Bangor Finance Committee approves workout agreement, tables others for policy review

[1:39] Susan Deane: Good evening. Welcome to the regularly scheduled Finance Committee meeting. It is Monday, June 15th at 6.51 p.m. Around the table, we have Councilor Wayne Mallard, member of the Finance Committee. I am the chair, Councilor Deane. We have Daniel Carson, member of the Finance Committee. We have Councilor Walker. We have Councilor Faloon, member of the Finance Committee. We have Councilor Beck. We have Counselor Leonard, we have Counselor Fish, and Council Chair Susan Thomps. First up, I believe that's right, we have an executive session unless we have any updates [2:24] Carollynn Lear: on finance prior to that, we can go right into this, so into 36 Mrs. Section 841 [2:31] Daniel Carson: one two hearts of abatement application will be at our executive session, okay. [2:43] Susan Deane: Motion, we have a second, we'll call vote. Yes, Counselor, just members, it's usually members, just members. All right, then I'll just do the members. I will do Council Mallor, yes. I will be against. Council Carson, yes. Council Flume, yes. We are, and it's good evening. We are back from executive session. This is the Finance Committee. [14:54] Daniel Carson: We'll change a motion. I'd like to think that we approved the hardship abatement application. [15:01] Susan Deane: Second. Thank you. In motion, we have a second. We have approved the hardship abatement. Next up, we have a workout agreement follow-up for 129 Bowling Drive. [15:14] Carollynn Lear: Although you'll see in your packet that we included the a copy of the matured tax for utility lean policy. We had discussed one of these workout agreements last time, and I think the policy and some helpful context to how the group that works these questions sort of goes about their decision making with workout agreements. The first workout agreement is the one that is returning to you for 129 Bowling Drive. I think the primary question that Council had was whether this is the residence primary only home, which it is. The workout agreement is being entered into with Mr. Khan, who is a relative of the resident of the property, who also owns the property. It's a two-unit building. One unit is not occupied and has had significant damage. They have upped their quarterly proposed payment by a hundred dollars so as to make sure they're at least paying a full year within the workout agreement, and they are looking to enter this agreement for a term of one year, after which they'll [16:47] Susan Deane: Have to come back to the city and request a new agreement. My concern on this is we are 13 years of outstanding taxes and that seems exorbitant. Yeah, we're talking we've gone from 4,400 a year to 4,800 in the proposed payments four to five years ago. The unit beside her was damaged, hasn't been repaired. That's a unit that someone could have been living in. So to me, if they can't afford the taxes, they can't afford to improve on the unit and unfortunately they [17:26] Carollynn Lear: can't afford to live in the house. Yeah, I think this is from my perspective an instance where perhaps the policy is due for updating because when you take a look at the policy, it expresses a very, clear preference to keep people in their homes and does not contain sort of an upper threshold for either number of years and arrears or amount of arrears to guide staff in determining when they should not be recommending that one of these be brought to you. So I think that's an issue of us needing to rehash the policy and whether we're setting the right standards for staff to follow. [18:15] Wayne Mallar: Not just how are we setting the standards that within a certain number of years, we have the ability to take the property and sell it. That's nothing new and that's a set process, is it not? [18:29] Carollynn Lear: So the process of selling property where taxes are owed is certainly a set process, but the policy guides when we would do that versus when we would. So who determines [18:45] Wayne Mallar: the policy of when we would do that? So I would assume as a council we would follow the rules and the rules say after a certain number of years to sell the property and I think going 13 years is a little excessive and I don't think the citizens, the current citizens of the city are required to pay for the back taxes of other people, which is basically what we're doing. So in my opinion we follow the rules, we have the number of years and that's it. I mean it's hard but you have to draw on someone. What if 25 of the city didn't pay the taxes for three years? What are you going to do? It's illogical for you, for anyone who owns property, if you expect the other taxpayers to fund them. I [19:44] Susan Deane: don't know. I can definitely see your point, I mean 13 years is a long time. The other issue is there has been nothing done on this 13-year non-payment until yeah, the recent correspondence either way. Yeah, it sounds like they haven't contacted the city and the city hasn't contacted them, so I think both sides are a bit negligent on how long this is. [20:10] Carollynn Lear: So I've seen sort of the list of owed property taxes. I think that there are very small number of either large amounts or long duration taxes owed. I think what really compounds this is what I would assume happened with the city during COVID, which is like every other government, including every department of revenue in every state just stopped, you know, doing much of any collection because you didn't want to take people out of their homes during the course of a pandemic and put them on the street. And so I think particularly right now, because we are now restarting this activity post COVID, some of the years are going to look particularly egregious because there was that period during COVID where not much was happening because we weren't trying to get people out on the streets who are trying to do the opposite. I think that's also probably reflected in the policies preference towards keeping people in their house. [21:18] Daniel Carson: While you were mentioning the potentially taking you know looking through this policy and rehash I'm also noticing you know there's not really time frames sort of listed like spelled out in here. I have a preference for keeping people in their houses. I agree with that reference in the policy. I think, you know, when it's 10, 13, I understand COVID, that was sort of, I mean, that affected a lot of things. But I really see, you know, 10, 13, is that 's also not helpful for keeping somebody in their house, right? That gets them to a point where they're really, under a mountain of debt they may not be able to so early intervention not taking but early intervention I think but another thing I just noticed in this policy that I did not notice before was that the staff guidance is actually not just to focus on the most delinquent accounts first but to begin with think vacant properties and that of course then is not focusing on the occupied properties which would help us to keep more people or to intervene. Earlier if the guidance was making reversed yes. [22:29] Susan Faloon: Thank you so I like I'm noticing I mean this one's 13 years we've got another one that's 11 we've got one that's 18 years like do you know how many I know you said it was not a ton but do you know how many how many in total that we have that are like woefully passed. [22:47] Carollynn Lear: Do like this I mean I'm just trying to remember I saw the whole list I don't want to say it wasn't more than a dozen that were above ten years and then it was like a precipitous drop where it got a lot more reasonable it seems like. [23:14] Susan Faloon: like these workout agreements are they're never gonna get this debt paid I mean it's just not possible so like what happens if this just continues to go on and then or if they default [23:33] Carollynn Lear: on this agreement? So we have a lien on the properties that own taxes. So, you know, let's say someone remains in the home for the rest of their life under a workout agreement. When the person no longer resides in the house for whatever reason, if they're go to sell it or if they pass away, the city has a lien to collect the taxes at that point. So when that says we do eventually get [23:59] Susan Faloon: the money, the city does eventually get the money. So well, no, they don't, because let's assume that [24:05] Wayne Mallar: these people had a duplex, they haven't taken care of one side, so the property value is somewhat less. Eventually we could end up with a house that's worth zero, and the rest of the city taxpayers have been funding them for 13, 14, 20 years. That's exactly right. We have the rules, I think we should [24:26] Carollynn Lear: follow them. So that's exactly right, that if the property is not worth the tax bill, then we would be left without. And my recommendation would be that we come back to the policy and set some parameters on if sort of the balance of priorities have shifted for whatever reason, whether it's because we know we're setting folks up for failure by waiting so long, or if we think it's unfair for taxpayers, we should come together for the policy. Because I think one of the other challenging parts is when Janelle or anyone else is speaking, with a taxpayer who's in this situation would they would like to be able to give them a realistic expectation of whether or not what they're proposing is going to be palatable you don't want to set false expectations councilman that brings up the question of in the 13 years of time [25:23] Wayne Mallar: how often have they come and said, can you set up a plan for us? Have they ever been here? So these, it looks to me like sometimes they figure if I don't do anything, it'll go away. [25:35] Carollynn Lear: I mean, I think there's some amount of that happening. I think these were triggered by a very specific communication that was sent out saying that we really want you to come in and talk to us or else we're going to take the property based on that prioritized list that the working group is going towards. So they had wrapped up vacant properties and had reached out to all the taxpayers and then moved into the next highest priorities, which is sort of the bunch that you see before you now. But with only 10, it had been an extended period of time. [26:12] Wayne Mallar: Why didn't we bring it up 10 years ago instead of 13. It doesn't make sense so [26:21] Carollynn Lear: I mean prior council never directed us they chose to work with the taxpayer first well if they contacted us or you know or responded to any notices but this group never responded [26:36] Wayne Mallar: To your notices and never dealt with it so therefore you should have been following the rules set up by the council which says you know after a period of time you take possession we've waited 13 years and basically you've had the rest of the taxpayers funding yeah [26:53] Carollynn Lear: Are they getting a free ride yeah I think that staff will do whatever council directs them to do in this space I mean it's not it's not a no one relishes you know this work negotiating with taxpayers over unpaid taxes no one relishes taking someone's home but it only gets [27:13] Wayne Mallar: Worse if we don't yeah shut up and do something yes council beck I mean I haven't heard anything [27:21] Michael Beck: But they say well I disagree with I just want to add another perspective to it yeah 66 000 a lot a lot and at 400 a quarter we're talking about 13 14 years before it's paid off the one thing I will say is I like the fact that we take it year by year in the way the property is valued that you know next year she falls through then we go back and recruit the rest of the sale but I also wanted to say there's other folks out there who are struggling and are trying want to make right with their tax Bills and I don't want to send the message that you know we are just gonna say no we should ask the hard questions and we are you know we see the offer got increased The hope is that at some point she will right this ship and we end up with another unit of housing when the other side is repaired. I'm inclined to support this simply because I think that the city is protected. It's a property that's assessed well above what she owes. She's going to continue to pay it. So eventually at some point, if she makes it the whole 13 years, then no one had to foot the bill. You know she made it right then we kept a taxpayer in their home that's that's a better story so you know again there's a there's a something about responsibility here and again I'm not saying anyone's wrong at this table I'm just for my part is I'm willing to give this person a chance to start making it right we just check it year after year and if she doesn't [28:59] Daniel Carson: Make it then. That's that's the rules, and we have to sell the property. I 100 agree with you, and I am in, I 'm inclined to support this because the policy that we have does not address the concerns that I'm, you know, that I've brought up. We're going to have to actually address the policy, and I don't like creating new, like halfway through the game, to make new groups. So I'm not interested in applying the concerns that I have, you know, retroactively to this, and the policy is where it is, so I agree that we should move forward with this. [29:44] Susan Faloon: What will it take [29:45] Susan Deane: to change the policy, and can that be done before we determine what we're doing with these liens, or do we need to deal with the lanes first and then policy? So that's what we decided to do. [29:57] Carollynn Lear: These workout agreements have all come about because we've specifically reached out to the taxpayer and said we're looking for you to come in. So there's the only urgency is urgency that we have created ourselves from the city and contacting them. So if you would like to revise the policy before doing these workout agreements, we can pause on any additional action. I will just put myself in the seat of the people who have reached out to us. I think there may be some perceived, I don't want to say unfairness, but it may be challenging for folks to swallow that they negotiated or attempted to negotiate these agreements under a particular policy. And then the policy changed in order to address their agreements. I mean, maybe we're comfortable with that. I'm not making a judgment call on that. I just want to raise it as a possible consequence. [31:04] Susan Deane: Councilor Lennart, did you have a comment? I did. [31:06] Joseph Leonard: You actually answered one of my questions, and I would not be in favor of doing a new revised workout agreement. I think to your point, I'm not gonna repeat what you said, I agree with what you said regarding policy changes. Are there any that you are aware of right now that you would want to recommend, or do you need time to bring those ideas and options forward to council? [31:37] Carollynn Lear: Yeah, I mean, I took some quick notes here that I think we would wanna look at a max amount, a max duration of years, potentially a limitation on the number of defaults and perhaps address that you would like them to at least be addressing a year of taxes. Is but I would want the recommendation of that group that works these issues to help arrive at what the appropriate max dollar value is and max number of years, because they've been living these, this work much more intimately than I have. That's fair. So back to Council Fish, I was just [32:22] Michael Beck: going to say is if we're going to go over the policy of change, is there a way to leverage the fact that there's a possible change coming, kind of like what they did with the barnacle parking ticket, and say hey, come in, work out a deal with this, your window now, or we don't know where this policy is going to land, and then we end up with a headache of having to sell a bunch [32:41] Carollynn Lear: of properties. So you're speaking my tax administration language. So essentially like an amnesty program, right, like the rules are permissive now, come in, and then they're about out to change, to sort of incentivize people to come in and get into compliance. That's certainly something we could explore, Council [33:02] Carolyn Fish: Fish. We've had a lot of contracts with a great deal of towns and municipalities, the primary area that I work in and around Bancor, and many of those have had, you know, action towns have taken action within that first year after that three year tax lien time is up, and I'm not saying that's how aggressive we have to be, but I think 13, 18 years doesn't seem reasonable, and if we had a step-by-step procedural guide to go by where there's, you know, more of an aggressive threat of action, that might bring them to the table, because once they get three or four or five years behind, I think they get paralyzed by the amount of the issue, and then they just don't know how to respond. And then they just keep digging bigger hole. So I think, as you mentioned, the agreements you have, the people in good faith, let them out, and probably feeling like they've done something good, and we have an agreement to go back and change it, probably isn't going to set well with them. On the other hand, we really don't wanna give the message out there to taxpayers that you can go 8, 10, 12, 13, 18 years either, so I would be interested in having a review by those involved as something more reasonable and more aggressive, so we don't [34:34] Carollynn Lear: see this again. Sure, we can take a stab at a revised policy and bring it to GovOps. [34:45] Susan Deane: Do you have any other comments regarding the property at 129 9.5? So [34:53] Wayne Mallar: we would need action on this. Yes, I'd move staff recommendation on this property. Second. [35:01] Susan Deane: Motion is any doubt? I don't one doubt. So we need a roll call vote. Comes a person, yes. Counselor Mallard, no. And I will be, I will be yes. So for a yes, one. So we will move forward with the workout agreement, and does this go to council or is this done [Carollynn Lear: internally? This committee.] I do want to say one thing, though. Because this has been such a long amount of time, and all of these are, I think we really need to start revisiting all of these very quickly, and I think that our taxpayers need to know that this is not the ideal way to deal with something. We also need to let people know that if they can't pay their taxes they need to make some good faith payments. I mean, anything is better than nothing, you know. If they just said a couple hundred dollars would have been better than nothing, yeah. So this is, you know, getting out of hand, but where we don't have a particular policy, I guess we can't really like to say too much about it at this point. Let's see, I tend to disagree, we do have a [36:21] Wayne Mallar: policy. It says after three years we take the property and sell it. I think it's permissive. [36:28] Carollynn Lear: We may take the property. I don't think it's directive, which is why we get to having a policy that's more lenient than with the statute. I guess the question I would have, other cities our size, what do they do? I think that's a good question, actually. I think that's something that would be helpful to inform any changes to our policy, just see what they're doing. [36:50] Wayne Mallar: The small towns I'm familiar with follow the rule if it's through the three things. [36:57] Susan Deane: And we can certainly address that in the new policy going forward. Yeah, we will move on to the second workout agreement. This is 88 Sydney Street. [37:06] Carollynn Lear: So this has 11 years of outstanding taxes owing 20,500, including multiple matured liens. The current property's value is 122,000, and this is the property owner's homestead. He's looking for a workout agreement for a minimum payment of 600 per quarter, which is enough to cover what is typically built in a tax year. All the other terms are the same, it's for one year and will have to be requested again. You [37:48] Wayne Mallar: have any questions on this property, this agreement? Council Beck, so this person's living at the property [37:56] Michael Beck: and it's also their only property they own in the city is [38:06] Carollynn Lear: that going to be the same with of all of these, that we don't know if it's their own property? I believe this is 145.4 and I believe that one is their own property, yeah. [38:20] Michael Beck: I guess I can go on with this. We had another set of another workout agreement where we wanted that property or to make sure that everyone all the properties were up to date before we considered this good [38:33] Carollynn Lear: point. So I think I'm hearing potentially actually deferring on this one as well as no. I think that's the am I missing one? Nope, just this [38:44] Susan Deane: one to have that. Okay, so we will wait on that one. So go to agreement and move on to the next workout out agreement for 145 Gordon Road. Okay, and we know that this is the property that yes the owner has [39:13] Carollynn Lear: I'm sorry, I'm on the ground. I was looking at the 213 thousand dollar figure thinking do we really have fun that high. So this is 18 years of outstanding taxes of almost 70 000. Current an assessed value is 178 000 and this is the property owner's homestead looking to pay 650 per quarter which is enough to cover their typical yearly tax bill. All new charges willing to be paid on time and the agreement is for one year [39:57] Wayne Mallar: A general question. For hardship abatements, we ask for a financial payment. Do we on these ask for it? Well, shouldn't we? Because do we know that they can afford to make these payments? [40:11] Carollynn Lear: Yeah, I mean, we could that could certainly be something we would add to the policy. [40:16] Wayne Mallar: We need to know if they can afford to make the payments before we sign an agreement. They've never paid taxes for 13 or 15 or 10 years. What makes you think that just because [40:25] Carollynn Lear: they have agreement they're going to pay anything now. And I think actually the reverse situation is actually more valuable which is to determine if what they're offering to pay is reasonable based on how much they make that [40:44] Susan Deane: could that could certainly be a part of the policy because they might be able to afford more they choose not to pay also that yeah I mean I'd be interested [40:52] Michael Beck: to hear more about that because that the what's offered it's going to take almost 27 years yeah and [41:00] Susan Deane: we didn't ask that of 120 but I think we've done enough research on that one to know [41:10] Susan Faloon: Dr. Fluke you have a couple of questions right so has there been no payments on this one for 18 years and no communication payments [41:26] Carollynn Lear: no communication. She gets a tax bill with a past due notice in the spring that we do a demand notice in the spring. And then they get a number of notes from the city just by doing one thing. [41:56] Susan Faloon: Are abatements discussed with any of these people like during this time like if they call would qualify for any portion of it to be abated or is that not even a conversation that's [42:09] Carollynn Lear: Had at this point they can go back, they can go back three years, so it would still, it would help, but it wouldn't solve their whole problem. So it would be a discussion we do have with our process. We try and encourage the state to grow program first, and then in depending on that and the hardship abatement process, so we do try to offer both. [42:43] Carolyn Fish: I noticed in this letter it said Miss Bowden is interested in redeeming her property. We don't provide lien releases, do we? Keep the lead active, correct? [42:56] Carollynn Lear: Okay, so counselor Beck, I think I heard you say that you're interested in understanding whether the amount that's been offered is reasonable based on this person's financials, given the amount of outstanding tax liability. When [43:27] Susan Deane: we revisit the matured tax or utility lien policy, is that the time to perhaps address whether or not we need to look at financial statements? Yeah, I think that would be the right place. They would know, like I said, we don't have any idea what your situation is, it, you know, because of physical ailment, a mental ailment, we don't really know why they can't pay. Yeah, and it may not necessarily be 100 financial. Yeah, and what I [43:54] Carollynn Lear: would suggest is that in setting forth that you want us to look at financials, it might be helpful to similarly have some parameters that say what council generally thinks is reasonable for someone to pay. Maybe it's as a percentage of their income or as a percentage of their disposable income, so that we can sort of offer taxpayers some guidance there as well as they're navigating the process. So [44:25] Susan Deane: we need a motion in order to gain more information, or do we just [44:30] Susan Faloon: table this? I'm sorry, can I ask one more question? Thank you. When these, when these arrangements are made, how does that number come about? Is it, do you ask the person like what do you think you can pay, or do you suggest an amount? We used to, but with recent conversations I had [44:55] Carollynn Lear: friends it seemed like you wanted at least a year's worth so that's with these three that's what i try to encourage them to request is at least enough to pay and for installments any other [45:14] Susan Deane: questions on this particular work out agreement? [45:17] Carollynn Lear: So is it tabled until, yep. So just to recap, I have a vote approving Bowling Drive, and then we have tabled 88 Sydney and 145 Thorny, and we'll bring those back to you when we have more information. [45:34] Susan Deane: We'll be next on the agenda is personal property tax write-off requests. Yes, so the city maintains [45:41] Carollynn Lear: Maintains an overlay account which you establish as part of the budget process to write off abatements and hardship abatements and other tax write-offs. If the account has an unused balance at the end of the year, staff will recommend that we write off uncollectible accounts. Currently the overlay account has $213,000 in it, and we're recommending that almost 129,000 be used to write off uncollectible personal property. As you can imagine, because personal property is movable, unlike real estate, that when a business goes out of business and pulls up their tent and is no longer in Bangor, it's incredibly difficult to collect on that movable personal property. And so that is why staff is recommending that we write off these amounts because they're sitting on our books, but are essentially impossible to collect without a massive staff effort. It's a number of small accounts, the average balance due is under $1,450. [46:56] Wayne Mallar: What's the age on these? Are they on current or within the last three years or within the last 10 years, you know? [47:06] Carollynn Lear: So it ranges for me because what we can look at when I review them and I look at if they're continuing to be assessed, I don't, you know, they're fine. I look at ones that have no longer are up through, if they were getting billed 25 and 26, then we would keep them on our books and try to continue to collect. So they may have seven plus years on the books even for ones that are continuing to be assessed. So I would look at ones that had 24 and older, and those are the ones that I would look at, so they Could have more here because we didn't always have enough money and overlay to be able to do the overhaul on every account that could qualify or you'll get another [47:57] Wayne Mallar: Question may ask another, yes, has the auditor ever made any moments about this policy? [48:07] Carollynn Lear: Does anyone know? Probably not, that I'm aware of. Sounds like an area they should have been. Yeah, I mean, I think uncollectibles are a common thing that sits on your books and records. [48:24] Wayne Mallar: No question, but I mean, usually they don't let them go for 10 years and take care of them on a regular basis to keep it cleaned out. [48:31] Carollynn Lear: Yeah, I can see why we would wait until we had unspent overlay money, because otherwise we'd be coming to you looking for essentially an appropriation to reflect collectibles. So the accounts that we're looking for, the 91 were assessed up to 2024. So we didn't want to write them off even if they owed eight years, if they were continuing to be assessed, we didn't want to write those off. Because that means the property still exists in May and is being taxed. So this, [49:12] Susan Deane: in effect, gets rid of quite a lot of the baggage that's there, but we don't know what's still being assessed and if we'll ever get payment on that. [49:21] Carollynn Lear: There are certainly other accounts that are still being assessed that will eventually become these uncollectibles, absolutely. I think overall this is a relatively small, even though the number feels big at 129,000, it's a relatively small proportion of the overall personal property that's being taxed and being bought. It's not a huge concerning amount any [49:49] Susan Deane: other questions about this particular item action would be a motion that's right. Could I entertain a motion to accept this? So moved. Second. If I'm often we have a second. Do we have any debate? We'll go with staff recommendation. All [50:17] Carollynn Lear: right the next item on the list is an updated we're not an updated a new bid for audit services. So we went out to bid for audit services for excuse me three years 26 27 and 28 to do an independent financial audit and present the city's financial statements. We received two proposals which you have the dollar values in your packet. I mean they were essentially the same both firms submitted well RKO submitted both a three-year and a one-year proposal and CBiz submitted a three-year proposal and we actually went back to them and requested a one-year proposal and we so we conducted interviews Stephanie and I conducted I did interviews with both firms. We also called references for the new firm, CBiz. Portland actually works with them. Stephanie spoke extensively with Portland and Portland had good things to say about CBiz. And so we are recommending that we do a one-year contract with CBIS, and when we negotiate that, we'll negotiate renewal options, but we didn't want to tie ourselves to a firm three-year contract with a new financial auditor, just because we don't know until we actually start working with them whether we are ultimately pleased at least with their performance or not. Although the references for C-Biz were very good. And I think they are, I think they will, it will be a different experience. They are a much larger accounting firm and they use a lot of technology-based tools [52:23] Daniel Carson: in their auditing work. [52:25] Carollynn Lear: So I think although we're excited for this new auditor, we're also a little bit scared because I think fresh eyes and new methods of doing the audit could, you know, give us different feedback than what we've heard, which we will then need to address that feedback responsibly, so it could also result in a lot of work for us. Do [52:51] Susan Deane: you have any questions regarding this? Yeah, for consideration, how are we doing on our [52:59] Carollynn Lear: I think progress is slow, frankly, and to be fair to RKO, I think a lot of the slowness in the progress is because we have an under-resourced finance department, and so they're daily making choices about how to allocate their time, whether it's focusing in on bids, focusing in on the budget process, or focusing in on responding to the audit. So I don't necessarily think it's fair to assume that the lateness is solely a auditor issue. I mean, I think much like many industries, the finance industry is resource strained as well, but so are we, and we contribute to the issue as well. [53:53] Wayne Mallar: Any questions regarding savings? Yep, so the question I had, it's about [54:00] Michael Beck: every year when they do the annual report, they would do the GMOA award, and by saying that it would not be happening with the most recent report, or didn't happen. Yes, do you know if CBIZ will [54:15] Carollynn Lear: help get us back on track with that? Was a requirement of the RFP that they do that? [54:20] Michael Beck: Okay. And then I just have a general comment about this. Again, I'm not in their day-to-day to know how it affects them, but just from a layperson on the outside, seeing two different companies do work rather than the same company having to be already behind on one and then having to do the other, I just see this as a benefit to give them a shot and see how that goes. And especially if they can get us on back on track for that, you know, that award, that's something that the city's very proud of, for decades been getting it. Yeah, I'm looking forward to getting back on track on that. So and then the final comment is just I really appreciate all the legwork staff did on this, checking the references, making sure, because it is a big change. We've been with RKO for about 28 years or something, it's almost three decades, it's worth, so this is going to be a big change, and I just appreciate everyone who's working on this and willing to make that transition, you know, it goes, I can't say thank you enough, we [55:27] Susan Deane: entertain a motion recommendation second good motion we have a second any doubt we'll go with staff recommendation to try cbiz for one year see what they can do for us thank you and [55:43] Carollynn Lear: Then I'm just going to invite Jose right up to discuss his brilliant memo rather than attempt to do it myself. [56:09] Daniel Carson: Today we are bringing a request to waive the bid process and sole source a software replacement that we need to do at the FBO, and this is a highly specialized type of software that we need to operate and handle a lot of for aircraft operations of the space operator. The current system that we have, we've had it for a very long time. We were actually the first airport in the country to deploy this software, and now we're the last airport in the country to have the software in place. And so as we were getting ready to deploy the new rates and fees of fiscal year 2027, the software sort of crashed and we were unable to enter the new rates. And so as it is, we were already looking for replacement options for a new software to be able to support that particular operation, and in discussions with the different vendors and what we would really like for that would fit the needs of the airport, this vendor seems to be the best fit relative to other options. And so again, it kind of turned into the perfect storm for everything to look into it, and at the at the end of the day when we look at the cost of the current vendor versus transition to a new vendor, since it's a fixed rate fee, they are who would see a savings of approximately, because the current system is based on the per order rate, the new system would be a flat fee, it would average to about fourteen thousand dollars savings per year under a new system. So that recommends waiting the bid process and sole sourcing this product. [58:20] Carollynn Lear: I will come back to you real quick. I have a new question for Jose. [58:24] Michael Beck: I'll go back. Sure. There's a breakdown of the cost. I see they got a monthly cost and then they charted an annual fee. What does each provide? [58:40] Daniel Carson: The split, I can't pull that up for you, but I think one of them is the licensing fee and the other one is just the maintenance of the system. Okay, so it's the multi-cause [58:51] Michael Beck: covers like the support you get the rental and then the annual fee would just be just this is [58:57] Daniel Carson: the flat rate for having the software. Yes, and I and the equipment we wouldn't be renting any equipment, all purchased under the first year, which comes in with the startup fee of 24 699 and [59:11] Michael Beck: In the end of the support you gave woodwork on the equipment, yes, the [59:22] Joseph Leonard: sole sourcing of the [59:25] Daniel Carson: this one FBO software platform offered by GMST EKLC. [59:31] Susan Deane: Motion second. Any concerns, any questions? So moved. We will move this on to council. Waive the bid process. Okay, that is the end. You don't have any updates, do you? Do not. All right, all right, we will adjourn at 7.49 p.m.