I knew the Dems and Socialists would throw Virginia taxing citizens under the bus. The saying goes… “You will reap what you sow. “ https://youtu.be/CRwL9vy-f7E

Attorneys specializing in tax-exempt bond transactions frequently appear before Economic Development Authorities, Redevelopment and Housing Authorities, and local governing bodies (Boards of Supervisors or City Councils) to obtain the local approvals required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code in connection with the issuance of bonds that are obligations of private parties (e.g., 501c3 organizations) but are issued through a local government body as "conduit issuers" that have no liability for payment of the bonds. These limited interactions would likely fall under the scope of SB50 and require bond attorneys such as myself to register as lobbyists seeking to influence "local government action." It is unlikely that this scenario was considered in the drafting of SB50. It would be helpful if an exemption could be considered to carve out "Local approvals required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code" or something to that effect. I can be reached at 804-762-6036, or kevin.white@butlersnow.com, if you would like to discuss. Thank you.

I knew the Dems and Socialists would throw Virginia taxing citizens under the bus. The saying goes… “You will reap what you sow. “ https://youtu.be/CRwL9vy-f7E

Members of the General Assembly, I appreciate the opportunity to submit written comments regarding SB326. I regret that I am unable to attend in person, as I am currently overseeing previously scheduled roofing project inspections, but I am grateful for the ability to share my perspective in writing. As a professional in the commercial roofing industry, I strongly oppose expanding cooperative procurement to include roofing services. Roofing should not be categorized as a commodity purchase. Each project requires detailed evaluation of existing conditions, structural considerations, drainage design, insulation requirements, code compliance, and long-term performance planning. No two buildings are identical, and roofing systems must be tailored to the specific structure, environment, and intended lifespan of the facility. Reducing this type of work to a cooperative purchasing model oversimplifies a highly technical construction process and increases risk for public owners. Virginia made a deliberate decision in 2018 to exclude architectural and engineering services from cooperative purchasing in order to preserve professional oversight and ensure quality outcomes. Expanding cooperative procurement into roofing effectively reintroduces many of the same concerns that policy change was designed to prevent. While cooperative contracts can be appropriate for standardized goods, roofing systems are complex building assemblies that depend on proper design, specification, inspection, and accountability. Procurement methods that emphasize preset unit pricing or centralized agreements may limit meaningful competition, discourage independent design review, and reduce transparency. Over time, this can result in higher lifecycle costs, compromised performance, and diminished public confidence. From a practical standpoint, I am concerned that this legislation could: Weaken competitive bidding opportunities Reduce participation from qualified local contractors Limit owner oversight and contractor accountability Negatively impact small businesses and Virginia’s workforce Increase long-term financial risk to taxpayers Public agencies already have access to multiple procurement options that provide both flexibility and accountability, including competitive sealed bidding, competitive negotiation, emergency procurement provisions, and job order contracting when appropriate. These tools allow public bodies to respond efficiently while still preserving competition and protecting taxpayer investment. The current procurement framework works. Expanding cooperative purchasing into specialized construction services like roofing is unnecessary and may create unintended consequences for public facilities, local businesses, and long-term building performance. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that you oppose SB326. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Joseph Sansbury President-Sansbury & Associates LLC.

We respectfully urge you to oppose SB SB326, which would extend cooperative procurement to roofing services. Roofing is not a commodity. Roofing is a construction service that involves: • Site-specific engineering and design decisions • Substrate conditions that vary widely from building to building • Long-term performance and warranty considerations Treating roofing as a standardized, interchangeable purchase ignores these realities and introduces unnecessary risk for public owners. Key concerns with cooperative procurement of roofing include: • Erosion of fair and open competition • Loss of local market knowledge and contractor accountability • Higher long-term costs to taxpayers • Harm to Virginia’s local workforce and small businesses • Reduced transparency and public trust in the procurement process Virginia’s existing procurement tools are already sufficient. Public bodies currently have access to: • Competitive sealed bidding • Competitive negotiation • Emergency procurement authority • Job order contracting, where appropriate These mechanisms provide flexibility while preserving competition, transparency, and accountability. The Commonwealth’s current procurement framework is well-suited to protect taxpayers, workers, and public facilities without expanding cooperative procurement into complex construction services like roofing. Thank you for your time and consideration. Please reach out with any questions.

I knew the Dems and Socialists would throw Virginia taxing citizens under the bus. The saying goes… “You will reap what you sow. “ https://youtu.be/CRwL9vy-f7E