Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jpa Contracting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors continue ordinance to apply city contracting rules to JPA-financed housing; tenants urge rejection
Summary
Supervisors debated an ordinance to add chapter 43.9 to the Administrative Code requiring JPA bond-financed housing projects to meet city contracting standards (prevailing wage, DBE, monitoring). Tenant speakers said the draft would not benefit tenants; the committee agreed to continue the item to allow amendments and made the applicability provision retroactive to June 1 for additional review.
The Budget & Finance Committee took up an ordinance that would add chapter 43.9 to the San Francisco Administrative Code, requiring housing project sponsors using revenue bonds issued by joint exercise of powers authorities (JPAs) to comply with city contracting programs such as prevailing wage and disadvantaged-business-enterprise (DBE) requirements.
Joel Lipsky of the Mayor—s Office of Housing described the measure—s purpose as applying standard city contracting and reporting requirements to projects financed through JPAs where the project is located in San Francisco. "It would, for example, impose prevailing wage compliance with the city's DBE requirements on all issuances by any entity where the project is located in San Francisco," Lipsky told the committee. He said the office would provide more data about recent JPA bond issuances and their likely impact.
Public commenters representing tenants— associations objected. Regina Mitchell, treasurer for the Old Hollows Tenants Association, said the proposal would not benefit tenants; Helen Jackson, chair of the Tenants Association of Old Hollows, likewise urged supervisors not to pass the ordinance. Tenants and community advocates urged more outreach and changes to ensure tenant protections and local hire provisions.
Supervisor Peskin moved an amendment to make the ordinance—s applicability retroactive to June 1 and to continue the item for one week to allow additional amendments and testimony. The motion to continue and adopt the retroactive date passed after a brief discussion; the item will return to committee for further consideration with proposed language addressing enforcement and applicability concerns.
What happens next: The committee continued the ordinance to allow additional amendments and asked staff to return with details on monitoring and enforcement provisions, and any recommended retroactive reporting requirements.
