BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    Ó



                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   August 14, 2013

                     ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT
                               Roger Hernández, Chair
             SB 7 (Steinberg and Cannella) - As Amended:  August 7, 2013

           SENATE VOTE  :   28-10
           
          SUBJECT  :   Public works: charter cities.

           SUMMARY  :   Prohibits the reception or use of state funding or  
          financial assistance for construction projects by charter cities  
          that allow contractors to not comply with the state's prevailing  
          wage law on any public works contract.  Specifically,  this bill  :  
            

          1)Prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding  
            or financial assistance for a construction project if the city  
            has a charter provision or ordinance that authorizes a  
            contractor to not comply with the provisions of current law  
            governing prevailing wage requirements for public works on any  
            public works contract.

          2)Prohibits a charter city from receiving or using state funding  
            or financial assistance for a construction project if the city  
            has awarded, within the current or prior two years, a public  
            works contract without requiring the contractor to comply with  
            all of the provisions of current law governing prevailing wage  
            requirements for public works.  This provision does not apply  
            if the charter city's failure to include the prevailing wage  
            or apprenticeship requirement in a particular contract was  
            inadvertent and contrary to a city charter provision or  
            ordinance that otherwise requires compliance with current law  
            governing prevailing wage requirements for public works.

          3)Provides that a charter city is not disqualified from  
            receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for  
            its construction projects if the charter city has adopted a  
            local prevailing wage ordinance for all its public works  
            projects that includes requirements that in all respects are  
            equal to or greater than the requirements imposed by the  
            provisions of current law governing prevailing wage  
            requirements for public works and that do not authorize a  
            contractor to not comply with current law governing prevailing  
            wage requirements for public works.








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  2


          4)Provides, for the purposes of this bill, that the following  
            shall apply:

             a)   A public works contract does not include contracts for  
               projects of $25,000 or less when the project is for  
               construction work, or projects of $15,000 or less when the  
               project is for alteration, demolition, repair, or  
               maintenance work;

             b)   A charter city includes any agency of a charter city and  
               any entity controlled by a charter city whose contracts  
               would be subject to current law governing prevailing wage  
               requirements for public works; and,

             c)   State funding or financial assistance includes direct  
               state funding, state loans and loan guarantees, state tax  
               credits, and any other type of state financial support for  
               a construction project.  State funding or financial  
               assistance does not include revenues that charter cities  
               are entitled to receive without conditions under the  
               California Constitution.

          5)Requires the Director of Industrial Relations to maintain a  
            list of charter cities that may receive and use state funding  
            and financial assistance for their construction projects.

          6)Specifies that the provisions of the bill do not restrict a  
            charter city from receiving or using state funding or  
            financial assistance that was awarded to the city prior to  
            January 1, 2015, or from receiving or using state funding or  
            financial assistance to complete a contract that was awarded  
            prior to January 1, 2015.

          7)Specifies that a charter city is not disqualified from  
            receiving or using state funding or financial assistance for  
            its construction projects based on the city's failure to  
            require a contractor to comply with these requirements in  
            performing a contract the city advertised for bid or awarded  
            prior to January 1, 2015. 

          8)Makes related legislative findings and declarations.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :  According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, this bill will result in unknown total costs, likely  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  3

          above $150,000 to the Department of Industrial Relations and  
          other agencies to comply with the provisions of the bill.

           COMMENTS  :  According to the author, "The prevailing wage law is  
          critical to the delivery of a quality construction product  
          because it encourages contractors to perform the work with an  
          efficient, skilled and streamlined workforce, ultimately  
          creating long-term cost-savings to the taxpayers.  This  
          legislation is designed to provide incentives to charter cities  
          to follow the prevailing wage law on municipal projects and  
          thereby deter the underground economy and low-road construction  
          models driven by unscrupulous contractors."  This bill is  
          sponsored by the State Building and Construction Trades Council  
          of California.

           A Brief History of State and Federal Prevailing Wage Law  

          State prevailing wage laws vary from state to state, but do  
          share a common history that actually predates federal prevailing  
          wage law.  Many of these state laws were enacted as part of  
          general reform efforts to improve working conditions at the end  
          of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries.  Between  
          1891 and 1923, seven states adopted prevailing wage laws that  
          required payment of specified hourly wages on government  
          construction projects.  The State of Kansas enacted the first  
          prevailing wage law in 1891.

          Eighteen additional states and the federal government adopted  
          prevailing wage laws during the Great Depression of the 1930s  
          amidst concern that acceptance of the low bid, a common  
          requirement of government contracting for public projects when  
          government had become the major purchaser of construction, would  
          operate to reduce the wages paid to workers on those projects to  
          a level that would disrupt the local economy.

          California's prevailing was law was enacted in 1931.

          In general, the proponents of prevailing wage legislation wanted  
          to prevent the government from using its purchasing power to  
          undermine the wages of its citizens.  It was believed that the  
          government should set an example, by paying the wages prevailing  
          in a locality for each occupation hired by government  
          contractors to build public projects.  Thus, prevailing wage  
          laws are generally meant to ensure that wages commonly paid to  
          construction workers in a particular region will determine the  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  4

          minimum wage paid to the same type of workers employed on  
          publicly funded construction projects. 

          Most public construction projects contracted for or by the  
          federal government or the District of Columbia are covered by  
          the federal prevailing wage law, the Davis-Bacon Act (Act),  
          while 33 states have prevailing wage laws, often referred to as  
          "little Davis-Bacon Acts," that encompass projects financed by  
          states and their political subdivisions.
          
          The federal Davis-Bacon Act was enacted by Congress in 1931.   
          The Act requires workers employed under public construction  
          contracts of the federal government in excess of $2,000 to be  
          paid a minimum wage that the United States Department of Labor  
          determines to be prevailing for corresponding classes of  
          workers.  In addition, sixty separate federal laws currently  
          specify the payment of Davis- Bacon wages for work prescribed. 

          The federal government also has two additional prevailing wage  
          laws - the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act of 1935 (which  
          covers federal contractors in manufacturing and supply  
          industries), and the O'Hara-McNamara Services Act of 1965 (which  
          covers service contracts).

          The United States Supreme Court has stated the public policy  
          underlying the Davis-
          Bacon Act as one of: 

               "protecting local wage standards by preventing contractors  
               from basing their bids on wages lower than those prevailing  
               in the area . . . [and] giving local labor and the local  
               contractor a fair opportunity to participate in this  
               building program."  Universities Research Ass'n. v. Coutu  
               (1981) 450 U.S. 754, 773-774).

           General Background on "Public Works" Under California Law
           
          In general, "public works" is defined to include construction,  
          alteration, demolition, installation or repair work done under  
          contract and "paid for in whole or in part out of public funds."  
           

          Over a decade ago, there was much administrative and legislative  
          action over what constituted the term "paid for in whole or in  
          part out of public funds."  This action culminated in the  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  5

          enactment of SB 975 (Alarcón), Chapter # 938, Statutes of 2001,  
          which codified a definition of "paid for in whole or in part out  
          of public funds" that included certain payments, transfers,  
          credits, reductions, waivers and performances of work.  At the  
          time, supporters of SB 975 stated that it established a  
          definition that conformed to several precedential coverage  
          decisions made by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR).   


          These coverage decisions defined payment by land, reimbursement  
          plans, installation, grants, waiver of fees, and other types of  
          public subsidy as public funds for purposes of prevailing wage  
          law.  According to the sponsors, SB 975 was intended to remove  
          ambiguity regarding the definition of public subsidy of  
          development projects.

          SB 975 also exempted certain affordable housing, residential and  
          private development projects that met certain criteria. 
          Follow-up legislation, SB 972 (Costa), Chapter # 1048, Statutes  
          of 2002, was intended to clarify the application of SB 975 and  
          was the result of extensive discussions between the State  
          Building and Construction Trades Council (sponsor of SB 975),  
          affordable housing advocates, and the Davis Administration.   
          Supporters of SB 972 contended that the original legislation had  
          unintended consequences for self-help housing and housing  
          rehabilitation projects.  As a result of that compromise, SB 972  
          exempted from public works requirements the construction or  
          rehabilitation of privately-owned residential projects that met  
          certain criteria.

           Why It Matters: "Prevailing Wage"
           
          The determination of whether a project is deemed to constitute a  
          "public work" is important because the Labor Code requires  
          (except for projects of $1,000 or less) that the "prevailing  
          wage" to be paid to all workers employed on public works  
          projects.

           Brief Background on Charter Cities  

          The California Constitution gives cities the power to become  
          charter cities.  Of California's 482 cities, 121 are charter  
          cities.  The state's 361 general law cities are subject to the  
          general laws passed by the Legislature.  Under the Constitution,  
          the ordinances of charter cities supersede state law with  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  6

          respect to "municipal affairs," while state law prevails with  
          respect to matters of "statewide concern."  This is often  
          referred to as the home rule doctrine.  The courts decide  
          whether a matter falls within the home rule authority of charter  
          cities.

          While the Constitution does not explicitly define "municipal  
          affair," it does outline four categories that are presumed to be  
          municipal affairs, stating that "it shall be competent in all  
          city charters to provide, in addition to those provisions  
          allowable by the Constitution, and by the laws of the State for:  
          (1) the constitution, regulation, and government of the city  
          police force (2) subgovernment in all or part of a city (3)  
          conduct of city elections and (4) plenary authority is hereby  
          granted, subject only to the restrictions of this article, to  
          provide therein or by amendment thereto, the manner in which,  
          the method by which, the times at which, and the terms for which  
          the several municipal officers and employees whose compensation  
          is paid by the city shall be elected or appointed, and for their  
          removal, and for their compensation, and for the number of  
          deputies, clerks and other employees that each shall have, and  
          for the compensation, method of appointment, qualifications,  
          tenure of office and removal of such deputies, clerks and other  
          employees."

           Recent Court Decision on Charter Cities and Prevailing Wage Law  

          The question of whether charter cities must abide by the PWL has  
          been the subject of much debate and litigation for many decades,  
          most recently in State Building & Construction Trades Council of  
          California v. City of Vista (2009) 173 Cal. App. 4th 567.

          In 2006, voters in the City of Vista approved a .5% sales tax to  
          finance construction and renovation of several public buildings.  
           In June 2007, the Vista City Council ordered a special election  
          for residents to vote on a ballot measure changing the city from  
          a general law city to a charter city.  The measure was  
          recommended by the city attorney, who argued that the conversion  
          would allow the city to save money by avoiding payment of  
          prevailing wages on its public works projects.  After the  
          measure was approved by 67% of the votes cast, Vista amended 
          a city ordinance to prohibit any city contract from requiring  
          payment of prevailing wage unless prevailing wage is required by  
          a state or federal grant, the contract does not involve a  
          municipal affair, or prevailing wage is separately authorized by  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  7

          the city council.  

          In October 2007, the Vista City Council approved contracts to  
          design and build two fire stations with funds generated by the  
          2006 sales tax increase.  These contracts, which totaled several  
          million dollars, did not require compliance with the state's  
          prevailing wage law.  The State Building and Construction Trades  
          Council of California filed suit seeking a writ of mandate  
          ordering Vista to comply with the state's prevailing wage law.   
          Vista argued that prevailing wage issues are not a statewide  
          concern, and that the Constitution and laws governing charter  
          cities give charters the right to determine whether to pay  
          prevailing wages for public works that involve locally funded  
          municipal affairs.

          The trial court denied the Union's petition, citing Vial v. City  
          of San Diego (1981) 122 Cal. App. 3d. 346, which found that the  
          expenditure of city funds on public works projects and the rates  
          of pay of workers hired for such projects are municipal affairs  
          of a charter city over which the state has no legislative  
          authority.  By a 2-1 decision, the court of appeals affirmed the  
          trial court's decision.  The California Supreme Court, by a 5-2  
          vote, also ruled in favor of Vista, deciding that charter cities  
          are not required to pay prevailing wage for local public  
          projects that are paid for by local funds.

          The crux of the argument before the Supreme Court was whether  
          the wage levels of contract workers constructing locally funded  
          public works are a municipal affair or a matter of statewide  
          concern.  The Union argued that the wage levels mandated by the  
          state's prevailing wage law reflect regional rather than local  
          interests and are, therefore, a matter of statewide concern.   
          The Union also contended that wage levels in a local area are  
          likely to have an effect regionally and statewide, and that the  
          refusal of charter cities to pay prevailing wages depresses  
          regional labor standards.  Finally, the Union asserted that the  
          prevailing wage law 's requirement that public works contractors  
          hire apprentices is essential to the state's long-term economic  
          health and that the training of the next generation of skilled  
          construction workers is a statewide concern.  In response, the  
          majority opinion stated:

               "These arguments by the Union underscore the importance of  
               identifying correctly the question at issue.  Certainly  
               regional labor standards and the proper training of  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  8

               construction workers are statewide concerns when considered  
               in the abstract.  But the question presented here is not  
               whether the state government has an abstract interest in  
               labor conditions and vocational training.  Rather, the  
               question presented is whether the state can require a  
               charter city to exercise its purchasing power in the  
               construction market in a way that supports regional wages  
               and subsidizes vocational training, while increasing the  
               charter city's costs.  No one would doubt that the state  
               could use its own resources to support wages and vocational  
               training in the state's construction industry, but can the  
               state achieve these ends by interfering in the fiscal  
               policies of charter cities?  Autonomy with regard to the  
               expenditure of public funds lies at the heart of what it  
               means to be an independent governmental entity. " '[W]e can  
               think of nothing that is of greater municipal concern than  
               how a city's tax dollars will be spent; nor anything which  
               could be of less interest to taxpayers of other  
               jurisdictions.' " (Johnson v. Bradley, supra, 4 Cal.4th at  
               p. 407.)  Therefore, the Union here cannot justify state  
               regulation of the spending practices of charter cities  
               merely by identifying some indirect effect on the regional  
               and state economies.  (See County of Riverside, supra, 30  
               Cal.4th at p. 296 ["No doubt almost anything a county does  
               . . . can have consequences beyond its borders.  But this  
               circumstance does not mean this court may eviscerate clear  
               constitutional provisions, or the Legislature may do what  
               the Constitution expressly prohibits it from doing."].)

          The majority decision concluded that "no statewide concern has  
          been presented justifying the state's regulation of the wages  
          that charter cities require their contractors to pay to workers  
          hired to construct locally funded public works."

          On the other hand, the dissenting opinion by Justice Werdegar,  
          concurred in by Justice Liu, notes:

               "Against the considerable weight of the evidence that the  
               prevailing wage law addresses an issue of statewide  
               concern, the majority's answer is not to engage the issue,  
               but to reframe the question.  The majority thus asserts  
               that the question is not whether regional labor standards  
               and apprenticeship programs address an issue of statewide  
               concern, but whether "the state can require a charter city  
               to exercise its purchasing power in the construction market  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  9

               in a way that supports regional wages and subsidizes  
               vocational training, while increasing the charter city's  
               costs." (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 15.)  What this reframing  
               ignores is that the entire premise of the dispute before  
               us, and the one that has continued to vex courts over the  
               years, is that the state can sometimes override a city's  
               local choices - even financial ones - so long as it has  
               sufficient reason (i.e., with a state law addressed to  
               strong statewide concerns).

               Moreover, in focusing narrowly on Vista's costs, the  
               majority fails to adhere to the California Fed. Savings  
               test that requires us to use a wide-angle lens, cautioning  
               that "courts should avoid the error of  
               'compartmentalization,' that is, of cordoning off an entire  
               area of governmental activity as either a 'municipal  
               affair' or one of statewide concern." (California Fed.  
               Savings, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 17.) Thus, while the effect  
               of the prevailing wage law, as the majority laments, may be  
               that Vista and other charter cities pay more for their  
               public works projects, the purpose of the prevailing wage  
               law, which the majority ignores, is not to make them pay  
               more but to stabilize and support the construction trades.   
               The latter is unquestionably a matter of substantial  
               statewide concern."

           Specific Provisions of This Bill  

          This bill does not directly addressing the legal disagreement  
          presented above, which would require a constitutional amendment.  
           Instead, this bill provides a "financial incentive" to  
          encourage charter cities to require the payment of prevailing  
          wages on all of their public works projects, including those  
          paid for entirely with local funds.  The bill prohibits the  
          reception or use of "state funding or financial assistance" by  
          charter cities that have ordinances or charter provisions  
          allowing contractors to not comply with the prevailing wage law  
          on any public works contract.  The same restriction on state  
          funds applies if a charter city has awarded, within the current  
          or prior two years, a public works contract without requiring  
          the contractor to comply with the prevailing wage law.  The bill  
          exempts contracts of $25,000 or less for construction work, and  
          contracts of $15,000 or less for alteration, demolition, repair,  
          or maintenance work.  









                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  10

          The bill defines "state funding and financial assistance" to  
          include "direct state funding, state loans and loan guarantees,  
          state tax credits, and any other type of state financial support  
          for a construction project."

           Similar Existing Law Related to Project Labor Agreements
           
          Existing law has similar limitation on the use of state funds  
          under Public Contract Code Sections 2502 and 2503. Under these  
          existing conditions, if a charter provision, initiative, or  
          ordinance prohibits, limits, or constrains the governing board's  
          authority or discretion to adopt a project labor agreement  
                                          (PLA), as specified, or prohibits the governing board from  
          considering whether to allocate funds to a city-funded project  
          covered by such an agreement, then the state funding or  
          financial assistance shall not be used to support any  
          construction projects awarded by the city.

          Specifically, SB 922 (Steinberg) of 2011 authorized a public  
          entity to use, enter into, or require contractors to enter into,  
          a PLA for a construction project, if the agreement includes  
          specified taxpayer protection provisions.  This bill also  
          provided that if a charter provision, initiative, or ordinance  
          prohibits the governing board's consideration of a PLA for a  
          project to be awarded by the city, or prohibits consideration  
          whether to allocate funds to a city-funded project covered by  
          such an agreement, then state funding or financial assistance  
          may not be used to support that project, as specified.

          Follow-up legislation, SB 829 (Rubio) of 2012 extended this  
          provision to provide that in such a situation, state funding or  
          financial assistance may not be used to support  any construction  
          projects  awarded by the city, as specified.

           ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT  :

          The sponsor of this bill, the State Building and Construction  
          Trades Council of California, writes the following in support:

               "This legislation is designed to provide incentives to  
               charter cities to follow the prevailing wage law on  
               municipal projects and thereby deter the underground  
               economy and low-road construction models driven by  
               unscrupulous contractor associations.









                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  11

               A long list of academic studies and public policy research  
               confirm that the prevailing wage continues to be a useful  
               and effective driver for local economic growth.  Moreover,  
               in charter cities with prevailing wage exemptions, new  
               developments fail to generate quality jobs.  In fact, these  
               cities have not seen the cost savings promised by  
               prevailing wage exemptions and instead have had their  
               construction costs go up due to substandard construction  
               performed by under-qualified contractors. 

               SB 7 will reward the majority of cities that currently  
               follow the state prevailing wage law.  These cities have  
               rejected the false arguments of anti-prevailing wage groups  
               and low-road construction associations.  These shadowy  
               groups seek exemptions from the prevailing wage through  
               vaguely drafted city charters developed entirely by a few  
               politicians instead of a charter commission of elected  
               representatives of the voting public.  These associations  
               purposely seek to place these charters on the ballot in low  
               voter turnout elections in order to deceive the majority of  
               local voters.  This process has led to mismanagement and  
               abuse of public funds in many cities throughout California.  
                 Case in point the City of Bell's former city manager,  
               Robert Rizzo, during his manipulation of public funds  
               removed the prevailing wage during a special election that  
               recorded a vote of less than 1% of the city's population.  

               The California Constitution gives cities the right to set  
               policies that entirely involve a 'municipal affair.'  The  
               California Supreme Court has held that the payment of wages  
               by contractors on a municipal project is a 'municipal  
               affair' under the California Constitution, so charter  
               cities may choose to excuse contractors on such projects  
               from following the state prevailing wage law. 

               On the other hand, the State has the authority to spend  
               state money to provide a financial incentive for charter  
               cities to follow the prevailing wage law.  SB 7 does not  
               change the outcome of State Building and Construction  
               Trades Council v. City of Vista; instead it helps protect  
               other local governments, including all general law cities  
               and the majority of charter cities, from the practices of a  
               minority group of charter cities that wish to reward their  
               political allies with prevailing wage exemptions that  
               consequently pass on the costs of healthcare and  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  12

               apprenticeship training to the surrounding cities.  The  
               cities that follow the prevailing wage law are furthering a  
               policy that benefits the State, not just their own  
               residents, so they are more deserving of state funds for  
               their construction projects.

               SB 7 would not require charter cities to follow the  
               prevailing wage law and, therefore does not prevent charter  
               cities from having their own policies.  As such, there is  
               no conflict between SB 7 and the constitutional authority  
               of charter cities."

           ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION  :

          Opponents argue that this bill runs counter to the state  
          Constitution and state Supreme Court decisions, and that its  
          impact will have a crippling effect on charter cites that choose  
          not to require prevailing wages in their public works contracts.

          Specifically, the League of California Cities writes the  
          following in opposition to this bill:

               "The League's opposition to this measure rests on the  
               fundamental principle of local control and the  
               constitutional limits on state authority over charter  
               cities.  Moreover, this measure would establish a  
               disturbing framework for future state micromanaging of  
               charter city laws and policies by the tactic of withholding  
               state funds as political leverage to attempt to force  
               changes to city charters and ordinances. 

               The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. The  
               California Constitution empowers voters to create city  
               charters to govern their municipal affairs.  The Courts are  
               tasked with interpreting the boundaries of "municipal  
               affairs."  By seeking to impose punitive measures for  
               decisions made by local voters that are valid under the  
               Constitution, the Legislature would infringe upon the  
               exercise of what our U.S. Supreme Court has rightly called  
               the "fundamental right to vote." 

               Last summer, citing a provision in the state constitution  
               that traces "back more than 100 years," the California  
               Supreme Court held that (1) the construction of a  
               city-operated facility for the benefit of the city's  








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  13

               inhabitants with city funds is "quintessentially a  
               municipal affair," and (2) the state cannot require a  
               charter city to exercise its purchasing power based upon  
               "some indirect effect [of the charter city's purchasing  
               power] on the regional and state economies." State Building  
               and Construction Trades Council of California, AFL-CIO v.  
               City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal. 4th 547. 

               This measure tries to leverage a different outcome than the  
               Court's ruling by withholding vital state construction  
               funds, derived from all of the state's taxpayers, from  
               charter cities that fail to adopt prevailing wage  
               requirements for projects they build with local funds. Such  
               a condition is unlawful because the state is seeking to  
               accomplish indirectly what it cannot achieve directly. 

               We also urge your consideration of the policy implications  
               of this measure.  This measure will withhold all state  
               construction funding from an estimated 51 California  
               cities, with combined populations of over 5 million  
               residents, by making them ineligible for all state grants,  
               loans, tax credits and other financial assistance for  
               construction projects. Ironically, because they are funded  
               with state dollars, stopping all these projects means  
               stopping prevailing wage jobs.  Also, with our economy  
               barely recovering and other state's and nations recruiting  
               our businesses, do we really want to project this type of  
               governmental instability?  Are there no more measured  
               educational or other approaches to this issue? 

               Finally, legislators contemplating putting future bond and  
               tax proposals before the state electorate in the future  
               should pause to consider the signal this aggressive tactic  
               sends to voters and taxpayers statewide.  The state  
               collects taxes from the residents and communities -  
               including the proceeds of recently passed Prop. 30 - then  
               withholds access to these same funds as political leverage  
               from communities that are operating in lawful compliance  
               with the State Constitution.  If the Legislature is capable  
               of such rash action, then on what grounds should voters and  
               taxpayers trust the Legislature to adhere to the provisions  
               of a future state bond, tax or other proposal?"    

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :









                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  14

           Support 
           
          Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers Local #3
          Building and Construction Trades Council of Humboldt and Del  
          Norte Counties
          Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County
          California Chapters of the National Electrical Contractors  
          Association
          California Field Ironworkers Labor Management Cooperation Trust
          California Ironworkers Employers Council
          California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO
          California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and  
          Piping Industry
          California Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National  
          Association 
          California State Association of Electrical Workers
          California State Pipe Trades Council
          California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
          Coalition of California Utility Employees
          Construction Employers' Association
          Contra Costa Building and Construction Trades Council
          Councilmember Bonnie Pannell, City of Sacramento
          Councilmember Darrell Fong, City of Sacramento
          Councilmember David Alvarez, City of San Diego
          Councilmember Esther Sanchez, City of Oceanside
          Councilmember Mary Salas, City of Chula Vista
          Don Cabianca, CSConstructors
          International Association of Heat and Frost Insulators Local 5
          International Association of Sheet Metal Air Rail and  
          Transportation, Local 104
          International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12
          Individuals
          Johnny Zanette, GBayInc
          Kevin Beiser, VP San Diego Unified School District
          Mayor Daniel Helix, City of Concord
          Mayor Gary Davis, City of Elk Grove
          Mayor Jim Wood, City of Oceanside
          Peter Zschiesche, VP San Diego Community College Board
          Plaster Tenders of Southern California, Local 1414
          San Diego County Building & Construction Trades Council
          Scott Barnett, Trustee San Diego Unified School District
          Southern California Contractors Association
          State Building and Construction Trades Council of California  
          (sponsor)
          Teamsters Local 986








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  15

          Union Roofing Contractors Association
          United Association of Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union #230
          United Contractors
          Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers
          Western Steel Council

           Opposition
           
          Air Conditioning Trade Association
          Alameda County Mayors Conference
          American Council of Engineering Companies, CA
          Associated Builders and Contractors of California
          Association of California Cities, Orange County
          Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
          California Contract Cities Association
          Cities of Adelanto, Alhambra, Apple Valley, Arroyo Grande,  
          Bakersfield, Benicia, Big Bear Lake, Buena Park, Burbank,  
          Carlsbad, Ceres, Cerritos, Chula Vista, Coalinga, Culver City,  
          Cypress, Danville, Del Mar, Diamond Bar, Dinuba, Downey, El  
          Cajon, El Centro, Eureka, Folsom, Fortuna, Gilroy, Glendora,  
          Grass Valley, Grover Beach, Hayward, Highland, Huron, Indian  
          Wells, Jackson, King City, Lakewood, La Quinta, Lemoore,  
          Lindsay, Mendota, Merced, Modesto, Moreno Valley, Murrieta,  
          Napa, Norwalk, Oceanside, Pacific Grove, Palm Desert, Palo Alto,  
          Paramount, Pasadena, Petaluma, Pico Rivera, Plymouth, Rancho  
          Cucamonga, Rancho Mirage, Ridgecrest, Roseville, Salinas, San  
          Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Marcos, Santa Ana, Santa Maria,  
          Santee, Selma, Shafter, Signal Hill, Solvang, Tehachapi,  
          Torrance, Tracy, Tulare, Victorville, Visalia, Vista, Wasco,  
          West Covina, and Whittier
          Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
          Contra Costa Taxpayers Association
          Corona Taxpayers Association
          Corona Taxpayers Association
          Danville Area Chamber of Commerce
          Danville Chamber of Commerce
          Desert Valley Builders Association
          Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce
          Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce
          Home Builders Association of Kern County
          Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
          Independent Cities Association
          Inland Empire Taxpayers Association
          Inland Empire Taxpayers Association
          Kern Citizens for Sustainable Government








                                                                  SB 7
                                                                  Page  16

          Kern County Taxpayers Association
          LA Co. Business Federation
          LA County Division, League of California Cities
          Lake Forest City Council
          League of California Cities
          Lewis Operating Corporation
          Los Angeles County Business Federation
          Marin County Mayors Council
          Mayor Ashley Swearengin, City of Fresno
          Michelle Steel, VC State Board of Equalization
          Modesto Chamber of Commerce
          MuniServices, LLC
          North of the River Chamber of Commerce
          Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors Association of California
          Redwood Empire Division, League of California Cities
          Sacramento County Board of Supervisors
          Sacramento Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce
          Sacramento Taxpayers Association
          Salinas Valley Chamber of Commerce
          San Diego County Division, League of California Cities
          San Diego Taxpayers Association
          San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
          San Joaquin Taxpayers Association
          Solano County Taxpayers Association
          South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce
          Southwest California Legislative Council
          Stockton Chamber of Commerce
          Town of Apple Valley
          Western Electrical Contractors Association


           Analysis Prepared by  :    Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091