--- ## author: Aaron Rosenthal date: D:20260713123329-05'00' --- ## City of Ramsey ## Agenda ## City Council Work Session Tuesday, July 28, 2026 5:30 pm ## Lake Itasca Room, 7550 Sunwood Drive NW Remote Attendance available at www.cityoframsey.com/meetings. Those joining remotely and requesting to speak are asked to use a webcam when speaking. 1.Call to Order 2.Topics for Discussion ## 1.Quarterly Update from Fire and Police Departments ## 2.Continued Review of Preliminary 2027 General Fund Budget/Levy ## 3.Wage Theft & Project Labor Requirements 4.Waterfront Park ## 5.Discussion Regarding Union Contract Negotiations (Discussion Closed to the Public) 3.Topics for Future Discussion ## 1.Review Future Topics/Calendar 4.Mayor/Council/Staff Input 1.Update on Outside Committees 5.Adjournment* *Note: the City Council may motion to recess this Work Session meeting and reconvene after the regular City Council meeting if items on the agenda are not completed. Our Mission: To work together to responsibly grow our community, and to provide quality, cost- effective, and efficient government services 2. 1. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Enhance City’s communication through transparency and accountability. ## Information ## Title: ## Quarterly Update from Fire and Police Departments ## Purpose/Background: This case is informational to review the previous quarter of the calendar year related to Fire and Police activities, calls and any new trends.  A verbal update will be provided. ## Time Frame/Observations/Alternatives: 15 minutes ## Recommendation: Receive updates from both the Fire Chief and Chief of Police. ## Outcome/Action: No action requested. ## Attachments No file(s) attached. ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 03:10 PM ## Form Started By: Katie SchmidtStarted On: 07/21/2026 09:07 AM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 2. 2. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Identify and implement operational efficiencies, cost savings and additional funding sources. ## Information ## Title: ## Continued Review of Preliminary 2027 General Fund Budget/Levy ## Purpose/Background: Continued review of the proposed 2027 General Fund Budget and respective tax levies. As of July 23, tax capacity numbers are not yet available from the County. Several items are attached for review: ## 1.  Tax Capacity Rate Calculation Estimate 2.  2027 Personnel Requests ## 3.  2027 Capital Equipment Requests ## 4.  2027 Requested General Fund Budget ## 5.  2027 Requested EDA Budget ## Notification: Other documents such as cash flows and summary of line item additions/removals will be presented at the council worksession or attached as time allows. ## Time Frame/Observations/Alternatives: 60 minutes or more ## Recommendation: Continued review of 2027 budget/levy. ## Outcome/Action: Continued review of 2027 budget/levy. ## Attachments ## Tax Capacity Estimated ## 2027 Personnel Requests ## 2027 Capital Requests ## 2027 Requested General Fund Budget ## 2027 Requested EDA Budget ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 03:10 PM ## Form Started By: Diana LundStarted On: 07/22/2026 02:09 PM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 2027 - With 3% COLA & League MR & 4% MR Adj, Longevity Step change, Personnel Requests & all in Line items ## Estimated3.50%Estimated ## CertifiedFiscal Disp DistLocal LevyTaxable ValueTax Capacity General19,740,050 *2,113,031 17,627,019 46,401,715 37.987860% Pavement Levy1,935,510 **207,182 1,728,327 46,401,715 3.724705% ## EDA86,367 ***9,245 77,122 46,401,715 0.166205% Bonds3,007,527 ****321,934 2,685,593 46,401,715 5.787701% Total Levy24,769,454 *****2,651,393 22,118,061 47.667472% ***** Total Levy increase of 6.13% over 2026 adopted -$1,430,538 increase6.13%1,430,538 * General Fund Levy increase of 8.17% over 2026 adopted - $1,491,301 increase ** Pavement Levy = 5% increase over prior year pavement levy $101,691 increase $200,000 from 2025 Excess Revenue Transfer (PIR Fund) Net Levy Decrease: $98,309 or -4.83% ****Bond Levy - $37,546 increase or 1.26% ***EDA Levy - ($0) increase over 2026 adopted 2026 - Final County Numbers as of 6-17-26 ## Estimated5.56%Estimated ## CertifiedFiscal Disp DistLocal LevyTaxable ValueTax Capacity General18,248,749 *2,073,130 16,175,619 44,832,575 36.080058% Pavement Levy2,033,819 **231,050 1,802,769 44,832,575 4.021114% ## EDA86,367 ***9,812 76,555 44,832,575 0.170758% Bonds2,969,981 ****337,402 2,632,579 44,832,575 5.872024% Total Levy23,338,916 *****2,651,393 20,687,523 46.144954% ***** Total Levy increase of 6.32% over 2025 adopted -$1,388,222 increase6.32%1,388,222 * General Fund Levy increase of 7.78% over 2025 adopted - $1,317,703 increase ** Pavement Levy = 5% increase over prior year pavement levy $96,849 increase ****Bond Levy - $26,330 decrease or -.88% ***EDA Levy - ($0) increase over 2025 adopted 2026 - With Reductions & County Valuations - 8/20/2025 2025-Adopted ## Estimated-3.21%Estimated ## CertifiedFiscal Disp DistLocal LevyTaxable ValueTax Capacity General16,931,046 *1,792,494 15,138,552 42,470,228 35.645% Pavement Levy1,936,970 **205,067 1,731,903 42,470,228 4.078% ## EDA86,367 ***9,144 77,223 42,470,228 0.182% Bonds2,996,311 ****317,220 2,679,091 42,470,228 6.308% Total Levy21,950,694 *****2,323,925 19,626,769 46.214% ***** Total Levy increase of 8.24% over 2024 adopted -$1,670,993 increase * General Fund Levy increase of 13.16% over 2024 adopted - $1,968,826 increase ** Pavement Levy = 5% increase over prior year pavement levy $92,237 increase ****Bond Levy - ($389,047 decrease). 2014 Cap Equip cert done & used $300,000 from AUAR bond county paid ***EDA Levy - ($1,023) decrease over 2024 adopted ## 2027 PERSONNEL REQUESTS ## RECLASSRECLASSNEW POSITIONNEW POSITIONNEW POSITIONNEW POSITION ## 2027Cost CenterBuildingEngineeringEngineeringStreetsBuilding MaintParks ## Budget240301301311194452 ## Full-TimeFull-TimeSeasonalIntern ## Building Inspector to ## Building Inspector II ## Engineering Tech III to Civil ## Engineer IGIS Technician II ## Streets Maintenance ## WorkerBuilding Seasonal WorkerHappy Days Intern ## TOTALS 6102Full-Time Regular5,297 7,446 73,289 66,707 86,032 6104Part-Time Regular- 6105Temp12,920 14,560 27,480 6121Pera397 559 5,497 5,003 - - 6,453 6122FICA/Medicare405 569 5,607 5,103 988 1,114 8,683 6131Group Insurance (Family & Single Coverage)- - 20,172 14,130 - - 20,172 6133Workers Comp31 44 235 2,371 357 47 714 6135Paid Family Medical Leave21 30 369 319 51 58 529 Total Funding Required6,151 8,648 105,169 93,633 14,316 15,779 150,063 ## Additional Expense: Licening, cubicle build out,training16,700 16,700 Hook Truck (On capital sheet) 200,000 - Included capital expense total Commercial Drivers License4,000 - Uniform & training594 - Add'l Net Funding Required- - 16,700 204,594 - - 16,700 ## Offset Funding:- Utility Funds(2,595) (18,727) (2,595) Net Funding Required - General Fund6,151 6,053 121,869 - 14,316 15,779 164,168 - ## STATUS OF REQUESTPosition ReclassPosition ReclassNEWNEWNEWNEW (Step 6)(Step 1) ## 2088 hours2088 hours1560 Hours2088 Hours760 Hours728 Hours Starts January 1, 2027Starts January 1, 2027Starts April 5, 2027Starts January 4, 20275/10/27-9/17/275/17/27-9/20/27 ## Full-Time Equivalent1111 Step 6- $53.271 (Currently at ## Step 6 - $50.734 Bldg Insp I) Step 3- $48.347 (Currently at ## Step 6 - $44.781 Eng Tech III) Step 6 - $46.980Step 1 - $31.948 Starting Seasonal - $17.00Starting Seasonal - $20.00 Current position is half Current position is half ## Justification/ ## Description ## See Attached DetailSee Attached DetailSee Attached Detail ## See Attached Detail ## See Attached DetailSee Attached Detail ESTIMATEDJUSTIFICATIONOTHEROTHERNet 2027 ## ITEMCOSTPURCHASEUSEFULTOTAL OF ## Pushed, Eliminated or Revised ## From Respective DepartmentNOTESFUNDFUNDFUNDING ## #CNTRDESCRIPTIONPRICELIFEPURCH PRCFor Purchase/ReplacementAVAILABLESOURCEREQUIRED ## 2027 CAPITAL OUTLAY ## GENERAL FUND: ## Data Processing #192 6585192 ## Replace Engineering Plotter To PW 15,000$ 1015,000$ (15,000)$ Last replaced in 2013 ## MOVED TO 2028-$ 6585192 Replace 41 laptops (34 Police/ 7 Fire) 133,970$ 7133,970$ (55,500)$ Current laptops are 8 years old. Screen damage & slow Toughbook for all officers, cso's, one reserve & 7 fire vehicles. 17 laptops pushed to 2028 so all not in one year. 7 fire laptops are asking for grant2,500$ resale78,470$ Total Data Processing #192148,970$ 148,970$ (70,500)$ -$ 78,470$ ## POLICE PROTECTION #211 6550211 ## Replace 2023 Dodge Charger with 2027 Ford F-150 50,000$ 550,000$ Maintain vehicle rotation schedule Replace 2023 Squad #330 Dodge Charger. Purchase Price: $35,629 Nov 202350,000$ 6550211 ## Replace 2021 Ford Explorer with 2027 Ford Explorer 50,000$ 550,000$ Maintain vehicle rotation schedule Replace 2021 - #312 Ford Explorer Purchase Price: $39,088 Sept 202150,000$ 6550211 ## Replace 2021 Ford Explorer with 2027 Ford Explorer 50,000$ 550,000$ Maintain vehicle rotation schedule Replace 2021 - #313 Ford Explorer Purchase Price: $38,794 July 202150,000$ 6580211 NEW 6 additional License Plate Reading fixed-mounted cameras $3k each) $ 18,000 8 $ 18,000 (18,000)$ Add to the existing 6 LPR cameras for better coverage and investigations. Removed completely -$ Total Police Protection #211168,000$ 168,000$ (18,000)$ -$ 150,000$ ## FIRE #220 6550220Replace 2019 Chev Tahoe With 2027 Ford F350 (Asst Fire Chief of Operations & Training Vehicle)55,000$ 755,000$ Primary emergency vehicle during workday hours and one of three fire response vehicles that serve the city. Also equipped to function as a mobile command post. Replace 2019 - #395 Chev Tahoe. 10,000$ Resale45,000$ 6550220Replace 2020 Chevy Tahoe with 2027 Ford F150 (Fire Chief Vehicle)50,000$ 750,000$ Primary emergency vehicle during workday hours and one of three fire response vehicles that serve the city. Also equipped to function as a mobile command post. Replace 2020 - 573 Chev Tahoe. Purchase Price: $37,121 Feb 2020 8,000$ Resale42,000$ 6550220Replace 2020 Chevy Tahoe with 2027 Ford F350 (Fire Prevention Vehicle)55,000$ 755,000$ Primary emergency vehicle during workday hours and one of three fire response vehicles that serve the city. Also equipped to function as a mobile command post. Replace 2020 - #373 Chev Tahoe. 8,000$ Resale47,000$ 6540220 Replace 2008 Rosenbauer Fire Engine with 2026 model (Received 2027) - This is the 3rd year of 3-year funding. Total Cost is $1.2M 600,000$ 15600,000$ Engine is one of two engines serves city. Approved with 2025 budget Replace 2008 - 565 Rosenbauer Fire Engine, est resale value $115,000 $35,000 Discount if Chassis paid in full $600,000K. Purchased June 2008: $374,116150,000$ Resale/Discount450,000$ Total Fire #220760,000$ 760,000$ -$ 176,000$ 584,000$ ## Building Inspections #240 6550240 ## New 2027 Chevy Equinox 36,000$ 1036,000$ Provide a newer reliable inspection vehicle. For building official. 36,000$ Total Building Inspections #24036,000$ 36,000$ -$ 36,000$ ## CIVIL DEFENSE #250 6580250 Replace 2 emergency sirens 35,000$ 1535,000$ Replacing 17 sirens installed between 2003 and 2008. 2 every year 2029 Last year of replacing-$ 35,000$ TotaL Civil Defense #25035,000$ 35,000$ -$ 35,000$ ## ENGINEERING #301 6550301 New 2027 GMC 2500 55,000$ 1055,000$ Vehicle is past the end of it's useful life. ## Replace 2015 #411 GMC Sierra. Purchase Price: $29,799 May 2015 Requesting to retain as a shared engineering 55,000$ TotaL Engineering #30155,000$ 55,000$ -$ -$ 55,000$ 1 ## PUBLIC WORKS #311 6550311 ## New 2027 Ford F550 Hook Truck 200,000$ 10200,000$ (200,000)$ Hook-lift system capable of interchanging multiple bodies. Would give versatility and capabilities to quickly change multif-function bodies while efficiently reducting downtime With the addition of a street maintenance worker in 2027. Moved to 2028 -$ 6580311 ## New Second Fuel Island at Public works Facility 184,000$ 20184,000$ (184,000)$ The PW fuel island has only 1 pump with 1 gas/1diesel nozzle. Gas tank capacity is 1600 gallons with min delivery amount of 900 gal and diesel tank capacity is 2400 gal with min delivery amount of 900 gal. When fuel levels drop below 150 gal pumps shut off until alarm Moved to 2028 for further discussion -$ 6580311 ## New Mobile Vehicle Lift for Mechanics Bay 63,000$ 2563,000$ (63,000)$ Another vehicle lift is needed and a permanent floor mounted lift would cost $40k but would restrict its use to one location, whereas mobile lift can be moved & used anywhere providing increased efficiencies & greater lift capacities Moved to 2028 for further discussion -$ 6540311 ## Replace 2004 Snogo Blower with Larue D40 Series Snow Blower attachment 250,000$ 20250,000$ Attaches to front-end loader. Loads trucks to eliminate tall snowbanks for greater visibility. Fleet capital points of 35. 28 points and above Condition IV suggests that the ## Vehicle Needs Immedicate ## Consideration for Replacement Replace 2004 - #647 Snogo. Purchased June 2004: $69,901 15,000$ Trade In235,000$ 6580311 ## Replace 2018 Kubota UTV with Kubota UTV 4X4 32,000$ 1032,000$ (32,000)$ Considering replacing this machine at this time could avoid costly repairs that could happen once it hits 10 year mark. Vehicle is at 18 points. At 18-22 points vehicle is condition II which suggests that the vehicle is in "Good" condition Replace 2017 - #696 Kubota UTV Purchase Price: $13,432 Feb 2018 NOTE: Not 10 years old Moved to 2028 7,000$ Trade In-$ 6540311 ## Replace 2015 Kubota Tractor with Kubota M6-111 Tractor 132,000$ 10132,000$ Vital Year-round piece of equipment: Snow removal & ditch/lot/storm pond mowing in the summer. Replacement Guidelines: 40 points. Vehicle needs Immediate Consideration for ## Replacement Replace 2015 - #686 Kubota Tractor. Purchased September 2014: $40,873 20,000$ Trade In112,000$ 6550311 Replace 2016 Ford One-Ton with Dump & Plow Equipment with Ford Crew Cab F 550 with Dump & plow 114,000$ 10114,000$ ## Using Replacement Guidelines: 28 points. 28 points and above Condition IV suggests that the ## Vehicle Needs Immedicate ## Consideration for Replacement Replace 2016 #692 Ford one-ton with Dump & Plow . Purchased April 2016 $64,480 15,000$ Resale99,000$ 6540311 ## NEW 2027 Tandem Axle Plow Truck 380,000 15 380,000 Losing places to put snow in down- town area as well as highway 10 frontage roads. Using replacement guidelines: 38.5 points. 28 points and above Condition IV suggests ## that the Vehicle Needs Immedicate ## Consideration for Replacement Replace 2007 #662 Sterling Dump Keep in fleet until next new plow purchase received. 380,000$ Total Public Works #3111,355,000$ 1,355,000$ (479,000)$ 50,000$ 826,000$ ## PARK & RECREATION #452 6580452 ## Replace 2018 Kubota UTV with Kubota UTV 4X4 32,000$ 1032,000$ (32,000)$ Used by the parks department for athletic field maintenance and has reached a typical life span of 10 ## years, See Kubota UTV notes above. Replace 2017 - #695 Kubota UTV Purchase Price: $16,022 Feb 2018 NOTE: Not 10 years old . Moved to 2028 7,000$ Trade In-$ 6580 452 ## Replace 2014 Exmark Mower with Bagger With Exmark Mower 20,900$ 1520,900$ ## Using Replacement Guidelines: 32 points. 28 points and above Condition IV suggests that the ## Vehicle Needs Immedicate ## Consideration for Replacement ## Replace 2014 #683 Exmark Mower Purchase Price : $14,237 May 2014 3,200$ Trade in17,700$ 6580452 NEW 8 Pan Tilt Zoom fixed-mounted security cameras for in City Parks $3k each) $ 24,000 8 $ 24,000 Install cameras in large parks to assist in incidents of property damage or other person crimes. 24,000$ 10-$ Total Park & Recreation #45276,900$ 76,900$ (32,000)$ 3,200$ 41,700$ TOTAL GENERAL FUND - 20272,634,870$ 2,634,870$ (599,500)$ 229,200$ 1,806,170$ ## Orig Req2,384,170$ (578,000)$ 2 ## Funding For 2027 Capital Request: General Fund Only: ## Fleet Fund 50,000 ## Capital Equip Fund 585,000 ## COR/HRA Fund 1,171,170 ## Total $1,806,170 ## ENTERPRISE FUNDED 1740 9605-Storm ## Replace 2018 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper 330,000$ 10330,000$ ## Using Replacement Guidelines: 35 points. 28 points and above Condition IV suggests that the ## Vehicle Needs Immedicate Consideration for Replacement which as exceeded this rating substantially. ## Replace 2018 #694 Elgin Pelican Street Sweeper. Purchase Price: $205,743 March 2018 Note: Not yet 10 years old was included in 2028 CIP last year. Street Sweeper # 685 was purchased in 2025 Moved to 202825,000$ Trade in305,000$ TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS - 2027330,000$ 330,000$ .25,000$ 305,000$ 3 ## GENERAL FUND 102 - BIIDGET SUMM ARY ## TAXES ## LICENSES AND PERMITS ## INTERGOVERNMENTAL REVENUES ## CHARGES FOR SERVICES ## FINES AND FORFEITS ## SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS ## MISCELLANEOUS ## INVESTMENT EARNINGS ## OTHER FINANCING SOuRCES ## ITOTAL REVENUES u,gsi,sgi 843,[110 885,575 814,985 45,717 235,737 i57,0811 659,892 ## IS,389,426 12,827,463 1,058,097 1,508,405 1,067,192 39,681 27,875 312,520 1,700,265 18,541,497 14,7 51,073 1,610,437 gzo,sia 1 ,227,7[)0 ## B,603 2 6,103 3 4,247 zgs,zy:i 4 ,031,473 22,905,543 16,534,327 1,446,884 1,016,315 1 ,213,938 53,017 7,50;! 2 0,019 3 51,gl3 )183,408 21,517,323 18,209,7 49 992,850 845,500 808,700 4!1,000 21,050 75,000 1,788,750 zz,ygg,sgg 1!),672,050 1,024,350 926,300 844,200 ## 4R,0(1(1 21,000 75,000 2,363670 24,079,570 8.03% 3.17% 9.56% 4.39% (l(l[l% ## O.OO% 32.42% 9 61% ## GENERAL GOVERNMENT ## PIIBLIC SAFETY ## PUBLIC WORKS ## PARKS AND RECREATION ## MISCELlANEOu5/CONTINGENCY ITOTAL ixpivoivuss 3,814,959 6,822,296 2,153!)46 ## 1,445,C177 334,541 14,570,820 4,053,311 7,876,06[) 3,451,351 1,62tl,641 154,609 17,163,!)71 4,663,423 9,504,535 n,azs,igz z,zgg,oza 1 ,381,70(1 2 2,173,279 5,125,885 9,177,537 2.877,702 z,xzy,gos 1 ,49!1,274 2 0,808,344 5,773,308 10,317,07!1 ## 3A79,900 ## 2,604,'IT2 214,400 zz,zgg,sgg 6,076,831 11,183,6!)2 4,408,914 2,525,780 784,353 24,979,570 285.84% 9.61% ## TAXES ## LICENSES AND ## PERMITS ## INTERGOVERNMENTAL ## REVENUES ## CHARGES FOR ## SERVICE5 ## FINES AN[) FORFEITS ## SPECIAL ASSESSMENT5 ## MISCEIIANEOIIS ## INVESTMENT ## EARNINGS ## SALE OF FIXED ## ASSETS ## OTHER FINANCING ## SOLIRCES ## ITOTAL ## REVENUES 11,961,591 843,010 885,575 814,985 45,717 235,737 (57,081i 12,827,463 i,oss,ogt 1,508,405 i,otiz,igz 3!1,681 27,875 312,520 14,751,073 1,610,437 !120,634 1 ,227,700 8,603 2 6,103 3 4,247 2!15,273 ## 659A92 1,700,265 4,031,473 15,38!1,426 18,541,497 22,905,543 16,534,327 1,446,884 1,016,315 1 ,213,938 53,017 7,502 10,019 gsi,gig 14,000 883,408 21.531,323 18,2t)9,7 49 992,850 845,50[) 808,700 48,000 21,[150 ## 75,(JOO l'l 1111-Nl:l"l-I fil 14 ## I19,672,050 8.03% 1,024,350 117% 926,300 !).56% 844,200 4.39% 48,0[)0 ## 0.OO% 21,[100 -0.24% ## 75,€HJD ## D.DD% 1 ,788,750 2,368,670 32.42% 2 2,78!1,5!1!1 24,!179,!170 9.61% 2022 Levy 2023 Levy 2024 Lew 202s Levy 2026 Levy 2027 Levy 11,712.590 1:1,145.820 14,962,22(1 16,931.046 18,248,7 49 19,7 40,050 9.76% 12.24% 13.82% 13.16% 1.78% 8 17% ## S 1,4!11,301 ## Increase )10!'tlilll ## II ## 4011 CURRENT-ADVALOREMTAXES ## 401A CURRENT-UNCOILECTED ## ALLOWANCE ## 4012 DELINQUENT-ADVALOREMTAXES ## 4014 FISCALDISPARITIES 40'l5 EXCESSTAXINCREMENTS 4rn8 PENALTY/INT-ADVALOREMTAXES ## 4019 FORFEITEDTAXSALEAPPROPRIATION iTAXESTotal 50,370 il27,723) 1 ,535,653 ## 1,SOS,453 304,151 144 2,742 (9,611) 153 5,006 11,961,5!)1 12,827,463 (92,345) i63,879) 1 ,537,812 1,593,!118 16,725 56,4!)5 2,202 i5,6!18) :ui,sos,gzo 17,667,050 ilO[i,000) ilO0,000) 20,000 5,000 1,742,829 2,073,000 38,000 25,00[) 3,000 2,000 14,751,073 16,534,327 18,209,74') 19,672,05(1 i3,9211 46,22@ i2,[)00) 50, €00 tlCENSES AND ## PERMITS ttu51NESS ## LICENSES/PERMITS 4140 ## CREDITCARDPROCESSINGFEES 4155 ## LIQUOR-ONSALE 4156 ## LIQUOR-OFFSAIE 415!) ## MECHANICAL ## LICENSE 4163 ## PAWNSHOP ## LICENSE 4164 ## CIGARmESALESLICENSE 4165 ## REFUSE HAULERS ## LICENSE 4168 ## PE[)DLERS LICENSE 4170 ## 0THER BUSINESS ## LICENSES ## & PERM 4171 ## INVESTIGATIVE ## FEES 48,185 18,265 4,000 3,988 4 00 4,100 2,210 2.441 i2,465) 44,620 15,525 4,000 3,525 350 4,50(1 4,105 2.415 i3,921) 46,22@ 21,250 4,000 3,450 350 24,150 8,075 3,475 (978) 48,820 17,950 4,000 2,800 3 50 14,408 g,815 4,911 i2,[)00) 50, €00 15,000 4,000 ## 4,ODD 350 10,000 51)00 ## 3,(XIO i2,000) 50,000 15.Ott) ## 4,ODD 3,0(10 350 ## 12,ODD ## 9,00CI ## 3,ODD 15.Ott) ## 4,ODD 3,0(10 350 ## 12,ODD ## 9,00CI ## 3,ODD 15,000 4,000 ## 4,ODD 350 51)00 ## 3,(XIO 17,950 4,000 2,800 3 50 14,408 g,815 4,911 21,250 4,000 3,450 350 24,150 8,075 3,475 15,525 4,000 3,525 350 4 4,105 18,265 4,000 3,988 4 00 2,210 ## - NON-BUSINESS ## LICENSES/PERMITS 4205 ## BullnlNG PERMIT 4206 ## PLIIMBING PERMIT 4207 ## ANIMALLICENSE ## 420)I ## HEATING PERMIT 4209 ## CONDITIONALUSEPERMIT 4211 ## SIGN PERMITS 4212 ## RENTALLICENSE 4213 ## FIREPERMIT 4214 ## ELECTRICALINSPECTIONPERMIT 4220 ## SEPTICSYSTEMPERMIT 4221 ## URBANSEWERPERMIT 4222 ## URBANWATERPERMIT 4230 ## 0THER NON-BUSINESS ## LIC ## & PERM 520,770 46,037 2,000 53,4!14 9,500 1,500 4,010 10,750 80,988 21,685 6,[)25 6,925 i395) 637,240 ## F149,543 74,144 97,393 500 2,750 75,098 118,275 22,150 14,00[] 2,(100 3,000 10,250 201,555 21,044 16,695 95,787 135,326 22,433 ## 26A% 8,550 17,800 9,150 17,800 2,275 2,361 ## 450,ODD 450,000 6 €,000 ## 70,ODD 794,771 99,107 1,225 un,<og 75,0[][] 13,00€ 15,00[] 3,275 2,50a 93,055 141,000 13!)25 14,00[] 143,0!12 zoo,ooa 25,535 2[1,(1(10 iti,gs:i 12,1100 16,983 12,000 4,450 2,00[) 85,€00 ## 12AO 3,000 120,0[)0 15,000 120,000 25,[100 14,00€ ## 14,ODD 2,000 ## LICENSES AND ## PERMITS Total 843,010 1,058,097 1,610,437 1,446,884 992,850 1,024,35a ## INTmG)VERNMENTALREVENUES- ## - FEDERAL ## INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4253 ## FEDERALEXCISETAXREFUND 1,333 324 4252 ## FEDERALGRANTS 70,00[) ## - ST ATE INTERGOVERNMENTAL 4255 ## FEDERALCARESACT 4253 ## MARKETVALUEHOMESTEADCREDIT 4268 ## MSAFORSTREETS 4269 ## POLICE-INSURANCEPREMIUMTAX 4271 ## POSTBOARDREIMBURSEMENT 4272 ## STATEEXCISETAXREFUND 4273 ## 0THERSTATEGRANTS&AIDS ## - LOCAL INTERGOVERNMENT ## At 4287 ## 0THERLOCALGOVERNMENTGRANTS 55,624 3,644 302,316 277,956 29,430 525 214.'747 650,Oat) 3,223 210,0[)[) 2!)6,737 26,265 566 251,2% 3,759 240,0[]0 346,825 ;ig,:igs 793 zgg,stio 3,785 260,000 405,362 27,844 1,646 317,678 ## 30DJ)0[] 28(], €00 25,il00 500 240,000 350,0[)[] 300,€[)(] 25,€00 1 ,000 2 40,000 1[],30(1 ## INTERGOVERNMENTAL ## REVENLIES ## Total 885,575 ## 1,SOB,405 920,634 1,016,315 a45,500 926,300 4304 4305 4306 4307 4308 4309 4310 4312 4313 4326 4327 4328 432!) 4330 4337 4338 4339 4347 ## RENTAL FEES - REAL PROPERTY ## RENTAL FEES ## ZONING & 511BDIVISION FEES ## PIAN CHECKING FEES ## SALES OF MAPS & PUBLICATiONS ## ASSESSMENT SEARCHES ## SPECIAL MEETING FEES ## GENERAL GOVERNMENT STAFF TIME ## OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT ## SPECIAL POLICE 5ERVICES ## SPECIAL FIRE PROTECTIC)N 5ERVIC ## ACCIDENT REPORTS ## OPEN BURN PERMIT FEES ## OTHER PUBLIC SAFETY ## ENGINEERING ## PLAN & SPECIFICATION FEES ## OTHER PUBLIC WORKS ## OTHER CULTURE-RECREATION 160,542 13,672 2,4!10 249,663 137 270 36,184 15,93g 13(1 763 1,000 4,325 299,006 16,!1!14 13,869 173,48!1 19,325 1,530 30!1,777 235 360 19,513 5,000 30 857 6 75 4,195 446,839 47,893 37,474 247,971 27,40a 275 347,737 171 3Ga 350 23,312 125 10,152 914 975 3,060 4 74,669 34,413 5Sjl7S 228,037 39,014 368,751 16 30 19,94!1 5,06[1 6 0t) ## 87R ## 1,(10(I 5,457 463,060 39,375 ## C,710 180,0[)a 25,000 225,00a ## 10(I 100 15,€ 00 5,000 1 ,(lOa 500 2,000 310,000 20,0[]0 25,(100 200,00[] 35,[100 225,00(1 10[) 1(10 15,00tl 5,000 ## 1,GO(I 1 ,00a 2,000 310,00tl 20,000 3(1,00(1 ## iCHARGES FOR SERVICES Total 814,9851,067,1!121,227,7001,213,938 ## 808,7(K) 844,200 ## 47C11 INTERESTONINVESTMENTS ## 11NVESTMENT EARNINGS Ttital (57,081) (57,081) 312,520 312,52(1 295,273 2'lS,273 351,913 '151,913 75,00[) 75,00(1 75,(1(1(1 ## 4722 SALEOFGENERALFIXE[)ASSET5 ## iFIXED ASSET DISPOSITION Total 94,090 ga,ago 14,000 14,000 ## TRANSFERS IN ## 4901 TRANSFERINFROMOTHERFUND5 ## IOTHER FINANCINGSOLIRCES Total ## TOTALREVENIIE ## 65!)A!)2 659,8!12 lFi,389,426 1,700,265 1,7(10,265 18,541,497 3,937,383 3,937,383 22,"105,54al 8!13,40!1 883,408 21,531,323 1,788,750 1,7!18,750 zz,;nag,sgg 2,368,670 2,368,670 24,g7"l,57(1 mi f'llllll l I IJilll'l 11118 4901 0ther Finance Sources ## Water Fund Administrative Transfer ## Sewer Fund Administrative TransTer ## St. Lighting Fund Administrative Transfer ## 8ecycling Fund Administrative Transfer Storm Water utility Fund Administrative TtansTer pWCampus Fund ## HRA/COR Funds ## Landfill Fund capital Maintenance Fund - For Trail Maintenance Capital Maintenance Fund - For Capital Improvements ## Facility Fund iBuilding Improvements) ## Pavement Management Fund ## Fleet Vehicle Fund ## PIR Fund-Street Maintenance Equipment Fund - Loan for Fire Truck Equipment Revolving Fund - Q(TV Funds ## Capital Bonding ## Equipment Revolving Fund ## 49,GO0 43,000 25,000 38,000 63,000 60,000 29,710 17,800 150,0[)0 184,382 65!1,R'l2 51,(100 45,00[) 27,000 40,[100 167,g31 701)00 "13,(166 ## 597,5!IS 608,673 1,700,265 ## 55,(IGCI 49,000 29,000 44,000 571,g72 70,(100 16,500 36,000 60,104 ## S(1,244 200,000 1,509,275 73,288 i973,383 sg,tioo 53,0[)0 31,000 49,000 70,000 ## 30,(10[I1 200,00a 300,000 68,000 883,408 63,(1(1(1 57,000 34,00[) 53,000 917,On(1 70,00(1 55.7 5[) 100,[)€0 200,00a 71,00a 168,000 1,783750 67,0(1[) 61,000 36,000 ## 57,ODD 1,217,67[) 70,€00 50,(1(][) 225,0[)0 ## 585,D([1 2,368,670 ## IgaBgg(Hpieg3pBggBgy "" ## I ## PERSONNEL SERVICES ## SIJPPLIES ## OTHER SERVICES ## & CHARGES ## CAPITAL OUTIAY ## TRANSFERS OUT ## DEBT SERVICE ## ITOT AL EXPENDITURE ## BY OBIECT ## StlMMAR'/i ## OPERATING ## EXPENSEi ## CAPITALOLITLAY: ## TRANSFERS ## OUT/DEBT SERVICE: ## TOTAL ## EXPENDITuRES 10,181,456 1 ,237,507 2,521,359 2!)5,957 272,588 61,853 14,570,820 l rrF!l1'l'llilFf (4111 INafiffl! fall f{ 11,31"l,181 12,588,749 14,108,%g 1,232,853 1,241,320 1,344605 3,555,551 3,337,053 3,189,!1% 901,717 3,624,458 633,928 92,756 1,319,847 1,437,421 61,853 61,853 61,853 17,163,971 22,173,279 ## 20J74,712 15,703,113 i,sg'y,gsg 3,886,154 ## 1,4%,OGO 106,373 17,[)00,771 8.26% 1,710,354 7.03% a,ass,goz iz.ogs 1,806,170 20.73% 106,373 0.0(1% 22,789,5gg 24,'17g,57(I ## I 9.61% 13,"140,322 16,107,585 295,957 901,777 334,541 154,609 ,Sl4S708.20el7,163,971 # 17,167,122 18,641,511 ## 21,187,2W u,og,my 8.a7% tl,a4,45 € 6tl,92a 1,494aD0 1806,170 ## H1.7&% 1,319,847 ## 1,437,AN ## 106A7:1 jE8,17a ## OAD% qii4as 5 to,yu,ass 5 b7asi,ssg * xa,m,sn ass% 0111 ## MAYOR AND COUNCIL 0114 ## CHARTER/PLAN/HORSECC)MMISSIONS 0130 ## ADMINISTRATION 0141 ## ELECTIONS 0153 ## FINANCE 0155 ## ASSESSING 0161 ## LEGAL 0191 ## PlANNlNG&ZONING 0192 ## DATAPROCESSING 0194 ## GENERALGOVERNMENTBUILDINGS 0195 ## NEWSLETTER lGENERALGOVERNMENTTotal ' 106,114 2,709 913!181 44,689 362,854 125,272 12!,422 665,874 773.912 643.514 54.618 107,719 2,467 977,369 6,357 370,861 126,096 115,142 818,640 840,343 629,571 57,74Fi ## 106A31 2,521 1,030,356 gs,ssz 448,446 129,777 121,605 951,445 958,559 ysg,igs 5!1,337 '17,516 2,756 1 ,191,673 20 534,823 132,211 134,501 1,092,953 140!),890 ## 770,04P, ## S9,495 ga,ggei 3,275 1,185,218 47,663 55!),837 138,000 133,150 1,210,213 1,302,634 1,024,670 69,64!1 132,353 3,429 1,262,667 18[1 583.708 137,Oat) 181,800 1,241.605 1,469,154 !1!16,763 68,17; 33.69% 4.70% ## S.S3% - 99.62% 4.26% -0.72% 36.54% 2.5!1% 12.78% - 2.72% - 2.12% 5.2Fi% 7.42% 9.59% 12.98% -2.77% 4.20% 95.61% -0.45% 15.47% 13.86% 9.81% 13.63% ## 0452PARK & RECREATION 2,2!18,424 2,127,945 2,604!112 2,525,780 -3.04% 2,604,912 ## 2,525,78D l -3.04% 265.84% 265.84% ## ITOTAL EXPENDITuRES ## & OTHER ## FINANCING 14,57[1,82a 17,163,971 22,173,27!1 20,808,344 zz,ygg,sgg 24,97!1.570 ## I ## WAGES ## AND SAIARIES 6102 ## F.T.REGUlAR-WAGES&SAlARIES 6103 ## FUIITIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 6104 ## PARTTlMEWAGES&SAUlRIES 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES&SAlARIES 6106 ## 0VERTIME-TEMPORARY 6107 ## 0VERTIMEPARTTIME ## WAGES AND ## SALARIES ## OTHER ## GROSS EARNINGS 6108 ## SEVERANCEPAY ## OTHER GROSS ## EARNINGS ## EMPLOYER ## CON7R1BUT10NS 6121 ## PERACONTRIBuTIONS 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARECONTRIBuTIONS 6123 ## ICMARFTIREMENTTRIIST 6131 ## GROIIP INSURANCE 6132 ## DISABILITY ## INSIIRANCE 6133 ## WORKERSCOMPINSURANCEPREMIUM 6135 ## PAIDFAMILYMEDICAltEAVE 6,528,037 183,834 7 46.543 179,828 636 7,638,878 108,460 108,46(1 7.445,527 180,0!15 773,014 88,117 ## H,486,752 52,334 52,334 8,278,948 199,10(1 871,155 134,959 g,484,162 82,751 82,751 9,31!1,530 232,865 1,013,834 98,720 zo,esa,gsa 130,824 130,824 10,503,711 173,0(Xl 934,233 172,002 50,000 50,00a 11,702,643 207,728 1,027,123 163,458 14100,952 50,000 50,00a 929,059 1,01!1,017 1,139,206 416,569 464,185 saq,sog i,;;:;; 8 839,838 367,731 800 878,018 1,313 346.417 1,049,605 1,165,820 1,354,012 1,313 1,313 1,313 :iga,sag iyi,soo 284,093 1.543,011 5 1,313 1,313 381,507 6 57,057 54,280 2,434,117 2,780,095 4021,835 3,313,135 3,87(},16'} 3,849,819 10,181,456 11,319,181 12,588,749 14,108,90!1 15,703,113 17,000,771 ## OFFICE SuPPLIES 6203 DuPLICATlNGSUPPLY&COPYPAPE ## 6204 5TATIONERY, ENVELOPES & FORMS ## 6205 DRAFTING SUPPLIES ## 6206 FILM,MICROFILM,TAPES,DISKS 6207 TRAINlNGSuPPLIES ## 6208 MISCEIIANEOUSOFFICESIIPPLIES ## OFFICE SUPI'LIES ## OI'ERATING SuPPLIES ## 5221 CLEANING SUPPLIES ## 6223 GASOLINE ## 6225 DIESEL FUEL ## 6227 LIIBRICANTS & ADDITIVES ## 622!1 SHOP MATERIAIS 6231 llNIFORMS&TuRtll-OuTGEAR ## 6233 BATTERIES ## 6235 AMMUNITION ## 6237 CRIMESCENEKITMATERIAIS ## 6239 FIRST AID SuPPLIES ## 6241 COMMUNITYPOLICINGSUI"PLIES ## 6247 HAPPYDAYSSUPPLIE5 ## 624!1 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SIIPPLY ## 6246 MARKETING ## O?ERATING SuPPLIES ## REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE Sul'PLIES ## 6251 BATTERIES ## 6253 BRAKES ## 6255 TIRES 6257 0THERVEHICkEPARTS ## 6259 BUILDINGMAINT/REPAIRSUPPLIES ## 6261 SAND & GRAVEL ## 6263 SALT ## 6265 ASPHALT ## 6266 SCBA-PARTS ## 6267 0THERSTREETMAINTENANCESUPPL ## 6269 UINDSCAPE MATERIALS ## 6271 SIGN REPAIR MATERIA15 ## 6275 0THEREQUIPMENTPART5 ## 6268 IRRIGATION SUPPLIES ## REPAIR AND MAINTENANCESUI'PLIES ## 5 MALLTOO15 AND MINOR EQUIPMENT ## 6 282 EMERGENCYSUPPLIES-COVID 5281 SMALLTOOL5&MINC)REQulPMENT ## SMALLTOO13 AND MINOR EQUIPMENT ## MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE 6291 CuLVERTS,SIGNS,STREETSUPPLY ## MERCH ANDISE FOR RES ALE PROFESSIONAL 5ERVlCES ## 6302 AUDITING & ACCOUNTING SERVICES ## 6304 LEGALFEES ## 6305 MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICAL FEES ## 6306 PERSONNELTESTING&RECRUITMT ## 6315 MISCELIANEOIISPROFESSIONALSER ## PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ## COMMIINICATION 6321 TEtEPHONE ## 6322 POSTAGE ## 6323 CEullLAR PHONES ## 6325 LONGDISTANCECHARGES ## COMMUNICATION 2,198 9,542 370 3,562 9,670 25,343 1,91(1 156,406 73,397 7,730 8,830 124,187 2,013 13,725 5,444 9,967 7,00[) 143,977 198 554,783 3,238 6,616 122,472 51,453 2,30[1 129,704 104,227 5,899 10,675 ## 17,7!IS 1 ,148 2,933 16,118 474,577 182,804 1848(14 4,594 a,irn 208 10,165 12,230 35,904 4,025 134,883 65,682 9,014 5,539 132,811 1,940 y3,274 509 6,005 10,351 ## 12,(X)0 123,827 2,951 522,811 82) 4,045 7,315 146,373 23,188 2,779 68,426 142,180 23,874 14,920 24,599 1 ,464 945 2 0,540 481,476 192,347 1!)2,347 1,267 7,744 128 8,17(1 13,4Fa 30,762 4,759 125,471 49,086 8,082 10,843 166,428 435 14,827 495 5,425 14,111 12,000 162,7!10 2,986 577,737 922 1,739 6,529 156,213 55,456 117,442 117,072 25,450 17,t)50 9,489 3,103 554 10,881 ## 521A9!1 110,815 110,815 2,501 5,338 179 5,437 11,427 24,882 3,618 125,873 57,305 4,947 7,879 133,672 1,354 11,050 713 5fl34 12,220 7,000 iss,ggti 1,188 528,750 2,178 180 7,360 153,395 53,670 147,311 148,661 11,437 14,245 47,797 1,611 1,99rl 10,498 600,333 188,640 1!18,640 4,500 g,zoo 800 10,500 14,125 39,625 5,000 159,000 84,000 12.€ 00 9,)n0 174,200 5,000 15,000 1,500 11,Oat) ## 15,ODD 7,000 172,625 3,000 673,425 2,500 4,000 ## 9,SOD 156,500 54,700 5,3(10 135,(1)0 185,ilil0 25,000 17,5[)[) 19,5€ [) 6,00[) ## 3,OD[) ## 60,ODD 683,50(+ zoi,oog 201,00!1 3,500 !1,000 450 ig,ooo ## 14,10CI 46,050 5,000 ## 162,51X1 82jl00 12,250 9,900 176,400 2,500 17,0[)0 1,500 9,000 15,000 7,000 izg,zso 2,000 681,300 3,20[) 4 ,000 8,(10[1 172,300 60,00[1 4,800 171,404 186,000 25,€ 00 iz,sao 64,50€ 6,000 25,75o ## 15,OD[) 763,454 219,300 police set up n 219,300 3!1,128 120,510 24,634 273,357 asy,szg 13,675 17,806 43,623 75,103 45,174 115,288 14,849 224,706 400,017 13,945 19,369 ## 5Q176 s:i,ago 46,421 120,84!1 26,235 555,366 748,871 13,095 21,796 52,295 87,1!16 58,655 133,866 32,128 387,418 612,066 16,508 24,016 ## Sg,565 100,089 60,[)[10 156,300 33,000 373,647 622,"147 17.750 27,800 64,032 109,582 65,200 181,(100 25,534 380,498 652,232 23,055 32,772 68,02a iz3go ## EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS ## 6331 TRAVEL&LODGING ## 6334 MILEAGE RElMBuRSEMENT ## 6335 TRAINING ## EMl'LOYEE RElMBuRSEMENTS ## ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING 6352 GENERALNOTICE&PllBllCINFOR ## 6353 0RDINANCEPLIBLICATION ## 6354 HELP WANTED ADVERTISEMENTS ## ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING ## INSURANCE ## 6361 GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY IN5 ## INSURANCE ## LITILITIES ## 6371 ELECTRIC UTILITIES ## 6372 WATER/IRRIGATION ## 6373 GAS ## 6374 REFUSE/RECYCLING uTILITIES ## REI'AIRS AND MAINTENANCE - IABOR 6381 BlllLDING&STRuCTUREREPAIR ## 6382 MACHINERY&EQUIPMENTREPAIR ## 6383 CIFFICEECIUIPMENTREPAIR ## 6386 BRAKEREPAIR ## 6387 TIRE MOUNTING & BALANCING ## 6388 0THERVEHICLEREPAIR ## 6389 TOWING SERVICES ## REI)AIRS AND MAINTENANCELABOR ## REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS 6404 MACHlNERY&EQulPMENT 6405 0FFICE&DATAPROCESSINGEQlllP ## REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE-CONTRACTS ## RENT 415 ## 6413 0FFICEEQUIPMENTRENTAL ## 6415 0THEREQUIPMENT)IENTAL ## 5415 MACHINERY RENTAL ## 6417 UNIFORM RENTAL ## RENTALS ## DOES, SuB5CRlPTIONS, AND REGISTRATION FEFS ## 6451 MEMBERSHIP [)11ES ## E4S2 SUBSCRIPTIONS ## [)UES, SUBSCRIPTIONS. AND REGISTRATION FEES ## BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ## 6471 BOOKS & PAMPHLETS ## BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ## CONTRACTED SERVICES ## 6488 STREETMAINTENANCECONTRACT ## 6489 0THERCONTRACTEDSERVICES ## CONTRACTED SERVICES !),975 559 107,609 118,143 38,966 2,322 7,302 48,591 175,76% 175,764 172,305 18,053 72,12? 16,853 279,338 ## 33,0!IS 48,494 ## GO 78,514 3,0% 163,25!1 ## 3,4S8 4 34,785 438,243 3,483 41,405 913 45,800 47,023 1,458 al,481 2,384 2,384 9,8'% 429 114,653 xza,gw 42,257 1,43(1 549 44,235 232,341 ## 232A41 172.445 24,680 66,293 15,45!1 278,876 11,746 56,936 71,!113 345 140,940 437,303 437,303 5,265 41,'i83 1,233 48,080 47,587 1,511 49,09a 1,963 1,963 10,8!15 198 123414 xgg,sag 42,270 1,403 38 43,710 235,256 235,256 175,874 19,406 67,558 18,80!1 281,647 62,519 45,517 7!),128 526 187,689 2,880 491,800 494,680 5,160 52,281 ;!,404 59,845 32,699 931 33,630 3,267 3,267 14,872 379 120,605 135,856 44,011 798 1,319 46,127 230,221 230,221 183,816 23,373 n,isg 22,248 301,205 49,391 60,453 40 64,334 51!1 174,7:17 3,159 560,663 563,822 5,160 39,763 1,503 46,426 4!1,943 298 5 0,241 1,471 1,471 27,10t) 1,100 192,760 22{},960 48,600 2,00a 2,000 52,600 253,937 253,937 206,000 ## 6E,00(1 ## 83,SOD 24,Sat) 380,(100 132,000 112,0[)[) 400 110,000 3,000 357,400 4,0[)(1 656.420 660,42(1 7,501) 57,25tl 350 1,85[1 66,!150 57,288 1,770 ## 5(1,OS!1 5,300 ## 5,3€H) 2!1,100 1,30[) igs,goti ## 226,31X) 52,900 1 ,000 2,000 ## 55,'1€H) 267,319 267,31!1 232,200 67,600 97,80tl 27,70tl 425,300 130,000 109,000 4[][) 110,800 3,000 353,20(1 ## 4,OD[) 811,416 815,416 5,300 173,100 1,600 ## 180,(XKI 59,568 1,770 61,338 ## 5,25CI 5,250 ## CAPITALOuTLAY ## 6520 BUILDINGS ## 6540 HEAWMACHINERY 103.199 266,007 1,529.889 727.000 ## 5550 MOTORVEHICLES 47,226 512,086 1,348,000 349,198 1,3024)00 !124,000 ## 6580 0THEREQUIPMENT 118,63!1 123,685 682,521 236,962 123,000 76,700 6585 COMPuTERHARDWARE/SOFTWARE 26,!1% 64.048 47,76B 71,000 78.47€ ## CAPITALOUTLAY 295,957 901,777 3,624.458 633,928 1,496,000 1,806,170 CAPITAL OIITIAY Total 2!15,!157 9[111777 :1,624145!1 633,!12!1 10496:0{Xi 1,Fl(16,170 ## OPERATING TRANSFERS ## 6820 0PERATINGTRANSFERSTOOTHERF 272,688 92,756 1,319.847 1,437,421 106,373 106,373 ## OPERATINGTRANSFERS 272.688 92,756 1,31!1,847 1,437,421 106,373 106,373 TRANSFERS OIIT Total 272,6g(3 '12,756 1,gl9A47 1,437,r42l 105,:173 lOriA7g ## TOTAL EXI'ENDITURES & OT)IER FINANCING 14,570,82017,163,971 22,173,279 20,774,712 22,78!1,599 24,979,570 ## SUMMARY: Or!:MTIN(i DFral'rllia.l.i.l.ir Trinrl'nrs Out & Debt Service): ## CAl'lTAlOllTLAYi ## TOTALF)alENDfnRB 14,27 4,863 295,!157 ## 14,S70J120 # 16,262,194 901,777 17,163,!171 5 i gfiM4Ml n,sn,rn * §7ffiS q qff4,722 I 21,2!)3,S'l!1 1,4!)6,000 22,789,599 '> 23,173,400 1 ,806,170 2 4,97!1,570 ## FUND: GENERAL ## Elusin- AIDS ## Llmt 2022 ## Actual 2a2B' ## Actual ' 2024 ## Actlial 202!i ## Actual 2028 Adopted 'Baidget 2027 ## Requested ## Budgffit ## REVENUE ## 9101 - GENERAL FUND REVENUE 15,389,42618,541,497 22,905,543 21,53:!,323 22,789,599 24,979,570 ## TOT At REVENUE 15,389,42618,541,49722,905,543 21,531,32322,789,599 24,979,570 ## EXPENDITURES ## 111- MAYOR AND COUNCIL 106,114107,719 106,83197,516 98,999 132,353 ## 114 - COMMISSIONS 2,7092,4672,521 2,7563,275 3,429 ## 130 - ADMINISTRATION 913,981977,3691,030,356 1,191,6731,185,218 1,262,667 ## 141 - ELECT10N5 44,6896,357 gs,asz ## 2J) 47,663 180 ## 153 - FINANCE 362,854 370,861448,446 534,823559,837 583,708 ## 155 - ASSESSING 125,272 126,096 129,777 132,211138,000 137,000 ## 161- LEG AL SERVICES ' 121,422116,142 121,605134,501 133,150 181,800 ## 191- PLANNING AND ZONING 665,874818,640951,445 1,092,9531,210,2131,241,605 ## 192 - DAT A PRC)CESSING 773,912840,343 958,5591,109,890 1,302,634 1,469,154 ## 194 - GENERAL GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS 643,514629,571zsg,zgs 770,0481,024,670996,763 ## 195 - NEWSLETTER 54,61857,746 59,33759,495 69,649 68,172 ## 211- POLICE PROTECTION 4,726,2605,196,6056,135,488 5,896,7816,725,4527,224,236 ## 220 - FIRE PROTECTION 1,427,5161,785,989 2,314,9152,207,478 2,424,671 2,657,246 ## 240 - BLIILDING INSPECTION 564,838718,231876,090 889,919925,013 1,045,041 ## 250 - CIVIL DEFENSE 9,63767,325 38,54141,509 47,000 45,700 ## 260 - TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 79,873 85,061112,316 121,950162,49316!),319 ## 270 - ANIMAL CONTROL 1,3998,175 10,0394,685 10,25020,050 ## 280 - COMMUNITY ORIENTING POLICING 12,77414,673 17,147 15,21522,20022,100 ## 301 - ENGINEERING 446,849566,809674,634 564,420652,564753,494 ## 311 - STREET MAINTEN ANCE 1,332,8272,510,5673,314,818 1,901,7252,753,2843,134,869 ## 312 - SNOW AND ICE REMOV AL 374,270373,975335,746 411,557 474,052 520,551 ## 452 - F'ARK AND RECREATION 1,445,0771,628,6412,298,424 2,127,9452,604,912 2,525,780 ## 892 - MISCELLANEOUS/CONTINGENCY 334,541154,6091,381,700 1,499,274214,400784,353 ## TOTAI EXPENDITURES 14,570,82017,163,97122,173,279 20,808,344 22,789,599 24,979,570 ## GENERAL ## FUND 101- ## GENERAL ## GOVERNMENT ## PERSONNEL ## SERVICES ## SUPPLIES ## OTHER ## SERVICES & ## CHARGES ## CAPITAL ## OUTLAY lrouiixpthorrupeayositcr 2,349,661 150,454 1,240,724 74.120 3,814,95!+ 2,663,698 140,016 1,249,598 4,053,311 3,043,567 131,541 1,3 47,076 141,240 4,663,423 3,461,163 114,723 1,503,457 47,768 5,127,111 3,628,345 165,634 1,833,329 1461)00 5,773,308 3,786,284 162,100 z,oag,gy'z 78,47Cl 6,076,831 l ## LINE ITEM ## DET All ## BY COST CENTER ## OR Sue-FUNCTION ## WAGES ## AND SAIARIES 6102 ## F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SALARIES 6103 ## FIILLTIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 6104 ## PARTTIME-WAGES&SAlARIES 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES&SAlARlES 6107 ## 0VERTIME-PARTTIME ## TOTAL ## WAGES ## AND SAIARIES ## OTHER ## GROSS ## EARNINGS 6108 ## 5EVERANCEPAY ## TOT ## At OTHER ## GROSS EARNINGS ## EMPLOYER ## CONTRIBUTIONS 6121 ## PERACONTRIBUTIONS 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUT10N5 ## 6123 ICMARETIREMENTTRUST 6131 ## GROUP ## INSIIRANCE 6133 ## WORKERSCOMPINSuRANCEPREMIUM 6135 ## PAIDFAMILYMEDICALLEAVE ## TOTAI ## EMPIOYEII ## CONTRIBUTICINS 1,618,64a 4,477 144,822 62,028 1,82!1,967 20,888 20,888 129,895 ## 133,5J14 800 215,835 18,6!13 1 ,887,389 2,842 17i22g 2,285 2,063,745 22,!159 22,gS9 151,796 155.758 247.981 zi,asg 2,150,142 7,132 178,115 46,874 2,382,863 2,705 2,705 169,704 172,137 294,%9 21,249 2,490,224 5,221 165,3(16 2,535 2,663,286 33.791 33,791 lg4iti73 195,790 362,€66 11,357 z,ssg,agg 164,472 33,800 2,787,665 200,810 226,892 380,636 18,496 13.846 840,680 2,726,547 205.782 3,000 2,!136,329 211,081 238,339 376,290 11,171 13,074 sag,gss ## OFFICE ## SLIPPLIES 6203 DllPllCATINGSllPPLY&COPYPAPE 2,198 4,594 1,257 2,5[)1 4,500 3.500 6204 STATIONE)n',ENVELOPES&FORMS 5,830 2,899 2,489 1,656 3,700 3.000 ## 6205 FIIM,MICROFILM,TAPE5,DISKS 6208 ## MISCELIANEOUSOFFICESUPPLIES 4,680 5,3!)6 7,604 5,657 6,850 6.900 ## TOTAL ## OFFICE SuPPLIES 12,708 12,88!1 11,361 9,814 ## IS,050 13.40(1 ## OPERATING ## SuPl'LIES 6221 ## CLEANINGSUPPLIES 1,910 4,025 4,759 3,618 5,000 5.000 ## 6223 GASOLINE 3.390 3347 3,522 3,546 4,500 7.000 ## 6225 DIESELFUEL 2,172 563 1,304 1,448 2,500 3.500 6231 llNIFORMS&TURN-OUTGEAR 2,199 1,695 3,020 3,206 3,500 3.500 6247 ## HAPPYDAYS5uPPLlE5 7,000 12,000 12,0[)0 7,000 7,0(10 7.000 ## 6249 MISCELLANEOUSOPERATINGSUPPLY 53,046 32,725 44,632 33,484 38,475 35.4[)0 ## 6246 MARKETING 198 2,951 2,986 1,188 3,000 2.0[)0 ## TOTAL ## OPERATING ## SuPPLIES 69,915 57,ao6 72,222 53,490 63,'175 63,400 ## REPAIR ## AND MAINTENANCE ## SUPPLIES ## 6257 0THERVEHICIEPARTS 3,200 2,136 8,517 1,076 2,500 2,500 ## 6259 BUILDINGMAINT/REPAIRSUPPLIES 5,313 5,32!1 8,335 9,695 10,000 10.0 € 0 ## TOTALREPAIRANDMAINTENANCESuPPLIES 8,51:1 ## 7,46A 16,852 10,772 12,500 12.500 ## SMALLTOOLS ## AND ## MINOR ## EQUIPMENT ## 6281 SMALLT00LS&MINOREQUIPMENT 59,318 62,356 31,106 40,649 74,109 ## 72.80D ## TOTALSMALLTOOLSANDMINOREQUI%ENT 59,318 62,356 31,106 40,649 74,109 72,8(10 ## Total SuPPLIES 150,454 140,016 131,541 114,723 165,634 162,If)(1 ## PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6302 AllDITING&ACCOUNTINGSERVICES ## 6304 LEGAL FEES ## 6305 MEDICAL/PSYCHOLOGICALFEES 6306 PERSONNELTESTlNG&RECRulTMT 6315 MISeELlANEOllSl'ROFE5SIONALSER ## TOTAL PROFESSIONALSERVICES ## COMMUNICATION ## 6321 TELEPHONE ## 5322 POSTAGE ## 6323 CELLIIIAIIPHONES ## 5325 LONGDISTANCECHARGES ## TOT At COMMUNICATION ## EMPLOYEE REIMBLIRSEMENTS ## 6331 TRAVEL&LODGING ## 6334 MIIEAGE REIMBIIRSEMENT ## 6335 TRAINING ## TOTAL EMPLOYEE REIMBIIRSEMENTS ## ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING 6352 GENERALNOTICE&PllBLICINFOR 6353 0RDINANCE PUBklCATION ## 6354 HEII' WANTED ADVERTISEMENTS ## TOTALADVERTISING AND PuBLISHlNG ## INSURANCE 6361 GENERALllABILITY7PROPERTl'lNS ## TOTAL INSLIRANCE l)TILITIES ## 6371 ELECTRIC UT1L1TIE5 ## 6372 WATER/IRRIGATION ## 5373 GAS ## 6374 REFUSE/RECYCIING TOTAL uTILITIES ## REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCElABOR ## 6381 BUILDING&STRUCTUREREPAIR ## 6382 MACHINERY&EQUIPMENTREPAIR ## 6388 0THER VEHICLE REPAIR ## TOTALREPAIRSAND MAINTENANCELABOR ## REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE-CONTRACTS ## E40S OFFICE&€ ATAPROCESSINGEQUIP ## TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE-CONTRACTS ## RENTALS ## 6415 0THER EQIIIPMENT RENTAL ## TOTAL RENTAIS ## DUES, SuBSCRlPTION5, AND REGISTRATION FEES ## 6451 MEMBERSHIP DIIES ## 5452 SUBSCRIPTIONS TOT AL DLIES, SuBSCRIPTIONS. AND REGISTRATION FEES ## BOOKS AND l'AMl'HLETS ## 6471 BOOKS&PAMPHLETS ## TOTAL BOOKS AND PAMI'HLETS ## CONTRACTED SERVICES ## 6489 0THERCONTRACTEDSERVICES ## TOTAL CONTRACTED SERVICES ## Total OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES 34,712 120,510 24,634 64,693 244,549 40,216 115,288 14,84!) 57,420 227,773 13,675 13,945 14,867 15,582 43,623 50,176 72,165 79,7rl3 1,460 84 17,959 19,504 38,%6 2,322 7,302 as,sgi 30,378 30,378 !19,439 2,!128 40,961 5,569 ## 148A96 9,127 19,344 241 28,712 387,787 387,787 38,014 1,458 39,472 2,086 23(1 23,534 25,850 42,257 1,430 5 49 44,235 30,05(] :10,05(1 102,932 3,358 38,397 5,681 150,369 3,272 20,262 71 23,606 395,677 395,677 38,494 1,511 40,005 40,870 120,84!) 26,235 76,33!1 264,292 50,6[)4 133,866 32,128 65,546 282,143 13,095 18,004 52,295 16,508 20,145 50,565 83,394 !16,21!1 1 ,716 2 5,383 27,099 2,348 218 2!1,622 3 2,189 42,27(] 1,403 38 43,710 fill,Oil 798 1,31!1 46,127 29,652 29,652 27,567 27,567 102,872 2,676 %.651 6,803 149,013 111.440 3,636 4 2,316 6,394 163,785 13,457 24,393 37,85(1 13,966 37,044 222 51,231 4%,285 456,285 531,631 531,631 ## 24,24CI 931 25,171 42,30a 2")8 42,598 52,000 132,300 33,000 146,647 363,!147 17,7 5tIl 21,10t) 64,032 102,882 7,400 500 47,875 55,775 48,600 2,000 2,000 52,600 30,757 30,757 120,00€ 4,000 44,0€ 0 8,000 176,00[) 75,€ 0[) 75,000 3,000 153,000 601,87[1 601,870 45,728 1,770 47,498 56,200 )Jl,000 25,534 116,873 37!1,607 23,055 ## 26A2;! 68,020 117,197 6,400 7 00 46,000 53,10(1 52,900 1 ,000 2,000 55,900 33,86'l 33,869 135,000 4,600 48,00(1 8,00[) 195,600 75,01[) 75,00(1 3,000 153,(100 760,715 760,716 47,218 1,770 48,98!1 ## 220,670 232,330 230,609 229,966 249.000 252,ODD 220,670 2'l2,330 230,609 zzg,gss zoe,aria 252,000 1,240,724 1,249,598 1,347,076 1,503,457 1.833,32!1 2,049,977 ## CAPITALOUTLAY 6520 BlllL[)INGS ## 6550 MOTOR VEHICLES ## 6580 0THER EQIIIPMENT ## 6585 COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE ## TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ## Total CAPITAL OUTLAY ## TOTAL EXPENDITuRES & OTHER FINANCING 47,226 ## 26A94 74,120 74,12(1 60,692 16,500 - 64,048 141,24[1 141,240 47,768 47.768 47,76!1 75,000 n.ooo 146,000 146,00tl 78,470 78,470 78,470 3,814,959 4.053,311 4,663,423 5,127,111 5.773,308 6,076,831 ## SUaAMARYi ## OPERA'nNa E)fflENSE: ## CAPffALOlinAYi ## TOTALEXPENDfTuRES ## 3,740,839 4,053,311 4,522,IBI 5,079,343 5,627,308 5,9!18,361 ## 74,120141,240 47,768 146,(100 ')8,4'J(} ## FUND ## GENERAL ## Busimiss QflIt , able(!t " ACGOlJnt ## Desti-ription 2022 /ketua.3 2023 ## A;p4 . .2024 . , ## Muq%, , 2025 ,,,,,,, ## ActHq% 2026 , ## Aaoptsid ii aiidjst . " 2'027 i ,Raiquested j il Btldget. j 0111 6104 ## PART ## TIME-WAGES ## & SALARIES 38,€ )0046,050 44,000""" 'ffii,zgo 44,000 74,400 0211 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS 1,300 1,600 1,600 900 1,600 900 0111 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 2,907 3,523 3,366 3,541 3,366 5,692 0111 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM 116 144 137 91 189 230 0121 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 294 0111 6247 ## HAPPY ## DAYS 7,000 12,000 12,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 0111 6249 ## MISCELIANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY 21,308 6,736 7,041 1,244 1,000 1,000 i ## Offl 6315 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## PROFESSIONALSER 16,840 0111 6331 ## TRAVEL ## & LODGING 166 1,000 0121 6335 ## TRAINING 1,135 773 839 1,400 0121 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 823 875 746 526 787 0111 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## DUES 34,661 35,491 20,328 37,085 38,657 ## Total Expenditure 106,114 107,719 106,831 97,516 98,999 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOT ## AL EXPENDITURES 106,114 107,719 106,831 97,516 98,999 132,353 ## S 106,114 5 107,719 ## S 106,831 ## S 97,516 ## S 98,999 6 132,353 ## Mayor ## Council 1.00 6.00 ## Mayor and Council ## Total 7.00 6249 ## Miscellaneous ## Operatirig ## Supplies ## Mayor's Prayer ## Breakfast Meals for ## Council Work sessions ## Employee ## Recognition ## Event (January ## Event) ## Tree ## Lighting/Outside ## Lights ## & Light Contest ## Gala/Fundraising ## Events ## Miscellaneous 6315 ## Miscellaneous ## Professional ## Services ## Candidate ## Forum Recording ## Citizen ## Survey 340 2,353 4,047 10,438 805 3,325 21,308 78 3,586 3,010 62 6,736 648 3,208 3,114 70 7,041 200 16,640 16,840 1,021 1,244 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 6451 ## Dues ## North ## Metro ## Mayors ## Association ## North ## Metro ## Chamber iEDA) ## Missippi/Champlin ## Streamgage ## Agreement ## Anoka ## Area ## Chamber of Commerce ## (EDA) ## League of ## Minnesota ## Cities ## MN Mayors ## Assoc ## National ## League of ## Cities 11,417 11,303 11,303 620 620 675 22,594 30 23,538 8,350 30 11,303 702 25,050 30 11,575 750 26,302 30 11,303 800 27,800 30 34,661 35,491 20,328 37,085 38,657 3!),933 ## DESCR!PTION ## OF §k*@iCQl- _ - _ -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ## The ## Mayor and Council budget provides for legislative and policy making activities of the city on behalf of the citizens of Ramsey. ## They provide for the planning and control of all financial activities including approving the tax levy, rates and charges, and approval of expenditures. ## In -_ - __ _ J I - _'BQ-:-(QEi7-'Fl-@61Ql_$---_-_.:-}- _I - J-!' Computer Reimbursements - S800 Each for 3 incoming members (6104) Salary Increase Mayor & Council - (S28,000) (6104) Happy Days offset with Lodging Tax - (S-5,000) (6247) .(jeXk,Lp gFB.11lHga-L_M @F4F_)Bjjm_@-(;_7-:._-J__---.- 7 ---'-- - - - - - - - -- * EstablishandimplementaStrategicActionPIan ii Establish legislatiVe priorities for the City * Maintainastabletaxlevyrate ## FUND ## GENERAL ## Buginess ## Uhit '05ject ## Account ## DescriptiOn 2(j22 actual 202:1 ## Actual aez* ## Actkt € l '- 2Th5 ## Actual 2(12.6 ## Adopted ' . '(siidget . ; ' 2027' ## Rsqkia8ted ## I ". . ## Bud@M , 0114 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES ## & SALARIES 2,490 2,285 2,330 2,535 3,000 3,000 0114 6122 ## FICA/MEDICAFIE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 191 175 168 204 230 383 0114 ## 6133WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM 7 7a 11 7 25 16 0114 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 20 0114 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 21 12 10 20 10 ## Total Expenditure 2,709 2,467 2,521 2,756 3,275 3,429 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITAIOUTLAY: ## TOT ## AL EXPENDITLIRES 2,709 2,467 2,521 2,756 3,275 3,429 !) 2,709 6 ## 2,467 S ## 2,521 S 2,756 § 3,275 ## S 3,429 ## Charter ## Commission ## Members ## Planning ## Commission ## Members 9.00 7.00 ## Commission ## Total 16.00 9.00 7.00 16.00 9.00 7.00 16.00 9.00 7.00 16.00 9.00 7.00 16.00 9.00 7.00 16.00 ## BUDGET ## HIGHLleHTS NO major changes -:4:L4-'OTP-.CQ-Q_R;QjQQA__?'p'J_G-a_T_)._I7 -' - ## : T _ ## J2 ## ._J_ ## _ 'J J - I - .-. i- . vl "' ii'-""Implementindividual commissions' work plans and missions "' - --'- * ## Implement and mana(ze individual commissions' budgets ## Performance ## Measurements: - -202-2 jr-ffijeffi- ed- 2-0-23 f'r-o-jed-ea - 2024Proj-e'ded '-2Q5"'-Projeeted ## Tiffi-F;r6jected,, ':201'7 ## Projected # of Meetings: ## Charter ## Commission 2 2 2 2 2 2 # of Meetings: ## Economic ## Development ## Authority ## Commission 12 12 12 12 12 12 # of Meetings: ## Environmental ## Policy ## Board Commission ## Il 11 ll 11 ## II 11 # of Meetings: ## Parks and Recreation ## Commission 10 10 10 10 10 10 # of Meetings: ## Planning ## Commission 17 17 17 17 17 17 # of Meetings: ## City ## Council ## Regular Session 23 23 23 23 23 23 # of Meetings: ## City ## Council ## Work Session 25 25 25 25 25 25 # of Meetings: ## Public ## Works ## Committee 8 8 8 8 8 8 la) ## FUND GENERAL ilXt%l)IN!lSa!'l'h'hl )3u!ilriess ## Unit ## Object ## Account ## Description 2022 . ActLial 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2025 actual 2026 ## Adopted Budgst 2027 ## Requested ## Budget 01306102 ## F.T. REGUIAR-WAGES & SALARIES 562,006651,397 678,132 767,665738,328 796,005 01306103 ## FULL TIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 01306104 ## P ART TIME-WAGES & SALARIES 16,38324,68624,764 27,02726,701 33,964 01306105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & SAIARIES 37,276 ## 01306108SEVERANCE 30,865 0130 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 42,72150,252 51,848 59,21957,378 62,248 01306122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS43,36051,50052,292 59,52563,645 68,972 01306123 ## ICMA RETIREMENTTRUST 800 01306131 ## GROUP INSURANCE 71,80675,81485,737 97,876 87,946 91,545 01306133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 3,0773,5043,045 1,7431,975 1,525 01306135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE3,732 3,621 0130 6203 ## DUPLICATING SUPPLY & COPY PAPE 2,198 4,5941,267 2,5014,500 3,500 01306204 ## STATIONERY, ENVELOPES & FORMS 5,4581,8901,350 1,350 2,500 2,000 0130 6208 ## MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 3,413 3,515 4,900 3,6774,950 4,500 01306246 ## MARKETING 1982,9512,986 1,188 3,000 2,000 0130 6249 ## MISCELIANEOLIS OPERATING SUPPLY 4,204 3,5365,727 4,1676,600 6,600 01306306 ## PERSONNEL TESTING 24,63414,849 26,235 32,12833,000 25,534 0130 6315 ## MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SER 53,89457,243 59,152 65,099101,647 116,873 ## 01306322POST AGE 1215752 44 600 200 0130 6331 ## TRAVEL & LODGING 4911,765 1,716 1,7994,000 3,000 01306334 ## MILEAGE RElMBuRSEMENT 84200 ## 01306335TRAINING 10,12816,76018,648 22,66627,875 25,000 01306352 ## GENERAL NOTICE & PUBLIC INFOR 172102108 600 1,000 800 01306353 ## ORDINANCE PUBLICATION 2,322 1,430 1,403 7982,000 1,000 01306354 ## HELP WANTED ADVERTISEMENTS 7,302549 38 1,3192,000 2,000 01306361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 7,0576,883ti,:iog 5,9956,700 6,325 01306405 ## OFFICE & DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 2,231 1,897 1,897 1,8972,000 2,000 0130 6451 ## VIEMBERSHIP DUES 1,9191,5252,543 2,3182,371 2,485 01306452 ## 5UBSCRIPTIONS 714659 208 208770 770 ## Total Exaenditure 913,981977,3691,030,356 1,191,673 1,185,218 1,262,667 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPIT AL OUTLAY: ## TOT AL EXPENDITURES 913,981 977,369 1,030,356 1,191,673 1,185,218 1,262,667 ## !9 913,981 S 977,369 S 1,030,356 S 1,191,673 6 1,185,218 S 1,262,667 lPERSMNEll CON!lPli5tHENT ## City Administrator ## Director of Administrative Services ## City Clerk ## HR Generalist ## HR Specialist ## Administrative Clerks ## Communications Coordinator ## Communications Specialist ## Receptionist ## Administration Total7.30 6249 ## Miscellaneous ## Operating ## Supplies ## Employee ## Recognition (Spring & Fall) ## Expenses for staff workshops and other misc. operating supplies. 6315 ## Miscellaneous ## Professional ## Services ## Insurance Agent of ## Record Annual ## Fee ## HRAiadmin & deposit)/REBA, ## Paper Shred,Contract ## Neg ## Employee ## Assistance ## Program-CobralHSA/Group ## Health ## City ## Code ## Codification ## Workers Comp/Unemployment ## Recruiting ## Sofkware iNEOGOV) ## HRIS Software ## Minute Taking 6454 ## Dues ## IPMA - National ## ICMA ## MCCMA ## MAMA ## Miscellaneous HR organizations-misc ## Notary Fees 2,253 1,951 4,204 2,605 931 3,536 4 ,856 871 5 ,727 - 2,383 1,784 4,167 3,600 3,000 5,60(] 3,600 3,000 6,600 7,000 7,000 3,621 4,514 3,687 4,198 6,353 5,905 12,039 11,879 3,920 4,670 27,263 63,894 19,077 57,243 7,000 3,004 8 ,972 9 ,377 4,826 4,997 20,976 59,152 8,000 5 ,453 6 ,436 5,845 16,637 5,297 17,431 65,099 8,500 3,004 5,500 9,377 17,499 5,560 25 ,535 26 ,672 101,647 8,500 3,004 5 ,500 6 ,201 17,49!) 6,121 39,438 27,606 116,873 15€) 1,356 174 257 199 389 504 1,"144 614 1 ,200 267 1 ,200 226 1 ,200 275 1,919 400 1,525 2,543 2,318 2,371 2,485 ots;cg3pyi6xqr_,s3uylqtS-"__-" _:7'i?=-:2- =' _a =-z-i-,_y_-=-:- _,,:- ;___'t.== ## The Administration ## Department is zenerally responsible for the execution of city policy/ strategic plan as adopted by the City ## Council, prepares and maintains official records, provides for the licensing of local businesses and activities as required by state law or city ordinance, provides ## Human ## Resource services, and generaJly oversees the coordination of events and communications for the City. .Nu-t$;r.Fr7q<_iQ9i.;_aJ":,5.q_<;:;,;a;:;-z : )=": -,o(-".:.::;=,__,':._;;.;': o ## Adding online benefits administration (6315) 65a5@B-cup3_e3xvvto_aauoq_e'r:. . q _. ,,,_,, ,._,;, , - _ . _-,.. ,,, ii ## OverseeimplementationoftheCouncilStrategicActionPIanandLegislative ## Priorities * ## Optimizeuseofnon-cityfundingthroughjointprojects,grants,and partnerships ## IA ## FUND GENERAL ## Business ## Urlit Object : Accouri4 ' :Doscriptiori 2022 ## Actudl 2023 ## Aatual 2tl24 ## Actual 2025 ## ACtuffll 2026 ## Adopted Eludget ' 2 €}27 iBaquested ## Budget 01416102 ## F.T. REGUIAR-WAGES & SALAR1E5 8,04132,996 8,883 01416103 ## FULL TIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 1,0952,450 0141 ' 6104 ## PARTTIME-WAGES & SALARIES 2,874 0141 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & SALARIES 22,26144,544 30,800 0141 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 706 2,821 667 0141 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 6422,900 3,036 0141 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMILIM 130158 258 01416135 ## P AID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE310 0141 6249 ## MISCELIANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLY 5,6312036,195 2,000 0141 6281 ## SMALLTOOLS & MINOR EQUIPMENT 5,717 6,083 1,309 0141 6322 ## POSTAGE 120 26 91 1 100 150 0141 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILIT//PROPERTYINS 346 4532118 300 30 ## Total Expenditure 44,6896,35795,352 2047,663 180 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: 44,689 6,357 95,352 20 47,663 180 ## CAPITAIOUTLAY: ## TOT AL EXPENDITURES ## S 44,689 !9 6,357 S 95,352 S ## 20 S 47,663 ", 180 i-oesaqsi-p-:r_rs4_'b_p siQU;_si _- _ _ _ _ J _ _ _ H _ __ _ _ _ _ ; The Elections budget provides funds needed to conduct the national, state, and local elections in accordance with statutory requirements. -iP.erf_orfti@npei3e_asa*eign%s: _ _ __ _ _ _ __ __ __ _ _ _ ___ . -_ 1__3_2'21 _ 22024 ' 2020 ## Number of Votes 1231816991 Number of Voters registered Election Day 1805918849 Percent (votes/registered) 68.21% 90.14% ## Number of Wards 44 ## Number of Precincts 9 g ## FUND ## GENERALDfflQ= :Flu*ihess _a(!iriit a Object ## ACeoarit ::Desaription 1022 ## JWLial ## 20Z:) ## Actual 2024 ## Aetual 2025 ,,,,, ## Actual 2026 " ## Adapted ...... ## Badge; a a :2027 iQaque*jed il ,,BuaBet ' 0253 ## 6102F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 247,373 """ ;!55,114 308,032 366,758 " 370:'2'37 " 391,263 0153 ## 6108SEVERANCE ## PAY 8,699 0153 ## 6121'PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS 18,501 18,890 a 22,344 26,899 23,741 25,105 0153 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 19,299 :rg,izg 21,672 25,612 31,254 32,707 0153 ## 6131GROUP ## INSURANCE 19,708 26,186 41,342 51,632 61,112 57,959 0153 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP INSURANCE ## PREMIUM :1,246 1,308 527 159 2,135 800 0153 ## 6135PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 1,898 1,774 0153 ## 6204ST ## ATIONERY, ## ENVELOPES & ## FORMS 372 1,009 1,139 306 1,200 1,000 0153 6208 ## MISCELt.ANEOUS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 3_l2 225 746 322 500 500 0153 6302AtJDITlNG & ACCOuNTING ## SERVICES 34,712 40,21640,870 50,604 52,000 56,200 0153 ## 6322POSTAGE 1,716 . 1,543 1,899 2,294 2,200 2,400 0153 ## 6335TRAINING 2,218 681 1,635 3,000 3,000 0153 6352 ## GENERAL ## NOTICE ## & PUBLIC ## INFOR 306 505 580 600 600 700 0153 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 2,800 2,612 2,582 2,676 2,700 3,000 0153 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## DLIES 640 365 365 1,100 1,200 ## 1,3DO 0153 6489 ## OTHER ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES 4,952 3,709 5,667 4,226 6,000 6,000 ## Total Expeqditure 362,854 370,861 448,446 534,823 559,837 583,708 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITAL ## OUTIAY: ## TOT ## AL EXPENDITURES 362,854 370,861 448,446 534,823 559,837 583,708 ## S 362,854 ## S 370,861 6 448,446 6 534,823 6 559,837 5 583,708 ## Finance ## Director ## Asst. Finance ## Director ## Accountant ## I ## Accountant ## II ## Accountant ## Ill ## Accounting ## Clerk 1.00 1.00 ## Finance ## Total 4.00 ## 1.OCI 5.00 '@E_!ieRIP'j:lQQllaa_F SjR@jCtS! . . _ __ _ _ _ _ . . _ -i-i _ ## The Finance ## Department is responsible for financial reporting and budgeting, assessments, cash receipts, accounts receivable, accounts payable, payroll processing, debt service management arid investment of all city funds. 4=xti<;r'eiri4ii-y_aiz_i4-r-i;y--- - _- '-- - - - . - - -- -7 _ : * Continued long-term financial planning (5-Year ## Budget & 10-Year ## CIP) * Continued ## CAFR award recognition * Ensure compliance with state and federal laws ## Performance ## Measuremeritsi , 2022 J;ct- ual' 2023 Actuai 2024 Actual 2025Actuat . 2a26 ## Prgjeeed, 2027 ## Projecte; ## Average Rate of Return 1.64% 3.05% 3.39% 2.99% 2.50% 2.50% ## Bond Rating ## AA+ ## AA+ ## AA+ ## AA+ ## AA+ ## AA+ ## FUND GENERAL $tihhlNb ## Busineiss ## Uriit ## ObjeCt ## Account ## Description 2022 ## Mtudl 2023 ## Actual 2a24 , Actual 2025 ## Actual ' 2026 ' ## Adopted :Btidget 2027 ## ReJuejted ## Budgat 0155 6489 ## OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES 125,272126,096129,777 132,211138,000 137,000 .Total Exaenditure 125,272 . 126,096129,777 132,211138,000 ## 137,0€H] ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: 125,272126,096 129,777 132,211 138,000 137,000 ## CAPITALOUTIAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES ## 6 125,272 S 126,096 S 129,777 S 132,211 S 138,000 S 137,000 5ri-jspQ_-;iyiTh-.m.gPstuviQ_bsi -- - -- - - J The Assessing budget provides contractual assessing services provided by Anoka County. .G();2US )Op_(1_U.R3QN'T yB'gB%Q_iD)qET J. ___ _ _J - _ _ ___ _ _ _ l__ _ _- _) * lncreasenumberofin-personassessmentappraisalstobetter reflect market values 14e_rfo-r$_a_neq-.0yasuret%3-@-Q _ _ _ - - - - - - - - --- --- - .__7Q'4:)'_*r€nD__l_ lI 3Q_24'.A_Qti_ff_Q; _2024-Aet-u!1_1 , 2025 Actueli 2026.Pr6Jeicted' ' 20ffi> Projected Number ofAssessed Parcels - Residential Properties9,347 9,475 9,642 9,853 10,113 10,315 Number of Assessed Parcels - Commercial Properties 402 396 385387 388 390 ## FUND ## GENERAL 3HtiAL ## Buginess ## Uriit ## Object ## Account ' ("esffirtption . ## ' I i ## I .. .. . .... . .i . 2022 ,, ## Aotqbl 2623 ## ACtuai . 2024 mtual 2025 4=tuaj. ' zoz5 i ## A$pted : ## BiidgeI , ,l " i027 - i ## Requested i ## Budget , 0161 6304 ## LEGAL ## FEES 120,510 115,288120,849 133,866 132,300 181,000 0161 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS a 913 855 755 , 636 850 800 ## Total Exienditure 121,422 :[16,142121,605 134,501 133,150 181,800 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: 121,422 116,142x21,605 134,501 133,150 181,800 ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOT ## AL EXPENDITURES ## S 121,422 ## S 116,142 ## S 121,605 ## S 134,501 ## S 133,150 ## S 181,800 4_-Pr_lQ-;'iQ76 €%-Th-CQ;-_-_"'-'-_--"___-'-',-_- -_ . ## ---L 'The ## Legal budget p'rovides for lega-l 2ounsel to-t-he ## City Co-u-ncil and city staff, reviews ordinances, resolutions, contracts and other legal documents. ## The budget also provides for prosecution services. ## The City's prosecution services are provided by Eckberg, ## Lammers ## Attorneys at Law and other legal services are provided by ## Holstad & Knaak, ## PLC ## Increase in Civil due to contract change (6304 10 ## FUND GENERAL 'Business ## Unit ## Object ## Account ## Descrlption 2022 ## Actual 202:i ## Actugl 20?_4 ## ACtLiai 2025 ## Actual 2026 . ## Adopted Budget ' 2027 ## Requested ## Budget 0191 6102 t'.r. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES 442,889556,589 658,500779,662 839,459 878,656 0191 6104 ## PART-TIME WAGES & SALARIES 62,985 71,84973,059 51,789 51,527 53,072 .0191 6108 ## SEVERANCE PAY 7,504 4,934 475 0191 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 37,80047,023 54,10361,776 66,824 69,880 0191 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 38,38046,887 53,62760,751 73,748 76,578 0191 6131 ## GROLIP INSURANCE 56,284 71,84390,547 116,840 127,502 120,961 oig:r 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 2,566 3,2793,095 1,850 5,173 1,900 0191 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE 4,480 4,158 o:rg: 6208 ## MISCELLANEOLIS OFFICE SUPPLIES 542 1,2761,596 1,458 1,000 1,500 0191 6223 ## GASOLINE 1,500 01916249 ## MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLY 1,347 2,3042,346 5,017 3,000 1,500 0191 6315 ## MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SER 799 177346 447 10,000 0191 6322 ## POSTAGE 565 876878 1,519 1,500 4,000 0191 6331 ## TRAVEL & LODGING 969 155550 2,400 2,400 0191 6334 ## MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 230 218 500 500 0191 6335 ## TRAINING 4,2601,8315,128 2,112 9,300 10,300 0191 6352 ## GENERAL NOTICE & PUBLIC INFOR 2,079 1,408527 587 3,000 3,000 0191 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 5,3666,0165,967 6,013 6,300 7,200 0191 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP DUES 794 1,113 1,004 1,797 3,500 3,500 01916452 ## SUBSCRIPTIONS 744 852723 90 1,000 1,000 ## Total Expenditure 665,874818,640951,445 1,092,953 1,210,213 1,241,605 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPITAI OUTLAY: ## TOTAI EXPENDITURES 665,874 818,640951,445 1,092,953 1,210,213 1,241,605 ## 5 665,874 6 818,640 9 951,445 S 1,092,953 S 1,210,213 S 1,241,605 ## City Planner ## Planning Manager ## Senior City Planner ## Rental Housing Inspector ## Zoning Code Enforcment Officer Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director ## Community Development Director ## Planning Technician ## Economic Development Manager ## Community/Economic Development Assistant ## Administrative Assistant ## Planning & Zoning Total 1.00 1.00 ## 1.OCI 0. 63 1.00 8.63 1.00 'oejgcBrpv_ief0pp_s0_qqic4j; ___ _ _ ___ __- 8_ The mission of the Community Development Department is to guide residential and commercial growth through comprehensive planning processes and administer the city's building and zoning codes in a equitable and professional manner to promote and sustain public safety, quality of life, and the health and well being of the whole community. The Planning Division's function is to prepare and implementathe City's Comprehensive Plan (the City's land use guide) which comprises oftwo (2) major functions: long-range land use planning and zoning administration, code 'p.H6j%@_7q-is-ir'y_gjA§gy7@i; - [-l-pJ_- p_JJ_J ## __2-T_ J ## J _ _ -;' ii ## All Land ## Use Applications processed with 60 days. * ## Standard plan review completed within 5 business day (previously 10 business days). ii ## Improve ## Responsiveness to Code ## Violation ## Complaints * ## Improve image of key nodes/corridors and be proactive on site plans due to Ramsey ## G,iteway Project. a ## Improve the application processs for land use applications. ___ ip-yoy-rjl_y-4_Qj53iN=im'q'mjrl ## J: -I-I _-- - ## T - -_ ## - _--TJ ## - U --'I- '-----. --- - ## " '- T-T__T_J'I_J_ ## _1-___-T__ - ## ' -- I aaL - - - _ ----. ## J _ -7- ## JI--- - - _ - -- -' - -l 5 '._ _'2@_"j ## A4iia1.7 -. ## J@Xctua(.'Jj ## J72-e-fW_-ActuB) __ ,)(Th_n-!i_Ak,ty__7 _', 5Q23_fF'$'jd6Ji6: _!t_$7 ## Pj:i_M4- ## Number of ## Land Use ## Applications 44 25 40 25 40 40 ## Number of ## Rental Inspections ## Completed 952 ## Number of ## Code Enforcement ## Cases 470 817 400 321 400 400 ## FLINDGENERAL ## Business ## Unit ## Object ' Account ## Deserlptiop 2022 ## Actual 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2025 ' Actual 2026 ## Adopted ## B(idget 2027- ## Requested ## Budget 0192 6102 ## F.T. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES 189,159 246,057267,133 318,957336,817 354,892 0192 6108 ## SEVERANCE PAY 0192 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 13,95918,40219,824 23,643 25,261 26,617 01926122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 14,08018,46019,839 23,510 25,767 27,149 0192 6131 ## GROUP INSURANCE 28,51337,695 40,13743,227 45,333 50,135 0192 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 976 1,316 1,2187571,448 700 0192 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE 1,681 1,600 0192 6208 ## MISCELLANEOUS OFFICE SUPPLIES 414 380362 igg 400 400 01926249 ## MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLY 542 1621,456 1,202875 1,300 01926281 ## SMALLTOOIS & MINOR EQUIPMENT 49,366 50,15818,594 37,07464,800 64,800 01926315 ## MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SER35,000 0192 ## 6321TELEPHONE 13,67513,94513,095 16,508 17,750 23,055 0192 6323 ## CELLULAR PHONES 43,62350,17652,295 59,565 64,032 68,020 0192 ## 6335TRAINING 1,3543,809 1542,370 6,300 6,300 0192 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 5,8025,526 6,0165,3766,300 7,000 0192 6374 ## REFUSE/RECYCLING 479 01926405 ## OFFICE & DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 385,556393,779454,388 529,734 599,870 758,716 01926585 ## COMPUTER HARDWARE/SOFTWARE 26,89464,048 ## 47,76B 71,000 78,470 ## Total Expenditure 773,912840,343gss,ssg 1,109,8901,302,6341,469,154 ## SIJMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPITAIOUTLAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES 747,018 26,894 ## S 773,912 6 840,343 840,343 6 8%,511 1,062,122 1,231,634 1,390,684 64,048 47,768 71,000 78,470 gss,ssg 5 1,109,890 e 1,302,634 0 1,469,154 iPETlSQNhlELGO(VPtENaE5i- : ## IT Manager ## Systems & Security ## IT Tech ## Data Processing Total 1 1 1 3.00 1 1 1 3.00 1 1 1 3.00 1 1 1 3.00 6405 0ffice Equipment Contracts Support (LOGIS) Financial Support(General Ledger,P/R, 5/A, F/A & System Dev%LOGIS) PIMS becomes Accella System Support (LOGIS) ## Tungsten(LOGIS) ## DigiPlan(LOGIS) GIS iLOGIS) ## Laserfiche Licensing (LOGIS) ## Licensing/maintenance through Logis ## Malware Bytes (3-Year Renewal) ## Digital Signage ## Other Licensing/Maintenance (Civic Rec/Engineering-Autocad) Internet llncluded in (OGIS Support) ## Server Backup/Hosting LOGIS ## Copier7Printer Support ## Agenda Quick ## Phone Support ## Miscellaneous ## Website Annual Fee 6,470 96,110 41875 3,860 50,115 6,423 31247 10,411 5,870 17,055 17,560 39,790 13,595 3,500 5,041 15,430 8,205 385,556393,779 104,530 67,126 4,260 55,251 23%140 24,088 4,733 5 0,50! ig,ttio 53,030 ## Is,zizig 6,800 10,869 5,404 9,046 454,388 10,80€ 108,260 53,425 4,475 20,000 58,000 28,137 27,308 10,932 3,38€ 78,127 20,330 55,950 16,685 6,700 6,343 5,783 15,098 529,734 112.730 113.795 4,7001 4,9351 42.000 60.900 63.000 16.500 700 3,448 3,264 82,000 53,585 21,145 21,990 48,021 101,925 17,562 17,840 6,900 7,212 16,602 9,500 7,912 5,202 15,850 37,898 599,870 763,523 ## 6585 Computer Hardware / Software ## Server Virtualization Replace 24 laptops il7 Police/7 Fire) ## universal Power Supply ## Firewall ## City Hall Copier Replacements computer purchases ## Networking Switches 26,894 26,821 37,227 24,574 23,194 33,000 78,47Cl 38,000 26,894 64,048 47,768 71,000 78,470 ## IT ## Manager ## Security ## Administrator ## IT ## SupportTechnician ## IT ## Systems ## Specialist ## Data Processing ## Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 ## 3.OC1 )q@:@ €0-g@__J-A,;§i --- --------7-'-'-'------ - -'; ## The Information ## Technology ## Department manages and maintains all voice, network, and data systems for the city. They also handle long-term project planning, technology implementations and helpdesk support for city staff. ## N6q_s:r3aiqmH_m7----_-__ - 7: ## :_%%-_'_J7__-_-"_7JJJ"__ '2"_ -'--:- --"'%-) * ## LOGIS ## Network ## Services added (Naaas) - 949,630 ## Less ';)6,776 current costs-net 942,854 (6405) ii ## Website annual fee increase ## - S22,048 (6405) * Office 365- ## Implementation-920,000/950,000 ## Licensing (6405) * ## ADA Remediation ## Software ## - S14,100 (6405) * ## NewAutoDeskLicensing&DeskPhoneLicensing-95,500(6405) * ## New Endpoint ## Security ## Software - ## S5,200 (6405) * ## Police Squad ## Hardware ## Refresh - ## S3,100 (6405) * ## Rep(ace ## Engineering ## Plotters - ';il5,000 (6585) ii ## Replace 41 Laptops (34 Police/7 ## Fire) - 9131,470 (6585) 'ao-p-4i0-q!3q-QQa'%a'_%aJii-_m_g@:---1- ## _-H ## _-H__ J -J- "7Jl'-----'--_--7 "a"a* ""'Ens'9restaffaccesstotoolsanj-;es-ourc;\inorde'r-to-p-rovideeffeHt-iv-e "-" services to citizens. * ## Identify efficiency, security, and cost-saving opportunities that improve/maintain city services using technology & staff ## Performance ## Measurainents: -'-i 1023 Aetual '2024Projectea ' r- - ' 2'026 Actttal 2D2-jProje-cted- ## Number of Physical ## Servers 3 3 3 3 3 o ## Number of Virtualized ## Servers 14 13 13 17 13 14 'Number of Desktop ## PCs / Laptops 177 180 180 174 171 176 ## Number of Phones 109 112 112 114 119 120 ## Number of Mobile ## Phones 65 65 65 81 85 83 ## Number of Other ## Cell Devices (hot spots, cameras, etc.) 48 49 49 ## Number of Tablets 23 30 30 7 4 4 ## Number of Wireless ## Access ## Points 18 28 28 29 24 25 ## FUND GENERAL = B!Srness ## Unit ## ObjeCt- ## Qccount [;lescriptlon2022 ## Actiial 2023 Actual _ 2024 . Actual l- 2025 ## Actuol ' 2028 :Adopted ## Budget ' i(127 .Rtiqltested ## Fllidget 0194 6102 t'.'r. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES 164,491174,759 202,928 256,636 288,241 305,731 0194 6103 ## FULL TIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 3,3822,842 5,281 5,221 01946104 ## PART TIME-WAGEi & SALARIES 27,454 28,644 33,418 a 40,199 42,244 45,346 0194 6108 ## SEVERANCE PAY 4,68618,025 2,705 1,225 01946121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 14,55615,369 16%183 22,394 24,786 26,331 01946122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 14,33915,749 18,072 22,601 25,282 26,858 01946131 ## GROtlP INSURANCE 39,524 36,444 37,147 52,491 58,743 55,690 0194 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 10,55211,885 13,033 6,7347,261 6,000 0194 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE 1,713 1,607 0194 6221 ## CLEANING SuPPLIES 1,910 4,025 4,759 3,618 5,000 5,000 0194 6223 ## GASOLINE 3,390 3,347 3,522 3,546 4,500 5,500 0194 ## 6225DIESEL FUEL 2,172563 1,304 1,448 2,500 3,500 0194 6231 ## UNIFORMS & TURN-OUT GEAR 2,1991,695 3,020 3,206 3,500 3,500 0194 6249 ## MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SLIPPLY20,01419,784 21,867 21,854 25,000 25,000 0_1946257 ## OTHER VEHICLE PARTS 3,2002,136 8,517 1,0762,5002,500 0194 6259 ## BUILDING MAINT/REPAIR SUPPLIES 5,3135,329 8,335 g,sgs 10,00010,000 0194 6281 ## SMALLTOOLS & MINOR EQUIPMENT 4,2356,115 12,512 3,575 8,000 8,000 0194 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 6,816 6,841 6,574 5,9836,4008,600 01946371 ELECTRIC uTILITIES 99,439102,932 102,872 111,440 120,000135,000 0194 6372 ## WATER/IRRIGATION 2,9283,358 2,676 3,636 4,000 4,600 0194 6373 ## GAS 40,96138,397 36,661 42,316 44,000 48,000 0194 6374 ## REFUSE/RECYCLING 5,5695,203 6,803 6,394 8,000 8,000 0194 6381 ## BLIILDING & STRLICTLIRE REPAIR9,1273,27213,457 13,966 75,000 75,000 0194 6382 ## MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 19,344 20,26224,393 37,044 75,000 75,000 0194 6388 ## OTHER VEHICLE REPAIR241 71 222 3,000 3,000 0194 6489 ## OTHER CONTRACTED SERVICES 90,445102,525 95,165 93,529 105,000109,000 01946550 ## MOTOR VEHICLES 47,226 60,692 75,000 0194 6580 ## OTHER EQUIPMENT16,500 ## Total Expenditure 643,514629,571 759,196 770,048 1,024,670gg6,763 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOuTLAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES 596,288 629,571 682,004 770,048 949,670 47,226 77,192 75,0(10 9 643isl4 S szgiszz !) zsg4gti 5 770i04s !) 1,024,670 S 9%,763 996i763 Gen. Gov't. Bldgs. ## Building Maintenance ## Gen Govt Bldgs Total 'iepsQipiripu_.qC _SE_RglO_E-§:_ The General Government Buildings Department is responsible for cleaning city buildings and the repair and maintenance of all building systems, as well as two cemeteries. '8H-Th6-g-.hiei-H-iiiG-H-'g - -- - - - - - -- - * Increased electric costs - S15,000 (6371) qQA3A2Q21@U_ RpffljJj'%);_ R1BU_.I:_(ij7-f- - . ' - - - - , * Clean and maintain our municipal buildings to the higJ"iest level possible ii Continue to prepare and support voting precincts during elections ii Respond to all maintenance requests in a timely manner P_hrikiiimance Mia3ur_e_ni_(':nt's _ _- _ - - - -- - -- - ' 2tmlAat'afil l , 2:C@8 JX_auali '_ 2_ff2_4 AMua-l _ ', 2(}25 PcaJectsd 2026 ;ioJected 20*7 @yojacted ## Buildings Maintained 1313 13 13 17 18 ## Rooms Prepared for Meetings Annually 1210 1210 1250 1250 1270 1280 ## Maintenance Request Cleared 45 45 50 50 53 60 ## FUND ## GENERAL ## IlvqaiThiitiiH -{3usiness . ## Unit ## ObJee,t AcaoUTlt. pescript!ori "l 2022 i _ ## Atitllal a 2021 b@tuql 2024 ' /)ictqal 2025 , ## Actual ,i 'l 2026 ## -I . _l ## Adopt@d'Bu4gQ "zoly- : . ## Req(iested _Buelge.t ) oigs 6102 ## F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES & ## SALARIES 4,682 3,474 2,422 548 7,368 0195 ## 5121PERA ## CONTRIBuTIONS 351 261 182 41 553 0195 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBLITIONS 385 286 a 199 45 564 0195 ## 6133WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## P.REMIUM 22 15 26 15 32 0195 ## 6135PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL LEAVE 32 0195 6322 ## POST ## AGE 12,345 13,069 15,084 16,287 16,700 19,372 0195 ## 6352GENERAL ## NOTICE ## & PUBLIC ## INFOR 36,409 40,241 41,055 42,225 44,000 48,400 0195 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 424 399 370 334 400 400 ## Total ## Expenditure 54,618 57,746 59,337 59,495 69,649 68,172 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOuTLAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES s 54,618 54,618 ## S 57,746 57,746 ## S 59,337 ## 59,337 S 59,495 sg,ags ## S 69,649 sg,649 5 68,172 68,172 §c_s_Q3>y_ieydQjs_@_q-@4s_J- 722 -_'2 _7- _-__ :_- :--._ ## __T_-L -'-- - ) ;Fee c-ommunity newsletter, ## The Ramsey ## Resident, is distributed to residential homes every two months. It is intended to provide public information about community events and local government. ## Staff ## Costs Reflected under 0130-Administration (6102-6135) ## Advertising now produced in-house; reduced fees, increased revenue. ## Continue refreshed ## Ramsey branding items into the newsletter ## PerformarieeMeasuramentsi "" ' """ "' "2'(u2Attub-1 - --20-2-3-A-ctua-1 "' - --'2-024-Actuaf' '-"2-0>"'-5 actual-' 2-61@PrOjected-. 20-27-f'rajected. Number of newsletters completed annually 6 6 6 6 6 6 Number of full color newsletters completed annually 6 6 6 6 6 6 ## *A ## GENERAL FUND 201- GENERAI GOVERNMENT ## PERSONNEL SERVICES ## SuPPLIES ## OTHER 5ERVICES & CHARGES ## CAPITALOuTlAY ## DEBT SERVICE ## ITOT AL EXPENDITURE BY OBIECT 6,2:11,938 524,930 601,831 517,361 6,663,6% 545,425 881,388 1,414,024 7,417,715 598,941 735,023 413,507 8,322,12!1 633,55(1 z;ii,goo 639,500 8,761,617 712,45(1 goa,szs 805,000 5,636,560 503,417 6 04,3'll 7 7,929 ## 6A22,2% 7,8X,(160 9,S(14,535 9,165,187 10,317.[)79 11,183,6921 LINE ITEM DET All BY COST CENTER OR SOB-FLINCTION 3,495,004 135,588 601,722 270 4,232,583 ## WAGES AND SAIARIES ## 6102 F.T. REGIIIAR-WAGES & SAIARIES 5103 FuLLTIME-REGllUlR-OVERTIME 6104 PARTTIME-WAGES&SAlARIES 6105 TEMPORARY-WAGES&SAUiRIE5 ## 6107 0VERTIME-PARTTIME ## TOTAL WAGES AND SALARIES ## OTHER GROSS EARNINGS ## 6108 SEVERANCEPAY ## TOTAL OTHER GROSS EARNINGS ## EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS ## 6121 PERACONTRIBIITIONS 598,194 651,108 69!),964 772,989 86[1.664 921,376 ## 6122 FICA/MEDICARECONTRIBIITIONS 115,980 127,619 136,414 161,218 192.416 207.430 ## 6131 GROL'PINSIIRANCE 421,1(19 512,677 503,62!) 57€,900 707,147 693,972 6132 DISABILITYINSuRANCE 1,313 1,313 1,313 1.313 1.313 1.313 6133 WORKERSCOMPINSuRANCEPREMIUM 245,437 272,004 256,228 212,603 278,30€ 205,800 ## 6135PAIDFAMILYMEDICALLEAVE 29,117 28,184 TOTALEMPLOYERCONTRIBIJTIONS 1,382,034 1,564,721 1,597,549 1,719,a23 2.068.957 2,05'l,075 TOtBIPERS('NNELSERVICES ' S,636,560 6,231,938 6,663,698 7,417,715 g,322.12!1 8,161,617 21,943 21,943 3,916!1!11 128,145 601,786 4 5 4,646,966 20,251 20,251 4,150,95!1 137,91(1 693,040 5,638 4,987,547 78,603 78,603 4,591,368 161,186 848,528 5 76 s,soi,tisg !17,€33 97,033 5,353,411 5,737,201 ## 130,000 145,00CI 761,761 820,341 6,253,172 6,702,542 ## OFFICE SuPl'LIES ## 6204 STATIONERY, ENVELOPES & FORMS ## 6206 FIIM, MICROFILM, TAPES, DISKS ## 6207 TRA1N1NGSUPPLIE5 6208 Ml5CELLANEOUSOFFICESUPPllES ## TOTAL OFFICE StlPPLIES ## OPERATING Slll'l?LIES ## 6223 GASOLINE ## 5225 DIESELFIIEL ## 6227 LUBRICANTS&ADDITIVES ## 5229 SHOP MATERIALS ## 6231 LINIFORMS&TURN-OUTGEAR ## 5233 BATTER1E5 ## 6235 AMMUNITION ## 6237 CRIMESCENEKITMATERIAIS ## 6239 FIRSTAIDSUPPLIES ## 5241 COMMUNI1Y POLICING SUPPLIES ## 6249 MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SIIPPLY ## TOTAL OPEIIATING SuPPLIES ## REI'AIR AND MAINTENANCE SuPPLIES ## 6251 BATTERIES ## 6253 BRAKES ## 6255 TIRES ## 6257 0THERVEHICLEPARTS ## 6259 BIIILDINGMAINT/REPAIRSUPPLIES ## 6266 SCBA-PARTS ## 6271 SIGNREPAIRMATERIA15 ## 6275 0THEREQUIPMENTPARTS ## TOTALREPAIR AND MAINTENANCESlll'PLIES ## SMALLTC10L5 AND MINOR EQUIPMENT 6281 SMALLTOOlS&MINOREQUIPMENT ## TOTALSMALLTOOLS AND MINOR EQUII'MENT ## MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE ## 6291 CLILVERTS,SIGNS,STREETSUPPLY ## TOTAL MERCHANDISE FOR RESALE ## Total SUIJPLIES 3,712 370 3,562 1,80(1 9,444 5,808 208 10,155 2,991 19,172 5,255 3,682 128 179 ## 8,170 S,437 3,515 2,928 17,0611 12,227 10!1,192 94,580 7,163 9,858 1,624 2,709 1,538 1,425 108,626 115,974 2,013 1,940 13,725 13,274 509 ## S,444 6,005 g,gsr 10,351 48,417 51,:u5 307,710 307,939 3,238 6,616 18.44(1 41,518 s,sgg 1 ,148 2,933 81,792 104.472 104,472 829 4,045 7,315 41,515 14,241 23,874 1,464 945 94,227 103,276 103,276 80,759 14,266 2,382 2,282 144,578 435 14,827. 495 5,425 14,111 59,159 348,729 !122 1,739 6,52g 40,784 47,031 25,450 3,103 554 126,110 53,41a 53,410 77.780 15,133 2,938 2,537 109,749 1,354 11.05€ 713 5,934 12.22€ 82,9ag 322,347 2,178 180 7,360 63,718 43,975 11,437 1,611 1,!)9[) 132,449 ui,grg 131,919 316 107 316 107 503,417 524,930 545,425 5!)8,941 6,€0[) 6,00(1 800 450 10,500 I!l,il[)O 3,700 4,200 21,000 2!),650 90,000 15,00(1 3, €Oa 2,0[)Cl 146,20(1 5,000 15,000 1,500 11,000 15,000 84,25€ 387,950 2,50[1 4,00[) 9,500 43,000 42,000 25,00[) 6,000 3,000 135,000 89,200 89,200 gs,ooo 18,000 3,250 2,500 147,40(1 2,500 17,00[) 1,500 !1,000 15,000 88,350 400,500 3,200 4,000 ## 8,ODD 51,000 47,50[) 25,000 ## 6,ODD 25,750 170,450 111,600 111,60(1 400 250 4(10 250 633,550 712,450 ## PROFESSIONAL ## SERVICES 6302 ## AUDITING&ACCOllNTINGSERVICES 6315 ## MISCELUINEOUSPROFESSIONALSER 4,416 150,362 154,778 4,g58 134,615 13!1,573 5,551 413,781 419,332 8,051 284,732 292,783 ## 8,ODD 132,000 ## 140,ODD g,ooo 163,125 172,125 ## COMMLINICATION 6321 ## TELEPHONE 6322 ## POSTAGE 2,584 2,603 2,584 3,351 4,30[) 4,100 6323 ## CELLULAR ## PHONES ## TOTAL ## COMMUNICATION 2,584 2,603 2,584 3,351 4,300 4,100 ## EMPLOYEE ## REIMBURSEMENTS 6331 ## TRAVEl&lODGlNG 8,515 7,685 9,179 12,523 18,700 22,700 6334 ## MILEAGEREIMBIIRSEMENT 474 1!19 1!18 161 600 600 6335 ## TRAINING 81,528 75,342 75,269 80,423 110,500 108,600 ## TOTALEMPLOYEE ## REIMBuRSEMENTS 90,517 83,225 84,645 93,107 129,800 131,')00 ## INSURANCE 6361 ## GENERALLIABILtTY/PROPERTYINS 105,710 133,713 130,366 127,567 141,250 137,450 ## TOT ## At INSURANCE 1[16,710 133,713 1:10,366 127,567 141,250 137,450 ## UTILITIES 6371 ## ELECTRICUTILITIES 31,828 29,147 32,!184 30,019 37,000 38,200 6372 ## WATER/IRRIGATION 2,117 2,791 2,166 4,320 3,000 4,000 6373 ## GAS 11.838 9,987 16,603 13,263 18,500 24.800 6374 ## REFUSE/RECYCLING 1,571 1,718 1,773 1,928 ## 2,ODD 2.200 ## TOT ## AL UTILITIES 47,354 43,642 53,526 49,529 60,500 69,200 ## REPAIRS ## AND MAINTENANCE ## - LABOR 6382 ## MACHINERY&EQUIPMENTREPAIR ## IS,015 14,124 13,489 15,460 24,000 22.500 6383 ## 0FFICEEQUIPMENTREPAIR 6386 ## BRAKEREPAIR 6388 ## 0THERVEHICLEREPAIR 68,786 52,534 69,7% 62,416 77,000 78,000 6389 ## TOWINGSERVICES 3,096 345 526 519 ## 3,ODD 3,000 ## TOTALREPAIRSANDMAINTENANCE-IABOR 86,897 67,(104 83,809 78,3'l5 104,000 103,500 ## REP ## AIRS AND MAINTENANCE ## - CONTRACTS 6405 ## 0FFICE&DATAPROCESSINGEQUIP 43,253 41,626 35,515 29,032 4!1,000 49,")00 ## TOTALREPAIRSANDMAINTENANCE-CONTRACTS 43,253 41,626 35,515 !,032 49,(1(1(} 49,900 ## RENT ## ALS 6413 0FFICEEQUIPMENTRENTAt 3,483 5,265 5,160 5,160 7,5tlO 5,300 6415 0THERECllJlPMENTRENTAl 38,215 37,867 42,640 37,684 50,250 165.000 ## TOTAL ## RENTALS 41,6!18 43,132 47,800 42,844 57,750 171,300 ## DLIES, ## SUBSCRIPTIONS, ## AND ## REGISTRATION ## FEES 6451 ## MEMBERSHIPDuES 7,03!1 7,596 6,843 5,!199 9,000 9.1 €0 6452 ## SUBSCRIPTIONS ## TOTALDuES,SUBSCRll'TIONS,ANDREGISTRATIONFEES 7,03!) 7,596 6,843 5,999 9,000 9,1[10 ## BO(XS ## AND PAMPHLETS 6471 ## BOO)iS&PAMPHLETS 2,384 1,963 3,267 1,471 5,300 5,250 ## TOTALBOOKSANDPAMPHuTS 2,384 1,'163 3,267 1,471 5,300 5.25(1 ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES 6489 ## 0THERCONTRACTEDSERVICES 21,177 37,754 13,702 10,945 21,000 ## 50,ROD ## TOTAL ## C(JNTRAaED ## SERVICES 21,177 37,734 13,7(12 10,945 21,000 ## 5 €1.8D0 ## TotalOTHERSERVICES&CHARGES 604,391 fiOli831 881,388 735,023 721,900 904.625 ## DEBT ## SERVICE 6603 0THERL.T.OBLlGATIONPRINCIPA ## TOTAL EXPENDITuRES ## & OTHER ## FINANCING 6,822,296 7,876,08[1 !),504,535 !),165,187 10,317,07!1 11,183,6'l2 ## SLWIMARYi ## OPERATINa ## E)O'BL% ## CAPffALOUTLAYi wu apaionma 4744,!68 77,ff') 6,122,2% * ## 7J!A,99 !il7,ail 7,g76fi * 8fi;511 l1l4fi !l,%!u ## I 8 ,751fll 4u;N7 9,165,jJff @ 639,500 to,at'z,oyg e 10,178,092 ## 805,OH 11,latl,692 ## FUNDGENERAL immawmavmw .fftfflihesi ## Un,it ## Object ## Account iDescript!ori i', 2Q2 i i Actunl : , 2023 ## Actual 2024 pctubl 202!i ## Actual 2026 Adopted ' Blrdget ' ' 2027 ## Requssb_d tludget 0211 6102 ## F.T. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES 2,865,9433,108,3293,364,368 3,643,410 4,087,554 ' 4,382,761 0211 ' .6103 ## FULLTIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 131,945126,091126,294 160,935 130,000 145,000 0211 6104 ## PARTTIME-WAGES & SALARIES 90,75072,08999,259 147,871 197,606 199,228 02116108 ## SEVERANCE PAY 14,582 20,251 59,252 36,397 0211 6121 ## PERA (_ONTRIBUTIONS 511,012542,373588,572 637,160695,644 746,796 0211 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS66,062 71,96779,78492,226 109,281 115,495 0211 6131 ## GROUP INSURANCE 339,894 377,986:iss,sgs398,757 472,364 453,872 0211 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMILIM 191,818 209,520204,207170,623 228,647 164,000 0211 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE 21,356 20,359 0211 6204 ## ST ATIONERY, ENVELOPES & FORMS 3,1344,6924,962 3,3994,500 4,500 0211 6206 ## FILM, MICROFILM, TAPES, DISKS 370208128 179500 350 0211 6207 ## TRAINING SUPPLIES 3,56210,1658,1705,437 10,500 19,000 0211 6208 ## MISCELLANEOLIS OFFICE SUPPLIES 1,2712,6052,4301,926 2,500 2,500 ## 02116223GASOLINE 85,35174,80667,84263,558 72,000 75,000 0211 6227 ## LUBRICANTS & ADDITIVES 1,624 2,7092,3822,938 3,000 3,250 02116229 ## SHOP MATERIALS 1,538 1,4252,282 2,5372,000 2,500 02116231 ## UNIFORMS & TURN-OUT GEAR 48,896 63,39371,02343,379 80,000 80,000 ## 02116233BATTERIES 2,0131,940435 1,354 2,000 2,500 0211 6235 ## AM MtJNITION 13,725 13,274 14,827 11,050 15,000 17,000 02116237 ## CRIME SCENE KIT MATERIALS 509495713 1,500 1,500 02116239 ## FIRST AID SUPPLIES 4,287 4,252 4,287 3,644 8,000 6,000 02116249 ## MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SLIPPLY 10,88614,51022,50627,321 25,500 28,000 0211 6251 ## BATTERIES 829647 2,178 ## 1,5C)0 2,200 ## 02116253BRAKES 3,238 4,0451,739 180 4,000 4,000 ## 02116255TIRES 6,616 7,315 6,5297,360 9,500 8,000 02116257 ## OTHER VEHICLE PARTS 13,42520,154 21,95024,718 23,000 27,000 02116259 ## BUILDING MAINT/REPAIR SUPPLIES 13,502512 14,715 9,372 12,000 15,500 02116275 ## OTHER EQUIPMENT PARTS 220550554 597 1,000 24,250 0211 6281 ## SMALLTOOIS & MINOR EQUIPMENT 76,84369,23719,643 94,301 48,000 70,200 0211 6315 ## MISCELIANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SER 11,8927,84050,070 16,549 22,000 38,125 0211 6322 ## POSTAGE 1,1821,2041,208 1,745 2,600 2,100 0211 6331 ## TRAVEL & LODGING s,isg ## 5,7068,21210,89CI ## 12,CIOO 16,000 0211 ## 6335TRAINING 28,33531,667 36,762 25,714 50,000 46,000 0211 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 86,707105,032102,814 100,731 110,000 105,000 02116371 ELECTRIC uTILITlES 2,:107 2,693 2,500 3,000 ## )2116373GAS 6,086 8,946 6,500 9,800 )211 6382 ## MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 5091871,975 785 2,000 1,500 )211 6388 ## OTHER VEHICLE REPAIR 10,67513,28710,709 4,148 17,000 18,000 )211 6389 rOWING SERVICES 3,096345526 519 3,000 3,000 )2116405 ## OFFICE & DATA PROCESSING EQUIP 9,1792,7062,695 2,823 ## 22,DOO zs,goo )211 5413 ## OFFICE EQtJIPMENT RENTAL 3,483 5,2655,1605,160 7,500 5,300 )211 5415 i ## :)THER EQUIPMENT RENTAL 38,21537,86742,530 37,684 50,000 165,750 )211 ## 5451 I ## VIEMBERSHIP DUES 3,2463,8223,447 3,569 4,400 4,000 )211 ## 5489 I ## )THER CONTRACTED SERVICES 12,62525,079373' 1,462 1,000 20,000 )211 ## ;550 I ## XOTOR VEHICLES 115,083 428,959 49,198 126,500 150,000 )211 ## ;580 I ## )THER EQUIPMENT 9,45315,780256,477 30,64418,000 ## Total Expenditure 4,726,2605,196,6056,135,4885,896,781 6,725,452 7,224,236 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CJffAL OUTLAY: 4716,807 5,065,7425,450,0535,816,939 6,580,9527,074,236 9i453 130,863 685,436 79,842 144,500150,000 ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES ## S 4,726,260 S 5,196,605 S 6,135,488 S 5,896,781 S 6,725,452 S 7,224,236 ## Police ## Chief ## Captain ## Sergeant ## Drug ## Task Force ## Officer ## Patrol ## Officer ## Lead ## CSO/Community ## Service ## Officer ## Police ## Office Supervisor ## Clerical/Support ## Personnel ## Public Safety ## Total 1.00 2. 00 4.00 1.00 21.0[) 1.26 1.00 3.64 34.90 1.00 2. 00 4.00 1.00 22.00 2.00 1.00 3.54 36.64 ## I.O[) 2.00 5.00 ## 1.OCI 21.00 3.07 1.00 3.64 37.71 1.00 2. 00 5.00 1.00 21.00 3.07 1.00 4.27 38.34 1.00 2. 00 5.00 1.00 22.00 3.07 1.00 4.64 39.71 1.00 2. 00 5.00 1.00 22.00 3.07 1.00 4.64 39.71 6550 ## Motor Vehicles ## Chev ## Silverado ## Dodge ## Durango i2 in 2024) ## Ford Explorers i3 in2024) 2 Chargers ## Ford Explorer with set up ## Ford Explorers i2) 950K each ## Ford ## F-150 ## Tahoe 6580 0ther Equipment ## Axon ## Squad Car ## Cameras ## Radios ## Tire Changer (1/2 cost with ## PW) ## Drone ## Audio/Video ## Recorder in Interview ## Rooms 9,453 9,453 73,400 41,683 ## 115,DB3 55,957 119,173 180,455 62,375 428,959 ;xg,zos 36,769 256,477 49,198 49,198 13,606 17,038 30,644 54,500 72,000 126,500 18,000 18,000 100,000 50,000 150,000 ptSqnrp-yi6w pH:5nnvie51:, =a - " " :-, ai; ';.:' q -q:_. ; S ,"y'b;-; :":y;.,- '.-)- = '- ' ## The ## Police Department is responsible for the protection of life and property and a sense of community security and responds to all emergencies in the city. ## The Police ## Department will deter criminal activity by visible patrols; the enforcement of traffic laws; and the apprehension of criminal offenders. The department investigates criminal incidents and apprehends offenders through the gathering, analysis, preservation and presentation of evidence.The Police department provides other community services such as code enforcement, animal control, crime prevention, and school liaison. su@C_tjh- i4iajiisa -. '. -, : ,,'-:r ## __:,:,-'-*-HJ; ## =. EJ-; -1 = ,;;_, 'r, J _;: ## )__::_;Q_ ii Personnel ## Costs ## - COLA & ## Steps * Overtime ## Increase - 915,000 (6103) ii Wellness ## Sauna ## -%,800 (DTF ## Funded); ## Replace 20-year old ## Treadmill - !>7,000 (6207) ii Handgun ## Replacements '314,500 (6231) * Case ## Mgmt Room into 2 offices -57,000; ## Garage ## Floor Patch ## S6,000 (6259) * Portable ## Radio ## Upgrades (FBI Required) ## - S23,500 ## (500 X 47 radios) - (6275) * 3-replacement squad set up-.546,500 ## (HRA7COR Funded) part of 3 new squad setup; 3 new radars41l,600; ## Forceable ## TOOIS-.S6,600; ## Indoor Drone- ## S2,500; ## Wellness ## Massage ## Chair-95,500 (DTF Funded) (6281) ii Policies 360 Program-manage & update police department policies through ## Eckberg ## Lammers - 916,125 (6315) ii PSDS JLEC cost increase-.550,470; ## AXON ## Body Worn ## Camers & Fleet 3 renewal-.9113,747 per year for 5 years (6415) ii Annual renewal current 6 flock license plate readers-918,000 (6489) ii Replace2023DodgeChar(;er#330withFordF-150-950,000(6550) - ii Replace 2021 ## Ford Explorer #312 - 950,000 (6550) ii Replace 2021 ## Ford Explorer ## #313 - S50,000 (6550) 'eoA_iippcq@hs'i5yH;B'Q'tQrrj"-'5::;- :j-h;:;-Q4;=,2'sa-,'-:;y_:.=o7 +=,:':o:',' ii Reduce criminal activity in the community * Adequately staff public safety based on changing demographics and needs ii Leveragetechnologytocreateoperationalefficiencies ii Enhance traffic safety in the community 10 %Q9ma_rieef:e_Ng4m-ni_j-njs_!-J ---- - -' -- - ---- ## Police Department Activity zr>_2;_ gctu*i 20:B Actffal 2(}24 A@_ual ' 202-5,ACttlThl_ 2026_f'r_o_jected' ' 2ff2_7. ;rojectga ## Dispatched Calls for Service 1!i6Cl9 15172 se,osg _ .'l6!187 16jXR ' 16995 ## Motor Vehicle Accidents 465384390 417 394 382 ## Citations and Warnings 1042 9681649 1480 1809 2001 ## Criminal 869 798709 751 685 643 ## Non-Criminal 9000 69147675 7037 7402 7577 ## State.CPM Pefformanae MeaSlJrement 71esuits ## I .20222023, 'R)24 ' 2t)25 a _ 2026 , __ _ap!'___ _ : T Otal Reporked Crim es Rate iper 200,000 p opulation) 17.7816.81 15.13 16.49 17 17 Crime Clearance RateS (per 100,000 population) 19%27%28% 30% 35% 40% Average police response time - highest priority calls 6:085:455:46 5:40under 6 minutes under 6 minutes ## FUND ## GENERAL ## Business ' .Unit ## Objett , ' Accourit' !)escription a " iozz" ). ## Actual 2023 ## Attual 'i024 ## Actual 202!i ' ## Actual 2026 ## Adopted' 4udget 2o2:z' , ## Requested' i . ## Budget '0220 6102 ## F.T. ## REGUIAR-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 11 352,050 440,276 471,515 514,371 666,986 695,027 ,0220 6103 ## FULLTIME-REGLILAR-OVERTIME ii 3,373 0220 6104 ## PARTTIME-WAGES&SAlARlES a ! 459,516 469,149 518,151 638,772 a 532,794 580,571 0220 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES ## & SALARIES 0220 6108 ## SEVERANCE ## PAY 6,400 58,847 0220 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS l 62,760 76,554 81,484 98,726 117,153 122,084 0220 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS ## I 25,178 24,861 26,254 34,121 34,311 38,389 0220 6131 ## GROUP ## INSURANCE i 45,603 64,206 67,860 73,326 113,879 114,298 0220 6132 ## DISABILITYlNSuRANCE , ## I 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 1,313 0220 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM : i 49,688 56,968 44,564 38,045 42,823 39,000 ' 0220 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE ## I 4,612 4,564 0220 6206 ## FiLM, ## MICROFILM,TAPES, ## DISKS i 0220 6208 ## MISCELLANEOLIS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES ## I i 316 289 673 466 700 700 0220 6223 ## GASOLINE ## I ## I 21,492 17,844 11,797 12,801 14,000 17,000 0220 6225 ## DIESELFUEL ## I i 7,163 9,858 14,266 15,133 15,000 18,000 0220 6231 ## UNIFORMS ## &TURN-OUT ## GEAR l ## I 57,894 51,594 70,591 64,451 65,000 65,000 0220 6233 ## BAnERIES i 3,000 0220 6239 ## FIRSTAIDSuPPLIES i ## I 1,157 1,752 1,137 2,290 3,000 3,000 0220 6249 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY iI 16,920 19,922 18,936 25,938 24,000 24,000 0220 6255 ## TIRES i 0220 ## 6257OTHER ## VEHICLE ## PARTS ## I 5,016 21,361 18,834 39,000 20,000 24,000 0220 6259 ## BUILDING ## MAINT/REPAIR ## SUPPLIES ' i 30,016 i:i,zzg 32,315 34,603 30,000 32,000 0220 6266 ## SCBA-PARTS i s,sgg 23,874 25,450 11,437 25,000 25,000 0220 ## 6275OTHER ## EQUIPMENT ## PARTS 0220 6281 ## SMALL ## TOOIS ## & MINOR ## EQUIPMENT l ' 26,684 32,303 32,012 36,362 40,000 40,000 0220 6302 ## AUDITING & ## ACCOUNTING ## SERVICES ## I 4,416 4,958 5,551 8,051 8,000 9,000 0220 6315 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## PROFESSIONALSER l 0220 6321 ## TELEPHONE ## I 0220 ## 6322POSTAGE i 4 81 76 65 100 100 0220 6323 ## CELLULAR ## PHONES 0220 6335 ## TRAINING ## I 47,504 37,255 34,025 50,024 50,000 52,000 0220 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS ## I 14,421 21,296 20,208 19,474 23,000 24,000 0220 6371 ## I ## ELECTRICuTILITIES , 17,091 14,515 16,702 16,602 17,000 19,000 0220 6372 ## WATER/IRRIGATION ii 2,117 2,791 2,166 4,320 3,000 4,000 0220 6373 ## GAS ji 11,838 9,987 10,517 13,263 12,000 15,000 0220 6374 sa=uscQcvcuxc ii 1,571 1,718 1,773 1,928 2,000 2,200 0220 6388 ## OTHER ## VEHICLE ## REPAIR ii 58,111 39,247 59,085 58,268 60,000 0220 6405 ## OFFICE&DATAPROCESSINGEQUIP 'i 18,183 18,920 22,820 26,209 27,000 0220 6451 ## MEMBERSHIPDUES ii 2,029 2,929 1,635 1,445 2,000 0220 6452 ## SUBSCRIPTIONS ## II 0220 6471 ## BOOKS ## & PAMPHLETS ji 1,052 1,282 ## 1,6C19 1,471 2,000 0220 6489 ## OTHER ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES li 2,266 4,724 5,011 6,358 5,000 0220 6550 ## MOTORVEHICLES i' 275,027 673,056 300,000 390,000 0220 6580 ## OTHEREQulPMENT j 68,475 25,405 23,532 70,000 ## TotalExpenditure li 1,427,516 1,785,989 2,314,915 2,207,478 2,424,671 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## E)U"ENSE: ## CAPITALOuTLAY: ## TOTALEXPENDmlRES 1,359,041 1,485,557 1,618,326 1,9€ n,478 ## 1J64,671 2,073,246 68,475 300,432 ## 696Q 300,000 460,000 5u,000 6 1,427,516 !9 1,785,989 6 2,314,915 # 2,207,478 ## S 2,424,671 6 2,657,246 ## Fire ## Chief ## Fire ## Secretary ## Fire ## Captain of Admin/Deputy ## Fire Chief of Operations & Logistics ## Fire ## Inspector ## ASsistant Chief of Operations & Training ## ASsistant Fire ## Chief/Fire ## Marshall ## Firefightet/Fire ## Technician ## Firefightets ## Fire ## Total 1.00 1.00 ## 1.CIO 7.58 12.28 7.58 11.58 l.00 1.00 2.00 7.58 11.58 ## 1.OCI 1.00 7.58 12.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.58 13.58 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 7.58 13.58 ## 6550 Motor Vehicles 1/2 of funding Replace 2008 Fire Engine #565 (1.2M) 5600K 2027 less resale 5115K & paid in full discount 935K Replace 2017 Ford Explorer #569 (net S5,000 sale proceeds) Replace 2013 Chev Tahoe #333 net g5,000 sale proceedsl Replace 2019 Chev Tahoe #395 net .:)10,000 sale proceeds) Replace 2020 Chev Tahoe #573 net S8,000 sale proceeds) Replace 2020 Chev Tahoe #373 net 58,€00 sale proceeds) ## Replace Tanker #ll Veh #501 ## Replace Rescue #21 Rescue 2 replacement 275,027 275,027 6580 0ther Equipment ## SCBA Compressor SCBA bottles Fire Training Room Table & Chairs ## Extrication Tools ## Thermal Imaging Camera radios zi,oig 47,436 24,405 68,47524,405 Personnel Costs - COLA & Steps On-Call - S28K Average + 3% Cola = S346,080 (6220K is state aid) 3rd Installment for Fire Engine Replace #365 -S600,000 less trade in of S115,000 & S35K discount on full pay chassis (5550) Replace 2019 Chev Tahoe (Asst Fire Chief of Opertions #395) - S45,000 (net of 610,000 resale) (6550) Replace 2020 Chev Tahoe (Fire Prevention #373} - 947,000 (net of S8,000 resale) (6550) Replace 2020 Chev Tahoe (Fire Chief #573) - %2,000 (net of S8,000 resale 6550 372,027 301,029 673,056 23,532 23,532 300,000 300,000 300,000 45,000 ## 45,OCIO 390,000 45,000 25,000 70,000 450,000 45,000 42,000 47,000 584,000 p@q4io'p.-Qu_sH_sN_y-74_ OU['(;TQ3 _ _ -i _ 2_ - - - - ii Establishandmaintainoutreachprogramsthatenhancefiresafetywithin community a * Ensure adequate staff numbers to meet increased demand of calls for service ii Research/planforspaceneedsandstaffingovernext5yearperiod. 2TfO!rD_Q@_'eQ4Mpa__su__QeIne_Qt4 _ ,_ l' 20;j;_Adual: i_ 2023 Actual' >-0>4 Adual202!i Acitia! 2[l26.t;;ojected _'igJy @_pmistyd:. N umber of Calls for Service I ## I 1381 173520162284 2500 2750 ## Mutual Aid 66758099 105 115 ## Given I 44545175 80 85 ## Received 22212922 25 30 N umber of firefighters 47495760 60 60 Prevention: 1 # of Public Education contacts I 45 3440 65 90 100 # of commericial property inspections 320 3193941126 1135 1150 #ofpermitsissued i 106 286250292 315 330 ## State CPM Perforrrmnce,Measurement Results 2022 2023 2024-2025 :1026 Estimated_ 2027 Estimated' Insurance industry rating of fire services 4/74/74/74/7 4/7 4/7 Fire calls per 1,000 population 1321 2528 30 32 Average response times 6:156:586:30 5:24 5:24 5:24 EMS calls per 1,000 population 36 394254 60 62 ## FUND ## GENERAL lHHfll61llt 111!lhPll.llOl'4!> ## Busineffls ## Unit abjsict ## Account .DsscriptiOn '2022 ## Actual 1023 ## Actual ## I '2024 _ ## Attual ' 2025 ## Actual 2026 : _ ## _ I /kdopfed ## Budge$ ' .2027 ' aequest(id i*a 6iidget. ..: 0240 6102 ## F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SALARIES 253,395 332,414 266,839 376,876 528,122 581,331 0240 6103 ## FULL ## TIME-REGulAR-OVERTIME 2,053 11,616 0240 6104 a ## PART ## TIME-WAGES & ## SAIARIES 51,455 60,547 75,630 61,885 39,361 40,542 0240 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES ## & 54(ARIES 4,543 0240 6108 ## SEVERANCE ## PAY 961 19,351 1,789 0240 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS - 22,626 29,547 26,304 32,826 42,561 46,640 0240 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 22,794 27,975 26,627 30,470 43,412 47,573 0240 6131 ## GROLIP ## INSURANCE 35,612 70,485 49,209 98,818 120,904 125,802 0240 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM :i,go 2,684 2,479 2,223 3,816 2,300 0240 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 2,837 2,953 0240 6204 ## STATIONERY, ## ENVELOPES ## & FORMS 552 609 292 284 1,000 1,000 0240 6208 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 213 98 412 536 500 1,000 0240 6223 ## GASOLINE 2,349 1,930 1,131 1,421 4,000 4,000 0240 6231 ## UNIFORMS & ## TURN-OUT ## GEAR 1,836 987 2,965 1,919 1,200 2,400 0240 6249 ## MISCEILANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY 630 1,020 2,158 981 ## 2,OCIO 2,000 0240 6315 ## MISCELIANEOUS ## PROFESSION ## AL SER 138,470 126,775 363,711 268,182 110,000 125,000 0240 6322 ## POSTAGE z,:igg 1,102 1,201 1,541 1,500 1,800 0240 6331 ## TRAVEL ## AND ## LODGING 2,710 1,797 764 1,573 5,200 5,200 0240 6334 ## MILEAGE ## REIMBURSEMENT 474 igg 198 161 600 600 0240 6335 ## TRAiNING 5,509 5,250 3,162 2,775 8,500 8,500 0240 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTYINS 4,809 5,161 4,916 5,194 5,400 5,800 0240 6405 ## OFFICE ## & DATA ## PROCESSING ## EQUIP 15,891 20,000 10,000 0240 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## D1_)ES 245 100 925 465 1,100 1,600 0240 6471 ## BOOKS ## & PAMPHLETS 997 435 1,658 3,000 3,000 0240 6550 ## MOTOR ## VEHICLES 27,066 36,000 ## Total Expenditure 564,838 718,231 876,090 889,919 925,013 1,045,041 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOTAL ## EXPENDITURES 564,838 5 564,838 e 691,166 876,090 889,919 925,013 1,009,041 27,066 36,000 718,231 9 876,090 9 889,919 6 925,013 6 1,045,041 ## Building ## Official ## Building Inspector ## Admin ASSistant ## Permit Technicians ## Inspectors ## Building ## Inspection ## Total 100 3.00 1.00 1.50 6.50 6550 Motor ## Vehicles ## New Vehicle for building inspector 27,066 27,066 _o-tsaqip-4n7pHsgH,y=3-sB _ _- _ . _- _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ H H -- - ' The mission of the Community Development Department is to guide residential and commercial growth through comprehensive planning processes and administerthe city's building and zoning codes in a equitable and professional manner to promote and sustain public safety, quality oflife, and the health and well being of the whole community. The purpose of the Building Division is to help ensure all your construction projects meet the requirements of both the Minnesota State Building Code and the City Personnel Costs - COLA & Steps (Full-Year Building inspector- 9 months budgeted in 2026) !'15,000 increase contracted Electrical & Plumbing Inspectors (6315) New 2027 Chevy Equinox for Building Official - 936,000 (6550) ## GC)At:A .6P:eUnEiff Ni YHARIIBUIC)eFTi Complete standard commercial plan review within 30 business days. Allow for inspection availability within 48 hours. ,P_@rj_6ima__ngeJM_ easvr_e_eQ-ts;__ l " _ . _ _ . _ _ _ __ iai ## - IZ_(32@BQD_8V_ _ _ 20;!,1 !ACtuaF 1024 Actual, .' 702'> %tda(, 2 €1;18jrojecied . 2D:!!7 Arojected New Residential Units (single family, townhome, multi family) 125 190 244 229 190 'igo ## Total Building Permits 2,9323,7003,358 3,344 3,7003,700 Number oflnspections 7,3566,593 7,459 9,737 9,0009,000 ## FUND ## GENERAL Business. ## Unit ## Object ## Accourit ['escription 2022 ' ## Actual 2023 ## Attual 2024 -Aatual 2025 ## Actual ' 2026 ' ## Adopted . ## Budget , 2027 : ' ## Requested ', _ audget l 0250 6251 ## BATTERIES 275 1,000 1,000 0250 6275 ## OTHER EQUIPMENT ## PARTS , 2,713 395 1,394 , 2,000 1,500 0250 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTYINS 75 1,664 1,8081,707 2,000 2,(100 0250 6371 ## ELECTRIC ## UTILITIES 1,020 1,071 935 1,102 1,000 1,200 0250 6382 ## MACHINERY ## & EQUIPMENT ## REPAIR 5,829 ## 5,R53,523 3,643 6,000 5,000 0250 6580 ## OTHER CAPIT ## AL EQUIPMENT 59,000 32,000 33,665 35,000 35,000 ## Total Expenditure 9,637 67,325 38,541 41,509 47,000 45,700 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: 9,637 67,325 38,541 41,509 47,000 45,700 ## CAPIT AL OUTLAY: ## TOT AL ## EXPENDITURES ## S 9,637 ## S 67,325 ## S 38,541 ## S 41,509 ## S 47,000 ## S 45,700 =4qFlf=";l'e-i; BF_0_g2q4F'@j'-J_-. -- -----___ ___ _-_:___%_-7_ ## -_-J- _ : ## The ## CiviJ Defence budget funds expenditures related to the city-wide emergency siren notification system. ## Replace 2 ## Sirens ## - S35,000 (6580) %_rfmmance ## Measurer@enjs: ,,, , ___ _ ____ _ ___ , .- ,,__ ,,,, , 2022 ## Actual "' 202j ## Ac-tu-ar----2024Ac-tu-al ' 2025 ## Actual 20:26 Project-e_d- 2026 Projectsd ## Number of Sirens 17 17 17 17 17 17 ' Busln@m i Unit ' Object ## Account Demriptian ' ' 2022 ' Aeiual- 2023 ## Adual 2024 . 'Actual 2025 .Actual 202fi 'Atlqpted . Budget -' 2027 ## Rgquested 'Oudget 0260 6102 ## F.T. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES 23,61635,97248,23756,711 70,749 78,082 0260 6103 ## FULL TIME-REGUIAR-OVERTIME 270251 0260 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & SAtARlES 270451,(YjS576 0260 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBLJTIONS 1,7972,6343,6034,276 5,306 5,856 0260 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS1,946 2,816 3,749 4,401 5,412 5,973 0260 6131 ## GROUP INSURANCE 666 710 0260 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 2,0202,8324,978 1,712 3,014 1,500 0260 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE312 308 0260 6249 ## MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLY 19,64115,75625,34627,988 32,000 33,600 0260 6271 ## SIGN REPAIR MATERIALS 1,1481,4643,1€)31,611 6,000 6,000 0260 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS sgg452507365 700 500 0260 6371 ## ELECTRIC UTILITIES 13,71713,56013,04112,316 15,500 15,000 0260 6382 ## MACHINERY & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 8,6778,7437,991 11,033 16,000 16,000 0260 6489 ## CONTRACTED SERVICES 6,172787 6,500 6,500 ## Total Expenditure 79,87385,061112,316121,950 162,493 itig,:iig 79,873 85,061 112,316 121,950 162,493 169,319 ## FUND GENERAL ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPITAL OUTIAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES ## S 79,873 S 85,061 S 112,316 5 121,950 S 162,493 S 169,319 ipt5;C_-8_IPTI(2J__:ap_j_@I(._j$--- _ __ _____.S ___ ____ J _ [ I _-l S 7 "::'_'-. q - } The Traffic Engineering budget funds the installation and maintenance of traffic signage on, above, and/or near city streets. s:u'm_.6e;r-:Oia_NqiqH-;la _ _ _ ii No major changes. Staff time redistributed between streets, traffic engr, snow plowing & utilities. l:c_oxts-:o_p:eu30ssiir_yg_a3_su.e4j_r3 _ _ _ __ __ _ __ _ _ __ ii Continue to meet FHWA guidelines for traffic signage ii Replace dama(;ed or defective signs within 48 hours * Bring signage up to current standards on all reconstruct and overlay projects ii Continue to install street signs in new commercial and residential developments. * ContinuetosupportEngineeringandCommunityDevelopment departments with traffic issues :Pe__f_0nfM__t_m$:jVl- € ti=_!+!eQl-jptS{ T I _ __ T _ _ _ _ _ I _ __ _ 2022 Jkctual 2!Oq,p Actual 20>4 Prajeded 2ozS Pro)ec-ted 2026 Projected ' '2027 Projectsd ## Total Hours 20802080 2080 2080 N umber of Traffic Signs in System ## NumberofTraffic Counts Performed ## FUND ## GENERAL fAl'41lVla(UlV'llHUi ## Business, urilt .' '.. Object ## AecolIiCit oescription 20;,,, _'. .'4zaia( 2023 ## Actual ' 2024 ## Actual _ 2025 ## Actual 2(a6 ' ## Adapted .....Bydg-et . ' 2027 ## Requeslad i _8udget 0270 6249 ## MISCEILANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPI!/ 340 108 213 712 750 750 0270 6281 ## SMALLTOOLS ## & MINOR ## EQUIPMENT 945 903:),509 848 1,000 1,000 0270 6489 ## OTHER ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES 114 y,x(>o 8,317 3,125 8,500 18,300 ## Total Expenditure 1,399 8,175 io,o_ig 4,685 10,250 20,050 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITAL ## OUTLAY: ## TOTAL ## EXPENDITURES 1,399 1,399 ## S 8,175 8,175 ## S 10,039 to,o:ig 5 4,685 4,685 ## S 10,250 10,250 !) 20,050 20,050 'j'-sS'C_-s3p_T?B-z-4-g0By;cJ!-"p( ---- . ## This fund covers expenditures related to animal control. ## Ramsey PD provides animal containment services and incurs expenses for boarding animals at ## Anoka ## PD. 'Performance ## Measurements: ## I ....... .... . . .... .. . .. .. ._ . - ... ... . . .. -....-... .. ..-.. ...- ... --.- .... .. . - -.-- - --- ## I -""' "" -"' " '- " a - ## I ## 20T2 ## Adu-a-l - ' 2 €)23 A@t-ua-l 2(ij4-A-c-tu-aJ--- >0>5 Actual 2016 ## Projected' _2tj2_7,:F'jo%-igd ## Animal ## Complaints 270 377 667 473 650 ## Number of ## Animals ## Impounded 20 30 46 20 55 ## Number of ## Animals ## Released to Owners 15 24 26 16 50 ## Number of ## Euthanizations o 1 o o 2 ## FUND GENERAL ' Busiriess Unit : ## ObJeet ## Accourit l ## Description 2022 ## Actua} 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2Di!i ## Actual 2026. ## Adopted Budget 2027 ## Requested ## Budget 0280 6204 ## STATIONERY, ENVELOPES & FORMS 27 508 500 500 0280 6206 ## FILM, MICROFILM, TAPES, DISKS300 100 0280 6241 ## COMMUNITY POLICING SUPPLIES 9,967 10,35114,111' 12,220 15,000 ## I 15,000 0280 6281 ## SMALLTOOLS & MINOR EQLIIPMENT 832247 408200 400 0280 6291 ## CULVERTS, SIGNS, STREET SUPPLY 316 107 400 250 0280 6322 ## POSTAGE 216gg 100 ## 1 €)O 0280 6331 ## TRAVEL & LODGING 646 18220360 1,500 1,500 0280 6335 ## TRAINING 1801,1701,320 1,9102,000 2,100 0280 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 99 iog11497 150 150 0280 6415 ## OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTAL 110 250 250 0280 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,520 745836 5201,500 1,500 0280 6471 ## BOOKS & PAMPHLETS 335 246 300 250 ## Total Expenditure 12,774 14,67317,14715,215 22,200 22,100 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSEi 12,774 14,67317,147 15,21522,200 22,100 ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOT AL EXPENDITURES ## S 12,774 S 14,673 S 17,147 S IS,215 S 22,200 !, 22,100 -ioi3c-nur'r;6.Ai2Qst=3i-@tBffst -_ l _ - T_ - - -_- -- - - ' The Community Orientating Policingfunds expenditures related to community programs such as: Kids Safety Camp, Car Seat Inspections, Night to Unite, Pet Clinics, Bike Helmet Fitting and Sale, Police Explorers, and DrugTake Back lF:e-:or,aiiae Measgieqents: _ _ _ _ -i _ __ ___ _ ___ _ .___ _ _ : _ j%2 _A_ffl-uffl _ " 2023 Actuat2014 Actual' 2t)25 Actual 20J!6 Pro0ected ' ' 20fi t)_jojected # of participants attending Kids Safety Camp 121107140 150" 110 120 # of car seat inspections 12 12 153 10 10 Night to Unite - # of Parties 484545 38 40 40 # of participants in Citizens Academy 812 16ll 12 12 # of participants in Home Alone Classes l n/an/an/a i 72 72 72 " in 2025 we did :i Safety Fair. ## GENERAL FUND ## 1(11 - GENERAL ## GOVERNMENT 14:lJ-l/Iiliillil4-14"l-!I ## I IJ ## PERSONNEL SERVICES ## SU?PLIES ## OTHER SERVICES ## & CHARGES ## CAPITAL OUTLAY ## ITOTAL ## EXPENDITURE ## BY OBIECT ## 1.I I Pffif'!!il#fJ7ffW!ffiflP ## I!!fffT'!'lm ## I!IlT'll 1 ,232,6gO 1,334,945 1,62!1,459 1,811,991 383,218 325,477 354,!1!16 :is3oys 410,981 1,406,511 z:is,sog 631,661 127,057 384,417 1,602,233 53,468 2,153,946 3,451,351 4,325,197 2,855,1'l5 2,(173,30[) 471,275 888,325 447,00(1 3,879,90(1 2,072,610 503,304 952,000 881,000 4,408,!)14 ## I ## LINE ITEM DETAIL ## BY COST CENTER ## OR SUBlUNCrlON ## WAGES AND ## SAkARIES 6102 ## F.T.REGllLAR-WAGES&SAlARIES 797,269 6103 ## FIILLTIME-REGIIIAR-OVERTIME 42,2'l9 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES&SALARIES 30,256 6106 ## 0VERTIME-TEMPORARY 636 ## TOTALWAGESANDSALARIES 870,461 ## OTHER GROSS ## EARNINGS 6108 ## 5EVERANCFPAY 65,629 ## TOTALOTHERGROSSEARNINGS 65,62!) ## EMPtOYER ## CONTRIBUTIONS 6121 ## PERACONTRIBUTIONS 62,881 6122 ## FICA/MEDI(ARECONTRIBuTIONS 64,665 5131 ## GROUPINSIIRANCE 124,889 6133 ## WORKERSCOMPINSuRANCEPREMIUM 44.165 6135 ## PAID FAMILY ## MEDICAL LEAVE ## TOTALEMPLOYERCONTRIBUTIONS ## 296AO1 ## TotalPERSONNElSERVICES " '1,232,690 !)10,184 as,zgo 2a,426 978,901 9,124 9,124 72.058 73,407 155,962 45,494 346,921 1,138,970 1.286,116 1,470,790 1,477,252 51,473 57,937 42,000 51,864 13,574 ## 15,B(11 34,874 34,265 1,2(14,017 ## 85A28 87,825 201,033 49,757 425,443 1,359,854 !17,873 100,359 227,506 26,399 452,137 1,547,664 113,459 11(1,829 248,240 36,172 y,giti 525,636 1,563,381 114,684 120,830 237,!)(Kl 28,700 7,115 509,229 ## OFFICESuPPLIES 6205 ## DRAFTINGSIIPPLIES 6208 ## MISCELtANElI)USOFFICESUPPLIES ## TCffAL OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 2,0% 2,005 2,922 2,922 1,717 1,717 l(l(IFI 2,008 2,575 2,575 2,000 2,000 ## OPERATING ## SIIPPLIES 6221 ## CLEANINGSIIPPIIES 6223 ## GASOuNE 21.314 24,531 19,753 22,'118 40,500 33.500 6225 ## DIESELFUEL 54.169 48,950 26,444 31,192 55,[)00 50,000 6227 lUBRICANTS&ADDITlVES 6.106 6,305 5,700 2:009 ## 9J)0[1 9.000 6229 ## SHOPMATERIAI.S ## 3A25 2,915 6,624 3,624 4,600 5,100 6231 ## UNIFORMS&TllRN-OUTGEAR 7.231 9,036 10,754 12,833 18,000 19.000 6249 ## MISCELLANEOUSOPERATINGSUPPLY 10.98:1 !1,825 14,48 €1 13,:16!) 15,900 2l.5rlD ## TOTAL OPERATING ## SUPPLIES 103.627 1(11,563 83,754 85,945 143,000 138.1(10 ## REPAIR AND ## MAINTENANCE ## SUPPklES 6257 ## 0THERVEHICLEPARTS 83.858 77,135 82,963 66,208 92,[)00 %.800 5259 ## BUILDINGMAINT/REPAIRSUPPLIES 2.622 3,619 !11 2,700 2.500 6261 ## 5AND&GRAVEL 2,300 2,779 5,300 4.800 6263 ## SALT 129.704 68,426 117,442 147,311 135,000 1')1,404 6265 ## ASPHALT 32.311 31,135 26,560 28,770 35,000 36.000 6267 0THERSTREETMAlNTENANCESUPPt 10.675 14,920 17,050 14,245 17,St)0 17.500 6269 ## LANDSCAPEMATERIALS gS2 1,076 942 2,931 ## 4,SOD 4.500 6275 0THEREQulPMENTPARTS ## TOTALREPAIR ## AND MAlNTENANCESuPPLIES 262,422 19!1,(!30 245,048 259,465 ## 292,ODD 333,504 ## SMALLTOOLS ## AND MINOR ## EQUIPMENT 52!11 5MAlLTOOl5&MINOREQUIPMENT 15.163 21,903 24,478 10,65!1 33,7[)0 29,700 ## TOTALSMALLTOOLSANDMINOREQUIPMENT 15,163 21,9(13 24,47 € 10,658 33,7€10 29.700 ## Total SUPPLIES ' ## 383,2)J :125,477 354,"196 358,075 471,275 501,304 ## PROFESSION AL SERVICES 6315 Ml5CELUlNEOUSPROFESSIONALSER ## TOT AL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ## COMMIINICATICIN ## 5321 TELEI'HONE ## 6322 POSTAGE ## 6323 CELluLAR PHONES ## TOT AL COMMUNICATION ## EMPLOYEE REIMBURSEMENTS ## 6331 TRAVEL&LODGING ## 6335 TRAINING ## TOT AL EMPLOYEE REIMBklRSEMENTS ## INSURANCE ## 6361 GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY IN5 ## TOT AL INSURANCE uTILlTIE5 6371 ELECTRIC uTILITIES ## 6372 WATER/IRRIGATION ## 6373 GAS ## 6374 REFUSE/RECYCLING ## TOT At uTILITIES ## REPAIRS ANDMAINTENANCE-UIBOR 6381 BlllLDlNG&STRLICTllREREPAIR ## 6382 MACHINERY&EQUIPMENTREPAIR ## 6387 TIRE MOUNTING & BAIANCING ## 5388 0THER VEHICLE REPAIR TOTAL REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE - kABOR ## REPAIRS AND M AINTEN ANCE - CONTRACTS ## 6404 MACHINERY&EQUII'MENT ## 6405 0FFICE&DATAPROCESSINGEQUIP ## TOTALREPAIRS ANDMAINTENANCE-CONTRACTS ## RENT ALS ## 6415 0THEREQUI%ENTRENTAL ## 6417 IINIFORM RENTAL ## TOTAI RENTAIS ## DIIES, Sln3SCRlPTIONS, AND REGISTRATION FEES ## 6451 MEMBERSHIP DuES TOTAL DuE5, SUBSCRI?TIONS, AND REGISTRATION FEES ## BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS ## 6471 BOOKS&PAMPHLETS ## TOTAL BOOKS AND PAMPHL!iTS ## CONTRACTED SERVICES ## 6488 STREETMAINTENANCECONTRACT ## 6489 0THERCONTRACTEDSERVICES ## TOTAL CONTRACTED SERWCES ## Total OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES ## CAPITALOIITLAY ## 6540 HEAWMACHINERY ## 6550 MOTORVEHICLES ## 6580 0THER EQIIIPMENT ## TOTAL CAI'lTAL C)uTLAY ## Total CAPITAL OUTLAY ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPEN!iE: ## CAPITALOUTLAYi ## TOTAL E)tPENDITuRES ## 29J!)7 29,897 31,744 31,744 39,4!)6 39,496 35,252 35,252 50,000 50,000 55,500 55,500 6,952 6,952 25,801 25,801 s,sig 2,238 6,g24 2,180 19,662 1,582 5,172 6 0 9,487 16,30[1 3,458 3,745 7,203 2,205 689 ## 2A94 1,670 i67(1 1,161 1,161 127 12,983 13,110 26,788 26,788 8,411 2,207 6,150 975 17,7 4:1 3,747 6,447 16,32a 26,514 2,838 1,233 4,071 1,180 1,180 18,863 18,863 29,217 29,217 9,991 2,384 4,40[1 1,201 17,876 11,173 1,184 6,353 18,710 2,880 z,ago 8,444 1,890 10,334 5,527 5,527 29,480 29,480 9,071 1,885 5,412 1,430 17,798 12,572 6,356 40 1 ,07!1 2 0,047 3,159 3,159 966 1 ,503 2,469 1,024 1,024 2,300 2,30a ## 1 ,0(I(I 2 4,385 25,g85 31,93(1 ax,gaa 13,00a ## 3,CNIO 6,000 2,50[) 24,500 20,000 6, € Oa 400 27,000 5:1,400 4,000 5,55[1 9,550 6,000 1,50[) ## 7,SOD 1,760 1,76(1 2,450 2,450 33,3tX) 33,300 36,000 36,000 13,000 3,000 6,000 2,50[) 24,500 20,000 ## 6,ODD 400 27,000 53,4(Kl ## 4,ODD 800 4,800 6,000 1,60[) 7,600 2,45[) 2,450 294,g98 ## S,461 300,45!1 410,981 1,272,595 11,822 1,284,417 1,406,511 571,622 27.498 599,11!1 738,509 500,175 16,340 516,515 631,661 ## 65(1,01X] 700,000 32,001) 32,000 682,000 732,0(10 ## 888A25 !152,000 103,199 23,858 127,057 127,057 2,153,946 266,007 1,250,996 !14,910 122,698 23,500 228,538 53,468 384,417 1,602,233 53,46!1 384,417 1,602,233 53,468 3,451,351 4,325,197 2,855,195 447,000 727,000 154,000 447,000 881,000 ## 447,DOG 881,000 s,gyg,goa 4,408,!114 ff fl7JB7 2$4946# 3,%8,914 m,447 ## 3,451,351 S 2,722,964 1,602,233 4,325,1!17 e 2,801,728 53,468 2,855,195 e ## !AQ!KKI 447,000 1,17!1,!100 @ ## 3A27A4 mlQl 44 ## FUND ## GENERAL ## Business unit ## Object ## AtN.ount ## Description 702-2 ## Actuol 2023 . ## Actual 2024 /lctual 2025 ## Actual !:126. .Adoptsia',%dget 2027 : 'Requested i _ ## Budget . j 0301 6102 ## 1F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 293,930 368,610383,360 370,591 414,399 442,244 03016103 ## F(jLL ## TIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 23,675 28,461 46,444 32,695 ## 30,ODD 30,000 0301 .6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & ## SAIARIES 14,752 0301 6106 ## OVERTIME-TEMPORARY 636 0301 6108 ## SEVERANCE ## PAY 21,797 0301 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS 23,597 29,340 31,457 28,409 33,330 35,418 0301 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 23,812 28,270 30,591 28,059 33,997 36,127 0301 6131 ## GROUP ## INSURANCE 40,296 51,158 52,266 56,804 76,606 85,253 0301 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP ## INSLIRANCE ## PREMIUM 2,078 2,581 2,035 1,648 3,360 1,800 0301 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 2,327 2,202 0301 ## 6208MISCELLANEOUS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 1,279 2,316 1,001 1,270 1,850 1,000 0301 6223 ## GASOLINE 5,650 6,823 8,079 6,842 10,500 11,500 0301 6231 ## LINIFORMS ## &TURN-OUTGEAR 1,331 2,774 2,276 2,340 3,000 3,000 0301 6249 ## MISCELIANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY 854 408 403 714 900 1,500 0301 6257 ## OTHER ## VEHICLE ## PARTS 1,397 1,905 1,990 1,626 2,000 6,800 0301 ## 6281SMALL ## TOOLS ## & MINOR ## EQUIPMENT 1,143 1,994 495 1,700 1,700 0301 ## 6315MISCELLANEOUSPROFESSIONALSER ' 1,288 1,000 2,173 2,321 15,000 16,500 0301 ## 6322POSTAGE 87 1,107 1,175 165 2,200 2,200 0301 ## 6331TRAVEL ## & LODGING 127 1,000 0301 ## 6335TRAINING 3,059 4,906 5,260 3,469 8,385 13,300 0301 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 3,990 4,172 4,303 4,372 4,700 4,700 0301 ## 6405OFFICE ## & DATA ## PROCESSING ## EQUIP 3,745 5,550 800 0301 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## DUES 1,393 864 734 804 1,760 2,450 0301 ## 6580OTHER ## EQUIPMENT 38,989 0301 6550 ## MOTOR ## VEHICLES 30,844 60,104 55,000 ## Total ## Expenditure 446,849 566,809674,634 564,420 652,564 753,494 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTIAY: ## TOTAL ## EXPENDITURES 446,849 535,965 575,540 564,420 652,564 698,494 30,844 99i094 55i000 ## S 446,849 5 566,809 9 674,634 6 564,420 6 652,564 ## S 753,494 ## PW ## Director/City ## Engineer ## City ## Engineer ## Assistant ## City Engineer ## EngineeringTech ## IV ## Engineering ## Tech ## II ## EngineeringTech ## Ill ## Senior ## Engineering ## Technician ## Civil ## Engineer IV ## Water ## Resources ## Technician ## Civil ## Engineer II ## Administrative ## ASsistant ## Interns (2) ## Engineering ## Total 1.00 f[_RSa%lfiTirCiT'TQFS-(Q4-- - -_ ' , ## The ## Engineering budget covers engineering functions not charged to specific projects. ## The ## City Engineer oversees all engineering includinB working with the ## Minnesota ## Department of ## Transportation, ## Anoka ## County, other cities and regulating agencies, maintaining mapping and GIS data, managing stormwater runoff, responding to citizen and staff requests, and (;eneral engineering functions. jlA y-4ffi-'rdm<4ra-cje_Qsa _ _ - - -- - - - -- - - - -- @ ## New!Cl27GMC2500andretain#411assecondstaffvehicle-!>S5i000 (6550) lq_GOt5 (>_Q____C)i3[3_77j;@p_Fll._t)j_ -- - - _ ---2 _--- - - - - --- - - - ii ## EnsurestableandsustainablefundingexistsforPavementManagement * ## Support operations ## Of Water ## Treatment Plant. * ## Support improvements identified in AnOka ## COuntj/ CSAH 5/NOWthen Blvd. transportation study. a Conductwellsitingstudyfornewmunicipalwells#9and#10. ii ## Develop and plan for key infrastructure improvements ## (AUAR, utilities, transportation). ii lnvestigateimprovedpavementconditionratingsystems. * ## Continue pavement rejuvenation program to replace suspended sealcoat program. ipejf(5hmaffq=C:qinj_.Ulj- L-n@%fS! ## N - ___ _ _ _ _ _ I ____ _ Iffl ## _ Z -- -- -- -- - ---- -- ' - '_ 'zs'i=_t;a_ix_, __ 2023@@%_R!__'_ _$2ff_4 8_Qciff_F :' 20g'0,'A_a4_,JelgEJF'j_ojected 2027 ## F'_jjj)e@i'q4i ## Active Engineering ## Projects 14 18 20 2118 15 ## Completed ## Engineering ## Projects ## II14 17 19 20 18 ## Infrastructure ## Asset ## Management ## System ## Llpgradesoo oo o o ## FUND ## GENERAL 'BtJsiness llriit ## Object ## Accoufflt ## Desenpti1on 202> ## Amual 2023 ## Actual 2024 " ## Actual 2025 .Aatual 262i ## Adopted !fudHej 2027 ## Requested ## Budget 0311 ## .6102F.T. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 393,338 423,207 652,737 784,633 899,486 856,560 0311 6103 ## FULL ## TIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 1,220 3,624 1,361 2,166 2,000 11,864 0311 ## 6105TEMPORARY-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 6,422 14,738 10,392 12,176 ' 22,874 24,265 0311 6108 ## SEVERANCE ## PAY 65,629 9,124 0311 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS 30,106 31,119 48,510 sg,on 67,611 65,132 0311 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 30,807 32,704 49,993 61,216 72,146 69,522 0311 ## 6131GROUP ## INSURANCE 84,593 104,804 145,897 170,702 171,634 152,647 0311 6133 ## 'WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM 30,800 32,158 37,828 20,577 26,286 23,000 0311 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 4,822 4,129 0311 ## 6208MISCELLANEOUS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 727 606 715 738 725 1,000 0311 ## 6223GASOLINE 15,664 5,227 10,241 10,918 18,000 15,000 0311 6225 ## DIESEL ## FUEL 31,077 11,394 11,396 7,272 20,000 20,000 0311 6227 ## LUBRICANTS ## & ADDITIVES 6,106 6,305 5,700 2,009 g,ooo g,ooo 0311 6229 ## SHOP ## MATERIALS 3,825 2,671 6,054 3,446 4,000 4,500 0311 6231 ## UNIFORMS ## & TURN-OUT ## GEAR 5,900 6,262 8,478 10,492 15,000 16,000 0311 6249 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY 10,129 9,417 14,077 12,655 15,000 20,000 0311 ## 6257OTHER ## VEHICLE ## PARTS 39,496 28,244 34,270 26,565 45,000 45,000 0311 6259 ## BUILDING ## MAINT/REPAIR ## SUPPLIES 2,622 3,619 91 2,700 2,500 0311 6261 ## SAND ## & GRAVEL 1,500 1,000 0311 6265 ## ASPHALT 32,311 31,135 26,560 28,770 35,000 36,000 0311 ## 6267OTHER ## STREET ## MAINTENANCE ## SLIPPL 9,599 9923,716 3,408 4,500 4,500 0311 ## 6269LANDSCAPE ## MATERIALS 952 1,076 942 2,931 4,500 0311 ## 6281SMALLTOOLS ## & MINOR ## EQUIPMENT 15,163 20,760 22,484 10,163 32,000 0311 ## 6315MISCELIANEOUS ## PROFESSIONAL ## SER 28,610 30,744 37,323 32,931 35,000 0311 ## 6322POSTAGE 56 54 5 226 100 0311 ## 6335TRAINING 3,893 8,077 13,603 2,058 16,0 €)0 0311 6361 ## GENERAL ## LtABILITY/PROPERT/ ## INS 18,960 20,712 22,913 22,987 25,000 0311 ## 6371ELECTRIC ## UTILITIES 8,319 8,411 9,991 9,071 13,000 0311 6372 ## WATER/IRRIGATION 2,238 2,207 2,384 1,886 3,000 0311 6373 ## GAS 6,924 6,150 4,400 5,412 6,000 0311 6374 ## REFUSE/RECYCLING 2,180 975 1,101 1,430 2,500 0311 ## 6381BUILDING & ## STRUCTURE ## REPAIR 1,582 3,747 11,173 12,572 20,000 0311 6382 ## MACHINERY ## & EQUIPMENT ## REPAIR 5,172 6,447 1,184 6,356 6,000 0311 ## 6387TIRE ## MOLINTING ## & BALANCING 60 40 400 0311 ## 6388OTHER ## VEHICLE ## REPAIR 4,205 1,699 3,726 1,079 12,000 0311 ## 6404MACHINERY ## & EQUIPMENT 3,458 2,880 :i,zsg 4,000 0311 ## 6415OTHER ## EQUIPMENT ## RENTAL 2,205 2,838 8,444 966 6,000 0311 ## 6417UNIFORM ## RENTAL 689 1,233 1,890 1,503 1,500 0311 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## DUES 278 100 100 220 0311 ## 6488STREET ## MAtNTENANCE ## CONTRACT 294,998 1,27 2,595 571,622 500,175 650,000 0311 ## 6489OTHER ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES 5,461 11,822 27,498 16,340 32,000 0311 6540 ## HEAVY ## MACHINERY 103,199 266,007 1,250,996 0311 ## 6550MOTOR ## VEHICLES 64,066 62,594 447,000 0311 ## 6580OTHER ## EQLIIPMENT 23,858 23,500 189,549 53,468 ## Total Expenditure 1,332,827 2,510,567 3,314,818 1,901,725 2,753,284 ## SUMNIARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTIAY: ## TCiTAL ## EXPENDITURES 1,205,770 2,156,994 1,811,678 1,848,257 2,306,284 2,308,869 127,057 353,573 1,503,139 53,468 447,000 826,000 ## S 1,332,827 ## S 2,510,567 ## S 3,314,8)8 ## S 1,901,125 ## S 2,753,284 ## S 3,134,869 ## Administrative ## ASsistant ## Lead Mechanic ## Mechanic ## Street Supervisor ## Streets ## Lead Worker ## PW Maintenance ## Worker ## Temporary - Streets ## Street ## Maintenance ## Total 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.50 10.50 ## I.OCI 2.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 0.50 10.50 1.00 1. 00 2. 00 1.00 l.(10 8.00 0.50 14.50 1.00 1.00 2. 00 1.00 1.00 8.00 0.50 14.50 1.00 1.00 2. 00 1.00 1.00 8.[)0 1.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 2. 00 1.00 1.00 8.00 1.00 15.00 648816489 0ther ## Contracted ## Services ## Pavement ## Management ## Program Funding (Transfer to ## Pavement Managen ## Cracksealing/Rejuvenation/Pothole ## Patching ## Curb Repair/Tree ## Removal ## Misc 200,000 15,000 215,000 1,272,595 1,272,595 571,622 23,255 4 ,243 5 99,11g 500,175 16,340 516,515 65 €,000 32,000 68!,000 700,000 32,000 732,000 6540 - Heavy ## Machinery F350 truck with plow (2021 & 2022 total cost) 2-Single ## Axls Plow Trucks ## Tandem ## Axle Truck with Plow less trade in S15,000 ## Snow Blower attachment less trade in .!115,000 (Replace #647) ## Kubota Tractor less trade in S20,000 (replace #686) ## Tandem ## Axle Truck with Plow (Retain #662?) F550 4x4 Truck with 9' 2" V-plow (New) with lift gate ## 721 G Front ## End Loader 103,199 103,199 6550Motor ## Vehicle 1-ton truck ## One-Ton ## Dump With ## Dump & PIOW LEES resale 915,000 (replace #692) 2-3/4 ton trucks with plows (1 new & 1 replacement) ## Single Axle with dump & Plow less trade in S15,000 (Replace #672) ## F550 Truck less resale SI0,000 (Replace #680) 6580 - Other ## Equipment ## Sidewalk ## Machine ## Snow Pusher Box for ## Front End Loader Tire balancer (1/2 cost other 1/2 police) Asphalt floater 9,453 14,405 ## ExMark Mower Pull behind ## PTO Mower includes %,500 trade in) ## Tire Changer (1/2 cost with PW) ## Trailer Mounted ## Boom ## Lift ## BobcatT66 ## Skidsteer ## Scissor LiftJLG 2646 10-Foot Slide in Removable ## Salt/Sander ## Spreader iTruck ## Mounted) ## Hydraulic hose Crimping ## Machine 23,858 266,007 266,007 64,066 64,065 23,500 23,500 917,389 101,176 232,41;! 1,250,996 62,594 62,594 57,250 79,248 26,500 13,386 13,165 189,549 17,814 22,048 13,606 53,468 343,000 104,000 441000 235,000 112,00€ ) 380,000 727,000 99,000 ## 99,0(X) 3_jg3>'r7<ytyrs3nyi_ctp-:_ ## -J-:"=L %-4-:_- ## :._=, I_ l_- __, l }zl-_= ## The Street ## Maintenance ## Department is responsible for maintaining city streets, sidewalks, traffic signs, boulevards, ## ROW mowing and the storm water collection p_B_o$-c4=_ i_4Nts- ## H _77H_-H 7 7. ## _- H-_ __-_ _ _- _-7 __ ## _J_ J-_- q ## J U : ii ## Staff time redistributed between streets, traffic engr, snow plowing & utilities. * lncreaseCracksealing/Rejuvenation/PotholePatching-550,000(From ## S650,000 to ## S700,000) (64881 * ## Replace 2004 ## Snogo ## Blower (#647) with ## Laue ## D40 Series ## Snow ## Blower - ## S235,000 (net of ## S15,000 trade in) (65401 * ## Replace 2015 ## Kubota ## Tractor (#686) with ## Kubota ## M6-111 ## Tractor - !?112,000 (net of ## S20,000 trade in)(6540) * ## Replace 2016 ## Ford ## One-Ton with ## Dump & Plow (#692) with Ford ## Crew ## Cab ## F550 with Dump & Plow ## Kubota ## Tractor with Kubota ## M6-111 ## Tractor ## - S99,000 (net of 515,000 resale)(6550) ii ## Replace 2007 ## Sterling ## Tandem (#662) with 2027 ## Western ## Star ## Tandem ## Dump ## Plow ## Truck with Plow ## Equipment - !'380,000. (6540) :aHoQ@eH#<-Cl-n7npSj$_o_@g_BaUr:7 - " _- _ '-7-_ ## =-JJ-J2__-__-S __-7l * ## Maintain and improve city's rating of 7.0 average of road condition * ## Increase use of contracted services on pothole repair (velocity patching) ii lncreaseprevenativemaintenacetoprolongthelifeofourpublicstreets ii ## Maintainourcityvehiclesandequipmenttothehighestleve(possible 2-7§.:m'easu-reffient-sr' "" ' - 2022 ## Actual ' 2023:Actual ' 2024 ## Adual '2025 ## Actual ' '_N@'Q_(i__'priijeas_i_6_d: .72;g,@- _'#_r4it_t=d;' Crack filling (mites) 10.37 18.36 13.32 19.15 14.19 17 ## Asphalt patching (tons) 380 385 390 380 370 365 ## FUND GENERAL ## Buginess unit ' ## Objaot ## Account )Diseriptian- 2022 ## Actual 2021 ## Actual 2024 ## Aotual 2025 ## Actual ' 2026 ' ## Adopted Budg-at 2027 ' Requested ' Budget. 0312 6102 ## :F.T. REGULAR-WAGES & SAIARIES 110,001118,368102,873 130,891 156,905 178,448 0312 6103 ## FULL TIME-REGUIAR-OVERTIME 17,405 16,205 3,668 23,076 10,000 10,000 0312 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & SAIARIES 9,0815,689 3,1823,625 12,000 10,000 0312 6121 ## PERA CONTRIBUTIONS 9,17911,5996,861 10,453 12,518 14,134 0312 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 10,046 12,4347,241 11,083 13,686 15,181 0312 6131 ## GROUP INSURANCE 2,870 710 0312 6133 ## WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 11,287 10,7559,8934,175 6,526 3,900 0312 6135 ## PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE 787 784 0312 ## 6223GASOLINE 12,481 1,4335,158 12,000 7,000 0312 6225 ## DIESEL FtJEL 23,092 37,55715,048 23,920 35,000 30,000 0312 6229 ## SHOP MATERIALS 244570 179 600 600 0312 6257 ## OTHER VEHICLE PARTS 42,965 46,98746,702 38,017 45,000 45,000 0312 6261 ## SAND & GRAVEL 2,300 2,779 3,800 3,800 0312 ## 6263SALT 129,70468,426117,442 147,311 135,000 171,404 0312 6267 ## OTHER STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPL 1,07613,92813,335 10,837 13,000 13,000 0312 6361 ## GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 2,8511,903 2,0012,122 2,230 2,300 0312 6388 ## OTHER VEHICLE REPAIR 5,28214,6212,627 15,000 15,000 ## Total Expenditure 374,270373,975335,746 411,557 474,052 520,551 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: 374,270 373,975 335,746 411,557 474,052 520,551 ## CAPIT AL OUTLAY: ## TOT At EXPENDITURES ## 9 374,270 S 373,975 S 335,746 S 411,557 S 474,052 S 520,551 :[;Op_jqRJpT:r_Q:'sF_sEBjX;=p__S-:i. : _ - I _ _ _ _ _ _ __ , . _ _ _ _ __ ____ _ _ _ , The Snow and Ice Removal budget provides for snow removal and for ice control on city streets, parking lots, and pathways. Staff time redistributed between streets, traffic engr, snow plowing & utilities. Salt - S36,404 increase (6263) :qp3L__S2@j'GURpQNj)VffiA8_Q3QG4:: _ _ ___ _ ___ _ __ _ __ __ __ * Clearing of parking ramp utilizing PW Staff (full time, temp on call, & seasonal staff). See PLIMA Budget. * Continue to monitor and reduce salt usage * Continuetocompletecitywideplowingin8hoursorless * UpgradeweatherservicetoMDSS(MaintenanceDecisionSupport Software). * Equipcul-de-sactrucksandsidewalkplowingequipmentwithAVLto track snow removal operations P_.i'@Qr%anc_e-M:easuyem_qm;si _ ' _ ___ _ _ _ l-_ _ J ' 2022 ACtual' 2023.Aetu:ffil 2e}24 Projed- ed_ . 7-!J2S Th_reJec:4d 2€)2-6JjjJ_ectedi+ . 2027_P_ro)ectadi Miles ofStreets Plowed a185187189 a igo +go 190 ## Cul-de-sacs291295299 303 305 305 ## Salt/Sand Purchased (tons) 160023001,400 1,200 1,440 1,440 ## Snow Removal Hours 1750 2600950840 1,500 1,500 ## Full Scale Plowing Events13235 5 10 10 ## GENERAL ## FUND 101 ## - GENERAL ## GOVERNMENT ## PERSONNELSERVICES ## SIIPPLIES ## OTHER ## SERVICES & ## CHARGES ## CAPITALOuTlAY ## ITOTAL EXPENDITURE ## BY OBIECT 962,545 200,417 265,263 16,8!a 1,445,077 1 ,088,600 1,252,025 2 42,430 20!1,358 297,610 370,[)80 466,961 1,628,641 2,2!18,424 1 ,418,040 ## 270A65 :iig,ass ug,iss z,uy,gas 1 ,620.312 327,500 3!13,600 2 63,500 2,604,!112 1 ,727,280 332,500 424,300 41,700 2,525,780 ## I ## LINE ITEM DETAIL a'/ ## COST CENTER ## OR SUB-FUNCTION ## WAGES ## AND SAtARIES 6102 ## F.T.REGUlAR-WAGES&SALARIES 6103 ## FULLTIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 6105 ## T[MPORARY-WAGES ## & SALARIES ## TOTALWAGES ## ANDSAIARIES ## OTHER ## GROSS EARNINGS 6108 ## SEVERANCEPAY ## TOTAL ## OTHER GROSS ## EARNINGS ## EMPIOYER ## CONTRIBUTIONS 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBIITIONS 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARECONTRIBIITIONS 6131 ## GROUPINSURANCE 6133 ## WORKERS ## COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM 6135 ## PAIDFAMIIYMEDICALLEAVE 617,124 1,469 87.275 705,868 48,867 53.502 116,186 38,121 256,677 730.962 818 65,361 797,141 54,(197 59,784 132.986 44.593 291.459 838,878 1,985 68,874 g[l9,736 1,41111 1,444 62,522 67,8(l'l 166,248 44,265 340,845 951,!123 8,520 iq,sag 1,040,151 73.47'l 77,143 193,541 33,734 377,889 1,090,117 1,000 1(13,328 1,194,445 81,834 91,375 206,988 39,512 6,158 425,867 1,158,663 10,864 126,193 1,295,720 89,710 99,123 igg,szo 37,000 5,907 431,560 ## OFFICE ## 5UPPLIES 6208 ## MISCELIANEOIISOFFICESUPPLIES 1,185 ## TOTALOFFICESuPl'LIES 1,185 ## OPERATING ## SUPPLIES 6223 ## GASOLINE 22,510 6225 ## DIESEtFUEL 9,893 6229 ## SHOPMATERIALS 3,467 6231 llNIFORMS&TuRN-OUTGEAR 6,130 6249 ## MISCELIANEOUSOPERATINGSUPPLY 31,531 ## TOTALOPERATINGSUPPLIES 73,531 ## REPAIR ## AND MAINTENANCESUPPLIES 6257 ## 0THERVEHICLEPARTS 16,974 6265 ## ASPHALT 71,915 6269 ## IAM)5CAPEMATERIALS 16,843 6268 ## IRRIGATIONSIIPPLIES 16,118 ## TOTAL ## REPAIR AND ## MAINTENANCE ## SuPPLIES 121,851 ## SMALLTOOLS ## AND ## MINOR EQUIPMENT 6281 ## SMALLTOOkS&MlNOREQl.llPMENT 3,851 ## TOTALSMALLTC)OLSANDMINOREQUIPMENT 3851 ## TotalSuPPLIES ' 12,425 6,311 1,198 ## 6,I106 29,%2 56,002 25,587 111,045 23,522 20,540 180.694 21,427 7,072 1,937 8,077 34,520 73,033 23,949 90,512 ## El,547 10,881 133,889 21,629 9,532 1,717 7,884 25,2(17 66,969 22,393 ug,gin 114,866 io.ags 197,648 1,000 ## I,DO[! 24,000 11,500 2,500 6,50[) 34,000 ## 78,FJ)(1 19,00[1 150,000 15,t)€C1 6QOaO 244,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 1,000 26,000 10,500 2,300 6,500 34,000 79,300 22,000 150,000 60,00(] 15,(1(10 247,0(10 ## 5,20CI 5,200 ## AC ## PRDFESSIONAL SERVICES 6315 MISCELlANEOUSl'ROFESSIONALSER ## TOTAL PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ## COMMLINICATION ## 6321 TELEPHONE ## 6322 POSTAGE ## 6323 CELIIILAR PHONES ## TOTAL COMMUNICATION 28,405 28,405 ## EMPLOYEE REIMBLIRSEMENTS 6331 TRAVEL&LODGu:IG ## 6334 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT ## 6335 TRAINING 1,169 TOTALEMPLOYEEREIMBuRSEMENTS 1,169 ## ADVERTISING AND PUBLISHING ## 6352 GENERALNOTICE&PUBLICINFOR ## TOTALADVERTISING AND PuBLISHING ## INSIIRANCE ## 6361 GENERALLIABILITY/PROPERTYINS 12,875 TOTALINSuRANCE 12,!175 uTILITlES ## 6371 ELECTRICUTILITIES 32,71!) ## 6372 WATER/IRRIGATION 10,771 ## 6373 GAS 12,404 ## 6374 REFIISE/RECYCLING 7,533 TOTALuTILITIES 63,427 ## R!I'AIRS AND MAINTENANCE- LABOR 6381 BUILDING&5TRuCTUREREPAIR 22,387 ## 6382 MACHINERY&EQUIPMENTREPAIR 8,!164 ## 6388 0THERVEHICLEREPAIR ## TOTALREPAIRSANDMAINTENANCELABOR 31,351) ## RENTAIS 6415 0THEREQulPMENTRENTAL 985 ## 5415 MACHINERY RENTAL 6417 uNIFORMRENTAL 224 ## TOTALRENTALS 1,20!1 ## DOES, SuBSCRIF'TIONS, AND REGISTRATION FEES 6451 MEMBERSHIPDtlES 300 ## TOT AL DUES, SU!ISCRIPTIONS, AND REGISTRATION FEES 3DD ## CONTRACTED SERVICES ## 648!) OTHERCONTRACTEDSERVICES 126,317 ## TOTALCONTRACTEDSERVICES 126,317 ## Total OTHER SERVICES & CHARGES 265,263 2,794 2,7!14 41,7!10 41,790 31,956 16,324 11,759 7,083 67,122 4,726 16,104 2,988 23,818 25,751 25,751 8,899 8,899 46,020 46,a20 30,027 12,180 9,894 9,131 fil,233 37,888 6,451 2,981 47,321 i,igz 514 1,m 1,88!1 1,889 5,033 5,033 45,607 45,607 33,287 13,531 10,778 12,4% 70,092 22,853 1 ,593 617 25,063 1,113 1,11tl 2(i,000 20,000 10,000 ## 20,00(I 50,000 50,000 36,000 56,000 15,000 12j)00 119,000 37,00(1 7,000 3,000 47,000 ## 1,ODD 350 350 1,700 20,000 20.000 8,000 g,ooo 60,000 60,00a 46,000 56,001) ig,ooti 15,000 136,000 35,000 5,500 2,80[1 43.300 1,10[) 1,101) 159,725 178,335 170,309 145.000 155,000 159,725 178,335 170,309 145.000 155,(i(10 297,610 37[),(ffl0 319,855 393,lira 424,300 ## CAPITALOuTlAY ## 6540 HEAW MACHINERY ## 6550 VEHICLES ## 6580 0THER EQLII%ENT ## TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY ## Total CAPITAL OUTLAY ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES & OTHER FINANCING 16,852 16,852 16,852 1,445,077 278,8!13 62,594 - 263,%0 125,474 119,185 - 41.700 466,!161 11!1,185 263,500 41,700 466,!161 119,185 263,500 41,70f) 1,62!1,6412,298,424 2,127,945 2,604,!112 2,525,78a ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSEi ## CAPITALOUTLAYi ## TOTAL EXPENDITuRES s iJ2!! ## 16A!12 j,445,077 6 1628,641 x,szg,sai S 1 ,831,463 466,961 2,298,424 9 2,008,76[1 119,185 2,127,945 e 2,34:1,412 ## 263JOO uupn * 2,484,080 ## 41,7(H) ## 2,525,7J10 ## FLIND ## GENERAL ## Business lknt - .Objact ## Accotuit' ## Destliptlon 2022 . Actuai ## I 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2625 ## ACtual 2626. ' ## Ado%d _B-udg0t. - ' 2027 " ## Requested : ,,_:Budget , 0452 6102 r:.'r. ## REGULAR-WAGES ## & SAIARIES 617,124 730,962 838,878 951,823 1,090,117 1,158,663 0452 6103 ## FULLTIME-REGULAR-OVERTIME 1,469 818 1,985 8,520 1,000 10,864 0452 6104 ## PARTTIME-WAGES ## & SALARIES 36,452 0452 6105 ## TEMPORARY-WAGES & ## SALARIES 50,823 65,361 68,874 79,808 103,328 126,193 0452 6108 ## SEVERANCE ## PAY 1,444 0452 6121 ## PERA ## CONTRIBUTIONS 48,867 54,097 62,522 73,471 81,834 89,710 0452 6122 ## FICA/MEDICARE ## CONTRIBUTIONS 53,502 59,784 67,809 77,143 91,375 99,123 0452 ## 6131GROUP ## INSURANCE 116,186 132,986166,248 193,541 206,988 199,820 0452 6133 ## WORKERS COMP ## INSURANCE ## PREMIUM 38,121 44,593 44,265 33,734 39,512 37,000 0452 6135 ## PAID ## FAMILY ## MEDICAL ## LEAVE 6,158 5,907 0452 6208 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## OFFICE ## SUPPLIES 1,185 i 921 616 834 1,000 1,000 0452 6223 ## GASOLINE 22,510 12,425 21,427 21,629 24,000 26,000 0452 6225 ## DIESEL ## FUEL 9,893 6,311 7,072 9,532 11,500 10,500 0452 6229 ## SHOP ## MATERIALS 3,467 1,198 1,937 1,717 2,500 2,300 0452 ## 6231UNIFORMS ## & TURN-OUT ## GEAR 6,130 6,106 ## B,077 7,884 6,500 6,500 0452 6249 ## MISCELIANEOUS ## OPERATING ## SUPPLY 31,531 29,962 34,520 26,207 34,000 '0452 6257 ## OTHER ## VEHICLE ## PARTS 16,974 25,587 23,949 22,393 19,000 0452 6265 ## ASPHALT 71,915 111,045 90,512 119,891 150,000 0452 ## 6268IRRIGATION ## SuPPLIES 16,118 20,540 10,881 10,498 15,000 0452 6269 ## LANDSCAPE ## MATERIALS 16,843 23,522 8,547 44,866 60,000 0452 ## 6281SMALL ## TOOLS ## & MINOR ## EQUIPMENT 3,851 4,813 1,820 5,415 4,000 0452 6315 ## MISCELLANEOUS ## PROFESSIONAL ## SER 28,405 927 25,751 1,889 20,000 0452 6322 ## POSTAGE 211 23 29 129 100 0452 5335 ## TRAINING i 1,169 2,794 8,899 5,033 10,000 0452 6361 ## GENERAL ## LIABILITY/PROPERTY ## INS 12,875 41,790 46,020 45,607 50,000 0452 ## 6371ELECTRIC ## UTILITIES 32,719 31,956 30,027 33,287 36,000 0452 6372 ## WATER/IRRIGATION 10,771 16,324 12,180 13,531 56,000 0452 ## 6373GAS 12,404 11,759 9,894 10,778 15,000 0452 6374 ## REFUSE/RECYCLING 7,533 7,083 9,131 12,496 12,000 0452 6381 ## BUILDING & ## STRUCTURE ## REPAIR 22,387 4,726 37,888 22,853 37,000 0452 6382 ## MACHINERY ## & EQUIPMENT ## REPAIR 8,964 16,104 6,451 1,593 7,000 0452 ## 6388OTHER ## VEHICLE ## REPAIR 2,988 2,981 617 3,000 0452 ## 6415OTHER ## EQUIPMENT ## RENTAL 985 878 1,197 1,113 1,000 0452 6416 ## MACHINERY ## RENTAL 350 0452 6417 ## LINIFORM ## RENT ## AL 224 514 350 0452 6451 ## MEMBERSHIP ## DUES 300 534 782 620 800 0452 ## 5489OTHER ## CONTRACTED ## SERVICES 126,317 159,725 178,335 170,309 145,000 0452 6540 ## HEAVY ## MACHINERY 278,893 0452 6550 ## MOTORVEHICLES 62,594 263,500 0452 ## 6580OTHER ## EQUIPMENT 16,852 125,474 119,185 ## Total Expenditure 1,445,077 1,628,641 2,298,424 2,127,945 2,604,912 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING ## EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOTAI ## EXPENDITURES ## Park ## Maintenance ## Worker ## Utilities ## Maintenance ## Worker (Enterprise ## Funded) ## Utilities ## Supervisor (Enterprise ## Funded) ## Parks/Assistant ## PW Director ## Park ## Supervisor ## Parks ## Lead Worker ## Recreation and ## Special Event Coord. ## Recreation ## Specialist ## Temporary - Parks ## Admin ## Assistant 1,428,225 1,628,641 1,831,463 2,008,760 2,341,412 2,484,080 16,852 - 466,961 119,185 263,500 41,700 ## S 1,445,077 ## S 1,628,641 9 2,298,424 ## S 2,127,945 ## S 2,604,')12 6 2,525,78(t 0.50 3.6;! 17.12 17.62 3.62 1.00 20.62 3.62 1.00 20.62 8.00 5.00 1.00 ## 1.CIO 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.62 1.00 22.62 ## 8.OC1 5.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.62 1.00 22.62 ## AO 6489 0ther ## Contracted ## Services ## Portable ## Toilets Rental ## Photo Contest ## Winners ## Recreation ## Programming (Art, Hiking, ## YOGA, 55+ Trips/Classesl ## Fertilizing ## Irrigation (Anderson ## Irrigation/Great ## Northern ## Landscape) ## Mowing ## of The Draw/Fire ## Station, Weeding (SpeedCutters/Best ## Outdoor ## Si ## Vegetation ## Management lPrairie ## Restorations) - ## Clean Park ## Buildings iChristian Pte-Green ## Tech) ## Park Improvements - ## Wood Fiber/TurT/Fence/Striping ## Holiday Lights ## EAB Tree ## Removal ## Misc 5,907 7,879 19,456 10,769 26,96! 20,761 4,075 27,314 3,183 126,317 5,117 8,480 13,379 40,045 28,715 25,419 14,800 3,872 11,588 5,000 3,310 159,725 6,157 460 29,438 27,217 29,077 28,315 ## 27,ODD 21,600 7,265 1,804 178,335170,309 8,000 600 30,000 29,000 35,000 ## 35,ODD 7,400 145,000 ## 8,C)00 600 40,000 ## 29,00CI 35,000 35,000 7,400 155,000 6540/6550 ## Heavy ## Machinery 3/4 ton 4/4 ## Truck Mow truck ## F550 4/4 truck with plow ## F350 Bobcat loader ## F250 With topper & Plow less resale !'5,000 (Replace #665) ## WaterTruck (1/4 cost) S82,500 less trade In 93,000 (Replace #669) ## One Ton with Dump & plow less resale %,000 (Replace #678) 6580 0ther ## Equipment Kubota uTV 4X4 Field ## Maintenance/Snow ## Removal (includes .9z,ooo trade in) ## Line Striper 3-Zero-Turn ## Mowers Chipper (new) Turbine debris blower ## Snowquip snowblower Exmark mower with bagger less S3,200 trade in (#683 ) 8 Pan-tilt zoom security camers for city parks 19,000 68,093 100,69! 62,594 110,108 341,487 71,604 31,346 22,524 34,752 84,433 80,000 79,500 104,000 263,500 ## 17,7CIO 24,000 ig,ooo 125,474119,185 41,700 t@=p;5sip_7io2@:@p,44pm3aQ-i ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ , ## The Park and Recreation ## Department is responsible for the outdoor maintenance of all municipal grounds, including the Municipal ## Center, fire stations, parks, trails and streetscapes. Parks facilities include bulidings, playgrounds, shelters, ballfields. 3.up,ap7H_i@m4_igH:v_s- _ - - * Staff time redistributed between streets, traffic engr, snow plowing & utilities. * ## Electric Use - Increase inflation ## & Splash Pad - .910,000 (6371) @ r" Llse - SplasH ## NQNThd ## J6372) ## 11.SM ## Gallons Est @ ## Replace20l4Ex-MarkMowerwithbagger-917700(netof53,200trade in) (6580) ii ## New 8 Pan-tilted zoom fixed mounted security cameras in City parks - 524,000 (6580) ## V_@;j(j>;4B'?2jj3i@'p_@_4a%"_JJ_J_'-H- ## --___J__-_:_'_-_ 27 ## II J ## 2----_J_J: ii ## Addressbituminustrails,pursuanttotheTrailMaintenancePolicy adopted in 2024. * ## Continue to expand the diversity and opportunities of recreation * ## Continue to work year-round with the athletic associations (and ## PACT) in the provision of youth athletic fields. * ## Strivetoadequatelyaddressformallandscapemaintenanceandreducen * ## Attempttoadequatelyaddressboulevardtreereplacements(Emerald ## Ash ## Borer and car kills) i%7oi3gqejNeasurements: 2022 ## Attual -2023 ## Actual ## Z(12@Projeeted , 2025.Projectea' 2026 ## Projecteij 2027 ## Projt'ctid ', ## Number of City ## Parks 26 26 27 28 ## Number of Athletic ## Fields ## Maintained 42 42 42 42 ## Number of Playgrounds ## Maintained 17 17 17 18 Miles of ## Trails ## Maintained 70 70 70 75 ## Total Acreage ## Mowed 150.11 150.11 150.11 150.11 ## FUNDGENERAL ## CONTINGENCY .- Business ## Umt" ## Object ## Accoum 'Description 2022 ## Adual 2023 ## ActuaT 2024 _ Actail. 2025 a Astuqi , 202t ## Aa6ptea' %lget_ - 2827 ## Requeetfed _ Btidget _ _ 0892 ## 6108SEVERANCE PAY - 50,000 50,000 osg;i 6102-6135 2027 Personnel Requests-See detailed sh =et 602,980 ## 08926133WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 9,027 08926304 ## LEGAL FEES 24,000 0892 6315 ## MISCELLANEOtJS PROFESSIONALSER 25,000 25,000 0192 6405 ## OFFICE & DATA PROCESSING EQLIIP 0892 6603 ## OTHER L.T. OBLIGATION PRINCIPA 61,85361,853 61,85361,853 0892 6820 ## OPERATING TRANSFERS TO OTHER F 272,68892,7561,319,847 1,437,421 106,373 106,373 ## Total Expenditure 334,541 154,609 1,381,700 1,499,274 214,400 784,353 ## SUMMARY: ## OPERATING EXPENSE: ## CAPITALOUTLAY: ## TOTAL EXPENDITURES ## 334,541 154,609 1,381,700 1,499,274 Q 784,353 ## S 334,541 S 154,609 S 1,381,700 9 1,499,274 S 214,400 S 784,353 ## 2027 Personnel Requests: Reclass Building Inspector to Building Inspector II Reclass Engineering Tech Ill To Civil Engineer I (Net S2,595 utility funded) New Position: FT GIS Technician II (Apr 5, 2027). Includes S16,700 for licensing, cubicle, prof membership New Position: Building Maintenance Seasonal (May 10 - Sept 17, 2027) New Position: Parks Happy Days Intern (May 17-Sept 20, 2027) ## Total Personnel Requests 2027 Salary Adjustments in Addition to 3% COIA ## Total Afscme (League Mkt) ## Total Captains (4% Mkt) Total Patrol (4% Mkt & Longevity 9% Step 16) ## Total Sergeants (4% Mkt) ## Total Non-Union (League Mkt) ## Total Crime Data (4% Mkt) ## Grand Total 6,151 6,053 121,869 14,316 15,779 164,168 115,328 19,596 137,072 34,312 127,712 4,792 438,812 Severance (6108) Based on 4 possible retirements 6603/6820 Principal & Transfers Bury Carlson Internal Loan (PIR Fund)" Minicipal Center debt transfer interfund 44,520 44,520 61,853 61,853 106,373 106,373 44,520 61,853 106,373 44,520 61,853 105,373 "Coded directly against property tax when collected 50,000 44,520 61,853 106,373 44,520 61,853 106,373 ## 6820 Transfers to Other Funds ## Excess Revenue Transfer272,68892,7561,319,847 1,437,421 272,68892,7551,319,847 1,437,421 suoegy siqHciqHl4 ':. B =;=_" - a _.-= ' --- -;-pr') '__,,_ -_- =- - - -1 o - o.o ii SeverancePaynolongerinyearendfundbalancepoJicy-§50,000 ii Booking all Personnel Requests here-notindividual departments until budgetfinalized * . Booking all Potential Market Rate Adjustments here until union a negotations & salary survey #'s finalized ## FUNDECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ## Business ## Unit ## Object ## Account ## Description 2022 ## Actual 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2025 ## Actual 2026 ## Adopted Budget 2027 ## Requested ## Budget ## 92304011CURRENT-AD VALOREM TAXES 66,843 72,192 78,150 76,791 86,367 86,367 ## 92304012DELINQUENT-AD VALOREM TAXES 348 (989) (593) (358) ## 92304014FISCAL DISPARITIES 9,838 9,407 8,998 8,077 ## 92304273OTHER STATE GRANTS & AIDS ## 92304609OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES 198,638 275 30,000 82,776 ## 92304701INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS (11,202) 64,554 69,212 67,885 4,800 4,800 ## 92304901TRANSFER IN FROM OTHER FUNDS 264,465 145,440 185,766 235,171 91,167 91,167 ## Business ## Unit ## Object ## Account ## Description 2022 ## Actual 2023 ## Actual 2024 ## Actual 2025 ## Actual 2026 ## Adopted Budget 2027 ## Requested ## Budget ## 92306102F.T. REGULAR-WAGES & SALARIES ## 92306105TEMPORARY-WAGES & SALARIES 660 435 350 225 1,000 1,000 ## 92306121PERA CONTRIBUTIONS ## 92306122FICA/MEDICARE CONTRIBUTIONS 50 33 27 17 80 80 ## 92306131GROUP INSURANCE ## 92306133WORKERS COMP INSURANCE PREMIUM 4 2 5 2 ## 92306135PAID FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ## 92306246MARKETING 24,154 6,626 10,698 17,587 23,000 23,000 ## 92306249MISCELLANEOUS OPERATING SUPPLY 8,769 12,007 11,770 11,072 21,000 21,000 ## 92306304LEGAL FEES ## 92306315MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL SER 43,193 1,010 44,130 4,667 36,000 36,000 ## 92306322POSTAGE ## 92306323CELLULAR PHONES ## 92306331TRAVEL & LODGING 449 483 157 707 2,500 2,500 ## 92306335TRAINING 660 1,125 385 2,235 5,100 5,100 ## 92306361GENERAL LIABILITY/PROPERTY INS 624 313 268 221 287 287 ## 92306371ELECTRIC UTILITIES ## 92306433REFUNDS/REIMBURSEMENTS ## 92306530IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDINGS ## 92306451MEMBERSHIP DUES 1,798 1,593 2,366 3,504 2,200 2,200 ## 92306452SUBSCRIPTIONS 17 - ## 92306530IMPROVEMENTS OTHER THAN BUILDINGS 20,143 - ## 92306580OTHER EQUPMENT 23,634 100,521 23,627 93,789 40,237 91,167 91,167 • • • • • ## BUDGET SUMMARY: Facilitate development/redevelopment along Hwy 10 corridor Reduce the amount of land owned by City for development Increase retail tax base Increase number of jobs ## Enhance Business Retention and Expansion Program and EDA events ## DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES: ## GOALS OF CURRENT YEAR BUDGET: The primary objective of the Economic Development Authority is to aid, assist and promote the growth and expansion of commercial, retail and industrial development in the City of Ramsey. ## Total Expenditure ## Total Revenue 2. 3. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: ## Information ## Title: ## Wage Theft & Project Labor Requirements ## Purpose/Background: This discussion is a continuation of the May 26, 2026 and July 14, 2026 City Council Work Sessions that was originally requested by Councilmembers Buscher & Peters.  Councilmember Buscher provided the attached information. ## Recommendation: Staff is seeking consensus direction from council on whether a draft policy or ordinance shall be created. ## Outcome/Action: Provide consensus direction of next steps. ## Attachments Impact of Responsible Bidder Laws on Union Contractors in Illinois and Indiana ## Model Ordinance from Indiana ## Belvidere Example ## Rockford, IL Example ## Harrisburg Example ## St. Paul Example ## Brooklyn Park Example ## Bloomington Example ## MN Prevailing Wage List ## Wage Theft Facts ## MC, PF, WT Primer DRAFT The Public Cost of Low Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry ## 2023 Subsidizing Abuse FINAL ## Subsidizing Abuse One Page Final ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 03:10 PM ## Form Started By: Brian HagenStarted On: 07/23/2026 12:43 PM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 ## The Impact of Responsible Bidder Ordinances ## on Union Contractors in Illinois and Indiana Evidence from a Natural Experiment of ## New Ordinances and a Local Case Study January 5, 2022 ## Andrew Wilson, MHRLR ## Policy Analyst ## Illinois Economic Policy Institute ## Midwest Economic Policy Institute ## Frank Manzo IV, MPP ## Executive Director ## Illinois Economic Policy Institute ## Midwest Economic Policy Institute ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA i ## Executive Summary A responsible bidder ordinance (RBO) is a local construction market policy that ensures public expenditures reflect area standards of quality and craftmanship. By ensuring that contractors meet objective criteria and verifiable standards, RBOs guarantee that public construction projects are not awarded to unscrupulous contractors who cut corners or have poor track records. As a result, RBOs provide a qualifications-based approach that works within the low-bid system to ensure quality by using professional, competent contractors who complete projects safely, on time, and on budget. Research shows that RBOs stabilize public construction costs and deliver value for taxpayers. • A study of more than 300 school construction projects in Ohio found that RBOs have “no discernible statistical impact on construction bid costs.” • A study of more than 1,300 bids on public projects in two Kansas counties found that school construction costs were $67 cheaper per square foot when local RBOs were in effect. • A study of more than 1,200 public projects in Illinois and Indiana found that projects covered by RBOs are no more costly than those that are not covered by RBOs. Across Illinois and Indiana, RBOs tend to have common characteristics. Nearly all RBOs require: • Evidence of participation in approved registered apprenticeship training programs (92 percent). • Proof of certificates of insurance, such as workers’ comp and liability insurance (90 percent). • Accountability and transparency through certified payroll records (95 percent) and by allowing bid submissions to be obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (96 percent). Since 2019, 11 local government jurisdictions in Illinois and Indiana enacted RBOs and awarded projects both before and after passage. • 5 jurisdictions passed new RBOs in Illinois: DuPage County, the DuPage County Forest Preserve District, the City of Moline, the City of Waukegan, and the Village of Forest Park. • 6 jurisdictions passed new RBOs in Indiana: the City of LaPorte, the City of Rensselaer, the Town of Kouts, the Kankakee Valley School Corporation, the Knox Community School Corporation, and the South Bend Community School Corporation. • An analysis of 145 public projects finds that the market share of union contractors increased by 9.3 percent, or $5.2 million, in just these 11 jurisdictions alone due to the passage of new RBOs. Additionally, municipal projects awarded in the four Quad Cities from January 2018 through June 2021 provide a local case study on the impacts of RBOs within an integrated economic region. • The Quad Cities include Rock Island and Moline in Illinois and Davenport and Bettendorf in Iowa. • An analysis of 248 city-owned projects finds that the market share of union contractors is 13.1 percent higher on projects covered by RBOs in the Quad Cities area. • The case study reveals that the effect of RBOs may be larger when paired with other high-road construction policies, such as a state prevailing wage law. The data conclusively shows that union contractors are more likely than nonunion contractors to be responsible businesses that are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. That’s why responsible bidder ordinances increase the market share of union contractors by between 9 percent and 13 percent. Responsible bidder ordinances deliver accountability and transparency for taxpayers, promote apprenticeship programs that produce skilled craftworkers for local businesses, and increase work for contractors who pay family-supporting wages and benefits. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA ii ## Table of Contents ## Executive Summary i Table of Contents ii About the Author ii Introduction 1 ## Economic Research on Responsible Bidder Ordinances 1 Characteristics of RBOs in Illinois and Indiana 3 The Impact of 11 New RBOs on Market Share Outcomes 4 A Case Study: Municipal Projects Covered by RBOs in the Quad Cities 6 Conclusion 7 ## Sources ## Cover Photo Credits 8 8 Appendix 9 ## About the Authors Andrew Wilson, M.H.R.L.R. is a Policy Analyst at the Illinois Economic Policy Institute. He earned a Master’s in Sociology from George Mason University and a Master’s in Human Resources and Labor Relations at Michigan State University. He can be contacted via email at awilson@illinoisepi.org. Frank Manzo IV, M.P.P. is the Executive Director at the Illinois Economic Policy Institute. He earned a Master of Public Policy from the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and a Bachelor of Arts in Economics and Political Science from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He can be contacted at fmanzo@illinoisepi.org. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 1 ## Introduction Responsible bidder ordinances (RBOs) are policy tools that establish objective criteria and verifiable standards for contractors bidding on public construction projects. They are designed to promote local standards of quality and craftsmanship. A responsible bidder ordinance acknowledges value as well as costs when it comes to projects. An RBO protects taxpayers by setting minimum standards, guaranteeing that public projects are not awarded to contractors who cut corners or have poor track records. Responsible bidder ordinances, sometimes referred to as responsible contractor policies, provide a qualifications-based approach that works within the low-bid system to ensure quality by using professional, competent contractors who complete projects safely, on time, and on budget. RBOs may become particularly important as states and local government invest in public infrastructure with federal dollars from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (Biden White House, 2021). RBOs have become increasingly common across the United States. Many communities in states that have repealed prevailing wage laws—or do not have prevailing wage laws—have adopted RBOs to maintain local construction standards and minimize the negative consequences associated with a lack of standards on taxpayer-funded construction projects. For example, there are now more than 50 local RBOs in Indiana (III FFC, 2021). The southern cites of New Orleans, LA and St. Peterburg, FL have also passed RBOs since 2020 (Stein, 2021; Municode, 2021). RBOs have been passed in counties, townships, cities, towns, and special districts. Even in states with prevailing wage laws and other high-road construction standards, there are legal reasons to enact RBOs at the local-level. To be considered a “responsible bidder” in Illinois, for example, the Illinois Procurement Code requires bidders to submit satisfactory evidence of compliance with the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act and equal employment opportunity requirements, valid business registrations and certificates of insurance, and participation in apprenticeship training programs approved by and registered with the U.S. Department of Labor. However, the Illinois Procurement Code only applies to state government contracts. The Illinois Municipal Code and the Illinois Counties Code, which apply to local government contracts, do not have these provisions. RBOs have thus become a way to address this lack of standards on public projects funded by local units of government. This Illinois Economic Policy Institute (ILEPI) report evaluates the effect of 11 new responsible bidder ordinances that have been passed in Illinois and Indiana since 2019 on union contractors. It also explores a case study of the impact of RBOs in the Quad Cities area along the border between Illinois and Iowa. The report concludes by recapping key findings. ## Economic Research on Responsible Bidder Ordinances The most authoritative research on RBOs comes from school districts in Ohio. A peer-reviewed, academic study investigated the bid costs of over 300 elementary schools from 1997 to 2008 and found that responsible contracting policies have “no discernible statistical impact on construction bid costs” after controlling for geographic location. There was no evidence that RBO provisions raise construction costs. The study concluded that adopting RBOs “may be an effective way to improve employment conditions ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 2 and living standards of construction workers without significantly raising costs for taxpayers” (Waddoups & May, 2014). In April 2013, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill into law that prohibited cities and counties from requiring contractors to pay locally prevailing wages “or offer an employee benefit other than those required by state or federal law,” which included apprenticeship training contributions (HB 2069, 2013). This state pre-emption law invalidated local construction policies in Sedgwick County and Wyandotte County. A 2016 report investigated more than 1,300 bids on school construction and non-residential projects in those counties between 2005 and 2016. While the author concluded that there was no statistical difference in the total cost of non-residential construction projects due to the repeal of the local construction policies, the data did reveal that school construction costs were $67 cheaper per square foot during the years when the policies were in place (Kelsay, 2016). The most recent research on RBOs reviewed more than 1,200 public projects in Illinois and Indiana (Manzo, 2020). The analysis found that RBOs encourage 8 percent more bid competition on taxpayer- funded projects and increase the market share of union contractors by between 9 percent and 12 percent—suggesting that nonunion contractors are less likely to contribute to apprenticeship training programs and less likely to comply with state, local, and federal laws. RBOs are also associated with more work for contractors who pay family-supporting wages, which helps attract and retain qualified workers. Because RBOs promote apprenticeship programs and produce skilled tradespeople, they have no statistical impact on total construction costs. Notably, when focusing on the nonunion segment of the construction industry, RBO-covered projects awarded to nonunion contractors were no more costly than nonunion projects that were not covered by RBOs (Manzo, 2020). In addition to keeping construction costs stable, RBOs promote better labor market outcomes. A 2018 case study of county-level RBOs in Indiana found that all the countywide RBOs in Indiana required both contractors and subcontractors bidding on public projects to participate in U.S. Department of Labor- approved apprenticeship training programs. As a result, worker turnover in the heavy and civil engineering construction sector—which includes the construction of roads, bridges, bike lanes, utility lines, and public parks—was 2 percent lower in the counties with RBOs. Construction workers also earned 8 percent more in the counties with RBOs. Because they incentivize apprenticeship training, RBOs are associated with stable employment and middle-class careers for skilled construction workers (Manzo & Manzo, 2018). RBOs ensure that reputable contractors with proven track records complete jobs efficiently. Contractors with workplace law violations are more than five times as likely to have a low performance rating as contractors with a clean record of workplace law compliance (Adler, 2003). By weeding out cut-rate contractors, RBOs ensure that public bodies get the quality they pay for and encourage successful projects that are on time and on budget. In fact, case studies from across the country have found that RBOs promote higher quality and more reliable services, increased competition among responsible contractors, and reduced back-end reconstruction and litigation costs (Sonn & Gebreselassie, 2010). Additionally, evidence suggests that 98 percent of construction owners using qualifications-based procurement models—like those in RBOs—report being satisfied with project quality (Kashiwagi et al., 2005) ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 3 ## Characteristics of RBOs in Illinois and Indiana The vast majority of RBOs that have been enacted throughout Illinois and Indiana have seven consistent provisions based on objective criteria and verifiable standards (Figure 1). Nearly all RBOs in Illinois and Indiana establish prequalification programs (98 percent), require contractors to submit certified payroll records (95 percent), and allow contractor bid submissions to be obtained by the public through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests or their equivalent (96 percent). Almost all RBOs explicitly state that the provisions apply to the prime bidder (97 percent), and about one-third of RBOs extend these expectations to all subcontractors hired by the prime bidder (30 percent). Nearly all RBOs in Illinois and Indiana also ensure that contractors winning local government projects invest in training the next generation of skilled construction workers (Figure 1). More than nine out of every ten RBOs (92 percent) require “evidence of participation in apprenticeship and training programs, applicable to the work to be performed on the project, which are approved by and registered with the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship.” Nine out of every ten RBOs ensure that contractors provide proof of certificates of insurance through U.S. Department of Treasury-approved companies (90 percent) and another eight-in-ten ask contractors to provide proof that their workers are covered by health insurance plans and will earn retirement benefits (77 percent). In addition to these seven common characteristics which ensure accountability and transparency while promoting skilled workers, RBOs also sometimes include provisions to promote community safety (Figure 1). For example, 24 percent of RBOs in Illinois and Indiana require a written plan for employee drug testing and another 18 percent guarantee that contractors are certified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Furthermore, 12 percent of RBOs in Illinois and Indiana require contractors to submit a statement of commitment to proper classification of workers, helping to weed out criminal contractors who engage in misclassification and wage theft. These criteria decrease the chances that local taxpayer dollars will be used by contractors who cut corners at the worksite while increasing the likelihood that the workers who build taxpayer-funded infrastructure projects are safe, reliable, and paid a wage commensurate with their craftsmanship and experience. ## FIGURE 1: COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 163 RBOS THAT HAVE BEEN ENACTED IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA ## Ten Common Criteria of Local RBOs ## Enacted in Illinois and Indiana ## Share of RBOs with Criteria 1 RBO establishes prequalification program 98% 2 Requirements apply to prime bidder 97% • Requirements also apply to all subcontractors • 30% 3 Contractor submissions subject to FOIA requests 96% 4 Certified payroll required 95% 5 Proof of participation in USDOL-approved registered apprenticeship programs 92% 6 Proof of insurance (e.g., workers comp, liability) 90% 7 Proof that workers will receive health and retirement benefits 77% 8 Proof of drug prevention program 24% 9 Proof of OSHA certification 18% 10 Statement of commitment to proper worker classification 12% Source: Authors’ analysis of responsible bidder ordinances as compiled by Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). N = 163 RBOs passed in Illinois and Indiana, including 109 in Illinois and 54 in Indiana. For additional characteristics, see Table A in the Appendix. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 4 ## The Impact of 11 New RBOs on Market Share Outcomes The data utilized in this research was collected by the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting, a nonprofit labor-management organization (III FFC, 2021). The III FFC collects project data for 14 northern Indiana counties and 25 northern Illinois counties using bid software programs such as ConstructConnect and Dodge Data & Analytics as well as through public bid lettings and public documents. All projects in their proprietary reports include the date of the bid letting, the county of the project, the awarding agency, bid information, the union (or signatory) status of each bidder, and whether the project was covered by a local responsible bidder ordinance (RBO). This study includes project bid data from January 2018 through June 2021. The 42 months represent the period of analysis. Since 2019, there have been 16 RBOs passed in Illinois and Indiana. One city—the City of Kewanee, IL—had a different RBO in effect starting in 2007. Four others, including two in Indiana and two in Illinois, did not have a project built either before or after passage of the RBO during the period of analysis. These four jurisdictions include a school district, library district, village, and forest preserve. It is not possible to ascertain the effect of adopting an RBO in these four jurisdictions because there is not a clear before-and-after picture. This leaves 11 jurisdictions with project bid data both before their RBOs were passed and after their RBOs went into effect—five in Illinois and six in Indiana. The full dataset includes 145 public projects involving the operating engineers craft, including 94 prior to passage of the local RBOs and 51 after passage. Figure 2 presents summary statistics for all the projects awarded by these 11 local government jurisdictions in Illinois and Indiana between the beginning of January 2018 and the end of June 2021. On the projects that were awarded prior to passage of the local RBOs, union contractors won 76.6 percent of the projects and the union market share was 87.1 percent. By contrast, after RBOs were enacted and applied on projects funded by these same jurisdictions, union contractors were awarded 90.2 percent of the projects and the union market share totaled 97.9 percent. Accordingly, the union win rate was 13.6 percent higher and the union market share was 10.8 percent higher on the post-RBO projects than on the pre-RBO projects. This reveals that local businesses employing union construction workers are more significantly likely to be responsible contractors with proven track records of success than nonunion firms in the region. Bid competition was essentially unchanged, with about three and half contractors submitting bids on public projects regardless of whether or not they were covered by RBOs. FIGURE 2: CHANGE IN UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE IN 11 ILLINOIS AND INDIANA JURISDICTIONS THAT ## HAVE PASSED RBOS SINCE 2019, WITH BEFORE-AND-AFTER DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Column 11 Jurisdictions with Data ## Before-and-After ## Math ## Before ## RBOs ## After ## RBOs ## RBO ## Difference A Number of Projects 94 51 B Number of Bids 342 174 ## C Bids Per Project B ÷ A 3.6 3.4 -0.2 ## D Value of All Projects $66,749,035.72 $56,246,096.58 ## E Projects Awarded to Unions 72 46 ## F Union Win Share E ÷ A 76.6% 90.2% +13.6% ## G Value of Projects Awarded to Unions $58,154,683.02 $55,087,053.28 ## H Union Market Share G ÷ D 87.1% 97.9% +10.8% Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). For more, see Table B, Table C, and Table D in the Appendix. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 5 However, it is important to note that the market share of union contractors in the 14 northern Indiana counties and 25 northern Illinois counties also increased during the period of analysis. Figure 3 investigates the entire region except for the 11 jurisdictions that passed new RBOs and had before-and- after data. This provides a “control group” of public projects to compare with the “treatment group” of local projects that experienced the RBO policy change. In 2018, before these 11 RBOs were passed, union contractors were awarded 96.9 percent of the entire market. In the years that have followed, union contractors won 98.4 percent of the market share. FIGURE 3: OVERALL CHANGE IN UNION MARKET SHARE IN 25 NORTHERN ILLINOIS COUNTIES AND 14 NORTHERN INDIANA ## COUNTIES, EXCLUDING THE 11 JURISDICTIONS THAT PASSED RBOS, DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Illinois and Indiana Market (Excluding 11 Areas that Passed RBOs) ## Total ## Value ## Union ## Value ## Nonunion ## Value ## Union ## Market Share Pre-RBO (Jan. 2018-Dec. 2018) $4,771,472,168 $4,622,849,093 $146,841,457 96.9% Post-RBO (Jan. 2019-June 2021) $15,171,633,497 $14,931,653,208 $220,619,613 98.4% Difference +1.5% Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). The region has thus experienced a 1.5 percent increase in union market share in areas that did not otherwise change during this time (Figure 3). There are two implications of this finding. The first is that union contractors have become more competitive compared with their nonunion counterparts in the region since 2018. The second is that the market share of union contractors would have been expected to increase by an average of 1.5 percent in the 11 jurisdictions that passed RBOs even if they had not enacted the new ordinances. In other words, there is no reason to think that these 11 jurisdictions would deviate significantly from the rest of the regional construction market. Figure 4 calculates how much RBOs increased the market share of union contractors above-and-beyond the general trend in the market. The net effect of RBOs on the union market share can be determined by subtracting the 1.5 percent overall gain in union market share across the region from the 10.8 percent gain in union market share on post-RBO projects relative to pre-RBO projects in the jurisdictions that passed the ordinances. Consequently, the 11 new responsible bidder ordinances in Illinois and Indiana since 2019 have boosted the market share of union contractors by an estimated 9.3 percent (Figure 4). FIGURE 4: NET CHANGE IN UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE BASED ON THE DIFFERENCE-IN-DIFFERENCES IN THE 11 JURISDICTIONS THAT PASSED RBOS, WITH BEFORE-AND-AFTER DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Net Impact of New RBOs in Illinois and Indiana ## Pre-RBO ## Period ## Post-RBO ## Period ## RBO ## Difference 11 Jurisdictions with New RBOs 87.1% 97.9% +10.8% Illinois and Indiana (Excluding 11 Jurisdictions) 96.9% 98.4% +1.5% Difference -9.8% -0.5% +9.3% Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). This increase in the union market share mirrors the results of a 2020 study using similar data for northern Indiana and northern Illinois but excluding projects from the Chicago metropolitan area. That study compared projects that were covered by RBOs verses projects that were not and found that the RBOs increase union contractor win rates by between 9.2 percent and 11.9 percent, after accounting for the size of the project, location of the project, and other factors (Manzo, 2020). The current analysis builds upon that 2020 study by using the before-and-after “natural experiment” to directly assess the impact of enacting a responsible bidder ordinance. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 6 Another way to interpret the data is that the passage of RBOs has lifted the union market share so that it is generally in line with the rest of the region (Figure 4). Before they enacted the policies, the 11 jurisdictions had a union market share below 90 percent. After passage, union contractors were awarded nearly 98 percent of the total project value. In the rest of the regional construction market, the union market share was also just over 98 percent. The swing in market share due to the passage of responsible bidder ordinances has real-world effects on union contractors (Figure 5). In the 11 jurisdictions that enacted RBOs, a total of $56.2 million in value was awarded on post-RBO projects. Applying the 9.3 percent net change since RBOs have passed results in an estimated $5.2 million in value awarded to union contractors due to the passage of just these 11 RBOs. This also means that nonunion firms likely lost out on $5.2 million worth of construction projects because they did not participate in registered apprenticeship programs, did not have proof of insurance, or were otherwise not responsible. RBOs increase union market share. FIGURE 5: ESTIMATED CHANGE IN VALUE AWARDED TO UNION CONTRACTORS IN JUST THE 11 JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ## PASSED RBOS SINCE 2019, BASED ON POST-RBO DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 Column Estimating the Dollar Impact of the 11 Jurisdictions Passing RBOs Math Value A Total Value of Projects Awarded Since RBOs Passed $56,246,096.58 ## B RBO Impact on Union Market Share +9.3% C Estimated Value of Projects to Union Contractors Due to RBOs B ÷ A +$5,230,886.98 Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). A Case Study: Municipal Projects Covered by RBOs in the Quad Cities In addition to the before-and-after analysis of 11 jurisdictions that passed RBOs in Illinois and Indiana, the dataset includes information on municipal projects awarded by the four Quad Cities: Rock Island and Moline in Illinois and Davenport and Bettendorf in Iowa. The Quad Cities region offers a unique opportunity for a local case study on the impacts of RBOs since these four cities are geographically close and within the same integrated economic area. The City of Rock Island, IL has had an RBO in effect since November 21, 2016 and the City of Moline, IL recently implemented an RBO on January 19, 2021. By contrast, Iowa has a state pre-emption law prohibiting local governments from passing RBOs or similar policies. Figure 6 presents the data. The full dataset for the Quad Cities case study—which also uses 42 months of project bid data from January 2018 through June 2021—contains 248 projects on city-owned projects, including 51 projects that were covered by RBOs and 197 projects that were not covered by RBOs. All projects involve the operating engineers craft. In the Quad Cities, municipal projects with operating engineers that are covered by RBOs have a union win rate of 86.3 percent and union contractors represent 67.1 percent of the total market. City-funded projects that are not covered by RBOs have a union win rate of just 46.7 percent and union contractors have a market share of only 54.0 percent. The difference is a 13.1 percent increase in union market share on projects covered by RBOs in this local metropolitan area. The projects covered by RBOs are all on the Illinois side of the border. Illinois has a state prevailing wage law, supports workers’ collective bargaining rights, and 97 percent of all construction apprentices are enrolled in joint labor-management programs that are cooperatively administered by labor unions and their signatory contractors (Manzo & Bruno, 2020). Iowa, on the other hand, has never had a state ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 7 prevailing wage law, has a so-called “right-to-work” law that weakens collective bargaining, and only 55 percent of its construction apprentices are registered in joint labor-management programs (Manzo & Gigstad, 2021). The Quad Cities case study consequently reveals that the effect of RBOs may be larger when paired with high-road labor standards in construction. FIGURE 6: THE DIFFERENCE IN UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE FOR PROJECTS THAT ARE AND ARE NOT ## COVERED BY RBOS IN THE QUAD CITIES OF ILLINOIS AND IOWA, DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Quad Cities ## Projects ## Total ## Projects ## Total ## Value ## Union ## Wins ## Union ## Win Share ## Union ## Value ## Union ## Market Share Covered by RBOs 51 $55,479,609.91 44 86.3% $37,234,073.43 67.1% Not Covered by RBOs 197 $85,403,882.83 92 46.7% $46,121,313.97 54.0% ## RBO Difference +39.6% +13.1% Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). ## Conclusion Responsible bidder ordinances (RBOs) are policy tools that establish objective criteria and verifiable standards for contractors bidding on public construction projects funded by local taxpayers. These policies are designed to promote quality infrastructure built by professional contractors and skilled workers while stabilizing construction costs. This guarantees that public projects are awarded to responsible local businesses that make efficient use of taxpayer dollars. This report finds that responsible bidder ordinances increase the market share of union contractors by millions of dollars every year in Illinois and Indiana. In 11 local government jurisdictions that have passed RBOs in Illinois and Indiana since 2019, the union market share increased by 9 percent following the ordinance’s implementation date. This corresponds to a gain of more than $5 million in work for union contractors in just these 11 jurisdictions alone over this time. Additionally, a local case study of the Quad Cities located along the Mississippi River on the Illinois-Iowa border reveals that RBOs may boost the market share of union contractors by as much as 13 percent when other high-road construction labor policies are present, such as a prevailing wage law. The data conclusively shows that union contractors are more likely than nonunion contractors to be responsible businesses that are good stewards of taxpayer dollars. By ensuring that local governments hire only professional, competent contractors, responsible bidder ordinances deliver accountability and transparency for taxpayers, promote apprenticeship programs that produce skilled craftworkers for local businesses, and increase work for contractors who pay family-supporting wages and benefits. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 8 ## Sources Adler, Moshe. (2003). Prequalification of Contractors: The Importance of Responsible Contracting on Public Works Projects. Fiscal Policy Institute. Biden White House. (2021). “White House Releases Updated State Fact Sheets Highlighting the Impact of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Nationwide.” The White House. House Bill No. 2069. (2013). Legislature of the State of Kansas. Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC). (2021). “Indiana Ordinances Archive.” Kashiwagi, Dean; John Savicky; Kenneth Sullivan; Jacob Kovel; David Greenwood; and Charles Egbu. (2005). Is Performance-Based Procurement a Solution to Construction Performance? Arizona State University; Central Connecticut State University; Northumbria University; and Glasgow Caledonian University. Kelsay, Michael. (2016). An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Kansas Repeal of Prevailing Wage Statutes in Sedgwick County, Kansas and Wyandotte County, Kansas. University of Missouri – Kansas City. Manzo IV, Frank. (2020). The Impact of Responsible Bidder Ordinances on Bid Competition and Public Construction Costs: Evidence from Illinois and Indiana, 2018-2019. Illinois Economic Policy Institute. Manzo IV, Frank and Robert Bruno. (2020). The Apprenticeship Alternative: Enrollment, Completion Rates, and Earnings in Registered Apprenticeship Programs in Illinois. Illinois Economic Policy Institute. Manzo IV, Frank and Jill Gigstad. (2021). Apprenticeship Training in Iowa: Enrollment, Completion Rates, and Earnings of Registered Apprentices in Iowa. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. Manzo IV, Frank and Jill Manzo. (2018). Responsible Bidder Ordinances Promote Local Construction Standards: Evidence from Indiana. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. ## Municode. (2021). “St. Petersburg City Code.” Onsarigo, Lameck; Alan Atalah; Frank Manzo IV; and Kevin Duncan. (2017). The Economic, Fiscal, and Social Effects of Ohio’s Prevailing Wage Law. Kent State University; Bowling Green State University; Midwest Economic Policy Institute; Colorado State University-Pueblo. Sonn, Paul K and Tsedeye Gebreselassie. (2010). “The Road to Responsible Contracting: Lessons from States and Cities for Ensuring That Federal Contracting Delivers Good Jobs and Quality Services,” Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law. 31(2): 460-488. Stein, Michael Isaac. (2021). “Two Years After Hard Rock Collapse, City Council Passes ‘Responsible’ Contractor Requirements.” The Lens. Waddoups, Jeffrey C. and David C. May. (2014). “Do Responsible Contractor Policies Increase Construction Bid Costs?” Industrial Relations, 53(2): 273-294. ## Cover Photo Credits AKuptsova. (Accessed November 2021). “Untitled.” Downloaded from Canva.com Free Photos and Pixabay. Iyd39. (Accessed November 2021). “August 3, 2013, Indiana USA; Road workers dump fresh, hot asphalt to repair a torn-up road.” Downloaded from Shutterstock paid subscription. Royalty-free stock photo ID: 604201433. Klein, Nicholas J. (Accessed November 2021). “Aerial view of large construction site in Indiana for a High School.” Downloaded from Shutterstock paid subscription. Royalty-free stock photo ID: 2066309207. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 9 ## Appendix TABLE A: SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF THE 163 RBOS THAT HAVE BEEN ENACTED IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA, AS OF DECEMBER 2021 Provisions or Criteria in Responsible Bidder Ordinances in Indiana and Illinois Share with Provisions Includes preamble for economic rationale 96% Includes definition of public works construction 38% Certified payroll required 95% Requirements apply to prime bidder 97% Requirements apply to all subcontractors 30% RBO triggered by a project threshold 62% RBO establishes its own prequalification program 98% RBO requires bidder and / or subs to hold prequalification from a state agency or third party 12% Contractor submissions subject to FOIA 96% RBO contains bid credits or preference for local bidders 13% RBO contains racial or gender diversity participation goals 7% Provide proof of business registration / license to do business in the state 21% Provide proof of insurance (workers comp, liability) 90% Disclose past tax liens or delinquencies 19% Disclose past violations of local / state / federal laws 13% Provide past performance info / list of projects of similar size and scope / key resumes 33% Bidder must disclose all subcontractors 21% Provide proof of drug prevention program 24% Provide statement of commitment to PW / DB compliance 91% Provide statement of commitment to proper worker classification 12% Provide proof of any professional or trade licenses required by law or ordinance 13% Provide proof of contractor participation in applicable USDOL registered apprenticeship programs 92% Provide proof that workers will receive health and retirement benefits 77% Provide proof of OSHA certification 18% Source: Authors’ analysis of responsible bidder ordinances as compiled by Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). N = 163 RBOs passed in Illinois and Indiana, including 109 in Illinois and 54 in Indiana. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 10 TABLE B: FULL DATA ON THE LOCATION AND DATE OF PASSAGE OF RBOS, WITH INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS AWARDED, THE TOTAL VALUE OF PROJECTS AWARDED, AND THE UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE IN THE PERIODS BEFORE PASSAGE OF RBOS, DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Area and Date of RBO Enactment Pre-RBO Period ## Jurisdiction State ## RBO ## Date ## Projects ## Total ## Value ## Union ## Wins ## Union ## Win Share ## Union ## Value ## Union ## Market Share DuPage County IL 3/12/19 7 $7,631,077.40 6 85.71% $7,612,977.40 99.76% DuPage County Forest Preserve District IL 2/2/21 23 $12,617,212.45 17 73.91% $11,840,323.05 93.84% City of Moline IL 1/19/21 38 $19,509,376.87 26 68.42% $13,432,395.57 68.85% City of Waukegan IL 1/22/19 3 $8,052,758.00 3 100.00% $8,052,758.00 100.00% Village of Forest Park IL 1/15/19 2 $1,317,672.00 2 100.00% $1,317,672.00 100.00% Town of Kouts IN 3/18/19 4 $635,226.00 2 50.00% $545,676.00 85.90% Kankakee Valley School Corporation IN 8/13/19 3 $4,283,519.00 3 100.00% $4,283,519.00 100.00% City of Rensselaer IN 1/27/20 1 $1,136,103.00 1 100.00% $1,136,103.00 100.00% City of LaPorte IN 2/3/20 4 $5,362,189.00 3 75.00% $3,729,357.00 69.55% Knox Community School Corporation IN 2/17/20 2 $3,538,264.00 2 100.00% $3,538,264.00 100.00% South Bend Community School Corporation IN 6/1/20 7 $2,665,638.00 7 100.00% $2,665,638.00 100.00% ## TOTALS IL & IN 94 $66,749,035.72 72 76.60% $58,154,683.02 87.12% ## No Pre-RBO Data ## Gary Community School Corporation IN 9/21/20 ## LaPorte County Library IN 5/1/19 ## Village of Pecatonica IL 11/17/20 ## Rock Island County Forest Preserve Dis. IL 1/15/19 Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). The City of Kewanee, IL passed a new RBO during the period of analysis but had a different RBO in effect prior to 2019 that was passed in 2007. As a result, the City of Kewanee, IL is not included in the before-and-after analysis. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 11 TABLE C: FULL DATA ON THE LOCATION AND DATE OF PASSAGE OF RBOS, WITH INFORMATION ON THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS AWARDED, THE TOTAL VALUE OF PROJECTS AWARDED, AND THE UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE IN THE PERIODS AFTER PASSAGE OF RBOS, DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Area and Date of RBO Enactment Post-RBO Period ## Jurisdiction State ## RBO ## Date ## Projects ## Total ## Value ## Union ## Wins ## Union ## Win Share ## Union ## Value ## Union ## Market Share DuPage County IL 3/12/19 11 $19,212,607.93 11 100.00% $19,212,607.93 100.00% DuPage County Forest Preserve District IL 2/2/21 2 $216,550.00 2 100.00% $216,550.00 100.00% City of Moline IL 1/19/21 8 $2,941,858.30 6 75.00% $2,133,251.00 72.51% City of Waukegan IL 1/22/19 10 $16,016,946.35 9 90.00% $15,936,946.35 99.50% Village of Forest Park IL 1/15/19 9 $10,644,722.00 9 100.00% $10,644,722.00 100.00% Town of Kouts IN 3/18/19 4 $1,448,119.00 3 75.00% $1,351,369.00 93.32% Kankakee Valley School Corporation IN 8/13/19 1 $1,998,000.00 1 100.00% $1,998,000.00 100.00% City of Rensselaer IN 1/27/20 2 $989,212.00 1 50.00% $815,526.00 82.44% City of LaPorte IN 2/3/20 1 $396,095.00 1 100.00% $396,095.00 100.00% Knox Community School Corporation IN 2/17/20 2 $1,900,000.00 2 100.00% $1,900,000.00 100.00% South Bend Community School Corporation IN 6/1/20 1 $481,986.00 1 100.00% $481,986.00 100.00% ## TOTALS IL & IN 51 $56,246,096.58 46 90.20% $55,087,053.28 97.94% ## No Pre-RBO Data ## Gary Community School Corporation IN 9/21/20 ## LaPorte County Library IN 5/1/19 ## Village of Pecatonica IL 11/17/20 ## Rock Island County Forest Preserve Dis. IL 1/15/19 Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). The City of Kewanee, IL passed a new RBO during the period of analysis but had a different RBO in effect prior to 2019 that was passed in 2007. As a result, the City of Kewanee, IL is not included in the before-and-after analysis. ## THE IMPACT OF RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ORDINANCES ON UNION CONTRACTORS IN ILLINOIS AND INDIANA 12 TABLE D: FULL DATA ON THE LOCATION AND DATE OF PASSAGE OF RBOS AND THE CHANGE IN THE UNION WIN SHARE AND UNION MARKET SHARE BEFORE-AND-AFTER ## PASSAGE OF THE RBOS, DATA FROM JAN. 2018 THROUGH JUNE 2021 ## Area and Date of RBO Enactment RBO Difference ## Jurisdiction State ## RBO ## Date ## Union ## Win Share ## Union ## Market Share DuPage County IL 3/12/19 +14.29% +0.24% ## DuPage County Forest Preserve District IL 2/2/21 +26.09% +6.16% City of Moline IL 1/19/21 +6.58% +3.66% City of Waukegan IL 1/22/19 -10.00% -0.50% Village of Forest Park IL 1/15/19 +0.00% +0.00% Town of Kouts IN 3/18/19 +25.00% +7.42% ## Kankakee Valley School Corporation IN 8/13/19 +0.00% +0.00% City of Rensselaer IN 1/27/20 -50.00% -17.56% City of LaPorte IN 2/3/20 +25.00% +30.45% ## Knox Community School Corporation IN 2/17/20 +0.00% +0.00% ## South Bend Community School Corporation IN 6/1/20 +0.00% +0.00% ## TOTALS IL & IN +13.60% +10.81% ## No Pre-RBO Data ## Gary Community School Corporation IN 9/21/20 ## LaPorte County Library IN 5/1/19 ## Village of Pecatonica IL 11/17/20 ## Rock Island County Forest Preserve Dis. IL 1/15/19 Source: Authors’ analysis of project bid data from the Indiana, Illinois, Iowa Foundation for Fair Contracting (III FFC, 2021). The City of Kewanee, IL passed a new RBO during the period of analysis but had a different RBO in effect prior to 2019 that was passed in 2007. As a result, the City of Kewanee, IL is not included in the before-and-after analysis. 1 ## ORDINANCE NO. ## An Ordinance to Establish Responsible Bidding Practices and ## Submission Requirements on Public Works Projects WHEREAS, is required by law to award capital improvement contracts to the "lowest responsive and responsible” bidder; WHEREAS, , based upon its experience, has determined that quality workmanship, efficient operation, safety, and timely completion of projects requires all bidders meet certain minimum requirements in order to be a "responsive and responsible" bidder; WHEREAS, applicable state law also requires that bidders meet certain minimum requirements in order to be a “responsive and responsible" bidder; WHEREAS, seeks to enhance its ability to identify “responsive and responsible" bidders on all __________ public works construction projects by institution of more comprehensive submission requirements which are in compliance with Indiana State law; WHEREAS, the "Responsible Bidding Practices and Submission Requirements" Ordinance will preserve administrative resources by insuring that only qualified contractors and subcontractors are awarded contracts on public works construction projects; WHEREAS, the "Responsible Bidding Practices and Submission Requirements" Ordinance will assure efficient use of taxpayer dollars, will promote public safety and is in the public interest; and, WHEREAS, the "Responsible Bidding Practices and Submission Requirements" Ordinance will help ensure that no contractor awarded work under this Ordinance or any subcontractor at any tier working on a project awarded pursuant to this ordinance engages in payroll fraud, including the misclassification of employees as independent contractors to avoid paying state, federal or local payroll taxes, workers compensation insurance, unemployment insurance premiums and failing to pay overtime and wages as required by law. ## NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE ## COMMON COUNCIL OF , INDIANA: SECTION 1. This Ordinance No. , which is entitled "Responsible Bidding Practices and Submission Requirements for Submitting Bids to Perform Construction Work on Public Works Projects," is hereby enacted and shall read as follows: ## I. Bid Submission Requirements Contractors proposing to submit bids on any (“____”) project estimated to be at least one-hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) or amount specified under the Indiana bidding statute, in order to be considered a responsible bidder, prior to the opening of bids, submit a statement made under oath and subject to perjury laws, on a form designated by the and must include: 2 (A) A copy of a print-out of the Indiana Secretary of State’s on-line records for the bidder dated within sixty (60) days of the submission of said document showing that the bidder is in existence, current with the Indiana Secretary of State’s Business Entity Reports, and eligible for a certificate of good standing. If the bidder is an individual, sole proprietor or partnership, this subsection shall not apply; (B) A list identifying all former business names; (C) Any determinations by a court or governmental agency for violations of federal, state, or local laws including, but not limited to violations of contracting or antitrust laws, tax or licensing laws, environmental laws, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), or federal Davis-Bacon and related Acts; (D) A statement on staffing capabilities, including labor sources; (E) Evidence of participation in apprenticeship training programs applicable to the work to be performed on the project, which are approved by and registered with the United States Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship, or its successor organization; and evidence that any applicable apprenticeship program has graduated at least five (5) apprentices in each of the past five (5) years for each of the construction crafts the bidder will perform on the project. Evidence of graduation rates are not required for apprenticeable crafts dedicated exclusively to the transportation of material and equipment to and from the public works project. The required evidence includes but is not limited to a copy of all applicable apprenticeship standards and Apprenticeship Agreement(s) for any apprentice(s) who will perform work on the public works project; and documentation from each applicable apprenticeship program certifying that it has graduated at least five (5) apprentices in each of the past five (5) years for each construction craft the bidder will perform on the project. Additional evidence of participation and graduation requirements may be requested by the __________ at its discretion. (F) A copy of a written plan for employee drug testing that: (i) covers all employees of the bidder who will perform work on the public works project; and (ii) meets, or exceeds, the requirements set forth in IC 4-13-18-5 or IC 4-13-18-6; (G) The name and description of the management experience of each of the bidder's project managers and superintendents that bidder intends to assign to work on the project; (H) Proof of any professional or trade license required by law for any trade or specialty area in which bidder is seeking a contract award; and disclosure of any suspension or revocation within the previous five years of any professional or trade license held by the company, or of any director, office or manager employed by the bidder; (I) Evidence that the bidder is utilizing a surety company on the United States Department ## of Treasury’s Listing of Approved Sureties; (J) A written statement of any federal, state or local tax liens or tax delinquencies owed to any federal, state or local taxing body in the last five years; 3 (K) A statement that individuals who will perform work on the public works project on behalf of the bidder will be properly classified as either (i) an employee or (ii) an independent contractor, under all applicable state and federal laws and local ordinances; (L) A list of projects of similar size and scope of work that the bidder has performed in the State of Indiana within three (3) years prior to the date on which the bid is due; and (M) For contracts estimated to cost at least three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000), certification that the bidder and all subcontractors are qualified under IC 4-13.6-4 or IC 8-23-10. (N) A written list that discloses the name, address, and type of work for each subcontractor the bidder intends to employ on any part of the public works project, including individuals performing work as independent contractors. The __________ ___ reserves the right to demand supplemental information from the bidder, additional verification any of the information provided by the bidder, and may conduct random inquiries of the bidder's current and prior customers. ## II. Post-Bid Submissions from Subcontractors Each subcontractor of any tier shall be required to adhere to the requirements of Section I of this Ordinance, but subcontractors shall submit the required information to the successful bidder, who shall then submit said information to the __________ prior to the subcontractor’s first day of work on the public works project. Failure of a subcontractor to submit the required information shall not disqualify the successful bidder from performing work on the project and shall not constitute a contractual default or breach by the successful bidder. However, payment shall be withheld from any subcontractor who fails to timely submit said information until such information is submitted and approved by the __________. Additionally, the __________ may require the successful bidder and/or relevant subcontractor to remove a subcontractor from the project and replace it with a responsive and responsible subcontractor. The disclosure of a subcontractor by a bidder or a subcontractor shall not create any rights in the disclosed subcontractor. Thus, a bidder and/or a subcontractor may substitute another subcontractor for a disclosed subcontractor by giving the __________ written notice of the name, address, and type of work the substitute subcontractor will perform. The substitute subcontractor is subject to all of the obligations of a subcontractor under this Ordinance. ## III. Validity of Pre-Qualification Classification Upon designation by the __________ that a bidder's or subcontractor's submission is complete and timely, and upon any further consideration deemed necessary by the __________ , the bidder or subcontractor may be pre-qualified for future __________ public works projects. Pre-qualification shall exempt the bidder or subcontractor from the comprehensive submission requirements contained herein for a period of twelve (12) months. Thereafter, bidders or subcontractors who are pre-qualified must submit a complete application for continuation of pre-qualified standing, on a form provided by the __________, (i.e. a "short form") by 4 December 31 st for the upcoming calendar year. Failure by any pre-qualified bidder or subcontractor to timely submit its complete application for continuation of pre-qualified standing shall result in automatic removal of the designation effective January 1 of the upcoming year. However, the removed bidder or subcontractor shall still be permitted to bid on or perform work on __________ public works projects. Any material changes to a contractor's status, at any time, must be reported in writing within ten (10) days of its occurrence to the __________. The pre-qualification designation is solely within the discretion of the __________ and the __________ specifically reserves the right to change or revoke the designation for a stated written reason(s). Denial of pre-qualification shall be in writing and shall be forwarded to the contractor within seven (7) working days of such decision. Any contractor denied or losing pre-qualification status may request reconsideration of the decision by submitting such request in writing to the __________ within five (5) business days of receipt of notice of denial. ## IV. Incomplete Submissions by Bidders It is the sole responsibility of the bidder to comply with all submission requirements herein no later than the public bid opening. Submissions deemed inadequate, incomplete, or untimely by the __________ shall result in the automatic disqualification of the bid. ## V. Responsive and Responsible Bidder Determination After its review of complete and timely submissions, taking into account all information in the submission requirements, the __________ shall in its sole discretion, determine whether a bidder or subcontractor is responsive and responsible. The __________ reserves the right to utilize all information provided in the bidder or subcontractor’s submission or any information obtained by the __________ through its own independent verification of the information provided. ## VI. Certified Payroll For projects in which the cost is at least one-hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the successful bidder and all subcontractors working on a public works project shall submit a certified payroll report utilizing federal form WH-347 or its successor form, which must be prepared on a weekly basis and submitted to the __________ within ten (10) calendar days after the end of each week in which the successful bidder or subcontractor performed on the public works project. Certified payroll reports shall identify the job title and craft of each employee on the project, e.g. journeyman electrician or apprentice electrician. In the event any successful bidder or subcontractor uses independent contractors to perform work on the project, such individual must be identified on the federal form WH-347 or successor form with the same information as is required for employees. The __________ may withhold payment due for work performed by a successful bidder or subcontractor for failure to timely submit their respective certified payroll reports until such time as the reports are submitted. The __________ shall not withhold payment to a successful bidder or subcontractor for failure of the successful bidder or one or more other subcontractors to timely submit their certified payroll reports. 5 ## VII. Public Records All information submitted by a bidder or a subcontractor pursuant to this Ordinance, including certified payrolls, are public records subject to review pursuant to the Indiana Access to Public Records law (IC 5-14-3). ## VIII. Penalties for False, Deceptive, or Fraudulent Statements/Information Any bidder or subcontractor that willfully makes, or willfully causes to be made, a false, deceptive or fraudulent statement, or willfully submits false, deceptive or fraudulent information in connection with any submission made to the __________ shall be disqualified from bidding or working on all __________ projects for a period of three (3) years. ## IX. Conflicting Ordinances Any ordinance or provision of any ordinance in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance is hereby repealed. ## X. Severability If any provision of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, the remaining provisions of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such a determination; such provisions shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 2. It is hereby found and determined that all formal actions of the Board relating to the passage of this Ordinance were adopted in open meeting(s) of the Board and that all deliberations of the Board and its committees that resulted in such formal actions, were meetings open to the public, in compliance with all legal requirements and that the reading and adoption of this Ordinance complies with the __________ Code, as amended. SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of adoption by the __________ Council of the __________ of , Indiana. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Common Council for the __________ of _____________________, County, Indiana on the __ day of , 2023. _______________________________________ ## Mayor ## ATTEST: __________________________________ ## Clerk-Treasurer 6 Presented to me by the Mayor of ____________, Indiana, this ____ day of ___________, 2023. ______________________________________ ## Clerk-Treasurer Approved by me, the Mayor of _____________, Indiana, this ___________ day of ____, 2023. ______________________________________ ## Mayor Created: 2021-03-26 21:32:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 25) Page 1 of 3 ## The City of Belvidere Sec. 2-700. Purchasing guidelines and bidding procedures. (a) Formal contract procedure. Any work or other public improvements and all purchases, orders or contracts for supplies, commodities, equipment or services, except as otherwise provided herein, when the estimated cost thereof shall exceed $20,000.00 shall be purchased from the lowest responsive and responsible bidder or proposer after due notice inviting bids, unless the city waives the competitive bidding process by a vote of two-thirds of the corporate authorities then holding office. Contracts for professional services within the meaning of the Local Government Professional Services Selection Act (50 ILCS 510/0.01 et seq.) as well as legal services, accounting services, auditing services and other similar professional services shall not be subject to this section. (b) This section shall not apply in the event of an emergency declared by the corporate authorities pursuant to Section 8-10-5 of the Illinois Municipal Code (65 ILCS 5/8-10-5). (c) Public notice. Public notice of a bid request shall be published at least ten days in advance of the date announced for the receiving of bids, in a newspaper of general circulation throughout the city. Additional announcements may also be placed in recognized trade journals and other publications, and/or sent directly to known providers. The public notice shall describe the character of the proposed contract or agreement in sufficient detail to enable the bidders thereon to know what their obligations will be, either in the advertisement itself, or by reference to detailed bid/for proposal packages on file at the time of the public notice. Such advertisement shall also state the date, time and place assigned for the opening of bids, and no bids shall be received at any time subsequent to the time indicated in the announcement. The city shall inform all parties that have received bid/proposal packages of any specification changes or bid opening extensions by written addendum thereof via mail or fax transmission as appropriate. The notice of bid, and contract documents, shall also provide that all contractors and subcontractors shall pay not less than the prevailing rate of wages, shall comply with the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act and shall comply will all other relevant statutes, regulations and ordinances. (d) Bid security. Unless otherwise required by law, a cashier's check, a certified check or a bid bond issued by a surety company, which is listed and approved by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, in an amount of ten percent of the contract may be required of each bidder by the city. The bid security shall be returned to the unsuccessful bidders within such time as specified in the bid package. A successful bidder shall forfeit its bid security upon failure on its part to enter into a contract within 15 days after the award. The city shall retain the right to hold such successful bidder liable for any excess damage or costs incurred by reason of the failure to execute contracts over and above the bid security retained by the city. (e) Bid opening. Competitive sealed bids shall be opened in the presence of one or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the public notice. The amount of each bid and name of each bidder shall be publicly read for competitive sealed bids. All information contained within the bids/proposals is the property of the city, and as such is not subject to public inspection until such time as the city council awards a contract, rejects all bids or abandons the project. (f) Award of contract. Contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder on the basis of the bid that is in the best interest of the city to accept. As a part of the evaluation process, and in addition to price, the city shall evaluate the responsiveness and responsibility of each bidder. To be judged responsible, a bidder must have the following capabilities in all respects to fully perform the contract requirements and will be judged against the following standards, at a minimum: (1) Ability, capacity and skill to fulfill the contract as specified; Created: 2021-03-26 21:32:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 25) Page 2 of 3 (2) Ability to supply the commodities, provide the services or complete the construction promptly, or within the time specified, without delay or interference; (3) Character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficient; (4) Quality of performance on previous contracts; (5) Previous and existing compliance with laws and ordinance relating to the contract; (6) Sufficiency of financial resources; (7) Quality, availability and adaptability of the commodities, services or construction, the relation to the city's requirements; (8) Ability to provide future maintenance and service under the contract; (9) Number and scope of conditions attached to the bid/proposal; (10) Record of payments for taxes, licenses or other monies due the city. (g) For procurement of services, equipment and supplies, requests for proposals may be utilized in lieu of the procedures set forth in subsections (c), (d), and (e) above. In such event, the city shall request proposals from not less than three vendors. The city may award a contract under this subsection even if less than three of the vendors submit a proposal. (h) Award of construction contracts over $25,000.00. In addition to the criteria set forth in subsection (e) above, to be judged responsible on a construction contract estimated to cost in excess of $25,000.00, a bidder must comply with the following requirements and submit evidence of such compliance, verified under oath on a form designated by the city: (1) Documents evidencing compliance with all applicable laws pre-requisite to doing business in the state. (2) A valid federal employer tax identification number or, if an individual, a valid Social Security number. (3) A statement of compliance with the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act (820 ILCS 130/1 et seq.), and all rules and regulations therein for the past five years. A contractor who has been found by the Illinois Department of Labor to be in violation of the Prevailing Wage Act twice within a three-year period may be deemed not to be a responsible bidder/proposer for two years from the date of the latest finding. (4) Evidence of participation in apprenticeship and training programs applicable to the work to be performed on the project which are approved by and registered with the United States Department of Labor's Office of Apprenticeship, or its successor organization. (5) Evidence of compliance with the Substance Abuse Prevention on Public Works Projects Act (820 ILCS 265/1 et seq.). (6) A statement listing individuals who will perform work on the project on behalf of the contractor and evidence that: a. Individuals are properly classified as an employee or independent contractor under applicable state and federal laws; and b. Employees are covered under a workers' compensation insurance policy and properly classified under such policy. (7) A list of sub-contractors from whom the contractor has accepted a bid and/or intends to hire on the project, if applicable. Created: 2021-03-26 21:32:37 [EST] (Supp. No. 25) Page 3 of 3 (8) A statement as to past performance of the last three public works projects completed by the contractor. Such statements shall include the name of the public body and the project, original contract price, final contract price, the name of all sub-contractors used, if applicable, and a statement as to compliance with completion deadlines. All contractors, including sub-contractors, must comply with the above requirements. The primary contractor shall submit: (1) all evidence of its compliance at the time it submits its bid to the county; and (2) evidence of all sub-contractors' compliance no later than the date and time of the contract award. (i) Lowest bidder not chosen. When the award is not awarded to the lowest bidder, the city council shall state specific reasons for awarding the bid to other than the lowest bidder. (j) Multiple low bids. When two or more responsible bidders submit the same low bid, the contract award shall be determined at the discretion of the city. (k) Insurance and indemnification. All contractors performing construction shall be required to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the city and to carry such insurance as reasonably required by the city attorney. (l) Contract bond. Contractors performing construction activities shall provide the city with a performance and payment bond. Certain other non-construction contractors, in cases where the city might be put at risk, may also be required to submit a contract bond to the city, as determined by the city. Contract bonds shall be issued by a surety company which is listed and approved by the U.S. Department of Treasury, and which shall guarantee the performance of the work by the contractor, the payment at the prevailing rate of hourly wages and the payment for all labor, materials, apparatus, fixtures and machinery necessary to complete the project. The city may allow bidders to provide a non-diminishing irrevocable bank letter of credit, in lieu of the bond, provided that any such bank letter of credit shall contain all the provisions required for bonds. (Ord. No. 988G, § 1, 10-20-08; Ord. No. 42H, § 1, 12-21-09; Ord. No. 249H, § 1(Exh. A), 4-20-15; Ord. No. 318H, § 1, 12-5-16) ## CITY OF ROCKFORD, ILLINOIS ## CODE OF ORDINANCES, ## Chapter 2 ADMINISTRATION, ## Art. X. Department of Finance, Div. 6. Purchasing Sec. 2-284. Rules governing purchasing, (b) Purchasing procedures (16) Responsible bidder for purposes of construction contracts over fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) to require submission of proof of compliance with the following criteria: a. All applicable laws prerequisite to doing business in Illinois. b. Evidence of compliance with 1. Federal Employer Tax Identification Number or Social Security Number (for individuals). 2. Provision of Section 2000(e) of Chapter 21, Title 42 of the United States Code and Federal Executive Order No. 11246 as amended by ## Executive Order No. 11375 (known as the Equal Opportunity Employer provisions). c. Certificates of insurance indicating the following coverages: general liability, workers' compensation, completed operations, automobile, hazardous occupation, product liability, and professional liability. d. Compliance with all provisions of the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act, including wages, medical and hospitalization insurance and retirement for those trades as covered in the Act. d. Participation in apprenticeship and training programs approved and registered with the United States Department of Labor's Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training for all trades that will be in the contractor's (or his subcontractor's) employment, with each worker receiving the required apprenticeship/training appropriate to his trade. Created: 2023-09-28 16:55:13 [EST] (Supp. No. 124) Page 1 of 3 Sec. 82.07. Minimum wages on public contracts. (a) Policy. It is the policy of the City of Saint Paul that all work for development, buildings, roads, and other works paid for with public funds be constructed and maintained by the best means and highest quality labor that is reasonably available and that persons working on public works be compensated according to the real value of the services they perform. Accordingly, it is the policy of the City of Saint Paul that the wages of workers on publicly-owned and publicly-funded projects be comparable to wages paid for similar work in the local community. (b) Definitions. (1) Apprenticeship Program means a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or with a state apprenticeship agency. (2) Certified Payroll Records means payroll records furnished under oath signed by an owner or officer of an employer to the contracting authority and the project owner every week, including a certified payroll report with respect to the wages and benefits paid each employee during the preceding week specifying for each employee: name; identifying number; prevailing wage master job classification; hours worked each day; total hours; rate of pay; gross amount earned; each deduction for taxes; total deductions; net pay for week; dollars contributed per hour for each benefit, including name and address of administrator; benefit account number; and telephone number for health and welfare, vacation or holiday, apprenticeship training, pension, and other benefit programs. (3) Department means the Saint Paul Department of Human Rights and Equal Economic Opportunity. (4) Prevailing hours of labor means not more than eight (8) hours per day or more than forty (40) hours per week. (5) Prevailing wage rate means the rate of wages and benefits certified and published as prevailing by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry. (6) Project means any new construction work, demolition work, or repair work on any roads, bridges, sewers, streets, alleys, parks, parkways, buildings, removal of public nuisances or any other improvement of public or private property. (7) Restitution means an amount at least equal to the amount of underpayment of prevailing wages. (8) Relending or Regranting Program means a program whereby public funds are either loaned or granted by the city or HRA to an intermediary such as a community development corporation, which serves as a pass-through agency for the award of public assistance. (9) End borrower or grantee means the end borrower or grantee who receives public funds from an intermediary under a relending or regranting program and uses such funds to pay for project costs. (c) Application. This section applies to all city or St. Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority projects in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or more. This section also applies to all projects in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) or more involving the erection, construction, demolition, remodeling or repairing of a privately owned building, other facility or property where the city or the Saint Paul Housing and Redevelopment Authority provides financial assistance for the work to be performed in the form of a grant, loan, loan guarantee, tax increment financing, tax abatement, tax credit or revenue from bonds. With respect to a relending or regranting program, the threshold level of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) of project costs is determined on an individual basis by the cost of the project of each end borrower or grantee. Created: 2023-09-28 16:55:13 [EST] (Supp. No. 124) Page 2 of 3 This section does not apply to apprentices working on projects pursuant to a bona fide registered apprenticeship program for work performed in his or her trade. A trainee and a helper are not exempt under this provision; the contractor must assign the trainee or helper a job classification that is the "same or most similar" to the work being performed and compensate the trainee or helper for the actual work performed regardless of the trainee's or helper's skill. For housing developments, this section incorporates and follows the same exemptions found in federal Davis Bacon statutes and their regulatory implementation. (d) Prevailing wage required. All contractors and subcontractors must pay workers, at a minimum, the prevailing wage rate. (e) Prevailing hours of labor. Workers employed directly on a project by a contractor or subcontractor, agent, or other person doing or contracting to do all or part of the work of the project, may not work more hours than the prevailing hours of labor, unless paid for all hours in excess of the prevailing hours at a rate of at least one and one-half (1½) times the prevailing hourly basic rate of pay. (f) Notice. All contractors and subcontractors must post on the project the applicable prevailing wage rates in at least one (1) conspicuous place for the duration of the project. The posted information must include a breakdown of the hourly basic rates of pay as well as contributions for health and welfare benefits, vacation benefits, pension benefits, and any other economic benefit. (g) Compliance monitoring and enforcement. (1) The designated city compliance officer will monitor compliance and investigate complaints of violations of this section. (2) All contractors must furnish copies of certified payroll records for all work on the project for which payment of prevailing wages is required under this section. Certified payrolls shall be submitted weekly to the city's designated compliance officer. Such certified payroll records must contain all of the information listed in section (b) of this section. (3) The city's designated compliance officer may request additional records reasonably required to monitor compliance with this section. (h) Self-employed independent contractors, owners, supervisors and foremen. (1) Self-employed or independent contractors performing labor must be paid prevailing wages for the classification of work performed. Any vendor who plans to accomplish all or a portion of the work using self-employed, independent contractors, subcontractors, or partnership contractors must provide the city, as part of their contract bid, with bona fide demonstration of status of such entities. If there is a substitution of a self-employed independent contractor or subcontractor during the execution of the contract, the proof of status must be submitted to the city's designated compliance officer. All such self-employed, independent contractors, subcontractors, or partnership contractors must have executed a written contract or subcontract agreement for their work performance. The city will accept any four (4) of the following as a bona fide demonstration of status. If status cannot be determined clearly enough by submission of the below information or documentation, the subcontractor status will be disallowed and the individual(s) will be included on the engaging company's payroll as employees and will be entitled to receipt of the prevailing wage for all work performed. a. Identification of a registered trade name and location of a telephone listing under that name; b. A contractor's license; c. A subcontractor's bond; d. Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage; Created: 2023-09-28 16:55:13 [EST] (Supp. No. 124) Page 3 of 3 e. If the subcontractor is a partnership, a copy of the executed partnership agreement and Federal Tax Identification Numbers applicable to that partnership agreement; f. A copy of the previous year's tax filing; g. Any other determination regarding status as defined by the state or federal department of revenue. (2) Owners, supervisors, and foremen performing labor under the contract must be paid prevailing wages for the classification of work performed. (i) Trucking. (1) For the purposes of this section, payment of prevailing wage and/or truck rental rates is required for work considered to be under the contract using the standards set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 177.41-177.44 and Minnesota Rules 5200.1000 to 5200.1120. (2) A contractor acquiring trucking services from an independent truck owner, multiple truck owner, or truck broker to perform or provide covered hauling activities shall comply with the payment of the certified State of Minnesota truck rental rates. (3) The prime contractor shall submit on its behalf and on behalf of all subcontractors a month-end trucking report and statement of compliance form along with each independent truck owner, multiple truck owner, and truck broker report to the city. The contractor must use month-end trucking report and statement of compliance forms and report forms approved by the city. (4) A contractor with employee truck drivers shall adhere to the requirements established in sections (d), (e) (f) and (g) of this section. (5) If the prime contractor fails to submit its month-end trucking reports and certification forms and those of any subcontractor, independent truck owner, multiple truck owner, or truck broker, the department may take such actions as prescribed in section (k). (j) Bid specifications and contract terms. The obligations of this section are expressly incorporated into the bid specifications and requests for bids or proposals for all projects and are material and binding terms and conditions of all contracts and subcontracts for projects. (k) Prevailing wage violations. Failure to pay the prevailing wage rate or to follow the prevailing hours of labor, as determined by the city, may result in an order for restitution to be paid, contract payment withholding sufficient to satisfy back wages or restitution assessed, contract payment delay, cancellation of the contract, debarment under chapter 95 of the Saint Paul Administrative Code, and/or withholding or payment of a fee equal to five (5) percent of the entire contract price to the city as liquidated damages. None of the foregoing remedies are intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, but each is in addition to every other remedy listed above or otherwise available. (l) Enforcement. Orders for restitution issued pursuant to this section may be enforced in Ramsey County District Court. (m) Severability. If any provision or application of this chapter is declared illegal, invalid, or inoperative, in whole or in part, by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions and portions thereof and applications not declared illegal, invalid, or inoperative shall remain in force or effect. (C.F. No. 92-1478, § 1, 11-5-92; C.F. No. 92-610, § 1, 11-24-92; Ord 12-75, § 1, 11-14-12) ## City of Brooklyn Park ## Request for Council Action ## Agenda Item: 7.1 ## Meeting Date: May 13, 2024 ## Agenda Section: General Action Items ## Originating ## Department: Administration ## Resolution: N/A ## Prepared By: ## Zach Kramka, Asst to the City ## Manager ## Ordinance: SECOND READING Attachments: 1 ## Presented By: Zach Kramka ## Item: Second Reading of the Prevailing Wage Ordinance ## City Manager’s Proposed Action: ## MOTION ________________, SECOND ______________, TO WAIVE THE READING AND ADOPT ON ## SECOND READING ORDINANCE #2024____ ADDING CHAPTER 43 TO THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY ## CODE, TITLE III: ADMINISTRATION, PERTAINING TO PREVAILING WAGE. ## MOTION _____________, SECOND ______________, TO APPROVE THE SUMMARY OF ## ORDINANCE #2024-_______ DETERMINING THAT IT CLEARLY INFORMS THE PUBLIC OF THE ## INTENT AND EFFECT OF THE ORDINANCE. ## Overview: During its June 5, 2023, work session, the City Council heard from several representatives from local organized labor organizations who underscored the importance of labor protections as a deterrent to wage theft and exploitation of workers. In response to the presentation, Council directed staff to develop a draft prevailing wage ordinance for consideration. On September 5, 2023, staff had a discussion with the City Council regarding a proposed prevailing wage ordinance. After receiving feedback, it was decided to move the ordinance forward to a first reading. On October 23, 2023, the proposed ordinance was passed unanimously on a first reading. The federal government, State of Minnesota, and several local governments across the region have instituted prevailing wage requirements. Prevailing wage levels are defined at the county level by job class. Prevailing wage regulations establish a price floor for wages in addition to fringe benefits that must be paid by contractors and sub-contractors to their employees who are performing work on behalf of the government entity funding the work. The proposed ordinance would require prevailing wage on capital projects financed, in whole or in part, by City and Economic Development Authority (EDA) funds of $50,000 or greater. This ordinance would institute both criminal and civil penalties on covered persons found to be in violation. Any covered persons in violation of the ordinance could be criminally charged with a misdemeanor offense. Civil penalties for violating this ordinance include an order for restitution to be paid, contract payment withholding to satisfy back wages, contract payment delay, withholding a fee equal to five percent of the entire contract price to the City or the EDA as liquidated damages, or the termination of the contract with the violating party. Recommended changes being proposed to the ordinance between the first and second reading are identified below: • Align the City and EDA spending threshold for triggering prevailing wage to $50,000. • Exempt projects utilizing conduit revenue bonds from prevailing wage requirements. • Exempt projects that received final approval by May 31, 2024 from prevailing wage requirements. • Include protections for workers from retaliation for filing a complaint. • Enable the payment of restitution to workers. • Include additional language regarding how to manage projects with mixed funding sources (federal government, state government, City or EDA funds, private financing, etc.). ## Primary Issues/Alternatives to Consider: 1. Approve the ordinance as presented. 2. Approve the ordinance with modifications. 3. Deny the ordinance keeping the existing regulations in place. ## Budgetary/Fiscal Issues: In between the first and second reading of this proposed ordinance, staff have had the chance to further evaluate potential implementation costs. While market forces may assist in keeping costs down in some cases, the development community and colleagues in other municipalities have suggested project costs could increase as much as ten to twenty percent due to increased labor expenses associated with prevailing wage. There are also expenses and staffing requirements associated with maintaining certified payroll for compliance/reporting that may not be possible for small companies. This cost dynamic may impact future subsidy requests from developers. In addition, future projections in the City’s Capital Improvement Plan document may be adjusted, and changes in scope for future capital projects may be required. As with any ordinance, City staff must be fully equipped to implement associated regulations, and as a result, there will be costs to support the implementation of this ordinance. Staff are in the process of finalizing interim and long-term solutions to assist with both the planning of prevailing wage projects as well as any connected investigative or enforcement activities. These solutions will likely come in the form of contractual agreements with outside parties that can provide the necessary expertise to ensure staff, contractors, and workers are all aligned in their understanding of expectations. ## Attachments: ## 7.1A ORDINANCE ## BR270-24-950214.v5 ## ORDINANCE 2024- ## AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 43 TO THE BROOKLYN PARK CITY CODE, TITLE III: ## ADMINISTRATION, PERTAINING TO PREVAILING WAGE Text with strikeout is proposed for deletion Underlined text is proposed for insertion ## The City of Brooklyn Park does ordain: Section 1. The Brooklyn Park City Code, Title III, Administration, is amended to add Chapter 42, entitled “Prevailing Wage Required” to read: ## §43.01 PURPOSE. It is in the public interest that Projects as defined herein, be constructed, maintained and provided by the highest quality of labor that is reasonably available and that persons working on such Projects be compensated according to the real and equitable value of the work they perform and that the wages for such work are comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. ## §43.02 DEFINITIONS. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following words and phrases have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: Apprenticeship Program. A bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or recognized by a governmental agency of the State of Minnesota. Basic Hourly Rate. The hourly wage paid to any employee. Certified Payroll Records. Payroll records furnished under oath signed by an owner or officer of an employer and provided to the Department named in the contract no more than five (5) working days after the submission of a written request by the Compliance Officer for such records. A certified payroll report includes information related to the wages and benefits paid to each employee during the requested time frame specifying for each employee: name; prevailing wage master job classification; number of hours worked each day; total hours worked in the week; rate of pay; gross amount earned; each deduction for taxes; total deductions; net pay for week; dollars contributed per hour for each benefit, including name and address of administrator; benefit account number; and telephone number for health and welfare, vacation or holiday, apprenticeship training, pension, and other benefit programs. City. The City of Brooklyn Park. City Funds. Payment, financing, or financial assistance provided by the City in the form of contract payments, grants, loans, loan guarantees, tax increment financing, tax abatement, proceeds of bonds other than conduit revenue bonds, land write-downs, lease payments, loan payments, or contract for deed payments. With respect to a relending or regranting program, the ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 2 threshold level of fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000) of project costs is determined on an individual basis by the cost of the project of each end borrower or grantee. Compliance Officer. Those persons designated by the City Manager to monitor compliance and investigate complaints pertaining to this Ordinance on behalf of the City or EDA. Covered Persons. Contractors, subcontractors, developers, holders of interests in real property, agents, or other persons regardless of the form of business entity used by the Covered Person, including but not limited to individuals, sole proprietorships, and independent contractors, performing all or part of work on Projects. Department. The department or office of the City or EDA designated to undertake a Project. EDA. The Brooklyn Park Economic Development Authority. EDA Funds. Payment, financing, or financial assistance provided by the EDA in the form of contract payments, grants, loans, loan guarantees, tax increment financing, tax abatement, proceeds of bonds other than conduit revenue bonds, land write-downs, lease payments, loan payments, or contract for deed payments. With respect to a relending or regranting program, the threshold level of fifty-thousand dollars ($50,000) of project costs is determined on an individual basis by the cost of the project of each end borrower or grantee. Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers. All persons utilized, employed, or working on a Project who are doing work usually done by Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers. Prevailing Wage Rate. The meaning contained in Minnesota Statute, Section 177.42, Subd. 6, as determined from time to time by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry for the area where the Project is located. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry shall determine the prevailing wage rate in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 177.41-177.44, as amended from time to time, and applicable rules promulgated thereto, including but not limited to Minnesota Rules 5200.1000-5200.1120 as amended from time to time. In those instances where the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry has not certified and published a prevailing rate of wages and benefits for a particular work classification, the minimum wage and benefit rate per hour to be paid for such work classification means the union wage and benefit rate in the locality of the Project as the case may be for such classification over which the union has jurisdiction. Prevailing Hours of Labor. The hours of labor per day and per week worked within the area by a larger number of workers of the same class than are employed within the area for any other number of hours per day and per week. Project. Any construction work, demolition work, maintenance work, remodeling work, or repair work on any roads, bridges, sewers, streets, alleys, parks, parkways, buildings, water infrastructure, removal of public nuisances or any other improvement of public or private property involving $50,000 or more in City Funds, or EDA Funds. A project consists of all construction necessary to complete the work regardless of the number of contracts involved, so long as all the contracts awarded are closely related in purpose, time, and place, and includes, but is not limited to, multiple phases of work. Restitution. Restitution may include, but is not limited to, an amount at least equal to the amount of underpayment of prevailing wages. ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 3 ## §43.03 PREVAILING WAGE RATE AND PREVAILING HOURS OF LABOR REQUIRED. (A)Prevailing Wage Required. Except as otherwise provided below in 43.09, all Covered Persons shall pay Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers directly performing work on a Project, at a minimum, the Prevailing Wage Rate. (B)Prevailing Hours of Labor. Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers employed directly on a Project by a Covered Person may not work more hours than the Prevailing Hours of Labor, unless paid for all hours in excess of the Prevailing Hours of Labor at a rate of at least one and one- half (1 ½) times the Basic Hourly Rate of pay. (C)Notice. All Covered Persons must post a notice describing the applicable Prevailing Wage Rate in at least one conspicuous place located on the Project site for the duration of the Project. (D)Subcontractors and Independent Contractors. Any contractor or subcontractor who plans to accomplish all or a portion of the work under a contract within the scope this Section using subcontractors or self-employed independent contractors may be required to provide the City with bona fide proof of the status of such entities before contract award. All such subcontractors and independent contractors must have executed a written contract/subcontract agreement for their work performance. The City will accept the following as a bona fide demonstration of subcontractor status: 1)Current business filing with the Minnesota Secretary of State along with the address and telephone number for that entity; 2)Proof of workers' compensation insurance coverage; 3)Proof of unemployment insurance. If the status of subcontractors or self-employed independent contractors cannot be determined by submission of the above information or documentation, subcontractor or independent contractor status will be disallowed and the individual(s) performing the work will be included on the engaging company's payroll as employees and will be entitled to receipt of the prevailing wage from the engaging company for all work performed. (E)Combined Funding. For projects funded in whole or in part with State funds, contractors and subcontractors may be subject to applicable State Prevailing Wage rates and rules for projects meeting state requirements. For projects funded in whole or in part with federal funds, contractors and subcontractors may be subject to federal rates, and regulations. for projects meeting federal requirements. For projects with multiple sources of funding (federal, state, and city), contractors and subcontractors may be subject to all applicable rules and regulations. ## §43.04 CONRACT REQUIREMENTS. The requirements and obligations contained in this Ordinance are deemed to be incorporated into the bid specifications and requests for bids or proposals for all Projects are material and binding in terms and conditions of all contracts and all subcontracts for Projects. The Prevailing Wage Rates, Prevailing Hours of Labor, and Hourly Basic Rates of pay must be set forth specifically in the contract. All contracts for Projects must include applicable schedules of Prevailing Wage Rates. ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 4 ## §43.05 MONITORING, COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT. (A)Collection of Certified Payroll Records. Pursuant to this Chapter and Minn. Stat. Sec. 177.41- .44 and applicable rules as may be amended from time to time, all contractors and subcontractors on a Project must collect and/or furnish a statement on the wages paid to each employee during the prior week. (B)Submission of Certified Payroll Records. Upon request of the City, the EDA, or a City or EDA designee, all Covered Persons shall, within five (5) working days, supply the City or EDA a copy of Certified Payroll Records for all work performed on the Project by Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers. (C)Compliance Officer. A Compliance Officer, as designated by the City, will investigate all complaints, and monitor compliance upon receipt of a complaint regarding violations of this Ordinance. The Compliance Officer may request additional records reasonably required to monitor compliance or investigate complaints regarding this Ordinance. Upon request made by the Compliance Officer, all Covered Persons shall promptly provide additional records reasonably required to monitor compliance with this Ordinance. All Covered Persons shall permit the Compliance Officer physical access to the Project site at any time for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this Ordinance. (D)Project Completion. Upon completion of the project, the City or the EDA shall have the right to require an appropriate audit of contractor's books and records to determine compliance or noncompliance with the provisions of this chapter. Each contractor and subcontractor shall retain the relevant bi-weekly payrolls for a period of not less than three (3) years after the completion of the work. ## §43.06 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. (A)Civil Enforcement. In addition to pursuit of criminal sanctions as provided in Paragraph B of this Section, a violation of this Ordinance may result in the City or the EDA undertaking the following actions: seeking injunctive relief to compel specific performance of the requirements contained in this Ordinance; an order for restitution to be paid; contract payment withholding sufficient to satisfy back wages or restitution assessed; contract payment delay; the withholding of a fee equal to five (5) percent of the entire contract price to the City or the EDA as liquidated damages; or the termination of the contract with the violating party. None of the foregoing remedies are intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, but each is in addition to every other remedy listed above or otherwise available. (B)Criminal Enforcement. Any Covered Person who violates the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with each day of violation constituting a separate offense. ## §43.07 RETALIATION. (A)It shall be a violation of this chapter for an employer or any other person to interfere with, restrain, or deny the exercise of, or the attempted exercise of, any right protected under this chapter. (1)Such rights include but are not limited to: the right to make inquiries about the requirements of this chapter; the right to inform others about their rights; the right to inform the person's employer, union, or similar organization, and/or the person's legal counsel or any other person about an alleged violation; the right to file an oral or written ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 5 complaint with the appropriate authority; the right to cooperate with the City in its investigations; the right to testify in a proceeding under or related to a violation; the right to refuse to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of city, state, or federal law; and the right to oppose any policy, practice, or act that is prohibited under this chapter. (2)No employer or any other person shall communicate to a person exercising rights protected under this chapter, directly or indirectly, the willingness to inform a government employee that the person is not lawfully in the United States, or to report, or to make an implied or express assertion of a willingness to report, suspected citizenship or immigration status of an employee or a family member of the employee to a federal, state, or local agency because the employee has exercised a right under this chapter. (3)An employer shall not take any adverse employment action or in any other manner discriminate against an employee because the employee has exercised in good faith the rights protected under this section. (4)A person injured by a violation of this section may avail themselves of any civil remedies available to them under the laws of the United States and the State of Minnesota. (5)It shall be a rebuttable presumption of retaliation if an employer or any other person takes an adverse action against a person within ninety (90) days of the person's exercise of rights protected in this section. The employer may rebut the presumption with clear and convincing evidence that the adverse action was taken for a permissible purpose. (6)Standard of proof. Proof of retaliation shall be sufficient upon a showing that an employer or any other person has taken an adverse action against a person and the person's exercise of rights protected was a motivating factor in the adverse action, unless the employer can prove that the action would have been taken in the absence of such protected activity. (7)The protections afforded shall apply to any person who mistakenly but in good faith alleges violations. (8)A complaint or other communication by any person triggers the protections of this section regardless of whether the complaint or communication is in writing or makes explicit reference to this chapter. ## §43.08 EXCEPTIONS. (A)This Chapter does not apply to apprentices working on Projects pursuant to a bona fide registered Apprenticeship Program for work performed in their trade. A trainee and a helper are not exempt under this provision; the Covered Person must assign the trainee or helper a job classification that is the “same or most similar” to the work being performed and compensate the trainee or helper for the actual work performed regardless of the trainee’s or helper’s skill. (B)This Chapter does not apply to any Project that received final project approval from the City on or before May 31, 2024. ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 6 ## §43.09 NO CONFLICT WITH RELATED FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPAL LAWS, ## ORDINANCES, AND POLICIES. Except as otherwise stated herein, no provision of this Ordinance is intended nor shall be construed as being in conflict with any federal, State of Minnesota, county or municipal laws, ordinances, rules, regulations, or policies related to the matters to be regulated herein. Further, the obligations and requirements contained in this Ordinance shall be deemed to be in addition to the obligations and requirements contained in any such federal, state county or municipal laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations. ## §43.10 SEVERABILITY. If any of the parts or provisions of this article or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this article, including the application of such part or provisions to persons or circumstances other than those to which it is held invalid, shall not be affected thereby and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this article are severable. ## Section 2. Effective Date This ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days from and after its adoption and publication. ## 7.1A ORDINANCE Page 7 ## DISCUSSION DRAFT FOR 4-29-24 ## ORDINANCE NO. 2024- ## AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 OF THE CITY CODE ## TO ESTABLISH PREVAILING WAGE ## The City Council of the City of Bloomington, Minnesota ordains: Section 1. That Chapter 23 of the City Code is hereby amended by deleting those words that are contained in brackets and [stricken through] and adding those words that are underlined, to read as follows: ## CHAPTER 23: [EARNED SICK AND SAFE TIME] LABOR *** ## ARTICLE II: PREVAILING WAGE ## § 23.30 FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. The City Council finds that: It is in the public interest that Projects, as defined herein, be constructed, maintained and provided by the highest quality of labor that is reasonably available and that persons working on such Projects be compensated according to the real and equitable value of the work they perform and that the wages for such work are comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole. ## § 23.31 DEFINITIONS. (a) TERMS. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases have the meanings ascribed to them in this section: APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM means a bona fide apprenticeship program registered with the U.S. Department of Labor or recognized by a governmental agency of the State of Minnesota. BASIC HOURLY RATE means the hourly wage paid to any employee. CERTIFIED PAYROLL RECORDS means payroll records furnished under oath signed by an owner or officer of an employer and provided to the City department, division, or office named in the contract no more than fourteen (14) days after the end of each pay period including a certified payroll report with respect to the wages and benefits paid each employee during the preceding week specifying for each employee: name; prevailing wage master job classification; number of hours worked each day; total hours worked in the week; rate of pay; gross amount earned; each deduction for taxes; total deductions; net pay for week; dollars contributed per hour for each benefit, including name and address of administrator; benefit account number; and telephone number for health and welfare, vacation or holiday, apprenticeship training, pension, and other benefit programs. ## DISCUSSION DRAFT FOR 4-29-24 CITY means the City of Bloomington, the Housing and Redevelopment Authority in and for the City of Bloomington, and the Port Authority of the City of Bloomington. CITY FUNDS means contract payments, grants, loans, loan guarantees, tax increment financing, tax abatements, tax credits, lease payments, loan payments, contract for deed payments, revenue from bonds, or any other financial assistance. COMPLIANCE OFFICER means those positions designated by the City Manager to investigate complaints pertaining to this article on behalf of the City. COVERED PERSONS means contractors, subcontractors, holders of interests in real property, agents, or other persons regardless of the form of business entity used by the Covered Person, including but not limited to individuals, sole proprietorships and independent contractors, performing all or part of the work on Projects. DEPARTMENT means the department, division, or office of the City designated to undertake a Project. PREVAILING WAGE RATE shall have the meaning contained in Minnesota Statutes, Section 177.42, Subd. 6, as determined from time to time by the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry for the area where the Project is located. The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry shall determine the prevailing wage rate in accordance with Minnesota Statutes, Sections 177.41-177.44, and applicable rules promulgated thereto, including but not limited to Minnesota Rules Parts 5200.1000-5200.1120. PREVAILING HOURS OF LABOR means the hours of labor per day and per week worked within the area by a larger number of workers of the same class than are employed within the area for any other number of hours per day and per week. The prevailing hours of labor may not be more than eight hours per day or more than 40 hours per week. PROJECT(S) means any construction work, demolition work, or repair work on any roads, bridges, sewers, streets, alleys, parks, parkways, buildings, removal of public nuisances or any other improvement of public or private property where (a) the Project is financed in whole or in part with City Funds and (b) the estimated cost of the Project exceeds $175,000. ## § 23.32 PREVAILING WAGE RATE AND PREVAILING HOURS OF LABOR ## REQUIRED. (a) Prevailing Wage Required. Except as otherwise provided below in Section 23.36 [exceptions], all Covered Persons shall pay Laborers, Mechanics, and Workers directly performing work on a Project, at a minimum, the Prevailing Wage Rate. (b) Prevailing Hours of Labor. Laborers, Mechanics and Workers employed directly on a Project by a Covered Person may not work more hours than the Prevailing Hours of Labor, unless paid for all hours in excess of the Prevailing Hours of Labor at a rate of at least one and one-half (1 ½) times the Basic Hourly Rate of pay. ## DISCUSSION DRAFT FOR 4-29-24 (c) Notice. Each Covered Person must post a notice describing the applicable Prevailing Wage Rate in at least one conspicuous place located on the Project site for the duration of the Project. ## § 23.33 CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. The requirements and obligations contained in this article are deemed to be incorporated into the bid specifications and requests for bids or proposals for all Projects and are material and binding terms and conditions of all contracts and subcontracts for Projects. The Prevailing Wage Rates, Prevailing Hours of Labor and Hourly Basic Rates of pay must be set forth specifically in the contract. All contracts for Projects must include applicable schedules of Prevailing Wage Rates. ## § 23.34 MONITORING AND COMPLIANCE. (a) Submission of Certified Payroll Records. Each Covered Person must furnish copies of Certified Payroll Records for all work performed on the Project no later than fourteen (14) calendar days after each pay period to the Department. (b) Compliance Officer. The Compliance Officer will investigate all complaints and monitor compliance upon receipt of a complaint regarding violations of this article. The Compliance Officer may request additional records reasonably required to monitor compliance or investigate complaints regarding this article. Upon request made by the Compliance Officer, each Covered Person shall promptly provide additional records reasonably required to monitor compliance with this article. Each Covered Person shall permit the Compliance Officer physical access to the site where the Project is located at any time for the purpose of monitoring compliance with this article. ## § 23.35 VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. (a) Civil Enforcement. In addition to pursuit of criminal sanctions as provided in clause (b), of this section, a violation of this article may result in the City undertaking the following actions: seeking injunctive relief to compel specific performance of the requirements contained in this article; withholding funds owed by the City to the violating party pursuant to an agreement in amounts sufficient to fully remedy and satisfy the violation together with the withholding of a fee equal to five (5) percent of the entire contract price to the City as liquidated damages; or the termination of the contract with the violating party. None of the foregoing remedies are intended to be exclusive of any other remedy, but each is in addition to every other remedy listed above or otherwise available. (b) Criminal Enforcement. Any Covered Person who violates the provisions of this article shall be guilty of a misdemeanor with each day of violation constituting a separate offense. (c) Administrative enforcement. As set forth in City Code Appendix A, the City Attorney may order any appropriate relief for a determination including, but not limited to back pay and fines. ## § 23.36 EXCEPTIONS. ## DISCUSSION DRAFT FOR 4-29-24 This article does not apply to apprentices working on Projects pursuant to a bona fide registered Apprenticeship Program for work performed in their trade. A trainee and a helper are not exempt under this provision; the Covered Person must assign the trainee or helper a job classification that is the “same or most similar” to the work being performed and compensate the trainee or helper for the actual work performed regardless of the trainee’s or helper’s skill. ## § 23.37 NO CONFLICTS OR PREEMPTIONS INTENDED. Except as otherwise stated herein, no provision of this article is intended nor shall be construed as being in conflict with any Federal, State of Minnesota, County or municipal laws, ordinances, rules, regulations or policies related to the matters to be regulated herein. Further, the obligations and requirements contained in this article shall be deemed to be in addition to the obligations and requirements contained in any such federal, state, county or municipal laws, ordinances, rules or regulations. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted or applied so as to create any power or duty in conflict with federal or state law. ## § 23.38 SEVERABILITY. If any part, term, or provision of this article is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unconstitutional, such portion shall be deemed severable and such unconstitutionality or invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this article, which remaining portions shall continue in full force and effect. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance is effective [upon publication]. Passed and adopted this __________ day of _______________, 2024. _______________________________ ## Mayor ## ATTEST: _______________________________ Secretary to the Council ## APPROVED: _______________________________ ## City Attorney NOTE: Also need to amend Chapter 1 and Appendix A ## JurisdictionJurisdiction Type ## Policy TypeRatesThresholdTIF Included ## Andover ## CityOrdinanceState$150,000No ## Bloomington ## CityOrdinanceState$175,000Yes ## Brooklyn Park ## CityOrdinanceState$50,000Yes ## Coon Rapids ## CityOrdinanceState$100,000No ## Duluth ## CityOrdinanceState$2,000Maybe ## Fridley ## CityOrdinanceState$25,000Maybe ## Gem Lake ## CityOrdinanceState$15,000No ## Grand Rapids ## CityOrdinanceState$25,000Maybe ## Hastings ## CityOrdinanceState$175,000No ## Maplewood ## CityOrdinanceStateNoneNo ## Minneapolis ## CityOrdinanceFederalNoneYes Minneapolis (Inclusionary Zoning and TIF Policy)CityOrdinanceFederalSubject to Inclusionary Zoning OrdinanceYes ## OakdaleCityPolicyState$50,000No ## Richfield CityOrdinanceState$300,000Mostly no ## Rochester CityOrdinanceState$175,000Mostly yes ## St. Cloud ## CityOrdinanceFederal$200,000Unclear ## St. Paul ## CityOrdinanceState$25,000Yes ## West St. Paul ## CityOrdinanceUnspecified$50,000Yes ## White Bear Lake ## CityOrdinanceState$15,000Maybe ## Carlton ## CountyResolutionUnspecified$150,000No ## Chisago ## CountyResolutionState$100,000No ## Dakota ## CountyResolutionState$25,000No ## Hennepin ## County ## ResolutionStateNoneNo ## Itasca ## CountyPolicyFederal$2,000No ## Ramsey ## CountyOrdinanceState$25,000Yes ## St. Louis ## CountyResolutionState$2,500/$25,000Unclear ## Washington ## CountyPolicyState$175,000Unclear ## Minneapolis Park Board ## Park BoardOrdinanceFederalNoneNA ## Duluth Port Authority ## Port AuthorityPolicyState$2,500/$25,000NA ## Metropolitan CouncilRegional CouncilResolutionState$175,000NA Anoka-Hennepin #11 ## School DistrictPolicyState$2,500/$25,000NA Duluth #709 ## School DistrictPolicyState/FederalNoneNA ## Minneapolis Special District #1 ## School DistrictPolicyState$2,500/$25,000NA ## St. Paul #625 ## School DistrictPolicyStateNoneNA ## White Bear Lake #624 ## School DistrictPolicyStateNone ## State of MinnesotaStateStatuteState$2,500/$25,000 ## WAGE THEFT FACTS ## Misclassification and Payroll ## Fraud in Construction ## Updated October 2023 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 1 (Please click on the information that YOU need) ## One-Page Facts 2 ## What Is Worker Misclassification, Payroll Fraud, and Wage Theft? 2 ## Worker Misclassification Disproportionately Affects Vulnerable Populations 5 ## Wage Theft is a Crime Against Construction Workers 8 ## Wage Theft is a Crime Against the Taxpayer 12 Ways to Combat Payroll Fraud and Wage Theft in Construction 15 Example Op-Eds on Misclassification and Wage Theft in Construction 20 Tables 28 Figure 1: Research on Construction Worker Misclassification and Payroll Fraud, 2004-2023 28 Figure 2: Research on Tax Fraud Due to Construction Worker Misclassification, 2004-2023 29 Videos 30 Infographics 34 ## State Enforcement Agencies 41 ## Research Sorted by Year 48 ## THIS IS A TOOLKIT ON ALL ## THINGS RELATED TO WAGE ## THEFT, MISCLASSIFICATION, ## AND PAYROLL FRAUD IN THE ## CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY This toolkit provides evidence-based fact sheets and informational tables, videos, and infographics intended to help deliver results for those fighting against worker misclassification and payroll fraud in construction. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 2 ## ONE-PAGE FACTS What Is Worker Misclassification, Payroll Fraud, and Wage Theft? Payroll fraud is rampant in the U.S. construction industry. Employers misclassifying their workers as “independent contractors” and paying workers entirely “off-the-books” in cash-only arrangements are two of the primary ways in which payroll fraud occurs. In construction, employers—either knowingly or unknowingly—engage in this illicit activity to reduce total costs and bid prices ( ## Ormiston, Belman, & Erlich, 2020 ). By classifying workers as independent contractors rather than as employees, businesses artificially reduce their labor costs by avoiding the payment of fringe benefits and by shifting their share of the tax burden onto workers. Employers who misclassify their workers do not pay their share of unemployment insurance, do not withhold income taxes for employees, and do not contribute to state workers’ compensation systems. Misclassification also enables other forms of wage theft, such as minimum wage violations and overtime violations, as independent contractors are not protected by federal statutes such ## as the Fair Labor Standards Act ( Erlich, 2020; Erlich & Gerstein, 2019; Cooper & Kroeger, 2017). Between 10% and 20% of employers misclassify at least one worker as an independent contractor ( Carré, 2015). Certain industries, like construction, are more prone to misclassification than others. In the past two decades, there have been at least 21 studies by academic professors, policy experts, and government agencies that have estimated the incidence of construction worker misclassification within the United States. These 21 studies cover 17 different U.S. states, six cities in the American South, and the United States as a whole. Although they each differ in methodology, the findings are clear and consistent: construction businesses are misclassifying blue-collar trades workers at alarmingly high rates. A landmark national study released in 2020 estimated that between 12% and 21% of all construction workers are misclassified as independent contractors or paid “off-the-books” in cash ( ## Ormiston, Belman, & Erlich, 2020 ). In Missouri, 21% of construction workers are misclassified or are working “off-the-books” in cash-only arrangements ( Kelsay, 2023). In New York, 18% of all independent contractors who were identified as “low-paid” were working in construction ( ## Moe, Parrot, & Rochford, 2020). In Massachusetts, 17% of audited construction companies were actively misclassifying employees ( ## Juravich, Ormiston, & Belman, 2021 ). In Rhode Island, 12% of construction employers misclassify workers (Ormiston & Juravich, 2022 ). In Kentucky, 26% of audited construction companies were actively misclassifying employees; an identical percentage was found in Michigan ( ## Kelsay & Sturgeon, 2011; Belman & Block, 2009). In Indiana, more than 47% of audited construction companies were actively misclassifying employees ( Kelsay & Sturgeon, 2010 ). While some independent contractors are classified legitimately and by their own choice, the disproportionate representation of misclassified independent contractors in construction suggests a pervasive problem in the industry that contributes to economic inequality. Fraudulent contractors who engage in employee misclassification underbid law-abiding, responsible competitors who properly classify their employees. This is especially true in low-bid models of construction, such as in lettings for public works projects. One study found that misclassification allowed unscrupulous employers to be awarded federal projects during the 2009 economic stimulus program after the Great Recession ( Locke & Ordonez, 2015). This places compliant construction firms at a disadvantage and puts them in a situation where they would either lose market share or be forced to engage in similar illicit employment practices in order to match their competitors’ bids. The result is an erosion of job quality for skilled trades workers, poorer infrastructure quality for communities, and less tax revenue and lower levels of funding for social insurance programs for state governments. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 3 ## Sources Listed by Release Year ## Kelsay, Michael. ( 2023). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in the Construction Industry in Missouri. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: In 2020, 21% of workers in Missouri’s construction industry were either misclassified as independent contractors or working “off-the-books” in cash-only arrangements. Misclassification and wage theft in the construction industry cost construction workers between $334 million and $465 million in lost wages and fringe benefits annually. Payroll fraud also costs Missouri $69 million in lost workers’ compensation contributions, $28 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions, and $45 million in forgone state income tax revenue. Ormiston, Russell and Tom Juravich. ( 2022). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in Rhode Island. Allegheny College; University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Institute for Construction Employment Research ## (ICERES). Key Finding: Rhode Island employers misclassified 4% of the state’s workforce in 2019, representing more than 19,000 workers. In construction, 12% of construction employers are misclassifying workers, affecting 8% of the industry workforce. Payroll fraud costs taxpayers between $25 million and $54 million annually. Juravich, Tom; Russell Ormiston; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). The Social and Economic Costs of Illegal Misclassification, Wage Theft, and Tax Fraud in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: Audits of employer payrolls from 2017 to 2019 indicate that more than one-in -six Massachusetts construction employers (17% to 18%) misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Utilizing a well-established empirical approach of indirectly estimating the full extent of misclassification, there were between 22,000 and 37,000 workers affected by wage and tax fraud in 2019, accounting for 9% to 16% of the industry’s workforce. This was especially prevalent among building finishing contractors (e.g., drywall, finish carpentry, painting). This led to $41 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions $41 million in lost income taxes, and $78 million in lost workers’ comp premiums in 2019. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2021). Construction Industry Insurance Fraud. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet describes workers’ compensation insurance premium fraud, notes that losses are estimated at $2 billion nationwide, and tells people how they can help. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2020). Construction Industry Poor Safety Standards. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet notes that contractors who skirt workers’ comp, wage, and tax laws often cut corners with safety and that tax fraud robs state and federal governments out of $8.4 billion per year. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2020). Construction Industry Wage Theft. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet describes wage theft, notes that construction workers have $946 million a year stolen from them, and tells people how they can help. Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; and Mark Erlich. ( 2020). An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry. Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Harvard University. Key Finding: In the average month in 2017, between 12% and 21% of construction industry workers were misclassified as independent contractors or working strictly off-the-books. Over the peak summer months, this increased to between 13% and 22%. Due to payroll fraud, contractors illegally reduce labor costs by between $6.2 billion and $11.7 billion per year. State workers’ compensations programs experienced a $1.7 billion shortfall due to misclassification. State unemployment insurance plans experienced a shortfall of up to $725 million. State income tax revenues are $552 million lower. As much as $4.3 billion owed to Social Security and Medicare and $1.3 billion in federal income taxes was never paid in 2017 due to payroll fraud. Under federal wage statutes, workers are entitled to time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours per week and to premium pay for work over holidays. Employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors can avoid paying these additional wages, resulting in $811 million to $1 billion in unpaid overtime and premium wages. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 4 Erlich, Mark. (2020). “Misclassification in Construction: The Original Gig Economy.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1-29. Key Finding: The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has predated the app-based gig economy, particularly in construction where a cash-based underground system of compensation has lowered standards and been among the major causes of the decline of union density. ## Moe, Lina; James Parrott; and Jason Rochford. ( ## 2020). The Magnitude of Low-Paid Gig and Independent Contract Work in New York State. The New School. Key Finding: 17.5% of low-wage independent contractors in New York worked in construction. ## Erlich, Mark and Terri Gerstein. ( ## 2019). Confronting Misclassification and Payroll Fraud: A Survey of State Labor Standards Enforcement Agencies. Harvard Law School. Key Finding: Misclassification, a tactic used by employers to reduce labor costs by depriving workers of protections, creates a non-competitive environment against law-abiding employers paying market-based wages and benefits. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ( 2018). Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangement News Release. U.S. Department of Labor. Key Finding: In 2017, 19% of independent contractors worked in the construction industry. See Table 8. ## Cooper, David and Teresa Kroeger. ( ## 2017). Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less than the Minimum Wage, At Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: Nationwide, wage theft costs up to $15 billion. Misclassification is one tactic that enables wage theft. ## Katz, Lawrence and Alan Krueger. ( 2016). The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. Harvard University; Princeton University. Key Finding: From 1995 to 2015, non-traditional employment rose from 11% to 16%, with online intermediary work, such as Uber and TaskRabbit, accounting for only 0.5% of workers as of 2015. Workers in non-traditional employment relationships earn less when compared to similar workers in traditional employment relationships. Locke, Mandy and Franco Ordonez. ( 2015). “Taxpayers and Workers Gouged by Labor-Law Dodge.” McClatchy DC Bureau. Key Finding: Misclassification allows fraudulent contractors to underbid law-abiding businesses on publicly-funded construction projects, as evidenced by contracts awarded in the economic stimulus following the Great Recession. ## Carré, Françoise. ( 2015). (In)dependent Contractor Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: State-level studies show that 10%-20% of employers misclassify workers independent contractors. Kelsay, Michael and James Sturgeon. ( 2011). The Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the Construction Sector in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: 26% of construction employers in Kentucky were engaged in misclassification. ## Kelsay, Michael and James Sturgeon. ( ## 2010). The Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the State of Indiana. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: Nearly half (47.5%) of audited employers in Indiana were engaged in misclassification. ## Belman, Dale and Richard Block. ( ## 2009). The Social and Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in Michigan. Michigan State University. Key Finding: 26% of construction firms misclassified employees. Among those who did so, 19% of their employees were misclassified (i.e., 6% of the entire industry workforce), costing the state over $2 million in UI tax revenue. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 5 ## Worker Misclassification Disproportionately ## Affects Vulnerable Populations There is currently no federal law against worker misclassification. When the Department of Labor investigates misclassification cases, it is often by proxy of investigating Fair Labor Standards Act violations such as minimum wage violations, which frequently coincide with misclassification cases ( ## GAO, 2009). As a result, worker misclassification is often an issue decided by state law, meaning those affected most by wage theft and payroll fraud are generally people who do not have federal avenues. Research has found that 43% of workers who have a legal complaint against their employers do not proceed with their complaints formally, citing lack of confidence in the claims or lack of legal knowledge and resources as the primary reasons ( Alexander & Prasad, 2014). Additionally, a CBS News investigation of 650,000 complaints across the United States found that state agencies only ruled in favor of claimants about half the time— and claimants are not compensated in one-third of successful cases ( Hacker et al., 2023). Lack of resources and unpunished violators lead to misclassification and payroll fraud among vulnerable workers. Immigrants are a vulnerable group that is particularly susceptible to wage theft. Research shows that both authorized immigrants and undocumented workers are more likely to experience wage theft in their employment. However, it is estimated that more than 1-in -10 construction workers are undocumented workers ( Isser, 2023). Immigrant workers may be forced to endure conditions that are exploitative for fear that their immigration status, or that of their co-workers, will be questioned ( Cooper & Kroeger, 2017). Immigrants working in construction are often subject to misclassification and late payment of wages, and many do not engage in remedial paths as they have little hope that they will recover wages that were stolen. It is common that companies will completely liquidate to avoid repayment of stolen wages, leaving workers without compensation of any kind (Juravich, Ablavsky, & Williams, 2015). Some construction contractors have been convicted on charges of forced labor—recruiting undocumented workers from Mexico and then refusing to pay them while threatening them with violence or deportation so they would not complain ( Slowey, 2019). Immigrants are overrepresented in independent contractor populations, which is especially harmful because hiring independent contractors allows employers to bypass the Immigration Reform and Control Act ( Moe, Parrot, & Rochford, 2020). By bypassing IRCA, employers do not verify the immigration status of their workers and benefit financially by exploiting those whom they suspect to be unauthorized ( ## Carré, 2015 ). This puts migrant laborers in a precarious situation in which complaints that lead to federal investigations could result in personal consequences, especially when Memoranda of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Labor and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expire ( Hallett, 2018). While vulnerable populations are particularly susceptible to misclassification, other demographic groups are not immune. Research indicates that during the growth of misclassification in the early 2000s, almost two-thirds of workers classified as independent contractors were white and had some college or higher- level education (GAO, 2007). Misclassification rates among construction workers in some states are as high as 40%, making it a practice most construction workers will encounter during their careers ( Ruckelshaus, 2007). Steps can be taken to protect all workers—regardless of their citizenship or immigration status—from the problem of illegal misclassification and wage theft. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 6 ## Sources Listed by Release Year Hacker, Chris; Ash-Har Quraishi; Amy Corral; Ryan Beard. ( ## 2023). “Wage Theft Often Goes Unpunished Despite State Systems Meant to Combat It.” CBS News. Key Finding: Even when wage theft is reported, employers often manage to avoid paying back the wages they owe. CBS News submitted public records requests to nearly every state labor department in the country and built a database of more than 650,000 total complaints. Of those cases, state agencies ruled in favor of claimants only about half of the time. Even when workers won their claims, more than a third of those successful cases—totaling nearly $1 billion—showed no money was ever recovered. Finally, if wage theft was treated the same as felony theft (or the threshold at which a misdemeanor street crime becomes a felony), 177,000 wage theft cases in 25 states could have been felony cases. This includes over 25% of cases in New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Maine, Montana, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, and Michigan. ## Moe, Lina; James Parrott; and Jason Rochford. ( ## 2020). The Magnitude of Low-Paid Gig and Independent Contract Work in New York State. The New School. Key Finding: 17.5% of low-wage independent contractors in New York worked in construction. The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires employers to verify each employee’s eligibility to work in the United States to ensure that they are accounted for in payroll taxes and insurance coverage. Independent contractors, however, do not need their eligibility verified, allowing employers to hire undocumented workers and deprive them of benefits and insurance coverage. ## Slowey, Kim. ( 2019). “Contractor Faces 20 Years in Prison for Forced Labor.” Construction Dive. Key Finding: An owner of several construction companies was convicted on charges of forced labor. The contractor recruited undocumented workers from Mexico and then refused to pay them. If they complained, he threatened them— and their families—with violence or with deportation. ## Hallett, Nicole. ( 2018). “The Problem of Wage Theft.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 37(1): 93. Key Finding: A Memorandum of Understanding was in place between the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that prevented undocumented workers from being deported if their immigration status was uncovered as a result of investigations into labor violations. When these memoranda expire, they may face deportation, which disincentivizes immigrants from reporting labor violations. ## Cooper, David and Teresa Kroeger. ( ## 2017). Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less than the Minimum Wage, At Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: Nationwide, wage theft costs up to $15 billion. Misclassification is one tactic that enables wage theft. Due to fear of deportation, immigrant workers are more likely to endure harmful and exploitative working conditions without reporting them. They are also less aware of appropriate reporting avenues. ## Alexander, Charlotte. ( ## 2017). “Misclassification and Antidiscrimination: An Empirical Analysis.” Minnesota Law Review, 101. 907-962. Key Finding: According to Census and Social Security Administration data, the industries where misclassification is most prevalent include real estate, construction, truck drivers, and barbers and cosmetologists. In the years 2005-2014, misclassification was brought as an argument in Title VII discrimination cases predominantly by physicians, surgeons, and insurance salespeople. This suggests the workers most affected do not pursue legal recourse due to lack of resources. ## Carré, Françoise. ( 2015). (In)dependent Contractor Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: State-level studies show that 10%-20% of employers misclassify workers independent contractors. High workers’ compensation premiums in injury-prone industries such as construction create a financial incentive for employers to hire workers, such as undocumented workers, who will not be covered by workers’ compensation. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 7 Juravich, Tom; Essie Ablavsky; and Jake Williams. (2015). The Epidemic of Wage Theft in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Key Finding: Due to the transient nature of undocumented workers, many working in the construction industry never receive the wages they are owed. Alexander, Charlotte and Arthi Prasad. (2014). “Bottom-Up Workplace Enforcement: An Empirical Analysis.” Indiana Law Journal, 89: 1069-1131. Key Finding: As worker power and stability decreases, so does their legal knowledge and ability to contest labor violations in the courts. 43% of workers who experience a workplace problem with their employer did not pursue the claim in court for fear of retaliation or lack of confidence in their claim. 43% of workers who did make a formal experienced retaliation in the form of termination, suspension, decreases in hours, or reporting the worker to law enforcement agencies. ## Government Accountability Office (GAO). ( ## 2009). Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention. Key Finding: Misclassification of workers enables other forms of wage theft, such as minimum wage theft. These minimum wage violations are investigated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which does not address misclassification. ## Government Accountability Office (GAO). ( ## 2007). Employee Misclassification: Improved Outreach Could Help Ensure Proper Worker Classification. Key Finding: A majority of independent contractors in construction were white, middle-aged men with at least some college education. These demographic characteristics did not prevent them from being misclassified. Ruckelshaus, Catherine. (2007). Providing Fairness to Workers Who Have Been Misclassified as Independent Contractors. National Employment Law Project (NELP). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education on Labor in the U.S. House of Representatives. Key Finding: Research estimates that misclassification rates in the construction industry could be as high as 40%. Later research corroborated that misclassification was a growing practice at the time of this testimony. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 8 ## Wage Theft is a Crime Against Construction Workers Worker misclassification allows employers to avoid paying market-competitive wages and to bypass labor standards. This includes Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rates on federal projects, state prevailing wage laws, and federal and state minimum wage laws. Workers classified as independent contractors earn less in comparison to workers classified as employees doing similar work. Nationally, construction workers who are misclassified as independent contractors earn as much as $16,700 less per year, or 32% less, in income compared to what they would have earned as employees ( Schmitt et al., 2023). Similarly, in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, misclassified construction workers earned between 29% and 36% less than their properly classified co-workers in total wages and fringe benefits. The effect is staggering: misclassified construction workers were paid between $23,000 and $26,000 less in total annual compensation than they would have been paid if they were properly classified ( Goodell & Manzo, 2021). Misclassification harms workers by depriving them of benefits, such as overtime pay, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and paid leave. Nationwide, researchers estimate that between $811 million and $1 billion in owed overtime and premium pay goes unpaid to misclassified construction workers (Ormiston, Belman, & Erlich, 2020). State-level studies in Missouri, Rhode Island, Nevada, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Michigan confirm that misclassification deprives workers of these vital benefits (Kelsay, 2023; Ormiston & Juravich, 2022; Waddoups, Duncan, & Ormiston, 2021; Juravich, Ormiston, & Belman, 2021; Ormiston, Erlich, & Belman, 2021; Canak & Adams, 2010; Belman & Block, 2009 ). Estimates from the construction industries in Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota indicate that misclassified workers experience a 62% to 66% decline in their non-monetary benefits ( ## Goodell & Manzo, 2021 ). In a case study of the Austin, Texas construction industry, around 71% of poverty-wage workers had no access to workers’ compensation coverage due to misclassification ( Cox, Timm, & Tzintzún, 2009). When workers’ compensation systems are underfunded due to the underground market, the premiums paid by law-abiding businesses must go up to make up the deficit, which can result in lower worker wages in the legal market as employers pay less to compensate for their increase in premiums ( Goh, 2004). Independent contractors are also not offered employer-sponsored health insurance plans. Even federally- funded jobs have not always provided benefits equally, with almost 20% of independent contractors unable to earn a living wage and without access to employer-sponsored health care coverage ( Edwards & Filion, 2009 ). As a result, a large portion of construction workers and their families are dependent upon social safety net programs ( Jacobs & Huang, 2021; Theodore & Doussard, 2006). There are avenues for recovery for workers victimized by the crime of wage theft. State agencies may order unpaid wages be paid; however, unscrupulous employers are likely to avoid paying even after litigation. Research from California indicates that only 42% of stolen wages are recovered by victims of wage theft. Even worse, just 17% of workers who prevailed in a wage theft claim in California recovered any wages at all ( Cho, Koonse, & Mischel, 2013). Similarly, a CBS News investigation of 650,000 complaints across the United States found that state agencies only ruled in favor of claimants about half the time— and claimants are not compensated in one-third of successful cases (Hacker et al., 2023). Despite these challenges, workers nationwide were able to recover $5.2 billion through the U.S. Department of Labor, state agencies, and class action lawsuits from 2015 through 2020 ( ## McNicholas, Mokhiber, & Chalkof, 2017; Mangundayao et al., 2021). ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 9 ## Sources Listed by Release Year ## Schmitt, John; Heidi Shierholz; Margaret Poydock; and Samantha Sanders. ( ## 2023). The Economic Costs of Worker Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When employers misclassify workers as independent contractors, they deprive them of fundamental labor rights. In construction, an independent contractor loses out on as much as $16,729 per year in income (32%) from being misclassified as an independent contractor compared with what they would have earned as an employee. Revenue for social insurance programs—Social Security, Medicare, Workers’ Compensation, and federal and state unemployment insurance—decreases by as much as $2,965 per construction worker per year due to misclassification as well (32%). Hacker, Chris; Ash-Har Quraishi; Amy Corral; Ryan Beard. ( ## 2023). “Wage Theft Often Goes Unpunished Despite State Systems Meant to Combat It.” CBS News. Key Finding: Even when wage theft is reported, employers often manage to avoid paying back the wages they owe. CBS News submitted public records requests to nearly every state labor department in the country and built a database of more than 650,000 total complaints. Of those cases, state agencies ruled in favor of claimants only about half of the time. Even when workers won their claims, more than a third of those successful cases—totaling nearly $1 billion—showed no money was ever recovered. Finally, if wage theft was treated the same as felony theft (or the threshold at which a misdemeanor street crime becomes a felony), 177,000 wage theft cases in 25 states could have been felony cases. This includes over 25% of cases in New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Maine, Montana, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, and Michigan. Ormiston, Russell and Tom Juravich. (2022). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in Rhode Island. Allegheny College; University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Institute for Construction Employment Research ## (ICERES). Key Finding: Rhode Island employers misclassified 4% of the state’s workforce in 2019, representing more than 19,000 workers. In construction, 12% of construction employers are misclassifying workers, affecting 8% of the industry workforce. Payroll fraud costs taxpayers between $25 million and $54 million annually. ## Waddoups, Jeffrey; Kevin Duncan; and Russell Ormiston. ( ## 2021). Payroll Fraud in Nevada’s Construction Industry: Extent and Fiscal Impact. University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Colorado State University-Pueblo; Allegheny College; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: There were about 12,700 workers who were either misclassified as independent contractors or employed off- the-books in Nevada’s construction industry in 2018, representing 11% of the industry and 14% of blue-collar construction workforce. This resulted in $31 million in unpaid workers’ comp premiums, a $12 million shortfall in the state UI fund, and $7 million in uncollected tax revenue via the Modified Business Tax. Juravich, Tom; Russell Ormiston; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). The Social and Economic Costs of Illegal Misclassification, Wage Theft, and Tax Fraud in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: Audits of employer payrolls from 2017 to 2019 indicate that more than one-in -six Massachusetts construction employers (17% to 18%) misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Utilizing a well-established empirical approach of indirectly estimating the full extent of misclassification, there were between 22,000 and 37,000 workers affected by wage and tax fraud in 2019, accounting for 9% to 16% of the industry’s workforce. This was especially prevalent among building finishing contractors (e.g., drywall, finish carpentry, painting). This led to $41 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions $41 million in lost income taxes, and $78 million in lost workers’ comp premiums in 2019. Jacobs, Ken and Kuochih Huang. ( 2021). The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in California’s Construction Industry. University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: 48% of families in which at least one adult who works in construction are enrolled in public safety net programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, and SNAP at an estimated annual cost of $3 billion. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 10 Mangundayao, Ihna; Celine McNicholas; Margaret Poydock; and Ali Sait. (2021). More Than $3 Billion in Stolen Wages Recovered for Workers Between 2017 and 2020. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: Between 2017 and 2020, $3.24 billion in stolen wages was recovered on behalf of workers by the U.S. Department of Labor, state departments of labor and attorneys general, and through class and collective action litigation— but this represents just a small portion of wages stolen from workers across the country. Potential policy options include increasing funding for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, engaging in proactive and strategic enforcement in industries where violations are especially rampant, enhancing civil monetary penalties for violations, protecting worker rights to unionize, and boosting funding for state and local enforcement. Ormiston, Russell; Mark Erlich; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). Payroll Fraud in New York’s Construction Industry: Estimating its Prevalence, Severity and Economic Costs. Allegheny College; Harvard University; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: There were between 76,000 and 126,000 workers who were either misclassified as independent contractors or employed off-the-books in New York’s construction industry in 2017, representing 13% to 21% of all construction workers. This resulted in $289 million in unpaid workers’ comp premiums and a $49 million shortfall in the state UI fund. Goodell, Nathaniel and Frank Manzo IV. ( 2021). The Costs of Wage Theft and Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois: Impacts on Workers and Taxpayers. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When compared to employees doing similar work, independent contractors earn about 30% in total compensation in the construction industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. This includes 13%-22% less in annual wages and 62%-66% in total benefits. Wage theft and payroll fraud cost a total of $362 million in lost state income taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, and workers’ compensation premiums in these three states every year. Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; and Mark Erlich. ( 2020). An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry. Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Harvard University. Key Finding: In the average month in 2017, between 12% and 21% of construction industry workers were misclassified as independent contractors or working off-the-books. Due to payroll fraud, contractors illegally reduce labor costs by $6.2 billion to $11.7 billion per year. State workers’ comp programs experienced a $1.7 billion shortfall due to misclassification. State UI plans experienced a shortfall of up to $725 million. State income tax revenues are $552 million lower. As much as $4.3 billion owed to Social Security and Medicare and $1.3 billion in federal income taxes was never paid in 2017 due to payroll fraud. Under federal wage statutes, workers are entitled to time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours per week and to premium pay for work over holidays. Employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors can avoid paying these additional wages, resulting in $811 million to $1 billion in unpaid overtime and premium wages. ## McNicholas, Celine; Zane Mokhiber; and Adam Chalkof. ( ## 2017). Two Billion Dollars in Stolen Wages Were Recovered for Workers in 2015 and 2016 – and That’s Just a Drop in the Bucket. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: In 2015 and 2016, $2 billion in stolen wages were repaid to victims of wage theft through litigation, state agency action, and class-action lawsuits. This figure is likely well below the amount actually stolen by wage theft yearly. Cho, Eunice Hyunhye; Tia Koonse; and Anthony Mischel. (2015). Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers. National Employment Law Project; University of California, Los Angeles. Key Finding: Only 42% of unpaid wages due to wage theft were recovered after being awarded to victims by the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement. The low chances of repayment combined with the exhaustive litigative process dissuades many from filing claims of wage theft. Canak, William and Randall Adams. ( 2010). Misclassified Construction Employees in Tennessee. Middle Tennessee State University; Tennessee Technical University. Key Finding: Between 12,000 and 39,000 construction workers are misclassified or unreported, affecting 11% to 21% of the construction workforce. Losses to state and federal programs were up to $15 million for the state’s UI program, $92 million in worker’s compensation premiums, $73 million in federal income tax, and $42 million in Social Security funding. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 11 Belman, Dale and Richard Block. (2009). The Social and Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in Michigan. Michigan State University. Key Finding: 26% of construction firms misclassified employees. Among those who did so, 19% of their employees were misclassified (i.e., 6% of the entire industry workforce), costing the state over $2 million in UI tax revenue. Edwards, Kathryn and Kai Filion. (2009). Outsourcing Poverty: Federal Contracting Pushes Down Wages and Benefits. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: From 2006 to 2007, the number of federal contract workers grew from 1.4 million to 2 million. Nearly 20% of these contract workers were unable to earn a living wage and did not have the same access to healthcare and retirement plans as provided to federal employees. Cox, Lauren; Emily Timm; and Cristina Tzintzún. ( ## 2009). Building Austin, Building Injustice. Workers Defense Project; The University of Texas at Austin. Key Finding: Access to workers’ compensation is one aspect of total compensation and benefits and is especially valuable in injury-prone industries such as construction. Removing workers’ access to workers’ compensation places the financial burden of medical care on workers, as well as public hospitals and safety net programs like Medicaid. ## Theodore, Nik and Marc Doussard. ( 2006). The Hidden Public Cost of Low-Wage Work in Illinois. University of Illinois at Chicago. Key Finding: Low-wage jobs in 2001-2004 caused working families to rely on government assistance programs. These families constituted 37% of public benefits spending in Illinois, including $92 million on families with construction workers. ## Goh, Yong Lee. ( 2004). The Effect of Higher Workers’ Compensation Premium Rates on Construction Worker Wages and the Reporting of Injuries. University of Utah. Key Finding: As workers’ compensation premiums rise in construction, workers experience a significant decrease in wages as well as pressure from employers to not report injuries and utilize workers’ compensation for medical care. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 12 ## Wage Theft is a Crime Against the Taxpayer Worker misclassification leads to shortfalls in government revenue. Employers withhold state and federal income taxes and make contributions to Social Security, Medicare, and state unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation systems on behalf of all workers on their payrolls. By misclassifying employees as “independent contractors,” fraudulent contractors leave workers fully responsible for reporting their incomes, paying taxes, and paying the full amount due to public programs like Social Security and Medicare. Research indicates that misclassified workers would earn higher wages if they were correctly considered employees. That additional income would be subject to state taxes. Furthermore, if they were not illegally paid in cash, the earnings of “off-the-books” construction workers would be fully reported and would be taxed. The result is that the federal government loses up to $1.3 billion in income tax revenues and up to $4.3 billion in Social Security and Medicare revenues due to misclassification and payroll fraud in construction ( Ormiston, Belman, & Erlich, 2020). States lose $1.7 billion in workers’ compensation payments, over $700 million in unemployment insurance contributions, and $552 million in income tax revenues due to misclassification and payroll fraud in construction ( Ormiston, Belman, & Erlich, 2020). Another national study estimates that revenue for Social Security, Medicare, workers’ compensation, and federal and state unemployment insurance decreases by as much as $3,000 (or 32%) per construction worker who is misclassified as an independent contractor ( Schmitt et al., 2023). Numerous state-level studies confirm budget shortfalls caused by construction worker misclassification. In California, the unemployment insurance system is cheated of $63 million and workers’ compensation system loses another $264 million every year due to misclassification and payroll fraud in construction ( Liu, Flaming, & Burns, 2014). In the construction industries of Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, more than $360 million is lost each year in income taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, and workers’ comp premiums (Goodell & Manzo, 2021). Studies in Missouri, Rhode Island, Nevada, Massachusetts, New York, Tennessee, and Michigan have found similar impacts ( Kelsay, 2023; Ormiston & Juravich, 2022; Waddoups, Duncan, & Ormiston, 2021; Juravich, Ormiston, & Belman, 2021; Ormiston, Erlich, & Belman, 2021 ; Canak & Adams, 2010; Belman & Block, 2009). Because misclassification reduces worker earnings and causes wage theft, fraudulent contractors create burdens on public services funded by taxpayers. Workers who have been misclassified are less likely to have private health insurance coverage—due to the drop in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage—and are more likely to rely on Medicaid ( Greenstein, 2018). Underfunding of workers’ compensation systems can shift the financial burden of treatment to public safety nets and local hospitals, with 20% of injured construction workers not being compensated for their injury in any way by their employers ( Cox, Timm, & Tzintzún, 2009). In California, a recent study found that 48% of all families where at least one adult works in construction are enrolled in means-tested government assistance programs like Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) food stamps. The cost to state public services is estimated at $3 billion per year (Jacobs & Huang, 2021). All workers and law-abiding businesses are forced to pay more in taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, and workers’ compensation premiums to cover the deficit caused by payroll fraud in construction. Because contractors with wage and safety violations produce lower-quality public works projects, taxpayers are also forced to pay more to maintain, repair, or replace infrastructure built by unscrupulous contractors who commit misclassification ( Sonn & Gebreselassie, 2009). As a result, wage theft is a crime against taxpayers. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 13 ## Sources Listed by Release Year ## Schmitt, John; Heidi Shierholz; Margaret Poydock; and Samantha Sanders. ( ## 2023). The Economic Costs of Worker Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When employers misclassify workers as independent contractors, they deprive them of fundamental labor rights. In construction, an independent contractor loses out on as much as $16,729 per year in income (32%) from being misclassified as an independent contractor compared with what they would have earned as an employee. Revenue for social insurance programs—Social Security, Medicare, Workers’ Compensation, and federal and state unemployment insurance—decreases by as much as $2,965 per construction worker per year due to misclassification as well (32%). ## Kelsay, Michael. ( 2023). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in the Construction Industry in Missouri. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: In 2020, 21% of workers in Missouri’s construction industry were either misclassified as independent contractors or working “off-the-books” in cash-only arrangements. Misclassification and wage theft in the construction industry cost construction workers between $334 million and $465 million in lost wages and fringe benefits annually. Payroll fraud also costs Missouri $69 million in lost workers’ compensation contributions, $28 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions, and $45 million in forgone state income tax revenue. Juravich, Tom; Russell Ormiston; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). The Social and Economic Costs of Illegal Misclassification, Wage Theft, and Tax Fraud in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: Audits of employer payrolls from 2017 to 2019 indicate that more than one-in -six Massachusetts construction employers (17% to 18%) misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Utilizing a well-established empirical approach of indirectly estimating the full extent of misclassification, there were between 22,000 and 37,000 workers affected by wage and tax fraud in 2019, accounting for 9% to 16% of the industry’s workforce. This was especially prevalent among building finishing contractors (e.g., drywall, finish carpentry, painting). This led to $41 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions $41 million in lost income taxes, and $78 million in lost workers’ comp premiums in 2019. Ormiston, Russell; Mark Erlich; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). Payroll Fraud in New York’s Construction Industry: Estimating its Prevalence, Severity and Economic Costs. Allegheny College; Harvard University; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: There were between 76,000 and 126,000 workers who were either misclassified as independent contractors or employed off-the-books in New York’s construction industry in 2017, representing 13% to 21% of all construction workers. This resulted in $289 million in unpaid workers’ comp premiums and a $49 million shortfall in the state UI fund. Jacobs, Ken and Kuochih Huang. ( 2021). The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in California’s Construction Industry. University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: 48% of families in which at least one adult who works in construction are enrolled in public safety net programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, and SNAP at an estimated annual cost of $3 billion. Goodell, Nathaniel and Frank Manzo IV. (2021). The Costs of Wage Theft and Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois: Impacts on Workers and Taxpayers. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When compared to employees doing similar work, independent contractors earn about 30% in total compensation in the construction industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. This includes 13%-22% less in annual wages and 62%-66% in total benefits. Wage theft and payroll fraud cost a total of $362 million in lost state income taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, and workers’ compensation premiums in these three states every year. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 14 Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; and Mark Erlich. (2020). An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry. Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Harvard University. Key Finding: In the average month in 2017, between 12% and 21% of construction industry workers were misclassified as independent contractors or working strictly off-the-books. Due to payroll fraud, state workers’ compensations programs experienced a $1.7 billion shortfall due to misclassification. State unemployment insurance plans experienced a shortfall of up to $725 million. State income tax revenues are $552 million lower. As much as $4.3 billion owed to Social Security and Medicare and $1.3 billion in federal income taxes was never paid in 2017 due to payroll fraud. ## Greenstein, Robert. ( 2018). Health Coverage Progress Stalls – Even as Economy Reduces Poverty, Boosts Income. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Key Finding: While poverty rates fell and median income rose in 2017, health insurance coverage did not increase nationally. 8.8% of the U.S. population, 28.5 million people, were not covered by health insurance in 2017, mostly being low wage working adults and their dependents. ## Yen Liu, Yvonne; Daniel Flaming; and Patrick Burns. ( ## 2014). Sinking Underground: The Growing Informal Economy in California Construction. Economic Roundtable. Key Finding: An analysis of California's construction industry found that 16% of construction workers were employed in the informal economy in 2011, including 104,100 construction workers who were not reported by their employers and 39,800 who were misclassified as independent contractors. The “informal tax gap” results in $774 million in lost revenue from payroll taxes alone—$301 million to the federal government and $473 million to California. Canak, William and Randall Adams. ( 2010). Misclassified Construction Employees in Tennessee. Middle Tennessee State University; Tennessee Technical University. Key Finding: Between 12,000 and 39,000 construction workers are misclassified or unreported, affecting 11% to 21% of the construction workforce. Losses to state and federal programs were up to $15 million for the state’s UI program, $92 million in worker’s compensation premiums, $73 million in federal income tax, and $42 million in Social Security funding. ## Belman, Dale and Richard Block. ( ## 2009). The Social and Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in Michigan. Michigan State University. Key Finding: 26% of construction firms misclassified employees. Among those who did so, 19% of their employees were misclassified (i.e., 6% of the entire industry workforce), costing the state over $2 million in UI tax revenue. ## Sonn, Paul and Tsedeye Gebreselassie. ( ## 2009). The Road to Responsible Contracting: Lessons from States and Cities for Ensuring That Federal Contracting Delivers Good Jobs and Quality Services. National Employment Law Project (NELP); University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: A 1983 Housing and Urban Development audit found an inverse relationship between wage violations and quality of projects for federally-funded construction. Cox, Lauren; Emily Timm; and Cristina Tzintzún. ( ## 2009). Building Austin, Building Injustice. Workers Defense Project; The University of Texas at Austin. Key Finding: Access to workers’ compensation is one aspect of total compensation and benefits and is especially valuable in injury-prone industries such as construction. 20% of construction workers in Austin who experienced an injury were not able to take advantage of workers’ compensation due to their status as independent contractors. This cost was largely absorbed by public hospitals caring for the injured workers. ## Theodore, Nik and Marc Doussard. ( 2006). The Hidden Public Cost of Low-Wage Work in Illinois. University of Illinois at Chicago. Key Finding: Low-wage jobs in 2001-2004 caused working families to rely on government assistance programs. These families constituted 37% of public benefits spending in Illinois, including $92 million on families with construction workers. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 15 ## Ways to Combat Payroll Fraud and Wage Theft in Construction The U.S. public believes that the misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a significant problem ( NELP, 2016). In a national survey of 1,000 registered voters, 84% said that misclassification is a serious problem. Another 78% of voters favor proposals that would make it harder for companies to misclassify workers as independent contractors and increase fines and penalties for misclassification, including 73% of Republicans. Combatting misclassification can be a popular political issue ( Erlich, 2020). While worker misclassification can be addressed indirectly through Federal Labor Standards Act (FLSA) investigations, misclassification is not explicitly mentioned in federal labor laws ( GAO, 2009). As a result, many states have enacted employee misclassification laws. Typically, state legislation increases the cost to employers that commit misclassification and wage theft by imposing fines or debarment. Research shows that this leads to a statistically significant decline in the practice, but only if paired with strong enforcement mechanisms ( Galvin, 2016). There are underutilized tactics that state agencies can use to deter misclassification. Many enforcement agencies rely heavily on formal complaints, which can be ineffective because vulnerable workers are hesitant to file complaints out of fear of retaliation ( ## Erlich & Gerstein, 2019; Weil & Pyles, 2006). Pairing complaint-driven investigations with targeted, randomized investigations of employers in industries that are prone to misclassification can increase the chances of exposing fraudulent contractors. Additionally, stop-work orders can halt all work on construction sites until contractors turn over payroll records and comply with investigators. Some agencies have reported that response times drop as low as one to two days with the use of stop-work orders ( Erlich & Gerstein, 2019). Another tool to help disenfranchised workers recover lost wages is to record a wage lien against contractors who are under investigation. Wage liens operate similarly to mechanic’s liens by not allowing employers to escape payment of wages by dissolving their businesses ( Cho, Koonse, & Mischel, 2013; Gleeson, Taub, & Noss, 2014). Upstream liability laws hold general contractors liable for the nonpayment of wages and benefits, regardless of which subcontractor breaks the law ( Ormiston et al., 2020). This form of multiemployer liability incentivizes self-policing in the industry by focusing efforts on upper-tier contractors that have authority to change practices through contractual agreements. California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, and Virginia have enacted such policies targeted at primary contractors ( Philips, 2021). Illinois’ law applies only to general contractors who are not signatories to collective bargaining agreements on private projects that exceed $20,000 and excludes single family residential projects (Chen, 2022 ). Wisconsin’s Task Force on Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification recommended enacting an upstream liability law ( DWD, 2021). Fully 71% of voters support holding general contractors legally responsible if their subcontractors fail to pay earned wages, unemployment insurance contributions, workers’ compensation premiums, and Social Security taxes—including 67% of Republicans ( ## NELP, 2016). Another legislative solution is to implement or strengthen prevailing wage laws (Hinkel, 2021). From 2010 through 2019, misclassification and off-the-books employment was 2% lower for construction workers in states with prevailing wage laws. That is because certified payroll records are typically used to survey local markets and ascertain prevailing wage rates for each craft, improving transparency and enforcement on public works projects. States with lower prevailing wage contract thresholds also had fewer construction workers who were misclassified or paid off-the-books because more projects were covered, making workers less vulnerable to illegal labor practices and taxpayers less vulnerable to fraud ( Hinkel, 2021). ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 16 Another mechanism to increase the efficacy of state misclassification laws is greater involvement by state Attorneys General (AGs) and District Attorneys (DAs) ( ## Gerstein, 2021). California, Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia have dedicated worker protection units within their AG offices that respond to workers’ rights issues. Washington State’s AG has also increased its involvement in labor enforcement. These units signal to employers that labor and employment laws will be enforced. They build connections with the labor movement and expand educational initiatives about workers’ rights and reporting mechanisms for those most at risk of misclassification ( Lawless, 2019; Gerstein, 2020; Gerstein & Wilpert, 2018). Importantly, Attorneys General can bring criminal prosecution against unscrupulous contractors that commit illegal misclassification and payroll fraud. If the threshold for wage theft was treated the same as property theft, 27% of all wage theft cases in 25 states would have been felony cases (Hacker et al., 2023). New York’s Wage Theft Accountability Act, signed into law in September 2023, made wage theft a felony, allowing prosecutors to charge larceny and to aggregate stolen wage amounts ( James et al., 2023). Several other states have enacted laws that create criminal liability for illegal misclassification ( ## Holt, 2021). In 2021, Pennsylvania’s Attorney General recovered more than $20 million in stolen wages for nearly 1,300 construction workers who worked for Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. between 2003 and 2018, the largest prosecution for prevailing wage theft in history ( Shapiro, 2021). Additional state actions can be pursued. Increasing funding for enforcement efforts—for example, by hiring more prevailing wage compliance monitors and more unemployment insurance auditors, especially those who speak multiple languages—would make a difference. States can strengthen punitive measures by enacting larger fines, creating escalating penalties for repeat offenders, and debarring contractors from winning bids on publicly-funded construction projects. States can also reform labor laws to presume that workers are employees, with the burden of proving an independent contractor relationship placed on the employing party ( Holt, 2021). These reforms generally include the “ABC test” in which workers are employees unless three criteria are met: [A] the worker is free from control and direction by the employing party, [B] the worker performs work outside of the course of the hiring party’s typical business, and [C] the worker is engaged in an independently established trade or businesses aligning with the work they perform for the hiring party. After Illinois passed the Employee Classification Act with an ABC test, $1.3 million in penalties against misclassifying employers were generated in 3 years ( Casey & Lewis, 2011). The federal government has proposed updated rules that would make it more difficult for companies to claim that their workers are independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act ( ## WHD, 2022). Among other changes, these proposed rules would restore the multifactor, “totality-of-the- circumstances” analysis to employee or independent contractor status, rescind the 2021 Independent Contractor Rule, and return to the longstanding interpretation of “economic reality” factors. The best way to combat wage theft is to expand unionization. When workers have a voice and are protected by unions, they are more likely to file complaints. Studies have shown that union members are more likely to be aware of misclassification and be familiar with reporting avenues (Cox, Timm, & Tzintzún, 2009 ; Construction Industry Tax Fraud, 2021). Additionally, in states with underfunded enforcement efforts, collective bargaining allows workers to organize for better treatment ( Mattera, 2018). Finally, if passed by Congress, the Protecting the Right to Organize (PRO) Act would amend the National Labor Relations Act to make misclassification an unfair labor practice that can be federally investigated and would strengthen the ability of workers to collectively bargain by establishing stiffer penalties on employers for violating labor law and by invalidating anti-union state laws ( Rhinehart et al., 2021). ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 17 ## Sources Listed by Release Year Wage and Hour Division (WHD). ( 2022). “U.S. Department of Labor Announces Proposed Rule on Classifying Employees, Independent Contractors; Seeks to Return to Longstanding Interpretation.” U.S. Department of Labor. Key Finding: “The proposed rule would provide guidance on classifying workers and seeks to combat employee misclassification. Misclassification is a serious issue that denies workers’ rights and protections under federal labor standards, promotes wage theft, allows certain employers to gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding businesses, and hurts the economy at-large.” ## Chen, Lori. ( 2022). “Illinois Governor Signs Bills Expanding Contractors’ Liability for Unpaid Wages of Subcontractors’ Workers.” Ogletree Deakins. Key Finding: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed House Bill 5412 and House Bill 4600 into law, which amend the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act to make certain primary contractors liable for any debt owed by a subcontractor (at any tier). HB 4600, the trailer bill, carves out two categories of contractors exempt from liability for such unpaid wages and benefits: (1) contractors who are signatories of collective bargaining agreements on projects where work is being performed and (2) primary contractors altering or repairing an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit. Additionally, HB 4600 also limits the scope of the amendment to the WPCA, applying it only to contractors doing work in Illinois that exceeds $20,000 on private (i.e., nongovernment) projects, other than an owner acting as a primary contractor on the owner’s primary residence. ## Phillips, Zachary. ( 2021). “New York State Legislature Passes Construction Wage Theft Bill.” Construction Dive. Key Finding: The New York State Senate and State Assembly passed legislation Wednesday that shifts liability to general contractors for wage theft cases on private construction projects. It made New York the 6 th state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to adopt this type of protective wage theft for construction workers. ## Shapiro, Josh. ( 2021). “Hawbaker Sentenced, Will Pay Workers More than $20 Million in Stolen Wages.” Pennsylvania Attorney General. Key Finding: Attorney General Josh Shapiro sentenced Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. for theft relating to violations of the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act and the federal Davis-Bacon Act. The plea includes paying $20,696,453 in stolen wages to 1,267 Pennsylvania workers. Hawbaker is one of the largest contractors to complete projects on behalf of the Commonwealth, receiving an estimated $1.7 billion in contracts between 2003 and 2018. The restitution is for the largest prevailing wage criminal case in U.S. history. Hawbaker pleaded to four felony counts of stealing wages from its workers. ## Rhinehart, Lynn; Celine McNicholas; Margaret Poydock; and Ihna Mangndayao. ( 2021). Misclassification, the ABC Test, and Employee Status: The California Experience and Its Relevance to Current Policy Debates. Key Finding: Federal and state policymakers should adopt the ABC test in their labor and employment laws to ensure workers are not misclassified, and are covered by important workplace rights and protections. Department of Workforce Development (DWD). ( ## 2021). Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification Report: 2021. State of Wisconsin. Key Finding: This is a report from the Task Force on Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification. In 2020, Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance (UI) Division auditors conducted nearly 1,300 audits and identified 8,900 misclassified workers, generating $2.34 million in UI taxes and interest. The task force recommends creating a new Insurance Fraud Bureau of Investigations and developing a statutory requirement of upstream liability, among other recommendations. ## Gerstein, Terri. ( 2021). How District Attorneys and State Attorneys General Are Fighting Workplace Abuses. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: District attorneys (DAs) and state attorneys general (AGs) have been bringing criminal prosecutions against law-breaking employers. This development is particularly important in light of limits in worker protection laws, underfunding of labor enforcement agencies, and employers’ increasing use of forced arbitration clauses. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 18 Holt, Josh. (2021). “Virginia Joins the Trend of States Cracking Down on Worker Misclassification in the Construction Industry.” Common Sense Contract Law. Key Finding: Virginia’s 2020 employee classification law assumes all workers are employees unless the employer can prove they are contractors under the IRS’s employment relationship test. The bill specifically targeted construction by barring known violators from bidding on public projects for two years. Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; Julie Brockman; and Matt Hinkel. ( ## 2020). Rebuilding Residential Construction. In Paul Osterman (Ed.), Creating Good Jobs: An Industry-Based Strategy, 75-113. MIT Press. Key Finding: An investigation of 71 drywall installers by Carpenters Local 525 in Kalamazoo, MI found 94% of contractors misclassified workers; 73% of 1,840 workers were misclassified or working off-the-books. Further, this book chapter describes the prevalence of illegal labor practices in residential construction and makes policy recommendations for incentivizing compliance with labor and employment law. ## Gerstein, Terri. ( 2020). Workers’ Rights Protection and Enforcement by State Attorneys General: State AG Labor Rights Activities from 2018 to 2020. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: In Washington, D. C., Massachusetts, and New York, state attorneys general have established offices to focus on labor rights. Cases brought against employers for misclassification have generated multiple millions in settlements. ## Erlich, Mark and Terri Gerstein. ( ## 2019). Confronting Misclassification and Payroll Fraud: A Survey of State Labor Standards Enforcement Agencies. Harvard Law School. Key Finding: Misclassification, a tactic used by employers to reduce labor costs by depriving workers of protections, creates a non-competitive environment against law-abiding employers paying market-based wages and benefits. Statutes governing state wage enforcement agencies explicitly dictate that they must rely on complaint-driven investigations either wholly or mostly. Regulators believe this to be ineffective as workers are intimidated into not reporting, do not know how to report, or are unaware that their employer is acting illegally. ## Lawless, Donald. ( 2019). “Michigan Employers Act Before the Payroll Fraud Enforcement Unit Comes Knocking.” The National Law Review, 11(207). Key Finding: State misclassification laws have caused employers to evaluate their practices for accidental or intentional misclassification and stop the practice before penalties were administered. ## Gerstein, Terri and Marni von Wilpert. ( ## 2018). State Attorneys General Can Play Key Roles in Protecting Workers’ Rights. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: State attorneys general have the authority to direct regulatory agencies and build cases against employers in violation of wage and labor laws and to launch labor education programs in industries where misclassification is prevalent. ## Mattera, Philip. ( 2018). Grand Theft Paycheck: The Large Corporations Shortchanging Their Workers’ Wages. Good Jobs First. Key Finding: Government enforcement of labor laws are subject to administrations hostile to workers and sympathetic to employers. Union representation allows more workers to recover stolen wages. Galvin, Daniel. (2016). “Deterring Wage Theft: Alt-Labor, State Politics, and the Policy Determinants of Minimum Wage Compliance.” Perspectives on Politics, 14(2): 324-350. Key Finding: Employers base their wage theft strategies on the expected probability of detection and the monetary cost of a violation being detected. State laws that increase the costs of violations that are detected have led to statistically significant declines in wage theft, if coupled with equally strong enforcement mechanisms. ## National Employment Law Project (NELP). ( 2016). Contracted Out: Findings from a National Voter Survey. Key Finding: In a national survey of 1,000 registered voters, 84% of Americans said that companies misclassifying workers as independent contractors is a serious problem and 78% said that workers are better off when they are employees. 78% favor making it harder for companies to misclassify workers as independent contractors, including 73% of Republicans. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 19 Cho, Eunice Hyunhye; Tia Koonse; and Anthony Mischel. (2015). Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers. National Employment Law Project; University of California, Los Angeles. Key Finding: Only 42% of unpaid wages due to wage theft were recovered after being awarded to victims by the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement. In response to low rates of repayment of stolen wages, wage liens can be used to prevent employers from dissolving their company to avoid repayment. When a wage lien is in place, a company dissolving or declaring bankruptcy must retain funds to pay the lien before liquidating. ## Gleeson, Shannon; Ruth Silver Taube; and Charlotte Noss. ( 2014). Santa Clara County Wage Theft Report. University of California, Santa Cruz; Santa Clara Law. Key Finding: Filing wage liens is often the responsibility of local government officials. To bring successful wage theft claims, individuals and classes can engage with local government officials for support in ensuring repayment. ## Ordonez, Franco and Mandy Locke. ( ## 2014). “IRS’ ‘Safe Harbor’ Loophole Frustrates Those Fighting Labor Tax Cheats.” McClatchy D. C. Bureau. Key Finding: Due to the “safe harbor” provision in the Revenue Act, revenue officers charged with investigating worker misclassification and payroll fraud often find themselves unable to administer penalties or change employer practices. Some IRS examiners describe the provision as the “greatest impediment” to fighting worker misclassification. Casey, Robert and Eva Lewis. ( 2011). Independent Contractors and Employee Misclassification in the Construction Industry. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. Key Finding: The Illinois Employee Cla ssification Act assumes all construction workers are employees unless the employing party can prove they are independent contractors. In the first 3 years after enactment, $1.3 million in penalties was recovered for misclassified workers. This bill bars known violators from bidding on public project for up to 4 years. Cox, Lauren; Emily Timm; and Cristina Tzintzún. ( ## 2009). Building Austin, Building Injustice. Workers Defense Project; The University of Texas at Austin. Key Finding: Texas’ so-called “right-to-work” law has severely reduced union density in construction. However, when surveyed, union construction workers were 58% more likely to know about their labor rights than non-unionized workers. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009). Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention. Key Finding: Misclassification of workers enables other forms of wage theft, such as minimum wage theft. These minimum wage violations are investigated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which does not address misclassification. Weil, David and Amanda Pyles. ( 2006). “Why Complain? Complaints, Compliance, and the Problem of Enforcement in the U.S. Workplace.” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 27(59): 59-92. Key Finding: For every 130 minimum wage violations in the United States, only one complaint is filed with the appropriate regulatory agency. Explanations for this gap include the fear of retaliation from employers and lack of unionization. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 20 ## Example Op-Eds on Misclassification and Wage Theft in Construction ## Solis, Hilda. ( 2017). “Opinion: Wage Discrimination in Construction Industry Makes Minimum Standards a Good Idea.” The Mercury News. ## Opinion: Wage Discrimination in Construction ## Industry Makes Minimum Standards a Good Idea The Mercury News (San Francisco Bay Area) | By Hilda L. Solis | August 30, 2017 Equal pay for equal work remains elusive, even here in progressive California. A recent study by Smart Cities Prevail showed that Latinos make up two thirds of the construction workforce, yet only make about 70 cents on the dollar of white workers with the same skills. The study noted that Latino construction workers also are significantly more likely to be uninsured and to struggle with housing affordability. Low minimum wage standards are one factor that contributes to these types of disparities. California legislators are soon expected to consider streamlining development of more housing across our state. At its core, the proposal involves removing certain regulatory hurdles in exchange for guarantees that a small percentage of new developments will include “affordable” units. A similar effort failed last year when no agreement was reached on wage standards for workers on streamlined projects. According to industry research, workers’ wages and benefits are just 15 percent of the total cost of constructing housing. By comparison, profits for developers and contractors are 18 percent of costs and growing faster than the cost of labor. And while inflation-adjusted construction wages are down 25 percent over the last 20 years, housing prices have soared as much as 54 percent in some markets. Declining wages mean more worker reliance on Medicaid, Food Stamps and other assistance programs. And with labor standards being eroded, other problems have become more pervasive. For example, wage theft occurs when employees are paid for fewer hours than they worked, less than legally required, or when their employer is paying in cash and cheating on payroll taxes. California’s construction industry has seen a 400 percent increase in wage theft since the 1970s—a period that has also seen a dramatic increase in the share of immigrants in our construction workforce. A recent study by the Economic Roundtable found that one in six California construction workers is now affected by these crimes. Construction wage theft’s annual cost to California workers and taxpayers is in the billions of dollars. By including things like prevailing wage in a housing streamlining package, California can take an important step in combatting this cycle of exploitation. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 21 Prevailing wage requirements provide a livable, minimum pay rate for construction workers that is consistent with local market standards. By stabilizing the wage floor, the requirement closes pay gaps that disproportionately impact communities of color, decreases the likelihood of working people living in poverty, increases rates of health coverage and increases the probability of a non-white individual pursuing a career in construction. Prevailing wage also increases participation in skilled trade apprenticeship programs. These programs not only expand a worker’s lifetime earnings by as much as $240,000, but enable construction workers to acquire skills that improve safety, productivity and efficiency on the jobsite. These skills are essential if we hope to boost housing supply in sufficient quantities to close the affordability gap. To formulate sound policy consistent with California’s values, we need to have an honest conversation about how we arrived at our present crisis. By depressing wages and productivity and turning a blind eye to the growing wage theft epidemic, industry profits have exploded. But so has the income gap within the industry, as well as the number of Californians priced out of the housing market. Something isn’t working. In housing reform, we are being asked to de-regulate one of our state’s most lucrative industries. In return, aren’t taxpayers entitled to ask that this industry do right by its workers? Hilda L. Solis is a former member of Congress and was Secretary of Labor from 2009-2013. She now serves on the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. She wrote this for The Mercury News. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 22 Sproule, William. (2023). “Opinion: The Deadly Serious Consequences of Illegal Employee Misclassification.” City & State Pennsylvania. ## Opinion: The Deadly Serious Consequences of Illegal Employee Misclassification Low wages and employee misclassification often go hand-in -hand with unsafe job sites where safety rules are sometimes ignored. City & State Pennsylvania | By William Sproule | May 1, 2023 There are an estimated 2.16 million construction workers in the U.S. who are illegally paid and misclassified as independent contractors every year by thousands of unscrupulous contractors, intent on defrauding federal, state and local governments out of an estimated $8.4 billion. The Pennsylvania Joint Task Force on the Misclassification of Employees found that such misclassification resulted in an annual loss of $91 million to Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. Greed is the prime motivating factor that drives more and more contractors to underpay their workers, offer no benefits or medical coverage, and routinely use labor brokers to keep their employees off the books and avoid paying taxes, Social Security benefits and insurance coverage. This illegal practice allows those who cheat to substantially underbid their law-abiding competitors, who absorb all appropriate employee costs – including paying all required taxes, health insurance, retirement and workers’ compensation benefits. Misclassification puts ill-gotten gains in the pockets of tax cheats, while also defrauding the government. It encourages lawlessness and an environment where workers are exploited, taken advantage of, and endangered. The UC Berkeley Labor Center found that “28% of families of construction workers in Pennsylvania are enrolled in one or more safety net programs at a cost to the state and federal government of $428 million per year.” Compared to all Pennsylvania workers, construction workers are more than twice as likely to lack health insurance (7% compared to 16%). Low wages and employee misclassification often go hand-in -hand with unsafe job sites where OSHA safety rules are often ignored, if nonexistent. The failure to enforce job safety requirements has had deadly consequences – and law enforcement and local prosecutors are now paying attention and taking action. One case involved a 27-year-old Irish immigrant with an American wife and an infant son. He tragically lost his life working as a misclassified subcontractor for a Delaware County company that was criminally charged with unlawful labor practices, including multiple counts of Workplace Misclassification, Deceptive Business Practices, and Insurance and Worker’s Compensation Fraud. Another recent case involved an immigrant from Belarus who left behind a wife and a three-month-old child after he was killed on a job where the contractor was cited by OSHA for general safety and health violations and a failure to provide fall protection. Misclassification has severe consequences beyond the financial loss to federal, state and local government coffers. It is a symptom of an illegal business model that cuts corners, pays low wages, fails to play by the rules and is willing to risk workers’ lives. It’s time to increase enforcement and prosecution of those who willfully break the law and misclassify their workforce while ignoring job site safety requirements – all to enrich themselves. William C. Sproule is Executive Secretary-Treasurer for the Eastern Atlantic States Regional Council of Carpenters where he represents over 43,000 carpenters from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 23 James, Letitia; Alvin Bragg; Catalina Cruz; and Joseph Geiger. (2023). “Commentary: Wage Theft Is a Serious Crime. We’re Finally Treating It That Way.” The Times Union. Commentary: Wage Theft Is a Serious Crime. We’re Finally Treating It That Way. The Wage Theft Accountability Act is an important tool for protecting workers and holding employers accountable. The Times Union | By Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, Catalina Cruz and Joseph Geiger | September 12, 2023 What do a deli in the Bronx, a car wash in Queens and a construction site in Manhattan have in common? These are among the thousands of businesses across the state facing complaints of wage theft, a pernicious practice in which employers refuse to pay workers what they are owed. Every year, New York businesses cheat more than 2 million workers out of over $3.2 billion in wages, a third of which comes from those earning minimum wage. This is money that families rely on to put food on the table, yet wage theft — even when it amounts to tens of thousands of dollars in stolen pay — has been only a misdemeanor in New York, akin to trespassing or jumping a subway turnstile. As a result, prosecutors lack the tools to stop employers who line their pockets with money their employees worked hard to earn. If it is wrong to steal from someone’s house or a bank, it is just as wrong to steal a person’s wages and labor; for many people, labor is all they have. But as misdemeanors, these cases are subject to limited discovery and a short statute of limitations, which do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. For busy law enforcement offices with limited resources, wage theft’s status as a misdemeanor has meant this crime goes unprosecuted far too often. It is clear we need stronger measures to hold the perpetrators of wage theft accountable. And New York took a crucial step in the right direction recently when Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Wage Theft Accountability Act into law. Sponsored by Assemblymember Catalina Cruz and Sen. Neil Breslin, this legislation has made wage theft a felony, giving our prosecutors an important tool to hold employers accountable when these calls come in. The bill, which went into effect immediately after the governor signed it on Wednesday, allows prosecutors to charge larceny for stolen wages and to aggregate stolen wage amounts, which will now provide much more effective deterrence and consequences for employers who cheat workers. The Wage Theft Accountability Act recognizes wage theft for what it is: a criminal act. By signing this bill into law, Gov. Hochul has sent a clear message to unscrupulous employers that exploiting their employees will result in serious consequences. Furthermore, it gives workers the legal backing to fight against such exploitation and brings long-overdue justice to victims. But this legislation goes beyond penalizing wrongdoing; it promotes economic fairness. Fair wages mean more consumer spending, greater job creation and stronger communities. Higher wages also lead to increased income tax revenue, providing additional resources for public services and infrastructure improvements. This legislation is not just about punishing criminals; it's about protecting the workers who are the backbone of our economy. It's about justice, equity and economic prosperity. For the people who have reached out for help to no avail, and in the name of countless others silently suffering the financial burden of wage theft, New York needed to take action once and for all. With this law, we have ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 24 seized the opportunity to protect our workers, our communities and our economy by recognizing wage theft as the outrageous crime that it is. Letitia James is attorney general of the state of New York. Alvin Bragg is the Manhattan district attorney. Assemblymember Catalina Cruz of Queens represents the 39th Assembly District. Joseph Geiger is executive secretary-treasurer of the New York City and Vicinity District Council of Carpenters. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 25 Weidl, Evan. (2022). “Opinion: Wage Theft Needs More Attention.” The Daily Iowan. ## Opinion: Wage Theft Needs More Attention The issue of wage theft needs more recognition to be properly combated. The Daily Iowan | By Evan Weidl | December 11, 2022 If you are a worker in Iowa, there is a good chance you’re being robbed, and you may not even know it. The most common form of theft in the U.S. is not committed via petty crime. It’s wage theft. Every year, Iowa workers do not receive an estimated $900 million owed to them, according to Common Good Iowa. This includes overtime violations, minimum wage violations, forced work off the clock, and other violations. Wage theft is one of the most serious and overlooked issues in the U.S. Law enforcement must do more to prevent wage theft, and our lawmakers must do more to protect workers. Workers who are affected by wage theft are primarily low-wage workers. In the 10 most populous states, 2.4 million workers lose $8 billion annually to minimum wage violations, according to the Economic Policy Institute. This averages out to about $3,300 per year per worker. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that wage theft affects 17 percent of low-wage workers. Law enforcement must be more vigilant about preventing wage theft. Workers are protected from wage theft under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Even those who are not authorized to work in the U.S. are protected under this law. The Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted to protect workers from exploitation from their employers. This includes establishing regulations such as minimum wage and requirements for overtime pay. It is one problem that workers are being robbed of millions in plain sight. It is another that so little is being done to get it back and prevent it from happening again. In Iowa, for every $1,000 stolen via wage theft, just $2 are recovered by public agencies. This loses the state over $190 million in tax revenue. Wage theft is illegal in Iowa, and it’s time for the government to start doing more to protect workers. The government must take measures to ensure wage theft does not happen in the first place, and if it does happen, enact strong punishments on those who rob their workers. To prevent wage theft, the state should make it easier to file wage theft claims, make stronger anti-retaliation laws, and hire more investigators to look into claims. Furthermore, the punishments for wage theft must be firmer. Many employers who get caught stealing from their workers do not face adequate penalties, which promotes further wage theft. The courts must hand out sentences of large fines and considerable jail time to those who are convicted of stealing from their employees, ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 26 It is crucial to recognize that the government will not take these steps to protect workers willingly. In 2015, a Republican-led House shot down a bill that would have protected co-workers who testify against employers from retaliation and required employers to keep records on terms of employment, according to The Cedar Rapids Gazette. The only way workers will get the protections they deserve is by putting pressure on the state and forcing the government’s hand. This could be achieved through actions such as strikes and walk-outs. Action from workers would also bring attention to the issue and shift the narrative. Many people who aren’t getting paid what they are owed may not even realize it, or may think it’s just an unfortunate reality of being a worker. Workers stand up and take what they are owed. It is beyond time for Iowa and the U.S. to stand up against predatory employers who steal from their own employees, but if the government is ever going to take such actions, it will only be because mass amounts of workers joined together and demanded they get what they deserve. Evan Weidl is an Opinions Columnist at The Daily Iowan, the independent, student-run newspaper at the University of Iowa. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 27 ## Other Op-Eds Listed by Release Year ## LaBarbera, Gary. ( 2021). “Viewpoint: Measure Will Fight Wage Theft in Construction Industry.” Times Union. Key Finding: The President of the New York State Building & Construction Trades Council says that $300 million in stolen wages were recovered for exploited workers since 2011, but fraudulent contractors still retain hundreds of millions more. Obernauer, Charlene. (2021). “Op-Ed: Wage Theft is a Crime – It’s Time to Put an End to It.” amNY. Key Finding: The Executive Director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health says that a “tell-tale sign of unsafe working conditions are whispers of wage theft violations against workers on private construction projects.” ## Leberstein, Sarah. ( 2021). “The Next Big Step in Stopping Wage Theft in the Construction Industry.” Gotham Gazette. Key Finding: An employment attorney hears daily from construction workers cheated of their wages by subcontractors, especially those on nonunion and residential sites where many immigrant workers are employed. ## Castro, Manuel. ( 2021). “Opinion: Wage Theft is Rampant in NY’s Construction Industry. Albany Can Act Now to Curb It.” City Limits. Key Finding: Addressing wage theft and giving exploited workers a more secure path to recouping unpaid wages would represent a major step towards making sure that immigrant workers are given dignity though hard and important work. ## Sproule, William. ( 2021). “Op-Ed: Construction Industry Tax Cheats Need to Be Held Accountable.” Metro Philadelphia. Key Finding: Construction industry tax cheats fail to pay their workers fair living wages and rarely provide medical coverage, while also evading federal, state, and local taxes, overtime, and workers’ compensation premiums. This gives them a tremendous competitive edge when it comes to bidding on both public and private jobs against law-abiding contractors. ## White, Victor. ( 2019). “Nashville is Being Built on a Pyramid of Payroll Tax Fraud: Opinion.” Tennessean. Key Finding: $2.6 billion in payroll tax fraud is lost annually. 45% of construction workers in the South reported they did not have workers’ compensation. Workers who reported wage theft lost a median of $800. ## Sanchez, Cesar. ( 2019). “Bay Area Governments Taking Action on Wage Theft.” East Bay Express. Key Finding: The City of Berkeley’s “wage transparency” ordinance withholds a certificate of occupancy from projects where workers have alleged wage violations, requires contractors provide workers with detailed pay stubs outlining wage rates and deductions, and publicly posts contact information for state enforcement agencies at each jobsite. ## Bonilla, Rick. ( 2017). “Op-Ed: Wage Theft is Preventable.” The Daily Journal. Key Finding: It is up to local cities to enact “wage transparency” ordinances to improve accountability. ## Schoonmaker, Derek. ( ## 2016). “Suit Against Trump Spotlights All-Too-Common Wage Theft.” San Francisco Chronicle. Key Finding: Wage theft is a crime against workers, against taxpayers, and against honest businesses. It is prevalent in low- wage industries such as construction, food services, custodial services, and landscaping. ## Skinner, Nancy. ( 2015). “Guest Commentary: Cities Can Play a Role in Stopping Wage Theft.” Marin Independent Journal. Key Finding: Wage theft cheats California taxpayers out of at least $8.5 billion a year in uncollected taxes. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 28 ## TABLES ## FIGURE 1: RESEARCH ON CONSTRUCTION WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION AND PAYROLL FRAUD, 2004-2023 ## Authors Year Geography Misclassification Estimates ## Kelsay 2023 Missouri 21% of construction industry workers were either misclassified or working “off-the-books” Ormiston & ## Juravich ## 2022 Rhode Island 12% of construction employers are misclassifying workers, affecting 8% of the industry workforce ## Waddoups, Duncan & ## Ormistron 2021 Nevada 14% of blue-collar construction workers are misclassified or employed off-the-books ## Juravich, Ormiston & ## Belman 2021 Massachusetts More than one-in -six employers (17% to 18%) misclassify workers, affecting 9% to 16% of workers ## Ormiston, Erlich & Belman 2021 New York 13% to 21% misclassified or working off-the-books Goodell & ## Manzo 2021 ## Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois 18% are misclassified or paid off the books, including 23% in MN, 20% in IL, and 10% in WI ## Ormiston, ## Belman & Erlich 2020 United States 12%-21% estimated illegal employment rate nationally Xu & Erlich 2019 Washington 19% estimated misclassification by employers ## Waddoups, Duncan & ## Ormiston 2019 Nevada 11% of construction workforce misclassified or off-the- books (14% when excluding white-collar workers) ## Theodore, ## Boggess, Cornejo & Timm ## 2017 Six Southern Cities Survey of 1,435 construction workers found 32% were misclassified or working off-the-books ## Cooke, Figart & ## Froonjian ## 2016 New Jersey Estimated 144,000 workers were misclassified or unreported (16% of the labor force), with highest rates among helpers, painters, and laborers ## Yen Liu, Flaming, & Burns 2014 California 16% of construction workers not reported or misclassified ## Price, Timm, & ## Tzintzún 2013 Texas Survey of 1,194 construction workers found 41% were misclassified or working off-the-books Kelsay & ## Sturgeon 2011 Kentucky 8% of construction employees misclassified Kelsay & ## Sturgeon 2010 Indiana 15% of construction employees misclassified ## Canak & Adams 2010 Tennessee Between 12,000 and 39,000 construction workers estimated to be misclassified or unreported ## Belman & Block 2009 Michigan 26% of construction firms misclassified employees, misclassifying 6% of the entire industry workforce ## Donahue, ## Lamare, & Kotler 2007 New York 15% of the construction workforce is misclassified Office of ## Legislative ## Auditor 2007 Minnesota 15% of construction firms misclassified employees; rates were highest in roofing (38%) and drywall installation (31%) Carre & Wilson 2005 Maine 11% of construction workers misclassified Carre & Wilson 2004 Massachusetts At least 5% misclassified as independent contractors ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 29 ## FIGURE 2: RESEARCH ON TAX FRAUD DUE TO CONSTRUCTION WORKER MISCLASSIFICATION, 2004-2023 ## Authors Year Geography ## State Income ## Taxes ## Unemployment ## Insurance ## Workers' ## Compensation ## Federal ## Income Tax ## Social Security and Medicaid ## Kelsay 2023 Missouri $9.0-$45.2 million $16.7-$27.8 million $41.3-$68.9 million $33.2-$104.1 million $70.9-118.2 million Ormiston & ## Juravich ## 2022 Rhode Island $2-$7 million $7-$10 million $1-$2 million ## Waddoups, Duncan & ## Ormistron 2021 Nevada $11.8 million $31.1 million ## Juravich, Ormiston & ## Belman 2021 Massachusetts $7-$41 million $24-$41 million $37-$78 million ## Ormiston, Erlich & ## Belman ## 2021 New York $15-$56 million $49 million $289 million $29-$109 million $93-$297 million Goodell & ## Manzo 2021 ## Wisconsin, ## Minnesota, and Illinois $60 million (IL) $65 million (MN) $8 million (WI) $23 million (IL) $13 million (MN) $6 million (WI) $103 million (IL) $58 million (MN) $26 million (WI) ## Ormiston, Belman, & ## Erlich ## 2020 United States $160-$552 million $701-$725 million $1.74 billion $319 million - $1.3 billion $1.4-$4.3 billion ## Xu & Erlich 2019 Washington $152 million $54 million $77 million $60 million ## Waddoups, Duncan & ## Ormiston 2019 Nevada $7 million $12 million $31 million ## Cooke, Figart & ## Froonjian 2016 New Jersey $20 million $3-7 million ## Yen Liu, ## Flaming, & Burns 2014 California $63 million $264 million $301 million ## Price, Timm, & ## Tzintzún 2013 Texas $55 million Kelsay & ## Sturgeon 2011 Kentucky $6-$12 million $2 million $3-$5 million $18-$30 million $11-$18 million Kelsay & ## Sturgeon 2010 Indiana $11-$18 million $2 million $4-$8 million Canak & ## Adams 2010 Tennessee $14.9 million $91.6 million $73.4 million $42.1 million Belman & ## Block 2009 Michigan $2.5 million ## Kelsay, ## Sturgeon, & Pinkham 2006 Illinois $9-$15 million $2 million $23-$35 million Carre & ## Wilson 2005 Maine $3 million $0.3 million $7 million Carre & ## Wilson 2004 Massachusetts $4-$7 million $1-$4 million $7 million ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 30 ## VIDEOS What is ## Misclassification and ## Payroll Fraud? ## The ## Low-Road ## Business ## Model ## Explained ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 31 Impacts on the ## Construction ## Industry ## Impacts on ## Workers ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 32 ## Impacts on All ## Contractors ## Impacts on a ## Law-Abiding ## Business ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 33 ## Impacts on ## Taxpayers ## Explainer for ## Business ## Owners ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 34 ## INFOGRAPHICS ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 35 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 36 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 37 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 38 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 39 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 40 ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 41 ## STATE ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ## Alaska Enforcement Unit: Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Standards and Safety Division ## Address: 1111 W. 8th St. Rm 302, Juneau, Alaska 99811 ## Mailing: PO Box 111149, Juneau, Alaska 99811-1149 Phone: (907) 465-4842 Email: statewide.wagehour@alaska.gov Website: https://labor.alaska.gov/lss/whhome.htm ## Arkansas ## Enforcement Unit: Arkansas Division of Workforce Services ## Address: #2 Capitol Mall, Little Rock, AR 72201 ## Mailing: P.O. Box 2981, Little Rock, AR 72203 Phone: (501) 682-2121 ## Email: ADWS.Info@arkansas.gov Website: https://www.dws.arkansas.gov/employers/worker-misclassification/ ## California ## Enforcement Unit: California Department of Industrial Relations ## Address: 1515 Clay Street, Room 1302, Oakland, CA 94612 (Headquarters) Phone: (833) 526-4636 Email: Available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/DistrictOffices.htm Website: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/howtofilewageclaim.htm Enforcement Unit: Worker Rights and Fair Labor Section within the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ## Division of Public Rights ## Address: P.O. Box 944255, Sacramento, CA 94244-2550 Phone: (916) 210-6276 ## Email: Use https://oag.ca.gov/contact Website: https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-becerra-establishes-worker-rights-and-fair- labor-section ## Colorado Enforcement Unit: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Unemployment Insurance Employer Services ## Address: P.O. Box 46538, Denver, CO 80201 Phone: (303) 318-9100 Website: https://cdle.colorado.gov/misclassification ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 42 ## Connecticut Enforcement Unit: Connecticut Department of Labor, Division of Wage and Workplace Standards ## Address: 200 Folly Brook Blvd., Wethersfield, CT 06109 Phone: 860-263-6000 • Minimum Wage/Overtime: (860) 263-6790 • Wage Payment: (860) 263-6790 • Public Contract Compliance (Prevailing Wage): (860) 263-6790 • Workplace Standards (Employment Regulation/Minors): (860) 263-6791 ## Website: https://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/wgwkstnd/Contact.htm ## Hawaii Enforcement Unit: Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Wage Standards Division ## Address: 830 Punchbowl Street, Room 340, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 (Capitol) Phone: (808) 586-8777 Email: dlir.wages@hawaii.gov Website: https://labor.hawaii.gov/wsd/contact/ ## Illinois Enforcement Unit: Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Workplace Rights Bureau ## Address: 100 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (844) 740-5076 Website: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/rights/labor_employ.html Enforcement Unit: Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Labor Law Unit ## Address: 100 W. Randolph Street, Chicago, IL 60601 Website: https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/rights/labor_employ.html ## Indiana ## Enforcement Unit: Indiana Attorney General ## Address: 302 W. Washington St., 5th Floor, Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 232-6201 Email: wagehour@dol.in.gov Website: https://www.in.gov/dol/wage-and-hour/worker-misclassification/ ## Iowa ## Enforcement Unit: Iowa Workforce Development, Iowa Worker Misclassification Unit ## Address: 1000 East Grand Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50319 Phone: (515) 725-3893 Email: misclassification@iwd.iowa.gov Website: https://www.iowaworkforcedevelopment.gov/misclassification-workers-iowa ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 43 ## Kentucky ## Enforcement Unit: Kentucky Office of Unemployment Insurance, Tax Audit Branch ## Mailing: PO Box 948, Frankfort, KY 40601 Phone: (502) 564-6838 Email: desauditors@ky.gov Website: https://kewes.ky.gov/Employertax/Misc_report.aspx ## Maine Enforcement Unit: Maine Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Standards ## Address: 45 State House Station, Augusta, Maine 04333-0045 Phone: (207) 623-7900 Email: mdol@maine.gov Website: https://www.maine.gov/labor/bls/ ## Maryland Enforcement Unit: Maryland Department of Labor, Division of Labor and Industry, Employment Standards Service ## Address: 1100 N. Eutaw Street, Room 607, Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 767-2357 Email: dldliemploymentstandards-labor@maryland.gov Website: https://www.dllr.state.md.us/labor/wages/ ## Massachusetts ## Enforcement Unit: Massachusetts Attorney General’s Fair Labor Division Phone: (617) 727-3465 ## Email: Use https://www.mass.gov/how-to/file-a-workplace-complaint Website: https://www.mass.gov/orgs/the-attorney-generals-fair-labor-division ## Michigan ## Enforcement Unit: Michigan Attorney General’s Office, Payroll Fraud Enforcement Unit ## Address: 525 W. Ottawa St., Lansing, MI 48906 Phone: (833) 221-1099 Website: https://www.michigan.gov/ag/initiatives/payroll-fraud ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 44 ## Minnesota Enforcement Unit: Office of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Wage Theft Unit ## Address: 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101 Phone: (651) 296-3353 Website: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Publications/WageTheft.asp ## Enforcement Unit: Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry ## Address: 443 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, MN 55155 Phone: (651) 284-5070 Email: dli.laborstandards@state.mn.us Website: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Publications/WageTheft.asp ## Address: Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development ## Mailing: 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101 ## Phone: 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101 ## Email: DEED.CustomerService@state.mn.us Website: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Publications/Misclassification.asp Address: Minnesota Department of Revenue, Tax Evasion or Tax Fraud Tips ## Mailing: 600 N. Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55146 Phone: (651) 297-5195 Email: tax.fraud@state.mn.us Website: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Consumer/Publications/Misclassification.asp ## Missouri Enforcement Unit: Missouri Department of Labor & Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Address: 3315 W. Truman Blvd., Rm 205, Jefferson City, MO 65102 ## Mailing: P.O. Box 449, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0449 Phone: (573) 751-3403 Email: laborstandards@labor.mo.gov Website: https://labor.mo.gov/DLS ## Montana Enforcement Unit: Montana Department of Labor & Industry, Employment Relations Division, Compliance and ## Investigations Bureau ## Address: 1805 Prospect Avenue, Helena, MT 59601 ## Mailing: PO Box 201503, Helena, MT 59620-1503 Phone: (406) 444-6543 ## Email: DLIERDWage@mt.gov Website: https://erd.dli.mt.gov/labor-standards/ ## New Hampshire ## Enforcement Unit: New Hampshire Department of Labor, Inspection Division ## Address: Spaulding Building, 95 Pleasant St, Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603) 271-3176 ## Email: InspectionDiv@dol.nh.gov or WorkersComp@dol.nh.gov Website: https://www.nh.gov/labor/contact-us/index.htm ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 45 ## New Jersey Enforcement Unit: New Jersey Division of Wage & Hour Compliance, Wage Collection Section ## Mailing: PO Box 389, Trenton, NJ 08625-0389 Phone: (609) 292-3658 ## Email: WHWC@dol.nj.gov Website: https://www.nj.gov/labor/wageandhour/ ## New Mexico Enforcement Unit: New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, Labor Relations Division ## Address: 401 Broadway Blvd NE, Albuquerque, NM 87102 Phone: (505) 841-4400 Website: https://www.dws.state.nm.us/en-us/Labor-Relations/Labor-Information/Wage-and-Hour ## New York Enforcement Unit: Labor Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office ## Address: 28 Liberty Street, New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 416-8700 ## Email: Labor.Bureau@ag.ny.gov Website: https://ag.ny.gov/bureau/labor-bureau ## Tip Hotline Phone: (888) 469-7365 ## Tip Hotline Form: https://www.ny.gov/content/report-suspected-workplace-violations ## Nevada Enforcement Unit: Nevada Department of Business & Industry, Office of the Labor Commissioner ## Address: 1818 College Parkway, Suite 102, Carson City, NV 89706 Phone: (775) 684-1890 Email: mail1@labor.nv.gov Website: https://labor.nv.gov/Contact/Contact_Us/ ## North Carolina Enforcement Unit: North Carolina Department of Labor, Standards and Inspections Division ## Address: 4 West Edenton St., Raleigh, NC 27601 ## Mailing: 1101 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1101 Phone: (800) 625-2267 Website: https://www.labor.nc.gov/about-ncdol/divisions/standards-and-inspections-division#wage-and-hour- bureau ## North Dakota ## Enforcement Unit: North Dakota Department of Labor and Human Rights ## Address: 600 East Boulevard Avenue Bismarck, ND 58505-0340 Phone: (701) 328-2660 Email: labor@nd.gov Website: https://www.nd.gov/labor/wage-and-hour-topics ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 46 ## Oklahoma ## Enforcement Unit: Oklahoma Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Unit ## Address: 3017 North Stiles Avenue, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Phone: (405) 521-6100 Email: wageclaims@labor.ok.gov Website: https://www.ok.gov/Labor/WORKPLACE_RIGHTS/Wage_and_Hour/index.html ## Pennsylvania ## Enforcement Unit: Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General ## Address: 16th Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phone: (717) 787-3391 Email: wagetheft@attorneygeneral.gov Website: https://www.attorneygeneral.gov/taking-action/press-releases/hawbaker-sentenced-will-pay-workers- more-than-20-million-in -stolen-wages/ ## Philadelphia District Attorney Unit: https://www.inquirer.com/news/district-attorney-larry-krasner-employer- crimes-prosecution-wage-theft-20191008.html ## Rhode Island Enforcement Unit: Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Task Force on the Underground Economy and ## Employee Misclassification ## Address: 1511 Pontiac Ave, Cranston, RI 02920 Phone: (401) 574-8785 Email: philip.dambra@tax.ri.gov Website: https://dlt.ri.gov/misclassification/ ## South Carolina Enforcement Unit: South Carolina Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation, Office of Wages and Child Labor ## Address: 110 Centerview Dr., Columbia SC 29210 Phone: (803) 896-7756 Website: https://llr.sc.gov/wage/paymentofwages.aspx ## Tennessee Enforcement Unit: Tennessee Department of Labor & Workforce Development, Labor Standards Unit ## Address: 220 French Landing Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37243 Phone: (844) 224-5818 Website: https://www.tn.gov/workforce/employers/safety---health/regulations-compliance/regulations--- compliance-redirect/labor-standards-unit.html ## Vermont ## Enforcement Unit: Vermont Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Program ## Address: 63 Pearl Street, Burlington, VT 05401-4331 Phone: (802) 951-4083 ## Email: Labor.WageHour@vermont.gov Website: https://labor.vermont.gov/wage-and-hour/contact-wage-and-hour ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 47 ## Washington ## Enforcement Unit: Washington State Office of the Attorney General Address: 1125 Washington Street SE, PO Box 40100, Olympia, WA 98504-0100 Phone: (360) 753-6200 Website: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-legislation-strengthening-wage-theft- laws-and-increasing ## Enforcement Unit: Seattle City Attorney, The Civil Division Address: 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2050 , Seattle , WA , 98104-7095 Phone: (206) 684-8200 Website: https://www.seattle.gov/cityattorney/about-us/civil-division ## Enforcement Unit: Washington State Department of Labor & Industries ## Address: 7273 Linderson Way SW, Tumwater, WA 98501-5414 Phone: (360) 902-5800 ## Email: Use https://secure.lni.wa.gov/wagecomplaint/#/ Website: https://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/attorney-general-s-office-labor-industries-secure-more- 89k-wages-and-interest ## Wisconsin ## Enforcement Unit: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development ## Address: 201 E Washington Ave; Room A100, Madison, WI 53703 ## Mailing: PO Box 8928, Madison, WI 53708-8928 Phone: (608) 266-6860 Email: erinfo@dwd.wisconsin.gov Website: https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/contacts.htm ## Wyoming ## Enforcement Unit: Wyoming Department of Workforce Services, Labor Standards Office ## Address: 5221 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, WY 82002 (Main Office) Phone: (307) 777-7261 Website: http://wyomingworkforce.org/workers/labor/ ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 48 ## RESEARCH SORTED BY YEAR Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; and Mark Erlich. ( 2020). An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry. Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Harvard University. Key Finding: In the average month in 2017, between 12% and 21% of construction industry workers were misclassified as independent contractors or working strictly off-the-books. Over the peak summer months, this increased to between 13% and 22%. Due to payroll fraud, construction companies illegally reduce labor costs by between $6.2 billion and $11.7 billion per year. State workers’ compensations programs experienced a $1.7 billion shortfall due to misclassification. State unemployment insurance plans experienced a shortfall of up to $725 million. State income tax revenues are also $160 million to $552 million lower. Between $1.4 billion and $4.3 billion owed to Social Security and Medicare and $319 million and $1.3 billion in federal income taxes was never paid in 2017 due to payroll fraud. Under federal wage statutes, workers are entitled to time-and-a-half for hours worked over 40 hours per week and to premium pay for work over holidays. Employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors can avoid paying these additional wages, resulting in $811 million to $1 billion in unpaid overtime and premium wages. ## Schmitt, John; Heidi Shierholz; Margaret Poydock; and Samantha Sanders. ( ## 2023). The Economic Costs of Worker Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When employers misclassify workers as independent contractors, they deprive them of fundamental labor rights. In construction, an independent contractor loses out on as much as $16,729 per year in income (32%) from being misclassified as an independent contractor compared with what they would have earned as an employee. Revenue for social insurance programs—Social Security, Medicare, Workers’ Compensation, and federal and state unemployment insurance—decreases by as much as $2,965 per construction worker per year due to misclassification as well (32%). ## Kelsay, Michael. ( 2023). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in the Construction Industry in Missouri. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: In 2020, 21% of workers in Missouri’s construction industry were either misclassified as independent contractors or working “off-the-books” in cash-only arrangements. Misclassification and wage theft in the construction industry cost construction workers between $334 million and $465 million in lost wages and fringe benefits annually. Payroll fraud also costs Missouri $69 million in lost workers’ compensation contributions, $28 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions, and $45 million in forgone state income tax revenue. Hacker, Chris; Ash-Har Quraishi; Amy Corral; Ryan Beard. ( ## 2023). “Wage Theft Often Goes Unpunished Despite State Systems Meant to Combat It.” CBS News. Key Finding: Even when wage theft is reported, employers often manage to avoid paying back the wages they owe. CBS News submitted public records requests to nearly every state labor department in the country and built a database of more than 650,000 total complaints. Of those cases, state agencies ruled in favor of claimants only about half of the time. Even when workers won their claims, more than a third of those successful cases—totaling nearly $1 billion—showed no money was ever recovered. Finally, if wage theft was treated the same as felony theft (or the threshold at which a misdemeanor street crime becomes a felony), 177,000 wage theft cases in 25 states could have been felony cases. This includes over 25% of cases in New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Indiana, Maryland, New York, Maine, Montana, Minnesota, Kansas, Utah, and Michigan. Siegelbaum, Max; Agnel Philip; and Lam Thuy Vo. (2023). “127,000 New York Workers Have Been Victims of Wage Theft.” ProPublica. Key Finding: Analyzing federal and state databases of labor violations obtained from the U.S. Department of Labor and the New York State Department of Labor, investigative reporters found that more than $203 million in wages had been stolen from 127,000 workers in New York from 2017 through 2021. About 1,600 construction companies stole wages from more than 7,700 New York workers from 2017 through 2021. The article notes that “the amount of wage theft is almost certainly a significant undercount.” ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 49 Sproule, William. (2023). “Opinion: The Deadly Serious Consequences of Illegal Employee Misclassification.” City & State Pennsylvania. Key Finding: The Pennsylvania Joint Task Force on the Misclassification of Employees found that such misclassification resulted in an annual loss of $91 million to Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. Misclassification puts ill -gotten gains in the pockets of tax cheats, while also defrauding the government. It encourages lawlessness and an environment where workers are exploited, taken advantage of, and endangered. The UC Berkeley Labor Center found that “28% of families of construction workers in Pennsylvania are enrolled in one or more safety net programs at a cost to the state and federal government of $428 million per year.” James, Letitia; Alvin Bragg; Catalina Cruz; and Joseph Geiger. ( 2023). “Commentary: Wage Theft Is a Serious Crime. We’re Finally Treating It That Way.” The Times Union. Key Finding: The Wage Theft Accountability Act has made wage theft a felony, giving prosecutors an important tool to hold employers accountable. The law, which went into effect immediately after signing, allows prosecutors to charge larceny for stolen wages and to aggregate stolen wage amounts, which will now provide much more effective deterrence and consequences for employers who cheat workers. The Wage Theft Accountability Act recognizes wage theft for what it is: a criminal act. Isser, Mindy. (2023). “Employers Steal Up to $50 Billion From Workers Every Year. It’s Time to Reclaim It.” In These Times. Key Finding: Wage theft is particularly common in nonunion construction, which often operates “underground,” with workers either being misclassified or being paid in cash. The industry operates under very little oversight, with regulators not having the resources to enforce laws or not being able to pinpoint responsible parties due to multiple layers of subcontracting. And because more than 1-in -10 construction workers are undocumented immigrants, employers are often more likely to engage in abuse, as workers may not know their rights or fear retribution if they assert them. Ormiston, Russell and Tom Juravich. ( 2022). Worker Misclassification and Wage Theft in Rhode Island. Allegheny College; University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Institute for Construction Employment Research ## (ICERES). Key Finding: Rhode Island employers misclassified 4% of the state’s workforce in 2019, representing more than 19,000 workers. In construction, 12% of construction employers are misclassifying workers, affecting 8% of the industry workforce. Payroll fraud costs taxpayers between $25 million and $54 million annually. Wage and Hour Division (WHD). ( 2022). “U.S. Department of Labor Announces Proposed Rule on Classifying Employees, Independent Contractors; Seeks to Return to Longstanding Interpretation.” U.S. Department of Labor. Key Finding: “The proposed rule would provide guidance on classifying workers and seeks to combat employee misclassification. Misclassification is a serious issue that denies workers’ rights and protections under federal labor standards, promotes wage theft, allows certain employers to gain an unfair advantage over law-abiding businesses, and hurts the economy at-large.” ## Chen, Lori. ( 2022). “Illinois Governor Signs Bills Expanding Contractors’ Liability for Unpaid Wages of Subcontractors’ Workers.” Ogletree Deakins. Key Finding: Illinois Governor JB Pritzker signed House Bill 5412 and House Bill 4600 into law, which amend the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act to make certain primary contractors liable for any debt owed by a subcontractor (at any tier). HB 4600, the trailer bill, carves out two categories of contractors exempt from liability for such unpaid wages and benefits: (1) contractors who are signatories of collective bargaining agreements on projects where work is being performed and (2) primary contractors altering or repairing an existing single-family dwelling or single residential unit. Additionally, HB 4600 also limits the scope of the amendment to the WPCA, applying it only to contractors doing work in Illinois that exceeds $20,000 on private (i.e., nongovernment) projects, other than an owner acting as a primary contractor on the owner’s primary residence. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 50 Finn, Sean. (2022). A Heist in Plain Sight. Common Good Iowa. Key Finding: Each year, employers steal wages from 1-in -7 Iowa workers, amounting to $900 million in stollen wages ($300 each week for victims) and $190 million in lost tax revenue. Wage theft is most common in construction, food service, hospitality, nursing, and childcare jobs. When low-road employers steal wages to cut costs, responsible businesses lose out. ## Weidl, Evan. ( 2022). “Opinion: Wage Theft Needs More Attention.” The Daily Iowan. Key Finding: In Iowa, for every $1,000 stolen via wage theft, just $2 are recovered by public agencies. This loses the state over $190 million in tax revenue. Waddoups, Jeffrey; Kevin Duncan; and Russell Ormiston. (2021). Payroll Fraud in Nevada’s Construction Industry: Extent and Fiscal Impact. University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Colorado State University-Pueblo; Allegheny College; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: There were about 12,700 workers who were either misclassified as independent contractors or employed off- the-books in Nevada’s construction industry in 2018, representing 11% of the industry and 14% of blue-collar construction workforce. This resulted in $31 million in unpaid workers’ comp premiums, a $12 million shortfall in the state UI fund, and $7 million in uncollected tax revenue via the Modified Business Tax. ## Mangundayao, Ihna; Celine McNicholas; Margaret Poydock; and Ali Sait. ( 2021). More Than $3 Billion in Stolen Wages Recovered for Workers Between 2017 and 2020. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: Between 2017 and 2020, $3.24 billion in stolen wages was recovered on behalf of workers by the U.S. Department of Labor, state departments of labor and attorneys general, and through class and collective action litigation— but this represents just a small portion of wages stolen from workers across the country. Potential policy options include increasing funding for the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, engaging in proactive and strategic enforcement in industries where violations are especially rampant, enhancing civil monetary penalties for violations, protecting worker rights to unionize, and boosting funding for state and local enforcement. Juravich, Tom; Russell Ormiston; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). The Social and Economic Costs of Illegal Misclassification, Wage Theft, and Tax Fraud in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts-Amherst; Allegheny College; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: Audits of employer payrolls from 2017 to 2019 indicate that more than one-in -six Massachusetts construction employers (17% to 18%) misclassify their workers as independent contractors. Utilizing a well-established empirical approach of indirectly estimating the full extent of misclassification, there were between 22,000 and 37,000 workers affected by wage and tax fraud in 2019, accounting for 9% to 16% of the industry’s workforce. This was especially prevalent among building finishing contractors (e.g., drywall, finish carpentry, painting). This led to $41 million in lost unemployment insurance contributions $41 million in lost income taxes, and $78 million in lost workers’ comp premiums in 2019. Ormiston, Russell; Mark Erlich; and Dale Belman. ( 2021). Payroll Fraud in New York’s Construction Industry: Estimating its Prevalence, Severity and Economic Costs. Allegheny College; Harvard University; Michigan State University; Institute for Construction Employment Research (ICERES). Key Finding: There were between 76,000 and 126,000 workers who were either misclassified as independent contractors or employed off-the-books in New York’s construction industry in 2017, representing 13% to 21% of all construction workers. This resulted in $289 million in unpaid workers’ comp premiums and a $49 million shortfall in the state UI fund. Morgenson, Gretchen and Lisa Cavazuti. ( 2021). “The Hidden Scourge of ‘Wage Theft’: When Higher Profits Come Out of Workers’ Pockets.” NBC News. Key Finding: In this piece of investigative journalism, reporters highlight a wage theft case from Cedar Rapids, Iowa in which out-of-state workers were brought in following a natural disaster to rebuild. One company—BluSky Restoration Contractors from Colorado—has a history of wage theft and once again stole from workers on the Iowa project. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 51 Phillips, Zachary. (2021). “New York State Legislature Passes Construction Wage Theft Bill.” Construction Dive. Key Finding: The New York State Senate and State Assembly passed legislation Wednesday that shifts liability to general contractors for wage theft cases on private construction projects. It made New York the 6 th state, in addition to Washington, D.C., to adopt this type of protective wage theft for construction workers. ## Shapiro, Josh. ( 2021). “Hawbaker Sentenced, Will Pay Workers More than $20 Million in Stolen Wages.” Pennsylvania Attorney General. Key Finding: Attorney General Josh Shapiro sentenced Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc. for theft relating to violations of the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act and the federal Davis-Bacon Act. The plea includes paying $20,696,453 in stolen wages to 1,267 Pennsylvania workers. Hawbaker is one of the largest contractors to complete projects on behalf of the Commonwealth, receiving an estimated $1.7 billion in contracts between 2003 and 2018. The restitution is for the largest prevailing wage criminal case in U.S. history. Hawbaker pleaded to four felony counts of stealing wages from its workers. Department of Workforce Development (DWD). ( ## 2021). Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification Report: 2021. State of Wisconsin. Key Finding: This is a report from the Task Force on Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification. In 2020, Wisconsin Unemployment Insurance (UI) Division auditors conducted nearly 1,300 audits and identified 8,900 misclassified workers, generating $2.34 million in UI taxes and interest. The task force recommends creating a new Insurance Fraud Bureau of Investigations and developing a statutory requirement of upstream liability, among other recommendations. Jacobs, Ken and Kuochih Huang. ( 2021). The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in California’s Construction Industry. University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: 48% of families in which at least one adult who works in construction are enrolled in public safety net programs such as Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, and SNAP at an estimated annual cost of $3 billion. Goodell, Nathaniel and Frank Manzo IV. ( 2021). The Costs of Wage Theft and Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois: Impacts on Workers and Taxpayers. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: When compared to employees doing similar work, independent contractors earn about 30% in total compensation in the construction industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. This includes 13%-22% less in annual wages and 62%-66% in total benefits. Wage theft and payroll fraud cost a total of $362 million in lost state income taxes, unemployment insurance contributions, and workers’ compensation premiums in these three states every year. ## Hinkel, Matthew. ( 2021). The Effect of Prevailing Wage Laws on Informal Construction Employment. Alma College. Key Finding: From 2010 through 2019, worker misclassification and off-the-books employment was 2% lower for construction workers in states with prevailing wage laws. Lower prevailing wage contract coverage thresholds were also linked with significant decreases in misclassification and off-the-books employment because more state and local projects are covered, leaving fewer workers vulnerable to exploitative practices and governments less vulnerable to payroll tax fraud. By improving transparency, accountability, and enforcement on public works projects, prevailing wage laws protect workers from illegal labor practices. ## Rhinehart, Lynn; Celine McNicholas; Margaret Poydock; and Ihna Mangndayao. ( 2021). Misclassification, the ABC Test, and Employee Status: The California Experience and Its Relevance to Current Policy Debates. Key Finding: Federal and state policymakers should adopt the ABC test in their labor and employment laws to ensure workers are not misclassified, and are covered by important workplace rights and protections. Gerstein, Terri. (2021). How District Attorneys and State Attorneys General Are Fighting Workplace Abuses. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: District attorneys (DAs) and state attorneys general (AGs) have been bringing criminal prosecutions against law-breaking employers. This development is particularly important in light of limits in worker protection laws, underfunding of labor enforcement agencies, and employers’ increasing use of forced arbitration clauses. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 52 ## Holt, Josh. ( 2021). “Virginia Joins the Trend of States Cracking Down on Worker Misclassification in the Construction Industry.” Common Sense Contract Law. Key Finding: Virginia’s 2020 employee classification law assumes all workers are employees unless the employer can prove they are contractors under the IRS’s employment relationship test. The bill specifically targeted construction by barring known violators from bidding on public projects for two years and allows the Department of Taxation to impose penalties between $1,000-$5,000 per offense. ## LaBarbera, Gary. ( 2021). “Viewpoint: Measure Will Fight Wage Theft in Construction Industry.” Times Union. Key Finding: The President of the New York State Building & Construction Trades Council says that $300 million in stolen wages were recovered for exploited workers since 2011, but fraudulent contractors still retain hundreds of millions more. ## Obernauer, Charlene. ( 2021). “Op-Ed: Wage Theft is a Crime – It’s Time to Put an End to It.” amNY. Key Finding: The Executive Director of the New York Committee for Occupational Safety and Health says that a “tell-tale sign of unsafe working conditions are whispers of wage theft violations against workers on private construction projects.” Leberstein, Sarah. (2021). “The Next Big Step in Stopping Wage Theft in the Construction Industry.” Gotham Gazette. Key Finding: An employment attorney hears daily from construction workers cheated out of their wages by subcontractors, especially those on nonunion and residential sites where many immigrant workers are employed. ## Castro, Manuel. ( 2021). “Opinion: Wage Theft is Rampant in NY’s Construction Industry. Albany Can Act Now to Curb It.” City Limits. Key Finding: Addressing wage theft and giving exploited workers a more secure path to recouping unpaid wages would represent a major step towards making sure that immigrant workers are given dignity though hard and important work. ## Sproule, William. ( 2021). “Op-Ed: Construction Industry Tax Cheats Need to Be Held Accountable.” Metro Philadelphia. Key Finding: Construction industry tax cheats fail to pay their workers fair living wages and rarely provide medical coverage, while also evading federal, state, and local taxes, overtime, and workers’ compensation premiums. This gives them a tremendous competitive edge when it comes to bidding on both public and private jobs against law-abiding contractors. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2021). Construction Industry Insurance Fraud. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet describes workers’ compensation insurance premium fraud, notes that losses are estimated at $2 billion nationwide, and tells people how they can help. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2020). Construction Industry Poor Safety Standards. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet notes that contractors who skirt workers’ comp, wage, and tax laws often cut corners with safety and that tax fraud robs state and federal governments out of $8.4 billion per year. ## Construction Industry Tax Fraud. ( 2020). Construction Industry Wage Theft. StopTaxFraud.net. Key Finding: This one-page fact sheet describes wage theft, notes that construction workers have $946 million a year stolen from them, and tells people how they can help. Ormiston, Russell; Dale Belman; Julie Brockman; and Matt Hinkel. ( ## 2020). Rebuilding Residential Construction. In Paul Osterman (Ed.), Creating Good Jobs: An Industry-Based Strategy, 75-113. MIT Press. Key Finding: An investigation of 71 drywall installers by Carpenters Local 525 in Kalamazoo, MI found 94% of contractors misclassified workers; 73% of 1,840 workers were misclassified or working off-the-books. This book chapter describes the prevalence of illegal labor practices in residential construction and makes policy recommendations for incentivizing compliance with labor and employment law. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 53 Erlich, Mark. (2020). “Misclassification in Construction: The Original Gig Economy.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1-29. Key Finding: The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has predated the app-based gig economy, particularly in construction where a cash-based underground system of compensation has lowered standards and been among the major causes of the decline of union density. ## Moe, Lina; James Parrott; and Jason Rochford. ( ## 2020). The Magnitude of Low-Paid Gig and Independent Contract Work in New York State. The New School. Key Finding: 17.5% of low-wage independent contractors in New York worked in construction. The Immigration Reform and Control Act requires employers to verify each employee’s eligibility to work in the United States to ensure that they are accounted for in payroll taxes and insurance coverage. Independent contractors, however, do not need their eligibility verified, allowing employers to hire undocumented workers and deprive them of benefits and insurance coverage. ## Gerstein, Terri. ( 2020). Workers’ Rights Protection and Enforcement by State Attorneys General: State AG Labor Rights Activities from 2018 to 2020. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: In Washington, D. C., Massachusetts, and New York, state attorneys general have established offices to focus on labor rights. Cases brought against employers for misclassification have generated multiple millions in settlements. In total, 8 states plus D.C. had units within AGs offices dedicated to workers’ rights at the time of this study. ## National Employment Law Project (NELP). ( ## 2020). Independent Contractor Misclassification Imposes Huge Costs on Workers and Federal and State Treasuries. Key Finding: State-level studies have shown an increase in employee misclassification but are likely underestimating its true scope. Construction is one of the most affected industries, with misclassification being 7 percentage points higher in construction than other industries in certain states. Includes a table of estimated losses to tax revenue. ## Erlich, Mark and Terri Gerstein. ( ## 2019). Confronting Misclassification and Payroll Fraud: A Survey of State Labor Standards Enforcement Agencies. Harvard Law School. Key Finding: State agencies reported they are constrained from abandoning complaint-based enforcement in favor of proactive enforcement due to statutory mandates and historical tradition. Additionally, limited resources prevent state agencies from being able to take proactive action except for in industries where misclassification is a known problem. Audits have been becoming more targeted rather than random for agencies administering unemployment insurance. Agencies have started using stop-work orders in cases where violations are found. When stop-work orders are issued, corrective action is taken, and the reported turnaround is roughly a day and a half. In response to misclassification enforcement, some companies pay employees in cash. Agencies are relying more and more on community partnerships with unions, worker centers, and immigrant rights groups to investigate employers. Waddoups, Jeff; Kevin Duncan; and Russell Ormiston. ( ## 2019). Payroll Fraud in Nevada’s Construction Industry: Extent and Fiscal Impact. University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Colorado State University-Pueblo; Allegheny College. Key Finding: Across Nevada, 11% of the state’s construction workforce was either misclassified or working off-the-books in 2018 (and 14% when excluding white-collar workers). These illegal labor practices likely reduced labor costs of offending contractors by over $90 million; these costs are borne directly by workers and taxpayers. Xu, Lisa and Mark Erlich. (2019). The Economic Consequences of Misclassification in the State of Washington. Harvard University. Key Finding: This analysis of wage theft in Washington in 2017 found a rate of worker misclassification of 19% and estimated a $48 million cost to the state government and $85 million cost to the federal government annually. Thomason, Sarah; Ken Jacobs; and Sharon Jan. (2019). Estimating the Coverage of California’s New AB 5 Law. University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: Estimates that 91% of independent contractors in California would have been classified as employees under the ABC test in California’s Assembly Bill No. 5. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 54 Belman, Dale; Aaron Sojourner. (2019). “Economic Analysis: Economic Analysis of Incentives to Fraudulently Misclassify Employees in District of Columbia Construction.” In Illegal Worker Misclassification: Payroll Fraud in the District’s Construction Industry. Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Key Finding: Worker misclassification can reduce a contractor’s labor expenses by 17% in the Washington, D.C. area. Accompanied with other forms of wage theft, a contractor can easily reduce their labor costs by 27% illegally. Sinroja, Ratna; Sarah Thomason; and Ken Jacobs. (2019). Misclassification in California: A Snapshot of the Janitorial Services, Construction, and Trucking Industries. University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: Independent contractors in construction earn 67% of the wages of properly classified workers. Roughly ¼ of construction workers in California are classified as independent contractors. 40% of workers live in low-wage households. ## Lawless, Donald. ( 2019). “Michigan Employers Act Before the Payroll Fraud Enforcement Unit Comes Knocking.” The National Law Review, 11(207). Key Finding: State misclassification laws have caused employers to evaluate their practices for accidental or intentional misclassification and stop the practice before penalties were administered. Slowey, Kim. (2019). “Contractor Faces 20 Years in Prison for Forced Labor.” Construction Dive. Key Finding: An owner of several construction companies was convicted on charges of forced labor. The contractor recruited undocumented workers from Mexico and then refused to pay them. If they complained, he threatened them— and their families—with violence or with deportation. ## White, Victor. ( 2019). “Nashville is Being Built on a Pyramid of Payroll Tax Fraud: Opinion.” Tennessean. Key Finding: $2.6 billion in payroll tax fraud is lost annually. 45% of construction workers in the South reported they did not have workers’ compensation. Workers who reported wage theft lost a median of $800. ## Sanchez, Cesar. ( 2019). “Bay Area Governments Taking Action on Wage Theft.” East Bay Express. Key Finding: The City of Berkeley’s “wage transparency” ordinance withholds a certificate of occupancy from projects where workers have alleged wage violations, requires contractors provide workers with detailed pay stubs outlining wage rates and deductions, and publicly posts contact information for state enforcement agencies at each jobsite. ## Hallett, Nicole. ( 2018). “The Problem of Wage Theft.” Yale Law & Policy Review, 37(1): 93. Key Finding: A Memorandum of Understanding was in place between the Department of Labor and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency that prevented undocumented workers from being deported if their immigration status was uncovered as a result of investigations into labor violations. When these memoranda expire, they may face deportation, which disincentivizes immigrants from reporting labor violations. ## Gerstein, Terri and Marni von Wilpert. ( ## 2018). State Attorneys General Can Play Key Roles in Protecting Workers’ Rights. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: State attorneys general have the authority to direct regulatory agencies and build cases against employers in violation of wage and labor laws and to launch labor education programs in industries where misclassification is prevalent. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). ( 2018). Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangement News Release. U.S. Department of Labor. Key Finding: In 2017, 19% of independent contractors worked in the construction industry. See Table 8. ## Mattera, Philip. ( 2018). Grand Theft Paycheck: The Large Corporations Shortchanging Their Workers’ Wages. Good Jobs First. Key Finding: Across 4,220 wage theft claims against large employers in 2017, $9 billion in penalties was generated. Women and people of color were disproportionately observed to be victims of wage theft. Misclassification was the second most common offense cited. Government enforcement of labor laws are subject to administrations hostile to workers and sympathetic to employers. Union representation allows more workers to recover stolen wages. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 55 Greenstein, Robert. (2018). Health Coverage Progress Stalls – Even as Economy Reduces Poverty, Boosts Income. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Key Finding: Workers who have been misclassified are less likely to have private health insurance coverage—due to the drop in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage—and are more likely to rely on Medicaid. Theodore, Nik, Bethany Boggess, Jackie Cornejo and Emily Timm. (2017). Build a Better South: Construction Working Conditions in the Southern U.S. University of Illinois at Chicago; Workers Defense Project; Partnership for Working Families. Key Finding: A survey of 1,435 construction workers in six Southern cities discovered 32% were misclassified as independent contractors or working off-the-books, 11% experienced wage theft in their career, and 43% said their employer had no workers’ compensation policy. ## Cooper, David and Teresa Kroeger. ( ## 2017). Employers Steal Billions from Workers’ Paychecks Each Year: Survey Data Show Millions of Workers Are Paid Less than the Minimum Wage, At Significant Cost to Taxpayers and State Economies. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: Nationwide, wage theft costs up to $15 billion. Misclassification is one tactic that enables wage theft. Due to fear of deportation, immigrant workers are more likely to endure harmful and exploitative working conditions without reporting them. They are also less aware of appropriate reporting avenues. Victims are underpaid an average of 25% of their earnings. Women, young workers, and immigrants report minimum wage violations at a higher rate. ## Alexander, Charlotte. ( ## 2017). “Misclassification and Antidiscrimination: An Empirical Analysis.” Minnesota Law Review, 101. 907-962. Key Finding: According to Census and Social Security Administration data, the industries where misclassification is most prevalent include real estate, construction, truck drivers, and barbers and cosmetologists. Industries where misclassification is most prevalent also disproportionately employ women and people of color, increasing the risk that marginalized populations experience misclassification that can result in discrimination from a lack of Title VII protections. Most court cases that argue misclassification are brought by individuals not in the highly-misclassified industries, suggesting misclassified workers often do not engage in litigation. In the years 2005-2014, misclassification was brought as an argument in Title VII discrimination cases predominantly by physicians, surgeons, and insurance salespeople. ## McNicholas, Celine; Zane Mokhiber; and Adam Chalkof. ( ## 2017). Two Billion Dollars in Stolen Wages Were Recovered for Workers in 2015 and 2016 – and That’s Just a Drop in the Bucket. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: In 2015 and 2016, $2 billion in stolen wages were repaid to victims of wage theft through litigation, state agency action, and class-action lawsuits. This figure is likely well below the amount actually stolen by wage theft yearly. Workers do not report instances of wage theft because of fear of retaliation, lack of resources, and uncertain remedies. ## Philips, Peter and David Blatter. ( 2017). Two Roads Diverge: Hidden Costs of the Low Wage Approach to Construction. University of Utah. Key Finding: Doubling the percentage of construction subbed out to independent contractors leads to a 13.5% decline in payroll taxes and a 11% decline in workers’ compensation and unemployment insurance. Employers engaged in payroll fraud and misclassification undercut the larger construction labor market by discouraging laborers to invest in training and encouraging casual attachments to the industry. ## Solis, Hilda. ( 2017). “Opinion: Wage Discrimination in Construction Industry Makes Minimum Standards a Good Idea.” The Mercury News (San Francisco Bay Area). Key Finding: One-in -six California construction workers are affected by misclassification and payroll fraud. ## Bonilla, Rick. ( 2017). “Op-Ed: Wage Theft is Preventable.” The Daily Journal. Key Finding: It is up to local cities to enact “wage transparency” ordinances to improve accountability. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 56 National Employment Law Project (NELP). (2016). Contracted Out: Findings from a National Voter Survey. Key Finding: In a national survey of 1,000 registered voters, 84% of Americans said that companies misclassifying workers as independent contractors is a serious problem and 78% said that workers are better off when they are employees. 78% favor making it harder for companies to misclassify workers as independent contractors, including 73% of Republicans. Respondents of both political party affiliations support policies that make misclassification more difficult or shift legal liability to employers for contractors who do not pay their full amount due in taxes. ## Cooke, Oliver; Deborah Figart; and John Froonjian. ( ## 2016). The Underground Construction Economy in New Jersey. Stockton University. Key Finding: An estimated 35,000 workers were misclassified or unreported (roughly 16% of the state’s payroll labor force in construction), with unreported wages totaling between $284 and $528 million. This amounted to $20 million in lost state income tax revenue and up to $7 million in lost UI premiums. ## Galvin, Daniel. ( 2016). “Deterring Wage Theft: Alt-Labor, State Politics, and the Policy Determinants of Minimum Wage Compliance.” Perspectives on Politics, 14(2): 324-350. Key Finding: Employers base their wage theft strategies on the expected probability of detection and the monetary cost of a violation being detected. State laws that increase the costs of violations that are detected have led to statistically significant declines in wage theft, if coupled with equally strong enforcement mechanisms. ## Katz, Lawrence and Alan Krueger. ( 2016). The Rise and Nature of Alternative Work Arrangements in the United States, 1995-2015. Harvard University; Princeton University. Key Finding: From 1995 to 2015, non-traditional employment rose from 11% to 16%, with online intermediary work, such as Uber and TaskRabbit, accounting for only 0.5% of workers as of 2015. Workers in non-traditional employment relationships earn less when compared to similar workers in traditional employment relationships. Duncan, Kevin and Jeffrey Waddoups. ( 2016). The Release of Davis-Bacon Certified Payroll Records, Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act, and the Question of Competitive Harm to Contractors. Colorado State University-Pueblo; University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Key Finding: Labor is a relatively minor portion of overall costs (14%-27%) in construction, so subcontractors making payroll information public will likely not allow competitors to outbid them. Trade secrets are not revealed in any meaningful way through payroll information. Making payroll information public would not put an employer in a less competitive position in future bids but would assist government regulators in enforcing labor laws related to wage theft. ## Schoonmaker, Derek. ( ## 2016). “Suit Against Trump Spotlights All-Too-Common Wage Theft.” San Francisco Chronicle. Key Finding: Wage theft is a crime against workers, against taxpayers, and against honest businesses. It is prevalent in low- wage industries such as construction, food services, custodial services, and landscaping. Juravich, Tom; Essie Ablavsky; and Jake Williams. ( 2015). The Epidemic of Wage Theft in Residential Construction in Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Amherst. Key Finding: Due to the transient nature of undocumented workers, many working in the construction industry never receive the wages they are owed. Employers in the examined construction projects reduced their building costs by 30% by engaging in wage theft. Many employers liquidated their businesses to avoid repayment of stolen wages. ## Cho, Eunice Hyunhye; Tia Koonse; and Anthony Mischel. ( ## 2015). Hollow Victories: The Crisis in Collecting Unpaid Wages for California’s Workers. National Employment Law Project; University of California, Los Angeles. Key Finding: Only 42% of unpaid wages due to wage theft were recovered after being awarded to victims by the California Department of Labor Standards Enforcement. The low chances of repayment combined with the exhaustive litigative process dissuades many from filing claims of wage theft. In response to low rates of repayment of stolen wages, wage liens can be used to prevent employers from dissolving their company to avoid repayment. When a wage lien is in place, a company dissolving or declaring bankruptcy must retain funds to pay the lien before liquidating. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 57 Carré, Françoise. (2015). (In)dependent Contractor Misclassification. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: State-level studies show that 10%-20% of employers misclassify workers independent contractors. High workers’ compensation premiums in injury-prone industries such as construction create a financial incentive for employers to hire workers, such as undocumented workers, who will not be covered by workers’ compensation. Misclassification weakens the bargaining power of labor in a workplace as contractors are not protected by the NLRA. Misclassification harms employers who properly classify employees as they incur higher payroll costs. Locke, Mandy and Franco Ordonez. ( 2015). “Taxpayers and Workers Gouged by Labor-Law Dodge.” McClatchy DC Bureau. Key Finding: Misclassification allows fraudulent contractors to underbid law-abiding businesses on publicly-funded construction projects, as evidenced by contracts awarded in the economic stimulus following the Great Recession. ## Williams, Erica; Michael Leachman; Marlana Wallace; and Nicholas Albares. ( ## 2015). For States, Inclusive Approach to Unauthorized Immigrants Can Help Build Better Economies. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Key Finding: This report details policies that may benefit immigrants in the labor market. Strengthened labor law enforcement preventing misclassification and wage theft would boost state economies and increase tax revenue. ## Weil, David. ( 2015). The Application of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s “Suffer or Permit” Standard in the Identification of Employees Who Are Misclassified as Independent Contractors. Wage and Hour Division. U.S. Department of Labor. Key Finding: This memo details the varying definitions of “employee” that allow misclassification to continue and describes the factors courts have drafted to weigh when considering the employee-employer relationship. Leyh, Chelsea. (2015). “Getting a Fair Shake: Reducing the Perils of Worker Misclassification on Federally Funded Construction Projects.” Public Contract Law Journal, 44(2): 307-325. Key Finding: This study details legal actions against misclassification in construction and the legal precedents they set. Policy recommendations are provided, such as allowing the USDOL and IRS to share information on misclassification cases to reduce their prevalence by eliminating certain employers from the bidding process. ## Miller, Scott. ( 2015). “Combatting Wage Theft in Illinois: Administering and Enforcing the IWPCA.” The Urban Lawyer, 47(4): 665-716. Key Finding: This history of Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act discusses 2010 amendments that made it one of the strongest anti-wage theft laws in the U.S., such as giving IDOL the power of administrative judgment on wage theft claims of $3,000 or less, enabling private or class actions against employers, increased criminal penalties for employers guilty of wage theft (up to a Class 4 felony), and enabling private actions against employers for retaliation. ## Prakash, Anna and Brittany Skemp. ( ## 2015). “Beyond the Minimum Wage: How the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Broad Social and Economic Protections Support Its Application to Workers Who Earn a Substantial Income.” ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 30(3): 367-388. Key Finding: Under FLSA, employers act as tax collectors in some capacity by deducting taxes from employee paychecks. This efficiency is lost when employees are misclassified. The lost income tax revenue affects the federal government’s ability to fund defense, public aid, disease control, veteran’s benefits, and law enforcement. Deductions mandated by FLSA also ensure social programs like Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. ## Skinner, Nancy. ( 2015). “Guest Commentary: Cities Can Play a Role in Stopping Wage Theft.” Marin Independent Journal. Key Finding: Wage theft cheats California taxpayers out of at least $8.5 billion a year in uncollected taxes. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 58 Siffler, Chris. (2014). Wage Nonpayment in Colorado: Workers Lost $750 Million Per Year. Colorado Fiscal Institute. Key Finding: Wage theft in Colorado disproportionately affects the construction and hotel services industries. Construction accounts for 6% of Colorado’s employment, but 21% of FLSA violations. Across the whole state, the research estimates $750 million is stolen each year. This results in $5 million in lost income tax for the state. ## Yen Liu, Yvonne; Daniel Flaming; and Patrick Burns. ( ## 2014). Sinking Underground: The Growing Informal Economy in California Construction. Economic Roundtable. Key Finding: An analysis of California's construction industry found that 16% of construction workers were employed in the informal economy in 2011, including 104,100 construction workers who were not reported by their employers and 39,800 who were misclassified as independent contractors. The “informal tax gap” results in $774 million in lost revenue from payroll taxes alone—$301 million to the federal government and $473 million to California. Alexander, Charlotte and Arthi Prasad. ( ## 2014). “Bottom-Up Workplace Enforcement: An Empirical Analysis.” Indiana Law Journal, 89: 1069-1131. Key Finding: As worker power and stability decreases, so does their legal knowledge and ability to contest labor violations in the courts. 43% of workers who experience a workplace problem with their employer did not pursue the claim in court for fear of retaliation or lack of confidence in their claim. 43% of workers who did make a formal experienced retaliation in the form of termination, suspension, decreases in hours, or reporting the worker to law enforcement agencies. ## Gleeson, Shannon; Ruth Silver Taube; and Charlotte Noss. ( 2014). Santa Clara County Wage Theft Report. University of California, Santa Cruz; Santa Clara Law. Key Finding: Filing wage liens is often the responsibility of local government officials. To bring successful wage theft claims, individuals and classes can engage with local government officials for support in ensuring repayment. Local governments can also suspend permits for violators and prosecute violators through the District Attorney. ## Ordonez, Franco and Mandy Locke. ( ## 2014). “IRS’ ‘Safe Harbor’ Loophole Frustrates Those Fighting Labor Tax Cheats.” McClatchy D. C. Bureau. Key Finding: Due to the “safe harbor” provision in the Revenue Act, revenue officers charged with investigating worker misclassification and payroll fraud often find themselves unable to administer penalties or change employer practices. Some IRS examiners describe the provision as the “greatest impediment” to fighting worker misclassification. ## Price, Amy; Emily Timm; and Cristina Tzintzún. ( ## 2013). Build a Better Texas: Construction Conditions in the Lone Star State. Workers Defense Project; University of Texas at Austin. Key Finding: A survey of 1,194 construction workers found 41% were misclassified or working off-the-books (a loss of $55 million in UI tax revenue), 22% had experienced wage theft, and 32% said their employers had no workers’ comp policy. ## National Employment Law Project (NELP). ( ## 2013). Winning Wage Justice: A Summary of Research on Wage and Hour Violations in the United States. Key Finding: This brief summarizes different wage theft studies by geographic regions and industries in the United States. ## Gordon, Colin; Matthew Glasson; Jennifer Sherer; and Robin Clark-Bennett. ( 2012). Wage Theft in Iowa. Iowa Policy Project. Key Finding: Misclassification is the second-most-cited wage theft offense in Iowa and enables multiple other forms of wage theft such as overtime violations, break time violations, and underpayment of wages. At the time, Iowa had only a single investigator dedicated to wage theft. Casey, Robert and Eva Lewis. ( 2011). Independent Contractors and Employee Misclassification in the Construction Industry. Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. Key Finding: The Illinois Employee Classification Act assumes all construction workers are employees unless the employing party can prove they are independent contractors. In the first 3 years after enactment, $1.3 million in penalties was recovered for misclassified workers. This bill bars known violators from bidding on public project for up to 4 years. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 59 Kelsay, Michael and James Sturgeon. ( 2011). The Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the Construction Sector in the Commonwealth of Kentucky. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: 26% of construction employers in Kentucky were engaged in misclassification. The rate peaked in 2010 with 40%. Employee misclassification led to $2 million lost each year to the unemployment insurance system, up to $5 million lost in workers’ compensation premiums, and up to $12 million lost in state income tax revenues. ## Wayne, Richard. ( 2011). AGC of America’s 2011 Labor and Employment Law Symposium: Davis-Bacon Act – Misclassification and Compliance. Hinckley Allen Snyder LLP. Key Finding: This is a PowerPoint presentation on Davis-Bacon Act and ways to avoid accidental misclassification. ## Kelsay, Michael and James Sturgeon. ( ## 2010). The Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the State of Indiana. University of Missouri-Kansas City. Key Finding: Nearly half (47.5%) of audited employers in Indiana were engaged in misclassification. An estimated 15% of construction workers were misclassified, costing the state $2 million in lost unemployment insurance and $4-$8 million in lost workers’ compensation premiums. Canak, William and Randall Adams. ( 2010). Misclassified Construction Employees in Tennessee. Middle Tennessee State University; Tennessee Technical University. Key Finding: Between 12,000 and 39,000 construction workers are misclassified or unreported, affecting 11% to 21% of the construction workforce. Losses to state and federal programs were up to $15 million for the state’s UI program, $92 million in worker’s compensation premiums, $73 million in federal income tax, and $42 million in Social Security funding. Theodore; Nik; Mirabai Auer; Ryan Hollon; Sandra Morales-Mirque; Annette Bernhardt; Ruth Milkman; Douglas Heckathorn; James DeFilippis; Ana Luz González; Victor Narro; Jason Perelshteyn; Diana Polson; and Michael Spiller ( 2010). Unregulated Work in Chicago: The Breakdown of Workplace Protections in the Low-Wage Labor Market. University of Illinois at Chicago; Cornell University; University of California, Los Angeles; Rutgers University; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Key Finding: In this 2008 survey data of front-line workers in Chicago, 26% were victims of minimum wage violations, 17% were not paid legally required overtime, and 10% experienced retaliation when complaining or attempting to unionize. 20% of injured workers experienced an illegal employer reaction. The average worker in the survey lost 16% of earnings to various forms of wage theft, resulting in $7 million stolen per week in Chicago from low-wage workers. ## Belman, Dale and Richard Block. ( ## 2009). The Social and Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in Michigan. Michigan State University. Key Finding: 26% of construction firms misclassified employees. Among those who did so, 19% of their employees were misclassified (i.e., 6% of the entire industry workforce), costing the state over $2 million in UI tax revenue. ## Government Accountability Office (GAO). ( ## 2009). Employee Misclassification: Improved Coordination, Outreach, and Targeting Could Better Ensure Detection and Prevention. Key Finding: Misclassification of workers enables other forms of wage theft, such as minimum wage theft. These minimum wage violations are investigated under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which does not address misclassification. State officials believe misclassification has generally increased. The Employment and Training Administrations reported the number of misclassified workers uncovered by state audits had risen, but likely underestimated how much. The Department of Labor has generally investigated misclassification indirectly as a result of investigating broader FLSA violations. Recommendations include coordination between federal and state agencies, outreach to workers on proper classification, and a voluntary IRS settlement program that enables employers to correct their misclassifications. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 60 Edwards, Kathryn and Kai Filion. (2009). Outsourcing Poverty: Federal Contracting Pushes Down Wages and Benefits. Economic Policy Institute. Key Finding: From 2006 to 2007, the number of federal contract workers grew from 1.4 million to 2 million. Nearly 20% of these contract workers were unable to earn a living wage and did not have the same access to healthcare and retirement plans as provided to federal employees. Cox, Lauren; Emily Timm; and Cristina Tzintzún. ( ## 2009). Building Austin, Building Injustice. Workers Defense Project; The University of Texas at Austin. Key Finding: 71% of poverty-wage workers had no access to workers’ compensation. When surveyed, union construction workers were 58% more likely to know about their labor rights than non-unionized workers. Access to workers’ compensation is one aspect of total compensation and benefits and is especially valuable in injury-prone industries such as construction. 20% of construction workers in Austin who experienced an injury were not able to take advantage of workers’ compensation due to their status as independent contractors. This cost was largely absorbed by public hospitals caring for the injured workers. Removing workers’ access to workers’ compensation places the financial burden of medical care on workers, as well as public hospitals and safety net programs like Medicaid. 71% of poverty-wage workers had no access to workers’ compensation. ## Sonn, Paul and Tsedeye Gebreselassie. ( ## 2009). The Road to Responsible Contracting: Lessons from States and Cities for Ensuring That Federal Contracting Delivers Good Jobs and Quality Services. National Employment Law Project (NELP); University of California, Los Angeles; University of Illinois at Chicago; City University of New York; Cornell University; Rutgers University. Key Finding: A 1983 Housing and Urban Development audit found an inverse relationship between wage violations and quality of projects for federally-funded construction. Recommendations include instituting more rigorous criteria for being a responsible contractor, establishing a preference for employers that provide good jobs with living wages, and strengthening monitoring and enforcement. Bernhardt, Annette; Ruth Milkman; Nik Theodore; Douglas Heckathorn; Mirabai Auer; James DeFilippis; Ana Luz González; Victor Narro; Jason Perelshteyn; Diana Polson; and Michael Spiller. ( ## 2008). Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s Cities. National Employment Law Project (NELP); University of California, Berkeley. Key Finding: 26% of workers in low-wage industries had experienced a minimum wage violation in the week before. 9% experienced retaliation when complaining to supervisors or attempting to unionize. 50% who reported injury on the job experienced an illegal employer reaction. The respondents who were judged to be in an employment relationship but were classified as contractors (mostly in-home childcare workers) faced higher rates of violations, including 89% of them earning less than minimum hourly wages. Workers paid in cash on daily or weekly rates rather than hourly rates saw the highest percentage of minimum wage violations. Recommendations include proactive investigative enforcement of labor laws specifically regarding misclassification, and stronger legislation to address new strategies to evade liability. ## Donahue, Linda; James Ryan Lamare; Fred Kotler. ( ## 2007). The Cost of Worker Misclassification In New York State. Cornell University. Key Finding: Nearly 15% were construction employers, resulting in nearly 15% of the New York construction workforce being misclassified. Over $175 million was lost to the unemployment insurance system. ## Government Accountability Office (GAO). ( ## 2007). Employee Misclassification: Improved Outreach Could Help Ensure Proper Worker Classification. Key Finding: 22% of independent contractors in the United States worked in construction in 2007. A majority of independent contractors in construction were white, middle-aged men with at least some college education. These demographic characteristics did not prevent them from being misclassified. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 61 Parrott, James. (2007). Building Up New York, Tearing Down Job Quality: Taxpayer Impact of Worsening Employment Practices in New York City’s Construction Industry. Fiscal Policy Institute. Key Finding: An estimated 50,000 of over 200,000 New York City construction workers are misclassified or paid entirely off-the-books. In 2005, illegal construction industry practices resulted in a loss of $489 million to the state. In 2008, this rose to $557 million, showing these practices are becoming more common and impactful. ## Parrott, James. ( 2007). New York State Workers’ Compensation: How Big Is the Coverage Shortfall? Fiscal Policy Institute. Key Finding: In New York State, misclassification across all industries leads to a loss between $506 million and $1.0 billion each year in unpaid workers’ compensation premiums. Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2007). Misclassification of Employees as Independent Contractors. State of Minnesota. Key Finding: 15% of Minnesota construction firms misclassified employees. The rates were highest in roofing (38%) and drywall installation (31%) and lowest in road and bridge construction (10%) and site preparation (5%). ## Ruckelshaus, Catherine. ( 2007). Providing Fairness to Workers Who Have Been Misclassified as Independent Contractors. National Employment Law Project (NELP). Testimony before the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee on Education on Labor in the U.S. House of Representatives. Key Finding: Research estimates that misclassification rates in the construction industry could be as high as 40%. Later research corroborated that misclassification was a growing practice at the time of this testimony. Theodore, Nik and Marc Doussard. (2006). The Hidden Public Cost of Low-Wage Work in Illinois. University of Illinois at Chicago. Key Finding: Low-wage jobs in 2001-2004 caused working families to rely on government assistance programs. These families constituted 37% of public benefits spending in Illinois, including $92 million on families with construction workers. Weil, David and Amanda Pyles. (2006). “Why Complain? Complaints, Compliance, and the Problem of Enforcement in the U.S. Workplace.” Comparative Labor Law and Policy Journal, 27(59): 59-92. Key Finding: For every 130 minimum wage violations in the United States, only one complaint is filed with the appropriate regulatory agency. Explanations for this gap include the fear of retaliation from employers and lack of unionization. Valenzuela, Abel; Nik Theodore; Edwin Melendez; Ana Luz González. (2006). On the Corner: Day Labor in the United States. University of California, Los Angeles; University of Illinois at Chicago; New School University. Key Finding: Day laborers are predominantly Hispanic, foreign-born men. Nearly half of all surveyed day laborers were victims of wage theft, either in nonpayment or underpayment. ## Carré, Françoise and Randall Wilson. ( ## 2005). The Social and Economic Costs of Employee Misclassification in the Maine Construction Industry. University of Massachusetts Boston. Key Finding: 14% of construction firms misclassified workers; among employers who misclassify, 45% of workers are misclassified. Overall, 11% of all construction employees are misclassified. State loses $314,319 annually in lost UI tax revenues, $2.6 million in lost income tax revenue, and $6.5 million in lost workers’ comp contributions. ## Carré, Françoise and Randall Wilson. ( ## 2004). The Social and Economic Cost of Employee Misclassification in Construction. University of Massachusetts Boston. Key Finding: In Massachusetts from 2001 to 2003, between 14% and 24% of construction employers were estimated to have workers misclassified as independent contractors. These employers misclassified around 40% of their workforce, meaning at least 5% of the total construction workforce in Massachusetts may have been misclassified. Up to $4 million in unemployment insurance and up to $7 million in income tax revenues are lost per year. ## HOME – FACTS – TABLES – VIDEOS – INFOGRAPHICS – AGENCIES – RESEARCH 62 Goh, Yong Lee. (2004). The Effect of Higher Workers’ Compensation Premium Rates on Construction Worker Wages and the Reporting of Injuries. University of Utah. Key Finding: As workers’ compensation premiums rise in construction, workers experience a significant decrease in wages as well as pressure from employers to not report injuries and utilize workers’ compensation for medical care. Misclassification, Payroll Fraud, & Wage Theft: A Primer for Local Government Officials & Candidates Misclassification, Payroll Fraud, and Wage Theft are three interrelated issues that have unfortunately become pervasive throughout the construction industry. While not unique to construction, these issues are particularly acute because about a quarter of annual industry spending comes from public sources (i.e., taxpayers). In other words, without proper regulatory safeguards, public spending on infrastructure can unintentionally subsidize these exploitative business practices. Misclassification is the act of redefining an employee as an independent contractor. A misclassified worker is deprived of many protections that are attached through the employee-employer relationship, including unemployment insurance, health insurance, overtime, and worker’s compensation. Employers who misclassify workers shift all of the liability for paying payroll taxes (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.) and other legal obligations onto the individual workers. This allows employers to “save” up to 20-30% of their labor costs. Payroll Fraud occurs when employers do not fulfill their obligations to pay taxes and fund social safety net programs via payroll taxes and normal business overhead (such as carrying workers’ compensation insurance). It occurs when workers are misclassified, but can also occur in situations where workers are being paid in cash or otherwise “off the books,” (because payments to those workers are not easily traceable by regulatory and tax authorities), and when workers experience wage theft (because it reduces taxable wages and income). Wage Theft occurs when workers are not paid in full for work they perform, and this can take a multitude of different forms: not paying for all hours worked, not paying the stated wage, not paying overtime, requiring workers to perform tasks “off the clock” (such as cleaning), etc. Since 2019, Minnesota has treated wage theft as a felony crime, but prosecutions have remained relatively few and far between. Taken together, these violations have systemic effects of depriving workers of the ability to earn a fair and steady income from their labor, depriving lawful contractors of a fair competitive business environment, depriving project owners and developers of a healthy industry and workforce to build their projects, and depriving taxpayers and communities of a properly-funded social safety net. Victims of wage theft and other fraudulent business practices face housing instability, food insecurity, and increased dependence on public assistance programs, compounding the burden on taxpayers, lawful employers, and communities. In 2025, public sector construction in the United States was a little more than $517 billion, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. Why that matters for public officials is the fact that most of this funding was required to be awarded to the lowest bidder. Low bid requirements certainly play a role in helping contain costs on public projects, but they have the unintentional side effect of incentivizing contractors to seek any advantage that will increase their odds of submitting the winning low bid. And unfortunately, more than a century of hard experience has taught us that some contractors will choose to employ schemes like misclassification, payroll fraud, and wage theft in order to increase their chances of winning low bids. And research backs this up, showing how prevalent these issues have become within the construction industry: 23% of Minnesota construction workers experience wage theft, reducing their wages and benefits by 36% on average. 1 This reduces state tax revenues from the construction industry by about $136 million each year ($65 million in income taxes, $13 million in unemployment insurance contributions, and $58 million in workers’ compensation premiums). Across all industries, 316,000 Minnesota workers are victims of wage theft each year, losing about $6.2 billion. This also deprives government entities of about $1.3 billion in tax revenue annually, putting more strain on crucial public safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, unemployment insurance, and workers’ compensation. [I grabbed these figures from Aaron’s presentation — can we add citations for these figures?] 1 Goodell, N., & Manzo IV, F. (2021). The Costs of Wage Theft and Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industries of Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois. Midwest Economic Policy Institute. https://dwd.wi.gov/misclass-taskforce/pdf/meetings/210114/costs-of-payroll-fraud.pdf ## RESEARCH BRIEF ## UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education January 2022 ## Research Brief ## The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the ## US Construction Industry By Ken Jacobs, Kuochih Huang, Jenifer MacGillvary, and Enrique Lopezlira ## Summary Construction in the United States was historically known as an industry where workers without a college education could find family-supporting jobs. Now, job quality for some construction workers has deteriorated to the point that they earn wages too low to make ends meet and therefore fall back on the public safety net to make up the difference. In this paper we look at the use by construction workers and their families in the United States of five means-tested safety net programs. We find that 39% of families of construction workers are enrolled in one or more safety net program at a cost of almost $28 billion per year. In comparison, 31% of all workers have a family member enrolled in a safety net program. Three times as many construction workers as all workers lack health insurance (31% compared to 10%). ## Introduction Construction is one of the largest industries in the United States. There are approximately 10 million people employed in the construction industry, about 1 in 16 workers nationally. 1 Just prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2019, construction contributed $903.6 billion, or 4.2%, of U.S. GDP. 2 It accounted for $812 billion in personal income, or $1 out of every $23 in total national earnings in 2019. 3 The construction industry is bifurcated into low-road and high-road sectors, which have strikingly different working conditions. For many non-college-educated blue-collar workers in many parts of the country, the construction industry provides a high-road, viable path to the middle class: workers are paid family-supporting wages and benefits, receive good training, and are provided with safe worksites backed by workers’ compensation protection. The low-road sector of construction, however, “feature[s] some of the worst labor practices in the United States”—low wages, no benefits, exploitation, and often illegalities including wage theft and payroll fraud. 4 2The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry This split into high-road and low-road sectors in construction began in the late 1960s and tracked with sharp declines in unionization in the industry. 5 In 1971, 42% of construction workers were union members; by 2019 the rate had fallen to 12.6%. 6 Erlich and Grabelsky (2005) explain major regional differences in unionization: building trades unions have a relatively strong presence in urban areas of the Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast. However, the number of such markets is shrinking and, even in these markets, there are “large and growing segments of the industry [that] are outside the union sphere of influence.” 7 In residential construction specifically, according to Ormiston et al. (2020), unionization was as high as 50% in 1950, but it fell swiftly to around 20% in the 1970s. “Currently in the single digits industry-wide, the residential sector operates virtually union-free in many trades and regions.” 8 Significantly, these union-free cities, primarily in the Sunbelt, are some of the fastest growing in the country. 9 The low-road model is not confined to residential construction, however; it has spread into the commercial and industrial sectors as well. 10 The decline in union density significantly eroded the quality of construction jobs overall. Between 1973 and 2006, there was a 17% drop in average real hourly earnings for all construction workers. 11 ## From 1980 to 1991, the percent of construction workers with employer-provided health insurance declined from 55% to 45%. 12 Participation in employment-based retirement plans went from 39% in 2000 to 27% in 2015. 13 Unionized construction workers are in a far better situation than nonunion workers; in 2015, their wages were 42% higher and their total compensation 78% higher than their non-union counterparts. 14 Regionally, blue-collar construction workers in the South earn wages around 18% lower than those in the West, 20% lower than wages in the Midwest, and 21% lower than wages in the Northeast. 15 A survey of construction workers in six major Southern cities found that over half (57%) earn less than $15 per hour. 16 Besides depressing wages and benefits in the industry, the decline of unionization also diminished the role unions have been able to play in protecting against exploitative labor practices. This is an especially problematic development given the weakness at all levels of government in enforcement of labor standards, combined with structural incentives that put lawful construction employers at a significant competitive disadvantage. Throughout the country, construction is a highly competitive industry in which projects are frequently awarded on the sole basis of the lowest bid. 17 One of the most effective ways to minimize costs and win contracts is to “reduce labor costs through whatever means possible.” 18 The primary strategies to this end are paying low wages without benefits, misclassifying employees as independent contractors, and paying workers under the table. Mark Erlich calls construction “the original gig economy,” noting that while independent contractors comprise 7% of the national workforce, around 20% of all independent contractors are construction workers. 19 A significant portion of these workers are misclassified. State-level studies have found misclassification rates in construction of almost 15% in New York and 30% in Virginia. 20 In 2011 an estimated 19% of California construction workers who were independent contractors were misclassified; these workers earned only 67 cents for every dollar earned by comparable workers with employee status. 21 An investigation by McClatchy news found that more than a third of construction workers in Southern states were misclassified. 22 The reason for the excessive use of independent contractors and the high levels of misclassification is obvious. Around one-third of labor costs can be eliminated by classifying workers as independent contractors; employers do not have to pay unemployment insurance, Social Security, Medicare, or workers’ compensation premiums. 23 3The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry Even larger than the problem of misclassification in construction is the practice of paying workers completely off the books. The Alliance for Construction Excellence reported in 2019 that there are fully four times as many construction workers being paid off the books as the number being misclassified as independent contractors (1.2 million to 300,000). 24 The cash-only nature of under-the-table work leaves workers particularly vulnerable to wage theft, though misclassified workers and even legally employed workers can be subject to this as well. A 2009 study of three cities found over 70% of residential construction workers had experienced not being paid overtime or for work done off the clock. 25 Ormiston et al. (2020) estimate that throughout the country in 2017 workers lost between $811 million and over $1 billion in overtime and premium pay due to payroll fraud. 26 A study of construction workers in California found that workers paid under the table earn just 52 cents for every dollar earned by workers with employee status. 27 The practices of misclassification and paying off the books are most likely to occur in industries where it is most profitable and most easily hidden, both true of the construction industry. Employers in construction can accrue tremendous savings by avoiding employment taxes and workers’ compensation premiums, and the layers and layers of subcontracting characteristic of the industry make these practices easy to conceal. 28 In most states, general and subcontractors are not liable for—and in fact benefit from—payroll fraud found further “down the chain” of subcontractors; these practices continue “with or without the knowledge, assistance or willful ignorance of the owners, developers, general contractors, or construction managers.” 29 Overall, between 12.4 and 20.5% of construction workers are either misclassified or paid under the table. 30 More than one in five of the construction workers in the six Southern cities study did not have enough money for groceries or bills at some point in the previous year. 31 The impact of low wages and lack of benefits in low-road construction goes beyond the direct effects on workers and their families. It also has costs to society at large. When workers do not earn enough money to meet their basic needs, they often turn to safety net programs to make up the difference. In this brief we will estimate the public cost to the states and the federal government from the use of safety net programs by construction workers and their families as a result of the low-road practices that are becoming more and more commonplace in the industry. ## Data and Definitions We examine construction workers’ and their families’ utilization of the five largest means-tested safety net programs for which data are available: Medicaid; Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP); basic household income assistance under Temporary Aid for Needy Families (TANF); Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC); and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Responsibility for funding the health programs is shared by the states and the federal government. We include only the cash assistance portion of TANF, and this program too receives funding from both the states and the federal government. While there are state-level EITC programs in over half of the states, in this analysis we include only the federal EITC. The federal government alone funds SNAP. We analyze only programs that function as income supplements, omitting job-training, housing cost assistance, educational, and other programs that indirectly assist low-income families. 4The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry To calculate the numbers of working families who participated in safety net programs, we restrict the sample to those who work 27 or more weeks per year and 10 or more hours per week in all industries. We exclude workers who live in institutional group quarters. To identify construction workers, we further use the 1990 Census Bureau industrial code All Construction (60), and the 2010 Census Bureau occupation codes from First-Line Supervisors of Construction Trades and Extraction Workers (6200) to Construction Workers, n.e.c. (6765), and we include W2 workers and the not-incorporated self- employed but exclude the incorporated self-employed. ## Results Table 1 shows the annual enrollment in safety net programs of construction workers and their families between 2015 and 2019. We estimate that 39% of construction working families are enrolled in at least one program, significantly more than the 31% of all working families. Construction working families have higher enrollment than all working families in every program except TANF, where both groups have a low enrollment of 1%. Nationwide, construction working families are overall 26% more likely than all working families to participate in one or more means-tested safety net program. These families are 36% more likely to be enrolled in Children’s Medicaid and 38% more likely to be enrolled in EITC. Table 1. Annual Enrollment in Safety Net Programs for Working Families, ## United States, 2015-2019 ## Program ## Number of Construction ## Working Families ## Enrolled Share of ## Construction Working ## Families Enrolled Share of ## ALL Working ## Families Enrolled ## Adult Medicaid1,321,00017%15% ## Children’s Medicaid/CHIP1,218,00015%11% ## EITC2,288,00029%21% ## TANF61,0001%1% ## SNAP1,173,00015%12% Any program3,087,00039%31% Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 2016–2020 March Current Population Survey, 2019 Occupational Employment Statistics, and administrative data from Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, SNAP, and TANF programs. Note: The analysis is restricted to workers who work at least 27 weeks in a year and 10 or more hours per week. 5The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry Table 2 presents the combined annual expenditures by states and the federal government on the safety net programs for construction working families and all working families, again averaged over the years 2015-2019. In total, $28 billion is spent on safety net program utilization annually by construction working families in the United States, compared to $275 billion for all working families. Construction working families account for 10% of the total safety net expenditures for all working families nationwide. Table 2. Annual State and Federal Spending on Safety Net Programs for ## Working Families, United States, 2015-2019 (2019 dollars) ## Program ## Amount Spent on ## Construction Working Families Amount spent on ## ALL Working Families ## Adult Medicaid10,808,000,000116,867,000,000 ## Children’s Medicaid/CHIP7,766,000,00063,400,000,000 ## EITC6,212,000,00060,682,000,000 ## TANF210,000,0002,696,000,000 ## SNAP2,933,000,00031,269,000,000 ## All Programs27,930,000,000274,913,000,000 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 2016–2020 March Current Population Survey, 2019 Occupational Employment Statistics, and administrative data from Medicaid, CHIP, EITC, SNAP, and TANF programs. Notes: The analysis is restricted to workers who work at least 27 weeks in a year and 10 or more hours per week. Numbers may not add due to rounding. Table 3 presents the health insurance coverage status of construction workers and all workers. Almost one-third (31%) of construction workers lack insurance coverage. The rate at which construction workers lack health insurance is three times the rate for all workers nationally (10%). Table 3. Health Insurance Coverage of All Workers and Construction Workers, ## United States, 2015-2019 ## Construction WorkersAll Workers No health insurance coverage31%10% With health insurance coverage69%90% Source: Authors’ analysis of 2015-2019 IPUMS American Community Survey (ACS) data. Note: The analysis is restricted to workers who work at least 27 weeks in a year and 10 or more hours per week. 6The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry Determining the full cost of uninsurance, let alone the cost for uninsured construction workers, is beyond our scope. But in addition to causing hardship for uninsured construction workers, uninsurance creates significant expenses for states, counties, and the federal government. The Kaiser Family Foundation reports that in the years 2015-2017, uncompensated health care costs for the uninsured nationwide averaged $42.4 billion per year, with the public picking up around 80% of these costs. 32 ## Discussion Construction was once an industry that could reliably provide family-supporting jobs to its blue-collar workforce. Conditions in the industry have deteriorated so much that construction workers are now more likely than the average worker to utilize public safety net programs. Importantly, the numbers provided in this analysis do not fully reflect the deprivation among this workforce. Undocumented immigrants currently comprise 13% of the construction workforce (compared to 5% of the overall US workforce), 33 and with rare exceptions they are ineligible for state and federal assistance. 34 ## Their working conditions, among the worst in the industry, are not reflected in this analysis. The low wages and exploitative practices in the construction industry that cause profound hardship for many workers and their families also cost the public. When employers misclassify their workers or pay them under the table, they are defunding and defrauding government programs, including workers’ compensation, Social Security, and Medicare. Ormiston et al. (2020) conservatively estimate that fraud in the construction industry yields Social Security and Medicare shortfalls of between $1.36 and $4.28 billion annually; federal income tax losses of $319 million to $1.26 billion; and state income tax revenue losses of $160 to $552 million. 35 Overall, misclassification is estimated to cost state and federal coffers at least $3,000 annually for every worker that is misclassified. 36 The lack of both employer-provided insurance and access to workers’ compensation leaves many construction workers unprotected and uninsured. And, as found in this analysis, low-road employment practices cause above-average utilization of safety net programs by construction working families. The labor standards enforcement void created by declining unionization in the industry has not been filled. Without government intervention, construction workers should expect to continue to be exploited and cheated, and lawful contractors should expect to find it more and more difficult to remain in operation. ## Appendix: Methods We mainly rely on four sources of data: the US Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS), the March Supplement of the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey (CPS), the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics (OES), and administrative data from the Medicaid, CHIP, TANF, EITC, and SNAP programs. Medicaid figures exclude aged, blind, and disabled enrollees. The ACS surveys a large number of respondents and asks them about their work history, income, and family structure. The March Supplement of CPS, also known as the Annual Demographic Supplement, asks respondents about receipts of cash and noncash transfer payments during the past year and includes questions about the programs we examine in this analysis. 7The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry Survey databases like the ACS and CPS frequently have safety net program utilization counts that differ from program administrative data. We adjusted the CPS so that its program utilization estimates match the program administrative data. The CPS does not provide a large enough sample size to accurately estimate program utilization for construction workers at the state or county levels. The ACS does have sufficient sample size for this analysis but lacks specific questions about program utilization, and its occupational employment counts differ from more accurate data like the OES. On the other hand, while the OES has accurate employment counts for wage workers, it does not include independent contractors. To overcome these issues, we built a model using CPS data to predict program utilization based on income, demographics, and family structure. We then used that model to impute program utilization onto the ACS data. We calculated the ratio of wage workers to non-incorporated self- employed workers based on the ACS and used it to adjust the OES data for non-incorporated self- employed workers, and then adjusted the employment counts in the ACS to match the adjusted OES data. Finally, we used that imputed and adjusted ACS data to analyze safety net program utilization in families of construction workers. For a detailed explanation of methodology, please see Appendix A: Methodology from Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry. 37 ## Endnotes 1 US Census Bureau, ACS 2019 1-year estimates, table C24070, Industry By Class Of Worker For The Civilian Employed Population 16 Years And Over. “People employed in the construction industry” excludes self-employed in own incorporated business workers. Accessed 12/2/2021. 2 Bureau of Economic Analysis, Value Added by Industry, accessed 12/2/2021. 3 U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, SAINC5N Personal Income by Major Component and Earnings by NAICS Industry 1/, accessed 12/2/2021. 4 Russell Ormiston, Dale Belman, and Mark Erlich, “An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry,” January 2020, 2, https:// stoptaxfraud.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/National-Carpenters-Study-Methodology-for-Wage- and-Tax-Fraud-Report-FINAL.pdf. 5 There are several complementary explanations for the development of the bifurcated construction industry and the decline of unionization. See Erlich (2020) , Theodore (2015), Weil (2005), and Ormiston et al. (2020). Mark Erlich, “Misclassification in Construction: The Original Gig Economy,” ## ILR Review, November 26, 2020, 1–29, https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793920972321; Nik Theodore, “Rebuilding the House of Labor: Unions and Worker Centers in the Residential Construction Industry,” WorkingUSA 18 (March 1, 2015): 59–76, https://doi.org/10.1111/wusa.12153; David Weil, “The ## Contemporary Industrial Relations System in Construction: Analysis, Observations and Speculations,” Labor History 46, no. 4 (November 1, 2005): 447–71, https://doi.org/10.1080/00236560500266258; Russell Ormiston et al., “Rebuilding Residential Construction,” in Creating Good Jobs: An Industry-Based Strategy, ed. Paul Osterman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020), 75–113. 6 “Union Membership and Coverage Database from the CPS,” http://www.unionstats.com; 1971 figure from Andrew Elrod, “Built Trades,” Phenomenal World (blog), August 11, 2021, https://www. phenomenalworld.org/analysis/built-trades/ When considering only blue-collar construction workers, the numbers are significantly higher, though the trend of deunionization remains: the Bureau of Labor 8The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry Statistics found that in 1971, fully 60% of blue-collar construction workers were covered by a collective bargaining agreement (Elrod, “Built Trades”) compared to 18.1% in 2016 (CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training, “The Construction Chart Book: The U.S. Construction Industry and ## Its Workers, Sixth Edition,” February 2018, https://www.cpwr.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/ ## The_6th_Edition_Construction_eChart_Book.pdf.) 7 Mark Erlich and Jeff Grabelsky, “Standing at a Crossroads: The Building Trades in the Twenty- First Century,” Labor History 46, no. 4 (2005): 424–25, https://doi.org/10.1080/00236560500266241. 8 Ormiston et al., “Rebuilding Residential Construction,” 2020. 9 Elrod, “Built Trades.” 10 Erlich, “Misclassification in Construction.” 11 CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training, “The Construction Chart Book: The U.S. Construction Industry and Its Workers, Fourth Edition,” December 2007, https://www.cpwr.com/ wp-content/uploads/publications/CB4_Final-for-web.pdf. 12 Katharine R. Levit, Gary L. Olin, and Suzanne W. Letsch, “Americans’ Health Insurance Coverage, 1980-91,” Health Care Financing Review 14, no. 1 (1992): 31–57. 13 CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training, “The Construction Chart Book, ## Sixth Edition.” 14 CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training. 15 CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training. 16 Nik Theodore, Bethany Boggess, and Emily Timm, “Build a Better South: Construction Working Conditions in the Southern U.S.” (Workers Defense Project, Partnership for Working Families, and the University of Illinois at Chicago, 2017), https://workersdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/ research/Build%20a%20Better%20South.pdf. 17 Matthew F. Capece, “Fraudulent Schemes and Violations of Employment, Tax and Other Laws in the Construction Industry” (United Brotherhood of Carpenters, July 16, 2021). 18 Russell Ormiston et al., “Rebuilding Residential Construction,” in Creating Good Jobs: An Industry-Based Strategy, ed. Paul Osterman (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2020), 76. 19 Erlich, “Misclassification in Construction.” 20 Ormiston et al., “Rebuilding Residential Construction,” 2020. 21 Yvonne Yen Liu and Daniel Flaming, “Sinking Underground: The Growing Informal Economy in ## California Construction” (Economic Roundtable, September 2014), https://economicrt.org/publication/ sinking-underground/. 22 Franco Ordoñez and Mandy Locke, “IRS’ ‘Safe Harbor’ Loophole Frustrates Those Fighting ## Labor Tax Cheats,” McClatchy Washington Bureau, December 14, 2014, https://www.mcclatchydc.com/ news/nation-world/national/economy/article24777397.html. 23 Erlich, “Misclassification in Construction.” 24 Matt Capece, “Construction Industry Tax Rip-Off Estimated at $2.6 Billion -1.2 Million Construction Workers Paid Off-the Books” (Alliance for Construction Excellence, March 15, 2019), http://www.allianceforconstructionexcellence.org/construction-industry-tax-rip-off-estimated-at-2-6- billion-1-2-million-construction-workers-paid-off-the-books/. 9The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry 25 Annette Bernhardt et al., “Broken Laws, Unprotected Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws in America’s Cities” (Center for Urban Economic Development; National Employment Law Project; UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 2009), https://www.nelp.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/BrokenLawsReport2009.pdf. 26 Russell Ormiston, Dale Belman, and Mark Erlich, “An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry,” January 2020, https://stoptaxfraud. net/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/National-Carpenters-Study-Methodology-for-Wage-and-Tax- Fraud-Report-FINAL.pdf. 27 Liu and Flaming, “Sinking Underground: The Growing Informal Economy in California ## Construction.” 28 Françoise Carré, “(In)Dependent Contractor Misclassification” (Economic Policy Institute, June 8, 2015), https://www.epi.org/publication/independent-contractor-misclassification/. 29 Capece, “Fraudulent Schemes and Violations of Employment, Tax and Other Laws in the Construction Industry,” 1. 30 Ormiston, Belman, and Erlich, “An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry,” January 2020. ## 31 Theodore, Boggess, and Timm, “Build a Better South.” 32 Teresa A. Coughlin, Haley Samuel-Jakubos, and 2021, “Sources of Payment for Uncompensated Care for the Uninsured” (Kaiser Family Foundation, April 6, 2021), https://www.kff. org/uninsured/issue-brief/sources-of-payment-for-uncompensated-care-for-the-uninsured/. 33 CPWR – The Center for Construction Research and Training, “The Construction Chart Book, ## Sixth Edition.” 34 Undocumented immigrants have long been excluded from receiving assistance from federal benefit programs, except under specific circumstances. For more information see: National Immigration Law Center, Overview of Immigrant Eligibility for Federal Programs, https://www.nilc.org/ issues/economic-support/table_ovrw_fedprogs/. 35 Ormiston, Belman, and Erlich, “An Empirical Methodology to Estimate the Incidence and Costs of Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industry,” January 2020. Under their most aggressive assumptions, the authors estimate construction payroll fraud causes Social Security and Medicare shortfalls of up to $6 billion per year; federal income tax losses of more than $2 billion; and state tax revenue shortfalls of $917 million. 36 Sara Hinkley, Annette Bernhardt, and Sarah Thomason, “Race to the Bottom: How Low-Road Subcontracting Affects Working Conditions in California’s Property Services Industry” (UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education, March 8, 2016), http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/race-to- the-bottom/. 37 Sylvia A. Allegretto et al., “Fast Food, Poverty Wages: The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the Fast-Food Industry,” October 15, 2013, http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/fast-food-poverty-wages-the- public-cost-of-low-wage-jobs-in-the-fast-food-industry/. ## UC Berkeley Labor Center ## The Center for Labor Research and Education (Labor Center) is a public service project of the UC Berkeley Institute for Research on Labor and Employment that links academic resources with working people. Since 1964, the Labor Center has produced research, trainings, and curricula that deepen understanding of employment conditions and develop diverse new generations of leaders. ## Acknowledgements We would like to thank Dale Belman for reviewing a draft of this report. We also thank Laurel Lucia for help understanding medicaid data and Scott Littlehale for guidance on industry data sources. The United Brotherhood of Carpenters provided funding for this research. ## Suggested Citation Jacobs, Ken, Kuochih Huang, Jenifer MacGillvary, and Enrique Lopezlira. The Public Cost of Low-Wage Jobs in the US Construction Industry. UC Berkeley Labor Center, January 2022. https://laborcenter. berkeley.edu/the-public-cost-of-low-wage-jobs-in-the-US-construction-industry/. ## University of California, Berkeley ## 2521 Channing Way ## Berkeley, CA 94720-5555 (510) 642-0323 laborcenter.berkeley.edu The analyses, interpretations, conclusions, and views expressed in this brief are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the UC Berkeley Labor Center, the Regents of the University of California, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, or collaborating organizations or funders. ## Subsidizing Abuse: ## How Public Financing Fuels Exploitation ## in Affordable Housing Construction ## ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jake Schwitzer is the Executive Director of North Star Policy Action. He leads North Star Policy Action’s research and communications initiatives. He holds a B.S. in Political Science from American University. Lucas Franco is the Research Manager for LIUNA Minnesota & North Dakota. He holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Minnesota, a M.A. of Philosophy from the University of Oslo and a B.A. in Political Science from Seattle University. He has published numerous articles and reports on market trends and employment practices in the construction industry. ## ABOUT NORTH STAR POLICY ACTION North Star Policy Action is an independent research and communications institute that is dedicated to improving the lives of everyday Minnesotans by advancing bold ideas that change the conversation and bring communities together. We develop and promote data-driven solutions to persistent problems that allow working people to thrive, no matter who they are or where they live www.northstarpolicy.org ## Cover: Stock Photo courtesy of Adobe Stock ## Underfunded Minnesota: Collective Investment for a Brighter Future ## Executive Summary Minnesota faces a significant shortage of affordable housing. Middle and low income Minnesotans are finding it increasingly difficult to rent or buy a home. The supply of low- cost rental housing in Minnesota has actually fallen by a quarter over the last decade, while the cost of buying a home has more than doubled between 2012 to 2022. In recent years, state and local governments have taken steps to fund new affordable housing while promoting development of market-rate housing to help ease a shortage that is pushing up prices for all Minnesotans. Yet without stronger oversight over the use of Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Tax Increment Financing programs, there is a danger that new housing projects will be built on the backs of vulnerable workers who earn too little to live in the homes they build. This report details the extent of taxpayer support for low-road construction practices that exploit immigrants and other at-risk workers. The report explores how public financing flows to a handful of private for-profit housing developers that employ contractors that have been charged with or face allegations of exploitation according to interviews with workers and industry experts. ## Key Findings: w Minnesota faces a severe housing crisis caused by a shortage of affordable homes, and the problem is getting worse. The supply of low-cost rental housing in Minnesota has decreased by a quarter over the last decade, from 408,599 affordable units in 2011 to 308,733 units in 2021. w State and local governments are making unprecedented investments in new housing development. In 2023, lawmakers earmarked a record $1 billion for housing affordability. w Unfortunately, use of contractors that have a record of cheating workers or face allegations of exploitation is far too common on affordable housing projects. w While some sources of affordable housing development funding include robust labor standards, two leading sources of funding, the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and local use of tax increment financing (TIF), often lack robust labor standards. Our research found evidence that, since 2016, workers on 25 projects that received approximately $31 million in LIHTC funding were potentially at risk of exploitation by problem contractors. w Our research further uncovered that, since 2018, workers on 14 projects that received approximately $53 million in TIF subsidies were potentially at risk of exploitation by problem contractors. ## 4 North Star Policy Action w In total, we have documented the use of contractors tied to proven or alleged exploitation of workers on affordable housing projects that have received over $84 million in taxpayer subsidies. w Three of the largest for-profit recipients of LIHTC and TIF funding - Dominium, MWF and Roers - repeatedly used contractors that have records of labor law violations or face serious allegations of worker exploitation. w Affordable housing projects sponsored by Dominium, MWF and Roers were awarded over $47 million in taxpayer-funded subsidies across the Twin Cities metropolitan area between 2016 to 2021 to build 30 projects. This includes housing tax credits issued by ## Dakota County, Washington County and Minnesota Housing Finance Authority; TIF funding from the cities of Richfield and St. Louis Park; and gap funding from Dakota Count y. Wage theft and exploitation remain persistent problems in the construction industry. This report highlights widespread use of contractors that have a record of wage theft or other abuses on publicly financed affordable housing projects. We can prevent exploitation by increasing transparency, adopting responsible contractor standards, holding project owners accountable for abuses that occur on their watch, and investing in enforcement and worker education. ## Introduction Minnesota faces a significant shortage of affordable housing. Middle and low income Minnesotans are finding it increasingly difficult to rent or buy a home. The supply of low-cost rental housing in Minnesota has actually fallen by a quarter over the last decade, while the cost of buying a home has more than doubled between 2012 to 2022. 1 In recent years, state and local governments have taken steps to fund new affordable housing while promoting development of market-rate housing to help ease a shortage that is pushing up prices for all Minnesotans. Yet without stronger oversight over the use ## of Low Income Housing Tax Credits and Tax Increment Financing programs, there is a danger that new housing projects will be built on the backs of vulnerable workers who earn too little to live in the homes they build. 1 Greta Kaul, “Why home prices in the Twin Cities keep going up,” MinnPost , April 7, 2022, https://www.minnpost.com/economy/2022/04/ why-home-prices-in-the-twin-cities-keep-going-up/. Worker advocacy organizations have documented cases of wage theft, disturbing safety lapses, and the use of irresponsible contractors on affordable housing projects. While tax incentives and direct public financing are critical tools for addressing our housing shortage, we cannot afford to allow public dollars to fund worker exploitation. We can better protect vulnerable workers by tying robust labor standards to eligibility for grant and tax incentive programs. This report seeks to fill a significant gap in our understanding of the prevalence of worker exploitation in affordable housing construction. Our goal is to document the extent of worker exploitation in the industry, examine how public investments inadvertently exacerbate the problem, and to provide a roadmap for policy changes to ensure that affordable housing is not built on the backs of vulnerable workers. ## North Star Policy Action 5 ## Section 1: Minnesota’s Housing Crisis Minnesota is in the midst of a severe housing crisis and the problem is getting worse. ## According to the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, the supply of low-cost rental housing in Minnesota has fallen by a quarter over the last decade, while demand for affordable housing grew. 2 In 2011, there were 408,599 units available for less than $1,000 a month. In 2021, that number decreased to 308,733. 3 As a result, Minnesota families have been forced to devote a growing share of their household budget to housing. More than 10% of Minnesotans, or 590,530, are cost burdened, which is defined as housing costs that exceed 30% of household income. 4 ## Over 250,000 children live in these cost-burdened households. 5 ## As Minnesota’s population ages, this problem will only get worse. Nearly two in every three seniors who rent are cost burdened. 6 As costs continue to rise, the number of Minnesotans who are evicted from their homes has increased substantially compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. In 2022, 22,455 evictions were filed around the state, which is a 33% increase over pre-pandemic historic ## 2 “MHP Releases Key Facts on Housing,” Minnesota Housing Partnership (MHP), September 2022 , https://mhponline.org/ mhp-releases-key-facts-on-housing-2022/. 3 “The Supply of Low-Cost Rentals Continues to Decline,” ## Joint Center for Housing Studies , https://www.jchs.harvard.edu/ son-2023-low-cost-rentals. 4 “2023 Minnesota State Housing Profile,” M H P , March 2023, https://mhponline.org/minnesota-state-housing-profile/. 5 “2023 Minnesota State Housing Profile,” Minnesota Housing Partnership (MHP) , https://mhponline.org/ minnesota-state-housing-profile/. 6 Ibid. state filings. 7 Of those evictions, 13,137 were filed in Hennepin and Ramsey counties, which accounts for 53% of the statewide total. 8 The pain isn’t only being felt by renters in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area either. ## According to the Minnesota Housing Project, Minnesotans need to earn a salary of $85,620 in order to afford the median-priced home, 9 while the median household income in the state is $77,706. 10 One in five Minnesota homeowners (19%) is currently considered c o s t- b u r d e n e d . 11 Minnesota also has a large racial disparity in homeownership: 78% of white Minnesotans are homeowners while only 31% of black Minnesotans own their home. 12 This is particularly damaging because of the historic role of homeownership in generational wealth-building. Minnesota needs to increase the pace of new home construction at all levels of affordability, from subsidized low- income housing to single family homes for homeownership. Government support for new housing is critical. Unfortunately, in some cases government support also fuels abusive practices in affordable housing construction. 7 “Minnesota | Eviction Tracking System,” Eviction Lab , https:// evictionlab.org/eviction-tracking/minnesota/. 8 “2023 Minnesota State Housing Profile,” n.d. Minnesota Housing Partnership (MHP) , https://mhponline.org/ minnesota-state-housing-profile/. 9 Ibid 10 “U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Minnesota,” U.S. Census , https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/MN/ ## INC110221#INC110221. ## 11 “2023 Minnesota State Housing Profile,” Minnesota Housing Partnership (MHP) , https://mhponline.org/ minnesota-state-housing-profile/. 12 Ibid. ## 6 North Star Policy Action ## Section 2: Public Money Fueling Worker ## Exploitation Despite recent efforts by the Legislature and enforcement agencies to curb the practices, wage theft and exploitation remain persistent problems in Minnesota’s construction industry. Recent media coverage has surfaced troubling allegations of construction firms cutting corners and abusing workers on projects in Rochester, 13 ## Eagan 14 and Minneapolis. 15 These accounts are consistent with research documenting the scale of wage theft and misclassification in the industry. The problems are especially acute in the multi-family housing industry. The high-profile conviction of Ricardo Batres revealed horrific practices that immigrant workers and advocates say are all too common in the construction industry. Batres – a labor broker and owner ## of American Contractors and Associates LLC – supplied workers and worked as a subcontractor for two prominent Twin Cities developers. In August of 2019, Batres's company was observed working on the ## TIF-subsidized Lyndale Gardens apartment project in Richfield, Minnesota. He was ultimately charged by the Hennepin County Attorneys’ Office with “severe abuse of workers including threatening people with deportation when they complained about problems in the workplace, stealing wages by withholding them, failing to take basic ## 13 Annalise Johnson, “Rochester Wage Theft Law is First Investigation Under New Law,” KIMT 3 News , July 9, 2019, https://www.kimt.com/content/news/rochester-wage-theft- case-is-the-first-under-a-new-law-512502382.html. ## 14 Dee DePass, “Subcontractors on Wilf’s Viking Lakes project accused of wage theft,” Star Tribune , May 6 2022, https:// www.startribune.com/subcontractors-on-wilfs-viking-lakes- project-accused-of-wage-theft/600171135/. 15 Paul Walsh, “Charges: Twin Cities contractor threatened to report his undocumented workers if they complained,” The Star Tribune , September 28, 2018, https://www.startribune. com/charges-twin-citis-contractor-threatened-to-report-his- undocumented-workers-if-they-complained/494386221/. safety precautions, and more.” 16 In another high-profile case, a worker told members of the Minnesota House of Representatives Labor Committee in February of 2019 that a subcontractor on a major affordable housing project insisted on paying him in drugs instead of the wages they were owed. 17 These abuses are unfortunately all-too- common in Minnesota’s multi-family housing construction industry. 18 Intense downward pressures on costs and extreme fissuring of the industry create pressure for developers and contractors to cut corners. 19 ## While some developers assert that they have implemented internal controls to prevent exploitation, these measures have often proved to be insufficient according to worker advocates. 20 According to a recent report from the ## Midwest Economic Policy Institute, about 30,100 Minnesota construction workers are misclassified or are paid off- the-books, accounting for 23 percent of the workforce. These illegally employed construction workers earn 36 percent less ($29,700 annually) in combined wages and ## 16 Penelope Kyritsis and Sean Sellers, “Building Dignity and ## Respect: The Case for Worker-driven Social Responsibility ## in the Twin Cities Construction industry,” Worker-Driven Social Responsibly Network, November 2019, https://indd. adobe.com/view/ef11f675-0a66-41fb-9146-f673cf999531. 17 February 6, 2019, testimony by Arturo Hernandez in front of the Minnesota State House Legislature available here starting at 32 minutes and 25 seconds: https://youtu.be/ wttVvPg_xI0. 18 See citations above including stories from Annalise Johnson, Dee DePass and Paul Walsh for examples. 19 Learn more about workplace fissuring, the challenges of labor law enforcement and the lack of employer accountabil- ## ity in: David Weil, The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became ## So Bad for So Many (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2014), February 17. ## 20 Penelope Kyritsis and Sean Sellers, “Building Dignity and ## Respect: The Case for Worker-driven Social Responsibility ## in the Twin Cities Construction industry,” Worker-Driven Social Responsibly Network, November 2019, https://indd. adobe.com/view/ef11f675-0a66-41fb-9146-f673cf999531. ## North Star Policy Action 7 fringe benefits. 21 The state annually loses $136 million in state tax revenues due to construction payroll fraud. Victims of wage theft are also often victims of other forms of exploitation like human trafficking. A survey of construction workers in the Twin Cities area by a worker advocacy non- profit, Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha (CTUL), revealed the widespread nature of the abuse and exploitation in the Twin Cities construction market. 22 ## Among those surveyed by CTUL, 48% reported experiencing wage theft, 44% reported that their employer does not provide them with proper safety equipment and 30% said that they fear retaliation if they complain to their supervisors. 23 The findings corroborate national research on wage theft, 24 workplace s afet y, 25 and workplace retaliation. 26 Unfortunately, the use of irresponsible contractors occurs far too often on publicly financed affordable housing projects. 21 Nathaniel Goodell and Frank Manzo IV, “The Costs of and ## Wage Theft Payroll Fraud in the Construction Industries of ## Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Illinois Impacts on Workers and ## Taxpayers,” Midwest Economic Policy Institute, 2021, https:// midwestepi.files.wordpress.com/2020/10/mepi-ilepi-costs-of- payroll-fraud-in-wi-mn-il-final.pdf 22 The survey was conducted between January and March 2019. Researchers surveyed 76 construction workers on and off job sites about wages, benefits, training, and workplace health and safety. Respondents worked on a diverse range of project types including commercial buildings, multi-family residences (e.g. apartments, condominiums, senior hous- ing, etc.), single-family residences (remodeling as well as new construction). Additional survey methodology details can be found on page 4 of the previously cited Building Dignity and Respect study: https://indd.adobe.com/view/ ef11f675-0a66-41fb-9146-f673cf999531. 23 Ibid, pages 8-10. 24 David Cooper and Teresa Kroeger, “Employers steal billions from workers’ paychecks each year,” Economic Policy Institute, May 10, 2017, https://www.epi.org/publication/ employers-steal-billions-from-workers-paychecks-each-year/. 25 Beth Braverman, “The 10 most dangerous jobs in America,” CNBC, December 28, 2019, https://www.cnbc. com/2019/12/27/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-in-america-ac- cording-to-bls-data.html. 26 Annette Bernhardt et al., “Broken Laws, Unprotected ## Workers: Violations of Employment and Labor Laws ## in America’s Cities,” Center for Urban and Economic ## Development, National Employment Law Project and ## UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, 2009, https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ BrokenLawsReport2009.pdf. ## 2.1 FORMS OF EXPLOITATION Construction employers are increasingly relying on multiple tiers of subcontracting, including the use of so-called “independent contractors” who are often nothing more than employees who have been illegally misclassified by employers’ payment of “piece rate” which can result in loss of overtime and safety lapses and the use of temporary staffing firms or labor brokers to meet short term labor needs. These employment practices obfuscate employment relationships, offload risk to individual workers and hinder enforcement of health, safety and employment laws. The situation is made worse when project owners fail to take responsibility for labor abuses on their projects. Developers and other project owners frequently assert that any misconduct that occurs on projects that they control is the sole responsibility of contractors, while contractors often seek to displace responsibility to lower-tier subcontractors. Yet it is intense downward cost pressure imposed by developers seeking to maximize profits that pushes contractors to offload responsibility through the use of multi-tier subcontracts and so-called independent contractors who are often nothing more than labor brokers. These employment practices lead to what experts describe as a fissuring of the workplace. This fissuring shifts the “basic terms of employment such [as] hiring, evaluation, pay, supervision, training [and] coordination” to multiple organizations, and thus “responsibility for [workplace] conditions [and worker safety] has blurred.” 27 These employment models shift risk off employers, while making it increasingly difficult to hold employers accountable for workplace standards. ## 27 David Weil, “The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became ## So Bad for So Many” (Boston: Harvard University Press, 2014), February 17, 7. ## 8 North Star Policy Action ## GET THE FACTS: PREVAILING WAGE Research overwhelmingly shows that prevailing wage requirements have little to no impact on project costs èThree in four peer-reviewed studies conducted between 2000-2018 found that prevailing wage laws have no effect on the cost of public con- struction projects. 28 èA 2018 analysis by the Midwest Economic Policy Institute of 640 contractor bids on school construction projects in Minnesota found that winning bids based on the payment of prevailing wages are no more costly than bids that do not require prevailing wages. 29 èPrevailing wage laws increase apprenticeship training, boost worker productivity, and reduce injury rates – helping to address the skilled labor shortage in construction. 30 This may help explain why the cost of prevailing wage construction is comparable to non-prevailing wage construction: increased reliance on highly trained workers leads to fewer costly mistakes and greater efficiencies. Prevailing wage policies support the development of a skilled construction workforce and provide path- ways into the middle class and boost job opportuni- ties for local workers èEconomic research finds that prevailing wage laws foster middle class careers that attract tal- ented young workers to the construction trades. 31 èMinnesota’s prevailing wage law increases blue-collar construction worker incomes by 5.2 percent, expands health insurance coverage by 5.0 percentage points and increases the share of construction workers with pension plans by 5.3 percentage points. 32 ## 28 Frank Manzo and Kevin Duncan. “An Examination of ## Minnesota’s Prevailing Wage Law Effects on Costs, Training, ## and Economic Development,” Midwest Economic Policy Institute, July 2018, https://midwestepi.files.wordpress.com/2018/07/me- pi-csu-examination-of-minnesotas-prevailing-wage-law-final.pdf, i. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. èMinnesota’s prevailing wage law reduces the share of construction workers who receive food stamp assistance by 2.1 percentage points. 33 èCompared to Indiana, which recently repealed its prevailing wage law, per-worker productivity has grown 7.7 percentage-points faster and worker turnover rates have fallen further in Minnesota. 34 Prevailing wage policies ensure work opportunities for local workers and contractors èPrevailing wage laws set the wage and benefit floor based on local survey data of the going rate for particular crafts. This ensures that work on government financed projects do not undercut area standards. It levels the playing field for local workers and local contractors. èFor example, “when school districts in the Twin Cities area include prevailing wages on projects, local contractors account for a 10 percent higher market share– with tax dollars staying in the local economy.” 35 Prevailing wage policies boost the positive impacts of infrastructure investments è“By protecting work for in-state contractors and their employees, Minnesota’s prevailing wage law creates 7,200 jobs in Minnesota, improves the state economy by $981 million, and generates $37 million in state and local tax revenue every year.” 36 èBy leveling the playing field for local contractors, prevailing wage policies increase opportunities for local workers. Local workers spend 3-4 times more in a local economy creating positive so- cio-economic ripple effects throughout regional economies. 37 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Katie Hatt and Lucas Franco, “Catching the Wind: The impact of local vs. non-local hiring practices on construction of Minnesota ## wind farms,” North Star Policy Institute, June 2018, https://north- starpolicy.org/catching-the-wind-the-impact-of-local-vs-non-lo- cal-hiring-practices-on-construction-of-minnesota-wind-farms. ## North Star Policy Action 9 Fortunately, some sources of public financing for affordable housing employ robust labor standards that reduce the risk of wage theft and exploitation on construction projects. Prevailing wage standards, for example, play a key role in preventing exploitation and minimizing the risk of irresponsible conduct on publicly financed projects. A prevailing wage requirement reduces the risk of wage theft and exploitation in two key ways. First, it discourages a race-to- the-bottom between contractors in highly competitive bidding processes by setting a wage floor based on the going rate for workers performing similar work within a geographic labor market. Second, prevailing wage requirements increase transparency and reduce the risk of misclassification on a project. Collection of certified payroll reports, which is a key feature of prevailing wage policies, helps to minimize the reliance on informal employment relationships and off-the-books payments on a construction site by requiring contractors to provide accurate data and monitor job sites. Prevailing wage policies are effective tools to reduce the risk of worker exploitation and other misconduct on housing projects, but they require strong enforcement and additional tools may be needed to protect workers and taxpayers. In general, the public funding sources with prevailing wage requirements are built with responsible contractors adhering to high employment standards. On the other hand, we have found numerous issues on projects built without prevailing wage protections. The most consistent issues occur on low- income housing tax credit (LIHTC) and tax increment financing (TIF) projects. These are two of the most common sources of public financing for affordable housing projects. They are also two programs that rarely include robust labor standards such as prevailing wage requirements. ## 2.2 PUBLIC FUNDING WITHOUT ## SAFEGUARDS ## The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program was established in 1986 to provide tax credits for affordable housing development. Congress authorizes each state to allocate a certain number of LIHTCs and issues up to a specified amount of tax-exempt bond financing annually. States receive their allocation annually. There are certain federal requirements for the funding including requirements for how long a property must remain affordable. On top of the baseline federal requirements, state allocating agencies can establish additional criteria through the Qualified ## Allocation Plan process. In Minnesota, the ## Minnesota Housing Finance Agency is primarily responsible for determining which housing projects should receive credits and the dollar amount allocated. There are also a number of suballocators of LIHTCs, including ## Duluth, Minneapolis, Rochester, St. Paul and Washington and Dakota Counties, that apply their own conditions to projects. TIF is a tool used by cities, counties and other units of government to finance real estate development. TIF is a tool to capture additional property taxes paid as a result of development in the district to pay for development costs. The TIF is calculated based on increased property tax values resulting from the construction of a new building. In 2021, 385 development authorities submitted reports for 1,668 TIF districts including 576 housing TIF districts. 38 ## METHODOLOGY This report brings together evidence of the extent to which contractors that have a record of cheating workers or face serious allegations of exploitation have benefited ## 38 Julie Blaha, “Tax Increment Financing Legislative Report,” Office of the State Auditor, 2021, www.osa.state.mn.us/media/ f12hihdy/tiflegislative_21_report.pdf. ## 10 North Star Policy Action from public subsidies and been employed on affordable housing projects. The authors reviewed public evidence from court rulings, publicly-available legal settlements, and media reports, and we also interviewed construction workers and worker advocates. Over recent years, worker advocacy organizations including Centro De ## Trabajadores Unidos En La Lucha (CTUL), ## the North Central States Regional Council of Carpenters (NCSRCC) and the Laborers ## International Union of North America (LIUNA) have uncovered numerous cases in which public housing dollars have apparently fueled worker exploitation. While the focus of our analysis is on publicly funded projects, the scale of wage theft and other forms of abuse is often worse in non-subsidized segments of the industry. What we detail below is sadly just the tip of the iceberg. ## THE DANGER OF WORKER EXPLOITATION ## ON PUBLICLY FINANCED AFFORDABLE ## HOUSING PROJECTS In recent years, contractors that have a record of cheating workers or face serious allegations of exploitation have worked on 33 affordable housing projects across the Twin Cities metropolitan area, including 25 LIHTC- funded projects since 2016 and 14 TIF-funded projects since 2018. 39 In total, these projects have received taxpayer-funded subsidies in excess of $84 million. The following are among the more egregious case studies that we have uncovered in the subsidized affordable housing industry. ## Painting America ## Hudson, Wisconsin Painting America is a drywall and painting contractor based in Hudson, Wisconsin. They have worked on commercial and residential projects in Minnesota and Wisconsin. The company also hired Douglas Drywall, a 39 Some of these projects had both TIF and LIHTC funding. labor broker, to supply and manage labor. On December 27, 2017, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry issued findings that Painting America violated Minnesota law, acting together with its labor broker, by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. 40 Painting America has a history of wage theft complaints. In 2019, construction worker Arturo Hernandez testified before ## the Minnesota House of Representatives ## Labor Committee alleging Painting America failed to pay him the full wages they owed him. Hernandez testified that he worked for Painting America for three weeks without pay, and when he demanded the money he was owed, the company offered to pay him in drugs. 41 ## We have documented Painting America on the following publicly financed projects: w ## Amundson Flats - MWF Properties (Edina) w ## Ellie Apartments - United Properties (Eden ## Prairie) w ## Legends of Minnetonka - Dominium (Minnetonka) w ## Legends of Spring Lake Park - Dominium ## (Spring Lake Park) w ## Legends of Woodbury - Dominium (Woodbury) w ## Lexington Flats - MWF (Eagan) w ## Preserve at Shady Oak - Dominium (Minnetonka) w ## Red Rock Square - MWF (Newport) w ## Rosemary Apartments - MWF (Hugo) w ## Texa-Tonka - Paster Properties (St. Louis ## Park) ## 40 State of Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Licensing Order with Penalty issued to Painting America. REG1608-00028/JOR. December 27, 2017. See also: State of ## Minnesota Commissioner of Labor and Industry, Consent Order issued to Painting America. REG1608-00028/JOR. January 8, 2019. (“[Painting America] acknowledges that it engaged in the conduct leading to the allegations here- in”). Full consent order https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/ ## Download/FileV2/23097/416-420-Hennepin-Ave-E-REzoing- Public-Comment.pdf. 41 February 6, 2019, testimony by Arturo Hernandez in front of the Minnesota State House Legislature available here starting at 32 minutes and 25 seconds: https://youtu.be/ wttVvPg_xI0. ## North Star Policy Action 11 ## ARTURO’S STORY ## House Labor Committee Testimony 42 "Last year I worked for Painting America. A su- pervisor drove me to the jobsite [and] put me in contact with Eduardo Venezuela, my Foreman. I worked for these guys for almost three weeks. I showed up to get paid and he gave me the address to get to his home. The guys don’t want to pay me in money. He wants to give me drugs to sell. He says we make way more money if we sell these drugs. I say no way. I need the money because I need to feed my family. I’m a worker. [This] basically happened to the Spanish [speaking] people because we don’t know the laws...we workers. We work hard to make our money to feed the family and pay the rent. 42 February 6, 2019, testimony by Arturo Hernandez in front of the Minnesota State House Legislature available here starting at 32 minutes and 25 seconds: https://youtu.be/ wttVvPg_xI0. I reported these guys to the [Department of Labor]. This isn’t supposed to happen. This thing. The company supports these guys to do this. To steal the money from these people. [I spoke to Painting America] to give me an application. They don’t do it. They told me Eduardo is in charge. I don’t fill out any job application because the guys don’t give me any. This case, this doesn’t only happen to me. It happened to other guys, other Spanish guys. The guys don’t want to make the report or any- thing because they are scared. I hope you pass the law and help the Spanish people because they are scared to report they stole the money." ## 12 North Star Policy Action ## Absolute Drywall ## Lakeville, Minnesota Absolute Drywall is a drywall construction company based in Lakeville, Minnesota. Government investigations have found that Absolute Drywall deprived workers of more than $126,000 in wages, violated child labor laws, misclassified workers, and submitted false and misleading information during the course of an investigation. 43 ## In 2022, Norma, a former Absolute Drywall worker, told investigators that she had been sexually assaulted on multiple occasions by ## her co-worker, Juan Diego Medina Cisnerso, on the job at construction sites where Absolute Drywall had been hired to install drywall. Norma reported that, on May 20, 2021, she was sexually assaulted while working for Absolute Drywall on a construction project in Eagan, Minnesota. Norma reported that she was again assaulted on another construction project in Roseville, Minnesota. Norma shared her story of abuse with her ## supervisor, Absolute Drywall’s owner, Daniel Ortega, according to an original report published in the Minnesota Reformer article. 44 Ortega claimed that the relationship was consensual. Norma “told police Ortega threatened to fire her if she continued complaining.” 45 Shortly after reporting the incident, Ortega laid Norma off, informing her there was no more work available. 43 All relevant documentation: 1.Minnesota Department of ## Labor and Industry Licensing Order issued to Absolute ## Drywall. Reg1505-00021/MG. August 18, 2016. 2. Case ID 1794218. 3. Child Labor, Wage and Hour Division Overview. ## U.S Department of Labor. Case ID 1800777. Investigative pe- riod between August 20, 2014 to July 19, 2016. 4. Minnesota ## Department of Labor and Industry Licensing Order issued to Absolute Drywall. REG1702-0083/MG. May 21, 2018. 44 Max Nesterak, “She reported sexual abuse on the job. The boss told her it was consensual,” Minnesota Reformer, October 4, 2022, https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/10/04/she-re- ported-sexual-abuse-on-the-job-the-boss-told-her-it-was-con- sensua l /. 45 Ibid ## We have documented Absolute Drywall on the following public projects: w ## Birdtown Flats - The Beard Group (Robbinsdale) w ## Oaks Landing - Dominium (New Brighton) w ## Legends of Apple Valley - Dominium (Apple Valley) w ## Legends of Cottage Grove - Dominium (Cot ta g e G rove) w ## Twin Lakes Family Apartments - Dominium (Roseville) ## Environmental StoneWorks (ESW) ## North Branch, Minnesota Environmental StoneWorks is a national stone manufacturer and installer. Environmental StoneWorks is owned by CornerStone Building Brands, one of the largest manufacturers of exterior building products in North America. CornerStone was acquired by private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in 2022. In September 2021, a worker named Marco fell off a six-foot stepladder while installing stone veneer on an Environmental StoneWorks project and broke his ankle. Marco’s boss reportedly told him to go to the hospital and present himself as the boss in order to receive treatment. Marco explained that, after he refused to participate in the scheme, his boss was outraged and threatened to call immigration enforcement and police if Marco or his coworker Mario ever showed up on one of his projects. The boss later told Mario that he could charge them $10,000 for alleged defects in past stone installation work. ## North Star Policy Action 13 Only after Marco obtained the assistance of a workers’ compensation lawyer who intervened did Environmental StoneWorks take responsibility for paying Marco’s medical bills through the company’s insurance provider. Marco’s mistreatment is just the tip of the iceberg for immigrants that make their living on Environmental StoneWorks projects according to workers interviewed. For example, Mario reported that a previous boss shorted him on pay and had a stated practice of paying immigrants who could not provide a social security number less per square foot of stone installed. We have documented Environmental StoneWorks (ESW) on the following public projects: w Legends of Blaine - Dominium (Blaine) w ## Risor of Apple Valley - Roers (Apple Valley) - subsidized through Dakota County gap financing 46 46 The Risor of Apple Valley received “$2.4 mil- lion in gap financing to help subsidize the afford- able component” according to the following source: Brian Johnson, “Roers pays $3 million for housing ## site in Apple Valley,” Finance and Commerce, April 27, 2021, https://finance-commerce.com/2021/04/ roers-pays-3-million-for-housing-site-in-apple-valley/. ## Wolf Construction Services, LLC ## West Des Moines, Iowa ## Lower tier Wolf Construction Services subcontractors and/or labor brokers have been charged, and in some cases convicted, for conduct that ranges from misclassification 47 to retaliation 48 to sex trafficking. 49 As recently as March 30, 2023, a lower tier subcontractor for Wolf ## Construction, Giron Construction LLC, was charged with insurance fraud. 50 ## We have documented Wolf Construction Services on the following publicly financed projects: w ## Amundson Flats - MWF (Edina) w ## Ellie Apartments - United Properties (Eden Prairie) w ## Legends of Cottage Grove - Dominium (Cottage Grove) w ## Legends of Minnetonka - Dominium (Minnetonka) w ## Legends of Spring Lake Park - Dominium (Spring L ake) w ## Legends of Woodbury - Dominium (Woodbury) w ## Preserve at Shady Oak - Dominium (Minnetonka) w ## Rosemary Apartments - MWF (Hugo) w ## Twin Lake Apartments - Dominium (Roseville) w ## Wooddale Apartments - Real Estate ## Equities (St. Louis Park) ## 47 MNDOLI Licensing Order: https://drive.google.com/ file/d/1ayo5yiTtDvHKXKXrr3_KtZLibyiReDsP/ view?usp=sharing. 48 MNDOLI Administrative Order: https://drive.google. com/file/d/1v2ZweCuRz7jlRws_U2B6csCIzwmbiORm/ view?usp=sharing. 49 Charging documents for Humberto Rangel-Torres: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VnZdZMZ- ## RYZMAbcQfM8VkI7swDSDgJ2l-/ view?usp=sharing. 50 Charging documents for Giron Construction LLC: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zAX- o33ytdkHTphIJipiWxNHkSZ8N10y8/ view?usp=sharing. ## 14 North Star Policy Action ## MARCO’S STORY 51 "My name is Marco Antonio ## Ramirez Jimenez. I come from Mexico. I have been in the U.S. for three years. I came here for a better life. I have two children, 10 and 15. Being here in the U.S. is not what everyone tells us because once I was there everything was different. Things are different. I have worked with bosses that don’t care. They don’t worry if we don’t eat. They don’t worry if we aren’t well. They don’t care if we are sick. They just want us to work. They obligate us to work because if we don’t work they don’t pay us. When I came here I had issues coming to the country because I came with people that sold me. They sold me to other people. When I got here I already owed $11,000 that I had to pay from my salary. I was living in Pennsylvania when I arrived (in the U.S.). I was there for three months. After that, I went to Ohio. I was working (for a woman). She required us to work. She exploited us. Sometimes she didn’t give us any food, but she wanted us to work. Also, she took our money. She wanted us to pay her taxes. She took 10% of our money. From our salaries, she took our money. Not if we wanted. She just took it. Sometimes she used to tell us that she didn’t get paid and then she said she couldn’t pay us. After I was able to not owe her any money, I left and went to Chicago. I was there for four months. Once again, I worked for a Latino and the same thing, he didn’t take care of us. He just wanted us to work and work and work. He’d spend all of the money on alcohol. Today he still owes us money. He didn’t pay us and he’s not thinking about paying us. 51 Transcription from April 2022 video. After that, I came to Minnesota. I have been here for approximately one year. I was working for Environmental StoneWorks. I had an acci- dent with the contractor I was working for. I was working on a house. I fell from a ladder. I broke my foot. I called the boss so he could do some- thing, but he didn’t do anything. He didn’t take care of me. I called him. He threatened me saying if we look for him or if we go to his house to get him or if we went to his job sites he will call the cops on us. He (former boss) hasn’t done anything for what has happened. I have a plate on my foot (ankle) and I can’t be in the cold or run. I cannot put weight (on it) when I walk. I had to stop doing heavy things because of it. That is why I am fighting, so all of this can end. We need for this to end because we are only obligated to work, but they don’t take care of us." ## North Star Policy Action 15 ## Merit Drywall ## Clearwater, Minnesota On November 23, 2020, the former owners of ## Merit Drywall, LeRoy and Joyce Mehr, were sentenced for a fraud scheme that bilked an insurance company out of more than $300,000 in unpaid workers’ compensation insurance premiums. The Mehrs were fined $30,000 and ordered to pay Federated Insurance $309,000. The couple was also sentenced to 180 days of electronic home monitoring and, five years of probation, and 30 days of community service. 52 ## The Minnesota Department of Commerce’s Fraud Bureau found that the Mehrs and their company, Merit Drywall, fraudulently treated employees as independent contractors, allowing them to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in workers’ compensation premiums. These practices, in turn, put Merit in a position to underbid honest contractors. 53 w Merit Drywall was observed on the TIF ## subsidized Moline Apartments - Doran (Hopkins) ## Stone Pro Masonry ## Eau Claire, Wisconsin ## For years, Stone Pro Masonry company has faced allegations of exploiting immigrant workers, including guest workers employed under the H-2B visa program. Use of H-2B visas has been described as rife with abuses and as a form of indentured servitude by ## the Southern Poverty Law Center, because immigrant workers are shackled to a single employer, have little recourse when they ## 52 Kate Raddatz, Hennepin Co. Attorney Mike Freeman ## Announces Felony Charges Against Former Owners Of ## Merit Drywall, WCCO News, January 21, 2020, available here: https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/hennepin-co-at- torney-mike-freeman-announces-felony-charges-against-for- mer-owners-of-merit-drywall/. ## 53 Estefan Saucedo, Former owners of Merit Drywall charged with insurance fraud and theft by swindle, Kare 11 News, January 21, 2020, available here: https://www.kare11.com/ article/news/local/former-owners-of-merit-drywall-charged- with-insurance-fraud-and-theft-by-swindle/89-9541fc84- dc3b-4e7d-b219-eacf0a0d5515. are cheated or abused, and enforcement of program rules is lax. 54 The accounts of former Stone Pro employees seem to support the Southern Poverty Law Center’s conclusions. Over the past several years, Stone Pro has obtained permission to employ dozens of what the company referred to as “carpenter helpers” on H-2B visa workers in the Twin ## Cities and Western Wisconsin. The H-2B program requires employers to pay minimum wage rates based on the location and type of work performed in order to protect immigrant workers from exploitation and prevent the program from displacing local workers or eroding area wage standards. But worker testimony and field observations suggest that Stone Pro H-2B employees have been underpaid and mistreated. For example, one H-2B visa worker interviewed by LIUNA described performing masonry and concrete work that evidently should have earned them roughly $8 to $12 in additional hourly pay. 55 The worker also indicated that company representatives were well aware that they were hiring skilled block masons and concrete laborers, but encouraged them to conceal that fact ## from the U.S. Consulate in Monterrey. The worker also detailed other pay irregularities, including being shorted pay for driving the company van and working in the shop and being paid in cash, and he described being crammed into a residential home in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, with more than a dozen other workers. 54 “Close to Slavery: Guestworker Programs in the United States,” Southern Poverty Law Center, Feb. 19, 2013, https://w w w.splcenter.org/20130218/ close-slavery-guestworker-programs-united-states 55 Construction workers that place concrete are classified as Laborers under Federal and state prevailing wage laws, and have been consistently designated as Construction Laborers by other area concrete contractors that em- ploy H-2B workers. The applicable rates can be found ## in U.S. Foreign Wage Certification Data Center Online Wage Library “Mean Wage (H-2B”} listing for the ## Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington Metropolitan Statistical Area:: https://flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults. aspx?code=47-2061&area=33460&year=19&source=1 ## 16 North Star Policy Action Field observations by LIUNA indicated that workers who identified themselves as H-2B visas performed masonry or concrete work that clearly should have entitled them to much higher rates of pay. Another immigrant worker formerly employed by Stone Pro who was not on an H-2B visa confirmed that H-2B employees performed concrete work and said that workers referred to the H-2B lodgings as “Casa de los Espantos” (“Fright House”) due to the poor living conditions. It should probably come as no surprise, given the company’s evidently poor treatment of immigrant workers, that Stone Pro owner Gerald Manning apparently has hostile views of immigrants based on a review of Facebook content. 56 It is troubling, however, given the worker accounts described above that Gerald Manning and Stone Pro are apparently benefiting from public housing subsidies. ## We have documented Stone Pro Masonry on the following publicly financed projects: w ## Lexington Flats - MWF (Eagan) w ## Lake Isabel Flats - Stencil Group (Hastings) Stone Pro is not the only contractor involved in apparent exploitation of H-2B visa workers in Minnesota. LIUNA have also identified H-2B guest workers employed by Rosales Masonry on a Roers multi-family housing project in Oakdale, Minnesota. In the case of Rosales, workers who were observed setting block appear to have been misclassified as “mason helpers” rather than masons – a designation that potentially 56 See examples from a Facebook page identified as belonging to a Gerald Manning of Eau Claire, Wisconsin and listed as the owner of Stone Pro Masonry, including, among others, a video titled “Father’s Story About His Son Is A Perfect Example of Why We Need A Wall”; a purported photo of a sign in Dearborn Michigan that reads “Advancement Of ## Islamic Agenda For America; Allah Be Praised. American We Will Kill You All And Nothing You Can Do To Stop It. Allah Be Praised.”; and a statement that reads “If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get a job, a drivers license, food stamps, a place to live, health care housing & child benefits, education, & a tax-free business for 7 yrs ...No wonder we are a country in debt. Re-post if you agree!!!!” allows the employer to substantially underpay H-2B employees for their work. Further, based on a search of the national H-2B visa database, Rosales apparently failed to obtain H-2B visa certifications to work in Minnesota, raising the possibility that the company is not only underpaying workers but also violating program rules and cheating local masons of job opportunities that should first be made available to them. ## Ed Lunn Construction ## Rochester, Minnesota Ed Lunn has been accused of misclassifying workers, failing to pay payroll taxes, and of systematically underpaying employees. According to a July 6, 2019, Star Tribune article, advocates allege that the company’s business model relies on wage theft and worker misclassification. 57 ## According to Nick Wille, with North Central ## States Regional Council of Carpenters: “Contractors like Ed Lunn Construction are hiring subcontractors and independent contractors and paying them off-the-books in cash and under the table.” In some cases, workers allege that they simply weren’t paid for their work. For example, workers accused Ed Lunn of failing to pay thousands of dollars in back wages for work on the River Glen Apartments in Rochester. “Trouble began...when the men didn’t get paid and approached Lunn’s representative, Josh Tinker. Tinker told them they had to finish building garages first... but agreed to give the men $1,000 each to tide them over. Later, the men were told they had to finish some porches, but when they finished the work, they still didn’t get their money.” 57 Matt McKinney, “Rochester case is first test of new wage theft law,” Star Tribune, July 6, 2019, https://www.startribune. com/workers-claim-they-were-shorted-wages-on-rochester- apartment-project/512305452/. ## North Star Policy Action 17 “You know they kept kind of saying ‘Oh, you know your check will come later, oh we’ll pay you,’ but that was a lie. It didn’t come on time,” Adalid Zavala said through translator ## Ruth Schultz, with Centro de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha. w Ed Lunn was observed on the TIF ## subsidized River Glen Apartments - ## Village Capital Corporation (Rochester) ## PUBLIC MONEY FUELING THE GROWTH OF ## CONCERNING BUSINESS PRACTICES Our research highlights a troubling lack of oversight or accountability for recipients of public funding with respect to labor standards on affordable housing projects. Dominium, Roers and MWF are three of the largest private recipients of LIHTCs and frequent recipients of TIF. All three have used contractors that have a record of cheating workers or face allegations of exploitation on multifamily housing projects. Since 2016, these three developers have received at least $47 million to build affordable housing projects across the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The total includes housing tax credits backed by Dakota County, ## Washington County and Minnesota Housing Finance Agency; TIF funding from the City of ## Richfield and the City of St. Louis Park; and gap funding from Dakota County. Project developers have the power to select the contractors they want to use on their projects. Public financing should not flow to developers that consistently use irresponsible contractors. Developers that receive public funding should be held to the highest standards. ## BAD FOR WORKERS, BAD FOR TENANTS Discussion of labor conditions in affordable housing construction can pit workers against tenants, but all too often, projects that are built using exploitative practices end up being man- aged in ways that exploits tenants. Dominium, one of the largest developers of affordable housing in the country, also manages more than 30,000 apartments in 22 states. In Minnesota, Dominium managed one of the largest apart- ment complexes in the state until it was sold in 2019. A MinnPost article about that sale found that “residents for years have reported safety issues, unfair treatment from management and poor living conditions, including mold and asbestos in the walls.” 58 58 “Why the Possible Sale of a Massive Brooklyn Park ## Apartment Complex Matters,” MinnPost, November 21, 2019. https://www.minnpost.com/metro/2019/11/one-of- the-states-largest-and-most-controversial-apartment-com- plexes-is-expected-to-be-sold-why-it-matters/. Last year, residents of senior-living apartments complained about a 12.5% rent hike and sued Dominium, alleging they were illegally charging parking fees after using federal tax credits to cover the cost of building the parking lot. 59 Other news reports have alleged “bed bugs, a lack of heat and hot water and unsafe living conditions” at Dominium managed proper- ties. 60 We believe this is an area ripe for further investigation. ## 59 “KARE 11 Investigates: Affordable Senior Apartment Developer Accused of ‘Double-Dipping,” Kare 11, 2022, https://www.kare11.com/article/news/investigations/kare- 11-investigates-senior-apartment-developer-accused-dou- ble-dipping/89-5256e3b1-8106-44d2-8c6e-f2ad8b7d6464. ## 60 “Unsafe Living Conditions Reported at Senior Living ## Apartment Complex,” KSDK, February 14, 2018, https:// www.ksdk.com/article/news/local/unsafe-living-con- ditions-reported-at-senior-living-apartment-com- plex/63-518992827. ## 18 North Star Policy Action ## Section 3: A Roadmap to High-Road ## Affordable Housing Minnesota recently adopted one of the strongest wage theft laws in the country, and this law has the potential to be a powerful tool to punish employers that steal from workers. Punishment after a crime has occurred, however, is not sufficient. Greater emphasis on prevention is needed to root out the problem. Prevailing wage policies are an important tool for preventing exploitation of vulnerable workers. Greater employment transparency and a fair wage floor vastly reduce the risk of problems on publicly-subsidized projects. In fact, almost all of the evidence that we have gathered is tied to projects that do not carry prevailing wage requirements. Expanding and fully enforcing prevailing wage requirements would be an important first step. TIF “clawback” policies are another critical tool in the fight against worker exploitation on publicly financed projects. These allow local units of government to force recipients to repay TIF subsidies when the terms of the TIF agreement are violated. For example, in Richfield, “fail[ure] to comply with labor laws” is considered an Event of Default for a TIF agreement. 61 This is a critically important policy and should serve as a model for other TIF authorities. This creates a substantial disincentive for exploitation. Prevailing wage and TIF clawback policies are vital tools in the effort to root out exploitation, but they are not enough. Contractors that violate the law frequently go unpunished because many workers are too afraid for their jobs or residency status or, in the worst cases, their safety 61 Article IX 9 from example TIF agreement under Events of Default, City of Richfield, document https://drive.google. com/file/d/17oLQeoSxj2G7rZY6R55DApPM7CvaxQSO/ view?usp=drive_link. to file a complaint or provide testimony. Further, developers that routinely employ such contractors almost never face legal consequences for the mistreatment of workers on their projects. Exploitation of vulnerable workers is unlikely to end until state and local governments begin to hold project developers accountable for conduct that occurs on their jobsites. While our policy recommendations primarily focus on increasing standards tied to public financing, we also suggest important actions municipal leaders can take to prevent wage theft on all construction projects. Minor policy changes at the permitting level to increase transparency and oversight of projects could have a major impact on preventing crime on multi-family housing projects. ## 3.1 PREVENTION AT THE STATE ## LEVEL Affordable housing developers that repeatedly allow wage theft and human trafficking and fail to maintain safe workplaces need to be held accountable. It is far too easy for them to pass the buck to construction contractors on publicly financed projects where labor exploitation occurs. Additionally, we should not allow contractors that cheat or exploit workers to profit from publicly financed projects. To increase public transparency on publicly financed projects and to prevent wage theft and exploitation, the legislature should make modifications to increase transparency and create a framework for disqualification from receiving funds for egregious behavior. ## North Star Policy Action 19 ## TRANSPARENCY First, the Project Owner should be required to disclose incidents of wage theft, human trafficking, misclassification fraud, child labor and workplace safety violations on all past projects. This would provide critically needed transparency to disincentivize the use of contractors with a track record of issues. Second, the project owner should maintain and make available, directly or via the General Contractor, a list of all contractors and subcontractors that have been or are expected to be employed, is currently employed, or is expected to be employed on a housing project. Many elected officials and members of the public are surprised to learn that project owners are not typically required to provide local officials, agency funders, or interested members of the public with lists of contractors and subcontractors that are employed on construction projects. This lack of transparency makes it easy for contractors to misclassify workers as third- and fourth-tier subcontractors, and difficult for workers to prove or sometimes even know who employed them – leaving the public and sometimes even the developer in the dark. A requirement to list contractors would help to prevent misclassification by making it easier to recognize the illegal use of independent contractors. ## RESPONSIBLE CONTRACTING Irresponsible contractors that cheat workers or engage in other serious misconduct should not be allowed to work on taxpayer- funded housing projects any more than they should be allowed to participate in public works construction projects. Minnesota’s ## Responsible Contractor Act (RCA) establishes clear guidelines for determining contractor responsibility that could also be applied to taxpayer financed projects to minimize the risk of publicly-subsidized misconduct. ## PREFERENCE FOR HIGH-ROAD ## CONTRACTING MHFA uses a wide range of criteria to evaluate funding proposals, including applications for LIHTC funding. But these criteria do not currently include any metrics related to the past performance or present commitments to contracting practices designed to maximize the benefits of construction jobs and careers to low-income communities and residents, or to minimize the risk of wage theft and other forms of exploitation on subsidized projects. MHFA should consider incorporating metrics that recognize the value of family-supporting jobs, health and retirement benefits, registered apprenticeship career pathways, and worker protections resulting from collective bargaining and worker-driven social responsibility programs. ## 3.2 PREVENTION AT THE LOCAL ## LEVEL Municipalities also have a vital role to play in wage theft prevention on multi-family housing construction projects since local governments grant permits and zoning approvals for new development. Municipal leaders often adopt policies designed to prevent other types of criminal activity in their cities, and they should take wage theft just as seriously. Municipalities could require applicants for construction permits to disclose information on a developer’s track record with respect to wage theft and other forms of misconduct, and they could also require transparent reporting on the contractors and subcontractors used during construction. Finally, cities should look for creative ways to increase their enforcement capacity. This is a critical need at the local level. Policy changes alone are insufficient alone without more robust investment in enforcement. One way to increase enforcement capacity is to expand cooperation with neighboring ## 20 North Star Policy Action communities through joint enforcement efforts and co-enforcement models. Another approach is to empower workers to know their rights and establish effective reporting avenues through a worker-driven social responsibility framework such as the Building Dignity and Respect (BDR) Program. BDR requires developers to enter into legally binding participation agreements that require all contractors and subcontractors at every tier of a project to abide by basic standards that protect against wage theft and payroll fraud and guarantee the rights of workers to fair treatment, a safe workplace, and a voice in their working conditions. In addition to providing independent monitoring to verify compliance, workers are educated and empowered as frontline monitors and defenders of their own rights, with protections against retaliation. This type of worker education and compliance monitoring could be a vital tool to ensure compliance. ## North Star Policy Action 21 ## Conclusion We have seen too many instances of publicly- subsidized affordable housing projects that were built with the help of workers who could not afford to live in them due to low pay, lack of benefits, and wage theft by unscrupulous employers. Beyond undermining efforts to address Minnesota’s affordable housing crisis, awarding public subsidies to developers that facilitate or allow wage theft, misclassification fraud, or other forms of worker exploitation that disproportionately affect vulnerable Latino and immigrant workers encourages the spread of abusive practices in the construction industry and undermines the State’s commitment to equity. This report has shown how the failure to condition access to key affordable housing financing sources on responsible conduct allows taxpayer money to flow to unscrupulous developers and contractors. This fuels abuse not only on publicly financed projects, but it fosters low-road practices throughout the multi-family housing industry. Minnesota can meet its ambitious affordable houseing development goals without sacrificing worker dignity and safety. The use of irresponsible contractors should not be tolerated on publicly financed projects. Greater transparency, a responsible contractor standard, systems of accountability for issues on a developer’s past projects and investments in enforcement are all important concrete steps that elected and appointed officials can take at all levels of government to ensure high- road affordable housing development. ## 22 North Star Policy Action ## Subsidizing Abuse: How Public Financing Fuels ## Exploitation in Affordable Housing Construction Minnesota faces a significant shortage of affordable housing, and too often, new housing projects are being built on the backs of vulnerable workers who earn too little to live in the homes they build. Our “Subsidizing Abuse” report details the extent of taxpayer support for construction practices that exploit immigrants and other at-risk workers, and reveals how public financing flows to a handful of private for-profit housing developers who employ contractors that have been charged with or face allegations of exploitation. Examples of worker exploitation include wage theft, payroll fraud, lack of safety equipment and standards, threats of deportation, and fear of retaliation. ## M I N N E S O T A H O U S I N G C R I S I S Minnesota faces a severe housing crisis caused by a shortage of affordable homes, and the problem is getting worse. The supply of low-cost rental housing in Minnesota has decreased by a quarter over the last decade. In 2022, evictions rose 33% from historic pre- pandemic numbers, and over half of those evictions were in Hennepin and Ramsey counties. State and local governments are making unprecedented investments in new housing development, with a record $1 billion earmarked for housing affordability in 2023. ## P U B L I C M O N E Y F U E L I N G ## W O R K E R E X P L O I T A T I O N Two leading sources of affordable housing development funding (LIHTC and TIF) often lack robust labor standards. Since 2016, workers on 25 projects that received approximately $31 million in LIHTC funding were at risk of exploitation by problem contractors. Since 2018, workers on 14 projects that received approximately $53 million in TIF subsidies were at risk of exploitation by problem contractors. In total, over $84 million in taxpayer subsidies have gone to contractors with proven or alleged labor violations. ## A R O A D M A P T O H I G H - R O A D ## A F F O R D A B L E H O U S I N G We can prevent exploitation by increasing transparency, adopting responsible contractor standards, holding project owners accountable for abuses that occur on their watch, and investing in enforcement and worker education. Legislation is being proposed in the 2024 legislative session that would: Expand prevailing wage policies to LIHTC and TIF projects. Increase transparency by requiring developers to report who is actually working on their projects and disclose incidents of wage theft, human trafficking, misclassification fraud, child labor and workplace safety violations on past projects. Increase developer accountability for abuses committed by contractors on their projects, including disqualifying them from further public assistance for up to three years after multiple egregious cases of wage theft. ## Q U E S T I O N S ? C O N T A C T E X E C U T I V E ## D I R E C T O R J A K E S C H W I T Z E R A T ## J A K E @ N O R T H S T A R P O L I C Y . O R G ## O R 6 5 1 - 3 0 0 - 9 9 7 4 . To view the full report, scan the QR code, or visit northstarpolicy.org. 2. 4. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Enhance City’s communication through transparency and accountability. ## Information ## Title: ## Waterfront Park ## Purpose/Background: The purpose of this discussion is to provide updates on the temporary measures in place at the Waterfront Park, and provide updates on permanent improvements to improve safety and user experiences. ## Recommendation: No formal consensus is being requested. ## Outcome/Action: No formal action at this time. ## Attachments No file(s) attached. ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 03:10 PM ## Form Started By: Brian HagenStarted On: 07/23/2026 12:39 PM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 2. 5. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Strive for high organizational morale and employee retention. ## Information ## Title: ## Discussion Regarding Union Contract Negotiations (Discussion Closed to the Public) ## Purpose/Background: The purpose of this discussion is to update the City Council on the status of negotiations for the City’s five contracts and to gather Council feedback to guide the next phase of negotiations. Per Minnesota Statutes 13D.03, which states: "The governing body of a public employer may, by a majority vote in a public meeting, decide to hold a closed meeting to consider strategy for labor negotiations, including negotiation strategies or developments or discussion and review of labor negotiation proposals, conducted pursuant to sections 179A.01 to 179A.25, staff is requesting that the City Council go into closed session to discuss the City's labor negotiations strategy for its five union contracts. At this time, City staff will have met the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS) Patrol group and the LELS Crime Data Analysts groups.  Other groups include LELS Sergeant and LELS Captains. Supporting documentation will be distributed and recollected at the meeting. ## Time Frame/Observations/Alternatives: Up to 20 minutes ## Funding Source: Not applicable at this time. ## Recommendation: ## Outcome/Action: For the City Council to provide staff with direction regarding how to proceed with contract negotiations. ## Attachments No file(s) attached. ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 03:10 PM ## Form Started By: Colleen LasherStarted On: 07/23/2026 10:52 AM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 3. 1. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Enhance City’s communication through transparency and accountability. ## Information ## Title: ## Review Future Topics/Calendar ## Purpose/Background: The attachment is the current list of future topics for work session discussions. Items are drawn from Council requests at meetings, or are related to topics that have been identified in the City's strategic plan. ## Recommendation: For Council review - no formal action necessary. ## Outcome/Action: For Council review. ## Attachments ## Future Topics List ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 11:02 AM ## Form Started By: Katie SchmidtStarted On: 07/21/2026 11:11 AM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026 ## Tentative City Council Future Work Session Topics ## Proposed ## Date ## Topic Minutes (Estimate) 2026 08/10 Budget 90 08/25 Budget 90 08/25 Union Negotiations – Closed to the Public 09/08 Budget 90 ## 10/27 Quarterly Police & Fire Update ## TBD Wage Theft Enforcement Policy/Project Labor Agreement Policy follow up ## TBD City Facilities Tour ## TBD Discuss Commercial Property Public Utility Connection ## Program ## TBD Subdivision Code 4. 1. ## CC Work Session ## Meeting Date: 07/28/2026 ## Primary Strategic Plan Initiative: Enhance City’s communication through transparency and accountability. ## Information ## Title: ## Update on Outside Committees ## Purpose/Background: This case will be added to the second work session meeting every other month. This provides an opportunity for the full Council to receive an update on outside committees from the Councilmembers who serve on those committees. ## Outside Committees: ## Anoka County Fire Protection Council (ACFPC) ## Anoka County Joint Law Enforcement Council (JLEC) ## Fire Relief Association ## Lower Rum River Watershed Management Organization (LRRWMO) ## North Metro Mayors Association ## Twin Cities Gateway Board ## Quad Cities Cable Communications Commission (QCTV) ## Recommendation: For Council Discussion - no formal action necessary. ## Outcome/Action: For Council Review. ## Attachments No file(s) attached. ## Form Review ## InboxReviewed ByDate ## Brian HagenBrian Hagen07/23/2026 11:02 AM ## Form Started By: Katie SchmidtStarted On: 07/21/2026 11:09 AM ## Final Approval Date: 07/23/2026