ATTENDANCE: Michael Coffey, Chairman, Carvin Hillard

OTHERS: Michael Geake, John Bookhardt, Liana Fox, Bev Brakeman,
Brian Petronella, David Davidson, Vera Levitt, Bruce Kimmel,
Jon Green, Rev. Phyllis Bolden, Common Council Member

CALL TO ORDER

Mr. Coffey called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m.

PUBLIC HEARING

Mr. Coffey called the public hearing on Living Wages to order at 8:10 p.m.

Let it be noted that the following comments and remarks by all speakers have been summarized and are not necessarily verbatim.

The first speaker of the evening was Michael Geake, 39 Elmwood Avenue. Mr. Geake said that the Second Taxing District would benefit from this ordinance. He commented that there could be a lot of emotion on both sides of the issue and implored the Committee to not let emotion be the deciding factor regarding this ordinance. There are many communities that have already enacted such an ordinance and the results in Baltimore were positive. After the enactment of the ordinance, it has added at most one to two percent to their costs. Mr. Geake said that this was not a horrific price to pay. There are those who say it will cost jobs, but that was not the result in Baltimore. It has been said that it would cause fewer firms to bid on government contracts. That was not the result. Mr. Geake said that while he fully supported this proposed ordinance, he was somewhat disappointed because it was only 115% of the poverty level. At 115% of the poverty level, someone supporting a four person family would still qualify for food stamps. This results in a working family that is dependent on the government to put food on the table. Mr. Geake said that he would like to see this as a first step with a goal of at least 130%, which is the cut off for food stamps. Mr. Geake said that he was greatly encouraged to see that the proposal included health benefits.

One important question Mr. Geake then raised was where would someone making 115% of the poverty level live in Norwalk. That is also an issue that needs to be addressed soon. Mr. Geake also suggested that city residents be given preference when the contractors are being selected in the future.

The next speaker was Mr. John Bookhardt who resides at 235 Ely Avenue in Norwalk and has lived there for 35 years. He stated that he supports the ordinance. Mr. Bookhardt stated that he has worked in New York for almost 25 years. During that time, he was not aware of the changes because he was in New York for the majority of the time. During the past 18 months, Mr. Bookhardt had the chance to look around and see the need for a wage increase. The average family in South Norwalk is in poverty. The reason for that, Mr. Bookhardt said, was that they could not get jobs to support their families with health care. Mr. Bookhardt said that if this ordinance was passed, it would help the families support themselves. Mr. Bookhardt said that he felt the need to come to the meeting to speak out for the communities.

Ms. Liana Fox was the next speaker. She is an economic analysis with The Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. The Policy Institute is a non-profit, non-partisan think tank that does market research on labor policies that effect low and middle income workers. The mission of the Institute is to provide high quality research and education in order to promote a prosperous and sustainable economy. Ms. Fox explained that she has been researching the impact of minimum wage and living wage ordinances for the past three and a half years. She gave a brief overview of the history and growth of the living wage since the City of Baltimore established one in 1994. Living wages ordinances are now part of over 140 municipalities through out the United States. Five of these municipalities are in Connecticut. These ordinances typically set a wage floor above the state and federal minimum wage with the goal to provide to enough income for a full time worker to support a family of three or four above the federal poverty line. The federal poverty line is inadequate to support a family in Connecticut.

Living wage ordinances typically apply to firms that typically contract to the local government or receive financial assistance such as tax abatements or subsidies. A growing number of ordinances are covering private sector employers with no direct financial ties as well as some ordinances on college campuses. Living wage ordinances have become increasingly popular in recent years due to the reality that many Americans work hard, work full time year round but can not afford to make ends meet. Living wage ordinances seek to reverse the tread of declining living standards for those low wage workers. There was been neglect of the federal minimum wage, which functions as a safety net for low wage workers. Ms. Fox said that she had a few charts demonstrating this, which she would distribute afterwards. Wage inequality has been rising sharply in the recent decades. Ms. Fox went on to explain the philosophy regarding minimum wage. Currently, the minimum wage is only at one third of the average wage. This is what is responsible for the growth of wage inequality during the past thirty years. Faced with this, citizens around the country have increasingly turned towards state and local governments to establish living wage ordinances and to establish basic labor standards. Twenty nine states, including Connecticut have set their minimum wage above the federal rate.

Opponents of living wage ordinances argue that the ordinances will have a negative effect on both municipal budgets and low wage workers. One argument is that it will cause contractors to substantially raise their bids or refuse to submit a bid at all. Other concerns are that these ordinances will help the wrong people or cause employment opportunities to be diminished in an area. A substantial body of research now exists that evaluates living wage ordinances over the past decade, which negates many of the fears mentioned. The ordinances have raised the living standard of low wage workers without the negative consequences. Ms. Fox said that there was a lot of research available and she was willing to provide copies of that to the members of the Committee.

Ms. Fox then reviewed the details of the economic impact of the living wage for the Committee members. She stated that in municipalities that have enacted the living wage, there was evidence that the administration significantly over estimated the cost of the increase. A study in Hartford, CT found a large increase in bidders for a security contract as a result of more firms willing to bid, due to the fact that the firms no longer had to compete against low wage employers who were trying to drive down wage costs.

Ms. Fox then outlined the impact on workers. Considerable research has been devoted to the questions of who benefits from the ordinances and what the impact has been on employment. Recent studies in L.A. and Boston found that the workers affected were mostly full time working adults. The second question is the most commonly cited concern. The majority of living wage research has focused on that issue. There was no empirical evidence of diminished employment opportunities in Boston or L.A.

Ms. Fox said that there were several reasons why the ordinance would only have a minor impact on the budget and employment levels. One potential benefit is to decrease worker turn over in the workforce.

Reverend Bolden joined the meeting at 8:25 p.m.

Multiple studies have shown that there is lower turn over following a living wage ordinance. Absenteeism has also declined.

Ms. Fox stated that there is a moral imperative to establishing a living wage. Paying workers a living wage is a matter of human dignity and fairness. In examining policies for their impact, Ms. Fox has found that the research is clear. Living wage ordinances provide real wage increases to low income workers without the negative effects that are often cited.

Ms. Brakeman, the director of the Citizens for Economic Opportunity, a coalition of labor and community advocates that focus on corporate responsibility for the public area. She said that she supported the living wage ordinance and was pleased and encouraged that the Committee was deliberating this important issue. This is a modest step in the right direction and strikes a balance between making the City affordable for workers and making workers affordable for employers.

There is another standard discussed in the State that is called the Self Sufficiency Standard. This standard is different from the living wage in that it measures how much income is needed for a family of a certain composition in a given place to accurate meet their basic needs without public or private assistance. It is a tool designed for use by policy makers, local elected officials, and planners, among others to help discern what income is need for people to afford the basic necessities of life including health care, food, housing, transportation, and child care. Ms. Brakeman said that she would leave a copy of this report for the Committee members. In summary, a two adult, two child family would need to make $14.55 per hour per adult, or $5,120 a month for an annual salary of $62,000 just to meet their basic needs without public assistance in lower Fairfield County.

The proposal goes a long way to make a difference for working families to achieve economic security. Ms. Brakeman thanked the members of the Committee for considering this issue and urged their support for the proposal.

Mr. Petronella, who resides at 21 Linden Street in Norwalk spoke next. He stated that this ordinance was long overdue. It has taken years to get this type of legislation passed in the City. Recent articles in newspaper claim it costs about $25 an hour to be able to afford a one bedroom apartment in Norwalk. The living wage ordinance is going in the right direction. It is a progressive piece of legislation that Mr. Petronella hopes that the Council will approve and move forward. Too often what happens is that the citizens are losing economic ground. When a living wage ordinance is enacted, it brings people up to the level where they are going to be responsible citizens, paying taxes to the community rather than taking tax dollars via government programs. It is about bringing the standard of living up in Norwalk. Mr. Petronella commented that people enjoy the fact that the area is referred to as the “Gold Coast”. He stated that this area is the Gold Coast but with tin wages. Mr. Petronella thanked the Committee members for their time and asked for their support.

Mr. Davidson, who resides at 16 Betmarlea Road in Norwalk. Mr. Davidson stated that he was an unaffiliated voter. He then remarked that when an ordinance is being proposed, the Committee should edit it for the City because Norwalk is a city, not a town. Norwalk does not have a Board of Directors. Mr. Davidson asked who the ordinance applies to, and pointed out that it applies to the employees of the City of Norwalk excluding the employees of the Board of Education. With the exception of the ordinance list employees, every other employee is represented by a union that negotiates with the City. Mr. Davidson asked if the unions needed help from the Committee. Mr. Davidson said that most of the unions were more than capable of representing their members. It specifically excludes the purchase or lease of goods, products, equipment, commodities, or supplies. This directs it at those companies that provide services to the City, just to the City. Service providers are supposed to be subject to competitive bidding and the Purchasing Department is supposed to select the lowest qualified bidder. Mr. Davidson asked if the Finance Department has been asked what impact this ordinance would have. Mr. Davidson said that he expects will have little or no effect or perhaps it will cause the City’s costs to increase. Mr. Davidson asked who would be administering this ordinance. According to the proposal, the Ordinance Committee would be both administering it and adjudicate it. Mr. Davidson said that he thought that the Council and its committees were part of the legislative branch of the City government. Mr. Davidson said that this ordinance was just another public relations ploy by do nothing, incompetent Council leadership, which has done nothing for the City in the last year. Mr. Davidson said that the ordinance does nothing for the City and that any member of the Council that supports this without some financial and impact evaluation should be ashamed of themselves.

Ms. Levitt spoke next and said that she supports the living wage ordinance. As she moves about the community, Ms. Levitt reported that she sees workers who are stressed, overwhelmed, exhausted, tired and many struggle to make ends met. Paying their rent, utilities, childcare costs, food is just a negative stress on workers and negatively affects their job performance, their productivity, their work ethic and attitude. As a result, the customers receive poor quality service. Good employees often have to seek higher paying jobs, which results in employers having higher turn over of good quality workers. This costs the company money in having to hire and train new workers. The ordinance would allow companies to retain quality workers and reduce the high turn over. This would give better incentives for workers to do a better quality job because they are not as stressed.

Mr. Bruce Kimmel, a member of the Norwalk Board of Education, who resides at 9 Toilsome Avenue in Norwalk, spoke next. He commended the Ordinance Committee for taking up this extremely important issue. Mr. Kimmel agrees with Mr. Petronella that this legislation is long overdue and is a modest step forward.

Mr. Kimmel said that he felt that the living wage ordinance is similar to the Senior Tax Relief legislation, which was revisited several times. He said that Senior Tax Relief would need to be reviewed as the City moves towards another re-evaluation, because Mr. Kimmel believes that it is incumbent upon all elected officials to do whatever they can to insure cradle to grave economic security for people who live and work in Norwalk.

It is a shame that now there is a concept called the working poor that did not exist when Mr. Kimmel was young. This group is growing and municipalities need to address this issue. When people who have jobs can’t make ends meet, it goes against what many were brought up to believe that if one works hard and play by the rules, then things should fall into place one way or the other. Things are out of kilter now.

Mr. Kimmel said that he was curious and heard the arguments for years about job losses. He found a 2002 article in the Christian Science Monitor reporting on the first extensive study on living wage ordinances. The study was done by David Newmark, Professor of Economics at Michigan State University, who from the mid 90’s up until the study was one of the leading opponents of living wage ordinance. The study was released by the non partisan Public Policy Institute in California. Mr. Kimmel named the cities where Professor Newmark gathered his data. The final analysis stated that the net gains outweighed the job losses in one small area. Mr. Kimmel said that if this proposal is handed over to the Finance Department for evaluation, he doubted that the Finance Department would come up with anything conclusive.

Mr. Kimmel concluded by applauding the Committee for addressing this issue and alleviating any economic burden on the residents of the City that they can.

Mr. Green from the Connecticut Working Families Party spoke next. He congratulated the Committee for bringing the living wage ordinance forward. Mr. Green said that policy makers and elected officials wanted this to go forward. He said that this is a moral issue as well as an economic one. Mr. Green stated he believed that the benefits would far outweigh the drawback. Mr. Green said he believes that this policy is about the Committee’s principle and what they feel is the appropriate role of government in trying to make the society one where working people can truly support themselves in. There will be those who oppose this ordinance because they have a different set of principles. They believe that free markets rather than government should be dictating wages and conditions in the work place. Mr. Green said that these people were entitled to their view, but he hoped that the Committee would reject that view, which is held by an increasing dwindling group of ideologists. In the wake of globalization and there is a loss of manufacturing jobs and those type of jobs that historically provided a stepping stone to a middle class life style, that allowed a person to support a family. Mr. Green said that the service sector jobs should be transformed into work for working people. Mr. Green urged the Committee members to look at the research, but to consider the principle involved and what is at stake for the role that government should play in helping people be able to support themselves and their families.

Chairman Coffey asked if there were any other members of the public that wished to speak.

Reverend Phyllis Bolden, a member of the Norwalk Common Counsel, came to the podium. Rev. Bolden said that she whole-heartedly supported the ordinance. Working families that live in Norwalk should be able to work, come home and live in this city as a result of their labor. Rev. Bolden wondered whether the people who work as wait staff in Norwalk could afford to live in the city. If they have to live elsewhere, they have to pay for gas. Rev. Bolden stated that her daughter, who can not afford to live in Norwalk, was paying $80 a week to commute from Bridgeport. This is in addition to her rent. Rev. Bolden said that this was the type of oppressive things that happen when a person does not make a decent wage. She reiterated that she supported the ordinance and believed that it was a moral issue. Norwalk is a diverse community and it will remain that way, but there are some who do not care. Rev. Bolden thanked the Committee for their hard work on this issue.

Chairman Coffey asked if there were any other members of the public that wished to speak. Seeing that there was no one else who wished to speak on the issue, Chairman Coffey closed the public hearing on the Living Wage at 8:44 p.m.

REGULAR MEETING

Chairman Coffey stated that there was not a quorum present so that the acceptance of the minutes would not be done.

At this time, Chairman Coffey said that the Committee would have a discussion.

Chairman Coffey thanked the members of the public who were present and Ms. Fox for traveling up from Washington to speak about the impact of the living wage. Chairman Coffey commented that with the holidays so close, seeing the audience of approximately twenty people shows how serious this issue is for Norwalk. Chairman Coffey commended Mr. Hillard for all the hard work that he has put into drafting this ordinance. Chairman Coffey announced that he would support this ordinance because he has an obligation to the residents. He believes that the ordinance will help raise the standard of living for those who work for the City.

When the economics are spoken about, Chairman Coffey said that it was important to understand that this ordinance was very finite and only affects people who work for the City. This will affect contracts between $25,000 and $100,000 and there are exemptions for good cause. Chairman Coffey said that he had read a lot of the literature about the economic impact and it was clear to him that it helps improve the level of services because there is a high skilled workforce. Employers have employees who stay with them because they can afford to. Hopefully this will help people who hold second and third jobs in the City. It is impossible to raise a family in Norwalk on $8.00 an hour. Some City employees received DROP plans in the past, which resulted in a wage that would amount to a salary well into the six figures per covered employee. There was virtually no feedback from the public in opposition to it. Chairman Coffey commented that he believes the cost of the living wage ordinance will be less than the cost of each individual DROP plan.

Chairman Coffey commented that the ordinance would be re evaluated in the future and reminded everyone that the ordinance can be changed in the future if it is found that it is not beneficial to Norwalk.

In closing, Chairman Coffey stated that Mr. Davidson was correct in that the phrase “Board of Directors” was used in the document and this would be corrected. He also said that he would modify the ordinance where it states that the Ordinance Committee administrates the ordinance, to read “or their designee.” Chairman Coffey said that the Ordinance Council of the Common Council was not the best place for this to be monitored but that it will be sent to the appropriate place. There will be a financial analysis for the City to gauge the impact of the living wage for that year. The Ordinance Committee went through the process carefully. There were well over 1,000 pages of research that was done by the Legal Department on this issue.

Mr. Hillard addressed the audience and thanked everyone for attending the hearing. Since the federal government has resisted raising the minimum wage, the municipalities are now doing looking out for their residents. One issue that was not mentioned was what happens when privatization occurs. That affects low income and usually minority or female workers. A living wage ordinance will help that area as well.

Mr. Hillard then read a quote from a document where the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce warned of dire consequence in 1996, if the living wages were enacted. They predicted a loss of 3,000 low paying jobs. When it was passed, only 112 jobs were lost form the firms. Many of the firms reduced their employee turn over and absenteeism. Mr. Hillard said this raised the standard of living for the low income workers.

Chairman Coffey also informed the public that there is a provision in the ordinance that addresses first source hiring. Chairman Coffey said this would be a job creating source for Norwalk residents. Chairman Coffey reported that Forbes magazine recently ranked Norwalk as the ninth best place in the region for businesses. He reiterated that this would improve the quality of life for residences. Chairman Coffey also stated that he agreed with Mr. Kimmel regarding the Senior tax relief issue and more needs to be done in that area as well.

Chairman Coffey stated that since there was not a quorum present at the meeting, he would be sending a copy of the amended ordinance with the adjusted wording to the Common Council.

ADJOURNMENT

** MR. HILLARD MOVED TO ADJOURN.
** Chairman Coffey SECONDED.
** THE MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY.

The meeting adjourned at 8:58 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Sharon L. Soltes
Telesco Secretarial Services