HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/2015 15A Council General InformationITEM TITLE:
SUBMITTED BY:
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Council General Information
Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk
Item No. 14.A.
For Meeting of: June 2, 2015
1. Memorandum and information regarding preferential treatment to local businesses/vendors
2. Preliminary Council Agenda
3. City Meeting Schedule
4. Preliminary Future Activities Calendar
Resolution: Ordinance:
Other (Specify):
Contract: Contract Term:
Start Date: End Date:
Item Budgeted: Amount:
Funding Source/Fiscal Impact:
Strategic Priority:
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
SUBMITTAL:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
CI info
City Manager
Upload Date Type
015
Cover IMleirno
Memorandum
May 28, 2015
TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Tony O'Rourke, City Manager
FROM: Sonya Claar Tee, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Preferential treatment for local businesses/vendors
Per Council Member Lover's request at the May 19, 2015 Council meeting, attached is the
Attorney General's opinion, and related information, on the issue of whether the City of Yakima
can give preferential treatment on purchases and/or contracts to local businesses or vendors.
The short answer, is no, the City cannot give preferential treatment to local businesses or
vendors.
Source; My Sources > Legal > States Legal U.S. > Washington >Find Statutes, Regulations, Administrative Materials &
Administrative Materials > WA AttoGeneral Opinions LAJ
Terms: "Atty Gen. Wash. No. 41" and competitive (Edit Search 1 Suggest Terms for My Search)
1961 Wsh. AG LEXIS 127, *
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
[NO NUMBER IN ORIGINALJ
1961 Wash. AG LEXIS 127; 1961-1962 Op. Atty Gen. Wash. No. 41
June 26, 1961
CORE TERMS: municipal, bidder, bid, lowest, competitive bidding, municipality, resident heads of
families, differential, arbitrarily, ordinance, arbitrary classification, expressly granted, subcontractor,
unemployment, inserted, sewers, public works, special assessment, free competition, fire protection,
public utility, specification, manufactured, analagous, lawfully, letting, grown, exact
SYLLABUS:
[*1]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS -- BIDS -- FIVE PERCENT PREFERENTIAL FOR LOCAL BIDDERS,
A county, public utility district, fire protection district or other municipal corporation may not
establish a policy by ordinance or resolution arbitrarily allowing a five percent preferential to local
bidders.
REQUESTBY;
Honorable Roger L. Olson
Prosecuting Attorney
Franklin County
Pasco, Washington
QUESTION:
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office as to whether or not
a county, public utllity district, fire protection district, or other municipal corporation may establish a
policy of giving local bidders five percent preferential treatment on purchases and/or contracts with
such municipai corporations.
For simplification of issues, we will assume that your letter relates only to purchases and/or
contracts required by law to be made pursuant to competitive bidding.
We answer your question in the negative, as explained in the analysis,
OPINIONBY:
JOHN J. O'CONNELL, Attorney General; ROBERT F. HAUTH, Assistant Attorney General
OPINION:
The first rule of primary importance to bear in mind is that a municipal corporation has only the
powers expressly granted to it by statute, and those powers necessarily [*2] lmplied from the
powers expressly granted. Any fair or reasonable doubt concerning the existence of a municipal
pnvvm, must be resolved against the municipality. Pacific First Federal Savings and Loan Association
v. Pierce County, 27 Wn. (2d) 347, 353. 178 P. 1947)`
On the exact question you have in mind, there appears to be very little authority, either In this or
any other jurisdiction. Consequently, resort must be had to general principles and a few closely
analagous cases which our research has disclosed,
[R]dg. Op. Page 2]]
The general rule is stated in 10 McQuU||n Municipal Corporations, (3rd ed.) § 29.30, as follows:
"The requirement of competitive bidding in the letting of municipal contracts is uniformly contrued
[sic] [(construed]] as mandatory and jurisdictional and nonobservance will render the contract void
and unenforceable. Under such restriction a fair opportunity must be given for free competition. No
scheme or device promotive of favoritism or unfairness or which imposes limitations, not applicable
to all bidders alike, will be tolerated. . . ."
The further statement appears in 43 AnmJur. Public Works and [*3] Contracts, § 23, that:
". . . This procedure [the requirement of competitive bidding] involves three vital principles: an
offering to the public, an opportunity for competition, and a basis for an exact comparison of bids;
and a regulation of the matter which excludes or ignores any of these factors destroys the distinctive
character of the system and thwarts the purpose of Its adoption. As a broad general principle, it may
be said that the inclusion In specifications for the construction of a public work of terms or conditions
such as to prevent or restrict full and free competition, or to increase the cost of the work for the
benefit of a favored class at the expense of the taxpayers, or, when the work is to be paid for by
special assessment, of conditions which add an element to the cost of the work which cannot lawfully
be met by special assessment, should not be countenanced." (Emphasis supplied.)
We are not unmindful of the fact that at least some statutes in this state requiring
bidding on municipal contracts, specify that the award must be made to the "lowest and best"
bidder, or some equivalent phrase, rather than the "lowest" bidder. See, for instance, [*4] B.CA
36.32^250, relating to counties, requiring the award to be let to the "lowest responsible bidder;
taking into consideration the quality of the articles or equipment to be purchased."; RCW 36.77.048'
county road and bridge construction, using the phrase "lowest and best bidder," and others. Under
requirements of this kind, the award must be let not necessarily to the person submitting the lowest
bid, but the bidder who is most likely, in regard to skill, ability and integrity to do faithful,
conscientious work, and promptly [[Orig. Op. Page 3]] fulfill the contract according to its letter and
spirit, in addition to consideration of his financial resources and ability. 10 McQui||in Municipal
Corporations, supra, § 29.73; 43 Am.Jur., supra, § 42. However, the permissible limit of discretion
to be exercised by the municipal officials in this regard must be based upon facts reasonably tending
to support their decislon, and the rule does not permit them to act arbitrarily; either by an arbitrary
rejection of bids, or arbitrary preference of one bld over another which is lower, or an arbitrary
classification of bidders, the reason being that the ultimate duty of the public authorities, [*5] all
else being equal, is to accept the bid involving the least expenditure of public funds. 10 McC!u|i||n,
Municipal Corporations, supra, § 29.73; 43 Am.Jur., supra, § 44.
Thus, while it may be permissible for municipal officers in an individual case to take into
consideration locality as one of the factors involved in determining who is the most responsible or
"best" bidder, a general practice by ordlnance or resolution which establishes five percent
differential favoring local bidders would appear to be in the nature of an arbitrary classification for
the benefit of a particular group without regard to the merits of any particular case. To come within
the rule permitting consideration of such factors, it would seem only logical that In each case the
nature of the contract and other special circumstances must be considered.
It has been held In some jurisdictions that preference may be given to materials produced within the
state; however, it has also been said that if the result of the provision had been to restrain
competition and enhance the cost of material, it would be void.
o. (Mn.) 1,90 S.W. 30. (1916), following [*6] Allen v. Labsap. 188 Mo, 692. 698'87S.VV.
926 (1905). It has also been held that a specification for bids requiring a subcontractor to be a
citizen of the state would be valid. Ebbeson v. Board of Public Education in Wilmington, 18 Del. Ch.
37, 156 Atl. 286 (1931). However, in that case It was held as a condition of validity that such a
restriction must not be shown to increase the cost of the work.
However, the case we have found which Is most closely analagous to the present situation bBAhn v.
Salt Lake CiLv, 79 Utah 121^ 8 P. (2d) Sgl. 81 A.L.R. 215 (1932). In that case It was held that a city
having power to construct sewers could not insist that provisions be inserted in contracts for the
construction thereof requiring, among other things, that materials used should be of local
manufacture and that preference should be given to citizens of the United States and to heads of
families resident in the city; where it was admltted that these restrictions would increase the cost of
the work to a large amount, that they were inserted for the [*7] purpose of relieving
unemployment in the city, and added nothing to the value of the sewers to be constructed, the city
having no authority to insist upon such restrictions, even in view of the unemployment conditions.
[[Orig. Op. Page 4]]
Specifically, on the point of preference of local citizens as laborers and employees,the court polnted
out that Utah had a statute requiring preference to be given to citizens of the United States or those
having declared their intention of becoming citizens. However, the court said:
". . . But th( , in letting the contracts, has imposed conditions that preference be given to
residents of Salt Lake City and who are heads of families. It Is thus obvious that the city by so doing
imposed a preference not embraced nor included in the statutes, and contrary to the statute
restricted and limited the preference to heads of families of Salt Lake City. The city was, as we are,
bound by the statute and by the policy so declarecl by the state, and which may not lawfully be
enlarged or restricted. This provision of the contract cannot be sustained." (81 A.L.R.D..223.1
Similarly, in our own state we have a statute expressly KM] providing for a five percent differential
allowance in certain cases. See, RCW 39.24.010. However, the language of that statute is restricted
to "such materials, supplies, goods, wares, merchandise or produce as are grown, produced, or
manufactured in the state of Washington when the price or prices quoted for the same are not more
than five percent in excess of the lowest bid or prices quoted for the same commodities or articles
grown, produced or manufactured elsewhere, quality and service considered."
Another statute, RCW 39.16.010, requires that on public works contracts the contractor or
subcontractor shall employ certain percentages of local (state of Washington) residents, where
available. This statute appears to have no direct application to your question, so as to warrant an
affirmative conclusion.
It is our conclusion that the legislature has defined the only areas in which, all other things being
equal, local (meaning "in the state of Washington") factors may be considered even though the
result may be to lncrease substantially the cost to the municipality. We can only conclude that any
attempt by a municipality to enlarge the scope of this statute by an ordinance or resolution [=9]
arbitrarily allowing a five percent differential to local ("in the county") residents would be contrary to
the principle of competitive bidding and beyond the power of the municipality to enact,
[[Odg'Op. Page 5]]
We trust that this information will be of assistance to you.
"LOCAL PREFERENCE" ISSUE
Each year, a few local companies continue to contact local government officials requesting that local vendors be
given special consideration in contract awards. Such local vendors typically propose that special consideration
should be made in the form of a local preference policy, allowing the local company to receive an award even
though their offer is not the lowest responsive bid. This, in effect, would create a subsidy for a few business
taxpayers at the expense of all residential and business taxpayers.
MRSC: The Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) advises the following in regards to the "Local
Preference Issue" (Taken from the County Biding Book, Pages 24 and 28, respectively):
On page 24:
"May a county include a preference for local merchants in its advertisement?
In general, no. RCW 39.30.040 does allow counties to take any sales tax that a county will receive from purchasing
supplies, materials, and equipment within its boundaries into consideration when determining the lowest
responsible bidder. But, in AGO 61-62 No. 41, the Office of the Attorney General concluded that entities could not
establish a policy giving local bidders a preference by reducing their bids by some specified percentage amount in
determining the lowest responsible bidder. To do so would "be in the nature of an arbitrary classification for the
benefit of a particular group without regard to the merits of any particular case."
Note: See also No. 12 under the "Adverse Impact" section below.
On page 28:
"Preferences. RCW 39.30.040 allows (but does not require) counties, in determining the lowest bid, to consider
the tax revenues that are generated by a purchase of supplies, materials, and equipment, including those from a
local sales tax. If a county considers these tax revenues, it must consider the taxes it would receive from suppliers
located both within and without its boundaries. The bid award must be made to the lowest responsible bidder after
the tax revenue has been considered.
Counties may also give preference to products made of recycled materials or to products that may be recycled or
reused." [Ed. See RCW 36.32.245(6)] "Rather than invoke this preference in an arbitrary manner, the county
board should establish a policy that states what percentage preference will be given for various products.
If either of these preferences will be used to determine the lowest bidder, that fact should be mentioned in the bid
documents. Remember, other "local preferences" favoring local businesses in the award of a contract are not
allowed." [Ed. See AGO 61-62, No. 41]
Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO): An SAO document dated June 13, 2002, concerning Competitive Bid
Laws, states the following regarding the "Local Preference" / "Local Buy" issue (pages 7 and 9, respectively):
On Page 7:
"...state law does not recognize local preference policies
On Page 9:
"State law does not recognize, and implicitly prohibits, granting of preferences to local vendors in purchases of
goods, supplies and services by local governments. (If an entity can justify imposing a requirement of local
availability of a product, the requirement should be made a part of the bid specifications rather than being a factor
in choosing bidders)"
National Institute of Governmental Purchasers (NIGP): An excerpt from NIGP Basic Purchasing Manual states
the following:
"Local preference takes several forms; the most prevalent form is the percentage preference. Eleven states still
have local -preference laws. Percentage preferences of 1.5% to 10% are given to those eleven states in bid -price
competition with out-of-state firms. But what if we were required to give percentage preferences to minority firms?
To union shops? To small businesses? To other special-interest groups? The effect is the same: When a
percentage preference is given to local businesses, it is given at the added expense of all taxpayers.
The advantages of having local -preference policies are limited and are far outweighed by the disadvantages.
Vendors like to say that a local -preference policy will attract many new businesses into a community and thereby
will increase the tax base. This idea is a fallacy.
Here are a few of the disadvantages of having local -preference policies:
1. The cost of goods or services are (sic) increased for all taxpayers when a percentage differential is allowed.
This practice discourages outside firms that would normally compete and keep the local fellows "honest."
2. Local -preference laws and policies are a barrier to interstate commerce. When these laws have been tested
in courts of Illinois, California, New York, and Georgia, they have been held to be unconstitutional.
3. Local -preference laws invite reciprocity. In at least one state, the purchasing authority is prohibited from
doing business with any firm located in a state that has local -preference laws or policies.
Those business people who wish to push for local -preference laws should be made aware that they could face
the possibility of retribution from other jurisdictions.
Also, preferences given to local businesses by purchasers could easily be looked upon as a subsidy to a firm that
is too weak in its own operations to compete on an even, equitable basis."
The NIGP also indicates:
"Although some people assert that buy -local preferences will protect existing jobs, create new jobs, and strengthen
the economy, the sad reality is that the practice of favoring vendors within a defined geographical area only
encourages inflated prices which are paid by the taxpayers of the jurisdiction who administer them. By causing
prices to rise, preference results in a direct subsidy to a few taxpayers at the expense of the general taxpaying
public. When an agency has a preference, [ed., then] potential, reliable and sound vendors consider it futile to bid in
such a climate. When they do not bid, competition becomes less keen and prices rise."
CURRENT "LOCAL" & "NON -LOCAL" SPENDING
A Spokane County financial system report indicates the following for the 2008 fiscal year:
Total Number of Purchase Orders Year -To -Date:
Local Vendors:
Non -Local Vendors:
Total Purchase Orders:
% Local Vendors:
% Non -Local Vendors:
14,221
17,667
31,888
44.60%
55.40%
Total Value of Purchase Orders Year -To -Dale:
Local Vendors:
Non -Local Vendors:
Total Purchase Orders::
% Local Vendors:
% Non -Local Vendors:
$55,634,078.16
$135,344,986.58
$190,979,064.74
29.13%
70.87%
Note: This report is based on zip code, therefore the figures in the above report excludes payments to local
companies which may have payables addresses outside of Spokane County.
CURRENT "LOCAL" & "NON -LOCAL" OBERSVATIONS
1. Locally Warehoused - Goods: If there is an immediate need, locally warehoused goods are more readily
available than if they had to be shipped into the area. A "Local Preference" policy is not needed in such a case
since the needed time is addressed in the bid specifications in the competitive bid (i.e., delivery due date and
time).
2. Response Time — Services: Local vendors may generally be better able to comply with "response time"
requirements placed on service contracts. A vendor already having a local presence may possess an inherent
pricing and/or a time -responsiveness advantage since they may have no new initial "start-up costs" or
"mobilization costs or factors. Therefore, a "Local Preference" policy is not needed in regard to this factor.
3. Local Advertising: Local vendors often have an advantage over vendors outside of the area when it comes to
their awareness of advertisements published in the County's official legal newspaper — which is a local
publication.
ADVERSE IMPACTS AS OBSERVED BY OTHER POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS
The following is a list of observations made by other public jurisdictions concerning the "Local Preference" policy:
1. Prices will rise by the level of the percentage of preference given (Ed., Percentage preference not allowed in WA
State), and possibly, go even higher because of the restriction on competitive and open bids. A 5% preference on
our annual expenditures of approximately $23 million could raise our initial contract awards by $1.15 million or
more.
2. A preference to local vendors could eliminate the minority vendor participation we get from elsewhere.
3. Federal regulations prohibit the granting of federal funds, such as F.A.A., UDAG or CDBG, to entities that have
local preference policies used in bidding procedures.
4. With a "Local Preference" policy our jurisdiction would not be able to participate in many State Contracts and
thereby would not be able to take advantage of the combined and leveraged spending of other large political
subdivisions, and Group Purchasing Cooperatives, and Inter -local Cooperative Agreements. The County presently
participates in numerous such contracts. This would force the County to issue many more bids and would likely
increase costs due to reduced purchasing power.
5. Many bidders located outside of the jurisdiction have indicated that they will no longer bid when the integrity to
the bidding process is compromised. Most economists believe that a restricted market raises prices.
6. "Local Preference" can actually discourage local economic development because firms which might possibly
open a local office pursuant to a contract award will not, since they may be disadvantaged in winning a first
contract.
7. Firms that don't qualify as a "Local Vendor" often have a greater positive impact on the local economy than
competing "Local Vendors" firms (for example some "Non -local Vendors" may employ more local residents).
8. Historically, when a jurisdiction passes a "Local Preference" policy or ordinance then other jurisdictions in the
surrounding areas implement retaliatory legislation.
9. A certification program would need to be implemented to determine and verify "localness," thereby, increasing
the cost and burden of the acquisition and procurement process.
10. Establishing a "Local Preference" policy may eliminate the pressure brought to bear by only a few local
businesses; however, it could open the door for more demands upon the political subdivision which adopted the
policy.
11. "Local Preference" policies and laws have been implemented in large cities where there are many vendors on
an equal footing, but it will raise costs where there is little or no competition within the jurisdiction.
12. Implementation of local preference policies elsewhere has caused bid protests lawsuits.
13. "Local Preference" policies and laws are contrary to free and open competition to minimize costs.
14. Even if the County considered sales tax under RCW 39.30.040, if then a "Local Vendor" may still be a higher
bidder under the tabulation if the bids are close and if the local sales tax rate were higher than the sales tax rate for
the "Non -local vendor."
15. The "Local Preference" would only apply to bids for equipment, materials, or supplies. Taxes for
services/constructions are determined by where the service is performed, effectively leveling the playing field by
making all bidders essentially "Local Vendors."
COMPLEXITIES IN DEFINING A "LOCAL VENDOR"
1. The definition and application of "local" is subject to legal challenge.
2. Would a "Local Vendor" be one which located anywhere within the County boundaries?
3. Would a "Local Vendor" be one which located only within the boundaries of County where the County (and not
the City) receives the full benefit of the sales tax?
4. Would a "Local Vendor" be a taxpayer living within County but who owns a business located outside of the
County boundaries?
5. Must the business own property within the County boundaries?
6. How long must a business be established within the County to qualify? What if a vendor from outside the
County's boundaries "set up shop" just to submit a bid?
7. Does the home of a sales representative within the County boundaries qualify as a local vendor?
8. Does making payments to a company's remit -to address which is outside of the County boundaries disqualify
them as a "Local Vendor?"
9. If a business is owned from outside of the County boundaries will they be allowed to bid? Should the
ownership of a business be "Local" to qualify?
10. Should the business have paid local County property taxes or other taxes to qualify?
11. Should a warehouse, distribution center or a small branch office qualify a firm as local?
CONCLUSION
Buying locally is always a primary consideration when the purchase can be accomplished in accordance with sound
purchasing practices.
Purchasing professionals believe "Local Preference" is inequitable because it results in part of the tax dollar being
spent in "subsidy" instead of value. Sound purchasing equates to the concept of best value purchasing, i.e. lowest
responsive bidder. A purchasing agent who has the marketplace artificially constrained cannot exercise the
ingenuity and initiative, which is a contributing factor to their effectiveness.
A number of articles and studies have been published on this topic, leading to the same conclusions. Please see
the attachments for some of them.
It is the opinion of the Purchasing Agent that the County should not adopt "Local Preference" or "Buy Local" policy.
CITY OF KI
•
A
1
123 FIFTH AVENUE KIRKLAND. WASHINGTON 98033-6188
yanommurrrommmanwamonMa41111.11111•111111111111MOVIINNIVIMIEDIRMIO.6 AMIVIM SteM11101111111111111111111111111116M%
CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED
CITY ATTO " EY'S OFFICE
MEMORA IUM
To: Gwen Chapman, Financial Operations Manager
Barry Scott, Purchasing Agent
From: Wm. R. Evans, Assistant City Attorney
Date: September 29, 2006
Subject: Local Purchasing Preference
ISSUE
425.587,3030
May a municipality adopt a provision in its purchasing code that provides a preference to
local businesses when considering or awarding contracts for public purchases?
DISCUSSION
The Washington case law I have reviewed does not provide a clear answer to this
question. The issue is further complicated by the Commerce Clause to the U.S
Constitution if the non -local vendor also happens to be out of state. However, the
Washington State Auditor's Office has reached a conclusion in this regard under
Washington law, which it addresses as follows:
State law does not recognize, and implicitly prohibits, granting of
preferences to local vendors in purchases of goods. supplies and
services by local goverru-nents. (If an entity can justify imposing a
requirement of local availability of a product, the requirement should
be made a part of the bid specifications rather than being a factor in
choosing bidders.)
Washington State Auditor's Office, Competitive Bid laws, 2005, pg. 12.
Based on the foregoing Auditor's position and the lack of any clear direction to the
contrary. I would recommend the City not adopt any kind of local preference provision in
its purchasing code.
1. Local Preference - May a county or city grant a preference for bids
submitted by local vendors or contractors?
A county or city may not t a local preference for bidders unless there is
specific authorization in e law for ;41 ting the preference. There is only one
preference authorized in state law in relation to the bid law. RCW 39.30.040 was
enacted in 1985 and provides that whenever a city or co ty is required to make
purchases from the lowest responsible bidder, it can take into consideration tax
revenue it would receive from purchasing the supplies from a source located
within the jurisdiction. Tax revenues that may be considered include sales taxes
and business and occupation taxes. This preference only applies to purch: -s of
supplies, materials, and equipment, not public works contracts.
The ethics of preference programs
Despite good intentions, they can disrupt fair market forces and even impair participating companies.
By Dan Marran
Over time, well-intentioned
political figures have sought to
"help" businesses they see as
disadvantaged in the marketplace by
offering preference programs specific
to their agency's public purchasing
process. Whether based on geographical
location or socio-economic status, these
programs seek to offer assistance to a
class of business deemed to be at some sort of disadvantage
in the public procurement process. However, the existence
of preference programs upsets the free market forces that
set prices and ensure adequate competition. It can also be
argued that establishing any manner of preference in the
public procurement process challenges an organization's
ethics by defining a new process to express favoritism in
how tax revenues are spent and to establish a market that is
no longer fair to all interested parties.
Historically, the management of the public procurement
process has been rooted in fairness with public agencies
offering a "level playing field" for all vendors wishing
to do business with government. Sound policies and
procedures govern how public dollars may be spent and
how pricing proposals (bids) are received and evaluated.
Public procurement professionals work diligently to
provide complete bid documents to define clearly what
the agency is seeking, the method by which a vendor
should provide information and the manner by which the
agency evaluates proposals. This methodology assures the
vendor community that all interested parties are getting
the same information and that, if they respond as directed,
they will be evaluated in an equal fashion. This process
also assures the taxpaying constituents of the agency
that their funds are being spent equitably and fairly. The
spending of funds entrusted to public agencies should be
fair to anyone wishing to offer services to the local agency.
By establishing a preference program that applies to the
evaluation of solicitations, the local agency immediately
upsets the concept of fairness and equal treatment of the
entire vendor community. In action and effect, the agency
is stating that a specific class of business deserves an
advantage over their competitors when it comes to earning
the business of government.
While most preference discussions come from the
idea of looking to help develop "local" or (perceived)
disadvantaged businesses, the execution of such a policy
offers a crutch to affected businesses only when they are
competing for the local agency business. When competing
for private business among the same field of competitors in
the "real world" (outside of government procurement and
without a preference), they will be at a disadvantage.
Additionally, the agency runs the risk of putting the
preferred class of businesses at a competitive disadvantage
when they choose to bid on other governments' contracts
outside the sphere of their base preference. Especially in
the case of "local" preference programs, many governments
have instituted a "reciprocal" preference whereby a
business that enjoys a preference in their home base of
operations may be penalized by a similar amount when
competing in other localities for that government agency's
business. In an effort to assist the affected vendor class, a
local agency runs the real risk of hurting that business as
they look for public agency customers beyond the local
government that "helped" them via a preference program.
Examining the genesis of preference programs shows
that, in most instances, a certain class of vendor is
perceived to have a disadvantage in the local agency's
procurement process. But upon further examination, one
finds that the vendors in question, more often than not, lack
only the experience or understanding of how to compete
under the local agency's rules. The solicitation process for
local agencies can be complex and initially confusing, but
that process remains the best hope for continuing to offer a
fair opportunity for vendors wishing to provide services to
their local government. By offering outreach and education
on how to provide responsive and competitive bids,
the agency can offer far more assistance to the affected
classification of vendor than any preference program
might, as this education will help them compete in other
jurisdictions as well.
In discussing a preference program, a local agency
should consider the ethical statement they would make
in establishing such a program. In effect, they would be
declaring that it is acceptable to upset the concept of
fairness in awarding agency contracts in order to assist
a particular class of business. Further, they would be
declaring that it is acceptable to overpay for services if it is
done to assist a specific classification of business. Finally,
it would be an acknowledgment or declaration that the
affected business class could riot otherwise compete
for agency business without this assistance. Any such
declaration upsets the ethical concept of fairness — to those
that would enjoy the preference, those that would compete
with those preferred businesses and those responsible for
paying the bill.
About the author
Dan Marran, C—PPO, C.P.M,-is-purchasing -manager -of---
Sparks, Nev. E-mail him at dmarran@cityofsparks.us. This
article is based on the winner of the NIGP's 2010 Ethics
Essay Contest.
WWW.GOVPRO.COM 1 AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2010 I GO PRO THE OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF NIGP
YAKIMA CITY COUNCIL
June 16, 2015
City Hall -- Council Chambers
6 p.m. Business Meeting; 6:30 p.m. Public Hearings
BUSINESS MEETING
1. Roll Call
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Open Discussions for the Good of the Order
A. Presentations / Recognitions / Introductions
Recognition of retiring Yakima Police Department employees
Captain Greg Copeland - 25 years of service
Sergeant Lloyd George - 25 years of service
Officer Mike Kryger - 36 years of service
4. Council Reports
5. Consent Agenda
Items listed are considered routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion without
discussion. A citizen or Council member may request to remove an item from the Consent Agenda and, if
approved, it will be placed on the regular agenda for discussion and consideration.
A. 1st Quarter 2015 Treasury Report
B. 1st Quarter 2015 Accounts Receivable Status Report
C. 1st Quarter 2015 Financial Trend Monitoring System
6. Audience Participation
Community members are invited to address items that are not listed on the regular business meeting
agenda. A guideline of three (3) minutes per speaker is in place in order to allow as much opportunity
as possible for audience participation. A speaker's time may be extended at the discretion of the Mayor
and/or the consensus or vote of the Council. Written communication and e-mail messages are strongly
encouraged.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
7. Public Hearing and resolution authorizing an Interlocal Agreement regarding the 2015 JAG
Grant
8- Public -Hearing to consider a resolution declaring certain property surplus and authorizing
disposition (by sale).
9. Public hearing to consider the Hearing Examiner's Recommendation regarding a right-
way petition submitted by Yakima Valley Community College to vacate Hamm Ave
between S 12th Ave & S 13th Ave
10. Public Hearing to consider: A) Adoption of the Six-year Transportation Improvement
Program for the years 2016 to 2021, and to amend the Metropolitan Transportation Plan;
and B) Amend the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
11. Report summarizing permit and licensing for food vendors
12. Resolution authorizing Services Agreement with Yakima County Fire District 11
13. Other Business
14. Adjournment
The next meeting will be a Council Business meeting on July 7, 2015 at 6 p.m. at City Hall
15. Council General Information
A. Council General Information
B. 1st Quarter 2015 Municipal Courts Office Statistics
Any invocation that may be offered before the official start of the Council meeting shall be the
voluntary offering of a private citizen, to and for the benefit of the Council. The views or beliefs
expressed by the invocation speaker have not been previously reviewed or approved by the
Council, and the Council does not endorse the religious beliefs or views of this, or any other
speaker.
A Council packet is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Library. A packet is also
available on-line at www.yakimawa.gov.
The City provides special accommodations, such as hearing devices, wheelchair space or
language interpreters, for City meetings. Anyone needing special assistance please contact the
City Clerk's office at (509) 575-6037.
CITY MEETING SCHEDULE
For June 1, 2015 — June 8, 2015
Please note: Meetings are subject to change
Monday, June 1
2:00 p.m. Bid opening — Council Chambers
Tuesday, June 2
10:00 a.m. County Commissions agenda meeting — Council Chambers
6:00 p.m. City Council meeting — Council Chambers
Wednesday, June 3
5:30 p.m. Community Review Board — Council Chambers
Thursday, June 4
9:00 a.m. Hearing Examiner — Council Chambers
Friday, June 5
8:00 a.m. Sister City meeting — 2"d Floor Conference Room
Monday, June 8
8:30 a.m. Pension Board meetings — 1St Floor Conference Room
Office Of Mayor/City Council
Preliminary Future Activities Calendar
Please Note: Meetings are subject to change
eating
Date/Time
Tue. June 2
12:00 p.m.
1:00 p.m.
6:00
Fri. June 5
8:00WINIM
.rr
Mon. June 8
8:30 a.m.
eating Pumps V Participants
Yakima Valley Tourism
Executive Committee
meeting
Miscellaneous Issues
City Council meeting
Sister City Meeting
IIIPMMOSIONNIMMO
Tue. June 9
12:00 p.m.
Wed. June 10
5:30 p.m.
giMSPIMOVIWOMMON
Thur. June 11
1:00 p.m.
1:30 p.m,
3:30 p.m.
:30m.
Mon. June 15
2:00 p.m.
MIIIIRMANOMM
Tue. June 16
1:00 p.m.
5:00 p.m.
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Adkison
Cawley, Coffey
Council
Pension Board meetings
Miscellaneous Issues
ma^wawrwINWOODARYNAMPOOMMIONWAY
Parks & Recreation
Commission
Harman Center Board
meeting
Yakima Regional Clean Air
SAFE Yakima Community
Board meeting
YCDA Board meeting
awS0110.4�
Board Meeting Dittmar
Scheduled Meeting Cawley, Coffey
as ,„. ....AMMININVOINIMM „u,� mumwww.ww ,.m«w •o
Scheduled Meeting Adkison
Tieton Cider
TBD
Council Chambers
OMUINWMIMAIMI
2nd Floor Conference Room
1st Floor Conference Room
Board Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Board Meeting
Board Meeting
Scheduled Event
6:00 ,m
Wed. June 17
3:30 .m,.
Thur. June 18
2:00 p.m.
Police Retirement
Ceremony
Adkison
Cawley
Adkison
Adkison
gagMINAMI
TBD
Council Chambers
Harman Center
Council Chambers
Chamber of Commerce
New Vision
TBD
IIMMINIZMNKURIA
Miscellaneous Issues
(T) City Council Executive
Session
Mon. June 22
12:00 p.m,
Wed. June 24
3:00 p.m.
City Council meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Scheduled Meeting
Cawley, Coffey
Council
Council
MOINNOMMUM
Arts Commission meeting
Council Built Environment
Committee meeting
�uwvxwINNOWNWAVOIMMICIEMEMMINNIIPINIIMIMINIAUDIMIMI
Capitol Theatre Executive
Committee meeting
Scheduled Meeting
OGINAMMI
Adkison
Scheduled Meeting
Coffey, Ensey,
Lover
Scheduled Meeting
MINNAMMIKOHIMIXIM
Coffey
TBD
Council Chambers
Council Chambers
AMON_....legaNWIMMANWINANNIMINAMIONN
2nd Floor Conference Room
2nd Floor Conference Room
Capitol Theatre
Council Chambers
Yakima Planning
Commission
Scheduled Meeting
Ensey
5:30 p.m.
MOM
Thur. June 25
1:30 p.m.
Fri. June 26
10:00 a.m.
Historic Preservation Scheduled Meeting Coffey Council Chambers
Commission
Council Economic
Development Committee
meeting
2nd Floor Conference Room
Council Public Safety Scheduled Meeting Adkison, Dittmar, 2nd Floor Conference Room
Lover
Committee meeting