Digging Out of the Economic Hole

In the 2011 July/August issue of the Georgia Contractor we wrote an article on Digging Out of a tough Economy. In that article we stated that those who diversify and hang on will be rewarded with a rising of the tide.

For those who did diversify and caught that wave, they found their company being able to survive the worst economic downturn in years. They were able to pull from various construction sectors to include public and private infrastructure as well as commercial and some residential to include plumbing, gas, electricity, telecommunications and water and sewer infrastructure whether it was in rehabilitation or installation of new piping systems. Unfortunately, most of that work was not found in Georgia and those companies who could work outside of Georgia, worked in Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida or the Carolina’s and anywhere work could be found.

While profits were still low, the contracted work helped to keep companies from shutting their doors like so many had to do. For those who did close their doors, many took the opportunity to regroup and learn how to re-invest and re-invent their company with new goals, leadership and strategic planning. “We have rebranded ourselves with our available resources” states one utility contractor.

We had the chance to interview several companies and many remain optimistically hopeful. We heard such comments as “we are covered up,”  “it feels good to be busy,” “keeping up and hopeful for better things to come.” Most indicated that 2013 total contracts on the books and prospects for upcoming work had already exceeded all of 2012. This is good news. And the majority has said “it is not as good as it could be but it is far better than what it was.”

These comments were all very positive and it appeared that we are finally digging out of this economic hole. Georgia’s economic performance has improved steadily since 2009 with the state’s coincident economic indicator for March was at its highest level since mid-2008 according to FRB of Atlanta. Helping Georgia’s water infrastructure was GEFA. GEFA provided loans in 2013 to help local communities protect their water supply and quality which also helped stimulate economic growth in the state with the joint Development Authority of Jackson, Morgan, Newton and Walton counties being awarded $5.9 million for an on-site treatment facility and McCaysville, Georgia was awarded $5.6 million to finance the city’s 1 million gallon per day water treatment plant.

Unfortunately, the continuation of a positive economic construction incline isn’t necessarily on the horizon as many may hope or think. While it is not the worst case scenario of a declining economy, the incline in water and sewer infrastructure will be at least a 2% increase a year for the next 5 years according to Brian Moore, FMI, at a recent GUCA Annual Conference presentation. And while this gives us a glimmer of hope it is not what we want to hear.

Brian updated GUCA members on the economy of the construction industry highlighting those industry sectors and areas who were hit the hardest and those who are recovering the fastest. Unfortunately, Georgia will not be in the mix of the fast recovery areas because infrastructure inventory is still low. The tax base was hit hard and this is and was mainly due to the boom and fall of the residential housing market. And although the existing housing inventory is down, the building of new homes has not yet caught up. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, both construction and manufacturing were especially hit hard and government sectors remain especially weak.

For non-residential construction the impact of several Georgia commercial manufacturing facilities such as Kia, Caterpillar and Porche plants helped spur optimism in Georgia and the industry as well as the announcement of a new professional football stadium in Atlanta.

FMI reports that non-building structures such as power, water and sewerage will only increase on average 1–4% over the next 5 years with power being the biggest growth rate at 9.4%. In 2012 the start of Southern Company’s Plant Vogtle Nuclear Plant helped construction figures rise 50%+. But overall Georgia 2013 construction figures could drop in 2013. It is projected that crude and gas pipeline construction will increase from $4.3 billion to $15.3 billion nationwide according to Oil & Gas Journal.

If the building market surges in 2013 and non-residential construction could possibly improve, then that would bring good news to those sectors which also affect underground utility construction.

The rise in installation of telecommunications in Georgia and the added repair of existing utilities helped spur the market the first quarter of 2013 and it continues.

Sequestration seemed to bring on a negative impact as most government agencies started to cut back due to limited resources. And, we just learned at a recent industry meeting in Savannah that money for the Savannah River Port project keeps getting pushed back. Most of the sequestration, if not all, is conceived as being politically motivated and some only saw a 4% reduction in public works business in Georgia as indicated in a FRB panel.

Labor appears to be the biggest hurdle for all construction sectors if there happens to be a huge influx of projects. Employment in Georgia has slowly improved since the recession. Georgia’s construction employment low was at -37.9 and it is now at 4.7 according to Georgia Data Digest. For the utility industry this is not likely since we may have time to work on a more educated workforce for the future through training, introduction of technology and advancements through Go Build Georgia and CEFGA initiatives.

According to FMI there are several things that drive construction which include demographics, political/security demand, consumer demand, economic growth, technology advances, infrastructure needs, security concerns and affluence.

With the influx of design vs. contractor, rapidly advanced technology, slow incline of infrastructure projects and a shrinking talent pool it appears we may be digging deeper into more problems as we try to dig out of another one. Either way, we will keep digging.

Contractor Rights – 3rd Party Collectors for Utility Damage

You Say I Owe You What?  Why?  Where?  When?

And, By the Way, Who Are You, Anyway?

 David R. Hendrick, Esq.; Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Flatt, P.C. – GUCA General Counsel

It is not uncommon in the world of contractors engaging in underground excavation or blasting work, including utility contractors, to have to work around existing underground utility systems, facilities or lines as part of the normal course of performance.  This aspect of such work poses a number of risks to all involved, the project owner, the utility system owner or operator, the contractor involved, as well as other third parties.

To deal with and mitigate this risk, the Georgia Utility Facility Protection Act (“GUFPA”) was enacted for the clear purpose of reducing and preventing damages to existing facilities resulting from such blasting and excavation operations in the vicinity of such utility systems and facilities.  The Act addresses only damages that result from excavating and blasting operations which cause injury to persons or property, including to the utility facility itself.   As part of the protection afforded, to the extent that such injury or damage results to a utility system or facility, under certain situations and conditions, GUFPA holds the offending contractor conducting the excavation or blasting operations “strictly liable . . . for all costs incurred . . . in repairing or replacing its damaged facilities.”  Ga. Code §25-9-13(a)(1).  Thus, in such a case, the utility system owner or operator is entitled to seek reimbursement for such “costs” on its own behalf from an allegedly offending contractor causing such damage.

However, to facilitate the assertion of such claims and reimbursement process, utilities often engage an outside or third party “collection” agent or entity to whom the alleged right of enforcement and reimbursement is delegated.  The utility owner or operator purportedly transfers and assigns its interests to the collection company that it sometimes acting as an “agent” on behalf of the utility and sometimes acting in its own right and interest, having essentially purchased at a discounted price the claim rights of the injured utility owner or operator.  In fact, often the first the contractor allegedly at fault in causing the damage claimed learns of the existence of such an allegation and claim is weeks or months after the work was performed and the collection agent’s demand for payment is received as the first notice of such claim and any alleged incident of damage received by the contractor.  This, of course, is long after memories and the ability to meaningfully investigate any such allegations of liability have faded without much if anything in the way of actual proof or substantiation of either the alleged incident or of the costs actually incurred for which the claim is made.  Moreover, such claims and “demands” are often presented in an extremely aggressive, hostile, arrogant and heavy handed manner coupled with threats of all kinds of dire consequences that will befall the hapless and hopeless contractor if the amount demanded is not paid immediately and without question.  By the time a utility’s claim is placed in the hands of such a collection company and then asserted against the contractor, the charges alleged and claims asserted are often significantly inflated to begin with and further increased by additional fees, assessments, accrued interest and costs of “collection.”

So what can and should you do when such a collection effort is directed at your company about an incident of which you have no knowledge and recollection and no reasonable access to meaningful investigation?  Actually there are a number of defensive strategies that should be pursued:

1. Transfer and Assignment:  Regardless of the merits of the claim had it been asserted directly by the utility owner or operator itself, as the party conferred with the statutory right to reimbursement, an independent third party collection agency has no right to assert such derivative claims unless and until it has been fully and formally assigned in writing by the utility to the collection agent.  Evidence of this written assignment and transfer or other delegation should be the initial piece of information requested and demanded as a prerequisite to any further review, analysis or consideration.

 2. Documentation and Substantiation:  While this type of collection process is not governed by the much more rigorous “consumer collection” laws at the federal or state level, logic, reason and fairness would require that you are entitled to and must be provided full and complete documentations and substantiation.  This should include all information and records upon which any determination was made that you were responsible for the incident to begin with, when, where and how  it occurred, all records, photos, statement relative to such claims, and the basis and proof of the actual costs incurred in performing the reasonable and necessary report and replacement work.  Your initial inquiry in this regard should be directed at the immediate source of the enforcement effort, the collection company.  However, similar inquiry should also be directed at the originating utility to obtain the original information regarding its actual costs of repair and replacement and particularly to confirm whether or not the utility ever had given you notice directly before farming the claim enforcement process out to the collection company.

3. Exclusion of Nonrecoverable Costs:  Request should be made for itemization and particularization of the specific costs for which any such charge is made since such claim is derived solely from the statutory basis allowing only recovery of “all costs” incurred only by the utility for “repair and replacement.” Therefore, charges falling outside of that narrow definition are not recoverable by the utility, and certainly not for its third party collection agent for fees and assessments not related to the repair or replacement status.   The collection company should have absolutely no statutory, contractual or legal basis to seek such collateral fees and costs from a contractor with whom they have no contractual relationship.

4. Defenses Assertable to Such Unfounded Claims:   Any rights of a collection company to seek and demand payment of an obligation, if any, originally owing to the utility by the contractor account are solely derivative from the utility.   As such, any such rights are fully subject to any and all defenses that the contractor could have asserted against the utility had it sought to itself pursue such claims directly against the contractor.  For example, at the most basic level, the factual defense of “we did not do it!” and any basis for such a contention is fully alive and well even when the claim is asserted through the collection agent.   The collection company’s rights are no greater than those of the utility.  Moreover, even the statutory prescription of the offending contractor being “strictly liable” for such injury or damages is far from absolute and unconditional.  Particularly, such strict labiality does not apply where contractor gave the correct timely and proper notice and request for a locate request, per Ga. Code § 25-9-6, but the facility owner either incorrectly located and marked the hidden utility component or simply failed entirely to comply with the affirmative requirement to mark such components as requested.  Ga. Code. §§ 25-9-5, 25-9-7, 25-9-9(a), and 25-9-13(d).  In such a case, if the contractor can demonstrate that it proceeded nonetheless in the exercise of reasonable care in its efforts, it simply is not strictly liable for the consequences.  Ga. Code. §25-9-8(b) and (c).    So you are certainly entitled to advance such defenses, to the extent warranted, to any such claims.   Again, the rights of the “assignee” collection company are no greater than those of the assignor utility and are subject to the full range of defenses the contractor may have.

5. Myths and Fallacies:  In an effort to pressure the contractor into payment of the full amount claimed, irrespective of all of the steps available as described above, the collection companies often will seek to impose additional pressure by employing fallacious, unwarranted and even illegal tactics. These include:

a. “Well I guess we will just have to file a claim of lien on the project to the amounts claimed!”  Wrong!   This type of indebtedness simply does not create any right to assert a claim of lien, even by the utility owner or operator, against the real property of the project.  Such party is not among the limited class persons explicitly conferred rights to file mechanics’ and materialmen’s liens under the Georgia lien statute, which is narrowly and strictly construed.   If the utility owner has no lien rights, then certainly neither would anyone claiming through the utility owner.  Moreover, such lien rights, even if they existed, are not assignable to third parties for enforcement.

b. “Well we will just have to go to the prime contractor you were working under or to the owner of the real property of the project to get payment from them for this claim and then let them beat the money out of you!”  Wrong, again!   This type of claim is of statutory creation.  It is expressly limited to allow recover by the utility owner claiming damage (and perhaps by its assignee, but even that is not clear) by claim only and directly against the offending contractor.  Neither upper tier contractors not performing the excavation or blasting work nor the owner bear any liability or responsibility under this statute for damages caused by a lower tier excavation or blasting subcontractor to the utility’s property.  There is no basis for assertion of such a claim.  Indeed, any effort to assert such a claim against upstream contracting parties in a dispute between the utility and the allegedly offending contractor, may well constitute wrongful conduct which itself could subject the collection company or even the utility to tort liability for intentional inference with contractual or business relations or defamation and libel.   That is always a good thing to remind the aggressive collection agent about, since it would turn the tables!

So, when such collection companies come calling make sure you are prepared to deal effectively with their tactics.  Even if the claim asserted is valid on its merits, the amounts claimed may be well in excess of what the GUFPA provisions even allow.  It may be a “pain in the butt,” as the saying goes, but you should not feel that you are only on the defensive with no tools to aggressively challenge such claims.

In support of SB 269

Legal Briefing

 Commitment and Action to Level the Playing Field

Regarding Conflicting Security Interests of Lenders, on One Hand, and Contractors, Subcontractors and Suppliers, on the Other Hand.

 April 28, 2013

David R. Hendrick, Esq., General Counsel, Hendrick, Phillips, Salzman & Flatt, P.C.

 As in most states, contractors, subcontractors and materialmen in Georgia are afforded security for payment for the labor, materials and service invested in and work performed on a construction project by way of the “mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien” statute.  Such lien rights commence upon the first work performed or materials delivered on the project site by the claimant and, subject to proper perfection, would result in a claim of lien against the improved property as security to assure payment for the unpaid amounts due for such work, labor, materials or services.  Seems fair, right?  This security under such claim of lien would result in a judgment of lien which can be enforced by a sheriff’s sale foreclosing on upon the improved property.   To the extent that the proceeds of sale are sufficient to cover the costs of the sale, such remaining proceeds would be available to satisfy all proper claims of lien.  While this is a fairly cumbersome and protracted process, it ultimately affords a remedy for nonpayment and, even in the near term, a source of leverage to influence payment sooner without need for prosecution to such lien foreclosure.

However, enter the construction lender!  In Georgia, the construction lender is usually “on board” and fully secured before construction work even begins by placement of a security deed upon the real property to be improved by the funded construction work.   And, that security extends not only to the original base value of the real property when the loan was initiated, but also to the improved value of the project as the work proceeds.  Indeed, if done properly, such security even extends to successor or extension loans that relate back to the date of filing of the original security deed.

So, let’s see:  the lender has security in the improved real property to secure its loan while the contractor has security on the improved property to secure payment for the work performed.  What happens, whoever, when these security interests collide?  Well, in Georgia as the law has developed, the lender generally prevails as its security interest is usually afforded priority over any subsequently created lien claims of contractors or suppliers.  Even without a default on the construction loan and foreclosure on the security deed, to enforce the materialmen’s and mechanic’s lien claim rights though sheriff’s foreclosure sale would require that all higher priority security interests, including tax liens and the lender’s security interest, would have to be fully satisfied so that the claim of lien would be in a first priority position.  For example, to actually enforce a perfectly valid and properly perfected $100,000 claim of lien by foreclosure sale, the lien claimant would have to pay off any tax liens and the balance due under the construction loan to satisfy the lender’s prior security interest.   Clearly, that is not a great option for the lien claimant.

However, in the event of a loan default and lender foreclosure under the loan security deed securing the defaulted loan, things get even worse for lien claimants.  Again, as a general proposition with few exceptions, upon the foreclosure – or sale by the lender or its assignee under the “power of sale” in the security deed – then all subordinate interests secured by the real property involved, including mechanics and materialmen’s liens, are essentially dissolved.  Any claims of lien against the improved real property, incorporating the lien claimant’s substantial effort, investment and capital, would be transferred from the real property to any net proceeds of the sale under the security deed after the lender and all prior security interests have been satisfied.  As recent times have made clear, there usually are no such surplus proceeds as the foreclosure sale process tends to generate a sale price for the project, “as is,” that covers that unpaid balance due the lender and little more.   In fact, as lenders have gradually come to realize they do not want to take the property back or deal themselves with the complicated and untidy foreclosure process, they often will sell and assign the loan documents, including the secured interest, to a third party developer for a deeply discounted price relative to the ultimate improved value of the property just to unload the troubled project from its inventory.   Thus, as illustrate in a recent circumstance in metro Atlanta, a lender extending a 50 million dollar loan, upon the owner/borrower’s default, sold and assigned the loan and the attendant documents to a third party developer for the unpaid loan balance which was about half of the value of the project that was approaching completion, and then the new owner/developer executed the actual foreclosure process under the security deed and sold the project to an affiliate for essentially the discounted price.  At the time, there were over $10,000,000.00 yet owing to the contractor and subcontractors on the project, most of which were “secured” by lien claims.  However, the foreclosure sale dissolved these lien rights and, since the sale price generated no excess proceeds, the lien claims proved worthless.  The contractors and subcontractors that essentially built the building that the new owner/developer purchased on a deeply discounted basis ended upon holding empty bags while the successor owner reaped the full benefit of their efforts.

In an effort to address the inequity of this relative disparity in priority of security claims, the contractor side of the construction industry in Georgia, led by GUGA, has sought to level the playing field somewhat or to at least mitigate the risk to the contractor side through the legislative process.  During the last 2011-2012 legislative session, GUCA had supported and sponsored SB 466 in the Georgia General Assembly (
http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legislation/en-US/display/20112012/SB/466
), which represented a modest first step in this direction by simply requiring that lenders give notice in some accessible form available to contractors and suppliers involved in a construction project when the funding under the construction loan was to be stopped due to borrower default under the loan, thereby giving clear warning of the heightened risk of financial inability of the owner to pay for continuing work on the project.  Indeed this approach advocated here was drawn substantially from a statute that Florida had adopted more than a decade age.  While this approach received positive reinforcement in the legislative committee hearing process, eventually it was bogged down and eventually blocked by the concerted and vigorous efforts of the lending industry interests.

Since the lender lobby was so resistant to even this modest step toward “leveling the playing field” and the likelihood of amicable mutual agreement on any front seemed remote,  in this 2013-2014 legislative session GUCA is supporting, sponsoring and advocating a more significant proposed change in the relative priority of lenders and lien claimants in SB 269 (
http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/Display/20132014/SB/269
).  This Bill is modeled substantially after a Virginia statute in essentially sharing the priority of the relative security regarding the real property of the project, with the lender having priority in any sale by foreclosure of only “to the extent of the value of the land” which security was “exclusive of subsequently erected buildings, structures, or improvements” over which the lien claimants shall have priority.  This Bill is in the early stages of the legislative process and is expected to attract the vigorous opposition of the lender lobby again.  The battle will ensue in when the legislature reconvene in January 2014 and this is at least a staring point for negotiation.  The equity of this approach is evidenced by the fact that, in addition to Virginia, there are a number of other states that have also enacted legislation seeking to balance the interests of the lender and the lien claimants, such as the Arizona and California stop notice laws which confer priority rights to undisbursed loan funds for contractors, the Colorado law which allows construction phase lien claims to “relate back” to the first work on the project done by anyone, including the designers, which is much earlier in the process than Georgia allows and generally before the lender and its security interest come into play, and the Missouri law which allows priority of contractor lien claimants over “construction loan” lenders at least as far as the improved value of the property is concerned.

In this quest, GUCA remains COMMITTED to the ongoing ACTION to effect fairness and equity in security interests relative to the real property benefitting from the labor, materials, and work performed by the contractors, subcontractors and suppliers.  It will be an uphill battle, but it needs to be engaged and fought.  Since the lender lobby was not happy with even the most modest of legislative changes to mitigate the risk of nonpayment to the contactor side of the process – witness SB 466 last year, it is fair to assume that this current, more significant change embodied in SB 269 altering the lenders’ dominant security interest over the entire project will be even more vigorously opposed.

But, what is fair is fair, it is and a battle worth waging.

Help Us Support The Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act

Georgia is in dire need of jobs and money. Georgia Utility Contractor members are in dire need of work and money.  With private investors leery of lending for risky projects, government contracts seem to be the only place to turn for work. With no other options, vying for local, state or federally funded projects is becoming increasingly competitive. Is there no solution to this growing problem? GUCA says there is; H.R. 1802.

 What is H.R. 1802 you ask? It represents the bill entitled the Sustainable Water Infrastructure Investment Act. The Act, if approved, will provide much needed funds for updating and repairing water infrastructure, including wastewater systems, through out the nation through private capital investment. Currently there is a cap on how much a private investor can put into a public works job. This bill will remove the cap and allow municipalities to contract with private investors to fund these types of projects. If this bill were passed, it could generate an estimated $5 billion in private capital nation-wide.

 As of today, the bill has 50 co-sponsors and will hopefully reach the House floor after November 23.

 How do we make this happen you ask? Be proactive! Write your representatives! GUCA along with other GUCA associate members have already been sending letters to our senators and house representatives to encourage them to sponsor this bill when it comes to a vote. While every effort helps, GUCA can only do so much. We need you, the constituents, to write your congressmen to tell them how important this is to you and toGeorgia. Creating more privately funded projects could help alleviate the work-woes that many of us are facing. It could also create thousands of jobs inGeorgia.

 If you aren’t sure what to write or who to send a letter to, give us a call. We know what to say and where your letter needs to go. Remember, this letter may take 30 minutes of your time, but it could mean the difference in being in business or not over the next few years.

Raising Awareness About Work Zone Safety: Georgia Struck By Alliance

On August 30, GUCA staff members Scott Brumbelow and Megan Murren attended a committee meeting for Georgia Struck By Alliance (GSBA). For those of you who are unfamiliar with GSBA, the purpose of the effort is to reduce, mitigate, and eliminate work zone fatalities, and to raise cognizance of the dangers in work zones. Specifically, roadway work zones where risks and dangers are greatest to both workers and motorists. The alliance is a collaborative effort with many organizations including GUCA, Georgia Power, Associated General Contractors, OSHA, 3M Protective Apparel and Footwear Market Center, and the Georgia DOT, just to name a few. One of the biggest topics of the meeting was, what is the greatest threat to people in the work zone? Is it workers who are either uneducated about safety practices, or unwilling to follow safety practices; or is the greatest danger, and the cause of the majority of fatalities, distracted motorists? The committee talked at length specifically about young drivers who present a unique danger because their inexperience is often mixed with distracted driving; whether it is texting, playing with the I-pod, or just trying to manage teenage hormones! With such a dangerous problem, the committee brainstormed about solutions. As many of you with teenagers know, driver’s education has been widely eliminated from high school curriculums. One committee member commented that although the DMV administers a driving test; it is only sufficient to test knowledge of the driving rules and not necessarily care and skill. The same member suggested that GSBA initiate some sort of “Incident-Free Day.” The initiative would go something like this; GSBA would pick an arbitrary date, for example May 7, 2012. That day would be designated as “Incident Free Day in Atlanta.” The purpose of the day is to raise awareness about the dangers of work zones to both workers and motorists, all while trying to accomplish an incident-free, meaning no work zone injuries or fatalities, day in the metro-Atlanta area. If Atlanta can go one day incident free, then the hope is that it can go a string of consecutive days with out a work zone-related incidents. However, hype leading up to the Incident Free Day is a crucial aspect as they hype raises awareness. So GUCA wants to know, do you think Atlanta can do it? Can motorists stop texting and driving in order to protect our workers? On a smaller scale, could you make your morning commute tomorrow without sending one text or checking one email while driving (it’s illegal, you know)? For you on the jobsite, can you go one whole day with your workers doing everything by the book; wearing safety vests, following proper flagging techniques and observing other OSHA standards? Or, is there a better way to raise awareness and to educate both motorists and workers about work zone safety? Let us know your thoughts!

Georgia DIG LAW and EDEN

As our organization and its members work hard to be the leaders of our industry, we also must strive to be leaders in technology. In the past 40 years, since GUCA’s inception, we have seen many changes in technology, from green screens, to plasma screens; from analog to digital; and cable to fiber optic. Most of us can agree that although advances in technology are often convenient and aid in speeding up work, sometimes advances in technology can be burdensome – like cell phones for example; who knew that such a convenience was going to require the world to be on call 24/7? With that in mind, Georgia 811 has recently updated its technology with the EDEN (Excavation Digging Event Notification).  For those of you who are unaware, the EDEN is intended to make the call and locate process smoother for excavators. Excavators are able to check the status of their locate requests with their locate ticket by either dialing 811 or checking online at ga811.com and accessing PRIS (Positive Response Identification System). What GUCA wants to know is; have you been utilizing this technology? If so, who on your job site is using it? Are you calling or using the website? If you are using the website, are you accessing the site wirelessly from the job site? Have you been able to find out the status of your locate requests? Has the information been accurate and up-to-date? Has access to that information sped up the locate process or burdened the process further? As always, your feedback helps GUCA work more efficiently as the voice of the industry. So please, comment away!

What does 2011 bring for the Construction Industry?

We have heard the information from Economic Forecaster Dr. Raheev Dhawan about the economy in 2011. It looks bleak. Most utility contractors say we will be flat which means it will not go down but it certainly will not go up. Most think we will not see a recovery until the Summer 2011.

What do you think? What have you seen on the horizon? Do you think it is all tied to the banks that have all the bad loans? Do you think the economy is tied to other factors? We would like to have your input. Tell us what you see out there in the construction industry!