Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting - July 1, 2010 (2) REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JULY 1, 2010 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., July 1, 2010, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The invocation was given by Dr. Kelly McKnight, Pastor Bible Deliverance Temple. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Kelly, if you could come forward. And it’s not for Fred to give you money. But I want to thank you for that wonderful invocation. The City of Augusta. By his Honor Deke S. Copenhaver, Mayor, to Dr. Kelly McKnight, the Pastor of Bible Deliverance Temple. Greetings. By virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of this state and in pursuance of your appointment I do hereby commission you the said Pastor of the Day in the City of Augusta for providing outstanding civic and spiritual guidance as one of God’s most dependable and delightful ministers of the Gospel. Your service to your community is greatly valued especially for this occasion. Given under my hand and the seal of the Office of st the Mayor at the Municipal Building in the City of Augusta on the 1 Day of July in the year of our Lord 2010. Thank you, sir. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the recognitions. RECOGNITIONS Georgia Municipal Association A. Congratulations! Commissioner Corey Johnson for having been elected as the Second Vice President of GMA’s District 7. The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission. We would like to offer our congratulations to Commissioner Corey Johnson for having been elected and sworn in as the Second Vice President of the Georgia Municipal Association District 7 at the annual Georgia Municipal Association Conference held in Savannah last week. Congratulations, Commissioner Johnson. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Johnson: I’m just honored to be in a position to do some things and look at some of the issues that’s going on within our great state. And hopefully I can bring some innovative ideas to maybe solving those things. So I’m just, it’s an honor to be in this position and thanks a lot for all your support. Mr. Mayor: Congratulations again, my friend. Madam Clerk, on to the delegations. 1 The Clerk: DELEGATIONS B. Mr. Ralph Lee, Sr. RE: Upkeep and maintenance of the lakes at the Diamond Lakes Recreation Park. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, and if you could, please keep it to five minutes. Mr. Lee: I will. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Lee: I’m concerned about Diamond Lake’s upkeep. For the last three years I’ve talked to Mr. Beck the director over there. Even my commissioner, Mr. Mason, about the upkeep of the lake. There are as you can see the pictures here there’s a bunch of algae there on all the lakes. It looks terrible. And I go fishing out there, something I like to do in my retired time. I can’t do it because the alga’s out there. It just looks a mess. But the rest of Diamond Lakes is kept beautiful except for the lakes. But if you put the other pictures on there that I got now look at that, that’s pretty that’s Lake Olmstead. Tell me what’s wrong with those two pictures. Once one side has been taken care of the other side’s been neglected. That’s not right. I own three homes in South Augusta. I pay a lot of taxes. I’m not getting my tax worth out of the county the way I see it right now as far as the lakes being taken care of. There’s three of them there and every one of them looks the same. I was told during the winter time they were going to have somebody skim the lakes, they’ll put a little chemicals in the water but they didn’t want to kill the fish. I can understand that. I understand the environmental aspects of it. But nothing’s being done. This is three years in a row I’ve been fighting this thing. So I figured here was the last stop. The buck stops at the Mayor’s desk. And I need something done about it so we can enjoy the lakes over there. And uh, I just bought a home over there in Manchester over a quarter of a million dollar home and I can’t go down there and enjoy my lakes. There’s something wrong with that picture. We need to be on the ball and get something done. I’ve been hearing this and that but nothing’s getting done and I’m just sick and tired of it. So I figured here was my last stop today and if something doesn’t get done after today I’ll see what else I have to do to draw some attention from somebody to get something done. Once the other side is taken care of the other side has been neglected. It’s not right. I’m finished, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: For one I want to do two things here because it’s more than just they way that the lake looks. We have to look at the total picture of what’s going on out at Diamond Lakes and we’re going to address that issue here in just a moment. I’m concerned in reference to not only the lily pads which have cropped back up in the last I would say the last month, month and a half because we have some, we can show you that it was not that way about two months ago. But he’s absolutely correct this does happen quite often. But this issue in my mind I think it should become a lot deeper than that. I’m also concerned about the content of the water that’s out in Diamond Lakes and whether or not it’s been tested appropriately to see what type of levels 2 that we have out there and to find out whether there’s any toxic issues going on out there as well. And I think that we can do that pretty, pretty inexpensively because I think we have the ability to do that here in house to test those, to get some water samples and test that water to see why that happens. Before we talk about spending ten, fifteen thousand dollars on doing anything or putting fertilizer and compounds and starting to perhaps put some more toxic chemicals into the water I think we need to find out what’s actually causing that. And so I appreciate you sir for bringing it up here again today. And I also want to have before I bring Tom back up I want to have Ms. Tanya. Where are you? I would like to have her speak to this issue. I had her go out and take a look at Diamond Lakes a couple of days ago. She’s a part of the Savannah River Keepers as well. She’s got a couple of things that she noticed while she was out there as well and then we’ll start with a path forward of how we can correct these issues. Mr. Mayor: Okay, and we will hear from Ms. Bonitatibus. If you could please state your name and address for the record and keep it to five minutes, please, ma’am. Ms. Bonitatibus: My name is Tonya Bonitatibus. I’m the executive director of the Savannah River Keepers. We did go out, Carl and I visited the site yesterday I believe it was. We went out and we just kind of looked around. And in our experience many times when you find ponds that have a massive amount of growth in them there’s usually a nutrient problem that’s associated with that. So my recommendation to Alvin was that maybe we should look and see what it may be are some of the causes of the nutrients. We do know that Butler Creek which is within --- Mr. Mayor: Spirit Creek. Ms. Bonitatibus: --- excuse me is in the Spirit Creek water shed. We do know that it is an impaired water way. It is listed as such with the EPD. And there’s some discussion on whether or not that is human fecal or animal fecal. It is a very rural creek so in many cases cows, chickens they really contribute a large portion of that. We looked around. I’ll be honest with you the ponds they’re absolutely gorgeous. They do have an aquatic vegetation problem. There’s no doubt about that. I brought a couple of pictures that we took. There was one problem that we found that does I believe needs probably pretty seriously to be looked into and this is a storm drain that was draining in. We did not do extensive follow-up. I’m trying to figure out where that was coming from. There are a multitude of reasons that that could be happening. So really our suggestion is before we invest a large amount of money to put something into the ponds that we know to be toxic to the fish and some of the other stuff I’m guessing that you’re planning on using a copper compound and in many cases those are not toxic to the fish. The big problem becomes if you do go out and you kill off the weeds you still have the nutrients. What are those nutrients going to cause next? So what you could end up with is a huge algae bloom. If you get a huge algae bloom, algae are actually, they produce oxygen during the day but at night they actually breath it. They suck it in so you’ll end up with a huge fish kill and I don’t think that’s what we want. So our recommendation is that we work with they water treatment plant. They have the ability to collect samples and analyze them and look and see if we can find out what the nutrient sources are. One thing that we noticed is that there are a lot of Canadian geese. A huge amount of Canadian geese. And to be honest with you that’s like pouring a bag of fertilizer into the pond. So maybe some discussion of how to bring in some of the native 3 species would be appropriate. The Canadian geese are running everything off. We also have non-native ducks as well. They have dealt with this in the Brick Pond Parks pretty well by removing the non-native species and really trying to push the community to stop bringing these guys in. So that’s really our suggestion is let’s run a couple of samples. Let’s see if we can figure out and fix the problem so that we don’t have to pour these poisons in the water. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Tanya. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mason: I definitely appreciate that and I appreciate the gentleman, Mr. Lee, for coming up because if the problem could be even could be potentially greater than even just the fact that those lily pads come into the water and have that ‘algaeish’ type look. Tom if you want to comment there. I think what we’re looking at is --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck. Mr. Mason: --- doing some water samples initially but please if you would address Mr. Lee. He said he’s been talking for about three years. Mr. Beck: Sure, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. The issue with the lake that’s in question there’s actually 30 acres worth of lakes out there. And this lake in particular is the most shallow lake of the three. If you’ll look at the other two back lakes the other two back lakes that are deeper water lakes do not have the lily pads. We have been aware of this upper lake being shallow and more susceptible to these types of algae growths for quite some time. One of my issues, I’ve go, there’s two issues. One issue is it’s quite expensive for the chemicals to be put in to try to treat it. There is a risk associated in two ways. One risk is you don’t know whether or not it’s going to work. It’s got more or less a 50/50 chance of working. The other issue is a fish-kill probability as you’ve heard especially with a shallow lake. And this lake is only six feet deep in it’s deepest point. This lake has been targeted to be dredged for several years. We finally have the money in the next SPLOST starting next year to dredge this lake. So this lake is and I’ve told Mr. Lee that in some of our conversations before that that is in our master plan to go and dredge that lake and make it deeper because it’s the most accessible. Parking is very easy to get to it’s very easy to get the foot traffic so it’s the most used. The issue about the drainpipe and the sediment there does need to be addressed. That is something that we will take care of. But also from a standpoint of trying to do something inexpensively as soon as our crews get all the state tournaments, we’re hosting several state tournaments out there right now in the ball fields. My crews are doing all they can to try and keep ten ball fields up with all the tournaments we’re hosting. As soon as these tournaments get over with in the next two weeks I am going to send our crews in and we’re actually going to harvest. We’re going to by hand and John boats because this is a small lake. We’re talking a two and a half three acre lake. We’re actually going to go out and do some harvesting to try to thin that out. But I do agree with the other testing that is mentioned to be done to make sure about you know from an environmental standpoint about where we’re at. So I think we’ve got a path forward with this and can deal with this issue as we’ve mentioned. 4 Mr. Mason: Well, just so that I’m clear --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: --- and I’ll yield here in a second. Just so that I’m clear on a path forward aesthetically it definitely looks horrible and that’s what we see as we operate there. I live in Manchester myself. I’m there walking quite often. And it’s utilized by I mean it’s one of the most utilized parks we have as you well know. So that is something that we need to look at in terms of aesthetically but my concern goes so much deeper than that. And to address those drainage issues like what you’re talking about and to have that water tested to insure because we do have people fishing out there on a routine basis and people who like to fish. And that’s great but we want them to be able to do that not just as a sport and toss it back in but if they want to keep it and fry it that’s fine. But we want to know that everything’s good in reference to that. So we have a path forward in terms of getting the water tested and you’re saying within the next two weeks aesthetically as far as the lily pads that will be skimmed off. Mr. Beck: Yes. Mr. Mason: That’s what I’m hearing. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Beck, while I’ve got you up here I need to ask you has the reference been made that we look after one side of the town and not the other and I have a real concern with that. The last time I checked the upper ends of Lake Olmstead you could almost walk across it. It’s less than 6-7 inches deep. Mr. Beck: And I think most of you are aware one of the key issues in SPLOST VI was the dredging of Lake Olmstead. It has been in bad shape for quite awhile. You know as far as those things are concerned I understand the gentleman’s concern with that. From a budgetary standpoint Diamond Lakes we spend a lot of money out there recreationally at that park, probably over $700,000 dollars a year you know in that park alone. So it is unfortunate that these aquatic weeds make it look unappealing and it’s very true. I think if you go out there and I’ll stand before you and say this. Diamond Lakes Park is a park you can all be proud of. That’s one area that’s not something that’s a day-to-day thing for us to deal with lily pads in the lakes but we’ll do the best we can with it and I think we’ve got a path forward to move in gear. Mr. Mayor: And just --- Mr. Brigham: I know you don’t own the lily pads. If I’m not mistaken we had an algae problem or do have an algae problem at Lake Olmstead down by the dam. Is that not the case? I know we’ve had it in the past. Mr. Beck: we have had. These are different. It’s a different species. I mean these are water shield lilies --- 5 Mr. Brigham: Right. Mr. Beck: --- that are in Diamond Lakes --- Mr. Brigham: But we have, we have definitely a problem. Mr. Beck: Yeah, hydrilla is really the problem there. Mr. Brigham: It’s the problem at Lake Olmstead. Mr. Mayor: It’s a problem in our river as well. Okay, thank you, Tom. Just for clarity though we do have upcoming SPLOT monies budgeted to dredge Lake Olmstead and to dredge the lake out at Diamond Lakes. Correct? Mr. Beck: Right. Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: When and, I think, Tom, but um, just so that we’re clear. You’re saying the tournament is going to be over in a couple of weeks. We need to have probably you come back before this Commission with the plan of action or what has happened, an update of where we are so that we know exactly what’s going on, what’s been done or what has yet to be done so that we can get some sort of path forward in terms of a time line of what we’re looking at to make happen. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mason: And in that way we can get that information out. Mr. Mayor: Okay. All righty. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, let’s --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: --- don’t forget how high Lake Aumond is because if we’re going to talk about all of them let’s talk about, this is one of the main corridor areas that feeds Rae’s Creek and into the Savannah River and into Lake Olmstead. And that’s where the majority of the silt’s coming and that’s what the argument we have up there right now. I’ve been talking this for seven years to get something done with it and hopefully we’re on the right track now to do something. Not just from today but on our most recent meeting that’s been had. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Grantham. All righty, Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda. 6 The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-26, items 1-26. And on our vision to the agenda item 25, Mr. Mason would like to replace the name of Harold Jones with Ms. Kellie Kenner. Mr. Mayor: Do we need unanimous consent to do that? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have unanimous consent to amend that agenda item and to add the agenda item requested as well? Mr. Speaker: So moved. Mr. Speaker: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we don’t need so long as everybody’s. The Clerk: Sir, our consent agenda consists of items 1-26 with the change from Mr. Harold Jones to Ms. Kellie Kenner. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Mr. Brigham: Didn’t we just add the addendum to the consent agenda also? Mr. Mayor: The --- The Clerk: Well, he was adding it to the agenda not --- Mr. Brigham: That’s what I understood the motion to be. Mr. Mason: Add and approve? Mr. Mayor: Add and approve. The Clerk: We didn’t take the motion, Mr. Brigham --- Mr. Mayor: We were just looking for unanimous consent. Mr. Brigham: Okay, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay, items to be added to the consent agenda. Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, item, I talked to Mr., our Administrator. After talking to the Administrator he said that this has been worked out and they have, the whole thing was redone 7 and they successfully received what they’re looking for. So item, I would like to have if I can item 28 and item 31 consented. Mr. Russell: Mr. Chairman, I apologize I misstated that. I need 28 on the regular agenda for discussion if you don’t mind, sir. Mr. Hatney: Bless your heart. Mr. Russell: I apologize. Mr. Hatney: Well, that’s all right. I’ve been treated worse. Mr. Mayor: But you’re adding 31 to the consent. Mr. Hatney: Thirty-one, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we --- Mr. Hatney: Item 27, okay go ahead. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further additions to the consent agenda. Commissioner Smith, you’ve got your hand up? I thought you had your hand up. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes, I’d like to add item 35. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got some questions on item 35. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Any further additions? Mr. Brigham: I think we need to add the addition to the agenda on the appointment of the Animal Services Director. Mr. Mayor: Okay, any further additions? Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, are there any objections --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: --- on items 36 and 37 since we are looking at naming these particular locations. If there are no conflicts with our government naming, Mr. Lawyer, I think he’d be the one to tell us we could go ahead and move on those and put them on consent. Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: Is this for the bridge naming ones? 8 Mr. Brigham: Right. Mr. MacKenzie: I don’t have any problem putting those on consent. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Item 34 has been taken care of. The DDA had came and requested additional dollars for their budget. We have determined they have not used they administrative portion of their SPLOST dollars that they could use for that. That would not require any action. That’s the policy that we’ve established and they are able to do that. So that point becomes moot at this point. The Clerk: You want to delete item 34? Mr. Russell: Delete item 24. The Clerk: Thirty-four. Mr. Russell: Thirty-four, I’m sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there are no further additions, are there any items to be pulled for discussion? Mr. Aitken. Mr. Aitken: Twenty-six? Mr. Mayor: Okay, any further items? Mr. Hatney: Not for discussion, Mr. Mayor, but item 27 and item 29 I’d like to send back to committee. We have not had an opportunity to, we didn’t have a quorum before. There was no discussion on those items. These others will be discussed but those two we should get them sent back to committee –-- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Hatney: --- and be ready for the next commission meeting. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’d like pull item 33. Mr. Mayor: Okay. 9 The Clerk: It’s already --- Mr. Mayor: It’s already on the regular agenda. Mr. Lockett: Okay. Sorry. Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Mason: So moved. Mr. Jackson: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 1. Motion to accept as information the purchase of an aluminum dock system off of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources Agency Contract to Crane Material International for $75,415.85. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2010) 2. Motion to approve an amendment in the amount of $4000 with CSRA RC for the senior nutrition program. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2010) 3. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s purchase of a staff vehicle from Grant Project GA-90-X278-00 (54609-1207). (Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2010) 4. Motion to approve a proposal from Financial Marketing Concepts, Inc. Agreement regarding Discount Prescription Card Program for Augusta-Richmond County residents. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2010) 5. Motion to approve Temporary Banner Program Ordinance and Guidelines. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 21, 2010) PUBLIC SAFETY 6. Motion to approve Capacity Agreement for Fy2011 for state inmates being housed in the Richmond County Correctional Institution. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2010) 7. Motion to approve the purchase of three (3) radar units for the Georgia State Patrol units assigned to Richmond County in the amount of $2,995 each totaling $8,985.00 subject to the Administrator identifying a funding source. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2010) 8. Motion to approve the purchase of one Remotec HD-1J bomb robot assembly from Northrop Grumman for $93,547.00. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 21, 2010) ENGINEERING SERVICES 10. Motion to approve GEFA loan in the amount of $10,570.03. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 11. Motion to approve the purchase of (2) front-end loaders, with attachments, for the Solid Waste Department off state contract SWC80773. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 10 12. Motion to approve award of RFP #10-126, Janitorial Services for Solid Waste Maintenance Building and Scale House to M&M Management Services, Inc. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 13. Motion to approve Change Number One and Change Order One to Georgia Carolina Paving for the emergency repair to Skinner Mill Road approximately 1,300 feet west of Warren Bridge Road in the amount of $120,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 14. Motion to extend the contract with Heery International, in association with Dukes Edward Dukes, for Capital Improvement Program Management on SPLOST projects for two years with an optional one-year extension. The total contract amount, which began in 2003, will increase $3,235,550.00 to a revised estimated “not to exceed” contract amount of $10,317,906.00 and authorize the Administrator to negotiate the 4% increase and report st recommendation back on July 1. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 15. Motion to approve the execution of the Easement Agreement with Georgia Power for new electrical power service for the expansion at Webster Detention Center. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 16. Motion to approve the appointment of a sub-committee composed of Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bowles and the Administrator to formulate a recommendation as to how to proceed with review/investigation of the Augusta Utilities’ operations and management of the Highland Avenue and Hicks Water Production Plants and bring back to the committee for approval. (Approved by the Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 17. Motion to award to Lord & Company Bid Item #10-086, in the amount of $88,700.00, which includes providing and installing the Bi-Directional Amplifier to enhance radio service within the building for police radio communications in the new Judicial Center. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 18. Motion to approve having 0.10 acres (4,358 sq. ft.) of property on Tax Map 226, Parcel 005-01, appraised on Lamar Road so that we can proceed with condemnation and pave the road on the Paving Various Roads, Phase IX project CPB# 324-041110-208824001. Funds are available in the project Right of Way account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 19. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One 323-041110-296823220 and Supplemental Agreement Two with Clark Patterson Lee in the amount of $119,791.00 on the Old Savannah Road/Twiggs Street Improvements project-Phase II. Funding is available in the project contingency account to be transferred to the project engineering account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 20. Motion to approve the recapture and reallocation of SPLOST IV funds for the Public Services Department and County Forces into Phase IV programmed categories. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 21. Motion to approve declaring the Solid Waste Departments listed items as surplus and available for sale through Fleet Management’s approved processes. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 22. Motion to authorize the Engineering Department to apply for TIGER II Discretionary grants to fully fund construction for Windsor Spring Road Phase IV project, Willis Foreman Road to Tobacco Road, CPB #323-04-299823766, and Wrightsboro Road project, 11 Jimmie Dyess Parkway to I-520, CPB #323-04-296823309. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) 23. Motion to approve Augusta-Richmond County Urban and Suburban Roadway Resurfacing List – Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on June 15, 2010. APPOINTMENTS 25. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Harold Jones to the Augusta Aviation Commission representing District 4. ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 27. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Title One Section 1-2-2 relating to the time for Commission meetings of the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commissioners; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances and parts of Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide and effective date and for other purposes. (Referred back to committee) 29. Discuss delay in the departmental review and approval of submitted Muni Agenda items. (Requested by Commissioner Corey Johnson) (Referred back to committee) 31. Motion to approve a Resolution supporting Laney Walker Redevelopment, LP’s application for Tax Credits for the Laney Walker Redevelopment Project and the Laney Walker (W-4) Master Planned Community to be located in Augusta, Georgia. FINANCE 34. Consider a request from the Downtown Development Authority to restore the 2010- 15% budget reduction in the amount of $27,000 and receive a report from the Administrator relating to the possibility of funding the request through administrative SPLOST funding. (Approved by Finance Committee June 21, 2010) ENGINEERING SERVICES 36. Approve a recommendation to name a bridge after the Reverend Henry Benjamin Bady. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee – Requested by Commissioner Aitken) 37. Consider a request to name an unnamed bridge in the Harrisburg area after Dr. H. K. McKnight, Founder-Pastor Emeritus of Bible Deliverance Temple. (No recommendation from the Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010 – Requested by Commissioner Aitken) ADDENDUM 40. Approve Sharon Broady as Animal Services Director Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 12 Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-25, 27, 29, 31, 34, 35, 36, 37, Addendum item 1] Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s go to the, to Commissioner Aitken’s pull to start with. The Clerk: The consent agenda is unanimous. Item --- Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: --- a point of personal privilege. I’d like to take a second to introduce our new Animal Control Director and have her stand please. Sharon’s been with us a right good while. She’s been acting in that position for several months now and has been doing a great job for us. I appreciate your confidence in the selection process and I think Sharon will do a good job. Congratulations Sharon welcome aboard. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to I believe it’s agenda item 26. The Clerk: PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 26. Motion to approve the attached list dated June 3, 2010 of Augusta-Richmond County Legislative appointments to various ARC Boards, Commissions and Authorities. (Deferred from the June 15, 2010 Commission meeting) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken. Mr. Aitken: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Last Commission meeting I asked for some clarity on appointing or having one person be served on two boards. And I think we were all kind of trying to figure out how that looks. So I think we’ve asked the Attorney to kind of come back and identify what he’s found and give us some insight as we proceed to move forward. And secondly I think looking at our boards and how important our boards represent our city is really crucial how we set the tone for that as well. So I’d like to hear from him. Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: I think, first off, it’s certainly been a difficult research. This is an issue that I think has come up before. There could be some further clarity with regard to our regulations and how they interplay with the state law relating to this particular issue. One I guess fair reading of our code is that it only applies to those boards, the delegation appointments to the boards for which the Commission does not have authority to appoint. The Charter provides that there’s two additional legislative delegation appointments to be provided to each board. And then our policy says that the prohibition of a person being on more than one board is only applicable for the ones where the Commission has the authority of appointment or ratifying appointments. Reading that together there’s a conflict with the state law and our local provision 13 in that state law would prevail. The effect of that is that the legislative delegation appointments are usually done without regard to what the local ordinances say in that respect. If there’s a conflict with the two than the state law prevails. The bottom line of it is we could probably use some clarity in our process to clarify how we deal with legislative delegation appointments. The appointments that are being made one of them the person is already a legislative delegation appointment on another board. The other one is a member who is on a different board that was appointed by one of our Commissioners. I know that provides super clarity to it but that’s because this area is not very clear. Mr. Mayor: Something else about an ordinance that’s confusing and imagine that. But would it be appropriate to go ahead and approve agenda item number twenty-six? Mr. MacKenzie: It would be appropriate to approve those as legislative delegation appointments. And our provisions only apply to the ones that we appoint. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: I’m going to try and help Mr. Aitken out in this. I’m going to make a motion we go on and fill all but those two positions that are in question at this time. I’m going to make a motion that we fill all the position other than those two that we have questions about at this time. Mr. Johnson: What two are we --- Mr. Mayor: What two are we, are you referencing? Mr. Brigham: I guess we’re talking about the two that are serving on other boards. Mr. Mason: Well, I thought he just cleared that up? Mr. Brigham: I believe that’s what Mr. MacKenzie said. Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie would the, once again I know it’s a confusing subject, but it would be appropriate for us to approve the list as submitted? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, that would be appropriate. I can actually identify the two names. One is Cedric Johnson. He’s already serving on the Coliseum Authority Board. His appointment was done by the legislative delegation as well. The source of their authority to appoint is through state law. We have a regulation I think is consistent with that but since the source is through state law a fair reading of what they have and what we have is they would have the right to do that whether we want to approve it or not. We don’t have the ratifying authority to do that. Mr. Brigham: We don’t have ratifying authority because we’re fixing to vote on this. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, I’d like --- 14 Mr. Mayor: Okay, um, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, from where we sit today and based on the information that the attorney has given us we may not necessarily like the fact of the way it’s laid out right now. But that’s the way that’s it laid out. If we want to do something about that at some point and correct it if you feel like it needs correcting then there would be an opportunity to do that. I don’t that opportunity’s today because that’s not what the motion that’s on the floor and we’ve got a recommendation from our lawyer that we approve this as it is today. And if we feel like we need to go back and take a look at that and see if that’s the right thing to do for this government moving forward then that’s what we ought to do. But what we have to stop doing is doing the things backwards moving forward. We’ve got to start. We have to have a staring point. And right now today I’m going to make a substitute motion. Well, is there a second to that motion by the way? So there’s really not a motion on the floor. Mr. Brigham: I don’t think it requires a second. I don’t think a nomination requires a second. Mr. Mason: So what are --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie? Mr. MacKenzie: I’m not sure if this is a nomination. I don’t think if you make a substitute motion that it would require a second. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mason: Well, I mean he made a motion didn’t he, did he not? Did he not make a motion earlier? Mr. Mayor: He made the motion but there was not a second. Mr. Mason: No second? So then I can make one. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mason: All right I’m going to make a motion we approve the attached list as described. Mr. Lockett: And I second the motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Brigham and Mr. Bowles vote No. Motion carries 8-2. 15 Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: Our next item, item thirty? Mr. Mayor: Was it twenty-eight? Mr. Russell: Yes, please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 28. Appeal of the bid process for the Furniture, Furnishings, and Equipment for the Augusta Richmond County Judicial Center. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: We had bid out the furniture, furnishings and equipment for the Augusta Richmond County Judicial Center. Those bids had come back. During the process after reviewing those bids it was discovered that both of the bidders that were left in the process had that particular point in time were noncompliant. They had bid, they had left out a portion of one of the bids that in the estimation of our people that were reviewing that was necessary to determine whether or not the bids were good or not at this particular point in time. They could not make a determination without the diagrams that were necessary. At that point we rebid all the items and it’s my understanding that both of the parties that were involved have rebid that. Because of that at this particular point in time it’s my opinion and the lawyer agrees with me that the appeal would be moot. We have their bids in hand at this particular point in time. It would be my suggestion that we open the new bids at this point in time and then if there is a dissatisfaction at that point we continue with the appeal process as necessary. But that would move us forward. I just wanted to make sure that we had an opportunity to do that and that would my suggestion at the moment. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell, were the bids open and the prices made public? Mr. Russell: Yes, they were. On both of them. Mr. Bowles: Why would we do that if the bid was not compliant? Because now we’ve told everybody what everybody was bidding and that’s the concern. Mr. Russell: The process was that the bids were open. Those figures were made public. As they looked at the bids themselves one portion of that was not available so they did not know that until they had the bids open. 16 Mr. Bowles: Are the bids to be awarded based on I believe two or three sections --- of each other. Mr. Russell: We have the option to award based on two or three sections. There are four parts to the bid. The consultants who’s Heery that were looking at the bids themselves determined they were unable to make a decision on the best total product without having all the information available. And therefore being able to bid them out, award them individually was not possible. Mr. Bowles: Why wouldn’t we have just bid out that one part that was under question rather than bidding out everything else again? Mr. Russell: Because once we deemed to be, deemed them to be noncompliant the remedies since both of them were noncompliant was to bid everything back out again. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And that’s the point I really don’t understand it really doesn’t make sense to me that that if we have both bidders out of compliance on the same section that I can see where the necessity of going out on a new bid for just that section would be in order. But I don’t understand why we have opened these bids and exposed the pricing of both of these bidders as to what they had previously bid and then they’re the only two that comes back again then you know all we’re doing is looking for a war between two companies in Augusta or somewhere in this area that we might be doing business with. And we’re challenging them to keep getting low prices for us is what it amounts to. I just, I just don’t understand why we have taken that privilege of saying you know what do you bid for a part that was no good but the other three were good but we’re going to rebid them anyway because we don’t like it. And that’s really the bottom line and I have a problem with that. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, then Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Bowles and Mr. Grantham on this one. The other thing is I saw a section of the bid that I believe it said we were going to award the bids separately. And if that’s the case I don’t understand why we’re rebidding the thing when we planned not to award all the parts to one vendor anyway. Now if that’s the case why can’t we just rebid the one section we’ve got a problem with? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Hatney: I guess I’d like to address this to the Administrator, Mr. Mayor. The bid itself is just one packet. Is that right? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: But it had different parts but one not good. 17 Mr. Russell: Four parts. Mr. Hatney: Four parts and most bids got more than one part, right? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Each of the two bidders bid on all four parts. Mr. Hatney: What I’m saying most bids though have more than one part. That’s the question I’m asking. Mr. Russell: Uh, --- Mr. Hatney: The reason I’m asking the question from my perspective if anyone, any part if it was noncompliant than all of it is. Mr. Russell: And that’s --- Mr. Hatney: Irregardless to how many parts you got. Mr. Russell: And that’s the position we took, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We’re asking a lot of questions and that’s good um, but I think we’re asking the wrong person. We ought to have the Procurement Department come up here and address that particular issue because that’s who is goes through. So if I could have someone from Procurement to come up and address this agenda item that would great. Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Sams here? Welcome to the podium, Ms. Sams. Ms. Sams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor on, this in fact was a rebid and was a rebid after receiving two bids from two local companies. During that process that part that’s not in your agenda is the fact that we had to, there were corrections made to one of the submittals. The correction was made within the law of Augusta Richmond County. Later after making the adjustment to that particular company’s bid and it was a situation where it was a decimal point issue. And it was on some leather chairs. They were selling us leather chairs for like a dollar thirty-nine cents and that was an obvious correction that was necessary. They were asked to simply move the decimal point to the right position. Also during that process we found errors in the Weinberger bid when we compared it to the actual cost of what the actual items were. Even through those problematic issues we turned this over to the project manager who wrote the letter that’s in the back of your, it was in your agenda who looked at the bids that were submitted to us and made the recommendation that he needed to lay out in order to come up with a clear bottom line. That’s the information that you have in your agenda and that’s the reason there was a rebid on it upon the recommendation of the project manager the Heery Company. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Grantham. 18 Mr. Grantham: Two questions then, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sams, you said there was a decimal point error made and that you knew it was completely out of range and out of line with what should be. So you took the liberty of making those changes --- Ms. Sams: According to the --- Mr. Grantham: --- according to what we can do. And as I understand we have had previous bids and projects that similar types situations are that you have the privilege of making changes. And when we talked about them or even considered requesting them they were not done. The second thing is that based on based on the design for what you’re saying our project manager requested and required was it not indicated at the initial meeting with the companies that were going to bid on this that a design was not absolutely necessary and that that could come later once all, and all they were looking for was the figures based on that material that would go into that project and the design could come later. Is that the case? Ms. Sams: No, sir, it’s not. That is not the case. First, let me answer your first comment that you made. And that comment was in previous cases where the Procurement Department did not come up with the same outcome as it relates to errors. That has not occurred. In the event where numbers have been occurred within the Augusta Richmond County code and it’s an obvious error in accordance to Article 6 of the code we made those corrections. In the department the company was notified and it was up to the company to decide to accept the changes of moving a decimal point. Mr. Grantham: And I understand that. Ms. Sams: And it was obvious prior to the bid being, during the bid opening. Mr. Grantham: And I applaud you for taking that liberty but my question pertains particularly to a bid that where it required a notary public to sign and also put their stamp on it. But they forgot to put their seal on it. So that was something that too is a technical error to the point that why could that not have been permissible in awarding the bid but we took the liberty of not, or not doing that. Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to stick to what’s germane to this issue right here. Mr. Mayor: Exactly to deal with this agenda item. Mr. Mason: That issue is a dead issue. If you want to talk about that at some other time that’s great but I think Mr. Mayor we need to stick with the agenda item --- Mr. Mayor: I agree --- Mr. Mason: --- in front of us. 19 Mr. Mayor: --- and let’s move along. Mr. Grantham: The answer the second question there, please. Mr. Sams: And your second question was exactly? Mr. Grantham: About the fact whether the design was not was not required at the bid process when you had the people come in and gave the bid package to them and said we want the figures. We want the package on this particular phase and the design is not necessary right now today. You may have it in writing but it was stated at that meeting from what I understand. So if that’s the case that’s what I’m trying to find out. Mr. Sams: Mr. Grantham, I welcome you along with the Mayor and all of the Commissioners to listen to that conference. We go by the specifications as written and presented to us from the project manager and in accordance to the specification given to the Procurement Department. It was real clear and defined that that layout be a part of. Mr. Grantham: Well, you know, it’s, excuse me but it is interesting, Mr. Mayor, that both parties did not put a design in and they were the only parties bidding on the total package and the phase that was in error as far as having the design. So did both of them just take liberty in not putting it down or did they just misunderstand at the meeting they held that day. That’s what I’m trying to understand. Ms. Sams: Mr. Mayor, that would be a question for the project manager who made the decision to --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Sams: --- deem both companies noncompliant. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, is there any other bidders other than these two on the rebid? Mr. Russell: No, sir, not to my knowledge. Mr. Brigham: So it’s just these two people? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. And that’s why I said initially that the fact they both bid on the rebid makes this appeal moot. We move forward with this, we move forward with the other bids and move forward. Mr. Brigham: I move that honor the bids as originally opened. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that? 20 Mr. Mason: What’d he say? The Clerk: To honor the bids. Mr. Mayor: To honor the bids as originally opened. Mr. Russell. Mr. Grantham: I second it. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, I have to inform you that that would be against what I would think to be the policy that we’ve had in the past and the policy that we need to continue in the future. While I understand Mr. Brigham’s concerns we’ve done this exactly as we’ve done everything else. The bids were not compliant, we rebid that, they had two new bids on the table that are in our process and I would suggest that you not vote for Mr. Brigham’s motion. Mr. Mason: I’ll make a substitute motion --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: --- a substitute motion that we allow to open up the rebid packages as is the recommendation. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Russell: The motion would be that you at this point that you would deny the appeal of the --- Mr. Mason: Deny the appeal? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: That is my motion. Mr. Hatney: Second. Mr. Mayor: Your substitute motion? Mr. Mason: Substitute motion correct. Mr. Mayor: Which has been properly motioned and seconded by Commissioner Johnson. Okay, if there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Brigham and Mr. Grantham vote No. Motion carries 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. 21 The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 30. Approve repayment of $94,751.00 in non-federal funds to the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That’s almost one hundred thousand dollars and my question is can we hold the CHDO’s accountable for this mistake? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, you can. If I could give a little a little bit of background on why we here today with this I’d like to do so. In this particular case as you know we’ve been ongoing an audit by the Inspector General’s Office of HUD. An audit that they don’t do every year but one that they do occasionally and they pick certain locations to do that. It was our honor to be selected by Washington to go through that process and their auditors were here for almost a year. And which they touch pretty much every piece of paper that we dealt with in that particular program. As you know there were initial issues that they had and any time you have an auditor that hangs around for a year you’re going to have issues no matter how good you are. The initial issues involved about a little bit in excess of $2 million dollars. Our staff as we looked at that and dealt with that worked that back down with the permission of HUD and the Inspector General’s Office these last two items of $94 thousand dollars. These were mistakes that were made by the CHDO’s. These are mistakes that are outlined in your, in your memo at this particular point in time. I think it’s appropriate that we recognize that these CHDO’s made these mistakes. I think it’s appropriate that we try to fix issues that they had. But if you look at the nature of the mistakes that they made one of which they were misinformed by a client and made decisions based on information that was provided that was not accurate. And in the other case they misinterpreted a rule one of HUD’s many which they took combat pay from an individual who was serving our country and counted that, did not count that as part of their requirement for a low income home when in fact according to HUD if you’re out serving our country in a combat zone you’re still supposed to count a portion of that against your income. You know both of these cases are mistakes that I think are more mistakes of the heart than they are of the mind at this particular point in time. You know I think we need to continue to refine our policies. We need to continue to educate our CHDO’s. We need to continue to work with HUD to make sure these kinds of mistakes don’t happen. But to penalize them at this point for these two mistakes I, you know directed to we’ll figure out a way to do that but I would think that we need to do this and move on at the moment. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, this is not the first time this has happened and it probably won’t be the last of any type of business this government’s in. But several years ago we were on the verge of having to pay back $2 million dollars. And we had people from Atlanta come down 22 and we talked to them and it was assured that we would get those straightened out. The CHDO’s met with us we had, we went over this time and time again and now we’re right back in the same situation thank goodness for not as much money. But we just a few minutes ago passed on a mistake. We authorized the spending of government money based on an error to open new bids and to do something along the same lines we’re talking about right now. So if we can’t hold people responsible for what they’re doing then we might as well just open the vault door and let them come on down. So I’m just, I’m of the opinion that they should be held responsible and I’m going to make a motion they be held responsible and that they pay it that we should, back and if they don’t pay it back in a period of time that no funds are allocated to those CHDOs to do any other work until this is taken care of. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell, where are these funds coming from? I see non-federal so that means it’s general fund. Mr. Russell: General fund dollars, sir, yes. Mr. Bowles: So it’s nothing but an error for a program that’s exclusive to the majority of the citizens of Augusta. You’re going to ask the majority of the citizens of Augusta to pay for it. I don’t think my district would like that situation very much. I think we have to come up with a way we can retrieve these monies from the entities that misspent the monies. Mr. Russell: And once again that’s a policy decision. The issue is that we do have to pay the, money goes to the Feds back so it is non-federal dollars. Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken. Mr. Aitken: How many CHDOs are there? Mr. Russell: Six, I believe, sir. Mr. Aitken: The majority of the CHDOs, are they in District 1 or are they throughout Augusta or? Mr. Russell: The basic design is to provide housing and build housing so most of them are in areas that --- Mr. Mayor: Urban. Mr. Russell: --- would be an urban area that has the need for housing. So, yes. 23 Mr. Aitken: What are some of the checks and balances that have that we need to start looking at now from your perspective in the whole accountability. Because I think accountability is really as Commissioner Bowles mentioned that you know at the expense of the citizens of this city we really need to look at that real close. And I think, as we look at the Laney Walker project that’s coming down with lots of money there’s definitely got to be checks and balances in place for us to make that project a viable project. One that’s going to be that you know if the average businessperson did that they’d be out of business. SO what are some of the checks and balances we’re looking at as far as for the future, for the CHDOs? Mr. Russell: I think you’ve got to look at the continued development of the CHDO am I’m not to sure that you want to combine the Laney Walker project with the federal dollars for HUD that are there. The checks and balances in HUD are fairly extensive that they look at an obviously in some cases people make mistakes and they slip though those cracks. In addition to that we’re developing and you’ll be seeing those in the very near future the spending guidelines for the, for our project there. So I think they’re separate and distinct. I think what you need to continue to do is make sure that we continue to educate the CHDO’s, if you know to hold them responsible and to deal with that. They go through a whole lot more dollars than what you’re seeing reflected here. So you know if you look at the grand scheme of things the dollars over that period of time is a lot larger than what you’ve got here and while perfection is something you seek you’re going to have issues that are dealt with. Part of what you’ve got there the issues that agents and audit found. Once again they were here for a year. They pretty much touched every piece of paper that we’ve done and that the CHDO’s have done and you know what they come up with is this. Can we get better? Do we need to get better and tighter yes. But you know if you look at the grand scheme of things I think that’s a goal we need to continue to work for. Mr. Aitken: Thank you, Mr. Russell. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, then Commissioner Hatney. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Russell, I understood you to say that the auditors were here for about one year and they went through everything with a fine-toothed comb. And the two discrepancies that we’re talking about here anyone I think could have made the mistake because of the interpretation of law. Mr. Russell mentioned one of the veteran of which I am an admirer. Anyone could have made that mistake. The second mistake was a young lady that had received a settlement. Not a large settlement a small settlement but put her a few dollars over the limit. That was a mistake. But with the number of units that they deal with this is trivial. Even this body makes mistakes. In fact we made one that cost $550,000. So we’re all human and we make mistakes. Mr. Mayor: Let’s keep it to the issue at hand, please, sir. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney. 24 Mr. Hatney: Mr. Russell --- Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: --- did I hear you say when they started when they first started the audit they started out at around two million. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: And it broke down to ninety-four. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Hatney: I simply want to say I think they did a great job here. You know when auditors come and they start out with a discrepancy at around two million and you can finely work that down to ninety-four, ninety-five thousand dollars you’ve done an awesome job. So I just think they did, Mr. Russell and his staff did a good job with it because it could have been two million. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, what’s the impact if this is not approved or paid. What’s the residual effect on that? Mr. Russell: The residual effect is that I paid it. We were billed by we had to be paid by th June 17. When the feds knocked on the door that’s the residual effect. The issue becomes is it you’ve got to determine what policy’s we use to continue to move forward with that. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I understand where Mr. Russell’s coming from because I’ve said in those meetings with the federal people in regards to the investigations that they have had when Bob Young was Mayor as well as others. And I don’t have a problem with his paying that due to the federal regs. However I think we have a problem by not going back to the CHDOs that are in question and making them be responsible for repaying this government. And that was in my motion that I made. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. And just for the point of clarity, Madam Clerk, if you could read back that motion. The Clerk: The motion was to have the CHDOs be held responsible for the repayment of the monies and that no further money be awarded to the CHDOs until those monies are repaid. Mr. Mayor: And to these two specific CHDOs, Commissioner Grantham? Mr. Grantham: Yes, sir. 25 The Clerk: To these CHDOs. Mr. Mayor: Okay, but does that come along with approving the payment that’s already been paid out? Mr. Grantham: Well, yeah, I mean that’s already been done. That’s taken care of. I don’t have a problem with following the federal regs in what he had to do. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Grantham: And I made that clear. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I just had a question for clarification. Don is asking that the CHDOs repay this money to the federal government? Is that feasible? I mean could they do that? Mr. Russell: He’s asking, sir, that they pay it back to us. We’ve made the payment --- Mr. Johnson: And they pay the money back to us. Mr. Grantham: Right. Mr. Johnson: And we can do that. Mr. Grantham: Yeah. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Johnson: Okay. I just wanted to make sure it was a legitimate to do it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No. Mr. Hatney abstains. Motion carries 7-2-1. Mr. Russell: If I can, Mr. Mayor, what I’d like to do is work with the CHDOs bring back a payment plan to get that done and get that done over a period of time. If that’s okay. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: 26 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 32. Consider a request from the Woda Group regarding approval of a resolution of support from the Augusta Commission concerning the development of a 60 unit family residential community to be located at 2725 Tobacco Road. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe you wanted to touch on this. Mr. Mason: Uh, I need for him to make his presentation so that he can have due process and then I’m going to have a couple of questions for him after he gets finished. Mr. Mayor: Okay, please, sir and if you could state your name and address for the record and keep it to five minutes please. Mr. Patterson: Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Craig Patterson. I represent the Woda Group based in Columbus, Ohio. We provided to the Commission samples of our site layout that we are proposing for the Tobacco Road 2700 block. We have called the development Dana Point. It’ll be a 60-unit town home development and it’ll have ten buildings with a community building and amenities such as tot lots, community rooms. There will be other recreational community gardens. And this will be a sustainable community. We are seeking the consultation of South Base. We are achieving the standard of community that will meet the lead standard as well as the earth craft standards. We have since bringing in our materials and applying. We have joined on our team a company out of Athens, Georgia which is a non-profit development partner by the name of Parallel Housing and they are with me in the room tonight and we brought them on to boost our ability when it comes to sustainable and also because the are will networked throughout Georgia and this area amongst subcontractors, etc. This will be an $8.7 million dollar investment in this area. It will be within two miles of Fort Gordon. Our company is a 20-year company. We have over 115 communities in a ten state area. And most importantly we manage all our properties, which is very important when it comes to compliance with the authorities, the Housing Authority, with HUD, with other agencies. We accept our responsibility. We work through our problems and we like to partner closely with communities. We are seeking a Resolution of Support for this development. We have intent to apply for tax credit funding from DCA and that pretty much sums up our presentation. I’ll field questions. Mr. Mayor: Thank you sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mason: Thank you, thank you. We appreciate your presentation that you made here today. I did go out there and take a look at the area because there’s a lot of confusion in the community in terms of where exactly the location that you’re talking about. 2725 as far as I can tell is between the daycare and um, and uh what else is there? You obviously must be familiar with Tobacco Road right? Okay, so 2715 is Quail Hollow Apartments, 2731 is the Day Care. So somewhere between there where there is bushes and trees is, must sit 2725? Correct? Mr. Patterson: Right. The address is the address provided by the seller. There are several real estate signs there. If you look at the site map you will see that to right of the entry which, is Tobacco Road are those Quail Meadow apartments --- 27 Mr. Mason: Right. Mr. Patterson: --- and you see Bob White Court is to the right. Mr. Mason: I just want to make sure we’re talking about the same place because some had said by Spanish Trace, some have said on the corner of Windsor Spring. So we want to clear that up because we have some clearing going on. So we want to make sure that those that are in the audience understand that that’s not it. But in spite of that I also understand that you’re under some type of time restrictions so you can get this letter so you can make a deadline or something of that nature? nd Mr. Patterson: Our restriction is that we must make application on July 22 and a part of the application we would have to provide evidence of a resolution of support for this particular development. Mr. Mason: Okay. Here what’s, I have three points I want to make in reference to this and then we’ll go ahead and move forward. Number one, I’ve never had a conversation with you in reference to this. I’m Commissioner of that district so therefore I would not have had an opportunity to even discuss it with the people of the district, which is extremely important to note. But more importantly this competes with two projects that we have already approved under our master plan the same types of tax credits so there’s a competition there. Number two, it does not flow with the Augusta Sustainable Development Plan that we are currently on the master plan for. Not only South Augusta but for Augusta as a whole. In addition in South Augusta in Richmond County in particular we are now planning for our growth versus having I’m going to make a motion to deny the our growth planned for us. So having said that approval of the resolution of support as it stands today. Mr. Johnson: I second that motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell, I have not seen the final plan. I just want to make sure we’re all on the same page on that for the sustainable development plan. Mr. Russell: Yes, we are and this the vice, the mayor, the vice mayor. When I get nervous I go right back to Virginia every time, don’t I? Mr. Bowles: Not that I don’t trust you. Mr. Russell: And he is accurate in the fact that we have approved two, one today and another one in the past that would actually compete with this money that our Housing Authority is looking for. 28 Mr. Bowles: Well, my concern is you know we spent a half-million dollars on a development plan. I just want to make sure that we are going to follow that development plan even though it’s not final yet. We need to plan for it and move accordingly. Mr. Russell: Yes, that would be my suggestion is the group moves forward as we development the limitations strategies to make sure we move forward with that plan, yes, sir. Mr. Bowles: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. The Clerk: To deny the request for the resolution of support. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Patterson: Thank you very much. Mr. Mayor: Thank you for coming before us. Madam Clerk, okay. I guess we know what everybody was here for now. Madam Clerk, next. The Clerk: FINANCE 33. Consider a request in the amount of $225,000 from Christ Community Health Services in association with their building renovations (Widows Home) Capital Campaign along with a report from the Administrator regarding any possible funding sources. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, you want to speak to this issue? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. I was instructed last time to try to put together some additional dollars for them. I’ve run into another problem and I’d like a little bit more of a continuance here. Because of their stated religious affiliation I’ve run into some issues there that I need to continue to work through. And if you could give me another two weeks, I’d greatly appreciate that. Mr. Brigham: I make a motion we refer this back to committee. Mr. Grantham: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Russell: Thank you. Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney out. 29 Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: Item 38 to approve selected dates for furlough Mr. Mayor: Actually, I think thirty-five. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 35. Motion to authorize the Engineering Department to proceed with the design of a regional storm water detention pond in Hyde Park and to apply for a $10 million how- interest loan through Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority (GEFA) as well as to pursue additional funding through Georgia Emergency Management Agency (GEMA) for both the Hyde Park and Wilkerson Garden Drainage Improvement Projects. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee June 21, 2010) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, I believe you had a question on this? Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I can’t support this as long as we’re applying for a $10 million dollar loan. And we hadn’t even done any engineering to see whether or not we need a $10 million dollar loan. If that’s the case the other part of my problem is I can’t vote to apply for a $10 million dollar loan that without any reasonable opportunity of no tax increase to repay that loan. And I have not heard any of that in this discussion. I was at the committee when it took place I am here I am open to but if it’s going to involve raising new taxes I can’t support this. I don’t have a bit of a problem with doing engineering and applying for grants. I do have a problem with applying for a $10 million dollar loan without an ability to repay that loan. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Well, I’m going to go ahead and let Fred discuss that. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayo,r I would like to change the caption to some degree. As Abie and I have talked and as Commissioner Johnson and I have talked about this I think it’s a little bit premature to have the application for the loan as part of this caption. I think the direction we need to go in and I agree fully with Commissioner Brigham at this point is that we need to put together the initial engineering study which we have some funding to do through the SPLOST dollars that are currently available and then put together a financing package that would include a menu of items that might get us through there. At this point there are grants that might be potentially available. There are other financing issues that might be available. What I think Abie and I are looking for more so than the approval of an application for a loan at this point is the approval of us going forward with the program to bring you back a financing plan that would 30 hopefully include somebody using somebody else’s dollars to do this work or SPLOST dollars that would be available. With that planning process while I would not eliminate the potential need for a loan at some place I think at that point once we got that far down the path we would be available to either give you a mechanism to pay it back or hopefully be able to find a way not go with a loan. I don’t want to shut the door to that possibility but I would like the opportunity to continue to forward and bring back to you a full package that with financing options there. Mr. Mayor: Would somebody like to make a motion to take the recommendation of the Administrator? Mr. Johnson: I’ll motion that. Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m still, I heard what Mr. Russell said. Without a repayment plan without raising taxes without creating a new tax I’m going to be opposed to this. I am going to go forward with letting you do the engineering but rest assured I’ll be here when you get back with the engineering study. And you still have my questions to answer. Mr. Russell: I look forward to that, sir. Mr. Mayor: We all will be. Commissioner Grantham. Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know and I feel somewhat the same. But as far as presenting a package and a program and things that we can look at to vote on I’m in favor of. So as long as this is a menu to order from than I can work with that. But I’m not going to approve something to go forward that is not approved by this full Commission. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, I’d like to go on with that sentiments. I think the initially the presentation of this kind of got us sidetracked initially. And I talked to, of course, Commissioner Grantham last week at the DOT breakfast and I talked to Commissioner Brigham over the weekend at the GMA conference. And I initially, of course Fred and I did talk briefly there that this was actually just supposed to have been a green light to give them the authority to seek or identify funding sources to take care of this project. This is of course part of our overall master plan for South Augusta as well and it’s not just this area but it’s several areas that we’re looking at that we have to address this matter. But I can assure you, Mr. Brigham, that I’m not for raising taxes just because of this project. This is not what this is about. I’m pretty sure the Administrator in the past has done a great job of coming up with a proper financial plan to help 31 get this matter taken care of. And I think this is what we’re giving him the authorization to do here. So it wasn’t intended to of course go out and apply for a $10 million dollar loan. We don’t know how much is going to be needed to do that or whether we’re even going to need a loan at all. But like Fred said we may need a loan but we don’t want to throw that option out. But he will bring it back to us and there from that point we can move forward. But this is just a green light to identify some funding in a package and bring it back so we can make a decision on what on what route to go. But I just wanted to clear that up because there was just some dissention in that. Mr. Mayor: It’s just a menu to order off of. Mr. Brigham: Let’s have the motion restated so we’ll make sure that we’re all --- Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve the menu. Mr. Russell, can you state the approval that you were looking for? The Clerk: To accept the recommendation of the Administrator to authorize him to proceed with an engineering study and a financing package to be brought back to the Commission for approval. Mr. Grantham: There you go. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Bowles abstains. Mr. Hatney out. Motion carries 8-1. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 38. Approve selected dates for furlough. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, as you know you approved the budget last year with four furlough days included in that to balance the budget. We’re at a point in time where we need to go ahead and chose those days and continue and move forward with the plan to do those furloughs. The planning process is going good and each of you, each of you have received a letter yourselves as of all the elected officials to participate in this. And what we’re looking at is picking the days and developing the process. I still would like to reserve the opportunity to come back to you on an individual basis, probably mid August for the September date and later for the 32 ththnd October 15, November 24 and December 22 dates and try to do those individually if necessary. I had hoped --- Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second? Commissioner Bowles. Mr. Bowles: I’ll second it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Brigham: I hate asking this question but I’ve got to. First off we’re not going to completely, there are some departments that do provide 24 hours a day service and they will be on duty and take other days besides these days I’m assuming. Mr. Russell: We anticipate that the Administrator will be here and I’ll handle it all, sir. Uh, no the Fire, those emergency services that require 24-hour service will be here. We do want to close the buildings and eliminate those services. As you know better than I do the closing of the building, the days we picked are strategic because by closing on a Friday or closing on a day before a holiday we not only get the benefit of the salary savings but we save electricity, gas, power and other things. So --- Mr. Brigham: I’m proud of you. You did well. Mr. Russell: Thank you. Mr. Grantham: Call the vote. Mr. Brigham: But I just had to ask. Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, that’s --- Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Russell: I have another thirty minutes of that speech but I’ll save that for another time. Mr. Mayor: And, Madam Clerk, final agenda item. The Clerk: Oh, okay, let me publish this vote. 33 Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney out. Motion carries 8-0. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 39. Approve outside agencies payments from July-December at current budgeted rate. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Johnson: Motion to approve. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Bowles: I’d like to hear a second of what Mr. Russell was going to say. What’s the current budget --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. --- Mr. Russell: What we did as you know there was an across the board cut of 15% for the agencies. We had some discussion on whether or not we wanted to try to change that. You initially authorized payment at that 15% cut over the first six months. I am not in the position to recommend any additions to our budget at this point that would eliminate those cuts. So my recommendation is you continue at the budgeted 15% cut. Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Brigham: This is as amended or is this as approved? Mr. Mayor: As approved. As initially approved. Mr. Russell: There were some --- Mr. Mayor: As recommended. Mr. Brigham: There’s been some amendments. That’s the reason why I’m asking this question. Mr. Russell: Commissioner Brigham’s right, there have been some changes to that based on our requirements of contracts and it would be as amended. 34 Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mason, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Grantham out. Motion carries 7-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank goodness we got that in. They’re starting to drop like flies y’all. Okay Mr. MacKenzie I take it that we --- Mr. MacKenzie: I’ll preface this by saying you know we didn’t have a legal session at the last meeting. There is a need for a legal session. I’ll try to make it as quick as possible for pending and potential litigation and personnel. ADDENDUM 41. Motion to approve going into a Legal Meeting. Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to go into a Legal Meeting to discuss those topics? Mr. Brigham: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. Aitken: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Bowles and Mr. Jackson vote No. Mr. Mason, Mr. Hatney and Mr. Grantham out. Motion fails 5-2. Mr. Mayor: Andrew, do we need to schedule a Special Called Legal Meeting for next Monday? Mr. MacKenzie: That would be helpful. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: Next Monday or the Monday before the committee meeting. Next Monday is --- Mr. Mayor: Well, next Monday is a, for next week at some point just to catch up on our? Mr. MacKenzie: At some point we need to catch up and there’s nothing critically urgent that would necessitate a meeting then. 35 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we will schedule a meeting for next week. Okay, if there’s no further business to come before the body, yes, sir, Commissioner Smith. Mr. Smith: Are we having a committee meeting next week? The Clerk: No, sir. Mr. Smith: None? thth The Clerk: No meetings next week. We resume back on July 12, Monday July 12. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: We stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on July 1, 2010. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 36 37