HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/2000, C2 - SUPPORT FOR TAXPAYERS FOR FAIR COMPETITION council "b °"b6-00
j acEnaa RepoRt C2
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: Mike McCluskey,Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Wayne Peterson, City Engineer
SUBJECT: Support for Taxpayers for Fair Competition
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution supporting"The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" Initiative
DISCUSSION
The "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" is an initiative, that if passed, will definitively
allow all governmental agencies the control and ability to determine if work on design projects
should best be handled by their staff, the staff of other public agencies, or by private consulting
firms. The initiative is fairly simple and straightforward: choice is the prerogative of the agency.
Background. Caltrans management, in an effort to increase the number of projects out to
construction decided, in 1986, to supplement work performed by its civil service employees by
hiring outside engineers to design some components of state highway projects. Design engineers
working for the Department of Transportation (CalTrans) saw this effort as a major threat to
them. Their union, the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), sued over the
issue. Three years later, in 1990 a Superior Court sided with PECG and enjoined the Department
from contracting out except in cases that were approved by the Court using a very narrow
standard of"cost savings."
In response, the legislature gave Caltrans new outsourcing authority in 1993. This was a time of
budget cuts and poor state economic health and privatization and competition were key buzzwords.
This authority was passed by a bi-partisan vote of both houses of the Legislature. PECG challenged
this new authority. They prevailed at trial but this decision was overturned on appeal. Both sides
appealed to the Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court sided with PECG in 1997.
Subsequent to the 1993 action but before the 1997 decision,the Legislature granted CalTrans
additional authority to contract out work related to the seismic retrofitting of California's highways
and bridges. Caltrans'parent agency(BTH Agency) sued PECG in 1995 to obtain judicial approval
of this newly granted authority. The Sacramento Superior Court in late 1998 determined the seismic
contracting effort violated the State Constitution—thereafter the Administration agreed with PECG
to limit contracting out to just the replacements span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge.
With the Supreme Court decision in 1997 the battlefield shifted from one between Caltrans and its
engineers to virtually all public agencies as that ruling dealt with"civil servant's" rights to expect to
receive all design work. Thus,not only was the State restricted from using private design
consultants but suddenly there was a cloud over all public agencies regarding the use of private
consultants.
C24
Council Agenda Report—TaxRyers for Fair Competition Page 2
In an effort to solidify its gains and end battles in the courts, PECG placed Proposition 224 on
the 1998 ballot. This measure would have given Caltrans engineers and other State design
professionals authority over virtually all public works projects in the entire state. Almost any
project even those projects funded with local funds would be designed in Sacramento.
Fortunately,the voters of the State saw the danger in this and defeated the Proposition.
However, the issue is still far from resolved. The 1997 Supreme Court decision remains and a
few "strong union" cities have taken the stance that they no longer have the option of using
private consultants for design services where needed. Caltrans management has ceded control of
the issue and their new policy is a fairly strict interpretation: only where existing staff resources
cannot produce the projects will consultants be considered. In order to meet the workload with
staff, CalTrans is now hiring (virtually anywhere and everywhere) and has 1400 design engineer
openings. This massive hiring effort has affected every city, county, public agency and all
private firms' ability to recruit and retain design professionals.
In order to try to bring a bit of reason and logic to this chaos, a coalition of business, labor and
other interest groups, led by the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California have
qualified the "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" as an initiative on the November
ballot for 2000. In simple terms it allows all public agencies constitutional authority to hire
private consultants for design projects or use existing staff resources. The choice is left up to the
agency. Staff is fully supportive of this approach. We currently use our existing resources in-
house for about 80% of the CIP program and use private consultants for the remaining 20%.
Projects where consultants have been used, for example, include the Camegie Library
Rehabilitation, the Marsh Street Garage,Water Reclamation Plant Expansion, etc.
As expected, PECG has not taken to this initiative well. Literature is being received touting that
this initiative will lead to delays in awarding projects and will therefore actually cost more. The
time to award a contract for consulting services is definitely a reality—however it is one we
program into our CIP program schedule. Obviously, if we had historic rehabilitation specialists
on staff we could get started on a project sooner but what would that person do when that one
project was done? And, if we didn't already have him/her on staff, how long would it take to
recruit and hire them for that one project?
The City of San Luis Obispo would be deeply impacted if it could not contract out for
professional services. First it would require a significant increase in staff. Second it would
require the hiring of specialists that may only be needed for one job. This would be costly and
very inefficient.
The proposition that is proposed for the fall election adds an article to the California Constitution
that specifically allows all public agencies to contract with qualified private entities for
architectural and engineering services for all public works of improvement. A copy of the
initiative is attached.
C2-2
Council Agenda Report—TMpayers for Fair Competition Page 3
CONCURRENCES
Attached is a listing of agencies that have indicated support for this proposition. The League of
California Cities has not yet taken a position. Their Policy Committee is recommending that the
Board support the initiative.
FISCAL UYIPACT
The fiscal impact on the City of the failure of this or a similar amendment to the state constitution
could be significant. The dollar amount cannot be calculated. The deferral of the processing of
capital improvements would be significant. In the current market for engineers it would be very
difficult for the City to enlarge its staff to handle all of the projects it currently is planning to build.
Attachments
1. Resolution supporting Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Initiative
2. Copy of Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Initiative
3. List of various organizations supporting the Initiative
L•admin/car/taxpayers for fair competition
C2-3
l��LtCI`rV1Er'1+
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO IN SUPPORT
OF"THE FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT" INTTIATWE
WHEREAS.California's population growth has resulted in the demand for more than
$90 billion worth of highway, school,prison,flood control and other infrastructure improvement
projects; and
WHEREAS,the need for state and local governments to contract with the private sector
for architectural and engineering services has never been greater; and
WHEREAS,a series of successful lawsuits by a group of employees at CalTrans has
resulted in effectively banning the state from contacting with private engineers and architects;
and
WHEREAS,in order.to stop the current effort to prevent the state and local
governments, such as the City of San Luis Obispo, from utilizing private engineers and.
architects, an initiative known as The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act' has been
prepared; and
WHEREAS,the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act changes California's laws
to specifically allow state and local governments to contract with private companies for
architectural and engineering services; and
WHEREAS,the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act will assure that
California's many projects will be designed in a cost effective manor and thus save taxpayers
money; and
WHEREAS, the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act requires architecture and
engineering contracts to be subject to standard accounting practices and requires financial and
performance audits as necessary to ensure contract services are delivered within the agreed
schedule and budget;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED,the City of San Luis Obispo does hereby support
"The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Saving Act"for architectural and engineering services as
an initiative.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 12000.
C2-4
Resolution No: (200 Series)
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_
Cly Attorney-
CI-5-
zWt C Amen 4- Z
The Fair Competition and
Taxpayer Savings Initiative
for Architectural and Engineering Service
1. Permits Contracting Out of Architectural and Engineering Services:
Allows state and local governments, special districts and school districts to contract with
private companies for architectural and engineering services. Defines such services as
architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land surveying and
construction management.
2. Local Choice to Deliver Transportation Projects On-Time:
Gives local governments greater control over transportation improvements so that
highway, bridge and transit projects can be delivered on-time and within budget.
3. Competitive Selection and Taxpayer Safeguards:
Requires contracts be awarded through a competitive selection process that:
• Prohibits government employees from awarding contracts if they have a
financial or business relationship with the companies involved.
• Requires compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts
of interest or unlawful activities.
• Subjects all architecture and engineering contracts to standard accounting
practices.
• Permits financial and performance audits as necessary to ensure contract
services are delivered within the agreed schedule and budget.
4. Strict Design and Construction standards:
Already established project seismic safety,project design and construction standards are
not changed by the initiative.
5. Only Applies to Architectural and Engineering Services:
This measure does not apply to any other contracts except for architecture and
engineering services. For example, it does not apply to peace officers,teachers or
correction officers.
Taxpayers for Fair Competition • 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 • Burlingame, CA 94010
4/14/1999 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650)340-1740 CIA
•®M
FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS INITIATIVE
SECTION 1. TITLE. This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "Fair
Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act."
SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT.
It is the intent of the people of the State of California in enacting this measure:
(a) To remove existing restrictions on contracting for architectural and
engineering services and to allow state, regional and local governments to
use qualified private architectural and engineering firms to help deliver
transportation, schools, water, seismic retrofit and other infrastructure
projects safely, cost effectively and on time;
(b) To encourage the kind of public/private partnerships necessary to ensure
that California taxpayers benefit from the use of private sector experts to
deliver transportation, schools, water, seismic retrofit and other
infrastructure projects;
(c) To promote fair competition so that both public and private sector architects
and engineers work smarter, more efficiently and ultimately deliver better
value to taxpayers;
(d) To speed the completion of a multi-billion dollar backlog of highway,
bridge,transit and other projects;
(e) To ensure that contracting for architectural and engineering services occurs
through a fair, competitive selection process, free of undue political
influence,to obtain the best quality and value for California taxpayers; and
(f) To ensure that private firms contracting for architectural and engineering
services with governmental entities meet established design and
construction standards and comply with standard accounting practices and
permit financial and performance audits as necessary to ensure contract
services are delivered within the agreed schedule and budget.
SECTION 3. Article XXII is hereby added to the California Constitution to read:
§ 1. The State of California and all other governmental entities, including, but
not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, school districts and other
special districts, local and regional agencies and joint power agencies, shall
be allowed to contract with qualified private entities for architectural and
engineering services for all public works of improvement. The choice and
authority to contract shall extend to all phases of project development
including permitting and environmental studies, rights-of-way services,
design phase services and construction phase services. The choice and
authority shall exist without regard to funding sources whether federal,
02071
state,regional, local or private, whether or not the project is programmed by
a state, regional or local governmental entity, and whether or not the
completed project is a part of any State owned or State operated system or
facility.
§2. Nothing contained in Article VII of this Constitution shall be construed to
limit, restrict or prohibit the State or any other governmental entities,
including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and counties, school
districts and other special districts, local and regional agencies and joint
power agencies, from contracting with private entities for the performance
of architectural and engineering services.
SECTION 4. Chapter 10.1 is hereby added to Division 5 of Title I of the Government Code
to read:
§ 4529.10. For purposes of Article)MI of the California Constitution and this
act, the term "architectural and engineering services" shall include all
architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, engineering, land
surveying, and construction project management services.
§4529.11. All projects included in the State Transportation Improvement
Program programmed and funded as interregional improvements or as
regional improvements shall be subject to Article MI of the California
Constitution. The sponsoring governmental entity shall have the choice
and the authority to contract with qualified private entities for
architectural and engineering services. For projects programmed and
funded as regional improvements, the sponsoring governmental entity
shall be the regional or local project sponsor. For projects programmed
and funded as interregional improvements,the sponsoring governmental
entity shall be the State of California, unless there is a regional or local
project sponsor, in which case the sponsoring governmental entity shall
be the regional or local project sponsor. The regional or local project
sponsor shall be a regional or local governmental entity.
§4529.12. All architectural and engineering services shall be procured
pursuant to a fair, competitive selection process which prohibits
governmental agency employees from participating in the selection
process when they have a financial or business relationship with any
private entity seeking the contract, and the procedure shall require
compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts of
interest or unlawful activities.
§ 4529.13. Nothing contained in this act shall be construed to change project
design standards, seismic safety standards or project construction
standards established by state, regional or local governmental entities.
_)\Tor shall any provision of this act be construed to prohibit or restrict the
C1(22
authority of the Legislature to statutorily provide different procurement
methods for design-build projects or design-build-and-operate projects.
§ 4529.14. Architectural and engineering services contracts procured by public
agencies shall be subject to standard accounting practices and may
require financial and performance audits as necessary to ensure contract
services are delivered within the agreed schedule and budget.
§ 4529.15. This act .only applies to architectural and engineering services
defined in Government Code section 4529.10. Nothing contained in
this act shall be construed to expand or restrict the authority of
governmental entities to contract for fire, ambulance, police, sheriff,
probation, corrections or other peace officer services. Nor shall
anything in this act be construed to expand or restrict the authority of
governmental entities to contract for education services including but
not limited to, teaching services, services of classified school personnel
and school administrators.
§ 4529.16. This act shall not be applied in a manner that will result in the loss
of federal funding to any governmental entity.
§ 4529.17. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act
or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other
provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid
provision or application.
§ 4529.18. If any act of the Legislature conflicts with the provisions of this act,
this act shall prevail.
§ 4529.19. This act shall be liberally construed to accomplish its purposes.
§ 4529.20. This act seeks to comprehensively regulate the matters which are
contained within its provisions. These are matters of statewide concern
and when enacted are intended to apply to charter cities as well as all
other governmental entities.
SECTION 5. This initiative may be amended to further its purposes by statute,passed in each
house by roll call vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership
concurring, and signed by the Governor.
SECTION 6. If there is a conflicting initiative measure on the same ballot, which addresses
and seeks to comprehensively regulate the same subject, only the provisions of
this measure shall become operative if this measure receives the highest
affirmative vote.
C2*
A+4-uch menTaxpayers for d 3
❑ 111 Anza Boulevard, #406 • Burlingame, CA 94010
• 650-340-0470 • FAX: 650-340-1740
raIr Compef if ion ❑ 11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #840 • Los Angeles, CA 90064
• 310-996-2600 • RX: 310-996-2673 0®.
WHO SUPPORTS "THE FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER
SAVINGS ACT" .
Legislation and Initiative (as of 1119/99)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers' Association
California Business Roundtable
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 (AFL-CIO)
Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12 (AFL-CIO)
American Subcontractors Association, California Chapter
Structural Engineers Association of California
Western Growers Association
National Federation of Independent Business
Associated General Contractors
Californians for Better Transportation
California Building Industry Association
California Minority and Women's Business Coalition
California Manufacturers Association
California Business Properties Association
Civil Justice Association of California
California Groundwater Association
Coalition for Project Delivery
California Chapter, American Planning Association
California Association of Sheet Metal and
Air Conditioning Contractors, National Association
C2-10
Statewide Organizations (cont) Local & Regional Organizations
Califomia Cement Promotion Council (cont.)
California Contract Cities Association Bay Area Council
California Trucking Association Sacramento Metro Chamber of
California Park & Recreation Society Commerce
California Fence Contractors Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of
Association Commerce
California Taxpayer Protection
Committee Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association Milpitas Chamber of Commerce
Western States Petroleum Association Greater San Diego Chamber of
California Travel Parks Association Commerce
Alliance of California Taxpayers and Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce
Involved Voters
Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes Downey Chamber of Commerce
United Californians for Tax Reform Greater Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Local and Regional Newport Harbor Area Chamber of
Organizations Commerce
Waste Watchers Northern California Engineering
Contractors Association
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Kern County Taxpayers Association North Coast Builders Exchange
League of Placer County Taxpayers Orange County Business Council
Butte County Citizens for Better Orange County Transportation Coalition
Government San Leandro Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Taxpayers Association* San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of
San Diego County Taxpayers Commerce
Association Santa Barbara County Association of
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Governments
Association
Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group*
Shasta County Taxpayers Association Southern California Contractors
Sonoma County Taxpayers Association Association
2
C2-11
ATTACHMENT 2
SENIOR CENTER RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE REPORT
Compilation and Report by: Agatha Reardon, Vice-President, AARP
March 24, 2000
This report is submitted in response to a request made by Vice-Mayor Ken Schwartz on
February 22, 2000.
PURPOSE: ACQUIRE INFORMATION ON THE ACTIVITIES OF SENIORS
TRAVELING TO AND FROM THE SAN LUIS OBISPO SENIOR
CENTER AS ANOTHER METHOD TO DETERMINE THE BEST
LOCATION FOR A NEW CENTER.
ADDITIONAL
PURPOSE: DETERMINE SENIORS' INTEREST IN A THERAPY POOL
METHODOLOGY: A questionnaire was originated by Vice-Mayor Ken Schwartz,and modified
by Bill Storm, President,AARP Chapter 3213, and Dewey Greil, President,
San Luis Obispo Senior Center.
Research Questions Focused on the Following:
1) Frequency of Trips to the Current Senior Center
2) Distances Traveled,and Mode of Transportation
3) Activities by Seniors on Their Way To and From the Center
4) Therapy Pool Interest
Questionnaires were placed in the San Luis Obispo Senior Center Lobby
on Mand 6, 2000, and Seniors were asked to fill them out
Completed questionnaires were collected from March 6, 2000 through
March 24,2000 and the responses to each question tallied.
RESULTS: 144 Questionnaires were completed, and submitted by Seniors
The totals for each question or segment thereof are shown in this
report.
NOTE: Seniors did not respond to every question.
Responses are totaled for each individual question.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The questionnaire contains space for seniors to make comments.
SWseven comments were received, and are included as Attachment 1
to this report.
1-40
TTACHMENT 2
SENIOR CENTER RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRE REPORT March 24,2000
1. HOW FREQUENTLY DO YOU VISIT THE CITY SENIOR CENTER?
a. at least once every month 23
b. at least once every week of the year 120
one new member(no frequency data) 01
Question#1 Response Total 144
C. If you visit the Senior Center weekly,
how marry days per week:
#Days #of Seniors
1 x 36 = 36
2 x 55 = 110
3 x 12 = 36
4 x 10- = 40
5 x - _ a.
120 Seniors 257 visits per week
2. WHAT IS YOUR ZIP CODE? NAME?(OPTIONAL) 64 Entered Their Names
93401 61 93426 1
93402 1 93430 1
93405 41 93432 1
93406 2 93442 4
93420 8 93446 1
93422 4 93449 4
93423 1 93465 2
93424 2
Question#2 ZIP Response total 134
NAME?(OPTIONAL) 64 entered their names
3. HOW FAR DO YOU TRAVEL(ONE WAY)TO REACH THE CITY SENIOR CENTER?
less than 112 mile 10
2 to 4 miles 57
4 to 6 miles 39
more than 6 miles �¢
Question #3 Response total 140
Note: Questionnaire did not include distance of 112 to 2 miles.
1-41
Local Government(cont) Local Government(cont.)
Town of Windsor Metropolitan Transportation
City of Gardena Commission"
City of Carpenteria Contra Costa Transportation Authority
City of Eureka Lake County Flood Control &Water
City of Saratoga Conservation District
City of San Juan Capistrano Elsinore Water District
City of Tulare
Los Alisos Water District
City of Taft
City of Santa Clarita San Bernardino Valley Water
City of Ukiah Conservation District
City of Santa Cruz South Tahoe Public Utilities District
City of Ione Westborough Water District
Town of Tiburon Heritage Ranch Community Services
District
City of Visalia*
Arcata City Public Works Department Vista Irrigation District
Nevada County Lake County Sanitation District
Kings County Ironhouse Sanitary District
Lake County
Kern County Education
Humboldt County
Madera County Clovis Unified School District
Mono County Alum Rock School District
Santa Cruz County Downey Untied School District
Encinitas Union School District
Sonoma County
Fresno Untied School District
Siskiyou County Redding School District
Stanislaus County San Juan Unified School District
Sunline Transit Agency Vacaville Unified School District
Livermore/Amador Valley Transit District
West Fresno School District
4
C2-13
Engineering and Architectural
Organizations
Consulting Engineers and Land
Surveyors of California
American Institute of Architects,
California Chapter
Structural Engineers Association of
Southern California
Society for Hispanic Professional
Engineers
Engineering and Utility Contractors
Association
Engineering and General Contractors
Association
Bay Counties Civil Engineers and Land
Surveyors Association
Society for Hispanic Professional
Engineers, Greater LA Chapter
Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California
* Legislation only at this time.
5
C2-14
Local Government Local Government (cont.)
City of Oakland City of Fontana
City of Irvine City of Vallejo
City of Newport Beach City of Angels
City of Del Mar City of Rohnert Park
City of Garden Grove City of Belvedere
City of Richmond City of Ft. Bragg
City of Palm Springs City of Ceres
City of Ontario City of Chino Hills*
City of Fresno City of Novato
City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Arroyo Grande
City of Watsonville City of Clayton
City of Belmont City of Daly City
City of Colfax City of Millbrae
City of Cotati City of Exeter
City of Arcadia City of Poway
City of Claremont* City of Sebastopol
City of Emeryville City of Laguna Hills
City of Corcoran
City of Orland
City of Livermore City of Gridley
City of Kerman City of Temecula
City of Highland City of Winters
City of Dublin City of Santa Rosa
City of Lancaster City of Los Banos
City of Camarillo City of Concord
City of Campbell City of Fortuna
City of Loma Linda City of Sunnyvale*
City of Westminster City of Lodi
City of Bellflower* City of Hermosa Beach
City of Livingston
3
C2-12