Columbus, Georgia

Georgia's First Consolidated Government

Post Office Box 1340
Columbus, Georgia, 31902-1340
(706) 653-4013
fax (706) 653-4016

Council Members

MINUTES

COUNCIL OF COLUMBUS, GEORGIA

SPECIAL CALLED /WORK SESSION

MARCH 20, 2012



The regular monthly Work Session of the Council of Columbus, Georgia was

called to order at 9:05 A.M., Tuesday, March 20, 2012, in the Council Chambers

on the Plaza Level of the Government Center, Columbus, Georgia. Honorable

Teresa Pike Tomlinson, Mayor, presiding.



*** *** ***



PRESENT: Present other than Mayor Tomlinson were Councilors R. Gary Allen, Mike

Baker, Jerry ?Pops? Barnes, Charles E. McDaniel, Jr., and Judy W. Thomas. City

Manager Isaiah Hugley, City Attorney Clifton Fay, and Deputy Clerk of Council

Sandra Davis were also present.



Mayor Pro Tem Evelyn Turner Pugh and Councilor Evelyn Woodson took their

respective seats at 9:08 a.m.

--------------------------------------------*** ***

***--------------------------------------------



ABSENT: Councilors Glenn Davis and Bruce Huff were absent. Clerk of Council

Tiny Washington was also absent.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------

INVOCATION: Offered by Rev. Gerald Goodman, St. Mary?s United Methodist Church.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-------------------------------------------



PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Learning Circle Academy 2.

----------------------------------------------*** ***

***------------------------------------------



WORK SESSION AGENDA:



PENSION DISCUSSION: Presented by Mayor Teresa Tomlinson



Mayor Tomlinson explained that the need for the discussion is not the

result of mismanagement, core investments or anything of that nature. She said

it?s a function of the fact that the country has had low market returns for

over ten years.



Provided is a summary of Mayor Tomlinson?s presentation:



NEED FOR DISCUSSION

PROCESS OF REVIEW

PROPOSAL FOR GOING FORWARD

BENEFIT/SAVINGS OF PROPOSAL



NEED FOR DISCUSSION

Pension Currently Funded at $ 262+ Million

Managed Well, but:

Low Market Return for 10+ past years

City Didn?t Make Contributions in 1990?s

City Stopped Employee Contributions

City Reversed Decision to Lower Retirement Benefit for New Employees in

mid-2000s.

Our plan is sustainable, but...

In FY2012 our Pension Contribution was $28 Million.

In FY2013 it is expected to be $30.7 Million.

If we assumed a lower return rate and longer life spans, our Annual

Contribution would be $60.2 Million this Year and Over $50 Million Every Year

for the next 12 Years.



OPTIONS LOOKED INTO:

Hard Freeze of Defined Benefit Plan

Switching to Defined Contribution Plan (Like a 401(k))

Reduction in Retirement Benefit for New Employees

Employee Contribution

New Employees

Phased In for Current

Off-set by Pay Raise

Increasing Vesting Period for new employees

Rule of 85 or Rule 90

DROP Plan



PROPOSAL FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES:

5 Year Vesting Period Stays the Same

60% Retirement Benefit Stays the Same

4% Contribution Off-Set by 4% Pay Raise

No-Cost Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP Plan)



HOW THIS AFFECTS YOU





PROPOSAL FOR NEW EMPLOYEES:

10 Years to Vest in Plan

45% Retirement Benefit

6% Contribution

No-Cost Deferred Retirement Option Plan

EFFECT OF PROPOSED REFORM (Based on Actuarial Assumptions):

Reduces The Cost of Our Annual Pension Contribution by $4.97 Million in the

First Year.

Reduces Our Pension Contributions by $27.75 Million Over the Next Five Years.

Reduces Our Pension Contributions $109.2 Million Over the Next15 Years.



NEW SAVINGS TO CCG BUDGET OF SALARY INCREASE (based on actuarial assumptions):

Net Savings of $1.9 Million in First Year

Net Savings of $2.8 Million in Five Years

Net Savings of $25.86 Million in 15 Years



Mr. Chuck Carr, City?s Actuary came forward and explained the differences

between defined benefit and defined contribution, stating that for a lot of

private employers switching from a defined benefits program (the city?s current

benefit plan) into something like a 401K, which is called a defined

contribution plan, that move does save money. He explained that about ? of the

cost of the current program is called legacy cost ? ? of every contribution

dollar is going towards this unfunded past service liability - liability for

benefits that have already been earned and cannot be taken away as a matter of

law (protected benefits). He said switching into a defined contribution

program, in order to be competitive, we will need to have a city contribution

of approximately 6% of pay, otherwise contribution going into those 401K-type

accounts would be so low that they would not be competitive.



Following additional comments from Mr. Carr, he responded to questions from

members of Council.



Major Randy Robertson, representing the Fraternal Order of Police, then

came forward and clarified that the 8% he is looking at is possibly a necessary

evil, but the 60% is where the passion is. He then made some additional

comments regarding employees in the same job paying different amounts into a

plan and getting less of a return; gaps in the plan that need to be fixed; cost

savings through sacrifice by employees; 60% for retirement with 30 years of

service for public safety; new employees paying 6% or 4% instead of 8% and

still get 60% retirement.



REFERRALS:



(Requests of Councilor McDaniel)

If you give employees a 4% raise and give it back to the Pension Plan ? How are

you going to save money? (Answered)

Would it be a lot simpler to just give the 4% to the pension plan and not give

the employees a raise?

If you give the 4% pay raise and then the same 4% to the Pension Plan ? It?s

going to cost the employees more money because of paying social security and

other taxes.

I don?t see if we just don?t give 4% to the pension plan.



(Requests of Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh)

When we talked earlier about a matching 4% -- is that percentage calculated on

a certain amount of salary or like a 401K like how some employers match the

first 15%.

So what?s the proposal for current and new employees?

What kind of savings are we talking about?

How does the FOP feel about the proposed plan? Randy answered.

How does it compare to other cities plan? Randy Answered.



(Requests of Councilor Henderson)

Dual option ? concern about this. From an actuarial standpoint the adverse

selection component ? I just don?t get that.

I thought what was actually coming to the table was the 8% contribution with

the 2% accrual rate. (Answered)

Disparity concerns me with some degree. Concern about any adverse selection.

I would like to see what we could anticipate as far as the disparity

percentage. Most of the folks that come into the workforce are educated. I

would think they would select the higher accrual rate.

Quantify information about some adverse selection.

Henderson quantify information on the 2nd tier plan



(Requests of Mayor Tomlinson)

What is the net cost to a new employees of an 8% /60% with a 4% salary increase

and the pre-taxed benefit.

What is the net cost 6%, 8% of pre-taxed benefit?

Information related to what proposed interest rate should be on the return of

any unvested employees so if an employees leaves before they are invested what

if any interest rated should be on top of that.

457 Plan Pension ? look into education for employees.

One of the Councilors made a point - If we have an interest rate ? even if it

was a 1% -- if the pension was to lose money three years in a row we would

still be obligated to pay that employee even if we didn?t earn anything.

Matt Swift ? referred to the CA ? Georgia Law

Large Pension plan was that you had to have an accumulated unfunded actuarial

liability not greater than 25% of the total of its assets.



(Requests of Councilor Thomas)

--I do think we should stop calling this a pay raise.

Current employees, we must give them what they have earned whatever we do in

this venue it must not be changed with what they have already earned.

Employees that are currently not vested ? how will this plan impact them?

If we adopt the plan to change from 5 to 10 years and I contribute and I leave

the city employment before I vest ? only work 8 years. Do I get back what I

put in the retirement plan?

Do I get back just what I put in to it?

If you work less that 10 years- will you receive money back?

GG age 63 with 23 yrs of service ? PS 61 an 29 years of service ? given these

ages, have you seen these impact

Provide the impact on current employees/new employees

Question to Mayor Tomlinson ? what timeline are we looking at.

Requesting at least one more work session with Council to respond to questions

asked today, etc.

Do a comparison on net pay at a 6% rate and 8% rate.



(Requests of Councilor Baker)

The impact of forfeiture ? if something happens with the spouse.

When an employee passes away, what happens to the plan?

457 Plan to supplement as an option. (Max. $18,000 per year). Look into this

and make sure that employees understand this plan.

Are they insurable plans ? 457 Plan?



(Requests of Councilor Woodson)

Interest rate 2% or 5% - for those who leave early ? what would the dollar

amount be?

1% to 4% to General Government employees interest for those who might leave,

provide dollar amount.

Salaries less than $20,000 per year ? is there a possibility that you can give

the lowest salary.

Part-time employees ? they?re not in our benefits at all.



Mayor Tomlinson also pointed out upcoming Employee Pension discussion:

Wednesday, March 28, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. on the Plaza Level (General Government

Pension Plan discussion)

Friday, March 30, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. on the Plaza Level (Public Safety Pension

Plan discussion).



Mayor Tomlinson said because the plans are different we try to discuss one

set of rules at a time so as to not have confusion.



Responding to a question from Councilor Thomas, City Manager Hugley

explained that Finance Director Hodge is suggesting April 10, 2012 for this

item to come back to the Council for further discussion.



(A copy of this presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office)

-----------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------



EMPLOYEE COACHING:



Deputy City Manager Lisa Goodwin came forward and explained that this

presentation is a result of Council?s request for a proposed policy for review

on city employees coaching and training in city owned facilities. She said this

presentation would highlight what we currently do, what other communities are

doing, and it will also provide a proposed policy for Council?s consideration:



OVERVIEW:



To establish a policy and process by which we determine if employees who manage

and oversee CCG Facilities and Programs be allowed to serve as coaches and

trainers within said CCG Facilities.



CURRENT PRACTICE:



CCG Employees that want to volunteer their time and talents to coach outside

groups at city facilities are not prohibited from doing so, if they do not

manage or control the operations and activities of that facility in any way.



Ms. Goodwin said she has asked Dr. James Worsley, Director of Parks &

Recreation to survey the National Recreation and Parks Association; and Mr.

Ross Horner, Director of the Civic Center to survey the Arena Management

Association. Both of these are professional industry associations.

QUESTIONS:



1. Do you allow employees who manage or control a facility to coach or train

outside groups at the facility they manage or control?



SURVEY RESPONSE

CITY RESPONSE

City of Alpharetta, GA No. Allow employees to coach recreational team for city

program at a facility he/she oversees of needed as a volunteer coach.

Gwinnett County, GA No

Savannah, GA No

Augusta, GA Yes. As long as there is no conflict of interest.

Macon, GA Yes

City of Gardner, NC No

Mecklenburg County, NC No

City of Glendale, AZ No, but would if it was rented to the group or with a

facility use agreement in place.

City of Northglenn, CO Only if the group they are associated with is paying the

appropriate rental fees and no conflict of interest is identified.





2. Do you allow employees who have no management oversight of a facility to

coach or train outside groups at agency facilities?



SURVEY RESPONSE

CITY RESPONSES

City of Alpharetta, GA No

Gwinnett County, GA No

City of Gardner, NC No

Mecklenburg, NC No

Moultrie-Colquitt, GA No

Springfield, MO FTE as a contract employee



CURRENT AREAS OF COACHING & TRAINING:



Parks and Recreation:

Cooper Creek Tennis Center

Haygood Boxing Gym

Therapeutic Recreation

Lifeguards as Private Swim Coaches

Sports Officials



Golf Course Authority:

Bull Creek

Oxbow Creek



COOPER CREEK TENNIS CENTER:

Two employees provide Private Tennis Lessons (1 full time/ 1 part-time)

Eight non-employee Tennis Coaches provide Private Tennis Lessons

Must have a Business License

Fee paid to Tennis Coaches by participant

Tennis Coach pays the City $5/private lesson and $10/ group (4 or more)

Lessons start after 4PM



HAYGOOD BOXING GYM:

Part Time Employee hired to manage Parks and Recreation Program.

The gym is not open to outside groups for rental or otherwise. Must be a part

of our program.

Participants must pay a registration fee to be a part of this program.



THERAPEUTIC RECREATION:

Staff coaches athletes for Special Olympics Sports through the TR Program.

Staff coaches any individual that is part of the program for any sport.

This takes place as a part of our recreation program and not outside the scope

of job duties.



LIFEGUARDS:

Lifeguards serve as Private Swim Coaches:

- A Water Safety Instruction Certification is required - Fee paid by coach -

$150.

- Service provided by Parks and Recreation at a cost

$30 per student, minimum 3 students per class

- Considered independent contractors ? not on the clock as Lifeguards when

teaching swim lessons.

- Must have a valid Business License

- City pays Swim Coach $80 per class. Excess funds go into the general fund

revenue account.



SPORTS OFFICIALS:

There are a number of employees that serve/volunteer as referees, officials,

and coaches for various sporting programs, many of whom we don?t know about.

Includes, but not limited to: Youth Football/Basketball; Soccer, Little

Leagues etc.



GOLF COURSE AUTHORITY:

Bull Creek Golf Course:

Private Lessons available through Private Contractor, Mark Immelman

(non-employee) and John Milam, Director.

Director charges a fee for lessons and retains the fee

Lessons provided during work hours ? avg. one/month



PROPOSED POLICY:

The City of Columbus prohibits employees from coaching/instructing and

receiving financial or in-kind payment outside of his/her normal salary/wage

where the employee has direct oversight of facility or staff

Continue to allow employees to volunteer their time and talents to citywide

programs at our CCG Facilities that they neither manage nor control.

Employees that manage or control CCG Facilities are prohibited from coaching or

training outside groups at facilities they manage or control, unless it is

designated as a program offered by department.





POLICY ? AREAS OF IMPACT:

This policy will impact the following recreational areas where coaching is

currently taking place:

Cooper Creek Tennis Center ? Employees giving Tennis Lessons

Swimming Pools - Lifeguards serving as Swim Coaches

Bull Creek/Oxbow Golf Courses ? Employees giving Golf Lessons



Upon completion of Ms. Goodwin?s presentation, she responded to questions

and concerns from members of Council.



Councilor McDaniel suggested that the Golf Course Authority impose their

own rules since they run both Golf Courses. He said if we are going to

micro-manage, then we should get rid of the board (Columbus Golf Course

Authority).



City Attorney Fay explained that with regards to ethics and conflict of

interests that might arise from time to time - (i.e.) if the parks supervisor

goes out and earn $10,000 doing private coaching after hours, to satisfy the

Charter Code of Ethics, he would need to disclose the financial interest to

this Council; but to the extent that there are other ethical rules out there

for little leagues and other sports, that is strictly a policy matter. What we

are concerned with is the legal conflict under our charter code and that would

go to the financial interest as in example above. He said the policy as written

is fine if Council wants to go ahead with it as it is a policy decision. He

said for exceptions for the Golf Course or another authority is fine.



REFERRALS:



Councilor Allen requested that staff provide a breakdown of the employees

that have been identified and how the duties would be shifted around, as far

as, the teaching of the lessons in all of the different areas within the Parks

& Recreation Department.



Councilor Baker asked staff to check to make sure that certain employees

were not offered employment at a reduced salary due to them being allowed to

receive additional compensation through coaching.



Mayor Pro Tem Turner Pugh also asked that staff check to find out if there

are employees that are coaching on the city?s time.



Councilor Thomas requested to have staff check into extending the hours of

operation for the swimming pools.



NATATORIUM:



Councilor Henderson asked that staff revisit the information we received

from Mobile, Alabama with respect to the innovative ways in which that city was

operating their natatorium.



(A copy of this presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office)

--------------------------------------------*** ***

***--------------------------------------------



ICE RINK FEES:



Mr. Ross Horner, Civic Center Director came forward and stated that this

request goes back to almost two months ago with the discussion of public

skating fees. He said this presentation gives some background now that we are

almost at the one-year anniversary of the Ice Rink being built. The following

is a summary of Mr. Horner?s presentation:



OVERVIEW



? Opened in April 2011 - $7.5 million

? Organization

? Operated by the Management Team?s Divisions

? Administrative Assistant (scheduling)

? Arena Tech (FT) / Arena Tech (PT)

? Various Employees from Ticketing and Operations Divisions

? Centerplate ? concessions and catering

? Programming

? Columbus Hockey Association

? Public Skating

? Auburn College, Florida State University, Birthday Parties, Broomball,

Science of

Ice, Figure Skating, Hockey Camps, Military PT Training, Private Ice

Rental



ICE RINK FINANCIAL & BUSINESS PLAN



ICE RINK FINANCIALS:



Fiscal year-to-date as of February 29, 2012.



REVENUE

? Columbus Hockey Association $69,091.25

? Public Skating $96,813.00

? Other Programming $58,617.66

TOTAL REVENUE $224,521.91



EXPENSES

? Labor $113,915.34

? Utilities $212,773.94

? Other $46,278.71

TOTAL EXPENSES $372,967.99

Net Operating Deficit (to date) $148,446.08



REVENUE EXPENSES

$3,130,126.84 $2,923,824.49

Net Operating Profit (to-date) $206,302.35





PUBLIC SKATING TIMES



Monday, Tuesday, Thursday (5 pm ? 7 pm)

Friday ? Sunday (4 pm ? 9 pm)



** Proposed Rates for FY12-13



Six month passes available for half-price. CHA and Military receive a $50

discount.



The Ice Rink opened April 29, 2011.





(A Copy of this presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office.)



---------------------------------------------*** ***

***-----------------------------------------



Upon conclusion of Mr. Horner?s presentation, he responded to questions and

comments from members of Council.



REFERRAL:



Councilor Allen requested that staff check into providing a reduced rate

for ice-skating during the summer months when the attendance is low.



(A copy of this presentation is on file in the Clerk of Council?s Office).



*** *** ***



INFORMATION:



City Manager Hugley pointed out that listed in the information section of

Councils? books is a memorandum to Mayor and Council from Ms. Amy Carbajal,

Community Reinvestment Director, regarding the Lank Bank Authority interim

foreclosure. He said the ordinance requested that the Authority notify Council

of property chosen through a vote of the authority; and once Council has been

notified, the Tax Assessor will begin the process of interim foreclosures.

Enclosed is a list of those identified properties and the Lank Bank Authority

meeting and moving forward with their responsibilities.



City Manager Hugley also called the Mayor and Council?s attention to the

Upper Weracoba Creek Drainage Evaluation and Recommendation Study.



City Manager Hugley also pointed out a memorandum regarding Comprehensive

Parking Study in the Uptown Area.



Councilor Thomas cautioned residents about alarm companies targeting the

elderly and pressuring them to sign contracts for alarm systems.



Councilor McDaniel requested that churches in the downtown area are

included in the parking study.

---------------------------------------------*** ***

***----------------------------------------



With no further business to come before this Council, Councilor McDaniel

then made a motion adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Allen and carried unanimously

by those eight members of Council present for this meeting with, Councilors

Davis and Huff being absent from this meeting and the time being 12:14 p.m.









Sandra T. Davis, DCMC

Deputy Clerk of Council

The Council of Columbus, Georgia

Attachments


No attachments for this document.

Back to List