Tag Archive for Solano Community College District Project Labor Agreement Measure G 2004

Opponents of Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College District Will Make Formal Presentation to Governing Board

The Vice President of Finance & Administration for the Solano Community College District has asked Nicole Goehring, Government Affairs Director of the Northern California Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC), to make a 15-minute presentation about Project Labor Agreements during the March 6 meeting of the Solano College Governing Board in Fairfield.

The board wants more in-depth background about the ramifications of a proposal to require its construction contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions. This would be a condition of working on projects funded by borrowed money obtained through bond sales authorized by the $348 million Measure Q, approved by voters in November 2012.

(Union officials and lawyers: in keeping with your consistent views on appropriate limits of freedom of speech, be sure to contact this person and the superintendent-president and demand their withdrawal of the invitation. How dare this college give opponents of Project Labor Agreements a public forum to present their viewpoints?)

Voters were not provided with any indication from the district that unions would have a monopoly on construction work funded by these bond proceeds, although Associated Builders and Contractors, the Western Electrical Contractors Association (WECA), and the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction (CFEC) tried to alert the public to the district’s history of requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement as a condition of working on the district’s projects funded by Measure G, approved by voters in November 2002. (See A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions for the full details of that history.)

There was a small effort by the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group to warn voters that Measure Q bond proceeds would be squandered on Project Labor Agreements and other wasteful ventures. But a couple hundred yard signs and letters to the editor could not overcome the $227,600 Yes on Q campaign funded by special interests that feed off the college and its construction projects. (See complete list of contributors below.)

Here are my writings on Project Labor Agreements at Solano Community College District:

Governing Board for Solano Community College District in California Hears Debate Over Project Labor Agreement on $348 Million Bond Measure Q – February 6, 2013

Waste Once, Then Do It Again! Project Labor Agreement on Solano Community College District Board Meeting Agenda – February 5, 2013

Updated Chart! Who’s Paying to Convince Solano County Voters to Take On $348 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measure Q? – October 30, 2012

$348 Million Measure Q for Solano Community College: Yes on Q Campaign Fails to Submit Latest Legally-Required Campaign Finance Report – October 27, 2012

A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions – October 21, 2012

Solano County’s Measure Q Looks Vulnerable to Defeat: Will Voters Refuse to Authorize Solano County Community College to Borrow $348 Million Through Bond Sales? – October 20, 2012

California Local Election Report: Construction Bond Measures for School Districts and Community College Districts – Four That Obviously Deserve a NO Vote – October 13, 2012

Contributors to Campaign to Convince Solano County Voters to Approve Measure Q

Total Monetary Contributions: $227,600

DONOR INTEREST AMOUNT
Piper Jaffray Investment Bank/Bond Broker $25,000
Kitchell Construction Construction Manager for Solano College Measure G $25,000
RBC Capital Markets Investment Bank/Bond Broker $18,000
Swinerton Construction Management $15,000
Steve M. Nielsen, MuniBond Solar Bond consultant $10,000
Steinberg Architects Architect $10,000
VBN Architects Architect $10,000
tBP Architecture Architect $7,500
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Construction trade union $5,000
Sonoma/Napa Counties Electrical Contractors Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
[Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104] Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104 Issues Account Construction trade union $5,000
Robert A. Bothman Construction Construction contractor $5,000
Solano Community College Educational Foundation Construction contractor $5,000
Jelly Belly Candy Company Candy company based in Fairfield $5,000
Stradling , Yocca, Carlson and Rauth Law firm $3,500
WRNS Studio Architect $3,500
Barnes & Noble corporate headquarters Operates Solano College bookstore $3,000
Zampi Determan & Erickson Law firm for community college districts $3,000
United Association Plumbers & Steamfitters Local No. 343 Labor-Management Cooperation Committee Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $2,500
Keenan and Associates Insurance broker for school districts $2,500
Timothy B. Kelly Executive with elabra: bond transaction management $2,500
CSDA Architects Architect $2,500
Alfa Tech Engineering $2,500
Sandis Civil Engineers Engineering $2,500
Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association Unionized construction trade association $2,500
Lionakis Architect $2,500
Ratcliff Architect $2,500
B&L Properties Property holding company in Fairfield $2,500
Dannis Woliver Kelley Law firm for school & college districts $2,500
Vanir Construction Management, Inc. Construction management $2,000
Hensel Phelps Construction Company Construction contractor $2,000
Dougherty & Dougherty Architect $2,000
Henley Architects & Associates Architect $1,600
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Engineering $1,100
Cement Masons Local Union No. 400 Construction trade union $1,000
BCA Architects Architect $1,000
Leland Saylor Associates Construction management $1,000
BRJ & Associates Construction management $1,000
William (Bill) T. Kelly, executive with SunPower Solar contractor $1,000
Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo Law firm for school & college districts $1,000
Stafford King Wiese Architects Architects $1,000
The Lew Edwards Group Political consulting firm in Oakland, works to pass bond measures $1,000
LPAS Architect $1,000
Roy Stutzman Consulting Financial consulting for school & college districts $1,000
Student Insurance Insurance company for school districts $1,000
Daniel Iacofano CEO of MIG – campus planning & design $1,000
KPW Structural Engineers Engineering $750
Creegan + D’Angelo Infrastructure Engineers Engineering $500
MatriScope Engineering Laboratories Engineering $500
PAE Consulting Engineers Engineering $500
TLDC Architecture Architect $500
Devin Conway, engineer for Verde Design, Inc. Landscape architect, engineering, construction management $500
Turley & Associates Mechanical Engineering Group Engineering $500
Noll & Tam Architect $500
Optimal Inspections Inspector $500
Kurt Forsgren, executive with Webcor Builders Construction contractor $500
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin Metz & Associates Polling firm for political campaigns $500
Denis Honeychurch Solano College Board Member $500
Dovetail Decision Consultants Furniture, fixtures and equipment for educational districts $500
Sylvia Kwan Principal with Kwan Henmi Architecture Planning $500
Andre Stewart, The Doctors Company Candidate for Benicia School Board $250
Gary Moriarty, executive with Kitchell Construction management $250
Teresa Ryland, executive, TRR School Business Consulting Consultant for education administrators $250
Thorton Tomasetti Engineering $250
International Union of Elevator Constructors Local No. 8 Construction trade union $200
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers Local Union No. 3 Construction trade union $200
Blach Construction Construction contractor $200
Marsha Perry Park, executive with Vanir Group Construction management $100
Jason Reiser, engineer with Miyamoto International Engineering $100
Law Offices of Larry Frierson Lawyer for community college districts $100
Elñora Tena Webb, President, Laney College Peralta Community College administrator $100
Yulian Lisioso Solano College Administrator $100
Sarah Chapman Solano College Board Member $100
Rosemary Thurston Solano College Board Member $100
Anne Marie Young Solano College Board Member $100
James Dekloe Solano College Faculty Member $100
Dee Alarcon President, Solano Community College Educational Foundation $100
Unitemized $50
TOTAL $227,600

Waste Once, Then Do It Again! Project Labor Agreement on Solano Community College District Board Meeting Agenda – February 6, 2013

The Dayton Public Policy Institute, a project of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC, predicts the future correctly every time! This item is on the February 6, 2013 meeting agenda for the Solano Community College District Governing Board:

6. REPORTS (NO ACTION REQUIRED):

(b) Project Labor Agreements – Facilitated by Yulian Ligioso, Vice President, Finance and Administration

Here’s a copy of the staff report outline: Solano Community College District Staff Report on Project Labor Agreements – February 6, 2013

The meeting is on Wednesday, February 6, 2013 at 6:30 p.m. at the Solano Community College Administration Building, Room 626, 4000 Suisun Valley Road, Fairfield, CA 94534-3197. Expect a healthy attendance of union officials and community activists.

Here’s some of my articles last year about the proposed Measure Q for Solano Community College District, a ripe target for unions to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement.

Updated Chart! Who’s Paying to Convince Solano County Voters to Take On $348 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measure Q? – October 30, 2012

$348 Million Measure Q for Solano Community College: Yes on Q Campaign Fails to Submit Latest Legally-Required Campaign Finance Report – October 27, 2012

A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions – October 21, 2012

Solano County’s Measure Q Looks Vulnerable to Defeat: Will Voters Refuse to Authorize Solano County Community College to Borrow $348 Million Through Bond Sales? – October 20, 2012

California Local Election Report: Construction Bond Measures for School Districts and Community College Districts – Four That Obviously Deserve a NO Vote – October 13, 2012

Updated Chart! Who’s Paying to Convince Solano County Voters to Take On $348 Million of Additional Debt – Plus Interest – with Measure Q?

The Fairfield Daily Republic reported today (October 30, 2012) that “supporters of Solano Community College’s Measure Q brought in more than $80,000 in the latest filing period, mostly from firms from outside Solano County…For the latest period, nearly every large donation came from a company or individual donor from outside of Solano County.” (See Measure Q Funding Continues to Grow.)

Say "No" to $348 Million Bond - No on Q - Taxed Enough Already!

Say “No” to $348 Million Bond – No on Q – Taxed Enough Already!

How is the opposition doing? Well, it’s definitely local. According to the article, “The No on Q campaign received and spent less than $1,000, thus isn’t required to report finances at this time. According to John Takeuchi, the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group spent $590 on a sticker ad and small yard signs.”

Measure Q would authorize the Governing Board of the Solano Community College District to borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds to investors. The Solano Community College District Governing Board required contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions in order to work on projects funded by Measure G, which authorized the Governing Board to borrow $124.5 million for construction by selling bonds. (See my October 21, 2012 report A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions.)

Here is the complete list of contributions to Yes on Measure Q:

DONOR INTEREST AMOUNT
Piper Jaffray Investment Bank/Bond Broker $25,000
Kitchell Construction Construction Manager for Solano College Measure G $25,000
RBC Capital Markets Investment Bank/Bond Broker $18,000
Swinerton Construction Management $15,000
Steve M. Nielsen, MuniBond Solar Bond consultant $10,000
Steinberg Architects Architect $10,000
VBN Architects Architect $10,000
tBP Architecture Architect $7,500
Northern California Carpenters Regional Council Construction trade union $5,000
Sonoma/Napa Counties Electrical Contractors Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
[Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104] Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
Robert A. Bothman Construction Construction contractor $5,000
Stradling , Yocca, Carlson and Rauth Law firm $3,500
WRNS Studio Architect $3,500
Barnes & Noble corporate headquarters Operates Solano College bookstore $3,000
Zampi Determan & Erickson Law firm for community college districts $3,000
Keenan and Associates Insurance broker for school districts $2,500
CSDA Architects Architect $2,500
Alfa Tech Engineering $2,500
Sandis Civil Engineers Engineering $2,500
Northern California Mechanical Contractors Association Unionized construction trade association $2,500
Lionakis Architect $2,500
B&L Properties Property holding company in Fairfield $2,500
Dannis Woliver Kelley Law firm for school & college districts $2,500
Henley Architects & Associates Architect $1,600
Cement Masons Local Union No. 400 Construction trade union $1,000
BCA Architects Architect $1,000
William (Bill) T. Kelly, executive with SunPower Solar contractor $1,000
Stafford King Wiese Architects Architects $1,000
The Lew Edwards Group Political consulting firm in Oakland, works to pass bond measures $1,000
LPAS Architect $1,000
Roy Stutzman Consulting Financial consulting for school & college districts $1,000
Student Insurance Insurance company for school districts $1,000
KPW Structural Engineers Engineering $750
Creegan + D’Angelo Infrastructure Engineers Engineering $500
MatriScope Engineering Laboratories Engineering $500
Devin Conway, engineer for Verde Design, Inc. Landscape architect, engineering, construction management $500
Turley & Associates Mechanical Engineering Group Engineering $500
Noll & Tam Architect $500
Optimal Inspections Inspector $500
Kurt Forsgren, executive with Webcor Builders Construction contractor $500
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin Metz & Associates Polling firm for political campaigns $500
Andre Stewart, The Doctors Company Candidate for Benicia School Board $250
Gary Moriarty, executive with Kitchell Construction management $250
Teresa Ryland, executive, TRR School Business Consulting Consultant for education administrators $250
Thorton Tomasetti Engineering $250
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers Local Union No. 3 Construction trade union $200
Blach Construction Construction contractor $200
CSW/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group Engineering $100
Marsha Perry Park, executive with Vanir Group Construction management $100
Jason Reiser, engineer with Miyamoto International Engineering $100
Law Offices of Larry Frierson Lawyer for community college districts $100
Elñora Tena Webb, President, Laney College Peralta Community College administrator $100
Yulian Lisioso Solano College Administrator $100
Sarah Chapman Solano College Board Member $100
Rosemary Thurston Solano College Board Member $100
Anne Marie Young Solano College Board Member $100
James Dekloe Solano College Faculty Member $100
TOTAL $190,250

Sources: Campaign Finance Report through September 30, 2012Campaign Finance Report through October 20, 2012.

$348 Million Measure Q for Solano Community College: Yes on Q Campaign Fails to Submit Latest Legally-Required Campaign Finance Report

UPDATE: The Yes on Q campaign for Solano Community College District submitted its overdue Form 460 today (Monday, October 29, 2012). Better late than never.

As of October 20, 2012, the campaign has raised over $200,000. Big contributions between October 1 and October 20 include $15,000 from Swinerton (a construction management firm) and $10,000 from MuniBond Solar, run by someone named Steve Nielsen, which has collaborated with companies such as SunPower Corp to secure “Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds” (QECBs) for several California educational districts. (An executive with SunPower Corp also contributed $1000.) As shown in this May 2, 2012 Solano Community College Financial and Budget Planning Advisory Council meeting, MuniBond Solar wants a relationship with Solano Community College District.

Other contributors include the usual suspects: architects, construction trade unions, and unionized construction associations that look forward to a Project Labor Agreement.


Yesterday (October 26, 2012) I went to the Solano County Registrar of Voters office to obtain the paper copies of the Form 460 reports that the “Yes on Q – Solano College” campaign must legally submit to the county. These reports are meant to inform the public about campaign receipts and expenditures. The staff there was quite professional and helpful, but I left knowing that the Yes on Q campaign was breaking the law and getting away with it.

Measure Q asks Solano County voters to let the Solano Community College District Governing Board borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds to institutional investors. Solano County taxpayers must pay this money back to the investors – with interest! It will cost at least $500 million – perhaps more if the district is lured into selling Capital Appreciation Bonds.

The Solano Community College District Governing Board wants to borrow $346 million by selling bonds

The Solano Community College District Governing Board wants to borrow $348 million by selling bonds.

The Solano College governing board voted 6-1 in 2003 and 2004 to require its construction contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with unions as a condition of working on projects funded by bonds authorized by the $124.5 million Measure G, barely approved by 55.6% of Solano County voters in November 2002. A majority of governing board members are likely to again make a deal to give unions control of additional projects funded by Measure Q. Project Labor Agreements raise costs and cut competition, as shown by the failure of the Project Labor Agreement pilot project at Solano Community College in 2005. (No one on the board cared at the time.)

The Yes on Q campaign finance report for the period from October 1 to October 20 was due by October 25, but it was not at the Solano County Registrar of Voters on October 26. After further inquiry, I learned this afternoon that an official of the Solano County Registrar of Voters had contacted the treasurer of the “Yes on Q – Solano College” campaign to check on the status and was told the report would not be turned in until Monday or Tuesday of next week.

So much for openness and transparency for citizens as they fill out their absentee ballots this weekend. I guess the local newspapers won’t be informing the voters in their Sunday editions who is giving to the Yes on Q campaign and who is getting from the Yes on Q campaign. Does anyone care?

I did get a copy of the campaign finance report of the “Yes on Q Solano College” for the period from July 1, 2012 to September 30, 2012. Here are a few items of interest:

1. This Campaign Is a Sitting Duck for Accusations of “Pay-to-Play”

Here’s a list of all of the campaign contributors through September 30, 2012, with links to the company web sites, the amounts contributed, and the business interest of the contributor.

DONOR INTEREST AMOUNT
Piper Jaffray Investment Bank/Bond Broker $25,000
Kitchell Construction Construction Manager for Solano College Measure G $25,000
RBC Capital Markets Investment Bank/Bond Broker $18,000
Steinberg Architects Architect $10,000
VBN Architects Architect $10,000
[Sheet Metal Workers Local Union No. 104] Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund Construction trade union-affiliated Labor-Management Cooperation Committee $5,000
Stradling, Yocca, Carlson and Rauth Bond counsel – worked before with Solano College on bond sales $3,500
Keenan and Associates Insurance broker for school districts $2,500
B&L Properties Property holding company in Fairfield $2,500
Dannis Woliver Kelley Law firm for school & college districts $2,500
The Lew Edwards Group Political consulting firm in Oakland, works to pass bond measures $1,000
LPAS Architect $1,000
Roy Stutzman Consulting Financial consulting for school & college districts $1,000
Student Insurance Insurance company for school districts $1,000
Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin Metz & Associates Polling firm for political campaigns $500
Bricklayers and Allied Craftsworkers Local Union No. 3 Construction trade union $200
Sarah Chapman Solano College Board Member $100
Rosemary Thurston Solano College Board Member $100
Anne Marie Young Solano College Board Member $100
James Dekloe Solano College Faculty Member $100
TOTAL $109,100

There’s very little financial participation in this campaign from anyone in Solano County, but there is much interest from various professional service firms that do business with Solano Community College District and/or want business if voters approve Measure Q and let the Governing Board sell $348 million in bonds. I guess that’s how the world works, but taxpayers will pay the bill.

2. Underwriters Among Top Contributors – These Firms Get Fees When Selling Bonds

After the investment bank/bond underwriter Piper Jaffray got smacked around along with other financial service firms earlier this year about contributing to campaigns for bond measures for which it subsequently became the underwriter for those bonds, I figured that firm would back off from the practice. I was wrong.

Piper Jaffray $25,000 campaign contribution to Yes on Measure Q Solano College November 2012

Piper Jaffray $25,000 campaign contribution to Yes on Measure Q – Solano College (November 2012)

Piper Jaffray is tied with Kitchell Construction – the construction management firm for Solano Community College’s Measure G (2002) program – for making the largest contribution to the Yes on Q campaign.

3. Another Labor-Management Cooperation Committee Contributes to a Campaign.

Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund - $5000 Contribution to the Yes on Measure Q Solano College

Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund – $5000 Contribution to Yes on Measure Q Solano College

I snickered when I saw this one: how many people in Solano County know about the Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund? There’s only one place on the web where you’ll read about labor-management cooperative trusts, and you’re reading it now. These trusts are arcane entities authorized by the obscure Labor-Management Cooperation Act of 1978, a law signed by President Jimmy Carter and implemented by the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service. There are no federal or state regulations specifically addressed toward these trusts, and these trusts do not have any reporting requirements to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Labor-Management Standards.

This committee receives employer payments as indicated in the Master Labor Agreement negotiated between the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors’ National Association (SMACNA) and the Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 104. Here are references to the Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund in their Master Labor Agreement. It says the fund pays to replace stolen tools, but says nothing about political contributions, of course. Note also that employer payments to the Bay Area Industry Promotion Fund are incorporated as part of “Other” into the State of California’s government-mandated construction wage rates (so-called “prevailing wages”).

4. If Yes on Q Raised $109,100 by September 30, 2012, How Was It Spent?

Solano County newspapers have noted the lack of visible campaign activity in support of Measure Q. In fact, this situation apparently deprived Yes on Q of an endorsement from the Vacaville Reporter newspaper:

The Reporter Editorial Board likes the vision and very much wants to support it. But board members have qualms about this bond. The impact of the state’s fiscal mess has meant the college can’t afford to operate the programs it has now. Is it wise to add new programs before the state’s budget is under control?

There are also qualms about the way the bond campaign has been mishandled. In July, when the Editorial Board supported trustees’ decision to put the bond on the ballot, it was with the caveat that an aggressive campaign be mounted to educate the community about its need.

Instead, the campaign has been lackluster and late, not ratcheting up until after mail-in ballots were already out. Where are the trustees, who can speak as individuals in support of the measure and who should have lined up supporters to drive it? Where are the other public agencies and private businesses that stand to benefit from these plans? Where is the faculty, whose union put on a get-out-the-vote drive for Propositions 30 and 32 without even mentioning Measure Q in its publicity? Does the lack of organization in the campaign reflect a lack of organization and follow-through by campus leaders?

I drove on the major thoroughfares of Vacaville, Fairfield, and Vallejo on October 26. I only saw THREE signs supporting Measure Q – all close to the entrance to the main Solano Campus campus in Fairfield.

An elusive Yes on Q campaign sign in Solano County.

An elusive Yes on Q campaign sign in Solano County.

Not that I put much value on campaign signs stuck in public areas, but I would have expected more for a campaign that already had over $100,000 by the end of September. This lack of visibility is so pitiful that it was tied with the three No on Q signs I saw in Solano County. That campaign is a small, committed group of informed local taxpayer activists with very little money to spend.

Say "No" to $348 Million Bond - No on Q - Taxed Enough Already!

Say “No” to $348 Million Bond – No on Q – Taxed Enough Already!

The September 30 campaign report for Yes on Q shows about $25,000 spent on consultants, slate mailers, some apparent development of signs and mailers, and people at phone banks. It will be interesting to see how the remaining money was spent, provided the Yes on Q campaign ever submits its campaign finance reports.

A Thoroughly Documented History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions

Measure Q is on the November 6, 2012 ballot in Solano County. It authorizes the Solano County Community College District Governing Board to borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds. Taxpayers will pay back the bonds, with interest and financial transaction fees.

Anyone planning to vote on Measure Q should take a look at the 20-event history below and examine the linked primary source documents. It shows how six of the seven members of the Solano Community College Governing Board in 2003 and 2004 required contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions to work on projects funded by bond sales authorized by the earlier Measure G. It also shows how unions used a lawsuit threat and other antics to subsequently expand coverage of the Project Labor Agreement beyond its original intent.

If you’re completely unfamiliar with this issue, here’s an example of a $17 million Solano Community College Measure G project (Vacaville Center – New Classroom Building) with a requirement in the bid specifications that contractors sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions.

A Thoroughly Documented 20-Point History of How Solano Community College Requires Contractors to Sign a Project Labor Agreement with Unions

1. On November 5, 2002, 55.6% of Solano County voters approved Measure G, which authorized the Governing Board of the Solano County Community College District to borrow $124.5 million for construction projects by selling bonds. Approval required 55%, so the measure barely passed. The ballot measure language and associated information provided to voters mentioned NOTHING about requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions.

2. On April 12, 2003, the Governing Board had its first public discussion about requiring contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with unions, as indicated in the meeting minutes. Obviously the unions were aggressively lobbying behind the scenes:

Trustee McCaffrey stated that he will be looking for a decision on the Project Labor Agreements that were presented recently…

Trustee Keith stated that Dr. Perfumo [the college president] has met with Lou Franchimon [the head of the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council] and others to talk with them about the PLAs…

Trustee Honeychurch also stated that he did not want to be intimidated, blackmailed or coerced by a labor union into a labor agreement that cost money, simply for political expediency…

3. The Napa-Solano County Building and Construction Trades Council finally managed to get a presentation in support of a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on the Governing Board’s September 3, 2003 meeting agenda. To their dismay, opponents of Project Labor Agreements found out about the plot and demanded to have equal time with their own presentation. At the meeting, Sandra Rae Benson of the unabashedly pro-union law firm of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld made a formal presentation to the board advocating for a Project Labor Agreement on behalf of her union clients. Her presentation was backed up by public comments from several union officials. Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction made the official presentation against the proposed Project Labor Agreement, with supplemental support from Kevin Dayton of Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC).

4. At the Solano Community College Governing Board’s September 17, 2003 meeting, a representative of the Measure G construction manager Kitchell Capital Expenditure Managers (CEM) reported his firm was collecting information on Project Labor Agreements and would present a report at an informational hearing during the November 5 board meeting.

Read September 2003 Solano County newspaper coverage of the Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College.

5. In October 2003, college administrators reportedly expressed concerns behind the scenes about the cost of using and administering a Project Labor Agreement. Union officials realized that college administrators were dragging out the process and interfering with their demands, and obviously they did not want a repeat of the drawn-out fight in 2000 and 2001 at the Vallejo City Unified School District over the implementation and wording of their Project Labor Agreement. Associated Builders and Contractors and the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction had alerted the county’s three local newspapers to the Project Labor Agreement, and unwanted media attention and community concern about the Measure G program was growing.

6. After Kitchell CEM presented its Project Labor Agreement report to the Solano Community College Governing Board at its November 5, 2003 meeting, board member Pam Keith attempted to make an “end run” around the college administration and initiated a vote to negotiate a Project Labor Agreement with the unions. Unfortunately for her and the unions, the vote was not indicated on the meeting agenda and was a violation of state laws concerning proper advance public notification of agency actions. The vote was not taken.

Read November 2003 and December 2003 newspaper coverage of the Project Labor Agreement for Solano Community College.

7. On November 19, 2003, the Solano County Community College District Governing Board voted 6-1 to negotiate with union representatives for a Project Labor Agreement on Measure G projects. The construction manager was directed to provide the board with a progress report about negotiations in January, with the board voting on the final version of the Project Labor Agreement in February. Union officials “generously” offered to administer the Project Labor Agreement for the community college district at no charge.

One Solano Community College board member, Jerry Wilkerson, voted against the Project Labor Agreement proposal and later voted against the final negotiated agreement. He later explained his reasoning:

Wilkerson said the entire Vacaville community, not just union workers, helped to pass Measure G, so everyone should have the opportunity to bid on those projects. “Otherwise you close folks out who would normally bid,” Wilkerson said.

8. On January 21, 2004, the president of Solano Community College District provided the district‘s Governing Board with an update on negotiations with union representatives for the Project Labor Agreement. It was obvious at this meeting that most board members intended to give the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council every term and condition it wanted in the agreement.

9. A group of major Solano County public works contractors met at a restaurant in Fairfield on March 16, 2004 and concluded that there was no chance of stopping the Project Labor Agreement because of the college board’s strong support of the union political agenda.

10. On March 17, 2004, the Governing Board of the Solano County Community College District voted 6-1 to approve a negotiated Project Labor Agreement for certain projects at the college district funded by Measure G. It was not a complete victory for the unions, as the union requirement (as this time) only covered some of the larger projects. In addition, the agreement contained two provisions for accountability: (1) the designation of a “pilot project” for the college to evaluate the Project Labor Agreement, and (2) authority for the district to suspend the Project Labor Agreement if it determined the agreement increased costs or reduced competition.

Read the Project Labor Agreement for certain projects at Solano Community College funded by Measure G.

11. Associated Builders and Contractors helped the campaigns of Jackie Crockett and Bill Tanner, candidates running for the Governing Board of the Solano Community College District in November 2004, but both lost. A solid majority of board members would continue to support the Project Labor Agreement.

12. In March 2005, the college district’s construction manager Kitchell CEM sent a notice to area contractors that had worked or were prospective bidders for work at Solano Community College. Kitchell CEM requested comments about the Project Labor Agreement included in the bid specifications for the pilot project: Solano College Building 300/500/1500, a $3.2 million project with a bid deadline of April 19, 2005. As least a dozen local contractors informed Kitchell CEM that their companies do not bid on projects with requirements to sign a labor agreement with unions.

Read documents related to the bidding and performance of the Project Labor Agreement pilot project at Solano Community College.

13. On bid day – April 19, 2005 – a mere TWO contractors submitted bids for the pilot project, a classroom renovation job that typically would have received several bids. Inside sources reported that the construction management firm, Kitchell CEM, submitted an analysis of bid results to the college administration, along with numerous comments from contractors against the Project Labor Agreement, and urged the staff to recommend that the board of trustees rebid the project. This was consistent with Section 2.13 of the Project Labor Agreement, which stated “If fewer than four (4) General Contractors bid on these Project(s), and if the owner determines the primary cause of the overbid is the Project Labor Agreement, the owner reserves the right, without reservation to reject all bids and rebid the Project without the Project Labor Agreement.”

14. On May 4, 2005 – the day of the board’s vote to award the contract for the pilot project – a newspaper article in the Fairfield Daily Republic (SCC Board to Decide on Renovation Project) reported on the dismal bidding participation for the project. Union officials were reportedly livid about this revelation going public and revved up their lobbying machine. At the board meeting, Kevin Dayton of Associated Builders and Contractors asked board members to reject the bids and rebid the project without a Project Labor Agreement for comparison purposes. With absolutely no comments from governing board members or college administrators, the board voted in front of a row of stern-faced union officials to award the project to the low bidder.

15. In the end, Kitchell CEM never produced a report on the final outcome of Solano Community College’s pilot project under the Project Labor Agreement, as required in Section 2.12 of the agreement. The project ended up with an additional $486,000 in unexpected expenses, $72,000 of which resulted from errors and omissions by the contractor. The project was finished on time only through some extraordinary measures by the contractor. But the Project Labor Agreement endured. It wasn’t about performance: it was about union construction monopolies.

16. Now union officials began their campaign to pressure the board to require contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement for additional projects not listed in the Project Labor Agreement approved by the board in 2004. They began requesting the college to provide them with certified payroll records for the employees of non-union contractors on small projects funded by Measure G. They cited a cement slab with excess moisture as a reason for requiring contractors on additional projects to sign a Project Labor Agreement. One board member simply declared at a meeting that every contractor should sign a Project Labor Agreement so that the unions could oversee the work.

17. In September 2007, Solano Community College withdrew a bid notice for a basic gymnasium renovation and then re-advertised the contract with a Project Labor Agreement in the bid specifications, even though the Project Labor Agreement approved by the Governing Board did not include this specific project. Governing board minutes did not indicate how or why this happened. To find out what was going on, Associated Builders and Contractors submitted a request for public records to the administration at Solano Communty College.

18. The college administration provided Associated Builders and Contractors with a letter to the college chancellor from Sandra Rae Benson of the law firm of Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld. The letter threatened the college with “lengthy and costly litigation” unless the Project Labor Agreement was “enforced” for the gymnasium renovation, even though it was not included in the list of projects covered under the agreement. The letter also claimed, without any evidence of course – see #15 above – that “the pilot projects were completed very successfully.” Finally, the letter claimed that “the amount of damages sustained by the Unions and their members of having this work performed outside of the scope of the PLA [Project Labor Agreement] would be substantial.” The president acknowledged that she had decided on her own authority to expand the Project Labor Agreement to additional work at Solano Community College.

19. Associated Builders and Contractors circulated the union lawsuit threat to elected officials and community leaders throughout Solano County, with a warning about what happens when a local government starts doing the will of union lobbyists and lawyers. In addition, an opinion piece from Associated Builders and Contractors exposing the union lawsuit threat was printed in the “Sunday Forum” of the January 6, 2008 Vacaville Reporter newspaper: SCC Trustees Irresponsible with Taxpayers’ Bond Money. It included some advice five years in advance to Solano County voters:

Solano County voters should be aware that unions are controlling the construction at Solano Community College and using their lawyers to expand their monopoly beyond even what the college Board of Trustees had originally approved. When Solano Community College’s Board of Trustees again asks taxpayers for yet more money for college construction projects, consider how one special interest group has a firm grip on the college at your expense.

20. On August 1, 2012, the Governing Board for the Solano Community College District voted 6-1 to ask voters for approval to borrow $346 million through bond sales. To maximize the Yes vote from people who judge a book by its cover, the bond measure name is stuffed with words: it is called the “Student/Veterans’ Affordable Education, Job Training/Classroom Repair Measure.” Of note is that the college’s press release about the bond measure going on the ballot doesn’t mention the cost of the bond. (Is that important?)

Three of the six board members who were on the board when it approved the Project Labor Agreement in 2003 and 2004 (Pam Keith, Phil McCaffrey, and Denis Honeychurch) are still on the board. The minutes of the August 1, 2012 Solano Community College board meeting are quite revealing about the plans for money borrowed through bond sales authorized by Measure Q. Speaking in support of the bond measure at the August 1, 2012 meeting was Lou Franchimon, head of the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council, which he said supported the bond measure 100%. Public comment also featured this statement from Monica Brown, a candidate for the Solano Community College Governing Board:

Ms. Brown expressed concern that if the Bond Election is passed and approved by the voters that we employ Solano County workers from our community – “not someone from Arizona.” Ms. Brown encouraged that the College employ local firms and include a project labor agreement in contracts, and also to make sure our facilities are built to last. Ms. Brown also encouraged the Board to work hard on this initiative, including walking precincts and participating in phone banks.

One board member, Catherine Ritch, wisely voted against putting this union-backed measure on the November 6, 2012 ballot.

Trustee Ritch commented that she will be voting no on this item. She stated that she does everything she can to support the mission of Solano College, but is troubled by this measure. She thanked the staff and Bond Counsel, but stated her concerns are that she would have been more comfortable if the Educational Master Plan and Facilities Plan were approved. She is uncomfortable with the fact that the document stated the Board has reviewed and prioritized projects which have not been adequately identified. She is uncomfortable asking her family, friends, and neighbors to increase their property tax assessment when it is not specific how the money is going to be allocated. Trustee Ritch encouraged the Board to take a deep breath, work diligently to finalize the two documents, cost them out, and define specific needs.

Solano County’s Measure Q Looks Vulnerable to Defeat: Will Voters Refuse to Authorize Solano County Community College to Borrow $348 Million Through Bond Sales?

What happens when you live in an elite socio-intellectual enclave where everyone agrees with your worldview? You’re shocked when you discover ordinary people who disagree with your plan to take and use their money. I suspect that’s the reason why Measure Q in Solano County (in the San Francisco Bay Area, stretching toward Sacramento) is now vulnerable to defeat.

Measure Q authorizes the Solano County Community College District to borrow $348 million for construction by selling bonds to wealthy individuals and institutional investors. Solano County taxpayers will need to pay this $348 million back, plus interest payments. (It’s not free money.)

In November 2002, 55.6% voters in Solano County barely approved Measure G, which authorized the Solano Community College District to borrow $124.5 million for construction by selling bonds. (The threshold for approval was 55%.) The governing board then voted 6-1 in April 2004 to force contractors to sign a Project Labor Agreement with the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council to work on Solano County Community College District projects funded by proceeds from bond sales authorized by Measure G. This union deal received ample news media attention and public criticism.

Despite these warning signs, the people now pushing Measure Q obviously were unprepared for aggressive opposition. The Yes on Q campaign is apparently relying on rudimentary campaign web sites (www.solanocollegeyesonq.com and www.facebook.com/YesOnQSolanoCollege) and endorsements from local politicians to win over Solano County voters. The Vacaville Reporter criticized the backers of Measure Q in an October 13 editorial:

Where in the world is the campaign for Solano Community College’s Measure Q? And what does it say that the college faculty this week sponsored a voter registration drive and campus forum on statewide ballot measures but not, according to its press release, on the local bond?

Perhaps this lack of action from unions explains why Measure Q supporters are pressuring chambers of commerce in cities such as Vallejo to support this tax increase. (See Chamber Seeks to Avoid Controversy on Measure Q – Vallejo Times-Herald – October 14, 2012).

The identities of the big backers of Measure Q are no surprise: it’s the Napa and Solano Counties Central Labor Council, with the Napa-Solano Building and Construction Trades Council and its various construction trade unions.

I think Solano County’s top union officials will need to call some bond brokers and other financial services firms in New York City and get some more money for mailers and KUIC radio commercials, quick! In the meantime, here’s what’s happening in the campaign against the $348 million (plus interest) Measure Q:

According to an October 11 article in the Vacaville Reporter (Solano County Taxpayers Association Issues Their Proposition Recommendations), the Solano County Taxpayers Association opposes Measure Q because it is “a 40-year dream for the college that includes buildings that were listed on the previous bond that is still unpaid.”

The Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group is opposing Measure Q, as reported in Opponents Mobilize Against Local Tax Measures – Fairfield Daily Republic – October 4, 2012. As reported in an October 20, 2012 article in the Fairfield Daily Republic (Aging, Limited Facilities at Heart of Solano College Bond Effort), “opponents and Trustee Catherine Ritch have questioned the timing of the bond, saying there are still aspects of the planning that need to be done. A formal opposition was recently formed to Measure Q by the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group, which said the bond isn’t specific enough and some of the projects won’t directly benefit students.”

Here’s what the Central Solano Citizen/Taxpayer Group posted on its web site about Measure Q:

Make no mistake: This is a huge tax! For what purpose? We start by asking, What did the district do with the $125 million bond measure passed 10 years ago? Why weren’t “earthquake/fire safety code” issues taken care of then? Next, Why are computers and office equipment in the bond? Such things will be obsolete and discarded in a few years; but we’ll be paying for them for decades. Now look at the objectives listed. Notice how vague they are. No specific projects. No timetable. Measure Q is a blank check for almost anything the board wants to do. Finally, we’re still paying for the last bond, and will be for another 20 years. Measure Q will double or triple what you’re paying now, and for 40 years. Everyone will pay: individuals, businesses, even renters when the landlord adds the tax – yes, it’s a tax – into your rent. Remember, Solano Community College was on probation for administrative issues – like accounting for funds – and is still on the “warning” list. Don’t you have doubts about handing over so much money? Don’t you think we’re taxed more than enough already? Vote NO on Measure Q.

On October 17, the 6-1 tax-and-spend majority on the Governing Board of the Solano Community College District was stunned when someone actually showed up in their lair in Vallejo to speak out against their agenda. Here is a report from Eric Christen of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction:

The meeting began at 6:30 p.m., and other than the Trustees, the room contained only a few staff and a reporter for the college newspaper. This is how entities like this prefer it: no public oversight and never having to answer to the public for their actions or lack thereof. They just want your tax dollars with zero accountability. Government defined.

Last night, however, these Trustees were held accountable to the public at least for 3 minutes while I explained in great detail why it is they did not deserve to be given any more tax dollars in the form of construction bond money.

I reminded them that in 2004 the Solano Community College Governing Board placed a union-crafted Project Labor Agreement (PLA) on Measure G bond work. The $124.5 million Measure G had been passed by voters in 2002 with no hint that a controversial PLA would be used. The PLA vote occurred despite vigorous opposition from local contractors and contractor associations such as ours.

For the new Trustees who weren’t on the board at that time, I explained how PLAs force workers to pay union dues, pay into union pension plans, be hired through a union hiring hall, and explicitly forbid non-union apprentices from working at all. I did thank them in that because of their actions, and others, PLAs had become so controversial that they have been banned in 11 entities in California including the City of San Diego, where in June citizens voted 58%-42% to forbid them.

I also reminded then that at the time of their vote in 2003 the College’s own construction manager told the board a PLA would add 5-15% to the cost of any project. Last summer, I further explained, the most comprehensive study on Project Labor Agreements ever conducted was released by the National University System Institute for Policy Research and found PLAs add 13-15% to the cost of a project. What that means for SCCD was their $124.5 million bond was reduced by up to $24 million in value.

Finally I stated that SCCD now wants another bond, this time for $348 million. The reason? Measure G wasn’t large enough to cover their needs. I asked them if they thought they could have used that extra $24 million they wasted under a PLA.

I left them with the promise that my editorial that ran in the county’s newspapers (We Deserve the Entire Story on Measure QVallejo Times-Herald – October 13, 2012 and PLAs a Waste of MoneyVacaville Reporter – October 14, 2012) was just the opening salvo in what would be an escalating campaign to educate voters about why they need to think twice before giving any more money to this college. Two of the three board members who were on the board in 2003 and who voted for the PLA (Honeychurch and McCaffery) and who are still on the board were less than thrilled to have me there calling them out.

The Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction issued a press release on October 17 in conjunction with this public comment: Solano Community College District Trustees Being Called Out Tonight About Their Plans to Place New $350 Million Construction Bond Under a Union-Friendly Project Labor Agreement.

Finally, a professor in the Solano Community College engineering and physics department is perplexed by the college board’s logic in trying to borrow another $348 million for construction: Concerns About Measure QVacaville Reporter – October 14, 2012 and Measure Q IssuesVallejo Times-Herald – October 10, 2012. Give her a Profile in Courage award.

Complete Compilation of Union Project Labor Agreements on K-12 School District and Community College District Construction in California: 1999-2012

Below are government-mandated Project Labor Agreements implemented at educational districts in California as of November 6, 2012 and privately-negotiated Project Labor Agreements implemented for construction at educational districts in California.

According to the latest information on the web site of the California Department of Education, California had 1,032 districts for K-12 schools in the 2009-10 school year. Also, the California Community College Chancellor’s Office indicates there are 112 community colleges in California.

While the percentage of the total number of California educational districts requiring their contractors to sign Project Labor Agreements with construction trade unions is small, unions now control much of the state’s educational construction funded by money borrowed through state and local bond sales. These 43 districts with Project Labor Agreements are mostly large urban districts with high numbers of students and significant construction expenditures. The Los Angeles Unified School District is the second largest school district in the United States, and it has an ongoing $20 billion construction program (not including the matching grants consisting of money borrowed through the state’s substantial educational bond sales).

Help make this compilation complete: if you have one of the two Project Labor Agreements on the list below that I don’t have, or possess a privately-negotiated Project Labor Agreement not on the list (such as a private agreement for certain developer-built schools), please contact me by using the contact box on this page: About Labor Issues Solutions, LLC and the Dayton Public Policy Institute.


Government-Mandated Project Labor Agreements for K-12 School District and Community College District Construction in California

MARIN COUNTY
College of Marin (Marin Community College District) Project Labor Agreement 2008 Measure C
CITY and COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
City College of San Francisco Project Labor Agreement 2005
San Francisco Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2008 Measure A (Approved in 2006)
SAN MATEO COUNTY
San Mateo Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2003
San Mateo Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2007 Amendment No. 1 
San Mateo Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2002 – San Mateo High School Modernization
San Mateo Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 Measure M
San Mateo Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 Measure M Solar Work Amendment 2010
San Mateo Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 Measure M Additional Work Amendment 2011
South San Francisco Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2011 Measure J
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District 2009 Measure G
East Side Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2003 Measure G 2009 Measure E
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2008 Measure G
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2011 Measure G Amendment No. 1
San Jose-Evergreen Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2006 Measure G 2010 Measure G
ALAMEDA COUNTY
Albany Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2005 Measure A
Berkeley Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2011 Measure I
Chabot-Los Positas Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2007 Measure B
Chabot-Los Positas Community College District Project Labor Agreement 2010 Measure B Amendment No. 1
Fremont Union High School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 All Outdoor Athletic Facilities
Hayward Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 Measure I
Oakland Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2003 Measure A (Original)
Oakland Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2005 (Revised) Measure A and Subsequent Measure B
Peralta Community College District (Oakland & Berkeley) Project Labor Agreement 2009
San Leandro Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2007 Measure B
San Leandro Unified School Project Labor Agreement 2007 Amendment 1 Measure M 2012
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
Contra Costa Community College District 2012 Measure A (2006)
John Swett Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2009 Measure A
Mt. Diablo Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2006 Measure C Pilot Projects
Pittsburg Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2004 Measure E
West Contra Costa Unified School District Project Labor Agreement
SOLANO COUNTY
Vallejo City Unified School District Project Labor Agreement Measure A 2001
Solano Community College District Project Labor Agreement Measure G 2004
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Sacramento City Unified School District Project Labor Agreement Measures E and I 2005
Sacramento City Unified School District Project Labor Agreement Measures E and I 2005 Amendment No. 1 2009
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Centinela Valley Union High School District Project Labor Agreement – Proposition CV and California Emergency Repair Program – 2009
Compton Unified School District Project Labor Agreement 2005 – Remainder of Measure I
Los Angeles Community College District Project Labor Agreement – Proposition A, Proposition AA, and Measure J – 2001 (Revised through 2011)
Los Angeles Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Proposition BB and Measure K (now also applies to Measure R, Measure Q, future bond measures, and Job Order Contracts) – 2003
Los Angeles Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Proposition BB and Measure K – 2003 – Amendment No. 1
Rio Hondo Community College District Project Labor Agreement – Measure A – 2005
Pasadena Unified School District Project Labor Agreement (called a “Continuity of Work Agreement) – Measure TT – 2012
San Gabriel Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Measure A – 2010
ORANGE COUNTY
Rancho Santiago Community College District Project Labor Agreement – Measure E – 2003
Santa Ana Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Measure C – 2000
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
Rialto Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Wilmer Amina Carter High School (District High School #3) – 2001
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Riverside Community College District Project Labor Agreement – Measure C – 2010
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
San Diego Unified School District Project Labor Agreement – Proposition S – 2009

Privately-Negotiated Project Labor Agreements for K-12 School District and Community College District Construction in California

CONSTRUCTION MANAGER-AT-RISK – MONTEREY COUNTY
Hartnell Community College District Project Labor Agreement – Measure H – 2004 – Negotiated by DPR Construction and Employers’ Advocate – Nullified After Three Small Projects
LEASE-LEASEBACK – KERN COUNTY
Westside Educational Complex for Delano Union School District Project Labor Agreement 2011 between Grapevine Advisors LLC and the Kern, Inyo, Mono Building and Construction Trades Council 
DEVELOPER-BUILT SCHOOLS – CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
San Ramon Valley Center Campus of Contra Costa Community College District Project Labor Agreement between Windemere-Brookfield-Centex and UA Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 159
Almond Grove Elementary School of Oakley Union Elementary School District Project Labor Agreement 2004 between Pulte Homes and UA Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 159, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 302, and Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104
Seven Schools (Including Creekside Elementary School) of San Ramon Valley Unified School District Project Labor Agreement between Shapell Industries and Windemere and UA Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 159 and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 302 (copy not in my possession)
DEVELOPER-BUILT SCHOOLS – PLACER COUNTY
Junction Elementary School, Barbara Chilton Middle School, and Three Other Schools of Roseville City School District 2005 between Westpark Associates and Signature Properties and UA Plumbers and Steamfitters Union Local 447, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union Local 340, and Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 162
DEVELOPER-BUILT SCHOOLS – VENTURA COUNTY
Rio Del Mar Elementary School, Rio Vista Middle School, and Another Elementary School of the Rio School District in the RiverPark Development 2004 between RiverPark Development, LLC and Shea Homes with the Ventura County Building and Construction Trades Council
Rio Del Mar Elementary School, Rio Vista Middle School, and Another Elementary School of the Rio School District in the RiverPark Development 2007 between RiverPark Development, LLC and Shea Homes with the Ventura County Building and Construction Trades Council – Amendment