Minutes 02-10-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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