Browse
Search
NS ORD-1997-013 Living Wage Ordinance
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
Ordinances
>
Ordinance 1990-1999
>
1997
>
NS ORD-1997-013 Living Wage Ordinance
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2013 2:42:33 PM
Creation date
7/23/2013 12:45:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
5/21/1997
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Ordinance
Agenda Item
10b
Document Relationships
Agenda - 05-21-1997 - 10b
(Linked To)
Path:
\Board of County Commissioners\BOCC Agendas\1990's\1997\Agenda - 05-21-1997
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
55
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12 <br /> 12 <br /> ordinance to be $26.8 million of Baltimore's $2 billion budget. The Preamble Center analyzed 23 <br /> contracts totaling$19.3 million dollars that had been bid before and after the living wage <br /> ordinance took effect. There was no significant rise in the costs of the contracts. The largest <br /> single contract was for Public Pupil Bus Transportation in the amount of$14.5 million. With the <br /> living wage ordinance, it rose 2.6 percent. Baltimore provided $121,000 for enforcement in the <br /> first year. Appendix 5 is "An Analysis of the Fiscal and Economic Costs of Baltimore City <br /> Ordinance 442", prepared by the Preamble Center for Public Policy. <br /> Due to the preliminary nature, narrow scope, and the type of contracts considered in Baltimore, <br /> little can be gained by using this model to predict how such an ordinance would affect contracts in <br /> Orange County. In addition to the difference in the type of contracts which we have locally, our <br /> economic situation is very different. Less unionization, low unemployment and a very strong <br /> local economy could result in different responses than have been seen in Northeastern urban areas. <br /> In Charts 9 and 10, the Personnel Department estimates the potential monetary impact if a local <br /> ordinance were applied to Orange County temporary and/or permanent employees. For the <br /> purposes of this example, living wage requirements are assumed at$7.50 or$8.50. <br /> Chart 9 <br /> Living Wage Cost Estimate <br /> Orange County Temporary Em to ees <br /> At$7.50 At$8.50 <br /> Estimated County Cost to Implement $22,500 $45,000 <br /> Employees Affected 39 67 <br /> Departments Affected 15 20 <br /> Chart 10 <br /> Orange Coun Permanent Em to ees <br /> At $ 7.50 At$8.50 <br /> Estimated County Cost to Implement -0- $ 20,000* <br /> Employees Affected -0- 24 <br /> Departments Affected -0- 5 <br /> *Salary adjustment to employees earning below$8.55 only. Does not take into account other salary adjustments <br /> which may be necessary to respond to salary compression arising from realigning the pay plan. <br /> The overall budget impact will depend on how narrowly or broadly the ordinance is applied. In <br /> any case, some staff resources and attorney will need to be budgeted. A more complete analysis <br /> of costs can be developed when the scope and level of a living wage are agreed upon. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.