My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN061504
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2004
>
CCMIN061504
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:40 AM
Creation date
6/9/2004 5:19:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/15/2004
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN061504
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
34
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
The meeting reconvened at 9:01 p.m. <br /> <br />Approval of Midterm Update of 2004-05 Operating Budget and Capital <br />Improvement Program~ and Housing and Community Development Block Grant <br />Program. (§R 04:155 <br /> <br />Ms. Rossi provided a summary of the 2004-05 Midterm Operating Budget. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala believed that the increase to the City's PERS rates as a result of PERS <br />investment portfolio losses was a one-time event. She asked staff if the PERS rates could <br />continue to increase if the stock market does not return to the 1999/2000 era? <br /> <br /> Ms. Rossi said that the normal costs represent what PERS could expect the City <br />of Pleasanton to pay on an average. PERS has a goal of eight and one-quarter percent <br />earnings per year, and in the current year, PERS far exceeded its goal. PERS has spread <br />the losses out over a few years and slight increases to the PERS rates will increase over a <br />few years. The rates will decrease after that time because of increases to its investment <br />portfolio. On an average, the City of Pleasanton has paid less than its normal cost. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala pointed out that the PERS investment portfolio losses began in 2001 <br />after the State approved the 3 percent at 55-retirement package. She asked if the City <br />contributed 100 percent of the cost for retirement for employees? <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said that the City pays 100 percent of the cost for retirement for <br />employees. The City pays the employer share and the employee share. Some time ago, <br />the City made a decision to pay the employees' share of the retirement benefits instead of <br />granting a salary increase. The City has continued to do so from that point forward <br />because it costs less money to do so. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala noted that the City followed the State's lead when Council approved <br />the new retirement package. She wondered if staff shared any of the concerns that are <br />being reported in the newspapers with regard to the problems associated with the new <br />retirement system? She referred to last year's minutes, which capsulized Council's <br />discussion regarding a second tier in the retirement system and placing new employees' <br />at a different retirement rate. She was led to believe that the City could not automatically <br />do this, as it must be a legislative change. <br /> <br /> Ms. McKeehan said that was never staff's intent. Staff was simply <br />recommending a change in retirement programs or creating new options, which require a <br />legislative change. The point staff might have been trying to make is that in today's <br />market place for police officers and firefighters, the City is providing the retirement <br />program that it needs to provide to be able to get the employees that it needs to make sure <br />that Pleasanton provides the best services that it can possibly provide to the community. <br />She pointed out that 99.9% of every agency in California has this retirement program. If <br />the City were to decide to do something different or select another option, the City would <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 17 06/15/04 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.