Jun 18, 2025 SPECIAL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

[00:00:03]

OKAY. WELCOME EVERYBODY. WE ARE NOW DOING OUR STUDY SESSION DISCUSSION REGARDING THE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL

[1. Board of Supervisors - Discussion regarding the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System (PSPRS). ]

GOT A LITTLE LATE ON THE GO. BUT ANYWAY, WE'RE HERE NOW, AND WE'RE READY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHAIR MALLORY. MAURY THOMPSON, COUNTY MANAGER.

I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO MR. PARTRIDGE WITH PSPRS AND HE'S GOT A PRESENTATION TO WALK YOU THROUGH TODAY AND THEN IS OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. A LITTLE BIT OF JUST VERY BRIEF BACKGROUND WHY I'VE ASKED FOR THIS STUDY SESSION AND ASK MR. PARTRIDGE TO SHARE INFORMATION IS MY RECOLLECTION OF WORKING WITH THE PRIOR BOARD AND NOW WITH THIS BOARD.

THERE'S CONTINUED TO BE QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW PSPRS IS MANAGING THE RESOURCES, INVESTMENT HISTORY.

WHAT'S THE LATEST WITH THEM? AND THOUGHT TIME TO HAVE THEM COME IN AND JUST GIVE US A CURRENT OVERVIEW OF THE STATUS OF THE SYSTEM AND LOOK AT OUR POSITION IN PARTICULAR AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MIGHT HAVE.

SO WITH THAT, I'D TURN IT OVER TO MR. PARTRIDGE.

CLARK. THANK YOU. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU HERE TODAY.

AND I APPRECIATE MR. THOMPSON FOR COORDINATING THIS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME. I'VE BEEN WITH PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR ALMOST FIVE YEARS NOW.

AND ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL THING THAT I DO IS WORK WITH EMPLOYERS IN OUR SYSTEMS TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ACTUARIAL VALUATIONS. BE ABLE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND STRATEGIZE ON HOW TO MANAGE THOSE RETIREMENT PLANS, AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO LOOK ALSO FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THEIR UNFUNDED LIABILITIES TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE ONE, AS WELL AS JUST ONGOING LONG TERM MANAGEMENT OF THEIR PENSION PLANS.

SO THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD SAY, IF YOU ADVANCE TO THE NEXT SLIDE IS THAT YOU'RE DOING ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO IN MANAGING YOUR PENSION LIABILITY TODAY BY HAVING A PERIODIC DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION, JUST LIKE MR. THOMPSON HAD TALKED ABOUT. BECAUSE IF IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE'VE HAD THESE CONVERSATIONS, YOU JUST WANT TO KEEP THEM FRESH SO THAT YOU'RE FULLY AWARE OF YOUR STATUS.

AND WHAT ARE THE THINGS THAT ARE INFLUENCING YOUR PENSION OBLIGATIONS, AND THAT YOU CAN APPROPRIATELY THEN DETERMINE A COURSE OF ACTION THAT'S APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR OR A GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION, BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO WORK FOR YOU, WHATEVER YOU DO.

BUT WE'LL START WITH THIS PENSION FUNDING EQUATION.

JUST THIS IS VERY BASIC, BUT WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM, IT COMES FROM CONTRIBUTIONS AND INVESTMENT RETURNS.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY SOURCES OF MONEY. AND WHERE IT GOES, IT GOES FOR BENEFITS.

AND THEN THE SHARED EXPENSES IN MANAGING THE PENSION PLANS.

BY FAR THE BIGGEST NUMBER IN THIS EQUATION ARE THE BENEFITS.

SO THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. BUT THE THE MONEY FOR THOSE BENEFITS REALLY COMES PRINCIPALLY FROM THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, BUT ALSO THE INVESTMENT RETURNS. NOW A BIG FACTOR IS, IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE FEWER ASSETS, THERE'S LESS INVESTMENT RETURNS ON THOSE ASSETS.

SO IF THERE'S LESS INVESTMENT RETURNS, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE THAT UP THROUGH ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS.

OKAY. AND WE'LL CHAT ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE CONCEPTS.

NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A GOOD SLIDE THAT HELPS UNDERSTAND THE VARIOUS CONCEPTS AND AND ELEMENTS THAT IMPACT YOUR PENSION LIABILITY WHEN AN ACTUARY COMES IN TO DO THEIR ACTUARIAL EVALUATION. OF COURSE THEY HAVE A VARIETY OF ASSUMPTIONS AND ESTIMATES AND THINGS THAT THEY USE, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE SOME ACTUAL DATA. THEY GET A LIST OF ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN THE IN THE PENSION PLAN. THEY KNOW HOW LONG THEY'VE WORKED THERE.

THEY KNOW THEIR BIRTHDATES. THEY KNOW THEIR SALARY INFORMATION.

[00:05:02]

AND THEY WILL TAKE ALL OF THIS DATA AND THEY WILL PROJECT OUT WHAT ARE ALL THE ESTIMATED CASH PAYMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE MADE IN THE FUTURE FOR PENSION LIABILITY PAYMENTS.

THEY WILL THEN DISCOUNT THAT FUTURE CASH FLOW TO A PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS, AND THEY DISCOUNT IT AT THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN, WHICH CURRENTLY IS 7.2%. SO ALL OF THAT FUTURE CASH FLOW IS DISCOUNTED TO A PRESENT VALUE AT 7.2%.

NOW, OF THAT PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS, IT'S BROKEN DOWN INTO ESSENTIALLY TWO PIECES.

THERE'S THE AMOUNT THAT'S GOING TO BE EARNED IN THE FUTURE.

THIS VALUE, MOST RECENT VALUATION WAS DONE AS OF JUNE 30TH OF 24.

SO IT WOULD BE BROKEN DOWN INTO THE LIABILITY THAT'S BEEN EARNED AS OF THAT DATE FOR UP FOR PAST EARNINGS OF EMPLOYEES. AND HOW MUCH IS GOING TO BE EARNED BY THOSE SAME EMPLOYEES IN THE FUTURE, AS WELL AS POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL ESTIMATES GOING FORWARD.

SO THERE'S THE FUTURE COSTS, WHICH ARE THE NORMAL COST CONTRIBUTIONS TAKE CARE OF THAT.

AND THE ACTUAL ACCRUED LIABILITY IS AN ESTIMATE OF NOT ONLY WHAT THE ESTIMATED LIABILITY IS THAT'S BEEN EARNED AS OF THAT DATE, BUT THAT'S ALSO HOW MUCH IN ASSETS. THE ASSET THE ACTUARIES WOULD EXPECT YOU TO HAVE IF YOU ARE FULLY FUNDED AT 100%. AT THAT POINT IN TIME. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOUR ASSETS ARE LESS THAN THAT ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE AN UNFUNDED.

ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY THAT NEEDS TO BE FUNDED.

AND SO THE ACTUARIES DEVELOP AN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION TO MAKE UP FOR THAT.

OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SLIDE. MR. THOMPSON HAD ASKED FOR A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT HOW WE WHAT ARE SOME FACT PRINCIPAL FACTORS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW OVERALL IN THE PSP AND CORP PLANS. SO THIS IS A HISTORY, IF YOU WILL, GOING BACK.

OF THE FUNDED STATUS OF THE PSP, THE THE THE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS RETIREMENT PLAN, AND ALSO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT PLAN.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE FUNDED STATUS STARTED BACK IN ABOUT AROUND THE 80% FUNDED LEVEL, AND IT GREW TO BEING WELL IN EXCESS OF 100%. AND THEN IT STARTED TO FALL SIGNIFICANTLY.

AND THEN MORE RECENTLY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT'S IMPROVED AGAIN.

SO WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IMPACTING THAT.

SO THE FIRST THING THAT IMPACTED THIS PRECIPITOUS FALL WAS A COMBINATION OF THE VOLATILITY INVESTMENT RETURNS AND THE PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE. SO NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS THE INVESTMENT RETURNS.

AND I'VE TAKEN. AND THEY GO BACK TO IN THE 80S HERE.

AND YOU CAN SEE WITH THOSE INVESTMENT RETURNS THAT THEY WERE FAIRLY SMOOTH UP UNTIL THE LATE 90S.

AND THEN YOU STARTED TO HAVE A LOT OF VOLATILITY WITH INVESTMENT RETURNS MUCH HIGHER AND THEN ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER AS IT CORRECTED.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ONE WITH THE MOST VOLATILITY IS THE ONE YEAR INVESTMENT RETURN.

AND THEN I ALSO HAVE SOME AVERAGES THAT YOU CAN SEE OVER TIME.

BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO SHOW IS FIRST OF ALL, THE VOLATILITY THAT STARTED TO HAPPEN WITH THE DOTCOM BUBBLES AND SOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT FLUCTUATIONS THAT ARE OCCURRING IN INVESTMENT RETURNS, BUT ALSO THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL SLOPE OF THE LONG TERM AVERAGES OF THESE LINES, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE OVER SINCE THE 80S, THE INVESTMENT RETURNS HAVE BEEN ON A SLIGHTLY DOWNWARD TREND OVER TIME. SO INVESTMENT RETURNS RIGHT NOW ARE NOT AS HIGH ON AVERAGE AS THEY WERE BEFORE.

[00:10:08]

WHY WOULD THAT BE. WELL, IF YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT INVESTMENT RATES ARE VERSUS WHAT YOU HAVE PAID IN DEBT, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A MORTGAGE OR OTHER TYPES OF THINGS, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT INTEREST RATES IN GENERAL ARE LOWER NOW THAN THEY WERE BACK IN THE 80S.

AND SO BECAUSE PEOPLE PAY LESS FROM A DEBT PERSPECTIVE AND THINGS THAT DEBT.

THOSE DEBT PAYMENTS ARE LOWER. BUT ALSO INVESTMENT RETURNS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER BECAUSE INFLATION IS ALSO GENERALLY LOWER.

NOW WE'VE HAD AN UPTICK IN INFLATION MORE RECENTLY.

WE'LL SEE IF THAT'S SUSTAINED OR NOT. THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACTUALLY MET TODAY.

AND THEY DECIDED TO KEEP THEIR INTEREST RATES THE SAME.

AND THEN THEY WOULD BE ON A WATCH TO SEE WHETHER THEY SHOULD LOWER THEM GOING FORWARD.

AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN IN INCREASING THEM, WHICH IS A GOOD SIGN, RIGHT.

SO THE EXTENT THAT WE HAVE SOME STABILITY, ALBEIT A LITTLE BIT HIGHER INTEREST RATES THAN WHAT WE HISTORICALLY HAVE BEEN OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, THEY'VE STILL BEEN RELATIVELY STABLE. NEXT SLIDE.

I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE JUST ONE DATA ELEMENT HERE.

AND THAT IS A A FLAT LINE AT 9%. THAT FLAT LINE AT 9%.

ESSENTIALLY IS THERE TO DEMONSTRATE THE IMPACT OF THE PBI.

SO THE PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE IS SOMETHING THAT HAD BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME WITH PSP.

BUT AND WHAT IT WAS IS THAT ESSENTIALLY IT TOOK HALF OF ALL THE RETURNS, INVESTMENT RETURNS ABOVE 9% AND PAID THEM OUT AS A PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE.

THAT PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE THAT WAS CALCULATED WAS ESSENTIALLY DIVIDED EQUALLY AMONGST ALL OF THE RETIRED MEMBERS.

AND THEY WOULD GET THAT PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE.

THAT WASN'T SUCH A BIG DEAL BACK IN THE 80S AND 90S HERE.

BUT WITH THE.COM BUBBLE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A HUGE SPIKE IN INVESTMENT RETURNS ABOVE 20% IN THE LATE 90S. WELL, WHEN YOU GIVE HALF OF EVERYTHING ABOVE, IF YOU HAVE A 21% RETURN AND YOU GIVE HALF OF EVERYTHING ABOVE 9% OUT, PAY THAT OUT AS A PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE.

THAT DIFFERENCE IS ABOUT 12%. SO 6% OF THE THOSE INVESTMENT RETURNS GETS PAID OUT AS A PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE. THAT INCREASES THE LIABILITIES. AND IT ALSO TAKES AWAY SOME OF THOSE ASSETS, THOSE EARNINGS THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THOSE LIABILITIES OKAY.

SO THEN WHEN YOU SEE THE INVESTMENTS TANK AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS HERE AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY WERE NEGATIVE. WELL, YOU DON'T GET TO ADJUST FOR HALF OF THAT EXCESS OR DIFFERENCE FROM THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN, OR 9%. YOU GET TO HAVE 100% OF THOSE LOSSES.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WHILE THE AVERAGE INVESTMENT RETURNS WERE STILL AT OR AROUND THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN OF 8 OR 7.5% AS IT WAS DECREASED SLIGHTLY THROUGH TIME HERE, THE TAKING HALF OF THOSE INVESTMENT RETURNS ABOVE 9% AND PAYING THEM OUT AS ADDITIONAL BENEFITS WAS REALLY CAUSING AN INCREASED LIABILITY THAT WAS NOT ANTICIPATED.

AND IT WASN'T ANTICIPATED BECAUSE WHEN THE ACTUARIES COME IN, THEY LOOK AT WHAT'S PROJECTED REJECTED.

AND THEY WHAT? WHAT'S THE ESTIMATED INVESTMENT RETURN? IT WAS EITHER 8% OR 7.5% OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEY WEREN'T PROJECTING SOMETHING IN EXCESS OF 9%.

SO THERE WAS NOTHING THAT THEY WERE ESTIMATING THAT WOULD BE TRIGGERING THESE INVESTMENT, THIS, THESE PBI PAYMENTS OUT THE DOOR. AND SO IT'S NOT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY SHOW UP THAT THEY HAPPEN.

[00:15:04]

THEY CAN'T PROJECT THOSE. AND SO THERE WASN'T A MECHANISM TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE THIS COMBINATION OF PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASES WITH THIS WILD VOLATILITY AND INVESTMENT RETURNS.

AND YOU CAN SEE OVER THIS PERIOD OF TIME THAT HAPPENED OVER THE LATE 90S AND INTO THE 2000.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT BECAME A PROBLEM. SO NEXT SLIDE.

THIS IS AGAIN COMING BACK TO THAT SLIDE ON THE FUNDED STATUS.

AND YOU COULD SEE THAT DURING THIS PERIOD OF TIME THAT THE FUNDED STATUS LEVELED OFF.

AND THEN IT STARTED DROPPING SIGNIFICANTLY. WHERE YOU SEE IT LEVELING OUT A LITTLE BIT HERE IS, IS WHEN THE LEGISLATURE STARTED TO TAKE AN ATTEMPT IN, BACK IN 2011 TO CHANGE THE BENEFITS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM. BUT AND YOU CAN SEE THE LEVEL THINGS OUT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT THE COURTS CAME IN AND DETERMINED THAT THE BENEFITS WERE CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED.

AND WHILE THE LEGISLATURE COULD CHANGE THE BENEFITS PROSPECTIVELY FOR FUTURE HIRES, THEY COULDN'T CHANGE THOSE FOR PEOPLE THAT WERE ALREADY HIRED AND IN THE SYSTEM. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT SLOWED EVEN THE DECLINE, BUT IT STILL PUT THE SYSTEM INTO DECLINE.

THE OTHER THING WAS THAT THE SYSTEM HAD TO PAY OUT IN, IN AND GIVE CREDITS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE MONEY BACK FOR SOME OF THE MONEYS THAT THE ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED IN CONNECTION WITH THAT FIRST ATTEMPT AT PENSION REFORM.

SO THAT ALSO THEN BUMPED SOME OF THOSE LIABILITIES BACK UP HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED BY THE ACTUARIES.

AND THEN THEY THERE HAD TO BE ANOTHER COURSE OF ACTION TAKEN, WHICH OF COURSE WAS WITH THE VOTES THAT WAS WERE TAKEN IN PENSION REFORMS. AND THOSE VOTES WITH PENSION REFORMS ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATED THE PERMANENT BENEFIT INCREASE.

REPLACED IT WITH A COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT IS CAPPED AT NO MORE THAN 2% PER YEAR.

AND THAT REALLY WAS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT THING THAT CHANGED AND STOPPED THIS DOWNWARD SPIRAL IN THE FUNDED STATUS. OKAY. SO NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS IS JUST OUR PENSION FUNDING EQUATION. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE IMPACT OF WHAT STARTED HAPPENING WITH PBI IS IT TOOK SOME OF THAT MONEY FROM INVESTMENT RETURNS AND NOT ONLY TOOK IT AWAY OVER HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE EQUATION, BUT IT ALSO INCREASED THE BENEFITS OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

SO THAT KIND OF HAS A DOUBLE WHAMMY. YOU'RE TAKING SOME OF THE DOLLARS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AVAILABLE ON THE LEFT SIDE, AND YOU'RE ACTUALLY INCREASING THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE EQUATION.

SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE CAUSING THERE TO BE AN INCREASE TO THE CONTRIBUTIONS.

OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. SO JUST COMING BACK TO THIS EQUATION IF WHERE FOR A LONG TIME THE ASSETS WERE THEY WERE ACTUALLY ABOVE THE ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY.

THEY WERE FUNDED UP TO ABOUT 140%. BUT THEN THEY STARTED DROPPING SIGNIFICANTLY.

NOW, KEEP IN MIND THAT WHILE THE ACTUARIES COME IN AND THEY PRE PROJECT A CONTRIBUTION FOR THE FUTURE NORMAL COSTS UNTIL THERE IS AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY, THE ACTUARIES AREN'T ADJUSTING AND CREATING AN ADDITIONAL CONTRIBUTION RATE. OKAY, SO FOR A LONG TIME, WHILE THE ASSETS WERE FALLING FROM 140% FUNDED DOWN TO 100% FUNDED, AND IT HAPPENED RELATIVELY QUICKLY, THE ONLY THING THE ACTUARIES ARE PROJECTING ARE THE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THOSE FUTURE NORMAL COSTS. AND THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, IF THEY'RE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT ARE CALCULATED IN THE JUNE 30TH, 24 ACTUARIAL VALUATION ARE FOR FISCAL YEAR 26, WHICH

[00:20:07]

IN THE FIRST TIME, THE ACTUARIES START TO CALCULATE THAT THERE IS AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY.

THEY THEN THAT CALCULATE THAT UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY.

THEY WILL AMORTIZE THAT OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS.

AND THEN THEY WILL START COLLECTING A PART OF THAT, THAT CONTRIBUTION RATE TO BE ABLE TO HELP OFFSET THAT LIABILITY.

BUT IN THE MEANTIME THAT LIABILITY IS FALLING IS GROWING.

AND THE UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS GROWING FASTER THAN WHAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS ARE COMING IN TO OFFSET IN A SIGNIFICANT WAY. AND THAT'S BY DESIGN, BECAUSE IF THERE'S AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY, IF THE ACTUARIES SAY WE'RE GOING TO COLLECT THAT ALL NEXT YEAR, YOUR CONTRIBUTION RATES WILL BECOME VERY VOLATILE AS THAT EBBS AND FLOWS WITH WITH SOME OF THE VOLATILITY AND INTEREST RATES, BUT ALSO SOME OF THE VOLATILITY THAT CAN HAPPEN IN OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN, SUCH AS IF YOU GIVE AN INCREASE IN IN SALARIES AND PENSIONABLE SALARIES INCREASE MORE THAN WHAT THE ACTUARIES ASSUMED.

WELL, THE ACTUARIES KIND OF SPREAD THAT OUT AND SMOOTHED THAT OUT OVER TIME.

OTHERWISE, ALL OF THAT IMPACT COULD COME AND HIT YOUR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

AND WHEN THAT COMES INTO YOUR YOUR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET PLANNING, THAT COULD INCREASE YOUR CONTRIBUTION RATE SIGNIFICANTLY FROM YEAR TO YEAR.

SO TO DATE, WE SMOOTH A LOT OF THOSE THINGS OUT.

THE GAINS AND LOSSES FROM INVESTMENT RETURNS.

THE ALSO WE ALLOCATE THE AND AMORTIZE THE ASSETS OVER A 15 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME.

SO THAT SMOOTHS THOSE THINGS OUT. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS HUGE VOLATILE IMPACT ON YOUR BUDGET.

BUT THERE IS STILL A LONG TERM DIRECTIONALLY CORRECT VIEW THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO MARCH TOWARDS TO ADDRESS THESE LONG TERM ONGOING PROBLEMS AND ISSUES.

NEXT SLIDE. SO THIS SLIDE IS ONE THAT WILL KIND OF IDENTIFIES THE CHANGES FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT. WHAT THOSE CHANGES ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ONES.

AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE IS KIND OF LUMPED INTO THE OTHER CATEGORY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IF YOU LOOK AT THE FUNDED STATUS AND THIS IS FOR THE SHERIFF'S PLAN, THIS FROM 23 TO 24, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT INDIVIDUAL THINGS WERE THAT THERE WERE SOME LIABILITIES THAT INCREASED DUE TO SALARY INCREASES HIGHER THAN WHAT THE ACTUARIES WERE ASSUMING, AND THAT HAD THE IMPACT OF OFFSETTING THE PROGRESS THAT YOU WOULD OTHERWISE MAKE IN YOUR FUNDED STATUS BY 1%.

OKAY, SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT OVERALL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT'S AN A HEADWIND THAT THAT WAS CREATED BY GIVING HAVING SOME OF THOSE PENSIONABLE SALARIES HIGHER THAN WHAT THE ACTUARIES ASSUMED.

NOW IT COULD BE IN SALARY INCREASES THAT YOU GET THAT CAME INTO BEING.

BUT AFTER BETWEEN JUNE 30TH OF 23 AND JUNE 30TH OF 24, IT COULD ALSO BE OVERTIME THAT IS WORKED.

THAT IS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS THE ACTUARIES WERE EXPECTING.

BECAUSE THE ACTUARIES LOOK AT PENSIONABLE SALARY, THEY DON'T LOOK AT WHAT A PERSON'S UNDERLYING SALARY OR WAGES ARE.

THEY DON'T LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE THINGS. THEY JUST LOOK AT, WELL, WHAT'S THE CHANGE IN PENSIONABLE SALARY FROM ONE TO THE OTHER, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT LONG TERM IS GOING TO DRIVE THINGS, BECAUSE THEY'RE AN EMPLOYEE'S BENEFIT IS CALCULATED BASED UPON THEIR PENSIONABLE SALARY, AND WHETHER THAT COMES FROM OVERTIME OR WHETHER IT COMES FROM INCREASES TO THEIR BASE SALARY.

IT DOESN'T MATTER, BECAUSE WHAT THE ACTUARIES ARE TRYING TO CALCULATE IS THAT FUTURE CASH FLOW OF BENEFITS THAT'S GOING TO GO ON INTO THE FUTURE. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY, WHAT IS OUR PROJECTION OF THE FUTURE PAYMENTS, AND WHAT IS THE HISTORY, AND HOW DO WE USE ALL OF THAT TO PROJECT THAT CASH FLOW OF BENEFITS?

[00:25:01]

AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTIVE THAT YOU HIRED FROM THE OUTSIDE.

AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO PEOPLE WHO TRANSFERRED FROM ANOTHER OR A PORTION THAT'S ALSO PARTICIPATES IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT PLAN. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A SEPARATE SECTION FOR THOSE THAT THAT TRANSFERRED FROM ONE EMPLOYER TO ANOTHER WITHIN THE PLAN.

BUT YOU CAN SEE MOST OF THIS LIABILITY CAME FROM THAT INCREASE IN PENSIONABLE SALARY IN THAT ACTIVE CATEGORY.

UP ON TOP. NEXT SLIDE. NOW THIS IS JUST A LOT OF DETAIL.

AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO REALLY SEE A LOT IN ON THE LEFT.

SO I EXTRACTED SOME OF THAT INFORMATION WHEN THE ACTUARIES LOOK AT THEIR ESTIMATES FOR WHAT THEY PLAN IN AND EXPECT IN IN SALARY INCREASES, THEY DO IT BASED UPON AGE AND ALSO LOCATION.

SO THEY BREAK DOWN. MARICOPA POLICE, MARICOPA FIRE AND PIMA POLICE AND PIMA FIRE SEPARATE FROM OTHER EMPLOYERS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF LARGE EMPLOYERS THAT CAN IMPACT THAT THOSE THOSE RATES IN THOSE LOCATIONS IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS QUITE HEAVILY. AND THEN THEY ALSO ARE BASED IN THE BIGGER DIFFERENCE, POTENTIALLY.

AND THE RATES ARE REALLY BASED UPON AGE. WHEN SOMEBODY COMES IN, FIRST OF ALL, THEIR SALARY IS TYPICALLY LOWER WHEN THEY'RE YOUNGER AND IT GETS HIGHER AS THEY GO THROUGHOUT THEIR CAREER.

AND THAT IS ALSO THAT SOMEBODY GET TYPICALLY PROMOTES FASTER WHEN THEY'RE EARLIER IN THEIR CAREER, RATHER THAN WHEN THEY'RE A MORE SEASONED EMPLOYEE WITH WITH LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT INTERNALLY.

AND ALSO THOSE INCREASES ARE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF THEIR LOWER PAY.

SO THOSE RATE INCREASES ARE GOING TO BE EXPECTED TO BE A HIGHER PERCENTAGE FOR YOUNGER EMPLOYEES THAN THEY ARE FOR OLDER EMPLOYEES. OKAY. NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS A SLIDE THAT REALLY SHOWS, AGAIN, THE SHERIFF'S PLAN AND THE LIABILITIES.

YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS IS ESTIMATED TO BE AS OF JUNE 30TH 20, FOR ABOUT $101 MILLION OR SO, A LITTLE ABOVE THAT AND YOU CAN SEE THE ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, WHICH IS THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN EARNED AS OF JUNE 30TH, 24, WAS $94.7 MILLION.

OKAY. AND SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT IS THE AMOUNT THAT IS EXPECTED FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT YOU HAVE AS OF JUNE 30TH, 24. HOW MUCH ARE THEY GOING TO EARN IN THE FUTURE BEFORE THEY RETIRE BETWEEN.

AND SO THAT'S THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT 94.7 AND THE $101 MILLION.

OKAY. SO THE 94.7 IS THE AMOUNT THAT YOU WOULD BE EXPECTED TO HAVE AS OF THAT DATE IF YOU WERE 100% FUNDED, BECAUSE YOU TAKE THE ASSETS, THE UNDERLYING ACTUARIAL VALUE OF ASSETS AND DIVIDE THAT BY THE, THE, LIABILITY. IF THE ASSETS ARE GREATER THAN THE ACTUAL ACCRUED LIABILITY, THEN IT WOULD BE 100% OR MORE FUNDED. IF THEY'RE LESS, THEN THEY'RE GOING THAT ACTUARIAL ACCRUED OR ARE THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION AND THE YOUR FUNDED STATUS WOULD BE LESS THAN 100%. SO YOU'RE AT 69.6%. SO ALMOST 70% FUNDED FOR THE SHERIFF PLAN.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THE AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE THE PRESENT VALUE OF BENEFITS, THAT ULTIMATE ESTIMATED LIABILITY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THAT, BUT YOU'RE ONLY EXPECTED OR WOULD BE ESTIMATED TO HAVE THE ASSETS ON HAND TO PAY FOR THE ACTUARIAL ACCRUED

[00:30:04]

AND THOSE FUTURE CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD BE WHAT ARE EXPECTED TO BE USED TO PAY FOR THAT PORTION OF THE LIABILITY THAT'S GOING TO BE INCURRED GOING FORWARD. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE SO FAR? BUT YEAH.

SO ONE OF THE THE NEXT SLIDE, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT UNFUNDED ACTUARIAL ACCRUED LIABILITY AND A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL.

SO ON THE NEXT SLIDE OH EXCUSE ME. I WAS YES.

OH YEAH. SORRY. I DON'T THINK IT WAS I COULDN'T HEAR YOU I'M SORRY.

NO THAT'S OKAY. I DON'T I PROBABLY DIDN'T SPEAK UP ENOUGH.

SO DEFINITELY. IT IS A LOT OF INFORMATION AND CLEAR. WELL, WE'RE TRYING TO GRAB AHOLD OF EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN HERE.

BUT I GUESS WE'LL CONTINUE ON. I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

AND I DON'T KNOW SUPERVISOR KUKNYO. I KNOW YOU ALWAYS HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT.

DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE MOVE ON? WHY WERE YOUR INVESTMENTS SO STEADY UP UNTIL 2000? AND THEN I KNOW YOU HAD DOT COM BUBBLE AND YOU DOUBLED DOWN ON THE DOT COM BUBBLE.

LOST 30% OF THE FUND. DID YOUR INVESTMENT STRATEGY DRASTICALLY SHIFT WHICH GAVE YOU THE BIG HIGHS AND THE BIG LOWS? NO. IT REALLY IS A FUNDAMENTAL, YOU COULD LOOK AT ANY INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO OVER THAT SAME PERIOD OF TIME, AND YOU WOULD SEE A SIMILAR TYPE OF THING, BECAUSE THERE JUST WASN'T A LOT OF VOLATILITY IN INVESTMENTS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE STOCK MARKET HISTORICALLY, IT'S ALWAYS UP AND DOWN, BUT NOT TO THE NEAR THE VOLATILITY THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED.

WHO PUSHED FOR THE PBI? I'M SORRY. WHO PUSHED FOR THE PBI? WELL, THE PBI WAS SOMETHING I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED, BUT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WHEN THEY WERE LOOKING AT WHAT COMPENSATION DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE AS A BENEFIT PACKAGE AS PART OF THE RETIREMENT FOR AS PART OF THAT OVERALL COMPENSATION ON HOW WE TAKE CARE OF PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL IN THE ARIZONA.

THAT WAS JUST PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT HISTORICALLY.

I CAN'T REMEMBER I'VE I'VE HEARD A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I'VE HEARD THAT IT HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THE LATE 80S.

I ACTUALLY STARTED WITH THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN 89.

BUT SOMEBODY ALSO TOLD ME THAT THEY PUSHED FOR IT IN THE EARLY 90S.

SO IT WAS IN SOME PLACE IN THAT TIME FRAME. BUT AGAIN, IT'S EASY TO LOOK FROM A 2020 HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND SAY, OH, THAT WAS A DUMB IDEA. BUT AT THE TIME IT WASN'T A PROBLEM.

AND IF YOU LOOKED IN HISTORY, EVEN WHEN YOU LOOK BACK IN THE 60S AND 70S ON INVESTMENT RETURNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THE THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE THE VOLATILITY AND THE HUGE PROBLEMS THAT YOU HAD IN DEVIATION FROM YEAR TO YEAR THE WAY THAT WE HAVE NOW. AND I SEE THE EXPECTED RATE OF RETURN, YOU SAY IS AT 7.2 WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE FUND IS GOING OUT EVERY YEAR FOR BENEFITS? THE PBI IS ELIMINATED, SO IT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.

WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE FUND GOES OUT TO PAY THE RETIREES THAT ARE THERE NOW THAT ARE OUT THERE NOW? SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO YOU'RE EXPECTING 7.2 IS 5% GOING OUT FOR BENEFITS.

NO. WHAT WE, WHAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE CROSSING THE LINE WHERE THE CASH FLOW COMING IN.

IN. CONTRIBUTIONS AND INVESTMENT RETURNS IS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THE BENEFITS THAT ARE BEING PAID OUT, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I KNOW PRESCOTT PUT IN 68 OR, EXCUSE ME, $86 MILLION ADDITIONAL TRYING TO CATCH UP ON THEIR UNFUNDED.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE THE FUND IS DOING BETTER. BUT ARE THE INVESTMENTS DOING BETTER? SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH, THE EVENT AND I'LL GET TO THAT IN ANOTHER SLIDE.

OKAY. BUT THE ACTUARIAL RATE OF CALCULATED RATE OF RETURN AS WE AMORTIZE THE GAINS AND LOSSES OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, IS THAT 7.1% AND OUR ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN IS 7.2%. SO BASED UPON THE LAST SEVEN YEARS OF INVESTMENT RETURNS.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF UPS AND DOWNS, BUT THEY'RE BASICALLY ALMOST SPOT ON, AND IT'S ALMOST LIKE YOU COULDN'T HAVE ASKED TO BE

[00:35:10]

I'M NOT SURE IF IT WAS LINKED IN THE AGENDA OR NOT, BUT EITHER WAY I WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING A COPY OF IT.

THANK YOU. YES. AND AGAIN, WE CAN GO THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION.

I KNOW THAT YOU'VE GOT SOME TIME LIMITATIONS AND THINGS A LITTLE BIT, BUT AND WE CAN THEN TRY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TODAY.

BUT IF YOU HAVE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS WE CAN COME BACK AND HAVE THAT ONGOING DISCUSSION THAT WOULD BE A THAT'S A COMMON THING THAT WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS AS WELL, IS THAT WE HAVE THESE ONGOING DIALOGS AND DISCUSSIONS SO THAT WE CAN BOTH EXPAND YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW THINGS WORK AND GET YOU THE INFORMATION YOU NEED TO MAKE GOOD, INFORMED DECISIONS.

YEAH, I THINK THAT WILL PROBABLY BE VERY HELPFUL.

I MEAN, THIS IS KIND OF LIKE A STARTING POINT FOR ALL OF US.

AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL OF HOW THIS WORKS.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE GONE AHEAD.

AND WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? DONE LOANS, MADE A BOND TO PAY OFF THEIR DEBT TO YOU, TO THE ORGANIZATION, NOT TO YOU PERSONALLY, TO THIS RETIREMENT FUND.

BUT THEN AGAIN EVEN THOUGH THEY PAID IT OFF, IT SEEMS LIKE NOW THERE'S ANOTHER AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS OWED BESIDES THE REGULAR PAYMENT. AND AND FOR ME, I THINK THAT'S THE HARDEST PART FOR ME TO TRY TO MAKE SURE, YES, WE PAY IT OFF. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO END UP WITH MORE DEBT.

I JUST WANT TO KEEP PAYING OUR NORMAL PORTION TO KEEP THE RETIREMENT GOING.

AND I REALIZE WE DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IT'S JUST NERVE WRACKING AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WHEN YOU'RE A COUNTY, A CITY, A TOWN TRYING TO DO YOUR BUDGET AND THEN YOU DO HAVE THIS PARTICULAR DEBT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CONTROL OF, YOU DO NEED TO PAY INTO IT AND THE RETIREMENT.

BUT IT IS HARD ON US AS WE TRY TO MOVE FORWARD, KEEPING OUR BUDGETS IN ORDER AS WELL.

SO I THINK THAT IS A REALLY BIG CONCERN, AT LEAST FOR ME.

SO ANYWAY WE CAN CONTINUE ON, SIR. UNDERSTANDABLE.

AND YOU'RE RIGHT ON POINT WITH, WITH THOSE ELEMENTS AND THAT THOSE ARE A LOT OF THE SAME ASPECTS.

THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT YOU PROBABLY HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER THIS THAN THAN A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DO.

FOR EXAMPLE BECAUSE SOME OF THE BIGGEST FACTORS THAT IMPACT THE LIABILITIES ARE OBVIOUSLY THE HIRING OF, OF STAFF OVERTIME BEING WORKED BY STAFF AND SALARIES BEING PAID TO, TO THE STAFF.

AND THOSE ARE THE BIG THING FACTORS THAT REALLY INFLUENCE THAT EQUATION.

NOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF FACTORS THAT ARE BEYOND YOUR CONTROL.

THEY'RE BEYOND OUR CONTROL. THEY'RE BEYOND, YOU KNOW, REALLY ALMOST ANYBODY'S CONTROL.

BUT I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS.

AND I THINK I CAN SHARE SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITH YOU THAT I'VE GOT IN THE APPENDIX THAT CAN HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THOSE INVESTMENT SIDE A LITTLE BIT AND HELP YOU UNDERSTAND HOW HOW THAT'S BUILT. OKAY, SO THE NEXT SLIDE, IF WE COULD PICK HOW MUCH ARE YOU GUYS PAYING FOR ADVICE AND FEES FROM WALL STREET? YOU KNOW, MY INFORMATION IS OLD. I KNOW, ACERS WAS LIKE 350.

YOU GUYS WERE 120. THEN THEY DID SOME KIND OF ADJUSTMENT WHICH MADE IT LOOK LIKE 80 MILLION A YEAR.

WHERE IS IT REALLY AT RIGHT NOW FOR ADVICE AND FEES? YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. BUT WE DON'T.

WE DO WE DON'T DO ADVICE AND FEES ON, ON EVERYTHING THAT WE, WE PAY FOR THE EXPERTISE WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO, WHERE IT'S MORE EFFICIENT THAN HAVING A STAFF PERSON TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT.

SO THE PRIMARY STRATEGY IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A LOT OF THE INVESTMENT EXPERTISE IN-HOUSE WHEN IT MAKES SENSE TO DO SO, AND THEN TO RELY ON RELY ON OUTSIDE PERSONNEL WHEN NEEDED.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S OVERALL EXPERTS THAT ARE THAT ARE USED AS SOUNDING BOARDS ON THE OVERALL INVESTMENT STRATEGY.

AND IT LOOKS AND THERE'S IT LOOKS LIKE YOU GUYS DID SOME REAL RESTRUCTURING IN 2020.

DID YOU REALLY RESTRUCTURE THE BOARD AND THE INVESTMENT BOARD, OR IS THERE A CHANGE IN STRATEGY ON HOW WE DO IT? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF LIKE GOLF COURSES IN THERE, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT REAL ESTATE THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE.

[00:40:03]

I CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT. BECAUSE FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT IN THE INVESTMENT AREA.

SO A LOT OF THE INFORMATION, UNLESS IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE OF THAT INFORMATION THAN YOU WOULD.

BUT AS FAR AS WHAT I CAN TELL, SPEAK TO THE TIME FRAME OF GOING ON THERE.

SOME OF THOSE REAL ESTATE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THE DOT COM BUBBLE.

WE TALKED ABOUT REAL ESTATE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT BECAME MORE ATTRACTIVE FROM AN INVESTMENT PERSPECTIVE BECAUSE OF HOW THEY WERE PERFORMING. AND THEN, OF COURSE, WE HAD THE NOT ONLY THE.COM BUBBLE, BUT THEN WE HAD THE REAL ESTATE BUBBLE.

AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. AND ANYBODY HOLDING INVESTMENTS IN THOSE.

ASSET CLASSES HAD SIMILAR TYPES OF EXPERIENCE TO WHAT WE DID.

WE HAD A PARTICULAR PENSION. SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE TO HAVE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER CONCENTRATION IN SOME OF THOSE CATEGORIES. BUT INVESTMENTS JUST LIKE WITH, WITH TECH, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAD THE DOT COM BUBBLE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK, IF YOU INVESTED IN TECHNOLOGY OVERALL, YOU WOULD HAVE HAD HIGHS AND LOWS AS THAT TYPE OF INVESTMENT GOES THROUGH TIME. LATELY WE HAVE ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY BOOM, RIGHT, WITH A LOT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE ANTICIPATION AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS. SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON IN THE MARKET RIGHT NOW THAT ARE SIMILAR TO OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS DURING THE DOT COM BUBBLE. TIME WILL ONLY PROVE AS TO WHETHER SOME OF THOSE INVESTMENTS ARE REALLY, REALLY GREAT OR WHETHER THEY MAYBE HAD SOME ELEMENTS OF, OF OF SPECULATION IN THEM.

RIGHT NOW, IF YOU HAVEN'T INVESTED IN SOME OF THOSE TECHNOLOGY, YOU WOULD BE VIEWED AS PROBABLY MISSED.

THE THE TRAIN HAS ALREADY LEFT THE STATION ON, ON SOME OF THOSE INVESTMENTS.

ON THE OTHER HAND SO THE REAL ESTATE, FOR EXAMPLE SPECIFICALLY TO THAT REAL ESTATE PORTFOLIO, WE DID NOT SELL THE REAL ESTATE AND TAKE LOSSES ON THAT REAL ESTATE LIKE SOME OTHER PEOPLE DID.

WE WORKED THAT THOSE INVESTMENTS AND DIVESTED OF SOME OF THEM OVER TIME.

IT REALLY TOOK US UNTIL FAIRLY RECENTLY TO TRY TO WORK OFF ALL OF THOSE INVESTMENTS THAT WE HELD AT THAT POINT IN TIME AND HAD TAKEN A LOT OF MARK TO MARKET LOSSES ON. BUT ULTIMATELY, WE DIDN'T TAKE ACTUALLY REALIZED THOSE LOSSES.

WE ACTUALLY HELD A LOT OF THOSE THINGS AND SOLD THOSE INVESTMENTS OVER TIME AND ENDED UP NOT ACTUALLY INCURRING ANY OF THOSE INVESTMENTS. SO THAT'S HOW WE CHOSE TO DEAL WITH THOSE INVESTMENTS.

AND I THINK IT WAS A GOOD LONG TERM APPROACH.

AND IT'S ACTUALLY HAS BEEN VERY FAVORABLE. NOW, HAVING SAID THAT, WE'RE NOT AS HEAVILY INVESTED IN REAL ESTATE AS WHAT THEY WERE BACK IN THE EARLY 2000. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, I JUST WAS THINKING, YOU KNOW, JUST WHEN YOU'RE SPENDING 120 MILLION FOR ADVICE, THAT CONDUCTOR OF THAT TRAIN OUGHT TO BE GETTING YOU DOWN THE ROAD.

YOU KNOW IT. YOU WOULD JUST THINK THAT I JUST HAVE HAD BAD EXPERIENCES BEFORE LOOKING AT THIS, AND AND I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND BEING OPEN AND TRANSPARENT WITH US LIKE THIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S HARD QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED ON THIS BECAUSE WE OWE OUR GUYS A RETIREMENT.

IT'S CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED THAT WE GIVE THEM A RETIREMENT AND THEY DESERVE IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, BEING ON THE HOOK TO PAY FOR IT I WAS PART OF THE CITY OF PRESCOTT WHEN WE COULD NOT SUSTAIN ANYMORE.

SO I KNOW A LOT OF THINGS HAVE CHANGED, AND I HOPE THEY'RE CHANGING FOR THE BETTER.

THAT'S WHY I'M GLAD YOU'RE HERE. YEAH, AND AND TWO OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD POINT OUT IS, NUMBER ONE, THE INVESTMENT ADVISORS. WELL, THEY DON'T THEY THEY HAVE THEIR EXPECTATIONS FOR WHAT THEY THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND IT COULD BE VERY WELL INFORMED, CERTAINLY MUCH, MAYBE MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT? THAN MINE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL EITHER, SO THEY DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE MARKET'S GOING TO GO UP OR DOWN OR WHAT TYPES OF THINGS. SO THAT'S WHY THE BIGGEST THING THAT IS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

YOU MENTIONED WHAT HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO, THE COMPILATION OF HOW THE STRATEGIC ASSET ALLOCATION WAS BUILT WAS REVISITED FIVE YEARS AGO, AND IT'S REVISITED PERIODICALLY TO SEE IF THERE ARE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

[00:45:07]

OR COULD IT BE EVEN BEEN IN THIS LAST BOARD MEETING? BUT IT'S JUST BEEN FAIRLY RECENTLY WHEN THEY HAD THEIR INVESTMENT ADVISORS COME IN AND TALK ABOUT WHAT THEY'RE SEEING WITH THE MARKET.

SO THEY HAVE MULTIPLE ADVISORS WHO ARE COMING IN AND OFFERING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES ON THE MARKET AND WHAT THEY'RE EXPECTING TO HAPPEN, GIVEN THE CHANGES THAT ARE OCCURRING IN THE MARKET GOING FORWARD.

OBVIOUSLY WHEN THE MARKET GAINS A LOT THE WAY THAT IT HAS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS.

WHAT'S THE MOST LIKELY THING FOR THE MARKET TO DO? PROBABLY GO DOWN IT BECAUSE IT CAN'T SUSTAIN THOSE YEAR OVER YEAR OVER YEAR INCREASES THAT ARE HIGHER THAN WHAT THE OVERALL ECONOMIC GROWTH IS. OKAY. SO WHAT DO THEY ANTICIPATE? THEY ANTICIPATE RETURNS MAYBE BEING SLIGHTLY LOWER OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS OR SO THAN WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN OVER THE PREVIOUS TEN YEARS? IF THE MARKET DROPS SIGNIFICANTLY, THEN WHAT'S THE MOST LIKELY THING TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS? I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THE NEXT MOST LIKELY THING TO HAPPEN WOULD BE, WELL, IF THE MARKET'S BEEN LESS THAN 7% FOR THE LAST, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS.

WELL, THEN OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS, WE WOULD MORE LIKELY EXPECT THAT MARKET TO BE HIGHER THAN THE ASSUMED RATE OF RETURN THAN LOWER. OKAY. AND ALL OF THAT INFORMATION IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE BOARD TO SAY, SHOULD WE MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE INVESTMENT RETURNS AS WELL AS THE OVERALL INVESTMENT STRATEGIES ON WHAT WE INVEST IN? OKAY, BUT GOOD QUESTIONS. ONE OTHER THING HAPPENED FIVE YEARS AGO THAT I THINK WAS VERY SIGNIFICANT.

AND I THINK THAT I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IN DECEMBER OF 2019, MIKE TOWNSEND CAME FROM COCONINO COUNTY, AND HE HAD BEEN IN FLAGSTAFF AND COCONINO COUNTY, AND HE BECAME THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR PSP.

AND HE HAD SERVED ON DONE PENSION REFORM AND THINGS AND HAD A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF A LOT OF THINGS AND WHAT REALLY WORKED WITH THE BOARD IN TRYING TO FINE TUNE SOME APPROACHES THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME GOOD LONG TERM IMPACTS ON OUR PENSION SYSTEMS. CHAIR. CHAIR, IF I MAY CLERK ON THIS SCHEDULE, SIMPLE QUESTION.

WHY ARE WE NOT SEEING 2020? I'M SORRY. I'M NOT SEEING THAT UP RIGHT HERE.

WHICH SCHEDULE ARE YOU REFERRING TO? THE AMORTIZATION OF UNFUNDED LIABILITIES IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT GOES FROM 19 TO 21 THROUGH 24. THE YEAR 2020 IS MISSING.

OKAY. YEAH. IF IF WE PULL THAT SCREEN BACK UP, THAT SLIDE BACK UP.

OKAY. WE ARE SEEING IT HERE. I'M NOT SEEING IT ON MY END.

MY VIEW IS OF ALL OF YOU RATHER THAN THE PRESENTATION.

BUT I CAN PULL UP, GO TO MY VERSION. YEAH. IT'S ON SLIDE 13.

THERE YOU GO. YEAH. YEAH. SO ON THIS, ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT THE BOARD MADE. WHAT? THE BOARD PREVIOUSLY THE THE FIRST OF ALL, LET ME BACK UP.

THERE'S A DECISION THAT YOU MADE AS AN ORGANIZATION BACK IN PENSION REFORM OR ALL THE EMPLOYERS WERE ENTITLED UNDER THE PENSION REFORM TO BE EITHER IF THEY HAVE AN UNFUNDED LIABILITY TO AMORTIZE THAT LIABILITY OVER EITHER A 30 YEAR PERIOD OR A 20 YEAR PERIOD, YAVAPAI COUNTY CHOSE FOR THEIR THERE PLANS TO AMORTIZE THOSE OVER A 20 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME? NOW, FROM PENSION REFORM UNTIL THIS PARTICULAR ACTUARIAL VALUATION, THERE WERE EIGHT YEARS THAT TRANSPIRED. OKAY. IT WAS EIGHT YEARS LATER.

SO THAT AND YOU HAVE 12 YEARS ESSENTIALLY LEFT OF AMORTIZING THAT LIABILITY.

[00:50:02]

ONCE YOU HAVE THAT AMORTIZATION LAYER, IT WILL KEEP MARCHING DOWN UNTIL IT GETS TO A IT GETS TO ZERO. BUT IF YOU HAVE A NEW LIABILITY THAT GETS CREATED IN THAT ACTUARIAL VALUATION, IT CREATES A NEW LAYER THAT STARTS AT 15 YEARS.

SO WHAT YOU COULD SEE IS IF YOU RECALL, YOU HAD A NEW UNFUNDED LIABILITY THAT GOT CREATED HERE.

THIS $2.3 MILLION APPROXIMATELY, IS DUE TO THOSE SALARY INCREASES THAT WERE GREATER THAN WHAT THE ACTUARIES EXPECTED. SO THAT LIABILITY IS GOING TO BE AMORTIZED OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS.

THE 2019 LIABILITY IS THE LIABILITY THAT EXISTED AT THE TIME THE BOARD DECIDED TO CHANGE HOW THEY ARE AMORTIZING THIS LIABILITY.

THAT WAS THIS $23.4 MILLION LIABILITY. THE 21 WAS ACTUALLY A HISTORIC INVESTMENT RETURN WHEN WE GOT LIKE 27.8% INVESTMENT RETURN.

AND OVERALL THAT WAS A GAIN FOR THE SYSTEM. SO THAT GAIN IS ALSO BEING AMORTIZED.

OKAY. AND EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE AT AND THEY'RE.

THE 19 IS WHEN THE THE THE PENSION REFORM THAT ORIGINAL LAYER IS BEING AMORTIZED, BUT IT WAS BEING AMORTIZED OVER LIKE A 17 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME AT THE TIME THAT THE BOARD WENT TO A 15 YEAR AMORTIZATION, BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T QUITE FULLY FROM 20 YEARS DOWN TO 15 YEARS YET.

IT WAS ONLY HAD BEEN THREE YEARS SINCE PENSION REFORM.

SO IN, IN 21. SO IT WAS STILL BEING AMORTIZED OVER.

THAT IT GOT IT DIDN'T GET DOWN TO A 15 YEAR CONSISTENT WITH A 15 YEAR LAYERED AMORTIZATION UNTIL 2021. SO IT'S A SEPARATE LAYER FROM PREVIOUS, BUT IT'S BEING IT ONLY IT AND IT HAS 12 YEARS LEFT ON ITS AMORTIZATION.

20. THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL LIABILITY THAT WAS CREATED IN 20, NOR WAS THERE A GAIN ESSENTIALLY THERE.

SO IN 21 YOU HAVE THIS ADDITIONAL GAIN THAT'S BEING AMORTIZED OVER THE SAME 12 YEAR PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN EACH OF THE OTHERS SUBSEQUENTLY HAVE THEIR SAME.

BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE THESE THESE OLDER LIABILITIES ARE LESS THAN 15 YEARS.

SO THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP MARCHING ON DOWN TO ZERO.

AND THEN THESE ANY NEW LIABILITIES OR GAINS AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS, AS THEY WILL COME IN TO PLAY WILL BE AMORTIZED OVER A NEW 15 YEAR LIABILITY PERIOD.

NOW SO YOU CAN SEE THAT BASICALLY THE BULK OF THAT $28 MILLION LIABILITY IS ON TARGET OVER THE NEXT 12 YEARS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. WHY IS REALLY WHAT WHY IS THE WHEN WHEN YOU START ACCUMULATING UNFUNDED LIABILITY, WHY ISN'T IT JUST ROLLED INTO THE ARC SO IT NEVER GETS OUT OF CONTROL LIKE IT DOES? IT IS ROLLED INTO THE ACTUAL REQUIRED CONTRIBUTIONS.

BUT THEN WE WOULDN'T BUILD WE WOULDN'T BUILD UNFUNDED LIABILITY IF IT WAS BEING PAID OFF EVERY YEAR.

[00:55:02]

OKAY. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO PAY A HOW MUCH DO WE NEED TO COLLECT NEXT YEAR TO TAKE CARE OF THIS LIABILITY OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS? IT'S THE THIS $23.4 MILLION OVER THE NEXT 12 YEARS.

THE $1.7 MILLION GAIN OVER THE NEXT 12 YEARS, ETC..

RIGHT. AND SO THIS AMORTIZATION RATE IS THE AMOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION RATE THAT THEY NEED TO COLLECT IN THIS NEXT YEAR. SO THAT OVER THE NEXT 15 YEARS, THE EXISTING LIABILITIES CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF.

IF YOU WANTED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL OF THAT THIS NEXT YEAR.

YOUR CONTRIBUTION RATE WOULD NOT BE 28.85%. THAT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THAT. I HAVEN'T CALCULATED IT OUT, BUT IT WOULD BE LIKE TO THE MAGNITUDE OF OF 10 TO 12 TIMES THAT.

CLERK AND CHAIR, I KNOW TIME IS GETTING LATE HERE, AND WE HAVE YET ANOTHER TOPIC WE HAVE TO GO TO IF IT'S AMENABLE WITH THE BOARD.

BE HAPPY TO WORK TO GET SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AFTER REVIEW OF THIS, AND THEN REGROUP WITH CLARKE AND COME BACK WITH MAYBE A MORE FOCUSED CONVERSATION TO ADDRESS YOUR SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THAT'D BE, YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD AND PLUS WE NEED THE INFORMATION.

YEAH. BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF JUST SITTING OUT HERE.

WE'RE WATCHING THE SCREEN. BUT I THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IT WOULD HELP, YOU KNOW.

THANKS, MADAM CHAIR. AS A PART OF THAT FOLLOW UP, PERSONALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISPARITY AND INEQUITY IN THE CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS RETIREMENT PLAN AND EXPLANATION OF THAT THOUGHT PROCESS AS THAT OCCURRED, AND WHAT THERE MIGHT BE TO DO ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

SUPERVISOR. I MADE THAT NOTE MYSELF. I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THIS CONVERSATION AS WELL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. CLARK, AGAIN, APOLOGIZE FOR NEEDING TO CUT YOU SHORT HERE, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY, AND THE BOARD STILL HAS ANOTHER TOPIC THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO TO GET THROUGH IT AS WELL. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR THE INFORMATION AND I'LL BE BACK IN TOUCH.

I UNDERSTAND THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BYE. YOU'RE UP MARY.

YOU KNOW WHAT? THE LAST THING MR.. WELL GOOD AFTERNOON.

TYLER. BRANDON, WE'RE ON TO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT?

[2. Board of Supervisors - Discussion regarding Capital Building Projects. ]

GOOD AFTERNOON. GOOD AFTERNOON, VICE CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, TYLER GOODMAN, ASSISTANT COUNTY MANAGER.

I'M SORRY. WE'RE STILL RECOVERING. I KNOW IT'S GETTING LATE.

WE WILL TRY TO MAKE THIS AS FLAWLESS AS POSSIBLE FOR YOU JUST TO PRESENT SOME INFORMATION.

BUT THEN, OF COURSE, GET YOUR FEEDBACK. I WILL HAVE YOU KNOW THAT AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION, WE HAVE A SUMMARY SLIDE TO TOUCH ON THE VARIOUS TOPICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO UPDATE YOU ON BEFORE THEN, WE'RE HAPPY TO KIND OF GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY, GET TO THE MAIN POINTS AT THE END AND ALLOW YOU TO TO GIVE US SOME FEEDBACK.

IF THAT SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. TO START OFF, WE RECEIVED PREVIOUS DIRECTION IN MAY FROM YOU AS THE BOARD AS WELL AS DURING THE BUDGET MEETINGS. AND THESE ARE THE TOPICS THAT WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON AND ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'LL BE TOUCHING ON TODAY.

SO CONTINUE PROGRESS ON THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY TO EXPLORE A COST ESTIMATES AND FINANCING FOR A NEW YAVAPAI COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, A GURLEY STREET REMODEL, AND THE COMMERCE ANNEX BUILDING B TO COMPLETE A LAND SALE WITH THE TOWN OF PRESCOTT VALLEY.

AND I'LL PAUSE HERE TO GIVE YOU THE UPDATE. WE'RE IN ESCROW.

WE'VE BEEN IN COMMUNICATION VERY FREQUENTLY WITH THEM.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'LL BE CLOSING ON THAT TRANSACTION THE FIRST OR SECOND WEEK OF JULY AT THIS POINT.

SO THAT'S IN PROGRESS AGAIN. $1,175,000 AS PART OF THAT TRANSACTION.

NUMBER FOUR WAS TO EXPLORE A LAND SALE OF 16 ACRES, 16.8 ACRES WITH THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

WE'LL GIVE AN UPDATE ON THAT AND THEN TO DISCUSS THE CONGRESS MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING.

OKAY. SO FOR THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY, WE ARE WELL UNDERWAY.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF IT NOW. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN NOTICES THAT COMMUNITY SURVEYS ARE OPEN ACTUALLY UNTIL TODAY.

THEY'VE BEEN OPEN SINCE MAY 15TH. WE'VE HAD BOTH ENGLISH AND SPANISH VERSIONS.

WE'VE PUSHED US OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, THE LIBRARY, THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT CHANNELS.

[01:00:02]

ALSO. IN TANDEM WITH THAT, THE DEPARTMENTS DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS WILL BE MEETING WITH THE CONSULTANTS, TENTATIVELY SCHEDULED FOR JULY 28TH, TO GET FEEDBACK ON WHAT RURAL SERVICES MIGHT LOOK LIKE FROM THEIR SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT, WHAT THEY MIGHT NEED TO PROVIDE, GET SOME DIRECT INPUT FROM THOSE WHO PROVIDE THAT SERVICE DIRECTLY, AND THEN MEETINGS WITH BOARD MEMBERS WITH YOU ALL.

WE DON'T HAVE A DATE YET, BUT WITH THE SURVEY DATA IN HAND WITH FEEDBACK FROM DEPARTMENT HEADS, DIRECTORS, WE WANTED TO BRING THAT TO YOU AT A DATE TO BE DETERMINED TO GET YOUR DIRECT FEEDBACK AS WELL.

AND WITH THE GOAL OF ENDING ALL OF THIS PROCESS AND HAVING IT COMPLETED BY THE END OF AUGUST.

WHAT DOES THE MADAM CHAIR, WHAT DOES THE END LOOK LIKE? HAVE THIS ON THE LAST SLIDE. DELIVERABLES. BY THE END OF AUGUST WE WILL KNOW WHAT MONEY WE GOT, WHAT PROJECTS WE WANT TO DO IN THE END OF AUGUST.

WE KNOW WHICH WAY WE'RE GOING. THE CONSULTANT WILL BE WILL HAVE WRAPPED UP THE WORK BY THEN SO THAT WE HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ARE THE DEMANDS FOR RURAL SERVICES, WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE LIBRARY LOCATIONS, OR THEY'RE TALKING WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, LOOKING AT DIFFERENT ASPECTS, SO WE'LL KNOW WHAT SERVICES AND WHERE.

AND WE CAN START TO FORMULATE DOES THAT MEAN A NEW BUILDING OR NOT? DOES THAT MEAN ADDITIONAL X, Y OR Z OR NOT? SO WE CAN GET MORE SPECIFIC AND HAVE A BETTER TAILORED PLAN? AND CHAIR, IF I MAY, TO ADDRESS THE LAST PART OF YOUR QUESTION, I HEARD YOU SAY SUPERVISOR AND WHAT MONEY WE'VE GOT.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION WE'RE HAVING WITH STIFEL ON THAT.

WELL, LOOKING AT THE FINANCING. THANK YOU. YOU BET.

YES. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARITY. IN FACT, IT LEADS INTO THIS NEXT SLIDE.

ON JULY 16TH, WE PLAN TO BRING TO THE BOARD DURING A STUDY SESSION, STIFEL, WHO WILL AT THAT POINT HAVE USED OUR CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES, REALLY FOCUSING ON AT THAT POINT, THE SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, THE COMMERCE BUILDING, AND THE GURLEY STREET BUILDING REMODEL TO HELP US UNDERSTAND BONDING CAPACITY, WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE A PLAN, AND WE'LL BE MEETING WITH THEM IN THE MEANTIME TO GET THAT ROLLING AND TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU TO CONSIDER ON JULY 16TH.

AS FAR AS THE STUDY SESSION GOES. OKAY. GURLEY STREET.

SO AGAIN, THE REAL FOCUS WE WE PRESENTED THIS INFORMATION TO YOU IN MARCH.

BUT THE REAL FOCUS TODAY IS TO GIVE YOU THESE UPDATED NUMBERS.

THEY LOOK VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAD IN MARCH.

BUT WE DID USE A THIRD PARTY FIRM KITCHELL WHO DID THE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING.

SO WHAT THEY LOOKED AT TO BREAK IT DOWN HERE WAS A $30 MILLION NEW FACILITY FOR THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AT 40,000FT².

AGAIN, $30 MILLION. THERE IS THE IS THE PROJECTION AS OF TODAY.

NOW, AGAIN, IF THESE ARE DELAYED BY A YEAR, IT'S ALMOST ALL BETS ARE OFF.

THESE THESE ESTIMATES ARE GOOD FOR TODAY. SO THAT'S THAT'S AS MUCH AS WE CAN SAY RIGHT NOW.

AND AGAIN $18 MILLION FOR THE GURLEY STREET REMODEL.

SO COMBINED 48 MILLION FOR THOSE TWO THINGS AND COMBINED 48 MONTHS TO GET THOSE DONE.

WE ALSO JUST WANTED TO REMIND YOU THAT PROJECTED GROWTH OF THE DEPARTMENTS REMAINING AT GURLEY STREET, WITH MOVING THE SHERIFF'S ADMINISTRATION OUT AND THE PROJECTED GROWTH OF THOSE WHO REMAIN ADULT PROBATION, COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. IT MEETS ALL OF THOSE NEEDS AND DEMANDS AND STILL HAS SOME SPACE LEFT OVER.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT FUTURE GROWTH. IT WOULD ACCOMMODATE IT.

OF COURSE, IN THE MEANTIME, IF THE BOARD HAD OTHER PLANS, DESIRES OR ACTIONS THAT COULD BE DONE.

BUT THE POINT IS THERE'S OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE AVAILABILITY THERE IF THE SHERIFF MOVES OUT.

SO. OKAY. MY MY SPEAKER DOESN'T WORK FOR WHATEVER REASON. I THINK IT PROBABLY DOES. NOW.

IT WAS HAVING TROUBLE WITH THAT GUY. BUT, YOU KNOW WE'RE SAYING OVER THE NEXT OUR NEEDS OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

AND I AGREE WITH THE STRATEGY. I DON'T FEEL IT'S BEEN A STRATEGY THAT'S BEEN LOOKED AT BY PASS BOARDS.

AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE REST OF, OF THE BOARD FEELS THE SAME WAY, THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING OUT 20 YEARS.

I AGREE WITH THAT STRATEGY, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THE REST OF MY SUPERVISORS DO.

AND I CAN'T TAKE A POLL IN PRIVATE BECAUSE IT'S AGAINST THE LAW.

SO, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF EVERYONE AGREES WITH THE STRATEGY OR IF YOU EVEN DESIRE TO KNOW THAT INFORMATION AS WELL, BECAUSE I'LL DO WHATEVER YOU SAY BECAUSE YOU'RE THE BOSS. SO FUNNY.

ANYWAY. OH, THE MIC WORKS. THAT'S AMAZING. ALL RIGHT, WELL, ANYWAY, WE NEED A PLAN.

I LIKE THE STRATEGIC PLAN. I MET WITH THE GENTLEMAN.

I THINK HE'S FANTASTIC. I DO WANT TO GO THIS DIRECTION.

IT'S IMPORTANT. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'VE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE.

BUT IT'S TIME AGAIN. THIS COUNTY IS COMING AROUND THE CORNER.

WE'RE GOING A DIFFERENT WAY NOW. AND EVERYTHING WE HAD BEFORE WORKED WELL, IT'S NOT THAT IT WAS BROKEN.

[01:05:03]

SO I THINK WE NEED A PLAN. THIS IS GOOD. THE GENTLEMAN THAT I SPOKE WITH VERY NICE.

AND I AND I SUPPORT THIS. SO I CERTAINLY SUPPORT WHAT SUPERVISOR COMPTON WAS TALKING ABOUT AND THE, YOU KNOW, IN THE 20 YEAR PLAN. AND I WOULD ESPECIALLY ENJOY LOOKING AT THE GURLEY STREET ROOM REMODEL AND MOVING ADULT PROBATION OUT OF DOWNTOWN.

I DON'T WANT IT IN THE DOWNTOWN GIRLY STREET BUILDING. AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE THAT LOOKED AT. MADAM CHAIR, I WANT TO NOTE THAT YOU KNOW, WE ARE ALL HERE AS REPRESENTATIVES OF OUR CONSTITUENCY, WHICH PAY FOR EVERYTHING WE DO AT THE COUNTY.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THIS CONCEPT THAT WE'RE FLEETING, AND, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD BE A CLEAN SLATE.

EVERY BOARD, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF THE PURPOSE OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION IS NOT JUST TO INFORM US AS BOARD MEMBERS OR THE COUNTY STAFF, BUT RATHER GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BROADER CONSTITUENCY TO WEIGH IN ON A LONGER 20 YEAR PLAN, SORT OF REGARDLESS OF OF WHO'S IN OFFICE. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS WE'RE STILL BEING ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CONSTITUENCY AT LARGE AND HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO WEIGH IN ON HOW THEIR PRIORITIES, YOU KNOW, FIT IN WITH OUR CONCEPTS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT TO ME. AND I THINK WE HAVE A PLAN TO DO THAT. I LIKE LONG TERM PLANNING.

I THINK WE SPEND LESS MONEY WHEN WE PLAN LONG TERM INSTEAD OF BANDING THESE PROJECTS YEAR AFTER YEAR.

THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE. IN THE MANY YEARS I'VE BEEN IN EVEN PRIVATE BUSINESS BAND AIDING PROJECTS TO JUST ADDRESS A CURRENT SITUATION YOU END UP FIXING THE BAND AID. SO I'M ALWAYS GOING TO SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, THIS VISION OF GOING FORWARD.

20 YEARS SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME OUT, BUT IT'LL BE HERE BEFORE WE KNOW IT.

AND IT'S IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THAT SPACE AVAILABLE AS WE GROW INTO IT, INSTEAD OF ALWAYS SQUEEZING PEOPLE AROUND.

SO I SUPPORT IT AS WELL. THANK YOU. AND I THINK SUPERVISOR COMPTON.

WE HAD A DISCUSSION LIKE THIS. I THINK A LOT OF THE OUTLYING AREAS, WE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE ALMOST 20 YEARS BEHIND BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BEEN LOOKED AT.

SO LOOKING AT GETTING AND MAKING OUR CONSTRUCTION NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL LAST 40 YEARS, SOMETHING THAT WILL LAST A HUNDRED YEARS.

SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. AND EVEN IF WE BUILD THESE BUILDINGS WITH EXTRA UNNEEDED SPACE, WE'LL PUT A WALL IN THERE. AND THEN IN TEN YEARS WHEN THEY NEED SOMETHING, IT'S ALREADY THERE AND CAN ALREADY BE USED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO MOVING ON TO THE COMMERCE DRIVE ANNEX BUILDING B, THIS WOULD BE A NEW OFFICE BUILDING THERE ON COMMERCE DRIVE.

AND WE HAVE A SITE PLAN HERE ON THE NEXT SLIDE, BUT POTENTIALLY A 48,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING WITH PARKING.

IT'S A VACANT LOT. UTILITIES ARE THERE. THE ESTIMATED BUDGET FOR THIS BUILDING AT THAT SIZE IS $30 MILLION, AND A 3030 MONTH PERIOD FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION.

WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS FREE UP SPACE FOR THE COMMERCE CENTER CIRCLE, THE LIBRARY AT FAIR STREET, POTENTIALLY BECAUSE OF ELECTION AND RECORDER'S OFFICES, PERHAPS THE ASSESSOR OR SOME IT INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IT REALLY WOULD FREE UP SPACE AT OTHER LOCATIONS, POTENTIALLY WITH THE ABILITY TO SELL THE CC, THE COMMERCE CENTER CIRCLE LOCATION, IF THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD CHOSE AT THAT TIME.

SO AGAIN, THAT'S THAT'S THE ESTIMATE. AND THE TIME AGAIN THERE'S THE THE AERIAL, THE SITE PLAN POTENTIALLY WITH PARKING AND THE BUILDING THERE BETWEEN KIND OF ON THE RIGHT, THE FACILITIES BUILDING AND THERE ON THE BOTTOM LEFT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND FLOOD AND IT AND OTHERS.

TYLER, MADAM CHAIR, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE SALE OF THAT BUILDING MIGHT BRING IN THE SALE OF THE ICC? NO, I MEAN, QUITE HONESTLY, BE HARD TO GUESS.

I THE APPRAISALS WE'VE BEEN RECEIVING ON RAW LAND HAVE GONE IN OUR FAVOR JUST RECENTLY.

SO I WITH WITH A BUILDING ON IT OF THAT MAGNITUDE IT'S PROBABLY PRETTY GOOD.

THANKS. WHEN WE BUILD THESE BUILDINGS, DO WE EVER BUILD IN ANTICIPATION OF GOING UP IN THE FUTURE? GOOD AFTERNOON, CHAIR MALLORY VICE CHAIR COMPTON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION.

BUILDING UP IN THE FUTURE SOMETIMES BECOMES PROBLEMATIC. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FACE, LIKE ON THIS SITE, IS OVERALL PARKING. SO EVEN IF WE COULD CREATE MORE OFFICE SPACE, WE DON'T HAVE THE PARKING. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD PARKING STRUCTURES TO GO WITH? YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT.

THERE'S WAYS TO OVER SPAN BUILDINGS. WE CAN SET COLUMNS AND PUT ADDITIONAL LEVELS ABOVE THAT.

[01:10:04]

MAYBE WE'LL GO VERTICAL SOMEWHERE DOWN THE ROAD.

OKAY. WELL, I APPRECIATE THAT. I MEAN, I'VE JUST WATCHED HOTELS BEEN BUILT ON TOP OF HOTELS AND BEING BUILT ON TOP OF THE HOTELS.

AGAIN, I'VE SEEN IT QUITE OFTEN, AND I JUST WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT IN THE THOUGHT THAT IN THE FUTURE, DOING IT THAT WAY, OR OR BUILDING THAT TWO STORY AND PUT IT TO PUT A PARKING GARAGE NEXT DOOR TO IT, THAT'S A GREAT POINT, AND IT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT IN THE FUTURE. THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY INTENDED TO BE TWO STORY BECAUSE IT INCLUDES SOME DATA PROCESSING FOR THE LIBRARY AND FOR THE ELECTIONS. AND ALSO INCLUDES SOME WAREHOUSING, SOME STORAGE FOR MY DEPARTMENT WITH THE ANTICIPATION OF POSSIBLY GETTING RID OF OTHER PROPERTIES, LIKE THE STORAGE UNIT THAT WE HAVE DOWN IN DEWEY.

WELL, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. WE COULDN'T TELL IT WAS TWO STORY FROM THE PICTURE, SO. YES. THANK YOU. DID YOU HAVE THE LAYOUT WITH THERE TOO? THAT'S CORRECT. NO. THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO UNLESS THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS ON ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDES, THIS NEXT ONE IS ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL LANDSLIDE WITH THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

WE RECEIVED JUST RECENTLY AN APPRAISAL SHOWING THE VALUE AT $3.5 MILLION FOR 16.8 ACRES.

THE CITY IS IS SPEAKING ABOUT THAT INTERNALLY.

WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THEM ON A STAFF LEVEL AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS TO SEE THEIR LEVEL OF INTEREST AND NEXT STEPS.

BUT AS THIS IS THE INFORMATION WE HAVE AS OF TODAY, THAT $3.5 MILLION APPRAISED VALUE, AGAIN, THE COMBINED ACREAGE IN THIS AREA, YOU CAN SEE IT OUTLINED IN BLUE.

THE HARD BLUE LINE THERE SHOWS 163 ACRES OF COUNTY OWNED LAND.

AND THE PORTION IN RED IS THIS LAND. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 16.8 EIGHT ACRES AND IF SOLD, IT WOULD LEAVE, REMAINING ABOUT 146 ACRES OF COUNTY LAND IN THAT AREA.

SO STILL FLEXIBILITY, STILL SPACE TO ACCOMMODATE GROWTH NEEDS IN THE FUTURE.

THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT LAND ISN'T GREAT FOR BUILDING ANYWAYS, ISN'T IT? IT IS NOT.

IT'S ALL CHALLENGING IN THAT AREA, INCLUDING THE 16.8 ACRES.

OKAY. THE CONGRESS RURAL SERVICES. SO WE WANTED TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO YOU FOR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

BUT THE ORIGINAL SCOPE THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE PREVIOUS BOARD AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN OPERATING UNDER SINCE, WAS TO GO OUT AND LOOK TO CREATE A MULTI-PURPOSE FACILITY INCLUDING HEALTH CARE, LIBRARY, SHERIFF AND SOME FLEXIBLE FLEXIBLE SPACE FOR THE COMMUNITY.

WE ORIGINALLY RECEIVED $500,000 IN BUDGETED AMOUNT FOR TO GO OUT FOR DESIGN FOR THIS, AND WE WENT FOR A COMPETITIVE RFQ, A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS PROCESS THAT YIELDED EIGHT APPLICANTS OR EIGHT SUBMISSIONS, I SHOULD SAY.

AND BASED ON THAT, LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN SERVICES, WE PROBABLY NEED LESS THAN THE 500,000 BASED ON THAT CURRENT SCOPE.

OKAY, SO ANYWHERE BETWEEN 325,000 AND 405,000.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A DESIRE TO TALK ABOUT THESE SERVICES AND THE SCOPE OF THESE SERVICES.

WE WANTED TO BRING THIS UP FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND CLARIFICATION FROM THE BOARD.

WELL, IT WAS MY PREDECESSOR IN THE PREVIOUS BOARD THAT INITIALLY STARTED THIS, AND IT WAS GOING TO BE A MUCH LARGER BUILDING HOUSING THE LIBRARY, EVERYTHING THAT MR. GOODWIN JUST TALKED ABOUT.

BUT CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED IN MY DISTRICT.

AND SO I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH REPRESENTATIVE BLISS.

AND WE HAVE LAND THAT HAS BEEN DONATED IN PEOPLE'S VALLEY.

AND THE MULTI USE FACILITY. PUTTING EVERYTHING IN CONGRESS TO ME AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE.

I WANTED TO SAVE MONEY FOR MY OTHER FELLOW CONSTITUENTS TO DO BUILDINGS IN THEIR OTHER AREAS AS WELL.

SO WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO DO IS TO JUST BUILD, NOT TO HAVE TO GO OUT TO AN RFQ, BUT JUST USE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, BID TO BUILD JUST THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION IN CONGRESS.

INSTEAD OF BUILDING A $12 MILLION BUILDING, WE CAN BUILD A $4 MILLION BUILDING.

AND THEN WORKING WITH THE REPRESENTATIVE BLISS, SHE'S ALREADY TRYING TO GET MONEY FROM THE STATE.

SHE PUT IN FOR 2.5 MILLION JUST NOW. AND THEN HOPEFULLY, IF I CAN GET THAT THROUGH THE BUDGET NEXT YEAR, WE COULD BUILD A LIBRARY IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER, EVERYTHING IN PEOPLE'S VALLEY AND USE STATE MONEY FOR SOME OF IT.

SO SAVING THE COUNTY MONEY AND GETTING THIS SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION, BECAUSE PUBLIC SAFETY IS THE NUMBER ONE THING OUT THERE.

WE HAVE NO OFFICERS PAST 2 A.M. OUT THERE. NO, THERE'S NOBODY THERE.

WELL, THIS IS TRUE. BUT I JUST FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK REGIONALLY.

I KNOW SUPERVISOR KUKNYO HAS THE SAME NEED IN HIS AREA.

I KNOW SUPERVISOR CHECK HAS THE SAME NEED IN HER AREA FOR THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION, AND I FEEL IF WE FOLLOW A DIFFERENT PATH THAT I'VE DISCUSSED WITH MANAGEMENT THAT WE CAN

[01:15:02]

I'VE SPOKEN WITH MANAGEMENT ABOUT THAT. AND THE SMALLER FIRM THAT I'M WISHING TO USE SO I CAN HAVE MY HANDS ON IT AND GET IT DONE, IS SOMEBODY THAT I DO KNOW. SO I WOULD HAVE TO ABSTAIN.

I DON'T HAVE TO, BUT I'VE BEEN ADVISED IT'D PROBABLY BE BEST TO. I'D HAVE TO LEAVE IT UP TO MY FELLOW SUPERVISORS.

BUT I RAN ON THE FACT THAT I WANTED TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE CONVERSATION THAT HAD ALREADY BUILT THESE THINGS BEFORE.

AND THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE I HAVE, AND I HAVE THAT WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE IT READY TO GO. WE CAN HAVE A BUILDING DESIGNED AND READY TO GO WITHIN 45 DAYS, IF GIVEN THE APPROVAL FROM THE BOARD, AND WE CAN START BUILDING. AND IN 18 MONTHS WE COULD HAVE A SUBSTATION UP, AND THEN WE CAN WORK ON THE OTHER PARTS OF THE PROJECT LATER ON IF WE GET THE MONEY FROM THE STATE, AND I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE TIME TO DO THAT AND PUT SOME PUBLIC SAFETY FIRST AND HOPEFULLY SAVE SOME DOLLARS AND ENHANCE THE AREAS OF MY FELLOW SUPERVISORS.

GO AHEAD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND THERE'S SOME SOME STUFF IN THERE THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND HAVE THEM WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEY THINK THEIR NEEDS ARE AND WHAT THEIR NEEDS WILL BE IN 20 YEARS FROM NOW.

BECAUSE THE CONSTABLES HAVE NO PLACE. ADULT PROBATION HAS NO SPOT.

AND THERE'S THINGS WHEN YOU TALK TO THE PROFESSIONALS THAT DO THE JOB THAT YOU DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT YOURSELF BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M A GARBAGE MAN, BUT WHEN ADULT PROBATION NEEDS TO TALK WITH SOMEONE, THEY BRING THEM INTO THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE.

WELL, THEN THIS PERSON ON PROBATION IS LOOKING AT THE WHITEBOARDS AND ALL THE NOTES ON THE WALL AND EVERYTHING.

SO SEES WHAT THE SHERIFF'S UP TO. AND THEY SAY, YEAH, THEY REALLY TAKE THAT IN.

SO DO WE NEED A SMALL SPACE FOR THEM? DO WE NEED A SMALL SPACE FOR THE THE CONSTABLE TO DO HIS BUSINESS IN THE OUTLYING AREAS? WHICH LENDS ME BACK TO WHAT SIZE BUILDING DO WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS SPACE? AND WE BUILD ONE BUILDING THAT'S GOOD FOR A LONG TIME.

SO I THINK I'D LIKE TO GET THIS STUFF GOING AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE AS WELL, BECAUSE I SEE WHAT THEY'RE WORKING OUT OF.

BUT EVEN WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO TALKING WITH ONE SHERIFFS UP IN AN OUTLYING AREA AND HE SAYS, CAN WE JUST GET A PRESSURE WASHER? AND THE ONLY THE CLOSEST PLACE TO GET MY CAR WASH IS CHINO VALLEY, AND THAT'S AN HOUR AWAY. SO DO WE NEED TO HAVE A SLAB WITH A WITH A GREASE TRAP OUT BACK? DO WE NEED TO HAVE SOME KIND OF COVERING WHERE YOU COULD WASH A CAR AT NIGHT? THERE'S JUST A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS. I WANT TO MOVE QUICK, BUT I WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

SO WE'RE NOT WASTING MONEY. AND I THINK IF WE GET THIS THIS FOOTPRINT OF A SINGLE BUILDING, WE DESIGN IT A SINGLE TIME. WE CAN PLOP THAT SUCKER ANYWHERE IN YOUR AREA, IN YOUR AREA, AND YOU'RE IN YOUR AREA, YOU KNOW, AS WE GO, AND WE'LL HAVE IT FOREVER.

SO JUST TALKING TO OUR PROFESSIONALS AND ASKING THEM, THE DEPARTMENT HEADS, THE PEOPLE IN THE FIELD, WHAT DO THEY REALLY THINK WE NEED? HOW MANY SQUARE FOOT? YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE SUPERVISOR THOSE INPUT.

AND I'VE SPENT WHILE WE'VE BEEN WAITING AND WAITING AND WAITING.

I'VE SPENT SIX MONTHS DOING EXACTLY THAT. AND SHERIFF KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS OUT THERE.

HE KNOWS WHAT HE NEEDS. AND THE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

AND THEY HAVE A WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING IF WE STAY ESSENTIALLY AT THAT BUILDING OUT IN THAT AREA AT 3000FT² OR LESS FOR THAT PARTICULAR TYPE OF OPERATION, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH. AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LETTING ME KNOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO. WELL, CAN THE BUILDING BE BUILT TO WHERE IT'S EASY TO EXTEND IT AND ADD ON TO IT THESE KIND OF THINGS IN CONSIDERATION? YES. FLEXFIELDS. YEAH. SO THIS IS MORE FOR FOR COUNCIL OR FOR MORE.

SO WE ALWAYS GO OUT FOR AN RFP. ISN'T THAT SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ANSWER TO THE TAXPAYERS.

WE NEED TO GET BIDS IN. IS THAT NOT CORRECT? TYPICALLY, YES.

WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT OUR PROCUREMENT POLICIES AND SEE WHAT FLEXIBILITY WE HAVE WITHIN THEM TO TO DO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW THAT THAT IS PART OF THE RIGHT WAY TO DO THINGS.

AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT HAS BEEN GOING ON SINCE I'VE BEEN AROUND WITH THE TOWN COUNCIL IN PRESCOTT VALLEY AND THE COUNTY HERE.

WELL, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, MADAM CHAIR, IS IF YOU STAY UNDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT, WHICH IS $100,000 PER STATUTE, YOU ARE FOLLOWING LAW AND YOU CAN JUST DO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

MR. BROWN, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. AND IF YOU JUST USE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT.

THAT'S WHAT SAVES US THE TIME AND THE MONEY. BECAUSE IF YOU MAKE THESE SMALLER BUILDINGS AND YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH SMALLER BUILDINGS, YOU CAN PROCURE THAT WAY THROUGH OUR VOTE AND MANAGEMENT.

AND WE'VE SEEN IT'S TAKEN US SIX MONTHS TO DEAL WITH WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW.

AND YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE LAW. YOU ARE DOING THINGS APPROPRIATELY.

IT'S JUST WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE PATH WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS GOAL, AND I JUST BELIEVE IT'S A FASTER WAY.

[01:20:05]

I DON'T WANT TO MOVE AT THE SPEED OF GOVERNMENT. I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS DONE QUICK, BUT I WANT TO SEE IT DONE RIGHT. WELL, CALL ME OLD SCHOOL, I GUESS, BUT I'M ALL ABOUT AN RFP AND IT DOESN'T HAVE TO TAKE THAT LONG.

YOU FIND THE ONE BUILDING YOU WANT TO DO, AND THEN THAT'S THE STRUCTURE, AND WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

HOW DO YOU ANSWER? OUR BUSINESS IS DONE IN PUBLIC.

THE MONEY WE USE ARE TAXPAYER DOLLARS, AND EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT.

POSSIBLY IF WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING.

PEOPLE ALWAYS HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A BID IN.

CAN YOU EVER GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE WHEN WE'VE DONE IT? LIKE WHAT IS BEING SUGGESTED? HAVE WE EVER DONE THIS, MARTY.

YES. THANK YOU. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. SUPERVISORS.

THERE IS AN EXCEPTION IN OUR PROCUREMENT POLICY FOR PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, AND THE COUNTY HAS USED THAT EXCEPTION IN VARIOUS INSTANCES TO CONTRACT FOR THAT TYPE OF SERVICE.

I WOULD I DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO VERY FAR FOR AN EXAMPLE, BECAUSE WE DID THAT THIS MORNING EARLIER TODAY IN RELATION TO A CONTRACT FOR LEGAL SERVICES. ALTHOUGH THERE IS AN EXCEPTION FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, THERE'S ALSO A DUE DILIGENCE REQUIREMENT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE I THINK YEAH, THAT'S IN RECOGNITION OF AN OBLIGATION TO TAXPAYERS TO ENSURE THAT TAXPAYER DOLLARS ARE BEING USED WISELY, INAPPROPRIATELY SO IF EVEN UNDER A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EXCEPTION.

YOU DO STILL HAVE TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK. AND AGAIN, HEARKENING BACK TO JUST A SHORT TIME AGO, I KIND OF WALKED THROUGH SOME OF THAT WITH THE BOARD AS TO THE STEPS THAT I WENT THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST THE THE CONTRACT I WAS BRINGING BEFORE THE BOARD MADE SENSE AND WAS FISCALLY SOUND AND A GOOD SOLID EXPENDITURE FOR THE BOARD.

WELL, THERE'S A SIMILAR OBLIGATION IN RELATION TO ANY EXPENDITURES, INCLUDING THOSE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

OKAY. AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT. BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE BOARD HAS HEARD ABOUT THE CHANGES, BECAUSE IT WAS LAST YEAR IN THE OLD BOARD THAT WE GAVE THE HALF A MILLION AND WE WERE SUPPOSED TO DO ALL THESE THINGS.

AND THAT'S BEEN THE CONVERSATION FOR A WHILE.

BUT NOW THINGS ARE CHANGING. AND SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE TO MYSELF AND TO THE BOARD, IS THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE HAVE TO KNOW THAT WHEN WE GET OUT THERE AND LEAVE THESE SEATS, WE WILL ANSWER FOR WHAT WE DO.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THE FUNDS THAT WE RECEIVE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE FAIR TO THE COMMUNITIES OR THE BUSINESSES WHO WANT TO PUT IN FOR THE JOBS.

SO BESIDES WHAT THE EXAMPLE YOU JUST GAVE ME THIS MORNING, I'VE BEEN HERE SINCE 2019.

DO YOU KNOW THE OF THE BOARD OF THE COUNTY? EVER DOING WITHOUT GOING OUT AND DOING, YOU KNOW, REQUESTS FOR BIDS OR WHAT HAVE YOU? HAVE WE EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE THIS? I'M NOT TRYING TO BYPASS THE QUESTION, BUT HONESTLY, I THINK THE FACILITIES DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA IF WE'VE DONE THAT IN RELATION TO ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES. WELL, I'D LIKE TO KNOW.

GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. YES, WE HAVE DONE THAT.

WE TYPICALLY RESERVE THAT FOR SMALLER PROJECTS. I BELIEVE THE STATE STATUTE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF IT'S 100,000 OR 250, BUT THERE IS A THRESHOLD IN THERE.

THIS PROJECT WAS OBVIOUSLY WELL BEYOND IT. THE ALLOCATION WAS BEYOND THAT. AND THAT'S THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF WHY THIS ONE WENT TO RFP.

BUT TO MR. BRENNAN'S POINT, YES, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS.

YES, WE HAVE DONE IT. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE COST ESTIMATE WE DID FOR GURLEY WE UTILIZED THE ARCHITECT AND THAT WAS DONE OUTSIDE OF HIS NORMAL CONTRACT, BUT IT WAS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. WE USED THAT EXCEPTION WITH THAT.

THE JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT ONE WAS HE WAS THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD.

NOBODY WOULD BE BETTER PREPARED TO PREPARE THAT COST ESTIMATE THAN THAT INDIVIDUAL.

SO THAT WAS MY DUE DILIGENCE IN THAT REALM. AND MADAM CHAIR, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

I SIMPLY TOOK SOMETHING WE HAVE USED INTO THE PAST.

I DOWNSIZED MY PROJECT SO WE COULD USE THAT PARTICULAR SERVICE AND MOVE IT FORWARD IN A MUCH MORE, IN A QUICKER FASHION. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT DOING.

[01:25:01]

I GUESS THE ONLY THING THAT THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF IT, I HAVE HEARD IT ON THE SIDEBAR AND WE'RE ALL HAVING THE DISCUSSION, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF THINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED AND TALKED ABOUT, AND I GUESS I'M JUST FEELING LIKE I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP.

WELL, I ASSURE YOU, I SIMPLY SPOKE WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF BLISS LITERALLY YESTERDAY AND THAT BECAME AVAILABLE, WHICH WAS FABULOUS. SO THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS REALLY MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. AND I HAD NO IDEA ABOUT SENATOR OR I MEAN REPRESENTATIVE BLISS. SO THAT'S NEW TOO, SO IT'S FINE.

WELL, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD JUST WE'VE YOU'VE HEARD THESE, BRANDON.

YOU'VE HEARD THESE CONVERSATIONS. YOU'VE HEARD THE THE DESIRE.

YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE'D LIKE TO PLAN FOR 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE.

SOME OF THESE BUILDINGS COULD BE MULTI-PURPOSE.

SOME OF IT COULD BE ADDED ON YOUR THOUGHTS IN WHAT THIS SHOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT COULD HAPPEN? WHAT COULDN'T HAPPEN AS FAR AS THIS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, THIS INDIVIDUAL BUILDING? WELL, THE WELL, IT IS THIS INDIVIDUAL BUILDING GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE COULD PLOP ANYWHERE IS.

YEAH. AT THE END OF THE DAY, I THINK YOU'VE KIND OF INDICATED IT'D BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT COMES FROM THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY.

WE MAY OR MAY NOT WANT THE SAME BUILDING IN ALL THESE LOCATIONS.

ALL OF OUR OTHER RURAL AREAS MAY NOT NEED ALL THE SAME FEATURES.

WE COULD CERTAINLY STAMP OUT THE SAME BUILDING AND THEN JUST CHANGE THE TENANTS WHO ARE A PART OF IT.

THIS CONVERSATION, AS MR. GOODMAN HAD POINTED OUT, WAS BASED UPON WE HAD WICKENBURG HEALTH.

WE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE. WE HAD THE LIBRARY, WE WANTED TO PARTICIPATE. WE HAD THE SUBSTATION. WE HAD A COMMUNITY ROOM. WE MAY NOT NEED ALL THOSE PIECES IN EVERY SINGLE COMMUNITY. I FLOATED AN IDEA WITH GENSLER, WHO'S DOING A RURAL SERVICES STUDY, AS WELL AS TWO ON THIS ARCHITECT, OF POSSIBLY DOING SMALLER INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS AND CREATING MORE OF A VILLAGE CONCEPT, WHICH WOULD BE ULTIMATELY CUSTOMIZABLE BECAUSE WE COULD BUILD AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING FOR THE SO, AND THEN WE COULD DO SOMETHING FOR THE LIBRARY, AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THE EXACT SAME THING ON OTHER SITES.

AND SO FOR ME, I WOULD LOVE TO GET MORE INFORMATION BACK OUT OF THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY TO BETTER ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHEN IS THAT COMING IN? END OF AUGUST. THAT'LL BE PART OF THE DELIVERABLES IS REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THOSE COMMUNITY NEEDS ARE.

WHAT'S A COMMUNITY ASKING FOR? WHAT ARE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS BELIEVE THAT THEY NEED TO PROVIDE IN THESE AREAS.

AND AND HOW WOULD THEY PROVIDE THOSE? AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU GUYS AND LET YOU DRIVE MORE OF THAT CONVERSATION AS TO WHAT OUR RURAL SERVICES DELIVERY MODEL LOOKS LIKE. OH, I'M SORRY, BUT SUPERVISOR JENKINS HAS WANTED TO MAKE A REMARK, SO I. YEAH, YOU'RE THE BOSS. NO, I'M NOT THE BOSS.

I'M JUST I KNOW THAT, I KNOW I LIKE SOMEBODY ELSE BEING THE BOSS.

I'M REALLY FINE WITH THAT. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, VICE CHAIR, I'M.

I'M A LITTLE LOST ON ON WHAT YOU WERE PROPOSING.

IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE CHANGING. YOU'RE PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE WHOLE SCOPE FROM WHAT THIS IS TO SOMETHING ELSE.

IF YOU COULD WALK ME THROUGH THIS AGAIN. LETTING THE, SO WE HAD A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS THAT WERE GOING TO BE IN THIS BUILDING.

YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE WICKENBURG HOSPITAL, WHICH IS DOWN THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE THE LIBRARY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMMUNITY CENTER.

AND THEN I STARTED THINKING ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, I REALLY DIDN'T WANT THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION WITH MY LIBRARY AND MY COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT BECAUSE THEY'RE BRINGING IN CRIMINALS AND IT'S JUST A LITTLE DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE. AND THEN THE OPPORTUNITY CAME ABOUT WHEN I WAS OUT THERE WITH CHIEF BELMAR AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND PEOPLE'S VALLEY, THAT THE TEN ACRES WAS DONATED.

AND THEY WANTED A IT'S NOT THAT FAR AWAY, BUT FAR AWAY TO WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT A FIRE STATION AND THEY'RE GOING TO END UP GETTING GRANTS AND MONEY FROM THE STATE.

AND WE COULD MOVE THE MORE FAMILY FRIENDLY THINGS TO THAT AREA AND LEAVE THE SUBSTATION DOWN THERE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M. SO WHAT I'M WANTING TO DO IS TO REDUCE THE SCOPE OF THIS, TO SIMPLY PUT, THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION THERE. AND QUITE FRANKLY, COSTS WENT UP TO BUILD BUILDINGS.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, THE BUILDING THAT I THOUGHT WAS GOING TO BE A $6 MILLION BUILDING BECAME A $9 BILLION BUILDING, THEN BECAME A $12 MILLION BUILDING. AND I'M THINKING, WELL, WE HAVE NEEDS IN OTHER AREAS AND THINKING ABOUT THE NEEDS IN THE OTHER AREAS.

MAYBE IT WAS JUST I NEEDED TO BE A BIT MAGNANIMOUS AND JUST DOWNSIZE MY PROJECT AND HELP OTHER PEOPLE OUT, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT THAT WE DO.

WE ARE PRIVY TO THAT. I KNOW HE SUPERVISOR KUKNYO NEEDS A SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION, AND I KNOW THAT SUPERVISOR CHECK NEEDS A SUBSTATION, AND THERE'S REASONS FOR THAT. AND SO I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST FROM A PUBLIC SAFETY STANDPOINT, TO DOWNSIZE AND THEN MOVE THE OTHER PROJECTS OVER TO A DIFFERENT AREA AND THEN SOLVE THAT PUBLIC SAFETY NEED.

NOW, BECAUSE THE DOLLARS HAD ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD.

IS IT POSSIBLE? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY YOU NEED LIKE, DIRECTION ON WHAT HE'S PROPOSING,

[01:30:02]

LIKE WHAT WE'RE SEEING UP HERE, ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT.

AND. ARE THESE PIECES FOR REAL? OH, THE WICKENBURG HOSPITAL IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY DOWN THERE.

THE LIBRARY IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY DOWN THERE.

THE COMMUNITY CENTER IS ALREADY ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST THEY'VE BEEN NEGLECTED AND IT'S DILAPIDATED. AND SO YOU COULD PLOP A SHERIFF SUBSTATION THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO. I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR MY FOR MY CONSTITUENTS.

AND I WOULD. AND WE HAVE LAND IN BOTH AREAS BECAUSE OF GENEROUS PEOPLE.

NOW, MON RANCH DONATED LAND OUT THERE AND REPRESENTATIVE BLISS CAN NOW HOPEFULLY COME IN WITH SOME MONEY AND FROM THE STATE.

AND SO IT'S JUST, I MEAN, I COULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT.

THE MONEY'S ALREADY ALLOCATED, BUT I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE BEST THING TO DO REGIONALLY FOR ALL OF MY CONSTITUENTS AND FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S.

IT'S JUST AND I'VE BEEN STARING AT THIS FOR FOUR MONTHS BEFORE I EVEN GOT ON THE JOB.

SO I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR TEN MONTHS. AND AFTER A WHILE, AFTER TEN MONTHS AS A SUPERVISOR, YOU GET SORT OF FRUSTRATED WHEN YOU KNOW YOU CAN HAVE A BUILDING DESIGNED IN 45 DAYS AND WE COULD BE MOVING AND GET THINGS GOING.

I MEAN, THE SHERIFF KNOWS WHAT HE WANTS. WE'VE HAD EXTENSIVE CONVERSATIONS ON WHAT THEY WANT DOWN THERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS ONCE BUT THERE'S ALSO NEEDS TO AND WHEN WHEN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE A HEALTH CARE CENTER UP IN SELIGMAN, BUT THE JURORS NEED TO BE ABLE TO NOT HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE TO USE THE BATHROOM.

SO, I MEAN, I MEAN, THESE ARE SOME BASIC THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT TAKING CARE OF AND ON THESE DIFFERENT AREAS THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT THAT I'D BE TALKING ABOUT.

DO WE OWN PROPERTY THAT COULD SUPPORT THE VILLAGE AREA, OR WOULD WE HAVE TO START BUYING LAND AS WELL? EACH COMMUNITY IS DIFFERENT. YEAH. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THAT ON A CASE BY CASE.

WE DO HAVE, LIKE IN THE SELIGMAN AREA. THERE ARE SEVERAL LOTS UP THERE WHERE AN OLD HEALTH CLINIC WAS DISMANTLED A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

THAT COULD BE A GREAT CANDIDATE FOR THAT AREA.

THE CONGRESS AREA. WE'VE GOT A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF LAND DOWN THERE THAT WE COULD WORK ON RIGHT AWAY. WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT THE VILLAGE OF OAK CREEK.

NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY LAND OVER THERE, BUT WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT SOME ACQUISITION FOR THAT IF NEED BE.

SO EACH EACH AREA, EACH COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT UNIQUE, I THINK, TO THE TO THE CONVERSATION OF POSSIBLY UNIQUE BUILDINGS TOO BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S GOT UNIQUE NEEDS. IF I COULD FINISH AND NO, NO, NO, NO, NO YOU'RE FINE.

NO. BECAUSE YOU OKAY. GO AHEAD. OKAY. LOVE YOU LOTS.

I'M TRYING TO CATCH UP HERE. OKAY. BEAR WITH ME.

THERE'S. THERE'S A LOT MORE MOVING PARTS THAN I JUST SAW THIS PRESENTATION.

THERE'S MOVING PARTS HERE, SO I'M TRYING TO PUT THEM TOGETHER.

BUT I'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM DOWN IN WRITING, SO I REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE.

JUST LIKE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO, TO SCALE BACK YOUR PROJECT WOULD THAT WOULD ENABLE MAYBE OTHER PROJECT TO TAKE PLACE? I'D LIKE TO SEE HOW THAT ALL SCOPES OUT. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

THAT'S PERFECT. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. I JUST I GOT THRUST INTO THIS BECAUSE IT WAS IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PREVIOUS BOARD.

AND QUITE FRANKLY, CHAIR MALLORY HAS BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF HELPING ME MOVE FORWARD AND LEARN MORE ABOUT THE PROJECT.

BUT THE MORE AND MORE I LEARNED, I JUST SAW THE NEEDS HAD CHANGED AND THE NEEDS FOR THE COUNTY HAD CHANGED, AND I JUST FEEL IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WHAT CAN I SAY? THANK YOU. WELL, ACTUALLY, MADAM CHAIR, I DO HAVE IS THERE A TIMELINE MISMATCH WITH OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING AND THE RURAL SERVICES MASTER PLAN? THE END OF AUGUST IS COMING BEFORE AUGUST 15TH OR 16TH, I THINK, WHICH IS WHEN WE HAVE OUR STRATEGIC PLAN TIME SET ASIDE.

AND THAT TIMELINE MISMATCH BOTHERS ME SOMEWHAT.

YES, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN THERE. I WOULD JUST SAY, PERSONALLY SPEAKING, I THINK IT ALIGNS WELL AND SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT WHAT WE'LL GET FROM THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY WILL DEFINITELY INFORM THOSE LEVEL OF SERVICES AND POTENTIALLY WHAT BUILDINGS MIGHT LOOK LIKE IN ALL THE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY. AS YOU MEET AS A BOARD TO THINK STRATEGIC PLANNING, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT HIGHER THAN THAT.

HOWEVER PART OF THE THE CONSULTANT'S WORK WILL THEN BE WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS.

I'M SURE BRANDON WOULD BE INCLUDED IF THE BOARD SO CHOSE TO MAKE ONE OF THOSE HIGH LEVEL GOALS AND PRIORITIES TO, I'M JUST MAKING IT UP NOW. IMPROVE RURAL SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY RIGHT? THE CONSULTANT WILL THEN WORK WITH STAFF ON AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN TO BE HELD IN HAND, IN TANDEM WITH THE RURAL SERVICES PLAN, TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE CAN GET DONE AND ACHIEVE YOUR STRATEGIC PLAN, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO THE BOARD WILL BE LOOKING AT IT. HIGH LEVEL STAFF WILL THEN OVER THOSE NEXT PROBABLY 6 OR 8 WEEKS, I WOULD GUESS IT'LL TAKE BE WORKING ON IT ON A GRANULAR LEVEL TO FIGURE OUT THE STEPS TO ACHIEVE IT FOR YOU.

[01:35:05]

AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY. BUT IT ACTUALLY ALIGNS PRETTY WELL WITH THE RURAL SERVICES WILL BE DONE SHORTLY AFTER YOU DO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING, BUT JUST IN TIME FOR FOR STAFF TO LOOK AT EVERY ALL THE WEEDS, LET'S SAY.

ALL RIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, I APPRECIATE THAT. RESPONSE.

AND YET IT ALSO HERE'S IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT THAT MEANS MORE TIME FOR VICE CHAIR COMPTON TO BE WAITING FOR STAFF TO KIND OF RESPOND TO THIS ISSUE THAT HE, HE WANTS TO SEE MOVE FORWARD IN A MORE STREAMLINED FASHION.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT AND TRY TO COME UP WITH SOME DIRECTION, BECAUSE I THINK WHAT VICE CHAIR IS SPEAKING TO IS PERTINENT.

IT'S RELEVANT. IT'S PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

AND YET, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO BE THOROUGH AND THINK ABOUT TIMELINES AND ALL THAT.

THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT FOR SO LONG, AND IT IS THE SINGULAR PROJECT THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED AND READY TO GO.

I'M SIMPLY MAKING A COST SAVING CHANGE AND TO ATTEMPT TO HELP OTHER DISTRICTS, BUT IT'S THE SINGULAR PROJECT THAT'S SITTING THERE.

IT'S BEEN APPROVED IN SOME FORM OR FASHION, AND I APPRECIATE THAT.

I'M JUST I JUST THINK THE MORE YOU LEARN ABOUT YOUR DISTRICT, YOUR MORE LEARN ABOUT THE NEEDS, AND YOU MAY WANT TO ALTER THINGS UP. AND I WAS ELECTED FOR CHANGE AND TO GET THINGS MOVING.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M ATTEMPTING TO DO. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S INPUT.

SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS SO THE CHANGE OR WHAT THE PREVIOUS SUPERVISOR BECAUSE IT WAS THE PREVIOUS SUPERVISORS PROJECT TO MEET WITH WICKENBURG HOSPITAL AND, AND DO ALL THOSE THINGS, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF THOSE THINGS NEED TO GET CHANGED UP.

BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, CONGRESS WAS NOT THE FIRST PROJECT.

GURLEY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE NEXT PROJECT, AND THEN IT TURNED OUT TO BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE COULDN'T REMODEL WHILE PEOPLE ARE IN THE OFFICE AND YOU CAN'T MOVE THE 911 DEPARTMENT AROUND BECAUSE IT'S 911, YOU KNOW, 911, YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S IN ONE SPOT.

SO THAT'S WHAT MOVED US TO HAVE TO BUILD MY UNDERSTANDING.

I MEAN, THIS IS MY MY UNDERSTANDING. SO THEN IT BECAME THE WE NEED TO GET THE SHERIFF A BUILDING OVER THERE BY THE NEW CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER. HE WOULD NEED TO BE FIRST IN ORDER TO GET THE GURLEY DONE, WHICH GIVES THE OFFICE SPACE THAT'S NEEDED IN REGARDS TO ACTUALLY SOME OF FAIR STREET AND THEN GET THE COMMERCE BUILDING GOING, WHICH ACTUALLY ELECTIONS IS UP AGAINST IT AS WELL. AND CONGRESS WAS IN THERE WITH THE HALF A MILLION RIGHT BEFORE THE TERM ENDED AND THE NEW BOARD CAME ON FOR THE 500,000. SO. ALL I WOULD LOVE TO SEE HERE, AND I THINK THAT'S WHY WE GOT THIS STRATEGIC PLAN GOING. RIGHT. BUT WHAT WHAT MIGHT BE THE THING THAT CAME FIRST IS THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS IT IS IT THE THING THAT MOVES THE WHOLE COUNTY IS MY QUESTION.

I'M I'M THINKING THE COUNTY. THE WHOLE COUNTY.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A DOMINO EFFECT. WE CAN DO CONGRESS.

THAT CONGRESS BUILDING DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE.

WHAT ANYTHING OVER HERE IS THE PROBLEM. WE CAN'T GET ANYTHING DONE IN THE PRESCOTT AREA BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BUILD THAT ONE BUILDING NEXT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER TO GET THE SHERIFF MOVED IN, IN A PERMANENT STRUCTURE. SO I DON'T MIND IF WE DO THE ONE BY THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER FOR THE SHERIFF, AND WE CAN DO THIS CONGRESS DOWN THERE, TOO.

I DON'T I'M NOT HERE TO SAY IT'S A BAD IDEA, BUT THE BIGGER PICTURE, IT'S IT'S THE BIGGER PICTURE.

SO IF WE CAN GET THE BUILDING DONE NEXT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER, THAT'S GOING TO UNCLOG EVERYTHING. NOT JUST FOR YOUR CONSTITUENTS, BUT FOR EVERYBODY WHEN IT COMES TO THE ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT,

[01:40:01]

I MEAN, IT IS A HUGE DOMINO EFFECT. I WOULD I JUST WOULD LIKE TO GET IT ALL DONE.

I MEAN, I'M LIKE, JUST GO OUT AND GET THEM ALL MOVING UP TO THE SKY.

THAT'S KIND OF MY THOUGHT. BUT I DON'T MIND CONGRESS.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON WHEN WE HIRE SOMEONE.

OKAY. IT'S NOTHING AGAINST YOUR FRIEND OR YOUR THE PERSON, YOU KNOW.

BUT WAS A BIDDER, BUT GO AHEAD. WELL, NO. IT'S FINE.

I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOTHING AGAINST I DON'T KNOW.

WE ALL KNOW PEOPLE. WE'RE A SMALL COMMUNITY, BUT I, I REALLY, REALLY MY HEART'S DESIRE IS TO GET THE SHERIFF'S BUILDINGS DONE NEXT TO THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE CENTER. THAT IS THE ONE THING THAT'S GOING TO UNCLOG EVERYTHING ELSE AND THAT THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THAT THAT'S JUST MY IDEA.

MY VISION. THAT'S WHAT I KEEP SEEING. AND THEN EVERYTHING JUST MOVES FORWARD.

THIS BOARD AS THEY RUN FOR THEIR NEXT TERM. AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS, THEY COULD COME INTO THIS COUNTY, AND IT'S LIKE ALL THIS STUFF IS DONE. LIKE, ALL THE BUILDINGS ARE UP AND YOU'VE GOT ALL OF IT, AND YOU'RE JUST ROLLING WITH IT. THAT'S, BUT I THINK NOW'S THE TIME.

NOW'S THE TIME TO GET THAT DOOR OPEN YOU KNOW.

CHERYL, I WILL JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR THOSE COMMENTS AND WE DEFINITELY HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. JULY 16TH WILL BE A GREAT DAY FOR THE BOARD TO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION USING THESE PROFESSIONALLY PREPARED COST ESTIMATES.

SO NOW WE KNOW AS OF TODAY THEY'RE ACCURATE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT TO STIFEL AND UNDERSTAND BONDING CAPACITY, FINANCIAL POSITIONS AND HAVE THE BOARD THEN BEGIN TO DISCUSS HOW CAN WE STRATEGICALLY MAKE THESE DECISIONS ON WHICH BUILDINGS FIRST AND WHEN AND HOW MUCH AT ANY ONE TIME? SPECIFICALLY KIND OF PIVOTING BACK TO THE CONGRESS BUILDING.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING IF THERE'S A DESIRE FROM THE BOARD TO CHANGE THE SCOPE AND LIMIT IT TO THE SHERIFF'S SUBSTATION.

WE WOULD NEED THAT CLEAR DIRECTION. WE WOULD ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO REJECT ALL BIDS, BRING THAT ACTION TO THE BOARD, SINCE WE HAVE GONE OUT TO BID FOR THE CURRENT SCOPE.

THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO CHOOSE TO REJECT ALL BIDS.

WE WOULD HAVE TO RE SCOPE IT, ENGAGE WITH PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

AND I'M KIND OF HEARING MIXED REVIEWS ON HOW YOU WOULD PROPOSE FOR US TO PROCEED, WHETHER THAT'S A COMPETITIVE BID ON A NEW SCOPE OR WHETHER THAT'S DIRECT SELECT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH THE NORMAL DUE DILIGENCE WE DO.

HAVE WE EVEN SEEN THE SCOPE? WE HAVE NO AN UPDATED SCOPE, RIGHT? NO, NO. I THINK THAT'S WHAT SUPERVISOR JENKINS WAS REFERRING TO IS THAT SHE'D LIKE TO SEE IT ALL.

BECAUSE AFTER ALL, WE APPOINT, YOU KNOW, WE GOT HER UP HERE ON THE BOARD HERE AND WE HAVEN'T.

ALL OF THAT DISCUSSION HAPPENED BEFORE SHE WAS HERE.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHE'S ASKING FOR IS WHERE ARE WE AT RIGHT NOW? AND IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THIS, THAT'S FINE.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT ALL BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS.

AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE US TO RECEIVE THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY RESULTS TO INFORM THE SCOPE, AS IS WHERE MY QUESTION IS FOR THE THIS BUILDING, AS I SAID, HAS BEEN TALKED TO DEATH. WHAT I WOULD ASK MY FELLOW SUPERVISORS TO SUPPORT ME IS FINDING OUT WHAT THAT NEW SCOPE IS.

REDUCE THE SCOPE, BRINGING IT TO THE BOARD, MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT SO WE CAN GET THIS THING MOVING.

THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING MY FELLOW SUPERVISOR TO JOIN WITH ME IN DOING.

SO, WE CAN GET A BUILDING UP AND WE CAN GET IT GOING AND WE CAN ALL APPROVE IT LATER, BUT JUST CHANGE IT AND MOVE IT.

DO WE KEEP THE SCOPE AND GIVE THE SHERIFF HALF THAT BUILDING.

I DON'T YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? NO, I UNDERSTAND.

THEN WE GOT THAT. THEN YOU HAVE THE OTHER SPACE.

AND I JUST THINK WE'RE WE'RE TWO AND A HALF MONTHS AWAY FROM THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY, WHERE WE'LL KNOW WHAT'S COME IN AND WE'LL KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

DO WE WANT TO? IS IT WORTH TWO AND A HALF MONTHS TO SAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND DO THE RIGHT THING, YOU KNOW? AND CAN WE TAKE THIS TWO AND A HALF MONTHS? BECAUSE NOW BRANDON'S HEARD WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

HE'S STARTING TO HEAR WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO GET.

WOULD WE BE VERY CLEAR WITH OUR DIRECTION AND THE RURAL SERVICES STUDY DIRECTION TO KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO? AND I WOULDN'T EVEN MIND MEETING EVERY DAY FOR A WEEK TO HAMMER THIS OUT.

AND THAT WEEK AFTER THIS COMES OUT, WE KNOW WHAT WE GOT TO DO.

WE SAY, BRANDON, GO GET IT DONE. YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIND THE MONEY AND WE'LL DO IT.

SO I MEAN, I JUST THINK WE COULD DO THIS THE RIGHT WAY, AND I DON'T MIND PUTTING IN THE WORK AND HAVING THE MEETINGS EVERY DAY, BECAUSE THE HARDEST THING IS WE CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER.

[01:45:01]

IT'S JUST THAT HONESTLY, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR TEN MONTHS.

THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO, AND IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

THAT BUILDING. I SHOULDN'T GO ON THE SAME BUILDING.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE THAT I'VE MADE WITH PUBLIC SAFETY.

IT SHOULDN'T BE IN THE SAME BUILDING. I WANT IT ISOLATED.

THE LAND IS THERE, EVERYTHING'S READY TO GO. AND I'VE HAD THE COMMUNICATIONS WITH EVERYBODY IN MY CONSTITUENCY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PREFER TO DO. IS YOUR CONSTABLE IN THE RIGHT SPOT? IS YOUR.

IS YOUR ADULT PROBATION GOT A SPOT TO MEET WITH YOUR PEOPLE DOWN? ALL THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT THERE IN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND I HAVE THE OTHER BUILDING WITH JUDGE DOWLING'S TOO.

SO I MEAN, THERE'S IT'S ALL UNDER IT'S ALL GOING TO BE FOLDED INTO ONE IN TERMS OF A PUBLIC SAFETY.

AND THE REASON I'M SO HOT ON IT, TOO, IS BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE.

AND I HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES OUT THERE, AND I JUST DON'T WANT TO WAIT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY.

WELL, I'M IMPATIENT WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC SAFETY, I SHOULD SAY.

SURE. I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, VOICE MY OPINION ON THIS MATTER.

I DO THINK THAT WHAT VICE CHAIR IS OUTLINING IS LIKELY THE BEST APPROACH.

I TRUST HIM AND HIS KNOWLEDGE OF HIS DISTRICT.

I WOULD PREFER ALSO TO HAVE THE SHERIFF IN THE ROOM SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS CAN BE SUBSTANTIATED.

YOU KNOW, AND THEN SO I'M, YOU KNOW, INTERESTED IN SEEING MORE OF THAT CONCEPT OUTLINED IN THE JULY 18TH MEETING.

I WOULD FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE CONTINUING DOWN THE PATH OF THE PREVIOUS SCOPE, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A MORE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE PATH.

THAT MAKES BETTER SENSE IN LIGHT OF WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE RURAL SERVICES MASTER PLAN.

WE'LL LIKELY STILL BE TALKING ABOUT THE MATTER COME AUGUST, BUT IT'S MY DESIRE TO SEE US GO IN THE OUTLINED LINE DIRECTION.

AND I DO AGREE SUPERVISOR CHECK. I DO THINK THE SHERIFF NEEDS TO BE IN THE ROOM.

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN HE'S GOING TO TURN AROUND AND SAY, WELL, THIS ISN'T WORKING BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT, THAT'S FOR SURE.

WELL, WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED 24 HOURS TO PUT THE NOTICE OUT.

PUT THE NOTICE OUT. LET'S MEET TOMORROW AT 3:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

I'M READY TO GO ON THIS. LET'S JUST GET IT DONE.

I MEAN, I'M SURE THE SHERIFF WILL COME SPEAK WITH EACH ONE OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY.

I MEAN, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE BOARD WISHES TO DO.

I APPRECIATE THAT, VICE CHAIR, BUT I THINK THAT OUR BUSINESS HAS GOT TO BE IN PUBLIC.

AND. AND THE OTHER THING ABOUT BEING IN PUBLIC IS THAT WE ALL GET TO HEAR THE SAME THING, AND WE ALL GET TO HAVE A DIALOG.

AND WHEN IF I SAY SOMETHING WRONG, THEN SOMEONE ELSE CAN SAY, WELL, MAYBE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT IT THIS WAY.

THAT'S NOT A CRITICISM TO ME. IF I'M NOT SEEING SOMETHING CORRECTLY, I DON'T TAKE IT AS A CRITICISM.

WHAT I TAKE IT IS, IS THAT THERE'S A VIEW THAT I MISSED, AND I'M GOOD WITH THAT, BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS NOT WE WON'T ALWAYS BE IN THESE SEATS AND WE WON'T ALWAYS BE IN THESE OFFICES.

WE ARE BUILDING THE TOMORROW'S THE TOMORROWS FOR OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO COME AND TAKE CARE OF THIS COUNTY.

SO WHAT WE DO TODAY CAN'T BE TOO RUSHED AND IT CAN'T BE WRONG.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE AND WE'VE GOT TO DO IT RIGHT.

AND I DON'T CARE IF WE GOT TO BE HERE EVERY DAY, IT'S FINE.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE SHERIFF DOES NEED TO TALK TO US.

WE NEED TO HEAR FROM HIM. I'M HAPPY WITH SUPERVISOR COUTINHO'S REQUEST.

LET'S DO 24 HOURS. LET'S DO IT. I'M HAPPY TO HEAR FROM THE SHERIFF BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT HE'S TOLD ME.

CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YEAH. NO. NOT ME.

I'M JUST. GO AHEAD. OKAY. HOW MANY MORE SLIDES DO YOU HAVE? DO YOU WANT? IS THERE A SUMMARY SLIDE THAT YOU REFERENCED? THERE'S ONE. OKAY. CAN WE GO THERE FIRST? THANK YOU.

OKAY. LET'S WALK THROUGH THERE. AND THEN I WANT TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD HERE FROM THE BOARD TODAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO FIRST WE ARE GOING TO BE DOING A FINANCIAL ANALYSIS FOR BOTH YCS.

SO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING A NEW BUILDING AND THE REMODEL OF GURLEY STREET AS WELL AS THE COMMERCE AND ANNEX BUILDING B.

WE WILL BRING THAT BACK JULY 16TH WITH STIFEL TO PRESENT TO THE BOARD.

DELAND AND PRESCOTT, WE'RE CONTINUING TO DISCUSS THAT WITH STAFF FROM THE CITY OF PRESCOTT.

WE WILL SEE THAT THIS IS REALLY THIS IS THEIR REQUEST AND THEY'RE LOOKING INTO IT FURTHER.

SO WE WILL SEE WHAT THE DISCUSSIONS BRING AS A RESULT OF THAT.

AND FINALLY THE CONGRESS RURAL SERVICES. SO THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE NEED THE MOST CLARITY AS FAR AS NEXT STEPS.

THANK YOU TYLER. THANK YOU. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MAURY THOMPSON COUNTY MANAGER.

SO LET ME ATTEMPT TO TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I THINK I'VE HEARD.

AND I'M GOING TO START WITH THE REFERENCE TO THE STRATEGIC PLAN. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL BE ONE MAYBE SUBSTANTIVE PIECE OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN.

[01:50:07]

IT'S AN OVERARCHING DIRECTIONAL DOCUMENT FRAMEWORK FOR US ALL.

HAVING SAID THAT, THE BOARD DIRECTION TO DO A RURAL SERVICES MASTER PLAN WAS TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY.

SUPERVISOR CHECK, I HEARD YOU SAY GETTING COMMUNITY INPUT WAS IMPORTANT TO YOU.

THAT'S PART OF THIS RURAL SERVICE MASTER PLAN. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GATHERING THAT COMMUNITY INPUT. SUPERVISOR KUKNYO YOU SAID, I WANT TO HEAR FROM OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF, OUR DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS, WHAT THEY NEED. THAT'S PART OF THIS RURAL MASTER SERVICES MASTER PLAN.

WE'RE GATHERING THAT AND COUPLED WITH INPUT FROM ALL OF YOU AS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, THAT WAS THE DIRECTION YOU ALL GAVE US TO GO TO SOLVE THIS PUZZLE, IF YOU WILL, ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO BE PROVIDING AND WHERE IN THE RURAL PARTS OF OUR COUNTY.

SO, SUPERVISOR CHECK, I THINK YOU MAKE AN EXCELLENT POINT BY ASKING ABOUT THE TIMING, HOW OUR PIECES FITTING TOGETHER.

ARE WE STARTING TO MAKE DECISIONS BEFORE WE RECEIVE THE DATA THAT WE SAID THAT WE WANTED? SO I THINK SOMETHING FOR US TO CONSIDER. THE REASON WE'RE BACK HERE TODAY, CLARIFYING IS, AS YOU CAN SEE, YOU GO THROUGH THAT SUMMARY. NOTHING'S CHANGED FROM OUR LAST CONVERSATION UNTIL YOU GET TO THE CONGRESS BUILDING STAFF WORKING WITH THE VICE CHAIR, HE SAID. THE NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT NOW. WE NEED TO REVISIT THIS VALID ARGUMENT.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT DO WE CHANGE THAT PIECE OF IT AND IS NOW THE TIME TO DO SO? IF YOU ALL DECIDE TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT WE BUILD.

AND I HEARD SUPERVISOR JENKINS SAID, BRING THAT BACK TO ME, TO THE BOARD SO WE CAN SEE WHAT THE NEW PLAN IS, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT IF THAT'S AMENABLE TO THE BOARD, WE GET THAT DIRECTION.

WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT, WHETHER WE USE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COUPLED WITH SOME WHAT IS THE DUE DILIGENCE IF WE GO DOWN THAT PATH, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? THE BOARD IS COMFORTABLE WITH? OR DO WE GO WITH A TRUE COMPETITIVE PROCESS? BUT I'M HEARING THE NEXT STEP IS TO BRING BACK A REVISED SCOPE, ALONG WITH THE SHERIFF APPEARING HERE BEFORE YOU TO SAY YES, THIS IS WHAT I NEED AND THIS IS WHERE I NEED IT IN MY AND MY DISTRICT.

IS THAT A FAIR SUMMARY? YEAH, BUT IT'S MORE THAN THE SHERIFF.

IT'S THE SHERIFF, THE CONSTABLE, THE ADULT PROBATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE HE'LL SAY WHAT HE NEEDS.

BUT THAT AIN'T THE WHOLE PUZZLE. NOT IN THE OUTLYING AREAS.

AND I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY ELSE. I KNOW WHAT HE'S FACING.

I KNOW WHAT I'M FACING, AND THERE'S THERE'S. IT'S NOT GOOD UP THERE WHEN YOU KNOW, THAT'S.

YEAH. SINGLE, WIDE MOBILE HOME FALLING TO THE GROUND.

THANK YOU, SUPERVISOR KUKNYO. SO THAT GIVES US, TAKES US BACK TO THE RURAL SERVICES MASTER PLAN.

THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE GATHERING TO HOPEFULLY ANSWER ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENT I WAS GOING TO MAKE, CHAIR, I THINK I GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOUR SUMMARY WITH A COUPLE OF CAVEATS.

I MEAN, THE REAL REASON WE PAUSED ON GURLEY, WE KNOW, WAS BECAUSE OF OUR EXPENDITURE LIMITATION ISSUE.

WE HAD CASH, BUT WE COULDN'T SPEND IT SO WE COULDN'T MOVE FORWARD. SO WE HAD TO PAUSE UNTIL WE GOT THAT ADDRESSED.

WE DO. SO WE WERE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. BUT THEN ENOUGH TIME HAD GONE BY THAT WE STARTED QUESTIONING.

WELL WAS THE INITIAL PLAN ON GURLEY THE RIGHT ONE FOR US? AND I WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THAT. IT HAD BEEN LONG ENOUGH THOUGHT WE NEED TO REVISIT IT AS WE KNOW IT WAS GOOD THAT WE DID BECAUSE THAT PLAN THEN CHANGED.

I MEAN, THE SHERIFF SAID, NO, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE FOR ME TO REMAIN IN THIS BUILDING LONG TERM.

I THINK I NEED TO MOVE OUT. SO THAT PLAN CHANGED AGAIN.

SO WE HAD TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD YET AGAIN TO TO START OVER.

SO NOT TO MAKE EXCUSES, BUT THINGS KEEP CHANGING THEN THAT NECESSITATE, IF I CAN GET THAT WORD OUT.

AS PAUSING TO SAY, WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO? RIGHT.

AND AND YOU'RE RIGHT. IT KEEPS CHANGING. I GUESS MY FRUSTRATION IS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO JUST STOP CHANGING AND AND GET IT DONE. I JUST WANT TO GET IT DONE.

I'M LIKE YOU. I WANT TO GET IT DONE. OKAY, SO YOU'VE BEEN HERE TEN MONTHS.

I'VE BEEN TRYING TO DO THIS SINCE 2019. CAN YOU EVEN.

YOU WILL NEVER IMAGINE MY FRUSTRATION BECAUSE I'M.

I'M THE PERSON THAT'S LIKE. I'M GOING. I'M DOING THIS.

THIS HAS GOT TO HAPPEN. JUST LIKE YOU, IT IS FRUSTRATING, VERY FRUSTRATING.

BUT THE NEEDS ARE EVERYWHERE. WE GOT THE EXPENDITURE LIMITATION RAISED TO DO THE VERY THING THAT NOW I FELT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT NOW WE'RE CHANGING IT ALL AGAIN.

WE CAN COME BACK HERE AND WE CAN AND DO ALL OF THIS.

BUT I BEG OF ALL OF YOU, PLEASE LET US GET A PLAN AND LET'S MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND NOT CHANGE ANYMORE. LET'S. LET'S COME TOGETHER.

LET'S STAMP IT AND SAY YES, THIS IS HOW IT'S GOING TO GO BECAUSE WE ARE ON A TIME CRUNCH.

[01:55:06]

PRIORITIZING. MADAM CHAIR, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE CONGRESS RULE SERVICES AND THE SELIGMAN RULE SERVICES AND POSSIBLY SOMEBODY ELSE COULD BE THE SAME BUILDING THAT SHOULD MOVE UP TO THE TOP.

IT'LL BE THE LEAST EXPENSIVE TO DO. THESE ARE THE THINGS WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THEM.

BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 80 MILLION BUCKS RIGHT THERE.

SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT CAN TAKE SOME TIME.

IT'S THESE OTHER THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GATHER UP. WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO AT THE GURLEY STREET REMODEL.

WE KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH COMMERCE. WE JUST SAW THE LITTLE PLAN THERE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT'S IN QUESTION. IT'S IT'S THE OUTLYING AREA STUFF.

THAT'S THAT'S THE BIG QUESTION. WHAT IS NEEDED UP THERE AND WHAT'S IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

SO YOUR YOUR MAIN YOUR MAIN AREA I GET THE RULE, DON'T GET ME WRONG.

NO, BUT BUT YOUR MAIN AREA OF A LOT GOING ON, AS YOU KNOW, IS RIGHT IN THE PRESCOTT AREA, RIGHT IN THE AND AND YOU DO KNOW THOSE PEOPLE ARE WORKING IN THAT GURLEY STREET BUILDING ON THAT SECOND FLOOR.

WE'VE ALREADY WALKED THROUGH THAT. BUT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT THOUGH, YOU KNOW. SO THAT'S KIND OF SET.

IT'S THE ONLY THING THAT'S NOT SAID IS IS THE LAST ONE THERE.

AND DO WE JUST BUILD TWO SHERIFF SUBSTATIONS OR THREE OR 4 OR 5.

AND IF WE DO BUILD THEM, DO WE MAKE IT SO WE CAN EXTEND THEM TO ADD OTHER THINGS.

I JUST DON'T WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE OUT OF SPACE IN FIVE YEARS.

TEN YEARS. NO CHAIR. I AGREE MY NEXT STEPS WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK, OF COURSE, ON THE RURAL SERVICES MASTER PLAN AND GET THAT BACK BEFORE US.

WE'LL CONTINUE OUR WORK ON THE FINANCING CONVERSATIONS AND MECHANISMS, AND THREE WILL WORK IMMEDIATELY ON A NEW, REVISED SCOPE FOR CONGRESS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SHERIFF, AND WILL BRING THAT SCOPE BACK TO THE BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION.

OKAY. I MEAN, IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH THE BOARD AS WELL? YES. OKAY. YES. OKAY. AND REMEMBER, LIKE THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE ALL PROUD ABOUT PAYING OFF DEBT, BUT WE'RE PAYING OFF DEBT IN ORDER TO INCUR A BUTTLOAD MORE DEBT.

SO WE GOT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. WELL, THAT'S EVERYTHING YOU SAID.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THAT'S OKAY. I'M SORRY I WENT G MAN ON YOU.

YOU KNOW WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THIS. THE PRESENTATION WE HAD BEFORE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STUDY.

NO. AND, CHAIR, IF I COULD ON THAT ONE FINAL COMMENT ON THE FINANCING, JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD WE'RE IN A VERY STRONG FINANCIAL POSITION.

SO WHEN WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, WE'RE REFERRING TO BONDING. AND I, FOR ONE, AM CONFIDENT THAT WILL BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

BUT IT'S PROBABLY NOT THE WHOLE SOLUTION. THAT'S WHY WE NEED A COMPLETE ANALYSIS OF OUR FINANCIAL POSITION TO TELL US WHICH COMBINATION OF BONDING AND CASH MAKES SENSE.

EXCUSE ME. CHAIR. VICE CHAIR. SUPERVISORS. JUST ONE QUESTION.

KIND OF HOUSEKEEPING QUESTION. HAS IS THE BOARD FORMED A CONSENSUS THAT THE SCOPE IS GOING TO CHANGE SUCH THAT THE THAT HAVE BEEN RECEIVED RFQ SHOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD SO THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER REJECTING THE BIDS? YES. IS THAT'S MY DESIRE IF IT'S THE BOARD, BECAUSE I HAVE TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT.

I WOULD ALSO HAVE THAT AS MY DESIRE. OKAY, I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. OKAY. SO THEN MAYBE WE'LL HAVE THE OTHER DISCUSSION FIRST SEE WHAT THE SCOPE LOOKS LIKE.

AND THEN WE CAN I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT PLAN CAN MAKE TO MEET WITH THE SHERIFF.

SEE WHAT THAT PLAN. SO WE'LL WE'LL WE'LL LEAVE THAT BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER UNTIL SOME DIRECTION IS DETERMINED IN RELATION TO THE SCOPING OF THE PROJECT.

THANK YOU. I THINK THE IMPORTANT DIRECTION IS NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE RFP THAT'S OUT THERE.

THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. POINT WELL MADE, SUPERVISOR CHECK.

ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD TO CLOSE DOWN? I'M READY.

ARE WE GOOD TO CLOSE DOWN THIS WORK? STUDY? YES.

OKAY, THEN THIS WORK STUDY IS ADJOURNED THEN.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.