Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jamie Garner CS-FIN 1/27/2012 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: I agree with Heather’s conclusions. This bill is poorly written and is requiring <br />significantly more complex calculations that will increase the amount of hours spent on <br />public contracting for all procurements that would fall under this requirement. It seems <br />that some of these calculations would be subjective and could increase vendor protests <br />and dissatisfaction with the public procurement process. This bill does not seem to be the <br />best way to accomplish its intended objective, which is to promote the award of contracts <br />to local businesses. Language and tone is also not consistent with the rest of the statute <br />and would need to be addressed. Overall this bill, if passed, would have a significant <br />financial impact to the City in staff overhead needed to abide by the regulations. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Mike Penwell CS-FAC 1/27/2012 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: I concur with Heather’s comments except that I would make this a Priority 2. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Paul Klope PWE 1/30/2012 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: This bill is intended to favor contractors whose employees work within the state, who <br />provide health and retirement benefits to their workers and who use materials <br />manufactured in Oregon. It is uncommon for out of state contractors to be the successful <br />bidder for Eugene construction contracts, so this portion of the bill will have little effect <br />on the City. The requirement in the bill to calculate the cost of the fuel and carbon <br />generation to deliver materials made out of state will be difficult to determine in many <br />cases and could be the source of lawsuits from unsuccessful bidders. If the bill were <br />revised to add criteria to use to calculate the cost of fuel and carbon generation to <br />simplify the calculations and to limit liability of the public agencies, I would say the City <br />would support this bill. Otherwise, at this point I think we should stay neutral or drop. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Heather Nelson CS-FIN 1/27/2012 Pri 3 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: This bill is poorly constructed and complex. It would require a significant amount of time <br />and research for City staff to implement. The calculations are not adequately outlined in <br />this bill and could be complex, time consuming and lead to substantial increases in public <br />contracting costs. This bill would limit competition and create confusion and possibly <br />increase protests from vendors. Though the intention of this bill appears to be to promote <br />Oregon business, reference to carbon calculations may be interpreted to be addressing <br />greenhouse gas (GHG) generation. The latter, however is not reflective of effective GHG <br />reduction strategies. As the resource extraction and manufacturing process is often more <br />emissions intensive than final transportation to the end user, this bill could ineffectively <br />address the portion of a product’s life cycle that may have a low end impact, hence may <br />not lead to the procurement of the lowest carbon intensive good which would be counter <br />to the City’s climate action plan strategies. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />10 | Page <br />February 8, 2012 IGR Committee Meeting <br />