VOTE411 Voter Guide

Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response Bond.—.To improve fire, earthquake, and emergency response by retrofitting, improving, expanding, constructing, and/or replacing: deteriorating pipes, tunnels, and related facilities to ensure firefighters can access enough water to fight fires from a major disaster or emergency; unsafe or deteriorating emergency response facilities, including neighborhood fire stations, critical transportation facilities, and public safety facilities; and to pay related costs, shall the City and County of San Francisco’s issuance of $535,000,000 in general obligation bonds be adopted, with a duration up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $7.45/$100,000 of assessed property value, and estimated average annual revenues of $35,900,000, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits? The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 tax rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.."YES" votes needed to pass: 66⅔%.On February 3, 2026, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition A on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:.Yes: Chan, Chen, Dorsey, Fielder, Mahmood, Mandelman, Melgar, Sauter, Sherrill, Walton, Wong..No: None..—.Pros & Cons Guide – League of Women Voters of San Francisco.Background: To protect San Francisco in a major earthquake, the City is responsible for improving critical facilities that support first responders and provide public transit used in emergency response after a major earthquake. This includes a firefighting water system, fire and police stations, other first-responder facilities, and the Potrero Yard Muni facility. Since 2010, voters have approved bonds to fund essential public safety projects that address the greatest seismic and related risks. A committee monitors how bond funds are spent..The proposal: Proposition A would authorize the City to borrow up to $535 million by issuing general obligation bonds to be used for seismic upgrades and improvements to infrastructure used for emergency response and recovery. The City would use up to: $130 million for the firefighting water system, $100 million for fire stations, $72 million for police stations and support facilities, $200 million for the Potrero Yard Muni facility, and $33 million for other public safety facilities. A property tax increase is not projected, but would be allowed if needed. If that happens, landlords of rent-controlled units could pass through up to 50% to tenants..👍 If you vote YES, you want the City to issue up to $535 million in general obligation bonds to fund earthquake safety projects..👎 If you vote NO, you do not want the City to issue these bonds..Supporters include: SF Democratic Party, Laborers Pacific Southwest Regional Organizing Coalition Issues PAC, SF Believes PAC, United Contractors..Supporters claim: Allows the City to safeguard residents by improving essential facilities to enhance earthquake response and recovery and address urgent and critical needs, especially water system improvements. Requires accountability and transparency..Opponents include: SF Republican Party, Coalition for SF Neighborhoods, Equal Fire Protection for All Committee..Opponents claim: Voters previously approved roughly $1.1 billion for earthquake safety. The City should use the current budget to fund private partnership investments for seismic upgrades in order to avoid the risk of new debt and higher taxes..—.Controller's Statement on "A".City Controller Greg Wagner has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition A:.If the proposed $535 million in general obligation bonds ("Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response", or "ESER") is authorized by the voters and sold under current assumptions, the approximate costs will be as follows:.In Fiscal Year (FY) 2027–2028, following issuance of the first series of bonds, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.0034 per $100 ($3.40 per $100,000) of assessed valuation. In FY 2033–2034, the year with the highest estimated tax rate following the issuance of the last series of bonds, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.01155 per $100 ($11.55 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.The best estimate of total debt service, including principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all proposed $535 million in general obligation bonds are issued and sold, would be approximately $933 million.The best estimate of the average tax rate for these bonds over the entire projected duration of the bond debt service from FY 2027–2028 through FY 2052– 2053 is $0.00745 per $100 ($7.45 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.Based on these estimates, the highest estimated annual property tax cost for these bonds for the owner of a home with an assessed value of $700,000 would be approximately $80.01..The City Charter limits the amount of City general obligation bonds ("City GO bonds") that can be outstanding at any given time to 3% of the assessed value of taxable property in the City. The current City Charter limit is $10.74 billion for FY 2025–2026. Bonds issued by the San Francisco Community College District, San Francisco Unified School District, the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) or other non-City entities are not counted for the purposes of the City Charter limit. As of December 1, 2025, there was $2.67 billion in outstanding City GO bonds (representing 0.75% of assessed value of taxable property in the City). An additional $1.19 billion of City GO bonds remain authorized but unissued. If the ESER Bond is approved by the voters, the total amount of (i) outstanding and (ii) authorized but unissued City GO bonds would be $4.39 billion, or approximately 1.23% of the assessed value of taxable property in the City. This calculation assumes the issuance of all of the bonds authorized by the voters, including the proposed ESER Bond measure..The City’s current non-binding debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds at or below the 2005–2006 tax rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors. Given this policy, it is not anticipated that the levy of the City’s GO bond property taxes for this measure, if approved by the voters, would increase the property tax rate for City GO bonds above the 2006 fiscal year level..Under current law, landlords may be able to pass through a portion of general obligation bond repayment costs, if any, to tenants. The amount of the passthrough is determined by tenancy start date among other factors. The Rent Board publishes information on pass throughs each year..The above estimates are based on projections given current assumptions. Actual results may differ, and these estimates are not binding upon the City. Projections and estimates may vary due to the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold at each sale, and actual assessed valuation over the term of repayment of the bonds. Hence, the actual tax rate and the years in which such rates are applicable may vary from those estimated above..The City will incur nominal costs related to staff time administering the ESER Bond program. Subject to rules and regulations of tax law, staff costs of the City may be eligible for reimbursement by bond proceeds and accordingly impose no increased cost of City government..—.Links to more information.Digest by the Ballot Simplification CommitteeFull text of Proposition A (40-page PDF)Controller's cost analysisCampaign finance dashboard (San Francisco Ethics Commission).~~~~~.YES on Proposition A.Proponent argument author(s): Mayor Daniel Lurie, Board President Rafael Mandelman*, Fire Chief Dean Crispen*, Police Commission President C. Don Clay*, San Francisco Firefighters Local 798 Secretary Mario Flaherty*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.Proponent argumentProponent's rebuttal to opponent's argumentPaid argument(s) in favor (PDF).NO on Proposition A.Opponent argument author(s): San Francisco Republican PartyOpponent argumentOpponent's rebuttal to proponent's argumentPaid arguments against (PDF)