Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors press mayor's office on layoffs, vacant positions, jail pods and funding assumptions; budget review continued
Summary
The committee spent the bulk of the meeting on a broad review of the mayor's FY 2008-09 balancing plan. Staff described a mix of one-time fixes, vacant-position deletions and enterprise fund shifts; supervisors requested extensive follow-up on net position counts, jail pod closures, Prop H treatment, mental-health bed changes and capital project details. The item was continued for next week's hearings.
Greg Wagner of the mayor's budget office presented a high-level summary of the administration's approach to balancing the FY 2008-09 budget, listing line items that include CPI/contract adjustments, elimination of vacant positions, midyear cuts, enterprise fund cost shifts and one-time uses of reserve and fund balance.
"This is our, sort of summary of the deficit and the, individual line items," Wagner said, describing how line-item changes and enterprise fund reassignments contributed to the proposed balance. He told the committee that 300 vacant positions were highlighted because they had been announced earlier, but that position changes are mixed across the budget.
Supervisors pressed the mayor's staff and controller representatives for clarity on several topics:
- Net position changes: Controller and mayor's office staff said the mayor's proposed budget shows a net funded reduction of 99 positions after annualizations and offsets, though a larger number of position deletions (some vacant, some filled) were identified across departments. Staff said further human-resources work would refine estimates of impacted employees.
- Jail 'pods' and public-safety assumptions: Supervisors asked how closing newly opened jail pods and diverting detainees to alternatives would be carried out and what the policy and staffing implications would be. Budget staff said they would bring the sheriff and other public-safety stakeholders to a future hearing and would monitor outcomes if the change is implemented.
- Enterprise funds and Prop H: Wagner described $15.2 million in costs shifted to enterprise departments and a one-time Prop H trigger that produced about $11.3 million in savings; staff emphasized these are one-time solutions that may not recur in future years.
- Mental-health and AIDS/HIV program changes: Supervisors sought confirmation about reported reversals and sustained cuts. Budget staff said a $2.3 million reduction to AIDS/HIV services remained in the plan and that some psych-unit beds at San Francisco General would be reduced in 08/09 while community beds (through contractors like the Progress Foundation) would increase, noting differences between voluntary community programs and city-controlled involuntary admissions.
- Capital and program specifics: The committee asked for a list of streets prioritized for the proposed streets-and-sidewalks financing, and the mayor's staff agreed to provide the list and other details. Supervisors also asked staff to clarify funding for a multi-year 25,000-tree planting goal (staff said ~$1.2 million of general-fund capital this year) and the $4.9 million support for the Academy of Sciences (a combination of hotel tax and general fund).
Ben Rosenfield of the controller's office said the office would deliver a revenue-certification letter and more detailed analyses prior to department hearings next week. Several supervisors requested that the mayor's office invite the sheriff, police, public defender and district attorney to a follow-up session for a focused discussion of the jail/pod and public-safety assumptions.
Chair Supervisor Jake McCullough said the item would be continued; committee staff committed to provide follow-up materials and relevant department representatives at the next hearing.
The budget discussion covered numerous technical adjustments and flagged that many of the current-year savings are one-time and will complicate the next fiscal year's outlook, leaving supervisors to weigh ongoing versus one-time fixes during upcoming hearings.
