Item 3A - Minutes Approval - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Councilor Ortiz did not think it was the intent of the City Council to create hardships for people. While she did not condone the use of the motorized scooters because they were unsafe and helmets were not required, she felt some users rode such scooters because they could not afford a car and did not want to set them up for fines they could not afford to pay. Councilor Bettman supported the motion. She commented that 30 to 40 percent of the City land mass was paved and it was important to accommodate all modes of transportation on the streets. She wished the City would make a distinction between where it wanted its non-motorized vehicles to be, given that such a small portion of the right of way was designated for them. Roll call vote; the motion passed unanimously, 7:0. 7. ACTION: An Ordinance Concerning Public Contracting; Adding Sections 2.1400, 2.1405, 2.1410, 2.1415, 2.1420, 2.1425, 2.1430, 2.1435, 2.1440, 2.1445, and 2,1450 to the Eugene Code, 1971; Repealing Sections 2.1200, 2.1205, 2.1210, 2.1215, 2.1220, 2.1225, 2.1230, 2.1235, 2.1240, 2.1245, 2.1250, and 2.1255 of that Code; Declaring an Emergency; and Providing an Effective Date Councilor Solomon, seconded by Councilor Taylor, moved that the City Council adopt Council Bill 4896, an ordinance concerning public contracting. Councilor Kelly thanked staff for providing the list of differences from the old code to the new code. He asked, regarding packet page 208, what changes there were from the old code to the new code language regarding privately engineered public improvements (PEPI). City Attorney Jerry Lidz responded that it did not change the instances in which the City would ask a private developer undertaking a PEPI to tag on a piece of work for the City. He clarified that the request could be made without going through the competitive solicitation process if the six conditions listed on pages 7 and 8 of the ordinance were met. Councilor Kelly wished to affirm, given that the code did not confer any budget authority, that the piece of the project paid for by the City would need to be already committed through capital budget funds and that, if not, it would have to come before the council as a supplemental budget piece. Mr. Lidz indicated this was so. He cited two instances, such as when a catch basin by a development needed repair or a street improvement was needed, under which this situation could occur. Councilor Bettman appreciated the new format. Regarding the assertion that specific provisions determined when the City could engage in an informal solicitation for bids, she asked how the City would monitor informal bids and ascertain there was no favoritism. Ms. Pomes replied that the informal solicitation process had different thresholds for different solicitations. She said there was still competition and it was required that at least three competitive quotes or proposals be submitted. She related that staff looked at various elements of the project, such as projected costs, and at market data for particular items to ensure it was within market range. She stressed that a multitude of factors were taken into consideration and it was conducted through the central staff of the PWD. MINUTES--Eugene City Council February 28, 2005 Page 12 Regular Session