City Council - Regular Meeting

Mr. Hello, member beer here. Member or I'm here. Member Wyrick here. Member here. Member Mlester. Member Pratt here. Member Stalker here. Seven present. Excellent. Okay. Both first on the agenda and only on the agenda rules and uh rules committee ordinances and rules. Mr. Pratt, this one falls under yours.

All right. Uh what we have is a ordinance amending chapter 163 uh contracts and purchasing specifically subsection N6304A for purchases and contracts over the bidding threshold of the codified ordinances of the city of North Canton to remove the requirement of a voice vote of council for approval of contracts and purchases following board control approval. Uh the action would be that's being proposed would be that the legislation would amend chapter 163 contracts and purchasing that would streamline the approval process for purchases and contracts that exceed the bidding threshold. It removes the requirement that the city conduct a separate voice vote after the board of control has approved a contract or purchase. Uh, under the amended provision, the mayor would make purchases and enter into contracts within amounts already budgeted for or appropriated by council. uh provided that the director of the administration or a designate has completed the required public bidding request for proposals or requests for qualifications process in accordance with Ohio law and that the board of control has approved the selection of the lowest and best bidder or proposer by a voice vote at a public meeting. Uh the legislation notes that the board of control includes council appointed representatives and the director of finance and the director of law. Uh by eliminating the additional council vote, the city aims to more closely align with the board of control charter defined authorities and ensure more timely

approval of contracts and purchases in the best interest of the city. Uh so basically right now things go to um anything over $50,000 it goes to budget or appropriations then it goes to bid uh RFP or RTQ RFQ and then it goes to the board of control um and then right now it goes uh to council for consideration. It would be eliminating the last step which is present which is the uh going to council for consideration. So end the amend would end at the board of control uh meeting.

That is correct.

Sounds about right. I don't know if anyone else has anything else to add from the administrative side. just that um one of the considerations in this is uh like you said when you talk about the process so you have a major project say it's a construction project road project and we've discussed it we've appropriated funds for it and then we go out to bid we follow the public procurement process we open the bids publicly we um select and in this time there would have been money spent on the engineering and design work that you have to have done and so now you know it's you know once we've awarded this In the past, we only ever had the border of control because that's in the charter. Like you said, this was added, what you're you're reading here, was added in October of 2024 to come back to council. Um, so worst case scenario would say a lot of projects are several years out and Rob gets the funding from uh regional planning, OPWC, you know, grants that money several years in advance. So, you can have a road project that's not till 2030. And you know, with our two-year elections, it's likely people that approved a project earlier may not be on when that comes back. Worst case scenario, we said, like, say there was a roundabout project, which is, you know, very expensive, million-doll project, and we planned for it and we paid the engineering designs and Rob secured the money and now, you know, we've awarded the contract. The contract comes back to council and it's a different council that hates roundabouts and says no. So now that project doesn't go forward and Rob would be put in the penalty box for funding because when they award you funds and then you don't use them that you know he as far as you know him getting money for other projects in the city it's going to you know tie tide his hands on that. um he wasn't in favor of it when when it did get added in back in October, but um you know he didn't speak loudly on it and it was added in and we're saying you know just to remove it because you know the uh board of control is spelled out

in the in the charter and it does say it is two members from the council side. So that is the appointed law director and appointed finance director. Two on the administration side, the mayor and the director of administration that is saying two people will say here's the money, approve the money you to go forward with the funding of it. Here's the two people. They're saying here's the project that we know where the money is being spent. Um so you do have council representation via your appointed officials. So that's what it is in a nutshell is also it's kind of you know a redundant extra step that was added in a at a different time. Any thoughts from council?

I guess my immediate thought as to why it was added in the first place. If it was added in 2024, what was the logic or idea behind that? Mayor, would you like to elaborate on that? Sure.

Pushing for that. So I believe at that time it was kind of a compromise. Um there was some thought that we could change the makeup of board of control and that was found to not be true uh because it's specifically defined in the charter and um the environment at the time. We just as council wanted some additional say in the matters for any potential change orders and things like that. So we wanted a final say. So that's why we had it put in. But I think through the course of the entire time since 24 to now nothing was not approved. Yeah. So that additional step just cost time. It was significative. Yeah. Okay.

It hinders the um engineers ability also to get the project started because can't get it started until it's come back from board of control to council to get signed. And there are times where you know there's not a meeting. Council could be on break and the bid books have to be signed. Can't put them out until then.

I agree. I think the biggest like uh potential conflict is is how it would mess with a bid. So, um if there's a a time something has to be done in a timely manner, it really does put that extra step in the process that slows things down. So, I mean, uh, with with anything from asphalt to pool chemicals to, um, anything that could, uh, be affected by what's going on in the in in, you know, the world right now. Um, I think it's kind of important that we can pull the trigger a little bit faster than than waiting for another meeting, especially if a break comes up or something like that. I guess as far as you know the environment that you know you stated that you were in at the time or the city was in at the time is that environment you know possible to happen again would be my concern because like like you guys said you know we all know that we're only serving two year terms both council and mayor and you know the last thing I want to do is not do something to protect the city if it was warranted in the first place. That's where my mind goes. Yeah.

Not so much maybe with us, but in the future just making sure that we have the city's best interest. Sure. Yeah. And I understand that. But you have the ability to bring it back if it's not working for you. And a future council has a the ability to, you know, draft whatever they want. Council also has the first two steps. You have to appropriate the money and you also have to authorize administration to go out for bids. So you are step one and two of the process. You're just not step five now. You're not on the end of it. You're on the beginning of it. So, you're not kept in the dark. There's a lot of conversation around it. And there's two steps of approval.

Is that maybe add to what everyone else said? I I do think the most likely scenario is what was discussed about just the timeliness aspect, but if we were, you know, the highway scenario that was mentioned, a roundabout or something like that at Scats, it really does hurt the city tremendously. like if we were to lose a project, I mean that's that is like a less likely scenario, but that that penalty box quote unquote that Katherine mentioned, that's because we're competing with Massyn and Alliance and Canton and Lewisville and so forth. And if it is a big black mark on a city, it scats with federal funds to lose a project because you're you're basically taking away money from the other communities. And then if you reneg and say, "No, we're not going to do this project." It it does hurt quite a bit in terms of, you know, getting points for projects in the future. And um we've all talked about how important, you know, understandably keeping our roads in a good state of repair. So although you know I don't want to portray it as a super likely scenario, it is it is one thing that went into the thought process behind this proposed change.

Yeah, I think I said RPC Scats is under is it under? Yeah, you're right. They're Yeah, they're under RPC. RPC is regional planning commission. Scats is the start county area transportation study. Those are the boards that Rob works with to get money county you know money from you know that like Jason said all the other county um cities and jurisdictions in the county are also competing for.

So bringing it back to council gives a an additional layer of accountability and transparency. And so I guess I have a couple questions about the board of control meetings. Um where are they typically held? city hall and they're open to the public and any member of council could come to them if they want. Public can come to them as well. Okay. So, you anticipated questions. Um I I do I I would I I have concerns about the public not being able to speak to an issue, but if they're if they are invited and that's obviously subject to the public meetings law, so they would they would know well in advance. Okay.

Yeah. the there's uh like you were saying there's you know uh two from the administration members present and then there's two from the council's side representation which would be finance and the law department and then they are open to the public and they do have there's taken as well and all of those projects would still be discussed either during the appropriations the budget process um the discussions on the ordinance that would authorize them to go out to bid or RFP. So, it would be something that the public would have already had the opportunity to comment on as well.

So, I see this from both sides. I can appreciate the the possible wrench being thrown into the works. um you know from from uh from Rob's point of view, although that hasn't happened. Um it I guess I I can I can appreciate his concern, but I also look at it as a member of the council that put this law into place or this ordinance into place. Um I I appreciate it the extra layer of transparency that you were giving to the public and I guess that's where my struggle is now going back to the public and saying something that was good and important to put in place two years ago. Now we're taking away this later.

I feel like it, you know, I understand what you're saying. Um, but you are trading off um expediting a project to be done and potentially harming the city city for future um, you know, funding on something that I believe was put into place sort of as a knee-jerk reaction. So, I don't know if a situation where we've come close to harming the city with this being in place. have we ever not been able to make a vote? Uh cuz I mean, you know, we do have a meetings calendar that's out. Um and I would imagine even if it came up during a break, we could very maybe not easily, but we could in theory call a meeting if it was needed.

So, I'll say just recently it was just it was a point of frustration. It didn't really quite cause it, but yes, it was this most recent there was a project that's what brought it to us was with um Rob needed to go. He needs to go with it, but it needed to come back to council first. She had the bid books ready to go, ready to get the project going, ready to start with the contractors like uh mayor said. You know, there's there's equipment to get uh staging. There's um you know, materials that have to be purchased. The contractor that has bid on that has a process and a schedule to go and it was you know, getting ready to go. It had not come back to council yet. It had been to border control and it needed to come back to council. And that's when Rob, you know, mentioned to us, this is minor and I'll work through this and

but if it's a major one, like he said, like I'll give you that roundabout example, that will be major. And again, going back to that 24 time period, we had someone also in administration at that time that felt maybe we could remove board of control and then that's why that step was added. So we'll have this step and remove border of control. But we had our law director say, I don't know how you ever thought you're going to remove. That's literally so I mean and I I'll take the blame completely because my thought on that was I wanted to protect the board of control and the process that was given to it and defined by the charter and I thought by doing that extra layer at the time that would make it 100% protected.

But if you really read through the charter you don't need to do that. It's it's guaranteed and you'd really have to amend the charter to and get that approved by the public to to change the process. When was this issue when we were trying to get this when Rob was trying to get a project going? Just last week. Just last week or week before. The apple project. I think the the issue with with some of the county programs and the state things is sometimes they just don't give you the notice, right? And we're expected to pull the trigger immediately. We can't do that. We have called a a council meeting today before this this committee of the whole meeting it if everybody would show up. Sure. Yeah. But what if

here for a committee of the whole meeting? We could called a council meeting before this and voted on that item. And so the other portion of that is these are purely consideration items. They're not legislative items. Uh so that would be calling a meeting basically just to hold consideration. there's no real opportunity for public comment on those because that comes before the public comment portion of the evening. Um so from a functional perspective, just calling it for consideration would be not unnecessary, but it would be a little silly.

And don't get me wrong, I understand where you guys are coming from, but I hope you can appreciate absolutely our our take on things. And again, you know, there's been times in the past where the public has questioned our spending of funds and and whatnot. And now we're taking out taking away a layer of transparency. So that's that's where I'm coming. A fifth step. And again, going back to that open, you know, border control is open, you know, so uh members of the public can come and council can come. And for some reason,

try to have one that we can be flexible. But I was going to say, you know, any member could come and you do have your two appointed people there, your law director and your and your finance director, but if for some reason you felt very strongly something about this, like you said that the meetings are, you know, minutes are transcribed and you can, you know, voice your concern and if you wanted um you're not a a voting member, but you definitely have your two appointed members that are voting that I think, you know, you have trust with them and and relationship with them if you aired your concerns. But we're on the front side of this with the budget. Yes. on what's in there for the departments. We're on the front side of this when we say, "Okay, mayor, send this out for bid." Yes. We're on the front side of this when we say, "Okay,

finance director, do we have the money for this project?" And we get a yes, that's why we're appropriating the money. Would it be difficult for board of control meeting weeks to have either Rob or administration comment and their their their report here's what the board of control passed last week and open that up as okay this project is now been bid accepted and this is who we're moving forward with. I don't see why not. Yeah. because now you've communicated what the board of control did and all we were doing taking it under consideration was communicating that yes we acknowledge what the board of control did right

so maybe have instead of an approval when you're going to vote on it a report of what was just part of the report after every board of control meeting administration or finance um can say hey just want to let you know board of control met earlier this week or met last week and here's what we've approved. Here's the ordinance where you approve. Right. I'd be okay with it. In my opinion, that would still keep the transparency, but also allow the expedience. What do you think? Right. Sounds like a happy ultimate check. So, it's kind of just a dog and pony show. I can probably read the the minutes of the meeting. Right. So, you can hear them.

Are you putting on a show, Dave? Are you trying to actually keep our check? I think putting on the show will be the consideration after we've already approved everything on the front side. I think that's the show part.

I'm hearing that an incoming council may not be trusted. That's the first thing I'm hearing. It may not be intended that way, but that's how I'm hearing it. So, I'm going to point out as an incoming council member, I could get the third reading of anything and fade out, not just this type of a situation. So, that's taking away that third reading from an incoming council member in my opinion. I'm not in favor of that. I did dig into this because the ordinance was written in November of 2024. The conversation started clear as early as I believe August of 2024 and I had to go through because I really wanted to understand what were the conversations. I probably was sitting in the audience um but I didn't remember it all. So I went through and dug through to see what were the conversations that everyone was having about this. And what's what's I'm struggling with is that there were some really fantastic things said about it back then about the transparency it was going to afford that now I'm having a really hard time of saying we shouldn't do that. Um and so I won't read all of this but you know Mr. Young was around he did say by putting this in front of us we force that information in front of you we force it out of the bureaucrat's hands and into the elected officials hands. All right. Um, there's commentary here about, you know, we would receive that information. Hey, here's everybody that bid. Here's what they bid. Here's the lowest bid, and here's why they're the lowest and best. We should probably know that information. Um, he said the function of a board of control is not to evaluate the bids itself, but to make sure that the people who did evaluate it did not biasly pretend that maybe bidder number one never submitted it and said, "Oh, but my friend owns number two, so I'm going to pick number two instead." And then um mayor, you were on council at the time and you said why would we not do both? Why would we not have it coming before council and keeping the board of control both things? Um we're talking about a secretive process, but if we incorporate both of those, I can't imagine anything being more transparent than that. Um accounting, you made an excellent point from an auditor's

perspective, they would much rather have council's approval of a contract. Um I could go on and on, guys. There was just a lot of comments from that meeting that I read and I was in total agreement with what I read and now I'm struggling with why I would suddenly shut that off. But I think the one part missing for that is the conversation that was occurring about disbanding the board of control. It's in here. It's missing the context of what

it's in here. It it was here. This was actually a discussion on the agenda of committee. Wasn't actually like an item to vote on committee at that particular meeting. It was the next committee. Um, so this was discussion only and that was in here talking about do we just get rid of what's over there in the charter and no, the discussion goes on and on for quite some time and it talks about no, we should keep both. So I I don't know why two years later and and the biggest part I'll point out is our former mayor. He said it best. He said I think the move is far more transparent. It's something we've been working on for the last 5 years is making government more transparent for you all and our citizens. I don't know why we would stop that now. And if we haven't had a situation except for this one I'm just hearing maybe was last week.

I'm struggling with why this is suddenly a concern. So I'm torn on it personally.

I'll give context on that. And again, it will go back to our engineer that does very well in planning these projects, appropriating the funds, going through budgeting, going down to scats and getting the money, you know, held out for us on this stated behind the scenes on the administration side from a process side was not for that was 100% not for adding that step back in. He felt that was a redundant step that was going to hinder him in the name of proficiency. So if this council is okay in the name of a of a of um you know accountability and transparency even though you know we believe there's multiple steps where there's a lot of transparency here and a lot of opportunity for weigh in and even pumping the brakes on it but if you want to add it back in and risk that you are going to hinder a future project and cause us to not you know be able to receive the funding and and hinder the engineers's job. you know, that's fine. But that was that was said and he he was not at the meeting, so his notes aren't in there, but it was conversation he was trying to have with the administration, including the mayor and including Ben.

Yeah, I think it would have made a lot of sense to get his buy in on it, of course, ahead of all of that because that's unfortunate. Um, yeah, I I also think that I wish that he would have been part of that meeting. I also wish he'd be part of this meeting. I feel like it's critical to have him here for that. This is essentially what it's all about. You're saying Rob? Yeah. But he spoke to me, so I'm saying the exact words that he said to me. I'm just saying it'd be nice to have him here as well. But

so you hear it from him, but you don't hearing it from me. It's the exact same words. Does it sound different coming from Rob? I don't understand those exact words he said to me. What's G? He did give that scenario of the roundabout, you know, as a multi-million dollar one that could really hinder. And it is because of the two years in the time period and just sort of hoping you understand and I'm trying to convey that to you what he goes through in order to get the funding for these projects and you know where this you know feels you know like that extra step that was added was a redundancy. So that that is what he said. So should council as a whole in this approval process that we have under the consideration side of it is our role to approve what the board of control did should we not see them and read all of the bids and determine come to the same determination of best and lowest bid before we take it under consideration to vote on it.

Yeah should be doing that anyway right? Yes. But when we get it for consideration, do we see all the bids or just the one that's been approved? I recall only seeing the one that was approved, Liam. Am I wrong? Usually a bid tab included that. Yeah, it shows the who it is and how much they bid. Just the recap. That's the bid tabulation sheet. Yeah, it's just the tab sheet though. Oh, the actual You're going to actually read through the I don't know. That's what I'm asking. How much should we be responsible? The I mean the charter defined authority of the board of control is to award those. So it wouldn't really be council's authority.

So what's council's authority in this approval? The the consideration vote. It's more just an FYI than an actual functionary step in the process. Um, as far as and Brendan, I don't know if you can add any color to this. From the point of board of control, it would be authorized for the mayor to sign any agreement. Correct. Regardless of the considerations vote, yes or no?

Um, well, I I don't know exactly what we're defining as the considerations vote, but the board of control vote is absolutely required by your charter. So no matter what in this process, if council wants to um currently council is still involved even with this change in approving both the bidding process, if it's going to be a not bid process that has to go through council, um all of those also have to be separately approved by the board of control. I I do think one of the clarifications with this change that is helpful is what happens if the board of control approves something the council has appropriated and then council by votes voice vote votes it down. Um it's a little unclear under the charter. Um but the charter definitely doesn't contemplate a second approval by council just the first just the authorization of the appropriation in the process. But the charter does require the board of control to exist and approve all of these.

Now, in talking to everybody, there was someone that mentioned if it, you know, this would be in a future, we have a charter amendment process coming up next year. Would you want to consider maybe making the president of council a member of border patrol and then you can feel like council has another say so step in it? I mean, that was that was that was something that I had thought of and written down prior to coming in tonight. I appreciate that it's been added, but you know, obviously there's language in here that talks about that this more closely aligns with the charter. That's fine and good, but should we be looking at the charter instead? It will be. Obviously, I know that's on the council's up to you guys. That's a charter commission issue potentially. But but but it just makes me

which just reminds me everyone keeping in mind you're going to have to start nominating people for a charter review next year and it'll come faster than you think. So keep thinking about people. But maybe that is one of the topics that you s could suggest to to review. Yeah. I also just want to say that I appreciate the the amplification and extra color that's been added now tonight in terms of you know some of this discussion some of the explanations. I do have another question. There's there was a reference to the environment at a certain point. Is anybody at liberty to say what they're talking about when they say the environment back in 2024?

Do you want me to? I will agree. It's it's we we felt as council that um we weren't getting the whole story sometimes from the previous administrator and I did not like the threat of taking the board of control away. I thought it was very important because it's in the charter and and I it was it honestly it was a power struggle and at that time I wanted preser I wanted it to be preserved because I felt like I wasn't getting in communication being in near chairs. Yeah.

And I don't agree with that now. I think that we're very you know communive as as far as legislation and and the budget goes. I mean the budget process has improved tenfold since then. So this is an example of me actually knowing the answer to that question but I thought it was very important that it be put as thank you but but at the time for clarification the current administration was in place correct so there were no trust issues then we were still dealing with some

I think they were dealing with the fallout in the community right the perception of trust which everybody was trying to rebuild and I think that's the reality of it I do think that going a step backwards at the saying we're going to do this to restore that trust in our committee and to now say, "Hey, we've got three newly elected council members who have never sat up here before." I know I ran on a a bullet point of transparency. I'm sure my peers did, too. To come back now and say, "Oh, we don't need that anymore." Um, doesn't really communicate the same message. Unfortunately, that's my biggest concern is I do want to keep the trust maintained for a city here. Um, I can just imagine that that somebody the next day after this conversation will say, "Well, I guess they just don't care about transparency." And we all know that that's not the case at all.

I guess I would point you to where in the process you see there's a lack of transparency after multiple conversations have it being budgeted, money is being appropriated, the bid is open, the board of control is open. You can come to the bids, too. It's why it's called an open bid process. You can sit there and hear with the bids read out. All of this is all open. This is just this very last you say the fifth step in the process and the uh you know and and I might just I think it's just my opinion. I don't think it's a matter of transparency. it's maybe more a matter of steps in a process or that's what it is

having kind of a final say which I think is a legitimate discussion and I I appreciate the discussion tonight because I do think you know there's not really like a according to oily way to run a city necessarily and it does kind of come down to the people you know that you have and no process is better than the people who carry it out so wherever you know wherever you end up coming down. I think it's healthy to have this kind of discussion between the administration and our council.

I will add also a difference uh and this in in talking with Brendan, our new law director. Um this was vetted when our law director wasn't Brendan, it was Krugliaak and um I believe you know Ben was coming up with it and maybe ran it by them and because you know it was Brendan that was questioning why did you do this? Why would you do this? As he's pointed to. Good to know. you can elaborate.

I can add a little bit more context to that. Very specifically um in section 4.05 of your charter specifically for for contracts we do go out to bid the voice vote after was selected by a board of control is actually absolutely problematic because it's not authorized by your

if council had disagreed with the board of controls selection. the board of control would have been the final decision maker there. Your charter is very clear on that. So I think that is one of the the process points that we we were looking at when we proposed this change. Now that's not for all decisions, but for bid specifically for for bidding the charge is very clear. the the additional voice vote after the board of control is not only not necessary. If it were to conflict with the board of control, it would create an actual problem because 4.05 is clear that the board of control is the one who selects the um the bid, the final bid.

Thank you, Brendan. I think it goes back to Jason's point. This isn't so much a transparency issue, it's a process issue. And this process, I understand Holly, you definitely don't want to go back on saying, you know, I want to be transparent. Um, but this was a process that was put in place and maybe it really never should have been put in place because of how the charter is already set up. I also do remember that there was a conversation about uh increasing thresholds and I was against that and that's also why I put that together as a protection and and I don't I I think you guys should vote on the proper threshold. I don't think, you know, things should be taken away from you. That's that's not my goal. But what I would ask

is consider a process that isn't and maybe maybe it's not a final vote. Maybe it's some sort of report. Maybe there's something we can do to streamline while keeping that transparency like that report, but maybe something more significant. I don't know. But maybe there's a a compromise that we could discuss on that. How what uh is there any reason why this wasn't addressed in like 25 you know and that could have been addressed a change in the charter could have been done that year as well.

So charter changes are every 10 years the last being in 2017 so it would be till 2027 that we can do any sort of charter amendment. Um, I would say from a functional perspective, the subject just never came up until now. Sorry. Can I clarify that a little bit? Yep. So, that's the charter review process. You have a mandatory tenure and also at any time there's a constitutional way to amend charters. You could if if you want separately if there are ever charter issues that you want to bring up in that interim you have the ability to do that as well. There's a process for that which we did.

But you have a mandatory charter review process every 10 years right. Yeah. And remember we did on the on the two-year terms to four year terms

was voted out. So, I think I think we're people who all bring different things to council. We all have different areas of expertise. This one is not my area of expertise. I don't know that it's really any of our areas of expertise. Um, and I think it's okay to say we maybe made a mistake there. I don't think that that changes that we're doing the best job we can with the information that's in front of us and that's given to us by the people who are, you know, um, highly educated in these areas, like our attorneys. Um, but if our attorney now is telling us that this is a problem, I'm going to listen to that attorney. Because what I hear what Brendan's saying is that if the border control has awarded a contract and then council says I don't agree with that and votes it down that would be

that schism would be a a lawsuit complicated legal challenge in and of itself. Very true. One clarification on that as well.

The charter really only covers um bid uh contracts. So if if we were awarding a a contract through a process that doesn't involve competitive bidding, the charter is not really clear what happens in that in the case of the um disagreement between council and the board of control. And that would present a whole another set of problems. So I I completely agree with Katherine and Liam. There's you don't want to create any additional ambiguity in this uh based on what your charter has. Now again, if the charter language is not working for the city or for council, it's not easy process, but there's a process to fix that. But specifically for the bid bid documents, the chart is very clear that it would be board of control's decision. Um for other procurement processes, we would just have a very very very strange situation where the board of control and council would be disagreeing with each other. And I I agree that would create some some potential risk at the very least. Thank you Brendan for that extra explanation.

So I guess hypothetically if we wanted to stay on the path of this same way of thinking what would be like a legal way forward or if we can't you know what's I guess what's the other option? So if an extra vote wouldn't be necessary, you could go with the plan of include it in the next council report following whether that comes from mayor, administration, finance, or even legal. Um that's some sort of report out on here's what the board of control did. Um from a transparency standpoint that could be included in meeting packets for that council meeting. Um the board of control packets are also maintained into perpetuity. So any sort of bid documents would be retained there and available on the website.

Um could we loop them into having a specific part on Granicus that they could see where that becomes all those things are visible on the meeting body page. So all anybody with an access to Granicus on council would be able to see those as well. Uh, what what would Brendan's two fits be on? How to stay with this mindset, keep this extra reading in place and do it the way that uh works with our charter rules with keeping an additional vote of council in some way, shape or form? That's the conflict. Is is there any way forward?

Brendan, did you catch that?

I did. I I really think the the council approval is the first step. Um your chart is pretty clear on your chart is very clear on on bid selection. Um and it's really the the the so I guess the the the answer is not like that you can't have multiple readings on the ordinance creating process or selecting someone or some other things. Additionally, there's a there there are a bunch of procurement processes that council has to be more involved in. For example, if we are for some reason deciding to select a notid large contract, which at sometimes the city has to uh council has to approve that by by six votes. So, the pro process with this amendment does not remove council from approving these agreements. It's really just that the board of control selects the final mostly competitive biders. Um, which is absolutely what your charter currently reads as. So, if council wants to become the final decision maker on contracts, it's going to be a charter process most likely. Um, there really isn't a way to not introduce ambiguity between the charter and your ordinances. with having a um procurement processes come to council twice.

Thank you, Brendon. Questions? So, at least under the current system, Brendan, it would just be best to leave it as board of control is the final step and their approval just goes from there into the signing of whatever contract and start of the project. Yes. But keep in mind though, board of control is not the final step for every single procurement. So council has some upfront authority on certain procurement processes. We're really really focused on the bidding process here for the most part. Uhhuh.

If we move this over to agenda, can we amend the way the action is written right now where it says to streamline the approval process, but I really feel like we're correcting something here. Can we make that more to say it's more in line with our charter? Yeah, exactly. Something like that. I think that's clear. Again, it's transparent. Yeah. Excellent. Yeah, we could change the line with the charter or something like that. And you can put that in here right now. Okay. As just, you know, motion to amend the legislation to say, you know, change it from streamline to just correcting provisions that are okay. contradictory to the charter or whatever language. Uh, and I can bring that to work.

That's a great suggestion, Holly, because, you know, I'll just say that, you know, I'm hearing what Brennan's saying, but I I feel like, and I don't know that I'm the only one who feels this way, if I am correctly, but I feel like the reason why we're doing this has changed three times since we've been here tonight. So, you know, first it was streamlining, then it was to um, you know, to get around scheduling issues announced to correct or you know, the It's all of those. It's all those. So, No, it's been good discussion suggestion that we Yeah, I just think it makes it clearer to the public. Should they be looking at this on an agenda and they can't question that we're doing it to make it easier to, you know, pass something through and instead we can say, "Hey, we recognize that there's something that needs to change here and we're going to take care of that."

And I think all of this is a really good conversation for when we do have um charter review. Yes. Go back to these notes and say like this might be something they take away. Well, and maybe in if we do a report in lie of the voice vote, maybe we recap the timeline of when it started and then how it went through with some dates. So, I think that gets overlooked when we do a voice even. I mean, sometimes a voice vote to me was just procedural. It was just, oh yeah, the part of the minutes yes, everybody votes yes and whatever. I I think maybe if we add some tea to it and it sounds

give give like some specific details I think that actually would be more helpful and it's certainly more transparent. Yeah. And just to add it sounds like it could only be a good thing to have an explicit report out of what board of control did. I think that is only good for everybody, including the public, especially, you know, given all four members of the board of control are either in the room or on a call. So, everybody would be here to speak on it. I think that addresses the concern that came up two years ago. I think it covers that. In my opinion, it definitely does. Yeah.

Okay. So, how how much notice would we be given um for like maybe a bid's accepted or something like do we have time to look at like what the bids are just so we can ask our own questions? We can send them out that day. Mhm. So, they come in like if you get them in, you know, the day they came in, let's say you shared them with us, how much time before a decision would be made then after, you know what I mean? Or like how much time between the bid opening and control? How much time would we have to ask questions? It's usually about a week. Is that how we do it? Usually I think it depends on the project really. Yeah, it does.

Depends on how many bidters we have. We do a huge bidding process. Yeah. Sometimes there's one bidder and it's pretty easy. There's one bidder, you know, we open it up, there's one person, that's it, it's over. Um and then sometimes there's competing.

Yeah. And you know, of course, it's always lowest and best. And um that's the part where we say then you know when we open the bid we tell them that our engineer is going to review all the bids and then make the selection you know and based on you know like to Christina's point we're not all experts in all of this but we have to rely on those who are the subject matter experts. So in like big larger road construction projects our engineer Rob is the one who reviews all the bid docs and then he makes the selection and then lets us know and that's when we hold the board of control meeting. We have to give public notice for the border of control meeting.

You'd ask people about the public notice. Yeah, the same public notice. It's a minimum 24 hours and it's held in a public place and it's open to the public and uh yeah, so to answer your question, it's within a week within a week, could be shorter than a week, but probably a week. I think that's the time. that we've got notice maybe thereafter you guys do just so that you know it's just uh very forward transparent with any administration any council that's come here um I think it would be beneficial and the public and

just a point of clarification member Pratt that there would be no official action by council it would be just a functionary FYI this is the bids we receive Exactly. Here's the one we intend to put to board of control.

Be very open and transparent that way because it would be everyone would know about it. You know, you have it's already open to the public and then if someone from council's there as well, we'd have you know more more people there that are observing the decision making process since we don't get a final say or anything. Okay. Um, just a procedural thing as far as the amendments that you guys have discussed. Um, I won't ask you to make the amendment tonight. Uh, just know that I will take all of your guys's comments. uh review it and then you take the last sentence in the action side and move it to the end of the item title where it says to ensure more to to more closely with the board of controls charter defined authority and ensure more timely approval of contracts and purchases in the best interest of the city if that charter defined authority could be moved up to the title section.

Yep. Yeah. So, I will bring that if you guys move it forward to the council agenda, then next week I'll have the amendments ready for you to amend before the first reading and adopt as amended. Can I just want to go back briefly to what member talked about and I think it's very appropriate. She talks about the use of the word streamline. I'm really seeing that in the cover sheet description. It's not in the actual legislation. Is that correct or am I overlooking something? Yeah. Yeah. it wouldn't be in the actual legislation itself. Um if there's anything that would allude to that type of language, I will remove that in the amendments. Okay.

Um but yeah, that was just in the description of the legislation, which is something that I just put together for the sake of distilling the legislation down. I I agree with I feel like it's what the people read and reop page, right? Sure. Yes. read the headlines, don't go any. So, yes, you can, you know, the simple motion of move item 3A to the council agenda. I will take this all in knowing that you guys want amendments and I'll put them forward for the next council meeting. Thank you. Okay. So,

is there a motion to move item 3A with those amendments to it to the council legitim? Motion to move. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I I opposed. Excellent discussion. I will make the motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I post.