ORD-2004-106 - Benefits for Domestic Partners - Implementation and Personnel Ordinance Revisions

Browse Search

°nom - �d d. Benefits for Domestic Partners — Implementation and Personnel Ordinance Revisions The Board considered implementing policy and personnel ordinance revisions for County employee benefits for domestic partners effective January 1, 2005. Commissioner Gordon said that there were several things that were not clear in the ordinance. She made reference to page four where it talks about demonstrating each one's common welfare and she read: "Two forms of proof documenting the domestic partner relationship must be provided with the declaration. Acceptable forms of documentation include...... She said that three of the things listed do not seem to have anything to do with the relationship. She suggested striking out birth certificate, driver's license, or state - issued identification card, since it does not document the domestic partner relationship. Elaine Holmes said that the Health Insurance Trust prescribed this definition to them. Her understanding is that the birth certificate requirement is to make sure that the partners are not blood related. She can explore this further with the Trust. Commissioner Gordon said that there are a lot of loose ends. Commissioner Gordon asked about the statement, "responsible for each other's common welfare," and "are jointly responsible for their assets and debts as provided by applicable law." She asked what applicable law was. Geof Gledhill said that normally people that are not married or not related are not responsible for assets and debts. Relationships can be created by contract or will or by power of attorney. He thinks this is what it is talking about. Commissioner Gordon asked for clarification on this. Elaine Holmes will be bringing this back for a second reading on October 51h, so the clarification will be brought back at that time. John Link said that they will pursue these questions and he will bring back what the Trust requires. Ultimately, it is the Trust's program. A motion was made by Chair Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Carey to approve the revisions in principle and have it come back on October 5th with further clarification. Geof Gledhill said that this would still require approval of the ordinance. John Link recommended voting for this in principle and for the motion to indicate that the Board intends to fully pursue this as a benefit. VOTE: UNANIMOUS k. Voluntary Agricultural District Designation — Walters Propertv The Board considered an application from Carl and Elizabeth Walters for certification as qualifying farmland and designation of 173 acres as an addition to their Voluntary Agricultural District. Commissioner Gordon highlighted that the Walters family has put a tremendous number of acres of their property into the voluntary agricultural districts. Dave Stancil said that the total for the Walters family would be 378 acres. This also pushes the County over the 2,000 -acre mark. A motion was made by Commissioner Gordon, seconded by Commissioner Halkiotis to approve the application from Carl and Elizabeth Walters for certification as qualifying farmland and designation of 173 acres as an addition to their Voluntary Agricultural District. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 6. Resolutions or Proclamations a. Resolution Requesting Congress and the President of the United States of America to Reauthorize the Assault Weapon Ban