San Francisco’s budget: Department submissions to the mayor

Part 12 of a 13-part series: Deadlines missed, directives ignored

As part of San Francisco’s annual budget process, city departments are required to submit their proposed budgets to the mayor’s office for review and integration into the broader city budget. Most departments met the submission deadline, though two did not. Separately, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), whose budget is due May 1, is shaping up to be particularly contentious.

Having attended numerous Muni Funding Working Group sessions and SFMTA board meetings, I’ve observed a troubling trend: a reluctance to cut costs and a fixation on raising revenue, primarily by charging drivers, delivery services, and tourists more, and by floating new bond measures. The idea of tightening the agency’s own belt rarely seems to surface. (If there’s interest, I’m happy to explore the SFMTA budget separately.)

Whether it’s denial, defiance, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the city’s fiscal outlook, the result is the same: an unwillingness to adapt.

Of the departments that did submit on time, 27 admitted they failed to meet the mayor’s directive to reduce general fund spending by 15 percent in each of the next two years. That’s two-thirds of general-fund-receiving departments. Whether it’s denial, defiance, or a fundamental misunderstanding of the city’s fiscal outlook, the result is the same: an unwillingness to adapt. You have to ask — is this how they manage their own household budgets?

On the other hand, 14 departments reported that they met the 15 percent target. But a closer look reveals that this doesn’t always mean what it sounds like. Take the Department of Public Health (DPH). Despite claiming to meet the cut directive, DPH is proposing a nine percent increase in spending, arguing that the gap will be closed by charging patients more and recovering additional insurance funds.

This raises serious concerns. DPH serves some of San Francisco’s most financially vulnerable residents. Are we now expecting them to pay more out of pocket? Or are we assuming private insurers and government programs — many facing budget crunches of their own — will somehow increase reimbursements? That’s a big bet, and as discussed in Part 4, “balanced budgets” based on rosy projections often unravel under real-world conditions.

It’s also important to note that eight departments don’t receive general fund dollars, but that doesn’t mean they operate independently of taxpayer support. Many benefit from voter-mandated set-asides or service-based fees, all of which ultimately show up in higher property taxes, rents, sales taxes, and user fees borne by residents.

It’s little wonder that the mayor’s office issued stricter follow-up instructions. Some departments appear to be treating the original directive as a suggestion rather than a mandate.

So let me say this:

— I applaud the 14 departments that met the directive and submitted their budgets on time.

— I applaud the mayor and his team for holding firm to a vision of sustainable governance.

The road ahead won’t be easy. But fiscal discipline now is the only way to avoid far more painful decisions later — and to preserve the San Francisco we all love for generations to come.

Sources: U.S. Census, California Department of Finance, SFGov.org, Association of Bay Area Governments, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, San Francisco Examiner, San Francisco Standard. Full cites available on request. 

Originally published on The Voice of San Francisco on May 22, 2025 by Marie Hurabiell