Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964 03 23 CC MIN1964 03 23 CC MINHÄ—@¸—5»Í«1718 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE BALDWIN PARK CITY COUNCIL MARCH 23, 1964 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER) 14403 East Pacific Avenue;, 2:30 P.M., The City Council of the City of Baldwin Park met in adjourned regular session at the above place at 2:30 p.m. Roll Call: Present: COUNCILMEN BISHOP, HOLMES.. ROLL CALL MOREHEAD, TAYLOR AND MAYOR BLOXHAM Absent: CITY ATTORNEY FLANDRICK, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER WELCH, BUILDING SUPERINTENDENT KALB- FLEISCH AND CHIEF OF POLICE BEST Also Present: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER NORDBY, FINANCE DIRECTOR DUNCAN AND CITY CLERK BALKUS City Treasurer Pugh arrived at 2:45 p.m. and City Engineer Young arrived at 2:50 p.m.) 00- City Clerk Balkus read Resolution No. 64-67 by title as RES. NO, 64-67 follows: AUTH. EST. OF POPULATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 64-67 CITY OF B.PK. BY STATE DEPT. OF A RESOLUTION OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF FINANCE THE CITY OF BALCWIN PARK AUTHORIZING AN ESTIMATE OF POPULATION OF THE CITY OF BALDWIN PARK BY THE STATE DEPART- MENT OF FINANCE" COUNCILMAN HOLMES MOVED THAT RESOLUTION NO. 64-67 BE RES. NO. 64-67 APPROVED AND FURTHER READING BE WAIVED. COUNCILMAN ADOPTED MOREHEAD SECONDED. The rnot ion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN HOLMES, MOREHEAD, BISHOP, TAYLOR AND MAYOR BLOXHAM NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE 00- AT 2:35 P.M. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL RECESS AT 2:35 P.M. RECESS FOR ONE HOUR. COUNCILMAN BISHOP SECONDED. There RECONVENED AT were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered 3:35 P.M. by Mayor Bloxham. 00- Chief Administrative Officer-Nordby introduced Mr. Thomas F. INTRODUCTION OF Crocker. Ass istaat Actuary, State Employment Ret t rement THOMAS F. CROC ER System. ASST. ACTUARY, STATE EMPLOYMENT fitcIREMENr SYSTEM Councilman Holmes asked if the 14% at 60 was a par'ficutar type of program among others, and did this apply only to Public Safety Employees or could the same thing apply to all employees. Mr. Crocker stated this was a special formula for Public Safety Employees; that the Public Safety Employees must participate on this formula or on the formula that applies to California Highway Patrolmen. He stated the Miscellaneous Employees could be brought into the State Employment Retirement System at the same time as the Public Safety Employees or at a later date. He stated there were four different formulas available for the Miscellaneous members Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1964-U02 03-U02 23-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO115493-U03 DO116806-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 4/24/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1964 03 23 CC MINHÄ—@¸—5»Í«JL7JL9Ad jou rned Regular Meeting o f t he Ba l dwi n Park C i t y Council March 23, 1964 Page 2 quite different from the formulas for the Public Safety Employees; that the Miscellaneous Employees would have a vote on whether they wanted to enter the System separate from the Public Safety Employees. Councilman Holmes asked if this system tied in with Social Security and. could the employees have either one or both. Mr. Crocker stated the I% at 60 was designed to fit with the Social Security coverage and was available only where Safety Personnel already had Social Security Coverage. He stated if Social Security was eliminated further down the line, at that point, the Safety Members would auto- matically change over to the Highway Patrol formula. Councilman Morehead asked if the 1e% at 60 was the minimum or maximum benefits. Mr. Crocker stated that the information given showed the maximum possible retirement allowance that a member could receive. He stated when a Safety Member reached retire- ment age he had a choice as to how he wanted his reitre- ment benefit paid to him; that there were four methods of monthly payment; that the highest possible benefit would last as long as the member lived; that when he died, after sixty-five, the only thing his beneficiary would receive would bea $400.00 burial fund; however, at the time of retirement the member could choose any one of three smaller allowances which would provide additional benefits to the widow; that he could take a slight reduction and thereby guarantee that the rest of his contribution would go to his widow; that the member could take a very substantial reduction and thereby guarantee that his widow would receive the same monthly income that the member had been drawing before his death; that in between these figures there was a third figure that would give half as much as the member had been receiving to his widow. In answer to a question by Councilman Morehead, Mr. Crocker stated under the joint income arrangement the income would go to'the survivor until the survivor died regardless of remarriage. He stated that the Highway Patrol plan would generally provide higher incomes than the 14% at 60; that the Iµ% at 60 was designed so that the benefits from this formula when added to Social Security should provide about the same total benefit as the benefits from just the Highway Patrol formula; that this was not always true but was generally. Discussion followed concerning including all of the employees wherein Mr. Crocker stated that most cities did bring all of the employees in at the same time; that the employee would get just as much benefit for each year of prior service as for each year of service after the contract yet the mambers pay no cost whatsoever for that part of the benefit that they receive for prior service; that from the standpoint of the taxpayers the best time to put any retirement program in was the date the city was incorporated. Discussion followed that the City's cost would have•to be deter- CITY'S COST mined by actuarial evaluation; that the City's contribution would be greater than the contribution of the employee; that the actuarial report of last August indicated that the City's contribution would range 7.736% up to just under 8% of number payroll; that the average contribution rate of all the policemen would average just under 4%. Discussion followed that it was mandatory for the City to pick up the tab for all past service of the employees. Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1964-U02 03-U02 23-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO115493-U03 DO116806-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 4/24/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1964 03 23 CC MINHÄ—@¸—5»Í«Adjourned Regular Meeting, of the Baldwin Park City Council March 23, 1964 Page 3 Mr. Crocker stated if a person who had resigned and came back into the City's employ within three 3)-years from the date they left they would get credit for all of their prior service; that if they waited more than three 3) years they would get no credit for prior service. I Discussion followed that the back tab must be paid. In answer to a question by Councilman Holmes, Mr. EMPLOYEE CONTRiBU- Crocker stated that the Miscellaneous employee whose TIONS salary was around $400.00-$450.00 or less would be con- tributing about the some amount as the Police members; that the Miscellaneous employee whose salary was around $600.00- $800,00 would probably be paying more than the Police members but would not be necessarily getting any la rgor benefits. He stated there was quite a difference in what the City contributed for the Miscellaneous compared to the Police; that the policemen have service connected death POLICEMEN SERVICE and disability benefits but there was no comparable bene- CONNECTED DEATH AND fit for the Miscellaneous employee; that a policeman wtto DISABILITY BENEFITS was disabled on the job would get a life income of one- half pay; that part of this might come from Social Security; that the State would add whatever was necessary to make the total equal to one-half pay; that the cost of these two benefits was paid entirely by the City, not by PAID ENTIRELY BY the members; that this was basically why the City's con- CITY tributions for Safety Employees must be higher than the City's contributions for the Miscellaneous Employees; that for Miscellaneous Member coverage the City was probably going to have to put maybe 809% or 90% into the retire- ment plan as the Miscellaneous Members themselves do; that for Safety Member coverage the City would have to put approximately $1.25 up to maybe $1.50 for each $I.CO of COSTS each employee contribution because of the service connected benefits. He further stated that when a Safety Member or Miscellaneous Member quits he had a right to withdraw all of his contributions; that the City contributions were discounted in advance; that there was no Imnediate refund or credit at the time the Member quits; that they waited until the quadrennial evaluation to see whether the total experience along that line was plus or minus. He stated approximately 60% of the cities were in the State Reitre- ment System; that approximately 80% of the municipal employees in California were covered either by the State Employees System or by a locally edninistaed plan w'iich Los Angeles had; that 170 cities, 30 counties and about NO. OF CITIES, 200 other agencies were under the State Retirement System. COUNTIES AND OTHER AGENCIES NON UNDER STATE RETIREMENT Mayor Bloxham stated if it was agreeable with the Council he would like to have Chief Administrative Officer Nordby come back with a recommendation that would cover all City employees. He stated the pay plan should be vaorked out including the effect to the tax structure. There were no objections. In answer to a question by Councilman Bishop, Mr. Crocker stated the cause of departure of an employee had nothing to do with the benefits he was eligible for; however while a person was under a felony charge he would not be paid. Councilman Bishop stated he thought this matter should be turned over to the Chief Administrative officer to bring up a plan for all City employees as to costs, and where the money would come from; that he thought it would probably call for additional taxes in the City and that in this event it should go to a vote of the people. COUNCIL INSTRUCTION 1720 Continued) BIB] 39576-U01 1964-U02 03-U02 23-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO115493-U03 DO116806-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 4/24/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06 1964 03 23 CC MINHÄ—@¸—5»Í«1721 Adjourned Regular Meeting of the Baldwin Park City Council Lieutenant O'Leary stated a vote had been taken among the Public Safety Members and a majority of them wanted to come'into the State Retirement System. He asked under this system whether or not the Public Safety Members would drop Social Security and go under the Highway Patrol plan. Mr. Crocker stated this was a legal possibility but not one that he would suggest; that If Social Security was dropped it would have to be dropped for all of the employees, Miscellaneous and Safety; that then the only benefit plan formula the Policemen could have would be the Highway Patrol formula. Lieutenant O'Leary brought out that under the Highway Patrol plan a man could retire at one-half pay at fifty-five;' that a man still in the field at age sixty- five was probably not competent any more. Mr. Crocker stated this point had caused quite a bit of concern in a number of agencies; that the City of Long Beach had asked the State Retirement Board to develop a modification of the Highway Patrol formula; that whether anything was going to come of this he did not know. Lieutenant O'Leary stated it was his understanding that the Safety Members could not go under the Highway Patrol Formula for the reason that the City now had Social Security; that the City could not drop the Safety Members from Social Security and not drop the Miscellaneous Members. Mr. Crocker stated it was economically impractical to have the Highway Patrol formula on top of Social security; that there was nothing Illegal about doing this; that if Social Security was dropped it would have to be dropped by all Members, Miscellaneous and Safety. March 23, 1964 Page 4 In answer to a question by Councilman Morehead, Mr. L.A. FIELD OFFICE Crocker stated there was a Los Angeles Field Officer of the State Retirement System in the old State Building in Los Angeles; that Mr. Kendall Mayor was the field man covering this area. In answer to a question by City Engineer Young, Mr. WITHDRAWAL FROM Crocker stated there was no law that says you have to SOCIAL SECURITY have Social Security; that to withdraw from Social REQUIRED 2 YRS. Security the City would have to give two years advance ADVANCE NOTICE, notice. 00- AT 4:45 P.M. COUNCILMAN BISHOP MOVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADJ. AT 4:45 R.M. ADJOURN. COUNCILMAN MOREHEAD SECONDED. There were no objections, the motion carried and was so ordered by Mayor Bloxham. 00- THELMA L. BALKUS, CITY CLERK APPROVID,September 15 1965. Date of Distribution to City Council September IQ 1965. Date of Distribution to UepsrtmentsrS p t=4Pr 13 1965. BIB] 39576-U01 1964-U02 03-U02 23-U02 CC-U02 MIN-U02 LI1-U03 FO9994-U03 FO115493-U03 DO116806-U03 C4-U03 MINUTES1-U03 4/24/2008-U04 ROBIN-U04 REGULAR-U05 SESSION-U05 CITY-U06 COUNCIL-U06