November 28, 2006

2006 Vote Record: Fresno Chamber Holds City Councilmembers Accountable

The Chamber works closely with local elected officials as part of our commitment to advocate on behalf of our members, business and to promote the economic vitality of our community.

 

We monitor their positions on issues ranging from fee increases and zoning to revitalization of downtown and public safety.  And, just like we do for our State elected officials, we track the vote records of our local leaders.

 

Important to our advocacy efforts are the many meetings that we hold with elected officials, and our attendance at City Council and Board of Supervisor meetings to present the business perspective and to listen to their points of view. The Governmental Affairs Council Leadership is very active in advocating on behalf of our members and tracking the results of our efforts.

 

Below is the vote record for Fresno City Council members for 2006, specific to issues The Chamber took a position on:

 

2006 City Council Vote Record In Depth

Municipal Restoration Zone (October 2006)

 

Fresno Chamber Position: Support

 

Boyajian: Support
Calhoun: Support
Sterling: Support
Westerlund: Support
Dages: Support
Duncan: Support
Perea: Support

The MRZ will overlay the already highly successful Federal Empowerment Zone and the State administered Enterprise Zone with additional financial and job creation opportunities for new and existing businesses within the Urban Core.

Specifically the MRZ will:

- Established or expanding businesses within the MRZ will be eligible for a business license fee waiver for a period of three years.

- Established or expanding business within the MRZ will be eligible for a reduction of up to 50% of building permit fees and development entitlement fees up to a maximum of $50,000.

- Newly established business within the MRZ will be eligible for a Rebate of up to 50% of their City sales and/or property taxes for the first five years of operation up to a maximum of $10,000 per year. (Newly established business as defined in Section 5 208 of Code.)

- Up to 50% of the City’s Parks Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) will be awarded to the EOC (or other similar agency) with the proviso that at least 50% of people working on the project reside within the MRZ.

- Any new or existing business within the MRZ that adds employees, as qualified under the Empowerment Zone criteria, will be eligible for up to $3,000 in employee credit against their annual business license fee and/or sales tax with a maximum of $15,000.

- The Proposed FY 07 Budget include will include $1 million from all funding sources to implement these initiatives.

Shopping Cart Ordinance (September 2006)

 

Fresno Chamber Position: Oppose

 

Boyajian: Support
Calhoun: Support
Sterling: Support
Westerlund: Support
Dages: Support
Duncan: Support
Perea: Support

The Shopping Cart Ordinance will require every business that owns and operates 25 or more shopping carts to submit a plan to the City on how they will individually work to ensure that their shopping carts do not stray or are stolen from their property. Examples include, posting signs in many languages, notifying customers, and implementing ways to discourage stealing.

This ordinance will require each business to invest in a cart retrieval program by either contracting with a service or setting up an internal system to retrieve carts themselves. The cart retrieval service must be able to pick up shopping carts 48 hours after they have left the property, or 48 hours after the business has been notified. This must be included in the original plan. Also, the retrieval service must be available 6 days/week, and 8hrs/day.

There will be a small fee for submitting the plan. Currently, the city is looking at charging between $40-$80 per plan.   And, the City will establish a department to administer this effort.

Proposition 84 (September 2006)

 

Fresno Chamber Position: Support

 

Boyajian: Support
Calhoun: Support
Sterling: Support
Westerlund: Oppose
Dages: Support
DuncanAbstain
Perea: Support

 

Proposition 84 would authorizes $5,388,000,000 in general obligation bonds, payable from the state’s General Fund, to fund projects relating to safe drinking water, water quality and supply, flood control, waterway and natural resource protection, water pollution and contamination control, state and local park improvements, public access to natural resources, and conservation efforts.

The purpose of this bond is to provide funding for emergency drinking water, and exempts such expenditures from public contract and procurement requirements to ensure immediate action for public safety.

As estimated by Legislative Analyst and Director of Finance of fiscal impact on state and local governments: State cost of about $10.5 billion over 30 years to pay off both the principal ($5.4 billion) and interest ($5.1 billion) costs on the bonds.

Fire Sprinkler Ordinance (May 2006)

 

Fresno Chamber Position: Support

 

Boyajian: Support
Calhoun: Support
Sterling: Absent
Westerlund: Support
Dages: Oppose
Duncan: Support
Perea: Oppose

The Fire Sprinkler Ordinance would amend the Fresno Municipal Code relating to required installation of automatic fire extinguishing systems for all occupancies.

Fighting fires in Fresno is much different than other cities in California because of our cities air quality issues. The Fresno Fire Department agrees that having fire sprinklers in all homes is a safety issue, and it will greatly decrease the spread of fires that break out in small confined areas, such as homes.

Water Storage Resolution (May 2006)

 

Fresno Chamber Position: Support

 

Boyajian: Oppose
Calhoun: Abstain
Sterling: Absent
Westerlund: Support
Dages: Support
Duncan: Support
Perea: Support

A resolution in support of additional above-ground water storage was made in May 2006 after Assemblymember Juan Arambula had his seniority at the State Capitol taken from him for voting against his party, and for additional water storage in the Central Valley.

By creating this Resolution, the Valley made it clear that it is opposed to the needs of the Valley continuously getting pushed aside. Water storage is crucial to the future of the Valley and the future of the rest of California.

Living Wage Workshop (August 2006)
 

Fresno Chamber Position: Oppose

 

A living wage ordinance is being proposed by the Community Alliance for a Fair Economy that would require anyone contracting with the City for $50,000 or more to pay employees at least $10 per hour and provide health insurance coverage or $11.50 an hour without benefits.

A living wage ordinance requires employers to pay wages that are above federal or state minimum wage levels. Only a specific set of workers are covered by living wage ordinances, usually those employed by businesses that have a contract with a city or county government or those who receive economic development subsidies from the locality. The rationale behind the ordinances is that city and county governments should not contract with or subsidize employers who pay poverty-level wages.
 

The living wage level is usually the wage a full-time worker would need to earn to support a family above federal poverty line, ranging from 100% to 130% of the poverty measurement. The wage rates specified by living wage ordinances range from a low of $6.25 in Milwaukee to a high of $12 in Santa Cruz.
 

In addition to setting wage levels, many ordinances also have provisions regarding benefits (such as health insurance and paid vacation), labor relations, and hiring practices.

The following are statements taken directly from the minutes of the August 29, 2006 City Council meeting:
 

On August 29, 2006 Councilmember Boyajian requested a workshop to be presented by Frances Sivak, contact for the Fresno Living Wage Campaign, and Antonio Avalos, Assistant CSUF Economics Professor, stating:
 

“The poverty rate and minimizing of wages by outsourcing contracts were issues facing the city, abnd clarified his intent on scheduling this matter was for Council to listen to the presentation and get a better understanding of living wages.”

Councilmember Sterling stated, “she started looking into the living wage and how it would affect the city due to the city’s poverty rate… and stated the concept of a good living wage was alive and well.”

President Duncan clarified, “this is a workshop and if a Council member wanted staff to spend over four hours of work that an item be placed on the agenda directing that to see if there is Council support, he felt it would be hypocritical for the City to impose something like this on the private sector when the City currently has over 300 employees making $8-$10 an hour with no benefits, added he also felt anyone who wanted to make a living wage could if they were motivated clarifying there were training and education programs being offered and available.”
 

Contact Megan Jacobsen, the Chamber's Government Affairs and Communications Manager for more information at (559) 495-4818 or mjacobsen@fresnochamber.com