theSheetNews.com

Updated Oct. 9, 8:45 p.m. Jessica Garcia, an employee of DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., has been located alive after she was reported missing when she did not show up for work at the Wawona Hotel on Sunday, October 7. Garcia was located
at approximately 1 p.m. this afternoon by a member of the Yosemite National Park Search and Rescue Team less than two miles up the South Fork Drainage of the Merced River in the southern portion of Yosemite National Park. She was hiking off-trail in this  rugged area of the park. She will be transported to a local hospital for a medical evaluation

Approximately 50 people were involved in the Search and Rescue operation today. This included 6 dog teams, 15 ground searchers, a Park Ranger on horseback, the park helicopter, and other personnel.

———————————————————————–

Pictured: Jessica Rose Garcia (Photo courtesy NPS)/

Yosemite National Park Rangers are searching for Jessica Rose Garcia, who did not show up for work at the Wawona Hotel.  Garcia, a 23-year-old female and an employee of DNC Parks & Resorts at Yosemite, Inc., was scheduled to work at 9 a.m. Saturday, Oct. 7, and did not report for work. This was to be Garcia’s first day working at the Wawona Hotel.

Yosemite National Park Rangers checked at her park residence Saturday morning and she was not there. It was determined that Garcia was last seen on the morning of Saturday, Oct. 6, by a co-worker. She was last seen walking east along Forest Drive near the stables in Wawona at approximately 11:30 a.m. Garcia had just come from an orientation meeting with her supervisor at the Wawona Hotel.

She was dressed in her work uniform, a dark green polo shirt with the DNC logo on it, black slacks and black Rockies work loafers. She was also wearing her dark green DNC jacket, which has the DNC logo on the left side of the chest.

Garcia is a Hispanic female, 5’ 03” tall and weighs approximately 170 lbs. She has shoulder length black hair and brown eyes.  Garcia is fit and hikes regularly. She is described as being shy and reserved around strangers. She was in possession of her cell phone and personal ID.

Search and rescue teams include six dog teams, the park helicopter, rangers on horseback and 23 rangers on foot. The search area includes the South Fork of the Merced River and in and around the Wawona area.

Yosemite National Park is asking for assistance with any information on Garcia’s whereabouts. Please call the Wawona Ranger Station at 209.375.9520, or Yosemite Dispatch at 209.379.1992, with any information regarding Garcia. The Yosemite Dispatch is available 24-hours per day. -NPS

Supervisor recaps last week’s meeting

This past Tuesday, the Mono County Board of Supervisors approved renewal of seven management employee contracts costing $1,372,220 (average $196,031 each).  The lowest cost contract is $158,193, the highest is $241,667.  The salary portion of these contracts is $809,868 (average $115,695 or $9,641/mo.).  The benefits/retirement cost is $562,352 (average $80,336 each).  Two of these seven contracts received raises, five had no increase.

The Board vote was 4 to 1 with me being the dissenting vote.  The principal reason for my dissent is the same as it has been for the last year regarding management contracts when they have come before the Board, and that is, the contracts are out of touch with the reality of the economy.  As an example, the non-salary portion of the contract ($80,336) is by itself higher than Mono County’s Area Median Income ($74,500 for a family of four).

While it is important in recruiting and maintaining good employees (and we do have good employees at all levels in the organization), the pendulum of exponentially increasing salaries and benefits has swung too far.  For example, in the January 2012 management salary survey (which surveyed 23 other counties), salaries have decreased 5% overall, employees have been laid off, and/or positions have been consolidated in these surveyed counties.

For the seven contracts (and the previous management contracts that have come up periodically during the last year), I have attempted to tackle the “swinging pendulum” with suggested contract amendments that would both protect the employee from potentially draconian salary decreases while bringing benefits into rational alignment with limited resources and public sentiment.  These amendments are:

1.  “Salary shall be increased or decreased in accordance with the management compensation policy; any decrease shall not be more than 2% yearly.”

(Presently, contracts only allow increases in pay; a one-way street.  The 2% cap helps protect the employee from draconian decreases.  Note no decrease is actually proposed.)

1.  “The 5% ‘merit pay’ shall be phased out in 12 equal reductions over 12 months.”

(‘Merit pay’ is over and above the normal salary.  While union employees have agreed to no step increases in their contracts to help see us through bad economic times, 5% “merit pay” continues for about 70% of management staff.)

1. “The management car allowance (currently $781/month, raised recently from $704/mo) shall be phased out in 12 equal reductions over 12 months.  Like other employees, an un-assigned pool car shall be used to conduct county business.  If a car has been assigned to an employee, such usage shall cease and an un-assigned pool car shall be used to conduct county business (public safety exempted).”

(Car allowance is unnecessary to conduct business since pool cars are available. Present contract wording also allows for personal commuting, and even out-of-county commuting, in assigned vehicles.  Additionally, there is an automatic adjustment in the car allowance, usually upward, based on the cost of gas, etc.  While most regular employees get to work at their own cost, management’s commuting is completely paid ad infinitum by taxpayers.)

Unfortunately, these amendments were not voted to be included in these contracts and so the exponentially increasing pendulum continues to swing. There are other concerns related to these contracts (such as why several contracts were pushed up many months from their normal due date, even before budget consideration in August) which I addressed at the Board meeting.

I remain committed to frugal and efficient government and will continue the effort to help advance public service as a well-respected endeavor.

Larry Johnston
Supervisor, District 1

Larry gives the big bird to fellow supervisors, employees 

“[Mono County employee] salaries are like the housing market,” stated Mono County Supervisor Larry Johnston this week. “They need an adjustment. It’s time for the adjustment to be made.” He likened the issue to a pendulum having swung too far to one side.

It’s something Johnston has been saying since he took office in 2010, but it seems that few agree and on Tuesday his consistent veto of employee contracts came to a head.

Inside a boardroom packed with County employees and very few members of the public, as Johnston attempted to filibuster his way through several portions of the afternoon agenda dealing with at-will employment contract amendments and renewals, the mood became tense.

“The benefits alone on some of these contracts are [worth] over $50,000,” Johnston railed. “Elsewhere, $50,000 would be a living wage. The Board has divorced itself from the rest of the world and the economy.”

The issue was raised by  Johnston when he took office. He pointed out that the at-will employee contracts did not allow for any decreases in pay, only increases. Johnston began to push for new wording in the contracts that would allow for decreases if necessary. He has also been pushing for a slow phase out of car allowances and changes to employee merit pay.

“We started trying to create a negotiating tool,” explained Supervisor Tim Hansen on Wednesday of the suggested decrease in salary language. “Right now our only option in hard times would be to lay people off.”

The remaining Board members and County staff, however, do not seem to agree.

“We’ve held tight long enough and it’s going to be okay. I’m seeing a light at the end of the tunnel” said Supervisor Vikki Bauer in regard to the County’s financial health. “I want to put a lid on this. We need to honor contracts and let employees focus on their work.”

She pointed out that the County had just added $500,000 to its reserve, but Johnston noted that the money was a one-time windfall from the settlement of the property tax dispute with Mammoth Mountain Ski Area. The County’s reserve is approximately $1.7 million now, down from $6.5 million a few years ago, according to Johnston.

“We accomplish a lot with at-will employees,” added Supervisor Hap Hazard. “What they save us in problems is phenomenal. It is important that employees feel secure.”

“I don’t want to lose the talent we have in the County,” said Supervisor Byng Hunt. “We can’t ignore our employees. They’ve had frozen salaries for the past two years.”

The County’s Chief Administrative Officer, Jim Arkens agreed, “I am firmly behind our at-will employees.” He added that these employees had “stepped up and saved the County at least $1 million.”

When asked to break down that $1 million savings, Arkens explained he was referring to the cost savings that have come from several department heads consolidating positions. For example, Arkens not only serves as the CAO, but he is also the County’s HR Director and Public Works Director, which saves the County approximately $450,000 in salaries and benefits that it would have to spend if it filled these positions individually. The contract amendments on the table at Tuesday’s Board meeting for Salcido, Tiede and Sherman each save the County about $200,000. The combination of those four contracts make up the $1 million saving Arkens was referencing.

The decrease language that Johnston has been requesting has been put into the contracts of two new management employees, but Arkens doesn’t think it is a feasible option.

“We need to negotiate at the time of a crisis, but we’re not in crisis mode,” he said in a follow-up phone call on Wednesday. “It’s not the time to slash and burn.”

Arkens added that the County at-will employees have taken the same cuts as the unions. Plus, he said, the union contracts don’t have the decrease in pay language either.

“I like flexibility too, but let’s treat everyone the same,” Arkens said.

While Johnston agreed that contracts could be revisited during tough financial times, his point was part of a bigger picture.

“This isn’t about employee performance,” Johnston said. “I am not proposing draconian decreases to anyone’s salary, I just want to remain in a reserved position until we are sure of our welfare. We serve the public and the public does not like outrageous salaries for public employees.”

Examples of Johnston’s opinion of outrageous salary were the contracts before the Board on Tuesday. Two contracts were being amended to give the employees connected to them a raise in pay because they had taken on additional duties. A third contract amendment for the Director of Social and Mental Health Services was tabled until further closed session discussions were completed.

Rita Sherman went from Director of Risk Management to Director of Facilities and Risk Management. Lynda Salcido went from Director of Public Health to Director of Public Health and Interim EMS Chief.

The Director of Facilities and Risk Management costs the County approximately $205,990 per year of which $126,000 is salary, $27,594 is the employer’s portion of PERS, and $52,396 is the cost of benefits. According to the agenda, it is a $5,979 annual cost increase over her existing contract.

The Director of Public Health and Interim EMS Chief costs the County approximately $206,428 of which $126,000 is salary, $27,594 is the employer’s portion of PERS, and $52,834 is the cost of benefits. This contract is an annual increase of $15,592 over the existing contract. This amendment is temporary until the EMS position is filled.

Arkens made it clear that the two women had not requested the raises, but that by giving these two women increases for the extra work they are now doing, and not filling the management positions they are covering, the County is saving a large sum of money — approximately $381,068.

Aggregation of contracts

Five other employee contracts were on Tuesday’s Board agenda. These five were simply renewals with no change in pay, but they raised another set of related issues among the Board.

County employee contracts are renewed at different times throughout the year. On Tuesday’s agenda, prior to the approval of these five contracts, was a discussion regarding the aggregation of employment renewals, with the idea being to approve all at-will employee contracts at one time in the year, rather than stringing them out.

“The idea is to do all the contracts at one time so that we don’t have to be bashed throughout the year,” Arkens, an at-will employee himself, said on Wednesday.

“It’s damaging to individuals to have to sit and listen to this,” Hazard said on Tuesday.

Supervisors Johnston and Hansen saw the issue a bit differently.

“Approving contracts that are not due until November is unconscionable,” Johnston said on Tuesday.

“You’re trying to put a lid on Larry’s opinion,” Hansen added. “While listening to him might get annoying, I agree [with him].”

Johnston agreed on Wednesday that an aggregation of contracts was indeed a ploy to keep him quiet. “It only allows me to talk once a year, like yesterday [Tuesday] rather than throughout the year.”

Even with the two supervisor’s objections, the rest of the Board decided to move forward with the renewal of the five contracts on the agenda. The contract expiration dates ranged from April to November 2012.

While the majority of the department heads present at the meeting did not speak up, Finance Director Brian Muir’s patience with Johnston seemed to wear thin as the Board reviewed his contract, which was not set to expire until November. Johnston made a point to state that, according to the salary survey the Board had reviewed that tallied 23 counties, Muir was being paid $2,000 more per month than an average Auditor/Controller.

Muir pointed out that the survey covered the salaries of Auditor/Controllers, but that he had many other additional responsibilities and titles, including Treasurer/Tax Collector. “I’m not complaining about my pay, but I am not afraid to say that I earn it,” Muir said testily.

The County’s Assistant District Attorney Tim Kendall also spoke via teleconference from Bridgeport.

“At-will employees don’t have civil servant protection and in turn are able to negotiate their contracts,” Kendall said. “Other labor units didn’t give up that protection. It costs more to get rid of them then any perks you give at-will employees.”

Former County CAO and current Mammoth Lakes Town Manager Dave Wilbrecht spoke out as a citizen.

“You are not in dire straits,” Wilbrecht said. “The employees are doing your arms and legs work and you can’t find this caliber of employee in town. It is tough to incentivize people to come here. Don’t beat up your best team, it will come back to haunt you.”

Wilbrecht added that before the end of 2010, the County had a “wonderful Board.” But then things changed.

“There is a lot of angst now, which is why I took the offer with the Town,” he said. “Now people are afraid that if someone has a bad cold their contracts won’t be renewed.”

When asked on Wednesday if he thought Wibrecht’s comments were directed at him specifically, Johnston said that was how he took it.

“It was inappropriate for him to say I was the reason he left the County,” Johnston said.

“We need to be a little more respectful of all of our employees,” Arkens concluded on Wednesday. “We don’t need to trash them repeatedly. A lot of our management team could retire tomorrow. They continue doing it [working for the County] because they love it.”

Arkens added that Johnston used to be an at-will employee for the County prior to his election to the Board.

All contracts on Tuesday’s agenda were approved with a 4-1 vote.

Mono Supervisors mull changes to at will management employee contracts

It wasn’t Wisconsin. There were no raucous protests, and no Mono County Supervisors holed up in Inyo County hotel rooms. However, an agenda item on Management Compensation Policy elicited a spirited Board discussion about Mono County’s compensation policies and principles, including proposed changes in standard terms of contracts with individual management employees.

Some of those changes concerned more flexibility to modify parts of already in force contracts, including salaries, cost of living increases and other allowances. Other changes involved lesser facets, such as a more straightforward way for employees to waive certain perks, should they choose to do so.

Supervisor Larry Johnston, for example, has been trying to forego a sizeable percentage of his car allowance, and has had to write checks back to the County, essentially reimbursing the budget for money he doesn’t want to take.

As a Supervisor, Johnston is awarded a car allowance whether he likes it or not – and he ends up writing checks back to the County more often than not because he often chooses to ride his bike instead and doesn’t use the full allowance.

So-called “at will” management employees include various department heads and executive staff, including the 5 Mono Supervisors. At will assumes no union affiliation and according to legal doctrine, “any hiring is presumed to be at will … that is, the employer is free to discharge individuals for good, bad or no cause at all, and the employee is equally free to quit, strike or otherwise cease work.”

Mono County is unlike most California counties, with most management-level employees, and several elected positions, under at-will contracts.

Under Mono County practice, performance or merit-based pay bonuses are at the discretion of department heads; at will employees can get up to 5% of salary, with County Administrative Officer approval. Management salaries are based on a percentage of the department head’s pay. For example: an auditor’s assistant is 80% of the auditor’s salary, etc. The County’s at will policy was formally adopted in September 2005, and comes up every Sept. 30 for Board review.

Johnston said that in today’s society, where the public has a perception of “fat cats in government with fat salaries and fat benefits,” such contracts amount to how to be fair to employees while being fair to the electorate.

“When elected, one of my goals was to look seriously at what appear to be nice benefit packages, which in the past were okay because we could afford it or it was easy to look the other way.”

Johnston came out against  the perk of performance pay. “I don’t think management should get that, though I did get it once,” he acknowledged. “Things have changed and will change more if the taxes proposed for the June special election don’t pass. And who’s going to vote for them? Who wants more taxes? I’m happy to approve any agreements, but only if there’s verbiage in them that gives us more flexibility.”

“Everyone should take some kind of a pay cut,” Supervisor Tim Hansen remarked. “We need to have the ability to change things; we can take no action, but then our only recourse is to lay people off if the economy gets worse.” The history of at-will, he said, has been based on raising salaries and the economy expanding. Hansen added he’s not interested in picking at benefits, but favors a percentage shaved off the top across the board.

Management participation in healthcare was also brought up. Supervisor Vikki Bauer posited that “elected, rank and file and management should be treated equally when it comes to cost savings, but we need to get the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) situation in line before doing anything else.”

Meanwhile, rank and file has received some raises during the past two years, but not management, which hasn’t taken any raises during that period, Supervisor Byng Hunt said management is going to have to work through this together with the rank and file.

“I for one am not interested in having a contract when it can be arbitrarily changed,” Finance Director Brian Muir commented. “Why should I have a contract in that case? I will live up to the terms of my contract, but I expect the County to live up to its part as well. There’s a matter of trust here, but it goes both ways.”

Curiously, Bauer seemed to support his position. “We can’t have something if it’s arbitrary,” she said. “I’d hate to undo all the hard work that’s gone into moving [the contract policy] forward. The constituents might not realize it today, but someday they’ll go into a County office and expect great service. I see supporting management in a non-arbitrary fashion as being responsible to the electorate.”

“One reason to go at will and give up civil service status was to get paid better, and if you couldn’t do the job, then you’d get fired,” commented Assistant District Attorney Tim Kendall, whose contract was one of two up for renewal Tuesday. “If the County wants to get rid of at will status, that’s fine, but then it would mean going back to civil service status, which takes things back to where they started. Today we have competent, efficient managers that run things far better than 10 years ago.”

Byng Hunt said he’s willing to cut his salary and do whatever he can to help. “I’m not putting things on employees without sacrificing on my own part,” Hunt stated. Johnston, however, said he didn’t find contract flexibility arbitrary and rejected the idea of “burying our head in the sand” yet again. He liked Hansen’s percentage concept. He added he’s not willing to back any new contract extensions as written.

The Board opted to approve any last pending contract renewals and go forward with more employee negotiations, hoping in the meantime to get more clarity from Sacramento, where legislators and the governor remain stalemated on any sort of budget deal.

No shelter from the storm for top municipal brass as Council makes cuts

In the end, it appears Mammoth Lakes Town Council lost faith in the Town’s administrative leadership.

At its regular meeting Wednesday, Council unanimously approved $902,146 in job cuts, much of this excised from upper management.

This new round of layoffs was made before Council adopted its 2010-11 budget.

The job eliminations will be staggered over the next several months.

The positions chopped, with the major, senior staff names in parentheses, were a Principal Planner (Steve Spiedel) at $156,251, an Engineering Assistant at $107,543, a Building Official (Alex Ramos) at $155,875, the Assistant Town Manager (Karen Johnston) at $218,381, a Police Officer position that is currently vacant at $139,121, an Accounting Assistant II at $81,565, the Human Resources Director (Michael Grossblatt) at $181,005, and the Finance Director (Brad Koehn) at $198,863.

These figures are what the above employees would cost in wages and benefits if employed for a full year.

The contract with the Town Attorney was also chopped by $50,000, but Town Attorney Peter Tracy is set to retire in December, anyway.

The Town will balance some of these layoffs by adding a new position, that of Administrative Services Director. This position  will ultimately combine the duties of the Human Resources Director and Finance Director.

The delayed implementation of these layoffs has already cost the Town $281,491 and the consolidation study that was outsourced to help reach this conclusion cost $10,000.

Prior to its vote, Council opened the podium to members of the public. Former Town Clerk Anita Hatter explained that she was disturbed by the thought of these drastic cuts, not because she was worried about her friends who were on the list, but because she was worried about how it would affect Town services.

“You are performing a lobotomy and you do not have the license to do that,” she said. “An action like this will have consequences that will last for years.” Hattar added that the last time Council made rash decisions the interim Town Manager ended up granting the largest pensions plan available for employees, which is why she was able to retire at 53.

“Good for me, not good for the Town,” she said.

Mammoth resident Leigh Gaasch also asked Council to reconsider the cuts. Only Mayor Skip Harvey was swayed in the slightest by the two pleas.

“I’m not sure we have explored all our options and I don’t support the layoff direction,” Harvey initially said. However, after the other four members of Council expressed their desire to move forward with the layoffs, Harvey backed down and conceded to create a unanimous vote.

“This is a budget balancing exercise and an opportunity to reorganize the town’s structure,” Council member John Eastman said. To which fellow Council member Rick Wood added, “Change is not to be feared. There will be gaps, but over time it will be OK.” Wood also pointed out that this was not a new or rash decision but one that had been developing for some time.

“These are not fun decisions, but they have to be made,” concluded Councilmember Matthew Lehman.

In addition to the layoffs, Council also: approved a resolution to establish a trust for retiree health costs; approved a resolution to affirm the Town’s investment policy; released Measure A tourism funds to Mammoth Lakes Tourism; and earmarked $440,000 it already had in a “wait and see” fund for any air service subsidy costs before officially approving the 2010-11 budget.

In other Council action …

Council approved the recommendation to make skateboards the sole use of the skatepark, officially closing it off to bicycles. An ordinance will now need to be written to put this vote into law.

The Recreation Commission presented the 2010 fall Measure R priorities to Council for its approval. Focus is on consideration of incomplete projects and new project planning.

Jane Baer, who is responsible for getting the Volcom Brothers Skatepark built, took issue with how much Measure R money is currently going toward project planning.

The voters thought they were voting for parks and trails but 80 percent of the money keeps going to planning, said Baer, whose Measure R project requests have so far been denied. She also wondered why Measure R money was not being used for maintenance of existing facilities.

Recreation Commission Chair Bill Sauser told the Council that he completely agreed with Baer and was anxious to get shovels in the ground. He pointed out, however, that according to the ordinance, Measure R money cannot be used to maintain existing facilities because it is not allowed to supplant funding for projects that are currently funded.

Council suggested that future Measure R meetings and workshops be webcast so that discussions would be recorded and there would be no question about the process.

Sauser said he would love to see that happen, but he did not want to have to use Measure R funds to pay for the webcast. Baer suggested, if the webcast proved to be too cost prohibitive, the Town at least start tape recording the meetings as it has done in the past. The fall Measure R presentations will take place Oct. 19 and 26. Council requested that a resolution on a method of taping be determined by these dates.

The last big item on the agenda was Council’s review and acceptance of the Draft Downtown Neighborhood District Plan Report. The report had already been circulated through all of the commissions, and received a 5-0 approval vote from the Planning Commission on July 28.

Mammoth Mountain CEO Rusty Gregory, one of the biggest proponents of the project along with Snowcreek VIII developer Chuck Lande, pushed the Council to accept the report as presented.

“We need to be capital-ready when the market turns around,” he explained. He believed the report was a step toward defining what the town wants on Main Street so that when investors return, the Council and Town staff would easily be able to approve or deny project requests.

Council approved the report with the understanding that it is not the final plan, just the strongest idea to work on and develop.

The next Council meeting is scheduled for Sept. 22 at 6 p.m.

By Katie Vane

To many, the Mammoth Town employee dental and vision coverage reimbursement plan might sound like too sweet a deal. Since 2003, the Town has supported a “self funded” plan in which the Town gives each employee a certain, fixed amount of money to use each year on dental and vision expenses. As of July 1, 2010, that amount is $1,400 for unit members and $750 for dependents. By July 1, 2011, it will be $1,500 and $800.

This means the Town could spend up to $2,150 per employee with dependents in 2010. And with roughly 100 full-time employees, this means in 2010 the Town could spend up to $215,000 on all employees’ dental and vision care.

For comparison, the City of Bishop spends about $1,609 annually per employee with dependents. With only 40 or so employees, Bishop’s total spending is about $64,393 a year on employee dental and vision care. Bishop does not use the reimbursement system, but provides dental and vision benefits through Security Life (for dental) and VSP (for vision). The Bishop plan covers 100 percent of the premiums for dental and vision coverage, dependents included.

From the numbers, then, it looks like Mammoth is willing to spend about $550 more per employee per year. But the numbers can be deceiving.

For one thing, not all Mammoth Town employees use the reimbursement plan. “Overall,” says Cyndi Myrold of the Town Finance Department, “we have many employees that don’t take advantage at all. Some do use 100 percent, but some are also right in the middle.” This means not every employee takes advantage of the full $2,150.

One unique advantage of the Town reimbursement plan (for employees) is that 80 percent of each employee’s unused money gets “rolled over” to the next year, for up to three years. While a traditional employer dental and vision plan pays money to an insurance company regardless of whether an employee actually uses dental and vision services, the Mammoth plan doesn’t pay more than the employee needs, and allows the employee to carry over most of the remainder of their reimbursement amount for a time of future need.

The Mammoth reimbursement plan has a few more things to offer that traditional plans, like Bishop’s, do not. The Mammoth plan avoids administrative fees built into premiums by insurance companies, and it also keeps business local. Insurance companies tend to dictate where clients can get services.

Under the Mammoth plan, Town employees are free to choose where they seek dental and vision services; most stay local. “Most people do seek their care here locally, unless there’s something that can’t be done here,” observed Cyndi Myrold. For dental services, Town employees go to Mammoth dentists, such as doctors Schrager, Sansom and Kaylor. For vision services, employees usually have to go to Dr. Reed in Bishop. However, the reimbursement plan feeds much of the Town’s money directly back into Mammoth businesses, rather than losing a percentage to insurance companies.

So far, the Town reimbursement plan sounds like a good deal. Town money goes back into the town, and Town employees get good coverage for dental and vision care. Most other employees in Mammoth tend to get only medical coverage, if that.

Snowcreek Resort, for example, offers no dental or vision insurance for employees, but does offer medical insurance through Blue Shield. While Snowcreek covers 100 percent of the premium for medical insurance, only some coverage is extended to dependents, and that for an extra charge.

Mammoth Mountain Ski Area offers employees dental coverage, even if it doesn’t offer vision coverage: for dental, MMSA pays 100 percent preventative (cleanings), 80 percent basic (getting a crown or cap), and 50 percent major (oral surgery).

That “major” expense is where the Town reimbursement plan falls short. Without actual insurance, a Town employee in need of a ‘major’ emergency procedure might find themselves footing most of the bill. Or, if that employee is lucky, a single ‘major’ procedure could consume their entire reimbursement amount for the year. Employees with a three year build-up of ‘roll over’ might have some cushion—presumably why one employee in February 2010 was reimbursed $3,592 for a dental procedure—but those without a cushion would encounter difficulties.

Overall, however, this Town reimbursement deal might actually be pretty sweet. Not just for Town employees, but also for the Town itself. Although the Town has to make available $215,000 a year for dental and vision reimbursements, this past year, employees only used $187,241 of that money. For comparison, if Bishop had 100 employees, it would spend $160,984. Perhaps that $20,000 difference is the price Mammoth pays for bypassing insurance companies and giving money directly to local dentists. Or perhaps that $20,000 bypass exists at the expense not just of Mammoth taxpayers, but also employees with ‘major’ needs.

In the end, the Mammoth reimbursement money left unused — this year $27,758 — “rolls over” for employees’ future use, and also replenishes Town internal funds for the reimbursement plan. So it looks as though, barring any emergencies, Town employees might just have the sweetest deal in Mammoth.