Laserfiche WebLink
3,/20/84 Page -5- <br />tittorney Rautenstraus Advised that prior to 1978, there was not <br />History of the Policeman a Statutory obligation for cities to con- <br />Pension Fund tribute to a pension fund. There was a <br /> pE,nsion plan that was funded almost entirely <br /> from the State. This money was sent to the <br /> C_Lty by the State; was not augmented by any <br /> funds from the Police officers or from the <br /> City. The State Statutes changed in 1978 <br /> and after that time period, the State stopped <br /> sending money to cities and they also provided <br /> that funding was required for pension plans <br /> a1= that time but did exempt cities which <br /> covered their employees by Social Security, <br /> which is the manner the City of Louisville <br /> covers its employees. The question becomes <br /> an argument for some kind of payment on <br /> equitable grounds. The City did continue <br /> to pay from the fund as long as funds were <br /> available. Naturally no current police <br /> oi=ficers nor officers that have served pre- <br />. viously would be eligible for any police <br />Offer of Lump Sum Payment pE,nsion. In view of that fact, it was the <br />' <br />to Mr. Wilson City <br />s position on equitable grounds to try <br /> to settle the matter with Mr. Wilson. Several <br /> d:Lscussions were held on this basis with <br /> the Attorney representing Mr. Wilson ar~d the City <br /> has' made several offers of lump sum payment. <br /> Up to the present time, all the offers have <br /> bE,en rejected by Mr. Wilson. The latest offer <br /> that the City made was to make a lump sum <br /> p<~yment of $10,000 to Mr. Wilson. <br />In answer to Councilwoman Johnson's inquiry <br />about the petitions submitted in Mr. Wilson's <br />bE.half, Attorney Rautenstraus advised that <br />they were not a referendum or initiative <br />pE.tition; therefore they did not provide <br />legal basis. They were more of a viewpoint <br />e:~pressed by the people who signed them. <br />Councilman Leary Si~ated he wished the issue was simply an issue <br />o:E whether or not Council wanted to pay Mr. <br />Wilson $350 per month. Unfortunately, in his <br />opinion, this was an over-simplification of the <br />i:~sue. The continuation of the pension fund <br />r<~ises several other issues in his estimation. <br />Not the least of which was that anyone else <br />on the pension fund would be eligible for <br />continuation, and their spouses in the event <br />o:E their death. Also he felt that there were <br />O:Eficers on the force who may, upon retirement, <br />be eligible for this fund. At the time they <br />were on the force they were not paying into <br />