CC - Item III.B - Supporting the "Fair Competition And Taxpayer Savings Act" InitiativeTO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
staf leporI
HONORABLE MAYOR
AND MEMBERS
ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
FRANK G. TRIPEPI, CITY MANAGER
MAY 4, 2000
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-23 SUPPORTING THE "FAIR COMPETITION
AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT" INITIATIVE
Attached for your consideration is a request from the Taxpayers for Fair Competition for support
of an initiative on the November statewide ballot concerning the design of public works projects.
As a result of a series of lawsuits brought by a small group of Caltrans engineers who want to
keep all project design and engineering work in-house, state agencies are banned from
contracting with private engineers and architects on state funded projects such as highway,
bridge and transit improvements.
Attached is a resolution of support and an information from the Taxpayers for Fair Competition
regarding the initiative.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Rosemead City Council approve Resolution No. 2000-23 Supporting
the Fair Competition and Taxpayers Savings Act Initiative.
COUNCIL GEMA
MAY 0 0 2000
ITENA ~:.0. 111
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-22
SUPPORTING "THE FAIR COMPETITION AND
TAXPAYERS SAVING ACT" INITIATIVE
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 government to contract with the private sector
for architectural and engineering services has never been greater; and
WHEREAS, a series of successful lawsuits by a group of employees at Caltrans has
resulted in effectively banning the state from contracting with private engineers and architects; and
WHEREAS, a recent, unanimous, appeals court decision has extended the ban on
contracting out specifically to school districts threatening severe delays in building badly needed
schools; and
WHEREAS, in order to stop the Caltrans bureaucrats' continuing effort to prevent the
state and local government from utilizing private engineers and architects, an initiative 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 governments to contract with private companies for architectural
and engineering services, and
WHEREAS, the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act changes California's laws
and allows the state and local governments 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.
NOW, THEREFORE, BUTITRESOLVED that the City of Rosemead supports "The
Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" for architectural and engineering services as an
initiative.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 91h day of May, 2000.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
❑ 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 •42~ -
March 31, 2000
Dear Community I-cader:
I am writing to ask your organization to support an initiative on the November statewide ballot concerning the
design of public works projects. The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act is a common-sense
measure that would simply give state and local governments the flexibility to contract with qualified
private sector engineers and architects where it makes sense to do so - something the other 49 states can do.
Why is this initiative necessary? Without it, transportation and other public works projects could suffer delays.
As a result of a series of lawsuits brought by a small group of Caltrans engineers who want to keep all project design
and engineering work in-house, California government is essentially banned from contracting with private engineers.
and architects to complete the backlog of critical state and local infrastructure improvement projects
These same lawsuits arc beginning to threaten the flexibility local governments currently have to use both public
or private sector architects and engineers. The lo.rt ollle%zhilily can only mean an emngrea er hacXVog in the derrgn o
ecrenfialp blif tuorkt jarojetIs
The Pair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act is needed to overturn those lawsuits and ensure state and local
government has the flexibility to use the common-sense approach of contracting with the private sector for
engineering and architectural services as necessary. I have enclosed the following information with this letter:
• Complete copy of the initiative text (four pages) and a one-page explanation of the initiative.
• I=xamples where local government has successfully used public/private partnerships for the types of
projects that could be in jeopardy due to the Caltrans engineers'. lawsuits.
• "\hdhs and Facts" sheet that answers the untrue charges made by the engineers group at Caltrans about this
initiative. You may have received information from their ironically named committee TTC'alifornians
Opposed ro School & Road Delay." Apparently, dace are willing to say almost anything in nn arrempt to
derail this common-sense initiative.
• List of the more dean 200 organizations that have already acted to support this initiative. Included in this
list are the more than 100 cities and counties, and school districts which, after studying it for
themselves, have decided to support the initiative.
• Sample resolution and support form, either one of which will include Your organization on the support list.
Please join the growing coalition of more than 200 cities, counties, school districts and other education, labor,
taxpayer and business organizations in supporting the lair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act. If von have an)
questions please call Ted G rcen at 310/996-2600 or Dana Rambo at 650/340-7043.
_4 I Z _ - -
led Green
Coalition Director
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 architectural 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 a multi-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 fums 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 XXII 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
architectural and engineering services for all public works of
improvement. The choice and authority to contract shall extend to all
0001
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, 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
Califomia Constitution. The sponsoring governmental entity shall
have-the choice and the authority to contract with qualified private
entities for architectural and engineering services. For projects
programmed and funded as regional improvements, the sponsoring
govemmental 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
0002
compliance with all laws regarding political contributions, conflicts
of interest or unlawful activities.
§ 4529.13. Frothing contained in this act shall be construed to change
project design standards, seismic safety standards or project
construction standards established by state, regional or local
governmental entities. Igor shall any provision of this act be
construed to prohibit or restrict the 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 performance 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. Igor 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 whin enacted are intended to apply to charter cities as
well as all other governmental entities.
0003
SECTION 5. This initiative may be amended to further 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.
0004
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 to 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, #340 • Los Angeles, CA 90064 • (310) 996-2600 _Fax: (310) 996-2673
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 thejob.
Here are a few of those local success stories:
History of Success
Santa Clara County
Transportation
Authority
In 1984, Santa Clara County
voted a half-cent increase in
the sales tax to improve traf-
fic conditions on three local
highways. Caltrans initially estimated itwould
take 17 years for the work from start to fin-
ish. The Authority then created a public-
private partnership, which did the work in 10
years, at a savings of hundreds ofmillions 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-
hind scl -_dule, 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
Tlredesign and construc-
tion 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 California Taxpayers' Association and the California Chan, ber of Commerce - May, ;999
A complete copy of the report may be obtained by calling Taxpayers for Fair Competition at (650) 340-0470 _
Taxpayers for Fair Competition 2/29/00
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 • Burlinaame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 • Fax: (650).349_] 740
11300 W. Olympic Boulevard, #1340 Los Angeles, CA 90064 - (310) 996-2600 • Fax: (310) 996-2673
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 lawsuits brought by state-employed engineers (mostly
Caltrans employees). Now that ban is beginning to limit the choices available to local governments as well.
FutureAtRisk
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • s • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
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 retrofitting work with private sector experts have al-
ready been cancelled.
San Francisco
A lawsuit has been filed to terminate prig
vate sector architectural and engineering
contracts on the San Francisco Airport
expansion and turn thatwork overto pub-
lic employees. The costs and time delays of such a step
would bestaggering. The precedent for other local government
entities is clearly alarming.
Lancaster
"If projects such as the Avenue L and Av-
enue H Bridge 1417dening projects had to
be designed by the State, they would be
delayed indefinitely.
In order to maintain local control overpub-
lic works projects and to maintain the abil-
ity to design and construct projects in a
timely manner, staff recommends" support
of the Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act.
City of Lancaster Staff Report
June 8, 1999
East Bay MUD
At least three sector contracts have al-
d
b
l
d b
E
t B
MUD
rea
y
een cance
e
y
as
ay
due to the threat of a public employee
\
IawsUlt.
\S)
_ Southern Port
In the fall of 1999, major work at a port
was delayed due to conrusion over local
government rights to contract with private
firms. -
Central Coast Water Authority
PECG filed a lawsuit in 1995 (prior to
the Supreme Court decision) seeking to
stop DWR from entering into an agree-
ment with the Central Coast Water Au-
thority to build and operate a pipeline
extension. The local water agency hired
a private firm to perform the necessary
design work.
PECG lost that suit, but the outcome would most likely be
very different if filed today, given the 1997 Supreme Court
decision.
Oakland -
"One high visibility project in Oakland ...is
design of the 1-880 Broadway/Jackson in-
terchange improvements. To keep this
project on schedule may require outside
transportation engineering service to
supplement Caltrans'staft
Thus it is important to ask the voters to
change the State Constitution to permit contracting out.
City of Oakland Analysis
June 16, 1999
San Diego
The City Attorney in San Diego has told
the city that any future contracting out
should be done under the conditions set
forth under the decision in PECG v.
Caltrans - conditions which make con-
tracting out next to impossible. The City
Attorney reasoned that there were
enough similarities between the State Constitution and San
Diego's City Charter, as to make the court decision apply to
the city as well.
School Construction
In September of 1999, an appeals court
essentially prohibited the San Francisco
school district from contracting with
,private design Urns. The appeals tour
specifically cited PECG v. Caltrans in
their decision. Can other school districts
be far behind? - i
What is the Fair
Competition and
Taxpayer Savings Act ?
On the ballot in November, this straightforward
initiative simply gives California's state and local gov-
ernments the flexibility to contract with qualified pri-
vate sector engineers and architects where it makes
sense to do so - something 49 other states can al-
ready do.
It will save taxpayers money by encouraging the
kind of competition that makes everyone work smarter
and more efficiently and it will help speed up the safe
delivery of thousands of backlogged projects: over-
passes, bridges and schools awaiting earthquake ret-
rofits; stalled highway and road improvements and ex-
pansions; the building of new classrooms to accom-
modate more children; flood control improvements and
other overdue projects.
The so-called Californians Opposed to School
& Road Delay - a committee set up by the small
group of Caltrans engineers opposing this initia-
tive - is making false claims about what the initia-
tive would actually do, in an attempt to trick people
into opposing it. Let's set the record straight:
MiSHEMM.
This initiative is not necessary. Government can
contract out now.
FACT:
It is necessary if you believe state and local gov-
ernments need the flexibility to contract with private
design firms when it makes sense to do so. As a result
of a series of lawsuits brought by a small group of
Caltrans engineers who want to keep all the work in-
house, California government is essentially banned from
contracting with private engineers and architects. Fur-
thermore, local governments and agencies are being
threatened by additional lawsuits.
More than 200 organizations, including over 100
cities, counties and school districts agree this initiative
must be passed.
'7n order lu ouo~rtain locnl conlrol over public
works projecls and to maintain the obilil}- tozlcsign
and cou.vlruc! projecls in a limelP manner, sloff
recommends " support of the Fair Competition and
Taxpayer Sarings Act.
City of Lancaster Staff Report
June 8, 1999
This initiative would cause project delays due to
the imposition of new statewide standards not yet de-
veloped.
FACT:
False.
The delays will come if this initiative is not passed,
and California governments are prohibited from utiliz-
ing the private sector to help speed project. delivery.
Section 4529.13 clearly states, "Nothing contained
in this act shall be construed to change project design
standards, seismic safety standards orproject construc-
tion standards established by state, regional or local
governmental entities."
The initiative specifically gives local governments
and schools more control and authority over contract-
ing for architectural and engineering services.
"Counsel has indicated that the new provisions do
not impose ally substanllve nets requirements, and
in ficl, leave implemerlation ofconlrncling proce-
dures to local agencies."
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
October 14, 1999
This initiative will take away local control and actu-
ally restrict the ability of local government to contract
out forprivate architectural and engineering services.
FACT:
Not true.
Section 3 states, "Nothing co_niained m Article Vll
of this Constitution shall be_constmed to limit, restrict
or prohibit the State of any other- governmental enti-
3/30100
ties, including, but not limited to, cities, counties, cities
and counties, school districts and otherspecial districts,
local and.regional agencies and joint power agencies,
from contracting with private entities forthe performance
of architectural and engineering services."
In addition to forbidding any restrictions on local
control, Section 3 also specifically says that state and
local governments "shall be allowed to" contract for such
services and specifies that the "choice and authority'
to do so rests with the government entity in question.
-The language of the bills is permissive and allows
the Stale and local agenciesflexibility to use
consultants, but does not require them to do so. "
City of Santa Cruz
June 24, 1999
"The initiative would allow freedom of choice to
local agencies, because the initiative does not _
mandate or require contracting out - it only pro-
vides the constitutional protection for its permitted
use. "
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
October 14, 1999
remainder of the sentence. It goes on to define ele-
ments of such a process, all of which are part of the
existing law (Section 4526)•
The completed sentence defines this process sim-
ply as one, "which prohibits governmental agency em-
ployees from participating in the selection process when
they have a financial or business relationship with any
private entity seeking the contract, and the procedure
shal require compliance with all laws regarding politi-
cal contributions, conflicts of interest or unlawful activi-
ties."
By restating current law, this initiative actually pro-
tects and strengthens the process currently in place.
the initiative would embed in the constitution
the authority and flexibility for both state and local
agencies to contract with the private sector for
engineering and architectural services, utilizing a
qualifications-based, open cund fair process.
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
October 14, 1999
This initiative has no support.
FACE':
False, again.
This initiative simply restates current law which
requires private design contractors be chosen based
first on their qualifications.
If the opponents are troubled by the phrase, "fair,
competitive selection process" they should read the
FACT:
The current endorsement list of more than 200
organizations speaks for itself.
The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act
is supported by the California Taxpayers' Association,
California Chamber of Commerce, Coalition for Ad-
equate School Housing, Californians for Better Trans-
portation, business, labor and hundreds of school dis-
tricts, cities, counties, water districts and other public
agencies.
Taxpayers for Fair Competition
111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406 • Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 340-0470 Fax: (650) 340-1740
11300 W. Olympic Boulevard. 4840 • Los Angeles, CA 90064 (310) 996-2000 Fax: (310) 996-2673
❑ 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?
(as of 4/17/00)
California Chamber of Commerce
California Taxpayers' Association
Coalition for Adequate School Housing
Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 3 (AFL-CIO)
Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 12 (AFL-CIO)
National Council for Public-Private Partnerships
American Institute of Architects, California Chapter
American Subcontractors Association, California Chapter
Associated General Contractors
California Association of Sheet Metal and
Air Conditioning Contractors, National Association -
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Cement Promotion Council
California Chapter, American Planning Association
California Contract Cities Association
California Fence Contractors Association
Californians for Better Transportation
1
LOCAL & REGIONAL BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS (CONT'D)
Newport Harbor Area Chamber of
Commerce
North Coast Builders Exchange
Northern California Engineering
Contractors Association
Oceanside Chamber of Commerce
Orange Chamber of Commerce
Orange County Business Council
Orange County Transportation Coalition
Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of
Commerce
Sacramento Metro Chamber of
Commerce
Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce
Santa Ana Chamber of Commerce
Greater San Diego Chamber of
Commerce
San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Jose Silicon Valley Chamber of
Commerce
San Leandro Chamber of Commerce
San Mateo Chamber of Commerce
San Rafael Chamber of Commerce
Simi Valley Chamber of Commerce
Greater Stockton Chamber of
Commerce
Southern California Contractors
Association
Greater Tulare Chamber of Commerce
Visalia Chamber of Commerce
CITIES & COUNTIES
City of Angels Camp
City of Arcadia
Arcata City Public Works Department
City of Arroyo Grande
City of Belmont
City of Belvedere
City of Camarillo
City of Campbell
City of Carpenteria
City of Ceres
City of Claremont
City of Clayton
City of Colfax
City of Concord
City of Corcoran
City of Cotati
City of Daly City
City of Del Mar
City of Dublin
City of Emeryville
City of Escalon
City of Eureka
City of Exeter
City of Fairfield
City of Fontana
City of Ft. Bragg
City of Fortuna
3
STATEWIDE ORGANIZATIONS CONT'D
California Groundwater Association
California Manufacturers Association
California Minority and Women's
Business Coalition
California Park & Recreation Society
California Travel Parks Association
California Trucking Association
Civil Justice Association of California
Coalition for Project Delivery
Consulting Engineers and Land
Surveyors of California
National Federation of Independent
Business
Painting and Decorating Contractor
Association`
Western Growers Association
Western States Petroleum Association
TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS
Alliance of California Taxpayers and
Involved Voters
California Taxpayer Protection
Committee
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Responsible Voters for Lower Taxes
United Californians for Tax Reform
Waste Watchers
Butte County Citizens for Better
Government
Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
Kern County Taxpayers Association
TAXPAYER ORGANIZATIONS (CONT'D)
League of Placer County Taxpayers
San Diego County Taxpayers
Association
Santa Barbara County Taxpayers
Association
Shasta County Taxpayers Association
Sonoma County Taxpayers Association
LOCAL & REGIONAL BUSINESS
ORGANIZATIONS
Anaheim Chamber of Commerce
Apple Valley Chamber of Commerce
Associated Builders and Contractors,
Los Angeles Ventura Chapter`
Bay Area Council
Carlsbad Chamber of Commerce..
Citrus Heights Chamber of Commerce
Downey Chamber of Commerce
Fairield-Suisun Chamber of Commerce
Hollywood Chamber of Commerce
Huntington Beach Chamber of
Commerce
Industry Manufacturers Council
Irvine Chamber of Commerce
Long Beach Area Chamber of
Commerce
Mid Valley Chamber of Commerce
Milpitas Chamber of Commerce
Modesto Chamber of Commerce
Mountain View Chamber of Commerce
2
CITIES & COUNTIES (CONT'D)
City of Fresno
City of Garden Grove
City of Gardena
City of Gridley
City of Hermosa Beach
City of Highland
City of Imperial
City of Indian Wells
City of lone
City of Irvine
City of Kerman
City of La Mirada
City of La Puente
City of La Quinta
-City of Laguna Hills
City of Lancaster
City of Livermore
City of Livingston
City of Lodi
City of Loma Linda
City of Lompoc
City of Los Banos
City of Malibu
City of Millbrae
City of Morgan Hill
City of Newport Beach
City of Novato
CITIES & COUNTIES (CONT'D)
City of Oakland
City of Ontario
City of Orland
City of Murrieta
City of Palm Springs
City of Pasadena
City of Porterville
City of Poway
City of Rancho Cucamonga
City of Richmond -
City of Rio Dell
City of Rio Vista
City of Ripon
City of Rohnert Park
City of San Juan Capistrano
City of Santa Clarita
City of Santa Cruz
City of Santa Rosa
City of Saratoga
City of Sebastopol
City of Sonoma
City of Taft
City of Tehachapi
City of Temecula
Town of Tiburon
City of Tulare
City of Trinidad
4
CITES & COUNTIES (CONT'D)
City of Ukiah
City of Vallejo
City of Watsonville
City of Westminster
Town of Windsor
City of Winters
Amador County
Fresno County
Glenn County
Humboldt County
Kern County
Kings County
Lake County
Madera County
Mono County
Nevada County
Santa Cruz County
Siskiyou County
Sonoma County
Stanislaus County
Santa Barbara County Association of
Governments
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Apple Valley Heights County Water
District
Contra Costa Transportation Authority
Elsinore Water District
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
(CONT'D)
Heritage Ranch Community Services
District
Ironhouse Sanitary District
Lake.County Flood Control & Water
Conservation District
Lake County Sanitation District
Live rmo re/Amador Valley Transit District
Los Alisos Water District
Novato Sanitary District`
San Bernardino Valley Water
Conservation District -
Santa Cruz County Regional
Transportation Commission
South Tahoe Public Utilities District
Sunline Transit Agency
Vista Irrigation District
VVestborouah Water District
EDUCATION
Alum Rock School District
Barstow Unified School District
Central Unified School District
Clovis Unified School District
Downey Unified School District
Eastside Union School District`
Encinitas Union School District
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
Fresno Unified School District
Monrovia Unified School District
5
EDUCATION (CONT'D)
Redding School District
Vacaville Unified School District
West Fresno School District
ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL
ORGANIZATIONS
Bay Counties Civil Engineers and Land
Surveyors Association
California Geotechnical Engineers
Association
Engineering and General Contractors
Association
Engineering and Utility Contractors
Association
Placer County Architects, Geologists,
Engineers and Land Surveyors
Society for Hispanic Professional
Engineers
Society for Hispanic Professional
Engineers, Greater LA Chapter
Structural Engineers. Association of
California
Structural Engineers Association of
Northern California
Structural Engineers Association of
Southern California
New Additions
6
SAMPLE RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF "THE FAIR COMPETITION
AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT" INITIATIVE
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 a group of employees at Caltrans has resulted in
effectively banning the state from contracting with private engineers and architects; and
WHEREAS, a recent, unanimous, appeals court decision has extended the ban on contracting
out specifically to school districts threatening severe delays in building badly needed schools; and
WHEREAS, in order to stop the Caltrans bureaucrats' continuing effort to prevent the state and
local government from utilizing private engineers and architects, an initiative 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 governments 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,
SUPPORTS "The Fair Competition and Taxpayer Savings Act" for architectural and engineering
services as an initiative.
Contact
Title
f,_rey
State Zip
Telephone Number Pax Numhcr E-mail address
Please fax Coll rpletecl form to 650-340-1740. Questions? Call 6501340-0470.
/20/00
❑ 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
S upport Form
I / We support the Taxpayers for Fair Competition initiative allowing
state and local governments to hire private architectural and engineering
firms to help build important infrastructure for transportation,
schools, prisons and water projects.
You may add my/our name to your coalition list.
Organization Name
Authorized Signature Printed Name
oAddress
Cry, St?te, Zip
Phane FAX
E i`1ai/Address
Please FAX completed form to Jason Barnett at (650) 340-1740-
TIM A/ff KOUI
Taxpayers for Fair Competition
3/20/00 - Giitiative -