08181980 Special Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I - ~ ~J ;\ c] ; 1.1 .::l t 1 8, 1 9 8 0 . l?aglC Two See the attached memo for justlfication. 3. TMRS (Texas Municipal Retiremcnt System) - current policy provides for a one-to-one contribution from the City and the employee at five percent each. Because of turnover, the City's contributlon actually is at 2.29 percent since the City receives credits when employees resign from the City. The current policy would cost the City $42,675. with proposed salary lncreases. The proposed policy is to increase benefits to include: one-and-one-half to one contribu~ion, ten-year vesting, and increase benefits to retired employees by forty percent. The change would increase the fiist year contribution ratio to 4.61% or $78,098 (an increase of $35,423.). See attached memo for additional information. 4. Stability Pay - Old 'policy lS $125 beginning after 5 years of service, increasing $25 per year to a maximum of $250 per year. Proposed policy would only change maximum ceiling to 20 years for $500 per year. 5 . Sick Leave - Substantial changes in the sick leave were agreed upon. The committment to this change from the employees came after concensus was reached that termination benefits actually worked to the detriment of employees on staff by siphoning available funds to those who were leaving the City. The sick leave change (sce attached memo) puts a stop to the accumulation of-paid sick days at terminatlon, but protects those employees who have accumulated sick days under the old policy. This has a significant impact on the City's financial posture. Under the current policy, the paid sick day provision has developed into a $262,500 liability. If a 10% average salary increase were granted, the liability would immediately increase by $26,500. Under the propo3ed policy, the liability would be frozen. The liability would decrease as turnovers occur or as cmployees "dip into" i~heir accounts. If the current policy were to continue, the potential increased liability would be $191,850 per year and would increase as salarles lncreased. This no doubt could have become the City's undoing if allowed to continue unchecked. In summary, staff opted to increase take-home pay and protect their future rather than increase payments to those leaving the City. These proposals represent a f~ir bulunce betwecn affordability and desired compensation for services provided. Personnel Staff is committed to continue to analyze the compensation ;,,1 L1n anc: to make further recrn~endations next year once a more accurate Job description survey is completed. Comblning these efforts wlth the cost accounting methods of our budget process, we are moving to a system which will insure increased accountability and, therefore, increased productivity. ACG:sv Attachments