Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors Hear Mayor—s Budget Priorities; Labor Concessions and Police Cuts Presented as Contingencies
Summary
Mayor—s budget director told the Budget & Appropriations Committee the administration faces a roughly $250 million midyear gap and is asking labor to defer wage increases while planning department reductions; police reductions of about $23 million were offered by the department but further cuts are framed as contingent on labor concessions.
The Budget & Appropriations Committee on July 15 heard the mayor—s budget priorities as the city continues to address an estimated $250,000,000 midyear shortfall caused by the COVID-19 crisis. Ashley Grafenberger, the Mayor—s budget director, said the mayor—s goal is to protect jobs and services while balancing the budget and that the administration is investigating all levers, including new revenue, reserve use and deeper departmental reductions.
Grafenberger told the committee the administration has asked labor partners to defer scheduled wage increases and that the May budget update assumed a six-month wage deferral in accordance with MOU economic triggers. "We always knew that departmental reductions would not be 100% of the solution," she said, adding the request to labor is an "ask" and that no concessions were yet in hand.
Supervisors repeatedly pressed the administration over the mechanics and timing of cuts. Chair Sandra Lee Fewer asked whether departments were given instructions that assumed labor would accept deferrals; Grafenberger confirmed the first set of instructions reflected assumptions in the May 13 budget update and said later, contingency instructions (in some cases moving from 10% to 12.5% cuts) were issued as a backstop if labor talks did not produce savings.
The Police Department—s preliminary proposal included about $23,000,000 in reductions largely derived from vacant positions, Grafenberger said, but cautioned that police budgets are largely personnel-driven and non‑personnel options are limited. "The department itself had offered about $23,000,000 worth of reductions," she said, noting the figure was their offered baseline.
Committee members asked about alternatives to personnel cuts, including management reductions, overtime savings and reallocating higher-paid positions rather than asking lowest-wage workers to absorb the burden. Supervisor questions also emphasized racial equity concerns tied to who would bear cuts; Grafenberger said all options would need discussion with labor partners and the mayor.
Public commenters who addressed Item 2 urged the board to press the mayor for deeper reductions to higher-paid positions and to prioritize non‑law-enforcement approaches to homelessness and behavioral health.
The committee voted to continue Item 2 to the call of the chair, carrying the motion by roll call. The mayor—s office indicated final budget proposals would be introduced by August 1 and that departments will submit additional reduction proposals by July 27 for consideration in any mid‑year rebalancing if assumptions change.
