Board of Supervisors continues proposed S.F. charter amendment to create temporary DROP program to full board; motion passes 8-3

A majority of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to send a charter amendment on a temporary Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for certain San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) ranks to the full board for consideration, continuing the item as a committee report to the board meeting on July 23.

The amendment would define “full duty sworn officer,” change the chief of police’s staffing-reporting cycle from every two years to every three years, standardize staffing definitions across city agencies and create a voluntary DROP program allowing eligible officers in the ranks of officer, sergeant or inspector to defer retirement benefits for up to 60 months while remaining on active duty in specified frontline roles.

Supporters said the measure is narrowly tailored and temporary and aims to blunt a projected retirement “cliff” while the city increases recruitment. Opponents and multiple community speakers said the measure risks adding pension liability, diverts scarce funds from social services and does not target the officers most likely to leave.

Supervisor Matt Dorsey, one of the measure’s primary sponsors, told colleagues the proposal has broad support and that placing it before voters would let residents decide. “We have majority support for this motion and that it will hopefully enable the board supervisors to consider this measure and allow us to, take it to voters so that voters can make the choice,” Supervisor Dorsey said during the committee discussion.

Supervisor Hillary Ronan, who presented a detailed PowerPoint and data packet to the committee, argued the program would not address the officers most frequently leaving the department. Ronan cited city data saying the average years of service for officers separating from SFPD is about 6.3 years and objected to directing a retirement-style incentive at officers near 25 years of service. “This solution for our workforce crisis, it doesn't fit the actual reality of what we're facing,” Ronan said.

Officials and analysts described uncertainty in cost projections. Controller Greg Wagner said the plan’s actuarial report produced a wide range of outcomes and that “the high end of that range from the report is $3,000,000 per year approximately in each of the 5 years. The low end is closer to 0.” Retirement-system staff explained the difference between low- and high-cost scenarios depends on when members enroll and how long they remain in DROP.

The Budget and Legislative Analyst (BLA) provided a behavioral estimate the amendment could defer roughly 50 retirements in the first year, about 38 the next year and roughly 43 in 2027. The proposal’s supporters cited those estimates as evidence the measure could “staunch the bleeding” of retirements while recruitment improves.

Opponents — including nonprofit leaders, educators and public-safety reform groups — urged the supervisors to prioritize funding for violence-prevention programs, schools, housing and mental-health services rather than another police retention mechanism. The ACLU of Northern California, the Public Defender’s Office and multiple community speakers said DROP would be costly, temporary and aimed at officers who are not the cohort most likely to leave.

Public testimony included a mix of labor and community voices: the president of the police union described DROP as a temporary measure to retain officers while staffing improves; a retired SFPD commander called the draft “beautifully crafted” and said a temporary tool to slow retirements would help on-street staffing; community advocates and service providers warned of further strain on social services in a year of budget shortfalls.

After extended discussion and questions to the controller and retirement-system staff about actuarial assumptions and fiscal ranges, the committee voted to continue the charter amendment to the full Board of Supervisors meeting later that day. The motion to continue the item as a committee report was made by Supervisor Matt Dorsey and seconded by Supervisor Rafael Mandelmann; the roll call vote was 8 in favor and 3 opposed.

Votes at a glance: motion to continue item 1 as a committee report to the Board meeting of July 23 — Passed, 8–3 (Ayes: Safaee; Stephanie; Chan; Dorsey; Angadio; Mandelmann; Melgar; Peskin. Noes: Preston; Ronan; Walton).

The committee action does not adopt the charter amendment; it advances the item to the full board for consideration, public comment and a final vote. Supervisors and staff indicated they expect additional briefing materials, actuarial clarifications and possible amendments before the full-board hearing. Supervisor Dorsey said he will introduce a letter of inquiry to departments, including the Department of Human Resources, to request more systematic exit-interview data. The full board is scheduled to consider the charter amendment at its July 23 meeting.

The committee hearing included extended debate over three core issues: (1) whether DROP is targeted at the officers leaving SFPD (most separations were described as happening at about six years of service); (2) whether the program’s projected fiscal impact (controller and retirement-system scenarios ranged broadly, with first-year costs estimated between about $600,000 and $3,000,000 under different actuarial assumptions and a reported potential unfunded liability in some scenarios between roughly $5.4 million and $19.0 million amortized over five years); and (3) whether a temporary DROP would be an appropriate interim tool while the city invests in longer-term recruitment, lateral hires and civilianization of some roles.

What’s next: the item will return to the full Board of Supervisors on July 23 as a committee report, where the board may consider amendments, take additional testimony and vote on whether to place the charter amendment on the ballot.