SFPD says overtime down 71.5% as supervisors push for deeper budget cuts; crime lab outsourcing debated

San Francisco Police Department Chief Gascon told the Board of Supervisors’ Budget and Finance Committee on June 24 that the department’s general fund budget is roughly $397,000,000 and that proposed cuts would reduce general‑fund spending by about $17.8 million without touching labor contracts. He said overtime has dropped from $12.7 million to $7.7 million, a 71.5% decline since February 2008, and the department has canceled a planned academy class and expects roughly 55 full‑time equivalent positions to leave through attrition.

That presentation set off detailed questioning by committee members about whether the department has the management tools to keep overtime at the lower level. Chair Supervisor John Avalos and Supervisor David Campos asked Chief Gascon to spell out the monitoring and enforcement mechanisms behind the drop. The chief said the department now reviews overtime weekly through a ComStat‑style process, requires supervisory pre‑approval and post‑review of out‑of‑norm hours, reassigns on‑duty personnel to special events instead of adding overtime hires and has stopped paying captains overtime (said to be paid through lieutenant ranks only).

Why it matters: Payroll accounts for roughly 90% of SFPD’s budget, so supervisors pressed the department for verifiable controls and for options to find further savings without layoffs. Budget and legislative analyst Harvey Rose flagged a related datum: the department’s overall budget is up by $4,368,602 (about 1%) on page 69 of the analysts’ report, and the analyst recommended trimming uniform overtime further from the proposed $7.7M to $7.0M, a reduction of roughly $695,305.

Crime lab options and investigation: Committee members also pressed the police on the future of the city’s crime lab. Chief Gascon said keeping the crime lab inside the police department allowed rapid redeployment of staff when the lab’s mismanagement surfaced, and that an internal investigation is complete and awaiting outside forensic review and possible filing decisions by state or regional prosecutors. He described presumptive field testing (police using portable kits for preliminary results) as an important workload reducer, and said several models remain on the table: rebuild an in‑house lab (with higher near‑term capital costs), pursue a regional “super lab,” or contract out portions of testing while keeping core capacity and auditing authority in‑house. He warned any choice would have cost and operational tradeoffs.

Public comment from union representatives: IFPTE Local 21, representing criminalists, urged the committee not to outsource narcotics testing, arguing the controller’s numbers undercount San Francisco’s historic caseload and that private labs can bill for testimony and hourly fees that raise lifecycle costs. A union representative said last year’s in‑house caseload was about 10,000 cases and that an assumption limiting outsourced cases to 4,000 would understate the city’s needs.

What’s next: The committee advanced a separate police permit‑fee ordinance (item 5) and deferred the forensics‑outsourcing resolution (item 8) for further review. Analysts, the chief and the controller’s office were asked to provide more detail on overtime baselines, assumed contracts and the capital cost of keeping lab work in‑house.