Inter Governmental Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Urban County Council Inter-Governmental Committee met on April 14, 2009, at 1:00 P.M., with CM James presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking two votes and hearing ten public comments.

The committee considered the following matters: a Construction Apprenticeship Program proposal, which was denied; an Oath for Commissions/Boards item, which was deferred; Grievance Procedures, also deferred; and an Update on Committee Items presented for informational purposes. Overall, the committee denied one proposal, deferred two items for future consideration, and received an informational update.

Attendance

Present: James, Crosbie, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Lawless, Martin, Myers, Blues, Stinnett

Absent: Gray

Late: None

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Disapprove Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance 1:00:00

A motion to disapprove the proposed construction apprenticeship program ordinance was made by Crosbie and seconded by Myers. The motion failed by voice vote. Nine members voted in favor of disapproval: Crosbie, Myers, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Lawless, Martin, Blues, and Stinnett. No members voted against the motion.

Motion to Establish Subcommittee on Grievance Process 1:14:20

A motion to establish a subcommittee to deal with the grievance process was made by Myers and seconded by Lawless. The motion passed by voice vote. Seven members voted in favor: Myers, Lawless, Beard, Henson, Feigel, Blues, and Stinnett. No members voted against the motion.

Public Comment

The meeting included ten speakers addressing a proposed construction apprenticeship program ordinance, with comments spanning approximately 45 minutes.

Opposition to the Ordinance

Richard Vincent, representing the Associated General Contractors of Kentucky, opposed the ordinance citing its 3% bid preference, arguing it would disadvantage small contractors operating on thin margins and harm regional competitiveness [00:15:06].

Billy Parsons, President of the Associated Builders and Contractors of Kentuckiana, argued that government-mandated apprenticeship programs interfere with free-market principles and would harm small and minority-owned businesses [00:19:26].

Warren Rogers, CEO of W. Rogers Company, warned the ordinance would place his firm at a 3% disadvantage when bidding in states like Tennessee and Alabama with reciprocal bid preference laws, potentially forcing relocation [00:25:47].

John Woodall, an attorney and contractor, emphasized that most construction workers live outside Fayette County due to affordable housing and cultural factors, making the proposed 25–33% local workforce requirement impractical [00:32:28].

Chad Harpole, Vice President of Public Policy for Commerce Lexington, argued the ordinance would deter workers from surrounding counties, particularly Jefferson County, from commuting to Fayette County, undermining regional cooperation [00:39:03].

Support and Administrative Perspective

Robert Akin, representing the Central Kentucky Building Construction Trades Council, defended the ordinance as a voluntary incentive for workforce development, citing federal stimulus support and long-term benefits of trained local labor [00:41:47].

Brian Marcum, Director of Purchasing, noted that bid preferences can reduce competitive bidding environments and may eliminate bidders, though he did not offer a formal position on the ordinance [00:55:52].

Council Member Comments

Crosbie explained her vote against the ordinance was based on preserving a level playing field, despite supporting labor and workforce development, citing economic vulnerability of construction firms during the recession [00:58:02].

Lawless expressed support for labor and training programs but questioned the specific wording of the ordinance, indicating a desire to understand how it could be improved [01:00:41].

Contested Items

Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance

The proposed Construction Apprenticeship Program Ordinance faced significant opposition during the meeting. Multiple construction trade associations and local contractors expressed strong concerns about the proposal. Their primary objections centered on the belief that the ordinance would create unfair competitive disadvantages for existing businesses and harm small contractors. Opponents also argued that the measure would negatively impact regional workforce mobility, potentially restricting the movement of workers across jurisdictional lines or creating barriers to employment flexibility within the construction industry.

Oath for Commissions/Boards

A procedural dispute emerged regarding the oath initiative for commissions and boards. The disagreement focused on whether this initiative should be combined with the financial disclosure subcommittee or kept as separate matters. Members advocating for separation argued that the two initiatives operated under differing legal frameworks and required distinct procedural considerations. This debate reflected concerns about conflating distinct governance requirements that might be better addressed through independent processes rather than a unified approach.

Construction Apprenticeship Program

The committee discussed a proposed ordinance that would grant a 3% bid preference to contractors employing apprentices from Fayette County 15:06.

Positions and Arguments

Supporters of the measure argued that it would promote local workforce development and align with federal stimulus goals. However, multiple construction industry representatives opposed the ordinance, raising several concerns about its practical implementation and competitive impact.

Concerns Raised

Opponents cited the following issues: - Competitive disadvantages for contractors unable to meet the apprenticeship requirements - Impractical workforce requirements that would be difficult to fulfill - Negative regional impacts on the broader construction industry

Key Speakers

The discussion involved input from Richard Vincent, Billy Parsons, Warren Rogers, John Woodall, Chad Harpole, Robert Akin, Brian Marcum, and Crosbie.

Outcome

The committee voted to disapprove the ordinance. The motion to disapprove passed without dissent.

Oath for Commissions/Boards

1:01:45

CM Beard proposed implementing oaths for board and commission members as a measure to enhance accountability. The proposal was prompted by concerns following an incident involving the airport board.

Discussion and Participants

The discussion involved CM Beard, Feigel, Myers, Blues, and Logan Askew. The conversation centered on the merits and implementation of requiring formal oaths for members serving on various city boards and commissions.

Outcome

The matter was deferred to a future meeting. The council agreed to form a subcommittee consisting of Beard and Feigel to develop the proposal further before bringing it back for full consideration.

Grievance Procedures

The committee discussed concerns about the current grievance process, referencing a recommendation from a Management Audit. 1:08:22

Key speakers in this discussion included James, Blues, Beard, Feigel, Myers, and Askew.

The committee emphasized an important distinction during the discussion: the focus should remain on policy-level issues rather than individual grievances. This clarification helped frame the scope of the review.

A motion was made to establish a subcommittee to evaluate the grievance process. The motion passed, and Diane Lawless was appointed as chair of this subcommittee.

The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, with the subcommittee now tasked with conducting the evaluation of the grievance procedures.

Update on Committee Items

1:15:23

The committee reviewed pending items during this discussion, with Paul Schoninger and Myers serving as key speakers. No changes were made to the existing list of committee items.

The committee confirmed an updated meeting date for the next Inter-Governmental Committee, scheduling it for the third Tuesday of May.

The committee also noted that boards and commissions reporting and review of current boards would be revisited at the next meeting.

This agenda item was informational in nature.