On the ballot for the Nov. 3 municipal election, voters will find Proposition A -- a charter amendment that would change the budget cycle from one year to two, adopting a five-year financial plan and long-range financial policies.

Currently, San Francisco is not required to have a long-term financial plan and the budget doesn't have to follow specific financial policies, according to the San Francisco Department of Elections voter information pamphlet. Every year, the city adopts a budget for the next fiscal year.

If Proposition A passes, the city must implement a two-year budget cycle, a five-year financial plan and adopt long-range financial policies, among other changes. The financial policies must be approved by a two-thirds vote of the Board of Supervisors.

Supporters say that in the last 10 years, San Francisco has had a budget deficit every single year.

"The city currently has a problem with balancing the budget by working every year," said Tom Hsieh, political advisor to Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Proposition A is a responsible measure to project a two-year budget and five-year plan that can help secure funding for vital services, he added.

Supervisor Chris Daly disagreed, saying budgets work when spending matches revenue, but "San Francisco is a complicated case and (it is) difficult to project revenue two years ahead."

In the last decade, the controller's office projections for about $250 million have been flawed.

"With this kind of discrepancy, a biennial budget is a futile exercise, especially in an unpredictable economy," Daly expressed in the voter information pamphlet.

"It will be more fiscally responsible to look more than one year at a time," said Monique Zmuda, deputy controller of San Francisco.

Currently, labor agreements with the police and fire departments are negotiated after the budget is approved and it will make more sense to have them approved before the budget is approved, Zmuda said.

A two-year budget will allow the city to look further into the future, making sure there is money for the programs, according to Zmuda. It will be more prudent to budget on a long term instead of a short term, she said.

The two-year cycle is a good first step but does not address some important budget policies that need to be changed, like spending one-time income on one-time projects and "allowing the private sector to bid on city functions currently done by city employees," said Howard Epstein, chair of the San Francisco Republican Party. Revisions should be done every year or two, he added.

Some voters lean towards Proposition A because they think planning two and five years ahead makes more sense than one-year planning.

"I'm in favor because it seems once a year is recreating the wheel and a waste of effort," said massage therapist Elizabeth Mason, 48.

For English as a Second Language teacher Carol Pragides, the two-year budget cycle makes sense as long as it is reviewed every year to see if important adjustments are made.

"It will give more flexibility for the long-term plans," Pragides said.

Looking forward seems like a good idea, but it is important to review it, according to housewife Elizabeth Baker. "We don't want to be stuck in the long term," she said.

What's on the ballot for the November 3, 2009 Municipal Election

Candidate, City Attorney: Dennis Herrera

Candidate, Treasurer: José Cisneros

Proposition A: Budget Process
Would amend charter provisions concerning the budget, contracts, labor agreements and public notice.

Proposition B: Board of Supervisors Aides
Would delete the requirement that each member of the Board of Supervisors have two aides.

Proposition C: Candlestick Park Renaming Rights
Would repeal Proposition H, an ordinance requiring that the stadium be named "Candlestick Park." Would also allow the city to consent to new naming rights sale under existing 49ers' contract.

Proposition D: Mid-Market Special Sign District
Would create a special sign district on and near Market Street between 5th and 7th Streets to allow new advertising signs in that district.

Proposition E: Advertising on City Property
Would prohibit an increase in the number of advertising signs on street furniture above the number authorized by city law and contracts as of January 1, 2008.

For more information on candidates and propositions, visit http://www.sfelections.org.