Laserfiche WebLink
Mounds View City Council June 12, 2000 <br />Regular Meeting Page 16 <br />. Council Member Stigney inquired if it would be acceptable to discuss the specific terms of the <br />contract at this time. <br />City Attorney Long advised that the Council could hold an open discussion pertaining to the <br />terms of the contracts, however, unless the contracts are to be ratified, they would not desire to <br />reiterate the previous taped discussion. <br />Council Member Stigney stated he had previously expressed concerns regarding some of the <br />items contained in the contracts, primarily the change in the manner in which the City pays for <br />insurance under these contracts. He explained that previously, a fixed amount of money was <br />paid for insurance, however, both contracts have been amended to change this to an 80 versus 20 <br />percent split, with an increase of 15 percent, which is negotiable if it exceeds that amount. He <br />advised that this changes the form in which this has always been done in the past, and is contrary <br />to the practice of the vast majority of cities in the State. He indicated this would have a ripple <br />effect in terms of all City employees, and it was detrimental to the taxpayers, therefore, he did <br />not support it. <br />Council Member Marty stated he did not believe that this was presented as the exception to the <br />vast majority of the cities in the State, but rather, that it is beginning to become more of the <br />norm. He stated it was also presented that the pool of Police Officers from which to draw is not <br />as great as it previously has been. He explained that in order to retain employees, this was an <br />• attempt to make these positions more desirable, in light of the general economy and the overall <br />unemployment figures, which are vastly different than they were m the past. <br />Council Member Stigney stated he stood by his statement. He indicated the League of <br />Minnesota Cities provided the Council with a survey, which indicated that a percentage based <br />calculation was more prevalent in eastern cities, however, within the State of Minnesota, the vast <br />majority of all cities utilize a fixed rate formula. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated it was his understanding that this particular issue was a significant <br />sticking point in the negotiations. He advised that the costs attempting to arbitrate this matter <br />would exceed the cost of this adjustment. <br />Council Member Marty stated it was brought forward that the cost of arbitration would far <br />outweigh any possible increases in insurance costs, in terms of the City's legal fees. He added <br />that this would also keep the negotiations open, and the issue would remain unresolved. <br />Council Member Stigney requested he be allowed to respond. <br />Mayor Coughlin stated in the interest of fairness, he would yield the Floor to Council Member <br />Stigney, and would not speak further to this issue. <br />. Council Member Stigney stated he would like to make a clarification with regard to the costs of <br />arbitration. He stated this represented the cost of arbitration over a one, two or three year <br />contract period, versus a change in policy established for the City from this point forward into <br />