Benefits v. City of S.F.
Decision Date | 27 March 2015 |
Docket Number | A140095 |
Citation | 235 Cal.App.4th 619,185 Cal.Rptr.3d 410 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | PROTECT OUR BENEFITS, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, Respondent. |
Clisham & Sortor, David P. Clisham, William H. Sortor and Justine L. Clisham, for Appellant.
Law Offices of Donald T. Ramsey, Donald T. Ramsey, for Appellant.
Davis, Cowell & Bowe, W. David Holsberry, for Retired Firemen and Widows Association of the San Francisco Fire Department as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Appellant.
Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, and Wayne K. Snodgrass, Deputy City Attorney, for Respondent.
Since 1996, retired employees of the City and County of San Francisco (the City) have been eligible to receive a supplemental cost of living allowance (supplemental COLA) as part of their pension benefits when the retirement fund's earnings from the previous year exceeded projected earnings. On November 8, 2011, City voters passed Proposition C, an initiative measure that, among other things, amended the charter of the City and County of San Francisco to condition the payment of the supplemental COLA on the retirement fund being “fully funded” based on the market value of the assets for the previous year.
Protect Our Benefits (POB), a political action committee representing the interests of retired City employees, appeals from a superior court order denying its petition for writ of mandate seeking to invalidate this amendment as an impairment of a vested contractual pension right under the contract clauses of the federal and state Constitutions.1 With respect to current City employees and employees who retired after the supplemental COLA first went into effect on November 6, 1996, we agree the full funding requirement cannot stand. With respect to employees who retired prior to November 6, 1996, we conclude they had no vested contractual right in the supplemental COLA and that consequently, the 2011 amendment may be applied to their pensions. We reject POB's claim that the full funding requirement must be set aside for the additional reason that the Board of Supervisors for the City and County of San Francisco (Board of Supervisors) failed to obtain an adequate actuarial report before placing Proposition C on the November 8, 2011, ballot.2
The City operates its own retirement system, which is known as the San Francisco Employees' Retirement System (SFERS) and is overseen by the City's retirement board. SFERS administers a pension plan that pays defined benefits to retired City employees based on their years of service, age of retirement and the highest amount of their compensation for a specified period. (See Mason v. Retirement Board (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1221, 1223–1224, 4 Cal.Rptr.3d 619.) The funding for pension benefits comes from three sources: contributions from current City employees, contributions from the City, and investment earnings on assets SFERS holds in trust for retirees (the Fund).
As part of its administration of the Fund, the retirement board retains an independent actuary to produce an actuarial valuation of the Fund each year. The actuarial valuation method used for the Fund includes a “five-year smoothing” technique in which gains or losses in asset values are spread out over a five-year period, thus dampening the volatility of the valuation of the Fund's assets. The actuary also calculates the “funding ratio,” that is, the ratio of the Fund's assets to its actuarial liabilities.3 When the Fund's assets exceed its actuarial liabilities, it is said to be “fully funded.” The valuation of the Fund and its funding ratio can also be calculated on a “market” basis, which measures the fair market value of the Fund's assets if the entire portfolio were to be liquidated as of a certain date, and compares that valuation to the Fund's actuarial liabilities. In any given year, the actuarial valuation of the Fund might exceed the market valuation, or vice versa.
According to a 2012 actuarial valuation report, the Fund was fully funded, on both an actuarial and a market basis, during each fiscal year from 1994-1995 through 2007-2008. The Fund was not fully funded during fiscal years 2008-2009 through 2011-2012, the years coinciding with the national financial crisis that began in 2008.
Retired City employees have long been eligible to receive an annual cost of living adjustment to their pension payments based on changes in the consumer price index (the basic COLA), generally of up to 2 percent. (S.F. Charter, § A8.526.)
In the election held on November 5, 1996, City voters adopted Proposition C, an initiative measure amending the City's charter (Charter) to establish a supplemental COLA for City retirees in addition to the basic COLA. Proposition C added Charter section A8.526-1, which required “all earnings of the Retirement Fund in the previous fiscal year which are in excess of the expected earnings on the actuarial value of the assets” to be placed in a reserve account and used to pay a supplemental COLA of up to 3 percent of current benefits, inclusive of the basic COLA. (Charter, § A8.526–1, added Nov. 5, 1996.) “Expected earnings” were defined as “the earnings projected by the actuarial assumption for return on assets that was in place for that fiscal year.” (Ibid .)
Charter section A8.526-1 did not initially provide that the supplemental COLA would be added to a retiree's pension on a permanent basis. Rather, in years when the funds in the reserve account were insufficient to pay the supplemental COLA, pensions would “revert to the level they would have been if supplemental cost of living adjustments had never been made.” (Charter, former § A8.526-1(b), added Nov. 5, 1996.) The amount of money placed in the reserve account would not exceed the amount necessary for the immediate fiscal year and the following two years, and, as the ballot digest explained: (S.F. Voter Information Pamp. (Nov. 5, 1996) p. 97.)
On March 5, 2002, City voters passed Proposition B, an initiative making the supplemental COLA permanent, in the sense that once it had been added to an employee's pension payment, it could not be reduced. Proposition B amended Charter section A8.526-1 as follows: (Charter, § A8.526–1(c) & (d), as amended Mar. 5, 2002.)
On June 3, 2008, City voters passed Proposition B, which changed the qualifications for retiree health and pension benefits, established a retiree health care trust fund, and raised the maximum annual amount of the supplemental COLA from 3 percent to 3.5 percent, less the amount of any basic COLA. The supplemental COLA provisions were placed in newly enacted Charter section A8.526-3, which stated that if the excess earnings in a particular year are insufficient to pay a 3.5 percent supplemental COLA, “then to the extent of excess earning, said allowances shall be increased in increments of one-half percent (.5%) up to the maximum three and one-half percent (3.5%) of the allowance as of June 30, less the amount of any cost of living adjustment....” (Charter, § A8.526-3(b)(2), added June 3, 2008.) When the previous year's earnings exceeded the expected earnings but were not sufficient to fund any supplemental COLA, (Id . § A8.526-3(c), added June 3, 2008.) As under prior law, “[a]ny supplemental cost of living benefit adjustment, once paid to a member, shall not be reduced thereafter.” (Id., former § A8.526-3(d), added June 3, 2008.)
In fiscal year 2008-2009, the Fund lost about 25 percent of its value due to the financial crisis and economic downturn of that period. Consequently, the Fund was no longer fully funded, meaning it no longer contained assets sufficient to pay its actuarial liabilities. Measured by the actuarial value of its assets, the Fund fell from 104 percent funded as of July 1, 2008, to only 97 percent funded as of July 1, 2009. Measured by the market value of its assets, the Fund went from 103 percent funded as of July 1, 2008, to 72...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alameda Cnty. Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n v. Alameda Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n
...... Association of the County of Santa Clara, Sacramento County Professional Accounts Association, City of Fremont Employees' Association, Redwood City Management Employees' Association, Burlingame ... in the three counties involved in this matter have a contractual right to receive pension benefits calculated without regard to PEPRA's changes, a right based either on (1) agreements in effect when ......
-
Marin Ass'n of Pub. Emps. v. Marin Cnty. Employees' Ret. Ass'n, A139610
...... public employees use various stratagems and ploys to inflate their income and retirement benefits, has long drawn public ire and legislative chagrin. Effective January 1, 2013, the Legislature ...Proc., § 472d, quoted at fn. 13, post ; E. L. White, Inc. v. City of Huntington Beach (1978) 21 Cal.3d 497, 504, fn. 2, 146 Cal.Rptr. 614, 579 P.2d 505 ; Lambert ......
-
King v. N.Y.C. Emps. Ret. Sys. (NYCERS)
...provided pursuant to contract theory vary by state. Compare, e.g. , Protect Our Benefits v. City and Cnty. of San Francisco , 235 Cal.App.4th 619, 628, 185 Cal.Rptr.3d 410 (2015) (" 'A public employee's pension constitutes an element of compensation, and a vested contractual right to pensio......
-
King v.
... DAVID KING, Plaintiff, v. NEW YORK CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM (NYCERS), Defendant. 13-CV-4730 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN ... The law of New York City on retirement benefits is arcane. Benefits constantly shift as a result of negotiations for wages and collateral benefits. ......
-
Public Sector Case Notes
...of Appeal Protects Pension Rights for City & County of San Francisco Retirees Protect Our Benefits v. City & County of San Francisco, 235 Cal. App. 4th 619 (2015)This is a classic case illustrating how the vested rights doctrine works.Beginning in 1996, retired employees of the City & Count......