Reforming San Francisco’s budget

It all sounds so simple. Talk more, and early. Plan ahead. Don’t make promises you can’t keep.

This isn’t relationship advice -- they’re new recommendations from the Controller’s Office’s "Budget Improvement Project."

Among the suggestions released Monday:

-City officials should set out clear priorities at the beginning of the budget process. This includes increased collaboration between the mayor and Board of Supervisors.

-The city should budget for several years at a time.

-New voter-mandated spending minimums (also know as set-asides) should be put on hold until the city can fund the existing ones.

-Raises and other increases shouldn’t be put into labor contracts unless officials identify ways to pay for them.

Even though the city ends up with a balanced budget every year, over the past decade, the city has had to close a deficit every one of those years, renegotiate closed labor contracts seven out of 10 years; and asked voters to increase taxes eight out of 10 years.

Some other things we already knew: San Francisco "provides a rich array of services at a greater cost than other cities and counties." Such as:

-Spending more than double on public health per capita than other counties. (For example, $300.63 on mental health, per capita, compared to $133.5 in Los Angeles; or $86.66 on substance abuse, compared to $15.13 in L.A.)

-Spending three times the average on social services.