Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Financial Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board committee hears city—s first five-year financial plan under Proposition A
Summary
The Budget and Finance Committee heard the mayor—s and controller—s first five-year financial plan under Proposition A. Staff projected a near-term $283 million gap growing to roughly $829 million by year five under status quo assumptions and outlined options across capital spending, labor costs, revenues and departmental savings.
The Budget and Finance Committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday heard the city—s first five-year financial plan, a new requirement of Proposition A intended to provide a multiyear roadmap for addressing recurring budget shortfalls.
Controller Ben Rosenfield introduced the plan as a framing document rather than a line-by-line budget, saying it is intended to give the mayor and the board a longer-term view of fiscal pressures and choices. "This is the first time we've had this conversation as a city, where we have brought forward a multiyear financial plan," Rosenfield said.
Greg Wagner, the mayor—s budget director, presented baseline projections that showed a projected deficit of about $283 million in the coming fiscal year under the baseline outlook, rising to roughly $829 million in the fifth year if no further actions are taken. Wagner described the plan as containing both a problem statement and a set of high-level solution categories rather than detailed policy prescriptions. "The baseline projection shows...a significant and growing imbalance between revenues and expenditures," Wagner said.
Wagner outlined four major categories of solutions: reset assumptions for capital spending and debt service; targets to slow growth in wages and benefits (including pension and healthcare reforms and labor-contract negotiations); revenue actions (the plan assumes about $420 million of revenue growth over five years and sets additional near-term revenue targets of $60 million to $100 million per year to help balance); and ongoing departmental savings plus a goal to phase out reliance on one-time solutions over four years.
Supervisors questioned the assumptions and timing, including why the plan—s near-term deficit differed from prior six-month reports. Wagner said some positive nine-month revenue updates were incorporated in advance of the nine-month report. Committee members also discussed legal and practical constraints on revenue options, including Prop 26 and the different vote thresholds for November and other ballots.
Public commenters urged greater public access to supporting documents and asked the mayor—s and controller—s offices to propose concrete deficit-closing recommendations. The committee requested additional scenario modeling, department-level write-ups already included in the plan, and follow-up hearings to drill into specific departments.
Next steps: the plan will return for further committee consideration with requested scenario analyses and additional detail on reserve and departmental modeling.
