Item 6: Ratification of IGR Minutes and Direction on Legislative Policy

Home Browse Search

Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Piercy, moved to Monitor the bill as a Priority 2. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. Ms. Piercy indicated she wanted to be supportive of the concept but there were problems with the bill’s approach. She asked if monitoring meant that there was no communication with legislators regarding concerns or suggestions related to the bill. Ms. Piercy, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to direct the City’s lobbyist to make it known to legislators that the bill’s intent was supported but there were concerns about the approach. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. HB 2618 Ms. Bettman referred to a letter from Representative Paul Holvey regarding the bill. She thought Rep. Holvey made a good point because if there were dwindling numbers of skilled workers a public benefit could be achieved by the bill’s small modification to existing requirements. Mr. Perry said he did not perceive it to be a small modification and Rep. Holvey’s letter indicated the requirement would apply to contractors and subcontractors. He said it would be extremely difficult from an administrative standpoint and could adversely affect competition for City contracts by imposing yet another requirement, which in this case would entail establishing a training program in collaboration with the State. He perceived the requirement as a major deterrent to many potential bidders. He said the City currently required contractors to submit documentation of compliance with various requirements, such as having a drug testing program in place; in this case the City would need to actively monitor whether the training program was in place. He said State law required that apprentices be paid at certain rates, which could also affect how contractors bid on projects. Ms. Bettman quoted Rep. Holvey’s letter, which questioned how the City of Eugene’s policy on public contracting had encouraged the training and education of workers to industry skill standards in compliance with the policy of the State of Oregon. Mr. Perry said that the City address the skills issue by establishing minimum specifications rather than getting involved in contractors’ employee training issues. Ms. Bettman said that the Public Works Department was trying to reduce the competition for contracting by exempting certain things from the public bidding process and she saw a disconnect between the staff recommendation and that stance. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to Support the bill as a Priority 3. Mr. Gallup explained the impact of the bill on Public Works Engineering (PWE). He said most PWE projects were over $350,000 and the bill would require significantly more staff time to manage, track and document compliance, which would likely involve conducting onsite interviews with contractors’ employees to verify. He said it would increase the costs of projects and limit the number that could be done each year. Ms. Bettman said that the contractors’ would just be checking off another box on their reports. Mr. Svendsen stated that the oversight expectations in the bill were different; the City was currently just the repository for contractor reports and information, but the bill appeared to require a more active role in overseeing contractor compliance. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations March 16, 2007 Page 3