Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />September 4,2003 <br />Page 7 <br /> <br />Mayor Fendley told Mr. Anderson he might request a November 1, 2003, date. <br />That would push it, but if it might get out in the next couple of weeks. <br />Councilman Bell asked if there was a broker in Mt. Pleasant that handles all of <br />this type things. Mayor Fendley said he does municipalities and water districts. <br />He said he would get Mr. Anderson his name. Mayor Fendley said that if you <br />just go get a price, you are going to waste a lot of time coming back because you <br />will have to go back and go out for formal bids. They are not going to <br />underwrite it without loss runs from Mr. Anderson. Councilman Bell asked if <br />they could set a figure. Mayor Fendley said they could put a number in the <br />budget, but what Mr. Anderson is going to do is go out and get bids. <br /> <br />Councilwoman Neeley asked if there is a process of offering different options <br />regarding the amount of coverage a person wanted to have. In other words, is <br />there a process of being able to pick and choose coverage. Mayor Fendley said <br />yes, he felt there could be some options because he assumed there are <br />companies that offer those features. Councilman Plata had the current plan for <br />teachers and for Plan One for an employee and family, the cost is $314.67 a <br />month that the teacher would have pay. Plan Two is $519.00, and Plan Three <br />is $738.00. <br /> <br />Karl Louis, Police Chief, came forward responding to some of these statements, <br />and stated that it was his understanding that the City Manager presented a <br />budget that would maintain the current insurance where it is, not reduce the <br />employees retirement benefits, and give the employees a 3.43% increase in <br />salary without raising taxes. He pointed out that without raising taxes one cent, <br />they could leave the benefits just like they are, and leave the retirement alone. <br />Chief Louis said last year, the employees had a zero percent increase in salary <br />and part of the talk about was since they were not receiving a raise last year, <br />they said they would give the employees one more percent to the retirement. <br />They increased the retirement from 5% to 6% since the employees were not <br />receiving a raise, and that was fine. Now, it is as if you are coming back and <br />saying or considering taking the 1% away from the employees that the <br />employees received last year, and you are looking at reducing insurance <br /> <br /> <br />