Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Kevin Dayton
From: Sent: To:
Eric Christen [[email protected]] ~May 02, 2002 10:00 AM
Subject: ~I Bond
Thank you, and good news. Your bidd pool just increased three-fold. Best of luck.
Eric Original Message ----------'Eric Chris en" <eric [email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2002 11:07 AM Subject: RE: School Bond
> Dear Mr. Christen, > > We were approached by a local labor group that requested that the school > board pass a resolution that would had restricted labor from Bond projects > to local unions. We decided not to proceed with this request. >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
-----Original Message-----From: Eric Christen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 01, 2002 1:23 PM To: Subject: School Bond
Dear Boardmember,
> > My name is Eric Christen and I am the Executive Director of the Coalition > > for Fair Employment in Construction. Our group is made up of area > > contractors who oppose what are known as Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) > > and > > we were wondering if anyone had approached you about placing one of these > > on > > your new school construction bond work? If they have, or if you > > need more > > information as to what they are exactly you can call me at (707) 432-0676 > > anytime. > > > > Thank you! > > > > Eric > > > > > > > >
1
----------------------------------------·-----·-·---
Mt. Diablo considers labor pacts
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Posted on Thu, Jan. 27, 2005
Mt. Diablo considers labor pacts By Jackie Burrell CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Page 1 of2
Powerful construction unions gained ground in central Contra Costa's Mt. Diablo district Tuesday when the school board began considering entering special labor pacts for major building projects.
Known as project labor agreements, the pacts outline hiring practices and limit labor disputes, but they also can deter contractors who employ nonunion workers from even bidding on school district construction contracts.
Only eight of California's 989 school districts -- including West Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Vallejo, Oakland and San Francisco have the agreements in place.
School board member Gary Eberhart said having a project labor agreement will ensure that district contractors employ adequately trained workers and end labor disputes and job slowdowns.
Eberhart, whose campaigns have been backed by Contra Costa's major labor groups, wants to sidestep the district's usual study process and test the agreements on $8 million worth of construction funded by 2002's Measure C.
"The best way to find out if a PLA works is to use one," Eberhart said.
Contractors and union representatives spoke vehemently at Tuesday's meeting.
"It's a step into fiscal insanity/ said Eric Christen, director of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction Association, an employer group.
Critics say having a PLA shuts out competition, reduces the number of bids on major projects and hikes costs.
"It gives unions a monopoly on construction," said Kevin Dayton, of the Golden Gate Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, which includes union and nonunion shops.
Dayton said California law already sets wages and requires that workers be well-trained.
Eberhart's colleagues appeared put off by Tuesday's dramatic rhetoric.
"I've heard myths this evening," said school board member April Treece. ''I'd like to take it from rhetoric to facts so we can understand the advantages and disadvantages."
The San Ramon Valley school district does not use labor agreements "primarily because it limits our pool of bidders," said district spokesman Terry Koehne.
But Greg Feere, chief executive officer of the Contra Costa Building and Trades Council, claimed West Contra Costa received twice as many bids on remodeling projects once it had a project labor agreement in place. West Contra Costa's many recent building projects have run into massive cost overruns, however.
Under project labor agreements, nonunion companies must pay fringe benefits into union coffers, as well as their own, they can hire only through union halls, and they must pay union dues.
Feere told stories of nonunion projects running years late and costing millions more than projected. Labor disputes can roil construction sites, he said.
A spat over labor allegiances that broke out during the summer at Bay Point's Delta View Elementary School was capped
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/2005/01/27 /news/I 07 46703 .htm?template=... 1 /28/2005
CONTRA COSTA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 27, Martinez, CA 94553 • 925-228-5610 • [email protected] • cocotax.org
OFFICERS
Larry Llppow President
David Retz Henry Alker
Vice Presidents Jean Meredith
Secretary/Treasurer Kristine Hunt
Executive Director
DIRECTORS
Homeowners Bill Baker Lynette Busby John Christensen Pete Chrobak Anthony Dehaesus Paul Dickey Joe Fitzpatrick Sal Flavetta Don Joost Don Lively Jean Meredith John Wolfe, Jr.
Agriculture Louis Mangini Michael Vukelich
Commerclal Jane Anderson Scott Anderson Pedro Babiak Clarence Gribbon BielleMoore Norm Robins James Pezzaglia
Industrial Philip Arndt Alan Gardner Wil Hardee Paul Miller Will Rigney Sei Sugiyama Henry Thatcher Inez Thijs-Cherry Dennis Tsuchida W. B. Vick
President Richard Allen and Members of the Board Mt. Diablo Unified School District 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord, CA 94519-1397
RE: Use of Project Labor Agreements for Measure C Funds
Dear President Allen and Members of the Board:
February 3, 2005
The Contra Costa Taxpayers Association opposes the proposed use of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for construction projects funded by Measure C. A PLA does not serve the interests of taxpayers or the school district because it tends to limit the pool of competitive bidders, thereby driving up costs. There is no logical reason for the district to take any action that limits those wishing to compete. The district would be better served by creating a suitable evaluation process for reviewing the bids to ensure that a competent, reliable, and cost-effective candidate is selected.
The use of a PLA is both controversial and limited in school districts. Only 8 of California's 989 school districts have utilized them. When Contra Costa Taxpayers Association supported Measure C, there was no mention of using a PLA. Had we known of that intent, we might have voted differently.
Just this week, the County Board of Supervisors held a lengthy hearing on the awarding of a countywide ambulance services contract. A recurring theme throughout the testimony was that competition had generated better offers by those vying for the contract. The school district, like the County, can benefit from open competition for its business. The taxpayers of the Mt. Diablo Unified School District deserve nothing less for their hard-earned dollars.
Sincerely,
Kristine S. Hunt Executive Director
Specia1 Joint Meeting with Board of Education and Measure C Oversight Committee
February 3, 2005
Board President, Dick Allen, called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll Call: All Board Members Present
Measure C Committee Members Present: Rick Callaway, Peter Chrobak, Judy Dawson, Anthony Fardella, John Ferrante, Pat Howlett, David Jacobson, Rebecca Jensen, Melanie Miller, John Parker, Tina Segrove, Tricia Tamura-Li, Joan Thisius, Clint Tubbs, Larry Wirick, Marc Willis, Susan Wood
Members Absent: Jay Bedecarre ( exc ), Peter Dudley ( exc)
Pub1ic Comment Karl Kaste commented on use of Measure C funds for salaries
Speakers: The following speakers spoke in favor of Project Labor Agreements:
Roger Henry, President, East County NAACP State Director of LULAC Patrick Dennis Tom, Carpenters Local 152 Reuben Gonzalez, Pittsburg School District Susan Bonilla, Vice Mayor, Concord Ellen - HV AC Contractor Kevin Van Buston, MDUSD Parent, Sheet Metal Union Dave Baptista, West Contra County, Project Manager Mary Gattis, Steamfitter, Teacher Kennedy High Linda Olivera, Coord. Pre-Apprenticeship Class Kennedy HS Michael Walton, Labor Coord., West Contra Costa Valerie Taber, Taber Construction Michael Lee, Sheetmetal Worker
The following speakers spoke against Project Labor Agreements:
John Wolf, Parent & taxpayer Greg Brandt, Project Manager David Walkenheimer, Landscape Contractor Mary Couter, Clayton Resident, Rotarian
Presentations in favor of Project Labor Agreements:
Greg Feere, Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council Mark DeSaulnier, Contra Costa County Supervisor West Contra Costa Bond Oversight Committee Chair
Presentations against:
Kevin Dyban, Associated Building Contractors Eric Christen, Cooalition for Freedom & Equality in Construction
Board of Education Questions and Discussion
Rick Callaway opened discussion to Measure C committee members.
Several committee members expressed that they had been presented with a lot of materials and needed more time to review the information before making a recommendation to the Board.
A. J. Fardella questioned the legality of adding Project Labor Agreements to Measure C projects since it was not originally presented to the voters. He also said that he would like the committee to be able to actually review a Project Labor Agreement.
There was discussion regarding competitive bidding. Rebecca Jensen questioned, if Measure C projects doing well with the contractors who are bidding, why do we a need project labor agreement?
John Ferrante stated that in order for the committee to make a decision regarding project labor agreements and to be able to make a recommendation to the board, the committee should be able to review a sample of an actual project labor agreement. He felt that the committee members need to know what they are acting upon. Committee should see something in writing, then make informed decision.
Pat Howlett made a motion to hold a special Measure C Oversight committee meeting to further discuss Project Labor Agreements.
, There was discussion regard "timing" and at which Board meeting the PLA issue would be on the agenda.
Pete Pedersen shared concerns regarding the feasibility of moving forward on this summer's scheduled Group III Measure C projects ifthe Board were to consider a PLA agreement on any of these projects. Any delay in the process at this point could cause delays for site completion.
Dick Nicoll recommended that if the Board decides to consider a PLA agreement, that it look at 2006 projects.
Officials play it close to the vest Page 1of3
CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Posted on Sun, Feb. 13, 2005
LISA VORDERBRUEGGEN: TIMES POLITICAL EDITOR
Officials play it close to the vest
THE DUST barely settled in Richmond after November's volatile City Council races before rumbles began in the 2006 mayor's race.
The loudest noise so far is from incumbent Mayor Irma Anderson, who says she absolutely intends to run for a second term.
"I have been so busy dealing with the city's fiscal debacle that I don't feel I have had the opportunity to accomplish some of my other goals," Anderson said. "I have only just begun."
The presence of an incumbent on the ticket usually dampens competition because he or she enjoys greater name recognition and access to campaign money.
But Richmond rarely follows conventional campaign mores, and politicos are running possible challengers up the public opinion pole.
Some view Anderson as vulnerable after the city's fiscal meltdown last year prompted a state bailout, layoffs and unprecedented concessions by the city's workers.
Additionally, Anderson has few friends on the council. Her colleagues often chafe at her brusque leadership style during meetings and accuse her of overstepping mayoral boundaries.
So, what names are in the air?
• Councilman Tom Butt says he has ruled out a run at mayor. But he was the top vote-getter in November, and his controversial e-forum on Richmond intrigue has never been more popular.
• Councilman Nat Bates has run and lost three times, so his name usually surfaces. He didn't return calls, but there's no love lost between him and Anderson.
•Councilwoman Maria Viramontes didn't return calls either, but she's a well-spoken and smart woman who generally impresses people.
• Ex-councilman Gary Bell lost his council seat in November in a field of 15 candidates. "I'm not going to rule it out but I'm not pursuing it, either," Bell said.
•And finally, Councilwoman Mindell Penn, who says, "Absolutely not. There are some people out there who believe that if they float my name around enough that I will believe it and decide to run. I have no interest in being mayor."
A viable and well-funded challenger, maybe even two, will surface, predicted a man certain to have a hand somewhere in the race, veteran and powerful Richmond political consultant Darrell Reese.
Whether it will prove worthwhile, that's harder to predict.
Voters don't care if Anderson bickers with her council colleagues, and Richmond's economic picture will brighten by the time voters go to the polls next year, Reese said.
If Anderson repeats her strong 2002 showing among both black and white voters, Reese says she could be tough to beat.
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/ 10890267 .htm ?template=conte... 2/13/2005
Officials play it close to the vest Page 2of3
"It doesn't mean she can't be beat, but there's a lot of uncertain
THEN THERE WERE THREE ... Ten-year Mt. Diablo school board trustee Gary Ebemart is the latest to toss his name in the race for Contra Costa County Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier's seat.
DeSaulnier is running for Assembly in District 11, a seat that will open after incumbent Joe canciamilla terms out in 2006.
Eberhart, who builds houses with his brother's construction company, joins Concord Mayor Laura Hoffmeister and Councilwoman Susan Bonilla, who have expressed interest.
He raised eyebrows recently when he lobbied for the use of project labor agreements, or PLAs, on school construction projects.
Unions regard PLAs as a litmus test to gauge politicians' support for labor because such deals heavily favor the use of union workers.
Ebemart says his focus on PLAs has nothing to do with politics. "I've had labor support in my campaigns since I first ran in 1993," he said.
He said he wants to at least try PLAs because he's fed up with "shoddy workmanship and poor customer service from some of the contractors we've hired to do work on our schools."
TRIVIA: What high-profile state construction project did the firm with the following mantra recently audit?
"We celebrate the expansive, loving, creative, zestful, playful, intuitive, joyful human spirit."
If you didn't pick the new eastern span of the Bay Bridge, you lose.
State Business Transportation and Housing Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak paid The Results Group of Santa Rosa $240,000 to examine why Caltrans' costs for the new span have jumped to $5.9 billion.
The company's Web site says it helps its "clients produce meaningful results under conditions of rapid change and complexity. n
Its partners have advanced degrees in organizational psychology and memberships in impressive groups like the Society for the Management of Organization Design.
Not that there's anything wrong with any of, well, whatever it is they do.
But given the political bungling that has plagued this bridge, one wonders if the Results Group was the right doctor assigned the wrong patient.
THANKS? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed Benician Donald Zampa, union leader and member of the famous Bay Area iron worker family, to the Contractors' State License Board.
Zampa's grandfather was the late Alfred Zampa, a renowned iron worker. Former Gov. Gray Davis named the new suspension bridge over the Carquinez Strait in Crockett after him.
There's a hitch: This board is on a list of about 100 boards that the governor's california Performance Review team has classified as unnecessary.
"It may last 10 minutes or it may last 10 years," Zampa said. "I'll just wait and see what happens."
Usa Vorderbrueggen writes on politics each Sunday. Reach her at 925-945-4773 or [email protected]. You can also reach her through her online forum at www.contracostatimes.com. Click on nTalk to the Times."
http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/email/news/10890267 .htm ?template=conte... 2/13/2005
February 15, 2005
Measure C Committee:
Janice Fujii 828 McElroy Court
Concord, CA 94518 (925) 827-1947
Jay Bedecarre, Rick Callaway, Peter Chrobak, Judy Dawson, Peter Dudley, Anthony Fardella, John Ferrante, Pat Howlett, David Jacobson, Rebecca Jensen, Melanie Miller, John Parker, Tina Segrove, Tricia Tamura-Li, Joan Thisius, Clint Tubbs, Marc Willis, Larry Wirick, Susan Wood 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord, CA 94519
Dear Measure C Committee:
I attended the meeting on February 3, 2005, and was one of the few (if only) parents attending who was not affiliated with a union. I thought that A.J. made a very perceptive remark when he said he should have brought his waders to the meeting. There was a lot being thrown around, probably by both sides.
There are a few thoughts that I have been mulling over since the meeting, and I would like to share them with you:
• It is not the responsibility of the School Board to take care of the unions or their members. The School Board needs to make decisions based on fiscal responsibility for the district. This needs to be their primary objective in considering the signing of a PLA, not the "care and feeding" of the union members.
• Without the PLA, the unions are free to bid on contracts, and according to staff, they are awarded about half of those contracts. With the PLA, the unions will have eliminated their competition.
• There was no overwhelming evidence produced that having a PLA in place would ensure a benefit in the work being done. If the unions are as wonderful as they say they are, they should already be doing exemplary work for the contracts that they have with the district. If the unions are already doing the best quality work for the best price, why do you need a PLA?
• At the Board meeting on Tuesday, February 8, several parents spoke out against the possibility of a parcel tax to bring in more revenue for the district. While I am not personally opposed to the idea, I sensed that there were many parents who were. If you change the conditions of Measure C, it could be even more difficult in the future to convince the voters to approve more funds.
MEASURE C OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS RE: PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
Questions for Associated Builders and Contractors
1. What are current enrollment/completion #'s for apprenticeship programs? Who pays for these programs?
The ABC Golden Gate Chapter's apprenticeship statistics need to be understood in the context of the ongoing battle both in California and nationwide between unions and non-union "Merit Shop" organizations over who controls apprenticeship programs in the building trades. Until 1988, unions had a complete monopoly over state-approved apprenticeship training in the California construction industry. During the 1990s, Merit Shop organizations such as Associated Builders and Contractors won the right to operate apprenticeship programs for some trades in California after years of costly litigation. After Governor Davis was elected in 1998, unions began a legislative and regulatory campaign to stop approval of new Merit Shop programs and roll back the jurisdictions of existing Merit Shop programs. As a result, the U.S. Department of Labor began proceedings in 2002 to derecognize the authority of the State of California to regulate apprentices on federal projects.
ABC Golden Gate Chapter currently sponsors five apprenticeship programs: electrical, carpentry, painting, plumbing and laborer. Currently 47 carpentry apprentices are in various stages of a four year program and 20 have been graduated; 313 electrical apprentices are in a five year program and 64 have been graduated; 76 painting apprentices are actively being trained and 37 have been graduated; the plumbing program has a class of26 and one has recently graduated; and the laborer program just brought in the first class of 12.
Programs are paid for via contractor contributions on public works projects, as stated under prevailing wage requirements in California Labor Code Section 1 773 .1 (a)( 6).
2. Is ABC opposed to union contractors working on public works projects, or any other projects?
ABC would not be concerned if every single contractor on every single project in the Mt. Diab lo Unified School District was union, as long as the contractors won the low bids fairly through the traditional competitive bidding process. ABC supports a clearly defined "Merit Shop Philosophy" for construction that states that the lowest responsible bidder shall win the job, regardless of the union affiliation of its employees. ABC's interest is that the bid is awarded under fair and open competition without artificial government-mandated restrictions such as Project Labor Agreements (PLAs), which impose unnecessary requirements with unions meant to discourage non-union contractors from bidding. Also, realize that ABC non-union general contractors routinely use union subcontractors, and union general contractors routinely use ABC
non-union subcontractors. Some ABC companies employ workers in some trades who are union members and workers in other trades who are not union members.
3. Do ABC (or non-union) contractors pay employee benefits such as vacation, health insurance, retirement?
ABC represents the major construction companies in Northern California that perform significant commercial, industrial, and public works construction. Companies of this caliber need to provide full employee benefits to their workers in order to compete for the skilled labor necessary to successfully perform the work. In addition, companies that work on public works construction are required under prevailing wage law to pay for employee benefits under California Labor Code Section 1773. l(a)(l) [health and welfare], l 773. l(a)(2) [pension], and 1773. l(a)(3) [vacation]. the MDUSD's Labor Compliance Program (LCP) confirms that all contractors are complying with the prevailing wage law. ABC member companies may sometimes offer the flexibility of a "cafeteria plan" which would allow the employee to forego health insurance if his/her spouse already has coverage for the family through his/her employer, in which case the employee is able to receive the health and welfare component in wages.
4. How many hours per year does the average carpenter work with an ABC contractor?
While ABC has not conducted a formal survey, it is our impression based on discussions with ABC members that a carpenter of journeyman level skills and a good work ethic is able to maintain a full-time year-round job with his employer. One of the advantages of being a nonunion contractor is that the company owner is able to develop a long-term working relationship with his/her employees without the intermediary of union officials or the use of an outside hiring hall/dispatch system, just like the direct working relationships between owner and employees in small or medium-sized businesses in most sectors of the economy.
MEASURE C OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS RE: PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
Questions for Labor Trades Council:
1. Will the trade's council negotiate a PLA containing" Core Worker" language? If not Why?
2. How much does it cost to join the carpenters union? How much are dues?
3. Let's say I'm a carpenter with 12 years (non-union) experience framing, siding etc. Could I expect to join the union at full journeyman level?
4. Is there a ratio rule of journeyman to apprentice to laborer required on PLA sites, or any other sites?
5. How many hours per year do the average journeyman, apprentice carpenters work?
6. What project efficiency is gained by the Labor Agent control when a contractor sees his key personnel after they are sent to the Labor Agent?
7. Why is this point according to the Labor Council Representative "not negotiable"?
8. Would the Labor Council agree to a PSA which allowed a formulaic certain number of key personnel to be exempt from this rule?
9. Please provide a copy of a representative PLA or preferably a draft copy of a PLA intended for Mt. Diablo Unified School District.
10. Regarding Joe Canciamilla's letter dated 2/1/05, mention is made of PSA's leading to project completions on-time, on-budget, and with better safety records. Please ask for specific evidence supporting these statements, such as two or more recent comparable projects undertaken by the State with and without PSA's and the results of these projects. Also, I would like to know which labor unions contributed what amounts to Mr. Canciamilla's recent campaign.
11. With respect to the Helmets to Hardhats brochure, how many residents of Contra Costa County have been trained through this program? Of those, how many are working in Contra Costa County at this time? How many overall have been trained? How many of those are working in Contra Costa County?
12. Regarding George Miller's letter dated 2/1/05, mention is made of PSA's leading to project completions on-time, on-budget, and with better safety records. Please ask for specific evidence supporting these statements, such as two or more recent comparable projects undertaken by the Federal Government with and without PSA's and the results of these projects. Also, I would like to know which labor unions contributed what amounts to Mr. Miller's recent campaign.
13. Regarding Tom Torlakson's letter dated 212105, mention is made of PSA's leading to project completions on-time, on-budget, and with better safety records. Please ask for specific evidence supporting these statements, such as two or more recent comparable projects undertaken by the Federal Government with and without PSA's and the results of these projects. Also, I would like to know which labor unions contributed what amounts to Mr. Torlkason's recent campaign.
14. Same for Loni Hancock's letter dated 212105.
15. Please furnish statistical research (in other words, data plus findings on multiple projects, minimum sample size = 10 projects, with and without PLAs) to answer the following questions:
• Do PLA's prevent strikes? Do PLA's simplify contract negotiations?
• Do PLA's help keep projects within budgets and on schedule?
• Do PLA's help improve the quality of construction? Do PLA's help improve safety at the construction site?
• Does the use of PLA's stimulate the local economy by deploying locally-based workers?
• Are tradespeople, subcontractors and their employees, coerced to join unions to compete on projects involving PLAs?
• Do union halls dispatch workers based on seniority in the union?
• Do PLA's limit competitive bidding on projects?
16. Who most benefits economically from a PSA?
17. Can I assume that the West Contra Costa PLA is a good measuring stick to use for our PLA?
18. Why should we enter into a PLA when Measure Chas no over budget or late projects that are related to labor issues?
Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
935 Alhambra Ave Martinez, CA 94553 FAX (925) 372-7414
March 2, 2005
Mt Diablo Unified School District Measure C Oversight Committee 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord CA 94519
Dear Committee Members:
Greg Feere C.E.O.
Phone (925) 228-o900
I received your list of questions via e-mail yesterday March 1, 2005. I regret that we will be unable to respond to these questions for your meeting on March 3, 2005. Greg Feere's Mother is gravely ill and he has been out of the office this week.
The studies and information sent to you from our office over the past month regarding Project Labor Agreements (PLA) gives detailed information evaluating PLA performance, and the economic benefits derived from PLA's. I hope you would use this information in your discussions on March 3rd.
Sincerely,
Sue Fowler
Sue Fowler Administrative Assistant Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
cc: Dale Peterson, Recording Secretary, Contra Costa Building Trades Council Richard Allen, Mt Diablo Unified School District Board
~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
STATE CAPITOL
~ss:emhllJ COMMITTEES
P.O. BOX 942849 SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0011
(916) 319-2011 FAX {916) 319-2111 DISTRICT OFRCES
Qlal if nrnht ~:egislafur:e CHAIR. WATER, PARKS& WILDLIFE ARTS, ENTERTAINMENT. SPORTS, TOURISM, AND INTERNET MEDIA
BUDGET GOVERNMENT AL ORGANIZATION
UTILITIES AND COMMERCE SUB COMMITTEES
815 ESTUDILLO STREET MARTINEZ. CA 94553
(925) 372-7990 FAX {925) 372-0934
2974 SALVIO STREET CONCORD, CA 94519
(925) 602· 1532 FAX (925) 602-1544
February 1, 2005
Mr. Richard Allen, President Mt. Diablo Unified School District 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord, CA 94519
Dear President Allen:
BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #2, EDUCATION FlNANCES BUDGET SUBCOMMITTEE #3, RESOURCES
SELECT COMMITTEES CHAIR, PROTECTJON OF INLAND WATERWAYS
CALIFORNIA WATER NEEDS AND CUMATE CHANGE HIGH PRIORrn' SCHOOLS
WATER MANAGEMENT, STORAGE, CONSERVATION AND SUPPLY
WETLANDS SPECIAL COMMITTEE
COMMISSION ON STRUCTURAL CHALLENGES TO BUDGETING IN CALIFORNIA
I understand that the Board of the Mt. Diab lo Unified School District will be considering the adoption of a Project Stablization Agreement (PSA) for school repair and building projects at its meeting on Thursday, February 3, 2005. I know that you will be considering both the "pros" and "cons" of a PSA and will conduct a careful evaluation of the facts presented to you.
I am hopeful that your Board will consider favorably the benefits that a PSA would have for your school district. Past experience demonstrates that projects undertaken with a PSA in place are completed on-time and on-budget, extremely important factors in a time when financial resources are severely limited. In addition, projects built with a PSA experience a better safety record and provide jobs to local workers, both benefits to our local community and mutual constituency.
I thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have any questions or comments regarding this recommendation, please do not hesitate to contact my District Office at (925) 372-7990.
JO PH CANCIAMILLA
Assemblymember, 11th District
cc: Superintendent Gary McHenry, MDUSD April Treece, Trustee, MDUSD
JC:kmb
Linda Mayo, Trustee, MDUSD E. William Leal, Trustee, MDUSD Gary Eberhart, Trustee, MDUSD MDUSD Measure C Oversight Committee
E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://democrats.assembly.ca.govlmembersla 111
Pnnted on Recycled Paper
Loni Han cock ASSEMBLYWOMAN. FOURTEENTH DISTRICT
February 2, 2005
The Honorable Richard Allen, President Mt. Diab lo Unified School District Board of Education 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord, CA 945 i 9
Dear Mr. Allen:
COMMllTE:.ES: BUDGET,
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES EOIJCATION JUDICIARY LABOR & EMPLOYMENT NATURAL RESOURCES RULES.
SEXUAi. HARASSMENT PREVENTION, CHAIR
JOINT LEGISLATIVE BUDGET
SELECT COMMrnt!E ON BRIDGING THE ACMIEVEMENT GAP. CHAIR
I recently learned that the Board of Education is for the Mt. Diab lo Unified School District is considering adopting a Project Stabilization Agreemenl when imdert.ak:ing school repairs or building projects. I am writing to communicate my support for this approach.
A Project Stab11i:zation Agreement (PSA) offers many benefits to school districts, and brings additional benefits to the local labor force. In particular, a PSA can provide apprentice training opportunities, creating hands-<>n leaming of a trade and labor force development. In West Contra Costa County, we are actively engaged in developing new pre-apprenticeship academies in our high schools. Th.is effort responds to both deep needs and important opportunities to create programs that will have positive, long lasting effects on youth and families. The preapprenticeship model provides many youth with opportunities to enhance their academic and life skills so that they are prepared to enter apprentice programs in the building trades.
Preparing today's students to take advantage of career opportunities in the building trades is important to local and state workforce development. A PSA with the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) adds to this continuum by creating apprenticeships for youth trained through the pre-apprenticeship models. In the end, we all benefit from helping to develop a quality local labor force.
Thank you for your consideration of adopting a PSA in your district.
Sincerely,
~~~ LONI HANCOCK Assemblywoman
lh:tw
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE • P.O.BOX !;-42849 • SACRAMENTO, CA 94249-0014 • (916) 319-2014 • FAX (916) 319-2114 OISTRICTOFF1Ce • 7125LCEARITOPLAZA • 5LCERRITO,CA94S30 • (510)559-14()6 • FA.><(510)559-1478
l'rfnlfKI on FlfliCyf::ltld P:lpGr •'6-
CJIP1T01.. OF"F"oCI. STAT'! CAPITOL. A,00M 50151 ;,ACl=tAM~TO. CA 95814
Tl!:L 1'ill61 4·l5·Ei0El3 F.._. 19101 445·2527 ([al if ornia ~tat.e ~:ena:t.e
OTAND1Nc; CC')MM• r Yt:~
LOCAL GOVG:RNMENT
GIAY ARli:A INFRASTRUCTURC l:MAIR
February 2, 2005
The Honorable Richard A.llen President
SENATOR TOM TORLAKSON
SEVENTH SENATE DISTRICT
Mt. Diablo Unified School District Board of Education 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord CA 94519
Dear President Allen:
Of~TR1t!T c.u.·1-·1c:1~
2eo1 CONC:OHO OOUL.li:VAHO CO/\ICO~O. CA 1:14519
TEI. I 9.?51 602-6593 F"AX 19..?.:ll 00Z·!:t!:)9Q
JQINT GOV~RNMC:NT l:i:i'<TC:R 420 WE.:.T 3RC STREfn'
A1'1T101:H. CA !.14:.09 re:1.. >!HSI 75.4·14131 FAX ilH5177e·5174
WESi" COUf'ril't Y ?;•11~1 1 ITl.. 01 I 1CC 11 1 t:lV1C OF!IV~
l"'IEfiCUl-G:S. C/\ 94347 TE1.. 1f:\•)01 f.159·11900
I am pleased to learn that the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (MDUSD) Board of Education is considering adopting a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) for school repall- and building projects.
Studies have shown that PSA1 s benefit the school district local taxpayers, and the local labor force in many ways. PSA-built projects are completed on-time and on-budget and have a better safety record. PSA' s assure that local tax and bond dollars benefit the local economy th.rough local hire and local apprenticeship opportunities. Many of these jobs will go to local workersmost of whom have children who attend MDUSD schools.
PSA' s also provide state-certified apprenticeship training opportunities. As you may know, apprenticeship programs include intense classroom and hands-on training allowing individuals to learn a trade and the skills req1.llred to begin a quality career. This training and the standards set by apprenticeship programs help ensure we have a quality local workforce.
PSA' s also offer the opportunity for the MDUSD to establish partnerships with the building trades to provide pre-apprenticeship training while students are in school and direct entry into certified apprenticeship programs after they graduate.
These are just a few of the reasons for the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Board of TrustE?es to consider the PSA option. I hope you will give this idea the strong consideration it deserv<~S.
Sincerely, ~ ,.---------/ ~ ( f/fl.J~'irlY' Tom Torlakson
TI:ccc
GEORGE MILLER 7TH DISTRICT, CALIFORNIA
2205 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON, QC 20515-0507
(202) 225-2095
www.house.gov/georgemiller
DANIEL WEISS CHIEF OF STAFF
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION ANO THE WORKFORCE
SENIOR DEMOCRAT
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
DEMOCRATIC POLICY COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
February 1, 2004
~ongress of tbe 1tniteb $tates 1$ousc of l\cprcscntattucs
Ua11utngton. 1.8QC 20515-0507
The Honorable Richard Allen, President Mt. Diab lo Unified School District Board of Education 1936 Carlotta Dr. Concord, CA 94519
Dear Mr. Allen,
BARBARA JOHNSON OISTl'llCT DIRECTOR
1333 Will.OW PASS ROAD Sum! 203
CONCORD, CA 94520 (925) 602-18BO
3220 BLUME DRIVE SUITE 281
RlcHMONO, CA 94806 (510f 262-<5500
375 G STREET Su1T1!#1
VAU.&JD, CA 94592 (707 l 645-1 BBS
TTY (202) 225-1904
I am very pleased to learn that the Board of Education for the Mt. Diab lo Unified School District (MDUSD) is interested in adapting a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) for school repair and building projects.
It has been well documented that these agreements benefit not only the school district, but also local taxpayers and the local labor force. Projects built under a PSA are completed on time and on-budget, have a better safety record than the projects built without a PSA, and provide badly needed jobs to local workers - most of whom have children in the MDUSD schools.
Another benefit of a PSA is the apprenticeship training opportunities that it provides. Apprenticeship training programs provide intense classroom and hands-on training for individuals to learn a particular trade. This on-the-job training under apprenticeship standards creates and supports a quality local work force.
Finally, as part of the PSA process, the "Helmets to Hard Hats" program gives priority placement with the building trades to veterans returning from service. This is a fitting way to recognize our veterans' service to their country and to promote their return to gainful civilian employment.
For all these reasons, I commend the Mt. Diab lo Unified School District Board of Education for considering this option.
George Mille Member of Congress
PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
l 430 N STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA
9581.4·5901
Bob Balgenorth, President
February 3, 2005
State Building and Construction Trades Council 1225 8th Street, Suite 375 Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Bob:
JACK O'CONNELL Stole Superintendent of
Public Instruction
PHONE: {916) 3 l 9·0800
As you are aware, my goal is to raise the rigor of our career technical education programs in this state and at the same time make our academic programs more relevant to high school students. It seems that every time I hear about the current and future workforce, including the building trades, I hear that students need to be better prepared for the demands of our highly technical society-training that you provide.
That is why I was pleased to learn that the Mt. Diablo Unified School District Board of Education is considering entering into a Project Stabilization Agreement (PSA) with the State Building and Construction Trades Council for school repair and building projects. Making apprenticeship programs part of your school construction agreement when you are repairing and/or building schools is a great way to provide job training for your students and, at the same time, keep construction money in your community.
I laud the efforts of the Board and the Council for the consideration of this opportunity that, in part, will help make our academic programs more relevant to students by preparing them for real-world careers and giving them real options and choices about their lives after high school.
Sincerely,
j
JO:cs
cc: The Honorable Richard Allen, President, Mt. Diablo Unified School District Board of Education
Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
935 Alhambra Ave Martinez, CA 94553 FAX (925) 372-7414
March 31 2005
Mt. Diablo Unified School District Measure C Bond Oversight Committee Members 1936 Carlotta Drive Concord Ca. 94619
Dear Committee Members:
Greg Feere C.E.O.
Phone (925) 228-0900
Upon review of the report from Miller Brown & Dannis1 Citizens1 Bond Oversight Committee1 Roles and Responslbilities1 I find that the Oversight Committee does not have authority or responsibilities with respect to Project Labor Agreements.
I assume someone from the Mt. Diablo Unified School District will provide you with the report.
Sincerely and fraternally,
Greg Feere
Greg Feere Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
GF/sf
MEASURE C OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS RE: PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
Questions for Staff:
1. I would like to review bid results with subs listed, or see analysis of measure C projects bids awarded with subs listed and the GC's and subs union/non affiliation.
2. Same as item # 1 for Non measure C projects, like Delta View Elementary, Diablo View Gym etc.
3. Do union contractors, or non, generate more change order requests, or total change orders?
4. Quality issues: Are there more pick-up/ punch list items with union/non contractors?
5. With regard to President Bush's Executive orders# 13202 & 13208, is there ANY chance the district is eligible, or could become eligible for federal funds for construction projects?
6. Have there been any labor disruptions or work stoppages on district construction projects in recent years? If so, what caused them?
7. Are there any reports listing recent projects that have had major delays or cost overruns, were the contractors union or non?
8. Who most benefits economically from a PSA?
9. Can I assume that the West Contra Costa PLA is a good measuring stick to use for our PLA?
10. Why should we enter into a PLA when Measure C has no over budget or late projects that are related to labor issues?
11. What is to prevent a taxpayer or community group from suing the District for substantively changing the Bond Projects modus operendi?
12. Wouldn't it make sense to try a pilot on those projects not already out to bid like phase 4 projects because of notice and other possible negative ramifications from delays.
13. How were the legal cases cited in the background information ... which were active in 2001 or 2002 turn out? If, indeed, the majority of them were found illegal or legal, that provides legal background for decision we may consider recommending or recommending against.
14. PLA's are obviously strongly supported by unions and resisted by private contractors. I want to know how the cases have been treated by the courts .. .legal or illegal, and why?
15. Who or what group (by name) contacted the District about entering into a PLA?
16. Why have they waited three years before expressing interest in Measure C projects?
17. How can both sides of this issue hold up the WCCUSD as an example for their point of view? (One side claims it is a PLA success, one side claims it as a PLA failure.) Has it been a success or has it been a failure? Or is the WCCUSD afraid of upsetting the unions by expressing displeasure?
18. It seems like we already employ many union contractors and/or sub-contractors. (Would it be too horrendous to ask Pete to prepare a break down of union and non-union companies employed for Measure C projects?) Why is this suddenly not sufficient?
19. Delta View has been held up as an example of construction problems and a cost over-run on Measure C. According to my charts, no Measure C funds have been used at Delta View. The $5 million earmarked for that school has not been touched. Is there a way to bring out this point? It doesn't seem fair to use it as an example of Measure C project "failures" when no Measure C funds have been spent on it. (Or am I wrong on this?)
20. Are any Measure C projects experiencing threats of strikes?
21. Are any Measure C projects experiencing di:fficuh contract negotiations?
22. Has there been any construction quality issues that can be attributed to using non-union labor?
23. Ifwe were to adopt PLA's for some or all Measure C projects, what problems do you envision this might result in? Also, what opportunities?
MEASURE C OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE QUESTIONS. RE: PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENTS
Questions for Staff:
1. I would like to review bid results with subs listed, or see analysis of measure C projects bids awarded with subs listed and the GC's and subs union/non affiliation.
See Attached Spread Sheets
2. Same as item# 1 for Non measure C projects, like Delta View Elementary, Diablo View Gym etc.
While we have detailed lists of all sub contractors used on both jobs, we have never requested or investigated whether or not these sub contractors had union affiliation. Given the sheer number of contractors, this exercise could take a significant amount of time to complete.
3. Do union contractors, or non, generate more change order requests, or total change orders?
There is no correlation between union affiliation and change order volume or value. Change orders are the result of the quality of the bidding documents and owner requested modifications. The inordinate value of change orders associated with Group I schools was a direct result of 1) having to bid the work absent DSA approval and required changes; 2) not having sufficient time to include the interim housing in the bidding documents; and 3) not having sufficient time to complete a comprehensive hazardous materials inventory of the Group I sites. The District was very much aware of the potential for the inordinate change orders in Group 1 and this potential was unaffected by the affiliation of the contractors performing the work.
4. Quality issues: Are there more pick-up/ punch list items with union/non contractors?
There is absolutely no correlation between the quality of work and union affiliation.
5. With regard to President Bush's Executive orders # 13202 & 13208, is there ANY chance the district is eligible, or could become eligible for federal funds for construction projects?
At this time, the school district does not receive federal funds for construction projects.
6. Have there been any labor disruptions or work stoppages on district construction projects in recent years? If so, what caused them?
Group I schools were delayed as a result of the factors identified in #3 above. These delays were experienced by both union and non-union contractors alike. The contractor's affiliation had no relevance in these delays.
3/2/05
7. Are there any reports listing recent projects that have had major delays or cost overruns, were the contractors union or non?
The only labor action we have experienced in recent history has been at Delta View last year when a union sub-contractor used a non-union shop to complete it's work (stucco). The project suffered a one-half day delay as a result of the actions of this union contractor.
8. What is to prevent a taxpayer or community group from suing the District for substantively changing the Bond Projects modus operendi?
We can always be sued, but Bond Counsel has advised us that entering into a PLA would not violate the conditions of Measure C and that it is legal to do so.
9. Wouldn't it make sense to try a pilot on those projects not already out to bid like phase 4 projects because of notice and other possible negative ramifications from delays.
If we are going to pilot a PLA, staff would prefer to start with group 4 as all group 3 projects are out to bid already.
10. How were the legal cases cited in the background information ... which were active in 2001 or 2002 tum out? If, indeed, the majority of them were found illegal or legal, that provides legal background for decision we may consider recommending or recommending against.
It is still legal for California school districts to enter into a PLA.
11. PLA's are obviously strongly supported by unions and resisted by private contractors. I want to know how the cases have been treated by the courts .. .legal or illegal, and why?
California law permits the establishment of a PLA for local school districts.
12. Who or what group (by name) contacted the District about entering into a PLA?
Representatives of local labor groups approached the school district. Greg Freer, Contra Costa Building & Construction Trades Council; Kevin Dayton, Associated Building Contractors (ABC).
13. Why have they waited three years before expressing interest in Measure C projects?
The school district was approached before Measure C but did not proceed with a PLA at that time.
14. How can both sides of this issue hold up the WCCUSD as an example for their point of view? (One side claims it is a PLA success, one side claims it as a PLA failure.) Has it been
3/2/05
a success or has it been a failure? Or is the WCCUSD afraid of upsetting the unions by expressing displeasure?
PLAs are controversial, and both sides draw their own conclusions. The Superintendent and other representatives of WCCUSD are supportive of their PLA.
15. It seems like we already employ many union contractors and/or sub-contractors. (Would it be too horrendous to ask Pete to prepare a break down of union and non-union companies employed for Measure C projects?) Why is this suddenly not sufficient?
See Attached List
16. Delta View has been held up as an example of construction problems and a cost over-run on Measure C. According to my charts, no Measure C funds have been used at Delta View. The $5 million earmarked for that school has not been touched. Is there a way to bring out this point? It doesn't seem fair to use it as an example of Measure C project •'failures" when no Measure C funds have been spent on it. (Or am I wrong on this?)
No Measure C funds have been spent on Delta View.
17. Are any Measure C projects experiencing threats of strikes?
None whatsoever.
18. Are any Measure C projects experiencing difficult contract negotiations?
Yes. Sierra Bay (1\tleasure C) and N. V. Heathorn (Delta View).
19. Has there been any construction quality issues that can be attributed to using non-union labor?
None whatsoever.
20. If we were to adopt PLA's for some or all Measure C projects, what problems do you envision this might result in? Also, what opportunities?
Staff believes there is the potential for increased project costs if a PLA is required for Measure C work. In WCCUSD, for example, a PLA attorney attends the weekly construction meetings. Additional oversight/administrative cost. Fewer contractors participating in bidding process. Higher project costs.
312105
Mt Diablo Unif'ied School Distfltl Bid No. 1327 - Cambridge, Fair Oaks, Y g naclo Valley
CODE Subcontracror
9022 BAY CITIES PAVING ---- --------------~-901)4 GAMBLIN STEEL
SERVICE METAt _____ _
AM FENCE C<l:J~,;_ -----
ALFREQ..O GUTIER~EZ --·
·--~~L- --~~~-~Q_QfJ!!.~---·----------··-·· 9002 BK MILL& FIXTURE -----------9003 CALIFORNIA TILE ----· aoos COMPLETE DOOR 9014 CRES O.P. --------------90t5 _ EDWARDSSYSTEMTECt-wOLOGJ
9007 ElUS & ELLIS SIGN
9018 SOLANO COUNTY ROOFING
1023 ·--~QUNQ. & SIG~L ·--··· .. -···-.. 9037 _ .J.QM'S MET~-----8013 TRADESTA.FF
_.!~9 VALUE ARE PROTECTIO~--·
.. .!.!!.~--- -~~T!:l_!;_~_f::.Y.~EI!!~---····-·· 9020 YELTON CO.
-~~~.~-- t-u;c., ~~~~~=:..-:
Grand Total:
Subcontractor Change Order Study Union vs. Non-Union
NBC General Cootfactors CorporaHon
Union (YIN)
y y y y y y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n
0 'S
ii Union co Non-Union Base i~ Non-Union co Union Base Bid 2 ... ei: • c Amount Bid II 0 Amount 11. a a.u OU 8 u
_____ $659.J190.0Q_~-+---s'-1_54_,_,7._1_a_._oo _________ ----•··-··----·---·• $40 000.00 10.4% t4 tnoo
t---____!5__1304.Ql>_ --·t--------f--+-----
......... !1~.i.~~~l>. t-··---·· ·····-·······-·-··-··-·- . -·--------·---····-· ····-·--· -·---·--·-·-···-·-· ____ ,13?,89:,4.J>.Q_ ~-~'!._ ·----~~0-0!?. ··1-·--·----i------- --·-··-------···-~~1t56.0D 26.5% $?0Q6S 00 --------.. -----+----1 --·--··--·---1
$15 820.0D 26.7% $~226.75
$21700.0() 3.6% $740.00 . t---1------
------· ·-H--· $85,650.00 9.o<lfi $123500.00
f--- --~36,000.00 4.6% $6.195.00
····-··--·--··----_ _____ --·-·-··-------·--- . . ...... B!J.!i~~QQ- -~·~~- ___________ '-.?J~29~~-1:---------·- -··-·-l-·------··--·-+·t-·-~-~b_~_QQ.!--~~~-i------'~~-00 ·---------'. 1-----·---·-·-··--•-·t---------1---· ··-------t------1--1-------· $12 589.00 5.6% $4..l..066.00 1---------- ----+--------i1-... -~s1_0_0._,ooo ___ .0 __ 1? ______ ---·---------1---------1--- ·---·--·-·---~+----~122.~.oo 1-·-··- _____ _
$7 447.60
t--------1--· $50.J.48.00 5.9% --~ 954.25 ----··-·--··-·-·- ··-·-- ________ r.>~.~~~-Q .. ::?L%4 _________ (~12.~~9.Ql t---·----- -·--, _____ $41~ • .Q..C!.+-~-+----$16~.oo _ _______ t---·--' ---------·-- •-1 , ___ $81,_t60.QP..;. 20.~-·-- $16,800:9.P-1 1-------1---1--- $222 414.00 -0.2% _1$500.0~
--····-··-·-·-- ----- ------------1- ·---- $25,600.~.!!.+------ ----·--------------- ·- - -- $8,500.00 _:_!.3% ·--- ~50.00)
$61,610.00
tt,1118,420.00 18.6% $Ul8,176.
Visit us on the web at W\'i\V.nbcconfnlclors.oom
Vanir3/DI
Subcontractor
l--}.~1)!1.!_9~~ei>.~~«?n_ ______________ ___ g_9_y~~~~~~1!1_T~~~~~1~.L ____
Ba}'. Cities Paving&. GradiQ.!t __ ConcordO~I
_Roberts ]le'-~--------AMS, Inc. f----·----·-----------1 CFI, Inc.
--~Y~ Door & Har~re ____ .. 1--~cific ~Y..9?.!l!?!!.':!£..t!~.I! .. _______ _,
--~.QLL"!~-------·------·----------------.. w.~alon~L_ _______
AM Fence Co., lnc. - P.O. --~atelli~_P.aln_~.9.. _______
West Coast i--:-;.... __ , __ . _____ -----·-----
AAA Fence Co .• Inc. - Subcontract UnitedRMR ----·-- ----------------1
._j~t!!_l_:f_aj!~~ 5!9~¥----------1 Tom's Metal .......... ---·--·--·~---- .... - ......... ......_ ______ .... ,.w.., ______
Inner Space En9inee!!!!g C~
Trorwa11
" C-
Grand Total :
Mt. Diablo H.S. Modernization - Ph. 1 Union/Non-union Summary
NBC GENERAL CONTRACTORS CORPORATION
Union (Y/N)
y y y y y y y n n n n n n n n n n n n n
Al
t: 13 .. i u Union CO Non-Union Base .. Unlon Base Bid QI
a. 0 Amount Bid u 8 'ts
__ _$_!~~. 779.Q_~- --------- ------------- f--- -... -----~----$99,751.00 1------···----------·----- .. _ .. ______ .....
-~------- .. -----.. ·-··--- .... _ .. _ __ .............. - ...... ---~-----......... __$95~0.00 ------ ---
$79,586.00 2.0% $1.i_617 .00
I-· $55,947.00 6.7% $3,753.00
1-· t--·------·-___ _j33!560.0Q.. - 3.8~-I __ . __ S1 ,270.0C!_, --- ---------·-----
$13,270.00
f----------- ·----!-------- --·-- ...... _ -- $7_§~9,.0.0Q_
1----------------- -------------,_ -----~1.~!!.9::!?Q_ _.,. __ , __ '"' ______ .. ____ ,. _____ ------·--·-- .. ------..... -..... ---.... -.... ~-- -... -- _______ !~.-~~-~:<!Q .. ------ ------- 1--
$44,823.00
$27,000.00
-------------! ----~- -- $22,950.00 1---1 r------------
--------- -·---··-f--·------, ____ $1~~?_?::!?.I!. $10 000.00 -
------·-------- '---------- t-··-1 ___ $9,Q_OO.OO
1------------- 1-------- -------------- 1--_____ £~89~.Q.Q_
-~- ..... _.,. _________ .. ________ ----------- -~------------ .. -- .. --... - ......... ---------~-~~-~-Q-.9-~. I--- ------ 0--------- $5,500.00
$2,500,00
~l,S 28, 78CJt
$5091893.00 1.3% $6,640.00 fl~
Visit us on the web at wwiv.nbcconfrectors.com
1: 13 4lJ l! ~ Non·Unlon CO .... ~ c a. 0 Amount 0 8 'O
----~ --------------___ .... _ .... ____
............ ------... --------------- !----·--------
J---·--_____ ,,.. .. ____
-----!---·----------
------·- ------·----------, 0.3% $200.00 ._.., ______
t---~--------
~-----..__ ....... ~- ---------·-------------·-·-i -----1 ~--------
1.0% $230.00 ---.. 1------------=--t
f-----····--f--------·-··
!-- ------·- ----·--------·-4 ------ !-·------------__ ..... _ .. _____ .. ..,. __ ,,, _________ ............... -~----
- --+--------
l7% ~ '2.G,/, soo
0.1% * 2<'oli Yao
Subco11!ractor_Jnrormalfon
Pr~. Subcontractor Scope Original Contract Varue Notes
24614 Arrow Acouslics Vin~ Tackboard $52,903.00 24614 Arthur & Devenzi Concrete Concrete $673_1.BOO.OO 24614 Ca1iromia Roofing Services Buill - U_Q_ Roof $548,000.00 24614 CallfOmia TiJe Installers Tiie I T errrazo $33]54.00 24614 Casrlk-'- Inc. Earthwork $729..l.500.00 24614 Contra Costa Eleclrlc Electrical $2AOO,OOO.OO 24614 Diablo Valle_y Olr!{all G~sum $152,628.00 24614 Oohef!y_ Paintin_g_ PalntIDg_ $104,000.00 Non Union 24614 F.Rodgern Insulation Bullding_ Insulation $31.165.00 24614 Good WiH Plumbin_gt. fnc. Plumbin_g_ $291,_760.00 24614 J RSte~hens Mill work $197,688.00 24614 Janus Corporation Asbestos Abatement $88..!.600.00 24614 Kim's Aooring Resllienl Ffoorin_g_ and Base; Ca~l!!!Y_B $71_]_000.00 Non Union 24614 Patriot Mechanical HVAC $419_._690.00 NonUn1on 24614 Polrnsion Visual Dis..l!_la_y_ Boards $8,880.00 24614 s Nava & Son Plasterioo Latnlrm_ $148..l.570.00 24614 Solano Coun_!! Roofin_g_ Pert. Metal RoofinJi $364, 133.00
. Total All Subcootractors $6,316,071.00 Tolal Union Subcontractors $5, 112, 168.00
--I
Page 1
Site Contractor Union Contract Changes Total Group 1
Clayton Valley Taber Union $4,000,000 $1,Q55,378 $5,055,378 Northgate Taber Union $2,498,000 $128,604 $2,626,604 Willow Creek Bil and Non-Union $198,500 $18,415 $216,915 Shore Acres Sierra Bay Non-Union $2,871,000 $640,737 $3,511,737 Oak Grove Arntz Union $3,082,637 $307,664 $3,390,301 Riverview Arntz Union $2,311,978 $495,842 $2,807,820 College Park Sierra Bay Non-Union $3,375,000 $798,766 $4, 173,766 Mt Diablo lnc.1 NBC Non-Union $2,380,000 $268,570 $2,648,570 Ygnacio Valley HS Sierra Bay Non-Union $3,759,404 $625,446 $4,384,850 Concord HS Sierra Bay Non-Union $4,809,596 $721,342 $5,530,938 Eagle Peak Sierra Bay Non-Union $1,051,000 $238,249 $1,289,249 .• .•... ll..:. . Group 1 Subtotal $30,337,115 $5,299,013 $35,636,128
. ::"' ... ·· " ..::.. Union 39% $13,880,103 1·· •.• ; Non-Union 61% $21,756,025
Group 2 Glenbrook Arntz Union $1,470,454 $88,539 $1,558,993 Rio Vista Arntz Union $2,590,123 $59,938 $2,650,061 Cambridge NBC Non-Union $2,307,600 $95,076 $2,402,676 Ygnacio Valley ES NBC Non-Union $1,970,600 $45,951 $2,016,551 Fair Oaks NBC Non-Union $2.120,600 $74,661 $2,195,261 El Monte Taber Union $1,492, 117 $61,770 $1,553,887 Meadow Homes Taber Union $3,305.145 $66,214 $3,371,359 Bel Air Taber Union $3,559,438 $207,304 $3,766,742 Olympic High Sierra Bay Non-Union $1,804,165 $87,350 $1,891,515 Wren Ave Sierra Bay Non-Union $3,065,613 $83,325 $3,148,938 Mt. Diablo Inc. 2 Sierra Bay Non-Union $3,491,915 $87,857 $3,579,772 Mt Diablo Shop Pen con Non-Union $3,214,000 $19,799 $3,233,799
,;,;.rJ'±::::_··. Group 2 Subtotal $30,391,nO $9n,784 . $28,135,755 ,~ .. -J~~~.~:·:~ .. .·.·•·
\ : :i_ : ·" • .. ·..:=.d' >,:.:", • ' Union . 46% $12,901,042
~ ;
' .. :. . :: ·.: :..:..:..; ·Non-Union ·66% $18,468,512
~· ... ): ··.,· ... .. .· .• ''\ Total . $60,728,885 $6,276,797 $63,n1,883
L::.:.t::::.?" .::.:: ... : . ·:. . " .. : Union 42% $26,781,145
.\~ v: ...:.::.. .. ·:, :: . . Non-Union ..·· 63% $40,224,537
8. SUPERINTENDENT'S REPORT
9. BUSINESS Action 9.1 Appointment of Director. Adult, Continuing, Career Education
Public Hearing 9.2 & Action
Action 9.3
Action 9.4
Action 9.5
Report 9.6
With the retirement of the Director, Adult, Continuing, Career Education, an internal candidate is being recommended to fill the position.
Recommendation Approve appointment as recommended.
Resolution #04/05-40 to Adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis CSFNA) and Level 2 School Facility Fees Consideration of adopting a school facilities needs analysis and level 2 school facility fees in the amount of $3.92 per square foot for residential construction pursuant to Government Code Sections 659955 and 65995.6 has been provided to the public for review. Fiscal Impact: Increase in revenue from developer fees. Funding Source: Developer Fees
Recommendation Hold public hearing and adopt resolution.
Renewal of Charter for Eagle Peak Montessori School Eagle Peak Montessori School was granted a charter in March of 2000. California Educational Code requires that charters be granted for five-year periods. Eagle Peak Montessori School has requested that their charter be renewed for the next five year period.
Fiscal Impact: Eagle Peak will pay the district indirect cost rate and utilities.
Recommendation This was presented as information at the March 8 meeting. It is now being returned for action.
Parent-Sponsored Fundraising Campaign A group of parents requests authorization to conduct a fundraising campaign on behalf of the District in accordance with the proposed Memorandum of Agreement. There is no impact to the General Fund. The District would receive funds raised by the campaign to be used to restore cuts made to specific programs identified in the Memorandum of Agreement for the 2005-06 school year.
Recommendation Approve as presented.
Award of Bid No. 1365 Award of bid no. 1365 to Taber Construction in the amount of $13,065,900 to provide modernization and new classrooms at Hidden Valley Elementary; and Sequoia and Valley View middle schools. Funding Source: Measure C A\tt..JU ,,_,.,). J....oL
(\" ftJ ,. n.,,..... '/,'_ IA A• p ... J Recommendation ""'"""'A lJ...A~e-Approve as presented.
Continuation of Budget Reduction and Revenue Enhancement Strategies On March 8, the Board approved the Second Interim Report which shows a total budget of $249,480,774. The Board also completed another budget reduction process reducing the District's expenditures by over $4 million for the 2005 school year. This brings the total budget reduction over the last 3 years to $14 million. We need to continue discussion of budget reduction and/or revenue enhancement. A report will be provided to the Board on various funding initiatives/strategies that may impact the budget next year.
Recommendation Hold discussion.
