Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting May 19, 2020 CALLED MEETING VIRTUAL/TELECONFERENCE May 19, 2020 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:30 p.m., Tuesday, May 19, 2020, the Honorable Hardie Davis, Jr., presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hardie Davis, Jr., B. Williams, Garrett, Sias, Fennoy, Frantom, M. Williams, Davis, D. Williams, Hasan and Clarke, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we’ll call this meeting to order. The Clerk: Do you want to entertain a motion to go into legal? Mr. Mayor: I do but we’re going to take care of the special called meeting stuff first. The Clerk: What, the masks? Mr. Mayor: Right. The Clerk: Okay. 3. An Ordinance to require that face coverings or masks be worn in Augusta, Georgia City/Governmental Buildings during the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency and Recovery. (Requested by General Counsel Wayne Brown) Mr. Mayor: All right, the Chair recognizes Attorney Brown. Mr. Brown: Good afternoon, Mayor and Commission. You have attached to your agenda a draft ordinance requiring that face masks or face coverings be worn in governmental buildings of Augusta, Georgia in the COVID-19 Public Emergency and Recovery. I would like to point out to you on yesterday for the first time GMA did prepare and draft a draft face covering/face mask policy. But significantly they did make note that General Counsel for Office for GMA said that it has the understanding that the Mayor’s Office, that the Governor’s Office has verbally agreed to local governments being allowed to require face masks and with that they prepared a face mask policy. You have an ordinance before you. The difference between that policy and this ordinance is that in that you had indicated that you would have Marshal enforcement in at least some of our locations. If enforcement is going to be then you need to have in your ordinance provisions for penalty if it is violated so the ordinance has a policy provision which is our standard Code enforcement code violation provision. The GMA’s policy draft did not have a penalty provision in it. I just wanted to bring that to the attention of the Commission but I do recommend that if you are going to have actual enforcement by the Marshal in places such the Municipal Building, etc. then we will recommend still that you go with the ordinance and to have the proper penalty provision. 1 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Attorney Brown. We’re going to have some debate about this. Let me mention a few things. One, as it relates to GMA and then sending out this model policy, I’ve been a part of these conversations over the last several weeks. I sit on the GMA Advisory Committee to the Governor and this is a discussion that some 22 leaders that the Governor picked have been discussing. The Governor continues to relax his previous executive orders around our inability to implement and/or effect these things at the local level and so as I fully understand it and I believe this holds true in our conversations that we are having weekly as it relates to this, as well as our conference call weekly with the Governor’s Office that the Governor did not want to mandate a statewide face covering executive order but has now yielded to the local governments in order to be able to implement policies of this magnitude. So with that I want to leave it there. th I’m going to the commissioner from the 10. Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You knew as well as everybody else that my statements were coming. Once again I want to make a preface that I want everybody to be safe. I don’t want anybody to get sick and I certainly don’t want anybody to die but I am concerned the constitutional stipulations and the, even in the ordinary judicial according to the constitution can only be suspended in the event of foreign invasion or rebellion. And furthermore not even the president, state or local governments can do that. That has to be an act of Congress. I strongly recommend that we urge people, but forcing people is a violation of personal rights. Also the fine and/or jail term is excessive and so I think we’re not only stamping them but I think we stomping stththth on the 1, 4, 5 and 8 amendments. I think there’s a great possibility that we’re going to have a constitutional backlash on this. I think we may have lawsuits coming on this. I think we should encourage but not dictate that people have to wear a mask and then even a two-year old and up, that’s to me is ludicrous. We have to accept personal responsibility so if we don’t feel safe, we stay at home. If we don’t, I just think that we’re setting a bad precedent but of course, as always ya’ll will do what you want to do. But I had to put my two cents’ worth in. Thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 9, I’ve got your hand. Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question goes to the attorney as to, you’re talking about some of our buildings. If we’re going to enforce something, how would the taxpayers know which one is going to be enforced or which one is under the ordinance or not? If it’s going to be a citywide thing, it ought to be all offices, not just some of them. I’m thinking we are getting off on the wrong track too but that’s my personal opinion but I just don’t think we cannot have something set for all of our facilities if we’re going to do this. Now I disagree with the masks. Some people are wearing masks because they feel threatened and they want to be safe. You can’t tell people who don’t want to do that. That’s like smoking. I don’t smoke because I can’t afford it but people want to smoke and even though it endangers their health, they still smoke. That’s a choice they make. If they’re concerned and they want to wear a mask, we shouldn’t stop them but I don’t think we ought to be telling people to wear a mask. I’m looking for my attorney to come back and tell me what facilities are going to be under code and what facilities are not because we’re really going to end up in a situation if we do that. So can I hear from the attorney? Mr. Brown: Yes, sir, Commissioner Williams, first of all I’m drafting a policy for the Commission to consider what it wants to do and whatever the Commission decides as a whole we 2 will draft or redraft that in accordance with your final decision. But as it is written right now the face mask covering applies to all governmental buildings. Mr. M. Williams: Okay and I’m looking for a ruling from my attorney that we pay highly to do this to recommend, not to let Commission recommend its own law, whatever the law says, and I think that’s where I call on you as a professional. Not that the Commission is going to run itself in a hole already with a lot of other stuff so as an advisor you can’t make the Commission get that. But to advise the Commission, what I’m hearing from you that all our facilities should be under the same thing for the masks. Mr. Brown: Yes, that is the way that it is drafted now if you’re asking for my legal opinion on whether or not we should have, our ordinance should require a face mask or whether it should mention a penalty. I can give you my opinion. Mr. M. Williams: Okay and that’s what an attorney is supposed to do. Give you a legal opinion. Now the other question is how can we afford, we don’t have the manpower, how can we enforce if we don’t have the manpower, how can we enforce one if we’re going to use all our facilities now I agree. If you’re going to do one, you’ve got to do them all. So if you’re going to have enforcement, it would be the Marshal, the Sheriff, GBI, whoever is going to do it, you’ve got to have the manpower to do that. Where is that coming from? Mr. Brown: Well, I’ll just repeat what I said last week in terms of legal recommendation as to the mask. We believe that it is legally safer to encourage mask wearing but whether you do it or not of course is still a Commission decision but it is a legal recommendation that mask wearing be not only encouraged but we also provide masks at the point you walk in to wear a mask to encourage them and to provide them with masks. However the proposal is that we should require the same (inaudible) at all of our facilities and as to enforcement of it, it’s legally speaking you can have a rule that applies to all facilities and enforce them at various facilities. The law does not require that you have universal enforcement of these rules. Just like if you provide speed limits on the expressway, it doesn’t mean you have to have a police on every expressway to have the same speed limits. So the body may choose to use its limited Marshal or law enforcement capabilities at different buildings at different times but it is not illegal if you enforce it this week at the Municipal Building or at another building. It would not be illegal. Mr. M. Williams: I’m not going to get into it. I’m just going to let this go. I just know that highway speed limits are posted and you’re supposed to obey them. But we’re not talking about speed. We’re talking about coming into a public facility whether it be a Rec Center, whether it be a Senior Center, whether it be the Courthouse, whether it be the Municipal Building, we’ve got a lot of facilities even the off-site facilities like the Tax Commissioner. I mean public facilities is a public facility and we’re going to have to address them all the same way and that’s what I’m saying. We can put a sign up and don’t have to enforce it but then people are not going to support it, doing it if they know you’re not going to support so it ain’t no use in ticketing the people saying you’re going to do it. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. th Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 4. 3 Mr. Sias: Thank you, sir. I’m a little upset at our attorney and I need to have a meeting with him before the meeting but he took my speed limit sign comment. We have speed limits and we don’t have a cop standing by every speed limit sign. We put up a policy, we put up directions for folks to follow. If we have rules, we put those rules by there. There is a simple rule at the Municipal Building or any government building in the state of Georgia. If they have enforcement out there where you have to go through a scanner, then if you don’t want to go through the scanner there’s only one rule. Don’t come in. It didn’t say you have to go to jail because you don’t want to go through the scanner. You just don’t come in. It’s just as simple as that. So as one of my colleagues often said and I hope I get it right. We’re choking on gnats and swallowing camels or something to that effect. This is simply a policy to safeguard our employees and to safeguard the public for the next 30 days. There is technically no end game in the coronavirus. We just said we can leave the government closed for the next two years but the public is not going to wait that long. The economy is not going to wait that long. The people are not going to wait that long. We have businesses opening up all over Richmond County and I’ll just use this good example. Many of them have rules that say if you don’t wear a mask except for a temperature check, you don’t come into that building. This is not rocket science. But we act like it’s, I don’t know, interstellar spaceship (inaudible). But the simple fact is we want to protect our employees and protect our public for the next 30 days and the simple thing is for us to wear, to require everybody to wear a mask. So that’s my comment and move for approval of the ordinance and we’re set for 30 days that we’ll require that and the simple penalty is you don’t enter the facility. Thank you. th Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 8. Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Mayor. This question is for Attorney Brown. You asked if we wanted your legal opinion on this. I was hoping that you’d give us a more direct answer on what your legal opinion is on the constitutionality of this ordinance. Mr. Brown: I believe that that answer is not going to be clear. I know the public has already (inaudible) other locations around the country. They believe their constitutional rights are violated by imposing a requirement of a mask but the City certainly has a right to make its employees and its workplace safe. I think it’s well documented that COVID-19 does pose a health threat and as long as this ordinance does not exceed, it’s only in effect while there’s a state of emergency and (inaudible) because the Governor’s state of emergency expires June 13. This ordinance is dependent upon there being a state of emergency to have any chance of surviving a constitutional challenge. th Mr. Garrett: So what you’re saying is if the state of emergency expires on the 13 of June, then this ordinance goes away. Mr. Brown: This ordinance could not be approved any further than there’s a state of emergency. If you extend it past the state of emergency, I think you run into a serious constitutional challenge. Mr. Garrett: Thank you, Attorney. Thank you, Mayor. th Mr. Mayor: All right, commissioner from the 10. 4 Mr. Clarke: I keep hearing speed limit signs, seat belts, driving and everything. I’d like to remind everybody driving is a privilege not a constitutional right. nd Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 2. Mr. D. Williams: One of the things about wearing the mask is in my opinion it’s our responsibility of the leadership of this community is to look out for the welfare and the safety of our employees and citizens. The ordinance is kind of (inaudible). The only problem I have with this ordinance is the (inaudible). It is simple. Restaurants make rules about who comes into their facilities and be served. If you don’t have on socks, not socks, shoes or a shirt, you can’t be served so we have the responsibility of looking out for those individuals that’s not totally aware of how they should protect themselves. Wearing the mask is (inaudible). It’s no big deal. If you don’t want a mask, you have the choice of leaving and it’s very simple. And we as the leadership have to take on this responsibility of making sure our community is safe. We all understand that wearing the (inaudible) mask could prevent you from passing on the virus to somebody else. So we’re spending all this time talking about if we should wear the mask or if we shouldn’t wear the mask. If somebody files a lawsuit about wearing the mask, let them file it because nine times out of ten if they have a sensible judge they’re going to lose anyway. But we’re killing all this time about wearing the mask or not wearing the mask. Wearing the mask has been proven by the CDC to be a safeguard against catching the virus. The virus is still strong. We understand that. We want our people to get back to work to help the economy. We understand that. So if all it takes is wearing a mask, there is no big problem. And it’s your choice. If you don’t want to wear it, you don’t come in the building. Very simple, you know, and we’re spending all this time about whether we should wear it or not. There’s a lot of things we do in our community and in our churches and in our organizations that we don’t totally agree with but when it is for the common good of all, we should be able to support that. Thank you. th Mr. Mayor: All right, we’re going to the commissioner from the 6. Mr. Hasan: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have two questions. One for the attorney, just for the record. I heard you mention and I think the Mayor might have said this as well, I think the Governor’s position kind of is leaning toward exactly the discussion we’re having but he wouldn’t put it in writing. Mr. Brown: That is true. We do not have a writing that the Governor has agreed that local governments can require mask wearing. We have a statement from the Office of General Counsel for ACCG. It reads that it is my understanding that the Governor’s Office verbally agreed that local governments can require masks on local government properties with certain exceptions. Those exceptions which I added yesterday when they came through are such things if you hold an election or a polling place on government property, you cannot require masks for people coming to vote. Or you cannot require it for the courts. Those are exceptions to certain governmental buildings. 5 th Mr. Hasan: Okay, my second question is that the 13, if it passes, we’ve got to modify th (inaudible). We couldn’t do 30 days at this time. From now to the 13 of June is about 25 days, it’s supposed to pass today so that would be 25 days and not 30 days. Those are my comments. th Mr. Mayor: All right, commissioner from the 5. Mr. B. Williams: Appreciate it. I thought if we approved this he said they have about 40,000 masks set aside for people coming in the building so we’ll have a mask to offer those people. And I think everybody’s mind is pretty much made up. I think we just need to go ahead and vote. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Frantom: My question is did Commissioner Sias get a second or do we need to restate that motion and my other question is do we need to waive the second reading on this? th Mr. Mayor: Yes, we need to waive the second reading and the commissioner from the 4 needs a second. Mr. Sias: Excuse me, Mayor, before Mayor Pro Tem makes that second if he’s about to just want to modify that with what the attorney said and also what Commissioner Hasan mentioned thth it will go to the 13 of June, 12 of June? Mr. Mayor: June 13. Mr. Sias: Instead of saying 30 days, until June 13. Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Mr. Frantom: And you’re waiving the second reading? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Sias: Yes. Mr. Frantom: Second. th Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you, everybody. Commissioner from the 9 again. Mr. M. Williams: I just want to remind again that we are government officials. It’s not private business. We look at what private business is doing and people don’t speak. We’ve got a responsibility as a government and that’s totally different from private enterprise. I don’t agree with waiving the second reading. I don’t agree with the Mayor so I certainly don’t agree with waiving the second reading. If you’re going to do an ordinance of this magnitude, you want to go ahead and pass and then waive the second reading? I’m not in favor of that at all so if you’re going to do an ordinance, we ought to do it by the rules and to have the second reading as well. Maybe 6 by that time it won’t be but 20 days. We act like five days difference from 25 to 30 is a big difference. That ain’t no difference in my opinion. If you’re going to do 30, you might as well do 30. But I don’t agree with waiving the second reading on an ordinance of this magnitude. Mr. Mayor: We’ve got a motion and a second as modified, Madam Clerk. We’ll take a roll call vote at this time. The Clerk: Yes, sir, and just for clarity I think initially Commissioner Sias he also stated that the penalty would be the denial of entrance into the building. Is that correct or are we going with the penalty stated in the ordinance? Mr. Mayor: I think that we should move forward with the penalty that’s stated in the ordinance. It’s clean, it’s consistent with what’s being proposed. I want to draw everybody’s attention to the Governor’s most recent executive order. While he did not mandate masks to be worn, it was clearly stated in the executive order that masks, the guidelines were clear, that masks should be worn when going out into the general public and in places of business. The Governor has given guidelines across the entire state of Georgia for all the businesses that opened up back three weeks ago, hair salons, nail salons, barber shops, etc. When you go into those places of business, you have to have on a mask. They have to have sanitizing in place. When you go in the restaurants, these things are still true in the environment that we’re in and it’s certainly well within our rights as a local governing body to effect those same changes. Mr. M. Williams: Commissioners going to have to wear a mask as well, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Let me suggest to you not only should you wear a mask, I wore one when I came into this building and I’ll wear one – Mr. M. Williams: No, no, I understand. I’m talking about in the Chamber, any commissioner in the Chamber itself should be wearing a mask, is that right? Mr. Sias: Yes. th Mr. Mayor: That is absolutely correct. I appreciate that, commissioner from the 9, but yes, everyone will need to wear a mask. Madam Clerk, continue. The Clerk: Mr. Sias, Mr. Frantom’s motion. Mr. Clarke and Mr. M. Williams vote No. Ms. Davis out. Motion carries 7-2. The Clerk: The motion carries without unanimous consent to waive the second reading. Mr. M. Williams: Se we’ve got to have another reading. The Clerk: Yes. 7 Mr. Mayor: I don’t want to necessarily pick a fight but I may as well have stepped into it, th commissioner from the 9, but what this body did pursuant to establishing the first executive order is that we effectively suspended those rules of normal procedure and – Mr. M. Williams: Can’t suspend no rule, Mr. Mayor. We’re talking about an ordinance now. You didn’t want to fight and I really don’t want to but you’re saying you suspend the rules on the Commission but the ordinance is not (inaudible). Now check with your Clerk and see what she tells you. You can twist and turn them all you want to, you can’t (inaudible). You’re talking about state law and then the local (inaudible). Ask the Attorney to speak in there. I guess he knows. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, so what we’ll do is we’ll distribute the order that was passed, the ordinance that was passed by this body and that was the emergency declaration order that was passed by this body that allowed us to do that. Mr. M. Williams: No, no, sir. You’re going to have to pass more than that. If I have to personally take that suit on myself, I will because that’s not fair. You’re not going to bend these rules to work when you want it to be convenient now. We know this epidemic is real. We know it’s out there but you’re not going to do that. I’m calling my attorney myself and I don’t mean one of the local attorneys here. Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. We’ll come back to it. Madam Clerk. Mr. M. Williams: I guarantee we’ll come back to it. Mr. Sias: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Sias: Before we close out, are we about to close out the special called meeting? Mr. Mayor: No, we’re not. Mr. Sias: Thank you. I had requested an item to be on the special called meeting agenda before we close out. Mr. Mayor: Attorney Brown. 1. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and potential litigation B. Real estate C. Personnel Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Mayor and Commission. We would request a motion to go into executive session to discuss items of pending or potential litigation and real estate. 8 Mr. Sias: So move. Mr. Fennoy: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Voting. Ms. Davis out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, before you move into closed session we do have one more item th that’s been requested to be added to the agenda. Commissioner from the 4. Mr. Sias: Yes, sir. I requested this item so that we could go ahead and get the Small Business Relief Program underway. It’s my understanding and we have people from HCD standing by as well that an informal review of our program has been looked on favorably which means there should not be, there’s no absolutely 100% guarantee, but there’s, but we can institute our program with the expectation that we will get the reimbursement from HUD and that will allow us to go ahead and assist these businesses or get the applications out there to assist the businesses here in Augusta that really need this help to assist with their COVID-19 losses and that would mean that we would need to go ahead, it’s a reimbursement program anyway. So even after we get the official word we still have to spend the money. In light of that request that we go ahead and we have I think it’s $1,061,139 or something in that regard that we can go ahead and front that money up and get the program going with the expectation that we will get a reimbursement from HUD because it is a reimbursement program period. One way or another we will still have to spend the money upfront. So we can go ahead and get the money upfront and get the program going and then get our reimbursement from HUD. We have had an informal favorable review. At some point in this discussion I want to make that a motion but I’ll wait for further discussion before I request an opportunity or someone else to make that motion. Thank you. Mr. M. Williams: You don’t have unanimous consent to add or discuss anything to the agenda. Mr. Mayor: All right, Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Frantom: I guess we can’t talk about it but I just still have some questions because I’m curious. When you say front the money, where was that money going to come from, upfront? Mr. M. Williams: Mr. Mayor, wait now. The Mayor Pro Tem knows better than that. You can’t discuss nothing that don’t have unanimous consent. That’s the craziest thing I’ve ever heard in my life. How long have we been doing this crazy stuff we’re doing now? I’d like to say something else and I apologize but how long have we been doing this stuff we’re trying to do right now, man? You’re handling government business, you can’t go and discuss it anyway. th Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 9, pause for a moment. All right, Attorney Brown. 9 Mr. Brown: In that as a parliamentary statement, in that the item has not been added to the agenda, any further discussion would be improper. Mr. Mayor: I’m going to go back to, since we entered into this pandemic on 13 March we have taken items on the agenda and added them and we’ve added them without unanimous consent pursuant to the emergency declaration. We have done that consistently. Mr. M. Williams: That’s not true. Mr. Hasan: That’s not true. Mr. M. Williams: We have added some stuff with consent. Mr. Mayor: Without objection. Mr. M. Williams: We have consented to do that. Mr. Mayor: We have without objection. Mr. M. Williams: (inaudible) no rules out there. You’re not going to sit there, man, don’t do that please. Man, let’s handle the business – Mr. Hasan: (inaudible) about the executive session. Mr. Mayor: So we’ve not had any objections, Commissioner. That’s my point. Mr. M. Williams: That’s exactly right. So don’t act like we’ve (inaudible) and went through the rules. This is the first time it has been tested so if you want to test it again with the other one, get in line with the other lawyer. Get in line with the other lawyer. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we’re going to go ahead and proceed. We’re going to hear st from the commissioner from the 1. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor, I’ve heard we don’t have unanimous consent to have any vote taken on whether they are going to move forward or not. th Mr. Mayor: Again, as the commissioner from the 9 said, he’s testing the waters and he is objecting, which was done in all of our previous meetings, and so we’re not going to have the discussion because there is objection to having the discussion and adding it to the agenda. He is absolutely correct. th Mr. Fennoy: So it is the commissioner from the 9 that’s objecting? th Mr. Mayor: Yes. The commissioner from the 9 is objecting to adding it to the agenda. That is absolutely correct. We’re going to proceed into the break out room and then we’ll go into legal so everybody suspend and pause for a moment. 10 Mr. Sias: Executive session, sir. Mr. Mayor: Yeah. \[EXECUTIVE SESSION\] Mr. Mayor: We’re going to reconvene. The Chair recognizes Attorney Brown. 2. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, Commission, we request a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Frantom: So move. Mr. Sias: So move. Mr. Frantom: Second. Mr. Sias: Either way. th Mr. Mayor: All right, Mayor Pro Tem with a motion. Commissioner from the 4 with a second. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Brown: Mayor and Commission, we request a motion to (inaudible) payment of attorney fees and costs for the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam matter from Augusta’s Contingency Fund account. Mr. Garrett: So move. Mr. Sias: So move. Mr. Hasan: Second. thth Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 8, commissioner from the 6. Motion carries 10-0. th Mr. Mayor: Commissioner from the 9. This is the matter of one Dixon Airline Road Landfill. 11 Mr. M. Williams: I want to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we send a letter to the (inaudible) that they do not meet the guidelines of the City Landfill waste solid plan. Mr. Hasan: Second. Is that what we need, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Mayor: That’s what you need, Commissioner Hasan. You need a motion and a second. th We have that now. All right, Madam Clerk, commissioner from the 9 made the motion to send th the letter of inconsistency with the Solid Waste Plan. Commissioner from the 6 made the second. Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor, is that to Dixon Airline Road C & D landfill application? Mr. Mayor: That is correct. Mr. Frantom: Substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Frantom: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Due to the fact that we have the 2008 plan and then we have a plan that’s been under review but not approved, not to mention that they will be going through multiple processes, Georgia EPD, Planning and Zoning, Engineering, I mean this is just the start, I’d like to make a substitute motion to approve and send a letter of approval. Mr. Garrett: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, all right. We’ve got a motion and a second for a letter of approval to Dixon Airline Landfill C & D. The Chair recognizes Attorney Brown. Mr. Brown: Commissioner Frantom, in your motion I’m presuming that you mean you want the government to send a letter, approve a letter of consistency for the Dixon Airline C & D Landfill. Mr. Frantom: Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. Brown: Thank you, sir. th Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right, commissioner from the 9. Mr. M. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I need to address the attorney with this I think. Did we not pay an expert to come in to analyze, make sure there was or was not compliance and that came back that there was not? How can we send a letter but we can’t say consistency if the expert (inaudible) did not meet the guidelines? How can we lie? How can we send a letter saying that they are if they are not? I’m asking the attorney. Mr. Brown: The Commission can approve this action despite the recommendation of Geosyntec who was the engineering expert who analyzed it and made a recommendation to the Commission of what their findings were. The Commission would be the final decision makers of 12 this matter so it could send one. The effect would be that, (inaudible) made null and void all criteria in your solid waste plan that were not consistent. You would then do, eventually do away with your ability to hold others to that level of consistency. Mr. M. Williams: So if we approve that and what you just said that we lie and say that we, that they meet the guidelines because if we’ve got to say we’re approving it but you don’t meet the guidelines because if we do not say that we’re going to be opening this up to any and everybody else who opens a landfill without it going through any criteria whether we’ve got a solid waste plan or not. Is that right? Mr. Brown: I can’t use the language that, I can’t use the language that the Commission would be lying. Mr. M. Williams: If the experts said that it didn’t meet it and we sent a letter saying it does meet it, would that not be Commission lying? Mr. Brown: It would be – Mr. M. Williams: Yes or no. Yes or no, that’s all I need. Mr. Brown: I can’t answer your question yes or no. I can answer your question. The question is the aspects of that motion would be to alter our solid waste plan. Mr. M. Williams: You cannot alter the expert opinion. You can alter the solid waste, if you alter the solid waste plan, then we’re going to open it up to any and everybody else who wants to do that do not have to do anything because we done altered the plan. That’s why we have a plan in place. That’s why we’ve got a new plan that we’re supposed to bring out sooner or later. But now I’m telling ya’ll you’re going to get a real lawsuit now if you do what you’re trying to do now right in the general public’s face. That’s because we (inaudible) this thing is still being – Mr. Garrett: Four out of 13 is not a lot. Mr. Frantom: Yeah, (inaudible). Mr. M. Williams: Well, if you approve it, you’re lying. That’s what you’re doing now. Mr. Mayor: Everybody suspend. Mr. M. Williams: I’m not going to suspend, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Hold on, hold on. Mr. M. Williams: I know exactly what a liar is and that’s what they’re going to be doing. I don’t give a ham sandwich what they say, report the truth. They’re reporting a lie. Ain’t no ifs, ands, or buts about that. Like it or not. 13 Mr. Mayor: Listen to this right here. I’ve got a motion with a second and I also have a substitute. We’re going to take action on the substitute motion first. Mr. M. Williams: I hadn’t gotten a ruling from the attorney. I asked the attorney a question. He has not answered yet. Mr. Mayor: You asked the attorney a question but you wouldn’ t yield and allow him to answer your question. Mr. M. Williams: Yes or no, can you hire and pay taxpayers’ dollars to an expert to come in, evaluate and bring their findings back because their findings is not what the commission likes they’re going to do something different, they’re going to vote another way. That’s the craziest thing I ever heard in my life, man. Mr. Garrett: But we also sent a letter of consistency first. Mr. Mayor: Once again I’m going to go back and we’re going to take action on these motions. I’ve got a substitute motion and a motion. The substitute motion, Madam Clerk, you have with a proper second. We’re going to take action on that first and then we’ll come back and do this. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Hasan, Mr. Sias, Mr. D. Williams and Mr. M. Williams vote No. Motion ties 5-5. Mr. Mayor: I’m not voting on this matter. The Clerk: You’re voting No? Mr. Mayor: I’m not voting at all on this matter. The Clerk: Okay, all right. Mr. Mayor: I’m abstaining. The Clerk: Okay, that takes us back to the original motion. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Mayor, can I make a point before we do that? Mr. Mayor: No, just vote. I want to just vote. We’ve got a lot of other business in front of us for the rest of today. Madam Clerk, roll call vote. The Clerk: Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke: Read the motion again, please. 14 The Clerk: Motion to send a letter to the C & D Landfill application that they do not meet the guidelines of the Solid Waste Landfill Plan. Mr. Clarke: No. Mr. Sias: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: State your inquiry. Mr. Sias: Just for a point of inquiry. What the attorney said and what the Clerk said are just slightly different. And I’m just saying that the Clerk didn’t say that about the letter that did not meet, that don’t meet the requirements for a letter of consistency. I’m not knocking on the Clerk. I’m just saying that on the previous substitute the attorney clarified the motion and on this one the attorney should also clarify the motion. Mr. Brown: I did. Mr. Mayor: He did that earlier and it was clear. The Clerk: Could I have Commissioner Marion Williams restate his motion? Mr. M. Williams: My motion was to send a letter to the Dixon Airline Landfill to say they do not meet the guidelines of our waste, Solid Waste treatment – The Clerk: Landfill Plan? Mr. M. Williams: Landfill Plan. That’s right. The Clerk: That’s what he said. Mr. M. Williams: That’s what I said and what the attorney said. The Clerk: Are we moving forward, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: We are. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Clarke, Ms. Davis, Mr. Frantom, Mr. Garrett and Mr. B. Williams vote No. Motion ties 5-5. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, again I’m not voting in this matter. I’m going to be consistent. The Clerk: No action on that with the Mayor abstaining. Mr. M. Williams: Madam Clerk, put this back on the next agenda, the next Commission agenda. 15 The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Attorney Brown, I believe that’s all the business that’s before us. Mr. Brown: It is, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. \[MEETING ADJOURNED\] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on May 19, 2020. ____________________________________ Clerk of Commission 16