 |
Nine measures have qualified for the March primary ballot in San Francisco. Each measure is summarized below, followed by the board of directors’ recommended position on the measure.
Proposition A—Deferred Taxation of Accumulated Vacation, Sick Leave and Other Compensation
Charter Amendment—Would authorize the Board of Supervisors, by a three-fourths vote of its members, to create deferred taxation plans. City employees who receive a one-time cash payment for earned vacation time, sick leave and other non-cash benefits they earned during their city employment but did not use could deposit it into the plan. The employees would not pay state and federal taxes on the payment until they withdrew money from the plan.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition B—Retirement Benefits for Public Defenders, District Attorneys and Investigators
Charter Amendment—Would permit the city to contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System (Cal PERS) to provide increased retirement benefits to district attorneys, public defenders and public defender investigators as long as there is no change in cost to the city.
Under this contract, the employees would be eligible for retirement benefits similar to the retirement benefits received by city police officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters. After 20 years of city service, police officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters who retire at age 55 receive a pension that is 60 percent of the employee’s highest salary. The maximum pension would increase to 90 percent of the employee’s highest salary under Proposition B.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition C—Reducing Police Staffing Level by Filling Some Positions with Civilian Personnel
Charter Amendment—Would provide for a study of which positions in the Police Department could be filled by civilian personnel and allow the city to reduce the minimum police staffing level for each position it converts to civilian, without decreasing the number of police officers dedicated to neighborhood policing, patrol and investigations. Positions could only be converted when they became vacant and no police officer could be laid off in order to convert a position.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition D—Domestic Partner Rights
Charter Amendment—Would allow the Board of Supervisors to amend the domestic partnership law, without voter approval, to give domestic partners the legal rights given to spouses, as may be permitted by future changes in state and federal law. In addition, under the City Employees’ Retirement System, domestic partners would be treated the same as spouses.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition E—Requests for City Records
Charter Amendment—Would authorize the Board of Supervisors rather than individual city departments and officials, to respond to certain requests made by the federal or state government for city records that may contain information about private citizens. Under certain circumstances, the Board could meet in closed session to consider such requests.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition F—Reclassification of Deputy Sheriffs
Charter Amendment—Would reclassify deputy sheriffs as safety employees so that they are subject to the same rules for labor negotiations as uniformed members of the Police and Fire Departments.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition G—Supplemental Compensation for Employees on Military Leave
Would allow the mayor to request that the Board of Supervisors enact an ordinance entitling city officers or employees called to active duty with a United States military reserve organization to receive from the city for a period specified in the ordinance, the difference between the amount of the individual’s military pay and the amount the individual would have received as a city officer or employee had the employee worked his or her normal work schedule, including any merit raises which otherwise would have been granted during the time the individual was on active duty.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition H—Public Education Fund
Charter Amendment—Would create a Public Education Fund for the next 11 years to increase city funding for public education. The city would contribute to the fund as follows:- $10 million in FY 2005-06;
- $20 million in FY 2006-07;
- $30 million in FY 2007-08;
- $45 million in FY 2008-09;
- $60 million in FY 2009-10; and
- For the last five years of the measure, the city’s annual contribution to the Fund would increase or decrease by the same percentage as discretionary General Fund revenues.
Each year, the City would spend money from the Fund as follows:- One-third of the money would go to the School District in cash for arts, music, sports, and library programs in the schools;
- One-third of the money would go to the First Five Commission in cash for preschool programs; and
- One-third of the money, as cash or in-kind services, would go to the School District for general education purposes.
Proposition H also would require the city to give the same amount of money each year to the School District as it gave in FY 2002-03. This baseline amount would be adjusted up or down each year based on changes in city General Fund revenues. Only sums above the baseline amount would count as part of the city’s contribution to the Fund.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition I—Healthy Air Enforcement Act of 2004
Would require the Municipal Railway to replace all pre-1991 diesel buses on or before January 1, 2007, setting annual deadlines for the retirement of outmoded buses, and allowing the San Francisco County Transportation Authority to extend these annual deadlines under certain circumstances.
Recommendation: No Position
Proposition J—Incentives to Build Below Market-Rate Housing
Would provide new rules for certain housing developments with 10 or more units that are located downtown or along the Central Waterfront. The regular density and height restrictions would not apply, and the permit would get rapid review if certain conditions were satisfied.
Recommendation: Support
January 2004
|
|
|
|
|
