Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes - San Leandro City Council Meeting - March 5, 1992 Page - 9 - <br /> PUBLIC HEARINGS (continued) <br /> Lee Ness, 2321 Belvedere Avenue, said he is in favor of putting the <br /> City measure on the June ballot. He said he thinks the citizens of San <br /> Leandro should have the opportunity to look at both proposals at the <br /> same time. <br /> Nick Roarke, 1756 London Avenue, said he is a San Leandro fireman. He <br /> said this whole thing has gotten ugly. He said they worked very hard <br /> to get the initiative on the ballot. He said the City's negotiating <br /> team dropped the ball and now they are making a last-ditch effort to <br /> get their measure on the ballot. He said the City Council should hold <br /> the negotiators responsible. He said the fire fighters are willing to <br /> negotiate and are not at an impasse. He said, as a citizen, he thinks <br /> the initiative the FFA got on the ballot is pretty good and the <br /> citizens should vote on it and see what happens. <br /> There being no further comments from the public, on motion of Council <br /> Member Faria, seconded by Council Member Polvorosa, and carried <br /> unanimously, the Public Hearing was closed. <br /> Steve Meyers, City Attorney, said the City Council had three options. <br /> 1 . It could uphold the position of the City's negotiators. <br /> 2. It could support the union's position insofar as the impasse hearing <br /> is concerned. <br /> 3. It could take no action and table the matter, which would stop any <br /> further proceedings on the matter. <br /> At the request of the City Attorney, the City Clerk read Motion #1 , <br /> City Position, and Motion #2, Union's Position. <br /> Motion #1 - City Position <br /> After listening to the presentations of the City negotiators and the <br /> representatives of the SLPOA and SLFFA, and any public comments, the <br /> Council finds: <br /> 1) That the Council has heard the presentations of both parties and any <br /> public comments, <br /> 2) That the parties are at an impasse, as defined in Resolution No. 70- <br /> 48, <br /> 3) That the parties were unable to agree on a specific impasse <br /> procedure, <br /> 4) That the matter has been referred to the Council by the City's <br /> representative, <br />