After some hesitation, Riverside County supervisors have agreed to place two competing measures on the Nov. 2 election ballot that could determine how much sheriff’s deputies receive in retirement pay.

The Riverside Sheriffs’ Association supports a measure that would bar the Board of Supervisors from making any adjustments to deputies’ retirement benefits without a majority of county voters’ approval.

The board put forward a measure that would largely maintain the status quo, granting supervisors the discretion to decide whether pension benefits should be decreased and giving voters an opportunity to vote on proposed increases.

Both proposals would preserve pre-retirement death benefits for widows and children.

"The best thing would be for these ballot initiatives to go away and for us to go back to the way we were," a seemingly frustrated Marion Ashley, the board’s chairman, said during a recent discussion over the measures.

The sheriffs’ association is concerned that the board might modify the "3 percent at 50" retirement formula for public safety personnel. The formula bases yearly pension payments on 3 percent of the average of the three highest-paid years of an employee’s career, multiplied by the number of years on the job.

A retiree must be at least 50 years old before he or she is eligible for benefits.

According to the county’s Department of Human Resources, a deputy retiring after 30 years of service, earning a top annual base salary of $77,377, would receive a $69,639-per-year pension.

Faced with an $800 million unfunded pension liability, the county is looking for ways to rein in expenses, including converting some employees’ retirement plans from defined-benefit to defined-contribution, meaning workers would only get back what they invested, instead of a lifetime entitlement.

Association President Pat McNamara said in an interview last month that public Advertisement

[ Berry-Bell and Hall Mortuary ] safety employees comprise a small percentage of the county workforce – 3,500 out of 18,600 –and the current retirement system should not be tinkered with because of a "purported (financial) crisis."

"Our objective is to make sure that, with the county’s political climate and the economy, the knee-jerk reaction isn’t to harm workers and their families," McNamara said.

The association’s "Public Safety & Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010" would make voter approval mandatory for any adjustment to the deputies’ retirement benefits.

Supervisors Bob Buster and John Benoit drafted the competing measure, which would make it possible for voters to approve or reject increases in public safety employees’ retirement benefits, while leaving it to the board to decide on decreases.

Ashley – whose district includes the Moreno Valley, Perris and Romoland areas – complained that the language was vague and didn’t make the differences between the two measures sufficiently distinct.

"It’s so muddy and hard to figure out," the chairman said.

Buster said attorneys in the County Counsel’s Office and lawyers outside the government were consulted to make sure the ballot wording "passed legal muster."

"I like to see things as clear and in laymen’s terms as possible," said Buster, whose district includes Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, De Luz and other communities along or near Interstate 15.

Benoit conceded that "there are pieces missing in both" measures.

"I don’t know how to make it more clear or succinct," said Benoit, who represents desert communities.

Temecula-based Supervisor Jeff Stone said he also worried about "a lot of (potential) confusion" at the ballot box, but he was hopeful that voters would grasp the differences.

Ashley urged the deputies’ union to consider further talks with the county over a compromise that would allow both measures to be taken off the ballot.