My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2006_1023
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
200x
>
2006
>
CC_Minutes_2006_1023
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2007 9:42:53 AM
Creation date
11/20/2006 3:35:16 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
10/23/2006
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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
<br />City Council Regular Meeting -10/23/06 <br />Minutes - Page 9 <br /> <br />an environmentally and economically effective proposal, <br />and anticipated additional material collection, in addition to <br />the new aseptic packaging materials applicable for <br />collection. <br /> <br />Roll Call <br />Ayes: Maschka; Ihlan; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Kough. <br /> <br />3.j <br /> <br />Approve a New Benefit Pay Plan for the Fire Relief <br />Association <br />At the request of Mayor Klausing, Mr. Miller reviewed the <br />Request for Council Action dated October 23, 2006, <br />providing for an increase of $2 per month per year of <br />service, effective November 1, 2006; and for 2008 and <br />beyond, to grant increases to firefighter benefits based on <br />benchmark for the cost of living increase provided to Social <br />Security recipients. Mr. Miller noted that the plan still <br />needed approval of the Fire Relief Association on an annual <br />basis, and by resolution would be approved annually by the <br />City Council as well. <br /> <br />Councilmember Maschka opined that, while he didn't have <br />a problem with the $2 per month per year of service increase <br />for 2007, he was concerned with the provision that future <br />increases would not be granted if the plan's funding level <br />dropped below 70% of what is needed to pay projected <br />benefits, noting that the current plan is funded at 88%. <br />Councilmember Maschka acknowledged that the plan came <br />before the City Council annually, but it did constitute a <br />defined benefit plan, with the City Council as the ultimate <br />guarantor, and cautioned that current and future Council's <br />needed to be aware of this provision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust questioned how the 70% cut-off had <br />been determined, and why it wasn't higher. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller responded that there was no "magical number," <br />and that at some point, the Council needed to make a <br />determination when not to recommend a benefit increase. <br />Mr. Miller briefly reviewed historical fluctuations. <br /> <br />Resolution 10442 <br />New Benefit Pay <br />Plan for the Fire <br />Relief Association <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.