“Proposition A would authorize the City and County of San Francisco to issue a $535 million general obligation bond to finance projects that increase San Francisco’s ability to respond to and recover from a major earthquake or other disaster. The bond would fund seismic upgrades and other improvements to buildings and infrastructure.1 (#1) It would allocate * $200 million to replace the 110-year-old Potrero Bus Yard with a modern facility * $130 million to expand and seismically upgrade the city’s Emergency Firefighting Water System, including service to the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods * $100 million to repair and replace seismically unsafe neighborhood fire stations * $72 million for seismic, safety, and operational improvements to police stations and support facilities * $33 million for upgrades to other public safety facilities, including roofs, plumbing, and electrical systems General obligation bonds are a way for cities to borrow money to finance capital improvements that cannot be easily funded through the General Fund. San Francisco’s policy is to issue new bonds only as older ones are retired or as assessed property values increase; therefore, Prop. A would not increase existing property tax rates above the city charter-set limit of 3% of the assessed value of taxable property.2 (#2) San Francisco’s Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee is responsible for auditing bond implementation, ensuring transparency in spending. The Backstory According to the U.S. Geological Survey, there is a 72% chance that a major earthquake (6.7 magnitude or greater) will strike the Bay Area within the next 30 years.3 (#3) San Francisco’s emergency response system depends on a citywide network of critical infrastructure, including first-responder facilities (fire and police) and water infrastructure (cisterns, water pipes, and so on). Voters overwhelmingly approved Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response (ESER) bonds in 2010, 2014, and 2020. These bonds funded critical seismic upgrades to aging public safety infrastructure, ensuring essential facilities can remain operational after major disasters. Because the city owns hundreds of aging municipal buildings in need of upgrades, ESER bonds are proposed on a four- to eight-year cycle. The proposed bond is part of San Francisco’s 10-year Capital Plan, which anticipates $2 billion in bond funding for capital improvements.4 (#4) Introduced by Board of Supervisors President Mandelman, the bond measure was placed on the ballot by the Board of Supervisors. It was originally scheduled for the ballot in 2028, but it was advanced to replace a previously proposed transportation bond. With a Muni parcel tax likely headed to the ballot in November, the city moved up the ESER bond to replace the transportation bond (which would not have addressed the system’s operational funding needs) in the capital plan bond schedule. The bond’s proposed upgrade of the Potrero Bus Yard is likely a rollover project from the failed 2022 Muni general obligation bond (/voter-guide/2022-06/sf-prop-a-muni-and-street-safety-bond) and may also have been in the previously scheduled transportation bond. The upgrade would be part of a larger transit-oriented development project. As a general obligation bond, Prop A needs a two-thirds vote to pass. Equity Impacts Disasters disproportionately impact low-income communities of color, where residents generally have fewer resources to aid recovery. The proposed bond would significantly reduce individual and community losses and restore critical services more quickly, minimizing burdens on low-income residents. Furthermore, Prop. A would upgrade the Potrero Bus Yard, which is critical for running Muni service to low-income communities of color across the city. Pros * The projects funded by this bond would continue to improve San Francisco’s ability to respond to and recover from a catastrophe as climate disasters become more common and the federal government seeks to shift more disaster recovery costs and responsibilities onto local jurisdictions and states through reforms to the Federal Emergency Management Agency. * Updates to the Potrero Bus Yard would be part of a larger transit-oriented development project to develop affordable housing and commercial retail near transit. * The bond would be part of the city’s capital improvement program, which sequences investments without significant increases in property taxes. Cons * Bond repayment would cost the city about $933 million over the next 25 years.5 (#5) * Past bond investments in the Emergency Firefighting Water System have not yielded significant expansion into the Sunset and Richmond neighborhoods. * San Francisco has many capital improvement needs that compete for relatively few spots in the general obligation bond cycle. This bond measure, like any other, impacts the city’s ability to fund other priorities. SPUR's Recommendation The seismic resilience of public safety infrastructure deserves continued public investment because it’s critical to disaster response. That’s why SPUR supported the 2010, 2014, and 2020 ESER bonds, which have already invested $1.4 billion in earthquake safety. The proposed 2026 ESER bond would ensure that the city’s first responders are prepared to save lives, would help keep residents safely housed and public transportation infrastructure running, and would limit the social and economic burden of disasters on households and public institutions. Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-a-earthquake-bond)”

“This measure would amend city charter sections 2.101 and 3.101 to limit members of the Board of Supervisors to no more than two four-year terms in their lifetimes. The lifetime term limit would also apply to the office of the mayor. The measure would not apply to other citywide elected offices, including the district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, sheriff, public defender, and assessor-recorder. The Backstory In November 1990, San Francisco voters approved Proposition N, which established term limits for supervisors: no more than two consecutive four-year terms, with eligibility to run again after a four-year break from office. Prop. N limited consecutive service but did not cap total lifetime service. As a result, a former supervisor or mayor may return to office after sitting out for one full term. Only one individual serving on the Board of Supervisors since this measure was passed successfully returned to office after this break, serving two terms from 2001 to 2009 and two additional terms from 2015 to 2025. The proposed measure was led by a coalition through the SF Young Democrats, and the legislation was introduced by Supervisor Bilal Mahmood to end a “boomerang” provision for term-limited politicians, encourage participation in politics by younger candidates, and limit money and network influence in elections. The underlying theory is that limiting lifetime tenure will lower structural barriers to entry, create more competitive elections, and open the door to new ideas and candidates. The Board of Supervisors voted 7–4 to place the measure on the ballot. The measure requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass. Equity Impacts The equity impacts of this measure are unclear, and research on term limits yields mixed findings. On one hand, longer terms tend to favor incumbents with long-standing political networks, fundraising capacity, and name recognition. These advantages can disproportionately benefit older, wealthier, and better-connected candidates. By guaranteeing leadership turnover, the measure could create more regular openings for younger candidates, first-time officeholders, or candidates from communities historically underrepresented in city government. On the other hand, lifetime term limits can also restrict voter choice, particularly in districts where communities have successfully elected representatives who reflect their lived experience and advocate effectively on their behalf. Preventing voters from re-electing experienced and trusted leaders may disproportionately affect communities that rely on their known representatives to navigate complex city systems or to maintain political influence. Additionally, reduced tenure can limit elected officials’ ability to build the expertise, institutional knowledge, and long-term relationships needed to advance their policies. Inexperienced officeholders may become more reliant on unelected actors, such as lobbyists, consultants, or senior staff, whose perspectives and incentives may not align with those of their constituents. Pros * Lifetime term limits would ensure regular turnover in the Office of the Mayor and on the Board of Supervisors. These limits could create more open-seat elections, which historically attract a wider range of candidates and reduce some advantages of incumbency, such as name recognition. * Lifetime term limits would reduce individual politicians’ ability to build long-term influence through repeated tenures, extensive donor networks, and entrenched political alliances. * Some voters may assume that existing term limits cap total time in office rather than only consecutive service. This amendment would clarify and simplify the rule, making it easier to understand. Cons * Lifetime term limits permanently bar individuals from office regardless of voter support or performance. They remove voters’ ability to re-elect leaders they believe are effective, responsive, or uniquely qualified to represent their district or city. * Limiting total tenure may reduce the depth and likelihood of experience gained by elected officials, potentially weakening long-term policymaking capacity. * Frequent turnover among elected officials can increase reliance on lobbyists, consultants, and long-tenured staff who possess institutional memory but are not directly accountable to voters. * Term limits alone cannot solve problems created by the outsized influence of money in elections, including disparities in fundraising capacity, independent expenditures, and access to donor networks. * Creating more open seats does not automatically translate to more diverse or equitable representation. Meaningful change requires investments in mentorship programs and resources that help first-time candidates from all backgrounds run competitive campaigns. SPUR's Recommendation San Francisco already has term limits. The existing limits balance the goals of reducing incumbency advantage and preserving voter choice. Lifetime bans permanently remove voter choice to elect representatives, and stripping that choice should require a more deliberate and robust process, which this measure did not undergo. While term limits can increase competition and reduce incumbent power, this measure is unlikely to achieve these objectives on its own and may produce unintended negative consequences. Term limits alone do not fully address the structural factors that shape political power and electoral outcomes. Additionally, while regular turnover can promote competition, it may limit elected officials’ ability to build long-term expertise, particularly in a city with a complex governance structure like San Francisco. The rarity of political candidates returning after a break in service suggests this measure is designed to address a problem that barely exists. For these reasons, this measure is not a comprehensive solution to the challenges of incumbency power, electoral competitiveness, and equitable representation. Achieving the desired outcomes of generating new ideas and leaders requires reform related to campaign finance and pathways for political leadership development. Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-b-lifetime-term-limits)”

“Proposition C would speed up the scheduled Top Executive Pay Tax increase, making the planned 2028 tax rates effective in 2027. The measure would also exempt small businesses with gross receipts of $7.5 million from the Gross Receipts Tax, raising the threshold for the current exemption, which applies to businesses with gross receipts of $5 million or less. It is estimated that about 800 businesses would benefit from this change to the exemption. Prop. C would have a negative fiscal impact on the city, reducing revenues by an estimated $30 million to $40 million per year, according to the controller. This ballot measure would nullify Prop. D, a competing business tax measure, if it receives more votes. The Backstory Both Prop. C and Prop. D propose changes to San Francisco’s current business tax structure. Current business tax structure Bringing in about $1.3 billion annually, business taxes are San Francisco’s second-highest revenue source, exceeded only by property taxes. The Gross Receipts Tax, which accounts for 88% of business tax revenues, applies to businesses with more than $5 million in revenue. The Top Executive Pay Tax is an additional gross receipts tax applicable to businesses with at least 1,000 employees or $1 billion in sales that pay their highest-paid manager more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. The tax rate is tiered according to the ratio of the salary for a company’s highest-paid manager to the median San Francisco worker’s salary. The city collected approximately $130 million in revenues from this tax in fiscal year 2023–24, according to the controller. Evolution of business tax policy in San Francisco In 2012, San Francisco voters approved the city’s transition from the payroll tax to a gross receipts tax. Like an income tax rate, the gross receipts tax rate increases with gross revenue, making it more beneficial for small businesses than the previous flat payroll tax. From 2018 to 2020, voters passed additional ballot measures to increase gross receipts taxes, including a homelessness gross receipts tax on large companies and a commercial rents gross receipts tax. In 2020, voters approved the Top Executive Pay Tax, which imposed an additional gross receipts tax on companies with a high compensation ratio between top executives and the median San Francisco worker. The rise of remote work after 2020 exposed the vulnerabilities of the city’s business tax structure. First, the city was overly reliant on a small number of companies for its tax base. In 2024, the top 10 taxpayers paid 28% of total business taxes. The Top Executive Pay Tax was even more concentrated, with the top 10 companies accounting for 61% of revenue. Second, the city’s “payroll apportionment factor” reduced business taxes for companies with remote workers, disincentivizing local job growth. Third, the city’s tax code had become convoluted, with 14 categories of business taxes. To address these weaknesses, the city reformed its tax structure again in 2024. In an effort led by the Office of the Controller and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the city conducted analysis, engaged with employers and stakeholders, and finalized its proposed reforms in May 2024. Business groups, nonprofits, and labor organizations collected signatures for a November 2024 ballot measure to implement those reforms. The resulting Prop. M: * Changed the apportionment ratio to remove the disincentive for companies to hire more employees in San Francisco * Reduced the number of business tax categories from 14 to 7 * Cut the top executive tax rate by 80% and exempted businesses with 1,000 or fewer U.S. employees and $1 billion or less in gross receipts * Exempted small businesses with gross receipts of $5 million or less from all business taxes and fees The new tax structure became effective in January 2025, and companies are just beginning to file under it. Therefore, the impacts of the new structure remain unknown. Federal funding cuts and the city’s growing budget deficit The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), enacted in July 2025, will impose significant cuts to critical social safety-net programs nationwide. The controller has estimated $200 million in lost revenue annually due to these cuts, which will exacerbate the city’s fiscal deficit, estimated at nearly $169 million for FY 2026–27. To fill that deficit, Supervisor Chan proposed raising the Top Executive Pay Tax and imposing new fees on ride-hailing companies. Chan’s measure, co-signed by supervisors Chen, Fielder, and Walton, was withdrawn when three labor unions filed Prop. D. Prop. C was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign led by the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce and Advance SF, which represent businesses in San Francisco. The measure was proposed in reaction to Prop. D, a competing tax measure that would increase business taxes. Prop. C requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass. Equity Impacts The measure would worsen the city’s structural budget deficit, making it less likely that the city can provide resources for vulnerable populations. It would provide some additional tax relief for smaller businesses. Pros * The measure would cut taxes for 800 businesses, providing some financial relief for smaller establishments. * The measure would preserve the basic structure of the business tax that was approved by voters in 2024. Cons * The measure would worsen the city’s fiscal deficit. * The measure was placed on the ballot to prevent a competing measure from succeeding. SPUR's Recommendation The comprehensive business tax reform under 2024’s Prop. M was developed after months of policy analysis and engagement and has broad support from business, labor, and other stakeholders. Prop. C would not make significant structural changes that warrant another voter measure. It was placed on the ballot primarily to defeat Prop. D, a competing tax measure to increase business taxes. Significantly, it would have a negative net impact on San Francisco’s budget, reducing revenues by an estimated $30 million to $40 million per year at a time when the city is already scrambling to fill a $169 million budget gap for the next fiscal year. Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-c-small-business-tax-cuts)”

“The proposed measure would increase the rates for the Top Executive Pay Tax (one of the city’s existing business taxes, also known as the CEO Tax) by 800% to 900% starting in 2027. Additionally, the measure would redefine the executive pay ratio as the difference between the salary of a company’s highest-paid manager and the median salary of all the company’s employees worldwide, rather than the median salary of the company’s San Francisco workers. The median salary for San Francisco workers is significantly higher than the global median. With this change, new companies would be subject to the Top Executive Pay Tax, and many would be recategorized into higher tax tiers. The new tax rate would apply to nearly any large company with at least $1 billion in San Francisco sales and more than 1,000 employees globally. It would therefore apply to a wide range of companies, including not only large technology and financial services firms but also retailers, including pharmacies and grocery stores. The controller estimates that the measure would generate $250 million to $300 million a year for San Francisco’s General Fund. The Backstory Both Prop. C and Prop. D propose changes to San Francisco’s current business tax structure. Current business tax structure Bringing in about $1.3 billion annually, business taxes are San Francisco’s second-highest revenue source, exceeded only by property taxes. The Gross Receipts Tax, which accounts for 88% of business tax revenues, applies to businesses with more than $5 million in revenue. The Top Executive Pay Tax is an additional gross receipts tax applicable to businesses with at least 1,000 employees or $1 billion in sales that pay their highest-paid manager more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. The tax rate is tiered according to the ratio of the salary for a company’s highest-paid manager to the median San Francisco worker’s salary. The city collected approximately $130 million in revenues from this tax in fiscal year 2023–24, according to the controller. Evolution of business tax policy in San Francisco In 2012, San Francisco voters approved the city’s transition from the payroll tax to a gross receipts tax. Like an income tax rate, the gross receipts tax rate increases with gross revenue, making it more beneficial for small businesses than the previous flat payroll tax. From 2018 to 2020, voters passed additional ballot measures to increase gross receipts taxes, including a homelessness gross receipts tax on large companies and a commercial rents gross receipts tax. In 2020, voters approved the Top Executive Pay Tax, which imposed an additional gross receipts tax on companies with a high compensation ratio between top executives and the company’s median San Francisco worker. The rise of remote work after 2020 exposed the vulnerabilities of the city’s business tax structure. First, the city was overly reliant on a small number of companies for its tax base. In 2024, the top 10 taxpayers paid 28% of total business taxes. The Top Executive Pay Tax was even more concentrated, with the top 10 companies accounting for 61% of revenue. Second, the city’s “payroll apportionment factor” reduced business taxes for companies with remote workers, disincentivizing local job growth. Third, the city’s tax code had become convoluted, with 14 categories of business taxes. To address these weaknesses, the city reformed its tax structure again in 2024. In an effort led by the Office of the Controller and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector, the city conducted analysis, engaged with employers and stakeholders, and finalized its proposed reforms in May 2024. Business groups, nonprofits, and labor organizations collected signatures for a November 2024 ballot measure to implement those reforms. The resulting Prop. M * Changed the apportionment ratio to remove the disincentive for companies to hire more employees in San Francisco * Reduced the number of business tax categories from 14 to 7 * Cut the top executive tax rate by 80% and exempted businesses with 1,000 or fewer U.S. employees and $1 billion or less in gross receipts * Exempted small businesses with gross receipts of $5 million or less from all business taxes and fees The new tax structure became effective in January 2025, and companies are just beginning to file under it. Therefore, the impacts of the new structure remain unknown. Federal funding cuts and the city’s growing budget deficit The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1), enacted in July 2025, will impose significant cuts to critical social safety-net programs nationwide. The controller has estimated $200 million in lost revenue annually due to these cuts, which will exacerbate the city’s fiscal deficit, estimated at nearly $169 million for FY 2026–27. To fill that deficit, Supervisor Chan proposed raising the Top Executive Pay Tax and imposing new fees on ride-hailing companies. Chan’s measure, co-signed by supervisors Chen, Fielder, and Walton, was withdrawn when labor unions filed this voter initiative. Prop. D was placed on the ballot through a signature-gathering campaign led by Service Employees International Union 2015, SEIU 1021, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers Local 21. It requires a simple majority (50% plus one vote) to pass. A competing measure, Prop. C, was placed on the ballot in response to Prop. D. If Prop. C receives more votes, it would nullify Prop. D. Equity Impacts The federal H.R. 1 funding cuts will be devastating to low-income residents, immigrants, and people with disabilities, restricting their access to food, health care, and social services. The San Francisco Department of Public Health and Human Services Agency estimates that as many as 50,000 San Franciscans may lose health care coverage. The proposed measure would help offset those impacts. The departments/agencies that receive the largest discretionary General Fund expenditures are Public Health, Police, Human Services, Fire, Homelessness and Supportive Housing, and the Sheriff. If the measure helps the city close its structural budget deficit, resources for vulnerable populations would be protected. Gross receipts taxes are more progressive than other types of business taxes because the rates increase with revenues, much like an income tax. The measure would preserve the exemption for small businesses with gross receipts of less than $5 million. Pros * Implementing this tax increase would generate between $250 million and $300 million in annual revenue to mitigate the drastic funding cuts under H.R. 1, which disproportionately impact low-income residents, immigrants, and people with disabilities. * The tax revenue would go to the city’s General Fund, enabling greater spending and service flexibility and reducing the structural budget deficit. Cons * The measure would make it harder to project revenues by concentrating them in a smaller share of the employer base. * High tax rates on businesses would make San Francisco less attractive to companies, which may choose to locate or expand elsewhere. * Companies would have difficulty projecting their tax liabilities due to fluctuations in top executives’ compensation. * Changing the business tax structure so quickly after Prop. M’s passage would undermine the predictability of doing business in San Francisco. SPUR's Recommendation Federal budget cuts could impact as many as 50,000 San Franciscans who rely on Medi-Cal and CalFresh to access health care and food. Developing sound fiscal strategies to mitigate those budget cuts is critical. However, Prop. D could undermine San Francisco’s ability to attract private investment at a time when the city’s economy is vulnerable. Some retailers, including grocery stores and pharmacies, have plans to close their San Francisco locations if the measure passes. Furthermore, Prop. D would increase risk to the city’s revenues by relying on a small number of companies for business tax revenues. The comprehensive reform under 2024’s Prop. M maintained a progressive tax policy that reduced the tax burden on small businesses while protecting the city and taxpayers from volatility and unpredictability. It was developed with rigorous policy analysis and won strong support from a broad coalition. Because the new tax structure only became effective in January 2025, it’s too soon to know what its impacts will be. SPUR believes that the efficacy of the newly adopted tax structure should be thoroughly evaluated, and further analysis should be conducted in partnership with business and labor before returning to the voters with a new revenue proposal. Source (https://www.spur.org/voter-guide/2026-06/sf-prop-d-business-tax-increase)”