Citing the city's dire financial condition, the Santa Rosa city council on Tuesday voted 6-0 to establish a two-tiered pension system for all of its workforce except police and firefighters.

Over the objections of a handful of maintenance and utility workers and their union representatives, the council impose the cheaper pension scheme on new maintenance workers.

Several council members emphasized that no current workers will see their pension benefits reduced, only new employees who will be aware of the lower pensions before accepting a city job.

"This will probably be one of the least painful things that we do in the next year or so," councilman John Sawyer said.

Five of the six unions representing non-police and firefighters have already agreed to the change, but their deals were contingent on all six unions participating in the new pension system.

Instead of being able to earn a maximum of 90 percent of their salary at age 60 after 30 years of service, new city employees with the same service will earn a maximum of 75 percent of their salary at age 55.

The city estimates the change could save about $1 million a year after five years, and up to $5 million a year after 10 years.

"Our mission is to keep this city solvent," said vice-mayor Gary Wysocky.

By forcing the Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 to accept the change, the city can now amend its contract with CalPERS covering about 900 so-called "miscellaneous" city workers, ranging from attorneys to bus drivers.

Police and firefighters fall under a different CalPERS plan, and the city has yet to ask those groups to set up a two-tier system. Santa Rosa resident June Kennedy urged the council not to hold off any longer in extending the two-tiered system to them, as well.

"I would like that conversation to start now," Kennedy said.

City attorney Caroline Fowler advised the council that it was not the time to hold such discussions because it had not been listed on the meeting agenda.

Union officials vowed to fight the change in court, claiming the other unions only agreed to the change if all agreed, and the operating engineers have not agreed.

"I guess you'd rather spend the city's finances litigating rather than negotiating," said union representative Don Dietrich said.

They also alleged a double-standard between the way maintenance workers and public safety workers are being treated by the city.

"It felt like you are putting a gun to our heads and saying take it or leave it," said union representative Dave Gossman. "Why didn't you put a gun to their heads? The reason is probably because they carry guns and we don't."

But council members steered clear of the public safety issue, and instead emphasized the need to take action now to save money.

"Really, at this point, I just don't see any choice, and I feel very badly about that,'' said Marsha Vas Dupre.

Wysocky noted that before the city went to the "3 at 60" plan in in 2002, it had a "2 at 55" benefit, meaning the new benefit is still higher than it was eight years ago.

"My problem is I don't think we're going far enough," Wysocky said.

He noted that while the city is predicted to be "out of money" by 2011, the new benefit scheme will save just $73,000 in the first year.

"I don't think this 70,000 saving is going to get us where we need to go, in light of what we are facing, but it's a start," he said.