Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-12-2004 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER APRIL 12, 2004 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 12, 2004, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Smith, Grantham, Colclough, Mays, Cheek, Beard, Williams, Sims and Boyles, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Steve Shepard, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor: I will call the meeting to order, and the first item of business is the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, so if you would please rise, and I would ask Commissioner Williams, if he would double, giving us an invocation and the Pledge to the Flag, if you would do that, please, Commissioner. The invocation was given by the Rev. Marion Williams. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. I would like to remind the Commission that last week when we set this meeting, the Commission also stated it was its intention that the committee meetings would start on time. So I will assume that that means that we have an adjournment time of 12:30 for this meeting, and we will diligently work toward that end. First item of business, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: 1. Ratification of contract with Heery, Inc. for program management services. Mr. Mayor: Members of the Commission, I had asked you to defer this from the last meeting because we had received an alternative proposal just minutes before that meeting and certainly I needed to take a look at it. I think everyone has looked at it. I have looked over it and I don’t have any problems or questions with the alternative proposal, identified as the alternative, and I would encourage your adoption of that. Mr. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right, good. So if we have any questions, the Attorney is here with us. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? 1 Mr. Williams: The, the, the addendum contract, I glanced at both of them really. I say glanced, I looked at both of those. I’ve got no problem with that. I don’t know if the firm, if the firm will have any problem with what the addendum did. We talked about minority participation and I think they got that covered. The part that was taken out of this contract with the associate person, is that going to affect what, I guess that’s my question. What change is that going to make? Mr. Plunkett: Commissioner, are you referring to Butch Gallop and Associates? Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Plunkett: That would not make any change. Heery International has been informed that that may be a concern of the Commission and they are agreeable to take out Gallop and Associates if that is the will of the Commission. On the flip side, if you want to give them the green light to go ahead and retain Gallop and Associates for whatever purpose that they deem necessary and if it fits within the scope of services that the City has already agreed to and requested, then they’re agreeable to that, as well. And Heery is here, as well. If at any point I say something that you feel is incorrect, if you could please stop me. Thank you. Mr. Williams: Well, and I don’t have any problem if they don’t have any problem. I just wanted to verify, you know, that a lot of time we, we start off one way and we end up another way. And I wanted to make sure that the company, the firm understands that whatever they contract with somebody else – the other contract looked like it was a three party contract, and I think some of the Commissioners had problems with that. I wanted to make sure that Gallop and Associates still in the loop as they started out to be, and if that’s fine with them I have no other questions, Mr. Mayor. I make a motion to approve. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I second that motion. Mr. Mayor: That’s approve the alternative? Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Colclough: With the Gallop organization still in the contract. Mr. Mayor: Well, they’re not in the alternative by name. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Mayor, what I can do is redraft this alternative contract. If the motion can include the directions to me to redraft it – I don’t know that I necessarily need to include them by name. I can include them by function, which is community liaison, with the original hourly rate that was proposed to the City, and with the motion being made with that addendum then I can do that. 2 Mr. Mayor: Is that – Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can hear from, from the firm. What’s feasible? All I want to do is make sure that everybody’s still at the table. I don’t want the plate to be moved after we sign this contract. I don’t want to say well, hey, not that wasn’t there and we thought it was the first time. Is that going o change anything with your scope of the work for – Mr. Speaker: Well, the first contract that we submitted pretty much mirrored what was in the RFP. Now this alternative contract that changes the relationship and Andy can explain that better than I can – and I think what I’m about to say is what Mr. Shepard has already said. The original request for proposal that the City made was for a program manager who would enter into an agency relationship with the City and would essentially make many of the decisions on behalf of the owner that the owner or some department head through -- the owner through a department head would normally make. The alternative contract, which I believe is the contract that is being presented and I believe, Mr. Kolb, you as City Administrator, are in agreement that that’s the contract that the City should actually engage in – the alternative contract takes Heery out of the agency relationship and places them into more of a consulting role. Now the alternative contract is a mirror image of the contract that we have with another program manager, which is CH2MHill, which at this moment functioned within Public Utilities. So that’s the difference between the two. I think that Heery’s preference is to stick with the original contract. I think that the City’s preference at this time, through its Administrator, is to recommend the alternative contract. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the alternative contract then, which knowing that they can use them for consulting and whatever. I think that this firm is going to continue to do what they been doing with this firm anyway, you know, with the Associates, so my motion to approve the alternative contract. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion and a second. Is there discussion, further discussion? Mr. Speaker: May I ask that I have permission within that motion to re-include the community liaison function? Is that, is that what you would like to do, Commissioner? Mr. Williams: Well, I think from what I’m hearing is that this firm is saying that they going, they going to use it without that, without having that written in. And if that need to be written in, that’s why I was asking that question. But if they going – if they going to work along without that, then that’s fine. We don’t have to go back and then come back again. I want to go ahead and get this thing off center. Mr. Speaker: Commissioner, Heery’s preference is that we re-include the community liaison function. 3 Mr. Mayor: Well, my question would be, then, why are we going to pay $162 an hour for minority business development when we are already going to have somebody on our payroll as a fulltime employee who is charged with minority business development? Mr. Williams: Now, Mr. Mayor, is that – and I agree with you. I’m in agreement with that. In this contract, I’m thinking the work that Heery’s doing, they was going to be working specifically in that realm of, of this contract, not just for this City. So somebody need to say something here and let me – Mr. Mayor: Well, this goes back to – y’all have identified a specific subcontractor to them that you want included in here and when you add that $162 an hour in, and this is Heery’s document that they’ve given me, it says that they will promote local and minority business participation for all the projects. That’s the function of that company being in here. Now if they’re going to do that, we shouldn’t, we’ve already got somebody on the payroll who will be doing that. So I’m saying if Heery wants to bring them to the table, let Heery bring them on their nickel instead of our $162 an hour, adding it into the contract. That’s the question I would have. Mr. Williams: And I’m in agreement now, but I go back to say what the RFP said when y’all, when y’all came back in. Ms. Sams, I see her sitting over there. Maybe she can give me some leeway here. I was thinking that this company was going to be using some minority participation. Small business or whatever you can do, within in, but not written into the contract to the, to the tune of working for this, this body. Now is that the way it is, or is not? Mr. Speaker: Well, the reason we brought the community liaison was we were under the – we were advised that there was some concern about minority participation, local participation on the projects that we will be managing, and that’s what we brought Gallop and Associates into the team to help us promote the projects and – Mr. Williams: Let me share what, what, what, what I was told when I asked about that section of the contract, cause that was a question with the Commission. And what I was told is that it wasn’t going to affect this government, it wasn’t going to affect any pay, it was just something to be, to have on document where your firm agreed to work with them, and I was thinking, Mr. Mayor, that it wasn’t going to come, wasn’t going to be paid from this government. It was going to be paid from the work that was done when it was used by the firm in the contract. Mr. Mayor: Well, if you put it in here as a line item, then we’re paying it. Mr. Williams: Yeah. But when I questioned that, and that’s what I was told, that’s what I told the reason they was in there. So, let me consult with my – Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? 4 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, after consulting with me law partner and ex- Commissioner friend, I’m going to make that same motion that we approve the revised part of the contract, give them the option to use different firms if necessary or this firm if necessary, rather than locking the taxpayer in to that amount. Just have the contract approved, the amendment part as it’s been brought back to us. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Speaker: And for purposes of clarification, this would be the alternative contract. Mr. Williams: Alternative contract. Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion, I think from Mr. Cheek. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. Did somebody have something? Mr. Hankerson: Now, now – Mr. Mayor: Can’t hear you, Mr. Hankerson. Lean into your microphone, please. Thank you. Mr. Hankerson: The first time you ever wasn’t able to hear me. Mr. Mayor: You must have let it all out at church yesterday. Didn’t save anything for today. Mr. Hankerson: Now this alternate contract, we were talking the [inaudible], the minority participation in it. I knew it mentioned that. So is the contract still guaranteeing that at the expense of Heery or – I heard you mention about $162 -- I don’t have my contract with me – an hour. Now will they still be included in that or what are we saying? Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Hankerson, in the alternative contract the line item for community liaison, which was where Gallop and Associates was appearing, is deleted, and so in this motion the contract that is being moved upon this Commission to approve, that function is deleted. So Heery would still be free to pay for a community liaison, they would not do it at the taxpayers’ expense. In other words, the City would not pay for it. That would have to be an expense that they would bear, and they alone. Mr. Hankerson: So Heery is still agreeing to that same contract that they had with the name being deleted? Mr. Speaker: We would not be providing that service under the alternative contract because that would be excluded. 5 Mr. Hankerson: So you would not providing any community liaison or simply speaking, minority participation? Mr. Speaker: Well, we have minority participation in our contract with Dukes Edward Dukes, and they’re providing staff, as well as we are. What we’re talking about with the community liaison is with the projects that we’ll be managing, that if you take out the community liaison and that would be a function for Augusta Richmond County to be concerned with and not Heery. Mr. Hankerson: Okay, I just wanted to – I thought that was what I was understanding, so I just wanted to make that clear with, with us before we vote, and make sure we know what we are voting for. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Move ahead with the vote? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I’m sorry I came back in on the conclusion of it. I was trying to clear up something on the other side office. I guess what I’m trying to get clearer on in terms of – I guess I may be generic for just a second – on large projects in terms of where, whether they are official [inaudible] programs involved with the government or not, if they are, if a company is doing business with the government per se or governmental entity, and then has within its working group, how it deals with that portion of its contract, then I guess what I’m asking are they, the company, and in this case the particular company that we’re talking about, would it not be if whatever budget that they are working out of in terms of overall contract and contractual terms, then is it left to, to us? I guess what I’m looking for is to a point if we, if we get satisfaction out of what work performance that the company is doing, then where are we in terms of whether they got two names, six names, four names, ten names, that they have the setup within the contractual setting to, to deal with getting, getting their job done. I guess what I’m looking at is why does it make a difference to a point of whether, if it’s coming out of whatever they are going to get from the City, does it make a difference whether something is in or something is out? I’m just trying to search for a little clarity there. Because I mean I guess – let’s say hypothetically if the contract is for $100, my, my question from the beginning, and like I say I thought I had it answered the other day, was that if it’s for $100 and Heery collects $100 and it does with its $100 what it decides to with its $100. As long as it was not asking us for $125, then I thought that really whatever named persons they had or if they chose not to name them, that they going hire, that that was what our concern should have been, that we were not paying for something over and above whatever the contract might call for. And that’s what I was thinking we were on the road of doing, so that if they were paid out of whatever performance monies that were there, then that would be their decision in terms of how many hands were in that pot, whether it was two hands, four hands, six hands, whatever the case might be. And I’m just looking for a little clarity on that. Mr. Speaker: Commissioner, if this were a lump sum contract, that would be true. This is a not to exceed contract, so every hour we work, we bill you by the hourly rates that are in the contract. So if we’re going to have somebody there that’s going to 6 promote minority participation and local participation in the projects and they work ten hours, we would bill your ten hours times the rate that’s in the contract. But we would not exceed the not to exceed amount that’s in our contract. Mr. Mays: Well, Mr. Mayor, if I might respond. Let me correct myself just a little bit. Let me change from the pot that the $100 is in and go to a pro rated formula. I guess then in terms of what I’m looking at, then if the proration, then, as long as the proration comes out to 100% of what you’re doing, it doesn’t come out to 110% and 115% then I think that was where I was trying to focus to be sure that that stayed within that arena of doing that. So how does that fit into that box if we’re not talking about it? Because I realize that those percentages, it may change in terms of what you may have. It may be a contract of where a person’s working not at all on a particular contract, but then may be working more, you know, in another one. Then the overall aspects of what you all will be assigned to that you could build in term so its totality would still remain the same and not exceed the guidelines of the contract. Mr. Speaker: But if you take out the community liaison, they were part of our lump sum fee. So if you take that out, we wouldn’t bill you, we wouldn’t have to bill you, we couldn’t bill you for that. Another way to look at that, Commissioner Mays, would be if you take out the community liaison function, that I believe when you look at the scheduling and the listing of various job duties in Attachment B, there is nowhere for Gallop and Associates to fit. Now does that mean then that they cannot hire a minority business that would specialize, for instance, in construction inspection. They are free to do that and I think that’s where Dukes Edward Dukes falls into play, is that’s a minority business that’s going to be used by Heery in performing many of these other functions. But it’s just by taking that community liaison line item out, there’s no where for Gallop and Associates to fit. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Are you saying that we not going to need a, a, a, a, a person in that position now if we take that out? Are you saying that’s something that we added to the contract, we decided to do ourselves, that wasn’t necessarily in the beginning, it was something that we just – just another horn to blow, another frill to have on the automobile, something? Is that – I mean I thought if that person was important now, see more stuff coming out now. If that person was important in the beginning and now we saying – Mr. Plunkett: Commissioner, I think that Heery’s position is that that function is still important and their preference would be that that function remain in the contract. You know, we have to be very careful. We, in our request for proposals, have a statement that says that it’s the wish of the owner that minority businesses are given the opportunity to bid on various parts of the work. Now one of the functions that Heery International will be fulfilling for the City is to assist it in bidding out the various projects 7 in – both with general contractors and subcontractors. Now insofar as they can have a community liaison function in assisting them and identifying these minority owned businesses, I could see where a community liaison function, if Heery doesn’t charge the City for it, the City is going to have to fulfill that function anyway. The taxpayers are going to get charged either way. We have to be very careful in our contracts that we don’t have anything that would smack of a minority set-aside. I don’t think that there is anything in this contract that smacks of that or insinuates that. I think that this contract would be upheld in a court of law if that were ever challenged. So I think that what Heery is trying to do is say to the City, we need this function, if we don’t do it and we don’t charge the City for it, someone within City government is going to have to fulfill that role and the taxpayers are going to be charged either way. And so that, that’s where they’re coming from. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I think I’m a little bit more confused on it now than I was in the beginning because I thought that, I thought that the amount, and I’m looking at – I’m talking about the bottom line figure of the contract, that this company, the company that you named, something Associates, was included in the contract. So that was the amount of the contract. Mr. Plunkett: If we – I’m sorry. Mr. Hankerson: So that’s not changing anything, so then they are still responsible for and they saw it was important to put this company in there with they bidded the RFP. So taking it out, I just only eliminates what we were trying to accomplish and it, would that be profit margin to Heery because of the fact that they’ve already submitted the contract with that amount with that company in there? The other problem that I have with this right now is that my understanding that everybody haven’t seen the contract that need to see the new contract. If the Purchasing Director hadn’t seen it, the Public Works Director hadn’t seen the new alternative contract, why are we so discussing it now when some of the important people that should see the new contract haven’t seen it? I think are moving a little ahead now and we going to come back and start blaming Purchasing and all these things and we are getting ready to do something that they haven’t even seen, and I thought it was supposed to go through Purchasing and they supposed to see it. Somebody address that. Mr. Plunkett: Well, two points [inaudible] address it. The first point is I think that your point is even if we include the community liaison function, it’s not going to change the not to exceed amount, and that’s exactly correct. Mr. Hankerson: Okay. 8 Mr. Plunkett: The second point is, is that Teresa Smith, with Purchasing, did see the first contract, the original contract and had an opportunity to review it as to scope and services. Mr. Hankerson: [inaudible] Mr. Plunkett: The second contract she has not seen in that it mirrors exactly what the City already has in place with CH2MHill with Public Works, but if the Commission believes the contract should be run by Teresa Smith for her approval before it is re- presented to the Commission, then that can be done, Commissioner. Mr. Hankerson: I think that not only Ms. Smith, but I think that the Purchasing Director need to know what we are doing. If we discussing something that originally went through her office and she haven’t seen the change to the contract, shouldn’t it go through the Purchasing office? I just, I’m just saying that we’re discussing something and we got two departments here that haven’t even seen the new contract. I mean I know the Attorneys have but still yet, they haven’t, and you addressed that what I’m seeing is not changing the scope of the contract by this company being in there, so I don’t see why we’re discussing deleting it if it’s not changing the dollar amount. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you again, sir, but I’m, I’m really getting an education this morning. Can somebody explain to me why it have not been through Purchasing? Anytime you have a change of a contract, and I learned this from Commissioner Shepard when he was a Commissioner. Anytime you change a contract and it could be – and I heard the Attorney say that Purchasing has seen the original contract. But when you change it, it’s not original no more, so she can’t assume that that’s the same thing. Everything in it could have been changed cause, I mean, even though we talk about one part. And I need somebody to tell me why it had not went through the proper channels. Here we are, holding this company up, holding me up, all this time that we been spending down here, people complain about how long we spend time. Why has it not been through the proper people to be looked at? Somebody, Mr. Administrator, Mr. Shepard, somebody? Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, I would not – I want this contract to be seen by as many folks as need to be seeing it, so – Mr. Williams: But why had it not been seen by the people who deal with contracts everyday? Mr. Shepard: Well, when we brought it over here, I had started at the Administrator’s level. I did not go back below that level, and maybe I should. If that’s, if that’s, if that’s a bullet I’m to take, then that’s because I dealt with the administration at 9 that level. Here again, I have no problem with it being reviewed by the Purchasing Director or by the Public Works Director. I think you’ve got to have the time to become comfortable with this and it’s a major contract that is going to be very important to the administration of this Judicial Center and the subsequent projects that are listed in that. So if enough copies weren’t circulated around, that’s, that’s my fault, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Shepard, let me, let me say this. In committee meeting, the first contract was laid out in front of our chairs, in front of our seats, so it was dropped on us and we didn’t vote on it because it was just given to us. The revised contract came the Friday afternoon, the day before the meeting we had. We didn’t look at it then. Here we are – we had plenty of time to get it where it need to be at. And it been done shabby, it’s not been done right, I thought, and even the Mayor said [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor, I have not finished it, but I started on it. And I thought maybe we had something to work with. How many time this firm been here? How many times we done talked about the same things and we have not addressed that? Mr. Mayor, I want to withdraw my motion. Mr. Mayor: With the consent of the body, since the motion belongs to the body. Is there any objection to the Commissioner withdrawing his motion? None is heard, so the motion will stand withdrawn. Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson? I think that, you know, some more discussions need to be made on this. I think that, you know, there is some more discussions need to be made on this before we make a decision, cause now I’m concerned. I heard it was stated that we have somebody on board to do this work. Now – oversee the project. I’m concerned about that. Maybe we need to hear from Public Works or who is supposed to be overseeing the project that we take out, take out this company. That we take out who [inaudible] responsibility to oversee the project. Mr. Mayor: I had stated earlier in the meeting, Mr. Hankerson, your, your committee is filling the two positions now for EEO and minority business enterprise. And so we would be paying a salaried person who is overseeing minority business enterprise, while at the same time through this contract paying an hourly fee to a consultant to do the same work. You’d be paying twice for the same service. So it’s just a question of whether you want, whether you want to pay twice. Mr. Hankerson: But this is not – my understanding is not – my understanding is – I’m not opposing what you’re saying, Mr. Mayor, due all respect. But I don’t think that this company – what’s the name of the company that we deleted? Mr. Plunkett: Gallop and Associates. Mr. Hankerson: Gallop and Association is not going to be doing the same job that we going to be hiring a DBE or as – that’s not, that’s not the work that Heery had them in this contract to do. They had them included in here the time of the RFP. Now they had them in there for a reason and it wasn’t not to – they didn’t have them in there to make sure that minority participation would be used. Was that the reason they were in there? 10 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson, I will read to you from a document prepared for me by Heery, which says – just one sentence – what services do they provide under the contract? That was my question. Gallop and Associates will act as the community liaison to provide two-way communication flow to the surrounding community to promote local and minority business participation for all the projects. Period. That is the work they will provide. And that’s what we’re hiring somebody to do. We’ve created a department to do that. So do we want to pay twice for it? That was my only question. Mr. Hankerson: Is that – that’s the reason, that was all? Period? Heery? Mr. Mayor: That’s it. That was the answer to my direct question. That was their answer. It’s right here. I can give you a copy of it if you’d like to see it. But that’s their written response to my question. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yeah? Mr. Plunkett: I don’t want to leave this issue without accepting some of the blame from Commissioner Williams. The reason why the alternative contract was not brought back down to the department heads, there were three reasons. One is that the scope of services between the two contracts, which the first one, the original one had been reviewed by Teresa Smith extensively, and Rick Acree – that scope of services did not change at all. Secondly was that the price, and the price structure, did not change at all between the two. And the third reason is that from the municipal code, my understanding is that it’s the City Administrator’s recommendation which makes the contract appropriate for the Commission to consider, and so in that the alternative contract had been reviewed extensively by the City Administrator and had also been discussed by me with our previous County Attorney, as well as Bill Kuhlke, who is head of the Judicial Committee, we did not see a reason to take it back to Teresa Smith, and so I want to take the blame for that and not let that fall on Steve Shepard. And I will not make that mistake twice. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We need to – we need a motion to move this along. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I’m trying to remember, this first came up back in the late summer, didn’t it? Wasn’t that brought to us? And we had a presentation, because I heard the name a while ago – I’m trying to put it back together – but it was between Heery International and Dukes Edward Dukes, something like that? 11 Mr. Speaker: I believe the presentation you’re referring to was in October of 2003. Mr. Boyles: I remember it was in the committee room and I think it was a special called meeting or else an Administrative Services work session or something. But I remember, I remember the term. I was trying to remember the name. It was kind of strange. Dukes Edwards Dukes. Strange name. But – and that was a part of Heery. I think they were a part of the presentation that day. So I’ve kind of – I wonder what, what happened with that portion. Dukes Edwards Dukes is still in, so. But the contract says Augusta, Georgia and Heery International. Mr. Speaker: They’re – Mr. Boyles: So they’re a part of you? Mr. Speaker: They’re a subconsultant. They’re a part of our team. Mr. Boyles: They’re a part of Heery? Mr. Speaker: Yeah, right. This is not a joint venture. Mr. Boyles: So it’s not? Mr. Speaker: Correct. Mr. Boyles: And the don’t you have – we have, what, two projects going on right now, that we’re into about $20 million of the Judicial Center, and then we’re working on the traffic, the TCC building, the traffic control. What other projects are we working on? Mr. Speaker: That’s all. Mr. Boyles: That’s the only two. And you’ve been working on those through purchase orders? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Boyles: So it was important enough for the work to go ahead with purchase orders? Mr. Speaker: Yes, we were asked to come on board January 26. Mr. Boyles: And I think we heard the other day we spent, what, two $10,000 purchase orders or something? Mr. Speaker: At the time we were told we were going to get three $10,000 purchase orders, and because the signing of the contract was imminent, and we were told 12 that if, at that time, we would run out, we would get additional purchase orders. And we’ve made that request and have not received them. Mr. Boyles: Have not received them? Mr. Speaker: Right. Mr. Boyles: One final thing, and this is just – I guess this is a concern of mine, because we were talking about something like a $70 million Judicial Center. But the last $50 million was to come because of the approval by the voters of the next issue of the sales tax. So I suppose the question that I have is, is there an escape clause in there should the voters turn down and we don’t have to go back later on, is there an escape clause that we can come out of that? That’s a concern of mine because I – and all the new projects, the ones that are mostly listed in on, on the sheet are really – can only occur with the extension of the sales tax program. So my concern, it’s just as I said, is there an escape clause that we can come out? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Shepard: The answer to that is yes. That was there. That was negotiated in. Mr. Boyles: That means – Mr. Shepard: We don’t need – and additionally, there’s a termination for convenience on shorter notice, on short notice if we’re dissatisfied with their work. So that’s, that’s in both contracts. Mr. Boyles: Okay. Mr. Shepard: And my suggestion, to move things along, if there are other, other department heads that this Commission feels needs to review this, refer it to your meeting next week, and if anybody that, in addition to Purchasing or Public Works needs to have it reviewed, please let me know. But here again, we started at the Administrator level and, you know, I don’t mind anybody reviewing this contract. I think everybody wants to get it right. And – but that would be my suggestion in terms of moving on because there are two other issues that we need to go into executive session for today. Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, if I could follow up just a little bit. When it was important enough that we issue purchase orders to get it, it seems like we need to go ahead and get to the contractual stage, don’t we? And it would be a little bit cheaper than issuing, constantly issuing purchase orders, so I would hope that we could resolve something right here and now, because how many times has this been brought back and forth, back and forth? One committee to the other. 13 Mr. Mayor: Well, any Commissioner is free to make a motion. Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Seems like I’ve been working all weekend. I do feel I have a few questions. Now it appears we have questions about one consulting group, is that correct? And that is the Gallop Group? Mr. Speaker: Yes. Ms. Beard: Well, in my opinion we would probably want to include a minority company, so I’m wondering if you applied for whatever we’re attempting to do here. Did he, did his consultant group apply for the office that we will have open? No? I would like – this is really going to be a very, very large project, and you don’t even – the City is looking at hiring someone, and this is what I think the Mayor was referring to. I would like to see us in some way use minorities and hopefully they would bring others in, because this is going to be massive, first of all. And I haven’t had a chance to go through this really today, but what would I say? It just appears to me the program manager has offered no guarantees whatsoever pertaining to the supervising of projects and what- have-you. And you know many times, after all this is said and done, you find yourself in Court, because things are not done properly. Yet it seems this company will have no responsibility in any of that at all, it will all fall on the City. Is that appropriate? And maybe I misunderstood. Mr. Plunkett: No, ma’am, Commissioner, it’s not appropriate, and in fact in the alternative contract, 4.1, there is a standard of care that’s defined for the program manager, which says the degree of skill and diligence normally employed by professional engineers or consultants in construction litigation or in professional negligence litigation, which if there were a problem would be the heading under which this would fall, we would be tasked with bringing in someone who would define for a judge or a jury what that degree of care was and whether or not Heery in face breached or violated that standard. So the short answer is, it’s in there, at 4.1 it’s defined. Ms. Beard: Okay, here again, you said that was in the revised – Mr. Plunkett: Yes. That’s correct. Ms. Beard: Okay. Mr. Plunkett: It’s also in the original. Ms. Beard: It’s in the original? Mr. Plunkett: Yes. The original that you, that you’re referring to, is not the latest original. In 10.3, which is the one that Mr. Shepard passed out last week, I believe, I have the words typed in “not used.” So that has been removed and taken out and deleted. We are not indemnifying Heery International. And I know -- you’re referring to one that was passed out about six weeks ago. 14 Ms. Beard: I think it was the original. Yes. Mr. Plunkett: Yes, ma’am. I can get you another copy, a different original. In fact, I will do that right after this is over. I’ll make sure that I go and do that. Ms. Beard: Okay. Mr. Hankerson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I’d just like to get us from where we are, from the original contract, as we reviewed that we had some other problems with the original contract. I think some of them have been ironed out, but most of them have not, and I haven’t heard anybody else say anything about that. And it seem like the only issue here today is that the, the item line with the Association, Associates, there in -- that’s not changing and I’m looking at the bottom line. I’m making my decision on the bottom line. It’s not changing the amount of contract. And since it’s not changing the amount of the contract, it appear to me then that item, if that line item is deleted, then that is profit to the company. I can’t see anything else that they have committed to do with that amount. So if that’s the case, if that bottom line is -- if the bottom line does not change and the only thing we’re doing , I’d like to put in the form of a motion to move is deleting the, the Gallop Associates this on that we include that line item and approve the contract. Mr. Mayor: All right, is there a second to that motion? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: All right. ? Is this the alternative Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Mayor, may I ask for a clarification contract, Commissioner? Mr. Hankerson: Yes. Mr. Plunkett: I apologize for that interruption. Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Just a -- you had a comment? Mr. Speaker: I was just going to answer the Commissioner’s question. If you did take Gallop and Associates out of the, the -- the community liaison out of the contract then there is an amount of money that we had in there for it and that would not be billed to you. 15 Mr. Hankerson: But then if we do that, too, then that changes the amount of bid, that would have changed the amount of the bid if that wasn’t in there; right? Mr. Speaker: That’s right. Mr. Hankerson: And then seem like to me there be other problems cause the bid would have came in even cheaper. You got a bid, second bidder came in, could have pretty well -- some one else could have pretty well got the bid, if that amount wasn’t in there in the beginning. So it was in there, so that’s why I made my motion to go ahead and move with it. Mr. Plunkett: His motion, Don, is to include it. Mr. Speaker: Include it? That’s fine. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, would you again read Gallop and Associates’ duties and responsibilities? Mr. Mayor: All right. Again, I’m reading from the answer to the questions that I asked. This was prepared by Heery. [reading] Gallop and Associates will act as the community liaison to provide two way communication flow with the surrounding community to promote local and minority business participation for all of the projects. Ms. Beard: I think that’s greatly needed. Mr. Mayor: And the -- Ms. Beard: [inaudible] consider him, or if not him, someone else. Because this is something that has been lacking in most of the things we’ve done previously. Mr. Mayor: All right, is there anything further? Mr. Mays: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? And I want to remind everyone that we agreed earlier that this meeting would end at 12:30 so the committees can start on time. Go ahead. Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, the only thing I was going to say to get further information [inaudible] necessarily have anything to do with what the outcome of the motion might be. But I think to -- if you wanted further information as you proceeded to go along with this, that it might be helpful in the process of where, where we hire a person or persons as we have mention in terms of doing overall City business, that cities with established contract compliance departments or DBE programs that are in place, I 16 think you have [inaudible] find if examined that those cities have those programs, which is the standard for the city’s operation that they have. However, that does not preclude, cause some companies may have, some may not have, but private companies that are doing business for a city may have various tentacles within their own auspices that work with those compliance offices to a point of where within a given contract, that program -- it may be one that’s of strength, it may be one that’s not that strong. So I think you are going to have some variations that, you know, that may be in there. But I’m tending to, to agree with, with where those bottom line numbers may fall in terms of Commissioner Hankerson’s motion. I just wanted to say that, cause some, some of this we’re going -- once that department and hopefully that will be very soon -- is that to get them up running, moving, where you’re going to do, I guess I’m a little concerned to a point that this one either needs to be put into some position of where they work and how they work, or where we get to some type of finalization. Cause I don’t think we can continue to, to temporarily purchase all the, everything we’re doing to death. Somewhere in there that’s going to get dangerous, too, to a point that even though it’s only working with one entity per se right now, or two, but to come back to a point where the -- in fairness to the Administrator where he’s got a limit of stuff he’s got to work with, I think that’s kind of like dancing on hot coals a little bit because you got to make sure that purchase orders to a point doesn’t exceed where he is with a limit or to a point where they’re doing work. It’s got to bounce back over into this area. And at the same time, you’ve got a situation over in Purchasing if they came in where it’s got to be carefully watched and how that, that happens, too. Because you’ve got limits of what can come in and how they do. So I think we either need to get some semblance of, of, of how they really are going to be working. If you’ve got an exit situation in there that’s one that’s, that’s livable with everybody, where parties have an annulment or they all get along or whatever they do, we reach that. But I think -- I’m a little concerned about somebody working and they working from week to week. Somewhere in there we need to get into some formal agreement, and an agreement that everybody is comfortable with, whatever that might be. Or we need to, to, to do something just a little bit different than what’s going on right now. Cause I, I, I see this getting to be a little, a little shaky. I’m like Ms. Beard, I want to make sure it’s thorough, where it’s going, but I also want to make sure that it’s not to where it’s, it’s piecemeal with every, everything that we’re doing to a point we end up, whether it’s accidentally -- I use the word accidentally and I think that is where it may fall -- we accidentally end up violating something from the standpoint of trying to deal with this from every one of these different work orders. There needs to be something formally done at some point. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Grantham, go ahead. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One question that I’d like to piggyback on what Mr. Mays just said, is that -- who is this liaison person going to be answerable to if we include it in the Heery contract? Is he answerable to them or is he answerable to this body? If we hire the, the people to do that work, and we create our own department, that person and that department is answerable to this body, and not to a company that we contracted with. And I, and I see that as a very important issue in this matter. And I would like to think if we could, if we could exclude this from that contract and reduce the 17 price of that contract -- I know what Mr. Hankerson’s saying, but you do have reasons to negotiate even after you award contracts or after you have established a basis for awarding a contract. So I’m of the opinion that I would like to see this individual or this person answerable to this body and not answerable to a company that we’re contracting with if we’re wanting the minority involvement with the liaison in charge of that particular area working with the programs and projects that we’re talking about. I’d like to have that answered it. Mr. Mayor: Can you answer it? Mr. Plunkett: Briefly, Commissioner, the way both of the contracts, both the original and the alternative, are set up is that function, the community liaison function, is answerable to Heery. But in page 28 of the October, 2003 presentation that was made to the Commission, in the organizational structure that was proposed by Heery and understood is that everyone, including Heery International, is answerable ultimately to the Commission. So -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to go back a little bit and just share my experience with how this was done with the School Board in their $115 million bond referendum with Hanscombe. This function was included as part of the contract with Hanscombe, and they were the ones that actually set target goals for minority participation and so forth, and that was handled as per their cost of doing business with the School Board. Also, their fee was structured out of that $115 million and based on savings, savings they would gain throughout the entire process of constructing the schools and doing the renovations of the project. It seems to me that also if we could look at what Ms. Sams has done with the outreach that she’s had with local businesses and contractors doing business with the City that we would want to replicate that to go out with this particular project management group, to go out and actually try to obtain minority and disadvantaged business participation. And it seems to me this body has expressed that on a number of occasions. I have concerns about us having to add an additional firm to the mix, and additional cost, when that should, I think, be included as part of the functional assignment that we give any contractor that works for us on these businesses, as the School Board did. I hate to see this thing keep coming back time after time, but as a statement of fact, it’s the will of this Commission that we grow local, small and disadvantages business participation in area government business, and that that ought to be included as part of the function of any contractor we have come in to provide management, contract management or project management services for us. Again, I haven’t seen it done where they did an add-on, when adding an additional firm like they did with the School Board, and I was involved in that entire process. You would think as many times as we have brought it up here on this board that that message would have been loud and clear by now. But again, I think that we need to -- I guess it bears saying again that anybody that does business with us is expected to engage local, small and disadvantaged and minority business and have target percentages of trying to gain that participation. While that’s, while we’re at the point where we’re looking at the add-on of 18 additional costs to do that, something which we’re already doing in-house as well, I can’t go along with that additional cost. I think it should be part of the original contract [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Is there anything further? Ms. Beard: One other question. Mr. Mayor: Yes, Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Do you have written in the contract the amount of work that will go to minority companies? Mr. Plunkett: No, ma’am. I did some research on that very issue to make sure that the language that was already in the RFP’s that the City was using did not run afoul of the Court of Appeals cases that have come out in the last decade on the issue of minority set-aside. What I found is that our RFP language does not run afoul of that, but if we were to actually within our contracts set aside a certain portion of that work for minority or disadvantaged businesses that we could in fact be sued and probably would be sued. What I do have is some proposed language that we could put into this contact and other contracts that emphasize what I hear the Commission wants in terms of emphasizing our desire to have minority businesses participate, and it’s very brief. I can read that to you for your consideration. [reading] Parties agree and understand that the City of Augusta has encouraged in its RFP that minority businesses be given the opportunity to participate in various parts of the work for which the program manager is being engaged, without restricting or limiting competitive bidding or increase in the cost of the work. The program manager agrees that it will assist the owner in encouraging the participation of minority businesses in that scope of work for which the program manager has been retained. ]ends reading] Now I believe that if you were to include that language in the Heery contract or in any other contract, that we would not open ourselves up to litigation, but if we were to actually say that a percentage of the work or a dollar amount of the work was to be set aside, that we would. Ms. Beard: I’m going to say I do believe you’re going to need something one way or the other. I do think maybe this consultant group will work out. But as we spoke with the Mayor in Jacksonville, he said it was not easy bringing those minority contractors in, that those contractors who had the bulk of the work had a very hard time accepting minority contractors to do part of the work, because everyone is out trying to make as much money as they can. Now they worked this so that they put it so that it would work, and it’s not just there. They’re trying to do it all over the country. You cannot write down something and just assume it is going to happen. But they said -- they included all of the contractors pretty much in the city, and when minority contractors had say 25% of the project, it was called a minority something and they were given certain benefits or something and it actually helped the large contractors there. And when the large contractors, when -- many minority contractors had problems with bonding, so they would assist them with that and when they purchased, they would purchase their orders 19 along with their own, and it made it easy, easier for minority contractors to become a part of it. And legitimate. And I think that’s the kind of thing we want here. So what we’re asking is that that, that it happens here in Augusta. Mr. Speaker: We do have a percent participation that we committed to when we submitted our proposal for this work, for minority business participation. We have that in our proposal. I believe it’s 30% or 35%. Mr. Plunkett: We just can’t put that in the contract. Mr. Speaker: But we committed to that, we got a letter agreement that was signed with Dukes Edward Dukes and Heery. Ms. Beard: Do we have a copy of it? Mr. Speaker: Yes, you do. It’s in your proposal. Mr. Mayor: All right, is there any further discussion? We have a motion -- Ms. Beard: I’d like a copy of it. Mr. Plunkett: Okay, I’ll get that for you. Mr. Mayor: Let’s move ahead with the vote because the hour is rapidly drawing to a close here in terms of this meeting. Ms. Beard: Excuse me, if that is in there then I’m ready to vote. Mr. Mayor: All right, anything further? We’ll go ahead and call the question on the motion that’s on the floor. All in favor of the motion, please vote with the usual sign. You need the motion read back? Mr. Cheek: It’s been a little while, sir. The Clerk: The motion Mr. Hankerson made, seconded by Mr. Boyles, was to approve the alternative management program contract to include Gallop and Associates. Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s what you’re voting on today. All in favor, please vote with the usual sign. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Mays: Let me -- I mean I know that, I know that’s what the motion is, but what I’m, what I’m saying I think that needs to be clarified and this, I guess, goes back to 20 what has gone in originally in it. I mean I have no problem with where the motion takes us, but I think somewhere in the language of this, cause it looks like, it looks like within the motion that we are adding on a layer of something that has not been there by doing that. And I think it’s only restoring what has been within the framework and the extension of what has been within the contract. And then maybe that just needs to be clear within that motion cause where, where that jumps off, it’s like we’ve got a contract here today and we’ve taken somebody else and add them to the contract. And I don’t think that’s been, been the, been the particular case. And I have no problem with voting for it to be in there. But I’m just saying I think to a point it’s almost like it just added in there today. Mr. Mayor: Well, it did. It did just get added in there. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mays: Well, from what I’ve read, I mean it’s not the first time I’ve seen the name [inaudible] there, so I mean I don’t think it just got added today now. Now if it’s been downstairs to where that name has been in there. I mean [inaudible] if it just got added today, we wouldn’t be just discussing it today. Now let’s get real clear on that now, Mr. Mayor. We’ve done this [inaudible] we ought to get it, we ought to get it clear. That’s all I wanted to do. Mr. Cheek: I just -- my understanding is we had this function in the original contract. Mr. Plunkett: Yes. Mr. Cheek: This was included in the original price. Ms. Beard: And it’s added in there. Mr. Cheek: So now with the alternative we will add additional price over? Mr. Speaker: No. What you’ve got is the original -- well, you’ve got a base contract, it’s basically a boilerplate, both of them. And then there’s an attachment that gives you the scope of services. Both of those scope of services are the same, except in the alternative contract, [inaudible] was out. They were in the original scope of services in the original contract. So we’re not adding anything. We’re just taking the original scope of services and saying this is what we’re going to approve with the alternative boilerplate. Mr. Mayor: Well, there are some changes in the scope of services between the original and the alternative. There is some changing in the language. Mr. Speaker: The primary change is in the nature of the relationship. It’s gone from an agency function to now more of a administrative function. 21 Mr. Mayor: To say you took one consultant out, and that’s the only change, is not a correct statement, because there are some other changes in the attachment. Mr. Plunkett: There are other changes. In Attachment B what we have done, the community liaison -- I think what this Commission should vote, or the motion that should be made should not be to include Gallop and Associates but should be made to reinclude the community liaison function. And if you do that, and then it’s up to Heery if they want to use Gallop or whomever they would like to use. And they’re saying to this Commission their commitment is, I think at this point unless something changes, to use Gallop. Is that correct? Mr. Speaker: That’s who we submitted our proposal with. Mr. Hankerson: The alternative -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: The intent of motion was, I knew that there were some other changes besides this, the Gallop Associates in the alternative contract. Only thing -- my motion was to accept the alternative contract including Gallop and Associates in there, in the contract. That’s one change that was made in the alternative contract, we wanted to restore that change. Restoring that firm in the contract. Mr. Mayor: Any questions? Ms. Beard: May I briefly -- Mr. Mayor: Yes, Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: May I briefly see how Mr. Gallop sees his duties and responsibilities in reference to this project? Mr. Gallop: I am Wilbert L. Gallop, Jr. [inaudible], I am the owners of Gallop and Associates. My role with Heery was -- in the beginning I was a part of the presentation. Heery sought me out to make sure that they went along with what according what the RFP stated. They wanted to make sure that that minority inclusion was there. My job assignment with them will be out in the CSRA making sure that I find legit contractors that will participate in this process of these projects. I have been doing this for the last 12 years in the CSRA, and in Atlanta, Georgia. Quite successful. Hartsfield International, Augusta Regional Airport. And we look to have successes here. It is very important that you have a liaison like myself to make sure that you have that inclusion. Even though you may hire someone, that someone will be with the City and not primarily looking at alternatives that Heery will be looking at as a process of getting minority vendors to work on these projects. Thank you. 22 Mr. Mayor: We are in the process of voting on the motion from Mr. Hankerson, so I would ask you to please, if you’re in favor of the motion, to vote with the usual sign. We have two votes cast. We need to bring our vote up to a conclusion here. You’ve heard the motion, you’ve heard the intent expressed by Mr. Hankerson. Mr. Williams abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now we have -- unless the Commission chooses to extend the length of this meeting, we, we are to conclude at 12:30 and the next item is the Judicial site title report from the City Attorney. 4. LEGAL MEETING: • Pending and potential litigation. • Real Estate. • Personnel. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would request a legal session to discuss real estate and personnel if we have time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. And I would ask that we add item number 3 from the agenda to the legal meeting, too. Do we have a motion to go into legal -- Mr. Cheek: I so move. Mr. Mays: Second. Mr. Mayor: -- for the stated purpose. Is there any objection? Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: We will move into our legal session. And bring your maps with you. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: For the record, the City Commission is going to take a recess from its 11 o’clock meeting and the committee meetings will proceed as scheduled, and we will reconvene at the conclusion of the committee meetings. [MEETING RECESSED] 5. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meetings Act. Mr. Colclough: So move. 23 Mr. Williams: Second. Motion carries 10-0. [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 Augusta Richmond County Commission held on April 12, 2004. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 24