Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rules Committee advances charter amendment discussions on two-year rolling budget and five-year financial plan; staff to split noticing language and continue
Summary
The committee heard a detailed presentation on a charter amendment to adopt a rolling two-year budget, require five-year financial plans and set MOU deadlines; the comptroller and staff explained mechanics, supervisors debated power balance and thresholds, the committee severed the noticing/advertising language into a duplicate file, and continued the measure to July 6.
The Rules Committee considered a charter amendment package intended to change San Francisco’s budget process to a rolling two-year budget, require five-year financial plans and impose deadlines for labor memoranda of understanding. The Board President introduced the proposal, citing recurring budget volatility and an estimated $438,000,000 shortfall for the coming year; he said three-year and five-year projections show larger deficits in future years.
Comptroller Ben Rosenfield described the amendment’s goals as mitigating boom-and-bust budget cycles and explained that the charter sets certain drop-dead dates while other calendar items remain in the administrative code for flexibility. He said the default would be a rolling two-year budget and that a section allows the Mayor and Board by resolution to shift departments to a fixed two-year appropriation when desired.
Several supervisors raised substantive concerns. Chair Chris Daley argued the core problem is a long-standing imbalance of authority favoring the Mayor’s office and questioned how the charter amendment addresses the timeline and the Board’s role. Supervisor David Campos and others sought clearer definitions (for example, what constitutes a “significant” revenue change) and discussed set-aside reform. Comptroller Rosenfield said language could be made more specific and noted the controller’s office had recommended a five-year planning horizon to support long-term policy discussions.
Legislative staff reported potential savings from modernizing noticing: the Board’s legal and outreach ads had been reduced to a $150,000 budget but spending to date was about $180,000; staff estimated roughly $580,000 in potential annual citywide savings from more efficient noticing.
Public commenters raised varied points: Jim Templeton asked broad questions about city spending; Debbie Lerman of the San Francisco Human Services Network urged earlier mayoral submissions, Board involvement in midyear reductions and a five-year anti-poverty plan tied to financial planning.
Because cosponsors raised questions about the posting/noticing language, Supervisor Chiu requested severing that section; the committee duplicated the file so there are now two versions (one with and one without the noticing language) to allow separate consideration. The committee then moved to continue the items to July 6 for further committee review.
The committee did not adopt the charter amendment at the meeting; members signaled willingness to refine thresholds and other technical language before returning the measure for further action.
