Recommendation to direct City Manager to negotiate a Citywide Project Labor Agreement (PLA) with the Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, and specified Craft Councils and Local Participants, and report back to the City Council within 30 days.
Item 33 Communication from Councilman Gonzalez. Councilmember Yee Ranga. Councilman Austin. Recommendation to direct City Manager to negotiate citywide project labor agreement with the Los Angeles Orange County Building and Construction Trades Council. Report back to City Council within 30 days. Thank you, Councilmember Gonzalez. Yes, thank you very much. First and foremost, I have to thank the building trades and all of the the union representation that's here tonight. I really appreciate you being here. And also to my colleagues that are here and have stayed committed to this to this large contract, an issue we, you know, certainly know that will take a great deal of work on the city's part in negotiating. But we hope to have your support tonight if passed. And this will be a comprehensive contract, as mentioned, including all hopefully all city departments, public works, port, gas and oil and our water department. But a document that not only emphasizes major job creation with public funds from multi trade projects of 500,000 or more, but also addresses a plan that includes zone development that is most often on time and on budget with enforcement mechanisms, mechanisms that could be incorporated into the project costs by the successful bidder. In addition, we address local hiring at 30%, which includes first tier local zip codes in areas with particularly high rates of unemployment and underserved communities. And within that, we have proposed 10%, which will be allocated to disadvantaged communities, women, veterans, as often as we just spoke about youth while offering apprenticeship programs that lead not only to a construction construction job, but a career that will support not only local residents and their families, but many more. And it is said that about $36,000 from each potential construction employee is actually spent back into the local economy. In addition, our city manager crafted a couple of documents that address potential concerns and in my opinion, could mitigate any potential issues for any potential issues. For instance, clearly recommending no work stoppages, small business enterprise participation and deterring any small and disincentives for bidding purposes. A project coordinator that could be included in project costs rather than a burden to the city, and overall working towards a main goal of hiring local through our workforce development and more mindful methods to address unemployment rates that in some cases on the western parts of our city have been upwards of 14%. So I ask for your support and certainly move to approve this motion. Okay. There's been a motion and a second Councilmember Durango. I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales for bringing this forward. I think it's very important that we as we move forward, some of the major projects that are going to be coming into Long Beach that we have adopted, such as this, to protect our employees and to protect and to ensure that our projects are done not only on time and on budget, but to done well so that we don't have to go back and read them again. And I'm sure that the communities would also favor wanting to get jobs locally. And I think it's important that we do so. And more importantly, having come from a community college background is very important that our students get an opportunity to enter into internships and into entry level jobs so that they can start getting working toward their journey level certificates once they start getting into the into the job for. So this this item is very important not only for our local economy, but for our residents and our future employees in developing our future workforce. And hopefully along the line, we can also include a living wage ordinance that would address not only their training and their apprenticeship and the certificate, but also living salaries that can provide them with an opportunity not only to buy a home, but to raise families. Thank you. Council member. Austin Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzales and Ranga for bringing this item forward. I'm happy to sign on. I think each and every one of these council members on this dais ran for office with the promise that they wanted to support local jobs and get jobs and get people back to work here in the city of Long Beach. I think this project labor agreement does just that. I want to speak to the complexity of actually coming up with an agreement like this. I also want to thank Councilmember O'Donnell for his leadership on this matter. He's been involved in this much longer than any of us and has been critical getting us to this point as well. I want to thank the stakeholders in the community for their input in efforts to get us to this point, because this wasn't an easy issue to to to broker, so to speak. There was a lot of negotiations. There was a lot of input from community stakeholders as well. And I think this this document, this item addresses most of those concerns. It will put people to work, will put people to work in our communities, and it will provide fair wages for poor numbers of workers. And so I'm very proud to support this and would encourage my my coworker, my colleague, council members to do the same. I did have a question, though, regarding the and I guess it would be for the city attorney. Can you explain what the prime single trade specialty contract that exceeds $25,000 means? Mayor Members of the Council, I believe it means and this is in my item, but I'll take a shot at it. The single trade project, which I interpret to mean a single union. So if there was an electrical job or a painting job involving one particular trade, not a multiple trade contract, it would be a specialty contract . Maybe I can ask someone from the from the building trades to to explain exactly what that means to this council. Okay. Maybe I need to go back to the. Councilmember, I think, on that one. Councilmember O'Donnell actually wanted to. I'm going to speak to that in just a moment. Okay. Thank you. That said, I wish that I hope that everybody can support this this item. Councilmember O'Donnell. Me. Okay. Well, thank you. I appreciate the members who agenda this item. This is about getting projects completed on time and under budget, but also about providing local jobs, but also about providing training for those jobs. The building trades have a clear pathway to a successful career. You enter as an apprentice, you spend roughly about four years, depends on the trade, and then you hit the journeyman level and then it's foreman and beyond jobs that pay well, jobs that give back to their community. So this is the policy that keeps giving. And I just want to be clear from Councilmember Gonzalez, the direction here this evening is to request the city manager to take the items you have listed here and go and negotiate a project labor agreement. Is that correct? You're not listening. All right. The question is, the direction you're giving the city manager this evening is to have management and I assume the city attorney to step forward and negotiate a project labor agreement with the building trades. And you've attached a list of items you'd like to see in that that agreement, is that correct? That is correct. Okay. Thank you. It's one of you very clear on that. Now, there is a component on this. That was some older language that had been then worked on a little bit. I know I had a conversation with the trades today and there is a component of this list that we have here that speaks to a $25,000 threshold . And the overall threshold we want out, we want to be at is $500,000. So we wanted to to change that to the $500,000 level across the board. Why we want to do that is in talking with the building trades and city management as they felt that that might be pretty complex to manage. If we were going to go down that path and if there were problems in the future, we could come back and address it. But for tonight's purposes, we would raise that to that level. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilwoman Price. Thank you. I want to direct a couple of questions to staff. Now, I know that staff created a memo for council that on November six stated that recommended that the play threshold be at the $1 million level. And I want to ask you a little bit about that, because on July 22nd, when this item initially came before us, several council members indicated that we wanted to know what the threshold levels were in neighboring cities or other cities that are utilizing plays. And just to be just to clarify, there are only six cities, is that correct? That have plays on all city projects. John GROSS is going to answer this question. Yes, that's our understanding from the research we've done, which we think is pretty comprehensive. Okay. And I did some of my own research and that was my understanding as well. So some of our neighboring cities that would be geographically similar don't have plays on all city projects. For example, the City of L.A. doesn't. City of San Diego doesn't. So I'm wondering and we had asked specifically for what the threshold limits would be in some of the other cities so that we can do that comparison. And the staff report of November six indicates the minimum dollar amount for a play of 1 million or more is designed to have a suitable number of projects over the next two years, about 10 to 15 projects, even though it is lower than the typical amount in other cities and much lower than the federal policy recommendation of 25 million that the city was previously using. Can you elaborate a little bit more about that? We we looked at when we got this request from City Council I, we took it as our goal to review whether we could support a play limit that was less than 25 million. And we thought that we could if it represents that $1 million, it represents about 47 projects. And if it were $500,000, it would represent 71 projects. And so although that may not match exactly with what other cities have done, it's not that far off from what was done. And we think we can manage a program at either 1 million or $500,000. Now in terms of. The proposal by. And so would staff's recommendation still be to have that threshold at $1,000,000? Our recommendation was $1 million, but we believe we can make 500,000 work. Also, it's about 24 more projects. In looking at the item. I wanted to maybe perhaps the makers of the motion can elaborate a little bit on this. And I have tried to research it a little bit, but. I have a problem with the language of and it's on page one of four. The participants cannot provide the employers a sufficient number of local residents from within the city of Long Beach. First tier zip codes. Does that mean that only certain ZIP codes would be considered in terms of the first line of possible employers employees? Because if so, I would have a real issue with that. I think that the I think that I agree with Councilmember O'Donnell in terms of the benefits of a project labor agreement and having a local hire component and having an apprenticeship program. But I don't believe we should discriminate by zip code. I think All Long Beach residents should have the opportunity to apply for the jobs and to be part of the Apprentice program. And I know that there are many people in my district who could use that work and would want should have the opportunity to be considered. So are we discriminating by zip codes here? Well, let me actually. Councilmember O'Donnell, did you want to respond to that? I can be quick on that. The answer is no, because you'll see a list of zip codes that have been that have been provided in the other zip codes. They are all long beach zip codes, although Long Beach zip codes. So it isn't a this isn't a situation where we're going to say, hey, we're going to grab from three zip codes only and then move on to other zip codes in another tier. All Long Beach zip codes are in first here. Do we have a list of the zip codes? I don't know if it's. Well, even if we don't. The intent this evening is that it be all Long Beach zip code. So I think if we express that, I think the team over there will pick up on that and move ahead with all long language zip codes. Councilman Price And to clarify what I think what you're referring to is there was some there was some thought out there among some that we should that we should start with just a few Long Beach zip codes, then move, move out from there. But the proposal, as put forward this evening, applies to all Long Beach zip codes. Okay, well, I think while we might need to amend the item then, because if you look through the item, it talks about first tiered zip codes and there's no definition in the item of a first tier zip code. I've been handed a document here and. Let me define it for you right now. All Long Beach zip codes. Okay. Well, then we should take out the terms first tier zip codes. And then the second thing is. Well, hold on, hold on, because first it's Long Beach, then it's regional. Because if we get it first here being Long Beach, second tier being outside, as I. Understand, I get what you're saying and perhaps the perhaps the city attorney can opine on this. But if you read the sentence, it says, then if the participants cannot provide the employers a sufficient number of local residents from within the city of Long Beach parentheses first tier zip codes. The participants will extend their best efforts to recruit and identify referral local residents residing within a 15 mile radius from Long Beach City Hall, which implicates or infers that that would be above and beyond the first tier. So if it's all Long Beach residents, then 15 mile radius from Long Beach City Hall. Would be the second tier. Right. But it says that's right. But when we have first tier zip codes identified in there, it implies that there are other zip codes, for example, that's got a 15 year I mean, 15 mile language. If you go scroll down a little bit on page two, it's got a ten mile radius, which is a different hiring requirement . If you look at the ten mile radius from Long Beach City Hall list, my district is not on here. So, you know, there are definitely provisions and I get what you're saying and I completely support. You're in the first tier. Okay. And I hear what you're saying. I think we need to modify that so that first year to include all Long Beach zip codes and that we should eliminate the 15 mile and ten mile. I don't know that you want to do that. Here's why. Because I think one of the efforts here is to avoid contractors bringing in out-of-state workers, because that is a situation which we've and I think some out there would share when I'm when I'm when I'm what I'm saying right now is that is a situation we're trying to avoid, because what they will do is they will bring out-of-state workers for a large project, put them up in hotels. They may not even pay them the required wage. And oftentimes there's no way to seek redress when they move back to that state from which they came. But I think you're pointing out, Miss Price, I think you're pointing out that this needs to be clarified. I think as this goes through the process, this is not done this evening. You make some great points and I'm not going to fault you for them at all. I think the city attorney and he could even share right now that he could get some of those things clarified as we move through the process. Mr. Parker, can you can you help me? Can you walk us through those questions that Councilwoman Price said, if. You could help clarify? Mayor Morris Council Councilmember Price I think you're absolutely right. I didn't anticipate tonight we would be negotiating the agreement, but it would be my understanding that the these would be defined by exhibits. And then if the first tier, which I understood, would be all zip codes of the city of Long Beach, then we could correct the language on the radius to do a radius from the city's boundary to incorporate the general corporate area for the second tier. And then, as they described the third tier, it would be any and all of Los Angeles and Orange County. So we would anticipate that if we get to the point where we're directed to a negotiated agreement, we would come up with exhibits that would further define this document and bring that back to council for their consideration and approval. So tonight, we wouldn't be into the terms specific, but we would certainly have to clarify that. So everyone knows on a go forward basis what each one of those tiers are. And that's good. And I appreciate that. And I hope that when we watch the video, again, the intent is very clear in terms of what what residents we want included in this. The question the next question I have for staff is, do you have any and I know that the document says no fiscal impact, the agenda item says no fiscal impact. Do you really believe that this will have no fiscal impact on the city of Long Beach? What we commented on in our memo is that there will be some administrative cost. One to do the negotiations will be in using some consultants to assist us and also to assist us in monitoring whether what we use for for the monitoring is somewhat specified by the the High Council item, but there would be some costs associated with that and there are some costs there may or may not be costs depending on whether there is any impact, as some would claim, on on on the number of bids and the price of the bids. But there are no statistics available on that. But we do think there would be a fiscal impact. Okay. In looking at the agenda item, page two of four, and I and I believe Councilwoman Gonzales has touched upon it, the request that this agreement includes some project labor coordinator. What has the staff contemplated in regards to that requirement? Who would pay for that position. That there. Was that issue we would be looking at? We don't have an answer on that today. We certainly see what the direction is. And I think depending on what direction council gives us, that would be what we would look at as to how we could how we could achieve all that council directs us and how much we think it would cost in administrative costs, how we can save as much money as possible on that. Well, we don't know the answer specifically. So there could be a fiscal impact in terms of having to hire someone to do that, correct? There will be in one form or another, either contractually or by hiring. Okay. My recommendation, I would make an amendment at this time to take the project labor coordinator aspect of this agreement out of the equation until staff has had an opportunity to evaluate what that cost would be and whether that's a component that we could actually afford, given our budget, if that cost is going to be something that would be put on the contractor, for example, I think that the council needs to have the opportunity to determine what, if any, impact that would have on the contractors in terms of whether it would deter them from applying for contracts in the city of Long Beach. So I think that's an additional component that we don't have any information about. And there was no attachment to the agenda item about what this person would get paid, what their hours would be. Who would. For them. None of that. I'm just I'm it's purely speculative. So I would ask for a friendly amendment that we take the project labor coordinator component out of the equation at this time. So I think that that's not a substitute motion, but a friendly amendment to the maker of the motion. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. So let's at first ask the the maker of the motion if she accepts that friendly amendment. No. At this time, I want to be very clear that this is a study. So we can certainly look at those. And I think that's what we're asking for in the next 30 days. So, no, I won't accept that friendly amendment. Okay. Okay. Councilman Price. Sure. So the recommendation isn't really and it may be a study, but it's directing the city manager to negotiate a citywide project. Labor agreement with the components identified in this doesn't appear to be a study in terms of the language. I will check with the city attorney on that. Mr. City attorney, would you agree with that? I agree with your interpretation that the direction of the language here would be to start the negotiations with the Los Angeles and Orange County Building, Trades Building and Construction Trades Council, and then report back the progress on those negotiations within 30 days to the city council. Okay. Well, I'm still not going to accept the friendly amendment. I misspoke in saying it's a study, but I do believe that we still need to incorporate the project coordinator in that. And just to clarify, also, there is there's a motion on the floor. I just want to make sure that that motion, Councilman Gonzales, does include the elimination of that $25,000 cap as well. Is that. Correct? That's correct. Okay, great. It's all it's $500,000 is a number. For all projects. The threshold. Thank you. Going, Councilman Price, are you. Are you complete. Are each of my questions. I don't think I have. Any other questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So just a few things. So, I mean, I support this. I think this is a great thing for the for I'm happy that our colleagues have brought this forward. And I'm happy that Councilmember O'Donnell's really been in leadership for so much time on this. It's the right thing to do. It's proven, it transforms lives. And so what I'd like to I just have a few questions and some clarity. So I heard in the motion it said Gas department and Water Department would, do we have the authority does this body have the authority to to adopt an agreement that covers those areas or with their respective bodies? Need to adopt it as well. As to the gas department is. Yes. As to the harbor and water department. No, this body would not have the jurisdiction. They would have to take an independent action by their boards to adopt a re project labor agreement. So the first thing I would do is ask the maker of the motion to include some specific language to go to the water department and to request that they similarly adopt this this item. You agree to that? Okay. Okay. Second question. So so I know there's been a lot of discussion about local hire and local hire. And I know there was a memo out earlier about work source and some of the work that's taking place there is the city manager maybe next. Can you can one of you chime in on some of the work you guys are doing with work source to ensure that we're hiring folks locally and from disadvantaged communities? Mr. West I'm going to turn to I'm gonna turn this over to Nick Schultz in just a moment. But tonight, we're being asked to do a play. We talked about the possibility of a first class hiring that Nick is working on, but that's not what we're being asked to do tonight. But with that, I'm going to turn it over to Nick. And just to clarify, the reason I'm asking is because obviously there's an expectation we're talking about local hire. There is a nexus between the issues. I want to see if the mechanisms are in this agreement or if the mechanisms are out. That would be outside of this agreement to ensure that we can do that. That's why I just want to make that connection. So so the mechanisms that you're discussing tonight are not for a broader city hire that would that would actually allow the city's investments in service contracts and non construction projects to have a first source and a local hiring component. The Web is working to craft a recommendation that we hope will be brought forward at a later time for the council to consider in that regard. So so that said, just a quick question. Are the are the so the zip codes discussion, are those like best practices or those actual requirements as a part of this policy with what would those be considered? I'm sorry, Councilmember. The zip codes would be part of the. Target zip codes like hiring folks. This is this like a requirement on this agreement? Generally speaking, in a project labor agreement, the answer would be yes. The. You would set up a waterfall for the hiring. And the way I understand the direction this evening would be, the first tier would be all zip codes that encompass the city of Long Beach. And then you fall to subsequent tiers of a of a greater area. Thank you. I wanted to get some clarity on that. No, there's been diverging discussion about whether this requires us to hire our folks locally or whether it would or not. So I'm glad to hear that is a requirement that we will hire our folks first. It's a best efforts on the part of the union to find folks that are qualified within the zip codes. And if they can't do that to meet their numbers, then we expand the boundaries. So their first look is at the zip codes within Long Beach. And if that's not. Available, that's correct. If they don't have the qualify the qualifications to meet the requirement, they can go to the next tier, which would be a radius around the city and then to the Orange County, Los Angeles County. Great. Great. Thank you very much. Thank you. Vice Mayor Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to go back to the clarifying question that Councilmember Price asked regarding the contract compliance officer. And while it could pose a cost to the city, I know that we've seen cities incorporate that as part of an existing staff members, job duties. And Mr. City Manager, I'm wondering how you would envision that. I don't believe that it necessarily has to be an additional position. Is this is this something that one of the staff members is already working on projects and development projects, someone that's working on any is in any any one of those positions. Could they fulfill this role without adding a cost to the city? Mr. West. Or. Mr. GROSS. John? John GROSS. Okay. John GROSS. We looked at that and again, this we haven't had a lot of time to review this, but our our guess is that that, no, we would have to use an external person. That is typically what we have done with plays. Regardless, we did not have the internal staff resources to handle it when we did the airport. So it would be normal and expected, I think, to to at least use outside contract. It would not be done internally. And in your experience, have there been projects not necessarily in the city of Long Beach, but other other municipalities that may have plays? Where the cost of that is is part of the development costs, but it's not a direct cost to the city that is part is paid for by the third party, but not managed by the third party. The the only one I saw was Berkeley. And in I'm not saying there weren't others. I'm just saying that the only one I saw was Berkeley. And their cost recovery efforts in a recent memo did not work. So we we absorbed the costs through the project with the airport. That's what. And charged it to the project. That's what we anticipate doing this time. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. Good evening. First, I want to start out by saying that I am in support of apprenticeship programs. I am in support of training programs. I am in support of local hire. When we talk about compliance, compliance is the only component of ensuring that some of. Our. Contracts are in compliance. Sometimes we are partners, agree to things, and without a compliance component, there is no enforcement of that agreement. And when I've sat down and met with some of the unions that are actually here today, we talked about some of the agreements with non play contractors and how they make promises and then without a compliance component there is no enforceability. So I am strongly in favor of compliance. I think we need to discuss specifically the components of compliance that are necessary. In my prior role in $180 million annual budget, we used to contract out approximately a million a year and we had a team of compliance staff that would audit different components of a workforce in different components of a hiring process and different components, especially with our million dollars for veterans, that all of those things are there. So compliance is important to me. With that said, I would like to find a way through negotiations that, as stated in the original items intent. I believe that that would not be a new and burdensome cost on the city. And so I have some concerns in alignment with the discussions we had at Budget Oversight Committee a few weeks ago. That fiscal impact needs to be discussed by project, and I feel that many of the partners in the room today feel that there's no fiscal impact. And so I would hope that they would be supportive of the idea of an annual review of the additional costs, some of which. We as a body would want to decide are important. I think it's more important to say there are additional costs and identify them than to say, well, we're going to reallocate costs inside house. That's still not an appropriate fiscal terminology. If staff are allocated to work on something, then they are costing the city money and they are costing the taxpayers money. And I think we just need to be open and honest about what our values are and what that means. Additionally, under no circumstances will I ever vote yes on an item that has unlimited, no actionable extensions. No matter what contract we have, whether it's a contractor that we have loved our whole lives that may have built the foundation of America, we have to have. Even through potentially a consent item on the agenda, the option to discuss performance regularly. And I hope that our partners would be open to discussing the value that they bring on an annual basis, or at least at the end of the first term. But to have unlimited non discussion extensions seems absolutely unreasonable to me. So with that fiscal impact compliance, um, in terms of and direction of, I'd like to make a substitute motion and pulling open the item. Sorry, I'm trying to go paperless. Okay. I would like to bring forth a substitute motion that states that an annual fiscal impact will be provided to the Council through a consent item so that it is provided ten days in advance to the Council. We can discuss the fiscal impact. We can state that this is one of our priorities, and we would like to put a staff member plus employee benefits on compliance. I think that all of you value compliance as a major component of this. I would also state that extensions would be through consent calendar of the council in the same way that we would want to approve any other way that we do anything. And so let me try to say what my substitute motion is. Actually, councilwoman. I can take that as a friendly amendment versus a substitute motion. I think that would be more appropriate. Okay. So what are we saying exactly? Why don't we have let's have Councilwoman Mongeau read exactly what she's trying to achieve and then Councilwoman Gonzales, whether or not you accept that or not and whether it's a substitute. And my only concern on my substitute is that we're kind of pushing Charlie to negotiate for us, and we're Charlie and Pat or whoever that works on terms that we're putting out in the public. And that's not really a negotiation. It's like playing poker, but all our cards are forward and on the table and in front of us. And so a component of this that I'd like to discuss is how potentially the other partners would pay for the compliance option. And I think that negotiating the terms and then coming back to council with either a study or I don't know, I don't know the wording to get us to a discussion of what those costs are. Because I think sending someone away with we agree that we want to talk about the costs and go ahead and approve it before we know what they are. Maybe even a memo back or I don't know. Help me out here, team. What do you want? I don't want to approve an item that I don't know the fiscal impacts that we're not being open and honest about someone's value. I think both the partners here would state that their value is diminished if we say that it has no fiscal impact. Instead, the Council should have the courage to say this will cost us $200,000 a year because it'll cost us 1.5 staff members. And with that we would want to move forward. But I think we should know what the number is. So what do you want? So, Councilman, it is in motion. So let me. Not clear on what I. Mean. I try to be funny. I mean, what kind of motion? In fairness, we've only had since Friday at 4:00. So look at this. Let me let me let me ask question. I haven't. Had a time. To. So I think I think what at least one of the things that Councilman Mango's looking for is. A. Councilwoman. You're looking for an annual review that would come from staff, that would come that was coming to you, that would speak to what the costs were for that year and the progress of those projects within the within the scope of the project labor agreement. Yes, yes. Okay. So that is I believe that Councilwoman Gonzalez earlier mentioned that she would accept that as a as a friendly amendment. Is that correct? That is that's that's part one. And so it's a one year contract with annual consent items on the agenda with that item to continue. So you'd have to put it on in advance. So maybe 90 days or 100 days before the end of the term, it would say prior year cost us $125,000. What a great investment in our community. And it would be on the consent item to go forward for another year. Okay. So that is that's different. So the. So part one of what Councilman Mongo asked for was this annual review. The second part, from the way I understand it, is you would ask that on a yearly basis that items would come forward, but the Council would have to affirm vote in the affirmative through consent on those items coming forward for that year. Is that correct? That sounds reasonable. Okay. So I just want to make sure so that that's certainly different than the first part. So, Councilwoman Gonzalez, so either are you making that a substitute or are you asking Councilman Gonzalez as a friendly amendment? I was originally going with the substitute because I didn't see her except the first from the amendment, but I would look that direction to see where we're headed. I can take it as a friendly amendment. That's okay. Fine. Okay. So so I understand you're taking both as a friendly amendment. But both items. On let floor once again, council becomes a roadblock. Okay, so let me so what we have I just want to be very clear. Please be very clear. Let me be very clear. Getting lost in. This, from what I understand and someone correct me if I'm wrong, there are two things that Councilwoman Mango's looking for. The first is she's asking for an annual review from staff on the status of the project labor agreement that would come to the council once a year. And with the status update of the projects that I believe Councilman Gonzalez you've okayed. Correct. Okay. The second thing, and maybe I'm less clear here, the second thing that Councilman Mango's asking for is a annual vote. That would be an affirmative vote of a council that would be essentially on consent calendar, that would list the projects that would come before that would have to affirmatively move forward. They get that point. Right. I think that the issue is it says there's a five year contract with unlimited extensions with no action. I think that's a concern. I think that if you have a anyone who works for you, whether it's the person that I don't have a garden, cleans my pool every year, I discuss with them the annual rate hike that comes in because challenges change and things change. So there needs to be a term of the contract and then. Extensions need to be approved by a body. We don't have unlimited non-voting extensions. So I'd like to reduce the term from five years to three years. I think one year is too short, five years to three years. And then I think extensions shouldn't be annual. They should be in maybe three year blocks even. We should talk about a lot of these projects are long term and so annual one year non-voting amend. That sounds crazy to me. Okay. So that's that's definitely a very different, different proposal. And so I don't know if there's that a substitute. Councilman Mango. I was first looking to. See Councilman Gonzalez. Do you accept that friendly amendment? No. Okay. I'd like to make a substitute motion. Okay, so that's a up. So we have a substitute motion, and I'm going to have a count the before time, the vote. We're going to go through the motions so we everyone knows exactly what they're voting for. Okay. Councilmember O'Donnell. Than Councilmember Durango, then. Is that welcome? So just to be clear, we have the original motion which approves this item. And you actually said that you agreed to a friendly amendment right here. The friendly amendment said on an annual basis, the costs incurred by this agreement will be shared. Your document to the council amendment to the council. But you're not agreeing to the the the the annual. Will. And write the annual. Complaint. Required agreement. Agreement. And I just want to make sure that that motion get a second. I thought I heard something over here but was there a second on that motion? There was not a Second Amendment on the substitute. Okay, hold on. There was a substitute motion made by Councilman Mongo. Is there a second on the substitute? Can I clarify my substitute? Cause I'm not sure that it's clear. Please. Okay, so my substitute encompasses what was in the friendly amendment, plus more. So item number one of the substitute motion will be that an annual report is brought forward to the council that shows the value and costs of the project labor agreement for the year . Item number two is that before we sign on the dotted line, the Council will know what the annual costs of a compliance officer are. Right now this council is approving an item that we don't know the costs of, and we should know the cost of things that we approve and the source of funds because we passed a balanced budget. And what I hear us asking to do right now is to either which I have not heard, reallocate internal resources that were supposedly at limits or create new costs without a source of funds, which I would not be in agreement with. And item number three is that it would be a three year contract with three year extensions as approved by the council. Thank you. The second I have I have a speakers list. I'm going to go down. The speakers have got four or five council members. So, Councilmember O'Donnell. I just do you have to share that your your motion somewhat changed there as we went through this this conversation significantly changed as far as the annual reporting. You know, I'm supportive of that. But the other component, I'm not supportive. And one of the reasons why is because it takes an apprentice generally four years to get through their apprenticeship program. So you're not going to see the benefits. You're one necessarily to the participants, your local economy, etc.. So that that that's why I have the opinion as such. I'll turn it back to you, Mr. Cake. Council Vice Mayor Lowenthal, than Councilmember Durango. Wanted to contact person. If I wanted to follow up with Councilmember Mungo's request on those three items and I'm just that different, can I ask you a question? Council member Mongo. Yeah. Sorry, sorry. I can't. I can't see you from here. We think Councilmember O'Donnell brought up a good point. So these are things that we need to discuss because we need to discuss them in public. Thank you. Absolutely. So I do think we can work within the construct of adding a friendly amendment or requesting a friendly amendment to the authors. Two out of the three items you requested are amenable to the authors and certainly are amenable to me in the five year to three year component. Councilmember O'Donnell shared the challenge with our apprentices and internships. I think it's very reasonable to go back to your first iteration of that third component, which is after a five year contract, year after year, come back to the Council on a consent. You're absolutely right. We don't do that. That is not the culture of how we do contracts in the city is to have sort of this limitless, boundless extensions. And so doing that is reasonable. And and I'd ask that you consider reverting back to a friendly amendment with with those two your 2/1 items and leaving the five year the third item as a five. With the one year coming back on consent. So the council has an opportunity to review it and review the performance. I think what you're what you're trying to get at is something that we all support. I, I wholeheartedly feel and I'm confident that we all behind this day to support this, which is that performance matters. And certainly our partners in the trades want that. They want to demonstrate that they have performed well under this this contract or soon to be contract or agreement. And so it's it's beneficial to both sides. I do believe we're there and we can be there with a friendly amendment. I, I like the friendly amendment for five years. I think Councilmember O'Donnell makes an excellent point. And I think that the Roberts or the Brown Act would not have allowed us to discuss that in advance. So I appreciate your insights and guidance on that. Okay. So just so I'm clear, is there, Councilman Mongo, you have a substitute motion as as amended by the friendly amendment from Vice Mayor Lowenthal, is that correct? Yes. Okay. Because you I was hoping that I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was hoping that Councilmember, the Councilmember Mongo and Councilmember Price would withdraw their substitute and allow Councilmember Gonzalez to work that into her original motion. Okay. Well, does Councilwoman Gonzalez accept that as part of the original motion as a friendly amendment? I accept. It is that I. Accept I'm accepting the the annual review. The compliance. And the compliance after the fight and. The cost of the compliance officers. The council? Yes. Okay. I will comply. Let me. Let me. 1/2 here. I want to be very clear. What we're doing is it's getting very complex. It's a good. It's okay. That's okay. So I just want to make sure very clear, Councilman Gonzales, what we have right now in front of us is council. Councilmember Mongo is asking for from friendly amendments, two of which you have accepted prior. One friendly amendment is at correct me if I'm wrong, at the end of the five years it would come back for a review at the after city council. Is that correct, Councilman Mongo? Is that what you asked for? Yes. Councilman Gonzalez, do you accept that friendly amendment. Being the first two, but not the last? Okay. So she does not accept that. So, Councilman Mongo, do you want this to be a substitute? Cause we've got to move this forward. So do you want it to be a substitute or were. What is your substitute exactly? So she's accepted the first two, not the last one. So if I take such as from the amendment, it's almost identical to the original motion. With the exception of one. We have the annual review of fiscal impact, which still is a five year contract, and then we would review at that time and decide to move forward with an extension which could be one year or three years or five years. Currently it just says one. So this could be more beneficial if this shows to be the value that we are saying it could be. It would bring forth the cost of these compliance officers, at least as an estimate, before Charlie negotiates. So we know what we're asking for and hopefully we would be able to share that cost with our partners and. I think that's it. Okay, great. Okay. So I will tell you that that does sound different to me than than the original motion. So I just want to make sure that we're being very clear. Because I feel very. Okay, so. We're all. Over it. Hold on. I think there's two very different I think there's two different motions that are on the floor. There's a substitute by Councilwoman Mongo, and there is your original motion. Councilwoman Gonzalez that's in place. And so I think that there has been a second on a substitute unless Councilman Mango wants to change that substitute, let's move the process forward. One of the substitute that fails, we go back to the main. Motion with accepting. So just friendly amendments to see Councilwoman Gonzalez. Could you tell me what the variance is from the original. The complaints. From the friendly or maybe. Suja chicken. Sushi? Let let me so let me let me turn it over to Vice Mayor Lowell. To be more clear as well in saying that the only thing I'll accept is the annual report. That's right. You know, I think it's being a little bit more convoluted at this point. The annual report. I will accept everything else. It will not accept. It's not clear. Okay. So I think it's very clear. Councilman Gonzales will only accept that the and report back to the council. So just so I can I can articulate Councilmember Gonzales did not accept the amendment that I had suggested. What I had hoped was for the original authors to retain ownership of the motion. And I thought that there was more agreement. Yes. So the reporting is clear. I think the only the only thing that's not being accepted is the final item. Correct, Mr. Mayor, which is the item on the automatic renewals? That is correct. I think right now we have a we have a the original motion, which is the motion as presented with the review that comes from staff once a year. That's the motion as presented by Councilman Gonzalez. That's as far as she will go. And then we have a substitute motion by Councilwoman Mango with that with that additional piece that you just mentioned. Okay. Okay. So now let me go through the queue. So, so so, Mayor, let me may I. Ask a point of clarification on the substitute motion that's on the floor currently? As I have it in my notes, there is a substantive motion, a second by price, that has the annual fiscal impact report required that the term of the agreement would be a five year term or a proposed five year term, with annual extensions approved by the City Council. And three, the cost of the compliance officer would be provided to the City Council before authorization of the agreement. And then also for clarification purposes, does the substitute motion accept the other previous motions as made by the Council members to make a request to the Harbor and Water Department to consider adoption of a similar agreement and the removal of the single trade specialty contract that was discussed. So that also includes those two items. Thank you. Okay, great. I do have a speaker's list, so I want to make sure I get to the speaker's list via email with all you had completed your comments with the. For now. Okay. Next, we have council member Ringo. Okay. After all of the iterations that we've just gone through, I have to go back with our original document here that provides a very clear direction as to how we want this negotiation to take place, including a the compliance officer and compliance component to it. I think that all of this can be negotiated during the association process. All we're doing at this point is directing city staff to enter into a negotiation where all of these issues can be addressed, whether it's a compliance officer that is paid through the city, paid through a contractor, maybe both. I don't know. We can work that out. That's part of the negotiation process. In regards to a three year document or a five year document, my important issue is with the apprenticeship programs. A lot of apprenticeship programs are based on hours worked, not on bodies. So we have to make sure that whatever we negotiate is that we address the Apprentice issues there, because many of these apprenticeships are either hours required, not by the time that they work on a project. A project might go from one building or job to another. And they those hours should be accumulative for those interns or those interns and apprentice apprenticeships to come be completed. So I'm very concerned about that. And I think Councilmember O'Donnell brought that issue up. So I think that that's a very important component of this negotiation. So in and in regards to the yearly report, that's automatic. As far as I'm concerned, it should be already automatically incorporated into any agreement anywhere that we enter, that there will be a yearly review as to our progress and these projects. So I support our original document, our original motion that that that's here without any other reiterations of it, because that can be worked out in the end. The contractual issue, especially now since the the horse has left the barn, so to speak, that all of these issues have been raised. I think the city attorney has been paying attention, knows what what the concerns are by the council because we've raised them. But I want to raise one more and I brought this discussion up the last time we talked about this, is that you want to make sure that in this negotiation process, we have all our stakeholders involved . And I and I specifically asked that we also include the the Legal Aid Foundation to be included in this negotiation. They have some great idea. They've worked some neighbor project agreements, a project labor agreements in the past. And I think that they should be part of this process, too, if not an active participant, to provide some some outside independent review as to what we had so that they could provide their expertize and guidance in this whole process. Thank you. Okay. Council member Austin. Thank you. And I really appreciate this robust conversation about this very important issue. I'm going to offer a substitute substitute, I think, that will encapsulate capture everything that is being discussed here. I like the the ideal of of of the existing document as Councilmember Urunga has stated his support for. I do would like to include the annual review for fiscal impact and with the option to contract the compliance officer. If I can get a. Amount of that. And and that that does a couple of things because we do have a council policy that affords the city manager to contract anything under $250,000 a year. And I don't see that this individual or compliance officer will exceed that without council approval and it can be negotiated in this. And and it also affords the community organization stakeholders. It opens it up for the city to to look for an appropriate compliance officer. So with that, thank you very much. There's a substitute substitute. Was there a second? You can have other duties as well. Okay. There was a second. And can I ask the city attorney on the third component of what Councilor Brosnan said? Can you clarify that? Because I'm not sure that I'm understanding it correctly. I might ask the maker of the motion, I have two items that he makes a substitute substitute to include the annual fiscal impact and the option to contract the compliance officer. I didn't know there was a third. Item that wasn't. There to contract the compliance officer. Contract with. Compliance that would remain an option to city staff to come back. And I'm very. So very similar to the original motion. But with that, with that little difference. Okay. So there's a substitute and a second on the substitute substitute. I still have more speakers on the list. Councilman Richardson. Thank you. So a couple of things. So this is an agreement. Would it not come back to is this we're never going to have a chance to talk about this again. You will. The city attorney, after you finish the agreement, does it come to the city council for adoption? The way I read the motion is that we are to return to city council within 30 days. I'm not sure what it is we will have in 30 days to present to you, but. We will be have to get into the weeds on every single detail tonight. Correct? It was my hope you wouldn't get into the weeds on it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. Secondly, I just want to I just want to say that I want to say that on the whole discussion about compliance, whether we should like contracted or hire it. In my experience, like we're building a library right now, all the all of that is built in like we are the principal on that project. We are bearing that cost. Right. But if it's a private development or or I mean, shouldn't that be built into the project costs? Like we shouldn't have like an ongoing like person on staff to do that shouldn't be that be a part of the project. Yes. The compliance the the compliance would normally be part of the project and yes, it would be built into the project. So would it be the same person? Will we have one compliance officer for the whole city, or were these be different compliance officers per project? It might be a same compliance officer. I think would be. We're getting into the weeds on stuff we shouldn't get into at this point, honestly. So I would honestly say, like let Charlie and the city manager go back. I think we've been very clear. Come back. Let's see what the document is so that we can we can vote on it. There were all a lot of motions and substitutes and substitute substitutes, so I can't make a motion. So I will just ask. I think we're going to vote on our motion. I would ask I'll just leave it leave it up to, you know, them to come back. Like, I don't know that we need the contract a like ongoing person. It might need to be structured differently. I'm okay with the substitute substitute. And I will I will take away the, the option for the compliance officer because that makes sense. I just want to get on with the vote. Thank you. Okay. Okay. There is Councilman Price. Thank you. I think the one thing that I want to make clear is that and I understand, Councilman Richardson, that, you know, we don't want to get into the weeds. But unfortunately and perhaps it's difficult for me as an attorney reading this document, there are some very serious directives in here. Okay. So it's and Councilwoman Gonzalez, when I originally made my comment, thought that this was a report back recommendation. It's not we're actually voting to direct the staff to engage in contract discussions, engage in a contract so the details of the contract matter because we pursue it. If staff is going to be compliant with this council directive, they are going to have to negotiate in certain aspects of this agreement, including potentially additional staff or labor. And so we don't know what the cost of this item is going to be for the city. That's the problem here. Nobody has an issue with the spirit behind it, the intent, all the great things it's going to do. We don't know what the fiscal impact is going to be to the city. And we have to look at and I appreciate what Councilman Aranda said about bringing the stakeholders to the table. But, you know, we talk about this this person that's going to oversee these projects, we're talking all projects over $500,000. That's a lot of projects that they're going to have to be involved in if it's going to. Be a staff person, that's going to be a cost that we as a city are going to have to absorb . So how are we going to do that if it's going to be something that's going to be built into the contract with the with the contractors who get the bids, then is it going to be something that's going to deter them from bidding on our contracts, especially smaller contracts? Is this going to be an additional cost that they're going to view as a deterrent from wanting to do business here? These are these are just concerns. And that's why I think it's important that we have as many options available to us as possible. And I understand Councilwoman Gonzalez didn't agree with my friendly amendment. And I appreciate Councilman Austin trying to meet me halfway here, because it seems to me like this is an item where what we're hearing is it's all or nothing. There's no room here to accommodate what some of my council colleagues might be concerned about. And this is this particular aspect of it. The compliance officer is so important that it's it's got to move forward. I think what's important about this contract is that it's five years. It provides local hire, it provides an apprenticeship, it allows people to be employed when those elements are met. Why can't we as a council work together moving forward on the additional items that we don't currently know the financial value of? That's my issue here is, you know, I'm trying my best to hold on to the importance of understanding that we need to have some appreciation, that there are some additional costs associated with this contract, and we should know those before we move forward, which and I don't know it when we're talking about stakeholders, I know that there are some you know, based on some conversations I had today, I know there was a lot of some assistance or input into this agenda item, maybe some boilerplate language. You know, we are the city of Long Beach. We are going to negotiate contracts that are best for the city of Long Beach. And so whoever assisted with boilerplate language or whatever we are, the city of Long Beach, we are going to draft contracts that make sense for our city. And that's and I would hope that my council colleagues would look to the spirit of this and say, what is what is the most important aspects of this contract right now ? It's the local hire. It's the threshold value, which is what they've requested. It's it's the apprenticeship program. Those are important. Those are things that all council people agree. But there are a few things they're concerned about. I'm going to meet them halfway so that we're not in a position where we're accepting a contract that we don't know the fiscal impact of. So I appreciate Councilman Austin. It doesn't go far enough for me because I would like city staff to be able to just analyze that portion of this contract. That would make me very happy if we could just know how much that additional impact was going to be. We are looking at a deficit starting next year all the way until 2021. Are we now adopting a new staff person for the city? Because if we are, I'd like to have some input. Maybe that staff person is someone that I want on the police department. Maybe that staff person is someone we need in a library. I mean, are we now hiring another staff by virtue of a play? That's important information. So we're not even we're just ignoring it. And and I think that that is wrong. I think that if we, you know, we talk about collegiality and doing the best thing for the city, we have a fiduciary duty to make decisions that are financially prudent for this city. And we are if we vote yes on this and let's make make no mistake about it, I think that the local labor, The Apprentice, I am 1,000% behind you on that. Absolutely. But I have a problem voting on a contract that we don't know what the fiscal impact is going to be. And with 30 days, we could know that information. Why wouldn't we wait 30 days? Thank you. I'm going to go now to Councilmember Mongo. So that's a point of order. I believe that. Councilmember Austin, accepting the friendly amendment of Councilmember Richardson, reverts the motion to the original item, which cancels out the substitute substitute. Would I be correct? City Attorney. That's not correct. Oh, darn. However. However. So tell me what he what friendly amendment did you accept? Because I don't think that we all got that down here. I mean, he. He did not, to my knowledge, and I did not hear a friendly amendment from Mr. Richardson. Councilor Richardson asked to remove the $200,000. No, you did not. Oh, there was an annual fiscal impact. Mr. Mayor. Let's let's let's let's here still. And we're going to. Okay, I have the floor. So, Mr. City Attorney, there is a substitute substitute right now by Councilmember Austin, and it has two components. One is the review component at the annual annually. And the other component had to do with the contracting out of the compliance piece. Is that correct, Mr.. Austin, with the option of contracting. Listen, that substitute substitute is almost identical to the original main motion, with the exception of the review, which Councilman Gonzalez was amenable to and the option to contract out the compliance piece. Is that correct? The city attorney. That's my understanding with the other discussion that was had on the main motion that talked about the referral to harbor and water and the removal of the specialty contract. And I think that one other item. That was the five, that's all included as part of the. Yes, yes. Yes. Okay. We're all clear what the substitute substitute is right now on the floor. Okay, great. I have Councilmember Richardson. Thank you all for the question. Actually, Councilman Mongo wasn't done. So Councilman Mongo. So just to be clear, we're contracting out almost 50 contracts totaling more than $250 million. And the substitute substitute does not require council action for extensions of the contract out. Mayor, Manchester City. Council member Mungo. The city council item is asking us to negotiate that agreement. We would be coming back to the council with that final contract and if the decision of the Council at that time, currently it's a five year agreement with an evergreen, meaning that either party could cancel it with with notice, either you could amend that termination clause or the term of the agreement as when we come back to you and present what has been negotiated as we're directed tonight. Well, it would be difficult for me to vote for an item that is evergreen. So that is my concern that I wanted to communicate to my council colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and we're going to do public comment still. That's coming up. Are there any other comments from any of the council colleagues? I called for the question. Okay. Is there an is there more? Okay. Let let's let them make her the original motion. She has a comment and they're going to go to public comment. Councilman Gonzales. Okay. I just wanted to say thank you for all the comments. We've had a really fruitful discussion here. I want to remain committed to the fact that, you know, we need to make sure that, you know, certainly we understand that compliance coordinator component is very essential, but it does vary. And this is not the first time, you know, the city has done a play. I'm, of course, not of this extent, but we have a play for the airport. Is that not correct? Or we had one. That's that's. Correct. Okay. And so this is we're not brand new to this. I trust fully and trust that our city attorney, our city manager will certainly make the right decisions when it comes to a compliance coordinator, whether that's contracted out or incorporated in the project costs. But certainly, I believe, you know, we still need to remain committed to this and make sure that we're just moving forward. So I you know, like many of us, we just want to vote on this item at this time. Okay. Thank you. With that, we are going to go to public comment on the item. So if you have public comment, please line up over by the mic. So please come forward. Good evening. I'm Ron Miller, executive secretary of the L.A. Orange County Building, trades on behalf of 140,000 men and women that are within our ranks and the many more that we hope to put in our ranks from your community. I want to thank you for the justified conversation that happened up here today. This is how things get done, and there's no mystery of these plays. We do lots of plays. The first one of the first ones was on the Hoover Dam. So they're not the wolf in the forest. They're real and they're very successful about putting people to work and creating tomorrow's future workforce. They maximize your dollar spent. And when you're putting your local work, your local constituents to work, they're reinvesting in your city. And many of the points that I had planned to go over you guys covered tonight. So talking about partnership, we have the state building trades in Sacramento. They introduced legislation within the last couple of years. And I'd like to be able to tell you when it was, but there was an assembly bill for 36 and what it does is for compliance on public projects. You guys pay a quarter of 1% of the construction cost to the state for compliance. If you have a play, you don't pay them. You don't pay that quarter 1% to the state of California. You keep it. So maybe that will help you find the money to pay for this coordinator. Right. But I want to talk about the careers, the apprentices that are put to work on your jobs from the trades that are in the audience. They don't pay anything for their education. They walk into an apprenticeship. That trade is going to spend 30 to $40000 on that apprentice. At the end of the four or five years, depending on the link to the apprenticeship for that particular trade. They're going to become a journeyman. They're going to have a lifelong career. They're going to punch their own ticket to the middle class. And that's important in this day and age. Not everybody goes to college and they need to have a career where they can provide for their family, send their kids to college, and have a modest pension and a modest retirement. So it's very important that you understand these apprentices, their educations paid for by the journeymen on the project and the contractors. It's in a partnership with our contractors. That's who pays for that education. So it's very important. And we have high standards. We rely on the community groups. We partner with the Urban League, with workforce centers, Youth Build Winter Group, which is locally here in Long Beach. We partner with all those folks to help break down the barriers for your community to get into our trades. Like I said, we have high standards and we don't lower them for anybody, but we work with the community. So thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Kevin Norton, assistant business manager with Electrical Workers Local 11, also a Long Beach resident by Councilmember Susie Price over there. Give them how. It's nice to see you all tonight. It's been a long time coming and certainly we're excited about the prospect of partnering with the city of Long Beach, with the IBEW and our apprenticeship program. We have 100 apprentices from City of Long Beach already and we look forward. We have about 1000 members that live in Long Beach, so we have quite a few people. So we look at this play is putting our members to work in their own neighborhood. So we think it's a good thing you're leveraging money that you're already going to spend. And the cost of a compliance officer when you're talking, you know, the kind of value you're talking about is honestly de minimis. You know, it's the cost that someone moves an outlet a couple of times on these jobs. They end up costing about the same. So we think it's a great opportunity to put local people back to work in Long Beach. And we're excited to work with you. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good evening again, Mayor Garcia and fellow council city staff in public that's here today. You know, I want our members that are here for my BW Local 11 to stand. You know, we also have women, you know, that are coming into our apprenticeship programs that are, you know, happy to raise their families, raise them right. Bring them up, you know, through a career and give them give them help, good health and good benefits. And that's you know, that's what it's all about. You know, given opportunities for disadvantaged men and women that, you know, needs their second chance to be given a career and in a IBEW apprenticeship program, you know, I, I can tell you, I myself, I've been in the IBEW for 18 years and it has changed my my life and my family to, you know, to bring up a good a career and a good family. So I urge the city council to adopt the proposal from Councilwoman Lena Gonzalez. And we look forward to the project agreement when it comes up. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Laurie Angell. I happen to live in town up here in North Long Beach, and I'm going to speak as a member of the public. I don't belong to a union. I never have, but that is not a big deal. I support the trades. I think it's important. I love apprenticeships. It's a wonderful idea. I agree 100%. I think the issues are very convoluted. I don't think it's ready for prime time. I completely agree with Suzy. I think that you're the cart's way ahead of the horse. I think you've got to pull back and you have to refer this to committee, have it cleaned up a little bit before you like rush out. I know you want to make a lot of people real happy tonight, but I just don't think you're quite ready. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Gary Curt Plumber's, local 78. I represent about 2000 members with about 100 apprentices that live in the Long Beach area. I have met your city attorney and we haven't talked about this matter, but I have the confidence in him that he'll sit down and negotiate in the city's best interest. A lot of the things that we've heard tonight are just small things that can be negotiated through. And I look forward and my members look forward. And if I have members I have members in the audience, they would stand. Please. That is the face of the community we bring within. So I appreciate the time. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Yes. Tom Guitarist, the business manager for the Insulators and Fire Stoppers I share with my colleagues at the apprenticeship program is his number one. And also they forgot to tell you that because most of the students don't go to college, all these apprenticeship programs here that are present, they get college credit for going to this apprenticeship program . So that that is really important to see that. And also since Long Beach is the home of the veterans, I'm saying let's move ahead with this thing. Let's give a better chance. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name is. My name is Ernest Roberts. I am executive director of TV Jobs. And we've been working local and disadvantage worker policies in the last 17 years. And in fact, the products, the agreements, the policies and the about the public works at the Port of L.A. are kind of modeled after our program and the high speed and the nowadays Metro Metro's policy. So we have a lot of experience in this area. And I can tell you right now a few things about what you guys are discussing, which you should kind of pay attention to. And one of them is that when you talk about local, you can't talk about positions. You really should be talking about hours. Positions gives the contractor too much leeway to be able to maneuver around. And you're not going to get what you want. We've we've experienced that and big time. And when you talk about the local hire, I would strongly urge you not to forget about the disadvantage worker and try to expand that as much as humanly possible. Because when you talk about getting a local worker person to work, yes, you're going to get the the trickle down effect for the local economy. When a person gets paid locally, when you get a disadvantaged person, including a veteran, we also consider disadvantage. Back to work. Somebody coming from you as vets, you no longer have to pay for the support of services for that individual. So you get the benefit of the trickle down economics and you save in taxpayer money when you don't have to pay those extra support of service costs. And that that includes a lot of the different at risk elements. And I would suggest that you take a close look at them. And one final thing, we found that the jobs coordinate has a jobs coordinator, and I'm not sure if that's what you meant when you were talking about a project coordinator, but a jobs coordinator is the person who is the intermediary between the local community and the nonprofit faith based organizations and the training organizations to interface with the trades and with with the contractors on the ground. You actually have to have somebody to talk to these contractors on the ground in some kind of a regular basis if you want this to be efficient. So that jobs coordinator then is kind of the the interface between all of the community and that that brings a lot of benefits to you. It brings the benefit of the bringing the local community involved to support the project that you want to commit because they're committed. Do they get something out of the project? It saves a lot of time and labor and stuff. If you have a single entity with having 18 job developers call the apprenticeship coordinator particular union. So and is and by the way all the projects we work on is usually paid for by the contractor, by the GC. It's not paid for by the, by the government. And in terms of cost of compliance, there's several ways to address that. Sometimes it's an independent contractor and sometimes it's internal, but we're available to help with because I haven't heard anything here that we haven't heard a dozen times before, and we're working with Legal Aid. If there's anything we can offer in terms of assistance, we're there for you. Oh, and do the play the field as best. Okay. Thank you. Next speaker, I'm also going to I'm going to be cutting off the speakers lest anyone behind Jeanine or she the last one. She lost one. Okay, cutting off the speaker's list. Janine's the last speaker. Next speaker. How are you guys doing today? My name is Rashad Moore. I'm a proud apprentice from Local 300. But before these guys came, I'm a resident of District six out here in Long Beach. Upon come home from incarceration, I knew that I want to get a job and change my life. I went to several programs out here and it really wasn't too many means of like a play program. So I reached out to L.A. and from that opportunity these guys gave me to play in to local hiring to resume. I was able to obtain a great job. I was able to get a career. I was able to get a house and get credit. I was able just to have an opportunity, a life which I wouldn't have had had. I not had these opportunities given to me by me being out here in Long Beach. It made a big difference for me to speak on this situation. I believe that we should definitely brain is to Long Beach and really consider how many lives we will change in this community. We're giving that opportunity to not just live in this city, but build it up, be a part of a union, and be a part of something that's meaningful in that represents not just to be a proud union member, but be a proud citizen of Long Beach. Not to say, hey, look, I was raised here. I was born here. With this play, they gave me a chance to provide for my kids, my family, you know, look at to drive down the street to say, hey, we built this and we can we can go in there, spend some money there, too. So, you know, I really think that, um, you guys really consider this movement, and it'll do great justice to this city. Thank you. Next. Next speaker. Good evening. My name. Is Kevin. I'm a resident of Long Beach. I go to when. New youth build. And I'm here to express my support for local hire. And I feel youth like myself should deserve good jobs. Good paying jobs like the construction site, construction crews. And I feel like it would help us in our future. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker. But. Good evening. My name is Albert Ramirez. I'm a job developer with Winter part of YouthBuild and just wanted to thank the youth for sticking around. They've been busy all day. You know, they're there. You know, I give them a lot of props. And also to the sisters and brothers here. It's been a very long night. But that being said, I work with youth. We service youth in Long Beach. And I see on a daily basis every day students come into my office. We work on their resume. We work on job readiness. Everything. You think of the interview process. But. The stories about how and why students want a good paying job, especially in construction, and how that can change their lives and their family lives is so critical. I hear it every day. Mr. Ramirez I want to get to work. Mr. Ramirez, what's going on with the construction? What can I do? How can I be a better person to get these jobs? And it it really hit home. And I cannot stress enough this local hire, ensuring that a strong local hire that's targeting our youth because they're our future. And I also wanted to share with you all, counsel, that we have 250 signatures in support of a strong play that has the independent job coordinator, as well as the local hire piece. That being said, we applaud all efforts. Please let us know how we can continue supporting your efforts with a strong play and local hire. Thank you. Thank you. Next week first. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Alexander Torres, Golden Seat, and I'm the executive director of Women in Nontraditional Employment Roles and the Youth Feel program that you see today. I'm here in support of the play. I want to encourage you to really look into local hiring and hiring people from Orange County and including L.A. County is not local hiring. Local hiring should be for those people who need jobs in our own communities. And that is our job. Our job as an agency. And your job is public officials to be ensure that first, our local hire are people that live here, especially in the low income communities. And I understand that there's a lot of controversy about was not including my area but I can assure you that in every council district there are kids that I have drop out of school, that there are in programs like mine that they want jobs. So it's not is not about boundaries, is about the city's citizens of Long Beach. I speak as the executive director. WYNTER But I also speak as a resident of District two. And I do want to see a strong two Tier three tier Long Beach residents local hire. Thank you very much. And our our final speaker. And then we're going to have a hello council. Janine Pearce with Lane, Los Angeles Alliance for New Economy. I'd like to really show our appreciation for a healthy discussion for the for the mayor and also for the city attorney for keeping us all straight on what was happening. Really appreciate that. I want to echo everything that everybody said before me, which is really fantastic, that we have a lot of labor groups and community groups and groups that work as job coordinators saying that the city is on the right path. I think that there's no disagreement that the intent of this policy is is a great intent. There are a couple of things that I just want to shore up on areas that we feel like could be tightened up. And at Lane, we've worked on six of these plays in L.A., around the L.A. port, around Metro, and with the city of L.A. and the things that made all three of all of those successful was that it had an exterior jobs coordinator. That it included a requirement that it wasn't a best effort. So while there was some discussion around, is this a best effort or is it a requirement, both words were used. And so we would like to ask that the city makes it a requirement that there is an attempt at that 30%, that that is a requirement and not a best effort. We would also like to make sure that the hours part is included when we talk about apprenticeships, if we're not talking about hours and there's no guarantee that those Apprentice are going to be able to finish their work. And so that part is really, really important. And the city has actually had some some legal issues around implementing plays. And these are some areas where you can make sure that you protect yourself. I think that that was all of the main issues. But let me double check. 30% targeted hiring. We do feel like that local hire piece has to be with high unemployment zip codes because this is a policy that will help address poverty in the city. But it's only that 30%. You still have 70% for the rest of the city to apply. It's not locking out anybody else in Long Beach. It's just saying, let's give these guys a first chance. And and we have experiences with Expo Line Phase one and with MLK Hospital, where they fell short when they didn't have a job coordinator and they didn't have it as a requirement. And so I'm thrilled that I know that this has been a project in the works long before many of you were on this council. And I want to thank the sponsors of this bill to make sure that this is going to actually happen on your watch. Let's make sure if we're doing this big policy that we're doing it right. And I also want to applaud the building trades and all the community groups for all their work on on bringing this to our city. So thank you. Thank you. We're going to go to a vote. I just I'm going to make I haven't made any comments are going to be a very brief comment and then we're going to go for a vote. One, I just want to just reiterate that sometimes democracy gets messy and and that's okay. And I just want to make sure that we've everyone up here has talked about things that are important to them. What I what I heard from everyone up here is general support for a citywide project labor agreement as far as how we get there. There's different viewpoints and that's okay. So I just want to make sure that I kind of that I reiterated that. And as you know, because we're in this location, it's also a little bit more difficult to for councilmembers to weigh in and. Q And so that's that creates a little bit more problems, but I think we got through that. Okay. So I want to thank everyone for that. I just want us to to remind us we're really here to do. Long Beach has and has had a very strong history with project labor agreements. You look at the port projects, you look at the airport, what we're going to do with the installation of a play at the Civic Center, which was done recently, the. History of the trades. Working with the city on labor agreements has been very strong. Quite frankly, if you look at the projects, they have come in on time. They've come in under budget or at budget. The the protection that Project Labor agreements bring to projects is incredibly strong and I strongly believe that if you look at the research that is out there right now on the value of project labor agreements, the research is incredibly clear that they provide stability, not just financial stability, but labor stability to the project. And so I think that the fact that we are going to get a city wide project labor agreement out of this discussion is a very good thing for the city of Long Beach. In addition, I want to concur on a couple of comments that talked about compliance. We have to put a lot of attention to the compliance piece because that is where we know that there are big gaps in the system currently. I think if you talk I know Mr. City Attorney, you've talked to a lot of the trades that are out there doing projects, and we know that the compliance piece is really important. And I and I needed to also mention that our city attorney has actually been doing a lot of work on this issue already. And so I want while we're all having this discussion up here, I think it's important to know that our city attorney is prepared. He has been meeting with the trades. He's been meeting with Mr. Miller and everyone else, and he's prepared to bring something back to council that is the protects the city, that is a model for for for the state of California. And that is going to ensure that we're doing projects in the right way. And so this council will have an opportunity to get the information that Charlie is going to bring back with the specifications of the agenda item. So we are at the end of the day, we are going to have a citywide project labor agreement and that's a good thing for Long Beach. So I want to with that, we're going to go ahead and go to the votes. We have a substitute substitute, which essentially is the most the main motion with the additions. The $500,000 limit is where we're at. We're going to do the annual review. And there is this option of the the compliance piece of contract of contracting that out. Right. That's the first the first part of that. So that is a substitute substitute. I'm going to call for a hand vote. All those in favor of the substitute substitute. Please raise your hand. And it's one, two, three, four, five and six. So that motion carries all those. Oppose that. Please raise your hand to oppose Mr. Clark. I believe the vote is six two. Okay. Thank you very much. And thank you all for coming out and for providing your voice to to the debate. We really appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Next up is, I'm sure another one that won't be controversial at all, which will be which will be item number 32. 30. 32. Yeah. Yeah. They asked for 32. That's right. Yeah. So we're going to just take like a one minute recess to let those that need those of you to exit the room to exit. And we're going to begin in just a minute. Okay. Which items? 32. I know. I know. I know. I know. I know. I just got to go. Well, let's just wait to. Everyone who would have known you would have died. Just kidding. But you had to stop to stop the car and go. Yeah, it was. You know, we just kept going. I just said, come on, keep going. This one was really fun. The tickets and tickets? Yeah. Yeah. Really good time. Of course. Of course. I just wanted to let him know that he still has. Most of the time he. So that's why I appreciate and that's like you said, he's really has been everyone has been doing a debate. That's right. As long as we know it's okay, it was good. And so I'm just trying to you know, I can't hear everyone very well. I'm trying to say it. It's an interesting situation. You want to go get a soda? Our. Here. Yeah, but. Somebody's got to run. Harvey Weinstein. I would love to see mix. I get really. Yeah, I know, right? Yeah. That's in the family tree. You got to take care of it. I see that. You want to get by on my way there now. Back in the classroom. Give me some. Snacks. I just think. I would. I would. 30 minutes. If he's done more equipment. Okay. We're going to we're going to restart the council meeting. We're going to restart the. So if I can have everyone take a seat. We're going to go and get started, if anyone coming forward. All right. All right, everyone. If. If you need a chat, please. Let's take it outside. We're going to start restart the council meeting. If I can have the city clerk go ahead and do roar and then we're going to adjourn from a recess. Councilman Elina Gonzalez, Vice Masuda Lowenthal. Councilwoman Suzy Pryce. Council Member Patrick O'Donnell on Time. Councilwoman Stacy Mango. Councilman Dee Andrews. Council Councilmember Roberto Durango. Councilman Al Austin. Councilmember Rex Richardson. Mayor Robert Garcia. I'm here a guys. There's a lot of kind of noise out there. So for those people that are outside, if we can either just thank you very much. And is is the air conditioner on, by the way? Yes. If we can maybe crank that on and it's pretty hot up here, so that would be great. So we're going to Mr. or Madam Kirk, can you read the next item which we're doing? We're doing 32 and then we've had a request to move up. I believe it's item 22, which is the school district item. What is it? Well, I've been I'm only going by the by the request that I've officially received. So. Next item is 32 and I'll figure out what the other requests are after that. So item number 32, Madam Clerk. Item 32 Communication from Councilmember Richardson, Councilwoman Gonzalez, Councilman Andrews and Councilman Austin. Recommendation to request City Manager to work with the Director of Economic and Economic and Property Development to create a policy and to allocate all proceeds from the sale of city owned properties to fund and track properties.