Slate by Slate
Election Day · Tue, Nov 3My guide 0
← Your ballot
Proposition E · San Francisco · Nov 3, 2026

City Administrator’s Authority and Changes to City Contracting

Centralizes purchasing rules under the City Administrator and changes contract review thresholds.

At a glance

Charter amendment
Does it raise taxes?
No. It changes city contracting rules; no new tax.
Estimated cost or revenue
Controller expects minimal fiscal impact; no quantified net estimate.
Who pays
City operating budgets
Where the money goes
City procurement, technology policy and contract administration.
How long
Ongoing; review thresholds adjusted for inflation every five years beginning in 2032.

Worth knowing: Savings depend on implementation, staffing and purchasing choices.

From the San Francisco Ethics Commission and the state’s fiscal analysis. Estimates are the state’s, not ours.

Your choice

Saved privately on this device.

What your vote does

✓ A Yes vote means

Gives the Administrator greater contracting and technology authority, exclusive initiation of specified purchasing ordinances, and a ten-year term; raises Board review thresholds to $4.5 million in revenue and $25 million in spending.

× A No vote means

Keeps current authority, five-year term and contract thresholds.

Stays the same either way

Specified labor and workplace-related ordinances remain within existing Board authority.

How the money works

TypeCharter amendment

Cost, who pays and where the money goes are in “At a glance” above.

What your guides say

No guides selected yet. Pick guides to compare.

Why they disagree

Opponents say

Concentrates power in a mayoral appointee and raises the contract size the Board reviews from $10M to $25M, reducing oversight and public review.

Official argument against (summary)

Summaries of each side. Read the full official arguments in the San Francisco voter pamphlet. Read the full official arguments

Read the official digest, fiscal statement and legal text for qualifications and exceptions.

Who’s funding it

Campaign funding by contest

Selected official disclosures, not complete election totals. Each filing lists its reporting period. Missing records do not mean no money was raised.

Support: See shared committee disclosures below; their money is not allocated to individual measures.

Opposition: no committee filing records loaded for this side in this snapshot.

Support: See shared committee disclosures below; their money is not allocated to individual measures.

Opposition: no committee filing records loaded for this side in this snapshot.

Support: See shared committee disclosures below; their money is not allocated to individual measures.

Opposition: no committee filing records loaded for this side in this snapshot.

Committees campaigning on multiple measures

A committee’s total cannot be assigned in full to each measure. Totals are shown once and are not included in individual-measure totals.

Shared committee · not allocated by measure

Mayor Lurie's Yes on D, E & F Committee

$13,066,550

Reported monetary contributions, calendar year to date

Jan 1, 2026–Oct 28, 2026

Form460 summary line1 columnB. Committee-level calendar-year monetary contributions; not allocated per measure, and not added to selected contributor aggregates or transactions. Original filing; current version for this reporting period when checked.

Largest contributors within the imported snapshot

Jul 1, 2026–Oct 28, 2026. These are parts of the committee’s receipts, not additional money.

  1. Michael Moritz$987,500
  2. Patrick Collison$500,000
  3. Christian Larsen$487,500
  4. Ron Conway$250,000
  5. Thomas Laffont$250,000

We haven’t loaded campaign-finance filings for Proposition E yet. You can look them up directly:

Sources

Report a correctionSuggest a source