Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tefra Bond Spur topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee delays vote on $7 million TEFRA bond for SPUR urban center after public objections
Summary
The Budget and Finance Committee recessed action on a TEFRA resolution to facilitate up to $7 million in tax-exempt bonds for a SPUR urban center on Mission Street, citing public concern about notice, outreach and potential legal issues; the item was continued to the next day's committee session.
The Budget and Finance Committee on Tuesday recessed consideration of a resolution that would facilitate up to $7,000,000 in tax-exempt bonds for an urban center project associated with the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR) to allow additional public comment and legal review.
Anthony Aberbon of the Mayor’s Office of Public Finance told the committee the California Municipal Finance Authority would issue the bonds to finance the acquisition and construction of an urban center on Mission Street. "The issuer of the bonds is actually California Municipal Finance Authority, not ABAG," Aberbon said, and described the financing as a conduit transaction to help a nonprofit access tax-exempt instruments.
Terry Michaux, SPUR treasurer, said SPUR had planning approvals and was mid-campaign on a $14 million capital effort, reporting it had raised "a little over $10,000,000 of a $14,000,000 campaign" and described the requested financing as a bridge loan intended to let construction begin and limit cost escalation.
Multiple public commenters urged the committee to delay or oppose the measure. Bob Planthold said he opposed using TEFRA accommodation for SPUR because, he said, the organization had not adequately included seniors and disabled people on its board and had not responded to prior outreach. Judith Berkowitz of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods urged the committee to seek a legal opinion on whether facilitating bonds for a politically active organization could raise issues under the California Political Reform Act, the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, or the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance. Marilyn Amini said the special meeting format and quick referral diminished public input and asked that the committee send the matter back to a regular meeting for broader notice.
Ken Rose of the City Attorney’s Office told the committee that federal tax rules require local legislative approval for TEFRA financings for projects located in the jurisdiction even when no city obligation exists; counsel advised that facilitating issuance does not change an organization's 501(c)(3) tax status. After discussion, Chair Supervisor Aaron Peskin recessed Item 2 to 1:05 p.m. the following day to allow more public comment and follow-up, and the committee adjourned.
The committee did not take a final vote on the resolution at the special meeting; the matter will be considered again at the reconvened session.
