Item 2H: Ratifiaction of Unanimous IGR Actions

Home Browse Search

position from a neutral one to one of support. He explained that the reason he had suggested a neutral stance was because the bill would not affect public improvement contracts; it was targeted toward privately funded projects that received state public funding and were built on public land. He had asked Urban Services Manager, Richie Weinman, to comment on it but he had not made any comments of any substance in regard to the bill. He thought it would have very little impact on the City because five cents an hour was not a large amount of money. Mr. Poling observed that Mr. Klope’s comments made reference to the bill not affecting normal public infrastructure contracts, but it would affect low-income housing projects. Mr. Klope acknowledged that this was his perception. He said if one looked at the average wages of such projects, they likely fell in the over $20 per hour range and five cents an hour did not seem like much in that context. Mr. Poling thought the money could add up. He was concerned about adding costs to low-income housing projects and this would be his reason to oppose supporting the bill. Ms. Taylor averred that low-income people could also be enabled to get the jobs such projects would provide. Ms. Taylor, seconded by Ms. Ortiz, moved to support the bill. The vote was 2:1; Mr. Poling dissenting. Mr. Poling asked Ms. Wilson to contact Mr. Weinman to find out the cost that HB 3017 would have added to the City’s most recent low-income projects, in ballpark figures. He also requested an estimate on the cost of wages on the most current low-income projects. HB 3142 and HB 3143 Ms. Wilson stated that HB 3142 would direct the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) to establish a Contractor and Workforce Diversity Pilot Program. Staff had recommended adopting a neutral position on the bill. Ms. Ortiz asked if HB 3142 and HB 3143 were the same. Mr. Klope replied that one sought to create the pilot program which was intended to be a study to determine what the difference was between diversity on projects that utilized alternative contracting methods such as design/build or other methods and on the “standard low-bid type projects.” He stated that the other bill would change the standards by which a contractor would be determined to be responsible and would actually create some lasting legal impact. Ms. Ortiz withdrew her concern about HB 3142. She asked Mr. Klope to elaborate on HB 3143. Mr. Klope responded that HB 3143 would add to the definition of what a responsible bidder would be. He said the contract language in the Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) set a limited number of criteria by which a contractor was determined to be responsible and someone who should be awarded a contract. He explained that someone with a criminal record would not qualify, as an example, or a contractor would be required to have a certain capability to be bonded, as another. He said the bill would add a requirement that a contractor’s past work be reviewed to determine whether or not certain diversity goals had been met on previous projects. He predicted that the bill, if it passed, would go to court and, depending on how the court interpreted the bill, it could have the effect of limiting the number of bidders that could bid on projects across the state as very few public agencies actually had diversity goals. He noted that such goals were typically associated with federal contracts and that the City of Portland contracts included these types of goals. Ms. Ortiz asked if the bill was moving. Ms. Wilson replied that it had not been scheduled for a hearing. She reiterated that the dead bill deadline was two weeks away. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations April 8, 2009 Page 2