CCMIN022096 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Tarvet asked if the League Board had taken a position on this? It is unusual for it to take a position before the policy committees had considered the matter or information given to the cities. Mr. Lure referred to a letter from the League that discusses its position. Staff did not know how the League reached that position. Mr. Pico wanted to know the urgency on this item. Mr. Lure indicated public comment had to be submitted by 2/27/96. Tom Powers, 80 Nicholl Avenue, Richmond, California, represented the Contra Costa and Alameda County Building and Construction Trade Councils and indirectly those 150,000 individuals who work in the construction industry in the Bay Area. He urged Council to adopt a resolution similar to that adopted by the Mayors Conferences in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in support of the existing program. CalTrans estimates this will have a savings of only 1.6% on its projects. The prevailing wage program has been in effect since 1931. He indicated that in the southern California earthquake repair projects, the prevailing wage public works program came in under budget and ahead of schedule. The State of CaLifornia is in the lower third in terms of costs of public works projects, yet is in the upper third in terms of safety and on-time construction and lack of cost overruns. Construction workers do not nn:~ke a lot of money (approximately $30,000 per year) so the amount of money they make is going to be lost to the economy if these changes are made. Skilled labor represents 25 % to 35 % of the costs of construction. This prevailing wage program has allowed construction trades to develop skilled workers who are trained, know the rules, and provide safe working conditions. The estimate of savings mentioned will be smaller in urban areas because they are primarily paid prevailing wages because of union organizations. A change in the prevailing wage policy may not change the project costs to the city but will have an impact on the safety on the job, the quality of construction, and overall costs. He did not believe the costs savings should be at the expense of the workers. It was moved by Mr. Tarver, seconded by Ms. Dennis, to adopt the resolution to maintain the status quo. Ms. Dennis felt that if other jurisdictions did not have the money for public works, it was not the fault of the people who build them. She did not fe~l the arguments to change the regulations were compelling. Th~ roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers - Dennis, Michelotti, Pico, and Mayor Tarver NOES: None ABSENT: Councilmember Mohr ABSTAIN: None 02/20/96 -21-