Police Officer Staffing Levels Conditioned on Future Tax Funding
Shall the City amend the Charter to set minimum police officer staffing levels, require the City to budget enough money to pay the number of police officers employed in the previous year, allow the Police Department to introduce amendments to its budget, and set aside funds to pay for police recruitment, all for at least five years, but all if and only if the voters later adopt a new tax or amend an existing tax to fund these requirements?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now:
The City has a Police Commission (Commission) that oversees San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) policies and approves a proposed budget for the department. The Chief of Police manages the SFPD’s day-to-day operations.
As of September 2023, the SFPD had 1,578 full-duty sworn police officers. Every two years, the Chief of Police must recommend to the Commission the number of officers needed. The Commission must consider the Chief of Police’s recommendation before forwarding the SFPD's proposed budget to the Mayor. Only the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors (Board) may propose amendments to the budget.
SFPD staffing and recruitment are paid through the General Fund. The budget does not have to include funding for the number of police officers the SFPD recommends. Also, the Charter does not specify a required minimum number of officers for the SFPD.
The Proposal:
Proposition B would amend the Charter to change the process for establishing and funding minimum police staffing levels for the City, only if voters in a future election amend an existing tax or approve a new tax that would fully fund police staffing and recruitment.
In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition B would set the minimum number of full-time police officers for the City from 1,700 to 2,074 in the first five years. For those five years, Proposition B would require the City to budget enough money to pay for at least the number of police officers employed during the previous year.
If voters approve full funding, after the first five years Proposition B would require the Police Chief to report the recommended number of police officers to the Commission every five years instead of every two. The Commission would also be required to set a minimum number of full-time police officers, which may not be reduced by more than 5% per year, unless two-thirds of the Commission votes for a larger reduction.
In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition B would require the Commission to propose a budget each year that funds the minimum number of full-time police officers. The SFPD would be authorized to submit a budget amendment directly to the Board if it is able to fund more than the minimum number of police officers.
In the future, if voters approve full funding, Proposition B would create a fund for police recruitment that would last for five to 10 years. The fund would have $16.8 million in the first year and would change each year depending on the number of recruits needed, but would not exceed $30 million per year. The level of funding could be frozen if there is a budget deficit.
If the voters do not approve full funding in the future, these changes in police staffing and recruitment would not go into effect.
A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes,” you want to make the following changes only if voters in a future election amend an existing tax measure or approve a new tax that would fully fund police staffing and recruitment to:
- Set minimum levels of police officer staffing in San Francisco;
- Require the City to budget enough money for at least five years to pay for the number of police officers employed during the previous year;
- Change the process of establishing minimum police staffing levels for the City, including requiring the Commission to request enough money to pay for minimum police staffing levels;
- Allow the SFPD to introduce amendments to its own budget; and
- Create a fund to set aside money to pay for police recruiting for at least five years.
A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.
Controller's Statement on "B"
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition B:
Should the proposed Charter amendment be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would have a significant impact on the cost of government. These costs will vary considerably depending on the operational decisions made by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and decisions made by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors through the normal budget process, given that some requirements established in the measure are binding while others establish non-binding City policy.
The proposed Charter amendment establishes a binding required appropriation to a new Police Full Staffing Fund (Fund) to provide resources to increase staffing in the department in the five fiscal years after a new or amended tax measure is passed by the voters that would generate sufficient revenue to fund to the amendment’s requirements. The amendment requires the City to appropriate $16.8 million in FY 2024-2025 to the Fund and appropriate $75,000 per officer that SFPD is below the required number of officers each subsequent year, not to exceed $30 million per fiscal year. Given current staffing levels versus those required in the measure, it is likely that future year required appropriations would be significant. The measure freezes appropriations to the fund at the prior year’s level if the budget deficit exceeds $250 million. The amendment would set aside these funds for recruitment and hiring efforts, advertising, development and administration of hiring strategies, and funding hiring incentives for new police officers.
The SFPD currently has approximately 1,580 full-duty sworn officers. The proposed Charter amendment would set the required number of full-duty sworn officers to 1,700 in FY 2024-2025, 1,800 in FY 2025-2026, 1,900 in FY 2026-2027, 2,000 in FY 2027-2028, and 2,074 in FY 2028-2029. Thereafter, staffing level determinations would be based on an SFPD staffing needs report to the Police Commission every five years. When compared to currently budgeted staffing levels and if these goals are met, this provision would require the City to increase future fiscal year budgets by approximately $2 million in the first fiscal year, increasing by approximately $18 million annually for each of the next four years, increasing costs by a cumulative total of $200 million during this period, assuming no increase in management ranks needed to support the growth in line staff. This investment may result in reductions in overtime currently employed by the department. If these additional full-duty officers resulted in an hour for hour reduction in overtime use, this would reduce the estimated cumulative cost by approximately $130 million, to approximately $70 million. However, meeting these staffing goals will depend on the SFPD’s ability to fill positions. Additionally, the ultimate cost of this provision of the measure will depend on decisions by the Mayor and Board through the City’s annual budget process, as these staffing levels are not binding on the decisions the Mayor and Board make during the annual budget process.
If required staffing level are not achieved, the proposed amendment requires the Mayor and Board, at a minimum, to appropriate funds for the coming fiscal year sufficient to maintain police staffing levels at the prior year level. For context, current staffing levels for the department would require appropriations of approximately $475 million in the coming fiscal year, adjusted each year for changes in staffing levels and employee wage and benefit changes.
If the Charter amendment is approved, the funding requirements would be dependent on the Controller certifying in writing to the Mayor and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors that a new or modified tax passed by the voters will generate sufficient revenue to fund the required number of full-duty sworn officers and to fund the new Fund.
This proposed amendment is not in compliance with a non-binding, voter-adopted city policy regarding set-asides. The policy seeks to limit set-asides which reduce General Fund dollars that could otherwise be allocated by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors in the annual budget process.
The amendment will also create a requirement for the Controller to set aside and maintain appropriations to the Fund. Note that the proposed amendment would change the duties of the Controller’s Office, which has prepared this statement.
How "B" Got on the Ballot
On November 28, 2023, the Board of Supervisors voted 6 to 5 to place Proposition B on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:
Yes: Chan, Melgar, Peskin, Safai, Stefani, Walton.
No: Dorsey, Engardio, Mandelman, Preston, Ronen.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
Vote YES on Proposition B
We can achieve minimum police staffing levels and be fiscally responsible.
Our public safety system is severely understaffed. A strong public safety system needs fully staffed departments that include: San Francisco police, 911 call operators, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, and sheriffs.
In September 2023, there were 1,578 full-duty sworn San Francisco police officers, approximately 400 short of our highest historical staffing levels.
Right now, there is no requirement that the City maintain a minimum level of police officers. Our current police staffing levels are impacting how well and how quickly our public safety system is able to respond to emergency calls and coordinate a broad level of services to residents and businesses. San Franciscans deserve to be safe in all neighborhoods.
The existing police force is exhausting themselves working overtime to cover the staffing shortages. The overtime costs are also straining the Police Department budget and the longevity of experienced officers who are eligible for retirement.
There are currently 300 fully-funded police officer positions that remain vacant. We can ensure our entire public safety system is supported and includes recruitment funds for more police officers by updating the process for establishing SFPD’s minimum staffing levels.
By passing Prop. B, we will achieve minimum police staffing levels and dedicate future funding to ensure we are not pitting police officer recruitment against 911 call operators, nurses, paramedics, firefighters, and sheriffs - all part of what’s needed for a comprehensive public safety system.
Vote YES on Proposition B. We can achieve minimum police staffing AND be fiscally responsible.
Supervisor Ahsha Safaí
Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin
Supervisor Connie Chan
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition B
“FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE?!”
Proposition B is a misleading mess — brought to you by supervisors who can’t find enough money in our $14.6 billion City budget to fully staff our police department.
That’s not fiscally responsible. That’s galling.
What Proponents’ argument above deceptively fails to mention is that Prop B’s minimum staffing for SFPD is “conditioned on future tax funding.” So, when Proponents promise “by passing Prop. B, we will achieve minimum police staffing levels,” it’s patently false.
In fact, Prop. B could only achieve minimum SFPD staffing…
- If voters approve some future tax…
- In some future election…
- With sufficient future funding.
Prop B is a deceptive “Cop Tax Scheme” that undermines public safety.
It will needlessly obstruct and delay progress on police staffing by serving as a ploy for new tax revenue. Leaving aside the absurdity of needing additional taxes to fund our most basic municipal service…
- Prop B would delay voter-mandated progress on police staffing until late 2025 — at the earliest — and only if voters approve future taxes in the next election.
- Prop B is a legally dubious end-run around constitutional restrictions on dedicated “Special Tax” funding, risking costly lawsuits that could delay police funding for years.
- Prop B is emblematic of everything wrong with a Board of Supervisors majority more interested in performative politics than making the needed progress San Franciscans demand.
SEND A MESSAGE TO CITY HALL: STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH PUBLIC SAFETY!
VOTE NO ON PROP B!
Mayor London Breed
Supervisor Matt Dorsey
Opponent's Argument Against Proposition B
DON’T BUY THE ‘COP TAX’ LIE!
Proposition B is a confusing mess of political gamesmanship that actually prevents San Francisco voters from mandating a fully staffed police department — unless and until they pass “a future tax measure” to “generate sufficient additional revenue” to recruit and hire more officers.
Originally conceived as a five-year plan to solve San Francisco’s unprecedented police understaffing crisis, the Charter Amendment I co-authored with Mayor London Breed would have promptly funded expanded police recruiting. And it would have made needed progress on public safety challenges robbing too many San Franciscans of the safe enjoyment of their neighborhoods and hamstringing our economic recovery.
But then, late in the Board of Supervisors’ process, an aspiring mayoral candidate added a poison pill that renders the whole plan ineffective. Now, instead of being a public safety measure, Prop B is just a ploy for new taxes: “a Cop Tax Scheme.”
Backed by public sector unions that compete with police for limited dollars — and supported by a slim majority of supervisors — Prop B would enshrine into our City Charter an empty promise, devoid of meaning, until some future election.
Prop B is craven political trickery, which…
- Aims to fool voters into believing its proponents are solving our police staffing crisis — when they’re in fact obstructing desperately needed progress.
- Manipulates voters’ legitimate fears about public safety into political support for higher taxes.
- Sacrifices urgent public safety imperatives that a fully staffed SFPD could solve for the near-term political advantage of competing unions and aspiring politicians.
San Francisco is a $14.6 billion enterprise. We can afford a fully staffed police department. A fully staffed SFPD should be a baseline expectation for the taxes you already pay — not a fee-for-service add-on.
VOTE NO ON PROP B.
Learn more at StopTheCopTax.com.
Supervisor Matt Dorsey
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition B
The Prop B opponent agrees that we need more police officers. He wants voters to believe it is simply a matter of taking $300 million in general fund tax dollars. Nothing is that simple.
Our City faces an enormous financial crisis over the next few years. Our opponent's argument ignores this reality. San Francisco is still recovering from the economic decline from the pandemic and is facing a deficit of nearly 1 billion dollars. In fact, Mayor London Breed just cut 75 million dollars' worth of services that included food security programs, senior services and support for children and families in need.
San Francisco's tax base needs alternative funding solutions and to amend existing tax funds to keep vital services operative. Any change of tax funding will require voter approval at a future election, by law.
Our public safety system needs long-term solutions to achieve full police staffing. Prop B provides that long-term solution by:
- creating a mandate for minimum police staffing for a five-year period
- mandating that San Francisco voters decide, at a future election, which tax funds to modify, repurpose or create to cover the cost of new police officers and recruitment activities.
Prop B is a transparent and fiscally responsible long-term solution to achieve minimum police staffing and ensure our entire public safety system is supported. That is why the San Francisco Democratic Party is a supporter of Proposition B.
Supervisor Ahsha Safaí
San Francisco Democratic Party
Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition B
1
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
San Francisco residents deserve to live in a safe city. We need more police officers and more public safety personnel to prevent crime and respond to emergencies. Prop B is a responsible ballot measure that not only sets minimum staffing for our Police Department but requires City leaders to show how they will pay for additional recruitment costs. With the city facing historic deficits, this is absolutely necessary so we can fulfill the promise of new officers with actual results. I urge you to join me in voting Yes on Prop B.
Assemblymember Matt Haney
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
2
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
San Francisco Democratic Party Supports Proposition B
A comprehensive community safety strategy is essential to the success of our families. Prop B will ensure we have the police needed to patrol our streets while allowing us to make much needed investments in prevention, deterrence and emergency response. It is fiscally responsible and gives voters a voice. The San Francisco Democratic Party urges voters to say YES to Prop B.
San Francisco Democratic Party
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
3
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
Key San Francisco public safety agencies are facing a staffing crisis.
Prop B will allow us to address a severe police shortage by requiring City leaders to fully and transparently adopt new recruitment efforts while continuing to work to recruit the 911 dispatchers, nurses, emergency responders and other staff critical for lasting safety. Please join us and vote YES on Prop B.
Service Employees International Union Local 1021
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
4
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
Our families deserve to live and work in safe neighborhoods. Police staffing shortages make it difficult for officers to effectively patrol our entire city, leading to rising crime. Prop B addresses these shortages without causing cuts to other critical city programs that promote public safety. Join San Francisco city workers who are saying Yes to Prop B!
IFPTE Local 21 is a union of healthcare professionals, criminal forensic investigators, street inspectors, and other employees of the City and County of San Francisco.
IFPTE Local 21
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
5
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
I work with the most vulnerable residents of San Francisco and I support Prop B. Fully staffing our police department will help keep neighborhoods safe for those most at risk. And transparently funding all public safety services ensures my patients can still get the mental health counseling, health care and housing support they need. We can do both responsibly by voting Yes on Prop B.
Heather Bollinger, Registered Nurse
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
6
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
As 911 dispatchers, we’re often the first call when a crime occurs. We know we need more police to respond to emergencies. And we need more dispatchers, EMTs, mental health experts and nurses. Instead of pitting safety personnel against each other, Prop B allows us to fill vacancies throughout safety agencies, so you know when you call 911, you’ll get a quick answer AND a prompt response.
Natalie Elicetche, 911 Dispatcher
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
7
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
Our workers help build San Francisco. On job sites, safety comes first. But in San Francisco, safety is falling behind. Prop B will make our streets safer by creating a dedicated fund to fully staff our police department - without cutting programs designed to prevent and deter crime. We believe in safe staffing and a strong public safety infrastructure.
Don’t take a shortcut on safety - vote YES on Prop B.
San Francisco Building & Construction Trades Council
Teamsters Local 665
International Union of Elevator Constructors Local 8
Ironworkers Local 377
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
8
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
San Franciscans deserve honesty when it comes to our budget. Elected leaders should be expected to honestly and transparently explain how they will pay for proposed programs. Under Prop B, that’s exactly what they will have to do. We deserve fiscal responsibility and increased staffing - vote Yes on B.
Former Assessor-Recorder, Mabel Teng
Former SFMTA Board of Director, Sharon Lai
Mike Casey, President of San Francisco Labor Council*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
9
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition B
The safety of our Chinese community has been compromised. Prop B will require San Francisco to acquire the funding to hire more police officers, as we need more officers who are people of color, bilingual and culturally competent. Other proposals just take away from other city emergency services and are empty promises. Join us and vote yes on Prop. B.
Former Assessor Recorder Mabel Teng
Chinatown Merchants United Association of San Francisco
Chinatown History & Culture Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee To Restore Police Minimum Staffing And Public Safety, sponsored by Labor Organizations.
The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council.
End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition B
Paid Arguments Against Proposition B
1
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
We're fed up, and we've had enough!
NO ON PROPOSITION B
Public safety is not some frivolous amenity or unnecessary luxury. It is a core governmental responsibility. Prop B not only eschews this responsibility, it continues the damage done by Supervisors like Connie Chan who have worked diligently to defund and dismantle police services in San Francisco, with predictable and even tragic results.
Prop B claims it will achieve minimum police staffing levels, but that will only happen if voters approve some UNKNOWN future tax in some UNKNOWN future election. The stakes are too high to pin our future to UNKNOWNS.
In the Richmond District, countless residents have reported being victims of crime under Supervisor Connie Chan's watch.
I live one block away from Richmond Market, where our beloved shopkeeper was tragically killed in August 2023 by someone stealing two beers. Richmond Market is where my kids learned how to engage independently - it was the first place I allowed them to walk on their own at night to buy snacks. Our neighborhood market should be a safe place for all of us. Unfortunately, extremists on the Board of Supervisors have chosen to deprioritize public safety, leading to tragic events like this and leaving many residents feeling unsafe in their neighborhoods.
Prop B will do nothing to address the police staffing shortage that we pay the price for every single day.
Enough is enough.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B.
Marjan Philhour
Small Business and Community Advocate
Candidate for DCCC and Richmond District Supervisor
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Marjan Philhour.
2
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
No on B
Defunding the police was one of the most destructive policy decisions of the last 4 years. The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors put criminals ahead of public safety. Now they're doing it again, with Prop B's proposal to require the future passage of a Future Special Cop Tax — in order to return police staffing to necessary levels. San Francisco's $14 billion budget has more than enough to fund public safety. A fully staffed Police Department is essential.
San Francisco Republican Party
John Dennis, Chairman, Board Member CAGOP
Thomas Sleckman, Secretary, Election Integrity Officer
Joseph Bleckman, Vice-Chair Special Events
Lisa Remmer, Vice-Chair Political Affairs
Yvette Corkrean, Vice-Chair Volunteer Activities, Endorsed Candidate for CA Senate 11
Howard Epstein, Vice-Chair Communications
Rodney Leong, Vice-Chair Digital Communications
Jacob Spangler, Executive Director
Stephanie Jeong
Bruce Lou, SFGOP & CAGOP endorsed Candidate for U.S. Congressional 11
Jason Clark, Board Member CAGOP
SFGOP.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
3
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
Breaking down Proposition B, the “Cop Tax,” for Common Sense San Franciscans.
Vote NO on this misleading and purposefully destructive proposition.
There is no higher Governmental priority than public safety and this cynical Proposition B “Cop Tax” is nothing but a public safety roadblock. SFPD short staffing has resulted in reduced response times, more crime and growing SFPD overtime costs at a time when crime and open drug markets are ravaging our city.
Originally proposed by Supervisor Dorsey, this ballot measure was a straightforward immediate police staffing increase using reallocated existing funds. But, Supervisor Safai advanced a proposed amendment, over Supervisor Dorsey’s objections, making the increase of police staffing contingent upon passage of an unidentified “new or modified future tax.” This single move by Safai will delay significantly increasing SFPD staffing for at least 18 months, has killed Supervisor Dorsey’s proposal to use existing General Fund money to immediately increase SFPD staffing and has threatened public safety. This new gutted proposal is called Prop B and it is the excuse some Supervisors will use to increase our taxes.
Prop B which is, in reality, a “cop tax” hopes you’ll believe that San Francisco lacks the necessary funds to provide the most basic public safety need of our City: adequate police staffing. This is simply not true.
Don’t be fooled into thinking this altered proposition is aimed at increasing staffing. This bill jeopardizes the entire police staffing objective, perpetuating the cycle that keeps our streets and businesses unsafe. It creates another fiscally irresponsible government slush fund leaving our public safety in an uncertain, dangerous and irresponsible limbo.
Vote NO on Prop B.
SOAR
D2Unite
Iconic D3
Sunset United Neighbors
Hi5D5
Sensible D7
Activ8SF
Advocates 11
STOP CRIME ACTION
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: No on B, Stop the Cop Tax.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Garry Tan, 2. Matt Dorsey for DCCC Member 2024, 3. Matt Dorsey.
4
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition B
VOTE NO ON PROP B
A fully staffed police force should be a baseline obligation of local government. But if Proposition B passes, a fully staffed SFPD would be out of reach — until and unless voters approve a future ballot measure for additional taxes.
Prop B is political gamesmanship that manipulates voter concerns about safety into supporting additional taxes. Prop B will not improve public safety, unless voters pass a future tax for additional revenue to recruit and hire more officers.
Small businesses, including restaurants, in San Francisco need a fully staffed SFPD to make progress on our public safety challenges, throughout the city. Please join us in opposing Prop B.
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: No on B, Stop the Cop Tax.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Garry Tan, 2. Matt Dorsey for DCCC Member 2024, 3. Matt Dorsey.
Legal Text
Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on March 5, 2024, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to define “Full-Duty Sworn Officers” for purposes of establishing minimum staffing levels for sworn officers of the Police Department; and, contingent upon the Controller’s certification that a future tax measure passed by the voters will generate sufficient additional revenue to fund the cost of employing Full-Duty Sworn Officers at specified minimum staffing levels and the minimum amount necessary to implement a police staffing fund: 1) set the Minimum Staffing Number for five fiscal years beginning with 1,700 full-duty sworn officers in year one, with increases each year such that by the fifth fiscal year, the Minimum Staffing Number shall be 2,074; 2) require for a period of five years that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors appropriate funds to pay for at least the number of sworn officers as of February 1 of the prior fiscal year; 3) establish a Police Full Staffing Fund (“Fund”) for a period of five fiscal years to facilitate minimum police staffing; 4) require that $16.8 million be appropriated into the Fund in the first year, and varying amounts in years two through five, calculated based on staffing shortages, but allowing for a temporary freeze of appropriations to the Fund after the first year in a budgetary or economic emergency.
Section 1. Findings.
(a) For nearly three decades, San Franciscans have been denied the benefits of a fully-staffed police force. Although policymakers have made important progress in recent years to develop a workload-based, data-driven methodology for establishing the number of full-duty officers required to meet the City’s public safety needs, the Police Department has not been able to hire at a pace that would allow for full staffing.
(b) Despite considerable efforts over the last several years to remedy the chronic shortage in staffing of full-duty officers, the San Francisco Police Department faces a worsening police understaffing crisis. As of September 2023, there were 1,578 full-duty sworn members in the Police Department, which is an unprecedented low point in recent history. This is approximately 600 fewer officers than required to staff the Department at a level that would meet the City’s public safety needs, according to the Department’s assessment. Compounding this problem is that police retirements are far outpacing the combined annual total of new recruits and lateral transfers that the Department has been able to hire from other law enforcement agencies. As of September 2023, nearly 350 of the City’s current sworn officers were eligible for retirement, having reached 50 years of age with 20 years or more of service.
(c) San Francisco is competing for officers amid a nationwide crisis in police understaffing and in the most competitive environment for law enforcement personnel in recent history. The City’s failure to keep up with the pace of needed hiring is resulting in mounting public safety challenges, which involve myriad harms suffered by our residents and visitors, in our neighborhoods and all areas of the City, and which threaten our City’s economic wellbeing. Additionally, chronic understaffing in the Police Department creates needlessly expensive and wasteful inefficiencies, including overtime. In the most recent fiscal year, overtime accounted for nearly 20% of the Department’s salary budget.
(d) Efforts thus far to recruit the number of full-duty sworn officers required to meet the City’s public safety needs have failed. San Francisco has been unsuccessful in competing with other law enforcement agencies for a limited pool of qualified candidates. Our competitors offer hiring bonuses and other incentives for new recruits and lateral transfers that San Francisco has been unable to match or exceed. For example, the City of Alameda recently began offering $75,000 new hire recruiting bonuses, which has allowed it to reduce its police staffing shortage by two-thirds within five months.
(e) This Charter amendment aims to guarantee San Franciscans have a fully-staffed police force to ensure maximum public safety. The amendment would establish, upon the Controller’s certification that a future tax measure passed by the voters will generate sufficient additional revenue to fund the cost of employing Full-Duty Sworn Officers at specified minimum staffing levels and the minimum amount necessary to implement a police staffing fund, a minimum staffing number for full-time sworn police officers in San Francisco for a five-year period, with the goal of reaching full staffing within that time frame. The amendment makes it possible to meet this goal by mandating sufficient funding for the Police Department to hire the needed number of new recruits and lateral transfers and establishing a Police Full Staffing Fund to be used to enable the Police Department to adequately compete with other local jurisdictions for new hires.
Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on March 5, 2024, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising Section 4.127 and adding Section 16.132, to read as follows:
NOTE: Unchanged Charter text and uncodified text are in plain font.
Additions are single-underline italics font.
Deletions are strike-through italics font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter subsections.
SEC. 4.127. POLICE DEPARTMENT.
The Police Department shall preserve the public peace, prevent and detect crime, and protect the rights of persons and property by enforcing the laws of the United States, the State of California, and the City and County.
The Chief of Police may appoint and remove at pleasure special police officers.
The Chief of Police shall have all powers which are now or that may be conferred upon a sheriff by state law with respect to the suppression of any riot, public tumult, disturbance of the public peace, or organized resistance against the laws or public authority.
DISTRICT POLICE STATIONS. The Police Department shall maintain and operate district police stations. The Police Commission, subject to the approval by the Board of Supervisors, may establish additional district stations, abandon or relocate any district station, or consolidate any two or more district stations.
BUDGET. Monetary awards and settlements disbursed by the City and County as a result of police action or inaction shall be taken exclusively from a specific appropriation listed as a separate line item in the Police Department budget for that purpose.
POLICE STAFFING. For purposes of the Police Staffing provisions in this Section 4.127, the following definitions apply:
(b) The Minimum Staffing Number means the minimum number of required Full-Duty Sworn Officers of the Police Department.
(c) Full-Duty Sworn Officers means full-time sworn members of the Department except those assigned to the San Francisco International Airport, those on long-term leaves of absence, and Police Academy recruits.
(d) Police Full Staffing Fund means the fund established pursuant to Section 16.132.
For five fiscal years beginning with the Full Funding Date, the Police Department shall consist of no less than the number of officers equal to the Minimum Staffing Number. Beginning on the Full Funding Date, and every year thereafter for a total of five fiscal years, the Minimum Staffing Number shall be: (1) 1,700 in Year 1; (2) 1,800 in Year 2; (3) 1,900 in Year 3; (4) 2,000 in Year 4; and (5) 2,074 in Year 5. Thereafter, the Minimum Staffing Number shall be established as set forth in the next paragraphs.
By no earlier than October 1 and no later than November 1 in every odd-numberedcalendar year until the Full Funding Date and, following the Full Funding date, in every fifth calendar year thereafter, the Chief of Police shall transmit to the Police Commission a report describing the Ddepartment’s current number of full-duty sworn officersFull-Duty Sworn Officers and recommending staffing levels of full-duty sworn officers Full-Duty Sworn Officers in the subsequent twofive fiscal years. The report shall include an assessment of the Police Department’s overall staffing, the workload handled by the dDepartment’s employees, the dDepartment’s public service objectives, the dDepartment’s legal duties, and other information the Chief of Police deems relevant to determining proper staffing levels of Full-Duty Sworn Officers full-duty sworn officers. The report shall evaluate and make recommendations regarding staffing levels at all district stations and in all types of jobs and services performed by full-duty sworn officers Full-Duty Sworn Officers. To guide the Chief of Police’s report, by By no later than July 1 in every odd-numbered calendar year until the Full Funding Date and, following the Full Funding date, in every fifth calendar year thereafter, the Police Commission shall adopt a policy prescribing the methodologies that the Chief of Police may use in evaluating staffing levels, which may include consideration of factors such as workload metrics, the Department’s targets for levels of service, ratios between supervisory and non-supervisory positions in the Department, whether particular services require a fixed number of hours, and other factors the Police Commission determines are best practices or otherwise relevant. The Chief of Police may, but is not required by this Section 4.127 to, submit staffing reports regarding full-duty sworn officers Full-Duty Sworn Officers to the Police Commission more frequently than set forth above. even-numbered years. The Police Commission shall consider the most recent report and Minimum Staffing Number in its consideration and approval of the Police Department’s proposed budget every fiscal year.
Beginning in the fifth calendar year following the Full Funding Date, tThe Police Commission shall hold a public hearing regarding the Chief of Police’s staffing report by December 31 in every year in which the Chief of Police submits a staffing report between October 1 and November 1, as described above odd-numbered calendar year. At that public hearing, the Police Commission shall consider the most recent report and adopt a Minimum Staffing Number for the Police Department. The Police Commission shall not reduce the Minimum Staffing Number by more than 5% year-over-year except by a two-thirds vote of the Police Commission. The Police Commission shall consider the most recent report and Minimum Staffing Number in its consideration and approval of the Police Department’s proposed budget every fiscal year, but the Commission shall not be required to accept or adopt any of the recommendations in the report The Police Commission shall approve a budget for submission to the Mayor that includes funding for the salaries required to meet at least the Minimum Staffing Number as set forth in this Section 4.127.
For the five fiscal years beginning on the Full Funding Date, the biennial budget in Section 9.101 shall appropriate funds sufficient to pay for at least the number of Full-Duty Sworn Officers actually employed as of February 1 of the prior fiscal year. In any of those five fiscal years, in the event that this funding level to support Full-Duty Sworn Officers is lower than the amount necessary to fund the actual or projected Full-Duty Staffing Levels described in this Section 4.127, the Police Department may introduce an ordinance to amend the biennial budget if the Department subsequently projects that it can achieve higher Full-Duty Sworn Officer staffing levels than those contained in the adopted biennial budget. No amendment to the biennial budget may be adopted unless the Controller certifies availability of funds and the need for the requested funds to meet expected staffing levels for that fiscal year.
Except that the Board of Supervisors may not reduce the Minimum Staffing Number as set forth in this Section 4.127 for the five fiscal years beginning on the Full Funding Date, tThe Board of Supervisors is empowered to adopt ordinances necessary to effectuate the purpose of this section regarding staffing levels including but not limited to ordinances regulating the scheduling of police training classes.
Further, the Police Commission shall initiate an annual review to civilianize as many positions as possible and submit that report to the Board of Supervisors annually for review and approval.
PATROL SPECIAL POLICE OFFICERS. The Commission may appoint patrol special police officers and for cause may suspend or dismiss patrol special police officers after a hearing on charges duly filed with the Commission and after a fair and impartial trial. Patrol special police officers shall be regulated by the Police Commission, which may establish requirements for and procedures to govern the position, including the power of the Chief of Police to suspend a patrol special police officer pending a hearing on charges. Each patrol special police officer shall be at the time of appointment not less than 21 years of age and must possess such physical qualifications as may be required by the Commission.
Patrol special police officers may be designated by the Commission as the owners of a certain beat or territory which may be established or rescinded by the Commission. Patrol special police officers designated as the owners of a certain beat or territory or the legal heirs or representatives of the owners may dispose of their interest in the beat or territory to a person of good moral character, approved by the Police Commission and eligible for appointment as a patrol special police officer.
Commission designation of beats or territories shall not affect the ability of private security companies to provide on-site security services on the inside or at the entrance of any property located in the City and County.
SECTION 16.132. THE POLICE FULL STAFFING FUND.
(a) Establishment of Fund. There is hereby established the Police Full Staffing Fund to be administered by the Police Department. Monies therein shall be expended or used solely by the Department, subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter, for the purposes set forth in this Section 16.132.
(b) Definitions.
“Department” means the Police Department.
“Full-Duty Sworn Officers” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.127.
“Full Funding Date” has the meaning set forth in Section 4.127.
“Fund” means the Police Full Staffing Fund established by this Section 16.132.
“Minimum Staffing Number” means the minimum number of Full-Duty Sworn Officers as established under Section 4.127.
“Recruitment Supplement” means an amount to be calculated by the Controller equal to $75,000 for each Full-Duty Sworn Officer the Department is, as of February 1 of each year, short of the Minimum Staffing Number.
(c) Purpose and Use of Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to provide additional resources to the Department to ensure adequate staffing of Full-Duty Sworn Officers and to meet the Minimum Staffing Number in each year. These resources shall be in addition to those amounts previously appropriated for the Department’s staffing in the biennial budget for the fiscal year preceding the Full Funding Date. The Fund will be used exclusively to support full staffing of Full-Duty Sworn Officers, including, but not limited to, recruitment and hiring efforts, advertising, development and administration of hiring strategies, and funding hiring incentives for new police officers. In recruitment efforts, the Fund will prioritize local hiring and diversifying applicants in accordance with the principles of the May 2015 final report of President Obama's Task Force on 21st Century Policing and the recommendations of the U.S. Department of Justice's Collaborative Reform Initiative Program.
(d) Appropriations to the Fund. For the fiscal year beginning on the Full Funding Date, the City shall appropriate to the Fund $16,800,000. On July 1 of each of the subsequent four fiscal years – for a total of five fiscal years – the Controller shall allocate to the Fund an amount equal to the Recruitment Supplement, but not to exceed $30 million. The City may, at its discretion, continue to appropriate money to the Fund for more than five fiscal years. The Controller shall set aside and maintain appropriations, together with any interest earned thereon, in the Fund. Nothing herein is intended to limit the City’s ability to accept private donations to satisfy the required appropriations to the Fund.
(e) Temporary Freezes. Notwithstanding subsection (d) or Charter Section 4.127, the City may freeze contributions to the Fund at the level of contributions for the prior fiscal year for any fiscal year after the fiscal year beginning on the Full Funding Date when the City’s projected budget deficit for the upcoming fiscal year at the time of the March Joint Report or March Update to the Five Year Financial Plan as prepared jointly by the Controller, the Mayor’s Budget Director, and the Board of Supervisors’ Budget Analyst exceeds $250 million, adjusted annually beginning with Fiscal Year 2025-2026 by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues, as determined by the Controller, based on calculations consistent from year to year.
(f) Unspent Funds. All unspent amounts in the Fund on June 30 of each fiscal year shall be returned to the General Fund.
(g) Expiration. This Section 16.132 shall expire by operation of law ten years after the Full Funding Date, following which the City Attorney may cause it to be removed from the Charter unless the Section is extended by Charter amendment.