Legislation Details

File #: 2015-35    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Staff Report Status: Passed
File created: 2/4/2015 In control: City Council
On agenda: 2/11/2015 Final action: 2/11/2015
Title: Resolution - Cost Sharing of CalPERS Costs & Member Contribution
Attachments: 1. Resolution-Non-Rep Cost Share 02 11 2015
City Council

MEETING DATE: 2/11/2015
TITLE:
Title
Resolution - Cost Sharing of CalPERS Costs & Member Contribution
End

FROM:
Tami Scott, Administrative Services Director

RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution providing for a cost sharing arrangement between the City and Non-Represented "Classic" employees, as defined by CalPERS, memorializing that the City will contribute the 7% normal member contribution, otherwise known as EPMC, and for the non-sworn member/employee to offset the cost by contributing an additional 9% towards the employer costs/rate as established by CalPERS and for a sworn (safety) member/employee to cost share an additional 12% towards the employer costs/rate.
Body


BACKGROUND:
As Council is aware, for the past several years, the City has endured some of the most horrific financial challenges in its history. To manage the challenges, since 2009, City employees have had numerous salary and benefit reductions, averaging in the vicinity of a 20% reduction along with a 25% reduction in City wide staffing. It has been Council's desire and intent as the City's finances stabilize, the economy starts to improve and as existing labor agreements expire, to negotiate successor agreements providing for restoration of some, not all, of the concessions made by employee groups.


DISCUSSION:
For over 20 years, a benefit provided to certain labor groups was that of the City paying the employee's (Member) CalPERS contribution and reporting such contribution as earnings. During the time of fiscal emergency, the employees gave up this benefit and contributed their own member contribution. During contract negotiations with Police Management last summer and fall, much discussion took place about the restoration of this benefit at a cost to the employee, not a cost to the City. This resulted in a commitment by the City to investigate this possibility with CalPERS. After...

Click here for full text