11/20/91 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Mouon by Boarcimember Pearson and seconaed b,v CounciimemOer Cich to ~orrn a panei of F~rc Chief Gri}'fin. Officers from the Fire Departmen:, ~nd Personnel Coordinator McAionev to do the initial interviev,,s, and make recommendations to the Fire Board who would in turn make recommendations to the City Council. The Fire Board v,'ill meet as needed dunng the interviewing process. Motion carried. Voting Yes: Councilmember Pctcrson, Boardmember Pearson, Councilmember Cich and Boardmembers Kapler, Sharp and Drahos. Voting No: None. Case #2: Fire Fighter Disability Claim Finance Officer Helling reported that she had not heard from Mr..las' Guimont lately; however, she had reviewed his tax returns for 1990 and also the additional business information he submitted stated what he feels his income would have been if he had not been injured. Copies of contracts for bid awards or similar information were not submitted to support the additional business Mr. Guimont stated he would have had and that the projections for additional earnings during the last ten weeks of 1990 are almost double the rate for receipts/sales for the first 42 weeks of 1990. She stated she reviewed the following three plans: (a) Per Mr. Guimont's Income Tax Return - no benefit payable; (B) Mr. Guimont's projection of earnings had he not been injured - $124/month (non taxable) and $184/month (taxable); and (C) Gross Earnings increased for the last ten weeks based on the receipts/sales rate of the first 42 weeks (per lncome Tax Return) - No benefit payable. She stated that the previous City Council had approved payment of $800/month for November and December with no additional payments to be made until the income tax information was presented. If the earnings were not as high as what was stated, there would be no adjustments for those two months. Mrs. Helling reported that since December, 1990, the fire fighters have a different disability plan for themselves which is funded by the City. Under this plan, a fire fighter will receive $433.33 (non-taxable) per month in addition to workers' compensation. This benefit is a constant and does not vau' with pre-injury earnings. In addition, the fire fighters have another disability plan that is not City funded. This plan, if the fire fighter participates, would pay $35/day up to a maximum of $7,000.b0. She added that Mr. Guimont is nov,, requesting the City =-rant him benefits under the above two plans rather than the proposed plan in December, 1990. The benefit value of these two plans would be $1.483 per month for approximately seven months and $433 per month thereafter. She felt this could set a dangerous precedence and she stated she is recommending that Mr. Guimont should not receive the additional benefits. Mr. Dale McKnight, Fire Fighter, stated the construction season explains the inflated income earnings projected towards the end of the ',,ear. .,",'Irs. Helling stated that reviewing the 1989 Income Tax Return would have suggested that: however. Mr. Guimont did not supply them. Boardmember Drahos stated that in support of iX, tr. Guimont saying he'd like the present disability plan. no one full,,' understood the fire fighter's disability coverage at the time of Mr. Guimont's injury. Boardmember Pearson stated he would like to have heard comments from Mr. Guimont himself and wondered why he wasn't present or why he didn't produce the records requested. Mrs. Helling stated Mr. Guimont felt that his 1989 earnings were not representative of what his business would have done in 1990 as his business would be growing and looking at 1989 might taint 1990. Boardmember Drahos questioned if Mr. Guimont is seeking compensation up to May 1, 1991. Mrs. Helling answered that Mr. Guimont's request is for continuous payment as he stated he is totally disabled. She added that Mr. Guimont has taken out a contractor's license v,,ith the Ci:v of Fire Board/August 28, 1991 Page 2 of '~