►
From YouTube: Quality of Life for July 15, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
E
B
C
A
couple
of
amendments
we're
gonna,
have
to
remove
item
6a,
6b,
60
and
6d,
because
they
did
not
get
the
necessary
approvals
prior
to
coming
to
committee.
Hopefully
we
will
see
them
all
again
on
August
5th
and
then
another
just
minor
note
from
the
official
agenda
we
have
posted
is
Marcos.
Martinez
will
be
the
stop
support
on
I.
Think
it's
six
II,
yes,
6e
yeah.
F
B
B
Chris
Rivera,
yes
and
myself,
yes,
so
this
is
interesting,
doing
something
new
here
all
right,
so
the
agenda
is
passed.
Now
we
are
going
to
go
to
approval
of
the
consent
agenda.
There
are
two
items
still
on
the
consent
agenda.
F
F
I'm,
looking
at
two
computer
screens
for
item
yeah
I'd
like
to
co-sponsor
and
then
I'd
like
to
pull
item
F
ISM
Frank
just
for
some
language,
edits,
okay,.
B
B
D
B
B
A
Outside
Thank
You
councillor,
Romero,
Worth
and
members
of
the
committee,
the
resolution
is
in
your
packet.
It's
fairly
brief
and
somewhat
to
the
point.
But
if
you
have
any
questions
on
it,
I'd
be
happy
to
try
to
address
them.
I'm,
also
interested
in
any
of
the
grammatical
changes
that
councillor
Rivera
has
identified.
B
B
E
Not
really
a
question,
but
just
some
changes
on
page
2
of
the
resolution
line
10
in
line
13,
what
it
says,
the
city
manager
or
her
designee.
We
typically
try
to
stay
away
from
her
or
his
or
him.
You
never
know
what's
going
to
happen
a
year
from
now,
so
my
recommendation
would
be
just
to
put
the
city
manager
or
designee
and
scratch
out
her
on
both
of
those
lines.
A
B
B
C
C
D
B
Term
for
that
agreement-
and
we
also
agreed
to
extend
it
for
four
months
beyond
that
period
and
to
Council
Casa
champ
Sanchez's
point
we
also
put
in
there
the
ability
to
incorporate
any
delays
that
might
be
caused
because
of
kovin
restrictions
and
the
development
team
might
not
be
able
to
get
the
right
experts
out
there,
because
we,
you
know,
because
we're
in
a
shutdown
mode.
Am
I
understanding
that
correctly.
A
B
B
B
Okay,
so
we
would,
we
would
say
to
the
city,
so
it's
possible,
we
could
either
say
to
the
city
manager,
go
ahead,
extend
it
for
four
months
or
or
we
could
say,
don't
extend
it
for
four
months
and
she
would
have
to
do
under
the
contract.
I
mean
it
just
to
me.
It
seems
like
we've
already,
given
the
ability
for
it
to
be.
A
No
matter
worth
that's
correct
that
the
the
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
that
the
governing
body
approved
contemplated
the
city
manager
having
the
ability
to
extend
the
term.
That's
how
the
provision
reads
right
now.
If
this
resolution
never
took
effect,
then
the
city
manager
would
have
that
power
under
the
agreement
that
the
governing
body
approved.
Yes,.
A
Was
saying
I
think
I
believe
I
was
following?
You
I
was
saying
that
if
the
governing
body
didn't
approve
this
resolution
or
this
resolution
was
never
introduced,
the
city
manager
would
have
had
the
right
under
the
existing
agreement,
which
the
governing
body
approved
to
extend
the
initial
term
for
four
months.
B
D
Chair
on
that
point,
yes,
so
yeah.
So
during
the
the
hearing
we
had,
it
was
brought.
The
concerns
were
brought
forth
by
many
counselors
to
put
that
authority
in
the
city
manager's
hands
and
at
that
point
it
and
and
and
that
we
would
have
to
go
back
to
the
minutes.
The
city
manager
was
okay
with
us,
removing
that
authority.
The
challenge
then
arose
that
CN
de
we
would
have
had
to
renegotiate
the
contract
and
CN
de
was
not
able
to
make
that
determination
at
the
time
of
the
meeting.
D
So
we
then
move
forward
with
the
intentions
that
we
were
going
to
change
this.
We
weren't
necessarily
going
to
renegotiate
the
contract
or
change
the
contract
language,
but
we
were
going
to
create
the
resolution.
That
would
then
give
the
guidance
to
the
city
manager
whether
or
not
to
extend
the
the
contract
and
I.
Think
that's
what
counselor
B
Hill
Cobblers
intentions
are
with.
D
B
Yes,
I
see
it
differently.
I
see
that
we
already
gave
that
authority
to
the
city
manager
when
we
approved
the
exclusive
most
negotiating
agreement,
which
was,
which
is
a
contractual
agreement
between
the
city
and
the
developers
which
we
approved
and
now
we're
trying
to
basically
undo
or
contradict
the
action
that
we
took.
But.
D
But
we're
not
because
we
talked
about
it
in
the
meeting
that
we
thought
that
authority
should
rely
on
the
governing
body
and
we
had
even
asked
CN
de
on
the
call
if
they
were
okay
with
that
and
they
didn't
feel
it
was
appropriate
at
the
time
to
be
able
to
make
that
change.
Because
there
wasn't
the
appropriate
representation
on
the
clock.
B
I,
remember
that
they
didn't
have
the
proper.
They
didn't
have
the
proper
person
present
to
make
a
change
to
the
negotiated
contract.
But
now
here
we
are
we,
but
we
approved
a
contract,
and
here
we
are
by
resolution
trying
to
change
that
contract
we
and
that
contract
for
all
intensive
purposes,
is
a
16
month
plus
contract
and
probably
under
the
circumstances
I
you
know
given,
given
the
amount
of
work
that
has
to
be
done.
B
It's
probably
it's
reasonable
to
expect
that
they're
going
to
need
16
months
and
so
I
think
that
was
part
of
the
reason
why
that
authority
was
given
to
the
city
manager,
because
you
know
again,
we
are
we're
in
this
operationally
I.
You
know,
that's
that's
the
city
manager's
job
and
we
gave
that
authority
to
her.
B
B
That's
what
I'm,
having
trouble,
counsel
Rivera,
you
had
your
hand
up
and
then
counselor
V,
Hill
cobbler
you're
with
us.
Thank
you
for
joining
us
tonight
as
the
sponsor
all
I'll
call
on
you.
Next.
E
A
Too,
so,
if
we,
if
we
were
actually
trying
to
change
the
contract
terms
and
the
other
party
K
TCC,
and
they
would
have
to
agree
to
that
amendment
in
writing,
but
I
stated
earlier
was,
there
is
a
way
to
read
the
resolution
in
such
a
way
that
it
isn't
changing
the
contract,
and
that
would
be
that
the
governing
body
would
be
giving
direction
of
the
city
manager
to
extend
the
initial
term.
I
I
would
just
note
that
I.
A
Think
the
other
party
can
also
extend
the
term
of
this
agreement
because
they
have
the
right
under
this.
Under
this
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
as
well,
the
text
says
either
party.
You
may
extend
the
initial
term
of
this
agreement
for
four
additional
months,
so
CN
de
could
exercise
the
right
or
the
city
could
have
exercised
the
right.
If
this
resolution
passes,
then
the
governing
body
would
have
to
direct
the
city
manager
to
exercise
that
right.
Okay,.
E
B
A
I
think
that's
a
plausible
reading
of
this
contract.
That's
what
it
plainly
says
that
either
party
may
extend
the
term
of
this
Agreement.
It
doesn't
say
that
both
parties
have
to
agree.
In
essence,
both
parties
have
agreed
to
this
extension
term.
The
question
was:
who
would
do
it
on
behalf
of
the
city
or
CN
de
and
so
or
Katie
CCN
de
Katie
CCN
de
may
exercise
that,
right
by
giving
us
valid
notice,
the
city
may
do
so
as
it's
written
now.
The
city
manager
would
do
that
to
perform
that
act.
G
I
want
to
go
back
to
the
meeting
where
we
discussed
the
contract
with
CN
de
and
during
that
time,
I
had
these
two
amendments
prepared
to
make
and
in
fact
introduced
the
amendments
and
it
was
discussed
by
I,
believe
the
city
attorney
and
the
mayor
had
some
comments
and
maybe
a
few
other
people,
but
you
know
it
it
was
it
was.
Their
argument
was
convincing
that
we
would
have
had
to
start
renegotiate
the
contract
and
then
it
would
delay
everything
and
getting
started.
So
I
didn't
want
to
do
that.
G
G
Don't
believe
that
the
governing
body
should
be
should
not
be
updated
on
the
progress
reports
and
that's
the
other
part
of
this
one
and
I,
don't
believe
the
governing
body
should
be
left
out
of
decision-making
on
extending
the
contract.
Now
my
purpose
in
these
resolutions
and
is
not
and
I,
clearly
understand
it's
for
a
year
and
that
there's
four
additional
months
that
can
either
party
can
extend
you
unilaterally.
G
G
And
hopefully
the
30-day
reports
and
the
30-day
reports
may
make
the
question
of
an
extension
moot,
although
we
would
still
agree
with
the
city
manager.
Maybe
if
she
comes
forward,
because
we
will
have
already
been
informed
but
the
way
that
that
the
contract
is
as
it
is
now,
the
governing
body
has
no
part
in
it
and
and
I
think
it's
important
that
we
have
a
part
in
it
and
I
know.
G
Councillor
Cassatt
Sanchez
is
also
signed
on
as
a
co-sponsor,
although
her
name's,
not
here,
but
you
know
it's
our
district
and
it's
particularly
important
to
me
I
know
it
is
to
her
and
I
think
it's
a
guy
anybody's
role
see
it's
with
this
major
major
project.
This
is
I,
think
there's
no
doubt
by
anyone
that
this
is
probably
gonna,
be
one
of
the
biggest
things
we
do
until
you
know
who
knows
what
the
future
holds,
but
I
don't
think
the
governing
body
should
be
absent
in
the
in
the
role
of
this
project
and
completely.
B
G
This
was
what
I
was
led
to
believe
would
solve
the
issues
that
I
had
that
evening.
Otherwise,
I
wouldn't
have
voted
for
the
contract
if
and
I
did
vote
for
it.
So
this
is
the
path
that
the
powers
that
be
suggested
I
take
to
get
and
and
I
don't
recall
anybody
in
the
conversation
once
again
during
the
council
meeting
expressing
that
that
this
wasn't
something
that
that
also
was
a
good
idea.
G
B
So
councillor
V,
Hill
cobbler
suggests
that
if
the,
if
we
wanted
to
extend
this
contract
beyond
the
12-month
the
initial
12
months
and
then
the
1
4
month,
extension
plus
any
time
that
is
allowed
for
Kovan
restrictions
that
wouldn't
that
decision
come
back
to
the
governing
body,
because
that
would
have
to
be
an
addendum
to
the
contract.
It
was
going
to
be
extended
beyond
that
time.
Let's
say
miraculously
the
kovat
stuff
ends
next
month,
you
know
and
and
so
that
piece
we're
done
with
Kovac.
B
That's
not
the
situation
we're
in,
but
let's
hypothetically,
if
we're
done
with
Kovac
and
we
are
in
this
12-month
period
and
then
we
exercise
the
the
four
months
to
extend
the
contract.
If
we
wanted
to
extend
it
further
than
that,
that
decision
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
governing
body.
Correct
I,.
A
B
Okay,
so
and
I
I
mean
I
completely
agree.
This
is
an
enormous
decision.
What
we
do
with
that
property
I,
don't
think
this
is
just
a
decision
for
District
four
counselors.
This
is
this
is
the
decisions
that
are
being
made
here:
are
decisions
that
impact
the
city
and
have
long
lasting
implications,
so
I
as
a
counselor
for
district
and
very
concerned
about
what
we
do
there
and
making
sure
that
the
council
has
the
appropriate
input
on
on
decisions
that
go
forward
there,
but
I
think
that
we
did
exercise
that
in
when
we
approved
this
contract.
B
We
approved
this
contract
12
months
with
the
four-month
extension
plus
some
undef
in
it
period.
If,
because
we
might
be
shut
down
der
Dudek
Ovid
and
they
couldn't
do
the
necessary
due
diligence,
that's
required
in
order
to
figure
out
what
they
can
and
can't
do
with
the
property.
So
it
seems
to
me
that
you
know
we're
very
much
part
of
the
process
and
also
you
know
the
we
are
getting
updates.
I,
don't
know
that
we
need
a
resolution
to
dictate
that
we
get
updates.
Where
we
are
you
know.
D
D
I'm,
looking
up
I
looked
at
the
minutes
for
the
meeting,
because
I
remember
explicitly
having
this
conversation
in
depth
and
so
blend.
The
resolution
was
brought
forth
by
Councillor
B
Hill
cobbler,
because,
as
she
mentioned,
she
did
bring
forth
this
resolution.
We
had
debate
on
the
matter
and
it
would
slow
it
down.
Mayor
Weber
stated
the
council
says
there
should
be
consideration
internally
amongst
themselves,
how
such
an
extension
should
be
done.
Councilor
V,
Hill
Kapur
recommended
taking
it
up
as
a
resolution
or
procedural
measure
between
the
city
and
not
involve
their
potential
partner.
D
He
noted
this
is
really
more
a
city
matter
than
a
developer's
matter
and
it
could
easily
be
decided
without
preventing
the
contract.
Tonight
then
Aaron
went
on
Miss
McSherry
said
explaining
the
council
has
the
authority
to
write
a
resolution,
so
why,
from
our
city
attorney,
she
did
not
feel
that
we
would
be
in
conflict
with
the
cut
with
the
contract.
If
we
were
to
bring
forth
the
resolution
on
this,
it
says
the
city
has
authority
to
write
a
resolution.
They
can
govern
the
conduct
of
the
city
manager
through
the
resolution
outside
the
contract.
D
The
partner
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
amend
the
contract
tonight
and
the
presentation
cannot
happen
if
they
amend
the
contract
because
there
will
be
no
contract
at
that
point.
So
at
that
point
it
was
decided
that
we
would
be
bringing
forth
the
resolution.
I
know
that
you
said
that
we
agreed
it
greed
and
to
the
to
the
NGA,
but
that
was
part
of.
B
D
Nga,
the
Dix
agreement,
the
exclusivity
agreement
I
apologize
that
those
discussions
were
had
that
we
felt
that
should
rely
within
the
council
and
not
the
city
manager
and
the
city
manager
even
acknowledged
that
it's
not
in
the
minutes,
but
I
remember
her
acknowledging
that
it
was
okay.
If
we
put
forth
the
resolution
so
so
I
think
this
is
something
that
we
were
anticipating
to
come
yeah
out
of
that
conversation,
yeah.
B
And
I
guess:
I
just
see
it.
We
already.
We
essentially
approved
a
16
month
contract
and
we
you
know
and
likely
they
are
going
to
need
16
months
and
and
possibly
more
time
because
of
kovat
and
and
that
beyond
that
face
you
know
we
would
need
to
be
consulted.
If,
if
that
exclude
that
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
needed
to
go
further,
so
counselor
V,
Hill
coppler,
you
have
your
hand
up
again.
Thank
you.
B
G
Know
they're,
seeing
even
in
tonight's
discussion
there
seems
to
be
a
little
bit
of
fakery
about
what
what
Authority
should
have.
This
contract
need
to
be
extended
further,
should
it
come
before
the
governing
body
or
not?
It's
not
clear
and
I
believe
this
resolution
makes
it
clear
and
we
do
many
things
in
city
government,
as
we
have
seen
on
our
capital
meetings,
where
there's
not
there's
not
from
time
to
time.
There's
not
clarity
and
so
I
think
this
provides
the
clarity
and
the
other
point
about
the
30-day
reports.
G
We
only
got
that
report
from
Daniel
Hernandez
after
I
introduced
this
or
brought
this
forward
and
and
I
appreciate
that
he
did
that,
but
it's
not
I,
don't
believe
I
believe
it
was
because
of
that.
It's
we've
only
gotten
one
report
and
this
contract
was
approved
in
May.
Then
it's
timely.
If
you
ask
me
I'm
not
saying
it's
not,
but
but
I
want
to
guarantee
that
I
will
get
a
report
every
30
days
and
and
also
there
there.
G
It
is
in
the
contract
that
the
city
manager
get
the
report,
but
it's
not
in
the
contract
that
we
get
it
and
I
want
that
clarity.
So
there
are
reasons
for
the
initial
comments
I
had
on
the
contract
itself
on
in
May
and
and
the
you
know,
I
acquiesced
and
thought:
okay.
Well,
fine!
We
can
do
this
by
resolution.
Based
on
the
discussion.
Councilor
Garcia
just
raised
it's
exactly
as
I
recollect
yeah.
B
And
I
think
it's
interesting,
because
let
me
just
read
to
you
your
resolution
now,
therefore
be
it
resolved
by
the
governing
body
of
the
city
of
Santa
Fe,
that
the
city,
manager
or
designee
shall
seek
governing
body
approval
before
extending
the
term
of
the
exclusive
notion
negotiating
agreement
with
Cady
CCN
de
Santa
Fe
investment,
one
LP
now
as
I
read
that
if
you
take
my
argument
back
to
your
point,
counselor
about
clarity,
I
take
the
exclusive
negotiating
agreement
to
be
essentially
a
16
month,
contract,
it's
12
months,
plus
a
4
month,
contract
plus
a
4
month,
extension
plus,
you
know,
whatever
time
is
required
because
of
kovat
restrictions
under
this
language
that
all
could
happen,
and
then
you'd
say
before
extending
the
term
of
you
know,
you
could
take
that
as
already
a
given
and
in
order
to
extend
it
beyond
that,
she
would
have
to
come
back
to
the
governing
body,
but
I
think
what
you
mean.
B
G
That's
already
provided
for,
yes,
okay,
you
know
I'm
I'm
agreeing
with
the
16
month
term.
Okay,
that's
it
that's!
How
I
mean
that
it
doesn't
even
mean
that
either
one
will
do
it,
but
they
might.
We
don't
know
yet,
but
this
is
beyond
that
because
I,
you
know,
I,
don't
I
I.
Think
we're
gonna
need
more
time
on
this.
I
don't
know,
but
I
just
think.
G
B
G
B
Okay,
all
right,
that's
that's
helpful.
I
mean
I
think
we
would
be
a
part
of
that.
But
you
know
if
you
want
to
make
sure
that
I
want
to
make
sure
all
right.
Do
we
have
other
discussion
on
this
item
all
right.
We
have
a
motion
in
a
second
Jennifer.
You
ready
to
record
the
vote.
Yes,
sir.
Okay,
so
counselor
Cassatt
Sanchez,
yes,
counselor,
Renee,
vrl,
yes,
counselor,
Michael,
Garcia,
yes,.
D
E
Before
I
vote,
I
will
say
that
you
know
that
we've
had
some
discussion
about
stenographers
and
really
tonight
is
as
clear
as
mud,
so
I
think
stenographers,
even
though
you
know
we're
not
a
deciding
committee
and
I
think
it's
important
as
we
move
forward
that
you
know
we
can
look
back
on
these
committee
meetings
and
be
able
to
with
specificity,
be
able
to
say
exactly
what
we
voted
on
and
not
to
say.
Jennifer
is
not
going
to
take
great
minutes,
but
again
a
stenographer
I
think
would
be
helpful
in
these
situations.
B
B
So,
although
yes
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
really
see
why
we
need
this
all
right
with
that,
let's
go
so
that
motion
passes
unanimously.
B
F
F
So
the
first
page,
the
first
war
as
it
talks
about
what's
happening
across
the
country
between
that
one
and
the
one
where's
the
cities,
such
as
Santa
Fe,
have
undertaken
efforts
to
integrate
immigrants.
There
needs
to
be
some
kind
of
more
like
general
statement
about
Santa
Fe
and
then
the
next,
whereas
is
actually
give
some
the
next
one,
as
has
it
I'm
sorry.
What
page.
F
F
Know
action:
let's
see
I'm
just
looking
from
the
Charter,
something
to
the
effect
of
that.
No
action
be
condone,
which
discriminates
on
the
basis
of
ethnicity,
race,
age,
religion,
creed,
color,
national
origin,
ancestry,
sex,
gender,
sexual
orientation,
physical
or
mental
disability,
medical
condition
or
citizenship,
citizenship,
status
and
I'm,
taking
that
from
the
Charter
so
that
it
says
we
already
have
codified
that
so
that
should
be
in
between
there
and
then
we
talked
about
where
we've
taken
efforts,
etc,
etc.
F
I
think
it
just
adds
more
context
that
we
have
this
already
in
our
language
in
our
Charter.
And
then,
if
you
go
on
page
2
at
the
top,
it
says
discriminatory
actions
that
target
african-americans,
Jews,
Muslims,
Native,
Americans
and
other
minorities
and
I'd
like
it
to
read
discriminatory
actions
that
target
Latinos,
,,
african-americans,
Jews,
Muslims,
Native,
Americans
and
other
communities
of
color
I
do
not
believe
in
using
the
word.
Minorities
just
doesn't
have
context
in
our,
especially
in
our
city
and
our
state,
so
hopefully
Jesse's
catching
this
as
we
go
along.
F
Cultural
or
actually,
even
you
could
say,
other
ethnic
and
cultural
influences,
if
you
really
want
to
like
be
more
inclusive
but
yeah
I
think
I
think
that
doesn't
make
sense
the
way
it's
worded
and
then
I
just
wanted
a
I
think
I
understand
this,
but
maybe
yes,
you
could
clarify
on
page
three.
It
talks
about
the
different
ways,
the
different
components
of
this
and
one
of
them
under
constitutional
rights
as
calling
for
fully
resource
law
enforcement
and
civil
rights,
investigations
of
domestic
terrorism
and
hate
crimes
so
I'm.
F
H
Madam
chair
counseling,
I
pulled
this.
This
is
directly
from
the
u.s.
cm
website,
so
I
think
that
we
can
interpret
it.
The
way
that
we
want
to
interpret
it
and
I
think
that
the
fully
resourced
is
referencing
the
investigations
as
opposed
to
a
law
enforcement
department.
Okay,
that
that's
my
reading
of
it.
Okay
and
that's
all.
F
H
E
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Let
me
get
to
the
document
itself,
but
on
page
2
items
or
line
7
&
8.
It
says
where,
as
a
mayor
where,
as
mayor's
run,
their
cities
I'm
not
sure
that
all
mayors
run
their
cities,
they're,
not
all
strong,
their
forms
of
government
and
I,
don't
even
think
in
Santa
Fe,
the
mayor
runs
the
city
I.
Think
it's
a
combination
of
mayor
and
city
council
I
would
recommend
that
we
strike
line
7
and
mate
in
their
entirety
and
just
leave
those
out.
B
B
E
Lines,
5
and
6
talk
about
the
business
community
and,
like
I,
said
I'm,
not
sure
that
all
cities
run
on
a
strong
mayor,
form
of
government
and
even
I
mean
Albuquerque
I
think
would
be
a
strong
mayor
from
the
government
and
I.
Don't
even
think
we're
anywhere
close
to
that.
So
not
sure
we
even
fit
into
that.
B
B
E
B
B
B
So
I
just
want
to
encourage
you
all
to
look
for
that
email,
because
I
think
it'll
save
us
all
a
lot
of
time
in
terms
of
knowing
what's
coming
and
making
sure
that
you
know,
you've
got
what
you
need
in
order
to
be
prepared,
so
appreciate
those
who
reached
out
and
and
asked
about
the
items
that
got
removed
and
we'll
try
to
do
a
better
job
of
getting
people
to
you
know
be
ready
when
they
say
they're
ready
to
have
their
items
presented.
So
I'll
try
to
do
more
on
the
agenda
side.
B
We've
had
we've
had
to
make
a
lot
of
adjustments
so
again,
we'll
try
to
do
better
on
on
that
also
just
want
to
say:
I
want
to
be
clear
about
a
stenographer
role,
so
Jennifer
is
not
taking
minutes.
My
understanding
and
we
can
talk
with
the
city
attorney
a
little
bit
more
about
what
what's
happening
here.
She's,
recording
actions
and
I
think
right
now
we're
in
a
great
situation,
because
our
meetings
are
archived
there
on
YouTube.
B
Information
about
a
past
meeting
that
might
have
more
depth-
I,
don't
know,
maybe
we're
gonna
want
to
record
meetings
even
when
we're
not
meeting
remotely.
So
these
are
all
questions
to
ask
so
I
just
bring
that
out
up
councillor
Rivera,
so
we
may
want
to
have
more
conversations
about
that
going
forward.
Thank.
B
E
F
Yes,
Conn,
seeing
as
how
we're
looking
at
future
items,
if
you
all
are
in
touch
with
the
sponsors.
The
item
with
this
Homeland
Security
grant
I
do
have
more
specific
questions,
because
the
mayor,
the
memo,
did
not
really
talk
about
what
the
grant
would
be
paying
for
exactly
and
what
a
SWAT
operator
course
and
FBI
hazardous
school
entails
so
I.
Don't
think
that
it
was
very
clear
about
what
that
was.
Gonna
pay
for
or
cover
in
terms
of
cos.
So
I
can
certainly
reach
out
to
mr.
Mason
about
that.
F
B
If
you
want
to
reach
out
to
him
fine,
we
will
try
as
well
okay.
So
with
that,
our
next
meeting
is
August
5th
and
we
will
it's
a
short
meeting
tonight.
We
thought
we
would
be
in
budget
hearings
and
we
would
have
had
a
very
long
day
and
so
I
didn't
schedule
any
informational
items
that,
of
course,
we've
pushed
those
budget
hearings
to
start
on
Monday.
So
part
of
the
reason
why
we
have
such
a
short
meeting
tonight.
So
thank
you
all
and
I
will
see
you
at
our
next
meeting.