All right.

So it is 7.02.

And I'm going to call to order the meeting of the land use and urban redevelopment committee.

And it is April 21st and 702 p.m.

22nd.

I don't think that it is, yeah.

22.

22nd.

Oh, whoops.

Wrong day.

It's Wednesday, April 22nd.

With us, we have Co-Chair Price.

Representative Gardner, Representative Boudreau, Representative Field, Representative Weinberg, and Representative Finkel.

Excused is Representative Politia as well as Representative Beckham.

We do have a quorum.

And so the first item on our agenda today is item one LU dot 32.006.

This is the resolution accepting Pembroke Pembroke Drive as a city street by property owners pending the certification by the city engineer that Pembroke Drive meets the qualifications for acceptance.

Yes, motion to take it up.

Second.

Thank you.

Representative Weinberg, would you like to give us an update on this item?

Yeah, sure.

I got an email last night that uh from the uh point the person who's serving as point person uh for uh for the property owners on Pembroke tribe.

They have not uh put uh they have not pulled together the the uh the documentation that um you know that attorney toma has has advised need need to be presented to the committee.

They hope to have it next month.

So since I'm only ex officio, I can't make a motion to recommit.

Um but I um encourage to the uh the committee to do so.

Um that's that's about all I've got to say right now.

But motion to recommit.

Uh one moment.

Uh Representative Boudreau, you have your hand raised.

Um this is I'm not sure if this is quite a point of order or not, but um rather than a motion to recommit, would it be more appropriate to take a motion to postpone uh so that it doesn't need to go through steering again and we automatically take it up on our uh agenda next month?

Either approach would work fine.

Um uh uh parliament parliamentarian McCown discovered this motion to postpone that um that I don't believe was ever used on the 31st board, so I was kind of unfamiliar with it, but I'm I'm cool either way.

Okay, I guess I'll make that motion to postpone to next month.

Oh uh uh all right.

I see that uh co-chair price's hand is down.

Uh do I hear a second to that motion?

Seconded, second second.

Uh okay.

I'm gonna do a voice vote.

All in favor of postponing uh resolution LU 32.006.

Uh yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna stay in on that.

Oh, because I think we I think the only way to postpone it, you spell, I mean you're supposed to send it back to the committee and get um resigned.

So I'm gonna stay in on that.

I've never seen anybody postpon anything when you pull spawn, I think you kill it.

Uh isn't is an amendment appropriate to postpone it to the next meeting so that it's not a dead issue.

I I don't think it'd be an issue if you just um um recommitted to Stamaran and it'll come back on the same way it has been coming for the last few months.

I never seen anybody use uh pull spawn the next month.

Yeah, I mean uh you know, is that representative Adams has been on the board a lot longer than I have.

And I put certainly on the 31st board.

I don't believe I ever saw, you know, it was postponed to kind of uh do you know have it not have to go go through steering again.

Um as I said uh parliamentarian McCallan uh uh uh asserted this parliamentary procedure uh for a different committee and at a different point, uh I think last month.

Um but I'm either committing, I'm recommitting is fine.

I'm confident that uh that um that steering will uh we'll bring it, we'll bring it back.

I'm okay either way.

And in the interest of comedy, I and and lack of controversy.

I you know, my personal encouragement would be to would be to recommit.

Uh I apologize.

I'm sorry.

Uh sorry, folks.

We gotta uh do have a uh I'm gonna give the floor to representative fields.

Uh I just want to make sure can someone explain.

I'm not sure I'm really understanding the reason we don't want to vote on it now.

Uh okay, yeah.

So I can answer that.

The uh we don't have all the proper materials to be able to legally do that at the moment.

Um so we can't accept the road at the moment.

Okay, I understand now.

Thank you for that, Ryan.

Of course.

Thank you, Representative Field.

Um, and I'm gonna turn it over to co-chair price.

Uh just a quick question.

Uh Ryan, I think we were in the middle of a vote.

Yes.

So I don't know how that we're supposed to proceed, but we were in the middle of a vote right right then, uh, if I'm not mistaken.

Yeah, so uh uh Barbara, can we like cancel that?

And or I mean, folks didn't even get the chance to vote.

Uh point of order.

Yes.

The the uh motion to postpone it is a debatable motion.

Uh so representative Adams comment that uh motion to recommit would be better.

I think is valid part of that debate.

So we haven't moved on to the vote yet, I don't think, because uh we've been making with the having debate on the motion.

I think that's fair.

Okay.

Um as long as everyone else agrees with that assessment.

Um and representative Adams, you have your hand raised.

Uh no, um, I guess my motion would be the same to recommit.

Um I think that would clear everything up.

But okay, uh, do I have a second to that motion?

Yeah, I'll second that.

Point of order.

Yes, Representative Finkel.

You're not gonna have another motion until you resolve this motion.

Oh, okay, correct.

Um, so I think we're gonna have to vote down uh the uh motion to uh uh motion to postpone, correct?

Yeah, point of order.

Go ahead.

Sorry, I can't do that.

Um so do I hear uh so I'm gonna do I'm gonna call the vote on the motion to postpone.

Um and so uh Barbara, is it best if I call this by roll or does voice voice vote work?

You can try voice vote first if you'd like and see if you get any nays.

And then if you do get any nays, we can go ahead and uh record it as a roll call vote to confirm who was a yay, who was a nay, who was an abstain.

But if everyone votes the same, and or we just have one abstain, someone says I abstain, it would be fine to do it via voice vote.

So do you want to try it via voice vote first, or do you just want to go straight to a roll call vote?

It's really personal preference.

I I think folks are in agreement that we want to uh vote nay on postponing and then postpone uh do a motion to recommit.

Okay, then you'd probably be fine to do it as a voice vote then.

Okay.

Uh so I'm gonna call uh a voice vote on uh the motion that was to postpone LU 32.006 resolution accepting Pembroke Drive as a city street by property owners pending the certification by the city engineer that Pembroke Drive meets the qualifications for acceptance.

Uh trying everyone uh voice vote, all those in favor?

Nay.

All those opposed.

Nay.

Uh any abstentions.

All right.

The nays have it.

Um now at this time I would uh entertain any other motions.

Motion to recommit.

Seconded.

Second.

The motion is to recommit LU 32.006.

I'm gonna try this by voice vote.

All those in favor of recommitting L U 32.006 say aye.

I any opposed any abstentions.

The ayes have it.

Um so for item two, we have LU 32.007.

It's an approval item.

This is the second amendment to the IQS-stamford contract for integrated land records and vital statistics recording system RFP number eight five nine.

And with us tonight, we have the town clerk, David Hoke.

David, would you like to uh give us some uh insight into this item?

And uh Barbara to your hand raised.

I just wanted to make a really quick point.

Uh attorney Chris Delaselva is with us.

He is on the phone.

Uh he called into the meeting, and for some reason we cannot move him over to a panelist.

So he is one of the two presenters.

When it's time for him to speak, just let me know, and we will uh tell him to unmute and speak.

Awesome.

Thank you so much for that, Barbara.

Uh Clerk Hoke, uh, you have the floor.

All righty, thanks.

And thanks, Barbara, for that.

Co-chairs Price and Hughes and other Board of Representative members.

Um, I am requesting approval of the second amendment to a contract between the city and IQS.

This uh contract includes extending the or this amendment um includes extending the term and then adding services.

InfoQUIC Solutions is the city's integrated land records and vital statistics recording system.

This current contract expires October of 2026.

Just to give you a little brief background on the IQS system.

It is the proprietary system that the town clerk office uses for all our land and vital records, plus licenses, trade names, notary public, military discharges, et cetera.

And it also handles all the cashiering and the backend reporting functions for our office.

Um the second amendment converts the term of the agreement to into an evergreen or an auto-renew agreement.

It's for a period of one year, but then renewed annually.

This will be the fourth year of the agreement.

It actually started in October of 2022.

Um there is also a termination provision that can be um exercised by either party.

Um, and this is with 20 days advanced written notice.

This amendment adds um what we're looking to do is add the services of index verification and microfilm creation and microfilm storage to this contract.

Um index verification really is the it's the inspection of a clerk's keyed in data uh on the indexed land records, and that's required by state statute.

Microfilm creation and storage is is pretty self-explanatory, but that's also required by state statute.

We're also uh what's mentioned on this uh amendment also or or brought up is backfile conversion.

I just want to state, and I'm gonna give you a little more detail on that too, but this is done only on an as funded basis, and this is anticipated for just a four-year period.

So details of these services that we're doing.

Um, these are all based on a per unit basis, and so it's impacted by the volume of transactions.

For the first year, we're estimating fees of 25,000 for index verification, 10,700 for the microfilm creation and storage.

After one year, any price increases of these fees are capped at 5%.

Um, and there can be no increases until after October 2027 at the earliest.

Um, as I mentioned, these services are required by state statute.

Uh the cost of these services is covered by fee revenue generated from each recording transaction.

So, of course, they're only they're only going to happen when a recording takes place.

Um, what else can I tell you?

Um, oh, the um adding about what we were also adding to this amendment was the backfile conversion project.

This is expected to be four years, as I said.

This is where we scan older records and make them available online and accessible.

Um, and they're land records, and we charge a fee for um people to download these, you know, title clerics, lawyers or residents.

We estimate 99,000 per year for this project, but again, it can be dialed up or dialed down if desired based on the number of pages that we're back scanning.

So if less funding is available, we reduce it to the number of pay, or we reduce the number of pages that we'll scan.

Uh, there's no time requirement.

We can stretch this project out longer for a longer period if we want, or shorten it up.

Finally, this backfile conversion uh produces revenue for the city.

Um for it currently for the four um the land records that we've back scanned to 1998.

This is producing about 43,000 a year.

So that's about two and a half year payback period.

Um the first year of this backfile conversion project is currently approved in um by fiscal year 2526 capital budget also.

And that's pretty much it.

Uh any questions?

Uh Representative Finkel.

Thank you, Chair.

Well, one question.

Then if you decide to part company or they decide to part company with us, and they're the ones that have all the records.

What mechanism do we have in place to be able to move forward, find somebody else and get our records from them.

Well, as far as those records, so what are you referring to on a daily transaction, or are you um because we do then produce hard copy of all these records and they're archived and they're archived down in our vault.

So we still have hard copy of everything we do.

This is should put it online for accessibility.

Yeah, no, they're the ones that have the digital they do have the digital.

Now, uh is that digital our property or is it their property?

I am gonna have to get back to you on that, unless Chris, you might have a better feel for it, how it was written in the contract.

I I want to say that it's it is probably written where it is our property or our ability to to retain it.

Um but I'm gonna either defer to Chris if he he has an answer for that, and if not, I'm gonna get back to you with an answer for that.

Okay, thank you.

I don't want to misspeak.

Weinberg.

Uh well, I also have a question for for attorney Deloselva.

So maybe Barbara could get him to unmute first.

Okay.

Uh Barbara, are we able to do that?

Yes.

I went ahead and clicked allow to speak and asked to unmute.

There we go.

It looks like he's unmuted.

Okay.

I can anyone hear me.

Yes.

Okay, perhaps.

Um the data is sorry.

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Well, is there a second?

I heard there was another question.

So the the I heard the is the data who owns the digital data.

The city owns the digital data.

So we're we we pay for that, we own it.

It's hosted by them.

And you know, uh, how do we get it back from them?

I believe there was something in their proposal about uh, you know, when our our when we part ways that they will return it to the city uh in a f in a form that it you know requested by the city.

It's always a problem.

I I won't sugarcoat that.

It's a it's always an issue when we have another party hosting our data when we go separate ways.

It's a problem getting the data back in a timely manner, it's a problem getting it back in a usable format.

I mean, there's just a you know, uh an uncomfortable reality to it that we're we're moving on to another vendor and we want our data back to give to them, and they're they've been paid at that point, and their motivation to do that is pretty low.

Uh but that's what the terms are.

It's our data, and they have to return it to us in a in a in a reasonable format.

And uh, like our IT department tells us how we want it back.

We usually don't know that until we know who our new vendor is going to be.

Um, but from what I'm hearing and from what I have heard from Mr.

Hoke is we're pretty satisfied with this vendor, and we're not going to be parting ways with them in the foreseeable future.

So that's why this amendment includes you know a an auto-renew clause now.

Uh um, there's it's not like there's a you know, uh I guess that's a that answers your question.

I I think if I speak more, I'll just be speculating on things that haven't happened yet.

So I think there was another question for me.

Yeah, actually, actually two problem that Representative Finkel was if I if I might chair.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um the the problem that Representative Finkel was was alluding to that would be the case with any vendor for this service.

Um it's not unique to this particular vendor.

Do I understand that correctly?

Yeah, and not just for this service for many services, they have everything's on the cloud now, so no one knows where that is.

You know, we we are we're able to to put uh you know security requirements into our contracts, we're able to put language into our contracts about what happens when our relationship ends, who owns the data, who's responsible for paying for the transfer of the data.

But you know, you can't how do you police that?

You know, how do you know where your data is?

Yeah, well, that's we put we put clauses in our contract that says you can't have it off shore, but do we ever really know where it is?

I I don't.

That's that's a problem that's inherent in the use of the cloud under any circumstances.

Um my other question has to do with the evergreen provision.

Uh which I I'm very fond of, so not I'm not trying to I just wanted, but I um so the the I'm I'm more accustomed to uh you know to the city's uh employment contracts, and they always uh are for no longer than five years.

Um is there a five-year sunset with this type of contract?

Or uh or and if there is, is there a way that the evergreen gets around that?

Uh you know, deals with that um constraints, or or is this just a not an issue at all?

All the above.

Uh the the uh the evergreen clause does get around it.

I I think the original contract might have been um well, why why guess?

Hold on, let me open it and see what the term was originally.

I have it here, and it was three years with the option to extend it for one additional year by mutual agreement of the parties, and we did that.

We are currently in the fourth and final year of the original agreement.

And our typical our default mode is a competitive process.

We put out a new RFP and we get some proposals and we pick the best vendor and we go with them.

But we have exceptions to that.

We can what came along with this amendment was a bid waiver uh where that was approved by the Board of Finance, where we it was approved to waive the competitive process in this case, because there are a handful of allowed reasons, and I think the one we used in this case was that it it would be a waste of time and money, uh, because we're satisfied with this customer, they really are maybe the only game in town, or at least the one most suitable for the city.

So now we have this situation where we're going to be using this vendor for the foreseeable future without a new competitive process because that's what's best for the city, and we need to match the contract up to that.

So we didn't want to add, you know, another three years.

We just had it automatically renew itself for one year every year.

And that means for the most part, we're in a one-year contract over and over again.

But as Mr.

Hulk pointed out, there is a termination for convenience clause in this contract, and there is usually one of those in every city contract, which means we can always terminate the contract for any reason at all whatsoever, pay this particular vendor whatever they're owed for the services up to that date and go our separate ways.

That crazy.

So I think well, yeah, you're welcome.

I think all of that accomplishes all of the things you asked.

Yeah, no, that's uh that's that's that's very helpful.

Uh appreciate the response and I yield.

Thank you, Representative Weinberg.

Uh there do I see any other questions?

All right.

Seeing there are no questions.

Um I'm gonna end discussion or um and you want a motion to approve.

Yes, yeah, at this time I uh entertain a motion to approve uh LU 32.007.

So move.

I'm gonna try by voice vote.

All those in favor of approving LU 32.007, the second amendment to the IQS Stanford contract for integrated land records and vital statistics recording system, RFP number 859.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed.

Any abstentions?

All right, the item passes.

And thank you, everyone.

Good night.

Thank you.

Uh seeing as that was our last item at this time.

I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

So we'll secure.

Awesome.

Uh so this is uh the meeting of the land use and urban redevelopment committee uh is adjourned at 728.

Thank you, and thanks for the questions.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Dave, to everybody.

Good night.

Good night, all right.

Thank you.