Unfortunately, the listing you're looking for is no longer available.
Similar Listings
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of placing on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot a measure to make City contracting more efficient and professional by centralizing contracting oversight with the City Administrator, and giving the City Administrator authority to set citywide standards while preserving appropriate safeguards.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
San Francisco's contracting system has become overly complex, politicized, and inefficient. The status quo rewards insiders and special interests, and, at its worst, it breeds corruption. Over $5 billion in annual contracts are governed by a maze of rules scattered across more than 100 sections of code. "Procurement" and "contracting" appear more than 9,000 times in City law, and the Board of Supervisors has adopted 21 procurement-related ordinances in the last five years alone.
The result is a system so complicated that the City has created 39 waivers just to allow essential purchases to move forward. It costs roughly $25,000 to conduct a single procurement process—even if the total value of the contract itself is only $25,000—and many contracts take six to twelve months to complete. More than 14 departments can be involved in approving a single contract. In extreme cases, overlapping approvals and layered rules have driven up costs dramatically, as illustrated by the widely cited $1.7 million Noe Valley public restroom.
This fragmentation also extends to technology purchasing, where departments operate redundant systems—five separate Microsoft contracts, 20 training systems, and 14 document management platforms—driving up costs and weakening efficiency. As we stare down a historic budget deficit, we must move urgently to be better stewards of taxpayer dollars and protect the core services that San Franciscans rely on.
To address these challenges, the proposed measure will get politics out of contracting by moving more contracting authority from the Board of Supervisors to the City Administrator while preserving appropriate checks and balances from the elected leaders entrusted to serve San Francisco. The improvements to the current system outlined in this measure will restore professionalism to contracting, ensure taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and transparently, and strengthen the independence of the City Administrator to implement these changes.
_/s/________________
Daniel Lurie
Proponent of the Initiative
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
EXTENDING THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S DUTIES AND CHANGING CITY CONTRACTING
The Way It is Now
Ordinances Regulating Contracts: The Board of Supervisors (Board) may adopt ordinances that set rules about how the City selects vendors and enters into contracts for the purchase of commodities and services, public works, and grantmaking (collectively, Procurement).
Board Approval of Contracts: With some exceptions, the City's Charter requires the Board to approve contracts for all City departments in three categories: (1) contracts that generate anticipated revenue of $1,000,000 or more for the City, and any amendments to those contracts; (2) contracts that will last more than ten years or cost the City $10,000,000 or more, and amendments to those contracts costing $500,000 or more; and (3) real property leases for ten years or more or that generate $1,000,000 or more, and amendments to those agreements.
City Administrator's Authority Over Contracts and Technology: Under the Charter, the City Administrator acquires commodities and services for City departments, except for the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA), Public Utilities Commission (PUC), Airport Commission (Airport), Port Commission (Port), and some arts departments (Charitable Trust Departments), and as limited by other City laws. The City Administrator also has authority to dispose of City personal property.
The City Administrator also oversees and adopts policies regarding certain aspects of City technology by serving as chair of the Committee on Information Technology and by appointing and managing the City's Chief Information Officer.
City Administrator's Term: The City Administrator is appointed by the Mayor to a five-year term, subject to confirmation by the Board.
The Proposal
Ordinances Regulating Contracts: The measure would give the City Administrator exclusive authority to propose ordinances to the Board governing most aspects of Procurement. Procurement ordinances proposed by the City Administrator would pass unless the Board or the Mayor rejects them within 60 days. The Board could not amend these ordinances.
Board Approval of Contracts: The measure would raise the threshold for Board approval of contracts and amendments to those contracts. For revenue-generating contracts and leases, the threshold would increase from $1,000,000 to $4,500,000. For expenditure contracts, the threshold would increase from $10,000,000 to $25,000,000. Beginning in 2032, the City's Controller would adjust these thresholds every five years for inflation. The Board would also approve amendments to contracts meeting these thresholds where the amendment would result in a cumulative increase of 50% or more of the original contract or lease amount over the amount last approved by the Board.
City Administrator's Authority Over Contracts and Technology: The measure would authorize the City Administrator to adopt Procurement rules and regulations that supersede conflicting department rules, and to establish and implement citywide policy for use of technology.
The MTA, PUC, Airport, Port, and Charitable Trust Departments would be subject to the City Administrator's authority regarding Procurement ordinances and rules, direct acquisition of commodities and services, technology, and disposal of personal property, with some exceptions.
City Administrator's Term: The measure would extend the City Administrator's term from five years to ten years. Show more »
Refcode: #IPLSFC01330850
GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE, HIGHWAY AND TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT
NOTICE INVITING PROPOSALS
The Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District (District) seeks proposals for RFP No. 2026-D-020, Third Party Workers' Compensation Administration, Claim Administration and Ancillary Services . Interested Proposers must submit proposals by way of upload to the District's Procurement Portal: https://ggbhtd.bonfirehub.com by Wednesday, 04/08/2026, at 4:00 p.m., PT.
Requests for modifications or clarifications of any requirement must be submitted in writing by Wednesday, 03/25/2026, at 4:00 p.m., PT through the Procurement Portal.
The RFP Documents are available for download on the District's Procurement Portal. Proposers need to register with Bonfire to have access and to respond to posted solicitations. Once registered, to download the documents:
1. Go to the District's Procurement Portal: https://ggbhtd.bonfirehub.com.
2. Under "Action" column of "Open Public Opportunities" page, click on "View Opportunity" next to desired Project.
3. Scroll down to "Supporting Documentation" section to download documents.
For general questions regarding this RFP, please contact Dodie Goldberg at dgoldberg@goldengate.org.
/s/ Dodie Goldberg, Senior Buyer
Dated: March 12, 2026
3/18/26
CNS-4022967# Show more »
Refcode: #IPLSFC01302540
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO CIRCULATE INITIATIVE PETITION
Notice is hereby given by the person whose name appears hereon of their intention to circulate a petition within the City and County of San Francisco for the purpose of placing on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot a measure to reform how measures are placed on the ballot in San Francisco.
A statement of the reasons of the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:
The proposed measure reforms how measures are placed on the ballot in San Francisco to better align with the standards in other California cities. San Francisco's ballot qualification rules are far looser than those of any other major California city. The result is bloated and confusing ballots. In November 2024, voters faced 15 separate measures, compared to one in San Jose and three in Oakland.
Over the past 30 years, 74 percent of ordinances on the ballot were placed before voters by a minority of supervisors, the Mayor, or through signature drives rather than through a transparent and accountable legislative process. 44 percent did not legally require voter approval.
San Francisco is the only major city that allows a minority of supervisors to place measures directly on the ballot. It also has by far the lowest signature threshold in California—just 2 percent of registered voters. Additionally, it is the only city that allows the mayor to unliterally place measures on the ballot. Together, the status quo incentivizes special interests and politicians to weaponize the system against each other. Measures are often filled with complicated legal jargon meant to confuse voters. So-called poison pill ballot measures are more and more common, and measures can mislead voters or lead to unintended consequences. In 2022, for example, a ballot measure intended to tax Amazon was later discovered to unintentionally tax hundreds of small businesses and could only be removed through court action, despite conflicting with the drafters' intentions.
The proposed measure aligns San Francisco more closely with other California cities while preserving voters' ability to participate directly in lawmaking. These commonsense reforms encourage coalition-building, deliberation, and higher-quality measures for voters to consider while reducing confusion and unintended consequences.
_/s/________________
Daniel Lurie
Proponent of the Initiative
The city attorney has prepared the following title and summary of the chief purpose and points of the proposed measure:
CHANGES TO BALLOT MEASURE PROCESS
The Way It Is Now
Under the City Charter, an ordinance or declaration of policy (measure) may be placed on the ballot in several ways, including:
• By a six-member majority vote of the Board of Supervisors (Board);
• By four or more members of the Board submitting the measure without a vote of the Board;
• By the Mayor submitting the measure without a vote of the Board; or
• By registered voters submitting an initiative petition to the Department of Elections (signature initiative) containing signatures of at least 2% of the registered voters in San Francisco, which currently is approximately 10,600 signatures.
A signature initiative generally appears on the ballot at the next regularly scheduled municipal or statewide election. Signature initiatives that propose an ordinance may call for an earlier election, known as a special election, if the petition contains signatures of voters equal in number to at least 10% of the votes cast for all candidates for Mayor in the last mayoral election. The threshold for a signature initiative to call a special election currently is approximately 39,000 signatures.
Once a signature initiative is submitted to the Department of Elections, it cannot be withdrawn.
The Proposal
The proposal would amend the Charter to eliminate the ability of the Mayor or four or more members of the Board to place a measure on the ballot without a vote of the Board. The Board could still place measures on the ballot by a six-member majority vote.
The proposal would change the way the voters may place a signature initiative on the ballot by increasing the required number of voter signatures to 8% of the registered voters in San Francisco, or approximately 42,500 signatures. The proposed measure would also increase the required number of voter signatures to call a special election on an initiative ordinance to 10% of the registered voters in San Francisco (instead of 10% of votes cast for all candidates for Mayor in the last mayoral election), or approximately 53,100 signatures.
The proposal would allow the proponents of a signature initiative to withdraw the signature initiative from the ballot up to 102 days before the election. Show more »
Refcode: #IPLSFC01330770
- Advertisement -