San Francisco voters will consider three ballot propositions in the November general election related to public employee pensions for police, firefighters, registered nurses and 911 operators.
Propositions F, H and I all propose various versions of pension changes involving the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System, known as SFERS, but they differ significantly.
Prop F deals with police retirement benefits. It would allow certain eligible officers, sergeants and lieutenants to start collecting -- but not receiving -- their full pension while remaining full-time employees. It is meant to help boost staffing levels and increase officer retention, but opponents disagree on its effectiveness and question its cost.
Prop H asks voters to reconsider a change that was made in 2012 for firefighters hired after Jan. 7 of that year that requires them to work three more years than previously hired firefighters to receive their maximum pension.
Previously, firefighters could earn that mark by age 55. The change approved by voters in 2012 meant that newer firefighters would work until at least age 58 to earn the maximum benefit, which is 90% of their last year's salary, if they achieve certain benchmarks.
Prop I would make a change to pension eligibility and calculations for registered nurses who worked per diem after they become full-time employees. It would also move 911 operators and their supervisors to a retirement plan with higher benefits, and it would allow nurses who become full-time employees to purchase credits toward their pension for up to three years of past work.
The potential cost of all three propositions varies because of the unknown number of employees that would participate in the new pension plans. But if all three passed, it could cost the city between $7.2 million and $13.4 million annually, according to the analysis by City Controller Greg Wagner.
Wagner said in his analysis of Prop F that it would likely cost the city between $600,000 and $3 million in the first year. In following years, it could actually save as much as $300,000 a year or cost about $3 million a year.
The program would allow eligible Police Department personnel to start collecting their full pension and divert it to interest-bearing accounts while still working as full duty sworn officers for up to five years. The pension diversion program would be called the Deferred Retirement Option Program, or DROP.
Get a weekly recap of the latest San Francisco Bay Area housing news. Sign up for NBC Bay Area’s Housing Deconstructed newsletter.
Employees eligible for the program would be those who are at least 50 years old and have worked for the department for 25 years. They would move to patrol or investigations during the time they are in the DROP program. The plan is meant to prevent greater attrition in the Police Department, which has been struggling to achieve full staffing levels for years.
It would also formalize who is a "full duty sworn officer," which is a term that is currently undefined in the City Charter, to include any full-time sworn employees of the Police Department except those assigned to SFO, those on long-term leaves of absence, and police recruits.
It would also change the requirement for the police chief to report staffing levels from every two years to every three years and set a goal of increasing the ranks of female employees to 30% of the department's total by 2030.
The program would need to be reauthorized every five years by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which is split on the measure.
Eight supervisors support the measure, while three oppose it, along with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California and San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju.
Supervisor Matt Dorsey, who wrote the ballot proponents' argument, wrote that the proposition was needed to shore up a police force that has been struggling since 2019 to retain as many or more officers than it loses to retirement and other reasons. He said the upcoming retirements in the department could leave it as much as 40% understaffed by 2029.
"Proposition F curbs our ongoing loss of police officers by creating strong incentives for frontline SFPD officers, inspectors, and sergeants to postpone retirement for up to five years to focus on neighborhood patrol and investigations," he wrote.
But Supervisor Hillary Ronen, who wrote the opponents' argument, said the city had already tried such a plan from 2008-2011 and that it had no effect on staffing levels.
"Proposition F is a city hall-insider redo that's already been tried and was a massive failure," Ronen wrote.
Ronen argued that the change would be costly, would not add officers to the police force, and wasn't in line with other first responders' pension plans, despite the fact that other departments are also short staffed.
Prop H is estimated to cost about $3.7 million in its first year, which would be 2025-26 if the proposition passes. Costs would increase annually as the city contributes higher rates to employee pensions.
Proponents, including Supervisor Catherine Stefani, focused on the health-related hazards, including cancer, that firefighters face, and which increase with age.
"Firefighting is among the most dangerous and physically and mentally demanding professions," Stefani wrote. "The daily demands of the job, combined with hazardous exposure to PFAS (Forever Chemicals) and toxic chemicals, smoke, and fumes, put severe strain on firefighters, especially those who work until the retirement age of 58. This prolonged exposure contributes to mental health problems, cardiac issues, chronic health conditions, and job-related cancers, which only worsen with age and impact the lives of firefighters and their families."
But opponents, including the Libertarian Party of San Francisco, argued that firefighters know their job comes with risks and were aware of the pension program when they were hired.
"When they put themselves at great risk to help others, they truly are heroes," wrote the party's chair, Starchild. "They voluntarily chose this career field despite the risks."
Starchild argued that the change made by voters in 2012 was needed because of fiscal mismanagement by the city and that the change was meant to protect pensions.
Prop I could cost anywhere from $3.8 million a year to $6.7 million per year, as Wagner again said it would be hard to determine who opted into the new pension plans and how many purchased credits for past years' work.
The ballot proponent argument that will appear before voters was written by Supervisor Ahsha Safai, who argued that 911 operators are working 15-18 hour shifts and are "near a breaking point."
He said the city's per diem registered nurses, RNs, are also stressed beyond capacity.
"To get RNs working quickly, the city hires temporary, traveling nurses through corporate contractors -- costing taxpayers 14% more. Yet, nurses are the only city employees not allowed to buy back pension time after becoming permanent employees," Safai wrote.
Starchild, the Libertarian Party of San Francisco chair, wrote the ballot opposition argument for Prop I and urged voters to reject the measure because of its cost and said that the proposition's supporters were using shortages in staffing in nurses and 911 operators as "panic-mongering."
If the proposition passes, 911 operators and supervisors would be moved from retirement plans used by most city employees called "miscellaneous plans" to plans with higher benefits that are used by some probation officers, district attorney investigators and juvenile court counselors called "miscellaneous safety plans."
Registered nurses would become eligible for the city's miscellaneous plans.
