Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond

MUNI RELIABILITY AND STREET SAFETY BOND. To increase Muni’s reliability, safety and frequency, reduce delays, improve disabled access and equity, increase subway capacity and improve pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety by repairing, constructing and improving deteriorating Muni bus yards, facilities, transportation infrastructure and equipment, and constructing and redesigning streets and sidewalks, and to pay related costs; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $400,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.010/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of approximately $30,000,000, subject to citizen oversight and independent audits? The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds at or below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and/or 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 San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) is responsible for ground transportation in the City. The SFMTA oversees the Municipal Railway (Muni), which consists of the City’s buses, light rail trains, streetcars and cable cars. The SFMTA also oversees bicycling, parking, traffic management and signals, pedestrian access and safety, and taxis.

Funding sources for City transportation infrastructure projects include federal and state grants, local transportation sales taxes, and general obligation and revenue bonds.

The Proposal: Proposition A is a bond measure that would authorize the City to borrow up to $400 million by issuing general obligation bonds.

This bond money could be spent on City transportation infrastructure projects, including:

• $250 million on the repair and renovation of SFMTA bus yards, facilities and equipment;

• $26 million on traffic improvements, such as new traffic signals, wider sidewalks at bus stops, and dedicated traffic lanes;

• $10 million on improvements to the Muni train system, including the train communication and control systems;

• $42 million on traffic signal and street crossing improvements, such as more visible traffic and pedestrian signals, curb ramps, and signs;

• $42 million on street redesigns that include wider sidewalks, raised crosswalks, protected bicycle lanes, bus lanes, boarding islands and better lighting; and

• $30 million on projects to manage traffic speeds, including lowered speed limits and speed radar signs.

Under this proposal, bond funds can be used only for projects that have a project labor agreement. A project labor agreement is an agreement between the City and labor unions that sets the terms and conditions of employment, including compensation and benefits, for work on specific City projects.

Proposition A would also set aside funds for the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee’s review of how this bond money was spent.

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

A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to authorize the City to borrow up to $400 million by issuing general obligation bonds for City transportation infrastructure projects.

A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to authorize 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 $400 million in bonds be authorized and sold under current assumptions, the approximate costs will be as follows:

a) In fiscal year (FY) 2022–2023, 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 $0.00141 per $100 ($1.41 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

b) In FY 2034–2035, 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 $0.01126 per $100 ($11.26 per $100,000) of assessed valuation.

c) The best estimate of the average tax rate for these bonds from FY 2022–2023 through FY 2044–2045 is $0.00961 per $100 ($9.61 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 $66.77.

The best estimate of total debt service, including principal and interest, that would be required to be repaid if all proposed $400 million in bonds are issued and sold, would be approximately $690 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 March 1, 2022, the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition A on the ballot. The Supervisors voted as follows:

Yes: Chan, Haney, Mandelman, Mar, Melgar, Peskin, Preston, Ronen, Safai, Stefani, Walton.

No: None.

This measure requires 66⅔% affirmative votes to pass.

Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition A

Proposition A - the Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond - will revamp the City's transportation infrastructure to ensure fast, safe, clean, reliable and convenient transit, make the City's transportation system greener, and improve street safety and traffic flow for all San Francisco residents in every neighborhood of the City.

Proposition A will not raise taxes. Because the bond is part of the City's capital plan, old bonds are retired as new bonds take their place, keeping the tax rate the same.

Proposition A will ensure access to matching federal infrastructure dollars that will help speed transportation improvements and avoid additional costs that would come from delay.

Proposition A invests in:

Fast and Convenient Transit

• Faster, more convenient public transit connections to destinations across the city and to regional public transit

• Less waiting time and fewer delays when you're on board

• A more comfortable public transit ride, with less crowding

Improved Safety and Access

• Intersection improvements that increase accessibility for people with disabilities

• Fewer collisions, fatalities, and injuries on our streets

Equity

• Affordable travel options and enhanced public transit service

• Improved safety and health in underserved neighborhoods by reducing carbon emissions, slowing vehicle speeds, and improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

More Repairs and Maintenance

• More reliable transit service using infrastructure and systems that are in good repair

• Safer intersections with more visible signals for drivers

• Easier street crossings with new curb ramps and pedestrian countdown signals

A strong public transit system will help ensure San Francisco has a thriving, equitable community where everyone can get where they need to go faster and more reliably, while reducing congestion for those who drive.

We urge you to vote yes on Proposition A for fast, reliable and convenient transportation.

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisor President Shamann Walton

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

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

Proposition A has nothing to do with the "street safety" of commuters targeted in crimes of hate or violence.

Spending programs are no substitute for strict criminal law enforcement or the recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin.

MUNI already has funding for upgrades, improvements and maintenance.

According to San Francisco's 10-Year Capital Plan, Proposition A adds only 7.3% to the SFMTA's budget. $4.8 billion is already funded from local, regional, state and federal sources. Prioritize!

If Proposition A passes, bond-related property taxes will rise 15% over four years, with half the residential share charged to renters. Property owners and renters already pay $265 million annually to bondholders.

San Francisco's general obligation bond capacity is nearly exhausted. Voters approved $600 million (2019) for Affordable Housing and $245 million (2020) for Homeless Services, which are not infrastructure! The City has only about $1.5 billion left, which spells trouble ahead for urgent infrastructure bonds: Earthquake Safety, Healthcare and Waterfront Safety.

Proposition A's $400 million is too big, ill-timed and poorly conceived — pre-pandemic thinking. The Controller predicts swift 85% return of the full-time downtown workforce, a pie-in-the-sky restart of the commuting economy. We can't afford to rebuild a costly MUNI fleet, routes and workforce designed for 2019.

San Francisco must re-envision transit for the 2022 landscape of work-from-home, hybrid and flexible work, and make smart choices that will enable MUNI to become more self-sustaining.

Vote NO on Proposition A

Larry Marso

transitbond.com

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

Opponent's Argument Against Proposition A

Vote NO on Proposition A ...

As San Francisco emerges from the pandemic, we're all asking about the future of urban work, downtown offices and commuting. Work from home has become accepted, a norm, and the impact on MUNI has been dramatic.

Weekday ridership has plummeted to about half of 2019 levels, and MUNI officials admit it will take years to understand the impact of COVID-19, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

Flying blind, City Hall rushed Proposition A onto the ballot, which will immediately thrust another $400M in bond debt upon San Francisco and impose higher taxes on all property, including higher residential property taxes, with half passed on to tenants as higher rents.

There is no clear vision for where, or how, MUNI will spend the money.

Proposition A also imposes on MUNI, for the first time, the Board of Supervisors' outlandish and expensive "Project Labor Agreements" scheme, which ends competitive bidding in most cases.

Politicians always ask for bonds to fund ordinary expenses like maintaining roads, transit and schools, while they spend recurring revenues on programs that have less support, like the City's complex of "nonprofits" that wield so much influence over San Francisco's broken policies toward affordable housing, and the homeless, drug abuse and mental illness.

City Hall should live within its means — borrow less! — and get more done with existing revenue, without raising more taxes. San Francisco has more than enough money to fix potholes and maintain trains, tracks and buses.

Vote NO on Proposition A.

Your vote is important. 1/3rd of the voters can defeat this.

Larry Marso

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 will help get our City back on track as we emerge from the pandemic. A reliable, fast, safe and affordable transportation system is an essential foundation in the work to restore our local economy.

San Francisco's largest employers have committed to implementing a return to a variety of safe, in-person work policies, a significant milestone in the effort to resume the economic activity that our downtown businesses, large and small, depend on, re-energizing our stores, restaurants, and offices with activity and economic support.

Proposition A is the step we can take right now to ensure our transit infrastructure is in a state of good repair to deliver people quickly, safely, and reliably to their destinations, with reduced waiting times between buses, safer onboarding platforms, less crowding, and faster rides to your destination through dedicated transit lanes. And drivers benefit from improved traffic flow and buses in good repair with fewer breakdowns that block streets.

Proposition A makes smart fiscal sense by leveraging federal matching funds now that will ensure improvements to buses, trains and pedestrian safety improvements go farther and cost less instead of waiting to make repairs that will cost us more in the future.

And Proposition A DOES NOT RAISE TAXES.

Join us in voting Yes on Proposition A for fast, safe, reliable, convenient transit.

Mayor London Breed

Board of Supervisor President Shamann Walton

Supervisor Connie Chan

Supervisor Catherine Stefani

Supervisor Aaron Peskin

Supervisor Gordon Mar

Supervisor Dean Preston

Supervisor Matt Haney

Supervisor Myrna Melgar

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

Supervisor Hillary Ronen

Supervisor Ahsha Safai

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

Proposition A is an Essential Investment in Our Transportation Infrastructure

Proposition A - The Muni Reliability and Street Safety Bond - will provide critical funding for our system's capital needs, supporting infrastructure improvement that will provide affordable, reliable and safe transportation options in every neighborhood of the City.

Proposition A will not raise taxes. Because the bond is part of the City's capital plan, old bonds are retired as new bonds take their place, keeping tax rates at 2006 levels.

Transportation funding has not kept pace with San Francisco's significant economic growth and increased demands placed on our transportation system.

At the beginning of the pandemic, the SFMTA lost hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for operations, reducing investment in infrastructure to keep Muni running. With federal relief soon to be exhausted, the SFMTA will not have local dollars needed for capital.

As we work to manage the impact of the pandemic, Proposition A is an important step in our efforts to provide fast, reliable and convenient transit, and improved street safety and traffic flow for all San Francisco residents.

Gwyneth Borden, Chair, SFMTA Board of Directors*

Amanda Eaken, Vice Chair, SFMTA Board of Directors*

Steve Heminger, SFMTA Board of Directors*

Sharon Lai, SFMTA Board of Directors*

Manny Yekutiel, SFMTA Board of Directors*

Stephanie Cajina, SFMTA Board of Directors*

*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: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Proposition A invests in:

• Fast and convenient transit with less waiting time, fewer delays when you’re on board, and reduced congestion for those who drive.

• Improved safety and access through Intersection improvements that increase accessibility for people with disabilities and gets the City closer to our Vision Zero goal of zero pedestrian fatalities.

• An equitable transit system, with affordable travel options and enhanced public transit service in all neighborhoods.

Proposition A will not raise taxes, because the City’s capital plan retires old bonds as new ones take their place, keeping the tax rate the same.

Proposition A makes fiscal sense by providing access to matching federal infrastructure dollars, helping the city make needed improvements now at a lower cost, preventing additional costs that would come from delay.

Every San Franciscan will benefit from Proposition A — regardless of whether you walk, ride Muni, bike, or drive.

www.yestommuni.com

Senator Scott Wiener*

Assemblymember Phil Ting*

Treasurer Fiona Ma*

Malia Cohen, Chair, California Board of Equalization

Assessor - Recorder Joaquin Torres*

*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: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Ensuring everyone has access to affordable, clean, safe, reliable, and speedy transportation is essential to ensuring San Francisco’s businesses and employees fully recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. Proposition A will ensure access to federal matching funds that will help meet the city’s current and future transportation needs at a lower cost now than paying more down the road.

As employees begin to return to offices downtown and across the city, reliable, speedy public transportation from buses to trains are needed to support that transition and ensure people can get to work and home safely and on-time.

Our restaurants and nightlife are re-opening and people are excited to eat out, listen to music and enjoy our neighborhood bars together. Proposition A funds infrastructure improvements to ensure our system is in good repair to provide safe, fast, and convenient public transit residents and visitors can depend on when they go out.

And because old bonds are retired as new bonds are passed, Proposition A does not raise taxes on anyone!

Join us in supporting Proposition A!

Rodney Fong, President & CEO, San Francisco Chamber of Commerce*

Ben Bleiman, Founder, San Francisco Bar Owners Alliance*

Golden Gate Restaurant Association

www.yestomuni.com

*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: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

PROP A IS A WIN FOR TRANSIT WORKERS AND TRANSIT RIDERS

Proposition A not only invests in modern transportation infrastructure, but also the men and women who keep our transportation system running.

Proposition A will improve Muni reliability and efficiency by upgrading outdated maintenance facilities, bus yards, and equipment, while creating good paying jobs.

Proposition A modernizes aging facilities and equipment, enabling workers to keep buses and trains on the streets, in good repair, with fewer interruptions in service for riders.

Proposition A benefits our transportation infrastructure and hard-working San Franciscans who get us where we need to be on a daily basis.

San Francisco Labor Council

San Francisco Building Trades Council

Teamsters Local 665

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Vote YES on Prop. A!

Prop. A makes Muni more reliable and our streets safer by upgrading facilities and equipment and implementing safeguards to protect and prioritize transit riders. Prop. A will fund:

• Upgrade traffic signals, curb ramps, signs to alert drivers to turn restrictions, pedestrian countdown signals, and new and improved lighting.

• Installing pedestrian and bicycle safety infrastructure like wider sidewalks, raised crosswalks, new paving, safer bikeways, bus lanes, better lighting.

• Installing green infrastructure like stormwater collection, trees, and landscaping.

• Lowering speed limits, reducing fatalities, injuries, and collisions.

• Implement traffic calming and other speed reduction tools proven to slow speeds and accidents.

Prop. A helps San Francisco towards reaching “Vision Zero” by improving safety with the ultimate goal of eliminating traffic fatalities, prioritizing safe passage for every transit rider.

A “Yes” vote on Prop. A is a vote for safe public transit.

San Francisco Transit Riders

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Yes on Prop A for Safe Streets

Every 15 hours on average in San Francisco, someone is taken to the hospital after being injured in a traffic crash. Our city needs to do everything possible to prevent these crashes. Prop A will provide critically-needed, life-saving funding for proven solutions that make streets safer for everyone.

This measure will:

Make it safer to walk to Muni by redesigning crosswalks and sidewalks along the 40% of dangerous streets that haven’t received fixes due to insufficient funds

Make it safer to cross the street at high-risk intersections by giving people walking a “head start” and more time to cross by replacing old traffic signals

Make it safer for everyone by reducing dangerous speeding

Walk San Francisco urges your support on Proposition A.

Walk San Francisco

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

HOUSING AND TRANSIT ARE BETTER TOGETHER!

Affordable Housing and high-quality transportation are both critically important for a thriving and equitable city. San Francisco’s future as a world-class city is one with an amply funded public transportation system, serving everyone equitably — regardless of income or neighborhood.

Prop. A revitalizes San Francisco’s public transportation system with the necessary funding to bring accessible, modern, and reliable transit to every San Franciscan. In order to address housing affordability, climate change concerns, the covid-19 recovery, and equity, we must begin by funding an efficient, safe, sustainable, and fast public transportation system. It’s time to invest in the backbone of the city, Muni, which gets everyone to work and where they need to be in a timely and reliable manner.

Let’s move forward, not backwards, on public transit!

Support Prop A!

SF YIMBY

Housing Action Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

San Francisco LGBTQ Community leaders support Proposition A because it provides equitable access to our city’s public transit system and ensures transit riders can get where they need to go safely, quickly and reliably.

Whether heading to work downtown, shopping on the weekend or heading out to dinner with friends, it’s essential that residents can count on reliable transportation that is also safe and on time.

Through essential infrastructure improvements, Proposition A invests in:

• Reliable transit service using infrastructure and systems that are in good repair

• Faster, more convenient public transit connections to destinations across the city and to regional public transit

• Less waiting for the train or bus and fewer delays when you’re on board

• More comfortable public transit ride, with less crowding

And importantly, Proposition A will not raise your taxes.

Join us in voting yes on Proposition A, for a more reliable, faster and safer Muni.

Alice B Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

State Senator Scott Wiener

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman

BART Director Bevan Dufty

BART Director Janice Li

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Proposition A is an essential investment in our transportation infrastructure that will create critical improvements for transit riders in every neighborhood of our city, make the City's transportation system cleaner, and improve street safety.

As we emerge from the pandemic, it is essential that our public transit system also emerges more reliable, faster, and cleaner than before, and serves all our neighborhoods equitably.

Proposition A invests in affordable travel options and enhanced public transit service, as well as improved safety and health in underserved neighborhoods by reducing carbon emissions, slowing vehicle speeds, and improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.

Passing Proposition A makes smart fiscal sense by ensuring access to federal matching funds, helping deliver improvements now at lower cost instead of paying more later.

And Proposition A does not raise taxes.

Every San Franciscan deserves affordable, clean, safe, and reliable public transit.

Join us in supporting Proposition A!

www.yestomuni.com

San Francisco Planning and Urban Research (SPUR)

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Proposition A will ensure that all neighborhoods in San Francisco, from BayView Hunters Point, to the Fillmore and the Western Addition are better served by our transportation system.

We all deserve reliable, safe, clean muni trains and buses that get us to work and school on time. We should all be able to count on safe and accessible boarding areas, and clearly marked crosswalks and curb cuts that safeguard pedestrians and prevent injuries.

Proposition A invests in Equity for every neighborhood and provides the critical funding our transportation system needs to provide:

• Affordable travel options

• Enhanced public transit service in underserved neighborhoods

• Improved safety and health in underserved neighborhoods by reducing carbon emissions, slowing vehicle speeds, and dramatically improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure

• Increased access to good local jobs with reduced travel times

And Proposition A DOES NOT raise taxes.

Vote yes on Proposition A, because residents of every neighborhood deserve fast, reliable, safe, and clean public transit.

Shamann Walton, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors

Malia Cohen, Chair, California Board of Equalization

Reverend Amos Brown

A. Philip Randolph Institute

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

SF Bicycle Coalition supports Prop A

We envision a future where our transportation system is people’s first choice, complements all sustainable modes and is safe to access, where people have the option to choose between taking Muni, riding their bike, or walking to wherever they need to go.

Prop A is a chance for us to move towards that dream by upgrading decades-old facilities and infrastructure to ensure Muni is reliable, by reducing speeds, and redesigning streets with life-saving layouts that prioritize people walking and on bicycles.

The SF Bicycle Coalition believes a transit-friendly city is a bike-friendly city and we encourage you to vote yes on Prop A!

SF Bicycle Coalition

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

Proposition A will make infrastructure improvements to the Muni network to ensure that everyone in San Francisco has access to reliable, affordable, fast and safe transit, no matter where you live or work from the Excelsior, to the Mission to the Tenderloin.

Proposition A modernizes SFMTA bus yards to ensure efficient and timely repairs to buses and trains, and an electric vehicle charging infrastructure needed to achieve a zero-emissions green fleet of buses.

Proposition A will reduce travel times through wider sidewalks at bus stops that allow buses to pick people up faster, and dedicated transit lanes so buses don’t get stuck in traffic. Transfers will be quick and easy, and frequent service means that passengers won’t be waiting long for the next bus.

This measure will make our streets safer by implementing traffic calming measures, reducing motor vehicle speeds to reduce crashes, and intersection improvements that increase accessibility for people with disabilities.

Join us in supporting Proposition A for reliable, affordable, fast transit.

Joaquin Torres, Assessor-Recorder

San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

Roberto Hernandez, CEO, CANA

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition A

PROPOSITION A WILL BENEFIT EVERYONE. It invests monies to fix MUNI, calm traffic, and make our streets safer.

And it does all this WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!

Chronic deferred maintenance and funding shortages have made our public transportation system unreliable. But Proposition A will fix that by modernizing our rail system and repairing, upgrading, and refurbishing aging facilities and equipment.

As San Francisco's population continues to grow, it is necessary that we invest in MUNI as a way for our residents to access all of our neighborhoods. Proposition A is a once-in-a-generation opportunity for us to invest in the kind of MUNI system we need now, and in the future.

San Francisco deserves a public transportation system that is safe, clean, and efficient. Join us in voting YES on PROPOSITON A!

Chinatown Transportation Research and Improvement Project (TRIP)

Chinatown Community Development Center

Chinese Chamber of Commerce of San Francisco

Rose Pak Democratic Club

Rosa Chen, San Francisco County Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee*

Edwin M. Lee Asian Pacific 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: Committee for Safer Streets and Reliable, Accessible Transportation.

The two contributors to the true source recipient committee: The John Stewart Company, Ground Floor Public Affairs.

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

NEVER trust San Francisco city hall officials with your hard-earned tax money, whether you be a property owner or renter. Proposition A is NO EXCEPTION. Vote NO on Proposition A, the $400 Million Dollar Bond con job.

We've seen how Mayor London Breed and the Board of Supervisors have misled voters in the past with pie-in-the-sky, feel-good bond measures which wind up costing taxpayers plenty and result in little to no measurable result.

Don't ignore the enormous elephant in the room:

Are you a renter? Property taxes levied on your apartment building will be passed through to you by your landlord. Yes, Proposition A specifically allows for 50% tax assessment passthrough, so you will pay more in rent.

Then, the Proposition A promise of increased safety is a lie. Safety on MUNI buses and trains cannot be meaningfully improved as long as we have rogue District Attorney Chesa Boudin refusing to hold criminals accountable. Crime is rampant on MUNI trains, buses, at bus stops, and drug dealing blocking sidewalks nearby. Proposition A won't fix any of this without actual accountability including criminal prosecution.

Send a resounding NO to the gaslighting, greedy bureaucrats in City Hall. Tell them to stop deceiving us taxpayers, to instead use the existing funding they already have available, to fix the criminal prosecution fiasco, and to not burden renters and homeowners. Vote NO on Proposition A.

Richie Greenberg, Chairman

YES on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee

RecallChesaBoudin.org

The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Yes on Recall Chesa Boudin Committee.

The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. David Sacks, 2. Daniel o'Keefe, 3. Linn Yeaser Coonan.

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A

The ambiguous Proposition A language is designed to allow MTA to use bond proceed for disastrous projects or whatever they please.

Last January, the Central Subway project admitted to an original cost estimate of $1,930,000,000 and completion date of September 2022.

Its $353,000,000 over budget and 4 years behind schedule. The federal government contributed about $1,000,000,000. The current cost to S.F. taxpayers is $439,000,000, and increasing. A San Francisco County Transportation Authority finding reveals that SFMTA historically has never completed a project on time or within budget! The final Central Subway cost will be $2,100,000,000 to go 1.6 miles — outrageous!

Yet, in 2020 SFMTA awarded "sole source" contracts of $900,000 each to special interest entities that want to close Twin Peaks, Great Highway and Golden Gate Park to automobiles! Demonizing cars, they forget that the owners of which provided good money in gasoline taxes - 67 cents per gallon - and the money to build those streets when it wants to favor its "friends". MTA ignores competitive bidding and uses taxpayer money to fit its political agenda! Look at its Taraval Street and Van Ness Avenue projects consuming years and still not completed.

No bureaucracy beats the SFMTA. Don't reward it with $400,000,000, costing taxpayers another $690,000,000 in interest payments for 30 years!

Vote NO on Proposition A

San Francisco Taxpayer's Association

By: Judge Quentin L. Kopp (Ret.) President

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

Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition A

Please vote NO on Proposition A.

The Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) always needs money for transportation infrastructure projects. But this bond measure only funds broad categories, not specific projects, which would allow funds for some projects and not others, without guarantees or meaningful oversight. Proposition A is not the solution we need at this time.

Transportation funding is complicated. These projects take many years to develop, design, and build.

MTA regularly develops new projects and seeks money for them. MTA has recently talked about State of Good Repair, which means properly maintaining existing equipment, facilities, streets, and vehicles. However, MTA gets distracted with Muni Forward, Vision Zero, and other efforts to "enhance" and "expand" rather than maintain core infrastructure.

A better approach is to fund specific projects that maintain City transportation infrastructure now. We should be prepared for the future, with modem Muni facilities and vehicles, along with parking and traffic equipment and streets that are functional and not broken. Voters would support a clean transportation maintenance bond.

MTA also needs serious governance reform, focused on basic and efficient service delivery.

Proposition A is not the right answer, right now.

Please vote NO on Proposition A. Thank you.

David Pilpel

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

Legal Text

Ordinance calling and providing for a special election to be held in the City and County of San Francisco on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, for the purpose of submitting to San Francisco voters a proposition to incur the following bonded indebtedness of the City and County: $400,000,000 to finance the costs of construction, acquisition, and improvement of certain transportation, street safety and transit related capital improvements, 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; applying provisions of Administrative Code, Section 6.27, requiring certain funded projects to be subject to a Project Labor Agreement; providing for the levy and collection of taxes to pay both principal and interest on such bonds; incorporating the provisions of Administrative Code, Sections 5.30 through 5.36, setting certain procedures and requirements for the election; finding that the proposed bond is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and finding that the proposed bond is in conformity with the eight priority policies of Planning Code, Section 101.1(b), and with the General Plan consistency requirements of Charter, Section 4.105, and Administrative Code, Section 2A.53.

Note: Additions are single-underline italics Times New Roman;
deletions are ~~strikethrough italics Times New Roman~~.

Board amendment additions are double underlined.

Board amendment deletions are ~~strikethrough normal~~.

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

Section 1. Findings.

A. This Board of Supervisors (“Board”) recognizes the City’s current street, transit and transportation infrastructure (“Street, Transit and Transportation System”) is unable to meet current and future demands, and that the reliability, efficiency and safety of City streets, transit and transportation infrastructure requires modernization and new investment to maintain a state of good repair and to meet future demands.

B. The cost of making the necessary and required improvements to the Street, Transit and Transportation System was estimated by the Mayor’s 2030 Transportation Task Force (dated February 2013) at $10.1 billion over the next 15 years (referred to herein as the “2030 Task Force”).

C. The work of the 2030 Task Force was supplemented by the Mayor’s 2045 Task Force (dated January 2018) which identified additional transportation investment funding needs of $22 billion.

D. Both the 2030 and 2045 Task Force Reports were augmented by the efforts of Transportation 2050 (“Transportation 2050”) to update the vision for transportation developed though the City’s ConnectSF process, including additional community input received through the SFMTA’s 2021 Citywide Community Survey.

E. Transportation 2050 outlines the resources needed to achieve a community-driven vision and identify revenue and reliable funding solutions to fund the cost of transportation needs in San Francisco, which includes, among other resources, the issuance of general obligation bonds.

F. A significant number of Muni bus yards and facilities were constructed decades ago, with some being over one hundred years old, and are obsolete and need to be repaired, upgraded and rebuilt to allow for Muni buses to be repaired faster, prevent breakdowns to support reliable Muni service.

G. On-street infrastructure improvements for public transit helps reduce travel times and delays for Muni and enables more reliable and more frequent service.

H. Muni’s train control system is over 20 years old and is obsolete and needs to be replaced to increase subway capacity, reduce delays and deliver reliable, high-frequency Muni Metro light rail service.

I. Redesigning and constructing streets to improve safety, accessibility and visibility for pedestrians and cyclists, and implementing traffic calming and speed reduction tools supports the City’s Vision Zero policy goal to eliminate all traffic deaths in San Francisco.

J. A strong public transit system is one of the most important tools the City has to mitigate the adverse effects of climate change, reducing mobility gaps across the City as documented in the MUNI Service Equity Strategy, and by improving the reliability and speed of Muni service and creating safer spaces for pedestrians and cyclists, San Francisco will become a more livable and sustainable place to live.

K. The Board recognizes the need to make substantial investments in the City’s Street, Transit, and Transportation System to create a system that is more reliable, safe, equitable, and efficient and that such investment will expand job access and connectivity for underserved communities in the outer neighborhoods of the City, and in this way the City’s transportation investment will meet future demands on the transportation system, while sustaining the economic dynamism and resilience of the City.

L. The Board further recognizes that sustainable transportation includes inclusive investments that support the City’s transit and transportation workforce and the participation of the City’s local and disadvantaged business enterprises.

M. The Muni Reliability and Street Safety General Obligation Bond (“Bond”) will provide a portion of the funding necessary to construct, improve and rehabilitate the Street and Transportation System (as further defined in Section 3 below).

N. This Board now wishes to describe the terms of a ballot measure seeking approval for the issuance of general obligation bonds to finance all or a portion of the City’s improvements to its Street and Transportation System as described below.

O. The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds at or below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and/or the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors; provided however, the City’s debt management policy shall not be construed as impairing or limiting the obligation of the City to levy taxes to pay principal and interest on the bonds authorized under this Ordinance.

Section 2. A special election is called and ordered to be held in the City on Tuesday, the 7th day of June, 2022, for the purpose of submitting to the electors of the City a proposition to incur bonded indebtedness of the City for the projects described in the amount and for the purposes stated:

“MUNI RELIABILITY AND STREET SAFETY GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. $400,000,000 of bonded indebtedness to increase Muni’s reliability, safety and frequency to, among other things, reduce delays, improve disabled access and equity, increase subway capacity and improve pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety by repairing, constructing and improving deteriorating Muni bus yards, facilities, transportation infrastructure and equipment, and constructing and redesigning streets and sidewalks, subject to citizen oversight and independent, regular audits; and to pay related costs; with a duration up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.010/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of approximately $30,000,000, subject to independent citizen oversight and regular audits; authorizing landlords to pass-through to residential tenants in units subject to Chapter 37 of the San Francisco Administrative Code (“Residential Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance”) 50% of the increase in the real property taxes attributable to the cost of the repayment of the bonds; and applying the provisions of Administrative Code Section 6.27, requiring certain funded projects to be subject to a Project Labor Agreement. The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds at or below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and/or the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.”

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

Section 3. PROPOSED PROGRAM. All contracts that are funded with the proceeds of bonds authorized hereby shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 83 of the City’s Administrative Code (“First Source Hiring Program”), which fosters construction and permanent employment opportunities for qualified economically disadvantaged individuals. In addition, all contracts that are funded with the proceeds of bonds authorized hereby also shall be subject to the provisions of Chapter 14B of the City’s Administrative Code (“Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination in Contracting Ordinance”), which assists small and micro local businesses to increase their ability to compete effectively for the award of City contracts, to the extent the Local Business Enterprise and Non-Discrimination Contracting Ordinance does not conflict with applicable state or federal law. Notwithstanding any exclusion applicable to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency contained in Administrative Code Chapter 6.27 (“Citywide Project Labor Agreement Ordinance”), contracts funded with proceeds of bonds authorized hereunder, which bonds are issued on or after June 7, 2022, shall be subject to Project Labor Agreements that include all of the required terms set forth in subsection (e) of Administrative Code Section 6.27 and shall be governed by the provisions of Section 6.27, as Section 6.27 may be amended from time to time, unless the application of this requirement would cause the City to violate the conditions of a state, federal, or other funding source. The Board of Supervisors may, by Ordinance, modify the June 7, 2022 deadline to accommodate the negotiation of Project Labor Agreements.

A. CITIZENS’ OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. A portion of the Bond shall be used to perform audits of the Bond, as further described in Section 15.

Projects to be funded under the proposed Bond may include but are not limited to the following (as further described in the Bond Accountability Report, on file with the Clerk in File No. 211290, which is incorporated by reference as set forth in full herein):

B. MAKING TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WORK BETTER. A portion of the Bond may be allocated to the repair, renovation and modernization of SFMTA bus yards, facilities and equipment through the agency’s Building Progress Program to speed up Muni repairs and maintenance.

C. MUNI NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS. To enable faster, more frequent, and more reliable Muni service, a portion of the Bond may be allocated to improve certain network improvements, including but not limited to smart signals, wider sidewalks at bus stops, and dedicated traffic lanes.

D. MUNI RAIL MODERNIZATION. To improve train operation’s speed, reliability and capacity, a portion of the Bond may be allocated to strengthen and expand critical components.

E. STREET SAFETY AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR SAFETY AND FLOW. To improve street safety and traffic signals, a portion of the Bond may be allocated to more effectively manage congestion in the City, improve the overall reliability of the transit system, and improve pedestrian safety by replacing obsolete and deteriorating traffic signal infrastructure, and installing pedestrian countdown signals and audible pedestrian signals to improve visibility and the overall safety and efficiency of the City’s transportation network.

F. ON-STREET IMPROVEMENTS. To enhance and modernize City streets, a portion of the Bond may be allocated to enhance streets and sidewalks, including but not limited to curb bulb-outs, raised crosswalks, and improved sidewalks at intersection corners; median islands; various bikeways including separated bikeways; bicycle parking; and installing basic infrastructure to decrease the cost of future projects, such as underground signal conduit.

G. SPEED MANAGEMENT INVESTMENT. A portion of the Bond may be allocated to fund traffic calming and other speed reduction improvements to make streets safer.

Section 4. BOND ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES

The Bond shall include the following administrative rules and principles:

A. OVERSIGHT. The proposed bond funds shall be subjected to approval processes and rules described in the San Francisco Charter and Administrative Code. Pursuant to S.F. Administrative Code 5.31, the Citizen’s 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 multilingual web page outlining and describing the bond program, progress, and activity updates. The City shall also hold an annual public hearing and reviews on the bond program and its implementation before the Board of Supervisors, Capital Planning Committee, and the Citizen’s 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. 52-22, $400,000,000.

Such resolution was passed by two-thirds or more of the Board and approved by the Mayor of the City (“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 of 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, as designed to date.

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, June 7, 2022. The voting precincts, polling places and officers of election for the June 7, 2022 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 June 7, 2022 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 of California.

Section 8. The ballots to be used at the Bond Special Election shall be the ballots to be used at the June 7, 2022 General Election. The word limit for ballot propositions imposed by San Francisco 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:

“MUNI RELIABILITY AND STREET SAFETY BOND. To increase Muni’s reliability, safety and frequency, reduce delays, improve disabled access and equity, increase subway capacity and improve pedestrian, bicycle, and traffic safety by repairing, constructing and improving deteriorating Muni bus yards, facilities, transportation infrastructure and equipment, and constructing and redesigning streets and sidewalks; and to pay related costs; shall the City and County of San Francisco issue $400,000,000 in general obligation bonds, with a duration of up to 30 years from the time of issuance, an estimated average tax rate of $0.010/$100 of assessed property value, and projected average annual revenues of approximately $30,000,000, subject to citizen oversight and independent audits? The City’s current debt management policy is to keep the property tax rate for City general obligation bonds at or below the 2006 rate by issuing new bonds as older ones are retired and/or the tax base grows, though this property tax rate may vary based on other factors.”

Each voter to vote in favor of the issuance 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 bonds authorized shall be issued upon the order of the Board. Such bonds shall bear interest at a rate not exceeding applicable legal limits.

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. 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 said City, or other account held on behalf of the Treasurer of said 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 11. 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 12. 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. Code Regs., Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq., (“CEQA Guidelines”), and San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 31 (“Chapter 31”):

As set forth by the Planning Department, in a determination dated October 21, 2021, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 211290 and incorporated in this ordinance by reference, the Board finds that the bond proposal is not subject to CEQA. As the establishment of a government financing mechanism that does not involve any commitment to specific projects to be constructed with bond funds, it is not a project as defined by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The use of bond proceeds to finance any specific project or portion of any specific project will be subject to approval of the applicable decision-making body at that time, upon completion of planning and any further required environmental review under CEQA.

Section 13. The Board finds and declares that the proposed Bond is (i) in conformity with the priority policies of Section 101.1(b) of the San Francisco Planning Code, (ii) in accordance with Section 4.105 of the San Francisco Charter and Section 2A.53(f) of the San Francisco Administrative Code, and (iii) 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 November 18, 2021, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Board in File No. 211290 and incorporates such findings by reference.

Section 14. 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 15. The Bonds are subject to, and incorporate by reference, the applicable provisions of San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 5.30 – 5.36 (“Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee”). Under Section 5.31 of the Citizens’ General Obligation Bond Oversight Committee, to the extent permitted by law, one-tenth of one percent (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 16. The time requirements specified in Section 2.34 of the San Francisco Administrative Code are waived.

Section 17. 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 bonds in connection with the Project (collectively, the “Future Bonds”). The Board hereby declares the City’s intent to reimburse the City with the proceeds of the Future Bonds for the expenditures with respect to the Project (“Expenditures” and each, an “Expenditure”) made on and after that date that is no more than 60 days prior to adoption of this Resolution. The City reasonably expects on the date hereof that it will reimburse the Expenditures with the proceeds of the Future 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 Future Bonds, (c) a nonrecurring item that is not customarily payable from current revenues, or (d) a grant to a party that is not related to or an agent of the City so long as such grant does not impose any obligation or condition (directly or indirectly) to repay any amount to or for the benefit of the City. The maximum aggregate principal amount of the Future Bonds expected to be issued for the Project is $400,000,000. 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 Future Bonds to reimburse an Expenditure, no later than 18 months after the later of the date on which the Expenditure is paid or 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 5 years.

Section 18. 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.

Text-only version