HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987-05-01 - City Commission Workshop Meeting Minutes5811 NORTHWEST 88TH AVENUE TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33321
TELEPHONE (305) 722-5900
MAIL REPLY TO,
P.O. BOX25010 April 27, 1987
TAMARAC, FLORIDA 33320 p
NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL
TAMARAC, FLORIDA
Please be advised that there will be a city Council Workshop
meeting on Friday, May 1, 1987 at 9:00 A.M. in the West
Conference Room of City Hall, 5811 NW 88 Avenue, Tamarac,
Florida.
The purpose of this Workshop Meeting is the following:
1. Discussion on the Employee Pension Plan,
2. Discussion regarding the Boards and Committees for
1987/88.
The public is invited to attend.
Patricia Marcurio
Acting City Clerk
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
POLICY OF NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF HANDICAPPED STATUS
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1987
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Hart called this Special Workshop Meeting
to Order at 9:00 A.M. on Friday, May 1, 1987 in the West
Conference Room at City Hall.
ROLL CALL: Mayor Bernard Hart
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Henry M. Rohr
Councilman Jack Stelzer
ALSO PRESENT: John P. Kelly, City Manager
A. Bryant Applegate, City Attorney
Peter Prior, Chairman Pension Board
Judy Deutsch, Pension Trustee
Robert Sugarman, Pension Attorney
Larry Perretti, Personnel Director
Yvonne E. Snyder, Secretary
Mayor Hart announced the purpose of this Workshop Meeting
was to go over proposed changes in the Pension Plan. At that
time, he turned the meeting over to Larry Perretti, Personnel
Director.
Mr. Perretti passed out two forms to each person present, one
showing the study, as of October 1, 1986, of the Tamarac Retirement
Plan and one showing the difference between the current Plan and
the new Plan that was being proposed.
Mr. Perretti said the Pension Board had been wanting to revise
the Pension Plan for many years. He said in comparing
Tamarac's Pension Plan to other cities in Dade, Broward and Palm
Beach Counties, Tamarac was very low in benefit plans. He said
there was a definite need to make a major revision in the Pension
Plan.
Mr. Perretti said the Pension Board was able to hire their first
full-time attorney several months ago. He then introduced Mr.
Robert Sugarman to members of Council. Mr. Perretti said
Mr. Sugarman was able to put together a new Plan for the Pension
Board, which they had voted to approve at their last meeting.
Mr. Perretti said at the current time, the only exclusions to the
Plan were the City Manager and the City Attorney. He said the
new Plan would not only exclude the City Manager and City
Attorney, but would also exclude the Department Heads and the
Assistants. He said the main reason for this was so these people
could determine for themselves whether or not they wanted to stay
in the Pension Plan.
Vice Mayor Stein asked why the Department Heads were now being
excluded? He asked if this was something they wanted or was it
an idea the Pension Board came up with and Mr. Perretti replied
this was something the Department Heads had requested.
Mr. Sugarman said there had been a legal problem because there
was a Resolution which had been passed by Council that set forth
an Executive Compensation Plan and provided that in lieu of being
in the Retirement Plan, seventeen classifications of workers
could receive a City Tax Deferred Annuity Plan.
1 /
5/l/87
Mr. Sugarman said instead of the City's contribution to the
Pension Plan, that same amount could be placed into an individual
Plan for the employee. He said the problem was that this was
passed by Resolution, but it did not amend the Ordinance that
required a City contribution to the Pension Plan for those
employees. He said this could create double dipping.
Mr. Perretti said that since the Plan has been in existence, any
new employee coming into the City would have a one year wait
before they were eligible to put their contribution into the
Pension Plan. He said the new Plan requires no waiting period
and the employee would start putting 5% into the Plan
immediately, thereby increasing the Pension Plan considerably.
He said that the City always paid into the Plan during the first
year of employment, but now both the City and the employee would
be contributing.
Mr. Sugarman said the reason this was changed was because the
employee gets the benefit for the first year if he retires, so it
was felt if he is going to receive this benefit then he should
pay for it.
Mr. Perretti said at the present time, they have 100% vesting at
10 years and up until last year it was 15 years. He said now the
pro -rating would start from the 5th year on, up to the tenth year
at 100%. He said the new Plan was recommending 100% vesting at 5
years. He said the law states that as of July 1, 1989 there will
only be two options which are, 5 years at 100% or an option of 7
years, pro -rated from the 3rd year. He said the Pension Board
felt that rather than any pro -rating from the third, fourth,
fifth and sixth year, they would go with 100% vesting at 5 years.
Mr. Perretti said the current Plan says age 65 for retirement
for general employees, but the new Plan shows age 62. He said
the Firefighters are now at age 55 for retirement and the Police
officers are at age 57 for retirement. He said this would not
change in the new Plan. He said although the Plan shows age
62 for retirement, in order for a person to retire early, he or
she must have ten years in and be at least age 55. He said this
would protect the Plan.
Mr. Sugarman said to offset the early retirement age, they gave
an incentive to work past the retirement age. He said previously
an employee stopped receiving credit when they worked past
retirement age. He said now they would continue to earn
retirement credit as they continue to work.
Mr. Perretti said they now have approximately ten to twenty
employees working for the City whose benefits have stopped.
He said now they would have the opportunity to buy back time if
they wanted to.
Mr. Perretti said under the standard benefit, the current Plan
shows a Life Annuity and the new Plan shows Joint and Survivor
annuity.
Mr. Sugarman said under the current Plan, if a person made no
election, and he died after he retired, there would be no
provision for the spouse. He said now, when the employee dies,
the spouse would get a 50% benefit for the rest of the spouse's
life. He said this was not a cost item to the City.
Mr. Perretti said under Service. Connected Disability the current
Plan is at 20% and the new Plan has a maximum for General
Employees at 66--2/3% and the Police and Fire at 75%.
2
5/l/87
Mr. Sugarman said it was 20% and State Law required an increase
for Police and Firefighters to 42%. He said the Pension Board
increased that to 66-2/3% for General Employees and 75% for
Police and Firefighters, but they added to it a coordination of
benefits that did not previously exist.
Vice Mayor Stein asked why they decided to go to 75% for Police
and Fire since the State only required 42%. Mr. Sugarman said
they felt 42% was inadequate since Police and Firefighters do get
hurt in the line of duty. He said they would not be able to
support a family on 42%.
Mr. Sugarman said with the Coordination of Benefits Program, the
maximum pay out would probably be much less than that because of
the other benefits available. He said under the old Plan, an
employee could receive Workers' Compensation and Social Security
and the City Pension Plan at 20%. He said under this Plan, the
employee could possibly receive more than 100% of the salary
they were making prior to the time they were disabled. He said
now the Pension Plan would be last after deducting the Workers'
Compensation, Social Security and the City's Long -Term Disability
Plan. He said whatever is left, the Pension Plan would pay
except it would be measured against that 67-2/3% or the 75%
maximum of the amount the employee was making at the time of
disability. He further said that Social Security and Worker's
Compensation goes up each year and, as it does, the amount the
City will have to pay will go down.
Vice Mayor Stein asked what the cost of the City's Long -Term
Disability Insurance was and Mr. Perretti replied it was
approximately $44,000.00 per year.
Mr. Sugarman said the Non -Service Connected
current Plan is two to ten years at 20 % and
Disability
on the new
under the
Plan they
brought that up to 42%. He said there was
a two year
waiting
period as there was before. He said the reason
they raised
the
amount was that 20%, even with Social
Security,
did not
give a meaningful benefit to the person. He
said they
wanted to
pay the person enough so that he does not have
to come
back to
work to support himself.
vice Mayor Stein asked why the City was paying 66-2/3% on a non -
service connected disability. He said if the disability was not
job related he did not feel it was the City's obligation to take
care of that person.
Mr. Sugarman said the reason this was done was to make the
benefit equal to the service connected disability in order to
avoid the Pension Board from having to make the distinction
between service connected and non -service connected disability.
He said this eliminates litigation.
Mr. Applegate, City Attorney, said in the existing Personnel
Code, it states that any hypertension or heart disease is assumed
to be job related. He said he could see this from the standpoint
of the Police or Firefighters but he did not feel this should
apply for General Employees. Mr. Applegate said he was shocked
that this was in the Code.
Councilman Rohr said he felt corrections should be made as they
are needed and he felt this should be corrected at this time.
Mr. Applegate said the question was whether or not they could now
take that out of the Code without getting into a bargaining
situation.
3
5/1/87
Vice Mayor Stein said he still could not understand the City
paying an employee for the rest of his or her life for an
accident which did not occur at work. He also said he did not
know of any other business that did this.
A lengthy discussion ensued with members of Council stating their
objections to the non -service connected disability. They also
discussed whether or not the Section of the Code which states
hypertension and heart attacks was assumed to be job -related
and could be removed.
Councilman Rohr said he felt this was a negotiable item and,
if the City was going to increase the benefits, and there was
something about the Plan the City did not like, then a compromise
has to be made.
Pete Prior, Chairman of the Pension Board, said the concern of
the Pension Board was to take care of the long-term employee.
Members decided that the Plan should state 20% for two to ten
years for the General Employee for a non -service connected
disability and 42% for Police and Firefighters for a non -service
connected disability, and that the category of ten years plus be
eliminated.
Mayor Hart said he felt the clause relating to hypertension and
heart attacks for General Employees should be eliminated but that
it should remain for Police and Firefighters. He said that
cancer should be added to the list for Firefighters, but not for
police.
Pete Prior said that 42% was not enough for Police or
Firefighters to survive on.
Vice Mayor Stein said he felt it was more than fair to go from
20% to 42% for a non service --connected disability for the Police
and Fire, but to jump from 20% to 66-2/3% was too much. He said that
since they were adding the category of cancer to the Firefighters
it was more than fair.
After discussing the matter further, it was decided it would be
presented as 20% for General Employees for non -service connected
disability and 42% for Police and Fire for non -service connected
disability for two to ten years. For ten plus years, it was
decided 20% for General Employees and 66-2/3% for Police and Fire
for non -service connected disability, and they would add cancer
for the Police and Firefighters.
Larry Perretti said Pension Plans are now a negotiable item
and the union could conceivably come in next month and want to
negotiate the Pension Plan.
Vice Mayor Stein said he felt the figure should be left blank for
ten years plus for the Police and Firefighters and Council could
decide on the figure when they vote.
Mr. Sugarman said under the current Pension Plan for a non -
service connected disability, the waiting period was ninety days
but the law does not permit that for Police and Fire so they have
now made it zero days for everyone.
Mr. Sugarman said that under the current Plan there was no
provision for coordination of benefits, but now they have
provided for that and the Pension Plan would pay last.
4
5/l/87
r�
l
Mr. Sugarman said under the current Plan there was no disability
cost of living adjustment and the benefit was fixed. He said
they were now increasing the disability benefit to a percentage
of the wage rate for the position and step that the person had
when they retired.
Mr. Sugarman said the old Plan could be interpreted to require
the City to rehire a person who recovered from a disability. He
said they changed it to permit the City, at their option, to hire
someone back.
Mr. Sugarman said the old Plan provided that a Pensioner who is
reemployed by the City did not provide any suspension of their
benefit. He said the new Plan provides a suspension of
retirement benefits if someone decides to come back to work as an
independent contractor or a consultant.
Members of Council then discussed whether or not the benefits
should be suspended if a person is rehired as an independent
contractor or a consultant.
Mr. Sugarman said the purpose of the Pension Plan was to allow
the employee to quit working at a certain age with dignity and
also to give the employee incentive to stay with the City so that
he will be able to retire. He said many people think of it as a
savings account, but that was not what it was designed for.
There being no further discussion regarding the proposed Pension
Plan, Mayor Hart adjourned the meeting at 10:55 A.M.
CAROL E . BARBU TO
CITY CLERK
This public document was promulgated at a cost of J99.0Q or 52 75
per copy to inform the general public and public officers and
employees about recent opinions and consideration by the City
Council of the City of Tamarac.
5
5/1/87
[J
1
I
CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP MEETING
FRIDAY, MAY 1, 1987
-CALL TO RDER: Mayor Hart called this Workshop Meeting
to Order at 11:00 A.M. on Friday, May 1, 1987, in the West
Conference Room at City Hall.
Mayor Bernard Hart
Councilman Bruce Hoffman
Councilman Henry M. Rohr
Vice Mayor Sydney M. Stein
Councilman Jack Stelzer
John P. Kelly, City Manager
A. Bryant Applegate, City Attorney
Yvonne E. Snyder, Secretary
Mayor Hart announced the purpose of this Special Workshop
Meeting was to discuss the recommendations of the City Attorney,
A. Bryant Applegate, relating to boards and committees within the
City of Tamarac.
Mr. Applegate said these were only suggestions and the goal they
were trying to obtain for the City was uniformity, that the
committee make -ups were the same as far as members, the type of
appointment, and the procedures of appointing a Chairman. He
said they had discussed Council Liaisons and Staff Liaisons and
he said he felt it was important that each committee be appointed
a Staff Liaison to provide services and information to that
committee. He said it was also important that Council have the
authority to remove committee members for good cause.
Mr. Applegate said the most important thing to look at was the
duties of the committees and he needed the guidance of Council as
to how they wished to proceed on the matter of drawing up the
Ordinances.
Councilman Stelzer said the Burglar Alarm Committee and the
Recreation Committee had been omitted from the list of boards and
committees.
Mr. Applegate said the Burglar Alarm Committee would be left out
because that would be a special Ordinance and the issues would be
addressed in that.
Mr. Applegate said he was suggesting that five members be
appointed for each committee and the reasons for this were: (1)
They have a five member Council and they should have an alignment
of one Council member to one Committee member. (2) For the
type of services the committees perform, more than five members
were not needed. He also said when you have a larger committee
they cannot be controlled by the Chairman and it was easier to
get a quorum when you have five members on a committee as opposed
to fifteen members.
Councilman Hoffman said he agreed with the five members with the
exception of the Consumer Affairs Committee, and he felt they
should have seven. He said they have to work out a schedule of
having someone on duty every day and he felt it would be too much
of a burden for five members to handle.
5/1/87
After a lengthy discussion it was decided that there would be
five members on all committees with the exception of Consumer
Affairs and Parks and Recreation, and they would have seven
members each, with the members being appointed by the majority
vote of Council.
Members also decided the Chairman of each committee would be
appointed by Council and that the Rules and Procedures would
remain the same as they had been.
Members discussed how often the committees should meet and it was
determined that they should meet once a month, except at vacation
time which would be set aside by the committee. It was discussed
that most committees do not meet during the month which City
Council is on vacation, but it was decided that it would be left
up to each individual committee.
Mr. Applegate suggested a Staff Person be assigned to each
committee and Vice Mayor Stein asked what the purpose of that
would be. John Kelly, City Manager, said there had been problems
with some of the committees and it would help if he had a Staff
Person to report back to him so he would be aware of what was
going on with each committee at all times.
After discussing the matter it was decided that instead of saying
a, Staff Person "shall" be assigned to each committee that it
should read "may" be assigned to each committee.
Members then discussed the issue of a member missing three
consecutive meetings automatically being required to resign
from the committee.
Councilman Rohr suggested a Workshop Meeting be scheduled regarding
the Social Services Committee to see that the committee does what
they are authorized to do. He then brought up the issue of
liability insurance for the drivers of the Social Services Vans.
Members of Council then discussed liability insurance and the
tremendous liability on the part of the City.
Councilman Stelzer asked if they were going to keep all of the
committees and it was decided to continue with all the committees
at that point, but whether or not to keep a committee would be
brought up when the budget was discussed.
Mayor Hart asked if there were any additional suggestions
Council Members and no one responded.
There being no further discussion, Mayor Hart adjourned
meeting at 11:45 A. M.
CAROL E. BARBUTO
CITY CLERK
from
the
This public document was promulgated at a cost of $34.20 or S .95
per copy to inform the general public and public officers and
employees about recent opinions and considerations by the City
Council of the City of Tamarac.
h
1
1-1
2 `
5/l/87