The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMINUTES - 04122011 - C.29RECOMMENDATION(S): OPPOSE Assembly Bill 720 (Hall): Public Contracts: Construction Cost Accounting, a bill that would repeal a provision in existing law that specifies that a board of supervisors or a county road commissioner is not prohibited from using alternative procedures governing county highway contracts, amends existing law which authorizes public projects with a specified monetary threshold to be performed by the employees of the public agency by force account, negotiated contract, or purchase order and increases that authorization, as recommended by the Legislation Committee. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact to the County General Fund. BACKGROUND: AB 720, by Assembly Member Isadore Hall, would prohibit a county under the Uniform Construction Cost Account Act (Act) (Public Contract Code, Section 22031) from using County Road Commissioner authority granted under Public Contract Code, Section 20395. The measure would also increase from $30,000 to $45,000 the total cost of a project that is allowed to be performed by public agency employees. This measure is very similar to AB APPROVE OTHER RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE Action of Board On: 04/12/2011 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER Clerks Notes: VOTE OF SUPERVISORS AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor Gayle B. Uilkema, District II Supervisor Mary N. Piepho, District III Supervisor Karen Mitchoff, District IV Supervisor Federal D. Glover, District V Supervisor Contact: L. DeLaney, 925-335-1097 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. ATTESTED: April 12, 2011 David J. Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors By: Carrie Del Bonta, Deputy cc: C.29 To:Board of Supervisors From:Legislation Committee Date:April 12, 2011 Contra Costa County Subject:OPPOSE Positition on AB 720 (Hall) Public Contracts: Construction Cost Accounting 1409 (Perez) from 2009 which was strongly opposed by CSAC and numerous individual counties, including Contra Costa County. AB 1409 did not pass the Legislature. The Act, created in 1983, allows among other things, local agencies to perform public project work up to $30,000 with its own work force if the agency elects to follow specific cost accounting procedures. In exchange for following these specific accounting procedures that provide greater accountability and transparency, local agencies have additional contracting flexibility, higher thresholds, and provides an alternative bidding procedure when an agency performs public project work by contract. Recognizing that decades old county Road Commissioner authority (since 1935) provides county transportation departments the necessary flexibility to address local issues such as natural disasters or emergencies as well as routine maintenance, the Act allows counties to retain this critical flexibility and authority while a part of the Act. The Act provides many benefits to counties, mainly the informal bid process, which is used by various departments in addition to county public works departments to keep projects costs to a minimum. However, Road Commissioner authority as provided for in PCC, Section 20935 is still necessary to ensure counties' ability to perform work on county highways in a timely, efficient, and cost-effective manner. AB 720 would force counties under the Act to give up Road Commissioner authority in order to retain those benefits. While the approach in the bill targets the 26 counties currently under the Act, the long-term intent of the sponsors may be to eliminate Road Commissioner authority across all 58 counties. Thus, CSAC urges all counties to view this as an assault on counties’ ability to determine the best use of their workforce on various types of public works projects. CSAC also urges all counties to send letters of strong opposition to Assembly Member Hall. The bill would not directly impact Contra Costa County, but in a desire to support CSAC and the Regional Council of Rural Counties, staff sought a Legislation Committee recommendation on March 21 for a position of “oppose” to the Board of Supervisors. The Legislation Committee supported this recommendation. Attached is a draft letter for the Chair's signature (Attachment A) and a copy of the text of the bill (Attachment B). BACKGROUND: (CONT'D) STATUS: 02/17/2011 INTRODUCED. 03/07/2011 To ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT. DISPOSITION: Pending CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The County would not be on record opposing this bill. CHILDREN'S IMPACT STATEMENT: None. ATTACHMENTS Draft Oppose Letter Bill Text AB 720 Draft for signature by the chair of the Board of Supervisors April 12, 2011 The Honorable Isadore Hall Member, California State Assembly State Capitol, Room 3123 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: AB 720 (Hall): Public Contracts: Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act As Introduced on February 17, 2011 - OPPOSE Dear Assembly Member Hall: The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors today adopted a position of “oppose” to your bill, AB 720, regarding performance of public contracts under the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act. The bill would amend Public Contract Code (PCC), Section 22031 to prohibit a county under the Uniform Construction Cost Account Act (Act) from being able to use Road Commissioner authority granted under Public Contract Code, Section 20395. It would also increase from $30,000 to $45,000 the total cost of a project that is allowed to be performed by public agency employees. This measure is very similar to AB 1409 (Perez), introduced in 2009, to which the County also was opposed. AB 720, as we understand it, would not directly impact Contra Costa County as it would other counties. However, we are concerned any time a bill would limit any county’s flexibility to perform road work in the way they deem most appropriate. We share this concern with the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC), the Urban Counties Caucus (UCC), and numerous individual counties. The Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act, created in 1983, allows among other things, local agencies to perform public project work up to $30,000 with its own work force if the agency elects to follow specific cost accounting procedures. In exchange for following these specific accounting procedures that provide greater accountability and transparency, local agencies have additional contracting flexibility, higher cost thresholds, and may use alternative bidding procedures when performing public project work by contract. We understand that AB 720 would force a county to give up the benefits of the Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Act, used by many county departments, in order to retain critical Road Commissioner decision-making authority for road projects. Like CSAC, RCRC and the UCC, we believe the current laws governing performance of road projects are working well, and we see no reason to change them. Most counties already put large construction projects out to bid and use Road Commissioner authority only for basic maintenance activities and responding to emergencies and natural disasters. The proposed changes in AB 720 would require a county to choose between two proven effective programs at the expense of more efficient and effective public works projects. For the counties directly affected by the bill, it likely would lead to additional costs to the taxpayers and longer timelines for performing road work. We therefore join our statewide organization in opposing AB 720. If you have questions about our position on this bill, please contact Julie Bueren, Director of Public Works, at (925) 313- 2201 or jbuer@pw.cccounty.us Sincerely, GAYLE B. UILKEMA Chair Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors C: The Hon. Joan Buchanan The Hon. Nancy Skinner Senator Mark DeSaulnier Senator Loni Hancock Members, Board of Supervisors J. Bueren, Director of Public Works S. Kowalewski, Deputy Director of Public Works L. DeLaney, County Administrator’s Office M. Watts, Smith Watts Martinez california legislature—2011–12 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 720 Introduced by Assembly Member Hall February 17, 2011 An act to amend Section 22032 of, and to repeal Section 22031 of, the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts. legislative counsel’s digest AB 720, as introduced, Hall.Public contracts: uniform construction cost accounting provisions: alternative procedures. Existing law establishes procedures for local public agencies to follow when engaged in public works projects, and authorizes agencies to elect to become subject to uniform construction cost accounting provisions. Existing law specifies that a board of supervisors or a county road commissioner is not prohibited by those provisions from utilizing, as an alternative, other procedures governing county highway contracts. This bill would repeal the above provision that specifies that a board of supervisors or a county road commissioner is not prohibited from using alternative procedures governing county highway contracts. Existing law authorizes public projects of $30,000 or less to be performed by the employees of the public agency by force account, negotiated contract, or purchase order. This bill would increase that authorization to $45,000. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. 99 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 SECTION 1.Section 22031 of the Public Contract Code is repealed. 22031.Nothing in this article shall prohibit a board of supervisors or a county road commissioner from utilizing, as an alternative to the procedures set forth in this article, the procedures set forth in Article 25 (commencing with Section 20390) of Chapter 1. SEC. 2.Section 22032 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read: 22032.(a) Public projects of thirty forty-five thousand dollars ($30,000) ($45,000) or less may be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. (b) Public projects of one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) or less may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in this article. (c) Public projects of more than one hundred twenty-five thousand dollars ($125,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this article, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure. O 99 — 2 —AB 720