In response to our emailed inquiry, the agenda item's author, Councilwoman Suzie Price, replied via text (Facebook) message shortly after the Council meeting concluded that she withdrew her item (co-agendized with Councilwoman Mungo) because city staff will be providing a fiscal impact in advance of the contract coming back to the Council for approval.

"It was already being prepared so the agenda item was moot," Councilwoman Price said, indicating that she clarified this with the City Attorney and City Manager. "We will have about 30 days to discuss fiscal impact before we vote on the PLA agreement that city atty was directed [Council majority, Price and Mungo dissenting Nov. 11] to negotiate," she added.

[Scroll down for further]

(Dec. 16, 2014, 6:45 a.m.) -- Councilwoman Suzie Price, joined by Councilwoman Stacy Mungo -- who dissented on some aspects of a Council vote that directed city management to negotiate a citywide "project labor agreement" with the L.A./OC Building and and Construction Trades Council that would apply to multiple city taxpayer-paid public works projects and report back to the Council within 30 days -- have agendized an item for tonight's (Dec. 16) City Council agenda seeking a report from city management within 20 days "identifying the fiscal impacts associated with PLA construction contracts."

The Price-Mungo item follows Council majority approval (Mungo and Price dissenting, Andrews absent) to negotiate a citywide project labor agreement with the politically active Building & Construction Trades union applicable to a wide range of taxpayer public works projects citywide

In their agendizing item, Councilmembers Price and Mungo don't flatly oppose a citywide project labor agreement...but seek a city management report within 20 days on the fiscal impacts of construction contract project labor agreements. They also recommend that staff "consider" the fiscal impacts of the Council-majority approved item and "carefully consider" alternatives available to the City regarding a project coordinator officer likewise included in the Council-majority approved item.

A footnote to the Price-Mungo agendizing memo states that during discussion of the November 11 agendized item, "staff responded to Councilwoman Price's question regarding fiscal impact by stating that they had not had sufficient time to research the fiscal impact of such an agreement."

In their Dec. 16 agendizing item, Councilmembers Price and Mungo state:

[Price-Mungo agendizing memo text] Construction Costs Associated with Project Labor Agreements

On November 11, 2014 the City Council instructed the City Attorney to start negotiations for a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for all construction projects over $500,000. While PLA agreements provide benefits local hire and apprenticeship programs, the costs of implementing such a contract in the City of Long Beach remains unknown, Specifically, it is unknown whether (1) the City will have to hire additional staff to oversee/administer these projects, (2) the cost of projects will be higher because of the PLA, and (3) whether such contracts would discourage non-union contractors to bid on City projects. Obviously, the City should enter into agreements that are fiscally prudent and encourage healthy competition from prospective bidders. While the author of this item is supportive ofPLAs in concept, the fiscal impact of this PLA is unknown at this time. [fn in text"

RECOMMENDATION

The City of Long Beach and other neighboring municipalities have used PLAs for specific projects therefore, I am requesting the City Manager provide a report to the City Council within 20 days identifying the fiscal impacts associated with PLA construction contacts.

Further, I am recommending that staff consider the fiscal impacts associated with a construction threshold of $500,000 as well as $1 million dollars, as they had previously recommended. This is necessary in order to determine if there is any financial significance between the two in terms of fiscal impact to the City.

Further, in the considering fiscal impact of this proposed agreement, the City should carefully consider what alternatives are available to the City in regards to the project coordinator/officer that has been included as a component of the proposed agreement.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no significant fiscal impact for the delivery of the report. The report from the City Manager is required to determine the fiscal impact associated with Project Labor Agreements. I On November 11,2014 Staff responded to Councilwoman Price's question regarding fiscal impact by stating that they had not had sufficient time to research the fiscal impact of such an agreement.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The underlying November 11 item was agendized by Councilmember Gonzalez, joined by Councilmembers Uranga and Austin, using the minimum public notice procedure (unveiling it on the Friday-before-Tuesday Council meeting.) The item was amended on the floor to add basically non-controversial items and then moved by Gonzalez seconded by O'Donnell [elected to the Assembly on Nov. 4.] A protracted Council discussion ensued in which Mungo and Price indicated -- via a substitute motion by Mungo, seconded by Price -- if it included an annual report to the Council on the value and cost of a PLA; included a five-year proposed term with annual Council approved extensions and required city management to provide the Council with the cost of a proposed contract compliance officer before authorizing the PLA.

Councilman Austin made a substitute-substitute motion to add the action's annual fiscal impact and provide the "option" of a contract compliance officer...which carried 6-2 with Price and Mungo dissenting (and Andrews absent for entire meeting.)

Advertisement

Advertisement

Councilwoman Price raised what occurred on the PLA item during December 9 Council discussion of policies governing fiscal impact statements as currently required for agendized items. Councilwoman Price argued that the current Council policy isn't working because it enabled the Nov. 11 project labor agreement agenda item to reach the Council without disclosing its fiscal impacts. [The fiscal impact statement issue was separately sent back to the Council's Budget Oversight Committee (Lowenthal and Mungo) on other grounds for additional discussion before returning at some point to the Council.]