1996 MIN FEB 20 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

AGENDA REVIEW• Councilmember Hutton requested that Item No. 27 be advanced on the agenda for discussion, in view of the many people present for this item. Mayor Fulp stated that Agenda items Nos. 32, 31, 33 and 36 would follow discussion on Item No. 27. Item 27 - Elected Officials Post Retirement Benefits As requested by Mayor Fulp, City Attorney Biggs submitted a proposed resolution to lift the requirement to provide health care and other benefits, found in Resolution No. R-115-91, to retiring City officials, prospectively only. Mayor Fulp indicated that he was keeping a campaign promise to eliminate lifetime benefits for part-time representatives, in the future. He assured this would not affect past employees, former Councilmembers or their spouses. Councilmember Hutton inquired if this would cover an employee, with longevity, who could become a department head. City Attorney Biggs said there was no MOU for department heads and that R-115-91 covered department heads. Noting confusion with the wording of the agenda item, Councilmember Sanders said that there was no comparative cost analysis on which to make a sound decision. He said this action would discourage in-house promotion and future department heads from taking the job as there would be no real incentive. Personnel Director/Risk Manager Harmon indicated that 15- and 20 -year employees received permanent health benefits under the general fund. She said that in the public sector it was a common benefit. Upon Mayor Fulp's inquiry, City Attorney Biggs advised that the language in the resolution could be narrowed to include future council people. Mr. Fred Cordova informed that private agencies offer full health care to part-time employees, such as Stater Bros. Mr. Ray Lopez, retired from the Post Office, said that he paid one- third of his health insurance. He believed that over -spending such as this was the reason the City was in such a bind and said it was time to re -organize. Former Councilmember Max Lofy said he was greatly concerned by the title of the resolution which included the word "rescind" which he found to mean to do away with, to cancel and this had scared him. He expressed anger at what he believed to be an intimidating move to take away benefits he was entitled to receive. He was upset that none of the retirees had received prior notice of this proposed action. 2 FEB % 0199