Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1999 Agenda Item 2A (2)SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ~ ~ ~ 3 MEETING DATE August 4.1999 ORIGINATING DEPT. Ci , Manager AGENDA ITEM CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Oral Communications -Presentation by Bill Wagner, HMA Engineers, on behalf of Taxpayers for Fair Competition RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Receive presentation and adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is a letter asking for your support of the "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" along with a resolution of support and other pertinent literature, for your review and approval. On behalf of Taxpayers for Fair Competition, Bill Wagner, of HMA Engineers, has requested to provide a presentation to the City Council regarding this initiative. Also attached for your reference, is a copy of the staff report and excerpt of the minutes of the April 15, 1998 City Council meeting opposing Prop. 224. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Report will not be presented and resolution will not be adopted. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Upon adoption, forward copy of the resolution of support to Taxpayers for Fair Competition. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Taxpayers for Fair Competition, proposed resolution of support and other pertinent literature; copy of staff report and excerpt of minutes of April 15, 1998. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA SUPPORTING "THE FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT" INITIATIVE AND LEGISLATION 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 Caltrans engineers has resulted in effectively banning the state from contracting with private engineers and architects; and WHEREAS, a recent study by the California Business Roundtable has determined the Caltrans lawsuits will create a $3 billion backlog of highway and bridge projects alone; and WHEREAS, in order to stop the Caltrans engineers' continuing effort to prevent the state and local government form utilizing private engineers and architects, an initiative and legislation 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 and allows the state and local government to contract with private companies for architectural and engineering services; and WHEREAS, the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act will save California's taxpayers money by encouraging competition between state employees and the private sector; 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, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga supports "The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" for architectural and engineering services as an initiative and legislation. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a meeting held on the 4th day of August, 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Jim S aw, Mayor ATTEST: Susan A. Ramos, CMC, City C er ^ 111 Anza Boulevard. #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 • 650-340-0470 FAX:650-340-1740 Mr. Larry Perlin City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Perlin: ^ 11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 • 310-996-2600 FAX:310-996-2673 ®®•~ Last spring the Saratoga City Council voted to oppose Proposition 224, which would have prevented state and local governments from contracting out with qualified private engineers and architects. Fortunately, Prop. 224 was soundly defeated by the voters of California. Unfortunately, the same people who brought us Prop. 224 are at it again. While we were defeating Prop. 224, the same group of Caltrans employees was also pursuing their agenda in the courts. The bad news is they won -the California Supreme Court agreed with their interpretation of the constitution. This means that state government is essentially banned from contracting out for design services. And make no mistake about it -- local governments could be next. In the past, cities, counties and special districts, as well as local and regional agencies, have relied on private design firms to help meet their infrastructure needs. Your ability to contract out for these services has already been impacted by the state ban. It's only a matter of time before additional lawsuits will attempt -and could well succeed - in extending that ban to local governments. In fact, the state employees' lawsuit has already resulted in the City of San Dieuo and East Bay MUD canceling contracts with local firms. If this ban is allowed to remain in place, local projects and give it to the state where and how to complete a project. it will essentially take control over your You lose the ability to decide when, Losing the ability to contract out also means completion of local infrastructure proiects will slow to a crawl. If all design work must be done by the state, a huge bottleneck will develop, stalling local projects for an indefinite amount of time. According to the California Business Roundtable, there will be a $3 billion backlog of transportation projects by the end of 1999 alone. Unfortunately, that's just the beginning. Further, as all design work shifts to the state, California's government will be forced to support a ballooning permanent workforce. As more and more scarce taxpayer funds are siphoned off to this purpose, it will mean either fewer dollars for vital local projects or increased taxpayer costs -just one more way for Sacramento to take funds away from local government. That is wh~we are asking for your City Council's support of the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act. It expressly allows state and local governments to contract out for design services, giving you the flexibility and control necessary to deliver projects on budget and on time. Currently we are gathering signatures to place this initiative on the March 2000 ballot. In the meantime, we are also pursuing a legislative remedy. The legislation (AB 1448 and ACA 16), which has already been introduced, contains the same language as the initiative. We are working to pass the legislation but prepared to go the initiative route if necessary. We would like your City Council to support both the legislation and the initiative. I hope that once you have reviewed the enclosed materials you will agree that our solution allows California and its taxpayers the best opportunity to improve our infrastructure needs. Please sign and return to me the enclosed support form or sample resolution so I can add your city council to our growing coalition. I will be calling to follow-up on this letter. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (650) 340-0470. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jason Barnett ^ 111 Anza Boulevard, #406 Burlingame, CA 94010 • 650-340-0470 FAX:650-340-1740 ^ 11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 • 310-996-2600 FAX:310-996-2673 ®®»~- WHO SUPPORTS "THE FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT"? Legislation and Initiative cas of 7r,~ss> California Chamber of Commerce California Taxpayers Association* California Business Roundtable Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 (AFL-CIO) Operating Engineers, Local 12 (AFL-CIO) National Federation of Independent Business Associated General Contractors* California Building Industry Association California Minority and Women's Business Coalition California Manufacturers Association* California Business Properties Association Coalition for Project Delivery California Cement Promotion Council California Chapter, American Planning Association California Contract Cities Association Western States Petroleum Association California Fence Contractors Association California Travel Parks Association California Taxpayer Protection Committee Alliance of California Taxpayers and Involved Voters Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes United Californians for Tax Reform Local Organizations Waste Watchers Contra Costa Taxpayers Association Kern County Taxpayers Association League of Placer County Taxpayers Butte County Citizens for Better Government Orange County Taxpayers Association" San Diego County Taxpayers Association Santa Barbara County Taxpayers Association Shasta County Taxpayers Association Sonoma County Taxpayers Association Bay Area Council Greater San Diego Chamber of Commerce Orange County Business Council Orange County Transportation Coalition Local Government City of Oakland City of Irvine City of Newport Beach City of Richmond City of Colfax City of Cotati City of Arcadia* City of Claremont"` City of Emeryville City of Orland City of Kerman City of Lancaster City of Loma Linda 2 City of Westminster City of Rohnert Park City of Ft. Bragg Kings County Lake County Humboldt County Livermore/Amador Valley Transit District Metropolitan Transportation Commission'` Contra Costa Transportation Authority Lake County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Heritage Ranch Community Services District Vista Irrigation District Lake County Sanitation District Engineering and Architectural Organizations Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California American Institute of Architects, California Chapter Engineering and Utility Contractors Association Engineering and General Contractors Association Bay Counties Civi{ Engineers and Land Surveyors Association Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers, Greater Los Angels Area Structural Engineers Association of Northern California * Legislation only at this time. 3 LOCAL PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: A HISTORY OF SUCCESS, A FUTURE AT RISK Many local governments and local agencies have successfully used contracting for architecture and engineering services as a way to get the job done in a fast, cost-effective fashion. Often this has meant bringing in projects for less money and in less time than Caltrans own estimate to do the job. Here are a few of those local success stories: History ofSuccesS ........................................................ Santa Clara County Transportation Au- thority ~~ In 1984, Santa Clara County voted ahalf--cent increase in the sales tax to improve traf- f c conditions on three local highways. Caltrans initially estimated it would take 17 years for the work from start to fin- ish. The Authority then created apublic- privatepartnership, which did the work in 10 years, at a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars. Santa Barbara County A tale of two highways points up the difference between Caltrans and the private sec- tor here. A series of projects to make improvements on US 101, being delivered by Caltrans, is at least a year be- hindschedule, and further delay seems likely. On the other hand, a project to make im- provements on Route 154 was delivered on time and under budget by a private contrac- tor. Orange County The design and construc- tion of the county's toll roads is being handled by a private contractor. Against comparable Caltrans projects, the private contractor spent 10 percent less on management costs - brought in the project 6 percent ahead of schedule, instead of 16 percent behind for Caltrans -and kept cost growth down .12 percent compared to Caltrans. Contra Costa County Through the use of pri- \ vate sector contractors, the county transportation authority was able to bring in a program of improvements on State Route 4 six to nine months ahead of the pro- jected Caltrans schedule. Source: 'Meeting California's Infrastructure Challenge: Assuring Cost-Effective and Timely Project Delivery. Prepared by the Califomia Taxpayers' Association and the Califomia Chamber of Commerce -May, 1999 A complete copy of the report may be obtained by telling Taxpayers for Fair Competition at (650) 340-0470 Taxpayers for Fair Competition 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650) 340-1740 s ®«,« All that could be a thing of the past however. Already, the state is virtually prohibited from contracting out for architecture and engineering services, thanks to a series of lawsuiu brought by state-employed engineers (mostly Caltrans employees). Now that ban is beginning to limit the choices available to local governments as well. Future At Risk ................................................................ Statewide (seismic retrofitting work) While California has many of the world's leaders in the field of seismic safety, if they don't work for Caltrans (which most of them don't) -they won't be working for us. In fact, more than 20 contracts for seismic retrofit- tingwork with private sector experts have already been cancelled. Oakland "One high visibility project in Oak- \ land. . is design of the I-880 Broadway/Jackson interchange im- ~~ provements. To keep this project on schedule may require outside transportation engineering service to supplement Caltrans' staff. Thus it is important to ask the voters to change the State Constitution to permit contracting out." San Francisco A lawsuit has been filed to termi- nateprivate sector architectural and engineering contracts on the San Francisco Airport expansion and ~ tum that work over to public em- ` ployees. The costs and time de- lays ofsuch astep would be staggering. The precedent for other local government entities is clearly alarming. San Gabriel Valley (Burbank, Glendale) Thi ears a o, Caltrans desi ned ~\ rh' Y 9 9 ~~ the intersection of I-5 and 134 without a complete set of on-off ramps. Now, just at the moment when years of work at the local level have begun to pay off, and "Detour Junction" may be com- pleted at last- local governments may find this project taken out of their hands, thanks to these lawsuits and given to the same agency, Caltrans, that created the problem in the first place. East Bay MUD At least one private sector contract \ has already been canceled by East Bay MUD du,e to the PECG law- suits. City of Oakland Analysis June 16, 1999 San Diego The City Attorney in San Diego has told the city that any future contract- ing out should be done under the con- ditions set forth under the decision in ~ ~~ PECG v. Caltrans -conditions which make contracting out next to impos- sible. The City Attorney reasoned that there were enough similarities between the State Con- stitution and San Diego's City Charter, as to make the court decision apply to the city as well. Lancaster "If projects such as the Avenue L and Avenue H Bridge Widening projects had to be designed by the State, they would be delayed indefinitely. In order to maintain local control over public works projects and to maintain the ability to design and construct projects in a timely manner, staff recommends" support of the Fair Com- petition and Taxpayer Savings Act. City of Lancaster Staff Report June 8, 1999 6/29/99 ACTl4NNEfDED To Protect Ability Of Local Governments To Contract Out For ArchAectural ~ Engineering Services WHY LOCAL GOVERNMENT & AGENCIES SHOULD SUPPORT THE "FAIR COMPETITION AND TAl(PAYER ~ SAVINGS ACT" / fie Bin Oe State CoatracUng Puts LacalTransportalion Protects In lespardy The design work on all Caltrans projects will now have to be done by Caltrans employees. Accoraw ing to the California Business Roundtable, this situation will create a $3 billion backlog of important highway and bridge projects by the end of 1999 alone. Historically, local govemment has been free to rely on private design firms as acost-effective way to speed the delivery of transportation, school, water, earthquake retrofitting and other infrastructure projects. A series of lawsuits brought by state employees (primarily Caltrans engineers) however, has effectively banned Califor- nia State govemment from contracting with qualified private engineers and architects. This has also begun to limit the ability of local govemment to choose where and when to use private firms, putting many important local projects in jeop- ardy. But that's not all. Without action, the ability of local governments to contract for these services could be com- pletely taken away. The Exlstinp Baa Gf~es Sacraments One Msre Way ie Take Funds Away kom fecal a~emmems Rob Salaber, Former D'aon City Councilmember Failure to deliver on existing ~ projects will make it more difficult in the future to find funding for new projects. Private Sects EartligaaNe F,xper[s Can No Langer Be Otili~ed Even though critical projects may need specific expertise available only in the private sector, these lawsuits have precluded their use. More than 20 contracts for seismic retrofit work have already been canceled. Taxpayers for Fair Competition 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 • Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650) 340-1740 11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 996-2600 Fax: (310) 996-2673 • "Make no mistake about it. The ability of local government to control local projects is very much at stake if we don 't take action. " If this ban on contracting remains in place, state government will be forced to support a ballooning permanent workforce. As more and more scarce taxpayer funds are siphoned off to support an increased state payroll, it will mean either fewer dollars for vita! projects at the local level, or increased taxpayer costs. ihls SltaaUon Is Omy Going To bet ~ Worse For fecal 6euemmems It's only a matter of time before additional lawsuits will attempt -and could well succeed - in officially extending this ban beyond state government to lo- caland regional governments and agencies as well. In fact, the state employees' lawsuit has already resulted in the City of San Diego and East Bay MUD canceling contracts with private firms. I Local Comm Wtll Be Sun'eodered TofieStste The ban on state contracting essentially takes control over many local projects and gives it to the state. If local governments are denied the ability to contract out at all, you will lose the abil- ity to decide when, where and how to complete a local infrastructure project. Schedule Control: Does anyone really believe you'll be able to approach a big, Sacramento bu- reaucracy and insist a project be done when you want it? Hardly. And if completion of a local project depends on state infrastructure, such as an off ramp, you'll be in the same situation. Budget Control: You can negotiate price with a private firm, but not with a Sacramento bureau- cracy. The price will be whatever it says -and you'll pay the bill. Completion ~f Eren Moro local Protects WIII Slow i~ A Crawl Even before the state ban existed, Caltrans gen- erally completed projects at a slower pace than a combination of public and private efforts. For example, Caltrans calculated it would take 17 years to complete a highway project in Santa Clara County. The project was ultimately com- pleted by a local public-private partnership 40% faster and hundreds of millions of dollars cheaper than what Caltrans had originally estimated. If state control of local projects is allowed to ex- pand beyond state transportation projects, the situation will become even worse. The antici- pated $3 billion backlog of transportation projects is just the beginning. The "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" ex- ists in both legislative and initiative form. It is needed to overturn these lawsuits and ensure that state, as well as regional and local governments, will have the option of contracting for private engineering and ar- chitectural projects. The "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" will: ^ Preserve The Flexibility Local Governments Need To Create The Design Team That Best Meets /ts Needs Passage of the "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" expressly allows state and local gov- emmentthe option of contracting with private en- gineers and architects. Local governments should be able to make their own decisions about what combination of services will work best for them on any given project. This measure doesn't make local government do an hin not already required. ^ Affirm Local Choice On STIP Projects This measure would make it absolutely clear that regional improvements under the State Transpor- tation Improvement Plan (STIP) are local choice projects, and that the sponsoring local or regional government has the choice and authority to use the design services of its choice. ^ Provide Taxpayer Safeguards And Accountability Californians must be assured that taxpayer dol- lars are protected. Therefore, the initiative re- quires contracts be awarded through a competi- tive selection process that does not alter cur- rent law governing the selection of private firms. Ability of Local Governments to Contract for Architectural and Engineering Services is Under Attack Local Control at Risk Historically, local government has been free to rely on pri- vate design firms as acost-effective way to speed the de- livery of transportation, school, water, earthquake retrofit- ting and other infrastructure projects. A series of lawsuits brought by state employees (primarily Caltrans engineers) however, has effectively banned Cali- fornia State government from contracting with qualified ar- chitects and engineers. This has also begun to limit the ability of local government to choose where and when to use private firms, putting many important local projects in jeopardy. In fact, the state employees' lawsuit has already resulted in the cancellation of local contracts with private firms. Threat to Local Flexibility Increases Dramatically with New Lawsuit A lawsuit has recently been filed to terminate private sec- torarchitectural and engineering contracts on the San Fran- cisco Airport expansion and turn that work over to public employees. This is the first of what it is anticipated will be many such lawsuits. It is extremely significant for that, and several other reasons. Because the work at SFO is so mas- sive, the costs and time delays of such a step would be staggering. In ad- dition, the prece- dent for other local government enti- ties is clearly alarming. The premise of this suit is essentially the same as that raised at the state level - if a public employee has ever done the work in question, they must always per- "The threat to local govern- ments is very real and very immediate. The San Fran- cisco lawsuit makes it even more critical that we take action now. If we do not make this a priority, we risk losing all ability to decide what makes sense for our cities and counties. 1 urge you to support the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act today. " Gary Monohan Mayor, City of Costa Mesa form all of that work rather than bringing in private firms as the need arises. The recent state supreme courtpro- hibition on contracting out for these services exponen- tially increases the likelihood of success for this and other moves by public employees. "I'm expected to deliver projects on time and on budget. To do that, 1 need the ability to turn to the private sector for help. The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act provides the flexibility the City of Los Angeles needs." Bill Holland Los Angeles City Architect No-Growth Citizen Activists Can Aiso Sue Any NIMBY or no-growth group can go to court and slow or stop a project by claiming that a design contract vio- lates the constitution. These groups are very creative in their use of the law and not at all shy about running to court. Preserving Local Control A growing coalition is supporting the "Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" which will preserve local flex- ibilityand control. In both its legislative and initiative form this act will: ^ Remove the existing California constitutional prohibition against contracting out for design services. ^ Replace that prohibition with language that specifi- cally allows cities, counties and other local govern- ment agencies to contract with qualified design firms, if they so choose. Without these changes in the law, local governments should expect to see a growing attack on the ability to make their own decisions about what combination of services will work best for them on any given project. If no action is taken, this Vocal flexibility could be completely taken away. Taxpayers for Fair Competition 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650) 340-1740 7/1 /99 ®®»,. 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 1;o 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. Taxpayer Safeguards: • 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. 5/17/1999 Taxpayers for Fair Competition 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 • Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650) 340-1740 11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #840 Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 996-2600 Fax: (310) 996-2673 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 azchitectural 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 amulti-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 X~I 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 azchitectural 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, 0001 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 1 of the Government Code to read: § 4529.10. For purposes of Article XXII 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 XXII of the California Constitution. The sponsoring governmental entity shall have the choice and the authority to contract with qualified private entities for azchitectural 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 standazds, seismic safety standazds or project construction standards established by state, regional or local governmental entities. ..Nor shall any provision of this act be construed to prohibit or restrict the 0002 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 perfonnance 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 fiuther 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. 0003 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 16 Introduced by Assembly Member Cox March 3, 1999 Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 16-A resolution to propose to the people of the State of California an amendment to the Constitution of the State, by adding Article XXII thereof, relating to public contracts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL; S DIGEST ACA 16, as introduced, Cox. Public contracts: architectural and engineering services. The California Constitution provides that the civil service includes every officer and employee of the state, subject to specified exceptions. Statutory provisions govern contracting by state and local agencies for architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services. This measure would provide that the state and all other governmental entities are permitted to contract with private entities for architectural and engineering services for all public works of improvement, without regard to funding source, whether the project is programmed by specified entities, or whether the project is part of a state-owned or state-operated system or facility. Vote: 2l3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. 99 .. - _ ._ CALIFORMA LEGISLATURE-1999-2000 REGULAR SESSION .. _ ., - _.... . ACA 16 ~ -2- 1 WHEREAS, It is the intent of the people of the State of 2 California in enacting this measure to do all of the 3 following: 4 (a) Remove existing restrictions on contracting for 5 azchitectural and engineering _ services and allow state, 6 regional, and local governments to use qualified private 7 azchitectural and engineering firms to help deliver 8 transportation, schools, water, and other infrastructure 9 projects safely, cost-effectively, and on time; 10 (b) Encourage the kind of public or private 11 partnerships necessary to ensure that California 12 taxpayers benefit from the use of private sector 13 transportation, ~ earthquake safety, and other 14 infrastructure experts; 15 (c) Promote fair competition so that both public and 16 private sector architects and engineers work more 17 efficiently, and ultimately deliver 'better value to 18 taxpayers; 19 (d) Speed the completion of a multibillion dollar 20 backlog of highway, bridge, transit, and other projects; 21 (e) Ensure that contracting for azchitecture and 22 engineering services occurs through an open and publicly 23 advertised competitive selection process, free of undue 24 political influence, to obtain the best quality and value for 25 California taxpayers; 26 (f) Ensure that private firms contracting for 27 architectural and engineering services with 28 governmental entities meet established design and 29 construction standazds and aze held responsible for the 30 performance of their contracts; now, therefore, be it 31 Resolved by the Assembly, the Senate concurring, That 32 the Legislature of the State of California at its 1999-2000 33 Regulaz Session commencing on the seventh day of 34 December 1998, two-thirds of the membership of each 35 house concurring, hereby proposes to the people of the 36 State of California that the Constitution of the State be 37 amended by adding Article XXII thereof, to read: 38 39 ARTICLE XXII 40 ~.;n~ - ~~ .. ;' ~.~, s _ ,,.. Mt ... ... _ 3 . ~ ACA 16 1 PUBLIC CONTRACTS 2 3 SECTION 1. This article shall be known as the "Fair 4 Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act." 5 SEC. 2. The State of California and all other public 6 entities, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, 7 cities and counties, special districts, local and regional 8 agencies, and joint powers agencies, may contract with 9 private entities for architectural and engineering services 10 for all public works of improvement. The choice and 11 authority to contract extends to all phases of project 12 development, including permit and environmental 13 studies, rights-of way services, design phase services, and 14 construction phase services. The choice and authority to 15 contract exist without regazd to funding source, whether 16 federal, State, regional, local; or private, whether or not 17 the project is programmed by a State, regional, or local 18 government ~ entity, or whether or not the completed 19 project is a pazt of any state-owned or state-operated 20 system or facility. 21 SEC. 3. Article VII may not be construed to restrict 22 or prohibit the State or any other public entities, 23 including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities and 24 counties, special districts, local and regional agencies, and 25 joint power agencies, from contracting with private 26 entities for the performance of azchitectural or 27 engineering services. 28 SEC. 4. Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 29 4529.61) of Division 5 of Title 2 of the Government Code, 30 or any successor, may be amended only by a bill that 31 furthers the purposes of this measure and is passed in each 32 house of the Legislature by rollcall vote entered in the 33 journal, two=thirds of the membership concurring. O 99 R~~ i AMENDED IN A55EMBLY APRIL 12, 1999 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE-1999-2000 REGULAR SESSION ASSEMBLY BILL No. 1448 Introduced by Assembly Member Cox (Coattthars: Assembly Members Campbell, Leach, and Oller) (Coauthor: Senator Johannessen) February 26, 1999 An act to add Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 4529.61) to Division 5 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to public contracts. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 144$, as amended, Cox. Public contracts: architectural and engineering services. The California Constitution provides that the civil service includes every officer and employee of the state, subject to specified exceptions. Statutory provisions govern contracting by state and local agencies for architectural, landscape architectural, engineering, environmental, land surveying, and construction project management services. This bill would enact statutory provisions to implement a proposed amendment to the California Constitution related to public contracting for azchitectural and engineering services. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for 98 r.. AB 1448 - 2 - making that reimbursement, including the creation of a State Mandates Claims Fund to pay the costs of mandates that do not exceed $1,000,000 statewide and other procedures for claims whose statewide costs exceed $1,000,000. This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: 1 SECTION 1. Chapter 10.3 (commencing with 2 Section 4529.61) is added to Division 5 of Title 1 of the 3 Government Code, to read: 4 5 CHAPTER 10.3. FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER 6 SAVnvGS ACT .7 8 4529.61. For purposes of Article XXII of the California 9 Constitution and this chapter, the term "architectural 10 and engineering services" ~elt~eg shall include all 11 architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, 12 engineering, land surveying, and construction project 13 management services. . 14 4529.62. All projects included in the State 15 Transportation Improvement Program programmed and 16 funded as interregional improvements or as regional 17 improvements aye shall be subject to Article XXII of the 18 California Constitution. The sponsoring governmental 19 entity 1~ shall have the choice and the authority to 20 contract with qualified private entities for architectural 21 and engineering services. For projects programmed and 22 funded as regional improvements, the sponsoring 23 governmental entity is shall be the regional or local 24 project sponsor. For projects programmed and funded as 25 interregional improvements, the sponsoring 26 governmental entity is shall be the State of California, 27 unless there is a regional or local project sponsor t~ in 98 v^+ I -3-° -~, rv :-:...'::~ AB 1448 1 which case the sponsoring governmental entity ~s shall be 2 the regional or local project sponsor. The regional or local 3 project sponsor ~s•--tie shall be a regional or local 4 governmental , 5 entity. ~~a- ~L.. ~~.,~ 6 . 7 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 14 , 15 16 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 21 22 43~§. 23 4529.63. All architectural and engineering services 24 shall be procured pursuant to a p~ee~~--`~ fair, 25 competitive selection process which prohibits 26 governmental agency employees from participating in 27 the selection process }€ when they have a financial or 28 business relationship with ~e any private entity seeking 29 the ee-~e~3e contract, and the procedure shall 30 require compliance with all laws regarding political 31 contributions, conflicts of interest, or unlawful activities. 32 33 4529.64. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be 34 construed to change project design standards, seismic 35 safety standards, or project construction standards 36 established by state, regional, or local governmental 37 entities. Nor shall any provision of 38 this chapter be construed to prohibit or restrict the 39 authority of the Legislature to 40 statutorily provide different procurement methods for 98 .. ; ~}; ~_. . ~. ., ..... crime .] CrT r...~`.' - rt.:r`t 'q,~ ~': -: _ AB 1448 _ 4 _ - _.. 1 design-build projects or design-build and operate 2 projects. 3 4~29:f~-- 4 4529.65. Architectural -and engineering services 5 contracts procured by public agencies see shall be subject 6 to standard accounting practices and may require 7 financial and performance audits as necessary to ensure 8 that contract services are delivered within the agreed 9 schedule and budget. 10 4~~8- 11 4529.66. This chapter makes-er~}y only applies to 12 architectural and engineering services defined in Section 13 4529.61. Nothing contained in this 14 chapter shall be construed to -expand or restrict the 15 authority of governmental entities to contract for fire, 16 ambulance, police, sheriff, probation, corrections, or 17 other peace officer services. Nor 18 shall anything in this chapter be construed to expand or 19 restrict the authority of governmental entities to contract 20 for education services including, but not limited to, 21 teaching services, services of .-_..'......:r-a classified school 22 personnel, and school administrators. 23 43~.`-~--- 24 4529.67. This chapter shall not be applied in a 25 manner that~~ will result in the loss of federal 26 funding to any governmental entity. 27 43 .'^. 28 4529.68. The provisions of this chapter are severable. 29 If any provision of this chapter or its application is held 30 invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or 31 applications that can be given effect without the invalid 32 provision or application. 33 43'~z- 34 4529.69. If any other act of the Legislature con, flicts 35 with the provisions of this chapter, this chapter will 36 prevail. 37 4529.70. This chapter shall be liberally construed to 38 accomplish its purposes. 39 43''z9-'r- 98 r- x a :: -"Y '~~.' i- .~ a ~=se' rzYr.,c"~~ ~"~' ~ ~~~~ r ~. .. ~ 4 ~+e _' .: ,.. _.. .. ~ 4 .. d - rya. - 5 - AB 1448 1 4529.71. This chapter seeks to comprehensively 2 regulate the matters which are contained within its 3 provisions. These are matters of statewide concern and 4 >~--elm`"~~~~ea~~ when enacted are intended to 5 apply to charter cities as well as all other governmental 6 entities. 7 SEC. 2. Notwithstanding Section 17610 of the 8 Government Code, if the Commission on State Mandates 9 determines that this act contains costs mandated by the 10 state, reimbursement to local agencies and school 11 districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 12 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 13 2 of the Government Code. If the statewide cost of the 14 claim for reimbursement does not exceed one million 15 dollars ($1,000,000), reimbursement shall be made from 16 the State Mandates Claims Fund. O 98 ~. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL . -~: ~ ~ : S 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ,,._ ` --' AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: Apri115,1998 CITY MANAGER: ~~ l ~'• -"" ~.~~. ORIGINATING DEPT.: CITY MANAGER DEPT. HEAD: SUBJECT: Proposition 224 -known as "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayers Protection Amendment" -Statement of Opposition RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): Move to adopt a position opposing Proposition 224 REPORT SUMMARY: Proposition 224 is a proposed constitutional amendment sponsored by a state engineers' group, Professional Engineers in California Government (PECG), that would require all state, local and private entities to follow a new process prior to awarding a contract for construction related services including engineering, architecture, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental studies and geological studies for projects in which the State would financially or otherwise participate. The new process would require all construction-related services costing more than $50,000 to use competitive bids to select the lowest bidder unless the contract would have an adverse impact on public health or safety due to a project delay. The proposed amendment would have the State Controller analyze each proposed contract, comparing the costs of contracting with a private firm versus the cost of utilizing state employees instead. Costs incurred by the State, such as salaries, benefits, utilities, and indirect costs would not be included in any State bid while outside contractors would be required to reflect these costs. If the State Controller's analysis concluded that state employees could perform the work at a lower cost than the private vendor, the job would be required to be done by the state. State agencies would be required to use this new process for any construction-related services. Local Governments and Private Entities would also be required to use this process if there was any State funding being used for any part of aconstruction-related service. Local Governments would also be required to follow these procedures if there was any State ownership, liability , or responsibility for the project. Attached are various pieces of correspondence from individuals, cities and organizations urging the City to oppose Proposition 224. They stress that this initiative would cause major delays in project implementation due to the "bottleneck" of tens of thousands of local projects that would need to be reviewed by the State Controller. Local Governments would have no say in the process nor in contract conditions, such as delivering a project on schedule and within budget thus eliminating local control over local projects. FISCAL IMPACTS: None as a result of taking a position. If Proposition 224 passes, there could be significant fiscal implications caused by delays in project implementation. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The City would take no position on Proposition 224. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: The City's opposition would be communicated to opponents of Proposition 224. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Text of Proposition 224 2) Correspondence from League of California Cities 3) Letter from John Heindel dated October 10, 1997 4) Letter from Taxpayers Fed Up With More State Bureaucracy dated September 12, 1997 with attachments 5) Letter from Santa Clara County Cities Association dated June 5, 1997. City Couaail l[iautas a llpxil 15, 1998 11. Rwirr of village valet Pulciaq Program - continued from November 19 Administrative Analyst Loft reviewed the staff report. She stated that representatives of two condominium associations had been notified of this item. Councilmember Bogosian felt that the residents of Oak Street should be notified of this item. In answer to Councilmember Moran, Deputy City Clerk Cory stated that for a public hearing she prepares a memo recommending publicity which would then bg approved by the City Council. Councilmember Moran stated that an ordinance should be drafted with provisions showing where cars can be parked and with a clause allowing for periodic review. She felt a public hearing should be held with thorough noticing. Council and staff discussed extent of noticing. There was consensus to mail first class notice of the hearing to Oak Street residents from Highway 9 to Sixth Street, including the school. MORAN/SHAW MOVED TO APPROVE FOR 60 DAYS THE MODIFIED VALET PARKING PLAN FOR SARATOGA VILLAGE WITH THE DELETION OF THE SARATOGA DRY CLEANERS VALET PARKING LOCATION. Passed 4-0. MORAN/SHAW MOVED TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO CHANGE THE VALET LOADING ZONE AT SARATOGA DRY CLEANERS TO 15 MINUTE PARKING ZONES AND INSTALL CORRESPONDING SIGNAGE. Passed 4-0. MORAN/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE FOR VALET PARKING SERVICE PERMITS FOR USING THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; THE ORDINANCE WILL INCLUDE DELINEATION OF WHERE CARS ARE TO BE PARKED AND A PROVISION FOR PERIODIC REVIEW; IT WILL BE INTRODUCED AT A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THOROUGH NOTICING. Passed 4-0. In answer to Councilmember Bogosian, City Manager Perlin stated that the signs would cost under $100. City Attorney Riback stated the Planning Commission would not be involved in the ordinance unless the City Council wished them to be. City Manager Perlin stated that the Public Safety Commission has been the group involved. 8. NEB1I BIISINE88 7-. Landscaping and Lighting District LLA-i - Resolutions prelimiaarily ]-pprovinq Engineers Report and settiaq Publia Soaring City Manager Perlin noted that corrections needed to be made in some of the calculations in the Engineers Report. He recommended continuing the item. ~ There was consensus to continue the item to April 21. B. Position on Proposition 22a ---- City Manager Perlin reviewed the report. John Heindel spoke as an engineer who performs contract work for the City. He explained his opposition to the proposition and urged the Council to express opposition. BOGOSIAN/SHAW MOVED TO OPPOSE PROPOSITION 224 AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE A LETTER FOR THE MAYOR TO SIGN. Passed 4-0. 8. Other Councilmember Shaw suggested that the agenda be revised to make it clearer that agenda items for upcoming meetings were not intended for