This is an archive of a past election.|
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/sf/ for current information.
Retiree Health Benefits for Former Redevelopment Agency and Successor Agency Employees
City and County of San Francisco
Ordinance - Majority Approval Required
Pass: 117,283 / 56.13% Yes votes ...... 91,680 / 43.87% No votes
Index of all Propositions
|Information shown below: Summary | Fiscal Impact | Yes/No Meaning | Arguments ||
Shall the City amend the Charter to make retiree health care benefits available to certain employees of the former San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the Successor Agency?
Under Proposition D, employees who started working for the Redevelopment Agency before January 10, 2009, and later started working for the City between February 1, 2012, and February 28, 2015, without a break in service, would be eligible for full retiree health care coverage after five years of employment with the City, the Redevelopment Agency, and/or the Successor Agency combined.
For employees who started working for the Redevelopment Agency between January 10, 2009, and August 31, 2010, and later started working for the City between February 1, 2012, and February 28, 2015, without a break in service, Proposition D would credit the employees' years working for the former Redevelopment Agency and the Successor Agency toward the 20-year vesting period for retiree health care benefits.
Under Proposition D, employees who started working for the Redevelopment Agency before January 10, 2009, and then started working for the City before March 1, 2015, without a break in service would pay 0.25% of compensation into the Fund after July 1, 2016, increasing to 1% of compensation after July 1, 2019, rather than 2% of compensation.
The proposed amendment could affect the status of up to 50 people who were employed by the SFRDA before it was dissolved by state mandate and who now are, or may become, employees of the City. Most of the individuals are currently employees of the Office of City Infrastructure and Investment (OCII), the agency established following the dissolution of the SFRDA.
City employees hired after 2009 currently contribute 2% of payroll into a trust fund for retiree health costs. Employees hired before 2009 will pay into this fund at lower rates beginning in fiscal year 2016+17. City employees hired after 2009 receive City funding for health benefits when they retire at levels from 50% to 100% of premium costs based on their years of service and they must retire from the City to receive this fund- ing. Employees hired before 2009 generally receive fully paid health benefits when they retire after only five years of working for the City and receive these benefits regardless of whether they continue to work, and eventually retire from, City employment.
In general, the amendment would treat any OCII employees hired by the City between January 31, 2012 and March 1, 2015 as having begun City employment from the date of their earlier employment with SFRDA before 2009. In effect, should these OCII employees become City employees, their payroll contributions to the retiree health care trust fund will be less than they would have been without the amendment, and a greater share of their health care premium cost after retirement will be paid by the City. For a typical employee who works an additional 20 years and retires from the City the increased cost to the City under the proposed Charter amendment would be in the range of $75,000 in today's dollars and this cost would be spread over many years.
As with most costs for OCII staff, the cost of these benefits is expected to be eligible to be paid for from developer fees generated by development projects under OCII management and from additional property tax revenue (tax increment). Approximately 65% of property tax revenues would ordinarily go directly to the City's General Fund.
|Arguments For Proposition D||Arguments Against Proposition D|
|This measure resolves an unintended consequence of the State's decision to eliminate redevelopment agencies. It is a fair and narrowly crafted way to make sure that the people coordinating the City's most important economic development and affordable housing projects including the development of Mission Bay, the Transbay Terminal, Hunters Point Shipyard and Candlestick Point get fair treatment.
Unfortunately, due to technical issues in State law and the City Charter, employees at the former Redevelopment Agency who become permanent City employees will lose credit for their years of service to San Francisco unless this change to the Charter is approved.
While this is a small issue and a minor expense for the City, it is a matter of enormous consequence for the fewer than 50 affected employees and their families. Additionally, there is the possibility that some or all of the costs of this measure could be reimbursed from the tax increment generated by approved projects pending State approval. Importantly this measure contains strong provisions that prevent these employees from double dipping.This measure also clarifies that employees may register domestic partnerships either under San Francisco law and procedures, or under the law of the City, County or State in which they reside.
The statewide elimination of redevelopment was a blunt instrument with far-reaching consequences, most of which are beyond the control of local jurisdictions.This is one we have the power to correct.
California Governor Brown was right to oppose the socially-exploitive Redevelopment Agencies.
Redevelopment wrecked the Fillmore District of San Francisco. No successor is wanted or needed.
Redevelopment has caused lots of damage on neighborhoods across the State of California, doing little except making money for greedy and politically well- connected developers. It has been bad news.
Redevelopment has destroyed historical buildings and driven many of the poor out of their homes.
Redevelopment has been a long parade of mistaken programs and truely awful political leadership, inflict- ing lots of suffering on families and tax losses on cities. Almost everything went wrong.
Redevelopment has been a bad dream for San Francisco.There were no victories to remember.
It is a narrowly written measure to make sure that the people coordinating the City's most important economic development and affordable housing projects get fair treatment while these projects are being completed.These projects are important to create jobs and to build desperately needed affordable housing for low and middle-income residents.