Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Employees Benefits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Retired Marion firefighters and police urge council to reinstate health benefits after city cites Iowa law change
Summary
Multiple retired Marion first responders urged the council to reverse a plan to end city-paid retiree health coverage tied to changes in Iowa Code 4.11; retirees asked for grandfathering and said the city's interpretation of the law is incorrect; city staff said contract reviews and compliance with the statutory change require adjustments.
Retirees who worked for Marion’s police and fire departments told the council on Sept. 18 they were blindsided by a city notice that their post-retirement health coverage would be curtailed and asked the council to grandfather current beneficiaries.
Lance Miller, who retired from the Marion Police Department after a work-related disability, said he was told by city HR when he retired that the city would continue a single-plan health benefit until he qualified for Medicare. “Imagine my surprise when earlier this year I received a letter from the city telling me of the city’s intent to cancel my health care coverage,” Miller said, and urged the council to honor past assurances for those already retired.
Other retirees made similar appeals. Retired fire marshal Wade Markley said letters were mailed in April but not by certified mail, delaying some recipients from learning about the change. “We were told multiple times … this was not the case,” Markley said, referring to whether the law required termination. Retired officer Bill Peckman said the change would damage morale and undercut recruitment, urging the council to grandfather current retirees rather than apply the change retroactively.
Council heard that a July 1, 2024 change in state law (cited as Iowa Code chapter 4.11) prompted a city contract review. City staff explained the law affected how deductible payments and certain benefits are administered for duty‑disability retirees and that, as part of compliance, the city reviewed longstanding practices of providing a general group plan. Staff said retirees may remain on the city’s plan but would be required to pay the full premium; staff also said the city provided notice and that certain premium-deduction practices conflicted with the statutory change.
Retirees disputed the city’s legal interpretation. Several speakers said outside legal advice they sought indicated the law does not compel termination and that the city’s approach was based on an incorrect reading. One speaker said the city offered retirees the option to pay the full premium (staff cited a figure of $800 per month plus a $200 deductible, which a retiree described as adding up to about $966 monthly), a cost many said would be unaffordable.
Speakers urged the council to preserve coverage for current retirees while applying any new rules to future hires or new retirees. City staff said they conducted a contract review to comply with state law and would continue to discuss transition options. The record shows council took public comment but did not adopt a policy change during the meeting.
Next steps: the council will have the issue on its agenda for further consideration; staff has provided documentation to council and retirees and signaled the matter requires additional follow-up.
