Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Prevailing Wage Certified Payroll topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lobbyist urges certified‑payroll reporting for state construction projects to enforce Vermont prevailing wage law
Summary
A lobbyist representing construction trades told the House General and Housing Committee that requiring weekly certified‑payroll submissions for certain state‑funded construction projects would help enforce Vermont’s prevailing‑wage statute and protect workers and taxpayers.
David Nickenberg, testifying for Working Vermont and the Vermont Building and Construction Trades Council, told the committee that Vermont’s prevailing‑wage statute, adopted in 1996 and updated in about 2015 to include benefits, is modeled on the federal Davis‑Bacon Act. He said the bill language in S.125 would require contractors on qualifying state capital projects to submit weekly certified‑payroll records so the state can verify contractors are paying required wages and benefits.
“The purpose of this is to protect workers. That is the purpose,” Nickenberg said, adding it would also protect taxpayers by ensuring state funds are used as intended. He described certified payroll as a routine federal practice — required for federal Davis‑Bacon projects — and said it is in use in other New England states, including Massachusetts. He urged an effective date delayed by a year to allow agencies and contractors time to implement systems.
Committee members asked detailed questions about thresholds and scope. Nickenberg said the provision would apply to capital‑funded construction projects above the statutory thresholds (examples in draft language showed $100,000 and a 50% funding rule) and that certified‑payroll obligations generally attach to the project and its contractors and subcontractors covered by prevailing‑wage rules. He described the typical certified‑payroll contents as employee name, address, hours worked, wages paid, rate of pay and classification, and said records would be kept for three years under the draft language.
Witnesses and committee members discussed enforcement and privacy. Nickenberg said the proposal originally directed certified payroll to the attorney general’s office (to support enforcement) but that attorneys general receiving such records raised concerns; the Senate removed that provision. The current draft allows the Commissioner of Labor to inspect records on request. Committee members asked whether addresses and other personnel details could be shielded; legislative counsel said statutory public‑records exemptions could be tailored to protect specified personal information.
Nickenberg and others said many Vermont contractors already submit similar paperwork for federal projects and that small contractors would face modest administrative burden. He submitted letters from contractors supporting the change and suggested the Department of Labor and other agencies could provide guidance and forms to ease compliance.
No vote was taken; members said they would solicit additional testimony and may revise record‑keeping and privacy language during committee markup.
