Judges: Jim Smith Attorney General
Filed Date: 9/2/1986
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Mr. David W. Rynders City Attorney City of Naples 735 Eighth Street, South Naples, Florida 33940
Dear Mr. Rynders:
This is in response to your request for an opinion on questions which may be substantially restated as follows:
DO THE PROVISIONS OF s.
112.048 , F.S., MANDATE THAT CITIES AND TOWNS ADOPT THE PRECISE RETIREMENT PLAN SET FORTH IN s.112.048 (2)(a) FOR ELECTED OFFICERS, OR MAY CITIES AND TOWNS PROVIDE ALTERNATE RETIREMENT PLANS FOR SUCH OFFICERS?
Your inquiry notes that the City of Naples has long had a pension plan for its general employees (excluding fire and police personnel who are covered by other pension plans). The provisions of the plan declare that it is applicable to "persons in the employ of the city." The board of trustees of the plan has determined that the elected mayor and councilmen are "persons in the employ of the city" and thereby made them members of the pension plan. You question whether the mayor and councilmen may participate under the city's existing pension plan or whether the city must provide the specific plan set forth in s.
Section
(1) The intent of the Legislature is to authorize and direct each city and town to provide a system of retirement for elected officials, but it is further the intent that each city or town may determine whether the system will be contributory or noncontributory.
(2)(a) From and after June 3, 1939, whenever any elective officer of any city or town of this state has held any elective office of such city or town for a period of 20 years or more consecutively, or for a period of 20 years or more consecutively, except for one period not exceeding 6 months, such elective officer may voluntarily resign or retire from such elective office with the right to be paid, and he shall be paid on his own requisition by such city or town during the remainder of his natural life, a sum equal to one-half of the full amount of the annual or monthly salary that such city or town was authorized by law to pay said elective officer at the time of his resignation or retirement; and such city and town shall appropriate and provide in its annual budget sufficient moneys to meet the requirements of this section when no other plan is available for elected local officials. . . . (e.s.)
When statutory language is plain and unambiguous, the statute must be accorded its obvious meaning and effect; rules of statutory construction are vehicles for the determination of legislative intent when that intent is not readily manifested. McDonald v. Roland,
Section
Thus, while s.
[t]he provisions of this subsection shall not operate to preclude any elected officer from retiring under, and receiving benefits pursuant to, the provisions of this section as it existed prior to October 1, 1973, if such officer had, prior to that date, completed the required 20 years of service or been elected to a term upon the expiration of which he completes the required 20 years of service. However, if on October 1, 1973, an elected officer had completed at least 10 of the required 20 years of service, the city or town may elect to provide an annual or monthly retirement salary as provided in this subsection.
See, the title to Ch. 74-231, Laws of Florida, stating that Ch. 74-231, which added the above provision to the statute, authorizes certain elected municipal officers with 20 years of service to retire with benefits equal to one-half pay even if there are other retirement plans available to municipal officers and employees. If, however, on October 1, 1973, an elected officer had completed at least 10 years of service, cities and towns have the option of electing to provide an annual or monthly salary as provided in s.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, it is my opinion that cities and towns may provide pension plans for their elected officials which are different than the particular plan set forth in s.
Sincerely,
Jim Smith Attorney General
Prepared by:
John Rosner Assistant Attorney General