Enjoy all your local news and sports for less than 6¢ per day.

Subscribe Now


BURNET — Burnet City Council members tried balancing benefits promised to retired employees with the costs of those benefits in a workshop and the following regular meeting Sept. 11.

At issue were health insurance benefits paid to retired city employees who have gone on to be employed elsewhere. A proposal to remove that coverage was met with an outcry from those affected.

The city currently has 23 retirees receiving post-retirement insurance benefits with 34 current employees who could be eligible should they retire. The city estimates six to eight retirees have insurance available to them through their current employer.

On Sept. 11, the city discussed two options at its workshop. Option A would require eligible retirees to “enroll in their current employer’s group health and/or dental insurance plan.”

Option B would pay up to 25 percent of the eligible retiree’s premium not covered by the current employer.

Mayor Crista Bromley said that specific benefit costs the city $30,000-$40,000 total for retired employees currently employed elsewhere.

At the end of a nearly 35-minute workshop, Bromley summed up the purpose of the council’s discussions.

“The purpose of talking this is to see if we can extend (this benefit) as long as possible,” she said. “Or else, we wouldn’t be discussing it.”

When the item came up during the council meeting, Option B passed by a 5-0 vote. Two council members, Danny Lester and Joyce Laudenschlager, abstained from discussion and voting due to the city’s code of ethics.

“Any current employee, or city official (in this case, retired employees), who could be, or are, eligible for the retirement benefit should abstain from participating in the decision making process under the city’s ethics ordinance,” wrote Burnet City Manager David Vaughn.

The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for Sept. 25 during the council’s next regular meeting.

Also at the meeting, City Council adopted its fiscal year 2018-19 budget and tax rate.

The budget is up 3.36 percent in the general fund from last year. The council kept the same tax rate, $0.6237, which raised $199,730 more from property taxes due to increased property values in the city.

Vaughn highlighted a number of items included in the upcoming budget.

Among them are two additional street department employees to be added mid-year; one additional parks employee added mid-year; additional part-time positions in the fire department; more funding to increase salaries in the police department and paramedics in the fire department to better recruit and retain employees; and establishing equipment reserves for each major fund to help with future equipment replacement.

The budget also includes funding for the city’s proposed $5.2 million police station to be built on U.S. 281 next to the fire station.

Vaughn said the price should be received from the contract in early 2019 with construction to begin in mid- to late spring.

The budget can be viewed beginning on page 16 of the city’s agenda packet from the Sept. 11 meeting.

1 thought on “Burnet City Council discusses health benefits for retired employees working elsewhere

  1. jared
    I am one of those affected by this and is why I brought up the question that if it had been budgeted in this years budget already and that it needed to wait to go into effect for the 2019-2020 budget year since all of the other places have also balanced their budgets and this action now has no effect on the city of burnets budget except to put more free spending money into the general fund but it effects other employers budgets since it was not expected to be any different from years past. I have no problem with the plan b which had it’s first reading but this should have been brought up later on in the year and have an effective date of oct. 1 2019

    thank you

    William Krueger

Comments are closed. moderates all comments. Comments with profanity, violent or discriminatory language, defamatory statements, or threats will not be allowed. The opinions and views expressed here are those of the person commenting and do not necessarily reflect the official position of or Victory Media Marketing.