Item 2C: Ratif. of IGR Actions - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

HB 3092 Mr. Pap~ suggested the bill, which would exempt complex structure plumbing system plans designed and stamped by an engineer or architect from City review for code compliance, would lessen the City's expense and place the burden on the builder. Mr. Ramsing concurred. However, if the bill was passed, Eugene could not do plans review or require field changes for a project. That worked if a system was well-designed, but the plan review process existed because the best engineers make mistakes that were routinely found in the process. It also eliminated the City's ability to work with the engineer. HB 3383 Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Bettman, moved to change the status of liB 3383 to Support. The committee had questions about HB 3383, which would require contractors on public works contracts to pay prevailing wage rates to workers who manufacture nonstandard items made to order for public works, whether the work is done on or off the site. Responding to a question from Ms. Bettman, Ms. Pomes said there was no definition of ~nonstandard" in the bill, so she did not know how to determine what was and was not standard. Ms. Bettman asked who sponsored the bill. Ms. Brooks said the bill was sponsored by Representative Shiffier. No hearing had been scheduled, but she anticipated it could be one of a series of public contracting bills that would be considered soon. Mr. Svendsen said one question for staff was whether, for example, duct work manufactured and assembled in Sweden meant the definition in the bill. Ms. Bettman suggested the City could support the bill with amendments to address that type of issue. Mr. Svendsen said if the bill was amended to eliminate such extraterritorial issues, one was essentially back to the current law. Ms. Bettman asked what problem the bill was intended to address. Mr. Jones believed the bill's sponsor was representing the interests of sheet metal workers in the Portland area who felt unfair competition from a contractor who was not employing their services but instead purchasing material from a third-party source. The bill was an attempt to control the economic effect of that by bringing those third parties under State contracting law. Ms. Bettman thought that a laudable intent. Mr. Jones said the administrative burden of enforcing a prevailing wage rate on another state or country would be very problematic. Ms. Bettman suggested those third-party manufacturers could be certified by another party. Mr. Svendsen said another approach used in such situations was local preference. He pointed out that it was difficult to know whether a manufacturer in a third-world country paid the prevailing wage in that location. He said the issue the bill was attempting to address was one of economic competition rather than wage control. Ms. Bettman said the bill would provide an incentive for governments to use local manufac- turers because it would be easy to determine if they paid the prevailing wage. Mr. Svendsen agreed, but pointed out that local preference was a more direct approach. Ms. Pomes said the burden would fall less on local government than on the general contractor it was likely to slow the contracting process. Ms. Bettman was sure that after a couple of years there would be a list of approved manufacturers in place. She perceived there to be a disconnection between legislative attempts to create local jobs while bleeding jobs out of the state if something like the bill was not in place. MINUTES--Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 7, 2005 Page 4