My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
City Council Agenda and Packet 1983 10 18
PORTAL
>
CITY COUNCIL RECORDS
>
AGENDAS & PACKETS (45.010)
>
1973-1989 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
1983 City Council Agendas and Packets
>
City Council Agenda and Packet 1983 10 18
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/11/2021 1:46:52 PM
Creation date
12/29/2009 1:09:04 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
City Council Packet
Signed Date
10/18/1983
Supplemental fields
Test
CCAGPKT 1983 10 18
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
147
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
10/4/83 Page -2- <br /> ITEMS ENCLOSED 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 /> COUNCIL ITEMS Administrator Wurl advised that in a previous <br /> ARLO WILSON - POLICE PENSION 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. Barclay 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 /> Arlo Wilson 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 natter 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.