
|
Los Angeles City Guides
|
Article History SAN FRANCISCO (Map, News) - Newly released projections put The City’s shortfall for next fiscal year at $338.4 million — more than $100 million larger than predicted just five months ago.
The City will have nearly $160 million less available to balance next year’s budget, according to a report jointly released Friday by the Mayor’s Office, the Board of Supervisors Budget Analyst and the City Controller’s Office.
The budget deficit projected for the 2008-09 fiscal year — which begins July 1 — is a result of increased personnel costs and losses at the local and state level, according to the report.
The report said city officials will have just $7.6 million available at the end of this year to help balance next year’s budget.
The report also notes an outlay of $117.7 million for annual wage increases negotiated in current labor contracts and the loss of $41.1 million in funds The City had expected to receive from the state.
Additionally, spending increases — such as the opening of two new pods at the county jail after a court ruling determined the Sheriff’s Department could not allow prisoners to sleep on the floor — contributed to the budget deficit, according to Mayor Gavin Newsom’s budget director Nani Coloretti.
“That’s one our biggest problems,” Coloretti said. She said a “gagillion factors” contributed to the financial shortfall.
The deficit is expected to cost hundreds of city employees their jobs. Newsom directed his department heads Tuesday to cut salaries by an additional 8 percent.
Department leaders have until March 28 to resubmit budget proposals identifying salary cuts by eliminating filled or vacant positions. The City employs approximately 27,000 people.
Newsom had already placed a hiring freeze on city departments and asked heads to determine 13 percent in cuts in November 2007, when the anticipated budget deficit for the coming fiscal year was $229 million.
In February, when the Controller’s Office issued its six-month report on the city budget, Newsom announced $18.1 million in program and service cuts.
Departments with minimum staffing levels such as the police and fire departments would likely suffer less fallout from Newsom’s request to cut salary budgets, Coloretti said.
Not ranked |
EMAIL ME THIS STORY |
ARTICLE HISTORY |
Sports
Business |
Real Estate Family Movies and Books Venues, Sports and Music Concerts, Artists and Tickets Be Inspired - Quotes and Stories |
Comments from Examiner Readers
5:15 PM MST on Tue., Jul. 15, 2008 re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
2:45 PM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
10:51 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
9:27 AM MST on Mon., Jul. 14, 2008
re: "City’s set-asides a ballot target"
Report as inappropriate
12:50 PM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
10:21 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"
Report as inappropriate
9:43 AM MST on Thu., Jul. 10, 2008
re: "Use of public finance dollars raises concerns"
Report as inappropriate
10:25 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 27, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
6:22 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
6:11 AM MST on Tue., Jun. 24, 2008
re: "Management hires outpacing others"
Report as inappropriate
5:32 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008
re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"
Report as inappropriate
2:07 PM MST on Fri., Jun. 6, 2008
re: "Budget takes aim at $100K salaries"
Report as inappropriate
9:52 PM MST on Thu., Mar. 27, 2008
re: "OT costing city millions"
Report as inappropriate
2:11 PM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
9:09 AM MST on Wed., Mar. 26, 2008
re: "City’s pruning may begin at the top"
Report as inappropriate
10:54 AM MST on Sat., Mar. 22, 2008
re: "Budget deficit balloons $100 million in latest projections"
Report as inappropriate
Examiner Reader said:
"Supervisor Chris Daly has asked the city attorney to draft an amendment to a charter amendment that would provide voters with the opportunity to eliminate all The City’s set-asides." If this guy is "for it" then I would vote against it.
2 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
San Francisco Paul said:
Daly finally has a good idea to get rid of set-asides in the budget but then proposes a new one? Typical!
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
“If [Newsom] is serious about taking on set-asides, then he will join me in the effort. If he isn’t, then he should back off,” Daly said. Conversely, if Daly was serious about taking on set-asides, he wouldn't be proposing one.
4 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Ahh of course it makes perfect sense, keep voting on set asides until Daly gets it the way he wants. It is human nature, unless of course you remember that he won re-election by like 1,200 votes a few percentage points and now runs all of the city. Yes makes perfect sense to me. But hey how about this idea how about fixing the crime in District 6 so that people are not killed on the average of 1 every 3 months. I totally agree that affordable housing is important but the city is out of control I never hear Supervisor Daly talk it. Providing Affordable Housing will not stop crime.
6 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Keepa' your hands off the campaign funds! One of the biggest problems in politics today is the extraordinary amounts of private money which slush around in the public political process; as we continue to hear how there's no influence peddling going on.
1 agree | 1 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Public financing guarantees no such insulation from those who would put "political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions." To navigate the City's political machine takes either a lot of money or a lot of free time -- just to get to the point of being considered for office. Because of term limits, most of our politicians must look ahead 8 years toward their next job. Public financing of elections does nothing to prevent that.
4 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
San Francisco does not have the highest taxes by any measure. The Mayor is using the City's budget as a personal slush fund, as a trampoline for his political ambitions to the extent that he is not delivering services. Public financing is critical to the prospect of electing a Mayor who will put the needs of San Franciscans first, before those of political ambition or the special corporate interests needed to fund those ambitions.
3 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Perhaps this is one of the reasons the city can't adequately fund MUNI?
3 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
property owners have been receiving less service from fewer service personal as a result of this. so if EVERY property owner were to write return to sender on their tax bills and refused to pay it until the citys gets their S&%t together THAT WOULD SEND A CLEAR MESSAGE THAT WERE TIRED OF LIP SERVICE FROM MANAGEMENT OUTPACING. California has the highest taxes and the poorest conditions
14 agree | 3 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
To many chiefs and not enought indians ! Take for example the city of san carlos has only corrupt and incompetent people from building department idiots to a mayor that was guilty of money theft. save the tax payers the cost of these fools and turn back control of the city to the COUNTY !!!!
32 agree | 2 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
How about getting rid of the whole Bored of Supervisors, that would save over $5M right off the bat, and then $100's of Millions because they won't be there to keep spending tax payers hard earned dollars.
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Gretchen said:
We have eleven Supervisors - way too many for a city the size of SF. I remember when they worked part time and made $20K a year. Now they make what? Close to $100K? And they now have assistants. It's time - past time - to rethink the role of the Board of Supervisors. I recommend that there be a maximum of seven Supervisors and that they be broken into two groups - four Supervisors that are from districts and three supervisors that are elected at large and represent the whole city. Reducing the number of Supervisors from eleven to seven would eliminate four positions and eliminate the expense of their salaries, would eliminate their staff, would eliminate the cost of their offices and infrastructure. Easily a $1,000,000 savings per year.
6 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Some people are forced to work overtime while other people can't find good work. Can't laws and policies be adjusted to make bringing in new people (full-time, part-time, job-sharing, temporary, etc.) cost less than mandating overtime?
4 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Do the Stupervisors make over $150K? If not maybe they can lower the limit and get rid of themselves.
9 agree | 5 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
I believe this when its actually implemented. Between employee uninons and civil service status, it makes it difficult to terminate anyone at city hall.
5 agree | 4 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree
Examiner Reader said:
Why doesnt the mayor ask his good friends the Gettys to help him close the deficit? Or better yet all of the wealthy eliteists in this city who help push the liberal programs that get us into this mess.Dont put measures on the ballot unless you can provide the funds to pay for them. Lets stop the madness and start running our govt more like a business and not a non profit org!
7 agree | 6 disagree
Vote on this comment: I agree or I disagree