Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Carol Pomes, Purchasing Manager, added that the DOJ purposefully allowed a long time because the undertaking was a major rewrite. She noted that all public agencies were facing the same deadline challenge. Councilor Kelly asked if there were places where the City could deviate from the State code, or if the proposed ordinance closely followed the State code. Ms. Pomes replied the language in the ordinance was what was required by State law. In addition to the State code, new public contracting rules and procedures that comprised the details of public contracting were also being drafted. Councilor Kelly asked what the practical effect on staff and council's involvement was compared to the old code. Ms. Pomes responded that the new code would provide the following: updated procurement terminology and procurement methods; greater ability to do alternative contracting methods; reorganization of the code to facilitate determination of which portions of the code applied to goods and services, and definition of which portions of the code applied to public contracting and public improvement contracting. Councilor Bettman asked if the ordinance reflected only the State mandates and nothing else, noting that the findings on page 121, Exhibit A, included a list of provisions that did not require findings. She assumed that the remainder of the provisions for which there were findings above and beyond statutory requirements. Ms. Pomes confirmed Councilor Bettman's observation, adding that State statute required local governments to enact their own exemptions, while others reestablished previous exemptions that had been repealed by the legislation. Councilor Bettman asked, out of the nine pages of findings, how much was above and beyond the existing code that would expire on March 1, and what exceeded the State requirements as new code language. Ms. Pomes replied that the new code included an exemption for privately engineered public improvements (PEPIS), allowing the City to participate as an exemption in those projects. She said the second exemption provided for use of alternative contracting methods for some public improvement projects such as the contractor/architect/design/built projects. Councilor Bettman asked for a memo from the City Manager with the new provisions and a little more of an explanation on the findings. She added that she wanted to know what the checks and balances were, and how the new language related to privatization of services currently provided by the City. Referring to his earlier declaration of a potential conflict of interest, Councilor Pap6 asked for a ruling from the City Attorney. City Attorney Glenn Klein stated if Councilor Pap6 had a conflict, at most it was a potential conflict rather than an actual conflict of interest, and that Councilor Pap6 was free to participate in the discussion and vote on the ordinance. Referring to page 2 of the ordinance, Section 2.1415 (2)(b), Councilor Pap6 asked if alternative contracting methods would allow for a greater use of life cycle costing rather than straight low bid. Ms. Pomes replied that the City had had the ability and had used life cycle costing routinely, and would continue to do so under the new ordinance. The council took a break from 8:55 p.m. to 9:02 p.m. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 14, 2005 Page 10 Regular Session