Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSPCC Minutes 1990-08-16SRCC MINUTE kSpecial) 8/16/90 Page 1 IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL, THURSDAY, AUGUST 16, 1990, AT 6:00 PM. Special Meeting: San Rafael City Council Present: Lawrence E. Mulryan, Mayor Albert J. Boro, Councilmember Dorothy L. Breiner, Councilmember Michael A. Shippey, Councilmember Joan Thayer, Councilmember Absent: None Also Present: Suzanne Golt, Assistant City Manager; Jeanne M. Leoncini, City Clerk 1. DISCUSSION OF MAPE NEGOTIATIONS IMPASSE (CM) - FILE 7-8-1 Mayor Mulryan opened the meeting and outlined the format to be followed. He stated the Council will listen to the presentation by staff and then by the Union representative, then ask any questions for clarification. He added that no further negotiations will take place under this format. Suzanne Golt gave a summary of the negotiation process to date, referring to her August 10, 1990 memorandum to the City Council. She announced that the City's teams were comprised of Bob Pendoley, Darryl Chandler, Dave Bernardi and herself, and they have been negotiating with the Union for 3z months under the authority and guidelines given by the Council. She added that she will be brief, since she has kept the Council posted on events throughout the process, and will allow the Union the majority of the time. Ms. Golt stated negotiations started in early May, and centered primarily on a two-year contract. She added that the City remains interested in having a two-year agreement. She stated they were negotiating along those lines and thought they were progressing and that the City had a reasonable package which was comprehensive and responsive to the Union. However, after about 13 or 14 meetings it became apparent that the amount of money or the package on the table was not going to be sufficient for the Union. The City and the Union had some discussion regarding the value of the two-year package versus the one-year package, and they could not come to terms on a two-year agreement. The Union proposed a one-year package, a copy of which was provided to the Council. She noted that the summary sheet furnished shows the Union's one-year package and the City's one-year package. She said that as much as they would like to have a two-year agreement with the Union, at this point in time it does not appear possible. She stated that the package the City proposed to the Union in a counter- proposal to this package took into account several major aspects which had been discussed throughout, one of which was salaries, a general increase across the board. The 3.6% which the City put on the table was in response to the last CPI information which had been received at that time. She noted that the equities which have been discussed during the majority of the meetings, from the City's standpoint, remained intact and were not changed other than being for a one-year package only. Ms. Golt stated that a major concern of all the groups is the spiraling cost of health premiums which are escalating year after year. She added that Ms. Winters has given her some information illustrating the costs and how they are increasing. Ms. Golt stated that the City has left in the package what the team considers a sizeable increase in the benefits. She noted that the proposal for the supervisory group is slightly different from the proposal for the miscellaneous, but in both cases she feels it is a sizeable increase, and is in direct response to the escalating costs. She stated they would like to have a two-year agreement, as they had previously been discussing and the team feels it is more comprehensive. She stated that the one-year agreement is responsive to the major concerns of the Union and the team does not disagree with those areas at all. Beth Winters, MAPE representative, introduced the Union Team, Susan Southard, Secretary, SRSD, Jim Forsythe, Supervisory, Sheila Edwards, Secretary in Redevelopment, Pat Haskee, Account Clerk II in Finance, Steven Fontaine, Public Works Sewer Division, John Cochrane, Public Works Streets Division, SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 1 SRCC MINUTES (Special) Page 2 Bill Tuikka, Associate Planner, Theresa Gonzales, Librarian, Dave Hattem of Parks Division and Kevin Masuda, Assistant Civil Engineer. She then mentioned she had sent the Council a letter on August 13, outlining the Union's concerns, and she stated she will speak from the contents of the letter. Ms. Winters stated there are a number of serious issues on the table, and what they are dealing with is the best, last and final offer of 3.6%. She stated they feel that is an artificially low number even though it was the CPI in May. She noted that in April the CPI was 4.2% and in June it was 4.3%. She stated that given the crisis in the Persian Gulf at present, and the escalating health premium costs this number is going to continue to go up. She stated that 3.6% in no way would be sufficient to cover the employees' needs. She also pointed out that it does not address the real costs for workers. She stated that the health premium alone is an issue. She stated that for the first time as far as she knows, the City is not offering to pay for family Kaiser coverage. This means, with the current proposal, that families will be out of pocket. Additionally, the majority of employees who work for the City of San Rafael cannot afford to live in this County and, therefore, commute to at least three other Bay Area counties. She said at a conservative estimate, anticipated trans- portation costs for a 50 -mile per day commute, with a 3.6% salary increase, at a median monthly salary of $2,000, that would be $72, and it would leave, after taxes, and picking up the unreimbursed medical, $3.40 per month. She stated that on the subject of equity adjustments, there is a survey attached to the packet given to the Council which shows that the employees she represents are anywhere from 5.8% to 19.7% off the average of the benchmark cities. She stated this is the fifth set of negotiations where she has used these survey cities time after time, trying to get the City to bring the benchmarks up to where they need to be. She stated that the City considers 5% within the average an acceptable number, and not one of the benchmark classes falls within that 5%. Ms. Winters stated that is why it is so important to have not only equity adjustments, but also to have a cost of living which addresses this situation. She noted that the City is not making an offer on equities to every single class. Therefore, there are some classes under the 5.8% which are not getting an equity increase, and the cost of living would help mitigate that dif- ference. On the subject of fringe benefits, Ms. Winters stated that in the past, the City has always tried to go for the family coverage at the middle plan. She noted that last year when we went to PERS we lost the middle plan concept. It used to be that Take Care was the middle plan, and we had Kaiser, Take Care and Blue Cross, and Ms. Winters noted that now she is trying to get family coverage at the Kaiser level, which is the lowest level offered. Ms. Winters referred to the blue sheet on health care costs, and noted that the percentage increases are staggering, from 13% to almost 25%. She stated that Kaiser alone would be a $61 increase, and the City in a one-year plan is offering $45. She noted that does not address the out-of-pocket dollars for all those people who are not on Kaiser, but are on Take Care, Bay Pacific, or one of the others. She stated they are not asking the City to take up the entire cost, but they feel that the entire amount of the lowest plan should be paid, and if people choose to go to the more expensive ones that is their decision. She added that they have been asking repeatedly for something called the "125 Plan", which would address the situation for those folks who would be out-of-pocket, because it would let them pay those dollars out of pre-tax dollars. She added that the City has not responded to that request. She stated there would be a saving of 25 to 30%, depending on what your tax bracket is. Ms. Winters then addressed the need for a vision plan, in both groups, citing the fact that many employees are now using computers and need pre- scription glasses and as a result of spending considerable time in front of the video display terminals, there are recorded problems as a result. She stated many of these problems can be corrected through the use of tinted glasses, or whatever the prescription calls for. Also, she feels this is actually a safety item, and in some cases preventative, because if the City could provide the premiums so that the employees could afford the glasses or, in some cases, a second pair for use with the computers, it would save workers' compensation claims. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 2 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 3 Ms. Winters repeated that the 3.6% is not enough for the employees, and she is surprised to see that figure from San Rafael which has always been among the top-ranking communities in Marin, when it comes to settling with the employees. She stated that although her group has not always gotten everything they wanted, she does not recall a contract where they were ever embarrassed, but they feel this is an embarrassing contract offer. She added that where the Union has settled already, they have nothing less than 6%. In the neighboring communities, San Anselmo has 6%, Fairfax has 7%, Tiburon 6%, Novato is 6%, Marin Water District 6z%, Housing Authority is 6%, CMSA (?) is 6%, and Marin County has declared an impasse today with 5% on the table. Ms. Winters stated she feels it is significant that the Council has settled with other units within the City and have offered them in the neighborhood of 6% and Kaiser, or greater, coverage. She noted that both Police and Fire are getting $365 as of July 1st, so they could have some choice about their premiums and can go higher than Kaiser. She noted she is only asking for Family Kaiser. Ms. Winters expressed appreciation for the Council's attendance at this meeting, and that she hopes they will be able to reach a resolution. Mayor Mulryan inquired of City staff as to what comprises the "125 Program". Ms. Golt responded that the "125 Program" allows an employee to claim ahead of time how much (in this case) excess health premium they are going to have to personally pay and pre-tax money is set aside which gives them a tax break. Mayor Mulryan asked, would it be committed at the beginning of the tax year, and Ms. Golt said she believes it can be done twice a year. Ms. Winters added that it would be a sponsor plan account, and this would be easy enough when you know your medical costs; and the year starts whenever you sign up for the program. Mayor Mulryan inquired about administrative costs, and Ms. Golt responded that would depend on what ended up in the package. She stated they talked with the Union about a variety of things, including dependent care, excess medical costs which is different than premium costs, and premium costs. She stated the last thing they talked about, which was in relation to both the one-year and two-year packages, was the excess premium costs. She stated it could probably be set up with minimal start-up costs to the City. It would entail having a computer program developed to accom- modate it, which does not exist at this time. She added it could be admin- istered internally, once the computer program is set up. She added that if it went beyond the coverage for the excess premium costs, staff would have to look into whether they would have to have an outside administrator come in as start-up costs. She also noted that, in addition, there are monthly charges which generally are paid by the employees, although the Union might disagree with that and say the employers could pay that, but there is a monthly fee beyond the excess premium. Ms. Golt added the City feels we would not be equipped to handle that in-house if it went beyond the excess premium. Councilmember Breiner inquired if the City has looked into other vision plans, since some are costly for the benefits provided. Ms. Golt responded that the Union has been interested in it and the last time they were talking about a particular vision plan, it entailed having everyone join, and the employer was required to pay at varying levels of coverage. She noted that this subject has been discussed many times in the past and both the Union and the City have done extensive research. Ms. Golt said this possibly could be accommodated in a two-year package, but it is not included in the one-year package. Councilmember Boro inquired, in relation to the "125" issue, is the Union requesting beyond the excess premium? Ms. Winters responded that at this point they would like to begin with the excess premium; that at this point she stated they feel it makes sense to look into dependent care as well when setting it up, and feel that it would not take that much more to set it up, as well. She feels that also could be administered in-house. Mr. Boro inquired if dependent care would include child care, and Ms. Winters replied it would, and also care for the elderly. Ms. Winters informed the Council that the name of the vision company is the Vision Services Plan, and the cost of what has been offered is $6.10 per month with $20 deductible. She stated it is not everything they wanted, but they would be willing to accept that. SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 3 SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 4 Ms. Golt clarified that the Vision Services Plan TA, or tentative agreement to which Ms. Winters referred, was in relation to the two-year package, which is not being discussed tonight. Mayor Mulryan thanked those present, and adjourned the meeting at 6:30 PM. JE@kEI �,i APPROVED THIS DAY OF 1990 MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SAN RAFAEL SRCC MINUTES (Special) 8/16/90 Page 4