Approve Mayor Liccardo recommendations for Private Development Workforce Standards and Community Workforce Agreements
Council will consider approving Mayor Liccardo’s recommendations on Private Development Workforce Standards, Capitol Bond Measure, Best Value Contracting, and Community Workforce Agreements.
The recommendations would direct the City Attorney and the City Manager to take the following actions:
- Private Development Workforce Standards: Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to draft an ordinance requiring specific workforce standards for construction employment on private development projects, in those circumstances where the City is subsidizing the project. Those workforce standards will include provisions mandating prevailing wage, as well as goals and process requirements for apprentice ratios, the hiring of local workers, and targeted hiring from underrepresented subpopulations City action may trigger such requirements where it commits a subsidy of land or money, or in narrow circumstances, where it grants a fee or tax reduction for reasons other than those fee reductions necessary to make a subcategory of projects financially viable. Investments by the City for such purposes as affordable, rent-restricted housing, or for nearby, public-serving infrastructure (e.g., traffic signals or off-ramps) will not trigger such requirements.
- Capital Bond Measure: Direct the City Manager to identify a set of the highest-priority capital projects that the Council should consider placing before the voters as a bond measure during the November, 2018 election. Until better informed by polling and project evaluation, the bond measure should target an aggregate project valuation of $300 million. The City Manager shall further include such a measure in City-funded polling conducted this Spring, and return to Council in late May with a preliminary proposed list of such projects for discussion and public review.
- Best-Value Contracting: Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to review Charter provisions that mandate “lowest-cost bidder,” and evaluate what language would best supplant that mandate to enable the City to have better flexibility to avoid hiring poor-performing contractors on city capital projects, similar to other California cities. The City Manager shall further include in City-funded polling this Spring, the testing of a measure required to extract “lowest-cost bidder” requirements from the City Charter.
- Community Workforce Agreements: Direct the City Manager and City Attorney to negotiate with all affected labor unions a Community Workforce Agreement to apply to City-funded capital contracts greater than $3 million—increasing annually with CPI—but excluding all City Capital Maintenance Projects, which typically involve maintenance work, such as street repaving.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: Tuesday April 3, 2018 1:30 PM, City Hall 200 E Santa Clara St
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3427970&GUID=7F09158C-0099-44B1-BB4C-D2DFD52AAB33&Options=&Search=
Memo: https://sanjose.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=6027786&GUID=3B907277-D1A3-4360-8E2D-6E284E8CD33E
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=594706&GUID=FC9E3422-4A2E-4125-AFDD-8BAD77DF9202&Options=info&Search=
Direction on new Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to apply to residential developments with 1-19 homes
Staff are recommending a new Small Project Inclusionary Housing Ordinance that would apply to residential developments with one 1 to 19 homes. Currently, only the Affordable Housing Impact Fee (AHIF), applies to residential developments with less than 20 units; and only applies to rental developments, and with respect to larger developments, it is being superseded by the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, with a transition period ending in June. The existing Inclusionary Housing Ordinance generally requires that only 15% of the units be made affordable in market-rate developments of 20 or more units.
On December 19, 2017, the City Council adopted a transition between the Affordable Housing Impact Fee and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for qualifying rental residential developments. Housing Department staff also researched the Inclusionary Programs of a number of jurisdictions located in Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Alameda Counties. Many cities have implemented an inclusionary housing threshold size that would qualify as a “small project” in several jurisdictions. Considering all research and input, the Housing Department’s preliminary recommendation is a small project Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. It is intended that the proposed Small Projects Inclusionary Housing Ordinance would be substantially similar to the current IHO, and utilize the same guidelines for implementation to increase efficiency.
Since 2010, a total of 242 Planning Applications, totaling 863 units, have been submitted for projects that would be subject to the proposed small project Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. If the proposed small project Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was in place, approximately 130 affordable homes would have been produced or funded as a result of these projects.
Housing’s key policy considerations for discussion with the Committee include:
- Applicability: What type of units should be subject to the small IHO? Which should be excluded?
- Threshold: How many units must a development project have to trigger the project to be subject to the small IHO?
- Cap on Fees: Should we have a maximum cap on fees?
- Timing of Payment: If the fee compliance option is chosen, when should the fee be due?
- Operative Date: Should a transition process be provided to developers who are in the pipeline?
Where: City of San Jose Community and Economic Development Committee
When: March 26, 2018/ 1:30p.m./ Wing Rooms W118 – W120
Link to item: https://sanjose.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3356596&GUID=3B19B0EC-93A7-4BFD-973D-A3D56A6C1510&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=588068&GUID=6373F3A7-F0CE-40B9-8AB5-B43313561A2C&Search=
City of Mountain View
Update on the Gatekeeper Process and Code Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
Staff is proposing amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Amendment sections of the Zoning Ordinance (commonly referred to as the “Gatekeeper process”) to provide consistency with the current Gatekeeper review process and incorporate modifications as directed by Council. Staff has also identified minor Code amendments in other sections of the Zoning Ordinance which are intended to increase clarity and reduce inconsistencies within the Code.
On March 7, 2018, modifications to the Gatekeeper process and other Code amendments were approved to increase noticing radius, noticing time, and greater outreach to residents through social media, Nextdoor, or other web-based platforms. The Council adopted the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments with modifications to the Gatekeeper process amendments. The amendments proposed by staff are intended to update the Gatekeeper process based on previous Council direction and to clarify existing regulations and update sections of the Zoning Ordinance which are outdated, inconsistent, or in conflict with current State law. These amendments are based upon staff’s experience implementing the Zoning Ordinance, addressing frequently asked questions at the public counter, and responding to common project proposals from members of the community and developers.
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: March 27, 2018/ 5:30p.m./ Plaza & Council Chambers
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3460259&GUID=74C172ED-7869-4AE9-AE54-FB519A738CDC&Options=&Search=
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=22578&GUID=1ABE7286-1989-4A9C-A9F6-195A4BFDEDEE
Franklin-McKinley School District
District staff and service reductions total $2.2M in 2018— and $5M in 2019
The District’s deficit spending is expected to escalate over the next few years with continued demands on the budget. Some costs include higher pension costs for employers, increasing health and welfare benefit costs, declining enrollment, and higher special education costs, all of which impact the District’s general fund budget. The District is projecting a structure deficit. A structural deficit means spending more than what is received in revenue. The District’s Second Interim report shows a structural deficit of ($2.6 million) in FY 2017-18, and ($2.9 million) in 2018-19, and ($5.5 million) in 2019-20. These projections include reductions in staffing and other expenditures to offset the loss of revenue from the declining enrollment. These cuts total $2 million in 2017-18, and additional $2 million in 2018-19, and an additional $5 million in 2019-20.
At the March 13, 2018, the Board approved the reduction in certificated and certificated management work force that will save the District $895,000. The District must reduce its expenditures by at least $2 million, which means there are additional reductions that will need to be made. The Board in the upcoming month will be considering reductions in contracts and classified positions. Details of the reductions are being discussed with the Board and with our bargaining units. Classified reductions are estimated at $165K, and contracts and services are estimated to have another $465K in reductions.
Where: Franklin-McKinley School District
When: March 27, 2018/ 7:00p.m./ District Service Center – Board Room
Link to item: http://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/goto?open&id=AX5T3J702B1C
Link to agenda: https://www.boarddocs.com/ca/fmsd/Board.nsf/vpublic?open
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments