It was as if someone tugged at a thread that long weekend in November, split the nation’s seam and exposed a nasty wound in its guts.

It happened first in downtown Baltimore. On Nov. 8, a 20-inch pipe burst, sending hundreds of thousands of gallons of water into the streets, closing businesses, snarling traffic and flooding the underground, where cars floated in garages.

Then in Chicago, a broken water main created a 43-foot sinkhole that swallowed several cars as millions of gallons of water gushed onto streets near busy Lake Shore Drive on the city’s North side.

Finally on Nov. 10, near San Francisco, a pipe that carries water to 2.4 million people burst, shooting a 100-foot geyser into the air. A shut-off valve was jammed for three days, and the area lost more than 70 million gallons of water.

By and large, Americans have a safe, plentiful and cheap water supply, but those three days in 2002 were a case study in the nation’s water woes. The country’s geriatric water pipes need to be fixed or replaced, and government and industry studies have estimated that it will take between $150 billion and $1 trillion over the next three decades to do the job.

Both public and private water purveyors are battling for a piece of that new market. But private water companies, led by French and German multinationals, appear poised to take the lead in providing drinking water to American consumers. With money and free-market ideology on their side, they appear to be winning battles in Congress, although the going is still rough in the court of public opinion.

Private water interests have become a major political force in the debate about the country’s water infrastructure, according to a year-long investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity. Since 1996, when the Environmental Protection Agency first warned of a looming water infrastructure crisis, private water companies and their associations have ratcheted up spending in the political arena, allocating millions to influence and support lawmakers.

The ICIJ investigation analyzed campaign finance records from the 1996 through the 2002 election cycles — a time when Congress was considering two pieces of legislation that affected the privatization of drinking water systems. One, a tax law favorable to privatization, was passed; the second, a funding bill that encourages privatization, is expected to be taken up again in the 2003 Congress.

From 1995 through 1998, the water utility industry, its employees and their political action committees, spent less than $500,000 on campaign contributions — a blip on the national campaign finance radar. But in the last two election cycles — from 1999 to 2002 — campaign spending more than tripled to roughly $1.5 million. Most of that came from a core group of seven of the nation’s largest private water companies and the industry association that represents them.

Of the private water companies, utilities and water associations that reported having lobbied on legislation related to privatization from 1996 to 2002, proponents outspent opponents 12 to 1, according to federal lobby disclosure forms.

The National Association of Water Companies, the private utility industry group, and the seven private companies – nearly all foreign-owned – emerged as donating giants among the water sector. Over the last seven years, those firms and their employees together contributed 84 percent of the roughly $2 million the water utility sector donated to federal election campaigns.

More than half of the sector’s campaign spending came from two large New Jersey-based companies, United Water Resources Inc., a French subsidiary, and American Water Works Co. Inc., which was acquired by a German conglomerate on Jan. 10, 2003.

Of the seven U.S. private water companies that were major political donors, only one is still American-owned: Philadelphia Suburban Corp. Inc. of Bryn Mawr, Pa.

Under U.S. campaign finance laws, U.S.-based subsidiaries of foreign corporations could contribute unregulated “soft money” contributions to political parties; the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as McCain-Feingold, banned soft money contributions to the political parties.

United Water was purchased in 2000 by Paris-based Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux, the world’s largest water company; since 1994, Suez maintained a “strategic alliance” with the Harrington, N.J.-based, company. Suez also owns US Water LLC, also based in New Jersey. Vivendi, the second French water giant, bought United States Filter Corp. of Palm Desert, Calif., in 1999.

RWE AG, a German multinational company, purchased American Water Works of Voorhees, N.J., which serves 15 million people in 27 states and three Canadian provinces and is the largest publicly traded water company in the United States. Thames Water LLC, a British subsidiary of RWE, operates E’town Corp. of Westfield, N.J. Aquarion Services Co. of Bridgeport, Conn., is owned by Kelda Group PLC of England.

On the lobbying front, another key battleground of political influence, just three groups — the National Association of Water Companies, United Water and American Water Works — accounted for more than 90 percent of the $2.4 million spent by those in the water utility sector that traditionally have supported privatization measures.

By contrast, groups that generally have opposed privatization, such as the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, an industry organization for public water utilities, spent just more than $200,600 between 1996 and the first half of 2002 to make their case with lawmakers.

Publicly owned water companies spent more than $2.3 million lobbying on an array of issues. But it was not clear from the disclosure forms that they are required to file how much of their lobbying dollars were aimed at influencing the privatization debate.

Due to corporate diversification and the vagueness of lobby disclosure forms, it was also impossible to determine the specific spending patterns of two major private water players. But French media giant Vivendi Universal — parent company of its water unit Vivendi Environnement and of the U.S. water company USFilter — and the California-based Bechtel Group, former parent of US Water, are both big spenders on political campaigns and lobbying.

Jim Creedon, a spokesman for United Water, said political spending by the water companies is “never given with the intention of influencing opinion.” It is, however, a way to get noticed, a kind of calling card left at lawmakers’ doors. Marilyn Ware, chairwoman of American Water Works, and Marian S. Ware, her mother, gave $350,000 in soft money to a branch of the Republican National Committee. In September 2002, Marilyn Ware was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve on his National Infrastructure Advisory Committee.

Water privatization, which has gained momentum in the rest of the world over the last decade, is poised to become a strongly contested issue in the United States. Private owners and managers of water utilities by the start of 2003 made up roughly 15 percent of the industry, leaving plenty of room for expansion.

Decaying infrastructure

The hodgepodge of federal grants and loans that states typically rely on to help upgrade their water systems is dwindling. The Environmental Protection Agency estimated in September 2002 that the budget shortfall to make these repairs may reach $263 billion by 2019 for drinking water alone.

The Republican-led Congress does not appear inclined to dole out extra money for large public projects when the funding stream is renewed in 2003. In general, the government’s position “is to let markets work,” said Bennett Raley, assistant secretary for Water and Science at the Interior Department. Typifying its attitude toward public companies, the Bush administration is seeking to privatize part of the postal service.

Based on past experience in other countries, though, privatizing water carries risks. The water giants not only will raise rates to cover costs, critics say, but will use monopolies over water systems and rights to manipulate the system, much the way electricity companies were accused of doing in California in the summer of 2001. Critics fear that these companies will not be held accountable, so jobs will be lost, quality will wane and the poor will lose service.

“Why does somebody need to make money on your water?” said Dick Hierstein, city manager ofPekin, Ill., which decided to buy back its water system from American Water Works. “Does somebody need to make money off the air you breathe? It is as simple as that.”

Defenders of the publicly owned water systems say they have worked well despite a shortage of cash. They argue that water is a homeland security issue, an area where government spending can be defended as legitimate and perhaps even patriotic. “Water infrastructure is not failing right and left, like a road with potholes or a river erupting into flames, because public water systems are doing a great job,” said Michael Arceneaux, a spokesman for the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, which represents municipal utilities serving more than 100,000 customers.

“Clean and safe water is no less a national priority than are national defense, an adequate system of interstate highways, and a safe and efficient aviation system,” added Norida Torriente, a spokeswoman for the American Society of Civil Engineers.

But the major private utilities have plenty of experience around the world dealing with opposition and have had some success in America doing what they do everywhere — buying up local companies, donating to politicians and tapping into lobbies to change legislation to smooth the way for privatization.

“With [American Water], we will inherit their existing political and lobbying skills,” said Peter Spillett, head of Environment, Quality and Sustainability for Thames Water, in an interview at his office outside London. “In Washington, we will employ useful lobbyists and so on.”

Gérard Payen, senior executive vice president of Suez, said that its U.S. subsidiary is still developing alliances with politicians and industry groups. The United States and China are the company’s main expansion targets, Payen said.

From the business perspective, there is no reason Suez should not succeed.”Running water systems is a business,” said Debra Coy, vice president of Schwab Capital Market’s Washington Research Group. Everything else, she added, is “emotional rhetoric.”

The open U.S. market

Private water companies are not a new concept in the United States. They were set up in Rhode Island in 1772. By 1799, the Manhattan Company, which was associated with Manhattan Bank and then the Chase Manhattan Bank, was created to clean up New York’s water. But it neglected the public needs, and eventually the city government, in 1842, embarked on the nation’s largest public water project by bringing in water from the Croton River.

Baltimore’s water system bounced between public and private owners over more than a 50-year span in the 1800s that included cholera outbreaks and contaminated wells. In 1830, city officials accused the private water company of supplying water only to the rich. Yet it took 20 years for the city to buy back the assets.

By 1850, 50 of the country’s 83 systems were privately owned. That changed to a system largely run by public utilities during the early 20th century as population boomed and advocates crusaded for public hygiene, disease prevention and fire protection.

Today, public utilities serve 81 percent of the American population. Yet private companies own about 70 percent of American drinking water systems, EPA figures show. But these are generally small, rural operations.

Analysts expect the $60 billion drinking water market to grow to between $180 billion and $200 billion by 2019 due to the anticipated infrastructure needs.

Much of the current private involvement in water is in management, rather than outright ownership of waterworks. It is within this market of management services that the French and German companies are hoping to expand. In these public-private partnerships, which Congress is expected to endorse, contracts typically last for 20 years.

Vivendi Environnement and Suez secured billion-dollar contracts in some of America’s largest cities, including Atlanta and Indianapolis. Cities fromCamden, N.J., to Stockton, Calif., also have contracted or are looking to contract with these companies.

Atlanta had been touted as a “trophy contract” for private companies after it signed a 20-year, $20.8 million deal with United Water in 1999 – at the time, the nation’s largest public-private partnership contract. But Mayor Shirley Franklin, who took office after the deal was signed, canceled the contract on Jan. 24, 2003.

Citing a city audit of United Water operations, Franklin complained that the company had not kept up with maintenance and repair work and failed to collect millions of dollars in unpaid bills. The company saved the city only about $10 million a year, or half its projections, a January 2003 audit showed, according to Greg Giornelli, chief policy officer for Atlanta.

United Water chairman and CEO Michael Chesser said the company had improved its performance over the last several months. However, both the city and company agreed that the contract did not provide “an economically viable framework” for either party’s future, he said in a press statement.

In 2001, Indianapolis bought the assets of the local private water company that served the city for 131 years. Nine months later, city officials awarded the nation’s largest management contract to date — a 20-year, $1.5 billion-deal to Vivendi’s USFilter.

After three years and almost $4 million in planning, the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board rejected plans for a water and wastewater private management contract worth just under $1 billion. USFilter had been seen as the top contender in the New Orleans deal. City officials led by Mayor Ray Nagin said they needed a private manager to keep water rates from skyrocketing and to meet federal mandates to overhaul the city’s sewer system, a major source of pollution.

The water deal had been expected to sail through a vote of the water board, but it died in October 2002 after several council members abruptly withdrew support. Two of the 13 board members whose terms expired in October — and who voted against the measure — were not reappointed by Nagin, who has said publicly that he is considering reopening the bidding process in February.

Cities have viewed privatization as an option for many years. They have lobbied the government intermittently since the 1980s — when Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley picked up the torch during a budget battle — to change the tax code in a way that would enable cities to contract with private companies, including water companies.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan organization of cities with populations of 30,000 or more, joined with the Washington-based industry group, the National Association of Water Companies, to lobby the Internal Revenue Service to change language in the tax code that penalized cities with loss of tax-exempt status if they contracted private companies for more than five years.

The tax status is crucial to the finances of cities because it allows them to borrow money at significantly lower rates and with tax-free interest payments on the government bond market. Private companies claimed they found it difficult to recover costs with contracts limited to five years.

Success came in 1997, when the IRS extended the contract limits to 20 years. That step encouraged private water companies to begin expanding their operations in the United States.

The big companies view the U.S. market hungrily because Americans are among the largest per capita water-users in the world — and pay among the lowest rates.

In 2001, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that Americans paid an average of 0.5 percent of their annual household budgets on water and wastewater bills during the 1990s. That could rise slightly, from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent by 2019, the report estimated.

A 2002 rate survey by Raftelis Financial Consulting of North Carolina showed that drinking water fees grew by 8.8 percent from 1996 to 2001. Last year, American customers paid an average of $16.46 a month for typical usage of 7,480 gallons of water.

For private companies, this simply means there is plenty of room to increase rates. That could lead to angry backlash, critics said. But on the other hand, the companies may find plenty of justification.

Overall, government reports show that conservation efforts have reduced water consumption and lowered the revenue utilities desperately need for capital improvements. Drought and a population that is expected to double in the next 50 years have led to worries of future shortages.

Several aquifers, including the Ogallala in Texas and the Potomac-Raritan-Magothy in New Jersey, already are under duress. Last summer, more than 40 percent of the nation experienced a drought, forcing some towns, such as Westminster, Maryland, to consider purchasing water from outside sources. Getting water to these regions could cost more money.

In 1996, the EPA released a report that identified the need for improvements in the U.S. water infrastructure. By 2001, bipartisan legislation to fund these projects had been introduced in Congress. It required utilities for the first time to consider alternate management options — including private partnerships — before they receive federal money. Congress is expected to reconsider that legislation in early 2003.

Diane VanDe Hei, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, the public utilities industry group, said there should be no federal mandate for privatization. “I don’t think there is enough information or data for the federal government to endorse public-private partnerships,” she said.

The companies believe the proposed legislation simply “encourages creative asset management,” said Louis Jenny, director of federal relations at the National Association of Water Companies, the trade group for private companies.

Against the tide

Labor unions and the watchdog group Public Citizen waged an 18-month-long campaign to halt the trend toward privatization around the United States.

The groups heavily lobbied Congress in 2001 and 2002 to excise language from the bill advocating private partnerships, which Public Citizen said “jeopardizes public access to safe and affordable drinking water and adequate wastewater treatment by making federal assistance conditional on the recipient’s consideration of privatization.”

The Senate version made a moderate concession, changing the phrase that explained funding conditions from considering “public-private partnerships” to “forming cooperative partnerships.” The House version remained the same.

A coalition of municipal water companies and public interest groups formed an anti-privatization lobby that called on Congress to increase grants and loans to $57 billion over five years to improve public utilities’ infrastructure. Private companies objected to the expanded grants because they would remove the incentive to privatize.

Eventually, labor unions, which also opposed privatization, were able to kill the bill. They wanted contractors to be paid the federal prevailing wage, a collectively bargained figure that typically exceeds market rates. Without that provision, privatization threatens labor unions’ bargaining clout.

During the campaign over the bill, Public Citizen cited several bribery and corruption convictions — overseas and in the United States — as evidence that global water companies could not be trusted with the nation’s water supply.

In 2001, Aqua Alliance Inc., parent company of Professional Services Group, a wastewater treatment company, pled guilty to bribing a New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board official in exchange for favorable treatment. Board member Katharine Maraldo and three PSG employees were indicted in U.S. District Court in Houston, Texas, for conspiracy, mail fraud and interstate travel in aid of bribery. Maraldo was convicted in June 2002 of accepting legal services and more than $70,000 in cash from the company. Michael Stump, a former PSG executive, also was convicted on charges related to bribery. Two others were acquitted on all charges, and one man killed himself in May 2002.

In Atlanta, according to Public Citizen, state campaign finance records showed that donations from four executives of United Water Services Inc., a division of United Water Resources Inc. and a minority subcontractor to Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell’s 1999 reelection campaign, totaled $4,750. Such donations are not illegal, unless clear evidence exists that a donation was given in exchange for a government contract.

Bill Campbell’s brother, Ralph, who ran for the state auditor office in North Carolina, received more than $10,000 in contributions from United Water executives in Georgia, Indiana, California and New Jersey. The company does no business in North Carolina.

The ‘champions’

The usual practice of the private water companies is hard-nosed.

Howard Woods, former director of business development for American-Anglian, a now-defunct branch of American Water Works, described the 1990s as a cut-throat period in the water business in the United States. Companies bid so low that they risked tiny profit margins, he said. The thinking was that they could always renegotiate later to recoup their costs — a common practice in the water business in other parts of the world.

“You could think of it as gutsy,” he said. “But I tell you that was the way to open the door.”

Today, the fervor has subsided a bit, said Woods, now a consultant. “We make sure that we are viewed as the ‘good guy’ to hire and at the end of the day, we make sure the decision was based on who had the lower number on the piece of paper. It’s not necessary to do anything else to win the job.”

But according to insiders, the process is not always that simple. One common practice of the water companies, they say, is to develop “champions,” or local powerbrokers, such as mayors, council members or legislators, to carry their message to both city councils and the people. They try to persuade local governments facing the headaches of budget crunches, labor strife and decaying systems that the answer to their woes lay in privatization.

Around the world, companies such as Suez, Vivendi, Thames and Saur have proven to be masters at this skill. In Europe, they ally themselves with city mayors or top managers. In South America and Asia, they join hands with powerful local businessmen who have close ties to senior politicians.

In the United States, the result often is a symbiotic relationship between the companies and local politicians. A former New Jersey lawmaker, a consultant who has worked with private water companies, said the companies carefully scout their potential “champions,” looking for the lone party member on councils, political neophytes, or mayors.

Typically beleaguered, rarely thriving, the municipalities these politicians represent often can’t make payroll, struggle with labor problems or, sometimes, just want cleaner water for their citizens.

Enter the private companies and their champion with promises of a grand solution. The consultant said company representatives carefully train their “champion” on how to sell the product. Dinners, trips, theater tickets and sometimes cash follow, he said. On a recent visit, the New Jersey consultant gave a former champion several hundred dollars to “help him out,” he said.

In the meantime, the companies wage a quiet public relations campaign. They meet with local reporters and editors to persuade them to publish stories or editorials about the water debate. They find residents to write letters to the editor endorsing privatization. Often, they recruit people to pad official planning meetings that otherwise go unattended to speak up on behalf of privatization. This technique can often get them past the EPA’s requirement that municipalities hold open meetings for public comment, the consultant said.

Scott Edwards, spokesman for USFilter, acknowledged use of the word “champion” to describe allies in cities where his company has plans. However, he noted that his company requires all its contractors to sign documents prohibiting them from engaging in illegal activity, and specifically bribes.

Kerry Lauricella, a former councilman in Harahan, La., said he often felt “wooed” by prospective contractors, although he said neither he nor anyone he knew took bribes or were otherwise influenced.

Harahan, a suburb of New Orleans, eventually chose to privatize its wastewater system because it felt it had no choice. Harahan operated with a $4 million budget with about two-thirds earmarked for safety protection. It was difficult, he said, to handle capital projects.

“We did what a lot of cities do — keep taping it and taping it and sooner or later tape doesn’t work anymore,” he said about municipalities’ struggles to make major infrastructure repairs.

In 1996, the town contracted its wastewater services to a company that was later bought by USFilter. Lauricella said he does not feel entirely good about it. “I have mixed emotions on having a non-American company with its hand on the tap of America’s water valve,” he said. “You don’t know what will happen.”

Some towns are voting ‘no’

In Kentucky, a grassroots movement is opposing RWE’s purchase of American Water, whose subsidiary, Kentucky-American Water Co., serves more than 290,000 customers in the Lexington-Fayette Urban County area. The county is considering purchasing the company itself.

Officials in the Illinois towns of Pekin and Peoria — which have some of the highest water rates in the state — have reported problems with their water companies, both subsidiaries of American Water Works, and have taken steps to buy back the assets. Pekin officials have complained about burst pipes and malfunctioning hydrants. Officials in Peoria contend the water company overcharges for its service.

“Our studies show that the cost of water in Peoria is twice that of other similar-sized cities in the country,” said Terry Kolbuss, executive director of the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission in East Peoria, Illinois, who began advocating public ownership of the utility several years ago while he worked as a business development consultant.

Susan Atherton, a spokeswoman for Illinois-American Water Co., said that rates in Pekin and Peoria are not the highest in the state and that many other suburbs pay far more for their water. She said the customers served by Illinois-American pay a “fair rate” and get “excellent service” in return. Atherton added that state regulators, not the company, established the rates charged by privately owned companies.

In blue-collar Pekin, few can afford the higher rates. The steamboat and railroad industry that fed the little town along the Illinois River has left little more than rusted factories on its willowed banks. One of America’s fading mainstreet towns, Pekin has little more to offer its residents than a candy store, a few diners, trinket shops and a tavern with a crumbling facade.

Hierstein, Pekin’s city manager, said the company’s service — in private hands since 1886, in Illinois-American Water’s control since the early 1980s — had declined in recent years. Company officials counter with an Illinois Commerce Commission report that Pekin’s number of customer complaint calls ranked among the lowest in the state from 1999 to 2001.

ICIJ researcher Daniel Politi contributed to this report.

The post Low charges, wanted repairs lure ‘huge water’ to Uncle Sam’s plumbing appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The Standard’s Joel Umanzor answers a reader question sent to Ask The Standard: Why do San Francisco businesses and residents rely on permit expediters?

San Francisco is famous for red tape.

The city’s construction permit system has a reputation among residents, contractors and engineers as being lengthy and complicated to manage.

Anyone who wants to do any work that goes “beyond painting, flooring, replacement of electrical receptacles, switches or light fixtures and repair or replacement of faucets” must obtain permits, according to the Department of Building Inspection.

The majority of commercial or residential permits are classified as “over the counter” while the remainder would be considered “full” or “site” permits, which require in-house reviews unlike “over the counter” due to the structural nature of the work.

Many people with complex projects opt to hire an “expediter”—“an individual who receives or is promised compensation to provide permit consulting services” on projects that would be classified as either major or minor, according to the city’s Ethics Commission. This can also include any person who is paid for time spent providing permit consulting services.

Currently, 107 permit consultants are registered with the city, with 87 of those registered consultants representing only one client, city data shows.

In recent years, corruption cases against top officials across city government have brought to light a history of favoritism and corruption that festered for years ahead of the indictments, according to a City Controller’s Office report from 2021. At the ongoing scandal’s center is businessman and permit expediter Walter Wong, who pleaded guilty in 2020 to federal fraud and money laundering charges, agreeing to cooperate with prosecutors with his testimony.

READ MORE: These Are the Players in San Francisco’s Corruption Scandal

The Standard spoke to former officials and experts about permit expediters.

Walter Wong leaves federal court in San Francisco on June 30, 2023. | Source: Isaac Ceja/The Standard

Most Famous Permit Expediter

The process of overseeing permit expediters who don’t fall within the “consultant” category, which requires registration, can be difficult, former Ethics Commissioner Larry Bush said. A lack of transparency in the disclosure of clients or projects differentiates the permit consultants from lobbyists, who must also register.

Without the information provided in required quarterly consultant reports, Bush said, all kinds of unregulated expediter activity can occur.

“It’s not like being a lobbyist, where you have to register and disclose specifically who you are doing this with and for how much money,” Bush said. “It is all pretty much under the radar.” 

Bush said he tried to pass a motion within the commission to require that information be publicly disclosed because he often found former city workers wanted to profit from their experience and offer themselves as knowledgeable consultants. The motion did not pass.

Wong was found to have received preferential treatment from Tom Hui, Department of Building Inspection’s former director, who had the opportunity to override the department’s control for Wong’s projects by “expediting permits and inspections and overlooking otherwise problematic issues in permitting and inspections,” the city controller’s report found. 

Hui stepped down from the position in 2020.

In 2021, Wong and his companies, W. Wong Construction Co. Inc., Green Source Trading LLC and Alternate Choice LLC, were barred from doing business with the city for five years, the maximum permitted by law.

Although Wong is barred from doing business with the city, his name remains on the Ethics Commission’s website as a registered permit expediter for Jaidin Consulting Group.

According to his settlement agreement with the city, Wong received an estimated $1,291,095.26 for “goods and services provided through non-competitive contracts, purchase orders, and/or grants that were improperly approved by City officials.”

He received anywhere from $1,000 to $75,000 from different clients, filings show.

Piping sits at a construction site at 198 McAllister St. in San Francisco’s Tenderloin on Sept. 26, 2022. | Source: Justin Katigbak/The Standard

Problematic Process?

Christopher Calton, a research fellow for housing and homelessness at Oakland’s Independent Institute, called permit expediters part of a larger discretionary process of local government that often restricts economic growth.

“These are officials who have some discretionary authority and can push things through some of the bureaucratic red tape ahead of the formal processes that are so drawn out and lengthy,” Calton said. “Permit expediter is an informal term we use because of stories like this corruption scandal, but it’s not an official position. It’s a service, kind of like doing your taxes with TurboTax.”

The bigger problem, Calton said, is not the regulatory code but that anyone can request a discretionary review—a second look at a development project—that often takes up lots of time and opens the door for possible favoritism and abuses of power.

Because of this, permit expediters—although not uncommon around the country—have a unique position within the ecosystem of getting permits in San Francisco.

“It means you have to give that discretion to somebody,” Calton said. “Once you do that, it is not just a matter that a permit expediter isn’t necessarily just somebody who helps someone navigate the intricacies of the law—we have that all over the country in all industries for better or worse—it’s that they then can sell their services in a roundabout way.”

The post Why Are Allow Expediters Wanted To Minimize San Francisco’s Crimson Tape? appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The San Francisco Unified School District says it will need $1.7 billion to repair and renovate its buildings over the next five years.

The estimate is based on an assessment of SFUSD’s 148 locations, which was detailed Tuesday at an Education Committee meeting. The consultants’ report lays the groundwork for a new facility master plan and eventually a bond operation to fund that plan.

To meet that need, the district could ask San Francisco voters to approve a $1 billion bond issue in 2023 or 2024 — roughly the district’s operating budget.

The last issue approved for SFUSD facilities in 2016 was $744 million.

“We were bond rich and lacking in sustenance,” said Dawn Kamalanathan, SFUSD’s head of investments. “Without maintenance money to keep this going, there will be deterioration. Underinvestment in the capital structure is a nationwide, if not a national problem.”

Annuity funds cannot be used for operational expenses, including maintenance. Voters across the country routinely approve measures that allow governments to sell bonds to raise money for a cause, such as a school, over time.

According to the district’s presentation Tuesday, electrical systems made up nearly $500 million of the estimated cost and HVAC systems made up a little less than $400 million. Of the total estimated cost, $340,000 was identified as necessary to address life safety risks.

Based on the facility’s Health Index scores, the consultants concluded that the Rooftop Pre-Kindergarten-8 School’s Mayeda campus has deficient buildings and is in need of $14 million in upgrades.

Schools thought to have poor facilities include Mission High, which needs an estimated $140 million, and Balboa High, which needs an estimated $156 million.

The facilities of the John McLaren Early Education School, the Garfield Elementary School and the Dr. Charles Drew College Preparatory Academy, among others, were in excellent condition.

The district must also consider the impact of moving to a universal transitional kindergarten and a new elementary school student allocation system.

SFUSD is issuing the remainder of its 2016 bond issue on a new Mission Bay elementary school, long-planned renovations to the Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 School, and automated “Columbine” locks for school security. Projects to modernize 23 of its schools were shelved from the 2016 bond.

The county’s Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, for which the board admitted five members Tuesday over some objections, has raised questions about transparency over where some funds have gone. This includes using bond funds to cover legal costs related to a controversial mural at George Washington High School.

Committee Chair Rex Ridgeway recommended allowing the group to report monthly to the Board of Education.

“These are real dollars being spent today,” Ridgeway told the board on Tuesday. “We as a school need transparency.”

As 2023 begins, school officials anticipate learning more about the endowment plan and school assignment zones to shape their next bond. If local elections are moved to even-numbered years under Proposition M on the November ballot, the district would have to wait until March or November 2024 to put a new bond measure on the ballot.

“This,” said Superintendent Matt Wayne, “is an important conversation in laying the groundwork for our facility master plan to be implemented next year.”

The post $1.7B Wanted to Repair San Francisco’s Public Faculty Buildings appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, Ind. — With this 90-degree weather, most likely have their air conditioners on.

But at the Humane Society of St. Joseph County, one of the HVAC units failed.

Luckily, the animals are doing well and a temporary mobile unit is keeping the animals cool, but they need help to fix the unit.

The air conditioning broke just before Memorial Day weekend, so the affected area was temporarily fitted with extra fans to keep the animals comfortably cool on these hot days.

Replacing the device could cost as much as $4,000, so they are seeking community donations to help make this important repair possible.

Managing Director Jenny Brown said the facility is 13 years old and has eight or nine HVAC units.

Both the area for adoption dogs and the area for taking in new cats were affected by the glitch.

The staff managed to kill the cats, but they have nowhere else to put the dogs, so they’re now keeping them cool while also calling on the community for help.

“Without an HVAC unit, the temperature in there is going to get to 80, 80 degrees and up, which is a health hazard in those areas and the people who work there,” Brown said. “So we want to make sure we limit that possibility by having working equipment here at the shelter.”

To help or learn more, click here.

The post Donations wanted to restore humane society HVAC unit appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

Kommentar

Am Morgen des 10. März, als die Silicon Valley Bank zusammenbrach, stellte Rippling-CEO Parker Conrad eine schnelle Berechnung an: 130 Millionen Dollar des Geldes seiner Kunden sollten in den nächsten 72 Stunden aus seiner Lohnbuchhaltungsfirma abfließen. Zehntausende von Arbeitnehmern in Unternehmen im ganzen Land erwarteten von Rippling verarbeitete Gehaltsschecks. Und das gesamte Geld wurde auf Ripplings SVB-Konto eingefroren.

Schlimmer noch: Weitere 415 Millionen Dollar an eingefrorenen Geldern sollten Mitte der folgenden Woche die Gehaltsschecks decken. Es war völlig unklar, wie schnell das Geld bereitgestellt werden würde – oder wie viel. Nur etwa 70 Prozent der Gesamtsumme von 545 Millionen US-Dollar waren nach den Regeln der Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. versichert, die die SVB übernahm.

Der plötzliche Zusammenbruch der SVB im vergangenen Monat, der zweitgrößte Bankenzusammenbruch in der Geschichte der USA, schürte Befürchtungen, dass dies einen technischen Zusammenbruch auslösen würde, da Start-ups den Zugang zu ihren Konten verloren und Entlassungen erwogen. Aber Unternehmen wie Rippling aus San Francisco, ein Mittelsmann, der Geld von Arbeitgebern an Arbeitnehmer überweist, zeigen, wie die SVB-Krise leicht weit über das Silicon Valley hinaus auf Menschen ohne direkte Verbindung zur Bank hätte übergreifen können.

Als Bundesbeamte an diesem Sonntagabend versicherten, dass alle SVB-Einleger ihr gesamtes Geld zurückerhalten würden, sagten einige Kritiker, der Flush-Tech-Sektor müsse nicht gerettet werden. Aber etwa 80 Prozent der Arbeiter, die an diesem Freitag Schecks erhalten sollten, befanden sich laut Conrad außerhalb von Kalifornien, und etwa 65 Prozent waren in Branchen außerhalb der Technologie tätig. Da Rippling die SVB zur Verteilung ihrer Gehaltsabrechnungen nutzte, befanden sie sich plötzlich in der Krise.

„Der Explosionsradius eines Bankzusammenbruchs wie diesem war größer, als vielleicht die meisten Menschen auf den ersten Blick dachten“, sagte Conrad in einem Interview.

Biden will nach dem Zusammenbruch der Silicon Valley Bank neue Bankregeln durchsetzen

Abgesehen von der Bedrohung für SVB-Einleger und Gehaltsabrechnungskunden befürchteten die Aufsichtsbehörden, dass sich Bank Runs ausbreiten und weitere Regionalbanken stürzen könnten, wenn sie nicht eingreifen würden, um alle auf SVB-Konten gehaltenen Gelder zu garantieren. Präsident Biden forderte am Donnerstag die Wiedereinführung bestimmter Vorschriften für mittelgroße Banken, die während der Trump-Regierung rückgängig gemacht wurden, einschließlich der Verpflichtung, größere Vorräte an sofort verfügbarem Bargeld zu halten.

In den 48 Stunden, bevor Bundesbeamte einschritten, um alle SVB-Einlagen zu garantieren, verwendete Conrad 130 Millionen Dollar von Ripplings eigenem Bargeld, um einen Teil der Gehaltsabrechnung zu decken, und bemühte sich dann, eine Notfallfinanzierungsrunde von 500 Millionen Dollar von Investoren aufzubringen – ein Prozess, der normalerweise dauert Wochen oder Monate – um sicherzustellen, dass die Gehaltsschecks weiter fließen konnten, bis es Rippling gelang, sein Vertriebssystem auf JPMorgan Chase umzustellen.

Viele der Angestellten im Gehaltslauf am Freitag waren Stundenarbeiter mit einem durchschnittlichen Jahresverdienst von etwa 55.000 US-Dollar, sagte Rippling. Dazu gehörten Arbeiter in der pharmazeutischen Produktion in Indianapolis, Labortechniker in New Jersey und Florida und Mitarbeiter von Kunstgalerien in Seattle.

„Das waren keine wohlhabenden Leute“, sagte Conrad. „Viele von ihnen würden von Gehaltsscheck zu Gehaltsscheck leben, und eine verspätete Gehaltsabrechnung hätte zumindest für einen erheblichen Teil der Menschen echte Konsequenzen.“

SVB reagierte nicht auf eine Bitte um Stellungnahme.

Die Rippling-Kundin Anastassia Laskey, die eine kleine Beratungsfirma in Atlanta besitzt, hatte nie daran gedacht, die Finanzinstallationen, die ihre Gehaltsabrechnungen an ihre Mitarbeiter lieferten, unter die Lupe zu nehmen – bis einer ihrer Angestellten an diesem Freitagmorgen einen fehlenden Gehaltsscheck meldete.

Nachdem Laskey sich eingeloggt und auf dem Laufenden gehalten hatte, führte sie eine schnelle Analyse durch, wie und ob sie das fehlende Gehalt decken könnte.

„Wir hatten keine Ahnung, ob wir unsere Gehaltszahlungen jemals zurückbekommen würden“, sagte Laskey, dessen Firma Start-ups bei Wachstumsstrategien berät. Nach einigen Berechnungen auf der Rückseite des Umschlags schickte sie eine E-Mail an ihre zwei Vollzeitbeschäftigten und sieben Auftragnehmer. „Wenn jemand einen Festwagen braucht, um Dinge zu bezahlen, damit er nicht mit Rechnungen in Verzug ist, wenden Sie sich bitte so schnell wie möglich an mich“, sagte sie.

„Mein Plan war nur, den Leuten ihren Gehaltsscheckbetrag zu überweisen, wenn sie ihn brauchten. Und mein anderer Plan war im Grunde, es später herauszufinden “, sagte Laskey.

Conrad war 2016 Mitbegründer von Rippling, nachdem er auf Druck des Krankenversicherungsmaklers Zenefits zurückgetreten war, nachdem staatliche Untersuchungen festgestellt hatten, dass das Unternehmen einige Vertriebsmitarbeiter nicht ordnungsgemäß lizenziert hatte.

Rippling begann schon früh mit der SVB zusammenzuarbeiten und wählte die Bank aus, weil sie Rippling Zugang zu einer Menge Infrastruktur für Geldbewegungen verschaffte, sagte Conrad. Wie Rippling hatte laut der Website der Bank mehr als die Hälfte der durch Risikokapital finanzierten Unternehmen in den Vereinigten Staaten Beziehungen zu SVB. Rippling nutzte SVB, um Gehaltszahlungen von den Konten der Rippling-Kunden abzuheben, und ließ die Schecks dann von der Bank an jeden Mitarbeiter verteilen.

Im Laufe der Zeit machte sich Conrad Sorgen darüber, sich zu sehr auf einen einzelnen Lieferanten zu verlassen, der Rippling im Stich lassen könnte, wenn er ausfällt. Also begann Rippling vor Monaten mit der Einrichtung eines Backup-Gehaltsabrechnungssystems bei JPMC.

Conrad beschleunigte diese Arbeit am Donnerstag vor dem Zusammenbruch, als sich Berichte über die Instabilität von SVB in der Technologiebranche verbreiteten. Ein befreundeter Techniker rief ihn an diesem Tag an, um seine Besorgnis über die SVB zu äußern, und sagte, dass ein Vorstandsmitglied ihm geraten habe, alle Gelder aus der Institution zu ziehen. Conrad sagte, er halte die Idee eines SVB-Zusammenbruchs für „verrückt“, aber er bat sein Team, den Wechsel zu JPMC zu beschleunigen.

Am nächsten Morgen weckte ihn ein Kollege vor Sonnenaufgang in San Francisco, um ihm mitzuteilen, dass Berichte über fehlende Gehaltsschecks von der Ostküste eingingen.

„Wir wachten um 5:30 Uhr mit diesem Alptraum all dieser Leute auf, die berichteten, sie seien nicht bezahlt worden. Ich ging nach unten, räumte alle Legos von meinem Küchentisch, setzte mich hin, um mich dem Zoom anzuschließen, und fühlte mich im Grunde, als wäre ich drei Tage lang nicht aufgestanden“, sagte Conrad.

In diesen frühen Morgenstunden teilten Vertreter des Kundendienstteams von SVB Rippling immer noch mit, dass das Geld an diesem Tag ausgehen würde, nach einer Verzögerung aufgrund des hohen Abhebungsvolumens, sagte Conrad. Aber gegen 9 Uhr gab die FDIC bekannt, dass die SVB gescheitert sei und unter Bundesverwaltung stünde – ein Lockdown, der sofort alle Einlagen einfrierte.

Conrad drängte sein Ingenieurteam, die Umstellung auf JPMC innerhalb weniger Stunden abzuschließen, in der Hoffnung, dass er, wenn er genug Geld aufbringen könnte, um die fehlenden Schecks zu decken, sie noch am selben Tag über JPMC ausstellen könnte.

Dann addierte er das Geld, das Rippling zur Verfügung hatte, um die 130-Millionen-Dollar-Schecks zu decken, die am Freitag und Montag eintreffen sollten. Neben den eingefrorenen Lohngeldern hatte Rippling 80 Millionen Dollar seines eigenen Geldes in SVB eingefroren, so dass diese nicht verfügbar waren. Stattdessen verkaufte Conrad rund 130 Millionen Dollar, die Rippling an Geldmarktfonds hatte.

Rippling meldete sich auch bei JPMC, das sagte, wenn Ripplings Engineering-Team die Aktualisierung der Software, die zum Einrichten der Überweisungsanweisungen erforderlich ist, bis 12:30 Uhr abschließen könnte, könnte Rippling diesen neuen Geldpool nutzen, um die Gehaltsschecks an diesem Tag über JPMC zu versenden.

„Hören Sie, wie hoch ist die Chance, dass Sie das bis 12:30 Uhr erledigen können?“ Conrad sagte, er habe seinen technischen Leiter gefragt. “Und [the manager] sagte: ‚Es scheint unwahrscheinlich, aber wir werden darauf drängen.’“

Der CEO von Rippling wandte sich dann einem größeren Problem zu: Geld zu finden, um die 415 Millionen Dollar zu decken, die bis zum folgenden Mittwoch fällig sind. Die Gehaltsabrechnungsfirma hatte nicht so viel Bargeld herumliegen, also musste sie es schnell aufbringen. „Wir haben sehr stark gespürt, dass es nicht unsere Schuld ist, dass der SVB gescheitert ist, aber es war unsere Verantwortung. … Unternehmen hatten uns dieses Geld geschickt. Wir mussten sicherstellen, dass es bei ihren Mitarbeitern ankommt.“

Er fing an, an die Telefone zu gehen und konzentrierte sich auf Investoren, die zuvor Interesse bekundet hatten, einen Teil von Rippling zu besitzen. Doch schon bald stieß er auf ein Problem: Einige dieser Wertpapierfirmen hatten ihr gesamtes Kapital bei der SVB gebunden.

Schließlich erreichte er Neil Mehta, den Gründer des Risikokapitalfonds Greenoaks, einen langjährigen Investor in Rippling, der bereit war, sofort Geld aufzutreiben. „Greenoaks sagte: ‚Sehen Sie, wir können Ihnen am Montagmorgen 500 Millionen Dollar besorgen’“, erinnert sich Conrad.

Innerhalb von 12 Stunden nach diesem Telefonanruf hatten Rippling und Greenoaks ein Term Sheet unterzeichnet, in dem sie der Investition zustimmten. Die Anwälte beider Seiten verbrachten dann das ganze Wochenende damit, letzte Details auszuarbeiten. Der Fonds investierte mit dem Verständnis, dass das meiste Geld sofort aus der Tür gehen würde, um die Gehaltsschecks zu decken, sagte Conrad.

Während Conrad sich aufregte, stellten mehr seiner Kunden fest, dass ihre Gehaltsabrechnung durcheinander geraten war. Viele hatten keine Beziehung zum SVB; manche hatten noch nie davon gehört.

Maxx Follis-Goodkind, Direktorin von Push/Pull, einer kleinen Kunstorganisation in Seattle, erhielt dringende E-Mails von Rippling, in denen sie aufgefordert wurde, ihre Bankcodes auf JPMorgan Chase umzustellen – und Beschwerden von Mitarbeitern, dass sie nicht bezahlt worden seien.

Follis-Goodkind betrachtete ihre Kunstorganisation als Welten entfernt vom Silicon Valley. „Wir haben keine digitalen Produkte, die wir verkaufen oder erstellen. … Wir versuchen, die Leute zum Malen, Schreiben und Zeichnen zu bringen“, sagte sie.

Einige Rippling-Kunden waren verärgert, dass das Unternehmen den ganzen Freitag über nicht klar erklärte, wie es die Gehaltsschecks an diesem Tag abdecken wollte. Die frühen E-Mails des Unternehmens „sprachen nicht den Elefanten im Raum an, wie unsere Mitarbeiter in dieser Lohnperiode bezahlt werden“, sagte Alex Meshkin, Chief Executive von Flow Health. Das diagnostische Testunternehmen beschäftigt über 1.000 Mitarbeiter, darunter Labortechniker und Phlebotomiker, in mehreren Bundesstaaten.

Conrad sagte, er habe so viel wie möglich über Twitter und E-Mail weitergegeben, während er sich bemühte, die Gehaltsschecks zu retten.

Rippling-Kunde Kevin Caldwell, Mitbegründer und Geschäftsführer von Ossium Health mit Sitz in San Francisco, hatte keine Bank bei SVB, hörte aber einen Tag vor dem Zusammenbruch in seinen Text-Threads mit anderen Technologie-Gründern Berichte über dessen Instabilität.

Als er am Freitagmorgen feststellte, dass Rippling die Gehaltsabrechnung von Ossium nicht geliefert hatte, „dachte ich sofort: ‚Oh, sie verwenden wahrscheinlich SVB’“, sagte Caldwell in einem Interview. „Vor dem Zusammenbruch der SVB gab es nicht viele Gründe, sich darum zu kümmern, welche regulierte, FDIC-versicherte Bank Ihre Partner nutzten, also war das nicht etwas, das im Vordergrund stand. … In der Welt nach dem Zusammenbruch des SVB hat sich das geändert.“

Während die Greenoaks-Investition abgeschlossen wurde, wandte Conrad seine Aufmerksamkeit wieder dem Engineering-Team zu, wo es schlechte Nachrichten gab: Es würde den Abgabetermin von JPMC am Freitagmittag nicht einhalten. Also rief der Chief Financial Officer von Rippling JPMC an und bat um eine Verlängerung. Die Bank gab ihm noch 15 Minuten. Rippling hat diese Frist um sechs Minuten überschritten, aber am Ende hat JPMC die Gehaltsschecks an diesem Tag ausgestellt. JPMC lehnte eine Stellungnahme ab.

Um 15:42 Uhr an diesem Freitagnachmittag in San Francisco erhielt Laskey, der Gründer des Beratungsunternehmens in Atlanta, eine E-Mail von Rippling, in der stand, dass alle Schecks der Gehaltsabrechnung dieses Tages unterwegs seien und spätestens am Montag eintreffen würden.

„Ich bin so beeindruckt von dem, was Rippling in der Zeit geleistet hat“, sagte Laskey und drückte damit ein Gefühl aus, das andere Kunden teilten. „Es ist unglaublich“, sagte Laskey.

Ripplings Bemühungen „zeigten viel Integrität“, sagte Caldwell.

Am Sonntag, als Rippling und Greenoaks ihren Deal abschlossen, kündigten Bundesbeamte an, dass sie alle Einlagen bei der SVB garantieren und am Montagmorgen mit der Bereitstellung des Geldes beginnen würden. Diese Zusage nahm etwas von der Dringlichkeit des Abschlusses des Greenoaks-Deals, der Rippling mit 11,25 Milliarden Dollar bewertete – genau wie in der vorherigen Finanzierungsrunde – aber Rippling hat es trotzdem durchgezogen, sagte Conrad. Rippling hinterlegte das Geld bei JPMC.

Die meisten Vermögenswerte von SVB werden an die in Raleigh, NC, ansässige First Citizens Bank verkauft, gab die FDIC am 26. März bekannt. Conrad sagt, Ripping konzentriere sich jetzt auf die Zusammenarbeit mit JPMC.

„Wir müssen die Gelder unserer Kunden weiterhin streng überwachen und sicherstellen, dass so etwas nie wieder passiert“, sagte Conrad. „… Es gibt natürlich andere Partner, mit denen wir zusammenarbeiten können, aber ich denke, wir würden immer bei den größten Institutionen bleiben, die zu groß sind, um zu scheitern.“

The post Rippling wanted $545 million for paychecks when SVB collapsed appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

English

The San Francisco Unified School District says it needs $1.7 billion in the next five years to repair and renovate its buildings.

The estimation comes from an assessment of SFUSD’s 148 sites detailed at a Board of Education meeting on Tuesday. The report from consultants lays the groundwork for a new facilities master plan and, eventually, a bond measure to fund that plan.

To meet that need, the district may ask San Francisco voters to approve a $1 billion bond—roughly the district’s operating budget—in 2023 or 2024.

The last bond for SFUSD facilities in 2016 authorized $744 million.

“We’ve been bond rich and maintenance poor,” Dawn Kamalanathan, SFUSD’s head facilities officer, said. “Without maintenance dollars to keep this up, you will see this deterioration. Underinvestment in capital structure is a statewide, if not national issue.”

Bond funds cannot be used on operating costs, including maintenance. Voters nationwide routinely approve measures allowing governments to sell bonds to raise money over time for a specific purpose, such as a school.

Electrical systems made up nearly $500 million of the estimated cost and HVAC systems made up a little under $400 million, according to the district’s presentation Tuesday. Of the total estimated cost, $340,000 was flagged as needed to address life safety risks.

Consultants, using facility condition index scores, deemed Rooftop Pre-Kindergarten-8 School’s Mayeda campus to have deficient buildings and needing $14 million in upgrades.

Schools considered to have poor facilities include Mission High, needing an estimated $140 million, and Balboa High, are estimated to need $156 million.

Facilities at John McLaren Early Education School, Garfield Elementary School and Dr. Charles Drew College Preparatory Academy were among those deemed in excellent condition.

The district must also consider implications of the switch to universal transitional kindergarten and a new student assignment system for elementary schools.

SFUSD is spending the last of its 2016 bond on a new elementary school in Mission Bay, long-sought renovations to Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 School and automated “Columbine” locks for school safety. Projects to upgrade 23 of its schools were deferred from the 2016 bond.

So see

The district’s Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, for which the board approved five members on Tuesday to some objection, has raised questions about transparency over where some funds have gone. This includes the use of bond funds being used to cover legal expenses incurred over a controversial mural at George Washington High School.

The committee’s leader, Rex Ridgeway, recommended allowing the group to report to the Board of Education on a monthly basis.

“Those are real dollars being spent today,” Ridgeway said to the board on Tuesday. “We as a school need to have transparency.”

In the beginning of 2023, school officials expect to have more on the facilities plan and school assignment zones to shape its next bond. If local elections get moved to even-numbered years under Proposition M on November’s ballot, the district would need to wait until March or November of 2024 to place a new bond measure on the ballot.

“This,” Superintendent Matt Wayne said, “is an important conversation to lay the foundation for our facilities master plan that needs to happen next year.”

English

The post $1.7B Wanted to Repair San Francisco’s Public College Buildings appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

English

The San Francisco Unified School District says it needs $1.7 billion in the next five years to repair and renovate its buildings.

The estimation comes from an assessment of SFUSD’s 148 sites detailed at a Board of Education meeting on Tuesday. The report from consultants lays the groundwork for a new facilities master plan and, eventually, a bond measure to fund that plan.

To meet that need, the district may ask San Francisco voters to approve a $1 billion bond—roughly the district’s operating budget—in 2023 or 2024.

The last bond for SFUSD facilities in 2016 authorized $744 million.

“We’ve been bond rich and maintenance poor,” Dawn Kamalanathan, SFUSD’s head facilities officer, said. “Without maintenance dollars to keep this up, you will see this deterioration. Underinvestment in capital structure is a statewide, if not national issue.”

Bond funds cannot be used on operating costs, including maintenance. Voters nationwide routinely approve measures allowing governments to sell bonds to raise money over time for a specific purpose, such as a school.

Electrical systems made up nearly $500 million of the estimated cost and HVAC systems made up a little under $400 million, according to the district’s presentation Tuesday. Of the total estimated cost, $340,000 was flagged as needed to address life safety risks.

Consultants, using facility condition index scores, deemed Rooftop Pre-Kindergarten-8 School’s Mayeda campus to have deficient buildings and needing $14 million in upgrades.

Schools considered to have poor facilities include Mission High, needing an estimated $140 million, and Balboa High, are estimated to need $156 million.

Facilities at John McLaren Early Education School, Garfield Elementary School and Dr. Charles Drew College Preparatory Academy were among those deemed in excellent condition.

The district must also consider implications of the switch to universal transitional kindergarten and a new student assignment system for elementary schools.

SFUSD is spending the last of its 2016 bond on a new elementary school in Mission Bay, long-sought renovations to Buena Vista Horace Mann K-8 School and automated “Columbine” locks for school safety. Projects to upgrade 23 of its schools were deferred from the 2016 bond.

So see

The district’s Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee, for which the board approved five members on Tuesday to some objection, has raised questions about transparency over where some funds have gone. This includes the use of bond funds being used to cover legal expenses incurred over a controversial mural at George Washington High School.

The committee’s leader, Rex Ridgeway, recommended allowing the group to report to the Board of Education on a monthly basis.

“Those are real dollars being spent today,” Ridgeway said to the board on Tuesday. “We as a school need to have transparency.”

In the beginning of 2023, school officials expect to have more on the facilities plan and school assignment zones to shape its next bond. If local elections get moved to even-numbered years under Proposition M on November’s ballot, the district would need to wait until March or November of 2024 to place a new bond measure on the ballot.

“This,” Superintendent Matt Wayne said, “is an important conversation to lay the foundation for our facilities master plan that needs to happen next year.”

English

The post $1.7B Wanted to Repair San Francisco’s Public College Buildings appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

WOODSIDE (KPIX 5) – The town of Woodside began accepting Senate Bill 9 housing applications Monday, just one day after Attorney General Rob Bonta chastised town officials, accusing them of using the idea of ​​a mountain lion habitat to skirt the new housing law.

SB 9 allows homeowners to build up to four residential units on a single family lot.

READ MORE: Rainfall Totals Above Normal But 2022 Dry Spell Has Water Districts Preparing For Drought

Kara Cox is in the process of getting permits in San Mateo.

“It’s carbon neutral to provide housing on the Peninsula, so everyone’s not driving back-and-forth from Concord and Fairfield and all these outlying places where housing is more reasonable,” Cox told KPIX 5.

Terry Szeczyk owns a planning services company for homeowners and said a permitting process that used to take two years will be cut down to four months under the new rules.

“It’s much more streamlined and much easier. It’s refreshing to roll back the standards that may have existed in 1970,” said Szeczyk.

Cities like Woodside insist they’re doing their part.

READ MORE: Cost Of Fruits And Vegetables Increases Sharply In Bay Area, US

“The town of Woodside has consistently exceeded its state mandated low and moderate income housing commitments,” said Woodside Assistant Attorney Kai Ruess.

For middle-income earners, finding a home to buy in the San Jose metro areas is much harder than in San Diego, Los Angeles, and Seattle. The National Association of Realtors says there’s only 1 listing for about every 3,500 households.

“SB9 is just one part of a larger puzzle for how to solve the housing crisis. SB9 is very limited in terms of the kinds of parcels and places where it makes sense,” said Matt Gelfand of Californians for Homeownership.

The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley estimates SB9 would create as many as 700,000 new units on California’s 7.5 million single-family home lots.

“Across the state where the cities and counties and towns have to plan for where they’re going to put housing for the next eight years, that’s going to be really critical in terms of determining whether we actually solve this crisis,” said Gelfand.

MORE NEWS: Alameda Police Release Surveillance Photos Of Suspect In String Of Target Store Thefts

Cox said, “At this point, density is necessary and I think there are appropriate places to do it.”

The post What Is SB9? Legislation Challenged By Woodside On Mountain Lion Grounds Goals To Add A lot Wanted Housing – CBS San Francisco appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.

The global supply chain crisis is being felt at the base of Potrero Hill, where the opening of a condominium building called 88 im Park has been delayed by six months. The culprit? Not lumber or steel, but mirror lights, quartz worktops and duct glass.

Calvin Li of First City Development, the company leading the project, says his company considered opening the building without these surfaces but ultimately decided against it. “We don’t want to compromise on quality or the first impression for buyers.”

Virtually every construction project in San Francisco is affected in some way by the current state of the global supply chain, say developers, contractors and architects. Some, like 88 in the park, see delays. Other projects will be slightly redesigned in the middle of the construction phase, while those that have not yet broken the ground are going through far more extensive pre-planning than before the pandemic. While there is some evidence that the most acute bottlenecks may be easing, there are other signs that the current crisis may mark the beginning of a new normal for the construction industry, making it all the more difficult to find much-needed housing in the Bay Area to build.

At this point, it’s not so much about a shortage in a particular material, but about a general feeling of unpredictability in the supply chain. “The worst part is the uncertainty,” says Sam Moss, CEO of the non-profit developer Mission Housing. “Everything can be delayed in the truest sense of the word. There was no rhyme or reason for it. “

The tangled journey of the missing materials at 88 in the park illustrates this uncertainty. The building’s countertops were made in Vietnam and loaded onto a ship on schedule. The delays came from the ship waiting in port here in the United States and the shipment languishing on the dock to be unloaded. The building’s Ohio-made LED mirror lights had to wait for electrical parts from Asia. When the lights were ready, a shortage of truck drivers delayed them even further.

In response to a request from The Examiner, San Francisco-based David Baker Architects surveyed its employees and identified over a dozen materials that contractors were having difficulty sourcing that affected almost every part of the construction process. Steel and wood were sometimes difficult to come by, as were different types of insulation, certain types of windows and doors, and paint and acrylic panels for the exterior.

In response, DBA adapted some of its designs, downsizing building frames and stairs, and replacing certain plastic elements with metal elements.

For Moss and Mission Housing, the supply chain crisis has forced the nonprofit to “spend a lot more money on pre-development before the building breaks the ground”. In the long term, that could be good, says Moss. By working more closely with architects, contractors and community members right from the start of a project in detail, the client should be able to bring more security to the construction process.

Joe Olla, vice president of Nibbi Brothers General Contractors, says his company has also changed its practices in recent months, adding a warehouse to store high-demand equipment and materials like refrigerators, stoves and windows. “Gone are the days when you could basically deliver just-in-time,” says Olla. “You have a day it is delivered, it shows up, you move it to the unit or floor you want – you can’t really rely on that anymore. The delivery times are too demanding. “

Supply chain issues add an additional variable to the already difficult process of “inhabited rehab” or renovating a unit currently housing a tenant. “If their unit is torn apart and waiting for closets or whatever, it doesn’t make a happy customer or happy tenant,” says Olla.

Material delays have forced a handful of Mission Housing residents to stay in a hotel or other accommodation provided by the landlord for weeks longer than planned, in some cases. “It has a human price,” says Moss. “The thought of going back to your brand new home and waiting another two or three weeks is emotionally brutal.”

Of course, it’s not just the global supply chain that is a challenge for construction projects in San Francisco. For the development team at 88 Arkansas, it ultimately made economic sense to postpone sales by a few months. With condominium prices still bouncing off the pandemic-era lows, the project’s creditors were “okay to postpone sales later,” says Li, “because we’re seeing the market picking up.”

Natural disasters here in North America also seem to be a factor. Successive hurricanes that hit the Carolinas have “made it very difficult to get box cabinets right now,” says Olla. This year’s winter storm Uri, which caused a deep freeze in Texas and much of the south, made it difficult to obtain plastic pipes and foams for insulation. Although the nationwide shortage of truckers was sparked by the pandemic, it doesn’t look like it is going anywhere anytime soon as more people find ways to “make a living without making a living,” as Olla says .

Fortunately for professionals in this business, adapting to changing circumstances is nothing new. “One of my mentors always said that we measure things with a laser, but then we do it with a stick,” says Moss. “It sucks and brutal, but the supply chain is just the next obstacle that the affordable housing industry has to jump over.”

bschneider@sfexaminer.com

The post Provide chain disruptions delay badly wanted San Francisco housing appeared first on DAILY SAN FRANCISCO BAY NEWS.