Mar 10, 2021 Metropolitan Council

ASKED ME, WOULD YOU PLEASE READ THE INTRODUCTIONS SECTION 2.12 INTRODUCTIONS.

IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEM ONE, HAVING NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS THERE, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, MOTION BY MOST SECONDED BY ROCCO MOTION CARRIES

[INTRODUCTIONS]

NUMBER TWO, AMENDING THE 2021 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET.

SO AS TO APPROPRIATE $150,000 FOR THE EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH CORONER'S OFFICE FROM GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE ON A SON BY THE MAYOR PRESIDENT, AND HE SPENT RICH PARISH CORNER, NUMBER THREE, AMENDING THE 2021 CURRENT EXPENSE BUDGET FOR INFORMATION SERVICES.

SO IT WAS TO APPROPRIATE $30,000 FOR A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT BETWEEN INFORMATION SERVICES AND NEAR MAP US BY INFORMATION SERVICES, DIRECTOR, NUMBER FOUR, AMENDING THE 2021 PAY PLAN FOR CLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED NON-CLASSIFIED CONTRACT FIRE AND POLICE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AND PARISH SHOULD BE SET AND READY.

SO AS TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING CHANGES EFFECTIVE APRIL 10TH, 2021, AND APPROPRIATING $2,809,350 PERCENT PURPOSE AT AN ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION.

OFFICER PAY GRADE INCREASED 6% AIRPORT AIR AIRPORT POLICE ARF, CHIEF AIRPORT POLICE ERA, LIEUTENANT AIRPORT, POLICE ARF, SERGEANT AIRPORT, POLICE ARF, OFFICER CHIEF, DEPUTY CONSTABLE DEPUTY CONSTABLE CAPTAIN DEPUTY CONSTABLE LIEUTENANT DEPUTY, CONSTABLE SERGEANT DEPUTY, CONSTABLE, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE CLASSIFIED AND UNCLASSIFIED APPENDIX EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE OF $1,750 WILL BE PAID TO ACTIVE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES HIRED BEFORE OR DURING THE PAY PERIOD.

BEGINNING APRIL 10TH, 2021 AND 2022 EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE OF $1,750 WILL BE PAID TO ACTIVE ELIGIBLE EMPLOYEES WHO ARE BEFORE OR DURING PAY PERIOD.

BEGINNING APRIL 9TH, 2022 EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES.

FRONTLINE CLASSIFICATIONS ARE IDENTIFIED AS FOLLOWS ADVANCED EMT, ASSISTANT EMS ADMINISTRATOR, ASSISTANT EMT TRAINING, OFFICER CHIEF EMS OPERATIONS, OFFICER DEPUTY CHIEF EMS OPERATIONS, OFFICER EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, ASSISTANT SHIFTS SHIFT SUPERVISOR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, OFFICER EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS SHIFT, SUPERVISOR EMS, ADMINISTRATOR EMS, DEPUTY SHIFT SUPERVISOR EMS SHIFT, SUPERVISOR EMS, UNIT COMMANDER, EMF EMT, BASIC EMT PARAMEDIC EMT TRAINING OFFICER MUNICIPAL POLICE PAY PLAN INCREASED 3% ON MUNICIPAL POLICE CLASSIFICATIONS ACROSS THE BOARD INCREASE FOR ENTIRE MUNICIPAL POLICE PAY PLAN ATTACHED AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL FIRE APPENDIX A 2021 EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE OF $1,750 WILL BE PAID TO ALL ACTIVE MUNICIPAL FIRE EMPLOYEES.

HOW TO HONOR BEFORE THE ANSARI ON OR DURING

[00:10:01]

THE PAY PERIOD.

BEGINNING APRIL 10TH, 2021 AND A 2022 EQUIPMENT ALLOWANCE OF $1,750 WILL BE PAID TO ALL ACTIVE MUNICIPAL FIRE EMPLOYEES HIRED BEFORE DURING PAY PERIOD BEGINNING APRIL 9TH, 2022 BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO THE MAYOR PRESIDENT AND THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR.

NUMBER FIVE, AMEND THE 2021 ALLOTMENT OF POSITIONS FOR THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE, PARISH OF EAST BATON ROUGE.

SO IT WAS TO CHANGE THE ALLOTMENT OF THEIR PRESIDENT'S OFFICE AND THE PUBLIC INFORMATION AS FOLLOWS EFFECTIVE APRIL 10TH, 2021, AND AUTHORIZED AND TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT OF $88,830 FOR SAID PURPOSE MAY OUR PRESIDENT'S OFFICE ADD ONE INFORMATION, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER ON CLASSIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE DELETE ONE PUBLIC RELATIONS COORDINATOR, ONE PUBLIC RELATIONS SPECIALIST.

ADD ONE ASSISTANT PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO THE MAYOR, PRESIDENT, THE COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR TREASURER AND HUMAN RESOURCES, DIRECTOR CONDEMNATION INTRODUCTIONS.

NUMBER SIX, THESE STATEMENTS THELMA CARTER, ONE FOUR EIGHT SEVEN, UH, ORIEL STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO BANKS, NUMBER SEVEN, DAVID ALLEN JR.

BARBARA ALLEN, RICKY LEE ALLEN, LINDA ALLEN BARNES AND FLOYD ALLEN ONE SEVEN SEVEN ZERO SORA STREET, COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO BANKS NUMBER EIGHT, RAYMOND LUBELL PROPERTIES INC NINE TWO THREE SEVEN SOUTHERN AVENUE, CAPITOL DISTRICT TWO BANKS.

NUMBER 10, THE ESTATE OF JAMES DEAN STERLING AND LUCILLE J WEB NINE EIGHT FOUR NINE SCENIC HIGHWAY COUNCIL DISTRICT TWO BANKS, NUMBER 11, MICHAEL L. YOUNG AND CARLA AND YOUNG TWO EIGHT FIVE SEVEN HOLLYWOOD STREET HOUSE IN REAR SHED COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE, GREEN NUMBER 12, DEVIN D CYRUS, KEVIN W CYRUS AND DELTA CYRUS SIX SIX ZERO NORTH 32ND STREET HOUSE AND REAR GARAGE COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN, COLE NUMBER 13, ROGER JEROME DICKERSON FOUR SIX TWO FOUR CLAYTON STREET, HOUSE AND WATERSHED COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN, COLE NUMBER 14, WANDA SLAVEN FOUR, A FOUR ONE CLAYTON STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT FIVE GREEN NUMBER 15, MORGAN SCOTT, NON SIX, TWO COLUMBUS DRIVE COLUMBUS DONE DRIVE HOUSE IN REAR SHED COUNCIL DISTRICT SEVEN, COLE NUMBER 16, ROSANNA HAMPTON FOR US.

ONE, TWO, THREE, TWO, THEIR STREET COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 17.

CORNELIA'S DONE ONE THREE, THREE, FIVE WEST GARFIELD STREET, COUNCIL DISTRICT TANK COLEMAN NUMBER 18, HILDA DUNBAR BOUDREAU, DOR, DOROTHEA ROBERTSON, JIMMY ROGERS, PATRICIA, PATRICIA ANN ROGERS, MARGIE LEE ROGERS, ANNIE B ROGERS, LILY AND ROGERS, AND THE ESTATE OF ERNEST DUNBAR.

ONE FOUR TWO FOUR KAUFMAN STREET, COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 19, RE ALBERT KAHN, TWO, TWO, TWO 61 VIRGINIA STREET HOUSE AND REAR SIDE SHED CAPITOL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 20 OSCAR DOTSON JR.

AND GLORIA YOUNG DOTSON THREE TO FOUR THAT A STREET HOUSE AND REAR SHED CAPITOL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 21, YVONNE.

USE TWO, THREE, SIX, FIVE 71ST AVENUE, COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 22, FREDERICK DOUGLAS ADGER AND EDNA MARIE MILLS.

ADDRESS TWO FOUR ZERO ONE SPAIN STREET, HOUSE AND REAR SHED COUNCIL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 23, LARRY ALEXANDER TWO SIX ONE TWO SORREL AVENUE, CAPITOL DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN NUMBER 24 NEVADA SYSTEMS INC NINE I'M SORRY, SEVEN THREE NINE AND SEVEN 41 COTTON STREET, COUNCIL, DISTRICT 10 COLEMAN AND MARK 25 AND ROBERTSON AND ADRIAN WALLS.

SKIPPER EIGHT THREE TO EUROPE STREET AND HOUSE IN THE REAR SHED COUNCIL DISTRICT, TIM COLEMAN, ALL ITEMS ARE PRIOR READING.

BEEN READ THE MOTION TO INTRODUCE ALL ITEMS. IS THERE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE INTRODUCTIONS MOTION? MARGOLD A SECOND ROUND MOROSO MOTION CARRIES THE

[CONDEMNATIONS]

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IF YOU GO TO YOUR SECOND SEAT FOR CONDEMNATION, I'M GOING TO READ DPW RECOMMENDATIONS AS FOLLOWS, PROCEED WITH ITEMS 54 55 56 AND DELETE ITEMS. 53.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON CONDEMNATIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON CONDEMNATIONS, BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS? MS. COPELAND, ANYONE ELSE? 54, 56, 56 90 DAYS.

DEFER FOR 30 DAYS 55 DIFFER FOR 90 DAYS, 56.

I'M GOING TO READ THE DPW RECOMMENDATIONS AND CHANGES.

WE'RE GOING TO PROCEED WITH ITEM 54, DELETE ITEM 53

[00:15:01]

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

DO WE NEED TO, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DPW CHINESE MOTION? MY GO-TO'S SECOND BY ROCKLAND MOTION CARES.

TELL SOME MEMBERS OF THE SCOUTS, ALL ITEMS OF PUBLIC HEARING

[57. 21-00218]

ITEM 57 COUNCIL MEMBER.

MULKEY LET ME KNOW WHEN TO SLOW DOWN.

THERE'S SUPPLEMENTAL BOND RESOLUTION AMENDING AND SUPPLEMENTING AMENDED RESTATED GENERAL BOND RESOLUTION FOUR, FOUR EIGHT, NINE, THREE, PROVIDING FOR THE SALE OF MULTIMODAL REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS SERIES TWO ZERO TWO, ONE EIGHT OF THESE PLANTERS PAIR OF SEWAGE COMMISSION BY BOND COUNSEL.

ITEM 58, AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATION OF NOT TO EXCEED 175 MILLION OF THE SEWERS REVENUE REFUND IN BONDS SERIES TWO ZERO TWO ONE.

ANYONE WHO WOULD SPEAK ON ITEM 56, ANYONE NEEDS TO SPEAK ON ITEM 56.

COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION MARACA SECONDED BY HUDSON ITEM CARRIES

[58. 21-00224]

THESE MARYLAND'S PAIR AS SOON AS COMMISSION AND ANY OTHER FINANCING SOURCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CURRENT REFUNDING, THE TWO ZERO ONE, ONE A SEWER REVENUE BONDS BY FINANCE DIRECTOR AND DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OF PUBLIC.

HEARING ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 58, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 58, NO ONE HAD A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THE MOTION TO APPROVE NEEDS TO BE CONTINGENT ON BUDGET SUPPLEMENT.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, MOTION TO APPROVE BY ROCCA CONTINUED ON BUDGET SUPPLEMENTS.

SECOND TIP BY JUDGE HUTSON MOTION CARRIED.

[59. 21-00253]

I AM 59 CREATING THE HARVESTING ROAD LIGHTING DISTRICT AS PROVIDED BY THE PETITION RECEIVED BY THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AND ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE OPERATION OF THE ROLLOUT IN DISTRICT BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROWDY.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 59, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 59, HAVING NONE.

WE DO HAVE SOME EMAIL COMMENTS, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THE EMAIL COMMENT, UM, ON ITEM 59 IS FROM PHILIPPA LARD.

I AM AGAINST THE CREATION OF THIS DISTRICT BECAUSE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS IN EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH WHO DEVELOP PROPERTIES SEEM TO GET SPECIAL CONSIDERATION LIKE HAVING SPECIAL ECONOMIC DISTRICTS, TIF DISTRICTS, AND OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS APPROVED THE HARVEST AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT DISTRICT WAS APPROVED IN 2016.

AND THAT DISTRICT ACTUALLY DID NOT SEEM TO DEVELOP A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AS PLAN THE HARVEST AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

THE HARVEST AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WAS ALSO APPROVED IN 2020 OTHER RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT SEEM TO HAVE SPECIAL TREATMENT.

FOR EXAMPLE, ARE THE AMERICANA DEVELOPMENT WITH THE AMERICANA ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND ROSEANNE WITH LIBRARY DEAL.

IN ADDITION IN THE EXHIBITS, A B, C, AND D THAT INCLUDE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED DISTRICT ARE NOT INCLUDED WITH THE PETITION.

THAT IS PART OF THE DOCUMENTATION FOR THE AGENDA ITEM.

I BELIEVE HE'S BATON ROUGE, PARISH CITIZENS, AND THE METRO COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW THOSE EXHIBITS IN SUMMARY AND AGAINST THIS DISTRICT AND AGAINST THIS SPECIAL TREATMENT THAT SOME INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS SEEM TO GET NEW TO BATON ROUGE PARISH FOR THEIR PROJECT CONCLUDES COMMENTS FROM 59 COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I AM 59 MOTION BY .

SECOND BY ROCCO MOTION CARRIES ANY OBJECTIONS, HAVING NONE MOTION CARRIES

[60. 21-00237]

ITEM 60, AUTHORIZING BUDGETS SUPPLEMENT A SEVEN, NINE, FIVE, AND THE AMOUNT OF 1 MILLION, 200,000 FOR DEBRIS COLLECTION, THE MONITORING AND RESPONSE TO WHAT THE STALK BY ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 60, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 60, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME.

PAUL, AS HE CHANGED HIS MIND.

ALRIGHT, COUNCIL MEMBERS, THIS ITEM NEEDS TO BE CONTAINED.

IF THERE'S A MOTION NEEDS TO BE CONTINGENT ON THE BUDGET SUPPLEMENT.

IF THERE'S A MOTION, MOTION BY HUDSON'S CONTINUED ON BUDGET SUPPLEMENT SECONDED BY GO DATE MOTION CARRIES

[61. 21-00183]

ITEM 61, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO ACCEPT THE GRANT AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF $732,945 ONTO THE HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM BY HOMELAND SECURITY AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 61, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 61, HAVING NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS, NOT ALL AT ONCE TO HIM, MOTION BY HOW WIDE.

SECOND TO BARAKA

[00:20:01]

I AM 61 CARRIES

[62. 21-00252]

ITEM 62, AUTHORIZING THEIR PRESIDENT TO ENTER INTO A COOPERATIVE ENDEAVOR AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF LOUISIANA FOR THE STATE TO PROVIDE FUNDING IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,065,000 FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, CORONAVIRUS EXPENSES BY MAYOR, PRESIDENT AND POLICE CHIEF.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 62, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 62 COUNCIL MEMBERS BACK TO YOU.

ITEM 62 MOTION BY THE CHAIR.

SECOND ABOUT HUSSON MOTION CARRIES

[63. 21-00204]

COUNCIL MEMBERS, ITEM 63.

THERE HAS BEEN OUR REQUESTS ABOUT A POLICE CHIEF TO DELETE THIS ITEM.

I AM STILL GOING TO READ AND TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF THE BATTLE'S POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH SERVICES WITH VIN VIN FOR MATIX LLC UNDER THE FYR TWO ZERO ONE NINE COMMUNITY-BASED CRIME REDUCTION GRANT THE AMOUNT OF $202,000 BY THE POLICE.

CHIEF.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 63, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 63, WE HAVE A TON OF EMAIL COMMENTS, OR WE DO HAVE SOMEONE.

SO THIS ITEM IS GOING TO BE DELETED.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF, GO AHEAD, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

MY NAME IS MATT .

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 63? KEEP IN MIND THIS ITEM IS BEING DELETED.

THIS ITEM IS BEING DELETED.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

WE HAVE, WE HAVE A TON OF EMAIL COMMENTS.

I WISH THERE WAS A WAY WE COULD ASK THE PEOPLE WHO HE MAILED, WHETHER OR NOT THEY STILL WANT THE COMMENTS READ, KNOWING THE ITEM IS BEING DELETED, BUT THERE'S NO WAY TO DO THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THE FIRST COMMENT IS FROM COLLEEN KESSEL.

THIS ITEM IS NOT THE WAY TO BUILD TRUST BETWEEN POLICE AND THE COMMUNITY.

WE DO NOT NEED TO GIVE COPS MORE ACCESS TO SURVEILLANCE.

THIS ITEM IS A CLEAR PRIVACY VIOLATION AND WILL NOT HELP RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN COPS AND THE PUBLIC.

WHY SHOULD WE TRUST BRP D TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION WHEN THEY ARE STILL CLEANING OUT CORRUPTION FROM THEIR RANKS, THEY JUST FIRED SEVERAL OFFICERS IN THE NARCOTICS DIVISION FOR OVERREACH AND FRAMING, INNOCENT PEOPLE.

WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO GIVE ANYONE A BRP ACCESS TO A NEW LIST OF NAMES FOR THEM TO PROFILE AND FRAME FOR CRIMES? PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS DYSTOPIAN ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

ALSO, ASSUMING THIS MEETING IS GOING LIKE EVERY OTHER MEETING THIS PAST YEAR, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PUT YOUR FACE MASK BACK ON WHEN YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING.

OKAY, NEXT COMMENT IS FROM MEGHAN, MATT.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I AM HONESTLY SHOCKED THAT A BLATANTLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSAL SUCH AS THIS ONE THAT WOULD COME BEFORE OUR ESTEEMED COUNCIL, NOT ONLY IS THIS A FLAGRANT INVASION OF OUR MOST SACRED RIGHT TO PRIVACY, BUT IT IS ALSO EMBLEMATIC OF THE SUPPRESSION OF FREE SPEECH.

FURTHER TACTICS, SUCH AS THIS HAVE BEEN USED BY MAJOR NATIONAL AGENCIES OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, NOT TO STOP CRIME, BUT TO MONITOR ACTIVISTS AND THOSE WORKING TOWARDS PROGRESS IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

PEOPLE ARE RECEIVING UNSCHEDULED SURPRISE VISITS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THEIR HOMES.

UNSURPRISINGLY, MOST OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE BEEN TARGETED ARE BLACK.

THE IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH A CONTACT AND THE UDALL.

I'M SORRY, I'M SUCH A CONTRACT

[00:25:01]

AND UTILIZATION OF THE SOFTWARE WOULD BE CATASTROPHIC TO THE RIGHTS OF THE RESIDENTS OF OUR PARISH, B RPB AND THE CITY HAVE ALREADY INSTALLED CAMERAS ALL OVER THE CITY AND A CRIME CENTER TO KEEP PHYSICAL WATCH OVER US.

NOW THEY WANT ALSO TO MONITOR OUR SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. WHERE IS THE LINE? DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR FAMILY BEING WATCHED IT AS WELL ESTABLISHED THAT CRIME IS ROOTED IN POVERTY AND THE STARVATION OF RESOURCES.

OUR TAX DOLLARS ARE MUCH BETTER USED WHEN WE INVEST IN PROGRAMMING TO REDUCE CRIME THROUGH EDUCATION, JOBS, AND OPPORTUNITY.

AND BY SPYING ON OUR CITIZENS, I STRONGLY URGE YOU TO PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THIS NEXT TIME.

COMMENT IS FROM OLIVIA MONTGOMERY.

SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS ARE EASILY AVAILABLE FOR POLICE VIEWING WITHOUT THIS EXTRA EXPENSE AND VARIOUS NEWS ARTICLES AND POSTS DIRECTLY FROM DPS IS CLEAR THAT THE CITY ALREADY MONITORS COMPLAINTS ARISING ON SOCIAL MEDIA, A TOOL LIKE THIS WILL SIMPLY MAKE IT MORE EFFICIENT TO WATCH PEOPLE WHICH POLICE ARE ALREADY ABLE TO DO ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND THROUGH CRIME CAMERAS AND OTHER SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY.

I THINK THIS RAISES A DANGER OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS BEING TARGETED RATHER THAN LISTENED TO WITH REGARD TO POLICE COMPLAINTS.

I BELIEVE THIS MONEY WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ELSEWHERE.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM DR.

JAMES FINNEY.

THIS SEEMS LIKE AN ABSOLUTELY INAPPROPRIATE USE OF PUBLIC MONEY.

IT'S CREEPY AND WILL SERVE TO WIDEN THE US VERSUS THEM GAP BETWEEN THE BRP D AND CITIZENS.

THE DEPARTMENT ALLEGEDLY SERVES AND PROTECTS.

IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER TO INCENTIVIZE OFFICERS TO LIVE INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, TRAIN OFFICERS ON HOW TO HANDLE CONFLICT WITHOUT ESCALATION OR MAKE NEEDLESS ARREST AND PUT OFFICERS ON BICYCLES, RIDING AROUND NEIGHBORHOODS DURING DAYLIGHT HOURS TO MEET THEIR CONSTITUENTS.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM MORGAN YUTO.

THIS IS AN EGREGIOUS OVERREACH INPUT PREVENT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE HISTORY OF SUCH ANTI-BLACK INDIGENOUS, UH, FRO I'M SORRY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WORD IS.

UM, MONITORING TO RESURFACE.

THIS WILL LIKELY ONLY BE USED AGAINST PROGRESSIVE ACTIVISTS TO PROSECUTE FOR POLITICAL DIFFERENCES RATHER THAN ACTUALLY KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE FROM RIGHT-WING TERRORISM.

BRP NEEDS TO FOCUS THEIR FUNDS ON MENTAL HEALTH SUPPORT, INCREASED EXTERNAL REVIEW AND DEESCALATION TRAINING FOR OFFICERS NOT FURTHER FASCIST MONITORING OF OUR CITIZENS.

THEY DO NOT HAVE THE PROPER TRAINING NOR SOCIAL CULTURAL EDUCATION TO MONITOR SUCH AN INFLUX OF INFLEXIBLE INFORMATION IN A NON-BIASED WAY.

EX COMMENT, SARAH CORTEL BANNED A PERSON.

THIS IS NOT COMMUNITY POLICING, NO ONE WHO HASN'T COMMITTED A CRIME, OR THERE IS NOT A WARRANT ISSUED FOR THEIR SOCIAL MEDIA ACTION SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED AND TRACK.

PLEASE REJECT THIS GRANT.

NEXT COMMENT FROM EMILY, I AM IN STRONG OPPOSITION OF USING INFORMATICS TO RUN SURVEILLANCE ON THE CITIZENS OF BATON ROUGE.

WE NOW LIVE IN AN AGE OF ACCOUNTABILITY.

THERE IS NO GREATER TOOL THAN SOCIAL MEDIA.

AS THE PAST FEW YEARS HAVE SHOWN US.

I FEEL SURVEILLANCE WOULD BE USED TO GIVE MORE POWER TO OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THEN THEY CAN ABUSE FOR THEIR OWN BENEFIT OR TO INTIMIDATE, HARASS, AND POSSIBLY WRONGFULLY ARRESTED CITIZENS.

BUT ALSO SOCIAL MEDIA, POST PICTURES OR VIDEOS USED TO HOLD POLICE ACCOUNTABLE WOULD BE SUPPRESSED.

THESE EXACT THINGS ARE GOING ON IN OTHER PARTS OF OUR COUNTRY AND IN THE WORLD.

NOT ONLY WILL THIS CAUSE A GREATER LACK OF FAITH IN THE POLICE, IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BY CITIZENS, BUT FAIL TO LEARN FROM THE MISTAKES OF OUR PAST ANY YOUNG OR MIDDLE-AGED PERSON WHO RAISED WITH TECHNOLOGY CAN TELL YOU HOW EASY IT IS TO RESEARCH ON OUR OWN WITHOUT THE HELP OF POLICE OR PERSONS ONLINE AFTER MUGGING AND BREAK-INS AND OTHER CRIMES EXPERIENCED IN MIND BY MY NEIGHBORS, AS WELL AS MYSELF, SOME OF US WERE SAD TO REALIZE WE DID MORE POLICE INVESTIGATION ONLINE VIA SOCIAL MEDIA THAN THE DETECTIVES ASSIGNED TO OUR CASE.

AS MANY OF US AFFECTED BY CRIME IN THE PAST SEVERAL IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS HAVE BEEN TOLD MURDER CASES ARE TOP PRIORITY, WHICH IS UNDERSTANDABLE, BUT NOT EXACTLY REASSURING AND OUR TRUST IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHICH FURTHER MAKES ME QUESTION, WHAT ELSE WILL THIS DO TO DRAIN LARGE AMOUNTS OF MONEY, GIVE POWER TO THOSE WHO NEED LESS AND INVEST IN SOMETHING THE POLICE AND GOVERNMENT ALREADY KNOW HOW TO USE THE POLICE DO NOT NEED ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE TOOLS.

THEY ALREADY HAVE TO INVESTIGATE THOSE ON SOCIAL MEDIA.

WHY WHAT THE PAST FOUR YEARS HAS REVEALED IS THAT NOT ONLY HAVE WE BEEN SURVEILLED BY AN ASSORTMENT OF COMPANIES IN OUR COUNTRY AND OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA WAS USED TO BRAINWASH MANIPULATE AND ALSO WRONGFULLY ARREST CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

WE KNOW YOU ALREADY HAVE THE TOOLS AND RESOURCES TO DO THIS.

WHY DO YOU NEED ANOTHER? IT'S ALMOST AS IF THIS IS GOING TO PUT IN PLACE TO JUSTIFY SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, OR THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

AS I AGREE, SOME SURVEILLANCE IS IMPORTANT TO CATCH CRIMINALS AND PREVENT TRAGEDIES.

WHAT I HAVE LEARNED SINCE WITNESSING TRAGIC EVENTS AND TRAUMA THROUGHOUT MY LIFE IS THAT EVEN WITH THESE TOOLS, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT WILL LEAD TO ACTION OR JUSTICE WITH

[00:30:01]

EVERYTHING IN THIS WORLD, INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY THERE'S GOOD AND BAD AND ITS USE AND PURPOSE.

THERE SEEMS TO BE A CASE OF POTENTIAL BAD OUTWEIGHING, THE POTENTIAL GOOD.

IF THE COPS ARE LOOKING FOR POTENTIAL THREATS IN OUR COMMUNITY, THEY NEED TO LOOK NO FURTHER THAN THE WFP COMMENT.

SECTION OF FACEBOOK.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JOLIE PREY.

I AM A HUNDRED PERCENT OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSITION.

THERE'S NO JUST CAUSE FOR SEARCHING SOCIAL MEDIA OF CITIZENS FOR POSSIBLE CONTENT ON CRIMES.

WHEN THERE IS NO PRIOR EVIDENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CRIME, THIS IS AN ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE, NOT TO MANY WHICH AN INVASION OF PRIVACY AGAIN WITH NO, CAUSE THIS MUST NOT BE PASSED.

AND I FEEL CERTAIN IF MORE OF THE PUBLIC KNEW ABOUT THIS, THERE WOULD BE A HUGE OUTCRY NOT TO MENTION LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THIS INVASIVE EFFORT.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JACOB, PATRICK, THE POLICE DO NOT NEED TO GENERATE A SURVEILLANCE STATE TO DO THEIR DUTIES.

WHAT SOUNDS PERFECTLY INNOCUOUS ON THE CIRCUIT ON THE SURFACE COULD LEAD ON THE SURFACE LEVEL, COULD HOLD INSIDIOUS CONSEQUENCES UP TO AND INCLUDING HARASSMENT AND STALKING OF RIVALS OPPONENTS OR OTHERWISE INNOCENT PEOPLE DISLIKED, DISTURBED, OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY EITHER INDIVIDUALS WITHIN THE DEFENSE GARMENT OR DEPARTMENT AT LARGE, THEY SHOULD NOT ONLY BE OPPOSED, BUT CONDEMNED BY ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO BELIEVES IN THE COMMUNITY OF BATON ROUGE AT LARGE AND FIRMLY BELIEVES IN THE CONCEPT OF INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY, PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING AND VOTE.

NO NEXT COMMENT IS FROM MATTHEW HARROLSON AS A TAX PAYING CITIZEN OF BATON ROUGE.

I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SURVEILLANCE BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OR PRIVATE AGENCIES CONTRACTED TO DO SO BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES OF CITIZENS, SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS, TO IDENTIFY KEY INFLUENCER INFLUENCERS, POLICEMEN, AGAIN, THE COMMUNITIES, AND BY ESTABLISHING TRUST BETWEEN THE POLICE AND THE CITIZEN, RIGHT, THAT'S COMING JUST FROM JENNIFER HARDING THAT EVENING.

HIS COMMON IS IN RESPONSE TO ITEM 63 ON BEHALF OF VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED AN ORGANIZATION FORMED, FOUNDED AND LED BY FORMERLY INCARCERATED PEOPLE.

CIVIL RIGHTS PROTESTS HAVE LONG BEEN THE SUBJECT OF STATE SURVEILLANCE IN THE WAKE OF BLACK LIVES MATTER PROTEST, RESPONDING TO POLICE VIOLENCE, POLICE DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY ARE INCREASINGLY TURNING TO NEW TECHNOLOGY LIKE THOSE PROPOSED IN THIS ITEM, KEEP TABS ON CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY LEADERS.

THIS HEARKENS BACK TO THE TACTICS USED BY THE FBI ON CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS LIKE MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT OF THE US CONSTITUTION GUARANTEES THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE FREE FROM UNLAWFUL SEARCH AND SEIZURE.

PUT ANOTHER WAY THE POLICE SHOULD NOT BE MONITORING ACTIVITIES AND OR SPEECH OF INDIVIDUALS NOT SUSPECTED OF A CRIME.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE SURVEILLANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA BY LAW ENFORCEMENT IS A GROWING TREND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE DISPROPORTIONATELY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON COMMUNITIES OF COLOR, FROM THE CHILLING OF FREE SPEECH TO BEING USED TO JUSTIFY TARGETING AND OVER-INCARCERATION OF INDIVIDUALS OF COLOR.

WE ARE TO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO CONSIDER THAT THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS WHERE THIS PRACTICE FAR OUTWEIGH ANY PERCEIVED BENEFIT IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED.

NO SOCIAL MEDIA, MEDIA MONITORING BY BRP D SHOULD BE APPROVED OR FUNDED IN ABSENCE OF THE FOLLOWING ONE PUBLIC HEARINGS, PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS TO WEIGH IN BEFORE ENTER ANY MONITORING PROGRAM IS INITIATED IT.

BE RPD HAS ALREADY ENGAGED IN THIS TACTIC.

THEY SHOULD IMMEDIATELY PAUSE THE BULK OF THESE OPERATIONS PENDING PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EVALUATE WHETHER EXISTING SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS, DISPROPORTIONATELY TARGET, CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED GROUPS, OR ASSOCIATIONS TO A PUBLIC AVAILABLE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE POLICY DETAILING, OBSTRUCTIONS AND PROCESSES FOR SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING THE SPECIFIC KEY WORDS AND PHRASES BEING MONITORED BY THE ALGORITHM AND SPECIFYING THE STANDARDS GOVERNING COLLECTION, USE RETENTION AND SHARING OF PERSONAL INFORMATION.

THREE, A FRAMEWORK FOR REGULAR AND ONGOING PUBLIC AUDIT AND REPORTING THE USE AND EFFICACY OF THE PROGRAM UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, WE STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THE COUNCIL TO OPPOSE THE APPROVAL OF ANY FUNDING FOR SOCIAL MEDIA MONITORING BY ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY IN THE STATE.

NEXT COMMENT IS MADELINE WAS ZOELLICK.

WE SHOULD NOT HAVE POLICE MONITORING SOCIAL MEDIA OR SCRAPING OUR DATA.

THIS HAS A REAL DANGER OF FURTHER ENTRENCHING, BASIC POLICE, UH, ENTRENCHING BAIT, BIASED POLICING BORDERING ON UNCONSTITUTIONAL SURVEILLANCE AND WILL DIMINISH THE PRIVACY OF OUR CITIZENS.

I FIND THIS INCREDIBLY TROUBLING AND I HOPE THE COUNCIL WILL NOT APPROVE THIS GRANT PROPOSAL.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM, UH, LAKITA LEONARD.

WE DO NOT LIVE IN A POLICE.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM STEPHANIE WILLIS, ACLU OF LOUISIANA.

THE ACLU OF LOUISIANA HAS SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSAL, THE PROPOSED CONTRACT WITH THEM, FOR MADDIX TO CREATE A POWERFUL NEW SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEILLANCE NETWORK.

IN BATON ROUGE, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT A VOTE ON THIS AUTHORIZATION BE DELAYED UNTIL ADEQUATE TIME FOR INFORMED PUBLIC DEBATE CAN BE ASSURED SOCIAL MEDIA SURVEILLANCE SOFTWARE IS POWERFUL AND HAS GREAT POTENTIAL

[00:35:01]

TO CHILL THE EXERCISE OF FREE SPEECH ASSEMBLY AND PROTEST.

NATIONWIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES HAVE USED SIMILAR SOFTWARE TO TARGET AND INTERRUPT.

FIRST, A MINUTE ACTIVITY.

I ACTIVIST OF COLOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZERS AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES.

THE DECISION TO CREATE OR EXPAND GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE DATABASES THAT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY YET LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE RAPIDLY ADOPTED THESE TACTICS WITH LITTLE OR NO PUBLIC SCRUTINY.

MORE ALARMING SOFTWARE CAN QUICKLY EVOLVE OR TAKE NEW APPLICATIONS ONCE ADOPTED ANY CHANGE OR MODIFICATION OF ITS USE IS LIKELY TO OCCUR WITHOUT PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE OUTSIDE OF ANY DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AT AMENDMENT MINIMUM GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE TOOLS SHOULD ONLY BE ADOPTED OR EXPANDED AFTER A FULLY TRANSPARENT PUBLIC DEBATE AND WITH EXPRESS POLICY, BUT SPECIFIC LIMITS ON THE TECHNOLOGIES USE AND AN EXPLANATION OF HOW RESIDENTS PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES CAN BE PROTECTED.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT THIS MATTER BE DEFERRED AND PRESENTED TO THE COMMUNITY AGAIN, ALONGSIDE A FULL ACCOUNTING OF THE SURVEILLANCE TOOLS ALREADY IN PLACE IN VENERATION.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM JENNIFER CAMERON.

I'M IN OPPOSITION OF ANY FUNDING TO THE BRP D WHICH WOULD ALLOW THEM TO MONITOR SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS.

THIS IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE A SURVEILLANCE STATE.

UM, WE HAVE ALREADY UNDERFUNDED OUR EDUCATION AND OVERFUNDED B RPD.

IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, UH, NEXT FROM BRYANT A I OPPOSE THIS ITEM, ASHLEY TATE.

IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO ALLOW SURVEILLANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS, WHO WILL THIS IMPACT THE MOST WHO SAYS THAT IT IS OKAY, WHAT IS OKAY TO POST AND WHAT IT'S NOT OKAY TO POST? HOW CAN TECHNOLOGY DERIVE A SENTENCE YOU MEANT? NEXT COMMENT IS FROM ANN MARIE BLINK, PLEASE OPPOSE THE FUNDING.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS PROGRAM WILL COLLECT DATA ON INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT SUSPECTED OF ANY CRIME.

I UNDERSTAND MONITORING CRIME RELATED EVENTS, THE PLEASE REVISIT MONITORING KEY INFLUENCERS AND SOCIAL SENTIMENT.

WHAT WILL THEY DO WITH THIS INFORMATION BEFORE YOU FUND THIS INITIATIVE, WE NEED A MORE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE DETAILS, HOW THE DATA WILL BE COLLECTED AND USED AS WELL AS A TIMELINE THAT REGULARLY EVALUATES THE PROGRAM OR EFFECTIVENESS.

ADDITIONALLY, PLEASE HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS TO SEE IF PEOPLE EVEN WANT A PROGRAM LIKE THIS.

INSTEAD OF FUNDING A SURVEILLANCE STATE, WE SHOULD BE FUNDING MORE HEALTH SERVICES, FOOD SERVICES, HOUSING SERVICES, AND GENERALLY SUPPORT INITIATIVES THAT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE OUR COMMUNITY MORE, MORE SECURE.

NEXT TIME COMMENT IS FROM SARAH MARCELLO.

BRP D SHOULD NOT BE FUNDED TO PRY INTO SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS FOR MONITORING PURPOSES, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE IS NOT A TRANSPARENT PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON THIS ISSUE.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM ZILINA WILLIAMS. THIS INITIATIVE IS A GROSS, UH, SORRY.

THIS INITIATIVE IS A GROSS DISREGARD FOR THE PRIVACY OF THE CITIZENS OF BATON ROUGE.

BRP D CURRENTLY HAS A LESS THAN POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RESIDENTS AS A WHOLE.

IF HE'S BATON ROUGE PARISH, THERE HAVE BEEN NO INDICATIONS THAT THIS WILL EFFECTIVELY ACTIVATE ANY REDUCTION IN CRIME OTHER THAN CAUSE REAL CRIMINALS WHO DO NOT POST ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR HAVE OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION.

AS THE NEWS MEDIA HAS SHOWN US TO FUNCTION EVEN FURTHER UNDER THE RADAR DATA FROM EXPERTS, SUCH AS DESMOND PATTON AND ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF SOCIAL WORK AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY WHO CONDUCTED A RECENT INTERVIEW ON NPR HAS SHOWN THAT SOCIAL MEDIA IS USED AS NEGATIVE CHARACTER TESTIMONY.

AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT LARGE SWATHS OF DATA AND POLICE OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS AND JUDGES MAY BE REVIEWING THESE POSTS WITHOUT ANY CONTEXT ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING SAID, DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN AN AGGRESSIVE POST AND A POST THAT IS ABOUT TRAUMA OR LOSS IS EXTREMELY HARD.

BUT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR EVALUATION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

IT CAN ONLY BE DEDUCED THAT IN THAT, IN THAT EFFORT, IT'S OUTCOME WILL FURTHER NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BRP D AND THE EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH RESIDENTS.

MOST LIKELY THOSE RESIDENTS WITH WHO USE SOCIAL MEDIA FOR TROLLING OR OTHER INCREDIBLE REASONS THAT ARE NOT ILLEGAL AND NOT CONNECTED TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY.

I PROPOSE THAT INSTEAD BRP D SEARCH FOR WAYS TO IMPROVE THE BRP D EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH RESIDENT RELATIONSHIP, PERHAPS BY CONDUCTING OUTREACH WITH GRASSROOTS ORGANIZATIONS OR CITIZEN LED GROUPS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC CONCERNS OF CORRECT GEN AND ILLEGAL ACTIVITY WITHIN THE FOREST AND IMPROVE THE TRAINING OF BRP D IN WAYS THAT DO NOT VIOLATE OR SEEM TO VIOLATE THE FREE SPEECH ACTIVITIES, AT LEAST FOUNDER'S PARISH RESIDENTS.

NEXT COMMENT IS FROM QUENTIN ANDERSON.

I HAVE STRONG RESERVATIONS ABOUT EQUIPPING OUR CURRENT POLICE FORCE WITH SUCH A TOOL THAT IS BEING DEBATED ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE EXPOSURE OF THE FBI'S COINED, UH, COINTELPRO.

MAKES ITS WAY THROUGH THE AWARD SEASON.

AND THE CRITICALLY ACCLAIMED FILM ABOUT FRED HAMPTON

[00:40:01]

IT SEEMS ALMOST IRONIC AND CRUEL THAT THE PROPOSED PROGRAM WITH BRP D WOULD LIKE TO CREATE IN BATON ROUGE IS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE KINDS OF ILLEGAL TAP TACTICS.

THE FBI ONCE USED TO PROTEST MOVEMENTS IN THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING SPYING ON MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.

I FULLY SUPPORT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAVING THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY AND THEMSELVES, BUT THAT MUST ALSO BE BALANCED WITH PERHAPS OUR MOST IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT FREE SPEECH.

THE PRO PROSPECT OF BRP D MONITORING SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS OF MY NEIGHBORS IS CHILLING AND WOULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF SILENCING SPEECH WITHOUT EXPLICITLY OUTLYING IT.

I HOPE THE COUNCIL REJECTS THE SUYDAM AND LOOKS INTO WHY LAW ENFORCEMENT THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COMMUNITY.

NEXT PUBLIC COMMENT IS FROM ALLEN FORESTER.

I AM HORRIFIED TO LEARN OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS PROGRAM TO ESSENTIALLY SPY ON ALL OF THE CITIZENS OF EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH.

GIVEN THE HISTORY OF THE COIN TALE PROGRAM IN THE 1960S AND SEVENTIES.

I AM ASTONISHED THAT THIS KIND OF INTELLIGENCE INTELLIGENCE GATHERING AIMED AT CITIZENS IS EVEN LEGAL.

I ABSOLUTELY DO NOT TRUST TO BE RPD, TO USE THIS INFORMATION RESPONSIBLY, ESPECIALLY WITH THE KIND OF CORRUPTION THAT HAS RECENTLY BEEN UNCOVERED IN THE DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS A HORRIBLE IDEA THAT CONCLUDES PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS. WE'VE HEARD ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS JUST TO REMINDER THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REQUESTED TO BE DELETED COUNCIL MEMBER DONE, BUT IT'S GOOD.

COUNCIL MEMBER DONE THE MICROPHONE.

NONE OF THE MICROPHONES USE YOUR INSIDE VOICE OR YOUR OUTSIDE VOICE.

EXCUSE ME, THEN ONE OTHER, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT MENTIONED THE ITEM IN MY OPINION, DEALS, POINT TO APPROACH.

I WANT TO THANK THE ACTIVIST ADVOCATE COMMUNITY FOR SPEAKING OUT TO LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD ON THIS ISSUE.

AND WITH THAT, I MAKE A MOTION TO DELETE THE ITEM, HOW SOME MEMBER MO WELL IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOTIONED.

IS THERE A SECOND TO DELETE THE ITEM SECONDED BY MS. COUNCIL MEMBER ADAMS, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER MOPE.

AND WHILE I DO APPRECIATE, UH, THIS ITEM BEING REQUESTED TO BE DELETED AND THE MOTION BEING, UH, MADE AND SECOND IT, THE CAT'S ALREADY OUT THE BAG AND WAS ANYBODY HERE TOO? WAS ANYBODY GOING TO BE HERE TO SPEAK ON IT? IN CASE WE HAD QUESTIONS AND THIS WASN'T ASKED TO BE DELETED BECAUSE I DO HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.

IT WAS CONCERNING THAT EVEN IF WE DO DELETE IT, THIS, THIS PROGRAM IS GRANT PROGRAM RUNS FROM TEN ONE 2019.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHY AREN'T WE GOING BACK TO 10, ONE 2019? WHY IS THAT DATE AS FAR AS WHERE THIS PROGRAM IS AT RIGHT NOW? SO THE PROGRAM.

SO HAS THIS PROGRAM BEEN IN USE, SO THIS PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED OR ANYTHING.

NEEDS TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE ANY OF THIS APPROVAL.

WELL, THAT'S DEFINITELY GOOD TO KNOW.

UM, AS FAR AS IF THIS WAS TO GO FORWARD TODAY AND EVERYTHING WERE, WHAT ARE THE RULES AND GUIDELINES AND OPERATIONS THAT Y'ALL WERE PLANNING ON USING? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE HAD TO BEEN CREATED AFTER WE APPROVED THIS GRANT FUNDING OR DO Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW TO BE IN PLACE ? UM, THAT IS WHAT, OKAY.

AND, AND AGAIN, I CAN APPRECIATE TECHNOLOGY AND THE USE OF TECHNOLOGY AND EVERYTHING.

AND I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE.

I HAD, UH, ACTUALLY SOMEBODY DEAR AND CLOSE TO ME, UM, AND THIS KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH ALL THE COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY SAW, SOMETHING ONLINE THAT CONCERNED THEM.

THEY DIDN'T REPORT IT TO CERTAIN PEOPLE WHICH DIDN'T REPORT IT HIGHER UPS AND SO ON, AND THAT THE ISSUE WAS TAKEN CARE OF.

BUT THE FACT OF, I THINK IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO GO FORWARD WITH IN THE FUTURE, AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE DELETING IT OFF THE ITEM RIGHT NOW.

UM, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO GET THESE WHAT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES AND THINGS THAT YOU WERE LOOKING TO HAVE IN PLACE BRING BEFORE THE COUNCIL, UM, TAKE IT TO A PUBLIC MEETING STANDPOINT, UH, BECAUSE WHETHER IT'S A GRANT OR WHETHER IT'S, UM, MOVING FORWARD WITH ANY OF THIS, I THINK EVERYTHING

[00:45:01]

SO I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT MOTION THAT IF IT IS SOMETHING TO GENERAL THINKING ABOUT DOING, PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT WE GET EVERYTHING IN PLACE AND THAT WE, AS A COUNCIL CAN TAKE IT TO OUR CONSTITUENTS, LET THEM KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, HOW IT'S GOING TO OPERATE AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO, UH, AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR DELETING THIS OR REQUESTING FOR IT TO BE DELETED AND PULLED, AND, UH, WE'LL GO FORWARD FROM HERE PROPERLY MOTION AND SECONDED MOTION BY DON SECOND TO BY ADAMS, ANY OPPOSITION HAVING NONE MOTION HAS ITEM HAS BEEN DELETED.

ITEM

[64. 21-00215]

64 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, PRESIDENT AND OR CHAIRMAN OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH CADEN COWBOY KITCHEN COMPANY TO LEASE A 15,682 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT LOCATED AT EIGHT ONE NINE FOUR PLANK ROAD AT A RATE OF $17,388 PER YEAR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BY THE AVIATION DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM 64, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 64 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION TO APPROVE BY DON 70 BY HUSTON MOTION CARRIES

[65. 21-00216]

ITEM 65 AUTHORIZATION OF THE MAYOR, PRESIDENT AND CHAIRMAN OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION TO EXECUTE A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH PLANT MACHINE WORKS INC, TO LEASE A 1200 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR WITH THE ONE-YEAR MUTUAL OPTION TO RENEW AT A RENTAL RATE OF $6,600 PER YEAR BY AVIATION DIRECTION DIRECTOR.

WAS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 65, HAVING NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY ADAMS. SECOND TO BILE BAROSSA MOTION CARRIES ITEM

[66. 21-00217]

66 AUTHORIZATION OF MAYOR, PRESIDENT OF CHAIRMAN AND OR THE CHAIRMAN OF THE AIRPORT COMMISSION TO EXECUTE A UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH ENTERGY LOUISIANA, LLC, FOR THE RELOCATION OF UTILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RUNWAY 13 SLASH 31 SAFETY AREAS SLASH RPZ IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $22,488 AND 96 CENTS BY THE AVIATION DIRECTION DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 66 COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEM, PROMOTION BY GO THE SECOND BY DONE MOTION CARRIES

[67. 21-00219]

ITEM 67, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OF PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE A SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

NUMBER TWO TO A CONTRACT WITH PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS TO INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE 72ND AVENUE PD IMPROVEMENTS, NOT AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,750 BY TRANSPORTATION AND JOINING AS DIRECTORS TO ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 67.

ANYONE WHO WOULD SPEAK ON ITEM 67, COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY ROCCO SECONDED BY HUDSON MOTION CARRIES

[68. 21-00220]

ITEM 68, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT.

NUMBER TWO TO CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH SIGMA CONSULTING GROUP INCORPORATED FOR SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH MOVE BR CAPACITY PROJECT JONES CREEK ROAD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $82,174 AND 8 CENTS BY TRANSPORTATION AND JOINING US DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 68 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOSTLY BY HUDSON.

SECOND BY AMAROSA MOTION CARRIES AUTHORIZING

[69. 21-00221]

THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE 69 AUTHORIZE A MERIT PRESIDENT EXECUTED CONTRACT FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH MAN CONSULTANT GROUP INCORPORATED TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES, TO PREPARE CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND REPORTS FOR REPAIRS TO A SECTION OF HURRICANE CREEK WEST TO PLANK ROAD IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $186,000, 440, EXCUSE ME, ONE $86,440 BY THE TRANSPORTATION AND DRAINAGE DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 69 MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY ROCCA SECONDED BY GOATEE MOTION CARRIES

[70. 21-00232]

ITEM 70 AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT OF LOUISIANA, LLC, TO PERFORM ADDITIONAL SERVICES AT THE NORTH LANDFILL ON TASK ORDER BASIS IN THE AMOUNT OF $950,000 FOR THE SERVICES TO BE PAID IN THE 2021 BUDGET BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIRECTOR.

DOES ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 70? ANYONE NEED TO SPEAK ON ITEM 70 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY ROCKER.

SECOND BY BANKS ITEM CARRIES

[71. 21-00230]

ITEM 71, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO AMEND A SUB-RECIPIENT CONTRACT WITH HIV AIDS ALLIANCE FOR REGION TWO, ANY AMOUNT OF $45,313 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $1,193,631 ON THE RYAN WHITE HIV AND AIDS PROGRAM BY THE HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 71, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 71 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER DONE.

I'D LIKE TO SPEAK.

GO AHEAD.

LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT 71 AND 72.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY HUDSON SECONDARY BILE MOROSA ITEM 71 CARRIES ITEM 72

[72. 21-00233]

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO AMEND THE SUB-RECIPIENT CONTRACT WITH HIV AND AIDS ALLIANCE FOR REGION TWO IN THE AMOUNT OF 33,000

[00:50:01]

FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $261,843 ON THE RYAN WHITE HIV AND AIDS MINORITY AIDS BY THE HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 72 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY GREEN SECOND BY ROCCO ITEM.

I HADN'T 72 CARES ITEMS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO, TO TAKE THE RECESS REQUIRED TO ADDRESS OUR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES.

HOPEFULLY THAT'S 10 SECONDS COULD BE 10 MINUTES.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A MOTION TO RECESS BY COUNCIL MEMBER, DON SECONDED BY MILK.

WE ARE IN RECESS UNTIL OUR TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.

FOR THOSE THAT YOU LOVE VISITING WITH US TODAY FROM CITY PARIS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE TO BE HERE BECAUSE IT'S YOUR JOB.

WE THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY.

WE SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOU.

THANK YOU SO MUCH ALL FOR BEING WITH US.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, BOYS AND GIRLS, PLEASE TAKE YOUR SEATS.

WE ARE ABOUT TO BEGIN RESUME THIS MARCH 10TH, REGULAR METROPOLITAN COUNCIL MEETING.

ON OUR LAST EPISODE, WE WERE ON ITEM 73.

WE WILL NOW

[74. 21-00238]

RESUME WITH ITEM 74, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO AMEND A SUB-RECIPIENT CONTRACT WITH THE CAPITAL CITY FAMILY HEALTH CENTER FOR AN INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF 66,000 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $785,868 A WATER UNDER THE RYAN WHITE HIV AND AIDS PROGRAM BY HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR.

THERE, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 74, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 74 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY COLEMAN SECONDED BY, OH, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE HERE TO SPEAK.

GO AHEAD.

I CAN GET YOU TO MAKE A CORRECTION ON ITEMS 74.

IT NEEDS TO REFLECT AN INCREASE OF 99 INSTEAD OF 66, NO FOUR.

MODEL'S GOING TO CHANGE.

SO YOU INCREASE HIS 99,000.

THAT'S AN INCREASE OF $33,000.

ITEM 73, WHICH WAS AUTHORIZED IN THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO AMEND THE SUB-RECIPIENT CONTRACT WITH FAMILY SERVICES FOR GREATER BATON ROUGE, FOR AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,550 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $874,900 UNDER THE RYAN WHITE HIV AND AIDS PROGRAM BY THE HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR.

AND THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE TOTAL AMOUNT.

780 WAS A TOTAL, CORRECT? NO, IT'S NOT SO 700,860 785,868 PLUS 33,000 BRINGS THAT TOTAL TO $818,868.

DOES EVERYONE HAVE THAT IN THEIR AMENDED? OKAY.

WELL, SOMEBODY CAN MAKE SURE SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED BY NO SECOND BY COLEMAN.

UH, ITEM 75, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO 73 AUTHORIZE

[73. 21-00236]

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 73, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 73 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY GREEN SECOND TO BARAKA ITEM 73 CARRIES COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I'M GOING TO READ ITEMS 75 THROUGH 77 TOGETHER, BUT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THOSE ITEMS SEPARATELY.

ITEM 75,

[75. 21-00202]

WE'RE SENDING IN DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT.

THE COUNCIL DECISION ORDER RECORDED IN A MATTER OF CITY OF BATON ROUGE VERSUS HENRY LEWIS JR.

LINDA STOKES, PATRICE LOUIS LYNCH.

AND THERE'S A BIT LOUIS WHEELER, GERTRUDE LOUIS KELSO, TONYA GMRS, JACQUELYN G CRUZ, PATRICIA LEWIS GORDON, MARY LEWIS, ROBINSON RICH F LEWIS JR.

CHARLES LEWIS, ONE SEVEN ZERO SEVEN ZERO CHARLETON ROAD.

THE REASON FOR RECESSION COUNSELING AND NOR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE PROPERTY REPAIRED FOR HIS CONSTITUENT.

THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE FINALLY ABLE TO DO SOME WORK.

AFTER THE FLOOD.

THEY HAVE HIRED A CONTRACTOR WHO WAS FAMILIAR WITH OUR CONDEMNATION AND DECISION PROCESS BY COUNCIL MEMBER KNOWN ITEM 76, RESCINDING

[00:55:01]

DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO COUNCIL THE DECISION AND ORDER RECORDED IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF BATON ROUGE VERSUS ALICE PORTA, TWO ONE THREE TYLER STREET.

REASON FOR RESCISSION.

THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BOARDED UP.

THE YARD HAS BEEN CLEANED AND THE PROPERTY IS MAKING REPAIRS TO RENT BY COUNCIL MEMBER COLEMAN ITEM 77 WAS SENDING AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF COURT TO COUNCIL.

THE DECISION IN ORDER RECORDED IN THE MATTER OF CITY OF BATON ROUGE VS LARRY L. BRIGGS AND THE LAURA'S BROWN BRIGGS TWO ZERO TWO FOUR NORTH BOULEVARD.

REASON FOR RESCISSION.

THE PROPERTY IS BEING REPAIRED FOR RENTAL AND HAS BEEN CLEANED UP AND BOARDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER, CAROLYN COLA, CAROLYN CAROLYN COLEMAN.

76 MOTION BY GREEN SECONDED BY NO MOTION PASSES ITEM 77

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 75 TO 77? IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 75 TO 77? AND WE'VE TOLD THEM, YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON ITEM 75.

IS THERE A MOTION BY GREEN SECOND BY NO MOTION PASSES ITEM

[76. 21-00244]

[77. 21-00247]

MOTION BY GREEN SEVEN, SECONDED BY NO MOTION PASSES ITEM

[78. 21-00201]

78, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR PRESIDENT TO AMEND A CERTAIN CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL LEGAL SERVICES WITH CELIA KANJI LOC.

SO AS TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE COMPENSATION BY THE SUM OF $27,500, NOT TO EXCEED $85,000, THIS MATTER MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION BY THE PARISH ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 78 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY HUDSON SECONDED BY THE CHAIR AND THE OPPOSITION MOTION CARRIES ITEM 79,

[79. 21-00254]

AUTHORIZING THE SETTLEMENT IN THE MATTER OF STANLEY WILLIAMS VERSUS ZACHARY PRAY JOHN AT ALL IN THE AMOUNT OF 75,000 PLUS COURT COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $274 FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF $75,274 AND APPROPRIATING $75,274 FOR SUCH PURPOSE BY THE PARISH ATTORNEY.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 79, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 79 COUNCIL MEMBERS.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE A MOTION BY MOROSA SECOND BY GREEN MOTION CARRIES ITEM

[80. 21-00256 ]

80, AMENDING THE RESOLUTION FIVE, FIVE, FOUR 43 ADOPTED BY THE METRO COUNCIL APPROVED ON FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021, WHICH AUTHORIZED THE SEDIMENT OF THE MATTER ENTITLED ENRICA WILLIAMS AT ALL VERSUS THE CITY OF BATON ROUGE AT ALL.

AND THE AMOUNT OF $4,500,000 INCLUSIVE OF COSTS, INTERESTS, ATTORNEY FEES, AND ANY OTHER AMOUNT TO CHANGE THE PAYMENT TERMS IN AN INITIAL PAYMENT OF $2 MILLION WITH THE BALANCE TO BE PAID AND TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, INAPPROPRIATE AND APPROPRIATING A TOTAL OF $2 MILLION FOR THE INITIAL PAYMENT IN 2021.

THIS ITEM MAY BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AWAY ASSETS TO THE MISSISSIPPI VALLEY WITHOUT ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM AAV? WE HAVE TO EMAIL COMMENTS.

IF THERE'S SOMEONE HERE WE'LL GET WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU.

WE HAVE TO EMAIL COMMENTS, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THE FIRST EMAIL COMMENT ON ITEM 80 IS FROM PHILIPPA LARD.

I HAVE AGAINST AMENDING THE PER PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESOLUTION SINCE I WAS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE METRO COUNCIL.

IN MY OPINION, THE SETTLEMENT OFFER SHOULD NOW BE WITHDRAWN BY THE METRO COUNCIL AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE SHOULD BE SETTLED IN THE COURT SYSTEM.

SECOND COMMENT IS FROM MARY JANE, MARK INTEL.

I'M OBJECTING TO ITEM 80 ON TODAY'S AGENDA.

THIS OBJECTION IS A CARRY OVER FROM THE FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021 MEETING OVER THE SAME MATTER, WHICH PROMPTED ME TO FILE AN OPEN MEETINGS VIOLATION COMPLAINT WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO AS OF MARCH 9TH, 2021 SAY THEY ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER FROM THE COUNCIL.

IN MY OPEN MEETINGS COMPLAINT, I CODED QUOTED COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON'S WORDS REGARDING HIS FEELINGS OF WHAT HAPPENED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION SAYING THAT WE ARE STEPPING OUT OF TURN HERE AND HOW WE NORMALLY GO ABOUT SETTLING ANY CASE.

HIS CONCERN WAS SHARED BY ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE CITY PARISH, AS WELL AS ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER ON MARCH 5TH, 2021 COUNCIL MEMBER HUDSON WAS ON THE BRIAN HELL DAIRY HALDANE RADIO SHOW, DISCUSSING MY COMPLAINING INTO COUNCIL, EXPLAINING THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS A PURELY POLITICAL PROCESS.

TO END UP WITH A SETTLEMENT.

IT PUTS UNDUE PRESSURE ON THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO COME TO A SETTLEMENT AND PROVE IT.

I JUST THINK THAT IT IS IMPROPER PROCEDURE.

IT'S NOT AN ILLEGAL PROCEDURE BY ANY MEANS, BUT IT IS NOT A PROCEDURE THAT BEST REPRESENTS THE INTEREST OF THE TAXPAYERS OF THE PARISH.

FURTHER HUDSON SAID HE HAS ISSUES WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS PUTTING ITEMS ON THE AGENDA WHEN IT COMES TO SETTLEMENTS AND ESPECIALLY LARGE SETTLEMENTS, LIKE THE ONE WHERE THEY HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH A CLAIMS, REPROCESS HUDSON CONFIRMS WHAT APPEARS TO BE HAPPENING REGARDING THIS CASE.

VARIOUS COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE HELPING THE PLAINTIFFS WITH THEIR FLOUNDERING CASE TO PUSH THROUGH THIS POLITICAL PROCESS, SETTLEMENT, ABSENT, ANY CLAIMS REVIEW PROCESS THAT HAS HAPPENED IN EVERY OTHER CASE FOR SETTLEMENT.

THIS NEW QUOTE POLITICAL PROCESS PROCEDURE APPEARS TO NOW BE GIVING

[01:00:01]

THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE THAT MAY NEED OUTSIDE REVIEW.

THE REASON FOR THE HELP BY THESE COUNCIL MEMBERS IS THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE IS NOT GOING WELL.

THERE ARE VARIOUS RULINGS BY THE COURT THAT ARE NOT HELPFUL TO THE PLAINTIFF'S CASE, NOR THE PREVIOUS FINDINGS DURING THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OF NO FAULT OF THE OFFICERS.

NOW I AM ADDING ANOTHER REASON WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE SETTLED WHILE HUDSON SAID, SETTLING, WE'LL GET THIS CASE BEHIND US, WHERE WE CAN MOVE ON TO OTHER ISSUES THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO ADDRESS.

IF THE GOAL IS TO GIVE MONEY WITHOUT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION, THIS WILL OPEN THE DOOR TO EVEN MORE POLITICAL PROCESS SETTLEMENTS AND GIVING TAXPAYER MONEY AWAY WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION.

IF IT WORKS TODAY, IT WILL BE ATTEMPTED AGAIN, ANY APPROVAL TO SETTLE THIS CASE TODAY WILL BE STRICTLY BECAUSE OF POLITICS AND NOT BECAUSE OF THE VALUE OF THE CASE.

THE POSTURE OF THIS CASE IS SO TAINTED THAT IT CANNOT BE FIXED WITHOUT THIS MATTER.

GOING TO AN UNBIASED JURY FREE FROM POLITICS FOR A DECISION, IT WILL ALSO RESOLVE ANY QUESTIONS OF GIVING AWAY TAX DOLLARS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO CLEAN UP THE STENCH THAT GOES WITH THE ACTIONS REGARDING THIS PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AN UNBIASED JURY'S ACTIONS COULD RESULT IN A HIGHER OR LOWER VALUE BASED ON THE PROOF OFFERED BY THE PLAINTIFFS IN COURT.

THAT IS FOR A JURY TO DETERMINE I OBJECT TO ANY SETTLEMENT THAT CONCLUDES THE COMMENTS FOR ITEM EIGHT.

AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 80, ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 80, LET'S GO TO COUNCIL MEMBERS, COUNCIL MEMBER, HUDSON.

I JUST WANT TO THAT'S LOUD.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BASED ON THE PUBLIC COMMENT FROM MS. MARK INTEL, UM, I WANT TO SAY UNEQUIVOCALLY, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS COUNCIL VIOLATED ANY SORT OF OPEN MEETINGS LAW WHATSOEVER.

UH, I THINK THE WAY THAT OUR COUNCIL ADMINISTRATOR AND COUNCILMAN COLE MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMAN COLE, UH, CONDUCTED OUR, UM, EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS GREAT.

IT WAS ABOVE BOARD AND IT WAS EXCEPTIONAL.

IN FACT, UH, NOW I HAPPEN TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS ISSUE, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THAT THE SETTLEMENT AMOUNT IS JUSTIFIED.

I DON'T, AND I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THE AMENDMENT EITHER.

I DON'T THINK IT PUTS THE TAXPAYER IN THE BEST POSITION.

UM, BUT TO USE THE PROCESS, UH, AS A JUSTIFICATION TO GO.

AND, AND WHAT I, WHAT I SAY IS, UM, UH, INVALID ATTACK ON THIS COUNCIL BY CALLING US IN VIOLATION OF OPEN MEETINGS, UH, IT IS TOTALLY OUT OF ORDER.

SO, UM, UH, THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT TO SAY.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UH, ASHLEY, COUNCILMAN COLE, I THINK HE DID AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB OF LEADING US THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WE STAND.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER, HUDSON, ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK COUNCIL MEMBER ROCKER, IS THIS MATTER STILL BEING REVIEWED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE? YES.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE SENT ME A LETTER SAYING THAT THEY WERE INVESTIGATING AND ASKED FOR OUR RESPONSE.

UM, I FORWARDED THE LETTER AND ALL THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO EACH OF Y'ALL I'M CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED TIMELINE AS TO WHEN WE WERE GETTING THIS RESPONSE? UH, I AM PLANNING TO SEND THE RESPONSE TO THEM BY THE END OF THE WEEK.

UM, BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHEN THEY MAY GET BACK TO ME ON, UM, THEIR FINDINGS, IF, IF THEY FIND WHICH I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THEY WILL, BUT IF THEY FIND THAT WE VIOLATED PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW OR HAD ANY VIOLATION WHATSOEVER, WHAT WOULD BE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THAT? UM, I'D LIKE TO BRING COURTNEY OR ANDY UP TO I'M SORRY.

I MISSED ONE FOR YOU TO CONFIRM, BUT, UM, MINI FLOOD PROVIDES THAT A, UM, ACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE OPEN MEETINGS.

LAW IS AVOIDABLE.

SO THIS ITEM AND THE ITEM THAT WE VOTED ON PREVIOUSLY WOULD BE NULL AND VOID.

UM, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO MS. HUMPHREY, BUT I THINK IT REQUIRES SOMEBODY TO BRING AN ACTION, UM, TO, TO DECLARE IT AWAY.

BUT I'LL, UH, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN.

SO I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE AT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE, JUST SO THAT, THANK YOU.

JUST SO I CAN BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT THE POSSIBLE RAMIFICATIONS ARE AND THEY RANGE IT COULD BE ANYTHING FROM OR NEVADA.

SO ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE AG? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS? IS THERE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS? I'M SORRY.

POINT OF ORDER, MS. BANKS WAS ASKING, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE AEG OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS ITEM? CAUSE DAGS DECISION RELATIVE TO WHETHER OR NOT WE VIOLATE OPEN MEETINGS, LAWS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ACTUAL ITEM.

THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE VIOLATION OF THOSE LAWS MAY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION YOU MAKE TODAY, BUT THE ACTUAL OPENS, MEANING LAW, A PETITION FILE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING

[01:05:01]

TO DO WITH THIS ITEM.

DID I CAPTURE YOUR SENTIMENTS CORRECTLY? RIGHT.

I THINK THAT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL CROSS THAT BRIDGE WHEN WE GET THERE, BUT RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS.

AND MY POINT IN ASKING THESE QUESTIONS IS IF WE DEAL WITH THIS AND WE VOTE ON IT, THEN POTENTIALLY IT WILL BE NOLAN BOY.

WELL, THAT'S OKAY THOUGH, AS HE JUST SAID, THEY HAVE TO MAKE SOMEBODY HAS TO PUT A, UM, AN ACTION.

SO EVEN IF IT DOES THEN, BUT THAT HAS STILL, WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE MATTER THAT I MAKE A SUBSEQUENT MOTION TO DEFER THE SIGNING FOR FOUR WEEKS.

W W MOTION TO DEFER FOR FOUR WEEKS BY COUNCIL ON THE, IS THERE A SECOND, SECOND TIP BY AMARILLO? SO NOW LET'S BE CLEAR.

THAT'S NOT A SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

THAT'S THE ONLY EMOTION WE HAVE.

SO MAKE A REGULAR MOTION.

MOTION SECONDED BY OMAROSA ARE TO DEFER FOR FOUR WEEKS.

UH, COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS.

MA'AM WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU COUNCIL MEMBER MOLT, UH, FROM THE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

SO, AND AGAIN, SOME OF THE SENTIMENTS AND, AND WITH THE VOTING FROM LAST TIME WITH THE 4.5 MILLION, WE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THEIR DUE PROCESS OR WHATEVER THAT, THAT SETTLEMENT CAME FROM.

I HAD CONCERNS LAST TIME OR THE FACT THAT IT WASN'T MEDIATED.

AND I FELT LIKE WE WERE DECIDING WHAT WAS THERE AS FAR AS GOING THROUGH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

UM, BUT WE WENT TO THEM WITH AN OFFER THAT SAID, OKAY, 4.5.

AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS 4.5 MILLION.

ALSO, IT WENT TO X AMOUNT IN THE FIRST PAYMENT AND X AMOUNT PER YEAR AFTER THAT, WHERE DID THAT FALL APART? THEY JUST CAME BACK AND SAID, DID THEY GIVE ANY REASON, DID THE OTHERS SIDE, WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED DECIDE THAT THIS IS NOT WHAT THEY WANTED AND GAVE ANY REASONS WHY? OR IS THERE ANY REASON WHY IT'S BACK BEFORE US FOR A SHORTER PAYMENT TIME? SO THAT THE 4.5 MILLION IS THE NUMBER THAT'S AGREED UPON, BUT WE WENT TO HIM WITH A MILLION DOLLARS AND THEN X AMOUNT PER YEAR.

WHY ARE WE ESSENTIALLY WANT TO STICK ON THIS TOPIC? WHY ARE WE BACK BEFORE US WITH A $2 MILLION START OFF? AND THEN SO IN GOING FORWARD, OTHER THAN THE REASON OF, WE JUST WANT OUR MONEY FASTER AND THAT'S NO DISRESPECT TO ANYBODY, THAT'S WHAT I'M TAKING IT AS IS WHY DID WE HAVE ANY REASON THAT WAS GIVEN TO THE PARISH ATTORNEY'S OFFICE? OH, WHILE WE'RE UPPING THIS SCALE OR UPPING THIS TIMELINE? WELL, THAT THEY'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW, BUT ANDY'S GOING TO EXPOUND ON THAT.

COUNCILMAN MO, THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL.

TAMARINS KIND OF CONVERSATION.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN LITIGATION.

IT'S NOT A USUAL FOR THE PARTIES TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON AN AMOUNT AND THEN HAVE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HOW THE AMOUNT IS GOING TO BE PAID.

THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL.

SO YES, IT INITIATED FROM THEM GIVING US A CALL AND ASK US IF THERE WAS ANY OPTION FOR CHANGING THE PAYOUT.

BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL OR RARE.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

ON THE SECOND SIDE OF THE REASON I'M BRINGING UP THIS PAYOUT, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, AND PLEASE ANYBODY JUMP IN AND CORRECT ME AT ANY TIME, WE HAVE X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS PER YEAR THAT WE PAY OUT TO THESE CASES.

AND THE REASON WE DO SO MUCH OF THE REASON WE SCHEDULE THEM OUT IS DEPENDING ON THE CASES, IT'S WHERE THEY'RE PAID OUT AND WHAT'S LEFT AS WE GO THROUGH AND WHO HAS TO WAIT AND DUTTON CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.

UH, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN ANSWER IT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

UH, THERE ARE, WE DO HAVE A BUDGET FOR SEDIMENTS AND THERE IS AN INSURANCE RESERVE AS WELL.

UH, WE, UH, HAVE MECHANISMS ABOUT WHICH WE HAVE, OR WE PAY COMPROMISE JUDGEMENTS, AND THERE'S A COMPROMISED JUDGMENT ACCOUNT AS WELL.

THAT'S DIVIDED BETWEEN ALL THE COMPROMISED JUDGEMENTS THAT WERE PAINTED AT THAT TIME.

SO IT COMES FROM SEVERAL DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT ANGLES COUNCILMEN.

SO YES, WE DO HAVE VARYING ACCOUNTS THAT ARE SET UP TO SETTLE CASES AND PAY COMPROMISED JUDGEMENTS.

AND WE HAVE A FUND RESERVE OF, UH, MONIES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN UTILIZED YET THAT ARE THERE IN AN ACCOUNT IN CASE THEY NEED TO BE UTILIZED FOR SEDIMENTS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

GOING FORWARD AND GETTING THIS TAKEN CARE OF, BUT ALSO TAKING CARE OF OUR OTHER NEEDS.

AND, AND I, AGAIN, I APPRECIATE ALL THE INFORMATION.

THE FINAL QUESTION IS BY UP IN THIS PAYMENT SCHEDULE, DO WE, DO WE TAKE A CHANCE OR POSSIBLY OTHER SETTLEMENTS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO MOVE ON WITH? WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS WE CAME UP WITH A SETTLEMENT AND A PAYMENT PLAN THAT WE FELT WOULD WORK OUT FOR NOT ONLY

[01:10:01]

ARE WE TAKING A CHANCE ON NOT TAKING CARE OF OUR OTHER NEEDS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, BEING THAT THIS IS ONLY MARCH BY UP IN THIS SCHEDULE, I DON'T WORK IN FINANCE.

I WILL TELL YOU THIS.

AND THEN THEY MAY WANT TO COME UP AND EXPAND ON THIS, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS COUNSELING ONE.

I GO BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE.

THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL THAT THESE KIND OF CONVERSATIONS, WHAT WE DID FROM MY OFFICE WITHOUT GOING INTO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS PRIVILEGED IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PHONE CALL.

BUT IN GENERAL, WE BROUGHT ALL THE PROPER PARTIES TO THE DISCUSSION.

IT WAS NOT MADE UNILATERALLY BY OFFICE WAS NOT MADE BECAUSE THE PLAINS ATTORNEYS ARE DIRECTING IT.

IT WAS AN INQUIRY BY THEM, WHICH WAS PUT FORWARD TO MYSELF.

A MAYOR PRO TEM COLE WAS ON THE CALL.

UH, THE MAYOR BROOME WAS ON ONE CALL.

AND THEN MR. GISSELLE WAS ON ANOTHER ONE MAY HAVE ROOM WASN'T AVAILABLE AND FINANCE WAS ON THE CALL.

AND WE TALKED THROUGH ALL THE SCENARIOS AND WE ALL CAME TO A CONSENSUS, MR. DOTSON DIDN'T COME TO CONSENSUS, RIGHT? THE PAST ATTORNEY'S OFFICE DIDN'T COME LIKE WE ALL, AS A GROUP, AS THE CITY PAIRS CAME TO CONSENSUS THAT THE CITY OF PARIS COULD DO THE SETTLEMENT AS LAID OUT IN THIS AMENDED, UH, THIS REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT OF THE RESOLUTION.

WITHOUT, AND I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO GO IN AND RESPOND TO SAY THIS WITHOUT ANY RAMIFICATIONS, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, BUT AS A WEEKEND PROJECT, YOU'RE LOUD.

I WOULD JUST HAVE ONE FINAL COMMENT TOO.

CAN I JUST FINISH THAT? PLEASE DO THE POINT I'M MAKING IS IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE WAY THAT THINGS ARE NOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY IT AS IT'S SET FORTH IN THE AMENDED RESOLUTION.

THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION IN A CLOSING COMMENT, I WANT TO, UM, REITERATE WHAT COUNCILMAN HUDSON SAID.

UM, ADULT, THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, EVERYTHING WAS HANDLED EXCEPTIONALLY WELL.

UM, AS FAR AS BEING COMFORTABLE, AS FAR AS BEING ABLE TO SAY AN ASK WHAT WE NEEDED TO ASK AND, UH, YOU KNOW, IN DEALING WITH THIS PREVIOUSLY IN OTHER SITUATIONS, UM, I TAKE PUBLIC, UH, I GUESS, UM, UH, OPEN MEETING LAW STUFF, VERY SERIOUSLY AND STUFF.

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM GO THROUGH, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT THIS ONE WASN'T, BUT, UH, JUST TO REITERATE WHAT HE SAID, I THOUGHT IT WAS HANDLED VERY WELL.

AND Y'ALL DID AN EXCEPTIONAL JOB.

THANK YOU, SIR.

LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT, UM, COUNCILMAN MO QUESTIONS.

AND I THINK IT, IF I MAY, UM, ALSO SPEAK WITH FINANCE, PLEASED WITH THE SETTLEMENT AND I KNOW THEIR, UM, THEIR FIVE CHILDREN, I KNOW THE, I DON'T, I MEAN, A LAWYERS A LOT, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING, BASED ON CAUSE W W W WAS MAKING ME THINK THIS WAS A BETTER OPTION IS OVER THAT TIME PERIOD THAT WE ARE ORIGINALLY, WOULD YOU BE SENDING OUT A PARTIAL CHECK TO EVERY PERSON? IS THAT I WOULD JUST WANT TO, HOW SO WOULD YOU SEND OVER, IS IT, WAS IT FIVE YEARS ORIGINAL? THE FIRST, THE FIRST PAYMENT WAS AMAZING IN THE FIRST YEAR AND 875,000 FOR THE FOUR YEARS AFTER.

I TOLD HER FIVE KIDS INCLUDING ISSUE.

SO W W W W IN MAKING THOSE PAYMENTS, WOULD THAT BE LIKE FINANCE WOULD HAVE TO CUT A DIFFERENT CHECK TO EACH PARTY OR ONE CHECK TO HOW DOES THAT WORK? I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE TERMS OF THE SETTLEMENT.

IT IS ISN'T VISION COUNCIL, WOMAN.

THIS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE ANY MONEY THAT'S BETWEEN THE ATTORNEYS AND THEIR CONTRACTS THEY HAVE WITH THEIR CLIENTS.

THAT'S NOT MY RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR BILLS, HOW MUCH THEY GET, HOW MUCH THE ATTORNEYS GET THAT'S BETWEEN THEM.

AND WE'RE NOT PRIVY TO THAT OUR SOLE RESPONSIBILITY PER THE SELLING AGREEMENT THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONVICTED YET, BUT IT WILL CONTAIN THAT AS ONE SINGLE PAYMENT MADE TO WHEREVER THEY HAVE US TO DIRECT TO WHATEVER TRUST ACCOUNT, UH, IF WE DO IT ELECTRONICALLY, OR IF IT'S A CHECK, WHATEVER MAY NEED TO BE ON THE CHECK TO ENSURE THAT IT'S PAID OUT TO THE ATTORNEYS IN THE CLUB.

SO, YEAH, I WASN'T GETTING TO THE BREAK, THE AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE LAWYERS OR HOW MUCH, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING TO BE AN OVERBURDEN PERSON, FIVE YEARS WHERE TO FINANCE WAS GOING TO HAVE TO DV OUT THE CHECKS BASED ON THE PARTIES, TO THE LAWSUIT, THE LAWYERS, AND ALL OF THAT.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING, BUT APPARENTLY SAYING IT'S JUST ONE CHECK AND THEN THEY DO THE WORK ON THE DISTRIBUTION BETWEEN THE LAWYERS AND THE CLIENT.

THAT'S WHAT I'VE UNDERSTOOD.

THAT'S THE WAY THAT I'VE ALWAYS PRACTICED IN THE 20 YEARS I'VE PRACTICED.

AND IF THEY TRY AND DO IT ANY DIFFERENTLY, IN THIS CASE, IT WON'T BE ACCEPTABLE.

[01:15:01]

AND SO, WHATEVER THE, THOSE ARRANGEMENT THAT IS, UH, THAT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN THE SETTLEMENT THAT THE JUDGE ACTUALLY SIGNED.

THERE'S NOT A JUDGE.

NOW THIS IS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF THE COURT.

WHAT DID THE JUDGE HAVE TO SIGN, ET CETERA? NO, MA'AM NO, THIS IS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW.

ONLY THING THAT JUDGE IS GOING TO SIGN AS ONCE WE ALL COME TO AN AGREEMENT AS TO, WHAT'S GOING TO BE CONTAINED IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, THERE'LL BE AN ORDER BY THE COURT DISMISSING THE CASE.

SO YES, MA'AM, THAT MAY BE WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, BUT THE SETTLEMENT ITSELF IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THEM.

YES, MA'AM.

THAT, THAT WAS, UM, THAT'S ALL I ADDED COUNCIL NUMBER DONE.

THANK YOU, ANDY.

YEAH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT JUST STATEMENTS ARE THAT THESE NEGOTIATION BACK AND FORTH COUNTER OFFERS, COUNTER REQUESTS, ADJUSTMENTS IS NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE.

AM I CORRECT IN THAT? YES, SIR.

I MEAN, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR ATTORNEYS TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS, UH, AS TO HOW THE MONEY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED.

THAT'S NOT THAT WASN'T SHOCKING TO ME AT ALL.

NO, SIR.

GOTCHA.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING COSMIN MOPAX THEN COME AND TAKE A DEEPER DIVE INTO IT.

CAUSE HE ASKED WHY DID THEY RESPOND A COUNTER OFFER AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AND, UH, ROWDY DID A GOOD JOB VIA EMAIL.

IF I EVER REMEMBER ACCIDENT FOR A JUSTIFICATION, OUR RESPONSE FROM THE PLAINTIFF PARTY ON THAT, I DIDN'T READ THAT, UH, RESPONSE TO THE EMAIL.

AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO READ IT TODAY, BUT CAN YOU GIVE US, YOU KNOW, UH, IN YOUR REVIEW OF IT, W WHAT WERE THOSE, UH, REASONS TO BE A HUNDRED PERCENT HONEST WITH YOU? I DON'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

THAT WAS ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO, AND I'VE HAD 50 MILLION OTHER DOCUMENTS PASSED THROUGH MY HEAD BETWEEN I, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO INJUSTICE TO WHAT IT SAID, BUT COUNSELING YOU'RE CORRECT.

AND THAT THEY PROVIDED AN EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THEY NEEDED IT IN A DOCUMENT, AS YOU STATED, IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, BUT THEY DID PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION YESTERDAY.

THAT'S FINE.

FINALLY, UH, I WAS GOING TO ACTUALLY DID THOSE, UH, UH, STATEMENTS, ARE THERE REASONS, DID YOU SEE THEM AS JUSTIFIABLE, BUT BEING THAT YOU DON'T REMEMBER THEM? I THINK, WELL, I WOULD SAY AS A WHOLE, IT DOESN'T REALLY, IN MY OPINION, IT'S NOT UP TO ME WHETHER IT'S JUSTIFIED OR NOT.

IT'S UP TO THE 12 OF Y'ALL.

SO THAT'S NOT MY, IF YOU ASK ME MY OPINION, I WILL TELL YOU, BUT I WON'T TAKE IT HERE.

I CAN TELL YOU IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THOSE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS ARE PRIVILEGED, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S GOOD.

SO FOR Y'ALL TO READ, DIGEST IT AND MAKE A DETERMINATION, IF THEY HAVE SUFFICIENTLY JUSTIFIED TO EACH OF THE 12 REVIEW THAT THEY HAVE SET FORTH THE REASONING AS TO WHY THEY ASK HIM FOR THESE CHANGES.

WELL, THANK YOU.

AND I'LL END WITH A STATEMENT.

I AM A PUZZLED AS WELL.

COUNCILMAN MEMO, UH, WHY WE'RE HERE AGAIN, UH, ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.

UH, I HOPE IN THE FUTURE THAT WHEN WE COME TO AGREEMENTS THAT THIS PORTION CAN BE INCLUDED AND WE DO IT IN ONE ITEM AND NOT HAVE TO REVISIT IT AS IF THIS IS A NEW ITEM.

I FEEL LIKE WE ADDRESSED ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD AND MOVE ON.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE WHEEL IS OF THE BODY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MOVE ON, BUT I JUST THINK THIS IS A SECOND BITE AT THE APPLE, ET CETERA, MOTION COUNCIL MEMBER DONE, OR JUST A STATEMENT.

WELL, I'LL MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE AS WRITTEN SECOND, SECOND BY COLEMAN COUNCIL MEMBER.

NO, MR. DOTSON.

I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.

SO YOU STATED A LITTLE WHILE AGO THAT, UM, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT UNCOMMON, UM, AND DIDN'T SURPRISE YOU.

AND WHEN THEY REACHED OUT, IT WAS, UH, KIND OF A REQUEST ON ASKING YOU IF, IF THEY THOUGHT MAYBE IT CAN BE RESTRUCTURED.

CORRECT.

SO WHEN WE RECEIVED THE EMAIL FROM MS. HOMEFREE ABOUT THIS, UH, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE PARAGRAPHS, I HAVE THE EMAIL HERE STATED THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S FURTHER STATED THAT IF THIS MATTER FAILS TO OBTAIN COUNSEL APPROVAL, THEY RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REJECT THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PROCEED WITH THE RESCHEDULED JUNE TRIAL.

SO WHEN I READ THAT, I TOOK IT AS THEY WANT TO GO TO TRIAL.

IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE AMENDMENT, I KNOW THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID.

THAT'S HOW I TOOK IT.

UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY STATED THAT TO TRY TO GET ACROSS THE, UH, IMPORTANCE OF IT, BUT TO ME, THAT PORTION MADE IT SEEM LIKE IT WASN'T JUST A, HEY, IF YOU THINK WE CAN RESTRUCTURE THIS, WE'D LIKE TO, IT WAS, IT WAS, UH, I TOOK THAT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

UM, SO DID THEY GIVE YOU ANY INDICATION ON, SHOULD THIS NOT BE APPROVED THAT THEY DO IN FACT INTEND TO, UM, REJECT THE OFFER AND PROCEED WITH TRIAL? UH, I, I THINK THERE WERE SOME IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM COORDINATOR I DISCUSSED, I THINK THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THAT THEY HELD AN OPTION THAT THEY HELD THAT THEY COULD EXERCISE IF THEY SO CHOOSE.

[01:20:01]

SO, YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

UM, AND I THINK THEY REITERATED, AND I DON'T REMEMBER THAT PART COUNSELING DONE AS BEING IN, IN THAT DOCUMENT.

THEY SENT IT WASN'T A DOCUMENT.

SO WOULD THERE, UM, I GUESS, UH, AND I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE FORMAL PROCESS OF, OF NEGOTIATIONS LIKE THIS, BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS OFFERED THAT DOES NOT MAKE THE ORIGINAL OFFER NULL AND VOID.

IS THAT ACCURATE? THAT'S CORRECT.

THE WAY THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'LL HAVE COURTNEY COME UP IF I'M SAYING THIS WRONG, BUT THE WAY THAT WE UNDERSTAND IS THAT THIS IS JUST A REQUEST TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION.

WHEREAS LUCIA IS WELDED UPON.

IT'S DONE.

AND THE RESOLUTION WAS A $4.5 MILLION SETTLEMENT WITH A MILLION DOLLARS PAID UP FRONT AND $875,000 PAID IN EQUAL PAYMENTS OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

IT'S DONE.

IN OUR OPINION.

SO THAT MATTER IS VOTED UPON.

MEANING THAT IF TONIGHT THAT THE 12, YOU DECIDE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO PASS US BY THE SUFFICIENT VOTES TO AMEND THE RESOLUTION.

IT WILL REVERT BACK TO THAT ORIGINAL RESOLUTION AND THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE CONTAINED THEREIN.

AND THAT STANDS UNTIL WHEN.

AND IF THEY EVER DECIDED TO ACCEPT IT, WELL, IT STANDS UNTIL THEY MAKE WHATEVER DECISION THEY WANT TO MAKE TO, IF THEY'RE DOING ONE ACCEPTED THAT THEY DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IT AS ONE OPTION, THEY CAN HAVE A SECOND OPTION, COULD BE WHAT THEY INTIMATED IN THEIR DOCUMENT TO EACH OF YOU, THAT IF, YOU KNOW, THE CLIENTS FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN DO, THEY HAD OPTION TO TRY AND BRING THIS MATTER BACK TO TRIAL AS AN OPTION.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN TRY AND EXERCISE, BUT WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

THEY MAKE THAT DECISION THAT I WON'T DISCUSS WITH YOU HERE, BUT THERE ARE SOME OPTIONS THAT WE CAN TAKE IN RESPONSE TO THAT.

AND I'VE SHARED THAT, I THINK WITH YOU AND SOME ON PREVIOUS PHONE CALL AND SOME OF THE OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS, WE'VE HAD AN INDIVIDUAL PHONE CALLS AS TO WHETHER THE OPTION WOULD BE SO AT ANY POINT, DOES A DECISION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN MADE, UM, GO AWAY.

NO, EVEN IF TRIAL STARTS, I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU EVEN IF TRIAL STARTS WELL, THE THING IS, IS THAT THAT'S, AGAIN, THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO A DETERMINATION OF THE COURT.

FOR IT TO BE NONE OF WHAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BY ACCIDENT OF THIS COUNCIL, OR BY DETERMINATION OF A LEGAL AUTHORITY, THAT THERE WAS SOME MANNER BY WHICH IT WAS NOT RESOLVED IN THE WAY WE THOUGHT IT WAS RESOLVED.

IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION WITHOUT LEAKING ANYTHING ELSE OUT.

WELL, THE REASON I ASK IS WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY NOT SURE, THE REASON I ASK IS, IS, UH, YOU KNOW, HYPOTHETICALLY, UM, THIS IS AN ACCEPTED, IT'S NOT AMENDED.

UM, IT GOES TO TRIAL AND TRIAL IS NOT GOING WELL FOR THEM.

COULD THEY THEN ACCEPT THE PREVIOUS, UH, PROPOSAL? THAT'S A LOT OF HYPOTHETICAL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO CHASE THAT DOWN AND SEE WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS WOULD BE.

NOT MILLION YEARS.

IT'S A GREAT QUESTION, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO ASK THAT.

CAUSE I JUST DON'T KNOW.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THERE'S ALWAYS AN OPTION, UH, FOR RESOLUTION, BUT, AND I WILL SAY THIS TO YOU, AND I THINK I CAN SAY THIS WITHOUT, UH, ALLOWING ANY OTHER INFORMATION TO COME OUT.

IF A LEGAL DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE RESOLUTION.

I WOULD THINK THAT THAT RESOLUTION IS NO LONGER VIABLE.

SO IF IT DID PROCEED THAT MAN IN THE MATTER, WENT BACK TO TRIAL, I THINK ANOTHER AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO BE RESOLVED.

THAT'S ABOUT AS BROAD AND OPAQUE AS I CAN BE.

SIR.

IN THE EVENT THAT THIS ITEM FAILS TONIGHT, AND WE REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION, IT'S REJECTED.

WE GO TO TRIAL OR OUR DELIBERATIONS HERE, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT HAPPENED THAT EASY, BUT IF IT DOES GO THAT ROUTE.

YEAH, YEAH.

OUR DELIBERATIONS HERE, OR THE FACT THAT WE OFFERED A SETTLEMENT, ARE THOSE ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL? NO, SIR.

NEGOTIATES ANONYMOUS.

WELL, THEY TRY, THAT'S IT IT'S CLEAR AS DAY AND AS OLD AS I AM GREAT THAT YOU CANNOT, EVEN THOUGH THIS HAPPENED IN A PUBLIC FORUM, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL NOW, CAN I, CAN I GO INTO A JUROR'S MIND AND A RACIST? NO, SIR.

I CANNOT, I CANNOT GO INTO A POTENTIAL JURY AND HE'S BACK AND I'M GOING TO TALK WHEN YOU'RE TALKING, BUT YEAH, BUT I CAN'T GO INTO THE POTENTIAL INTO THE MIND OF A POTENTIAL JURY AND THESE BENDERS PASS AND THE RACE, THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD ALL OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, ALL OF THIS MEDIA ATTENTION, WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF ONE OF THE MOTIONS THAT WE FILED PREVIOUSLY, SIR.

UH, WITH RESPECT TO THE ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS, I ALSO COMPLIMENT THE JOB THAT OUR FINANCE STAFF HAS DONE, UH, BACK TO, UH, THE CONTINUOUS EVALUATION OF THESE.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, PRO TEM.

UM, ANDY AND COURTNEY, I WANT TO START BY COMPLIMENTING THE, THE JOB YOU ALL HAD DONE OVER THESE MANY MONTHS, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THIS, UH, VERY SENSITIVE, UH, SITUATION.

AND,

[01:25:01]

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR ALL OF THE TIME AND ENERGY AND EFFORT THAT YOU'RE POURING INTO THIS.

UM, MR. DODSON, WHEN WE, UH, VOTED ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT LED US TO THE ITEM WE'RE ALL IN TODAY.

UM, AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A MARCH 1ST TRIAL DATE.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SINCE THEN, I BELIEVE I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THE JUDGE HAS POSTPONE THAT TRIAL DATE.

AND SO IS THERE A CURRENTLY SET TRIAL DATE? YES.

DO YOU MIND SAYING THAT DATE? NO, SIR.

WELL, LET ME JUST GIVE A QUICK BACKGROUND.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS, UM, PRIOR TO THE VOTE BY THE COUNCIL AND PRACTICE GETTING TO THAT POINT, THE COURT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WAS A POSSIBILITY THE SUPREME COURT WILL BUMP THAT TRIAL DATE.

ANYWAY, IN OUR LAST CONFERENCE WITH THE JUDGE, WE ALL HAD MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AN ACCEPTABLE SECOND DATE THAT I MENTIONED HERE PREVIOUSLY, I MADE THE JOKE THAT IT WAS MY BIRTHDAY AND IT IS, IT WAS STARTED ON JUNE 21ST.

AND SO, UH, IF A TRIAL DOES GO FORWARD IN THIS MATTER, IT WILL BEGIN ON JUNE 10TH.

LET ME FIRST AND HAPPY EARLY BIRTHDAY.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF IN FACT THE MOTION TO DEFER, THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED.

WE WOULDN'T BE, UH, PRESSING UPON, OH, NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO DEADLINE.

ALL DEADLINES HAVE BEEN MOVED AT THIS TIME.

UH, NOTHING ELSE IS PENDING.

IN THIS MATTER.

WE ASKED THE JUDGE WHEN WE SEND A LETTER TO HIM AND HIS, UH, STAFF ATTORNEY THAT WE HAD REACHED A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT.

AND WE ASKED THAT ALL MATTERS, BE, UH, ALL PENDING DEADLINES, BE PASSED AT THIS TIME AND THAT WE ONLY HOLD THE MARCH 1ST DATE.

AND THEN SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE MARCH 1ST DATE WAS, UH, EXCUSE ME, HOLD THE JUNE 21ST DATE.

I APOLOGIZE.

CAUSE THE MARCH 1ST THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN BUMPED AT THAT TIME.

CAN YOU, UM, UM, DISCUSS AND EXPLAIN THE POLICY OF COMPROMISED JUDGMENT? YES.

UH, IN ESSENCE AND LINDA, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.

I KNOW YOU WILL ANYWAY.

UH, THE WAY IT WORKS IS THAT, UH, THE CITY PAIRS, UH, AT ONE TIME UNDER THE SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY PROVISION THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE HEARD THAT TERMINOLOGY BEFORE.

IT DOES NOT HAVE TO PAY JUDGMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY AGAINST THE CITY PARISH.

UH, MAYOR KEPT HOLDING, UH, DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT THEY WANTED THE CITY TO START PAYING CERTAIN JUDGEMENTS, BUT THEY WANTED TO BE PAID.

IF CERTAIN CRITERIA ARE MET, MET, EXCUSE ME.

AND THAT INCLUDES NO INTEREST.

UH, AND THE AGREEMENT, UH, THAT THE AMOUNTS WILL BE PAID OVERTIME ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

PRO-RATA AGAINST THE OTHER JUDGEMENTS THAT WERE PENDING AT THAT TIME WOULD BE PAID AT THAT TIME.

AND THAT THERE WOULD BE A COMPROMISED JUDGMENT ACCOUNT THAT WOULD, UH, HOLD THAT SPECIFIED MONEY AS MUCH AS EVERY YEAR, WHICH IS A MILLION DOLLARS.

I MEAN, DOLLARS THAT'S DIVIDED PRO-RATA ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

AND THEN THOSE COMPROMISED JUDGMENTS, IF THEY MEET THEIR CRITERIA AND THEY AGREEABLE TO THAT, WE HAVE THEM SIGN THE DOCUMENTS AND THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO THAT.

THEY FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY AND LINDA AND HER STAFF SET UP THE AMOUNTS THAT THEY WOULD GET QUARTERLY ON THAT PRO-RATA BASIS.

AS TO ME IN DOLLARS THAT'S IN THE POT, A COMPROMISE JUDGMENT WILL BE TRIGGERED IF A JURY WERE TO, EXCUSE ME, IF A JURY WERE TO DECIDE ON A CASE THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S CORRECT.

SO IF HYPOTHETICALLY THIS, UH, PARTICULAR, UH, SUIT WOULD GO TO A JURY TRIAL AND HYPOTHETICALLY THEY WOULD RULE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFFS, DIDN'T THAT PAY OUT WHATEVER THAT AMOUNT MAY BE SUBJECT TO THE COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE JUDGES.

THANK YOU SO MUCH IF THEY AGREED TO THAT, THEY DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T, WE WOULDN'T PAY IT.

UNDERSTOOD.

THANK YOU, MS. SMITH.

THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN.

NO INDICATED ABOUT, UM, THE OPTION FOR, TO GO TO TRIAL.

I GUESS IN SOME WAYS IT LOOKED LIKE A THREAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT, WHAT WE, WHAT WE ACTUALLY APPROVED.

WAS THERE GIVEN THEIR, THE PARISH ATTORNEY, THE AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE AN OFFER OF SETTLEMENT, IS THAT CORRECT? UH, I DON'T HAVE THE RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IT IS OKAY.

WHEN HE TELLS ME THAT'S WHAT THE LENS IS.

THE ONE THAT IS MOST PREVALENT WOULD BE THE FACT THAT THEY CAN GO TO TRIAL.

SO, SO THAT MEANS, OF COURSE THE, UM, WE'RE THE DEPENDENT PLAINTIFFS IN EVERY CASE, LIKE YOU SAID, HAVE THE OPTION TO DECLINE THAT OFFER.

AND I TOOK, UM, THE STATEMENT IN A MEMO AS AN ADVISEMENT THAT I THINK Y'ALL, YOU ALL, UM, MAY HAVE MENTIONED, I WOULD HAVE DONE TODAY IF WE HAD ASK, UH, WHAT, UH, LIKE ALONG THESE SAME LINES WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO KIND OF, WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT RAMIFICATIONS WHERE ONE OF THEM, OF COURSE, AND

[01:30:01]

SO, UM, I JUST, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO CLARIFY THAT, UM, THAT NO ONE FEELS LIKE, OH, YOU'RE GOING TO THREATEN ME NOW.

UM, BUT THAT IT IS JUST PART OF, UM, THE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO CONSIDER AS AN OPTION TO IN DELIBERATING ON THIS SETTLEMENT.

UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAS MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I HAVE REALLY ENJOYED THE FACT THAT THIS WAS BEHIND ME.

UM, I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO GO BACK.

AND IF, UH, IT DOES NOT SEEM LIKE IF YOU AND THE MAYOR AND FINANCE HAVE GOTTEN ON THE PHONE AND TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS COULD WORK WITHOUT HURTING OUR FINANCES, UM, AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY PARISH, THEN I THINK WE SHOULD TRUST YOUR JUDGMENT AND KNOWING THAT THIS CAN WORK AND WE SHOULD APPROVE THIS MATTER.

I HOPE THAT, UH, UPON APPROVAL THAT, UM, THE, THE PLAINTIFFS WILL AGREE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, AS STATED WHEN WE, I THINK THAT CINEMA IS OF ALL OF US, UH, CERTAINLY THE ONES OF US THAT ARE RETURNING IS I THINK WE ALL HAD A SIGH OF RELIEF THAT THIS WAS BEHIND US.

SO IF THIS IS JUST ANOTHER MATTER THAT WE NEED TO, UM, APPROVE TO SAY, PLEASE LORD, LET IT BE.

UM, I DO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS MATTER TONIGHT.

WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON THE FLOOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCIL MAY HAVE HEARD TIM.

I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE THING I MADE, PLEASE.

SURE.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

CAUSE THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE EARLIER THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR.

AND COURTNEY SAID THIS AS WELL.

THE $4.5 MILLION DOES NOT CHANGE ANY WAY.

THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL INTEREST.

THERE'S NOTHING ELSE.

IF YOU VOTE ON THIS AMENDED RESOLUTION, IT'S STILL THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY.

IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW IT IS SEPARATED AND PAY IT OUT AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DONE IN THE PRIOR RESOLUTION.

NO ADDITIONAL FUNDS, NO ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, NOTHING OF THAT NATURE.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER MOKE.

I THINK YOU'VE SPOKEN TWICE.

OH, I'M SORRY.

I APOLOGIZE.

NOT TO GET TIRED OF HIM.

MY MIC WAS OKAY.

THERE IT GOES.

UM, QUICK QUESTION ON THE I'M GONNA GO BACK TO, AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF HIM AND GO BACK TO THE RESURRECTION RESOLUTION IN, IN, IN A WAY WE HAD A AMOUNT AND IN THE OFFER, WE HAD AN AMOUNT, WE HAD A PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND EVERYTHING, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU TOLD ME EARLIER THAT PAYMENT SCHEDULES, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY CAN GET NEGOTIATED OUT OR WHATEVER, BUT AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, WE PASSED A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION WITH AN AMOUNT AND WITH A PAYMENT SCHEDULE BY NOT ACCEPTING PART OF IT, IS THAT A REJECTION OF THE COMPLETE REZNOR RESOLUTION? COULD THAT BE SEEN AS A REJECTION OF THE RESOLUTION AS A WHOLE? NO, NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE WHAT THERE, THEY AGREED TO ACCEPT THE $4.5 MILLION.

THEY'RE ASKING, HOWEVER, FOR IT TO BE DIVIDED OR EXCUSE ME, DIVIDED TO BE PAID OUT IN A DIFFERENT MANNER THAN WHAT YOU SUGGEST OR THAT YOU VOTED UPON IN YOUR INITIAL RESOLUTION.

THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE LIVE.

AND, AND AGAIN, I GO BACK, WE GO BACK TO THE, AND THIS IS WHERE I GO BACK TO THE VOTE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE HAD ON THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION.

AND THERE WAS A THING TO DEFER IT AND EVERYTHING THAT WOULD CLARIFY, I THINK FOR ALL OF US AS A COUNCIL SO THAT THIS WOULDN'T BE BACK BEFORE US, BUT I JUST TAKE IT AS A REJECTION OF, LIKE I SAID, THE WHOLE REASON SOLUTION WE'LL HAVE TO MOTION ON THE FLOOR.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS FOR THOSE OF MY COLLEAGUES WHO ARE NOT ON THAT CALL WHEN WE WERE ON THE CALL, I HAD, UH, TWO QUESTIONS AND ONE COMMENT.

I MEAN, ONE STATEMENT, THE FIRST QUESTION WAS, DO WE HAVE THE MONEY? AND, AND BECAUSE THIS BODY, WHETHER YOU VOTED FOR THE ITEM OR NOT, BUT THIS BODY GENERALLY SPEAKING, AGREED ON A NUMBER TO SETTLE, WHICH IS 4.5 MILLION.

AND SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF I OWE YOU $10 AND I GOT $10, WHY NOT GIVE IT ALL TO YOU RIGHT NOW? I'LL GIVE IT TO YOU QUICKER THAN LATER INSTEAD OF MAKING YOU WAIT, UH, IT'S UP TO YOU, WHAT YOU DO, IF ALL YOUR MONEY AND HOW YOU DECIDE TO USE IT.

MY QUESTION TO LINDA WAS, DO WE HAVE THE MONEY? AND CAN WE BALANCE THE BUDGET? SO IF YOU DON'T MIND, LINDA, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE TO ME THE 4.5 DOESN'T CHANGE, WHETHER WE GIVE IT TO THEM SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, YOU KNOW, TOMATO, TOMATO.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING, ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT DID COME UP IS THAT THIS BODY MAY BE GONE BY THE TIME WE REACHED THE FINAL YEAR OF THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE, THAT

[01:35:01]

WE AGREED UPON.

THINGS COULD CHANGE WITH A NEW BODY COMING IN.

THERE ARE, THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL FOR SURE, OR NOT GOING TO BE HERE.

UH, IF THIS GOES OVER 20, 24, THEY'RE GOING TO BE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BODY.

AND THAT COULD CHANGE DRASTICALLY.

WE COULD PERHAPS HAVE A NEW MAYOR THAT MAY CHANGE DRASTICALLY.

SO I DO AGREE THAT IF THIS BODY VOTED ON A NUMBER OF THIS BODIES SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT THAT NUMBER WAS PAID OUT PRIOR TO US LEAVING.

SO THAT IS ONE REASON WHY I'M IN SUPPORT OF CHANGING THE PAYOUT.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, DO WE HAVE THE MONEY? AND CAN WE BALANCE THE BUDGET? YES, COUNCILMAN.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT HAPPENED BETWEEN THE TIME THAT WE ORIGINALLY SETTLED IT AND IT CAME UP FOR DISCUSSION, AGAIN, IS WE DID RECEIVE DECEMBER SALES TAX.

AND SO WE ENDED, UM, LAST YEAR BETTER THAN WE ORIGINALLY THOUGHT.

AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS BEFORE IS I DIDN'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE YEAR OUT.

I STILL DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, BUT THAT W THAT WAS FAVORABLE.

SO I DO FEEL THAT WHEN WE DO THE CLOSE OUT FOR 2020, AND WE CLOSED INTO 21, I DO, WE'LL BE ABLE TO PLACE $2 MILLION IN THE INSURANCE RESERVE FUND THAT WOULD BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL PAYMENT OF THE $2 MILLION.

AS FAR AS THE FUTURE PAYMENTS GO.

UM, ANY COMPRESSED PAYMENT SCHEDULED WILL PUT ADDITIONAL STRAIN ON THE BUDGET, BUT CAN WE DO IT? YES, WE WILL DO IT.

WHEN WE GO TO BALANCE THE BUDGETS FOR 22 AND 23, WE WILL LOOK AT ALL OF OUR LIABILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS.

DEBT ALWAYS COMES FIRST.

AND THEN WE LOOK AT OUR LIABILITIES.

WE LOOK AT WHAT WE HAVE TO PUT UP OR THINGS LIKE THE EMPLOYER PORTION OF OUR FRINGE BENEFIT PROGRAMS. AND WE CONSIDER ALL THOSE THINGS.

AND YOU CAN BALANCE A BUDGET WITH, HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE REVENUE GROWTH, UH, YOU CAN USE RESERVES AND, OR YOU COULD REDUCE APPROPRIATIONS AND OTHER AREAS TO BALANCE A BUDGET.

SO WHEN THE DISCUSSIONS CAME UP, UM, WE SPOKE WITH THEM.

I SPOKE WITH THE MAYOR, AND I THINK THAT THE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR ME BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT, YOU KNOW, CONCERNING THE RISK OF GOING INTO A SETTLEMENT VERSUS NOT GOING INTO A SETTLEMENT.

THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE AS POLICY DECISION-MAKERS, BUT I FELT, AND THE MAYOR FELT THAT WE NEEDED TO GO AHEAD AND PROVIDE YOU WITH AN AVENUE.

IF YOU FELT THAT THIS WAS THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION TO TAKE, TO COMPRESS THE PALL, TO COMPRESS THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE.

IF YOU WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT, TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE RESOURCES TO DO THAT.

AND SO THE MAYOR IS AWARE OF THE, THE ONE, 1,250,000 THAT WILL NOW BE NEEDED.

AND THE NEXT TWO BUDGETS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED AND IN ORDER, AND THOSE BALANCED BUDGETS, AND SHE IS AWARE OF THE, TO MEGAN, THAT WE WILL BE CLOSING INTO THE FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR.

ULTIMATELY, THIS CONVERSATION IS CONTINUED.

I HEARD YES.

AND YES, WE CAN BALANCE THE BUDGET AND WE DO HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO.

AND FOR ME, YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS TIME AND TIME AGAIN, I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THIS COMMUNITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS BEHIND US AND, AND MOVE ON TO, UH, TO NEW AND MORE PRODUCTIVE BUSINESS.

CONVERSATION ONLY CREATES MORE DIVISION IN OUR COMMUNITY IS DIVISIVE AND, UH, ONLY CREATES MORE TENSION, UH, UH, IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AS LEADERS, UH, OF THE CITY PARISH TO MOVE BEYOND THIS ISSUE, UH, WHETHER WE PAY THEM IN THREE YEARS OR PAY THEM IN FOUR YEARS, WE AGREE TO PAY THAT MAN, HIS MONEY.

AND IF I KNOW A MOVIE, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.

WE, WE AGREED TO PAY THE PEOPLE THE MONEY.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.

WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE FLOOR.

WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION FOCUSED.

UH, THE SUBSTITUTE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS STATED ON THE AGENDA.

IT WAS, THE MOTION WAS MADE BY DON SECOND BY COLEMAN.

UH, WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE MACHINES UNLESS THERE'S NO OPPOSITION.

IS THERE AN OPPOSITION AND THE OPPOSITION, WE DO HAVE OPPOSITION.

SO LET'S VOTE ON THE MACHINES.

WE'RE VOTING ON THE ITEM TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS A STATE, AS IT'S WRITTEN ON THE AGENDA.

EVERYBODY'S VOTING TOO.

YEAH, MOTION FAILS.

NOW WE ARE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND THE ORIGINAL MOTION IS TO DEFER THIS ITEM FOR FOUR WEEKS.

[01:40:01]

UH, THERE'S A QUESTION ON THE FLOOR, COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, UM, POSSIBLE MARACA.

WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO TWO WEEKS A SHOTGUN PERIOD, OR IS THERE, UH, A FOUR WEEK WINDOW BECAUSE OF THE AGE? NO WINDOW WHATSOEVER.

THE NUMBER WAS ARBITRARY, JUST TRYING TO GET THE AGC DECISION INSTEAD OF, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL DOING THIS PROPERLY.

SO WE NEVER HAVE TO HEAR IT AGAIN.

AND IT IS YOUR EMOTION.

SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE ON IT, BUT IF YOU CAN'T DO A BRINDLEY TWO WEEKS, I THINK WE WILL BE AT THE SAME POINT, A VERY FRIENDLY TWO WEEKS.

I WAS JUST GOING TO STAY.

WHY NOT MAKE IT UNTIL WE RECEIVE AN AG OPINION? YOU HAVE TO DEFER IT TO ADEPT.

YOU CAN NOT JUST DEFER IT TO SOMEONE DATE IN THE FUTURE.

HELLO? OKAY.

UM, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR PRO TEM.

SO WE ARE VOTING ON A POTENTIAL DEFERRAL OF AN ITEM.

WE JUST VOTED TO NOT APPROVE, CORRECT? IT WAS SUBSTITUTE MOTION.

TELL ME IF, IF THE VOTE TO DEFER, HOW CAN WE BRING THE SAME ITEM FORWARD? IF THAT ITEM WAS VOTED, UH, UH, WAS NOT APPROVED? I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT I'LL LET ASHLEY, I'M SORRY TO BE THE NEW GUY.

NO.

YOU, UH, ONCE YOU ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND THAT MOTION FAILS, THE FLOOR IS OPEN FOR OTHER MOTIONS TO BE MADE.

SO THERE WASN'T A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THE ITEM, THE MOTION TO, OKAY.

SO WE ARE ABLE TO HAVE THE SAME ITEM.

COME BACK BEFORE.

IF, IF IN FACT THE DEFERRAL WAS FORWARD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

YOU'RE WELCOME, ASHLEY.

YOU DO A GREAT JOB FOR US.

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THAT YOU DO TO MAKE THESE MEETINGS RUN SO SMOOTHLY.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION, WHICH IS, UH, THE COUNCIL MEMBER ROCCA.

ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS? YES, SIR.

I AM.

IS THERE, ARE YOU AMENDING YOUR SECOND MS. AMAROSA MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS AND SECOND TO BIND.

MOROSA COUNCIL MEMBER DONE.

I WANT TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE CAUSE WE CAN'T SEE THE VOTE, BUT I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR ANDY AND THE PARENTS.

IT TURNS OFF COUNCIL MEMBER.

NO PROBLEM.

SO NO THREW UNDER THE BUS, BUT I DIDN'T COORDINATE.

I'M SORRY.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS ITEM, WHETHER IT, WELL, IF THIS ITEM IS DEFERRED OR ITEM FAILED AND WE REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT, WHICH WE APPROVED SOMETIME AGO, DO WE HAVE TO COME BACK? DO YOU GUYS HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE US TO GET THAT ORIGINAL ITEM APPROVED? NO, SIR.

NO.

HE'S GOT TO REVERT BACK.

SO IF THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS DOES NOT GO FORWARD, THEN IT'S GOING TO REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION THAT WAS VOTED ON PREVIOUSLY AND ASK IT TO ME IF I'M WRONG.

BUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING.

I JUST WANTED TO GET CLARITY ON IT.

NOW.

SOME NUMBER MULTI SPOKE THREE TIMES.

WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION TO DEFER THE ITEM FOR TWO WEEKS.

WE'RE VOTING ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION AND COUNCIL MEMBER DUNN HAS REQUESTED DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

I DON'T EVEN READ THEM WHERE SOMETHING, UH, THE SCHOOL SYSTEM DOES QUITE OFTEN.

UH, WE WE'VE NEVER DONE IT HERE, BUT WHAT WE CAN DO IS VOTE ON THE MACHINES AND THEN ASHLEY CAN READ ALOUD.

WHO VOTED? HOW? ALL RIGHT? SO WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON OUR MACHINES AND THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS.

MACHINES ARE OPEN ON THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS.

YES, YES, I GOT IT.

BALLOTS AND ELECTIONS RELATED.

I'M GONNA READ, UH, THE MOTION FAILS.

60 DAYS, RIGHT? ITEM 81, MAYBE A REVOLUTION PROVIDING NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON ALL

[01:45:01]

OH, WE'VE MOVED ON.

I LIKE TO RECONSIDER HOW AUTOMATED WE CAN NOT.

WE HAVE TWO MOTIONS ON IT.

SO IS THAT RIGHT? SOMEBODY ON THE NON PREVAILING SIDE? WHICH ONE? THE ORIGINAL MOTION.

NOT A NO, NO.

YOU PREVAILED SO YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION.

OH NO.

YOU CAN NOT.

SOMEBODY ON A NON PREVAILING SIDE OF THAT TO BE APPROVED ON ITEM 80 WAS THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS.

SOMEONE WHO VOTED YES.

ON THAT ITEM WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE ITEM.

TO RECONSIDER.

SO I DON'T HAVE THE VOTE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT, UM, I BELIEVE IT WAS RAFA AMORUSO YES.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

ROCKER MADE THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM 80 NOW.

I MEAN, EXCUSE ME, WE'RE GOING TO RECONSIDER A MATEY.

ROCKWOOD, MADE A MOTION TO RECONSIDER, SECONDED THE MOTION.

IS THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO TAKE AN ITEM 80 BACK UP? WHICH PART DO YOU WANT TO DO IT AGAIN? THAT'S WHAT, SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA RE RECONSIDER THE ITEM.

SO WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO VOTE.

WE HAVE AN OBJECTION TO THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER ITEM 80.

UM, IT WAS MADE BY MS. ROCCA.

IT WAS SECONDED BY MR. COLE.

WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE OBJECTION TO RECONSIDERING THE ITEMS. SO WE'RE GONNA NEED TO VOTE ON THE MACHINE.

THIS IS THAT YOU ARE MAKING, YOU ARE VOTING ON WHETHER Y'ALL WILL REOPEN THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM 80 AND, UH, MAKE ANOTHER MOTION ON THE ITEM.

SO IF YOU VOTE, YES, WE WILL RECONSIDER ITEM 87 OF YOU SAY THAT LET'S DO IT.

THE MACHINES ARE OPEN ON THE MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION FAILED.

IT WAS 60 DAYS, SIX NIGHTS.

WANT ME TO READ IT OUT LOUD? OH, WE'VE GOT IT.

ON THE SCREEN.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE TO 80.

A RESOLUTION PROVIDED NOTICE TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE THAT ALL MEMBERS OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL SHOULD BE REFERRED TO AS COUNCIL MEMBER ON ALL BALLOTS AND THE ELECTION RELATED PUBLICATION DOCUMENTS BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

SO ON THE FIRST VOTE, THE MOTION TO APPROVE YOU VOTED YAY.

AND THE SECOND VOTE, THE MOTION TO DEFER FOR TWO WEEKS, YOU VOTED NAME WELL, WHEN I, WHEN I ASKED HOW YOU WANTED TO VOTE, YOU SAID NO.

SO AS IT STANDS, WE'RE MOVING ON TO 81.

[81. 21-00258]

CAROLYN COLEMAN IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 81 COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY COLEMAN, SECOND MOTION CARRIES ADJUDICATED PROPERTY COUNCIL NUMBER MO 81.

CORRECT.

I HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE ON THAT AND ACTUALLY I WILL OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO IT AHEAD.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE, WHILE WE'RE CHANGING THAT.

UM, I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT FOR WHATEVER, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND DO AN ACTUAL CHANGE AND TRY AND BE POLITICALLY CORRECT, INSTEAD OF COUNCIL MEMBER, I'D SUGGEST WE'VE AMEND THAT TO COUNCIL PERSONS, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO STATE THAT WAY, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A BETTER POLITICALLY CORRECT STATEMENT TO MAKE.

AS FAR AS THAT WORDING AS TO PUT ON THE BALLOT, MR. MCGEE, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA, UM, JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT.

UM, Y'ALL MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE NOTICED WHEN Y'ALL RUN, RAN FOR OFFICE, IT, IN YOUR CASE SAID, COUNCILMAN DISTRICT FOUR.

IT ALSO SAID COUNCILMAN DISTRICT 11 FOR MS. ADAMS RICE.

SO THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAS ALWAYS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE METRO COUNCIL AS COUNCILMAN.

NOW, WHEN Y'ALL GET Y'ALL CERTIFICATES FROM THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE WOMEN ARE A MEMBER OF THIS COUNCIL, IT SAYS COUNCILMAN ON IT.

UM, MS. COLEMAN BROUGHT THAT TO OUR ATTENTION.

UM, ANDY DODSON AND I SPOKE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S OFFICE TO TRY TO CLEAR IT UP.

UM, WE WERE REFERRED BACK TO THE,

[01:50:01]

UM, PLAN OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH ACTUALLY REFERS TO THE MEMBERS OF THE METROPOLITAN COUNCIL AS COUNCIL MEMBERS.

SO, UH, BUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE SAID THEY REALLY NEEDED SOMETHING, SOME FORMAL ACTION BY THIS BODY TO MAKE THAT CHANGE ON ALL BALLOTS.

UM, AND ANY CERTIFICATES THAT ARE ISSUED FOR THE METRO COUNCIL.

NOW IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN Y'ALL'S RIGHT TO DECIDE YOU WANT IT TO BE COUNCILPERSON, BUT THAT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT.

SO, UM, AND, AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING YOU'LL WANT TO PICK UP WITH THE POKEY GOVERNMENT CONSIDERATION.

AND, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

AND, AND BASED ON THAT AND PLAN OF GOVERNMENT, AND AGAIN, NOT KNOWING, UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK THEY'RE CORRECT TERMS SHOULD PUT, PUT ON THE BALLOT AS FAR AS WHAT THEY WERE.

AND IF THE PLAN OF GOVERNMENT HAS COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEN I WITHDRAW MY OBJECTION OR AMENDMENT MOTION PASSES.

AND THIS IS WHAT I HEARD.

UH, ITEM ADJUDICATED PROPERTIES.

THERE ARE NONE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, MOVED TO YOUR SEPARATE SHEET, ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, ADMINISTRATIVE

[ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS]

MATTERS, EMERGENCY ITEM, ACCEPTANCE OF LOW BID AIRPORT.

THIS IS ITEM A BY THE AVIATION DIRECTION, DIRECTOR TREE AND SHRUB REMOVAL, SERVICE TREE TRIMMING, AND PRONING SERVICES.

BIG TREE SERVICE LLC, $79,250.

ITEM B ACCEPTANCE OF LOW-BID AIRPORT BY AVIATION DIRECTOR, ELECTROSTATIC DISINFECTION SERVICES, FARM AND TRUCKING LLC $442 ITEM SEED CHANGE ORDER AIRPORT AVIATION DIRECTOR, RUNWAY 1331 SAFETY AREA RP, AN RPZ IMPROVEMENTS, LOUISIANA 67 PLANK ROAD, CONTRACTOR BOONE SERVICES, LLC CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT, $6,838 AND 36 CENTS.

I WILL NEED A MOTION TO RAVE THE RULES TO ALLOW FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ITEMS. IS THERE A MOTION MOTION BY ROCCA? SECOND ABOUT MOLT.

ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS? MOST OF THE CARRIERS WOULD NOW HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MOTION TO WEIGH THE RULES.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, IS ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON A MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES.

WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND NOW WE'LL VOTE ON THE MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES.

IS THERE A MOTION BY DON SECONDED BY HUDSON MOTION TO WAIVE THE RULES CARRIES.

WE NOW ARE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEMS, A B AND C OF ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, PUBLIC HEARING.

IF ANYONE HERE WISHING TO SPEAK ON ITEMS, A, B AND C I'LL THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY DONE 17 BY VOTING.

YOU WANT TO SAY SOME COUNSELING AS YEAH.

ITEM B WITH THE DISINFECTION SERVICES TO ESTIMATE AT 132,000.

AND AM I CORRECT? THAT'S JUST SHOWING LOW BID CAME IN AT $442.

YES, YES, SIR.

UH, SO THIS IS A ON DEMAND CONTRACT.

SO EACH DISINFECTING TREATMENT FOR THE AIRPORT TERMINAL BUILDING WILL COST $442.

UM, THE TOTAL ESTIMATED AMOUNT THAT WE HAD TO BUDGET, UH, THIS PAST SUMMER WAS 132,000.

UM, SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE HITTING ANYWHERE NEAR THAT, THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT.

UH, RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING THREE TREATMENTS PER WEEK OF THE, UH, OF THE TERMINAL STUFF.

UH IT'S IT'S, LIKE I SAID, ON DEMAND.

SO WE MAY OR MAY NOT, UH, UTILIZE, UH, THE SERVICE, UH, AT THE CURRENT, UH, RATE OF THREE TREATMENTS PER WEEK.

BUT, UM, WE CERTAINLY HAVE ENOUGH DOLLARS BUDGETED IF WE NEED TO DO THAT.

SO, BECAUSE THE BIDS CAME IN AT SUCH A WIDE RANGE, THE LOW AT 442, THE WHAT APPEARS TO BE THE HIGH AT 25, ALMOST 26,000 A WEEK.

AND CONFIDENT THAT WHAT WE PUT OUT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THESE FIRMS EXPLAIN EXACTLY WHAT THE NEED WAS.

YES, WE HAD AN EXTENSIVE PRE-BID MEETING, UM, AND WE ALSO, UH, TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE, THE CONTRACTOR HAS TO HAVE, UM, A, A LICENSE FROM THE, UH, STATE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOR, UM, I FORGOT EXACTLY THE I'M SORRY, CHEMICAL APPLICATIONS, LICENSE.

YOU'RE CONFIDENT THAT THE HIGH BIDDER WAS BIDDING, THAT IT WOULD COST $25,975 PER SPRAY AT THREE SPRAYS A WEEK.

THAT'S WHAT, UH, WAS, UH, SOLICITED IN THE BID.

[01:55:01]

I GOT IT.

MOTION BY DON SECOND EMBARGO DATA POOLED ITEMS. ANY OBJECTIONS HAVING NONE.

WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM.

YOU WERE NOT A SECOND ON THAT.

MOTION BY DON.

SECOND ABOUT HUDSON AND THE OBJECTIONS.

YOU GOT A QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER MOAT.

GO AHEAD.

I'M GONNA FOLLOW ALONG WITH THAT PREVIOUS COMMENTS.

THAT AGAIN, THIS IS A WIDE RANGE THAT WE HAVE HERE.

DO WE KNOW IF ANY OF THESE, I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS LOWER CONTRACTORS ALREADY HAVE CONTRACTS WITH THE AIRPORT IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND AND DOING CONTRACTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT SOMETIMES YOU JUST PRICE YOURSELF SO HIGH.

IF YOU GET IT, YOU GET IT.

IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T, BUT THAT IS SUCH A WIDE RANGE HERE THAT I'VE GOT A FEELING SOMEONE'S COMING BEFORE US LATER ON.

THEY'RE GOING TO GO, OH, HERE'S YOUR CHANGE ORDER.

NOW IT'S $10,000 A SPRAY.

THAT'S, THAT'S A BIG CONCERN HERE WITH THIS GAP THAT WE HAVE GOING.

RIGHT.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DID ANY OF THESE HAVE CONTRACTS ALREADY? YEAH, I'LL DEFER TO CHRIS, BUT AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ANY OF THESE, UH, BITTERS.

SO, UH, IF I COULD JUST PROVIDE A LITTLE CONTEXT, CHRIS GORDON'S IN THE PURCHASING DIRECTOR.

UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE PURPOSELY DONE IS TRY TO PROVIDE ESTIMATED UNIT QUANTITIES.

UH, UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES OUR BITTERS, I THINK STILL GET A LITTLE CONFUSED.

SO OUR BID TABS SPECIFICALLY SAYS 130,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN IT ASKS FOR A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT.

I DO BELIEVE SOMETIMES BITTERS DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT IT'S ASKING FOR A PRICE SQUARE FOOT.

SO FOR ME TO GET TO THE TOTAL BID, I TAKE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE 130,000 TIMES BY THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT.

AND THAT GIVES ME THE TOTAL BID.

WE DO SEE ON OCCASION WHERE BITTERS DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT I'M ASKING FOR A PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, AND THEY'RE IN ESSENCE OFFERING ME A BID PER TIME.

AND SO WHEN YOU SEE THESE REALLY WEIRD RANGES FROM REALLY KIND OF LOW SMALL CENTS TO THESE BIG DOLLARS, MORE THAN LIKELY THE HIGHEST BIDDER BID, IT HAS A ONE-TIME APPLICATION FOR ALL 130,000 SQUARE FEET, BUT THE BID TAB, AND I CAN'T CHANGE THE BID TAB AND I CAN'T MODIFY THEIR BIDS ONCE THEY'VE BEEN RECEIVED, THE BID TAB IS VERY EXPLICIT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A COST PER SQUARE FOOT.

AND THE REASON THAT WE CITY PARISH TRY TO GET TO THIS COST PER SQUARE FOOT IS SOMETIMES SQUARE FOOTAGE CHANGES, BUT I'VE ESTABLISHED A UNIT PRICE.

SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 130,000 SQUARE FEET IN THE TERMINAL.

BUT IF WE DECIDED WE WANTED TO DO ELECTROSTATIC DISINFECTION, MAYBE IN THE LUGGAGE AREA OR AN ANCILLARY BUILDING, WE'VE ESTABLISHED A UNIT PRICE, AND THEN WE CAN EXTRAPOLATE THAT UNIT PRICE TO COVER THAT FOR THE AIRPORT.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I DO NOT FORESEE A CHANGE ORDER BASED ON OTHER ELECTROSTATIC SPRAYING.

THE LOW BID IS, IS IN THE BALLPARK OF WHAT WE SEE AND WHAT I KNOW LSU IS PAYING.

I DO THINK THAT THE REASON WE HAVE THESE WIDE VARIETIES IS THAT SOME BITTERS DID NOT RECOGNIZE THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ESTABLISH A COST PER SQUARE FOOT, NOT A INDIVIDUAL COST PER TREATMENT.

AND THEN I WILL ALSO SAY ON BEHALF OF THE AVIATION DIRECTOR, YES, I DO APOLOGIZE FOR THE CONFUSION THAT WE DON'T LIKE TO COME BACK TO YOU, WHAT THEY PERCEIVE CHANGE ORDER.

SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY TIMES WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DISINFECT.

I HOPE COVID CONTINUES TO SLOW DOWN AND RAMP DOWN.

WHAT WE'RE IN ESSENCE SAYING IS, IS WE'RE ASKING FOR THE RIGHT TO NOT TO EXCEED $132,000 OF ELECTROSTATIC OR DISINFECTING SPREADING OVER THE CONTRACT PERIOD.

AND IT WOULD BE BASED AT A RATE AND LIKE JUST SET IT DOWN.

BUT 300 OR $400 PER TIME, 442.

SO IF WE DID IT THREE TIMES A WEEK, BUT THEN WE HAD A HUGE OUTBREAK OR MAYBE IT'S EASTER WEEKEND AND WE HAVE A LOT OF TRAVELERS AND WE WANT TO DO IT A FOURTH TIME.

WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP COMING BACK, ASKING YOU TO AMEND THE CONTRACT BECAUSE WE ADDED A FREQUENCY OR ONE MORE YVETTE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION.

MADE IT TO A RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION, BRECK CONSIDERATION OF REPLACING JERRY JONES WHO HAS RESIGNED.

THANK YOU PROPERLY MOTION BY DON.

SECOND ABOUT HUDSON.

ARE THERE ANY OPPOSITIONS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS? A B AND C ANY OPPOSITION MOTION CARRIES ITEM

[82. 21-00255]

THE TERM WILL EXPIRE ON JANUARY 1ST, 2022.

THE CURRENT BALANCE IS JOCK BARRY AND JASON HUGHES IS YACHT BARRY AND JASON HUGHES.

SO IT'S NOT A PUBLIC UNION, BUT HUMAN.

AS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM

[02:00:01]

82 COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO YOU ALL WANT TO VOTE ON A MACHINE BASED ON THE BALLOT? OR HOW DO YOU GO AHEAD? I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE, UH, APPOINT MR. JASON HUGHES MOTION TO APPOINT JASON HUGHES BY HUDSON.

SECOND ABOUT GREEN, ANY OPPOSITION LET'S VOTE ON THE MACHINES.

YOU'RE GOING TO BE OPEN FOR A MOTION TO APPOINT.

JASON HUGHES MACHINES ARE OPEN.

YOU GOT IT RIGHT OVER THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER BANKS, I AUTOMATED

[83. 21-00328]

THREE CAFETERIA HUMAN SERVICE DISTRICT.

CONCURRENT THE NAMES SUBMITTED BY THE CAPITAL AREA, HUMAN SERVICES DISTRICT SUBMISSION TO THE GOVERNANCE OF CONSIDERING FOR AN APPOINTMENT TO THE CAFETERIA HUMAN SERVICE DISTRICT.

THE CAPITA HOME SERVICE DISTRICT RECOMMENDS THE REAPPOINTMENT OF JERRY HOPPY WHOSE TERM EXPIRES ON MARCH 10TH, 2021.

CURRENT BALANCE IS JERRY HOPPE.

D IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM THREE SHOWING NOW WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY BANK SECOND BY COLEMAN MOTION PASSES ITEM

[84. 21-00329]

84.

EASTBOUND WAS PARIS COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTING OR REPLACING MAYOR DARNELL WAITS OF BAKER.

CURRENT BALLOT MAYOR DARNELL WAVES OF BAKER.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 84, MOTION TO APPROVE BY BANK.

SECOND ABOUT GREEN MOTION CARRIES

[Items 85 & 86]

ITEM 85 ST.

JOE'S FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTING OR REPLACING DARNIA.

ALSO CURRENT BALANCE IS DARYL OR SO REQUEST TO REAPPOINT.

ME AND CHRIS ROSENDAHL WHO'S REQUESTING REAPPOINTMENT.

ITEM 80 17 BATON ROUGE CONSIDERATION OF REAPPOINTING OR REPLACING JIM ROCCO'S WHOSE TOM'S RESPIRES ON MARCH 14TH, 2021 APPOINTMENT MUST BE A COUNCIL MEMBER.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 85.

CAN WE TAKE THESE TOGETHER SINCE THEY'RE THE ONLY TWO ON THE BALLOT ITEM 86 ST.

JOE'S FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS.

UH, CURRENT BOWEL IS DARYL ALSO, AND CHRIS ROSENDAL BOTH HAVE REQUESTED THE APPOINTMENT.

WHEN I HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON BOTH ITEMS, 85 AND 86, NO ONE IS HERE BACK TO COUNCIL WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE MOTION TO APPROVE 85 AND 86 BY HUDSON.

SECOND TO FIVE, NO, BOTH DARYL OR SO.

AND CHRIS ROSENDAHL, HAVEN'T BEEN REAPPOINTED TO THE ST.

GEORGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD OF PERMISSION IS

[87. 21-00332]

UH, ONLY PERSON ON THE BALLOT IS JEN ROCCA, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.

NO ONE IS HERE.

IT HAS BEEN MOTIONED IT UNANIMOUSLY BY THE ENTIRE COUNCIL AND SECONDED BY THE COUNCIL.

JAN, YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN REAPPOINTED TO TEEN BATTERERS.

I THINK THAT DOES THOSE AROUND THEM.

ALL RIGHT, NOW NOW GO TO CHANGE.

AUDIT ITEM 88

[Items 88 & 89]

AND 89 WILL BE TAKEN TOGETHER.

RIVER CENTER THEATER FOR PULLING OFF A PERFORMING ARTS AND IMPROVEMENTS.

RESTART CONTRACTOR, BOUQUET, LOBLAW INCORPORATED CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT, $179,864 ITEM 89 RIVER CENTER THEATER, PERFORMING ARTS IMPROVEMENTS, RESTART CONTRACTOR, BOUQUET, LOBLAW INCORPORATED CHANGE ORDER AMOUNT, $154,909.

NINE JONES FOR THE LIBRARY RENOVATION CONTRACT AND LINCOLN BUILDERS.

ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 88 AND 89, HAVING NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTIONS, MOTION TO APPROVE AT EIGHT AND 89 MOTION BY ADAMS. SECOND BY COLEMAN MOTION HAS BEEN APPROVED FINAL ACCEPTANCES,

[90. 21-00273]

A BATON ROUGE INCORPORATED.

FINAL COST $4 MILLION 35, $4,035,288 AND 30 CENTS.

PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WHO WAS SPEAK ON ITEM 99.

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 92ND MOTION BY HUDSON.

SECOND BY ADAMS MOTION CARRIES

[91. 21-00272]

91 ACCEPTANCE OF LOW BID ACCEPTED THE LOW BID FOR LEAD CERTIFIED JANITORIAL SERVICE AT GOODWOOD LIBRARY.

92, AIRFIELD MARKING AND WATER BLASTING SERVICE HIGHLIGHT AIRFIELD FIELD SERVICES, LLC, $23 AND 94 CENTS.

K, EXCUSE ME.

ACCIDENT.

NATIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, $124,791 AND 62 CENT PUBLIC HEARING.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 91 SHOWING NONE COUNCIL MEMBERS MOTION BY ADAMS, SECONDED BY CHAIR MOTION CARRIES ITEM

[92. 21-00132]

[02:05:01]

SO PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 92 COUNCIL MEMBERS, IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 92 MOTION BY GREEN SECOND BY ADAMS OTHER ITEMS,

[Items 93 - 98]

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ITEMS 93 THROUGH 98 TOGETHER.

I'M GOING TO READ THEM AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL TAKE THEM ALL TOGETHER.

ITEM 93, REQUESTING A REPORT FROM THE MAYOR'S OFFICE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING REGARDING MOOD BR DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND ACTUAL CONTRACTS AWARDED TO DATE BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE ITEM 94, REQUESTING A REPORT FROM THE OFFICE OF MAYOR, PRESIDENT REGARDING SMALL WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONTRACT PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO MOBILE PROGRAM BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE ITEM 95, REQUESTING A REPORT FROM STANTEC REGARDING SMALL WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONTRACT PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO MOVE BR BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE ITEM 96, A QUESTIONNAIRE REPORT FROM CSR REGARDING SMALL WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONTRACT PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO MOBILE BR PROGRAM BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE ITEM NUMBER 97, REQUESTING A REPORT FROM MITCHELL MORPHOSIS REGARDING SMALL WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONTRACT PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO THE PROGRAM BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE ITEM 98, REQUESTING A REPORT FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING SMALL WOMEN AND MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS CONTRACT PARTICIPATION IN RELATION TO MOVE BR PROGRAM BY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE, ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE DEFERRED FROM THE JANUARY 27 21 MEETING.

AND FROM THE FEBRUARY 24, 2021 MEETING, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

AND IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEMS 93 THROUGH 98? THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING BACK TO COUNCIL.

IS THERE SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO GIVE US A REPORT, CHRIS? THANK YOU, CHRIS CORNS AND FIRST-TIME DIRECTOR.

SO ON BEHALF OF THE LEADERSHIP TEAM OF MOVIE BR KIND OF COMPRISED.

SO THE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, PRESIDENT OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DRAINAGE, MY DEPARTMENT PURCHASING AND OUR STRATEGIC PARTNERS, CSRS, STANTEC, AND METAMORPHOSIS, LIKE TO, UH, DISCUSS WITH YOU THE REPORT THAT WE'VE PROVIDED AND SORT OF GIVE YOU AN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

SO, UH, MOVIE VR, UM, STARTED WITH A VISION OF SMALL BUSINESS OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT AND TARGETED TARGETING ACTIVITIES THAT WOULD HELP BRING MORE DIVERSE SUPPLIERS INTO, UH, THE REALM OF CITY PARISH, PURCHASING OPPORTUNITIES AND ULTIMATELY CONTRACT AWARDS TODAY.

UM, THAT TEAM AND, AND REALLY CHARTERED AND HEADED UP BY METAMORPHOSIS HAS DONE A GREAT JOB.

WE'VE CONDUCTED NEARLY 22 SMALL BUSINESS OUTREACH ACTIVITIES.

UH, THOSE VARY FROM NEWSLETTERS THAT ARE TRACKED BY OVER A THOUSAND FOLKS.

SO WE DO SEE WHO'S CLICKING AND READING, UH, TO DIFFERENT WORKSHOPS.

AND I KNOW PERSONAL TRAININGS, UM, MOVIE BR ASKED ME TO COME IN AND DISSECT REASONS WHY WE WERE DISQUALIFYING BITTERS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION ON HOW TO AVOID COMMON PITFALLS IN PUBLIC DEADLOCK.

SO A LOT OF ACTIVITY, I THINK A LOT OF GREAT STRENGTHS AND REALLY WOULD, WOULD THANK ALL OF OUR PARTNERS FOR THEIR ENGAGEMENT.

SO BASED ON THAT ENGAGEMENT AND THE PURPOSEFUL ACTION, WHERE THE RESULTS TODAY WITHIN THE MOVIE VR PROGRAM, WE HAVE ENTERED INTO CONTRACTS OF APPROXIMATELY $50 MILLION.

I WILL STRESS TO YOU THAT BASED ON WHERE WE ARE AND MOVE VR, MOST OF THESE ARE GOING TO BE UP FRONT AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEFINED IN PUBLIC BID.

LAW HAS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS, PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACTS TYPICALLY ARE THOSE CONTRACTS THAT ARE ENGAGING ARCHITECTS, ENGINEERS, AND THOSE TYPES OF, UH, NATIONALS, THE RESULTS.

MOST OF THE CONTRACTS IN THE $50 MILLION SPEND.

I WOULD SHARE WITH YOU THAT, UH, AT A 49.3 MILLION IN CONTRACT 17.5 MILLION, OR ROUGHLY 35% OF THOSE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN AWARDED THE FIRMS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS EITHER A MBE, MEANING MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE OR VETERAN OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE THROUGH THE MOVIE VR PROGRAM, WE HAVE AWARDED GREATER THAN 61 DIFFERENT CONTRACTS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCT OF MOVIE BR TO THOSE FIRMS. UM, AND THE NET AMOUNT OF THAT AWARD WAS 17 AND A HALF MILLION.

IF I THINK OF THE 17 AND A HALF MILLION TO HELP YOU UNDERSTAND WHERE THE SPEND WENT IN TERMS OF MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS, WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS OR VETERAN OWNED OF THE 17 AND A HALF MILLION, ROUGHLY 9.9 MILLION OR APPROXIMATELY 20% OF THE OVERALL CONTRACTS, UH, OR I'M SORRY, APPROXIMATELY.

20% IN CONTRACTS AWARDED TO 33 DIFFERENT FIRMS THAT WERE MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISES, 7.3 MILLION, UH, WAS AWARDED TO 22 DIFFERENT FIRMS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS WOMEN OWNED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES.

UH, THE PERCENTAGE OF 7.3 MILLION OF 50 MILLION IS ROUGHLY 15% 14, AND SOME CHANGE

[02:10:01]

14.9 TO BE EXACT.

AND THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH.

I REALIZED WHEN I MADE MY NOTES THAT I CONFUSE MYSELF.

SO YES, 9.9 MILLION IS ROUGHLY 20% OF THE CONTRACT VALUE WENT TO MINORITY ON BUSINESS.

ROUGHLY 15% WENT TO BUSINESSES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS WOMEN OWNED BUSINESSES AND A HALF A PERCENT WENT TO BUSINESSES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED, HAS VETERAN OWNED BUSINESSES.

UH, AND THAT COULD BE SERVICE DISABLED OR VETERANS.

UH, I WOULD DRAW ATTENTION THAT ONCE AGAIN, THESE CONTRACTS, UM, THROUGH THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AND THE ACTIVITIES OF THAT, UH, WE'VE PURPOSEFULLY GONE OUT, WE'VE SOUGHT QUALIFIED ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS, UH, WITHIN PUBLIC BID LAW.

WE THEN, UH, NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH BASED ON THEIR SKILL SETS.

SO THE PROGRAM IS, HAS, HAS DONE AND ACHIEVED, UH, WHAT IT ORIGINALLY SET OUT TO DO.

I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO GO.

I WOULD ALSO ASK, UH, THIS COUNCIL TO UNDERSTAND, AND I KNOW THAT MANY OF YOU ARE NEW.

THIS IS A SMALL SLIVER OF THE SPENDING WITHIN CITY PARISH.

I SPEND THROUGH MY OFFICE NORTH OF $500 MILLION A YEAR.

SO, UH, ALTHOUGH I DO BELIEVE THESE ROLE RESULTS LOOK GREAT, AND THEY ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE HARD WORK OF THAT TEAM.

I WILL DISCLOSE TO YOU THAT THESE RESULTS, THOSE PERCENTAGES ARE NOT THE SAME.

WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TOTAL $500 MILLION OF SPENDING, UH, WE DO TRACK THAT WE'VE MADE PROGRESS.

WE CAN CERTAINLY, AND I KNOW WE INTEND ON PROVIDING YOU UPDATES AND REPORTS ON HOW WE'RE DOING, BUT PLEASE KEEP IN MIND.

THIS IS JUST A SMALL SLICE OF AN OVERALL ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER FOR YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN.

UM, IF IT'S NOT A QUESTION, BUT, UM, I WANTED TO DEFINITELY SAY TO A COUNCILMAN, UH, DUNN FOR BRINGING THIS, UM, THESE AGENDA ITEMS. WE GET A LOT OF, UH, CALLS AND HAVE A LOT OF MEETINGS WITH BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE CONCERNED, WHAT IS THE CITY DOING, UH, TO ADDRESS, UH, THE DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS TO ADDRESS THE MINORITY OWNED BUSINESS.

AND I THINK THIS, THE FORUM OF YOU JUST SPEAKING THE NUMBERS OUT LOUD AND PRESENTING TO THE PUBLIC IS DEFINITELY, UH, NOTICE THAT, THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDED, THAT THERE IS ACTION BEING HAD AND THERE'S MOVEMENT BEING HAD.

SO THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN DAN FOR BRINGING THOSE AGENDA ITEMS. UM, SECONDLY, I WANT TO SAY TO YOU, I THINK YOU STARTED RIGHT AT THE TIME WE WERE DOING THE STUDY.

THAT'S WHERE I MET YOU AT THE LIBRARIES.

AND SO I KNOW THAT THAT'S BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF, OF YOUR PROCUREMENT, UM, OFFICE AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DIVERSIFYING OUR BUSINESS, UH, BUSINESSES THAT WE WORK WITH.

UM, AND I KNOW THAT GETS DIFFICULT SOMETIMES, BUT I WANTED TO DEFINITELY TELL YOU, I THINK YOU'RE DOING A GREAT JOB.

AND I THINK THAT YOUR OFFICE, UM, IS DOING WELL WITH EVEN WHEN YOU COME TO THE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND EXPRESSED TO US, UM, THOSE CHANGE ORDERS AND THE, THE MOVEMENT THAT'S HAPPENING, THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT WHEN THAT WHOLE PROCUREMENT PROCESS IS HAPPENING.

I KNOW I HAVEN'T HEARD OF ANY, THAT THIS IS LIKE A BAD WORD TO USE RIGHT NOW, BUT STRIKES OR ANY PROTESTS.

THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO SAY, PROTESTS HAPPENING.

UM, I DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK ON IT BECAUSE I'M GIVING YOU ACCOLADES RIGHT NOW, BUT, UM, DEFINITELY KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK IS WHAT I WANTED TO SAY.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU MAKE YOURSELF VERY AVAILABLE TO, TO ALL THE PEOPLE THAT SEND THEIR, UH, OR WANTS TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

AND Y'ALL BEEN VERY CREATIVE IN GETTING INFORMATION TO THOSE THAT WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH THE CITY.

SO THANK YOU.

AND I, AND I REALLY LIKED RECOGNIZE, UH, IT'S AN EFFORT THAT ALSO INVOLVES ALL OF MY, MY DEPARTMENTS.

SO THEY HAS, THEY DEVELOPED SCOPE AS THEY THINK ABOUT RAKING UP SCOPE TO HELP US ENGAGE MORE BUSINESSES.

UH, I, I GET THE PLEASURE OF TAKING THE CREDIT FOR THE OUTCOMES.

UM, SOMETIMES I GET THE, THE LESS PLEASURE OF WHEN THINGS DIDN'T GO AS WE PLANNED, BUT REALLY OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE GONE AND MADE GREAT STRIDES AND, AND I WOULD BE REMISSED IF I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THEIR HARD WORK AND EFFORTS.

SO THANK YOU.

AND THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF THEM, CHRIS, THERE NEED NOT BE ANY COUNCIL MEMBER DONE.

COUPLE OF THINGS, A COUPLE OF POINTS I WANT TO MAKE.

UM, CHRIS, YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE MANY OUTREACH EVENTS AND TRAINING EVENTS.

I JUST WANT TO STATE THAT I'M LESS INTERESTED IN OUTREACH AND TRAINING AND MORE INTEREST IN DVS WOMEN ON MINORITY, ON FIRMS GETTING CONTRACTING OPPORTUNITIES.

I DO THINK AS A PLACE FOR TRAINING AND OUTREACH AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT MANY TIMES WHEN PEOPLE THINK ABOUT DBES AND THEIR INVOLVEMENT, IT'S A TRAINING AS A CLINIC, AS A CONFERENCE WHERE WE HAVE NUMEROUS DBES IN THIS CITY, WHAT I CALL CONTRACT READY? THEY HAVE THE INSURANCE, THEY HAVE THE FUNDING, THEY HAVE EXPERIENCED THAT A CAPACITY TO PERFORM SOME OF THESE

[02:15:01]

SERVICES.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AND IMPRESS UPON YOU SPREAD, UH, METRO OFFICES, CSRS THAT TAKEN THOSE TO SEEK THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

I'LL SEEK THOSE BUSINESSES OUT AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE PARTICIPATING IN THE, UH, ACCEPTABLE FORM AS IT RELATES TO THE MOVIE VR.

AND WE CAN LOOK AT THE DISPARITY STUDY TO LOOK AT THAT THESE NUMBERS LOOK GREAT AS IT RELATES TO PARTICIPATION.

YOU KNOW, FRED KNOW, WE ALL KNOW ONCE WE MOVED TO CONSTRUCTION PHASE, YOU KNOW, THESE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO DRAMATICALLY DECREASE.

SO, ALTHOUGH RIGHT NOW WE WENT A PRE-CONSTRUCTION PHASE AND MOST PROJECTS WERE LOOKING GOOD, BUT THE BULK OF THE WORK IS GOING TO BE DONE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.

SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAD ACCEPTABLE NUMBER, NOW WE SHOULD BE HIGHER THAN THIS.

IT CAN BALANCE OFF ONCE WE GET THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE.

SO LET'S KEEP THAT IN MIND.

ALSO THE ENGINEERING SELECTION COMMITTEE, THERE'S NO MECHANISM IN PLACE TO WHAT MINORITY OWNED FIRMS RIGHT NOW.

AND MANY OF THE AWARDS OR CONTRACTS HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ENGINEER SELECTION COMMITTEE.

I KNOW FRED SENT AN EMAIL OUT, UH, PROBABLY A YEAR OR SO AGO AND ENCOURAGING THEM ABOUT THE ASPIRATIONAL GO.

AND WE APPRECIATE THAT, BUT LET'S IMPRESS UPON THEM TO DO MORE AND PUT A MECHANISMS IN PLACE WHERE WE CAN ALLOW WOMEN OR MINORITY OWNED VETERAN OWNED FIRMS. AND NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO JUST BE SAYING THAT WE WANT TO, WE WANT TO REALIZE THAT WE WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

SO I WANT TO THANK YOU.

BELIEVE FRED AND OTHERS, YOU HAVE BEEN REALLY ENGAGED IN THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, GIVING ME THE DATA AND INFORMATION THAT I'VE REQUESTED SHARED WITH THE COLLEAGUES.

I KNOW WE'VE GOT SOME CONTINUED ONGOING DISCUSSIONS ON THIS ISSUE.

SO I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUE TO WORK WITH YOU GUYS AND GET SOME OF THESE THINGS DOWN.

ITEM 99 AUTHORIZED MAYOR PRESIDENT ON BEHALF OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO AMEND THE STATEMENT OF WORK WITH CASEWORTHY AND CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ADD TO THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM WITH SERVICES TO INCLUDE EMERGENCY RENTAL PROGRAM INCREASING A THREE YEAR CONTRACT FROM $152,325 TO AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $256, $256,175 FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT THAT YOUR THANK YOU FOR THAT REPORT.

WE'RE NOW GOING TO MOVE TO OUR EMERGENCY ITEM ON THE AGENDA OR THE ITEMS TO BE ADOPTED

[99. 21-00337]

AND TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS CONNECTED THERE WITH, WITH THE APPROVAL OF GRANTS, CONTRACTS, AND REVIEW COMMITTEE BY THE HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR REASON FOR EMERGENCY AND RESPONSE TO THE URGENT NEED TO DISTRIBUTE EMERGENCY RENTAL AND UTILITY ASSISTANCE.

AS A CITIZEN OF EAST BATTERS PARIS, THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO EXPEDITE AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING DHT AS CASE WHERE THE STATE OF WORK AGREEMENT PROCESSING AS AN EMERGENCY ITEM WILL ALLOW OCD TO EXPEDITION.

HE'S WORKED WITH THE PROGRAM DEVELOPER TO CREATE A PLATFORM FOR APPLICATION SUBMISSION AND COMPLIANCE TRACKING EXPENDITURES BY ALL US TREASURY FUNDS.