Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council April 12, 2004 <br />Regular Meeting Page 15 <br /> <br />Finance Director Hansen indicated that this Resolution formalizes the agreement to have ICMA 1 <br />administrate the plan but no one would be able to contribute to it until Council approves it 2 <br />through the personnel manual and labor contracts. 3 <br /> 4 <br />Council Member Quick asked whether this would affect the contract negotiations in any way. 5 <br /> 6 <br />City Administrator Ulrich indicated it allows other options to include with the contract when 7 <br />talking about sick leave severance with some unions. He then said that this could be an option to 8 <br />sick leave severance payments. 9 <br /> 10 <br />Council Member Stigney asked what this compares to. 11 <br /> 12 <br />Finance Director Hansen indicated the only other plan available is through the state of Minnesota 13 <br />but that plan is much more restrictive as an entire group of employees would be required to 14 <br />contribute and this plan allows for individuals to make their own choice. 15 <br /> 16 <br />Council Member Stigney asked what other cities already use this plan. He then indicated he 17 <br />would like to know who is using this. 18 <br /> 19 <br />Finance Director Hansen agreed to obtain the information for Council. 20 <br /> 21 <br />MOTION/SECOND: Quick/Gunn. To Waive the Reading and Approve Resolution 6228, a 22 <br />Resolution Authorizing the Adoption of the Vantagecare Retirement Health Savings Program. 23 <br /> 24 <br /> Ayes – 4 Nays - 0 Motion carried. 25 <br /> 26 <br />Council Member Stigney abstained from voting. 27 <br /> 28 <br />J. First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 734, an Ordinance Amending 29 <br />Chapter 513 Pertaining to Adult Oriented Businesses. 30 <br /> 31 <br />Community Development Director Ericson indicated that the only change made from the work 32 <br />session was a change in the fee from $500 to $2,500 as recommended by Kennedy and Graven 33 <br />that the City’s fee may be too low. 34 <br /> 35 <br />Council Member Stigney asked why the fee is restricted to $2,500. 36 <br /> 37 <br />Director Ericson commented that the higher the fee the more apt it is to be challenged and the fee 38 <br />needs to be reasonable. 39 <br /> 40 <br />Council Member Stigney asked if the $2,500 is the most practical that the City should be 41 <br />charging at this time. 42 <br /> 43 <br />Director Ericson said he feels this is a fee that the City can justify at this time. 44 <br /> 45