Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING MARCH 28, 2011 <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that a Project Labor Agreement would preclude job actions, strikes, work <br /> slow downs, work stoppages, and the union would handle the payroll checking on a <br /> periodic basis so it would take that burden off his inspection staff. <br /> Councilmember Davis asked if that would be a negative or a positive. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that it would relieve a small administrative burden from his office and a <br /> small risk of a job action removed from the project. He stated that they use a PLA from <br /> time to time usually on projects of greater complexity with multiple trades. This is a <br /> fairly straight forward infrastructure project. So the more open the competition they <br /> certainly would put in a specification clause that would set some goals for local resident <br /> workers but that is not necessarily accomplished with a PLA. He stated that you could do <br /> it in a PLA, you can do it in a specification as in the past. <br /> Councilmember Henry Davis asked for what is in a specification clause, because this is <br /> the first time he has ever heard of it. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the first time they used it was in a recent project in Ignition Park. <br /> Because it is a high profile Economic Development Project, they wanted local <br /> participation in the project. They wrote a specification clause for 20% local resident <br /> workers over the whole job and it will be monitored each payroll and transparently <br /> reported. <br /> Councilmember Rouse asked if that document in question doesn't exempt union <br /> participation. <br /> Mr. Gilot asked if Councilmember Rouse was referring to a PLA. <br /> Councilmember Rouse stated the document that they like to use over a PLA. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the City Specification is an open bidding document. All contractors <br /> union and non-union can bid it. <br /> Councilmember Henry Davis stated that his main concern is that local laborers working <br /> on this project. He stated that his concern is that they have stated that they were going to <br /> do something like this and then they don't meet their marks. Councilmember Henry <br /> Davis used the Eddy Street Commons Project as an example. He stated that when he <br /> walked around the project and saw construction out there it was something opposite of <br /> what they said they wanted to do out there. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that the public infrastructure on that job was a lot of local contractors; it <br /> was all done by public bidding standards. The private work was not. <br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Council Attorney Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand if there <br /> was anyway that specifications could be put into this bill. He stated like the example of <br /> 20% as used in Ignition Park. <br /> Kathleen Cekanski-Farrand stated that they could make a request with regard to the <br /> specification clause, if the City Administration would be willing to add that language. <br /> Mr. Gilot asked to what level of local resident worker. <br /> Councilmember Oliver Davis stated like what was done at Ignition Park. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated yes they could. <br /> Councilmember Henry Davis questioned whether the number was 25% or 20% and <br /> where did that number come from. <br /> Mr. Gilot stated that it was a judgment call. Mr. Gilot clarified that the language of that <br /> clause says that they desire the highest level of resident worker participation possible but <br /> 4 <br />