Business Tax Overhaul

Shall the City eliminate the payroll expense tax; permanently increase the registration fee for some businesses by $230–460, decreasing it for others; permanently increase gross receipts tax rates to 0.105–1.040%, exempting more small businesses; permanently increase the administrative office tax rate to 1.61%; if the City loses certain lawsuits, increase gross receipts tax rates on some businesses by 0.175–0.690% and the administrative office tax rate by 1.5%, and place a new 1% or 3.5% tax on gross receipts from commercial leases, for 20 years; and make other business tax changes; for estimated annual revenue of $97 million?

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City collects taxes from San Francisco businesses, including:

• The payroll expense tax;

• The gross receipts tax;

• The administrative office tax;

• The annual business registration fee;

• The early care and education commercial rents tax (Child Care Tax); and

• The homelessness gross receipts tax (Homelessness Tax).

The Child Care and Homelessness Taxes have been challenged in court, and the money collected through these taxes has not been spent by the City.

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

The Proposal: Proposition F would change certain taxes the City collects from San Francisco businesses, including:

• Eliminate the payroll expense tax;

• Increase the gross receipts tax rate in phases, expand the small business exemption and eliminate the credit for businesses that pay a similar tax elsewhere;

• Increase the administrative office tax rate in phases; and

• Change the business registration fee.

Some of the changes to the gross receipts and administrative office tax rates would be delayed if a minimum of total San Francisco gross receipts are not met.

Under Proposition F other changes would take effect only if certain conditions are met:

• If the City loses the Child Care Tax lawsuit, the City would be required to collect a new tax on gross receipts from the lease of certain commercial spaces;

• If the City loses the Homelessness Tax lawsuit, gross receipts and administrative office tax rates would increase for certain businesses; and

• If the City loses either lawsuit, the City Charter would be amended to change how baseline funding is calculated.

Proposition F would increase the City’s spending limit for four years.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to:

• Eliminate the City’s payroll expense tax;

• Increase gross receipts and administrative office tax rates in phases;

• Reduce business taxes for some small businesses; and

• Further increase the City’s business taxes if the City loses either of the lawsuits regarding the Early Care and Education Commercial Rents Tax or the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, but exclude money collected from these increases when determining baseline funding.

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

Controller's Statement on "F"

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

Should the proposed combined charter amendment and ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, it would result in additional annual revenue to the City of approximately $97 million annually on an ongoing basis once fully implemented. The proceeds would be deposited in the City’s General Fund. Additionally, the proposed measure would permit one-time spending of approximately $1.5 billion in the shorter-term generated by two currently assessed taxes that are impounded pending resolution of ongoing litigation.

The proposed ordinance would amend the city’s existing Business and Tax Regulations Code in a number of ways, including discontinuing the City’s payroll expense tax, increasing gross receipts business tax rates, and increasing the number of small businesses exempted from the business tax. Overall business tax rates for some industries are increased, generally phased in over three years beginning in tax years 2022. Temporary rate reductions for tax years 2021, 2022, and 2023 are proposed for other industries heavily impacted by current economic conditions, including those paid by the hospitality, restaurant, and retail sectors. The revenue estimates reflect the expected change in City revenue compared to the existing business tax structure and the current availability of collected revenues subject to judicial action.

The proposed ordinance authorizes contingent taxes that would be imposed if two currently assessed dedicated taxes for homeless services and childcare are struck down by court action. The proposed replacement taxes are similar in structure to those dedicated taxes. The measure excludes revenues generated by those contingent taxes from the calculation of various required voter-adopted minimum spending requirements on transit, parks, youth services, and other set-asides and baselines.

It is important to note that business taxes can vary significantly depending on economic conditions, and current estimates may not be predictive of future revenues.

How "F" Got on the Ballot

On July 28, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition F on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Fewer, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton, Yee.

No: None.

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

The above statement is an impartial analysis of this measure. Some of the words used in the ballot digest are explained in Words you need to know >.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition F

Vote Yes on Prop F, the Small Business & Economic Recovery Act!

We face unprecedented challenges as the COVID-19 pandemic ravages our city’s health and economy, deepening disparities and pushing struggling families and businesses over the edge. That’s why we need to pass Prop F, the Small Business & Economic Recovery Act, which will help jumpstart our economy, create a fairer business tax system, and provide new revenue for the critical city services we need to recover from this pandemic. Prop F also unlocks over $700 million, which is currently sitting in an untapped fund even though voters already approved it for early care and education, homelessness and essential city services.

We need to pass Prop F now more than ever, which is why it’s supported by the Mayor, the entire Board of Supervisors, and a broad coalition including labor, small business and community organizations.

Prop F will:

• Provide tax relief for sectors most impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic including retail, restaurants, the arts and manufacturing;

• Eliminate the payroll tax and fully transition to a more equitable business tax system;

• Exempt small businesses from the gross receipts tax;

• Make available over $700 million for child care and early education, homelessness and other essential services; and

• Generate new revenue to protect and maintain critical city services put at risk by the projected $1.5 billion deficit due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Prop F immediately helps struggling small businesses and working families while creating the investment we need for a fair recovery and a stronger, more equitable economy for our future.

Vote YES on Prop F, the Small Business & Economic Recovery Act!

Mayor London Breed

President Norman Yee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Shamann Walton

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 F

Please vote NO on Proposition F.

Of course there are unprecedented challenges as the pandemic ravages San Francisco's health and economy, deepening disparities, and pushing struggling families and businesses over the edge.

The proponents claim that Proposition F will help jumpstart our economy, create a fairer business tax system, provide new revenue for critical city services, and unlock over $700 million in previously approved taxes.

I support a fairer business tax system and sufficient revenue for critical city services, but we don't know how many businesses will still exist in San Francisco when you read this, next year, or in ten years. We also don't know what types of businesses will be here, how many people they will employ, and how people will work in those businesses. Much is uncertain about the world right now.

Given that extreme uncertainty, I just don't think it's the best time to restructure our local business taxes. While there could be some positive effects, there could also be greater unexpected outcomes than during calmer times. Increasing certainty, predictability, and stability, while reducing volatility of City revenues, are good ideas. The voters can consider this again in two years if a new normal has emerged by then, through a charter amendment and a separate ordinance, not a combined measure like this one.

Please vote NO on Proposition F. Thank you.

David Pilpel

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 F

Please vote NO on Proposition F.

Proposition F is a lengthy and complicated overhaul of existing City business taxes. While this may be a good idea in general, it is difficult to understand its impact on particular businesses right now and the City as a whole. I'm not at all convinced that changing complicated tax rates is needed during a pandemic. I respectfully suggest that Proposition F is not the solution that we need at this time.

I also take issue with this ballot measure as a combined charter amendment and ordinance. While the two parts may be closely related, in my opinion they should have been two separate measures, perhaps with language only allowing each one to take effect if both of them passed. Mixing a charter change with an ordinance is not a best practice and it should not be rewarded with your support.

Please vote NO on Proposition F. Thank you.

David Pilpel

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 F

The impact of passing Proposition F is simple – it will immediately provide relief and support to San Francisco’s small businesses and families. And the COVID-19 pandemic makes the passage of this measure even more urgent.

By eliminating the payroll tax, Proposition F encourages businesses to hire again. By exempting small businesses from certain taxes, Proposition F provides those businesses an opportunity to regain their footing and avoid closure. By providing tax relief to retail, restaurants, the arts and manufacturing, Proposition F helps rebuild the sectors hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic.

And by immediately releasing over $700 million in untapped funds, Proposition F invests in early childhood care and education, homelessness and other critical city services while creating an estimated 5,500 jobs.

Passing Proposition F ensures San Francisco rebuilds with a stronger, more equitable economy for the future.

Vote YES on Proposition F, the Small Business & Economic Recovery Act.

Mayor London Breed

President Norman Yee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Supervisor Sandra Lee Fewer

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Shamann Walton

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 F

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Wu Yee Children’s Services and Children’s Council of San Francisco are the city’s child care Resource and Referral organizations, connecting families to early childhood education and care options throughout the city. This ballot measure will get us closer to helping all children in San Francisco reach their greatest potential. A child’s zip code, ethnicity, or income level should not determine their chances of getting the best start possible. Yet, barriers to accessing resources continue to define potential even when it comes to fundamental rights like education. Research shows that when children are given ACCESS to education that’s specially geared toward their needs from day one, they don’t just show up to kindergarten more prepared, they also have a jump start on realizing their potential in school and in life.

Currently, the need for early childhood education and care is greater than the supply. As a result, thousands of young children are on waitlists rather than in classrooms. Our children need care and education that meets them where they’re at in each stage of their development, yet we’re depriving our youngest learners by not fully funding the childcare workforce and infrastructure.

As San Francisco’s cost of living continues to rise, our young children, and their families, are moving away. San Francisco’s rich diversity depends on a community filled with all ages, backgrounds, income levels, and interests. San Francisco can’t become a city where people just visit to work. It must remain a place where families live, are rooted, and thrive. Parents and guardians can not earn an income without childcare, and childcare can not exist without an early childhood education workforce. This ballot measure allows San Francisco to become a better place to LIVE and THRIVE for children, educators and working families.

Children's Council of San Francisco

Wu Yee Children's Services

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Children's Council of San Francisco.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Wah Mei and Kai Ming are child development centers in San Francisco (SF) that serve some of our City's lowest income families and their children. This ballot measure is essential in correcting the gaps for childcare and resources in SF for our youngest citizens. Ninety percent of brain development occurs before the age of five. Young children deserve every educational investment the city can make. The early care and education (ECE) industry is severely underfunded, wages and salaries are among the lowest-paid, and waitlists for providing childcare are long.

Proposition F will release $433M in ECE dollars to go directly to support and improve access to quality childcare and education for children ages 0-5 in SF, and increase compensation of ECE professionals, most of whom are women, and women of color. ECE as a service is essential and a key part of our infrastructure, and SF's economy. ECE educators play a critical role in supporting families and educating our youngest children during the most crucial years of their life.

Proposition F will ensure ECE educators are provided with enough resources to continue to work in this essential field to provide children with high-quality early childhood education. This ballot measure will also release funds that will go to clearing the SF childcare waitlist. Our children are counting on us to take care of them; this ballot measure provides us with the opportunity to do so.

Ben Wong

Executive Director, Wah Mei School

Anna Chau

Kai Ming Board Member

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Wah Mei and Kai Ming.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Nurses, Teachers and Firefighters are united in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the workforce of the San Francisco Labor Council, we work hard to keep you safe. However, our ability to do that is threatened by a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. Measure F will allow us to continue our fight to educate our youth and keep you healthy and safe during this unprecedented time. We need you to help us in this fight. Please vote YES on this important measure. Yes on F will save lives and allow us to continue our fight. Yes on F.

Mike Casey, President, San Francisco Labor Council

Susan Solomon, President, United Educators of San Francisco (UESF)

Shon Buford, President, San Francisco Fire Fighters, Local 798

Martha Hawthorne, RN, SEIU 1021 *(For identification purposes only)

Sal Rosselli, President, National Union of Healthcare Workers (NUHW)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Labor & Neighbor Member Education/Political Issues Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. SEIU 2015, 2. SEIU 1021, 3. IFPTE Local 21.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

We the hard working members of the San Francisco Labor Council are united to bring San Francisco back from the Covid 19 crisis. Our members who are essential workers who kept the grocery stores open, nursed San Franciscans through Covid, teach children through long distance learning, kept our buildings clean while we were away, served and protect our vulnerable populations and continue to go to work everyday to serve all San Franciscans. We need Measure F to help us to continue to serve San Franciscans and to keep our essential services going. Help us help SF. Vote Yes on F.

Mike Casey, President, San Francisco Labor Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Labor & Neighbor Member Education/Political Issues Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. SEIU 2015, 2. SEIU 1021, 3. IFPTE Local 21.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

The Council of Community Housing Organizations urges YES on Proposition F.

As San Francisco's coalition of affordable housing providers and housing justice organizations, we are glad to finally see a universal city commitment to fully fund the voter mandate for Our City Our Home from 2018, the only solution that makes a dramatic difference for homelessness -- permanent homes and supportive services for unhoused individuals and families with children.

San Francisco Council of Community Housing Organizations

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: SF Council of Community Housing Organizations.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Early care and education (ECE) is at the heart of educational justice and equity for Latinx young children, their families and our communities. ECE prepares our young children with the social, emotional and cognitive abilities needed to succeed in school and in life while allowing parents to work. The ECE sector is a major source of employment for early educators and small business owners.

Proposition F will ensure that the 2,500 young children—40% of whom are Latinx—who are waiting for subsidized ECE will have access to quality early education. Without it, our children will start kindergarten behind, leading to a lifetime of inequitable outcomes. Unless parents have reliable ECE for their children, they are unable to work, leading to food, housing and health insecurity and destabilization in the Mission District and across vulnerable San Francisco neighborhoods. Proposition F will also raise wages for the 4,000 ECE educators, 40% of whom are immigrants, to fairly compensate them for their essential role in keeping San Francisco working.

Beverly Hayon, Mission Neighborhood Centers

Esperanza Estrada, SF Citywide Hispanic Childcare Network*

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Santiago Ruiz, Mission Neighborhood Centers.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Small Businesses Need Prop F

The COVID-19 pandemic has pushed at least eighty San Francisco businesses to close, and it's estimated fewer than 40 percent of small businesses will be open by the end of the year. We need to pass Prop F, the Small Business and Economic Recovery Act.

Prop F provides immediate relief to San Francisco small businesses. It repeals the payroll tax and reduces the tax rate for small businesses and businesses most impacted by the pandemic such as restaurants, retail, manufacturing, arts organizations and hotels.

Small businesses are the backbone of our city. Now, we need to support them by voting yes on Prop F.

Christin Evans, Owner of Booksmith & President of the Haight Ashbury Merchants Association*

Adam Bergeron, Owner of the Balboa Theater

Henry Karnilowicz, President Emeritus, Council of District Merchants Associations*

David Heller, President of the Geary Blvd Merchants Association

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Prop F, The Small Business and Economic Recovery Act.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NONPROFITS SUPPORT PROP F!

Proposition F reforms the business tax to protect small business while imposing fair taxes on those who have benefited the most from our City's years of wealth. With a pandemic threatening our health and economy, San Francisco needs this measure to balance the City budget. It will help pay for healthcare and COVID-19 costs, homeless and behavioral health services, childcare and more. It will prevent deep budget cuts to programs that help people who are unemployed, sick, or lacking food and other necessities. Without it, more City residents will lose their jobs and homes. Vote yes!

San Francisco Human Services Network

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Prop F, The Small Business and Economic Recovery Act.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: San Francisco Labor Council.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

CPAC works with San Francisco to identify local priorities and policies for early care & education (ECE). This ballot measure is essential to correct the early educational gaps through child care and related resources for our youngest population. Ninety percent of brain development occurs before the age of five yet child care educators are among the lowest-paid workforce, making far less than K-12 teachers. In addition, there are thousands of children on the SF child care waitlist.

ECE educators are essential workers and the backbone of San Francisco’s economy. Increased compensation is needed to maintain a skilled and stable workforce to provide for the well-being of our children, families, and communities.

Proposition F will release funds for ECE educators to support their continued work, as well as funds that will go to clearing the SF child care waitlist, ensuring SF’s youngest have access to quality early education during the most crucial years. Our children are counting on us to take care of them, this ballot measure provides us with the opportunity to do so.

Childcare Planning & Advisory Council

Patricia Sullivan

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Jessica J. Campos.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Currently, affordable child care depends on low wage workers, predominantly women of color. Parents cannot afford the true cost of care, including a livable wage for those who provide the service. This is not sustainable.

San Francisco’s children are served by educators at over 1000 centers and family child care sites, over half with college degrees yet earning barely above minimum wage. The Family Child Care Association of SF (FCCASF) and Early Care Educators of SF (ECESF) represent center and family child care educators. Over 80% of early educators are women of color. These women are dedicated to the education of young children in their own communities. They recognize the protective factors of keeping children within the community, close to home, in classrooms that support the use of home language as the children learn English and transition to elementary school.

Small group sites are the preferred choice for many parents of young children, especially for infants and toddlers that need responsive caregiving—and more so now with the need for safe spaces during the pandemic. Infant care and small groups are labor intensive and therefore expensive; even middle-income parents cannot afford the cost. The FCCASF and ECESF support Measure F, which will release critically needed funds for low and middle-income parents and early care educators who provide this essential service.

Signatures:

Wai Hung Tang, FCCASF, Board Member

Pat Sullivan, ECESF Co-chair, FCCASF Director

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

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

PROTECT SAN FRANCISCO'S BUDGET PRIORITIES

We have worked hard for many years to ensure that the San Francisco budget will always protect its voter-approved highest priorities — children, libraries, seniors, parks, MUNI and schools. Proposition F will continue to protect those priorities, while also ensuring there are additional much-needed resources for childcare and homeless services.

In solidarity,

Margaret Brodkin, Former Director, Dept. Children, Youth and Their Families*

Marie Jobling, Co-Chair, Dignity Fund Coalition

Friends of the San Francisco Public Library

Tracy Gallardo, Public Education Enrichment Fund Advisory Committee

SF Parks Alliance

Children and Youth Fund, Service Providers Working Group

*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Margaret Brodkin.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

We are a coalition of Black ECE educators and community members. Proposition F will ensure that San Francisco’s Black children and early childhood educators will have the necessary resources to support a community that has too long been deprived of a pathway to success. Each year the Children’s Council of San Francisco provides childcare information, referral for services and subsidy assistance to 4,000 extremely low-income families, of whom 33% are African American (1,320 families). Despite this support there are still over 500 low-income Black children on the waitlist for childcare in San Francisco. The most recent school readiness report (2019) reveals that only 47% of Black children are deemed “ready” for kindergarten. In 2018 the San Francisco Public Health Department reported that Black children and families have the highest rates of poverty, the lowest median income, the lowest percentage of college graduates and the lowest life expectancy.

Black early childhood educators also face enormous challenges while providing crucial and essential services to young children. In 2019 the Center for the Study of Child Care Employment found that 50% of Black early childhood educators live in poverty and regardless of their educational attainment, are consistently the lowest paid members of the workforce.

This ballot measure will ensure that Black children and Black educators will begin to receive the educational investment and care they deserve. With the release of these funds San Francisco can support young Black children as they take their first steps to lifelong learning. The systemic economic disparity that deprives Black children with the hope of a better future begins with this measure. These funds are essential in building a foundation of success. Vote YES on Proposition F!

Patricia Sullivan

Naeemah Charles FCCASF

Madonna Stancil

Anna Wolde-Yohannes

Early Care Educators San Francisco

Children’s Council of San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Madonna R. Stancil.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

BIG BUSINESS EARNING OVER $2 MILLION MUST PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE to SUPPORT SF’s WORKFORCE, from which they benefit immeasurably. Child care is an essential service in our economic recovery and sustainability. Over 3000 children are on child care waiting lists. The longer children wait for care, the more missed opportunities they have which are non-recoverable in their development. The need for child care has never been more urgent than today. Child care keeps San Francisco working. Yes on Proposition F.

Maria Luz Torre, Parent Voices San Francisco

Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth

Parents for Public Schools

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

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

We are facing a human catastrophe in homelessness, and a moral challenge to do right by our neighbor. Two years ago, San Francisco passed "Our City, Our Home," which meant millions of dollars for housing and treatment for unhoused children, youth and adults, but is now locked away while court proceedings are underway. Today, we need to pass Proposition F to fulfill that promise of investment in housing and treatment.

Proposition F gives us the historic opportunity to unlock those funds and set a better course for our city. It puts us on the path to a greater, more capacious city in which love and inclusion represent not just widely-held values, but create a cherished environment in which everyone shares the glow, security and dignity of home.

Vote YES on Proposition F.

Glide Foundation

St. Anthony Foundation

Coalition on Homelessness

Larkin Street Youth Services

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: St. Anthony Foundation; Coalition on Homelessness.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition F

Please support Proposition F — Charter Amendment adjusting the City baselines (set-asides) funding and Ordinance amending the Business Tax & Regulations Code.

Many small neighborhood businesses will be helped by receiving lower tax exemption payments. By protecting small businesses, neighborhoods will maintain their unique character.

"F" would modify the way the City calculates set-aside funds for transit, parks, youth services, libraries, public education, housing, tree maintenance and possibly homeless services.

The City will eliminate the Payroll Expense tax and situationally increase the Gross receipts tax to some larger businesses for twenty years.

Coalition For San Francisco Neighborhoods

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: CSFN.

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 F

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition F

At first, we were hopeful of the "Business Tax Overhaul" measure. Who wouldn't want to overhaul and streamline a convoluted system of rules designed to extort as much money as possible from local businesses?

Unfortunately, our enthusiasm began to dampen... and our eyes began to water... as we perused the 125 pages of the legal text of the measure.

Our worst fears were confirmed by the Controller's Office. This is a massive tax increase of approximately $97 million annually. It also allows the immediate spending of an additional $1.5 billion dollars that the courts have impounded, as a result of the tax being collected illegally.

We should never take money from our hard working residents and businesses, especially when they are struggling.

Vote NO on Proposition F

Libertarian Party of San Francisco

www.LPSF.org

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

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Scott Banister, 2. David Jeffries, 3. Tim Carico.

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

Describing and setting forth a proposal to the voters at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, to amend the Charter of the City and County of San Francisco to provide that future annual adjustments in baseline funding for the following Charter-mandated funds will not take into account certain changes in City revenue resulting from voter-approved business taxes on the November 3, 2020 ballot: the Municipal Transportation Fund, the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund, the Children and Youth Fund, the Library Preservation Fund, the Housing Trust Fund, the Public Education Enrichment Fund, the Dignity Fund, and the Street Tree Maintenance Fund; to amend the Business and Tax Regulations Code to: 1) reduce the annual Business Registration Fee for businesses with $1,000,000 or less in San Francisco gross receipts; 2) increase the small business exemption ceiling for the Gross Receipts Tax to $2,000,000 and increase the annual Business Registration Fee on businesses benefiting from this increased exemption ceiling; 3) modify the Gross Receipts Tax rates; 4) repeal the Payroll Expense Tax; 5) increase the Gross Receipts Tax on certain taxpayers for 20 years if a final judicial decision has the effect of invalidating the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax Ordinance; 6) impose a new general tax on the gross receipts from the lease of certain commercial space for 20 years if a final judicial decision has the effect of invalidating the Early Care and Education Commercial Rents Tax Ordinance; and 7) make other changes to the City’s business taxes; and to increase the City’s appropriations limit by the total revenues collected under Articles 12-A-1 and 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code for four years from November 3, 2020.

NOTE: Unchanged Charter and Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.

Additions are in single-underline italics Times New Roman font.

Deletions are in strikethrough italics Times New Roman font.

Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Charter or Code text or parts of tables.

Section 1. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposal to amend the Charter of the City and County by revising Sections 8A.105, 16.107, 16.108, 16.109, 16.110, 16.123-2, 16.128-3, and 16.129, to read as follows:

SEC. 8A.105. MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION FUND.

(a) There is hereby established a fund to provide a predictable, stable, and adequate level of funding for the Agency, which shall be called the Municipal Transportation Fund. The fund shall be maintained separate and apart from all other City and County funds. Monies therein shall be appropriated, expended, or used by the Agency solely and exclusively for the operation including, without limitation, capital improvements, management, supervision, maintenance, extension, and day-to-day operation of the Agency, including any division subsequently created or incorporated into the Agency and performing transportation-related functions. Monies in the Fund may not be used for any other purposes than those identified in this Section 8A.105.

(b) Beginning with the fiscal year 2000-2001 and in each fiscal year thereafter, there is hereby set aside to the Municipal Transportation Fund the following:

1. An amount (the “Base Amount”) which shall be no less than the amount of all appropriations from the General Fund, including all supplemental appropriations, for the fiscal year 1998-1999 or the fiscal year 1999-2000, whichever is higher (the “Base Year”), adjusted as provided in subsection (c), below, for (1) the Municipal Railway; and (2) all other City and County commissions, departments and agencies providing services to the Municipal Railway, including the Department of Human Resources and the Purchasing Department, for the provision of those services. The Base Amount for the Department of Parking and Traffic and the Parking Authority shall be established in the same fashion but using fiscal years 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 for the services being incorporated into the Agency.

2. Subject to the limitations and exclusions in Sections 4.113, the revenues of the Municipal Railway, and, upon their incorporation into the Agency, the revenues of the Department of Parking and Traffic, and the Parking Authority; and

3. All other funds received by the City and County from any source, including state and federal sources, for the support of the Agency.

(c) The Base Amount shall initially be determined by the Controller. Adjustments to the Base Amount shall be made as follows:

1. The Base Amount shall be adjusted for each year after fiscal year 2000-2001 by the Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year, by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City and County discretionary revenues. In determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City which are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by adjustment in the next year’s estimate.

2. An adjustment shall also be made for any increases in General Fund appropriations to the Agency in subsequent years to provide continuing services not provided in the Base Year, but excluding additional appropriations for one-time expenditures such as capital expenditures or litigation judgments and settlements.

3. Commencing with the fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2015, the Controller shall also adjust the Base Amount annually by the percentage increase in the San Francisco population based on data from the source(s) the Controller, in his or her sole discretion, finds most reliable for the most recent available calendar year. The Controller’s population growth adjustment shall be based on the greater of the increase in daytime or night-time population. For any year in which the Controller determines that neither the daytime nor night-time population has increased, the Controller shall make no adjustment under this subparagraph 3 to the Base Amount. For purposes of the initial adjustment for the year commencing July 1, 2015, the Controller shall adjust the Base Amount based on the increase in City daytime or night-time population for the most recent ten-year period for which data are available instead of the most recent available calendar year. The Agency shall use the amount of any increase in the Base Amount resulting from the adjustment required by this subparagraph 3 exclusively as follows: 75 per cent shall be used to make transit system improvements to the Municipal Railway to improve the system’s reliability, frequency of service, capacity, and state of good repair, and 25 per cent shall be used for transportation capital expenditures to improve street safety for all users.

* * * *

SEC. 16.107. PARK, RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE FUND.

(a) Establishment of Fund. There is hereby established the Park, Recreation and Open Space Fund (“Fund”) to be administered by the Recreation and Park Department (“Department”) as directed by the Recreation and Park Commission (“Commission”). Monies in the Fund shall be expended or used solely by the Department, subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter, to provide park and recreational services and facilities. The Department embraces socio-economic and geographic equity as a guiding principle and commits to expending the funds across its open space and recreational programs to provide park and recreational access to all of San Francisco’s diverse neighborhoods and communities.

* * * *

(c) Baseline Maintenance of Effort. The annual set-aside shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City appropriations to and expenditures by the Recreation and Park Department for Department purposes. To this end, beginning in fiscal year 2016-2017 and thereafter through fiscal year 2045-2046, the City shall not reduce the baseline general fund support amount appropriated to the Department below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2015-2016, as calculated by the Controller, except that the baseline amount shall be adjusted as follows:

(1) Each year in fiscal years 2016-2017 through 2025-2026, the City shall increase the baseline appropriation by $3 million over the prior year.

(2) Each year in fiscal years 2026-2027 through 2045-2046, the City shall adjust the baseline by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues, as determined by the Controller, based on calculations consistent from year to year. In determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City which are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. The Controller is authorized to increase or reduce budgetary appropriations as required by this subsection (c) to align the baseline amount to the amount required by formula based on actual revenues received during the fiscal year.

* * * *

SEC. 16.108. CHILDREN AND YOUTH FUND.

* * * *

(b) Fund for Children and Youth Services. Operative July 1, 2001, there is hereby established a fund to expand children’s services, which shall be called the Children and Youth Fund (“Fund”). Monies in the Fund shall be expended or used only to provide services for children and youth as provided in this sSection 16.108.

* * * *

(h) Baseline. The Fund shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City appropriations and expenditures for those services for children and Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth that are eligible to be paid from the Fund (exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or federal law). To this end, the City shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations for eligible services (not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or federal law) under this section below the amount so appropriated for the fiscal year 2000-2001 (“the base year”) as set forth in the Controller’s baseline budget, as adjusted (“the base amount”).

The Controller shall calculate City appropriations made in fiscal year 2013-2014 for services for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth aged 18 through 24 years. Beginning with fiscal year 2014-2015, that amount shall be added to the base amount and adjusted as provided below. The City shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations for services for Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth (not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or federal law) under this section below the amount so appropriated for fiscal year 2013-2014, as adjusted.

The base amount shall be adjusted for each year after the base year by the Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City and County discretionary revenues. In determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City and County that are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. The method used by the Controller to determine discretionary revenues shall be consistent with method used by the Controller to determine the Library and Children’s Baseline Calculations dated June 20, 2000, which the Controller shall place on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 000952. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by an adjustment in the next year’s estimate. Within 90 days following the end of each fiscal year through Fiscal Year 2040-2041, the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City appropriations for services for children and Disconnected Transitional-Aged Youth that would have been eligible to be paid from the Fund but are paid from other sources, separately identifying expenditures mandated by state or federal law.

* * * *

SEC. 16.109. LIBRARY PRESERVATION FUND.

(a) Establishment of Fund. There is hereby established the Library Preservation Fund (“the Fund”) to be administered by the Library Department as directed by the Library Commission. Monies therein shall be expended or used solely by the Library Department, subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter, to provide library services and to construct, maintain and operate library facilities.

* * * *

(c) Baseline — Maintenance of Effort. The Annual Set-Aside shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City appropriations and expenditures for services, materials, facilities and equipment that will be operated by the Library for Library purposes. To this end, in any of the fifteen years during which funds are required to be set aside under this Section 16.109, the City shall not reduce the Baseline for the Library Department below the fiscal year 2006-2007 Required Baseline Amount (as calculated by the Controller), except that the Baseline shall be adjusted as provided below.

The Baseline shall be adjusted for each year after fiscal year 2006-2007 by the Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year, by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City and County discretionary revenues. In determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City which are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City and County discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by adjustment in the next year’s estimate. For purposes of this subsection (c), (i) aggregate City appropriations shall not include funds granted to the City by private agencies or appropriated by other public agencies and received by the City, and (ii) Library Department appropriations shall not include funds appropriated to the Library Department to pay for services of other City departments or agencies, except for departments or agencies for whose specific services the Library Department was appropriated funds in fiscal year 2006-2007. Within 180 days following the end of each fiscal year through fiscal year 2023-2024, the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City appropriations for the Library Department.

* * * *

SEC. 16.110. HOUSING TRUST FUND.

(a) Creation of Fund. There is hereby established a Housing Trust Fund to support creating, acquiring and rehabilitating affordable housing and promoting affordable home ownership programs in the City, as provided in this Section 16.110.

* * * *

(1) In the Fiscal Year 2013-2014 budget, the City shall appropriate to the Housing Trust Fund $20 million.

(2) For the next 11 fiscal years, in each of the annual budgets for Fiscal Year 2014-2015 through Fiscal Year 2024-2025, the City shall appropriate to the Housing Trust Fund an amount increasing by $2.8 million per year, until the Fiscal Year 2024-2025 budget.

(3) In the annual budgets for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 through Fiscal Year 2042-43, the City shall appropriate to the Housing Trust Fund an amount equal to the prior year’s appropriation, adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in General Fund Discretionary Revenues budgeted for the year compared to the prior year’s original budgeted amount of General Fund Discretionary Revenues.

(4) Should the City adopt a fixed two-year budget under Charter Section 9.101, the adjustment for the Housing Trust Fund appropriation for the two years of the two-year budget shall be based on the amount of General Fund Discretionary Revenues estimated for the two-year period included in the budget.

(5) During Fiscal Years 2025-2026 through 2042-2043, if the Controller submits a revised estimate of General Fund Discretionary Revenues for a given Fiscal Year or two-year budget period that is lower than the amount originally budgeted for that period, then the Board may, by ordinance, reduce the appropriation to the Housing Trust Fund for that budget period in an amount that does not exceed the amount proportionate to the percentage shortfall in the discretionary revenue projection.

(6) The Controller’s method of calculating the amount of and changes in General Fund Discretionary Revenues shall be consistent from fiscal year to fiscal year and with the Controller’s method for calculating those figures under Charter Sections 8A.105, 16.108, and 16.109. The Controller shall treat General Fund appropriations to the Housing Trust Fund as reductions in General Fund Discretionary Revenues when calculating other funding allocations that are tied to General Fund Discretionary Revenues, including funding allocations under Charter Sections 8A.105, 16.108, and 16.109. Additionally, in determining General Fund Discretionary Revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. The Controller shall correct errors in the estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year through an adjustment to the next fiscal year’s estimate.

* * * *

SEC. 16.123-2. PUBLIC EDUCATION ENRICHMENT FUND.

(a) Creating the Fund. There shall be a Public Education Enrichment Fund. The City shall each year appropriate monies to the Public Education Enrichment Fund according to subsections (b), (c), and (d), below.

(b) Baseline Appropriations. The Fund shall be used exclusively to increase the aggregate City appropriations to and expenditures for the San Francisco Unified School District. To this end, the City shall not reduce the amount of such City appropriations (not including appropriations from the Fund and exclusive of expenditures mandated by state or federal law) in any year during which funds are required to be set aside under this Section 16.123-2 below the amount so appropriated for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 (“the base year”). These baseline appropriations shall be separate from the City’s annual contributions to the Public Education Enrichment Fund under subsection (c), and shall be appropriated by the City to the School District each year through and including Fiscal Year 2040-2041.

The amount of the City’s baseline appropriations to the School District shall be adjusted for each year after the base year by the Controller based on calculations consistent from year to year by the percentage increase or decrease in City and County discretionary General Fund revenues. In determining City and County discretionary General Fund revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City and County that are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City and County discretionary General Fund revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. Errors in the Controller’s estimate of discretionary revenues for a fiscal year shall be corrected by an adjustment in the next year’s estimate. Using audited financial results for the prior fiscal year, the Controller shall calculate and publish the actual amount of City appropriations that would have been required under this baseline for the School District.

(c) Annual Contributions to the Fund FY 2005-2006 through FY 2009-2010. In addition to the annual baseline appropriation provided above, the City shall, for years two through six of this measure, contribute the following amounts to the Public Education Enrichment Fund:

Fiscal Year 2005-06 $10 million

Fiscal Year 2006-07 $20 million

Fiscal Year 2007-08 $30 million

Fiscal Year 2008-09 $45 million

Fiscal Year 2009-10 $60 million

(d) Annual Contributions to the Fund – FY 2010-11 and Thereafter. For Fiscal Years 2010-11 and thereafter, the City’s annual contribution to the Public Education Enrichment Fund shall equal its total contribution for the prior year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2009-2010, adjusted for the estimated increase or decrease in discretionary General Fund revenues for the year. In determining the increase or decrease in discretionary General Fund revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020.

* * * *

SEC. 16.128-3. ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND.

(a) Annual Baseline Contributions to the Fund. Each year during the term of Charter Section 16.128-1 et seq., the City shall make an annual baseline contribution to the Fund in the amount of $38 million, representing the amount the City spent in fiscal year 2016-2017 to provide eligible services as identified in Section 16.128-4 to Seniors and Adults with Disabilities.

(b) Additional Contributions for FY 2017-2018 through FY 2026-2027. For fiscal year 2017-2018, the City shall increase its contribution to the Fund over the baseline amount in subsection (a) by $6 million. For each fiscal year from 2018-2019 through 2026-2027, the City shall increase its additional contribution to the Fund under this subsection (b) by $3 million over the prior year.

* * * *

(d) Additional Contributions for FY 2027-2028 through FY 2036-2037. For fiscal years 2027-28 through 2036-2037, the City’s annual contribution to the Fund shall equal its total contribution, including the baseline amount under subsection (a), for the prior year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2026-2027, adjusted by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues, as determined by the Controller, based on calculations consistent from year to year. In determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020. For purposes of this subsection (d), the “additional contribution” for these years shall mean the amount in excess of the baseline amount.

* * * *

SEC. 16.129. STREET TREE MAINTENANCE.

* * * *

(f) Creating the Street Tree Maintenance Fund; Annual City Contributions. There shall be a Street Tree Maintenance Fund (the “Fund”). Each fiscal year, beginning in fiscal year 2017-2018, the City shall contribute $19 million to the Fund. The Fund shall also include any other monies appropriated or allocated to the Fund. Beginning in fiscal year 2018-2019, the Controller shall adjust the amount of the City’s annual $19 million contribution to the Fund under this subsection (f) by the percentage increase or decrease in aggregate City discretionary revenues, as determined by the Controller, based on calculations consistent from year to year. In determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall only include revenues received by the City that are unrestricted and may be used at the option of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors for any lawful City purpose. Additionally, in determining aggregate City discretionary revenues, the Controller shall not include revenues received by the City under the increased rates in Business and Tax Regulations Code Sections 953.1(g), 953.2(h), 953.3(h), 953.4(e), 953.5(d), 953.6(f), 953.7(d), and 953.8(i) adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020, and shall not include revenues received by the City under Article 36 of the Business and Tax Regulations Code adopted by the voters at the general municipal election on November 3, 2020.The method used by the Controller to determine discretionary revenues shall be the same as the method used by the Controller to determine the Library and Children’s Fund Baseline calculations, as provided in Charter Section 16.108(h). The change in aggregate discretionary revenues will be adjusted following the end of the fiscal year when final revenues are known. The Controller is authorized to increase or reduce budgetary appropriations as required under this subsection (f) to reflect changes in aggregate discretionary revenues following the end of the fiscal year when final revenues are known. The Controller shall set aside and maintain the above amounts, together with any interest earned thereon, in the Fund, which shall be subject to appropriation. Any amount unspent or uncommitted at the end of the fiscal year shall be deemed to have been devoted exclusively to a specified purpose within the meaning of Charter Section 9.113(a), shall be carried forward to the next fiscal year, and, subject to the budgetary and fiscal limitations of this Charter, shall be appropriated then or thereafter for the purposes set forth in this Section 16.129.

* * * *

Section 2. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposal to amend the Business and Tax Regulations Code of the City and County by revising Section 6.9-3 of Article 6, to read as follows:

SEC. 6.9-3. DETERMINATIONS, RETURNS AND PAYMENTS; REMITTANCES.

(a) Remittances. Notwithstanding the due dates otherwise provided in Section 6.9-1, taxpayers shall make remittances of taxes and third-party taxes to the Tax Collector as follows:

* * * *

(3) Payroll Expense Tax, Gross Receipts Tax, Early Care and Education Commercial Rents Tax, Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax, and Cannabis Business Tax: Estimated Tax Payments. Except as provided in Section 6.9-3(a)(3)(G) with respect to estimated tax payments of the gross receipts tax, every person or combined group liable for payment of the payroll expense tax (Article 12-A), the gross receipts tax (Article 12-A-1) (including the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1), the Early Care and Education Commercial Rents Tax (Article 21), the Homelessness Gross Receipts Tax (Article 28) (including the homelessness administrative office tax imposed under Section 2804(d) of Article 28), or the Cannabis Business Tax (Article 30) shall make three estimated tax payments, in addition to the annual payments in Section 6.9-3(a)(4), as follows:

* * * *

(C) Gross Receipts Tax Estimated Tax Payments. For purposes of this Section 6.9-3, a person or combined group’s estimated tax payments of gross receipts tax, including the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1, for any tax years commencing on or after January 1, 2021 shall each equal the lesser of:

(i) 25% of the gross receipts tax liability (including any liability for the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1) shown on the person or combined group’s return for the tax year (or, if no return is filed, 25% of the person or combined group’s actual gross receipts tax liability for the tax year); or

(ii) 25% of the gross receipts tax liability (including any liability for the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1) as determined by applying the applicable gross receipts tax rates and small business exemption in Section 954.1 of Article 12-A-1 for the current tax year to the taxable gross receipts shown on the person or combined group’s return for the preceding tax year (or, if subject to the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1 for the preceding tax year, by applying the applicable administrative office tax rate for the current tax year to the total payroll expense attributable to the City shown on the person or combined group’s return for the preceding tax year). If the person or combined group did not file a return for the preceding tax year, the person or combined group shall owe be deemed to have filed a return showing no liability for purposes of this Section 6.9-3(a)(3)(C)(ii), and no estimated tax payments of gross receipts taxes (or estimated tax payments of the tax on administrative office business activities imposed under Section 953.8 of Article 12-A-1)shall be due for the current tax year. For purposes of this Section 6.9-3(a)(3)(C)(ii), “taxable gross receipts” means a person or combined group’s gross receipts, not excluded under Section 954 of Article 12-A-1, attributable to the City.

* * * *

Section 3. The Board of Supervisors hereby submits to the qualified voters of the City and County, at an election to be held on November 3, 2020, a proposal to amend the Business and Tax Regulations Code of the City and County by revising Sections 855 and 856 of Article 12, to read as follows:

SEC. 855. REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE – FEE.

(a) Fee for registration years ending on or after June 30, 2004, but ending on or before June 30, 2014. Except as otherwise provided in this Section and Section 856 of this Article, the annual fee for obtaining a registration certificate for registration years ending on or after June 30, 2004, but ending on or before June 30, 2014, payable in advance, shall be as follows:

San Francisco Payroll Expense Tax for the Immediately Preceding Tax Year	*Annual Registration Fee*
Less than $1	$25
$1 to $10,000	$150
$10,000.01 to $50,000	$250
More than $50,000	$500

(b) In the event that an applicant for a registration certificate, for registration years ending on or after June 30, 2004, but ending on or before June 30, 2014, has not filed a tax return for the immediately preceding tax year as required by Section 6.9-2 of Article 6, the Tax Collector shall determine the amount of the registration fee required based on the applicant’s estimated tax liability under Article 12-A (Payroll Expense Tax Ordinance) for the period covered by the registration certificate.

(c) Fee for Registration Year Commencing July 1, 2014 and Ending June 30, 2015. Except as otherwise provided in this Section and Section 856 of this Article, the annual fee for obtaining a registration certificate, for the registration year commencing July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, payable in advance, shall be as follows:

San Francisco Payroll Expense for the Immediately Preceding Tax Year	*Annual Registration Fee*
$0 to $66.66	$75
$66.67 to $75,000	$150
$75,001 to $100,000	$250
$100,001 to $150,000	$500
$150,001 to $200,000	$700
$200,001 to $250,000	$800
$250,001 to $1,000,000	$300
$1,000,001 to $2,500,000	$800
$2,500,001 to $5,000,000	$5,000
$5,000,001 to $10,000,000	$15,000
$10,000,001 to $25,000,000	$25,000
$25,000,001 to $40,000,000	$30,000
$40,000,001 or more	$35,000

(d) In the event that an applicant for a registration certificate, for registration year commencing July 1, 2014 and ending June 30, 2015, has not filed a tax return for the immediately preceding tax year as required by Section 6.9-2 of Article 6, the Tax Collector shall determine the amount of the registration fee required based on the applicant’s payroll expense under Article 12-A (Payroll Expense Tax Ordinance) for the period covered by the registration certificate.

(ae) Fee for Registration Years Ending After June 30, 2015, but On or Before June 30, 2021.

(1) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 855 and Section 856 of this Article 12, the annual fee for obtaining a registration certificate, for the registration years ending after June 30, 2015, but on or before June 30, 2021, payable in advance, shall be as follows:

*San Francisco Gross Receipts for the Immediately Preceding Tax Year*	*Annual Registration Fee*
$0 to $100,000	$90
$100,001 to $250,000	$150
$250,001 to $500,000	$250
$500,001 to $750,000	$500
$750,001 to $1,000,000	$700
$1,000,001 to $2,500,000	$300
$2,500,001 to $7,500,000	$500
$7,500,001 to $15,000,000	$1,500
$15,000,001 to $25,000,000	$5,000
$25,000,001 to $50,000,000	$12,500
$50,000,001 to $100,000,000	$22,500
$100,000,001 to $200,000,000	$30,000
$200,000,001 and over	$35,000

(2) Fee for Retail Trade, Wholesale Trade, and Certain Services. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 855 and Section 856 of this Article 12, for registration years ending after June 30, 2015, but on or before June 30, 2021, the annual fee for obtaining a registration certificate, payable in advance, for a business that was required to report all of its gross receipts pursuant to Article 12-A-1, Section 953.1 for the preceding tax year, shall be as follows:

*San Francisco Gross Receipts for the Immediately Preceding Tax Year*	*Annual Registration Fee*
$0 to $100,000	$75
$100,001 to $250,000	$125
$250,001 to $500,000	$200
$500,001 to $750,000	$400
$750,001 to $1,000,000	$600
$1,000,001 to $2,500,000	$200
$2,500,001 to $7,500,000	$400
$7,500,001 to $15,000,000	$1,125
$15,000,001 to $25,000,000	$3,750
$25,000,001 to $50,000,000	$7,500
$50,000,001 to $100,000,000	$15,000
$100,000,001 to $200,000,000	$20,000
$200,000,001 and over	$30,000

(b) Fee for Registration Years Beginning On or After July 1, 2021.

(1) General Rule. Except as otherwise provided in this Section 855 and Section 856 of this Article 12, the annual fee for obtaining a registration certificate, for the registration years beginning on or after July 1, 2021, payable in advance, shall be as follows:

*San Francisco Gross Receipts for the Immediately Preceding Tax Year*	Annual Registration Fee
$0 to $100,000	$52
$100,000.01 to $250,000	$86
$250,000.01 to $500,000	$144
$500,000.01 to $750,000	$288
$750,000.01 to $1,000,000	$403
$1,000,000.01 to $1,500,000	$575
$1,500,000.01 to $2,000,000	$805
$2,000,000.01 to $2,500,000	$345

The text above contains the first 20 pages of Measure F but does not include the remaining pages of the measure. The pages that have been excluded may include important information that could be useful to voters, and the Department of Elections encourages voters to review those pages as well. The full text of this measure is available online at sfelections.org and in every public library. If you desire a copy of the full text of the measure to be mailed to you, please contact the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375 and sfvote [at] sfgov.org and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.