HomeMy WebLinkAboutR02-Redevelopment Agency
. R~VELOPMENT AGENCY.&ueST FOR 9..1SSION/COUNCIL AQION
~m:
"'t:
Subject:
PREVAn.mG WAGE RATE STUDY
Glenda Saul, Executive Director
Redevelopment Agency
Dam: October 14, 1986
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council ection:
1/13/86
2/l7/86
3/3/86
3/17/86
4/7/86
S/S/86
Held Hearing - Directed agency staff to seek proposals for study and to
ascertain practices of their redevelopment agencies.
Received City Administrator's report. Received two proposals for
prevailing wage study. Continued to 3/3/86. Instructed staff to confer
with State College to propose a prevailing wage study.
Continued to March 7, 1986.
Continued to April 7, 1986.
Continued to May S, 1986.
Commission authorized agreement with Data Gathering Center, California
State University for consultant services to present report within 90 days.
(<XlNT,DI.UED ON PAGE 2)
Recommended motion:
(<XlMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION)
o
To be determined by COllllliss1on after receipt of report by Committee (report should be
delivered with Supplemental Agenda Friday afternoon).
~M
/
Signature
Contact person:
Glenda Saul
Phone: 383-5081
ALL
Ward:
ALL
Project:
Date: October 20, 1986
Supporting date attached:
YES
Amount: $
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
No adverse Impact on City:
Oncil Noms:
163.5G/SL
10/14/86
Agenda Item No. --1(.2-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Synopsis of Previous Commission/Council Action:
(Continued from page 1)
7/l8/86 Data Gathering Services request for 30 day extension presented to
Redevelopment Committee - Committee unanimously recommended denial.
8/4/86 Commission agreed to extend submittal time 4S days to 9/23/86.
8/18/86 Resolution #49l6 amended agreement - extending submittal date to 9/23/86.
lO/6/86 Determination continued to 10/20/86 with directive to meet with
appropriate representatives to negotiate a compromise position.
l63SG/SL
lO/l4/86
- -
. CIT9 OF SAN BERNARDIA - REQU&Q- FOR COUNCIL AC,Q,N
o
o
o
7~D264
STAFF REPORT
BacltgrOUDd
In November of 1985, the Council/COIIlIIl1ssion set a hearing for January 13, 1986 to
consider Agency staff's recollllllendation that the requirement for the payment of
Prevailing Wage Rates be omitted from Agency developmental agreements in all
cases, but those mandated by State and Federal statutes. California State
University was contracted to perform a study that would include, among other
things, the following:
l. The effect on family income and standard of living of contractors and
workers in the trade.
2. The effect on the IIlUltiplier effect and other economic considerations of
the collllllUll1ty.
3. The effect on Redevelopment Agency and City budgets.
It.- The effect on the City's ability to attract development.
5. The effect on minority, women and small businesses.
On October 6, 1986 the COllllllission reviewed Cal State University's study on the
short and long range effects of requiring Prevailing Wage Rates to be paid on
Agency/City related agreements. The Commission deferred action on the issue until
October 20, 1986 and directed Staff, City and Agency to meet with appropriate
labor and business representatives to negotiate a compromise position.
Compromise Negotiations
On October 10, 1986 a meeting was held in the Agency Conference Room. The
following were present:
Councilman Quiel; Councilwoman Estrada; Councilman Marks; Lou Yeager, President of
the Chamber of Commerce; Glenda Saul, Executive Director, Redevelopment Agency;
Gill Snyder, representing the chamber of Commerce; bill Wood, Chamber of Commerce;
Jim Pence, Penco Builders; Lon Indrieri, California Assoc. Builders & Contractors;
George Romero, Romero Framing Inc.; Joe Doyle, IBEW 1477; Joe Bouadiman, Chamber
of Commerce; Roger Hardgrave, City Public Works; Carl Waelder, Waalder Realty
Company; Phil Arvizo; Richard Benneck, Mayor's office; Allen R. Bd,ggs, City
Attorney's Office; Charles Montgomery, Labor Local 783; Ron Seltorski, I.U.O.E.
112; Joe Perez, San Bernardino/R1verside County Building Trades Council; Sam
Catalano, C. C. Dev. Co.; Roger Hardgrave, City of San Bernardino.
Councilwoman Estrada recommended a five (5) year moratorium on the Prevailing Wage
Rate plicy where not required by State and Federal statute - with full monitoring
of projects where Prevailing Wage Rates are required. She further felt that
within 3-5 years, we should evaluate its progress. Councilman Quiel concurred.
l635G/SL
10/14/86
. CIT() OF SAN BERNARDIO - REQUECJ FOR COUNCIL ACTON
o
o
o
75..0264
STAFF REPORT
Councilman Marks felt that Prevailing Wage Rates should still apply to offsite
mprovements. He felt that he could agree to a moritorium for a certain period of
time, if the Committee on both sides would agree. He also wanted a determination
as to "market wage".
Staff has drafted certain sections of minutes of this meeting for review by the
Councilpersons and labor. It is anticipated that a recolDlllendation will be
forthcoming for the Supplemental Agenda.
The Study
For your ease of reference the following is an extract of the report submitted to
you on October 6, 1986, relating to the study itself.The study does not offer any
recolDlllendation, but does instead offer various options for consideration. These
options are set forth on pages 5-8.
Staff's analysis of the study indicates a confirmation of its own support for
rep~i!1g the e:dsting policy directive. In reviewing Option D - Repeal of the
Existing Policy, the only two adverse impacts cited are also well qualified - i.e.:
1)
Adverse affect on Unions and Union contractors.
The University goes on to explain that this option would result in the
greatest amount of "income redistribution from unions to open shop".
2)
Repeal may adversely affect overall quality of construction.
The University suggested and we agree, that every effort should be made
to insure high quality of construction. Performance bonda could be
required on all developmental agreements.
The positives to the repeal of the current policy directive includes:
l. Agency would have a better competitive edge (pages 3l, 32).
2. Overall local economic growth would tend to increase (pages 28, 29, 31).
3. Minority/women and open shop firms and workers would then have mproved
opportunities for participation (pages 28, 34-38).
Staff recently conducted a sampling of public works CDBG projects over the past
six years. The results indicate that approximately l8% of employees hired on
these projects were San Bernardino residents, 42% lived in our outlining cities
(20 mile radius) and 40% live beyond the 20 mile radius.
The University points out in the Economic Analysis section (pages l5-31) of their
study, that staff's proposal to drop prevailing wage requirements where not
mandated would only affect a small portion of the local construction activity
(page 19). They explain further that while dropping the policy would, in itself,
cause a negative short-term influence on construction income, it is not
necessarily the case that aggregate union construction income would decline. In
the long run, the impact would appear to be modestly positive (page 27).
l635G/SL
lO/l4/86
J
-
. CIT9 OF SAN BERNARDIA - REQUEQ FOR COUNCIL AC,o.N
o
STAFF REPORT
Staff aupports the elimination of the policy directive.
Reco_dation
To be brought forth by the Committee on Prevailing Wage Rates on Friday afternoon
and to be delivered with the Supplemental Agenda.
o
o
l635G/SL
10/14/86
7S.D264