05/16/2000 Meeting Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Council Minutes of 5/16/2000 believes all of Council agrees) that anyone is able to bid on a project. It should be ,~,,, understood that both non-union and union contractors can bid on a project. The stipulation being that, if a project labor agreement is required, then the non-union contractor would be required to abide by that as well. Two ways this can be accomplished were discussed: 1) The non-union contractors would engage in a project only agreement where they would be required to comply with the collective bargaining agreement that governs their union employees that they would employ for this project; 2) Enter into an agreement and to join and work with the Building Trades Council on a multi-project, more permanent arrangement. Those things are all negotiable with regard to this ordinance. They are not mandated in the verbiage. Pat Seiffert, general counsel for Cleveland Construction, commented regarding her belief that, when non-union contractors are compelled to abide by a PLA, their employees are adversely affected by having to pay union dues and abandoning pension, health and other benefits. Brian Martin, director of government affairs of the Associated Builders and Contractors, discussed the statistics regarding the success of non-union contractors in insuring safety and well-trained workers and feels this is a fairness issue. In response to that suggestion of a fairness issue, several members of Council raised the question of fairness with regard to the use of the media and postcards that have been sent out to residents disparaging this Council with regard to its actions on Ordinance 99-54. Objections were voiced regarding the unproven and unfounded accusations of illegality and misuse and disregard for the taxpayers of the city by this Council. In fact, it was pointed out that protecting, limiting and restricting the manner in which a major project proceeds is the ultimate protection of the city dollars and of the taxpayers of North Olmsted. Ordinance 99-54 provides for such monitoring. Mr. Limpert expressed concern that there is nothing that prohibits negotiation of a project labor agreement and that an ordinance is perhaps unnecessary. Councilman Nashar expressed concern that, according to our Law Department, there are no other local suburbs that have a PLA ordinance and that a good percentage of the contracts in the city are already successfully bid by union contractors in an objective public bidding process. Much discussion followed those concerns as well. It was explained that an ordinance is necessary to establish the appropriateness of negotiating project labor agreements and to encourage that that take place. Further, (in Mrs. Kasler's opinion), a ground breaking ordinance and one that stands alone in the area is not by its nature wrong but can be considered a pioneering effort on the part of this Council. After all sides were given an opportunity to speak at the committee meeting, a motion was made by Councilman Miller to recommend Ordinance 99-54 for approval. The motion was seconded by Mrs. Kasler and passed with Council members Miller and Kasler voting yes and Councilman Nashar casting a dissenting vote. Ordinance 99-54 was recommended for approval by a majority of the committee. Mr. O'Grady, chairperson of the Public Safety, Health & Welfare Committee: 1) With regard to the Public Safety Committee, it is his intent to host a meeting of the committee on May 31 to discuss the North Olmsted Gun Lock Program, a program which he would like to see instituted in the city. For a great many years, the city has had a gun turn-in program, and it has been very successful. Changes that Mr. Nashar put into the program (giveaways, additional notice in the newspapers) have brought greater attention to the program and have met with great success. His concern, as the chairman of Public Safety, 4