CC_Minutes_2011_1010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 10,2011 Page 23 410 a. Consider 2012 City Benefits Insurance Renewals and Cafeteria Contribu- tions Human Resources Director Eldona Bacon provided a bench handout related to this item and entitled, "Roseville Contribution Percentages by Plan 2011;" at- tached hereto and made a part hereof. Ms. Bacon briefly summarized the addi- tional information requested by the City Council at their previous meeting and re- lated to potential contribution policy or philosophy changes for consideration by the City Council. Councilmember McGehee commended staff for getting the additional information together on very short notice; and for negotiating such a favorable benefit package for the City, as well as ongoing success with the City's Wellness Program that appears to have been well received by staff. Councilmember Pust questioned staff's rationale for comparable cities with only one (City of Maplewood) in Ramsey County (Attachment B), and the criteria in developing the list for comparison purposes. Ms. Bacon advised that, historically and at the time the list of comparables was developed for use during contract negotiations, those ten (10) cities listed had been either just below or just above the population of Roseville, and felt to be • fairly comparable from a staff and service area size. Councilmember Pust asked if that remained true today; with Ms. Bacon respond- ing that some may be larger, and others could be used; however, in reanalyzing them, they had been found to still have a fairly comparable benefit package to Roseville's. Ms. Bacon advised that most cities remained comparable in their benefit package, including neighboring communities no matter their size by com- parison; however, she advised that many offered opt-out or true cafeteria plans with all employees receiving the same dollar amount, and not offering a tiered plan. Councilmember Johnson questioned if Ms. Bacon was aware of any other cities provide a tier plan, especially for new employees, to provide a lower benefit until they have been sufficiently trained and have a bigger stake in remaining with the City, and became more goal-oriented and developed in their specific jobs. While having observed such a plan in the private sector, Ms. Bacon advised that she had not seen it in the government sector. Councilmember Johnson advised that this is common in the private sector, and used his business as an example with a 50/50 split between employer and em- ployee for health care benefits, and no spousal benefits included. As an adminis- • trator and business person, Councilmember Johnson opined that this was used to keep expenses down; and while recognizing that government employees may not