10-13-15

John’s Soapbox:

Impossible-What If It Wasn’t?

After decades of underfunding of County roads and infrastructure, here we are in 2015 with the Supervisors having a chance to increase funding to make our roads better. While it is generally acknowledged that we have really crappy roads, the cost to make them go from “really crappy” to “good” is somewhat subjective. A reasonable estimate is that $40 million per year for the next 10 years could make a noticeable impact to the good.

So the County decided to reach out to business and industry in 2014 and ask us to “lead” an effort for a sales tax measure that would help fund the needed road repair costs. Thus was born Measure A and only 38% of the voters decided they wanted that tax measure to pass so it went down in defeat in June of 2015. What to do?

Well, the ECA, SOS, and OE3 have teamed up to advocate for additional budget dollars for our roads. We have been talking with Supervisors, Transportation and Public Works staff, and the County Admin staff to help convince them to recommend more dollars be directed towards road repair. While this is happening, the County has virtually every union collective bargaining agreement being renegotiated. Obviously, the renegotiation of these County worker’s pay/pension/benefits packages can have a HUGE impact on the available funds for road repair.

Please understand that I am not trying to take money away from hard working County workers. However, the way those contracts are negotiated is far different than how road funding is handled. Professional negotiators send offers, comments, and acceptance/rejection of terms, benefits, durations, etc. and none of these negotiations are public knowledge. Why not?

Here we were with Measure A trying to get a ¼ cent sales tax passed so we could raise $20 million per year for road funding. Voters did not trust that the Supervisors would spend it on roads as it was proposed as a General Tax. But the County is negotiating for County worker compensation that could far exceed what Measure A would have brought in. The County now has over 4,200 workers and a 1% increase in their compensation package would cost the County $4.6 million per year. I hear one union is asking for an 8% increase over 6 months. God Love Them. But-if the County employees all got that, that would be an increase of $36,800,000 per year. That is nearly the same amount it is estimated that our road repair costs are in order to make our roads go from “crappy to good”. So why are voters not able to decide how they want the current stream of tax income be spent?

I say, let the voters decide. Negotiate the best deal you can, then put the vote out to the voters to see if they want to have THEIR tax money go towards road repair, or County employee compensation packages.

Think my idea has a shot? Haha. Not a chance. It would be impossible. But, as the Grinder asks, Impossible-What If It Wasn’t?

Perhaps the solution is to have ECA members write or call in to their Supervisors and tell them how they want their tax monies spent. Here (again), are the contacts for your Supervisors:

Supervisor Susan Gorin – Susan.Gorin@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor David Rabbitt – David.Rabbitt@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Shirlee Zane – Shirlee.Zane@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor James Gore – James.Gore@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Efren Carrillo – Efren.Carrillo@sonoma-county.org

That’s All Folks!

John’s Soapbox:

TAKE BACK OUR ROADS!

Tell Your Supervisor You Want County To Focus On Road Repairs!

The time has come for our industry members to step up, and sound off to your elected officials in Sonoma County. Our roads are in terrible shape because of several reasons:

1. We have 1384 miles of County roads
2. The County has spent money on other costs (like “Cost Of Living Allowances for their workers, pensions and public safety).
3. The rural roads were not built that great to begin with-some were just asphalt laid down on minimal baserock sections.
4. The lack of sealing the surface regularly has led to intrusion of water into the subbase. This accelerates the deterioration of the wearing surface dramatically.

There is a “not so hidden” cost to all that drive our rough roads. Studies have shown it costs an average driver upwards of $600/a year due to lower fuel mileage, tire wear, alignment and shock issues wearing out your vehicle faster. Our Supervisors know all of this. Yet, they tend to react and act in response to the loudest noises they hear. Since Measure A failed, the loudest voices they are hearing are for homeless advocates and affordable housing. There is a move to reduce the spending on fixing our roads and use that money for homeless shelters/housing/services, increasing wages for County workers, and many other costly special interest issues.

What we want is for the County Supervisors to “hold the line” or increase spending on fixing our roads. Voters defeated Measure A but not because fixing the roads was not important. They defeated the additional tax mainly because they believed the County already has enough money, they just need to prioritize their budget on roads more. And every one of the Supes said they would in June of 2015. Let’s remind them!

Here is the ask: Can you find the time to make one email, and one phone call per week for the next 4 weeks to each of the five Supes to request they spend more money on road repair in Sonoma County? If you can, I can guarantee this will have an effect-a positive one. Phone number for the County Supervisors is 707-565-2241. Here is emails for the Supes:

Supervisor Susan Gorin – Susan.Gorin@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor David Rabbitt – David.Rabbitt@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Shirlee Zane – Shirlee.Zane@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor James Gore – James.Gore@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Efren Carrillo – Efren.Carrillo@sonoma-county.org
That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Greetings!

9-16-15

John’s Soapbox:

TAKE BACK OUR ROADS!

Tell Your Supervisor You Want County To Focus On Road Repairs!

The time has come for our industry members to step up, and sound off to your elected officials in Sonoma County. Our roads are in terrible shape because of several reasons:

1. We have 1384 miles of County roads
2. The County has spent money on other costs (like “Cost Of Living Allowances for their workers, pensions and public safety).
3. The rural roads were not built that great to begin with-some were just asphalt laid down on minimal baserock sections.
4. The lack of sealing the surface regularly has led to intrusion of water into the subbase. This accelerates the deterioration of the wearing surface dramatically.

There is a “not so hidden” cost to all that drive our rough roads. Studies have shown it costs an average driver upwards of $600/a year due to lower fuel mileage, tire wear, alignment and shock issues wearing out your vehicle faster. Our Supervisors know all of this. Yet, they tend to react and act in response to the loudest noises they hear. Since Measure A failed, the loudest voices they are hearing are for homeless advocates and affordable housing. There is a move to reduce the spending on fixing our roads and use that money for homeless shelters/housing/services, increasing wages for County workers, and many other costly special interest issues.

What we want is for the County Supervisors to “hold the line” or increase spending on fixing our roads. Voters defeated Measure A but not because fixing the roads was not important. They defeated the additional tax mainly because they believed the County already has enough money, they just need to prioritize their budget on roads more. And every one of the Supes said they would in June of 2015. Let’s remind them!

Here is the ask: Can you find the time to make one email, and one phone call per week for the next 4 weeks to each of the five Supes to request they spend more money on road repair in Sonoma County? If you can, I can guarantee this will have an effect-a positive one. Phone number for the County Supervisors is 707-565-2241. Here is emails for the Supes:

Supervisor Susan Gorin – Susan.Gorin@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor David Rabbitt – David.Rabbitt@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Shirlee Zane – Shirlee.Zane@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor James Gore – James.Gore@sonoma-county.org
Supervisor Efren Carrillo – Efren.Carrillo@sonoma-county.org
That’s All Folks!

John Bly

8-28-15

John’s Soapbox:

So What Happened to The Sonoma County Supervisors Commitment To Roads?

June 1, 2015 the voters rejected a Measure A sales tax initiative that would have added ¼ cent to County purchases for fixing County and City roads. The voters rejected it soundly. The ECA was a major advocate in this failed attempt, and many of our members wrote checks and supported the effort. Here we are, 3 months later, and it is time to put Measure A behind us and come up with a better plan.

Before coming up with a strategy, let’s look at what the Supes said following the defeat of Measure A:

District 1 Supervisor: We heard our community loudly and clearly – roads are a priority,” said Board of Supervisors Chairwoman Susan Gorin, as she acknowledged this month’s ballot-box defeat of Measure A, a proposed quarter-cent sales tax increase that supervisors said they intended to spend primarily on road fixes. “We’re going to focus on them in the near-term.”

District 2 Supervisor: We need to make sure we look under every rock and assign dollars to pavement preservation,” Rabbitt said. “We have to figure out what we’re doing long-term.”

District 3 Supervisor: It is frustrating; we want to fund as many roads as we can,” Zane said, while asking her fellow Board of Supervisors colleagues to join her in advocating to spend roughly half of the county’s delinquent property tax revenue set aside in a reserve account. “Why can’t we spend it?”

District 4 Supervisor: We can’t kick the can down the road any longer because it’ll fall in a pothole,” Gore said, reciting popular rhetoric he used last year during his campaign for supervisor.

He said the county could look at private financing to pay for road repairs or perhaps tax revenue from hotel bed taxes.

District 5 Supervisor: “The campaign was awfully run from the onset,” said Carrillo. “It’s not at all surprising. This is a reflection on the voters’ inability to trust the board.”

What the voters in essence said by rejecting Measure A, is that “we do not trust the Supes without a specific and accountable commitment of our tax dollars. The voters also said with their “NO” votes, that they felt the Supes had enough dollars to fix the roads but they needed better prioritization and improved efficiencies to come up with the needed money to fix our roads.

There is zero appetite for any more tax measures. Rest assured, I am not going to forget the public comments of each Supervisor last year making statements that roads are our biggest priority.

The ECA will do the following:

1. I will personally discuss the road funding priority with each County Supervisor in the next few weeks.
2. I will meet with several other groups to strategize on how to apply pressure to the Supes to have more priority given to roads – AS PROMISED BY EACH OF THEM!
3. I will write an Op-Ed piece to the Press Democrat urging voters to refocus on roads in light of the Supes seemingly trying to spend money on everything else-from a “Living Wage” to expanding their number of employees in the last few months.
4. I will organize and advocate for other groups to write each Sonoma County Supervisor and urge them to refocus their attention on funding for roads.
5. I will send our Emergency Manual out to the County Emergency Director again, and urge them, in person, to call those contractors and suppliers listed in our manual if and when El Nino hits this winter.
6. I will write a “white paper” fact sheet on the impact of wet weather on roads that are cracked and explain to each Supe the additional cost will be on them If they do not find the dollars to fix the roads sooner rather than later.
7. I will also work with affiliated groups more on the State level to pressure the State to devote more STIP dollars to Sonoma County and Marin County roads.

Your thoughts and opinions are always welcome!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Greetings!

8-11-15

John’s Soapbox:

Can We Build Our Way Out Of Housing Shortage Problem?

For those of us who have experienced the boom and bust cycles of housing construction in California, we are not surprised there is a current shortage of housing. We have 350,000 new residents each year and to accommodate them, one would figure we would need at least 150,000 housing starts each year to house them. In 2009, there were 36,000 housing starts in all of California. During the 2010-14 period, for example, Los Angeles County’s population grew by nearly a quarter-million, but it added fewer than 40,000 housing units. During the same period, San Francisco, despite its geographic limitations, grew by nearly 50,000, but built fewer than 10,000 housing units (from Dan Walters’ Op Ed piece found here–

Duh. The obvious solution would be to build more housing.

Problem #1: Building costs are high. Anybody think they are going to get lower?

Problem #2: Since redevelopment dollars dried up, Cities and Counties are looking to require inclusionary housing fees on houses that are sold. Recently, a court decided that those fees are legal. Given that rental housing is becoming the “newest need”, is it any wonder that Cities are considering inclusionary housing fees be imposed on rental units? Two years ago, the now Speaker of the Assembly in California, carried a bill to overturn a 2009 Supreme Court ruling that made inclusionary housing fees illegal to attach to rental units. Governor Brown vetoed that Bill. For once, I agree with Governor Brown! With the recent victory in San Jose that inclusionary housing fees are legal for units that are sold, we can probably expect another attempt to overturn the 2009 Supreme Court ruling and make rental units subject to inclusionary housing fees. If that ever happens, developers will not build as many rental units as they might otherwise build.

Problem #3: The environmentalists have lots of tools to be “NIMBYS” and fight new development due to increased traffic, reduced water supplies, and potential loss of habitat for little critters like the Tiger Salamanders.

Problem #4: Are the 350,000 new California residents coming in as qualified, highly paid, professional people who can qualify for a home purchase? Nope. The types of jobs being created in California, by and large, are more service oriented jobs that are lower paying and therefore put more demand on the low income housing and rental sector.

Problem #5: Some of our local elected officials see rent control as a partial solution to our local housing crisis. It is widely known that the City of Santa Rosa is considering a “Richmond Like” rent control ordinance that would impose new rules and regulations, as well as a hefty fee, onto current owners of rental stock. Here is a recent article on the Richmond Rent Control ordinance-

Problem #6: Housing starts already have approximately $95,000 of fees per unit in Sonoma County. Since costs and environmental mitigation costs are high already, some proposed developments cannot absorb any more fees (that are passed through to the buyer by most, if not all, developers/builders). Although they could take the cost and simply add it to their sales price, what is happening is that where the available land is for constructing these homes, the required higher prices are too high for lenders to loan the money to potential buyers (i.e. there is no “comp” that would allow the lender to qualify a buyer for a house over $600,000 in Roseland for example). The fees have priced the houses out of the lender’s capabilities.

Problem #7: Nimby’s do not want more houses built near them. That is a generalization, but It is true more than not.

So-is your answer the same as when you started reading this? Did you think you could build your way out of the housing crisis?

What the ECA is doing is attending the City Council Study Sessions on August 18th & September 22nd to listen and participate in educating the Council members as to how development feasibility is compromised if too many fees are imposed. Please read the NCBE newsletter and try to attend the City Council Study Sessions on August 18th and September 22-here

The ECA takes the position that the City of Santa Rosa cannot impose any more fees on developers as they will simply pass them through to the buyers and the buyers will not be able to qualify for the higher prices. The City needs to find alternative means to subsidize and “fast track” housing starts that have fees waived or slashed in order to get more housing units built fast!

How does this affect ECA members? Easy-our roads and infrastructure needs expanding, replacing, and updating. More housing will allow for more infrastructure work.

Long Live Development!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Greetings!

8-4-15

John’s Soapbox:

Golf? There Was Golf Too?

If you attended and played at our ECA Golf Tournament Friday, you know what I am talking about! That was a blast! The weather was perfect, the food was incredible, and the vibe from all the players/volunteers/sponsors/and staff was terrific.

The Hospitality Hole Winner was “CLOVER DALE ALE/Able/George Petersen Insurance”. This was a tough choice but the food won out over the Mariachi Band at the BoDean Hospitality Hole. Close voting and both groups put on an incredible and generous and thoroughly fun escape for the weary golfers! I honestly can say this was the best two Hospitality Hole Sponsors this tournament has EVER had. Thanks to Dean and Belinda Soiland, Josh Cleaver and the entire group of volunteers they had at their spot! A special thank you for Rod Brownlee and his entire family, Doug Dilley who brought his son with him, and the helpers they had as well. The little crackers with the spread topped by the filet mignon slice was my favorite but the oysters, the scallops, the mango coleslaw, and the filet was equal to or better than most restaurants around here. Over the top! Please try to do business with CLOVER DALE ALE, Able Maintenance, Petersen Insurance, and BoDean Quarry!

The other Hospitality Holes were fun as well. Longtime supporter Heffernan Insurance “represented” with Linda and Lisa over on Hole #18 with their setup, and RDO Integrated Controls was setup with their lasers on Hole #11 manned by Troy and Mike. Longtime supporter Western Water Constructors and Safety Pride was out on Hole #10 with Jim showing off the safety trailer. Brent was over on Hole #7 with his Parrot and Santa Rosa Golf and Country Club. Hansel Ford was out on Hole #13 with that beautiful truck with Paul manning the hole all day. Nobody came close but I bet everyone liked that red truck! Please consider Hansel Ford for your next rig, Heffernan for your insurance, and RDO for your level and grade controls! Give Western Water a chance to bid on your projects, and give Jim a chance to do a safety class for you from Safety Pride. When you want to golf, swim, or workout in an exclusive club, give Brent a call to hear how affordable he can make the Santa Rosa Golf and Country Club.

Jodi from Oldcastle Stormwater Solutions, was out there looking happy and good all day greeting the patrons, and TDE cruised around with their beverage cart with Jamie and Danielle and Ghilotti Brothers manned their cart with Gwen and Aixa. Thanks to all five of those hard working girls! Buy from Oldcastle, Rent from TDE, and hire Ghilotti Brothers for your next project!

Check in was done by Corinna from Pace Supply and her son David, helped by Laura from Brelje and Race Engineers, and Michelle from Gallina LLP. You can buy your pipe and valves from Pace after Brelje and Race designs the mechanical system for you, and all the money you make can be handled by Gallina LLP to keep you in compliance with your taxes!

All of our Committee members should get special recognition for putting up with me and getting a great tournament run well for all of you-Josh from BoDean, Lisa from Heffernan, Steve from Exchange Bank, Corinna from Pace, Jodi from Pisenti and Brinker, Brett from Soiland Co. and Laura from Brelje and Race. Thank you to Chet Laws for the photography for the day! Please go to this link to find your photo!!! Please give all of them a big thank you by considering their firm for your business!

Can’t forget to thank Victor from EPIC helping out with the Putting Contest!

As usual-Mary Kennedy Cabrera was a wonder. And let’s not forget her hubby Tony. He is out there all day and handing out stogies and helping wherever we need help.

A great day! Thanks to all you players. Here are the winners:

Low Gross was Kadon Trucking – Tim Bogue, Jay Jaehnig, Ken Crownover, Tony Coscia who shot a 52!

Closest to the Pin was Frank Lillo with The Wattle Guys

Accuracy Drive winner was John Preston of Pace Supply

Putting Contest Winner who had one putt for $10,000 was Mike Lazaro.

See you next year!
Thank you!

That’s All Folks!

7-24-15

School’s Out?

Dating back to the 1940’s, Contractors are liable for paying back school districts should they sign a contract they know is illegal. With the recent court decision regarding the City of Fresno Unified School District vs Harris Construction Inc., many Contractors that have performed, or are considering performing, work for school districts under a Lease-Leaseback type of contract, may be entering into an illegal contract. Actually, with the recent decision, they WILL BE entering an area where the contract is illegal. As such, if a Contractor did that, they could perform all of the work and be forced to pay back all of the Contract revenue with the work in place. Ouch! To read about the Court decision, click here

The method called “Lease-Leaseback” was created to allow cash strapped school districts to pay for capital improvement projects by allowing them to bypass traditional competitive bidding on projects and they could hand select a contractor/developer to build the project for them. The way it works is the school district would lease the land to the developer for $1 and the developer would pay all the costs of building the project. At the end of the project, the school district would then pay the developer (usually over time) an agreed upon amount that they had negotiated prior to construction and once paid, the school district would then own the improvements as the “lease” would be concluded. This allowed the school district several years to get the dollars to build a project they needed “right now”.

I personally know several local ECA members that have been involved in these types of contracts and the fact that the recent court case has now deemed these types of contracts illegal, places some level of exposure on those contractors. I understand that it seems unfair to imagine that the school district could actually be repaid all of the costs of construction while getting the benefit of the completed project to utilize, but that is currently where the situation stands. Several groups have lobbied to fight this inequity on behalf of contractors and you can read about that here-–

Man oh man-what a tangled web we weave. It seems school construction should be as simple a process as one could get in contracting. However, smart developers and contractors have devised this means of getting work without competitive bidding that now has put them into harm’s way and they want their liability removed. There is lots of talk and effort in Sacramento to get a new bill passed that would negate the liability of Contractors that have performed work under these Lease-Leaseback arrangements. A good editorial is by Dan Walters and you can read it here–

So be aware! If a deal that gets you into the driver’s seat sounds too good to be true when public monies are involved, it is probably because it is too good to be true. Be careful guys!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Greetings!

7-16-15

“Son Of A Bitch Is Dug In Like an Alabama Tick”

I want that phrase to be used to describe what the ECA does to represent membership interests. I want every local elected official to know that we are going to be there to speak out, write about, and generally disrupt their attempts at social engineering at our expense. I want to not be adversarial, but very clear and focused when City Councils have a discussion about how they might add more fees to a business or a project in order to pay for their bloated budgets and lack of efficiencies in performing essential government services. Trust me on this one-they do not get it! I do believe the average “worker bee” for these local agencies get it, but the Council members do not get it yet. I want to help them understand the relationship between business firms operating in a healthy community and how that is needed by the community and the elected officials as a baseline to providing essential services to the public.

Despite huge obstacles, we continue to fight the fight against local government that does not understand the connection between development and growth, and a healthy community.

Every day one can open the newspaper and read about some new proposed regulation or fee being considered for homeowners, landowners, businesses, or construction firms in order to pay for some real or perceived public benefit program. What we do is link up with other organizations and try to bring reality into the discussions about concepts like “affordable housing”, public infrastructure investment, and the impact of the combination of crappy service/high fees/long waits for getting encroachment and building permits so we can put people to work!

Recently, several issues have come to the “front lines”. Infrastructure spending by local governments is number one on my agenda. We tried to help the County of Sonoma and all nine of its cities by passing Measure A which would have pumped an additional $8.7 million per year into rehabbing our roads and streets in Sonoma County. The voters defeated the Measure, but not because the voters did not want to see roads and bridges repaired-they voted down Measure A because they felt the County and the Cities have enough money to do the job if they simply applied the dollars they have more efficiently and at a higher priority than in the past. This message needs to get out to the elected officials. Marin County combined with Sonoma County spend approximately $1 Billion per year on health and human services plus public safety. Would you think they can decrease that spending by 1% and use that 1% for fixing our roads and bridges for a 20 year period? If so, that would produce approximately $200,000,000 in additional funding for our transportation needs in the two counties. Help us work towards that goal!

Another issue is fees imposed on housing and commercial projects. If you have recently remodeled or built an addition to your home or business, you have felt the pain of confusing and inefficient permitting process and the high cost of compliance. It is high time those costs went down and the service level went up. The ECA is partnered with several organizations to see that this is addressed locally. If we are successful, those savings in efficiencies and fee costs will translate into lower costs for your workers (and yourself) to live here, and you (and they) will not have to drive further because of a lack of worker housing stock. I am working closely with the County of Sonoma and the City of Santa Rosa to keep fees low. There will be a workshop “Study Session” that will be held at Santa Rosa City Council chambers on August 18, 2015 from 2:00 until about 5:30 pm. Existing fees will be discussed as will infrastructure needs and the link between the two will be thoroughly considered. You are invited and I will remind you again in next week’s newsletter about this important meeting. If you cannot come and want me to share your views or opinions on the subject, I will be there for you!

Although I will be nice, diplomatic, and cordial-my goal is that each City and County that your firm does business in will understand the ECA and its membership is firm on the principals that we need less regulations that increase fees on our businesses, and more efficiencies from the agencies spending our tax monies. I want them to consider the ECA to be like a “Son Of A Bitch Is Dug In Like An Alabama Tick” when it comes time for them to consider spending dollars on infrastructure or inefficient policies.

That’s All Folks!

John Bly

Greetings!

7-7-15

Jobs Available-Are there Workers to Fill Them?

As this Country and our region continue to crawl out of the economic downturn we had for several years, one thing is becoming very apparent-we cannot continue to grow without adding more workers to our workforce.

This is an obvious problem. But it is also one that the construction industry is not vigorously recognizing nor acting on. Construction unemployment is at an all-time low right now, and I continue to get phone calls and emails asking if I know of workers with some sort of skills or another. Construction companies are struggling to find enough workers to fulfill the work they are currently obligated or under contract to perform. Yet bidding opportunities continue to present themselves. What is a company to do? It is getting to a point where the amount of dollars you offer a new employee is a moot point. Poaching of skilled workers is getting epidemic and overpaying is routine.

It used to be that public agencies were the only recourse for a few years during the downturn. Now, however, public agencies are scrambling to fill positions being made available because of the swollen General Fund budgets. Attrition of baby boomers hitting retirement age without a corresponding number of young people entering the market is causing a shortage of workers on top of an already existing shortage of workers.

The AGC recently published an article you may find of interest-it is available here–

So what is the solution? The solution was to expose high school students to the options available to them in the construction industry about 5-8 years ago. It is compelling to understand that many students decide to not pursue the construction industry because the options are not well known to students, and the work is generally thought of as too hard, too dirty, too dangerous, too low paying, or some combination of all of the above reasons to not go in that direction for most high schoolers.

The ECA would like to try and help our members find employees. In order to have this as a possibility, we need some more information. Please consider accessing a short survey that you can find by clicking this link—

Perhaps we can help by getting information out to high schools, Job Links, and other areas that are not your traditional means of finding employees.

We are here to help-please help us by filling out the survey!

That’s All Folks!

John Bly