employment, September 2001 with "Additional Tables."
From Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol
Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:3522 AM
Port Living 'Vage and Labor Standards Initiative
Page 5
In a Port of Oakland survey of tenants, 63% of employers responded that they would
experience lower tum-over and 58% said it would be easier to attract new employees. This is
an example where the CEDA report emphasized the negative responses from the tenant
survey and ignored positive responses.
CEDA staff pointed out that CRE tenants, including Jack London Square and the
Embarcadero, would experience higher percentage costs than airport tenants, including 12
employers that would pay over 10% of gross revenues.
9
These finns, which are mostly
restaurants, hotels and stores, face nearby competition and are more limited than airpOlt
tenants in passing costs on to consumers. Given their circumstances, it is likely that they will
seek a reduction in rent for the amount not saved or absorbed otherwise. Even if the Port
reduces rent for CRE tenants, the overall revenue generated by the CRE is only 11% of total
Port revenues.
Increases by a cluster of Port tenants in Jack London Square or Embarcadero will also push
up wages and benefits for surrounding businesses as they compete for quality labor. This
partially addresses the issue of tenants having to compete with businesses that are not on Port
land but are near by.
The likely scenario for restaurants and retail on Port land is that tenants will absorb the costs
in a myriad of ways that will spread it out among their owners, consumers and the Port.
Some tenants may decide not to move to Port property, but others will take their place. The
Port may experience a modest loss in revenues, but this is weighed against the enormous
benefits of the Initiative on the City of Oakland and the region.
It is useful to compare the cost of the Port's donation ofland to other governments, including
East Bay Regional Parks and Amtrak. These annual donations cost the Port $33 million a
year, a price for a public benefit far in excess to the price of a Port living wage.
3. Concern: Worker retention may expose Port tenants to employee litigation and dissuade
location on Port property.
The CEDA report conjectures that prospective tenants would find the worker retention provision
onerous and choose not to lease from the Port. Of primary concern is twofold: 1) employers
with pre-existing staff would have to hire a second set of workers and 2) employers may be more
vulnerable to wrongful termination litigation.
Extending worker retention to Port leasholders provides considerable public benefit. Port
leaseholders are responsible for much of the Port's key operations for which they hire contractors
to perform. Baggage handlers, in-flight catering, fuel handlers and rental car "hikers" are
examples of operators that contract not with the Port but Port tenants. The existing workforce
could, for any reason, be replaced overnight if the tenants who contract these services change
contractors. Basic port operations could lose experienced workers who have decades of
experience, are trusted employees and provide high-quality service. Furthermore, it seems
9 These numbers are also from Zabin, et.al ..
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time 10:35:22 AM Page 7 of 12
Page 6
unreasonable that workers with years of experience could be dismissed overnight because a
contract changes hands. The worker retention provision protects both the Port and Port-related
workers. Worker retention laws in both San Francisco and Los Angeles cover airport tenants for
the same reasons cited here. Additionally, the Los Angeles worker retention law covers
concessionaires at the airport.
Cases where the retention of workers creates a burden on leaseholders seem rare. First, a large
number of tenants will be excluded under the small business exemption and the proposed,
narrower definition of employees affected by worker retention. Insurance brokers, software
engineers, small gift shop employees and aviation instructors would not be affected. Second,
new tenants would only have to offer work "which employees of the prior PAB can perform." A
firm would need to be in a nearly identical industry and specialization to trigger the requirement.
Furthermore, it is hard to imagine a scenario where workers of one tenant would not follow their
current employer and instead seek employment with the new tenant. Why would a worker risk
leaving a current employer only to be let go from the new one after 90 days? It may occur in the
case where a tenant is going out of business or is being bought by another firm. But unless the
new firm begins operating within 90 days, the workers will not have an opportunity to start
working with the new firm. Most restaurants and retail stores need several months to remodel.
Ifthe tenant is being bought out and operation ofthe facility will continue as before, it seems
reasonable that the new tenant could actually use the former tenant's workers for an interim
period and the workers would be well served to keep what is essentially the same job. In all of
these scenarios, the likelihood of a former tenant's employee suing a new tenant seems remote.
Finally, we could not verify any lawsuits pending against worker retention laws in other cities.
CONCLUSION
The Living Wage and Labor Standards at Port-Assisted Businesses Initiative will provide
enormous public benefit relative to the costs, which can be absorbed without disruption of the
Port's mission and operations. Costs, born by the Port, businesses and consumers will be
affordable and not cause a major disincentive to potential Port tenants. In response to the CEDA
staff report, we make the following points:
The CEDA staff report's overall critique relies heavily on conjecture without seriously trying
to weigh the costs with the benefits.
Specific critiques about the anti-displacement provisions are solved by simple language
changes that narrows the scope of workers covered.
Small businesses with 20 or less employees are categorically exempt from the Initiative.
Many of the Port's largest tenants, including Airport concessionaires and two hotels, are
already under union agreement.
Evidence suggests that living wage costs will be absorbed by reduced turnover and higher
worker productivity.
Worker retention coverage of Port tenants will greatly benefit the Port and Port-related
workers.
The worker retention provision is highly unlikely to cause undue litigation for Port tenants.
From: Hm,v2rrd Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:3522 AM Page S oi 12
East Bay Alliancf for aSustainablf Economy
548 20-rH STREET, OAKLAND, CA 9461 2 TEL: (510) 893-71 06, FAX (51 0) 893-5362
Answers to Eight Questions Raised in Rules and Legislation Committee
On the Port Living Wage and Labor Standards Initiative
December 3, 2001
Following are eight specific concerns raised by CouncilmemberSpees at the November 29
th
Rules and Legislation Committee meeting regarding the Port Living Wage and Labor Standards
Initiative. We respond to each in tum.
1. Should these provisions be placed in the Charter or passed in an ordinance?
The Port Commissioners have had the living wage issue before them for over two years. They
have refused to consider passing a living wage ordinance that affects all 3,000 low-wage workers
at the Port. Because the City Charter sets up the Port as an independent agency, neither Oakland
City Council nor Oakland voters can impose legislation on the Port in the fonn of an ordinance.
If City Council fmds the proposed legislation important, the only option is to place a charter
change on the ballot for the voters to decide.
2. What does Port-assisted business mean precisely and how does it relate to market rate
tenants?
A Port-assisted business includes a) contractors of the Port b) businesses subsidized by the Port
and c) business holding a lease or license agreement with the Port. We believe that the Port will
on occasion subsidize tenants by allowing them to pay sub-market rate rents as inducements for
leasing with the Port. However, we consider all lease and license holders Port-assisted
businesses as they are benefiting from the use of public resources and from the massive public
investment in Port infrastructure.
3. Does the Initiative contain a credit for tipped workers?
Under California law, tips are considered the property of the employee and it is illegal to credit
tips towards wages owed workers. We believe that prohibiting tip credit is legally necessary,
easier to implement and fair to workers. Allowing a tip credit creates more problems than it
solves, primarily because workers are tipped at widely varying rates. For example, airport
skycaps regularly receive substantially more in gratuities than airport wheelchair attendants.
Furthennore, within each job the amount any worker receives can vary greatly over time.
Therefore to implement a tip credit requires taking measures that can result in losses to workers.
This includes either estimating tipped income in advance, perhaps inaccurately, or withholding
some wages owed workers until the end ofthe year when they report total tipped income.
Finally, a poll of Oakland residents shows that 69% of voters support having a provision in the
initiative, which, like State law, does not credit tips towards wages.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM Page 9 oi 12
4. Why is the youth worker exemption in the Initiative inconsistent with the City of
Oakland's living wage exemption for youth workers?
The Initiative's exemption for youth worker is identical to the City's Living Wage Ordinance-
workers under 21 that are working for a non-profit or are training for less than 90 days are
exempt. The CEDA staff report dated November 29
th
was in error on this point.
5. Should there be a waiver process for Port businesses as there is in the City's ordinance?
There may be rare and extenuating circumstances where a Port-assisted business faces undue
hardship under the Initiative. If the waiver process was as rigorous and accountable as in the
City's ordinance, the living wage coalition would be willing to amend the Initiative. The City's
waiver process requires a report from the City Manager, a set of criteria that must be met by the
businesses seeking a waiver and a vote by City Council. We would not accept a process set forth
in the Port's existing living wage ordinance which allows the Port Executive Director to issue
waivers without requiring businesses to meet any criteria and without any public process. We
have enclosed and sent to the City Attorney proposed waiver language to which we could agree.
6.. The coverage of highly-paid professionals by the worker retention and anti-
displacement provision, as pointed out by CEDA, needs to be addressed.
We have proposed simple language changes that narrow the scope of work covered by these
provisions. Port contracts for non-temporary work of a technical or professional nature would
not be included. Likewise, only tenants that employ "service employees" are affected by worker
retention. "Service Employees" means all employees except managers, supervisors,
professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees. This effectively eliminates
most of CEDAs concerns.
7. Won't the Initiative be vulnerable to legal challenges?
The legal report prepared by the City Attorney's Office explored the legal issues regarding the
Initiative thoroughly and comprehensively. It concluded that while some provisions of the
initiative may draw suit, that the City was likely to prevail against any legal challenge.
Whenever elected officials create social policy, particularly legislation as important as this
initiative, they run the risk that those being regulated will take legal action against them. A case
in point is Oakland's anti-predatory lending ordinance, which lenders challenged in court and
which the City has successfully defended. The City Attorney's assurance that the City is on finn
legal ground is as close to a guarantee as the City is likely to get.
8. How will this affect the Metroport development at Hegenberger and I-880?
The Port of Oakland is selling the land to the developer. It will be unaffected.
Pleaseftelfree to call EBASE with any question regarding this response at 893-7106.
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 10:35:22 AM PagE lOOT 12
2. A more narrow definition of workers covered by the "Preventing Displacement of
Workers" provision.
1. Scope and Dermitions.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person receiving in excess of
than 20 persons if it is part of an "enterprise" as dermed under the Fair Labor
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term ofthe contract, lease or license,
renewed or extended, either with or without amendment;
From Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Time: 103522 AM Page 11 ot 12
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAB in Port-related employment. if
the PAB employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the PAB has not had more than 20 sueh employees and '.,vill not have more
than 20 in the ne)d 12 pay periods. A Pi\B shall he deemed to employ more than 20
persons if it is part of an "eHterprise" as defined under the Fair Lahor Standards A:et
employing more than 20 persons.
In addition to the above exemption for workforces offuwer than 20 ..."orkers, the The following
employment.
c. A person who employs not more than 20 employees per pay period.
Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for the prior PAB for at
least 90 calendar days. Such Employees may be not be tenninated by the new PAB
lower staffmg levels than its predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior
purposes of this Agreement, a PAB "replaces" another if it (1) assumes all or part of
can perform. In the case of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from
another location, in staffing decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its
From: Howard Greenwich To: Deborah Konkol Date: 12/4/01 Tim,,: 10:35:22 AM Page 12 oi 12
which was performed by persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for
New Section: 'Vaivers.
comply, including a complete cost accounting for the proposed work to be perfonned
paid individuals employed by the PAR The PAB must also demonstrate that the waiver
B. The Port Board will grant a waiver only upon a finding and determination that the PAE
Rev. 12/04/01 Proposal-
728. LIVING WAGE AND LABOR STANDARDS
A. _"Port" means the Port of Oakland.
B. "Port-Assisted Business" or "PAB" means (1) any person involved in a
Port Aviation or Port Maritime Business receiving in excess of $50,000 worth of financial
assistance from the Port, or (2) any Port Contractor involved in a Port Aviation or Port Maritime
Business if the person employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the person has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have more than 20
persons in the next 12 pay periods. A PAB shall be deemed to employ more than 20 persons if it
is part of an 'enterprise' as defined under the Fair Labor Standards Act employing more than 20
persons. "Port Contractor" means any person party to a Port Contract as herein defined.
expected to exceed $50,000 either (a) over the term of the contract, lease or license, or (b)
during the next 5 years if the current term is less than 1 year but may be renewed or
extended, either with or without amendment;
(3) any subcontract, sublease, sublicense, management agreement or other transfer
or assignment of any right, title or interest received from the Port pursuant to any of the
employment
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
1
E. "Person" include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited

liability company, joint venture, sole proprietorship, association, trust or any other entity.
F. Valid collective bargaining agreement" as used herein means a collective
G. "Contract under 29 U.S.c. 185(a)" as used herein means a contract to
Supreme Court.
_____- " ' - H ~ . "Port Aviation or Port Maritime business" means any business that
principally provides services related to maritime or aviation business related services or whose
business is located in the maritime or aviation division areas as defined by the Port.
A. -An Employee who is (1) under twenty-one (21) years of age and (2)
employed by a nonprofit entity for after-school or summer employment or for training for a
period not longer than ninety (90) days, shall be exempt.
related employment.
following:
The ffi:iti-at..minimum compensation shall be wages and health benefits totalling at least
ten dollars and fifty cents ($10.50) per hour, or if greater, the rate of fffi)'-the living wage
ordinance of the City of Oakland.
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
2
The PAB shall receive a credit against the minimum wage required by this Section for
health benefits in the amount provided by and in accordance with the living wage ordinance of
the City of Oakland. of up to $1.37 per hour for the amount it spends on average for health
benefits for all Employees covered by this Section and their dependents. For example, ifan
employer spends an average of $1.25 per hour for health insurance, then the employer need only
pay each Employee at least $9.25 per hour in wages.
credit
hour of his or her possible right to the federal Earned Income Credit ("ErC") under Section 2 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.c. 32, and shall make available the forms required
Code.
s. Preventing Displacement of Workers
(A) Each PAB which is to replace a prior PAB shall offer employment to the Service
Employees of the prior PAB, if these Employees worked for the prior PAB for at least 90
calendar days. Such Employees may be not be terminated by the new PAB during the first 90
work days except for just cause. The new PAB may operate at lower staffing levels than its
predecessor but in such event, shall place the prior Employees on a preferential reinstatement list
based on seniority. For purposes of this Section, a PAB "replaces" another ifit (1) assumes all or
part of the lease, contract or subcontract of a prior employer or obtains a new lease, contract, or
sublease, and (2) offers employment which Employees of the prior PAB can perform. In the case
of a replacement connected to the new PAB relocating from another location, in staffing
decisions the new PAB may recognize seniority from its prior locations in addition to the
seniority of the prior PAB' s workforce. "Service Employees" means all employees except
manager, supervisors, professionals, paraprofessionals, confidential and office employees.
(B) l'iotwithstanding Section 902(e) or an)' other provision of the City Charter, CJwept
in an emergency the Port shall not enter into any private contract for regular (non temporary)
work \'!'hich is not of a professional, scientific or technical nature and 'Nhich Vias performed by
persons employed by the Port as of June 30, 2001, nor for the same class of work, including such
work at nely'!' or expanded Port facilities.
6. Agreements reqtiired te pretect Pert's preprietar)' interests frem effects ef labor
disptites
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
3
(A) l\S a condition precedent to any Port Contract in \-vhich the Port has a proprietary
interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industl)', each such PAB shall be or
become signatory to valid collective bargaining agreements or other contracts under 29 U.S.C.
185(a) with each labor organization representing or seeking to represent any of that PAB's
Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision limiting
the ability of the labor organization and its members (and in the case of a collective bargaining
agreement, all employees covered by the agreement) to engage in picketing, 'Node stoppages,
boycotts or other economic interference with the Port for the duration of the Port's proprietary
interest in such PAB's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No Strike Pledge"). Each
such PAB shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors, subcontractors, tenants,
subtenants, licensees or sublicensees in the Hospitality or Retail Food IndllStl)' which are likely
to impact the Port's proprietary interest ,vill also be covered by No Strike Pledges.
motels or similar businesses, or on site preparation, service or retailing of feod, beverage or
medication. A "proprietary interest" shall not be deemed to exist \-vithout (1) the Port being
entitled to receive a percentage of the revenues or income of a basiness as rents, ro)'alties or
or other income over the duration ofthe contract, lease or license.
(C) l't PAB shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of time
daring which a third party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAB and the l\lameda Central Labor
unreasonable conditions upon its No Strike Pledge, or (b) that the Port lacks a legally sufficient
proprietary interest in such PAB's operation or the proposed agreement would be othef\vise
unla",lful. If the paliies are unable to agree upon a neutral, the PAB may contact the Federal
Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) to obtain a list of seven arbitrators affiliated vv'ith
the National Academy of Arbitrators, from ",..hich the pmiies shall select a neutral by striking off
6. Waiver
A. A PAB who contends it is unable to pay all or part of the living wage must
provide a detailed explanation in writing to the Port Executive Director who may recommend a
waiver to the Port board. The explanation must set for the reasons for its inability to comply,
including a complete cost accounting for the proposed work to be performed with the financial
assistance sought. including wages and benefits to be paid all employees. as well as an
itemization of the wage and benefits paid to the five highest paid individuals employed by the
PAR The PAB must also demonstrate that the waiver will further the public interests in creating
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
4
training positions which will enable emplovees to advance into permanent living wage jobs or
better and will not be used to replace or displace existing positions or employees or to lower the
wages of current employees.
B. The Port Board will grant a waiver only upon a finding and detennination that the
PAB has demonstrated the necessary economic hardship and that waiver will further the public
interests in providing training positions which will enable employees to advance into permanent
living wage jobs or better. However. no waiver will be granted if the effect of the waiver is to
replace or displace existing positions or employees or to lower the wages of current employees.
C. Such waivers are disfavored, and will be granted only where the balance of
competing interests weighs clearly in favor of granting the waiver. Ifwaivers are to be granted,
partial waivers are favored over blanket waivers. Moreover. any waiver shall be granted for no
more than one year. At the end of the year the PAB may reapply for a new waiver which may be
granted subject to the same criteria for granting the initial waiver.
this Section.
unambiguous tenns. Any request to an individual by a PAB to waive his or her rights under this
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAB shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a record of
his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAB claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid by the
PAB for the Employee's health benefits. The PAB shall submit a copy of such records to the Port
at least by March 31
S
t, June 30
t
\ September 30
th
and December 31
st
of each year, unless the PAB
City Council
Item S-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
5
per day. Each PAB shall maintain a record of the name, address, job classification, hours
B. If a PAB provides health benefits to persons in Port-related employment but does
not pay for them on a per-hour basis, then upon the PAB's request, the amount of the hourly
hourly cost to provide health benefits to its Employees in Port-related employment. The PAB
shall support its request with such documentation as is reasonably requested by the Port or any
C. Each PAB shall give written notification to each current Employee, and to each
new Employee at time of hire, of his or her rights under this Section. The notification shall be in
the form provided by the Port in English, Spanish and other languages spoken by a significant
all persons employed by the PAB. Each PAB shall permit a representative of the labor
E. Notwithstanding any provision in Article VI ofthis Charter to the contrary, the
RFP's, agreements and other relevant documents, (2) Port monitoring of the operations ofthe
A. Any person claiming a violation of this Section may bring an action against the
PAB in the Municipal Court or Superior Court of the State of California, as appropriate, to
enforce the provisions of this Section and shall be entitled to all remedies available to remedy
any violation of this Section, including but not limited to back pay, reinstatement or injunctive
relief. Violations of this Section are declared to irreparably harm the public and covered
City Council
Item 8-4, 8-4-1
12-4-01
6
~ .
employees generally.
B. Any employee proving a violation of this Section shall recover fr'om the PAB
E. No remedy set forth in this Section is intended to be exclusive or a prerequisite
for asserting a claim for relief to enforce any rights hereunder in a court of law. This Section
shall not be construed to limit an employee's right to bring a common law cause of action for
wrongful termination.
10. Severability
City Council
Item 8-4, S-4-1
12-04-01
7
Fire Station 8
December 4, 2001
CITY COUNCIL PACKET FROM OPPOSITION TO CHIEF SIMON'S PLAN & REPORT: [p,1f!!::1.)
1. COLOR PHOTO: Emergency calls for Service (Actual Calls), Station 8, YR 2000* Pv
r
-
2. MEMO: To City Manager Robert Bobb from J. Hoeppner-Freitas, Chair, DMV f' 1-
Neighbors Association in opposition to Chief Simon's plan
Exhibit A: Memo to Emeryville City Council from Local 55 -
Exhibit B: YR 2000 and 2001 runs dispatched, with notations .f
6 to Fire Department Supplemental Agenda Report) -p. \ 'P
Exhibit C: Calls per Firestation in 2000 and Other Quick Facts '. -1
Exhibit D: September 25, 2001, letter from Chief Simon to Chiefs tutrlght p (5'
and Speakman, with attached map C3 pages) ,-- .
Exhibit E: Government Code 850.6 "'" p.1
Exhibit F: Emeryville Emergency Operations: 2001 (2 pages) -p. Iq
Exhibit G: Local 55 proposal (2 pages) _ p. j;l

Series of newspaper articles regarding Station 8 p. '2--,
Selected letters from Oakland citizens \7.'?:>l>
It.' A'j4<-4 tzer"../f- I YY#rjlUs - p. ? S-
8ctk1/-- I.' f..Vv
p
"I. t...(."'1
u ver"5l1- f3v,e.r':J 0 tie C )
Submitted by:
*Color photo for Councilmembers, Mayor, City Manager, and Fire Chief
TO:
ATTN:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
DMV NEIGHBORS ASSOCIATION
5133 Miles Avenue
(510) 428-2714
Fax (510) 653-9980
Office of the City Manager
Robert C. Bobb
Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas, Chair, DNA
For City Council, December 4,2001
Response to Supp. Report on Fire Station 8 - Rebuilding Options
UPDATE "'UPDATE'" UPDATE'" UPDATE"'UPDATE'" UPDATE'" UPDATE'"
Just prior to printing, we have learned that there is a major discrepancy
between what Emeryville is being asked to cover, or what it thinks it's going
to cover, and what our Chief Simon's Agenda Report implies Emeryville will
cover. What this means is that not all of N. Oakland will have ladder truck
service under Chief Simon's plan. Because of the importance of this
information, I am inserting at the last minute this information at the front of
this document, even though some of my internal page references will be
"off." I also attach City of Emeryville Memorandum from Stephen L.
Cutright, Fire Chief, Emeryville to Emeryville City Manager John Flores as
Exhibit "H" and "Truck Response Coverage (Supplemental Agenda Report,
Attachment 5) with my additions as Exhibit "I."
The essence is that Emeryville is being asked to respond with its big
ladder truck to a small area of N. Oakland, not all of Station 8's ladder truck
territory. Therefore, there will be no ladder truck assigned to a portion of N.
Oakland. it's hard to tell how far Emeryville's possible coverage extends, but
Chief Simon estimates the Emeryville truck will take 526 non-medical calls
[Report, pA) and Emeryville estimates it will take 266 [Emeryville Report, p. 5]
An additional problem is, as I mention below: How are the rest of Station 8's
over 1,000 yearly ladder truck calls to be handled? This question is still not
answered.
In Cutright's Memo, Cutright leaves the impression that Oakland
Truck 5 (which is housed at Station 8) has the same coverage of Oakland
Engine 8 (which is also housed at Station 8). Since we have 26 engines and
only 7 ladder trucks in Oakland, their respective territories are very different.
Engine 8's coverage area is outlined in black on Exhibit ''1.'' It may be,
however, that Emeryville will not even handle all of Engine 8's territory
(called its "still area" or "first response" area) - only the portion of Engine 8's
territory with very light shading that appears on Report, Attachment 5 (see
,y
1).-
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 2 of 10
my Exhibit "1"). Truck 5 from Station 8 covers N. Oakland from the
Emeryville border, into the Oakland hills and up to Moraga.
Please review the following:
1) Emeryville Memo, p. 4: Emeryvill will provide coverage in two
ways: 1) "Provide aerial truck company response from Emeryville fire station
2 to the "still district" (or first in district) formerly covered by Oakland Truck 8
before their station closure." There is no "truck 8," so the confusion begins
here.
2) Emeryville Memo, p. 5: Emeryville has counted up only a
portion of Engine 5's calls, and intends to cover about 266 of them.
3) Confirm the number of Truck 5 yearly calls in YR 2000 by
looking at Attachment 6 of Simon's Report. The official figues are actually
greater than the figures that the Fire Department gave to me and which I
included in my Exhibit "C."
4) Emeryville will only be required to respond to "actual fire
incidents," Le., confirmed fires, unlike the standard applied to Oakland truck
companies which have to instantly go out to evaluate the call (see last full
paragraph of p. 5).
5) Engine 5 at Station 5 will have to pick up additional calls in
Emeryville, although it is No.4 in call volume in Oakland and although it
will have to pick up a portion of Station 8's calls when it is closed. (See #4, p.
6 and elsewhere.)
1. Introduction. This document will serve as our response to
Council regarding our research on and evaluation of the Fire Department's
Supplemental Report on Fire Station 8 - Rebuilding Options.
The principal problem with Supplemental Report (hereafter, "Report")
is that there is no viable, credible plan for fire department emergency
coverage of North Oakland, yet the document attempts to make it appear that
there is. The Report's assertion, that the response times will be within
"acceptable response standards" under Fire Chief Gerald Simon's plan, is
belied by the fact that there are no data to support that conclusion.
ll. Key deficiencies in Chief Simon's plan.
1. Fifty per cent of District l's firefighting companies will be shut
down for 1-2 years to save citywide operational costs. This is a dispropor-
tionate litax" on N. Oakland. To be done fairly, one firefighter would have to
be downsized out of each of the Council districts, rather than just one district.
2. Chief Simon's original plan included Piedmont being assigned
to a large area of Oakland. Now there is no mention of this assignment and
no explanation for its absence. The presence of Piedmont in the original plan
Page 2 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 3 of 10
suggests an inadequacy in the present plan. Emeryville will pick up
confirmed structure fires only. (@TE: Emerrv.ille will pick up a small
portion of EMS calls under the plan. This c o ~ c t s an error in my ealier draft.)
3. There is both inaccurate data and missing data concer1ing
response times. Without data, the quality of coverage can not be measured.
4. The quality of contemplated coverage by Emeryville into N.
Oakland is compromised by the fact that Emeryville's ladder truck is housed
on the Bay side of 1-80, on Powell Street. Representative response times into
N. Oakland from Emeryville and Station 15 are not provided.
5. The loss of Station 8 firefighters will impact the districts of
Councilmembers Spees, Wan and Nadel because their districts' resources will
be drawn down and Station 8 will not be available for its usual backup. In
addition, Engine 5 in District 3 is expected to pick up Emeryville's medical
calls when Emeryville's ladder truck is handling Oakland's calls.
7. Contrary to expectations, Emeryville has provided more mutual
aid to Oakland in 2001 than Oakland has provided to Emeryville.
m. Selected Observations.
Page 1, C)l2: Demolition time is not anywhere included in the 10 month
rebuild period.
Page 2, C)l1: This paragraph makes clear that the reduction in 8 firefighters
did not finance the building of Station 8, but rather is a citywide
operational savings. N. Oakland is taking a disproportionate "hit," not
because we get a new firehouse (as billed), but because Chief Simon saw
the rebuild as a logistical opportunity to reduce personnel.
Page 2, C)l4: After much pressing, on November 3, Chief Simon explained.
to those of us gathered at Councilmember Brunner's monthly meeting
that actually Station 8 personnel would be scattered about the City in
overtime slots. He explained that his previous explanation that they
would be placed at Stations 7 and 28, was simply the "functional
equivalent" of the actual facts. Here, Chief Simon has reverted to his
former explanation, which is only the "functional equivalent" of the
actual facts. Stations 7 and 28 will experience no change in personnel
because of Chief Simon's plan. Therefore, no advantage or disadvantage
accrues to these stations under Chief Simon's plan. See further references
to Stations 7 and 28, below.
Page 3, C)l2: The City never asked Children's Hospital whether they would
swap the land across the street from Station 8 with the land on which the
station now stands. On November 29, 2001, James Jackson, Director of
Page 3 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 4 of 10
Environment of Care, Children's Hospital, expressed willingness to
discuss such a swap, and confirmed this was the first mention of a swap.
Thus, the City did not fully explore options to keep Station 8 open until a
new station could be built. Interestingly, Station 8 used to occupy the
Children's Hospital site across the street before moving to its present
location 50 years ago.
Page 3, CJI6: Response times. The response times mentioned here and laid
out in Attachment 2 are not real time. Since no day and time of
measurement is mentioned, one must assume the response times were
measured on a Sunday, say around 10:00 a.m.
Actual response times vary from Attachment 2. For example, on
incident #153546, Tuesday, November 6, Station 8 response time to 1048
62
nd
Street, one block from 61
51
and Baker, was 7 minutes from the time the
call came in to the time the rig pulled up on the scene, according to the
dispatch log (the response time into the house would be longer).
Attachment 2 shows a response time of 3 minutes and 44 seconds to 61
51
and Baker, an unrealistically small amount of time. How much longer
will other stations take?
Station 19 at Miles above College is 2.1 miles from 6r
l
and Baker,
whereas Station 8 is only 1.65 miles. Recall that at 60 miles per hour it
takes 30 seconds to go 1/2 mile, but fire engines don't go that fast through
busy city streets. Thus, add approximately 1 minute to Station 8's response
time of 7 minutes. Is 8 minutes in response time acceptable? We think
not, especially in this area with all its medical responses (see our map with
blue pins at locations of medical calls).
Also unrealistic is that Station 19 could beat Station 8 to 6r
l
and
Baker. As mentioned above, that location is 1.65 miles from Station 8 and
2.1 miles from Station 19. Yet on Attachment 2, Station 19 is shown as
beating Station 8's time, 3:39 min. vs. 3:44 min.
Another example: On incident #129618 to 56
th
and Telegraph,
Station 8 took 4 minutes and 11 seconds according to dispatch logs. It
would take a little more to reach 57
h
Thus, the time of 2 minutes and 52
seconds on Attachment 2 is unrealistic.
The most glaring glitch on Attachment 2 is the claim that it takes 1
minute and 35 seconds less to go 8 more blocks to 61
51
and Baker, which is
8 blocks further away from Station 19 than 60th and Whitney is (5 minutes
Page 4 of 10
Downsizing the Oakland Fire Deparnnent and the Impact on Emeryville:
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 5 of 10
and 14 seconds to 60
th
and Whitney but 3 minutes and 39 seconds to go to
the more distant location of 6pt and Baker).
In general, it must be remembered that east and west routes
between Alcatraz Avenue and 40th Street are very difficult to negotiate
quickly. There are no direct routes. In addition, many of those streets now
have speed bumps on them.
Although Station 15 at 27
h
and Telegraph has now for the first time
been brought into Chief Simon's plan (see p. 4, CJI2 [Attachments 4 and 5],
and p. 4 CJI4 [last sentence]) -- now that there is pressure to address the lack
of a ladder truck in N. Oakland - there is only one piece of data on
response times for the ladder truck from Station 15 into North Oakland,
and the time is unacceptable at 8 minutes and 11 seconds. However, to
make matters worse, that time is unrealistically short. How do we know?
Take a look at the recent Fenton's Ice Creamery fire as an example.
Fenton's is on Piedmont Avenue (4226 Piedmont), far closer to 2 ~
and Telegraph than the example in Attachment 2 of 60
th
Street and
Whitney Avenue (8:11 min.).
Yet, from time of dispatch, Station 15 at 2 ~ and Telegraph took 7
minutes and 28 seconds, a full 3 minutes and 22 seconds slower than
Station 8, which made it in 4 minutes and 6 seconds. This is scary, because
Fenton's is on the 27
h
and Telegraph side of Station 8. What would it be
for parts further away - upper Rockridge, North Hills, Montclair? Could it
be that we have a lack of realistic response times for Station 15 going into
N. Oakland because they would be unacceptable by City standards? How
can the assertions that all response times will be within acceptable levels
be credible, when there is no data? (There is also no data for Emeryville;
see below.)
Such misleading and absent data does not aid Councilmembers in
making difficult choices.
Page 4, CJIl to page 5, CJIl: Temporary Coverage: There is no viable coverage
under Chief Simon's plan. Even if Emeryville were to agree to cover most
of Station 8's territory, Station 8's territory is large, extending over all of N.
Oakland to Tunnel Road and to Moraga. In addition, Station 8's ladder
truck provides coverage further on into the hills.
Do Emeryville firefighters think that Chief Simon's plan is viable?
Not according to Jim Phipps, Emeryville firefighter and Vice President,
Page 5 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 6 of 10
IAFF Local 55 in a memo to Emeryville City Council (see Exhibit A, memo
to Emeryville City Council dated December 4, 2001). Phipps suggests that
the plan is not in the best interest of either Oakland or Emeryville citizens
because of many logistical problems enumerated in the memo.
To supplement Emeryville's potential coverage, Station 15 at 2 ~
and Telegraph "will respond to a limited amount of Station 8's response
area during this interim rebuilding period." (P. 4, cn4.) With Emeryville
responding to approximately 526 non-medical calls (p. 4, cn4), who is going
to cover the other 500-600 yearly calls the Station 8 ladder truck receives
(1,011 in 2000; a likely 1,192 in 2001)? (See Exhibit liB," which is
Attachment 6 to Report, with extrapolating calculations.) Not Station IS,
by the terms of the Report alone, no doubt because Station 15 ladder truck
took 1,159 calls in 2000 (see Exhibit "C," Calls per Firestation in 2000 and
other Quick Facts). Thus, even with Emeryville's help, which we don't
have yet, there is no reasonable attempt to cover N. Oakland (see
information above about response times from Station 15).
Chief Simon originally requested that Piedmont cover a wide swath
of Oakland from 68
th
Street down to 37
h
Street (see lavender and magenta
areas of map, Exhibit liD"). Now, because Piedmont has obviously refused,
we see in the Report that no coverage is required (p. 5, CJll).
Problems with Emeryville coverage if Emeryville agrees to
participate:
1) Emeryville's ladder truck is not tillered, Le., it doesn't have
independent rear steering, so it cannot navigate the narrow hill streets.
Do we know which streets the Emeryville ladder truck can navigate and
which ones it cannot? Or do we find that out when first Emeryville
responds to a hill call?
2) Response times, Emeryville: Emeryville's response times into
some of the areas originally designated for coverage by Chief Simon (the
red and green portions of the map attached as Exhibit liD") were estimated
by a veteran Emeryville firefighter to be 10 to 15 minutes. This is because
Station I, the station from which the ladder truck would respond, is on
the Bay side of 180, on Powell Street. The station indicated on Chief
Simon's maps is Station 2 (see Exhibit liD"). Even if Emeryville moves its
ladder truck to their Station 2, it will not solve response time problems for
those areas further from Emeryville.
Page 6 of 10
p.'
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 7 of 10
At an Emeryville Public Safety Committee meeting on November 1,
Fire Chief Cutright said he thought response times into certain of the
Oakland areas would be closer to 9 minutes rather than 10 to 14, but if it
were 10 or more, that would be "Oakland's problem."
It appears that Emeryville is being asked to cover all of N. Oakland,
minus a small portion covered by Station 15, possibly designated by the
arrow depicted on Attachments 4 and 5. There are no response time data
for Emeryville responding further than 8 blocks past its border. The only
response time available is to 6r
t
and Genoa (runs parallel to Market one
block east) at 5 minutes and 30 seconds. How long would it take
Emeryville to get to Children's Hospital, Station 8 on 51
st
near Telegraph,
the Claremont Hotel and Tunnel Road? We don't know, but suspect it
may be 15-30 minutes or more, depending on time of day and amount of
traffic. However, lack of data does not prevent Chief Simon from
claiming that Chief SImon's plan maintains "acceptable response
standards" (see p. 10, ~ 3 ) .
3) Emeryville firefighters do not have the experience of Oakland
firefighters. They do not know our streets, our structures, our citizens.
Their pay is the lowest in Alameda County. This is not what our tax
dollars are paying for. Mutual aid is one thing, but using Emeryville
firefighters as replacement for our exceptional firefighters is another thing.
4) We question whether under Government Code section 850.6
Emeryville loses its immunity as to "any injury for which liability is
imposed by statute caused by its act or omission or the act or omission of
its employee occurring in the performance of such fire protection or
firefighting service," since it would be providing "fire protection or
firefighting service outside of the area regularly served and protected."
Any indemnification agreement with Oakland places the burden of paying
off any Emeryville liability squarely on us Oakland taxpayers. (See Exhibit
''E.'')
5) Oakland is already in debt to Emeryville for mutual aid (see Exhibit
''F,'' "Emergency Operations," an Emeryville document). It cites that
Emeryville provided Oakland with 11 mutual aid requests during 2001
and Oakland provided Emeryville with 3. This suggests that Oakland is
not in a position to downsize its fire department. It also suggests that
Emeryville is not beholding to Oakland, as Chief Simon asserts.
Page 4, Chart: Any distinction between "actual action responses" and
other types of responses is meaningless because a firefighter in Oakland or
Page 7 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 8 of 10
Emeryville can not wait around in the station to see if a call for help will,
in the end, require an "actual action response" or not. The firefighter is
going to have to hit the road, regardless of how the call turns out. The
category seems to be used in an attempt to make it appear that under Chief
Simon's plan Emeryville wouldn't be making as many trips to Oakland as
it would have to.
Page 5, C)J5: Staffing: This paragraph and chart are misleading and
inaccurate. There is a large core group of firefighters at Station 8, every
day, every shift. We see them so we know. Heven one firefighter from
another station is swapping shifts, according to the Report, the house crew
falls under the definition of "Out of House Crew from Another Station."
This section denigrates the dedication of Station 8 personnel to the area
they serve.
Page 6, cn2: This paragraph is misleading and inaccurate. Under Chief
Simon's plan, response times will be greatly impacted because there will be
8 fewer firefighters. Response times tend to be impacted when there are
no firefighters nearby who are free to take the call. See Exhibit "C," which
indicates the number of emergency calls per station in Chief Simon's plan.
Another factor influencing response times from surrounding
stations is whether a station is out on training or not. In Oakland, one
company per day is designated for training, and up to six other companies
can accept training also. Thus, there is no guarantee that a nearby
company will be available at all. Nowhere does the Report address the
potential problems associated with multiple companies being out on
training.
Page 6, cncn3-5: No amount of chronic staffing shortages, difficulty in
hiring, etc., can justify taking 8 firefighters out of just one section of the
City - Rockridge/Temescal, in this case. H overtime has to be adjusted, it
must be adjusted citywide, not just in N. Oakland. Since this has not been
done in a fair, systematic way, we doubt the credibility of this section of the
Report, particularly when Chief Simon early on accused the firefighters of
trying to protect their overtime, implying that it was a precious
commodity.
Page 6, C)J4: Regarding staffing below minimum standards, unlike the police
department which has 15 minutes of line-up pay for overlap purposes, the
fire department releafes everyone at 8:00 a.m. Prior practice was to pay a
few standbys for unprojected vacancies. Recently, in a cost cutting
measure, the department decided not to pay standbys. As a result, when
Page 8 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 9 of 10
there is an occasional unprojected vacancy, there are no standbys to fill
those vacancies. Hence, the "problem" with unfilled vacancies. Note that
"mandatory overtime" and "vacancies" are mutually exclusive.
Page 7, Cfi1: The Report here asserts that Emeryville will be responsible for
all of N. Oakland ladder truck responses except for "a small portion of the
area" which Station 15 will cover. This contradicts the map attached to the
Report, Attachment 3, and is clearly impossible. Station 8's truck related
calls require responses up to Tunnel Road, Montclair and beyond, into
hills the Emeryville equipment cannot reach (see discussion above).
There is no response time data for this proposition (see discussion above.)
More importantly, it's essential to understand that Chief Simon is
asking three Oakland companies (No.'s 5, 19 and 10) to pick up two
companies' worth of work (Station 8 is a 2 company station). Please note
that Station 5 handles 3,134 calls, and it's a one company station. It is as
busy as any station in Oakland.
The total calls for Station 8 is 3,789. The total call volume for the
other 3 stations is 6,501. Subtracting the 526 that Emeryville might cover
and, say, 50 for calls that Station 15 might cover, there is a 50% increase in
work for Stations 5, 19, and 10. For Chief Simon to maintain that a 50%
increase in emergency calls will not impact response times to the point
where they will become unacceptable is simply not credible.
Page 7, Cfi2: There is a way to state the information in this paragraph that is
not misleading. Chief Simon consistently states it in this misleading
fashion. He is not talking about "bodies" on the street. The fact is that
there will not be a single extra firefighter on the street under his plan than
there is right now. And, for the duration of the rebuild, there will be 8
fewer. It's true there will be new firefighters, but they will take the slots
currently covered by firefighters working overtime. Thus, we have 141
per day now; we will have 133 per day during the rebuild; and we will
have 141 per day back after the rebuild, under Chief Simon's plan.
Page 7, Option 1 Pros and Cons: Option 1 is not workable because it provides
completely inadequate coverage to North Oakland and surrounding areas.
Page 7, Option 2: This is not an option, though building could be delayed.
Page 8, Option 3: It is not proved that bond funding is involved. The
firefighters' Local 55 proposal should be fully explored. (See Exhibit "G,"
Local 55 proposal.)
Page 9 of 10
We Won't Be as Safe
Page 10 of 10
Page 8, Option 4: If a land swap cannot be managed (see below, "New
possible option," this option is the best. Although response times would
suffer because Station 8's personnel would be further away from large
portions of Station 8's area, at least the equipment would not be placed in
storage and our firefighters would be available to respond to our calls.
Page 9, Options 5 & 6:
needed.
These options do not provide the coverage that is
New possible option: A possible option exists, so far unexplored by the
City, to swap the land across the street from Station 8, owned by Children's
Hospital, for land on which the station now sits (see p. 2). This option is
the best of all because a land swap allows Station 8 to remain open in its
current location for the duration of the rebuild. Response times would
stay as they are, or slightly increase, because of the increase in calls likely in
2001 (see extrapolations on Exhibit "B.").
IV. Conclusion.
There are no data to support the Report's conclusion that there will
be safety for N. Oakland under Chief Simon's plan. Without the data, this
Report falls into the realm of wishful thinking. Since you have decided
that Chief Simon's proposal carries "acceptable risk," we'd like to know if
you have access to data that we don't have, because there is nothing in the
Report that can lead to the conclusion that the risk to our lives and
property is "acceptable" under Chief Simon's plan.
Page 10 of 10 p.ll
FROM: EMERYUILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 51121-42121-1786
Dec. 03 21211211 12I1:1213PM Pi
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Emeryville City Council
Jim Phipps, Vice Preside) It lAFF Local 55
December 4,2001
The Closure ofEngine 8
Baclqp:ound
The City ofOakland has requested that Emeryville cover Engine 8's and Truck 5's
district during the rebuilding ofEngine f. ' s firehouse. Both Engine 8 and Truck 5 are
housed together in the firehouse located at Slat Street and Telegraph Avenue. The
closing ofthe firehouse is scheduled for JamIaty 20.02.. the "planned" rebuilding will
take 10 months. For the year 2000. Engine 8 ran 2719 calls and Truck 5 ran 1010 calls
for a total of 3789 calls. Oakland has re1luested Emeryville's truck with four firefighters
to cover most all ofthe Truck 5's calls a ld a Emeryville Engine to cover some ofEngine
8's calls. Engine 8's district will be divijed between Oakland Engines 19,10,15, 5 and
Emeryville.
Question
Would this proposal be ofbenefit to Eml:ryville citizens?
A n s w ~
NO, This proposal is not in the best intt:' rest ofeither Oakland or Emeryville citizens for
the following reasons:
1. For Emeryville to respond wi th four firefighters on our Truck. we will have to
deadline an Engine Compan} .
2. When Emeryville's Truck re:-.ponds to Oakland only THREE
FIREFIGHTERS and ONE :E NOINE will be left in Emeryville,
3. Emeryville will be subsidizing Oakland for about 3.2 million dollars with no
return on their investment. 1 his is the savings Oakland generates by reducing
their budget by the 32 firefighters needed to operate'Engine 8 and Truck 5.
4. Emeryville's Truck is 10 yea 'S old and will need to be replaced after running
additional calls in Oakland. 'fruck 5's disnict is very large. It runs from the
Emeryville line to the top of :he Oakland bills and from the Berkeley line to
downtown Oakland.
5. IfOakland removes Engine 8 and Truck 5 from service, Emeryville will have
an increase in Mutual Aid calls to Oakland. because of the added workl.oad
placed on the remaining Oak and Companies. The remaining Oakland Engine
companies that will respond 10 Engine 8's district are some ofthe busiest
engine companies in Oaklan<:. Engine 5 ran 3134 calls in tlie year 2000.
6. Oakland may not be able to r ~ s p o n d to Emeryville for Mutual Aid as quickly
as they have in the past; becalse Engine 8 and Truck 5 are the companies that
nonnally would respond.
ExH'B,r "A A
YEAR 2000- RANKING BY NUMBER OF RUNS DISPATCHED YEAR 2001-RANKING BY NUMBER OF RUNS DISPATCHED
RANK ENGINE TOTAL RUNS TRUCK TOTAL RUNS RANK ENGINE OTAl RUNS TRUCKS OTAl RUNS
1 2560 3655 2577 1732 1 2560 3454 2576. 1559
2 2563 3571 2576 1611 2 2563 3163 . 2577 1428
3 2558 3209 2571 1572 3 2558 3074 2571 1388
-
4 2545 3133 2574 1559 4 2555 3016 2574 1263
5 2553 3098 2572 1315 5 2545 2875 2572 1058
6 2541 3087
7.:J.
I":-A)(\ 2575 .. .1011.; 6 2541 2829 -'2575 - 993
f-\
7 2569 2963 t!.Of') 0::11 7 2569 2736 'OJ
8 8 2553 2706
-
2556 2956
9 2555 2884 9 2552 2635
10 ?R39 10 2556
-----
2594
\ 11 2548

.,
11
2<;<;7 ?<;<;d
12 1:'565 t!. f4!:l ":i:.: 1 :,;, :]';':25487

13 2557 2535 13 Lo44 ..J.JO
-
14 2567 2395 14 2566 2310
15
-
15 2550 2384 2567 2206
16 2550
p.- -._-_.-
16 2544 2373 2005
- ------
17 2543 2052 17 2543 1813
.-
----
--_.-._-
18 2559 985 18 2559 940
_._.- ----
19 2542 969 19 2542 924

20 2565 920 20 2565 856
2564
---
21 2564 666 21 620
-----
22 2562 517 22 2546 307
--
23 2548 335 23 2561 302
L
-
24 2546 335 24 2568 293
' ..
25 2561 325 25 2547 187
26 2547 201 26 2562 186
..
. ....,JJ "_-,.,If
......
--\

100 I
---........-...- ------
j\ Ifblv
l' 3
C5
lo
'7nfJQ.-- , 2!3'f9>
tprq1nt/ "}rIl'3
d '10, L-{
J 0 I I
-+- I J .-
. -.----- 05
3 B
I
ATTACHMENT'6
)

_st'J
. L '1 b;o I r '$
'-If-1iXJ ;;l q 0& (I f5 ,l oq.d) (
-"I '/0:L vr '" ,
;) , '-Iv 7-. -'" I I /--' ) e{t' d1 Mrv
ll
iff J ... "j '1<' (3 u lin; ) .{ ..... (6{f" -D I I'.J<P"
---:J" Yf 0
'-._.) J
r 1,.f L (&
vI I/f;t
o
FIRESTATION IN 2000
OTHER QUICK FACTS
CALLS PER
AND
Station number Calls (engine/ladder truck) Chief Simon's unprecedented plan
#8 (2 company station. District 1)
515t near Telegraph Engine 2,779
(8 person station) Ladder truck 1.010
4 firefighters/ladder truck Total: 3.789
4 firefighters/engine (80% of calls are medical)
#19 (1 company station. District 1)
Miles (near RR BARD Engine 983
#5 Ct company station. not In District 1)
34
th
& Market Engine 3,134
#10 (1 company station. not In District 1)
Santa Clara Ave. Engine 2,384
Near Harrison (no ladder truck)
(4 person station)
Personnel to be assigned
to slots elsewhere now
covered by overtime. Equipment
to be put in storage. Eight fewer
firefighters per shift (141-8= 133).
territory.
territory; among the busiest
in Oakland.
territory
#15
(2]'h & Telegraph)
C9 person)
5 firefighters/ladder truck
4 firefighters/engine
Engine
Ladder Truck
Total:
2,087
b!5.9.
3,246
Not included in plan. Will
not pick up part of Station 8's
territory (usual backup only).
Emeryville
(7 firefighters per shift, 2 stations)
Engines carry rescue equipment.
Their one ladder truck is "manned" by one firefighter.
Emeryville is undecided
whether to participate in plan
(vote of City Council required).
Chiers plan requires their help.
Piedmont
(7 firefighters per shift)
Piedmont has refused the request
for Piedmont to cover a portion
of Oakland. The original plan
required Piedmont's help.
O f f i ~ f u c t ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-Station 8 is a first responder in North Oakland for fire, emergency medical services (EMS),
rescue and hazardous materials. It is the keystone of N. Oakland's emergency response.
-Station 8's ladder truck is assigned to all of North Oakland. It carries all rescue equipment.
-Station 8 is Emeryville's backup, as well as the backup for all the other above stations.
-Under Chief Simon's plan Oakland would drop from 141 firefighters on duty to 133 (per shift).
-Under Chief Simon's plan one of Oakland's seven ladder trucks and one of Oakland's twenty-
five engines would be put in storage. North Oakland would not have a ladder truck.
Information researched by Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas and Tony Freitas. (428-2714)
eXlf/f!;I, lie"
I
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES 150 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA' SUITE 3354 OAKLAND. CALIFORNIA Y4bl1
Firt! Dl'pilrlmenl
September 25. 2001
HAND-DELIVERED
IS1OJ 13l.l365(.
FAX (5101 :nn7Y:l.;\
TOO (5101 Bp,(,(l(jol
2333 Powell Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Chief John C. Speakman
120 Vista Avenue
Piedmont, CA 94611
SUbject: Interim coverage for Fire Station 8 district in Oakland
during station reconstruction
Dear Chief Cutright and Chief Speakman:
The intent of this letter is to re-affirm our agreement to have your departments assist the
Oakland Fire Department on an interim basis with partial district coverage, while we
replace our existing Fire Station 8 on its current site of 461 51
st
Street.
Attached you will find the current deployment plan that has already been approved by
our City Council last May during the public hearing and budget process related to this
issue.
For Emeryville, we are requesting your department to:
1) cover the area designated in red for EMS related calls; and,
2) cover the area designated in red and green for truck related responses with
four (4) personnel.
We agree to continue 911 dispatch services to Emeryville Fire without an increase as
previously contemplated. Oakland Fire will continue the current contract and price that
has been in force for the past ten years.
For Piedmont. we are requesting your department to cover all truck related responses in
the area designated by lavender and magenta. We appreciate your willingness to step
up in our time of need, as we have done for your community in the past
" II
B<;t,a" 0, p. I
I
Chief John C. Speakman -2- September 25, 2001 .
We anticipate the length of assistance will be no more than one year, and fully expect
that the timeframe could actually be about ten months.
After your review, please consider affirming this contemplated interim agreement by
signing and returning a copy of this letter to me so that we can begin providing you with
accurate data and firm timelines.
On behalf of the Oakland Fire Department, thank you for assisting the Department
during this time of critical need.
Sincerely, rJ.

GERALD A. SIMON
Fire Chief
GAS:rk
Attachments
My signature below indicates affirmation of the contemplated agreement as described in
this letter.
STEPHEN L. CUTRIGHT
Fire Chief
Date ----'--__
JOHN C. SPEAKMAN
Fire Chief
Oate _
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. I .....
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
...................

...................
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .
........ " ........
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .
.. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. B'T "/:1;' p. 'J-
--
=\
Or:::
City Council
Budget
May 1,2001
12/J / A Le-t? n
u-S ehler/V>
t://J,1/:;} Im-P .
toYittuv t-l,1 bc:J 0 PO ,
-_,\

Legend:
..... Emeryville Fire Station
.", CI IRegion covered by EmerYVille
9 Regi,on covered by Stati,on 19
': hii,;iil Region covered by Station 5
1'-'<>1 Region covered by Station 10
-
Station 8 Construction Impact \ af
_ . . I
\.
l'

CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 850-850.8
850. Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for
failure to establish a fire department or otherwise to provide fire
protection service.
850.2. Neither a public entity that has undertaken to provide fire
protection service, nor an employee of such a public entity, is
liable for any injury resulting from the failure to provide or
maintain sufficient personnel, equipment or other fire protection
facilities.
850.4. Neither a public entity, nor a public employee acting in the
scope of his employment, is liable for any injury resulting from the
condition of fire protection or firefighting equipment or facilities
or, except as provided in Article 1 (commencing with Section 17000)
of Chapter I of Division 9 of the Vehicle Code, for any injury caused
in fighting fires.
850.6. Whenever a public ~ n t i t y provides fire protection or
frrefighting service outside of the area regularly served and
protected by the public entity providing such service, the public
entity providing such service is liable for any injury for which
liability is imposed by statute caused by its act or omission or the
act or omission of its employee occurring in the performance of such
fire protection or firefighting service. Notwithstanding any other
law, the public entity receiving such fire protection or such
firefighting service is not liable for any act or omission of the
public entity providing the service or for any act or omission of an
employee of the public entity providing the service; but the public
entity providing such service and the public entity receiving such
service may by agreement determine the extent, if any, to which the
public entity receiving such service will be required to indemnify
the public entity providing the service.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, any claims
against the state shall be presented to the State Board of Control in
accordance with Part 3 (commencing with Section 900) and Part 4
(commencing with Section 940) of Division 3.6 of Title I of the
Government Code.
850.8. Any member of an organized fire department, fire protection
district, or other firefighting unit of either the state or any
political subdivision, any employee of the Department of Forestry and
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
TOTAL INCIDENTS-- 150 128 136 155 126 109 131 132 142 125 1334
DUTIES PERFORMED ON CALLS:
FIRE SUPPRESSION - BUildings $ 5000) 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 6 22
Buildings (> $ 5000) 1 1 2
Vehicles 6 3 1 7 8 3 6 7 1 3 45
Outside Fires 3 2 6 2 5 5 3 4 30
Odor 6 1 1 1 1 3 13
FALSE ALARMS- Alarm Companies 37 40 41 27 27 15 26 18 26 32 289
other 1 4 1 6
HAZ MATS-- Spill 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 13
Release 1 1 2 1 2 3 10
Other 1 2 3
MUTUAL AID -- 3 2 5 1 11
To Berkeley 1 1
Other 1 1 1 1 4
MEDICAL -- District it 1 33 31 37 36 29 34 43 31 45 30 349
District it 2 51 35 44 61 45 35 41 54 47 35 448
RESCUE/EXTR. - 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 3 5 27
SERVICE -- 5 5 2 5 4 8 2 5 6 3 45
TOTAL DUTIES PERFORMED 150 128 136 155 126 111 131 132 142 127 0 0 1338
RESOURCE COMMITMENTS:
FREEWAY CALL- Single Unit Response 6 10 1 1 16 5 4 7 9 4 63
Multi-Unit Response 15 15 13 20 11 4 18 3 13 7 119
SIMUL1. ALARMS -- To Same Medical 2 3 1 6
To Separate Calls 2 2 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 19
TRUCK RESPONSE -- 42 16 56 59 39 24 36 23 14 17 326
TOTAL RESOURCE COMMITMENTS 23 27 19 27 28 9 25 12 25 12 0 0 207
NOTE: The Emergency Operations sheet shows all operations conducted. not the individual responses provided within Emeryville. If multiple operations were conducted on any emergency responses
(calls), then the talty for emergency operations will be greater than the actual responses made by Emeryville fire units. If mutual aid calls were made to other jurisdictions. and during these
mutual aid responses an Emeryville fire unit responded to emergency calls within that jurisdiction, then the tally for emergency operations will be greater than the actual responses
reported within Emeryville's jurisdiction.
''1\
-
-
..

""'-
.....S'I
EMERGENCY OPERATIONS:
INCIDENT ANALYSIS
1111/01 7:37 AM
2001
Emergency Responses 2001 Ops Analysis
TYPE SUB-TYPE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUl AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL
FIRES -- BUildings $ 5000) 1 1 2 4 2 3 1 1 1 6 22
BUildings (> $ 5000) 1 1 2
Vehicles 6 3 1 7 8 3 6 7 1 3 45
Outside Fires 3 2 6 2 5 5 3 4 30
Odor 6 1 1 1 1 3 13
FALSE ALARMS-- Alarm Companies 37 40 41 27 27 15 26 18 26 32 289
Other 1 4 1 3 9
HAZ MATS-- Spill 3 2 1 1 1 2 3 2 15
Release 1 1 2 1 2 7
Other 1 1
MUTUAL AID -- To Oakland 3 2 5 1 11
Other 1 1 2 1 5
MEDICAL -- District # 1 33 31 37 36 29 34 43 31 45 30 349
District # 2 51 35 44 61 45 35 41 54 47 35 448
RESCUE/EXTR. -- 3 1 1 6 3 1 1 3 3 5 27
SERVICE -- 5 5 2 5 4 8 2 5 6 3 45
MONTHLY TOTAL: 150 128 136 155 126 111 131 132 142 127 0 0 1338
TOTAL YEAR-TO-DATE: 150 278 414 569 695 806 937 1069 1211 1338
LOSS BY MONTH: ($) 7,500 1,000 205,000 20,000 500 10,000 2,000 20,000 1,000 15,000 $282,000
Prior Year Monthly Total: 112 102 115 125 158 129 127 139 86 110 148 152 1503
Prior Year To Date: 112 214 329 454 612 741 868 1007 1093 1203 1351 1503
i
~
~ ~
...
--.
~
t
'-l
~
Emergency Responses: 2001
11/1/01 737AM Emergency Responses 2001
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS
LOCAL 55
414-13til Street. Ste. 300
Oakland. CA 94612
(i10) 834-9672
FAX (510)834-0812
BY FAX AND EMAIL
Date: November 21, 2001
To: City Manager Robert Bobb
From: Steve Splendorio, President Local 55
Re: Proposal to the City from Local 55
The C1tys proposal
1. Build new Station 8 at a cost of $4.1 miUion from the capital Improvement Fund.
2. Close 2 companies at Station 8 for the 10 months of construction for a cost
savings from overtime budget of $2.6 million.
3. On January 1, 2003, add 32 permanent positions to the OFD budget which adds
$4.5 million per year to the budget, which in turn reinstates the 8 spots/day at
Station 8 that were eliminated.
Upside: New firehouse by November 2002.
Downside: 8 fewer firefighters/day in suppression - a reduction from 14Vday to
133/day.
Conclusion: The downside risk far outweighs the upside potential and
Is unacceptable to Local 55 and the citizens of Oakland.
PROBLEM: HOW DOES THE CITY KEEP THE NUMBER OF FIREFIGHTERS ON DUTY AT
141 PER DAY (ADDITIONAL COST OF $2.6 MILLION) AND BUILD A NEW STATION?
Local 55S solution to the downside risk of Clty-s proposal
Goal: Keep the 8 firefighters on duty everyday (funded through the overtime budget).
Cost: An additional $2.6 mill.ion from the overtime budget to pay for the 8
firefighters/day (keep our staffing at 14vday) for the 10 months they were to be
eliminated.
Sol.ution:
1. Delay building of Station 8 until January 2005 <3 year delay).
"/ II I
B<th a/.,.. c::r
J
p.
Proposal to the City from Local 55
Page 2 of 2
Novernber 21, 2001
2. Borrow $2.6 million from the Capital Improvement Fund (total rebuilding fund
$4.1 million) to pay for the 8 firefighters/day for the 10 months they were to be
eliminated.
3. Pay back the Capital Improvement Fund by delaying the permanent funding of 32
new budgeted positions from January 2003 to January 2005, saving the cost
difference of the 32 permanent new spots -- $4.5 million per year -- versus the
cost of overtime -- $3.2 million /year -- for a savings of $1.3 million per year.
1.3 x 2 years = a $2.6 million savings.
Upside: No fewer firefighters on the street.
Downside: New firehouse delayed.
cc: Mayor Jerry Brown
All Councilmembers
Fire Chief Gerald Simon
II"_ "
~ / B I T ~ / p. ~
([he ([ribulle
THURSDAY October 4. 2001
NmlC\" CUIlW:t\"
VICePresi<Jent,
Executive Editor
t.i:lrio Dian"a
Editor
1'0111 Tuttlc
mG Edftorial Page O<ed'"
1'. Scoll Mcl\ihhclI
Presidenl and Pubtisher

Advertising/Marketing
Dcnnis Miller
Sf Vice Presidenl/ProduC1ion
Rohcrt .Iclld"sa
5<, V.re Presidert/Hunan Aesot:es
P:llricl< Brown
E.ecutive Vice President
AdminiS1ralion
.lim I)""c
Sf Vice Presidenl/Circulation
PINION
ANG NEWSPAPERS
CONGRESS shall make 110 UlWS respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the
freedom ofspeech, or ofthe press, or ofthe right ofthe people peaceably
to tL<sembk, and to petitioII tbe Govenzmrnt for a redress ofgrievances.
FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTlllJTION Of THE l'NITED STATES, RATIFIED DEC 1\, 1791
LOCAL 9
Oakland must provide the best fire protection
W
E'RE glad to hear a pro-
posal to move the Te-
mescal neighborhood's
firefighters to other Oak-
land stations while the fa-
cility is reconstructed is not a "final
plan."
Residents and firefighters say they
are concerned about the relocation,
even though it's supposed to be tempo-
rary as the fire station is razed and a
new one built over the next 10 months.
The entire city could lose under the
proposal. because eight fewer fire-
fighters would be on duty every day and
one engine and one ladder truck would
be taken off till' streets.
:5.:--
OUR OPINION
Although the loss purportedly would
be made up by firefighters from Emery-
ville and Piedmont expected to respond
if the Temescal neighborhood needs
help, that assumes those firefighters
aren't needed in their own cities at the
time.
So what options does Oakland have?
For one, it could go back to the drawing
board and come up with a plan that is
acceptable to the Temescal community,
one that will provide the protection they
deserve as taxpaying residents.
City officials should rt>lIwI111){'r the
primary purpose of a municipality is to
provide basic services, such as fIre and
police protection, to the people.
Oakland residents, wherever they
live, have the right to the best fire pro-
tection possible, and we have seen in-
stances in which the city has changed
its course on fire stations after hearing
from residents. A couple of examples
are the North Hill and the Grass Valley
fire stations.
We realize the situation is different in
the case of this reconstruction project,
but the basic function of the fire depart-
ment remains the same - it must be at
full strength, at all times.
Resident Mary Clegg had it right
\\'hel1 sill" sairl: "To say we can affnrrl 10
take these men out to cover the over-
time for the rest of the city is to say this
is a sacrifice for this community."
Steve Splendorio, a 30-year fIre-
fighter and president of International
Association of Firefighters Local 55,
suggested the city may be exposing resi-
dents to danger just to help its bottom
line.
We must all remember the East Bay
hills firestorm 10 years ago, the largest
urban fire in the history of the United
States, one in which 25 people died
and 3,200 homes were destroyed.
Before this goes any further, city offi-
cials must come up with a plan that
puts residents' safety at the top of the
priority list
THE FIRESTORM OVER FIRE STAnON 8 by Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas
Chair, DMV Neighbors Association (Submitted to Rockridge News)
By Tuesday, December 4, the fate of Fire Station 8, 463-51st Street just off
Telegraph Avenue, the only double fIre station in North Oakland, and the keystone of
Rockridge's emergency response system, may be known. In the latest development, on
Tuesday November 27 the Public Safety Committee of the Oakland City Council voted to
send the question of what to do about the rebuilding of the Station #8 fIrehouse back to the
City Manager Robert Bobb and then on to the Council for a review. Bobb was instructed
to draw up a report on fIve different alternatives to the initial plan proposed by Fire Chief
Simon and approved in the budget vote in June of this year.
The debate that has been going on subsequent to that vote has centered on the
questionable wisdom of reducing fire services during the 10 month or more period of
Station 8 construction. North Oaklanders have mounted an opposition to the proposal on
the grounds that it would endanger the lives of Oaklanders, especially North Oaklanders,
who would experience the removal of half of their manlwoman power and the heavy
equipment that goes with it
Bobb is to provide pro and con analyses, recommendations, and potential funding
sources for six potential scenarios:
1. Not rebuilding Station 8 at all
2. Fire Chief Simon's original proposal
3. The proposal from Steve Splendorio and Local 55 (delay rebuild, retain current
strength, save money, rebuild later)
4. Closing Station 8 and transferring companies to other stations
5. 5. Assuming no cooperation from Emeryville, rebuilding Station 8 now and staffmg
Station 19 with an additional truck and company
6. Assigning an additional EMS unit to Station 5 while rebuilding Station 8
Brunner prefers option number 4.
She also stated at the Public Safety Committee meeting that she did not know in
June that she was voting to downsize the number of fIrefIghters on the street in Oakland by
eight per day, from 141 to 133, nor did she know all the cuts were coming in North
Oakland. Other Councilmembers were similarly confused, but are now saying that because
of the budget crunch, there may be no money to retain Station 8's eight firefIghters and
their equipment.
That all eight fIrefIghters are to be taken out of North Oakland, "isn't fair", Brunner
had earlier stated at a November 20 neighborhood "Meet the Mayor" night, arranged and
hosted by Rockridge resident Mike McDonald. The move mothballs North Oakland's only
ladder truck(one of seven citywide) and an engine. It also leaves a vacuum: Station 8
handled 3,789 emergency calls in year 2000, 80% of them medical.
Steve Splendorio, an Oakland frrefighter and Firefighters' Union president, gave
Bobb and Mayor Brown a plan in November in which delaying the rebuild could insure
savings currently budgeted and yet maintain 141 frrefIghters per day, eight in overtime
slots. The individuals who would be most impacted are the Station 8 personnel; yet, as one
firefighter explained, "We would rather keep this frrehouse and keep working overtime
than to risk lives in North Oakland."
Note: Some information for this article was contributed by Susan Montauk, Chair,
Rockridge Community Planning Council.
HILLS NEWSPAPERS
Safetycommittee asks
City Council to take a
second look at the issue
Debaterages"Ori over Fire Station 8
tauk. chairwoman of the Rock-
ridge Community Planning
Council, claim to have been left
in the dark when the budget.'in-
cluding this plan. was approved
in June.
By B. Roscoe Several council members. in-
STAFF WRITER cluding Vice Mayor Brunner and
Decisions related to FireSta . Larry Reid of District 7 (who
tion 8's controversial rebuilding chairs the Public Safety com-
took a turn Thesday that pleased mittee) have llince explained they
some hills residents; as the City had less than' a full understand-
Council's Public Safety Commit ing of the implications of their
lee decided to recommend that initial vote. porters in the audience. Donald, who took an informal
the full council take a second At the meeting, Brunner said Several residents spoke at the of firefighters at the meet-
look at the issue. she had reviewed the tape of the meeting, including retired Oak mg.
Jackie Hoeppner-Freitas, head June council meeting when Si- land police officer Tony Freitas, . .
of Rockridge's DMV Neighbors mon made his presentation about who used a large map with multi. . a
Association and a lawyer, said, how the reconstruction would be colored pins to illustrate the vol- signed to Station 8 , If
she was encouraged thatcoun- funded while maintaining a bal. ume of calls received by Station are my two.chOices, we re
cil members present at the Nov. anced budget. "We were never 8 and the large area covered by . staymg. And there s 23 other J>eO,:'
27 meeting seemed to admit they told this would create a shortage that station. "Find the money. ' who would the same,
didn't realize this past June that' of eight firefighters." Brunner Find what it takes; Don't take 50 . said Olyer! to the rest
they were voting for a reduction said. percent ofour firefighters away of the station s personnel.
in firefighters. . In the June meeting, Brunner from us," Freitas said;. . Montauk urged the commit-
At the time, the council moved asked Simon, ,"Are we funding Hoeppner-Freitas, his wife, re- tee to ask the city manager to
forward on a plan to pay for the the building of Station 8 by the iterated the idea that residents .write a thorough report on the
station's rebuild by assigning its savings in personnel?" Brunner were not informed of the reduc- alternate proposals and postpone
eight firefighter to two other sta- ,claimed there was no definitive tion of personnel when the topic the Dec. 4City Council vote un-
tionsand cutting down on the' answer to that question. She also was originally introduced in May til members have had time to
use of overtime at these locations lltated that in light of a clearer and used a current event to make consider all the options.
- reducing Oakland's understanding of what Simon's her plea. "Station 8 is the reason . . .
ing force in the process. plan calls for, it is unfair that Fenton's is still standing today," There a dlScus.slOn
"We applaud (District 1Coun- North Oakland will bear tpe bur- she contended. referring. to the . about movmg .thls agenda Item
cilwoma,n Jane Brunner) for den of a balanced budget by sac- fire at the ice cream parlor of' to a later .meetl.ng. But Bobb ex-
coming forward and saying, it rificing fire emergency services. Nov. 21. Fire Station 8's response pressed hlS feelmgs that the mat-
wasn't clear and that she didn't ,Brunner requested that the time was quick enough to stop ter should be settled sooner than
understand the ramifications," Public Safety committee ask City. the fire from spreading beyond later and vowed to get a.supple-
Hoeppner-Freitas said. , Manager Robert Bobb to provide the rear storage area of the ment.al to council mem-
, The issues at hand have been more analysis, recommendations neighborhood establishment she 10 time for the Dec. 4 meet-
on the table since City Council and possible funding sources as- saL . "If v.:
e
need to stay up all
members voted in June to ap- sodated with six potential sce- Rockridge resident Mike Mc. 11 do what we need to
prove a strategy to maintain fire narios for the rebuild. Donald said that the current con- do, said Bobb.
safety while the dilapidated fire Brunner recommended a sce dition of Fire Station 8 is "pretty Asked later if she had any
station at 51st Street and Tele- nario in which the station would gnarly." But, given the choice of concern about the preparation of
graph Avenue is rebuilt. be closed for the duration of its staying in the decrepit station for critical information for the Dec.
In the original plan, devised reconstruction, with personnel another two years while the city 4 City Council meeting on Fire
by Fire Chief Gerald Simon, the being transferred to fire stations saves the money to fund the re- Station 8, Hoeppner-Freitas said,
firefighters from Station 8 14- any result-. building or being temporarily reo "I think it can be done. (City
be temp6rilrily reassigned to dif-' ing reduction in the city's fire- assigned to another house, the Manager) Robert Bobb seems
ferent stations to relieve staff. fighting force. This plan was firefighters prefer to remain in very committed to getting a ...
working overtime, and the com- greeted with applause from sup- the existing structure. said Me- supplemental report out."
pany's engine and ladder truck '
would be left out of service for =================================
the duration of the reconstruc-
tion. ' " ,
The motivation behind Si
mon's plan was to cover the ma-
jority of the station rebuilding
costby saving money through a
reduction of staff and equipment
forthe 10 months of the recon
struction. What was not made'
clear is how that would be
achieved. ,"
Residents such as Susan,Mon-
ITYSIDE
-
www.oaklandtribune.com
n
City editor
(510) 208-6447
FRIDAY November 23, 2001
Temescal
fire station
fray grows
Public hearings,on closure
to be ,held Nov. 27, Dec. 4
By Laura Casey . story beige station. "We need
STAFF WRITER them."
OAKLAND - Opposition to Station 8, a two-company
the temporary closure of a Te. truck and ladder statton, was
mescal fire station Is mounting supposed to be closed and reo
In North Oakland as a Ftre bullt years ago. There waS never
partment plan works Its way to any money In the budget to fund
the City Council for review. the $4.1 station until this year,
Signs ,reading' "Don't get when' Ftre Chief Gerald Simon
Burned" are popping up in' developed a plan that would pay
storefront windows along Col- for ,the station by saving the city
lege and Telegraph avenues, and $2.8 million In fire staff over-
there is a growing concern time.
among. residents that .their His plan not only. finds
safety may' be in Jeopardy If money to bulld the station" but
emergency response time,s grow also attempts to patch the de
. during the station's demol1tion parbnent's overtlmeproblem.
and J:ebuilcling. . Simon said the department Is
"It's going to be bad," said having a hard time fllllng over-
Clarke Street resident 'Marcel time slots in stations around the
Lewis,' whose home is 'kitty City. Some of that trouble comes
corner to Fire Statton 8 on 51st from a budget decision to.staff
Street and, Telegraph Avenue. two hills fire stattons on an
Not too long ago, .she relied on overtlme-onlybasls.
the . nearby fire station's quick The ,city approved the year
response .to care Jor her ill round staffing of 'Valley
mother-in-law. . Fire Statton .No. 28; and'the
"There's a lot .ofelderly North ,Hills Ftre Statton No.7 In
people' in thls netgbborhood," 1999. This decision costs $2.8
and they need 911 right there," ' "
she said" the single ,Please see Cost,.,LOCAL-2
Cost: Not enough firefighters
for overtime, official says
Continued from LOCAL-1 Simon and City Manager Robert meeting and the following City
Bobb Insist the plan provides Council hearing Dec. 4.
million annually and takes 24 adequate response from nelgh- Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas,
flrefighters out of the overtime boring stations and city of Eme- a lawyer who has made a full-
relief pool. ryville firefighters. On the other time job out of researching the
The result is stations work side, fire experts from the union Issue and presenting her flnd-
without enough firefighters on are telling residents that re- Ings to the community, Is
some shifts because the depart- sponse times to fire and medical floored by the notion that fire of-
ment Is unable to find fire- calls will lag. ficlals are content With reducing
fighters to work mandatory On medical calls, minutes Oakland's daily staffing for 10
overtime. Simon expects the can often mean the difference months.
problem will exacerbate In 2002 between life or death, medical "This is a dubious honor
as nearly' 50 firefighters leave experts contend. . Oakland will have, being prob-
the department through attrition There's an 80 percent chance ably the only city that is working
and retirement. a heart attack victim will survive on cutting Its firefighting force in.
"We're covering another need if help arrives within six min- the wake of Sept. II, and its
for the department, a need for utes. If help arrives In eight min- own disastrous history," Hoep-
people to fill (overtime) slots," utes. chances of survival: plunge pner-Freitas said.
Simon said. "The, whole thing to 5 percent. She already.bent Bobb's and
has to be a balance:"' Adding to the confusion, the Mayor Jerry Brown's ears at a
The overtime problem will be comprehensive emergency re-. house meeting Wednesday night.
partly solved by putting the 32 sponse pl\ill has not been final- Brown has yet to take a public
Station 8 firefighters in a city- lzed. Chief Simon assured the position on the plan.
wide overtime relief pool. But It council in April that It would be The $4.1 million station will
will mean fewer firefighters easy to carve the neighborhood be paid for out of the city's Cap-
on Oakland streets for nearly a Into pieces and have neigh- ital Improvement Program
year and no firefighters specif- boring Oakland and Emeryville Budget, part of the two-year
Icallyassigiled to the North Oak- stations cover calls. budget the council approved in
land Rockridge and .Temescal In a staff report Simon pre- June.
In 2002. pared for Public Safety Com- After the station is built, the.
Steve Splendorio, president mlttee review at its Nov. 27 city will add 32 firefighters to its
of the Oakland firefighter's. meeting, he said Emeryv1lle. fire 492-person force, bringing daily
union Local 55, said Simon's offiCials are poised to sign an stafflnglevels back up to 141.
plan is putting people In North agreement dedicating its truck If th.e council decides to keep
Oakland and the city at risk. ". and four, firefighters .--: more . the firefighters on the streets
"'"Somehow or he' the small CIty s daily through 2002, then It will be at
doesn't want to face the issue. staff - to respond to the expense of other resources,
Yes, we're going to have'[email protected] 426 annuall,adder .Bohb said. The city is facing a
fewer firefighters, and yes, we:r:e ::ciills. 'Emeryville Vice $14 million to $27 million
increasing the risk to the Mayor';Nqra Davis saici this is budget' deficit and It Call1lot
zens for that period oftlnie," . true. build the new station, maintain
Splendoriosaid, . " I \Vas a little taken aback by the fire department's current
the statement that there was' dally staffing levels and balance
Critics of the plan say,SimOn going to bea signed agreement," . the budget.
is asking North Oakland. to ,she said. "From my perspective, "I personiilly and profession-
make up for a citywide staffing there is not going to be adone ally don't think (temporarily.
problem. . deal of any means unless the. closing Station 8) is a lot to ask
"It's not fair: said Vice council looks at this more when, we are going. to have a
Mayor Jane Brunner, whore- closely." better improvement at the end
celved hundreds of responses Simon said the agreement Is of the day," Bobb said;
from a filer'sh,e sent to her con- stl1l being worked out. Splendorio said his fire-
stituents In mid-October about "This Is still a fluid process. fighters are prepared to live In
the Station 8 closure. "Instead Since It is not imminent, it's not the old station for another two
of having a budget problem and happening tomorrow,' we're still .. years while the city saves money
fixing it citywide, we're flXing it trying to finalize the actual mu- ' to build the station. Bobb said'
In North Oakland." ' tual aid plan," he said. he will consider thatproposal.
Many residents said they are In the meantime, area resl-, The Public Safety Committee
confused and concerned about. dents are prepared to wage a will hear SlmoIi's report at 3
their safety while the station is war of words at the Nov. 27 p.m. Tuesday in City Hall
being rebuilt. On one side, Public Safety Committee Hearing Room 1.
Turchin
that overtime guy to No. 15," and
filling this slot with a Jell-O mold
FROM PAGE A4 .... yadda yadda, yadda. It had to
be explained three times before
are for emergency medical ser- it sunk into my head. But the gist
vices. Frankly, my heart's fine, remains what I said at the begin-
but I've burned out three ning - eight less firefighters per
whistling teapots in the last shift, while North Oakland
year alone, so I'm a guy that burns, er closes.
takes comfort from my local A number of current and for-
firehouse. But I'm making light mer firefighters were there to
of a life-and-death issue. reiterate the obvious. Don
Jane Bronner is wisely mak- . Mathews, former Station No.8
ing the City Council take an- chief, said that fire protection in
other look at this project There North Oakland will go "down,
will be a Public Safety Commis- down, down." "All I can say:' he
sion meeting on Nov. 27 to study said sardonically, "is good luck."
it. Apparently she was under the The BOO-pound gorilla that
impression that the funding was nobody mention'ed at the meet-
from the city's capital improve- ing was Sept. 11 (and anthrax,
ment program (CIP) when she and the governor's bridge
voted for it. No clue,'she claims, warning just days before).
that the CIP money came from Prior to 9/11, I could see taking
cutting the fire department. a swing at this deal, keeping
Hard to believe, but I spoke our fingers crossed and hoping
to Councilman Larry Reid, and no one gets burned. Now, fire.-
he pretty much pleaded igno- fighters may be our front lines
rance, too. It was "never ex- if anything goes down in the
plained" that way, he told me. terrorwar. This seems an odd
So that's two council members and inappropriate time to cut
who didn't seem to know what services for any reason, don't
engine was driving the truck cha think? And keep in mind,
when they voted. Councilman the reduction is City-wide.
Dick Spees concurred to some North Oakland is only the ca-
degree. "It was probably not nary in the coal mine. We are
made abundantly clear," he told all miners here.
me, "or maybe we didn't ask Steve Splendorio, the Oak-
the right questions," Either land firefighters' union rep, was
way, it leaves a thick scull like adamant. "The community de-.
me to conclude that either the serves protection, " he said. "Sta-
City Manager's office and the . tion Bshould stay open one way
Oakland Fire Department were. or another...He added, "It's a po-
playing three-card-Monty with litical issue. If enough heat is ap-
the council, or the council was- plied, they'll find the money."
n't, as Spees suggested, doing Neighbors, apply your heat
its homework. Neither sce-. to City Council. It will take five
nario, of course, speaks too votes to change it. And an addi-
highly of our "process." tional $4 million. Is your life
To Brunner and the council's worth four mil'? Your kids'?
defense, I wilJ say that Chief Si- Mr. Bobb - is your life
mon, who Spees called "very worth it?
straight and very good," looked
like Bill Walsh on steroids when
he did the XiS and O's of the deal
at the Peralta meeting. "They're
moving this guy to No. 23, and
GARY TURCHIN
There There
as well, and response time is
the lynch pin of public safety.
(How long can you hold your
breath? That's how fast you
need help.) The area will have
.to rely more on Piedmont,
Emeryville and other Oakland
firehouses for coverage. Deals
with Piedmont and Emeryville
are in the works but are in no
way finalized.
Finally, there will also be
two trucks pasically mothballed
for the year, including one of
Oakland's seven ladder trucks
(for math freaks that's 14 per-
cent of the fleet). So the price
is pretty steep: less coverage,
loooonger response times,
fewer personnel and less equip-
ment ready to roll.
For the sake of full disclo-
sure, let me remind you that
my home is in Station No. 8's
district.They are my guys, and
if my heart ticker goes walla-
it's probably
them that will provide the EMS
- 80 percent of firehouse calls
See TURCHIN, Page AS
F
ire and the works were
on display at Jane Brun-
ner's community meeting
last Saturday at Peralta School.
Fire Chief Gerald Simon, City
Manager Robert Bobb, a whole
gaggle of firemen and a lot
concerned citizens were there
to discuss the one-year closing
of North Oakland's Fire Station
No.8 for its rebuilding.
The fire station issue is, sim-
ply put, one of dollars versus
sense. The dollars are about $4
million and change; the sense
is our public safety.
The city has arranged one of
those crafty "creative financ-
ing" deals that involves closing
the firehouse and financing the
new one on the backs of wages
saved by having eight less fire-
fighters on the streets for the
next year, The savings in wages
would net the city $3.2 million
of the $4.1 million needed to
build a new firehouse.
Nifty idea, and I can see
why it was tempting. It's al-
most like a free firehouse! H.ey,
let's close 'em all and build all
new ones!
But nothing is free. There
would, of course,be eight less
firefighters on the streets of
Oakland at any given moment
- 133 instead of the current
141. (Eight of the 141 are over-
timers, but that's another is-
sue), North Oakland will lose
something in its response time
11/30/2001 10:24 5105545155 DOWNS UMC PAGE 03
ovember 20" 2001
, ,
KELvIN SAULS,
Minister
'Vice-Mayor JaneBrimri.er
One,Frank Ogawa Plaza
, Oakland; CA 94612
2:JoW'1ti dttwlD'l.ial fUnite.J c!lI(e.tkdlfJ,t (!hutch
6026 Idaho Street
Church: (510) 654-5858'
Fax: (510) 654-6156 '
, Dear Vice-Mayc>rBnuiriex::-
We' are Writing this'letter to' aSk, you to do everything in your power to the :City ,
Council vote of this past 'June regarding the method of financing most of the costs of
rebuilding, Fire Station 8 on .51
1l
,Street above Telegraph Avenue. '
We understand' and wholeheartedly support the much needed replace;ment ,of Fire, Station
8, but we have learned that, the financing plan will result in cutting eight firefighters from
, ,the s response personnel and putting their engine and ladder
truck (the only' one,in NonhOakland) in storage for the rebuilding,period,: to '
last a, yeat or-more, Tb,is loss of critical aid at potentially difficult times poses a grave ,
danger for the entire city,and especially for my parish, which is now covered by Station
'8.' , '
, ,
. . .: . .
The reason we are,e.special1y impacted by the current plan is, to put it bluntly, that we
may have more need than most for Station 8'5 presence when calamities occur. The "
'parish' ,is l;lometo 'a' predominance of elderly people, ,many of them, nom the best of '
, health and many living in wooden structures. ' ,
Station 8 knows our area and, of crucial importance, Iaiows how to get to us fast.
Moreover, our degree of alarm rises exponentially at the thought that their engine, the
equipment most essential for emergency medical response, will be in storage somewhere "
when itmight be most needed. '
In sum, our entire parish population is becoming extremely concerned, ,at this danger to
their safety. We urge you to fmd another way to fmance the new Station 8 rather than by
endangering the we1l'being of citizens who may find it hard to fight for their right to
safety; but who '
Thank you fOIyour consideration.
Sincerely, '
Rev. Kelvin SaUls ,
Pastor
" 1- \
y:J
JOAN E. ETTLINGER
481 Alcatraz Avenue Apt. C
oakland, California 94609
(510) 658-0572
November 25, 2001
Public Safety Committee
Councilmembers Larry Reid, Henry Chang,
Danny Wan, Moses Mayne
Oakland City Hall
Frank Ogawa Plaza
Re: Firestation #8
Dear Publ.ic Safety Committee Councilmembers:
I am sUPPQrting the firefighters at Firestation 8 in their efforts to
remain in North Oakland while the new firestation is under construction.
The proposal by the Fire Chief to take 8 firefighters and two pieces of
firefighting apparatus off the street in order to fund the construction of a
modern firehouse through savings in the City's overtime budget is scary. The
Fire Department is understaffed now -- this plan only exacerbates the
situation. The Chief's proposal could better be referred to as the "Wing and
a Prayer Plan" since it seems like North Oakland residents are being asked to
"wing it" and pray nothing catastrophic, like another hills fire or an
earthquake or a terrorist attack, takes place during construction.
In order to modernize one stationhouse, the Chief is proposing to
further understaff and underequip the Department through a plan that is so
circuitous and confusing it has literally taken more than a couple hours for
the community to understand but essentially relies on using overtime, the
relief pool and taking two pieces of firefighting equipment out of service
during construction.
I have seen the firestation. To say it is decrepit, would be a
compliment. However, the firefighters who work there want to remain as a unit
in North Oakland and are willing to continue living in deplorable conditions
if the Committee and Council will accept their proposal which will be
presented at the Public Safety Committee.
If the firefighters are willing to continue living in these appalling
conditions in order to stay together, then I think the Committee and Council
should support them. It will mean a higher level of emergency medical service
and fire protection in North Oakland than the Chief's plan. It will keep two
pieces of firefighting apparatus in use. And, it will be a morale booster to
people who are already forced to work mandatory overtime because of chronic
understaffing and must be there for us 24/7 to save our lives in a medical
emergency or put their lives on the line in a fire.
cc: Jackie Hoeppner-Freitas, DMV Neighbors
RCPC ROCKRIDGE COMMUNITY PLANNING COUNCIL
. 5856 COLLEGE AVENUE PMB 130 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94618. 510 814-6060 www.rockridge.org
Council Member Larry Reid
One Frank Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
November 19, 2001
Dear Council Member Reid:
The Rockridge Community Planning Council urges you and the other members ofthe Public Safety
Committee to reconsider the City Council's June budget vote to support Fire Chief Simon's plan for
personnel reassignment/reduction and warehousing of equipment during the Fire Station 8 rebuild. We
believe this proposal would result in the unnecessary loss of property and lives in North Oakland. We
also believe that at the May 1
8t
Budget Session Chief Simon did not made clear his intentions to reduce
fire fighting capacity. We ask you, therefore, to recommend a new discussion and a revote ofthis
proposal at the City Council.
It is apparent to RCPC that the response time to both fires and medical emergencies would be severely
compromised with a reduction offirefighting postitions and equipment. RCPC is also greatly concerned
that no formal agreements have been reached for backup support with the Piedmont or Emeryville
departments. In light ofthe November 8 residential fire in Temescal that required two ladder trucks and 8
engines, how could it be argued that the City can guarantee the safety of its citizens without the heavy
equipment from Station 8 in use?
The construction ofthe new fire station has been estimated to take 10 months. If all goes well and
construction proceeds on time this retrenchment of available firefighters and equipment will extend into
and through the most hazardous time ofthe year, the dry season. At this 10
th
anniversary year ofthe
most disastrous residential fire in United States history the City Council should be especially mindful of
its obligation to ensure that Oakland residents never experience such a devastating loss again. RCPC
strongly urges the City Council to give more careful consideration to the potentially calamitous
ramifications of reducing fire protection in our city.
Respectfully,
Susan Montauk
RCPC Chair
cc: Council Members: Jane Brunner, Danny Wan, Nancy Nadel, Dick Spees, Ignacio de la Fuente,
Moses Mayne, Jr., Henry Wang,
Mayor Jerry Brown
rage 1 Ul 1
Ruth Finnerty
From:
To:
Cc:
Sent:
Subject:
"Ruth Finnerty" <[email protected]>
Tuesday, November 20, 2001 11 :11 AM
Fire station 8
Dear Public Safety Committee members and/or all City Councilmembers:
I am writing to ask that you do everything in your power to ensure that the City Council rescinds its vote of this
past June regarding the method of financing the rebuilding of Fire Station 8 on 51
st
Street above Telegraph
Avenue.
I am completely in favor of the much needed replacement of Fire Station 8, but I have learned that the
financing plan as approved in June will result in cutting eight firefighters from the city's available emergency
response personnel and putting their engine and ladder truck (the only one in North Oakland) in storage for
the rebuilding period, estimated to last a year or more. This loss of critical aid at potentially difficult times
poses a grave danger not just for the area I live in, but indeed for the entire city and its neighboring
communities, areas that Station 8 has itself historically been on call for.
Furthermore, the aid agreement with Piedmont and Emeryville that helped lead to the Council's vote has still
not come to pass. Fire Chief Gerald Simon presented it as a settled arrangement both to the Council in May
and to community meetings at the Temescal Library on September 27 and at Peralta Elementary School on
November 3, Councilmember Jane Brunner's community advisory meeting. At the November 3 meeting, City
Manager Robert Bobb contradicted Chief Simon, pointing out that he had told the Chief previously that the
agreement had to be in writing, but there was nothing in writing yet.
Indeed, recently we were told that Oakland's request to Piedmont for help has been withdrawn. And now, with
the City Council scheduled to meet on December 4 to reconsider its June vote, Chief Simon's Agenda Report
tells us that Emeryville will make the agreement final on December 7, three days AFTER the Council's vote.
We have heard, however, that the Emeryville city government knows nothing of this.
I urge you to investigate independently to determine whether the situation is as the Agenda Report claims.
The lives of the people of Oakland depend on the viability of Chief Simon's plan, a plan that was supposed to
exist on May 1, 2001, and still does not exist.
In any event, Emeryville is an unlikely candidate to help with replacements for Station 8. The number of calls
that Station 8 receives-nearly 4000 in the year 2000, 1,010 for the ladder truck alone-would overwhelm
Emeryville's ladder truck capabilities, and the necessarily longer response time could place citizens in serious
jeopardy. (NOTE: The 426 figure of "actual action" responses on pages 3 and 4 of the Agenda Report is
misleading because the truck has to respond as soon as each call comes in without waiting around the station
to see whether the call is "actual" or not.)
Please find a way to finance the new Station 8 that will keep us all, including our firefighters, as safe as
possible.
Thank you.
Ruth Finnerty
11/20/01
p ~ 3 ~
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786 Dec. 03 2001 08:07PM P1
MEI\fORANDtJM
City 0 .' E01el")TVille
Deoeu be.. 4, 200J
TO:
FROM:
SlJBJECT:
John Flores, City Manager
Stephe<l L. Cutris:ht, Fire Chidlit.
Approval of an Interim Enh5nced Matull Aid Fire Departmem.Response
Agreement with tbe City of (Iaklall.d during the of Oaklllnd's
Fire Station 8
RECOMJ."VIENDATlON
Stiff recQ;T\.mcnds that the City Council autho'i:ze t."1e fire chiefto into an agreement with
tile Oakland fire chief to inTerim c;nhll,ccd mutual aid .6:e department response to
designared areas of Oakland during the ofOak1and's Fixe Station S.
.
City of Oakland is proposing a temporal) e!h'1ancemenr of OUI mutm.1 aid There
are two elemenTS of their proposa1. l-irst, they are aSking Emety\lilie to provide temporary
coverage with Otil' Tn.rck 2471 on alI structllr, fires occurring v.ithin a section oftheir city
alfecred by Ul<! dosut't= anc recons- ruction oftheir aging and inadequate fire station 8
located ai 463 -51" Street (near 51'1 and Avenue). the fire stanon 8
reconstruction will reduce Oaklapd resources Jvailable for emergency nlcctica1 (EMS) cal1$
within a portion. of their city adja.cent to Emc! northeastern bou-"1G.a1y, and they are asking
EmCo"yville to provide interim E:.\,fS coverage here. Oakland eA."Pecls lritcl'im coverage to be
needed fOl> 10 to 12 months, when ...gaIn will fully staft'fu'e 8 and provide it with
modem equipment and apparatus. OAkland is 5eeking help to fill <:on temporary gap in
tb:ir fire protection nnd medical Sv"'I"\icc cover age.
.... J .J ...... ' ..... t' ""' ............. TC'OJ _n("'.L.
An enhanced mutual aid agreement will beneft Emeryville in several ways both short-term and
lon-term. Emeryville will be assured ofPTompt and emergency covc;agc, even when
both fire are busy on calls. Oakland ccntirrJc to provide iow-cost dispatch services.
EmeI)"Ville fire personnel will gain valuable e). perience in a wider scope of eme.gency calls and in
working closely and more frequently with the larger opczrational teams in. Oakland. 1ul interi:n
enhanced mutual aid system will carry forwad into joint training and multi.company drills with
Oaklar.d. and the refinement of cummon profr:ssional standards covering emergency scene
operations. This v..iIl mean developing a close' and more effective working relationship ""ith
OaklJIld, giving enhanced fire and medical se: vice to tile citizens ofboth cities. EveotLlal1y, when
fire station 8 is replaced will be ab e to utDize better fire protection resources available
for us from th:l.t fire station.
Dec. 03 2001 08:08PM P2
Staff Repon: Interim Enhanced Mutual Aid
December 4,2001
Page 2
The ::.ection balow covering the analysis ofthe proposed agreement will consider in depth its
merits and impacts upon EmeT}rvillc. Before tl.at discussion, however, a IBview the general mutual
aid \vill place the current proposal in h:stol.icaJ context. The existing mutual aid system,
after aU, has worked reasonably well for many years. Unfortunately 1h! l>-ystern a.s it now exists has
some shortfalls and gaps in providing effective fire a.,d medical protect!o:l. Indeed, pan of the
appeal of the current proposal to enhance th.e nutuat aid system between our two jurisdictions is
its value as Ii 'first step' toward a compr automatic aid s;,stem.
M\It'UlI! Ajd:
Dating back to at least the early 1970
l
s when California experienced a. series of carfu."tI'Ophic urban
conflagrations. the mutual aid SY!irem !mong f ,e and law enforcement agt:!ncies is by now a ti:'lle-
tested and solidly proven method of interagency cooperation, mutual support, and group
protection. The concept ofmutual aid is basee on the much older or"collective
se:urity," when') no individual is deemed seCUJ Co unless 011 metnbers are secure. Specifically in the
case of the Ca.lifornia fire local, 1nd a.gencies htve agreed to pool their fire
re30urces so that agency 'sould receive emergency help accordins to its need. and
:n turn each agency would give emergency he! ) to according lO its reasonable capacity to
,it, sn arc ient he,ween jurisdiction ;; except on very few and specialized
:10 is exchanged fo;" mutual a.id Above sIl, aid is a system of ptotac:ion
which pools the resources ormany to cover tho: eventuality that on member agency win
to ask for help. Single fire depnrtnlertts nd especially small one:), do not stand alone to
protect their citizens against all emergencies, lu-gc and small. Instead they can rely upon a wider
system of support, held together by common J.rcfessional standards, to provide for their
protection.
Ofcourse, as with any c.ollecrive security systt m,. mutual aid requlics giving as well as recxiving.
How much and bow often ODC gives and largely depends upon the circumstances of
individual. fire depan.--nents. In our ca.e, as e. f;,nall fire department, 'Emeryville is fortunate to have
a relatively low emergerJcy call volume, but 01 the othcr hand has limited resources and cannOl
adequately ha:ldle larger emergency incidents ",,'ith on.ly two ccll'lpames on duty (and seven
firefigbten: a.t a minimum). This that E:r;leryville is in a position to lend mutual cid support
to neighbors (mainly Berkeley and Oakla.."ic) by sending a single company more frequeOTly.
Oakland, 00 the other ha.1d, is a Ia.--ge city wit)l vast resooroc:s but also a. significantly higher
emergency ca.ll voh.:me than Emeryville, Oak1c nd is tn a better position to tend occasional massive
suppor: tC its neighbors in response to a l.!rge BC&le incident. Also, because ofthe
breadth Qjresources available to a large fJfe d :partrnellt, Oakland is able to provide Emeryville
with specialized unavailabb to any tma'll fire department. Under the existing mutua: aid
arrar.gcrr:ent between Oakland a.TJd F.rneryville Oakland gives ,ne kind of support to Emeryville
that a small city cannot get any other way 8.11d in such 3. short time. On the other hand, Emeryville

Dec. 03 2001 08:09PM P3
Staff Report: Interim. Enhanced Mutual Aid
December 4,2001
Page 3
gives Oakland the kind of suppcrt it needs mo;t single unit responses to cover their districts
their uni.ts are busy on one oftbeir own
The mutual aid system upon which Emeryviile rdies is based upon three (3) ui'lderl)mg elements
t. Califbmia embtished a C(lC'perative State Fire and Rescue Mutual Aid System
under the authority of the Go,,"! Office Services (OES)
Although comp ctcIy "oluntary for local jurisdictions, the sySte:rn
has the full participation of e'"e y 5re agency in the state.
2, CaHfornia OES has augmented the State Fire and Rescue Mutllal Aid System by
adminiscer-:.ns a mutual nid syst':m which encompasses agencies oftbe fecieral
govcrnmeuL the Ferest Bureau ofumd ManagemenT, and rhe Nmionai
PArk 2.greemen: i; called the Cooperative for Local
Governmcm Fire SupprcsslOn" ,honerled to the Agrcemcnt"and
for federal and state rt:imbursernent ofmumal aid incurred by local
gover.nTJent agencies whl:I1 responding to fires on state cr federal lands.
3 The cities, special districts, Ala County, CDF, University of California,
and the tJritce States Army and Navy have established an A,grCcmcl1t for Mutua.l
Fire Assistance Vlithin Count). This agreement, to which Emeryville is 3.
signatory, was entered into on ')ctober 2S, 1993 and p:-o,\;oes for muwa1
reciprocal assistance, mutual in from li:l.bili'ty And an Agreemem to
hold of the other parties b1!'mIess from claims for damages, Prom this COWlty-
wide agreement, the fire chiefs have developed an "A1ancda County .AJd
Plan'" which specifieg the way r lutual aid for fire and medical resources '.liilI be
organized. The County M'-"tual Aid Plall and its underlying agreement is the
backbone of the exiSting mutu. [ ai::! relationship betwee:l Emeryville and Oakland..
A,fte:- the OctoOOr 1991 East Bay Hills Fire, mU'i.ual aid system was further modilicd, tbis time
to CTt:ate MutJal Response Areas (MRA) ben-'een Emeryville, Oakland and Berkeley, Althoilgh
the MR.-\ concept was never actually impleme1ted fo!' EmetY\'ille (Oakland and Berkeley in fact
developed an hf.R.A. for the hills iUea), the Emeryville City Council on June 17, 1997 adopted
Resolution 97- J17 authorizing the City to enter into MR.'\. agreements v.ith Berkcley
and Oakland. The MR.".. mutual aid concept p o..,ided for fire units from each ofrhe parties to
re:;pond directly to emergencies within t:'le de!.ignated MR_A. 's on an immediate basis, wtthout
wa.i.ting for a formal mutua! aid request. The tRA were the time that the cities of
Oakland, Berkeley and Em.eryville contemp[a! an arrangement known 3,S ''automatic: aid" where
firt= and medical operations -"',,'ere Oll the basis of the tire unirwem immediately
to the emergency regardIesi> ofjuri:ldlctionaJ b:mndarics.
r'd

'FROM EMERYVI LLE FIRE DEPT STA 2
FAX NO.
510-420-1785
Dec. 03 2001 08:10PM P4
Staf'fReport: Interim Enhanced Mutual AJd
December 4,2001
Page 4
During the past &everal years. the Alameda C)Ut1ty Fire Chiefs Association has recognized that
although the MRA mutual aid concept failed ."1:) be implemented broadly b county, the
concept ofautomatic aid should be incorpors:ed into an updated Alameda County Mutual Aid
Plan. F:-om a c:fperspectives and cirCl. rnstances the county fire chiefs recognized that the
existing mutual plan was slow and poorly res] .onsive to the immediate emergency needs which
often arise in each jurisdiction.. Abetter systel nis currently under plan developmem. a system
which involves ccordinated corrm1Urucarions bundary drops, nearest unit response:,
joint trai:Ung. com.'11on operational standards, and a unifo;m approach to p!'oviding
levels -of coverage anu response to clI particip lting jurisdictions. The vision now entertained by
tht:l county fre chiefs is that muru2.1 aid :0 go to the ncx1 step: toward i1U functional
integration ofemergency operations.
Tnterirn Agreement:
The proposed interim agreement with OaklaJlcl fOf cnh<lnced mutual aid needs to be considered
withi.'1 this historical context. The agreement j j not about EmeryVIlle cove.--ing Oakland fire
station 8's still dimic! with a truck company. 1tis a.boui strengthening ties between Oakland
;in<i r""meryville in the joint delivery offire and services. It is ensuring that
gives resources it hClS the capacity .0 give ill e>:change for getting resource!: it
nave in a IMge emergency or when both ofits tlI'Iits :Ire busy. rt is Il.bout starting to crd't a regional
system of fire prO!ectioIl and not just rel)'-mg upan our small fi n: ac:partment for all of our
protection. The e[Jhanced mutua! aid agreeme1l1 is a first step> a carefully limited step, a step
wrJch car. heip us Clove toward a mare encorlpassmg system ofcollective security.
The p;-oposed interim agreement would have I:mc:yviJJe provide coverage in two ways:
Provide aerinl truck company from Er.lery...iJJe fire >tation 2 to the "stil1
district" (or firSt ir. :listrict) for. ncr1y covered by Truck 8 before their
station closure;
2. 'Provide EMS coverage to an ea of Oakland immediately adjacent 10 the
northeast bou::I<l.ary ofEmeryviHe, from Vallejo Street on the WGst, 53
N
Street on
the south, Lowell and $acrarne:110 Streets 00 the east. and the Berkcley border on
th!! north. From Emeryville's erst' border, fire units would respond up to :ill: blocks
east into Oakland fOT EMS cov::rage
In exchange, Oaklatd to provide cover..ge for Emeryville in the event we deplete our
rcsourCe$ ('):'\ the basis of the closest available vnit. For nledical calls, the engi.,c Out of
fire station 5 located at 934 34
11
Stre:c:t be )'csponding ...... a paramedic to that upjt.
Further, during a significant nJ'.ltual aid event (Iakland 'JIi1! provide covera.ge to Emeryville during
of exhaustod resources. The 91-1 disptch to will continue without
any increase to the $ 30,000 per year cost. The indemnifica.tion and hold harmless of
I .J
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STR 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:10PM P5
Staf'Report: Interim Enhanced Mutua! Aid
December 4.2001
Page S
the AJameda County Mutual Aid Agrtlernent al,o apply to this enhanced mutu!.l aid
Finally, Emeryville and Oakiand 'will develop je int training. joint recnut ac:ldemy and multi-
company drills.
A.l',{ALYSlS/DlSCUSSlON
The proposed interim agreement for enhanced nucual aid with Oakland raises several issues which'
need to be addressed.
1. Whf'.t is the remQnge ach...itv .Ar Ememille in to Oald81d? Please
mer to the analysis sheet attached to tl is T2Port entitled "Proposed Fin:: StatiM S
Covera.ge: Emeryville Fire Mutual Aid. IThe is divided \ltmicaliy intO four
se<:tions; direct your a.ttention to the lef t section oftbc spreadsheet.
Taking ca.lendar year 2000 emergency i.all statistics from the Oakland rire Dispa.tch
we were able to determine the ::urnber of calls fire Station 8 actually responded
within the Oakland district Emeryville i; beitlg asked to cover. During the public debnte
over this issue m'1 Oakland resident figu!'es for emergency calls from fire station
8which are significant1): at odds Vv1th ti.e figures we have from the dispatch
center.' We sorted the station Scalls by geographic area to dctc:rminc only those calls
within their "still district." The eI'.!cine 2nd truck un.its out offtre $\a.tion &responded to
areas of Oakland outside that stilJ-o.i.)'tri :t, lind accounts for the higher figures
promulgated by the Oakland resident.
OUT corroborated by Oakland 'fire officers for analyzing theit plan, .

shows that for 2002 Emeryville would expected to' respond under the interim
agreement to 704 cans: 266 truck reSJ){.'llses and 438 Ei\fS As the starred
column C'" lit) in the tc:ft section of the i?readsheet shows, this will apount to a total of
slightly under two e:ner12ens:y 24-hQUf day by the Emery....ille Fire Department
into Oakland. :EMS responses would atcount for 63% ofthCl added can volume. Oakland
me Clffi<:ers have noted tnat although tt e truek company might be dispatched
to 0.73 fire calls pc::r day, based upon flair aetL:a1 fire incidents they estimate Emeryville
will only have to work on acto,l.a] structure fires!.S tunes a week. This report seems
consistent 'l.vith our with C!1 cellations for fire calls due to false alarms and
cases where only minor fires are found wjich do not require a truck at the scene. .
2. What the impact on the Emet\'Vllle Fire Department's emergencv
load? Again, please refet to the analysi: sheer attached to this report entitled "Proposed
OaI.;land Fire 8 Coverage: Emeyvillc Mutua.! Aid." TI';e right three sections of
the spreadsheer atlaIyza the impact of aiding Oakland's requested emergency responses
c'd
FAX NO. 510-420-1785
Dec. 03 2001 08:11PM P5
Staff Report: Interim Enhanced MutlJal Aid
December 4, 200I
Pase6
under the interim agreement for enhanl:ed mutual aid. Like a glass either half full or half
empty ofwater. it is posS101e to took a' the nrc station 8impacts upon Emeryville as either
very minor or very large. The facts stn,ngly:point to a very rniMr inlpact.
In the 2002 calendar yenr we e'JCPect ullCler the interim agreement that the Emeryville Fire
Depanment's emergency call volume "I'ill jump from around 1,600 calls tc 2,300 calls,
abDut a 44% increase. Wbile is. temp'ing to regard this increase as a signifieant ehange,
in fact it has very imp$.ct upon the 24-hoUT d.:Iily load of the fire department
. boc:mse the Emelj'ViJlt: calls 'without 0 'l.kland rcspons:s are so low to begin ""ith. At only
.. 4.3 5calls per 24-hocr day from two fire stations, Emer:'Vllle fire crews would be asked
under the interim agreement to add 1. 2 call s per shift to their work load, for a
department total of calls per 24-h;)ur day. This increase is hardly significam even fer
one fire company, Jet alone for two op<-:rational companies. When you consider that one of
Oakland's busier fire compa."1ics respOl ded during the 2000 calendar year to over 8.5 calls
per day, [he impact upor. onl) one Ernuyvillc 'Gre company is indeed minor.
3. Will.EWM11le residents suffer when He paramgdi yncine from Fire Station 2 cannot
resPQnd to an F.mervville medical call t ccause that companv is a\o\'3Y on i! fire!n Ollldand?
The concern is that a Triangle resident might get a. de!ayed response from Sta.tion 1's
engine (frDm the Peninsula) or that OaJ:land "muldn't be capable of providing paramedic
level EMS $enice.
Under the principle that the nearest uml responds, engine 5would respond to a
Triangte EMS call Oakland has staffed 5with So fulltime paramedic .
nre:6ghter. so unless they are busy on another call, 5 will be able to cover the:
Triangle and eastern section ofEmet)'\ ille with paramcdiv-Icvcl EMS service:. In the: event
engine 5 cannot rcsp:,nd from Oakl8I1d, Emeryville will respond as it always from
Station I. The response times within E:neryville are historically well within tbe
standard, from across town.
4. Will Oakland provide for back yoverall efor Emeryville in the event both Emeryyilte fire
are on emerger:c
v
calls? Tbis is om:.ofthe beSt features ofthe proposed enhanced
mutual aid arrangement whb Oakland. Emeryville will obtain coverAse :from Oakland
whenever Emeryville's resources are d'JPlcted. In tlle past, Oakland has covered
Eme:yviHe whenever both tmeryville f re units were engaged on emergency' calls within
our jurisdiction, o.r or. request' whe!1C' :er an em.ergency incident was larger than OUT two
. fire companies could handie. OakJand ' nl] colrtir:l!J.e as before, o.o1y now they will commit
this coverage in writing io Emeryville t,o.d monitor Emeryville's fire covera.ge so that
Emeryville \Vill nm need to request sep lI'ate1y mut1Ja1 aid Oakland covera.ge begins.
TfOaklanci cannot tuo.:ile a timely resp mse from one oftbeir unit;; (because that unit is out
Dec. 03 2001 08:12PM P7
StaffReport: Interim Enhanced Mutua! Aid
December 4, 200 I
Page 7
of or on another emergency c ill) then Oakland vvill assume the responsibUiry of
calling 15erkele"i fOr i mutual aid respc nse. Like atrue joint operations or automatic aid
system Oakland's dispatch will be guaraDtor cfEmeryviUt's fire protection oo
y
cr8.gC.
They already do this for Oaklll.nd, now they'n include Emeryville.
5. Will there be wr en the two flre departmeo\Jjlre working
an emerg.encv f:cene together? Onde:- t le existing mutual aid system, there already i" a
. fundarner:taI degree of operational COIl irruity. Under an enhanced mutual aid relationship,
., the;-e will need to be better continuity l mthe fire g;ound. We will anain this continuity by
training, multi-company drills, develop llg common operational and by
interdepartmental cons'u.lta.tions and di:cussions designed to deal with little problems
before they become large problems.
6. Is lrusjrnerim agreemen: just a wall fOe Emel"'."Villc covering l:O that they don't
have to pltV overtime to their firefi!!htc]7 The public debate has enst the
proposed fire station 8 coverage plan il this iight. I>..nvther su:i:cmem ofthe issue is that
one area of Oakland is suffering from !..oorer fire prote;;tion because ofthe City of
problem i:l affording QVcrW;le salnries. TIle problem is actually more
complicated than a reluctance to pay 0 'ertime to firefighters and keep the same number of
firefighters on duty.
The Oakland Fire Department is having a difficult time staffing their fire companies. The
impact of in the retirement the move to firofighter/paramedics sh.rin1dn
the labor market, and historical have combined to create a significant
staffing shortfall..'\.s a result, Oakland ,'laS for the past mO!1th unable to fill all of their
minimum:firefighter positions on wt!ek mds, even when they havC! ordorcd mandatory
overtime for personneL The Union (Lc:cal $o$) is responsible for sehed.uung and
they have been uoable to fin engine conpanies at scme stations. This situation will only
,ger worse with added retirements in th! December' 2001 to Febnlt'.I)' 2002 period.
If Oakland is in this: k.ind of staffing ori ;is, Emeryville's addition oftruck coverage for fire'
station 8is n"t going to take away work opportunities for Oakland
so mlleh as it will ensure that sections nfOalc1dIld in fact rcrnam adequately covered ltthe
Enio!'l eannot fill the positio.ns minimal y required to be filled on a daily basis, then it is not
reasonabie to accuse Oakland of mere" trying to save money by asking Emeryville to
help. OUf help is directly re1n.ted to emmng that Ol,lr neighbors in fact maintain their fire
prmection coverage. This is, after all, ; CClTe concept of mutual aici
.i i Emenr.ille pro
1o
iding.grearer vCllue LI scrv:ces to Oakland ths.n it. is getting in return?
nus question also cuts to the heart mutual aid Each pam in a mmU1'J aid
I d
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:12PM P8
Staff Report: InteJ'l'll Enhanced Mutual Aid
Dcccmxr 4, 200 I
Page S
relationship gives according to what ii can give, a.nd receives according to its needs.
Mutual aid is like an insurance risk po >!. has very few simultaneous alarms
where both fire units are our of serviet at the same time. With Emeryville's relatively lw
call there is response capacity to provide fire unit
assistance regularly. Emeryville "pays' C'very day in single fire unit i>remiuffiS'" When
Emeryville must make a claim for resc ',lfC:S from the mutual aid r:sk pool, however. it has
the ofknc.ing that the risk pool will provide the resources needod in a timely
mal'lMt'. Oakland has the resources te, Jrovide response to cover Emeryville wben
. an emergency Eme;yville's CLpabilities. The artll.ched "Comparison ofAid
Provided" speaks directly to relative b-:ncfits of our relationship fer 2001 to date.
More than this, however. Oakland has a myrhd of resources which 'wrth its
small tire department simply ca.r.not afore. Doe attached resource lisT from the Oakland
Fire DepArtment clearly shows th ofthclr ability to assist Emeryville botb on an
emergency and on tt. nox:-emergency b"sis. Many times over the past years, Oaldand has
assisted Emeryville routme ency services and nonoemcrsency services, The
point is that must look at th.e mutu,J aid relationship on the buis ofwh:ther cur needs
are being mc:, or alternatively wbether we can tlle..-n more efficiently other way
The historical record supports the asse t'tion that mi.itual aid is both cheap aod reliable
insurance for Emeryville.
S, the mutual aid svnern .Y::'ork just fine? Wlw do we need 10 change it?
Ghrell considerable target haz:ards the Watergate Complex) an.d the
high buildings, the Emeryvi11e Fire Depanment is short on resources to
handle even modera'te-Ievel cmergenc) situations Mutual aid docs work. but it
doesn't work v.'dl enaub to cover eel rain of cur flTe protection needs.
Fires grow exponentially, given RvaiJ.at Ie f1.lei. 11'.is Ineans that rapid and
imensive are what is needed to control tnd extinguish sm2l1 but fast growing
fires before they get to be big fires. In)rder to meet the requirements implied under NFPA
1710 (or avoid the liability), in order H' assemble GlJffident resources at an emergency
scene before sending pe:sonnel into a fire building, we need to bave a full structure tire
response from il"Jtial dispatc..i.. The: cur: ent mutual md systan has too many loose ends,
ir.volving too much time delay, to be g)od foe Emeryville over the long. term. Eithe, we
make the mutual aid system meet our [bjcctive needs. or we need ro re-evaluate O\Jf
reSO'JTce posture for covering larger-sc ale emergencies.
Managing the
TIlcrc is much that needs to be managed and S"lpervised witb an interim enhanced mutuel aid
agreement \\lith Oakland, Asigniticant labor d:sagreement exists betwCD Local 55 and the City of
..J..-. ..... .-.,-.. ..................... ---
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:13PM P9
Staff Report: Interim E'OhnceC Mutual Aid
December 4, 2001
Page 9
OPokland over this agreement. The dispatch sy ;tem is critical to the ef&ctive working o:the
enhanced mtmLaJ aid elements. a11d dispatch? lrformance must be monitoreD. Training must bt:
adequate to cover operational needs and it is (Inly through effective multi-company t....aining tha.t
we can hope to coordinate the operational staldards ofboth fire deputments. Ifthe call volume
for Emer,Y'ville turns out to be significantly mere than expected, we have to be prepared to scale
back in planned ways. Oakland clearly has set a priority on the truck D-CD1 Emery....ille,
and so ifthe call volume is excessive it is likel',. that the Emeryville EMS respOTIse would be the
fitst tCl be scaled back. Moreover, we will to ce.:efi..llly monitor the V<1l.y the Oakland are
Dispatch provides coverli.se fo:" Emeryville wren bth oc.r fire units are out of service, We expect
them to do well on this, since they provide coverage for Oakland alrea.dy. But we
remain The same is true with our e!llt rgency response times; we camot afford to see a.
marked deterioration in -:hese after an interim J.grccment is in foroe.
We are in a good position monitor the ex!::c :.uion of an enhanced mutual aid agreement. \Ve
have benchmark da!a on responSI; and c.Jl volumes, wt: have adeql.:3.te rel'oi'ting systems
which will allowus to spo't problems early an, track Trends. and we have open lines of
communication between tbe commar..d. of both fire Undoubtedly we will
to meet and col'lfer with 0ur Union over he Lllpac!s of stich an We must monitor
the actual service deliverj into Oakland.. ieITlil.'rring accountable both to Oakland residents of
the <CDMV and OUT O\1;n Citi.zerlS and City Council. Above ali. we must be prepared
to take aggressive aetiotl to correct problems, 1lnd ifwe can't correct those problems. we must,
admit failure and try other ways to assure fi!'c 3.:IC medica: safety for both cities
Finalization Process:
The authori&ation requested in the attached rc ,o!ution and the attached lttcr ofagreement
contemplates the two fire chiefs refining the o)erat;onal details ofan enhanced mutu21 aid
relationship before begin."ins actual coverage. 'rbe prior Coumy Mutu.a.l Aid Agreement and the
draft MRA Agreement give \IS a MlctUfC LJpC nwhich to b1J.ild the: program's operational plan,
FISCAL IMPACT
The propos:::d enhanced mutua; aid agreement v..'ill invol"'e no direct cash outlay for the City. nor
will Emeryville be compensated direetJ.y from JakJ.and for providing emergency services the them,
There maybe certai., minor indirect savings r,alizcd and costs incurred, however. The crncrgcocry .
dispatch services provided by Oakland would lot increase in cost from the CW1'ent level of
$30,000 per year and this would a knd of savings. On the other hand) thore would be an
mcrease in the wear and maintena lee co3ts associa.ted wi&. 01,lr (one engine
and the aerial truck) and some ofthe equipme'lt. Since we are still talking about only a minor
impact upon the Emeryville Fire Departmem i.l1enr.s of total call volume and emergency service
activity, the incremental COS! increase is likely to be minor, if it is noticeable at all.
:5JJrA
j, \

FAX NO. 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:14PM P10
StaffReport: Tnte.rim EnhaDced Mutual Aid
2001
Page 10
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED AND FORWARDED
TO TIlE CITY COUNCIL:
AtT.acbmenrs: Comparison of Aid Prvvidcd: 1 and Oakland
letter oflrttent, November 8, J
Eve-Pirty Agreement
Alameda C01.1Oty Mutual Aid ,) greernent
Resolution 97117
Propcsed Oakland Fire Station 8 Coverage:
Eme.T)ville Fire Mutl."al Aid
calls Per in 2000 ar.d Other Quick FaeT:$.
(Jf.eql.leli.ne Hoewner-lrc:itilS7 Oakland resident)
Oakland Fire Department Eme;'gency Resource List
Map of Coverage
01 reeL-OS"'"
FROM EMERYVILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2 FAX NO. 510-420-1786 Dec. 03 2001 08:14PM P11
COMPARISQri OF AID PROVIDED
Emeryvi1'e and Oaklll.ud
2001
Emen",jlle. Gets From Oakland
Mutual aid coverage v..'hen
when both EFD units arc busy
(3 fire units sent)
Mutual aid fire units for confirmed
.. struet1.Ire fires
." (2 fires @3 units each =6 flre un it"
sent)
Mutuai aid fire command $mff on
c.onfumed stl"Ucrnr:: fires
(2 fires @ 1Batfulion Chief each)
Use ofFire Training Facility for
Recruit Physieal Agility Testing
(One 8-Hour Day)
Pa..-t:icipation in Trainkg
Programs
- Weapcn..:: ofM3SS Dcstroction Drill
- Medical Rcsponst: Truiniug-WMD
- Recruit Academ,'
Specialized Emergency
- He3VY Re,;cue vl1it
- Fire Boat
- Air Supply Unit (SCBA refLllin,g,J
- Foam U:lit
- Ha7..ardous Matr:r.ials Unit
- Povver Unit Oarge gencrttor)
- Command Unit (large:
emergencies)
- Salvage 1Jnit
- Trauma
- Fire Investigator
Strtff Assistance Cresting)
QaklaruJ From Emel'\-vilJe
Ml.<tual aid coverage when orn
units in are busy
(9 ftte unitS gent)
Mumal aid fire wU1.S for confunled
structure flIes at multiple alGmIls
(Z fires @1unit each 2 fire units
sent)
Not resl-'Ond
voluntarily; no command

None
Invi:ed to n1ulti-departmer:taJ High
Rise Drills and Inspections (hosted in
)
None
Staff Assistance (festing)
T ..,. ,.J
,FROM EMERYUILLE FIRE DEPT STA 2
FAX NO. 510-420-1786
RESOLUI [ON NO.
Dec. 03 2001 08:15PM P12
m;soLunoN OF THE CITY COUSOL OF THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE
THE FIR CHIIl:F TO ENTER INTO AL"'l AGREEMENT WITH 1lIE
OAKLAl'i'D FIRE CHlEF TO PROVIDE lNrERJM MUTUAL AID FIRE
DEPARTMENT RESPONSE TO OAKLL1\1) DU'RTh"G THE RECONSTRUCTION OF
OAKLAND'S FIRE STATION8
WHEREAS. mutual is a system of collet tivc security by which fue may obiain
t'.dditional resources for responding to emcrge'1.cies 'Within their indivilfual and
WHEREAS, the Emeryville Fire Depart."nen: prompt back up covera.ge by other cities,
including the City ofOaidand, to avuila1ility ofadequate emergency response persol'Ulet; and
the City ofEme.rYl,iiUe and tha:ity of Oakland are patl'Jes to the Alameda County
Mutual Aid Agreement imtiated on October 1983, and to the Alameda. County M.utua] Aid
and
WHEREAS, the Ci>yof'Oakland desirt!s to rel onstroet an old and marginallyfllIl"tionai fire station.
Station gat 463 - Spc Stroot, andthe Oakland i1' requestingEmeryvill.e)s assistance OD ainteri..'i1 basis
\JJ'Itil reconstruction completed to provide Cl:Ttain specific emergency uri:l1 truck. and fire eagine
coverage into a.reas now cO'\lered by the :fire Ui .its housed at Fire Station S; and
WHEREAS, the: City of Oakland "'ill provid,\ to Emeryville certain backup crm:rgen.cy coverage
I,l,.-ben Emcljvllle's resources. are depleted, and will pro\ide such services in me quantity and quallty
acceptable to EmeryviTIe in mcclms its emergmcy roe a..."d medIcal service requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City ofOakland and c contemplate fi.mhcr coopera.tionin devclopingjoint
training. multi-company drills. joint recmit acadeIU)' mining and development of common
professional standards for their emergency OP( rations;
Tf!ER:EFOR't, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the Ci:y ofEmeryville authorizes the
Fire Chiefto enter imo an agreement with the Oak13J1d Fire Chieftv interimenhancedmutual
aid fire departml::rrt response to Oakland dtLi.'1:; the reconstruction or Oakland' s Fire Station 8.
Resolution
December 4, 2001
Page Two
FAX NO, 510-420-1786
Dec. 03 2001 08:15PM P13
ADOPTED by City Council oftM C:ty 01 Emeryville at a regular meeting held onDecember 4,
2001.
AYES:, '--'- _
NOES:, _
EXCUSED: _
ATIEst:
CITY CLERK
ABSENT: _
ABSTAINED: _
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO f"OR.1\i.:
CITYAITO
8T'a
aT'''' , )F
. __
'., :!t;" .. , I
>r\1'J...1n t"',.. ... _ pl ...... ,-..---
." :,
f ..\":' ';I,,i .....
/l.....
"'.. " I /:".: ...

aIJ , tJa(CA. 5
Response Coverage _--.. ' ." t
.' I
.. i :-"::':::::\:"\ __ .... ,--'1-'
:T 11/
2
- --
it
--':':.,. 1.... {,
I \ ,'1 ,". U I \'
._\..::
ITruck
-
'II
,
CITY HALL ONE FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
Dick Spees
Councilmember
District 4
December 4,2001
To: President Ignacio de la Fuente and City Councilmembers
From: Councilmember Dick Spees
Re: Item 12, Federal and State Legislative Agendas
(510) 238-3266
FAX (510) 238-6129
After consulting with our federal and state advocates, I would like to propose the
following motion. The effect of this motion is to allow the advocates to identify potential
sponsors and/or funding sources for all the items on the Council's agenda, and to return
with a follow up report in January.
MOTION:
1. Direct the Federal Lobbyist to seek funding opportunities for all budget
requests on the list through appropriations, grants or legislation and to
identify potential legislative advocates (sponsors) along with a detailed
political strategy for those Oakland-specific items with the best chance
of success in FY 2002.
2. Direct the Federal Lobbyist to advocate passage of all legislative and
administrative items, particularly where there is demonstrable positive
impact for Oakland.
3. On State Budget Requests, direct the Office of Intergovernmental Affairs
to:
(A) Pursue funding for the following state budget requests through
general fund, grant funding, state park bond (Proposition 12), water
bond funds (Proposition 13), library bond funds (Proposition 14),
Proposition 42 - transportation funding initiative on March ballot,
Proposition 40 park bond on March ballot, and all other state
potential funding;
Oakland Airport Connector
Local Street and Road Rehabilitation
California Museum Collections Facility
Museum Hands-on Ecology Center
Studio One
African American Museum & Library
Oakland Zoo Wild California
Union Point Park
. ~ ...
~ / ~
tJo. ~ ,;{oo!
- f
Neighborhood Law Corps
Oakland Military Institute
After School Programs
Storm Drainage System
MacArthur Transit Village
Channel Connection
Waterfront Pathway/Shoreline Access
Lake Merritt Retaining Wall and Walkway Repair
International Blvd. Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Martin Luther King Freedom Center
(B) further research and prepare the following items for potential
funding;
Caldecott Park Project
San Pablo Pedestrian Safety Improvements
Open Space
(C) and focus on projects that can be completed within the funding
categories and/or funding levels available if Member's budget
requests are solicited.
4. On State Legislative Items, direct the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs to:
(A) pursue sponsorship for the following legislative items:
311 Response
Victims of Sexual Assault
Probation/Parole Programs
AB 381 - transit village development
Vehicle Impoundment Program
Housing Elements
(B) research and prepare the following Items for sponsorship when
appropriate;
Oakland Army Base Public Trust exchange
Costa-Hawkins Amendments to exclude inclusionary zoning
units from rent regulation
Inclusionary Zoning
Reimbursement for Local Clean up of Cal Trans Properties
Increase criminal penalties for illegal dumping
Establish clear stringent standards for liquor license revocation
(C) monitor legislation under General Matters and advocate for positions
as directed by the City Council.
REVISED 11/20/01
RESOLUTIOI\I No. C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER, _
VOID
4gP
Commissioners; and
and
the Port; and
the Port will receive a percentage of the revenues or income from the
business, and that proprietary interest would be affected by labor
273787
Rules
Item H-1
11-29-01
emergency; and
$50,000; and
"Section 728. LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES
278512 l.DOC 2
Rules
Item H-l
11-29-01
amendment;
Supreme Court.
related employment.
following:
278512 I.DOC 3
Rules
Item H-l
11-29-01
City of Oakland.
C. Ac:ljustments
credit.
hour of his or her possible right to the federal Earned Income Credit (nElc
n
) under Section 2 of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1954,26 U.S.C. 32, and shall make available the forms required
Code.
obtains a new lease, contract, or sUblease, and (2) offers employment which Employees of the
278512 l.DOC 4
Rules
Item 0-1
11-29-01
labor disputes
proprietary interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAS shall
PAS's Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision
proprietary interest in such PAS's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No-Strike
Pledge"). Each such PAS shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors,
Pledges.
(S) For purposes of this subsection, "Hospitality or Retail Food Industry" includes
(C) A PAS shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of
time during which a third-party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAS and the Alameda Central
proprietary interest in such PAS's operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
unlawful. If the parties are unable to agree upon a neutral, the PAS may contact the Federal
names. At the PAS's request, such proceeding shall be conducted according to the FMCS
A. A PAS shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of or otherwise
S. Any waiver by an individual of any of the provisions of this Section shall be
unambiguous terms. Any request to an individual by a PAS to waive his or her rights under this
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAS shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a
record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAS claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid
by the PAS for the employee's health benefits. The PAS shall submit a copy of such records to
s
t, June 30
th
, September 30
th
and December 31
st
of each year,
unless the PAS has employed less than 20 persons during the preceding quarter, in which case
278512 l.DOC 5
Rules
Item H-l
11-29-01
st
Failure to provide a copy
generally.
278512 LDGe
6
Rules
Item H-l
11-29-01
10. Severability
by law; and be it
following:
278512 I.DOC
7
Rules
Item H-1
11-29-01
MEASURE __
emergencies;, and
no-strike pledges?
No
NOTES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
8
CEDA FLOYD
ATTEST:
- - - - = : - = : : : : - : - = : - ~ = - - - - - -
278512 l.DOC
Rules
Item H-1
11-29-01
REVISED 11/20/01
INTRODUCED BY COUNCIUVIEMBER _
Commissioners; and
and
the Port; and
contracts with employers in the hospitality and retail food industry because fO" l-\ - ,
the Port will receive a percentage of the revenues or income from the ORA/COUNCIL
business, and that proprietary interest would be affected by labor DEC \)4 Z001
273787
emergency; and
$50,000; and
"Section 728.
LIVING WAGE AND LABOR PEACE AT PORT-ASSISTED
BUSINESSES
278512 l.DOC 2
amendment;
D. "Employee" means any individual employed by a PAS in Port-related
employment if the PAS employs more than 20 persons per pay period, unless in the prior 12 pay
periods the PAS has not had more than 20 such employees and will not have more than 20 in the
next 12 pay periods. A PAS shall be deemed to employ more than 20 persons if it is part of an
Supreme Court.
S. An Employee who spends less than 25 percent of his work time on Port-
related employment.
following:
278512 l.DOC
3
~
u
-1
-2 -
City of Oakland.
The PAS shall receive a credit against the minimum wage required by this Section of up
C. Adjustments
effect upon such publication. Such bulletin will be distributed to all PASs covered by this and to
credit.
Code.
(A) Each PAS which is to replace a prior PAS shall offer employment to the
2785 I2 I.DOC 4
yi(
UI
-1
-2
labor disputes
proprietary interest and which is in the Hospitality or Retail Food Industry, each such PAB shall
PAB's Employees on Port property. Each such agreement or contract must contain a provision
proprietary interest in such PAB's operation or for 5 years, whichever is less ("No-Strike
Pledge"). Each such PAB shall also be required to ensure that any of its contractors,
Pledges.
(B) For purposes of this subsection, "Hospitality or Retail Food Industry" includes
(C) A PAB shall be relieved of the obligations of this subsection for any period of
time during which a third-party neutral agreeable to the Port, the PAB and the Alameda Central
unreasonable conditions upon its l\lo-Strike Pledge, or (b) that the Port lacks a legally-sufficient
proprietary interest in such PAB's operation or the proposed agreement would be otherwise
A. A PAB shall not discharge, reduce the compensation of or otherwise
8. Enforcement
A. Each PAB shall maintain for each person in Port-related employment a
record of his or her name, pay rate and, if the PAB claims credit for health benefits, the sums paid
by the PAB for the employee's health benefits. The PAB shall submit a copy of such records to
st
, June 30
th
, September 30
th
and December 31
st
of each year,
unless the PAB has employed less than 20 persons during the preceding quarter, in which case
278512 l.DOC
5
st
. Failure to provide a copy
generally.
2785 I2 I.DOC
6
~
U I
-1
-2
10. Severability
cause the loss of any federal or state funding of Port activities.", ; and be it
date for submission of arguments for or against said proposed cl1arter amendment,
by law; and be it
following:
278512 l.DOC
7
~
u
I -1
-29-
MEASURE __
emergencies;, and
no-strike pledges?
No
AYES- BRUNNER, CHANG, MAYNE, NADEL, REID, SPEES, WAI'J AND
NOTES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
278512 I.DOC
8
CEDA FLOYD
~
s
H-l
-29-

CMS Report 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMS Report 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CMS Report 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FILED

CHief OF THE CITY CLER':

(c) Compensated Days Off: Employees shall be entitled to

(a) An employee claiming violation of this Ordinance may

NOV-D8-2DD1 THU D2:38 PM PORT OF OAKLAND COMM DIV

Proposed language changes to the Living Wage and Labor

13 2557 2535 13 L:;'LJ4 .LJ.JO

Cn Region covered by Emeryville

11/1/01 7:37 AM Emergency Responses 2001 Ops Analysis

TIIE FIRESTORM OVER FIRE STATION 8 by Jacqueline Hoeppner-Freitas

that overtime guy to No. 15," and

Oaklan9 Gets From Emerwille

E. "Person" include any natural person, corporation, partnership, limited

OUT corroborated by Oakland 'fire officers for analyzing theit plan, .

You might also like