My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 2002/02/25
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
Agenda Packets - 2002/02/25
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:46:35 PM
Creation date
8/8/2018 2:43:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
2/25/2002
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
2/25/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
96
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Mounds View City Council January 28, 2002 <br />Regular Meeting Page 6 <br /> <br />Mr. Pittman commented that, if insurance rates change, the dollar amount will change and that is <br />why 80% is a good deal for employees. He then commented that he feels there was a lack of <br />communication because he was unaware of it until tonight’s meeting. <br /> <br />Mayor Sonterre noted that, without a department head in public works, some things may have <br />fallen through the cracks. <br /> <br />City Administrator Miller explained there would not be an immediate change in coverage and <br />explained that the City needed to set a fixed dollar amount that it was willing to pay because the <br />costs of insurance are staggering and continuing to climb. She then noted that almost all other <br />cities are moving away from a percentage formula for insurance. <br /> <br />Mr. Pittman commented that he was in the acting directors position for a while and had been <br />attending Staff meetings but was never made aware of the proposed change to insurance. He <br />then commented that 80% was a nice benefit to employees and the City is taking something <br />away. <br /> <br />Tim Fredberg from the street department indicated that there are a lot of issues within the City <br />that are affecting employee morale. He then commented that the City has lost a lot of <br />experienced people and is poised to lose more valuable experience if it keeps treating its <br />employees in such a manner. He further commented that Council needed to keep in mind that <br />the employees run the City. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated that the City was aware when it started discussing this <br />change it would not be the popular opinion. She then asked those employees in attendance to <br />turn around and explain to the residents in attendance at the meeting why, with revenue dropping <br />and taxes rising, the employees feel it is fair to ask residents to pay 80% of health insurance rates <br />that continue to climb. She further explained that the City is not doing anything different than <br />the rest of the business world when it comes to health insurance. She concluded her comments <br />by saying that insurance rates are rising at such a high rate that the City is not able to budget for <br />it. <br /> <br />Mr. Pittman stated that the public works group is a group of guys that bend backwards to save the <br />City money and, in return, they are questioned on everything and are constantly criticized. <br /> <br />Council Member Thomas indicated that she, as well as the rest of the City, appreciates the efforts <br />of the public works Staff. <br /> <br />David Jahnke of 8428 Eastwood Road indicated he sympathized with the employees but <br />explained he used to work for Sysco that employs over 800 people and the company started <br />taking health insurance out of employees’ checks. He then commented that nobody wants to lose <br />a benefit but it is happening in all positions in all companies. He further commented that <br />insurance rates are ridiculously high. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.