Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDecember 7, 2010 - Commission Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER DECEMBER 7, 2010 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., December 7, 2010, the Hon. Alvin Mason, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Absent: Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. The invocation was given by The Reverend Billy Atkins, Pastor Fleming Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pastor Atkins, if you would please come forward. From the Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Reverend Bill Atkins, Pastor, Fleming Baptist Church is Chaplain of the Day for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community and serves as an example for all of the faith community. Given under my hand this th 7 Day of December 2010. Our Honorable Mayor Deke Copenhaver. Thank you, Pastor. All right. Madam Clerk, on to the delegations. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS A. Report from the Small/Disadvantaged Business Council regarding their Business Expo. Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, I would like to provide you with a brief update regarding the Augusta Richmond County Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Department’s Third Annual Business Expo. This year’s expo provided a full day of workshops and network opportunities from industry leaders who know how to sustain and grow their business even in today’s harsh economic climate. This year’s theme focused on providing relevant information to succeed, thriving in tough times for start up new business as well as existing business. The keynote speaker was Mr. Rufus Burdette. He’s the owner of Star One Supplies as well Green Burdette Management. Mr. Burdette’s company has one a million dollar new construction contract with Fort Gordon and has been awarded several contracts with Augusta Richmond County. Five seminars, which presented on key areas to improve and increase potential opportunities for small business. The Small Business Development Center presented presentations focused on the importance of having a business plan which provide the road map as well it’s a key essential element for all small business. The Georgia Department of Transportation came down and they presented information on how to navigate the DOT Certification. The Small Business Administration presented information on taking advantage of stimulus dollars and the new changes to the Small Business Administration certification, which they will be implementing for 2011. It’s very important for small business to understand the key elements to financial management, which was presented by Jessie Hughes owner of Hugh’s Business Services. Of course the DBE Department spoke about new opportunities which 1 Augusta Richmond County and urging attendees to register with the DBE Department for the local small business opportunity program. Throughout the day we had over 130 attendees and twelve exhibitors. We provided each attendee with this little brochure. It’s called the Business Toolbox Booklet, which includes how to develop a business resume template, marketing strategy, contact information regarding all of the presenters as well as the exhibitors. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission we value your attendance in attending the Third Annual Business Expo and we appreciate your continued support of the DBE Department. Thank you and we appreciate the opportunity to update you regarding the Third Annual Business Expo. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Ms. Gentry. Is there any comments or questions? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: I would just like to thank Ms. Gentry for extending the invitation for me to participate in this seminar. I thought it was great. I really enjoyed the networking and the people that I talked with seemed to be very interested in what they had to offer. So I would just like to applaud you for a job well done, you and the others that participated. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Commissioner Lockett. Any other discussion, questions? Thank you, Ms. Gentry. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir, our consent agenda consists of items 1-19, items 1-19. And part of the consent agenda would be the, to approve the amendment for the increase in application fee and to increase the alcohol license fees as well as to increase the administrative fee and regulatory fees to increase the business tax and to increase the business tax for professionals. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-19. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The additions to the consent? That was one and two, additions to the agenda? The Clerk: Yes, sir and items number six and eight. If, Mr. Plunkett, are you here? Can you advise the Commission on the revised resolution for the redevelopment plan? Mr. Plunkett: Yes, Madam Clerk. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, the changes in that document was simply to incorporate data from sales of the bonds this morning. Just for the Commission’s information the SPLOST bonds sold this morning at the effective yield of 1.33% which is 60- basis points cheaper than the last time we sold SPLOST bonds. And then on the Solid Waste Bonds effective yield was 3.98%. The difference in those rates are basically due to the length of the bonds. The Solid Waste Bonds are 20 years and the SPLOST bonds are a mere five years. So that reflects the (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. 2 The Clerk: That was our consent agenda. Was there unanimous consent to add those items on our consent agenda? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have unanimous consent? The Clerk: So our consent agenda will consist of items 1-19. The additional information for items six and eight, legislative appointments and the exchange of easement between James and Cynthia Franklin. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are there any additional items to add to the consent agenda? Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: --- come before you a resolution in reference to property at 2841 and 481A Central Avenue that we were authorized to purchase previously. That’s in front of you now and it would be appropriate to add and approve that as part of the consent agenda if you’re so willing. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is it the will of the body? The Clerk: Okay, add it on to the consent. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. The Clerk: Item number twenty-three. Can that be added to the consent? That’s the re- certification on the ethics ordinance. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does anybody have any issues with twenty-three being added to the consent agenda? Twenty-three? Any additional items? Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner --- Mr. Bowles: --- was the item from the real estate transaction to be added and approved or just added to the agenda? Mr. Russell: I asked that it be added and approved. Mr. Bowles: I’ve got a question on it if we could just add it --- Mr. Russell: Okay, just add it, that’s fine. The Clerk: Are we ready for the appointments on item --- 3 Mr. Grantham: Item twenty-five. The Clerk: --- twenty-five to the district, Mr. Grantham. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, is District 10 we’ve discussed the forming of this. It’s my understanding that this is to add one Commissioner from that district to serve in that capacity to assist with the purchasing of the bond. I propose the name of Jimmy Smith. The Clerk: Okay, District 10. Mr. Hatney? Mr. Hatney: District 9 in that same order I propose the name of Mr. Bill Lockett. The Clerk: We’ll add that to the consent? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now the only question that I would have in reference to that and I just need some clarity is that given the fact that Mr. Smith’s term is going to end here shortly what is going to be the uh, the plan of action moving forward in terms of that replacement or how is that done? I don’t have a problem with his being --- Mr. Russell: At this point what you’re doing is appointing somebody for the meeting today. They will probably not have to meet again until we see bonds again. So at that time it would probably be appropriate to appoint somebody else. So Mr. Smith could serve today and accomplish all the needs that we have. The Clerk: So our consent agenda, items 1-19 with the addition of item 23, with the addition of item 25, Jimmy Smith representing District 10, Commissioner Bill Lockett for District 9. The addition of item, on item six and eight the revised resolution the consent for the legislative delegation appoints and to accept the exchange easement between James and Cynthia Franklin. That’s our consent agenda. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All righty. Are there any items to be pulled from consent? Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Item number eleven. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number eleven. Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Item number three, please. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item three? Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Item number one, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number one. 4 Mr. Bowles: You can scratch three on number one. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, okay. The Clerk: Do you want three or one? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So disregard three but item number one for clarity. Are there any other items to be pulled from consent? Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, do we have one and three being pulled? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, we have, can you --- Mr. Hatney: Aren’t they companion ones? Mr. Aitken: They are companions. The Clerk: No, we only have item one being pulled for discussion. Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’d like to pull number three. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, okay so we are back to item number three. So we have one and three. The Clerk: One, three and eleven. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: One, three and eleven. Are there any other items to be pulled? I would look for a motion? Mr. Jackson: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 2. Motion to approve Bid Item #10-194, Julian Smith Casino Roof Replacement, to Ben Hill Roofing for $93,500. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 29, 2010) PUBLIC SERVICES 4. Motion to approve Inmate Medical Contract for the Richmond County Sheriff’s Office to Correct Care Solutions with a $1,500 cap per inmate per year with the increased mental health coverage for an annual contract price of $4,004.00 on an annual basis; and that agreements be entered into with ACCG/Blue Cross Blue Shield whereby Blue Cross will be paid an administrative fee of 7 ½ percent for processing all medical bills for all inmates and 5 the city will receive a provider discount pursuant to the agreements that Blue Cross has with the various hospitals. (Approved by Public Safety Committee November 29, 2010) FINANCE 5. Motion to approve the purchase of one pickup truck for the Augusta Fire Department. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) 6. Motion to approve the proposed adoption of the Amended Augusta Richmond County Redevelopment Plan and an Amended Resolution regarding Augusta Richmond County Tax Allocation District Number One – Augusta. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) 7. Motion to approve documentation for Solid Waste Authority and SPLOST VI Series II bond issues. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) 8. Motion to approve the proposed adoption of the Augusta Richmond County Village at Riverwatch Redevelopment Plan and creation of the Augusta Richmond County Tax Allocation District Number Two – Village at Riverwatch. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) 9. Motion to approve a request from Dr. Louvenia Rainge for reimbursement for payment of taxes on her personal property tax account #2105550 for the years 2007-2009 and apply to current – 2010 taxes. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) 10. Motion to approve a refund of taxes for the years 2007 through 2009 for Ms. Yvonne Alford for property taxes on her home located at 2608 Wheeler Road and ask the Attorney to investigate and report back at the Commission meeting if any further considerations can be given Ms. Alford. (Approved by Finance Committee November 29, 2010) ENGINEERING services 11. Motion to approve award of RFP #10-160, Landscape Maintenance Services for the Solid Waste Facility. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 12. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to Jeffrey Harris Trucking, Inc. in the amount of $137,500.00 for the East Augusta Street Drainage Project – Phase 1 (East View Drive); CPB 327-041110-209812101 subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds as requested by AED. Funding is available in the project account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 13. Motion to authorize the award and execution of a contract for the Construction Management at Risk services for construction of various projects at Ft. Gordon with Tetra Tech Inc. in the amount not to exceed $22,993.573. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 14. Motion to approve request for funding in amount of $42,940.00 for digital court reporting equipment for the new Judicial Center. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 15. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title o a portion of property for permanent easement and temporary construction easement for 60106 – Butler Creek Interceptor Upgrade, West. PIN: 094-0-002-01-0. Address: 3728 Old McDuffie Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 16. Motion to approve execution by the Mayor of the attached affidavit in reference to the th archeological study on the St. Sebastian Way/Greene St./15 St. Project and thereby 6 continue the curation of the artifacts by the Curation Department of the University of West Georgia. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) 17. Motion to approve the submission of the GDOT Transportation Enhancement (TE) Application. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 18. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held November 16, 2010 and Special Called (legal) meeting held November 29, 2010) APPOINTMENTS 19. Motion to approve the following reappointment and appointments to the various ARC Boards, Authorities and Commissions representing District 9: Anthony King, Animal Control; Mildred Irish, Augusta Port Authority; Charles E. Bullock, Canal Authority; Margaret Whaley, ARC Library, Paulette Curry, Zoning Appeals Board; Tom Givens, Riverfront Development; Bernard Silverstein, Augusta Aviation Commission; Annie Rogers, Historic Preservation; Barbara Gordon, Housing Neighborhood and Development; J.R. Riles, Personnel Board; Margaret Armstrong, Planning Commission; Rodriques Johnson, Public Facilities; Larry McCord, Small Business Council; Pat Bailey, Tree Commission and Betty Tylers, General Aviation Commission. ADMINISTRATOR 28. Motion to approve and accept and exchange of easements between James and Cynthia Franklin and Augusta, Georgia. 29. Motion to ratify the following Legislative Delegation appointments to the various boards, authorities and commissions as outlined; Laura Plocha, ARC Historic Preservation Board; Dianne Sprague, ARC Tree Commission; Latasla Gardner, ARC Personnel Board; Jeannie Allen, Canal Authority; Richard Slaby, Canal Authority; Chris Booker, Zoning Appeals; Kelly McKnight, Zoning Appeals. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 2, 4-10, 12-19, 25, 28, 29] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s unanimous. Madam Clerk, before we move on I’m going to take a point of personal privilege here just say that I attended this past weekend a departure th ceremony for the 877 Engineer Battalion whose soldiers are going over to Afghanistan for a year. And they will be going the Fort McCoy for two months prior to that. I would just simply say this. As those soldiers go over to make the sacrifice to this great nation I would ask that you keep their family members and the soldiers in your prayers and in your thoughts. And we hope that they come safe and sound, every single one of them back to Augusta, Georgia after serving this great nation and accomplishing their mission. And our prayers will all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines that is guarding this nation on our behalf. Thank you. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Could we add number twenty-five --- (inaudible) 7 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Twenty-five? Mr. Brigham: I meant twenty-six. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That promises to be a moment. Fred, because I know we’ve had some other requests as well do we need to prioritize this? Mr. Russell: You know, I would think that could probably wait. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Twenty-six? Mr. Russell: Yes. The Clerk: Okay, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, do you want to proceed with items pulled or are we? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I want to proceed with the items pulled, in particular, well, you’re going to go item one and, are we taking one and three as companion items? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, so we’ll, one and three as we’ve had folks waiting here for a while on those particular items. The Clerk: PUBLICE SERVICES 1. Motion to approve amendments to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 6-2, Alcoholic Beverages, so as to increase the application fee and to increase the alcohol license fees. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 29, 2010) 3. Motion to approve amendments to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 2-1 Business Tax Certificate; so as to increase the administrative fee and regulatory fees, to increase the business tax, increase the business tax for professionals. (Approved by Public Services Committee November 29, 2010) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Mr. Sherman, before you get started my only comment to this would be I would hope that as we’re moving forward that we would look and if we need to have some dialogue that it will be some constructive dialogue in reference to where we go moving forward. One of the things that bothers me in reference to this is the short time frame that has been given in terms of the business owners within in this city. And so if we’re going to move forward with it or if we’re not I think we need to come up with some sort of idea as to how we do move forward. And I think that we need to really look at the fact that if such a short notice happening on our tax, on our business owners for this to uh, um, I just think that we really need to take a close look at that as we move forward. So we’ll hear from you and then we’ll kind 8 of go from there. But I hope we’ll have that type of dialogue to take into consideration what we’re asking and the time frame that we’re asking it. Mr. Sherman: Commissioners, good afternoon. Earlier today at 4:00 o’clock we had a public hearing to discuss the increase of the business license fee. And that’s a requirement of the code but also to discuss the increase in the alcohol license fee. On the table is a proposed 10% increase in the fees. The alcohol and the business license fees were last increased in 2006. The alcohol fees are flat fees. It will just be 10% across the board. The business license fees, is based on gross revenue and profitability ratio. Several of the members of the public of the business community attended approximately thirty people. They had various concerns. One was the timing of the proposal, the other is that it’s a, it’s going to impact the, I took it to be a bigger concern with the alcohol licenses as opposed to the business license. The alcohol license it will affect the smaller businesses in an equitable fashion as opposed to the business license, which is based on your gross revenue. And so there was a concern with the timing, how the alcohol license is actually calculated and then the just the economy, you know the state of the economy right now. Those were the concerns that I understood. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. Mr. Administrator, after we have listened to the concerns of our citizens and business owners and due to the fact that there is no doubt about it some differences in and thought on how these things should be approached. Can you suggest some way out of this for us for this year? Mr. Russell: Uh, Mr. Dr. Hatney and members of the Commission you know I think there’s no good time to raise taxes or fees or anything like that. You know I understand the trigger on this was fairly short as we proposed that. You know this is not money that we anticipated in the budget it would be new dollars it would help us move forward. But given this Commission’s general feeling that I’ve been able to get what I’ve observed in that past if you’re not raising the real estate taxes you’re not trying to continue to build government on the backs of not only the taxpayer but the small businesses and large business. You know I’m not opposed to trying to work with them as some of them suggested to move forward with a plan that might be a little bit more equitable in how we do the taxes. In addition to that to look at a method to increase that. Each person that was here I heard say that you know that they had more bills to pay and all that other stuff which we hear regularly. You know their light bill’s gone up, their gas bill has gone up and it has for us too. There’s no doubt about that. And what we do to increase revenue is to increase fees and taxes. That being said I think that if look at a process of doing that in a way that’s more acceptable over the next year or so to do in a way that it brings forth some of that dialogue that we had today that I thought was pretty good. You know I think that we’re from a staff standpoint you know I can get by with what we’ve got this year. Them being the business owners being put on notice that we cannot continue not to meet the needs that we have too and part of that is increasing the fees that we pay just like everybody else increases your cost. I think we need to have a look at that to look at how to do that so as to least offensive and try to work with them in doing that instead of 10% every four years or so maybe we need to do a schedule. A lot of people are complaining about the fact they didn’t know when it was going to be. If we come back with a plan that says every year we go up 2.5% that’s something 9 you can budget for and plan for. If we but you know we can’t continue not to do something but I think we have a little leeway in this case and that’s the will of the Commission to do it that way to task me to come back with a plan that would be I won’t say acceptable but less offensive and move forward with that. I’d be willing to do that. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would move that we accept the suggestions and recommendations. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, may I please, I’m the one that pulled the item. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Hatney: You pulled it, I’m sorry. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s okay I appreciate it. Basically what I wanted to say has been said. So since it’s been said I would like to make a motion that the Administrator get with appropriate personnel and see if they can come up with a formula that would be fair to all of the business people and make sure that the results is presented to the business people to give them ample time to prepare. And I think 2012 would be an appropriate time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you adding that 2012 into your motion or are you just saying that, what exactly --- Mr. Lockett: No sooner than 2012. Mr. Hatney: I second it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and second. Any discussion? Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Fred, actually I had an opportunity while endeavor this past week to encompass on a gentleman out of Winston Salem, North Carolina by the name of Dan Bease. Dan actually informed me on an organization called Larger City Council, which is a national council of cities the size of 200-thousand plus which they get together and talk about things of this magnitude. And actually I’m getting some information emailed to me as we speak in regards to this. But I think it’s something that we can look at because not only do it give us some insight of what other cities are doing not just locally but across the nation but some insight on how things operate with them and some of the steps they might have taken due to the same issues that they’re dealing with. And I think we’re all dealing with some economic times and hardships if you will throughout the nation. So I’ll get that information to you along with some of the other information and hopefully it’ll be some good models in there that we can look at and maybe some ideas and concepts that we can get to Rob to look at in implementing to help us with this decision. Thank you. 10 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mason. Fred, are you saying you’re going to be able to get back within a week or so? Because these people are looking for an invoice to come to them pretty soon and I don’t know maybe we need to give them extra time in paying those invoices or how are we going to do that now. Because last week we were charged with getting this done as quickly as possible so you could get the invoices out. So where do we stand on that, Rob, and how would we handle this? Mr. Russell: I guess if I could answer that for Rob. What I’m hearing is it doesn’t to be the will of the Commission to go forward with the increase at this particular moment which would make the invoices not as crucial as what they were. If I misread that then I’m wrong but then we need to get it done today but. What I understood was that we were looking at a 2/12 cost date and I would have some time to put together a comprehensive plan, inform the businesses and the establishments that are involved with the liquor license and then come back with a plan for 2/12. Mr. Grantham: Well --- Mr. Russell: That was my understanding. Mr. Grantham: --- if that’s the case then if we’re looking at 2/12 then a regular invoice can go out as to what it was this past year. So there would be no reason to hold up anything in that regard and the plan that you’re presenting would be approved either the latter part of this year or the first of next year. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, that’s my understanding if I read --- Mr. Grantham: I just wanted to see that clarity on that to make sure everybody understood that and then walked out the door they weren’t looking for an invoice tomorrow. Mr. Russell: If anybody would like to voluntarily pay the 10% extra we could, we could handle that if you like. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And they may see an invoice but it won’t show the increase. Mr. Russell: Right it would be the, based on the same rate is my understanding. Right, Rob? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Rob, didn’t you state earlier that item number three is pretty much an equitable way to charge the fees and taxes to businesses? Mr. Sherman: Yes. 11 Mr. Bowles: And so are we taking these as companion items or are we going to leave three the way it is? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we have it as companion right now but if you’re --- Mr. Bowles: Well, I’ll make a substitute motion since three is basically set up the way it is and we haven’t had any complaints from any businesses with regarding to the license fee, that we approve item three with the 10% increase and item one we send to Fred to come back to us with a recommendation. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion on the table. Is there a second? Mr. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a substitute motion and a second. Discussion Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Some of us were here to hear those folks and they were also concerned about those. That’s why we tried to get one and three as companion because most of the folks who were here during that period where the public had input most of them were against the way both of these were handled. And so that’s the way I saw that. Do you see it any different, Mr. Sherman? Mr. Sherman: Actually the way I saw it was the concern for the alcohol fees. The business license fees it’s based on your gross revenue and profitability ratio. Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Sherman: I think maybe one had a comment about that because of course her business doesn’t include alcohol. And that’s just my opinion. Mr. Hatney: That’s the way you saw it, Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: And honestly I thought they were complaining about the fees in general at this point. Mr. Hatney: I thought they were complaining about the whole thing. Mr. Russell: And that’s the assumption that I heard. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, we unless --- Mr. Brigham: I’d like to hear it because the most of what I heard was complaints about alcohol licenses and fees. 12 Mr. Mason: Are you uh, there’s been a motion and a second on the substitute motion. Is there any further discussion? If not, we will vote on the substitute motion. Madam Clerk, would you please read that back for clarity? The Clerk: Yes, the substitute motion was to allow item one to be referred back to the Administrator per his recommendation and to approve item number three as stated. Mr. Hatney: The substitute motion was to approve three only. The Clerk: No, sir, he said, Mr. Bowles, am I correct that you asked that item one be referred back to the Administrator? Mr. Bowles: Come back with a plan for 2012. The Clerk: Right and item three was to be approved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion and a second. No further discussion Commissioners will vote by the substitute sign. Mr. Aitken, Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. Mason: Well, all right. Next agenda item, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 11. Motion to approve award of RFP #10-160, Landscape Maintenance Services for the Solid Waste Facility. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee November 29, 2010) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson, I believe this was your pull. Mr. Johnson:Actually, Fred, I would like to look at us Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. maybe sending this back to evaluate theserates and maybe look at some feasible alternatives with that. I did get a few phone calls regarding this and I think that we need to look into it a little bit more in depth and see what alternatives, other alternatives that’s out there. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Johnson, fortunately there’s no rush on this. If you want to refer back to Committee, that’s fine. Mr. Johnson: Yes, I recommend we do that. Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. 13 Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s unanimous. All right, Madam Clerk, on to our regular agenda. The Clerk: Yes, items 20 and 21. Mr. Mason: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Did you overlook the agenda item that I asked you for? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Oh, the request um, twenty-four. Yep, twenty-four, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: SUBCOMMITTEE Municipal Golf Course Subcommittee 24. Report/Update from the Subcommittee appointed to determine and /or develop a plan to operate the Municipal Golf Course “Patch” at no cost to the government. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Please state your name for the record and address and please keep it to five minutes. Mr. Kendrick: Thank you. My name is James Kendrick. I serve as chair of the Patch Golf Committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioners approximately two months ago you all appointed a committee to look at the Patch and its operations. We and I mean First Tee, Paine College, Augusta State University, The Richmond County Board of Education and group known as The Patch Loyalists came before you and requested that you and gave by the majority of the vote 60-days to make a report, recommendation on ways to make the Patch self sufficient. At the meeting a couple of times it became apparent that we needed professional input that we were to give you a thorough report and recommendation. Gentlemen, as you know, this golf course means a lot to this community and it has the potential to provide options for one First Tee by being a regulation size golf course for possible youth tournaments and other needs. It has the potential to provide options for Paine College such as a driving range or practice course that they may not have a need for at this time. It can be an option for the Richmond County Board of Education as they continue to collaborate with First Tee in building golf skills and character for our youth. The Patch Loyalists is a group of different groups and cultures. Many have been committed to this course for decades and is willing to go to great lengths to see that it remains an open course, open municipal course. Lastly Augusta State University who has been an integral part of this process and in this community is facing a land need challenge. They are presently in talks with others about this issue. At this point it is unknown if the Patch can play a roll in this in helping ASU in this challenge. But it is my hope we all can come together and to assist ASU in meeting this challenge. When we began this meeting it became quite apparent in order to give you a quality report we needed professional input. We sought a golf course consultant and settled on one which I might add will be paid for by donations. Today we’re here to ask you for a 60-day extension for the consultant firm to do their study. Once this is done we’ll finish our 14 work and report back to you on or about the first week in February. That is our request of you today. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Kendrick. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mason, as you remember I was not in favor of the extension when we granted it. I thought at that time when we granted it would maybe be April when we could go out and receive bids. To grant another 60-day extension we’re talking now Independence Day. I don’t believe that is the appropriate thing to do. We are losing $200,000 dollars budgeted this year for the operation of the Patch. We just turned down $200,000 dollars in revenue from the alcohol license. I think that maybe what we could do was either do one or two things. We can either cease operations of the Patch or we could go out for proposals and give them the extension of time. Why are we going out for proposals so maybe we can have some proposals come back to us so we can get out of the quagmire or continually bleeding cash, taxpayers’ cash for the operation of this golf course. I don’t think anybody up here wants to see that course run in the red. I think we all want to see it either break even or run in the black. And I think that we are, we need to do something rather than just keep dragging our feet and wasting time in waiting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I have a comment to your statement there, Mr. Brigham. And I’m not sure if we’ve got anybody here from Procurement or perhaps Legal may be able to. Do we have anybody from Procurement? Okay, because if we go out for proposals I’m wondering from a legal standpoint does that bind us into accepting those proposals and moving forward on them. At the same time I know you said that they would have 60 days but we’ve got a proposal going out than generally speaking from a contracting standpoint that’s an intent to contract in with a vendor. So are then binded by those proposals going out to be, to operate with one of those companies that that may actually. Mr. Russell: No, sir, you’re not. We would write the proposal such that it is just that, a proposal. You can always reject those all if you have another option available to you. So that would just be a double track on how we’re doing this if you want to do that. But there’s no obligation to go with that proposal process if you just get ones you don’t like or there are other options available to you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So, Mr. Brigham, do you put that in the form of a motion? Mr. Brigham: Well --- Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Bowles: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So that, just a second Mr. Lockett. I’ve got a motion and a second. Mr. Brigham: The motion is that we go out for proposal while we extend the Paine College, or the consortium 60 days to bring back a recommendation to us. 15 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And if that were to happen if we were to vote that up obviously that verbiage that we’re talking about would then the RFP would clearly state our intent as far as the government is concerned. Mr. Russell: The verbiage that we would need to have in that that we put in there is to re- bid that. But you can always not accept any of the bids if a better offer is out there from the group that you put into the motion right now. Mr. Mayor Pro: So we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kendrick, I’d like to ask you a question please. You asked for an extension of 60 days. We’re in December now we are going to have our holiday season and when the holidays are over that’s going to give you about 30 days. Are you certain without a doubt that in 60 days you will know whether this group will be able to pull off what y’all wanted to do a month or so ago. Mr. Kendrick: We will have a determination in 60 days. Mr. Lockett: Thank you very much. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you. Mr. Kendrick, would y’all be inclined to support what Mr. Brigham is proposing here with giving y’all the extension and that as well as doing the RFP? Mr. Kendrick: As a businessman I would not. I would not do that and ask those folks to prepare a proposal in knowing that possibly there’s someone else maybe thrown in the pile. Now it’s your decision of course but I think it would be unfair to do that, to ask someone to prepare a proposal and not knowing whether they’re going to have a possibility to compete. Now this leaves a lot to this community. I think and we don’t reach out and try to find a way to get this stopped but proposed and proposed and Augusta State and its idea of developing that corridor out there it’s going to mean so much to this community. And I hope you can find a way to get this done today. Mr. Johnson: Fred, if we issue a proposal how long would it take for us for that proposal to go out? Mr. Russell: We would probably modify to one that’s available. We do not have to redo one. I think we’ve got one that we’ve used before with some slight modifications we could probably have it on the street fairly quickly. Mr. Johnson: So before Christmas or after? 16 Mr. Russell: I’m thinking before Christmas if, within the, it shouldn’t be that much trouble. We’ve already got the hard work put together it’s just matter of dotting a few “I’s” and crossing a few “T’s”. So in the next ten days or so would be my guess. Mr. Johnson: And it would close, the proposal date would close what like February or? Mr. Russell: It would be tied in to what you’re doing here and that’s 60 days probably. We’d give them 30 days and I think the notice would be there in the cover that you know we are looking at another operation there that going to be there like a first option on a house potentially. But I think you know that I would agree with Mr. Kendrick they need to know that it might not, if there is another option available to us there so I think we can say that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett, Commissioner Bowles, Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know I have the utmost respect for my colleagues but, Mr. Russell, this question is for you. How much do we have budgeted for Newman Tennis Center? Mr. Russell: I hope you’re not going to hold this against me but I don’t know off the top of my head. I can find out in about two seconds. Tim? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Perhaps Tom? Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. Beck: --- members of the Commission. The Newman Tennis Center operates on, it’s part of the general fund but it operates on about a $60-70,000 dollar loss. It brings in about two/twenty, two/thirty. We spent about $300,000 that’s roughly between five or ten percent of the numbers there I think. Not having it in front of me that’s pretty close. Mr. Lockett: You said about a sixty or seventy thousand dollar annual loss. And my next question is how much do we provide for the Aquatic Center? Mr. Beck: The Aquatic Center is roughly $400,000 in expenses and roughly $200,000 in revenue. Mr. Lockett: You know I may not be the smartest person around but I haven’t heard any question or any discussion about taxpayers’ money that’s used for Newman Tennis Center or the Aquatic Center only the Patch. The Patch is the only recreational entity that does not come under the general fund. Now like I said I have lots of respect for my colleagues but we’re always talking about keeping business local. We talk about this almost every meeting. We now have a local group that wants to keep this thing local and I think the very least we could do as a body is to give them ample time to do it. And I do believe our Administrator has already put the Patch in 17 the budget for next year. If Mr. Kendrick and his group is successful it won’t take very much for them to take it out. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Tom Beck, this question is for you. And I’d just like to know based on your experience what is the economic impact of tourists into the community for the Patch compared to the Newman Tennis Center and the Aquatic Center. Mr. Beck: Well --- Mr. Bowles: It’s not even comparable. Mr. Beck: --- it’s not, you’re not talking about apples and --- Mr. Bowles: And we have complained about the fees we’re losing with the Aquatic Center and Newman Tennis Center. We’ve in fact gone out for bids for the Newman Center and there’s certain things the private sector won’t entertain and that’s operating a facility we know that’s going to lose money and that’s the Newman Tennis Center. A golf course is completely different than a tennis center. That’s why we are where we area today. Mr. Kendrick, I respect you as a businessman. If I were in your position I wouldn’t want us to go out for a bid either but being a business man sitting up here looking out for the taxpayers of Augusta I think we owe it to the taxpayers to have a second plan if your plan comes back and you say we can’t do it so we’re ready to go shoot but I mean it’s just protecting our taxpayers. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham and then Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Kendrick, based on the group you have and you’re talking about their putting some money up or putting some front money in I guess. If this were, if your request were to be granted would they start in making the shortfall available to this government for January/February should there be a loss during those months while you’re doing your study? Mr. Kendrick: --- the picture for some time and I didn’t quite understand it. Mr. Grantham: Would you, would you and your group be willing to pay the shortfall for January and February during the months that would be granted for you study? Mr. Kendrick: I cannot commit that committee to that kind of endeavor. It was something that I will ask but --- Mr. Grantham: The reason I say then that gives us the opportunity of saying you know we’ll hold off on an RFP let’s say giving you the opportunity to do that if they’re willing to take that responsibility of the shortfall. Mr. Kendrick: You’re talking about roughly $20,000 a month. Am I right? 18 Mr. Grantham: I don’t know what it is. Mr. Kendrick: And you’re talking about a $40,000 outlay to cover that? Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Mr. Kendrick: I can’t commit --- Mr. Grantham: I’m just saying do you think they’d be willing to do that? Then you don’t have an RFP in competition with what y’all are doing, we don’t have an RFP coming it, we’re not concerned about whether we’re going to have a loss or gain in it because it would be taken care of. Mr. Kendrick: And that’s something I can’t comment on. Mr. Grantham: Okay. Mr. Kendrick: I’m sorry we just, that’s just not part of the plan. Mr. Hatney: My question is, my concern is that the folk that are involved in this are people of our city that I think everybody respects and would like to see if there’s a possible way that they can take the burden off the city for the management of the Patch. I think that’s what it’s all about. My question is what would be wrong with giving them to February 1 and then after their report then go out for an RFP. You’re talking about not a very big difference. I think this is kind of a (unintelligible) conflict to have both on them going on at the same time. I just think that looks bad you know. It just looks bad. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Have I recognized you twice? Mr. Brigham: Nope, this is my second time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All righty, you’re in. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, we did that exactly last time. We gave them 60 days, that’s what these good citizens requested. Now they’re back, they want another 60 days, nobody knows if they’ll be back again and wanting another 60 days. My concern if for the taxpayers and I think that we need to be concerned about the taxpayers. They’re the ones that are footing this bill. We can study it to death. We get accused of that all the time. I think that while we are studying we need to be proactive at the same time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me say this and kind of weigh in on this subject here. And as a businessman but importantly as a Commissioner for this city I think it’s imperative that we do our due diligence for this community. And our due diligence is to ensure that all avenues are covered. I haven’t heard anything hear today that says the Patch is not going to operate. I haven’t heard anything hear today that says you’re not going to be given an opportunity to show 19 us that you have the best proposal available. And at the same time I truly feel that we’ve got to do what’s best in the interest of this government to ensure that we’re looking out for our tax paying citizens even those ones that you’re talking about that are playing. So from a standpoint of strategy I think it’s incumbent upon this government to look at all avenues so that we have all of our bases covered. If I heard that the Patch was not going to operate, if I heard that you were not going to be given another 60 days after already having been given 60 days then I would have a huge problem with that. I don’t have a problem with anything that I’ve heard so far because it does not alleviate you from being the ones at the end of the day. At the same time it gives us an opportunity to go out and try to make sure that we’re in a position to help clear up this deficit that we have and have had for a number years. There’s great arguments on both sides and I understand but at the same time from a business strictly a business aspect and having the accountability to our tax payers, like I said I haven’t heard anything that prohibits you Mr. Kendrick and the organization from continuing on number one and then getting that study done and then coming back with a proposal. And I think the only thing we’re doing is covering our behinds as well to insure that we’ve done everything that we can do. So from that standpoint I really don’t see an issue with what’s being proposed. We’ve got a motion and a second on the table. I haven’t heard a substitute motion. Now would be a great time for that is we’re going to have one. The question’s been called for? Mr. Lockett: Can we have the motion read again, please? The Clerk: The motion is to solicit an RFP for the operation of the Municipal Golf Course in addition to granting a 60-day extension to the subcommittee appointed to determine and to develop a plan to operate the Municipal Golf Course. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And insuring that that verbiage in that proposal meets the intent of this motion. That’s critical for the person that made the motion, I think that’ what we said, that verbiage. Mr. Brigham: My intent was to extend the 60-day commitment that we previously made by an additional 60 days and also to go out for proposals at the same time. And at the end of the time we can open or least we’ll have some kind of report back and we have a deadline date. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator? Mr. Russell: The only caution I would have is I’d like the verbiage instead of solicit RFP’s to re-bid the golf course management. Mr. Brigham: Okay, the golf course management. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Re-bid. Mr. Brigham: Re-bid the golf course management. 20 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The language is extremely important in terms of the results that you can get. And the question has been called for. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners, oh, a substitute motion. Did we have a motion? The Clerk: It’s the original motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s just the original motion. We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Johnson votes No. Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 8-1-1. Mr. Mason: All right, Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: Where are we headed? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, where are we. Twenty and twenty-one. The Clerk: Or twenty-six. Where are you headed? Twenty-one is just receive for information, right? Is there any discussion on twenty-two? Mr. Hatney: Twenty-two is just for information. The Clerk: Just for information so you want to go ahead on and have a motion to receive this as information? ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 22. Discuss as information amending the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 Action Plans to reprogram $181,916.09 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), $10,123.28 in Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) and $56,000 in Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re- Housing (HPRP) funds. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee November 29, 2010) Mr. Hatney: I would move that we receive this as information because we’ve got to take 30 days and bring it back to us anyway. So that’s all it is. Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do I hear a second? The Clerk: We have one. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Grantham: Yeah, I do. 21 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, I do have a couple of questions. And after reviewing the list of recipients in this action that is being presented I find that there are several agencies getting funds and I’m sure it’s based on their need. But in the past we have tried to give a like agency the same type of funding and therefore I had asked our Administrator to give me some answers in that regard. In speaking specifically about the Augusta Museum and the Lucy Laney Museum as to the amount of dollars that are being presented there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Administrator, did you want to address that? Mr. Russell: I’d rather have Mr. Wheeler speak to the specifics of that. But it’s my understanding that you’re looking at two different types of organizations and the funding would be, the availability for that funding would be different based on that. And Mr. Wheeler can give you some details. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler: Good afternoon, Mayor Pro Tem and Commissioners. Commissioner Grantham the Augusta Mini Theater is to provide support services for youths who are taking, Laney Walker first? The Clerk: The Museum, Laney Museum and the Augusta Museum. Mr. Wheeler: Oh all right okay. The Laney Walker Museum is to provide an elevator, there is an elevator there now for handicapped accessibility. It is non-operational and they requested funding to replace the elevator so it could functional and it is being provided under public facilities. So it is not an administrative cost or providing administrative services it actually will provide the elevator. Mr. Grantham: Well, let me follow up if you don’t mind, please, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. And I understand that but I don’t think the questions were ever raised in the past is to what those funds were specifically going for or whether it was either for an elevator or for administrative services or whatever they might have been. What we all worked on and agreed to was that each one was going to get equal funding and therefore if it’s a different pocket then you know I understand that. But you know let’s find another pocket. Mr. Wheeler: Okay, Commissioner, there’s a difference between Public Service and Public Facilities. Public Services has a $25,000 cap and that if for a programmatic support and or administrative support for non-profit organizations. Public Facilities is not (unintelligible) and that’s --- Mr. Russell: The question is how come we can’t give money to the museum an Augusta museum while we’re giving it to Laney Walker. 22 Mr. Wheeler: Okay, that’s the question. I apologize for not understanding. In order to receive funding your programs must one address the needs of low to moderate income families and also be located in a census track that is in majority of low to moderate-income families. The Laney Walker Museum does both. IT addresses the needs and programs for low to moderate individuals and it is located in a low to moderate census track. If an organization outside of the low/mod census track it has the only other way that it can qualify for receiving funding is that specifically addresses programs for low/mod individuals that must be able to be tracked. We have to actually be able to track the recipient of those programs and that’s why the difference between those museums. Mr. Grantham: Well, one final question. Were all of the agencies that we support notified of this re-appropriation of funds? Mr. Wheeler: No, they weren’t. A request came in from them to provide support for an agency. We don’t advertise all over again. We do that once a year and if an agency requests funding and we able to address those needs then that part’s done. Mr. Grantham: Okay, well, I’m okay, go ahead. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: In following your logic I believe that almost all of Richmond is low and moderate. Is that not correct? Mr. Wheeler: No, sir. No. Mr. Brigham: I suspect since we’re on free and reduced lunch in schools I suspect most of it is. Mr. Wheeler: With all due respect Commissioner that data base, the city data base from the census bureau is broken down by census tracks and they look at income base of the residents of those census tracks. And that’s how they determine whether you live in a low/mod census track or you do not and it is not determined by me or my department. It’s determined by the US Department of the Census. Mr. Brigham: Then what is the percentage of ratio of all tracks in Richmond County that are low and moderate. Is it above 50% or is it below 50%? Mr. Wheeler: Well, I don’t know the answer to that but I know that every project that we fund we must know that information before we authorize funding limits. So every application we research our census track and look at our track census base. Mr. Brigham: Sounds like we’re using the rulebooks to help one and not to help another. And I guess that’s my final comment. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Hatney. 23 Mr. Hatney: My concern is that we still don’t have any problem when, last year, year before last one we $1 million dollars for an air conditioner for the Augusta Museum and nobody had no argument with that. They had argument with $1 million dollars to replace the heating and air. Let’s be fair, let’s fair. Let’s don’t be hypocrites let’s be fair. It was either ’09 or ’08 I believe it was ’08 now that they Augusta Museum got $1 million dollars. It might have been a little more than that to replace, I had no problem with it because I voted for it. That’s all I’m saying. Let’s be fair. Let’s be equitable. That’s all. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We, any further discussion? We have a motion on the table to receive as information and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Grantham: To receive as information? Mr. Hatney: As information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To receive as information. Mr. Brigham votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Madam Clerk, where are we? The Clerk: We’re at either twenty, twenty-one or twenty-six. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Twenty and twenty-one are companion items? The Clerk: Yes, sir and the Attorney’s going to address those. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can, we’re looking. Okay, they are companion. I’m looking at twenty-one coming before twenty. Mr. MacKenzie: I would ask that you consider twenty-one before twenty because they’re related and if there’s not sufficient support for twenty-one then I need to modify twenty. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Who’s, I need a motion to consider twenty-one before twenty. Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I got a motion. I need a second. Mr. Jackson: Second. 24 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Oh, discussion. Mr. Brigham: All we’re doing is changing the order on it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re just changing order at this point that’s all. Changing the order. The Clerk: Changing the order? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Just changing the order. Twenty-one before twenty because if twenty-one doesn’t go twenty is irrelevant. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, as a chairman you can designate the order. You can call the items. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you addressing this item? Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to address it. Mr. Mayor: Pro Tem: Let’s do it. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 21. An Ordinance to present proposal to amend the Augusta, Georgia Charter and Laws of Local Application, Section 1-40 relating to equal opportunity; to separate the function of Equal Employment Opportunity from Minority and Small Business Opportunities; to provide policies and guidelines; to create a Local Small Business Advisory Board; to repeal all Charter, Code Sections and Ordinances and parts of Charter, Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide and effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee November 29, 2010) Mr. MacKenzie: We’ve had this on the agenda for a number of opportunities for comment. If you have any further questions I will certainly entertain those unless I look for a motion to approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Andrew, hopefully you can explain this one to me considering Fred couldn’t. Being an auditor you look for a separation of duties and responsibilities to prevent collusion and the possibility thereof. How in the world can we put in charge someone to go and recruit businesses to participate in our bidding process that works in that procurement process? Mr. MacKenzie: Well, what you have before you is some changes in the structure of the government. This is consistent with the way other governments do this. The local small business program is a program that is designed to be race and gender neutral measure to bring in businesses that are local. But there’s not an inherent built in conflict just because that’s within 25 the Procurement Department. That’s a structure that’s used in other governments it’s not because of the structure --- Mr. Bowles: With all due respect used in other governments is not a good response because we all know that government structures are not run like a business. Plain and simple. And I cannot in my good conscience support this position going under the department it’s recruiting people to bid on. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. It’s need to be either in Economic Development or in Finance. And there needs to be a separation. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I concur with what my colleague Joe Bowles is talking about. And from my understanding there is supposed to be a separation totally and I think there’s supposed to be a different entity if that’s not what I’m hearing here or is it? Mr. MacKenzie: Part of what you have before you is a separation of the DBE Program for federal compliance purposes and that is to move all of the federal compliant component into one place and to move the local small business programs into another location. Now you can move the local small business program anywhere within the structure of the government and I would for any guidance on how you’d like to do that if there’s not sufficient support to move it to the place that we have it now. I would also ask that you consider that in the context of any reorganizations that would be occurring next year in the structure of the government as well. One other alternative would be we could leave the local small business program in the current location that it’s in which is within the DBE office. I can make some relatively small changes to the process that then we can address this issue again with regards to the reorganization that we’re anticipating next year. Mr. Johnson: I think that what we need to do this is something that’s obviously not clear and I think all of us have some reservations about it. But again that local, I mean large city council which is people cities throughout the country I think it’s going to be very relevant to us looking at some of the concepts and bouncing it off these guys. This is exactly, if they’re faced with the same situation if they did what did they do and how did they do it. I think it’s going to give us and I think Joe’s right everybody’s different. But at least it gives us some opportunity to look at some avenues in which we can implement and get the same result without it being a conflict. So I agree I don’t know whether or not we need to just send this back or look at. Mr. Russell: Mr. Chairman, you know we’ve looked at this, we’ve looked at this we’ve looked at this and if we can’t raise your comfort level to the point that you’re willing to vote on it we just need to go ahead look at something else and try to figure out what we’re doing. We’ve modeled this after other organizations in other cities that worked fine. We’ve done it at a level that’s appropriate. It’s past the test to looking by our attorney’s. We’ve looked at, the feds need to look at it and it’s just a matter of how we get things done. We’re attempting to write the organization and do it in a way that’s the most effective and efficient. We’re trying to separate what a position on the in the charter calls one position that we’ve been operating with in two different people for the last five or six years. We’re trying to make this work. You know other places have discovered the same issues and fixed them in the same kinds of ways. You know it’s 26 not it’s not quite that complex as we look at it. You’ve got a function where you have to have DBE for federal programs and we’re carving that out and having that report to the chief executive officer. The other functions are local small business stuff that we’re recruiting people to look at local small business and bring those people available to us at this particular point in time. You know it’s you it’s um, on it’s face it’s fairly simple. We’ve talked about it we’ve argued about it. The issue is do you want to move forward or do you want to continue with the status quo as we are today. Either way we will continue to survive and move forward. But the problem you’ve got is that it stays today we’re creating issues that put us in litigation on a regular basis. The fixes in charter also allow for fixes in the procurement code that allow us to eliminate a good portion of those items that are getting bids rejected which results in litigation. You’re taking the bids themselves and putting a lot of the stuff that y’all have declared to be silly rules that are in the code that we have to go by so that after the fact when it’s done after the bid and you don’t have to, it doesn’t get your bid rejected if you don’t get something notarized. It’s done after the fact. Y’all have continually complained that that’s silly and stupid but it’s in the rule. You need to change the rules and that’s what we’ve done. You’ve documents together you’ve got documents in front of you that fix several problems that we’ve had. We’ve looked at them we’ve talked about them. From a staff perspective we’re ready to move forward. If you have some hesitation with that, that’s obviously your position to be in but you need to figure out a way to ask these questions we can fix and give us some direction on where you want us to go because we’re somewhat from a staff perspective we’ve given you our best shot. If that’s not good enough we need to find another direction to go in and I need some help to do that. I’m not to sure and the suggestion of looking in other places is always good, we’ve done that. We’ve looked around, we’ve done I mean it’s, it’s a fairly standard step-up that we’ve got. It’s not any different than a lot of other places do it that I’m familiar with and you know we’re ready from a staff perspective from a legal perspective we’re ready to move forward. If from a policy perspective you’re not ready to take that leap yet then we need some direction. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: I make a motion to approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Commissioners vote by the usual sign. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Brigham vote No. Motion carries 7-3. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 20. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Georgia Code, Article One, Chapter Ten, relating to the procurement of goods and services and the Local Small Business Opportunities Program so as to provide updates and to establish policies, procedures and guidelines regarding the procurement process and the Local Small Business Opportunities Program; to repeal all Ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee November 29, 2010) 27 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now that alleviates the need for twenty. Is that correct? What is the appropriate procedure on that? Mr. MacKenzie: I would request for twenty that you send that back to committee with instructions for staff to come out with another recommendation. Actually you can do that for twenty and twenty-one if you’d like. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, can I inquire? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Please. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Attorney, with the motion that was just passed on twenty-one does that require a local ordinance change or a local legislation change? Mr. MacKenzie: It would be an amendment to the charter. Mr. Brigham: Do we have to go through a 60-day process for that to be final? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Brigham: I suggest we send it back to committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I need some clarity because you’re saying the motion passed on twenty-one but the motion did not pass on twenty-one because of a requirement of eight votes. Technically 7 ½ but there’s not a half a person up here. Clarity? Mr. MacKenzie: We actually just looked at this issue yesterday and analyzed the language of the charter and it requires a 2/3 vote. But the 2/3 vote is of the Commission counsel, which is includes the Mayor makes the number. If you take 2/3 of eleven that’s 7.3. We analyzed the language of it and that’s the way that it came out. 7.3 is the number that I came up with. Mr. Hatney: There’s no such thing as a third of a vote so you’ve got to have eight votes. You’ve got to have eight votes. Mr. MacKenzie: The Mayor does not get a vote. That’s explicitly stated. He is included in the Commission council, another section of the charter. So you number is eleven you take 2/3 of eleven, that’s 7.3, which means eight. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Which is another reason why we in my mind need to continue to look at the charter and make sure we put that in a situation where it least begins to make a modicum of sense as opposed to none whatsoever on several issues. Mr. Hatney: Because you have a third of a vote is stupid. That don’t make no sense. There’s no such thing as a third of a vote. 28 Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I’ll make a motion that we send Item #20 back. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Any discussion on item 20? Hearing none Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as a point of personal privilege you know I’ve been trying to count to six for the last nine years and you’ve thrown me a curve now. I’ve got to add two more fingers to the whole thing here now. It’s tough. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Welcome to our world. All right. The Clerk: Item 26. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Twenty-six. The Clerk: Yes, Mr. Administrator. Oh, we have, oh, do you want to take care of this addendum, Mr. Bowles --- Mr. Russell: Yes. The Clerk: --- before we get into the presentation or? You had a question on the acquisition of property located at 2841 and 2841A Central. ADENDUM 27. Motion to approve the acquisition of property located at 2841 and 2841A Central Ave., Augusta, GA, for a total purchase price of $223,000.00, with funding to come from Account #506-04-3520-5411110, and to authorize the mayor and Clerk of Commission to execute such documents as necessary to consummate the transaction, all in form as approved by counsel for Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Bowles: Yes, ma’am. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I just don’t see the need in buying this property while it’s at a decent price. It looks like um, I’ve yet to see this in a master plan on why we need to acquire this property. We’re acquiring property, we’re going to isolate two business all public it’s going to make us then acquire those properties and I’d like to hear, not that I’m going to believe it and like the answer I’m going to get but from Fred or Tom on why we need this property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Tom? Mr. Wiedmeier: The department had been interested in acquiring this property earlier. We didn’t pursue it because of the purchase price at the time. The opportunity came up again at a significantly reduced price. There are reasons that it makes sense for us to have control of the 29 property. It currently encroaches on the raw water reservoir. We could not sell the strip that encroaches because of the encroachment so we felt it was in the best interest to have control over that property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Bowles? Mr. Bowles: Inaudible. Mr. Grantham: Call the question. Mr. Brigham: I make a motion we approve. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ve got a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Mr. Bowles votes No. Motion carries 9-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. All right, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 26. Presentation by John Shields, ShieldsDESIGH, LLC regarding the Augusta Sustainable Development Agenda aka Realizing the Garden City. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, we’ve got Mr. John Shields with us. After a year and a half it’s almost two years of hard work you’ve looked at the master plan that we’ve got. We want to officially present that to you and give him an opportunity to talk about the process that he went through to get this here. To talk about what the result it and talk about the next steps that we have to make sure we’re able to move forward towards the implementation of this. John? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Good afternoon, Mr. Shields. Mr. Shields: All right thank you very much. Good afternoon Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and all the Commissioners it’s big day. I am going to formally present the final report it’s in four volumes, 401 pages. Now I read it, it’s on line, there’s copies available in the Mayor’s office. I even sat down last night --- Mr. Hatney: Why didn’t you bring everybody a copy? Mr. Lockett: Evidently he doesn’t need our vote. 30 Mr. Hatney: Excuse me, sir, you want me to vote for it but you don’t --- Mr. Lockett: If I don’t get a copy you’re not getting my vote. Mr. Hatney: I’m not joking. Mr. Shields: Well, let’s see, I think we do actually have one. Mr. Hatney: Well, if you have them and you want me to vote on it you don’t want me to have a copy of it? Mr. Mason: All righty. Mr. Shields: All right. I’m told I have twelve seconds a slide and so maybe I’m going to talk and look at the slide show. So every twelve seconds the slide will change. I think the slides speak for themselves. But first of all I’d just like to say that this has been a process that has been just one of the highlights of my life in my career. It started sitting down and talking individually with everyone of you and kind of figure out what was important to put on an agenda for Augusta for the next two decades. And we did that section then we drove around with just about all of you and did the same thing. You showed my places in Augusta that I would have to say I’ve probably been back to a few times, Ray and I. We have probably logged over 2,000 miles now driving through the city and the county. And we’ve had a public process that I think has really drawn out the best citizenry of the city and a lot of good ideas. We had four public sessions you’ll recall. Probably the highlight of those public sessions was a series of “we believe” statements. We, following those four statements or those four plans those four meetings rather we sat down and had a three day session, just a drop in session out at Augusta Tech where people cam in. A lot of people from regular citizens but also a lot of interests groups. As you sort of glean from the slides that you’re seeing up here we took and approach and we said you know we want to create at the end of the day one Augusta. We want to take advantage of this consolidation and the opportunity to make this plan to realize that aspiration that seems like everybody wants to see fulfilled. We did divide the city at the end of the day into four, or three parts. There’s the urban area, the suburban area and the rural area. They all have different needs, they all have different attributes, they all have characteristics, opportunities and issues and we’ve tried to address those. We looked for a number of specific projects scattered throughout the city and we selected a representative group of those to serve as prototypes for things that might be done in other parts of the city. We um, we where am I? Okay so we looked broadly, we looked down around Peach Orchard Road down to you know, up to Lake Olmstead all the way up to I-20. We had a number of projects and then we had a number of corridors. Gateways and corridors were a major thing that we were asked to look at. I’ll stop here for a second. Last th December, no January 26 I remember it well. We came in here and we said you know we’ve got a lot of findings we’ve got a lot of directions and I think Commissioner Smith pulled us up pretty short. And he said you know you’re missing a big opportunity. In affect I take it he said we’re missing a big opportunity here and we ought to look at it and it’s the area down around Rocky Creek in that unnamed parcel and we need to think and refocus on that. That in the second half of our development of our program I’d say really became a focal an anchor for us, the area around Rocky Creek in particular. Whereas we began looking at it more and we began 31 th driving up and down the 15 Street corridor we saw an area where frankly if there was one place in Augusta that seemed to be in need and in need an yet represented a wonderful opportunity th given it’s simple location in the city that 15 Street, Deans Bridge corridor it seemed to be the place to focus our efforts. So we came up with a refocus in this agenda that we have, we have ten priority projects we have five corridors that we now think you should be focusing in on but we have this high priority or priority development district which runs from the river down to Rocky Creek runs past a lot of institutions it runs past the Medical College of Georgia, Paine College, Josey High School, elementary schools, The Augusta Mini Theater and several neighborhoods mostly in distress. A couple of shopping centers that need help and of course it all terminates down there at Rocky Creek and the cider adjacent to the Regency Mall site. So we, next slide, we developed a district and a district plan and we said this is where you know we’d like for Augusta to really think about rebuilding itself over the next, over the next two decades. And we saw opportunity. At Rocky Creek there’s a flood control project that there’s already funding for. It’s already in the pipeline. It’s already moving forward. We need to capitalize on that right now. We need to get that project in a coordinated fashion with other things that are going on in the city and other opportunities. Nest? In the area of the Southgate Mall. Southgate Mall is representative of a lot of regional strip malls around the city but it’s located in an area that it can benefit both from traffic on Gordon Highway which is admittedly going down fairly dramatically over the next decade but also it can be the center of a new urban neighborhood and building on the existing neighborhood that’s around it. The next area that we looked at pretty hard was the area that we’re calling Oakes Creeks and it starts with the fact that Good Shepherd Baptist Church owns a fair amount of land in there. And there’s an opportunity and there’s a lot of very underutilized land that could be redeveloped into real urban neighborhood housing if people work together. And here’s a theory, here’s a theory. Collaboration this thing is all about collaboration. This is all about every department, every organization in the city working together in ways that may be it doesn’t always do. But collaboration works but it takes work to make it happen and that’s going to be the big challenge in pulling this plan forward. We’ve been in effect implementing this plan or portions of this working on the implementation of this plan probably for the last six months and it’s been by building relationships, it’s been by investigating opportunities, finding these projects that are ongoing and how they might piggyback one with the other and we see collaborations with the Augusta Housing Authority, the Transit Authority, the Board of Education, the rest of the city. And we just want to know that, we know that the city has potential to make this place a very dynamic urban corridor. Going on up to the north above Oakes Creek and Cherry Tree Crossing that’s going to be an issue that area comes up in a little while in a couple of years. We’ve got the St. Sebastian Way the new roadway is open now. There’s a lot of opportunity to this gets back into what we were proposing in the west division to tie the urban area the downtown to the medical college in ways that it’s not right now. And a whole series of projects in there that become a part of this, this priority corridor that we’re talking about. The downtown area there are a number of projects on Broad Street, the Westabou Art Center is a real possibility for putting Augusta on the map and it’s a thing that should be pursued with a as Kennedy with a vigor. So and then at upper Broad one of things, the thing that brought us to Augusta the first was the Augusta Canal and we were struck. We had done a lot of canal plan but we we’re really struck with the power of the first level of the canal and what it had to offer in terms of quality of a water body that is there around the Butte Bridge, around the Enterprise Mill it runs all the way up to the Sibley Mill. And it’s an area and a resource that not many people have. So and then finally 32 we wanted you to tie all this together with a multi mobile corridor a transit corridor and we’re in discussions about that. Just briefly you’ve all heard a week after we made our final presentation we got, the city got word from HUD and DOT that had been awarded a Sustainable Communities Grant and it is specifically to work in this development corridor, this priority development corridor. And it’s $900,000 from HUD, $900,000 from DOT they’re trying to hash out how they’re going to organize the money, spend the money and it might be six months before anything flows from what we can tell right now. But this is really I think you know a testimony to the power of the opportunity that you have here that they federal government moved so quickly to respond and to grant money to make this happen, or help make this happen. So in terms of the Sustainable Communities Grant it’s organized into four initiatives and we’ll just run through them real quick. They want us to do, or they want the city to an overall district plan of this whole area that I just talked about. They wanted detailed action plans on each of these three particular areas that we’re talking about, Rocky Creek, Southgate and the Oakes Creek area within this corridor. They want us to do a multi-model corridor plan from (inaudible) all the way down to Rocky Creek and to look at what the real possibilities for bike lanes, transit corridor, green way and cars. And to develop it in such a way that it’s also a good environment in which to grow housing and urban housing. And then they want us to look at ordinances and standards. The regulations, your zoning laws and what needs to, what needs to be changed what’s working well. We’ve got a really good basis from work that Paul DeCamp did in the comprehensive in this area in particular. And so there’s a real good start on that. And then they want to develop as much green affordable housing and they want a property assembly plan for that which is going to be a tricky little issue. But you know we’ve got places to start and we’ve got some ways to piggyback some opportunities here again in the Rocky Creek area, up at Oakes Creek and other places along the way. Finally what this plan did is it laid out a implementation strategy. We had a steering committee that we made up of Deke and Fred and Al and Dennis Skelley over at Augusta Tomorrow and Terry Elam that was our advisory task force leader. And they worked with us very closely to come up with a chart and a way of thinking through the political complexity that runs sometimes fine in Augusta and to try to get people to work together and to be accountable but to get decisions made. And so we’ve got you know we’ve got the Commissioners and the Mayor and the Administrator on top. We do have a steering committee underneath that would report work with us day to day. I think one of the main features of this strategy is that we’re saying Augusta, if Augusta is serious about this agenda and implementing this agenda okay, there needs to be somebody who’s working 24/7 and wakes up every morning thinking about it and working on it and to make it real. Because things just get soloed so quickly around here. I could be in Boston in saying that. Things get so, here in Boston things get so soloed so quickly and but it’s just you know it’s the nature of man. And so you just need to put that you know you need to put that firepower back against it. So I think we’re done. I think what we want you to do is we want you to approve the plan, we want you to fund the implementation organization and let’s all get cracking. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Does that complete your --- Mr. Shields: That’s it for me. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. 33 Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. John, again we do thank you for that plan and it was a well thought and all of that is involved with people and that’s one of the things I know you and I talked about in the process is getting the people involved. And I know actually I got some information as well that I’m going to share with my colleagues about even when you talked about the budget of course it’s always good to get the constituents involved on things that they do without when it comes to services you know because of the budget and in depth that we’re looking at. And hopefully we can stay above board we’ve been blessed thus far. But also down on (unintelligible) right on the outskirts they talked about what they created what they call a arts district which entitled a lot of well, in encompassed a lot of historical buildings of course. And as we looked at the Westabou area that you target out here I thought about it. Because Augusta has a lot of historical buildings and I think it would be very unique to create what we call the arts district. We have so many I mean a wealth of history here as well as the infrastructure that we have. And I think it’s something that we can look at and I’ll be more than happy to facilitate maybe you know getting with you and maybe you can kind of point out some areas in which we can look at probably creating them because I think Augusta’s known for that and not only that give us a great opportunity for that and entertainment as well arts and other things. So I would love to take a crack at looking at that and see if there’s some ways that maybe we can look at creating our own arts district. And what they had done is was very unique I mean it was very unique it was beautiful but it was rich in history. And I think that’s something that we have here in Augusta a wealth of history. It’s our love that maybe get with you on looking at that and the Administrator as well as long with my colleagues to see what opportunities we have there. Mr. Shields: Well, Augusta has the history, it’s got the resources and the historic buildings. It’s got the heritage for the arts so it’s just packaging it. Mr. Johnson: Right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Fred. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, you know I think what we’ve done is as part of this process is a spin off on the Westabou plan. We looked at a whole lot bigger package and y’all were supportive of that. And I think that’s a good thing. The next issue is how do we start making these things happen. And that’s where the discussion needs to focus at this particular point in time. I think it would be appropriate now you took a leap of faith and did the plan. We’ve got dreams out there we need to figure out a way to make those dreams come through, come true. And I think it would be appropriate if you task me and my staff to put together some implementation strategies to give you some review on the realities of what we can do what we can’t do. You know we’ve got a grant we’ve already accomplished there that’s th going to look at the 15 Street thing. That gives us some dollars there. But I think as addition to receiving this I think what you need to do is make sure that it doesn’t become a plan that sits on the shelf, to task me over the next 30-60 days to come back with some implementation strategies to make that come, to make that happen and give you outlines and directions on what we think we can handle as a city, what we think we need to look for partnerships with and what we can put together as a team to continue this to move forward. And I would welcome that challenge if you would task myself and the staff to do that. 34 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it’s okay with this body I would like to make a motion that we do indeed task the Administrator with the duty of getting together with a plan of action for us and coming back and present that plan to us within 60 days. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion on the table. Is there a second? Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none Commissioners will vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mason: It’s unanimous. Okay. I’m not sure even sure what’s due on here. Legal? The Clerk: No, that’s it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I’d look for a motion to authorize the execution --- The Clerk: No, sir --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No? The Clerk: --- we don’t need that. We’re done. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. No further business to come before the Commission we stand adjourned. Mr. Russell: If I can announce there’ll be a public meeting of the Waste Management Authority in the committee room immediately after this meeting. Actually if we could just do it in here that would even better. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission 35 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 December 7, 2010. ________________________ Clerk of Commission 36 37