In the spirit of bringing our readers thoughtful and meaningful commentary from alternative viewpoints, we are pleased that former Council Member Donna Frye asked Rostra if we would consider a guest opinion piece.
Guest Commentary
by Donna Frye
There are serious financial risks to the taxpayers and the City of San Diego if Proposition A, which bans project labor agreements (PLAs), passes. This is due in part to two pieces of state legislation – SB 922 and SB 829 – which would preclude charter cities in California that have bans on PLAs for public works projects from receiving any state construction funding. SB 922 was signed into law in October, 2011, and SB 829 was signed into law in April, 2012.
The City of San Diego is taking the financial risks associated with Proposition A seriously and has stated:
“Subsequent to Proposition A’s qualification for the ballot, the State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, a law that would prohibit the use of State funds on local construction projects where the local agency, including a charter city, prohibits the use of PLAs. If approved, Proposition A could cause the City to lose State funding for City construction projects.”
This is according to financial disclosures contained in two preliminary official statements for bond offerings prepared by the City of San Diego (Items 332 and 334) that will be heard by the city council on Tuesday, May 22.
Other public agencies are also taking this seriously. Earlier this year Escondido removed its proposed ban on PLAs by revising its draft charter proposal citing SB 922. El Cajon followed, also removing the language banning PLAs from a proposed charter ballot this June, and the Palmdale Water District Board voted unanimously to repeal its ban on PLAs.
State officials are clear about the intent and legality of the state law. On May 1, 2012, State Controller John Chiang specifically warned the city:
“If Prop A passes, San Diego would no longer be eligible to receive state grants for local construction projects.”
On May 3, 2012, the state’s Legislative Counsel Bureau reviewed SB 829 and provided a legal opinion letter to the Governor stating that the bill is constitutional.
Proposition A could impact funds that pay for repairing our streets, cleaning our water and building critical infrastructure. According to the Fiscal Impact Analysis for the ballot measure approved by the mayor’s office and the Independent Budget Analyst, “Major State funding awarded to the City in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 was approximately $36 million and $158 million, respectively.” This major funding includes Prop 42 funds, State CIP grants and State Revolving Fund (SRF) loans, and is the type of funding that is at risk if Prop A passes.
As one example, since 1999, “The City has received approximately $160,000,000 in low interest loans under the SRF Program. Utilizing the SRF 20-year loan program, approved loans of $29 million and $80 million, since July 1, 2007, will result in savings of approximately $78 million when compared to traditional 30-year bond financing.”
Prop A also requires the city to post online the text of some redacted construction contracts in a searchable format. The cost to do this, including redacting certain information and presenting other information, is estimated to be $450,000 per year, plus a $500,000 set-up cost. These estimates are according to the mayor’s office and Independent Budget Analyst.
Neither the ballot language nor the Prop A proponents have identified a funding source to pay for this requirement and it is not included in the FY 2013 budget. Additionally, Prop A does not require any city contracts that are not construction-related to be posted online.
Frye is a former city council member in the City of San Diego. She signed the ballot argument against Proposition A.
Comments 13
I am quite surprised that no one has posted a rebuttal to this column. Could it be that the Councilwoman, one that Richard Rider called one of San Diego’s best, speaks the truth and that the passage of Prop A really will cost the City millions of dollars.
Alger:
If, for example, April Boling penned a piece against Prop A more Rostrafarians would care. Obviously Frye commands less of an audience than she thinks she does. Secondly, this piece is just a boring version of their sad sack mailers.
Ryan,
Simple question:
Are Donna Frye’s comments accurate and do we stand to lose millions in State funding if Prop A passes?
Unlike you, I am more concerned with the facts than I am with the source.
Alger:
State funds are an illusion. The state is broke. It even steals local money, that was never it’s money in the first place. Look at the way it tries to raid county coffers. I am not buying the dangling carrot of state funds bit.
So what Donna is really pointing out is that organized labor has figured out another way to screw the taxpayers unless they get their way?
Unions are bankrupting Greece, the USPS, California, Los Angeles, San Francisco and they are still looking for ways to give it to San Diego taxpayers unless we give in and play by only their rules.
You have to love liberals. They talk about tolerance all the time, but they are only tolerant of other people’s views if they agree with them.
Red Ryder,
I won’t even get into the merits of a proposition that will ban our duly elected representatives from being allowed to even consider a construction delivery method that has been used successfully (sometimes unsuccessfully) on many major construction projects over the last 80 years. I will just address your point directly by asking if you are really surprised that any entity would use their political clout to their own advantage. Do you really believe that organized labor is the only one that flexes it’s muscles to get favorable legislation? Seriously?
Here is a new Rostra post on the subject…
http://sdrostra.com/?p=28299
Alger says that enforced PLA’s have been “used successfully” on construction projects. Gosh, who defines “used successfully”? I wonder.
It WAS “used successfully” from the construction unions’ standpoint. They profited immensely from above market wages protected by banning competition.
From a taxpayer standpoint, that’s not persuasive. Unions profited, and we paid more — and/or got less for our money.
About Donna Frye and my praise for her, which Alger wisely brought up. From 2002 (when she was first elected) to 2004-5, she was the best SD city elected politician. Indeed, she was the best damn council critter we had seen since Bruce Henderson 1988-92. Bar none. Democrat OR Republican.
She was skeptical and inquisitive, features not a SINGLE member of our city council demonstrated until the election of Kevin Faulconer in 2006. Not ONE.
This is not so much high praise for Donna as a condemnation of the somnolent bunch that ran the city from 1992 through 2006.
In the land of the blind, the woman with one eye was queen.
By the July, 2005 special election for mayor, Donna had fallen back under the sway of the labor unions, who backed her run for mayor. As you may recall, she won the primary easily, but was later crushed in the November general election (when the predominantly fiscally conservative supporters of the 3rd through 6th place finishers overwhelmingly voted for Jerry Sanders), which had to be a bitter experience for her.
Carl and Donna were occasionally allies, but she never liked brash Carl and his endless ideas for improving city hall. I can’t comment on specific run-in’s they had — but it’s obvious she dislikes him intensely. Okay.
Since 2006, Donna rarely has taken a position not approved by the city labor unions. The skepticism disappeared.
Her shift (well, return) to the Dark Side was complete. It’s yet another compelling case for term limits.
Richard,
Successful in that the projects were completed ahead of schedule, under budget and more importantly under the engineer’s cost estimate, probably all factors that you will dismiss but it is the way that construction projects are measured. You can also add successful in terms of zero accidents, no warranty claims and no law suits (not the labor kind, the Owner- General Contractor – Subcontractor kind)
Makes sense to me, Alger. Use overpriced labor, restrict competition, lower the number of bids. That saves money — been working that way for 80 years. Good to know.
Only in LaborLand.
The one thing non-PLA projects DOES suffer from is labor obstruction — especially via the courts. Labor unions know only one method to get what they want — extort and coerce.
Okay, okay — TWO methods.
Richard,
Thanks for once again not being willing to address another point of view and reminding me that discussing anything with you is a total waste of time. I hope I am never bored enough to feel the desire to do so again.
I’m crushed.