I'm calling to trust meeting at 6.03.

Welcome everyone.

And just while we're on the record, I want to reiterate that yes, it is remote only.

We just happen to be here.

I had technical difficulties.

And let's see, we will take a roll call.

Angie, you can do the honors.

Sure.

Mike, Craig, can you hear me?

We can hear you, Virgil.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Goldberg.

I don't see him.

Groth.

Greg Gross is here.

Oh, Gross, I'm sorry.

McKewin.

Present.

Present.

Price.

Yep.

Fivestry.

Okay.

Um Jeff Weirs.

And Yaker.

I don't see him.

And let's umberg is trying to get in.

Oh, he is.

Let me see.

Okay, hold on.

I just promoted him.

Yes, I'm here.

Okay.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

So we are good with the roll call.

Um looking for a motion for a resolution item chess 32.005 authorizing a project labor agreement PLA for the Roxbury School Construction Period project.

Hello.

Okay for a second.

Seconded.

Thank you.

Otherwise, this would have been a short meeting.

Welcome, Director Matt Cañones.

If you would like to take the floor, however, I just will also reiterate there were some questions that came in.

They were delivered to Director Cañones.

He had the opportunity to answer them and send it to the full board via email.

So hopefully people had the opportunity to read and go through it.

If there's any questions coming up, I'm going to ask if we could try to be concise and not repeat if somebody else has asked a question.

We do have the fiscal committee after this.

So you have the floor, Director Kinonis.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the committee and members of the board for joining this evening.

And in the interest of time, I'll I'll also try to be efficient with our time knowing that you have another meeting following this one.

But uh wanted to just first just uh express my gratitude for the committee um and the uh level of engagement and and kind of thoughtfulness that has been brought to this item.

I think it's given the community a good opportunity uh to uh engage on what is an important decision before the the board, um kind of balancing what is the intersection of cost risk and workforce opportunities with what is the long-term value and knowing the the values of the board and its alignment with our school construction program.

Um I think it's an important conversation.

So I appreciate um everyone's uh energy thus far and for the questions that we were able to uh address uh prior to tonight's meeting.

So really just want to offer a few brief um opening remarks to just get us on the same page around what uh project labor agreement uh offers um for the the community um and its uh impact for the Roxbury K-8 school construction project uh and then uh open it up to whatever questions uh the committee and board have uh regarding this item.

Uh and I'll also note I am joined this evening by our director of school construction, uh Catherine Lavalbo.

Um so the motivation for the city to uh pursue a project labor agreement is uh primarily driven for our uh investment in building uh a strong labor force for uh Stanford residents um in the industry of construction and leveraging what is a uh significant investment um in the Roxbury K to A project to help produce those opportunities for Stanford residents uh while supporting the union workforce and uh delivering what can be a high quality and uh affordable uh school construction project.

Um there has not been a project labor agreement pursued in Stanford for close to a decade.

There are some members who have requested information or ask questions related to the last pursuit of that, which was in the Strawberry Hill School Project.

I'll note kind of over the time, the landscape of school construction is certainly evolved.

And we also, I think, have shared information around other neighboring municipalities and other communities throughout the state of Connecticut that have been successfully embracing project labor agreements to try and give a broader landscape beyond the experience that Stanford had 10 years ago.

One of the distinctions that I'll point out just to kick us off that I think is important, which really hasn't been stressed in in any email communication is just the different personnel structure that the city of Stanford and this administration has employed for the school construction program.

So 10 years ago, what was not in place was an office of school construction.

So when we took on the first phase of the long-term facilities plan, uh going back to 2022, we did so uh with the perspective of the experience that prior administrations had had in delivering uh school construction projects, um, and knowing that the uh task of the first phase of the long-term facilities plan was certainly ambitious with uh the West Hill High School project, the Roxbury K to 8 project, the upper and lower schools in the uh east side of the city, as well as a uh small enhancement capital program that to date has delivered over 25 million in um uh smaller size school construction projects across 23 of Stanford's public schools.

Um having that task before us, we were uh forced really to approach it differently than the city had in the past and build capacity to do so, uh, beginning with uh hiring of a director of school construction, who I had mentioned, Catherine is joined joining us this evening and also changing our perspective on engagements with our uh hired consultants.

Um typically the the city had uh historically uh employed a general contractor as opposed to uh construction manager approach towards um delivering on uh the construction of the school school projects.

Um the distinction for us was first to be able to bring on um say owner's representative uh prior to the city had typically um leveraged its own internal personnel to represent the city on these projects.

Um we decided to contract with um professional in construction who has the experience of uh serving as an owner's representative and managing the the city's interest in contract negotiations in the selection of design and construction management, um has offered a uh a level of expertise and capacity that um was not present for prior projects.

Um we also thought it was imperative to build a full um team, so to speak, from the beginning and as opposed to um approaching the work with a uh design team and then seeking to bring on uh a general contractor following uh a design.

We employed a construction manager to participate in pre-construction activities, uh, which allowed us to have uh and is is allowing us to have uh cost estimating um as part of all design phases.

Um and why is that important um in the context of the project labor agreement?

Well, we have the the folks who are going to be tasked with delivering on the construction of the Roxbury K to 8 building uh who have been participants in the project from the beginning.

Um so we are reconciling cost estimates um throughout the design phase for both the architect and the um construction manager.

Um so if we contrast that with, say, the Strawberry Hill project, um, that was a slightly different approach with a general contractor.

So there's a lot of nuance and a lot of aspects to the decision on whether or not to support a PLA, I'm sure from members, but I did want to offer just a little bit of perspective on how we are staffing and structuring the construction team and the distinction between that and the approach that had been previously taken by the city for not just the Strawberry Hill project, but other major school construction projects that predated it.

So I can offer a lot more detail about any of the aspects of that, or if some of those terms are foreign to folks, I'm happy to expand on it, but I don't want to eat up too much time of this meeting with an introduction.

But just thought it was important context to kind of kick off our discussion.

So with that, I can chair, turn it back to you and happy to um answer any questions that members have who either didn't have an opportunity to submit um or uh if they did submit and need further clarification.

Thank you.

Um wait, wait.

Sorry, bear with me one second.

I didn't.

Is it echo gone?

Okay.

Um sorry, we're switching over to Representative McEwen's computer.

Um thank you very much for that presentation.

I do see one hand up right now, and it's representative Dela Cruz.

Do I have any member from the committee that has any questions or comments before we move outside of the board?

Speak up if I don't see you, but at this time I do not see any.

So you have the floor.

Oh, I have a floor.

Representative Gross has a question.

And I have Theo Gross.

Um, we we cannot hear you, Representative Dela Cruz.

I don't know if you're trying to speak.

Uh yes, I'm trying to speak.

Can you hear me now?

Excuse me, I'll speak I can't hear me.

Can you hear me?

Yes, everybody probably could.

We had the audio here off.

Go ahead.

I'm sorry.

Okay, fine.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Matt, for for that background information.

Uh, in the questions that I submitted, I'd like to follow up with a couple of things, if I may.

Uh regarding the Rogers Interdistrict school.

Uh, as I understand it, the project was bid with a PLA.

The answers came above budget, about 17 million dollars or something like that.

And then it was rebid and it came uh on their budget.

So my question was my understanding is that it was rebid without the PLA.

Is that correct?

Yes, and I can kind of elaborate on uh some of the the changes associated with the rebid uh that go beyond the the PLA, which I think is also important context.

Um if if you'd like, or if you if that was the only question you wanted answered, I could stop.

Yeah, no, I I have another two more questions.

However, I think it is important to understand the differences that led to with the PLA, the bits came above budget, and without the PLA, it came under budget.

So I think it's under is important.

Yeah, so what I was also able to share this afternoon was uh a document of meeting notes that um I think serve as a a good analysis that the city conducted at the time um prior to to the rebid um where uh the the city uh did um a secure uh consultant Perkins Eekman Eastman um who held a um a cost estimator and internally the city was was represented by then city engineer and um Lou Castle um and really looked at trying to come up with a conclusion as to you know why was the the bid higher than uh what the authorization and budget project budget was um and recommendations on um what could be done to bring those costs down.

Um so I'll um note that that was shared with the board.

So anyone who um wants to kind of follow along, um you should see that in the attachment from the email I sent today.

Um, but it did cite um the uh little to no competition as a potential uh factor for the the 16 million uh delta that you had reference, um, noting that there was two components to that, a self-performance requirement.

Um and the second uh sub-bullet does speak to the PLA that that could have removing that could open up uh additional comp competition on paraphrasing.

Um, and then I'll quote verbatim here um because I think this is relevant um and kind of speaks to the different perspectives that folks may have.

Uh city engineer Lou Castle highlighted that in many of his conversations with the Connecticut uh general contractors, that a PLA does not have an impact.

However, it's understood that Viking ultimately uh the contractor selected did not participate because of the PLA.

So that doesn't offer kind of a clear uh um perspective, but um a PLA was cited as kind of one of um several factors resulting in in that delta of 16 million.

Um the others included uh an aggressive project schedule, um uh addendums that were rather large or submitted late, that can add complexity as a uh potential bidder is reviewing and making decisions on whether or not to submit.

Um, so that can add and raise costs or limit um the uh number of potential bids and competition.

Um there is also flaws in the cost estimate that were noted.

Um so if you look through that, you'll see mixed responses from the general contractors who were interviewed.

Um, several of which said that uh they did not um serve as general contractors, that they mostly were construction managers, several cited that they had no issues with the PLA.

Um, and there were, I believe, four that said they did not bid because of the PLA.

Um I think another important factor if if you're looking at Strawberry Hill as any kind of baseline, is uh there was significant reduction of scope uh as a result of the higher bid.

So uh when they received a higher bid, they did reduce the scope to try and bring down cost.

Um the ambitious schedule, as I had mentioned, was was also a factor.

So I think the most accurate way for me to kind of describe uh the response of the city was yes, they did remove the PLA, however, it was considered as a factor, but um wouldn't categorize as kind of the the sole factor which created the change in bid environment that led to the second um uh RFP process producing bids under budget um would be kind of the best way to summarize that.

And I'll let Katherine uh expand on that a little.

Thank you so much.

Um just to add a little supplemental information.

Um of course I love to talk about the wins that we have when we come in and we bid and we're under budget and we have a ton of competition.

Um we do have those.

Uh but um the factors that uh director Kinona's just cited, particularly um when there is uh a lot of pressure on project delivery and project schedule.

Um sometimes we find that the market is we don't, you know, it's hard for us to know this in advance, but we hear back that nope, our time cards are all just filled.

We're too busy right now.

We're we're just not looking, you know.

Um we've had so it is not uncommon these things that are being cited, unfortunately can influence very large projects where you might have a large number swing or they can influence smaller projects.

Um we had a window replacement project, received one bidder.

The timing just wasn't right.

We evaluated it.

Um we always try and do kind of a post op on, you know, what could we do a little better?

Could we make any how can we make this a little more attractive?

Um, you know, we went out to bid a few months later, and then we, you know, I think we received like three or four bidders.

More competitive.

We came in with a little bit of a better number.

That was that was fantastic.

But I just wanted to elaborate that some of these um metrics, particularly the aggressive project schedule, um can lead to and and just the market not being competitive at the time, you know, can push those numbers unfortunately away from the numbers that we want to see.

Okay, thank you, Catherine, for that.

Uh so the conclusion is that the PLA was one of the factors, but not the only factor.

Uh, regarding the project schedule and the competitiveness of the market.

Was the project schedule alter when it was re bid with the PLA?

And was the market competitiveness changed when it was re bid.

So there were two differences.

Um, there were more bidders on the second response, and the project schedule would have naturally had to shift and change just due to timing.

So the you know, because of the timing of the project.

Um the other component of that uh was that you know there was the value management, of course, as well, which wasn't insignificant.

Um going from something like a fixed seat auditorium uh and making those kinds of adjustments.

Um when you value manage some of those items, just to be more clear, I know it's a little wonky.

Um, but you know, you can evaluate it for items that maybe have long lead times and things like that.

Now, of course, I wasn't here um and I I was not you know privy to every detailed aspect of the project, but I just wanted to say generally those are influences that sometimes we look at.

Um sometimes there are items that just have long lead times as well.

Yeah, and I thank you for mentioning Katherine.

I was gonna kind of point out Catherine and I were not in the these roles at the the time of the Strawberry Hill project.

So we're also deciphering this through um uh whatever materials we're we're able to see in city files.

Um, but um in that same attachment that I shared, it does uh allude to an additional year offered by the board of education and the superintendent um uh following that um that first bid.

So I can only uh conclude that kind of this the schedule was laxed from that additional year.

But again, we're we're kind of looking through documents to to be able to um decipher exactly what took place.

Yes, uh thank you, Matt.

Regarding market competitiveness, it is my understanding that with the PLA, only a few bidders bid, but without the PLA, a much larger number of bidders bid and competitiveness decreases price.

Uh is that correct?

Do you recall how many bidders bid with a CLM and without the bidder?

Yeah, so I think I think it's important to note too the distinction in kind of project management structure.

So the previous project was looking at a general contractor.

So the approach that we've taken is to um secure a construction manager, which already has been brought on and has been participating in pre-con.

So I think when you look at the type of bid that you're you're seeking from a sole general contractor versus the bid packages that we are going to be pursuing, um it it's a much different structure.

So, Katherine, do you want to just expand on kind of that that nuance?

Because I want to make sure folks understand when I'm using those terms, kind of the the difference in bid environment that we're producing with this structure versus one that existed under a general contractor.

Yes.

So the construction manager at risk model, the model that we use today, which I would call a lessons learned maybe from experiences like Strawberry Hill, is called open book.

By open book, that means that the city has a much higher level of visibility on uh the competitive bidding process.

We break out items, we work with a uh with a selected construction manager uh at the beginning of the process.

We don't bring them in uh at the end.

Um we break down uh competitive bidding into what are called bid packages.

So um, for example, West Hill Hike School, which was a very large project, had 56 packages.

I think Roxberry will probably have the range between 20 and 30.

I know you're probably gonna want to quote me on that, and I'm gonna say don't quote me, but it's certainly less than um than West Hill.

This gives us this greater visibility, which also lets us dial in on what was competitive and what wasn't.

So it's a it's a um, I think a valuable model and tool that we're we have as owners.

Um I hope that that helps a little to talk about competition.

Um this is no longer one GC, one lump sum bid um kind of process.

Uh we are going to be able to have visibility on the packages that were bid and understand if they're critical path for us to accept them in what's called a guaranteed maximum price.

Uh, or if we're going to want to rebid some of those items.

Um we have a lot more flexibility as owners in the construction manager at risk model um than the GC structure.

Um so those two really diverge from one another at some point.

Again, just to summarize upfront and early partnership uh with an experienced uh professional service, which is a construction manager at risk services, and then what I said open book where we can see steel and uh concrete and uh electrical, uh mechanical, plumbing, those are the packages that I just discussed.

And we can understand if uh, you know, the owner has the opportunity to accept or reject packages based on their competitiveness.

Okay, thank you, Catherine.

That helps.

Uh the last question that I saw.

Senator Taylor Chris.

Yes.

Um I'm actually going to, if you have questions at the end, you're welcome to circle back.

I'm gonna circle back to committee members.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for your thoughtful questions.

Yes, there was another question that I submitted that I went to that circle back to.

So you're welcome.

I thank you.

I have representative gross and then not myself, representative McEwen after.

You have the floor, Theo.

Thank you, uh, Madam Chair.

Um thank you, Director Kingernes and Mr.

Lobo for being here.

Um would uh would you all be able to expound a little bit on some of the um benefits um and advantages of using a PLA, um, particularly focusing on um the benefits uh that union labor brings to a project.

Absolutely, yeah.

I I will um first kind of introduce the structure of of this particular PLA because it it uh the way we've um set it up is is unique.

Um, and I'll let Catherine speak to the the benefit of the specific um uh union workforce on on the job.

But um the way we've approached this, given that Stanford has not um taken on a PLA agreement.

You typically might see uh hiring goals targeting particular subgroups that are identified in the state statute, women minority veterans uh to name a few residents often.

Um there was uh some concern that by setting certain goals we we may not have the labor force locally to be able to um meet those goals and that we potentially would have a greater impact on the community and by developing more of a pipeline program.

So leveraging this um uh in this public investment and this construction project to be able to introduce a new wave of workforce to the industry of construction would be a far more impactful way to uh to target and um and support those uh those subgroups identified in the the state statute.

So as a result, we have more ambitious um target percentages that are typically seen across the state to be able to engage with those subgroups identified, um, but doing so in a pre-apprenticeship model that would allow us again to first expose individuals that have not um engaged in this industry before with uh employment opportunities on the project um while partnering with a union workforce that has a structured apprenticeship paid apprenticeship program.

Um so they would in in theory join a pre-apprentip program, um, gain interest and exposure, um, then be able to formally join the pre-apprenticeship program or excuse me, the apprenticeship program, and then become union members um and and uh paid tradesmen from there.

And that's kind of the vision of of this overall concept that we are proposing.

Um so that is the the piece that is um targeting those quote unquote hiring goals as for the union workforce and the impact that they have to deliver on kind of a high quality work.

I'll let Catherine kind of speak to to that.

Um so you know, owners are past the benefits from the um whether it was intentionally or not, um, from structured, defined, benchmarked and regulated investments um that occur in the union structure.

So some of the things that Director Rizkunas was talking about with the training and the apprenticeship ums.

So uh those benefits um that come out of the union labor programs can ultimately be passed on to the owner um and to the to the workforce.

So I guess I'll kind of keep it at that.

I don't know if I can answer the national debate of either or yeah, could could um could you discuss, I guess, on I don't know if you have you know statistics on hand of just um I guess how you know union labor delivering projects on time and under budget.

Um if you could sort of speak to that aspect of union labor and the advantages of that.

I I don't have uh I don't directly have those kinds of um statistics.

I think one of the responses that we put forth were that um, you know, the city as an entity, uh we have union shops and non-union shops on many of our different uh programs and jobs across the city, um certainly across the school construction program.

Um it can vary by trade, it can vary, you know, vary by qualified lowest bidder process.

Um, but we don't necessarily track that as a municipality.

So it would be difficult for me to tell you, you know, and and I would it I think that it would be an important metric, you know, you know, documents of what's happening in California or what's happening in Texas or what's happening in Florida, what's happening in the Northeast, even the difference between New York and Connecticut, um, those so jumping into like some kind of statistic is kind of difficult for me to do.

We we do use both um and I love to deliver projects on time and on budget.

Um they can contribute to that, absolutely, but um, it's hard for me to tell you, you know, that's you know, right percent of a time initiative or right.

Well, to my understanding with using a sort of with going with the trades council um as this PLA would provide for um the sort of different aspects of the trades are sort of all synchronized and so all sort of put together in, you know, so the ski the schedules are all sort of lined up.

Um and then that would sort of lead to a larger synchronization of the construction um and leading to you know delivering a better project.

I don't know if you can speak to that.

Um I mean, I don't think I would refute that statement.

Um but we do also have very successful jobs that are non-union.

So I don't want to, you know, I think we appreciate you know just saying um it's difficult for me to kind of say either way on that.

Right.

Could could you speak to the um some of the differences between um the strawberry hill um construction project that's been been referenced um in comparison with um Roxbury School, just in terms of I guess scale um sure.

Um well uh they are both K through eights, except uh Strawberry Hill was also a um renovation uh expansion uh with a very old structure uh as well.

And that adds a certain level of complexity um to a project.

Um I believe it was partially again, I wasn't here during it, but I understand it was partially occupied effectively, and then while the new section of the building was being built.

Um so that also um adds a level of complexity uh to a project.

What we're doing at Roxbury is we are building new it on the fields beyond the existing school.

Um that is in an advantage, it's a very often used model.

Um so we'll have full separation between the existing building, which will continue its academic work.

Um, you know, a full when I say full separation, I mean, you know, we will be behind a fence line, you know, away effectively from the from the building and the fields beyond.

Size-wise, uh they're probably they're they're comparable um in scale, but the that nuance between working in a in a old historic effectively building can can be a certainly a variable.

Um I think uh just generally uh what what I do hope to see is that we have some advantage that we are um we are building here in Stanford and we are invested.

So uh you know, we saw very positive results.

Uh we've seen a lot of interest in Stanford and and a lot of commitment um to the Stanford community and our construction industry and construction members to date.

So I'm hoping that we'll continue to see that.

Um sorry, just back on the sort of whole apprenticeship um and job training aspect of the PLA.

Um is is this sort of apprenticeship program?

Is this something that can be done?

You know, could this be done with I don't know, a general contractor, or is this particularly you know, utilizing um infrastructure of the union?

Yeah, I'll I'll speak to that.

I think the really important factor here and leveraging the partnership with the union is kind of that full pipeline approach.

So while a you can conceive of a quote unquote pre-apprentip um under a general contract or non-PLA agreement, it would be extremely challenging to embed the the training aspect of it in this arrangement.

We're able to work kind of directly with one entity to be able to establish kind of what the exposure to all the trades and training looks like for a pre-apprentip.

And then the most important, I think, distinction is that from there the unions have their own structured apprenticeship program that directly correlates with um ultimately full employment and membership within the unions and the trades.

So that piece of it is already established.

So typically the union is doing a significant amount of recruitment and effort to try and engage within a local community that they have a PLA or trying to uh expand um membership to to be able to target high schools and uh colleges and and different places.

What unique aspect I think we're embracing with this particular model is we know we have community partners and organizations already working um with the target populations and target uh subgroups identified in the state statute that we want to um be able to expose to the construction industry.

So by being able to identify those that will benefit from immediate employment that have no experience but a willingness to learn and and grow, um, we're able to target them and bring them in with this wrap around support of a community-based organization as a partner, and then the union is providing the structure for them to just grow within that industry, which is is not something we can provide and and not something that a non-union um uh uh agreement or contractor would be able to provide us.

Right.

Thank you.

And then just really quick on the um sort of aspect of hiring um, you know, hiring laborers and using labor that's in Stanford and people who are from Stanford.

Um, I know in the in the agreement it says that they'll make you know good faith efforts to hiring you know, Stanford residents.

Is there anything sort of more with that or anything that might be particular to the union that ensures that we're using Stanford laborers on the project?

So even I would say even the the kind of strongest language of a PLA that we've looked at all have um the for lack of a better term, kind of asterisk within the language of good faith.

So people can set whatever targets for a PLA around whatever subgroup to include residency, and it it is not necessarily a binding um metric.

Um so we instead chose to kind of focus those um percent goals around building out that pre-apprentice program that we described.

So I wouldn't say that the language that we've offered with a good faith effort really differs from the PLAs that I've read within Connecticut.

The only distinction really is that we haven't set a metric to it, which again is non-binding anyway.

So our real metric for for that is kind of building out this kind of foundation of a labor force, um, even more so than the labor itself.

And and I think at this moment, it also helps balance concerns around um arguments for cost escalation based off of hiring goals as well, um, just given where we are as a community uh potentially embracing the PLA for the first time in a long time.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

I yield for now.

Thank you.

Uh next up we have Representative McEwen from our committee.

If there's any other committee members, please raise your hands after that.

I have Representative Shore, then Representative Didlow.

Thank you, Chair.

Um my question is uh is a little more practical with respect to this specific project in this specific PLA.

Um given the complexities, I'm just I'm just curious.

Um so if either either of the directors could could kind of opine as to the timing, um, would you know I think this first got on the committee's agenda um in March approximately.

Um and with respect to this upcoming or this specific project, um, is there an outside time that we should be cognizant of in making our decision um and and how might that impact it.

Do you want me to field that one?

Because I could talk a little bit to the schedule.

So it is important.

This document before you is the authorization for us to take action.

Uh and the action is that the construction manager at risk is going to start having those conversations with the unions, with the union holes to flesh out the real specifics of what's going to happen on the job site.

So there without sounding too alarmist, time is of the essence because this project is quickly marching to the end of its construction document phase.

And it is um that we are going for our state authorization to bid, I believe in June.

Um so as you can see, we're we're kind of getting to the even now.

Um we're getting really within that that window, and we want to be prepared and we want to be proactive.

Um, and again, that kind of speaks to like how it went with Strawberry Hill from the documents that we have, the PLA was a little bit reactive.

You know, bidders, GC bids were coming in and reacting to something that had been negotiated.

You know, we're trying to trying to sort out those details because the devil's in the details, right?

Um, so we want to do that up front.

Um so that everyone who has the opportunity to competitively bid on the project understands the specifics, understands the rules on the field.

Understood.

Thank you very much.

I yield.

Um I'm going to just follow up really quickly.

Um, what happens if this fails in terms of timeline?

So if this fails, the if it fails out the full board, then you know it's not something we're pursuing.

Okay.

I do not see another members' hands raised.

So we will move on to Representative Shore.

You have the floor.

Representative, you're mute muted.

Yes, representative shore.

Sorry about that.

I'm reminded of the old adage uh fast, cheap, good, uh, pick two.

Um couple of questions.

Uh, first of all, um just a general assessment of the Stanford workforce that's available.

I know we've been uh around the edges of that question, but I'm just kind of curious uh how how you see that.

I think as it relates to the PLA, um, I think when we're looking at kind of the targeted subgroups that are identified by state statute for inclusion in a PLA, um, we we didn't feel as though we're probably enough competition um at this particular point for ambitious hiring goals within the the labor force itself, and that's more anecdotal and observation from uh the um being in receipt of kind of existing bids on on smaller projects and our school construction program.

So I I wouldn't I wouldn't uh state that we have kind of hard data necessarily kind of uh speaking to that, um, but felt most comfortable kind of establishing the the foundation through a pre-apprenticeship program, and and that's was really the main driver for that decision.

Right.

Speaking with uh Joseph Toner, and thank you so much for that contact, uh Director Kinos.

Um but speaking with him, uh, you know, he indicated that you know, a factor uh is getting tradespeople to commute to Stanford.

Uh that that that is a problem.

So I mean, obviously the need to develop a workforce in Stanford would be great, uh lessening the need for the commute.

Uh I was looking at the uh question that uh Representative Weinberg submitted, and I was looking at your answer.

Uh and uh at one point you said the successful non-union bidder can use non-union employees to perform 100% of the work.

However, if they need to hire employees to perform the work, they must go to the union hiring hall.

And and and were were you referring to uh company employees of a non-union shop, but then if there is some sort of a uh a workforce gap, uh that when they when they go to fill in their workforce, that that those workers must be uh hired from the union hall.

Go ahead, Catherine.

Yeah, okay.

I was like, Do you want me to feel that one?

So um, yes, we reached out to you know, we confirmed this with uh our outside counsel uh who is very familiar with PLAs, they have they have their own expertise in it.

Um, and so if they uh you know if they needed to grow, um this is I think it's a bit of a growth opportunity that they would if they were awarded the job uh and they had I'm gonna use the example of four employees.

They had four employees, but they needed six uh to that they would go through the union hall to grow from their four to six.

All right.

So this would be a non-union shop, but uh if and and how do you define their employees?

Uh I understand like in a union scenario, you have what are known as company people, and then you have folks who shape up at the hall.

Uh how is that defined in terms of a non-union uh environment?

Um I probably would have to get back to you on how that flushes out in practice with the with the law department.

Um you mean the difference between like an admin staff versus an active you know uh somebody in the field?

Is that is that the kind of where you were going with that question?

Well, I I uh Yeah, go ahead.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm I'm uh really just reacting to that um to those two sentences in in Director Canonis's uh response to Representative Weinberg, where it said the successful non-union bidder can use non-union employees to perform 100% of the work.

However, if they need to hire employees to perform the work, they must go to the union hiring hall.

So uh in other words, if if if if an electric if an electrical uh contractor came in with a team of 10 and uh it was apparent that they needed 15, uh those additional five would come.

But then, but then my follow-up question to that would uh we're dealing with what I would refer to as an open bid now, right?

You're you're you you you you're perusing every line item in in a bid.

Uh you would know that, wouldn't you going in?

We would have a sense, yes, we would we would go.

Yeah.

So the qualifying, you want to just very briefly, because I know there's not a lot of time, but yes, there for those unaware that the qualifying the bid is uh is a step at which the the city through its um uh um staff and consultants are going through upon receipt of uh lowest bid.

So it's not just the acceptance of the lowest bid without any vetting process.

That vetting process does take place.

So if at that time um that could potentially be deemed unqualified bid in that instance, if there's but um I think the the scenario of um needing additional manpower um post uh uh acceptance of that bid is what that scenario is referencing.

Would that be a cost overrun or or at that point or what additional higher?

Well, if you if you bid a crew of five for a job and you need a couple of factors there.

Um so if any can if any contractors listening, no, there's not.

Yeah, yeah.

No, no, we're not gonna be able to do that.

There would be a lot of factors in assessing that unforeseen condition could potentially um be a um uh a reason why there would be uh a need for additional compensation in that case.

Yeah, if if anyone's any contractors listening, they're required to perform the work that's in the documents.

Whether they have five people or 10 people to do it, they're required to perform that work at a very high miss labal here's standard of care.

So they're required for what they bid on in those documents, and we would de-scope and scope review them and understand the conditions of the contract they'd be entering into.

Is uh it is a again really regulated process as we march from construction documents through bidding through that final award.

I probably made it sound like ooh, one, two, three, but there is uh weeks of time that we spend interviewing bidders and understanding you know, qu qualified, unqualified.

There's a lot of paperwork that we check off that they have to submit in terms of their bonding capacity, their structure and all those, all those items.

So yeah.

Well, if I if I have any other questions, I'll I'll if you don't mind, I'll bring them to you uh offline and uh with that I yield.

Thank you, uh Chair.

You had very very great questions too, Representative Shur.

You had got me thinking.

Thank you, Representative Shore.

I'm going to actually go back to a committee member and the lineup we have next up is representative price.

Then I have representative Didlow, Representative Johnson and Representative Finkel, and then Representative Dela Cruz for the second time.

And keeping in mind that we are now at 654.

Um hoping we could move a little quickly, if that's okay.

My questions were already answered by Matt.

Uh, but I do want to say Matt, thank you and Catherine, thank you very much for being here this evening.

I do appreciate you very much.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Bryce.

Uh Representative Didlow, you have the floor.

If this is something that needs to be answered offline for the sixth time, totally happy.

I'm just gonna ask it.

I think my biggest concern, I don't mind spending money, and I've seen in school buildings, you know, being at the station of problems happening.

And that's my biggest concern is if we're spending a lot of money, right?

And if a PLA comes out to be more, I'm fine.

But my question, and I'm gonna make it really quick, is and you can answer it offline.

I can give you a call, Catherine.

I'm around tomorrow, Matt.

Um, how does a PLA ensure that the quality of construction is the highest quality?

That is what I'm wondering.

I can give you a call tomorrow if that's best.

Give me a thumbs up if that's best.

I no, I mean, I no, I I think that's a very fair question.

Um, I guess I'll start by saying the PLA is a benefit to the community.

I mean, that's what's before you, right?

Um in terms of the quality uh and what I kind of mentioned briefly was standard of care.

Um we we're taking those steps.

The way that I see that we're taking those steps today is the early partnership with the construction manager, which we haven't had in years past.

Um that's not saying construction managers, the only model is the only thing you could ever do, but these are some of the steps that we're trying to take.

Uh we have uh you know, our architect and we have an owner's representative services.

Owners representative services also is a service which we didn't have.

So we have created a more robust system of both internal and external oversight to deliver these schools, not just for the next five years, 10 years, 20 years and beyond.

And we talk constantly about how we are going to future-proof these schools, what materials we're going to install, and how we're going to install them.

And that's a benefit of having this construction manager on early.

They're called constructability reviews, because often what I'm drawing, oh, I'm so I'm an architect.

It is both goes both ways depending on who you're talking to.

But you know, sometimes when you're drawing something on paper and then you get into the field, you're really working a you're going, oh, okay, I see.

We can't get we can't do it that way.

And so we're forcing those conversations now, hoping that that comes to, you know, that is going to bring us benefit moving forward.

So I hope that I hope that helps.

That's that was a concern.

That is really helpful information.

And I think bringing in that architect perspective, that was something that I had gotten brought up about that.

Thanks.

Appreciate it, guys.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Didow.

Representative Johnson, you have the floor.

Yep.

First off, thanks very much to both Catherine and Matt for being here.

Uh very helpful session.

Uh, two hopefully quite quick questions.

I think you already selected a CMAR.

Is that correct?

If so, are you able to say who?

Uh yes.

So we've been working with ONG construction um at this point since uh they came on an early schematic.

So it's been months and months.

Perfect.

Um, and then if we for one reason or another ended up not having this PLA in place, is there any reason we couldn't use union labor on the project?

No.

No, there's not.

And in fact, just to offer an example, the West Hill project.

So there's no discriminatory practices in uh the bid selection process.

Um so the West Hill project is an example of having uh union and non-union labor on a school construction project.

Fantastic.

Thank you very much, both.

Thank you, Representative Johnson.

Representative Pinkle, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you, Catherine and Matt.

Appreciate your answers.

Um one of the reasons that I brought up the PLA and to not approve it right away was a dollar and cents concern.

Uh among other things, and in doing homework on this, um we spoke to the associated bills and contractors, the merit shop end, and they had indicated in a number of projects throughout the state that a lot of districts are going away from PLAs, and those that had some PLAs had problems with getting bids on some of the packages when they had construction managers.

Um, I also had the opportunity the other day to be in a meeting with a gentleman named Kermit Thompson.

And Kermit Thompson is in the state grants office.

He's one of the people that approves the projects that the municipalities give to the state for their reimbursements.

So I was able to talk to him and I asked him point blank.

Do PLAs cost more money?

His comment to me was yes, they cost more money, and a lot of school districts are moving away from PLAs.

If you looked at the attachment that Director Keonis had sent out earlier, uh, you'll see that my name is plastered throughout it.

Uh, because I had the opportunity to work with the city and then work with the architect on Strawberry Hill.

The bits came in with the PLA, they were about 65 million dollars.

To put some context to the changes that were made before it went out to bid again without the PLA.

The two big changes were no PLA and the 30% self-perform was removed.

The other change.

Excuse me.

Can I raise a point of order?

Is there a question here?

I was gonna answer.

It's when I was done.

Sorry, I was muted.

I recognize the point of order.

I agree.

If representative, if you can phrase it as a question.

Um go ahead.

Okay.

Uh Director Cayonis.

If we were in a position where the PLA was voted down.

And this is not a union versus a non-union thing.

It's not that we're against unions.

Some of the provisions that you have for workforce training could still be included in a contract moving forward, even without a PLA.

So the establishment of a pre-apprentip could be there's nothing um prohibitive in terms of um any kind of legal restrictions from us establishing a pre-apprenticeship program.

However, the uh coordination of actual training, um that would pose to be a real challenge because now we would either have to establish a program as such and work that into kind of all pre-bid documents and then let each individual package uh um account for that component uh without a centralized coordinated effort.

Um and secondly, the other challenge I see with it or limitation, frankly, is the lack of a um formal partnership to create that pipeline for the next elevation of uh job status for participants.

documents and then let each individual package uh um account for that component uh without a centralized coordinated effort um and secondly the other challenge I see with it um or limitation frankly is the lack of a um formal partnership to create that pipeline for the next elevation of of uh job status for participants so moving from a pre-apprentip into a union apprenticeship program with a partnership and a project like this would be a fairly smooth uh transition and natural collaboration you would be removing kind of that component from it but to answer your question directly uh there would be no legal constraints to us establishing a pre-apprentip without the PLA thank you and I yield thank you um given the time we have now 703 and the fiscal committee is meeting and I know that some of the representatives asked to go over there um is there anything else that is needed I do see representative camparelli's hand up and represent day La Cruz do I have anybody on the board who is looking to move forward or do we have time to take representative camprelli and deal at questions um madam chair yes uh in the in the interest of time I I would either though we can't formally move it I I I would like to come to a vote or either postpone understanding that we're faced against difficult timing um if we need more time we need more time but if not I would suggest that we we bring this to a vote uh and again if we need more time we simply need more time uh and so with that to see if there is the support for it um I I think there is subset of debate here I think there's more to to discuss I I would move that we uh recommit this to steering is that a motion yes I moved to recommit it to steering okay do we have a second oh second can I can I speak on this measure uh this is part of the discussion time so yes uh we have a motion and a second to recommit discussion representative gross I see your hand up first and then representative shawl um thank you yeah it I mean it seems like given the sort of timeline issues that uh miss the bobo stated um with them sort of wanting to move into the next phase of the process in June um you know we would be pushing this committee meeting to the end of May um you know the timeline doesn't really seem to work out here um you know I think if you um you know I think if you oppose the PLA you should vote against it and I think if you should you support it you should vote for it you know um I don't really see the advantage of for anyone here of delaying so thank you.

Okay representative Sean I'm sorry representative camper than Dela Cruz if your hand was up for this motion and discussion please let me know but representative shy you have the floor thank you I just want to agree with uh representative gross I mean this is a time sensitive matter um I think we've had extensive discussion here this has been before the board before and all the documents were presented there's you know Dr.

Kinenez has answered all the questions I do not see a point moving in.

I think we should you know I mean I'm not in the committee but I I strongly suggest that we move forward with the board and you know we can still have some discussion at Caucus if we need to but I really do not want this want us being the person people to delay this project any longer than it should be.

Thank you.

And I thank you representative Shah oh um Director Kinonis you have your hand for the discussion on the motion yes I just want to make sure I offer the the committee a perspective um for a vote on this um so uh I can't say with any definitive um um answer that holding it one month could eliminate um the the PLA but it does put it in jeopardy there's not just the decision authority that the city has and the timeline that uh director labal put out for us going before the state in June that would be of a concern should this be delayed uh an entire uh month but um there's also the considerations from the union side it is a a agreement that needs to be entered into um so I think um it's an important perspective to just offer the board that um the it there is potential that um should this go beyond um this kind of two month uh vetting period that um we've now established there there is a chance or risk or some risk and exposure that either the union pulls out or we have a determination that we can't fit this within our timeline and I would say that um with I would say definitively meeting our timeline um would take precedence over offering the the PLA thank you um representative you make the motion thank you chair um thank you for this perspective um and and I and I hear you um and with that I I'd ask for leave from the from the committee to withdraw the motion uh granted uh I agree so that motion is withdrawn I'm looking to see with the original oh representative price I was gonna move to make a motion to bring this to a vote okay so given that we have non committee members with their hands up and committee members do I have a second or moving okay we have a second and discussion for moving the question

And with that, I I'd ask for leave from the from the committee to withdraw the motion.

Granted.

I agree.

So that motion is withdrawn.

I'm looking to see what the original.

Oh, Representative Price.

I was gonna move to make a motion to bring this to a vote.

Okay.

So given that we have non-committee members with their hands up and committee members.

Do I have a second for moving?

Okay, we have a second and discussion for moving the question.

We just go to the non-debatable since we've already discussed it.

Uh representative camparelli and Delay La Cruz, we're moving to our vote now.

If you have any information, we could discuss it in caucus or offline.

I'm sorry that you didn't get to speak more.

And with that said, let's take our vote.

Angie, are you available?

Okay.

Okay.

Palek.

Oh, I'm gonna pass.

Okay.

Sebastian.

Uh you're muted.

I didn't hear you if you that's she said path.

I didn't pass, but I could be wrong.

Okay.

Do we still have a quorum?

I hope so.

Goldberg?

No.

Growth?

Yes.

McEwen.

No.

Price.

Yes.

Wallston.

Yes.

Where's yes?

Not on.

So Palek.

I'm a no.

And Sylvestri, I didn't hear you before.

I'm gonna say yes.

Yeah.

All right, what's the final, Angie?

It's five three zero.

Five yes.

Three news.

That passes.

Yes.

Zero.

It was five three zero, correct?

Correct.

Five three zero.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone.

The item let's see, it's 32.005 passes with 530.

And with that, do I have a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

Thank you all.

See you over at this school.

Thank you for presenting.

And I meeting is closed at 7.10.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.