Our Sponsors

Advertise with UsAdvertisement

Post Tags

Annette Kingsbury By Annette Kingsbury By Michael Dwyer C.O.R.E Christine Lind Hage City Council City of Rochester clinton river Crittenton Dan Stickradt Dave Pruneau DDA dear crabby Downtown Rochester Grace Centers of Hope Heidi Morris Jayna Pyke L. Brooks Patterson Mayor Barnett Mayor Bryan Barnett Mayor Bryan K. Barnett Michael Dwyer Oakland County Oakland Township Oakland University OPC Paint Creek Center for the Arts paint creek trail Road Commission for Oakland County rochester Rochester Adams Rochester City Council Rochester College Rochester Community House Rochester Community Schools Rochester High School Rochester Hills Rochester Hills Fire Department Rochester Hills Museum Rochester Hills Public Library Rochester Regional Chamber of Commerce Rochester Rotary Club Stoney Creek High School Stuart Bikson The Village of Rochester Hills
Advertisement
Posts Tagged ‘Michael Webber’
Is OPC compromise in view?
Written by Annette Kingsbury
Tuesday, 31 January 2012 17:52
2 Comments

There may be a glimmer of hope on the horizon.

When the Rochester Older Persons Commission’s governing board meets Thursday, it appears the members are ready to take another look at one controversial item in the proposed 2012 budget, which has yet to be formally adopted.

After two years in which OPC employees received no increases in compensation, last year the board approved an increase in the payment in lieu of health insurance for full-time employees. The payment was increased from $1,500 to $7,950 per year, approximately the cost of the insurance premium. Also last year, the board voted to begin its first-ever pension plan.

Then, when the proposed 2012 budget came out with a 1-percent raise, Rochester City Council balked. The OPC’s other two municipal members, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township, approved the budget as presented. Under an agreement between the three municipalities, all three must adopt an identical version of the OPC budget.

On Jan. 23, two weeks after a Rochester City Council meeting was packed with seniors who want the stalemate to end, council offered a compromise: Lower the payment in lieu of health insurance to $3,000, provide a 1-percent bonus and defer the step increases. The OPC board will discuss it Thursday at its 4 p.m. meeting in the OPC’s Elliott Conference Room.

Rochester Hills City Councilman Michael Webber, who also serves on the OPC board, said Monday that OPC board Chairman John Dalton “has signaled a few times now” that he is willing to take another look at the item. Webber said the board could consider indexing the payment to that of an independent third party, such as the state of Michigan.

Rochester Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Cuthbertson said the expense must be lowered due to lower tax revenues   brought on by slumping property values. “What was proposed is just too much all at once,” he said. “This is a significant, multifaceted compensation increase. Now is just not the time to do all of it.”

Though Rochester’s city employees receive step raises and payment in lieu of health care, Cuthbertson said the city is moving away from those kinds of benefits for new hires. He said he can live with an OPC payment if they can “put a more reasonable number on it.”

The correct number must save the OPC money, he added. “There was no benefit before,” he said. “It didn’t make sense and save taxpayers money.” Rather, he sees the payment as adding new, fixed costs to the OPC’s bottom line.

“The OPC may have the money this year, but I don’t want it to be the floor for next year,” he said.

Webber said the payment in lieu will save money. “I still think that wherever it shakes out, it does save us money instead of having to pay for health care for that employee,” he said. “If all the full-time employees took health care, this wouldn’t really be discussed.”

Webber noted that the proposed 2012 budget’s bottom line is actually smaller than last year.

“This has always been a bottom-line budget,” he said. “When the board has made changes, they did not come back to us.”

Though Cuthbertson agrees that has been the case, he doesn’t think it’s right. “There is a requirement that amendments come back to each community,” he said.

OPC Executive Director Marye Miller said the whole brouhaha has been hurtful. If the payment in lieu of health insurance is rolled back, “They’d be taking away last year’s benefit,” she said.

“I think everybody is missing what this whole thing is about. This whole thing is about (Rochester City Council) having more power on the governing board. That’s what they want.” More about the OPC

 
Readers want to know: Q & A on the OPC
Written by Annette Kingsbury
Tuesday, 31 January 2012 17:46
2 Comments

In an attempt to answer readers’ questions about the current OPC budget dispute, we consulted the Interlocal Agreement that governs the OPC, budget documents, meeting minutes, the most recent audit and relevant officials.

WHO RUNS THE OPC?
The OPC was created as a separate public corporation in 1983. The municipalities of Rochester, Rochester Hills and Oakland Township jointly fund it and share authority under the terms of the Interlocal Agreement (ILA). The OPC does not have taxing authority. Finances are administered by the city of Rochester Hills.

WHAT IS THE OPC GOVERNING BOARD?
The board consists of representatives from all three communities: four from Rochester Hills, two from Oakland Township and two from Rochester. Half are elected officials; each is appointed by their municipality’s elected body.

HOW IS THE OPC FUNDED?
Taxpayer funding is pro rata, based upon the total assessed property value in each municipality. The OPC also receives grants and donations, collects fees for services and conducts fundraising.

HOW IS THE BUDGET APPROVED?
Each year, after the OPC governing board approves a budget for the next year, the budget must be sent to the three municipalities for consideration by their elected bodies. All three municipalities must approve an identical budget by Oct. 1.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Rochester City Council has not yet approved the OPC’s 2012 budget. Rochester’s first attempt at a revised budget was rejected by the other two municipalities. A second Rochester proposal will be considered by the OPC board at its Feb. 2 meeting.

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?
OPC employees did not receive any increases in compensation in 2009 or 2010. Then in May 2011, the OPC board voted to increase the payment to employees who opt out of health insurance from $1,500 per year to an amount equal to the individual rate at the time, an estimated $7,950 per year. Rochester’s two representatives, Mayor Stuart Bikson and Lucy Strand, dissented.

In June 2011, the governing board created a first-ever pension plan for full-time employees. The OPC contributes the equivalent of 6 percent of salary if the employee contributes 3 percent. The plan currently covers 14 employees retroactive to January 1, 2011. The vote was 7-1, with Strand dissenting. At the same meeting, the board approved its 2012 budget.

In November 2011, the board voted to give employees a 1-percent raise for 2012 and reinstitute step raises. Bikson and Strand dissented.

IS OPC EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR MARYE MILLER GETTING A 17-PERCENT RAISE IN 2012?
No. She would receive the same 1-percent as other employees. Like other participating full-time employees, last year she received the pension contribution and the increased payment in lieu of health insurance. If the OPC’s proposed 2012 budget is approved, her increase over two years would be about 15 percent.

IS AN OPC EMPLOYEE ON THE GOVERNING BOARD?
No. Oakland Township Supervisor Joan Fogler, who serves on the governing board, is a volunteer who leads senior trips. The city of Rochester Hills, which serves as the OPC’s fiduciary, said Fogler does not receive any tax documents since she receives no income.

HAS THE OPC RAISED FEES LATELY?
According to Miller, no. Where the budget shows an increase in revenue from fees, it is because of greater participation in programs.

IS THERE A WAITING LIST FOR MEALS ON WHEELS?
According to OPC board President John Dalton, no. No one has ever been turned away from the program.

WHAT IS THE ADDED COST TO THE OPC OF THE INCREASED BENEFITS?
According to Rochester Hills City Councilman Michael Webber, who also serves on the OPC governing board, $65,000 is the cost of new expenses related to employee pay and benefits in the 2012 proposal.

DO THE CITY OF ROCHESTER’S EMPLOYEES RECEIVE THESE BENEFITS?
According to the city’s finance director, John Hiller, most city employees who opt out of health insurance receive payment of $500 per month. Employees hired before 2012 generally receive longevity pay based on a step system.

IS THE OPC IN FINANCIAL TROUBLE?
According to its auditors, no. When Plante & Moran presented their report on the 2010 fiscal year on May 5, 2011, they said the OPC had increased its unrestricted fund balance to $1.3 million, or about one-third of annual operating costs. That occurred despite the fact that revenue decreased by $260,000. Actual 2010 revenues and expenditures were less than expected.

 
Rochester’s alternate OPC budget rejected
Written by Annette Kingsbury
Tuesday, 13 December 2011 22:20
1 Comment

The governing bodies of Rochester Hills and Oakland Township this week rejected the request of Rochester City Council to change some line items in the 2012 budget of the Older Persons Commission.

In denying Rochester’s request, members of the Rochester Hills City Council and the Oakland Township Board of Trustees said they believe the structure that has governed the OPC since its inception is working, and they want the OPC governing board to remain independent of the communities’ politics.

“The way you accomplish good governance … is to appoint good people to the board,” said Hills Councilman Nathan Klomp. “I think it’s a bad precedence for us as a council to get into this sort of micromanaging these boards and committees. I think it’s more important to give them the sovereignty and stand-alone authority. … We should continue on the course we’ve had success on.”

Under an interlocal agreement that has been in place since 1983, the member communities each appoint voting members to the OPC governing board. That board approves a budget annually and sends it to the three member communities, who must each approve it.

The OPC board voted 5-2 to approve the budget, with the two Rochester members dissenting. Since then, Rochester City Council has declined to approve the budget. It’s the first time any community has refused to approve an OPC budget.

Rochester City Council wants expenses for OPC staff reduced, including a 1-percent raise, step raises and payment in lieu of health insurance. The city prepared an alternative budget proposal and sent it to the other two municipalities last week. On Monday, Rochester Hills City Council rejected it. On Tuesday, Oakland Township’s board did the same.

“The overall (OPC) budget was less than it was the prior year, the bottom line,” said Oakland Township Trustee Marc Edwards. “This is a representative form of government. … There was a vote; it was a 5-2 vote. The two dissenters were Rochester, which by the way contributes the least (to the OPC). To override that 5-2 vote is undemocratic.”

Oakland Township Trustee Michael Bailey said there is no precedent for the township board to change its mind, “just because the minority contributor to the OPC thinks otherwise.”

OPC board Chairman John Dalton asked both communities to consider the original intent of the interlocal agreement–the creation of an independent board, structured so no one community could dominate.

“It was not intended to have OPC subservient to any of the three entities. If Rochester’s request is approved, we will be starting down a slippery slope,” he said. “How do you serve three masters at one time?”

Hills Councilman Michael Webber, who is one of that city’s representatives on the OPC board, said the place to thrash out the budget is at the governing board.

“I’ve been on the winning end of some votes, I’ve been on the losing end of some votes.” He said. “The votes lie at the OPC board meeting. … Ultimately the governing board has the representatives of the three communities; it was put together by the three communities.”