Bid to make Auburn a charter city gains attention
By Loretta Kalb
The Sacramento Bee
Published: Monday, Aug. 8, 2011 - 12:00 am | Page 1B
© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.
By rights, a proposal in the city of Auburn to become a charter city ought to be a simple matter.
Forget that.
Instead, City Councilman Kevin Hanley's four-page draft charter has drawn intense labor interest – and opposition – to this foothill berg of 13,410.
The reason: His charter proposal seeks to allow the city to bypass prevailing-wage law on some major public works projects – those funded entirely with city money.
Chief among them could be an estimated $20 million in needed repairs to the city's sewer system over the next six years, Hanley said.
Other cities, most recently Redding, have turned down similar proposals to pursue a charter.
The issue of whether a charter city is exempt from state prevailing-wage law is currently in the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed against the city of Vista. The suit was filed by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California on behalf of the state's construction unions.
Against this backdrop, the Auburn City Council tonight could vote to put its charter proposal on the June 2012 city ballot. If city voters go for it, Auburn would depart the ranks of 361 other "general law" cities that follow California law on matters of local governance.
It would, instead, begin following its own charter guidelines.
City officials say there are plenty more issues at stake besides wage scale.
For the outspoken Mayor William W. Kirby, there's a desire to achieve greater autonomy from state government.
"It's about allowing municipal governments more local control – allowing us to get out from under the yoke of Sacramento," Kirby said. "They need to get off our backs. Somebody needs to say, 'Sorry, guys. We're not doing it your way.' "
That frustration, shared in many other cities, manifests itself in two provisions in the Auburn charter.
One declares that the city would not have to perform mandated services on behalf of the state or any other government agency that doesn't provide sufficient funding to carry them out.
The other declares that city revenues would not be subject to fund take-aways such as those imposed by the state to balance its own budget.
Al Sokolow, a former University of California, Davis, political science professor and public policy specialist who retired in 2004, said he viewed the sections barring government take-aways and unfunded mandates as "symbolic gestures" without teeth.
"My overall sense is that beyond the prevailing wage issue, a charter does not give a California city or county much more leeway or discretion than general law status, because California cities traditionally have had a lot of autonomy given to them in the (state) Constitution and in the laws passed in the Legislature," Sokolow said.
Even so, there are 120 charter cities statewide.
Hanley said the Auburn charter is fashioned after recently enacted charters in El Centro, Vista and Palmdale.
He figures the city could save about 10 percent on sewer repairs alone if it is able to bypass prevailing wage law. The cost savings also could give relief from high sewer bills to city residents and business owners, he said.
But workers are concerned. Ronnie Daniel, 53, Auburn resident and member of Local 46 of the Carpenters Union, said he's worried about his livelihood.
"I'm against the charter completely," Daniel said in an interview. "That's the biggest thing – our wages, being paid what we're worth."
Some other cities, having flirted with charters, aren't biting.
The California Alliance for Jobs, representing workers within the heavy construction industry, has weighed in in both Redding and Auburn.
It recently commissioned an eight-page legal analysis of Auburn's proposal and found plenty wrong.
Among other issues, the analysis from the Sacramento office of Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP warns that the city of Auburn could become another Bell, with authority to boost their compensation as high as $7,000 a month.
Jim Earp, executive director for the alliance, notes that Bell in Southern California was an extreme case. But he takes the warning seriously.
A city has "only so many dollars." he said. "If it's spent on (exorbitant salaries), there are key projects that aren't being funded adequately."
Of course, when Bell's charter was placed on a 2005 special election ballot, fewer than 400 people voted on it. And there was essentially no civic discussion about how the charter would exempt the city from state salary regulations.
That exemption and low level of discussion are not the case in Auburn.
Ken Dayton of the Associated Builders and Contractors, which supports performance-based compensation, said the Bell comparison is absurd.
"It's sort of ridiculous to say a place like Auburn would become like the city of Bell," Dayton said. "That whole (Bell) thing was a scam.
"Obviously, what Auburn is doing is very different. It's a different community."
CHARTER PROPOSAL FOR AUBURN
Auburn's charter proposal would:
• Allow the city to bypass prevailing wage law on some major public works projects – those funded entirely with city money. Instead, individual contractors could pay what they deem to be the market pay rate.
Who is for it: This provision is supported by Associated Builders and Contractors, a national group representing thousands of industry employers.
Who is against it: It is opposed by the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents more than 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union construction workers who build major infrastructure projects.
• Enable the city to establish contract bidding preferences for firms based in or near the city. By contrast, for public works projects over $5,000, a general law city must award the project to the lowest responsible bidder, according to the League of California Cities.
Who is against it: Auburn's bidding preference proposal has drawn opposition from Associated General Contractors of California, which warns that it would destabilize the competitive bidding process.
• End elections for city treasurer and city clerk. Those positions would instead be filled through direct hiring by the city manager or council.
• Declare Auburn exempt from state laws that would make it more difficult or expensive for volunteers to participate in city-funded community projects. State law already provides such an exemption, but it is set to expire in future years.
• Enable greater flexibility in tackling problems such as weed abatement and animal control.
• Declare that city revenues would not be subject to fund take-aways such as those imposed by the state to balance its own budget.
• Declare that the city would not have to perform mandated services on behalf of the state or any other government agency that doesn't provide sufficient funding.
– Loretta Kalb
Instead, City Councilman Kevin Hanley's four-page draft charter has drawn intense labor interest – and opposition – to this foothill berg of 13,410.
The reason: His charter proposal seeks to allow the city to bypass prevailing-wage law on some major public works projects – those funded entirely with city money.
Chief among them could be an estimated $20 million in needed repairs to the city's sewer system over the next six years, Hanley said.
Other cities, most recently Redding, have turned down similar proposals to pursue a charter.
The issue of whether a charter city is exempt from state prevailing-wage law is currently in the California Supreme Court in a lawsuit filed against the city of Vista. The suit was filed by the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California on behalf of the state's construction unions.
Against this backdrop, the Auburn City Council tonight could vote to put its charter proposal on the June 2012 city ballot. If city voters go for it, Auburn would depart the ranks of 361 other "general law" cities that follow California law on matters of local governance.
It would, instead, begin following its own charter guidelines.
City officials say there are plenty more issues at stake besides wage scale.
For the outspoken Mayor William W. Kirby, there's a desire to achieve greater autonomy from state government.
"It's about allowing municipal governments more local control – allowing us to get out from under the yoke of Sacramento," Kirby said. "They need to get off our backs. Somebody needs to say, 'Sorry, guys. We're not doing it your way.' "
That frustration, shared in many other cities, manifests itself in two provisions in the Auburn charter.
One declares that the city would not have to perform mandated services on behalf of the state or any other government agency that doesn't provide sufficient funding to carry them out.
The other declares that city revenues would not be subject to fund take-aways such as those imposed by the state to balance its own budget.
Al Sokolow, a former University of California, Davis, political science professor and public policy specialist who retired in 2004, said he viewed the sections barring government take-aways and unfunded mandates as "symbolic gestures" without teeth.
"My overall sense is that beyond the prevailing wage issue, a charter does not give a California city or county much more leeway or discretion than general law status, because California cities traditionally have had a lot of autonomy given to them in the (state) Constitution and in the laws passed in the Legislature," Sokolow said.
Even so, there are 120 charter cities statewide.
Hanley said the Auburn charter is fashioned after recently enacted charters in El Centro, Vista and Palmdale.
He figures the city could save about 10 percent on sewer repairs alone if it is able to bypass prevailing wage law. The cost savings also could give relief from high sewer bills to city residents and business owners, he said.
But workers are concerned. Ronnie Daniel, 53, Auburn resident and member of Local 46 of the Carpenters Union, said he's worried about his livelihood.
"I'm against the charter completely," Daniel said in an interview. "That's the biggest thing – our wages, being paid what we're worth."
Some other cities, having flirted with charters, aren't biting.
The California Alliance for Jobs, representing workers within the heavy construction industry, has weighed in in both Redding and Auburn.
It recently commissioned an eight-page legal analysis of Auburn's proposal and found plenty wrong.
Among other issues, the analysis from the Sacramento office of Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP warns that the city of Auburn could become another Bell, with authority to boost their compensation as high as $7,000 a month.
Jim Earp, executive director for the alliance, notes that Bell in Southern California was an extreme case. But he takes the warning seriously.
A city has "only so many dollars." he said. "If it's spent on (exorbitant salaries), there are key projects that aren't being funded adequately."
Of course, when Bell's charter was placed on a 2005 special election ballot, fewer than 400 people voted on it. And there was essentially no civic discussion about how the charter would exempt the city from state salary regulations.
That exemption and low level of discussion are not the case in Auburn.
Ken Dayton of the Associated Builders and Contractors, which supports performance-based compensation, said the Bell comparison is absurd.
"It's sort of ridiculous to say a place like Auburn would become like the city of Bell," Dayton said. "That whole (Bell) thing was a scam.
"Obviously, what Auburn is doing is very different. It's a different community."
CHARTER PROPOSAL FOR AUBURN
Auburn's charter proposal would:
• Allow the city to bypass prevailing wage law on some major public works projects – those funded entirely with city money. Instead, individual contractors could pay what they deem to be the market pay rate.
Who is for it: This provision is supported by Associated Builders and Contractors, a national group representing thousands of industry employers.
Who is against it: It is opposed by the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents more than 2,000 heavy construction companies and 80,000 union construction workers who build major infrastructure projects.
• Enable the city to establish contract bidding preferences for firms based in or near the city. By contrast, for public works projects over $5,000, a general law city must award the project to the lowest responsible bidder, according to the League of California Cities.
Who is against it: Auburn's bidding preference proposal has drawn opposition from Associated General Contractors of California, which warns that it would destabilize the competitive bidding process.
• End elections for city treasurer and city clerk. Those positions would instead be filled through direct hiring by the city manager or council.
• Declare Auburn exempt from state laws that would make it more difficult or expensive for volunteers to participate in city-funded community projects. State law already provides such an exemption, but it is set to expire in future years.
• Enable greater flexibility in tackling problems such as weed abatement and animal control.
• Declare that city revenues would not be subject to fund take-aways such as those imposed by the state to balance its own budget.
• Declare that the city would not have to perform mandated services on behalf of the state or any other government agency that doesn't provide sufficient funding.
– Loretta Kalb
No comments:
Post a Comment