Board approves $25.3 million police supplemental after months of debate over overtime and oversight

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on March 21 approved an ordinance to appropriate about $25.3 million in general-fund reserves for the San Francisco Police Department to cover overtime and other costs for the current fiscal year, following hours of debate over the department's overspending and internal controls.

The appropriation passed 9-2, with Supervisors Walton and Preston voting no. The ordinance was presented by the Budget and Finance Committee and described as a midyear supplemental to address the department's overtime shortfall.

Why it matters: The debate revealed a deeper dispute over how the city manages a department that has run well over its overtime budget in recent months. Supervisors expressed a mix of support for additional resources to maintain public safety and concern about financial management, policy priorities and compliance with the city's Administrative Code.

Supervisor Connie Chan, chair of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, said the supplemental and related items (12 through 16 on the agenda) reached her committee without a recommendation because committee members could not reach consensus, though she urged colleagues to support the measures. "While we all have the shared values that we want clean and safe streets, we certainly have different approaches," Chan said during the meeting.

Critics said the department accumulated tens of millions in overtime without prior Board approval. Supervisor Dean Preston, speaking as chair of the Government Audit and Oversight Committee at the hearing, said SFPD had overspent its overtime budget by millions months before the supplemental was filed, citing internal numbers presented to the Board. "By December 23 the amount they had spent on overtime had ballooned to $37,500,000," Preston said, summarizing figures presented in committee and at the meeting.

Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson and the city controller confirmed that Administrative Code section 3.17(b) requires a department that exhausts its overtime appropriation to seek a supplemental appropriation from the Board before incurring additional overtime. Pearson said the code requires the department to come to the Board for additional overtime appropriations once a department has reached its allotted line item.

The city controller's office said it had imposed hiring and non-salary spending controls because of the overtime overspending and that those controls will stay in place until the Board approves additional funds. At the meeting the controller explained the practical effect: "Our office begins to put reserves on other parts of the department that we can control," he said.

SFPD officials said the department had forecast overspending and had been working with the Mayor's Budget Office and the controller. Chief of Police said ultimate responsibility rests with the department head and acknowledged the department had projected the need for a supplemental. Patrick Leon, SFPD chief financial officer, told the Board the department had conversed with the controller's budget staff and that, in his view at the time, certain pandemic-era reporting suspensions created ambiguity about immediate reporting obligations.

Some supervisors said the department's spending choices in prior months raised accountability concerns. Supervisor Dean Preston and others pointed to a pattern of large year-over-year increases in the police budget and to reported examples of high-cost overtime deployments downtown. Preston said that while views on policing differ across the Board, the administration and department must explain the legal and financial decision-making that led to overspending.

Other supervisors urged funding to maintain staffing and street visibility. Supervisor Joel Engardio said the city should invest in oversight but called the supplemental necessary to ensure police can respond to calls. Supervisor Ahsha Safaie and several others said they supported the supplemental to avoid immediate operational gaps and to keep officers on the street while longer-term reforms are pursued.

Board action and vote: The ordinance (item 12 on the agenda) was approved on first reading by roll call vote of 9 in favor and 2 opposed (Walton, Preston). The Board recorded that 9 supervisors voted aye and 2 voted no. The ordinance passed its first-reading vote and will proceed through the normal ordinance adoption process.

What comes next: Supervisors requested additional oversight and a clearer accounting of past overtime spending. Several asked for audits and for the city attorney and controller to assess possible Administrative Code violations. Board members also discussed the practical trade-offs of imposing hiring freezes and the immediate impact of controller-imposed spending controls on department operations.

Ending note: The debate highlighted a recurring tension at City Hall: balancing immediate operational needs in law enforcement with demands for fiscal oversight, transparency and policy priorities in a time of constrained citywide budgets.