Health and Homelessness, Parks, and Streets Bond

HEALTH AND RECOVERY BONDS. To finance the acquisition or improvement of real property, including to: stabilize, improve, and make permanent investments in supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that deliver services to persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, and/or homelessness; improve the accessibility, safety and quality of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities; improve the accessibility, safety and condition of the City’s streets and other public right-of-way and related assets; and to pay related costs; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $487,500,000 in general obligation bonds with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.014/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $40,000,000, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits? The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.

Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee

The Way It Is Now: The City provides a variety of projects and services, including:

• Mental health and homelessness programs;

• Parks, open spaces and recreational facilities; and

• Streets, curb ramps and plazas.

The Proposal: Proposition A is a bond measure that would authorize the City to borrow up to $487.5 million by issuing general obligation bonds.

Bond money could be spent as follows:

• $207 million on mental health and homelessness projects, including housing, shelters, community health, psychiatric and behavioral health facilities;

• $239 million on parks, open spaces and recreation facilities; and

• $41.5 million on improving streets, curb ramps and plazas.

Proposition A would require the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to review how this bond money is spent.

If needed, Proposition A would allow an increase in the property tax to pay for the bonds. City policy is to limit the amount of money it borrows by issuing new bonds only as prior bonds are paid off. Landlords could pass through up to 50% of any resulting property tax increase to tenants.

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want the City to issue $487.5 million in general obligation bonds to fund mental health and homelessness projects, parks, open spaces and recreation facilities, as well as improvements to streets, curb ramps and plazas.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want the City to issue these bonds.

Controller's Statement on "A"

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

Should the proposed $487.5 million in bonds be authorized and sold under current assumptions, the approximate costs will be as follows:

a) In fiscal year (FY) 2021–2022, following issuance of the first series of bonds, and the year with the lowest tax rate, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.00095 per $100 ($0.95 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

b) In FY 2029–2030, following issuance of the last series of bonds, and the year with the highest tax rate, the best estimate of the tax required to fund this bond issue would result in a property tax rate of $0.01402 per $100 ($14.02 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

c) The best estimate of the average tax rate for these bonds from FY 2021–2022 through FY 2052–2053 is $0.01066 per $100 ($10.66 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

d) Based on these estimates, the highest estimated annual property tax cost for these bonds for the owner of a home with an assessed value of $600,000 would be approximately $83.13.

The best estimate of total debt service, including principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all proposed $487.5 million in bonds are issued and sold, would be approximately $960 million. These estimates are based on projections only, which are not binding upon the City. Projections and estimates may vary due to the timing of bond sales, the amount of bonds sold at each sale, and actual assessed valuation over the term of repayment of the bonds. Hence, the actual tax rate and the years in which such rates are applicable may vary from those estimated above. The City’s current non-binding debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.

How "A" Got on the Ballot

On July 21, 2020, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition A 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 66⅔% 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 A

Vote Yes on Proposition A, the San Francisco Health & Recovery Bond!

Proposition A, San Francisco's Health and Recovery Bond, comes at a critical time. The health and economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have been stark and challenged our City like never before.

The COVID-19 pandemic has made our homelessness and mental health crisis even more challenging and underscored the need to create more shelter, permanent supportive housing, and expand our mental health resources.

We have seen nearly 200,000 San Franciscans file for unemployment, and an increasing need for safe and accessible public outdoor spaces as individuals and families work and learn from home.

Proposition A provides $487.5 million for three priorities: mental health and homelessness; parks and open spaces; and street repair, all while creating new jobs that will help jumpstart our economic recovery.

Proposition A is the result of a collaborative effort, and reflects input from multiple City departments, the Board of Supervisors, and community stakeholders.

Proposition A does NOT raise taxes in accordance with the City's policy of retiring old bonds before new bonds are issued.

Proposition A:

• Funds permanent supportive housing, shelter, and facilities to provide mental health and substance use treatment services.

• Funds improvements to neighborhood parks, trails, playgrounds, community gardens, and recreation centers throughout the City including: Gene Friend Recreation Center in SOMA, India Basin in the Bayview, Japantown Peace Plaza, Buchanan Mall in the Western Addition, parks in Chinatown, Herz Playground in Visitacion Valley, Golden Gate and McLaren Parks, among others.

• Funds repairs to city infrastructure including street resurfacing, curb ramps, and plazas, increasing safety and accessibility.

• Creates thousands of new jobs to help our economic recovery.

• Does NOT raise taxes.

Vote Yes on Proposition A to invest in the health and economic well-being of all our communities.

www.SFRecoveryBond.com

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 A

Politicians have a built-in capacity for short-term thinking: the election cycle. They make promises and float policies designed for immediate impact – spend for votes today. That’s problematic in and of itself, as it gives little regard to the idea that actions taken now will have impacts years, sometimes decades down the road. Proposition A spending will be unproductive, wasted under the guise of short-term benefits.

The San Francisco economy is in a deep recession and the recovery will take years. The City’s fiscal crisis will get worse. The City’s unfunded pension liability is $3.6 Billion and the City’s cost per employee for pension benefits amounts to 25% of salary per employee in 2021. The bloated bureaucracy in San Francisco includes 38,000 plus employees, more than the population of Burlingame and enough to provide one worker for every 28 San Franciscans. In 2016, the average San Francisco city worker made $108,774 in salary and $49,864 in benefits.

Proposition A debt combined with the increasing costs of pension and fringe benefits cannot be sustained today or into the future.

Vote NO on Proposition A – Your vote MATTERS! Your vote will send a strong message to the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors that their fiscal policies and wasteful spending are unacceptable.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Anthropologist Margaret Mead

Craig Weber, CPA

Author, San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report: “Pension Tsunami – the Billion Dollar Bubble”

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 A

We need to support health and recovery for San Franciscans during this time of the Covid -19 Crisis, but this flawed Proposition A financing scheme is a bad deal for San Francisco.

Proposition A is a risky gamble. The office of the Controller projected that if the proposed $487.5 million in bonds are issued and sold, the total cost in interest and principal will be $960 million.

Where is that money going? The Mayor has budgeted the following:

$16.5M for Emergency Communications

$184.9M for Health Operations

$61.8M for Food Security and Human Resources

$182.9M for Housing

Why are we borrowing more funds to support services that have been budgeted for expenditures from the General Fund?

There is no financial accountability included in Proposition A, such as the Citizens Oversight Committee used in prior funding measures.

Let's build community, not debt. The City simply cannot afford more debt in addition to the unfunded pension liability for the thousands of retired city workers. Vote NO for Proposition A.

Craig Weber, Certified Public Accountant

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 A

Proposition A is a fiscally responsible measure and essential action we must take to jump-start our local economy and create good-paying jobs, while investing in the health and economic well-being of all our communities.

The City's policy of retiring old bonds before new bonds are issued ensures Proposition A does NOT raise taxes on homeowners.

All bond expenditures are overseen by the Citizen's General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

COVID-19 has devastated our local economy and bond measures are a proven stimulus tool. San Francisco bonds created roughly 9,500 jobs during the Great Recession, so we know this measure will serve as an economic engine while making infrastructure improvements to our City.

Proposition A makes essential improvements to our mental health and supportive housing infrastructure as well as access to mental health and substance abuse treatment so that people experiencing homelessness can get the help they need.

Proposition A makes much needed improvements to our parks, recreation centers, and plazas, improving access to safe outdoor spaces for San Franciscans in every neighborhood. As we work and learn from home, our parks and playgrounds are more essential than ever for our mental and physical well-being.

Proposition A funds repairs to city infrastructure including street resurfacing, curb ramps, and plazas, increasing safety and accessibility.

Vote Yes on Proposition A to help jump-start our economy and create jobs, while investing in the health and well-being of all San Franciscans.

www.SFRecoveryBond.com

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 A

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Asian & Pacific Islander Community Leaders Support Proposition A

San Francisco's Health and Recovery Bond, Proposition A, provides an opportunity for our City's diverse communities to come together to support a brighter future for all of our residents. Passage of the bond will secure funding to improve and renovate our parks and recreation facilities at a critical time for their use during this COVID-19 pandemic and the tremendous need for outdoor social distancing. Our parks and plazas are truly our backyards for so many San Franciscans. The repair of our roads and sidewalks, including curb ramp installations, will enhance our public infrastructure and provide jobs for the City's economic recovery. We ask everyone to join us in Voting Yes on A.

Assessor-Recorder Carmen Chu

Assemblymember David Chiu

Assemblymember Phil Ting

President Norman Yee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Supervisor Sandra Fewer

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Board of Education Member Jenny Lam

BART Board Director Janice Li*

Rose Pak Democratic Club

*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 A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

African American Leaders Support the San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond

BLACK LIVES MATTER.

San Francisco has been steadily losing its Black population for generations, due to systemic racism, affordability, health disparities, and displacement. The San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond, Proposition A, is an important step we can take right now to create good paying jobs and begin to put people back to work; to provide expanded access to mental health services, and permanent supportive housing. Prop A provides funding to make improvements to playgrounds and parks including a new waterfront park at India Basin Park in the BayView, and overdue improvements to park, open space and recreational facilities in communities disproportionately impacted by COVID and in need of healthy outdoor spaces. We urge you to support Proposition A for our community's health.

Board of Equalization Member Malia Cohen

Supervisor Shamann Walton

City College Trustee Alex Randolph

Willie B. Kennedy Democratic Club

Black Women Organized for Political Action (BWOPA)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Vote Yes on Prop A for LGBTQ Health

Even though we are well-known internationally as being a haven for those seeking to be out and proud, our LGBTQ brothers and sisters must still deal with issues around discrimination, violence, hatred, and harassment. These factors can often lead to depression, anxiety, panic disorders, suicidal thoughts, and substance abuse. According to a recent survey from the Horizons Foundation, the high costs of, and inaccessibility to, healthcare were seen by half of all LGBTQ respondents in the San Francisco Bay Area as a systemic barrier to obtaining help and support.

Proposition A will help fund structural support to help meet the mental health and substance use needs in our City. Prop A will prioritize expanding the opportunities and affordability of direct service deliveries, treatment, residential facilities, diagnostic care, and outpatient support. For the health of our LGBTQ family in San Francisco, we urge you to support Proposition A.

Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair David Campos

BART Director Bevan Dufty

BART Director Janice Li*

City College Trustee Alex Randolph

City College Trustee Tom Temprano

Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

*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 A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

The coronavirus pandemic has devastated our economy, with nearly 200,000 San Franciscans filing for unemployment since February. Proposition A will help jumpstart our city's economic recovery, create good paying jobs, and build a stronger public infrastructure. The Health and Recovery Bond will invest in shovel-ready projects including parks, playground, and recreation center improvements; transitional and permanent supportive for those experiencing mental health issues and homelessness; the construction and maintenance of curb ramps, street structures, and road repairs. Prop A will provide needed jobs for our City workforce and help provide income for families. We urge a Yes vote on Proposition A.

San Francisco Labor Council

San Francisco Building Trades Council

LiUNA Laborers Local 261

UA Local 38, Plumbers & Pipefitters

United Educators of San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Yes on Prop A for Safe, Activated, Equitable Public Spaces

The San Francisco Parks Alliance is dedicated to transforming and activating parks and public spaces throughout our city, and ensuring access to safe and welcoming public spaces, regardless of what neighborhood you live in.

Proposition A supports our mission to provide equitable access to fresh air, safe playgrounds and recreation centers, trails, gardens and outdoor plazas and public spaces that are even more essential now as we all face this pandemic and find ourselves and our families working and learning from home. Proposition A makes needed improvements to park infrastructure and equipment to ensure these spaces are safe, welcoming and activated for everyone to enjoy.

We urge you to support our community-focused parks and public spaces by Voting Yes on Proposition A!

San Francisco Parks Alliance

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Proposition A will prioritize pedestrian access and capabilities throughout San Francisco's many neighborhoods. With the help of funding from Prop A the City will further its goal to have a curb ramp installed at every intersection and mid-block location where pedestrian crossings exist, providing fuller pedestrian access between a sidewalk and roadway. This will vastly assist the needs of our fellow residents who need more time to cross our dangerous streets, using supportive devices, strollers, or delivery dollies. We urge your support for Proposition A.

Martha Knutzen, Disability & Aging Services Commission President*

Senior & Disability Action

*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 A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Even before COVID-19, our City was in a public health care and housing crisis. There are approximately 8,000 people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco on any given night, with 4,000 residents also experiencing mental health challenges and substance use disorders. Now as we all battle the pandemic, we know we must do more to strengthen our public safety net.

Our years of direct service in the community have shown us that we need as a City. Proposition A, the Health and Recovery Bond, will vastly improve our City's response to these crises with $207 million of this Bond going specifically to addressing health care and housing needs. San Francisco will be able to expand the opportunities and affordability for health care direct services, treatment programs, residential facilities, diagnostic care, and outpatient support. Further, permanent and transitional housing access to more of our neighbors will be improved. We ask for your Yes vote on Prop. A.

San Francisco Human Services Network

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

The Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco, Mercy Housing, Related and Wu Yee are partnering in Visitacion Valley to build a new recreation center featuring an indoor basketball court and multi-purpose room. As we advance racial and economic justice in San Francisco, it is especially critical to fund safe spaces for our low-income youth and adults of color in Sunnydale, a historically under-resourced part of our city. This recreation center and community amenities will represent a safe, enjoyable space for which many folks are hungry. We can make this vision a reality with Prop A.

Vote Yes on Prop A.

Boys & Girls Clubs of San Francisco

Mercy Housing

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

San Francisco Democrats Support Proposition A

Proposition A, the SF Health and Economic Recovery Bond is an important step in helping our city heal from the coronavirus pandemic.

Prop A provides for permanent investment in our supportive housing facilities and shelters for those who are struggling on our street, and services for people experiencing mental health challenges and substance use disorder.

Prop A improves the accessibility, safety and quality of our treasured parks, open spaces and recreation facilities that have become even more important to our diverse communities during this pandemic.

Prop A makes needed improvement to the condition of our City streets that will improve the accessibility to the public right-of- way, which has become even more important as get out to walk and enjoy the fresh air.

Please join the San Francisco Democratic Party in supporting Prop A!

San Francisco Democratic Party

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Latinx Leaders Support Prop A

Funds from the San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond will allow for the strengthening of our City's public health infrastructure. The City's many individual community clinics, health centers, and hospital operations will be able to further their healthcare outreach to deliver services for those experiencing homelessness and mental health challenges.

In addition, critical improvements to our community parks and open spaces are needed now more than ever as our community is disproportionately impacted by COVID. We need access to open spaces, fresh air, and safe recreation for all members of our community.

For the health of our Latinx community, we ask you to vote Yes on Proposition A.

San Francisco Democratic Party Chair David Campos

Roberto Hernandez, Our Mission No Eviction

Greg Flores

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

COVID-19 Highlights Need for Parks and Open Spaces

Parks and open spaces have never been more important than during this period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Outdoor opportunities for socially-distant gatherings and community engagement have provided a lifeline for our City's recovery.

The National Recreation and park Association (NRPA) recently surveyed American adults and found that 83% consider parks and open spaces essential during the COVID-19 pandemic. We have always strongly believed in the mental and physical health benefits of our City's parks and recreation areas. Now, more than ever, it is clear that this is critical civic infrastructure for the betterment of our City and its communities. Proposition A will strengthen our parks system for its use today and for generations to come. We ask for your Yes vote on Prop. A.

Mark Buell, Recreation & Park Commission President*

Allan Low, Recreation & Park Commission Vice President*

Kat Anderson, Recreation & Park Commissioner*

Gloria Bonilla, Recreation & Park Commissioner*

Tom Harrison, Recreation & Park Commissioner*

Larry Mazzola, Jr., Recreation & Park Commissioner*

Eric McDonnell, Recreation & Park Commissioner*

*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 A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Chinatown Community Supports Proposition A!

The parks and plazas in Chinatown serve as our community's "Living Room". Our neighborhood is the most densely populated area throughout the state. Our parks are an essential component to the well-being and health of our residents, many of whom live in Single Room Occupancies and generations of families in apartments. Proposition A will provide critical funding for parks and plaza renovations in Chinatown at a time when the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for social distancing and spending time outside in the fresh air. We urge support for the health and future of Chinatown through the passage of Proposition A.

Chinatown Community Development Center

Chinatown Transportation Research & Improvement Project (TRIP)

CCBA Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association

Community Tenants Association

Ning Yung Association

Community Youth Center

Self Help for the Elderly

Community for Better Parks & Recreation in Chinatown

Chinese Culture Center of San Francisco

Chinese Chamber of Commerce

API Council

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Japantown Supports Proposition A

The Japantown Peace Plaza is deeply symbolic of the plight and struggles of San Francisco Japanese American community. Proposition A provides for the repair and improvement to this open space. The funding provided in Proposition A, the Health and Recovery Bond, is particularly meaningful for the Japantown community because the Peace Plaza area was once occupied by Japanese American residents and businesses. Having an open space which addresses the needs and represents the character of Japantown is vital to the long-term sustainability of this community.

We ask for your support for Proposition A.

Steve Nakajo

Sandy Mori

George Yamasaki, Jr.

Glenis Nakahara

Benjamin Nakajo

David Kikuo Takashima

David Alan Ishida

Brandon Y Quan

Grace Horikiri

Lauren Nosaka

Alice Wong Kawahatsu

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on A, San Francisco Health and Recovery Bond.

The sole contributor to the true source recipient committee: Chris Larsen.

End of Paid Arguments IN FAVOR of Proposition A

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 A

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION A! It's Absurd!

More debt for San Francisco taxpayers.

?This $487.5 million dollar bond in the middle of a global pandemic lays bare City Hall's addiction to taxpayer dollars. They simply cannot stop!

According to the Controller, total debt with principle and interest is $960 million dollars.

This "catch all" bond gives MORE money to homeless services, MORE money to street cleaning — a program riddled with corruption and abuse, and MORE money to parks after voters approved bonds in 2000, 2008, 2012.

Our homeless budget has risen from 2011 to 2020 almost threefold to $364 million in the budget with an additional $100 million budgeted in the current pandemic budget for the next two years!

Rising employee and pension costs, voter-approved set-asides and state-mandated policy changes are expected to increase expenses in the coming years.

This is not the time for San Francisco to incur more debt.

Break the cycle of dependency on our hard-earned tax dollars.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION A!

San Francisco Taxpayers Association

Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret)

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. Scott Feldman, 2. Paul Sack, 3. Claude Perasso, Jr.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A

Our City has struggled to house and care for those afflicted by the housing crisis and mental health issues for decades. Temporarily washing our hands of the situation by shackling our tenants and housing providers with an additional $960 million in debt obligations, according to the Controller's Office's estimate, in exchange for $487 million in the near term is not a solution—it's a poorly-applied band-aid on a festering wound.

Solving this crisis requires creative, out-of-the box thinking from more than just tax-funded politicians and bureaucrats. Our community deserves the opportunity to rise to the occasion, as it has done many times before. That opportunity will only come when the City lifts its excessive restrictions on building housing and operating small businesses which provide for the many needs of our most vulnerable community members. We, as voters, should demand no less.

Vote NO on Prop A and send a strong message that voters will not tolerate more of the same failed policies.

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

Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of not-to-exceed $487,500,000 to finance the acquisition or improvement of real property, including: facilities to house and/or deliver services for persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, and/or homelessness; parks, open space, and recreation facilities, including green and climate resilient infrastructure; and streets, curb ramps, street structures and plazas, and related costs necessary or convenient for the foregoing purposes; authorizing landlords to pass-through 50% of the resulting property tax increase to residential tenants under Administrative Code Chapter 37; providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest on such Bonds; incorporating the provisions of the Administrative Code relating to the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee’s review of Bond expenditures; setting certain procedures and requirements for the election; adopting findings under the California Environmental Quality Act; and finding that the proposed Bonds are in conformity with the General Plan, and with the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1(b).

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

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

Section 1. Findings.

A. According to the City and County of San Francisco (“City”) Point-in-Time Count conducted in January 2019, about 8,000 people experience homelessness in the City on any given night, and over the course of an entire year, many more people experience homelessness.

B. According to Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing (“HSH”) records, in Fiscal Year 2018-2019, HSH served about 18,000 people experiencing homelessness, and of those, 4,000 have a history of both mental health and substance use disorders.

C. An estimated 24,500 people inject drugs in the City and recent data indicate that 39 percent of people who inject drugs in the City reported injecting methamphetamine. Methamphetamine is increasingly being consumed in public spaces, and residents are more regularly encountering individuals who present challenging psychosis-related behaviors or experience moments of mental health crisis.

D. The City, through HSH, currently offers temporary shelter to approximately 3,400 people per night through shelters, Navigation Centers, stabilization beds, and transitional housing -- 566 additional beds have opened since October 2018 and another 499 are in development -- but additional shelter beds are needed to match the waitlist for individuals looking to access shelter.

E. The City administers locally and federally funded supportive housing to provide long-term affordable housing with on-site social services to people exiting chronic homelessness through a portfolio that includes renovated Single Room Occupancy hotels, newly constructed units, and apartment buildings that operate under a master lease between private property owners and the City (“Permanent Supportive Housing”), but the City does not have a sufficient supply of Permanent Supportive Housing units to meet the demand.

///

F. DPH provides behavioral health services in a number of settings and through a number of different mechanisms including at existing facilities such as San Francisco General Hospital, the Behavioral Health Access Center, Residential Care Facilities, community clinics, and through contracts with nonprofit service providers.

G. When there is not enough capacity at any one level of care or facility, longer wait times for services have a detrimental effect on the ability of people to heal and become healthier, and the City has an inadequate number of beds to help those recovering from substance use, mental health, or a dual diagnosis, with some residential care facilities having wait lists of up to seven months as of 2019.

H. Limited state and federal resources and the high cost of construction put a greater burden on local governments to contribute their own limited resources to produce more facilities to serve those struggling with behavioral health and substance use disorders, temporary shelters, and permanent supportive housing, and consequently the City’s supply of these resources has not kept pace with demand.

I. The proposed Health and Recovery Bond (“Bond”) will provide a portion of the critical funding necessary to acquire or improve real property, including transitional and permanent supportive housing and shelters, and existing and potential new behavioral health facilities and institutions.

J. On March 16, 2020, the Public Health Officers of six Bay Area counties jointly issued a Shelter in Place Public Health Order to protect the health and well-being of Bay Area residents in the face of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (“Public Health Emergency”).

K. The Public Health Emergency brought with it City unemployment levels approaching 10% within three weeks of the first Shelter in Place Public Health Order and full or partial job loss impacts on industries with an estimated 166,936 employees, creating an urgent need to invest in projects that create jobs and support the City’s economic recovery.

L. The City’s most recent 10-year capital plan identifies a deferred maintenance backlog of $799 million for streets and General Fund facilities, and the Recreation and Parks Department’s more recent facilities condition assessment shows $950 million in deferred maintenance.

M. Infrastructure investment is a known and tested jobs stimulus strategy with a strong multiplier effect, estimated at 5.93 jobs for every million dollars in construction spending according to the REMI Policy Insight model.

N. Since 2005, the City has engaged in regular, long-term capital planning to identify and advance shovel-ready projects that deliver improvements in line with adopted funding principles that prioritize legal and regulatory mandates, life safety and resilience, asset preservation and sustainability, programmatic and planned needs, and economic development.

O. Parks, recreation facilities, open spaces, streets, curb ramps, street structures, and plazas are all essential infrastructure for which the City is responsible and must maintain a state of good repair for public health, safety, and equitable accessibility.

P. Parks, recreation facilities, and open spaces offer space to relax and enjoy nature and places to play and exercise, increase residents’ quality of life, support good mental and physical health, and can help people deal with trauma or find comfort in a time of distress, as a growing body of work shows that time spent outdoors in natural environments can help lower stress, depression, anxiety, diabetes, risk of preterm birth, high blood pressure, asthma, stroke, heart disease and other health improvements.

Q. During the Public Health Emergency, City residents have sought solace and refuge in City parks and open spaces and heavily utilized these spaces for exercise and as an alternative to private back yards, and more so in denser neighborhoods and in Equity Zones.

R. During the Public Health Emergency, many of the City’s recreation facilities served as childcare centers for emergency and healthcare workers, helping to alleviate child care concerns for these important professionals.

S. A recent survey by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) found that eighty-three percent (83%) of American adults agree that visiting their local parks, trails and open spaces is essential for their mental and physical well-being during the COVID-19 Emergency, and fifty nine percent (59%) said that access to these amenities is very or extremely essential to their mental and physical health during this crisis.

T. Additionally, Urban agriculture provides proven benefits to San Franciscans by connecting City residents to the broader food system, providing green space and recreation, providing ecological benefits and green infrastructure, building community, and offering food access, public health, and workforce development potential, in particular for low-income and vulnerable communities; and

U. A park system as large and diverse as the City’s -- over 220 parks spread over 3,400 acres, and containing 181 playgrounds, 82 recreation centers and clubhouses, 37 community gardens, 29 off-leash dog areas, 9 swimming pools, and numerous tennis courts, ball fields, soccer fields, and other sports and athletic venues -- requires continued and consistent investment to address dilapidated playgrounds, worn out playfields, run-down buildings, and crumbling outdoor courts.

V. The City is responsible for the state of good repair of more than 1,200 miles of streets, approximately 50,000 curb ramp locations, 371 street structures, and 9 plazas, which are heavily used and have longstanding deferred maintenance needs.

W. Streets, curb ramps, street structures, and plazas connect people to jobs, hospitals, shopping centers, and transit -- places that are vital to daily life -- and providing smooth and pot-hole free streets and pedestrian right-of-way is essential to reducing the costs of road-induced damage, preventing accidents for bicyclists and drivers, and creating safe passage for pedestrians.

X. City staff have identified and planned several park, open space, and recreation facilities improvement projects to address public safety hazards, improve waterfront access, improve disabled access, enhance the condition of neighborhood and citywide park, recreation, and open space facilities and lands, address deferred maintenance, support population growth, enhance green infrastructure, improve climate resiliency and seismic safety, ensure equitable access to high-quality open spaces, and other issues facing the City’s park system that can put people to work quickly and support local economic recovery.

Y. The Bond will provide a portion of the critical funding necessary to acquire or improve real property, including to improve the safety and quality of neighborhood, citywide and waterfront parks and open spaces and recreation facilities and urban agriculture sites under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission.

Z. City staff have identified street repaving, curb ramp, street structures, and plaza improvement programs to address public safety hazards, reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance, improve disabled access, and equitably improve the public right-of-way that can similarly put people to work quickly.

AA. The Bond will provide a portion of the funding necessary to acquire or improve real property, including to improve access for the disabled and the condition of the City’s streets and other public right-of-way and related assets.

BB. City staff have identified a capital improvement need totaling $487,500,000 in projects and programs relating to acquiring or improving real property, including to stabilize, improve, and make permanent investments in permanent and transitional supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that deliver services to persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, and/or homelessness; improve the safety and quality of neighborhood, citywide, and waterfront parks and open spaces and recreation facilities under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission; and improve access for the disabled and the condition of the City’s streets and other public right-of-way and related assets (as further defined in Section 3 below).

CC. The proposed Bond will allow the City to finance the acquisition or improvement of the Project (as defined in Section 3 herein) in the most cost-effective manner possible.

DD. The proposed Bond is recommended by the City’s 10-year capital plan, approved each odd-numbered year by the Mayor of the City and this Board of Supervisors of the City (“Board”)

Section 2. A special election is called and ordered to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of the City for the programs described in the amount and for the purposes stated (herein collectively, “Project”):

“HEALTH AND RECOVERY BondS. $487,500,000 to acquire or improve real property, including to: stabilize, improve, and make permanent investments in permanent and transitional supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that deliver services to persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, and/or homelessness; improve the accessibility, safety and quality of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities; improve the accessibility, safety and condition of the City’s streets and other public right-of-way and related assets; and to pay related costs; with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.014/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $40,000,000, all subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits; and authorizing landlords to pass-through to residential tenants in units subject to Administrative Code Chapter 37 (the “Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance”) 50% of the increase in the real property taxes attributable to the cost of the repayment of such Bonds.”

The special election called and ordered to be held hereby shall be referred to in this ordinance as the “Bond Special Election.”

Section 3. PROPOSED PROGRAM. Contractors and City departments shall comply with all applicable City laws when awarding contracts or performing work funded with the proceeds of Bonds authorized by this measure, including:

A. FACILITIES TO DELIVER SERVICES FOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES, SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER, AND/OR HOMELESSNESS: $207,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to acquire or improve real property, including but not limited to finance the construction, acquisition, development, improvement, expansion, rehabilitation, and preservation of priority behavioral health investments such as permanent and transitional supportive housing units, shelters, locked acute and sub-acute treatment facilities, psychiatric skilled nursing facilities, residential treatment facilities, residential stepdown facilities, behavioral health respite facilities, detox and sobering facilities, a new centralized Behavioral Health Access Center, existing community health facilities that deliver behavioral health services to vulnerable populations, and facilities for long-term placements such as board and care and other residential care.

B. PARK, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION FACILITIES: $239,000,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to acquire or improve real property, including but not limited to finance the construction, acquisition, development, improvement, expansion, rehabilitation, and preservation of neighborhood, citywide, and waterfront parks and open spaces and recreation facilities and urban agriculture sites under the jurisdiction of the Recreation and Park Commission.

This Bond finances both specific projects at specific locations and also sets up a funding mechanism to be used for certain kinds of work where specific projects at specified locations are not yet identified but will be proposed following a design and planning process. The Neighborhood Parks allotment includes identified projects located at India Basin, Gene Friend Recreation Center, Herz Playground Recreation Center, Buchanan Street Mall, and Japantown Peace Plaza. The proposed Park, Open Space and Recreation Facilities funding can be summarized as follows:

1. Neighborhood Parks = $101,000,000

2. Citywide Parks = $18,000,000

3. Recovery Parks = $86,000,000

4. Playgrounds = $9,000,000

5. Sustainability = $14,000,000

6. Community Opportunity Fund = $6,000,000

7. Trails = $1,000,000

8. Community Gardens = $600,000

9. Contingency = $1,400,000

10. Administration = $2,000,000

Total Bond Funding for Park, Open Space, and Recreation Facilities = $239,000,000

C. STREETS, CURB RAMPS, STREET STRUCTURES AND PLAZAS: $41,500,000 of Bond proceeds will be allocated to acquire or improve real property, including but not limited to finance the repaving and reconstruction of roads, the rehabilitation and seismic improvement of street structures and plazas, and the installation and renovation of curb ramps.

D. CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. A portion of Bond proceeds shall be used to perform audits of Bond expenditures implied by or necessary incident to the acquisition or improvement of real property for the Project, as further described in Section 4 and Section 16 herein.

Section 4. BOND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.

The Bonds shall include the following administrative rules and principles:

A. OVERSIGHT. The proposed Bond funds shall be subject to approval processes and rules described in the San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code. Pursuant to Administrative Code Section 5.31, the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee shall conduct an annual review of Bond spending, and shall provide an annual report of the Bond program to the Mayor and the Board.

B. TRANSPARENCY. The City shall create and maintain a web page outlining and describing the bond program, progress, and activity updates. The City shall also hold an annual public hearing and review on the bond program and its implementation before the Capital Planning Committee and the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee.

Section 5. The estimated cost of the bond-financed portion of the project described in Section 2 above was fixed by the Board by the following resolution and in the amount specified below:

Resolution No. 317-20 , on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 200479 $487,500,000.

Such resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the Board and approved by the Mayor. In such resolution it was recited and found by the Board that the sum of money specified is too great to be paid out of the ordinary annual income and revenue of the City in addition to the other annual expenses or other funds derived from taxes levied for those purposes and will require expenditures greater than the amount allowed by the annual tax levy.

The method and manner of payment of the estimated costs described in this ordinance are by the issuance of Bonds by the City not exceeding the principal amount specified.

Such estimate of costs as set forth in such resolution is adopted and determined to be the estimated cost of such bond-financed improvements and financing, respectively.

Section 6. The Bond Special Election shall be held and conducted and the votes received and canvassed, and the returns made and the results ascertained, determined, and declared as provided in this ordinance and in all particulars not recited in this ordinance such election shall be held according to the laws of the State of California (“State”) and the Charter of the City (“Charter”) and any regulations adopted under State law or the Charter, providing for and governing elections in the City, and the polls for such election shall be and remain open during the time required by such laws and regulations.

Section 7. The Bond Special Election is consolidated with the General Election scheduled to be held in the City on Tuesday, November 3, 2020 (“General Election”). The voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the General Election are hereby adopted, established, designated, and named, respectively, as the voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the Bond Special Election called, and reference is made to the notice of election setting forth the voting precincts, polling places, and officers of election for the General Election by the Director of Elections to be published in the official newspaper of the City on the date required under the laws of the State.

Section 8. The ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election shall be the ballots to be used at the General Election. The word limit for ballot propositions imposed by Municipal Elections Code Section 510 is waived. On the ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election, in addition to any other matter required by law to be printed thereon, shall appear the following as a separate proposition:

“HEALTH AND RECOVERY BONDS. To finance the acquisition or improvement of real property, including to: stabilize, improve, and make permanent investments in supportive housing facilities, shelters, and/or facilities that deliver services to persons experiencing mental health challenges, substance use disorder, and/or homelessness; improve the accessibility, safety and quality of parks, open spaces and recreation facilities; improve the accessibility, safety and condition of the City’s streets and other public right-of-way and related assets; and to pay related costs; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $487,500,000 in general obligation bonds with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.014/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of $40,000,000, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits?”

The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.

Each voter to vote in favor of the foregoing bond proposition shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “YES” vote for the proposition, and to vote against the proposition shall mark the ballot in the location corresponding to a “NO” vote for the proposition.

Section 9. If at the Bond Special Election it shall appear that two-thirds of all the voters voting on the proposition voted in favor of and authorized the incurring of bonded indebtedness for the purposes set forth in such proposition, then such proposition shall have been accepted by the electors, and the Bonds authorized shall be issued upon the order of the Board. Such Bonds shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding that permitted by law.

The votes cast for and against the proposition shall be counted separately and when two-thirds of the qualified electors, voting on the proposition, vote in favor, the proposition shall be deemed adopted.

Section 10. The actual expenditure of Bond proceeds provided for in this ordinance shall be net of financing costs.

///

Section 11. For the purpose of paying the principal and interest on the Bonds, the Board shall, at the time of fixing the general tax levy and in the manner for such general tax levy provided, levy and collect annually each year until such Bonds are paid, or until there is a sum in the Treasury of the City, or other account held on behalf of the Treasurer of the City, set apart for that purpose to meet all sums coming due for the principal and interest on the Bonds, a tax sufficient to pay the annual interest on such Bonds as the same becomes due and also such part of the principal thereof as shall become due before the proceeds of a tax levied at the time for making the next general tax levy can be made available for the payment of such principal.

Section 12. This ordinance shall be published in accordance with any State law requirements, and such publication shall constitute notice of the Bond Special Election and no other notice of the Bond Special Election hereby called need be given.

Section 13. The Board, having reviewed the proposed legislation, makes the following findings in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000 et seq., the CEQA Guidelines, 15 Cal. Administrative Code, Sections 15000 et seq., ("CEQA Guidelines"), and San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 31. The Board, finds, affirms and declares:

A. FACILITIES TO DELIVER SERVICES FOR PEOPLE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH CHALLENGES, SUBSTANCE USE DISORDER, AND/OR HOMELESSNESS: The proposed funding described in Section 3A of this Ordinance is excluded from CEQA because such funding is not defined as a “project” under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), but is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific projects at any specific locations.

///

B. PARK, OPEN SPACE, AND RECREATION FACILITIES

(i) For the improvements to the India Basin Open Space (as defined in Section 3B of this ordinance), the Board of Supervisors, in Motion No. 18-136, affirmed certification of the India Basin Mixed-Use Project Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2016062003) and, in Ordinance No. 252-18, adopted findings under CEQA related to approvals in furtherance of the project and Development Agreement, including adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), and a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Planning Department determined that no further environmental review for this proposal is required because there are no changes to the approved Project or its surrounding circumstances that would necessitate additional environmental review, for the reasons set forth in its Memorandum dated June 19, 2020. The findings contained in Ordinance No. 258-18, including the MMRP, and the Planning Department Memorandum dated June 19, 2020, are hereby incorporated into this Ordinance as though fully set forth herein. For purposes of this Ordinance, the Board relies on said actions and their supporting documents, copies of which are in Board of Supervisors File Nos. 180842 and 180681 and incorporates these documents by reference;

(ii) Four other Neighborhood Park projects, the Gene Friend Recreation Center, the Herz Playground Recreational Center, Buchanan Street Mall, and the Japantown Peace Plaza, each have been determined to be categorically exempt under CEQA. The separate projects located at the Gene Friend Recreation Center and the Herz Recreational Center were each determined to be exempt as Category 32 exemptions for Infill Development Projects, and the separate projects located at the Buchanan Street Mall and the Japantown Peace Plaza were each determined to be exempt as a Category 1 exemption as a minor alteration to an existing facility, with Buchanan Street Mall also determined to be exempt as a Category 4 exemption as a minor alteration to existing land, as set forth in the Planning Department’s memorandum dated June 19, 2020, which determinations are hereby affirmed and adopted by this Board for the reasons set forth in the Planning Department’s Memorandum dated June 19, 2020; and

(iii) The remaining proposed Parks, Open Space and Recreation Facilities funding identified in Section 3B2 to 3B10 (the “Program Funding”) is excluded from CEQA because the Program Funding is not defined as a “project” under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), but is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific projects at any specific locations.

C. STREETS, CURB RAMPS, STREET STRUCTURES AND PLAZAS: The proposed funding described in Section 3C of this Ordinance is excluded from CEQA because such funding is not defined as a “project” under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4), but is the creation of a government funding mechanism that does not involve any commitment to any specific projects at any specific locations.

D. CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE: The funding described in Section 3D of this Ordinance is excluded from CEQA because the funding is not defined as a “project” under CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5), but is organizational activity that does not result in a direct or indirect impact on the environment.

Section 14. The Board finds and declares that the proposed Bonds (a) were referred to the Planning Department in accordance with Section 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter and Section 2A.53(f) of the Administrative Code, (b) are in conformity with the priority policies of Section 101.1(b) of the San Francisco Planning Code, and (c) are consistent with the City’s General Plan, and adopts the findings of the Planning Department, as set forth in the General Plan Referral Report dated May 15, 2020, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 200478 and incorporates such findings by this reference.

///

Section 15. Under Section 53410 of the California Government Code, the Bonds shall be for the specific purpose authorized in this ordinance and the proceeds of such Bonds will be applied only for such specific purpose. The City will comply with the requirements of Sections 53410(c) and 53410(d) of the California Government Code.

Section 16. The Bonds are subject to, and incorporate by reference, the applicable provisions of Administrative Code Sections 5.30-5.36 (the “Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee”). Under Administrative Code Section 5.31, to the extent permitted by law, 0.1% of the gross proceeds of the Bonds shall be deposited in a fund established by the Controller’s Office and appropriated by the Board of Supervisors at the direction of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee to cover the costs of such committee.

Section 17. The time requirements specified in Administrative Code Section 2.34 are waived.

Section 18. The City hereby declares its official intent to reimburse prior expenditures of the City incurred or expected to be incurred prior to the issuance and sale of any series of the Bonds in connection with the Project. The Board hereby declares the City’s intent to reimburse the City with the proceeds of the Bonds for expenditures with respect to the Project (the “Expenditures” and each, an “Expenditure”) made on and after that date that is no more than 60 days prior to the passage of this ordinance. The City reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Bonds.

Each Expenditure was and will be either (a) of a type properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles (determined in each case as of the date of the Expenditure), (b) a cost of issuance with respect to the Bonds, or (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $487,500,000. The City shall make a reimbursement allocation, which is a written allocation by the City that evidences the City’s use of proceeds of the applicable series of Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or the related portion of the Project is placed in service or abandoned, but in no event more than three years after the date on which the Expenditure is paid. The City recognizes that exceptions are available for certain “preliminary expenditures,” costs of issuance, certain de minimis amounts, expenditures by “small issuers” (based on the year of issuance and not the year of expenditure) and Expenditures for construction projects of at least five years.

Section 19. Landlords may pass through to residential tenants under the Residential Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance (Administrative Code Chapter 37) 50% of any property tax increase that may result from the issuance of Bonds authorized by this ordinance. The City may enact ordinances authorizing tenants to seek waivers from the pass-through based on financial hardship.

Section 20. The appropriate officers, employees, representatives, and agents of the City are hereby authorized and directed to do everything necessary or desirable to accomplish the calling and holding of the Bond Special Election, and to otherwise carry out the provisions of this ordinance.

Section 21. Documents referenced in this ordinance are on file with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors in File No. 200478, which is hereby declared to be a part of this ordinance as if set forth fully herein.

Text-only version