CC 09-24-2001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL - SEPTEMBER 24, 2001 12 . Councilmember Grant stated trying to equate fairness was a slippery slope. He noted they had two employees who elect family coverage and nine people who elect single coverage. He added fairness could be seen as anyone who wants coverage has it. He stated this was sold at one point to retain employees. He noted that if that was the intent, this was the wrong way to go about it. He added he was not sure he was able to support this change at this time. Councilmember Rem stated this was fair in a different way than the present system, but yet unfair in a different way. She noted nine people could decide to put this compensation in any way they want. She asked why they did not let all of them decide. She stated with the budget issues next year, with the structure changes and a lot of uncertainties she would like to hold off and then go retroactive for the previous 12 months. She noted what has been budgeted has been budgeted. She added they know they could always spend less and move the money elsewhere. She stated she had concerns about the budget including the reorganization and the move to the new City HalL Councilmember Grant stated if this was more SO/50 among the eleven employees, he might be a more persuaded. He noted he assumed that this would be a standing item and would affect the long term cost structure of the employee compensation. Mayor Probst stated the city had budgeted these dollars and had not always spent them. He noted these dollars did not affect any of the other expenditures. He added that after looking at total compensation there was a difference here. He stated he supports paying each employee in different circumstances the same. . Councilmember Larson stated the city offers employees benefits and each has a price tag. He noted the employees that were married pay more because they had families. He added that buying insurance gave them a piece of mind that their family was covered. He stated he did not expect a huge turnover next year. He noted if next year all employees decided to get family coverage it would be gone. He added it was an elusive savings. He stated they were trying to make sure all employees receive the same dollar worth of benefits. Councilmember Aplikowski stated she looked at it like a needs basis kind of thing. She noted in business, not all employees were rated equal. She added this could go up every year and asked at what point they not offer this difference. She stated just because it was budgeted does not mean they had to spend it. She noted she would not vote against it, but wanted to know the rationale behind it. Councilmember Grant stated they would never make everything equal. He noted union employees were paying a different rate. He added the disparity was higher between the union employees and the other two employees that pay family coverage. Mr. Post stated two employees electing family coverage were paying $100 more. . Councilmember Larson stated they were focusing only on people in this category. He noted in this group, the benefits were not fair. He added he did not disagree there may be other inequities.