Up to 10 former Butler firefighters may receive a cut in their pensions because of a poorly worded state law that conflicts with the Third Class City Code.

Seven of the firefighters, all of whom have retired in the past nine years, have been paid excess benefits from 2004 to now, totaling about $22,000.

Each of those men stands to lose money — ranging from $125 to $682 — in his monthly check if the council decides to roll back the cost of living adjustments to the pre-2004 level. City council could address the issue at its 7 p.m. meeting today.

The firefighters include former Butler fire chiefs Don Acquaviva and Larry Christy, four retired captains and a lieutenant.

The city's contract with the firefighters initially set the annual cost-of-living-adjustment, also known as COLA, at 4 percent of their pension pay. This was based on an arbitrator's decision in 2000.

But in 2002, a new state law rescinded all caps on COLAS on firefighter pensions of third class cities. The cap at that time limited application of pension benefits to 50 percent of the highest-paid retired firefighter's salary.

The new law

also adjusted the service increment paid to firefighters with more than 20 years of service from $100 to $500 a month.Both changes targeted third class cities and the contract between the city and the International Association of Firefighters Local 1749, which represents the city's firefighters.In 2004, the state auditor general's office in its biennial audit of Butler's pension account had no findings, even though the Third Class City Code that was updated that year still included the COLA cap language.However, in 2006, the auditor general's office had adjusted its reading of the law to make exceptions to the cap only for cities that operated under Optional Charters or Home Rule Charters, neither of which applied to Butler.The 2006 state audit found Butler continued to pay excess benefits above the cap.But no action was taken until the state auditor general in 2008 again found the city in violation of the law. Attempts to resolve the problem through adjustments to the collective bargaining agreement between the city and firefighters were unproductive."They simply did not want to talk about it, and why would they?" said Bob Brehm, the former city clerk,He prepared a report of the problem for city council members in his role of chief administrative officer of the pension plan.Brehm estimated that by year's end excess benefits paid will exceed $23,500. In 2010 that number would climb to about $30,000, and to almost $37,000 by the end of 2011.Council members believe they cannot ignore the problem because refusal to address it could result in a noncompliance order and cause state aid to be withheld.But Jim Kaufman, president of IAFF Local 1749, said he has spoken with the auditor general's office and been assured that noncompliance will not result in repercussions to the city."The state created the problem and has now told the municipalities, 'you fix it.'" Kaufman said.Kaufman and another representative from IAFF Local 1749 appeared at city council Tuesday night to discuss any changes with the council during an executive session."We presented two alternatives, and the council was not receptive to either," Kaufman said.He said changing the wording of the contract to include the chief in its average — the fire chiefs pay into and receive benefits from the pension fund, but are not part of the agreement — and to allow the COLA cap to remain off would satisfy the legal snafu and not cost the city any money.The firefighter pension fund has not drawn from the city's general fund in more than 15 years, Kaufman said.But city officials and the firefighters do not agree on the cap itself.At its meeting tonight, city council could reinstate the COLA cap to 50 percent of the highest paid firefighter's salary and determine how best to adjust the benefits of firefighters already receiving extra benefits.Two solutions the city could take are grandfathering in the 10 retirees and allowing them to continue receiving excess benefits or trying to recoup the excess benefits."These men were paid an excess benefit at no fault of their own and should not be expected to pay it back," Brehm said, a sentiment agreed by council members.The city's other options appear to be freezing the benefit payments for the seven men at their current amount, still resulting in excess benefits, but not growing each year, or to rolling back the firefighters' benefits to the authorized amounts.