pages: CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-06-19 | 7 | The Assistant City Manager stated even with the revenue sharing, a net savings will be recognized because the additional PERS contribution is part of the employer share and the employees are picking up part of the health care increase. f the additional PERS contribution which is part of the employer share not the employee share and the employees are picking up part of the increase in health care expenditures. Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard of revenue sharing in the public sector; that he is guessing an increase around 3% a year would occur; that he has a concern because he has never seen it done. The City Manager stated the MOUs are not merely revenue sharing but cost sharing as well; labor is picking up 50% of the medical premium increase which has been the largest exposure over the past fifteen years; the City should be proud no one else has done it; the plan is terribly innovative and creates a true partnership and an understanding between management and labor; sharing in hand times and if revenues get better the City is not committing to something that cannot be paid because the increases are tied to revenue growth; employees are picking up costs either way. The Human Resource Director stated on the PERS side, employees will be picking up 1.868% which is the maximum which they can. Councilmember Tam stated that she agrees with the City Manager; the revenue sharing provision is a recognition that there is a partnership; employees recognize the economic realities the City is facing; at the same time, the City recognizes that between 2008 and 2013 employees will not have any pay increases; in spite of costs such as garbage rates increasing, employees are seeing net decreases in wages; there is a mutual understanding of the fiscal constraints the City is facing and recognizing that the employees are willing to help share in the healthcare cost and in the pension obligations. Councilmember Johnson stated the proposal is innovative; that she expects to see similar in the future; employees have made significant concessions in the MOUs; agreed with the City Manager that the City might be a leader in this front; employees have made significant concessions. Councilmember deHaan stated that he concerned about budget difficulties and the impact on other bargaining groups. The City Manager stated staff has already talked with the public safety units and intends to engage in bargaining as soon as possible, a meeting is scheduled with Fire in July to reopen the MOU precisely for concessions; the City will need to petition the State to allow the City to require employees to pay additional money to PERS; Council should not look at the percentage number because the miscellaneous is a different structure than public safety; employees will be paying half of the premium increases in medical and the maximum amount allowable in California for pensions; the City cannot do better Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 June 19, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-06-19.pdf |