Laserfiche WebLink
Boardmember Sharp inquired why the City wasn't a little more aware of this. <br /> <br />Cotmcilmember Cich stated that the City pays premiums for coverage for all its employees. The <br />City buys an insurance policy with benefits payable pursuant to State law and everyone gets that <br />coverage. That's what existed. Worker's Compensation pays 66% of your gross earnings - non <br />taxable. It is difficult with a contractor as it is hard to see exactly what his wages are but this is <br />exactly the same coverage as all City employees have. He added that now the fire fighters are <br />covered better than the rest of the City employees and that's good. He stated the City knew the <br />coverage was there, but again with a contractor it is more difficult to determine the amount. With <br />regard to computed income, he expressed concern as he stated that whenever he's hired contractors <br />he's always had a hand written agreement or when he does work for someone, he always has <br />something written. He explained this is a common practice and he assumes Mr. Guimont does the <br />same thing; however, he hasn't given any of this paperwork to Mrs. Helling at this point. <br /> <br />Chief Griffin stated that the fire fighters didn't realize that the compensation was 66% of the <br />imputed fire fighter's wage - not 66% of the amounts we are surviving on. He doesn't feel the <br />coverage available today is lacking; however, at the time of Mr. Guimont's accident, the biggest <br />injustice was not knowing what the coverage was. <br /> <br />Boardmember Drahos asked if a police officer had been injured, would Worker's Compensation be <br />all he would receive. <br /> <br />Ms. McAloney stated that the police officers have Injured On Duty coverage. <br /> <br />City Administrator Schroeder replied they would have gotten 66% of their wage - nothing above or <br />beyond. <br /> <br />Mrs. Helling stated the intent of the coverage is to make employees whole. <br /> <br />Boardmember Sharp asked why it was based on a fire fighter's salary. <br /> <br />Ms. McAloney stated it is based on case law. <br /> <br />Mrs. Helling stated that Mr. Guimont was made whole through Worker's Compensation. <br /> <br />Boardmember Sharp asked what recommendation goes to City Council by the Board not making a <br />decision. <br /> <br />Councilmember Peterson stated that City Council has to act on it. <br /> <br />Boardmember Kapler stated he would like Mr. Guimont to have the chance to appear before the <br />Fire Board before a recommendation is made. <br /> <br />Chief Griffin agreed; however, he stated that a time frame should be set for compliance. <br /> <br />Boardmember Drahos stated that Mr. Guimont still has a pin in his leg and that he will have to have <br />more surgery which will disable him again. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated he would be entitled to Worker's Compensation when he is disabled from his <br />next surgery. He added there is a difference in plans based on permanent partially disabled, <br />permanent disabled, etc. and he wanted to know more about the Fire Department's benefit plan. <br /> <br />Chief Griffin offered to get Mr. Schroeder a copy of the benefit plan for his information. <br /> <br />Motion by Boardmember Drahos and seconded by Boardmember Sharp to reconvene a meeting <br />regarding this issue when Mr. Guimont provides the following information: Substantial evidence <br /> <br />Fire Board/August 28, 1991 <br /> Page 4 of 5 <br /> <br /> <br />