San Jose, California, Pension Modification Agreement, Measure F (November 2016)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Local ballot measure elections in 2016

Measure F: San Jose Pension Modification Agreement
Seal of San Jose, California.png
The basics
Election date:
November 8, 2016
Status:
Approveda Approved
Topic:
Local pensions
Related articles
Local pensions on the ballot
November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California
Santa Clara County, California ballot measures
Local charter amendments on the ballot
See also
San Jose, California

A charter amendment to alter the pension system for public safety employees was on the ballot for San Jose voters in Santa Clara County, California, on November 8, 2016. The measure was approved.

A yes vote was a vote in favor of developing an agreement between first responder and city employee bargaining groups to, among other provisions, stop funding retiree health care for new employees, reduce costs of supplemental pension payments, and reinstate disability retirement provisions for first responders and city employees.
A no vote was a vote against this measure to develop an agreement between first responder and city employee bargaining groups to, among other provisions, stop funding retiree health care for new employees, reduce costs of supplemental pension payments, and reinstate disability retirement provisions for first responders and city employees.

Election results

Measure F
ResultVotesPercentage
Approveda Yes 188,943 61.14%
No120,10438.86%
Election results from Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters

Text of measure

Ballot question

The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]

“

PENSION MODIFICATION: Shall the Charter be amended to adopt an agreement between the City and police officers, firefighters and City employee bargaining groups that would, among other things, stop funding retiree healthcare for new employees, potentially reduce costs of supplemental pension payments, reinstate disability retirement provisions for injured police officers, firefighters and other City employees, change criteria for determining actuarial soundness, and continue to require voter approval for benefit increases?[2]

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the San Jose City Clerk:

“

Measure F would amend the San Jose City Charter to change employee retirement contributions and benefits, and retiree healthcare benefits.

Background. The City administers "defined benefit" retirement plans for its employees. The City and employees each contribute to the plans. Employees who reach retirement age and complete sufficient years of service become eligible for monthly retirement benefit payments using a formula based on years of service and a percentage of salary, as well as certain healthcare benefits.

Measure B (2012). At the June 2012 election, San Jose voters adopted Measure B. Among other things, Measure B required employees to make additional retirement contributions. Measure B also required the City Council to adopt a retirement program under which employees who "opted in" to a lower retirement formula would not be required to make the additional retirement contributions, and would retain some existing benefits and have others reduced. It required the City to adopt a retirement plan for new employees that could include social security, a defined benefit plan and/or a defined contribution plan, and included caps on the retirement benefits of new employees. It also limited disability retirements.

Measure B Litigation: A number of City unions and a retiree association challenged Measure B in court on numerous grounds. Some provisions of Measure B were invalidated (including the increased employee contributions and the "opt in"), and some were upheld (including the elimination of the Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve, or SRBR). The City and unions agreed the legal challenges would be dismissed if this Charter amendment were approved by voters. The retiree association has not yet reached such an agreement.

Measure F: This measure would make the following changes to City retirement plan and retiree healthcare plans, which would supersede the modifications made by Measure B:

  • Retirement benefits for Tier 2 members would be improved to levels similar to other Bay Area agencies as well as providing that the costs of the benefit are shared 50/50 between the City and employees in specified increments.
  • The defined benefit retiree healthcare plan that established levels of healthcare benefits would be closed to new members.
  • Tier 1 Employees who return after leaving the City would be Tier 1 Employees.
  • The pre-Measure B definition of disability would be reinstated.
  • An independent medical panel would be created to determine eligibility for disability retirements.
  • The elimination of the SRBR would continue and be replaced with a Guaranteed Purchasing Power benefit to protect retirees against inflation.
  • Both City and employees would be required to make the full annual required plan contributions calculated by the Retirement Board.
  • Voter approval would be required for any future enhancements to defined retirement benefits.
  • Retroactive benefit enhancements would be prohibited.

This measure was placed on the ballot by the City Council.

A "yes" vote is a vote to approve the changes described above.

A "no" vote means that no changes would be made to the Charter's retirement provisions. [2]

”
—San Jose City Clerk[3]

Full text

The full text of the measure is available here.

Support

Supporters

The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[4]

  • Sam Liccardo, mayor of San Jose
  • James Gonzales, vice president San Jose Police Officers' Association
  • Leia Fazio, secretary for San Jose Firefighters
  • Ivy Vuong, small business owner
  • Jim Cunneen, former CEO of San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of Commerce, former state assemblyman

Arguments in favor

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[5]

“

Measure F saves taxpayer money and makes San Jose safer by enabling our police department to retain and recruit enough officers to bolster neighborhood patrols, improve 911 response times and increase investigations of violent crime and burglaries in a fiscally responsible and sustainable manner.

Measure F also safeguards disability protections for police officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty. it reflects a consensus agreement supported by a diverse coalition of community leaders focused on making San Jose safer and more financially sustainable.

Since 2008, our Police Department has lost over 500 officers. According to San Jose Police Chief Eddie Garcia, "To competitively recruit and hire officers, we need Measure F to strengthen disability protections for police injured on the job. Otherwise, we will continue to lose more officers than we can hire. Measure F will rebuild our department."

Expert analysis shows Measure F will protect taxpayers and retirees by:

  • Ensuring the City's retirements plans are fiscally-responsible and sustainable;
  • Preventing the City from making retirement promises it cannot keep; and,
  • Requiring voter approval for any future benefit increases.

The City's Budget Director and an outside actuary have concluded that Measure F and the related agreement will secure $40 million in taxpayer savings in its first year, with savings projected to grow each following year.

Join Mayor Sam Liccardo, San Jose firefighters and police officers, former Mayor Chuck Reed, County Board President Dave Cortese, 10 of 11 members of the San Jose City Council, and local business and neighborhood leaders in supporting Measure F.

You can learn more at: www.SaferSanJose.org

Vote "Yes" on Measure F for a safer San Jose we can afford.[2]

”

Opposition

Opponents

The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[6]

  • Mark W.A. Hinkle, president of Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association
  • Pierluigi Oliverio, San Jose city councilmember
  • Alberta L. Brierly, retired library worker
  • Steven B. Hava, treasurer of Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association

Arguments against

Official argument

The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[7]

“

Let's call this Measure F what it is: FISCAL FAILURE Full REPEAL of Pension Reform and a Massive INCREASE in Public Pensions.

This measure had no public input in its drafting. Public union bosses and city leaders negotiated in secret, not revealing the ballot language until mere hours before the council vote.

Why the secrecy? Maybe this is why: For many employees:

  • Pension benefits are increased by a whopping 23%
  • Cost of living increase maximums for retirees will rise by 33%
  • The city's pension contribution rates will skyrocket by 36%

San Jose reports it will contribute over $369,000,000 more just to pay for these pension increases. With these extra pension costs, how are we going to pay from much needed services, like libraries, parks, potholes and public safety?

Is this why they had to raise the sales tax and are now trying to raise the business tax?

Over 1000 employees will even receive RETROACTIVE pension increases. We don't even know how many millions that will come to, because city leaders didn't calculate the cost - even though state law requires it.

Employees under this new benefit can receive much higher pensions than CaIPERS employees in other cities, because this measure doesn't have the compensation limits that the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act put in place. This will lead to much higher six-figure pensions in San Jose than many other cities - for the exact same jobs.

70% of San Jose voters approved Measure B in 2012 because the old pension system was unsustainable. Now this measure will put more people back into that system where pension contributions continue to rise, some now exceeding 92% of payroll. While Measure B pensions are stable: contributions are less than 22% of payroll.

Measure B provided fair, sustainable pensions. This measure undoes that.

Don't go backward. Vote NO on Measure F: wvvw.ProtectPensionReform.com[2]

”

Path to the ballot

See also: Laws governing local ballot measures in California

This measure was put on the ballot through a vote of the city council of San Jose, California.

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms San Jose Local pensions. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

San Jose, California, Pension Modification Agreement, Measure F (November 2016) - Google News

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ Santa Clara County, "List of Local Measures Presidential General Election November 8, 2016," accessed October 3, 2016
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  3. ↑ San Jose City Clerk, "City Clerk's Impartial Analysis of Measure F," accessed October 11, 2016
  4. ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument in Favor of Measure F," accessed October 11, 2016
  5. ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument in Favor of Measure F," accessed October 11, 2016
  6. ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument Against Measure F," accessed October 11, 2016
  7. ↑ San Jose, California, "Argument Against Measure F," accessed October 11, 2016
v • e
Local ballot measures in California
Counties
California
Analysis
Political topics
Tax measures
Flag of California
v • e
State of California
Sacramento (capital)
Elections

What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures

Government

Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy

Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=San_Jose,_California,_Pension_Modification_Agreement,_Measure_F_(November_2016)&oldid=8471419"