Item 7: Ratification of Intergovernmental Relations Committee Actions

Home Browse Search

Ms. Bettman moved to change the recommendation to Drop. [There was no second.] Mayor Piercy observed that the bill had an enormously broad relating clause, similar to prior bills that were being watched in case of changes. Ms. Bettman said a large number of bills had relating clauses and she wanted to focus resources on bills that they cared about. She felt there would be a number of professional associations monitoring it. Mr. Pryor agreed. The motion passed unanimously, 3:0. ? HB 2140 – Relating to the Public Contracting Code. Recommended Support. Mr. Gallup said the bill, proposed by the Department of Justice, was clean-up wording for the Public Contracting Code. It clarified things that the Engineering and Purchasing Departments felt were good and thus supported. Mr. Pryor asked if the bill was related to the state’s adoption of new purchasing agreements last year. Mr. Perry said the bill affected ORS 279 a, b and c and provided clarification in a number of areas. Ms. Bettman said it sounded like the bill would allow more ways to get around the existing contracting code. Mr. Gallup said that it added the “pilot project” concept, which Mr. Perry explained as adding an exemption that a contract review board could approve, similar to a design-build project. He said the provision currently existed in regulations that did not relate to construction. Mayor Perry noted that Glen Svendsen, commenting on the bill’s language “exempts information included in proposals for engineering or architec- tural services from public disclosure if the content of these proposals would compromise sensitive information,” said it “seems like a pretty broad exemption.” Mr. Perry noted that the language was already in the public contracting regulations for professional or personal services contracts, and the bill did not change that. He said it would have no impact on their procedures. Mr. Perry added that a benefit to the City was the proposal to increase the threshold on transportation-related projects from $50,000 to $100,000, which meant that they did not have to go through the more formal process for hiring contractors. Ms. Bettman did not appreciate the slow devolution of the public competitive bid process and said she could not support the bill. The felt the bill was a way to circumvent the competitive bidding process, which she said was not good public policy. Ms. Bettman, seconded by Ms. Taylor, moved to change the recommendation to Priority 2 Oppose. Mr. Pryor did not see the bill as a way of getting around public bidding, it was just doing it a different way. He did not feel the need to oppose the bill. There was further discussion and explanation about the processes involved in various project levels. The advantage to the City was the faster turnaround of projects. Ms. Bettman observed that fast was good for corporations, but accountability for taxpayers’ money was more important. The motion passed 2:1, Mr. Pryor voting in opposition. ? HB 2212 – Relating to renewable energy. Recommended Neutral. MINUTES—Council Committee on Intergovernmental February 6, 2007 Page 6 Relations