Paoli, Diana
From: Jacob Patterson < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 1:02 PM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Whippy, Isaac
Subject: Public Comment -- 3/24/25 CC Mtg., Item No. 5H, CM Purchasing Authority City Council & Staff,
In reviewing the ordinances in the consent calendar, I found several errors that did not get corrected based on your discussion and direction at the first reading.
You should amend the ordinance language as follows to correct the following errors:
§ 3.20.040 PURCHASING OFFICER DUTIES AND AUTHORITY.
B. The City Manager or designee may delegate all or a portion of the duties of Purchasing Officer to the Administrative Services Director and/or the Finance Director. [per the discussion, this should read "The City Manager may delegate all or a portion of the duties of Purchasing Officer to a designee."]
§ 3.20.050 PROCEDURES FOR PURCHASES OF LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO $60,000.
A. For purchases of Goods or Services less than or equal to $60,000, the Purchasing Officer shall use the following procedures:
1. For purchases of Goods or Services having an estimated value of $5,000 or less in a 12 month period, informal quotes may be obtained from vendors/suppliers but are not required. No purchase order is required.
2. For purchases of Goods or Services having an estimated value of more than $5,000, but less than or equal to $45,000, firm quotes from at least three vendors/suppliers, either received in writing or taken verbally but confirmed in writing, shall be obtained. At the 4 discretion of the Purchasing Officer, the process described in § 3.20.060 may be used for the acquisition of Goods or Services having an estimated value of more than $5,000 but less than or equal to $45,000. A purchase order is required.
3. Purchases made by credit card are limited to $2,000. [The two references to $45,000 should read "$60,000". The credit card limit was discussed as too low and I believe the recommended cap was $10,000 because $5,000 isn't always enough for purchases like conferences where multiple attendees are going on behalf of the City.] § 3.22.040 PROCEDURES.
E. The City Manager's authority to approve contracts shall be limited to a maximum of $25,000. (Ord. 918, § 2, passed 08-10-2015)
[This should read "$60,000" not "$25,000".]
Please be sure to make these amendments when you take up the consent calendar, which will likely require you to pull this item for separate consideration. However, if staff makes these edits beforehand and presents the amended version at the meeting (i.e., by either replacing the draft ordinance in Legistar or by including a few paper copies of the redline 1 at the public table and providing a copy or each councilmember), then you can just approve the amended ordinance as part of the consent calendar as initially intended. If this doesn't get fixed, we will likely have to bring back future amendments to make these changes at that time.
In addition, had the agenda description been written to include the precise title of the ordinance, you wouldn't have to read the title into the record. In the future, the exact title should be in the agenda description for consent calendar second readings so you could simply approve the consent calendar as a whole without having to take the step of reading the precise title into the record.
Best,
-Jacob
Paoli, Diana
From: Jacob Patterson < [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2025 3:17 PM
To: Whippy, Isaac
Cc: City Clerk
Subject: Public Comment Process for 5H
I already called Diana so she is aware of this but the City included my comments for the consent calendar items among those for 7A (1151 S Main) rather than their agenda items. The council got them regardless so not a big deal.
I mention this because I think you should take my comment for 5H and either make the edits before the meeting and present the council and public with the revisions or have the Council approve the ordinance as amended with the specific changes outlined in my public comment.
1 Paoli, Diana
From: Jacob Patterson < [email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:00 AM
To: City Clerk
Cc: Whippy, Isaac
Subject: Public Comment (for future meeting) -- Postponed Agenda Item 5H from 3/24 Meeting City Council & Staff,
I am flabbergasted by what appears to be the gross incompetence of the City team members responsible for the second reading of the purchasing authority ordinance agenda item last night. (There is nothing special about this relatively simple ordinance but it serves as a good example of a recurring problem.) The City attorney explicitly asked for you to provide direction for him to make the necessary changes to set the CM's authority level at $60,000 when you introduced the ordinance at the prior council meeting but no one actually completed that very simple work. It took me under two minutes to see the obvious errors in the draft ordinance, some of which were edits that were explicitly addressed in prior public comments so staff should have known to check the identified provisions. Either the City Attorney's office didn't actually revise the ordinance directly or they didn't adequately review the staff draft--not that it should take an attorney to catch such glaring defects.
Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident and the City team is regularly producing such low-quality work that it should be embarrassing for all involved, from the particular staff person failing to pay adequate attention to detail in their work, through the internal review process that should involve superior staff (superior from a hierarchical not qualitative perspective) editing their drafts along with legal review. This recurring problem suggests an organizational culture that lacks accountability, which is a management defect. I think the community deserves better and you should consider that as you evaluate the performance of the City Attorney and City Manager.
Regarding this ordinance specifically, I hope these issues will be corrected when it comes back for your ultimate approval... let's hope the third time's the charm.
--Jacob
1