The delay is prejudicial because of the magnitude of the public and private projects, near completion. The delay would render any relief the court might grant ineffectual, because the court is powerless to compel the private parties to enter the contracts the state wants to be written and signed. Mark Wasser, attorney for the county redevelopment authority, said in an Aug. 27 answer to the original complaint that the authority broke no laws with the redevelopment plan and the development agreement for the shopping center. In a motion opposing the state's request, he said there's no basis for an order because the redevelopment agency didn't award any contracts for public work. The agency has not awarded any contracts for public works, has not employed any workers and has no agreement with any of the developers.
State attorneys dispute the county's positions.
Documents they filed say the labor commissioner acted only after repeated efforts to inform the county of the prevailing wage laws were unheeded, and that the county and county commission should be included in the lawsuit because of their extensive involvement in the redevelopment project. The county commission also sits as the governing board of the redevelopment authority. In a brief filed Sept. 2, the state attorneys said the state only wants compliance with the law, and the order is appropriate. If it was the intent of the parties to comply with statutes, then the documents would have been rewritten correctly requiring prevailing wage on the project for the financial incentives provided by the respondents and these proceedings would not have commenced. Besides, the state says, workers don't have to be hired by a redevelopment authority to be entitled to prevailing wages, and the issue could be addressed if the redevelopment authority would require payment of those wages.