Until funding problems are resolved with the Mehlville Fire Protection District’s pension plan, an across-the-board raise for district employees cannot be afforded, according to board Chairman Aaron Hilmer.
Noting the district’s defined-benefit pension plan currently has an unfunded actuarial accrued liability of more than $5.8 million, Hilmer told the Call the district cannot afford an across-the-board raise because it would increase the financial strain on the pension fund.
But he said the board is willing to consider further enhancements of pay differentials for cross-trained personnel such as a $2,000 raise that has been proposed for the district’s firefighter/paramedics.
The board was scheduled to vote on the $2,000 raise and other matters related to the preliminary 2008 budget Tuesday night — after the Call went to press. The board will consider final approval of the district’s 2008 budget in December.
Board members also were scheduled to approve the district’s fiscal 2008 tax rate Tuesday night. The proposed “blended” fiscal 2008 tax rate of 59.6 cents per $100 of assessed valuation is 42.3 percent less than the legal maximum of $1.03 the board could levy and 14.6 percent less than the current rate of 69.8 cents per $100.
During a special meeting last week, the Board of Directors met with the Executive Board of Local 1889 of the International Association of Fire Fighters.
Members of Local 1889’s Executive Board had asked the board to schedule a workshop “that would permit us to present to you items for review and discussion prior to setting the 2008 budget,” according to a July 31 letter signed by Local 1889 President Bob Strinni.
Among the items discussed during the Aug. 20 workshop were the district’s disability-benefit contract with Standard Insurance, vacation time and a salary increase for all employees. Board members took no action at the workshop.
Regarding the Standard Insurance contract, Local 1889 filed a lawsuit against the district’s three board members — Aaron Hilmer, Treasurer Bonnie Stegman and then-Secretary Dan Ottoline Sr. — in June 2005, asking the court to prohibit the board from implementing a disability-benefit contract with Standard Insurance and eliminating current disability benefits from the district’s existing pension plan.
On Feb. 24, 2006, St. Louis County Circuit Judge Barbara Crancer granted the board’s motion for summary judgment, dissolving a preliminary injunction and dismissing Local 1889’s suit. Earlier this year, a three-judge panel of the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals issued an order affirming Crancer’s dismissal of Local 1889’s lawsuit.
In May, the Missouri Supreme Court declined to hear the lawsuit. At that time, Mathew Hoffman, the fire district’s legal counsel, said the Supreme Court’s decision ended the lawsuit that had been filed nearly two years earlier.
At last week’s workshop, Strinni said, “… One of the biggest benefits I think for the Standard disability and would be a no-cost factor to the district is for the employee for — for the district to pay the employee, the employee to make that contribution because what that does is eliminates the taxes. So it would be tax free. If you pay taxes on it up front, then you don’t pay taxes on it if you have to go on disability …”
Executive Board member Doug Weck estimated the cost to be roughly $12 per employee per pay period instead of the district paying the premium directly to Standard Insurance.
Strinni noted union representatives met recently with Dean Eggerding of the Hoffman Group Inc. to discussion the Standard Insurance disability benefits.
“Another one that we talked to him about — and these were all offsets that he’s going to put a dollar amount (on) if the policy was changed — one of them was now if you’re on a disability and your spouse is in a car accident and you get the settlement … They consider that an offset so they take some of our disability money away from you …,” Strinni said.
He later said, “… He told us the whole policy was $40,000, so I can’t imagine these benefit changes being that big of an increase to the whole policy …”
Hilmer told the Call he found ironic that the union leadership now is willing to discuss items related to the Standard Insurance disability benefits.
“I offered all these things to them two years ago. I sat in a room with the three Pension Committee members the night before we voted to change the disability thing,” he said. “I offered them all these options. Pension Committee member Dan Rosenthal sneered at me and explained to me that no changes were to happen and if they were, they would sue us and they would get the national IAFF — the International Association of Fire Fighters — involved. And sue us they did — in every derogatory, defamatory way possible, you know, with the board members, our family, our friends and they took us all the way to the (Missouri) Supreme Court and they lost.
“What’s most troubling is it cost the district well north of a half-a-million dollars in legal fees, having to place one person on disability while this was going on … I think it’s disingenuous at best, laughable at worst that they’re sitting here now, two years after the fact, asking for these things,” he added.
Of the union’s requests regarding the Standard Insurance disability benefits, Hilmer said, “We will take those things under consideration.”
During an Aug. 2 board meeting, Hilmer discussed another proposal to reduce the maximum number of vacation days to 16 shift days from 20 shift days.
“Twenty-four-hour employees here work roughly 120 days a year, so obviously it … equates to 10 days a month, making 20 days off equal two months of vacation time. I think it’s beyond outrageous …,” he said Aug. 2.
Besides reducing the maximum number of vacation days to 16 shift days, Hilmer said he is proposing providing new employees with two shift days of vacation per year.
Regarding the vacation proposal, Strinni said during the workshop, “It’s my understanding that this has little, you know, cost savings to the district. I mean your senior people, those are the building blocks for this department and your senior people educate the junior people to make this service what it is. So I don’t — if there’s no cost savings, I don’t know why we would be (considering that),” Strinni said.
The Board of Directors was scheduled to consider the vacation proposals Tuesday night.
Hilmer had announced in June that the board was considering approving a $1,500 to $2,000 pay increase for firefighter/paramedics for 2008.
A July 29 letter to the board signed by roughly 110 members of Local 1889 stated that any funds for “bonuses” should be evenly distributed among all employees.
“For the past six years, the employees of the Mehlville Fire Protection District have been without a pay increase and have only seen a reduction in benefits,” the letter states. “We feel that funds available for bonuses as proposed by Mr. Hilmer should be evenly distributed among all our employees because it takes a team effort of all employees to provide the quality service our residents deserve.”
During a discussion of a salary increase for all employees last week, Strinni suggested the Board of Directors increase the proposed tax rate by 2 cents, which he said would generate enough revenue for “a 5-percent raise for the entire district.”
He said, “And the last thing we’d like to talk about is a pay increase for the entire department. I mean it’s been roughly five years. You know, our call volume’s going up … We’re doing multiple PR events, this and that, and that’s our job, but we also — to attract people and to get people to stay here, you know, I think — and now that, you know, our assessment — I think two pennies is a 5-percent raise for the entire district.”
Executive Board member Jeri Fleschert said, “We have, you know, new people that are already leaving and that has to be a concern … We’re not competitive with our benefits and our salaries. That’s pretty much the bottom line … We’ve got actively probably more than five people actively looking now with applications out …”
Strinni said, “… With this — the proposed $2,000 — we call it $1,500 because you’re actually taking $500 away from the new employee and everybody to give 33 people a $1,500 raise. So by the time you’re taking away $500 from them, so it really becomes a $1,500 raise and then if you compound all the other stuff on top of that … for a new employee, they’re only going to see probably a $30 to $40 pay in-crease a month, you know, with the health insurance and on all the things that are coming out of their check …”
But Hilmer told the Call that an across-the-board raise is out of the question until funding problems with the district’s pension fund are resolved.
“Well, he sure hit the nail on the head of what this organization is all about. They want to stick it to residents who are already getting stuck with 30-percent reassessments so they can keep on the big wealth transfer. We’ve pointed out repeatedly how a majority of employees have $110,000-plus pay packages. I don’t think we’re going to raise people’s taxes to supplement that,” he said.
“Let me also point something out. It would be impossible for the district to give an across-the-board raise while the pension plan is in such dire straits. Because any time you give that raise, it increases the load on the pension plan. So until the pension plan is fixed, there will never be able to be an across-the-board raise given,” Hilmer said.
“Now compare that to South County Fire Alarm, where the employees — (who are members of Local) 1889 — helped us to fix our pension plan problems. Last year, we were able to give them an across-the-board raise and we’ll be able to sit down with them this year and talk about one for next year. The employees’ idea of a raise and the board’s idea of a raise are probably two different things. But at least we’ll be able to sit and talk about it, and you have to give those employees a lot of credit for that.”
The board chairman emphasized that while an across-the-board raise cannot be afforded until the funding problems with the pension plan are resolved, the board is willing to consider further enhancements of pay differentials for cross-trained personnel.
Local 1889 filed a lawsuit against the Board of Directors in March 2006 after the board voted 2-1 to adopt an amendment and two resolutions changing the district’s pension plan from a defined-benefit plan to a defined-contribution plan. Hilmer and Treasurer Bonnie Stegman voted in favor of the motions while Ottoline was opposed.
That suit is pending.
