Greenfield faces 44-percent increase to health insurance
Lead Summary
By
Brandy Chandler-brandychandler@gmail.com
The city of Greenfield is facing a proposed potential increase of 44 percent to insurance premiums, a figures that was surprising to city council members considering that last year, there was a decrease in the cost of premiums.
Council members voted to table all legislation regarding financial matters until a clearer picture on the budget and future costs with hard numbers can be examined. Among the legislation tabled included potential pay increases for the finance director and chief of police.
Greenfield City Manager Betty Bishop said in her report to council, during their regular meeting Tuesday, "The finance director (Karen Daniels) has been working diligently with the employee insurance committee, talking and meeting with our present insurance carrier as well as many representatives from other companies, trying to keep insurance costs as low as we possibly can. The city and the employees have been hit with a 44 percent increase in premiums. The employee insurance committee has stepped forward, offering solutions to try to help bring the overall insurance costs down to 28 percent or better."
The finance committee will meet at 3:30 p.m. Thursday to examine the hard insurance numbers, as well as the city budget. A special meeting of council will be held Monday, Nov. 29 at 7:30 p.m. to address all of the tabled legislation.
"I want you to know I stand by the recommendations that I have made," Bishop said. "I believe in the citizens and the employees of this city and want to move forward and do the best that we possibly can for all."
William Redenbaugh, a council member and finance committee chairperson told The Highland County Press that they were not given hard numbers that illustrated why there was such a dramatic increase to the premiums, but that they would be looking at those numbers.
"We really didn't get into that (during that Monday finance committee meeting)," Redenbaugh said. "This was the first notice the finance committee received."
H.R. Butler is brokering the insurance agreement, he said.
"Last year we got a reduction," Redenbaugh, which officials later saw as a reduction of 3 percent. "We're looking at ways to try to reduce it. Which doesn't seem much better. We're trying to reduce it to the point where we only have an increase of 28 percent instead of 44 percent. It's a pill you still have to swallow."
During an October meeting of council, council member Harvey Everhart
had said that Greenfield does not meet the qualifications to be considered a city due to declining populations. Villages are not required to participate in collection bargaining with unions. Had Greenfield not agreed to increases from the Fraternal Order of Police, they would not be in a position to grant increases to other city employees. Additionally, he said that he was not in agreement with Bishop's recommendation to increase the salaries of Greenfield Police Tim Hester, or finance director Karen Daniels.
Bishop said that it had been so long since Hester and Daniels had received increases, people in their departments they oversee receive higher wages than they do.
Council voted on Tuesday to table an ordinance, on its third reading, authorizing Bishop to execute a new collective bargaining agreement with the FOP. Council also heard the first reading of ordinances to increase the hourly wage of the police chief and finance director. Everhart and Redenbaugh voted against receiving the two ordinances, with council members Betty Jackman, Robert Bergrstrom and Brenda Losey voted to receive the legislation.
Everhart said he wanted to discuss the ordinances, and Jackman
suggested the discussion wait until the finance committee meeting and
the special council meeting.
"No, I want to talk about it now," Everhart said. "I would like the public to know."
According to the ordinances, the city is considering increases to the salary for the current police chief from $19.21 per hour, by $1.90, making the salary $21.11 per hour. The city is considering increasing the salary of the current finance director from $16.38 per hour, by $4.73, making the salary $21.11. If passed, both increases would be effective Jan. 1, 2011.
Everhart said he felt the increases were irresponsible, saying, "The city has, and is, struggling. This is opening up a can of worms."
Jackman, council president, said that if the city has incrementally increased the wages over the years, they would not be in such a position, and brought up that most Greenfield employees are paid much less than their counterparts in other area cities and villages.
"Somebody has got to bite the bullet," Jackman said.
"Does that justify a 30 percent increase?" Redenbaugh said.
Jackman said she thought the city should try to be fair to Hester and Daniels, but she agreed that it wasn't a good situation to increase their wages all at once.
"That is exactly what you're (voting to do, with the presented legislation)," Redenbaugh said.
Everhart said, "If we want to be fair, why not raise everyone's salaries?"
Losey said that she didn't think it was right that department heads should make less than the people they supervise.
Redenbaugh said that he had worked for the state, and that it happened all the time. Everhart said it happened in the private sector as well.
"I'm not saying it's right," Everhart said. "But it happens."
"This is an exorbitant amount for a raise," Redenbaugh said.
Jackman said that she could see the issue from Bishop's side, as well as from the perspective of Jackman and Everhart.
"The public knows now," she said, and encouraged Greenfield residents to attend the committee and special council meetings, or otherwise give their input to council. "We are going to keep looking at these numbers."
"So we can give two people a raise and not the rest?" Everhart said.
"All we did was receive (the ordinances)," Jackman said. "Nothing has been passed.
Council then listened to the first reading of an ordinance to "increase the hourly base wage of all non-union employees 1 percent for each of the next three years (2011, 2012, 2013)." Council voted
3-2 to receive it, with Everhart and Redenbaugh voting against receiving it.
Everhart asked Bishop why she would recommend this legislation "when it is the recommendation of our law director we do not do this?"
Bishop said that she did not believe law director Brian Zets was against the legislation, and Everhart read from an email between Zets and Bishop he said contained the opinion council not pass the increases for all three years at once.
According to Greenfield law, the city manager may increase wage by 1 percent without seeking the approval of council, as was stated in a previous meeting.
Bishop said that it was her understanding Zets approved of the legislation, but it was her intent to "not go behind your back. I have never gone behind your back. I sent an email back to him explaining (approving three years at once) would show the employees they all were treated equally and would be given the same (as the union employees)."
"So because we negotiated with the unions for (a contract time frame of) three years, this has to be done." Everhart said.
Some council members said they did not agree with the move, considering the unstable state of the city's finances, and it will be discussed further in the finance committee meeting.
The city of Greenfield is facing a proposed potential increase of 44 percent to insurance premiums, a figures that was surprising to city council members considering that last year, there was a decrease in the cost of premiums.
Council members voted to table all legislation regarding financial matters until a clearer picture on the budget and future costs with hard numbers can be examined. Among the legislation tabled included potential pay increases for the finance director and chief of police.
Greenfield City Manager Betty Bishop said in her report to council, during their regular meeting Tuesday, "The finance director (Karen Daniels) has been working diligently with the employee insurance committee, talking and meeting with our present insurance carrier as well as many representatives from other companies, trying to keep insurance costs as low as we possibly can. The city and the employees have been hit with a 44 percent increase in premiums. The employee insurance committee has stepped forward, offering solutions to try to help bring the overall insurance costs down to 28 percent or better."
The finance committee will meet at 3:30 p.m. Thursday to examine the hard insurance numbers, as well as the city budget. A special meeting of council will be held Monday, Nov. 29 at 7:30 p.m. to address all of the tabled legislation.
"I want you to know I stand by the recommendations that I have made," Bishop said. "I believe in the citizens and the employees of this city and want to move forward and do the best that we possibly can for all."
William Redenbaugh, a council member and finance committee chairperson told The Highland County Press that they were not given hard numbers that illustrated why there was such a dramatic increase to the premiums, but that they would be looking at those numbers.
"We really didn't get into that (during that Monday finance committee meeting)," Redenbaugh said. "This was the first notice the finance committee received."
H.R. Butler is brokering the insurance agreement, he said.
"Last year we got a reduction," Redenbaugh, which officials later saw as a reduction of 3 percent. "We're looking at ways to try to reduce it. Which doesn't seem much better. We're trying to reduce it to the point where we only have an increase of 28 percent instead of 44 percent. It's a pill you still have to swallow."
During an October meeting of council, council member Harvey Everhart had said that Greenfield does not meet the qualifications to be considered a city due to declining populations. Villages are not required to participate in collection bargaining with unions. Had Greenfield not agreed to increases from the Fraternal Order of Police, they would not be in a position to grant increases to other city employees. Additionally, he said that he was not in agreement with Bishop's recommendation to increase the salaries of Greenfield Police Tim Hester, or finance director Karen Daniels.
Bishop said that it had been so long since Hester and Daniels had received increases, people in their departments they oversee receive higher wages than they do.
Council voted on Tuesday to table an ordinance, on its third reading, authorizing Bishop to execute a new collective bargaining agreement with the FOP. Council also heard the first reading of ordinances to increase the hourly wage of the police chief and finance director. Everhart and Redenbaugh voted against receiving the two ordinances, with council members Betty Jackman, Robert Bergrstrom and Brenda Losey voted to receive the legislation.
Everhart said he wanted to discuss the ordinances, and Jackman suggested the discussion wait until the finance committee meeting and the special council meeting.
"No, I want to talk about it now," Everhart said. "I would like the public to know."
According to the ordinances, the city is considering increases to the salary for the current police chief from $19.21 per hour, by $1.90, making the salary $21.11 per hour. The city is considering increasing the salary of the current finance director from $16.38 per hour, by $4.73, making the salary $21.11. If passed, both increases would be effective Jan. 1, 2011.
Everhart said he felt the increases were irresponsible, saying, "The city has, and is, struggling. This is opening up a can of worms."
Jackman, council president, said that if the city has incrementally increased the wages over the years, they would not be in such a position, and brought up that most Greenfield employees are paid much less than their counterparts in other area cities and villages.
"Somebody has got to bite the bullet," Jackman said.
"Does that justify a 30-percent increase?" Redenbaugh said.
Jackman said she thought the city should try to be fair to Hester and Daniels, but she agreed that it wasn't a good situation to increase their wages all at once.
"That is exactly what you're (voting to do, with the presented legislation)," Redenbaugh said.
Everhart said, "If we want to be fair, why not raise everyone's salaries?"
Losey said that she didn't think it was right that department heads should make less than the people they supervise.
Redenbaugh said that he had worked for the state, and that it happened all the time. Everhart said it happened in the private sector as well.
"I'm not saying it's right," Everhart said. "But it happens."
"This is an exorbitant amount for a raise," Redenbaugh said.
Jackman said that she could see the issue from Bishop's side, as well as from the perspective of Jackman and Everhart.
"The public knows now," she said, and encouraged Greenfield residents to attend the committee and special council meetings, or otherwise give their input to council. "We are going to keep looking at these numbers."
"So we can give two people a raise and not the rest?" Everhart said.
"All we did was receive (the ordinances)," Jackman said. "Nothing has been passed.
Council then listened to the first reading of an ordinance to "increase the hourly base wage of all non-union employees 1 percent for each of the next three years (2011, 2012, 2013)." Council voted 3-2 to receive it, with Everhart and Redenbaugh voting against receiving it.
Everhart asked Bishop why she would recommend this legislation "when it is the recommendation of our law director we do not do this?"
Bishop said that she did not believe law director Brian Zets was against the legislation, and Everhart read from an email between Zets and Bishop he said contained the opinion council not pass the increases for all three years at once.
According to Greenfield law, the city manager may increase wage by 1 percent without seeking the approval of council, as was stated in a previous meeting.
Bishop said that it was her understanding Zets approved of the legislation, but it was her intent to "not go behind your back. I have never gone behind your back. I sent an email back to him explaining (approving three years at once) would show the employees they all were treated equally and would be given the same (as the union employees)."
"So because we negotiated with the unions for (a contract time frame of) three years, this has to be done." Everhart said.
Some council members said they did not agree with the move, considering the unstable state of the city's finances, and it will be discussed further in the finance committee meeting.
[[In-content Ad]]