December 20, 2021

Tawanika McKinney
Internal Auditor
101 East Main St.
Jackson, TN 38301

Ms. McKinney,

This letter serves as my official response to a question raised to my vote of "no" when considering a recently
presented license and use agreement for the Ballpark at Jackson. I feel confident in my abstinence from a prior vote and my
recent vote of "no". I will explain that reasoning below.

I will start with the reasoning for stating my intent to abstain from voting on an agreement with the Jackson Baseball
Club/ Goldeyes, this occurred during the period in which the Jackson Baseball Club occupied the stadium and the arbitration
process had yet to conclude. During the June 1, 2021 City Council meeting I stated that I would abstain from voting on that
agreement, "due to the proximity of some property we have near the stadium." I stand by the decision and statement. This
statement was rooted in the fact that a member of the ownership group occupying the stadium at that time had years before
reached out to our company to pitch a partnership on a hotel/conference center due to our property's proximity and our
history of development in the area. Our company expressed it had no interest in pursuing that partnership. However, I felt
that any vote regarding the current occupant, or of their sub-licensees, could be construed as a conflict as the prior owner
had attempted to do business with our company. Upon further review of my comments, this distinction was not captured in
my statement.

In terms of my reasoning for a vote of "no" regarding the agreement presented to the Council on December 14,
2021, as stated to the media following the vote, my vote of "no" was not a judgement of the licensee or their proposed use -
but rather a statement on the process the city underwent to ultimately present the license agreement to the Council. Over
the prior two and a half years, I have worked to identify shortcomings of the City's purchasing and contracting processes, and
to re-establish a proper legal process for goals and objectives of the City Council and/or Mayor to come to fruition. It was my
opinion, based on the lack of information provided and the statements made by those involved in the proposal/contract
process, that a quality process was not adhered to, and this yielded a single poorly vetted proposal that was not in the best
interest of the taxpayers. I had pledged to my constituents, and myself, that if there were significant questions that remained
during consideration of these types of issues - I would vote "no." I had come to understand that the following issues had
occurred: 1) The purchasing department had shared the contact information of all interested potential proposers with the
prior licensee, this allowed the prior licensee to contact potential proposers with threats of litigation, 2) there was no
consideration of restarting the proposal process after the leaking of proposer information, 3) there were no financial impact
calculations shared with Council until the evening prior to the vote, even though the Purchasing Department and the Mayor's
Office were in receipt of the proposal since August of 2021. When presented, the cost to the taxpayers was shown as a
potential of $5.6M over an 8-year term, a long-term burden I did not feel comfortable placing on the City considering the
issues outlined above. And finally, 4) the making of the contract was outside of the process described in Section 20 of the
City's Charter, where it states, "(The Council) shall make or authorize the making of all contracts." The Council was presented
a contract out of the blue - with no collective foreknowledge or authorization of its creation.

Ultimately, I felt that my vote of "no" was a statement on the failure of processes within the City that could lead to
long term financial implications - and made sure to express that to the community both before and after the vote. I also felt
that a vote of "no" was in the best interest of the taxpayers, and in opposition to any potential perceived interest that I or our
company would gain from a vote of "yes." I appreciate the complainant's interest in transparency and accountability and will
be clearer and more nuanced in future explanations regarding decisions for abstaining from voting.

Sincerely,
Paul Taylor

From: Paul Taylor

Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 6:01 PM
To: Tawanika McKinney
Subject: Complaint Response
Attachments: Complaint Response.pdf

Ms. McKinney, 
 
Please find my response attached. Let me know if you need any further information. 
 
Thanks 
Paul 
 
 

Sent from my iPhone 

1
01231445ÿ4722ÿ89

7ÿ ÿ
 
 ÿ9
! 8"ÿ #
$%&' (ÿ4)5ÿ43425ÿ07437**ÿ+9
,-./'0&
7ÿ ÿ
 
1 2ÿ9 #3ÿ9#4ÿ #5
5ÿ# ÿ ÿ6ÿ73 ÿ 8ÿ "#ÿ# ÿ2"#3ÿ6ÿ "ÿ3ÿ22ÿ9"ÿ25ÿ4342ÿ2ÿ(:#ÿ2;5ÿ43425ÿ:2ÿ ÿ "#
# 5ÿÿ 2#ÿ6ÿÿ 24ÿÿ58ÿ6#ÿÿ7#ÿÿ22 ÿ#<"25ÿ5ÿÿ ÿ "ÿ8 #ÿ8"#6#ÿ2" 4
6ÿ= "5
>?@?ABC?ÿEFÿGHIBAAJKLÿGFMFNF

OPQRSÿTUVWXUTXÿOYZZBHJS
[[[ÿ8"ÿ #ÿ\ #]^ 43 7[ÿ2414314342ÿ2372;ÿ89ÿ[[[
94ÿ95
_6ÿ 8#3ÿ6ÿ6ÿ#7 "ÿ3ÿÿ6# "365ÿ5ÿ#`2ÿ6ÿ5ÿ62ÿ27#ÿÿ6ÿÿ7ÿ ÿ# ÿÿ22#ÿ 
 ÿ6 4ÿa6 "2ÿ "ÿ2ÿÿ22 ÿ8 # ÿÿ#ÿ ÿ6ÿÿ22#ÿ #ÿ8ÿ8#ÿ ÿ37ÿÿÿ4
6ÿ "5
8"ÿ
aÿ8# ÿ ÿ86 

212