List of Bay Area School Bonds

Bay Area voters are going to see many school bonds on the ballot November 4th. Unlike the billion dollar bonds in San Diego ($2.1 billion) and Los Angeles ($8 billion), the school bonds are much smaller. The largest school bond is a Gilroy Unified School District's $150 million dollar bond.

Below is the round up:

Alameda County

• Measure O, San Lorenzo Unified, An $83 million bond measure, To modernize, replace and renovate schools.

Contra Costa County

• Measure E, Acalanes Union High School District, $93 million bond measure, For facilities, including technology upgrades and new schools.

San Mateo County

• Measure X, Millbrae Elementary School District, $30 million bond measure, For facilities, including school modernization and repairs.

Santa Clara County

• Measure P, Gilroy Unified School District, $150 million bond measure, to build Christopher High School and repair facilities.

• Measure S, Oak Grove School District, A $125 million bond measure.

• Measure V, Patterson Joint Unified, A $50 million bond measure.
  

Sonoma County

• Measure J, Bellevue Union School District, A $19 million bond measure.

House Passes Green Energy Bill With Davis-Bacon and PLA Language Included

I picked up this news from the Building Trades Department Website.

The House passed HR. 6899 (Abercrombie-D) in mid September. The bill, which has pro-labor elements, is a comprehensive energy bill that allocates 40% of all revenue from new offshore drilling to the rapid development of alternative fuels, renewable energy technologies, energy conservation and environmental clean-up, and sharing 30% of the revenue with the participating States. The president threatened to veto the bill with the strong labor provisions. Rep. Abercrombie blogged about the bill and its strong environmental elements after the bill passed the House.

According to the Building Trades Website:

The House Sept. 16 passed an energy policy bill with both Davis-Bacon Act and project labor agreement components that the White House promptly threatened to veto over provisions that officials said either failed to pass in other legislation, or which were previously threatened by veto.

The legislation, the Comprehensive American Energy Security and Consumer Protection Act (H.R. 6899/S. 3478), passed by a largely partisan vote of 236-189. It contains many renewable tax incentives that are incorporated into the House-passed energy and tax extenders bill (H.R. 6049) and were incorporated into a new bipartisan energy and tax extenders bill fully unveiled Sept. 17 and expected to be on the Senate floor later this week.

However, the Bush administration in a policy statement released the same day as the House vote, threatened to veto the House bill. Administration officials argued that while the legislation purported to open access to American energy sources, in reality it would stifle development of new oil and gas resources.

Moreover, the officials added that the bill included several "poison pill" provisions. Specific to construction, the administration took issue with provisions it said would expand "Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage requirements contrary to the Administration's long-standing policy of opposing statutory attempts to expand or contract the Davis-Bacon Act."

According to a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate versions of the bill, the legislation includes several tax incentives for renewable energy. "The measure provides for the allocation of $2.625 billion in energy conservation bonds, $1.75 billion in clean renewable energy bonds, and $1.75 billion in energy security bonds to finance the installation of natural gas pumps at gas stations; all would be tax-credit bonds, which provide a tax credit in lieu of interest, and projects financed through the bonds would have to comply with Davis-Bacon requirements," the report said.

Ill be watching this bill. It could bring major benefits to our renewable nation's energy portfolio and workforce. The bill can be found here.

Contractors Fined Over $300,000 for Crane Accidents

According to the USA Today,

A federal agency hit three construction firms with penalties totaling $313,500 on Monday for alleged safety violations leading to a tower crane collapse that killed seven people last March.

The citations by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration named Reliance Contractors Group, the general contractor; Rapetti Rigging Services, Inc., the crane erector; and Joy Contractors Inc., the concrete subcontractor on the project.

And this is before the lawsuits....

More Wall Street Impacts, AIG in Construction Bonds

So Sara Palin of was on a the Republican friendly Hannity and Colmes talk show and commented about AIG's potential failure and how it could send shockwaves through the public works construciton world. Of course, there was a lot of partisan criticism, but there may be something what she was saying.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

AIG was, however, the 14th largest issuer of surety bonds on construction, said William Schwartzkopf, president of Sage Consulting Group and author of several books on construction claims. By writing a surety bond, an issuer, such as AIG, is guaranteeing that the contractor will finish a construction job. Last year, there were $5.3 billion in premiums for surety bonds written, including $79 million for surety bonds written by AIG.

Even if AIG had gone under, states, which regulate the financial guarantees under their insurance codes, would have covered any AIG claims with a government fund. But there was no guarantee that contractors and those who commissioned them would be completely covered.

More importantly, since very few companies–Schwartzkopf guesses fewer than 10, including AIG–have the capacity to write “the truly big bonds” for expensive construction projects, there would have been “dislocation in the short-term,” as contractors who routinely turn to AIG for their bonds cast around for other issuers.

One of the biggest problems for contractors large and small is bonding. Yet another hoop, but if AIG would have failed would the hoop have become more expensive?

Some Details About the $700 Billion Dollar Bail Out

Ok, I'm just as turned around on this bailout thing, but the San Francisco Chronicle reports that the bill that should pass will have these components.

-- Provides up to $700 billion, starting with an initial $250 billion, for the Treasury Department to purchase troubled assets, mainly in the area of mortgages, that are weighing down the financial system.

-- Gives the Treasury Department, working with experts chosen by the government, the authority to fashion the asset purchase program.

-- Requires the Treasury to modify troubled loans wherever possible to help families keep their homes. It also directs other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.

-- Calls for restrictions on the pay and benefits received by executives whose companies are selling some of their bad assets through the government's purchase program.

-- The Treasury would be required to provide details of its purchases within two days of the transactions and various oversight boards would be created to monitor the operation of the program.

-- Taxpayers would be given ownership stakes in companies whose bad assets are purchased. After five years, if the government is facing a loss in the program, the president would be required to submit a plan recommending how the money could be recouped from financial companies.

-- Establishes a program whereby banks could buy government insurance that would cover the principal and interest on certain troubled assets, rather than selling them outright. Premiums would vary depending on the assets' risk profile.

Governor Terminates Prevailing Wage Penalties

Unfortunately, the Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed AB 2002, which would have increased the penalties from $50 to $100 per day. This bill which was sponsored by the Los Angeles Unified School District, sought to stem the tide of underpayment of prevailing wages on its projects. The Governor apparently does not see the need for the stick with regards to this issue. The governor in his veto message said:

While I strongly support efforts to ensure compliance with our prevailing wage laws, the proponents of this measure have failed to demonstrate a need for the increased penalties or evidence that simply doubling penalties and creating new liabilities is an effective way of achieving greater compliance. Strong enforcement of existing laws, as well as concerted public outreach and education of employers, will do far more to ensure compliance with our laws than simply indiscriminately doubling penalties.

While strong enforcement of the labor laws is happening with more sophisticated Labor Compliance programs, contractors are not discouraged from breaking the law. In fact with the small penalties there becomes an economic disincentive for public agencies to take legal action against contractors. The LAUSD provided the following testimony about prevailing wage violations.

Since 2003, the District has initiated over 1,700 cases in which a contractor or subcontractor has failed to pay the appropriate prevailing wage. As a result of our Labor Compliance Program, the District has recovered more than $6 million in back wages and penalties. Of the more than 1,700 cases, 218 cases required legal action and have cost the District more than $2.7 million to litigate.

Hopefully Assembly Member de Leon will introduce this bill next year. But I think it was a great shot at doing the right thing.