Agenda - 03-17-2015 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

2 1 2.Do we require the equivalent of an Orange County living wage when both the vendor 2 and the vendor’s employees live outside the county? Outside the state? 3 3.Do we require the vendor pay all of its employees a living wage or just those assigned to 4 the contract project? 5 4.Vendors can avoid this requirement by designating workers as subcontractors. Do we 6 require vendors to pay their subcontractors a living wage? Require vendors to require 7 subcontractors to pay their employees a living wage? 8 5.How do we verify and enforce the requirement(s)? Audits? Such a policy must be 9 enforced because it likely creates third party beneficiaries who could have grounds to 10 sue Orange County for its failure to enforce the provisions. 11 6.Is this policy to apply to contracts within a designated range of amounts to all vendors or 12 just those with more than a designated number of employees? 13 7.Some sole source vendors are likely to refuse to sign such a contract. Examples include 14 Time Warner, MuniCode, and Apple. How should this be addressed? 15 16 John Roberts saidhe does not believe the state statute applies to all contracts, but it 17 seems to limit the authority to contracts that require bidding. He said it is fine for the Board to 18 adopt a living wage policy as long as there are limits. He said, since bidding is never required 19 for service contracts, it may be a good idea to set a limit. He noted that Asheville has a limit of 20 $90,000 on service contracts, and the policy does not apply to anything above that, which 21 allows bidding for larger contracts. 22 He said Durham and Asheville require this by ordinance, and there are benefits and 23 downsides to this. He suggested that a policy may be the better way to do this. 24 Bonnie Hammersley said she has had previous experience with this in Dane County, 25 where this was done by ordinancefor human services contracts. She said all bids provided 26 terms requiring contractors to provide a living wage for their workers. She said there was also 27 no law like the one recently passed in North Carolina, and this is why this could be done. She 28 said there were no increased costs or decreased competitionas a result of this. 29 Chair McKee thanked her for this input. 30 Commissioner Dorosin asked John Robertsif he is recommending that this be a term of 31 the contract, rather than an ordinance. 32 John Roberts saidthis was initially suggested as a policy stating that the Board only 33 works with contractors who pay a living wage. He believes this can be addressed by putting a 34 clause in each contract for the designated amounts. He said if the contractor does not follow 35 this, it is a breach of contract. He suggested that the Board also give some discretion to the 36 manager to bypass it when necessary. He gave an example in which Apple was the sole 37 source of a needed information technology service. 38 Commissioner Dorosin asked if John Roberts thinks it would be easier to enforce this if 39 it isin acontract. 40 John Roberts said yes. He said these will be small contracts, and many could go to 41 small claims court or district court to have a dispute resolved. He believes this is easier than 42 going to superior court for an ordinance violation. 43 Commissioner Dorosin said if it makes more sense to have it in acontract, a minimum 44 damage clause, such as a liquidated damages clause, could be included. 45 John Roberts saidthere is case law stating that you cannot have a liquidated damages 46 clause that looks like a punishment. He said it has to have some sort of rational relationship to 47 the actual damages. 48 Commissioner Rich asked how the Countywould find out if someone is not living up to 49 the contract.