TEST TW WEATHER

November 12, 2009 ACT 28 REQUIRES PREVAILING WAGES TO BE PAID ON CERTAIN PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS WHERE ONE MUNICIPAILITY PERFORMS PROJECT FOR ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY

P.O. Box 7857
Madison, WI 53707-7857
www.doj.state.wi.us
J.B. VAN HOLLEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
Intergovernmental Agreements Between Municipalities for the Purchase
of Services are
Exempt from Competitive Bidding Laws, Van Hollen’s Opinion Also Holds

MADISON--Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen today issued a formal
opinion responding to two questions concerning written agreements
between municipalities that were asked by Senator Russ Decker on
behalf of the Senate Committee on Organization. Agreements between
municipalities are authorized by section 66.0301(2) of the Wisconsin
Statutes. Agreements between municipalities may also occur under
specific statutes, such as sections 83.035 and 83.04(1) of the
Wisconsin Statutes, which are applicable to county highway contracts.

The first question asked whether or not intergovernmental agreements
where one  municipality purchased services from another was subject to
competitive bidding requirements. Attorney General Van Hollen answered
no. The second question asked whether certain public works
projects performed by one municipality for another pursuant to an
intergovernmental
agreement were subject to the prevailing wage law. The Attorney
General answered that Act
28 (the 2009-2011 Budget Act) changed existing law to apply prevailing
wage law to projects
performed under those agreements. The change will go into effect
January 1, 2010.

Responding to Senator Decker’s first inquiry, Van Hollen indicated
that when one municipality
purchases services from another municipality under an agreement that
is authorized by a state
statute, the purchase of the services is exempt from competitive
bidding requirements.
Although the Legislature has specified that cities, villages,
counties, and towns generally are subject to competitive bidding
requirements, Van Hollen noted that section 66.0131(2) contains
an exemption from competitive bidding requirements: “Notwithstanding
any statute requiring bids for public purchases, any local
governmental unit may make purchases from another unit of government,
including the state or federal government, without the intervention of
bids.”
Van Hollen indicated that the statutory language exempting
municipalities from competitive bidding requirements is unambiguous
and is applicable to purchases of both goods and services. Van Hollen
also identified other statutory provisions that exempt purchases of
services between  municipalities from competitive bidding 
requirements in specific instances.

For example, section 59.52(29)(a) of the Wisconsin Statutes exempts
certain county highway
contracts from competitive bidding requirements.

Responding to Senator Decker’s second inquiry, Van Hollen indicated
that beginning on
January 1, 2010 applicable prevailing wage rates determined by the
Department of Workforce
Development must be paid to municipal employees when one municipality
purchases services
from another municipality under an agreement that is authorized by a
state statute. Van Hollen
noted that a provision in the Budget Bill, 2009 Wisconsin Act 28,
section 1480c, created a new
statutory provision. The new provision, section 66.0903(2)(b) of the
Wisconsin Statutes,
specifies that prevailing wage rates must be paid upon “[a] project
erected, constructed, repaired, remodeled, demolished by one local
governmental unit for another local governmental unit under a contract
under s. 66.0301(2), 83.03, 83.035, or 86.31(2)(b) or under any other
statute specifically authorizing cooperation between local
governmental units.” The effective date of that provision is January
1, 2010. Van Hollen stated that the newly-enacted statutory language
includes highway projects that are performed by one local unit of
government for another local unit of government. Van Hollen stated
that prior to January 1, 2010 there is no requirement that prevailing
wage rates be paid to municipal employees when one municipality
purchases services from another municipality under an agreement that
is authorized by a state statute. Van Hollen indicated that no
statutory language comparable to that contained in the budget bill
provision creating section 66.0903(2)(b) exists for the period prior
to January 1, 2010.

A copy of the opinion is available at 
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinions/2009_11_03Decker.pdf.

A copy of the request for the opinion from Sen. Decker is available
at
http://www.doj.state.wi.us/ag/opinions/2009_11_03Decker-Request.pdf