tv [untitled] November 10, 2010 2:30am-3:00am PST
mayor's office of economic workforce development and economic agencies. there have also been studies that have shown what the makeup of our workforce is, so they are there to give both an idea of how we might want to construct this legislation as we move forward. we know already there are so many franciscans out of work, and we know there are communities that have not always have access to education or job opportunities. we notices one way to still be
blue-collar carrier -- blue- collar. as a city, we need to do better. i have been working with policy makers to draft this ordinance for the construction industry that will save 50% local hiring requirement on the public works. the plan would make real the current goal of 50% local hire ring, and substituting the requirement with a mandate to meet gulf the rise in the next few years. developers and contractors can be awarded incentives, including points on future projects and penalties for failing to meet the goal. the reasons for supporting local hiring are numerous. there are many public works projects that will be in the pipeline.
it is important we make sure the dollars we invest in these projects can stay in san francisco and support local communities, so i want to call up representatives from -- we have not rest with the office of economic workforce development common region we have chris from the office of economic work force of -- we have chris from the office of work-force development. after these speakers, i want to talk about the makeup of the legislation. >> good afternoon, madam chair. i am with the office of economic and work-force development. we want to get started. i would like to outline what the presentation is today and set the framework so we could begin this important legislation, and
thank you for calling this informational hearing. i think it is timely and would give people an opportunity to hear what is happening over the next year. i first want to thank supervisor avalos for his leadership and really listening to all the stakeholders and giving us time to do till the -- due diligence. i think it has been valuable to help us get to this point. the first presentation will be done by our consulting team. we will also look at the city academy. we have a couple of specific projects and getting through the actual pipeline, what has happened over the past five years, and lastly we will talk about some of our discussions with other city departments in
having some broad recommendations for improvement. one of the first things commission was the bright line study, which primarily focused on the building trade and their membership in makeup. there are also 26 public work projects. the second thing we're going to perform his in depth analysis on construction trade. he was very much a part of that, and i want to thank the redevelopment agency for helping us do this study. it is really a collaborative effort to put together this
study. we are going to examine the academic impact, but its lens into how these programs impact redevelopment whir, and the stakeholder process will be conducted in partnership with private foundations, which really kept together the primary stakeholders, and those were community representatives. the employers, contractors, and building space, and i think it was a unique form to give all of
you in our room together and to provide the best ideas and discuss this topic. that is a brief overview of where we are our region we are at. -- a brief summary of where we are. >> have we had this kind of information before? >> we have not superior region we have not. this has presented a great opportunity. your we have not done a great look into this. for the most part, everybody has been trying to achieve as much as they can. as a contractor was doing 30%, and we said you are not in
compliance, we did not have anything to base it on three good -- to base it on. we have a very grave snapshot of what local availability of construction workers are right now -- a very good snapshot of what local availability for construction workers is. >> i want to thank you it is really great for a city. thank you so much. >> i think the mayor's office commissioned a study, but i think all of us have shown interest in to making sure we are hiring locally. >> we have been working on it a long time. >> i would like to introduce dr.
lester. >> good afternoon common and supervisors. i want to -- good afternoon, supervisors. the first thing we are going to do is get the powerpoint going. our charge was basically to analyze data from several sources to provide as clear an assessment of the work force and then to generate and then to provide a number of jobs over the next decade, so this afternoon i am trying to confine this presentation to the highlights of our findings that are most pertinent to the recently introduced hiring policy. we're going to take a look of the san francisco residents currently employed in
construction as of june of this year. we estimate this number to be about 7855 people, and these include union, non-union, public sector, and private sector as well as workers who work primarily on residential projects. about 70% of these are laborers , carpenters, or pagers. 16% are plumbers, and the remaining is distributed through trade. we found out that many of these workers actually work in san francisco with a little less than a quarter of them working in the surrounding bay area counties. it is important to note this 7855 number does not include any unemployed workers. the state employment development department does not maintain data on unemployment specifically for san francisco
construction workers, but they did report that construction unemployment increase to 18.1% in 2009, far exceeding almost any other sector and between 2006 and 2010 the combined counties have launched new -- have lost nrly 14,000 construction jobs. we are also -- we also took a look at some of the demographics of these workers. this is an aging work force. about 40% of these workers are over the age of 35, and 25% are over the age of 50. the construction work force is about 1/3 caucasian, a little less than 1/3 asian/pacific island, and 5% african american.
only about 3% are when then -- are women. found 51% reported annual earnings of less than $30,000 a year, and it was revealed 2/3 of these workers actually appear to received low wages. in other words, they receive low earnings due to being paid relatively low wages as compared to the third but was under employed or work less than 30 hours a week. >> they you have any idea how the work force is aged in other -- do you have any idea how the work force is aids in other regions in california? are they under -- work force in other regions in california? are they under 35? >> that is not uncommon.
>> i always thought this work force made better wages. >> the was something that was -- how did we do that? that is something that is very interesting when we look into this group. this includes people who are on the employed when we look at the data, so we figured -- as you know, there are large numbers of workers in construction that do not make prevailing wage. they do all types of work, and for the most part, a lot of these workers are paid relatively low wages. >> these are usually non-union workers? >> that is correct. >> did you make any distinction between non-union and union workers, or are they all lumped
together? >> for this particular data, they are all lumped together. we did not have a good reference point or a source to make a distinction between how many could be union and how many could be non-union. >> the union folks -- did you approach and they did not have the information? >> the study did not include a survey of the building. now we are going to shift to a subset of san francisco resident workers, and these are active apprentices. now there are five trains that are most common among the carpenters. reserve five trains that are
most common among carpenters. the apprentices are almost evenly divided among the major ethnic groups in san francisco, and women are better represented, comprising about 10% of this population. due to the large number of older look to see how many local residents were entering apprenticeship programs, even though we understand this is just a slice of the new entrants. this charts as the history of san francisco resident apprentice in takes over the last 10 years. when we compare the number of san francisco resident apprentices coming in between 2000 and 2009 to the number of san francisco apprentices that city billed directly ushered into apprenticeship programs, we found that by 2009, 44% of the san francisco resident in texas could be directly attributed to the city build program.
the next slide -- this is the one everyone has enjoyed focusing on. it provides a picture of the overall resident hiring on city and county projects over the last 13 months. the total project hours. 14% were worked by san francisco resident journey people, and 6% were worked by san francisco resident apprentices. a further look reveals that 21% of the jury hours were worked by san francisco residents, but 59% of the apprentice hours were worked by san francisco resident apprentices. this is a composite picture. behind these numbers, there is significant variation in the participation percentage of san francisco residents.
it varies from project to project and varies greatly from trade to trade. looking just at the journey people who are working on city and county projects, the trades that accounted for the greatest number of hours on these projects were laborers, carpenters, and dry wall finishers, capers, and plumbers. you can see the percentages for these highest demand trades that were san francisco journey workers. journey workers working on city and county projects are coming from neighborhoods across the city. the largest numbers seem to be coming from bayview, hunters point, in the side, excelsior, and mission-burn all heights. -- engleside, excelsior, and mission-bernal heights. this is not taking into account the number of hours they worked on the city and county projects.
it is a different view. we did a thing -- the same thing for apprentices. the trades that accounted for the apprentices in the greatest work hours on city and county projects are almost the same as for the journey people, but in a somewhat different order. this slide shows the percentage of the overall hours in each of these trades worked by san francisco resident apprentices. again, the view -- this is the second view of the trades with the highest percentage of hours worked by san francisco residents, no matter how many those hours are. it gives you a different view of what is happening. similar to the journey workers, the apprentices are coming -- have a similar neighborhood distribution, similar to the journey workers. the largest number come from debut, hunters point, engleside, and excelsior. we're going to shift gears and look at the demand side.
regenerative work force projections for skilled trades based on the 10-year capital plan to give us a view of the magnitude and type of work the city will be generating over the next 10 years. we estimate the total workforce need to be around 59,664 full- time equivalents, with the greatest demand during the first five years. that averages about 7680 full- time equivalent annually. the stickers off to about 4251 workers annually for the later five years. the five trades in greatest demand throughout this entire period are estimated to be laborers, cement mixers, teamsters, and drivers. these are based on the upcoming work. they are not based on the entire universe of construction work that will take place. the 10-year plan does not capture many redevelopment
agency projects, nor any project sponsored by the mayor's office of housing. it does not include any of the privately sponsored construction work, including such large projects as mission bay or the potential expansion of california pacific medical center. there were a lot of findings that raise a number of issues related to local hiring policy. the following are the four that we felt were the most prominent. the first is demand. we believe that the work force projection, and really the aging of the work force, educate their is a significant demand for workers over the next 10 years. in terms of supplier availability, unemployment among san francisco resident construction workers and incumbent workers with low earnings signal an ample pool of president construction workers. in terms of local hire targets,
currently 27% of the construction hours are going to san francisco residents on city and county projects via a good faith effort. there is a city pipeline to direct san francisco pipelines to jobs. initial local hire is 20 by%. that seems completely doable. the supply of workers could increase over time. the other aspect of moving people into these jobs is the pipeline. it seems that city built, the city construction workforce program, does provide the requisite infrastructure to support expanded local hire. in closing, our work certainly revealed that the mandatory nature in the inclusion of contractors incentives, and a number of other provisions in the proposed san francisco local hiring construction policy, are definitely cutting edge.
this concludes my portion of this presentation. i look forward to your questions. supervisor avalos: thank you, ms. lester. mr. rodriguez is going to talk about the city build program, work force development, and the pipeline. >> i am the director of city build from the department of economic and work force development. with this presentation, i will give you a sybil's of active projects that san francisco is currently under -- i will give you examples of two active project san francisco is currently working on. we will measure the participation rate by individual trade unions. the numbers that were presented in both the caa bright line study and the labor market analysis really spoke to the total participation on the given
project, not each individual breakdown of how each trade is doing. i wanted to spend just a little bit of time talking about what that looks like on current projects. then i will look at where some of the challenges are. last, i will talk a little bit about the infrastructure we have in place in terms of trying to increase the pool of workers in san francisco who are capable, trained, and qualified to perform work here in san francisco. the first project a wanted to spend a little time on is the san francisco public utility commission headquarter building just down the street. it is a $200 million project. just to give you a sense of the size, it is about 8% in terms of where we are in construction. today, we have had about 35
subcontractors. thinking of the legislation, it would be subject to the mandatory participation rate. we estimate over 100 additional subcontractors will come on to this project to complete this building. the total hours worked are just about 63,500. the total hours worked on this project that have been submitted to the city. the will retract is ours is that the contractors as a requirement -- the way we will track these hours is that the contractors as the requirement must provide a certified payroll to the city electronically. before, they were xerox and copies of their payroll reports. we now have that on an almost real-time basis. we know how the project is done. from this perspective, about 30% to date of 8% work complete is being performed by san francisco residents. if we take it down to the next
level and look at specifically each trade package that has been bid out and is currently under construction, you get a sense of some of the types of trade that have touched that project to date, what some of the hours are, and what the total workforce is. this number changes on a week by week basis as more folks come in. you may need more glazers, plasterers, laborers. the numbers continue to fluctuate. this gives you a sense that these particular trade unions are all at 30% or higher, meeting the minimum requirements that are being proposed in the legislation. next, i wanted to talk about those trades that are other trades that have been working on the project and may not be at the 30%. again, you have plumbers, pile drivers. clearly, they are not
registering san francisco residence. if you look at the hours, clearly they are not -- these types of trade or trade packages are not generating the bulk of the hours. right now, you are seeing the ironworkers. think of the construction of the building if you pass by it. a lot of regard is going up on the building. clearly, they represent the largest portion of workers to date on that. you get a sense of the percentages on there. next, i wanted to focus on different types of projects. clearly, the type, level, and complexity of construction projects in san francisco are important to look at. we sought a $200 million project. now i want to spend a little time walking you through the results around some of the construction of our libraries in our various their goods. supervisor avalos: before you go on i want to ask if you are going to be able to summarize what you see the difference is, even within the puc project,
between some of the trades showing higher local hiring and versus those that are not. what is happening differently there? compare that to the other projects you're going to show us. they were able to achieve in certain areas higher levels. >> let me go to the library project and then i will speak to that question. not all the projects that have been part of the san francisco branch library improvement project are in the data set i am sharing with you. we are only going to look at eight examples. some of the previous libraries that were built prior to us mandating the system of collecting the data, we do not have it electronically. i will give you a sense of some of the projects that are being performed in the libraries. it gives you a sense of these libraries and where they are with respect -- again, this is total hours. it is the percentage of san
francisco residents having worked on them. in this case, all the library's that we have data for that are either currently completed in construction -- that are either currently oregon completed in construction that represent greater than 60% local production. why are these as low as 16% and as high as 63%? there are all over the map. when you look at construction in san francisco and how we encourage local higher percentages of san francisco residents, it is a combination of strategies we years. one is the city policy around encouraging the use of local business enterprises, our lbe programs. with many of these based in san francisco, the vast majority employee san francisco residents as core work force. a greater number of lbe
participation translates into a higher number of residents working on them. equally, the challenge was smaller projects is that many contractors will win a bid, will come to work, and bring their core group. that means there will not need any additional workers to perform a set of tasks, a scope of work. when there are no opportunities to hire additional focus on to the project, our office is not in a position under good faith to provide that contractor with any new workers. they do not need it. they came in to perform the work. they came in with their core crew of 10, 5, or 20. whatever that number is. there were no new opportunities created where we could try to move the needle. those are some of the aspects we look at. when we work with contractors, before they even assemble onto the site, we work with them in
multiple ways. we encourage the private contractor, the general, to hire lbe's. we say goes through your core work force and look at the folks who have been employed by your company. looking at the collective bargaining agreements, for example -- a carpentry company could look to see if they have hired any san francisco residents prior, and assign those individuals on to the project. it is assigning the core members they have worked with previously and assigning them to this work. ultimately, the other aspect we do is we work with contractors who are doing public court in san francisco to maximize the opportunities of bringing on apprentices onto a project site. all our public works projects currently by state law requires that, a maximum of 20%