The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5.1 PECG Initiative . . . . CITY CLERK File # D~~[Q]-~[Q] AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 17, 1998 SUBJECT: Written Communication: Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment (pECG Initiative) Report Prepared by: Lee S. Thompson, Public Works Director EXHIBITS ATTACHED: / 1) 2) 3) Letter from URS Greiner and attachments Resolution Opposing PECG Initiative A representative from the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) will attend the meeting to make a presentation and answer questions. RECOMMENDATION:/7d/ 1) f {JfP 2) Receive presentation Adopt resolution opposing initiative FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The perceived impact of this legislation is increased costs for Capital Improvement Projects due to lack of competition for design services, as well as delay of projects and loss oflocal control. DESCRIPTION: The Professional Engineers in California Government (pECG) organization has been successful in getting an initiative on the June, 1998, ballot as a constitutional amendment. This initiative, the Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment, would give the State a virtual monopoly on designing significant capital projects. This requires cities, counties, schools, special districts, and regional governments to use the State to design roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and other critical structures. The City of Dublin has contracted with private engineering consulting firms since incorporation for design of all Capital Improvement Projects of any significance. Even in recent years, in-house staff has only designed smaller projects, such as median landscaping improvements, sidewalk repairs, and drainage improvements. Contracting with private firms can be cost effective and also provides an opportunity to choose firms who are best qualified in terms of staff, experience, and references. 'While the initiative provides that private firms could bid on design work for projects, it is also specified that the State would then perform an analysis to determine whether State employees could do the work at a lesser cost. The major concern is that the State analysis would not include the overhead items that are part of a project cost. In order to have staff available, the State would have to hire a large bureaucracy of engineers to design projects for cities and other local agencies. The City would lose local control of its ------------------------------------------------------------------- COPIES TO: Tom Wintch, URS Greiner ITEM NO. 7.1 g:\agenmisc\celsoc projects and become bogged down in red tape. Also, under this initiative, the State Controller would become the chief design manager for the State. Opponents of the initiative feel that the Controller's office is not equipped or sufficiently experienced to manage a program of this size, which would delay many projects. The City Attorney has reviewed the proposed initiative and Staff's analysis of its impacts and agrees with the information presented in this Staff report. A number of government agencies have already gone on record as opposing this measure (see attachment to Exhibit 1). Staff recommends that the City Council receive the presentation from the CELSOC representative and adopt the resolution opposing the initiative. Page 2 . . . . . . / c:6 I).. URS Greiner URS Greiner, Inc. 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 427 Pleasanton, California 94588-3600 Telephone: (510) 463-2000 Facsimile: (510) 463-0510 Offices in Principal Cities Nationwide January 27, 1998 r;~~ t.,l:!~,~ J4N2 t::D PU!"\ . [} i99R CJ I ""I '-lC /.. vila AlIS Mr. Lee Thompson Public Works Director City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568-2658 Re: Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment (PECG Initiative) Dear Mr.~: ieJi? As I discussed with you yesterday, the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG) has been w~oing a campaign to prevent private sector competition on virtually all state and local design and engineering contracts. They have been successful in getting their initiative, the Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Initiative, on the June 1998 Ballot as a constitutional amendment. Currently, state, regional, and local governments are allowed flexibility to contract with private firms, on a competitive basis, to design a variety of capital projects. This process allows government the essential flexibility to use private firms to deliver a project on time and cost effectively. The Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Initiative completely changes the process by giving the State a virtual monopoly on designing every significant capital project. This will thereby cause cities, counties, schools, special districts, and regional governments to use the State to design roads, parks, hospitals, schools, and other critical structures. This may include all engineering design, geological, and environmental work related to the particular project. This initiative would also make the State Controller the chief design manager for the State. This is problematic in that the Controller's office is not equipped to manage a program of this magnitude (e.g., staff, equipment, fiscal resources, etc.). Because of this inexperience and the time needed to manage the process, it is estimated that the Controller's Office would slow down the process for a variety of capital improvements statewide, regardless oflocal priorities. This initiative is currently opposed by several professional organizations in the building trade industry, as well as several local governments and regional taxpayer associations. Recorded opposition to date includes: . 50 Statewide Associations 12 Counties 90 Cities 36 School Districts 21 Local Government Agencies 70 Irrigation and Water Districts 28 Regional and Local Business Organizations ~ti~ir~~f7 ',,"--,~'~.. !!i r..l, ~ ~ . . . . I -,.,......~~ L~ -ard Ath~!.hYW1is . IDUBLINWPD I ~ ~ I~ URS Greiner Job # January 27, 1998 Page 2 Passage of this initiative will have serious consequences for The Tri-Valley and all ofCaliforrua. We need to begin pooling our resources and concentrating our efforts to educate our staff and the general public on this initiative. I have attached some information for you to review, including a Resolution and opposition form for your endorsement We are counting on your support in the efforts to defeat this initiative. Please contact me or Melania Ciapponi at 510/463-2000 if you have any questions or would like to discuss this initiative further. Information may also be obtained through the Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California (CELSOC) web site at www.celsoc.org Thank you in advance for your interest and support. Very truly yours, URS Greiner, Inc. ~ Thomas M. Wintch, PE, TE Vice President \DDBLlN.WPD . . . ,~ CELSOC :76(j/c School Districts, Cities and Counties Oppose the PECG Initiative! . Here are the school districts. cities and counties currently opposed to the "Competition Killer Initiative" sponsored by PECG, a s~te employees group. More and more local governing bodies are opposing me initiative every day. The votes to oppose are almost always unanimous and cross the whole political spectrum. These locally elected officials rightly see that the PECG initiative would increase the power of the state bureaucracy and cause a dramatic loss of local control.' , . COUNTIES' . Calavares County Board of Supervisors Fresno County Board of Supervisors Humboldt County Board of Supervisors Kings County Board of Supervisors Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors Northern California County Supervisors Association Orange County Board of Supervisors Placer County Board of SUp"'...rvisors Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Sonoma County Board of Supervisors Trinity County Board of Supervisors Yolo County Board of Supervisors . --. CITiES -- '.' . Alameda City Council Antioch City Council Barstow City Council Belmont City Council Belvedere City Council Camarillo City Council Cerritos City Council Chula Vista City Council City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County City of Campbell CloverdaJe City Council Colfax City Council Corcoran City Council Corona City Council Cotati City Council Covina City Council Cupenino City Council Daly City City Council Dixon City Council Duane City Council Enciniras City Council Eureka City Council Exeter City Council Fon Bragg City Council Fontana City Council . Fonuna City Council Fresno City Council 8 Garden Grove City Council Gonzales City Council Gridley City Council Hanford City Council Hawaiian Gardens City Council Healdsburg City Council Hennosa Beach City Council Indian Wells City Council Jackson City Council La Palma City Council Laguna Hills City Council Lancaster City Council Livermore City Council Los Banos City Council Marin County Council of Mayors and Council members Mill Valley City Council Monterey Park City Council National City City Council Noreo City Council NovalO City Council Orland City Council Palos Verdes Estates City Council PJeasanton City Council Ponerville City Council Poway City Council Rancho Mirage City Council Redondo Beach City Council Rohnett Park City Council RoIling Hills Estates City Council San Bruno City Council San Gabriel Valley of Governments San Jose City Council San Luis Obispo City Council San Mateo City Council San Rafael City Council Santa Barbara City Council Santa Clara County Cities Association Santa Cruz City Council Santa Maria City Council Santa Paula City Council Sebastopol City Council Sonoma City Council South San Francisco City Council Stockton City Council Sunnyvale City Council Taft City Council Temecula City Council Tiburon City Council Tulare City Council Ukiah City Council Visalia City Council Wesuninister City Council \\!'jnrers City Council Woodland City Council SCHOOL DJSTRJCTS Alhambra School District Alum Rock School District Anaheim City School District Antioch Unified School District Barstow Community College District B~l Union Elementary School Cajon Valley Union School District Cbula VISta Elementary School District Clo\'is Unified School District College of Sequoias Community College District East Side Union High School District Hanford Joint Union High School Junction School District Kerman Unified School District KingsbllIl: Joint Union High School District Laton Unified School District Lincoln Unified School District Lodi Unified School District Milpiras Unified School District Mojave Unified School District Napa Valley Unified School District New Haven Unified School Disoict Pasadena Unified School District Placer Union High School District Ponerville Union High School District Rio Bravo-Greeley Union School District San Juan Unified School District San Luis Obispo County Board of Education San Pasqua! Union School District South Bay Union School District Tulare City School District Tulare Joint Union High School District Turlock School Districts Vacaville Unified School District Val Verde Unified School District West Fresno School District . Business Council Officers Ch&irm.n of th. SNrd StC"l"e T aa:aer T a.DeI" bu:.raD~ BnNtcn 1'1UJdent To... O'MaIIcy V"~~t J. Bruce up..! TK Oonn eo...paIl)' Secnrbll)' Midode SiIYa P.cifIC Cas 4< El<ctric Co...poay Chief FIn.ncJ.J Ofric<<' Weld.. MOI'doIod M_OJNI 4< Dovil Business Council Directors >>0"" AJJe8 u~ Krwia Booelr. TK N.1ioaoI Food Laboratory 1IIc. Toaya..rp. Lo...-"" ~ N.t'f Lob Joe CoI.....,. U.s. Boak .r CoIifonlio !'ot c.t<:IIo CrowD CKnoIet Robert Eaco Eaco Pnoperti<:s Co. EM TRota'l a..ck FarlllOll F.........t Baak Jilll GIoid_ Sipotare Pnopertjer Steft CillOoar Lc:inIre Sporu, u.c. Marcy Feit Voller Con Health S)"kIO 'IDo..... H_ Soadio N.tioDOl Lob Marty la4erbi_ Martia ~Atty. Pat Kaaoa carrriad R_ Con,- U.s. Iloak or CoIironoU Foothill 1lMsi.... >>.vid RODDa. Volley Times Robert Silva DcSiI... G....up Mark S""""'"Y a.cicada Mktg. & Safes Corp. Linda Todd VavriDek, T riae. Day & Ol. PbU Weate 'Weak Viaeyanb TDolllU Waata GreiDer, be.. . ",.. :~tf!l/P' f rff"':,' ~'I:,-: '. '. '3': {.:- ;' ::: (.I,~ '. "\ Cj ( L/ 1/d- ey ess ncil ~r-,.....~~;,.-__ r~ =. ._.. _ - ; <:~ .::.. =_ .: . UEL: 1 - 1:::'37 C;'.<, ." ........ ......._6; iI..-'_ To: Busint:ss Council?vlt:mbers Enclosed for yom review are the 1vlinutes from the };ovember 25, 1997 Business Council Board Meeting. We call your attention to the Board Presentation by Dick Kam regarding proposed state legislative initiative, "Government Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment". The Business Council Board approved a resolution opposing this Initiative. TI1is bill would severely limit, if not eliminate, the ability of private companies to bid on state contracts relating to design and engineerin& architectural, landscape architecture, smveyIDg, environmental, or geology services, or for services such as construction, operations or maintenance. Our concern is that, rather than provide the cost savings inferred by the title of the initiative) if approved, the state would be required to hire up to. 12,000 new ~ployees at a cost of $1.5 billion a year. Eqwilly important is schedule performance and quality. 'We believe schedule performance and project quality are key factors in contract awards and performance, yet such factors ~ill not be part of the selection criteria - only cost. The Initiative may not have a direct bearing on your business. but it will certainly impac. your ta"{ dollars, as well as new or improved highways, schools, hospitlls, parks, etc. Recorded opposition to the measure to date includes: . 50 StateVvide Associations . 12 Counties . 90 Cities . 36 School Districts . 21 Local Government Agencies . 70 Inigation and \Vater Districts . 28 RegioruU and Local Business Organizations If you want to help finance the campaign against this Initiative, please contact the . Taxpayers Fed Up \Vlth 1\-10re State Bureaucracy at 111 Anza Blv<L #406~ Bur1ingame~ CA 94010, or call (415) 340-0470. Business CounciIrepre~'"Iltative, DickKarn (510) 846-7907. is also available to respond to your questions. Steve Tanner Chairman of the Board T ri- Valley Business Council . P.O. Box 3258 A Livermore, CA 94551-3258 ... (510) 816-5927 ... FAX (510) 463-0192 " . \ \ ~'-9~nT!I!P' :\((~(jli~R ---.-LW. -S 4 Jd- DmD COMPETITION KillER INITIATIVE . RECEIVED Taxpaver Report JUL 1 61997 A st~te bureaucrats ~roup (Professional Engineers in California Govemment) has spent nearly $2 milHon to place an initiatk on the next state~: ballot the~ claim helps taxpayers. But it's really a Competition Killer. It would create a rigged bidding system to restri::t private sedor competition for deSign and engineering projects, increase taxpayer costs and delay bU/7ding new sdlools and other vitti projects. Cities and Counties Oppose Competition Killer "Ibe initiative would be expected to reduce local control, create major po-. tentia! delays of county projects, af- fect local jobs and economies and in- crease State Controller costs by about S 1 million annually. " The League of California Cities joined dozens of local governments recenfiy in the fight to defeat the Corn- - petition Killer Initiative. The core issue with the Competi- tion Killer Initiative is a simple one: Should virtually all design and engi- neering project development work for local gov- ernment be done by state employees instead of contractors hired and managed by local city councils and rounty super- visors? Any park, public oorks, school, road or jail project is captured by this initia- tive if any state funding is involved in- cluding band funding - or if the state has any ownership, liability or respon- sibiiity for construction, operation or maintenance. Eliminates local control over infrastructure projects. This initiative creates a rigged bid- ding system that effectively means most infrastructure projects would be designed only by the State of California, not private contractors that are accountable to the needs of local cities. New State Bureaucracy Would Delay Local Projects Building new projects already takes too long. But this initiative would add a whole newlayerofbureau~. The initiative requires that each and every Joe a I project be reviewed by the S tat e Conlroler's Office along with tens of thousands of other state, local and private building projects, Ber-vause the measure speci- fies no deadline by which this office must act, it would become a project bottleneck further delaying projects that are needed now. Nonna! con~t conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within the budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative, and whafs more local governments would have no say in the prcrvess. County of Los Angeles Schools Boards Say, "StOD the Competition Killer" Concerned it would cause delays in school construction, the California School Boards Association (CSBA) representing more than 1,000 K-12 schoo! districts throughout the state, joined the fight against the Competi- tion Killer, 'This initiative reflects bad public policy and will have a profound effect on school districts,' said CSBA Presi- dent Juanita Haugen. 'The initiative will likely result in fur- ther delays in the approval process for school construction. This comes at a time when districts are trying to find more classroom space to meet class- size reduction needs." COPy-Cat legislation Amended Due to strong opposition from schools, health care and local govern- ments, the Competition Killer copycat bills (S8 479 and AB 376) were radi- cally amended as they left their houses of origin. Despite PECG's protestations to the contrary, these bills as introduced were identK;a1 to the PECG Initiafive and did indeed apply to virtually all state and local infrastructure projects including school construcfion. They now only ap- ply to local and state transportation projects. Would a State Bureaucrats Group Reallv Spend $2 Million Just to Help Taxpavers;J Its promoters woiJld like you. to befleve their measure would protect taxpayers and ensure competitive bidding. But if that's true, why are the California Taxpayers' Associa- tion, California Chamber of Com- merce, California HealthCare Asso- ciation, California T ransitAssociafion, California Highway Users Confer- ence, California Minority and Womens Businesses Coalition among those who oppose it Promoters Claims vs. The Facts ClAIM: The Competition Killer Initiative Would Save Taxpayer \ Dollars Because. State Engineers Are \, Cheaper than Private ! Sector Laoor. FACT: Initiative promoters base their claim on a deceptive study which bi- ases public sector costs downward I by mixing in low-wage clerical staff I and does not even consider over- I , head costs, Not taking overhead costs into ac- count is a very big mistake when you consider an agency like CALTRANS is much more top heavy than trans- poru3tion departments in otherstates. A nationwide study found that CALTRANS administrative costs are almost twice as high as the national average. BOTTOM LINE: The Competition Killer Initiative in- creases taxpayers costs by up to $1.5 billion a year because the state would be forced to hire up to 12,000 new employees. 6 ~ (;/--- PEeG v. CALTRANS Decision In 3 disappointment for California taxpayers, the California Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of keep- ing some restrictions on private sec- tor design and engineering contracts. However, the court decision permits contracting out in cases where the state could not adequately and com- petentiy perform the wori< such as (1) personnel shortage?, (2) earthquakes, (3) economic efficiencies (4) new state function and (5) higher skiJ/s. Despite the court decision, the Competition Killer Initiative remains on the ballot, and will become part of the Califomia Constitution if adopted. The scope of the Competition Killer Initia- tive goes far beyond this court deci- sion in restricting private sector firms from competing for design and engi- neering contracts. The initiative cov- ers virtually every state, local, and pri- vate project including schools, high- ways, transit, water projects, flood control and other key infrastructure projects. 100,000 lOST JOBS Exceptfor its promoters, no one dis- putes that the Competition Killer Ini- tiative would create bureaucratic gridlock delaying thousands of public works projects. This means delays in construction funding for vital projects. And no con- struction funding means no construc- tion jobs. Conservative estimates are that 100,000 construction and related jobs would be lost in the first two years alone due to the construction delays caused by the Competition Killer, Taxpayers Fed Up With More S'-&.ate Bureaucracy (Fed Up!) · A coalition of business, engineers, architects and taxpayers 111 Arrz:a Blvd., Suite 406 . Buriingame, CA 94010. (415) 340-0470. fax: (415) 340-1740 We gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of CH2M Hill and Kleinfelder, Inc. ~~- ( pet) '<7 WOULD A STATE BUREAUCRATS' ~NION REALLY SPEND $2 MILLION JUST TO HELP TAXPAYERS? I \ \ - A state bureaucrats' union has spent nearly $2 million to place an initiative on the next stateWIde ballot they claim helps taxpayers. But its rea//y a COMPETlnON KIlLER. If would create a ri..qged bidding system to block private sector compefifion and ensure virtually all school transit flood control, highway and park projects are designed and engineered only by state bureaucrats. f\TIU = ..t::J. c:::;;.:::) THE COMPETITION KILLER INITIATIVE IS NOT ABOUT TAXPAYER PROTECTION OR COMPETITIVE BIDDING! ? ? This is a cleverly disguised scheme bankrolled by a bureaucrats' union to feather its 000 nest at me expense of Califomia taxpayers, Its promoters would like you to believe mis measure would protect taxpayers and ensure competitive bidding. But if thafs irue, 'Why are me Califomia Tax- pc.ryers' Association, California Chamber of Commerce, Califomia Health-care I\ssocianon (hospitals), Califomia Transit ,Association, Califomia Highway Users Conference, California Minority and Womens Business Association, local school groups, cities and counties among mose 'Who oppose it? CREATES A RIGGED BIDDING SYSTEM. ? ? ? Buried in the fine print is a provision that rigs the system - virtually shuffing out compeiffion from private architects and engineers in building bridges, fjcx:xj con- iTol projects, schools, parks, highways and moss iTansit. Here's how mis insider deal would work: The iniTIative would allow state bureau- crat costs to appear artificially low by ignoring essential job expenses such os employee compensanon, rent, utiliTIes, phones and office expenses os well as insurance, health and safety experts, legal and capital costs. California taxpayers would be forced to ante up billions of dollars to add thousands of new bureaucrats to the state payroll. Thafs a staggering cost to rig me system against fair and honest private sector competition. . <7 r/ /{J- VITAL PROJECTS WOULD A THE STATE BUREAUCRACY WOULD BE BE BOGGED DOWN IN A F~ UNACCOUNTABLE AND LOCAL . BUREAUCRATIC BlACK ~f CONTROL WOULD BE LOST. HOLE! P Virtually every CaIifomia school and hos- p This initiafive would create a virtual Pub- pital has been designed by private firms, lie Works Czar by_ gMng one politician But under mis initiative, schools, hospi- - the state controller - enormous tals, flood control levees, jails and even power to decide on tens of 'thousands golf courses would be held hostage by of projects worth billions of dollars, That's an unaccountable state bureaucracy. just too much pOwer to give one pOU- r Normal contract condifions, such as de- tician. Iivering a project on schedule and within ? me budget are conspicuously missing Because 'the inifiative specifies no dead- from this initiative. And local govem- line by which 'this Public Works Czar must ments would have no say in 'the pro- act, that office would become a cess, proiect bottleneck indefinitely delay- ing vital schoo!- highway, transit, flood ? The inifiative would 'threaten safety. By control and bridge projects. eliminating private sector experts on im- portant seismic and flood control Tne complete lack of any engineering projects proven experience would be or architectural experience in 'the state ignored and safety compromised, controller's office, coupled with 'the enor- mous responsibilities of managing 'the AND UP TO 100,000 PRIVATE SECTOR P process, would inevitably delay impor- tant projects such as replaCing 'the Bay JOBS COULD BE LOST! Bridge, construction of 'the Alameda Rail. ? Up to 1 00,000 private construction and Corridor in Los Angeles and seismic ret- related jobs could be lost in me first two rants mroughout 1he state. years alone, as a result of construction delays caused by this initiafive. 4/3/97 '. l' 4 /;,L WHY ACWAAND LOCAL WATER DISTRICTS OPPOSE THE COMPEnTION KlLLEIlINITIATIVE ~V. ~ ~ -<::? <::r .c:::::J ~ ~ &=Jsi? c::> c>- ~ ...r The ACWA Board of Directors officially opposed /he so-called "Govemment Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Initiafiverl because it would eliminate local control of wafer projects and create long delays for vital local projects. ~ WHY IS THE COMPETITION. ~ KILLER ON THE BALLOT? , A state bureaucra1s' union (Professioool Engineers in Cafifomia Govemment) has spent more man $2 mi1/ion to place an initiative on me ballot to restrict private sector competiiion and ensure virtually all water treatment, water supply, school, transit, highway and flood con- trol projects are designed and engineered only by state bureaucrats, SCOPE OF THE INITIATIVE: The initiaiive applies to all design and engineer- ing projects at the state .or local level if mey in- clude any state funds or if the contract involves a project for vJ1ich the state will have owner- ship, liability or responsibility, ELIMINATES LOCAL CONTROL OVER WATER PROJECTS. This initiaiive creates a rigged bidding system ihat effectively means water projects would be designed only byme State of Califomia, not private contractors that are ac- countable to the needs of local water districts, CREATES NEW STATE BUREAUCRACY TO DELAY WATER PROJECTS: Building new water projects already takes too long. But mis initiative would add a whole new layer of bureaucracy. The initiative requires that each and every water project be reviewed by the State Controllers Office along with tens of ihousands of other state, local and private build- ing projects. Because the measure specifies no deadline by which this office must act, it would become a project boffleneckfurther delaying water projects mat are needed now, Normal contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within me budget are conspicuously missing from this initiaiive, and, whafs more, local water districts would hove no say in the process. WHO IS OPPOSED? A large coalition including the Associaiion of Califomia Water Agencies (ACWA), Califomia 1\5- sociation of Sanitation Agencies, Associated Genera! Contractors of Califomia, Califomia Tran- sit /l.ssociation, Califomia T oxpayers Association, Caiifomia HeaHhcare A.sscx::;ioiion, Consuliing En- gineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia, Ameri- can Insiitute of Architects, Califomia Council, Califomia Chamber of Commerce, Los Ange- les County, City of San Jose and many others. Californians Fed Up With More sterle Bureaucrccy! A CooHtion of business, engineers, architects and taxpayers. 111 krza BOLJ}evard #406. Burlingame, CA 9401 0 . (415) 340-0470. FAX: (415) 340-1740 The COMPETITION KILLER Initiative SECTION 1. TITLE This Ul snail be known and may be cited as the "Government Cost Savings and TaxpaYeI Prote::tion Amendment." SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of the people of the State of Carlfomia in enacting this measure that engineering, architectural, and similar services pro- vided by the state and certain other enlilies.be fumished at the low- est cost to iaxpayers, consistent with quality, health, safety, and the pUblic interest; that contracts for such services be awarded through a competitive bidding process, free of undue political influence; and Ihal contractors be held fully responsible for the performance of their contracts. THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OFTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTS FOR ENGIN~KING. ARCHITECTURAL AND SIMILAR SERVICES Ar1icIe VII. section 12 is hereby added to the California Conslilulion to read: (a) This section shan apply to contracts for enoineerino. ar- chitectwal.landscaoe an::hi1ec1ur.31. survevinc. environmental. or en- oineerinc ceoloov services awarded by the state of California or by any state agency to any public or private entity. As used in this section, "~e agency" means every state office officer, agency, de- partment, division, bureau, board, and commission but does not in- clude the University of Carrfornia, the California State University and Colleges, and local public entities. 'State agency' also includes a state agency acting jointly with another state agency or with a local publi:: enlily. As used in this sec1ion, 'Iocal public entity" means any city, county, city and county, including a chartered city or county, public or municipal corporation, s:;hool dis!1ic!, special district, authoriiy, or other pub)i:: entity formed for the local performance of governmental and proprietary fundions wifhin limited boundaries. .Lo::al public entiiy" also includes two or more local public entities ading jointly. all money approprial_ . _' ",' ;~;u, _ ;UI penditure by the state or 2 state agen::y and all money inciuded in special funds that the state or a state agen:;y controls. (c) Prior to the award of any contract covered by this section, the Controller shall prepare and verify an anal)'Sis of the cost of per- forming the wor)( using state civil service employees ano the' cost of the contra..'i. In comparing cost.s, the cost of performing the work using slate civil service employe<>...s shall include onlv the additional dire:1 costs to the state to provide the same services as the contdc- tor, and the c:ost of the cont.-a::! shall inciude all anticipated contra::! Continued A bogus .!nd deceptive title dreamed up by initiative promoters to deceive voters. Ask yourself. Would a state bureaucrats' union really spend $2 million to help l4XPay- mZ Promoters say their intent is competitive bidding. If that's true why are the California Taxpayers' Assodation, Califor- nia Chamber of Commerce, California Healthcare Associa- tion, local school groups, dties and counties against it among many others? This section was written to hide what the measure would really do: create a ri~ed biddillE system to block private sector competition from private architects and engineers in building bridges, flood control projects, schools, parks, highways, schools and prisons. This was written specifically by the state bureaucrats to cap1l1re all design and engineering work for bridg<>..5, high- ways, mass mnsit, prisons, schools, flood control and other projects. If it becomes law, the state would be forced to hire UP to 12.0DO new employees at a cost of S 1.5 biHion a year. The initiative would threaten safety. By eliminating private senor experts on important seismic and flood control projects proven experience would be ignored and safety compromised. Almost every California school and hospital has been designed by private fillllS. But under this section virtually all schools, hospitals, flood control levees and jails will be designed by rote employees. LOud control would be lost under this seetion because local projects could be held hostage by an unaccountable state bureaucracy. Nonnal conmet conditions such as deiivering a project on schedule and within budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative. And local governments would have no say in the process. Tnis section creates a riE\!ed bidding system - virtually / shutting out competition from private architecr.s and enEineers. Herr' 5 where the initiative would allow Slate bureaucrat com to appear artificialiy low by ignoring essential job expenses such as employee -compensation, rent, utiiities, phones and office expenses as well as insurance, health and safety experts, legal and capital costs. No such breaks for privau: companies, however, who must include these real- wond expenses in their bids. lP 41~ ". .'". . . ..... ....::.;:: .:'- . ..... .".::: . ,':.", ......... ".' '", .........; I · coS's an8 all :::s:s to be incurred by the state, stale agencies, and the comra::!in; entity for the bidding, e~-aluation, and contra:: award process and lor inspecting, supe;v;.sing, verifying, monitoring, and overseeing the contra:!. (d) The cont'Clct shall not be awarded if either of the lollowing conditions is lil"..t (1) the Controller's analysis concludes that ~tate civil servi::e employe<>..5 can perform the work a! less cost than the cost of !he contract, unless the services are such an urgent nature that pubJi: inteT"..st, health, or safety requires award of the contract or (2) the Controlier or the contracting entity concludeS that the con- tract would not be in the public interest, would have an adverse ir&- pact on pubfic health or safety, or would result in lower Quality work than if s:ate civD service employe<>..5 performed the services. ( e) Except for contracts for which a delay resufling from the competilive bidding process would endanger public health or safety, every contract, induding amendments, covered by this section that exce<>...ds iifty thousand dollars ($50,000), adjusted annually to reflect changes in the appropriate consumer price index as determined by the Controller, shall be awarded through a publicized competitive bidding pJ'OCO..5S involving sealed bids. Each contract shall be awarded to the Iow<>...st Quarrfied bidder. If the contract cost based on the lowest QuarRied bid exceeds the anti::ipated contract costs the Controller estimated pursuant to subsection (c), the Controller shall prepare and verify a revised analysis using the contract bid cost, and that revised analysis shall be used in appiying subsection (d). (f) For every contract covered by this section, the contractor hall 25SUlTle full responsibility and liability for its performance of the ntrii::: and she:: d5fend, indemnify, and hold the state, the con- tacting entity, and their agents and employe<>..5 harmless lrom any legal a::iion resulting from the performance of the contract (g) Tnis section shall not be applied in a manner that will re- sult in the loss of iederallunding to the contracting entity lor con- tracts lor service. SECTION 4. S=vERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or its application to any person or circull's.an::e is held invalid, that invalidity shall no! affect other pro- visions or appli:aiions of the Amendment which can be given effect without the invaiid provision or applicafion, and to this end the provi- sions of this Amendment are severable. SECTION 5. APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT LAW Nothing in this Amendment shall expand or restrict the stale's consti- tutional authority, as determined by decisions of the Califomia Su- preme Court and California Courts of Appsal In effect on the effec- tive daIe of this Amendment, to enter into contracts with private or public errtrJo..5. SECTION 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES To the enent t".at any other measure on the same subject shall be on the ballot at the saine election, it is the intent of the '~ot~~ that'th.is:~: ~--.... -,.- ~... . - , .. -....... . -. . -asure be deemed; to the maxrriilimeXfeiJrpossible,-no~t? be in,' "nfiict with suc.'l other measure,.butrather tr.at thismeaSuk'should ' be harmonized with the other ffi<'..asure. These sections would mare a bureaucratic black hole for vi;:a! school, trilnspor..ation, flood conrrol, seismic safety and other projeas. Tne initiative creates a virtUal Public Works Czar by givin~ one politician - the stlre controDer - enormous power to deode on rens of thousands of projects worth bilfions of dollars. That's ;ust too much Dower to l!iYu!n.tPJiliti.c;ian, BeGluse the initiative specifies no deadline by which this Public Works Czar must act, that offire would become a proiect bottleneck indefinitely delaying vital school, highway, trilnsi4 flood control and bridge projects. The complete lack of any engineering or architectural experience in the state controTIer's office, coupled with the enormous responsibifnies of managing the process, wmilil inevitably delay important projects such as reDlacin!! the ~ay Bridge, construction of the Alameda Rail Corridor in iJ1.s Angeles and seismic retrofits throughout the state. This bogus section talks about competitive bidding. But beGluse of the rigged cost-comparison there won't be any competitive bidding for design and engineering work. Only stare bureaucrats will get these jobs, and taxpayers will pay the price. Contrilctors are already fulfy p'..5ponsible for their work and GIn lose their licenses and oment and furore business if they don't perform. But this section is unfair because it requires design consultants to be p'..5ponsibie for the mistlkes of others indudin~ the stare bureaucrats Engineering and archirectUral services are the gateway to construction. As the state is denied these privare sector services up to 100,000 private construction and relared jobs could be lost in the fim two years alone, as a result of construction delays caused by this initiative. Tne initiative would be locked into the California Constil1l- tion and would supersede all arrrent procurement staMes. To correct any flaWS, another constinrrional ballot issue and statewide vote would be required. Even the legislature couldn't correct the serious flaws. Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy 111 Anz:a Blvd. #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 (415) 340-0470 10# 960380 -~- / / 4 JJ- -. . -. -. .".-::-0; .:...:. ....... /) 1 /J- RESOLUTION NO. - 98 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN . 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: 11: OPPOSING THE "GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS AND TAXPAYERS PROTECTION AMENDMENT" (pECG INITIATIVE) WHEREAS, State, regional and local governments currently have control of design and contract administration for local projects; and WHEREAS, the "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" (pECG initiative) would change this process by giving the State control of Capital Project design; and WHEREAS, this would cause the local agency to lose control of the design of its projects; and WHEREAS, this loss of control could cause project delays and loss of quality control; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin opposes the so-called "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" (pECG initiative). PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March, 1998. . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk g:\agenmisc\resopecg . ~v~:;~r~ & .....,^~ ~~~ t ~_ ^--, ~ b 00(/~L~'Yl