Laserfiche WebLink
Regular City Council Meeting <br />December 8, 2003 <br />Page 11 <br />ahead and send the survey out. <br />Mayor Fendley announced that the next item on the agenda was to provide <br />direction to city staff regarding the potential need for an election on May 15, <br />2004, to opt in or out of a retirement system mandate under Article XVI, <br />Section 66 of the Texas Constitution affecting the firefighters' pension plan. <br />Mayor Fendley said he read that Article and he was not sure he understood <br />what it means. City Attorney Schenk said he was not alone. He said he thinks <br />he understands what they are telling the cities, but he is not sure the legislature <br />did a good job in the drafting the amendment that was adopted, nor does he <br />know that TML knows anymore. He said he had been trying to reach one of <br />their general counsel offices. The City Attorney felt he needed to bring this to <br />the City Council now because the timing of having to do what this says is very <br />tight, in the sense, that if the City Council wants to take action to opt out of this <br />arrangement, it has to be done by offering it on a ballot at the May election. <br />City Attorney Schenk explained that the TML interpretation of this Article is <br />that this Constitutional Amendment says that municipalities, cities, and <br />political subdivisions that provide retirement systems that are not a statewide <br />retirement system must maintain or keep the benefits to which retirees are <br />entitled at its current level without reduction. In other words, removing local <br />control from that issue in regards to that particular retirement program. Unless <br />the city places this on a ballot for the citizens to vote up or down to allow the <br />return of local control over the retirement from that standpoint. He said the <br />way this is written, under this particular amendment, that amendment is in <br />place and in effect now. The only way to not be affected by that amendment <br />is to have a ballot and a vote in favor of removing it from the coverage of this <br />particular constitutional amendment. City Attorney Schenk said this is the <br />reason for bringing this before the City CounciL It is a matter that, in part, in <br />some ways, could affect the work of your committee. The City Attorney said <br />he could read into this by the lateness of TML sending this to the city. He was <br />not sure they fully appreciated it or understood the impact. City Attorney <br />Schenk said it does not apply to statewide retirement systems; hence, in their <br />