HomeMy WebLinkAbout1964 03 23 CC MIN1964 03 23 CC MIN HÄ—@¸— 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— 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 MIN HÄ—@¸— 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