Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reserve Funds Transfer topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LAFCO debates returning reserve funds to San Francisco amid dispute over OLA restorations
Summary
LAFCO members debated whether to return reserve funds to the City and County of San Francisco to cover budget gaps, including restoring two Office of Legislative Analysts positions. A $160,000 motion failed on a 2–2 roll call; commissioners agreed to continue the issue pending reimbursement assurances and possible special meeting.
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) on an agenda item to consider releasing reserve funds to the City and County of San Francisco heard sharp questions about whether the money would or should be used to restore two Office of Legislative Analysts (OLA) positions.
Madam Clerk read the item as "consideration and approval of a resolution to release funding to the City and County of San Francisco." Counsel and staff said an amended memo showed $276,000 already provided to the general fund and that a subsequent technical adjustment located approximately $400,000 overall; staff reported about $159,420 would be required to restore the two OLA positions through Oct. 1 and about $204,000 for a full year.
The debate centered on two points: whether LAFCO reserves are properly available for re‑appropriation to the Board of Supervisors, and whether LAFCO should fund positions the Board might otherwise decide to restore. Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board, summarized the staffing numbers and told commissioners the cost estimate for the two reinstated positions was "approximately $159,420" based on salary, negotiated premium and benefits.
Commissioners pressed for assurances about reimbursement if LAFCO spent money to advance community choice (CCA) activities and whether a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or reimbursement agreement would be required. A motion to transfer $160,000 from LAFCO reserves to the city via the Board of Supervisors was moved and put to roll call; the clerk recorded the votes (Commissioner Daley: no; Commissioner McGurrick: aye; Commissioner Borenstein: no; Chair Ross Mercurimi: aye) and the chair announced, "Motion fails."
A follow‑up motion to send $126,000 was then made and seconded, but commissioners did not complete a final vote and instead agreed to continue the matter to a future meeting or a special meeting so staff could seek a reimbursement assurance and reconcile timing with the city's budget process. As one commissioner put it, they preferred "a memo of understanding" before committing funds.
Next steps: the commission left Item 3 open and asked staff to explore scheduling and to seek clarity from SFPUC and the Board of Supervisors on reimbursements and any necessary controls. No funds were finalized during the meeting.
Notes on attribution and transcript inconsistencies: the transcript shows multiple spellings for several commissioners' names (for example McGoldrick/McGurrick in different lines). The article uses the name forms as read aloud at the start of the meeting and as they appear in the roll call; the clerk's roll call language was used as the official record of the vote.
