HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 11191991 - 1.38 TOS BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Victor J. Westman; County Counsel C=tra
CostaDATE: November 14, 1991 '� C��(�^
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Di ision 526 of the County Ordinance Code
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
Recommendation: Introduce, waive first reading, and fix December
3, 1991 , for adoption of the Ordinance Amending Division 526 of the
County Ordinance Code.
Background:
On August 21 , 1990, the Board adopted Ordinance No. 90-72,
providing for prevailing wage standards for industrial facilities
construction. On December 17 , 1990, the Chamber of Commerce of the
United States filed a suit in the U.S . District Court challenging ,
the County' s ordinance. As the Board members know, the U.S .
District Court ruled against the County on June 21, 1991, and that
case is now on appeal .
In the District Court, the Chamber contended that the
ordinance applied to the employees of industrial owners if those
employees performed maintenance or repair work, site preparation;
or participated in work on refinery "turnarounds . " The County
submitted a declaration from Harvey Bragdon and a letter from the
County Counsel' s office confirming that the ordinance did not cover
routine maintenance and site preparation work performed by such
employees . Nevertheless, the Chamber persisted in claiming that
the ordinance did apply to the regular employees of industrial
owners .
We believe that the Board intended the ordinance only to apply
to construction workers, not to the regular employees of industrial
owners . The only time when the ordinance would apply to the
employees of an industrial owner would be if the owner acts as its
own general contractor and directly hires construction workers .
In order to resolve this issue before the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeal, we are recommending that the Board adopt the enclosed .
amendment. This amendment is not intended to Change the operative
effect of the ordinance as it was originally adopted, but to
clarify a matter that may have caused some confusion.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF OARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE S :
ACTION OF BOARD ON NOV 19 1991 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
AYES; NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
NOV 19 1991
CC: ATTESTED
PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
M382/7-83 BY
,DEPUTY