Laserfiche WebLink
<br />City Council Study Session - 09/18/06 <br />Minutes - Page 9 <br /> <br />Fire Chief would take action within the next three (3) months <br />to propose a by law revision to address the double pension <br />benefit, to be voted on at the next membership meeting of <br />the Firefighters Relief Association. <br /> <br />Roll Call [Original Motion as Amended] <br />Ayes: Ihlan; Pust and Klausing. <br />Nays: Maschka and Kough. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust further referenced subsequent <br />written communication to the City Council from Fire <br />Chief Gasaway, dated August 15,2006. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust noted that her previous support of <br />the motion was based on testimony of the Fire Chief <br />related to cost-savings resulting from reduced training <br />costs; and her ongoing support of the City's firefighters <br />and public safety employees and their service to the <br />community. Councilmember Pust addressed concerns, <br />and statutory requirements, related to pension benefits of <br />public employees; public perceptions; and court findings; <br />potential need to revise State Statute and/or change Fire <br />Relief Association bylaws. <br /> <br />Councilmember Pust deferred to City Attorney Anderson <br />for his legal interpretation of current law related to the <br />"double dipping" in retirement funds. <br /> <br />City Attorney Anderson reviewed the issue; legal <br />impediments; those current employees vested under either <br />retirement plan; and case law supporting such a by-law <br />revision as proposed, and impacts to current and future <br />employees. Mr. Anderson reviewed case law related to <br />employee retirement benefits; equitable practices; and the <br />need to more fully-analyze contract theory. Mr. <br />Anderson opined that, at this time, it would create more <br />problems that it would solve to rescind the original <br />motion from the August 14,2006 meeting. <br /> <br />Discussion included a Fire Association by-law change <br />going forward, without impacting current beneficiaries; <br />the need to maintain daytime coverage; and policy <br />ramifications. <br />