Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 18, 1992 <br />on a regular basis. <br />The Administrator noted that the salary scale for the <br />Park & Recreation Director will be developed as part of <br />the annual review for that position due to occur in <br />March of 1993. <br />The Administrator noted that no change in salary scale <br />is proposed for temporary seasonal help. <br />It was pointed out by the Administrator that the net <br />effect of the salary increases proposed is a 2.9% <br />increase in base salaries with the exclusion of the <br />Park & Recreation Director and City Administrator <br />positions. The Administrator noted that he has <br />reviewed the information presented this evening with <br />the employees, and there may be some employees present <br />who wish to comment. However, the package before the <br />Council is the recommendation of the City <br />Administrator. It was noted that the recommendation <br />for adjustment in the salary scale for the City <br />Administrator is the recommendation of Council Member <br />LaValle. <br />Collova noted in the material handed out that the <br />average contribution by cities to employee health <br />insurance costs appears to be $250 per employee. <br />The Administrator pointed out that two years ago the <br />Council placed a cap on the amount of City <br />participation in the cost of employee health insurance <br />coverage. That cap was exceeded in 1991 and City <br />employees are now contributing $41 per month toward the <br />cost of their health insurance. The City is <br />contributing $271 per employee for health insurance <br />coverage, therefore is $20 over the average. The <br />Administrator reported that the City's insurance agent <br />is anticipating a 15% increase in the cost of health <br />insurance coverage. Should the Council not increase <br />the health insurance cap, employees would have to pay a <br />greater share of this cost. <br />Scalze stated that it was her understanding that the <br />cap was a cap and not adjustable. <br />The Administrator reported that in proposing the cap it <br />was his intention that the City retain control over its <br />share of health insurance costs. The City has <br />previously been paying 100% of the cost of employee <br />health insurance with no questions asked. Employees <br />would like to see the cap adjust otherwise the <br />additional dollars gained in pay increases would be <br />eaten up by increased health insurance costs, or those <br />employees whose salaries are recommended to be frozen, <br />would see a decrease in pay. <br />Page 9 <br />