Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting February 28, 2022 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER February 28, 2022 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 1:00 p.m., Monday, February 28, 2022, the Honorable Bobby Williams, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Johnson, Mason, Scott, McKnight, D. Williams, Hasan and Clarke, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hon. Hardie Davis, Jr., Mayor; Frantom and Garrett, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. 1. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and potential litigation B. Real estate C. Personnel Mr. Brown: Commissioners, we’ll request a motion to go into executive session for discussion of Pending Litigation, Real Estate and Personnel. Mr. Mason: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. The Clerk: Was that Mr. Hasan on second or Mr. Dennis Williams? Yes, sir. Mr. Clarke out. Motion carries 7-0. \[EXECUTIVE SESSION\] 2. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. Brown: Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners, we’ll request a motion to execute the Closed Meeting Affidavit. Mr. Hasan: So moved. Ms. Scott: Second. The Clerk: Are we voting? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Voting. Mr. Clarke out. 1 Motion carries 7-0. The Clerk: Okay, well, we published the vote. We’ll get you on the next one, Commissioner. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Mr. Attorney? Mr. Brown: We’ll request a motion to accept the resignation of Brooks Stayer from th his position as Director of Environmental Services Department effective April 30 2022 and to award him one month of severance provided and upon the execution of a separation of release of claim agreement prepared by the Augusta Law Department. Mr. Mason: So move. Ms. McKnight: Second. Mr. B. Williams: A motion and a second. Voting. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: Is that it, Mr. Attorney? Mr. B. Williams: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Brown: Thank you. We request a motion to appoint Ron Lampkin as the Interim Director of Central Services Department effective February 28, 2022 at a salary of $102,288 and a car allowance of $400 per month. Ms. Scott: Motion to approve. Ms. McKnight: Second. Mr. B. Williams: Voting. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. B. Williams: Mr. Attorney. Mr. Brown: There are no further motions at this time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Ms. Bonner, what do we have before us this morning? The Trane thing? The Clerk: You have one item that’s been requested as an addendum. You can receive that one and then we’ll move forward with Trane and then the Addendum item. 2 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Do we have anyone to take exception to adding the addendum item? Seeing none, it’s accepted. The Clerk: Okay, we’ll proceed with Item #3 then? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am. Okay, can you hear me, Mr. Clarke? You can hear me now? I’ll make sure I speak up, yes, sir. The Clerk: And if give me a minute we’re going to get the consultants on the line. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The Clerk: Hi, is this Aldo? Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes. The Clerk: Hi, this is Lena Bonner with the City of Augusta, Georgia. We’re getting ready to address the Trane Contract if you can just hold just a moment for us, just hold on just a moment for us, okay? Are you ready, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Item #3 is to approve the Energy Services Performance Contract with Trane, Inc. and for staff to provide responses to the findings. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, are we going to let them explain something or I see Mr. Hasan wants to say something --- Mr. Hasan: Well --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- hang on a second, hang on a second. Are we good, Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: Yes, sir, I didn’t know --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay --- The Clerk: --- which order you wanted. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- okay, let’s go down to Mr. Hasan if that’s okay. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Hasan: Well, first, Mr. Chairman, I’d like for staff to tell us exactly why we’re here today because if it’s a motion to approve the Energy Service Performance Contract and for staff to provide responses to the findings. I’ll go ahead on, my question would be with the findings we just got Friday all those findings in the contract at this point the ones that they’ve been able to 3 negotiate by NV5 are they in the contract at this point as well as in the exhibits where someone may go to the exhibits more so than the contract. But also the broader concern I have is Section 5 and this is a credit once again to our consultant. They had a (inaudible) sitting on top of it, did I give it to you Commissioner Mason, did I get it back? I got it, I’m sorry, I do have it. I do have it. In this Section 5 it’s Operations and Maintenance Repair and Replacement is a critical area of negotiation upcoming implementation period because it has not clearly defined and laid out in the current pack NV5 will assist in assuring that its responsibilities are defined. Clearly laid out what the maintenance responses are and tasks are and which part is the responsibility lies with. Where it is currently not defined responsibility may ultimately fall into the lap of the city. So with that being said, is there still some other issues that need to be worked out at the end of the day for me and I think at this particular time all those things should be whether they go into the exhibit or the contract before we proceed in approving the contract. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, let’s go forward what are your questions. I guess the Administrator would explain why we’re here today. Ms. Douse: Good afternoon, Commission. Today’s meeting is specifically to approve us entering into the performance contract with Trane. You should have in front of you the (inaudible), excuse me, the recommendations as well as the findings from NV5. And as Ms. Bonner stated we have Aldo Mazzaferro on the line as well to answer the questions specifically related to Item #5 with the operations, maintenance, repair and replacement. Yes, we’ve made many corrections additions and edits to the performance contract based upon the recommendations provided by NV5. Trane has compromised, we’ve made all of those changes. The item specifically that you’re speaking about still would require some tweaks after the contract has been signed as far as service agreements that will be required that we enter into once construction has been completed. Mr. Hasan: Can I respond to that? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. Hasan: My thing with that though when we have a, when you buy a new car, a new whatever, you have a maintenance agreement and you know where the responsibility is going to lie and that’s what concerns me here. And they were saying the way it’s currently defined even if they do it within the implementation period but if we can do that up front, I think it’s best we do it up front because you lose your leverage if you enter into the contract if you sign the contract already. So they know you’re going to do it you lose your leverage. I think it ought to be defined before we sign the contract. I’m not against the contract. I just think the protection needs to be there before we sign the contract. Ms. Douse: And it was recommended by NV5, our consultant, for us to further negotiate those service agreement contracts after construction. Can Mr. Mazzaferro speak to that clearly? Mr. Hasan: Let me say something else to that (unintelligible) --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hang on a second, hang on a second. Go ahead, Mr. Hasan. 4 Mr. Hasan: Whether that, that’s because, Ms. Douse, that’s because of where we are. As they told us the other day it would’ve been nice is somebody would’ve been on the front end of this --- Ms. Douse: Sure. Mr. Hasan: --- we’re already in a place like that so they’re trying to make the best of a not the best situation, I won’t say a bad situation, the best out of a situation. Here we are in a situation that we can make a better situation out of it. I do agree they do have that in there but if we can make those modifications now that’s what we ought to do. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do you want him to speak? Ms. Douse: I would like for him to speak, yes. The Clerk: Go ahead, sir. Mr. Mazzaferro: Good morning, everyone. This is Aldo Mazzaferro from NV5. I hope you can hear me okay. Regarding the future O and M service contract it really wouldn’t necessarily be feasible at this time to negotiate those contracts without the amount of detail that’s going to come in in future phases when the detailed equipment and design of the systems are installed. So that the city and Trane and NV5 will all know exactly what type of equipment is being installed, what the manufacturer recommended, preventative maintenance measures are, exactly how much time that will take so that Trane can then offer a detailed service proposal for the city to consider which will detail exactly what those activities include are, whether they’re site visits or oil changes, filter changes or what the quantity and how often those are going to be done. And that can all be negotiated in the coming months when that equipment is known and the exact design is known and even at that time you’re not obligated to enter into that agreement with Trane specifically. You can always go out for an RFP for those services and we do have I believe right now a construction period it’s estimated to be about 18-months or so. So during that time period we have the ability to negotiate with Trane or the city may actually procure that if they want it as a separate contract. All these options are available to you and we’re very careful in making sure that contracts like this that the city would not be committed to these service contracts at any time and that they’re optional at this point. And the city is in full control whether if they decide to openly enter into those agreements based on the final details, pricing proposals from Trane when those are known. I hope that made sense to everyone. Thank you. Mr. Hasan: Thank you for the clarity. I appreciate that however as we move forward I got an answer for that. I think you had a Section 1 that had $100,000 dollars. You may remember what section that is when you had to break, it was $7.2 million to be more specific and you had to actually break it up and have two/three separate contracts. Then you have $100,000 that’s one- hundred thousand plus per year and at the same time, no, I’ll let you answer that first and then I’ll have to do a follow up. Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, so that’s, there are three main components of the service contract. The first one you’re mentioning is about $100,000 dollars per year. That’s for what’s called 5 measurement and verification and that’s actually required by Georgia state law for these performance contracts. And this is the process where Trane is now being held accountable to come back and prove to the city that what they installed is actually working and performing and generating the savings so this is a standard item in every single EVC contract and it requires Trane to come back and perform all these measurements, perform site visits, make sure everything is working and properly installed so that then they come back to you produce those very large reports that’s going to say the city whether they hit the savings or whether they fell short or whether they exceeded the savings and with that you know we’re talking about $1.5 million or so per year in savings. It’s a very expensive effort to go and take that down and get that information for year one so that’s what that cost is for. And NV5 you know it’s required by law because it’s really best practice. This is what’s best and keeps you apart from a typical design/build project and that now the lead contractor Trane is responsible for proving after they’ve installed it that hey what we installed is actually functioning and performing as agreed upon. Otherwise they need to cut you a check. So this is a longwinded way of saying that it’s a highly valuable service that first year one measurement verification report for $100,000 dollars for them to come back and prove to you that the project works and that’s they way you’re protected and you will receive a check if there’s a shortfall. Mr. Hasan: Okay, I’m going to go ahead. I have a couple more questions but I’m going to go ahead be respectful to my other colleagues --- Mr. Mazzaferro: Sure thing. Mr. Hasan: --- thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hasan, excuse me, Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In dealing with these performance contracts there are statutes and regulated requirements that goes along with performance contracts. No question about that in the federal government when we also look at it as a quality assurance surveillance plan if you will called a QAST and there’s money set aside to insure the product and/or service is up to par and whether we are getting what we’re supposed to get as a result of that. So I fully understand that and I’m glad to hear that you brought that out because that’s absolutely unnecessary and it could be a great cost savings to this government. Having some of the clarity that you have brought to the table doesn’t stop the discussion but I’m going to make a motion for approval. Ms. McKnight: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second for approval. Ms. Scott, you good? I did have a question and I’m not going to tell you I read this thing all the way through. So let’s say we’re not satisfied. Is there an out clause in here? We’re not satisfied with what’s going on, is there an out clause? The Clerk: Aldo, do you --- 6 Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, can you repeat the question? I didn’t hear it clearly. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I said let’s say the city’s not satisfied. Is there an out clause in this contract for the city? Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, there is different language throughout the packet that allows for termination with cause, without cause. All that was negotiated with the help of the city’s legal department and the Trane team. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, so is it in the contract and what page is it on --- Mr. Speaker: (Inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- eleven, okay. So, sir, can you explain it to me? I’m trying to get to it so can you explain the out clause to me? Mr. Mazzaferro: I’m sorry which clause? The Clerk: The out clause on --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The out clause --- The Clerk: --- on Page 11, yes, if you could detail it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- explain it to me. The Clerk: What number was that, Attorney Brown? Mr. Brown: (Inaudible) Section 6105, 6106 and 6107. The Clerk: Did you hear that? Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, I did so I’ll do my best to break this down with the clarification that I’m not an attorney by background but you know with any contract there is contract clauses in there that allow for termination by the parties for different reasons and they could fall under a force majeure which would be something along the lines of “an Act of God” or it can be for failure to perform certain responsibilities so if training was failing to perform under this agreement to install the equipment properly or perform the services that are included in say the measurement clarification. You know there’s a, for example there’s a requirement that they deliver that report to you, you know, this is the report to prove that the savings are verified. They’re required to deliver that report I believe within either 60 or 90-days I can’t remember specifically that would be a type of service where they’re failing to perform and the city could potentially terminate with cause for something like that. That’s just one example but generally, yes, this type of language is always included so that you know in the event of whatever may come down the road in the future there is some process by which you would cancel this contract and the team the two respective parties would agree to terms for cancellation, whether to pay for services up to the date or cancel 7 future services all these different options. You know I think I’ll defer to your legal team for a little bit more detail on how that type of process would play out. I hope that helps though. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hasan, you had more questions? Mr. Hasan: I do, I do. Attorney Brown, you seen this new stuff entered into the, you’ve seen it, have you seen the new findings entered into the exhibits or to the contract? I mean I’m not asking you if you’ve seen the document from NV5. I’m asking whether you’ve seen it inserted into our exhibits or what have you where the language has changed? Mr. Brown: (Inaudible) Mr. Johnson: Use your mike, please? Mr. Brown: Okay, thank you, in his making of the motion the motion that would be passed today if it’s the will of the body to approve it would be to adopt a resolution to authorize the Mayor to enter the contract with Trane on behalf of Augusta. The agreement itself cannot be technically entered today because it needs to be associated with financing which will not occur until March th 10 the date is to lock in. But this is what that motion would lock in the pricing that Trane has guaranteed through today. The Finance team is here if you want to discuss that but there’s two resolutions that would need to be adopted today. Mr. Hasan: But that, are you through --- Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Hasan: --- my question goes back to my original question was had you seen as the Attorney had you seen any change in the language like you said that had to be done today but at this point you’ve not seen it but you do realize it exists. Mr. Brown: Yes. Mr. Hasan: Okay, that’s all I’m saying. I know it hasn’t happened okay, that’ll be all for me, that’ll be all for me. Mr. Brown: The pact agreement the changes in the changes in the exhibits and changes in the pact agreement, the pact agreement which is before you that is the agreement --- Mr. Hasan: I know. Mr. Brown: --- that would occur. Those changes are there but some of the technical changes for the exhibit which is I think a little over 800-pages we still will go through that and verify that prior to any signing. Mr. Mazzaferro: I can, I’ll also jump in and confirm that. We did all of our findings that are incorporated in NV5’s recommendation letter had incorporated into the exhibit. We wouldn’t 8 have issued that letter without having a chance to review the exhibits in detail on the city’s behalf which is partly the reason why we issued it Friday afternoon because we were still working through the final, final package of, very large page quantity. Mr. Hasan: Let me ask one final question, Mr. Chairman, and I’ll be through. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me go to Mr. Johnson --- Mr. Hasan: Go ahead. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- he’s been waiting, Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, a question for Attorney Brown. So are you saying that we’re still going to have to revisit this in March is what you said, it’s going to come back before us in March? Mr. Brown: No, sir --- Mr. Johnson: Okay, help me understand what you just said. Mr. Brown: --- I am saying that the finalization of the agreement depends upon the th financing and the financing will be completed as of March 10 so what financing and the Finance team has prepared are resolutions authorizing the execution of the agreement that will authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. There will not be another meeting to come back and discuss the agreement. Mr. Hasan: I make a motion to deny with a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hang on a second. Mr. Johnson: I yield to Mr. Hasan, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, back to Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: For NV5 Mr. it was Aldo, right? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, sir. Mr. Hasan: Okay, I know you have a three-year term with us in terms of your contract if I’m not mistaken, that’s correct? Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes for three years after construction. Mr. Hasan: Three years after construction --- 9 Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes. Mr. Hasan: --- in some of those other agreements Part 2 and Part 3 of the $7.2 million dollars that you all identified what do you suspect the term limits of those are going to be terms of some oversight there, the length of time? Mr. Mazzaferro: Typically their contracts that are presented by the service offer in the case it would be Trane that are renewed annually based on depending on the city’s satisfaction with the service agreement so at no point and this would be my personal recommendation are you signing onto a service contract that is extended for the full 18-year term of the contract. They would renew annually, be paid for by the savings annually just the way it’s budgeted and presented in the financials but you won’t be at any time locked into say that $7.2 million dollars over the 18-year term. It should be a contract that should be renewed annually which is really you know best practice. Mr. Hasan: So 18-years is that a long time for you? Do you think we should live with 18- years or cut that short? Mr. Mazzaferro: I would include the option of having it for 18 years which is really the term of the contract year and the guaranteed savings. So again keep it with the option for the city to renew wholly for 18 years or renew annually but that would really keep you in the best position you know going forward. Mr. Hasan: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Mazzaferro: No problem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney --- Mr. Brown: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- I think everyone up here wants to approve this and at the same time we have some hesitation on some people’s part. I mean is there a way we can put this in the parking lot and give us a little time to consider this because you know I don’t think we’ve got enough people to approve it and I don’t think we have enough to deny it at the same time. I think is there a way we can put it in the parking lot for a week or two for more consideration? Ms. Douse: Mayor Pro Tem, may I respond? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Sure. Ms. Douse: So you may recall that Trane agreed to hold construction rated financing until February 28th which is the sole reason why we had to or we requested for a special called meeting th because today is February 28. And so if we go beyond this point without providing Trane the necessary approvals that they had required of us then we are subject to construction rate financing changing. That change could increase or it could decrease; we’re all familiar with fluctuations in 10 the market because of extenuation circumstances. So do know that yes you have the option to extend past this date but if you choose to do so our current pricing will be subject to change. Mr. Mazzaferro: Hi, I’m sorry for interrupting. I just want to build upon Director Douse’s point there. Trane has been holding this pricing for this project for I believe well over a year now and I’m sure we’re all familiar with all the discussion of inflation and everything that’s been going on in the market but we’ve been more than impacting the construction industry. Prices have changed; we see it on a daily basis on projects where you know Trane has been very accommodating in holding their pricing for this long despite all those changes to technologies and chips and things like that that have greatly impacted pricing over the last year or so. I’ll also go on to, that’s on the actual cost to the city. I’d also point out that the city did receive a very attractive financing rate for this project. I believe it was in the 2.2% interest rate which was about 30 or 40 basis points less than what anyone was expecting. So it’s really kind of the best of both worlds where the city is today and that you, Trance has been holding this pricing but when you went out for the financing of this agreement you also managed to hit the market at a very opportune time where you got a very, very attractive financing rate for this overall project so those are two factors to consider here with the timing, we’ll just leave it at that, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I agree and at the same time you know and I guess just speaking for (unintelligible) some people don’t think we need it at all but we have, we never did, yes, sir, Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to go against our NV5. I think they did a phenomenal job with it. I’ll just withdraw my motion. But I will say this to the Administrator here I think you have to be more careful about what your documents have been changed because the documents have been changed that means you had to change them, the Attorney doesn’t know a thing about it and everything like that. To know these adjustments had been made from the findings because that was my initial question and the Attorney said he hadn’t seen anything and so be careful about how hard you push Ms. Douse, thank you I withdraw my motion --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay --- Mr. Hasan: --- my substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- okay, Commissioner McKnight. th Ms. McKnight: I was going to go ahead and stand behind the Commissioner from the 6 but I was going to go ahead any make a motion, the original motion to go ahead and approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, do we have anybody, anybody? All right, we’ve got a motion on the floor to approve --- The Clerk: Resolution. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- a resolution. 11 The Clerk: A resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into a contract. Do you want to restate the motion? Mr. Mason: I’ll bring some clarity to that. Mr. Johnson: That would be two motions that would be needed today. One would be if you’re talking about a motion to approve that would be a motion to adopt a resolution authorizing execution of the pact agreement with Trane US, Inc. and there would need to be a, for the financial piece there would need to be a resolution authorizing execution of a lease purchase agreement and the funding agreement relative to the contract with Trane US, Inc. Mr. Mason: And are those two separate motions or are they companion items? Mr. Brown: They can be done in one. You will be adopting the following resolutions: one a resolution to authorize execution of the pact agreement with Trane US, Inc. and the resolution authorizing execution of a lease purchase agreement and the funding agreement regarding the contract with Trane US, Inc. Mr. Mason: So my motion will reflect just that. The Clerk: A motion as stated by the Attorney. Mr. Mason: Yes. Ms. McKnight: Second. The Clerk: Well, we have Mr. Mason and Ms. McKnight on the original one. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, we’ve got, are you good, Mr. Clarke? All right, you good, Ms. Scott? You good, Mr. Mason? Mr. Mason: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, so we ready? The Clerk: Just a moment, the Administrator. Ms. Douse: I do think it’s prudent before we before you vote on the motions that are presented before you that you hear more about how the project is funded or proposed to be funded from our Finance Department. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Schroer: Good afternoon. Excuse the voice I have bronchitis again so (inaudible) squeaky voice. Earlier this month Davenport issued an RFP for financing for the contract. We received four bids or four responses from Bank of America, Cadence Bank, Burlington Bank and 12 Truist Bank. The best response was Bank of America. The rate was 2.194% for the entire length of the project. The funding will come from savings from the energy savings from the Pact Agreement. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So basically we won’t have to bring out, take any money out of our savings or? Mr. Schroer: Correct it will, the savings will cashflow the debt service the lease payments, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We pay them? Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. Instead of paying Georgia Power or Jefferson Electric or Georgia Natural Gas those savings will be shifted over to paying Bank of America. In theory we could have excess savings with this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gotcha, I gotcha. Any questions, any questions? All right, they’re ready for the vote, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: We’re voting, sir? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, ma’am. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What else we got, Ms. Bonner? The Clerk: Well, I think that’s it. Is that it, Madam Administrator? Mr. Speaker: We’ve got the addendum. The Clerk: The addendum, yeah, your addendum. Mr. Schroer, can we get a copy of the presentation you just made so we can have it for the record? Thank you. Are you, we’re done with Mr. Aldo, are you still with us? Mr. Mazzaferro: Yes, I am. Thank you, everyone --- The Clerk: Thank you. Mr. Mazzaferro: --- if there’s anything you need from me, feel free to reach out. I appreciate it. The Clerk: We will, thanks. Mr. Mazzaferro: Thank you, have a great day. 13 The Clerk: You too, sir. Our Addendum Item is to approve a Change Order No. 2F presented by 2KM in the amount of $636,285.40 to continue progress on the completion of the renovation to 510 Fenwick Street for our DFACS Office Department of Family and Children Services building. Ms. Douse: So as you may be aware that the DFACS office is currently under construction and has been for a good portion of 2021. As a direct reflect of life safety code changes that were uncovered once construction began there were changes that were also required as a result of that to the tune of over $600,000 dollars. Attachments include all of the changes that result from the differences in construction costs as we’ve already spoken about inflation and how it specifically impacts the construction market. This does not include approval of the lease. The lease will come back to this body for approval once it's completed, basically once we get closer to the completion of construction. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, ma’am Ms. Douse, is this, Director Douse is this, Ms. Administrator, is this a new side of the building that they’ve been able to find these concerns I mean because they’ve been in the building over a year or so, so this is a new portion of the building? Ms. Douse: No, sir, they haven’t been in the building for a year. Construction started back in August or September and so as construction continued to progress and they started doing more and more demolition we sent the plans off to the State Fire Marshall and because of code changes many of the changes have reflected in a increase to the overall construction costs. So, no, this is not a new side of the building. This is still the same three story portion of the current building. Mr. Hasan: So what change order is this? Ms. Douse: This change order specifically relates to --- Mr. Hasan: No, ma’am, no, ma’am, I’m mean I’m sorry, what number what number (inaudible). Ms. Douse: --- Number 2 this is Change Order No. 2. Mr. Hasan: We had a previous change order with them? Ms. Douse: You have. Change Order No. 1 was escalation from pricing that was given back in 2018. If you recall the facility caught on fire June of 2017. We went out for a design bid, received pricing back in 2018. Because construction did not start until 2021 there was naturally a difference in pricing from 2018 to 2021 so that was --- Mr. Hasan: Is that our end? Is that on our end because they didn’t start until ’21? Ms. Douse: --- no, that was not on our end. If you recall there was a lot of plan changes from the state side. They did not know exactly how much of the facility they wanted to use but 14 those costs are reflected in our current lease however these costs, the costs from Change Order No. 2 have not been incorporated into the lease that will be brought before you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: You good? I know you’re not but let me go to Ms. Scott, Ms. Scott. Ms. Scott: Administrator Douse, how much more do we have to in terms of the construction? I’m sorry where are we with, I know it’s a Change Order No. 2 but how much is it 10% complete, 20% just how far, how much more do we have in this building? And I guess do we know how many more change orders we’re going to have? Ms. Douse: So at this point construction is slated to be completed July of 2022. We do not anticipate additional change orders especially to the tune of the hundreds of thousands of dollars that’s being presented before you today. We are well underway and so we have a contingency built it to cover smaller items as which is natural in the course of construction, however, please keep in mind that this project was approved and began without a contingency at all. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Clarke. Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Commissioner. First of all, Ms. Douse, and this question is for our new Administrator. I happened to be out of town upon your placement as Interim and I’d like to say congratulations to you and I look forward to working with you and I know you’re going to do a fantastic job as you always have in your present position. My question is I know in the past when we’re dealing with DFACS that we’ve had several conversations based on the lease agreement terms. With all of this coming about and the money that we’re investing in the new facility, will that lease agreement reflect a better rate of return? Ms. Douse: It is staff’s position that we do renegotiate the terms of the lease agreement especially because of the additional costs that the project has succumbed to simply because of the changes that were required to the facility. So, yes, before the final lease comes back before you we will have additional conversation with State Properties Commission who acts on behalf of DFACS. But keep in mind we’ve already executed a Letter of Intent which outlined lease payments and other ancillary costs such as utility payments and maintenance of common areas spaces. That was done before construction was underway so, yes, a new lease will be coming before you. How much that lease will change of course will be up to this body. Mr. Clarke: Okay, thank you much, I appreciate it. No more questions. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes sir, anyone else? I’d like to ask you what is this construction mainly on? I mean outside walls, painting are we doing cubbyholes and all that kind of stuff for them or what? Ms. Douse: No, sir, this construction project is a full gut of the three-story portion of the DFACS building. If you recall DFACS occupied the entire the 80,000 square foot facility. Now they’re only going to have 60,000 square feet of the space. They have specific state requirements for each state facility to include how many conference rooms, what the size of the breakroom is, 15 what the bathrooms look like, what fixtures, any equipment are used in the space so this construction project will cater to those needs. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right so I have a question. Should we be paying for those or should they be paying for those? Ms. Douse: Well, the buildout is incorporated in their lease so they will be paying Augusta back based upon the buildout. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So we negotiated where we have to pay for all this instead of them paying for it with their state money. Ms. Douse: That’s correct. It’s paid for over the course of --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And you don’t have to go in depth with that but my question really is why should we lease the building and then retrofit or what have you so that they can be comfortable. Why aren’t they paying for it their changes? So you don’t have to answer that question but I need us to think about that in the future when we negotiate a lease that if they need $600,000 dollars’ worth of changes then they get to pay for it. So what are we voting on today or trying to vote on? Mr. Hasan: Mr. Chairman, let me ask a quick question? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hang on a second, the Attorney. Mr. Brown: I just wanted to correct what I think I heard you say. We are not constructing it and then leasing it from them. They are leasing it from us. That’s how we get our money back. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right, but my real question is why should we have to pay out a million dollars for them to sit over there? That’s my real question. Mr. Brown: Well, technically the one thing is in order for the county to have these services we provide a building for the benefit of our citizens. We get some of that money back when they, when we construct a building they then come in but we don’t lease the building, they lease it from us so that’s how some of the money is returned. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Mr. Hasan. Mr. Hasan: Yes, Mr. Chairman, Ms. Douse, in terms of where are we with the state? No I guess you, they’re very challenging to deal with them to get contracts period. We know what that’s been like. We retrofitted a building a couple of times for them as well you know and they’ve changed they’ve (unintelligible). I would like to see if we approve this today that if they choose not to work with us in some form or fashion that you bring us another option for that building because we just keep throwing money at the building and we’re not getting any use out of the building at this point. For the record in approving this how much are we overbudget on this project at this point if we approve this today? 16 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And where is the money coming from? Ms. Douse: Well, when you say overbudget the original budget for the project was $3.1 million dollars again that was back in 2018. So with the change order that will bring us to almost $4 million dollars on this project so overbudget is relative in that stance because the original number that we based this project off of again has stalemated at this point. Funding if I’m correct came from our, Finance will you assist me with the direct allocation of funding? Ms. Williams: (Inaudible). Ms. Douse: She said fund balance capital outlay contingency. Mr. Hasan: So, Ms. Douse, let me just say for the record because I did ask you a question you got political on me, so what’s the number of what’s the number from what we budgeted until so what’s the difference. Ms. Douse: About one million dollars. Mr. Hasan: Okay, that’s all I wanted you to say. Ms. Douse: Oh, excuse me, about one million dollars. Mr. Hasan: Okay, all right. Ms. Douse: And the Change Order No. 2 those funds were approved in Administrator Donald’s presentation to you last week from overages of SPLOST 7. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So what do we need to vote on today? The Clerk: Approve this change order. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion? Ms. McKnight: Motion to approve. Mr. Speaker: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion to approve, Ms. Bonner. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re voting, all right, voting. Motion carries 8-0. 17 The Clerk: Is the meeting adjourned, sir? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Meeting adjourned. The Clerk: Thank you. \[MEETING ADJOURNED\] Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on February 28, 2022. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 18