I am curious about a few things before I make my next post. What items would you like to see in either a special election this year in 2006 or in a referendum about "accountability" in the 2007 city election? I am in the process of looking into how to make these things happen, and I want to know what issues would interest the people of Spring Hill. Here is my list to this point.
1. Re-apportionment of wards?
2. Term length for the Mayor?
3. Term length for aldermen?
4. Full time or part time for the mayor?
5. Desire for a city plan and/or city planner?
Now, to the rest of the post...
If you do not pay attention to history, you are doomed to repeat it.
Why is it that every night on the news you hear about major US companies like GM, GE, etc struggling to stay afloat despite more than adequate income in most cases. Answer.........Retirement packages, pension plans, and healthcare insurance.
What is the major point of contention in most union based contract negotiation talks? I'll give you a hint, think about the MTA strike in New York City a few weeks ago.
Answer........Retirement packages, pension plans, and healthcare insurance.
Now, I am entirely on the side of providing retirement benefits to our city employees, but I think a few more facts need to come forward before the BOMA votes on an issue this large with respect to citizen tax dollars. And why is a person that has worked 5 years for the city at age 65 entitled to the same amount of benefit as someone age 55 who has worked 25 years? And while we are asking questions....if you are age 60 and have worked for 20 years, under the Ken York plan you are entitled to zip.
I would love to tell you what this will cost you, the taxpayer, but I can't. This resolution was brought before the BOMA without a single projection or dollar figure. I can speculate, but it seems a little vague all the way around to do so. I can say that 10 years from now it will cost you and I a substantial amount of cash to keep something afloat that is most likely going to collapse in the future anyway.
Just consider those first two statements that I have made. Do we really want to provide 100% coverage for the employee and his/her family until death? Do we really want to cut those benefits 15 years from now when it becomes apparent that we will be crushed under the weight of our own generosity? How about taking care of our retired people, but with a plan that is beneficial to both the city and the future employees that will not benefit at all from a failed plan.
I am putting together a series of projections both best case and worst case. Be sure to check back prior to Tuesday night's meeting.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Referendum and Retirement Benefits
Posted by Gorilla in the Corner at 4:18 PM
Labels: Board of Mayor and Aldermen, Miscellaneous
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Post Ratings
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: The information on this website is a series of personal opinions and is not meant to reflect an official position by the City of Spring Hill.
6 comments:
I for one am against a lifetime benefits package upon retirement. They are a thing of the past - fine when they were standard among corporations and the general working world, but ancient history in the job market of today. Why should the citizens of Spring Hill pay for lifetime benefits when those citizens will likely never enjoy anything remotely as nice themselves?
In the early 1990’s the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), an independent board responsible for establishing generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) for the private sector, developed standards for companies to account for the cost of benefits over the careers of employees who will receive benefits through retirement.
At that time, company paid medical benefits were commonly provided as an added benefit to pension programs in the private sector. Over time, as the insurance premium costs to provide these benefits increased, so did the future liability expense that companies had to account for on their quarterly and annual financial statements. As an ultimate result, the private sector began to phase out these plans.
Recently, the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB), the board responsible for establishing GAAP for State and Local Governments, published bulletin 45 which requires that non-pension benefits for retirees, such as retiree health care, be shown as an accrued liability on the city’s budget. GASB stopped short of requiring that cities fund these benefits prior to the retirement of the employee, but beginning in 2007, local governments will be required to account for the future benefit liability.
For more information on the effect of FASB and nonpension retirement benefits, click here.
For more information on GASB Bulletin 45, click here (I know, it’s Texas… but the facts remain the same for Tennessee as well.)
Why the future cost of this plan isn't being presented prior to consideration of this issue is beyond me.
It's so obvious that redistricting the Spring Hill wards needs to be the number one concern of all WIlliamson County residents of Spring Hill that it shouldn't need saying, but I guess it does. WIthout re-districting we will continue to be underrepresented on the board of aldermen and will continue to see a handful of people decide what the rest of us live with for years to come. Redistricting needs to be number one on any referendum ballot.
I also hapen to agree with the comments about retirement benefits. The concept of paternal caring for retired working is virtually dead nationwide. Very few employees of non-government agencies will have this type of benefit. So let's be very cautious about creating a benefit package that will make funding it so prohibitive we'll see it take over any other improvemnts the city might make, such as those to streets, parks, etc.
Looks like the Retirement Medical and Dental Benefits issue has been removed from the BOMA agenda on Tuesday Night:
BOMA Agenda for Tuesday, January 17, 2006
I've got a newsflash for you anonymous....many Maury county residents, including myself, feel that redistricting should be a high priority. As a matter of fact, I only know 4 that don't want it! Their names are Raines, McCulloch, Pickard, and Cantrell. No candidate should run unopposed.
I too have heard from others in Maury County who would like to see the redistricting issue addressed.
I think that it is important to keep the redistricting issue focused on proportional Ward representation as opposed to making redistricting a Williamson County / Maury County turf war.
Post a Comment