Okay, recording in progress Mondays, Mondays and Fridays.
I've been to open session so I need a motion to approve coming back coming from closed session to open session. However, do you have a second?
Second?
All those in favor? Aye. Post none back in open session. So now it's time for the capital subcommittee mysoline we have a resolution
you want to make sure all right, right. Did you write did you send this to me? The men did change. I did.
You know that instead of
waiting for
LC to make a change
lanes of housing that campus.
I haven't met him if you'd like me to read it for you. Okay. I can read it for you if you'd like. Sure. So just to be clear, do we want to we would move the resolution as presented and then we would amend Yes. So So first, we would need a motion to approve the resolution as presented in the packet. Smoke,
second,
have a motion a second discussion.
And then if there's any desire for an amendment to that that we will need a motion and a second to amend.
So we have an amendment that our lawyer has worked on and we've agreed to do I have a motion to approve the amendment. So move. Can we state the amendment? Yes. Before we do that, we need a second. Have a second discussion.
The second right yes your you want to read it. Where is that September 14 2023. The DRC have a board of directors received a presentation prepared by TBS entitled website expansion. Updated concept. Now therefore be it resolved the Florida troops and CEO development team to move forward with design scheduling logistics of the Second Avenue project proposed parking structure with the oversight of the subcommittee for capital improvements, and the board will review the West Side expansion conceptional site at the next board meeting. Yes.
Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'd like to go for a vote. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? eyes have it. We on we now have a resolution to authorize the CEO to approve capital projects. Wherever motion. So moved. Second. Second. Have a motion a second discussion.
What we're asking for here is because we've had because of our scheduling pining or like we're gonna meet in two weeks, the capital of meeting weekly because of these changes, we want to make certain and it's a little bit of a leap for you but we're asking that we put this money into a budget so that we can pay the bills and move accordingly. But nothing didn't give the CEO the authority to expand it. So and in the ward would still the subcommittee was still vetted out and it still will come back to you but we can move quicker so that we can pay our bills and continue to do the work with the oversight and when the CEO will have a little bit more leniency because of our meeting timing. If the board would trust that we can move things quickly. And this is what we feel a good recommendation as to make that process happen.
Any further discussion? Hearing none call for a vote. All those in favor, Aye. Any opposed? Guys have it. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Yes, thank you. So in the in the executive directors report or in the Executive Office report, I have a couple of items to consider. Item a. I have a leadership brief related to Alliance so the DFR CFA has utilized alliance to seek and obtain insurance coverage in the past for the special Liability Insurance Program excess coverage workers comp and directors and officers liability. So Alliant on our behalf did seek out different proposals and or options for coverage. Again, we have a very unique structure here and so it is a time consuming process. So unfortunately that process does bring us right up to the end of our coverage period. So I did include in the packet. The presentation from Alliant, which does include excess liability coverage again for the purposes of protecting our building at a cost not to exceed $361,104.76. For the board's knowledge after this original packet did come through we did get a slightly revised coverage and so it will actually save us a few $1,000 So it will be a little bit less than the 361,000 and this represents close to not quite 10% increase over the prior year. But I do recommend that we move forward with with this item
but we have a motion in support is actually did I did we ask for motion? No, I didn't do that. So I Miss Lane has made the motion to have a second. Second. Have a motion in a second. All those in favor. Sorry, discussion.
So just real quick and I know this gap dropped on your lap just for historical knowledge. We at least several years I've been here, we always get these renewals right when they're due like if we don't do it, we don't have coverage. And I don't expect that you would be able to wrap yourself around this because there are your cups overflowing but at some point you and I know that their job is to go out to the market but we don't ever bid the broker market you know the company itself. So when I know this is like a one year contract for it. So I would assume that we now have infrastructure in place that will start to figure out next year if they are the best price broker and if our coverage is going to be what we actually need and look at trying to trim I know insurance is going up but if no one really looks at it, we never know if our increases are an unreasonable increase to the market. So I just wanted to bring that so I'm hoping next year we won't be renewing it at the deadline and that will be explanation that that we went out for broker not that the broker did the bidding of the services.
Yeah, we would definitely have an option to identify if and consider, you know, alternatives from an agency perspective and insurance agency perspective in advance of next year, if that's the desire, yeah,
because it's so expensive. It's a large amount and I know insurance is our highest annual premium but we've been making certain that all our contracts are up to date. You know, this would seem to be one of those that should fall in that timeline to somewhere that Tom, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Right. So any further discussion? All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? eyes have it just a carpenter.
Next item relates to the plant Moran real point. Extension of task order number one so the leadership brief here is that the DRC FA has engaged plant Moran real point to assist with the West Side expansion and existing facility in a professional services agreement. We do have that dated March 29 And it was executed in August. The status is that the task order number one is set to expire at the end of this month. And we believe it's in the best interest of the DRC DFA to continue to work with plant Moran real point past the end of this month. And there is additional consulting work that may be of value to the authority that was was contemplated within that professional services agreement. And so I'm requesting a motion to authorize myself as the interim CEO to extend and Modify Task Order number one so extending that past this month, as well as in conjunction with the Capitol committee chair to negotiate and execute a task order number two, for consulting services for at least four months that would allow us to get through some of the immediate needs of that capital committee and then as you'll see in one of the ER as you may have saw in one of the other resolutions, it gives me the time to bring back a comprehensive capital budget to the board for approval in that January 2024 timeframe.
Very well. So, ask for a motion to approve support. Second. Motion is second. Any further discussion or any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Post. I just had an I didn't see Mr. Carpenter.
The third one that we have here is related to annual maintenance and support of device networks. Just a little bit of the background we've historic regularly used Aruba HP Foundation Care 24/7 service and support for network devices and X access points and switches. We have identified that that is our ability to contract is approved under our purchasing policy through a cooperative cooperative agreement so they are available through a cooperative agreement. The continued support from that from accurate networks located in Freeport, Michigan, would be for a total cost of $14,893.92. And I would request approval to proceed with that contract.
Have a motion to approve. support we have a Second. Discussion. Hearing them calling for a vote. All those in favor, aye. All right. Any opposed? Eyes Harley. Thank you Mr. corporator. Mr. Toro, we have some issues, some lose your privacy over quickly.
Yes, we do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The first one is a leadership briefing on behalf of Sodexo live. And the background on this. It's an excuse me, it's on page 54 and 55 of your book. The background on this as the authority granted Sodexo live the food and beverage contract at Huntington place back in 2010. And at that time, the service charge was 19.5%. Five years later, in 2015 Sodexo received the board's approval to raise the service charge by 2%. So it went up to 21.5% which is the current rate. What when that last increase happens. Sodexo also asked the board to waive the commission for the DRC FA just on the portion of the service charge that was going to the local 24 members. Sodexo paid out 14.5% to the bargaining employees and retain 7% of the service charge and on that 7% The board receives a commission. In your book you'll also see some sample comparisons that subjects are looked at Baltimore and Knoxville Salt Lake all are at 23% right now with their service charges and the local market was even higher Marriott at 25 Shinola at 24 in the international banquet Center at 26%. So the request is actually twofold from Sodexo. One is to increase the service charge by 2% from 21.5% to 23.5%. It has been eight years since that last increase. This allows Sodexo to charge a competitive service fee but still remain lower than the local competition. And the second Secondly, Sodexo wishes to maintain that current agreement with Sodexo does not pay a commission on the employee portion of the service charge only on the subject only on the percentage that Sodexo retains, which will would be 7.5% and that is the request
to I have a motion to the right. Was it
I just want to be clear, I
place it there. Is
there an underlying contract here. And what is it for what period of time is this increase?
Kyle for your contract with the union
and the contract with Sodexo goes through it's May I believe have 25
words aware
please So do I have a motion? Support? Second, so discussion on this.
I have a question. So, first of all, Sodexo is like the stellar of this facility. I can't even begin to compliment some words don't really fully extend what how well you do and the kind of work you perform. I mean you just you are a huge, huge bright star here. Does that 2% that we're approving? That goes to Sodexo, not us right
correct. It's the service charge so that 21.5% would go up to 23.5%. So that would go to go ahead Kyle.
Okay, great. I just want to make certain that you're getting your fair share for the type of work you provide. You know, you have to stay competitive and to be able to do the good work you do on the products that you you. You put out it just it's amazing. It's absolutely amazing. I couldn't be happier. Just want to make
a new restate that again, I'm sorry I missed a little bit of that. When it comes to the
like maybe whoever's the subject matter extra can come to the
so during the reintroduce yourself or just walk or good morning or directors and Mr. Chair. I am Kyle Kayla's general manager of Sedex alive here at Huntington place. Thank you. So yeah, during our CBA negotiations, it was requested even back in 2020 We were supposed to review the service charge increase you know, contract billing with the local 24. But obviously, things happened the pandemic and all that. So that got a little bit put on the backburner until this negotiation. And you know, it was very they were very adamant that they would rather have a service charge increase than an hourly increase. And so that we were able to meet in the middle was by giving them moving them up to 16% because their original ask was 18 and then make sure that you guys also got a little bit of an increase. That's why we did the 2% so that you guys would receive more income as well.
Just Just for clarification,
service charge.
Who's paying that as the customers out on top of the price or is that a bigger split out of what you guys currently get? Or I guess just so everybody's clear on what sort of one lump sum.
I do also think another
amazing
impact whatever it is, I'm sure deserted Yeah. So the client is the one paying for it in the end. But as you can see like the cost for each year and like 2018 was, you know, a pretty remarkable year for us. I think we're close to 17 to 18 billion that year in revenue. So you can tell like even the increase is not going to be that grand of an impact because this is year over year.
But yeah, I just wanted so that's a service charge to add on to the final crabs are the ultimate customer. Right? Yeah.
I would say it's competitive within the market and and it's also competitive nationally and certainly, I can tell you that and some of the cities we host some some attendance builder events and is significantly hotter.
I would also suggest these are Unite Here members, right? Correct. I would also suggest that considering there is a looming strike with the casinos, all of that, with all this going on. I think that we should lock in an agreement that workers feel good about and just go get that done.
This is money well spent. I mean, even if we were at the higher end or more what the product you're getting for the money you're paying for. I don't think you can argue that fact. I mean, people don't mind paying if you're getting in you provide an excellent product, you know, thank you all levels. So this is money well spent, and this will definitely let
the staff know, the appreciation the board has for their work.
Yeah, absolutely.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second. We've gone through discussion, call for vote. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Moving on.
Thank you Mr. Chair. Laura Harrington has our final two.
Hello, good morning for Chair and members of the board.
Good morning, Miss Harris.
Thank you. My first resolution is to approve the purchase of 25 digital media players from the lopid to Sheba America business solutions this was a formal quote because it's it's under the $30,000 threshold. And so the unit we'd actually be purchasing is a qualified alternatives. So that's why the price is a nice discount. It's 13,550 or 25 units. So
how does the night team what's the it says 19,000. And then once it's 13,000 Yes, that's because of our discount.
No so two sheep have been on two different models.
Oh, okay. Yeah, you're going with the lowest price of the month. Models are different. Thank you. Yeah.
Okay, so we have a consideration in front of us. Do I have a motion to approve some of what I have a second. Second discussion?
Where are these media media players where they're where they located?
So so it's in all the monitors that are in the hallways, it's the piece of hardware behind it that allows all the streaming
Okay, these are just last year to every single meeting. We just bought.
We just bought it last year. Yeah, it's a there's a schedule to replace them. So it's like 25 every year.
We did 22 Last year I believe and this is the next batch.
Okay. So this is a question two. I'm not sure who in here can answer this question. But like, why can we or can we have it where these only come on when there's activity if there's like occupancy sensors, like they're not staying there? Staying on 24/7? Like these are on 20 477 days a week, 365 days? A year? Is there a way to do occupancy sensors so they're only coming on when there's actually people here to see it? Because the problem is that they're there. Their life expectancy is shortened because they're always on
that's interesting.
We can definitely look into that with Toshiba.
And not just what to see. I mean, you know, with with a lot of things that we do we do with occupancy sensors we deal with, you know, motion sensors, is this roving around they have it turned on. So I just think that same thought needs to happen around around those because we're probably shortening the life quite a bit.
excellent suggestion. Yeah. Okay, we have a motion in a second. We've gone through the discussion. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Next item.
So then my second item for your review and approval is to establish a new snow plowing service contract with the associated assaulting applications is needed. And so I got a low price from premier group associates premier group also does our landscaping. They're very familiar with our building. They went through the walkthrough with us so they know exactly what we need. They so this price here is accurate. So this is for the plowing so $8,625 Now the second here the contract they are raising their price quite a bit, but it's still a significant decrease than the other bidders. And the Saltine application would be an extra charge which their unit prices are listed here also so the difference in the salting depends on the location so you know if they're assaulting the the roof that's a different costs and if they're you know, assaulting the sidewalks so. And this was a public bid that was issued and been for approval on this one.
I have a motion to approve some out of a second. Can we have a motion approved discussion? So I'd like to start this one off. I'm concerned about $3,000 for plowing the roof when previous years were 100 over 100,000. And I'd also like to say that when I was the general manager of this facility, we once went for the low bidder because Alison outdoor, missed the bidding deadline. And it was a disaster. When we're talking about life safety here and the company that was that was the low bidder was unable to fulfill the requirements and we I think we had it was five or six cars on the first snowstorm you know, we're we're banging down the the helix and it was it was a little bit frightening for me you know, this is one of those like, Allison's not the low bidder. But they're also they know what it takes to do this. And they've been doing it here for better part of the decade. So I am concerned that that our landscaper most most landscapers are in the snowplow business
only thing I'll say about this landscaper because I do know Premier. Yes, they are contracted to do the city of Detroit. Yeah, so they do a lot of big industrial like large facilities. I certainly can't speak to why the price is so different. But and maybe they don't have an understanding of what the job is. And that might be an issue in itself. So I don't know but I do know that they do really big projects and do like I think they do like places around the country. So I don't know but I don't know why their bids. So there's a difference.
So we call the references they do Detroit public schools, they do Wayne County, very large customers right next door to us. And part of their explanation was that they literally drive their trucks right in front of our facility when they go from customer to customer.
Today. This includes I'm sorry to like this includes the roof as well as the helix.
Yes. So it's not
it's right. Yep.
Maybe not understood. You think maybe they don't understand it involves the roof.
So we Yeah, so we talked with them numerous time. You know, Eric camel, myself and Karen might have so part of the other part of the reason their prices so low so last year, what we spent on just the plowing was 43,000. The majority of the actually the cost of this service in in years back is related to the salting and so the beginning of March, we had the horrible experience where this the snow was piled up and then it melted and it went in through the airport and then went into the walls. So we actually changed the bid requirements this year where they're not allowed to stack up the snow so long. So that raise the price of the other two bidders. So that's why like Ellison, their price went up this year than last year.
What was it last year?
So last year, last year, they're plowing was 43,000. Okay, and then we spent 69,000 with them for assaulting. So,
I guess what I'm wondering why actually, I don't know. So if it's 43,000 right, and now they're coming back at 122. But so why is premier group only at 8000 because they're basically saying all of it's gonna be 57,000
So I'm or 60,000 probably more like 7080 Considering you know, the price of salts gone up. But what what they're doing is they're using much more efficient equipment. And one piece of equipment is a it's a melting machine. So instead of the other other companies having to bring down the snow, you know to store it so it doesn't stay up on the roof because we've we've had damage from the roof from the snow plower so they actually have a huge machine that actually melts the snow on site.
Would we be able to get them based on looking at the faces of our board member to actually know a lot about this construction stuff? Sure. Would we be able to get like before we vote online, could we get more detail from them about why they are what they're proposing and maybe Are we missing something that that we didn't miss? Why
we just mislead Mr. Chairman? Yes, I had called her. What is this? i Well, who who's the person that authorized the assault? Is the contractor just know when to assault her? Do we have some? What do they do? How do they solve what's the process?
So I believe they work with Eric and it's a communication between the
air and amateurs based on you know, if the temperature is going to be at a certain point, and there's a potential for for precipitation, so it's 30 degrees and there's a 50% chance of precipitation, you know, they may you know be on standby and then if it starts to literally you know, because precipitation starts then we can you know sometimes what
will happen you get somebody has a little bit but then that on the backside and I'm just assuming they're going to make this all up in salt so that the Church will balance itself out in salt but I saw that and I'm like this is it just doesn't look legitimate. I mean, they don't have enough to cover gas and I don't care if it takes them an hour to be here an hour for the whole winter. Like last
year we were in sorry. Last year we had like a horrendous storm in March. Uh, basically, we did not have much snow at all. I mean, it was a very, very mild winter and even still be spent nearly 60,000 on just on the plowing. I would, I would be shocked again, I would have trouble even even at a 70% increase the next year. It's not even it's
just for me and the concept it just seems like now there's not much you can do. They put their bid in and I don't like low and I don't like high I always like the middle, you know, and while I know it's going to cost more I just think they should put a legitimate bid and because we should tell them as a business how to be a business but you got to make money. This doesn't make money. This doesn't even make sense. And you can't go back and ask them to explain that because then you'd have to redo the bid because the other people already put their bids in.
Would it help to have the gentleman from premier come to the next meeting and explain it
or not for me because they've submitted their bid and never Yeah, absolutely. But let me that's the lesson you learn put a legitimate bid and then not do this next time. It's a one year contract or a two year contract. But even if he comes and explains that it doesn't make sense 1000 doesn't cover his gas or his material or his trucks the wear and tear on his trucks. There's no business model that can make that work. Must defer to the majority
of board and they won't get held and I feel like dying on but I guess my my question is, is it's clear, but this is I don't think they're there. There may have been a misunderstanding and some of it. So part of me says is there a possibility to ensure that we're clear in the RFP and give folks another opportunity to sharpen their pencils because the problem is now you're absolutely right. We can't be like give us a new number because he's seen, like the brief is out. This is a public document in theory, anybody could see this, right? Yes. I just wonder, do we want to look at Did we do something wrong and the bit that got them and maybe you guys did you look at the bid at all?
Or a second Asterix for the first five so false or something like
that. Right, right. argument if you think that your group when you think about how many if you do the county and the city and other places you're doing Yeah, and you're doing with whoever's
there, so I should get fired.
Well, this isn't a reputable, no doubt, business. I like like literally it's been in business for a long time. The difference is shocking. Well, we have
to either accept their 8000 are not.
I would not I wouldn't. I mean my look, I'll do whatever you guys decide to do are, like more expert in this than me. But I would almost want to say look at what we put out where we're not clear on what we asked for. And then give another opportunity if indeed we are clear. If not then go with the next well, I've
I can tell you that this and this is almost a replication of the previous you know, for that went out. Okay, and the other bidders really did what I consider to be responsibly I just think that
you guys recommended them. I mean, you're recommending Premier or we
know yeah, there's with all our due diligence, we can't find a reason that you know, other than he's got a low price to really discount them if it if it helps. So he mentioned like his equipment, and I can read this out to you. So who's he who's Oh, Brad, the EarthSky he's the CEO. He was actually here at the last board meeting, but we you know, we didn't get to this motion. But he's, you know, he he's, he would love to come back and talk with whoever but so this is seen as the equipment a skid loader with a box blade. A plow truck, a sidewalk machine in hand crew to remove salt, I mean snow. So, they faced it on an average of 16 plows and the majority of the service that they normally see is salting. So
mean the roof, right? None of that and that includes the roof. Absolutely. No, no, I'm saying the equipment that you just outlined would not go up to the roof right? Yes.
So I think the skid loader okay. The skid loader because that's the narrower one.
Maybe, I mean, what's, what are the recommendations from the
I would be a no vote. If you know this. There's a motion on the floor. I'm a no vote on this. I would, you know, two recommendations one is this is a very good example of lowest bid is not the best bid, you know, at $8,000. This is a loser so they're gonna end up having it either eat a large sum of loss or not perform
or change orders, right. Does it allow for change orders on the contract? No.
It's irresponsible. If we were to approve something that knowingly they're going to fail it.
Like just it. It does strike me as there's no way to make a profit on this. And if they if if we have a winter of significant snowfall, and again I think we've seen in the past where where you you know, you agree to or someone agrees to something and then they can't live up to it and then we're and then we're scrambling to reach and find somebody
ends up costing us more money to try to find somebody when there's a big snowstorm to bail us out.
No, I'm with you. I guess I just and we've just the stark differences so crazy, and we
appreciate your candidness and that much is Miss Wiley said and but they're a great company. They got this I can see where you were. Yeah, but this isn't responsible to what Berkeley say and this is just not. I would also like process for us.
I would also use this as maybe one of many examples where lowest bid is, you know, we can't have a procurement process that only rewards lowest bid, because this is this is an example where lowest bid is not the best bid
sounds like what happened was this big convinced you when you talk to them that this makes sense. And it said that what their well it gets even with their costs increasing 78% The next year it doesn't make a lot lot so that's a little bit, right. But,
ya know, I've been spectacle through this. And I had many conversations with Eric and Karen. I even talked with Jeff to see if there was some sort of guarantee or a bond that we could hold them to. But, you know, on bond when they're only you know, we're only paying them 9000 A years and gonna really enforce it very much so. Yeah, it's just really we could not find a reason that we could just
found a reason so okay. Yeah. So I'm not going to call well should be called we have a motion. It's got a motion call for a vote and
we can make the motion chief recommended, but we can make a motion to we would like to improve on that correct.
Yeah, Jeff would support should we vote no on this and then ask for redo it or should we what should we do the appropriate move?
You can deny this? You can table this you can deny it and approve. Do you have the sufficient information about the other bidder to make
a really incumbent? Well, let
me let me Yes, but I guess you you can and your team Eric had the information. Why did you choose to move away from Allison and to premiere?
So the idea was we were looking for we thought Ellison would be the natural one. We've had them for years, but this one came in low and Laura and Eric did due diligence. They talked to him over and over again. They explained what the role was. He was very adamant that yes, he understood it and this was the dollar figure because he felt it was a new piece of business and do whatever. Yep, exactly. So So I think and he does our landscaping so I think he was thinking oh, I'll just you know this is growing now you know if we got landscaping, potentially
our landscaping is
rather slim. Yeah. It is,
you know, I mean, the apartment buildings have been replaced. What is
Eric do? I'm sorry.
He's our director of parking operations.
So he doesn't have a background in like the maintenance stuff.
Well, he's been doing it for years here. Yeah, he's he's the one who will dictate when they plow and salt accelerate.
I guess it to echo what I think Rick said. I'm surprised this this far moving through, right, because like if you've had some questions, and you knew the company, I make the motion that was beloved and you're making such a drastic change. I would have thought and you're not an expert in this stuff. Are you? Okay? You're an expert in doing procurement, right, which I think you've shown right. But I think we should be thoughtful about still choosing the responsible, qualified bigger fitter, too. I know that you did background and due diligence, but that was a big departure. I'd like to make
a motion in and I can explain in my motion. I mean, I'm not necessarily a person that goes to the highest or the lowest, I tend to like to land somewhere in the middle. And I think, you know, we've always looked at the business risks at the lowest so I'd like to make a motion to approve the middle. Allison outdoor for an annual plumbing cost of 122,000.
So point of order. We have a motion already on the floor that we have. Oh yes, you're correct. We have a motion we got to we got to do something with first
should withdraw the motion. Whoever made the motion to withdraw,
Alexis and Jeff.
I withdraw my motion a second
to withdraw. Okay, now we have a new motion on the floor to move forward with Alison outdoors all in favor
of withdrawing so there's
it's withdrawn there's no maker
maker. So I'd like to make a new motion. Yes. Thank you. To approve Alison outdoor for annual planning cost per 122,000 support,
the motion and a second. Any discussion?
If they did, besides the reasons that were already stated, since it's our understanding, they've already been reforming the service here? As far as I know, I haven't heard any complaints about it. This is a big issue, especially in the climate we're in and it's important for safety and many other issues. That it's a peace of mind. So I support it. Okay,
thank you. All in favor, aye. Any Aye Any opposed? Moving forward. Now, can we we need to appoint the chief executive officer is that it was important. Can we just move to that right now? Because Mr. Mr. Abood has to go.
So we've anything we got a vote.
Yeah, I think we can we can move item D and E and move to a future meeting.
And then you want to lemonade now?
Should we have a resolution to appoint Chief Executive Officer? Do I have a motion? So moved. Second? Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Pose. Motion carries.
Um, one question I have that I would like now that you have assumed that CEO role. I've been signing lots of checks that we've built time, I understand as treasurer for the contract for the purchase orders. I'm good with that. I just don't know do I certainly be signing checks. One of my
first acts is going to be working with Jeff Schroeder to look at the bylaws and all policies board policies to come back with more functional process.
That would be great because I this was new since as part of the transition with Patrick leaving he started signing checks. I know I'm anyone a stamp. Right, exactly. Or I read everything and I'm like, channeling my inner Marilyn
I think oh, maybe I'll leave this here sir.
I'll grab it. To be Miss powers. Do we have any public comments? Motion to adjourn is always an order so so I can thank you guys. Thank you. You can probably get us in
