Mayor Daniel Lurie’s agenda gets its first test before the Board of Supes Wednesday/29 when the Budget and Finance Committee considers his sweeping legislation to remove board oversight of as much as $1.1 billion in city contracts.
The legislation would let the executive branch and departments enter into contacts without competitive bidding, would eliminate traditional board approval for contracts and leases, and would give the mayor the ability to seek, accept, and spend money from private sources without the board’s approval.
It would be the most dramatic shift in authority away from the legislative branch that I’ve seen in many years (with the exception of actual emergencies, like the 1989 earthquake).
The waivers would apply, according to the Budget and Legislative Analyst, to any
projects addressing homelessness, substance use disorder, mental health, integrated health, and public safety hiring. … The total grant and contract budget for the Departments that are subject of the proposed ordinance totals $1.1 billion in the General Fund in FY 2024-25. Waiving competitive bidding requirements may increase the cost of these contracts.
The BLA report notes that
The fiscal impact of the proposed ordinance is difficult to estimate since the universe of contracts that will be awarded or amended is not yet known. In addition, the amount of fundraising that could offset any new costs is not known.
The legislation could, indeed, speed up contracting for those core initiatives, but
At the same time, the proposed changes carry significant risks. The ordinance reduces key protections for procurement integrity and generally reduces the Board of Supervisors’ authority. The Board of Supervisors should consider amending the proposed ordinance to limit the scope and duration of the requested authority and associated risks.
Lurie already has five co-sponsors, Sups. Matt Dorsey, Joel Engardio, Stephen Sherrill, Bilal Mahmood, and Danny Sauter. Three of them are newly elected or appointed, and together, they make up the clear conservative wing of the board.
Since Dorsey and Engardio are on Budget, it’s going to be approved and sent to the full board, probably without any meaningful amendments
If the progressives on board are hesitant to give up that much oversight, and vote against it, Sups. Rafael Mandelman and Myrna Melgar will probably be the swing votes.
There’s an organized letter-writing effort, from people in every district, and there will be pressure on the progressives to “do something” about the fentanyl crisis, even if this particular waiver doesn’t amount to, and isn’t backed by, any specific plan.
As Sup. Shamann Walton told me:
“He’s asking us to waive behested payments, the approval of contracts, and typically we would get a plan; we want to secure 1,500 beds, we want to do this and that, and here’s the package that will let us do it. But he didn’t tell us what he’s going to do with these powers. There isn’t a plan.”
Dozens of letters in the file say the exact same thing:
I’m a resident of District [X]. I am writing to express my strong support for Mayor Lurie’s Fentanyl State of Emergency. Fentanyl has affected so many San Franciscans for so long, and Lurie’s plan is necessary in order to address the drug overdose crisis and untreated mental health conditions on our streets. Please vote for the Fentanyl State of Emergency. San Francisco deserves a permanent Drug Market Agency Coordination Center, an SF Hospitality Zone Task Force, a 24/7 drop-off Crisis Stabilization Unit, and for it to be easier to procure resources, write contracts, issue funding, and hire workers to make San Francisco safer. Fentanyl is devastating our city and we need this to stop. I urge you to support the legislation so we can get our city back on track.
One letter, in D6, took a different approach:
I am a District 6 resident reaching out to learn more about Mayor Lurie’s proposed Fentanyl State of Emergency. While I understand the urgency in tackling the surge in fentanyl overdoses and untreated mental health issues, I am very concerned about the possibility that SoMa West will be further overburdened with additional crisis services. We have already seen a concentration of shelters and supportive housing in our neighborhood —far more than in other parts of San Francisco. If the DMACC and 24/7 drop-off crisis centers are placed exclusively in District 6, it would reinforce the perception that our community is the city’s “containment zone.” This could exacerbate existing challenges such as street-level drug use, safety concerns, and quality-of-life issues that residents and businesses here grapple with every day. Could you please shed light on how you plan to ensure this State of Emergency won’t lead to yet another clustering of facilities in SoMa West? We need a citywide approach, not one that places the entire burden on one neighborhood. I would greatly appreciate any information on your stance and any steps you’re taking to promote an equitable distribution of these services.
Mandelman did give the mayor the favor of waiving the normal 30-day period before legislation goes before a committee.
The meeting starts at 10am.
Lurie will also face his first Question Time at the board meeting Tuesday/28. Sup. Connie Chan is going to ask about skilled nursing home needs and services in the Richmond in the wake of the announced closure of St Anne’s Home on Lake Street—a move that will leave 59 elderly residents scrambling to find someplace else to go.
Then the supes will get to weigh in on a bicycle lane on Valencia Street that has been the bane of cyclists, merchants, and the SFMTA for some years now.
The lane used to be a standard, unprotected strip between the street and parked cars at the curb. That was somewhat dangerous for cyclists, who could get hit by cars moving in and out of parking spaces, or by drivers getting too close to the curb.
So SFMTA tried a different approach. The current lane runs in the middle of the street between 15th and 23rd. I ride it almost every day, and it’s a bit confusing: You bike along the side of the road, then you cross traffic (with a light), continue in the center lane, then cross traffic again to get back to the side of the road. But in the center lane, it feels pretty safe.
Merchants have complained that it slows traffic, which any bike lane will, and let’s face it, Valencia is going to be a bike-first street for the foreseeable future. It’s an essential part of the city’s bicycle network, and a key to two-wheeled, human-power transportation in the Mission.
But enough people hated it that the SFMTA decided this year to end what had been a “pilot program” and create a new approach.
Since the old lanes were replaced with the center lanes, a new challenge has come up: Valencia, thanks to COVID, is now packed with outdoor restaurant parklets. So there’s no way to just go back to the old system.
Now the planners need to work around the parklets—and the new plan takes an interesting approach. In some parts of the strip, the bike lane would run between the curb and the parklets, leaving customers and waiters to cross bike traffic to get to the tables. In other cases, the lanes would wind around the parklets. All of that assumes, of course, that the existing parklets remain, and no new ones seek permits.
The Planning Department determined that the project does not require review under the California Environmental Quality Act. A group of Valencia merchants, represented by attorney Julio Ramos, is challenging that “negative declaration.”
The supes have no authority to order changes in the bike lanes; all they can do is overturn the neg dec, which could mean a delay while the city does a full environmental impact report.
If they uphold the environmental determination, work could begin on the new lanes soon.
That hearing will come sometime after 3pm.
