Laserfiche WebLink
178 <br /> <br /> Mr. Dave Norris, 1508 Green Street, said he was disappointed when he read the <br />ordinance as it sends mixed signals. Mr. Norris said it should be applied across the board <br />and consistently. Mr. Norris said he feels the ordinance is also an important symbolic <br /> <br />move. <br /> <br /> Ms. Azzurra Cox, 702 Ridge Street, expressed full support of the ordinance. Ms. <br />Cox said she does not see how not passing the ordinance will help community building, <br />and feels the issue is about justice not the media. Ms. Cox said she feels Council needs to <br />take risks and feels the outcome is worth the risk. <br /> <br /> Ms. Susan Freeman, 409 Altamout Street, said one of the broader implications of <br />passing the ordinance is that it will set an example for the University of Virginia which <br />has a large number of contract employees. <br /> <br /> Mr. Paul Cook, 2516 Westerly Avenue, said that poverty is an important issue, <br />and the living wage will make an immediate impact on people's lives. <br /> <br /> Ms. Judy Bartell, 1404 E. Market Street, said that the amount of the living wage <br />has to be tied to something and a cost of tiring increase should be included, and <br />suggested that it be tied to the poverty level as defined by the federal government. <br /> <br /> Mr. Andrew Holden, 912 Woodfolk Avenue, said that the living wage is a <br />cont'muation ora desire to pull people out ofpoverty. Mr. Holden said he does not think <br />there should be any exemptions, the amount should be increased to $8.65, and a cost of <br />living increase needs to be built into the ordinance. <br /> <br />As there were no further speakers, the public hearing was closed. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Kelley said that the exemptions <br />were included because it was felt that it was best to stay within the City's procurement <br />authority, and those fell outside of those procedures. In addition, Ms. Kelley said that <br />staffwas asked to provide a document similar to one adopted by the City of Alexandria. <br /> <br /> Mr. Cox asked if City employees receive a cost of living increase, or if there are <br />other ways to annually address an increase. <br /> <br /> Mr. O'Connell said that City employees do not receive a cost of living adjustment <br />or cost adjustment of any kind, and increases are based completely on performance, with <br />the average increaSe determined annually in the budget. There is an annual <br />recommendation in the budget for pensioners as well. Mr. O'Connell said there could be <br />an annual budgetary review of the ordinance and it could be amended, which would be <br />logical since the contracts affect the City's budget. <br /> <br /> Ms. Richards said that the $8 is based on a family of four above the poverty level, <br />which may vary from region to region. Ms. Richard said Council may want to index to <br />federal poverty guidelines which change from year to year. <br /> <br /> Responding to a question from Mr. Caravati, Ms. Kelley explained that in <br />December of 1999 the City of Alexandria requested an opinion from the Attorney <br />General about the legality of the living wage for contract employees. The Attorney <br />General's opinion was that localities do not have the authority to do that. In 2000 the <br />General Assembly adopted the best value provisions, and there has been no opinion about <br />how if at all those new provisions might change the Attorney General's opinion. <br /> <br /> Ivlr. Cox said that an annual review of the ordinance with the budget might make <br />the issue ora sunset clause a moot point. <br /> <br /> Mr. Caravati said that the two-year sunset clause would force a review, noting <br />that the impact of the ordinance is unknown. <br /> <br /> <br />