Online.

This is not a joke.

I would like to call the April 1st, 2026 meeting of the information technology board to order.

We have most of our members here.

We're missing Alderman Van Trieste and Citizen Member Burgers.

Both of them did contact us and let them let us know that they wouldn't be here.

So appreciate that.

The rest of the board is present, so we do have a quorum and we will continue with the meeting.

Item two on our agenda is the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thanks.

It takes us to item three, which is public comment.

We don't have any members of the public with us other than board members and staff.

So we'll move on to item four, which is approval of minutes.

We're playing catch-up.

We have two uh two of our last meeting minutes available to us.

Um I didn't have the attachment, the minutes attached at our last meeting for the January minutes.

That's why we have two.

Correct.

Um I did have a chance to look at them, they look good to me.

Did anybody else on the board have any concerns or complaints about either of the minute minutes?

Is there uh um any objection to approving the January 2026 meeting minutes by unanimous consent?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll approve those by unanimous consent.

And same question with the February 2026 meeting minutes.

Any objection to approving those by unanimous consent?

Hearing and seeing no objection, those are also approved by unanimous consent.

Item five on our agenda is our one business item for this evening, and that is to uh review and approve uh contract for PDF remediation with recite me.

Um Andrew, you want to take this?

Sure.

Some explanation of what we're looking at here.

Yeah, so um coming up at the end of April, uh the uh Americans with Disability Act, Title II comes into effect.

So that basically says that any municipality, be it federal, state, um local, anything like that, has to be in compliance with the um accessibility guidelines set out in the WCAG 2.1 um up to a standard of double A out of a possible triple A.

Um, as part of this, uh we are just kind of struggling a little bit to make sure that our PDFs that we have on our website are meeting or exceeding those standards.

Um for the most part, I'm able to handle the smaller, you know, one to ten page PDFs, but we have quite a few, you know, 200 to 400 page PDFs that are much more difficult to remediate, uh, which is where recite me kind of steps in and helps out.

So they have a um software that they have on their end that they are not publicly releasing at this point, but basically they're able to crawl our website, um, see what PDF documents we have that are not meeting or exceeding those standards, um, and then they can go through and take those documents, um, manually remediate them with their software, um, and then send them back with a document that says this this is uh by our standards and by the standards set out for by the ADA should meet or exceed those standards.

Um so we kind of get a fallback document and the actual document to put onto our website during our time of trying to figure out what vendors we could possibly go with.

We did some demos with um other vendors where um they have something that is more of a plug-in onto your website that kind of overlays onto your PDFs that can possibly do things to improve them, but it doesn't help the raw PDF.

So if someone still downloads it, they're still getting a junk PDF that may not be accessible.

Um when it comes to the pricing of those kind of overlays or tools that would be more um user-intensive on our end, they are in the realm of like 20 to 30,000 a year just for a single tool, or they have hefty licenses that come with them.

So when looking at recite me, they're able to do this um by sending it off to their staff, and then they'll send us back a document.

Um it's more of an a la carte kind of a service where if we have certain documents we want to send off to them, we can do that with for them.

Um it was much more affordable at uh about 5,000 a year.

Can you give us some examples of what the accessibility guidelines are?

Are they like font sizes or it's a little bit, yeah?

So it's a little bit of everything.

So basically, if you think about when you try and access a website, um you're able to generally go about the website by using a mouse, using a keyboard, seeing what's on the screen, hearing what's happening.

So the accessibility guidelines are really looking at people who don't have those abilities, those abilities may be it, you know, a cognitive disability where someone doesn't learn as well.

It could be something like you know, blindness and deafness are usually the two most common ones that are looked at, but people with learning disabilities are or even people with um photosensitivity kind of issues where if things are flashing too much, that kind of a thing.

Color blindness is another big one that um usually gets addressed.

So it's making sure that your color contrasts are good, making sure that a screen reader going through your document knows what the title is, what are the subtopics of it, um, and making sure that the structure of of those documents are uh in a way that a an assistive tool can go through it.

So if you're going through a form, hitting tab and it's going through in a logical order to go through items.

So basically the more you think about how you you can access a website now, try taking that away from yourself.

So try and go through a website with your eyes closed, and does it make it easier or harder?

Try you know, navigating through a website if you were missing an arm or missing a hand, kind of going through those kind of things, um, and making sure that anyone, regardless of their ability, can access uh digital content.

I started to go down the uh rabbit hole of looking into that when I saw this, and it's it's pretty significant.

Oh, yeah, there's a lot of a lot of standards and guidelines in there that you know a fully able-bodied person doesn't even consider.

I mean, I used to do web development in the infancy of the internet, and you know, none of that was even table.

The guidelines that the federal government are enforcing now is actually WCAG 2.1.

There's already a 2.2 that's already out that goes above and beyond there, and we're reading and exceeding most of those standards as well.

Um, and within the next few years are going to 3.0 as well.

So they're constantly evolving with the evolving technology.

So, you know, right now it's looking at a lot of websites and video content, and you know, years from now it could be looking at you know, how should your VR content be accessible for anyone?

How can you know it's constantly growing and developing from uh the worldwide consortium?

So it's actually a group of I think dozen people from from multiple different countries that are working on this and trying to make sure that it's you know information is always readily available for everyone.

This is primarily for PDF documents that we're considering.

Correct.

Yeah, so with with our web pages right now, if we can't we're trying to encourage people to take their PDFs and turn them into web pages because that's essentially what a lot of this technology is doing is scanning over it, doing an optical read on it and saying here's what the characters are, and here's what the HTML of it would be for that logical process to it.

You mentioned that the software can I guess let me ask this.

Are we picking and choosing what we're feeding into this tool to a certain extent?

Yeah, so they've they've done a scan and they we've they found somewhere in the realm of we think it was between 800 and 900 documents on our website.

So that could be PDFs, it could be images.

Um of those PDFs, we're saying here's our highest priority ones, we're sending you these to get remediated sooner rather than later.

Um, because as part of this um this policy as well, that are the Title II portion, we can list things as archive where if they're out there just as information only, they're not being updated.

So you know, state of the cities from four or five, six years ago that aren't ever going to be updated.

Those aren't going to be a high priority to get to that accessible um format.

But if we have you know documents available, that will be something we can remediate as someone may look back and want to go through those.

The reason they asked that is because we've got the contract specifies a certain number of pages.

I'm assuming that's like pages in a document.

Correct, yeah.

So I was thinking, I think the numbers like 3,333.

Yes.

Um, I was thinking about documents like the budget document that's you know 300 pages, and you know, that's the capital budget is 300 pages, the operating budget is 300 pages.

The supplement, you know, with the vehicles is probably another hundred, give or take.

So yeah, that's six, seven hundred pages right there.

It's so I guess my question is where did that number arrive at, and are we sure that's enough?

So that was based on them crawling our website, they can get the number of pages that we have total.

Um so they said that feasibly within two years they can get all of our documents, provided that we're not adding new documents, um, which we're trying to avoid as much as possible, but realistically, it's it's not going to we're not going to not add documents.

So what we're trying to do is get some of those bigger documents up front, so we may have a third to a half of that, those page totals for this initially you're getting those big chunkier documents out of the way.

But also part of it too is just replanning how we do the budget documents, how we do those CIP and the vehicle books is do we do that in the same way?

Does it turn into a web page?

Um or is there a hybridization of it where some of it becomes web content, some of it is becoming a PDF, so there's less to remediate moving forward.

Okay.

Adobe is an abysmal remediation tool.

For them having um PDF remediation as like one of their like PDFs being their bread and butter, you would think it would be better.

But when you go into their tool and say, automatically, you know, tag this for me.

Um nine times out of ten I've encountered it where it's changing the tags that are already existing in there and making it worse, making it less accessible.

Um so there's a tool that I've been using that called I believe it's PAC PAC that you can put a PDF into and it'll say, here's the error we're seeing, um, and then you can go and fix those from there.

Um more often than not, I can get it pretty darn close to you know perfectly accessible from there.

And if I put it into Adobe and say, you know, try and clean up these last couple things, it ends up messing it up.

Um also they're they're built-in ones where you're not using their automatic one, is not very intuitive, it's not very user-friendly.

Um, to the point like if you have a table of content, um, you know, even a five by five table, you have to go and individually click each cell and say, this is part of this row, this is part, this is a cell, and then go with each one.

So looking at a document like the budget, it's it's it would take probably a year to remediate it manually with Adobe.

Um but on the plus side, it means it's bad now.

Hopefully in two years, there will be a lot more tools because right now on April 24th, municipalities over 50,000 have to comply, which in grand scheme of things is a small bunch of the municipalities, towns, and villages in the US.

So I imagine there's gonna be a lot more voices screaming, hey, we need automated tools in the next year.

Um so I imagine that you know things will catch up, AI may get better, um, and that we'll be able to reassess these these tools once this contract has kind of reached the end of the contract.

So obviously this is meant to catch what you're already having to site moving forward.

Do you have a procedure that people can follow that makes it um compatible?

Um remediation moving forward.

Yeah, so we've been um doing some training uh with staff at this point.

So we've we've created on our on our internet site um a resource page basically that says here's how you can make your documents accessible.

Um so when I'm getting them more often than not now at this point, I'm asking, can I get the word document version of what you're sending me?

Making and then it's making a few tweaks.

More often than not, it's changing the title to the header to be like a title tag or changing a subheader to be the subtitle, and that fixes so much of the issues.

Um but yeah, using like the headers, the header styles that are inside of a Word document are 90% of the battle with that of you know, think of your content as goaled lists, um, and just being able to kind of go through there in an organized fashion.

So we're doing pretty well about putting new it for putting new PDFs out there that they're accessible.

Um, and by the end of the month, um any PDFs going out there will be accessible because we won't be allowing content that's not accessible to be pushed out on the site.

And the correct me if I'm wrong, you guys currently have copilot licensing.

Yeah.

Have you attempted to take any documents and put it through that?

Uh so it can't do anything with the remediation that I've seen so far yet.

But I have been using Copilot for um creating alternative text for images because that's another one of the things is a screen reader looking at images on a page uh needs to have good descriptive text.

So I've got one entire copilot chat that's just dedicated to giving me alternative text for images.

So that's been really saving a lot of time and effort because it can describe it way better than I can.

Okay.

So my understanding is this is basically just to kind of catch up correctly out there that it would be very, very intense for labor.

Yeah, so as we've been working on updating the website, we've been getting rid of old PDFs, um, trying to take those PDFs that are just brochures or basic information and converting those to web pages.

Um it's a little bit of catch-up and a little bit of um you know using that extra resource for those heftier documents.

Really, the big documents are the are the biggest concerns because if I was trying to do each of those larger documents, um, you know, something like the budget where it's a little more timely that it gets you know brought out for the council meetings and things like that, something like that would almost not be feasible to um remediate as many times as it needs to, as there's iterations to it.

If you get somebody that has like an on-demand request, would you do it manually or would you be able to use your cite me?

Uh it would be if it's a large enough document, we can use recite me.

So um they said their average turnaround.

If we said, hey, we need something right away, they can try and accommodate it.

But usually if we send something to them, it would be about a five-day turnaround, uh, which isn't too bad.

So you ready?

I have lots of questions.

Yep.

All right.

Um the first one is do you have a process in place for complaints?

Um you say complaints or compliance?

Complaints.

Uh currently there is the 88 complaints for physical structures, but it's to the best of my knowledge, we don't have anything beyond, you know, if a digital complaint comes in there.

Um is it something you've thought about at least?

A little bit, yeah.

So if something comes through, um, we're able to prove a vast majority of the time for a vast majority of our our site and solutions that we have made efforts to change it, and if someone says, hey, this isn't working, we can if they're willing to accept it as hey, we're we'll we're working on it, we'll get that fixed for you, and we'll get you a version as soon as possible.

Great.

If it escalates up, then um it would be escalated up to the city attorney.

Yeah, so we're facing similar issue, but we have another year because we have under 50,000 constituents.

So um we've been talking about this ad nauseum for the last several months.

Um we turned over, see, we were we were um we have to identify um a point person for any ADA 504 title to our title complaints, and for the normal course of business for what we do, we have those quite frequently for things.

And so that same person we designated as the official receiver of any of those complaints.

Um but I'm just I'm just saying there's also um entities out there that will be scanning your site and will be uh I fully expect with the OCR.

You say I I fully expect on the 24th that there will be thousands of lawsuits frivolously uh put up against every single large major city in the US.

And they just may or may not be shot down immediately.

So yeah, that that's that's I I fully expect that there will be cases and there will be concerns brought up.

Um but we've done enough that we're able to defend that.

Yes, we've done our our due diligence on making sure we're doing what we need to do.

Um what about um spot checking?

Are you do you have a plan in place for so you turn over your PDFs um or cite me fixes them per se?

Um you have a plan in place to check to make sure that they are in fact compliant.

Yeah.

That uh that's weren't changed or anything.

Yeah, so the the PAC software that I was talking about, um, we're able to just take the document, upload it right away, and within a matter of you know, about a minute or so, it's able to come back and say, here's all the things that have been you know our our issues with it.

Uh plus recite me does provide that extra reassurance document as well, saying we've remediated it.

Um so if any complaints come up about that document, we can say, hey, recite me, uh, you've got this guarantee on this.

So then Sean touched on some of the other stuff, so I'm not gonna repeat any of that.

Um in the contract itself, there's there's a big red flag that I think might need to be addressed, and maybe you can address it now.

But um talks about um deliverables.

So in 1.094, 95 and 9.6, it all refers to the same thing.

Basically says that the documents they create are owned by the remediated documents are owned by recite me.

And it says that you have a perpetual use license to use the remediated documents.

And nowhere in there does it say anything about um you retain ownership of the remediated documents.

You do retain ownership of the documents themselves.

Um that ties in with um there's also language in there that talks about limited use of the remedi remediated documents.

And so to me that ties into um tying you into a perpetual license to use this company.

And if you terminate that license at some point, that might be problematic.

Yeah, so we did talk to them about that because that was one of the issues we had with another um company that we are demoing with.

Um access from Civic Plus.

Um that they said that once you have the document back to you again, um, you're able to upload it, use it as much as you want.

It is your document.

Um so it is just a they did clarify, they did clarify that it would be our document for use, but there's nothing they can do to take that document back.

Um that's one something we ran into with doc access, is they have a kind of an overlay system where once you stop paying them, your documents are all back to being inaccessible again.

Well, if you read the strict interpretation of this under deliverables, the definition in 9495 and 9.6, right there, 9.4, it'd say they shall retain all rights, titles, and interest into the deliverables, including related intellectual property rights, blah blah blah.

So I mean the language says that they retain licensing.

So that's something you really need to either get corrected or clarified in some addendum.

No, I think that's that's a valid statement, so we can go back and rever have them review that.

Yeah, they reviewed it.

Brian reviewed it, said that it looked good to him.

I just pulled up Brian's red line version of it just to make sure something, you know, the one that um got uploaded wasn't um different than this one.

So that was 9.4 on page six.

Yeah.

And it's exactly like that.

Um okay.

So I have a couple more if you're good.

Yep.

Uh 14.2A and 14.2B.

Um it says any ideas suggested to them around the process, improvements, feedbacks, etc.

Um, are intellectual property that belong to Recite Me, which I found an interesting statement.

Um so that means anything you suggest to them to improve your improve the process is theirs.

Yeah, which I think is pretty pretty normal for most of the vendors that we work with.

That if you say, hey, it'd be great if you could do this.

It's not going to save them millions of dollars or be worth a lot in my mind for a lot of the things we're saying.

Um, but at the same time, um I don't I don't have a concern with that.

Okay.

Well, just considering that again, even you stated this is an early product, there's not a lot of options.

So I'm just saying that as long as you're okay with that.

Yep.

16.3.

Um they said they're free to use the City Walkshaw's logo and name for promotion.

Okay, you're good with that.

We've had yeah, we've had that before with a couple other vendors where it's just saying here's people that have used us as a as a vendor.

So I believe we can also say we can give them a season desist for any of those as well if we ever break ties.

It's not necessarily on the contract, but I have seen that before.

Uh 10.8 subprocessors.

Um, so I skip it around a little bit.

It says that any and all data basically is allowed to be sent to third party subprocessors, and if you look at the list of subprocessors, um it's quite extensive.

So that's basically third party that have access to whatever you provide to them.

Um to be fair, everything we provide we we generate is in open record anyway.

Okay.

So they would have access to it.

Because it's all presumably it's all material that's going to be published on the web and correct.

Yeah.

That was one conversation Brian Running and I had because this is a company.

I think they're out of the UK.

They do have a US business address, but when if you were to look at the first version of this contract, it's like as if they were dealing with someone in you in the UK.

Not someone, not someone from America.

A lot of the European business laws were there, and theirs are as strict, if not stricter, for then Government or FedRAMP, but can find within the European space.

Yeah, I know some spelling that was still European in the documents.

Uh that was my assumption was that it was all public, but I think that's good to bring up.

So if a dot if a document is intended to be published out to the public, that's the ones that we'd be remediating.

Um, because in theory, documents that are moving around internally don't immediately have to be accessible.

Um, if someone were to request a document um via um freedom of information or just an open records kind of a request, um, they get what they get.

Okay.

So if it is it is something that's just there, that was an internal memo that was sent as a PDF and it's not accessible.

Um, it's still not a public document uh that would fall under this purview.

So there's also language in there under 104B regarding where the data is stored right there.

Um and again, that's from a European perspective, saying that it could be outside of Europe.

Yeah, that was uh one that Brian and I specifically talked about, and because it is website information, it's available to anyone in the world.

Okay, so when they go through and um access the data, um are you you said they crawled the website.

Correct.

Um similar, similar, not too dissimilar from how a search engine would go about it.

Um so they're just finding a PDF and then they get a tick back saying this document exists, here's how many pages it has.

Um that's the extent of the information they're getting.

Um in theory, if they're finding it, it's a public document already, and they're accessing it from the UK, which means it's globally accessing.

That's the extent of the access they're getting into any of your systems, other than that you might provide them.

Correct, yeah.

There's no there's no software that's being installed, no widgets, no plugins, anything like that.

Yeah, the website website is um hosted by revise, and it does not integrate with any of our systems.

So it doesn't have uh our internet is on SharePoint, not uh not on some hidden link on on this website.

So there's only public data on this website.

So is the submit of data outside of that to them, like ad hoc that you mentioned before, is that done through a single person through you?

Or are you?

Yeah, but it would likely go through myself or someone on the communications team.

So at most it would be five, four or five people.

So you'll bet that data to make sure it is public information before.

Um I have two more.

10.2.

Um they said they're not responsible for lost or damaged client data.

Uh I imagine that it'd be if they run it through their system and it becomes corrupted.

Correct.

Um, but at the same time, we've got a set we'll have a version on our end that's still backups and everything you need to ensure that if they do that, that's it.

Correct.

Yeah, so so if they send me something back and it's corrupted, okay.

I'm not uploading it to the website.

So we'll we'll always have a backup for it.

Great.

And then the last one is 22.2 C.

Which says basically uh they can delete any of the the client data, which is in our possession and bottom termination of the agreement.

So yeah, it goes hand in hand with what I talked about first with uh them retaining rights to the remediated content.

Correct.

So if if we give them a document um and you know, for whatever reason we say we choose to end our contract before the contract time is up, they have the permission to delete this content, delete the content and not remediate it.

Um is essentially that, or if they have a repository on their end via cloud storage, be it you know physical storage, that they have the permission to delete those remediated files so we can't go after them and say, hey, can we get all a copy of every document you've remediated for us?

Um so it's just saying that they're not in the hook if we end the contract to retain that document.

Okay.

Um again, I'm just gonna voice some concerns about contract termination with uh the remediated data, because the way this reads, it really there's nothing in here that negates those statements that I've seen.

And again, I'm not an attorney, but I'm just saying the way it reads, and I've read through this twice, believe it or not, I didn't find it.

So it's just a concern that I have.

No, it's understandable.

That's that's all my last the one thing about this contract specifically is it doesn't have to go to the council.

This was because of the part purchasing policy, this is something that because it's IT related, it came to the height, it came to you guys to look at and get eyes on.

So we we can take this contract back, we can have the conversation with the city attorney on everyone's questions and concerns.

Okay, and uh, and if he and if he says, yeah, I think that's something good, let's redline it and send it back to them, we can.

So it's not like we we're trying to get this through ITB to get to council.

This is something that uh the city administrators authorized to sign.

Um like I said, it was an IT related thing, so it's at IT me.

Yeah, and they've been very open to redlining.

Uh we've already had I think a handful of changes that we sent back saying, hey, does this sound good to you within a day they came back and said here's the updated version of the contract that this all looks good from their end?

So they've been very open to making sure that you know they get the contract signed essentially.

Thank you.

So depending on what file type they're converting them to, like we don't repeat to work or like a web P or something, it could be a smaller document, but in general we're doubling the number of documents that we're hosting in the third party.

So does our website hosting have a limitation or increase because we're doubling the number of documents?

Well, wouldn't we be replacing documents?

Um usually when I'm uploading them, I upload the new version, replace the links wherever they exist, and then delete the old document.

Umce those our search engines get everything updated, but also our AI search on our website also collects the correct information and isn't trying to fight with itself.

Are we keeping local backups in case we need to for some reason revisit it?

We do not.

Generally, no, yeah, because our web version is our our backup.

Um everything is is backed up in quadruple, I believe, I think, because with revise we do have uh FedRAMP storage that they've got um for emergency backup centers for everything.

But uh adding if we're adding extra documents or anything like that, there is no limitation for the amount of storage we have.

Um so there's no no extra cost, no limitation for that arming down.

I'm just rereading the passage of those three um pieces that Brandon pointed out.

I think I think it's worthwhile to take those back to Brian.

No, I think Brian's office and just say, hey, can you look at these three paragraphs and give them your blessing because the question came up?

I I'm not a lawyer either, and uh just play one on the console and just sleep at a holiday and 9-6 seems to reversible.

I I just make I just make laws, I don't actually interpret them.

Yeah, I I kinda yeah, I kind of I I kind of read 9-6 as basically kind of an undoing of the of the prior two, but um I think it's worth considering, but I'm not Brandon.

Would you uh give me your list one more time on that you had pointed out so I have them all highlighted?

Sure.

Well, that first one was basically the definition of deliverables 1.0, then 949596.

One of deliverables.

Yeah.

Uh right column right across from the one.

All right, 94996, and it was 108.

Uh 108 the subprocessors, yeah.

That's another one.

And I feel like there was uh I have a couple other tens there.

There was 10.2 responsibility for lost or damaged client data, which I brought up.

I think that was addressed.

A lot of these are addressed properly.

Um I'd say 10.4b is where the data is stored.

Again, that was a little unclear because it is from a European sp perspective.

I think the preference would always be to have it stored in the US.

But um, if you're okay with that, uh let's see.

14.2A, 14.2b.

Umgested improvements, feedback, etc.

belonging to them.

That was a concern.

16.3 logos and promotion, you're okay with that.

And then 22.2.c.

Um basically deleting any client data in their possession upon termination of the agreement.

And the overall concern is with uh most of those is the fact that you know it states in there that they own the remediated documents, and that doesn't really state whether they're um with their systems or on your systems.

Correct.

I think it's on later on.

It also says like as we mentioned, like once you get the documents, you're right.

You you have the freedom to use the documents as you would.

I don't yeah, but that will I think those are all valid concerns to bring up and review and see if there's any verbiage that needs to change or if it legally is that means completely something something completely different that we can point out that anything in the website is accessible from anywhere in the world.

And anybody needs NAT save it any word.

So as far as where to start not that big of a deal, but yeah, everything else did the vibrant.

Yep.

Alright.

I got the I got it all highlighted.

Um I guess um if you want to I you know I guess it's one of those things because it was more of an informational thing to get in front of you guys, and quite frankly, what we just highlighted and went through in this whole discussion is why it's before you guys.

And I just really appreciate the attention to detail that you guys put in on this stuff.

I think I've mentioned a number of times where how Paul catches it to different font sometimes.

So that's why that's why it's before you guys because of this this type these types of discussions and your attention to detail on these contracts.

And you know, like Brandon was just saying, where he works, they have to deal with it.

They have a little more time than us, but um you know we're all having these types of conversations.

So with that said, if you want to make uh a motion, you can you don't have to.

We are gonna take back these highlighted items to the uh to the city attorney, have that conversation with them before it goes to the city administrator for signature.

Thank you.

I think if you do want to make a motion, I would make it subject to further review by the city attorney in office.

Yeah.

I would feel comfortable with supporting that.

So you're suggesting a motion to approve it.

Pending the reading of the injured, yeah, subject to the further review of the city attorney's office as discussed.

So yeah, I'd go ahead.

Okay.

I will make a motion to approve uh the contract with uh for remediation, PDF remediation with recite meet um subject to uh further review and approval by the city attorney's office of the items discussed.

I'll second it.

Okay.

So I feel comfortable if we can do that, even though it's not really necessary for given the cost of the item.

Okay, any other comments or questions before we go?

Darn it.

I put the uh the text in the wrong box.

We're going out of that.

All right, give me your motion one more time.

Uh motion to approve the PDF remediation contract with recite me, subject to further review by the city attorney's office of the items as discussed.

And I seconded close enough to what I said the first.

Probably pretty good.

Probably better than the first one.

All right, that is uh and second one.

All right, Sean?

Yes, Ann?

Yes.

Paul?

Yes.

Brandon?

Yes.

Ryan.

Yes.

That was unanimously approved.

Yeah.

So Chris, that will not come to council then.

No, it doesn't have to.

Okay.

Based on purchasing policy.

Okay.

That's fine.

Okay.

All right.

That was our one business item.

Um for the evening.

Thank you, Andrew.

Thank you, Chris.

Yeah, thank you.

Item six, communication referrals.

Chris, anything you want to uh come in?

There was another contract.

It was for stormwater management um system.

It was a capital project that um engineering uh presented to us.

It would be two years ago now, because it was a 2020 uh 2025 project.

Um we couldn't get the we couldn't get the red line, they couldn't get the red line stuff back to us quick enough to to make this agenda.

And so that will be um at our May meeting, and then I'll pro and I think I have a handful of policies to bring to you guys.

So I'll get I'll get the policies um to you uh well ahead of time so you have a little more time to read it.

Um other than that, that's all I got.

Hopefully, I'm still here in the main meeting.

Alders serve at the pleasure of the mayor, so oh yeah, we get still be on the uh on the board, yeah.

Under the new administration, whoever it is.

So I will do my best to push for that.

I guess one other thing, we finally uh we've had some on-site uh workshops for the records management system part of that CAD RMS.

Uh next week we have uh on-site workshops for CAD, and then the following week is our next set of on-site workshops for RMS again.

So we're starting to make some tangible progress.

So it's uh it's a different approach as to how because right now the workshops they're training us how to configure the system, um, and then at the very end, they'll train us how to use the system, so which is nice because the guys that you know and gals that need to understand you know the flow of everything, they're all in these meetings and workshops.

So it's been uh the the first three days, we're good.

That was last week, and uh I think I said a couple more weeks, and then uh we'll have a couple more under our belts.

So project I can't say it's running on time because we never put a timeline on it, but it's looking like probably uh March of 27 for a go live date-ish, you know.

So about a year, yeah.

So about a year.

Um budget-wise, we're looking really good, which that's always a good one to report on.

Oh yeah.

Appreciate that, Kristen.

They pass that on to council in our next meeting.

Yeah, I think you know the next item.

Anything else?

Okay.

Next item on our agenda is adjournment.

Is there any objection to adjourning?

Hearing and seeing no objection, we are adjourned.