North Bay Business Journal

Monday, September 24, 2012, 6:57 am

Supervisors divided over PLA details

Staff to answer board concerns in two months


Print Friendly Print Friendly    

Share this item

    SANTA ROSA – A sharply divided Sonoma County Board of Supervisors last week put off a decision on a proposed countywide project labor agreement policy for public projects of more than $25 million and sent the matter back for further study.

    With labor unions voicing support, and contractors and business leaders opposing, the board on Tuesday asked county staff for more specifics on an array of unanswered questions from Supervisors David Rabbitt and Valerie Brown.

    The policy would recommend that the county adopt PLAs for public projects of $25 million more. The board said it would hold another hearing on the matter as soon as possible — expected in the next two months — given that the Charles M. Schulz–Sonoma County Airport expansion project — the prime target of a PLA, at least for now — is nearing the bidding process. The initial phase of that project will cost about $53 million.

    Those opposed to the policy viewed the ruling as at least a temporary victory, saying the the language lacked specificity needed to allay concerns.

    “Entering into an agreement that’s not yet defined is not a good business practice,” said Sean Beehler, speaking on behalf of the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce.

    The board said it would consider adopting a PLA specifically for the airport project and asked county staff to draw up a proposal that would address concerns of the board.

    Much of the disagreement centered on the impact of union dues, benefits and pension funds for nonunion workers who might be working on a PLA project. The proposed policy addresses the issue vaguely, saying “no worker will be required to join a union as a condition of employment, but may be required to pay union representation fees.” Opponents said some 80 percent of the county’s construction force is not union, and that a PLA would put them at a disadvantage.

    But supporters countered that those employees would see their pay and benefits go up for the duration of the project.

    Debate also centered on what truly constitutes a local employee, particularly because Sonoma County itself would not have enough workers on large-scale public projects and would need to bring workers from surrounding counties. The board appeared to reach consensus that Marin, Napa, Solano, Lake and Mendocino counties would be included.

    Proponents said they left the policy relatively open to allow for flexibility, stressing that the issue would likely be resolved in early negotiations.

    “It’s flexible for a reason — to negotiate on a per-project basis,” said Jack Buckhorn, president of the North Bay Labor Council, which lobbied heavily in support of the policy.

    That was a nonstarter for supervisors Brown, of the First District, and Rabbitt, of the Second District. Each expressed serious reservations over adopting any policy that essentially mandated the use of PLAs.

    Supervisors Shirlee Zane, of the Third District, and Mike McGuire, of the Fourth District, which includes the airport project, supported PLAs.

    Fifth District Supervisor Efren Carrillo remained relatively neutral, expressing support for some provisions while reluctant on others. Specifically, he wondered why a policy was needed when, as Sonoma County Counsel told the board, the county could opt for a PLA on individual projects.

    The goal of PLAs is to provide a pool of highly trained and skilled workers on each segment of construction, thus ensuring on-budget, on-time completion. The proposed Sonoma County policy also would include apprenticeship programs for residents and veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Proponents specifically cite a project at College of Marin that came in under budget with the use of a PLA agreement.

    Supervisor Rabbitt stressed that any PLA in the county needs to include the contractor in all aspects of negotiations, echoing opponents — largely contractors and business groups — who said the policy was too vague to allay concerns that they would be placed at a competitive disadvantage and that construction costs could increase.

    Supervisor Zane said dozens of PLAs are in place throughout California, with 73 percent of them with private developers.

    “This is good public policy that strengthens the middle class,” she said, pointing to the apprenticeship program as a key benefit.

    The $25 million threshold would prevent discrimination in the bidding process that opponents say PLAs would cause, according to Supervisor McGuire.

    Copyright © 1988–2015 North Bay Business Journal
    View the policy for linking to website content.

    Print Friendly Print Friendly    


    1 Comment

    1. October 15, 2012, 7:01 am

      by Bob

      Independent study after independent study has proven that PLAs keep project costs down while stimulating the local economy. They are a win-win.

      The only people against PLAs are those who think that it’s a grand idea to allow out of town contractors to breeze into town with a truck full of undocumented workers, undercut the local construction workforce (people living in your community) but as thin a margin as possible, pocket the difference, do shoddy, unprofessional work and then breeze out of town with a bag full of money.

      Their position is so indefensible that it’s laughable, so they get trickle-down economic policy stooges like Sean Beehler to muddy the waters and routinely buy “studies” that fly in the face of established fact.

    Submit Your Comments


    Required, will not be published

    Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments and Letters Policy. To share this item by email or social media, use the links above.

    Do not use this form to contact people, companies or organizations mentioned in this story. Contact them directly. Private messages left here will be deleted.