Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Drop Police Deferred Retirement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors reject extension of police DROP program; motion for one-year extension fails
Summary
The Board of Supervisors voted down a proposed one-year extension of the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for police employees after a lengthy Budget Committee discussion and public testimony.
After a protracted debate in the Budget and Finance Committee and extended public testimony, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted on June 21 against extending the Deferred Retirement Option Program (DROP) for the Police Department.
Supervisor Mirkremi (recorded in the transcript as the motion-maker) moved to amend the pending item to extend DROP for one year to allow the city to collect and compare more data about whether the program is cost-neutral. Supporters of extension, including Captain Casciado of the San Francisco Police Department, argued the program had strategic benefits for staffing cycles and that other jurisdictions measure DROP differently. Captain Casciado noted he had served “40 years” with the department while describing his view that extending DROP would provide time to manage hiring cycles.
Opponents — including Supervisor Elsberun — said the controller’s report showed the program is not cost neutral and would increase annual city pension costs. Supervisor Elsberun summarized the opposition’s reading: “It is not cost neutral. It costs us more money. The report controller's report says it's going to cost at least $5,000,000 to $6,000,000 a year more.” He urged spending on academy classes or civilianization rather than extending DROP.
Supervisor Mirkremi’s amendment for a one‑year extension was seconded (by Supervisor Campos per the record) and put to roll call. The clerk recorded the vote as 1 aye and 10 noes (the lone aye was Supervisor Mercarimi in the roll-call summary), and the motion to extend failed. Following that failed amendment, the underlying motion to continue the program was not approved and the item did not move forward.
The debate highlighted competing priorities: supporters argued that extending DROP briefly would provide time for better study and avoid sudden staffing effects; opponents said the controller’s actuarial analysis demonstrates added annual costs and argued limited public funds should be redirected to academy classes, lateral hiring, or civilianization efforts.
Next steps: The City Controller and departmental staff may be asked to provide additional, clarified cost analyses as part of ongoing budget work; no extension was authorized by the board at this meeting.
