Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Interim topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves interim budget despite split over nearly $50 million police increase
Summary
Supervisors narrowly approved interim budget and position ordinance (items 7 and 8) after a 6‑5 vote, amid heated debate from members who said increasing police funding now contradicted the board's stated intent to redirect resources to community programs.
The San Francisco Board of Supervisors approved an interim budget ordinance and an accompanying positions enumeration (items 7 and 8) by a 6‑5 vote on June 30, after several supervisors said the package sends mixed messages by increasing police funding at a time when the board and city leaders have pledged to redirect resources toward community services and alternatives to policing.
Several supervisors spoke against the interim budget on principle. Supervisor Preston said he could not support a budget that appeared to increase police funding and indicated he would vote no; Supervisor Ronan and Supervisor Haney also voiced opposition, arguing the board should not approve an interim plan that raises the police allocation now only to reduce it later during rebalancing. Supervisor Walton said she could not “in good conscience” support a budget that increases police spending given ongoing reform efforts.
Other supervisors and the clerk noted the technical nature of the interim ordinance: staff described the measure as an accounting step to permit the city to meet short‑term deadlines and to transmit the interim budget to the mayor for action. The City Attorney’s office advised the board that a majority vote would enact the measure and that it would go to the mayor’s office for signature.
At roll call, Supervisors Mandelmann, Marr, Peskin, Feuer, Yi and Stephanie supported the ordinance; Supervisors Preston, Ronan, Sofaie, Walton and Haney voted no. The board recorded 6 ayes and 5 noes and passed the interim budget.
Supervisor Haney flagged the issue of public messaging and the need for consistency in budget priorities; Supervisor Preston and others said they would continue to press for reallocation toward community‑based alternatives and affordable housing during the full budget process.
Ending: The interim budget was enacted to meet short‑term fiscal deadlines; supervisors opposing the vote said they would continue to pursue deeper budget changes during the full budget cycle and committee process.
