CC_Minutes_2011_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2011 Page 23 Mr. Miller advised that as time has evolved, employees have been absorbing higher prescription costs, higher deductibles, and have elected tier plans that moved more of the risk to some of those employees. Councilmember Pust noted that this was indicative of impacts for other em- ployees throughout the country, whether in the private or public sector. Councilmember Willmus questioned how many employees were receiving 100%; with Mr. Miller advising that, while he didn't have that information available at this time, he would provide it to the City Council. Councilmember Johnson asked if the City was mandated by various union agree- ments to surpass a certain level or to provide a certain level of coverage for union employee health care; how many employees were covered by contract; and if there were any subsidies or cafeteria plans for union employees. Mr. Miller advised that this was a negotiated benefit; with about half of the City's employees covered under collective bargaining agreements; and all agreements structured for parity so all employees received the same coverage, whether union or not. Councilmember Willmus questioned the terms of existing union contracts and whether they were negotiated on an annual basis, with City Manager Malinen ad- vising that some were annual and some were multi-year contracts; with one set- tled for 2012. Councilmember Pust sought clarification that contracts were negotiated for a 2-3 term, rather than on an annual basis. City Manager Malinen advised that it varied; and that multi-year contracts were being attempted;but historically they have been negotiated annually. Councilmember Pust noted the proposed increase of 60-65% for increased water, sewer and storm sewer fees, that all residents would be receiving notice of in De- cember, and questioned budgetary implications if that didn't happen and how it tied into the rest of the budget. Mayor Roe advised that those fees were strictly to meet CIP needs; and if not ap- proved, capital projects in those areas would need to be deferred yet again. How- ever, Mayor Roe advised that the intent was to cover CIP needs and sustain their funding for the next twenty(20) years through that one-time fee. Discussion ensued on the timing of the public hearing on the CIP fees and adop- tion f the 2012 budget, with one week allowed for any further adjustments.