HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting June 21, 2011
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
JUNE 21, 2011
The Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., June 21, 2001 the
Honorable Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Smith, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson,
Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by the Reverend Michael McCoy, Associate Pastor, Beulah
Grove Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the Recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS
Employee of the Month
A. Ms. Nancy Greer, Appraisal Coordinator, Tax Assessors Office.
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, at this time we’d like to recognize our Employee of the
Month Ms. Nancy Greer along with members from the Tax Assessors Office. If you can join the
Mayor here, Mr. Ross, Ms Williams, is she here? Ms. Donna Murray, I think she nominated
here. The office staff, do y’all want to come up? Okay? They’re quite proud of her.
Dear Mayor Copenhaver. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Nancy
Greer as the May 2011 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Nancy is employed as
an Appraisal Coordinator with the Tax Assessors Office. She has been employed with the city
for over 18 years. She was nominated by Donna Murray who is the Chief Deputy Appraiser with
the Tax Assessors Office. As a result of Senate Bill 346 which modified the annual digest
process with new requirements on assessment notices Nancy provide the Tax Assessors Office
with managerial oversight on all the components of the new development which insured accurate
and timely filings of the 2011 notices to over 79,000 parcel owners. This will insure submission
of the Richmond County Digest, therefore timely mailings of the 2011 tax bill by the Tax
Commissioner’s Office. Nancy worked late many evenings on this project in addition to her
daily duties and remaining encouraging to support staff within her department. She was able to
assist in the upcoming with different scenarios to make sure information was accurate that would
go out to taxpayers and avoiding errors that could create estimated tax impacts. The Employee
Recognition Committee felt that based on this nomination that Nancy Greer’s dedicated and
loyal service to the City of Augusta they would appreciate you in joining us in awarding her the
May 2011 Employee of the Month Award.
(APPLAUSE)
1
Mr. Mayor: And I just want to say a personal thank you for what you did. It’s you know
we know when the state government changes things they push things back on the little guys to
make it more difficult for us. So going over and above the call of duty you really made it easier
for this government and for our citizens. So thank you.
May 2011 Employee of the Month, Ms. Nancy Greer, Augusta Richmond County Tax
Assessors Office. Dear Ms. Greer. On behalf of the City of Augusta it is with great pleasure that
I congratulate you for being recognized as the Employee of the Month for May 2011. Your
contribution to your organization Augusta Richmond County Government and the citizens of
Augusta has earned you this recognition. I appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond
the call of duty and your outstanding work ethic. You are truly and asset to the Augusta
Richmond County Tax Assessors Office and the citizens of Augusta Georgia. Please accept my
personal congratulations on this wonderful award. You are truly deserving of this recognition.
Sincerely yours, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor.
(APPLAUSE)
The Clerk: Do you want to say something?
Ms. Greer: Thank you.
The Clerk: Donna, do you want to say something, Mr. Ross?
Mr. Ross: First of all, it’s a testament. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. You
can see on this back wall the people who are part of that team. Not all could come up. We had
to keep it running Mr. Mayor. But that’s a testament to the respite that that team has for this
person and we appreciate the opportunity to be with her. Thank you.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: I think the assessor’s office might be having a party tonight. I don’t know
where Mr. Russell went but okay let’s I know he’ll be back momentarily but, Madam Clerk, let’s
move on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Okay. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-24, items 1-24. For the
benefit of any objectors to our Planning Petitions, once the petition is read would you please
signify your objection by raising your hand.
Item 2: Is a petition for a request for a change of zoning from an R-1C (One-family
Residential) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property at 1420 Forest Street.
Item 3: Is a petition for an existing Special Exception R-1C Zoning Petition changing a
request from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to a Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
affecting property at 1237 Summer Street.
Item 4: Is requesting a change of zoning from a Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to a
Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residential) affecting property at 1016 Laney Walker Boulevard.
2
Item 5: Is for a change of zoning from a Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) and a Zone
R-2 (Two-family Residential) to a Zone Planned Unit Development.
The Clerk: That’s it for our planning petitions. Are there any objectors to any of those
planning petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: I call your attention to our Public Services portion of the agenda. If there are
any objectors to any of the alcohol petitions would you please signify your objections by raising
your hand when they petition is read. I call your attention to:
Item 9: Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the
Super Express #9 located at 3694 Peach Orchard Road.
Item 10: Is for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with Pauley’s located at 1022 Broad Street.
Item 11: Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Phoenix Food & Gas DBA Chevron Food Mat located at 1500 Gordon Highway.
Item 12: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in
connection with Bar West Martini Lounge located at 3631 Walton Way Extension.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission our consent agenda consists of
items 1-24 with no objectors to the planning or alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. That being said do we have any additions to the consent
agenda? Going once? What’s that? Oh does anybody have a problem adding item 30? That’s,
they needed to get that approved so they could apply for the funding for the affordable housing.
Is that okay? Okay. Do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Hearing none, could I
get a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Mason: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. FINAL PLAT – ELDERBERRY, SECTION 4 – S-825 – A request for concurrence with
the Augusta Planning Commission to approve a petition by James G. Swift and Associates,
on behalf of Jerry Greenway, requesting final plat approval for Elderberry, Section 4.
This residential subdivision is located off Jimmie Dyess Parkway, adjacent to Elderberry,
Section 3 and contains 107 lots.
3
2. Z-11-23 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Suzane Reatig Architecture, on behalf of United House of Prayer requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) affecting property containing .17 acres and is known as 1420 Forest Street. (Tax
Map 059-1-418-00-0) DISTRICT 2
3. Z-11-24 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
with condition that the only use of this property be a child care center or uses provided for
by the existing special exception or the base R-1C zoning; a petition by Reverend Dr.
Victor Wilson, on behalf of Mr. Zion AME Zion Church, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting
property containing approximately 2.72 acres and is known as 1237 Summer Street. (Tax
Map 059-2-616-00-0) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-11-25 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by Hull Barrett Attorneys, on behalf of the Most Reverend J. Kevin Boland,
Bishop of Savannah, requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-Family
Residential) to Zone R-3C (Multiple-family residential) affecting property containing
approximately 1.53 acres is known as 1016 Laney Walker Boulevard. (Tax Map 046-4-766-
00-0) DISTRICT 1
5. Z-11-26 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to approve
a petition by APD, on behalf of the Augusta Land Bank et al, requesting a change of zoning
from Zone R-1C (One-family Residential) and Zone R-2 (Two-family Residential) to Zone
PUD (Planned Unit Development) affecting property as described below: Tract A – located
on the northwest corner of the intersection of James Brown Boulevard and Wrightsboro
Road containing approximately .64 acres and is made up of 6 land parcels. (A complete list
of parcels is available at the Planning Commission office) DISTRICT 1 Tract B – located
on the southwest corner of the intersection of Wrightsboro Road and James Brown
Boulevard containing approximately 1.49 acres and is made up of 6 land parcels. (A
complete list of parcels is available at the Planning Commission office) DISTRICT 1 Tract
C – located on the southwest right-of-way line of Boyd Lane, 35 feet, more or less, southeast
of where S Boundary Lane intersects containing .29 acres and is made up of 3 land parcels.
(A complete list of parcels is available at the Planning Commission office) DISTRICT 1
Tract D – located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boyd Lane, 70 feet, more or less,
northwest of S Boundary Lane containing approximately 1.16 acres and is made up of 9
lane parcels. (A complete list of parcels is available at the Planning Commission office)
DISTRICT 4 Tract E – located on the southwest right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 43
feet, more or less, southeast of Picquet Avenue containing approximately .79 acres and is
made up of 6 land parcels. (A complete list of parcels is available at the Planning
Commission office) DISTRICT 1
6. ZA-R-203 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to
approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia
by amending Section 2 (Definitions) by adding definitions for cafes and restaurants.
7. ZA-R-204 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to
approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia
by deleting the current language in Section 21-1 (Neighborhood Business) permitting
restaurants and cafes and adding new provisions for their use.
4
8. ZA-R-205 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Planning Commission to
approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia
by adding a new Special Exception in Section 21-2 (Neighborhood Business) for cafes that
serve alcoholic beverages.
PUBLIC SERVICES
9. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 11-22: request by Ritaben Patel for a retail
package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hiral Enterprises, Inc. DBA
Super Express #9 located at 3694 Peach Orchard Rd. District 6. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 13, 2011)
10. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 11-23: request by Christopher King for an on
premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Pauley’s located at
1022 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee June
13, 2011)
11. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 11-24: request by Gouri Prasad
Roa Vuppula for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Phoenix Food & Gas DBA Chevron Food Mart located at 1500 Gordon Hwy. District 2.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 13, 2011)
12. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 11-25: request by Jason F. Beck for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Bar West
Martini Lounge located at 3631 Walton Way Ext. Ste 3. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee June 13, 2011)
13. Motion to approve a request by Nyles L. Ellefson for a Therapeutic Massage Operators
license to be used in connection with Bella Capelli Salon & Spa located at 229 Fury’s Ferry
Rd. Ste 101. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee June
13, 2011)
14. Motion to approve conveying Augusta’s interest in the property, known as the former
McBean Park on Mike Padgett Highway, to the County Board of Education of Richmond
County, and to authorize the Mayor and Clerk of Commission to execute a quitclaim deed
and such other papers as necessary. (Approved by Public Services Committee June 13,
2011)
PUBLIC SAFETY
15. Motion to award AT&T a two year contract extension for city Centrex services and
approve an increase in the current AT&T internet service speed from 20MB to 50MB.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 13, 2011)
16. Motion to approve a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Augusta
Utilities Department (AUD) and Information Technology (IT) to jointly use the facilities at
1832 Wylds Road and approve installing a 100MB internet service line from Windstream
Communications at the same location. (Approved by Public Safety Committee June 13,
2011)
17. Motion to approve for Richmond County Community-Wide Teen Pregnancy
Prevention Initiative Planning Grant for Juvenile Court. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee June 13, 2011)
18. Motion to approve Purchase of Services Subcontract for Christopher Norris-LPC.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee June 13, 2011)
5
ENGINEERING SERVICES
19. Motion to approve a cost sharing agreement between the Augusta Utilities Department
and Coel Development Co., Inc. and Stephen Beazley Builder, Inc. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee June 13, 2011).
20. Motion to approve RFQ #11-130: Task Order Program for Infrastructure for the City
of Augusta – Utilities Department in the amount of $2,000,000.00 for execution by Contract
Management, Inc.; Blair Construction, Inc., Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc; and Quality
Storm Water Solutions as qualified and selected contractors. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 13, 2011)
21. Motion to approve a request by the Summerville Neighborhood Association for a Public
Hearing to discuss the placement of wooden and metal signs with the Summerville logo and
inscription at the following locations: corner of Bourne Pl and Milledge Rd.; corner of
Henry St. and Highland Ave. and Wrightsboro Rd.; corner of Walton Way and Milledge
Rd. Will also have a State of Georgia historical marker. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee June 13, 2011)
22. Motion to approve the awarding of low bid in the amount of $76,495 to Graybar
Electric for street light poles and fixtures for replacements/repairs in the Augusta
Richmond County urban areas for a period of one year. Effective upon date of adoption of
this item. The funds are available in the Street Lighting Budget Account
2760416105414410. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee June 13, 2011)
23. Motion to approve a component change for $1,376,987 to the GMP (Guaranteed
Maximum Price) and existing Purchase Order (P179109) for purchase and installation of
Kitchen Equipment for the TEE Center under the CM Contract. This does not increase
overall project cost. The revised GMP is $29,276,987. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee June 13, 2011)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
24. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held June 7,
2011 and Special Called Legal Meeting held June 13, 2011.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
30. Motion to approve updated Certification of Consistency with the Consolidated Plan on
behalf of Walton Rehabilitation Hospital to build 12 units of affordable housing for
individuals with disabilities in the Dover/Lyman Road area. (Requested by Mayor Deke
Copenhaver)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 9-1. [Items 9-12]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-8, 13-24, 30]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda please.
6
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
25. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA. Code Title One Chapter Four Article Six
Sections 1-4-81 through 1-4-94 relating to the Creation and Duties of the Planning
Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals; to repeal all Code Sections and Ordinances and
part of Code Sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and
for other purposes. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee June 13,
2011)
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a major concern relating this agenda
item. And I think the public interest would be better served, the taxpayers would be better
served if we put this item on hold until pending litigation dealing with the Personnel Policy and
Procedures Manual that we’re using for authority until that is resolved. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question for someone perhaps the city
administrator prior to we had discussed this planning and zoning and how they would operate.
Would this in terms of the, well how many personnel’s in planning and zoning?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Patty’s here and probably could answer that better than I. But it’s about
eight or nine I believe.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty?
Mr. Patty: Eleven.
Mr. Mason: Eleven. Now is this to bring them up underneath the city? What exactly is
going on here?
Mr. Russell: As we’ve done with the reorganization the document you have in front of
you brings them into the city’s, under the city’s fold and responsibility. The Planning Board
remains the same as an administrative function to do the planning function. But the staff would
now report to you as the Commission.
7
Mr. Mason: And from our standpoint before we knew that they were receiving state
funds and weren’t being paid out of city funds or something of that nature. Can we clear that up?
Who, who’s going to be responsible for those salaries now?
Mr. Russell: The funding mechanisms remain the same. We provide some funding for
the positions themselves. State and federal grants pay for the balance of the state dollars and that
would remain the same.
Mr. Mason: And this encompasses License and Inspections up underneath this as far as
the reorganization you talked about?
Mr. Mason: Yes, sir, what we’re doing is making this a one-stop shop to where License
and Inspection and Planning and Zoning are under one head which would be Mr. Patty. That
individual would be charged with most of the individuals and would have a little bit better
service and we move forward and that we have a continuity of responsibility.
Mr. Mason: Who’s going to have authority over whom because currently the way we’re
operating the Planning and Zoning Board, you work for the Planning and Zoning Board?
Mr. Patty: Yes, and we have several state and federal contracts to do planning work
which there would be a 90-day grace, well there would be a grace period so this would become
st
effective November 1 so that we can iron out between the time you vote on this and the time it
becomes effective the contracts. Those contracts will be reassigned to the city and the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Mason: And then will licenses now have to go through the Planning Board, they still
come to the Commission, how’s all that working?
Mr. Patty: The Planning Commission will hear and make a recommendation on zoning
cases. They will be involved in the comprehensive planning process, getting input on the
comprehensive plan, updates and that sort of thing. They will not be involved in the License and
Inspection Department.
Mr. Mason: And there’s still a board of zoning of appeals for the appellate process.
Mr. Patty: And their responsibilities will not change.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. George, you can stay up if you don’t mind. As far
as Mr. Sherman’s responsibility who would be as far as the tier of responsibility or hierarchy in
that office. Will he be on the same level as you as the director there or the department head there
or will it be equal. How would that work and, Fred, you may be able to answer that.
Mr. Russell: The recommendation we made and the direction we’re going in is you’d
have one individual overseeing both functions and that would be Mr. Patty. Mr. Sherman would
8
have the similar function under that in License and Inspection that he does today as we continue
to move forward with that. The issue that was brought forth a year or so ago and we talked about
this was lack of continuity in some of the areas there where License and Inspections in one part,
Planning and Zoning’s in the other. We looked at several models in other places that had those
two functions together. They work well together but we think that by taking them out from one
of the Planning Commission itself as employees they better serve the citizens by being together
in one location in this building as we move forward with that. And then have those people report
directly through George to the Commission as opposed to some of the issues where we have
different people reporting to different groups. It’s just part of our continuing effort to tidy up the
way things have been done.
Mr. Johnson: And code enforcement, how would they play into this?
Mr. Russell: Same thing. They would be under Mr. Patty so you’ve got one person to go
to for those three different operations there. But you’ve got one group of people that can utilize
the resources better as we move forward. In the past we’ve had planning inspectors and zoning
people and stuff. This gives us an opportunity to look at those functions, look at the people
we’ve got doing that, cross train them as necessary and integrate them into a common, a common
desire to provide planning and comprehensive planning and zonings to our community.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mason: I’d like to follow up, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, sir, to follow up. I’ve got two other questions. Mr. Administrator, I
thought when you showed us the reorganization and there was a loss of the job of Mr. Sherman
and that was included in some type of savings but then now he’s in Planning and Zoning and so
those dollars what, need to be put back in or how does that go?
Mr. Russell: The savings from that particular lost position would be made up in other
positions as we have, as we have consolidated some of the duties there basically. Obviously
we’ve got ‘x’ amount of things that need to be done. What we’re losing in this area is the
department head and at some point we’d be narrowing that down some. The savings are
department wide. That specific position I was convinced by Mr. Patty that we needed the
expertise that was available there to do that particular job.
Mr. Mason: But that was shown to us as a savings initially, wasn’t it? I mean am I, I’m
not that far off, am I?
Mr. Russell: No, no you ---
Mr. Mason: I thought I saw that somewhere.
9
Mr. Russell: --- you’re absolutely right. The initial plan was to capture those dollars as a
savings. We feel that as you look at the entire department you’ll find those savings department
wide and not as a specific position.
Mr. Mason: My final question is for Mr. Patty. I guess you become the overall
department head. Is that what your title is going to be now?
Mr. Patty: From what I understand, yes, sir.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, and so you would be what a SES what? One, two, three, four? No I
mean somebody’s got to know. I mean what are you going to?
Mr. Patty: I don’t know.
Mr. Mason: You don’t know. Does anybody know?
Mr. Russell: I don’t know the specific SES level but he would be one of the major
department heads, yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Well, there’s four different levels. It’s important to me to understand which
one is he going to be because that’s going to determine who he’s going to report to.
Mr. Russell: He’s going to report to me through the Commission, to the Commission
through me like the other department heads.
Mr. Mason: Well, so then he couldn’t be anything more than a two because three’s and
above report to this Commission according to your reorganization and the personnel policy that
was passed.
Mr. Russell: That would be accurate.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so he’s going to be a one or a two. Does that, is there an increase a
pay for Mr. Patty for assuming all these extra duties?
Mr. Russell: We’re in the process of talking about that as we speak.
Mr. Mason: So potentially.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
10
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for Mr. Russell. You said narrowing it
down. Does narrowing it down mean displacement of workers or a possible reduction in force?
And if so how much savings do we expect to receive for the taxpayer?
Mr. Russell: In this particular case as we’re combining both the federal and state
operation plus what we’ve got that narrowing down and that’s why we’ve anticipated a start up
time for a couple months as we’ve done that to change those grants over and stuff you’ll see
some savings. I anticipate most of them will be not through a reduction in force necessarily but
through a combination of duties and probably not filling vacancies as they occur in this particular
area.
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. Johnson, Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item, please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
26. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Georgia Code, Article One, Chapter Ten, relating
to the procurement of goods and services, the Local Small Business Opportunities Program
and the DBE Program for federally assisted projects 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 June 13, 2011)
Mr. Brigham: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We spoke about this at some length during the
Administrative Services Committee meeting. And first of all, Mr. Chairman, if I may I would
like to have the Administrator explain what this ordinance will do. And if I could after his
explanation I’d like to follow up with a question, several questions if I could.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve got ---
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, may I make a clarification?
11
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: This is the, the motion I made was to the as to the redline version that was
shared with the entire Commission last week. It is not as to the motion to the ordinance that was
written and presented in committee last Monday. Is that correct, Mr. MacKenzie?
Mr. MacKenzie: The booklet you have in front of you that shows the redline version is
the most updated version which includes the changes that were requested by Commissioner
Brigham at the committee level. And those are in your book, both the redline version as well as
a final version.
Mr. Brigham: That is the motion as to the ordinance we’re voting on.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Lockett, you’ve got a minute and 45
seconds left on the first recognition. So I’ll let Mr. Russell answer your questions.
Mr. Lockett: I have a big problem with this because my colleague Commissioner
Brigham is talking about a redline copy of this thing that General Counsel gave this to me at 4:48
p.m. today. Now when am I supposed to read this?
Mr. Mayor: I believe Mr. MacKenzie said that it’s in the packet. Is that correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s incorrect. The version in your packet is an older version. I
actually emailed this out last week as soon as we finished, I believe it was Wednesday to all the
Commissioners. And the only changes made are the changes from the version in the packet to
the version that you have. And the red line actually shows those changes. They’re not you know
large and voluminous changes. The red line actually shows what the changes are.
Mr. Mayor: But the red line was shared last Wednesday, correct?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to be argumentative but that is not true. He just
gave me a copy of this along I guess with, I don’t know if he gave any other Commissioners or
not at 4:48 p.m. today. I wrote it down because I have to do this because most of the documents
don’t have a date on them.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, well ---
Mr. Lockett: Now when was I supposed to read this?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Lockett ---
Mr. Lockett: Right now before a vote?
12
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
Mr. Lockett: I said you’re calling for the vote.
Mr. Mayor: I have not called for the vote.
Mr. Lockett: Well, you’re getting ready to.
Mr. Mayor: No, after you have your opportunity to address the issue and basically if
there’s, if an email was sent on Wednesday there’s an electronic record of that. But would you
like to restate the questions you have for Mr. Russell?
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Russell, will you please ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: --- explain to this body what this particular ordinance is designed to do.
Mr. Russell: Okay, for the past or approximately year or so there have been issues with
our procurement process that we’ve attempted to address in many different shapes and forms.
The final product of that work is what you have before you today and that simply updates our
proposal, our procurement process in accordance with state and federal regulations. It ensures
our compliance with these state and regulations. It improves the Local Small Business
Opportunities Program in accordance with recommendations the consulting firm that we hired.
And it gives us the opportunity to put forth a plan that the rules for not only for the issuing of the
awards put the appeals process is clearer, the certification, the DBE Program, the DOT,
Department of Transportation, FAA and other federally assisted contracts. And the separation of
the Local Business Opportunity Program in the separate chapter. What we’re attempting to do is
meet the direction of the Commission that we received to make the process easier to understand,
clearer to the people that are involved in the process, to make the ability to appeal easier to
understand and to give the Purchasing Department the opportunity to fix issues that are specific
to our current process. For an example, if somebody does not have a piece of paper notarized
and that’s an issue that we run into on more than one occasion where individuals have failed to
meet the entire process by the simple things of notification or notarization of a piece of paper
they’re thrown out. We have been roundly criticized by the Commission for being nitpicking in
that particular area. And unfortunately the rules say that you’ve got to do it all right. This gives
us the go ahead or the ability to look at the merits of the bid and not look at some of the details
that have been involved in throwing some of those things out which have gathered us additional
cost in some cases and/or law suits and/or much discussion by the Commission. We, this
attempts to fix those issues in a manner that we feel was fair to both the department heads who
have to work with it, the people who have to work with the process, the bidders and the people
that benefit from that process, the citizens there. And that’s simply what this attempts to do, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Russell, would that be any restructuring of the government involved?
Will any current employee be displaced because of this particular plan?
13
Mr. Russell: It’s not my intent to displace anybody based on this plan. This plan is to
bring the purchasing structure into compliance with federal laws and simplify that so that the
normal person can understand the process.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yeah, I would like the Commissioners to know that Wednesday at 5:05
that Andrew MacKenzie did send out an email to all the Commissioners involved.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Mr. Guilfoyle. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Russell, is this, this has been brought to us in a
number of different ways I think in the past six to eight months, maybe the past year and I think
it’s been brought as a charter change in a number of different ways. Is that correct? Isn’t this a
portion of that?
Mr. Russell: What we’ve done in the past is try to clean up the language which would
reflect changes in the Charter because the Charter simply states that there by one individual that
does both the DBE and the EEO process. That’s not the practice that we’ve undergone in the
past and we wanted to try to straighten that up. What we’ve done in this particular case is ignore
that and fix the purchasing aspect of it allowing for an individual as named in the Charter to be
both the director of DBE and Equal Opportunity. That position is currently not filled. We
currently have two people doing those functions separately and independently and it’s my
understanding and my feeling that based on this those two things will continue. At some point
we will have to address the Charter issue on whether or not that should be split between one or
two people. There was action taken by this Commission several years ago that recognized that
those duties are separate and distinct and need to be done by different people. And I firmly
support that then and I support that now. The problem is at that point apparently we did not
correct the Charter so we’ve got a conflict there. But this does not deal with that conflict. We
attempted to do that and found that to be not the will of the body. So what this does is simply fix
the purchasing issues.
Mr. Mason: And I guess that’s the point I was trying to make. I appreciate that answer.
Now the point I was trying to make initially came in a whole different manner several times and
that did not go forward. So now I guess after all of that and we decided to come this way to
achieve a means to an end. So you basically answered what I wanted you to answer. Yes, we
did try to come in a different way and now we’re coming this way and we’re going to try to do it
with an ordinance with six people. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Russell: Let me clarify that if I may, Mr. Mayor. What we attempted to do was
issue changes that do changes that would impact upon the Charter. That was obviously not the
will of the body so what we’ve done is made changes that would impact on the Charter and solve
14
the issue in the purchasing area. That would be the way I would say that. And obviously we
might disagree on how to express that. But that would be what I would say, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I may I would like to set the
record straight. Speaking of this manual I did not say that I didn’t get a copy. I did get an
electronic copy but I do believe the General Counsel said this was a red line copy. One that
th
we’ve been requesting since January the 13 so you don’t have to read every page and every line
to see where the changes are. And, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: The Augusta Regional Airport has a DBE. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: They have somebody that, it’s my understanding they have somebody that,
part of their duties involve the FAA DBE compliance. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Well, I received several contacts and include emails from the board out
there, the aviation board saying that they want to leave it the way it is. And I quote, they said,
“if it’s not broken don’t fix it”. End of quote. Why are we trying to fix it?
Mr. Russell: I think in some cases you might not know it’s broke and it actually is. They
way I understand it based on federal law those individuals that provide a DBE expertise have to
have a direct reporting relationship to the CEO of the operation. In the airport’s case that is still
the Mayor at this particular point in time. This to my knowledge does not touch any of that. I
mean that’s an argument for another day. But it’s you know I think that that’s something we’re
going to have to address at some point in time in the future too. But the only thing I’m trying to
get done today is to fix the purchasing issue. And that’s the whole purpose of this. We took a
broader scope to try to fix several things in one fell swoop and it failed miserably in trying to do
that. One way or the other we’ve eventually come to the conclusion that if we just pick off the
purchasing part of it that might have an opportunity to move forward. I think because of the
pressure of the court cases we need to go ahead and do that. The other is an argument that needs
to be had and you’re not going to hide from that argument at any point in time. But it’s not one
in my mind we need to have today and it’s not crucial to fixing the purchasing aspect.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Russell, this still does not put us in a situation where we’re in
compliance with the Charter where it indicates we will have a director of both the EEO
Office/Small Business. And currently I do believe we have two coordinators in those positions?
Mr. Russell: At this point we have two coordinators which you would probably hear me
recommend at some point as if we hire and develop and maybe create a group of commissioners
to come together to develop a job description for that one position that reports to the
Commission. I don’t, I think it’s unrealistic to think one person could have the expertise in both
15
of those areas to move forward. But I believe that if you want to follow the Charter’s as written
that becomes one person. And it would be my recommendation that a group of commissioners
as they did with my job and Lena’s job and those others that report directly to them develop a job
description and develop the expectations for that and then either decide if that’s a position they
want to hire or not. But the document says a person it doesn’t say a group of people.
Mr. Bowles: But ---
Mr. Russell: But that, if I can continue for just a second that doesn’t impact in my mind
on the question today. That’s another argument for the future and method to get out of that. In
my mind that position is currently vacant.
Mr. Bowles: And I’d just like to state for the record that the email from Mr. MacKenzie
th
on the 15 included the red line version as well as the clean copy.
Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Russell, let’s not say argument. Let’s say conversation. How
about that? Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners and all of the other folk involved, in
’03 the separation of the EEO and the DBE was done by the Commission body at that time by a
10-0 vote. Subsequently in the following years the DBE person was hired and later on an EEO
person was hired and they tried to assign one administrative person between the two and that
wouldn’t include the work because of the sensitivity of the work or the EEO Office. So it was
later designed and desired that they have an administrative person each. And that was done and
that was in place until I don’t know where it went but it was done. At the end of the day if
you’re talking about combining those two into one person that really doesn’t make sense when
it’s already separated by a 10-0 vote back in 2003. And it was initiated and the offices were
established and an individual was hired as a DBE person and another as an EEO person. They
started initially with one administrative person then they decided that wasn’t a good idea and
they got one each. So that’s where I was under the impression that’s where we are today and I
don’t see what the real discussion is about that. It was separated because of the fact that there are
some sensitive stuff that the EEO person has to work with that that particular person could not be
in the same, could not be the same person as the DBE because of the sensitivity of the fact that
that EEO person has, may one day have to investigate the DBE person or the DBE office and
you can’t investigate yourself.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, my final point to this discussion, Mr. Mayor, is, Mr. Administrator, on
the reorganization and the personnel policy that was passed by six of the Commissioners up here
under the personnel policy it references and EEO Director and it talks about DBE. And it does
not talk about them synonymously. So is that two separate positions in your mind?
Mr. Russell: You’ve got the practice which is two separate positions which I support.
You’ve got the language in the document of the Charter that combines the two. And I agree with
Dr. Hatney fully in the fact that those are two separate distinct people, they have two separate
16
distinct duties, they have two separate distinct sets of responsibilities and support staff. And I
recommended that and supported that and we did it several years ago and support it today as
strongly as I did then. The only conflict I see is in the Charter that says that should be one
person which is not the practice. They personnel manual in my direction went with the practice
of having two separate people in that position. And I support that.
Mr. Mason: And the reorganization policy as well just for the record ---
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Mason: --- where you showed us the hierarchy and the different folks that or the
different positions. I do believe they were split.
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Mason: Okay. And that was passed by the Commissioners up here, correct?
Mr. Russell: Yes.
Mr. Mason: Six of them anyway. Yes, okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion we have a motion and a second.
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, let me ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: --- say for the record why I am abstaining. I don’t understand exactly what
we’re supposed to do and I’m not going to vote on nothing I don’t know exactly what I’m
supposed to do. I can’t do that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk: Item 28 is to deny a bid protest of Johnson Laschober and Associates in
reference to RFQ 10-173 ---
Mr. Mayor: We missed number twenty-seven.
The Clerk: Oh, okay.
The Clerk:
17
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
27. Discuss a vote of no confidence in the General Counsel of the Augusta Law Department.
(Requested by Commissioner Bill Lockett)
Mr. Mayor: And before anything is said on this with all due respect, Commissioner
Lockett, this is a personnel issue. So if it is to be discussed it would be the Chair’s
recommendation in ruling that it be discussed in Legal session.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, if you feel that way, fine.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, but we would need a motion to go into Legal to discuss it.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
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. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, you keep fooling with my machine, I can’t vote over here.
Mr. Mayor: I promise it’s not me.
Mr. Jackson votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay and just to clarify that was to go into Legal to discuss personnel issue,
executive session, correct? We are in executive session.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie?
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion, a motion to execute a Closed Meeting
Affidavit.
Mr. Lockett: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
18
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.
Motion carries 10-0.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
27. Discuss a vote of no confidence in the General Counsel of the Augusta Law Department.
(Requested by Commissioner Bill Lockett)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, did you want to make a motion on this agenda item?
Mr. Lockett: I move that the agenda item be received as information.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, if we could go on to the next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
28. Motion to deny bid protest of Johnson Laschober and Associates in reference to RFQ
10-173 Professional Design Services for Municipal Building. (No recommendation from
Administrative Services Committee June 13, 2011)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We let a RFQ for Professional Design Services for the
Municipal Building. There were several people that applied for that. The committee reviewed
those. During that committee review Johnson Laschober basically in part of the discussion said
that they, the number that we had was to bid on a different plan than what we actually asked for
in the RFQ. They made some recommendations that were not what we requested but ideas on
how to do the building that were, they thought would be more appropriate. Based on that and the
review by Purchasing that was then struck in as a, stricken as an improper bid at that particular
point in time based on the fact that it was their view and my review that we were at point bidding
apples to oranges as opposed to apples to apples. Mr. Johnson has appealed that through that
process. It came to the Purchasing Department it denied his appeal. I reviewed that and agreed
with the Purchasing Department that their rejection of his bid was appropriate. After receiving
that letter he requested it be put on the agenda and it went to Administrative Services. It’s my
position that that would be appropriate to deny the bid protest. After the conversations I still feel
that we made the right decision in denying his appeal in the fact that he had bid on a different
product than what we asked for. We went with the second lowest bid at that particular point in
19
time, another firm’s that’s here. It’s now the duty of the Commission to review that and come
back with a decision on whether or not my decision was appropriate or not. The options you
have are fairly simple. You can uphold the protest and/or rebid the project or deny the protest
and go to the second bidder that I had recommended. Because of the court hearing that’s
ongoing we cannot issue any contracts at this particular point in time on this particular building
so you know we would not make a decision on issuing a contract at this point in time. The only
decision that would be made would be appropriate to either deny the bid or uphold, to either
uphold the denial, deny the denial or rebid the project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Fred, as far as the procedure of the RFQ you had a list of bidders. Then
you ended up with a short list after being interviewed. But then after the short list you only
opened, Procurement only opened up two of the four envelopes and which being at that point one
was considerably lower. Not knowing if it’s considerably lower than the other two that was not
opened that’s when the interview into play. With that interview being in play he followed up and
clarified that he’s willing to do the same job as well as the other architects for the same money.
Now I keep hearing this word change order. Change orders are derived from three different
distinct things. One is unforeseen, two is a failure on the architects in the drawings and on the
spec books and three is the owners changing things. Is that clear, true?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Well, wrong word but anyway I feel that Joe has followed the
Procurement way, got the lowest price and then he’s being questioned on the words he’s using
but he clarified it in a letter. But we’re not looking at the words that was written on paper.
Mr. Russell: If I may it’s my concern that that clarification took after the fact that we
already denied the bid at that particular point in time. You know I don’t think there’s any
question about his qualifications or his ability to do the job. The issue I have is the process that
we use. We looked at what he did and felt it to be a bid against not on what we asked for and
that’s why we made the decision. There’s no indication that he can’t do the job or not doing a
quality job in those particular areas at all. My only concern is that we bid A, B, C and we
requested and RFQ on A, B, C and D. He came back with one on something different than that
based on what his recommendations would be for the building. We kicked it out because it
wasn’t specifically what we asked for and then he came back and said I can do what you asked
for at the same price.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right.
Mr. Russell: And that’s the question I’ve got. It’s more process than anything else at the
moment you know and my recommendation would still be that we deny his protest and move
forward with the other bid as appropriate. But once again, it’s the will of the Commission.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right, the $420,000 question. If he’s still willing to as he stated in his
letter to do A, B, C and D, is it justifiable that he gets the job?
20
Mr. Russell: In my mind no, sir, because that would not be fair to the other people in the
fact that they actually bid what we asked for and they, if they had bid on what he initially bid on
their bid might have been separate too. So I think once again you’ve created an unfair situation
for those people who follow the rules. And that’s not what we’re after either. You know the
simplest thing given the time that we have available to us is just to rebid the whole project and
move forward with that. But I fear that if you change the rules at this particular point in time
you’re creating a situation where those individuals that bid on the what we asked for, gave us a
price based on that are going to come back with a similar action that says well I did it right and
you know and you know I can do the same thing that he did and charge you ten dollars less. So I
think you’re in a process issue here as opposed to a number issue. And if you’re not happy with
the recommendations to deny the bid the most appropriate thing would be to rebid the entire
project sir.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett then Hatney then Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is for Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell, did Mr.
Johnson indicate that you admitted, he admitted there were certain remodel requests that were
included in the RFQ that could not be done without additional costs? Was that one of the
comments that were in there?
Mr. Russell: It’s my understanding that it would question on whether or not he could do
what we asked based on the costs that he’d give us the word was maybe that he used.
Mr. Lockett: So this cost savings that’s been rampant in the neighborhood may or may
not be true. Is that correct?
Mr. Russell: I can’t speak to that, sir. My only issue is the fact that he did not do what
we asked and we threw out the bid based on that. And my ---
Mr. Lockett: I’m sorry. Excuse me.
Mr. Russell: --- and that’s my only issue, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, my last question, Mr. Russell, is this. If for some unforgiven reason
we decided not to honor the contract with the company that we’ve notified has it, is there a
possibility for litigation?
Mr. Russell: There’s always a possibility for litigation, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Is there a great possibility?
Mr. Russell: I can’t read minds, sir, but I would suggest that we violated what we would
normally be our practice and that we’ve allowed somebody that did not bid in my mind
appropriately and I would not want to be in that situation, sir.
21
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: And I know, Mr. MacKenzie, did you have your hand up?
Mr. MacKenzie: I was just going to say, well, the recommendation that was made was
from the department and of course the protest was filed. We have done a good bit of
Procurement litigation. One of the ways to avoid litigation would be to rebid the project. There
is also some other defenses available in the event we chose to either accept the protest or go with
the other bidder. So because it hasn’t been awarded to anybody we do have some options.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney then Commissioner Brigham then Commissioner
Smith.
Mr. Hatney: Mr., thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. General Counsel.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Question. In view of the fact this thing is in the courts and has not been
settled is it appropriate for us to be talking about this?
Mr. MacKenzie: The court order in enjoining the government from awarding a contract
would not prohibit us from resolving the protest which is the only item you have before you
today. But you are correct in that it would be inappropriate at this time and my recommendation
for the Commission to awarding anything. You can go ahead and resolve the protest but it would
be inappropriate to award the contract to anybody at this time.
Mr. Hatney: I move to deny.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a substitute motion that we rebid the contract.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Smith, did you want to speak?
Mr. Smith: I just want to say on this particular project in one way you hate that this
happened but then we’re lucky we’ve got two well qualified firms locally that are involved in
this project. And there were some questions about some things on the drawing and they it was
bid and all that. And since it is and some of its verbal and some of it’s on the written part but the
main thing I would say is for the fair of everybody and then also the two bids that weren’t
opened is throw it back open for bid. And before we do submit to the bidders of what they feel
would be the correct way to proceed with the project. And for the betterment of the taxpayers
money wise and for this building. These boys are the experts. Let them tell us what they
22
propose in conjunction with what we’ve got. And the also the architect we have on the project
needs to be brought in and find out why he maybe put out some drawings that might not meet the
codes and standards of what we need to have. Maybe there was some miscommunication and
then they would put out a bid because of this. So but right now for the fairness I guess I would
be, put it back out for bid with the information from the bidders of what they see was wrong with
what they turn in for the first bids.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would strongly caution this group of
Commissioners to remember that there is a procedural or procurement process that we have in
place. You may not like it but at the end of the day it gets a little difficult when we begin to pick
and choose which ones we rebid and which ones we don’t. Out of fairness, now I don’t like this
situation let me say this. And I’m in contract I think I’m the only one up here who does
contracting on a daily basis in procurement at Fort Gordon. It’s, we have a federal acquisition
regulation which guides us in terms of how we procure services and supplies. I’m wondering
what do we have in house that governs our procurement process as it relates to this government.
Do you have an answer to that, Mr. Administrator?
Mr. Russell: We’ve got, we’ve got the fairly lengthy document that we just adjusted
there basically. And my concern goes along with what you said is that we develop what we
wanted, we asked people to bid on that. I mean I’m not accustomed to asking people what they
think is good for us even though that might be a good approach to take. But you know what we
did is develop a list of what we as a staff put together with the help of our consultant Heery on
the space needs that we have. And that’s what we asked to be bid. The fact that it was bid
differently is what got Mr. Johnson’s bid thrown out. You know I think we, we followed the
process that we have and did that well. I mean that’s where we’re at.
Mr. Mason: If we followed the process, Mr. Mayor, and did what we were supposed to
do on our end I think would disingenuous on our part to do anything different than what we’ve
already done. And I think that sends a message that we’ve got issues within our own
government. I guess that message is probably already out there but the bottom line is that I think
that that sends the wrong message. Now this RFQ came before this Commission and it was
passed, correct?
Mr. Russell: Not the specific specs no, you told us to, we put together a word product
based on your general feeling that we would move the court rooms, move this building down to
the court room. The assessment that we put was to move as many people from outside space into
this. You don’t normally approve the RFQ’s. You normally come back to where we’re at. We
did the RFQ based on staff recommendations and your approvals of several major issues, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, well, that’s my point there, Mr. Mayor. We have an established
policy. There’s been many a times where folks have said you know rebid it and going back out
to rebid goes against our own policy. And I would say right, wrong or indifferent stand up for
what we have in place because that’s what’s there. Stand on it right, wrong or indifferent and
hold that line at that point.
23
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Mason. Commissioner Jackson then
Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Jackson: Fred answered my question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Fred, I can’t count the number of times we’ve had
department heads make the decision arbitrarily with no justification to rebid a project and this
Commission has gone along. Is that correct, i.e. the ESG bid for Public Utilities? When we had
CH2MHill as qualified bidder and we decided to bid it back out because we didn’t like that
company.
Mr. Russell: It would be hard to say we didn’t like that company. I think there might
have been staff recommendations ---
Mr. Bowles: You would be hard to say but I’m going to say what it was so.
Mr. Russell: There would be staff recommendations that they might not have met our
needs.
Mr. Mason: Well, Mr. Bowles is speaking for himself.
Mr. Bowles: Also being in federal contracting myself I can’t tell you the number of
times when you send in a bid and if there are two bids that are that far apart in dollar volume
they will rebid the project and tweak the language to make sure they’re getting their best bang
for the buck. And I think that’s what we should do for the taxpayers of Augusta today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Bowles. Yes, sir, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: My only concern with Mr. Bowles’ comment was the fact that in my
opinion they bid on different projects. They bid on what Mr. Johnson thought was appropriate
versus what we asked for. And therefore the difference in the numbers is explainable in my
mind sir not just that much of a difference.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor that’s properly
seconded. Madam Clerk, could you read that back for the point of clarity?
The Clerk: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to rebid the project.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Commissioner Hatney, excuse me.
24
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to go back to my statement I made earlier. This
being in the courts, are we doing something that’s proper? That’s my question. I really don’t
think we need to be going over all this stuff ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. Hatney: --- while it’s still in court.
Mr. MacKenzie: It’s permissible pursuant to the order that was issued.
Mr. Hatney: It’s permissible maybe but how long are we going to kick our own rules in
the teeth? How long are we going to do that? Employees have to work with what they have.
That’s what they have and folk don’t like what they have then they change it. But you don’t kick
the mule in the head who’s been working all day following your get up. It don’t make sense.
Mr. Mayor: All righty, if everybody could please vote. This is to rebid.
Mr. Hatney: You’re the first one to go to jail, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Come on now. I’m weighing what I’ve heard from this Commission and I,
you know, I’ll tell you I’m going to vote no because I do agree that we have a process in place.
And I think that’s what we’ve been trying to do with changing some of our processes is tighten
them up. And so I’m going to vote no on the substitute motion.
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion fails 5-5.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I understand there were four bids submitted. Why weren’t two of them
opened?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know the number that was submitted because I try to stay out of the
process.
Mr. Smith: I’m just asking because if I had taken time to bid a project and my bid wasn’t
even opened I would ask, and I’m just asking why wasn’t the other. And that’s my thing ---
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. Smith: --- it’s our procedure but opening ---
Mr. Mayor: --- that would be something to take up on ---
25
Mr. Smith: --- the envelope.
Mr. Mayor: --- with the Attorney or with the Administrator. Okay, Madam Clerk, we
have a primary motion.
The Clerk: To deny the bid protest.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
Mr. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item, please.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
29. Motion to amend the action taken by the Commission on February 1, 2011 relative to
the Personnel, Policy and Procedure Handbook by deleting the word “exclusive”.
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Joe Bowles and Commissioner Wayne Guilfoyle)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Months ago when we actually having discussions
on certain part of the Personnel Manual to tweak and take out this the exclusive recommending
power for the Administrator came up, Mr. Guilfoyle and I had spent a lot of time discussing that
think we’ve revisited it and we think it’s time that we take
with other Commissioners. And I
the work exclusive out of his recommending powers.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Bowles: I don’t know that I have six votes but I will.
Mr. Hatney: What does that mean? Serious, I just asked a question. Deleting exclusive
what is that going to accomplish?
Mr. Russell: If I may Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: What the policy says at the moment is that after recruitment I would have
the exclusive right to nominate an individual for positions of department heads. What this will
do would not change my right to nominate people, we’d still go through that process as we
always had but if there is somebody else on the Commission that wanted to nominate somebody
26
else they would have that option. I would no longer have the exclusive option to make a
recommendation. It would be, you would get my recommendation as we normally have but if
somebody on the floor, one of the Commissioners wanted to bring forth another potential
candidate that would be appropriate at that point in time where as the way it’s written now unless
I nominated somebody they wouldn’t get on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles put that in the form of a motion. Do we have a
second?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In light of this particular item I didn’t support it
before and I didn’t support it because of that reason. I think that it was obvious that we didn’t
want that to be something exclusive that the Administrator and not you in particular, Fred, but
anybody in that position would have that right to do just that.
Mr. Russell: You just don’t like me, you and Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Johnson: No, it’s not that trust me. But I don’t think anybody in that position should
have the exclusive right to do that. So I just wanted to put that out for clarification to make sure
that people know what I do vote and that’s why.
Mr. Russell: I understand and you know I have no problem either way. That’s a policy
decision that you make. You’ll still the process gives me the opportunity to make a
recommendation. And if it’s other people on the Commission that would, I mean I have no
problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to applaud my colleagues for seeing fit
to put this on the agenda. Since January I’ve continuously complained about things that were in
that Personnel Policy and Procedures Manual that was not legitimate, that was illegal. Now this
is one of the things that I complained about. But this is only one of many. Now if you really
want to do something great we can also take out from the Personnel Board that the Administrator
has the final decision if the Administrator rules one way and as I as a Commissioner even though
the Administrator works for us we cannot tell him go back Mr. Administrator, you made a
mistake. We have to go to the Superior Court. And if you look at the organizational chart I do
believe that as a Commissioner I work for the people and the Administrator works for me. So
that is one of many things. And the two work sessions I had we covered a litany of things that
should be corrected. I think you are taking the correct path but we’re just not carrying enough
right now. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Mason.
27
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I can’t help but mention some of what Bill has
already stated that Bill and I certainly in particular spoke up here for the last five or six months
almost to the point of making us sick about the fact that that word exclusive was a word that we
practically begged folks not to place in. Because we knew the issues that that would cause and
it’s actually contributed to causing a division on this Commission. But at every turn we were
turned back certainly you know the media won’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
They vilified us and we were obstructionists and we were denigrated and we called everything
but a child of God. And now four months later, five months later it appears that someone sees fit
to go back and state what we have been stating from the very beginning. And we’ve now had
five months of discord and dissention. What makes it right today if it wasn’t right when we said
it? I don’t get that. No, I’m very serious, it’s not a laughing matter. It’s tough being up here.
We’ve developed relationships that have gone sour and for the word exclusive which we begged
time and again let’s not do that. We weren’t against it we simply said let’s do it right and let’s
do it fair and let’s do it legal and we got beat down. We got beat down but today it makes it right
because we didn’t bring it. I don’t have anything else to say, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, who else had their hand up? Okay, we have a motion and a second.
The Clerk: Who seconded it?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle, I believe. Motion and a second. If there’s no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Golly, this is my
day. I will vote in favor of this. I vote in the affirmative. Hey, Jeff, can you get me up on there
so I can. You know y’all get to use these things. I only get to use them at home on my TV. Oh,
it doesn’t even say my name. Keypad at number eleven.
The Clerk: That is Deke Copenhaver.
Mr. Mayor: Keypad number eleven, all right. Sylvia, I’m not the boy king anymore, I’m
keypad number eleven.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Brigham vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on agenda item No. 28 ---
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: --- do we have ---
The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Smith?
28
Mr. Smith: Yes, I’m sorry I meant to vote to allow Mr. Johnson to protest.
The Clerk: You’re asking for a reconsideration of item No. 28.
Mr. Smith: Reconsideration right.
Mr. Mayor: You’re making a motion for reconsideration of agenda item No. 28.
Mr. Smith: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that?
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Hatney: That reconsideration that takes a unanimous vote.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Rule 30701 addresses that and it says a majority vote for
reconsideration.
Mr. Hatney: Where are you getting this information from?
Mr. Mayor: Our policies and procedures manual.
Mr. MacKenzie: Rule 30701. A majority vote of the Commission Counsel required.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham. Yes, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Does it have to have unanimous consent for us to allow the vote?
Mr. Mayor: No, just ---
Mr. Hatney: I think it’s unanimous consent. That’s what y’all told me a couple of times.
You wouldn’t let me do it. Well, I’m just telling it like it is. Now anytime I wanted something
reconsidered they got have unanimous consent.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to read the rule into the record ---
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to read the rule into the record if that’s ---
29
Mr. Hatney: Read it for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, please.
Mr. MacKenzie: This is rule 30701 Reconsider. The motion to reconsider allows the
Commission Counsel to debate whether or not to overturn a decision made at the meeting that is
in progress. It allows the Commission Counsel to consider new information that may affect the
decision that’s already been made. Any Commissioner can make a motion to reconsider and any
Commissioner may second the motion. The motion is debatable but it cannot be amended. A
majority vote of the Commission Counsel is required for the motion to pass. If the motion to
reconsider is passed the original decision will be voided and the Commission Counsel will return
to debate and revote the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second to reconsider agenda item number ---
The Clerk: Twenty-eight.
Mr. Mayor: --- twenty-eight.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, is that motion to deny? Is that what we’re on?
The Clerk: No, sir, we’re on reconsider ---
Mr. Mayor: It is we’re voting on whether to reconsider the motion to deny, agenda item
No. 28. Commissioner Hatney?
Mr. Hatney: Let me make this observation and I’m serious about this. I really do think
we need to play fair. We’re not doing that because more than once I’ve asked for a
reconsideration of an item and I’ve been told that it takes unanimous consent to do that. Now all
of a sudden it only takes a majority. You really get sick of this you know. In reality wise and
another thing I’m going to say and I hope I don’t hurt nobody’s feelings but do I already
apologize I think we should quit battling for our buddies. There’s too much going on.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: The Commission don’t know whether to call him by his first name. Come
on now.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney, okay, thank you. We have a motion properly
seconded.
30
Mr. Aitken, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Jackson vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, and thank you and on to our final agenda item, number
thirty-one.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
31. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator with developing a financial package
relative to the proposed Ripken Multi-purpose Stadium. (Requested by Commissioner Joe
Jackson)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson
Mr. Jackson: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to put in there as the
Administrator or his designee to put together a package at no expense to the taxpayers.
And I put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion.
Mr. Aitken: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a second. Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to state for the record as well I didn’t
have a problem with them looking at a package. I did make clear that I did not support it going
downtown. I’ve had several constituents call me not just in my district but other districts saying
they don’t support it going downtown. However, I wasn’t opposed to looking at other
alternatives but here according to this particular item it says a financial package. I can’t support
that and I think it should be if anything maybe giving them an opportunity to present a proposal
of maybe sites or locations that they’d be willing to look at and maybe bring it back to us you
know to see what we think about it and then a decision can be made. But I cannot support
developing a financial package. I know right now we have a lot of issues going on especially
financially and this is just another added to the administrative duties to try to find something
that’s feasible. So I can’t support it and just want to state that for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I just want to make the point though that you know that property
downtown is sitting empty and growing weeds. And to take a look at this costs the city
absolutely nothing. It is a quality organization that has won a championship here in Augusta. So
I would urge that to step forward with something that’s going to cost us nothing would not be a
bad move for the city. Commissioner Lockett.
31
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have never seen anything really that wasn’t
cost incurred. I know my colleague mentioned the fact that there’s a possibility that such a
stadium could be located in Regency Mall and that’s my district. And I know it’s not going to
happen. As I indicated last week the Ripken Foundation is a great foundation and what they’re
concerned about is making baseball available for inner city kids. Now I know that we’re looking
at COSTCO. Now we just privatized the bus system. Those inner city kids would have no way
at all to get out there and enjoy. We talk about we have a $9 million dollar deficit. We don’t
know how we’re going to settle that. There’s no way that this is going to be something that’s not
going to be a cost to the taxpayer. If it wasn’t going to be a cost to the taxpayer the Ripken
people could go out and buy the property and build without consternations from us. All they
need to do is go to Zoning and make sure it zoned property. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Can I put, can I amend the motion or amend the wording that it’s not a
financial package for the city. It’s to go out with Fred or his designee to go explore the option of
where ever the heck they want to put it as we don’t own the property downtown. And that’s up
to them. And I’m not totally sold on bonding government money for a stadium. But give them a
chance, give them an opportunity. Same thing we did with COSTCO.
Mr. Mayor: To develop some kind of a deal or transaction to bring back to us to take a
look at.
Mr. Jackson: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: And not be site specific you know look at all available sites. Correct?
Mr. Jackson: Correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, can he repeat that motion?
Mr. Mason: Yeah, what is the motion?
Mr. Jackson: Lena?
The Clerk: Motion to approve tasking the Administrator or his designee with developing
a transaction plan, not site specific for the proposed Ripken Multi-purpose Stadium. How about
that?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now ---
Mr. Mason: Hello, hello?
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Commissioner Mason.
32
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I said it before and I’ll say it again. Mr.
Russell’s extremely busy. If he’s not he should be because there’s a lot going on. At this point
we’ve had several, we’ve had this has been put out in a number of ways. We’ve had a vote on it
before. I guess people have forgotten that we’re still $9 million dollars in the hole so I’m not
sure why we’re going to anybody trying to give up any money of ours if anything. If there’s a
proposal to be had it should be bringing it to us. Let us look at it and we’ll see what we can do.
I don’t see why we’re running to find somebody else to give money to or give land to. That just
doesn’t make sense to me. In addition to that this is a need, I mean a want. It’s definitely not a
need. I want to deal with the needs of this city. I don’t want to deal with the wants because we
haven’t got there yet. We’ve got to deal with the needs, police protection, good schools I mean
you name it, jobs we’re laying people off left and right, we’re furloughing people. We’re
kicking people out to the private industry and all that and now we’re talking about going out to
see if we can give up some more money or give up some more land. I don’t get that. So for me
to make an offer of a financial gift of any kind to Ripken Baseball, I love Cal Ripken is absurd in
my mind and obscene. I think the taxpayers deserve better than that and I think we have kind of
beat this horse to death and quite frankly I’m kind of sick and tired of having it shoved down our
throats every time it comes around. So certainly I cannot support this today or any day. But I
would love to see him bring one down if he’s going to spend his own money. I don’t have a
problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: I’d just like to say Mr. Ripken’s a businessman, great baseball player. You
know let him bring what he’s got to the table here to us. And we’ve got people that can sit down
and talk it over and let’s see what he proposes. You know listen to him talk and it doesn’t cost
us anything. But there again I’m not, I’m in the same boat Mr. Mason is. We’re $9 million in
the hole. You know let’s make sure we spend the money wisely for the taxpayers and then get
caught up and get back in the black on the ledger sheet. Then we can get all the little other
things we want. But you know as a businessman let Mr. Ripken come down with his group and
throw his proposal on the table and all we got to do is get with him yeah and nay.
Mr. Mayor: You know ---
Mr. Smith: That’s what I’d do is respect Mr. Ripken as being a good decent
businessman. And got a good product over there at the Olmstead Lake everybody ought to go
the games.
Mr. Mayor: You know I’ll say nobody was coming up when we approved COSTCO to
come in and we used tax allocation district financing to help them. And I believe it was maybe a
8-1 vote because they’re bringing 175 jobs in and they’re going to have a major economic impact
on the local economy. Nobody was saying that at that point. Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Mason: Actually I was, Mr. Mayor. I was the one no vote.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
33
Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, actually as far as people in my district when I was campaigning
they wasn’t for it and they’re still not for it. I do realize that we’ve got to see numbers see what
the skin that the Ripken Group is going to put into the game and I do like how Mr. Mason had
proposed that we, there’s got to be a solution on how we could put it on the people on a ballot so
they can vote on it. Because that’s, it’s the people’s choice. We’re just representing the people.
Mr. Mayor: Well, and as you look at different financing options, public finance if you do
the bond issue the people would have to vote on it. Tax Allocation District Financing, which we
did for COSTO is a different animal in and of itself. The monies that we’ve raised to invest in
Laney Walker/Bethlehem, which is $37.5 million dollars which would have built a facility. You
know the voters didn’t approve that that we did create a financing to come up with the plan to
increase the bed fee for rooms. So it’s not all, there’s not all one avenue towards public
financing. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you with what we did with
COSTCO. But if you look at COSTCO’s throughout the nation financially they’re doing well.
But if you look at baseball stadiums realizing that this is more than a baseball stadium but
they’re losing money. And I’m not willing to gamble with the taxpayers’ money that we may
have a successful product. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, thank you so much and I didn’t say this but I’m going to say it.
It’s unfortunate that you referenced Laney Walker/Bethlehem area because that was a sell off for
the TEE Center. And I don’t think we ought to bring that up.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason: What’s the?
The Clerk: To approve tasking the Administrator or his designee.
Mr. Smith: I’ve got a problem with the way that’s said. I think I know the motion is
allowed. I’m thinking the motion says to allow Mr. Russell and maybe some of his staff to meet
with ---
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Smith: We’re not putting together anything from our side. We’re saying what he’s
bringing.
Mr. Mayor: We’re tasking them to get together so we can actually see what the
investment on their part would be as well.
34
Mr. Hatney: That’s not the motion though.
Mr. Mason: No, no, no, no.
The Clerk: No, that’s not what’s up there.
Mr. Mason: Well, let’s hear what is up there ---
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mason: --- because that sounded a little than what the Mayor said.
The Clerk: Okay. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator or his designee with
developing a transaction plan not site specific relative to the proposed Ripken Multi-purpose
Stadium.
Mr. Smith: Well, that’s my question. Why are we voting on a transaction (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: But it’s working with them so that they can say what they would invest in
the deal.
Mr. Smith: Well, what I was thinking is what the end (inaudible).
Mr. Hatney: Let them bring if forth.
Mr. Smith: I’m like winging it as I go. (inaudible) What I’m saying is we say let’s let
Mr. Ripken come to town, bring his package and then we are able to discuss (inaudible). How
can we counteract when we don’t know (inaudible) what we’re going to be doing?
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Smith: You got to, that’s what I’m saying.
Mr. Bowles: For the record I want to remind Commissioner Smith that a lot of, all of
Commissioner Guilfoyle’s district is also in his district. It could be the same people.
Mr. Mayor: But, Commissioner Smith, I understand ---
Mr. Smith: All of them want to put it out there by the airport. I mean you know but ---
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. Smith: --- I’m just saying I have a problem with the way that’s worded.
Mr. Mayor: But that’s not ---
35
The Clerk: It’s not the wording ---
Mr. Mayor: --- the motion. The motion, if you read it back again, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay. This is the motion. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator or
his designee with developing a transaction plan not site specific relative to the proposed Ripken
Multi-Purpose Stadium.
Mr. Smith: Well, that’s what I’m saying. I want Mr. Ripken to come ---
The Clerk: Well, this is not ---
Mr. Mayor: We’re tasking Fred to go to him to get him to sit down and talk about this.
Mr. Smith: Talk, I’ll vote for that, okay.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett vote No.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, one question, please?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: One question. Help me to understand how we’re going to task the
Administrator to do something that ain’t going to cost no money and we’re paying him.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Hatney, the vote has been taken. The item has been
properly disposed of.
Mr. Hatney: I understand that. How are you going to do that?
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: If I could get a point of clarification or a point of privilege. I’m not sure
which motion it is to make. But Mr. Guilfoyle brought up the fact of the, of the motion that was
made a couple of weeks ago in reference to the baseball stadium. And just for clarity sake if you
would if you would allow me and I know the, our Attorney has gotten beat up somewhat in
reference to this. And I just want to clear it up for the record the Attorney did not make, I didn’t
make an illegal motion the Attorney did not buy off on an illegal motion. The fact of the matter
is and again facts somehow get in the way of a good story. The fact of the matter is that Mr.
Brigham questioned whether the motion I made was legal and then you asked Legal to was it a
legal motion. And he clearly said that there would be some verbiage that could be carved out in
terms of the language. And you ruled, then he ruled that we could make that motion. And the
36
motion was to approve placing this project on the ballot in November of 2012 with the details to
be provided as to the content or the questions to be voted on. That is not a straw question that we
voted. So I just wanted to clear that up, Mr. Attorney. I know we kind of beat him up
sometimes but he certainly, this was to get the detail and the language to get it done not that it
could not be done. But we would have to carve out the language that could place it on there.
And we haven’t done that yet.
Mr. Mayor: Exactly and that’s ---
Mr. Mason: Oh, yes, it can go on.
Mr. Mayor: --- and that’s that there would need to be specifics. There would be
something that the voters would need which is the main thing we’re just trying to accomplish
here is you know it may not be feasible but we can’t know until we take a look at it.
Mr. Mason: And I understand that. My only point was to insure that folks know it’s not
a dead issue about it going on the ballot because it wasn’t illegal as you said my motion was
illegal. It was not it was very much legal and it was questioned and he verified that and that we
put the language in there that wouldn’t make it legal so that we could get the details to put in that
motion that would make it legal to go on. If some details come out of this particular case that
could be something that would go on and there could be some language that would be in there
that it would go on. So it was not an illegal motion. That’s all I wanted to make sure. Our city
Attorney was absolutely correct in the advice that he gave and I did not make an illegal motion.
We cleared that up prior to you adjourning.
Mr. Mayor: I’m going to call the meeting adjourned on that note. When you say the
Attorney was ---
Mr. Mason: Absolutely.
Mr. Mayor: --- completely correct. And that’s a high note. We stand adjourned.
Mr. Lockett: All I wanted to do is tell Fred Russell that I do like him because I know
he’s been feeling bad.
Mr. Mayor: See you can say that now. But let me just, I want to complement every
Commissioner here. We got through the business and we did it ---
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
37
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 Commission held on June 21, 2011.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
38