CONCILIATION HEARING AWARD

STATE OF OHIO
STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD
SEPTEMBER 28, 2020

IN THE MATTER OF: )

CITY OF WARREN, OHIO ) SERB CASE NUMBER
391 MAHONING AVE, NW, ) 2019-MED-10-1099
WARREN, OHIO 44483 )
(EMPLOYER) )
)
-AND- )
)
OHIO PATROLMEN’S BENEVOLENT ) CONCILIATOR
ASSOCIATION, ) RICHARD F. NOVAK
10147 ROYALTON ROAD, SUITE J, )
NORTH ROYALTON, OHIO 44133 )
(EMPLOYEE ORGANIZATION) )
(POLICE OFFICERS) )
Hearing Date: August 18, 2020

APPEARANCES

For the OPBA For Warren, Ohio

Dominic D. Saturday David D. Daugherty Esq.

Counsel for the Union Personnel Supervisor

John Massaro Vince Flask

Police Officer City Auditor
Union Representative
Eric Merkel
Michael Currington Police Chief
Witness – Union Representative
Police Officer Brian M. Masaccio
Director Human Resources

Tom Gaffney
Tax Administrator

Page 1 of 45
 ADMINISTRATION

By correspondence dated June 25, 2020 from the State Employee Relations
Board, Columbus, Ohio, the undersigned was notified of his appointment to serve as
Conciliator in compliance with Ohio Revised Code Section 4117.14(D)(1) to hear
arguments and select the appropriate final offer from each party on an issue by issue
basis taking into consideration the factors outlined in Ohio Revised Code Rule
4117.14(G)(7). The impasse resulted after several negotiation sessions between the
parties to resolve the terms related to a successor labor contract. The current labor
contract (CBA) expired on December 31, 2019.

The parties engaged in collective bargaining on November 27, 2019, December 9,

2019, December 20, 2019, and January 15, 2020. On February 25, 2020 the
parties engaged in mediation with a SERB Fact-Finder, but did not reach an agreement.
On May 29, 2020, a fact-finding hearing was held before Veronica A. Rice. The Fact-
Finder issued her report on June 9, 2020. On July 10, 2020, the Union (the bargaining
unit employees) voted near unanimously (only one rejection) to accept the fact-finder's
report. The City Council voted unanimously to reject the fact-finder report.

On June 25, 2020 Richard F. Novak was appointed Conciliator by mutual

agreement of the parties. Dates for the conciliation hearing were exchanged and July 23,
2020 was the date selected for the conciliation hearing. Prior to the beginning of the
hearing, Union Counsel, Mr. Saturday requested a side bar meeting with the Conciliator
and Counsel for the City. OPBA raised a deficiency in the City's submittal of its pre-
hearing statement. The City did not comply with ORC 4117.14(G)(3) by its failure to
submit it pre-hearing statement to SERB. The Conciliator attempted to mediate a waiver
to the defect. Mediation was unsuccessful and a phone call was made to Michael Allen,
General Counsel for SERB. The Conciliator due to lack of definitive guidance
rescheduled the conciliation hearing to August 18, 2020.

Page 2 of 45
 OPBA counsel filed on July 23, 2020 with SERB a “Motion to Exclude Evidence
and Accompanying Memorandum”; in the motion OPBA also requested SERB to grant
an order to stay the conciliation hearing for August 18, 2020.

Proper submittals by both parties occurred on August 13, 2020 for the August 18,
2020 conciliation hearing. The hearing occurred in Council Chambers at 141 South Street
SE, Warren, Ohio 44483 at 10:00 a.m. and concluded at 4:39 p.m. (est.). The Conciliator
also requested both parties to provide on August 10, 2020 their respective motions,
responses to motion on the alleged violation of ORC 4117.14(G)(3) so that they would be
a part of the August 18, 2020 conciliation hearing record and would be property argued
before the Conciliator.

The conciliation hearing occurred in Warren Ohio on August 18, 2020 for
approximately six and one half hours (6.5 hr.). During the course of the proceedings,
each party was afforded a full and adequate opportunity to present testimonial and
comprehensive documentary evidence supportive of final offer positions advanced.

In all, motions, exhibits and information regarding the financial condition of the City
of Warren Ohio over the past several years and Wage Survey Data and Comparisons of
Base Wage increases and the Fact-Finder Report of Ms. Veronica Rice issued on June 9,
2020 were received in evidence and evaluated by this Conciliator. Data on the
settlements (CBA) of other bargaining units within the City was also submitted in
evidence. In summary, a substantial amount of information was submitted in evidence
by the OPBA and the City of Warren in support of their respective positions. The
evidentiary record of the proceedings closed on September 1, 2020 upon issuance of the
transcript by Ms. Beth Brink of Nagy-Baker Court Reporting (330)746-7479 of the hearing,
as requested by the OPBA. By reference, the transcript of the conciliation hearing is made
a part of this award.

Page 3 of 45
 Tentative agreements (T/A’s) reached by the parties were also reviewed, taken
into evidence and by reference in the Conciliators’ Findings Section of this report are
adopted and made a part of this Conciliation Award.

THE BARGAINING UNIT BEFORE THE CONCILIATOR

The bargaining unit to which this award applies is the “City of Warren, Ohio Police
Officers” Unit.

There are 52 members in the bargaining unit represented by the OPBA, all being
full time patrolmen employed by the City of Warren, Ohio.

STATUTORY CRITERIA CONSIDERED BY THE CONCILIATOR

The Conciliator is required to consider the following statutory criteria in applying

the facts to a determination of what resolutions (final offers) are most appropriate to the
issues at impasse.

Statutory Criteria that is set forth in ORC Section 4117.14(G)(7) through (7)(F) are
listed below:

Conciliation Guidelines: Factors for Consideration by Conciliator

4117.14(G)(7) After hearing, the conciliator shall resolve the dispute

between the parties by selecting, on an issues-by-issue
basis, from between each of the parties’ final settlement
offers, taking into consideration the following:

4117.14(G)(7)(a) Past collectively bargained agreements, if any, between the

parties,

Page 4 of 45
 4117.14(G)(7)(b) Comparison of the issues submitted to final offer settlement
relative to the employees in the Bargaining Unit involved
with those issues related to other public and private
employees doing comparable work, giving consideration to
factors peculiar to the area and classification involved,

4117.14(G)(7)(c) The interests and welfare of the public, the ability of the
public employer to finance and administer the issues
proposed, and the effect of the adjustments on the normal
standard of public service,

4117.14(G)(7)(d) The lawful authority of the public employer,

4117.14(G)(7)(e) Any stipulations of the parties,

4117.14(G)(7)(f) Such other factors, not confined to those listed in this

section, which are normally or traditionally taken into
consideration in the determination of the issues submitted
to final offer settlement through voluntary collective
bargaining, mediation fact-finding, or other impasse
resolution procedures in the public service or in private
employment.

CONSILIATOR’S COMMENTS OF FACT-FINDER’S REPORT

Fact-Finder, Veronica A. Rice issued a report on June 9, 2020. In accordance with

ORC 4117.14(G)(6) SERB provided the Fact-Finder’s report to the Conciliator for
consideration.

This report was reviewed and considered. While Fact-Finder reports are not
dispositive in this proceeding, they are instructive. It is also signification in this case, that
the Conciliator heard the full record of evidence from both parties which was the factual
basis upon which the Fact-Finder resolved the impasse issues.

Fact-Finders are labor relations professionals whose expertise in dispute

resolution is of value to this Conciliator in selecting the supportable final offer submitted
by the parties.

Page 5 of 45
 As will be explained throughout this award, the Conciliator, because of the full
record presented, understood, and recognized many of the findings in Ms. Rice’s report
of June 9, 2020.

CONCILIATOR’S OPENING REMARKS

THE OPEN ISSUES PRESENTED TO THE CONCILIATOR IN THIS CASE ARE:

1. The Procedural Violation of Ohio Revised Code # 4117.14(G)(3) and Ohio

Administrative Code # 4117-9-06(E). This is alleged by OPBA because the City of
Warren did not timely file (or file at all) its pre-hearing position statement to SERB (the
Board) on July 18, 2020.
The OPBA asserts and demands that the Conciliator, due to the City’s omission to
submit their pre-hearing statement to the Board, can only take evidence in support of
matters raised in the written statement submitted by OPBA. Ergo, the City cannot
submit evidence in support of their positions on their final’s offer. This shall be referred
to as “OPBA’s Motion to Exclude Evidence”.
2. School Preference for School Resource Officers/Article II, Section 9. This deals with
the annual selection process that applies to the assignment of police officers to the
position of “School Resource Officer”.
3. Hours of Work/Article 15. This deals with the elimination of the current ten (10) hour
work shift schedules and replacement of them with traditional eight (8) hour work
shifts.
4. Wages Article 16, Section 1. This issue deals with the number, amount, form and
effective dates of base wage increases during the term of the successor labor
agreement.
5. Forcing for Pre-Determined Overtime/Article 16, Section 2. This issue deals with the
overtime rate applicable to scheduled overtime.
6. Health Care Benefits/Article 26. This issue deals with changes to the Employee’s
monthly contributions for health insurance coverage during the term of the successor

Page 6 of 45
 labor agreement. In addition, there are proposed changes to Option 2 Insurance
Schedule of Health Benefits.

XXXXX

FACT-FINDER FINDINGS/REPORT

The parties and SERB presented this Conciliator with Fact-Finder, Veronica A.
Rice’s report which was issued on June 9, 2020, SERB Case 2019-MED-10-1099. This
report dealt with the aforementioned issues two (2) through six (6). The report was
overwhelmingly accepted by OPBA members but unanimously rejected by City Council.
By this reference it is hereby made as an attachment to this Conciliator’s award. This
report is required to be considered by the Conciliator, by ORC 4117.14(G)(6).

XXXXX

DISCUSSION OF THIS CONCILIATOR’S RESPONSIBILITY

This Conciliator is charged by OAC 4117-9-06(F) after appointment by SERB

(4117-9-06(c) to hold a hearing and issue a final offer settlement award which is binding
upon the parties ORC 4117.14(I).

The Conciliator has enumerated authority under OAC 4117-9-06(F) regarding the
scheduling and holding of a hearing. …“the Conciliator shall have the power to regulate
the time, place, course and conduct of the hearing”

The SERB published guidebook on conciliation in 2015 submitted by the

Conciliator and the 2019 guidebook submitted by the OPBA make it clear that violations
under OAC Rule 4117-9-06(E) regarding “Position Statements” are: “the Conciliator is
responsible for enforcing this rule requirement”. In this Conciliator’s interpretation of this
responsibility, “to Enforce”, it is implicit that in the exercise of this responsibility the

Page 7 of 45
Conciliator has the “Discretion of Judgment” to determine the impact of the violation on
the “Conciliation Process” for which the Conciliator is responsible to conduct.

This Conciliator is listed on the SERB “Roster of Neutrals”. The term Neutral is
with meaning. A Neutral must exhibit no bias. It must be principled in fairness. It must
ensure and protect the integrity of conciliation process because “The process” is the quid
pro quo to the parties legislated alternative to the right to self-help in collective bargaining.
It must be a process parties accept as effective to resolve impasse.

XXXXX

DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURAL ERROR BY THE CITY OF WARREN

The conciliation hearing for 2019 MED-10-1099 was set for July 23, 2020 at 10:00
a.m. in Warren Ohio. Shortly before the commencement OPBA counsel D. D. Saturday
requested a pre-hearing meeting with the City's representative and the Conciliator. At
that time, the OPBA raised the City's failure to submit their pre-hearing statement to
SERB. The City did timely submit their pre-hearing statement to the OPBA and the
Conciliator. The Conciliator attempted to mediate a resolution of waiver of OPBA
objection. A call was made to Michael Allen, General Counsel of SERB, to get guidance
on the issue. After a short discussion at 10:30 a.m., the general counsel comments were:

1. “not prudent to waive defect at hearing” and

2. “if defect cannot be corrected then reset the process”
3. “Conciliator has authority under statue”
4. “not going to give bench decision on ULP”
5. “several months to rule on ULP”

The Conciliator was unable to get the OPBA to withdraw its objection. Accordingly,
Conciliator rescheduled the hearing for August 18, 2020. He required submissions from

Page 8 of 45
the parties on motions of error for August 10, 2018. He requested submissions of pre-
hearing statements from the parties 8/13/20 in accordance with 4117-9-06(E.)

The OPBA submitted to SERB it’s "Motion to Exclude Evidence and Accompanying
Memorandum" on July 23, 2020. OPBA also copied the Conciliator with the information
submitted to SERB. The motion to SERB on July 23, 2020 sought: “the Board must grant
this motion to exclude evidence or in the alternative grant an order to stay conciliation
until it resolves the underlying matter”

On July 24, 2020, the Conciliator emailed the parties and stated:

“Mr. Saturday, I thank you for keeping me in the loop. I fully understand your
position on this matter and the case precedent you cite. I will contact SERB next week
as well and comply with their advice regarding the open issue. Should we proceed with
the hearing on August 18th without definitive guidance from SERB, I will deal with your
objection and request at the hearing”. Best Regard, Richard Novak.

The following is a chronology of dates and summary of correspondence between

the OPBA, the conciliator and SERB on the OPBA's objections and motions:
• July 24, 2020 Conciliator's confirming email to re: Conciliation Hearing on August
18, 2020.
• July 24, 2020 Mr. Saturday email to Conciliator re-emphasizing the
OPBS’s objections and motion to exclude evidence.
• July 27, 2020 City of Warren response to OPBA motion to exclude evidence.
• July 27,2020 OPBA reply to City's response in opposition to OPBA's motion to
exclude evidence.
• July 28, 2020 Conciliator call to SERB General Counsel re: OPBA motion and stay
of 8/18/20 hearing. Responses were: (1) SERB may not have jurisdiction at this
point, (2) SERB will not opine on motions before 8/18/20 hearing (3) OPBA’s
motions in Conciliators lap.

Page 9 of 45
 • July 30, 2020 Conciliator email to parties to advise of SERB’s July 28, 2020
discussion with Conciliator and set forth procedural dates for submissions for the
August 18, 2020 conciliation hearing.
• August 10, 2020 OPBA submitted to the Conciliator its “Motion to Exclude
Evidence and Accompanying Memorandum” this is the same document submitted
to SERB on July 23, 2020. This document by reference shall be made a part of
this record.
• August 10, 2020 Conciliator email to SERB general counsel Re: What does SERB
do with parties’ pre-hearing position statements and other questions?
• August 10, 2020 The City of Warren submitted to the Conciliator its “Reply to the
Union’s Motion to Exclude Evidence”. In essence the reply asserts that no injury
occurred because; (1) The conciliation hearing did not take place on July 23, 2020.
(2) The Conciliator has the authority to set the conciliation date to August 18, 2020.
(3) the City’s failure to submit its pre-hearing statement to the Board prior to July
23, 2020 hearing date was corrected by the change of the conciliation hearing to
August 18th and notwithstanding, the procedural error related to the July 23, 2020
hearing was so “DeMinimis” that the basic integrity of this conciliation process was
not threatened nor was any party prejudiced by their error. The error was corrected
on August 13, 2020 by the City’s timely submission of its pre-hearing statement to
all the required parties.
• August 13, 2020 Conciliator discussion with SERB General Counsel re: 8/10/20
email. Responses were: (1) SERB does nothing with parties pre-hearing position
statements, just filed away. No action taken. (2) SERB has no role after
appointment of Conciliator. (3) No ULP’s filed by motions submitted by OPBA (4)
Not sure if a ULP was filed in this case, SERB would unwind a Conciliator’s
decision. (5) No plans to postpone August 18th hearing. (6) No statutory authority
to overturn Conciliator Award unless ordered by a court under ORC 2117. (7) by
OAC 4117-1-02(E), the Board has discretion to waive technical defects in any
document filed with the Board if no undue prejudice would result.

Page 10 of 45
 • August 13, 2020 Conciliator discussion with retired SERB General Counsel re:
OPBA Motion to Exclude Evidence. Response, he would proceed with hearing
and accept all evidence from each party. No prejudice has occurred.

It is noteworthy that after all discussions with SERB General Counsel, there was
never a directive to cancel the rescheduled hearing or conduct the hearing in any limited
way.

XXXXX

THE CONCILIATOR’S FINDING ON OPEN ISSUES

ISSUE NUMBER 1. OPBA’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE

This issue is fundamental to the conciliation hearing process and requires an

extensive explanation of the rationale of the Conciliator to rule on the OPEA motion to
exclude evidence.

The Procedural Violation of Ohio Revised Code # 4117.14(G)(3) and Ohio

Administrative Code 4117-9-06(E) is alleged by OPBA because the City of Warren did
not timely file (or file at all) its pre-hearing position statement to SERB (the board) on July
18, 2020.

The precedential authority for the OPBA motion is cited as: “Greenville Patrol
Officers Association, 2000-SERB-005(6-13-2000)” and “City of Greenville v. Greenville
Patrol Officers Association, 99-CV-57699 Common Pleas, Darke, County, Ohio”.

REASON FOR RULING AGAINST OPBA MOTION

1. The cited Greenville Case and ULP is distinguishable based upon factual
differences.

Page 11 of 45
 • Greenville – Failure was the “UNTIMELY” submission of position statement from
the police association to the City and Conciliator on the day before the hearing v.
the required 5 days before the hearing pursuant to 4117.14(G)(3). While the union
argues the similarity of the City of Warren’s error to Greenville, there is a
“difference” with a significant “distinction”.
The Common Pleas Court and SERB Board view such untimely submission
as a fatal defect to the Conciliation process.
In the Warren case the OPBA and Conciliator “received position statements
on a timely basis” within 5 days of the conciliation hearing.
The only error by the City of Warren was its failure to submit its position
statement to SERB.
In Greenville, the Police Association also did not submit a position
statement to SERB.
In Greenville, such error was noted in the findings of fact, however, in the
finding of law and the ULP findings all focus of violating 4117.14(G)(3) was based
upon the “untimely submissions” of Position Statements to the “parties to the
Conciliation” and the resulting “prejudice” to the parties and conciliation process.
The impact of the failure to submit the position statement to SERB was not
discussed in the findings of law. Untimely submissions to either party
(union/employer) can prejudice the hearing process due to lack of time to prepare
for opposing positions. To this the Conciliator agrees one hundred percent.
2. The Conciliator contacted Mike Allen, General Counsel, of SERB on four
occasions for guidance on the alleged statutory violation by the City of Warren.
3. The Conciliator also contacted the former General Counsel of SERB to also seek
guidance on the alleged statutory violation.
4. By statue, the Conciliator is appointed by and must comply with all relevant
provisions of 4117-9-06. Specifically: 4117-9-06(E), 4117-9-06(F), 4117-06(H), 4117-9-
06(I) as well as 4117-09-06(E) which is at issue by OPBA’s motion to exclude evidence.
This Conciliator believes his roles is to “Balance” all relevant provisions of 4117;
which has its core purpose to find a resolution of impasse issues reflected by the final
offers of the parties which are submitted five days before the Conciliation hearing.

Page 12 of 45
 5. The statue and SERB in its appointment letter to the Conciliator requires the
Conciliator to give deference to the Fact-Finder report issued to the parties. Such
deference or evaluation of the reasonableness or the findings can only be effectively
accomplished when the records of both sides presented to the Fact-Finder are shared
with the Conciliator. This is exactly what was done in this case by the Conciliator’s
admission of evidentiary presentations by both parties.
6. On balance in the Warren v. OPBA case, the City’s error of omission to send its
pre-hearing statement to SERB did not prejudice or damage any party. It is important to
note that OPBA and the Conciliator “did receive” the City’s pre-hearing statement on a
timely basis prior to the July 23, 2020 conciliation hearing.
7. SERB did not timely (or at all) receive the City’s pre-hearing statement due to the
City’s error. This event, however, did not prejudice SERB or the resolution process of
4117. Before the August 18, 2020 hearing, the Conciliator called the General Counsel of
SERB and inquired “what does SERB do with the pre-hearing statements”? The
response: “nothing, they are electronically filed away without any review or action
taken”.
8. The City’s technical violation was corrected on August 13, 2020 when all pre-
hearing statements were property submitted. No prejudice occurred to any party to the
hearing. The July and August pre-hearing statements were the same.
9. “Everyone is entitled to due process”. That means the process of the “Conciliation
hearing” is paramount. The employee’s (OPBA) arguments for collective bargaining
issues as well as the taxpayers and citizens of the community’s positions, through their
elected officials, should be able to be presented. In some cases those positions are
identical and sometimes polar opposites. Only by the facts presented can the Conciliator
render a selection of last final which will withstand the test of constituent’s review and
voluntary acceptance. For this Conciliator to accept less would compromise “due
process” owed to all.

XXXXX

Page 13 of 45
 CONCILIATOR’S FINDINGS ON ISSUE #1

Ergo, after all that due diligence of determining potential prejudice to the process
by the City’s omission, this Conciliator finds insufficient basis to tip the scales and not
allow the City to present its case.

To do otherwise would give credence to a technical error which would totally

negate the due process contemplated and required under 4117. A truly in equitable
outcome should the OPBA motion to exclude evidence be granted.

For all of the aforementioned rational, the Conciliator denied the OPBA motion and
decided to proceed with the conciliation hearing. OPBA’s objection to this finding on
its motion is duly noted in this record of the hearing.

Exclusion of the City’s evidence in support of its final offer would be a deprivation of a
right without adequate justification for such action The City’s failure to submit its pre-
hearing statement to SERB, and the fact that such omission did not prejudice the OPBA,
SERB, the Conciliator or the hearing, is not a sufficient event to deny due process to the
City of Warren, Ohio.

DISCUSSION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER ISSUE #2

ISSUE # 2 - THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (SRO) SELECTION ISSUE.

As discussed in the previous section of this report which deals with Issue #1, the
OPBA’s motion to exclude evidence from this hearing due to the alleged procedural error
of the City. The Conciliator believes “due process” is fundamental in a collective
bargaining environment. The collective agreement is a negotiated balance between the
rights of the employees and the employer. Independent review of decisions and actions
taken under the provisions of the agreement ensures correct compliance and that is
achieved by the “due process” of arbitration. Such “due process” is the quid pro quo of

Page 14 of 45
the waiver of the union employees historical right of self-help (a.k.a. strikes or withholding
service). Arbitral review has long been the favored resolution process for violations of
CBA rights. Few if any actions taken under the agreement should be void of impartial
review.

The OPBA in its proposed language applicable to the selection of the SRO
preserves this important principle of due process. The City’s proposed language to give
“unfetter” selection rights to the School Superintendent ignores and negates the principle
of due process see transcript pages 29, 30 lines 20-25 and I-II respectively, “the
Conciliator: so under your proposal, this superintendent would have unfettered
trump-wrong word-trump card, rights to trump the selection? Mr. Daugherty:
Essentially, yes.”

In addition to the above the following two factors from which factor 1 is supported
by the testimony by Mr. Daugherty, Counsel for the City also support the findings.

1. The School Superintendent’s preference in the selection process can be conveyed

to the chief of police and if sufficient concern exists, can be put forth by the chief
in his exercise of “Compelling Circumstances” under the OPBA assignment
language. See transcript pages 30-31 lines 7-25 and 1-10 respective.
2. Further, the City’s proposal fails to recognize the employees’ rights and privilege
of seniority. Seniority rights are the “quid pro quo” for the years of dedicated
service provided to the employer. It accrues in value as the employer benefits from
the employees’ added knowledge, expertise, and commitment to the job over the
years. Obviously “seniority alone” does not vest unfettered rights uncoupled from
acceptable performance or ability to perform the work. However, all other factors
generally equal seniority should prevail in the decision making process. It creates
a basis for job security, area preference and other conditions of employment which
are “earned” over time. It should survive the changes that occur through changes
in administration, politics, and management. It should not be “discarded” by
individual discretion, but it should be protected, as it is, by the collective agreement

Page 15 of 45
 as negotiated by the parties. In this issue the OPBA chooses “not to” negotiate
away this right by giving the Superintendent the unfettered right proposed by the
City.

XXXXX

FINDINGS ON ISSUE #2 – SCHOOL PREFERENCE FOR SCHOOL

RESOURCES OFFICER

It is obvious to this Conciliator based upon the discussion of the principles above
and OCR 4117.14(G)(7)(b) and (f), the OPBA proposed language is the appropriate
resolution to this issue. The Conciliator should not diminish the employees’ right to “due
process” as found in Article 9-ADJUSTMENT OF GREVIEANCES IN THE CBA. The
presumption of arbitration is the proper forum for disputes over rights embodied within the
CBA is affirmed by the long standing U.S. Supreme Court of The United States Case:
“United Steelworkers v. Warrior + Gulf Navigation Co.”, 363U.S.574,805.CT.1347.

Accordingly, the following OPBA final offer is adopted in this report:

ARTICLE 11 – SENIORITY

Section 9: ZONE PREFERENCE: ESD shift zone assignments shall be made by

seniority giving preference to the senior police officer. Compelling circumstances may
justify denial of an officer’s preference. The parties shall interpret “compelling” in a strict
sense.

The City will make School Resources Officer school assignments before the beginning of
each school year by seniority, giving preference to the senior police officer.

Compelling circumstances may justify denial of an officer’s school preference. The

parties shall interpret “compelling” in a strict sense.

Effect dates: Effective upon issuance of the Conciliator’s award.

XXXXX

Page 16 of 45
 DISCUSSION OF HOURS OF WORK/ARTICLE 15 ISSUE #3

Hours of Work/Article 15. This deals with the elimination of the current ten (10)
hour work shift schedules and replacement of them with traditional eight (8) hour work
shifts.

OPBA members currently work 10-hour days in the Emergency Services Division
(EDS). The City proposes returning to the 8-hour workday for (EDS) employees.

The union rejects the City’s proposal and desires to maintain the status quo with
no change in the collective agreement. The union describes the City’s proposal as
concessionary bargaining. Essentially it “takes away” from patrolmen a benefit which is
significant to their economics and quality of work life. Furthermore, the City offered no
“quid pro quo” for negotiating away such a benefit. The City’s only argument to revert to
5-8 hours shifts was the potential to eliminate overtime hours worked.

Work schedules can be as varied as hours of the day, days of the week, or weeks
of the month.

There is no perfect schedule. At best a schedule of work optimizes the condition

to perform the work and accommodates the work life balance of the employees.

This Conciliator has seen fixed, rotating, Timken (21 shift continuous operations)
10-hour, 12-hour and 24-hour shift schedules and 24/7 operations. All have employer
and employee advantages and disadvantages and “quid pro quo” from the traditional
normative 8-hour five days per week schedule.

Often in an effort to fine tune and optimize the schedules for one party or another
“trial periods of adjustments to the schedule” are negotiated. These are usually followed
by a period of “if mutually agreed by the parties” that changes can be continued or

Page 17 of 45
adopted. This approach can be effective because “change takes time to get used to”
especially when one’s work life is impacted.

In this case, the City merely wanted to apply a delayed “on/off” switch to solve their
perceived problem of the too much overtime in 10-hour shifts and revert back to 8-hour
shifts. At best, the quid pro quo was the proposed delayed effective date of the take-way.

There was inadequate exchange of evidence to show the compelling economic

cost of the 10-hour shift to the City; or the discussion of more creative alternatives to
mitigation of the mutual problems.

It was clear that from the employees’ perspective the on/off switch of going to 8-
hour shifts would result in:
1. More days worked per year
2. Less time off
3. Possibly less income due to less overtime
4. Potentially a different manning level at time.

The OPBA viewed these results as unacceptable especially in light of the modest
economic proposal from the City.

Without question from the employees’ perspective, such a change in shift schedule
would be concessionary.

“There is a time and place for concession bargaining” specifically when financial
destress is real and at the doorstep, when out of line elements in contracts have no basis
in comparative reality, or when survival of jobs is at stake and equality of sacrifice is the
norm. But as of August 2020, now is not the time for concession bargaining based upon
the evidence offered by the City of Warren. Nor is this conciliation process the forum to
award such a change in light of the evidence or rational presented.

Page 18 of 45
 CONCILIATORS FINDINGS ON ISSUE #3 OF HOURS OF WORK/ARTICLE 15

Based upon the aforementioned, the OPBA’s proposed final offer is more
reasonable and adopted in this report as:

“Article 15 – Hours of Work”

“Current Contract Language is Maintained”

XXXXX

ISSUE #4 WAGES/ARTICLE 16 SECTION 1

The City’s final offer for base wage increases were:

Effective 1/1/2020 – 3% in base rates
Effective 1/1/2021 – 2% in base rates
Effective 1/1/2022 – 0% in base rates

The OPBA’s final offer for across the board increase to base wages were:
Effective 1/1/20 year 1, 2020 – $0.75/hr.
Effective 1/1/21 year 2, 2021 – $0.75/hr.
Effective 1/1/22 year 3, 2022 – $0.50/hr.

DISCUSSION OF WAGE INCREASE

Proposals
By pre-hearing statements, there is mutual agreement that City employees’ wage
adjustments over the last 10-years prior to 2019 had not seen any real wage increase.
Past contracts were either zero percent increase or slight increases that were offset by
health care premium contributions.

Page 19 of 45
 The City has finalized collective bargaining with three units and settled for base
wage increases identical to the City’s last offer as set forth above. It asserts that the
above offer to OPBA is the “pattern settlement” both in terms of amounts and form
(percent increase but not cents per hour).

The City asserts internal comparable to other bargaining unit employees is more
relevant to equity considerations that the OPBA’s comparable to other police officer units.
Also, the City asserts that a “total compensation” comparison is more determinative of
equity of pay than just a base rate schedule comparison which is proffered by the OPBA.

The City did not assert a financial destress or “inability to pay” as contemplated by
ORC 4117-14(G)(7)(c)… “the ability of the public employer to finance” …“the issues
proposed”… . There is a significant statutory difference between “inability” to pay and
“unwillingness” to do so. Put simply, the former involves not having the financial
resources to pay or fund various cost increases while the latter means the party has
resources but would rather not spend them. However, there may be very good reasons
why an employer does not want to spend its money.

The OPBA presents the following in support of its final offer wage proposal that
OPBA bargained in good faith regarding wages. It has made four adjustments/reductions
from its original proposal of: $1.00 p/hr., $0.75 p/hr. $0.75 p/hr. It agreed in mediation to
$1.00 p/hr., $0.75 p/hr., $0.50 p/hr. and accepted the Fact-Finder’s report of $0.75 p/hr.,
$0.75 p/hr., $0.50 p/hr. and it offers the same wage increase proposal in its “final offer” in
the hearing.

The OPBA offered evidence of the City’s fiscal condition to afford the OPBA wage
proposal. This evidence was included in the three-ring binder of information the OPBA
presented at the conciliation hearing.

Specifically:
• Tab 5 “City of Warren General Fund Information (past 8-years)

Page 20 of 45
 • Tab 7 “Ohio Auditor of State, City of Warren, year ended December 31, 2019”
• Tab 5 “Standard + Poor’s Rating Service “Fund Balance Guidelines for the
General Fund”
• Tab 8 “City of Warren Police Officer Wage Increases (past 8-years). The data
confirms the statement found in the first paragraph following “Discussion of
Wage Increase Proposals” in this section. “There is Mutual Agreement that
the City Employee’s Wage Adjustments”…
• Tab 10 “State Employment Relations Board Clearing House Benchmark
Report” February 5, 2020. This report compares the relative positions of
Warren police office’s entry and top level annual earnings to the earning of
police officer in other Ohio cities.
• Tabs 9, 11 and 12 also summarized other collective bargaining settlements
and the average wage adjustments during the term of the successor
agreements.

Other significant facts regarding the issue of wages submitted at the conciliation
hearing were:
• Warren Exhibit 4. “Ordinance No. 1269016”
This sets forth the purpose of the special income tax levy of ½%
effective in 2017 through 12/31/2021, if not renewed by ballot. The language
dedicates the funds for “staffing and operation of the police and fire
departments and road maintenance programs”. Staffing and operation are
broad terms. Paying competitive wages and attractive entry rates to recruit
and retain qualified patrol officers as well as underwriting the cost of
headcount can all fall with the purview of designated use.

• Warren Exhibit 5 and 6

These exhibits compare the cost of the OPBA’s final wager offer (Exhibit
6) to the cost of the City’s final offer (Exhibit 5).
In summary, the total employment cost impact of the OPBA final offer is
a cumulative 3 yr. total of approximately $757,000. The City’s final offer is a

Page 21 of 45
 cumulative 3 yr. total of approximately $492,000 or a delta of $265,000 over
the life of the contract. On average the OPBA final offer is $88,300 more per
year during the term of the agreement than the City’s final offer.
OPBA Exhibit Tab 5 “City of Warren General Fund Information (past 8-
years)” show general fund revenue of 27 to 29 million (2017-2019) and
unrestricted general fund balances of 2.1 to 6.2 million dollars (2017-2019).
The general fund for 2020 was $28,253,560. The annual increase in revenue
to the City because of the special ½% income tax levy is approximately
$4,000,000 per year (supported by City Exhibit 13). Beginning in 2017
through year 2020, that is approximately $16,000,000 more in the revenues.
The Conciliator asked Mr. Flask, Auditor, “if all of the funds from the
special tax levy had been spent” (transcript pg. 123, 124 and 125) Mr. Flask
responded “there is a balance” (line 2-3 of pg. 124 transcript). Mr. Flask could
not precisely identify the actual dollar amount of surplus related to unspent
revenues from the special tax levy. (Line 19-25 of pg. 124 transcript).
There was much dialogue between the Conciliator and Mr. Flask trying
to arrive at an approximate number of surplus revenues from the tax levy. A
hypothetical estimate of what may exist was offered by the Conciliator which
opined that as much as $1,000,000 dollars of surplus from the tax levy could
exist by the end of 2021 (5 yr. levy term). See transcript pgs. 142, 143, 144,
145, 145, 147. The delta between the OPBA and City’s final wage offers is
approximately a 3-year total of $265,000. On page 147 line 22 and 23 of the
transcript, Mr. Flask responded to the Conciliators hypothetical estimate
noted above by saying: “yes, everything you said I would say is
accurate”. The City did not provide general fund forecast for future years.
The City also entered into evidence Exhibit 19, “receipt total comparison
for 2020/2019” dated 7/16/20 for tax collections. The exhibit showed a
material decline in tax receipts from April of 2020 to July of 2020 of
approximately $2,000,000. However, OPBA Counsel Saturday points out
that much of the cash flow revenue reduction was due to the tax filing
postponement COVID 19 relief by deferring the tax filing from April 15, 2020

Page 22 of 45
 to October 15, 2020. No estimates were provided for year-end tax revenue
receipts by City Tax Administrator, Mr. Gaffney.

CONCILIATORS FINDINGS ON ISSUE #4 WAGES/ARTICLE 16, SECTION 1

The most persuasive evidence submitted to this Conciliator are:

1. The fundamental purpose of the 2017 income tax levy of ½%. The stated
objective was: Staffing and operation of the police department… fire and road
maintenance. Paying competitive wages is maintenance staffing and
recruiting competent staff. The tax levy brings in roughly 4.1 million per year
per Mr. Flask. (Line 14 pg. 126 transcript).
2. The cost of the OPBA wage final offer compared to the cost of the City’s last
final offer, the delta of the OPBA final offer to the City’s final offer on an annal
average basis is 0.0031 percent of the 2019 general fund revenue.
3. The relative strong fiscal condition of the City of Warren as evidenced by the
general fund surplus and financial trends. S&P considers a % in excess of
15% as a “very strong” unrestricted general fund balance. The City of
Warren’s unrestricted general fund balance in 2019 was 24.2% and 16.77%
for 2018.
4. The comparative wage data for Warren police entry level annual earnings
versus entry level pay at other Ohio cities. Warren is at the bottom 15%
among 18 Ohio cities. It is problematic in terms or recruiting and retention of
police officers.
5. The Fact-Finder’s June 9, 2020 report as it relates to wage adjustments. Ms.
Rice, a SERB Fact-Finder, considered the same record presented by the
parties which was presented to the Conciliator. The shaping of the wage
increases and her opinion of “their affordability” to the City are consistent with
the findings of this Conciliator.
6. A binding practice of “settlement patterns” was not established by the
evidence presented. Bargaining last in the calendar of collective bargaining

Page 23 of 45
 with other units does not necessarily create a binding pattern upon the last to
settle.
7. The reality of the status quo (no increase in wages in 2022) cannot be
supported by financial forecasts or the pattern of 3-year collective settlements
cited by the OPBA. Three-year collective agreements are the minority that
have zero percent (0%) increases in the third year of the agreement. The
citizens of the city will only receive quality services, if the people delivering
those services are adequately recognized from an economic perspective.
8. For issue #4, Wages, the delta between the two final offers is approximately
$265,000 in total. For 2022 the delta is approximately $185,000 in total
employment costs. This represents annually approximately 0.0064% of an
annual revenue budget of $28,000,000 to $29,000,000.
9. It is noteworthy that the difference in cost of the two offers for 2021 and 2022
are more than covered by the potential remainder of the special income tax
levy ending December 31, 2021.

CONCILIATOR’S FINDINGS REGARDING ISSUE #4 – WAGES

It is well past time, in the years of economic downturn, financial challenges of

budgets, frozen wage increase, increased costs of living and the dramatically new and
challenging responsibilities and risks to police and first responders, that recognition be
given to support improvement in their conditions of employment. The aforementioned,
clearly includes improvement in wages.

Payment of competitive compensation should be higher in rank order of allocating

revenues and is clearly the purpose of the special ½% income tax levy as the levy relates
to police officers.

The aforementioned, is not to say “be damned” with the numbers. Obviously, the
City cannot spend what it does not have. Sound fiscal management should not be

Page 24 of 45
squandered by unreasonable wage demand. “Prudence” is a principle that this
Conciliator prescribes to in determining appropriate wage adjustments.
Counsel for the City’s arguments in support of their final offer is focused more on the
“unwillingness to increase pay” beyond what has been provided to other bargaining
units, rather than “inability to pay”.

The OPBA’s evidence in support of their final offer is more persuasive and
accordingly the Conciliator giving due deference to the Fact-Finders Report of June 8,
2020 finds that wage increases for the successor agreement are:

ARTICLE 16 – PAY PROVISIONS

Section 1: WAGES: The following hourly rate increases shall be for the position of Police
Officer in the Warren Police Department:
• (1)Effective January 1, 2020 – Across the board of $0.75 p/hr.
• Effective January 1, 2021 – Across the board of $0.75 p/hr.
• Effective January 1, 2022 – Across the board of $0.50 p/hr.
(1)Payment retroactive to January 1, 2020 for all hours paid.

XXXXX

EFFECTIVE DATES OF CONCILIATOR’S AWARD

The parties have executed and submitted a waiver to ORC 4117.14(G)(11) and is
hereby made a part of this award as Exhibit 10. Accordingly, any increases in rates of
compensation and other matters with cost implications awarded by this Conciliator maybe
effective in the 2020 calendar year and thereafter.

XXXXX

Page 25 of 45
 Issue #5 – Forcing for the Pre-Determined Overtime/Article 16. Section 2

CONCILIATOR DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS REGARDING ISSUE #5.

In the OPBA pre-hearing statement on pg. 11, OPBA stated: “The parties resolved
this issue at Fact-Finding. The union will provide a signed copy of the contract language
if necessary.

OPBA requests that the Conciliator incorporate the following language into last
best offer award. At the hearing on pg. 34, line 22-25 City Counsel Dougherty agreed
that the issue on overtime penalty was agreed to.

According, at the request of OPBA, Issue #5 is resolved by including the following

language to Article 16 in this Conciliation Award.

ARTICLE 16 – PAY PROVISIONS

Section 2. New Subjection J:

The City will pay overtime at a premium of two (2) times the hourly rate to any employee
held over as a result of pre-determined overtime which existed at least 4 days beforehand.
If the employee is held over as a result of pre-determined overtime which existed less
than 4 days beforehand, the normal overtime premiums outlined above will apply.

Effective date: Upon issuance of the Conciliator’s award.

XXXXX

Page 26 of 45
 Issue #6 – Health Care Benefits/Article 26

CONCILIATOR’S DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS REGARDING ISSUE #6.

At the conciliation hearing, OPBA Counsel, Mr. Saturday agreed to the City’s
proposal to changes in health care benefits that were set forth in the City’s pre-hearing
statement. See transcript pg. 35, lines 9-14 and pg. 36 lines 13-19.

Accordingly, at the agreement of the parties to the City’s final offer on health care
benefits/Article 26; Issue #6 is resolved by including the following in this Conciliators
award:
ARTICLE 26: HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
The cost of the health care benefits shall be paid by the City, except as follows:
1. No coverage shall apply until an employee has completed thirty (30) calendar days
of service.
2. No coverage shall apply after thirty (30) consecutive days of unpaid leave of
absence (excluding family leave) or retirement.
3. No coverage shall apply immediately after separation or termination.

Benefits shall be as outlined in the Exhibit A (Option 1) or Exhibit B (Option 2) schedules

(Exhibit B schedules shall apply for those members hired after January 1, 2011 and any
member electing Option 2) as follows:
1. Dental Benefits: Dental Cap is $2,000
2. Vision Benefits: The City will contribute $6.95 per month to a vision plan as
designated by the OPBA for all bargaining unit members for benefits as determined
by the OPBA.
3. Vision Correction Surgery. The City will pay directly to the provider up to $1,500.00
per eye for vision correction eye surgery. In order to receive this benefit, if the
member separates from the City will less than five (5) full years of service, the
member agrees to reimburse the City for the amount paid to the provider.

Page 27 of 45
Benefits shall continue to be provided by such method and through such carriers, if any,
as the City in its sole discretion shall determine. Any contracts entered into by the City
with respect to the existing benefits and the changes made herein shall be consistent with
this Article.

Exhibit A or Option 1 (Offered to members hired prior to January 1, 2011 only):

Employees shall contribute ten percent (10%) of the total monthly premium as determined
by the insurance carrier’s actuary for medical, hospitalization, prescription, and dental
coverage. During the first year of this agreement, employee’s contribution shall not
exceed $80.00 per month for single coverage and $155.00 per month for family coverage.
During the second year of this agreement, employee’s contribution shall not exceed
$90.00 per month for single coverage and $165.00 per month for family coverage. During
the third year of this agreement, employee’s contribution shall not exceed $100.00 per
month for single coverage and $175.00 per month for family coverage.

Exhibit B or Option 2 (Offered to members hired prior to January 1, 2011 and MANDATED
for members hired after January 1, 2011):
Employees shall have the choice to select Option 2 with benefits as in Exhibit B.
Employees who elect Option 2 shall not pay a premium contribution. Employees electing
Option 2 shall do so no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the effective date of this
agreement and thereafter may elect Option 2 during open enrollment of each year.
Eligible employees who make no election shall be covered under Option 1.

Current Health Care level of benefits except Prescription Drug Coverage goes from
National Formulary to Essential Formulary.

XXXXX

Page 28 of 45
 ADOPTION OF “TENTATIVE AGREEMENTS” TO THIS CONCILIATION AWARD

The Conciliator affirms and adopts in this award the parties’ Tentative Agreements
(T/A’s) noted below which were entered into evidence on August 18, 2020 in the City of
Warren’s pre-hearing statement dated August 11, 2020.

The parties have reached tentative agreement (T/A’s) on the following Articles,
copies of Articles with agreed new language are appended to the City’s pre-hearing
statement as Attachment 2:

TERM OF AGREEMENT AGREED LANGUAGE

ARTICLE 1 – PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 2 – RECOGNITION NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 3 – THE CITY’S MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 4 – UNION REPRESENTATION NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 5 – NO STRIKE OR LOCK-OUT NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 6 – UNION SECURITY AND DUES CHECK OFF AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 7 – PLEDGE AGAINST DISCRIMINATION AND COERCION NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 8 – LABOR/MANAGEMENT NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 9 – ADJUSTMENT OF GRIEVANCES NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 10 – DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 11 – SENIORITY UNRESOLVED
SECTION 6: PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 12 – TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 13 – LABOR-MANAGEMENT MEETINGS NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 14 – LAYOFF AND RECALL NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 15 – HOUSE OF WORK UNRESOLVED
ARTICLE 16 – PAY PROVISIONS UNRESOLVED
SECTION 2: NEW SUBSECTION K AGREED LANGUAGE
SECTION 3: ROLL CALL AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 17 – MISCELLANEOUS ALLOWANCES NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 18 – SICK LEAVE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 19 – MILITARY LEAVE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 20 – SERVICE CONNECTED DISABILITY NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 21 – SEPARATION AND TERMINATION PAY NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 22 – SEVERANCE PAY NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 23 – HOLIDAYS

Page 29 of 45
 SECTION 1: PAY FOR HOLIDAYS NOT WORKED AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 24 – VACATION
SECTION 5: GUARANTEED VACATION BLOCK AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 25 – EXEMPLARY ATTENDANCE AWARD DAY NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 26 – HEALTH CARE BENEFITS UNRESOLVED
ARTICLE 27 – LIFE INSURANCE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 28 – FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 29 – PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 30 – OPBA OFFICE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 31 – EMPLOYEE RIGHTS NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 32 – PERSONNEL FILES NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 33 – CHEMICAL AND MECHANICAL TESTING AGREED LANGUAGE
ARTICLE 34 – SEVERABILITY CLAUSE NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 35 – TIME CLOCK POLICY NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 36 – PAY CHECK DISBURSEMENT NO CHANGE
ARTICLE 37 – DETRIMENTAL FORCE/CRITICAL INCIDENT NO CHANGE

Page 30 of 45
 The current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) language, provisions and
letters will be carried forward into a successor CBA and modified only by the Conciliator’s
award in this report and the Tentative Agreements between the parties as incorporated
by reference in this conciliation hearing award. The term of the successor agreement
shall begin on January 1, 2020 and end on December 31, 2022, or until a new agreement
is executed, whichever is later.

Report Issued in Respectfully Submitted,

Geauga County ss//: Richard F. Novak

Conciliator
Dated: September 28, 2020 rfnovak.metalstrategies@yahoo.com

Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023 216-440-0684

Page 31 of 45
 End of Changes to the Successor Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)

Concluding Remarks

The Conciliator retains jurisdiction over any issue in this report which provides
changes to the successor labor agreement, if the parties are unable to agree upon the
application of such change(s):

Respectfully Submitted,

ss//: Richard F. Novak

Conciliator
Dated: September 28, 2020 rfnovak.metalstrategies@yahoo.com
Geauga County
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44023 216-440-0684

Page 32 of 45
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on September 28, 2020 a copy of the foregoing Conciliation
Award for Case No. 2019-MED-10-1099 was electronically transmitted to David D.
Daugherty, Attorney for the City of Warren, Ohio, ddaugherty@warren.org and to Dominic
D. Saturday, Counsel for the OPBA, dsaturday@opba.com and SERB,
MED@serb.state.oh.us.

ss//: Richard F. Novak

Conciliator

Page 33 of 45
 List of the City of Warren and OPBA Exhibits
Made a Part of Conciliation Award
2019-MED-10-1099 Issued on September 28, 2020

1. OPBA motion to exclude evidence and accompanying memorandum – July 23,

2020 (By Reference)
2. Reply of the City of Warren to union’s motion to exclude evidence – August 6,
2020 (By Reference)
3. Conciliation hearing August 18, 2020 transcript by Brenda N. Brink, Registered
Professional Reporter (330)746-7479 (By Reference) Nancy Baker, Court
Reporting (By Reference)
4. Fact-Finder Report of June 9, 2020 by Veronica A. Rice (By Reference)
5. OPBA Tab 5 “City of Warren General Funds” (Attached) and S&P’s Rating
Service (Attached)
6. OPBA Tab 7 “Ohio Auditor or State Report Year Ending 12/31/19” (By
Reference)
7. OPBA Tab 10 “State Employment Relations Board Clearinghouse Benchmark
Report” (Attached)
8. Warren Exhibit 4 “Tax Levy Ordinance No. 1269016” (Attached)
9. Warren Exhibits 5 & 6 “Comparison of Cost of OPBA and City’s Final Offers
(Attached)
10. OPBA Exhibit 3 and Hearing Exhibit 10 of Award Parties 4117(G) Waiver
(Attached)

Note Exhibits “Referenced” were not copied and attached to save time and costs but are
available from submitting parties for review.

Page 34 of 45
 OPBA TAB 5

Page 35 of 45
Page 36 of 45
Page 37 of 45
Page 38 of 45
Page 39 of 45
 OPBA TAB 10

Page 40 of 45
 WARREN TAB 4
TAX LEVY ORDINANCE

Page 41 of 45
Page 42 of 45
 WARREN TAX 5
CITY’S WAGE OFFER

Page 43 of 45
 WARREN TAB 6
OPBA WAGE OFFER

Page 44 of 45
 OPBA TAB 10
PARTIES 4117(G) WAIVER

Page 45 of 45