Stamford Steering Committee Meeting on Project Labor Agreement for Roxbury School – April 30, 2026

The Steering Committee met remotely on April 30, 2026, from 6:03 PM to 7:10 PM to consider Resolution Item 32.005, authorizing a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) for the Roxbury K-8 School Construction Project. Directors Matt Cañones and Catherine Lavalbo presented the proposal, answered questions, and the committee voted 5-3-0 to approve the PLA.

Discussion Items

• Director Cañones Opening Remarks: He explained that the PLA is intended to leverage the city's investment to build a strong local labor force in construction, offer pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship opportunities, and support union workforce while delivering a high-quality, affordable school. He noted that the city now uses a Construction Manager at Risk (CMAR) model with an owners' representative, which provides more transparency and flexibility compared to the previous general contractor approach used for the Strawberry Hill project.
• Questions on Strawberry Hill Project (Representative Gross): Representative Gross asked whether the Strawberry Hill project was rebid without a PLA after coming in over budget. Director Cañones confirmed that the PLA was one of several factors (including schedule pressure, late addenda, and scope reductions) that contributed to the higher bid; the rebid removed the PLA but also involved value engineering and a relaxed schedule. He clarified that the overall conclusion was that the PLA was a factor but not the sole cause.
• Benefits of Union Labor (Representative Gross): Director Cañones and Ms. Lavalbo described the PLA's unique pre-apprenticeship model, which targets state-identified subgroups (women, minorities, veterans) and partners with community organizations to provide wraparound support. The union provides structured apprenticeship programs, creating a pipeline to full-time employment. They noted that the PLA does not guarantee binding residency hiring but emphasizes good-faith efforts.
• Timeline Concerns (Representative McEwen): Ms. Lavalbo stated that time is of the essence because the project is nearing the end of the construction document phase and state authorization to bid is expected in June. Delaying the PLA vote could jeopardize the project schedule and the union's willingness to participate.
• Workforce and Non-Union Bidders (Representative Shore): Discussion focused on whether non-union contractors could still work on the project under a PLA. Director Cañones explained that a successful non-union bidder could use its own employees but, if needing to hire additional workers, would have to go through the union hiring hall. The city would vet bids and ensure contractors understand the requirements.
• Quality of Construction (Representative Didlow): Ms. Lavalbo noted that the PLA does not directly guarantee quality, but the CMAR model, early constructability reviews, and robust oversight (owner's representative, architect, CM) are designed to improve quality and cost control.
• Alternative to PLA (Representative Finkle): Representative Finkle cited feedback from the Associated Builders and Contractors and a state grants official that PLAs often increase costs and that many districts are moving away from them. Director Cañones acknowledged that a pre-apprenticeship program could be established without a PLA, but coordinating training and forming a pipeline to union apprenticeship programs would be much more challenging.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Recommit Withdrawn: A motion to recommit the item to the Steering Committee was made and then withdrawn after discussion emphasizing the time-sensitive nature of the project.
• Vote on Resolution 32.005: The committee voted to approve the PLA for the Roxbury School project. The final tally was 5 in favor, 3 opposed, 0 abstentions. Members voting yes: (based on transcript) Groth, Price, Wallston, Sylvestri, and one additional member (likely Palek? Or perhaps another; the transcript names are partially garbled). Those voting no: Goldberg, McEwen, and Palek (or Sebastian?). The chair declared the motion passed.
• Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 7:10 PM.