City of Redding Pension Funding, Measure A (November 2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Measure A, a Redding City Worker Contributions to Public Employees’ Retirement System Pension Fund ballot proposition was on the November 2, 2010 ballot for voters in the City of Redding in Shasta County.[1] The measure is advisory.[2] It was approved.

Measure A authorizes the city to negotiate with city workers over the question of whether those city workers should pay a portion of their California Public Employees’ Retirement System pensions fund contribution.

Before Measure A was approved, the City of Redding paid 9% of a police officer’s and firefighter’s base salary to CalPERS, and 7% for all other workers.

The City of Redding has an unfunded liability of $85 million for retiree health insurance.

The Redding pension reform measure was one of several pension-reform ballot measures appearing on the November 2, 2010 ballot in communities around the state.

Election results

  • Yes: 18,761 (64.23%) Approveda
  • No: 10,447 (35.77%)

These election results are from the Shasta County elections division as of November 27, 2010.

Text of measure

The question on the ballot:

Measure A: Shall an Ordinance be adopted making a labor negotiations policy providing that City employees and City officials pay the full employee contribution of CalPERS pension benefits to be phased in over a period not to exceed four years?[3]

Path to the ballot

Redding City Council members Rick Bosetti, Patrick Jones and Missy McArthur voted to put the proposition on the November ballot. City council members Dick Dickerson and Mary Stegall voted not to place the measure before voters.

During the election, it was said that the cost of administering the elections on Measures A and related Measure B would be $50,000. According to Bruce Ross, the editorial page editor for the Redding Record-Searchlight:

"Cathy Darling, the Shasta County clerk and elections chief, had long said that the measures would probably cost less than the $25,000 apiece figure that somehow came to dominate the political debate. At the same time, she declined to nail down a specific number until the total election costs were tallied and divided up among the various entities holding elections.
Well, she's done so now. And she informs me the total cost to the city for both measures was $10,676.76 --- roughly one-fifth of the sum the councilors were supposedly wasting."[4]

See also

External links


LocalBallotMeasures Final.png This local ballot measure article is a stub. You can help people learn by expanding it.