PSAs in Action
Over 29 school bond measures in California are covered by PSAs. Many have been renewed to cover new bonds, concrete evidence that school board members who have experience with PSAs are enthusiastic about the benefits provided.
Case Studies: Project Stabilization Agreements with Local Hire
Los Angeles Unified School District
Los Angeles Unified School District has approved project stabilization agreements for all of its last five bond measures, from 2003 to 2008. Together these measures provide a total of $27.1 billion for the District’s multi-year construction and major rehabilitation plan, the nation’s largest construction project, exceeding the Tennessee Valley Authority. The success of the District’s construction projects has earned them an AAA bond rating.
Dollar amount: $7 billion for Measure Q / $27.1 billion for all the measures combined.
Local hire goals: At least 50% of Project Work must be performed by residents of the District.
Local hire outcomes (since July 2004):
| Bond Measure Funds | School District Residents Hired on Project | LA County Residents Hired on Project | Estimated Wages and Benefits Reinvested into the City | |
| School Bond Measures 2003-2008 | $27,100,000,000 | 19,509 | 41,907 | $780,400,000 |
Data current as of March 2009. | Source: Los Angeles Unified School District
Pre-Apprenticeship Outcomes: The “We Build” pre-apprentice program has graduated 905 participants. In 2008, before the economic downturn, 75% of graduates who wanted to make construction a career were fully employed in construction jobs.
Small business participation goal: 25%
Small business participation outcome: 58% ($1.86 billion)
“I was 12 years on the school board and 12 years as a teacher. As you know, LA Unified passed 5 bonds totaling over $20 billion. After five bonds, our PSA has provided stability; no work stoppages and apprenticeship programs that have had high math skills for our construction in the 21st Century and also provided fiscal responsibility.”
- David Tokofsky, LAUSD Board Member, 1995-2008
Los Angeles Community College District
In 2006, the Los Angeles Community College District approved a project stabilization agreement for its bond measures, A and AA which provide over $2 billion for new construction, renovation and rehabilitation.
Dollar amount: Over $2 billion
Local hire goals:
- 30% of all skilled trade positions, including apprentices, will be workers residing within the District.
- 20% of these workers will be “at-risk” persons.
Local hire outcomes:
- 32% of all workers employed on the project are District residents.
- “At-risk” District residents employed has exceeded the goal by 50%.
| Bond Measure Funds | School District Residents Hired on Project | Residents from within Project Zip Code Hired on Project | At-risk Workers Hired on Project | |
| Proposition A/AA | $2,200,000,000 | 5,085 | 833 | 571 |
Data current as of October 28, 2008. | Source: Los Angeles Community College District
Small business participation goal: Good faith effort
Small business participation outcome: 61% ($836 million)
Take a New Look! Los Angeles Community College District 2006-2007 Annual Report to the Community
Port of Oakland
Adopted in 2000, the Maritime and Aviation Project Labor Agreement covers the Capital Improvement Program for the Port’s Aviation and Maritime areas, the Port’s modernization programs – Vision 2000 and the Airport Terminal Expansion Project, major maintenance and the Port tenant’s construction activities.
Local hire goals:
- 50% of all hours worked will be residents of the Local Impact Area (defined as Alameda, Emeryville, Oakland and San Leandro). If sufficient and qualified workers from the Local Impact Area are not available then residents of the Port’s Local Business Area (defined as Alameda County and Contra Costa County) will be hired to achieve this goal.
- The project will use Community-based organizations or State-approved apprenticeship or training programs as a “First Source’ for hiring qualified or qualifiable local residents, especially applicants from groups that have been historically disadvantaged in construction industry employment opportunities.
Local hire outcomes:
- 3.5 million craft hours worked total.
- 31% or 1.1 million hours performed by Local Impact Area residents.
- 59.5% or 2.1 million hours performed by Local Impact Area and Local Business Area residents.
- 12.8% of worker hours were completed by apprentices.
- 6.2% of worker hours completed by apprentices from the Local Impact Area (LIA).
| Project Hours | Percent of total | Goal | |
| Total Hours Worked | 3,543,106 | 100% | |
| LIA Residents | 1,094,733 | 30.90% | 50% |
| LIA/LBA Residents | 2,103,435 | 59.37% | 50% |
| Total Apprentices | 447,000 | 12.6% | 20% |
| LIA Apprentices | 215,154 | 6.07% | 20% |
| LIA/LBA Apprentices | 334,068 | 9.43% | 20% |
LIA: Cities of Oakland, Alameda, Emeryville, and San Leandro. | LIA/LBA: Counties of Alameda and Contra Costa, including LIA Cities. | Data current as of June 2008. | Source: Port of Oakland
I had the privilege of working on this PLA. The PLA at the Port of Oakland had a goal of 50% local hires and we ended up surpassing that goal to nearly 60%. Both union and non union contractors bid and worked on the projects.
- Charles Bradshaw, PSA Coordinator
Los Angeles Department of Public Works
Residents in Los Angeles complained about the lack of employment opportunities for them on the $218 million Los Angeles City Hall renovation and reconstruction project. A resulting audit showed that only 2% of worker hours on the project were performed by local residents. In response, the LA Department of Public Works passed a policy requiring PSAs for major projects.
The contract for the North Outfall Sewer East Central Interceptor Sewer was awarded on Jan 30, 2001 for $280 million to construct a sewer tunnel 11 miles in length with diameters ranging from 8-11 feet extending form east of the Los Angeles River to Baldwin Hills. The interceptor was placed into service 3 weeks before schedule and came in 8% below budget.
Dollar amount: $280 million
Local hire goals: 40% of all work performed should be done by City of Los Angeles residents.
Local hire outcomes:
- 37% of hires were City of Los Angeles residents.
- 67% of those were defined as “at-risk”.
Following the success of this first project, the LADPW has over $7 billion in public works projects subject to PLAs. Prior to the implementation of the PLAs, an audit of total worker hours on LADPW projects showed that less then 2% of hours were performed by local residents.
Local hire outcomes:
- 23% of all journeyman hours were completed by LA City residents.
- 10.4% of all apprentice hours were completed by LA City residents.
- Over $41 million in wages paid to LA City resident PLA workers.
| Project Name | Construction Cost | Local Residents Hired on Project | Total Apprentices Hired on Project | Estimated Wages and Benefits Reinvested into the City |
| NEIS/ECIS Interceptor Sewers | $440,000,000 | 415 | 482 | $18,903,025 |
| New Police Administration Building | $230,000,000 | 797 | 596 | $10,563,911 |
| Metro Detention Center | $74,000,000 | 477 | 437 | $5,379,802 |
| Harbor Police Station | $35,000,000 | 270 | 309 | $1,416,888 |
| Hollenbeck Police Station | $31,000,000 | 351 | 230 | $337,178 |
| Fire Station 64 | $12,000,000 | 113 | 107 | $3,569,347 |
| Ave. 45/ Arroyo Drive Sewer Relief | $43,000,000 | 38 | 23 | $659,102 |
| New Police Administration Parking | $66,000,000 | 145 | 123 | $645,402 |
| Total | $931,000,000 | 2,606 | 2,307 | $41,474,654 |
Data current as of December 2008. Note that some projects are not completed. | Source: City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works.
“11 years ago we were able to implement our first major PLA with a local hire component. The success of the program clearly showed that apprenticeship utilization through indentured joint apprentice committee programs can provide careers, opportunity and economic growth within our community.
Today I am proud to say that our PLAs have generated well over $42 million back into our communities as well as over 2,500 jobs for local constituents. I am an advocate of PLAs. I see the benefits collectively in partnership with your communities and school district. I think this is a win-win for the 2 agencies to merge together collectively and exercise your heart in providing opportunities and jobs for those that deserve those opportunities.”
- Manuel Perez, Labor Compliance Director,
City of Los Angeles Public Works
California School Bond Measures Covered by Project Stabilization Agreements
- Albany Unified School District – Measure A; 2005
- Alum Rock Elementary School District; 2009
- Chabot-Las Positas Community College District – Seven Projects Funded by Measure B; 2006
- City College of San Francisco – Proposition A after February 2005; 2005
- Compton Unified School District – Remainder of Measure I; 2005
- Del Norte Unified School District – New and Modernization Projects; 2007
- East Side Union High School District (San Jose) – Measure G; 2003
- Foothill-DeAnza Community College District – Measure C; 2008
- Hartnell Community College (Salinas) – Measure H – Five Small Contracts; 2004
- Los Angeles Community College District – Proposition A; 2001
- Los Angeles Unified School District – Proposition BB, Measures K, Y, Q; 1999, 2003
- Marin Community College District; 2008
- Mt. Diablo Unified School District – Certain Projects Over $2 Million for One Year; 2007
- Mt. Diablo Unified School District – Pilot Project – Prototypical Classrooms 2006 1 and 2; 2006
- Oakland Unified School District – Measure A after February 2004; 2004
- Peralta Community College District – Vista Campus (Measure E); 2004
- Pittsburg Unified School District – All Work Over $1 Million/Measure E; 2005
- Rancho Santiago Community College District (Orange County) – Measure E; 2003
- Rio Hondo Community College District (Whittier) – Measure A; 2005
- Sacramento City Unified School District – Remainder of Measures E and I; 2005
- San Diego Unified School District; 2009
- San Francisco Unified School District – Prop A; 2006
- San Jose/Evergreen Community College District; 2006
- San Leandro Unified School District – Measure B; 2007
- San Mateo Community College District – Proposition C; 2002
- San Mateo Union High School District – San Mateo High School Modernization I and II; 2002
- Santa Ana Unified School District; 2000-2005
- Solano County Community College District – Measure G – Certain Larger Projects; 2004
- Vallejo City Unified School District – Measure A; 2001
- West Contra Costa Unified School District – Measure E, Measure M, Measure D; 2000-2005