The city claims in their PFRS report that it *might* be possible to extend it without voter approval. I find that hard to believe though, unless the measure says it can be used for any pension (not just PFRS obligations) in perpetuity. The original law needs a close read. That said, I think a tax of that magnitude (even if it's a continuation of one on the books for a similar purpose) should be put to the voters to decide. The role of the council should be to tee that up for voters as soon as possible.
Tim how far did you look into continuing the pre prop 13 PFRS ad valorem? tax after the PFRS pub is retired?
I’d expect that to be challenged in court as an end run around Prop 13.
The city claims in their PFRS report that it *might* be possible to extend it without voter approval. I find that hard to believe though, unless the measure says it can be used for any pension (not just PFRS obligations) in perpetuity. The original law needs a close read. That said, I think a tax of that magnitude (even if it's a continuation of one on the books for a similar purpose) should be put to the voters to decide. The role of the council should be to tee that up for voters as soon as possible.
amen