2006-10-09 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council

Browse Search

City Council Regular and Workshop Meeting —October 9, 2006 Page 3 Human Resources Manager Robert Swanagan presented summary and recom ndation and answered Council's questions. * There are numerous times Robert Swanagan's voice is not picked up cle rly on the tape due to speaking from the middle of the room rather than the podium. These instances will be noted below by an *. Section 5 Premiums — The term total plan cost was inserted in place of what w s premium cost. On the second line the word contribution was changed to total plan cost. Assistant City Attorney Clark Askins covered other clarification points. Interi City Manager John Joems requested Clark to provide overview so Council could vote on Exhibit A. Clark Askins covered the following points: Items in bold are what was added last May, 2005. The original Exhibit — Section 9A which outlines the entire retiree health plan was added approximately two years ago n October 2004. Subsequent to that, Council requested it be amended to provide special consideration for those retirees with 30 years or more tenure where they could continue on N rith the City of La Porte's plan as a secondary even with going primary with their subsequent employer. It was noted that is what is in bold that was added in May 2005. Area highlig ited is what was added in the last few weeks due to recommendations Council requested t the Chapter 172 Board. It was noted other bolded sections is the one time deferral issue where an em loyee/retiree can subsequently gain employment with another employer and have a one ti a option to come back to the City's plan and participate as a retiree. That is highlighted i Sections A, B&C. Additional changes were made on the third page, paragraph three. Interim Ci Manager John Joems suggested we change this section which was a part of the originaI document specified that retirees who work for another employer could not participate i the City of La Porte health plan as a retiree but with the changes that were made, or are pro osed to be made, were the one time deferral. For clarification purposes, a sentence has een added at the end. It now reads "except in the case of retirees exercising the one time eferral option". This makes all language consistent. Also, immediately above that, paragraph 2, there was an end of a sentence th t needed deleting because it was not correct. It was what was added in May 2005 and bolded. It says retired and dependent coverage will be secondary for retirees with 30 or mor years tenure with the City of La Porte who have an employer sponsored health coverage vailable through their new employer, or who are re-employed with the City. The last part that refers to being re-employed with the City would be incorrect. If someone is re-employed they would have coverage as an active employee so that was erroneously made a part of the change in May 2005. That was deleted due to being incorrect. It was noted the only other change that was made for clarification purposes was on the last page, Section 5. A sentence was added to clarify that when referring to eligible dependents when you have a retiree who is participating in the one time deferral option, that again we