Additional Parcel Tax for City College

Shall the City establish an additional parcel tax on some San Francisco property owners based on the square footage and use of their properties, at rates between $150–4,000 per parcel with adjustments for inflation, to generate approximately $37 million in annual revenue, beginning on July 1, 2023 and continuing until June 30, 2043, and transfer those funds to City College for student and workforce development programs?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: City College of San Francisco (City College) is a public, two-year community college that receives funding from the state, the federal government and the City.

San Francisco property owners pay an annual flat tax of $99 per parcel to help fund City College. These tax revenues include funding for teachers, counselors and libraries. This tax will expire on June 30, 2032.

State law limits the amount of revenue, including tax revenue, that the City can spend each year. State law authorizes San Francisco voters to approve increases to this limit for up to four years.

The Proposal: Proposition O would establish a parcel tax in addition to the current $99 flat tax on San Francisco property owners beginning on July 1, 2023, and continuing until June 30, 2043. The tax would be adjusted annually for inflation. The proposed 2023 tax rates would be:

Property Type	Rate
Single-family residential	$150
Residential, one residential unit (for example, a one-unit condominium)	$150
Residential, two or more residential units	$75 per unit
Nonresidential, under 5,000 square feet	$150
Nonresidential, 5,000–24,999 square feet	$1,250
Nonresidential, 25,000–100,000 square feet	$2,500
Nonresidential, over 100,000 square feet	$4,000

The rates are based on the square footage of the buildings or the square footage of an undeveloped parcel. For properties with mixed residential and commercial uses, different rates would apply.

The tax would not apply to two types of properties:

• properties in which a person at least 65 years old before July 1 of the fiscal year has an ownership interest and lives at that property; and

• properties not required to pay standard property taxes, such as parcels owned and used by certain nonprofits.

Proposition O would require the City to collect and transfer all revenue from the additional parcel tax to City College that must use these tax revenues for the following purposes:

• 25% for services and programs that support student enrollment, basic needs, retention and job placement;

• 25% for programs that address basic-skills needs, including supporting English proficiency and technology use and obtaining United States citizenship;

• 25% for workforce development programs that support job training and placement; and

• 25% for programs that support the academic success and leadership development of historically underrepresented students.

Before receiving these tax revenues, City College must submit an expenditure plan to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors.

Proposition O would require the City Controller to perform annual audits for the first five years of the tax and periodically thereafter. The Mayor or Board of Supervisors may suspend the transfer of revenues from the additional tax if City College has not adopted the Controller's audit recommendations.

Proposition O would require City College to establish an independent oversight committee to ensure that tax revenues are used only for designated purposes.

Proposition O would increase the City's spending limit, set by state law, for four years.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to establish an additional parcel tax on some San Francisco property owners based on the square footage and use of their properties and transfer those tax funds to City College for student and workforce development programs.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.

Controller's Statement on "O"

City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition O:

Should the proposed parcel tax be approved by the voters, in my opinion, based on currently available parcel data it would generate approximately $37 million annually, and would increase over time as the per parcel rates are adjusted for inflation each year. The cost to government to administer this parcel tax would exceed the one percent administrative cost allowance by $6 million in one-time spending and $3 million per year to administer.

Revenues would be deposited into the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Fund, a new fund established by the measure. Revenues would be transferred to the San Francisco Community College District and must be spent on for wraparound services to support students, basic-skills needs of City residents, workforce development programs, and equity and social justice programs.

The proposed tax of $150 to $4,000 per parcel or unit, varying by square footage, would be imposed beginning July 1, 2023 and continue until June 30, 2043. Properties that are exempt from ad valorem property taxes, as well as residential properties whose owners are sixty-five or older and occupy the property as a primary residence, would be exempt from the parcel tax. The City does not currently use square footage, parcel use type, or unit number data as a basis for taxation. The cost to validate and maintain these data, establish and maintain senior exemptions, and conduct the auditing and other administrative tasks required by the measure would increase the cost of government by approximately $6 million on a one-time basis and $3 million on an ongoing, annual basis, which is the amount that exceeds the one percent administrative cost allowance in the measure. The time required to obtain and validate parcel data may delay the imposition of the tax and receipt of proceeds.

How "O" Got on the Ballot

On July 14, 2022, the Department of Elections certified that the initiative petition calling for Proposition O to be placed on the ballot had a sufficient number of valid signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot.

8,979 signatures were required to place an initiative ordinance on the ballot. This number is equal to 5% of the total number of people who voted for Mayor in 2019. A random check of the signatures submitted by the proponents of the initiative petition prior to the July 11, 2022, submission deadline showed that the total number of valid signatures was greater than the number required.

This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition O

Prop O is the ultimate in economic recovery: it opens doors for better jobs for all San Franciscans at City College.

City College is the largest job and skills trainer in San Francisco, and offers free tuition for all San Francisco residents. City College serves tens of thousands of students annually, providing an affordable opportunity to earn degrees and receive valuable workforce training for careers in nursing, firefighting, engineering/ technology, custodial work and construction — the jobs that make our city work. These skills, careers and opportunities are the leg up that struggling communities need.

Students of all backgrounds can learn basic skills such as English as a second language and literacy, or take citizenship classes.

City College also provides critical wraparound support services in counseling, job placement, and mental health.

Pre-pandemic, City College had steady enrollment, but following an increase in class cuts after 2019, enrollment began declining rapidly. Cuts and declines— now compounded by the pandemic — are continuing and are denying education to those who need it most. To restore classes and services and meet education demands, $37 million a year is needed to guarantee San Franciscans are not left behind.

Prop O proposes a temporary, twenty-year tiered parcel tax, with the highest tax rates on the largest commercial properties while homeowners pay just $150 per year or $75 per unit, a fair price to pay to invest in such a tremendous asset for San Francisco: a true resource for economic mobility and life skills without student debt.

We all know the value of a good education — especially for those who cannot afford a four-year degree. The benefits ripple throughout the community for generations.

Please join us in supporting Yes on O!

City College Faculty (AFT 2121)

City College Staff (SElU 1021)

Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party

United Educators of San Francisco

San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth

sfwercs.com

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition O

While we all value the educational opportunities City College offers, let’s review recent history.

In the past 20 years, we’ve approved nearly $1.3 billion in bonds for the school’s facilities and allocated money from the City’s General Fund to make City College classes tuition free.

In the past eight years, City College has had NINE chancellors, a never-ending series of budget nightmares, and came very close to losing its accreditation.

This is the third parcel tax proposed for City College in the past 10 years. The one were currently paying doesn’t expire until 2032!

Now we’re asked to approve another that’s much, much higher and that will increase annually for the next 20 years, in addition to the one we're already paying.

The Controller determined that the City’s costs for collecting and managing the tax will exceed the administrative allowance the measure provides. “The cost to government to administer this parcel tax would exceed the one percent administrative cost allowance by $6 million in one-time spending and $3 million per year to administer.”

And there isn’t even a plan for how City College will spend the additional funds!

Enough is enough.

It’s time for the trustees and administrators to demonstrate they’re capable of providing the leadership, foresight and financial stability desperately needed, before coming to the voters for yet another bailout. It’s time to hold them accountable.

It’s not the time for Proposition O. Vote No.

Mayor London Breed

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Judge Quentin Kopp (ret.)

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition O

Note No on O, the bailout (again) for City College

San Franciscans have repeatedly been asked to tax themselves to save City College from terrible fiscal mismanagement and oversight. We’ve given them the resources and the funding, but City College still can’t manage their finances or turn their organization around.

Now, City College is back, asking residents for significantly more money at a time where small businesses, tenants, and homeowners are struggling to recover financially from the pandemic.

City College is laying off faculty and cutting classes, but they still want every apartment dweller to pay a per-unit fee of $75, more than what it costs for many residents to enroll in the College itself.

It’s time that the citizens of San Francisco stop approving blank-check funding for a failing institution. It’s time that the citizens stop approving slush-fund spending without accountability.

Vote No on O.

City College needs to show San Franciscans that it can manage its finances and its spending before we give them millions of extra dollars in funding.

San Francisco Apartment Association

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition O

Proposition O opens doors to better jobs for San Franciscans, helping more people benefit from City College to find opportunity and earn a living wage.

But the huge corporate landlords who oppose Prop O don't seem to care. Despite receiving hundreds of millions in rent profits, these landlords oppose paying a fair share.

The real reason? It's because Prop O is a tiered parcel tax, which charges property owners who own bigger, more expensive buildings a higher rate, allowing small property owners and homeowners to pay less. Vulnerable groups like seniors are exempt.

Don't believe their lies: It is illegal for landlords to pass on this cost to their tenants.

Prop O revenue will be overseen by an independent oversight committee and subject to audits from the controller to ensure every dollar is spent to fund the following needs:

• 25% to workforce development, job training, and career placement

• 25% to student enrollment, basic needs, retention, and job placement

• 25% to literacy, English as a second language, and citizenship classes

• 25% to academic success and leadership programs for historically underrepresented students

Prop O is a modest and smart investment in City College — the largest job and skills trainer in the city, providing free job training and workforce skills to all San Franciscans, including firefighting, nursing, and construction.

Invest in City College for a brighter San Francisco! Join us in supporting Prop O.

Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party

City College Faculty (AFT 2121)

City College Staff (SEIU 1021)

San Francisco Firefighters Local 798

United Educators of San Francisco

San Francisco Latinx Democratic Club

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition O

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Open Doors to Better Jobs: SF Firefighters Say Yes on Prop O

San Francisco is home to one of the most competitive firefighting departments. Most San Francisco candidates hired into fire departments have completed fire programs at City College of San Francisco. Proposition O will fund City College's Fire One Academy and give students access to hands-on experience inside a firehouse, giving them the best job training to achieve entry into this ever-competitive field.

Local 798

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Seniors Strongly Urge Yes on O!

City College is an institution for all ages. It serves not only young people but our seniors as well! It is such a critical pillar of the San Francisco community. Prop O is a modest and fair tax that charges property owners who own bigger, more expensive buildings a higher rate, allowing small property owners and homeowners to pay less, and exempting all senior homeowners.

Senior and Disability Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Education Leaders Support Prop O

The educational demand in San Francisco is well known. Without additional investment, our students - in the face of ever-growing need and vulnerability - see their opportunities for affordable and accessible education, job training and placement, economic growth and personal success disappearing.

United Educators of San Francisco

American Federation of Teachers 2121 President Mary Bravewoman

United Educators of San Francisco President Cassondra Curiel

American Federation of Teachers 2121 Former President Anita Martinez

United Educators of San Francisco Former President Susan Solomon

City College of San Francisco Trustee Alan Wong

City College of San Francisco Trustee Aliya Chisti

Board of Education Commissioner Matt Alexander

Board of Education Vice President Kevin Boggess

City College of San Francisco Trustee Thea Selby

City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees Vice President John Rizzo

City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees President Trustee Brigitte Davila

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

City College Faculty, Staff, and Students Say Yes on Prop O

As the most expensive city in the nation, San Francisco's City College is the largest and most accessible resource in the city for degrees as well as jobs and skills training. Supporting Proposition O is an investment in our students, staff, and teachers. The funding from this tax will support over 60,000 students with at least 7,732 class sections. Investing in City College is an investment in our city's future.

American Federation of Teachers 2121

Service Employees International Union 1021

City College of San Francisco Staff Charles Hutchins

City College of San Francisco Staff Arnold Warshaw

City College of San Francisco Staff Member Susan Boeckmann

City College of San Francisco Faculty Member Alison Datz

City College of San Francisco Faculty Member Alissa Messer

City College of San Francisco Faculty Member Tehmina Khan

City College of San Francisco Student Laura Cohen

City College of San Francisco Student Sarah Harris

Former Student Trustee William Walker

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Democratic Party and Democratic Leaders Say Yes on Prop O!

City College is the village San Franciscans rely upon to provide the educational opportunities that change lives. City College serves those most in need of support, including low-income and immigrant communities, students of color, displaced workers, veterans, people with disabilities, first-generation college students, and full-and part-time students. Proposition O is a critical step to providing CCSF with the resources it desperately needs to create equal access to education.

San Francisco Democratic Party
California Assemblymember Phil Ting

California Assemblymember Matt Haney

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Peter Gallota

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Li Lovett

San Francisco Democratic Party Recording Secretary Janice Li

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Gloria Berry

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Hillary Ronen

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Gordon Mar

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Mano Raju

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Bevan Dufty

San Francisco Democratic Party Member David Campos

Former California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

Former California Assemblymember Mark Leno

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Invest in Future Generations. Homeowners Say Yes on Prop O!

Prop O is a smart investment in our community. The tiered parcel tax charges property owners who own bigger, more expensive buildings a higher rate, allowing small property owners and homeowners to pay just $150 per home or $75 a unit. This minor change to our annual taxes will have a profound positive effect on the critical fixture of our city's community and economy which is City College.

Marcus Chan West Portal Homeowner

Tehmina Khan, Bernal Heights Homeowner

Alissa Buckley, Ingleside Homeowner

Timothy Killikelly, Potrero Hill Homeowner

Buck Bagot, Bernal Heights Landlord

Alisa Messer, Mission Homeowner

Jen Kroot, NOPA homeowner

Christian Evans, Haight-Ashbury Homeowner

Charles Hutchins, Bernal Heights Homeowner

Jason Prado, SOMA Landlord

Jeff May, Ingleside Landlord

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Small Business Owners Agree: Prop O Helps Our Businesses Thrive

The vast majority of the tax revenue will come from giant commercial buildings and will not impact our small businesses. In fact, funding CCSF keeps SF vibrant and will help our businesses flourish.

Booksmith Owner Christin Evans

Key Food Market Owner Zaki Shaheen

Bar Part Time Owner Justin Dolezal

No Shop Owner Leah Martin

Bangin Hair Owner Diane Ramirez

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Female Leaders Say Yes on Prop O!

Support equal opportunity at City College! City College of San Francisco was one of the first community colleges in the nation to offer women's and gender studies courses. It now offers over 30 courses for students to learn strategies for improving communication and promoting healthy behaviors in our personal, social, and work lives. One of the core tenants of City College is equal opportunity and access, and the college has demonstrated this since its founding. Let City College continue to invest in programs and resources to benefit women and promote equitable opportunity. Vote yes on O!

San Francisco Women's Political Committee

District Nine Supervisor Hillary Ronen

San Francisco Women's Political Committee Co-President Nadia Rahman

American Federation of Teachers 2121 President Mary Bravewoman

American Federation of Teachers 2121 Former President Anita Martinez

United Educators of San Francisco President Cassondra Curiel

United Educators of San Francisco Former President Susan Solomon

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Li Lovett

San Francisco Democratic Party Recording Secretary Janice Li

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Gloria Berry

Community Organizer Jackie Fielder

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Asian American Leaders Say Yes on Prop O!

Asian enrollment is the highest of any demographic at CCSF. Our Asian students heavily rely on CCSF programs such as English as a Second Language to create a pathway to four-year university and the workforce. Our community relies on City College for the workforce engine that it is. Let San Francisco's expansive and intersectional Asian community reap the benefits of a well-funded City College!

California Assemblymember Phil Ting

District four Supervisor Gordon Mar

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Li Lovett

San Francisco Democratic Party Recording Secretary Janice Li

San Francisco Public Defender Mano Raju

United Playaz Executive Director Rudy Corpuz

City College Trustee Alan Wong

South West Asian North African Dem Club

Chinese for Affirmative Action

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

African American Leaders Say Yes on Prop O!

One of the four key investment areas from this tax revenue will be for social justice and equity programs, such as the African American Scholastic Program. Proposition O would create necessary avenues for employment opportunities that are particularly lacking in San Francisco's Black community. This is why making CCSF more accessible is especially important for young Black people looking to enter the workforce in our city.

Board of Supervisors President Shamann Walton

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Gloria Berry

Board of Education Vice President Kevine Boguess

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

LGBTQ+ Leaders Agree: We Need City College for Student Success

In a time when human rights are under attack, we must ensure that communities are uplifted in San Francisco. Prop O funding will go to four major areas, including counseling and the Queer Resource Center. LGBTQ+ students are more likely to experience homelessness and face barriers to graduating. This funding will provide critical support to ensure LGBTQ+ students thrive at City College.

Harvey Milk Democratic Club

Harvey Milk Democratic Club President Edward Wright

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair Honey Mahogany

San Francisco Democratic Party Vice Chair Peter Gallotta

San Francisco Democratic Party Member David Campos

San Francisco Democratic Party Member Bevan Dufty

Former California Assemblymember Tom Ammiano

Former California Assemblymember Mark Leno

Community Organizer Jackie Fielder

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Invest in the Latino Community in San Francisco. Vote Yes on Prop O!

Latino enrollment is one of the highest at city college. Our community relies heavily on City College as a source of quality education and workforce training. In particular, city college courses to build literacy and master English, are crucial to ensuring our community succeeds in the workforce. Proposition O will directly fund these courses that are crucial for everyday use, job skills, and preparation for four-year universities.

San Francisco LatinX Democratic Club

Latino Task Force

San Francisco Democratic Party Member David Campos

American Federation of Teachers 2121 Former President Anita Martinez

San Francisco Democratic Party Corresponding Secretary Anabel Ibáñez

Community Organizer Jackie Fielder

Latino Task Force Education Committee Director Efrein Barrera

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Labor Leaders Are United in Saying Yes on Prop O to Invest in Workforce Training

In 2019, CCSF administration made major budget cuts that reduced the classes and services offered at City College, including workforce and skills training programs. Proposition O will restore programs, which include job training for critical trades like nursing, construction, plumbing, EMT programs, and more. We must invest in workforce training for San Francisco. The best way to staff up San Francisco is to ensure that people have access to the training and education needed to fill our city's vacancies.

San Francisco Labor Council

National Union of Healthcare Workers

Service Employees International Union 1021

American Federation of Teachers 2121

United Educators of San Francisco

Building Trades

International Longshore Warehouse Union Northern California District Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Workers and Neighbors for City College.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: SEIU 1021, AFT 2121.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition O

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Paid Arguments Against Proposition O

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition O

VOTE NO ON O – It’s OUTRAGEOUS!

City College is beloved, but a parcel tax is inherently unfair because commercial real estate is taxed like a taxpayer’s home! (At least property taxation is based on market value.)

In the past 20 years, San Francisco voters approved nearly $1.3 billion in public bonds to improve campus facilities. We voted for a $99 parcel tax in 2012 that lasted eight years, and another in 2016 that runs for 15 years, not expiring until 2032! City officials fought to retain the institutions accreditation. City Hall approved funds allowing students to attend classes for free, despite having no authority or responsibility for the College’s operation.

Taxpayers have been patient. Budget and staff reductions were painful. The College has had NINE chancellors in just eight years, a revolving door. Financial problems abound. In 2023, its accreditation will again be reviewed for renewal.

The outcome is very much uncertain.

Yet here it comes again, hat in hand, hoping voters will approve a THIRD regressive parcel tax, this one even higher than the last and levied even before the existing one expires!

Homeowners’ bills will more than double while some commercial properties’ rise 3,900%! The rates increase every year for 20 years, and if City College fails to retain its accreditation, the tax will continue to be collected.

City College needs leadership and administrative stability, not another public bailout. San Franciscans have been generous, but the College needs to put its financial house in order, prove it can recruit and retain a qualified chancellor whose tenure is longer than a baseball season, pass next year’s accreditation review without the intervention of political heavyweights. Then, and only then, should voters be asked to pay higher taxes to support City College. VOTE NO!

San Francisco Taxpayers Association

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Taxpayers Association.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Paul Scott, 2. Diane Wilsey, 3. S.F. Board of Realtors.

Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are published as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.

Legal Text

Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:

SECTION 1. Title.

This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Act.”

SECTION 2.

The Business and Tax Regulations Code is hereby amended by adding Article 38, consisting of Sections 3801 through 3815, to read as follows:

ARTICLE 38: San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Act

Sec. 3801. Short Title.

This Article shall be known and may be cited as the “San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Act” (hereinafter the “Act”).

Sec. 3802. Purpose and Intent.

The people of the City and County of San Francisco (hereinafter the “City”) find and declare that:

(a) City College of San Francisco (hereinafter “Community College”) is one of the City’s most valuable public assets. Every student should have access to a quality public higher education that prepares them to pursue their educational and career goals, and ultimately contribute to the future health and vitality of the City.

(b) In addition to serving transfer and degree-bound students, the Community College provides a wide breadth of high-demand vocational and workforce services that facilitate training and job placement for tens of thousands of predominantly part-time and non-credit students. The Community College is the cornerstone of the City’s workforce-training network and is a major resource for economic mobility for low- and middle-income families in the City.

(c) City funding for the Community College is an essential and valuable investment to ensure that the true community-college mission and responsibility for providing the City’s adult education are met. For years, the Community College has experienced steady enrollment due to increased demands for affordable education programs. The increased need for the Community College has not been met with an increase in funding. This measure intends to raise approximately $45 million in the first year to ensure that the college adequately serves the student population.

(d) Because of the funding gap, the Community College is rapidly losing its ability to provide necessary services and workforce needs to support the City’s economic recovery from the coronavirus (“COVID-19”) pandemic. The COVID-19 pandemic has hit the communities that the Community College serves the hardest. As the City economy continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, now is the time to invest in our communities to ensure that those hardest hit by the pandemic can access the resources needed to build back and thrive.

(e) It is the purpose and intent of this Act is to adopt a parcel tax that provides funding to support the Community College. Revenue raised by this Act will be used for Community College comprehensive educational programs – including basic skills programs, job training and placement programs, wraparound services to keep students in school and social justice and equity programs that promote leadership and educational attainment among the most vulnerable City residents.

Sec. 3803. Definitions.

For purposes of this Article, the following definitions shall apply:

(a) “Assessor” means the Assessor-Recorder of the City and County of San Francisco, or the Assessor-Recorder’s designee.

(b) “Building” means any structure having a roof supported by columns or by walls and designed for the shelter or housing of any person, chattel or property of any kind. The word “Building” includes the word “structure.”

(d) “Community College” means the San Francisco Community College District.

(e) “Controller” means the Controller of the City and County of San Francisco, or the Controller’s designee.

(f) “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30.

(g) “Fund” means the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Fund.

(h) “Mixed Use Parcel” means parcels with one or more Residential Units in addition to one or more Non-Residential uses.

(i) “Non-Residential” means all Parcels that are not classified by this Act as Single Family Residential or Residential Unit Parcels, and shall include, but not be limited to, Parcels for industrial, commercial and institutional improvements, whether or not developed.

(j) “Owner” means the Person having title to real estate as shown on the most current official assessment role of the Assessor-Recorder of the City and County of San Francisco.

(k) “Parcel” means a unit of real estate, except a possessory interest, in the City with an Assessor’s parcel number as shown on the most current official assessment roll of the Assessor on July 1 of the Fiscal Year for which the Tax is imposed. However, both of the following conditions shall apply:

(1) A Parcel created by a subdivision map approved in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the California Government Code) shall be deemed to be a single assessment unit and shall not be deemed, on the basis of multiple Assessor’s parcel numbers assigned by the Assessor, to constitute multiple assessment units.

(2) A Parcel that has not been subdivided in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act (Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7 of the California Government Code) may be deemed to constitute a separate assessment unit only to the extent that the Parcel has been previously described and conveyed in one or more deeds separating it from all adjoining property.

If the Parcel identified pursuant to subsection (k)(1) or (k)(2) is not consistent with the property’s identification by Assessor’s parcel number, it shall be the responsibility of the Parcel owner to provide the Tax Collector with written notice of the correct Assessor’s parcel number of taxable Parcels pursuant to this Section 3803 within ninety (90) days after the date of the initial tax bill containing the Tax.

(l) “Person” means an individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, joint stock company, corporation, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, trustee, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit.

(m) “Possessory Interest” as it applies to property owned by any agency of the government of the United States, the State of California, or any political subdivision thereof, means possession of, claim to, or right to the possession of, land or improvements and shall include any exclusive right to the use of such land or improvements.

(n) “Residential Unit” means a Building or portion of a Building designed for or occupied exclusively by one family. For the purposes of this Act, the definition of “family” is incorporated from San Francisco Planning Code section 102.

(o) “Single Family Residential” means a parcel zoned for single-family residences, whether or not developed.

(p) “Square Feet” means the total number of square feet measured between the principal exterior surfaces of enclosed fixed walls of every floor of a building. For undeveloped non-residential parcels, square footage shall be measured by the square footage of the parcel.

(q) “Tax” means the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Parcel Tax imposed by this Article.

(r) “Tax Collector” means the Tax Collector of the City and County of San Francisco, or the Tax Collector’s designee.

Sec. 3804. Imposition of Parcel Tax.

(a) For each year beginning in fiscal year 2023-2024 there is hereby imposed a special tax on all Owners of parcels in the City and County of San Francisco for the purposes described in Section 3809. The tax imposed by this Section shall be assessed on the Owner unless the Owner is by law exempt from taxation, in which case the tax imposed shall be assessed to the holder of any Possessory Interest in such parcel, unless such holder is also by law exempt from taxation. The tax is imposed as of July 1 of each year on the person who owned the parcel on that date. The tax shall be collected at the same time, by the same officials, and pursuant to the same procedures as the one percent (1%) property tax imposed pursuant to Article XIII A of the California Constitution.

The tax hereby imposed shall be set as follows subject to adjustment as provided in subdivision (c):

Property Type	Annual Rate
Single Family Residential	$150
Residential – 1 Residential Unit	$150
Residential – 2 or More Residential Units	$75 per unit
Non-Residential, under 5,000 Square Feet	$150
Non-Residential, 5,000 – 24,999 Square Feet	$1,250
Non-Residential, 25,000 – 100,000 Square Feet	$2,500
Non-Residential, over 100,000 Square Feet	$4,000

(b) The Assessor shall calculate the Tax for Mixed Use Parcels, subject to adjustment as provided in subdivision (c), by taking the sum of the following:

(1) The Tax on Residential Units in the parcel as set by subdivision (a), if the parcel was solely Residential Units, multiplied by the number of Residential Units in the parcel; and

(2) The Tax on the Non-Residential area based on square footage as set by subdivision (a), if calculated based on square footage of the parcel used for Non-Residential.

(c) Commencing with Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the Tax shall be adjusted annually in accordance with the San Francisco All Items Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, provided that the Tax shall not be increased by more than two percent (2%) each year.

(d) The Tax shall take effect on July 1, 2023 for Fiscal Year 2023-2024, and shall continue in effect for each Fiscal Year thereafter until June 30, 2043, after which date it shall expire by operation of law.

Sec. 3805. Exemptions.

(a) The following Parcels shall be exempt from the Tax:

(1) Parcels on which no ad valorem property tax is levied for the Fiscal Year.

(2) Parcels in which an individual who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older before July 1 of the Fiscal Year owns a beneficial interest, where such homeowner occupies the Parcel as the homeowner’s principal residence.

(b) To claim an exemption from the Tax under subsection (a)(2), the owner must submit an application to the Tax Collector by the deadline set by the Tax Collector. The application shall be accompanied by such evidence as the Tax Collector deems necessary to determine eligibility for the exemption. The Tax Collector shall prepare forms for this purpose. Exemptions granted under subsection (a)(2) shall be automatically renewed in subsequent Fiscal Years absent a change in a material fact. Owners of Parcels receiving an exemption under subsection (a)(2) shall notify the Tax Collector if the Parcel no longer qualifies for the exemption.

Sec. 3806. Collection.

(a) The Tax shall be collected by the City in two approximately equal installments in the same manner and on the same dates as established by law for the collection of ad valorem property taxes. The collection of the Tax shall be subject to the regulations and procedures governing the collection of ad valorem property taxes by the City, including, without limitation, the imposition of penalties, fees, and interest on the failure to remit or the delinquent remittance of the Tax, and refunds of Taxes, penalties, fees, and interest.

(b) The Tax Collector is charged with the responsibility of overseeing the collection and receipt of the proceeds of the Tax.

Sec. 3807. Regulations.

The Tax Collector is authorized to promulgate rules and regulations to implement this Article 38.

Sec. 3808. Deposit of Moneys Collected.

All monies collected under this Article 38 shall be deposited to the credit of the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Fund, established in Administrative Code Section 10.100-74, which shall be a category four fund under Administrative Code Section 10.100-1. The Fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all other City funds and shall be subject to appropriation. Any balance remaining in the Fund at the close of any Fiscal Year shall be deemed to have been provided for a special purpose within the meaning of Charter Section 9.113(a) and shall be carried forward and accumulated in the Fund for the purposes described in Section 3809.

Sec. 3809. Expenditure Of Proceeds.

(a) Monies in the Fund shall be appropriated on an annual or supplemental basis and used exclusively for the following purposes:

(1) Up to one percent (1%) of the proceeds of the Tax, in any proportion to the Tax Collector and other City Departments, for the actual costs of the administration of the Tax and for the actual costs of the administration of the Fund.

(2) Refunds of any overpayments of the Tax, including any related penalties, interest, and fees.

(3) The City shall transfer the remaining amounts to the Community College, which shall use these proceeds only for the following purposes:

(A) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds for wraparound services and programs that support student enrollment, basic needs, retention, job placement and completion of educational goals.

(B) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds for foundational programs that address the basic-skills needs of City residents including, but not limited to, supporting proficiency in the English language, technology use, obtaining United States citizenship, and transitional studies.

(C) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds for workforce development programs that support the job training, experience and placement of students into new or transitional careers and job opportunities.

(D) Twenty-five percent (25%) of the funds for equity and social justice programs that support the academic success and leadership development of historically underrepresented students.

(b) No more than one-half of one percent (.5%) of the amount allocated to the Community College in subsection (a)(3) shall be expended on actual costs for general administrative services including contractual services, salaries, wages, benefits, and overhead necessary to carry out the administrative responsibilities mandate by this Act.

(c) The purposes set forth in this section shall constitute the specific purposes of the Act, which are specific and legally binding limitations on how the proceeds of the tax can be spent. The proceeds of the Tax shall be used only for such purposes and shall not fund any program or project other than those set forth herein.

(d) The Controller shall, with every disbursement made to the Community College pursuant to this Article 38, require the Community College to verify in writing that it will use the funds only for the purposes set forth in subsection (a)(3).

Sec. 3810. Expenditure Plan.

(a) No later than April 1 of each year during the term of this Act, as a condition of receiving an appropriation or appropriations from the Fund, the Community College shall submit an expenditure plan for funding to be received from the Fund for the upcoming fiscal year to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors, in response to the Controller’s March fund estimate for the coming fiscal year.

(b) The plans shall include a budget for the expenditures, descriptions of programs and services, performance goals, target populations, hiring and recruitment plans for personnel, plans for matching or other additional funding, operating reserves, and any other matters that the Community College deems appropriate or the Mayor or the Board requests.

(c) The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may request further explanation of items included in the plans, and the Community College shall respond in a timely manner to such inquiries. The Board may place appropriations provided for under this Act on reserve until it has received adequate responses to its inquiries.

Sec. 3811. Supplement To Existing Community College Funding.

(a) The People of the City and County of San Francisco find and declare that the Community College is a tremendous asset to the City. The Community College provides affordable degrees, life skills, and career and technical education opportunities to tens of thousands of students per year. It is a key part of the City’s workforce training network and is a major resource for economic mobility for low- and middle-income families in the Bay Area. In adopting this Tax, the people of the City choose to provide additional City resources to supplement, and not supplant, City, State, Federal and other funding for the Community College.

(b) Consistent with subsection (a), the People of the City and County of San Francisco specifically find that their contributions to and disbursements from the special Fund authorized by this Article are discretionary expenditures by the City for the direct benefit of the students of the Community College, their families, and the community at large. In the event that the State attempts, directly or indirectly, to redistribute these expenditures to other jurisdictions or to offset or reduce State or Federal funding to the City College because of the contributions to and disbursements from the special Fund authorized by this Article, the City shall transfer said monies that would otherwise be distributed to the Community College each year from the special Fund to another fund as the Board of Supervisors may designate, to be spent for purposes which are substantially equivalent to the purposes set forth in this Article.

(c) This Tax is intended to be in addition to and not to replace any other monies provided by the City to the Community College.

Sec. 3812. Controller’s Audit and Report.

(a) All disbursements from the Fund shall be subject to an annual audit for the first five fiscal years and then a periodic audit thereafter by the Controller. The Community College shall agree to such audits as a condition of receiving disbursements from the Fund.

(b) As part of the audit function, the Controller shall periodically review performance and cost benchmarks developed by the Community College including:

(1) Fund dollars spent for services, materials, and supplies permitted under the Charter;

(2) Fund dollars spent as reported to the City;

(3) Supporting documentation of Fund expenditures; and

(4) Progress towards established workload, efficiency and effectiveness measures.

(c) Commencing with a report filed no later than February 15, 2025, covering the fiscal year ending on June 30, 2024, the Controller shall file annually with the Board of Supervisors, by February 15 of each year, a report containing the amount of monies collected in and expended from the Fund during the prior Fiscal Year, the status of any project required or authorized to be funded by Section 3809, and such other information as the Controller, in the Controller’s sole discretion, shall deem relevant to the operation of this Article 38.

(d) The Mayor and the Board of Supervisors may suspend the City’s disbursements under section 3809 in whole or in part for any year where the Controller certifies that the City College has failed to adopt audit recommendations made by the Controller.

Sec. 3813. Oversight.

An independent oversight committee appointed by the Board of Trustees of the Community College shall, starting with Fiscal Year 2024-2025, submit a report on at least an annual basis to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors evaluating whether the proceeds from the

Tax are being properly expended for the purposes set forth in Section 3809(a)(3). If that oversight committee is unwilling or unable to perform this function for any reason, then the City may establish an oversight committee to submit a report on at least an annual basis to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors evaluating whether the proceeds from the Tax are being properly expended for the purposes set forth in Section 3809(a)(3).

Sec. 3814. Amendment of Ordinance.

(a) Except as provided for in subdivision (b), the Board of Supervisors may amend Article 38 by ordinance that furthers the purpose of this Act by a two-thirds vote and without a vote of the people as limited by Articles XIII A and XIII C of the California Constitution.

(b) The Board of Supervisors shall not amend sections 3804, 3805, 3809, 3810 or 3812 without a vote of the people

Sec. 3815. Severability.

If any provision of this Article, or section or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision, section or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, sections and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions, sections and parts of this Article are severable. The voters hereby declare that this Article, and each section, provision and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions, sections or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 3. Chapter 10 of the Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Section 10.100-74 to Article XIII, to read as follows:

Sec 10.100-74. San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Fund.

(a) Establishment of Fund. The San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Fund (“Fund”) is established as a category four fund as defined in Section 10.100-1 of the Administrative Code, and shall receive all taxes, penalties, interest, and fees collected from the San Francisco Workforce Education and Reinvestment in Community Success Parcel Tax imposed under Article 38 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code.

(b) Use of Fund. Monies in the Fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes described in Section 3809 of Article 38 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code.

SECTION 4. Effective Date.

The effective date of this ordinance shall be July 1, 2023.

SECTION 5. Increase in Appropriations Limit.

Pursuant to California Constitution Article XIII B and applicable laws, for four years from November 8, 2022, the appropriations limit for the City shall be increased by the aggregate sum collected by the levy of the tax imposed under Section 2 of this ordinance.

SECTION 6. Severability.

If any provision of this measure, or part thereof, or the applicability of any provision or part to any person or circumstances, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining provisions and parts shall not be affected, but shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions and parts of this measure are severable. The voters hereby declare that this measure, and each portion and part, would have been adopted irrespective of whether any one or more provisions or parts are found to be invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 7. Conflicting Measures.

This measure is intended to be comprehensive. It is the intent of the People of the City and County of San Francisco that, in the event this measure and one or more measures relating to a special tax to fund the City College of San Francisco shall appear on the same ballot, the provisions of the other measure or measures shall be deemed in conflict with this measure. In the event that this measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and all provisions of the other measure or measures shall be null and void. If this measure is approved by a majority of the voters but does not receive a greater number of affirmative votes than any other measure or measures appearing on the same ballot regarding a special tax to fund City College of San Francisco, then this measure shall take effect to the extent not in conflict with said other measure or measures.

SECTION 8. Liberal Construction.

This measure is an exercise of the initiative power of the People of the City and County of San Francisco to implement a special tax to fund the purposes set forth in the Act, and shall be liberally construed to effectuate these purposes.

SECTION 9. Municipal Affairs.

The People of the City and County of San Francisco hereby declare that providing funding to the City College of San Francisco through a parcel tax for the purposes set forth in this measure constitutes a municipal affair.

SECTION 10. Home Rule.

The authority to pass this measure is derived from San Francisco’s home rule powers outlined in Section 1.101 and other applicable provisions of the Charter, and Article XI sections 5 and 6 of the California Constitution. The People of the City and County of San Francisco declare their intent that this citizen initiative be enacted, and the parcel tax be collected for the entire uninterrupted time period described herein, if this measure is approved by a simple majority of voters pursuant to City and County of San Francisco v. All Persons Interested in the Matter of Proposition G (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 1058. To the extent that the California Constitution or state law is amended, after this measure is passed by voters, to change or create additional voting requirements to implement or to continue to implement this measure, the People of the City and County of San Francisco declare their intent that such amendments should be applied prospectively only and not apply to, or in any way affect, this measure.

* * * * *