Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 18 2006 Augusta Richmond County Commissio REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER July 18, 2006 The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, July 18, 2006, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Brown, Williams, Beard, Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Grantham and Hatney, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Invocation was given by Dr. Larry Neal, Pastor, First New Hope Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States was recited. PRESENTATION A. Mayor's Masters Reception Committee presentation of checks to the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame, ASU Women's Golf Team and the Augusta-Richmond County Historical Society. PRESENTATION B. TeamAugusta-Appreciation Certificates (Requested by Commissioner C. Keith Brown) RECOGNITION Employee of the Month Award C. P.C. Abraham and Debbie Freeman, Information Technology Department CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. Z-06-72 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Meybohm Development Group, on behalf of Byron B. Mangum, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing 14.5 acres and located where the northwest right-of-way line of Gordon Highway intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Robinson Avenue. (Tax Map 078 Parcel 004) DISTRICT 3 2. Z-06-70 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Lisa Clark requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (F) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .24 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2629 Cranbrook Drive. (Tax Map 130 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 4 3. Z-06-69 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Natalie H. Robinson requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Personal Care Home per Section 26-1 (H) of the 1 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .21 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1607 Cider Lane. (Tax Map 123-4 Parcel 030) DISTRICT 2 4. Z-06-68 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Derrell Garnto, on behalf of Beam’s Contracting Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone HI (Heavy Industry) with a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area per Section 24-2 (18) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing approximately 9.5 acres and located a point 990 feet, more or less, south of the south right-of-way line of Dixon Airline Road and being 1,935 feet east of Mike Padgett Highway. (Tax Map 145 Parcel 029-01) DISTRICT 6 5. FINAL PLAT – RIVERSTONE – S-693 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Southern Partners Inc., on behalf of Homesites, LTD., LLC., requesting final plat approval for Riverstone Subdivision. This residential subdivision is located off Dennis Road across from Parker Street and contains 28 lots. 7. Z-06-71 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE with the condition that there shall be no substantial improvements to the existing structures and no new construction; a petition by Full Faith Missionary Baptist Church, on behalf of William Wise, requesting a Special Exception to establish a church per Section 26-1 (A) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing two land parcels totaling .34 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 1914 and 1916 Alabama Road. (Tax Map 087-2 Parcels 025 & 026) DISTRICT 2 8. Z-06-73 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Starrette Trucking requesting a Special Exception to establish an inert fill area per Section 26-1 (O) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing approximately 75 acres and located 1,280 feet, more or less, west of where Barton Chapel Road intersects the Seaboard Coastline Railroad. (Tax Map 067 Parcel 044, Tax Map 053 Parcel 085.01 and part of Tax Map 053-4 Parcel 002) DISTRICT 3 9. Z-06-74 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Fred Sims, Jr., on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing approximately 31 acres and located on the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 2,900 feet, more or less, west of a point where Old Gordon Highway intersects. (Part of Tax Map 080 Parcel 001 and Tax Map 64 Parcel 004-01) DISTRICT 3 10. Z-06-75 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Fred Sims Jr., on behalf of Georgia Vitrified Brick and Clay, requesting a change of zoning from Zone A (Agriculture) and Zone LI (Light Industry) to Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property containing approximately 74 acres and located on the north right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 1,950 feet, more or less, west of a point where Old Gordon Highway intersects. (Part of Tax Map 080 Parcel 001 and Part of Tax Map 64 Parcel 004-01) DISTRICT 3 2 11. Z-06-77 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Michael Webb, on behalf of the estate of Harold G. Bussell, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) affecting property containing .43 acres known under the present numbering system as 2158 & 2160 Bayvale Road. (Tax Map 055-4 Parcels 082 & 083) DISTRICT 5 12. Z-06-78 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Ann Davis, on behalf of Jam Ministries Inc., requesting a change of zoning from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property containing approximately 1.8 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 3336 B Wrightsboro Road. (Tax Map 041-4 Part of Parcel 103) DISTRICT 3 13. ZA-R-175 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to modify Section 15-2 (a) Two-family Residence (R-2), Section 16-2 (b) Multiple-family Residence (R-3A), Section 17-1 (b) Multiple-family Residence (R-3B), and Section 18-1 (b) Multiple-family Residence (R-3C) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County that allows single- family attached dwellings and condominiums by right or by Special Exception. This amendment would thereby eliminate the allowed single-family attached dwellings and condominium density provision which is less than the multi-family unit density in the same zoning classification. 14. ZA-R-176 – An request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to modify Section 26-2 Special Exceptions relating to the use initiation time period. Special Exceptions for churches or church related activities granted per Section 26-1 shall initiate a use within five (5) years of the granting, or the Special Exception shall no longer be valid. 15. RESOLUTION – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a request for authorization for the filing of applications with the U. S. Department of Transportation, the GA Department of Transportation and the SC Department of Transportation for transportation funds. PUBLIC SERVICES 17. Motion to approve a request by Joanne C. Lamkin for a Therapeutic Massage license to be used in connection with Heavenly Hands Therapeutic Massage at Acacia Full Service Salon located at 2940 Inwood Dr. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 10, 2006) 18. Motion to approve a request by Avery S. Dotie for a Massage Operators license to be used in connection with Acacia Full Service Salon located at 2940 Inwood Dr. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 10, 2006) 19. Motion to accept a grant from CSRA-RDC for senior adult wellness and recreation services in the amount of $80,681.00, and to amend the 2006 budget accordingly. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 10, 2006) PUBLIC SAFETY 3 21. Motion to approve Proposal From WK Dickson & Co., Inc. for Topographical Survey of the Webster Detention Center, in association with the upcoming expansion to the Detention Center. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 10, 2006) 23. Motion to approve Capacity Agreement FY2006 for state inmates being housed in the Richmond County Correctional Institution. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 10, 2006) 24. Motion to approve a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between Augusta, Georgia and Fort Gordon, Georgia. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 10, 2006) FINANCE 26. Motion to approve proposed Environmental Health Services Fee Schedule for the Richmond County Health Department. (Approved by Finance Committee July 10, 2006) ENGINEERING SERVICES 29. Motion to approve proposed Change Order No. 3 to Horsepen Sanitary Sewer Project AUD 50175. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 10, 2006) 30. Motion to approve Utilities Standards and Specifications Update. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 10, 2006) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 33. Consider a request from the Augusta Museum of History and the Augusta Metro Convention & Visitors Bureau to place banners along the street perimeter of the Augusta Museum of History property. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 42. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 29, 2006 and the Special Called Meeting held July 10, 2006 APPOINTMENT(S) 43. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Richmond County Board of Family and Children Services to reappoint Dr. Thomas C. Gardiner to a four-year team ending June 30, 2010. DELETED FROM AGENDA – REGULAR AND CONSENT: 6. Z-06-70 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to APPROVE a petition by Lisa Clark requesting a Special Exception to establish a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (F) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property containing .24 acres and is known under the present numbering system as 2629 Cranbrook Drive. (Tax Map 130 Parcel 171) DISTRICT 4 36. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Robert Harrison under the 1977 Pension Plan. 37. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Thomas A. Alley under the 1977 Pension Plan. 38. This is a request to classify the Investigator II position to that of an Assistant District Attorney position. 4 Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 16. Motion to approve Ordinances regarding a regulatory fee for entertainment venues and alcohol sales at entertainment venues. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 10, 2006) Mr. Williams: Motion to approve with stipulation that the ordinance be amended to be applied on a countywide basis rather than only in the downtown business district. Mr. Cheek: Second. Motion carries 8-0. PUBLIC SERVICES 20. Motion to Approve Bid Item #06-122 for a new triplex riding greens mower for the Augusta Golf Course to the low bidder who met all of the specifications, Kilpatrick Corporation for $18,198.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee July 10, 2006) [Tape starts here] Mr. Williams: --other people buy it and use it for years and years and years and we got to get smarter. We might have to hire two more mechanics and keep what we got running versus I make a motion to approve by new ones. But that’s why I asked. The question by clarified. it. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Williams: I just want to make sure we’re not just buying fancy mowers. We need the mowers that going— Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say in all fairness to Mr. Beck and the Recreation Department, I think if we could get just a recap on what your process is to determine whether a piece of equipment is no longer any good and how you dispose of it and if this is possibly a different piece of equipment than we already have. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck? Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, that is a very good question. And as I mentioned earlier this is probably the most important piece of equipment at a golf course, and that is your triplex greens mower. I can assure you that over the past—and I believe this 5 piece of equipment that’s been replaced is four years old. That sounds like not a very long time. A triplex greens mower cuts the golf greens every day. And that’s even during the winter, because you overseed with rye. The last couple of winters we did not overseed but the piece of equipment in maintained by our golf course superintendent and I can assure you because of the important of it he maintains that piece of equipment on a daily basis. When you use a piece of equipment that many days out of the year they wear out. You cannot continue to spend repair money on an old piece of equipment. It’s more cost effective to buy a new piece of equipment and one that will have some warrant with it for a period of time. I don’t remember if it’s a year warranty or what. But this again is a very important piece of equipment. It’s a regularly scheduled thing that all golf courses replace. We do end up keeping a back-up obviously because the greens have to be cut every day. There has to be a back-up piece of equipment just like there has to be for the fairway mowing equipment. We have to keep back-up equipment. So any equipment that might be seen under the shed is back-up equipment because if you don’t have the equipment you’ve got to be able to cut the grass even with an older piece of equipment. But as was requested I will get a list of the equipment we’ve got there, but again I would highly recommend your approval of this, and I hope that answers your question, Commissioner Brown. Mr. Brown: It does. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just want to say, Mr. Mayor, briefly that if you looked in the definition of a greens mower it says fancy mower. And anytime one of these things is used and it’s not in proper shape it shows immediately and golf course greens are the heart of a golf course. So—I grew up with my dad playing at the Patch. Recreation and Parks has done a marvelous job of making that golf course so much nicer and a very beautiful venue for this city. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 22. Motion to approve bid award of Bid Item #06-131 to Continental Construction as low bid for the renovation of Fire Station #3. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 10, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I asked to have this item pulled for further discussion. For those of you who have been paying attention here in the audience, and I know all of the other Commissioners, my colleagues realize that I am very concerned about the information that the city, this lovely city, our lovely city has made available about the DBE participation that we expect from vendors that we do business with. This particular contractor, that is, Continental 6 Construction Company, that is interested in doing business with us, being paid by us, providing a service to us, has 3% DBE participation. Three percent in my mind is not acceptable on a job that is $223,000. I think that it’s very important that if we say we want to be inclusive of DBE that the people who do not understand it when they come to us and get paperwork about bidding, we give them the opportunity to understand it by denying them contracts when they have not made good faith effort, which is what it says in our city charter, to include DBE. I cannot support this at all. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask the attorney and Yvonne Gentry, if she is here, if we are putting ourselves at risk for a lawsuit by declining this offer when it comes to the percentage that we’re looking for [unintelligible] set percentage when we don’t have a disparity study completed. Just wondering of the legal ramifications of a decision. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: If Ms. Gentry—I don’t see— Mr. Mayor: She’s here. Mr. Shepard: Well, I’d like to have her comment on the extent of good faith efforts. Sometimes they are—they make the efforts and I’d like for her for the record to indicate what good faith efforts have been made in this case, not just the percentage, but what good faith efforts were made. Although we do have a percentage of 3%. What good faith efforts did you find this contractor had made? I don’t have that information. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry? Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I had the opportunity to speak with Mr. Horton, who is the president of the company, to try to ascertain and understand his method that he utilized to do a good faith effort and promote DBE participation. However, I encountered a number of challenges in trying to obtain this information. First of all, the 3% that Commissioner Brown referenced, I am not in support of that. I had a conversation with the gentleman today. He’s not certified with DOT or any of our certifications. Having a telephone conversation is just not sufficient for [unintelligible] department and it’s not based on the policies and procedures in order to verify that the individual is a true DBE. In addition to that, Mr. Horton wasn’t familiar with the procedure. He turned me over to his secretary and I had the conversation with her. He finally allowed me to know that he received a number of opportunities with the city and has never had to follow these procedures. And I reminded him of the bid document language that is in every contract that has been let within Augusta Richmond County and shared with him that my office has always been available to answer any questions and that going forward he would see this along with the local [unintelligible] ordinance that we have in place now. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, bearing that in mind? 7 Mr. Shepard: There is, there is no disparity study yet. You’re correct, Commissioner. I would say that we don’t want to risk saying we have some sort of quota system. I think we do have a good faith effort system. It’s apparent that there could be a challenge to this contract. I would suggest in the absence of the disparity study that this be approved. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got two problems. First of all, my problem is with Ms. Gentry, because she as the DBE person should have brought to our attention—I thank Mr. Brown for pulling it—but I think Ms. Gentry know how important this is and how we be trying to work. We don’t have a disparity study. I understand that. But I think her job is to report to the Commission and let us know whether or not these bids or the contractors meeting the guidelines. When we get in here we find out they hadn’t met them. That’s my first issue. The second issue is how can the charter demand for us to have a DBE person on board but not have a disparity study to say what we going do? Really, I mean that’s like having a horse with no wagon, a horse without a saddle, Mr. Holland. It’s no good. That don’t make good sense. But when those issues—and I don’t expect Ms. Gentry, Mr. Mayor to manhandle or to make anybody. Her job simply is to tell us it’s not in here, I disapprove with that strongly, not just smile and say I disapprove, but strongly let us know that this company is not meeting the guidelines. Now, you talking about suing. There’s been a number of suits. I mean this man going to have to get in line, Mr. Shepard, before he can get it to the courts. So if he’s going to sue—I can’t support it and it won’t be the first time [unintelligible] somebody to sue. So I’m with you, Mr. Brown. I can’t support this and I would not vote for us because the people can continue to be blatant as if—what Ms. Gentry just told us, that they had never had to do it before and they not going to do it now. Well, they don’t need no more business. All the money they done made, they done made it. But I can’t support it, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Let me just speak to the disparity study. I believe we did approve moving forward with getting pricing on the disparity study. I will publicly state that I am strongly in favor of getting that done so that Ms. Gentry can have the teeth that she needs to really—you know, ultimately we’ve got to get that disparity study done. And I agree with you, Mr. Williams, if it was called for in consolidation it’s high time. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can comment, one short comment. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Maybe we need to wait until we get a disparity study where Ms. Gentry can go to work then. She’s not going to be able to do anything without the study, I mean from the way it looks now. I mean she be able to go to them, but if they say no, it means so why? It means—we send a signal out and I’m going to support any more of them that come through here that does not have the participation that we’re trying to get in Augusta. If it’s not here, go find it. That’s all they got to do. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? 8 Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m wondering if with this project she had—we had more bids to come in, maybe not lower, but with more emphasis on the type of participation we are looking for? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry? Ms. Gentry: It’s my understanding that we had two bids to come in. that’s correct, we had—we solicited a number of vendors but however, we only had two bidders to come in and Procurement policy is to go with the lowest responsive bid, and which that is what she did. Ms. Beard: Well, could you enlighten me in reference to the other bid? Do you think it placed a [unintelligible] emphasis on the type participation we are looking for? Ms. Gentry: Well, even if that had came in I would not be able to based on the policy and the procedure. I would not be able to argue the issue that we should go with the highest bidder simply because they have the highest amount of DBE participation. Ms. Beard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I do think that is something we could look at. Mr. Mayor: I agree completely. Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I respect all of the comments made by my colleague. There are a couple of things that I’d just like to mention, one being the comments made by the owner of this particular business about his doing business with the city for over 30 years and never having to include DBE, did not know what DBE is, is a slap in the face. The other thing is we can’t change anything about what has happened in the past, but if this Commission says that they want DBE participation it’s not up to the contractor to get DBE participation. It’s up to us to say—to provide them the information, let them know that that is what we want, for us to stand behind it after we say that’s what we want, and require them, if they’re going to be paid by this government for work that they do, that they must bring the proper amount of participation or we will not support it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I think we’ve had enough conversation, but before we go to a vote I would like to add that Ms. Gentry does have DBE contractors that could do this work who chose not to bid on this project because it’s not profitable for them to bid such a low price. So I don’t think we are being exclusionary here when we choose lowest bidder when we have DBEs out there that did not bid. I guess some Commissioners want us to go out and shut down every project we have going on until we get the DBE participation from henceforth but that’s not going to solve the problem of DBEs not bidding on projects we give them to bid on. I call for the question. Mr. Mayor: The question has been called for. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 9 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Point of order, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Williams: I need the parliamentarian to [unintelligible] what the question mean when it been called. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: It means that it’s a request to end debate [unintelligible] unreadiness to end debate. The question has been called and the issue is, is there any unreadiness for moving [unintelligible]. Mr. Williams: And Mr. Mayor, if the attorney would assist me, in helping me, but when the question been called it does not mean you vote on the issue. The question mean that you will vote to see whether there is a proper number of votes to continue. And then if it’s not we go to the agenda item and vote. Now, we been skating by that, but we going do the rules for here on in. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: We going to follow all of them. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The question has been called. Mr. Parliamentarian? Mr. Shepard: Is there, is there—I think the questions—here again I call it unreadiness. Mr. Mayor: It does take a formative vote, though. Do you have a copy of the rules there, Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I do. And I think it takes an affirmative vote to decide if we’re going to vote on the main motion. So the first vote is on the motion to call the question. So you’d vote twice. And the question is, is there any unreadiness? Mr. Mayor: Is there—there’s unreadiness, but we do—can you refer to that section of the rules, please? Could you read the section, Mr. Shepard, on call for the question, 3.04.06? Mr. Shepard: Well, it’s also known as the vote immediately section. Mr. Mayor: Would you please read that section? 10 Mr. Shepard: I’m about to do that, sir. The first caption, vote immediately, the next is call the question. A Commissioner may move to call the question, i.e., move to end discussion when it is clear that further discussion is unnecessary or the discussion is becoming repetitive. This motion will not require a second and no discussion on the motion shall be allowed. If there is no objection then it will be presumed there is unanimous consent. Should there be an objection, an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission council shall be required. So Mr. Bowles has called the question. It need not be seconded. And the— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams has raised an objection. Mr. Williams: Correct. Mr. Mayor: So the appropriate action would be for the Commission to vote on this, on the call of the question. An affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission shall be required, so we need to majority vote to overrule Mr. Bowles; correct? Mr. Shepard: No. You need to—to end the discussion you need to have a vote to call the question. Not just call the question. There is a vote—we are one motion ahead of a motion on the main motion. Mr. Cheek: Point of parliamentary procedure. I believe at this point— Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: --the Chair can rule that there is unreadiness to vote and proceed with the debate if a vote, a call for a vote has not been made. So Mr. Mayor, it’s in your hands. If we want to continue to talk about it, let’s continue to talk about it. If we want to vote on it, let’s vote on it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian? Mr. Shepard: Well, I suggest that we take a vote on the unreadiness question, Mr. Mayor. And there will be no question that there is no unreadiness. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we have a question of readiness. Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: With all due respect, Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say that the comment made by my colleague, Commissioner Bowles, that there are some Commissioners who would like to see all projects shut down, in my mind all Commissioners who say that they want to include DBE participation at a rate higher than 3% need to be thinking about shutting all of these projects down. Mr. Mayor: We will now have the vote on the readiness. Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor? 11 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith? Mr. Smith: What are we voting on? Mr. Mayor: Y’all are voting on whether or not you’re ready to vote or not. Are you ready to vote? Please vote in the affirmative or the negative. Mr. Williams: We voting to see whether we want to vote on the agenda item; is that right? Mr. Cheek: Voting to vote. Mr. Mayor: Madame Chair, Madame Clerk, do we have a motion for or against the agenda item itself? The Clerk: No. We haven’t gotten there yet. We’re voting on whether to proceed to vote on the motion. Mr. Williams votes No. Mr. Holland abstains. Vote carries 6-1-1. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion now that we deny this contract to this job. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Brown: I second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to deny the contract and a second. Is there any further discussion? The Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I have to agree. If we’re going to get there from here we’re going to have to [unintelligible] Mr. Brigham, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Smith vote No. Motion fails 5-3. Mr. Cheek: No action, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: No action taken. Ms. Bonner, next agenda item. The Clerk: FINANCE 12 25. Motion to approve the replacement of one airport security sedan for $19,982.60 from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta (Lowest bid offer on bid 05-159). (Approved by Finance Committee July 10, 2006 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m not objecting to this but in the backup it says Marshal. Now, is this a car for the airport or is this a car for the Marshal? I just want to be clear, where is it going? Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, please. Mr. Crowden: Ron Crowden, Fleet Manager. The car is purchased by the airport for the security and to be used by the marshals and airport security, which the Marshal’s Department provides that for them now. Mr. Williams: But it will be an airport car? Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir, that’s correct. Mr. Williams: It will state that on the car? Mr. Crowden: That is correct, sir. Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve, Mr. Mayor. I got no problem. I just didn’t want to be confused with it. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 27. Motion to approve 2006 Proposed Internal Audit Schedule. (Approved by Finance Committee July 10, 2006) Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I had this pulled because I thought this needed some discussion. This of things that the internal auditor is going to do is in here but in my mind I think we need to 13 have a set list that he’s going to go through and report back versus giving a list of things that we don’t know when they will come back. Because it’s so much. But I think there ought to be a process where if he’s going to take the 12 items, 1 through 5 and give us a reasonable amount of time, that that would be brought back so we know that’s done. When we turn an accountant loose with some figures and there’s no time span, I think that’s unwise. Mr. Cosnahan is in the back. I just think that we ought to have a set number of items that he’s going to address and then that report be brought back to us and then will take it from that to the next [unintelligible]. If you say from 1 to 12, how do you know he’s not starting at 12 or 4 or 6 or 8? I just think there ought to be a process that we instruct him and get back. Now, he ain’t new to this government. I mean he’s been here for a while. He’s done been through these same departments probably ten times, and maybe more. But he know these departments. It ain’t like somebody walking off the street. It ain’t going to be as much [unintelligible] for him as it would be somebody else. So we ought to have a time span where he can go into [unintelligible] department, do what he got to do, make sure that the department head give him the necessary papers and we will have a list of what he supposed to do and when he’s supposed to do it. And I don’t mind Mr. Russell give him that, that set number, Mr. Mayor. I just think before we approve it—I’m not against it—I just think we ought to have a process versus just approving and say well, these things are going to be done. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: If I can, and with the permission of the body, I would be more than happy to provide a schedule for every 30 days or so, an update on where we’re at and what we’re doing and the process that we’re going through. It seems to me that just off the top of my head some of the cash review reviews could be done fairly quickly so in 30 days we’d do one or two of those and get that back to you and I’d be happy to provide that schedule to you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I make that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor, that the Administrator do that so we can keep up with what’s going on . We assign a lot of duties and we pay a lot of monies. But we don’t have any way of inspecting what we expect so I think that just be another way that we can inspect what we expect and I think the Administrator has got a great suggestion. That’s in the form of a motion. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 28. Motion to approve Resolution to waive Performance Audit. (Approved by Finance Committee July 10, 2006) 14 Mr. Cheek: Move to approve. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I need to know exactly what that entails, what are we going to do if we waive the performance of the audit? Did we not go through a bunch of headaches and stuff. Mr. Shepard, I guess you be the man that answer that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We had discussed this matter I think in a previous meeting. The city is audited every year by Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, is the current contractor for the audit, and it was pointed out to me by the bond counsel, Mr. Gray in Savannah, that the audit, the annual audit, which will next be done—it’s ongoing now, as you know, but it would be next done in 2007, could stand for the—or be utilized for purposes of the general obligation bond, which is supposed to be issued here later this year. And there are—if we don’t pass this we will not be able to utilize that audit for this bond. We will have to get a separate audit. And the idea was to get more mileage out of the annual audit so that it stands for the audit, the performance review of the bond. And that would—the performance audit itself basically audits the expenditure of the bond proceeds, which have not been realized because we haven’t sold the bonds yet. So you can get more bang for your audit buck, Mr. Williams, if this resolution is approved and the notice sent out. So that’s—it basically is saying that we think the audit of the city as a whole stands for the performance audit. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I got some serious issue with this one. You know, we been talking about this one. We paid $10,000 more than what the bid came in. You talk about being sued, but we paid $10,000 more and didn’t, didn’t get a response from the auditors, and then asked them to come and they wouldn’t even come and stand before this Commission. They didn’t respect us enough to stand here and at least tell us. They was out on a conference of some kind. And we going to waive? I disagree, Mr. Shepard, when he said that we going to get more bang for our buck. We going to spend more bucks and get less bang cause we spending $10,000 more. And this is an old firm again who’s been in this government for ten years or longer, who been doing work for us, and we chose to go back with them and now we going to talk about waiving? No, sir, I can’t support this either. Now the bond that we need to have the audit done for [unintelligible] 2008, 2007, whenever we need to do it. I think we just going to have to do. Cause I really don’t support a company who, who we going to waive the requirements or waive the bond issue because we think we going to get more bang for the bucks. I think something wrong with this picture, Mr. Mayor, and that’s my comment and I’m going to 15 make a motion that we deny the waiving of this and have them to come and do what they supposed to do. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we already pay for an annual audit. They are going to audit the bond funds as part of the annual audit. If we don’t waive this performance audit we are going to be paying to have the same funds audited twice. I don’t see the necessity of that. If we were talking about doing away with the annual audit I would have a whole different problem with this, but to do away with a performance audit that is going to be included in our annual I’m going to make a motion that we approve this. audit anyway is unnecessary. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, again I don’t see the logic in some of the lines of commentary today. We were comparing apples and oranges. If we are in fact having an audit performed it is absolutely a poor use of the taxpayers’ funds to spend twice just for whatever reason, the bad feelings on our part of whatever. The bottom line is we are having an audit performed. It will serve the same function. We should be good managers of the people’s resources and not spend twice for the same thing. I’d just like to see us all walk on the same side of the street. We talk about saving money but we’re going to spend it for no good reason. That doesn’t make sense. I support the motion. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I agree with my colleagues, Commissioner Brigham and Commissioner Cheek. What I am disappointed about is I have not heard anyone who seems to have this same amount of concern about where we are with the company we’re doing the audit with, what our deadline is, time lime is, and I did not hear this amount of discussion I don’t believe about them being late with providing us the information. If the information had been provided to us on time, what we’re talking about now would not be necessary. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this performance audit is related to the 2006 audit, which will be conducted in 2007, which we’re not even in the process of even finished with this calendar year so we can even do an audit. So I think we’re mixing apples and oranges. I understand the concerns about the lateness of the audit. I wasn’t here when the firm was hired. I wasn’t here. I was here when they were extended to do the audit. I voted the do the extension cause the work couldn’t be completed. I understand that. If we want to talk about that, let’s talk about that, but let’s separate it from the performance audit for 2006 for the bonds that are being issued. That is going to be part of the 2006 annual audit anyway. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Williams? 16 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t do any of this audit stuff but I do know that there been any conversation about folks who supposed to come to the table and tell us some stuff. We been tricked. We been bamboozled so many times that I don’t trust none of them when it comes to doing any audit. Now, you talking about waiving something. When we go out our way and spend extra money that we said we don’t have to retain a firm and then the lateness and something not been prepared, not here, and we want to waive something? Well, this ain’t the first time we done cost this government some money that we shouldn’t be paying. I just think we get confused so much about the stuff that’s brought to us and need to be waived for one reason or another. And I’m not for that any more. I’m not going to support this. The company, the firm have not brought, have not come to the table, and even discuss what we should be doing. Now, we have to depend on Mr. Shepard to lead us and guide us. And whether that’s good or bad, but that’s who we depend on. And I think that we ought to have somebody who cares enough about this government [unintelligible] to express to us cause we hire those people to do those things and I’m not for waiving anything. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the record needs to be clear on one thing. If we had any concerns at all when the original bid was written up and the denial or original attempt at denial of existing firm for the audit was made, it was used by using legislation that was non-relative by the governance for the Securities and Exchange Commission of the money markets, nothing to do with the local governments and the audit process. And that was used to deny. So if anybody’s got any concerns about process, they ought to go back and see how somebody used a hokey law that doesn’t even reflect the process in this particular situation to deny somebody access to the bid process. I mean you talk about hokey, that was in the beginning, and an attempt to bring somebody forward that was friendly to our former finance director. Again, it’s something that if we have concerns, we should be concerned there, not with the fact that we as a Commission decided to let the people do it that was completely within the law and not allow the process of a good audit firm to be thwarted by use of a hokey regulation that didn’t even relate. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: I just wanted to know how long have we been dealing with this particular company and what is their record with us? Can Mr. Shepard or anyone answer that? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Commissioner, are you talking about Cherry, Bekaert & Holland? Mr. Holland: Same company. Mr. Shepard: I believe that they are in the [unintelligible]. They have audited this government for I will say at least five years. And—but this does not relate to their present audit. This relates to the 2006 audit, because as Commissioner Brigham is correct, will be done in 2007. And the audit that we are going to have to have anyway will cover the bonds. This is 17 simply not to have to have a separate performance audit because the audit is going to be done anyway as far as our general audit. And the resolution should be as a technical matter updated so th that the publication, if it is authorized, is authorized during the weeks of Monday, July 24 and st Monday, July 31. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Is there—Ms. Beard, excuse me. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I was simply wondering with the one audit, are we meeting all of the requirements, the state requirements where bonds are concerned? Do we have some changes in reference to that? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I think this was [unintelligible] that the first [unintelligible] first applied to the 2006 year, when we issue the 2006 general obligation bonds. So basically the rule is if you don’t pass this type of resolution you end up having to do a separate audit on this bond issue. But what I’m trying to express to you is that whoever the auditor is, it will be properly audited in the general audit that we will have to do next year. Mr. Mayor: So we are in compliance with all— Ms. Beard: We only need one. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Ms. Beard. That’s what I should have said. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams votes No. Mr. Holland abstains. Motion carries 6-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, please. The Clerk: 31 and 32 are companion items, Mr. Mayor. PUBLIC SERVICES 31. Update/discuss New Ownership Application: A.N. 06-30: A request by Yong Pyo Hong for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with MLK Lounge located at 2238 Martin Luther King Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Requested by Commissioner Williams) 32. Update/discuss New Ownership: A. N. 06 - 28: A request by Yong Pyo Hong for a retail package Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Milledgeville 18 Spirit Center located at 2238 Martin Luther King Jr Blvd. District 2. Super District 9. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, these are yours. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to get an update as to where we are. It’s been three, if not four, I know at least three incidents where people have lost their lives in this facility. The Sheriff came and had it on the agenda for our committee and [unintelligible] pulled it off. I need to get an update as to where we are with this facility out on MLK. Mr. Mayor: Is there anyone representing staff to speak to this issue? Mr. Speaker: [unintelligible] just to let you know, both these items are the same location. The front part of the location is a package shop. The back part, which most people who are not from that neighborhood wouldn’t see initially in the daytime is a lounge. There have been several incidents there. We have been looking into both the new applicants, which has If possible we would like to [unintelligible] old application and we are planning to take action. get it added to the next committee, Public Services agenda. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, okay if it’s coming back to Public Services, next committee meeting, I can wait till then. The community, the neighbors have really been up in arms about this. They have several people lost their lives in this facility. The traffic is just humongous at night going through there. You would think that the [unintelligible] and I think something really needs to be done to address that. I can’t see how they be in compliance but evidently they are I make a motion but I be looking to hear from you at the next committee meeting, Mr. Mayor. to receive this as information. Mr. Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a question for our attorney is, on establishments that have a persistently bad problem like we’re seeing here, is it within the rights of this Commission to revoke their license and shut them down? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, it would be assuming you have an evidentiary showing. I think it’s a due process issue and you could conduct that type of hearing if you find violations of the ordinance. The sanctions are there to suspend or revoke. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to receive as information. Do we have a second? The Clerk: We do. 19 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 34. Discuss the execution of contract documents, ordinances and resolution, etc. that have been approved by the Commission. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, we been discussing and talking about rules and guidelines and what’s to be followed. We know we had a bond swap that [unintelligible] for quite some type. I think it finally got signed. I want to know what, what’s the process, what does the parliamentarian rule? What does the rule say about those documents that’s been approved by this Commission? I think in this case 8-2. But what’s the process from the parliamentarian that we supposed to carry through? I vow to listen and follow the rules but if I’m going to do it, you can rest assured everybody else is going to do it, too. So I want to make sure that we know the process, we know what’s supposed to been done cause we waited almost a month and a half, if not two months, to get that done and it shouldn’t have been that way. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Parliamentarian? Mr. Shepard: I don’t know that it’s what I would call a parliamentary issue but it’s an issue of authority. The Mayor is directed and was authorized and directed to sign those documents which were passed authorizing the bond swap, the actual supplemental bond resolutions and documents that are either necessary or convenient to the execution of that contract, is what it is. The Mayor has the duty I think to sign the contracts. An alternative to that is to designate the Mayor Pro Tem as the appropriate signatory. The charter states as to the Mayor Pro Tem—you probably read it, Mr. Williams, as much as I have—says that you have authority as entrusted to you by this Commission. So the alternatives are that if you say nothing in the motion the matter is presented, the resolution is presented to the Mayor for signature. If you designate that the Mayor or the Mayor Pro Tem is authorized to sign documents then you have certainly vested or entrusted sufficient authority in you as the Mayor Pro Tem to sign documents. But basically the usual procedure is after matters are passed in this body, contracts and other documents are presented through the department heads to my office for approval as to form. I approve them as to form and then I forward them over to the Mayor, who signs them. He signs them in the presence or in the immediate presence thereafter of the Clerk so that there is a check and balance there. And each one of those documents that we ask him to sign are first initialed by me. So that’s the process of what happens to something when it’s passed here. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can continue? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? 20 Mr. Williams: When the Mayor doesn’t sign those, Mr. Shepard, if there is a legal or legitimate reason for something to be delayed or something not be signed—you talked about the Mayor Pro Tem and his duties, and that duty says in the absence of the Mayor the Mayor Pro Tem will perform those duties. And if you going to put in, if you going to change the charter, if you going to add to the charter and add the Mayor Pro Tem when it comes to documents and legal [unintelligible] it says in the absence of the Mayor, the Mayor Pro Tem [unintelligible] not the case then I can [unintelligible] Commissioner Mays who was the Mayor Pro Tem had signed some legal documents in the absence of the Mayor. But when these documents was not signed, and you and I, Mr. Attorney, had a long conversation and we talked back and fort many, many times about the documents and what we needed to do. And I spoke with the Mayor about it. But in the event those are not done are we following the guidelines, I guess is what I’m asking, Mr. Shepard? Are we following the rules and regulations that we were sworn to uphold when we took this office, is my question. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? But let me speak to just a point of clarification, Mr. Williams. With regards to the bond swap documents I was in receipt of those documents. Steve had a complete initialed set of those documents at 4:45 last Thursday, at which time I immediately signed the documents. But that’s as Mr. Shepard has stated, the standard operating procedure for my office has always been that when I receive a complete set of documents, original documents that have been initialed by the attorney, I then sign then and Lena attests them and they’re a completed transaction. But with regards to the swap agreements I was never in receipt of a complete set of documents until last Thursday at 4:45. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I guess we can do it right here as good as another place, but when I came to your office on that Monday morning you told me that you was not going to sign those documents and I said to you as the Mayor Pro Tem I would sign them. And when I called the attorney and asked you were there any legal reason that it wasn’t going to be signed, because if there was something wrong we wouldn’t want to sign them anyway. In fact we wouldn’t have voted on it. But since it was approved by eight Commissioners and you had not signed them and I expressed to you, Mr. Mayor, if you don’t sign them, then I will, and the [unintelligible] came to one of us as Commissioners or the Mayor or the attorney to get six votes to approve for the Mayor Pro Tem to sign then, I asked the question how can we reapprove something that has already been approved? If it was approved, it was approved? Mr. Brown: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to say for point of clarification we started out talking about a general process, now we are—we’ve changed streams and we’re talking about a specific time. If we’re going to talk about the general procedure I think we should do that. If we’re going to talk about a specific instance I think we should do that. But it’s very confusing for me, as well the audience if we don’t clarify exactly what we are speaking about. 21 Mr. Mayor: And if we’re sticking to the agenda item, Mr. Parliamentarian, it would be proper to simply talk about the process; is this correct? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we’ve already talked about the bond, I mean the swap and I have no problem continuing on this vein, because—but that’s probably the most recent example of document flow, and I think it’s an example of document flow. It can be referenced in a general discussion of the execution of contract documents, ordinances and resolutions. So I would say that we could continue on referencing that specific example. And one point that I think I need to make, perhaps not as [unintelligible] but there had to be a consent from two bond insurers and really that delayed the matter more from its [unintelligible] that delayed it until June st 21. And it was the ruling of the special swap counsel that the swap could not be completed until we had that document in hand. We got it in hand and then we needed the opinion of the special swap counsel. We got that in hand. And then once that was in hand there was an opinion that was requested [unintelligible] my office. So you have, you have certain contingencies that have to be satisfied and they were satisfied. It did take a long time. Our swap counsel was in receipt of several of the documents which he felt needed changes made to conform with the new [unintelligible] Georgia swap law and it just took time. Believe it or not, there was a backlog at the bond insurer which had Augusta’s request in it and they got to it and they executed it. So it was a drawn out process but there were reasons that they were drawn out. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m glad the conversation continued on on the bond swap so that mean I can continue on the bond swap as well. I just know if there was a reason for us not doing that—we understand delays, and delays can come up. But when the Mayor is authorized to do some things and I think he or she has to follow those same guidelines that everybody else have to follow. We know that there can be delays. We know that things can arise and those things worked out. But Mr. Mayor, we sat down and talked in your office and you explained to me that you was not going to sign them cause you didn’t feel comfortable with them. Now, whether you received them, but what you told me was that you was not going to sign those documents. So by not signing those documents and until some of these other Commissioners may have called or may have not called, but until we got those things done—[unintelligible] government I explained to you that I didn’t think it was right for you not to sign those documents if they was legal, that you did not have veto power, that you was maybe insinuating that you had by not signing them, and if you wasn’t going to sign them as the Mayor Pro Tem I would sign those and that’s how we got to this point. That’s how it got on the agenda. We didn’t just throw this up out here. Now, the attorney talked to me several times and everything’s in place. Everything’s in place, the attorney told me the bond counsel, everybody was ready, but the Mayor wouldn’t sign off so he wanted to get six signatures in authorizing me to sign them and I wouldn’t agree to that because I didn’t think we needed to approve or reapprove something that had already been approved. And I think it was your response, Mr. Mayor, to go ahead and do that. But if that’s the process, Mr. Shepard, we don’t need to talk any more. I know the process. But I just think everybody who follows those rules need to make sure that they understand they need to follow those rules. If it’s cost effective, if it’s not cost effective, if six votes voted for it it’s not breaking the law, you got to [unintelligible] to it and that’s what this government did not do and I think it was a slap in the face for this consolidated government not to have that done. 22 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I have recognized you twice. I did issue a memo to the Commission explaining what transpired so that’s part of the public record. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to speak to the larger picture of resolutions in general and I can go case by case but I won’t do it. But a good example I want to bring up is we as a body voted on, passed a resolution for a study to be done on the drag strip to be back at the end of January. And I can go down the list, several other things that we’ve stipulated under resolution by this body that have either gone to staff or some of our different agencies [unintelligible] that are either pocket vetoed or steered or whatever—and I’m not speaking of the Mayor’s office. I was going— Mr. Mayor: I was going to say please don’t say pocket veto with regard to me. Mr. Cheek: Pocket vetoed by agencies or perhaps our former city attorney, not our current one, but things that we passed. Energy conservation plan. I mean we asked that and asked the city to develop and energy conservation plan. Tasked an employee. This would have saved us countless thousands of dollars if we had gone with a pink alert program. Not a damn thing has been done. And it’s case by case, over and over again. The lack of follow-through on things this body, the governing body having jurisdiction, mandates, just not been followed through. And I for one am sick of it. Whether it’s an up or down on the drag strip is a good example. We asked for the study. It’s not rocket science. It should have been back in January. It should have been back before that. And it’s just not being done. And I, for one, I don’t know how we get to the bottom of why things get put off until we bring it back up again. Same thing with road projects that are under funded or something is missing. We never get told until we bring it up. I just think there needs to be some accountability on the part of the people we task to do this work, people our administrator trusts to do this work [unintelligible] to follow-through on it. If not, we need to, we need to put some teeth in this cause it’s just time out for what’s going on. Mr. Mayor: And can I just speak to that issue, and then I’ll recognize you, Commissioner Brown. I agree and I think generally one thing that could help that situation is that when we charge somebody to do that in the form or a motion or resolution that we put a drop dead date in there. That we say in the form of the motion that we want to receive this information, that we want this done by such and such a date. I think that would help some accountability of the process. Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: I’d just like to speak, Mr. Mayor--thank you—to the different, conflicting stories that surround the bond swap. I had been in conversations with different people on the Commission, as well as you, Mr. Mayor, and it seem to me like the paperwork—one of the stories I heard, the paperwork was delivered to your office but it was not complete, the paperwork went back to our attorney, then the paperwork was completed and came back to the office and at that time is when it was signed. Other stories that I have heard, but I mean I think the people need to know if there was not a complete set of paperwork delivered the first time there is no way that it could have been done any sooner—not that it couldn’t have been done any sooner, but there was no way it could have been completed at the time it was first delivered. So 23 I’d just like for it to be known that—I know that there are a lot of things that a lot of people are hearing about what’s going on. I don’t know, because I’ve heard several different stories, but I think that we need a process to make sure that things happen in the time that they should happen. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown, I completely agree. And once again, the standard operating procedure in my office is to sign the documents when I have a complete set that are initialed by the attorney. Mr. Parliamentarian, could you please clearly state for the record when I received a complete set of documents that have been signed off on by both you and the bond counsel? Mr. Brown: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Point of clarification. Could we get a delivery date for first set as well as the complete set? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, we discussed this. Let’s go on with the agenda. This is ridiculous. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, if you’ll speak to it and then I’ll entertain a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, you are correct. It was last Thursday. The first set of document delivery I do not recall off the top of my head but it was—it was before that, that’s true. Mr. Mayor: And that set of documents—correct me if I’m wrong—had with it a memo referencing some other things that needed to be accomplished prior to. Mr. Shepard: It did and that—I’ll be happy to share that memo with anybody. Mr. Mayor: Referencing a contingency that had to be met prior to being able to sign off on the documents. Mr. Brown: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I’d entertain a motion to receive that as information. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Brown: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams votes No. Motion carries 7-1. The Clerk: 24 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 35. Approve Early Retirement of Ms. Mary Birkinshaw under the 1977 Pension Plan. Mr. Brigham: So move. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 39. Motion to approve actuarial study by Georgia Municipal Employees Benefit System of the proposed 1977 and 1998 Pension Plan changes. (No recommendation from Finance Committee July 10, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Burns, could you speak to this issue? Mr. Burns: Good afternoon. Several months ago we formed a committee of employees, elected officials, members of the administrator’s office to review some of the pension plans. The plans that we focused on were the 1977 pension plan and the 1998 pension plan. We looked at several methods to improve what we currently have and the best option we could come up with was the Georgia Municipal Association Plan that we currently have for some employees called GMEBS. This item is basically to allow the GMEBS to do a study of the plan and let us know how much it will cost us to come into the plan and to enhance some of the features of our other plans. I can answer any questions you have about it at this time. Mr. Mayor: How much does—it doesn’t cost us anything? Mr. Burns: The money is budgeted in our professional services in our budget but we just wanted to make the Commission aware of what we were doing. We’re not asking for any additional funds at this time. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, if it’s budgeted and we [unintelligible] truly say about those two plans is they [unintelligible] so I think that we need to create some type of methodology to so I’m going to make a motion that we get us where our pensioners are in a better plan approve. Mr. Brown: Second. 25 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this plan will bankrupt the taxpayers of Richmond County. There is already a plan in place to give the employees a contribution, a defined contribution plan. We have not held up our end of the bargain on that. We should do a better job in contributing to match their proportion. But I thought we had already closed the 1977 plan. I thought it was a closed plan. Mr. Burns: It’s closed to new participants but there are several employees who currently are still contributing to the plan. Mr. Brigham: Closed to new participants? Mr. Burns: New employees would not go into the 1977 pension plan. They go into the 1998 pension plan. Mr. Brigham: And we’re going to change the 1998 pension plan? Mr. Burns: The 1998— Mr. Brigham: From a defined contribution plan to a defined benefits plans? Mr. Burns: This is an option that we’re just looking into. Mr. Brigham: For $2,000 that’s been budgeted, that’s going to cost the taxpayers of millions of dollars? No, sir. I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny this and I am not going to vote to do this. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Brigham: This is way to [unintelligible] taxpayers unnecessarily. I want to protect our employees as much as anybody up here but I don’t want to do that to the extent that we’re not looking out for the taxpayers. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Glad we done started looking out for the taxpayers, Mr. Mayor, is all I can say. Mr. Shepard, there was a couple of employees that been here [unintelligible] for some 18 years or longer; is this something that’s going to [unintelligible] them to be a part of? I mean how would that work? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, the study would have indicated how that plan could be changed and the costs of changing that plan. We were—I think the main thing that has driven all this process has been a feeling that the 1998 plan which is the defined contribution plan, was a 26 plan that our employees didn’t fully effectively use because they were making their own investment decisions. And the idea was that we tried to find a defined benefit plan, either a new one or reopen the 1977 plan. And overlaid on this was the fact that sitting on my plate when I came in was the filings that we needed to make with the employer determination section of the IRS. So I think if we find out how much it would cost we would then have an idea about whether you could change your defined contribution to a defined benefit plan. That was the idea. That was driving the whole process. And I suggested that we allow my office to finish the qualifications of those plans with the IRS. Like I said, that was sitting on my plate when I came to this office, and that was filing was done in March. It’s already done. It’s in the 150 day period, holding period, or consideration period, and you know, it’s now time to turn to whether we could afford to convert the defined contribution plan to the defined benefit plan. That’s been the whole concern of this process. We took a serious look at what would be available to our employees at their retirement and including social security, their personal savings, and where we could help them to define a benefit plan, because there was a feeling that that plan would be better managed than the individual accounts maintained under the defined contribution plan. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to name off a few companies that have had the defined plan that we are discussing. We’re talking GM, Ford, Delta, Boeing, Home Depot, and Cell One, who have all gone bankrupt in their defined benefits plan. There is not one company that is going into business today setting up defined benefits plan, for a reason. They’re all going to defined contribution plans to allow employees to understand the investment process and the importance of it. What we need to take a look at with the ’98 plan is increasing our percentage of our contribution from the city to the employees. That should be something we can do in- house, not to waste $2,000 to look at something that’s basically opening up a blank check in the future for our children to have to pay. Right now GM charges an extra $4500 for every vehicle we purchase just to pay for their defined benefits plan. It’s just a blank check. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, everything that my colleague has said is true. But the thing about a defined benefit program is that you can define your benefits at different levels. Pick and choose the program and the package that you want to provide for your employees. The truth is we’ve got employees that currently now can’t afford to retire. They stay on the work force beyond when they should because they have to. Those that do retired have to go to work in other places. It’s leaving us in a situation to where people—the people that could stay that are good employees are forced to go choose other jobs in other areas because there is really no benefit to staying 30 years and knowing the city’s water system or knowing the city’s sewer system or roads and drainage problems. What we have to do is two fold. One, we have to look at how we organize our government with personnel as far as total structure to make it more efficient [unintelligible] employees but the other thing is to provide a living wage and a benefits package that will keep, attract and keep the best and the brightest. This is $2,000. If it’s $2,000 and it’s budgeted, we spend a whole lot more on a whole lot less. I think it’s worth a look-see. Again, we don’t have to bankrupt the city. We can learn lessons from these people that had the golden parachutes and the full medical and look at things other companies do, like partial medical and 27 other things, to cut the overall cost but still provide a benefit for people that they don’t have at this point in time. I remind everybody it wasn’t a year ago or so that our employees couldn’t even go to University Hospital, so the pension and benefit plans and the medical plans that historically this city has offered its employees, the [unintelligible] plans and so forth have been dismal and it’s time to change that and take care of our people. Not at the detriment of our community. I think we can do both. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: For the sake of sounding redundant, Mr. Mayor, I agree wholeheartedly with Commissioner Cheek. I had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Burns and Mr. Leverett and they sat down and explained this particular plan to me. However, we’re not voting on a plan per se. We won’t. We are going to be voting on a study. So this will give them an opportunity or give this company an opportunity to work with our HR Department so they will come back and share information with us so that our employees will have an option to make a choice. Now, $2,000, we spend more money on parking tickets. We’ve lost more money than that on parking tickets. So I can’t see any reason why we can’t afford to have a study to help our employees, to give them an opportunity to have an option so when the time comes for them to retire they can make a choice as to what they would want to do. And I believe that with the meetings that they’ve had with the different department heads, most of them have already discussed this and agreed to it. So I agree with Commissioner Cheek and I support this for a study, for them to bring this information back. And if for some reason at that particular time it doesn’t pass, then it just doesn’t pass, we move on to something else. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny. Is there— Mr. Russell: [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: [unintelligible] My good friend Commissioner Brigham and I are probably as far opposite as one could be on any one issue. But when I arrived here about four years ago one of the things that we immediately began talking about and hearing about was the fact that our benefits package [unintelligible] does not keep up with the times here in this particular case and our retirement issue became one that was very quickly raised to what I thought to be a critical level. We’ve got employees out here that are working way past what I would consider to be workable ages because they cannot retire. I do not know if this is going to be as onerous to the public as it might be, but I think the fact that we are willing to spend the $2,000 or whatever to bring that number forward I think is very important. We might not be able to afford it. And I’ll be the first to tell you if those numbers come back and we can’t. We’ve unfortunately had to do that with similar proposals. But I think if would be well worth our investment for the funding for the study to take a look at those numbers and make sure we can or cannot afford it before we continue to move forward. Our employees are hurting in some areas and one of them is retirement and that’s something that when they leave here, be it good, bad, or indifferent, they can’t live in a way that’s appropriate in my mind. And I think it would be well worth our 28 participation in this study to determine whether or not that is an appropriate step for us and I would encourage you to vote for it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion on the floor to deny. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign. Ms. Beard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, Mr. Smith, Mr. Brown and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion fails 2-6. Mr. Mayor: The first motion we had on the floor was to approve. Commissioners, if there is no further discussion, will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Brigham and Mr. Bowles vote No. Motion carries 6-2. Mr. Mayor: On to engineering services. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 40. Authorize additional engineering services to Zimmerman Evans and Leopold in the amount of $445,000 for the proposed additional engineering services to support the Augusta Canal Licensing Process. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee July 13, 2006) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, to neglect and follow through with the FERC licensing that we’re in the process of doing for our canal would be as big a mistake as it was when we lost the lock and dam out by the airport. I urge the Commission to move forward and support this, to move forward with licensing to protect the canal and to keep Augusta in charge of its own canal. This is a step in that process. I make a motion to approve it. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m in favor of my colleague [unintelligible] doing all the things we can. But I go back [unintelligible] spending this kind of money we be inclusive. This is an ongoing situation. This is not something we’ve done the first time. We know that it’s coming through committee and Commission and we know [unintelligible]. I just want to know where are we with the process of the DBE participation along with the money we have spend and will spend continuing, cause this going to be an ongoing process. But like Commissioner Keith Brown said earlier, 3% not acceptable. We [unintelligible] go find some qualified. Not just anybody, but some qualified people to do that. I just want to know from Ms. Gentry where are we? 29 Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry? Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, thank you very much for this opportunity to speak again. I have met with Mr. Zimmerman and we have had an extensive conversation regarding the city’s expectation of including DBEs in the process and as it relates to architectural engineering projects. He provided me with documentation indicating that his company will be basically performing the bulk of this contract. There’s not really any opportunity. I even solicited companies out of Atlanta and he shared with me and I contacted them also to indicate that they are competitors so they would have had to have an opportunity to bid on this project, and which they did. The bulk, like I indicated, the bulk of the contract will be completed by this particular company. However, he provided me good faith information, enclosing the documentation that I needed. He will be utilizing a local DBE firm for all of his blueprinting services. In addition to that, we’ve identified an additional opportunity, which is surveying. So he has charged our department—we will working together to seek out opportunities as it relates to the survey. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brown? Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could we get an estimated dollar amount for the blueprinting work that we’re talking about as it relates to the $445,000 total? Ms. Gentry: It’s a very small amount but it’s $5,000. Mr. Brown: I don’t have a calculator but that’s mighty small. Ms. Gentry: It’s less than one percent, Commissioner. Less than [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, remind the body that this government lost its license, did not choose to renew it, almost lost the canal to another power generating company some years ago. And we’re currently operating without a license. Go back to the nature of engineering firms themselves. I for one am concerning about sending local money to Atlanta. We may all like the folks in Atlanta, but it is local money. If we made a good faith effort at this, one, and two, if this relicensing process, which has been ongoing for years now, is to be followed consistently, picking and choosing folks off the shelf may not be in the best interest of the city. We have got to get people that have a knowledge of the infrastructure, the process and the documentation required to pass this license. I’m all in favor of DBE participation. I’m not in favor of sending my money to Atlanta or wherever else just to vary the color of the applicants or the sex of the applicants. I am very strongly in favor of growing a pool of people here locally. And if we keep sending our money to Atlanta we’ll never do it, so there’s got to be ways to part up these sewer contracts and everything else to grow these smaller engineering firms and other groups. But we’re not there yet. This is important. We need to pass this. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith? Commissioner Brown? 30 Mr. Brown: I certainly agree with my colleague, Commissioner Cheek, and I don’t think that any of the discussion that we’ve had in the last few minutes has anything to do with the importance or anything to do with the support of not doing—I mean with the support of doing the licensing for the canal. I would just like for us to continue to be mindful that we as the local government officials must let the contractors who come to the table to do business with us know that we are serious about what we say, when we say we want DBE, DBE participation. I certainly support the licensing of the canal. That’s not an issue for me. I’m certainly in support of that. I’m just concerned that we say we want to do something but then we don’t hold the people’s feet to the fire to make sure that they do do it. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, do we have someone from that company here today? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks? Ms. Beard: Are you from their company? Mr. Jimenez: Yes. Ms. Beard: May I ask you a couple of questions? Mr. Mayor: Please come forward, sir, and state your name and address for the record. Mr. Jimenez: Jorge Jimenez, with ZEL Engineers, 435 Telfair Street. Mr. Cheek: Point of clarification. Is that an American name or European name? Mr. Jimenez: No, sir, that’s an Hispanic name. Mr. Cheek: That would be a minority. Mr. Jimenez: I own a third of the company. Mr. Cheek: Just thought I’d ask. Mr. Jimenez: Twenty-five percent of our labor force are minorities. Ms. Beard: How long have you been in this community and do you have any other minorities in your company? Mr. Jimenez: Yes, 25% of our labor force are minorities and I’ve been in Augusta for 44 years. I came from Cuba and I have met with Ms. Gentry. And I pledged to her that any place we can find a disadvantaged business enterprise that can do any of this work, we would do that. It is simply very difficult to find for this particular project, which is mostly environmental work. 31 It is very difficult to find and I have begged to help me find someone who could participate and this is not a closed door. We can bring people in. If they can contribute towards the goal of the project, if we can find some we’ll bring them on board. But I have tried to find them and I have not been successful. If I could find a surveyor, I know we could use that. In the past, on this particular project they have been over $50,000 in printing, all done by my friend, Augusta Blueprint Company, who does all of our reproduction, not just Augusta work, but all of my clients. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. [unintelligible] you ought to be able to attest probably better than anybody in this room how hard it is when you’re not brought to the table. I mean your background will express that you a hard worker but you been left out. And what we trying to do now in this city—and this is no direct [unintelligible] on your firm—but when you say it’s hard to find—and I know what you’re saying but that’s a slap in the face so to speak when you say it’s hard to find disadvantaged business or small businesses to participate [unintelligible] they may be. I think people have not had an opportunity. You’re not going to find a lot of people in your expertise because the door been closed for 2,469 years. That just a number I throw out there. But people don’t have the reason to come in your field and would never have the reason to come in your field. They would never have the desire to be someone who can do the work that you do because we always close the door on them. And I think Mr. Brown again made it clear. If we serious, we serious. We want to treat everybody right. We’re not trying to lean the ship one-sided. Now I hear all this stuff about what we done in the past. And that’s our problem. We done a lot of stuff in the past that wasn’t right. And folks don’t even want to talk about it. They want to act like it’s going to go away. It’s never going to go away until we address it, until we make it plain. It’s no knock on your firm but you know yourself that it’s hard to get in the door. If you don’t bring somebody in, if you don’t cultivate, if you don’t train somebody, if you don’t give somebody an opportunity they would never come in. And Mr. Mayor, that’s all I want to say about that because I just think that when you say it’s hard to find, as if there’s a special talent or special brain that a person got to do that and other folks just don’t have it, they haven’t had the chance. Mr. Jimenez: [unintelligible] Mr. Williams: And I want you to understand. We talked. This is not about your firm. But this is about bringing people, this whole community. We are a diverse community. We ought to be diverse in all our money that we spend. And that create economic power when you [unintelligible] money. You talking about $445,000 and you going to spend $5,000 in printing. And my good friend that you mentioned do a lot of printing for the same kind of folks. I mean, but he [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion—Commissioner Holland. Commissioner Brown, I think I’ve gotten you twice. Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. I want to commend the gentleman for coming forward and sharing this information with us. However, my concern is that during our last meeting, our last 32 Commission meeting, or our Commission meeting before that, I don’t know the exact date, I believe at that particular time I talked with Ms. Gentry about having a workshop and bringing people in and discussing these different kinds of contracts. And I believe that if we have these kinds of workshops and bring people in, you don’t know what kind of people you’re going to bring in that will come in and be able to do this kind of work. So I just want to know how far along are we on having this kind of workshop so we can have these people come in, share their knowledge and expertise in reference to these kinds of projects, and any other kind of project that we may have in the CSRA, because you can’t sit here and tell me that we can’t find them. Because we have people out there working with all different kinds of talents. They just need the opportunity. They need the chance. So we have a workshop and bring these people in. That would give you an opportunity to be able to make a choice as to who you would like to have to come and work with your company. So we need to have this workshop and I’m looking forward to us having this workshop so that these people can come in and share their knowledge and expertise so they can be chosen to get a piece of that big pie that’s been out there for so long. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks? Mr. Hicks: If I may, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’d like to speak to this for just a moment. We can go back to 1997, which was when we received word from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that Augusta’s application had been dismissed and another firm was first in line then to be considered for the license. At that time, the city [unintelligible] consolidated government in 1997 moved to acquire the services of a firm that had been working on this [unintelligible] license for a number of years. Already had the expertise, already had the experience built up, had the contacts with the FERC and with other folks involved. The federal agencies, US Fish and Wildlife, the Department of Interior, National Oceanographic Institute which looks after the [unintelligible] fish. All of these agencies. There was that firm and they were engaged in that time in this process. I don’t think that any of us thought it would take nine years before we finally reached—and it’s called an interim agreement I believe it is it. It’s finally [unintelligible] I wondered if I would ever see before I retired and that is an agreement between the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, and the City of Augusta, and now federal agencies have bought into this agreement, that is this tentative agreement. So we’re nearer than we’ve ever been before to moving into the final stages of licensing the canal. There has been a lot of intensive and detailed studies done and Zimmerman Evans and Leopold has done a right good many of them. [unintelligible], which is an environmental firm, has done—has carried the bulk of the load on the environmental. I just would say that to say that this is a project that’s been going on now for nine years. And everybody is at the table and working on it. And this really would not be a good time to change one of the players. Now, you can if you wish. That of course is the Commission’s decision if you wish to do that. But it really would not be a good time to change the players for whatever reason. I do know that Mr. Jimenez has been [unintelligible] but [unintelligible] degrees in some of the way that comports. But anyway Mr. Jimenez has worked real hard with local minority students. They have two graduates at Butler High, one a minority, a graduate from A.R. Johnson, a college freshman who is going on, who is working with them, and they hope that he’ll become a mechanical engineer and come back to work with them. And they’re really trying to grow their firm to be one that local minorities will be able to participate in 33 and own a portion of. That’s what they’re after. I just wanted to say, Mr. Mayor, that this really would not be a good time to drop [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Brown: I’d like to make a motion—I’d like to make a substitute motion, please. Substitute motion being that I would like to charge our city administrator to work with our Procurement Department as we approve, to approve this item on our agenda, but to also diligently work to include more DBE participation in this future. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that? Ms. Beard: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor. Madame Clerk, could you read back the substitute motion? The Clerk: The substitute motion is to authorize the additional engineering services to Zimmerman Evans and Leopold in the amount of $445,000 for the proposed additional engineering services to support the Augusta Canal Licensing process and task the administrator and the Procurement Department to include more DBE in contracts of this nature. Mr. Williams: Point of order, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: You mentioned earlier about a time line. If you going to do this, and you just going approve it, it’s going to be approved. That was your suggestion. Mr. Mayor:Can we amend the Amen. And I know where you’re going with that. motion to add some sort of a—not to make it so open-ended to give the staff better direction with regards to how to proceed? Mr. Brown: 45 days. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Would you please read back the substitute motion as amended? The Clerk: The motion is to approve the engineering services to Zimmerman Evans and to task the administrator and the Procurement Department to include more DBEs in contracts of this nature with a 45 day time line. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and second. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. 34 Mr. Hicks: Thank y’all so very much. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 41. Approve Phase I of the attached job descriptions and organization chart for the Engineering Department to provide a more efficient structure and increase productivity. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee July 10, 2006) Mr. Ladson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the Phase I— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Ladson. Mr. Ladson: Yes. The Phase I department revision consists of changes to the following positions. It is the administrative program manager, the preconstruction engineer, the county engineer, the traffic engineer for operations and maintenance, the traffic engineer for design and studies, and the land acquisition supervisor. The administrative program manager is being downgraded from a 55 to a 53 and that position is also being changed to the department finance manager. The job duties has also changed, also. The preconstruction engineer is being changed to the design and plan review manager and that pay grade is remaining the same. The county engineer position is being, is proposed to be changed to the construction manager. And that pay grade is also staying the same. The traffic engineer for operations and maintenance is being eliminated. We felt that we didn’t need two traffic engineers. And the job descriptions for the two traffic engineers is basically the same currently. And the land acquisition supervisor is being upgraded from a pay grade 50 to a pay grade 59. And basically this proposed revision will save the county approximately thirty--$33,000. So we’re requesting approval of this. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brown? Mr. Brown: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As a member of the Engineering Services committee I had the opportunity to see a presentation done by the Engineering Department that offered us all the information that made me feel comfortable enough to support this. I know a lot of times we talk about the financial impact that something that we do has on our government. Generally what we are doing is looking for items that do not cost us any money to be done. This particular proposition that we have on the floor at this time actually will save our city government $33,000. I did have some questions that were answered for me about different pay grades, how they changed, why they changed, and basically what I was able to understand from the people who put together this proposal is that their job descriptions as well as duties will be So I would like to make a motion that we accept changed in accordance with the pay raise. this, approve this and appreciate Mr. Ladson for the hard work he’s done in bringing this forward to us. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Do we have enough votes? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 35 Mr. Bowles and Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Williams: I’m going to support it. I know they are trying to do a good job but I know [unintelligible] but I’m going to support [unintelligible] I know there are some other things that going to trickle behind this and we talked about in committee so y’all get ready for it. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Cheek out. Motion carries 6-0. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 44. Discuss the utilization of Staff Attorney when the City Attorney is absent from Commission meetings. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, this is your item? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I asked the Clerk to put this on the agenda. On our last committee meeting we had the attorney I think was out of town for whatever reason, business or otherwise, he was out of town. But we used one of the attorneys from his office and we paid him at a rate I think the same we pay Mr. Shepard. But we have a staff attorney and I was really disappointed to have a staff attorney on staff and not utilize that person when he’s going to be out. There was some questions that came up that he couldn’t answer that he had to wait until [unintelligible] information and bring it back. I just want to know why are we paying or why are we using the attorney’s assistants in his office versus using our staff attorney? And we’ve done so in the past. We’ve had staff attorneys, that sat in here, and I asked the question [unintelligible] because if they were giving this information then we need to use them to [unintelligible]. So I just need to know [unintelligible] same rate and why do we do that? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mayor Pro Tem Williams, my policy is when I am not available to attend the meeting I have—my policy is to send attorneys that are either in my office or on the law department staff who I have allowed to second—not second-guess me, but be in the meeting and be somewhat familiar with the procedures. Last Monday, it was just my choice to utilize Mr. [unintelligible] because he has been in and out of these proceedings and has a good I think feel for how this Commission and its committees operate. I have in the past used Ms. Flournoy on particular committees to sit in for me. It’s just when the, when the area of expertise coincides with the jurisdiction of the committee I try to match those up. Last week I just chose to use Mr. [unintelligible] but I think that’s the only time I have used him exclusively. And that’s—it’s really something I try to keep the expertise matched to the committee jurisdiction. For example, Administrative Services--you don’t have a quorum. 36 Mr. Mayor: We just lost our quorum. Okay, Mr. Shepard, please continue. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, my policy is to send someone that I think is as familiar as they can be. And I call on my associate and I’ve call on the staff attorney for various times in the past. The last Monday, I just utilized [unintelligible] Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I will make a motion but I need to ask one other question. In the rate of money that we pay, one attorney’s office versus what we have, and we have a staff attorney. When we use—and I seen both attorneys here and this is no knock on one. But I think So I’m going to make a motion, Mr. we got to be cautious on how we spending money. Mayor, that anytime the attorney’s out and we have a staff attorney available, that we use our staff attorney to try to save as much money as we possibly can through legal fees by using staff attorney that’s assigned to this governing body. Mr. Brown: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles has just entered the room. I’d like to inform him of the motion that’s on the floor. Madame Clerk, could you please read back the motion for Mr. Bowles? The Clerk: The motion is utilize staff attorney when the city attorney is absent from Commission meetings. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Brigham out. Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 45. Discuss Commission's Rules of Procedures relative to the Mayor's and Attorney's ruling during the June 29th Commission meeting. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I asked this be put on for the last Commission meeting. We had a discussion, and I want to apologize to you, Mr. Mayor, and to anyone that I might have disagreed with or think that I was not being a Commissioner and [unintelligible] but I know the rules. I stated that earlier. Any time a Commissioner asks for a point of order that stops everything. And I think last week or last Commission meeting I was [unintelligible] very important, exciting agenda item we had discussed. You informed me that I needed to be 37 recognized through the Chair. I understand that rule. I agree with that rule. You informed me that I could only be recognized twice. I disagree with that cause what the rule says the issue, and underline issues, not just one issue or one meeting. Each issue—if I pull everything on this agenda, I’ve got [unintelligible] everything on this agenda. I try not to pull everything but the rules are 2.02 and you asked the attorney to read the rule and you gave him the rule number. And he read the rule you told him. But he knows when a point of order—and I asked for a point of order from the attorney who is the parliamentarian. When a Commissioner, he or she asks for a point of order, that don’t need a second, that stops everything so you can get that point of order. If you unclear, uncertain, when you ask for that, that stops everything, regardless how many times or who recognize you, when you ask for a point of order that needs to be done. Now, I been to those classes and I brought a book to you, Mr. Mayor, in my last trip to Savannah three weeks ago we had a rule—Commissioner Jimmy Smith was in the class with me. Conflict and resolution. That doesn’t mean that you upset with anybody. Conflict and resolution says that there is two different opinions. And you have to talk about those things. You can’t just look at them, you can’t just imagine that they are going to go away. You have to talk about those things. And the instructor was very, very good. In fact, she used the flag for an example, and that’s a [unintelligible] flag, the state flag, and how it offends some people and how it does not offend others. But she said that we need to talk about issues. And because I brought those rules to talk about, because I implement those things, I know there some things you thought maybe was going to happen. When any Commissioner asks for a point of order or point of clarity, then that stops. That don’t need a second. But the attorney who we pay—I’m very disappointed with—read the rule you told him to read. He didn’t tell you what a point of clarity was or point of order. And I think if apology is necessary, I’ve already done that, but I think I deserve an apology from the attorney as well as the Mayor who either forgotten, didn’t understand or just let it slipped by. But when I asked for a point of order that stops everything and I think the used to be Commissioner who is now the attorney knows that better than anybody, Mr. Mayor. And I’ve got those rules and I’ve got them marked them if you so need to know what they are and where they are in the rule book. Rule 2.02 and 1 and 3.06 is another one that calls for a point of order on each issue. And [unintelligible] clarification on whatever I need to get clarification. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, my point was in the last meeting—and you have said that Commissioners do need to be recognized by the Chair. Mr. Williams: I understand. Mr. Mayor: And there’s also with regards to all marks shall be directed to the Chairman/Mayor and not to individual Commissioners, staff or citizens in attendance. Personal remarks are inappropriate. There’s a part in here, too—but anyway, I agree with you. These issues should be debated. They should be debated in the proper fashion is the main thing I’m saying. And that was my whole point. I think we’ve seen—and you and I are in agreement on the fact that we need to follow the proper procedures. It makes this government run much more effectively. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think what you mentioned, and [unintelligible] had this debate, this discussion and you said that I had to be recognized by you. I agree. You asked the attorney to read that and he did. I agree with that. But when I ask for a point of order then no 38 other Commissioner, no other attorney, not even the Mayor [unintelligible] not just me. Any Commissioner that wants a point of order and I have to go through the Chair to do that. But I tried to do that and you would not acknowledge me. That’s why we had that debate, as you want [unintelligible]. Mr. Mayor: And I understand, Mr. Williams, but at that point you had been recognized twice and so I was not willing to recognize you at that point. But I would recommend once again rather than creating controversy around this body that you and I meet together to discuss it. I think that’s the most appropriate thing. And if you’d like a ruling from the attorney now, please— Mr. Williams: I would love to hear the ruling from the Attorney as to point of order and when a Commissioner asks for, and not [unintelligible] about being notified. We know that we have to go through the Chair and you recognized by the Chair. That wasn’t the issue. When I asked for a point of order, you told him what rule him to read and he read that. And as the parliamentarian he supposed to give you, give this body the right rule for what we ask for. And we knew we go through the Chair. I went through the Chair. I didn’t go straight to him. I asked through the Chair. But in the heat of discussion that could have got lost. I got no problem with that. But he needs to explain to this body what a point of order is when a Commissioner, he or she, asks for that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Williams, you were kind enough to include the verbatim minutes from the last time and you had requested a point of clarification. The— here again, I don’t want to be overly technical. Mr. Williams: [unintelligible] keep it simple, Steve, stuff what we need here today, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Williams, the point you made, the point of clarification was—if you wanted to rephrase that as a point of order then I looked at the minutes here, I didn’t see that you had raised it as a point of order. And for that I understood that you meant that [unintelligible]. I just—you wanted to say that a point of—a point of order indicates that a parliamentary violation has occurred. And the point that you made the point of clarification, the motion had been made and seconded and the Mayor had said the Commission will now vote by the usual sign. And so what point did you want clarified? What point of order? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I think if a motion fixing to be voted on and you are uncertain and you need to ask a question before the vote is taken, not after the vote—a lot of time we ask after—but before a vote is taken you want it specified, clarified, or whatever you ask for as elected official. Anyone on this panel due that right. And the attorney who supposed to, who been a Commissioner now, [unintelligible] just been an attorney, but one who been a Commissioner and asked for those same things himself while I sit on this panel with him and he going to get confused about a word [unintelligible] or whatever? I don’t buy that now. We pay him too much money for that, Mr. Mayor. So I need to know what—even though I misused the 39 word what do a point of order mean, Mr. Shepard, if any Commissioner ask for it? I guess that will help us out. Mr. Mayor: And let me just get some clarification, too, Mr. Williams. Is it proper for a point of order to be brought forth without the recognition of the Chair and is it proper for it to be brought forth after a motion has been made and seconded and the vote has been called for? Mr. Shepard: The point of order speaks to a violation of the parliamentary procedure that you would—you are contending that there had been at that time a violation of the rules of parliamentary procedure. Where we were, were just on a motion and a second. The issue was [unintelligible] so maybe I should have taken it as a point of information, a request for information. I should have interpreted it most favorably to you. And I did not. Mr. Williams: And you should have cause I asked for something and you should have known I needed some information of some kind and it has to go through the Chair. I realize that. But when you ask the Chair for a point of order or point of clarification or a point at all, the Chair supposed to what, Mr. Shepard, is what we [unintelligible]. Do they recognize you or they don’t or they can go on with the motion? That’s all we trying to figure out. Mr. Shepard: I think that they should [unintelligible] recognize. Mr. Williams: Thank you. And that didn’t happen. Mr. Shepard: Well, [unintelligible] heat of the moment. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor. I think that we need to understand that anytime a Commissioner asks for [unintelligible] point ought to be at least afforded that opportunity to ask [unintelligible] unreadiness is or what need clarified on or what he needs information on. And I think that will save us a lot of [unintelligible]. Through the Chair, like you said. [unintelligible] through the Chair, but the Chair have to recognize that as well. Mr. Mayor: Exactly. If there was a misunderstanding, Mr. Williams, I apologize for that. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we spend a good deal of time on things that are indeed important, but clearly the discussion of issues, 2.02 clearly states that you’re giving two times. One time is two minutes for discussion, and one minute for rebuttal. There is no such thing as a point of clarification. That language does not exist in the book. Therefore we need to look at points of information or points of order. My concern is on all of these debates, and I’m as guilty of it as anybody else, when we get off to chasing rabbits and we have a war story, when we ask for a point of information and it goes into an extended debate about what happened 2000 years ago, 1700 years before this country was founded, I grow weary of that. I don’t—I have things to do in my life like everybody else in this room has to do and I’m just very tired of hearing these long war stories. Let’s do the business of the city and keep the debate limited, Mr. Mayor, and as it’s been your intention, get us out of here at a reasonable hour. 40 Mr. Mayor: And truthfully I think the will of the body is that way and I think Commissioner Williams and I are on the same page with regarding to adhering to the rules. We’ll get there. We’ve been getting out of here earlier. So let’s move forward. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I have one— Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’ll let you make a brief comment. Mr. Williams: I agree with my colleague, but he’s got to understand that when you, when you elected to run or to take this upon your shoulders it’s not a walk-in and walk-out job. It’s a tireless job, it’s a thankless job, and it’s a job that you ought to be willing to do. Now, I don’t think we ought to sit here and go through a bunch of rhetoric to go over war stories, but sometimes that happens. Sometime you have to go back to bring people forward. And if it takes that, that what I’m going to have to do as long as I’m elected to bring the issues to the table so we’ll understand what we’re dealing with. Nobody wants to stay here. Nobody wants to stay here. Everybody wants to come in and go out. But it don’t work that way. And when it’s convenient we do it. When it’s not convenient—and we wouldn’t be going through all this now had we followed the process like we should have followed it in the beginning. And if y’all don’t want to accept that, we can keep adding things to the agenda and the Commission meetings just get longer. Mr. Mayor: Okay. This has been adequately discussed. I would look for, I would entertain a motion to receive as information. Mr. Williams: So move. Mr. Brown: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Any further discussion? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the institution of this government, this government chose to take on the gentleman’s agreement, which is not included anywhere in this, is a violation of [unintelligible] particular chair. I just am offering this for the body, Mr. Mayor. I had rebuttal earlier and I’m going to close out. I’m going to be brief. Is there have always been exceptions to the rules. It’s time for us to get down to the rules and follow the rules and do the business of the people. There are just some things that we need to iron out amongst ourselves. And having continued points of information brought up in a meeting when we have committees that go for six and seven hours, when we have telephones that ring in both directions, when we can call and ask questions, to hijack this entire meeting and have it dedicated around one or two of us is not doing a service to this entire body. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’ve recognized you twice on this. Let’s move on past this. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles votes no. Motion carries 7-1. 41 The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 46. Update from the Attorney regarding the investigation of the ING incident. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I had indicated in the minutes [unintelligible] this was tasked to Ms. Flournoy and I would like to present that through her in the legal meeting in the next item. Potential litigation. Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear. Say that again. Mr. Shepard: I said due to the fact that this matter involves potential litigation I would ask that the body consider it in the legal meeting which is to follow, the next item. She is here and she has an update. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion to receive that as information? The Clerk: But include it in legal. Mr. Shepard: Included in legal. Mr. Mayor: Okay, be included in legal. Mr. Brigham: I make a motion we go into legal session. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: We’re in legal. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: Call the meeting back to order. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d ask for a motion for you to approve the closed meeting affidavit wherein in executive session we discussed the acquisition of real estate, pending and potential litigation and personnel matters. 42 47. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Cheek: So move. Mr. Brown: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams and Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 6-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would ask for a motion which adds and approves an agenda item which specifies the details of accepting a donation of $80,000 for the purpose of purchasing property from the Knox Foundation for Greenspace property and that the Finance Department be instructed to make the necessary budget amendments to reflect the receipt and disbursement of that money and that Finance be allowed to assign appropriate account numbers so that the acquisition funds can be properly accounted for as received and disbursed and that I be authorized to complete a resolution to that effect after tonight with all those authorities. ADDENDUM Motion to approve acceptance of a donation from the Knox Foundation for Greenspace property. Mr. Brown: So move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Any further business? Mr. Shepard: I have no further business. Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission 43 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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on July 18, 2006. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 44