Laserfiche WebLink
Council recessed from 9:15 p.m. to 9:25 p.m. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />Public Hearing on prevailing wage policy resumed at 9:25 p.m. with opponents and <br />proponents listed above continuing their testimony. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />Council recessed from 9:55 p.m. to 10:02 p.m. <br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- <br />Mark Thierman, 601 California Street, San Francisco representing Associated <br />Builders and Contractors summarized last week's and tonight's testimony in <br />opposition to a prevailing wage policy citing: problems with enforcement; <br />administration costs; cost to consumer; loss of competition; litigation expenses; <br />and other means to address construction issues without resorting to arbitrary <br />wage levels. <br />Tom Adams, attorney representing the Building Trades Council of San Mateo, 1875 <br />South Grant, San Mateo summarized testimony in favor of a prevailing wage policy <br />citing: advantages of stable workforce and stable economy; apprenticeship <br />programs; advantages for women and minorities; impact of prevailing wage on <br />construction costs; precedents for government to act in area of wages; and offer <br />to reimburse City for cost of legal defense of this policy. <br />Mayor Greenalch asked if anyone else wished to speak. No one else wished to <br />speak. <br />M /S: Claire /Murray to close the public hearing. <br />Carried by unanimous voice vote and public hearing closed at 10:31 p.m. <br />Council requested further information from Mr. Thierman and Mr. Adams. <br />City Attorney Schricker requested Mr. Thierman and Mr. Adams to submit briefs in <br />support of their position and to address the following concerns raised by <br />Council: <br />1. Is this a legal exercise of police power of municipalities? <br />2. Is there a need for municipalities to act on a prevailing wage policy? <br />3. How would this policy if adopted affect projects such as the Westport <br />Development? <br />4. Why is this policy necessary in view of Industrial Wage Orders? <br />5. If policy approved will it interfere with collective bargaining? <br />6. Has the State preempted municipalities in this area? <br />City Attorney Schricker to work with City Clerk to isolate issues and work with <br />Mr. Adams and Mr. Thierman to analyze facts within context of above questions. <br />CONSENSUS: Briefs to be submitted by April 10, 1989 and prevailing wage policy <br />to be put on agenda no earlier than April 24, 1989. <br />MEMO 3/7/89 <br />Reg.Mtg. <br />3/6/89 <br />Page 5 <br />MINUTE BOOK NO. 48 <br />Page No. 317 <br />