CC Minutes - 06/08/09 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

states adopting their own minimum wage laws. She said living wage was the minimum amount that could be paid to a worker so that a worker had the ability to provide housing, transportation, and food and this amount varied from community to community and from state to state. She stated that prevailing wage was not living wage; it was the amount of pay and benefits that had to be paid to workers on particular projects. She explained that the Commissioner for the Board of Labor and Industries (BOLI) set the prevailing wage in the State of Oregon. She clarified that HB2966A would add a category of projects to the list of projects that were already required to pay prevailing wage and the categories added would include private projects that were $5 million or more that were situated in Enterprise Zones where the business entity had received a tax credit. She said staff had recommended that the City oppose the bills because it would have an increased cost to the City. She explained that the City would be required to pay a $5,000 fee for every project that met the definition of public works. She related that the opponents of the bill included local governments across the state and, in some cases, some unions whose position was that the bill would create a disincentive to economic and community development in Enterprise Zones across the state. Councilor Zelenka, seconded by Councilor Clark, moved to substitute a motion to take no position on HB2966A. Councilor Clark indicated that he would prefer to oppose the bill. He understood that the difference between a living wage and prevailing wage locally was as much as $10 to $12 an hour and $40 an hour for work respectively. Ms. Wilson confirmed that this was true. She said prevailing wage could not be quantified in a specific amount because it varied in industry and types of projects and in the State of Oregon it varied from county to county. Councilor Clark surmised that the bill was essentially eliminating the incentive to increase economic activity in areas where an Enterprise Zone had been created to increase economic activity. He believed it would create a disincentive. Councilor Poling referred to comments made by Senior Management Analyst for the Finance Division, Larry Hill, on page 86 of the agenda packet. Mr. Hill had stated that the bill would probably discourage private investment by increasing both cost and administrative burden on the private investor and would weaken the City’s ability to use an Enterprise Zone as an incentive to attract and focus private investment dollars to the area of the zone. He related that Mr. Hill also pointed to the increased cost to the City because of the greater administrative burden. He believed that if the bill passed, it would cost the City extra money and would defeat the purpose of the Enterprise Zone. Councilor Taylor preferred to support the bill, but she did not think it would pass. She indicated she would support taking no position. Councilor Zelenka said he would also be inclined to support the bill, but would settle for taking no position. Councilor Pryor preferred taking no position in the face of having a divided council. He wanted to be silent on an issue rather than to convey a position as from the City Council based on a split vote. He indicated that if the vote failed, he would support opposing HB2966A. Roll call vote; the vote was a tie, 4:4; councilors Brown, Zelenka, Taylor, and Pryor voting in favor and councilors Poling, Solomon, Clark, and Ortiz voting in opposition. Mayor Piercy voted to take no position and the motion passed. Mayor Piercy thought it was a good to take no position on the bill. She added that she considered the position to be from the council, even with a 5 to 4 vote. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 8, 2009 Page 10 Regular Meeting