Budget and Appropriations Committee Recessed Meeting – June 23, 2025

The Budget and Appropriations Committee, chaired by Supervisor Connie Chan, held a recessed meeting on June 23, 2025, to hear public comment on the Mayor’s proposed budget for fiscal years 2025–2026 and 2026–2027. The meeting lasted from 6:15 PM onward, with public comment open for over six hours. Hundreds of speakers addressed the committee, urging restoration of funding for a wide range of programs serving low-income residents, immigrants, seniors, youth, people experiencing homelessness, and workers. No committee discussion or amendments were made; the meeting was recessed to June 25, 2025, with undecided agenda items carried over.

Public Comments & Testimony

• SRO Collaborative & Code Enforcement Outreach Program (CEOP): Numerous residents, including tenants from Chinatown SROs, families with children, and organizers from Chinatown CDC and Central City SRO Collaborative, spoke in support of restoring full funding. Speakers described unsafe living conditions (leaks, mold, broken stoves, pest infestations) and said the collaborative helps them communicate with landlords, learn tenant rights, and get repairs done. Many spoke in Cantonese through interpreters. Position: Full restoration of funding.
• Project Homeless Connect (PHC): Multiple volunteers, staff, and clients urged restoration of $2 million in cuts that would eliminate 93% of the organization’s operating budget. PHC serves 7,000 individuals annually, providing housing navigation, legal and medical access, and harm reduction services. Speakers described it as a vital one-stop shop that reduces ER visits and 911 calls. Position: Restore full funding.
• Food Security & Soda Tax Programs: Representatives from the San Francisco Marin Food Bank, Booker T. Washington Community Center, Glide, TNDC, and others asked the committee to restore $3.4 million for food programs and to adhere to the Sugary Drinks Distributor Tax Advisory Committee’s recommendations, rejecting the redirection of soda tax revenue to HSA food access. Speakers noted that 90,000 people were reached by soda-tax-funded programs in 2023–2024. Position: Restore soda tax funding to voter-intended uses; fully fund food security.
• Workers’ Rights Community Collaborative (WRCC): Workers, organizers, and attorneys from the Chinese Progressive Association, Filipino Community Center, La Raza Centro Legal, and others opposed the 65% cut to WRCC. They cited examples of wage theft recoveries (e.g., $60,000 for 17 restaurant workers; $2.1 million recovered by one program in five years). Speakers said the collaborative is the only resource for low-wage immigrant workers facing exploitation. Position: Restore full funding.
• Civil Legal Services / General Legal Aid: Attorneys and clients from Open Door Legal, Bay Area Legal Aid, Justice & Diversity Center, and others asked to restore $4.2 million in cuts that would eliminate tenant advocacy, benefits advocacy, and family justice projects. Data was presented showing that legal aid prevents homelessness at a fraction of the cost of shelter (e.g., $4,094 per client vs. $60,000 per shelter bed per year). Position: Restore full funding for general civil legal services.
• Immigrant Legal Services & Language Access: Representatives of the San Francisco Immigrant Legal Defense Collaborative (SFILDC), the Language Access Network (LAN), and community groups asked for restoration of $878,000 cut from SFILDC and an additional $5.8 million for language access services. They noted that neighboring counties are increasing funding while San Francisco proposes cuts, and that immigrants are afraid to leave their homes due to ICE enforcement. Position: Fully fund SFILDC and increase language access funding.
• Youth Programs & Workforce Development: Youth commissioners, students, and staff from Larkin Street Youth Services, Opportunities for All, and other programs called for maintaining funding for youth employment, mental health services, and the Hype Center (drop-in for exploitation prevention). They emphasized that these programs prevent homelessness and provide career pathways. Position: No cuts to youth workforce and prevention programs.
• Public Defender’s Office: Interns and staff urged increased funding, noting that public defenders carry five times the caseload of private attorneys and that the office’s budget is only 60% of the DA’s. They said layoffs would violate constitutional rights. Position: Increase public defender funding.
• Community Ambassadors Program (CAP): Ambassadors and coordinators from the Office of Civic Engagement and Immigrant Affairs opposed cuts to the CAP program, which in FY 2024–2025 conducted 287,000 interactions, 166 de-escalations, 76 calls to 911, and 14 overdose responses. They described the program as a non-police safety net. Position: Restore CAP funding.
• DPH Services at Hope SF: Nurses, social workers, and union representatives opposed the removal of DPH clinical staff from four Hope SF sites, arguing it would increase ER visits and worsen health disparities in Black and underserved neighborhoods. Position: Keep DPH in Hope SF.
• Gender-Based Violence Services: The San Francisco Collaborative Against Human Trafficking, along with student allies, urged restoration of funding for the 24/7 human trafficking hotline, which serves over 15,000 survivors annually. They noted that the sector was moved from the Department on the Status of Women to MOHCD, and services cannot be abandoned. Position: Fund the hotline and gender-based violence services.
• Cost of Doing Business (CODB): Nonprofit providers, including the Human Services Network, asked for a 4% CODB increase ($25.2 million) to cover rising insurance, rent, and wages, warning that flat funding will force service cuts and layoffs. Position: Invest in CODB.
• Proposition C Funds: Multiple speakers from the Coalition on Homelessness, HPP (Homeless Prenatal Program), and community members opposed diverting $87.9 million from Prop C (Our City, Our Home) funds, saying the money is voter-approved for permanent housing and homelessness prevention. They urged the committee to protect Prop C allocations for housing subsidies and rapid rehousing. Position: Do not divert Prop C funds.
• Opposition to New Jail & Police Funding: Several speakers criticized the budget for increasing police overtime (over $60 million) and funding a new jail in San Bruno while cutting social services. They called for defunding police and investing in community programs. Position: No new jail; reduce law enforcement budgets.
• Other Programs: Support was also expressed for the City Build workforce program (no layoffs), Free City College, the Filipino Community Center’s Tulay program, the Immigrant Parent Voting Collaborative, the Tenderloin Community Action Plan (TCAP), the Arts Commission funding, and the American Indian Cultural Center. Many speakers noted that the budget deficit is not real but a result of under-taxing billionaires and corporations.

Key Outcomes

• The committee took no votes on the budget items during this meeting.
• A motion was made and passed (5 ayes: Chan, Dorsey, Guardio, Walton, Mandelman) to recess until Wednesday, June 25, 2025, at 10 AM and to carry over all undecided agenda items (except items 5, 6, and 10, which were disposed at the June 18 meeting) to that date.
• The committee will continue deliberations and consider possible restorations of cuts in the next 48 hours.