►
Description
Speakers:
Mr. Phil Andrews, Chair
Mr. N. Scott Phillips
Ms. Sheila Dixon
Ms. Peta Richkus
Mr. Peter Placke
Ms. Carla Nelson Chambers
Mr. Wade Kach
Mr. Dan Morhaim
Mr. Steve Walsh
Elisabeth Sachs
Jasmine Clemons
Carla Tucker
A
A
A
C
A
A
As
I
have
it,
we
have
the
june
28
20
21
minutes.
There
have
been
no
edits
or
changes
or
comments
to
those
july
22nd
21
meeting
minutes.
We
are
deleting
the
sentence
that
dan
has
pointed
out
in
his
email
right
now.
All
it
says
is
mr
moran
asks
for
clarification
on
we're
just
going
to
delete
that
no
changes
to
august
12
2021
that
anyone's
brought
to
my
attention.
No
changes
to
august
26,
2021
meeting
minutes
anyone's
brought
to
my
attention.
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
I
do
want
to
tell
everybody
that
I
have
made
the
executive
decision,
not
one
that
I
wanted
to
make,
but
I
have
inquired
whether
we
could
get
a
brief
extension
of
time
to
get
the
final
reporting
and
the
reason
I've
done.
That
is
just
with
with
the
thanksgiving
holiday
next
week
and
the
demands
on
the
people
who
need
to
get
this
finalized
and
looking
like
a
professional
report,
the
way
our
we
are.
A
So
I
understand
that
we
will
be
granted
an
extension
until
I
think
until
december
15
and
my
thought
today
is.
We
will
go
through
the
section
to
see
if
there's
anything
else,
we'll
we'll
deal
with
this
last
prompt
payment
piece,
anything
else.
Anybody
wants
to
wants
to
bring
up,
and
then
elizabeth
and
I
are
going
to
then
work
on
getting
everything
into
the
sort
of
the
same
voice,
making
certain
we're
not
repeating
ourselves.
A
Making
certain
we've
got
the
all
the
parts
we
need
so
to
speak,
and
I
think
it's
a
more
efficient
use
of
everybody's
time.
If,
as
as
we
go
through
that
process
before
we
get
it
finally
to
what
I'm
referring
to
an
old-school
way
as
the
printer
for
the
final
edition,
if
you
will,
we
will
just
we
will
check
in
with
subcommittee
chairs
as
db.
If
there's
something
that's
not
clear
or
if
we
think
that
something
is,
it
would
give
me
some
sort
of
background
or
there's.
A
So
if
someone
I'm
not,
I
can't
even
think
what
it
might
be,
but
some
other
issue
comes
up
because
I
don't
think
trying
to
reconvene.
Everybody
at
this
juncture
will
make
sense.
I
promise
to
use
my
best
judgment
of
something
I
again.
I
can't
imagine
what
it
would
be,
but
something
occurs
to
me
that
I
think
everybody
should
weigh
in
on.
A
I
will
not
hesitate
to
reconvene
everybody,
but
if
that
general
approach
sounds
okay,
that's
that's
what
we'll
do
and
again
I
I
all
of
us
have
to
work
to
deadlines
of
all
sorts,
and
I
really
did
not
want
to
have
to
extend
anything,
but
I
just
don't
see
a
way
to
get
things
done
and
make
certain
that
it
reads
as
well
as
it
can
and
has
everything
nailed
down
and
confirmed
in
the
way.
I
think
we
want
it
to
be.
A
A
Tabbed
appropriately,
let's
go
through
the
sections
again.
This
is
sort
of
a
broad
sort
of
broad
movement
through
in
one
of
the
drafts,
with
senator
elizabeth
had
some
questions,
if
any
of
those
things
any
as
we
go
through
any
of
those.
If
we
need
to
respond
to
to
those
one
structural
piece-
and
I
believe
it's
reflected
in
the
in
meeting
minutes,
I
think
actually
was-
I
think
steve
had
had
brought
it
up.
Initially
is
what
we're
gonna
do?
How
we'll
approach
the
use
of
the
interim
report?
A
I
think
at
one
point
the
events
thought
well,
let's
make
an
appendix
to
the
final
report
and
but
I
think
in
one
of
the
earlier
meetings
we
decided
that
we
would.
We
wanted
to
incorporate
in
this
final
report
the
commission's
recommendations,
and
so
we
will,
the
idea
will
be
will
not.
We
will
not
make
the
interim
report
a
an
appendix.
A
Obviously,
we
refer
to
the
fact
that
it
occurred,
but
this
final
report,
these
our,
are
our
recommendations
and
we
will
import
into
the
body
of
this
report
the
the
interim
recommendations
that
haven't
changed
and
have
been
adopted
by
the
future
and
again
it's
it's
trying
to
pull
all
these
different
pieces
together.
All
these
edits
together
that,
in
my
view
at
least,
it
informs
the
need
for
or
drives
a
need
for
a
bit
more
time
to
be
sure
we
get
it
right.
Okay,
having
said.
E
F
And
phil-
I
did
just
want
to
ask
if
in
this
next,
in
the
time
we
have
today,
we
could
quickly
go
through
the
cao's
mark
up
to
the
interim
report,
because
that
was
the
best
vehicle.
There
had
been
talk
of
a
huddle,
and
so
she
and
I
did
talk,
but
she
specifically
made
comments,
not
that
many
and
I
think,
and
then
jasmine
imported
them.
She
made
handwritten
comments.
We
imported
them
and
attract
changes.
So
I'd
like
to
just
run
through
that
document,
there
is
one
substantive
question
she
had
for
the
commission.
F
A
F
A
B
A
I
think
when
you
were
away,
we
had
the
ceo
come
in
to
talk
to
us
and
we
one
of
the
questions
that
was
asked
is
in
light
of
the
interim
report.
Have
there
been
any
recommendations
that
are
already
being
been
acted
upon,
but
she
told
us
there
had
been.
That
was
fine,
and
then
I
think
I
asked
was
there.
What
else
was
there
some
other
reaction
to
it,
because
we
hadn't
heard
anything,
and
so
I
think
that's
that's
what
we're
going
to
hear
now.
But
okay,
thank
you.
G
So
I'll
pull
it
up
because,
especially
for
those
items
or
those
recommendations
that
are
included
in
the
final
report,
then
it
may
be
beneficial
to
acknowledge
these,
so
I
will
send
it
around
separately.
But
what
I'll
do
now
is
just
point
out.
I
think
two
or
three
notes
very
simply
here
under
the
pre-qualification
recommendation.
E
D
G
H
And
just
hold
right
there
that
the
the
procurement
review
group
is
not
is
already
going
on,
and
I
made
that
error
and
so,
as
I
think
you
saw
in
the
edits,
so
it
needs
to
go
where
we'll
take
number
three.
It
needs
to
go
and
advise
mbe
advisory
committee
just
wanted
to
let
everybody
know
it's
not
the
procurement
review
group,
because
that's
already
ongoing
it
was
put
in
the
wrong
place.
Okay,.
G
F
H
And
elizabeth
actually
and
you're
you're
correct,
and
I
guess
we
should
still
put
it
there.
You
know
so
it's
in
both
places
so
that
in
case
for
the
mbe
office,
when
they're
doing
their
outreach,
there
may
be
contracts
that
we
know
often
have
goals
on
them.
That
we'll
put
those
out
there
or
or
when
we're
talking
about
those
small
those
small
programs
for
the
small
business
side.
So.
G
I
G
G
B
I'm
sorry
because
pete's
point
in
this
case
I
knew
what
oit
was
but
often
acronyms.
I
don't
know
what
they
are
and
it's
embarrassing
to
ask.
So
I
think
we
should
for
go
through
this
and
have
a
glossary
that
has
all
the
acronyms
spelled
out
if
they're
not
introduced
at
the
first
time,
they're
used
in
a
section
because
other
people
are
going
to
be
reading
this
that
are
not
going
to
be
as
deeply
into
it
as
us
and
they're
not
going
to
know
what
these
things
are
and
it
may
be
relevant.
H
In
reference
to
this
overall
mbe
goal,
I
don't
recall
we
one.
The
subcommittee
never
talked
about
establishing
a
goal.
I
don't
know
if
that
was
what
we
were
supposed
to
do,
even
though
it
was
quote
recommended
by
the
disparity
study.
I
I
don't,
and
I
put
that
in
the
in
my
comments-
I
I
don't
know
if
the
procurement
committee
should
be
the
ones
comfortable
with
setting
the
goal.
H
I
Okay,
so
I
just
think
the
comment
I
think
we
talked
about
that
a
little
bit
early
on
during
the
disparity
with
the.
During
the
time
the
disparity
study
was
going
on.
The
goals
were
actually
increased
from
like
12
and
15
to
20,
so
the
goals
had
already
been
raised
and
we
had
a
small
discussion
about
that.
I
Left
it
go
because
it
really
needs
to
be
looked
at
in-house
and
in
a
comm
in
a
a
review
somewhere
I
mean
there'll
be
some
contracts
that
you
can
get
20
percent.
There
may
be
some
that
you
can't
so
just
you
can't
have
one
you
just
can't
have
one
one
goal
for
every
contract:
one
shoe
doesn't
fit.
You
know.
H
Yeah,
that's
not!
That
is
true.
There
is
a
goal
for
every
contract,
but
the
overall
program
goal
like
for
the
state
is
what
27
and
or
29,
and
something
for
wbe,
but
for
each
contract.
It's
still,
you
know,
contract
by
contract
basis.
So
this
was
what
is
the
overall
goal
for
the
for
the
program
and
that's
what
was
being
asked-
and
I
didn't
know
that
that
was
something
that
this
committee
was
supposed
to
quote
suggest
so.
F
F
And
I'm
just
you
know
it's
not
supposed
to.
I
don't
think
we
need
at
this
late
date
to
open
this
up,
but
she
sort
of
was
curious.
She
asked
me
in
a
conversation
and
then
put
it
as
a
comment.
If
the
commission
agrees
but
part
point
being,
we
did
a
lot
of
work
you
all
this
subcommittee
and
didn't
come
up,
and
this
is
not
a
request.
It
was
just
a
question
and
it
sounds
like
and
I
defer
to
fill
in
everyone,
but
no.
J
G
So
if
you
all
may
recall-
and
it's
in
the
current
final
one
too
at
the
end
of
the
mbe
section,
there's
a
reference
to
the
disparity
study,
which
I
believe
touches
on
the
percentages.
So
she
pulls
a
question.
If
there
is
an
increase
agreed
upon
to
the
commission,
we
should
add
it
here,
not
suggesting
that
we
come
up
with
the
percentage.
But
if
there
was
one
because
she
was,
we
didn't
share
with
her
the
interim
discussions
and
everything
for
the
final
draft.
J
A
Yeah,
the
subcommittee-
let's
back
up,
I
mean
at
this
juncture
it's
it's
a
little
late
to
do
it
number
one
number
two.
I
think
the
subcommittee
would
have
to
have
access
to
a
great
deal
more
information
before
it
could
make
that
kind
of
recommendation
and
I
think
for
the
flexibility
and
contracting,
I'm
sure
the
county
will
look
carefully
at
the
disparity
study
and
look
carefully
at
this
commission's
recommendation
and
and
sort
it
out
based
on
information
that
it
deems
appropriate.
Yes,
carl.
H
J
I
know
it
was
in
it
was
in
it
was
it
in
the
law
department,
but
something
also
had
to
come
before
the
council
in
our
case
right
get
approved,
but
it
based
on
the
recommendations
from
the
disparity
study,
the
the
city.
That's
right,
right,
that's
what
I
wanted
to
always
have
room
where
in
the
goals
you
know
it
does
give
a
addendum
of
if
those
goals
can't
be
met,
but
yeah.
H
Thank
you,
that's
what
I
wanted
to
ask
that
it
was
in
the
office
of
law,
because
embu
sits
in
the
office
of
law,
and
I
remember
going
to
city
council
and
saying
that
our
department,
through
the
mayor's
office,
agreed
with
the
goals,
and
we
also
had
to
go
before
the
city
council
to
talk
about
the
sunset
about
not
letting
the
program
sunset.
Those
were
the
two
times
I
would
go
before
city
council
as
the
mayor's
representative,
but
I
just
I
was
trying
to
remember
where
that
was
done.
So
thank
you.
F
A
I
I
will
say
I
will
send
around
to
the
commissioners.
I
have
a
list.
I
had
an
environmental
case
a
bunch
of
years
ago,
and
I
will
tell
you
in
environmental
cases,
particularly
for
a
non-scientist
like
me,
is
very.
It
was
daunting,
so
there
was
a
five
or
six
single
five
or
six
page
single
space
list
of
acronyms
that
we're
dizzying.
B
A
Let's
see
well,
let's
kind
of
just
roll
through
these
sections,
see
if
there's
anything
in
particular
that
that
anybody
wants
to
talk
about.
We
do
want
to
talk
about
the
prompt
payment
piece
when
we
get
to
it's
a
the
that
subcommittee
on
the
introduction,
I
think,
what's
we're
gonna,
add
an
executive
summary
try
to
hit
the
sort
of
the
headlines
from
recommendations
from
from
each
from
each
group.
A
B
But
when
I
got
down
to
that
appendix
and
seeing
you
know
complete
bios
with
photos
of
all
these
people
in
the
appendix
on
page
61,
62
63,
I
thought
well
that's
a
bit
much!
That's
just
my
personal
opinion
on
it
and
maybe
those
could
be
trimmed
down.
That's
a
lot
of
paper.
I
think
they're,
fine
and
wonderful
people,
and
you
know
a
couple
of
sentences.
Each
one
would
be
fine,
but
just
a
little
overkill
of
paper
there.
A
B
A
A
A
K
A
I'm
gonna
take
responsibility
for
making
sure
we
get
what
we
need
in
the
introduction.
But
if
there's
something
more,
you
know
we
could
say
more
about
each
of
us.
If
we'd
like
to
I'll
totally
just
say
less
about
about
the
folks
in
the
appendix
okay
and
again
in
the
in
the
interim
report,
there
was
a,
I
think,
I'm
remembering
this
correctly.
There
was
a
page.
A
Okay,
so
now
we're
procurement,
staffing,
training
and
certification,
and
there
are
a
number
of
comments,
peta
and
elizabeth
back
and
forth.
Is
there
I'll
start
with
with
you
peter?
Is
there
anything
else?
Did
elizabeth's
comments
or
questions
or
elizabeth?
You
see
any
anything
else
either
from
peta.
At
this
point.
F
K
H
No,
no,
that's!
Okay!
I
meant
to
I.
I
sent
the
ed
my
comments
to
everyone,
but
in
the
introductions
I
saw
under
construction.
You
all
had
rick
and
jermaine
and
had
rigged
through
april
15th
and
jermaine
apple
after
april
15th,
but
in
the
mwbe
it
was
just
rick.
So
I
added
through
april
15th,
and
I
added
jermaine
jones
after
the
whole
thing,
because
that
was
he
was
missing
out
of
the
mwbe.
A
G
H
H
D
K
A
E
E
D
A
B
F
B
I,
in
the
version
that
I
sent,
I
agree
with
you
on
the
problem
and
I
wrote
a
fix
in
and
I
think
what
I
wrote
is
that
the
the
policy
should
follow
those
set
by
the
county
executive
in
the
county
council
or
something
like
that.
So,
yes,
I
think
that
was
a
confusing
sentence.
Elizabeth,
I
agree
with
you
and
I
put
a
okay.
F
F
F
It's
not
impressively
specific,
so
I
I
don't
know
how
much
we
want
to
flag
what
they've
said.
This
is
frankly,
more
concrete
and
actionable,
so
a
generalized
statement
may
be
catch
summarizing
where
there's
overlap
might
actually
make
more
sense,
but
I
I'll
I
can
talk
to
you
or
anyone
who's
interested
offline
about
how
we
characterize,
but
it's
helpful
to
see
this.
Definitely
thank
you
for
flagging
and
peta.
A
K
A
That
is
helpful
to
see
it.
My
my
concern
is
that
I
don't
think
we've
seen
the
final
version
of
that
report
and
I
I
don't
want
to
get
us
two
out
there
saying
gee.
They
agree
with
us,
I'm
sure
they
do,
but
just
in
case
since
we
haven't,
I
we're
not
gonna
have
doesn't
sound
like
we're.
Gonna
have
their
final
report
before
our
final
report
goes
in
so
anyway.
I
I
I'm
inclined
to
not
call
out
unless
we're
absolutely
certain.
It's
ironclad
nothing's
gonna
change
the
last
minute
in
their
report.
E
J
A
E
A
Somebody-
and
I
can't
remember
peter
if
it
was
someone
else
who
said
the
fact
that
we
know
it's
going
it's
ongoing.
But
again
we
don't
have
a
report
and
I
think
we,
I
think
in
this
draft
we
say
somewhere
and
they
should
their
suggestions
should
be
carefully
considered.
I
think
we
simply
say
we
know
the
report's
coming
and
we'll
understand
that
it'll
it
will
be
it'll,
be
reviewed,
but.
D
A
F
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
actually
look
seek
peter's
edits
until
now,
and
I
think
we
can
talk
offline.
My
my
overall
point
was
that,
while
some
of
the
recommendations
or
the
some
of
this
content
definitely
is
new
and
different,
there
were
others
that
were
more
validating
of
recommendations
elsewhere
in
the
report.
F
E
F
F
E
A
K
H
So
right
here
the
when
we
set
the
subcommittee
recommendations,
we're
talking
about
the
procurement
review
group.
It
actually
should
be
the
mbe
advisory,
but-
and
I
actually,
we
probably
have
to
call
it
mbe
wbe
s
and
small
business
advisory
council,
because
that's
what
was
agreed
upon
per
the
disparity
study
or
whatever
that
new
name
is
going
to
be,
but
for
right
now,
we'll
call
it
nbe,
wbe
and
small
business
advisory.
H
I
think
it
was
committee.
Where
do
I
have
it
advisory
committee
because
that's
what's
listed
and
where
it
says
procedures
to
implement
mwbe
remedies,
which
is
two
pages?
Damn
I'm
doing
like
this.
You
know
so
that
needs
to
be
restated.
Does
that
make
sense?
Okay
and
then
we've
already
talked
about
the
overall
goal,
as
you
can
see,
carla
was
asking
me,
but
that's
because
her
and
stacy
have
been
talking.
So
basically,
we
were,
as
we've
already
talked
about.
H
A
H
F
Actually
walked
through
her
edits
with
her,
and
then
I
have
the
handwritten
version,
although
it's
at
my
house,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
she
and
I
on
this
one
together-
said
whoops,
there's
one
department
that
does
a
lot
of
procurement
and
it's
information
technology,
and
it
should
be
in
this
list
now,
carl,
if
you
think
elsewhere
too,
we
can,
we
can
bring
it
up
with
her,
but
I
I
know
it
was
for
f
would
be
letter
f
here
or
somewhere
in
this
number
every
as
a
voting
member.
Well,
we
didn't
get
to
that.
F
F
L
M
F
M
A
M
M
M
G
G
A
M
H
D
K
E
I
don't
think
I
agree
that
oit
isn't
on
there,
because
there's
a
very
good
reason
and
construction
people
do
procurement
and
one
of
the
recommendations
in
our
re.
Our
final
report
is
towards
this
point,
and
that
is
the
county
should
be
considering
taking
those
procurement
people
in
dpw
and
t
and
putting
them
in
the
procurement
group,
because
they
do
procurement,
and
so
there
would
be
better
training,
brainstorming,
cross-fertilization
and
a
knowledge
base
oit,
like
any
other
agency,
should
be
brought
in
to
the
review
group.
J
M
Right
so
the
goal
setting
all
procurements
that
come
through
purchasing
any
procurement
over
25
000
or
service
contracts
or
two
years
or
more,
have
to
go
through
the
procurement
review
group
for
determination
of
goal
setting
so
oit
aging
health
department
police
department,
any
one
of
them.
They
all
come
through
our
office
for
goal
setting.
A
D
J
M
A
J
A
G
H
A
Oit,
no,
not
not
on
the
committee
right,
okay,
because
I
don't
that
that
was
my
issue.
I
don't
see
what
oit
has
do
with
setting
with
being
involved
in
figuring
out
what
the
goals
ought
to
be.
I
will
say
when
oit
is
the
procuring
agency,
just
like
any
other
procuring
agency,
they
might
be
able
to
help
inform
what's
a
realistic
goal
by
saying
gee
there's
only
two
companies
in
the
whole
world
and
they're
in
I
don't
know
some
other
country
they're,
the
only
ones
who
make
this.
A
H
Thing
so
jasmine
scroll
down
two
pages,
please
hold
on
wait
a
minute:
okay,
yeah
keep
going
so
hold
on.
Let
me
see
because
this
is
this
mason
tillman's
piece,
so
I
think
it's
a
little
bit
keep
going.
I'm
I'm
going
to
scroll
like
it's
my
copy
right.
There
number
two
right
there
and
it
says
the
county
should
establish
that
that
was
that
came
out
of
the
disparity
study
and
we
agreed
with
that.
So
the
question
really
is:
do
we
need
to
restate
it
again
or
is
it
good
enough
here.
A
H
M
Can
I
add
another
comment
as
far
as
this
piece?
Maybe
there's
maybe
some
type
of
recommendation
that
needs
to
take
place
once
after
the
contract
is
awarded
or
something
like
that,
because
that's
that's
when
oit
or
any
other
agency.
If
it's
a
multiple
award,
the
agencies
make
their
decisions.
However,
they
make
their
decisions
after
the
crimes
have
been
awarded.
The
contract.
G
G
I
I
I
H
So
let's
say
we
adopted
the
following
recommendations
as
listed
because
there
were
some
that
we
took
that
the
one
that
you
know
about
the
insurance
stuff
we
took
those
out.
So
if
we
say
the
following,
then
we're
only
listing
the
ones
that
we
agreed
to
and
the
ones
we
didn't
agree
to.
They're
no
longer
in
here.
I
A
Think
the
point
is
pete
that
there
were
certain
recommendations
in
the
disparity
study
that
the
subcommittee
agreed
to
and
those
are
listed
below.
I
think
it
could
be
said
a
little
more
clearly,
I'm
with
you
on
that,
but
we're
not
we're
not
saying
we
adopted
all
of
them
because
we
didn't
but
we're
adopting
the
ones
that
are
listed
here.
But
I
I
agree
that
you
could
be
said
a
little
more
clearly
we'll
we'll
fix
that
in
the
edits.
F
H
Thought
the
whole
we
had.
I
thought
the
whole
disparity
study
was
going
to
be
in
the
appendix,
because
even
above
in
my
summary,
I
I
asked.
Can
you
please
indicate
what
the
page
numbers
are
for
the
disparity
study
and
you
you
and
jasmine
or
jasmine
into
those
numbers?
Those
page
numbers
in
the
beginning
of
this
sub
committee
report.
F
A
I
H
A
Easy
we'll
take
care
of
that
okay,
but
I
think
we
can
just
we
can
drop
a
footnote
with
with
the
reference
to
the
to
the
you
know
where
you
can
find
it
on
the
internet,
but
I
don't
know
we
need
to
have
the
having
the
appendix.
But
let's
try
to
be
mindful
of
time
here.
Let's
talk
about
the
sub
subcontractor
remedies
piece,
and
so
let's
find
that
particular.
I
I
D
G
M
G
B
M
H
K
D
K
I
I
I
C
A
A
A
B
Which
is
in
my
document,
page
42.
elizabeth
had
a
comment.
Is
it
true
that
doesn't
rose
butler,
also
use
cooperative
purchase?
She
does
is
fine
with
me.
We
were
just
told
that
mostly
it's
done
via
the
metro
council.
It
doesn't
mean
that
other
people
or
entities
aren't
using
it.
So,
however,
you
want
to
fix
that.
That's
fine
with
me.
B
Let
me
jump
down
to
sustainability,
which
I
think
was
all
the
controversial
stuff
in
in
cooperative
purchasing
was
worked
out
and
within
the
appendix
we
had
sidebar
conversations
on
that,
and
let
me
find
what
page
is
sustainability
there.
It
is
before
there
it
is,
and
there
were
a
couple
of
comments
here.
I
can
find
them
sustainable
procurement
practices.
That's
elizabeth
recommends,
that's
fine
with
me
and
then
she
says
in
the
bold
sections
or
recommendations
we
need
to
title
them
as
such
for
lauren.
However,
you
want
to
format,
that's
not
an
issue.
B
The
key
points
yeah
or
the
key
well
they're,
not
really
all
recommendations.
Some
of
them
are
just
strong,
just
just
clarifying
statements.
The
green
economy
will
create
new
economic
growth
and
employment,
for
example,
is
you
know,
involved
to
catch
people's
eyes,
not
not
to
say
that?
That's
a
recommendation?
That's
just
a.
B
H
B
Put
in
bold
by
the
subcommittee,
because
we
felt
those
make
people
read
topic
sentences
and
we
thought
those
were
important
points
and
then
way
down
on
page
51,
at
least
on
my
version.
There's
some
appendix
6
and
I
deleted
conclusion,
and
I
replaced
it
with
appendix
it
and
you'll
see
this
on
my
version.
B
B
Yeah
right,
so
that's
whatever
that
is
yeah
and
then
on
page
what
my
version,
52
elizabeth,
had
a
comment.
This
should
be
an
appendix.
I
actually
don't
agree
with
that
and
I'm
not
sure
how
much
he
was
referring
to
elizabeth
just
the
additional
information
or
suggested
revisions
that
the
county
code.
I
think
those
are
both
substantial
items
by
definitions
and
by
specific
recommendations
and
examples
not
to
be
in
the
body
of
the
report
and
not
relegated
off
to
the
appendix
in
this
case.
So.
B
F
B
It's
gone
through
a
lot
of
iterations
and
reviews
by
people,
and
this
is
the
first
time
this
comment
has
come
up.
I
don't
think
there's
any
damage
or
harm
by
having
it
where
it
is,
and
I
think
there's
you
know
to
start
rewriting
it
or
where
it
fits
in
other
sections.
I
think
it's
just
more
than
I
wanna
you
know
we
ought
to
be
tackling
at
this
point.
A
F
I
mean
this
is
this
is
more
work
for
all
of
us,
but
as
as
we
look
at,
I
think
peter
and
I
and
phil
maybe
look
at
the
best
practices,
but
you
know
we
may
in
the
formatting
process,
want
to
have
some.
What
do
they
call
them
pull
out
boxes?
I
don't
want
to
over
promise
on
the
formatting,
but
there
may
be
ways
to
highlight
things
in
a
formatting
way
that
we
don't
need
to
rewrite
around
them.
But
it's
clear
why
they're
there
so
well.
B
F
D
D
B
Page
52,
it
says
additional
information
and
if
you
want
to,
I
think
phil
said
maybe
move
that
to
the
front:
that's
fine,
it's
one
definition
or
maybe
that
could
be
an
appendix
if
you
want
that
to
be
in
the
appendix.
I
can
certainly
live
with
that,
but
the
suggested
visions
to
the
county
code.
Title
ii,
I
think,
are.
K
B
F
B
F
A
B
I
C
F
I
I
All
right:
well,
this
is
a
proud
payment,
but
you're
not
at
the
point
where
you're
doing
electronic
payments
for
everyone
and
a
lot
of
subcontractors
and
mbes
aren't
at
the
point
yet
where
they
are
accepting
electronic
payments.
That's
you
know
we're
just
making
a
recommendation
that
the
county
should
move
towards
electronic
payments.
Okay,.
A
Well,
I
I
think
pete
in
your
november
11
email,
where
we
pull
out
the
prompt
payment
provisions
from
the
from
the
cfr
right
and
then
you
have
a
note
saying
we
could
add.
Once
the
county
fully
implements
electronic
payments
to
vendors,
the
county
should
follow
the
state
of
maryland.
You
know
prompt
payments
within
10
days,
so
we
could
add
that
back
up
in
the
mbe
section
as
well
and
then
then
the
two
parts
are
consistent.
I
But
right
now
we're
recommending
the
recommendation
was
put
in
the
the
30.
The
current
with
the
processes
currently
because
that's
what's
I
guess
illegally,
is
what
the
county
is
doing.
Yeah
and
the
other
recommendation
was
really.
You
know
once
it's
something
to
look
forward
to
it's
not
saying
implement.
Now
I
didn't
want
there
to
be
any.
You
know,
confusion
about
that
yeah.
I
B
D
G
F
C
D
C
D
C
F
F
You're
reminding
me
what
I
recalled
when
I
read
this,
which
is
they're
complementary
and
they're,
not
really
addressing
the
same
things,
what
what
public
works
looked
at
and
what
this
report
looks
at,
but
I'll
just
confirm
beth,
and
I
will
confirm
that
make
sure
this.
Maybe
maybe
it's
well
yeah,
okay,
so
efficiency
initiatives
and
just
stick
in
this
last
freight
line.
C
F
A
Again,
I
don't
know
if
that,
if
this,
the
fleet
management
part
is
going
to
change
the
extent
that
there's
any
part
of
it,
that
is
germane
to
what
we're
doing
here,
but
I
I'm
reluctant
to
buy
into
anything.
That's
not
final,
so
we
need
to
be
sure
we
word
it
in
a
way
that
says
we
know
it's
coming
and
we
understand
it's
being
has
been
addressed
and
you
know
we
will.
We
should
we're
sure
it'll
be
given
due
consideration,
but.
A
H
F
F
D
E
F
A
Steve
I
had
a
question
the
appendix
about
the
ae
procurement
process,
guys
in
maryland
counties.
I
remember
when
we
first
had
access
to
that
document.
There
was
a
some
question.
I
think
the
person
who
gave
it
to
you
said
you
know
this
is
what
we're
it's,
what
we're
doing
it's,
but
it's
it's
it's
draft
or
I
think
there
was
just
some
sort
of
advisory
description
of
it
and
we
cover
do
we
have
that.
Do
we
have
what
we
need
in
the
appendix
yes,.
A
C
Mr
chairman,
I
have
one
other
item
if
I
could
fire
away
a
while
back
the
bc.
Stat
folks
who
work
for
elizabeth,
put
together
an
analysis
of
the
surveys
that
went
out,
and
I
thought
that
was
a
a
nice
sort
of
snapshot
of
that
would
that
be
appropriate
to
put
in
the
appendix
it
was
an
internal
working
document.
I
guess
they
put
in
together
a
little
powerpoint
but
yeah,
but
I
thought
that
was
pretty
valuable.
Would
that
be
appropriate
to
put
in
the
appendix.
I
F
F
E
I
And
and
if
we
alluded
to
it
in
our
report,
I
think
the
people
have
whoever's
reading
the
report
has
really
the
right
to
be
able
to
see
what
the
results
were
right.
So
I
mean
I
don't
remember
what
all
the
results
were,
but
I
mean
it
would
still
believe
it's
referred
to,
because
I
think
it
would
be
nice
to
have
it.
L
Yep-
and
I
recall
it
my
I
guess
my
question
was
and
where
I
was
going
is:
is
that
something
if
we
refer
to
it-
and
I
thought
we
did
refer
to
it
at
some
point-
maybe
we
didn't,
but
if
we
refer
to
it,
is
that
something
where
we
refer
to
it.
We
could
just
draw
a
link,
no
different
than
what
we're
talking
about
doing
with
the
disparity
study
and
just
you
know
have,
if
somebody's
reading
it
online,
they
see
it's
a
hyperlink
and
they
can
go
to
it.
F
F
I
found
the
one
that
steve
referred
to,
that
was
the
vendor
survey,
which
was
only
involved.
It
didn't
involve
public
works
llc.
It
was
only
our
attempt
as
a
county
or
through
rose's
shuttle
to
survey
the
vendors.
We
gave
the
data
to
bc
stat
and-
and
there
were
a
lot
of
slides-
it's
not
a
public
document,
so
we
would
have
to
have
it
as
an
appendix,
although
maybe
it
could
be
posted,
we
have
to
go
back
and
check.
I
think
the
one
that
was
really
problematic
was
the
one
that
public
works.
F
F
I
A
I
think
I
think
I
think
in
the
introduction
we
we
talked
about
getting
information.
I
think
we
I
think
we
did.
I
thought
we
said
we
did
a
survey
in
here.
I
got
five
experts
well
to
that
scott
to
your
point,
which
is
a
good
one.
We
could.
We
could
put
something
in
in
the
introduction
because
we
talked
about
where
how
we
gathered
information-
and
that
was
part.
A
F
Well,
we
have
our
extension,
but
it
means
we're
gonna
just
work
as
hard
as
we
can
to
get
this
closer
to
polished
without
quite
the
thanksgiving
rush,
but
we
do
need
to
have
it
final
by
december
5th,
which
I
think
is
doable
so
that
lauren
can
do
the
formatting
and
we
still
need
to
review
the
formatting.
If
you
recall,
there's
always
a
few
tweaks,
so
I
think
you
know
to
get
this
done
by
december
15th.
F
A
And
and
jasmine,
and
I
will
move
forward
to
get
everything
in
one
voice.
Put
all
the
changes
in
here
that
everybody's
talked
about
get
everything
looking
right
as
we
do
that
we
will
we'll
be
we'll
be
in
touch
with
subcommittee
chairs.
If
there
are
questions
or
anything
comes
up
and
again,
if,
if
there's
something
that
it
seems
to
me,
we
all
ought
to
weigh
in
on
or
talk
about
I'll
I'll
reconvene
this
group,
but
at
the
moment
I'm
not
anticipating
doing
that.
A
E
The
slides
are
confusing
because
the
legends
don't
match
from
one
to
another.
The
colors
don't
match
from
you
know
one
to
another,
and
I
I
don't
have
it
in
front
of
me,
but
chart
11
is
misleading
because
it
ignores
the
denominator
and
I
think
the
33
percent
number
is
wrong,
so
I'll
forward
this
information
to
the
to
the
whole
group.
Thank
you.