HOUSE BILL REPORT

ESHB 95

BYHouse Committee on Commerce & Labor (originally sponsored by Representatives Wang, Patrick, Sayan, Winsley, Allen, R. King, Baugher, Sutherland, Gallagher, Fisch, Cole, Fisher, Rayburn and Unsoeld)

Requiring contractors providing newly constructed facilities for occupation by state agencies to pay prevailing wage for facility construction.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (6)

     Signed by Representatives Wang, Chair; Cole, Vice Chair; Fisher, R. King, Patrick and Sayan.

Minority Report:     Do not pass.  (2)

     Signed by Representatives Sanders and C. Smith.

House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 10, 1987

BACKGROUND:

All public works undertaken by the state or local governments in Washington must comply with the state prevailing wage law.  However, if a facility is built by a private contractor who then sells or leases the facility to a government entity,  the prevailing wage law does not apply to the construction of the facility.

SUMMARY:

State agencies are prohibited from causing new facilities to be built by a private party for at least eighty percent occupation by a state agency unless the contractor or developer is required to comply with the state prevailing wage law.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENT(S):  A provision is added clarifying that the bill does not apply to construction projects for which competitive bids have been requested prior to the bill's effective date.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 12, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Bob Dilger, Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council.

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  None Presented.

House Committee - Testified Against: Duke Schaub, Association of General Contractors; Larry Stevens, National Electrical Contractors Association; and Paul W. Locke.

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:     The state should be complying with the prevailing wage law when it agrees to lease or buy new facilities to be built for state occupation.

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony Against: This provision might reduce the state's ability to choose new facilities when moving agencies to new locations.

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  None Presented.