Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Department outlines modest revenue decline, new equity tool in draft budget
Summary
San Francisco Planning Department staff told the Planning Commission that revenues are expected to fall modestly because of fewer large projects, and described a budget equity assessment that will guide resource allocation and community engagement spending in FY2022–23.
San Francisco Planning Department leaders presented an introductory budget and work‑program update on Jan. 27, telling the Planning Commission they are proposing modest changes for fiscal years 2022–23 driven by a continuing decline in large projects and fee revenue.
Deputy Director Deborah Landis said the department plans to reduce fee revenue projections by roughly $2.5 million over the coming cycle while preserving staff through careful vacancy management. Director Hillis said the department closed a $9 million shortfall last year and is avoiding layoffs by reallocating existing resources and focusing on priority programs.
Staff highlighted that development impact fees and pass‑through funds are the biggest drivers of year‑to‑year revenue variability. Landis said the department is not proposing large new capital purchases and will maintain existing equipment budgets while prioritizing staff capacity.
Megan Kalpin of the Community Equity Division described a new budget equity assessment tool that scores work programs and contracts for how they ‘center equity.’ Kalpin said managers used the tool to identify programs and contracts that prioritize equity geographies, equity populations, or explicit equity issue areas; early results count about 20% of work programs and 39% of contracts as centering equity in draft scoring.
Commissioners asked for more detail on a $1.5 million two‑year community engagement request and pressed staff on the longevity of the Community Equity Division. Staff said they would return with more detailed allocations in the next hearing and suggested some long‑range planning work should be general‑fund supported rather than fee‑driven.
The presentation concluded with staff committing to provide the commission and the public the site inventory and additional budget details during the next phase of hearings. No adoption vote was required at this informational presentation; staff said adoption will be considered at a later date.
