Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09231997 - C75 C.71, C.72, C.73, C.74, and C.75 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on September 23, 1997 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Rogers, Uilkema, Gerber, Canciamilla, and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None SUBJECT: Correspondence C.71 LETTER, dated September 9, 1997, from Harold Burnett, President, Crockett Community Foundation, P.O. Box 155, Crockett, CA 94525, requesting the allocation of taxes from the Crockett Co-Generation Plant to five local agencies for specified uses of benefit to Crockett. *****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR C.72 LETTER, dated September 12, 1997, from Julie Pierce, Chair, Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC), 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, urging the Board to analyze the full impacts and implications of the City of Pittsburg's Proposed Southeast Area Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation project in the context of established County Policy. *****REFERRED TO INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR C.73 LETTER, dated September 12, 1997, from Julie Pierce, Chair, Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC), 100 Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill, CA 94523, requesting additional time to review and prepare comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report fro the Amendments to the Pleasant Hill BART Station Specific Plan. *****REFERRED TO INTERIM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR C.74 LETTER, dated September 8, 1997, from Molly B. Mullikin and Ronald L. Peck, 1031 Ulfinian Way, Martinez, CA 94553, regarding the cost and service provided by TCI Televents. *****REFERRED TO CABLE TV ADMINISTRATOR C.75 LETTER, dated September 12, 1997, from David Fogarty, Deputy Campaign Director, Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy, 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406, j Burlingame, CA 94010, requesting the Board to take a position in proposition to a proposed ballot initiative that would prohibit the awarding of contracts for the I engineering or design of projects that involve "State funds"unless the contractor provides those services at a lower cost than State civil service employees. *****REFERRED TO COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the above recommendations as noted(*****) are APPROVED. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ryry� / �7 ATTESTED 20 /�; Phil Batch or,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator / By Deputy Deputy c.c.Correspondents (5) County Administrator Interim Community Development Director Cable TV Administrator a TAXPAYERS FEU Up WITh MORE STATEBUREAUCRACY Califomia Chamber of Commerce RECEIVED California Taxpayers'Association J Califomia School Boards Association September 12, 1997 Coalition forAdequate School 1619977, Housing Califomia Healthcare Association League of Califomia Cities Dear Board of Supervisors Chair: CLERK BOARD OF SUPERVISOK, Associated General Contractors of CONTRA COSTA CO. Califomia Association of Califomia Water Please join Los Angeles, Sonoma, Fresno, Humboldt, Santa Cruz and Agencies Califomia Building Industry Kings counties along with the League of California Cities in opposing a Association measure on the June, 1998 ballot that would adversely impact all California Califomia Transit Association Califomia Manufacturers Association counties. Califomia Highway Users Conference Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of Califomia We need your Boards immediate opposition to this proposition, that if American Institute of Architects, passed, would eliminate your county's control over local infrastructure Califomia Council Latin Business Association projects and would cause years of delays in building vitally needed projects. Califomia Business Properties Any park, public works, road or jail project is captured by this initiative if any Association Califomia Association of Sanitation state funding is involved including bond funding -- or if the state has any Agencies ownership, liability or responsibility for construction, operation or Califomia Contract Cities Association Association for Califomia Tort Reform maintenance. Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters Califomia Minority and Women The core issue of the initiative, sponsored by the Professional Businesses Coalition Engineers in California Government (PECG), is a simple one: Should Asian American Architects Engineers Association virtually all design and engineering project development work be done by American Planning Association, state employees instead of contractors hired and managed by your county? Califomia Chapter American Society of Civil Engineers Califomia Land Surveyors How would the initiative impact your county? The initiative would Association Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes eliminate local control over infrastructure projects. It would create a Structural Engineers Association of rigged bidding system guaranteeing that most infrastructure projects would be Califomia American Consulting Engineers designed only by state employees, not private contractors who are accountable Council to the needs of local communities. Painting&Decorating Contractors of Califomia Printing Industries of Califomia It would delay important local projects. Building new projects Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors already takes too long. Under this initiative, a whole new layer of Riverside County Transportation bureaucracy at the State Controller's Office would be created to review each Commission San Jose City Council and every local project along with tens of thousands of other state, local and San Juan Unified School District private building projects. Because the measure specifies no deadline by which Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County this office must act, it would become a project bottleneck further delaying Santa Clara County Cities projects that are needed now. Association City and County Association of Governments of San Mateo County Normal contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule Contra Costa Transportation Authority Santa Clara Valley Manufacturing and within the budget are conspicuously missing from this initiative and, Group what's more, local city councils would have no say in the process. Orange County Business Council United Chambers of Commerce West San Bernardino County Water District partial list TAXPAYERS FEd Up W1Th MORE STATE BUREAUCRACY (FEd Up)! A COALITION OI bUSINESS, ENGINEERS, ARChiTECTS ANd TAXPAYERS. 111 ANZA BOUIEVARd, SUITE 406 BURIINGAME,CA 94010 • (415)340-0470 - FAX: (415)340-1740 - TAX ID #960380 9 t-M-M-T) ,« Who is behind the initiative? A state engineers' group, the Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), has spent $2.1 million to put it on the ballot. This initiative is part of a decade-long strategy by PECG to prevent private sector competition on design and engineering projects. Who is opposed? A large and growing coalition including Los Angeles, Sonoma, Fresno, Humboldt, Kings, and Santa Cruz counties, the League of California Cities, California Special Districts Ass'n, California Contract Cities Ass'n, California School Boards Ass'n, Coalition for Adequate School Housing (CASH), California Minority and Women Businesses Coalition, Associated General Contractors of California, California Transit Ass'n, California Taxpayers Ass'n, Ass'n of California Water Agencies, California Healthcare Ass'n, Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California, American Institute of Architects, California Council, California Chamber of Commerce, City of San Jose and many others. I urge your county to adopt a resolution opposition this initiative (a sample resolution is enclosed). If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Dana Rambo at(415) 340-0470. Thank you for your immediate consideration. Sincerely, r David Fogarty Deputy Campaign Director enclosures 1. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS tro r ' • 900 SOUTH FREMONT AVENUE ALHAMBRA.CALIFORNIA 9 1103-1131 HARRY W. STONE.Dlreeur Telephau:(111)459-3100 ADOR.FSS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: F.O.HOX 1460 ALHA?a&A.CALIFORNIA 9190:-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE March 12 , 1996 REFER TOFILE: AS-0 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Los Angeles 383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration ADOPTFn 500 West Temple StreetLos Angeles, California 90012 rA. ' SOARF , 1 . cOUKrY c F Dear Supervisors : PROPOSED BALLOT INITIATIVE f4 APF 2 1996 CONCERNING NON-CONTRACTING OUT '• FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES �O=NE ALL SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICTS STURGES -' 3-VOTES EXECUTIVE OFFICER RECOMMENDATION$: That your Board: 1 . Oppose the proposed ballot Initiative that would prohibit the awarding of contracts for the engineering or design of projects that involve "State funds" unless the contractor provides those services at a lower cost than State civil service employees . 2 . Issue a public statement to urge all citizens not to sign or circulate the Initiative petitions so that it does not receive enough signatures to qualify for placement before the voters at the November 1996 election. 3 . Request the County Supervisors Association of California and the League of California Cities and other interested parties, to join in opposition of this Initiative and urge their citizens not to sign or circulate the Initiative petition. . Under existing law, State and local agencies may award contracts for engineering, architectural, surveying, environmental , or engineering geology services (Services) for projects . Existing law also permits the award of contracts for these Services to public or Honorable Board of Supervisors March 12 , 1996 Page 2 private entities when State and local agencies act jointly. This proposed Initiative would prohibit 'the awarding of these contracts whenever they involve the expenditure of "State funds, " if the State Controller found that State civil service workers could perform the work at a lower cost than the cost of the contract . The Initiative excepts from its provisions contracts for Services for which there is an urgent need or where a delay would endanger the public interest, health, or safety, "State funds" are defined in the Initiative as meaning: 1) any money appropriated by the Legislature for expenditure by the State or a State agency, or 2) all money included in special funds that the State or a State agency controls . Exactly what constitutes "special funds" is not defined within the Initiative . However, Initiative proponents would undoubtedly argue that not only do revenues from the Gas Tax and the Bridge Seismic Retrofit Program fall under the constraints of the Initiative but so do Federal funds from agencies such as FEMA. The Initiative could result in delaying the construction and repair of critically needed infrastructure which could, among its many ramifications, impede the county' s earthquake recovery program for many years . Further, the Initiative outlines artificially biased cost comparison factors that render it virtually impossible for any other publio__or private firm to be cost-competitive with State civil service employees . The Initiative would reduce local control and authority over a multitude of projects and programs and instead transfer authority to the State . The Initiative does not allow within its standard evaluative process factors such as expertise, reliability, responsibility, liability, or timeliness of delivery. As such, the initiative ignores existing law, Section 4526 of the Government Code, that specifically requires the selection of firms supplying Services to be based upon "demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the i Honorable Board of Supervisors March 12 , 1996 Page 3 services required. " The Initiative' s sole determinant to handling these Services, under normal business conditions, is a cost comparison based upon a biased formula. This formula would require the cost comparison to be based upon "only the additional direct costs to the State" as opposed to requiring private or non-State entities to include all anticipated contract costa, all costs incurred by the State for the bidding/evaluation/awarding process, and all costs to inspect, supervise, verify, monitor, and oversee the project . Within the Initiative there are no provisio.^.s that ensure prompt and satisfactory performance from State civil service employees if in fact a contract cannot be awarded to other entities because of the Initiative' s provisions . It can be expected that the ramifications of the Initiative will result in delays due to the time required for the State Controller' s cost analysis, as well as from the State' s performance of these Services and, therefore, will increase costs . It is estimated that this Initiative will cost the State Controller' s Office $1 million annually to implement . I therefore recommend, because of the adverse effects the Initiative would have on both public and local private entities, that this proposed Initiative be opposed by Los Angeles County. Respectfully submitted, HARRY W. STONE Director of Public Works PAG DISK1/M3 cc : County Counsel 04-02-96 A ?=dA It= ho. 43 POS=Cef Cbl 'TEM GOY=tq'..F CST a&VMN3S A'ZD TXXPAXER PRD'I'E=CK nZ17Z;.TIVS Oise the prcpo8cd ballot Initiative that would prohibit the awarci.ir,q of ec:ntracts for the eng-4 veering or design of projects that L:evolve "State funds" unless the czmtracter provides those services at a 1cx.er cost t.--m State civil Service e:mlcyees based upon a biared formula. IFic;ues and T=nc _s • Sponsored by the Professional Engineers in California C,overnmer," and Calif=Tda State E;r,ployeea Aaacciaticz. • The proposed Initiative will have a major ec,=�c ispact on r_� local econcc•.r/ �^y daimyia5 tho cmatruction Rad repair of critic _12y nsad.ed infrast_-acture. In a:3ition, tha ('.ourtyls earthgc ake recovery prog--= could bC delayed for years as a result of this Initiative. • The Ini tiativr would reduce local cG'tr-ol and author-ity ove_- a M, ltituce of projects and proqra:rs and instead r..ansfe_r authority to the State. • ,,ate £ nds" are defined -.n the Initiative as c;�aiirgr 1) any a<ngrperiated by the T�islature for ems--ndit::z-e by th.e Statc or a State` agency, or 2> a_1 -cney .included in special fu_r.,ds that t.ha SCatc or a Statc agenr_� cor.trole Exactly mat; ccusticutx_-V "a ocir� r -'.s~ is riot def r.od with_: �r� Initiative'. Eowever, Initiat eve prcpc-�nte c, ald u_ridoubtedly a-.-u- that of ozay do revenues frxa .r_e Gea acne the 3rid_s Se.a_:ic P.otrmfit Prnrraa fall under th,=: con-straints of tl,:e _nit:istive but so eo Federal riLnds from.age.---.cies such as rz.m. • 'rhe biaEad. cert curia= 5orrrala contai la in the, Initi.ativt effectively raltg pr_vata fig f_-ss eur3ireeri_g and doai a:y : Public women poj aptc with State' or =eacra1 pass-trra tah-fu ing. _- This forrsla would require the cost cor-oasison to be -based xmo_n "only the aciditiwal direct costa r.o ttile State" as opposed- to requiring private or :cal-State entities to include all ant;,ci:ated contract ccsts, all cots incarrcd by the Stare for' the bidding/evaluat'cn/o.jardi::g process, a.^.d all coats to inspect, supe-rviae, verify, monitor, acid oversee the project. • The Initiative docs nct allow within its stanALa_-d evaluative process factors aura as expartioa, reliability, resp==ibility. liability, or tamalinams of dal.ivery_ The L^.itititivo ig =oa 1-._w, Sect:i.0 l 4526 or tine C:OVec:='tx.r.t Code, that opccif.ically requirma the nolaction of ti=ns supplying Sciviccc to be bsaod upon "dc=cs : at -a.ted coat:)-*at—ce nd on a profonai�.al �a gcalificatinecessary for the: satisfactory ncr.forrance of the services required." • wit:do the ?initiative there are no' p=ovicions that easura prat a-d satisfact=ory parfo-r=nca F. ,i State civil service eTm1CyFes if la Fact a contract car-:ot be marded. ro cthe*L c;:titics because of t:e Initiative's prcviaa_or:©. • The ln_t_ative specifically identifies Che following activitiec: enginnarir_g, architocc r-al, land caaa arcaitsctusal, mu-vcyis,g. envirO==t.l, rid e-ug:seorimg gaology aarvices. GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS AND TAXPAYERS PROTECTION AMENDMENT SECTION 1.TITLE This measure shall be known and may be cited as the Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment. SECTION 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT It is the intent of the people of the State of California in enacting this measure that engineering, architectural, and similar services provided by the state and certain other entities be furnished at the lowest cost to taxpayers, 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 that contractors be held fully responsible for the performance of their contracts. THEREFORE,THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 3. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTRACTS FOR ENGINEERING,ARCHITECTURAL AND SIMILAR SERVICES Article VII, section 12 is hereby added to the California Constitution to read: (a)This section shall apply to contracts for engineering, architectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, or engineering geology services awarded by the state of California or by any state agency to any public or private entity. As used in this section, "state agency" means every state office, officer, agency, department, division, bureau, board, and commission but does not include the University of California, 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 public entity. As used in this section, "local public entity" means any city, county, city and county, including a chartered city or county, public or municipal corporation, school district, special district, authority, or other public entity formed for the local performance of governmental and proprietary functions within limited boundaries. "Local public entity"also includes two or more local public entities acting jointly. (b)This section shall also apply to contracts for services specified in subsection (a) awarded by private entities or local public entities when the contract awarded by the public or private entity involves expenditure of state funds or involves a program, project,facility, or public work for which the state or any state agency has or will have ownership, liability, or responsibility for construction, operation, or maintenance. As used in this section, "state funds" means all money appropriated by the Legislature for expenditure by the state or a state agency and all money included in special funds that the state or a state agency controls. (c) Prior to the award of any contract covered by this section,the Controller shall prepare and verify an analysis of the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees and the cost of the contract. In comparing costs,the cost of performing the work using state civil service employees shall include only the additional direct costs to the state to provide the same services as the contractor, and the cost of the contract shall include all anticipated contract costs and all costs to be incurred by the state, state agencies, and the contracting entity for the bidding, evaluation, and contract award process and for inspecting, supervising, verifying, monitoring, and overseeing the contract. (d) The contract shall not be awarded if either of the following conditions is met: (1) the Controller's analysis concludes that state civil service employees can perform the work at less cost than the cost of the contract, unless the services are such an urgent nature that public interest, health, or safety requires award of the contract; or(2) the Controller or the contracting entity concludes that the contract would not be in the public interest, would have an adverse impact on public health or safety, or would result in lower quality work than if state civil service employees performed the services. (e) Except for contracts for which a delay resulting from the competitive bidding process would endanger public health or safety, every contract, including amendments, covered by this section that exceeds fifty 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 process involving sealed bids. Each contract shall be awarded to the lowest qualified bidder. If the contract cost based on the lowest qualified bid exceeds the anticipated 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 applying subsection (d). (f) For every contract covered by this section,the contractor shall assume full responsibility and liability for its performance of the contract and shall defend, indemnify, and hold the state, the contracting entity, and their agents and employees harmless from any legal action resulting from the performance of the contract. (g)This section shall not be applied in a manner that will result in the loss of federal funding to the contracting entity for contracts for services. SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY If any provision of this Amendment or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid,that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of the Amendment which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Amendment are severable. SECTION 5.APPLICABILITY OF CURRENT LAW Nothing in this Amendment shall expand or restrict the state's constitutional authority, as determined by decisions of the California Supreme Court and California Courts of Appeal in effect on the effective date of this Amendment, to enter into contracts with private or public entities. SECTION 6. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER MEASURES To the extent that any other measure on the same subject shall be on the ballot at the same election, it is the intent of the voters that this measure be deemed, to the maximum extent possible, not to be in conflict. with such other measure, but rather that this measure should be harmonized with the other measure. SAMPLE RESOLUTION • WHEREAS; Every day billions of dollars of critical building, engineering and design projects are underway from seismic retrofitting to flood control to schools and hospitals; and WHEREAS; State, regional and local governments are currently allowed the flexibility to contract with private firms, on a competitive basis, to design these projects; and WHEREAS; This process allows government the essential flexibility to use private firms to de- liver a project on time and cost effectively; and WHEREAS; The so-called "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" completely changes the process by giving the state bureaucracy a virtual monopoly on designing every project; and WHEREAS; This will thereby force cities, counties, schools, special districts, regional govern- ments and even many private business to use the state bureaucracy to design roads, parks, hospi- tals, health clinics, schools, water treatment facilities, flood control walls and other critical struc- tures — including all engineering, design, geological and environmental work; and WHEREAS; Virtually every school and hospital has been designed by private firms, not state government; and WHEREAS; The proposed initiative eliminates local control and forces communities to rely on the out-of-town state bureaucracy for their design work; and WHEREAS; Local governments would not be able to hold the state bureaucracy accountable; and WHEREAS; The initiative gives one state politician enormous power to decide who gets tens of thousands of design and building projects worth billions of dollars; and WHEREAS; The state controller would have to analyze tens of thousands of proposed contracts per year costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions, in additional ex- penses; and i WHEREAS; To meet potential workload demands, hundreds, if not thousands, of state employees would need to be employed and paid, even if no projects were underway; and WHEREAS; Taxpayers would pick up the tab for billions in extra costs for projects, lost jobs and more state employees to evaluate projects; and WHEREAS; This could mean more delays on important projects such as the Bay Bridge retrofit and the Alameda Rail Corridor in Los Angeles County. X30 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that opposes the so-called "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" that will cost our cities, coun- ties, special districts and economy millions and we support the efforts of the growing coalition of Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy (Fed Up)!. Date Name (please print) Authorized Signature Title Address City/State/Zip Phone FAX E-Mail Address Web Site? Please return to: Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy (Fed Up)! 111 Anza Blvd., Suite 406, Burlingame, CA 94010 or FAX (415) 340-1740.