SPUR Blog

What Can the Bay Area Learn From the First Crop of Sustainable Communities Strategies?

Jennifer Warburg — Wed, 09 May 2012 23:10:23 +0000

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Image Credit: Flickr User cameron23

In recent months, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego all passed their first Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) in response to SB 375, the 2008 bill requiring a coordinated land use and transportation plan to reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions from driving in California.

We in the Bay Area have the advantage of being the last among the big regions to pass an SCS. What can we learn from the other regions about the implementation of SB 375 and the prospects for better regional planning statewide?

Last month, SPUR explored this question with four of the state’s leading advocates for effective strategies: Ken Kirkey from the Association of Bay Area Governments, Eliot Rose from the Center for Resource Efficient Communities, Amanda Eaken from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Stuart Cohen from TransForm. Given each area’s distinct circumstances and politics, it is difficult to generalize about their SCS process, but several broad lessons stood out.

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) was the first regional agency in California to adopt an SCS, and the results were watched closely by the state’s other metropolitan areas. SANDAG has the advantage of being a region that includes a single county, as opposed to SCAG’s six, SACOG’s six and the Bay Area’s nine. The SANDAG SCS passed in October 2011, and the region has looked likely to meet the Air Resources Board’s green house gas emission reduction targets early, thanks in part to the overall decrease in regional activity accompanying the economic recession. But the SANDAG SCS has received ambivalent reception, with many observers questioning whether the plan went far enough. As Eliot Rose wrote, “complying with SB 375 is a different thing than actually using the opportunities that the bill presents to produce substantive changes in the way our communities look and the way that we get around, and SANDAG’s RTP illustrates this gap.”

SANDAG has devoted a commendable investment to transit, a proportion comparable with Los Angeles at 47 percent, but the San Diego region is still directing substantial new development to areas where transit is likely to remain limited. According to Rose, only 53 percent of the region’s growth is slated to occur in Smart Growth Opportunity Areas, with the rest scattered in suburbs and unincorporated areas, even after the 2035 horizon when the region is unbound by general plan assumptions.

The SANDAG plan is currently held up in litigation, and its perceived shortcomings have prompted a wider conversation about whether more aggressive standards should be adopted in order to hold regional entities to their policy commitments.

In Southern California, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) focused throughout its SCS process on overcoming the apprehension that measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are bad for the economy. Organizers gathered compelling data from expert studies demonstrating the market demand for transit, multifamily housing and walkable communities. Most promising were the voter surveys commissioned by SCAG which showed a population that embraces smart land use planning and wants to live in communities with many transportation options.

By mounting an extensive outreach campaign across the region, the largest and most heavily populated in the state, SCAG leaders were able to bring about a major shift in funding priorities. $246 billion, nearly half the plan’s total revenue will be spent on public transportation, including the ambitious 30/10 Plan to build 12 key transit expansion projects in Los Angeles in the next ten years. The plan quadrupled regional spending on bike and pedestrian infrastructure, but the final figure still represents just 1 percent of the SCS budget, falling far short of the 14 percent of funds voters said they would like to see spent on active transit.

The SCAG SCS was passed unanimously on April 4, and the broad support it was able to garner represents progress for the region. But voters are notably ready to see even more commitment to smart land use and public transportation investment.

Sacramento’s regional planning entity, the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), passed its SCS just a few weeks ago on April 26.The plan focused on local rezoning around identified transit priority areas, defined as areas within a half-mile of high quality transit: a rail stop or a bus corridor that provides or will provide at least 15-minute frequency service during peak hours by the year 2035. But the Sacramento delta region lagged behind the other regions in their prioritization of transit, allocating only 32 percent of their overall budget, compared with SCAG’s and SANDAG’s 47 percent and MTC/ABAG’s projected 67 percent. Sacramento also plans to spend significantly more on highways than the other regions.

SACOG has earned praise, however, for allocating nearly 8 percent of its overall budget for improvements to bike and pedestrian infrastructure, far exceeding the other regions whose investments in active transportation remain a meager 1 percent. And Sacramento makes important steps in concentrating new growth within already built up areas, managing to grow by 39 percent, but increase its urbanized footprint by only 7 percent.

As the Bay Area's own SCS is finalized over the next year, our task is to continue to set a high bar—to keep shifting our investments towards more sustainable modes and high performing transport projects that are cost effective and support multiple regional goals such as reducing driving and expanding the economy. The other metropolitan regions are looking to ABAG and MTC’s Project Performance Assessment Process for improved economic, social and environmental goals with which to measure the merit of projects in the next SCS process.

Read SPUR’s recommendations for improving the Bay Area’s draft SCS.

SF Works to Reform Its Business Tax

Karen — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 19:43:29 +0000

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

For the last decade, businesses in San Francisco have been adamant that the city’s payroll tax is holding back job growth. First, companies must pay the tax when they reach $250,000 in payroll, which discourages new hiring. Second, they must pay it when employees exercise their stock options — a strong incentive for any company considering an IPO to leave the city. SPUR, along with much of the business community, has argued that we should restructure the city’s tax system to remove these disincentives to hiring. Following payroll tax exemptions in 2011 for stock compensation and for businesses locating in the Mid-Market neighborhood, the call for payroll tax reform has sounded again. The city is finally responding, but will this effort lead to real reform?

City Controller Ben Rosenfield and Chief Economist Ted Egan have for the last three months been hard at work designing a replacement for San Francisco’s payroll tax. That tax is currently 1.5 percent of total payroll for every company with at least $250,000 in payroll. This means most businesses pay nothing, because they're too small to qualify. The city has also had difficulty collecting from entities that don’t clearly have “payroll,” including some partnerships, sole proprietors and financial vehicles. As a result, only 7,500 of the city’s 80,000 registered businesses pay the tax. One of the goals of the reform effort is to reduce rates on growing companies by asking all companies to pay something.

San Francisco is the only city in California to levy a tax on payroll; most other cities have some form of gross receipts tax. For all of the complaints about the city’s payroll tax, though, at least it’s simple.

Rosenfield and Egan have developed alternatives and conducted dozens of industry workshops to explore their implications. All proposals at this stage are designed to be revenue neutral (meaning they would create the same amount of revenue as the current payroll tax), but they would broaden the base of payers. In other words, the city isn’t looking for more money, but it is trying to increase the percentage of businesses that contribute.

To make the San Francisco ballot in November, proposed measures must be submitted to the Board of Supervisors by the first week in June. As of this writing, the controller’s office is on schedule to send a final proposal to the mayor and board president by the first week in May. There are currently two distinct proposals: a new gross receipts tax and a revised payroll tax. Below we summarize the main features of each. (You can also download the latest presentation from the controller’s office.)

Option 1: Gross Receipts Tax

Gross receipts taxes are based on a company’s total earnings, as opposed to a percentage of a company’s payroll. Most major cities in California have a gross receipts tax, and no other cities have a payroll tax.

· Uses industry-based rate schedules. Separates the business tax base into six groups, based on industry sectors. This structure mirrors that used in many other California cities but simplifies the structure with fewer schedules.

· Sets progressive rates. Transitions tax rates to a structure in which rates increase as earnings increase. Companies pay a higher rate as they earn more. Conversely, companies pay a lower rate if they earn less.

· Sets marginal rates. Creates tiers of rates that apply only to the range of gross receipts, rather than the entire amount of gross receipts, similar to personal income taxes. For example, a company in schedule 1 would pay 0.1 percent tax on gross receipts from $1 million to $2.5 million and 0.2 percent on all gross receipts from $2.5 million to $25 million.

· Broadens the tax base. Increases the number of businesses paying the payroll tax to 33,500 from only 7,500 in 2010.

Option 2: Revised Payroll Tax

The revised payroll tax proposal retains the current business tax structure but lowers rates in all categories and significantly increases the cost of business licenses.

· Increases business license fees. Retains payroll tax but increases business license fees at all levels. In the current system these fees range from $25 to $500 based on payroll. New rates would range from $150 to $10,000.

· Lowers overall payroll tax rates. As a result of higher license fees and a greater number of payers, payroll tax rates would actually be reduced at all levels. Rates would progressively increase with payroll but top out at 1.2 percent for those with the biggest payrolls.

· Uses progressive rates.Transitions the current 1.5 percent tax rate to a structure in which companies pay a higher rate as they earn more. Conversely, companies pay a lower rate if they earn less.

· Creates special real estate license fees. New rates would be assigned by type of facility. Residential buildings of more than four units would pay per unit, commercial real estate would pay per square foot of space, and commercial parking with more than 100 spaces would pay a flat rate per facility.

· Creates incentives for new businesses. Includes a one-year payroll tax holiday for all new businesses.

· Encourages growing businesses. Multi-year stock option smoothing and a $100,000 annual deduction for all businesses could help businesses grow and thrive.

· Broadens the tax base. Increases the number of businesses paying the payroll tax to 33,000 payers from 7,500.

All of this begs a very important question: What is the best way to transition a tax system that generates $400 million per year? Very carefully. The city is considering a multi-year transition that phases in the new structure in a way that ensures that the city doesn’t lose revenue — or collect too much. Details are not yet finalized, but it could look something like this:

Year	Business Tax Phasing Plan Old Payroll Tax Rate	New Tax Rate
1	90%	10%
2	80%	20%
3	70%	30%
4	60%	40%
5	50%	50%

Of course, there is always a third option: do nothing. It is still unclear whether a consensus will be achieved in support of a new structure.

Further complicating the process are separate proposals from the Board of Supervisors, including a small business payroll tax exemption introduced by supervisors David Campos and Mark Farrell, and a persistent push to generate new revenues from Supervisor John Avalos and others.

Depending on which path the eventual tax reform proposal takes on its way to the ballot, there are a number of possible outcomes. The mayor could simply choose to put a payroll tax reform package on the ballot by his own signature, in which case the board would have no influence over the content. But what happens if a proposal is carried by the board? Will there be adjustments to specific rate categories? Integration of one or more proposals from the Board of Supervisors? Perhaps even a proposal that generates additional revenue? Of course the more layers of complexity, the lower the chance that the proposal will make it to the ballot.

SPUR has mixed feelings about these proposals. We do not want to drive away firms headquartered in San Francisco, which is a real risk of the gross receipts option. On the other hand, we believe the payroll tax is probably worse. Our hope is that the city can fine-tune the gross receipts option so that it succeeds in building the tax base while keeping San Francisco a viable location for many different kinds of firms.

Rethinking Oakland's School Food Program

Eli Zigas — Fri, 06 Apr 2012 00:25:33 +0000

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Image credit: Flickr user momentsinphoto

Meals cooked from scratch. At least a quarter of the ingredients locally sourced. Fresh produce from the 1.5-acre farm adjacent to the new central kitchen. These are just a few of the goals in a new vision for Oakland’s school food program detailed in a recently released report.

The feasibility study, published by the non-profit Center for Ecoliteracy with the collaboration of the Oakland Unified School District (OUSD), looked at how Oakland’s school food program could be reformed to better serve the district’s goal of supporting the health and academic success of its students. The report found that the current infrastructure for the school meals program is stretched beyond its intended capacity and doesn’t have the space to efficiently produce high-quality, fresh-made food that can be distributed to the district’s 89 schools.

OUSD today serves nearly 30,000 meals a day to it students. With 70 percent of those students qualifying for free and reduced-priced meals, the bulk of the revenue that pays for the program's food, labor and overhead comes from federal and state reimbursements, which total less than $3.50 per meal. Despite the fiscal constraints, OUSD has a goal of improving the food it serves its students by overhauling its kitchen facilities and operations.

Specifically, the feasibility study recommends that OUSD dedicate $27 million for capital upgrades including:

Redeveloping an existing OUSD property into a 44,000-square-foot commissary that would cook food for schools throughout the district
Remodeling and upgrade nearly every school’s kitchen to either include the capacity for on-site cooking or reheating of meals from the central kitchen
Creating a 1.5-acre farm adjacent to the new commissary that would provide ingredients for the meals

In addition to OUSD’s capital needs, the report also recommends increasing the school meal program’s operating budget by an average of $200,000 for the first five years and a long-term increase of 3.5 percent in staffing costs once all the new kitchens are opearational. To fund the capital changes, the report recommends that the district pursue local bond funding or parcel taxes, state and federal grants, philanthropic funding, and traditional bank loans. Funding to cover the increased operating costs for staff and overhead are projected to come from increased numbers of students opting for school meals, as well as greater program efficiency.

The report presents an ambitious vision — relevant not just to Oakland, but also to San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD). The two school districts serve a similar number of meals per day and both have a similar number of students who qualify for free or reduced meals (more than 60 percent). Though the two districts have substantial differences — San Francisco no longer prepares meals from scratch in its school kitchens, for example — Oakland’s study offers one option for how a Bay Area school district could reform its school meals program. Other options the Oakland report did not explore include improving school meals by using an outside contractor or cooking from scratch in every school.

Whether Oakland embraces the recommendations or another path is to be seen, but the report offers a place to begin a conversation on both sides of the Bay.

Read the Rethinking School Lunch report >>

Featured Initiative:

Food Systems and Urban Ag

Creating a Community Vision for Stockton Street

Karen — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 19:30:31 +0000

Monday, April 9, 2012

Photos by Noah Christman for SPUR.

The Stockton Street Enhancement Project, spearheaded by Chinatown Community Development Center (CCDC) and SPUR, brought Chinatown and SPUR stakeholders together to discuss ways to preserve the economic and cultural vitality of Stockton Street while offering opportunity areas for improvement through the next decade. The project, made possible by a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts, included a walking tour and two workshops designed to address issues with the highly trafficked corridor.

Stockton Street has evolved over the years to become an example of true urbanization, replete with a strong transit network, multigenerational families living in tightly knit spaces, hundreds of mom-and-pop stores and a bustling streetlife. It has a dense immigrant population and plays an important role as a regional hub for both Asian Americans and tourists from around the world. Its success lies in its strong history of grassroots organizing to protect Chinatown’s affordability, culture and urban form.

Buildings along the corridor are typically mixed-use — with retail on the ground floor and housing above — and between three and four stories in height. In addition to storefronts, there are also many social services and institutions (i.e. health, education, religious and family associations) that line the busy blocks of Stockton Street.

A timelapse video of Stockton Street shows the challenges of navigating this heavily used corridor. Video by Michael Waldrep.

The residential base, small businesses and marketplace feel are assets that should be preserved and enhanced as the neighborhood experiences change from major public projects such as the new Central Subway. Connecting Chinatown to Union Square and SoMa before fusing with the existing T-Third line as it extends to Visitacion Valley and the Bayview, the Central Subway could prove to be an catalyst for change along the Stockton Street corridor, reshaping the street’s usage patterns and drastically changing its character. The community planning process framed by CCDC and SPUR sets the overarching vision of how to preserve and enhance the neighborhood amid these oncoming changes.

With an estimated 20,000 people living in Chinatown’s 30 square blocks, many of whom are crowded into 8-by-10-foot single room occupancy units, Chinatown is the city’s most densely inhabited neighborhood. The average median income of these residents is $18,000 per year, with more than a third of the population being seniors who live on fixed incomes. The neighborhood is made up of 88 percent renters, and only 10 percent of households own private vehicles. Future plans for Stockton Street must take into account the needs of the people who live in Chinatown by focusing on the creation of safe streets, affordable housing, open space, timely and efficient transit and access to social services and educational and religious institutions.

Stockton Street is also an important cultural and social hub for Asian Americans from many of San Francisco’s immigrant neighborhoods, including Visitacion Valley, SoMa, Outer Mission and Excelsior, who take the 30, 45 and 8X buses that pass through the corridor. Other Asian Americans enclaves in the Sunset, Richmond, East Bay and South Bay depend similarly on Muni and BART as their connection to Chinatown. Regardless of their location, San Francisco’s Chinatown serves as the confluence for the Bay Area’s Asian Americans, with a large proportion of them attending school, worshipping, visiting friends or shopping in the neighborhood.

Through a walking tour and two workshops, one held in Chinatown and one held at the SPUR Urban Center, Chinatown CDC and SPUR implemented a rigorous community engagement process to better understand the needs along Stockton Street. These public discussions brought together a diverse group of stakeholders — including monolingual residents living along the corridor, local merchants, property owners, architects and planners — to talk about potential opportunities for change. Bilingual and bicultural, the workshops were conducted to be participatory and engaging for all groups involved.

At the start of each workshop, SPUR and CCDC staff analyzed the current state of the Stockton Street corridor and shared case studies, both local and international, as possible models for its future, after whichparticipants divided into smaller groups to run through three different brainstorming exercises: 1) current strengths and challenges of Stockton Street, 2) priority areas to focus on for its future and 3) the connection of the future Chinatown Central Subway Station to Stockton Street.

Participants quickly discovered that there is no single solution for Chinatown’s Stockton Street. On the contrary, there are many elements that work well, but have also proven to be challenges for functionality. For example, retail displays encroaching on to the sidewalk may initially seem innocuous and complementary to the street’s character, but when combined with open basement trapdoors, parking meters, unloading trucks and a multitude of newspaper stands these components quickly narrow the navigable sidewalk space.

Workshop participants record their ideas for Stockton Street.

Participants noted a similar dichotomy with the corridor’s transportation options. While the continuous flow of Muni buses provides near-seamless transit connections, their frequent stops also create traffic congestion. With pedestrians often forced into the street due to sidewalk obstructions, this congestion brings with it very real danger. Compounding this is the lack of open space along Stockton Street, with only Willie “Woo Woo” Wong Playground providing an oasis from the activity of the street.

In the second exercise the workshop groups identified many of the same priorities and solutions for the corridor. Short-term proposals included restricting loading and unloading during peak pedestrian hours, consolidating sidewalk stands and beautifying the street through painting, cleanup and improved lighting. Participants looked to similar streets around the world for ideas, taking inspiration from flexible parking options and sidewalk bulbouts, high-volume bus stops and pedestrian-scale full-spectrum lighting. Long-term ideas posed included eliminating a south-bound travel lane to free up transit and pedestrian flow, creating “flex delivery zones” dependent on the time of day and prioritizing travel lanes through traffic pattern analysis. Also proposed was the idea of “shoplets,” compact retail spaces that take over on-street parking in a similar manner to a parklet.

The final brainstorming exercise focused on the role of Stockton Street as the future terminus for the Central Subway. Participants immediately identified the opportunities in crafting the station as a hub of activity, art, business and culture while suggesting plaza space and rooftop decks as a respite from the street, along with improved signage and wayfinding for visitors. Finally, participants felt that the subway station’s construction could prove to be the impetus for the evolution of the Stockton Street corridor and the grand catalyst for lighting, transportation and façade improvements along its extent.

Participants in the Chinatown workshop discuss solutions for Stockton Street.

The feedback from the Chinatown workshop resulted in pragmatic ideas for positive and lasting change for the corridor, while the SPUR workshop, comprised mostly of working professionals, came up with more technical and creative thoughts on possible changes. SPUR and CCDC hope the City of San Francisco will prioritize these ideas in their plans as they pursue opportunities within the corridor.

SF Approves First "Neighborhood Urban Agriculture" Permit

Eli Zigas — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:20:40 +0000

Thursday, April 5, 2012

Image courtesy Eli Zigas

On March 9, 2012, San Francisco issued its first zoning permit for “neighborhood urban agriculture.” The change of use permit, given to Little City Gardens, allows the small urban farming business to grow produce for sale at its three-quarter-acre market garden in the Mission Terrace neighborhood. It is the first permit issued under San Francisco’s pioneering urban agriculture zoning guidelines, which Mayor Lee signed into law in April 2011.

The permit is both a victory for Little City Gardens and the culmination of a multi-year effort to legalize commercial urban farming in residential neighborhoods in San Francisco. The permit, is, at its core, a simple recognition that the previously vacant lot is now being used to grow food according to basic guidelines. Securing the permit, however, was not simple. The process involved:

four visits to the permitting office
plan review by the Planning Department, Department of Building Inspection, Public Utilities Commission and Central Permit Bureau
a $300 fee
hours of conversation between the applicants and the various agencies about the new zoning law and the practice of urban farming

Little City Gardens has been at the forefront of trying to find a legal path to sell what it grows in the city. Now, having set the precedent of successfully securing a change of use permit, the path ahead for other aspiring urban farmers in San Francisco will be a little smoother.

Featured Initiative:

Food Systems and Urban Ag

Selling What You Cook at Home

Eli Zigas — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 00:13:47 +0000

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Image courtesy Flickr user emily.muldoon

Let’s say you’ve got a great jam recipe. Or perhaps you make some mean pickles. Your friends keep telling you that you should quit your day job and follow your culinary passion. But unless you’ve got quite a bit of savings or other access to capital, following your friends’ advice is a pricey proposition.

That’s because in California, you can’t sell any food prepared in a home kitchen. And access to a licensed commercial kitchen costs money — usually starting at around $30 per hour in the Bay Area. Add your ingredient and labor costs, and it becomes a decent investment to test your business idea.

A proposed piece of state legislation, the California Homemade Food Act, would change all that. Called the “cottage food bill,” the legislation would allow Californians to sell certain items produced from their home kitchen. Similar to legislation already enacted in more than 30 other states, the bill comes with certain restrictions, including only allowing the sale of what the health department refers to as “non potentially hazardous” items, which basically means products that would not go bad sitting on a shelf for a few days.

On March 27, supporters of the law — including Christina Oatfield of the Sustainable Economies Law Center and Shakirah Simley, owner of Slow Jams — discussed the proposal alongside Richard Lee of the San Francisco Department of Public Health at an event co-sponsored by Kitchen Table Talks, 18 Reasons and SPUR. Lee raised a number of concerns that he and other public health officials statewide shared. The proposed legislation would give the health department much less authority to inspect home kitchens that sold goods to the public than what it has for inspecting licensed commercial kitchens. He expressed concerns about whether home producers would follow best practices regarding hand washing, sanitizing surfaces, pet contamination, vermin, appropriate labeling of allergens and distinguishing what is and is not potentially hazardous food. Oatfield responded by noting that that advocates were working with the health officials to add amendments to address some of their concerns.

She also discussed the issue of scale-appropriate regulation — the idea that the less risk an activity poses to society, the less regulation it requires (and vice-versa). Since home kitchens produce much less volume and serve fewer customers than commercial kitchens, the thinking goes, they should not be subject to the same inspections. One of the aspects of the legislation currently under negotiation is whether a cap, based on sales volume, should be added to prevent a home kitchen from producing at the scale of a commercial kitchen.

The legislation is just beginning to make its way through the California Assembly. It is almost certain to be amended as food-producing entrepreneurs push for lower barriers to entry and public health regulators push to ensure food safety. But, if it does become law, Californians would be able to both sell what they grow from their home garden and what they cook in their home kitchen.

Read the California Homemade Food Act >>

Featured Initiative:

Food Systems and Urban Ag

SPUR Announces June 2012 Ballot Positions

Karen — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:48:40 +0000

Monday, April 2, 2012

This June’s primary election will bear little resemblance to the contentious ballot San Franciscans considered last November. Gone are the competing pension reform measures, sales taxes and bonds. We’re left with two measures, both placed on the ballot by voter petition.

While the June slate may be lean, voters should take the time to fully research the measures on the ballot this spring. They’re important not just to how the city operates but also to how we choose to fund city services.

Prop. A addresses how the city contracts for garbage-collection and recycling services; this measure would require the city to own all supporting facilities (it currently does not) and competitively bid the service. Prop. B limits how the Recreation and Parks Department funds Coit Tower, which could create a precedent for similar limitations at other facilities throughout the parks system. These measures could both have potentially expensive implications.

After hearing an in-depth report from our Ballot Analysis Committee, SPUR’s board of directors voted to take the following positions regarding the two propositions on the San Francisco ballot this June:

Proposition A: Competitive Bidding for Garbage Collection and Disposal
Ordinance that would require the city to use a competitive bidding process to award separate franchises or contracts for five distinct categories of waste collection and processing in San Francisco, and would require the city to own all processing and transfer facilities utilized as part of these contracts.
SPUR position: NO

Proposition B: Coit Tower Policy
Policy statement to protect and preserve the murals in Coit Tower and to strictly limit commercial activities in the tower.
SPUR position: NO

Stay tuned for our in-depth analysis of these measures at spur.org/voterguide as Election Day approaches.

SPUR Honors Ed Harrington with Life Achievement Award

Karen — Thu, 22 Mar 2012 19:50:34 +0000

Thursday, March 22, 2012

SPUR’s 32nd annual Good Government Awards, held March 19, honored City of San Francisco employees who have performed exceptionally, becoming models for other agencies and cities around the country.

This year, SPUR honored Ed Harrington with a Lifetime Achievement Award for his service to the City and County of San Francisco, including unparalleled fiscal leadership and managerial excellence through five mayoral administrations. Harrington currently serves as the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utility Commission, a regional utility that delivers water to 2.5 million Bay Area customers, collects and treats wastewater and storm water, and provides hydroelectric and other renewable power resources for San Francisco municipal customers. From 1991 to 2008, Harrington served as San Francisco’s controller, where he administered San Francisco's $6.1 billion budget. Before becoming controller, he worked with the SFPUC, the Municipal Railway, the Water Department and the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power System.

Watch our video about Ed's work:

Good Government Awards: How Harlan Kelly Led the Next Generation of SF Utilities

Karen — Fri, 23 Mar 2012 00:21:05 +0000

Thursday, March 22, 2012