My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100102
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
CCMIN100102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:35 AM
Creation date
10/25/2002 4:07:56 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/1/2002
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN100102
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
Mr. Brozosky referred to the changes in calculating overtime and asked what amount <br />would be saved. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said that amount is not quantifiable at this time and staff did not want to <br />make a guess. There are also issues regarding Workers' Compensation, which have more impact <br />than any issue related to this retirement/salary package. One piece of this contract involves a <br />return to work program, which helps get employees back to work. There is a dollar savings, but <br />that is also not quantifiable at this time. Staff can track it over time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brozosky said according to his calculations there is a 35% increase in retirement <br />benefits retroactively. Over the eight-year contract, there would be a 40% increase in salaries if <br />you compound the 4% annual increase. The net income to the city over eight years will be $5 <br />million, but this contract will actually add $18 million of expense. He asked the city to post on <br />the website the average salaries and the benefits. He felt taxpayers had the right to know. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked for clarification about the employees who have served at other cities. If <br />they are at another city for ten years with a 2% at 55 formula and they work at Pleasanton for ten <br />years with the 2.7% at 55 formula, then they get 2% from the other city and 2.7% from <br />Pleasanton? <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan said that was correct and explained how that is calculated by PERS. <br /> <br /> Jerry Thorne, 5144 Hummingbird, presented a chart to demonstrate how the economy <br />and pay relate over time. He believed the City Manager had done a good job in dealing with <br />compensation packages over the years. He was surprised the staff only uses nine other cities for <br />comparison. The private sector uses at least fifteen other companies and not necessarily similar <br />companies. He believed this was a case of micromanagement. The City hires good management <br />staffto negotiate contracts and he felt Council should trust and rely on their good judgment. He <br />indicated he had met Strom Thurman at the Brookings Institute and quoted him as saying the <br />difference between a private company and the government is that the private company is not a <br />democracy. He agreed the public has a right to know the numbers, but does not have a right to <br />micromanage the managers who do the job. <br /> <br />Brian Arkin, 3740 Newton Way, asked if the retirement plan was indexed with inflation? <br /> <br />Ms. McKeehan said it is indexed at the rate of 2%. <br /> <br />Mr. Arkin asked if the City Councilmembers get a retirement plan? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said Councilmembers are eligible for any City benefits. The retirement <br />would use the same formula, so if they chose to participate, and many Councilmembers choose <br />not to participate, it would be a percentage of their pay for the number of years they were in <br />service. It would be unusual for a Councilmember to receive more than $50. <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 10/01/02 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.