My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
2006-10-09 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council
LaPorte
>
City Secretary
>
Minutes
>
City Council
>
2000's
>
2006
>
2006-10-09 Regular Meeting and Workshop Meeting of La Porte City Council
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/8/2022 8:32:45 AM
Creation date
3/21/2025 2:09:09 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Meetings
Meeting Body
City Council
Meeting Doc Type
Minutes
Date
10/9/2006
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
256
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).
View images
View plain text
City Council Regular and Workshop Meeting —October 9, 2006 <br />Page 6 <br />Robert Swanagan responded no *. <br />Councilmember Griffiths noted he was calculating fund subsidy of $39.18 and wanted <br />clarification that retirees did not benefit from the subsidy. He asked Mr. Swanagan if that <br />was correct. <br />Robert Swanagan advised that was correct. <br />Councilmember Griffiths noted he figured the amount to be $39.18 difference instead of <br />$8.00 something different. <br />Robert Swanagan noted what they did with the calculations was go back and use the <br />formula. That would be 15% it was $88.00 and something. When you got to 10/1/06 it <br />changed the formula by 10%. This is where the change comes in. *. <br />Councilmember Griffiths noted he was still confused and wanted to know how he came up <br />with the $8.71. He asked if anyone else understood or could explain. <br />Robert Swanagan made comments *. <br />Councilmember Griffiths inquired if the calculation is on 10% would it be X times 10% _ <br />50%? <br />Robert Swanagan made comments * <br />Councilmember Griffiths clarified staff was saying it is based on the active rate. It is not <br />saying you are going to pay the same amount but it is just based on that figure. He noted he <br />now understood the calculations. He noted he wanted to go over it one more time. He noted <br />if you go to the very last column, total premiums with contributions and subsidy's. He <br />inquired if this was correct. <br />Robert Swanagan indicated that was correct. <br />Councilmember Griffiths noted if he takes $589.41 total premium contribution and multiply <br />by 10% that would equal $58.94 but the cost of employee contribution is $50.23. That is the <br />first part, you then subtract the $8.71. <br />Robert Swanagan made comments *. <br />Councilmember Griffiths noted that if you have 27 years of service, you would multiply by <br />the $589.41 X 25%. The 25% comes from the scale. He noted he understood the <br />calculation. <br />Robert Swanagan noted he would attempt to answer Barry Beasley's question outlined in the <br />letter he provided to Council for discussion this evening. *. <br />Robert Swanagan noted the next item came through the Chapter 172 Board regarding <br />retirement incentives and discussed examples provided in handout included in the Council <br />packet. *. <br />Robert Swanagan discussed 5 year vesting * <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.