Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting May 22, 2012 CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER MAY 22, 2012 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., May 22, 2012, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Guilfoyle, Mason, Smith, Hatney, Aitken, Jackson, Bowles and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Lockett and Johnson, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United State of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, don’t we have two agenda items? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll go with the first. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 1. Discuss Surplus Properties. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell, take it away. Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. What we’d like to do today is accomplish several things as the day’s over with. And I’ve asked for a Special Called Meeting so we could actually vote and move forward with some of these approvals here. What we’re going to do is talk to you a little bit about the tasks that we were given and that was to liquidate surplus properties. We’ve looked at those for the past several months and a little bit longer than that actually and have looked at several different categories of properties that we might have some of which are small remnants that we think would be appropriate for one form of sale. Others of which are larger pieces that would think would have some intrinsic value to improve our development or to improve the opportunities here in the city. What we would like to focus on today are those that we feel that have some value above and beyond to maybe just a neighbor or something. We’ll talk about those at a later date. We were tasked to do this to raise money for the general fund. As you know we budgeted last year with a $2 million dollar influx on sold property. This year we’re looking at a million dollars that we needed. We’ll be able to share with you a little bit later the impact of not doing this last year on the budget but what we’d like to do today is talk to you about the impact we would have this year on the budget as far as the sale of the property. In addition to that we’d like to talk about the prospect about exactly what we propose to do and make sure you approve that and make sure we (inaudible) move that (inaudible). We’ve done the RFP for the broker (inaudible) start working. In addition to that we want you to approve the property list that we’ll talk about a little bit later (inaudible) beyond that 1 property list. What I’d like to do, William Brown and Jane Ellis, one of our brokers, talked about the process (inaudible) at this particular point in time and then we’ll come back (inaudible) in reference to the meeting (inaudible) be a public list that we vote on at that particular point in time. So that’s sort of that’s the direction (inaudible) with the time limits that we have unless (inaudible). Mr. Hatney: (inaudible). Mr. Russell: Yeah, we’ve got to (inaudible) down to forty two minutes actually. Mr. Hatney: (inaudible) what you’re talking about. Mr. Russell: Yeah, that’s my target (inaudible). Mr. Hatney: Okay. Mr. Mayor: (Inaudible) Mr. Russell: It might be advantageous to roll up (inaudible). That’s what I’m shooting for, sir, anyway. And with that in mind, Wayne, would you and Jane Ellis is working with us here and I’ll let her introduce her companion from the other side here and we’ll go on from there. Mr. Mayor: We do have press in the room. We don’t want rumors to get started. Mr. Brown: Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Ms. Ellis: Jane Ellis, Sherman and Hemstreet, Keven Mack, Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial. Mr. Brown: --- (inaudible) I’m going to bring to you and discuss in length the details of a proposed contract with them concerning to that RFP. But the method of sale for these surplus properties will be sealed bids. This is dictated by Georgia Code 39- (inaudible) pursuant to the recommendation from the broker the method that’s being used for this round of properties is sealed bid. The reason for the sealed bid is to provide for much wider marketing and direct marketing. It does not require the person to be on site (inaudible) to consider their final offer (inaudible). Also to let you know pursuant to that same (inaudible) mission retains the right to reject or accept a bid. You are not required even though a bid may reach your target amount you are not required to accept that bid nor to given explanation for your non acceptance of that bid. All bidders will receive a bid packet with the terms and processes that will be used. All bidders a required to put down at least 5% earnest money (inaudible) bids will be advertised (inaudible) no sooner that fifteen (inaudible) but it must be within 60 days from date of sale. That advertisement, the date and time for opening of bids must be in the advertisement and it must include the location where it will be opened and it must be opened to the public. Now our brokers, Blanchard and Calhoun and Sherman and Hemstreet will provide for (inaudible) for these properties and for (inaudible). (Inaudible) 60 days to do their preliminary due diligence. And escorting them on the property will be handled by the brokers. They will give them access 2 to the property. We will not allow extensive environmental inspections prior to the bid. But there will be a time provided for that but not going into the bid. Once the bid is (inaudible) be opened and the bid will be received and opened by the Procurement Department because in the (inaudible) and way to receive these bids. Again once the bids are received by Procurement they must open them in public, they must do their tabulations and that tabulation will also be open to public inspection. The acceptance of the highest bid will be done by the Commission but the Commission has the (inaudible) to accept or reject the bid. If the Commission does not act within thirty days after the bids are opened the bids will be considered rejected. (inaudible) if the highest bidder reneges or doesn’t give (inaudible) that they will not go forth with the contract or can’t (inaudible) without rebidding accept the next highest bidder. This is done for efficiency so we do not have to start the process over. Once the bid is accepted the highest bid is accepted by the Commission (inaudible) have 60 days to do their due diligence. And if necessary they can purchase an additional 30 days for additional due diligence. But for the 30 day additional due diligence it will cost them 1 ½ percent of the bid price. They must make another deposit for 1 ½ percent of the bid price. Once we receive a notice to close or a notice to reject by the bidders the transaction will be closed within 15 days after that notice. I think that covers the basic process that we intend to use but, Jane, you can add or clarify you hear missing. Ms. Ellis: The brokers will engage in ordinary marketing activities and we’ll include a few extras. There will be on both websites and hopefully on the city website as well a link for people to get information about properties. We will be doing the onsite visits for properties that are occupied. We will do arranging for due diligence and any tests after contracts. We will be monitoring the process and the progress of people with their contracts reminding them when their due diligence period ends to find out what they’re going to do. That would make it easier to move forward. We will be doing all the standard commercial marketing (inaudible) post on our website. We will also be doing direct solicitation to buyers that we know. We will be doing email blasts. We will be providing brochures, information sheets, anything they need. The bid package will contain a sample contract and it will contain information sheets and so forth that we’ve been working on. We have draft versions of those ready. If we get some approvals we can start putting things together. Whenever the city places its legal notice we will within a day or two put all the properties up on the net and do our own newspaper advertising. We will put signs (inaudible) properties. As I say all the normal commercial marketing activities. Mr. Mayor: I’ve got two just quick questions. With regards to the earnest money at 5%, is that standard on raw dirt right now or? Ms. Ellis: Actually it’s a little high. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Ellis: There is something (inaudible) qualifying buyers with an even higher deposit but we won’t start doing the math (inaudible). So we are using 5%. You could look at some of the smaller properties if you want to and not ask for quite (inaudible). It might be more suitable to the individual buyer as opposed to a developer versus (inaudible). 3 Mr. Mayor: And is there on some of the developable tracts is there the potential to (inaudible) agreement to where if they don’t develop within a certain amount of time the city reverts --- Ms. Ellis: (inaudible) first rights to buy the property back if the developer or the buyer has not begun development within two years (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Okay. Wayne? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, as far as this closed bid process that you’re going to have, are we going to have a reserved price on any of these properties? Ms. Ellis: We had not intended to reserve (inaudible) broker (inaudible). LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and Potential Litigation B. Real Estate. C. Personnel. ADDENDUM 3. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting. Mr. Russell: It would probably be appropriate to go into Legal at this moment to talk about specifics on the property. And I would suggest that we have a motion to that effect. Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion. Mr. Aitken: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Brigham. Mr. Brigham: Before we do that I did have one question for Wayne Brown. It’s about the bid process. You didn’t say it but I’m assuming all bids received will be open and tallied and made available to the public. Mr. Brown: Yes, they will. They will be open, they will be opened publicly. They will be, the tabulation will also be made public or be made available for public inspections per the statute. Mr. Brigham: And but the only ones that we will deal with would be the highest bidder on each property? Is that the way I understand it? Mr. Brown: Yes, the highest bidder. Mr. Brigham: And we can accept and reject all bids? 4 Mr. Brown: Yes, you can. Mr. Brigham: Even if we see a, have a higher bidder but we see a proposed lower bidder or have a better project to where it’s a long term. Mr. Brown: If that is the type of bid it is where there’s consideration other than price, yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay and just for clarification. We do have a motion and a second but, Mr. MacKenzie, to go into legal for real estate purposes. Correct? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Bowles and Mr. Lockett out. Motion Passes 7-0. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor: I’ll call the meeting back to order. Mr. MacKenzie. 4. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the closed meeting affidavit. Mr. Brigham: So moved. Mr. Aitken: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Johnson and Mr. Lockett out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: It would be appropriate now to recognize Mr. Bowles for a motion, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I guess this is what I get for being last. But I’d like to before I read this I do believe it’s a run on sentence just for clarification purposes. make a motion to approve the commercial exclusive seller listing agreement contract 5 between Augusta and Sherman and Hemstreet, Inc. and Blanchard and Calhoun Commercial Corporation for real estate brokerage services pursuant to RFP #11-111A and to authorize the Mayor to execute the same. And also to utilize or to authorize the sale of the attached list of surplus properties via sealed bid utilizing the bid process to be developed by Sherman and Hemstreet and Blanchard and Calhoun and approved by the Law Department. Mr. Mayor: That comes in the form of a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Aitken: Second. 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. Johnson and Mr. Lockett out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Madam Clerk, thank you, gentlemen. Madam Clerk, I believe we have a second agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATOR 2. Discuss Human Resources. Mr. Mayor: And who will begin this discussion? Mr. Russell? Thank you, Keven. Thank ya’ll. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, over the past several weeks we talked at some length about privatization and our internalization in continuance of our HR Program. We’ve reached the point where we’re we are I think ready to move forward in one direction or another. It’s my understanding that several of you will be attending the meeting at ADP tomorrow and would say we’ll speak about, that they’ll speak about the program that they’ve been able to put together for us. They are currently working on several of our areas. We asked them to take a look at what it would take to do the balance of that. We talked about that on several, on more than one occasion to the point now where I think you should be at least getting more comfortable with being able to make a decision in whatever direction we go in. At this point what I’d like to share with you are a few thoughts that we have internally that would help move us forward. We appreciate ADP’s willingness to work with us on this. This has been a challenge for us in a lot of different directions there and they’ve met us more than half way as they’ve looked to help provide for our needs. There’s been some issues back and forth as there are with any thing’s new on new directions that we feel that we’re ready to move into internally versus what externally what we might be able to accomplish with them. As you know the loss of our HR Director sort of threw us in a curve for a while. The number of people that we’ve got in that office seem out works since they’ve been burdened with in the reduced number of people has actually been more than challenging at the moment. But you know I think it’s time for us to go ahead and make some 6 decisions and move forward here. Hopefully that will be on the next Commission cycle. I just want to share with you a few of our thoughts as you deal with that. The labor costs you know we currently got nine employees in HR. What we’d like to look at and our recommendation internally would be to go to fifteen. Where we’re going with that is we’ve asked Malik to come back from the Carl Vinson Institute and give us some numbers there. What we’ve asked him to and as soon as we get the contract deals worked out is to give us what it would take to provide a Class A level HR service for an organization this size. Our initial thoughts were to come in and say what are you doing and how do you fix it and how do you move forward. But after some conversation with him I think the best bet is just to go ahead and pick out a state of the art program for an organization with 2700 employees and deal with that and move forward if that’s the decision we make. We anticipate some increased budget for HR in that particular area from about a million to about a million five and that includes the continued payroll costs that are being paid at the moment. To outsource HR there’s been some confusion about that but we’re looking at from nine to seven employees. We still need to provide other services that would not be provided at this point in an ADP contract. And that’s the Grievance and Disciplinary Program, the Compensation Program and stuff like that. There also needs to be people here that input the data that they talk about, to input those things and absorb some of the risk that we would have here and have some of the contact. I think we’ve all thought that that using the telephone contact would be a wonderful thing. It seems that our people like to look face to face on occasion when they talk to people particularly about their benefits and that’s something we need to continue to do in mind as we move forward. A decreased HR budget from a million ninety-three to $856,000, obviously that’s the difference in the cost there and that does not include the included $1.6 million per year costs pursuant to the ADP contract that the lawyers will talk to you about in some degree. So there’s a difference there and a difference we need to look at. You know we’ve mentioned several times the loss of personnel which are payroll people. You know we’re not they’re not thirty people out there or fifteen or twenty that take up our payroll and do all these payroll. They’re people like my secretary and people like other people’s secretaries and office staff that do that as part of their regular roles so the savings there would not be as much as what we hoped as we looked at that down the line. These are some of the numbers over the next to 2017. Part of what we discovered as we’ve looked at this is that the IFAS System that we currently have can actually provide better service in what we’re actually using it as basically. We’re already using it and paying for our financial models and whatever part of what we’ve looked at and was that we never really took full advantage of that particular system. It was our previous HR Director’s decisions not to do that and not to move into that system. We think that if we move forward with that there’s some saving there that could be, could be cost deferred more so than a saving. We’d need additional systems that’s already covered under our current agreement with IFAS to move forward with that. So we might not need additional hardware/software for HR related technology. So we think that would be a better deal than what we’re looking at here in that particular standpoint. To outsource HR you know we’re still looking at developing into their system as opposed to using the IFAS system here. So that’s a decision that we would have to make too and it’s a $1.6 million dollar per year pursuant to the ADP contract. That’s a learning experience for both of us internally in the fact that as we got deeper and deeper into this the HR director, the former HR director had his mind set in one direction to go and we weren’t really taking advantage of the IFAS as best we could. So we think that would save us some money. Some of the concerns we have and those ones we’ll have to deal with no matter what is that we think we’re understaffed and we hope that Malik will be 7 able to help us with that. The underutilization of our current IFAS system you know and the accountability of our management HR’s been an area we’ve had trouble with for years and years. We’ve improved some and fell back and improved and fell back. You know as I selled you several months ago probably a year ago now as we do that that’s one of the areas as we start looking at the end internal stuff that’s going to be the hardest things we’ve had to face. And obviously those are all, you know, in the long run that’s my responsibility as we’ve gone back and forth with that. Increased positions from nine to fifteen to fill the vacancies, proper training and utilization of the IFAS System are things we need to do. We’re currently looking at best practices and flow charts and things that one would have thought that we had done years ago but we’re getting better at that now as we go forward and the creating a standard operating procedure for proper and best processes and practices. You know we had hoped to move forward with that. I think we got wrapped up with some other directions. Rod spent a lot of his time working on the manual and stuff as was needed to do at that particular point in time and some of the things we thought we’re processing better than what they were did not did not come to fruition in a manner that we thought that they were. The problem I’ve got at this moment is as we look at look at doing some of the things if we don’t get better ADP can do these things. There’s no doubt in my mind about that but it’s going to cost us to have them do it at a rate that we would have to pay. I mean that’s the way it works there. What we’d like to do is go ahead and fill the positions with knowledgeable and capable individuals. We’ve got some vacancies there that we need to fill. We’ve got some others that we need to look at very seriously. We’ve got some good people down there. We need to make sure they’re led properly and move forward. If you look at the outsource HR you know per the contract we remain responsible for compliance with all laws and government regulations which is only fair and any use of Augusta may make of ADP services and compliances and laws, government regulations is in the contract there. But the liability is always still ours and that’s something that we need to continue to worry about. We’re limited to $1.5 million for any admission under the contract so that’s money we would spend if we make a mistake which is fair. But given the nature of what we’re doing at the moment it makes me a little bit cautious and hesitant at this particular point in time. No matter what we do you know I think that we’ve all come to the realization that HR’s going to cost more than it has in the past. No matter how we do it and which direction we take we’ve done a lot with a little for a long time and that now is a luxury that we can no longer have. We’re going to have to bring it up to snuff one way or the other either internally or making use of ADP in the ways that they can there basically. And that’s a realization that I think is important for all of us to understand as we get more litigious in our society as we get more complex in our regulations we need to do a better job of keeping up and a better job of keeping abreast of all that. Whichever route we take I think we’d be able to help us do that but it’s not going to be cheap. If you look at us in comparison to other agencies our HR department’s small. It’s also underpaid and it’s also you know somewhat burdened with the rules and regulations everybody else faces. You know if you try to redo HR the best case scenario is the, and annual budget of about $15 0.5 million, increase the accountability, increase compliance and fully functioning professional HR Department. You know I’m not too sure without your support and your willingness to help us make those hard decisions to do that that we’re going to be able to do that internally at this particular point in time. We’ve fixed other places that we all had problems with over the years and I think we’ve put them back together as they work. I think we can do that here but it’s not going to be an easy process. My concern with that is HR is one that touches everybody. If we make a mistake in one area we make a mistake and we deal with it. And HR the mistakes that we make touch every 8 employee that we’ve got in one shape or form. That’s burdensome to everybody and that’s what makes your phones ring at night and makes my hair get grayer and grayer as we go down the line. Worst case scenario in this particular case is a $1.6 million dollar total. $1.4 million outcome cost and then outsource after focusing every attempt to rectify is unsuccessful. The question is how many bites of the apple do you want to give the staff. And that’s sort of where you’re going there. We’ve taken a bite or two and haven’t done a real good job of either eating the apple or digesting it in my mind. We just haven’t done the job with that. I think that with Malik’s help we’ll be able to do better. I think that approach as we we’ve attempted to fix on several occasions I think the approached that we’ve asked Dr. Malik to look at to not only fix but to start with best practices is what’s going to be necessary. We took that approach with several other departments and it’s worked. But it wasn’t overly pleasant as we’ve done as we had to make tough decisions. Outsource HR no doubt in my mind you get a first class HR operation, none whatsoever. You get a the costs are there and that’s what they are for a first class operation that’s I’m not too sure if that’s or not you know that’s what I’m what I really don’t know the answers to. Worst case scenario is that we find out we spent that money and we decided we’re not happy with the process and we have to buy it out which is a fee ranging to up to almost a million eight from two-hundred and thirty four and the cost associated rebidding to bring it back in house. Please tomorrow when you go and listen to ADP you listen closely to what they say because these are one of the, this is going to be one of the bigger decisions we’ve had to make I think on how we go forward. We can make either scenario work. I have no doubt in my mind that in the long run we can do that. I’m not too sure either scenario’s going to be the direction that all of us want to go in or any of us want to go in or some combination thereof might be what we end up with but hopefully after you listen to them tomorrow if you have that opportunity and I know that they’ve been talking to you we’ll be able to at least decide on a path to go forward with that and figure out where we go next because next is now. We can’t hardly afford to continue to wait much longer. As we begin our budget process for next year we need to know those directions as we talk about what we’re going to get done. ADP has done a wonderful job worldwide. They have bent over backwards to try to meet our needs. And when we first asked them to take a look I think they were sort of shocked. I think they were like okay we came in to do A, B and C and now, Mr. Russell, you’ve asked us to look at everything and they have and done what I think to be an excellent job at that. The question becomes a policy decision on what you want to do as a group and how you best want to serve the citizens with the dollars we have available to them. I’d be happy to try to answer any questions. ADP will have an opportunity to talk to you tomorrow at some length and I’m sure that they will answer any questions you have there too. And then hopefully then maybe we can get back at the next committee meeting with me on one side of the podium and them on the other and answer any questions that they might have together as we battle through this decision, or not battle as we carefully craft a path forward to take Augusta’s HR system I believe is the way I’d rather say it. Any questions? Mr. Mayor: Matt? Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor, thank you. This IFAS service, Fred, when are we going to have a little bit more information on that as far as what it can do that we didn’t know it could do? Mr. Russell: I’m quickly being brought up to speed on that because I didn’t have a clue to be honest with you. But we would be able to give that to you shortly I assume hopefully 9 before the next committee meeting. Yes, we can get that to you before we’d ask you to make any decision in a bullet page there. Mr. Aitken: I know that’ll help me I think a lot in that direction too. And then with Malik in the best practices when do we look at, when’s your time line on that? Mr. Russell: We’ve got a current issue with the contract. The state doesn’t like our contract but we’re, Andrew has been in contact with them again this morning and hopefully we can get something worked out to where they can get started. He anticipated if I remember correctly about three weeks ago once he got started. I had hoped he was going to get started last week but that didn’t work out. Mr. Aitken: All right. Thank you. Mr. Bowles: Fred, I believe, IFAS, we’ve had it for fifteen, twenty years. Mr. Russell: Yes. Mr. Bowles: I believe it’s unfair for you to criticize Rod Powell for not implementing the human resource function. Mr. Russell: I didn’t mean to do so if I did so. I apologize. Mr. Bowles: Yeah, well, I think you did. Also I do believe IFAS is now called One Solution, it’s no longer IFAS. Mr. Russell: Whatever. Mr. Bowles: I think we’ve, I mean it goes to show that the systematic problem in our government is we buy these wonderful programs and nobody ever decides to open the box and read the instructions. Mr. Russell: I don’t disagree. Mr. Bowles: I mean, it’s mind boggling to me but, Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. As far as this IFAS system, does it handle all the needs and capabilities of the HR? I know that you said that you have not actually used all of its capabilities --- Mr. Russell: I’ll let Tameka speak to that. Mr. Guilfoyle: ---but is it the right program? Mr. Russell: Please. 10 Ms. Allen: We’ve been on IFAS probably since 1999. And the Human Resources application portion of the IFAS system at that time was not one of the best assets of the IT program. The general function of it more so was focused on financial. However, IFAS has grown in the HR area and we actually have an agenda item scheduled to come before the Commission to do an upgrade on IFAS in the HR area which the HR director at the time did not want to pursue as far as the changes that would have allowed us to do like 85-90 percent of what we’re looking at doing now. Now can IFAS actually do what some of the things that we’re looking at as far as HR? Yes, it can. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay --- Ms. Allen: The capabilities are there. They were not utilized. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Ms. Allen: We’re probably using about 3% of the system in this capacity. Mr. Guilfoyle: The HR director at the time was very short with the government. Is that correct as far as Rod working with the government? So he implemented this and didn’t want to use it because say, I guess he was focused on the policy manual. But as far as this IFAS system the county’s spending approximately a million dollars a year on this program? Ms. Allen: No, sir --- Mr. Guilfoyle: No? Ms. Allen: --- we spend on maintenance about $100,000 a year for everything. Mr. Guilfoyle: Didn’t mean to stir the pot. Ms. Allen: No, we pay roughly about $100,000 a year in maintenance and that’s for all the applications. That takes care of Procurement that takes care of Finance. That takes care of all our various other applications that are utilized. IFAS is basically like a PRP system. It does different functions. It’s not just an HR system. It handles our payroll and those applications as well. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. As far as the, what Fred had shown us as far as the first five years for the outsourcing. It’s $2.2 million dollars. Where did this number come from? Because the problem that we have and as far as being up here as Commissioners we get to talk to ADP at one time and then you’ll have questions and then we talk to the administrative at another time. There’s no really no time that we actually spend with both parties so we could find out the real details. Because what information we got today is what, we get to go tomorrow and ask questions. The answers we get tomorrow we get to come back and ask ya’ll. Now to remember all the questions and all the details is highly unlikely. So our decision is based on who gives us the best information how we relate and outreach to our colleagues to get the right information. 11 So it’s very important as far as this decision that we have to make. It affects a lot of people. We know that. So we do want to make the right decision. Ms. Allen: The actual cost for the $2.2 million dollars is the ADP cost in 2013 the annual cost as suspected of the contract is a little over $1.6 million. Then you also have you actually have HR cost because you do have to have HR personnel in the HR Department regardless of what we decide or what the Commission decides to do or proceed with. You do have to have some physical bodies in the HR department. So when you look at that HR cost and then you look at what we’re going to be paying to have staff available in HR as well as what we’re going to be paying for the contract cost at ADP you’re looking at an estimated $2.2 million dollars. Mr. Guilfoyle: So to outsource with ADP is we’re going to retain seven employees. Is that correct? Ms. Allen: That’s the recommended number of employees. Now that’s based on our estimated recommendation. Looking at what Dr. Watkins is coming in and proposing to do may show us something different. That’s why we wanted to bring him on board. Regardless of what we do, we definitely want to bring Dr. Watkins on board because even if you decide to outsource ADP, outsource to ADP we’d like to have his input as far as what other processes we need to keep in house to continue. Mr. Guilfoyle: So the department right now is functioning at nine employees. Is that correct? Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, nine, well not even nine I don’t think now, nine positions but seven people. Mr. Bowles: And for the record, Mr. Guilfoyle, ADP recommends 1.5 so they rounded that to two people but our internal staff is coming up with seven for their budgetary purposes. So that’s a big point of contention between the two parties. Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem (inaudible). Mr. Bowles: Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Shanahan: Basically what we did to come up with the seven we identified all the different jobs that would be done outside of the ADP contract through HR. And then we turned around and identified how much time we were actually using on those jobs at this time and then we turned that into hours and then we turned that into people. I did send that email out but I could resend it to you all too so you can see exactly the numbers. But that’s where the seven folks came from. Mr. Bowles: Anybody else? Mr. Russell: So if I can, Mr. Chairman or Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what I’d like to do is get back --- 12 Mr. Bowles: Reverend Hatney has a question. Mr. Russell: I’m sorry. Mr. Hatney: Mr. Guilfoyle had a great argument there and it is to me it’s never good to have a presentation one body tomorrow from somebody else. And then you’re talking about coming back together seeing who’s going to cut the chase. Should’ve had both parties at the same time. My other concern is that when you look at this and I don’t care how you look at it at the end of the day I just, I’ve always had some concerns of government playing Russian roulette with the livelihood of this employment, with people. We’re talking about people. You’re not talking about equipment you’re not talking about, you’re talking about live bodies. And at the end of the day to have equipment or applications that were not adequately used is not to me a reason to go outside when you can mandate that the applications be used adequately and redo your workforce. Because you’re talking about at the end of the day I don’t care how you look at it this ain’t going to cost $2 million dollars a year more than what we’re spending now. Now it will if we keep on talking it will. So these things need to be done in one sitting with both y’all not to have to go with everything going. Mr. Bowles: I think we’ve got some fuzzy math going on with the $2 million dollar difference but --- Mr. Hatney: But at the end of the day my concern is the livelihood of the workforce of the city of Augusta. That’s my concern. Mr. Russell: You know I think ADP wanted to show you their facility, show you their program --- Mr. Hatney: I don’t want to see it. I don’t need it. Mr. Russell: --- and I think that’s a good idea if you find the time to go. In addition to that my suggestion of having us both together at the end is appropriate. And because you’re right there needs to be reconciliation as we go forward with that. And I think that’s the only way we can do that. I think that’s while it’s a little bit slower I think it’s a good process. Mr. Bowles: With no further business we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Lena Bonner Clerk of Commission 13 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on May 22, 2012. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 14