Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New councilmember asks review of contractor insurance rule in ordinance 16-58, citing impact on small local firms
Summary
Councilman Denny asked the council to review Ordinance 16-58, a 2009 rule that requires contractors bidding on city work to hold high liability insurance and workers’ compensation, arguing it excludes small local contractors. Council agreed to obtain the ordinance text and study it at a future work session.
Councilman Denny asked the Talladega City Council to review Ordinance No. 16-58, a 2009 municipal rule that he said requires contractors bidding on city work to carry $2 million in liability insurance, $1 million aggregate coverage and workers’ compensation even for small firms.
Denny said the city’s requirement goes beyond state law and that in Alabama a business with fewer than five employees is not required to carry workers’ compensation. He said the city rule “prevents the small time guys in this town that only have 2 or 3 employees from bidding jobs for the city,” and asked the council to “change this ordinance to what every other city in the state of Alabama does.”
City Manager Swanson and council members discussed options. Council members agreed to obtain a copy of Ordinance 16-58 and review the specific language. Council President Sims asked staff to include the ordinance in the council’s next work session and Denny said he wanted the council to study potential amendments that would align the city’s requirement with state norms and other municipalities.
No ordinance change was acted on during the meeting; instead the council gave staff direction to provide the ordinance text and consider the request for amendment or rescission at a future meeting.
Denny also noted his concern that the current requirement may favor out-of-town contractors who can meet the insurance thresholds, reducing opportunities for local small contractors.
The council did not set a formal timetable for an ordinance amendment; the item was placed on the agenda for staff review and for further discussion at the next meeting or work session.
