Laserfiche WebLink
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
certain types of funding. <br />Mr. Weinman attributed this to the uncertainty about what was considered a prevailing wage project and <br />what was not. He said the lack of certainty created problems for people trying to get projects financed. He <br />related that in Eugene and Portland, there were builders who were used to paying prevailing wage and <br />knew how to bid on such projects, but in a lot of communities there were no builders who dealt with this at <br />all. Because of this, he explained, they could not get local people to bid on projects and were forced to pay <br />more to have people from Portland do certain construction projects. He stated that a significant issue was <br />th <br />whether a mixed use housing project, like the Aurora Building and the project on West 8Avenue, had to <br />pay prevailing wage on the whole thing. He said a project with four floors or less would not require <br />prevailing wage, and a project with more than four floors would have to be a prevailing wage project. <br />Ms. Taylor said she was concerned about anything that reduced peoples’ wages so that they would have <br />enough income to live on. Mr. Weinman responded that this was not in regard to a living wage, it was in <br />regard to prevailing wage. He explained that the difference between prevailing wage and a living wage <br />could be $30 an hour or $40 an hour. <br />Ms. Wilson pointed out that prevailing wage was set by the Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI). She <br />explained that it was set based on wages in the largest city in any county; these wages were higher than <br />family or living wages. She said the reason the projects affected by the bill would be exempt was that they <br />were low income housing projects that could not be built if they had to pay prevailing wages. <br />Ms. Taylor averred that some people who did not make high enough wages would need low income <br />housing. <br />Ms. Wilson reiterated that they were not talking about family or living wage issues. <br />Mr. Poling ascertained from staff that supporting the bill meant the City was in favor of the negotiated <br />compromise and the exemption to the rules in the case of low income housing. <br />Ms. Wilson clarified that the current wording was unclear in regard to which projects required the <br />prevailing wage and which did not and this was causing low income housing developers to have difficulty <br />in obtaining financing. <br />Ms. Ortiz indicated that she was comfortable with the staff recommendation. <br />Ms. Taylor decided to support the staff recommendation. <br />Mr. Weinman noted that the bill had passed the House. <br />HB 2699A <br />Ms. Wilson stated that HB 2699A was moving but was having some struggle. Staff had recommended <br />opposing the bill because it would have a negative financial impact on the City. She explained that the bill <br />would require cities, counties, or other sponsors of an Enterprise Zone to notify the Commissioner of <br />BOLI of any exemption from ad valorem property taxations connected with public work located in an <br />Enterprise Zone. She noted that the City Attorney had also recommended adoption of a Priority 2 Oppose <br />position on the bill. <br />Ms. Taylor thought they should support the bill. <br />MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental Relations May 27, 2009 Page 2 <br /> <br />