CCMIN100102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Robert Wright, 2538 Corte Bella, indicated he was totally in support of the golf course but was concerned about the funding. He felt this would encumber the City's bonding capabilities and could affect the funding of other projects in the City for the next ten years. He was also concerned there is no cost estimate or funding mechanism for the access road. Council has indicated a policy of having infrastructure in place before or in conjunction with new projects and that is not the case in Happy Valley. He compared this situation and its promises to the Vineyard Corridor annexation and the promises made to the property owners, which were not fulfilled. He did not want to hold up the golf course, but urged Council to rethink the funding for the golf course and the promises to the neighborhood. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS AND OTHER MATTERS Item 6a(1 ) Adoption of Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the Contract with California Public Employees Retirement System for 2.7% at 55 for Miscellaneous (non- sworn) members and Introduction of related Ordinance. (SR 02:235) Item 6a(2) Resolutions AuthorizJn~ the Ci~. Manal~er to Execute a Memorandum of Understandlno Between the Ci.ty of Pleasanton and Pleasanton Ci.ty Employees Association (PCEA/AFSMCE) and Approving a Compensation Plan for Ci~. of Pleasanton Management and Confidential Employees. (SR 02:236) Deborah McKeehan presented the staff report. Ms. Dennis thanked Ms. McKeehan for such a complete explanation of compensation for public ~aployees. She felt many people did not realize how the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) is different than other states or the private sector. She realized it is a costly benefit, but not much more than what the private sector pays overall. She noted that the Social Security system is not as successful a retirement system as PERS. With regard to questions about how Pleasanton can afford this system, she recalled that Pleasanton receives a higher percent of property taxes than other municipalities. She felt that was an important consideration when gauging the economic strength of the city. Ms. McKeehan indicated there are several factors involved. She explained that a municipality's portion of property tax is based on a equation adopted at the time Proposition 13 was passed. Whatever a city was getting at that time was frozen and some cities benefited while others were hurt by that. Statewide, the average property tax received by cities is ten or eleven cents on the dollar. Pleasanton has received as much as 24 cents, but averages about 21 cents. She noted that the retirement benefit has different costs depending on the jurisdiction and its individual actuarial experience at PERS. The cost is based on a variety of factors such as age of employee when retired, age at death, earnings of the plan, what option the employee selects, etc. Pleasanton's actuarial experience has been very good and its costs are less than other cities. Pleasanton City Council 5 10/01/02 Minutes