Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAGENDA REPORT 1998 0204 CC REG ITEM 11GTO: FROM DATE: IN RE: ITEM 11 • G• CTTY OF MOORPARK, CAT TrOR1V'1A CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT City Council Meet,--, � g The Honorable City Council John E. Nowak, Assistant City Manager 26 January 1998 (Council meeting of 02- 04 -98) AC „,,j: Ado ,J eSvj&w 1 No, CPO- By. -S -a Consider Adoption of Resolution No. 98- Opposing the State Ballot Initiative titled "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment." Discussion: A ballot initiative named the "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment" has qualified for the June 1998 State election. Sponsored by an association of state employee engineers, the initiative would require the following: Affects any contract for engineering, architectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, or engineering geology service awarded by any state agency or any city, 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. 2. It also applies to all similar contracts awarded by private entities or local public entities when it 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, operations or maintenance. 3. All proposed contracts would be subject to review and approval of the State Controller which must analyze the proposal on the basis of whether state employees can provide the service at a lower cost. The state cost shall only consider additional direct costs to the state while the contract proposed by state and local agencies must also include all anticipated contract costs and costs 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. 4. A local government would be barred from awarding the contract if the Controller determines the state could provide the service at a lower cost based on the above criteria, or if the Controller concludes the contract would not be in the public interest and the quality of work would be less than that provided by state employees (no criteria given). 0001.35 Opposition to State Ballot Initiative 02 -04 -98 Meeting Page 02 5. No time frame is given for the Controller's review of contracts and local authorities are given no input into the process. The initiative, as it will appear on the ballot would impact all design /engineering contracts the City of Moorpark would propose for improvements on Routes 118 or 23; any improvements involving the Arroyo Simi; any park project involving state funds or state bond funds, and possibly any project using Gas Tax funds. With state review required there will be delays in the City's ability to award these service contracts to private firms, if allowed by the Controller. If state employees are required to be used for the design /engineering there is no indication of what the time delay might be for the work to be performed. The initiative language with annotated comments is attached. Based on an evaluation provided, to maintain the current level of services available to state and local agencies for design /engineering services, the State would need to hire an additional 12,000 employees at an annual cost of $1.5 billion. This initiative has been opposed by a number of governmental and private agencies. A listing has been previously provided to the Coucil. Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council adopt Resolution No. 98- opposing the "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment" on the basis that it removes local control over professional design /engineering contract awards, it will cause undue delays in public projects within the City of Moorpark, will provide no savings to taxpayers, and provide no protection to residents which is not already provided in contract documents. Attachments: Resolution No. 98- Initiative with annotated comments 0001 %k� meCOMPETITION KILLERInitiative SECTION 1. TITLE This s all 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 pro- vided by the state and certain other entities be furnished at the low- est 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, ar- chitectural, landscape architectural, surveying, environmental, oren- aineerina geologv 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, de- partment, division, bureau, board, and commission but does not in- clude the University of California, the Caldomia 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, * 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 s fled in subsection (�of ward ublic fa- t n awarded by the public or private entity _ expenditure tate funds or involves a program. Project. fa cllity or public work for which the state or any state agency has or will have wnershi liability, or responsibility for construction. o IKmaintenanm. As used in this section, 'state fund all money appropn n, „ r ,4c La-,i nd3ure 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 per- forming 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 dire �jiltl'the state to provide the same services as the contrac- tor, and the cost of the contract shall include all anticipated contract c�,un�ea ' 'op' and deceptive title dreamed up by initiative 3romoters to deceive voters. Ask yourself: Would a state ) ureaucrats' gmup real spend 12 million to help taxpayers? 'romoters say their intent is competitive bidding. If that's :rue why are the California Taxpayers' Associadon, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Chamber of Zommerce, California Healthcare Assodadon, California School Boards Association, League of California Cides and Assodadon of California Water Agencies against it among many others? Phis section was written to hide what the measure would really do sector competition from private architects and engineers in building bridges, flood control projects, schools, parksi` highways and prisons. This was written specifically by the state bureaucrats to capture all design and engineering work for bridges, high- ways, mass transit, prisons, schools, flood control and other projects. The initiative would threaten safety. By eliminating private sector 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 firms. But under this section virtually all schools, hospitals, flood control levees and Oils will be designed by state employees. Loaf control would be lost under this section because local projects could be held hostage by an unaccountable state bureaucracy. Normal contract conditions such as delivering a project on schedule and within budget are conspicuously missing from this inidadve. And local governments would have no say in the process. 1 1' ) I u lilt, 1 l :1 .11 Here's where the initiative would allow state bureaucrat costs to appear artificially low by ignoring essential job expenses such as existing employee compensation, rent, utilities, phones and office expenses as well as insurance, health and "safety experts, legal and capital costs. No such breaks for private companies, however, who must include these real -world expenses in their bids. 000137 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 con- tract would not be in the public interest, would have an adverse im- pact 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 invohring 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 con- tracting 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 re- sult in the loss of federal funding to the contracting entity for con- tracts for service. 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 pro- visions or applications of the Amendment which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, 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 state's consti- tutional authority, as determined by decisions of the California Su- preme Court and California Courts of Appeal in effect on the effec- tive date of this Amendment, to enter into contracts with private or public entities. SECTION 6. RELATIONSHIP TO 0 fhER MUtSURES 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. These sections would create a bureaucratic black hole for vital school, transportation, flood control, seismic safety and other projects. The initiative creates a virtual Public Works Czar by giving one politician — the state controller — enormous power to decide on tens of thousands of projects worth billions of dollars. That's just too much wpo er to 'vet a one politician. Because the initiative specifies no deadline by which this Public Works Czar must act, that office would become a plf?jgst bottleneck indefinitely delaying vital school, highway, transit, flood control and bridge projects. The complete lack of any engineering or architectural experience in the state controller's office, coupled with the enormous responsibilities of managing the process, would in vi a jy delay important projects such as re lu acing tht Be Bridge,, construction of the Alameda Rail Corridor in Los Angeles and seismic retrofits throughout the state., This bogus section talks about competitive bidding. But because of the rigged cost - comparison there won't be any competitive bidding for design and engineering work. Only state bureaucrats will get these jobs, and taxpayers will pay the price. Contractors are already fully responsible for their work and can lose their licenses and current and future business if they don't perform. But this section is unfair because it requires design consultants to be responsible for the mistakes of others including the state bureaucrats. Engineering and architectural services are the gateway to construction. As the state is denied these private sector services up to 100,000 private construction and related jobs could be lost in the first two years alone, as a result of construction delays caused by this initiative. The initiative would be locked into the California Constitu- don and would supersede ail current procurement statutes. To correct any flaws, another constitutional ballot issue and statewide vote would be required. Even the legislature Taxpayers fed Up With More State Bureaucracy A Coalition of business, engineers, architects and taxpayers 111 Anza Blvd. 6406 Burlingame. CA 94010 0# 960380 Oolutaci RESOLUTION NO. 98- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK, CALIFORNIA OPPOSING STATE BALLOT INITIATIVE "GOVERNMENT COST SAVINGS AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION AMENDMENT." WHEREAS, the ballot measure entitled "Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment" (Initiative) would prohibit local control over the awarding of design and engineering and similar service contracts for projects that involve State funds or in which the State has an interest; and WHEREAS, the proposed initiative would have a major economic impact on the local economy by delaying the construction and improvements of necessary infrastructures within the City of Moorpark; and WHEREAS, the Initiative would reduce local control and authority over a number of projects and programs, placing such control and review in the hands of the State Controller's Office which is not accountable to the residents of Moorpark; and WHEREAS, the Initiative does not allow, within its standard evaluation process, factors such as expertise, reliability, responsibility and liability; and WHEREAS, the Initiative is likely to increase costs to taxpayers with the requirement for the State to hire additional employees costing up to an additional $1.5 billion per year; and WHEREAS, there are no provisions within the Initiative that ensure prompt or satisfactory performance from State employees if in fact a contract cannot be awarded to other entities because of the Initiative's provisions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOORPARK AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Moorpark does hereby oppose the state ballot measure entitled "The Government Cost Savings and Taxpayer Protection Amendment" as neither being a cost saving to the residents of the State nor providing protection to taxpayers that their taxes will be efficiently spent. 000135 Resolution No. 98 - Page 02 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall forward copies of this resolution to Governor Wilson, the Ventura County Legislative delegation, the League of California Cities and to local news media. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4t' day of February 1998. Patrick Hunter, Mayor ATTEST: Debbie Traffenstedt, City Clerk 0001.40