Public Works Solutions

AGC of San Diego Predicts Some Good Things from the Obama Administration!

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 17:52:00 +0000

I have some shocking news. The AGC of San Diego has finally printed some good news. Good news to me that is.

The AGC here in town usually prints anti-union venom every Monday with their Monday Morning Quarterback. It does have some good information sometimes about local and national construction industry news, but often it just includes anti organized lab rants and raves by the senior staff.

In their post election analysis they were certain that the Obama Administration was going to push for two major labor policy changes. The first is removing the ban on Project Labor Agreements on Federally funded projects. The second is implementing the Free Choice Act. This update to the National Labor Relations Act, allows for a workplace to be organized if majority of workers to say that they want to be a part of a union.

Below you can find the article. Please remember the author's tone is not labor friendly and they are getting ready to fight. But it is good to see the local AGC on thier heels.

President Elect Obama is going to face some unprecedented challenges as he takes office this January. Our economy is in terrible shape, and we are fighting two wars on two different fronts. I am sure all AGC members understand the difficult task the new administration will be facing and how important it is that the administration stay focused on the critical problems our country is now experiencing.

However, we also see some troubling priorities that appear to be on our President Elect’s “front burner.” These priorities involve sweeping changes to our labor laws that will result in the most comprehensive changes in labor relations since the 1940’s. With the Democratic Party holding solid majorities in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate, we see the following actions moving soon after the inauguration:

To set the tone….here is a quote from President Elect Obama’s April 2008 speech to the delegates attending the Building Trades National Convention….

“They (Bush Administration) don’t believe in unions. They don’t believe in organizing. They’ve packed the National Labor Relations Board with their corporate buddies. Well, we’ve got news for them….it’s not the Department of Management, it’s the Department of Labor, and we’re going to take it back.”

So what can we expect?

The Employee Free Choice Act

As a Senator, President-Elect Obama was a co-sponsor of the Employee Free Choice Act. This law makes union organizing of a workforce easy……I think too easy. It simply requires the union to obtain 50% +1 of your employees in a particular craft to sign cards. There is no election. When this happens your firm has a union. Yes, you do get to negotiate for an agreement after the cards are signed, but if you are unable to reach an agreement with the union within a specified time period, an arbitrator will be called in and the terms of the agreement will be subject to binding arbitration. This initial agreement will be a two-year agreement.

Under the law that has existed since the 1940’s, unions could get cards signed by 30% of your work force and then call for an election which is overseen by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). If 50% +1 of the unit employees voted for the union you are required to enter into negotiations. If you are unable to reach an agreement, the union has the right to strike/picket but does not necessarily end up with an agreement.

The Employee Free Choice Act takes away the secret ballot election that is currently a mandatory part of the election process. In addition, it contains a powerful new tool that will create a very difficult atmosphere for employers facing a union organizing campaign. The union, probably through individual employees, will be able to file a civil suit against an employer for violating an employee’s right to organize during a campaign. The fine is up to $20,000 per violation. I would assume that it will be tempting for the unions to convince the employees to file these suits during the card signing process even if the allegation is a “stretch.”

Unions like nothing better than to have a big fine hanging over an employer’s head during these campaigns. This is not possible under current law. In addition, if an employee is fired during a campaign, and it is found that the firing was a result of the employee’s involvement in the campaign, the employer will owe the employee the employees lost wages times three.

Now, it is a given that the Employee Free Choice Act is going to pass and be signed by the President during 2009. Obviously, AGC and all other major construction and non-construction interests are gearing up for the legislative battle that will surround this Act when it is introduced. Its exact form is not known, but assuming that it passes in a form similar to the above, please understand that AGC staff and legal experts are working on innovative ways to assist contractors.

And….if you are a union contractor do not believe that you will not be affected by the Employee Free Choice Act. It is no secret that there is a great deal of union to union friction in the Building Trades right now. I predict that there will be efforts to amend the Employee Free Choice Act to position some of the larger Building Trades unions to organize workers in the smaller building trades unions. Certain building Trades Unions are committed to the concept of reducing the number of building trades unions, and this is a real opportunity to structure easy takeovers of smaller unions!!!!

Project Labor Agreements (PLAs)

In a September 16^th, 2008 letter to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers President Elect Obama wrote….

“We need to make sure the government uses project labor agreements to encourage completion of projects on time and on budget. One of the first things George Bush did when he got into office was to ban PLAs. One of the first things I’ll do as President is repeal that ban.”

This returns us to the way it was before President Bush took office. How extensively the PLA will be used in this “Federal” context remains to be seen, but….beware.

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

The NLRB in Washington hears and attempts to decide all major labor cases. There are five Board members appointed by the President. Normally three of the appointees will be from the President’s party, and will view labor relations as the President does, and two appointees will be from the other party. During the Bush years, the President did not have a full five-member Board for very long. This caused some of the most controversial cases, including the “Ban the Banner” case, not to be decided since these cases by tradition will only be addressed when five members are serving.

We expect all five to be appointed quickly in the Obama Administration!!!

I have been involved in construction industry labor relations for the past 30 years. There is no question that the next few years will be a real challenge. If the Employee Free Choice Act passes in any form similar to what we have seen in past versions of the legislation, our industry and all other industries face some real difficulties. However, please remember actually implementing something this unfair will be difficult.

Stay tuned.

High Speed Rail Hits the Fast Track with Election Day Victory

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 20:15:00 +0000

Sorry about the absence. I'm back....

High Speed Rail Passes

Proposition 1A, the $10 billion statewide high speed rail was approved by a 52-48 margin. The race was really close. As our state is in a real dire fiscal situation, my assumption is that voters balked at supporting more debt for our "gold plated" state.

The High Speed Rail's Business Plan predicts that the service will have an operating surplus of $1 billion, will grow jobs and be good for the environment.

I am wary of overly optimistic financial modeling, but the price looks right.

The Business Plan calculates that passenger revenues for the backbone link between Los Angeles/Anaheim and San Francisco will exceed operating and maintenance costs. With train fares set at 50 percent of airfares, high-speed trains will carry 55 million traveler trips in 2030 and generate $2.4 billion in revenues for this portion of the high-speed train system. Annual operation and maintenance costs for this link have been estimated at approximately $1.3 billion.

According to the High Speed Rail Authority, In addition to 160,000 construction jobs over the next two decades, high-speed trains will generate 320,000 permanent jobs by 2030, growing to 450,000 jobs in 2035, according to the Business Plan. The business plan also sees the project helping the environment by saving 12.7 million barrels of oil per year and eliminating 12 billion pounds of CO2 emissions a year.

With construction potentially slated to start in 2010 jobs and passengers can be moving sooner rather than later.

Here is a copy of the business plan.

Are Los Angeles Tax and Bond Measures in Trouble?

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:41:00 +0000

With the backdrop of major a slowing economy and a financial crisis, voters in Los Angeles are in struggling whether to pass major bond and tax measures.

The county of Los Angeles as the following measures:

Measure J: Los Angeles Community College District, $3.5 Billion Bond
Measure Q: Los Angeles Unified School District, $7 Billion Bond
Measure R: Los Angeles County, Half Cent Sales Tax for Transportation Improvement

Measures J and Q require 55 percent to pass and Measure R require approval by of over two thirds of voters. That is over $10 billion in bonds alone. In addition to that there are other smaller school bonds for other local districts.

According to the LA Times each measure may be facing stiff opposition from voters as they are asked how much to contribute to the public good.

Measure R, with the two-thirds requirement appears to be doing well.

County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky, who is working with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to pass the half-cent sales tax increase known as Measure R, said voter opinion polls taken all the way through last month -- even during the onset of the global credit crunch -- show the transportation measure at the two-thirds needed for passage.

Backers of Measure R argue that it could recharge the economy by creating 210,000 jobs. And Yaroslavsky said residents are determined to do something about traffic, even if that means being choosy on election day. "Voters are discriminating. They will say 'yes' to this and 'no' to that," he said.

The question about the bond measures is whether or not voters have fatigue from approving many bonds in the past. The bonds in Los Angeles, which are paid by increased property taxes, are going to increase the tax burden on local residents. Again according to the Times.

To cover the cost of the last four bond measures, property owners are paying $125 per year for every $100,000 that a home is worth, according to school district officials. That figure is expected to reach $185 in 2012 even if Measure Q is defeated, because of the debt incurred from bond measures passed in 1997, 2002, 2004 and 2005.

To put it another way, a home worth $350,000 is now seeing an extra $437 in annual property taxes from L.A. Unified's previous bond measures. By 2012, that amount will reach $637.

If Measure Q passes, a $350,000 home will be assessed at an average of $101 in property taxes per year over the 30-year life of the bond, according to the district. But school officials promise that those taxes won't go into effect until more of the debt from the previous bonds is paid off, keeping the burden from exceeding $185 per $100,000 in assessed property value.

We will see what the voters say on November 4th.

Small Airports Take a Nose Dive

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 03:22:00 +0000

I came across this article a while ago and was shocked at how much the smaller airports that have low cost flights are cutting back flights. The Wall Street Journal posted an article that broke down some of the numbers how the airports are affected. California is really getting hit hard.

One of my favorite airports, Oakland International has 28 percent fewer flights.

Other examples are:

Many large cities hit with capacity cuts of 15% or more are Southwest-heavy airports: Ontario, Calif.; Kansas City, Mo.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Orange County, Calif.; Spokane, Wash.; Reno, Nev.; Tulsa, Okla.; Hartford, Conn.; Raleigh-Durham, N.C.; Las Vegas; and San Jose, Calif. Chicago's Midway Airport, where Southwest dominates, will lose 17% of its seats in November, while Chicago's O'Hare International Airport, where fares are generally higher, will see an 11% loss in service.

San Francisco's Hetch Hetchy Water Improvements Flow Forward

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 13:54:00 +0000

The project to repair the Hetch Hetchy water system reached a significant milestone earlier this month. This project which supplies water to approximately 2.5 million people in the Bay Area, released the final draft of its Project Environmental Impact Report (PEIR). The PEIR is a major environmental study that describes the impact of the project. It also outlines alternatives that can help the project have less adverse effects on the environment.

The system upgrade, which has a price tag of $4.4 billion, will pay for improvements throughout the whole system. According to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, the projects scope includes repairing, replacing, and seismically upgrading the system’s deteriorating pipelines, tunnels, reservoirs, pump stations, storage tanks, and dams. The program is funded by a bond measure that was approved by San Francisco voters in November 2002 and includes more than 80 projects throughout the service area – from San Francisco to Hetch Hetchy – to be completed by the end of 2015.

According to the SF Gate the project will have significant water recycling and water conservation efforts as well.

The study focused on keeping deliveries to 265 million gallons per day - the current amount - until at least 2018. The aims are twofold: limit water drawn from the ecologically sensitive Tuolumne River watershed; and press the regional water agencies to conserve and recycle water.

To meet that goal, however, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, which represents the 27 South and East Bay contractors, would have to cut water consumption by 25 million gallons per day. Under the original plan, those agencies had to cut use by 15 million gallons per day. San Francisco would be required to conserve or recycle 10 million gallons per day, the same total in the proposal's first draft.

This project should be a boon to local employment as well. It is covered by a project labor agreement that requires that 50 percent of the craft hours are worked by local residents. I know the staff that is implementing the agreement and have faith that the project will meet its water supply, environmental and workforce goals.

The Bailout Wave Could Wipe Out Needed Federal Improvements

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 14:10:00 +0000

According to a recent article in The Hill, it appears improvements to America's federally funded infrastructure are threatened to be slashed. The $700 billion bailout is starting to create a "zero sum", shrinking pie scenario in Washington DC. This means that money allocated to one program, takes it away from another. In this case, the funds that go to the bailout, will not be spent on our nation's concrete backbone.

The funds for the bailout did not come out of thin air. Unless there is a sharp uptick in revenues (unlikely), improvements and maintenance of highways, rail systems, airports and other infrastructure may be scaled back.

One issue that has long term implications is the funding of the federal Highway Trust Fund. This is the tax that we pay per gallon of gas. Now that cars are becoming more fuel efficient and people are driving less there is less money going into the fund. The Feds bailed out the tax this year, but what happens next year when it is reauthorized against a shrinking pie?

I hope the bailout does not pay for expensive executive retreats, at the expense of our nation's future.

Below are some of the key points that were included in "The Hill" article.

Even in difficult times, our country should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time,” said Polly Trottenberg. “Regardless what happens with the bailout, the federal government must commit to infrastructure development to ensure jobs and create long-term economic growth.”
Trottenberg is the executive director of Building America’s Future . The coalition, founded by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell (D) and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R), is made up of elected officials focused on renewing infrastructure spending.
Fixing the nation’s roads, bridges and airports won’t be cheap. It could cost $1.6 trillion over five years, according to the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
That includes $39.5 billion to modernize America’s aviation system over five years, which lobbyists for the airlines, airports and other entities say would ease air traffic congestion and cut down on passenger delays.
The ASCE argues Congress needs to appropriate $155.5 billion annually to fix roads and bridges. It estimates that drivers spend about 4.2 billion hours stuck in gridlock per year at a cost of $78.2 billion to the economy.
Improvements and maintenance of federal highways is funded through the Highway Trust Fund, which is facing a shortfall because of high gas prices. Taxes on gas go into the fund, but collections are dropping as Americans drive less due to steep fuel costs.
Congress passed an $8 billion stopgap this month for the fund that should last until the end of the next fiscal year, Sept. 30, 2009.
In writing next year’s highway bill, Congress will tackle how to handle the trust fund shortfall, which could be exacerbated by the financial meltdown. On Monday, the price of oil shot up as investors, shaken by the instability of U.S. financial institutions, sought refuge in oil stocks.

Credit Crunch Could Hurt California's Public Works

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:25:00 +0000

I am still trying to wrap my brain around this whole financial crisis. One thing I have found appalling is how the financial free fall affects California. It hurts both the current operations of the state as well as the long term capital programs we have.

Last week, the Governor announced that he may have to seek a loan from the Federal Government to cover operating expenses as the state can not access bond markets to secure funds. But the bad news does not end there.

But for me the most disturbing concept is the potential long term impacts of borrowing funds for future projects. If the public agencies can not sell their bonds then, they can not build their projects. Many of California's education, water and transportation programs are funded by these voter approved bonds.

According to the LA Daily News:

California voters approved an unprecedented $42 billion in bonds in 2006 to pay for projects ranging from freeway upgrades to new schools to flood-control levees. In addition, dozens of previously approved bonds for parks, water projects and other public facilities still need to be sold. The state had been planning to sell an estimated $2 billion in bonds in November.

Currently, there aren't a lot of buyers of municipal bonds. Those who are buying are demanding high interest rates - which make the infrastructure projects more expensive for taxpayers.
Some government agencies are already paying more because they have variable-rate debt, increasing or decreasing, depending on the market.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has sought to restructure some debt tied to rising interest rates. The agency is paying $1million more per month on its existing debt due to recent increases in lending rates, said chief financial services officer Terry Matsumoto.

List of Bay Area School Bonds

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 03:24:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 06:41:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 04:03:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:17:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 16:15:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 04:50:00 +0000

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.

No on Proposition 7

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:19:00 +0000

Much to the chagrin of some of my friends, I am firmly planted against Proposition 7, the Clean Energy and Solar Initiative. While I think the expansion of Renewable energy is needed, this initiative is so poorly written that it is makes things more complicated. My philosophy with ballot measures is that if I cannot explain exactly how it will make my life better, I vote no. For example, high speed rail to Bay Area = fast trip to SF = good. I also think the proposition makes promises it cant keep.

Ill be blogging more about this, but it is interesting that everyone is against this proposition. Labor, environmentalists, solar producers, Democrats, Republicans, taxpayer associations and now the editorial pages of the LA Times and Santa Cruz Sentential.

I think the LA Times editorial points one of the main reasons I am against it.

The measure also contains confusing language that seems to exclude small renewable plants that generate less than 30 megawatts from counting toward meeting the state's clean-power goals. This is a problem because the transition to solar power is being led by businesses and homeowners, who increasingly are putting solar panels on their rooftops and selling small amounts of energy back to the utilities, while getting rebates for installing the systems. Some utilities, such as Southern California Edison, are also leasing rooftop space from corporations for large (though less than 30-megawatt) installations. If such projects don't count toward meeting the state's renewable-power goal, which would probably be the case under Proposition 7, there would no longer be any incentive for the utilities to pay for them. That's why environmental groups are rightly appalled by this initiative, which could actually slow the growth of solar power.

Anti-Union Contractor Association Blasts Its Own Member for Winning PLA Project Under Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:30:00 +0000

I don't understand the Anti-Union Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) Association. Apparently their rabid opposition to project labor agreements has totally blinded them. I commented on a letter to the editor that the government affairs person penned blasting an ABC member, Hensel Phelps for doing a poor job of outreach to small and local businesses on the San Joaquin County Administration Building project. This project is covered by a project labor agreement.

Out of the $92 million contract award, she complains that less than ten per cent of the contracting dollars has gone to local firms.

There are several things that make me wonder about the organization's focus.

Why are they beating up on their own contractors? Isn't a contractor association supposed to promote and advocate for their contractors and not smear them in the editorial pages of local newspapers.
According to San Joaquin County the engineers estimate was $109 million. The project came in at $92 million.
Hensel - Phelps is a non-union contractor that bids, wins and is proud of its projects that are covered by project labor agreements. Hensel Phelps is not ashamed of this project, why is the ABC?

Los Angeles Unified School District Extends Its Project Labor Agreement

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:25:00 +0000

Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is extending its project labor agreement (PLA) for five more years until 2013. The LAUSD modernization project is considered by many as the largest public works project in nation. The project so far has a budget of $20.3 billion dollars. The LA Business Journal published the original story here.

Like most good PLAs, this one includes local hiring provisions. This one is literally paying off for the community. Fifty percent of the local workforce are to be district residents. According to LAUSD "12,400 local workers on LAUSD projects have earned a total of $136.6 million in wages since July 2004."

Other highlights of the construction program include:

72 schools completed
Six new schools to open in September 2008
More than 16,500 modernization projects completed
One Billion in state funding garnered for new school construction and modernization by Facilities Legislation, Grants and Funding since 1998
More than 50 joint use agreements in place, with another 90 in development
In 2007, LAUSD inducted into the Green California Schools Hall of Fame

As stated in a previous blog entry LAUSD is attempting to bundle many of the projects into a $7 billon school bond that will be on the ballot this November

Governor Finally Signs Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 15:57:00 +0000

According to the San Francisco Chronicle:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a months-late state budget on Tuesday, allowing billions of dollars of overdue state funds to start flowing to services across the Golden State.

The $145 billion spending plan was 85 days late, a record for California, which has become accustomed to late budgets. In the past two decades, the state has passed a budget on time just four times.

Apparently one of the the biggest losers (not the tv show) is public transportation which is getting a huge cut. For example the Metro Transit Authority in LA will be cut by $89 million. It seems ironic that while the state is trying to reduce greenhouse gasses and fuel prices are soaring, they are limiting the transportation options for millions of people.

Also the governor now will begin to start signing or vetoing bills that passed the legislature. He threatened the legislature with vetoing all bills that were sent to him, if a budget was not signed first. There are approximately 900 bills that he must review. If he does not veto the bills by September 30th, they become law automatically.

Joe's Union Review

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:20:00 +0000

While looking for solid content on the web I came across Joe's Union Review.

It is a pretty cool blog with a lot of content, links and other progressive points. The blog covers politics, unions and workforce issues from the people's perspective. When he got back to me I could tell that he is a blogger that has a "rage for justice".

When I told him my blog was not that political as his, he shot back, "not as political,' my arse, I'd hate to be an unscrupulous contractor in your area."

I just want to say thanks and would encourage anyone that likes this blog to check his out too.

I'll be getting content from him in the near future.

California Budget Stalemate Round Up

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:10:00 +0000

So, you ask what is everyone saying about California's bad budget. Let me tell you in on what everyone else is saying.

The SacBee has a time line of how the budget fight went down.

The writers on SF Gate say the troubles are going to continue into next year.

The writers at the LA Times say that California's financial trauma is just getting started.

The Press Enterprise of Riverside says that the current spending plan promises new budget battles.

The SacBee talked to some mediators that compared the budget process to arms control talks between countries in NATO.

We are likely going to have a special election in 2009 regarding budget related issues.

The Dems are organizing to change the threshold requirements to pass a budget.

Lastly, Ike Skelton Says of the LA Times reports that everyone is to blame for our current mess.

Is Lending for Contractors Going to Continue to be Tough

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 14:02:00 +0000

As the world is aware the Federal government is bailing out the financial industry. It appears that while the bailout does keep the markets from going into a free fall, the benefits of the bailout are not going to provide much short term relief for those in need of credit. This includes small businesses and contractors.

The Fresno Bee ran an article about how the credit crunch is affecting small businesses. Below is an excerpt from the article.

Small-business loans
Small-business owners and entrepreneurs, once the darlings of the lending industry, are also finding a tougher time securing financing.
At the Fresno office of U.S. Small Business Administration, the number of loans backed by the federal program dropped 28% from August 2007 to August 2008. And the total dollar amount of those loans declined 16% during the same period.
Ron Truly, deputy district director of Fresno's SBA office, said that in a down economy, retailers and service businesses have a more difficult time finding money to launch their ventures.
"Lenders are looking at how they used to do business and now they are looking at how they need to do business," Truly said. "And what they find acceptable is getting a little tougher."
Businesses that appear to have escaped the tightened lending standards are those that are expanding and buying property, such as a manufacturer or even a large-scale retailer. SBA-backed loans for the purchase of real estate dipped just 6%, but the total dollar amount rose by 12%.
"These are businesses that are more established and able to weather an economic storm," Truly said.

Palin Says "Yes" to Road to Nowhere After She Says No to Bridge

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:23:00 +0000

So Sara Palin opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere" after she supported it, but apparently she never opposed the $26 million "Road to Nowhere". This "fiscal hawk" who is campaigning against "earmarks" seems to love to feed at the trough of taxpayer dollars. ProPublica posted a story about it.

So it turns out that when the bridge was stopped, other projects related to the bridge did not. One project is a 3.2 mile road that does not go anywhere. The road is described by the mayor as a perfect place to run a 10K, flat and no traffic. I think this quote sums up the contridiction between the rhetoric and the reality well.

Epstein, director of the nonpartisan Alaska Transportation Priorities Project, told ProPublica she handed Palin an editorial that had run the prior month in the Anchorage Daily News. The editorial, by Heritage Foundation fellow Ronald Utt, called the road a "wasteful" project with "little to no measurable benefit." It urged Palin to be "responsible and ethical" and "return the money to Washington" so it could be redirected to hurricane-ravaged Louisiana and Mississippi. Utt's piece reflected the consensus in Washington, D.C., and Alaska that no more money would be earmarked for the bridge project, which had become a symbol of pork-barrel spending.

I really feel like I am in bizzaro world. If you tell some one a lie enough, maybe you can define the truth with slogans. No Earmarks!? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot (over)

Passing of Budget Removes Governor's Veto Threat

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:30:00 +0000

The Governor promised that he would veto all bills (with a few exceptions, like high speed rail) unless he signed a budget first. With the Constitutional deadline of September 30th approaching for bills to be signed or vetoed, it looked like there would be a lot of vetoes.

Now that we have a budget we just have to see which specific bills get the red pen.

I found this LA times article that gave an overview of the 1000 bills that might have been vetoed.

We Got A Budget!

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:09:00 +0000

Californians can breathe a sigh of relief until next year. The budget is 81 days late. Unlike the budget passed earlier this week, this one will be signed by the governor. The lack of a budget caused the state not to pay contractors, vendors, schools and health care providers. That is a lot of float for may contractors on state projects.

According to the Sac Bee here are the changes between the budget that failed and the budget that passed.

• Tightened restrictions on using money from proposed rainy-day fund during down economic times.

• Eliminated proposal to increase withholding on personal income taxpayers by 10 percent. ($1.5 billion loss)

• Increased penalty from 10 percent to 20 percent for corporate taxpayers who underpay their liability by $1 million or more. ($1.5 billion gain)

• Eliminated tax amnesty program. ($400 million loss)

• Reduced budget reserve for 2008-09 from $1.2 billion to $800 million. ($400 million change)

Source: California Legislature

In addition some of the budget experts are predicting some big problems for next year's budget. The California Budget Project is seeing some big problems as the budget does not raise any new revenue.

They did an analysis of the budget that was to be vetoed and it lists the programs that would be affected. It appears as though the two budgets are pretty much the same with regards to spending priorities.

Budget Deal Gets Promise of Veto and Override

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:50:00 +0000

The California Legislature approved a budget that the governor has pledged to veto. It appears as though the veto will be overridden. With a two thirds majority to override a veto, which is the same number of votes needed to pass a budget an override will be easy. The budget bill will become law, when the legislature overrides the governor's veto.

According to the SF Gate.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger promised Tuesday he will veto a state budget that state lawmakers had approved hours earlier, saying the plan is flawed and would create an even worse fiscal crisis for California next year.

Senate President Perata and Assembly Speaker Bass say that the votes are there to override the veto.

Vendors and contractors, I do believe your check will be in the mail soon.

Governor Threatens to Veto Budget

noreply@blogger.com (Charles Bradshaw) — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 06:58:00 +0000

The governor is threatening to veto the recent budget that is 77 days late.

The budget that "solves" the budget crisis, is going to over tax people by ten percent and give back the money at the end of the year anything overpaid.

Call it a no interest loan to the state.

But the governor is not going to veto it on those grounds. Governor Schwarzenegger is going to veto it because there are not enough checks and balances on the budget reserve.

Read more here.