Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Construction Certified Payroll topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Construction trade groups warn S.125 certified-payroll rules would burden small contractors
Summary
The Associated General Contractors of Vermont and small contractors told the House General and Housing Committee that Senate language in S.125 requiring weekly certified payroll reporting for many state projects would impose an administrative burden that could discourage small, local firms from bidding on state work.
Representatives of the Associated General Contractors of Vermont (AGC of Vermont) and small contractors testified April 1 that sections of S.125 passed by the Senate (sections 9 and 10, as described by witnesses) would require weekly certified payroll records for certain state construction projects and make those reports subject to inspection by the Department of Labor.
Sarah Mierhoff, director of advocacy and communications for the AGC of Vermont, told the committee the requirement would create a significant administrative burden for small contractors and subcontractors on projects in the $100,000–$200,000 range. "This is quite a bureaucratic burden for contractors, especially in this 100 to $200,000 range," Mierhoff said. She and other witnesses said that, in state construction, that dollar range is small for a contracting project and often attracts local, small firms that do not have payroll or HR specialists on staff.
Judy Desrocher, who identified herself as working for JA McDonald Incorporated and said she manages certified payroll reporting, described the time and complexity of preparing certified payroll. She said smaller firms without a dedicated payroll administrator can spend significant time preparing required forms. "For a small company that maybe has 10 employees, it would take at least a half a day," Desrocher said, describing the manual and county-rate complexity of prevailing-wage reporting on construction projects.
Witnesses raised additional questions about the proposed implementation and operation of the requirement: what wage rate tables would apply (witnesses noted the bill as presented appeared to remove explicit prevailing-wage rate language), which agency office would review weekly submissions, whether a new reporting form or the existing U.S. Department of Labor form would be required, whether the reporting would be electronic or allow manual filing, and how subcontracting chains would be treated (witnesses said the requirement appears to reach subcontractors even for relatively small subcontracted tasks).
Witnesses pointed to a practical example of the kind of project affected: a boardwalk replacement at Green River Reservoir State Park to bring a trail into ADA compliance that cost about $150,000 and was done by Timber and Stone LLC, a nine-employee East Montpelier firm. Mierhoff said projects of that scale are the kinds of opportunities she wants to keep accessible to small, local Vermont firms.
Witnesses also said the proposed timing could coincide with peak construction season and that an effective implementation date in the middle of a work season could impose additional disruption. Committee members later clarified that a different section referenced (Section 5b) will take effect July 1, 2026; witnesses had earlier expressed concern about a July 1, 2025 date cited in discussion.
Ending: AGC and contractor witnesses asked lawmakers to revise or remove the weekly certified-payroll requirement for lower-dollar state projects, or to add clarifying language about rates, forms, reviewer procedures and phased implementation; no committee action or vote was recorded at the hearing.
