Collusion? Excessive Attorney/Client Privilege Claims? Why won’t Fruita reveal their ROW Acquisition targets?

It appears the City of Fruita colluded with “A Project Resource”, the first ROW Acquisition firm they first contracted with. Is that why Section 6.17 in the 2nd/new RFP contains rewritten stronger collusion language? Why did Fruita omit the ROW Acquisition map in the 2nd RFP?

Investigating why is difficult due to Fruita’s lack of transparency including multiple versions of their Exception Log (Exception Log1, Exception Log2) and Fruita’s unwillingness to share which private property owners they are targeting.

Do the differences between Fruita’s two different versions of the same Exception Log and the nature of exemptions suggest the City of Fruita may be improperly using attorney/client privilege to hide politically sensitive or legally questionable actions, particularly surrounding 19 Road and J 6/10 Road property acquisitions? Is Fruita hiding the target private property where they plan to acquire or take via eminent domain?