Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/06/22 Item 16 CITY OF CHULA VISTA ' COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM NO 16 FOR MEETING OF: 6/22/76 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION#8221: Approving Payment of All or a Portion of Employees Contribution to Public Employees Retirement System SUBMITTED BY~ Acting City Manager ITEM EXPLANATION Attached hereto is a memorandum under date of June 15, 1976 from the City Attorney indicating that it is his opinion that a program whereby the City would pay all or a portion of an employee's contribution to the Public Employees Retirement System as deferred compensation is both legal and feasible. During recent discussions with the City Council, the question of providing this benefit to certain executives of the City was discussed and it was generally believed to be the feeling of the City Council that if the program was determined to be feasible and legal, this benefit could be offered to all Department Heads of the City. It is proposed that the program would be limited to those positions indicated in the Resolution and that the maximum contribution by the City would be limited to the increases granted to each executive during the 1976-77 fiscal year. The employee would have the option of applying all or any portion of his pay increase to the plan up to the maximum equivalent to the percentage required by law to be paid to the system. EXHIBITS ATTACHED Agreement Resolution X Ordinance Plat Other X Environmental Documenf~ Attached Submitted on STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: COUNCIL ACTION ~~ rP~C Jr;~~i _.-~ ~/ ~~~ ~.''i ) ~;' C . '.:~ ~. Chula S; ~`~,~., G ~.__ ~ - Dated,....... Form A-113 (Rev 5-75) .- ~T-11 u, ,~.dc •--- --~ .. i, ; ~ ~ ... ~~~ . OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DATE: June 15, 1976 ~ ~. ~ ,,,F ~~ City o~ C~nu~Qa ~1Jtsta CALIFORNIA TO: The Honorable Mayor and City Council of the City of Chula Vista, Lane F. Cole, City Manager, Gordon K. Grant, Director of Finance FROM: George D. Lindberg, City Attorney SUBJECT: Contribution to Public Employees' Retirement System for Certain Employees as a Deferred Compensation A program has been outlined to the department heads for the contribution of their approved salary increases in fiscal year 1976-77 to the Public Employees' Retirement System as deferred compensation. Procedures for implementing the program, which are optional with the employees, are relatively simple. However, questions have arisen as to the tax consequences to the employees. Essen- tially the concern was that IRS, which has not given its appro- val to such a program, may very well render an adverse opinion which would require the employee to pay a tax on such income. The City Attorney's office has contacted both George Wakefield, the City Attorney of West Covina and Glendora, and Stanley E. Remelmeyer, the City Attorney of Torrance, (which are the three California cities presently pursuing the program). In addition, I have reviewed materials relating to deferred compensation pro- grams. The consensus is that IRS should indeed approve the program, but in the alternative, an adverse ruling would not result in any penalty imposed upon the employee. Many years ago, IRS did approve the California State Public Employees Retirement System as a proper. deferred compensation plan. However, this ruling was later withdrawn based upon what George Wakefield, and I concur, considers a totally illogical premise, i.e., PERS is not a single system, but a combination of many different systems. Such a conclusion is totally unsupport- able, but that of course does not prevent IRS from holding to 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 92010 (714) 427-3300 The Honorable'Mayor and City Council June 15, 1976 Page Two that view. The sole issue is when the taxable incident arises. There is never any doubt that you are going to have to pay tax on income. Furthermore, it should not matter to IRS when that taxable incident occurs. As things are presently structured, the employee is paying currently on his total income through the withholding process, therefore, at the time of his retire- ment, he is not required to pay any tax on the portion which he has contributed to PERS since the taxable incident occurred during his working years. Under the proposed program, the taxable incident is merely delayed until retirement and at that time, the employee must pay. It is my understanding in talking to the other City Attorneys that there is no problem at all insofar as PERS is concerned. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's office that the program of payment of all or a portion of the employee's contribution to the Public Employees' Retirement System as a deferred compensation is both legal and feasible. GDL:lgk