As for the rest of Elsbernd's proposals, he's relatively optimistic. The city currently calculates pensions by looking at a 12-month window of an employee's career. Elsbernd wants that extended to 36 months (which would lower the pensions handed out) while Mar and the unions want 24 months. "If I have to bet, two years makes the ballot, three years won't," guessed Elsbernd. This would still save the city a bundle -- but far less than Elsbernd's original plan. He's conflicted about that.
Finally, Elsbernd didn't see much opposition to his proposals that public safety employees -- who earn more benefits than other city workers -- accordingly pay more in to their pensions; or that the city be mandated to set aside money in flush years to pay for retirees' health plans.
Those wagering on the Board of Supervisors meeting still have a couple of minutes to get their money in. Then bets are down and we'll see what comes of the pension plan.
Update: 5:29 p.m.: Per Elsbernd's prediction, the "wage swap" was unanimously tabled. Mar's proposal was amended and continued to next week while Elsbernd's original proposal was also continued. Only one can advance to the June ballot. The only difference between the two proposals is that Elsbernd's potential Charter Amendment would calculate employee pensions via a 36-month period while Mar's only looks at 24 months.
H/T | Chris Roberts