CC MIIN 1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

. . � , 51� r. . I `, 1 �! � �]�. � � r � i -, � , , _ i , _r City Controller�Fererice�referred to his'sumnary of"August 5; 1976` of the actuarialireport from PERS and reviewed tt in detail "=- ' , . , � ��, � , , .. , , �� a , � ic � � . Discussion followed�concerm ng'the plight of retirees wfio reti'r'ed ' ' prior to the whose retirement benefits have not kept current with the increasing cost of living. i- ��t�` ' ��t.� - t ,�' � , �i.. � � i i . MOTION Councilman�Norris moved, secondedrby Councilman Rhodes';'to � grant°a�5% increase in allowaricet'of''all''former�em- ployees�who-retired�on�or before•June��30;-1971 as provided'in�" """ `' Section 21 222:lnand�2�1:222.2 of with the�term payment�to`be three•'years?'' � ' � Discussion'followed and Mr: �Ference and''City AttorneytSchricker com- mented�and replied�to 'questions concerm ng�tfie possibil'ity of�granting increases"to'�those most iri�need, - the�fact•tliat only Redwood�City PERS information is avarl'atile'to�tFie'City, th�e amount of benefits' patd to''indivtduals who may have serJice witH�other agencies''con-`'' tracting with�PERS�tieing confidential�'the�fact'tFiat'other cities ' have granted no increases outside of those provided for PERS, the fact that the only options available to agencies contracting with PERS are those provided by the legislature; the fact that the State has had other alternatives available in granting increases to re- tirees from State employment, the status of pending legislation, whethe'r or not"it°migh't be preferable�to �increase'the term payment � to�ten'years rather than three,' and'the'stabil�ity'of PERS '`°" ''" " �(. : � o f i � , _ t i r r� �. I� � � r � �.�„ �. n ✓ i�� i 1 � 1 �� ` f In response to�question; Mr Ference stated that the three-year , term ts preferable, as more is to be gained by not extending the term too�far-and other alternatiSes may'be available later. GlenntJaan, Pre"s�ident" of �the �Publi'c Employees Retirement Association in Redwood City, referred to his correspondence and the information provided by his organization earlier. Mr Jain urged approval of a one-time 15� increase as a"catch-up" payment to those retiring prior to July 1, 1971 Mr Jain commented on the difficulty of determim ng who might be most in need, since, for example, some of those receiving the smallest retirement benefits from the City may have other sources of income Mr Jain noted that salary ranges for present City em- ployees have increased over the past few inflationary years indicating the recognition by Council of the greatly increased cost of living Mr Jain referred to the opinion of the City Attorney regarding the C�ty's contract with PERS which would prevent a payment to retirees outside of PERS, and recommended that Council instruct the City Attorney to ask PERS if they would ob�ect or would waive their right to do so, if the City wished to make such payment Discussion continued and Mr Jain and Mr Schricker commented and replied to questions concerning review of the City's contract with PERS, the review implicit in the annual budget process, the modifi- cations of the PERS contract which are permitted from time to time, whether the City's retirement plan is intended to be the employee's ' only rettrement income, the amount contributed by the employee, de- pooling and the experiences of those agencies which have left the � pool, the condition of the Social Security System, and the fact ' that many mum cipal retirees are not covered by Social Security and, therefore, do not have the benefits of Medicare and such programs. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote (MINUTE ORDER NO 76-220) -6- Reg.Mtg. 8/9/76