Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting June 5, 2007 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JUNE 5, 2007 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., June 5, 2007, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Harper, Grantham, Hatney, Beard, Williams, Cheek, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The invocation was given by Dr. Lucille Richardson, Pastor of Yoke Breakers Worship Center. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Pastor, if you could. We’ve got a little something for you. If you could come up, please, ma’am. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Dr. Lucille Richardson, Pastor of Yoke Breakers Worship Center is Chaplain of the Day for her civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community and serves as an example for all of th the faith community. Given under my hand this 5 day of June 2007. Thank you so much for your prayer. (APPLAUSE) All righty, Madam Clerk, if we could move into the delegations. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS A. Ms. Dorothy Jones. RE: Concerned citizen regarding the Augusta-Richmond County Government. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Jones, if you could state your name and address for the record and keep it to five minutes please ma’am. Ms. Ellis: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. My name is Gaynell Ellis and I reside at 2308 Woodsman Drive. As a concerned citizen of Augusta-Richmond County I come before you to address the observed state of our government and the mistreatment of its citizens. Over twenty years ago I came to a city of beauty and hope and now I witness with my own eyes a cancerous decay of a city that once held great promise and potential. Instead of an abundance of growth and prosperity I now see here and feel the hatred, arrogance, greed, betrayal and separation from elected officials who took an oath to serve all the people for the greater good of the city. We see commissioners close their eyes and visibly display a lack of interest in the matters affecting this city. Why would a major company come and stay in such a toxic environment that would affect its profits and productivity. Why would people want to live in a city that thinks on a small scale and offers entertainment and attractions that appeal only to a chosen few? In traveling I hear my city being the butt of jokes because of the petty Augusta politics and it’s politicians. Many of us are not laughing. It is without question embarrassing. It is our government’s attitudes keeping us from getting state funds in Augusta causing corporations to turn their heads away from our city. Just this year a magazine printed an article about our city and all the strip malls. Then there are all the negative newspaper articles. We are 1 self-destructing. We need government representatives who hear the community’s voices of need and want and not solely that of selected commissioners. The six vote, the private group vote and the arrogance of those who carry the loaded gun who sees and refuses to do what is fair. The six vote, the private group vote represents self-serving control of a few and the flaunting of this does not represent the consensus of the community or the commission. Sure, we all have partiality towards the races in which God himself has placed us in but without unity in the community our city will not grow and it will not prosper. Augusta Georgia is hemorrhaging from a state of a financial segregation. Is it that you do not want people of color, middle class and poor class to live like you live, take care of our families and take care of our families like you take care of your families? Do not be forced to live paycheck to paycheck and pay our bills and still buy groceries like you do. Dress like you dress, shop like you shop, drive what you drive and dine like you dine? Why must we be submissive to servitude while you are aggressive and wealthy at the expense of others? Why is it that if my black sister conducts personal business on her work computer wants viewing on her hard drive and results in her termination while my white brother’s protected by the same powers to be from the same scrutiny and therefore is not terminated. Same or similar offense or city employee violation, the same action and the same punishment should be warranted whether that city employee is a janitor or the City Administrator. Why is it that if a black commissioner questions and requests to see what a city employee is doing while using city equipment on city time requires a stance from the six vote, the private group vote. Would his request make a difference if he suspected it to be pornography instead of conducting private business make a difference or would the commissioner still be censored to prevent him from obtaining facts? After all is he not an elected official with the right and duty to protect the operations of the city and to address and reveal any violations. Commissioner Hollanddid not and has not violated any city ordinance. He is only guilty of ruffling the defiance of the six vote, the private group vote and its approval. Do the right thing, remove the censure and correct the wrong. Why is it that my black Hispanic sisters and brothers who qualify and apply for top paying jobs have to be loaded with a cargo of degrees while my white sisters and brothers are non-degreed, lacking the experience but are taught by degreed individuals. The minimum requirements are altered and the degreed requirements are weighed for them and they get the job, a slap in the face no cover-up and no shame. Why is it that we --- Mr. Mayor: Okay, ma’am. Your five minutes is up. So I’m just trying to be fair to the other delegations. It does state in the agenda that you’re limited to five minutes. And so thank you for --- Ms. Ellis: Thank you for your time. Mr. Mayor: --- that information. Next delegation, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS B. Dr. Lucille Richardson. RE: Milledgeville Road Community. 2 Mr. Mayor: And if you could, though you’ve done the invocation, state your name and address for the record, please, ma’am. Dr. Richardson: Dr. Lucille Richardson, 3030 Milledgeville Road. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Dr. Richardson: I’d like to talk today, good evening everybody on the panel. I want to talk about Milledgeville Road. Milledgeville Road is a street that runs and people runs that road everyday. We have Wesley Arms over there, it’s rat infested, run down, doors open and people are not doing anything for that area. But I can see that you’re fixing up downtown and fifty and sixty thousand dollars can go over there but fifty, sixty thousand dollars can go into Milledgeville Road and Deans Bridge Road. Mr. Holland, he’s a man that came out and wanted to do some things you censured him as the young lady stated for what reason? Prejudice does not mean black and white. Prejudice means that people need to get together in their group. Certain groups have prejudice. They fix up, they pick up on Wylds Road and all the other areas up there they got their greenery they fixed up around the corner from 3030 Milledgeville Road you have the, they have uh, re-did houses and they done fixed it up and there’s a street that’s going to be shut down coming straight to the Outbreakers, it’s going to be closed down. I think it’s unfair. I think that we need to get the business and you’re spending money unnecessary. Spend the money in the neighborhood. You’re worrying and concerned about the black race or the white race or whatever race it is. You concerned about that. I’m talking about the community. Ask yourself, what can you do for the community, not the community doing something for you. Mr. Holland, he come out, he tries to do the best he can and we’ll do the best we can. He’s got six people that needs to make a vote and you vote the way you want to vote because it’s your thing I guess. Anyway I want to say this. Milledgeville Road, Wesley Arms and all that area back there needs to be improved. Just because a person is poor or act poor don’t try to build up Augusta, Georgia and the downtown and don’t to the other, hiding Milledgeville Road and all the rest of the streets and all the rest of the places that need to be fixed up. People don’t even want to come into this city. Some people say well the blacks is not together. It’s not about the blacks being together. If it’s five or six people together that’s togetherness and there’s no money for the churches down there. Rats about this big running around. The people cannot even get a proper commercial loan because why? Their places are run down and if you talk too much you gonna condemn their places put them out. Now God is not in that. God is in the God of this. He says, Looky here, he’s saying let us come in unity. Somebody say well I don’t appreciate you, I don’t appreciate nobody in here that does not want to fix up that area. The place needs to be fixed up and give Mr. Calvin Holland an opportunity to do that. Give him the opportunity to fix up neighborhoods like you have in your other neighborhoods with the greenery and with everything else. It’s just a mess in Augusta. I’m not from Augusta but it’s a mess in Augusta and Augusta, I’m talking to all of us in here. All of us need to come together and stop this hypocrisy and stop all this ridiculing and stop all this unnecessary meetings and get together and let’s do something for the city. The only church on that building on that street that they can go by is 3030 Milledgeville Road and they can’t go by nothing else on Milledgeville Road to even get a commercial loan. Ladies and gentlemen to the panel, let’s get the job done. 3 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Madame Clerk, y’all please hold your applause ‘til the end. Madame Clerk, the next delegation. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS C. Rev. Clarence Grier. RE: Commission’s censure of Commissioner Calvin Holland. Mr. Mayor: And Reverend Grier if you could please, we know you, state your name and address for the record and keep it to five-minutes please sir. Mr. Grier: Clarence Grier, President of the Baptist’s Minister’s Conference of Augusta, Georgia. To the members of the commission and Mayor, once again the old ugly head of racism has popped up in our community. A few weeks ago you censured Mr. Holland for something that wasn’t even illegal. You with your six stooges got your votes --- Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, I believe that’s out of order. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, please keep it, no personal attacks. Mr. Grier: I didn’t call any names. With your six votes you came up and you censured this young man for nothing wrong. You said that if it was not wrong that you would call for a rescinding of that censure. But you guys got together behind closed doors and decided that when it came up on the next agenda that you would have somebody come up and say well I motion that the meeting be adjourned, you did that. Now what’s even more reprehensible is that you had this building encircled with people that morning praying and then you come up here and do something that despicable. You know it’s a sin and a shame that you guys do all of this stuff and you use prayer. Now let’s stop using the word pray like you use and use the right word. Prey. Because what you’re doing you’re victimizing the people of Augusta-Richmond County. You’re not doing what you’re supposed to do and you need to stop this whole crazy stuff. You need to do, serve all of the people of Richmond County. We need to know that we are just as important as anybody else. We pay just as many taxes, we support our city but every time money is funneled into this city it goes either downtown or to West Augusta. Just like the young lady said about Milledgeville Road. You need to ride through there. You go through once a year and you go where you want to go and that’s it. But you people better take mind. It’s just like the bible says. And I’ll say it again. Be not deceived. God is not ---. What you sow is what you’re going to reap. And there’s going to be a lot of reaping in Augusta. There’s going to be a lot of wailing in national --- because God is not pleased with Augusta-Richmond County and the evil acts that you people sit here as leaders and do all the time. Now just a few weeks ago on Thursday, May th 24 2007, Fox 54 news reporter said that the Hyde Park Study Committee was having an illegal meeting according to the Georgia Open Law Meeting Law at Augusta Technical College. When confronted by the news media about the illegal meeting and its attempt to circumvent it Commissioner Grantham asked Mayor Pro Tem Betty Beard to leave so that the media would have to leave also. Let’s come out in the open and be fair. All we want is fairness. Your city will not grow at all until you come down off your horses, come down on the ground meet with us and discuss this thing. Racism is more rampant in Augusta Georgia than it was in the fifties 4 when I was a little boy. It’s very racist. So you know, you sit here and people think, talk about you know Augusta’s moving forward. And, Mr. Mayor, you say you had a plan for our city. When is it going to be revealed? You know I want to see it. I really do. I pray for you every day that God will give you strength to do this job but the back door meetings must stop. Let’s come out and meet in the open and discuss this thing. Businesses are not coming to Augusta because of all of this stuff we’re doing behind closed doors. You know like the lady said the article in the golf magazine. What do you see in Augusta? There’s very little entertainment. Now the summer programs that you had you cut them out. Our youth are running rampant now because there’s nothing for them to do. You people are more concerned about your personal gain than the welfare of this city. And it must stop immediately. Mr. Mayor: Reverend Grier, thank you. You’re five minutes are up. And once again to keep it fair to everybody and I would like to tell you thank you for your prayers. Rev. Grier: May God have mercy on you. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we could move on the consent agenda. The Clerk: We have one more. Mr. Battle. Mr. Mayor: Oh, excuse me. Mr. Battle. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS D. Mr. Willie J. Battle. RE: Dissatisfied with the amount of time commissioners are spending working on internal issues, which are being created by themselves instead of working on issues for the betterment of the City of Augusta. Mr. Mayor: I apologize. Mr. Battle: No problem, sir. Mr. Mayor: And if you could please sir state your name and address for the record and keep it to five minutes as well. Mr. Battle: My name is Willie Battle. I reside at 5069 Horseshoe Circle in Hephzibah Georgia. Mr. Mayor, first of all I want to thank you and your commissioners for giving me the opportunity this afternoon to come before you and voice my opinion as to how I feel about the service that we as citizens are receiving from the City of Augusta Georgia. I’m currently the president and founder of a new non-profit organization, I know it’s not going to make any difference but we do mentoring to the youth and the parents within the CSRA to try to better their life style. But when I see the environment that I’m now in it’s seems as though I’m spinning my wheels in working with the youth instead of working with dead dogs. First off, Mayor, I also express my gratitude as I said before for having me to come before you this afternoon and I would like to ask the commissioners is it possible, my biggest concern is the time 5 that I see spent working on internal problems within the committee that has been created by the commissioners instead of working on those issues for the betterment of our city. It saddens me to see how much time is being spent working on a problem that has been created here and there are so many things that could be done within our community. We have the potentials here in Augusta to be a city that everyone would want to come and reside in but we’re not utilizing the potential. When I look at the commission, we have here eleven members on this team supposed to be working as a team. If we as a commissioner cannot work together as a team, how do we expect to draw the people of Augusta and Richmond County together to live as a team? We’re looking to youth to set the example but I’m not seeing it. I’m not seeing it. And lastly but not least let us not forget that it’s okay to glance in the past because when we glance back it would encourage us to keep pressing forward. But let’s don’t dwell in the past. Let us also remember that yesterday is in the womb. Today is currently before us tomorrow is in the womb. So why not utilize today to make tomorrow a better day for our generations to follow. Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Battle. Okay, Madame Clerk, now to the consent agenda. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Can we add this item from the uh, to discuss well not to discuss but to approve for the Department of Transportation Enhancement Grant for Downtown Development Authority? Mr. Mayor: We were going to look at going ahead and adding that to the consent agenda to add and approve as we --- Mr. Brigham: I wanted to make sure it got on the agenda first so we could add it to the consent agenda. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we need unanimous consent to add to the agenda? Okay, do we have unanimous consent on this agenda item? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I hadn’t seen that. I’d like to see it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I hadn’t seen that item. I don’t know whether I want to add --- Mr. Mayor: And I believe, Madam Clerk, if you could explain this situation with this item. The Clerk: Yes, sir. This item, Mr. Williams, was on our Finance agenda. However it was received as information. So no formal action was taken by the committee to forward this item to the commission agenda and that’s why it’s before you today. It’s regarding ISTEA 6 Grant, I believe Ms. Woodard said that it would be from the Georgia Department of Transportation with a matching grant from the city, the state and the DDA. Mr. Williams: Matching, how much --- The Clerk: For a streetscape, I think, along Laney Walker Boulevard. Mr. Williams: How much is that matching? I mean, the city’s got to match is that what I’m hearing? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Woodard, if you could speak to that issue, please, ma’am. Ms. Woodard: Thank you, Mayor and commissioners. The match would be $35,000.00. The total project is 550 and that’s probably what we’ll get from the Department of Transportation. You have to do a 20% match. The CVB is going to match $40,000.00 in cash, the DDA would like to match $35,000.00 in cash and we would like the city to partner with us and match the last $35,000.00 and it is for streetscape on James Brown Boulevard. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, also the city can provide in kind services equivalent to that dollar amount where we could use manpower or machinery to offset that cost. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have unanimous consent on this? Okay, I’ll take that we do have unanimous consent. If we could add that agenda item, Madame Clerk, and go on to the consent agenda. The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of Items 1-49. Items 1-49. For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol petitions I will read those petitions. Once the petitions are read if there are any objectors would you please signify your objection by raising your hand at the time the petition is read. Item 2 is for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with 1702 Jenkins Street. Item 3 is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with 1342 Gordon Hwy. Item 4 is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer and Wine license to be used in connection with property located at 724 Broad Street. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. 7 The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of Items 1-49 with the addition of the DOT Transportation Enhancement Grant. Mr. Mayor: Okay do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Any additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In regards to one of the items that we have on the agenda I’d like to put this on the consent and it’s in reference to the June, July commission rd meetings. The July commission meetings that we have right now set up would be for July the 3 thrd and July the 17 and based on the time frame of those particular dates July 3 being the day th before July the 4 we’ve always taken that particular meeting and changed it and I am making an offer to the commission that we change both of those meeting dates and the committee meetings th July to one scheduled meeting of July the 10. The reason for this is if we move back one week rd from July the 3 we would be in the week of the commissioners attending the GMA meeting in th Savannah which is the educational meeting and if we move forward in the July 17 meeting we would be interfering with the NACO meeting which is the National Commission meeting just out of Richmond Virginia. So I feel like that we can get our directors and our Administrator ample th time in setting forth the items for agenda to be held on July the 10 realizing it would be a considerable list of items but I think it’s one that’s important not only to the commissioners but I’d like to request that in the the people of the community that those dates be recognized. th form of a motion that we change to the one meeting dated July 10 for the month of July meetings. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, placing that on the consent agenda? Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Do we need to; we have a motion and a second. What’s that? Mr. Cheek: We’re changing the one meeting. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Just add it to the consent agenda. The Clerk: For that information it’s Item 61. Mr. Mayor: Are there any further additions to? Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had some questions on items in Engineering Services but Item 53 and 54 uh, I’ve gotten answers to those if we could add those to the consent. Mr. Mayor, I had some questions in committee, I’ve got those questions resolved so I’ve got no problem taking 53 and 54 and putting them on the consent. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham. 8 Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe Item 55 is a housekeeping measure that could be added to the consent agenda also. Mr. Williams: I got a little problem with adding --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I’ve got a little problem with adding that, Mr. Mayor. We need to discuss that ’77 Pension Plan before we put it on the consent. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I have not distributed those copies. I was wanting to know when the dates were going to be of the upcoming meeting and so I’ll be happy to address any thth questions Mr. Williams might have but I think it should come up on the 19 and on the 10 if it does not have a second meeting waived. So I would actually ask to delete that from today’s agenda. Mr. Mayor: Delete Item 55? Mr. Shepard: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem with that, Mr. Mayor. There’s some information I’ve been waiting on from the Attorney. Since he don’t have it that’ll be better to wait until he gets that and then we can. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor can I, well, we haven’t gotten to the pull really. That’s okay. Mr. Mayor: No, not yet. We need a motion and a second to approve deleting that from the agenda. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Motion carries 10-0. 9 Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there are no more items to be added if we could go to items to be pulled for discussion. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull Item 13. I thought it was going to be an item on Finance but I didn’t see it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Harper. The Clerk: They were combined Mr. Brigham. Mr. Mayor: You still want to pull it? Mr. Brigham: Yep. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Harper. Mr. Harper: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to pull Item 15. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to pull and refer to committee Item 56. Mr. Brigham: It’s not on consent. Mr. Mayor: Okay that’s --- The Clerk: --- consent to be referred back to committee? Mr. Grantham: That’ll be fine. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: That’s on our regular agenda now. I’ve got, I think we need to have some discussion --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Okay. Mr. Williams: And I want to find Mr. Grantham’s intent. You said send it back to where, Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I’ll be glad to. It should go back to Administrative as well as to the Attorney for their review because it’s an ordinance that’s been written and I don’t think that ordinance is ready to present and since I am the requester of that committee item I’d like to refer 10 it back to committee until we feel more comfortable in presenting it in a more presentable way as far as the ordinance is concerned. Mr. Williams: I think it belongs to the body now since it’s on this. I may be, I may be wrong. The Clerk can correct me. But I think it belongs to the body. But my question is the, that position, the charter, the consolidation bill have put something in place and I just need to get some information before we go any further on it. But if you’re going to send it back to Administrative Services I got not problem with that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: It takes unanimous consent, I believe, to. Is that right, Madam Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir, he’s sending --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham: I referred it back to Administrative --- Mr. Mayor: Referred it back to Administrative Services. Mr. Williams: Okay. I --- Mr. Grantham: I wanted you to be in there. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: I’m watching. Y’all got me watching that’s all I can say. Mr. Mayor: Okay, are there any further items to be pulled for discussion. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull Item 22, 24, 26, 27, 32. I need some clarity on, I don’t have to pull, I mean we could, maybe you can help me now on Item 33. I need so clarity on 33 but I want to pull 44 and 45. I need some clarity on 33-37, Mr. Mayor. There’s no dollar amount on the condemnation and I’m wondering why that doesn’t show a dollar amount on each one of those. They’re all different. Mr. Mayor: Okay that’s 33 – 37 that you’re looking for clarification on? Mr. Williams: I just want to get it clear. I don’t want to pull all those. I just, there is none in the backup there is no dollar amount to share with the condemnation prices and some prices are very much different from the other ones and I was just wondering why there wasn’t a amount shown --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. 11 Mr. Williams: --- on each one of those. Mr. Mayor: Do we have somebody to speak to that issue? Mr. Shepard: I’ll, I’ll --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: I’ll speak to it but it’s not in the materials. I’ll get it during the meeting. Mr. Williams: Okay, it’s not in the material. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Does that okay for you, for him to bring forward the? Okay. Are there any further items to be pulled for discussion? Yes, Madam Clerk, and if you could go over the additions to as well as items to be pulled. The Clerk: Our consent agenda will consist of Items 1-49 with the addendum item for the DOT Enhancement Grant added with the addition of Items 60, 53, 54, deleting Item 55, and referring Item 56 back to Administrative Services. We have those items pulled --- Mr. Mayor: And sixty? The Clerk: Sixty, I said, yes, sir. I will be 60, 53, 54, 55 being deleted and 56 being referred back to committee. We have items pulled for discussion, Item 13, Item 15, 22, 24, 26, 27, 32, clarity on Item 33 from the Attorney, Item 44 and 45. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is everybody good with that? So I would look for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Motion to approve an amendment to the 2007 Cooperative Agreement with CSRA Regional Development Center for nutritional services, adding $8,958.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 2. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 07-22: A request by Saravanabana P. Pillai for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine License to be used in 12 connection with Aromas Restaurant located at 1702 Jenkins St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 3. Motion approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 07-23: A request by Ritaben Patel for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Spring Express located at 1342 Gordon Hwy. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 4. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 07-24: A request by Harvey Bryan Mitchell for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer and Wine license to be used in connection with Mitchell Restaurant Group, LLC DBA The City Club located at 724 Broad St. There will be Dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 5. Motion to approve request by Bo Y. Change for a 30-day extension of time to purchase the Alcohol license to be used in connection with Bo’s Package located at 3001 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 6. Motion to approve an amendment (#2) to the 2007 contract with CSRA Regional Development Center for Wellness and Recreation, adding $10,422.00 to the existing grant. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 7. Motion to approve a proposal for surveying and engineering design of a new tennis complex at Diamond Lakes Regional Park to Cranston Engineering Group, P.C. for $46,375.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) 8. Motion to approve a 24-month lease of fifty (50) golf carts and one (1) utility vehicle from EZGO Textron, Inc. for Augusta Municipal Golf Course, per bid item #07-111. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 29, 2007) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 9. Motion to authorize acceptance of Grant Agreements between the City and the U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development for receipt of Year 2007 CDBG, HOME, ADDI, ESG and HOPWA Funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 29, 2007) 10. Motion to authorize Augusta Utilities to Add Five New Customer Service Positions and Two New Water Treatment Plant Positions. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 29, 2007) 11. Motion to authorize submission of the 2007 Exhibit I Continuum of Care Application to HUD and grant the Mayor the authority to execute all forms associated with the application, which also includes submission of the Follow-up Technical Submission Application, renewals and Annual Progress Reports. (Approved by Administrative Services committee May 29, 2007) 12. Motion to approve Job Description and Reclassification for the Library. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 29, 2007) PUBLIC SAFETY 14. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computer equipment (servers and printers) and the purchase of any required computer software upgrades. (Approved by Public Safety committee May 29, 2007) 13 16. Motion to approve Capacity Agreement FY2008 for state inmates being housed in the Richmond County Correctional Institution. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 29, 2007) 17. Motion to approve the purchase of one Two-Channel Title III Intercept System for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office for $65,000.00, Option #2 (Lowest bid off on bid #07- 116). (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 29, 2007) FINANCE 18. Motion to approve award of the contract for RFP 07-121, “Broad Street Median Repairs” to the low bidder, Horizon Construction of Evans, Georgia in the amount of $48,000. (Approved by Finance and Engineering Services Committees May 29, 2007) 19. Motion to approve a request from the Central Savannah River Land Trust regarding the restoration of an unpaid portion of their contract funds from 2006. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) 20. Motion to approve a request to consider reducing taxes on Map/Parcel 071-4-090-00-0 to the amount normally reflected by an S-4 homestead exemption, as well as relief from penalty and/or interest. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) 21. Motion to approve holiday decorations for Laney Walker Blvd. and Broad Street subject to Administrator identifying funding source. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) 23. Motion to approve a Budget Resolution and a contract with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for the Downtown Augusta Walking Tour Brochures Project. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) 25. Motion to approve June, 2007 refunds as outlined in the attachment. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) ENGINEERING SERVICES 28. Motion to approve acquisition of right-of-way and easement between Melaver/Enterprise Mill, LLC, as Owner, and Augusta, Georgia, in connection with the St. Sebastian Way Project for 0.143 acre in fee and 0.250 acre (10,907.65 sq. ft.) of permanent construction and maintenance easement for the following property located at 1450 Greene Street for a purchase price of $132,960.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 29. Motion to approve the acquisition of a right-of-way and easement from Georgia Power Company, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, in connection with the St. Sebastian Way Project for 0.994 acre (43,283.75 sq. ft.) in fee and 0.277 acre (12,046 sq. ft.) of permanent construction and maintenance easement for the following property located at Fifteenth Street for a purchase price of $562,256.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 30. Motion to approve award of construction of Deans Bridge Road MSW Landfill Phase III, Stage I, Cell 2A to Cooper, Barnette and Page, Inc. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 31. Motion to approve award of Stand-by Engineering Contract for the Augusta Solid Waste Department to Atlantic Coast Consulting. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee may 29, 2007) 14 34. Motion to authorize a portion of Property #052-0-092-00-0 Barrett Street, which is owned by Lisa B. Norwood and Margaret M. Brodie, for 1,008 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of property 052-0-112-00-0 3916 Carolyn Street, which is owned by Mattie Bell Harper Long, for 3,800 Sq. Feet of Permanent Easement and 1,325 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 36. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of property #052-0-110-00-0 3920 Carolyn Street, which is owned by Mattie Bell Harper Long, for 1,999.03 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 37. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #052-0-111-00-0 3918 Carolyn Street, which is owned by Mattie Bell Harper Long, for 3,900 Sq. Feet of Permanent Easement and 1,750 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 38. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #012-0-092-01-0 2860 Washington Road, which is owned by MJ Properties of Augusta, LLC, for 917.09 Sq. Feet of Right of Way, 1,334.37 Sq. Feet of Permanent Easement, and 435.28 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Washington Road Intersection Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 39. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #051-0-242-00-0 3947 Barrett Street, which is owned by Stephen and Terry Waters, for 2,938 Sq. Feet of Permanent Easement and 850 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 40. Motion to authorize condemnation on a portion of Property #052-0-125-00-0 3919 Barrett Street, which is owned by Willie L. and Carol Roundtree, for 1,988 Sq. Feet of Permanent Easement and 994 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Subdivision Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 41. Motion to approve award of bids for Pre-purchase of Multi-Stage Centrifugal Blower Equipment (Bid Item 06-154) for the James B. Messerly Water Pollution Control Plant Master Plan Implementation Phase 1 Project to the lowest responsive bidder. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 42. Motion to approve and accept two Norfolk Southern (Central of Georgia) Easement Deeds for Project 60115 – Main Interceptor Upgrade. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) 43. Approve option agreement for state reimbursement for Transit Facility Modifications th St. Sebastian Way/Greene Street/15 Street Project DE-00MS (389). (Requested by the Attorney) 46. Motion to approve award of construction contract to Blair Construction, Inc. in the amount of $241,225.45 for the Winchester Subdivision Drainage Improvements Project, 15 subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 47. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Augusta Commission held May 15, 2007. APPOINTMENTS 48. Motion to approve the appointments of Fran Stewart to the Augusta Canal Authority and Willie Wright to the Zoning Appeals Board representing District 4. ATTORNEY 49. Motion to approve an amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Ordinance #6321. (Approved by the Commission May 15, 2007 – second reading) ENGINEERING SERVICES 53. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with MC Squared Inc. to provide and materials testing services for the Highland Ave. Water Treatment Plant Project in the amount not to exceed $241,130. 54. Motion to approve resolution of various issues related to termination of MWH Constructors’ involvement in James B. Messerly WPCP Master Plan Implementation Phase 1 Project. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) ATTORNEY 55. Approve amended and restated 1977 Pension Plan Ordinance in the form approved by the Internal Revenue Service (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham) (Deleted from the agenda) 56. Approve Local Small Business Opportunity Assistance Program Ordinance (Requested by Commissioner Don Grantham) (Referred back to the Administrative Services Committee) OTHER BUSINESS 60. Discuss the rescheduling of the Commission/committee meetings for the months of June and July. (Requested by Commissioner Grantham) Ms. Beard abstains. Motion carries 9-1. [Items 34-37] Mr. Bowles out. Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland not voting. Motion carries 7-0. [Item 60] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-12, 14, 16-21, 23, 25, 28-31, 38-43, 46-49, 53-54, 55, 56] Mr. Mayor: All rightly, Madam Clerk, let’s go the pulled items first, please, ma’am. 16 The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 13. Motion to approve a request for Assistant to Finance Officer in Tax Commissioner’s Office. (Approved by Administrative Services and Finance Committees May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to approve the concept of adding an Assistant Financial Officer. I think at this current time since the Administrator is doing some evaluations that we do not need to change pay grades or anything else until we get some information back from the Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This item came before us in committee and uh, Mr. Saul here would probably rather speak for himself but I think what is happening, this is a position that we need to go ahead and fill right away. I think this is a position where we only have one person and that’s, that we’re relying on and we need to get somebody in to train to get somebody familiar, very familiar with all the money and I don’t want to speak for Mr. Saul, he’s here himself. But we’re in support in this committee and I think that we need to support this so we can get somebody in that position in other to keep this government afloat. We don’t know who’s going to wake up in the morning. Some us ain’t going to go to bed tonight but we don’t know who’s going to wake up in the morning, Sylvia, so we need to have somebody in place if death comes in or any other mishap comes in we need, this government needs to stay afloat. We need to be able to continue to move about the business of the city and that’s why you know we support it and I hear what Mr. Brigham’s saying but I don’t want to, I think we, Mr. Saul came to us and I don’t want to wait any longer than necessary to fulfill this position so, Mr. Mayor, you I think we need to make a motion to approve can ask Mr. Saul if he wants to comment but this the way it was come out of committee. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Mr. Holland: Second. Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion and a second. Mr. Saul, we would like to hear from you prior to taking the vote. Mr. Saul: Thank you for hearing me again and uh, I presented this along with the county and internal auditor, Mr. Cosnahan who is here to explain the position of my office where I’ve had one gentleman who is handling the finances of the office. He’s a CPA for three years, with me. And the job has taken on additional duties and, and in discussing this with the internal auditor for the county he seems to feel that I have been remiss over the years in not requesting assistance for this particular gentleman because he’s the key to handling $100 million dollars of county money and Mr. McAdams, I’m not sure if he’s here or not but Mr. McAdams has had a fine attendance record. At the present time he’s healthy but in order to further the job of Tax 17 Commissioner and make sure that everything continues on the same high level which it is now where we feel that requesting this position who can be a clone to Mr. McAdams, assist him in his duties, assist him in his work with the Tag Office. It’s a small thing to request this position and to be repetitive we’ve taken a position that is not being utilized and we’re not adding a position we’re upgrading the position of someone who could benefit our office and also continue to benefit Richmond County. Now I don’t know if Mr. Cosnahan has anything to add to that. Mr. Mayor: I would hope the fact that Jack’s not here today doesn’t signal that he’s under the weather by any means. Mr. Cosnahan. Mr. Cosnahan: I think just to reiterate we’ve got one person that’s in a job that is very important to the county and there is a need to have an assistant in place as soon as we can. Mr. Mayor: Well, he’s just come in the door and he looks mighty healthy to me. Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we approve the position and not upgrade the clerk’s salary to fill that position at this current time. That is my motion. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I need to know from Mr. Cosnahan and Mr. Saul. Is that going to hinder us? I know we talked in committee about going out. We don’t have anybody in the office to fill that. We got to go out and find someone. But is that going to hinder us? Now there ain’t no sense of assigning somebody to do something that they can’t do, they make it impossible to do now. If there’s going to need an increase we need to be real with this. If $100 million dollars one man is handling that we can’t go out because we done tied their hands or the people that we send out to do it. Is that going to handicap you, Mr. Saul, I guess is my question. Mr. Saul: Without a doubt this salary range that is presently in place and that will allow us to hire someone with the qualifications that would be able to fill the job in this office and I would ask Mr. Cosnahan to continue. Mr. Cosnahan: I think the main thing here is we need to have someone who is qualified in his expertise and educational background. We’ve have not, in my means we have not discussed the salary range. When I met with him initially I mentioned a $40-45,000 range and I’m not sure what we’re talking about as far as the numbers are concerned. But my suggestion would be we need to hire somebody with the capabilities and if it would be prudent you know to come back to the Finance Committee for that approval you know after we can locate somebody that may be the way to go about it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion with a second. Mr. Russell. 18 Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, I think the problem that presents itself with this particular item is one that we face regularly when we start replacing people and move forward with what we’ve got to get done. I know the meeting occurred just a little while ago. We talked with reference the classifications. As we look at that you’ll find later on in the conversation we’ll be talking a little bit more about that. I have no argument at all with the need for the position. As a matter of fact I encouraged him to apply to have that position granted and the upgrade. We worked very closely on that. The position that this puts us in though is that we’re starting once again to have people that are um, in charge of a smaller piece of the pie that people in Finance, there’s inequities in the classification of our Finance people versus the people that are now um, uh in agencies that are smaller than that. I don’t think we fix this problem by hindering Mr. Saul’s approach I think what Commissioner Brigham was looking for was an option to make sure we looked at the big picture here to make sure that our Finance people were also adequately compensated for what we’re doing. We are going to be doing that hopefully if you approve the items that are coming up in the near future but that’s the crux of the issue I believe that we’ve got an issue with now and you just need to be aware of that, that we are probably going to use this as an example as to why we need to increase the salaries in Finance at some later date. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard the Administrator but I’m concerned that we’ve got a lot of salaries that we need to adjust in this government. Somebody’s talking about the national average we can’t pay the national average here. But I don’t want to, I think if we got a position this critical and were going to look at the other departments because once you fix Finance there’s some other departments that hadn’t been fixed either going to have, it’s going to be a snowball effect. But we shouldn’t stop the procedure to do what we need to do to get somebody in place. Now God forbid that you know we going to have another 150 years and we know that’s not true but we need to have somebody in place in order to continue the work. Here we are we’re swallowing camels and straining our necks. We won’t, this should’ve been done with. This stuff should’ve been done with. Now the auditor come the department heads come even the Administrator has suggested that we need to go ahead and vote to do this and get on with the next order of business and I say that because I don’t want to hold us up thinking about Finance. There’s some other things we’ve got to think about along with Finance. We done found money we done lost money and we need to move on with this, Mr. Mayor, I guess. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion and a second. Madam Clerk, for the record so everybody knows what they’re voting on if you could read that back? The Clerk: The motion is to approve the position but not the upgrade for the Clerk’s position. Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Andy, you voting? Mr. Cheek: I had a question. 19 Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Just quickly. The thing that we’re running into is the same thing we do with our Police and Firefighters and everything else is we get people trained in Finance to manage and reconcile our accounts and then they go to these higher paying position and we end up with people off the street managing our finances and so my question is how soon will be doing the reevaluations to deal with Finance. I can support the measure I understand the need but there is a real need to keep trained people in Finance managing and reconciling our accounts. That has been one of the flaws and weaknesses in the system that needs to be corrected. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: There are several approaches we can take to that Commissioner and members of the commission one of which we’ve already done and we’ve gone piecemeal into organizations and fixed those particular problems where we’ve had critical needs. The other would be to include that in part of the normal study that we are going to be proposing here shortly as part of that conversation. Um, because of the critical nature of both positions I would suggest we go ahead and move forward with that as quickly as possible as defined by our government on this one. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Cheek, you ready to vote? Mr. Cheek: With that answer I just, I can’t in conscience, Mr. Mayor, turn down the Tax Commissioner but I also feel very strongly that we need to reconcile the issues with Finance because the audit findings typically are the same things over and over again and it’s due to the lack of expertise within that particular area due to the fact we have turnover in that area. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: So you’re not voting. The motion is to approve the position without the upgrade. Mr. Cheek: We can’t do that. I’m going to vote no on that one and vote yes on the original motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, Mr. Hatney, Mr. Smith, Mr. Harper, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we now have Commissioner Williams’ motion on the floor, which I believe is to approve. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Grantham votes No. Motion carries 9-1. 20 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. Madam Clerk, next pulled agenda item. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 15. Motion to approve Award of Bid Item #07-120 Work Uniforms for the Fire Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Harper, I believe this was your pull. Mr. Harper: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, the bid itself, I have some concerns about. First and number one was that the low bid to provide the uniforms for the Fire Department? Mr. Mayor: Is the Chief here? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Chief Willis, could you speak to that issue? Chief Willis: Ms. Sams is here too. She’s got some more information on it. There were two bidders. One bidder the uniform colors didn’t match a lot of things. It did not meet specs so that’s why they were removed from getting the bid at that time. Mr. Harper: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Harper: Chief, you submitted a letter on that uniform bid saying that your competitor was charging for all embroidery on sweat pants and sweat shirts and uniform shirt badge and I received some concerns. They said they weren’t charging for uniforms. Is anybody in the audience room that can speak? Chief Willis: Miss Sams. The Clerk: We have one of the bidders here. Mr. Mayor: Okay. If we could hear from the bidder first and then we’ll hear from Ms. Sams. And sir if you could state your name and address for the record please. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek. 21 Mr. Cheek: On hearing from bidders I think we’re setting a precedent here by having one bidder not all bidders present to make their case. Two, this is a matter of process which should be handled between our Purchasing Department Director and our Chief, our Fire Chief to open a public hearing for the bidders to come in here and not have all of them present is probably illegal if not a bad precedent to set. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, could you speak to that issue. Mr. Shepard: I could and I just received a suggestion that I may be given the opportunity to mediate this dispute. As I understood it there were two bidders and (INAUDIBLE). That being the case it may behoove the commission since Mr. Boudreaux is here that I take both parties in the hall and see if this is a dispute that could be mediated. Mr. Mayor: Could I get a motion to table? Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: I don’t to table. I don’t think we’re doing the right thing. Mr. Mayor: Okay. : Mr. Grantham And I feel like that you know what we’re, we are setting a precedent in this case. If both bidders are not here and both people are not here to speak for themselves if we have not requested that then I think we’re out of order. So I’m going to make a motion that we delay this, put this off to a, to another time when we can invite both bidders to come, have the opportunity to speak in their own behalf and then we can make a decision if there’s questions to asked and made at that time. Mr. Mayor: Is the motion to refer it back to Public Safety? Mr. Grantham: Exactly. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. The Clerk: Is that Monday’s meeting, Mr. Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Pardon? The Clerk: Monday’s meeting? Mr. Grantham: Monday’s meeting. The Clerk: Okay. 22 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Grantham, I mean Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor I was just wondering where was Purchasing? Where was Procurement? I mean that ought to be able to solve this problem right here. I mean we went through that process I’m sure and if Purchasing can’t help us out we ought to be able to --- Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, can you? Mr. Williams: --- vote up or down. Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, commissioners. Um, yes, sir, Mr. Commissioner, we did in fact go out for bid on the uh, fire uniforms and I wasn’t in the room when you were asking your question. Do you mind repeating it, sir? Mr. Williams: My question was, was this bid process done fairly and above board or do we any reason to hear this other vendor. If he, the other party won the bid or not, if there was something that wasn’t done right I need to know that. Ms. Sams: Mr. Commissioner, we went through the bid process, it was handled properly and it was noted through two committees the reasons why the various items were not chosen. I have only one copy of that that lists the reasons per item. The Fire Department reviewed the items we again reviewed them and we noted our reasons why they were rejected from the process. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: I guess the question to follow on what Commissioner Williams has said is, so the bid recommended to us in the agenda conforms to city code, meets as far a minimum bid and meets all the requirements? Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, it does. Mr. Cheek: I’m going to make a substitute motion to approve this issue. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Harper votes No. Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madam Clerk. 23 The Clerk: FINANCE 22. Motion to approve request to adjust the Fire Department 2007 budget by $452,120.00 to reflect an increase in the Fire Insurance Premium Tax. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this was yours. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I asked for this to be pulled to get some clarity. This $452,000 that we’re looking at increasing the Fire Department budget from the insurance premium, we just approved some money last week I think to um, to be repaid in the future SPLOST. If this money is going to affect that, I mean how, I need some explanation, Mr. Chief - -- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, as you know this money is budgeted by the State as a premium with our fire insurance tax. Unfortunately the way they do that is a re-im, not a reimbursement but when we do our budget we do not know actually how much we’re going to receive. It’s based on a projection based on last year’s assumption. Because of the growth in our county and the increased premiums paid in fire insurance we’re getting approximately $452,000.00 more than what we anticipated. It has nothing to do with the SPLOST dollars. It’s a total separate pot of dollars that are available for things there. This is money that can be used in the general fund and that’s why it was designated, not the general fund but the general fire fund --- Mr. Williams: Exactly. Mr. Russell: --- so it’s designated for other things other than capital improvements and that’s why we’re looking at the potential for using that for um, uh the uh, replacing the radio system and alarm systems. Mr. Williams: And the reason I brought, the reason I pulled this item because of the increase that we we’re going to get, that we didn’t know like Mr. Russell explained. We didn’t, we estimated and we estimated lower on that thing I guess is a good thing. But we just approved some money that we’re going to have to repay with a new SPLOST that we’re going to do to build, we bought the property and we’re talking about building the training center and how essential that’s going to be for our rating from the State and we we’re going to repay that money back with future SPLOST money. So when I saw this I’m wondering, is this going to help offset or are we still, I mean once the money get in the fire budget, once the money gets back to the Fire Department then we’re going to buy radio equipment and other stuff and we’re still buying. I’m trying to look at the big picture and trying to see whether or not this is going to be a help to what we just approved so we won’t have to use that sales tax money. We won’t have to get future sales tax money to pay it back. If it can’t be used then I need to hear that. If it can then I think we need to look at it versus, because this is money we didn’t have. This is uh, --- 24 Mr. Russell: New money. Found money. Mr. Williams: That’s right. This is found money. So this is money we didn’t have and we ought to able to use it in a positive way and we got a project that we’re looking at on Deans Bridge Road to do, this can assist us in that, Bubba, and I’m in support. Naturally we’re getting this money in but I just thought that it was something we could be used with the last meeting that we did and approved that money for the Fire Training Center. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell and then. Mr. Russell: I appreciate Mr. Williams’ comment because I think he’s absolutely right but in this particular case the dollars available for the training center out of SPLOST are already funded and will be there at the end of the SPLOST. What my concern is that these dollars are going to be used for radio equipment that has no funding source other than this particular money and we’re getting behind the curve in our radio system too. So it would seem to me that we do the capital improvements with the SPLOST dollars that are there and will be there because of the way the SPLOST is written for the maximum $160 million. We take advantage of this found money to replace our radio system, begin replacing our radio system as opposed to trying to find that in the Fire Department general fund as we go forward. So I think the question’s good but I think the usage is appropriate at this particular time. Mr. Williams: If we can’t use it my motion is to approve it, Mr. Mayor. I wasn’t going to turn the money back but I just wanted to ask that question. Mr. Cheek: 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 10-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 24. Motion to approve the proposal to ask the Administrator to appoint a liaison for the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association and work with the various agencies who attended the meeting last Thursday. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this was yours. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I got plenty of calls and there’s a lot of support here today about Hyde Park and what we’re doing. We talked about this in subcommittee meeting and we came back with a report but I’d like to know from the Administrator, who are we going to appoint who’s going to be that contact person, that liaison to be able to work with this effort. Now I’ve got some folks outside that’s complaining about the Hyde Park and what’s going on. 25 They say they’re opposed to it but I’m not worried about that. We’ve come to this point and we need to move forward but my question is who is going to be that person that we’re going to use from this government I guess. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Williams, as you note in the item this is, the approval of this would be to ask me to do that. We’ve had a staff meeting last week and have gone through the available staff people that we have on board and we’re looking for that person that would mix the most, the best portfolio of experiences there that would be able to be helpful to the community and I have not made a decision on that. That would be reported back to you and hopefully we’ll get the advice of the committee prior to doing that because it is such an important appointment that I think it needs to be the right person and I’m thinking I need a lot more input on that than I have at the moment, sir, I’m going to beg your expertise and the members of the committee to maybe put a couple of candidates in front of you and hopefully have you help me select somebody. Because I agree it is an appointment that will be crucial to the well being of that community and the progress of that plan and I do not have an answer yet. Mr. Williams: So this will come back to the subcommittee and let us at least be abreast of who’s going to be in that position. Mr. Russell: More so, I’m going to hopefully give you a couple opportunities and help me make that decision sir. Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, just to shed a little light on this. I’ve been involved in this Hype Park issue now since February and quite a few meetings and I’ve been speaking to Mr. Russell since our meeting last Thursday and he and I have talked about individuals in regards to this as he just alluded to. But I think that he does want to come up with the right person because this is a very important issue not only for that neighborhood but this community. So the subcommittee will be the first to know and we’re in hopes that we can have something for them by Monday if we can get that pulled together and I’ll be giving that announcement out through our Clerk. But until that time I think he has a good reason to wait and appoint the right person because it’s going to be very important. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. The Clerk: For the Administrator to make the appointment. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 26 Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: I think that’s back to back unanimous, isn’t it? The Clerk: Magnanimous. Mr. Grantham: Don’t get carried away. Mr. Mayor: Nah! The Clerk: Item 26 --- Mr. Mayor: Item 26. Mr. Mayor: I can dream. The Clerk: FINANCE 26. Motion to authorize Augusta Utilities to open a new bank account with Georgia Bank & Trust for direct payments from customers. (Approved by Finance Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: I had this one pulled as well to find out and I’m not opposed to this at all but everybody don’t bank with Georgia Trust, Georgia Bank and Trust. If people are going to make their payments through the banking system can we limit it to just one bank? And it’s proposed here that Georgia Bank and Trust have direct payments for the customers. But some people bank with other banks as well and I’m just wondering how can we propose this or are we going to open this up for any bank that wants to participate because if someone wants to pay their utility bills through their banking account they shouldn’t have to go to Georgia Bank and Trust and open a checking account in order to do that. They ought to do it with whatever bank they’re dealing with if the bank is acceptable. Now we had some problem with some banks cashing payroll checks at one time and I think we got that resolved. But can somebody answer why we’re just using one bank I guess. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, did you? Mr. Brigham: No, I rather let Steve attempt that. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Williams: Why don’t we get Sylvia up? 27 Mr. Steve Little: Actually what this account is intended to do is this is an account that will just be set up to allow the larger commercial customers that that have come to us. We have right now, the main one we have is the VA, pays through the U.S. Treasury like on ten accounts and they automatically transfer the funds into our main operating account each month. What we’ve had other larger customers come to us that want to do this FTP type payment, it’s a little different than the residential customer’s who want to pay directly. So what this account is intended to do is just for those that ask us to and we allow to they will be able to directly put their money into this account, the money will only go into this account, it will be a zero base account. There will be no money in it. This is part of why we wanted to do it. We don’t want them accessing our regular account. They’ll put their money into our account and will be able to easily reconcile it. The end of the day the money is swept into our operating account, which is at Georgia Bank and Trust. That’s why the account will be with them and there’s no charge for the account. No fees or anything like that. And to address your other point we still have, we currently offer ACH payment ability for our customers so if they want to have money taken directly out of their checking account to pay their bill they can do that from any bank. That’s no problem and they do that on a scheduled basis like on their due date. And we also offer currently by phone if somebody isn’t on the monthly payment plan. It automatically does that. They’re able to go in and go on the telephone and punch in the information to make a direct payment by phone on their account, which would be credited in a couple days. So they have those two options. We’re also planning to offer the same thing on line. We just had some security concerns in a previous discussion and we’re still working with IT on that but anybody that wants to make an ACH type payment will be allowed to do it from any bank account. Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Williams: I’m just concerned it gave the impression that we were looking at one bank for customers not for the large customer but just for customers and I had some concerns but since it’s been explained I got no problem and the motion to second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham abstain. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Smith: I had a conflict of interest with that. The Clerk: Conflict? Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: All that money he got in the bank now he don’t want --- Mr. Mayor: All righty. Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: 28 FINANCE 27. Motion to reprogram $1.2 million dollars in unexpended SPLOST I for the following ?? list of capital improvements: Renovations to the Fulcher Property $92,000 General ?? Upgrades to Riverwalk $60,000 Amphitheater Upgrades $50,000 Downtown Fountains ?? $50,000 Health Department–North Leg $200,000 Additional dense pack shelving– ?? Records Retention $185,000 Pendleton King Park $50,000 Maintenance Storage and ?? Warehouse $100,000 Sidewalk improvements-Downtown $200,000 Ezekiel Harris ?? House $35,000 Decommissioned Fire Stations $20,000 Lumpkin road Tag Office ??? $10,000 License and Inspection Roof $20,000 Christmas lights $75,000 ANIC Building ? Conversion to Tag Office $25,000 Additional Security Equipment for LEC $28,000 TOTAL $1,200,000 (Approved by Finance Committee may 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I had this one pulled as well because of the concern. A couple of things in here really concerns me. I go no problem with the $1.2 million dollars that we’re going to get out of our older SPLOST I guess and use it but there’s a couple of things on this list and I’ve got a problem with the list probably is the biggest thing. We’ve got a serious issue with the tag office out on Lumpkin Road. We’re only going to spend $10,000 in that tag office. The heat system out there is really, really bad. There’s some areas I think we need to do this but we need to do it a little bit differently. When you’re talking about spending $1.2 million and you designate what you’re going to do, everything that we spend got to be bidded out Mr. Mayor. That, that’s my first problem. The other thing is that we talking about upgrading Riverwalk. In 1991 and I don’t mean upgrading the complete Riverwalk but the upgrades you’re talking about bringing to the Riverwalk, in 1991 the Disability Act said that we don’t have a handicap accessible area to get to the amphitheater and back. Now on the front side we do. Any improvements, if we go in and touch it at all, we’re talking about upgrading then we’re going to open up a can of worms, and I heard that a second time today, we’re going to open up a can of worms that’s really going to get us in a lot of trouble. We need that 38, 40 steps coming up and down that amphitheater. The handicapped, the disability cannot get up and down thth on the amphitheater side at all. They got to all the way down to 9 Street or 10 Street and walk around or be wheel chaired around the building to perform or to even get to the performing area. We have gotten by all of this time, nobody has said anything nobody did anything. But this is very serious, I’m in support but I think that we’re looking at $75,000 for Christmas lights, we just talking about a grant. But we’re going to spend $10,000 in a building that our tag office where the workers are really in a terrible situation. So I think this list is good but I think it needs to be tweaked some more, Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: --- and I think the wording needs to be changed before we vote on this to upgrade and if we touch the amphitheater at the Riverwalk and don’t do those handicapped, and I see the lawyer sitting out there. Mr. Shepard got me a new man today and I hadn’t had a chance to meet him --- 29 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: --- I want somebody to help us out because I don’t think we ought to get ourselves in trouble if we can help it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, while I don’t disagree with what Commissioner Williams has said my concern is that here we’ve identified funds in areas that desperately need improvement, the longer we put it off the more it will cost to do some of these upgrades and improvements. I’m going to go ahead and make a motion to approve. I know once we open this up and start looking at different line items that it will go ten different ways and probably not be resolved in . So I’ll just go ahead and make a motion to approve. any time soon Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Russell, you wanted to? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I think Commissioner Williams brings a valued point and it would be my recommendation that that motion include a change from general upgrades to Riverwalk to general maintenance of Riverwalk and instead of Amphitheater upgrades we use Amphitheater maintenance. The dollar figures that we’ve got for the other things, I think I’m fairly comfortable with, I know I’m comfortable with. As you know the Lumpkin Road Tag Office is and issue that we’ve got. But this $10,000 will give us some good ways that we need to be and there’s some other maintenance that we’ll be doing there so I think that works. Mr. Mayor: Okay, hang on one second. Mr. Russell, could you? Some folks couldn’t hear you on that and I’m sorry if you could repeat. You kind of had the Charlie Brown’s teacher going on with that one. Mr. Russell: I think Commissioner Williams brings a valued point there in what we need to do. If I could suggest to the maker of the motion that we change the words from upgrades as far as the Riverwalk to maintenance to amphitheater instead of upgrades to maintenance. The other dollar figures are recommendations from staff and I’m comfortable with that. Mr. Cheek: So amended if it pleases the body. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have two questions here that concern me in reference to this particular list. And the first one is I like to ask the City Administrator how do we go about coming up with these particular figures for all of these different properties and these different projects and who presented these figures to you in reference to the different properties that need renovation and need these, need this money. For instance the Fulcher property need renovation and that’s $92,000.00. I’m not familiar with that. Maybe the other commissioners are and I’d like to know, what kind of renovation are we talking about in reference to the Fulcher 30 property that will cost $92,000.00. My second question is that with all of these different properties that we have here if this money is allocated to these different programs here will we get an itemized statement in reference to how all of this money is spent. For instance you have $100,000.00, you have $200,000 you have $10,000. Will we get as commissioners, will we get an itemized statement as to how all of this money is being spent. Because this is $1.2 million dollars and all of this money is being allocated to these different projects so how do we go about getting and coming up with these figures and then will we get an itemized statement in reference to this money being spent. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: As you know, sir, the Fulcher property is the building next door that includes the changes as we move in the Engineering Department, move in the other areas that we’ve got here. It also includes the changes that are necessary to meet current code standards and whatever. The numbers themselves came from staff as working with that. And the recommendations came from staff that are involved with the maintenance and development of our buildings and grounds there. What this basically does is allow us to take care of some deferred maintenance that’s occurred over the past numerous years and allows us to continue to move forward with that. Each dollar that we spend will be spent according to our purchasing process and you’ll be able to look and approve as we go forward with the plans and the expenditures of these particular dollars. And you will be able to get an itemized cost of those projects as they move forward. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Holland brought a good point up now. This says this is SPLOST dollars and SPLOST dollars can’t be used just for anything. That’s designated. The funds that the SPLOST dollars was voted on by the voters, but designated to be used for a specific use. You just can’t lump them in together here and I see a couple items. We’re talking about maintenance work now. If that’s a change, Mr. Shepard, somebody needs to let me know because I don’t think we can use SPLOST dollars to do maintenance work for, for you know for the City. Now if there’s a change, we’ve been trying to get the Legislature to do something like that because we’ve been having problems. We can fight bill stuff and do stuff but we can maintain them. So if there’s a change in the wind blow it over this way. Mr. Russell: If I can, Mr. Mayor, I’d like --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: --- to respond to that. These are SPLOST dollars that were collected for the first phase of SPLOST. We are closing that phase out as I was mandated to do. The balance of that is $1.2 million dollars that was not spent in the first phase due to interest gains and whatever. Legislation allows us to do several things with that. We can return it to the taxpayer; we can put it in the general fund. It would be my request because of that to do anything other than a capital improvement fix would be somewhat imprudent because you’d have to go ahead and pay those dollars again. So if you use it for anything other than the one-time projects we’re using it for 31 you’d have to continue using that. I, if you increase the number of Sheriff’s deputies we has you’d have to pay that again next year. State statute allows us to do it this way. It’s a one-time expenditure for the fixes we’ve got listed here. They are fixes that have been needed for several years and I think it’s the most prudent way to spend the dollars. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Administrator. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: The so-called Fulcher property is no longer owned by them. Doesn’t the city own that property? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. That’s just the name that we use to identify that. Mr. Hatney: You would have saved yourself a great deal if you had simply said that it’s new purchase for offices. Really because the question wouldn’t have come up. Mr. Russell: I understand, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I had questioned the Administrator about that specific use of the money and it’s my opinion since it could go back in general funds and use it as he has outlined. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Williams votes No. Motion carries 9-1. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 32. Motion to approve including a flyer with the water bills reminding residents to move there garbage containers from the street after the garbage is collected and that citations will be issued if they do not comply. (Approved by Engineering Services committee May 29,2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe this one is yours. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We had a young man come to the committee meeting and explain to us about how his neighborhood was not following the guidelines so much they were leaving their cans on the street. I didn’t want to send this out to the entire city to spend 32 additional money to send out to everybody when there’s an area that we may have to target at different times if it’s needed. I don’t want to pass this thinking that we going to send out a flyer in our water bill. That’s additional money for the flyer, additional money to have the person put it. But we need to target those areas and send it out and it may have to go the entire city when it’s necessary. But the way this is written if it’s approved it’s going out to everybody and there’s some areas that don’t need that. I don’t we ought to be sending it to those who are following the guidelines already. I think that area we’re concerned with that ought to be targeted, the Sheriff’s Department the Marshal’s Department along with License and Inspection ought to be following . up with that so something can be doneBut my motion is to approve, Mr. Mayor, but hopefully that whoever is going to handle this whether is be through utilities of whatever would not just send it out to everybody but send it to the designated respective neighborhood that needs that reminder. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: I’ve got one concern about this. This is not, I know the stuff should not be in the streets but it has been my experience that the folks who pick up the trash are the ones who mainly put the trash cans back in the street. Because they pick my trash up off, out the yard and put the can back in the street. They need to put the can back where they pick it up from. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a --- Mr. Hatney: I’m talking about my experience. I’m not talking about nobody else. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. We have a --- The Clerk: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Williams: The young man came to committee and --- Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Williams: If I can, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: The young man came to the commission and he had a complaint for his neighborhood, he said that when his trash was emptied that the neighbors leave their cans on the street. Out all night long and they bring the garbage to the street and put it in the can and just leave the cans out there. And it makes the neighborhood look bad. I understand that and I think we ought to send this reminder to them and there ought to be some code enforcement or not some Marshall’s and some Sheriff’s maybe even some lawyers to just go and tell these people that they can’t do that anymore. But we need, we don’t, we don’t need to blanket this entire community or this entire city with it we ought to target those areas that need it. To go to License and Inspection somebody need to be targeted whether it be Martha King or somebody ought to be able to handle it and not blanket the city. That’s all, Mr. Mayor. 33 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and with no second at this point. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Commissioner Williams said we had a gentleman to come to our Engineering Services committee concerning people leaving them out overnight. And I’ve had quite a few others not just one community and it seemed to be the easiest and less expensive way to get the message out being that the Utilities Department have a mail-out monthly, just to put a small insert in there with it and that’s what we felt like that needed to be done. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then I’ll hear from Mr. Hicks. Mr. Cheek: I was just going to say we have people in my neighborhood leave them out there for days and this is something that definitely needs to be done. I don’t know how we can pick and choose. It seems to be hit and miss throughout different neighborhoods so um, I would be, while I’d like to save money and I agree with Commissioner Williams as far as not warning people who are already obeying the law this needs to be corrected and the best way to do it is to blanket it. Mr. Mayor: So we have, Commissioner Williams, your motion was to approve correct? Mr. Williams: Motion to approve. The Clerk: But only targeting problem areas. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I asked for that same concern. I think sometimes we put stuff on taxpayers and it’s not fair to them especially when they’re not the cause of it. If I put my trash can on my yard for them to pick up and I decide to go to Atlanta and come back on the weekend they need to put the trashcan back where they got it from. They’re the ones that set it down in the streets. Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Hatney, I think what this is targeting really is the people that as Commissioner Williams referenced and Commissioner Cheek, the people that just leave trash cans out on the street and never pull them back. They just continue to put their trash out there so, Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the original intention of the mobile trash containers is not to leave them on the street in the front yard or anything at all it’s supposed to be taken back up to your house, put up next to your house and not left out as landmarks up and down the roadways. Mr. Mayor: Would you care to make a motion to approve? Mr. Cheek: I think we’ve already got a motion to approve. 34 Mr. Grantham: How you going to handle it without blanketing? The Clerk: It wasn’t to blanket. His was to target problem areas. Mr. Cheek: I would say from what I’m hearing the whole city’s got a problem. Substitute motion to cover the entire city. The Clerk: Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion to approve the agenda item as written. Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Is it possible to listen to Mark and hear what he has to say in reference to this? Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. We have a substitute motion and second. Mr. Johnson, if you could address perhaps Commissioner Hatney’s concerns as well as everybody else’s. Mr. Johnson: From a sure cost benefit standpoint one, Utilities does not have the availability to do it by zip code so in this former fashion it’s an all or done deal just on ability and capability. So from a cost benefit it is actually cheaper for us to utilize the Utilities process and give it to everybody than it is to contract with the mail house to try to get specific zip codes. So if you’re looking at just dollars by themselves it’s actually cheaper to use Utilities. Mr. Mayor: Now to Commissioner Hatney’s issue. Mr. Johnson: It should end up back where it came from. Mr. Hatney: Where they picked it up at. Mr. Johnson: Where they picked it up from. Mr. Hatney: They’re the ones causing the problems. Yeah, the old folk. Mr. Johnson: Where you’re concerned, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hatney: Because they set them down in the streets themselves. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion --- Mr. Holland: What was the substitute motion again? 35 Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion was to approve the agenda item as written. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. The Clerk: Mr. Cheek, are you voting? Mr. Cheek: I’m hitting it. I swear I am. Mr. Hatney votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 33. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Property #051-0-038-03-0 1643 Saybrook Drive, which is owned by Frank T. Delley, for 1,151 Sq. Feet of Temporary Easement. PW Project Belair Hills Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. This is a project that is known as the Belair Hills Improvement project the amount of the offer in Item 33 was $492.00, which, is stated in the background. What happens is Mr. Williamson attempts to negotiate with each property owner that is affected by the project requiring a temporary easement or the project requiring a permanent easement across properties. This apparently was a temporary easement. He negotiated with Mr. Delley who is the property owner. That was rejected, that offer being the appraised value and when that happens the matter moves forward to our office to condemn. There’s really, all negotiation are over. Often times the condemnation filing will bring about a resolution of the matter but here we have a property owner just outright reject the offer made by staff therefore it had to come here. The amount in controversy is in the third paragraph in the background, first sentence. The others are, there are five others like that. You will recall the Belair Hills Estates, what we call paper streets, which were never put in. This has been a part of the program to first to go in to those areas that were plat of the streets, put the utilities in and then come back and pave. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, does that satisfy you? Mr. Williams: That’s the lawyer talking, Mr. Mayor, I’m going to let it go. I can’t deal with that. I’m going to make a motion to approve. I wouldn’t, I don’t have. I just saw that it didn’t show from 33 all the way, all the condemnations. I want to see what kind of price what, kind of figures were given. He did bring a little light somewhat temporary easement, permanent easement so I guess the costs would be different from a permanent, from a temporary so my motion is to approve and go on to the next. 36 Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor in the interest of expediency since Commissioner Williams I’m going to make a substitute motion to form a consent questions have been answered, agenda for Items 33 through 37. Mr. Bowles: Second. The Clerk: He didn’t pull those. He only pulled 33. Mr. Cheek: Well, I thought he had questions on all of them. Mr. Williams: I said 33-37. You all might not have heard me. The Clerk: Oh, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: I mean everything else was approved. Mr. Cheek: If there’s no discussion, okay the others are already part of the consent agenda. Mr. Williams: Yeah. Mr. Cheek: My mistake. All right. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. The Clerk: Ms. Beard? Ms. Beard: I’m going to recuse myself because of a possible conflict of interest. The Clerk: Okay. Ms. Beard abstains. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Next agenda item, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: 37 ENGINEERING SERVICES 44. Motion to approve list of County roads to resurface, using County Forces and funding from SPLOST III (County Forces Resurfacing). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we found some money that we reprogrammed from SPLOST III and we’re talking about County Forces doing it. My question is and I talked to the engineers in committee that there will not be new lists. There’s a list that’s already been put out there to resurface those roads and we’re going to take these monies and these county resources and continue on the same list is my question. I’m looking to my left over here and I see Mike but uh, --- Mr. Mayor: Would you like to speak to that Mike? Mr. Greene: Mr. Mayor, commissioners. What this is, as part of Phase III this is the last of the money we have in Phase III for resurfacing by County Forces. After we spend this we start using Phase IV money. This particular list of streets that we’re requesting to resurface with the funds that are allocated are under SPLOST is for our forces to resurface with. This minus several different funding methods for resurfacing, one is through the (unintelligible) one is through County Forces. There’s a list now that we’re finishing up. This will be the last list in Phase III that we do with County Forces. These are small streets, cul-de-sacs that we can do. They’re not the longer roads. We try to do either through (unintelligible) or through contract roads that need milling, since we can’t mill but uh, the longer stretches of road etc. We try to do the smaller streets, subdivision streets and the cul-de-sac streets with County Forces. This is not new money that was found. This was money that was part of Phase III SPLOST that was approved originally and this is that last of the money that’s in that account for County Forces. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mike, and I hear what you’re saying but like you said this money was designated, it is SPLOST III money. You had a list designated just like the money was designated and I don’t want us to get ahead of the list. The little dirt streets I got are going to stay like that. I got a couple of alleys in District 2 I’m going to hold on to. But I’m saying that the list, there’s no new list created there’s no new streets to get ahead of everything we got like the money you say was already appropriated. The list is was there. We’re going by that list. Is that right? Mr. Greene: That is correct. This well --- Mr. Williams: Well, I mean that’s all I’m asking. You ain’t gotta prove it. Just --- Mr. Greene: I think you’re talking about two different items sir. One was paving dirt roads. 38 Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Greene: Those streets were named. The resurfacing list, it was approved a flat amount of money but no streets were on a list in Phase III to resurface with County Forces. Mr. Williams: Okay that creates another question. My question is who’s going to generate a list and when can we see it? Mr. Greene: We can write the list. Mr. Williams: When can the commission, when --- Mr. Greene: You should’ve received, I wasn’t here last week. I was in the hospital. But you should’ve received a list of streets to be resurfaced uh, which we put together for this list. The list is together. If you didn’t get it I apologize. Mr. Williams: Well I probably got it. I got so much stuff but I probably got it. Mr. Greene: I can get you a list. Mr. Williams: I just want to make sure that we only leave a, now there were two lists --- Mr. Greene: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: --- unpaved roads and then resurface roads. Is that right? Mr. Greene: There was a list of unpaved roads but there was not list of resurfaced roads. That under SPLOST was not designated. It was just a flat amount in Phase III. Mr. Mayor: Okay there was an amount designated but the roads weren’t designated. Mr. Greene: That is correct, for resurfacing. But paving they weren’t --- Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ve got a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 39 45. Motion to approve low bid from Empire Tree & Turf in the amount of $26,375.00 for three pruning/removal. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: One question, Mr. Mayor, on this one. Where are we pruning these trees out? I understand the $26,000.00 so we’re not doing the whole city. What area are we doing? Is it downtown, the Riverwalk? Where are we pruning? Mr. Stroud: Commissioner eighteen trees or anywhere from Bransford Road, there’s some in the downtown area. But they’re really across the county they’re not in one particular area. Mr. Williams: And we’re pruning them back off of power lines. What are we doing when we’re pruning. Mr. Stroud: Some of those trees on that list the majority of them are just about dead already or extremely diseased. They’re hanging over the right-of-way that needs to be taken out. Mr. Williams: So they’re taking out the trees, they ain’t necessarily pruning. Mr. Stroud: Correct. Mr. Williams:. So moved. They’re taking them out Mr. Brigham: 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 10-0. The Clerk: Magnanimous. Mr. Mayor: And down go the trees. Mr. Grantham: They surely did. Tree hugger. Mr. Mayor: I resent that remark. Before we get into the regular agenda I’d like to ask Ms. Cooper to shut off her cell phone. I’ve never heard a ring like that. The Clerk: It was the tape recorder. Mr. Mayor: Oh, okay. That probably explains it. Mr. Grantham: Don’t ask them to leave the room. 40 Mr. Mayor: I’m not. Madam Clerk, lets get into the regular agenda. The Clerk: FINANCE 50. Discuss the Internal Auditor report regarding the Lock and Dam Audit Report. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe you requested this. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I wasn’t in Finance when they had this particular meeting and I wanted it brought back. Mr. Cosnahan is here and if he will just go over I guess a couple of the first five or six things that was in this audit that we, nothing has been said as if this never happened and this is very, very serious. The audit was supposed to have been done and ndst we’ve been having some time I think it was March the 22 we called Mr. Cosnahan here the 21 nd or 22. We called Mr. Cosnahan to go out. There was an audit prior to that at that same th location, the Lock and Dam but I think around May the 17 somewhere there about Mr. was able to get to this. But to make a long story short, Mr. Cosnahan, if you will go over some of the findings that you reported back in this audit, sir, and kind of help me go through this just for a brief minute. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cosnahan. th Mr. Cosnahan: Thank you. Yes, we actually completed the audit on May the 14 and for th winding up as late as the 15. There were a number of things that we did point out. The primary thing was that we had employees that were transferring money from the Lock and Dam into the Ad-min office and it never made it there. There were some ten deposits that were not located that never made it to the bank. That covered five weekends so it’s really ten days that was involved since you’re only open on the weekends. The total of those we estimated to be about $1,288.00. The insurance department had already investigated this before we even were called in. They had basically pulled off of this because they had an individual they had already arrested for taking some equipment from out of there. Some of that time was spent trying to coordinate our work with the Sheriff’s Department and so forth and the end result we have determined there were a number of lack of internal controls that Commissioner Williams referred to you earlier, talking about good accounting people that were not in place. We’ve met with Mr. Beck, we’ve met with Mr. Russell and Ms. Williams, went over these with her. My understanding’s all of these are in place. One of the matters that we reported to the Finance Committee was that there were two employees that had agreed to take the polygraph test. The insurance department had opted to do that when we talked to them. My understanding is that they have taken it the two have taken the polygraph test and as I understand it did pass it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: And Mr. Mayor? 41 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, thank you. This has been an on-going problem and I’m surprised we just received this information in Finance and not addressed as to what’s going to be done. When you’re talking about deposits that weren’t made, deposits that wasn’t, employees have no accountability passes and I think Lock and Dam is an area now where you have to pay for a car to go in on events and whatever. Is that right, Mr. Cosnahan? Mr. Cosnahan: Saturdays and Sundays I understand, sir. Mr. Williams: Yes, Saturdays and Sundays. And money is being lost. We got some employees that uh, I don’t know whether they’re incarcerated and that but goods, lawnmowers, weed eaters all kind of equipment. And there’s a subcommittee out to look into that as well. But my thing is when this kind of report comes back and this commission does not react to what has happened it says to me that there’s light in holding people accountable for what’s going on. Now this is minor compared to some of the other stuff we had but we need to address it and we need to make sure that we don’t turn our heads and not, and not make sure that this is done right. Mr. Cosnahan: That’s right. One of the things that we suggested, Commissioner Williams is that consideration needs to be made as to whether this is a useful thing or not. It looks like it’s costing more money to man the gates out there and have people pay to come in than we’re collecting. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Yeah, thank you, Mr. Mayor and thank you, J.T. That was the point I wanted to get. Your report indicated that receipts were less than what we were charging, than what we were spending on ticket takers so I would like the Administrator and Mr. Beck to look into having this facility made free to the public and not have it staffed or have it staffed on a periodic basis. If it’s costing more to have a ticket taker there’s no sense in even charging people and having a ticket taker. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? Mr. Bowles: Yes, sir, I would. Mr. Mayor: Can we have a second? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I agree that if we’re spending more than we’re making with this endeavor that it’s important and my main concern is that since this is at the end of the road, that we maintain a police presence or a security presence there during high traffic times to assure that no illegal activity or bad behavior is going on or vandalism. 42 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, also in Finance Committee Mr. Cosnahan’s recommendations were made and Mr. Beck stated to the committee that they had been implemented at that time. It was not just summer or received as information without knowing that the recommendations had been recommended. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I think that Mr. Bowles has a good motion there in regards to making it free for the people who are paying the taxes for this in the community but I don’t think we need to abandon that area from the standpoint of visibility by our Recreation Department or by our security people as Mr. Cheek just mentioned a moment ago. So that being the case we do need to have some presence there and periodically, you know to where they say we don’t know when we’re going to be there but let’s be there and let ourselves be known. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a --- Mr. Grantham: I’d like to substitute that in the form of a motion for uh, or do you have, is this the substitute we’re working on? The Clerk: No, sir, this is an original motion. Mr. Grantham: Okay, I’d like to, the substitute motion --- Mr. Mayor: We had, Mr. Bowles, Madam Clerk, was his motion seconded? The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Grantham seconded it. Mr. Grantham: I seconded it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, so are you --- Mr. Grantham: I made the substitute that we include not abandoning the facility from our Recreation personnel as well as our security personnel. Mr. Bowles: And I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner, Coach. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cosnahan, I’d like to know at this particular time since we’ve had this audit done have we had some kind of tracking method in reference to what has been happening out at the Lock and Dam up to this point. Do we have any reports in reference to any funds being missing at this time and what kind of record to we have, record keeping do we have to solidify what has already happened to keep this from happening again. 43 Mr. Cosnahan: Provided that’s the recommendations that we suggested have been implemented then we do have it where there is controls on it and there should be no furtherance of anything like this. We have not been back, of course, since we completed this. Mr. Holland: Okay, you say should not. Maybe Mr. Beck can answer this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. The recommendations that Beard and Company made have been implemented. We have a system and actually had a system in place before. Sometimes a system is only as good as the humans that are working the system but what Beard has done is fine-tune the system we had. We have a system that tracks the parking passes to the revenue with those corresponding report sheets that come in now every Monday morning when the deposits are made. And just one other comment, Mr. Mayor, if I could make about the personnel. The personnel that is out there, yes if you compare the revenue that we make versus the personnel cost in some weekends we don’t make a payroll. The issue there is though that these employees are doing other tasks as well. They’re not just taking up tickets. They’re cleaning rest rooms they’re making the public feel more secure out there by having personnel on site and doing a variety of tasks besides just taking up the tickets. So you really can’t compare directly the personnel costs versus the revenue because there are some other benefits to it as well. But in answer to your question yes, those have been implemented. Mr. Holland: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, one other thing too I don’t want us to create a Frankenstein monster here and I think that it’s a good idea that if we possibly might want to make that free but it’s something you got to think about when we start making facilities of that particular nature free for the public. So we, you know we want to look down the road to make sure that we’re going to provide the facilities, we’re going to provide the kind of man-power to go out there and help and be there so those persons that are out there they can be protected so we won’t have things happening out there in that particular area that’s going to create some problems and come back to bite us later on down the line. Mr. Holland: Yes, sir, and I believe Commissioner Grantham put that into his substitute motion. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve heard all the concern on whether or not it should be free or not but I haven’t heard any concern about the wrong that was done out there. The money that was misused or stolen or whatever you want to, however you want to, whatever category you want to put it in. We’re worried about now whether it’s going to be free or not but nobody’s addressing the issue about all these violations or the deposit that wasn’t made. Mr. Cosnahan estimated, he don’t know how much money he estimated and I’m sure he estimated low. I mean if you’re talking about breaking the rules and violating, we have not addressed that at one time. Now I think we ought to look at keeping the place. Whether we’re going to have security on there or have somebody out there or not. But the issue at hand now is the violation that’s been done. This is not the first time Mr. Cosnahan’s been out there with the auditors. This is the second audit in the last six to eight months. We just did an investigation a while back that 44 the auditor’s supposed to come and this is the second time that something else has happened. Now this ain’t the same audit. This is a different time. So we need to address the issue at hand and not whether the facility needs to be free or not, or whether we ought to have somebody on the door. What happened to breaking the violations? Those are the kind of things somebody needs to address. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cosnahan. Mr. Cosnahan: To be brief, I didn’t mention but this is in the hands of the Sheriff’s Department --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cosnahan: --- to take care of it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Madam Clerk, could you read back the substitute motion for clarity? The Clerk: For clarity. The substitute motion was to refer to the Administrator and the Recreation Department for a recommendation as to the feasibility of operating the park without a ticket taker. And it was to include not abandoning the property nor the security factor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question, Mr. Mayor. The Clerk: The original was the same but not including abandoning and the security. Mr. Mayor: Was it including looking to --- The Clerk: It was the same motion and the substitute motion included not abandoning the property from the Recreation Department and security. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a quick question. The people who are responsible for the missing money have been prosecuted and or jailed. Is that correct? Mr. Cosnahan: No. Mr. Mayor: Is that correct? Mr. Cosnahan: It’s my understanding there was one individual that was a party to delivering the monies from the Lock and Dam to the Ad-min office so it could be deposited. The individual that was arrested was for the alleged theft of some property. 45 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cosnahan: And it’s in the hands of the Sheriff’s Department. They are aware that we have conducted this audit. I’ve talked with them, they have not asked for our report but they are aware of the missing deposits. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cosnahan: Where they go from there you know is pretty much up to them. Mr. Cheek: Just as a request. Can we, the commission be updated on the progress of this case? Theft of public funds is something that should not be tolerated. Mr. Williams: And equipment. Mr. Cheek: And equipment. Mr. Mayor: We would request that. Mr. Cosnahan: Okay, do you want me to touch base with the Sheriff’s Department or do you want Mr. Beck or what do you mean by updating? Mr. Mayor: Andy, who would you prefer? Mr. Cheek: The Attorney or the Administrator. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Attorney. Mr. Holland: One other question, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: I want to ask Mr. Beck. Have we recovered any equipment from the Lock and Dam that was taken from out there? Has any of that equipment been recovered because from my understanding some of it was taken out of the city? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck. Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the commission. Yes, it has. There were several pieces that were found at a private residence that have been recovered and there was an arrest made in that case. Mr. Holland: If you don’t mind may I get a list of those pieces of equipment that were recovered please? Mr. Beck: Be glad to. 46 Mr. Holland: The commissioners want to know --- Mr. Mayor: Okay, that would be great if you could provide that. We have a substitute motion and a second. If there is no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Holland abstains. Mr. Bowles out. Motion carries 8-1. The Clerk: FINANCE 51. Consider revised Board of Assessors funding request. (No recommendation from the Finance Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Hicks here to speak to that? Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can. What’s occurred is the uh, the Board of Assessors has come to Mr. Hicks with a request a study done under the pay classification plan um, because they feel that their pay has fallen behind, not only the City’s but other localities and they’re not adequately compensating their employees for what they do. The discussion in Finance led us to recommend what I was coming back with today, was a recommendation that they requested 14,000 and some odd dollars to do that. I was my conversation with the Finance Committee and my recommendation that we expand that study. We’ve talked regularly. We talked just a little while ago. As I’ve mentioned about the need to look at our entire pay structure. The classification committee is meeting as, right before this meeting in reference to that and it would be my recommendation that instead of looking piecemeal again at one of our departments that we combine that with a pay study of the entire structure. We had not done one in the last six years or so and I think it would be necessary to do that. I was tasked to come back with some recommendations. We’ve had a couple conversations with the Carl Vinson Institute, a couple private consultants and it would be my recommendation that you authorize me to negotiate with a private provider to bring forth a proposal that would provide for the classification study of the entire government. Numbers that we talked about ranged from a high of about $145,000, which is the initial cost. We were able to negotiate that down to about $50,000 or so, which is approximately what 32 or 36 or so above what just a small apartment would cost. I think that would be a prudent way to spend those dollars. I would suggest you let me come back to you at our next meeting with a firm proposal and a funding source to that. Mr. Mayor: And I would just like to speak to that issue. I just firmly believe in taking the comprehensive approach as opposed to doing it piecemeal and I will say that our employees are the lifeblood of this City and you know we’re recruiting them, competing against other cities so I’m very much in favor of Mr. Russell’s recommendation. Commissioner Brigham. 47 Mr. Brigham: I’d make that in the form of a motion but I don’t want to limit Mr. Russell to one firm. I would limit him to the firm he can find that’s capable of doing --- Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, that was the intent. If I misspoke, it was the intent of finding an appropriate firm to do that. Mr. Brigham: That’s what I want. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Harper out. Motion carries 9-0. The Clerk: FINANCE 52. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Financial Advisor relative to bond refunding and swap termination. (No recommendation from Finance Committee May 29, 2007) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor my question is, aren’t these two distinctive activities as being combined in one? Mr. Mayor: That would be a better question for our --- Mr. Hatney: They are two distinct activities, they are independent of each other. To me they should not be managed together they need to be separated. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Could we hear please from our Financial Advisor on this? Ms. McNabb: Sure they are separate --- The Clerk: Dianne, pull your mike down. The Mayor: You’re riding a little high. Ms. McNabb: Each bond issue as well as each derivative contract is separate. But, and the derivative contracts are entered into in order to offset the interest associated with the bond. And so that’s why they’ve been put together as a group of transactions. Mr. Mayor: Continue. 48 Mr. Hatney: My question is should the bond swap issue be tied to this when they are different contracts even all together? Ms. McNabb: Well, we’re refunding the bonds for which the swap was issued. Mr. Hatney: But that’s a different activity though from the other bond. Ms. McNabb: Yeah, each one is a separate activity. Each bond issue being refunded. Mr. Hatney: I personally think they need to be dealt with differently, independently. That’s just my thought. Ms. McNabb: I’m not sure I understand what you mean by differently. Mr. Hatney: Well, you got two or three things here together currently and they are different entities involved in it. For instance the bank here, this bank be here, then those things shouldn’t be lumped together they should be dealt with independently of each other. Ms. McNabb: Yeah, each one would have to be dealt with individually. Mr. Hatney: Then we should vote on them individually. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. McNabb: That would be fine. Mr. Mayor: If we could hear from you regarding this agenda item, please, ma’am. Ms. McNabb: Sure. Mr. Mayor: I know you gave a presentation to the Finance Committee. Ms. McNabb: Yes, and we sent additional copies I think to the rest of the commission. Um, if you go to page one this summarizes the refunding of the 1996 and 1997 bonds and termination of the SWAP Contract that goes along with those particular bonds. I think page two probably shows it a little more clearly um, in connection with the refunding the county, the city will save $3.4 million dollars, that’s the present saving value over time. That’s equal to 7.79% on a net present value savings basis and page two shows how the monies would, the bonds that would be issued and then the application of those bond proceeds. For the current refunding of the ’96 and ’97 bonds and the reason we propose to do it this way is because you save more money by doing a fixed rate refunding and terminating the SWAP then you do by issuing variable rate bonds and not terminating the SWAP. And in connection with the SWAP you really have to look at that as sort of an investment that termination is not something that should be thought of as like canceling a contract. Counter-parties on derivative contracts like this enter into them and then terminate them when it becomes advantageous to them. You have to actively 49 manage any sort of derivative product like that, keep on up with it and typically if you’re actively managing it you’re terminating contracts and entering into a new contracts all the time based on where the market is. On page two we show where you would issue fixed rate bonds of approximately $58 million dollars to pay off and that’s what SWAP purchases are. Those are state and local government securities would be purchased to pay off all of the outstanding 1996 and 1997 bonds. Then in connection with the termination you would issue $2.8 million more, this would be on a combined basis because you would not issue $2.8 million dollars in bonds by themselves. But I wanted to separate it so you could see a bit clearly the two separate transactions. It wouldn’t be cost effective to do them separately. But you have a SWAP termination payment um, that would be due based on current market conditions of $4.5 million dollars and you can compare that to the savings that you’re going to realize on the fixed rate refunding. Now the um, page three shows the bonds that would be refunded of 1996 and 1997 bonds and the amount outstanding. All those bonds would be called. And on page four we’ve summarized the, under current market conditions the advance refunding of certain bonds in series 2000, 2002 and 2004. There are approximately $346 million dollars of bonds that could be refunded for a net present value savings of $13 million dollars or 3.76% savings. 3% savings is usually the minimum that you would refund bonds for. And we review these and determining which bonds we recommend refunding we review them every time we run numbers because under one, when interest rates change there may be individual maturities of bonds that are then no longer saving as much money as it needs to. So the issue size will go up and down with the market depending upon specifically which bonds make sense to refund. On page five we show the sources and uses associated with that refunding. Under current market conditions we’d be talking about issuing approximately $351 million dollars in bonds and purchasing state and local government securities for an irrevocable escrow and pay off those bonds of $368 million dollars. Page six identifies specifically which of the bonds we would propose to refund. And you can see that these bonds are in series 2000, 2002 and 2004. 2004 and the approximate $160 million dollars of bonds, you can see that there’s a $40 million dollar 2034 maturity and almost $120 million that matures in 2039. Those are both outstanding with interest rates of 5.25% and can be refunded at savings to the city. That’s the $160 million of bonds to which the SWAP was applied in matching the derivative with the bond, with the bonds. Um, then on page 7 I summarized the termination of the $160 million dollar SWAP. Based on market conditions on th May 24 you would have received approximately $1.2 million terminating the SWAP and would have netted at least a million dollars. Obviously the cost, the termination payment goes up and down everyday just as bond interest rates do. Right now that amount would be lower but it goes, again it goes up and down each time but it’s definitely to your benefit. You would receive a payment from Deutsche Bank on terminating this SWAP and the actual expenses would be approximately $25,000.00 not $250.00.00. The $25,000.00 basically is our fees for evaluating the, determining that the market price is in fact the market price and executing the termination of the SWAP. Page eight I’ve summarized the various individual transactions. You would save approximately $3.5 million dollars on a present value basis from the refunding of 1996 and 1997. The termination of the Merrill Lynch SWAP would be approximately $4.5 million dollars and that’s down to $4 million dollars at this point. The advance refunding of the 2000, 2002 and 2004 would save the city $13 million dollars and then the termination of the Deutsche Bank SWAP would save approximately $1 million dollars under current market conditions today, it’s about $800,000. So the city would be able to eliminate the risk associated with the SWAP in 50 conjunction with the refunding of the bonds without having a net, with a net positive impact to the Water and Sewer System. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: This will not do anything to the maturity date would it? Ms. McNabb: No, sir. I would not, I would never recommend extension of the security, of the termination date of the bonds. Mr. Mayor: So basically market conditions right now make this a very favorable transaction to the city. Ms. McNabb: I think so, yes. And the commission had expressed an interest in terminating the SWAP um, instead of having to monitor them and have somebody on board. It’s pretty complicated. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to clarify for the media that are present that the SWAP that we’re upside down on is not the SWAP that we engaged in a year and a half ago. The SWAP that we’re about to lose $4.5 million dollars on was the SWAP that was done three years ago and please get the facts straight when reporting the Deutsche Bank SWAP from a I’d make a motion to year and a half ago. It’s about to profit the city a million dollars. approve this item and have the underwriter’s proposals come back to the Finance Committee within four weeks. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just to remind the body that on the Deutsch Bank SWAP the commission voted to. We undertook that endeavor that those proceeds would go into repairs for the Augusta Canal. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And just to let everyone know that this has not been taken lightly and certainly overnight from the standpoint of tracking this information. Ms. McNabb has been very cooperative in providing the information to the Finance Committee and we’ve been receiving that certainly on a weekly basis so that we could track this information and to be able to make a recommendation such as this that we feel comfortable in doing. As I’ve mentioned in the past I just, I just can’t see a government being involved in the derivatives when we do not have the personnel that it takes in order to maintain a daily active rapport with the market and to be able to track the interest rates and be able to come back and give the proper information that’s needed. So I do recommend that this be done. 51 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Beard. Ms. Beard: Should we do this? What will we do in terms of selecting underwriters? Ms. McNabb: When we had discussed the refunding before and the commission had authorized us to move forward with it we haven’t moved forward with it yet because we’re waiting on the audit. We can’t do the bond refunding until we’ve got the auditor’s financial statement of the Water System but in that original action you had asked me to recommend a syndicate of underwriters for negotiating the underwriting and I have pulled together a list of recommendations of my recommendation would be that, because it’s going to be a very large issue and so I think that it’s to the city’s advantage to include a number of firms in order to generate the greatest demand for the city’s bonds. The greater the demand the lower the interest rate will be. And my recommendation would be to include Wachovia Securities, Morgan Keegan, a division of Regions Bank, Gardner Michael who you’ve worked with before, Merrill Lynch who you’ve worked with before and Siebert, Branford and Shank, which is a minority owned firm out of Pennsylvania that I work with a lot and they do a fabulous job. And then perhaps one more firm, maybe Deutsche Bank and then we can leave a spot open if there’s another firm that appears to be advantages to include. Mr. Grantham: If I could continue. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: I’m sorry. Excuse me Mr. Mayor. On that on what Ms. McNabb’s recommending I think that’s within the motion that Mr. Bowles made that we receive recommendations from her back to the Finance Committee within a four-week period of time and what I’m anticipating that this is that we’re voting on the concept to make this change and we would get information based on the underwriters that would be forthcoming then we certainly make that approval at that time as well and we’d make it based on her recommendations. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And Ms. McNabb did a great job explaining and talking. This is very enlightening to say the least but Ms. McNabb this is an old SWAP that we’re doing, three years I think. Is it three years back Joe, this is --- Ms. McNabb: The uh --- Mr. Williams: --- three year SWAP? Mr. Bowles: Three or four, yes. Mr. Williams: Okay and I guess my question is have we lost, how much have we lost or have we gained. I mean when this came up I want to know why we’re doing it right now. If it’s that bad shouldn’t we have done it a year ago, two years ago. If we’re losing I just need some 52 clarity on what we’re doing. I mean you’re talking way over my head when you’re talking about even the banks you mentioned. Ms. McNabb: That original Merrill Lynch SWAP that was entered into several years ago, I think it was in ’04 was in 2004 it was a SWAPTION which meant that you entered into it at that point in time but the SWAP itself could not be exercised by Merrill Lynch until the end of 2006. And so for the end of 2006 is when we, what I recommended that you terminate the SWAP and issue the fixed rate bonds because that would generate greater savings for the city to go ahead and enter into it in that fashion. So there was no SWAP until October of 2006. Again you entered into the transaction in 2004 but it was for the execution of a SWAP in 2006. So it’s only been in place for a few months at this point and we have not been able to execute it because we don’t have the audit. Again we’ve been ready to refund the bonds but we have to wait on the audit. Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, and you helped me a lot. You brought back some thought patterns that was back in ’04 when we did it with Merrill Lynch, who was handling what who was on first and who’s on second. Ms. McNabb: I’m glad you do because I’m not sure I remember. Mr. Williams: It’s coming back now and I’m trying to trap it this trap mind I got to hold it for a while but it’s coming back as to the problem we had, and who did what and who’s supposed to do what. That stands a lot. I’m not going further on I think Mr. Grantham said this was a proposal for us to look over for us to know what we’re doing before we doing it. At least we’re just getting a concept today as to what we’re going to do. Ms. McNabb: Yes, what I’d like to do is have the lawyer’s draft, a Parameters th Resolution to present at the next commission meeting on the 19 and that Parameters Resolution then would frame all the conditions under which we would move forward with this. So that once you develop the conditions that are appropriate then we would be ready to execute as soon as the, when the market is, well when we’ve got the audit and the documents have been prepared and then market is at the right place. I mean I can’t predict where the market’s going to be a month from now but we wouldn’t do it if the market was not, doesn’t meet your parameters. Mr. Williams: Well, and, Mr. Mayor, my last statement and you’re weren’t here so I’m going to give you just a quick synopsis of this education they gave me and the bonds council and the bonds SWAP and we had a lot of conversation at that time. And there was a lot of stuff that we really didn’t understand. If we had lost monies I’m prepared for it this time. I willing and ready and able to able to be in on this closing out of this SWAP and the bonds if necessary, is what we got to do. But I do remember that. It brought back a lot of bad memories. Mr. Mayor: Basically we set up the parameters and when the market conditions become right we pull the trigger. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just encourage Ms. McNabb to look for all underwriters in the Augusta area. It seems that every time bond issues come up the same 53 underwriters are presented before us and I know there are many underwriters in the Augusta area that are not very happy with that. So I would encourage the City of Augusta to contact all underwriters that are locally here. Ms. McNabb: Well, I went through the phone book just in case. There are only two that I know, that I noted that were not on this list and if you have a relation, if you know of them I’ll be glad to include them. That was UVS --- Mr. Bowles: That would be one of them. Ms. McNabb: --- Securities and Smith Barney. Mr. Bowles: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, also I think I’ve noticed that whenever we issue bonds or we have in the past there’s always been some exorbitant fees associated with those finders fees and different --- Ms. McNabb: There’s none this time. Mr. Cheek: --- yeah, because we learned before and I believe the Mayor Pro Tem brought this to the table. Chatham County actually has caps set on fees for large issuances of bonds. I would like to see us follow that same protocol too. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. McNabb: Yes, I’ll have to say you didn’t have a financial advisor last time watching what was going on. Mr. Mayor: Thank the Lord we have one now. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion --- Mr. Shepard: May I ask Mr. Cheek --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: In response to that we have capped the fees and you did so back in September of last year in the minutes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: What’s the cap? 54 Mr. Shepard: I’ll be happy to publish the minutes so you can, I’ll be happy to publish the minutes if you like but you can go ahead and take the vote. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Can we delete the fees all together? You’re worried about that cap. You’ve got somebody that can manage --- Mr. Williams: What’s the cap? Ms. McNabb: I’m not a lawyer now. Mr. Hatney: We need to --- Mr. Mayor: Well and I think that approving this today allows us the leeway in going forward to look at all these things. Ms. McNabb: Oh, and I definitely will look at all. The thing you need to keep in mind that what we’re proposing to refund if five different series of bonds. So that even though we want to issue it as one series of current refund and new money bonds it’s actually sort of like, it’s actually six different series of bonds that we’re managing and issuing on a combined basis. So we still have to account for everything as separate entities. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All righty if there’s --- Mr. Hatney: You still can do it under one fee. Yes, we can. Amen. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We still have a leeway. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Williams: Voting on the concept. Make sure we know what we’re voting on. th Ms. McNab: Well I’ll be back on the 19. Mr. Mayor: Thank you so much for your help. And we appreciate you making the trip up. Ms. McNabb: No problem. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: OTHER BUSINESS 57. Discuss the Commission’s censure of Commissioner Calvin Holland. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) 55 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I believe you requested this? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I had this put back on the agenda. The last meeting we dispersed, we dismissed before we got to this. I think Commissioner Holland was well in his rights. I don’t feel that he violated any rules, any guidelines. I think this commission needs to rescind and apologize for the statements and the thing that was made not just here but in the media. I think that we ought to be good stewards and realize when we are wrong. We ought to have enough sense to say I’m sorry and I think that we owe him that much because he was well within his rights as an elected official. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to have a point of personal privilege at this time if you don’t mind, please, sir. Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize you for two minutes then we can go to your next one. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, just let me share this with my th colleagues and with the patrons at hand. During the week of April 17 2007 I made an initial request to the Interim Administrator Robert Leverett who Mr. Russell left in charge during his absence to copy the computer hard drive of a particular employee. I was told by Mr. Leverett that the request would be taken care of and he would have Gary Hewitt Assistant Direct of the Information Technology Department call me. Mr. Hewitt called me and stated that he would take care of the request and would let me know when the information would be available. When Mr. Hewitt called to say that the information was ready, I then requested a copy of the City Administrator’s computer hard drive. He said okay to this request and would let me know when the information would be ready. Mr. Hewitt did not state at any time that he was or he was uncomfortable or had any misgivings about giving me this information. It is my understanding that Mr. Hewitt called the Administrator, not the acting Administrator, to let him know that I had requested a copy of his hard drive. I did not tell him to copy the hard drive while Mr. Russell was away, I just happened to make the request while he was away. As far as I was concerned he could’ve waited until Mr. Russell returned. I did not at any time request Mr. Hewitt to remove Mr. Russell’s computer hard drive. My position as an elected official of this government gives me the right to make the request not to mention the fact that the Federal Freedom of Information Act and Georgia Open Record Act gives me this right as well. The censure vote taken by six st members of the commission on May 1 was a rush to judgment and a total miscarriage of justice. Ordinance 6363 gave me the right for my legislative process to make such a request. While some members of the commission may not have liked my request, nevertheless, I had the right to make the request. This is America and I am an American. In closing I find it very troubling and disappointing that not one of six commissioners are members who voted to censure me took the time to call and discuss this matter with me. And they ended up making such a drastic and unfounded decision, which was absent of so many important facts. Respectfully, Calvin Holland Commissioner District 5. And at this time, Mr. Mayor, I would like for the Clerk to read the Attorney’s ruling for the record, if you don’t mind. 56 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do you have a copy of that Commissioner Holland? Mr. Holland: Yes, I do. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since there were two rulings made --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Cheek: Since there were two rulings made in this particular issue can we have both of those read? There was a follow-up letter that was companion to the initial letter stating the problems with dissemination of the public information. Mr. Williams: I think Commissioner Holland has the --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: --- right to continue if he can. Then Mr. Cheek can ask for whatever he needs read --- Mr. Mayor: Let’s proceed with Mr. Holland’s request to have this read into the record and then Mr. Cheek can make a request. The Clerk: Mr. Calvin Holland, Commissioners. Dear Commissioner Holland. I have been advised by Mayor Copenhaver that he received a letter from you requesting a ruling to whether or not you violated Ordinance 1-1-13. The Mayor asked that I review the ordinance and give my legal opinion as to whether or not your request for the hard drive of Fred Russell and Lisa Williams violates Section 1-1-13. Hopefully I can provide some guidance, which will lead to the resolution of this thorny issue. First let me say that, as many laws, rules and regulations and ordinances, the language of the Augusta-Richmond County Ordinance 1-1-13 is a bit vague. However in my opinion its intent is clear. The ordinance was clearly intended to prevent the chaos which would ensure, would ensue if city employees were required at any time to respond to requests received directly from elected officials. The city would be unable to function efficiently if any elected official would at any time issue orders and directives directly to an employee or group of employees. The city’s employees can function properly and efficiently if there is an easy recognizable chain of command in place. Section 1-1-13 lays out a chain of command starting with the City Administrator through which elected officials may provide instructions or directives to city employees. By its language Section 1-1-13 authorizes the city commissioners to do as you have done, request assistance from city employees for purposes of inquiry and investigation. Your act of requesting copies of the hard drive of Fred Russell and Lisa Williams seem to fall within the scope of your authority to inquire and investigate. Thus although it is not in my view the best practice your request does not appear to have violated the Letter of Ordinance 1-1-13. In the future however, requests like yours should be handled differently for the protection of the city it’s elected officials and employees. Such requests should be acted upon by the board rather than individual commissioners. Having met with you in two legal sessions I understand your concern regarding the fair enforcement of city rules and regulations, which prohibit the use of city computers for personal business. However my best 57 judgment is that your request to the IT Department for copies of the hard drive of Fred Russell and Lisa Williams does not advance the purpose and intent of Ordinance Section 1-1-13. Without a doubt the best practice is to deal with employees through the chain of command. As a commissioner you are certainly entitled to receive assistance from city employees however I’m sure that in obtaining that assistance you do not want to set any precedent which might impede the efficient operation of Augusta-Richmond County government or expose it to legal liability. Your concerns about the appropriate use of city computers are valid. Shortly the city will implement a program to enforce its rules and regulations against the misuse of city computers. The employees will be notified that the IT Department will conduct regular sweeps of city computers to detect and delete any data, which does relate to city business. In order words, enforcement of the city’s rules and regulations will not be left to the employees themselves. This type of program is in regular use by companies and governments across the country and should take care of your concerns. Best Regards. Very Sincerely, Thomas, Mean, Gillis and Seay PC. Quinton S. Seay. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Madam Clerk. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Cheek, did you? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I mean the letter pretty much says it all. The fact of the matter is one of the authors of the legislation has passed the Delineation of Responsibilities Ordinance. It was designed to prevent commissioners from going off and launching and expanding individual investigations or directing the work activities of employees. The letter clearly states that this is a poor business practice. It jeopardizes the smooth operation of the city. I will remind the body that these phones work in two different directions. While we can call and ask questions those who, any one of us who seeks to expand an investigation or has a concern about any employee can call the other commissioners. The letter also said this would be best handled through the body rather than an individual. This is a representative body of the people of the City of Augusta. The Administrator is a direct report to this body. No one of us has the authority to launch an investigation or to penalize or somehow reprimand this individual without it being the will of the body. The censure is as much a pointing out of the fact that directing employees to do activities especially when they potentially could have caused an employee to commit a felony with the Freedom of Information, or with the Privacy Act which we all get at the hospital was a bad decision. To go around the body without including us in the broadening of an investigation in to our Administrator or other staff members without authorization was a bad decision. In my opinion the censure stands and we cannot as a body allow any one of us to go out and conduct investigations into employees. We have to work as a body. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek: As an elected body. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. 58 Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The uh, Commissioner Cheek’s talking out of both sides of his mouth today. I don’t know what’s wrong with him but let me try to straighten out a couple of things here. First of all there’s orders that were put in place and they were put in place because he and I was doing what we was elected to do and that was going out to investigate and to see about the city’s business. And we found some things that wasn’t done, things that was done improperly and we was accused of micro-managing which we never done. We never gave any directive to any employee lest known the Administrator. I asked for the same information through the same procedures that Commissioner Holland did and nobody censured me. I ain’t as big as he is. I don’t know what the problem is but if he was wrong than he ought to be still wrong. Well now Mr. Holland who requested, he didn’t accuse the Administrator of anything. He didn’t charge the Administrator with anything. He has the right to see any equipment anything go on in this government because he was elected by a body of people to come downtown to do just that. You ain’t got to like him. Sometime I don’t like him. I get upset with him. But I have to deal with it. And there’s a lot of other folks up here I don’t like but I’ll still deal with you. I’m elected, you’re elected you have the right to do the things that you were elected to do. You ought not to be put in a corner because somebody don’t like certain things. There’s some things done in this government that’s not done right. And the world knows it. The whole entire world knows it. Now this man who asked for a copy of the hard drive didn’t break any rules and the regulations. But we want to say now that because we are elected and he worked for the body, we can’t agree on where to have lunch at up here. So how in the world are we going to agree on whether we going to look at somebody or not. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Williams --- Mr. Williams: I hadn’t had my five minutes, Mr. Mayor. Now you said –-- Mr. Mayor: No, sir, it’s not five minutes that was two minutes and I cut off Commissioner Cheek. Mr. Williams: Okay, all right, all right. You gave me more time, Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: That’s right. I want to be fair and equal. Mr. Williams: I don’t want to get into it today. I’m trying to have a good day. I’m an elected to speak for the people. I’m going to speak for them whether I got to do it out there on the floor --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: --- or stand up here. I’m going to speak for the people you put me in this office. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles. 59 Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If we refer to the Georgia Code 50-18-70 it states the storage medium such as a computer hard drive does not constitute a public record. As such the hard drive of Mr. Russell is not subject to public disclosure. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland and Commissioner Williams, I’ve recognized you twice --- Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, there’s no equipment that belongs to this government --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: --- not one piece of equipment --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I’ve recognized you twice. Mr. Williams: Not one. I don’t need you to recognize me, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, you do. Mr. Williams: I’m telling you as an elected official --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, Commissioner Holland would like to speak. Mr. Williams: --- there’s no way that you can tell me an elected official can’t look at --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: --- can’t look at the equipment --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I simply would like to say that I believe the Attorney from Atlanta has spoken. He said that I did not violate the ordinance and I think that should be the law of the land in reference to what I did. And as a matter of fact in reference to all of the equipment here in this municipal building it belongs to the taxpayers. And as I stated before the Freedom of Information Act gives us the right and gives them the right to come in and check this information out if at any time they deem necessary because they are taxpayers and what I did was not wrong, I followed protocol, I followed the correct procedure. And as the Attorney has stated I did not violate. And I will state this and I’ll conclude this by simply saying truth crushes the earth shall rise again as indicated by Attorney Seay. 60 Mr. Mayor: Okay and Commissioner Cheek, I believe I’ve recognized you twice on this as well. Mr. Cheek: I don’t think you’ve recognized me but once. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I will defer to you on that. I’ll recognize you for your second time. Mr. Williams: You’re playing the same ball again. Mr. Mayor: No --- Mr. Williams: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Cheek: (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek no, no Commissioner Cheek, I do believe I’ve recognized you twice. I believe we’ve spoken to this issue. Can I get a motion on this? Mr. Brigham: You don’t have a motion. I think you need to move on with the order of the day. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion? Mr. Williams: A motion that we rescind this uh, censure that we put on Calvin Holland for nothing. Mr. Hatney: I second that. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioner will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Grantham, Mr. Cheek and Ms. Beard vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, prior to proceeding I would with regards to some of these other business agenda items I would like to look to the Attorney. I believe some of them deal with employee related issues and legal matters. Actually I believe that 58, 59 and 61 all do. Mr. Attorney. OTHER BUSINESS 60. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting. Mr. Shepard: I would ask that we go into legal session before we discuss any of the matters --- Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk. 61 Mr. Shepard: --- items 58, 60 and 61. Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk, I’d like to have it put back on the agenda for the next commission meeting and every commission meeting from now on. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to move into legal session? Steve, would you read it for the purposes of --- Mr. Shepard: I make the motion that we now go into Legal. Item number 61, which is the legal part of our agenda Mr. Mayor pending and potential litigation, real estate and personnel matters. Mr. Mayor: I believe 58 and 59 would also --- Mr. Shepard: Also 58 was delayed and dealing in that session with 58, 59 and 61. Mr. Mayor: Okay can I get a motion to that effect? Mr. Brigham: So moved. Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Williams: Fifty-eight, Mr. Mayor, is not an item that needs to go into legal. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, I haven’t recognized you but this does have to deal with employees so we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles out. Mr. Williams and Mr. Holland not voting. Motion carries 7-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: I’ll go ahead and call the meeting back to order. Mr. Shepard. LEGAL MEETING A.Pending and Potential Litigation. B.Real Estate. C.Personnel. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask that you sign the Closed Meeting Affidavit wherein the body was in executive session to discuss Pending and Potential Litigation, Acquisition of Real Estate and Personnel. 62 Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect? Mr. Bowles: So moved. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. ADDENDUM 64. Motion to approve purchase of 6.12 acres of land and mobile homes located on Smith Cemetery Road from G. Eddie Faircloth and Darylnn G. Faircloth for $250,000.00 and to hire G. Eddie Faircloth to collect rents from existing tenants for $400.00 per month. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. In the area of real estate I would request that we memorialize on this record the acquisition of property on Smith Cemetery Road, which is property consisting of 6.12 acres of land and the mobile homes located thereon. The purchase will be consummated from G. Eddie Faircloth and Darylnn Faircloth for $250,000.00 and we have the Faircloth’s to continue to collect the rents from the tenants that are on those properties and that the purchase of the property be made from the Augusta Utilities Bonds Fund. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that effect? Mr. Grantham: So moved. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get something clear now? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: The rent is going to go where. Where’s the rent going to go? Mr. Shepard: It goes to AUD. It would go to the utilities fund. Mr. Grantham: AUD is (INAUDIBLE) Mr. Shepard: AUD. Augusta Utilities Department, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. 63 Motion carries 9-0. ADDENDUM 65. Motion to approve purchase of .23 acres of land, more or less, located at 3044 Deans Bridge Road from Villa, Inc. and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk of Commission to execute a sales contract and such documents as necessary to consummate the closing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard. Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would ask for an add and approve on the following item which is the acquisition of property by Augusta from the Villa, Inc. It is property located at 3044 Deans Bridge Road. It consists of 0.23 acres of land. The only stipulations are that 50% of the survey be paid by each party and 50% be paid by the, 50% of the appraisal costs be paid by each party. And I would ask the authority to extend to the Mayor to sign the sales contract and if approved by counsel that the matter be closed. Mr. Smith: So moved. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor I move that Item 58 be moved to Administrative Services for the next committee meeting. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second? Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Agenda Item 59. Mr. Cheek. ADDENDUM 59. Discuss the unauthorized release of intellectual property. (Requested by Commissioner Andy Cheek) 64 Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, what I want to ask in this case is that it’s my understanding we still have the hard drive secure. That the hard drive be reviewed for tampering. Any unauthorized search or recording made from that source other than that machine would show up in the IP address of that particular computer would become known and if there is any information that has been illegally obtained from that that we follow through to the full extent of the law to recover that information. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a motion to that affect? Mr. Cheek: So moved. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m thinking that’s directed to IT. I guess it’s going to be it said, I think the motion was to be viewed but it’s reviewed by IT. Is that right? Mr. Cheek: No, this type of search you can, hard drives contain every bit of information that’s ever put on them and at exact times information can be erased. We’re going to have to have probably some experts come in that may have resources beyond what we have locally to do the full scan for any type of fact or search, hacking that may have been done or outright copying that may have been done. It will also give us a breakdown of the times any recordings were made, the dates and so forth so we should get an idea if it was copied after hours or tampered with in any way. It should be no entries in it since the date it was placed in security. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: --- as an elected official how can we sanction that? How can we do that when we can’t determine whether or not we can review the hard drive or not? It’s been, it’s been, now I hear one commissioner making a motion to get somebody to come in to look at it but if it’s not feasible, if it’s not within the guidelines of the law for us to do that how can we go ahead and vote now to get somebody else to come in and look at it. I mean if it’s going to be, it’s got to be looked at by somebody, if a professional comes in and I got no problem with it. I welcome somebody. I welcome all that. But I just want to know on one hand we can do it and it’s okay but on the other hand we can’t. I just need to know which way is up. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, would you amend your motion to state that all federal and local laws be abided by in any search undertaken? Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor, and the thing about this is unlike any other events that have occurred that precipitated with what we’re dealing with today this will be dealt with by the body, six commissioners. Not taken individually so I don’t mind making the amendment but um --- 65 Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I can. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I don’t mind him making a motion the body can support it all they want to as an elected official not a body of elected officials. But elected officials have the authority, the right to look into to check any of the government’s property or the employees of the government. That’s what we were elected to do. So the body can chose to do what they want to. I’m not up heaving to any motion to think that the body’s coming together and going to do something. The body can even decide where they’re going to eat lunch at. I said that earlier. So the body sure ain’t going to be able to make this decision. But I’m voting against the motion not because I don’t want it. I welcome that and I think that’s what we need to do. Mr. Cheek: You welcome it but? Mr. Williams: I’m not, you’re telling me how to vote, Mr. Cheek. Now I’m my convictions. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Bowles and then --- Mr. Bowles: Thank you. This unlike the other request, the vague request for a hard drive general information this is a request by Mr. Cheek to look and see not what is on the hard drive but if the hard drive has been tampered with or copied. So it does fall within the rights of public officials and or the public in general for that information according to the codes set out by Mr. Seay in his letter to Mr. Williams from last month. Mr. Mayor: Okay, let’s, y’all ready to vote on this? Commissioner Williams, I have recognized you twice. Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor, just one point of order here. I mean how can we check the hard drive if we don’t look at it. That’s the dumbest think I’ve heard in a long time. You’re going to check it but you’re not going to look at it. Mr. Bowles: I’m going to play this recording --- Mr. Mayor: Y’all please, please, please --- Mr. Bowles: --- so you can listen to yourselves at this entire meeting. Mr. Mayor: Please, please, please, we, please ---- Mr. Williams: It’s not half as dumb as Mr. Bowles. Mr. Mayor: Please. All right y’all. If there’s no further discussion on the issue commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 66 Mr. Williams: --- boy. Mr. Bowles: Don’t call me boy. Mr. Mayor: Hey! Commissioners, are you voting? Mr. Williams, Mr. Hatney, Mr. Harper and Mr. Holland vote No. Motion fails 5-4. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk, agenda item 62. The Clerk: ADDENDUM 62. Motion for the City to exercise its right to terminate the probationary employment of Mr. Eugene Jessup, the General Counsel and Director of Augusta-Richmond County Legal Department. Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion on this? Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Smith votes No. Ms. Beard out. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission 67 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 5, 2007. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 68