H.R. 2104, a bill currently before the U.S. House of Representatives would mandate that only public employees carry out construction inspection functions on all federally funded transportation projects. The bill proposes that such a mandate would identify alleged "conflicts of interest and potential failures to protect public safety and welfare" that might occur if privately employed engineers are given that work.
California’s private engineers vehemently disagree. The whole idea that somehow, all of a sudden, the private engineering firms that can and do perform this work now have ‘conflicts of interest’ or would fall short of ‘providing for public safety’ is ludicrous. Not only is this bill a smoke screen for protecting public union jobs in California and the nation, its premise is based on misinformation which is carefully woven in to the bill.
In fact the entire concept of the bill runs counter to common practices in the industry and is an affront to the high professional standards which California engineers have maintained for decades.
My fellow ACEC California member and engineer Rob Salaber agrees. Rob asks: “Why all of a sudden is the well established system of partnering between the public and private engineering community in question? Simple. At this time of fiscal crisis when everyone is suffering financially, the public unions want all of the work for their members, and U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is trying to deliver it to them on a silver platter.”
H.R. 2014 would also directly conflict with Proposition 35, legislation passed by California voters which has withstood two State Supreme Court challenges by California’s public unions since its passage in 2000. At that time, California voters overwhelmingly approved amendment to the California state constitution to give state and local public agencies the choice and authority to use private engineering services, when needed.
Proposition 35 expressly applies to construction services such as inspections as well. It is now regularly used by both state and local agencies to excellent effect to speed up the delivery of badly needed infrastructure projects, including transportation projects. It doesn't cut corners and it has ensured the continued safety of our citizens.
Numerous surveys of practices in states all around the country demonstrate that the traditional system of using private engineering services is crucial to delivering innovative, on-time and on-budget projects to the public. Allowing only state employees to conduct construction inspection work would slow up the delivery of projects at a time when we desperately need efficiencies, both to keep costs low and deliver projects on time and on budget for minimal disruption to the general public.
America’s private engineers are involved in every phase of every type of transportation
project including planning solutions to reduce congestion, assessing environmental impacts, evaluating and improving the safety and sustainability of roads, bridges and tunnels, designing both simple and complex infrastructure to exceedingly high standards, and, yes, monitoring construction to ensure it complies with approved designs and materials.
This proposed legislation sponsored by U.S. Congressman Bob Filner (D. San Diego) is ill considered, and will result in even greater costs for California taxpayers without any discernible additional value to the state.
Tom Blackburn, Blackburn Consulting
ACEC California President
Monday, July 6, 2009
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The real cost of hiring public employees is in their pension funds.
A recent article in the Sacramento Bee outlined where the City’s money will have to be allocated during the next fiscal year in order to keep current employees employed. Bottom line, 85 cents out of every dollar spent in the $386 million California general fund would go to pay for the salaries, health care and retirement benefits of more than 3,000 city employees.
The “cuts” of course will then have to come from a corresponding reduction in Sacramento city services and supplies --which drop from an average of about 22 percent during the last six years to about 5.5 percent of the annual fund. Good news for people who need to keep their jobs; bad news for taxpayers.
But an equally important point made in the article might just be overlooked if one were to miss focusing on all of the ramifications of budget parsing. The overwhelming cost of pension obligations incurred by the city in hiring more full time employees is almost mindboggling for those demanding more efficiency and accountability.
What’s more, according to the proposed budget released last month, the stock market's fall has battered the value of the Sacramento City Employees' Retirement System, and the hit will need to be offset next year to the tune of an $8 million contribution by the city. Then, in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the city is preparing for a $12 million hike in its annual contribution to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to make up for investment losses in city funds held by CalPERS.
"We're concerned and we would hope that the city, as all cities, will look very seriously at ratcheting down their pension contributions," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the Bee. “Still, the numbers – especially the amount of the budget being spent on salaries – aren't surprising,” Coupal said. "California is the land of milk and honey as far as public employees go," he said. Adding to the mix, said Coupal, is that Sacramento is a government town where local politics are dominated by the labor-friendly Democratic Party.
As you might expect, Bob Blymyer, the executive director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, sees it differently. He told the Bee: "The public won't stand for" inequity between public and private sector compensation. It was never the taxpayers' intention to upgrade public workers' salaries and benefits to where they are better than private enterprise.”
All of which points out the following reality: Every time the state hires a new public engineer (who makes more money than if he or she worked in a private engineering firm, and then joins the public engineers employees union to fight for his or her “rights”) the state (you and I) are also signing on for a pension obligation that can run into the $1 to $2 million range, depending on salary levels.
So, rather than just saving jobs, perhaps we taxpayers should be focusing our attention away from just salary to consider another real cost of hiring more public engineers – especially when we let their union lobbyists garner favors from state legislators to, for example, prevent the state from outsourcing the work when and where they can.
By the way, the truth is that in recent years thousands of engineers working in the private sector have already lost their jobs. Much of that failure can be attributed to their comparatively poor and
underfunded private unions who failed miserably in “achieving” the same kind attention and support from the California legislature. Perhaps that kind of inequity should be added to the growing list of reasons to make some official changes in the next election?
Tom Blackburn
President-Elect ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
The “cuts” of course will then have to come from a corresponding reduction in Sacramento city services and supplies --which drop from an average of about 22 percent during the last six years to about 5.5 percent of the annual fund. Good news for people who need to keep their jobs; bad news for taxpayers.
But an equally important point made in the article might just be overlooked if one were to miss focusing on all of the ramifications of budget parsing. The overwhelming cost of pension obligations incurred by the city in hiring more full time employees is almost mindboggling for those demanding more efficiency and accountability.
What’s more, according to the proposed budget released last month, the stock market's fall has battered the value of the Sacramento City Employees' Retirement System, and the hit will need to be offset next year to the tune of an $8 million contribution by the city. Then, in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, the city is preparing for a $12 million hike in its annual contribution to the California Public Employees' Retirement System to make up for investment losses in city funds held by CalPERS.
"We're concerned and we would hope that the city, as all cities, will look very seriously at ratcheting down their pension contributions," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association told the Bee. “Still, the numbers – especially the amount of the budget being spent on salaries – aren't surprising,” Coupal said. "California is the land of milk and honey as far as public employees go," he said. Adding to the mix, said Coupal, is that Sacramento is a government town where local politics are dominated by the labor-friendly Democratic Party.
As you might expect, Bob Blymyer, the executive director of the Sacramento County Taxpayers League, sees it differently. He told the Bee: "The public won't stand for" inequity between public and private sector compensation. It was never the taxpayers' intention to upgrade public workers' salaries and benefits to where they are better than private enterprise.”
All of which points out the following reality: Every time the state hires a new public engineer (who makes more money than if he or she worked in a private engineering firm, and then joins the public engineers employees union to fight for his or her “rights”) the state (you and I) are also signing on for a pension obligation that can run into the $1 to $2 million range, depending on salary levels.
So, rather than just saving jobs, perhaps we taxpayers should be focusing our attention away from just salary to consider another real cost of hiring more public engineers – especially when we let their union lobbyists garner favors from state legislators to, for example, prevent the state from outsourcing the work when and where they can.
By the way, the truth is that in recent years thousands of engineers working in the private sector have already lost their jobs. Much of that failure can be attributed to their comparatively poor and
underfunded private unions who failed miserably in “achieving” the same kind attention and support from the California legislature. Perhaps that kind of inequity should be added to the growing list of reasons to make some official changes in the next election?
Tom Blackburn
President-Elect ACEC California
Blackburn Consulting
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Now’s the time for broad PPP expansion in California
Now’s the time for broad PPP expansion in California
The state has no money and is deep in debt–so to fix our broken infrastructure and build much-needed new transport options and facilities, we need to attract more private capital. This means more public-private partnerships.
Regardless of the results of May 19’s special election in California, the state will face a jarring financial future that should force a change in the way we plan and implement spending, and that includes infrastructure. The fact is that there will be no new public money for large-scale infrastructure for many years to come, so we had better start looking for alternatives now. We must act quickly because, let’s face it, the quality of our existing infrastructure – because of inadequate and sometimes wasteful funding - is just not good.
We really can’t delay implementing repairs to dangerous infrastructure problems like corroding bridges and deteriorating water treatment facilities. First, there’s the public safety issue – Californians deserve safe and secure infrastructure; second, there’s the competitive issue – how can we attract and retain businesses if we can’t provide adequate roads, rail and ports to move goods, energy to power manufacturing or research facilities, housing for workers, etc?
Our Governor knows this, and now so do many of our legislators. Earlier in the year, they passed into law SBX2 4, a bill that gives the state, cities and counties authority to adopt alternative infrastructure delivery methods such as public-private partnerships and design- build for certain transportation projects. The bipartisan effort is a great first step toward creating a multidisciplinary approach to California’s infrastructure challenges but it is not the sole solution. Nor will it address all the state’s needs since the PPP legislation expires in 2016 and the number of design-build projects is limited.
California leaders should rapidly expand the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) in the state in order to attract vital private investment capital for future infrastructure projects. Such PPP efforts have been successful in other states and around the globe, but so far California has been way behind the curve.
Private engineers have been steadfast advocates of using private capital and private expertise to make new infrastructure a reality for the benefit of the state and its industries. PPPs and design-build are possible today in California partly because of ACEC California’s overwhelming success in multiple court battles with state employee unions seeking to quash PPPs. Examples of projects now moving forward because of court victories include expansion of the 405 freeway in Southern California, the recent voter-approved high-speed rail project and expansions of subway systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. If we want to see more of these projects in the future, we need to bring private sector capital into play a much bigger role in building it.
Paul Meyer
The state has no money and is deep in debt–so to fix our broken infrastructure and build much-needed new transport options and facilities, we need to attract more private capital. This means more public-private partnerships.
Regardless of the results of May 19’s special election in California, the state will face a jarring financial future that should force a change in the way we plan and implement spending, and that includes infrastructure. The fact is that there will be no new public money for large-scale infrastructure for many years to come, so we had better start looking for alternatives now. We must act quickly because, let’s face it, the quality of our existing infrastructure – because of inadequate and sometimes wasteful funding - is just not good.
We really can’t delay implementing repairs to dangerous infrastructure problems like corroding bridges and deteriorating water treatment facilities. First, there’s the public safety issue – Californians deserve safe and secure infrastructure; second, there’s the competitive issue – how can we attract and retain businesses if we can’t provide adequate roads, rail and ports to move goods, energy to power manufacturing or research facilities, housing for workers, etc?
Our Governor knows this, and now so do many of our legislators. Earlier in the year, they passed into law SBX2 4, a bill that gives the state, cities and counties authority to adopt alternative infrastructure delivery methods such as public-private partnerships and design- build for certain transportation projects. The bipartisan effort is a great first step toward creating a multidisciplinary approach to California’s infrastructure challenges but it is not the sole solution. Nor will it address all the state’s needs since the PPP legislation expires in 2016 and the number of design-build projects is limited.
California leaders should rapidly expand the use of public-private partnerships (PPP) in the state in order to attract vital private investment capital for future infrastructure projects. Such PPP efforts have been successful in other states and around the globe, but so far California has been way behind the curve.
Private engineers have been steadfast advocates of using private capital and private expertise to make new infrastructure a reality for the benefit of the state and its industries. PPPs and design-build are possible today in California partly because of ACEC California’s overwhelming success in multiple court battles with state employee unions seeking to quash PPPs. Examples of projects now moving forward because of court victories include expansion of the 405 freeway in Southern California, the recent voter-approved high-speed rail project and expansions of subway systems in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. If we want to see more of these projects in the future, we need to bring private sector capital into play a much bigger role in building it.
Paul Meyer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
