After work on Thursday, 14 of the city's 25 union members gathered to discuss and vote on the city's last, best and final offer, issued July 1 by acting City Manager Kevin Burke who, along with City Attorney Steve Brookes, has negotiated with the union.
Lakeport Employees Association President Cheryl Smart said the vote was unanimous to turn the offer down.
The Thursday evening vote means the union's negotiators will now write a letter to Burke requesting an impasse, Smart said.
“I don't think we've ever gone to impasse,” she said. “It was before our time if we ever did.”
The city's offer to the union included eight furlough days per employee – with the corresponding pay reduction – during the coming fiscal year, up from the six furlough days that city employees agreed to last December in an effort to save the city approximately $66,540, as Lake County News has reported.
In addition, the city's offer called for no cost of living increase and will require employees to pay 12 percent of their health insurance premiums.
Smart said city employees have never had to pay for insurance, which now will cost $50 a month per person, $105 for two people or $150 for a family.
The city's last offer wasn't much different from where the negotiations started, said Smart. The main difference was that the city originally sought 12 furlough days per employee during the year.
The union made a counter offer of no cost of living increase, eight furlough days and no requirement for staff to pay any of the health insurance premiums. The city turned that offer down.
“They're not even waiting to the midyear budget to see how things are,” she said Thursday, noting that last year the city had said they might have to consider furloughs this coming December.
The city council's direction to its negotiators comes from closed sessions, which are confidential, and on Thursday Burke could disclose none of the reasons for the council's choice to move forward with its push for furloughs.
He said that the eight furlough days offered to employees are not included in the proposed city budget, which is balanced and has a general fund totaling $4 million.
That's down from last year's $6 million general fund; Burke said the reduction is accounted for because of some capital projects the city won't be doing, as well as open positions and early retirements.
“We're operating a smaller workforce,” with about 50 city employees, including police, said Burke.
The reasons for the City Council's insistence on furloughs also aren't clear considering that the proposed budget projects an $844,783 balance in the general fund reserve on June 30, 2010.
In the midst of bargaining negotiations with the union, the council held closed session discussions about possibly hiring another interim city manager.
At the council's June 2 meeting, Smart went to the council to criticize the process' lack of transparency. She also pointed out that the money saved by the furloughs would be eaten up by going forward with the hire.
On Thursday, she said the city never gave a reason why they're seeking more furloughs, although she said she believes it's because of the economy, lower sales tax revenue and the city being leery of what the state might do in solving its budget problems.
During negotiations the city also threatened layoffs. “They do that to us every year,” said Smart.
She added that there's no one to lay off, with the city now down to just five staff at the city yard.
The result, said Smart, is that employee morale at the city is “not good.”
Burke said the city's personnel rules lay out a process for negotiations.
If the two sides are unable to reach an agreement through the meet and confer process, the city's personnel rules allow either party to initiate impasse by requesting a meeting to review final efforts to reach an agreement.
Options going forward would include bringing in a mediator or, failing that or a resolution through mediation, the parties can go to fact finding, according to the personnel rules.
Smart said once the process begins, the city can't add more furlough days to their offer.
The development with the city's employees comes two days after a group of unhappy retirees confronted the Lakeport City Council over the city's plans to have them begin paying a surcharge on their health insurance, as Lake County News has reported.
The city has paid the surcharge since it went into effect in the 2006-07 fiscal year, but plans to stop doing that based on a memorandum of understanding that says the city isn't required to pay more for health care premiums for retirees than active employees.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
