Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[00:00:06]

>> THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE DALLAS COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT IS NOW IN SESSION.

TODAY IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 10TH, 2019, AT 1:30 P.M.

THIS OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS AUTHORIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.001 THROUGH 551.146.

VERIFICATION OF NOTICE OF MEETING AND AGENDA ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CHANCELLOR.

PER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.1282, THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST OVER THE INTERNET IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.128, AGENDA

[1. Certification of Notice Posted for the Meeting]

ITEM ONE, CERTIFICATION OF NOTICE POSTED --

>> MADAM CHAIR, I CERTIFY THAT THE NOTICE FOR THIS MEETING WAS

[A. Review of Capital Project Donation Process Presenters: John Robertson, Tiska Thomas, Rob Wendland, Pyeper Wilkins]

POSTED PER TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

>> THANK YOU.

AGENDA ITEM TWO, COMMITTEE PRESENTATIONS A, REVIEW OF CAPITAL PROJECT DONATION PROCESS.

>> RICK?

>> YES, MA'AM, I WAS GOING TO GIVE IT HERE A SECOND TO COME UP ON THE SCREEN.

THERE WE GO.

THE THREE OF US WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT HOW WE HAVE LOOKED AT DEVELOPING A PROCEDURE FOR DONATIONS THAT WE WILL SEE AS WE GO THROUGH OUR PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THE FUTURE.

THE FIRST THING IS ONE WE'VE ALWAYS HAD IN PLACE AND WORKS REAL WELL IS WHAT WE DO IS WE RECEIVE A CASH AND EQUIPMENT DONATION.

WE HAVE TITLED THIS A DONOR WHO IS NOT GOING TO BE THE INVOLVED IN THE BID PROCESS.

AND WHAT THAT IS, IS PEOPLE CAN DONATE EQUIPMENT.

THEY'RE STILL SUBJECT TO THE DISTRICT STANDARD.

THEY DONATE IT THROUGH THE FOUNDATION, CASH, AND THEN THE FOUNDATION TURNS AROUND AND GIVES IT TO HE DISTRICT.

BUT WE WORK VERY CLOSELY TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY TYPE OF DONATION MEETS THE STANDARDS OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, AND THEN WHEN WE COME BACK TO ACCEPTING THOSE, THAT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN BE ABLE TO USE.

FOR THE MOST PART, MOST PEOPLE KNOW UP FRONT WHAT E'RE REALLY TRYING TO LOOK FOR AS WE TRY TO SPECIFY THAT, SO THERE ARE USUALLY NOT ANY ARGUMENT.

CASH DONATIONS ARE PROBABLY THE EASIEST, THAT'S THE ONE WE LIKE MOST, WITH, WE LIKE TO HAVE PEOPLE DONATE CASH WHICH THE FOUNDATION HOLDS FOR US AND WE CAN APPLY TO THE PROJECT WE HAVE HERE.

THAT'S THE SAME WE DO WITH ALL OTHER DONATIONS.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD INTO HAVING THESE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AS WE HAVE QUITE A FEW OF OUR POTENTIAL BIDDERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO ALSO BE ABLE TO MAKE DONATIONS OR WHAT WE CALL IN-KIND, BUT THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THE BUSINESS PROCESS.

AND -- THE BID PROCESS.

AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WORK VERY HEAVILY WITH THE LEGAL ON FINDING A METHODOLOGY IN WHICH WE CAN HAVE THIS HELP.

REMEMBER, AT THE END OF THE DAY WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS REDUCE THE PROJECT COST AND WHERE PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY COME THROUGH AND MAKE A DONATION OF AN IN-KIND AND THEN BID ON THE INSTALLATION OF THAT EQUIPMENT, WHAT WE FEEL IS THAT WILL END UP GIVING US THE BEST VALUE FOR THE DISTRICT.

SO WE HAVE THIS PROCESS IN WHICH WE WILL PUT THAT IN BID INFORMATION WHEN IT GOES OUT FOR BID, WE WILL OUTLINE IT.

WE ARE WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW SO EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME FAIR CHANCE OF BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY IN THEIR BIDS WHAT ITEMS THEY WOULD LIKE TO DONATE.

>> WHEN YOU SAY INDIVIDUALING, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS, COMPANIES?

>> COMPANIES.

>> NOT JOE SMITH OFF THE STATE.

>> TYPICALLY NOT JOE SMITH OFF THE STREET'S EITHER GOING TO DO A CASH OR AN EQUIPMENT TYPE DONATION.

BUT MOST OF THE DONATIONS USUALLY COME FROM A COMPANY, A FIRM THAT WOULD BE TRYING TO DO THAT.

>> GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF A TYPE OF DONATION THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO MAKE.

IN THE BID?

>> I USE THE EXAMPLE SOMETIMES A BRICK, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE BUILDING A BUILDING, SOMEBODY MIGHT SAY I'LL DONATE BRICK, AND IT'LL BE TO A SPECIFICATION.

IT'LL BE THE TYPE OF BRICK, THE COLOR OF BRICK AND THE BRICK THAT WE WOULD BE USING IN ERECTING THE BUILDING.

IT MAY BE ALL OF THE BRICK

[00:05:01]

REQUIRED FOR THE BUILDING OR SOME PORTION THEREOF, BUT THAT WOULD BE AN XAMPLE OF AN IN-KIND DONATION.

OTHER THINGS THAT JOHN MENTIONED COULD BE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED IN THE OPERATION OF THE BUILDING SUCH AS LIKE CLASSROOM EQUIPMENT OR MANAGER LIKE THAT --

>> FURNITURE.

>> THAT WOULD BE AN IN-KIND DONATION, THINGS OF THAT NATURE AS WELL.

>> IS THIS COMMON? COMMON PRACTICE?

>> IT IS, AND I'M KIND OF TAKING OVER HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE, BUT THE RUB COMES WHEREHE YOU HAVE CONSTRUCTION-TYPE PROJECTS WHERE THERE ARE BOTH IN-KIND DONATIONS AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BID ON THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ITSELF.

WE, UNDER STATE LAW ARE OBLIGATED -- AND UNDER OUR BOARD POLICY -- TO DEMONSTRATE THAT A GIFT DOES NOT OBLIGATE US TO SHOW ANY KINDS OF FAVORITISM TOWARDS THE DONOR IN ANY RESPECTS.

IS SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS AKE SURE THAT WE KEEP A CLEAN LINE OF DEMARCATION BETWEEN THOSE GIFTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND THE DONORS WHO HAVE MADE THEM AND OUR EVALUATION OF THE BIDS.

>> I MEAN, THAT, THAT'S KIND OF THE DEFINITION OF BRIBERY, ISN'T IT? IF I SHOW UP WITH THIS TRUCKLOAD OF BRICK AND SAY, YEAH, BUT I GET TO INSTALL IT, THEN, YEAH --

>> WELL --

>> I GET THE BID.

>> IT'S NOT BRIBERY IF IT DOESN'T UNDULY INFLUENCE THE OFFICIALS, AND VERY CAREFUL TO MAKE SURE.

IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO HAVE IN-KIND DONATIONS FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS ROUTINELY.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS TRYING TO ESTABLISH A PROCESS, AS JOHN WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN, THAT WILL ALLOW PEOPLE FAIRLY AND TRANSPARENTLY TO BECOME A BIDDER ON OUR PROMPTS IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE A DONOR OF AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION TO THAT PROJECT.

>> WE GET TO THESE AND SEE THESE IN THE BID PACKAGES AND REVIEW THEM, WE WILL BRING A LIST TO THIS BOARD.

YOU WILL HAVE TO ACCEPT THOSE DONATIONS, AND WE WILL SHOW YOU THE INFORMATION, THE TRANSPARENCY, WHAT WE WENT THROUGH.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT SOMEBODY COULD BE SAYING I'M GIVING YOU AN IN-KIND DONATION BUT DUE TO COMPETITIVE FORCES OF THE BID PROCESS, SOMEBODY WHO'S NOT COULD ACTUALLY COME IN WITH A BETTER BID, LOWER, BETTER VALUE, MEETS MORE SPECIFICATIONS OF WHAT WE WANT IN THE BID.

WE PUT OUT BID SPECIFICATIONS, BUT WHEN PEOPLE ID IT, THEY DON'T ALWAYS FOLLOW EVERY POSSESSIFICATION WE HAVE.

SO THAT'S PART OF THE EVALUATION PROCESS WE NEED TO DO.

>> YEAH.

THIS AWARD MADE WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO GIFT ELEMENT? SAYS THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, AND I DON'T SEE HOW YOU -- I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU GET AROUND IT.

IF IT'S A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT THAT REQUIRES BRICK, OKAY, AND THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU THE BRICK BUT ALL OF THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO MAY BE RESPONDING TO THIS, THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE BRICK AND PAY FOR THE BRICK, AND THEY'RE NOT DONATING IT.

SO I'M NOT QUITE UNDERSTANDING HOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT NEUTRAL.

I DON'T --

>> AND THAT IS, INDEED, THE STICKY WICKET, AS THEY SAY.

>> BUT IT COULD ALSO BE THINGS LIKE MBW OR BE REQUIREMENTS.

IS SO OUR MINORITY OR WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS, EVEN IF THEY GAVE THE GIFT, THEY WOULD NOT MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE BID.

>> YEAH.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE GREAT --

>> NO, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I'M TALKING ABOUT IF THEY DONATE SOMETHING, GIVE YOU A DONATION OF SOMETHING, BUT IT'S ON A PROJECT WHERE THAT SOMETHING IS REQUIRED BUT YOU HAVE ONE COMPANY THAT'S GIVING IT TO YOU CONCERN.

CONCERN -- CORRECT --

>> BUT WHOEVER THE OTHER PEOPLE ARE, THE COST OF THAT ELEMENT IS INCLUDED IN THEIR BID.

>> YES, IT IS.

>> WHERE YOU'VE GOT ONE COMPANY THAT -- YOU --

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> SO IS THAT THEN SUBTRACTED?

>> THE REQUIREMENT OF THE DONATION ALSO ON OUR IN-KIND DONATION FORM IS GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO VALUE THE DONATION.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE BID PROCESS WOULD BE THAT YOU EVALUATE THE BIDS INCLUDING BUILDING BACK IN HOSE DONATED VALUES O THAT YOU CAN COMPARE APPLES TO APPLES, SO TO SPEAK.

AND THEN DETERMINE WHAT THE BEST VALUE FOR THE DISTRICT IS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY MAY BE DONATING AS PART OF THEIR BID PROPOSAL SOME OF THE ITEMS, SOME OF THE MATERIAL AND/OR LABOR.

LABOR CAN BE A DONATED ITEM AS WELL.

IT'S NOT AS COMMONLY DONATED, BUT THAT WOULD BE OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TRY TO BUILD IT IN, HAVE IT VALUED AT PART OF THE DONATION.

THAT'S THEIR OBLIGATION TO VALUE.

WE DON'T VALUE IT, THE DONOR VALUES IT.

THE BIDS GET VALUATED FAIRLY

[00:10:01]

AND OBJECTIVELY ON THE BEST VALUE FOR THE DISTRICT.

>> WHAT WILL BE IN THE BID ISSUANCE IS EVERYBODY WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO THAT.

EVERYBODY HAS A FAIR CHANCE TO MAKE DONATIONS.

AND IF THEY DON'T -- BUT THAT'S THE SAME WAY IN A COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS WHEN WE GET 'EM, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THEY'RE DISCOUNTING THE MATERIALS THAT ARRIVE AT THEIR BID ANYWAY.

THAT'S NEVER DISCLOSED.

SO THEY JUST COME UP WITH A FLAT BID.

IT'S NOT LOW BID, IT'S BEST VALUE FOR THE DISTRICT.

AND THAT'S THE CSP THAT WE'LL BE USING TO EVALUATE HOW THESE ARE THAT DO THAT.

IT IS VERY POSSIBLE, WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT THE PERSON WHO'S DONATED OMETHING WILL HAVE THE LOWEST AND BEST BID.

>> QUESTION.

SO IF THE PERSON THAT IS PROPOSING TO MAKE AN IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION DOESN'T GET THE BID, WOULD THEY STILL MAKE THE CONTRIBUTION?

>> THEY COULD.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN "THEY COULD"?

>> EAH, EITHER THEY ARE OR THEY AREN'T.

>> YEAH, YEAH.

>> THEY PROBABLY WON'T WHICH WOULD BASICALLY TELL US WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO AVOID WHICH IS WHAT WE CALL THE WINK AND THE NOT.

AND THAT'S THE FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT WE DO NOT -- THIS IS A DISCUSSION, THIS HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT UP HERE IN THE LAST WEEK.

WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING HOW TO HANDLE THIS FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WOULD GO INTO THESE PROJECTS THAT WANT TO HELP US.

AND THEY'RE TRYING TO REDUCE OUR PROJECT COST BY DONATING IN-KIND MATERIAL.

BUT WE'RE UNDER RULES TO TRY TO BE THAT FAIRNESS DOCTRINE THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IS HOW DO WE DO IT.

>> WITH SO IT'S KIND OF MORE LIKE A DISCOUNT, BUT WE'RE CALLING IT A DONATION.

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY, I GOT IT.

IT'S MORE OF A DISCOUNT.

>> DISCOUNT.

>> SO, LIKE, IF YOU HAVE COMPANY A AND OMPANY B AND COMPANY A IS GOING TO DONATE THE BRICKS AND COMPANY B IS NOT GOING TO, I MEAN, BASICALLY YOU'RE JUST --

>> AND IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

SOMEBODY'S GOT A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A MATERIAL SUPPLIER, AND THEY GET A 40% DISCOUNT ON WHAT THEY ORDER, AND SOMEBODY ELSE ONLY GETS A 25%.

SO WHEN THEY TURN IN THEIR BID WITH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ADVANTAGE BECAUSE THAT SUPPLIER IS, LOOKS AT VOLUME THEY SOLD TO THAT CONTRACTOR OVER THE TIME PERIOD, AND THAT STUFF GOES ON ON EVERY BID HAT WE HAVE.

>> YOU HAD A QUESTION, GO AHEAD.

BECAUSE I'VE GOT NE FOR --

>> I'VE GOT TWO MORE.

ALSO WE DIDN'T USE THIS PROCESS IN THE 2004 BOND, THE PROJECTS THAT WERE BUILT OUT, OUT OF THAT BOND.

>> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

I'M TOO YOUNG.

[LAUGHTER]

>> SO THIS DIDN'T COME UP BACK THEN? THIS IS SOMETHING TOTALLY NEW TO --

>> WELL, I THINK IT CAME UP NEW HERE BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE 12% DONATED WHEN THE BOARD TOOK THE ACTION ON THE PARTICULAR BUILDING AT NORTH LAKE.

>> WE'VE TRIED TO LOOK MORE AT OTHER SOURCES FOR OUR MONEY THAN JUST -- WE EXPLAIN THE BOND, BUT TO STRETCH THOSE DOLLARS EVEN FURTHER.

AND DR. MAY, TO HIS CREDIT, YOU KNOW, AS BROUGHT FORTH THAT IDEA, WHAT CAN WE DO BY PEOPLE PARTNERING WITH US AND BRINGING IN DONATIONS WHETHER IT BE EQUIPMENT OR OTHER THINGS THAT WE DO BY GETTING PEOPLE -- IF WE'RE BUYING FOUR WELDING MACHINES, CAN'T THEY DONATE ONE OF THEM.

AND THAT'S JUST A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESS THAT WE HAVEN'T HAD AT THIS DISTRICT UNTIL NOW.

AND IT'S HELPED US DRAMATICALLY IN WORKING WITH THAT.

WE DON'T MAKE THAT PART OF THE REQUIREMENT NECESSARILY, BUT WE'RE VERY OPEN TO HEARING ABOUT HOW PEOPLE WILLING TO COME THROUGH AND HELP OFFSET UR COST.

>> SO MY LAST ONE, SO WE ALREADY HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF THIS WORKING IN THE DISTRICT THROUGH THE NORTH LAKE BUILDING, YOU'RE SAYING?

>> YES, MA'AM.

WELL, THIS IS, THIS IS AGNOSTIC TO NORTH LAKE, UT NORTH LAKE WAS ACTUALLY THE ONE THAT STARTED MOST THAT HEAVILY INTO THIS TYPE OF CONCEPT.

AND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH WITH THE BOND PROGRAM COMING UP AND LOOKING FOR INDUSTRY SUPPORT AND SO ON OF 5%, 10%, 12%, 15% PARTNERSHIPS, THAT'S, THAT HAS MADE IT COME TO WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WRITE A PROCESS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO LIVE WITH.

AND IT CAN BE SHARED TRANSPARENTLY WITH EVERYBODY, AND THEY KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING.

THERE'S NO ACTION ITEM ON THIS, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO AKE THE BOARD AWARE --

>> NORTH LAKE IS OUT IN FRONT OF A LOT OF THE OTHER PROJECTS, AND THERE IS A VERY ACTIVE INDUSTRY PARTNER INVOLVED, CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION FOUNDATION WHO, I THINK, DID A PRESENTATION TO ALL OF YOU, CHRISTA, ABOUT THE BUILDING.

SO CEF IS, THEY HAVE MEMBERS THAT INCLUDE ALL THE TRADES, ALL THE CONSTRUCTION -- LOTS AND LOTS OF CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES AROUND THE METROPLEX.

[00:15:03]

SO THEY ARE REALLY HELPING US IN THIS EFFORT AND, YOU KNOW, GOING TO THEIR MEMBERS ANDING ASKING S TO HELP THEM REDUCE THE COST OF THIS BUILDING.

AND SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR ALL SORTS OF IN-KIND DONATIONS -- AND CASH AS WELL AND PLEDGES.

SO WE ARE, AT THIS POINT WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER $360,000 IN JUST CASH AND PLEDGES OF CASH ON THIS PROJECT.

WE DON'T HAVE A LIST YET OR A TOTAL FOR THE IN-KIND THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

>> YOU MAY RECALL THAT THE CHAIR OF THE CONSTRUCTION EDUCATION FOUNDATION CAME AND PRESENTED ON THIS PROJECT AND OFFERED THAT PARTNERSHIP CITING THE PREVIOUS FACILITY IN WHICH THEY DID DONATE THE EQUIPMENT AND DID THE WORK AND SUPPORTED THAT ONE TOO.

SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF BEEN THEIR HISTORY WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM AT NORTH LAKE.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK FOR A MINUTE.

YOU MENTIONED MWBE REQUIREMENTS.

IN YOUR THINKING WHEN YOU WERE RESPONDING, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS --

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> -- OF MBE, AND SOMEBODY MAY NOT MEET THOSE?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

THIS IS NOT A NO-COST ONLY PROCESS --

>> RIGHT.

>> THERE ARE OTHER QUALIFICATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THE BID.

I'VE HEARD IT OUT IN THE COMMUNITY DESCRIBED THAT WAY.

THAT'S NOT CORRECT.

WHEN YOU HEAR THAT --

>> OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S WHERE YOU WERE HEADED.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE SOMEBODY DID REACH OUT AND SAY, WELL, THIS WILL UNDERCUT GETTING MINORITY BUSINESS -- NO.

THAT'S A REQUIREMENT, TO DO THAT.

JUST BECAUSE YOU DONATED THE BRICK DOESN'T WAIVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE A DIVERSE WORK FORCE.

>> THE TERMINOLOGY IS BEST VALUE FOR THE DISTRICT.

AND LOW BID DOESN'T NECESSARILY EQUATE TO BEST VALUE.

>> AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THREE-BID CONFERENCES, RIGHT?

>> ES.

>> PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO ON ALL F THESE BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE PLACES WE WANT TO EXPLAIN THIS PROCESS, NOT HAVE IT JUST BE BID.

PEOPLE START FLIPPING THROUGH PAGES.

WE WILL HAVE -- MOST CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE PREBID CONFERENCES ON THEM BECAUSE IT'S TIME TO WALK A FACILITY OR JUST MEET IN AN AREA, HAVE THE ARCHITECTS THERE TOO AND GO OVER EVERYTHING.

>> NOW, HOW -- AND THIS IS KIND OF APART FROM US, BUT MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, HOW ARE THE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS SELECTED? BECAUSE THEY'RE SELECTED EVEN BEFORE YOUR PREBID CONFERENCE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> OH, YEAH.

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE A -- UNTIL YOU GET DETAILED DESIGN --

>> HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THE ARCHITECTS ARE GOING TO BE -- ALSO HAVE A GOOD MBE REPRESENTATION?

>> WE ARE, WE WILL BRING YOU THAT LIST.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE GONE THROUGH, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE EVALUATION PROJECTS WE HAVE.

THIS IS ON OTHER BOND PROJECTS.

WE ALREADY HAVE AN ARCHITECT SELECTED ON THE NORTH LAKE PROJECT.

BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE OTHER BOND PROJECTSES, IS AND WE MET YESTERDAY.

WE HAVE ABOUT 13 ARCHITECTURAL FIRMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO INTERVIEWS HERE EN MASSE.

AND THEN PARTICIPANT OF IT IS GOING TO BE -- PART OF IT IS GOING TO BE IN THEIR PRESENTATIONS IS WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT MINIMUM OF 30% MWB PARTICIPATION FROM EITHER THE MINORITY FIRM THEMSELVES OR THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE 30% MINORITY PARTICIPATION IF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

SO THAT'S THE EVALUATION ACROSS THE BOARD.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY EN MASSE? I'M SORRY? YOU SAID --

>> EXCUSE EXCUSE ME.

>> EN MASSE?

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT.

>> OKAY.

WE'RE LINING THEM UP TO DO THEIR PRESENTATIONS ONE RIGHT AFTER THE OTHER BECAUSE WE'VE GOT ABOUT A TWO-DAY -- 13 FIRMS TO SEE IN A TWO-DAY PERIOD.

AND WE WILL, BASICALLY, SHORT LIST FROM THAT OF WHAT WE WANT TO LOOK AT.

>> ROBERT, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE THAT WE'RE NOT EXPOSING OURSELVES LEGALLY TO QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCEPTING DONATIONS IN ORDER TO MAKE DECISIONS ON BIDS IN THE PROCESS IT WILL HAVE IN PLACE WE'LL KEEP AN ARM'S LENGTH AWAY FROM THAT TYPE OF --

>> THAT'S WHAT WE'VE WORKED REALLY HARD TO TRY TO DEVELOP.

I WILL SAY THIS, IT'S FRUSTRATING ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.

THE LAW IS FAIRLY UNFLEXIBLE, AND THIS, E BELIEVE, REPRESENTS THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO THIS AND STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW IN TERMS OF TRYING TO DO IT CORRECTLY.

IT MAKES IT UNWIELDY AT TIMES.

CERTAINLY, THE DISTRICT WELCOMES ANY AND ALL FILL FILL LAND DROPY ORIENTED PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DONATE IN-KIND OR IN CASH.

THAT'S WELCOME.

THE RUB COMES FOR US WITH CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT PARTICULARLY BECAUSE THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN A POSITION TO DONATE IN-KIND TYPICALLY WANT TO

[00:20:02]

BID ON THE PROJECTS AS WELL.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAD TO DEVELOP A PROCESS, WE HAVE TO BE AGNOSTIC AS WHO THE DONORS ARE.

IN THE EVENT OF CASH, SOMEBODY COULD ALSO BE A BIDDER, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THE IDENTITY.

THE FOUNDATION KEEPS THOSE IDENTITIES FROM THE DISTRICT.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY CAREFUL NOT ONLY TO BE TRANSPARENT ON THE FRONT END, TO ADVISE EVERY BIDDER OF THE POTENTIAL FOR IN-KIND DONATIONS AND HOW THAT MIGHT IMPACT THE PROCESS BUT ALSO AS WE GO THROUGH THE EVALUATION TO MAKE SURE THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY IS OR IS NOT A DONOR DOES NOT AFFECT THEIR EVALUATION.

>> AND WE FULLY EXPECT SOME OF THESE TO, IF NOT ALL OF THEM, TO BE SUBJECT TO OPEN RECORD REQUESTS BECAUSE OLKS, THEY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY WANT TO SEE HOW THEY CAN BE COMPETITIVE IN THAT BID PROCESS.

SO WE CAN'T WITHHOLD THAT INFORMATION.

>> AND ANY BIDDER CAN PROTEST A BID.

FINISH AND WE HAVE PROCEDURES THAT WE GO THROUGH TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE HEARD AND EXPLAINED PROPERLY TO THEM.

THAT COULD HAPPEN OUT OF THIS.

IF WE GET SMARTER AND FIND A BETTER WAY TO DO IT, THAT'S WHERE WE'VE EEN WORKING WITH LEGAL COUNSEL A LOT TRYING TO SATISFY FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS OR LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND OUR STATE PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT.

>> I'VE GOT A COMMENT TOO.

>> ON THAT NORTH LAKE PROJECT, IF YOU REALLY THINK THAT YOU AVOIDED ANY CONTROVERSY ABOUT THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHY.

BECAUSE ONE THING I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT DALLAS COUNTY, DALLAS COUNTY IS THE LEAKIEST OCEAN LINER ON THE HIGH SEAS.

[LAUGHTER]

>> I AGREE.

>> EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS I JUST ABOUT HEAR BOUT.

AND YOUR PARTNER ON THAT PROJECT PROJECT -- AND NOT FROM WHO YOU THINK SOMETIMES, BUT JUST THROUGH PEOPLE THAT I KNOW OR KNOW ME FROM SOME VENUE.

I ALSO TRIED TO HAVE INFLUENCE ON WHO WAS HIRED ON THAT JOB, AND THEY HAD SPECIFIC PEOPLE THAT THEY ANTED TO SEE WORK IT.

SOMETIMES I HEAR STUFF, AND I JUST DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW FIRSTHAND, AND I JUST KIND OF WAIT TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT.

THIS BUSINESS ABOUT COMPANIES DONATING ON A PROJECT THAT THEY'RE BIDDING ON I CAN SEE GETTING INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE ABOUT THAT, EVEN IF IT'S NOTHING BUT PERCEPTION PROBLEMS. I WOULD SAY -- AND THIS IS JUST A SUGGESTION OR SOMETHING ALONG THESE LINES -- THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO ACCEPT IN-KIND DONATIONS NOT ON THE PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE BIDDING ON, BUT MAYBE SOME OTHER PROJECT DOWN THE ROAD OR SOME PROJECT GOING ON IN ANOTHER LOCATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM FOR A LOT OF CRITICISM, WALKING A THIN LINE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS AND SO FORTH.

NOW, IF Y'ALL CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT MAKES IS SENSE, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT.

BUT I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD BE TREADING DOWN THE ROAD.

>> SO ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF OTHER PUBLIC PROJECTS THAT HAVE ACCEPTED IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS? IF YOU COULD KIND OF, LIKE, GET US A LIST?

>> YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.

AND WE'VE ALSO GOT AN EXAMPLE OF A POLICY HAT WE RELIED UPON, WHICH WAS A UNIVERSITY POLICY WHERE THEY USED IT, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, IT WAS, THAT USED A SIMILAR PRACTICE.

NOW IT'S MICHIGAN LAW, BUT IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO TEXAS LAW.

SO WE CAN GET THAT FOR THE BOARD TOO.

>> AND ON THE ONE HAND, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO MAXIMIZE TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY CUTTING THE COST OF THESE BUILDINGS THROUGH THESE DIFFERENT PARTNERSHIPS.

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IT JUST CAUSES A BIT OF UNEASINESS.

CAN WE BE A ASSURED THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING, SAYING THIS IS THE BEST BID BECAUSE OF TAUHAT IN-KD DONATION.

I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE CERTAIN TRAPS SET IN, BUT JUST --

>> WELL, AND I'M JUST GOING TO INTERJECT BECAUSE THEY'VE HEARD ME SAY THIS, FROM THE LAWYER STANDPOINT, IF WE DIDN'T ACCEPT BIDS, IN-KIND DONATIONS OP

[00:25:02]

PROJECTS THAT WERE BIDDING OP, WE'D BE BULLETPROOF.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO BJECTION ANYBODY COULD RAISE, BUT THAT'S NOT REALISTIC.

WE HAVE CRAFTED WHAT WE BELIEVE TO REPRESENT BEST PRACTICE WHICH HAS BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE THAT IF YOU INCLUDE IT AS PART OF THE COMPETITIVE BID PROCESS, IT'S LEGALLY RECOGNIZED AS ACCEPTABLE.

NOW, THAT'S, IF YOU HAD POLICY THAT SAID WE WON'T ACCEPT IN-KIND DONATIONS -- WE NEED TO BE AS CAREFUL AS WE CAN BE AND WE BELIEVE THIS PROCESS WILL ALLOW US TO DO SO AS I INDICATED WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LAW, BUT NO GUARANTEES ON ANYTHING.

>> BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN, BY GOING THIS ROUTE IT'S POSSIBLE TO MAXIMIZE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> CATCH 22.

>> IT'S A VERY CONSIDERATION, YEAH.

>> IF THEY DON'T STOP HERE, THEY'RE GOING DOWN THE STREET.

NOT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING ILLEGAL, BUT SOME OF THESE BIG COMPANIES -- OH, REALLY? I'LL TAKE IT TO XYZ COMPANY, THEY'LL THAT TAKE IT.

>> WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE BID REVIEW PROCESS, PART OF THAT IS WHERE WE LOOK AT THIS.

IF ANY OF US ARE GETTING AN UNCOMFORTABLE FEELING, REMEMBER, WE'VE GOT TO BRING THOSE BIDS AND DONATIONS TO THIS BOARD, AND IF WE DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM, WE MAY NOT ACCEPT THEM AT THAT TIME WHEN WE'RE LOOKING THROUGH THOSE BIDS AND SAY WE ON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

AND I'D RATHER NOT BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO REDUCE THE COST, STRETCH THE OUR BOND DOLLARS OR STRETCH ALL OF OUR CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS.

BUT WE'VE GOT A REVIEW PROCESS X WE WILL FIND OUT ON THIS FIRST ROUND WITH THE CONSTRUCTION SCIENCE BUILDING HOW IT WORKS.

AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN FEEL FAIR ABOUT THIS THAT THE TWO SITTING ON EITHER SIDE OF ME, THE THREE OF US WILL JOIN FORCES AND SAY THIS WILL BE OUR RECOMMENDATION, TO REJECT THEM.

>> WE HAVE ANOTHER SHOT AT APPROVAL OR NON-APPROVAL WHEN THAT COMES BEFORE US ANYWAY, RIGHT?

>> CAN'T AWARD -- AND THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS TO ACCEPT ALL DONATIONS AND THE DONATION IS PART OF A BUILD, WE CAN'T ACCEPT THOSE IDS.

WE CAN TENTATIVELY SAY WHO GOT THE BID AND BRING THAT TO YOU, BUT WE WON'T DO AN AWARD OR PURCHASE ORDER UNTIL WE BRING THAT BACK BEFORE YOU.

>> YOU KNOW, DEANNA, THAT WAS MY FATHER'S FAVORITE PHRASE.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT IN YEARS.

BY THE SAME TOKEN.

[LAUGHTER] EVERY OTHER SENTENCE WAS BY THE SAME TOKEN.

MY POINT BEING YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S IN PEOPLE'S MINDS OR WHO THEY'VE BEEN TALKING TO AND WHAT'S BEEN SAID AND SO FORTH.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T GET INTO QUESTIONING DECISION MAKERS, OKAY, DID THEY DECIDE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OR WHATEVER.

AND, YOU KNOW, THAT GETS INTO A PERSONAL JUDGMENT OF WHAT YOU THINK AND WHAT YOU MAY HAVE HEARD YOURSELF AND SO FORTH.

SO I JUST HOPE WHATEVER'S PUT IN PLACE, HAT THIS IS ALL GIVEN SERIOUS THOUGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE? DID Y'ALL HAVE SOMETHING ELSE?

>> WE TO HAVE A OUPLE WITH THE -- DO HAVE A COUPLE WITH THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS THAT NEED TO --

[1) Approval of Interlocal Agreement with the City of Dallas to Participate in the Land Transfer Program]

>> WE'VE BEEN ASKED BY THE CITY OF DALLAS TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THEM ON THE LAND TRANSFER PROGRAM.

THIS IS KIND OF -- A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON IT, IT'S KIND OF COME AND GONE OVER THE YEARS, BUT LAST SPRING THE CITY RELEASED THEIR PLAN FOR THIS LAND TRANSFER PROGRAM TO TAKE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NOT -- SIX YEARS OR MORE IN TAX DELINQUENCY AND TURN THEM INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

AND THEY ACTUALLY HAVE GONE THROUGH AND LISTED THESE AND COME UP WITH BY WHICH THEY'LL GO TO TO BE ABLE TO TURN THESE PROPERTIES OVER TO DEVELOPERS TO PRODUCE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SINCE THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR, WE'RE DOING THAT.

WE ARE NOT PARTY TO THIS.

THE ONLY REASON WE'RE SIGNING THE RESOLUTION IS WE'RE A TAXING AUTHORITY, AND WHAT WE ARE FORGETTING -- GETTING UP HERE IS NOTHING.

THIS IS REVENUE NEUTRAL.

WE ARE NOT GETTING ANY MONEY ON THESE PROPERTIES TODAY.

WE WON'T GET ANY MONEY ON THEM IN THE FUTURE.

AND SO WHAT THE CITY DOES IS THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE FORECLOSING OR THE TAKEOVER.

[00:30:02]

SO THE DISTRICT IS NOT REALLY NAMED, WE'RE JUST AGREEING TO THE CITY THAT THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT AND THAT WE ARE WILLING TO FORGO ANY TAX REVENUE THAT WE MIGHT EVER GET FROM DELINQUENCIES.

BUT THAT'S SLIM AND NONE.

>> IS IT TRUE THAT WE'RE PULLING TODAY, BUT AS A PROPERTY GETS DEVELOPED AND BECOMES AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WE WILL RECEIVE TAX BENEFIT DOWN THE LINE ON THAT.

>> VERY POTENTIALLY.

DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE.

THEY DON'T MAKE PROJECTIONS ON THAT, AND THAT'S OKAY FROM OUR STANDPOINT.

ANYTIME YOU CAN TURN MOST OF THESE -- I HATE TO USE THE WORD, BUT BLIGHTED PROPERTIES THAT REALLY ARE GOING TO HELP THE OVERALL OUTLOOK OF DALLAS, THE ONLY NEGATIVE THING I'VE EVER HEARD ABOUT THIS IS THEY'RE NOT -- THE PROPERTIES ARE NOT NECESSARILY IN THE AREA WE NEED AFFORDABLE HOUSING.

WELL, YOU DON'T GET TO CHOOSE ON THE PROPERTIES WHICH ONES ARE GOING TO BE DELINQUENT.

YOU HAVE TO TAKE WITH WHAT'S KIND OF DEALT YOUR HAND, AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIKE 'EM ELSEWHERE.

WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THE CITY WILL HAVE TO WORK ON, IS HOW WE GET DEVELOPERS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING EVERYWHERE.

>> SO NOW CAN BE SOLD THE NONPROFITS AND FOR-PROFITS?

>> YES, MA'AM.

THAT'S -- I READ WHAT THEY HAVE OF THE ABILITIES TO HAVING THAT.

>> IF IT'S SOLD TO A FOR-PROFIT, DOESN'T THAT INCREASE THE CHANCE OF GENTRIFICATION IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS?

>> I HAVE NO IDEA.

I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.

>> BASICALLY, IT'S UP TO DEVELOPERS.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT'S A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT, ESPECIALLY AS IT PERTAINS TO SCOTT THAT'S OVER THERE.

AND DR. LASSITER WAS CHANCELLOR ARE, THEY DID A STUDY ON THAT AREA.

I WAS PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN BECAUSE MY FAMILY OWNS SOME PROPERTY OVER IN SOUTH DALLAS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PLAN, IT'S AN OFFICE BUILDING SITTING WHERE THAT HOUSE S.

AND IT'S GOING TO ALLOW THESE FOLKS TO OME IN AND BUY THESE PROPERTIES UP REAL CHEAP.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT DISPLACEMENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY LIVING IN THESE COMMUNITIES AND GENERATIONALLY HAVE ROOTS TO THAT COMMUNITY.

BUT WHAT I SEE BASICALLY IS THE POWERS THAT BE DOING THE SAME THING HAT THEY ID AT STATE AND THOMAS IN THE NORTH DALLAS AREA TO THE SOUTH ALLAS AREA AND FORCING PEOPLE OUT.

AND SOME OF THAT PROPERTY OVER THERE THEY TOOK IT EVEN UNDER EMINENT DOMAIN.

>> THAT'S NOT IN THIS PLAN.

THESE ARE ONLY SECURE --

>> [INAUDIBLE] OKAY, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND THIS IS ON THE REGULAR

[2) Approval of Lease Agreement with Garland Chamber of Commerce to Provide a Shared Benefit to the Garland Community]

AGENDA?

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> YEAH.

>> AND THEN THE NEXT THING IS ABOUT THE --

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> YEAH.

THAT'S ALSO ON THE REGULAR AGENDA, IS -- AND OUR GUEST, PAUL MAYER --?

>> CEO.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> THANK YOU --

>> AND WE HAVE IN THE REGULAR AGENDA APPROVED THE LEASE.

THIS IS ANOTHER -- JUST EXPIRED, WILL EXPIRE HERE TOMORROW, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE IT FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS, AND ALL HERE CAN TALK TO ALL THE GOOD THINGS THEY'VE DONE FOR THEIR IN-KIND CONTRIBUTION, WHAT THEY MAKE TO THE DISTRICT.

>> THIS IS THE SAME AGREEMENT, YOU'RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR EXTENSION?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> I KNOW -- WERE YOU HERE LAST TIME WHEN THEY RENEWED?

>> UH-HUH.

>> BECAUSE I KNOW MONICA AND DOROTHY -- DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> NO, IT SEEMS STRAIGHTFORWARD.

>> DO YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS?

>> YES.

AT THIS POINT KIND OF WONDERING FOR THE CONTINUED TO PROVIDE WORK FORCE TRAINING SERVICES IN GARLAND, YOU DO THE TRAINING?

>> AND I'M REAL SENSITIVE TO YOUR TIME, AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT OTHER FOLK COMING ON BEHIND ME, AND I KNOW THE CHAMBER FOLKS HAVE A REPUTATION OF TALKING.

BUT THE, THIS PARTNERSHIP WHICH STARTED, ACTUALLY, ABOUT 4 YEARS AGO WHEN RICHLAND CAME AND SAID, LOOK, WE WANT TO FOCUS ON THE MANUFACTURING COMMUNITY IN

[00:35:01]

GARLAND, THEY WERE IN ICH AROUNDSON WITH THE TECH COMMUNITY, THEY WANTED TO COME TO GARLAND.

SO WE STARTED WITH A LOAN EXECUTIVE THAT CAME TO OFFICE WITH US, PAID FOR BY THE COLLEGE, TO JOINTLY DEVELOP THAT MARKET.

JOINTLY.

RICHLAND, THE TRAINING PROVIDER; WE WERE THE ACCUMULATOR OF THOSE COMPANIES.

BECAUSE PRIOR TO 2006, 2009 WHEN WE STARTED THIS RELATIONSHIP, COMPANIES HAD TO GO ONE AT A TIME DOWN TO WORK FORCE BOARD AND A PLY FOR GRANTS.

APPLY FOR GRANTS.

THE IDEA THAT WE COULD FORM A CONSORTIUM, WHICH IS WHAT WE DID IN 2006, WE FORMED THE DALLAS COUNTY MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION WHICH IS WHOLLY OWNED BY THE CHAMBER TO AGGREGATE MANUFACTURING COMPANIES.

SO WE GREW FROM ABOUT FIVE OR SIX MANUFACTURING COMPANIES TO ABOUT 65.

S WHICH IS WHAT DROVE THE LITTLE LESS THAN $6 MILLION WORTH OF GRANTS OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THE WORK FORCE TRAINING COMES IN, IS THAT WE DO THE -- AND I GUESS BASIC TERMS, WE PROVIDE THE MARKETING.

THAT'S A RESULT OF THE MANUFACTURERS CONSORTIUM GRANTS AND THE CONTRACT TRAINING GRANTS THAT DIRECTLY ACCRUE FROM THIS RELATIONSHIP.

SO THAT'S, OVER TEN YEARS THAT'S ABOUT HALF MILLION IF DOLLARS A YEAR IN GRANTS.

IT'S ABOUT TEN TIMES THE VALUE OF WHAT THIS LEASE IS.

>> IS THIS THE ONLY COPY YOU HAVE OF THAT?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> WE'LL GET COPIES MADE.

>> IS AND -- AND I APOLOGIZE.

>> YOU CAN KEEP GOING.

SHE'LL MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE --

>> THAT'S THE BASELINE.

AND TO YOUR POINT, WHAT'S THE VALUE OF THIS WHOLE RELATIONSHIP.

IT GOES BACK TO PRIOR TO WHEN THE CENTER WAS BUILT.

IT WAS SUPPORT FOR THE BOND PROGRAM AND GETTING THE CENTER.

I'M AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPER.

THAT'S WHAT THE CHAMBERS DO, WE DEVELOP THE ECONOMY.

THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE, THE NUMBER ONE ISSUE IN DEVELOPING THE ECONOMY AN PEOPLE PERFORM THE JOBS, THE WORK FORCE.

SO WHEN WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE DISTRICT ON GETTING THAT CENTER BUILT AND PUTTING US THERE, IT ACCELERATED THAT WHOLE EFFORT TO GET PEOPLE SKILLED TO GO TO WORK.

AND THAT'S JUST ELEVATED.

OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS, IT'S BECOME MORE AND MORE OF AN IMPERATIVE.

SO WE USE THAT, THE ESULTS OF THE GRANTS AND THE RESULTS OF THE CORPORATE TRAINING AS A DIRECT INPUT.

BUT BEYOND THAT, WHAT WE DO EVERY DAY, DR. EGGLESTON AND HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TOGETHER THIS WEEK WITH.

YESTERDAY WE HAD OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PARTNERSHIP MEETING IN THAT BUILDING.

THAT'S THE CITY, THE CHAMBER, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE COLLEGE TO COME TOGETHER, AND THAT'S A ROUTINE.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING FOR TEN YEARS.

AND THAT RELATIONSHIP, SO THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE -- THROUGH THE LENS OF RICHLAND COLLEGE -- FRONT AND FOREMOST ANYTIME WE TALK ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

CERTAINLY, THE TRAINING IS WHERE MOST FOLKS FOCUS AT.

IT GOES DAY IN, DAY KNOCKOUT.

THIS MORNING WE WERE AT A GRADUATION CEREMONY, DR. EGGLESTON AND I AND MARK HAYES WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND GENERAL DYNAMICS, GRADUATING TWO OF THEIR APPRENTICESHIPS IN THEIR NC PROGRAM.

THAT'S ANOTHER SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS RELATIONSHIP WORKS.

BUT THE FUTURE, THAT'S ALL LOOKING BACK.

THAT'S ALL WHERE WE'VE BEEN.

THE GOING FORWARD, THE PROGRAMS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF IS PTECH WHICH RELIES ON INDUSTRY PARTNERS.

WE RECRUITED ALL THE INDUSTRY PARTNERS FOR THE SEVEN HIGH SCHOOLS THAT ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO GO FORWARD, THAT ALLOWS YOU TO PROVIDE THE COLLEGE EDUCATION FOR THOSE FOLKS.

THE NEWEST, MOST EXCITING PROGRAM IS A TOYOTA-BASED PROGRAM, BEEN AROUND FOR 30 YEARS, THAT WHERE THE LATEST CHAPTER, ADVANCED MANUFACTURING EDUCATION.

WE RECRUITED HE COMPANIES THAT WILL PRODUCE THE STUDENTS THAT WILL BE TRAINED AT RICHLAND COLLEGE.

AND, AGAIN, I'M A ROB SKIPPING ACROSS -- ROCK SKIPPING ACROSS WATER.

THERE'S A WHOLE LOT MORE WE DO EVERY DAY.

WE'RE HOUSED TOGETHER.

THERE ISN'T ANYTHING WE DON'T DO THAT WE DON'T COORDINATE.

IN CONTRIBUTING TO THE VIDEO BOARD THAT WAS THERE TO ALL OF OUR BOARD MEETINGS, ALL OF OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS, THEY ALL OCCUR IN THAT BUILDING.

SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT CEMENTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S WHAT THIS PARTNERSHIP'S ALL ABOUT.

WHAT THE QUESTION IS, DO YOU GET VALUE FOR THIS RELATIONSHIP.

AND THAT'S FROM THE IF ERY START THE FOLKS AT RICHLAND, IT WAS ABOUT INSTEAD OF EXCHANGING CHECKS, WE COULD PAY RENT AND

[00:40:02]

Y'ALL COULD PAY US FOR MARKETING SERVICE, THE CONCEPT WAS LET'S JUST DO THIS, AND YOUR LEGAL FOLKS HAVE MADE A VERY GREAT DOCUMENT WHICH CAUSES US TO PRODUCE -- AND RIGHTFULLY SO, BECAUSE WE'RE ALL ABOUT ACCOUNTABILITY -- A MONTHLY REPORT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR 20% OF MY TIME, 20% OF FULL-TIME STAFF MEMBERS.

AT A MINIMUM, THE VALUE OF THAT TIME THAT GOES INTO OFFSETTING WHAT WE WOULD BE PAYING IN RENT.

SO THE CHECKS AND THE BALANCE, BALANCE,S -- BALANCES, THE VALUE THAT WAS BUILT FROM THE START IS WITH BUILT INTO EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING HERE.

AND I'M PLEASED TO HAVE THIS COUNT, I KNOW -- AND TO YOUR POINT, MS. COMPTON, THE FOLKS WHO WEREN'T HERE WHEN WE DID THIS TEN YEARS AGO, SO IT'S GOOD.

AND, YOU KNOW, NUMBER ONE FEAR OF THE ORLD IS, WHAT, PUBLIC SPEAKING? MY NUMBER ONE FEAR IS I WON'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK IN PUBLIC.

[LAUGHTER] SO I APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE YOU AND EXPLAIN WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING IN THIS RELATIONSHIP.

SO, AND YOU'VE BEEN THERE.

YOU SEE WHAT WE DO AT THE CAMPUS.

THE STUDENT, WHILE WE WEREOK AT- HAVING THIS GRADUATION CEREMONY, ANDERSEN WINDOWS WAS HAVING A FULL TRAINING CLASS IN THE SAME BUILDING AT THE SAME TIME.

SO IT GOES ON EVERY DAY ALL DAY LONG.

THAT'S ABOUT AS QUICK AS I CAN DO IT.

>> THAT'S GOOD.

[LAUGHTER]

>> WELL, BLESS YOUR HEART.

BLESS YOUR HEART.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THE RELATIONSHIP AND THANK RICHLAND FOR THE PARTNERSHIP AND ALL OF YOU.

>> THANK YOU.

[1) Approval of Resolution Nominating Trustee Wesley Jameson as a Candidate to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Dallas Central Appraisal District]

MR. CHAIR?

>> THE LAST ITEM WAS THE NOMINATION F -- RESOLUTION NOMINATING ONE OF THE CANDIDATES FOR SITTING ON THE BOARD.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT?

>> WELL, I'VE JUST GOT ONE QUESTION.

FOR 2020 IT'S GOING TO BE RE-ELECTION.

REAL CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR RE-ELECTION?

>> I THINK THEY GO HAND IN HAND.

>> YEAH, YEAH.

BECAUSE FIT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS OVER AGAIN.

>> THESE ARE ONE-YEAR TERMS.

>> TWO-YEAR.

>> I THINK T'S A THREE-YEAR TERM.

AND, HONESTLY, IT'S PROBABLY PUSHING UPHILL TO BE ELECTED SINCE MOST OF THE -- A LOT OF SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE THERE, SO GENERALLY THEY VOTE FOR SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

BUT I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY WE'RE AN IMPORTANT ENTITY IN THIS COMMUNITY, AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN REPRESENT ON THAT PREVIOUSLY.

IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE WERE REPRESENTED AS PART OF THAT.

>> THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD NOMINATION THAT I CAN REMEMBER IN A LONG TIME, MS. COMPTON.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE EVER HAD ANYBODY.

WE GET IT EVERY YEAR WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS.

WE GIVE IT THE BOARD THE HOT OF DOING IT RATH AEROTHAN THE ADMINISTRATION PERSON DOING THIS.

>> I DON'T THINK -- IS EVER REALLY ACTIVELY PURSUED, YOU KNOW? HAVING REPRESENTATION ON THAT BOARD.

I'VE KNOWN SOME PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD, AND DISD IS ALWAYS --

>> WHO VOTES FOR IT? IS IT THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS?

>> THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS VOTE.

WE GET ONE POSITION, BUT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND ALL THE ISDS THAT ARE SUBURBAN.

DALLAS GETS AN APPOINTED POSITION.

THAT'S WHERE YOU COME UP WITH -- [INAUDIBLE] SAME WITH HE CITY COUNCIL.

IF.

>> FIVE SEATS.

>> YEAH.

THERE'S THREE APPOINTED, ONE SUBURBAN CITY COUNCIL NOMINATION AND ONE SUBURBAN ISD.

>> I'VE AGREED TO BE HIS CAMPAIGN MANAGER AND PUSH HIS -- PUT THE SIGNS OUT FOR YOU.

>> WELL, WHEN THEY GAVE ME THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT THEY WANTED TO KNOW IF WE WOULD NOMINATE SOMEONE, I THOUGHT OF WESLEY, AND HE AGREED.

SO THANK YOU FOR AGREEING.

BUT NOW IT'S BASICALLY --

>> WELL, AND THERE'S REALLY NO CAMPAIGNING.

>> I GUESS NOT.

>> BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ELECTION.

IT'S JUST AMONGST THE SCHOOL TICKET.

>> WE'VE GOT FRIENDS IN LOW PLACES.

>> YOU CAN ALWAYS SENT CHOCOLATE ARE CHIP COOKIES.

>> THANK YOU, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

FROM MY STANDPOINT AS MUCH AS WE WORK WITH THEM, I'M GLAD TO SEE.

BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS ASK US WHY AREN'T YOU NOMINATING SOMEBODY.

AND THIS BOARD HAS DONE THAT THIS TIME.

I THINK IT'S GOOD.

>> PROPERTY VALUES? I TELL YOU WHAT --

[00:45:02]

[INAUDIBLE] Y'ALL STARTING HAVING THOSE HEARINGS AND PROTESTS AND STUFF.

[LAUGHTER]

>> JUST ONE QUESTION.

THE TAX RATE STUFF WASN'T IN THE FINANCIAL COMMITTEE? I WAS KIND OF WONDERING ABOUT THAT.

>> THE TAX RATE?

>> WE NEVER EVEN DISCUSSED THAT.

>> IT TALKS ABOUT THE HEARINGS.

>> WE ALREADY DISCUSSED THAT IN THE HEARINGS IN THE AUGUST MEETING.

>> NO, THIS IS THE NOTE SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE RATE --

>> OKAY, WHERE ARE YOU? WHERE ARE YOU?

>> WELL, IT'S ON PAGE 30 AND 35.

>> ON THE REGULAR BOARD GENDA?

>> YEAH, ON THE REGULAR BOARD AGENDA.

>> I'M LOOKING AT THE FINANCE STUFF.

IT'S 10 AND 11.

>> BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT THE EFFECTIVE RATE AND THEN THE ACTUALS AND WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR.

THAT WAS INFORMATION -- NOW, MY INFORMATION, I WENT BACK TO PULL OUT MY PAPERWORK FROM MY HOUSE, AND MY HOUSE IS SCHEDULED AT THE .124.

SO I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE EFFECTIVE RATE TURNED OUT TO BE.

>> WELL, THESE ARE JUST THE NOTES FROM THE MEETING.

>> YEAH, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED, WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED ALL OF THAT.

>> WELL, AS FAR AS FOR 7A1, IT TALKS ABOUT THE INTEREST RATE AT TWO CENTS --

>> ON THE REGULAR AGENDA?

>> YEAH.

>> PAGE 35?

>> YEAH.

SEE, IT WAS LEFT OUT OF --

>> WE DISCUSSED THAT AT LAST MONTH'S MEETING OR WAS IT THE JULY MEETING?

>> EFFECTIVE RATE?

>> ALL OF THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED ALREADY.

>> THE EFFECTIVE RATE?

>> HASN'T IT BEEN DISCUSSED?

>> IT WAS PRESENTED AT THE -- THOSE RATES ERE PRESENTED IN THE AUGUST MEETING WHEN YOU PROPOSE EFFECTIVE AND ROLLBACK RATES BECAUSE THEY'RE IN THE ADVERTISEMENTS THAT WE TURNED OUT.

>> BECAUSE AT THIS POINT I WAS WONDERING WHY THEY WEREN'T IN THE FINANCE, FINANCIAL END.

>> IT'S ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED.

>> WELL, BUT I THOUGHT SHE WAS ASKING, SAYING THAT IT WAS NOT MENTIONED, THAT DISCUSSION IN THE MEETING NOTES.

>> BECAUSE, REMEMBER, PHIL WAS MAKING, WAS TAKING THE STAND ON THAT, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

>> OKAY.

>> THAT WAS LAST MONTH, RIGHT?

>> THE ACTION WAS TAKEN AT THE MEETING, NOT HERE.

>> I WAS GOING TO BRING THAT THE UP, THAT THERE'S NO MENTION IN THESE NOTES ABOUT PHIL BRINGING UP GOING TO REDUCE THE TAX, AND I THOUGHT THE NOTES WERE SUPPOSED TO BE A REFLECTION OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED N THAT COMMITTEE MEETING.

AND THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT SHE WAS SAYING, WAS IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES THERE'S NO MENTION THAT WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OF WHAT'S IN THE NOTES -- [LAUGHTER] BECAUSE THAT QUESTION ALSO CAME UP FROM COMMUNICATION PHIL AND I HAD VIA E-MAIL WHERE I TOLD HIM AS THE NOTE AND MINUTE TAKER FOR THE CHAMBER BOARD, I JUST FOCUS ON ACTION ITEMS. I TYPICALLY DO NOT COLLECT DISCUSSION ITEMS UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING FOR AN SHUT FOLLOW-UP.

SO -- AN ABSOLUTE FOLLOW-UP.

SO I THINK IT'D BE GOOD IN A WORK SESSION FOR US TO DISCUSS THAT SO STAFF HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE WANT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY DIFFICULT IF YOU'RE GOING TO CAPTURE EVERY WORD.

IT'S JUST IMPOSSIBLE.

SO WE NEED TO DECIDE AS A BOARD WHAT WE WANT CAPTURED IN THE NOTES SO THAT THEN STAFF CAN DO THAT.

>> WHEN WE FORM THESE --

>> I KNOW DEFINITELY THEY HAVE TO CAPTURE ACTION.

>> WHEN WE FORM THESE COMMITTEES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DISCUSSED WAS THESE WOULD BE NOTES AND NOT MINUTES TOO.

I'D HAVE TO ASK MY LEGAL PERSON TO DEFINE THE DIFFERENCE, BUT WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THESE WERE NOTES AND NOT MINUTES OF THE MEETING.

IS THAT CORRECT?

>> WELL, THAT'S CORRECT.

BUT -- OH, SORRY.

>> WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT ERBATIM OR ANYTHING --

>> NO, I UNDERSTAND.

>> JUST --

>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO DISCUSS THAT SO THAT THEN STAFF KNOWS KIND OF WHAT WE WANT VERSUS THEM TRYING TO UESS WHAT WE WANT.

>> YEAH.

>> AND IT'S COME UP BOTH WAYS SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, YOU KNOW, COMPLAINTS ABOUT TRYING TO GET P TOO MUCH IN AND IT STILL NOT REFLECTING THE INTENT AS WELL AS NOT ENOUGH.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY A BALANCE.

>> AND REALLY THE STANDARD IS IT IS NOT A VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTION OF WHAT WAS SAID IN THE MEETINGS, IT'S A SUMMARY OF WHAT WAS SAID.

AND THE FOCUS SHOULD BE ON DO THE MINUTES OR THE NOTES FAIRLY AND ACCURATELY REFLECT THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WERE HAD DURING THE MEETING MANY A SUMMARY SENSE.

SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THOUGH.

THERE'S PROBABLY SOME DISCUSSION WE SHOULD HAVE ABOUT WHAT WE SHOULD CAPTURE OR NOT.

[00:50:02]

THE BOARD WILL BE MOVING --

>> NO, I'M SORRY, WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT AFTER THE EDUCATION AND WORK FORCE COMMITTEE --

>> OKAY --

>> WE FLOW MORE SMOOTHLY.

>> OKAY.

IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS OR

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.