Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee rejects study of biennial budgeting; majority prefers continuing annual process
Summary
A motion to direct staff to return with a plan for a biennial (two‑year) budget process failed on a 3–6 roll call. Committee discussion reflected mixed views: some members supported exploring a biennial approach for strategic planning, while others favored retaining the annual budget cadence because of timing, new members and local conditions
The Assembly Finance Committee on July 9 considered whether to pursue a true biennial (two‑year) budget process and voted against directing staff to prepare a plan to implement biennial budgeting.
Assemblymember Kelly moved that staff be directed to return with an outline of what a biennial budget process would look like. The motion failed on a roll call vote: 3 ayes, 6 nays. The roll call recorded in committee minutes shows the aye votes were Assemblymember Kelly, Assemblymember Smith and Chair Wall; the remaining members voted no.
During discussion, Director Flick and the city manager explained the operational differences between the city’s current practice — which staff described as effectively annual budgeting despite code language referencing biennial terms — and a true biennial approach. Flick said the city now prepares annual budget documents in practice and that a change would primarily affect labels and process design unless the assembly chose to adopt a true two‑year financial plan. Staff described tradeoffs: a biennial budget can free up recurring annual calendar time for other work and allow deeper, cyclical reviews of priority areas, but it can also leave newly seated assembly members without an immediate opportunity to shape a budget if their election falls between major biennial adoption steps.
Committee members split on the policy: some members urged trying biennial budgeting to allow longer‑term planning and fewer compressed annual cycles, while others argued the current local environment (frequent budget pressures, school and capital timing, and frequent requests for funding) favors an annual review. The motion to ask staff for a plan therefore failed; staff indicated they will continue with current practice and the chair instructed staff to relabel materials to reflect annual budgeting language going forward.
