Controller and City Performance teams flag delays, citywide issues in GO bond watch list
February 26, 2024 | San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Janice Levy and Alexis Lozano of City Performance presented highlights from an upcoming general obligation bond report and a watch list of delayed components across active bond programs.
"This chart is just an overview of all the active bond programs...the total authorization for all 8 of these bonds is 3 and a half billion dollars," the presentation noted. Lozano walked the committee through methodology and said the team focused on budget changes, schedule delays and scope changes across eight active bond programs.
Why it matters: the audit-style review is intended to help the city identify recurring delivery problems across multiple programs and recommend improvements where feasible.
Key findings and staff comments:
- The team's watch list increased from 13 delayed components to 21; causes include permitting delays, staff turnover, coordination with external agencies, supply-chain impacts and site-specific design or unforeseen conditions.
- City regulations and contracting practices (including low-cost bid selection and local-hire requirements) can complicate procurement; staff will call out procurement and contractor-selection issues in the final report.
- Examples: the 2012 CSNP neighborhood parks component shows two-year delays due to project-specific items; several 2016 preservation components are delayed because PASS is a loan product whose schedule depends on market conditions and interest rates.
- Bond program teams flagged specific external dependencies such as PG&E and Caltrans approvals, and the report includes cross-jurisdiction benchmarking to confirm other cities face similar constraints.
Commissioners asked whether the watch list counts owner- or contractor-caused delays; staff said the schedule comparisons include all delay types and the report will annotate causes where known. Several members also suggested pre-qualifying and negotiated procurement tools to reduce risk of contractor underperformance.
Next steps: the City Performance team will publish the full report within weeks and incorporate committee feedback on how to present the 2020 Health and Recovery bond components that include affordable housing allocations.
Provenance: topic spans presentation and Q&A (transcript evidence SEG 1520–SEG 1770 and SEG 1710–SEG 2100).
"This chart is just an overview of all the active bond programs...the total authorization for all 8 of these bonds is 3 and a half billion dollars," the presentation noted. Lozano walked the committee through methodology and said the team focused on budget changes, schedule delays and scope changes across eight active bond programs.
Why it matters: the audit-style review is intended to help the city identify recurring delivery problems across multiple programs and recommend improvements where feasible.
Key findings and staff comments:
- The team's watch list increased from 13 delayed components to 21; causes include permitting delays, staff turnover, coordination with external agencies, supply-chain impacts and site-specific design or unforeseen conditions.
- City regulations and contracting practices (including low-cost bid selection and local-hire requirements) can complicate procurement; staff will call out procurement and contractor-selection issues in the final report.
- Examples: the 2012 CSNP neighborhood parks component shows two-year delays due to project-specific items; several 2016 preservation components are delayed because PASS is a loan product whose schedule depends on market conditions and interest rates.
- Bond program teams flagged specific external dependencies such as PG&E and Caltrans approvals, and the report includes cross-jurisdiction benchmarking to confirm other cities face similar constraints.
Commissioners asked whether the watch list counts owner- or contractor-caused delays; staff said the schedule comparisons include all delay types and the report will annotate causes where known. Several members also suggested pre-qualifying and negotiated procurement tools to reduce risk of contractor underperformance.
Next steps: the City Performance team will publish the full report within weeks and incorporate committee feedback on how to present the 2020 Health and Recovery bond components that include affordable housing allocations.
Provenance: topic spans presentation and Q&A (transcript evidence SEG 1520–SEG 1770 and SEG 1710–SEG 2100).
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
