All right, good morning.

The time is now 10 a.m.

on February 4th, 2026, and the meeting of the audit committee is now called to order.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Mesa Gonzalez.

Councilmember White.

Citizen Member Taino.

Citizen Member Pacheco.

Chair Via Gran.

Here, Chair, we have quorum.

Thank you.

I will be allowing the members two rounds of comments per item with uh five minutes the first round and three minutes the second round.

And if you'd like to just do one longer round, because you think you could get it done, just take that time in the first round.

Um first item on the agenda is approval of minutes.

Are there any corrections to the minutes?

All right, if there's no corrections, can I get a motion and a second to approve the minutes?

I've got a motion to approve.

Do I have a second?

I have a motion and a second.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Madam Clerk, are there any members of the public signed up to speak?

We have no one signed up to speak, but there was a written comment received that has been distributed to the committee, and that was from Mr.

Ray Cardinus.

All right.

Um we all have the uh letter.

Are there any well there he's not here?

All right, thank you.

We'll enter this into the record, Ms.

All right.

Um there is one final internal audit report on the consent agenda.

Do any members wish to pull the item on consent for discussion?

No.

If no, can I get a motion and a second to accept the audit on the consent agenda?

I've got a motion.

Do I have a second?

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

All right.

Items three through six are individual items.

Uh, and then items three through six are pre-solicitations, so these are for briefings.

Madam Clerk, please read the caption for item three, and then we'll get a staff presentation.

Item number three is a briefing on the release of a solicitation for multiple respondents to provide the conventions and sports facilities department with temporary electrical and plumbing services for events for an estimated total value of nine million five hundred thousand dollars for three years with two one-year renewal options.

Great.

Patricia, the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Patricia Musquis Gantor.

I am the director of the convention and sports facilities department.

This is a pre-solicitation briefing for temporary electrical and plumbing services for events at the Henry B.

Gonzalez Convention Center and the Alamo Dome.

Patricia, can you pull the mic down?

Sure.

Push the I think the whole thing goes.

Can you all help with the whole podium down?

There you go.

Better better, sorry.

Uh the solicitation will be uh request for qualifications.

The proposed term, um, I'm sorry.

There we go.

The proposed term is uh three years uh with two one-year options.

Estimated value is 1.9 million dollars annually in commissions and a nine and a half million uh dollars over the term of the contract.

The revenues uh will be deposited in the hotel motel tax fund, and the current contract expires September 30th of this year.

As far as outreach, um there's over 700 uh nine uh 700 vendors in uh the central uh vendor registry uh under within under these two and IGP codes.

Uh 12 of those are veteran to own small businesses, and 10 will receive targeted outreach.

Advertising also will uh be done through TVSA, the COSA bidding and contracting web page, heartbeat as well as SAPs.

The valuation uh committee will consist of assistant city manager, uh Alex Lopez, myself, Ida Alfonso Rodriguez Sola, Assistant Director at the Convention Center, Kyle McCallisic, uh Project Control Manager at the Henry V.

Gonzalez Convention Center, Eric Duncan, uh building maintenance manager at the Alamo Dome, and finally Rotney Ball Area Director for venues with Encore, a contractor that provides A V and rigging at the convention center.

The evaluation criteria will consist of up to 45 points for experience, background, and qualifications, 30 points for proposed plan, 10 points for SBE prime contract program, 10 points for local preference program, and five points for veteran-owned small business preference program.

Uh no audited financial statements will be required, but there is a 10% SBE subcontracting requirement.

The subcontracting uh requirement is based on opportunities uh for SBEs within the scope of work, the percentage of SBEs available in the central vendor registry, and the utilization of SBEs on historic projects with similar uh nature.

Uh project timeline, it starts today with the pre-solicitation briefing.

Uh the release date of the solicitation will be uh March 4th.

Restriction of uh communication will start on March 4th as well.

There is a pre-submital conference that is planned for March 19th.

The political contribution blackout uh start date will be um will start on April 7th, along with the deadline for questions.

Uh we are planning to release um uh or the solicitations will be will be due on May 11th.

The evaluation uh will be complete by June 4th.

Contract will be negotiated uh during the months of June and July.

A proposed uh solicitation uh briefing is planned for August 5th, with city council consideration happening in August, and restrictions on uh communication will end um on um August uh as well.

Political contribution blackout end date will be 30 calendar days following the city council approval with contract start date being October 1st.

This concludes my presentation.

I'm available to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I just had a meeting with the uh union IBW, and they we talked about um journeymen and apprentice apprenticeships.

Are we going to ask those questions uh when we do the interview about where they're working on and and are we gonna ask any questions regarding ready to work and if they're part of those programs for this uh bid?

We we can certainly add you know those types of questions.

Yes, Steph definitely will ask the you know, and historically we've asked those questions.

Okay, I just want to I want to make sure as we uh it in I think this is one with both committees as I we look on economic workforce development and what we're doing there.

I think that is some of the questions that I know is gonna come out of that committee when we when we talk about this bid, so just make sure that we have the team uh asking those questions and making sure that we are contributing to uh keeping that that dollar local with um local plumbers and uh our regional plumbers also because I know and electricians because I know that right now where the trades are concerned, we're trying to build up that workforce.

Um, I'm really uh I think you have a good team to ask the questions.

I'm assuming they are going to.

I just want to make sure we anticipate our council on what they're going to ask as we bring this through the process.

Um, and I really do like that.

We're gonna do the small the veteran owned small business preference program points.

I think that's a good uh plus on this.

Um any of my committee members have any questions?

Yes, council member white.

Yes, briefly.

Um do we have documentation on percentages of locals, small businesses versus larger businesses that that get some of these jobs?

Well, certainly, like um councilman uh councilwoman uh Via Gran mentioned, they do use local journeymen.

Um a lot of their staff, you know, are you know from the union, the local uh union.

Um, but we don't have we can certainly get those percentages of how many are local and how many are from out of town.

But I would assume historically in the past, the large majority have been local.

The large majority.

Yes.

So another way of saying it is is the the largest percentage of our total contract dollars um will go to local or or small businesses as opposed to to big out-of-town folks.

Councilman, I guess if I understand your question, during the procurement, um, since local is a percentage and evaluation.

We will have them fill out documentation, whether they are headquartered or they have a significant business presence.

Yeah.

And after that, we can kind of bring back to you in the post solicitation kind of how that fill out in the scoring.

Yeah.

Um we do also track above and beyond this, we do track the percentage of local overall on all our procurements, but specifically this one.

We will be looking at it, and we can bring that back to you on the post.

Perfect.

All right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Councilman um Ms.

Gonzalez.

This is multiple contractors that we're hiring.

Correct.

It's just preferred.

Sorry.

You didn't hear me.

Is this similar to an on-call?

My first question was Is this multiple contractors?

Multiple contractors, that is correct.

Okay, and is this similar to like an on-call?

It will be.

Um this is structured as a request for qualifications because given the nature of every event's gonna have a different requirement.

You can't do it as low bid, so we're gonna focus it as a request for qualifications.

She will need multiple contractors, electrical plumbing, and others.

And so we'll be bringing back a fairly diverse group of contractors for y'all y'all's consideration.

If there isn't any other questions, I'm hoping we have a lot.

Oh, yes.

Um, so on the posting language, it says temporary, right?

Like, is there a longer term plan for this project, or why does it include that particular word?

Sorry if it's so it includes that word just because um it's for event related, so they provide their services to um the meetings that happen at the convention center or the events that happen at the Alamo Dome, which are temporary events.

All right, if there aren't any other questions, all right.

Well, I hope that there's a lot of events coming to the dome and the um the convention center, and you know my preferences concerts, but you know, Monster Trek is I know we got Monster Jam reschedules, right?

Uh so we'll we'll uh look for we'll look forward to hearing what what's on the calendar.

Thank you.

Uh all right.

This was for brief this item was for briefing only, so we will move on to item four.

Madam Clerk, please read the caption for item four.

Item four is the briefing on the release of a solicitation for multiple contracts to provide the government affairs department with state legislative consultant services for an estimated total value of $1,600,000 for two years with one two-year option to renew.

All right, Sally, the floor is yours.

Good morning, madam chair, uh council members and community members.

Sally Basurto, Director for Government Affairs.

My presentation today includes a pre-solicitation briefing on an RFQ request for count uh uh request for qualifications for state representation services in Austin uh Texas during the state legislative session and other periods.

This work includes representing the community's interests during the state legislative session um and other periods with state leadership, members, key members of the state legislature and agencies uh to strengthen the advocacy efforts of the government affairs team and the city of San Antonio in support of the council approved state legislative program.

Um as noted here, we expect to contract up to five firms for a maximum amount of 400,000 per year.

Under the solicitation overview, the outreach includes um the NIGP codes identified to determine vendor eligibility number 96151 for lobby services.

The number of vendors to be notified included in the central vendor registry are 40, 39 under veteran-owned small businesses, and 42 will be the targeted outreach for um individuals registered conducting this line of work under the advertising.

These are the regular methods of uh the COSA procurement team, TVSA channel, COSA bidding and contracting website, heartbeat, and SAPs.

Under the evaluation um voting members, and that includes assistant city manager, Jeff Coyle, General Wanayala, Director for Military and Veterans Affairs, Carlos Contreras, President and CEO of Goodwill San Antonio, Victoria Shoemaker, Director of External Affairs with Brooke City Base, and myself.

Here are the solicitation requirements under the evaluation criteria, submittals received will be evaluated using the following criteria: 75 points for experience, background, and qualifications, 10 points for small business enterprise contract program, 10 points for the local preference program, and five points for veteran owned small business preference program.

Continuing with the solicitation requirements, audited financial stage statements will not be required.

Sebata availability analysis.

APIs are supported by the following analysis on a contract by contract basis, including opportunities for SBEs within the scope of work, percentage SBEs available in the central vendor registry, as well as utilization of SBEs on historic projects of similar nature.

This is the project timeline slide.

Uh as you can see here for the pre-solicitation briefing.

Um that is today.

Contracts will be negotiated in the June and July 2026 timeframe.

And then we will return to the audit committee for the post-solicitation briefing on August 5th, 2026.

The restriction on communication end date for city officials is August of 2026.

Restriction on communication end date would be in August 2026 as well, with a contract start date.

We're aiming for October 1 of 2026, and the political contribution blackout end date would be the 30th calendar day following the city council approval.

Uh committee members, this concludes my presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

So next session, I know do we have an idea of what we know is going to come back?

Are y'all working out of what is probably going to come back to the state at this at the house and in the Senate?

And then are we looking at what we anticipate are going to be new struggles?

Absolutely, Councilwoman.

That is a great question.

So during this period, which is called the interim session, my team and I are working with key partners.

We have a list, a working list that we have identified of the bills that we opposed and that were detrimental to the city of San Antonio, the community, and where we're working with key partners, including our state delegation members and staff, to determine what those challenges are going to be during the state-led session.

Obviously, as you stated, there are going to be other emerging uh bills that will arise.

Um, however, I believe strongly that during the work that we'll be doing during the interim session to build those coalitions of groups that assisted us and then grow that even further.

We'll be much more better prepared during the session in anticipation of some of those bills that will be looked at for sure and refile during the new session in 2027.

Uh, and and part of this is because I saw it on intergovernmental relations last year.

Was it yeah, last year?

Um, and as we look at slide three and our outreach and our evaluation of voting members, I think we I want to have more of a conversation there because I think what we need to do is we need to think about regions and areas that maybe are not close to us, but we have some things in common where we can get help with our our legislative agenda for the state.

So I think um I mean I I think we may need some eyes that say that and have an understanding of what's going on in and what the changes are coming.

You know, we know that after November, um the the Texas Senate and the Texas House may look very different.

And so how how are we working to with committee members to move forward our our uh legislative agenda and really protect the local control and interests because that's constantly so I I'd like to kind of um get more of a deeper dive into that uh and and that can be offline, but I think as we as we move forward, we have to be very um strategic as we move forward and understanding just the challenges we're facing as a community here in Texas, and um and let's be honest that you know our you know our state has a role, but are we being truly listened to at other levels of government?

And I don't know necessarily that that that is the case, uh that even our governor is being heard in some of his concerns and trying to uh move the state forward.

So I think we need to kind of look at that as as we look at what's gonna come forward with the um with the state, and uh we know that we we we know now we see that clearly that Texas's economy is feeling that, and uh while San Antonio traditionally has been able to kind of sit on a little island and take care of themselves with their um with our industries and our growth and our our work ethic, I th I don't know that that's gonna be the case anymore, and we need to really be strategic as we move forward and and look at the regions both to the north and the south.

So I want to make sure that we have the the right team and we're doing enough outreach that we get uh of those five that we get somebody that knows knows some of the some of the members that I think are gonna be new coming after um after the November election.

So um that's just my thoughts, but thank you for the presentation.

I you know I'm it's gonna blink and we're gonna be in session, and so um I look forward to hearing from my other committee members.

Councilmember White.

Thank you, Chair.

Um begin by saying that I I think that the folks that we have been using, at least since since I've been here, are great.

They are they are they are the best of the best and um really appreciate all of the work that they have done for us here.

I I can't let this go by without reiterating some of my comments from last year.

Um I have an issue with taxpayer funded lobbying.

Um and I'll and I'll tell you why.

We had a good example of it, I think, last year.

I mean, I mean the question here is when we're spending taxpayers' money to have folks go up to Austin and and argue for or against a particular piece of legislation, are the are the people actually really being represented?

Uh, are their interests being represented?

And one example that we came across last year was with the um with the uh exemption, the tax exemption for businesses, personal property that they use to to run their business.

And uh we had a B session, I think it was, where we sort of learned, I guess, for the first time that it was a bill that that the city was was opposing, I believe.

And the reason we were told that we were opposing it was because in the general um language of our of our legislative policy here, um it says, and and I know Jeff's here, so he can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think in the general policy it said that we would oppose bills that would have a negative impact on city revenue.

And so because this business personal property exemption, you know, if it if it went through the legislature would negatively impact revenue coming to the city, um our folks were opposing it.

In my opinion, that was a good bill.

I mean, to help small businesses get some monetary relief on the equipment that they use to make a living, um, to me is good policy.

And so I don't feel that the taxpayers were being really represented there in a way I think that they would want.

I think most of the public would agree uh that that an exemption for for equipment for businesses, uh a tax exemption would be a good idea, and actually I think the majority of this city council last year is I'm gonna let's let's stay on topic, which is the item here before we start throwing in this new city council on what they want or don't want.

So let's address the this is a briefing for the solicitation overview.

So let's say on that.

And I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna bring it back.

If you'll just allow me one or two more sentences, uh I was just gonna say that I think that city council last year would have um been been for that bill.

So I I say all of that to say that if we're going to continue down this road and issue contracts like this and and use these lobbyists, what I would like to see is um better communication at the outset between our team and council um in terms of what our policy is and what sort of bills we're gonna be for or against before we start having our paid folks go up to Austin uh and do their work.

And I don't know if we need a B session with with council so that we really go over that, maybe not just IGR, because maybe it's too small, but a full B session to talk about what our overall policy should be and what we're looking for out of the next legislative session.

So thank you, Chair, for letting me let me finish uh on that in terms of questions.

Um I guess uh the contract would start October of this year and then run for two years.

Is that right?

That's correct, Councilman.

Okay, so um and and it's 400,000 total to be split up between the five firms.

Uh up to five firms, and that would be the maximum.

That's the ceiling, the 400,000 per year would be the maximum.

Is the ceiling, and so the reason it says 1.6 million total, that that's if the extension is granted by city council for the second two-year term.

Got it.

Okay.

I'm out of time.

Uh updates.

You can you can chime in again.

I I do want to hear from our two uh members if they'd like to um chime in and then Jeff or Sally, if you could just tell us, so our initial process is the briefing about how we go through the process.

So this is where we want you to chime in and say this is what we're looking for in lobbyists, we don't want you to spend that much, things like that.

Um, but when what the three of us will do is we'll have other conversations.

Now, if you have recommendations that we take in audit, this is what we asked for.

That's what I do is I'll say in audit, they asked for this this kind of uh representation, they asked for um this kind of price range as we do that.

So I want you to feel that even though you're not gonna be part of the conversations um that Jeff is gonna, if Sally and you could tell us, and I know we do that, we have a B session with the we have a B session with the entire council, and we have uh A session to adopt it.

But your role here, and this is the briefing is to tell us of these lobbyists, what do you want to see?

Um you don't want us to spend that much.

You do want us to spend that much.

Um do they have experience in local control?

So I want y'all to feel free to kind of chime in that way too um on on this issue because this is your opportunity as committee members to do that.

But uh councilman, does anyone want to ask questions or councilman Ms.

Gonzalez?

Yes.

Member Pacheco.

Yeah, just based on your feedback, um, it sounds like we have had these services uh in previous years.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Currently, uh the state legislative contracts um they expired May of 2025 after that state legislative session.

So currently we don't have them.

Uh but yes, we've had uh state contracts um every year.

Perfect, thank you.

So to chairwoman, to your guidance and advice, I would want to know for those previous years, right?

What is the ROI?

What did we ask?

And did it actually happen, right?

Is this a good investment for the city?

All right, got that, Sally.

Uh yes, absolutely, councilwoman.

If I may just answer for the moment, um our budget book includes um at least three performance measures.

These consultants in Austin are an extension of the government affairs team.

So what we're held accountable for those performance measures, they're an extension of us, and those performance measures um are included in the city's annual budget book, so I can provide those as well.

Great.

Member Tana?

Yeah, Daniel, you stole my question.

No, um, that's great.

Um, just uh I wanted to understand the qualifications and what you're adjudicating these folks against for ROI last year compared to this year, and so I I think we hit that a little bit there.

But um, what are some of your I guess I know you probably can't go too deep into but some of the methodology to proactively forecast and have foresight as to what the landscape is gonna look like to Chair's point.

Like what what does that look like behind the scenes from your side?

So I'll speak to what I can share.

So, as I mentioned um to the chairwoman, we're currently doing a lot of outreach and engagement of community partners, our state delegation members, um, and other key members.

One of the new pieces um that we're leaning in a lot during this interim session is engaging smaller juris jurisdictions around San Antonio.

We've heard loud and clear from the chairwoman and other uh city council members.

Um coalition efforts are really important during the state-led session.

So the smaller counties, uh, Bear County is uh comprised, of course, of uh various smaller counties around our MSA, and so we're working with those partners that work closely, like the San Antonio River Authority, for example, their footprint is much larger, and so we are uh working with our community partners to be able to engage the smallest jurisdictions around Bear County as uh ACOG is another great example.

Their footprint is much larger than Bear County.

We're just one of the counties, and then with the Texas Municipal League, it's a trade organization that supports cities across the state.

We're working very closely with them, and they are doing a lot of engagement of smaller local governments, uh cities across the state to be able to build that coalition um effort.

Councilwoman mentioned identifying the bills that currently we have on a list that we know were potentially detrimental.

Some of them passed, a lot of them didn't pass during the state state last state session in 2025, but we know that they will likely be refiled in its original form or something very similar.

So we have a very good forecast to determine um what will be coming back, and then of course, we don't have a crystal ball, but we know um the issues um surrounding very particular priority items for either um any uh leadership uh or key members within the state um that we know have priority items that we'll be returning and refiled.

Hopefully that answers your questions.

All right, Councilman Messagenz.

Thank you.

Um, just some questions on the uh five firms.

Are they specific to any areas or how do they break up their time or focus?

That's a great question, Council Councilman.

Well, uh, it depends um how many respondents will submit um for this solicitation.

Part of the scope of work and what we're looking at is their experience, their qualifications, um, and their knowledge working with local government entities like the city of San Antonio.

So we're gonna request as part of the RFQ for them to share what type of experience they have, uh, the bench that they have, um, their ability to be able to help us execute what we'll have by then the city council approved legislative program.

And so we're gonna be looking at all of that because we already know that that we'll have very specific needs and very specific priorities.

Um, relationships with key members are very important.

We work closely with our state delegation members, but many of the key um chairmanships are from members all over the state, and so individuals that will be submitting for the solicitation will be looking for you know their reach and their communication with very key members across the state landscape across the state, not just uh for San Antonio or Bear County.

Um, and then their knowledge of current issues, mentioning the forecast, uh, we'll be looking for that as well so that we can be informed.

And again, like I said, I can't reiterate how important it is to understand that this these teams are an extension of the government affairs team, and um myself and two other staff members, there's three of us up in Austin.

So having additional members of our team assist us to execute and protect um your ability to make local decisions during the legislature and year-round, we even when the ledge is not happening, is part of the protection of community interest of this uh council approved program.

Did we have five firms last session?

We did have five firms last session.

Okay.

So it's kind of an arbitrary number because I mean there's so many uh forms of firms out there.

There could be a firm that could, you know, be a full service firm for lack of a better description that could have all the areas encompassed within their their divisions and their bench that could cover all the needs of the community of the city of San Antonio uh council and the program, and there could be you know the need where there will be multiple firms required depending on the needs of the community and the state legislative program work.

So it remains to be seen.

Um we're aiming for it up to five potentially because that's what we had in the last round.

Okay, yeah, I'm just asked that your evaluation committee really um makes up folks that you know have had previous experience uh running government affairs departments.

Uh I see a few have, but also that a few haven't, so just want to make sure that that I mean because we know state ledge and um it all comes pretty fast and um sometimes not most of the time not planned.

So I just want to make sure that committee is able to understand and ask the right questions for these lobby groups.

Do you all register yourselves?

We do not.

You do not.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Councilman White.

And I just last thing, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

You do amazing work.

And this is not a criticism at all of your work.

I just again, when we're spending, when we're spending taxpayer money, I think we need to be really clear and transparent on how it's being spent.

And that that particular uh bill on the on the small business tax exemption again.

I think that's something uh that would have had a lot of favor in the community and here, yet we spent taxpayer dollars at least for some period of time that maybe either we were against it or we didn't support the bill.

So I just want to make sure that we have a clear uh process and program as we move forward uh into the next session.

Thanks, Chair.

Yeah, sure.

Yes, uh everything you said, councilman is factual.

So let me let me state that.

Um we're we're blending a couple of things here, which is selecting the consultants that we use as an extension of our staff, and what our positions are as an organization in our state program.

There was language last legislative session to oppose bills that eroded or reduced revenue to the city organization.

So that was the council approved position that we took when that personal property tax exemption bill came up.

Ultimately, there was a discussion here at several council meetings and some question as to whether we should back off that given the benefit to small business owners, and ultimately we did.

So I would argue that process worked correctly.

But what the reason I stood up, the one thing I want to make clear is that was not a lobby consultant issue at all.

We didn't send lobbyists up there to go twist arms and kill that bill.

We simply, as a city staff, registered the city organization's positions at the hearing, and then ultimately took feedback from you that caused us to adjust as the session went on.

And thank you for that clarification.

And and chair, thank you for.

I know I've sort of conflated the two issues of selecting the uh the folks and and then the bigger issue, uh, but I did want to take the the the opportunity to bring it up and then I appreciate that.

Hey, uh member and Tana, did you have another question?

Just one last thing for Sally.

Um back to like your technique and methodology.

Do you guys does your office put together like an environmental scan of that political landscape that this committee should be aware of?

That I don't know if you have it internally that that is accessible in terms of you know, kind of the landscape you're using to select the the lobbyists.

So we normally stick to the scope of work um and there's items on there that we'll utilize to guide um the review of the solicitations.

The political landscape is a tricky thing to talk about andor document, but we did during the state legislative session and leading up to it.

I provided a regular cadence of city council a session briefings.

So I think I was coming to city council at least twice a month, um, every two weeks, regular cadence providing the updates uh regarding the updates related to the state legislative program, uh positions we were taking.

Additionally, at the request of councilman White, we posted a bills report tracker on the city's website that demonstrates the various bills that the city took positions on, and again, those positions as um Jeff's shared are a reflection of our marching orders from the city council approved state legislative program.

And is that that document available to the public?

Absolutely.

It's actually, and we can share the link to the dashboard.

Um the councilman mentioned ensuring that we have a transparent process, and I'm very proud that we do.

Thanks to his request.

Not only do we have the dashboard, but we have the um representation services contracts going back 15 years on um the government affairs website.

So those are posted as well for the public and the community to be able to see who represents the city and the community during the state legislative session and other times during the year.

So we do have a very transparent process, and I'm very proud that we are able to you know maintain uh that regular cadence of updates to the city council uh during the session and leading up to the session.

And I had a um timeline up here if I may chairwoman, a backup slide that my team put together.

So currently, right now, during the February and April time frame, we are developing the program development to address some of the questions that the councilman said, separate, like Jeff said, from the procurement piece of the contracts.

This is the state program development.

So my team and I are currently engaging stakeholders, city department heads to be able to develop a recommended program that we will present to the city council during the duration of May and June.

We will have individual meetings with our council members to garner feedback from them on what the cities and community priorities are, and that will help build the recommended program that ultimately will go to council.

And then I will be back to the audit committee on the procurement side of things, but then in the September-October time frame, I will go back to council to present the state recommended program with the feedback of our council.

Excellent.

Thank you, Sally.

Thank you.

Just briefly, I just want to say thank you too because there were a couple of occasions where a couple of us went up to Austin to uh to testify on various bills and in your team as well as the folks that uh that we use externally made it made it very um easy and made it a seamless process to get up there and do that.

Thank you, Councilman.

I'll share that with my team.

They'll appreciate it.

Yes, uh, and I just want to end with um as we get back to um the the solicit solicitation requirements and the what they're going to bring forward is there's a lot of technology out there, there's a lot of apps or programs that people are saying this will give us the answer, this will do that.

So I I really want the team to be really see what works, and I think the opportunity is as we go into NLC is see what the smaller communities are using because if we get a firm that says this works and we get confirmation that it worked in a in another municipality, maybe we maybe that helps edge it out.

I'm hoping it'll be a very competitive process with the the um those that that apply for this uh because we do want the best team up there to make sure because the priority uh for me is uh moving the city forward and local, and I do that's done well with local control.

So thank you.

Thank you for your efforts.

This item was for briefing only, so we'll move on to item number five.

Madam Clerk, please read the caption.

Item number five is a briefing on the release of a solicitation for one contract to provide the San Antonio Police Department with toxicology laboratory services required to support the testing and analysis of all samples for an estimated total value of five million six hundred thousand dollars for three years with two one-year options to renew.

All right, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair, and good morning, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Rick Riley.

I'm the assistant director for the San Antonio Police Department.

And today I will present a pre-solicitation briefing on toxicology laboratory services.

SAPD is requesting to issue a request for proposal for a single agency to provide toxicology laboratory services to the department.

These services support the testing and analysis of blood samples from arrests related to DWI, DUI, intoxication manslaughter, and intoxication assault.

Previously, this contract was provided by DPS.

We were notified last August that DPS would not renew, so thus we need to go out for a request for proposal.

The proposed term, as you'll see, is three years with two one-year options, estimated annual value of just over 1.1 million for 5.6 million over the five-year potential of the contract.

And the current contract that we have expires in September of 2026.

You'll see there the one in IGP code used to identify uh vendors is listed on the slide, and that's the alcohol and drug testing services.

There were 64 vendors in the city central registry that can provide these services, advertisement through the normal channels of TVSA, the COSA bidding and contracting website, heartbeat and safes.

Our evaluation voting members include the deputy city manager, Ms.

Villa Gomez, three members from the San Antonio Police Department, Assistant Chief Jesse Salome, who heads the operations support bureau, Deputy Chief Jorge Suarez, who heads the investigation division, myself, and then uh one attorney from the district attorney's office in Emily Angulo, and she is in charge of intake and grand jury division for the Bear County DA's office.

Submittals received will be evaluated as follows.

Experience, background, and qualifications will be worth 35 points.

The proposed plan is 25 points, pricing 15.

Both the SBE Prime Contract Program and Local Preference Program, 10 points each, and then five points for any veteran-owned small business that apply.

No audited financial statements are required, and then the APIs will be supported on an analysis on a contract by contract basis.

Some key dates there that you'll see obviously today with the pre-solicitation briefing scheduled to release this solicitation on Friday, February 6th.

The pre-submittal conference scheduled for February 20th.

The date for submittals is March 23rd, so uh roughly a little over six weeks that it'll be open.

The evaluation committee uh plans to have its job done by April 20th.

The post-solicitation briefing back here at audit will be May 6th.

Hopefully to City Council for consideration of the contract on June 18th, and then a contract start date of October 1st of 2026.

And that completes my briefing.

I'm available for questions that you may have.

So I I have one question.

So this is going to be separate.

This is just for our police.

This isn't we can't, because I am I'm thinking about the budget.

We can't do it with the drug testing that the city does for their employees.

That's to be two different contracts.

Yes, ma'am.

And that's because uh this is evidence, it requires expert testimony, those types of things.

So you'll see the central vendor registry with 64.

Those are people that do testing, but they don't do the specific testing to go in front of a court and testify to to the results.

All right, because I was thinking maybe we can you know get a discount.

But if if if I thank you for clarifying that, and I want to make sure we we take that out to our um businesses that maybe are looking to uh level up and get to that that level is maybe not this year, but in the future, what can they do if they're local in their San Antonio?

What can they do to win this contract?

Because it's uh it's necessary and it's needed, and now we have the opportunity to do it here.

So uh thank you.

Uh do any of my committee members have questions?

Council member White.

One quick question.

Um, we're doing a single vendor for the toxicology services.

Why that as opposed to multiple vendors?

So that vendor is um provides both the the test the collection is done at the uh at the municipal uh detention center, and then that testing goes to that vendor for chain of custody.

I I don't and the DA does not like multiple vendors providing that for chain of custody for testimony purposes, that type of thing, council member.

Got it.

Thanks, Chair.

Any other questions?

Yes.

Can you please talk to the I guess the evaluation criteria piece uh as to the experience being 35 points and proposed plan 25 points?

Just kind of the the thinking behind that breakdown.

Yeah, so um the experience is have you done this before?

So they're roughly, you know, Bear County, for example, uses quality forensics, and they've used them for a while.

That's currently who we're using on an emergency contract basis.

So that's the experience portion of that.

Have you done this before?

Do you have the certified technicians to do it?

Do you have the people that can go in front of a court and testify as an expert witness to do it?

The proposed plan is how are you going to do that?

How long is it going to take from the time I give you a sample to you get results back?

We don't need that being a prolonged period of time.

I need to make sure that you have the number of individuals employed and certified to keep that moving so that we can continue to move those cases to completion.

That makes sense, thank you.

And is there any special or unique vetting required for this vendor as they execute this the scope considering the sensitivity of the chain of custody piece?

So, yes, ma'am.

It it's in the statement of it'll be in the statement of work.

All of their people have to be uh certified by the state to provide that testing, and then the expert witness testimony is somebody that the DA is gonna rely on, so I can't really speak to that that they've used previously that they probably feel comfortable with.

Good copy.

Thanks.

Member Pacheco.

Yeah, just a quick question on the proposed plan and what uh Trisha was uh talking about.

So whenever you select vendors, is there any uh consideration as to what uh where the devices for those collection uh pretty much medical device collections, right?

Like if they're made in the US or made foreign.

Uh, the reason why I asked this is because I know this has been in uh national news of utilizing American-made products at both President uh Biden and President Trump signed on for tariffs for medical devices, so just want to make sure that that's potentially a consideration there.

So that would probably be a better question for UT Health.

They're the ones that provide the collection for us at the detention center, but I can do some research and follow up with the chair.

Thank you.

Yes, if you could give us that so we can uh get that out to the committee.

Thank you as a follow-up.

Are there any other questions?

If there's not, we will move on because this item was for briefing only.

Item number six.

Uh Madam Clerk, please read the count.

Item number six is a briefing on the release of a solicitation for one contract to provide the capital delivery department with planning and schematic design services for the collabor road loop 410 to General McMellan project located in council districts five, six, and seven for an estimated value of nine million dollars.

All right, good morning uh committee.

Uh my name is Mike Shannon.

I'm the director of capital delivery.

I have two items in a row here, uh, both for design services uh for uh two important projects, and both have leveraged fund funding from grants, so excited about these two.

Uh this one is a request for qualifications for design services for the Calibra Road project.

Uh Calabra Road, as you know, uh heavily discussed, heavily needed improvements uh as part of our essay tomorrow planning efforts a decade ago.

Uh this is for loop 410 to General McMullen and as mentioned located in districts five, six, and seven.

So uh we have funding from our 2022 bond, but we're leveraging certainly that funding uh to um uh to already accept the federal highway administration fund.

So if you look there, it's an RFQ.

Uh we want to put this out on the street uh this spring, uh estimated about nine million dollars, and again, um having uh the raise grant uh from the federal highway administration, uh and this would be a new contract, but again, uh providing those design services for this uh so to get ready for any future funding uh to construct it.

Uh the outreach, uh there are the codes, civil engineering, structural environmental, of course, um, advertising uh listed there, number of vendors over 400.

Uh, and there was our proposed evaluation uh members, which is city manager's office, uh certainly my team, uh transportation department, um, and uh San Antonio Water System.

So all of those have a uh significant interest uh in the Calibra uh redevelopment.

Our evaluation criteria similar to the last one, certainly experience, background qualifications, 45 points.

Um the project and proposed management plan, 35 points, and certainly experience with our region and past performance 20 points.

Uh so those all of those are critical for a successful design process as we engage the community, but also the technical uh portion and experience uh with our region.

Uh some additional requirements, just list them there, not required for financial statements, uh local preference not required, um, and veteran not applicable and DBE not required.

So here's the timeline.

We'd like to get this uh out in February, uh certainly later this month and after today, and then we would solicit and try to bring back to the committee uh in uh in August and then uh have a selection uh later in the summer.

So with that, I take any questions.

Um I don't have any questions.

I'm just ready for this project to get started.

Yes.

Um because Culebra Road is kind of a mess for everyone.

So thank you for the presentation.

I uh look forward to getting this uh back after the um the process and uh making sure we can move forward.

Um and then as we look at it, just keeping again uh keeping us all posted on on how the um the progress is coming with the um the dates, and that's the one thing I would want you to consider as we go as we send this out to RFQ.

I don't know if there's a like can they get it done on time?

You know, do they have a history of getting it done on time?

Um, and looking back at that, you know, looking asking those questions when we when we get to the final list for this one.

So absolutely.

I'll just mention I I presented to the transportation committee yesterday, and we talked about all of those pieces of the puzzle that have to work on time.

So certainly the solicitation, but selecting a contractor or design team that has a history of on-time performance is critical uh when we score those points.

So that's why it was mentioned there.

Great.

Uh any other members?

Uh Tricia.

Can you talk to the nine million dollar estimated value?

Like this is my first highway road project to review, so just kind of what goes behind that in assessing it as nine million, and then also how do you hold those contractors accountable when they miss uh when they slip dates?

Sure.

So this is um a redesign of about a five-mile stretch of collaboration.

So it's not a short amount of uh uh work.

And um, as I mentioned, uh, just go back to the funding sources.

We receive we applied for and received uh a grant from the federal government for about eight million dollars.

We have a match of up to three million dollars.

Um so we have looked at it initially, we think it's gonna land based on historical design of uh large corridors like this, like Calibra, right?

Uh significant um uh traffic, infrastructure, pedestrian uh requirements, environmental uh uh engineering services that we gotta look at.

So five miles for about nine million dollars is what we're thinking, and um so there'll be a lot of work at the uh design engineering uh stage of that.

Uh if you think of the construction of five miles road reconstruction, you know, certainly we're talking in the tens of millions of dollars, maybe upwards to close to 100 million dollars for the construction.

So it's important for us to spend the the money on the design services of such an important stretch of uh of road infrastructure.

Uh that may include certainly utilities, uh, traffic signals, all that stuff of that will be involved.

Uh but we're really trying to tee it up the design for future funding sources, which we may look for additional federal funding.

So uh that's part one.

So it's in line for um for that amount of design and engineering, environmental work.

Uh part two, you asked about how do we keep our contractors accountable.

Well, it starts with the solicitation, right?

Um scoring uh the project based on their experience, background, their proposed plan, but how they have done work um in this region and how they performed in the past is a critical part uh up front.

Uh but along the way, we have milestones, right?

So we have we have due dates along the way for certain percent design, uh getting out in front of the community, reporting back to uh possibly the transportation infrastructure committee.

Those milestones along the way are just as critical uh to the end date, the hundred percent um design documents.

So uh we'll have maybe 40 percent, 70 percent, 100% milestones.

With a project this size, we may have a few more, uh, but it'll be critical to hold them, and of course, they don't get paid until they hit those milestones, and we will use incentives and or penalties uh for quicker or uh longer performance, i.e.

delays.

Um, but that's kind of built into the contract uh through our project management process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Um briefly say I'm glad we're doing that now, right?

The the incentives, penalties, let's use contractors that have a history of on time and and and within budget work.

So I just wanted to echo that.

Thanks.

Great.

Uh councilman Mesconzels.

Thank you.

Just a quick question.

Um, I know you talked about this yesterday in the transportation committee, but you know, coordination with utilities and feel like this is just the perfect project to almost have a pilot program of how we can um better coordinate that and save us less headaches and uh down the road um and also change orders, right?

Because that's that's the biggest uh thing that affects these things coming in on time.

And so I don't know if there's any cra I I ex I appreciate the experience with the region, but just making sure that uh these vendors also have the technology and the capacity to um yeah, I guess the technology and capacity to scope these projects.

I I would say um absolutely those are considerations when we when we put a project like this out on the street for bid, and then we when we evaluate them through the scoring process, we bring it back to you.

Uh those those answers, we need to have those answers, but um, you know, I talked yesterday and I'll say it here.

Um coordination with utilities is critical.

Uh we did have an MOU executed a year ago with uh SAWs, for example.

Um we have just started utilizing that MOU, which talks about uh more upfront commute uh coordination, uh quicker response to issues, uh, not only at the design, but of course in the construction side of it.

Uh time is money all the time for both public and private projects.

Um so we have those MOUs in place now uh to use on projects like this moving forward.

So um, and I I mentioned yesterday we'll be we'll be uh starting the process to execute that with with CPS as well.

Uh but underground utility um coordination is critical on projects like this.

So uh we'll be looking for for those uh design professionals, design teams that have that experience and not just experience, but have that have proven to do it well.

Yeah, um, and uh you know, you utilizing some of those lessons learned in the past.

Okay, thank you.

We don't want to we don't want to repeat the same um issues.

Yeah, thank you so much.

All right, if there isn't any other questions, this item was for briefing only, so we will move on to item number seven.

Uh item number seven is a post-solicitation briefing.

Uh Madam Clerk, please read the caption for item seven, and Mike will present.

Yeah.

Item number seven is approval to proceed with scheduling one contract for city council consideration for the capital delivery department to provide design and environmental services for the Riddman Road Grade Separation Project located in District 2 for an estimated total value of $6,300,000 $299.39 cents.

All right.

Again, this is uh the second project.

Um this one's of course post-solicitation, so we've gone through a process.

Uh wanna bring this to council with a selected vendor.

Uh, another important project, uh, but also one where we've received um 4.8 million dollars in federal grant money to move this forward.

So um the Riddman Road Grade Separation Project certainly uh we have a very active uh railroad here, uh comes by uh uh dozens of times a day, uh traffic issues.

So this project's been on the radar for a long time.

Uh we we uh uh did an RFQ.

Uh we want the project to be completed in the fall of 28 uh with about a $6.3 million total.

Uh and again, this is design services, uh, but we have um uh prior funding from fiscal years and of course the the uh the federal funding uh grant that we received, and this would be a new contract.

So uh as this is post-solicitation, we did an initial evaluation uh last year.

Uh of the 10 vendors that you see there, uh, three were shortlisted uh based on uh things that we just talked about background qualifications, project and proposed plan, uh San Antonio Past Performance, uh region past performance.

So we scored it.

Three were very close.

Uh so we um decided to do uh a round of interviews, which we did.

Uh vendor B on that of the ABC, but vendor B uh came out on top after uh the interview process, and uh so we'll be uh proposing uh that specific vendor uh to move to council later this uh later this month.

You'll see um again uh final scoring was after the interviews and uh the DBE program goal of seven percent.

Uh we had 592 uh vendors notified, 47 at the pre-submital conference, and then 10 responses as I mentioned uh with no material findings of uh any problems uh during that review.

Uh so with that, we'd like to move this to council uh later this month.

All right, uh before you being I need a motion and a second to approve the staff recommendation so we can begin discussion.

Motion made.

I've got a motion in a second.

Uh does anyone have any questions on this?

No.

I think I think we asked them all.

Uh I don't have any questions.

Uh again, uh thank you for doing the in-person interviews.

I think that's key when when it's this close uh in the process, and as we see, once you get someone in front of you, it it changes the whole thing.

So um all right, we've got a motion and a second.

If there aren't any other questions, all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Moving on to item eight.

Um I do before you read the caption, this was the um public comment or public letter that we got um was on this item.

So madam clerk, please read the caption and um we'll have the staff presentation.

Item number eight is acceptance of the Office of the City Auditor Report AU 25-001, audit of 311 customer service operations.

All right, well, good morning.

My name is Abigail Esteves.

I was the audit manager for this project, and I'll be presenting the results over the audit of 311 customer service operations.

Our audit objective was to determine if 311 processes and systems were operating effectively and interfacing with department work order systems appropriately.

Uh overall, we determined that 311 had effective controls in place for taking calls, training customer service representatives, making updates to the knowledge base, um, and backup operations.

However, there were a few areas where we identified opportunities for improvement.

Uh these included CSR coaching, aging reports, reclassified service requests, and system access.

Uh so before we get into specific audit results, we'd like to provide a brief overview.

Um, if a citizen has an inquiry or wants to submit a service request, there are three forms of intake.

So the citizen could either call into the 311 call center and speak to a customer service representative.

Alternately, they could visit 311's website or mobile application.

Um from here, 311 uses three systems uh to perform their operations.

Uh CRM is used to track the service request.

Uh Cisco WebEx is used to take calls when they do call into the call center, and collaborate allows for call recording for monitoring purposes.

Uh, from here, the service requests are routed to the appropriate work order system uh to provide an example.

To provide an example, animal care services use this chameleon and the other work order systems are listed on the screen.

Monthly, what happens is using the data from CRM, aging reports are produced, and then they're shared with the respective departments so they can see how they're operating in terms of meeting or exceeding their SLAs.

Before we get to the audit recommendations, we'd like to highlight some positive results.

We determined that 311 met the following goals over a nine-month period that we reviewed.

So they're meeting their average answer call time of 45 seconds or less.

Average talk time of three minutes and 28 seconds or less.

Additionally, abandoned call volume was minimal.

We also confirmed that 311 is conducting annual training for their customer service representatives.

Furthermore, reviews are periodically performed, and the knowledge base, which houses information to frequently asked questions, is updated as needed.

And lastly, we confirmed that there were effective controls in place for backup procedures in case there should be any service outages.

Our first recommendation was over call service representative coaching.

We reviewed a sample over a course of six months and determined that CSRs with unmet call metrics were not consistently coached.

Additionally, we determined that the SOP overperformance measures was outdated as it did not reflect accurate metrics.

Therefore, we made the recommendations that CSR coaching be performed as applicable and that the SOP be updated to accurately reflect current metrics.

So the first bullet covers our review over SLA accuracy.

So we determined that timeframes were not accurately reflected in CRM for a sample of service level agreements during the month of January 2025.

To give a little more context here, the departments establish their respective SLAs.

These are then shared with 311 and input into the CRM system.

And we identified a sample that were incorrect as they did not match.

This next bullet covers system integration.

So to give some background here, we wanted to make sure that not only were service requests integrating from CRM, which is a front-end system, to the work order systems.

We also wanted to make sure that when these work orders are closed in the back end system, such as chameleon, ACLA, that they then integrate as closed back to CRM.

And this is significant because CRM is what's used to generate these monthly aging reports.

And in our testing for the month of January 2025, we analyzed closed service requests and determined that approximately 1% did not integrate as closed back.

Therefore, we made recommendations that the SLAs that we identified to be an accurate be corrected within CRM and that a process be developed so moving forward these SLAs are reviewed and updated as necessary to ensure their accuracy.

To give some background here, there are instances where the user may select the wrong department or service request type.

In those instances, those service requests have to be reassigned to the correct department or service request type, so they go back to 311.

We reviewed a period of 10 months and determined that 311 was not addressing these RAS reclassifications in a timely manner.

Therefore, we recommended that these outstanding requests that we identified be reclassified accordingly and that controls be developed to mitigate this from occurring moving forward.

And our last recommendation was over system access.

We determined that access to Colabrio and CRM was not appropriate.

To recap, Colabrio is used to record phone calls and CRM has a service request.

And we identified a mix of withdrawn employees as well as employees that had since transferred to other departments.

Therefore, we recommended that those inappropriate users be delimited from both systems accordingly and that a periodic access review be either established or modified as necessary for these two systems.

Good morning.

So you can see me.

Yes, thank you.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Paula Stalk of the Director of Through One Customer Service.

Yeah, we worked very closely with our auditor's office on this audit over the last over the last year.

And we're very proud of the answer rate that we've reached achieved over the last uh couple of years and recognize that there's work to be done as it relates to service level agreements and communicating that with the departments and having those regular updates.

So I'll be ready to answer any questions here.

Thank you.

All right.

Um if I can get a motion in a second to accept the audit, so we may begin discussion.

We've got a motion.

Do I have a second?

All right, we have a motion and a second.

Let's begin uh conversation.

Uh member Pacheco.

Thank you.

Just my question is I'm looking over the metrics, and it looks like it's uh focusing on average answer call.

But does our CRM um take into account uh issue a resolution, CSAT or anything that uh closes the feedback loop with the citizen?

Uh thank you.

I'll take that question.

Um so we don't have CSAT scores that are in the CRM application, but the CRM application does for the individual cases tell you what the actual result was of the case, whether it was completed or whether it was not.

Just my feedback as a citizen and as uh just based on the feed uh feedback that we received from another citizen is uh tickets that I submit are often closed and they're never resolved, and so I don't think that's a good metric to utilize.

Um my recommendation would be that you do utilize CSAT scores and issue resolution scores based on the custom uh based on the citizens' feedback, so you know that it's actually being addressed because that's only giving I think the feedback from the agency that's responding that they closed it, right?

But was it actually resolved or resolved accurately?

Well, let me let me let me add also that we do have a process where citizens can let us know if they were not satisfied with the outcome of the request, right?

So there's a there's uh basically when you get with every service request, you get an email, presuming you left your contact information, you get an email, and um that email um then asks you were you satisfied with the outcome of your request?

And you can click yes no, right?

And if you click no, then one of my team members follows up to a better understand what happened, you know, they can look in the case, they can try to see why the resident was maybe not happy with the outcome, and it oftentimes it is because we went out there and we didn't address the issue.

We didn't see the car blocking the issue.

We didn't we didn't do or observe what the issue that was being reported.

So, but but in terms of customer satisfaction scores, that is not something that we actually track in our CRM.

So the metric that you just mentioned, is that something uh readily available that uh you can share?

Um I can we can share the number of cases that have uh been unsatisfied, but conversely, uh we wouldn't be able to share the number of cases that were satisfied because again, the resident, when they get the email, they're gonna click no right away if they didn't, if we didn't address the issue, but they're not gonna click necessarily yes that their issue was addressed.

I think that's where the recommendation is to utilize some sort of CSAT score, right?

Where it's not just based on issue resolution, it's based on satisfaction and ensuring that any feedback, whether positive or negative negative is addressed.

So and then I think on the 311 app, as I've submitted tickets, I don't always get an automated email, so I don't know if it's specific to just phone calls or tickets that you're submitting via the app, but just a question there.

Yeah, you should.

I mean, with every request, um, uh unless you click anonymous, right?

You don't want your information, you should be getting an email.

So I may want to just see what's going on there.

Cool.

Uh council member White.

Thanks, Chair.

Um well, I'm glad we're doing this today, and those are great are great points because I mean I think there is some success is being had in terms of call pickups and getting things moving, but in terms of satisfactory resolutions, we get calls all the time when when residents say, well, it says closed, and and and they they don't either the thing wasn't fixed as as they thought it should be, and or nobody notified them as to well closed.

Well, what exactly happened here?

Um so I I guess I would ask you from from this audit.

I mean, what lessons you think are have been most helpful, which of the recommendations, what process changes do you think we we can make to start to address really what I see is as the main issue, which is that these things, and I think, and by the way, for for Mr.

Cardenis, thank you for um for this letter, because I think some of the things, a lot of the things, most of the things he says in here are are concerns that are shared by uh the the greater San Antonio population when when they've used 311, at least at least a lot of the time.

So what what can we do to help address this issue of you know cases being closed yet yet not um having the resident concern really addressed?

So there's a couple of things that we've been working on over the last several years.

One is you know, again, the calls come into 311, we facilitate that, we send that back to the departments.

The departments are responsible for documenting their work orders.

So we've gone through the process um the year before last, where we went and we visited with all the departments that have you know that have our work orders so that they can add more notes to better communicate what they did or what they weren't able to do.

So that's a process that we've done.

We've completed that.

Quite frankly, it's time to do that again, right?

Um looking at our service level agreements as the auditor's office um indicated.

So that's a process that we're going through this now through this process, but really making sure that the departments understand that their action codes that they are documenting their work orders are are clear so that they communicate what the what they did or they didn't do.

If you get an email and you click on that view details link, you can see the notes that the department put in there, right?

But again, I understand not everybody leaves their contact information and therefore they wouldn't get the email, but that information is still available on the website.

Is is we're talking emails, and and I apologize if this is a dumb question and everybody might know the answer but me.

But what about texts?

We we do not we do not text.

Is that unfortunate from a cost per is it because of the cost?

We have looked at that um our assist our CRM application right now, we don't have the ability to text.

It's never cost action.

It's gonna cost.

I'm sure it will be, but we haven't we haven't really gone down that route.

Because man, if we could find a way to me, it seems like everybody's got their phones with them at all times these days in a text on we've looked at your issue, we've addressed it.

Click here to see.

I mean, I don't know, but uh I maybe it's it is cost prohibitive.

I don't know.

Um anyways, um I I hear you, and and I'm glad you're looking at that because it seems to me there's you've identified the issue, there's some disconnect between when the handoff gets made to the department and the department getting getting I guess the right information or back to the the consumer, the the resident, and then how they then interact from there if the issue wasn't resolved.

Right, and I and and I think that that is that is definitely Mr.

Cardinus's point, right?

I mean, I've talked with him over the years, yeah.

Uh over the last few years actually.

Uh, but that is something that we need to make sure that um it's very hard when you're talking about thousands of work orders that a particular department might get.

I know that everybody wants a personalized email.

That's very, very challenging, right?

But when they but when they're not able to address the issue, how do we make sure that we're communicating that we were not able to address the issue and what to do next?

Yeah, and believe me, I don't want your job.

Um but but but this is something, I mean, literally, we had our district 10 meeting earlier um this week, and one of the things when city staff comes to to present to to our residents, one of the things we almost call 311 if you need X or Y.

And invariably at these neighborhood meetings, at the end of the meeting, we'll have people come up to my to me or my constituent services team and say, Man, I did a 311 call, they said it was closed, but nothing happened.

The issue's still there.

So thanks for looking at it, and and I guess we'll just keep trying to improve it.

Definitely, it's a continued work in progress.

Councilman Metzgonzales.

I just had a uh quick question, and yeah, I appreciate any work we can do to enhance our 311 services.

We know that's kind of the bread and butter uh for our offices and for really any other work that we're doing at the city.

So um uh I had a question is there any way that the 311 operator can show or can see that a district office has been flagged about the issue to then know to tell the resident, you know, district eight has flagged this and is working on this issue.

Um, not not not that specific.

We would be able to see when we dug into the work order, but sort of at the high level when the call comes in, there's not a flag um that that particular issue is being worked by a council office.

Okay.

Because I didn't know if it's yeah, yeah, definitely.

I mean, working with the council offices for sure.

I mean, if your staff need um help with a particular issue, but when the regular caller calls in, there's not a there's not a flag in the case, basically the case view.

So then the reps resident, if five residents call about, I'm just saying a pothole, like basic a pothole.

They've also called district eight or one.

And then that item goes to public works.

Does that sending the call to public works?

Is that close the call?

Does that close?

No, no, no.

The call is not closed until the department goes out and investigates it, fixes it, or can't find it, or not our responsibility, you know, all those reasons.

The department, so the calls come in, we send the request to the departments, the departments document the work orders, and that communication on those work orders comes back to our 311 system for us to be.

Okay.

Um sorry, I'm not sure.

I didn't know if somebody was coming up to ask something.

Is it okay if I had a little context too?

Uh just a couple of things.

Um the comment about this being the first of all, I'm not surprised at all that you hear about 311.

It is our it is our intake to all city services.

All city problems get sent to 311 for for distribution to the departments.

Um it is not by and large the customer experience that it never works.

We we survey uh every other year as part of the community survey.

311 had a 91% satisfaction rate the last time.

So every single day the team and the departments are turning around and addressing issues.

But there are times when uh it either doesn't get dealt with satisfactorily or the expectation of the resident maybe doesn't match the service level agreement.

For example, somebody calls and wants a stray dog picked up right away that they see on their street.

That's not how ACS handles strays.

They take the data, they go enter it into their system, they do sweeps of areas at scheduled times.

The resident may walk away from that closed case feeling like I didn't get my problem solved, they didn't do anything, while the data has been inputted into ACS and they're taking that into account as they schedule their future sweeps.

Our job, and that's what Paula referenced is to make sure that the what's getting communicated to the resident is clear enough for them to understand that process.

So it is a continual work in progress.

We've still got work to do.

Another example is a code case where you can't just order the resident to get the car out of the grass or whatever, there's a period of time that they have to cure it.

So again, the resident looks across the street and says they didn't do anything.

Yeah, we have to better communicate those things.

I I will give a second plug to what Paula said about our quality assurance team.

They are really great.

I get the reports every Friday about this resident has called three times and this didn't get dealt with, and these these staff members are essentially investigators.

They start reaching out the department, reaching out to the residents, sometimes visiting the spot, figuring out why didn't this get dealt with, and very often there's a positive outcome from that.

I think a lot of those council issues that elevate then to you guys get sent to that quality assurance team so that we can chase it down properly and make sure that the department's dealing with it.

So we know you hear it's not to not to minimize at all the feedback you're getting.

I just wanted to provide a little context about how they work.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Just um, yeah, whatever we can do to continue to enhance enhance those services.

Uh I know is a pre we get that nine percent of calls.

So yeah, but congratulations on the 91%.

Uh we all want that approval rating.

So thank you so much.

Any other comments?

Just a follow-up.

Yes.

Is there CSA functionality in our CRM?

Is that something that we have to pay extra for um I I do not believe that in R CRM with our current sort of the items that we have in the application?

Uh I do not believe that there is a CSAT process, right?

Customer satisfaction score that you can that you can uh provide from that.

So, but it's something we can talk with the vendor about.

Okay, I just feel like that's a huge gap.

Um if you're getting feedback constantly, right?

That how do you how do you hold departments accountable, right?

And I think if it's common issues, right?

What you mentioned about the dog and the vehicle, then those departments should have like maybe just a one-sheet that they can provide to that resident that says here's our process, so they're well informed as to how long it takes versus just getting a closed uh ticket.

So the only reason we're the only way we're gonna know that, right, is to have CSAT score.

So and I think if I can add to Jeff's point about our, you know, 311's great satisfaction scores, right?

Oh, sorry.

I didn't um but also I mean, our citywide community survey is not necessarily it's one method I think that we used for customer satisfaction scores, right?

But I think what you're talking about is more specifically as someone interacting and requesting a service from 311, the city, um, then how do we measure that?

And that's something I can go back and explain.

Exactly, because 311 is great, right?

They answer the call, they document everything, but then if it goes to a department and if they're not resolving anything, I think it would be good for you to present uh to audit committee to the city on how each department is functioning and what their CSAT scores are, so you can uh rectify those those issues.

So uh thank you.

So I want to get back to you uh the results of Abigail's presentation specifically to 311 customer service operations.

Uh um, and that we have the recommendations.

Um again we again uh it is and Abigail, you uh I feel like we're always seeing the the the pattern.

It is the employees that leave that still have access, correct?

You found that again on this one, this audit also that they still had access when they should have been taken off the system.

Yes, so across those two systems, we had four individuals that had an appropriate access.

I believe one of those was a withdrawn employee, and the other three had since transferred to another department.

Okay, and and that is the other thing that I'm seeing a trend here, and thank you for your efforts, Abigail.

I I think this was really well done.

I'm seeing a trend, and I think Ben and Troy, as we move forward, we're we need to look at SOPs across departments on how we get them to um exit interview individuals, make sure could I worried about now my staff that has moved on.

I'm like, do they still have access?

So um, thank you again, Abigail for that.

I think it was really uh well done on this.

Um so thank you for for your efforts on putting it forward and uh getting the results where they can improve.

Thank you.

Uh Paula might be able to do that.

May I address that issue that the issue of delimiting the inappropriate access for people leaving and and and doing that process.

That has been something we have been looking at and working on because it does pop up on audits.

I will tell you that obviously when somebody leaves, we turn off their network access immediately, so they can't get to necessarily these systems behind our network access.

We literally have hundreds of systems.

What we don't have in our current system is the ability to say, hey, Ben is leaving.

I want to see exactly what Ben's got access to and be able to quickly do that.

What we are doing as we go through this upgrade of our systems that we're working on that we've been talking to you all about, we're working on building that in so that it's got a profile of exactly what that employees got, both in terms of um physical devices, but also what they have access to in terms of systems, so that we can more quickly uh resolve these issues and make sure we take care of that.

So that is on our radar or something that we are working on.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank and thank you, Abigail.

Paula, I I have some questions for you uh regarding now uh you seem to have a process to uh address the uh the results that was given on the audit uh in terms of the CRM and the coaching, correct?

Um you are uh sort of the front facing for all of our 40 plus departments that we have here in the city.

So um I think we need to remember that and uh I just saw and and this made me uh the the two groups that have their own systems.

I think it was code and ACS, and those are probably the two, and I'm not saying that there's there's there's their system they're using chameleon and a cellula are not good systems.

I'm just saying of the two departments we get most from, it's these two departments too.

So I don't know.

Um is the interface just not working between the the two systems, or is it just um it are do we need more communication or check-ins with these two departments um regarding because uh what when I hear the c and of course Mr.

Cardinals is saying when I hear the customer satisfaction and uh examples from my own district, it is gonna be ACS and code.

Those are the two everybody else, parks, recs, public works, solid waste, that they're on SAP, um solid waste.

It it I send in a 311 request that I didn't get my trash pickup, it's picked up later.

I so I'm I'm wondering is is there a bigger issue maybe we have to have.

I know they and I know why they want these their own system, but uh like I think we need to address that that issue because if these are the two we're hearing the most from terms of the dissatisfaction, uh maybe it's because we need we maybe one of the departments needs a new system because I'd like to pilot where we start customer satisfaction scores specifically with these two departments.

Uh that's what I'd like to start.

But how much extra work is that gonna be for 311?

Basically, Paula is my answer.

My question to you.

I can try to be your answer, but no.

Um I think first of all, let me say that the integrations work.

There's not a question about systems not working, not communicating.

Obviously, we found some examples, right?

We need to go back and see.

IT has been mean I say 311 and IT are connected at the hip because without their support to do the improvements I need to my system to manage our application, right?

I don't have IT people in my department.

They're in IT and they manage and make updates and do all of that in our system.

So the integrations are working.

They have built a um a dashboard basically that tells us when it isn't working, and then they have respective technical people that are responsible for going in to see why it didn't work, what happened, what do we need to do in order to make sure that all of the data is in sync.

So we we have that.

Um we've that really came online late last fall, and um really has been a work in progress in terms of staying focused on it, looking at it, and so we're strengthening that process.

Okay, that that helps a lot, but I I think as we move move forward and and we talk uh customer satisfaction scores.

I'd like to start with the departments, and I think that's where we may need to do um as a council, and then uh as a committee, maybe we we do a subcommittee where we're like, do we go district by district, ask these questions and survey them?

But I know, and from what I've heard here, is it is ACS and it is code, and so those are the two that I want to I don't want to put it all on all the other departments when those are are the two most outstanding that we're dealing with, and then move from there.

And I don't want to put it all on 311 because I think this is uh when we get back to it, it's how our departments are communicating.

So um I will I will send a memo in regards to this audit and work with Paula and then my community members, and I I feel like you guys are interested.

If you guys want to be part of a subcommittee to kind of see how do we address this if we need to pilot something for that customer satisfaction scores that isn't directly just 311.

I I'm I'm all about pilots, everybody knows this.

We'll pilot something before we do it.

So thank thank you for that, Paula.

Thank you for the uh information.

And um we'll probably bring you back with a couple of other departments and buddy.

If you could get us our last, if you could get the new members, all of the last audits for um DSD specifically code and uh and ACS.

Uh I think we've done those within the last, I feel like we've done those uh within the last two years at least.

Uh uh that I think would help the subcommittee and as we as we move forward.

So um we have a is there any further discussion?

All right, we have a motion and a second to accept the audit.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Motion carries.

Thank you very much.

We'll pilot it.

Sorry, the time is now 11:37, and the meeting is now adjourned.