Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Budget Mandates topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears charter amendment proposal to let supervisors designate limited mandated appropriations; Controller outlines scale

San Francisco Board of Supervisors Rules Committee · February 4, 2010
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Supervisor Avalos proposed allowing the Board to designate limited, one‑year 'mandated' appropriations with mayoral veto and an 8‑vote override; the Controller and mayor's office warned of fiscal implications while labor groups urged the change as a democratic check.

Supervisor John Avalos presented a charter amendment that would permit the Board of Supervisors to designate certain appropriations in the budget as mandated spending for a single fiscal year. Avalos said the change would allow the Board to ensure delivery of specific services (for example, substance abuse residential services) by tying a dollar amount to a mandated appropriation while preserving mayoral veto power and an 8‑vote override to protect balance of power.

Controller Peg Stevenson briefed the committee on scale: the city budget runs roughly $5–6 billion and typical board budget adjustments have been $20–40 million annually. The controller noted a measure like this could shift spending between years and affect how year‑end balances are used.

A mayor’s office representative, Star Terrell, reiterated the mayor’s strong opposition and urged continued collaboration rather than a structural change that could limit executive flexibility in emergencies.

Public comment divided along labor and business lines. SEIU speakers and other union representatives supported the amendment as a check on executive authority to protect services and jobs; business groups including the Chamber urged against placing the measure on the ballot, warning of fiscal unpredictability. After discussion the committee voted to forward the item as a committee report with a positive recommendation to the full board.