Editorial: Should city pick up ‘prevailing wage’ tab?

“The palace isn’t safe, when the cottage is not happy” – Benjamin Disraeli

The Sonoma City Council on Monday unanimously approved a proposal that clears a hurdle toward the restoration of the Maysonnave Cottage, which the city plans to lease as a vacation rental once the cozy abode at 291 First St. E. is brought up to residential-occupancy standards.

It’s the latest step in a process that began last year when the council agreed to lease the cottage – at one time slated for demolition – as a vacation rental to local architect Sid Hoover and Benchmark Contractors, who would be charged with bringing the quaint off-white dwelling next to the historic Maysonnave House up to code. The lease would be good for 20 years, after which time the city would resume management and consider establishing it as a public facility, more in line with what the late Henri Maysonnave had envisioned.

But the hurdle that needed clearing wasn’t something that Henri Maysonnave would have had to contend with in his lifetime – the question of a state-established wage for workers.

According to city staff, there’s an outside chance the state would require that Hoover-Benchmark pay its workers a “prevailing wage” of $15 an hour, which according to rough estimates, would tack on another $15,000 to $22,000 to the cost of the project. It’s an added cost Hoover-Benchmark say throws an, er, wrench in the works.

The solution? Well, the council agreed that the city would pick up the tab – to the tune of $22,000 maximum – if the state does, in fact, subject the project to prevailing-wage standards.

“It concerns me that the city has to anti-up for this,” commented Mayor David Cook, while casting his vote of approval.

And, boy, should it.

There are legitimate reasons that the council went along with this. For starters, Hoover-Benchmark’s was the only bid on the project, according to city staff – so, in a manner of speaking, they kind of have to dance with the developer who brought them to the party. And, even with the possible added expense, the city is still sailing under budget on its obligations for the project, which have included electrical and sidewalk upgrades.

Plus, as city staff observed more than once, the state isn’t likely to require the prevailing wage.

Now, as far as the restoration of the cottage is concerned, this is a good thing – it’s an important project and the many folks working toward it should be congratulated. But from a broader perspective of precedents the council may be setting, the maneuvering around the prevailing wage “dilemma” leaves a sour taste in one’s mouth. The idea of a prevailing wage is something that should be viewed as philosophically and humanistically fair – and certainly not overly generous to workers. But decent enough, especially if they reside in the high-cost-of-living Valley.

It’s not something the city should make a habit of subsidizing or side-stepping, like some sort of tech work-around at the office. Or worse, hoping won’t happen at all.

“I wish the prevailing wage was seen as a positive thing, not a negative thing,” said Cook.

Seconded, Mr. Mayor.

– Jason Walsh