Supervisors Press Police on Staffing, Reform Spending as Budget Analysts Recommend Cuts

The San Francisco Police Department told the Board of Supervisors’ Budget & Finance Committee on June 17 that the department’s proposed $577,222,419 budget for the 2016–17 fiscal year supports an accelerated sworn hiring plan, technology and training to implement reforms. The Budget and Legislative Analyst, while not proposing cuts to sworn staffing levels, recommended several reductions and putting some funds on reserve pending policy milestones.

Chiefs and budget staff presented a package of investments the department said are needed to reach its full‑staffing goal of 1,971 full‑duty sworn officers and to support reforms: three new academy classes budgeted for FY16‑17; continued civilianization (51 of 53 civilian positions filled); a $3.9 million package for policing reforms, including new professional standards staff, training and evaluation; and one‑time costs for equipment and technology. The department also described the body‑worn camera program rollout and associated first‑year storage costs.

Why it matters: Supervisors questioned whether reaching 1,971 sworn officers is sufficient, given long‑term board goals of higher staffing and the city’s population growth. The committee debated whether to hold some funds in reserve until reforms—particularly an updated use‑of‑force policy—are finalized and reported to the board.

Budget analyst Harvey Rose told the committee the BLA’s review of SFPD’s proposed budget shows modest recommended reductions and reserves but does not change the 1,971 staffing level. Rose flagged items where the analysts recommend holding funds pending approval of final policies and requested reports. The department disputed several technical adjustments and the size/timing of some proposed savings and asked to work further with the analysts before the board acts.

On body‑worn cameras and data storage, Catherine McGuire, the police department CFO, estimated first‑year storage costs at about $380,000 and projected storage costs rising to roughly $600,000 in year two as data accumulates; she said some footage will be retained indefinitely for evidence, which increases ongoing costs. Committee members pressed for longer‑term storage projections and clarity on what will be retained as evidence versus routine footage.

Supervisor concerns and proposals: Supervisor Avalos proposed tying release of a reserve to specific implementation milestones and performance reporting; he framed the reserve as a tool to link funding to measurable progress. Other supervisors—including Wiener and Farrell—expressed concern that an overly large reserve or restrictive conditions could hamper department operations. The committee encouraged SFPD and the BLA to work together on reconciling differences before the budget reaches the full Board.

What happens next: Committee members accepted several budget analyst recommendations for other departments without objection at the hearing, but the department‑level disagreements for SFPD were left for follow‑up. The committee asked the department to work with the BLA to reconcile disputed items and to return for further review at the next meeting.

Sources and context: Committee presentation and Q&A with SFPD staff and the Budget & Legislative Analyst on June 17, 2016. Budget totals and program descriptions cited by the department and by the BLA were presented during the public hearing. Where numeric line items in the transcript were unclear or garbled, the article uses the department’s clearly stated top‑line budget number and BLA characterizations rather than uncertain line‑by‑line figures.

Ending: The Budget & Finance Committee left SFPD’s contested line items open for further reconciliation and asked the department and BLA to meet before the next committee hearing so supervisors can act with clearer, mutually supported recommendations.