Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03011988 - IO.5 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS FROM: Cz ltra INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE DATE: February 22 , 1988 SUBJECT: Prevailing Wage (Living Wage) Ordinance SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. In view of the opinion from County Counsel that the County cannot use its police powers to compel a private builder to pay prevailing wages as a condition for receiving a planning entitlement from the County, we recommend that this issue be tabled and that no action be .taken , by the Board at this time. 2 . As the Board of Directors of the Contra Costa Redevelopment Agency, direct County Counsel to prepare and return to our Committee a policy statement that would allow the agency to impose a living wage ordinance on development and disposition agreements (DDA' s) for projects within the Redevelopment Agency. This policy should be returned to our Committee on April 25 , 1988 for further review. 3 . Remove this item as a referral t:o our Committee. BACKGROUND: Our Committee has had under review .for some time a proposed draft ordinance from the Building and Construction Trades Council which would allow the County to require the payment of the prevailing wage in private construction work. Our Committee sought the views of County Counsel on the proposed draft ordinance. County Counsel issued an opinion dated January 4, 1988 which concluded that implementation of the ordinance "does not appear to be a valid exercise of the police power. " The ordinance proposed that applicants for planning entitlements and building permits would have to demonstrate that they were complying with the economic benefits provision of the ordinance. This involves the payment of the prevailing wage or a showing that through local hiring sufficient economic benefits will accrue to the community. County Counsel discussed this opinion with our Committee on February 22, 1988. In attendance were several representatives of the Central Labor' Council, the Building and . Construction Trades Council, the Building Industry Association, the Associated General Contractors, and several other labor and industry CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: __ YES SIGNATURE; RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _X RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD .COMMITTEE _X_ APPROVE / OTHER SIGNATURE(S): Sunne W. McPeak Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD .ON _March 1 1988 - t.-PPROVED AS REC:4AMENDEO X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS E 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 LARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. cc: Listed on Page 2 ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELOR. CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY M382/7-83 ,DEPUTY — Page 2 representatives. The BIA legal representatives also filed a legal opinion with our Committee which reached many of the same conclusions as did County Counsel. The Building and Construction Trades Council requested additional time to have their legal counsel review County Counsel' s opinion. County Counsel draws a careful distinction' between the County' s exercise of its police powers through the issuance of planning entitlements and the County entry into a contractural relationship on a voluntary basis with a contractor who wishes to develop land under the County' s (or Redevelopment Agency' s) control. In its exercise of its police powers, the County is. compelling action by a developer or builder when the developer or builder has no choice but to comply in order to develop or construct a private development on private property. In such cases, the County Counsel believes the County cannot impose compliance with a prevailing wage ordinance on the developer or builder. However, in the case of development and disposition agreements (DDA' s) , the County is acting more like a private party in entering into a contractural relationship with a developer or builder. In this case, the developer or builder is under no obligation to contract with the County. As a result, compliance with a prevailing wage ordinance becomes a voluntary action on the part of the developer or builder and is thus more likely to be sustained by the courts. Based on these discussions, we agree that there is nothing further the Board of Supervisors can do to enforce the prevailing wage ordinance as a part of the County' s exercise of its police powers. However, we do want to explore the possibility of including compliance with the prevailing wage as a * condition of DDA' s within the County' s Redevelopment Agency projects and are thus recommending that the Board ask County Counsel to prepare such a policy for further review by our Committee. County Administrator County Counsel Community Development Director Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Agency Dean LaField, BIA Greg Feere, Bldg. & Con. Trades Council Steve Roberti, Central Labor Council