Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-05-2002 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER March 5, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:04 p.m., Tuesday, March 5, 2002, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Bob Young, Mayor. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. The Invocation was presented by the Rev. Strals. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. RECOGNITION: Certificate of Appreciation for Augusta Richmond County in exceeding its goal during the 2001 United Way Campaign. Ms. Barbara West, Team Leader Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a delegation of concerned citizens that came out today to recognize the support of the Commission and the job that we’re doing. And I would just like to take the opportunity to thank you for coming out to support us. A lot of people think that we sit up here twice a month and all we do is make decision. But most of us put in -- and I know I can speak for myself -- 18, 19 hours a day, after work. I work a full-time job and I put in 18, 19 hours a day doing Commission duties for the constituents. So I’d just like to personally thank you for coming out to support a job that I think I do well and I think most of the Commissioners up here do well. We appreciate you and will continue to try to do the job that you sent us down here to do. Thank you very much. (A round of applause is given.) The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, would you like to address the addendum agenda or would you like to go with -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can address the addendum agenda, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our addendum agenda consists of: ADDENDUM AGENDA: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1 Item 15: Talent Bank Questionnaire for Ms. Annie Rodgers. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Motion to approve the following from District 5: Planning & Zoning: Eugene Hunt General Aviation Commission: Greg L. Hodges 2. Motion to approve a “free ride day” in conjunction with Georgia’s Sales Tax Holiday for patrons of Augusta Public Transit. (Requested by Mayor Young) Mr. Shepard: I move to add and approve and add them to the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the vote. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We do have Mr. Green who has walked in, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Brian Green regarding waste collection and government accountability. DELEGATION: Mr. Brian Green RE: Waste Collection and Government Accountability. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Green, as a delegate you have five minutes per Commission agreement. Mr. Green: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Brian Green with concerned citizens of Augusta. I’m here to speak today on two topics. One is accountability and I guess adding a little [inaudible]. (Problem with recording) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. Green. Mr. Green: I’m here today, once again, for the issue of accountability and [inaudible]. First of all, I’d like to say as far as the accountability goes, I’m here because of the long-term type of trend that I’m seeing. I want to direct it to you, the Commissioners here today and the Mayor, who I understand is not here today. The first think is accountability. I feel that accountability should start on your end. Now to be 2 fair, Commissioner Boyles and Commissioner Hankerson, I’m not going to direct this to you because I don’t feel that you’ve been on the board long enough to develop this type of trend, and I want to keep it in that context. So for the ten members that are here today, I direct it to the other eight of you. And also I’d like to say this, I don’t want to be divisive today, so I’m going to be discreet and not call names. But I can say if I do come before this board again and this issue is still prevalent, I’m going to mention names, gentlemen. And this is accountability. The two most, foremost names I’d like to mention are Commissioner Bridges and Commissioner Beard as far as their responsiveness and accessibility. There are a couple of you other gentlemen up here right now that are generally responsive. So when I’m talking about accountability, I’m also talking about responsiveness to the public. And I know I just mention you two gentlemen’s names cause I think you stand out amongst the rest, in my opinion, on that issue. Gentlemen, this right here is a list of names right here. Everybody’s name is on it. Department heads, our county Commissioners. With numbers where you can reach county Commissioners and y’all are probably familiar with this list. I feel that you gentlemen should review this list and put phone numbers on here which you can reached, and the reason I’m saying this is because all the upheaval we have going on right now, as far as the voting and power structurization and all of that, I think it’s a good thing for us to start polishing up that image. So, like I said, I’m here today to call a spade a spade. If you want to engage in dialog with that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d appreciate it if you would give me some extra minutes while I’m up here and the podium and we can engage in this like today, while I’m here. Once again, I think it would be fair if more of you would put numbers on this sheet of paper right here that you can be reached. The same thing goes for department heads. As far as accountability. I think it starts with the Commission and rolls downhill. Now I hear people say sometimes as far as accountability, and I’m directing this at the department heads. Well, I’m busy and I have a lot of meetings, family and all that. I understand all of that. But as far as I’m concerned, after you make all those statements about how busy you are and how much responsibility you have and all that, I think at the end of all those statements, you should say, but I represent the people, my pay comes from the community, from the public. And once again, if I have to call names, I’m willing to do that the next time I appear before this board. The reason I say this is because, say for instance, I have contacted and contacted over and over again department heads, no response and that sort of thing, and I’m not [inaudible] on one petty incident. I’m talking about a trend. If you are a department head, I think you are generally accessible to the public. Also, the average citizen probably doesn’t want to speak to the department head. So that argument doesn’t even hold water as far as well, I have people under me to do that. If a person requests to see a department head, within reason, I think that person should be able to see the department head. It’s just that simple. And what I’m seeing is lot of long Fridays here, and one request I have for you gentlemen is if you would consider passing an ordinance down to department heads to call on them to be more accessible to the public. I know sometimes on Fridays I’ll call around, can’t reach a department head, and I’m not going to throw anybody in the grease today, but I am going to mention one department, though. But not there. Just not accessible. Went to lunch, had a meeting, next thing you know, I am not sure if they’re coming back for the day. That’s kind of tacky, in my opinion. So once again, I want to reemphasize that they are accountable to the people, and if a department head is that busy 3 that they can’t be responsive to the public, then maybe some adjustments need to be made. I just look at it kind of cut and dried like that. The one department I’d like to mention is Augusta Housing. I’m sure there are some fine people over at Augusta Housing. I’m involved with some kids that live in those areas that are in Augusta Housing. I know the first thing somebody is going to say is Augusta Housing is government, that doesn’t fall under our jurisdiction, that’s what I’ve been told by the Mayor’s office. Well, I say this. It do fall under the jurisdiction cause it’s here in Richmond County, and they’re overseeing the welfare of our citizens. They’re accountable. And I want to mention that to you today. There have been times that I’ve called them for three days straight. No answer. When you get through, nobody seems to know when nobody else is working. I don’t understand this. I wish you would make note of this and look into this situation because there are some issues with the housing, the housing and living conditions that we need to address. And I’ve heard, even from the Mayor’s office, there was an assistant that said something to the effect that, well, you know, it’s not jurisdiction. Gentlemen, I think we need to look into that. Again, that falls under the category of accountability as well. The other thing is I had a recent situation with the trash. Here you are knee-deep with the trash situation going on right now. [inaudible] situation. I called the major trash hauler and I said, hey, we may be picking up some trash, and if the trash cans are overflowing, put the trash bags on side of the trash can, you know, cause if it’s full. And I was told by a management person that well, you put the trash bags on the side of the trash can, they won’t get picked up. I did contact Ms. Smith about this. They just didn’t sit well with me. She had people [inaudible] me about the rules and regulations regarding that. And I appreciate her for doing that. But here’s my come-back to that. Let me understand you correctly. You’re going to go pick up trash, dump it, and because it’s not in the trash can, you can’t get out of there and pick the bags up and throw them in there? That was explained to me that there was some kind of liability thing. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You’ve got one minute. Mr. Green: Fortunately we didn’t have to go through all that. But I just want to say, gentlemen, this trash hauler thing here, the amount of money that we’re spending per month on trash, we need to add a little common sense to it. Now I understand you have some big trucks to where they trash can’t be -- they can’t climb up on the side and there’s liability. I understand that. But common sense, too, if people take the time to put the bags out by the trash can, neatly wrapped or whatever the case is, they need to show a little initiative to get out there and do what they’re supposed to do. Once again, gentlemen, I hope you look at the accountability thing. If you’d like to engage me while I’m up here at the podium right now on accountability, we can do so. I don’t mean this to be divisive or antagonistic, but I do think we need to look over this list and make sure that we’re completely accessible to the public. I thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Green. Madame Clerk? 4 The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 16, as well as 1 and 2 on our addendum agenda. Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 16, including items 1 and 2 on the addendum agenda. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have a motion and second to approve. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? Mr. Shepard: Would you pull item 13 for clarification? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 13. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? Mr. Mays: We don’t need to pull item 1. Just for the point of clarification, on the Belle Terrace item, changing those names to former Commissioner Henry Brigham, the name [inaudible] park itself will also be named, the whole complex. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Right. Right. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] put in there, just for the record. The Clerk: All right. Mr. Mays: The park. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any other items to be pulled, gentlemen? I’m going to pull item 10 for some clarification. Mr. Shepard: One other point. Could we not add 21 and 21A? Could we add those? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We can if we have no -- do we have approval to add 21 and 21A to the consent agenda? Mr. Cheek: So moved. 5 Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: 21 and 21A is now added to the consent agenda. PUBLIC SERVICES: 1. Motion to approve a request from Belle Terrace, Gordon Terrace and Terrace Manor Neighborhood Associations regarding the naming of the following facilities within the Belle Terrance Park H.H. Brigham Senior Citizen Center, Swim Center and the Community Center respectively and to include an appropriate ceremony (Approved by Public Services Committee February 25, 2002). ADMINISTRATIVE: 2. Motion to approve Grant Agreements between the City and the U. S. Department of Housing & Urban Development for receipt of Year 2002 CDBG, ESG and HOME funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 25, 2002) 3. Motion to approve recommendations from the Planning Commission regarding the rezoning of several parcels. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 25, 2002) PUBLIC SAFETY: 4. Motion to approve New World Systems to provide the Priority Dispatch ProQA for EMD Interface for the 911 Communications Center subject to the final contract approval of the Attorney, 911 Director, and Information Technology. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 25, 2002) 5. Motion to approve the addition of the Emergency Dispatch Protocol Implementation Policy to the Augusta 9-1-1 Policy and Procedures Manual. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 25, 2002) FINANCE: 6. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from Broadway Baptist Church for the Second Annual Uniting Communities Through Prayer and Expository Preaching Economic Conference. (Approved by Finance Committee February 27, 2002) 7. Motion to approve the request for abatement of penalty on 2001 accounts (Map 41-1, Parcels 128, 140, 141, and 144) (Approved by Finance Committee February 25, 2002) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 8. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcels 60 and 60.2, which are owned by Dennis C. Stanfield, for rights-of-way and temporary construction easements in connection with the Warren Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 312.5 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 2,960 square feet, more or less, of temporary 6 construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25 2002) 9. Motion to approve amending the Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and Triton PCS for the location of communications equipment on the Highland Avenue water tower. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25 2002) 10. Deleted from consent agenda. 11. Motion to approve Amendment #3 to the existing contract with CH2MHill, Inc. for additional Program Management Services with the 2000 Bond Capital Improvements Program for the lump sum of $147,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25 2002) 12. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Tullocks Hill Subdivision, Phase One. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25 2002) 13. Deleted from consent agenda. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS 14. Motion to approve the minutes of the Commission regular meeting held February 20, 2002. APPOINTMENT: 15. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Annie Rodgers to the Augusta- Richmond County Coliseum Authority representing District 5. 16. Motion to approve the legislative appointment of Mr. Jerry Maccario to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Dr. Janet Distler on the Augusta- Richmond County Animal Control Advisory Board. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-9, 22-12, 14-16, 20, 21, 21A, Addendum Items 1 and 2] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 10, I suppose is mine. The Clerk: 10. Motion to approve the Public Works and Engineering Department to implement a program to sponsor an annual citywide litter cleanup during April which is “Keep Georgia Beautiful Month” and an annual Earth Day celebration on the third Saturday each April. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25, 2002) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Smith? Ms. Smith: Afternoon. 7 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Afternoon. Ms. Smith: Did you have a question? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I just need some clarification on how this is going to be handled. Ms. Smith: Okay, the first thing that I would like to do is bring to the attention of the Commission a request that was made during the committee meeting. During the nd committee meeting, the request was specifically to have a litter cleanup on the 2 day in April, and we revised that request such that -- excuse me, the second Saturday in April. And we revised that request such that it would be for a Saturday in April, because we ? recognize that the activities associated with The Masters is not a time we want to be out having a litter cleanup activity. As for Earth Day, at this point the proposed activities for the program have not been completely finalized. We are working on having allowing citizens the opportunity to come out and dump 6,000 pounds for free on that day. We are still attempting to coordinate to have information sessions or work sessions with two schools, two elementary schools in the area; however, all of the details associated with the program have not been completed. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who is sponsoring the program, Ms. Smith? Ms. Smith: The program as it is presented is sponsored by the Augusta Richmond County Public Works Solid Waste Facility and Metro Clean and Beautiful. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. No further questions. Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor to approve the item. All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item 13, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 13. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to award contract to the low bidder in each of the sections bid for the Solid Waste Collection Contract. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 25, 2000) 8 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had a question for Ms. Smith on this. Teresa, when we were looking at maps, and I didn’t see any maps in the backup that related to this section, that were awarded to the various contractors, maybe mine was just missing, but we were looking at some areas doing them just blanket and other areas doing them by subdivision. Did that get resolved? Did we do it by area or some by area and some by subdivision? I’m thinking in particular -- I’ve had some calls about the Sharon Road area not being in a section. Can you speak to that? Ms. Smith: The areas that are represented, some are done by overall areas and some are done by subdivision, depending on the specific request that was given to us at the time we put the contract out for bid. So the areas that are specifically in District 3 are done by subdivision. District 4 is done to incorporate all of District 4. District 8 is done based on the geographic boundary that was provided by Commissioner Bridges. And then District 5, as the rest of the areas that are not commercial, into the contract for District 5. Mr. Shepard: So to reach some areas that are not yet reached in District 3, it will require a change order after the contract? I know the Mayor Pro Tem doesn’t like that word but that’s what you’d have to do, is it not? I mean I don’t want to hold up the garbage, the extension of the service, but would it not have to have change order to develop additional areas? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, that is correct. And these are the areas. Mr. Shepard: It would also relate on density, too, would it not? I mean I tried to get the most dense areas in. Ms. Smith: Yes. Mr. Shepard: I have no further questions. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. No further questions? Is there a motion? Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Shepard, Sharon Road is not included in there? Mr. Shepard: That’s what I’m hearing, Bobby. We are going to have to have a change order to do that. And to do that, I guess we’d have to do that with a subsequent contract. Ms. Smith: What District is Sharon Road in? 9 Mr. Shepard: 3. Ms. Smith: Correct. It is not included. Mr. Hankerson: Why is that? I’m kind of puzzled. I thought we was extending it to provide all the citizens out in south Augusta that was included. I am somewhat lost. Could I see the map again, cause I had some white areas over on my side. I wanted to make that everybody is getting [inaudible]. Ms. Smith: All the white areas, there are some in District 5 [inaudible]. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, if I could -- Mr. Hankerson: Just a minute, let me get some clarity here. When we say commercial area, what do we say? Ms. Smith: That [inaudible] dumpsters [inaudible] commercial property. Mr. Hankerson: Why wasn’t Sharon Road included? Ms. Smith: Because Sharon Road, Mr. Shepard [inaudible] those subdivisions, those general areas and geographic areas that were identified and requested by the Commissioner and [inaudible] by those citizens at the time of the contract. Mr. Shepard: If I could ask a question. Ms. Smith, would it not be possible to extend the service by change order after this contract is awarded to bid those areas that are not done? The lawyer is coming [inaudible] me now. Bad sign. Ms. Smith: And I appreciate [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: Ms. Smith, could we not then look as a District [inaudible] those areas of whatever District, including 3 or 5, that are now as densely developed as the subdivisions that are going in already, and come back with another award. Wouldn’t that be possible to do? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, we can do that. Mr. Shepard: Cause there has been demand in that area. But I realize it’s not as dense as some of the subdivisions that are going to be approved today, but maybe they’ll get the pricing. If we vote this today, it doesn’t mean we can’t come back and extend the service in those areas that are not yet served, isn’t that true? We could have a third round of awards, isn’t that true? Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, we sure can. 10 Mr. Mays: I guess, Mr. Mayor, my question is probably directed to Mr. Wall. We kind of resemble, we’ve been here before. In doing so, and I understand where Steve needs to go with this, the awarding is fine, but in doing so can you also avoid another problem, potential problem. The same situation came up on the southern side of Tobacco Road, that if we go back, in order to keep this legal, in order to go back and do an award again, can be so worded, though, that it allows the carrier that’s say in that contiguous District to have the majority of that work to be able to go in and do it, cause one of the arguments we had from the very beginning was the fact that you could very well end up with -- you’re trying to eliminate multiple carriers on the same street and in the same subdivision. And if you do it just by going back out, you also run the risk there of having multiple people back in the same area, just to pick up a small amount. And I was wondering how could you, if you deal with that, Jim, you know, you [inaudible] do it on the change order, but I think that it makes a lot of sense if it can be [inaudible] to where if somebody has got 97% of that work, rather than having a bid out to deal with 3% of it and bring in other carriers to do that, that you’ve got one person [inaudible] in that area in order to do it, if you try to eliminate a bunch of different trucks running through same subdivisions. Mr. Wall: And if it’s a situation where it is only 3% or some small percent, I agree we can do it by change order. What we don’t want to do is have a situation where you’re adding a change order to a contract that basically is as big or almost as big as the original contract. And you know, I think we’ve got to look at the situation, figure out how many houses are involved, see what contractors may adjoin that area, find out what the main thoroughfare is through there that would get those houses, the residents, and look at it. And I’m not saying we can’t do it by change order. I just think that we need to be careful and look at all the details before we commit to it. Mr. Mays: The other thing, Mr. Chairman, and I’m going to vote for the motion. I just want to put it as part of the record, and it’s not in the motion, but I wanted to thank the Administrator, because the Administrator has got some good ladies working with him, and where I’m going in terms of Ms. Smith, Ms. Pelaez, Ms. Williams, along with Ms. Sams, while this is not written into where we are going with the extension of this contract, I think it’s very important that if we are concerned about small businesses in this community at the time when you’ve got recession, you’ve got unstable economy, we’ve got a lot of businesses out there that are not guaranteed anything. But I think in terms of trying to level the playing field, to where these are local businesses that are here, that operate, that employ people who are here, whose families are here, they pay taxes here, that we do everything that we can in terms of helping to under gird these small businesses of working through the money that we have set aside in link deposits that will be able to help them, particularly I’m talking now about the subcontractors. This has already been done with part of that contract, and I thank them for that. But I think it’s time, particularly different guidelines and rules have been written, and we’ve got close to $4.5 million that is lying there, you know, in banks right now, at a very low rate of interest that while they’ve done a good job, I just want them to continue to do that. Because I think that in terms of bonding purposes and being able to allow these people to stay afloat, it’s something that we should put on the front burner of this thing. We’re talking 11 about millions of dollars, we’re talking about monies that are guaranteed because they are being collected through the tax system. So it’s at a low risk for financial institutions. And I just hope that they will continue on that program, because this could be a make or break situation for many of those small businesses that are there. And I’d just like to encourage them to do even more in this realm to try and make sure that those places, those people who are running those businesses, will be able, even if there are some new ones, to be able to come to the table and to be able to [inaudible] in that process. And I just wanted to put that in, Mr. Mayor, for the record. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Any further discussion on this [inaudible] from the garbage contract? We do have a motion and second on the floor? The Clerk: That motion was not seconded. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We now have a motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by voting. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? The Clerk: The next item is our regular agenda. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir? Mr. Williams: If I could, before we go to our regular agenda, I just [inaudible] good looking group of folks from District 2 sitting out here, and I wanted to recognize th them. The Alleluia Community School, 9 grade American government class, and their teacher. And I wanted to recognize them before we got too far into our meeting. I don’t know how long they will be able to stay with us. But I’m certainly glad to have them come in and to be a part. And if they will, I’d like for them to stand, and their teacher [inaudible], stand, please. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Williams: Thank y’all very much for coming. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, do you want to give the teacher five minutes to say something? Mr. Williams: Sure, that would be fine. If they have something to say, bring some words to us. 12 Ms. Speaker: I just wanted to comment that we are very excited about the things that are happening in Augusta and we look forward, as I’m sure you do, of what the Legislature will bring us. Our students are reading and following it with close interest and so we are just very proud to be part of Augusta and we thank you for the role you play here. Thank you. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Williams: Thank you for coming. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madame Clerk, I would just like to say something. The reason why the Mayor is not here today, he gave me a call. His wife is ill. She was having some chest problems and he was at St. Joseph Hospital trying to get her admitted. So we certainly hope she does all right. The Clerk: Ready for the item? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ready, yes. The Clerk: PENSION COMMITTEE 17. Consider recommendations from the Pension Committee held February 21 regarding the termination of First Union – Meridian and transfer assets to INVESCO-NAM (pg. 12) relative to the 1949 Pension Plan; transfer half of the assets from Laurel Capital Advisors to INVESCO-NAM relating to the 1945 Pension Plan (pg. 16); and transfer half of the assets from Laurel Capital Advisors to INVESCO-NAM relating to the 1977 Pension Plan (pg. 20) Mr. Shepard: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I’ve got a question. I know our manager is not here, but maybe someone [inaudible] in the subcommittee, maybe someone can answer this question. I know -- I see the reason for terminating First Union and having what Laurel did on the ’77 and ’45 plan. Is there a reason that we’re leaving Laurel as it is on the ’49 plan? I mean was that discussed in the subcommittee? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Go ahead. 13 Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Of course, George and I and the Mayor Pro Tem and Donna Williams sit, as well as the Mayor, on the Pension Committee. Yet we’re all trustees as Commissioners of the Pension Funds. And these are the recommendations that our professional managers made, Ulmer. I think they were thinking that they could fire a warning shot, so to speak, across some of these managers [inaudible], but you also have a situation where, and I’ll ask maybe [inaudible] or [inaudible] a value manager and a capital manager. They’re kind of at cross purposes and they felt like the market had changed and we needed to reallocate the assets. George, if you want to pick up the ball, I would appreciate it. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, in the 1945 and 1997 plans, the investment strategy is pretty much in one basic philosophy, which was with Laurel Capital. The investment managers recommended that there be a more diverse methodology or philosophy on investments and therefore they felt that taking half of it away from Laurel and giving it to INVESCO-NAM would actually diversify the way funds were invested and give us a much better chance for gain and minimal loss. So that’s pretty much the reason. So it was a diversification of funds and the different philosophical styles. Mr. Bridges: Okay. I support the motion, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I was just curious about that. It was good to read that we had no Enron stock in the pension plans, too. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? We do have a motion and second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by voting. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: 18. Consider recommendation from the Pension Committee held February 21 regarding the solicitation of Request for Qualifications (RFQ’s) for a Finance Advisor for the 1949, 1945 and 1977 Pension Funds. Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I thought I read in the backup where a motion was made for an RFQ and an RPP both. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, actually it’s a play on words. The RFQ will probably have in all actuality an RFP in it where we will ask for 14 what the compensation would be for retaining such services. Generally it’s an investment fee. So that would be included in the RFQ. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: 19. Consider recommendation from the Pension Committee held February 21 regarding the marketing and sale of Riverfront Pension Property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold up just a moment. Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, with respect to this particular item and a recommendation, the Pension Committee asked the Attorney and I to come back to you with a recommendation. We are developing an RFQ to ask various real estate brokers within the community to represent us and actually do the marketing for the sale of that tract of land. That specifically would be our recommendation. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Bill? Mr. Kuhlke: George, as y’all look into that, I wish that you would consider maybe letting the Downtown Development Authority work along with you on it. Mr. Kolb: I don’t have any objection to doing that. We did not consider that because the -- well, probably as part of our solicitation, discussion with the broker, we will look to [inaudible] with some type of economic development project, but because it is the Pension Fund, we are strictly looking at maximizing the sale of the property and not necessarily doing it for economic development reasons. So we’re looking more at an arm’s length transaction to maximize benefits to the Pension Fund. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and this goes back a little bit further than the recent Pension Committee [inaudible] for the last two years. I know we had talked about it. First probably more so in the context, and Steve knows exactly where I am coming from, because Steve and Lee, more than anybody else, when this has come up, in reference to this whole deal of getting the pension boondoggle straightened out first and foremost. Questions from pensioners in reference to the old city’s purchasing of this property with pension money was where this whole thing came from. And I think that in the process of 15 going out for the last sales tax referendum, it was the concern of some of us initially and then of the whole Commission, I believe, because there were no objections I believe surrounding this particular item, that we provide the type of funding in SPLOST to be able to recover this property, and I think one of the -- the only question that was in there was in terms of the amount of interest or the amount, in today’s marketplace, that it be done in terms of getting this money back into the pensioners’ account first and foremost. And while I don’t have any objection to speculating with realtors about this, I think it’s a little bit -- and I want to expand a little bit more on Bill’s proposal in terms of adding the Downtown Development Authority to it. I think this is a very valuable part of this city’s future in reference to this, and one of the reasons I supported it in the very beginning in terms of getting this property, which has not been done yet, cause I mean we are speculating on something that we actually haven’t bought and I hope we will do so, and we need to set the record straight first on that. But I think that when we look at this thth particular piece, it’s the piece that is there between 6 and 5 Streets. There is a lot of property that is along the river. From the city limits to city limits. And state lines. But I think this is the last so-called piece of virgin property that is there on that riverfront. And I think that we need to be very careful, not knocking real estate folk, but just to put this into the hands of who can come back with a sale for this, I think the city, Downtown Development Authority have a real complete vision for this city in terms of can possible go there, with some multiple uses, before we decide to let go. Now I realize that this [inaudible] came up with where we were financially and it got caught up partially in terms of we start to sell off city property. But I think there are exceptions to the rule and this one stands out. Because that is a very valuable point piece. And whether it’s developed into high-rise condominiums, whether it’s dealt with in terms of additional hotel space, I think there is a lot of speculation that still needs to be added to this. And I know this is very early, but we have a history of getting started on some things that we can’t turn them around once they get started. And I just think we need to be very cautious to a point that we make very prudent decisions in terms of where the use of this property goes. Because this is not just something there where [inaudible] a fishing hole. This can make or break what you will deal with for the future development of the city because it is the last undeveloped piece. So I think while I -- and I still support it -- being able to [inaudible] SPLOST, being able for us to do the ownership, but I think at that point, we need to have some collective minds and some serious vision thinking in terms of where we want to go with this particular piece of property. Because I know a year ago, I [inaudible] something was already in the making and that folk were ready to start building, and it kind of disturbed me somewhat. Because that was not something that this Commission had made a decision on, and I don’t think the Downtown Development Authority had. So while I’m not knocking us speculating in terms of what we can get for the property so that the pensioners can receive a fair return on their investment, I think before we start to a point of how it’s going to be sold and what it’s going to be developed for, there needs to be a broad-based visionary initiative in terms of what’s going to take place on that piece of property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? 16 Mr. Wall: Commissioner Mays, I don’t disagree with you as far as the end result. I think we have to be careful how we get to that end result. And right now, you are wearing the hat as a trustee of the Pension Fund, to maximize the investment to the Pension Fund itself. And so in that regard, I think that the marketing of the property has to be for its maximum return. That use may or may not be something that this Commission, wearing your Commissioner hat, will want to have developed on that piece of property. And I think at that time, if you get a bid from a developer or from someone who might not develop it in the sense or in the same manner that this Commission would like to have the property developed, you may have to then put on your Commissioner hat and buy the property at that [inaudible] and so then once it becomes Commission property, then you have the flexibility to utilize the property. So I think wearing the two hats complicates this process, but I think first and foremost insofar as the Pension Fund is concerned that we go out and get real estate firms, not necessarily just local firm, and in all probability and then hopefully we will get some firms that perhaps have contacts perhaps broader than some of the local firms might have so as to maximize the return of that. And Mr. Kuhlke, I guess part of my concern about the Development Authority is yes, they can be involved in the development of the RFQ and possibly in the process, but again, they, at this stage, should not direct how that property is developed. And I think you are going to have to make a conscious effort throughout this process to separate the roles that you are playing. And right now the role that you are being asked to perform is to maximize the value of that property and the return on that property, and then once a contract is brought to you as trustees to approve, then you may have to evaluate from a Commission standpoint as to whether or not the Commission wants to step in and match or better that offer. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Shepard. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might respond, and this is not an argumentative response. Let me just ask a question first, because I know we’ve got to wear a few hats in this thing. I’m very much aware of the two hat deal. But my head is very much on straight. This is one that I’ve been concerned about even prior to the last SPLOST referendum, as most of you well know. Because I think that this is very valuable, and even when we didn’t want to talk to the pensioners about it, I was one of those people that was willing to talk to them about it in terms of trying to get this whole mess straight from the very beginning because of the nature of where it started. And of getting it straightened out. [inaudible] we got to do what’s legal, but now in the process of us talking about the purchase of this property, in terms of doing that with SPLOST when this was mentioned from the very beginning, and that was one of the ideas that we talked about and of [inaudible] sources of doing it, am I hearing now that there is some complication or something in that rule book that’s changed? Because we’ve had conversations about how this was to be purchased, what the funding source was to do it with, and so therefore until very recently there was no change in the [inaudible] in terms of how this would be done. It was always under that guise that it would be done [inaudible] pensioners as trustees of the pension, that we would do it at today’s fair market value, and that we would do it at the [inaudible] so that they would get a return on their investment and then they would not be taken advantage of. I think we all 17 understood that. So I just want some clarity as to a point [inaudible] idea in terms of the city’s purchasing that property [inaudible] talked about doing in every open meeting that was held and throughout this community and this [inaudible]. Has something about that changed? Mr. Wall: I guess the best way is to answer yes, but let me explain. It’s changed, I think, in my mind from what I perceived as being the Commissioners’ desire. It has not changed insofar as what we are recommending or what the Commission has done. I think the pensioners have looked at and probably heard some of the same talk that you have heard about somebody being ready to build something down there and perhaps felt like that piece of property was more valuable than they had originally been led to believe. And so therefore in the pension meetings, the pensioners have said that rather than selling it at its appraised value, they requested that it be marketed to see what it would bring. And so in that sense, yes, I think that some of the discussion has changed from the standpoint that they are requesting that it be marketed to see what it would bring and then the city can meet or better that offer perhaps. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be through. [inaudible] and I’m not being argumentative. I just want to get that clear on where we were going. I think two things have also added to that particular, my position, Jim, is that when maybe I was in a minority or [inaudible] that we get this instrument [inaudible] and there were folk at the time [inaudible] wasn’t even here that maybe didn’t want to do that at that point in time. And I think the foot dragging in this whole deal was what prompted them to maybe have a different position. They were just concerned that their money was hung out there and the wasn’t getting anything for it, and at the time when Steve and us and some [inaudible] decided [inaudible] how to get some equity into this thing, doing it through SPLOST, that was where the whole situation came about. I think that if it is going to be marketed, I do think you have to -- this is just my personal opinion -- I do think you have to have some sanity in there in terms of what you are marketing. Because while our first line of protection, their money is still placed out on the line. I totally agree with you. But if it’s going to be marketed, I think that still gets back to what Bill and are saying, that if you are going out into the marketplace to do it, what happens in the marketplace still determines what happens with Augusta’s future. So even if we end up paying higher for it, if we are recipients of it or some [inaudible] person is the recipient of it, I think it should be marketed properly. I think every avenue should be explored, and I don’t think that the first deal that comes along ought to be the deal that ought to be [inaudible]. That’s all that I’m saying. And that’s not necessarily on the floor right now. But I know how things work when they get to moving. And so I’m just saying that for the record to a point that I don’t want to see things just pop up and then all of a sudden we accept it because it’s there and then we are back here a year later cause we decide that [inaudible] thth between 5 and 6 Streets. That’s just common sense judgment in terms of where I think the city should also protect its own interest. [inaudible] pensioners, yes, and getting them their max out of it, yes. But to a point that if you are expanding this to deal with marketing, I think you need somebody else’s interest in there other than just -- and while these are very reputable people that I know you are bringing to the table -- [inaudible] interests of those [inaudible] interests that the Administrator has and ideas about 18 [inaudible] economic development or the downtown development, the people that they may be dealing with from a marketing standpoint. I don’t think it should be from a shotgun approach and from a quick fix deal to a point that we are then looking at something and say my God, why did we do that? And the we turn around and have to [inaudible] in a typical Augusta fashion. That’s what I’m trying to avoid. Mr. Wall: I caution the Commission about involving the Development Authority insofar as the marketing of the property in your role as trustees. I think that it creates the potential for a conflict between the desire to maximize the profit and the potential for developing the property as a part of the overall plan for downtown Augusta. I think that those two functions need to be separated. I think that the property should be marketed to try to achieve its highest value, and then if it is bought by someone who has plans that are counter to what the city wants, I think it then behooves the city to use the SPLOST money and whatever other money that it can to acquire the property from whoever or step in and take an assignment of the contract or buy the contract, but I think that when you involve the Development Authority in the marketing initially, their motive and the desire of the trustees, the pensioners, and ultimately you as trustees, to maximum the return, has the potential for being at cross purposes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, this is not property that we are selling that we can add money to the fund balance. This is property that I understand, Jim, [inaudible] enterprise fund or held in a trustee-like capacity. So the proceeds will go to the Pension Fund. Mr. Wall: Absolutely. Mr. Shepard: And of course the -- when we first got on the Pension Committee, when I did two years ago, the equity markets, Mr. Mays, were going up and up and up and the pensioners were saying why are you holding onto that piece of real estate on the river, cause it looks like it’s stagnant? Of course now we have the equities in the Pension Fund like the rest of the market not performing as well as they did a few years ago, and the retention of value in the land is looking better. So it looks like to me, Jim, there are two motions that we can make. One, we can buy it with SPLOST. And the other is we could make the same motion here that the Mayor and [inaudible] Pension Committee that we proceed with the marketing of the property, see what kind of offer we draw, and then make a determination on that offer whether we accept it or now. And so Alternative A is a simple motion, we have got money in the SPLOST, we put it aside for this, let’s buy it. And the other is to market it and see if there is an offer and then see if we want to accept it. And we’ve still got out money in SPLOST if we want to use it; isn’t that right? Mr. Wall: That’s correct. 19 Mr. Shepard: So which of those two threads [inaudible] difficulties of us being the pensioners’ trustees on one hand, and us being the city’s Commissioners who want to promote economic development on the other? I mean -- Mr. Wall: I certainly think that getting a fair market value appraisal, getting it updated and buying it with the SPLOST funds, I mean certainly that is a legal method to dispose of the property. The pensioners have requested that the property be marketed to see if it would bring more than perhaps the appraisal. And so I think either way is okay. We do need to update the appraisal if we’re going to do that. But right now, based upon the Pension Committee, I recommend that you go out, develop and RFQ, see what kind of interest there is. Certainly I think most of the interest is going to be by developers, and you can see what kind of developers. You’re not committed to selling. That decision will come back to you as trustees of the Pension Fund. You can reject the contract, if it’s not in accordance with what you believe the value to be, or as you say, you still have the option then to use the SPLOST money to buy the property. Mr. Shepard: One follow-up, Mr. Mayor. So we could in the process of negotiations stipulate the uses of the property, I guess, could we not? To see it or not? Mr. Wall: I don’t think so. I don’t thin you as pension trustees can stipulate the use of the property. Because that’s more of a city planning function rather than a maximize-the-investment-return decision. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I just need a little clarity here. Because also I was under the assumption that with SPLOST money we set aside some time ago, at the beginning, that [inaudible] really meant to be for the purchase of this property, and in order to purchase this property [inaudible] we have some input as to what the future development of this property would be. Now if we -- I guess my question is if we vote on this as it is now, and I think you cleared up some of it with Steve, that if we vote on it as it is listed here, marketed [inaudible] property, it is going to come back to us so that we can reject the contract or purchase the property? Mr. Wall: Absolutely. That’s correct. Mr. Beard: My only thing with that is if we get this property marketed and the [inaudible] amount that we put in SPLOST for this, we may run into a little problem there, but I guess, you know, we would have to deal with that at that time, I guess. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bridges and then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just want to make a motion that we accept the recommendation of the Pension Committee in regards to marketing and selling of the Riverfront pension property. 20 Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. We do have further discussion. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I am like Commissioner Beard, when you open up the door and you bring someone else in and they raise the value or raise the property by this marketing person that we are going to bring in, and if we was going to purchase this property and the money has been set aside, then we might as well quit kidding ourselves and say we not going to purchase it cause we not going to have the funds. If we going to buy it and we got money set aside to do that, or either we are not going to buy it. I mean I understand it’s a piece of property and Mr. Mays just talked about [inaudible] prime property for development, it’s on the river, and I think it would be a good asset to this city to keep it and do something with it. But you know I think we kidding ourselves if we think we going to go out and get a request for a marketing person to come in and then we going to see what they say, and then if they say A or B, we going to do C. I mean we’re kidding ourselves. If we going to do that, why are we going out? I mean we might as well leave it like it is. It don’t make good sense to me. I mean I can support, but I think we ought to make it what we going to do with it. If we go out, we ought to go out with the intention of trying to increase the value or get as much as possible or get as much as we can get for it and not worry about trying to purchase it. I mean we sit here talking like if it goes out and comes back and somebody comes in and offers us a great deal for it, we going to turn that down and we going to buy it for what we already got. That’s not good business and that’s not good judgment and I think we are sending the wrong message. I think we ought to make a decision as to what we going to do. If we are going to do something with it, then let’s do something with it. If we not going to do anything with it, let’s put it -- maximize the money for the pensioners, if that’s the case. But we fooling ourselves, I think. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I agree, we’ve got to market this property and sell it. The pensioners have asked for us to try to get a better rate than what we have allocated in SPLOST. All that aside, we took a short tour of the river last Friday, and the writing is on the wall. If we own this property, I would hate to see this city sit on it and hope that somebody comes along with an idea for its use. North Augusta has currently got a plan for a lot of vacant space over there and is moving forward with it. We, too, need to be aggressive with this property. If it comes back under our jurisdiction, we need to work with someone to decide what our vision is for that property, work with some developers, and go ahead and get it onto the tax rolls and make it a tax producing property rather than hoping something comes along at some point in the future. But the writing is on the wall. North Augusta is not sitting still. Columbia County is not sitting still. We can sit here and twiddle our thumbs and hope for the best, but we need to start getting aggressive with some of this property and helping develop it, and not hope for the best and maybe it will come true. Let’s take this into our own hands and make it happen. 21 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Two questions. One, is there anything wrong with the motion that’s on the floor if it contains the item that we’ve been discussing in reference to referring back to the SPLOST anyway? It’s just not in the wording of it and that will kill part of it as far as the motion. But let me switch off from a Commissioner for just a second and be a total trustee of the Pension. Now let me play devil’s advocate and I guess you say I raise enough hell to be the devil, so I’m going to be him for about 30-40 seconds. Now if I’m a pensioner and you’re [inaudible] out with my money right now and you bring five folk back, somebody has to be -- and getting back to what you just said, Andy, somewhere within the vision process of this whole deal, there has to be some guidance from the city, because you’re just like ships that pass in the night. You are really fooling yourself if you don’t think so. I think you can still keep it legal, Jim, and I think you can keep arm’s distance with it, but when you are talking about marketing who is to say who is marketing what? Now if I am the pensioner and I’m sitting next to one, I am thinking [inaudible]. Now let me just for a minute, I’m marketing -- we’ve got five folk going out and they already have an idea in mind. It may not be any of the high dollar use. It may be of the quick dollar use. So then I also stand the chance of the trustees bringing this back in at potentially less of what it needs to be marketed for. Because if I’m shooting for a Motel 6 and I haven’t gone to talk to people about riverfront [inaudible] to go there or talk with Westin about doing something or other in Savannah, going from marketplace [inaudible] small, then if you’re so concerned about protecting the pensioners, then look at it also on the plus side of it, you could do them a disservice. That’s why I think both motions need to be incorporated while the SPLOST [inaudible] is still there, because that was also what we [inaudible], that was also what we discussed in public debate in discussion, and I think it needs to have someplace, even if that’s the only legal balance, of keeping us in the ball game, not just to protect the interest of what Commissioners want to do with it for the city’s future, but also from those pensioners in terms of their investment. Because if I’m fixing to bring you something thth back that I’ve got a [inaudible] already and [inaudible] 5 and 6 Streets and I’ve got something I’m going to be ready to build and it’s up for [inaudible], that doesn’t necessarily have to be the best market value of what you got going on down there. So while I’m protecting them as a trustee, then I also think that the marketplace can be driving in terms of a wide usage of what could possibly go there, that’s there on [inaudible] riverfront, has the potential to do something, whether you’re talking about [inaudible] harbor, whether you’re talking about Savannah, whether you’re talking about Biloxi, rather than somebody just coming in and [inaudible] on the river, we going to bring this to you. Now that’s what I don’t want to happen. And I think there is a flip side to this whole deal that if you are going to deal with it strictly from the trustees standpoint, then let’s protect them on a wide spectrum. Let’s not play games with it. Because we know where it’s going. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Kolb. 22 Mr. Williams: If I can, Commissioner Cheek brought up an issue about looking at the river, and Commissioner Beard and Commissioner Cheek and myself on Friday in the cold wind got in a pontoon boat and we rode up the Savannah just above the hotel a good ways up, and looking at the Carolina side and looking back at the Georgia side. And I think we’d be really foolish not to look across the water to see what they’re doing on that side and have an opportunity to do something on this side of equal standard or even more of a standard than they’ve got across the river over there. We looked at some areas that’s really, really nice. Really [inaudible] that they are doing on that side, and then we looked at some stuff on the Georgia side that looked nice as well. But I think we ought to be really careful now before we open up a Pandora’s box or we open up the [inaudible] and let the [inaudible] out and then try to catch it and put it back in there. We’ve got an opportunity to do something. Everybody talking about what we going do. But we’ve got an opportunity to do something [inaudible] property. We’ve been talking about it, we’ve been flipping the coins and looking in the air. It’s time to move on. [inaudible] 400,000 times in the last two years. But nobody wants to move on. Everybody wants to say the same thing and expect things to be different. We keep getting the same thing. I can go either way. But I just think we ought to look at this thing very carefully now. We ought to look at what’s in our face right across [inaudible]. If we look out this window we ought to see some of it. And there are some beautiful facilities that been built. People going to enjoy them, people going to participate in them, and we have not done anything. And I think we ought to start looking at what we can do and not at what we can’t do. We always find a way to say we can’t do, rather than finding a way to say we can or just doing what we can. [inaudible] stumbling block. We ought to take the stumbling blocks and use them to climb with. And I think we ought to do some climbing right now. [inaudible] too fast on the gun. We ought to be able to look at the future. Not today. Not tomorrow. But years ahead. That’s all, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I would encourage you to go with the motion that is on the floor with respect to the marketing and sale of the land, rather than looking to the SPLOST at this time. There are several reasons for that. First of all, as part of our process in marketing and looking for a potential buyer for the land, we are proposing to use a commercial real estate developer. As you all are aware, they have contacts with the development community as a whole. So I believe that that’s one safeguard in terms of getting the target where we offer the land for sale at. Number two, I believe that it’s unlikely that any sale or proposal that would come back to you would be higher than what you already have in the SPLOST budget. With that -- I’m saying the asking price that the person wanted to buy it would purchase it for more than what you have in SPLOST. It would probably be lower, at a lower number, which would give you a reason to reject it and then go back to your SPLOST alternative. Also, I believe that any proposal that comes back to you, more likely than not, you would have some idea of what that individual or individuals would want to do with that property, so that you could make some determination of whether or not you want to use SPLOST money either to supersede the sale or actually encourage it somewhat. So I think, I 23 believe that the process that we are embarked on is going to open up opportunities to you, rather than limiting it by acquiring it through the SPLOST process. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask a question. Could the Clerk -- does the motion on the floor, Mr. Bridges, or the Clerk, basically follow the recommendation made in the Pension Committee? The Clerk: Yes [inaudible] and develop [inaudible]. Mr. Shepard: And Jim, does this not, does the present motion not -- it does, it does serve the goal of us as trustees of the Pension Act, it doesn’t foreclose us using SPLOST money to buy the property? The options are open, but by marketing it we tilt the playing field or tilt the [inaudible] toward maximizing the return for the pensioners; is that right? Mr. Speaker: Call the question. Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? One more question and then the question has been called. Mr. Boyles: My question probably follows Mr. Shepard. When they read the motion back, according to Mr. Young, I’d like to make a motion that we proceed with marketing the pensioners’ property on Reynolds Street to see what kind of offer we can draw for it, and then make a determination at that time. Doesn’t that pretty much follow the motion that Mr. Bridges has made? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct. Mr. Boyles: That kind of sums it up as to what [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The question has been called on this item. Mr. Cheek: I’m not ready to end debate. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, okay. Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. [inaudible] Is that on my time or Commissioner Mays’ time? (Laughter) Mr. Mays: That’s on my time. 24 Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question. I keep hearing what we plan, what some developer may plan. Is there a single master plan for downtown? Is there a best use or preferred use listed for this property, or will we acquire it at some point in time, sit on it, hoping someone comes along with a plan? Is there a plan for developing this area and so forth? Mr. Kolb: It appears that when I first came, didn’t you adopt the center city plan that had been done by Augusta Tomorrow or -- Mr. Cheek: That didn’t specifically address street development for downtown. Mr. Kolb: Let me put it this way. What I recall, in a plan, is that there is suggested use of housing, residential, on that property. There has been talk of other types of housing going there. I don’t believe that there is a plan set in concrete that says that this is what should go there. Mr. Cheek: And I put forth at this point that until we get ourselves on one sheet of music and have a single vision for this city, that we can kick around things we’d like to see for that lot or any other lot and we’ll never come to consensus, and that’s got to be a first step. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The Chair -- it’s time to vote on this item. We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please signify by voting. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS: 22. Motion to approve appointing Commissioner Tommy Boyles as Commission Representative on the Construction Advisory Board. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Richard Colclough) Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion, please signify by voting. Mr. Kuhlke abstains. Motion carries 9-1. 25 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? The Clerk: APPOINTMENT: 23. Consider the following for appointment to (2)-two vacant seats on the Region 12 MHMRSA Board: A. Glennis Gaines B. Kathryn Capizzi C. Joan Boos Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any nominations from the floor? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to consider number C, Joan Boos. Mr. Beard: I’d like to consider Glennis Gaines. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll vote on them in order, if there are no further motions from the floor. Okay, all in favor of Ms. Glennis Gaines, please signify by voting. (Vote on Glennis Gaines) Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Second on the list is Ms. Kathryn Capizzi. Please signify by voting. (Vote on Kathryn Capizzi) Mr. Beard, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No. Motion fails 3-7. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number C, all in favor of Ms. Joan Boos, please signify by voting. (Vote on Joan Boos) Mr. Colclough votes No. Motion carries 9-1. The Clerk: Is there a legal meeting, Mr. Wall? LEGAL MEETING: 24. Consider termination of contract with CSRA Waste. (No Action by the Commission in the February 5 meeting). (Requested by Mayor Bob Young) 25. Discuss real estate matter. 26 26. Discuss personnel matter. Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss potential litigation, as well as to give legal advice concerning several matters. Also a real estate matter. There is no personnel matter. Mr. Shepard: So moved for the purposes as stated by the Attorney. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor to go into legal session. Please signify by voting. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 27. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Wall: The only thing I would request is that you authorize the Mayor Pro Tem to execute the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Mays: So moved. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. In favor, vote. Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Kuhlke: I move we adjourn. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion to adjourn. Second? Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor to adjourn. All in favor of the motion. We are adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission 27 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on March 5, 2002. Clerk of Commission 28