Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Wilson briefly described the nature of HB 2397 and noted that after being reviewed by several City staff <br />members a Priority 2 opposition position was being recommended. <br />Ms. Taylor stated that she would rather adopt a monitor position regarding the bill. <br />Mr. Klope noted that HB 2397, which would require payment of prevailing wages to workers employed under <br />contracts to fabricate or manufacture nonstandard items, would be prohibitively difficult to monitor and enforce <br />and further noted that the bill did not adequately define “nonstandard items.” <br />Mr. Klope explained that prevailing wages for contract workers involved in the manufacture of nonstandard items <br />for public works usage as those items were often fabricated off-site and oftentimes in remote international <br />locations. He further explained that the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, the agency normally charged <br />with monitoring prevailing wage issues, had over the past decade displayed a tendency to shift the monitoring of <br />such issues onto local agencies who were ill-equipped to do so. He added that any enforcement of prevailing <br />wages as suggested in HB 2397 would result in significant increases in materials used for public works purposes. <br />City Attorney Jerome Lidz commented that it would not be possible to enforce HB 2397 outside of the state of <br />Oregon and that the bill might force local public works divisions to purchase much more expensive materials <br />within the state’s boundaries. <br />Mr. Lidz, responding to a question from Ms. Taylor as to why it would not be advisable to simply adopt a neutral <br />position regarding the bill, reiterated that HB 2397 would not only cost the City a great deal to enforce but also <br />cost a great deal to accommodate the increased public works contract costs necessitated by the bill. <br />Mr. Penwell, responding to a question from Mr. Poling, noted there was currently no public works industry <br />standard definition for “nonstandard items” that could be applied to HB 2397. Mr. Poling maintained that the <br />vague nature of the term “nonstandard items” was a great concern to him in that almost any item used in a public <br />works project could be deemed nonstandard. <br />Mr. Klope added that the bill was also vague in that it could allow for any item fabricated under any contract to <br />be classified as nonstandard, not just a public works contract. <br />Ms. Ortiz noted that she supported a living wage for workers in the City of Eugene but noted that the bill seemed <br />to be very far-reaching and somewhat impractical. She noted that she concurred with staff’s recommendation to <br />oppose but further noted that she would be contacting Representative Holvey for further clarification on the <br />matter. <br />Ms. Wilson noted that several prevailing wage bills would be introduced in the current legislative session and that <br />Representative Holvey had sponsored an unsuccessful bill similar to HB 2397 in 2007. <br />Ms. Taylor averred that she agreed with the principle of HB 2397 was troubled by staff’s recommendation to <br />oppose it. She reiterated her desire to adopt a neutral position. <br />Ms. Wilson, responding to Ms. Taylor‘s statement, commented that it might be more advisable to adopt a monitor <br />position and then return to it with more information for further discussion at a later CCIGR meeting . <br />Ms. Ortiz, seconded by Mr. Poling, moved to adopt a position of Priority 3 monitor <br />regarding HB 2397. <br /> <br /> <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations February 4, 2009 Page 7 <br />