My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Minutes 1983 10 04
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
MINUTES (45.090)
>
1970-1999 City Council Minutes
>
1983 City Council Minutes
>
City Council Minutes 1983 10 04
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 2:31:21 PM
Creation date
7/7/2009 3:35:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Minutes
Signed Date
10/4/1983
Original Hardcopy Storage
7C3
Supplemental fields
Test
CCMIN 1983 10 04
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
27
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />ITEMS ENCLOSED <br /> <br />COUNCIL ITEMS <br />ARLO WILSON - POLICE PENSION <br /> <br />Arlo Wilson <br /> <br />10/4/83 <br /> <br />Page -2- <br /> <br />Councilman Fauson moved, Councilman Ferrera <br />seconded that the items enclosed be accepted <br />and brought up under the proper head of <br />business. Question called for. All in favor. <br />Motion carried. <br /> <br />Administrator Wurl advised that in a previous <br />study session on the budget it was noted that <br />the Police Pension Fund would be defunct <br />by December 31, 1983. In all fairness to <br />Mr. Wilson and Mr. Barday a letter was sent <br />stating this and informing them of the budget <br />public hearing so that they might have an <br />opportunity to comment. <br /> <br />Thanked Mayor and councilmembers for the <br />opportunity to speak and wished to know <br />the status of his pension. It was his under- <br />standing that his pension would continue in- <br />definitely unless the City itself was out of <br />funds. It was also his understanding that he <br />would have vested rights with the City, and <br />if not, why not? Wished the matter to be <br />settled without any trouble - did not wish <br />to quarrel with anyone; however would do so <br />if necessary. Had discovered discrepencies <br />after his retirement, after having served <br />the Police Dept. for 20 years. Stated that <br />he had worked hard in the City to make it <br />a better place in which to live. Couldn't <br />see a valid reason for the City of Louisville <br />to take this action on his part. He felt <br />the City was being inconsiderate of him, <br />when 17 employees were given back retirement <br />payments of $2,722.00. Had also read in <br />the Louisville Times that a 17% increase was <br />recommended for the City employees in the <br />1984 budget. Why doesn't the City cut these <br />raises a small percentage so that he could <br />continue to receive his pension? Could not <br />understand why the City was able to pay the <br />pension 15 years ago, why it was unable to <br />continue to do so as they have more money now. <br />Stated that it was never stipulated in his <br />pension, but was in the State law, that in <br />case of his death his wife would receive one- <br />half the amount of his pension as long as she <br />lived. Was his understanding now that the <br />State had nothing to do with his pension; not <br />contributing any more money toward it. Stated <br />in previous years he was the only one receiving <br />the pension by serving 20 years on the police <br />force. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.