SEC. 12D.2-2. FURTHER ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE

   Upon the expiration of Ordinance No. 175-89 this Board having adopted Ordinance No. 155-92 to address the practices and to offset the economic disadvantages identified in Sections 12D.2, 12D.9(A), 12D.10(A), 12D.11(A) and 12D.11(A);

   And Ordinance No. 155-92 being remedial in nature will expire June 30, 1997 and thus required the Human Rights Commission to study minority and woman owned business participation in City contracting prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 155-92;

   And the Human Rights Commission pursuant to Section 12D.15(E) of Ordinance No. 155-92, through its MBE/WBE/LBE Community Advisory Committee and at its regular and special meetings, having received public testimony concerning the City's compliance with Ordinance No. 155-92;

   And the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997 having hired Mason Tillman Associates to conduct a disparity study which will be concluded on or before August 31, 1997;

   And the Human Rights Commission, pursuant to Section 12D.15(E) of Ordinance No. 155-92 having conducted public hearings on January 29, 1997, February 19, 1997 and February 27, 1997;

   And the Human Rights Commission having received from Mason Tillman Associates a statistical analysis of the MBE/WBE/LBE Progress Reports for fiscal years 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 suggesting continuing patterns of underutilization of certified MBE and WBE contractors;

   And the Human Rights Commission having submitted to this Board its March 3, 1997 "Resolution Certifying HRC Findings to the Board of Supervisors Supporting the Extension of the MBE/WBE/LBE Ordinance" as well as supporting data and analyses;

   And the Human Rights Commission having resolved to transmit to this Board by August 31, 1997, the completed disparity study which will assist this board in determining whether the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have been achieved;

   And this board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Sections 12D.2 and 12D.2-1 above;

   And this Board, having reviewed the MBE/WBE/LBE Progress Reports for fiscal years 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95 and other supporting data (all of which shall be incorporated by reference) and having conducted public hearings on April 24, 1997 on the MBE/WBE program and policies and on May 8, 1997 at which the Board received additional testimony and written submittals from the public (which shall be incorporated by reference), finds that there is a good faith basis for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not yet been achieved;

   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended, for a six-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will continue with the process of fact finding to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved.

(Added by Ord. 210-97, App. 5/30/97)

SEC. 12D.2-3. FURTHER ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE

   On November 5, 1996, Californians voted to adopt the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) as an amendment to their Constitution. Proposition 209 provides that the State and its subdivisions shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, education or contracting.

   On December 23, 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, granted a preliminary injunction to prevent the implementation of Proposition 209. However, on April 8, 1997, the Ninth Circuit in Coalition v. Wilson reversed the district court's ruling and upheld as constitutional Proposition 209. Then on August 21, 1997, the Ninth Circuit denied the petition for rehearing the decision in Coalition v. Wilson. Finally, on November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari and let stand the Ninth Circuit's decision to uphold Proposition 209 as constitutional.

   As a result of the Ninth Circuit's ruling, Mason Tillman Associates will have to consider the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on its disparity study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997.

   And although this Board expected to receive the disparity study on or before August 31, 1997, which was on an expedited schedule, the San Francisco International Airport's data requires additional verification in order to complete the disparity study. This circumstance has caused the compilation of the study's date to take longer than originally anticipated;

   And where the Mayor's Office and other City departments should have an opportunity to provide comment as to any proposed legislative changes to the ordinance before the legislation is introduced at the Board;

   And this Board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-1 and 12D.2-2 above;

   This Board hereby finds that there is a good-faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97, for a three-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings and recommendations set forth in the disparity study.

(Added by Ord. 457-97, App. 12/15/97)

SEC. 12D.2-4. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A THREE-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE.

   On November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant review, Mason Tillman Associates and the City continue to consider the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on the Disparity Study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997;

   And although a draft disparity study has been presented to the Human Rights Commission, several new questions regarding the data and how it should be analyzed have been raised by the Human Rights Commission and members of the public. In light of the concerns raised, Mason Tillman Associates and the Human Rights Commission have determined that additional data gathering and analysis is necessary in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.

   And this Board incorporating by reference the findings set forth in Section 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2 and 12D.2-3 above;

   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97 and 457-97, for a three-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final disparity study.

(Added by Ord. 82-98, App. 3/6/98)

SEC. 12D.2-5. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE

   On November 3, 1997, the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. As a result of the Supreme Court's decision not to grant review, Mason Tillman Associates and the City considered the impact, if any, of Proposition 209 on the Disparity Study commissioned by the Human Rights Commission on January 13, 1997;

   And although a draft disparity study was presented to the Human Rights Commission, several new questions regarding the data and how it should be analyzed were raised by the Human Rights Commission and members of the public. In light of the concerns raised, additional necessary data gathering and analysis were conducted. Additional time is needed in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.

   And this Board incorporation by reference the findings set forth in Section 12D.2, 12D.2-1, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3 and 12D.2-4 above;

   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinance 210-97, 457-97, 82-98, for a two-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation and analysis of the data sufficient to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the Ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final Disparity Study.

(Added by Ord. 186-98, App. 6/5/98)

SEC. 12D.2-6. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS SUPPORTING A TWO-MONTH EXTENSION OF MBE/WBE/LBE ORDINANCE.

   In light of the United States Supreme Court's denial of the petition for writ of certiorari in Coalition for Economic Equity et al. v. Pete Wilson et al. several new questions with respect to the data collected for the City's disparity study and how it should be analyzed were raised. Because of those concerns, the Human Rights Commission in March of this year embarked upon additional data gathering and analysis in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in public contracting in the City and County of San Francisco.

   Although the Human Rights Commission has succeeded in gathering such additional data, the data gathering process is not yet complete. Consequently, the analysis of the data is not complete. Additional time is needed in order to accurately determine whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and what remedy, if any, is necessary to ensure that there is no discrimination in the procurement process of the City and County of San Francisco.

   This Board incorporates by reference findings set forth in Sections 12D.2, 12D.2-2, 12D.2-3, 12D.2-4 and 12D.2-5 above;

   This Board hereby finds that there is a good faith basis to extend Ordinance 155-92, as amended by Ordinances 210-97, 457-97, 82-98 and 186-98 for a two-month period during which time this Board, with the assistance of the Human Rights Commission and the City Attorney, will (1) complete the compilation and analysis of the data to ascertain whether a strong basis in evidence exists for concluding that the purposes identified in Section 12D.3 have not been achieved and (2) receive comment on proposed legislative changes, if any, to the ordinance in light of the findings set forth in the final disparity study.

(Added by Ord. 256-98, App. 7/31/98)

SEC. 12D.3. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

   It is the policy of the City and County of San Francisco to ensure full and equitable opportunities for Minority Business Enterprises, Woman Business Enterprises, and local businesses to participate as prime contractors in the provision of goods and services to the City. This program is intended to correct identified discriminatory practices inherent in the City's procurement process and in the award of prime contracts to MBE/WBEs and to develop their status and capability as prime contractors of the City. Another goal of this Ordinance is to offset some of the economic disadvantages local businesses continue to face that are not shared by nonlocal businesses.

   The City will continue to rely on the relationship between the percentages of minority (each ethnic group identified as a minority) and woman owned businesses in the relevant sector of the San Francisco business community and their respective shares of City contract dollars as a measure of the effectiveness of this Ordinance in remedying the effects of the aforementioned discrimination.

   The City is continuing to use a preference for local business in the award of City contracts in order to encourage business to locate and remain in San Francisco and thereby enhance employment opportunities for persons living in San Francisco. The cost of locating and doing business in San Francisco continues to be as much as 15 percent and greater than the cost of doing business in the surrounding communities; affording a five-percent bid preference for local businesses bidding on City contracts reduces the disadvantages under which City-located businesses labor when competing for City contracts, affording them a five-percent bid preference makes good sense. In effect the bid preference assists these businesses in contributing to the economic health of the City. The five-percent bid preference does not unduly hamper non-local businesses in the contracting process, and parallels the preferences awarded in many other local jurisdictions.

(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89)

SEC. 12D.4. SCOPE.

   The race- and gender-conscious bid preferences of this Ordinance shall be afforded only to economically disadvantaged minority and woman owned businesses in all specifically enumerated categories of City contracts for the procurement of goods and services subject to exemptions hereinafter specifically enumerated. The local business bid preference shall be afforded to all local businesses in the award of all City contracts for the procurement of goods and services subject to exceptions hereinafter specifically enumerated in Section 12D.13.

(Added by Ord. 175-89, App. 5/30/89)