SFPD presents FY26–27 budget priorities; department emphasizes personnel costs, aging fleet and technology plan

San Francisco — San Francisco Police Department officials presented the department’s general‑fund budget outlook for fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27 on Feb. 12, highlighting that personnel costs make up about 85% of the general‑fund budget and flagging an aging vehicle fleet and planned investments in records and evidence systems.

Kimmy Wu, the SFPD chief financial officer, told the commission the department’s general‑fund budget was approximately $737 million (excluding the airport bureau) with sworn payroll at about $582 million and civilian payroll near $44 million. Wu said personnel costs are the dominant variable in the budget and that the department’s wish list totaled roughly $31 million across 180 requests submitted by command staff.

The presentation noted vehicle‑replacement shortfalls: the fleet’s average age was about 13 years, with 52% of vehicles at least 10 years old and 25% at least 20 years old. The department reported an increase in vehicle maintenance costs and a 20‑year replacement plan that officials described as not aligned with industry best practice (typically a five‑year replacement cycle).

Chief William Scott and department technology staff also discussed a multi‑component “ecosystem” procurement to replace the department’s legacy records management system and integrate digital and video evidence management and a real‑time crime center platform. Will Sanson Mosher, the department technology director, said the department terminated a contract with a records vendor after identifying dozens of unresolved issues and is drafting a new RFP that will seek a more integrated solution; the department expects to post the new procurement in mid‑March with a goal of live deployment in 2026 or early 2027.

Commissioners pressed the department on overtime controls after a recent city audit raised concerns about internal controls. Chief Scott said salary‑savings from sworn vacancies are used to fund overtime backfill and that the department projects salary savings of roughly $61 million to help fund overtime costs. He said the annual overtime baseline for the department was about $41 million for the current year and that improvements in controls could generate savings but not eliminate the need for overtime to cover staffing gaps.

Commissioners also questioned expense trade‑offs, including training time away from patrol and costs of programs such as “Sojourn” training. Some commissioners sought concrete cost figures and outcome measures for out‑of‑town training or multi‑day training events so the commission can evaluate public‑safety effects relative to the expense.

Why it matters: The department’s budget is advisory to the mayor and Board of Supervisors, but the commission’s review highlights competing priorities: recruiting and retaining sworn personnel, replacing an aging fleet, investing in new records and evidence technology to reduce duplicative officer work, and improving oversight and training.

Next steps: The department will submit a formal budget package to the mayor; the mayor’s office will prepare a balanced budget to send to the Board of Supervisors by May 31. Commissioners voted at the meeting to forward the department’s proposed budget materials to the mayor’s office for consideration and continued review.

Additional context: The presentation described additional cost drivers: software licensing and central shop maintenance for vehicles increased notably; the department reported a historic high of vehicle purchases in one year but only 18 replacements in the most recent year cited. IT modernization and integrated evidence workflows were described as essential to reduce duplicative officer workload and improve clearance rates, the department said.