My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2011
>
CC_Minutes_2011_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/11/2011 11:42:01 AM
Creation date
10/11/2011 11:41:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday, September 12, 2011 <br /> Page 22 <br /> Finance Director Miller noted the shift of$463,775 (line 49) from Operations to <br /> Capital. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller clarified the $623,695 <br /> (line 45), less the additional $180,000 plus to return, identified as part of the CIP <br /> process for a sustainable CIP to get back on schedule for vehicle, equipment and <br /> facility needs. <br /> Councilmember Pust asked if this was more than recommended by the CIP Task <br /> Force; with Mr. Miller responding negatively; that there was no new expendi- <br /> tures, with the new levy seeking $500,000 solely dedicated for CIP needs, and <br /> some shifted around. <br /> Mayor Roe, as part of the CIP Task Force, concurred, noting that the recommen- <br /> dation of the Task Force was to increase funding annually by $850,000; with <br /> $500,000 from new levy revenue and applied toward CIP, with the other <br /> $350,000 cut from operational spending. In order to address other impacts to the <br /> budget with that action, Mayor Roe advised that staff had determined that they <br /> had to cut more ($700,000) and that difference was from the MVHC. <br /> Regarding Employee wage steps, and healthcare costs (line 48), Councilmember <br /> Pust questioned if that was the employer contribution, with Mr. Miller responding <br /> that the majority of it was the employer's portion. <br /> Councilmember Pust questioned the percentage currently paid as an employer for <br /> those costs; with Mr. Miller advising that it was dependent on what the employee <br /> elected to do: single coverage or a higher tier options or single versus family cov- <br /> erage with different rate plans. Mr. Miller advised that the City contributed up to <br /> $900 for that plan,but some of the plans were in excess of$1,200. <br /> Councilmember Pust clarified that the City paid 100% for single coverage at no <br /> cost to them; and Mr. Miller verified that this was the City's pledge to pay 100% <br /> for single coverage. <br /> Councilmember Pust questioned if this was under or over budget; and whether <br /> this increase was all related to family coverage. Mr. Miller clarified that the City <br /> has pledged to pay a certain percentage of employee health care premiums; how- <br /> ever, employees may choose single or family coverage, but the City had an estab- <br /> lished maximum exposure threshold of $900; and this helped to offset any in- <br /> creases as well. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Miller advised that the City paid 75- <br /> 80% of employee health care costs, depending on their plan selection; but clari- <br /> fied that no employee paid near 50%out-of-pocket costs. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.