Board approves $2024–25 budget package after contentious debate; 10–1 vote

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on July 18 approved the city and county's budget package for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025, adopting items 2 through 36 as amended on first reading.

Budget and Appropriations Committee Chair Supervisor Connie Chan said the package was intended to bring greater accountability and equity to city spending, adding, "we present to all of you today, with a budget that does just that." The board adopted the package by roll call: 10 ayes, 1 no (Supervisor Preston).

Why it matters: The budget restores $75 million to direct services for vulnerable residents and maintains funding for child care, food security and the SRO (single-room occupancy) tenant collaborative. It also includes citywide wage increases for workers under certain city contracts, appropriations for public utilities capital programs and multiple bond authorizations. Supporters said the budget balances competing needs in a difficult fiscal environment; critics said it increases police funding and withdraws previously planned social-housing investments.

Key facts - Adoption: Items 2 through 36 were considered together as the fiscal-year 2024—25 budget package. The board approved amendments to items 2 and 3 and an amendment to item 19 before voting on the package. The package passed on first reading with a roll call of 10 ayes and 1 no (Supervisor Preston). - Restorations and additions: Chair Chan said the committee had "restored an unprecedented $75,000,000 to direct services for our most vulnerable residents in San Francisco for the next 2 fiscal years." The package preserves funding for child care baselines, food security programs, increases wages for community-based workers and funds an Office of Reparations. - Contention: Several supervisors praised the work of the budget committee and staff. Supervisor Matt Han? (transcript: Supervisor Mandelmann) and others said the process was difficult but ultimately improved the mayor's initial proposal. Supervisor Preston said he would vote no, citing two "red line" issues: the defunding of social housing and large unconditional increases to the police budget, which he criticized as nearly $62 million in an increase to the San Francisco Police Department over the prior year.

Supporting details and next steps - Technical amendments: Before final passage the board approved technical amendments to correct account destinations and to authorize the controller to make implementing adjustments. - Bond and enterprise appropriations: Several ordinances included appropriations from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (water, power and wastewater revenue bonds) and authorized issuance of various revenue bonds and refunding bonds. - Public programs and grants: The package contains appropriations and resolutions to continue funding for homelessness and supportive housing grants, increased support for downtown activation grants and extensions to several grant agreements and MOUs.

Votes at a glance - Items 2—236 (budget and related ordinances/resolutions): Adopted on first reading, roll call 10'yea, 1'nay (Preston). Items 2 and 3 were amended prior to approval; item 19 was amended to allow the board to revisit an elections-code opt-out as part of the annual budget process.

What board members said - "This is why I'm most grateful...the restoration of these vital services fulfills our promises to serve every San Franciscan," Chair Connie Chan said while summarizing committee work. - Supervisor Preston said he would vote no and criticized the decision to shift funds away from social housing and to increase police funding.

Where this stands The ordinances were passed on first reading; the board completed the legislative step required at this hearing. Implementation steps include controller adjustments and forthcoming administrative actions to carry out bond issuances, grant amendments and contract changes contained in the package. Further public oversight will come through committee follow-ups and required administrative reports.

Ending note Board members and city staff said they would return to budget-related work throughout the two-year budget cycle to address unresolved issues and prepare for the next fiscal-year balancing challenges.