The City of Waterbury finds that a substantial number of city residents are not being employed by contractors performing work on publicly-funded construction projects in the City of Waterbury and that the residents, therefor, are not receiving the maximum possible benefit from the City of Waterbury’s investment of public funds in the projects. The city further finds that:
(A) Recent research of hiring patterns on construction projects reveals a pattern of low hiring of residents in favor of nonresidents whose hiring is draining significant resources from the city.
(1) Only 14% of work hours performed on the construction of the $138,000,000 waste water treatment plant in 1998 - 1999 were performed by residents;
(2) Only 10% of laborers hours on city street paving in 1999 were performed by residents;
(3) With an average wage of $21 per hour on tax-funded city construction work as exemplified by the waste water treatment plant construction project, more than $13,000,000 in wages was lost by city residents on that project. Due to typical turnover of those funds among businesses in the community, $13,000,000 - $26,000,000 of additional economic activity from the multiplier affect was lost to city businesses;
(4) As a result of the high percentage of noncity residents on construction projects, fewer Waterbury residents are able to be home owners, thus reducing property taxes to the city. For each resident who loses the opportunity to be a home owner, the city loses an estimated $2,000 in revenue per year.
(5) The migration of benefits caused by the high percentage of noncity residents on construction projects increases the burden on health care providers to provide uncompensated care to Waterbury residents without health insurance. Over the course of the waste water treatment plant project alone, for example, $5,000,000 in health and pension benefits were lost to city residents. If this subchapter were minimally met, it would double the wages and benefits going to city residents; and
(6) The extra cost to tax payers of the under-usage of apprentices on the project compared to what is permissible under state law is estimated at close to $1,000,000.
(B) Waterbury residents face higher rates of unemployment than other towns and cities in the region and state.
(1) The unemployment rate among construction workers who are residents of the city is 50% higher than the statewide unemployment rate among construction workers, and more than double the unemployment rate among construction workers in similarly-sized cities. For example, the Connecticut Department of Labor reports that in September 1999, 324 city residents applied for construction jobs at unemployment offices out of a total construction workforce of 3,600 (9%). Statewide, 3,908 applicants applied out of a total construction labor force of 63,800 (6%). In Danbury, 166 city residents applied out of a total construction workforce of 4,100 (4%).
(2) Since 1984 the city’s unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the rate of unemployment in the Naugatuck Valley region and the state. Unemployment is especially severe in some neighborhoods, which faced up to 19% unemployment, compared to the city’s 8% unemployment in the 1990 Census.
(C) Poverty is much greater and incomes are much lower in Waterbury than elsewhere in the region and state.
(1) According to the 1990 Census, 12.1% of the city’s residents lived below the poverty level, compared to 2.7% in the rest of the region and 6.8% statewide.
(2) Median 1990 household income was $30,533 in Waterbury compared to $41,721 for the state, and compared to $45,000 - $67,500 for towns in the rest of the Naugatuck Valley region. Estimates updating this data to 1997 show little change. Residents on average earn $10,000 less per capita than the statewide average of $28,000.
(3) Poverty is even more pronounced in some neighborhoods with up to 30% of their residents in poverty.
(4) The average wage for residents coming off of welfare in the city is one of the lowest in the State of Connecticut at $5.93 per hour.
(5) Over one-third of female headed households are under poverty.
(6) City children are among the poorest in the State of Connecticut, 61% of students city-wide are eligible for reduced price meals versus 25% statewide.
(Ord. passed 2-21-2012)