Board approves narrower pension charter amendment for June after wider proposal fails

San FranciscoBoard of Supervisors on Tuesday rejected a broader charter amendment to change employer retirement benefit calculations but approved a narrower compromise measure that will appear on the June ballot. The board voted 4-6 against item 13, a broader charter amendment, and later approved item 15 by a 9-1 roll call vote.

The approved measure would change how retirement benefits are averaged for new hires and other detailed provisions described in the charter amendment text submitted to the board. Supporters framed the measure as a compromise that would produce near-term savings for the city; opponents said the narrower proposal either did not target the main drivers of rising costs or risked shifting costs onto certain employees.

Supporters, including labor leaders and the Public Employee Committee, urged the board to place the compromise on the June ballot. Bob Muscat, chair of the Public Employee Committee, said labor groups had worked with Supervisors and the mayor's office to arrive at the compromise and estimated the proposal would save roughly $425,000,000. "This is a compromise proposal reflected in this legislation that represents the best of all thinking and efforts on labor's part to save the city over $425,000,000," Muscat said.

Retirement-system officials cautioned supervisors about practical steps needed to implement certain averaging changes. Gary Amelio, executive director of the San Francisco Retirement System, said the proposed two-year averaging (as opposed to the system's current one-year or some jurisdictions' three-year averaging) would require legislative action in Sacramento and changes by CalPERS if CalPERS participation were implicated. "If either of these were passed, it would necessitate the retirement system to undertake programming efforts on our own system to deal with programming for this new plan because right now, we use 1 year," Amelio said, and he warned that CalPERS could impose costs for any special programming because San Francisco would be a unique requester.

Some union representatives voiced conditional support. Robert Hone of SEIU Local 1021 said his members preferred delaying to November and asked for a retooled measure that included additional compensation changes; SEIU leaders criticized removal of a proposed wage/retirement swap (7% for 7.5%). Tom O'Connor of the San Francisco Firefighters Union urged the board to move forward on the Marr/Campos compromise to help the city's budget.

After discussion of implementation, cost allocation and equity across employee groups, the board took two roll-call votes. Item 13 (the broader charter amendment) failed on a 4-6 vote. Later, with several members moving from their initial positions, the board passed item 15, the compromise pension-charter amendment, by 9-1; the ordinance as submitted will go on the June ballot.

The board's action does not itself change pension benefits; it places the charter amendment on the ballot for voters to decide. Supervisors and labor leaders signaled further negotiations and potential additional charter language ahead of a possible November measure that some supervisors said they would introduce if the June measure proved insufficient.

Votes at a glance: Item 13 (broader charter amendment) ' vote: 4 ayes, 6 noes; outcome: not submitted. Item 15 (compromise charter amendment) ' vote: 9 ayes, 1 no; outcome: submitted to June ballot.

The board heard extensive public testimony during the committee-of-the-whole public hearing portion, including trade-union leaders saying they had negotiated and recommended the compromise in order to produce immediate savings for the city. Several supervisors said they supported the compromise reluctantly as necessary budget relief; others urged delay to allow more time to tailor protections for lower-wage employees and to target so-called "spiking" at higher pay levels.