Loading...
1978 08 15 CC Minutes, Special80815 -1 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN, TEXAS August 15, 1978 The City Council of the City of Baytown met in Special Session on Tuesday, August 15, 1978, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of the Baytown City Hall with the following members in attendance: Jody Lander Jimmy Johnson Ted Kloesel Mary E. Wilbanks Eileen Caffey Emrhett 0. Hutto Fritz Lanham Dan Savage Scott Bounds Karen Petru Absent: Allen Cannon Eileen P. Hall Councilman Councilman Councilman Councilwoman Councilwoman Mayor City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Deputy City Clerk Councilman City Clerk Mayor Hutto called the special meeting to order, and stated the purpose of the special meeting, as stated on the agenda for said meeting, is to consider, and if deemed advisable by the City Council of the City of Baytown, to revise the prevailing rate schedule used in the contract for the construction of the Baytown Water Authority Treatment Plant. Mayor Hutto requested that Mr. Lanham, City Manager of the City of Baytown and General Manager of the Baytown Area Water Authority Board, inform Council of events leading to this special session. Mr. Lanham stated that state law requires that local governments include in specifications for public works a prevailing wage scale. For several years, the City, and in this case BAWA, has used the Labor Classification and Minimum Wage Scale for Engineering Construction in Texas Zone 15 as determined by the Department of Labor. That wage scale was dated March 31, 1978 - -the latest determination available at the time the plans and specifications were developed and advertisement to receive bids was published. Mr. Lanham emphasized that what was being discussed was minimum wage only and that contractors could pay more than the prevailing wage, but not less. Councilman Kloesel stated that there are several prevailing rate scales to consider, and since this project is very large with this one prevailing rate quoted, it would be very difficult for those in the building trades to bid. Councilman Kloesel requested that the representative of the building trades be recognized. Mr. W. M. Null of the Houston Gulf Coast Building Trades Council was recognized, and he spoke of a lead letter which listed prevailing wage scales for this area which was submitted in the form of a petition to Council. This letter submitted that the building trades questioned whether the wages specified in the bid documents for the construction of the water treatment plant are prevailing for the mechanics and laborers necessary to do the work under the contract. Also, the Building Trades Council questioned whether the intent of Article 5159a and the City Council had been met by the minimum wage established. 80815 -2 Minutes of the Special Meeting August 15, 1978 Mr. Null further read that prevailing is defined as superior in force or most frequent, and the wages as presently specified for the Administration and Chemical Buildings are not superior in force or more frequent than those higher wages specified by the U. S. Department of Labor for this type of project in this locality. Article 5159a of the Civil Statutes of Texas make it legal for any public body to certify any amount to be legal for its locality, the intent and spirit of the act was that the awarding body would ascertain the correct dollar amount for the work to be performed which would be the true prevailing wage. The U.S. Department of Labor publishes many prevailing rates for various categories of works or projects and it is not unreasonable to believe that the policy of the City Council is that the wages of the federal government which most nearly fit the type and character to be performed would be the wage selected as the prevailing wage. Therefore, the Building Trades Council requested that Council cause an addendum to be published to change rates to conform with the prevailing wage established for this type construction in this area and extend the period for letting the contract 30 days. Mr. Null presented a copy of the Federal Register, Zone 15, Page No. 1, which listed wages for highway and heavy construction type work. Also, he mentioned an all- agency bulletin which had been published March 17, 1978, defining work of an incidental nature to be paving and utilities which amounted to less than 20% of the overall project costs. Thus, the Building Trades Union feels that the wages selected for the construction of the water treatment plant's chemical and administration buildings are the rates published in the Federal Register which are to be prevailing only for highway work and utilities incidental to general building construction. However, minimum wage rates applicable to waste and sewage treatment plants have been specifically determined by the U. S. Department of Labor in the counties comprising Zone 15 and are considered to consist of two minimum wage scales. One applies to building construction, while the other applies to heavy construction. Mr. Pete Styner, Consulting Engineer with the firm of Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam, Inc., stated that generally the prevailing wage is determined by the predominant work to be performed and in construction of water treatment plant facilities, usually the heavy type construction wage is used. He stated that in previous years building construction was limited to high rise apartments and similar type construction. Also, prevailing highway and heavy construction were considered the same with the exception of tunnelling, road boring, and the like. Mr. Null responded to a question from Council by explaining that no longer in Zone 15 are the highway and heavy construction rates considered to be the same. Scott Bounds, City Attorney, explained to Council that the State Statute in question is 5159a, which states that City Council shall in any public works construction project establish the prevailing wage for each work and craft necessary for the completion of that contract, and that this prevailing wage must be stated in dollars and cents. The statute, however, does not provide any guidelines. Therefore, the establishment of the prevailing wage is left to the discretion of Council. Past policy has been to attempt to use the standards published by the Department of Labor. Mr. Peter Buenz, Secretary to the BAWA Board, explained that the Board had considered the manner in which wage rates would be determined, and had been informed that the same W 80815 -3 Minutes of the Special Meeting August 15, 1978 procedure would be used as that of the City, which is to utilize the prevailing wage rates published by the Department of Labor. No specific dollar per hour figures were discussed. Another Union representative spoke to the issue. He stated that obviously state law authorizes Council to determine prevailing wage rate. He stated that union members felt that inadvertently a mistake was made in the specifications as far as wage rates are concerned. He asked that Council correct this error in order that no contractors will be eliminated. Mr. Null emphasized that the Building Trades were only requesting that the heavy construction wage be used as the prevailing wage. Councilman Kloesel moved to add an addendum to the bid for construction of the surface water treatment plant to correct the wage rate so that the heavy construction wage will be used on the construction portion applicable to that wage, and the building construction wage will be used on the construction portion applicable to that wage, and authorize the delay of the bidding 30 days. The City Attorney suggested that as an alternate to the motion that perhaps Council would want to with draw its approval of the plans and specifications for the BAWA Project and ask the BAWA Board to reconsider those plans which would give the Board time to meet, publish an addendum and come back to Council with a recommendation. Councilman Kloesel then moved that Council withdraw its approval of the plans and specifications and ask the BAWA Board to reconsider the prevailing wage scale for this project and update the prevailing wage; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. Councilwoman Wilbanks asked for clarification of the motion, that is to ask the BAWA Board to reevaluate the plans and specifications, look at the current information available, and resubmit the plans and specifications to City Council. Councilmen Kloesel and Johnson concurred. Councilman Lander stated that he felt this action would cost more money, and therefore, he would have to oppose the motion. The vote follows: Ayes: Council members Johnson, Kloesel, Wilbanks and Caffey Mayor Hutto Nays: Councilman Lander There being no further business to transact, Councilman Kloesel moved to adjourn; Councilman Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous to adjourn. Karen Petru, Deputy City Clerk APPROVED: een F. Hall, city vier