[J1. 2025-025-Contract for Services Consider, discuss, and act on the approval of an updated contract for services between the City of Princeton and the Princeton CDC.]

CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND ACT ON THE APPROVAL OF AN UPDATED CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON AND THE CDC.

JIM, I'M NOT SURE WHO'S PRESENTING ON THAT.

>> THAT'LL BE ME WITH GRANT.

GRANT TYPED UP THE AGREEMENT.

WE DID SEND IT OUT EARLY.

HOPEFULLY YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER IT.

I'M GOING TO HIT SOME HIGHLIGHTS.

IF YOU NEED ANYTHING DEEPER, WE CAN DIG IN, IF YOU LIKE.

TO REMIND THE BOARD, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING ONE OF THESE TO THE BOARD.

WE'RE CURRENTLY OPERATING ON A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CDC AND THE EDC THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2015.

NOW, WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE OF THESE BY LAW, DON'T WORRY.

WE HAVEN'T BEEN OUT OF COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE THE WAY THESE AGREEMENTS ARE WRITTEN, IS THEY WILL AUTOMATICALLY RENEW UNTIL THEY'RE REPLACED.

[00:20:02]

WE'RE OKAY, BUT IT WAS DEFINITELY TIME TO REPLACE THE OPERATING AGREEMENT. IT WAS EIGHT-YEARS-OLD.

I BROUGHT TO YOU A PREVIOUS COPY OF IT, WHERE I BELIEVE THE EXPENDITURE IS GOING TO BE $20,000 TO THE CITY FOR OPERATIONS, $10,000 FOR MARKETING.

I DIDN'T GET AWAY WITH THAT.

PARTICULARLY SINCE LAST YEAR, IT WAS $170,000 FOR ADMINISTRATION TO THE CITY ABOVE AND BEYOND SALARIES.

BUT WHERE WE DID END UP WAS THE CDC AND THE EDC BOTH, THEY'RE BOTH IDENTICAL.

I'M ONLY ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THE CDC, BUT SINCE WE HAVE TWO BOARDS, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE BEING TREATED IDENTICALLY.

EACH ONE WILL PAY TO THE CITY $65,000 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND $10,000 FOR MARKETING SUPPORT.

WE'VE BEEN GIVING THEM $4,000, ALTHOUGH IT WASN'T IN THE AGREEMENT.

ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE UPDATING IT FOR MARKETING FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS AND WE'VE INCREASED THAT TO 10.

I'VE GIVEN THE JUSTIFICATION THE BOARD, I BELIEVE LAST MONTH, IS THAT EVERYTHING THE CITY'S MARKETING DEPARTMENT DOES SUPPORTS WHAT WE DO.

EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO TO MARKET THE CITY DOES NOTHING BUT HELP US.

THEY HAVE A VERY TIGHT BUDGET.

EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS AN EXTRAORDINARILY TIGHT BUDGET THIS YEAR.

THESE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN CONTINUE PUSHING THAT VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION FOR AND SUPPORTING THEM.

I'VE ALSO INCLUDED THE LAST THREE YEARS OF HOW WE IN THE MEMO IN YOUR PACKET, I'VE SHOWN WHAT WE'VE GIVEN THE CITY THE LAST THREE YEARS JUST SO YOU KNOW JIM AND JUST THROWING AN EXTRA 65,000 TO THE CITY THAT THEY WEREN'T GETTING, WE'RE ACTUALLY GETTING ABOUT $105,000 DISCOUNT THIS YEAR.

YES. WHAT WE GET FOR THAT IS WE GET UP TO THREE OFFICES AS NEEDED.

IF IN THE FUTURE, WE WERE TO BRING IN ANOTHER A DIRECTOR LEVEL, OR A SPECIALIST LEVEL, OR ANY OTHER STAFF MEMBER, A THIRD OFFICE OR WORK AREA IS INCLUDED IN THIS INCLUDES ALL THE SOFTWARE LICENSES, ALL THAT STUFF, ACCESS TO ALL OFFICE SUPPLIES, ACCESS TO THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, MANAGES ALL OF OUR FINANCES.

MARKETING, EVEN ON STUFF THAT WE DO, THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT DOES ALL THE ART FOR THAT AND DOES ALL THE LEG WORK.

THEY ORDER IT EVEN IF WE'RE PAYING DIRECTLY.

BASICALLY, IT'S JUST PAYING FOR SOME OF THE OVERALL SUPPORT FROM THE CITY.

QUITE HONESTLY, I THINK IT'S VERY FAIR, ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S SO MUCH LOWER THAN IT WAS LAST YEAR.

I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU SAW ANYTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT CONCERNS YOU.

GRANT, BE HAPPY TO ANSWER HIM, HE WROTE IT.

>> THANKS, JIM. ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT.

WITH THAT, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION, IF SOMEBODY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM J12025-025-CONTRACT FOR SERVICES.

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN AND WITH THAT WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.

>> THAT ITEM PASSES.

>> I STILL LOOK AT THE DIS ON EVERY VOTE, EXPECTING PEOPLE TO VOCALLY SAY IT AND THEN I HAVE TO TURN AND LOOK AT THE BOARD.

I'M STILL NOT USED TO IT YET.

>> WELL, WE'RE UNANIMOUS ON THAT ONE, 7-0.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM J2 2025-026-EXTENDED SCOPE OF FORENSIC AUDIT AND UPDATE PHASE 1.

[J2. 2025-026-Extend Scope of Forensic Audit and Update Phase I Hear update, discuss, and act on the approval of extending the scope of the forensic audit as requested by the forensic auditor. ]

HERE UPDATE, DISCUSS AND ACT ON THE APPROVAL OF EXTENDING THE SCOPE OF THE FORENSIC AUDIT AS REQUESTED BY THE FORENSIC AUDITOR.

>> I'LL LEAD INTO IT, IF YOU DON'T MIND AND INTRODUCE THEM BECAUSE I WANT TO TELL YOU HOW WE GOT HERE.

EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WEAVER HAS BEEN DOING THE FORENSIC AUDIT ON THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

I'VE BEEN UPDATING THE BOARD INTERMITTENTLY AS WE GO.

VICTOR HAD REACHED OUT.

VICTOR AND BLAKE AS WELL, REACHED OUT.

THERE WERE SOME ITEMS THAT FELL OUTSIDE OF THE TIMELINE OF THE SCOPE OF THE AUDIT THAT THEY WANTED PERMISSION TO GET THOSE DOCUMENTS AND LOOK AT THEM.

I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GIVE THEM THAT PERMISSION.

BECAUSE ESPECIALLY GRANT AND I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS.

THE MOTIONS FROM BOTH THE BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL WERE SO SPECIFIC THAT THEY NAMED A VERY SPECIFIC SCOPE AND $1 AMOUNT.

I SAID, LOOK, I CAN'T GIVE YOU THAT PERMISSION, BUT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PUT IT ON THE BOARD AGENDA NEXT MEETING AND LET THE BOARD.

[00:25:04]

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I JUST CAN'T TELL YOU TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY.

VICTOR, YOU KNOW IT'D BE A GREAT TIME TO ALSO GIVE THEM AN UPDATE IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO DO THAT.

THEY'RE GOING TO DO BOTH.

THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE TO DATE ON THE FORENSIC AUDIT AND THEN, I GUESS, EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT THEY MAY WANT ACCESS TO AND WHY.

I THINK THAT'S FAIR. YOU THINK VICTOR WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE OF YOU IS GOING TO PRESENT, VICTOR, YOU, OR BLAKE, BUT.

YES, SIR. IT'S YOUR SHOW.

>> THANKS, VICTOR AND BLAKE FOR COMING IN AND SEEING US TONIGHT. I APPRECIATE IT.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? WELL, THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR YOUR TIME.

AS IT WAS MENTIONED MY NAME IS VICTOR PADILLA, FORENSIC ACCOUNTANT AND MANAGING DIRECTOR WITH WEAVER.

I'VE BEEN CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIONS FOR MORE THAN 15 YEARS, BOTH DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY AND WITH ME, MY COLLEAGUE BLAKE.

>> IT'S BLAKE BOGDAN, GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.

MANAGER WITH WEAVER'S FORENSIC AND MITIGATION PRACTICE, HAS BEEN HELPING VICTOR OUT ON THE INVESTIGATION SO FAR.

>> THANK YOU, BLAKE. LET ME SEE.

I THINK WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO, JUST TESTING.

THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PRESENTATION IS TO PROVIDE A QUICK RECAP OF THE SCOPE OF WORK, THE PROCEDURES PERFORMED, AND THEN THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

OF COURSE, TO GO OVER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANYBODY CAN PRESENT.

LET ME JUST CHECK MY NOTES HERE.

IN TERMS OF THE SCOPE, AS YOU REMEMBER, WE HAVE BEEN HYPER FOCUSED ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE RENOVATION EXPENSES IN CONNECTION TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER FOR THE YEARS 2015 AND 2022.

WE ALSO HAD SOME PROCEDURES THAT WE PROVIDED ON OUR ENGAGEMENT LETTER AND THEN THE EXECUTION OF THE PROCEDURES THAT WAS THE BASIS TO FORM THE BASIS FOR OUR PRELIMINARY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

TO ARRIVE TO THOSE OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WE ANALYZED PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE APPLICABLE AT THE TIME.

AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME NUANCES THERE.

WE ARE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WERE OFFICIALLY ENACTED OR NOT.

WE ALSO REVIEWED ACCOUNTING RECORDS, MEETING MINUTES, BOND DOCUMENTATION.

THIS BOND WAS IN CONNECTION TO THE FUNDS THAT WERE BASICALLY ISSUED TO FUND THE RENOVATION OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

WE INTERVIEWED SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF TO GET BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THEN WE ANALYZED PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION FOR SELECTED INDIVIDUALS AND VENDORS THAT WERE RELATED IN THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

THEN WITH THAT, BLAKE, WOULD YOU MIND PROVIDING A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PRELIMINARY FINDINGS?

>> SURE. TO START, THE THING THAT CAME UP MOST WITH OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH INTERVIEWEES, COUNCIL MEMBERS, PRINCETON STAFF AND WHATNOT, WAS THAT A MAJORITY OF THESE PEOPLE WEREN'T AWARE OR EVEN FAMILIAR WITH PRINCETON PURCHASING POLICIES.

>> BLAKE, CAN YOU MOVE THE MICROPHONE UP, JUST PROBABLY YOU'RE NOT QUITE PICKING UP.

>> PERFECT. AS PART OF OUR DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US THROUGH THIS, THERE WAS A FEW DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT WERE IN THERE.

EARLIEST WOULD HAVE BEEN 2019 AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE UPDATED 2021 AND 2024 OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

LIKE VICTOR SAID, IT'S UNCLEAR IF ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FORMALLY ADOPTED AND IMPLEMENTED AND AS PART OF PRINCETON'S FINANCE POLICIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WITH THAT BEING SAID, A LOT OF THE VENDOR SELECTION PROCESSES AND PURCHASING POLICIES THAT WENT AROUND THE COMMUNITY CENTER RENOVATIONS DON'T APPEAR TO HAVE FOLLOWED ANY OF THESE PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

MOSTLY AND REPORTEDLY, IT SEEMS THAT THEY WERE ASSIGNED THROUGH DIRECT ADJUDICATION, SO JUST WHATEVER PRINCETON PROJECT MANAGERS WERE IN CHARGE, PICKED A VENDOR, THAT'S ALL WE CAN TELL WITH THE DOCUMENTATION THAT WE HAVE SO FAR.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, PRINCETON APPEARS TO HAVE SERVED AS A GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOR THE RENOVATIONS.

I FORGET THE DEPARTMENT NAME FOR THAT.

I THINK IT WAS THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT.

THEY WERE THE ONES THAT ULTIMATELY WE REPORTED TO DECIDE WHAT VENDORS DID WHAT WORK.

THIS IS IN CONTRAST TO WHAT WE ARE SEEING WITH

[00:30:02]

THOSE PURCHASING POLICY AND PROCEDURE DOCUMENTATION SO FAR.

I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE POINTS TO FOCUS ON.

ESSENTIALLY, PURCHASERS ARE SPLIT INTO THREE TIERS BASED ON THE VALUE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR, SO 2,000-25,000 IS THE BOTTOM TIER, 25,000-50,000 IS THE SECOND TIER AND THEN ANYTHING ABOVE 50 IS ANOTHER TIER.

ESSENTIALLY ACROSS ALL THREE, THREE BIDS ARE MANDATED TO BE OBTAINED.

IF NOT, A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF WHY THREE BIDS WOULDN'T BE OBTAINED IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED ALONGSIDE A PURCHASE REQUISITION AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE THIRD TIER SPECIFICALLY DOES NOT MENTION ANYTHING ABOUT HAVING TO GET THESE THREE BIDS OR EXCEPTIONS TO GETTING THESE THREE BIDS.

IN ADDITION, PROJECT SPECIFICATION SITS HAVE TO BE WRITTEN OUT TO PROVIDE DETAILS ON WHAT THE WORK WOULD ENTAIL.

THERE'S GRADING RUBRICS AS TO HOW THESE BIDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE GRADED AND COMPARED TO ONE ANOTHER AND ULTIMATELY CITY COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE WHATEVER VENDOR IS ULTIMATELY SELECTED.

WE REQUESTED DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOULD HAVE SHOWN ALL OF THIS AND SO FAR, FINANCE DEPARTMENT HASN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYTHING.

>> CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION?

>> SURE.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR. THIS WAS THE PURCHASING POLICY FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND SO THE BOARDS WOULD HAVE FALLEN UNDERNEATH THE GUIDANCE OF THAT AS WELL, TOO, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE I WAS GOING TO INTERRUPT BLAKE AND MENTION THAT, ALL THE PURCHASING POLICIES ARE THE CITY OF PRINCETON PURCHASING POLICIES.

THEY ASSUME THAT THE BOARDS WOULD FOLLOW THE SAME POLICIES.

BUT IF YOU REMEMBER, THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS MORE DRIVEN BY THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE, THAN THE ACTUAL BOARDS OR ANY STAFF, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

I THINK THE CITY MANAGER AND ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, I BELIEVE, WAS OVER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> WELL, AGAIN, I WAS GOING TO SAY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT YOU FOUND THE CITY ACTED AS THE GENERAL MANAGER?

>> THANK YOU.

>> REPORTEDLY.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE STILL NEED TO CONFIRM.

THAT'S WHAT WE HEARD AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO [INAUDIBLE] THAT.

>> SURE. WHERE WAS I? WE ALSO WANTED TO LOOK INTO, WELL, WE DON'T KNOW IF THESE POLICIES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.

WHAT DOES TEXAS STATE LAW SAY ABOUT THIS AND ARE THERE ANY REQUIREMENTS AROUND BIDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? TEXAS STATE LAW DOES HAVE PLENTY OF DETAILS REGARDING HOW THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

THAT'S ALWAYS A BACKGROUND AS TO THESE MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE AT THE TIME, BUT TEXAS STATE LAW DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT.

>> SOMETHING ELSE. TO BE SPECIFIC, THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 252 HAS A LOT OF DETAILS AROUND BIDDING PROCESS, VENDOR SELECTION.

EVEN IF POLICIES WERE NOT ENACTED, THEN PRESUMABLY THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE COVERED ON 252, AND THAT'S A LEGAL DETERMINATION.

WE'LL GET TO THAT INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT SOMETHING WORTH MENTIONING.

THEN THIS IS PARTICULARLY SPECIFIC FOR EXPENDITURES OVER $50,000.

BASED ON THE REVIEW OF DOCUMENTS, SEVERAL VENDORS EXCEEDED THE $50,000, SO THAT'S BASICALLY THE FINDING THERE.

>> I'M SORRY. YOU SAID THERE WERE SEVERAL VENDORS OVER 50,000?

>> CORRECT.

>> I GOT STATISTICS HERE, THEY'RE ON MY MIND.

THREE SPECIFIC VENDORS WERE OVER 50K.

MIKE ROGERS CONSTRUCTION, WHO DID A LOT OF THE PLOT DETAILS, NOT NECESSARILY THE BUILDING, SO THINK LIKE THE PARKING LOT, THE SEWAGE ALIGNS, STUFF LIKE THAT.

THEY WERE ROUGHLY AROUND $600,000.

DFW FRAMING, WHO DID A LOT OF THE ACTUAL WORK ON THE BUILDING AND THEN KIMLEY HORN, WHO'S TO OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS ARCHITECTS AND PLANNING AND ENGINEERING PLANS FOR STUFF LIKE THAT.

THOSE ARE THE BIG THREE IN THAT 25-50K RANGE, THERE WAS ANOTHER SEVEN VENDORS IN THAT 2-25K, THERE WAS ANOTHER 14 VENDORS.

>> AS PART OF OUR INVESTIGATION, WE ALSO LOOKED AT AVAILABLE ACCOUNTING RECORDS FOR THE RENOVATIONS.

THE FIRST THING WE DID WAS SELECT A SAMPLE OF ACCOUNTING TRANSACTIONS JUST RELATED TO THE EXPENDITURES AND LOOK AT THE SPORTING DOCUMENTATION AND PAYMENT RECORDS BEHIND ANY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS.

ULTIMATELY, EVERYTHING HAD AN INVOICE DETAILING WHAT WAS PERFORMED.

EVERYTHING HAD PAYMENT DETAILS AROUND HOW PAYMENT WAS MADE AND REMITTED ULTIMATELY TO THE VENDORS THAT DID THE WORK. NO ISSUES THERE.

THE ONE THING THAT CAUGHT OUR EYE IN THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS WAS THE SPECIFIC GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS USED IN THE NAMES BEHIND THEM.

BASED OFF OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF PRINCETON ACCOUNTING, THERE'S A PROJECT CODE THAT EXPENSE ACCOUNTS ARE BOOKED TO, ESSENTIALLY.

THESE PROJECT CODES WERE ALL RELATED TO THE RENOVATIONS.

EVERYTHING THAT WE EXPECTED TO SEE ON THERE WAS ON THERE.

[00:35:02]

IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ANYTHING MORE THAT IS ON OR RELATED TO THOSE SPECIFIC PROJECT CODES.

THE GENERAL LEDGER ACCOUNTS WE'LL BASICALLY EXPLAIN WHAT WAS BOOKED TO THOSE PROJECTS.

THE TWO THAT WE ARE SPECIFICALLY SEEING THAT ARE RAISING MY BROWSERS ARE THE PARKS AND ATHLETIC TARPS AND THE PARKVIEW HEIGHTS PARK.

PARKS AND ATHLETIC TARPS, WE WERE FORMED THOSE WOULDN'T BE AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER IN INTERVIEWS.

THAT WAS ROUGHLY $600,000 BOOK TO IT WITH MIKE ROGERS CONSTRUCTION, WHO, IF YOU REMEMBER, DID ALL THE POP WORK AROUND IT.

THE PARKVIEW HEIGHTS PARK ACCOUNT HAD A LOT OF PLANNING EXPENSES RELATED TO KIMBERLY HORN AND PECO, WHO ARE BOTH ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, AS WELL AS RONNIE TAYLOR CONSTRUCTION, ALSO HAD A BIG CHUNK OF THAT $200,000, WHO DID A LOT OF THE WORK ON THE FRAMING OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

THIS ISN'T TO SAY THAT THIS IS NEFARIOUS.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE SEE PRETTY OFTEN.

IT COULD JUST BE SIMPLE ACCOUNTING ERRORS.

WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT, BUT SOMETHING TO CONSIDER GOING FORWARD.

>> THE SAME CONTRACTORS COULD HAVE BEEN DOING DIFFERENT PROJECTS OR WERE JUST MISCODED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR LINE ITEM.

>> YEAH, THAT'S ONE POSSIBILITY.

AS AS BLAKE MENTIONED, IT COULD BE JUST MISCODED OR COULD BE A RED FLAG BECAUSE WE ALSO HEARD THAT SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CONCERNS IS THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDITURES WERE POTENTIALLY COMMINGLED.

I KEEP USING POTENTIAL BECAUSE WE NEED TO DO MORE WORK.

THIS IS AN ASSESSMENT.

THIS IS AN INITIAL PASS.

WE REVIEWED INVOICES, PAYMENTS, A LOT OF THE LOW HANGING FRUIT.

SOMETHING IMPORTANT ALSO TO HIGHLIGHT, EVEN THOUGH WE MATCHED PAYMENTS AND INVOICES, AS BLAKE MENTIONED, THERE'S NOT THAT'S WHAT YOU EXPECT TO SEE.

IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO KNOW THAT WITH THAT JUST PAPER REVIEW WITHOUT US LOOKING AT THE WORK OR LOOKING AT WHETHER THE VALUE WAS DELIVERED, ESPECIALLY WHEN AS WE MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS FINDING, THAT IT APPEARS LIKE THREE BITS WERE NOT REQUESTED.

IT'S TOUGH TO KNOW IF THE VALUE IF THE MONEY PAID IT'S EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE RECEIVED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? WE REVIEW PAPER, IT MATCHES, IT'S GREAT.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF THE WORK.

SOMETHING FOR YOU TO KNOW IN TERMS OF THE POTENTIAL LIMITATION OF THE WORK.

WE ARE NOT SAYING THE VALUE WAS NOT RECEIVED OR WAS RECEIVED.

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS, THAT'S JUST A LIMITATION THAT YOU SHOULD KNOW. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> TO WRAP UP THE FINDINGS, THE LAST THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON WAS THE WORK THAT WAS ACTUALLY PERFORMED.

THERE ARE A COUPLE POINTS IN THE RENOVATION AROUND A COUPLE OF ITEMS THAT IT APPEARS THAT PRINCETON PROJECT MANAGERS, WHOEVER WAS INVOLVED, OPTED TO GO AGAINST PROFESSIONAL RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH THE RENOVATIONS, AND THAT ENDED UP RESULTING IN MORE MONEY NEEDING TO BE SPENT TO FIX.

ONE IS THE FOUNDATION.

I BELIEVE A SIMPLE LEVELING WAS CHOSEN TO BE PERFORMED, JUST A BAND AID FIX THE FOUNDATION IN IN ORDER TO GET IT FUNCTIONAL.

THAT LED TO CONTINUOUS REPAIRS NEEDING TO BE MADE WITH THINGS GOING OUT OF WHACK AND THE UNDERLYING ISSUE WITH THE FOUNDATION NOT BEING FIXED.

THAT IS WHAT ULTIMATELY LED TO SECOND ROUND OF RENOVATIONS AND LEADS US TO WHY WE NEED TO LOOK INTO THINGS OUTSIDE OF THE INITIAL SCOPE.

THE OTHER THING WAS A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM THAT WAS REPORTEDLY PREVIOUS FIRE MARSHAL WOULD NOT CERTIFY THE BUILDING WITHOUT ONE.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT DISAGREED WITH HIM BASED ON STRICT INTERPRETATIONS OF FIRE CODE.

ULTIMATELY WASN'T PUT IN ON THE FIRST ROUND OF RENOVATIONS, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS NOW BEING PAID FOR NOW IN THE SECOND ROUND OF RENOVATIONS.

THAT'S OUR FINDINGS, I'LL PASS IT OFF TO YOU.

>> THANK YOU, THAT'S GREAT.

ALSO IN TERMS OF THESE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, THE FULL REVEALED OF THE RENOVATION AND THEN THE FIRE MARSHAL RECOMMENDATION, IT'S ALSO PRELIMINARY.

THIS IS ANOTHER DOCUMENT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN TO JUST BASICALLY DOUBLE CHECK IF THIS WAS INDEED ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT AGAIN, IMPORTANT TO MENTION BECAUSE AGAIN, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE THAT WE CAN FIND DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT.

THEN IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDATIONS, SO I THINK HERE IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET CONFIRMATION.

WE ALREADY REQUESTED FOR THE BIDS TO SUPPORT THOSE, TYPICAL OR TRADITIONAL THREE OFFERS FROM VENDORS TO BASICALLY SELECT THE BEST PRICE FOR THE VEST VALUE.

WE UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES THE LOW COST IS NOT THE VEST VALUE, ALL THAT THING.

WE JUST NEED TO GET CONFIRMATION WHETHER WE STILL NEED MORE TIME TO FIND OR WE JUST DON'T HAVE THEM RIGHT SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THAT A DETERMINATION.

THEN AS I MENTIONED REGARDING THE TEXAS LOSS.

[00:40:07]

AGAIN, THAT'S MORE OF A LEGAL DETERMINATION.

HERE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT ONCE WE CONFIRM AS FORENSIC ACCOUNTANTS WHETHER THERE WAS A BIDDING PROCESS, WHETHER WE UNDERSTAND BETTER THE VENDOR SELECTION, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT A LEGAL PROFESSIONAL AND MAYBE YOUR RE HOUSE COUNSEL MAY NEED TO ASSESS WHETHER OTHER THINGS NEED TO BE CONSIDERED.

THEN ANOTHER POTENTIAL THING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER IS SO I KNOW THAT THE OBJECTIVE OF THIS ANALYSIS IS TO EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, BUT THEN THE LARGER TOPIC IS, IS THERE ANY EVIDENCE OF POTENTIAL IMPROPER BEHAVIOR OR CONDUCT? TO THAT EXTENT, ONE POTENTIAL RECOMMENDATION IS TO ANALYZE EMAILS OF INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE CLOSE TO THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, COMMUNICATIONS TO VENDORS, JUST TO SEE IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY ANY INDICATORS BECAUSE THAT'S GENERALLY ONE OF THE PROCEDURES THAT WE DO IN THIS TYPE OF ANALYSIS.

ONCE AGAIN, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT THERE WAS OR THAT THERE WAS NOT.

WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT THERE'S A REALLY GOOD CHANCE THAT THERE WASN'T A BIDDING PROCESS AND THAT JUST CREATES POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES.

GIVEN THE REASONS SURROUNDING THE INVESTIGATIONS THAT THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER, JUST TO DO A SANITY CHECK.

THEN ALSO, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF GETTING MORE DOCUMENTATION.

WE GOT MORE DOCUMENTS, WE'RE STILL REVIEWING TO CONFIRM THROUGH DOCUMENTS WHETHER THERE WAS INDEED A RECOMMENDATION TO DO A FULL REVIEW OF THE FOUNDATION.

IF SO, THEN WHY A LEVELING WAS DONE AS OPPOSED TO THE FULL RENOVATION.

AGAIN, IF WE CANNOT FIND DOCUMENTATION THAT CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT DETERMINATION, THEN AS A POTENTIAL PROCEDURE IS JUST TO TALK TO THE ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, JUST TO GET CONTEXT, JUST TO GET CLARIFICATION.

AGAIN, THERE ARE A FEW DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET TO THAT DETERMINATION.

THEN THERE'S ANOTHER FACTOR THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED A FEW TIMES, IS THAT THERE WE UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL OR HIGH TURNOVER RATES IN THE FINANCIAL DEPARTMENT DURING THE PERIOD OF ANALYSIS.

HERE, AGAIN, THE POTENTIAL THING TO CONSIDER AS A RECOMMENDATION IS TO ANALYZE EMAILS MAYBE CONDUCT INTERVIEWS TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS BEHIND THE TURNOVER RATES AND WHY THAT MATTERS IS JUST TO AGAIN, ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY THAT THERE WAS ANY UNDUE PRESSURE ON THESE INDIVIDUALS.

IT COULD BE THAT PEOPLE JUST GOT A JOB CLOSER TO HOME OR FOR THE RELOCATE I MEAN THERE COULD BE MANY OTHER REASONS WHY PEOPLE CHANGE JOBS.

BUT AT THIS POINT, WE JUST DO NOT KNOW ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THAT'S A REASON WHY IT MAY SEEM ODD, BUT THAT'S THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT.

I'LL STOP THERE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION ONE THING IS THAT THERE IS, AND YOU'D MENTIONED THAT SOMETHING JUST STRUCK ME ABOUT THE BIDS.

I'VE GOT A I HAVE ONE FILE BOX OF HARD COPIES OF THINGS, AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS.

I WAS TOLD THAT EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THAT BOX IS ALSO ELECTRONIC AND WE PROVIDED ELECTRONIC.

WITH THE BOARD'S PERMISSION, WHEN YOU'RE FINISHED, WHILE THE NEXT ITEM GOES ON, I'M GOING TO EXCUSE MYSELF.

I'M GOING TO WALK TO MY OFFICE AND JUST HAND YOU THAT BOX TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THERE YOU ALREADY HAVE ELECTRONIC.

I THOUGHT I SAW A COUPLE OF BID DOCUMENTS.

THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON I'D SAY THAT.

I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY, BUT IT'D BE WORTH WE TALKED ABOUT ME GETTING THOSE TWO ANYWAY, AND YOU WEREN'T HERE, AND IF YOU HAD THE ELECTRONIC, YOU WOULDN'T NEED IT, BUT I'M GOING TO SENT YOU HERE, GO AHEAD AND GIVE YOU THAT BOX, LET YOU TAKE IT WITH YOU AND LOOK THROUGH IT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING NEW.

>> ABSOLUTELY. NO PROBABLY. HAPPY TO DO IT.

>> WOULD THAT BE ALL RIGHT WITH THE BOARD? IF WHEN THEY'RE DONE, I EXCUSE MYSELF FOR A MINUTE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT SLIDE? THESE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE AGAIN, MOST I MEAN, GENERAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

AGAIN, WE ARE STILL TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER ANY OFFICIAL PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN ADOPTED.

SO FAR AGAIN, WE STILL HAVEN'T GOT CONFIRMATION.

ALL WE NEED IS CAN YOU CONFIRM BY THIS DATE WHETHER OFFICIAL PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WERE ENACTED, YES OR NO.

IF WE HEAR NOW, THE THEY WERE NOT ENACTED.

THEN THE NEXT AND BY THE WAY, WE ALSO CHECKED THE WEBSITE, PRINCETON CITY POLICY WEBSITE TO

[00:45:01]

SEE IF WE COULD FIND ANY OF THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, AND WE COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING IN PLACE.

ONCE WE CONFIRM THAT OR ONCE WE GET A DEFINITIVE YES OR NO, THEN IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO FORMALLY ESTABLISH SOME OF THESE PURCHASING POLICIES AND PROCEDURES BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPORTANT, THEY PROVIDE GUIDELINES, THEY PROVIDE A PROCESS TO SELECT VENDORS TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFERENT APPROVALS AND SO ON.

THEN IN ADDITION TO IMPLEMENTING AND ENACTING THESE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, THEN PROVIDING REGULAR TRAINING TO ALL PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE PURCHASING PROCESS, INCLUDING PEOPLE AT CITY COUNCIL AND DIFFERENT LEVELS OF STAFF.

THEN THE OTHER THING IS THAT WE UNDERSTAND THE CITY IS GROWING REALLY FAST IS ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING CITIES.

THAT JUST MEANS THAT THE CONTINUOUS MONITORING AND MODIFICATION OF THESE POLICIES IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE NEEDS OF TODAY MAY NOT BE THE SAME LIKE THREE YEARS OR FIVE YEARS ON THE ROAD.

THIS IS A LIVING DOCUMENT.

THIS IS TO ENSURE BOTH COMPLIANCE WITH VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS, PROCUREMENT PROCESSES, AND AT THE SAME TIME TO MAYBE INVOLVE ONCE AGAIN, YOUR LEGAL COUNSEL TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY CHANGES TO THE TEXTS STATE LAW ARE ALSO COMPLY WITH.

THAT'S IT IN TERMS OF POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES, THE LAST SLIDE, AGAIN, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE NEXT AND LAST PAGE? THIS IS BASICALLY A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS.

I'M HAPPY TO READ THAT I ASSUME THE PRESENTATION WILL BE AVAILABLE.

BUT BASICALLY WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING HERE ARE SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE MENTIONED THAT WE MAY NEED TO FINALIZE THE DETERMINATION OF SOME OF THE ITEMS. IT'S PAYMENTS AND INVOICES RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER AFTER IT WAS INAUGURATED.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT SHORTLY AFTER THE COMMUNITY CENTER WAS OPENED, THAT SHORTLY AFTER THERE WERE SOME REPAIRS THAT WERE REQUIRED TO FLOORS, AND THE ROOT CAUSE WAS THE FOUNDATION.

WE LIKE TO GET WE LIKE TO GET SOME INVOICES AND PAYMENTS TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS INDEED THE CASE.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS A COPY OF A PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TO THE CDC.

THIS PRESENTATION, WE UNDERSTAND INCLUDED ITEMS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

THIS MEETING LED TO ITS CLOSURE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

IF IT HAS OTHER INFORMATION THAT IS NOT RELEVANT TO OUR CASE, WE DON'T NEED TO SEE THAT.

BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN SEE ITEMS RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER, I THINK THAT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO GET ADDITIONAL CONTEXT AND VISIBILITY TO THE ISSUES REPORTED.

THERE'S A COPY WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A COPY OF AN ENGINEER THAT BASICALLY PROVIDED ONCE AGAIN THE RECOMMENDATION AND WHY YOU NEEDED THIS EXTENT OF REPAIRS.

THIS IS THE FOUNDATION PIECE SPECIFICALLY.

THEN WE UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME OTHER INSPECTOR REPORT, ALSO HIGHLIGHTING ISSUES WITH THE BUILDING.

THERE'S A REFERENCE TO A FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM.

HERE ALSO FOR THE RECORD, WE ARE NOT GOING TO EVALUATE THIS INFORMATION AS ENGINEERS OR ARCHITECTS.

ALL WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS FOR EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THAT WHAT WE HEARD WHICH SOME OF THAT WAS THE BASIS OF SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE CAN SUBSTANTIATE IT WITH DOCUMENTS.

THIS IS JUST TO KEEP OUR MINDSET OBJECTIVE, AND NOT JUST BASICALLY JUST TAKING A RECOMMENDATION BASED JUST ON RUMORS, BUT WE GOT TO THE CIRCULAR CONVERSATION, WE CANNOT CONFIRM SOME OF THESE BECAUSE WE NEED TO SEE THE DOCUMENTS.

>> FOR AN INSTANCE FOR INSTANCE, DURING THE INTERVIEWS, A PERSON OR TWO SAID, LOOK, WE GET AN ENGINEERING REPORT SAYING WE NEEDED ALL THESE NEW PEERS, AND WHAT THEY DID TO SAY MONEY WAS SHIM THE BUILDING, YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THE ENGINEERING REPORT BEFORE WE STARTED THIS RENOVATION THAT WILL SHOW, YES, THE BUILDING HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN SHIMMED, BUT THESE NEW PIERS WERE NOT PUT IN.

YEAH, THAT'S THE SECOND ONE.

>> YEAH. WE DID ONE AT THE BEGINNING WITH THE FULL RECOMMENDATION OF THE REBUILDING OF THE FOUNDATION.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT WAS EARLY AND THIS IS BEFORE THE RENOVATION.

THEN WE UNDERSTAND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE BECAUSE THERE WERE SEVERAL REPAIRS SUBSEQUENT TO THE OPENING OF THE BUILDING.

I THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT.

>> TO MAYBE COMPARE.

AGAIN, WE ARE NOT ENGINEERS.

ALL WE WANT IS DOCUMENTATION SO THAT WE CAN TELL YOU YEAH, HERE'S THE DOCUMENT.

[00:50:02]

IF THE DOCUMENTS SOMETIMES ARE NOT, LET'S SAY ARE TOO TECHNICAL, THEN THAT'S WHEN WE SAY IT MAY BE WORTH A CONVERSATION WITH ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS JUST SO THAT THEY CAN CORROBORATE.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE RECOMMENDED.

>> I WASN'T TRYING TO PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR AND I MEAN, I HAVE FOR THE BOARDS VERIFICATION, AND I BELIEVE I'VE ALREADY SHARED THIS WITH YOU.

WHEN WE REDID FOUNDATION THIS TIME.

WE ACTUALLY HAD IT ENGINEERED BEFORE IT STARTED.

THEN ONCE THEY GOT IN AND OPENED UP THE FLOOR, WE ACTUALLY HAD THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER COME BACK IN AND PUT EYES ON EVERYTHING ONCE THE FLOOR WAS UP, AND THEY COULD SEE EVERY PIER, EVERY BEAM.

THEN WE HAD IT ENGINEER COME THE THIRD TIME AND VERIFY THAT EVERYTHING HE PUT IN HIS FIRST TWO REPORTS HAD BEEN COMPLETED.

WE HAVE THOSE RECORDS.

WE HAVE MORE RECORDS THAT WERE IN THE RFP, BUT I SAID, LOOK, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, WE'RE NOT DOING IT AGAIN, IF IT COSTS $5,000, BRING THEM OUT, MAKE SURE IT'S DONE RIGHT, AND THEY DID VERIFY THAT.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CONTEXT.

UNLESS ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS, I THINK ANOTHER ITEM WAS TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THE FEES TO DATE.

ANY MORE QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GET INTO THE FEES? BASICALLY, ACCORDING TO OUR ENGAGEMENT LETTER, THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT TO EXCEED $25,000 WITH AN ESTIMATE OF 15-25.

WE ENDED UP DOING A LITTLE MORE WORK, WHICH IS FINE.

WE WANTED TO MAXIMIZE EVERYONE'S TIME AND WRAP UP WHATEVER WE COULD WITH THE DOCUMENTATION AS OF THIS PREVIOUS WEEK.

EVEN TODAY, WE STARTED GETTING A FEW OTHER DOCUMENTS.

BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE AT 28,000 AS OF THIS PREVIOUS MONDAY.

IT'S 3,000 ABOUT THE NOT TO EXCEED.

IT'S OKAY. WE SAID NOT TO EXCEED AND IT IS WHAT IT IS.

IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO STOP THIS PREVIOUS WEEK WHEN WE WERE PREPARING FOR THIS MEETING.

PLUS, OF COURSE, THE TIME FROM TODAY, WHICH AGAIN, IT'S FINE.

BUT THAT'S THE DRIVER, WHY WE ARE A LITTLE ABOVE THE 25.

AGAIN, WE FULLY UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT TO EXCEED IN CASE, THAT BECOMES A TOPIC.

BUT THAT'S THE UPDATE ON FEES.

>> BECAUSE OF HOW THE MOTIONS, NOT ONLY WITH THIS BOARD, BUT ALSO WITH COUNSEL, WERE WORDED, I WOULD NEED A MOTION AND A VOTE FROM THE BOARD SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE TIMELINE TO VERIFY WORK DONE DURING THE SCOPE TIMELINE. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY?

>> YEAH. I NEED TO [INAUDIBLE].

>> I TIED IT TO THAT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS US TO JUST KEEP BLEEDING INTO EVERYTHING AND GOING ON FOREVER AND EVER AND KEEP DOING IT.

I THINK THERE'S A SPECIFIC MISSION WE'RE TRYING TO LOOK AT WITH THIS THING.

WORD IT HOWEVER YOU LIKE.

BUT THE WORDING DOES HAVE TO INCLUDE APPROVING THE PROVISION, AND I'M HAPPY TO DO IT OF THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THE ORIGINAL SCOPE TIMELINE.

>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS, WITH THE ADDITIONAL REVIEWS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT NEED TO OCCUR, WE'RE ALREADY OUTSIDE THE 25K.

WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT WITH WHAT YOU SEE? WHAT WOULD YOU FORECAST AS THE ADDITIONAL SPIN WOULD BE AT THIS POINT AS WE BROADEN THE APERTURE HERE?

>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

AGAIN, IT'S ONE OF THOSE QUESTIONS WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO KNOW THE EXTENT OF THE WORK THAT YOU WANT US TO DO.

MY INITIAL REACTION IS THAT, AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST PURELY ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT I KNOW THERE'S ALSO A MANDATE TO BE COST EFFECTIVE.

IF SOME OF THESE PROCEDURES THAT WE MENTIONED, THE CITY WANTS TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE AND DO BY SOMEBODY IN THE CITY, MAYBE YOU CAN SAVE SOME OF THE COST.

WE ARE HAPPY TO DO SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I'M THINKING THAT AT MINIMUM, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW EMAILS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S LOW-HANGING FRUIT.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING CHANCES ARE THAT WE'LL FIND IT THERE.

REVIEW EMAILS, MAYBE GET SOME OF THESE DOCUMENTS, REVIEW DOCUMENTS, ATTEMPT TO RESOLVE SOME OF THESE OPEN ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED.

[00:55:04]

BUT I'M THINKING THAT AND AGAIN, I'D MUCH RATHER HAVE MORE TIME.

I CAN GIVE YOU A BALLPARK, BUT WE PREFER TO HAVE MORE TIME.

I CAN GIVE YOU A NUMBER, BUT AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY BROAD.

I'M THINKING THAT MAYBE 40,000-60,000 TO DO THE EMAIL REVIEW, TO DO ALL THE REVIEW, THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS PUT CLOSURE TO SOME OF THE ITEMS, THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

THAT'S A DIFFERENT ENDEAVOR.

THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION YOU COULD START WORKING ON AS A CITY RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT CAN GIVE ALREADY BENEFIT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING THAT CREATED THIS AGENDA ITEM, THOSE WOULD BE CONSIDERED STILL PART OF PHASE 1, CORRECT? OR WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED PHASE 2?

>> IN MY BUDGET, I WAS INCLUDING THOSE AS PHASE 2.

BUT AGAIN, IF YOU HAPPEN NOT TO DO PHASE 2, WE CAN DO THE REVIEW OF THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THEN WE CAN POSTPONE THE PHASE 2 CONVERSATION AFTER THAT.

WE COULD DO THAT MAYBE FOR LIKE $5,000, A REVIEW OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AND PUT CLOSURE TO SOME OF THE OTHER ITEMS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING SOMETHING UP TO THIS FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS TO CONSIDER.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT THE CITY ACTED AS GENERAL MANAGER BACK THEN.

WE HIRED A GENERAL MANAGER FOR THE REBUILD.

WITH MOST OF THE QUESTIONS COMING UP FOR THE POLICIES NOT BEING FOLLOWED UNDER THE CITY ACTING AS GENERAL MANAGER, I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH US FOOTING THE BILL TO FIND THAT OUT. I THINK THEY SHOULD.

>> THEY BEING THE CITY?

>> IF I MAY CHIME IN REAL QUICK.

IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER, FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT, IT WAS A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $50,000.

THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD APPROVED, AND THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL APPROVED.

THE CONTRACT, IT'S REFERENCES FOR PHASE 1, IS A NOT TO EXCEED OF 25, AND THEN PHASE 2, NOT TO EXCEED 25, AND THEN $25,000 INCREMENTS, THEN OBVIOUSLY IF IT'S ABOVE 50, YOU HAVE TO GET ADDITIONAL APPROVAL.

BUT ONE THING WITH THE BOARD'S DIRECTION IS WE'RE STILL UNDER THE 50,000, I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY, SO WE CAN POTENTIALLY AMEND THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE MORE FUNDS FOR THE PHASE 1 TRANCHE AND MAYBE ADJUST THE PHASE 2 JUST TO ALLOW THE AUDITORS TO CONTINUE TO PROCESS [OVERLAPPING] JUST AN OPTION.

>> THAT WOULD BE VERY SENSIBLE IN THE SENSE THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY CORROBORATE THESE OPEN ITEMS WITH THE NEW DOCUMENTS, AND THEN WE CAN BE MORE CONCLUSIVE AND TELL YOU.

YES, WE CONFIRM ALL OF THESE, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE MORE TIME TO ASSESS.

>> IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS WE LOOKING AT IT LOOKS LIKE THREE DIFFERENT AREAS, EXPANDING THE SCOPE BEYOND THOSE DATES, WHICH I GET.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH I WANT TO COME BACK TO AND A MINUTE WITH THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

I KNOW THAT YOU SPOKE TO THAT SPECIFICALLY, AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS NEEDED.

AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY THAT'S THE THREE THINGS WE'RE REALLY FOCUSED ON THIS EVENING?

>> CORRECT. THAT'S PHASE 1 CLOSURE. LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.

>> I THINK THAT JUST MY GENERAL INITIAL THOUGHTS ARE, WE'VE COME THIS FAR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE CLOSURE ON IT.

IF THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT WE FEEL ARE BEYOND THAT INITIAL SCOPE THAT WE NEED TO LOOK FOR.

I'M NOT A FAN OF WILD-GOOSE CHASE, OF, HEY, IF THE DOCUMENTS NOT THERE, AND WE DON'T THINK THE DOCUMENTS THERE AND IT DIDN'T EVER GET DONE.

HOW MUCH TIME DO WE WANT TO SPEND LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE THERE OR THAT WE PRETTY MUCH KNOW IS NOT THERE.

BUT THAT ASIDE, I THINK IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY.

I AGREE WITH YOU IN THAT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE, WITH THAT BEING A CITY DEAL, I DON'T WANT AS A BOARD TO FUND THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO LOOK AT AND DO AND ALL OF THAT.

QUESTION I HAVE ON THAT AND NOT SURE IF THIS IS FOR YOU GUYS OR MAYBE EVEN FOR GRANT, BUT I AGREE WITH THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS, ADOPTING A PURCHASING POLICY AND PROCEDURES.

I'M A BIG ADVOCATE FOR THE TRAINING, OBVIOUSLY, WITH CITY, AS WELL AS COUNCIL.

MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THAT ALSO INCLUDE THE BOARDS AS WELL? WHERE I'M GOING WITH THAT, THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT IS, AS BOARD MEMBERS, ARE WE ALSO ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAKING SURE THAT THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE FOLLOWED SO THAT IF WE SEE SOMETHING COME ACROSS THAT WE SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, DID WE GET THREE BIDS ON THIS? BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING THREE BIDS.

I DON'T KNOW. IS THAT SOMETHING AS BOARD MEMBERS? ARE WE ACCOUNTABLE TO THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AS WELL OR DOES THAT STOP AT CITY AND COUNCIL AND THEY'RE THE BACKSTOP OF MAKING SURE THAT

[01:00:03]

EVERYTHING IS DONE WITHIN THE POLICY AND PROCEDURES, AS WELL AS STATE LAW?

>> NO, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT PROJECT.

THERE HAS TO BE SOME LEVEL OF OVERSIGHT.

THERE'S THIS CONCEPT CALLED INTERNAL CONTROLS, WHICH WITHOUT GETTING TOO TECHNICAL, IS JUST CHECKS AND BALANCES.

PART OF THE POLICIES TO DETERMINE WHO WOULD MAKE THE MOST SENSE.

IT DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE EVERYTHING ON THE CITY COUNCIL.

THERE HAS TO BE SEVERAL LAYERS.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE SEEN.

IF IT'S UP TO, LET'S SAY 5,000, MAYBE A MANAGER CAN APPROVE THAT.

IF IT'S 25,000, MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE MORE RESTRICTIONS.

IF IT'S 50,000 OR MORE, THEN MAYBE IT ESCALATES.

>> SURE. REALLY, MY QUESTION IS MORE, AND MAYBE GRANT, IT'S FOR YOU, BUT AS BOARD MEMBERS, WHERE ARE WE AT IN THAT?

>> YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING TO BE LIABLE FOR THAT AS BOARD MEMBERS.

I THINK ONE THING WE'RE OPERATING, YOU GUYS HAVE REVIEWED OLD PURCHASING POLICY PROCEDURE MANUALS.

WE'VE UPDATED IT SINCE THEN.

THAT'S ONE THING I'LL SIT DOWN WITH YOU GUYS AS YOU GUYS WRAP UP AND FIGURE OUT NEXT STEPS FORWARD.

I KNOW THE CITY'S PURCHASING POLICY PROCEDURE MANUAL APPLIES TO CITY DEPARTMENTS, AS WAS MENTIONED EARLIER, AND WHETHER THE BOARD CONSTITUTES A CITY DEPARTMENT.

THAT'S AN AREA WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

BUT YEAH, I GUESS, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION SPECIFICALLY NOW.

YOU AS INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT LIABLE.

>> PAST OR PRESENT?

>> CORRECT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE VOLUNTEER US.

I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD AS BOARD MEMBERS SITTING UP HERE IF WE WERE COGNIZANT OF THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES SO THAT WE WERE ALSO PART OF THAT.

HEY, ARE WE DOING THIS?

>> IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE.

I'M HAPPY TO BRING THE CITY'S PURCHASING POLICY, WHICH WE DO FOLLOW.

WE HAVEN'T ADOPTED, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE FOLLOW.

BRING IT TO THE BOARD AND LET YOU GUYS ACTUALLY ADOPT IT.

I'LL ALSO SAY, AND I DON'T THINK VICTOR KNOWS THIS.

>> MAYBE DO A WORKING SESSION ON THAT, JUST HERE.

DO EDUCATION LIKE WE DID WITH YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR.

I THINK WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF A PSEUDO TAX?

>> WE'LL HAVE FINANCE DO THAT. YOU DON'T WANT ME DOING THAT.

BUT OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO HIRED A PURCHASING MANAGER.

NOW WE HAVE SOMEBODY FULL TIME.

THAT'S ALL THEY DO IS IF THEY'LL LOOK AT THE DIFFERENT EXPENDITURES AND THEY'LL REACH OUT JIM.

YOU CAN'T BUY THAT.

IT'S OVER THIS AMOUNT.

YOU GOT TO GET THREE BIDS, OR JIM.

IT'S OVER, IT'S $50,001.

NOW YOU GOT TO DO A FULL RFP, AND SHE'LL ACTUALLY DO THOSE FOR US, WHICH I'M ACTUALLY VERY EXCITED ABOUT.

REAL QUICK, YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ON THAT NOT TO EXCEED WAS 25,000.

I'M GLAD YOU CAUGHT ME LAUGHING BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT PHASE MAY COST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE GOOD ENOUGH TO SAY, YOU WENT OVER THE 25,000.

IT IS WHAT IT IS. WE DID 28, WE'LL CHARGE YOU 25.

IF WE EXPAND THE PHASE 1 FUNDING, I STILL WANT THAT FREE $3,000 WORTH OF SERVICES.

[LAUGHTER] THAT'S WHY.

I WASN'T TRYING TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, BUT I'M TRYING TO THINK OF A NICE WAY TO PUT THAT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> IT HAPPENS. WE TRY TO BE DILIGENT, BUT IN THIS CASE, OR SOMETIMES THE TIMING JUST DOESN'T WORK.

DIDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR US TO JUST DROP THE PENCILS AND WELL, WE ARE OUT OF MONEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PREPARE FOR THIS MEETING. IT IS WHAT IT IS SOMETIMES.

>> WELL, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU GUYS COMPLETED IT TO A POINT WHERE YOU WERE ABLE TO COME AND PRESENT ON IT.

JIM MIGHT BE KICKING ME UNDER THE TABLE FOR THIS.

I ALSO AM A BIG ADVOCATE FOR PAYING WHAT WE OWE.

IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS DID ABOVE AND BEYOND, AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THIS, WHICH I ANTICIPATE WE WILL.

I THINK WE SHOULD MAKE GOOD ON THAT, ALSO, NOT TO LOOK AT A GIFT HORSE IN THE MOUTH, BUT I WANT TO BE A GOOD PARTNER WITH YOU GUYS IN THIS.

>> THANK YOU, APPRECIATE IT.

>> I'LL JUST PROVIDE MY QUICK THOUGHTS ON THIS.

THE RECOMMENDATION PART AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, NEEDS TO FOOT THE BILL ON AND IS ALREADY WORKING ON SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH THE OTHER THINGS WITH THE SCOPE LOOKING AT SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

REALLY, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THERE.

I'LL CIRCLE BACK TO, BUT THE SCOPE EXPANSION AND THE DOCUMENTS NEEDED, I FULLY SUPPORT.

I DON'T WANT TO LEAVE ANYTHING UNTURNED.

WITH A CAVEAT OF, I ALSO WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SIGN UP FOR AND WHAT THAT'S GOING TO EXPAND.

I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CEILING IN MY HEAD THAT I'D LIKE TO TRY TO

[01:05:01]

KEEP US UNDER AS THIS STARTS TO EXPAND, AND PRIMARILY, I THINK THIS IS WHERE MR. ASH WAS COMING FROM A LITTLE BIT WITH THE CITY HAVING DECIDED TO PUT THEMSELVES IN THE POSITION OF BEING THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS.

THEN TO ME, THAT OPENS UP THE DOOR THAT WELL, THEN THE CITY NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTABLE AND RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME OF THE FUNDING AROUND, SOME OF THIS, AS WELL, TOO.

BUT WE CAN GET INTO MORE OF THAT LATER.

I'M GOOD WITH THE 50 THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED.

IF WE CAN ADJUST THAT TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO GOING FORWARD. [OVERLAPPING].

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE BOARD HAS ALREADY SET A CEILING OF 50.

YOU STILL HAVE A HITTING ON WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO $22,000-$25,000 LEFT UNDER THAT.

I THINK [OVERLAPPING] PROBABLY WHAT YOU WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THAT IN TOTAL OR ADDITIONAL.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, TO AVOID ANY CONFUSION.

IF YOU GIVE US TIME, WE'LL GO BACK, WE'LL PUT TOGETHER NUMBERS.

OUR MISSION IS THAT WITH THOSE 50,000, WE'LL TRY TO PUT CLOSURE TO THE HIGH PRIORITY ITEMS SO THAT WE CAN TELL YOU NOW, THAT WE HAVE CONFIRMED ALL OF THIS, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IS GOING TO TAKE, AND IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO IT OR NOT.

I THINK THAT'S GOING TO REDUCE ANY CONFUSION.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT TONIGHT DOES FOR STAFF FOR ME AND FOR FINANCE, IS THAT IT GIVES US VERY SPECIFIC HOLES WE NEED TO LOOK AND TRY TO FILL.

SPECIFIC DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THAT'S RELATED INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU EVERYTHING WE HAVE.

NOW BY THE DOCUMENTS THAT THEY SAY ARE MISSING, NOW, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO LOOK FOR THAT AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING WE CAN FIND. THAT WILL BE HELPFUL.

MY GUESS IS IF YOU APPROVE THEM LOOKING AT JUST THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THEY WANT TO LOOK AT AT THIS POINT, MY GUESS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS WHOLE THING IN WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF WHAT THE BOARD'S ALREADY APPROVED.

I GOT TO BELIEVE THEY'VE DONE THE VAST MAJORITY OF LEG WORK.

THE REST OF THIS STUFF IS GOING TO BE MORE CROSSING T'S AND DOTTING I'S.

I'M BEING OVER SIMPLISTIC.

>> DID YOU KNOW REVIEWS CAN BE TIME CONSUMING TO DO IT THOROUGHLY? BUT AGAIN, WE CAN PUT TOGETHER AN IDEA OF THE BEST WAY TO MAXIMIZE THE 50,000, SO THAT WE CAN PUT CLOSURE, AND WE DID OUR BEST TO HAVE ACTIONABLE AND VALUABLE RECOMMENDATIONS, POLICY AND PROCEDURES.

IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. WE'LL TRY TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE REST OF THE BUDGET.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY IF YOU GIVE US SOME DAYS TO THINK ABOUT IT AND GIVE YOU LIKE THIS IS PLAN.

>> I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN AND SAY, I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN WATSON, PAYING WHAT WE OWE.

I APPRECIATE YOU COMING IN WITH THE WILLINGNESS.

IT'S LIKE, HEY, YOU ALL SAID NOT TO EXCEED 25, IF I HAVE TO EAT THAT 3,000, WE'LL EAT IT.

WE HAVE THAT BUDGET IN THE AMOUNT.

I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN WATSON AND PAYING WHAT WE OWE.

IF 28 IS WHAT WE OWE, AND WE STILL HAVE ROOM IN THE BUDGET TO MAKE THAT, NOW.

ONCE YOU GET TO 50, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A DIFFERENT OTHER THAN THAT.

[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

YOU COME HERE AND TALK ABOUT 55, NEXT TIME I'M GOING TO SAY, HEY, THIS IS WHAT IT IS.

YOU GOT TO EAT THAT. THANK YOU FOR THE WORK THAT YOU'VE DONE AND PUTTING INTO THIS.

AGAIN, I AGREE THAT WE WANT SOME TYPE OF CLOSURE TO THIS.

THERE SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A LITTLE SMOKE HERE SOMEWHERE.

WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM, BUT, TRYING TO PUT A CAP ON THIS AND LET THE CITIZEN KNOW WE DID DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT NEEDS TO BE FOUND OUT.

ALSO, I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

I DO AGREE WITH LET THE CITY YOU CREATE THEIR OWN PROBLEMS. I'M SURE THAT'S IN PLACE LIKE GRANT JUST SAID.

BUT I ALSO DO AGREE, EVEN ON THE CDC SIDE WITH US, THE PERIODIC REVIEWS TO MAKE SURE THOSE POLICIES ARE FOLLOWED AT TIMES LIKE THAT.

AT THE END, I THINK THAT MAY BE SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT IN ORDER TO JUMP IN IN TO SAY, HEY, ARE THINGS IN A ROW? AND WE DO THAT HERE AND THERE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALIGNED WITH THE POLICIES THAT WE DO HAVE IN PLACE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I DID HAVE JUST A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

I PROMISED THEIR BRIEF.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SCOPE EXPANSION ON IT.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LOOKING FOR THE BIDS, AND DID THEY GET THREE BIDS? IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DIDN'T.

IF I WAS GOING TO PUT $100 ON RED OR BLACK, I PUT IT ON BLACK ON THIS ONE.

BUT IF WE DON'T FIND THOSE, THEN MY QUESTION IS, NOW WHAT?

>> NO GREAT QUESTION. SO THAT'S WHY THE EMAILS BECAUSE THE NEXT THING IS WE CONFIRMED THAT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES WERE NOT FOLLOWED LIKELY THEY DIDN'T EXIST, OR WERE NOT ENACTED IF THEY EXISTED.

ONCE WE CONFIRM THAT PIECE, THEN THE NEXT THING IS, CAN WE FIND ANY RED FLAGS OR PUT CLOSURE TO ANY EVIDENCE OF IMPROPER BEHAVIOR?

[01:10:04]

THAT'S WHERE THE EMAIL REVIEW PLAYS A ROLE.

SOMETIMES, WE FIND EVIDENCE THERE IF THERE'S ANY.

BUT THAT'S AS CLOSE AS IT GETS TO DO IT A SANITY CHECK IN A REASONABLY COST EFFECTIVE MANNER.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? THAT'S EMAIL REVIEW.

>> WHICH IS ACTUALLY A GREAT SEGUE TO MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION TO THAT, WHICH IS PRECISELY ON THE EMAILS.

WE DIG INTO THE EMAILS, WHETHER WE FIND SOMETHING OR NOT, OR SOMEHOW WE CONFIRM, HEY, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE BIDS BEING BEING FOUND OR WHATNOT.

THEY DIDN'T GET THE THREE BIDS OR WHATEVER.

SO THEN AGAIN, MY QUESTION IS, WELL, NOW WHAT? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IS THERE SOMETHING? AGAIN, MAYBE THIS IS A GRANT QUESTION.

>> ARE YOU ASKING IF THERE'S SOMETHING ACTIONABLE OR WHETHER IT'S JUST GOING TO BE, BY THE WAY, THIS HAPPENED?

>> RIGHT.

>> WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE COME TO IT.

WE'LL LET THEM FINISH THERE AND THEN SAY WHAT WHAT ACTIONS OR IF ANYTHING, AT A MINIMUM TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES, RIGHT?

>> WELL, TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.

AGAIN, AS I SAID, AFTER WE CONFIRM THE PROCEDURAL ASPECT OF THE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, THE OTHER ONE IS, AGAIN, WAS THERE ANY RED FLAGS OF COLLUSION? WAS THERE ANY RED FLAGS OF IMPROPER BEHAVIOR WITH VENDORS? THAT'S THE NEXT STEP.

WE REVIEW EMAILS.

WE COULD FIND EMAILS THAT SUGGEST THAT, OR WE COULD FIND NOTHING LIKE, HEY, THERE'S NOTHING HERE.THE EXTENT OF THE FINDING IS NO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES.

THE CITY TOOK CORRECTIVE ACTION.

WE DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING OR THE OTHER IS TO YOUR POINT, WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE IF WE FIND SOMETHING THAT SUGGESTS, OTHERWISE, AND WE'LL BRING THAT TO YOUR ATTENTION IF WE FIND SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT THAT'S A PART OF THE NEST.

>> WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY WE'VE NOT REALLY DUG INTO MANY, IF ANY EMAILS SO FAR JUST BASED ON THE RECEIPTS AND FINANCIALS THAT WERE PROVIDED AS WELL AS THE INTERVIEWS?

>> CORRECT. THAT'S THE STATEMENT.

>> HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE ALL THE INTERVIEWS? THERE WAS STILL ONE MISSING.

>> WE INTERVIEWED FIVE PEOPLE, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, ONE PERSON I THINK HAD SOME FAMILY MATTERS, COULD BE INTERVIEWED.

HAPPY TO PERFORM MORE INTERVIEWS.

BUT THEN AGAIN, MY INTUITION IS THAT AT SOME POINT, INTERVIEWS GET REPETITIVE.

THE ONLY REASON WE, BASICALLY, CREATED A SUBSET OF THE LARGER GROUP, IS TO PRESERVE BUDGET.

SURE ENOUGH, THE LAST INTERVIEWS, THEY SOUNDED VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ONES. AGAIN, BE HAPPY.

>> IF YOU COULD JUST TRY TO COMPLETE THAT ONE THAT WASN'T AVAILABLE AT THE TIME, I THINK THEY'RE BACK IN COUNTRY NOW BECAUSE THEY'RE ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS REQUESTING AUDIT, AND I WANT TO GIVE HER AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH YOU.

>> SURE.

>> THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE ON THAT IS, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY AND EVERYTHING WITH ALL OF THIS, WILL THE FOLKS WHO DID THE INTERVIEW THAT CAME IN FOR THE INTERVIEWS AND WILL THE FINDINGS OR ANY OF THE NOTES FROM THOSE INTERVIEWS ALSO BE SHARED AT LEAST WITH THE BOARD AND MADE PUBLIC?

>> I THINK IT'S UP TO YOU, WE NORMALLY TRY TO PROVIDE A REPORT THAT HAS SIMILAR TO OUR REPORT PROCEDURES, SCOPE, BUT IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU NEED, IT'S YOUR WORK PRODUCT.

>> I THINK IF THERE'S THINGS BEING SAID OR DISCUSSED IN THESE INTERVIEWS THAT ARE LEADING TO THE EXPANSION, WHICH IS FINE.

THAT'S THE POINT OF IT, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING THAT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT THIS EXPANSION OR POTENTIALLY EVEN ADDITIONAL EXPENDITURE AROUND IT ABOVE AND BEYOND THE 50, WE'RE DOING THIS WHOLE THING IN THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY.

I THINK EVERY SINGLE THING THAT WE FIND IN THIS, EVERY INTERVIEW THAT WE HAVE, EACH PERSON THAT'S BEING INTERVIEWED, I THINK ALL OF THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE AS PART OF THE FINDINGS IN THE REPORT OF THIS.

BECAUSE PERSONALLY, ONE OF THE REASONS I WAS AGAINST THIS AT THE BEGINNING WAS ALL OF THIS SECRECY OF, WELL, I'VE GOT SOMETHING.

I KNOW THAT THERE'S A SMOKING GUN SOMEWHERE, BUT I CAN'T REALLY SAY WHERE IT'S AT OR WHERE I GOT THE INFORMATION FROM.

IF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE COMING OUT IN THE INTERVIEWS, I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THESE THINGS OUT SO THAT WE AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ELSE, CAN SEE WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE.

>> FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT'S YOUR CALL.

WE GENERALLY DO NOT DO THAT, BUT IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT EITHER.

>> THEN I WOULD PERSONALLY SAY THAT A FINAL REPORT IS GOOD, SUMMARIZING EVERYTHING, NOT THAT THIS PERSON SAID THIS, THIS, THIS, THIS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S NEEDED.

>> IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT.

>> I THINK IF YOU'RE SAYING IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION THAT NORMALLY DOESN'T TAKE PLACE,

[01:15:03]

A FINAL REPORT OF FINDINGS IS TOTALLY FINE, IN MY OPINION, OF WHAT'S WHAT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP TO WHAT IS NORMALLY NOT NAME CALLING AND DOING ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

IF SOMEBODY HAD AN INTERVIEW AND THEY CHOSE TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS, I DON'T THINK THAT PERSON NAME SHOULD BE TIED TO THAT.

THEY'RE GIVING YOU INFORMATION TO IT.

IF YOU WANT TO SUMMARIZE THE REPORT LIKE YOU WOULD DO IN ANY CASE THAT YOU'VE DONE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY, I THINK THAT MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

I THINK GETTING INTO INDIVIDUAL NAMES GETS A LITTLE MESSY, AND I DON'T WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT.

>> IT'S SOMETHING THAT IF A CLIENT WANTS A REPORT, WE WRITE A REPORT, WE OF COURSE NEED TO BUDGET FOR ALL OF THAT.

BUT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES AS LONG AS ALL OF YOU ARE OKAY WITH DISSEMINATING THAT INFORMATION.

ALSO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND FINDINGS ARE NOT JUST BASED ON SOMETHING WE HEAR.

IT'S BASED ON INFORMATION WE DOCUMENTED BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE, AND IN THE SPIRIT OF IN OBJECTIVE, THAT'S WHY WE ARE HIGHLIGHTING THE PIECES OF INFORMATION AND THE LIMITATIONS OF THE SCOPE OF THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE.

WE DON'T WANT TO SMEAR ANYONE, OR WE JUST WANT TO FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.

IF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THAT, THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE OUR POSITION.

>> SEEING IS HOW MUCH MONEY WE SPENT AND EVERYBODY BEING INTERVIEWED OR PUBLIC SERVANTS THAT WORK FOR THE CITY, AND THE MONEY WE USE IS TAXPAYER MONEY, I THINK EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO A DETAILED REPORT IF THEY SO CHOOSE TO WANT IT.

THAT HAS EVERY DETAIL ALL POSSIBLY Y ALL COULD PUT IN THERE.

NOW, MAYBE A GENERALIZED SUMMARY REPORT LIKE YOU TYPICALLY, DO FOR US TO SEE AND JUST WHOEVER, REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE INTO THE WEEDS? THAT'S FINE. BUT I DO AGREE WITH JEFF, THAT I THINK IF THAT INFORMATION IS OUT THERE, IT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE SINCE THIS IS ALL PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE NO ISSUES WITH REPORTS.

WE ARE A PROVIDER OF SERVICES, AND WE DO DON'T SOLVE THE TIME.

>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO START FILTERING TRANSPARENCY.

>> I DON'T THINK THIS IS A DISCUSSION FOR THEM.

WE CAN DISCUSS THIS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

WE DON'T WANT TO WASTE THEIR TIME.

IF WE CAN MOVE ON TO WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO NEXT, AND THEN WE AS A BOARD CAN DISCUSS IT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. I AGREE WITH YOU.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE NEED TO DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON TONIGHT IS TO ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS FROM OUTSIDE THE SCOPE.

IF THE BOARD VOTES TO ALLOW THAT AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU WILL.

BUT IF IT GETS PAST YOU AND YOU ALLOW IT, IT'LL GO TO CITY COUNCIL.

IT WON'T GO UNTIL NOVEMBER 10.

WE HAVE TO PUT OUR AGENDAS IN TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE NOW BECAUSE THERE'S SOME NEW STATE LAWS.

WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PUTTING THEM TWO WEEKS IN ADVANCE TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THE APPROVAL LEVELS.

BUT IF THE BOARD DOES NOT VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE, IT WON'T GO TO COUNCIL.

THE BOARD HAS TO TAKE ACTION FIRST AND THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT.

TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE OTHER CONVERSATION DOING THAT LATER, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE.

THAT'S NOT, JIM, INTERPRETING WHAT THE BOARD IS SAYING AND MAKING A DECISION.

THAT IS NOT MY CALL.

THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTUAL ACTION AND A VOTE ON THAT.

WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO, I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THE HUNT.

IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME, BUT YOU WILL HAVE TO MEMORIALIZE A VOTE, SAYING, THIS IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE FINAL REPORT.

>> IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? EVERYBODY, GOOD? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THE SCOPE THAT WEAVER IS REQUESTING SO THAT THEY CAN RECEIVE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATIONS.

>> I SECOND.

>> SECOND.

>> I SECOND.

>> CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME?

>> NOW, WE CAN. I SECOND THAT.

>> WE'VE GOT 64 AND ONE ABSTAINING, SO THAT MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. WE APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU. TWO TIME.

>>> IF YOU CAN WAIT JUST A MINUTE WHEN WE START THE NEXT AGENDA, I'M GOING TO GO GET YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS.

>> WHERE ARE WE AT? WE'RE ON TO

[J3. 2025-027-Purchase of a SWAT Vehicle for Princeton Police Department Hear presentation, consider, and discuss the purchasing of a SWAT vehicle for the Princeton Police Department. ]

J 32025-027 PURCHASE OF A SWAT VEHICLE FOR PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

HERE A PRESENTATION, CONSIDER AND DISCUSS THE PURCHASING OF A SWAT VEHICLE FOR THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THERE IS NO ACTION PERTAINING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THIS EVENING.

SO WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO SERGEANT TRIM FOR HIS PRESENTATION.

[01:20:08]

>> MR. CHAIRMAN, AND BOARD MEMBERS, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME AND TALK TO YOU GUYS? YOU ARE MY FAVORITE BOARD TO TALK TO.

MR. WATSON SAID, WHAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY.

WE WANT THIS TO BE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU GUYS.

I WANT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I'LL TRY AND MOVE THROUGH THE PRESENTATION SOMEWHAT QUICKLY.

I DO WANT YOU GUYS, LIKE I SAID, TO HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO ANSWER QUESTIONS OR TO ASK QUESTIONS SO I CAN ANSWER THEM BECAUSE THIS IS A BIGGER LINE ITEM TYPE PURCHASE.

WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT, WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL IS AN MRAP.

IT'S A MILITARY VEHICLE.

WE GOT ON THE MILITARY SURPLUS PROGRAM.

I'VE HEARD CITIZENS CALL IT A TANK, THE BIG BROWN MONSTER. YOU NAME IT.

IT REALLY JUST SITS IN THE BACK OF OUR PARKING LOT AND HOLDS THE PARKING LOT DOWN IN CASE WE HAVE HEAVY WINDS CURRENTLY.

BUT IT WAS BUILT FOR THE MILITARY.

IT WAS BUILT FOR COMBAT ZONES.

IT WAS BUILT TO TAKE IDS, EXPLOSIONS WHILE OUT ON PATROL.

IT WAS NOT BUILT TO DRIVE THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

IT WAS NOT BUILT TO DRIVE THE SMALL STREETS, AND IT WAS NOT BUILT TO TURN IN THOSE SMALL STREETS, ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE CITIZENS PARKED ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS TREE.

THE WIDTH OF THIS IS ABOUT 8.5 TO NINE FEET.

SOME OF OUR OLDER STREETS, YOU'RE LOOKING AT MAYBE 23 FEET WIDE WITH CARS PARKED ON EITHER SIDE, ANYWHERE 5-7 FT, AND YOU JUST QUICKLY RAN OUT OF ROOM, AND NOW WE'RE HAVING TO PAY FOR EVERYONE TO GET NEW VEHICLES.

BECAUSE THIS WON A FIAT, ALL THE WAY UP TO 450 AREN'T GOING TO STOP IT.

IT'S JUST GOING TO RUN RIGHT THROUGH THEM.

THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES OR THE MAIN ISSUE.

WE'VE USED IT TWICE.

WE'VE HAD ABOUT 12 OR 14 DIFFERENT OPERATIONS SOMEWHERE IN THERE FOR OUR SRT TEAM, AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO USE IT TWICE.

THE FIRST WAS IFFY BECAUSE WE USED IT IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX, AND THE SECOND ONE, WHEN WE GOT ONTO 380 TO GET TO OUR LOCATION, WE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING TO GET OUT OF FIRST GEAR.

WE MADE IT, AND WE MADE IT BACK, BUT WE DIDN'T KNOW IF WE WERE GOING TO GET OUT OF FIRST GEAR.

THE OTHER ISSUE, OUTSIDE OF POOR MANEUVERABILITY IS THE WEIGHT.

YOU NEED A CLASS B DRIVER'S LICENSE.

WE HAVE THREE PEOPLE CURRENTLY ON THE SRT TEAM THAT CAN DRIVE IT BECAUSE THEY HAVE A CLASS B, AND ONE OF THEM IS A FIREMAN.

WE LOVE OUR FIREMEN.

WE DON'T LOVE THEM DRIVING OUR VEHICLES, BUT ONE OF THEM IS A FIREMAN AND THEN COST.

COST AND PARTS.

THIS IS NOT A VEHICLE YOU CAN RUN TO ORLEYS AND GET A HOSE FOR.

A LOT OF TIMES IT'S HARD TO FIND BATTERIES.

SO IT'S A DIFFERENT SIZE BATTERY.

IT'S NOT YOUR STANDARD VEHICLE BATTERY.

IT'S ABOUT TWICE THE SIZE, AND THERE'S FOUR OF THEM.

ONE BATTERY IS ABOUT $200, AND THAT'S IF IT'S A BATTERY ISSUE.

THERE'S NOTHING STANDARD ON IT BECAUSE IT'S CUSTOM MADE FOR THE MILITARY.

IS REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT.

VEHICLE UNDERNEATH IT, WE'LL CALL IT THE SPECIAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLE.

IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH OUR GOALS AND VALUES AS WELL AS THE CDC GOALS AND VALUES.

GRANTED, THERE IS A NEED FOR IT TO BE USED DURING SRT OPERATIONS, BUT IT ONLY REQUIRES A CLASSY DRIVER'S LICENSE.

WHAT THIS MEANS IS AT TWO IN THE MORNING WHEN OUR PATROL GUYS NEED SOMETHING MORE SERIOUS THAN AT TAHOE, WHETHER IT IS A HIGH RISK SITUATION, HIGH WATERS, GOD FORBID A TORNADO COME THROUGH TOWN, AND WE NEED SOMETHING FOUR WHEEL DRIVE THAT CAN MOVE MORE THAN ONE PERSON AT A TIME.

PATROL CAN GRAB THIS AND USE IT.

THE IDEA IS WHEN AND IF WE GET ONE OF THESE, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE SWAT ALL OVER IT, IT'S JUST GOING TO SAY PRINCETON POLICE.

IT'S GOING TO HAVE OUR BADGE OR JUST A PRINCETON LOGO, BECAUSE SRT WILL BE THE PRIMARY USER OF IT.

HOWEVER, ANYONE IN THE PD WILL BE ABLE TO DRIVE IT AND USE IT FOR WHATEVER THEY NEED TO USE IT FOR, ESPECIALLY IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.

THIS VEHICLE IS ON A F 550 CHASSIS.

WE'LL GO OVER SOME OF THIS AND LATER SLIDES.

THIS VEHICLE IS ON A F 550 CHASSIS, WHICH IS A BIGGER VEHICLE, HOWEVER, IT'S NOT SO BIG THAT SOMEONE WHO'S DRIVING A TAHOE ALL DAY CAN'T DRIVE THIS.

IT'S GOING TO FIT DOWN ALL OF YOUR STREETS.

IT FITS IN A NORMAL PARKING LOT, AND IT'S OPERATIONAL.

ANYTIME THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH IT, SO THEY CAN EITHER TAKE IT TO A FORD DEALERSHIP BECAUSE IT'S F 550 CHASSIS.

[01:25:04]

IT CAN BE TAKEN, THE ENGINE IS AN F 550.

EVERYTHING IS F 550, OR OUR GUYS OVER AT FLEET CAN WORK ON IT BECAUSE IT'S A FOR PRODUCT AND FORD PRODUCTS ARE EASY TO FIND FOR THE MOST PART.

ANY MAINTENANCE ISSUES.

>> THEN THE LAST THING, AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT, IS A LOT MORE APPROACHABLE.

IF YOU GO STAND NEXT TO THE MRAP THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IT FEELS LIKE IT'S ABOUT 20 FEET TALL.

THE F-550 HAS A LITTLE BIT OF A LIFT ON IT JUST FOR GROUND CLEARANCE BECAUSE IT'S A FOUR-BY-FOUR TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER, BUT IT'S NOT SO TALL THAT KIDS, IF WE NEEDED TO, COULDN'T GET IN AND OUT OF IT.

IT'S A LOT MORE APPROACHABLE, IT'S NOT NEARLY AS LARGE.

THESE ARE THREE DIFFERENT COMPANIES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT CURRENTLY.

I WON'T GET INTO ALL THE BALLISTIC PROTECTIONS.

THEY ALL HAVE ABOUT THE SAME BALLISTIC PROTECTION.

SOME COMPANIES ARE BETTER THAN OTHERS.

I DON'T WANT TO THROW TOO MANY NAMES, I DON'T WANT TO BURN BRIDGES THAT DON'T NEED TO BE BURNED IN CASE STUFF HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE, BUT SOME COMPANIES ARE BETTER AT THE BALLISTIC PROTECTION THAN OTHERS.

SOME COMPANIES ARE BETTER AT MANUFACTURING THESE QUICKER THAN OTHERS.

FOR EXAMPLE, OUR COMPETITOR 1 THEY TAKE ABOUT 12 TO 18 MONTHS, IF NOT LONGER, FROM DATE OF PURCHASE TO GET A VEHICLE INTO THE DEPARTMENT THAT ORDERED IT.

COMPETITOR 2 THEY TRY KEEP VEHICLES IN STOCK, THEY'RE ALMOST IMMEDIATE, BUT THAT IS AN F-600 CHASSIS, AND IT LOOKS A LOT LIKE THE MRAP, WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO GET AWAY FROM.

WE WANT SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE CURVY THAT'S NOT NEARLY AS MILITARISTIC DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, SOMETHING THAT WHEN WE ARE AT EVENTS, KIDS AREN'T SCARED TO WALK UP TO, PARENTS AREN'T SCARED TO WALK UP TO BECAUSE WHEN WE'RE NOT USING IT FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE OR SOME CRISIS, THE GOAL IS TO HAVE THIS AT REALLY ANY EVENT WE CAN.

THEN, TO PUSH IT, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE JUST HAD HOMECOMING.

DID ANYONE GO TO THE HOMECOMING GAME? THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THERE WAS RIDICULOUS.

I DIDN'T EVER THINK I'D SEE THAT MANY PEOPLE AT THE PRINCETON GAME, BUT IT HAPPENED.

IT WAS VERY NICE, BUT IT HAVE THIS PARKED OUT IN FRONT OF THE STADIUM.

NOT ONLY CAN IT BE SOMETHING THAT IS A DETERRENT AND PROVIDE PROTECTION, BUT WE CAN ALSO TURN IT INTO SOMETHING FUN FOR LIKE A TOUCH THE TRUCK EVENT, LIKE WIDELY HAS, SOMETHING WHERE WE CAN TURN THE LIGHTS ON AND HAVE FAMILIES SEE A COOL TOY.

THERE'S A LOT OF ACCESSORIES THAT COME WITH THEM, AND TO BE ABLE TO SHOW THOSE OFF AND PROVIDE PROTECTION AT THE SAME TIME, WHILE BUILDING COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS, IS REALLY THE END GOAL HERE IS TO HAVE A DEEPER RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR COMMUNITY.

SOME COMPETITORS ARE BETTER AT THAT THAN OTHERS.

I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS BECAUSE WE PIVOTED ON THIS.

THE GOAL IS TO GET DIRECTION FROM YOU GUYS SO WE CAN GO OUT FOR AN RFP, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU GUYS ARE INTERESTED IN, AND THEN BRING BACK TO THE TABLE THE THREE TOP ONES.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR COMMUNITY RELATIONS SIDE OF IT.

LIKE I SAID, SRT, THIS YEAR HAS RUN ABOUT 12-14 DIFFERENT OPERATIONS.

WHILE WE AREN'T RUNNING OPERATIONS, THIS WILL BE USED 100% AT ANY EVENT WE CAN GET IT.

I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THIS.

WE CAN RUN LIGHTS DURING THE HOMECOMING PARADE.

WE CAN USE IT ON A CHRISTMAS PARADE.

THIS IS GREENVILLE'S VEHICLE, AND THAT'S SANTA.

YOU CAN HAVE SANTA AT THE TOP IN THE PICTURE.

ANY TYPE OF SCHOOL OUTREACH, WE HAVE TOUCHED THE TRUCK EVENTS, OUR FOURTH OF JULY, PUMPKIN PALOOZA, OR WHEN WE DO NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WHETHER WE HOST SOMETHING HERE AT THE CITY OR AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION, OR WE DRIVE TO NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE WE HAVE BEEN, THIS IS EASILY ABLE TO BE DRIVEN FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT'S AN F-550 AND NOT AN MRAP.

THE BENEFIT OF THIS ONE, IT'S GOING TO BE OPERATIONAL.

LIKE I SAID, THE REASON WE HAVEN'T USED THE MRAP IS IT HASN'T BEEN OPERATIONAL, OR WHERE WE HAVE GONE FOR DIFFERENT OPERATIONS IS TOO FAR.

[01:30:06]

WHAT I MEAN BY TOO FAR IS WE'RE SCARED, IT WON'T MAKE IT BACK.

WHEN I SAY TOO FAR, I MEAN MCKINNEY.

WE RECENTLY HAD SOMETHING THERE, AND IF THE MRAP WOULD HAVE BEEN OPERATIONAL, WE STILL WOULDN'T HAVE TAKEN IT BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL MAKE IT THERE OR MAKE IT BACK.

YOU CAN'T JUST TOW IT WITH A TOW TRUCK, YOU HAVE TO FIND SOMETHING SPECIAL, LIKE A BIG RIG TOW TRUCK, BECAUSE IT WEIGHS OVER 40,000 POUNDS TO GET IT FROM POINT A TO POINT B.

WE WOULD LIKE SOMETHING THAT IS MULTI-ROLE AND HAS MULTI-ROLE CAPABILITIES.

WE CAN SUPPORT RESCUES, EVACUATIONS, MEDICAL STAGING, ACTIVE THREAT RESPONSE, LIKE I SAID, MOST IMPORTANTLY, COMMUNITY OUTREACH.

YOU GUYS HAVE TALKED TO CHIEF WATERS.

HE'S VERY BIG ON COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND IF NOT ANYTHING, I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THIS TO THE PUBLIC AND BE INVOLVED WITH IT WITH THE PUBLIC, IT'S GOING TO GET USED IN THAT MANNER.

THIS VEHICLE, IN PARTICULAR, IS THE TOTAL INVESTMENT FOR THIS ONE WAS $344,804.

THERE'S SOME OF THE WARRANTY AT THE BOTTOM, SO THE GOAL WITH THIS VEHICLE, WE AREN'T A BIG DEPARTMENT, WE AREN'T A BIG CITY, AT LEAST NOT YET.

WE DON'T HAVE FUNDS LIKE ALAN MCKINNEY, SAN ANTONIO HAS A HANDFUL OF THESE, TWO HELICOPTERS, YOU NAME IT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER WILL.

THE GOAL IS TO MAKE THIS LAST TEN, IF NOT 20 YEARS.

THIS IS A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT FOR US.

WE DO KEEP VERY GOOD CARE OF OUR VEHICLES, FOR THE MOST PART, UNLESS A TRUCK DRIVER HITS US, BUT THE END GOAL FOR THIS IS TO HAVE THIS FOR MANY YEARS.

WE'RE NOT GOING OUT AND GETTING TOO, WE DON'T NEED TO, SO THAT'S THE END GOAL.

THEN QUESTIONS, I'M SURE THERE'S PLENTY.

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

>> SURE.

>> WHY ARE WE KEEPING THE OTHER SLOT VEHICLE?

>> THE MRAP, THAT WAS GRANTED TO US ON THE 1033 PROGRAM.

I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT INNER WORKINGS THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY WILEY OR FROM WILEY.

SINCE IT WAS FEDERALLY GRANTED TO US FROM THE MILITARY, WE EITHER HAVE TO GIVE IT BACK OR WE CAN GIVE IT TO ANOTHER AGENCY.

IF WE DO GET ANOTHER VEHICLE, THE GOAL WOULD BE TO GIVE THAT TO ANOTHER AGENCY THAT'S SOMEWHAT LOCAL, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SHIP IT BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TO PAY OUT OF POCKET FOR THAT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, SO WE'RE HOLDING ONTO IT.

NOW, IF SOMETHING REALLY BIG DOES COME OUT, WE JUST GOT THE BATTERIES RECHARGED ON IT TWO WEEKS AGO, WHICH WAS ABOUT A FOUR-DAY ORDEAL.

WE CAN STILL USE IT DEPENDING ON WHERE IT'S AT IN THE CITY BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE HAVE.

CURRENTLY, THE LAST COUPLE OF OPERATIONS WE HAD FROM THE SHOOTING A FEW MONTHS AGO, WE WOULD JUST EITHER ALL HOP IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK OR IN THE BACK OF WE GO COMMANDEER PUBLIC WORKS VANS.

I MEAN, WE JUST HAVE TO FIND A CAR AND PILE IN, ESSENTIALLY.

>> HOW MANY OF YOU GUYS CAN FIT IN THAT THING?

>> INSIDE OF IT, 10.

NOW, MOST OF THEM, AND I'LL GO BACK TO THE THREE PICTURES.

MOST OF THEM FROM THE FRONT DOOR WRAPPING ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE OTHER SIDE, SO YOU GO DRIVER SIDE, ALL THE WAY AROUND THE BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE, WE'LL TYPICALLY HAVE SOME RAILING THERE.

WHAT WE WILL TYPICALLY DO IN MOST OPERATIONS IF WE'LL FIT EVERYONE INSIDE WE CAN OR OUTSIDE, IF IT'S A FURTHER TRIP, WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE VEHICLE, AND WE'LL STAGE, AND EVERYONE GETS ON THE OUTSIDE OF IT.

WELL, SLOW ROLL UP TO WHEREVER WE'RE GOING BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO GET STUCK PILING OUT OF A CAR AND GETTING SHOT AT.

I HAVE A HARD ENOUGH TIME WITH MY KNEES HOPPING OUT OF IT ANYWAY.

>> DO CITIES TYPICALLY HAVE MORE THAN ONE OF THESE TYPES OF VEHICLES?

>> YES, IT DEPENDS ON THE SIZE.

I KNOW DALLAS HAS MULTIPLE, MCKINNEY HAS THE COMPETITOR, ONE IS WHAT MCKINNEY CURRENTLY HAS.

I THINK THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET A SECOND ONE OF THAT.

THEY HAVE ONE THAT WE CALL THE BREAD TRUCK.

IT LOOKS LIKE A UPS ARM OR BREAD TRUCK.

IT'S AN OLDER ONE, AND THAT'S THE ONE IF YOU CALL MCKINNEY AND SAY, HEY, I NEED AN UP-ARMORED VEHICLE, THAT'S THE ONE THEY LET YOU USE.

THEY DON'T GIVE YOU THE NICE ONE, SO THEY HAVE TWO.

I THINK ALAN JUST HAS ONE.

THE BIGGER YOUR AGENCY, THE MORE THEY'LL HAVE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION, SINCE THIS FALLS RIGHT INTO OUR WAREHOUSE OF THINGS WE CAN DO, WHAT DOES HE ASK EXACTLY?

[01:35:01]

ARE YOU ALL GOING TO EXPLORE GRANTS TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS?

>> LAST I LOOKED AT GRANTS, THERE WERE THE ONLY GRANT THAT WAS AVAILABLE WAS AN FMA GRANT, AND THEY ARE VERY STRICT ON WHAT THE VEHICLE CAN ACTUALLY BE USED FOR.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IT CAN BE USED FOR, IF THE SRT TEAM WANTS TO SERVE AN ARREST OR A SEARCH WARRANT AT A HOUSE FOR NARCOTICS, WE HAVE TO GET CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

FMA IS VERY STRICT ON, HEY, THIS CAN ONLY BE USED FOR NATURAL DISASTER-TYPE THINGS, AND IT HAMSTRINGS US AND WHAT WE CAN USE IT FOR. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> HEY, SERGEANT TRAM, CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT FIGURE AGAIN ON THAT, PLEASE?

>> THE FIGURE ON HERE WAS $344,845.

LIKE I SAID, WE AT THE PD, MYSELF, CHIEF, LIEUTENANT CABRERA, WHO'S HERE, EVERYONE ELSE TRIES ME, AND I THINK I'VE SAID IT ONE MILLION TIMES TO YOU GUYS.

WE WANT TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE.

THERE WAS A LAST-MINUTE PIVOT WITH THIS, SO THE WEAVER GROUP DOESN'T INVESTIGATE US.

WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT FOR AN RFP.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING THE RIGHT WAY.

THAT NUMBER CAN CHANGE, MR. THORNTON.

IT CAN BE HIGHER, IT COULD BE LOWER, BUT WE CAN TYPE THIS RFP UP ONE WITH SOME GUIDELINES FROM YOU GUYS, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR OWN AS FAR AS SPECIFICATIONS ON WHAT WE NEED THE VEHICLE TO DO.

>> HEY, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD?

>> SIMPLE QUESTION. I KNOW YOU SAID YOU LOOKED FOR GRANTS.

IS THERE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES YOU CAN LOOK AT TO HELP FUND THE COST, BECAUSE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR US TO PAY THE WHOLE COST?

>> YES, IF THERE WERE.

THE ONLY ONE I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IS FMA.

I SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, I THINK THROUGH FEDERAL PROGRAMS. THE LAST TIME I LOOKED, THERE WERE VERY SPECIFIC SPECIFICATIONS.

I THINK ITS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE MAY HAVE ONE, BUT I THINK THE WHOLE COUNTY HAS TO BE LESS THAN A CERTAIN POPULATION OF THE CITY, AND WE SURPRISINGLY HAVE OUTGROWN SOME OF THAT.

IT'S REALLY THE ONLY ONE THAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND IS FMA.

NOW I CAN DOUBLE-CHECK, ABSOLUTELY, BUT FMA IS THE ONLY ONE SO FAR.

>> IF YOU DO AN RFP, ARE YOU GOING TO PICK, SAY, THE TERRADYNE MPV AND THEN DO AN RFP TO DIFFERENT VENDORS OF THAT SPECIFIC ONE? ARE YOU GOING TO DO AN RFP FOR ALL THREE OF THESE AND SEE WHAT COMES BACK?

>> HONESTLY, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

HAVING NEVER DONE ONE, I'M WORKING WITH FINANCE, AND THEN TIFFANY, WE KNOW WE DO LIKE THE TERRADYNE, BUT LIKE I SAID, IN AN EFFORT TO BE TRANSPARENT, WE'D LIKE TO DO AN RFP TO SEE WHAT OTHER COMPETITORS HAVE.

NOW WE KNOW THERE IS CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT DIFFERENT VEHICLES WE DISLIKE TO INCLUDE TERRADYNE, BUT I'M NOT THE EXPERT IN UP-ARMORED VEHICLES, I KNOW THERE'S MORE THAN THREE COMPANIES OUT THERE, AND THERE MAY BE ONE THAT'S OUT THERE THAT IS PHENOMENAL, THAT WHEN WE DO HOWEVER, WE SEND THE RFP OUT, COMES BACK AND IT'S BETTER THAN ANYTHING WE'VE EVER SEEN, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR.

>> YEAH, AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU STICK WITHIN THE SIZE THAT YOU NEED, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE GOING FOR COMPETITOR NUMBER 2, BECAUSE IT'S JUST LIKE THE ONE YOU ALREADY HAVE.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE SHOULDN'T WASTE YOUR TIME ON THAT FOR SURE.

>> ALTHOUGH I GOT TO TELL YOU, COMPETITOR NUMBER 2 IS COOL LOOKING.

>> THAT BABY ROLLS UP.

IT'S LIKE, IF YOU CAN READ THIS, IT'S ABOUT TO GO DOWN [LAUGHTER].

>> WELL, WE COULD JUST PAINT [OVERLAPPING].

>> I LIKE THAT PART OF IT.

>> WE COULD JUST PAINT THE ONE THAT WE HAVE GRAY, AND THERE'S COMPETITOR NUMBER 2.

>> WHEN WE FIRST GOT IT, WE LOOKED INTO PAINTING IT, AND WE WANTED TO USE A LOCAL BUSINESS, THE BODY SHOP THAT'S NEWER, THAT'S UP HERE OFF OF 380, THEY DO PAINT VEHICLES.

THEIR BASE IS NOT BIG ENOUGH, AND THE TYPE OF METAL AND CURRENT PAINT THAT'S ON THERE ISN'T CONDUCIVE TO BEING PAINTED.

>> I DON'T ACTUALLY WANT YOU TO DO THAT.

>> WE'VE EXPLORED SO MANY OPTIONS.

>> HEY GRANT, QUICK QUESTION.

THAT'S SO, AND JIM DO AS WELL.

HOW CLOSE TO THE LINE ARE WE ON THIS? IS THIS JUST FULL-FLEDGED?

>> YOU GUYS ARE AUTHORIZED. THIS IS WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.

YOU GUYS, AS A TYPE B, ARE AUTHORIZED TO EXPEND FUNDS ON ITEMS LIKE THIS.

TYPE A, NO, BUT TYPE B, YOU HAVE MORE LEEWAY, AND THIS IS APPROPRIATE.

[01:40:03]

>> THE ONLY THING THIS WOULD BE THE LARGEST AMOUNT ON ONE EXPENDITURE THAT WE'VE PUT OUT OUTSIDE OF THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

TO ME, THAT'S WHY I GIVE A LITTLE PAUSE TO CALLS ON THAT.

THIS IS A HUGE AMOUNT, AND I KNOW THE QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE ASKED IS, SHOULDN'T THIS COME OUT OF THE CITY'S BUDGET? SHOW ME STRAIGHT, JIM. COME ON.

>> NO. [OVERLAPPING].

>> TIM, YOU'VE BEEN DOING THIS A LONG TIME, SO [OVERLAPPING].

>> I HAVE.

>> YEAH.

>> HERE'S A DEAL IN AS PLAIN ENGLISH AS I CAN POSSIBLY PUT IT.

IT SOMETIMES GETS OLD BEING SANTA CLAUS OR THE RICH UNCLE.

IF THERE'S EVER A NEW TOY NEEDED OR WANTED, WE'LL GO THERE BECAUSE THEY'LL DO IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT DOES, BUT THAT CAN GET OLD TO ME.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS 26 YEARS, AND I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS FOR 26 YEARS.

HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE OTHER SIDE, AND IT IS A BIG EXPENDITURE.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I SAID WHEN IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION IS MY ONLY INITIAL THOUGHT IS, ONE OF MY FAVORITE SAYS IS THAT YOU CAN ONLY SPEND THE SAME DOLLAR ONCE.

YOU GOT TO GO INTO IT WITH YOUR EYES OPEN, AND WE'VE GOT SOME BIG STUFF OUT THERE.

NOW, YOU JUST FINISHED THE YEAR ENOUGH OVER WHAT WE EXPECTED TO ALMOST PAY FOR THIS WHOLE THING.

WE'VE ALMOST ADDED $300,000 TO OUR FUND BALANCE.

THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT HAVING JUST GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND ADOPTED A BUDGET, I KNOW HOW TIGHT THE CITY BUDGETS ARE.

WE'RE NOT BEING CONSERVATIVE. WE'RE HAVING CUTS.

>> NOT TO CUT YOU OFF REALLY QUICK ON THAT.

THAT SEGUES RIGHT INTO MY NEXT THING IS, WHAT'S GOING TO BE SO THE BUDGET HAS BEEN CUT I KNOW ALL DEPARTMENTS GOT CUTS.

WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE RABBIT HOLE WHEN THE NEXT DEPARTMENT COMES AND SAYS, I NEED $300,000.

BECAUSE I HEARD YOU MENTIONED EARLIER IS YOU'RE GOING TO PUT YOURSELF IN A TRICKY SITUATION WHEN YOU SAY YEAH TO ONE AND NO TO THE OTHER, WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE REASON?

>> THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS AND ALL VERY SPECIFICALLY, PUBLIC SAFETY.

IS AN EXAMPLE, THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE WOULD BE IF FIRE CAME TO US.

QUITE HONESTLY, IF FIRE CAME TO US AND SAID, WE HAVE THIS APPARATUS, AND WE CAN'T AFFORD TO GET.

IT WILL SAVE LIVES, AND THAT'S $300, I WOULD ASK YOU TO DO IT.

I JUST WOULD BECAUSE I THINK IT'S THAT IMPORTANT.

NOW, THE FLIP SIDE OF THE CONCERN, AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I'VE HAD THE SAME ARGUMENT WITH MYSELF THAT ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT.

I'M SEEING BOTH SIDES OF IT.

THE OTHER THING IS THAT I CAN'T THINK OF ANOTHER WAY TO PUT THIS.

YOU TALK ABOUT A PR MOVE AND GETTING SOME GOOD PR FOR THE CDC, PROVIDING POLICE WITH A LIFESAVING PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT CAN MAKE OUR CITY SAFER.

I KNOW. BUT NOT TO THIS LEVEL.

[LAUGHTER] WE'VE SPENT GOOD MONEY ON IT, AND I WOULD NEVER BE HONEST WITH YOU, I WOULD NEVER ARGUE THAT THAT BULLETPROOF VEST DRONES, I WOULD NEVER ARGUE THAT THAT'S A BAD EXPENDITURE BECAUSE I LIVE HERE.

IT KEEPS ME AND YOU SAFER. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S GOING TO BE YOU ALL'S DECISION.

I WILL SAY IT'S CERTAINLY LEGAL.

I SAY THERE'S CERTAINLY AN UPSIDE.

EVERY TIME WE DO A MAJOR EXPENDITURE, I HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO MANAGE MONEY AROUND IT.

WHETHER IT'S ON THIS OR ANOTHER MAJOR EXPENDITURE, AT THE END OF THE DAY, ASK YOURSELF, IS THIS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY, NOT JUST THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE GIVING CHIEF WATER STUFF.

I JUST DON'T. BUT IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY, I BITE MY TONGUE, AND I DO IT ANYWAY. [LAUGHTER] SERIOUSLY.

IT IS A LOT OF MONEY.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BREAK THE BANK. IT'S NOT.

I'LL ALSO SAY, LIKE EVERY PROJECT WE DO, JUST BECAUSE THE FESTIVAL THING IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT EXAMPLE.

I THINK YOU ALL KNOW WHY BECAUSE IT'S MORE TIED TO DIFFERENT CULTURES AND BELIEF SYSTEMS, AND IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE CITY.

IT'S A NICK, LET'S GO HAVE FUN TYPE THING.

AT THE END OF THE DAY WE KNOW WHAT WE'VE GOT IN THE BANK.

[01:45:01]

WE KNOW A LOT OF WHAT WE'VE GOT AHEAD OF US.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF IT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

ON THE PRIORITY LIST, WHERE'S IT FALL? DO YOU THINK IT'S A GOOD EXPENDITURE? IF IT IS, I WILL TELL YOU AS STAFF WE CAN AFFORD IT.

I WILL TELL YOU IT'S LEGAL.

I CAN'T TELL YOU TO DO IT.

>> YEAH, I THINK JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF JIM SAID, TOO, WE'VE CROSSED THAT FIRST THRESHOLD, WHICH IS IT LEGAL? THIS IN THE PLAYING FIELDS, IS SOMETHING YOU GUYS CAN DO.

THEN AT THAT POINT, ITS DECISIONS UP TO THE BOARD, IN YOUR SOUND DISCRETION, IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO PROMOTE NEW BUSINESS? IS IT GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE? IS IT GOING TO SET PRINCETON APART? IS IT SOMETHING AS NEW BUSINESSES COME IN IT'S MORE ATTRACTIVE TO THEM? YOU HAVE A POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH THIS TYPE OF CAPABILITY AND EQUIPMENT.

THAT'S UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.

BUT, YES, IT'S CERTAINLY LEGAL, JUST TO SAY THAT AGAIN, AND IT'S A BIG EXPENDITURE, BUT SOMETHING THAT IS UP TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BOARD.

>> IT COULD BE A SITUATION WHERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR PAYMENT SYSTEM IS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'D WRITE A THREE OR $400,000 CHECK ON THE FRONT END.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DO THEIR FINANCES ON THESE DEALS.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE FINANCE PUT IN THEIR RP.

IS AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHAT'S IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? ARE WE TALKING $50,000 FOR SIX YEARS? ARE WE TALKING $300,000 TOMORROW? I WOULD THINK IF I WAS SITTING UP THERE, THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW, JUST SO THEY CAN LOOK AT EVERYTHING.

IT'S A BIG DECISION FOR THEM TO MAKE.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS SOMEWHAT GOING TO ANSWER.

THE TWO COMPANIES, I'VE TALKED TO THEIR THEIR SALES REPS. FINANCING IS AN OPTION.

LIKE BUYING A CAR, YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH THEM, AND GO GET YOUR OWN LOAN AND ALL THAT STUFF.

BUT THE LUMP SUM OF THE MONEY IS TYPICALLY DUE ONCE IT'S DELIVERED.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> WHEN ARE YOU PLANNING TO START THE RFP PROCESS?

>> TOMORROW.

>> THAT'S A PERFECT GAME.

>> THAT'S TOMORROW, THEN.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE KEY TO HELP US TO DECIDE ONCE YOU GO AND GET THE THREE BIDS, OR EVEN IF YOU FIND MORE, SO WE CAN REALLY LOOK AT THE TOTAL COST AND THEN FUTURE MAINTENANCE OR WHATEVER IT WILL NEED IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM US.

>> I DON'T IMAGINE AND I COULD BE WAY OFF BASE.

I KNOW THE THREE COMPANIES I'VE TALKED TO, DEPENDING ON HOW THE RFP IS WRITTEN, THEY'RE PRETTY STANDARD AS FAR AS HERE'S PACKAGE A, HERE'S PACKAGE B, OR HERE'S A LIST, AND BASED OFF YOUR NEEDS, THIS IS WHAT THE COST IS.

THEY HAVE IT ALL. IT'S JUST LIKE BUYING A CAR, AND SO THEY CAN GET THOSE BACK PRETTY QUICKLY. YEAH.

>> ONE OTHER QUESTION. JIM AND GRANT, I KNOW YOU ALL REPEATED YOURSELF TWICE ON SO WE'RE FINE WITH THIS WHOLE OF IF ANOTHER AGENCY DEPARTMENT THAT NEEDED SOMETHING AT THIS COST TO SAVE LIVES THAT WE WOULD SAY BECAUSE THAT HAS TO BE A FAIR THING THAT WE GO DOWN AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE WILLING TO DO THIS AND STEP IN AND FILL THE GAP.

I'M NOT SAYING EITHER WAY.

HE IS MY GUY RIGHT HERE. ABSOLUTELY.

>> I DON'T LIKE HIM VERY MUCH.

>> I LIKE HIM.

>> I STILL BRING [OVERLAPPING] I DO LIKE HIM A LOT.

BUT NO, JUST FULL TRANSPARENCY JUST BEING HONEST WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THE NEXT ONE COMES, AND AT SOME POINT, WHERE DOES IT STOP? BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS ISN'T 50,000.

THIS ISN'T A 100,000.

THIS IS OUR SECOND BIGGEST PURCHASE OR EXPENDITURE OUTSIDE OF [OVERLAPPING].

>> A COUPLE OF THINGS AT THE END OF THE DAY IS WHENEVER I BRING THINGS TO YOU, I GENERALLY BRING THEM TO YOU WITH A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DO FOR US.

>> YEAH.

>> I'M NOT ON THIS TONIGHT, IT'S A DISCUSSION ITEM.

WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO TAKE ANY ACTION TONIGHT OTHER THAN GIVE HIM DIRECTION.

I WOULD RECOMMEND THIS SAYING, HEY, LOOK, PUT OUT YOUR RFP.

LET'S SEE WHAT COMES IN, SO WE AT LEAST KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

LET'S LOOK AT THE TERMS. LET'S SEE WHAT IT'LL TAKE TO GET YOU WHERE IT IS, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 340,000 AND 700,000.

IF ALL THE STUFF THAT THEY NEED ON THIS VEHICLE COMES BACK TO $700,000, THAT'S PRETTY HARD FOR ME TO SWALLOW.

I WOULD SAY, YOU DON'T DO THE HOMEWORK.

IF FIRE CAME TO ME AND SAID, HEY, WE NEED THIS, AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT MIKE MASHBURN, HE'D SENT OUT AN E-MAIL TO EVERY DEPARTMENT SAYING,

[01:50:02]

DO NOT ASK THE CORPORATIONS FOR ANYTHING.

>> YEAH.

>> UNLESS IT COMES BY MY DESK.

HE APPROVED THIS. SAID, OKAY, YOU CAN ASK.

HE DIDN'T SAY, JIM, I WANT YOU TO DO IT.

HE SAID, CODY AND CHIEF, FEEL FREE TO ASK HIM.

BUT IF FIRE CAME TO ME, I WOULD GO THROUGH THE EXACT SAME EXERCISE, AND WE'D LEARN ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, TO TAKE NOT HEAT, BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT OF THE DIRECTION OFF THE BOARD.

I WOULD COME TO YOU AND SAY, I REALLY THINK WE NEED TO DO THIS, OR IF WE DECIDE THAT IF I THINK IT'S A REALLY BAD IDEA IN ADVANCE, I MAY EVEN COME TO THE BOARD AND SAY, LET'S DISCUSS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION NEXT MONTH AND A MONTH AFTER IF THE BOARD WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD, I WILL COME AND RECOMMEND IT PUBLICLY, AND IF THEY DON'T, I WON'T PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.

I'LL JUST TALK TO FIRE.

YOU HAVE TO BE CONSCIOUS OF PRECEDENTS, BUT YOU CAN'T BE AFRAID OF THEM, AND THAT'S YOUR DECISION TO MAKE.

I CAN'T MAKE IT, BUT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY, AND I WILL GIVE A RECOMMENDATION. YOU KNOW WHAT? I JUST THINK IT'S WORTH IT, OR MAYBE WE CAN PAY THIS MUCH IF THEY CAN FIND THIS MUCH.

>> I AGREE WITH MS. SAMUEL TO MAKE A MOTION FOR YOU TO COME BACK.

TAKE ACTION FOR YOU TO COME NOT A MOTION.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> JUST GIVE GENERAL DIRECTION THAT, HEY, WE'D BE WILLING TO LISTEN.

>> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> YOU MENTIONED SAVING LIVES.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS VEHICLE, I CAN SEE IT BEING REALLY USEFUL IN TORNADO SITUATIONS.

ICE STORMS LIKE WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST, AND WE WILL HAVE AGAIN.

SO, IN THOSE SITUATIONS, WOULD YOU GUYS BE ABLE TO RESCUE PEOPLE THAT ARE POSSIBLY TRAPPED?

>> THAT'S THE GOAL IS TO BE ABLE TO GET TO PLACES WHERE A TYPICAL TAHOE CAN'T.

OUR TAHOES ARE NOT FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE.

WE ONLY HAVE I BELIEVE THE TRUCKS ARE FOUR WHEEL DRIVE, CORRECT? TWO TAHOES ARE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE.

THIS WOULD BE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE.

IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE AGGRESSIVE TRUCKS OR TIRES AS FAR AS ALL TERRAIN.

TO BE ABLE TO GET TO AREAS, WHETHER THERE'S A FLOOD, A TORNADO, WHATEVER THAT NATURAL DISASTER IS, TO BE ABLE TO GET THERE.

ALL THREE OF THESE, AND MOST OF ANY OTHER COMPETITOR OUT THERE HAS A RAM THAT GOES ON THE FRONT, AND TYPICALLY IT'S USED TO PUSH IN A FRONT DOOR OR A WINDOW OR SOMETHING SAFELY.

HOWEVER, THAT SAME THING CAN BE USED TO PUSH STUFF OUT OF THE WAY, JUST IN GENERAL, WHICH IS WHAT WE'VE SEEN AS FAR AS RESCUE TYPE STUFF.

THEY ACTUALLY MAKE THE SAME PLATFORMS FOR A LOT OF THESE SAME EXACT PLATFORM, EXCEPT IT MAY HAVE A FIRE HOSE ON TOP, AND FIRE DEPARTMENT CAN USE IT TO SPRAY STUFF AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

THEY MAKE DIFFERENT VARIANTS, BUT THE CHASSIS AND THE BUILD IS THE SAME, SO YOU CAN STILL USE IT. IT'S A MULTIROLE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> YES, ABSOLUTELY.

>> I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT, SERGEANT TRIM, WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO GO AHEAD AND PROCEED WITH GETTING THE RFPS.

SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO DO THREE, OR YOU MAY GET MORE, BUT COME BACK WITH THREE.

YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH HOW YOU GOT TO A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK WE WOULD LIKE TO HEAR AS WELL TOO.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE THE ONES USING THE VEHICLE, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE AND A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT.

MAYBE EVEN EITHER YOURSELF OR CHIEF CAN COME IN AND SHARE SOME STATS WITH US ON WHERE YOU'RE AT WITH HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE USED? WHAT'S YOUR AVERAGE AMOUNT OF CALLS? HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO OTHER DEPARTMENTS? I THINK PRINCETON'S PRETTY ACTIVE.

I THINK THAT ELEVATES.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HERE WOULD NEGATE THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR THIS.

I THINK MOST OF THE DISCUSSION IS GOING TO BE WHETHER THE BOARD PUTS THE MONEY UP FOR IT OR NOT, BUT I JUST THINK IT'D BE HELPFUL TO KNOW THAT.

I WOULD ANTICIPATE SEVERAL OF YOU ON THE BOARD AS WELL WOULD ALSO MAYBE LIKE TO SEE ANY OF THIS IN PERSON TO MAYBE COMPARE AND CONTRAST, IF YOU WOULD.

THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT IF YOU GUYS COULD ARRANGE AS WELL.

>> HEY, AND ONE OTHER QUESTION I HAD.

DO YOU KNOW IF CITY IS COMPARABLE TO OUR SIZE? HAVE THESE VEHICLES LIKE MELISSA, ANNA, LITTLE ELM, THINGS LIKE THAT.

I KNOW, LIKE THE BIGGER CITIES LIKE ALLEN AND MCKINNEY.

YEAH. THEY'RE DOUBLE TRIPLE THE SIZE OF US, BUT LIKE OTHER CITIES COMPARABLE TO OUR SIZE.

DO THEY HAVE ONE OF THESE VEHICLES YET?

>> THE CLOSEST ONE IS GOING TO BE GREENVILLE.

THEY'RE COMPARABLE TO A POINT.

I THINK THEY HAVE 70 SOMETHING.

[01:55:05]

>> GREENVILLE IS SMALLER THAN WE ARE POPULATION NOW.

>> YEAH, THEY HAVE ONE.

THEY'VE HAD THEIRS FOR TWO YEARS, MAYBE.

ANNA AND MELISSA DON'T HAVE AN SRT TEAM BECAUSE WE'RE BETTER.

[LAUGHTER]

>> WHICH WERE NOW ON RECORD FOR STAT.

>> YEAH. CELINA DOESN'T HAVE ONE. WE LOVE ANNA AND MELISSA.

DON'T GET ME WRONG. YEAH. CELINA DOESN'T HAVE ONE.

THOSE CITIES DON'T HAVE ONE.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ALSO SOME OF THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO GET SOME OF THE INFORMATION AROUND, HOW MANY CALLS IS SRT GETTING AND HOW DOES THAT STACK AGAINST SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES.

THEN ALSO, I KNOW THERE ARE SOME INTER AGENCY THINGS THAT HAVE TRANSPIRED AND WE CONTINUE TO TRANSPIRE AND WHAT SOME OF THE EFFECTS OF THAT MIGHT BE AS WELL, CAUSE I THINK THAT ALSO FEEDS INTO THE, IS THIS REALLY NECESSARY OR NOT? ANY QUESTIONS ON DIRECTION?

>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ANYTHING DIRECTION WISE FROM YOU GUYS? I KNOW IN THE ROUGH DRAFT ONE THAT I'VE STARTED TYPING UP, MAX WAS $400,000.

THIS IS AN EASY NUMBER.

WE CAN CHANGE THAT TO WHATEVER YOU GUYS ARE WANTING.

I THINK WE HAVE NOTHING LARGER THAN F-550 CHASSIS AS ONE OF THE BIG ONES.

ONE OF THE COMPETITORS THAT WAS UP THERE WILL ACTUALLY CUT THE CHASSIS.

SHRINK THE WHEEL BASE AREA AND THEN REPUT THE PART THEY CUT OUT ON THE BACK SIDE.

I'M NOT A HUGE FAN OF THAT.

I'M NOT A MECHANIC, BUT NOR DO I DO HOUSE STUFF, BUT AS SOON AS YOU START MESSING WITH FOUNDATIONS AND CHASSIS NEVER THE SAME.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME OF THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE AND OUR FINANCE AND THE GRANTS OF THE WORLD WHO ARE GOOD WITH THE LANGUAGE STUFF CAN PUT IN THERE, HEY, NO ALTERATIONS TO THE CHASSIS, BECAUSE THAT'LL AVOID WARRANTIES, STUFF LIKE THAT.

>> I WOULD JUST MAKE SURE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT NO TWO OF THESE ARE IDENTICAL BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OPTIONS THAT COME ON THEM.

SO WE'RE ALL AWARE ON THE FRONT AND MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED ON THIS THING IS IN THE RFQ INSTEAD OF, YEAH, IT'S 340,000.

BY THE WAY, WE REALLY NEED 150,000 MORE IN ADD-ONS.

MAKE SURE IT COVERS EVERYTHING.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR COMING IN AND SPEAKING WITH US, AND LET US KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

ABSOLUTELY THAT ALONG THE WAY, AND WE'LL BE CERTAIN TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM J42025-028,

[J4. 2025-028-Updated Facility Management Agreement for the Community Center Consider, discuss, and act on an updated facility management agreement between the PCDC and City of Princeton for the Steve and Judy Deffibaugh Community Center. ]

UPDATED FACILITY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND ACT ON UPDATED FACILITY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PCDC AND CITY OF PRINCETON FOR THE STEVE AND JUDY DUFALL COMMUNITY CENTER.

>> AS YOU ALL KNOW PREVIOUSLY, AND I DIDN'T KNOW UNTIL PRETTY LATE IN THE GAME.

I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT IT WAS FORMALIZED AS MUCH AS IT WAS, BUT THE CDC ESSENTIALLY LEASED THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO THE CITY, AND THEN PARKS RAN THE COMMUNITY CENTER OFF OF THAT LEASE.

THAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.

ONE OF THE SIGNIFICANT REASONS IS ONCE AGAIN, BUDGET PARKS IS TAKING ON MORE PARKS, AND THEY'VE GOT A FAIRLY ABOUT A $300,000 BUDGET CUT, I BELIEVE THIS YEAR.

BUT ALSO, AS I READ OVER THE LEASE, I DON'T LOVE THE STRUCTURE OR THE IMPLICATION OF A LEASE.

I GOT WITH GRANT AND SAID, IN MY OPINION, I'D MUCH RATHER IT BE A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT.

IF YOU LEASE SOMEBODY SOMETHING, THEY INTRINSICALLY HAVE POSSESSION OF IT.

THEY'RE PAYING YOU FOR AN ITEM, AND THAT'S REALLY NOT THE WAY THIS IS.

I MEAN, WE'RE SHARING REVENUE, AND WE'RE GIVING THEM SOME OPPORTUNITY.

ACTUALLY, WE'RE USING THEIR MANPOWER TO JUST MANAGE IT, PROGRAM IT, SCHEDULE IT, COLLECT LEASE MONEY, OR RENTAL MONEY FOR EVENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

NOW, I WROTE A MEMO, AND I'M GOING TO GO DOWN SOME OF IT, AND I'M JUST GOING TO WARN YOU IN ADVANCE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO LIKE ALL OF IT.

I DON'T LIKE ALL OF IT.

I DON'T THINK THE CITY OF PARKS LOVES ALL OF IT, WHICH MEANS WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

BUT REALLY, JUST THE BULLET POINTS OF THIS MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT, AS YOU KNOW, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD TAKE OVER ALL THE PROGRAMMING SCHEDULING,

[02:00:04]

MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 9:00-5:00 MINOR MAINTENANCE STUFF, CLEANING UP MINOR STUFF DURING THE WEEK.

THEY DON'T HAVE THE OVERTIME MONEY TO HAVE THEIR GUYS THERE ON WEEKENDS AND THEIR OWN CALLS COMING SATURDAY, SUNDAY, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

BUT THEY WILL PROVIDE OVERSIGHT, MINOR MAINTENANCE, THAT TYPE OF THING DURING WEEKDAY HOURS.

IF THERE'S ANY MAJOR COSTLY REPAIR THAT OUR GUYS CAN'T DO THEMSELVES, AND WE HAVE TO HIRE SOMEBODY, WE WOULD HIRE SOMEBODY AND PAY FOR THAT.

WE WILL ALSO HIRE A LANDSCAPING AND LAWN MAINTENANCE COMPANY.

I KNOW THAT THAT IS PROBABLY NOT LOVED BY THE BOARD.

OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT CAN'T MOW OUR CURRENT FACILITIES.

THEY'RE HAVING TO BRING IN MOWING CONTRACTORS TO MOW WHAT THEY HAVE, AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO ADD THIS TO ALL OF THAT.

WE WOULD USE THEIR MOWING CONTRACTOR, WE WOULD JUST REIMBURSE FOR JUST THE COMMUNITY CENTER ITSELF.

WE WOULD ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TELL THEM HOW OFTEN WE WANTED IT DONE AND THAT TYPE OF THING.

IN OTHER WORDS, DURING THE WINTER, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE EVERY WEEK. THE GRASS IS DEAD.

IT'S NOT GROWING. IF THERE'S A MAJOR CLEAN, WE'VE GOT TO DO A DEEP CLEAN OR WE'VE GOT TO KEEP A DEPOSIT FROM SOMEBODY, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A MAJOR CLEANING.

WE WOULD HAVE A CLEANING COMPANY DO IT, THE CLEANING COMPANY THAT IS TAKING OVER THE CITY'S CONTRACT IS BIDDING ME ON THAT.

I THINK THEY DID THE MAJOR CLEAN BEFORE THE OPEN HOUSE.

THEY DID A FANTASTIC JOB.

NOW, IT'S WHAT THEY CALL AN AFTER CONSTRUCTION CLEANING, WHICH IS NORMALLY ABOUT $6,000, BUT THEY DID IT FOR $2,000.

A DEEP CLEAN ON THAT, CLEAN THE AIR VENTS, EVERYTHING.

CDC WILL ALLOW THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THE CITY, FOR INTERNAL USE TO USE IT WITHOUT CHARGE.

I THINK IN THE PAST, AND I'VE HEARD STORIES AGAIN, I WASN'T HERE THAT THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE DEPARTMENT THAT GOT TO USE FOR FREE AND ANOTHER DEPARTMENT ENDED UP PAYING TO RENT IT.

THEY CAN USE IT FOR FREE, BUT ONLY IF IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH A PAYING CUSTOMER OF OURS.

IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO LEASE IT ON THAT NIGHT AND THE POLICE WANTS TO HAVE THE AWARDS DINNER THERE, THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER NIGHT OR THEY CAN PAY IF THEY WERE THE FIRST ONE REQUESTING.

IF IT'S AN EVENT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC THAT'S CHARGED FOR, THAT COMES TO THE CDC.

IF IT'S SAY A SENIOR EVENT THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS PUTTING ON, BUT THEY CHARGE A NOMINAL FEE TO SENIORS FOR WHATEVER, THEY CAN KEEP THAT.

THEY USED TO DO SOME PERCENTAGE SPLITS ON EVERYTHING, AND IT JUST GOT CONFUSING, QUITE HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE YOU EVER GOT WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN.

IF IT'S A NON-PAYING EVENT THAT'S BEING APPROVED, ALTHOUGH ALL THE RENTALS GO THROUGH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.

I'LL USE AN OBVIOUS EXAMPLE BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN ALLOWED, AND I ASSUME THE BOARD WOULD LIKE MEALS ON WHEELS TO CONTINUE TO USE IT NOW THAT IT REOPENS FOR THEIR SENIOR PROGRAMMING AND FOR THEIR MEAL DELIVERY, WHATEVER.

I'M NOT COMMITTING ON YOUR BEHALF, BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT, IF THEY CONTACT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND WANT TO USE FACILITY FOR FREE, THEY HAVE TO CALL ME AND ASK PERMISSION.

THEY CAN'T ADOPT SOMEBODY AS A FREE USER JUST BECAUSE THEY WANT TO.

THEY HAVE TO GET OUR BUY-IN.

I THINK THAT'S THE HIGH POINTS.

AGAIN, WE PROVIDED THE DOCUMENT ITSELF TO YOU EARLY IF YOU HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK OVER IT.

I AM EXTRAORDINARILY ANXIOUS FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO BE MANAGING THIS FACILITY.

OUR ONLY OTHER OPTION IS FOR OUR TWO-PERSON STAFF TO DO ALL OF THAT WORK, AND IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST.

NOT PERFECT, I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN THE ONE WE HAD QUITE HONESTLY, AT LEAST IN THE FORM AND THE PROTECTIONS, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION.

HOW MUCH WAS THE ORIGINAL LEASE THAT WE WERE PAYING THEM TO OPERATE THE BUILDING FOR US?

>> GRANT, REMIND ME, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS MORE OF A LEASE FOR SERVICES RENDERED.

>> CORRECT. YOU AREN'T GETTING A LEASE PAYMENT FROM THE CITY NECESSARILY.

THE CITY WAS ESSENTIALLY COVERED.

>> WELL, I KNEW WE SPLITTING THE PROCEEDS OF ANY RENTALS. IS THAT ALL IT WAS? THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE NOW WE'RE TAKING ON LANDSCAPING AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH YOU SAID WE WOULD PROBABLY JUST REIMBURSE WITH THEIR CONTRACTOR, BUT ALSO CLEANING COMPANIES.

THAT CAN GET EXPENSIVE DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH IS USED AND USED FOR WHAT?

[02:05:04]

>> NOW, EVERY USER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CLEANING THE FACILITY WHEN THEY'RE DONE, AND THEY HAVE A DEPOSIT.

DURING THE WEEK FOR REGULAR SMALL USERS, PARKS IS GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT.

I MEAN, IF THEY WALK IN THERE, SOMEBODY'S HAD A BACHELOR PARTY AND THE PLACE IS A DISASTER.

THE BACHELOR PARTY WAS ON SATURDAY, WE'VE GOT AN EVENT ON SUNDAY.

I GOT TO GET A CLEANING CREW IN THERE ON SUNDAY TO GET IT CLEANED UP.

WE WILL OBVIOUSLY KEEP THEIR DEPOSIT AND PROBABLY PURSUE OTHER [OVERLAPPING]

>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE REASON I'M ASKING ALL THIS IS BECAUSE HOW MUCH ARE WE GOING TO BE PAYING THEM UNDER THIS NEW AGREEMENT TO DO THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHEDULING AND EVERYTHING ELSE?

>> IT'S A SWAP FOR THEM SCHEDULING IT, AND FOR THEM DOING MAINTENANCE, THERE'S NO MONEY CHANGING HANDS, OTHER THAN THE RENTAL FEES COMING TO THE TWO OF US.

>> I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ON THAT. THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR.

>> ON THAT MAINTENANCE PORTION THAT THEY DO.

DO WE PAY THE COST OF THE MAINTENANCE, BUT THEY PERFORM IT?

>> THE MINOR STUFF THEY JUST DO.

>> THEY ABSORB THAT COST?

>> LIKE, AC FILTERS, THEY HAVE A TEAM THAT GOES AROUND AND CHANGES AC FILTERS AND ALL THE BUILDINGS, THEY'LL DO IT.

BUT IF THERE'S A PLUMBING LEAK AND OUR GUYS AREN'T COMFORTABLE TEARING PIECE OF THE WALL OUT, WE'RE GOING TO GET A PLUMBER IN THERE TO FIX IT, AND WE'LL PAY THEM DIRECTLY.

AS WE GO, AND AGAIN, I'M FLYING BLIND BECAUSE I NEVER SAW HOW IT WORKED PREVIOUSLY.

IF WE DO ADOPT THIS AND WE GET INTO IT, AND WE SEE SOME ISSUES, WE CAN ALWAYS BRING IT BACK AND AMEND IT.

>> AT THIS POINT, IF THERE AREN'T ANY QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2025-028 UPDATED FACILITY MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

>> WITH THAT WE'LL VOTE. THAT MOTION CARRIES 7-0.

>> THANK YOU ALL. I KNOW THIS DIFFERENT THEY'RE USED TO.

I KNOW NOT EVERYBODY LOVES IT.

I DON'T LOVE IT. BUT SOMETIMES YOU DO THINGS YOU DON'T LOVE.

[LAUGHTER] FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE TEAM.

>> I WOULD ASK, SO ARE WE GOING TO DO DUE DILIGENCE TO SEE IF THE LANDSCAPING COMPANY THEY USE IS THE MOST ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR US, VERSUS ALSO THE CLEANING COMPANIES?

>> YEAH, THEY'VE GIVEN ME BASICALLY A NAME, AND IT'S NOT SOMEBODY THAT WE HAVE DONE THE LANDSCAPING INTERNALLY FOR YEARS.

QUITE HONESTLY, IN THE FUTURE, AND I THINK I MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED THIS TO SHANAD AT THE OPEN HOUSE.

SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING I DON'T LOVE.

WE'VE HAD OVER TIME, SHRUBS HAVE DIED, AND THEY PULLED THEM OUT AND NEVER REPLACED THEM, AND IT HASN'T QUITE CAUGHT UP WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE, AND IT'S QUITE A LITTLE BIT MORE MAINTENANCE HEAVY.

I MAY BRING SOME OPTIONS TO THE BOARD TO IMPROVE THAT, UPDATE IT.

BUT AS WE DO THE LANDSCAPING BID, THAT'S GOING TO COME TO THE BOARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

I'M NOT GOING TO JUST HIRE SOMEBODY.

>> SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> WITH THAT, WE WILL MOVE ON TO J5, I BELIEVE,

[J5. 2025-029 Selection of Bid for Community Center Electronic Sign Consider, discuss, and act on the bids for the Steve and Judy Deffibaugh Community Center electronic sign. ]

2025-029, SELECTION OF BID FOR COMMUNITY CENTER ELECTRONIC SIGN.

CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND ACT ON THE BIDS FOR THE STEVEN AND JUDY COMMUNITY COMMUNITY CENTER ELECTRONIC SIGN.

>> HANG WITH ME. I THINK THIS IS OUR LAST ITEM BEFORE EXECUTIVE DISCUSSION.

IF YOU READ THE MEMO, YOU MAY NOT HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY.

I'M NOT ASKING FOR THE ACTION THAT YOU PROBABLY WOULD EXPECT READING THIS.

AS WE DUG MORE INTO PUTTING A SIGN PACKAGE OUT THERE, AN ELECTRONIC SIGN PACKAGE, AND NATE'S HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT AND PROVIDE COLOR TO IT ON THE SIGN ITSELF.

BUT AS WE WERE HAVING STAFF DIG IN AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY GAVE US THE REQUIRED SPECS FOR THE FOUNDATION AND THE BASE OF THE SIGN, TO MAKE SURE THAT ANYTHING WE'RE GOING TO FORCE ANYBODY ELSE TO DO, WE'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE SAME RULES.

MAKE SURE WE'RE FOLLOWING THE SAME RULES.

THEY FOUND THAT AN ELECTRONIC SIGN IS NOT ALLOWED ON THAT LOT IN THAT ZONING IN THAT LOCATION.

WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS, AND ONE OF WHICH IS WE CAN REZONE THE PROPERTY TO WHAT THEY CALL A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFICALLY ALLOW THE SIGN IN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE REZONING.

THE DOWNSIDE TO THAT IS IT'LL COST PROBABLY $25,000 JUST TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS,

[02:10:08]