LBReport.com

News

Council Votes 7-0 To Enact Five Year Project Labor Agreement Requiring Union Pay/Benefits On City Public Works Projects Over $500,000

Staff acknowledges administering the agreement will cost $280,000 each year, but claims staff can't determine the agreement's impacts on bid cost of construction or number of bids received (despite multiple studies available online pro and con)


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.

(April 8, 2015) -- As seen LIVE on LBREPORT.com, the City Council voted 7-0 (Lowenthal absent, 4th district vacant) on April 7 to approve a five year citywide Project Labor Agreement sought by several politically active unions to require the City to hire unionized firms to perform public works projects over $500,000 citywide [limited exceptions for core employees, others paid union wages and benefits.]

In an agendizing memo, staff acknowledged that administering the agreement will cost $280,000 each year, but claimed staff couldn't determine the agreement's impacts on bid cost of construction or number of bids received [despite multiple studies available online pro and con.] The text of the agreement itself wasn't provided to the public for examination prior to Council voted approval, a practice LB City Hall has routinely followed for years although a number of other cities disclose the text of large proposed contracts prior to Council voted approval.

[Scroll down for further]




Long Beach Citywide Project Labor Agreement (city staff report)

City staff's agendizing memo estimated about $28 million annually in PLA-covered construction over the next five years (not including the new Civic Center, Belmont Beach and Aquatics Center, covered under separate PLAs.). The memo also stated that staff "was unable to find a consistent result from research or consultation with experts that definitively indicated that bid prices would be either higher or lower for construction projects following adoption of a PLA. As a result, staff is unable to make a determination as to the impact of a PLA on the bid cost of construction or number of bids received. It is noted, however, that the City already requires prevailing wages on all public works projects and prevailing wage tracks closely to Union wages." It said "there is no definitive evidence indicating how a PLA might impact construction."

[Comment: LBREPORT.com notes that multiple studies are readily visible online with data pro and con; example: here. Former LB Redevelopment Boardmember Terry Jensen, with years of experience in development projects, has cited those studies in estimating that the cost to LB taxpayers of the citywide PLA could be in the millions. To view Mr. Jensen's opinion piece can be viewed here.]

An overflow crowd of trade union members (mainly IBEW Local 11 and LA/OC building and construction trades council) attended and many spoke in support. Representatives of the LB Ministers Alliance also spoke in support.

Testimony began with in-person support from Congressmembers Alan Lowenthal (D, LB-West OC) and Janice Hahn (D, Harbor area), representatives of State Senators Ricard Lara (D, LB-Huntington Park), Isadore Hall (D, southbay) and Assemblyman Parick O'Donnell (D, LB) Also speaking in support [near the end of public testimony] -- despite the lack of publicly available PLA text -- was LBCC Trustee Sunny Zia, a frequent advocate of transparency on LBCC matters.

Two reps of construction industry groups, and one individual taxpayer, spoke in opposition. Dave Everett of the Association of Builders and Contractors said the PLA would would discriminate in cutting out 8 of 10 construction workers, and would result in building four buildings for the price of 5; he called the agreement a "forced union deal" that favors campaign contributors and the politically powerful, not the average LB citizens...and sarcastically added that the agreement must be pretty good if the public isn't allowed to see it before the vote. A representative of the Coalition for Fair Employment in Construction noted that city staff's report acknowledged its staff costs would be roughly $280,000. The three opponents all objected to the lack of public disclosure of the PLA text prior to the Council vote...and the individual taxpayer urged that the issue be put on the ballot for a public vote.

No representative(s) of the LB Area Chamber of Commerce spoke. No LB area Repubs spoke to rebut statements by the multiple elected Dems.

34 speakers testified in support, most of them members of trade unions that would be benefited. Weston LaBar, a boardmember of the Pacific Gateway Workforce Investment Network (which would handle apprenticeship programs under the PLA) spoke in support and said the Chamber should "show up and talk to labor" and said he's been "educated" about PLAs.

[Scroll down for further text]

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement


Advertisement

After Mayor Garcia called on Council supporters of the PLA (Gonzalez, Richardson, Andrews, Uranga and Austin), he invited Councilwoman Price to speak. Price opened with lengthy support for PLAs, said some benefits of the PLA aren't subject to fiscal measurements [costs], like a local hiring component and the appreneticeship program...and took credit for prevailing on staff to include a provision exempting public right of way projects (street repaving and sidewalk fixes.) Price then sought to distinguish the citywide PLA from other PLAs, calling the citywide agreement "revolutionary" in its expansiveness and thus, she contended, without data. [City staff's report didn't cite or acknowledge multiple studies on PLAs, with results both pro and con.] Price offered what she called a "friendly amendment" that [paraphrase] would enable Council review and changes to the PLA in three years after receiving data on costs and project results, but City Attorney Charles Parkin noted that the Council couldn't make unilateral changes to the agreement without the consent of the other parties [the benefited unions.] Mr. Parkin noted that a Joint Advisory Committee (3 reps from both sides established under the PLA) might make recommendations for changes in three years, and the Council might offer suggestions, but these wouldn't interrupt the five year agreement. (On that basis, motion's makers Gonzalez and Richardson accepted Price's nearly non-substantive friendly amendment.) Garcia called last on Councilwoman Stacy Mungo, who acknowledged that she'd voiced reservations about a citywide PLA in November 2014, has since learned a lot about PLAs, said such agreements can be beneficial to labor and business, and is thus open to trying it.

Prior to the vote, Mayor Garcia noted that when he was a voting Councilmember, he'd voted in 2009 for a PLA on the Port's Middle Harbor project, in 2010 for the LGB terminal project, in 2011 for the Desmond Bridge rebuild, in 2012 for the courthouse project, and in 2014 to include a PLA in the Civic Center rebuild. Garcia noted that his Mayoral predecessor, Bob Foster, had also supported PLAs when they came forward.

The Council vote was 7-0 (Lowenthal absent, 4th district vacant.)



blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com





Adoptable pet of the week:








Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2015 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here