Loading...
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