Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />CITY COUNCIL <br />NOVEMBER 15, 1993 <br />attention. The Administrator pointed out the amount of <br />time the Mayor and Council Members spent on the job. <br />Morelan felt the issue warranted attention next year, <br />since 1994 was an election year. <br />The City Administrator reported that the Fire Relief <br />issue has become more complicated. As the Council will <br />recall, parameters that would guide future benefit <br />increases were being developed. However, one week <br />prior to tonight's workshop, staff found out that the <br />law was changed this year and it impacts the maximum <br />Fire Relief benefit that can be made. Previous to the <br />law ahange the average annual income per fire fighter <br />calculated on a 3-year basis was $1,104 and it <br />supported a$2,300 per year of service benefit level. <br />After the law change, that amount of income will not <br />support the $2,050 benefit level that the Little Canada <br />Fire Department is now at. The Relief Association has <br />asked for more time to address this law change before <br />the City makes any commitments for 1994. <br />The Administrator reported that one of the issues that <br />must be resolved is whether or not the current benefit <br />level is grandfathered in. In reviewing Schedules I <br />and II, it appears that the 1992 benefit level of <br />$2,000 per year of service would be grandfathered in, <br />and potentially the current level of $2,050 since it <br />was enacted prior to the law change. <br />The Administrator reported that the parameters that the <br />City had been working on may now have no bearing on <br />benefit levels. The Administrator also pointed out <br />that the City have been very generous over time with <br />the amount of contribution it has made to the fund. <br />This was planned in order to get benefits to a <br />comparable level with other cities. The issues has now <br />been complicated with the State law change, and the <br />City needs to have a better understanding of the <br />situation before it is finalized. <br />The Administrator reported that he has discussed the <br />matter with the State Auditor's office two or three <br />times, and they may not be able to give the City a <br />definitive answer until they review the Schedules I and <br />II. <br />Hanson suggested that a reduction in the amount of <br />benefit level might be grounds for litigation. <br />The Administrator replied that according to the State <br />Statute, benefits paid out in excess of the maximum <br />would be recovered by the State Auditor's office. <br />Page 9 <br />