YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Blumenthal Lends Support to Responsible Contracting Ordinance


by turfgrrl


August 9th, 2007 · 11 Comments

Last night’s public hearing drew supporters to talk about the proposed responsible contracting ordinance. It was pretty cool that the State’s Attorney General showed up to lend support and praise for the proposal. The usual political flunkies were in the audience, including Republican Mayor Dick Moccia. From the Hour:

Nearly a dozen people, including other labor leaders, Republican Mayor Richard A. Moccia, his Democratic challenger Walter O. Briggs and state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal lent their support to the proposed “Norwalk Responsible Contractor Ordinance,” which following language tweaks, was sent onward to the full council for action next Tuesday night.

“I’m of the opinion that this is a measure that will create new jobs, new opportunities for people in the city,” said Michael W. Coffey, committee chairman and council president.
Blumenthal described the ordinance as “one of the best drafted of any” he has seen around the state. He lent his personal support and the support of his office.

“It is about responsible contracting. It is about giving preference to people who live in this area — not only for their sake, but for the local economy’s benefit,” Blumenthal said.

Under the proposed ordinance, Norwalk would be required to give preference to people in the Norwalk labor market area when hiring workers for larger municipal construction projects.

Contractors and subcontractors have to pay their employees in accordance with the state’s prevailing wage law. The law applies to new construction work totaling or exceeding $400,000, and remodeling, rehabilitation and similar work totaling or exceeding $100,000.

Further, contractors would be required to provide their employees with health insurance and offer them apprenticeship opportunities.

The details of enforcement played out between the two Mayoral candidates with Moccia staking out the practical in stating concerns about emergency road repair.

Moccia said he supports such an ordinance, based on conversations with Mayor Mark D. Boughton of Danbury, which adopted a similar law. Moccia said his only concern is ensuring that the city be able to fix road collapses and other emergencies as they arise..

Moccia suggested that the city paid, in the long run, on its school roofing project several years ago by not having a responsible contractor ordinance.

“If we have to go back and repair roofs on schools that we have done in the past because we had people on that roof that were not qualified … then are we gaining any economic benefit (that) we think we get from the low price?” Moccia asked.

Walter Briggs, whose master plan is 5 years delayed, spoke about the need for “community involvement.”

Briggs, speaking at the hearing, described the ordinance as “excellent.” To make it better, he said, the council should consider adding language setting up an apprentice pool and establishing an appointed board to oversee enforcement of the ordinance.

“What we need to include are strong oversight, enforcement, and community involvement measures, to create good-paying professional jobs for our residents, and to protect taxpayers from work done by contractors with a record of failure,” Briggs said in a statement released earlier Wednesday.

It is interesting to note that Briggs, perhaps in hopes of defining some sort of campaign mojo, thinks that there needs to be community involvement in contract enforcement and creating an apprentice pool. Apparently Briggs doesn’t believe in the separation of powers in a representative democracy. Why stop there? I’m sure there’s a way to work the child hood obesity angle in there somewhere.

source: The Hour, ‘Responsible contractor’ proposal draws support at public hearing by Robert Koch, August 9, 2007

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

11 Responses so far “Norwalk: Blumenthal Lends Support to Responsible Contracting Ordinance”



  • 1 Watchingandlistening // Aug 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

    According to the article in The Hour, a speaker asked that the ordinance be sent to the Finance Department for an evaluation as to what impact the ordinance would have on the costs to the city BEFORE being forwarded to the Common Council for action. Coffey ignored the suggestion and so when the Council votes on the ordinance next week, it will have NO Data on what the cost implications will be. Only in governments (and poorly run ones at that) could this be taking place.

  • 2 Anonymous // Aug 9, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Apparently the ATTY General did’t take your view since he said it was actually thew best code of its kind that he had seen and was very much in favor of it being passed as well as offered the services of his office should they be needed.

  • 3 anonymous // Aug 9, 2007 at 12:40 pm

    My only question is whether this will increase or decrease my taxes?

  • 4 Watchingandlistening // Aug 9, 2007 at 1:00 pm

    anonymous 3
    While not directly comparable, but close enough to provide some indication, the report on “Project Labor Agreements and the Cost of Public School Construction Projects in Connecticut” concludes “that PLAs increase actual project costs by 17.9%”.
    Yout taxes will go UP!

    Anonymous 2
    Do you really think Blumenthal is concerned with YOUR local city taxes?

  • 5 anonymous // Aug 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

    If my taxes are gonna go up, then I am against it.

  • 6 Anonymous // Aug 9, 2007 at 1:26 pm

    Paying to get the same job done twice will make your taxes go up.

  • 7 mattw // Aug 9, 2007 at 1:42 pm

    Watchingandlistening, you’re right that this is different from PLAs — responsible contracting is premised on the belief that on a level playing field (workers not misclassified as “subcontractors,” with similar healthcare / pay scale packages, and a commitment to local workers and apprenticeship) that union shops can compete and often outperform the competition. This ordinance is pro-worker and union-neutral.

    The question I have about buildings / public works projects constructed under PLAs would be whether they have a measurably longer usable lifespan or lower annual cost of maintenance.

    For example, a new car might cost 1000% of what I spent on the old beater I drive now (actually that would still be pretty cheap), but people buy them because they work better, last longer, and have fewer problems. An 18% price premium sounds pretty reasonable if you got an extra decade of use out of a building, for example. Have you seen any data on that side of the equation?

  • 8 Watchingandlistening // Aug 9, 2007 at 2:11 pm

    mattw
    Go to this URL for the complete report:

    http://www.beaconhill.org/BHIStudies/PLA2004/PLAinCT23Nov2004.pdf

  • 9 Anonymous or not // Aug 9, 2007 at 3:51 pm

    #4 you clearly did not listen to Bob Santo last night say that PLA’s and Responsible Contractor Language are totally different animals. Either you don’t listen or don’t care about stirring up arguments that make no sense.

  • 10 mattw // Aug 9, 2007 at 6:25 pm

    Interesting piece, but it doesn’t answer the quality question. Also, the math for the price analysis is kind of suspect, isn’t it? The sample size for PLA projects was only 20% of the non-PLA sample, and the disparity went up to 10:1 in the section with the greatest difference (Junior and High Schools) — a sample of only 3 PLA projects?

    Then, they use this limited sample of large buildings in order to weight the same cost by square footage a second time? That really seems like stretching it to me.

    Using the straight numbers, it looks like PLA building is $19/square foot cheaper for small projects, and $15/square foot more expensive for large projects. On price, I don’t think it’s conclusive. And on quality, they avoided the question entirely.

    This is what you get from think tanks instead of peer-reviewed journals, I guess.

  • 11 Anonymous // Aug 9, 2007 at 8:00 pm

    mattw-aren’t you Walter Briggs campaign manager? If you have so many questions why didn’t you advise him not to speak on behalf of this ordinance?

Leave a Reply