Supervisors approve 2009–10 City budget after hours of debate over public defender funding, reserves and public financing

The Board of Supervisors on July 20 approved the consolidated budget and annual appropriation ordinance for the City and County of San Francisco for fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, after extensive debate about restorations, reserves and a high-profile request for additional funding for the Public Defender.

The budget was adopted after the board approved a package of committee and floor amendments intended to preserve safety-net services while addressing a projected citywide shortfall; the final votes on the main budget measures registered nine ayes and two noes on the ordinances that enact the appropriation and the salary schedule.

Budget Chair Supervisor David Chiu's successor for the hearing, Supervisor Chris Avalos, summarized the board—s work as producing what he called "a budget at this point, that keeps this city running." Avalos and others said the city faces a deep structural problem: the next fiscal year is projected to have roughly a $300 million shortfall and state actions remain uncertain.

A major flashpoint on the floor was a motion by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi to take $900,000 from the Superior Court's indigent-defense allotment and reallocate it to local legal offices: $650,000 to the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and $250,000 to the District Attorney's Office. Mirkarimi formally moved to "deappropriate dollars 900,000, from the trial courts," and his motion prompted extended questioning about the Superior Court budget and the logic for taking money from that source.

The board first voted on the source questionwhether to take $900,000 from the trial-court indigent-defense line. That source-side vote passed 7ayes to 4noes. Board members then voted separately on the two uses. The allocation of $250,000 to the District Attorney carried on a 9to2 vote, and the $650,000 allotment to the Public Defender also passed 9to2. A separate amendment that would have split the $900,000 evenly failed, 7no to 4yes on a subsequent procedural vote.

The Public Defender, Jeff Adachi, was granted the "privilege of the floor" and delivered an extended explanation of his office—s workload and the likely effects of cuts. Adachi told the board his office represents about 29,000 people a year, that attorneys were handling caseloads "50% over the capacity that is recommended by the American Bar Association's national standard," and that midyear reductions already left the office down roughly 10 staff. He warned that cuts would force the office to eliminate seven felony deputy public defenders and three juvenile social workers, and that shifting cases to private counsel would likely raise, not lower, city costs. Adachi summarized the difference in practical effect: "If we were just ushering [clients] into a plea bargain ... because we're too busy ... That is what is at stake here." He urged restoration of the $1.6 million the office says it needs.

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi and several colleagues said they believed the dollar-for-dollar benefit of staffing the Public Defender—s office outweighed the costs of contracting with private counsel. Supervisor Mark Daly and others pressed for more detailed numbers about the Superior Court indigent-defense line, and Controller Ben Rosenfield and budget staff were asked to clarify the fiscal mechanics.

Other floor amendments adopted during the meeting included: language creating a process for a joint mayor—board response if midyear state actions or revenue shortfalls force reductions; technical corrections to allocations in the Department of Children, Youth, and Families; a technical restoration of a position in the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement; and an omnibus motion by Supervisor Avalos (described by Avalos and seconded on the floor) that the board adopted by roll call.

Among the more contentious floor fights beyond the public defender item were debates about the city—s public campaign-financing fund and whether to deappropriate money from convention facilities (hotel-tax supported) to bolster public financing. Supervisor Daly proposed restoring money to the public campaign-finance fund by moving specific positions and a reduction in hotel-tax allocations; that proposal, and a later motion to place $45 million on reserve for the largest city departments to protect add-backs, produced drawn-out votes and multiple amendments.

Supervisor Campos asked the board to set a $45 million unappropriated reserve to protect the committee's add-backs; after procedural moves to revise and re-cast that reserve as a budget-committee reserve, the board ultimately approved a $45 million reserve as a budget-committee reserve (final recorded vote 6ayes, 5noes on the re-stated measure). Several supervisors, including Avalos and Dufty, emphasized the importance of working cooperatively with the mayor's office and warned that overly large reserves could undercut the negotiated package.

Votes at a glance - Adoption of the consolidated budget and salary ordinance for FY 2009: Ordinances passed on first reading (roll call on Item 14): 9 ayes, 2 noes. - Motion to deappropriate $900,000 from the Superior Court indigent-defense subobject (source): passed 7 ayes, 4 noes. - Allocation votes (uses) on the $900,000: $250,000 to District Attorney passed 9 ayes, 2 noes; $650,000 to Public Defender passed 9 ayes, 2 noes. - Supervisor Avalos omnibus amendments (committee add-backs and adjustments described at the hearing): adopted by roll call (11 ayes recorded on the omnibus vote earlier in the hearing). - $45 million reserve (recast as a budget-committee reserve): approved in its final form (6 ayes, 5 noes).

What it means Board members repeatedly framed the budget choices as triage in an uncertain state and national fiscal environment. Supporters argued the package preserves critical services and restores some community priorities; opponents warned that some restorations risked short-term fixes that could complicate future years. The public defender's testimony underscored the potential operational consequences of cuts: increased case delays, higher outside counsel costs, and reduced social-work services for youth.

The board also voted on related governance measures earlier in the day: a charter amendment to shift the city's budget cycle to a two-year planning window passed (vote on Item 17: 7 ayes, 4 noes); a separate proposed charter change that would let the board designate certain appropriations as mandated for expenditure was rejected (Item 16 failed, 4 ayes, 7 noes).

Next steps and context The mayor and departments will implement the adopted appropriation ordinance and the board's amendments. Several supervisors warned that midyear reductions or state actions could still force supplemental proposals, in which case the board's reserve and the new administrative process the board adopted may shape how the mayor presents and the board amends future cuts. The public defender and other affected departments said they will track caseloads and supplemental requests closely and may return to the board if further restoration or supplemental funds are needed.

Speakers quoted in this report spoke during the board—s July 20, 2009 budget deliberations, and direct quotations are attributed to the speakers listed in the article—s speaker roster below.

Ending note Supervisors described the adopted package as an imperfect compromise that keeps city operations running while leaving unresolved the larger structural question of revenue and cuts facing the city in the next fiscal year. Several members signaled a willingness to return to the board later this year if state actions or revenue declines force further changes.