Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOMMISSION MEETING June 2, 2009 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JUNE 2, 2009 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., June 2, 2009, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Holland, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Beard, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The invocation was given by Father John Lyons, St. Joseph Catholic Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Father, if you could come forward I have something for you. And I just want to say I know on behalf of the Commission thank you for those most appropriate prayers today. That was wonderful. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Father John Lyons, St. Joseph Catholic Church is Chaplain of the Day for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community. Serves as an example for all of the faith community. nd Given under my hand this 2 Day of June 2009. Father Lyons: Thank you, sir. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the Delegation. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS A. Mr. Anthony Esposito: RE: Regarding the enforcement of the Augusta Code relative to the public nuisance ordinance and the state of Georgia’s property the former Georgia Golf & Gardens located in the 110 block of Reynolds Street. Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir. Mr. Esposito: The topic has changed slightly because of recent developments dealing with the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. Mr. Mayor: Could you speak into the microphone? Mr. Esposito: Is that good? Mr. Mayor: Yeah, that’s better. Mr. Esposito: All right. So I’m pretty much going to give an up to date with what’s going on with 1100 Reynolds Street and then kind of propose a way to deal with this problem in the future. As you can see I’ve got a little something here, a little math equation you’re familiar with. The Georgia Hall and Fame plus state and budget cuts have been completely de-funded 1 down to zero. That’s resulted in this. And that’s on Reynolds Street. And that’s looking through the gate. So that’s the current state of the Georgia Golf and Gardens. I’ve got a group of folks called Growing Augusta the Greenway, which is a volunteer group and what we want to do is simply cut the grass this Saturday. We’ve got a bunch of folks with lawnmowers, with electric trimmers that want to come out and cut the grass. That’s it, that’s all we’re looking to do. Pull up some weeds. So I’ve been working for the past week with folks in Growing Augusta the Greenway to get through the bureaucracy to do this. So what’s the holdup? The State Properties Commission that technically owns the property because the States Property’s on board, the Attorney General that yields the liability and right of entry, they’re on board. Augusta state representative and senators and the Office of the Governor is on board and importantly and most importantly the citizens of Augusta are on board. So why are we not yet allowed to go in there and cut the grass on Saturday? The weeds are going to be there until the Georgia Golf Hall & Fame simply calls a Board of Directors meeting. All they’ve got to do is a conference call. They need six of the eleven folks. I’m not sure why that call isn’t occurring right now. I’ve spoken to the Chairman I’ve spoken to everybody I can, the Governor’s office on down. Any pressure you can apply on the Georgia Golf Hall & Fame, the Board of Directors is listed on their website GGHF.org. I’m trying to get six of those folks together to simply give us permission before they scare away more visitors and such. Here’s the thing I put in front of you. It’s a little color thing. It says something like the unifying beautifying Augusta plan. The seat of Georgia is not going to be cutting this grass any time soon. They have zero dollars; the legislature does not meet again until January of next year I believe at the earliest. So the weeds and grass are going to come back. What I think we do is take this blight on the city and it’s the fault of the State of course and turn it into an opportunity. The opportunity is to use the maintenance of the Golf and Gardens simply cutting the grass every other week is a way to build the Augusta community by bringing folks together. The think I have in front of you is called the Unifying Beautify Augusta Plan mostly because it rhymes. And what we want to do is each Saturday, sorry every other Saturday have two districts team up. And you see in front of you the listing of districts five and seven, one and eight, two and three and four and six. We don’t want, we don’t need Commissioners out there with mowers. What we want to do is use the community service groups in each of these districts. Be it citizens, volunteers to voluntarily on their assigned date show up with mowers and equipment so we can simply cut the grass. This way people throughout Augusta can get to come together, we take care of it the weeds don’t come back because the State of Georgia is simply not going to take care of it. This is a way for Augustans to come together to agree on something to build a sense of community and to get rid of the blight that is sitting there in the heart of our city. We disagree on a lot of things but we all in Augusta agree on one thing. It’s time to cut the grass and any support y’all can give to getting it done this Saturday any support you can give to maintaining it throughout the summer would be greatly appreciated. And that’s it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to thank him for bring this forward. I want you to know I support it 100% and I would be willing to do anything I can in reference to it. And I’m wondering if the city could at least work with the outside of the area. That also looks terrible. But it’s an eyesore, it’s awful and, yes, I’ll be there for anything I can do. 2 Mr. Esposito: Thank you. We’re trying to, people are supposed to be there Saturday th June 6 at 8:15. Hopefully we’ll have permission by then. If not, we’re just going to be there with the mowers and help another group of Augustans clean up a different part of, a slightly different part of Augusta. So any support anybody wants to have for your influence for the support votes, there are eleven of them throughout the state. I can’t imagine them not wanting to get on the phone and for us to take care of this. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Esposito, I want to thank you too. And just a little history lesson. In 2007 I dealt with the board for six months to put a lease in place and I dealt with all the bureaucracy in order for the city to come in and take care it. So I know where you’re coming from but I hope that a group of citizens really shows this support of the community. I would be happy to help in any way possible. Mr. Esposito: We greatly appreciate it. Thank y’all so much for your time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir, our consent agenda consists of items 1-9, items 1-9. If there are any objectors to the following alcohol petition would you please signify your objection by raising your hand. Mr. Sherman, on item one I think there was a correction as to the request for Sunday sales from the applicant, from the petitioner. Is that correct? Mr. Sherman: They requested Sunday sales. (inaudible). The Clerk: Okay. Item 1: Is to approve an application request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The Marks Group, Rooster’s Beak located 215 Tenth Street. Item 3: Is to deny a business license for failure to pay Inspection Fees: Sand Hill Grill, Surrey Tavern and Racquets Restaurant & Sports Bar. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions? Mr. Speaker: Yes, ma’am. My name is Mike Allison. I’m with the Richmond County Health Department. The Surrey Tavern, we’ve taken care of business with Surrey Tavern. This is a problem we’ve been having with some folks that have not been paying their inspection fees to the Health Department, which was approved by the Augusta Commission. However, we have been working with Surrey Tavern and they underwent an ownership change and we would like to take them off of this list. However, the Sand Hill Grill and Racquets Restaurant and Sport Bar we would continue to ask that the business license be revoked or deny them a business license for failure to pay their fees. The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-9. Mr. Mayor: Do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Brigham. 3 Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I know that it’s an election but it the recommendation of the Stoney Medical Society that we elect Dr. Elijah Lightfoot to the Board of Health. And if at all possible I’d like to add that to the consent agenda. The Clerk: Twenty-two. Mr. Mayor: Is everybody okay with that? Mr. Grantham: Number twenty-two. Mr. Mayor: Twenty-two. Mr. Mason: We’re supposed to vote, aren’t we? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to add 19, 20 and 21 from Engineering Services. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Bowles. FINANCE st 16. Receive as information 1 quarter 2009 Financial Reports. Mr. Bowles: I’d like to add items 14, 15, 17, 18 and send 16 back to committee. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda? Do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I really have some questions about item #20. I see this as a re- bid and I would be curious as to what kind of bid we had the first time and if we could get just a few of the questions answered we might like to leave it on consent. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have somebody to speak to item 20? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Drew, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Brigham, Drew. 4 Mr. Brigham: Mr. Goins, good to see you. I’ve got a couple of questions for you. One, I notice that we have a single bidder on item #20 and I also noticed this is a re-bid. And I also noticed the bid was for more than the dollar amount. How many bids did we have the first time? Mr. Goins: I don’t recall specifically but as I do recall the bids were considered non- compliant for various reasons as deemed by the Procurement Department so it was re-bid. In this case we had two bidders but we had one that was not compliant because he didn’t fill out the paperwork and affidavits properly. Mr. Brigham: Is this something we’re contracting out now? Mr. Goins: This is a chemical that we get and we put our lines for root intrusion. It retards the growth of roots in our systems. Mr. Brigham: Okay, so this is a supplying of a chemical not actually putting the stuff in the lines and everything. Mr. Goins: Yes, that’s my understanding. Mr. Brigham: I thought we were hiring a contractor from the way I read it. Okay, I still don’t think it’s a good idea but I’ll let it say on consent and just vote against it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, if we have no items to be pulled I’d look for a motion to approve the consent agenda. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Do we have Mr., #11 we, we’re talking about. Mr. Mason: Well, it’s not on consent anyway. Mr. Mayor: No, that’s not on the consent. Mr. Grantham: It’s not on consent? Mr. Mayor: No. Mr. Grantham: I just wanted to make sure. 1-9 is all I want? Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Holland: Motion to approve. Mr. Hatney: Second. 5 CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Motion to approve a New Application: A.N. 09-80: request by Jonathan Marks for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with The Marks Group, LLC D/B/A Rooster’s Beak located at 215 Tenth St. There will be Sunday Sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) 2. Motion to approve an amendment no. 4 to senior nutrition cooperative agreement with CSRA RDC. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) 3. Motion to deny the following Business Licenses for failure to pay Inspection Fees: Sand Hill Grill 2457 Wheeler Rd., Surrey Tavern 471 Highland Ave. and Racquets Restaurant & Sports Bar 3206 West Wimbledon Dr. District 1, 3 & 7. Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) 4. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable structures in the Turpin Hill Neighborhood: 910 Seventh Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood: 1110 Perry Avenue, (District 2, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 2 Broad Street Extension (District 1, Super District 9), 127 Capri Court, 129 Capri Court, (District 8, Super District 10); South Augusta Neighborhood; 2237 Sullivan Road, (District 2, Super District 9), 1810 Tubman ND Home Road, (District 5, Super District 9); AND WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) 5. Motion to approve a request by Chiquita Jones for a Therapeutic Massage Operators License to be used in connection with Muscle Restore Therapy, LLC located at 451 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) PUBLIC SAFETY 6. Motion to approve authorization of funds (56,951.00) for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office Multi-Jurisdictional K-9 Task Force. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 26, 2009) FINANCE 7. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Article 1, Section 2-5-5 of Chapter 5 of Title II of the Augusta-Richmond County Code, called “Chapter 5 Theft Prevention”; to provide clarity regarding the use of personal identification numbers for new and existing covered accounts and; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes allowed by law. (Approved by Commission May 19, 2009-second reading) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 8. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on May 19, 2009. APPOINTMENTS 9. Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Shirley Darby to ARC Coliseum Authority due to the resignation of Mr. Charles Harris representing Super District 9. FINANCE 6 14. Approve the purchase of one portable vacuum/valve exerciser for Utilities Department – Construction & Maintenance Division. 15. Consider a request from Mr. Edson T. Gray regarding a refund of taxes on property located at 201 Ellis Street. st 16. Receive as information 1 quarter 2009 Financial Reports. (Referred back to Finance Committee) 17. Approve the purchase of additional GPS tracking units and service subscription for Augusta owned vehicles. This will complete the project of equipping all non-public safety vehicles with GPS tracking units. 18. Motion re revise the approved Resolution authorizing the settlement of all claims related to the real property of Patricia Pace located at 3416 Applejack Terrace, Augusta, GA; an amendment by the attorney to change the amount to $42,888.20 to reflect an award of costs to the City in the amount of $5,111.80 instead of ($6,117.53) in prior litigation that was damaged; authorizing the City Administrator to disburse the amount of $42,888.20; waiving Augusta-Richmond County Code of Ordinances sections in conflict for this instance only; and for other purposes, which was approved by the Commission on May 19, 2009) ENGINEERING SERVICES 19. Motion to approve CSX-613700 Facility Encroachment Agreement. 20. Approve funding in the amount not to exceed $100,000 to Duke’s Root Control, the lowest responsive bidder, for the purpose of chemically treating the sewer lines against root intrusion. 21. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring a Right-of-Way between George Victor Raley, Michael Dean Raley and Sally Harper Raley, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the Marvin Griffin Road Project, (1,846 sq. ft.) in fee, from property located at: 1621 Marvin Griffin Road, private, at the purchase price of $1,400.00. Also granted is one temporary construction easement. APPOINTMENTS 22. Consider the following recommendation from the Stoney Medical Society for the appointment of one (1) to the Richmond County Board of Health Dr. Cal Brice, Dr. Eddie P. Johnson, III and Dr. Elijah Lightfoot, Jr. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’d still like to be recorded as No on --- The Clerk: I can’t hear you, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: I’d still like to be recorded as No on item #20. The Clerk: Twenty? Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney abstains. 7 Motion carries 9-1. [Item 1] Mr. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 9-1. [Item 11] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-9, 14-22] Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 10. Approve a Resolution amending the Year 2008 Action Plan, approve projects to be funded from CDBG-Recovery funds and authorize submission of Community Development Block Grant – Recovery Act funds (CDBG-R) application to HUD in the amount of $606,372. Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. Ms. White: My name is Rose White. Mr. Wheeler is on vacation this week. And what this item is the city is going to receive some additional Community Development Block Grant funds as a result of the stimulus package by the new President. And it’s going to be th $606,372.00. The notice came out May 5 and we’re required to have an application in by this Friday which is 30-days. Normally we have to do a public hearing, give the citizens 30-days to comment on the projects that we propose to fund but in the notice they shortened that comment period to 7-days. So what we did we put it on the city’s website. They asked that, HUD asked that we look at existing projects that we may have that will be ready to let for bid within 120- days. The first one is Antioch Ministries and this is going to be what they called an incubator and a community network center. During the year 2007 it was approved for a grant for $100,000.00. They had $200,000.00. When they let the project for bid it came it at over $600,000.00. So what we have done is at the last I believe April Admin Services we asked that the CDBG money, normal CDBG money be reprogrammed and released to other projects so we could fund this project from the Recovery Fund. Okay? This project is going to create 57 jobs. The other project is demolition. What we’re going to do is, the city at least the department acquired the Graystone Apartments located 19 Wrightsboro Road. We want to demolish those apartments. In the development plan that Jesse Wilds has consulted as doing they haven’t decided yet what’s going to go on that corner but it’s ready to be demolished, that particular project. We had to relocate about four people I think from there. The other one is the Small Business Development Recruitment. What we plan to do is give a loan to a business and it’s more specifically it’s going to be for a laundromat in the Armstrong Galleria. Okay? And the rest of it’s going to be used for administration of the grant. Mr. Mayor: Do we have any questions? Mr. Hatney: Move for approval. 8 Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 11. Motion to approve a Resolution reclassifying the SPLOST Dover-Lyman Streets and Drainage Infrastructure Project (Phase I) to a HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) Project to be administered by the Housing and Community Development (HCD) Department to satisfy HOME Findings issued by the Office of the Inspector General. Ms. White: Okay, I start off with this particular one. During 2007 the Federal government sent their auditors down and they were here to audit the HOME program. We administered four programs in that department, HOME, CDBG, ESG and HOPWA. Since the local Atlanta HUD office had given us so many findings they considered our program a weak program. So they sent the Feds here. They looked at the years 2003-2207. That was the prior director’s term who is no longer with us. They came up with a number of findings and recommendations and what it totaled to is $1.2 million dollars that they say the city has to repay. What we had to do was Mr. Wheeler met with Ms. Pressley who is the director of HUD in Atlanta. We took a list of SPLOST projects, which are non-federal funds. They looked over the list for a viable project to use instead of having the city to repay this money. Since we already had a CDBG project for Dover-Lyman Infrastructure for $200,000 we knew that the city had a $2 million Dover-Lyman Infrastructure project in Engineering. So all we’re asking to do is reclassify that project to a CDBG project so it can be administered by the department and that will prevent the city from having to pay $1.2 million dollars. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple of questions here. I kind of see what she’s saying here in the backup information. In reference to the audit, now you said there was a total of $1.2 million that they decided that the City of Augusta needed to pay back. Is that correct? Ms. White: That’s correct. Mr. Mason: Okay, you also said there is a list of SPLOST projects that was looked at to determine what could fit the bill. Do you know how many projects were on that list? Ms. White: Oh, there was a number of projects. I don’t know exactly how many. 9 Mr. Mason: Okay, well, I guess the point I’m trying to get to is that how did you make the determination that this particular project would be the one to move forward to receive these dollars versus any other projects that were on the list? Ms. White: I hate to say this but I can’t answer that question. I don’t know. Mr. Mason: That’s a very important question for me. I’m not saying it’s not a good project but I mean I think we talked, even talked about it the other day. I mean it would have been nice for us to see the projects so that we could make a determination along with you or maybe even a recommendation of what project would be best suited for that particular funding. Because as I’m looking at this, this is telling me that the total project is about $5.2 million dollars. Now given the knowledge that we have here that $2 million was already reprogrammed already for this project okay? And so that means that we received some additional monies that it wasn’t to have before. So what I’m trying to figure out to ensure fairness, what about the other projects and did they get a fair opportunity to receive perhaps some additional financing as well. I’m not saying this is a bad project but that’s my question. So I have that concern about the other lists and what projects are those and I certainly didn’t get an opportunity to see those to try to determine if that would be a great thing or not. And I know you’re not Chester Wheeler but that’s an important question for me. Ms. White: Okay, we’ll take that back to him and let him know. Because you know I really don’t know. I know over the last five years we have at least, commission, certain commissioners have wanted us to focus in that particular area. Mr. Mason: Now --- Ms. White: But I don’t know, I don’t know if that’s the reason or not. Mr. Mason: Let’s just wait. Mr. Mayor: And I’ll go Commissioner Beard, then Commissioner Smith, then Commissioner Grantham in the order I saw the hands and then Commissioner Holland. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard. Ms. Beard: --- I’d like to say that I supported this project since its inception. And one reason is because it’s one of the first major, major rebuilding projects that we have had and it started others for the City of Augusta. And with that in mind I’d like to move for approval of this. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and second. Commissioner Smith. 10 Mr. Smith: Yes, I wanted to elaborate on it a little bit. This is something we’ve been working on for about 5 years out there so. Duplexes that were put up in the 1940’s and where much of the riffraff have located with drugs and crime and prostitution, gunfire, our church is right across the street from it and it’s nothing usual to hear gunfire at night over there. And so the Alleluia Community that lives behind there has come in and offered to help and we formed a South Augusta Redevelopment Committee to try to help redevelop that complete corridor but most especially Lyman and Dover Streets. And it is a desperate need that we go on. And there’s been money taken from this project early on and we’re trying to build it back up to the place where we can go ahead with the project. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Smith. Commissioner Grantham, then Commissioner Holland. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And like my colleague I feel like this is a good program. But I think in the past, Ms. White, I believe I’m correct in saying this, that on any reprogramming of funds whether it be CDBG money or whether it be any other type of funds, Mr. Administrator, that I think it would be wise to advise the Commissioners with a list of those that are being reprogrammed to as well as those that are coming from giving us an opportunity to know what we’re looking at when we come in here. Ms. White: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Holland. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In reading the information in the back where it says “Reclassifying” I’m wondering if we didn’t have Mr. Abie Ladson could give us some information pertaining to this particular agenda item since we’re talking about infrastructure and it’s under the Engineering Department. I know exactly what they’re talking about this particular area, this is an infested area with drugs. However you know we need to take under consideration that there are some other areas that perhaps may be in need for some of these funds. I believe this projects needs to go forward because we have been talking about it for some time. And of course we’ve already approved some funds for this project some time ago. I think approximately about $3 million dollars. So we’re in the process now of adding more to it so we either need to move this project forward or either find out if there’s some other projects that can use some of these funds that’s been allocated for this project. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Holland: I support the project, you know, 100% but I just want to be fair as some of the other Commissioners say we want to be fair in terms of allocating these funds. Mr. Mayor: Okay and I, did you want to hear from Mr. Ladson? Mr. Holland: Yes, sir. Is Abie here? The Clerk: Yes. 11 Mr. Holland: Okay. Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll go Commissioner Brigham, Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Ladson: The understanding that I have with the agenda item here is that the basically the funds will actually go under HUD but we will actually still be managing the infrastructure through design and construction. That way the city doesn’t lose the $1.3 million dollars. That’s my understanding of that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you and Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, while I support this project and I think it’s a good project I have a more serious question. I don’t understand how we can take SPLOST dollars and repay the federal government. And I’d like to hear from the Attorney how that can happen because that don’t seem like it’s an appropriate expenditure of capital improvement dollars to me. Mr. Russell: If I can what the word “reclassification” is probably what’s throwing everybody off in this particular case. What you’ve got is the same project that’s going to be done. It’s going to be managed through HUD to cover those dollars as opposed to the same work going to be done. And what they’re doing is allowing us to count that towards what they thought after a great deal of discussion was the money that needed to be repaid. We’re still doing the same project we’re just reclassifying the management covered under Housing and Development as opposed to our normal process. But the same work’s going to be done just the format will be changed to cover their request that we be able to do that as a match or as through their process. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, that might be an answer but it certainly is not a correct answer. I understand the management is it’s our management we’re spending dollars that we have now but I don’t, what my problem is I don’t see how we move from SPLOST dollars to HUD dollars. I don’t see a debt, I don’t see a bonded indebtedness that we’re paying off, I don’t see us buying any concrete, I don’t see us buying any bricks and I think it’s illegal and I want the Attorney to tell me it’s not illegal. Now I have had him do that. Mr. Brown: Commissioner Brigham, what at this time what is known about the housing the home investment partnership program is not enough to render an opinion at this time as to whether or not it would be abolished in a SPLOST fund. When this matter came to my attention late yesterday I did put in a call first thing this morning to Mr. Wheeler. I was not informed that he was out of town. Therefore I have not been able to have an opportunity it discuss the nature of the program that he has. So we cannot render an opinion but SPLOST money must be used for qualified SPLOST activities. Mr. Brigham: I don’t see why it’s even on our agenda. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Johnson, Commissioner Beard then Commissioner Hatney. 12 Mr. Jackson: I’d like to see this go back to the committee and we can have a discussion with Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Mayor: Okay, would you like to put that in the form of a substitute motion? The Clerk: We don’t have a motion. Mr. Grantham: Betty made the motion. Mr. Mayor: What’s that? The Clerk: Who approved it? Mr. Grantham: Jimmy did. The Clerk: I was out? Mr. Mayor: Yeah. The Clerk: Oh, okay. Mr. Mayor: So would you like to put that in the form of a substitute motion? Mr. Jackson: Yes. Mr. Hatney: Second. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: And we have a second? Okay. Ms. Beard. Ms. Beard: Actually I spoke with Mr. Wheeler about this and he said what it is the, something was done wrong before he arrived in Augusta. And now they are charging us. They’re saying we owe them 1.some million. At this point and ordinarily we would pull it from our general fund. So to keep from doing that he went to Atlanta spoke with them and they said yes we will allow you to use the Lyman-Dover Street project in reference to that. So what this is doing it’s saving us 1.some million dollars that we would have to pay from the general fund. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: And I appreciate that but my difficulty here and I don’t have no problem with the project. I’ll say that up front. But my difficulty here is that when you say reclassified. There’s a great difference here saying reclassified and reprogramming. So I’m not sure which we are really trying to do. And due to the fact that we can’t get a positive legal opinion if it were my suggestion we send it back to Committee so we can get that cleared up. 13 Mr. Mayor: Okay --- Mr. Hatney: As long as it’s been moved and seconded. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Attorney: We don’t have a problem with you all taking it back and from a legal standpoint and you all are having a discussion on that. What I wanted to do was just kind of add a little light. Just kind of second what Commissioner Smith as well as well as Commissioner Grantham indicated as it related to that Dover-Lyman area as a whole. We actually, currently we have a commitment from two community housing development organizations as well as non- profits. They’re currently actually working in that area. They’re dedicated to that area. We’re actually moving forward to signing final agreements with two non-profits to be able to kind of retrofit or reconstruct those duplexes as is. Currently we have one non-profit who’s actually going out on their own. They’ve actually acquired, they actually own three duplexes already in that area. And actually would like to say we’re working with another one in that area. So this is a commitment of our department. We are aware of the infestation and we’re dedicated to that area. So as it relates to this issue of reclassifying I mean I’ll kind of hold back on that but I did want to just kind of add that light to it. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: We’re committed to the project also but the thing that we’ve got to be cautious of is that whether or not it’s actually legal to go from SPLOST to HUD and back. We don’t know that so I can’t vote for it. Not until I know that you know. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to forward this back to the committee. Madam Clerk, if you could read the --- The Clerk: The motion was to refer this back to committee. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: The next one is that, the next one. Okay. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Smith votes No. Ms. Beard abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. The Clerk: Move forward? Mr. Mayor: Please. 14 The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 12. Motion to approve Department of Transportation (DOT) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) changes in regulations on Substance Abuse Testing. Mr. Bowles: Motion to approve. 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 of voting. Motion carries 10-0. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 13. Motion to approve a request to transfer title to Promise Land Community Development. Ms. Beard: Motion to approve. 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: OTHER BUSINESS 23. Discuss the TEE Center. (Requested by Commissioner Joe Jackson) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I put this back on the agenda for the mere fact that I stayed for the Committee meetings last week and I felt in my heart that we need to have an open discussion about it. And that’s why I asked to put it back on the agenda. There’s been some dialogue between the Commissioners, the Administrator and the Mayor so if Mr. Russell has something of the Mayor has something or the Super Districts have something, its just information. And I think it’s time we move along and take the next step. So that’s the reason why I put it on the agenda. 15 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Jackson. I’d just say, however we discuss it as long as we do it calmly and do it in a business like fashion I’m fine with that. We’ll see what comes of it. Mr. Russell. I believe, Commissioner Hatney, you had your hand up. Mr. Hatney: He’s got something. Let me see what he’s got. I’m not going to get ahead of you. Mr. Russell: Thank you for the opportunity to be back again and talk about this. As you know the dialogue has been going on for the last several weeks. There’s some people that might not be familiar with our process that it seems a little bit scary to some people in the fact that there has been a dialogue. In the fact that you know the initial plan that was presented was not immediately embraced. If that had happened I probably would’ve been the most surprised person in the room because the purpose of those plans is simply to begin that conversation to put forth things that I was directed to do as a staff person to try to bring you a deal that, or an opportunity in a program that I thought and the staff thought was a way to move forward. Obviously without garnering enough votes to make that happen we’ve been working diligently for the past several weeks to try and put together a plan or a program that would garner the majority of the support of the people here on the Commission. We’ve got several tough objects that we’re dealing with in this particular point and what we asked for before was some fairly aggressive and fairly new concepts that might have been approached without my ability to actually articulate those as well as I should. What we’ve attempted to do in this particular situation is to give you the opportunity to give us some direction to continue to move forward but continue to bring back and more concise and more specific detail the items that are necessary to get both these projects done in my mind and get bricks on the ground and get house built there. As you know at some length we’ve talked about the TEE Center. We’ve shown you pictures of what we thought it should be. We showed you pictures of the concept diagrams and the ability to use the warehouse and move forward with that. The first item to keep us continually moving towards that when we selected the architects several months ago we talked about the funding of that and the potential issues that were involved with the funding. What we would like to do is go ahead and authorize the architects to move forward with the next phase of the plan, which is the schematic design for the TEE Center. We’ve got the concept there we’ve got the location of the scope to build and now we continue to move forward with that we need to bring those designs to the next phase and that would be the schematic design for that. In addition to that parking is always an issue. We’d like instead of trying to build a parking deck as I initially proposed that we have authority to go ahead and look at the parking in that particular area and determine and bring back to you what would be the best opportunity to provide parking for that facility and look at that in a way that would not tie us in to a specific solution but give you several solutions to look at that might be more compatible to your feelings at this particular moment. In addition to that we’ve been working diligently with the operator based on the new financing scheme that were presented to present changes in the original agreement for your approval on the operation of that. As you know several, initially two years ago we talked about a 50-year term that matched the Convention Center term that we have now. Due to the funding streams we have available we’ve been able to move that down to a 15-year term. There are other details there that need to be worked out that we had numerous discussions about over the past several months. But what we’d like to do is go ahead and firm that up and bring you a contract for your approval at this particular point in time. I felt a little bit unsure of myself moving forward without some 16 additional direction as we looked at the entire package. But once again that would be a contract that would be brought back for your approval in its entirety. We do need to purchase the land. Decisions have been made on the location of the facility based on a long list of reasons for that in which we’ve gone over in infinitum over the past several months but we do need to go ahead and do that. And we would like to be able to go ahead with the purchase of that property and bring that purchase agreement back to you for your final approval again. Once again that’s been the mechanism we’ve used in the past as an authorization to negotiate. We’ve had preliminary conversations, we feel like we’re moving forward with that but I need the authority to bring you back the final document with a price and a cost so you can vote that up or down. Because of the way the funding worked out as we’ve talked about we’ve hired the architect several months ago. There was concern about whether or not we’d be able to build a facility for the money that we had available. The numbers floated then were a lot higher than the ones you’re looking at now. The architect as I’ve said before has done a great job of bringing that down to something that we think, I think we can afford with the numbers that we’ve got there. That would include the issuance of a $9 million dollar taxes and bonds for the TEE Center for the total project cost of up to $138 million dollars. And I say that up to $138 million dollars because we’ve got a pretty good track record of bringing you projects under cost, within budget and on time so that we would like that opportunity again and I don’t want a final figure there basically. That would require the use of some additional dollars that are available to us currently because we have been, I don’t want to say miserly but we’ve been very cautious with spending the taxpayers dollars in these cases. We’ve got interests, savings and excess collections that would make up the balance of that to give us a total of $48 million dollars. A part of what I presented initially was a new bonding authority that was not well received. After a great deal of research we decided that using the Coliseum Authority that you have just recently helped revamp as the bonding source for these particular dollars would be an appropriate way to do that. In addition to that part of the discussion has always been the bonding of additional dollars for the Laney Walker/Bethlehem redevelopment area. As you know we’ve moved forward with that project and have got plans on the table and houses being built as we spoke with the money allocated through the initial fee collected from the hotel/motel fee for the historic development there. What we want to do is continue to do that and we all realize that spending those dollars on a year to year basis over that period of time would not have the kind of impact that we would want in that community. We’d be doing piecemeal improvements and none of us would be alive to see the realization of that and that’s not acceptable. What we’d like to do in that particular case go ahead and use that funding stream to bond $9 million dollars of bonds. In the first phase over a ten year period we’d like to look at the balance of those phases to the $37.5 million dollar commitment that was made originally by this Commission and what we’d like to do is use that as a jump start and bring back to you a phased in plan to get that money on the ground and rolling within a 10/11 year period as we talked about before so that we can get that money moving to reap the rewards of that kind of expenditure in that particular community. So that would be item six that we’re looking at. Once again my initial presentation was to allow the separate, a different authority to do that. The bottom line with that was once again that was not well received and what we would end up having to do was expand the Downtown Development Authority, which is appointed by you and invest with Urban Redevelopment Authority powers to let them do that. Once again that’s a group you appoint people to that’s a group that should listen to your will in those areas and they would be there for the funding of that particular thing. We do want to make sure we keep that process on track. We do need to make sure we do that in 17 a timely fashion. So part of that bonding with my mind would be the development of a detailed timeline. For those of you have been to the community meetings I think the community is excited about these projects. I think we’ve got things that are rolling along fairly well. With the results that have come in we’ve got a good road map on how to get there and what we’re trying to do is put gas in the car to make sure we can accomplish the travel down that road that we’ve already established for ourselves. So we would need the authorization to develop a detailed timeline and implementation of the expenditures of these Phase I funds and bring with you that Phase II and three funds over a short period of time. And we’ve talked about ten years to get that done and move forward with that. To do that in addition to there’s several other housekeeping matters that we have to do. What we’re looking at is the bonding/funding stream for the TEE Center with the reallocation of the dollars currently being used to pay off the bonds at the Coliseum Authority. Those dollars are coming in at approximately $1 million dollars a year are being used to pay off those bonds. That funding stream is currently there through the hotel/motel tax and what recommendation was and still would be is we use that funding stream upon the completion of the bonds for the Coliseum Authority. Those are paid off next year so we would not be taking money away from them that they’ve used in the operational needs. And for those of you who have been following that I know they’ve actually turned a profit last month. So we’re excited about those potentials as that continues to grow. But it would not take away from those dollars that have been designated for the operational needs but simply take the money that’s paying off their bonds and reuse that to pay off the additional bonds of the TEE Center. As we’ve looked at this all along we’ve worked with Smith-Gambrel, and Kilpatrick-Stockton as the bond counsel but we would need your authorization to actually hire them as we’ve gone forward with that. As we’ve talked on several occasions they are the group, two groups that have been recommended by our Financial Advisor Diane McNabb and we would think they would be appropriate to move forward with this because of the complexity of the issues that we’ve got involved with us there. And that would be my recommendation that we do that. What you’ve got here is a plan of action one that brings back those crucial issues to you for your approval as we’ve talked about in the past. And it gets us moving a step closer, several steps closer I think of accomplishing both these projects in a measured way to make sure we take advantage of the economy’s that are going on right now. Some of that’s good for building. That we take advantage of the opportunities that we have in the Laney-Walker neighborhood as we continue to move people into those opportunities there and as we continue to take advantage of the other growth that’s going on surrounding that. So after a great deal of discussion there’s been a great deal of tweaking a great deal angst a great deal of wringing of hands on some occasion and that’s part of the Democratic process, and a lot of occasions that most people never see. And that’s where Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Johnson and numerous of you have, we’ve had conversation with Commissioner Holland over the past little while to get us to this particular point. It does not write anything in stone it does not continue to you know, it does not take away your ability to modify the plan as we go forward but it does take us to next level as we continue to work towards these two projects. I’d be happy to try to respond to any questions you might have. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney, then Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Hatney: First of all, Mr. Administrator, I’d like to make a point then I’d like to ask you two questions please. First point being that one of the things that concerns me over the last 18 I’d say month was that the media and some other folk were continuing to say that without that vote the TEE Center is dead. And that was insulting because that’s not true. First of all the money that the voters voted on it’s been in the bank about three years now? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: So it’s never been dead not when the money is already in the bank. It just makes folks who don’t agree with a certain process look like they’re trying to block progress when that’s really not the case at all. So that’s the statement I’d like to make is that the TEE Center money has been in the bank long enough to have accrued quite a bit of monies. Isn’t that right, Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: So somebody should have said that the TEE Center isn’t dead from this administration but it never came. I didn’t hear it. And so folks kept at us immediately he’s talking about building the TEE Center and the TEE Center’s money has been in the bank. But the other question I wanted to ask was why is it so urgent that we do it 30 days ago when we had the money in the bank for three years and it wasn’t so urgent. That concerns me. And the other thing is that they say that we still, that I’m still kind of confused with after the process of funding the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem project. I’ve heard many times that the TEE Center and Laney- Walker/Bethlehem project are tied together at the hip. But the TEE Center got almost $30 million dollars in the bank and the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem aint got none. So they can’t be tied together at the hip unless y’all give us some of that money. So these things have been thrown out there and it doesn’t give you a good feeling when you know folk aint telling the whole story. So what I would like to ask you to do before I’d be comfortable with this is that find what, we need to know what you’re planning on paying for the land as opposed to what the tax amount of it is. We need to know all these questions you know because we definitely don’t want to be giving away taxpayer’s money in areas where we shouldn’t be doing it but particularly don’t have to do it. Because these are critical times and we’ve got to be careful. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the fall. We don’t know what we’re going to have to do to balance the budget and the first proposal when it came back that proposal went up to around $70 million dollars and that would’ve been crazy to vote on that and turn around in November and talk about laying off two/three hundred people. Nobody said that and I voted No on what they’re going to have to do. So the whole thing to me the timing was kind of bad. And I’m not fussing at you I’m just stating what I believe or how I feel. The TEE Center was never in harms way and what nobody in the Administration would say that to the general public that the TEE Center money was in the bank and it was never in harms way. There was a $44 million dollar bond deal made, twenty of them went for the TEE Center the other twenty-four went for Webster Detention Center but that was not said. I didn’t hear that nowhere. But all I could hear was y’all done killed the TEE Center and that was never true. And that’s kind of painful when you know things aint true but that’s all you hear. And that’s my concern and I do think though for us, before you ask us to vote on this that we know exactly what you’re going to pay for the land. I need to know that, personally. I don’t know about nobody else but I need to know what the land is going to be but what you’re talking about paying for the land or according to the taxed amount. That would make a big difference whether I would agree with what you’re paying for the land. So 19 these are the things that concern me. And the other thing I want to ask, Mr. Mayor, is that when I hear when you say you’re talking about the bonding for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem you’ve got $9 million taxable and tax exempt fining and I haven’t seen that in no other project but this one. But those are my concerns. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell: I’d like to attempt to respond to those in order that you asked because I too felt the same frustration as we went through this process when people said the TEE Center was dead. And I have said on numerous occasions that neither nor Laney-Walker was dead in these particular process but I have not presented a plan that’s been able to be accepted yet. And I believe that was the issue that was there and that’s what I said publicly, privately and continuously and unfortunately the press and whoever and the people who listen hear what they want to hear a lot of time. But I have said that on numerous occasions that I do agree that nobody has every told me that any of this is dead. What I’ve heard somewhat resounded is we didn’t like your first plan and that happened more than once as we go forward with that. What I’m asking for you today to actually, what I’m asking for is exactly what you said sir is the opportunity to move forward and deal with these people so that I can bring you back those numbers for your approval. We’ve had preliminary conversations I don’t feel like I’m authorized to actually negotiate a number figure until somebody until you tell me that. And until that happens I’ve been sort of waiting on that. But I’ve asked for today or what I’ve asked for in this is the opportunity to do exactly what you want, bring back the numbers that are going to be available, bring back what they want for the property what I’ve been able to negotiate bring back those kinds of things that you need to be able to make a rational decision. But until granted that authority I didn’t really have any place to stand as I negotiated. If you were say do these nine things today I think that gets us to that point where you can have the information you need to make rational decisions about A, B, C and D as we go forward. So I agree with you fully on that. The other issue that you raised on the taxable and tax exempt, part of that is the funding issue on the money that we would have. It’s not that we would pay tax on that. It’s just the mechanism of how that’s set up and I will have to get Diane to explain to you. That’s above my real understanding. Mr. Mayor: I agree. Mr. Russell: I’d be happy to get that back to you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, you had one more question and then I’ve got Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Hatney: That’s all I’m going to ask. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles and the Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, if that’s all you’re looking for then I’d say we just need to give you direction to go talk to the land owners and come back with a package to us. There’s no sense in trying to plan a TEE Center when we don’t know what the acquisition costs are going to be or we don’t even have a contract with the personnel involved. So until we 20 get those things and have complete package you know I’d say that we need to make a recommendation that you go out and come back and present that package with land costs and a contract with the Riverfront Partners. Mr. Russell: And my concern with that is that that’s true, that’s what I want but I want to be able to do all that in concert with the Laney-Walker action too. Because I think we need to make sure we’re ready to move on all those projects as we go forward. And what I’m looking at is a scheme of things that get us to that point there. I’d love to be able to come back to you and say you know here’s what we negotiated on the contract, here’s the bonding source for the Laney-Walker project that we’ve got available to us. We’ve got the funding set up. Here’s the legislation you need to change the hotel/motel tax from the, that million from the Coliseum to that. And those nine steps I think make a giant leap towards getting both these projects done. And maybe --- Mr. Bowles: I make a motion that you do that and come back to us. Mr. Mayor: Do what? Mr. Bowles: What he just said. All the nine steps and come back and tell us, give us, I mean, we can’t vote on something if we don’t know what it’s going to cost. Mr. Mayor: You’re moving to approve those nine steps? Mr. Bowles: No, for the Administrator to go out and come back with a plan for us on the cost of the TEE Center so we can implement it. Mr. Mayor: But --- Mr. Bowles: They have the plan for Laney-Walker --- Mr. Mayor: But contingent upon the fact that we still have to approve the, you know what the real estate transaction’s going to be. The Commission reserves the right to approve all real estate. Mr. Bowles: Yeah, if he comes back to us. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second on that? Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell: I think that’s where we get in trouble and I appreciate what you’re saying because I appreciate the desire to move forward. But I need, we need --- Mr. Grantham: Some direction. 21 Mr. Russell: --- to have some continuing dialogue here to where I don’t myself in trouble by running off on a tangent thinking I’m doing what you want when I’m not. I think you know and I hate to trespass on your time but we need, in my mind we need, I need to make sure that we’re all going in the same direction here. And that’s just for my own sanity at the moment I believe. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Grantham, then Commissioner Hatney, then Commissioner Mason, then Commissioner Holland. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, I appreciate what you’re doing in trying to get these things in line and put them in step which is very important in order to do some type of contractual arrangements similar to what we’re working on with the TEE Center and the Laney- Walker/Bethlehem projects. A couple of questions that I have and some of the things that I would point out to you as well as to the Commissioners is that in the initial recommendation that you’ve made you indicated in every one of these particular areas that you would bring us back for Commission approval. Everything is subject to Commission approval. What you’re asking for is the permission and the authority to go forward to bring us those particular items as you negotiate them, as you develop them as you see that they would fit within the parameters of what we’re giving you now and then bring that back to us along those lines. However I see a couple of things that I’d like for you to include. And one is that I would like to see the completion of the operator contract prior to any funding of any projects to be done. And I think that gives us a financial responsibility as well as one that we know we have contracts in place to manage this before we go out and start bonding these projects. And the other thing is that we have had some discussion, different people have and I’ve talked to this various Commissioners about this that in using the Coliseum Authority to bond the $9 million dollars tax exempt part for the TEE Center that that be listed as a financial conduit only. And that they not be in any type of management role and type of direction for construction any type of supervision over what you and this Commission would be doing at that time. So you know with that in mind I feel like that we’re heading in the right direction. This is the time we’ve had some good dialogue and I think the information presented to us gives us an opportunity to give you this authorization and to move forward as far as bring us back the type of package that we need to go forward with Laney- Walker/Bethlehem and the TEE Center. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: The other question I would ask is you mentioned a lot of things that even when you got to Laney-Walker you talked about the initial $9 million but there’s no timeline. If all of that had been included in this it might of made a difference because you’re talking about ten years but the last one we saw was twenty. Mr. Russell: Right. Mr. Hatney: You understand what I’m saying? There’s a big difference there. Mr. Russell: If you’d like to adjust that --- 22 Mr. Hatney: Some stuff has to be, if you, whatever you propose that you want done. I don’t know about the rest of you folks but I need to be able to vote with good conscience on anything. If I don’t know what you’re paying for the land, I don’t know what you’re doing it’s hard for me manage that because you know money can get funny. If money don’t have a specific direction up front you know well you say I can find money you know all we’re talking about stuff that’s going to get us where we need to be. We don’t wait for twenty years to get the Laney-Walker project done. Mr. Russell: I agree. Mr. Hatney: That’s just the way that is. And with your and let me say this. I’m not trying to be funny. You were authorized two or three years ago to go forward and find funding for these things, you were. And to come back with proposals and all, oh yeah you were but you didn’t do it. Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We started off the conversation saying this was a discussion and by the time we got to the third person we already had a vote on the table, or a least say a motion. I’m not really sure where we’re going with this thing but we’re moving at warp speed. And the question still has not been answered as to why. I’ll let you stew on that one just for a second. Much of what you’re asking for on these nine items in my mind looking at the documents from the past, historical documents you already have the authorization to do, much of what you’re asking for so I’m not sure why that requires another vote today. Secondly, though, you made a statement that this will cost us approximately $38 million dollars. Do you have a budget line item that we can see how you came up with the $38 million so that we can make some educated informed decisions as we move forward. Because some how you came up with $38 million and I’m trying to figure out what does that entail. Mr. Russell: Yes, that’s fine. I can do that. Mr. Mason: Do you have it now? I mean somebody ought to. Mr. Russell: We’ve got it available. Mr. Mason: Okay, and I’m sure that will include potentially land acquisition costs because you said you had some preliminary discussion. Mr. Russell: There are numbers in there for --- Mr. Mason: There should be some numbers that, and see these are the types of things that needs to be doing before we get out here to make sure we’re on the same sheet of music. So the other point that I just want to make very clear is that you have anywhere today from $27 to 29 million in the bank for the TEE Center. Is that not correct? 23 Mr. Russell: Not that much, no. It’s, what are you asking specifically? Mr. Mason: You have today --- Mr. Russell: We have $20 million dollars that we bonded, we have the potential for the savings on the Judicial Center that I’m asking to use, the $1.5 million. There’s about $5 million in excess collections, $2.5 million in interest that we’re proposing that we use. Mr. Mason: And so when you add all that up you’re right where I was saying. You have somewhere between 27 and 29 million that can, available that can be utilized for the TEE Center today. Mr. Russell: Yes, over the period of the, I mean you’re looking at projected interests and stuff but yes. Mr. Mason: You have that today because you already said excess collections so that’s already in hand. If you said the $2.5 --- Mr. Russell: (inaudible) Mr. Mason: --- accrued. That’s already been accrued not yet to accrue. I mean you can’t quote these numbers in other words if they’re not there. Are you talking about dollars that you have available now? Mr. Russell: Yes. Mr. Mason: That’s all I’m asking. So we’re at twenty-seven to twenty-nine now. The TEE Center itself without any of this other stuff is $38 million dollars. Based on what you’re saying I don’t see a budget line item. But taking your word for it’s going to be somewhere not to exceed $38 million. You need roughly $9 million dollars to move forward with the TEE Center as the people voted on in 2005 and was later constructed in 2007 to move forward with the TEE Center. Is that not correct? Mr. Russell: Yes. Mr. Mason: Okay. I guess my point is this. I’m not sure where all the other stuff came in at but the people, certainly the ones that I’ve been discussing this with and there’s some misconception that the people voted for the TEE Center and now we don’t want to move it forward. I’m here to tell you I’m very much in support of the TEE Center as was constructed in 2007 and was voted on in 2005. So I’m not sure how we got so far away from that at this particular time and then moving it at warp speed to get it done. And furthermore tying it to a vote on SPLOST, this SPLOST when you have anywhere from 12-15 other SPLOSTS projects that haven’t been completed. But we don’t hear that being tied to this SPLOST vote. I’m not sure where we’re going with this. Can you shed any light on any of that? 24 Mr. Russell: I think obviously you’re talking to me but you’re asking rhetorical questions that aren’t involved in my conversation at all. I think what you’ve got from me is proposals to do the TEE Center and the Laney-Walker project based on the fact that we’ve got the Judicial Center rolling, we’ve got the jail on the ground, working on the ground. We’ve got the library going. The next obvious move for me was to do the TEE Center and move that forward. And we’ve done that and I made a recommendation to do that. Tying it to the current SPLOST is not anything that you’ve heard me say other than the fact that what we’d like to go is go ahead and have another series of positive things that we’ve got going out there. The timing of that was next in line. The timing of that is if we can move forward with that I think it’d be good to make sure that we are moving those dollars as we’ve been told to do and that the purpose of doing that. Whether or not it killed the SPLOST or didn’t kill the SPLOST isn’t anything I’ve ever said and it’s never anything I’ve tied together in a manner that’s there. You’re right we’ve got hundreds, not hundreds numerous other projects that are there, working forward and moving forward. It’s a process. And I’ve said you know it took us twenty years to do the Judicial Center. This is on the fast track based on the process that we’ve done there. So you know you’ve got to be careful with you know my comments have never said what, what your questioning at this particular point in time because I too have the same questions. Mr. Mason: Well, here’s what I would like for you to do. Just answer this question if you would. You have the money and you can move forward with the TEE Center based on the vote in 2005 and the vote on this Commission on 2007 to move forward today. Do you not? Mr. Russell: No, I do not. Mr. Mason: What are you missing? Mr. Russell: I’m missing the authorization. You’ve got to be cognizant of the fact that we’ve done, the way we do these things. We continually go back and forth with how we do that. I’m missing the authorization to have the architects move forward with the schematic design. I’m missing the authorization to go get the, I mean that’s they way we’ve done those things in the past. You approve the concept which you’ve done in this case and the voters have done you required us to come back on numerous occasions to talk about who did what, who’s going to do what, you’ve looked at the plans, you authorized me to continue with the architects several months ago in which you did. The next step in that is you’ve got the cosmetic pictures of what we’ve got. You’ve got the concept there. What I’m asking for is the authorization to go to the next phase as we spend those dollars, which are going to be fairly expensive. And that’s the process that we’ve always used and the process I think works well because it makes sure that you have input in what’s going on. We’ve come regularly as we do that and it’s part of what we’re doing here and what you know I would assume that’s what you want me to continue to do. I had no authorization to tell the architects to move further along than what you told me to do the first time and that was the concept and give you some ideas there on the initial costs. We had that conversation several months ago in which, as a matter it took as a while to negotiate with the architects because they thought they were you know they weren’t going to be able to do it within what we had budgeted or what we even anticipated being able to fund. So you know we’ve had that conversation. 25 Mr. Mason: Well, my final statement would be that we need to move forward with that and we need to find a viable financing plan for the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem and not muddy the waters with the other additional items that have been thrown in here at this point so that people can see if that’s some people desire up here on this Commission to see the TEE Center move forward in the fashion that it ought to move forward. Then I think we need to deal with the TEE Center and Laney-Walker/Bethlehem and move forward with those items as was voted on in st August 21 of 2007 and we deal with the remainder of this at some point later because obviously we’re not going to have consensus on this today. Mr. Russell: And if I may if you could tell me what parts of those are different than what you just said on moving forward on maybe that’s my confusion. I mean what I’ve asked you for is exactly what you said the authority to move forward with those items that are necessary to do both the TEE Center and the Laney-Walker area. I mean that’s, that’s what I’ve asked. Mr. Mason: Well, you’ve asked for quite a bit more than that in these nine statements if you want to be truthfully honest about it. Mr. Russell: If you like for me to go back through them again. If you could share that with me I’d greatly appreciate that. The only thing in addition to that that I see is the parking needs of the TEE Center. And I think we all know that that’s there. We’ve got it in the contract for the TEE Center to move forward with that and that’s part of the deal we’ve had. We’ve got to buy the property. We’ve got to get the bonds. Timeline for the implementation for Laney- Walker we’re dealing with. Allocation of the hotel tax ff you can’t do that you don’t have the money to do the bond so it’s all a part of that particular package and the people to help put together the deal for you. I mean I’m a little bewildered at the moment --- Mr. Mason: Me too. Mr. Russell: --- on what you’re asking me to do that’s not here or what’s here that you’re not asking me to do. Mr. Mayor: Okay, just for some clarification here. I just did want to make a couple statements. First off I want to say publicly and for the record I am strongly in favor of SPLOST. I think that we need the SPLOST. Those infrastructure projects which 67% of the package is infrastructure projects, we need that as a local community. So I did want to go on record as saying that. I don’t believe that the two are tied together. And in defense of Mr. Russell I don’t believe that he ever said anything publicly to lean folks to believe that. But I also believe that we have an opportunity for a real win, win situation here to where we can put you know, it’s not an either or. We can have a TEE Center and put $37 ½ million dollars into redeveloping the Laney- Walker/Bethlehem neighborhood. So I think that’s the way we need to look at this. I know it’s a very complex initiative. You know I don’t pretend to be a bond attorney or anything but I do think we need to look at it. We have a great opportunity here to have a lasting impact on our community as a whole. Commissioner Holland, you had your hand up? Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. One of the things that concerns me, Mr. Mayor, is that in looking back at this particular agenda item here talking about the TEE Center. I 26 remember when we first started talking about this. The price for the TEE Center at that particular time was $27 million dollars. And it was agreed upon by persons from the Augusta Convention and Visitor’s Bureau that that TEE Center could be built with that $20 million dollars. Then of course that amount of money has now increased. So my concern is that why haven’t we gotten started on building the TEE Center. You know we’ve been taking a whole lot of time in talking about this and all of a sudden we’re rushing trying to do this. And I’m, before I became a Commissioner I remember us talking about building the Judicial Center and I’ve been on this Commission now going on four years. And four or five years prior to that they we’re talking about building the Judicial Center. So we’ve been talking about building the Judicial Center between 10, 12 almost 15 years and of course that has come to a reality. So at this particular time my concern is what is the urgency? What is the urgency now of us building the TEE Center because we do not have all of the items that we need in place. We just finished talking about 7, 8, 9 maybe 10 different items. What we need to do is maybe have another list, an itemized list just like we have here so we has Commissioners can have an opportunity to sit down and look at this and then respond to it. But as we stand now we’re been talking an we’re giving input now but we need a breakdown and itemized list as to what we’re going to be voting on in the future. And so we haven’t any, and we don’t need to rush into this. We need to take our time because we have taxpayer’s money that we’re going to be using and they need to know exactly what we’re going to be doing. We can’t have any here say so. It’s got to come out straight and this is what we’re looking for. And as Commissioners and elected officials we need to do it the right way and we need to take our time and do it. We don’t have to rush and do this you know. So I’m just hoping that we will be we will be we’ll take our time and there’s no urgency in us voting on this and passing this to make sure that it’s passed just to be passing. I commend you on what you’ve done. We still need more work to be done. Mr. Mayor: If I can make two points. One being that I think this needs to be said that all of these projects can be done at no additional expense to the taxpayer. We’re not talking about increasing property taxes to do any of what we’re putting forward. The second thing would be we talked about being the second biggest city in Georgia and I think the urgency is that as other cities Columbus has a Trade and Exhibit Center, Savannah has one. You know these cities are cities that were competing against for convention business and each day that goes by that we don’t have the facilities to provide for that type of convention for GMA or for ACCG giving the current facilities we have we can’t get those conventions. So I just think that’s you know that’s in order to compete with those cities we need facilities like this. Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor, but they did not rush into building those facilities. You know we’ve had an opportunity to speak with those persons when we attend those conventions. I agree with you but they did not rush into building those facilities. They took their time to make sure that they knew what they were doing and everything was in place. And I think that’s what we need we need to here in Augusta. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and I know Ms. Beard has had her hand up and I’d like to recognize the lady. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would like to respond to something that Commissioner Grantham stated. I’d like to respond to something in reference first of all that Mr. Grantham 27 stated. He stated that funds would be transferred, funneled from the Coliseum Authority to the Convention Center. And as I have read the duties and responsibilities of the Coliseum Authority it appears the authority the Coliseum Authority should handle all of those type complexes for the City of Augusta. Mr. Holland: That’s right. Ms. Beard: I guess I’m disappointed in all that’s going on because I few years ago I signed an agreement contract and everything in reference to Laney-Walker. The TEE Center is important but maybe Laney-Walker is first and foremost in my mind. And I signed that or was a part of it with the understanding that that project would be as all other projects that are done in the City of Augusta. Now with Laney-Walker and Bethlehem everything has been determined, the amount all of this. With any other project and I’ll use as an example the TEE Center when that was funded to them immediately they were able to go to you and say we would appreciate working to get those funds and you did. Now that’s exactly where we are. And that’s exactly where we have been since all of this came about with Laney-Walker and Bethlehem. So the only thing we’re asking for is a path for the method to be used to secure those funds. And now what all of this is about I don’t know, I really don’t. I just don’t know. Now I know when that was determined it was determined that the TEE Center would receive $20 million dollars. Okay, so they have their $20 million dollars. Now I have no problem with any of that and I think that’s why we will be meeting with you this afternoon because that’s very, very important to us and that’s all that is important. Everything has been determined in reference to Laney-Walker and Bethlehem and we feel like every other entity or project in Augusta it should move forward. Now in addition to the TEE Center and when all day yesterday I had to listen to General Motors and everything that is going on in this country that even the federal government income is down 44% at this time the state is down 25% and I understand Mr. Mayor you made a mistake in your letter to us. Mr. Mayor: Um, what was that? Ms. Beard: And with all of that I am simply saying at this time I can not vote for an additional $35 million for something as non-essential as an exhibition center. But certainly in that the $20 million was approved I’ll go along with it. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Brigham and then I’ll come back to Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, while people are asking questions I think we need to ask this question. Why is it that this Commission cannot agree to a location for the TEE Center for the first two years? Why is it then when we agree to a location we can’t seem to buy a property? It takes a majority of this Commission to vote to do these things. Obviously some people don’t want to see all projects completed. They want to separate them between their projects and our projects. I thought these were projects for the citizens of Augusta that’s going to improve the economic status of Augusta. I didn’t know that it was just going to improve part of the city’s status and not the other part of the city. I thought all ships in this city rise at the same rate and fell at the same rate. And I believe that. I know in my part of the world it does because when 28 everybody else is poor I’m as poor as everybody else. And if I can get a few dollars I can feel as wealthy as everybody else does when they have some money. But I don’t understand why we can’t approve some things. It’s our inaction that has caused this project to be delayed. It’s not our actions and I don’t think I think it is ours as a group problem that we’re not acting. I think everybody’s project is on line. I think the problem is now that we need to move forward to the next step. I think that we need to take the step and I think it takes us to do something to get there. And I don’t see us doing that. That’s what I see is the problem. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney, then back to Commissioner Beard. Mr. Hatney: One of the things, Mr. Administrator, that concerns me and it’s just a concern to me is that if, what muddied the water real bad is when a month or so ago you came back with that thick packet. That’s what’s got us bottle necked and going around in circles right now. See if we were still talking about even these things you got done here just some things in here that don’t necessarily mean a whole lot because there’s no financial breakdown. There’s no structure. We don’t know what’s going to pay for what. And to ask me to just give you a Carte Blanc on anything is asking too much. I just can’t do that. I need to see what we’re going to be spending tax money on. I think that’s my privilege. And I don’t think it’s asking too much because when we vote on something we’re held accountable for it as if we know exactly what you’re going to be spending it for. And we don’t have a clue and you come up say it’s going to spend no more than $38 million that’s not saying how much you’re going to spend for the land and we could’ve been passed this point, we could’ve been if it was on a fast track over the last three years like it was over the last 30 days the TEE Center would’ve been already built. Mr. Mayor: But Commissioner Hatney --- Mr. Hatney: The problem is and, Mr. Mayor, let me say this. You, I have some concerns that you’re comparing Augusta with places like Columbus and anywhere else when Augusta don’t collect no where near that millage data to collect. Columbus collected sixteen-mil. We push ours to the max we don’t get but 9.67. So don’t compare us with folks who are collecting two and three times the amount of money we collect. Mr. Mayor: Okay, but just for clarity and I know I think the Administrator’s going to say that that’s what he’s requesting us to do today. Is to authorize him to go out and enter into these negotiations and bring those real hard numbers back to us. And that’s all he’s asking. Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: You know obviously I’m --- Mr. Hatney: Is that before you spend any money? Mr. Russell: Sure, that’s why I’m here. I can’t spend any money until y’all tell me what to spend. I’m mean that’s sort of the way it works and I appreciate that. I mean you know what you’ve done is authorize the schematics on the, or the concept of the TEE Center. We’ve got the architect on board to do that. What I’m asking for is to come back with those packages you’re asking to see so you can make some decisions based on how we move forward. I mean that’s 29 what I’m asking for, the ability to bring those things back to you so you can have the information that you need to make a rational decision on whether or not that’s a good idea or not. Mr. Mayor: He’s not spending any money today. Commissioner Johnson, I see you’ve had your hand up. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Administrator, I think the bottom line of it is here today is we got to come up with some direction for you. That’s what I’m hearing here. I don’t listen to a lot of conversation here today and I don’t think we’ve got clarity or a clear direction of what path we want you to take. And I think that’s the question here. We’ve got to determine the path that we’re going to send you on so you can come back with the necessary information for us to make an educated decision based on this matter here. Honestly this is as really been going on way to long okay? It’s been almost the last 30 days that we’ve been dealing with this and we still haven’t come to a common solution. So what I want to do here today and just get notion that we need to come up with a solution to give you direction on which direction you’re going to go in and what we need you to bring back. And I hope that we all can agree to do that so we can get this path moving forward. Because like Ms. Beard and everybody else, I want to see things progress in the city as a whole not one particular entity but the entire city. I have spoken with the Mayor several times that when we work on the least of the community the whole community shines. But we have to focus on that so hopefully we can come up with a consensus on this and come up with a solution to give you direction on which way we want to go and what we need you to bring back. And if that’s one step at a time we need to do it one step at a time. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bowles: Second! Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: No, and that’s fine. Obviously I’ve suspended the two-minute rule as the two times recognized because it came to discuss. Mr. Hatney: In a discussion like this there’s not too many rules. One question I’d like to ask of you. What I hear you saying is that you want a path forward. And what I’m saying is that we want to see, at least I want to see the thirty-eight, up to $38 million like you’re talking about and what it’s going to spent for. How much you’re going to be spending in land as opposed to what is on the tax books for. I want to see all of that. And so really items 1, item 5 basically is about the same thing. I don’t see no difference in it. But you know there are one or two items on here that sit and the actually time line for the Laney-Walker stuff. Those three things we get that done then you, and I think you have the authority to do that without any vote because that’s what we’re here to discuss. Mr. Russell: If you could include moving forward with the schematics on the --- Mr. Hatney: You mean for the drawings on the TEE Center? 30 Mr. Russell: Yes. Mr. Hatney: You know I thought you had that done already. Mr. Russell: I’ve got the --- Mr. Hatney: I’m serious. Mr. Russell: I don’t --- Mr. Mayor: Conceptual versus schematic. Mr. Russell: I don’t have the, I need to get started --- Mr. Hatney: You don’t have where the nuts and bolts are going to go. Mr. Russell: Yeap. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Russell: If you could agree --- Mr. Hatney: On those three things. Mr. Russell: --- on me with those things, those four things you just said that will get us to where we need to be today I think. Mr. Hatney: But #9 I’ve got a question to ask. #9 I was under the impression that counsel was supposed to be recommended by the General Counsel and not by your financial advisor, Mr. Russell: We can do that if you like. Mr. Hatney: But that’s who’s supposed to do it though. I don’t think we ought to take folks jobs away from them rather than we don’t let them function. Mr. Russell: That’s fine. I have no problem with that. Mr. Hatney: Because this is not the person down here that we declared to be the gatekeeper, whoever she is. Mr. Russell: No problem with that at all. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Reverend Hatney, so let me and for clarity, Mr. Administrator, there are items which Mr. Hatney just referenced included #9. If we make that change to allow our in 31 house legal counsel to make the recommendation for the finance group are we good with approving today those, those steps? Mr. Johnson: Can we hear those steps? Mr. Mayor: Can we hear the ones that you referenced or Mr. Russell as you heard the ones that were referenced. Mr. Russell: What I heard and what I think would be to bring back to you the schematic designs with costs for the TEE Center. To bring back to you the package that would include the property purchase and cost for your approval. To bring back to you the timeline and the plan for Laney-Walker/Bethlehem and a detailed timeline so with what we’ve got going there. To um, and I need to continue to work on the Convention Operator Contract to be brought back for your approval. Mr. Hatney: Okay, let me ask you one question. While you’re working on that why can’t we consider in view of the fact that we’ve got one the best management companies there is down at the marina. What would be wrong with considering them? That would save us $300,000 a year. Mr. Russell: Let me share with you part of the concern with that and part of the initial agreement with the building of the property there is the fact that we’ve already got a long term agreement with those particular people to operate part of that system. My concern would be is if you bring in another layer there you’ve got two different people operating within what’s going to be a function that comes together. And I’m not too sure that they would agree to allowing that as part of their contract. Because they’re operating the convention, not the convention, well the convention space the meeting rooms and stuff. We would try to bring in somebody else to operate the other and that was never part of the original discussion we had with them. That was not part of the initial term sheet that we approved several years ago. To change that now I think would probably put that particular portion --- Mr. Hatney: The reason I asked that when I look at the mandate it was the convention civic center authority what ever you want to call it works under. It included managing all of these facilities and what we’re doing is violating our own rule own law for somebody else’s benefit. Mr. Russell: I can’t speak to that. I know the original agreement --- Mr. Hatney: Have you ever seen it? Look at their agreement. It named the thing that they’re supposed to be managing. Mr. Mayor: Okay, before we, before we get through that I sense consensus around giving direction to Mr. Russell to move ahead with the steps he just referenced. Can I get a substitute motion to authorize him to do so? Mr. Holland: Mr. Mayor? 32 Mr. Mayor: And hang on one second, Commissioner Holland. If Mr. Russell, could you repeat that or Ms. Bonner, do you? The Clerk: I’ll attempt to do it and Mr. Russell can jump in at any time. The general consensus is to move forward with Item 1 with a cost estimate to be brought back. Item 3 to authorize the Administrator to finalize the convention operator’s agreement. Mr. Russell: To be brought back. The Clerk: All of these are to be brought back. Item 7 is to authorize the Administrator to develop the detailed timeline for the implementation of the Laney-Walker/Bethlehem project to be brought back. Item 9, that was to have in house counsel to make a recommendation regarding the Bond Counsel. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a substitute motion to that affect? Mr. Hatney: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Holland, then Commissioner Beard. Mr. Holland: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That was my concern about the list of items. I wanted to make sure that we knew exactly what we were going to be talking about, what we were going to be voting on if necessary. You know and I think each one of the Commissioners should have a copy of that list if it’s possible. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: The list, I don’t have it. Mr. Holland: What we just read off. The Clerk: Okay, you will be considering items 1, 3, 4, 7 and 9. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Beard, then Commissioner Brigham. Ms. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I am very concerned about SPLOST at this particular time. And with that I’m wondering with whatever he brings back that it could be done after the vote for SPLOST. Mr. Mayor: In the substitute motion though do we want to give a time direction for this? 33 Mr. Russell: I don’t think I would be able to complete. I know I’m not going to be able to complete any of that by in two weeks. So I think if you’re looking at that but the key is that I think we’re moving forward. We’ve made some good progress. Mr. Mayor: And as quickly as possible. Mr. Russell: I appreciate the dialogue that we’ve had because that’s exactly what I’ve been asking for. Mr. Hatney: After SPLOST. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I, we’re making real progress. I think one thing needs to be done. I think if we’re going to have time lines in there we ought to also have a detailed timeline for the completion of the TEE Center in this list of things. Mr. Mayor: Detailed timeline as to when we’re looking to complete the TEE Center. Would that be okay to incorporate in your --- Mr. Hatney: I voted on this thing for four years (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll get there, we can get there, one step at a time. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Brigham and Mr. Grantham vote No. Ms. Beard abstains. Motion carries 7-2-1. Mr. Mayor: And I’ll just say a point of personal privilege. Communication is key and I appreciate everybody’s input on this and I appreciate us allowing the Administrator to end this city and this government to take a step forward. Mr. Russell, do you have something to say? Mr. Russell: Thank you, Ladies and Gentlemen, I appreciate it. Mr. Mayor: And I know we need a Legal meeting. Mr. Attorney: Pending and potential litigation and real estate matters. LEGAL MEETING A.Pending and Potential Litigation. B.Real Estate. C.Personnel ADDENDUM 24. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting. 34 Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to go into a legal for those issues? Ms. Beard: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Brigham and Mr. Smith vote No. Mr. Bowles out. Motion carries 7-2. [LEGAL MEETING] 26. Motion to authorize execution by the mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Holland: So moved. Ms. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Jackson: Ms. Bonner, Joe and Corey are out. The Clerk: Yes, sir, thank you. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Johnson out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: I’d like to now recognize the Attorney and then prior to there is one house cleaning item that I need to recognize Commissioner Brigham for. ADDENDUM 25. Motion to add and approve a settlement of all claims against Augusta Richmond County, its 911 Call Center, and all employees, successors and agents in Superior Court of Richmond County Civil Action no. 2006-RCCV-547, a wrongful death case brought on behalf of decedent, Otis Harper, Sr. for the sum of $40,000.00. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that affect? Mr. Hatney: So moved. 35 Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Johnson out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. PUBLIC SERVICES 3. Motion to deny the following Business Licenses for failure to pay Inspection Fees: Sand Hill Grill 2457 Wheeler Rd, Surrey Tavern 471 Highland Ave. and Racquets Restaurant & Sports Bar 3206 West Wimbledon Dr. District 1, 3, & 7. Super Districts 9 & 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 26, 2009) Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can we reconsider Item #3 to eliminate Surrey Tavern from the denial of, motion to deny a business license for failure to pay inspection fees? It was requested of the Health Department earlier today. I don’t we eliminated Surrey Tavern in the original motion and therefore I’m asking to rescind the original motion and redo it. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, we would need a motion to reopen, reconsider. The Clerk: Reconsider Item 3. Mr. Brigham: I make a motion to reconsider Item #3. Mr. Jackson: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Johnson out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Brigham, I’ll recognize you again. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we deny the business license for failure to pay inspection fees at Sand HillGrill and the Racquets Restaurant and Bar and Grill and leave Surrey Tavern out in that discussion. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Oh, no, excuse me. We have a motion. Mr. Jackson: Second. 36 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jackson seconded it. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Hatney abstains. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Jackson out. Motion carries 7-1. Mr. Mayor: And with no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. Good day y’all. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 2, 2009. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 37 38