HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting September 4, 2012
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., September 4, 2012, the
Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, Hatney, Aitken, Johnson, Jackson, Bowles
and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Smith, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by Dr. Mike Cash, Pastor, Trinity on the Hill United Methodist
Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
Mr. Mayor: And, Dr. Cash, if you could come forward I’ve got a little something for
you. Thank you for that wonderful invocation. By these present be it known that Dr. Mike
Cash, Pastor of Trinity on the Hill United Methodist Church, is Chaplain of the Day. For his
civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community, serves as an example for
th
all of the faith community. Given under my hand this 4 Day of September 2012.
(APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS(S)
University of Georgia CVIOG
A. Congratulations! Commissioner Joe Jackson for completing and receiving the
Certificate of Recognition from the University of Georgia Carl Vinson Institute of
Government and the Georgia Municipal Association.
The Clerk: So, Mr. Mayor, if you could please present Commissioner Jackson with his
recognition plaque. (APPLAUSE)
Mr. Mayor: All righty, Madam Clerk, on to our delegations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATONS
B. Mr. Burles A. Johnson RE: Restore Hydro-Stop Coating on roof of the Old Government
House; Bid No. 12-163A.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
1
th
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. Can you hear me? Back on February 13 of 2012 I was
approached, well, actually I brought it to Rick Acree ---
Mr. Mayor: Can you give your name and address for the record, please, sir?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. My name is Burles A. Johnson II. My address is 3704 Inverness
Way, Martinez, GA 30907. Okay, back in February actually in December I was called to do
some work on the Old Government House to repair. And I went down and did the work and was
paid. But at that time I realized that the roof had a Hydro-Stop System on it. So I contacted
Hydro-Stop in Charleston. That’s where the home office is, notified them. I’m a certified
applicator of ten years and talked to them, let them know. They looked it up and found that the
building had been done ten years prior to our conversation. But at this time if I could get things
on board they would be happy to come back and renew the warranty. So I was instrumental in
getting this started. I contacted Rick Acree and then went down and did a bid assessment on the
job, measuring all the roofs which there are six roofs down there, gave him a bid on February
th
13 with my total numbers and everything. At that point he had discussed that there was not
enough money to do the job that he would get back with me. Nothing happened. A few months
later I got a bid packet in the mail to where this was put out for bid. But let me step back for a
second. At that time he was looking at the square footage and he pulled it up from a computer
and he pulled an aerial view which then I pulled out my notes and showed him that my square
footage was the exact measurements of the building’s roof. He had a snapshot, an aerial
snapshot which does not detail pitches, parapet walls and this thing. So there was an error in his
number which he’d gotten approval to do. So from that he then had my numbers and my figures.
We then went to bid. At the time of bid I left my certified check in the truck. I walked in it was
about three to three. I looked up and saw where on the Power Point presentation that they was
going to check off the check needed to be in there. I notified staff, I went downstairs ran down
went to my truck and at 3:03 I was back. They had already opened my bid packet and marked
me noncompliant. Now I understand I left my check in the truck but this did not change my bid.
And then my bid was actually $2,500 less than anybody else’s bid. But they would not accept
my check, they would not move forward with anything and I felt that you know it was all over
with. Well then I go home and get three, well I got a fax, an email and a certified letter. They’re
all the same correspondence telling me that I could refute their decision if I wanted to. So I went
through that process which got me nowhere. Well to me I would’ve walked away from this and
just said okay it was my fault in the very beginning because I left my check downstairs. But I
did not understand he already had my bid number. My bid number never changed from February
to July so I was low bid and all I needed was to give somebody my certified check to make my
packet compliant. So that’s my argument. I’m just asking ya’ll to reconsider that. I’ve been
doing Hydro-Stop for over ten years. I’m a certified applicator. Everybody else at the bid
meeting that day hadn’t even been certified to do the job. And you know that’s where we’re at.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t know is there anybody here from, this
went through Procurement, correct?
2
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson: All right. Is there anyone here who can speak?
Mr. Russell: Mr. Johnson, he appealed that to me. I reviewed the requirements and
based on the fact that we have a zero tolerance at this particular point in time in previous cases
unfortunately I upheld the decision of the Procurement Department to disallow his bid. The
packet was incomplete at the time.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, so the check, all of that needs to be in there by that particular time
frame. I mean that’s what deemed him noncompliant.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham then Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, has this work been completed?
Mr. Russell: Not to my knowledge. I don’t know.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. MacKenzie, what are our options at this point?
Mr. MacKenzie: It’s my understanding with respect to this particular bid there also was
not an appeal to the committee which is part of the normal appeals process. So there would be in
effect a waiver of the appeal. So the Commission does have the authority to waive the
technicality. But in this instance the applicant did not appeal through the normal appellate
process. What he’s got on here is a delegation. The normal process if you go through it and the
Administrator denies than you have five days you appeal that and then it goes to committee you
have a hearing. And if the committee makes a decision on it then it goes before the Commission
that way. This one came a little different route. It’s my understanding it was because one of
those steps was not complied with.
Mr. Johnson: Sir, I was unaware of that process. I’m sorry.
Mr. Russell: But to answer your first question, the work has not been done.
Mr. Brigham: It’s not been done?
Mr. Russell: No.
Mr. Brigham: Can we make a motion that we reject all bids? Is that a legal motion, Mr.
MacKenzie?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
3
Mr. MacKenzie: You can certainly do that.
Mr. Brigham: I make a motion that we reject all bids.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Yeah, I was going to ask. Where are we in the process of the other bids?
Have we voted on them have we not?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell or Ms. Sams. Anybody want to?
Mr. Bowles: Have, where are we in the bid process? Have we already awarded the RFP
or?
Mr. Russell: Ms. Sams can answer that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. Good afternoon, Commissioner, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles, could you restate?
Mr. Bowles: I was just wondering, have we voted on the bids? Have they been
presented to this body or where are we in the process?
Ms. Sams: The bids have been placed on hold. And the reason that the bids were placed
on hold is because Mr. Johnson came into the office to talk to us about his bid protest. And at
that time when we came into the office he had already received his letter of noncompliance. In
this case my recommendation, Commissioners, as Procurement Director is that we follow the
Augusta Richmond County Procurement Code. I am very sympathetic to Mr. Johnson as I’m
sure you are but Mr. Johnson came in and gave the Procurement Office a cashier’s check after
the bids were opened. And there were other vendors there that witnessed it and even so, if there
were no other vendors there you have to be there timely and because the bids, because he wasn’t
there timely in submitting his bid bond or his cashier’s check in this case he was deemed
noncompliant.
Mr. Bowles: So that delays your process to bring it to us or that’s what I’m trying to
figure out.
Ms. Sams: Well, we were at the end of the process until a Commissioner to my
understanding asked a vendor to come before you. It was already resolved.
4
Mr. Bowles: Then I assume you’re talking about me. He asked me what he could do. I
said you can talk to the Commission but my basis for my decision is if we haven’t voted on it,
you know, all our options are open. It’s been done many times before where we’ve thrown out
all the bids and rebid things. So we’ll wait until we get to that point.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Mason:
Thank you Mr. Mayor. Although I can sympathize with Mr. Johnson, the
fact of the matter is that he didn’t follow the protocol. At the end of the day I mean that’s just a
fact by your own admission. So I’m not sure why we would have any further discussion in
reference to that. At some point up here we’re going to, we all need to learn to follow the
protocol and that’s why we have so many issues. We keep talking about this is going on and this
and that is going on but up here with the ten of us we are not consistent. And so there’s protocol
I’m going to make a
in place he clearly by his own admission did not follow it and so
substitute motion that we receive this as information.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Sams, did all the bids open at one time?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. And have we ever waived this before to where somebody did not
present a check at the time of bid and they were a few minutes late?
Ms. Sams: Absolutely, unequivocally not.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Where have I heard that before? My cousin Vinny. Mr. Johnson, you’ve
got to have to understand that Ms. Sams follows the rules to the letter and we know this first
hand more than you will ever know. And there’s no way that we could actually ask her to bend
the rules under a certain circumstance.
Mr. Johnson: I totally understand that but what got me was and I was totally fine with
everything but I received a fax, I received an email and then I received a certified letter telling
me that if I didn’t you know like what happened that I could bring this before you guys through
process and that somebody would listen. Now I was going to walk away from it the day that it
happened because it was all my fault. I left the check downstairs. But the check downstairs did
not change my bid number. And my bid number, my contract bid number was what I felt was
the whole importance of the whole thing. And I’m saving the county twenty-five hundred or
more dollars in the bid. And I’m the most experienced person doing the job. And I’m the one
who brought it to you guys and said hey look, this roof it needs to be redone.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor?
5
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Uh, ---
Mr. Johnson: I’ll accept what you say if that’s what ya’ll decide on.
Mr. Guilfoyle: This is for the Attorney. Andrew, did the Government House, this is the
one that came up before us last year and we asked, I had asked the Attorney’s Department to
research to see if there’s any warranty or liability based onto the subcontractor.
Mr. MacKenzie: I’m not sure if this is the same one that we’re talking about. But I do
remember a conversation similar to that, yes.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Because, Mr. Johnson, what I had said before no different than what you
had spoken earlier on is that it was still under warranty.
Mr. Johnson: No, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: If it was installed improperly?
Mr. Johnson: No, sir, it was installed properly but the date had run out on the job and
that’s what I notified Hydro-Stop. And Hydro-Stop looked it up and found that the warranty had
run out due to nobody you know calling them or bringing this up and saying hey we need to get
it done.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right, we’ve got documentation from last year. As a matter of fact it
should’ve been June or July of last year when the director of the Old Government House had
came before us ---
Mr. Johnson: Carla, right.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- yes.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: And I had requested the Law Department to follow up with this. Maybe I
need six to do that but it was actually brought up in the nine year mark not the ten year mark.
And this is the ten year moment for the warranty.
Mr. Johnson: That was prior to me coming into the picture. Yes, I came in back in
December. But that’s fine. You know I’m good with anything you decide. I’m not trying to
cause a problem. I just felt like I needed to explain my situation not knowing that you had
6
already looked at the job or tried to find anything on the job. And all basically the way I looked
at it back in December everything started from that point on.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, I really sympathize your plight
but and I appreciate the fact that you are so considerate. Our Procurement Department has been
sued so many times because what some people want to refer to as non following procedures. But
I don’t think we’ve ever lost a case. But I do believe that you understand if an exception’s made
now where somewhere down the road somebody else is going to come in maybe not with exact
circumstance but something similar. And they’re going to want us to do that. And if establish a
precedent of doing that well then we’ve completely lost control of what we’re supposed to do.
And there again I sympathize but I appreciate you being so considerate. But I don’t see anything
else that we can do other than deny your request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, a substitute motion, Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I’m going to vote for Mr. Mason’s motion but I just want to go on the
record as stating that we’re saying that Mr. Brigham’s motion or insinuating his motion is not
protocol when in fact it does follow procedures and policies set forth in our Procurement Manual
where we do have the right to reject all bids. I just want to clarify that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded. If there
is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Brigham votes No.
Motion Passes 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Johnson: Could I ask how long will it take to get my certified check back?
Mr. Sams: The request has been made and the Finance Department was cutting your
check today. And I’m sure they’re gone and it should be ready for you tomorrow. Would that
work?
Mr. Johnson: Okay, it sounds like the decision was already made before I got here but
thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-21, items 1-21. For the benefit of any
objectors to our alcohol petitions would you please signify your objections once the petition is
read.
7
Item 2: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in
connection with Golden Garden located at 3253A Deans Bridge Road.
Item 3: Is for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the
Super Express #5 located at 1901 Gordon Highway.
Item 4: Is for a Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Super Express #6 at
2447 Wrightsboro Road.
The Clerk: Mr. Sherman, are these, do you want to address the ---
Mr. Sherman: On agenda items 3 and 4 there was a question about the application that
was submitted. I did a little research on that. Back in it was late in 2002 or early in 2003 that the
owner of the business now which is the applicant the business down on Sand Bar Ferry Road had
a video poker machine in the business. That issue was resolved and for this application the
Sheriff’s Department did sign off approval on it.
The Clerk: With that said our consent agenda consists of items 1-24. Are there any
objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Consent agenda items 1-24 with no objectors to our alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mason: Items 1-20?
The Clerk: I beg your pardon?
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason?
The Clerk: Twenty-one, 1-21.
Mr. Mason: One through twenty-one. Okay, all right.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, gentlemen, do we have any items to be added to the consent agenda?
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add agenda item number 23 to consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: We can do 22 if you want to, too.
Mr. Lockett: No, I want to talk about that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All righty. Do we have any further items to be added to the consent
agenda?
Mr. Jackson: Twenty-four.
8
Mr. Mason: What is twenty who?
Mr. Hatney: Is that this building?
Mr. Mayor: That’s this building. Is everybody good with that one?
Mr. Lockett: No, sir.
Mr. Mason: No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, not twenty-four. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I’m just curious, this motion 23 is this the Law Department’s EEOP form or
is it the EOC’s?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: The Law Department and the EO Department have gotten together and
agreed to the one that’s contained in your book as an attachment.
Mr. Bowles: When did that come out because I’ve gotten two of them in the last three
weeks and I’m sick of reading them to be honest with you.
Mr. MacKenzie: This is the one that was in the latest agenda cycle which was the one
that was initially done with the Law Department. We have since clarified some of the issues
with the auditors and we’re in agreement as to this one.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay, gentlemen, yes, sir, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since my colleague Commissioner Bowles has
some question about the agenda item #23 for clarification I would like to say that the claims
made against the EO Director provided inaccurate information. But this was resolved today
being the EO and the Law Department. And they found out that that was indeed not the case. So
I do believe that our EO Director has been vindicated.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Do we have any items to be pulled for discussion?
Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I’d like to pull item number 7, item number 10, item number 13
and item number 17.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, are there any other further agenda items to be pulled for discussion?
Hearing none can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda?
Mr. Mason: So moved.
9
Mr. Hatney: Second.
CONSENT AGENDA
PLANNING
1. ZA-R-215 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission
to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta Georgia
by adding language to Section 25-A (Planned Development Riverfront) establishing an
annual meeting on the second Tuesday of each January and all other meetings on an as
needed basis. (Approved by the Commission August 21, 2012 – second reading.
PUBLIC SERVICES
2. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 12-29: request by Myung H. Cho
for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with
Golden Garden located at 3253A Deans Bridge Rd. There will be Sunday Sales. District 5.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2012)
3. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 12-30; request by Ritaben Patel
for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hiral Enterprises
DBA Super Express #5 located at 1901 Gordon Hwy subject to the verification of License
and Inspections. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 27, 2012)
4. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 12-31; request by Ritaben Patel
for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hiral Enterprises,
Inc. DBA Super Express #6 located at 2447 Wrightsboro Rd. subject to the verification of
License and Inspections. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 27, 2012)
5. Motion to approve reopening of access to Augusta Canal National Heritage Area from
Riverlook Drive. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2012)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
6. Motion to approve award of a contract to URS Corporation to update the Advance
Transportation Management System (ATMS) Master Plan. (Approved by Finance and
Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2012)
8. Motion to approve the recommendation(s) of the Administrator as presented by the
Deputy Administrator relating to the “Extreme Makeover-Human Resources Department.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2012)
9. Motion to approve the written response from the Director of Housing & Development
Department regarding the Pine Street Development and other related activities as
th
presented in the June 18 Questionnaire. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 27, 2012)
PUBLIC SAFETY
11. Motion to approve the award of a 2012 Emergency Management Performance Grant
(EMPG) for the Augusta EMA Department in the amount of $60,165.00. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee August 27, 2012)
10
12. Motion to approve the establishment of Augusta 311 and the acquisition of technology
to support it. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 27, 2012)
14. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Title Three, Chapter
Seven, Section 3-7-45 relating to the carrying and possession of dangerous or deadly
weapons in airport facilities in Augusta, Georgia; to repeal all Code Sections and
ordinances and parts of Code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an
effective date and for other purposes. (Approved by Commission August 21, 2012 – second
reading)
15. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Title Three, Chapter
Seven, Sections 3-7-13 through 3-7-14.5 relating to the sale and possession of firearms in
Augusta, Georgia; to repeal all Code sections and ordinances and parts of Code sections
and ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other purposes.
(Approved by the Commission August 27, 2012 – second reading.
ENGINEERING SERVICES
16. Motion to approve the lease buy-out of the current Al-Jon compactor. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2012)
18. Motion to approve proposal from ZEL Engineers for Professional Services. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2012)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
19. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular and Special Called meetings of the
Commission held August 21 and August 27, 2012)
SUBCOMMITTEE
Pension Committee
20. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the City of Augusta 1949 General
Retirement Fund. (Approved by the Commission August 21, 2012 – second reading)
Pension Committee
21. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Richmond County 1945 Employee
Pension Fund. (Approved by the Commission August 21, 2012 – second reading.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
23. Motion to adopt Equal Employment Opportunity Plan (EEOP) for Augusta, Georgia.
(No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2012)
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. Hatney: Madam Clerk, I abstain on alcohol.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion passes 8-0-1. [Items 2, 3, 4]
11
Motion Passes 9-0. [Items 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18-21, 24]
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s go to the pulled items first, please, ma’am.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
7. Motion to deny an Ordinance to amend the Augusta, Ga. Code Article One, Chapter
Ten, Section 1-10-52 relating to the procurement source selection methods and contract
awards related to sealed proposal evaluation and selection; to establish policies, procedures
and guidelines regarding the procurement source selection process; to repeal all Code
sections and ordinances and parts of Code sections and ordinances in conflict herewith; to
provide an effective date and for other purposes provided herein. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2012)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle, I believe this was your pull.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, I would like to speak with the Director, Ms. Sams, about this
please.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Ms. Sams, for clarification for the, my colleagues I had asked staff to
come back with something as far as the staff’s recommendation to where we could use price as
an evaluation process as far as the RFP’s. And this is what they came back with. I know that the
percentage and I had, I was hoping one of my colleagues would come back with a, Mr. Mason to
actually since he deals with Procurement, that’s his profession is to come back and give us a,
enlighten us of what we should direct us where we need to go. But from the past history that
I’ve been up here on this floor price has not been per se a consideration. Have we ever used
price as part of the evaluation criteria for RFP?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, we have and as it relates to the Augusta Richmond County Code
price is always a consideration of our RFP’s. And if we go to I believe around Article 6 of the
Augusta Code you would see about seven different types of selection processes. And one of
those processes would be the Request for Proposal. And under the Request for Proposal around
the last paragraph I think you would find that a section that says Negotiation. And if we were to
change the code then that eliminates the process of elimination. I think what we’re doing, what
your suggestion was of course a very bold one and one outside of the box. So what we’ve done
as Procurement Department we’ve gone out to look for best practices and we’ve gone out to
other entities to see how they are addressing that particular issue. And some of the things, some
of the comments that we received from other entities, just let me look over here a second. And if
I may, Mr. Mayor, I would like to share here some of them.
12
Mr. Mayor: Please.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Can I, before we go into that discussion of that, Ms. Sams, I’d just like to
keep it plain and simple here on the floor. This time last year I had asked for us to go into a
workshop meeting. And back in March or April Commissioner Matt Aiken had followed up on
it to where we don’t have to do this on the floor.
Ms. Sams: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: But we did and that’s where we’re at, at this point. But I don’t want to
carry it out to 8:00 o’clock tonight dealing with this. You say that price historically has been a
factor in the determination of a bid. Is that correct?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: What percentage is that?
Ms. Sams: Well, the price is not a percentage ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: It’s not.
Ms. Sams: --- as we speak. It is a consideration ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Ms. Sams: --- as outlined in the Augusta Richmond County code. I think it’s very
pertinent that we talk about some of the information received from the federal auditor who was
here on site at the time when we received the notification or the request from you from you as a
Commissioner. And we respectfully asked the auditor to review it and let us know what her
feelings where.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, back to the focus of where I’m going ---
Ms. Sams: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- with this. So historically we don’t use money as, say, a valuation
criteria.
Ms. Sams: Historically we used price as a consideration for the award of the contract.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, are you evaluating all of the complaints bidders?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, we are.
13
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so you actually open up their bids at the time to see if they if price
is a factor or a determinate factor from what you’re saying, from what I’ve heard on this floor in
the past that if you had three people bidding this job you only open up one envelope.
Ms. Sams: Actually, Mr. Commissioner, there is a two step process.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Ms. Sams: And there is a two step process as outlined in the Augusta Richmond County
code. The first step is to qualify all vendors. You go through that process by looking at the
vendor’s qualifications, looking at how they said they were going to address the issues as it
relates to the RFP. And we always keep in mind that and RFP process is totally different from a,
from all the other processes than that. The submittals have to address the, in addition to their
experience have to address the scope of services that the city has requested, etcetera, etcetera.
That’s the first phase. The second phase is you will rank all of the submittals, one two and three
into categories and into ranking areas one, two, three, four how many vendors you’re going to
rank. You invite those persons back so they can go through the second phase. The phase is
where they come in and actually tell you how they’re addressing the scope of work and also talk
about their previous experience. At that point they’re ranked and the envelope is opened to the
first vendor, the person that scores the highest on this second ranking. The envelope is opened
and at that point we compare what their price is to the estimated dollar amount we receive from
the department.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so it’s actually a budget put on by the department that’s requesting
the RFP that has no prior background on how to judge on how much something should cost. As
long as the first bid is opened ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, I recognize you again for your next two.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. As long as you ---
Mr. Hatney: (inaudible) already, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Guilfoyle: --- open the bid up ---
Mr. Hatney: It’s been five already now.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right, I can stop right here, sir.
Mr. Mayor: No, he’s been, I’ve timed how much he’s talked and ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: So if somebody follows the evaluation you deemed them the highest
points then you open their bid. And it’s determined on what the department director or that
department deems what they can fit in their budget. And at that time if it falls underneath that
budget they should get the job. Is that correct?
14
Ms. Sams: No, sir, not exactly.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Ms. Sams: You’re about 50% there.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Ms. Sams: What happens at that level the department has an estimated dollar amount not
just based on the budgetarial amount that’s in their budget. They go through and they give the
cost allocation if there is an architect on hand or even our project manager they go through that
process and come up with a cost estimate for the job. So it’s not as simple as ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay.
Ms. Sams: --- how much you awarded them in their budget.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I’m short on time I know that because everyone’s looking at me. Without
us looking at money as an option, how do you determine we are getting the best price?
Ms. Sams: There’s a combination of ways, Mr. Guilfoyle. And, of course, when you are
making considerations through RFP’s we the Procurement Department in the City of Augusta are
always interested in the tax payers. So therefore we’re going to look at the cost allocation
received from the department along with the scope of services, experience and all of that before
we get to the bottom line.
Mr. Guilfoyle: My time limit’s almost out but let me go ahead and say this. It is bold for
me to bring this up but I am a taxpayer too of Augusta Richmond County and I care about where
my money goes.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. And thank you for making us think outside of the box. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and you as well, Mr. Guilfoyle. It is outside the box
thinking. You happened not to be here when this was discussed on the last committee meeting
so I really didn’t know what your intent was in bringing it forward. As you’re dealing with
contracts as she just said without going through a contracting class there’s many factors that
come into play when you want to put out an RFP or IFB or Invitation for Bid which is totally
different. So I really didn’t know which way you were going with that. I also did not think after
speaking with a couple Commissioners that it was my position to insert anything on this
Commission. I’m not the City Administrator nor am I Procurement. So I decided to shun that
thought process and just give you some observations from where I sit. When you talk about best
value, best value will take into consideration I think is basically what she was saying. Other
factors like past performance their management plan, historical data on that particular company
there’s a number of things that go into play, what specific skill sets. If you say put a 50% waive
15
on all of the RFP’s well that wouldn’t work because you would put this government in a bind
because all contracts, it’s not a cookie cutter type of situation. I’ll take a second, second if I need
to. It’s not a cookie cutter operation when you’re dealing with contracts. Every single contract
has to be looked at on its own merit. You wouldn’t do the same type of contract for equipment
that you would do for personal services or you would do for construction. Those are totally
different types of contracts, be it a firm fixed price or cost reimbursement with some incentives
and so forth. So you’ve got to take all that into consideration. It’s very difficult for all of the ten
of us up here to understand all that. And we’re not going to get to that point. So that’s why I
rely on those experts that are sitting there that do this every day versus us telling them what
should be done when we don’t have the expertise. And I just want to quantify what I’m saying
just so that we’re clear. I have a Masters Certificate from George Washington University in
Contract Management. I’ve done it for the Federal Government for the last five years and have
been awarded five straight years for saving Fort Gordon millions of dollars. So that’s what I do.
I’m supposed to do what’s best for the government and that’s what I try to do up here in this
position as well. So I just wanted to quantify that. It’s not blowing smoke. It’s just to show you
---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: --- that I do have some expertise in that area.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Sometimes we ask our department heads for some of their thoughts and we
really haven’t given her time for some of the research. I’m interested in what she came up with
how ever way to kind of gauge this, to kind of shed a little light on what others are doing. So
thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Can I get a motion on this item?
Mr. Johnson: Move to deny it.
Mr. Lockett: Move to deny. 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. Hatney: I have one question. Move to deny.
Mr. Mayor: To follow the, yeah.
Mr. Hatney: That’s what you’re asking for?
Mr. Johnson: No, this is what the motion was.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
16
Mr. MacKenzie: I think you mean a motion to accept number seven as written.
Mr. Mason: Right motion to accept the denial.
The Clerk: Motion to deny an ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mason: To approve the denial. To deny to approval would be wrong.
Mr. Johnson: That’s what this motion is to approve the (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: Exactly what are you asking for?
Mr. Mayor: Motion to deny an ordinance to amend the Augusta Georgia code on Article
One, Chapter Ten, Section 1-10-52.
Mr. Lockett: In other words you’re saying no change accept it the way it is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Bowles: Well, whose recommendation was this item is where I’m trying to go to?
Was it Commissioner Guilfoyle come out with this or is this staff’s recommendation. Because
you know I’m hearing out of one ear we’re going to go with staff’s recommendation and now
I’m hearing we’re going to deny it. I thought this was something staff came up with.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Just to clarify. I actually drafted the language in here you have as the
attachment which shows a red line at the request of Commissioner Guilfoyle. But it was I mean
I did draft the language to make sure it was legally compliant. But it was at the request of
Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, so does the motion that’s been properly seconded get us where we
need to go? Ms. Sams, is that a yes?
Ms. Sams: The motion to deny would get us where we need to go.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney, you can vote now.
Mr. Hatney: I’m fine.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
17
Motion Fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, no action taken. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
10. Motion to approve and allow the Augusta Housing and Community Development
Department (AHCDD) to proceed with the Auburn & Barton Chapel Road, a rental
housing project consisting of 23 attached 2BR, 3BR and 4BR single family rental housing
units for households considered low to moderate income via the HOME Investment
Partnership Program (HOME) and Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3 (NSP3)
program guideline standards. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August
27, 2012)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Guilfoyle, I believe this was your pull as well.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I love it. Love it, love it. Mr. Welcher, would you please explain to me
why we are getting into the rental business?
Mr. Welcher: Yes, sir, I will. We, one of the things that we felt was very, very important
was the fact that as cuts and cuts are actually going on all across the country, one of the things
that’s very, very important to me was that we begin to move our department towards self
sufficiency. And being it from a federal regulatory standpoint if you go back and read various
code and federal regulations it allows our department as participating jurisdiction to be able to
use funding that comes down from the federal government in numbers of ways. We can actually
use it and provide it to nonprofits for profits or developers who are looking to actually provide
affordable housing whether it be from a homeownership standpoint or whether it be from a rental
standpoint. It allows our department as a participating jurisdiction to actually serve as a
developer on projects. To include a lot of other different ways in regards to being a field
(inaudible) when you talk about providing funding for low income housing attached credit deals.
Things of that nature. So one of the things that we’ve done we thought was very unique Mr.
Wheeler and I came up with a concept that we feel like it’s something that can be used to help
stabilize various departments all over Augusta Richmond County. And then we took that to
actually Mr. Russell and he thought it was a good idea as well that we actually bring it to you all
from a FYI standpoint to let you all know what we’re doing before we start actually just
developing housing of a different scope around Augusta Richmond County. We’ve done this,
we’ve done this before but what we’ve done is from a development standpoint we’ve done
housing from a homeownership perspective but we haven’t necessarily done it from a rental
perspective. So as I indicated before you know it’s not about us trying to actually profiteer. The
actually funding that we get actually goes back into the department to use in future projects. So
one of things that we actually have to understand when you actually start talking about
stabilizing a neighborhood is very, very important that you actually do market studies to pretty
much find out what will work in certain areas and what will not work in certain areas. So this
area that we’re talking about is off of Barton Chapel Road. It’s basically I guess diagonal to
Rahway Baptist Church if you know where that is. So what it is is there are 22 single family
18
lots. Infrastructure is already in so one of the things we wanted to do was we had two federal
pots that we knew actually fit the scope. Neighborhood stabilization, the Neighborhood
Stabilization Program 3. With that program the money is supposed to go for objectives to
include property that is vacant, abandoned, blighted and foreclosed. So this property actually fits
that character. Then you also look at our HOME money which that money is to be used for
properties that are considered to provide affordable housing. So we’re not coming today asking
for any money. We have 100% of the funding to be able to go forward. We also are not looking
for a match, don’t need a match. We’ve also done our homework and you know I’m not here
tooting my own horn but we’re not getting into something that we haven’t done before. I come
from a developmental background. I came from Aitken Housing Authority where I ran the
Aiken Housing Authority’s Nonprofit for ten years. So development is nothing new for our
department. We’ve done our rental performance to see exactly in any you know in any industry
standard says that when you talk about rental housing you must have a debt ratio between a
dollar fifteen to a dollar thirty cents. We’re within that range. So we’ve done our homework and
what it does is we’re building nine attached I think you see this is a picture. We’re building nine
attached two, three and four bedroom units. From and NSP perspective you’re looking at
yielding about $13,000 a year initially and then from a home perspective you’re looking at
yielding about $12,000 initially. That money once again goes back into our pot. So our mind
frame is to figure out exactly, haven’t figured it out yet but eventually this creates jobs. This
helps stabilize. This helps get off the city’s payroll so that’s really the mind set of where we’re
going with it.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right. The Mayor has got me gun shy on the time limit.
Mr. Welcher: Okay.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Wouldn’t this be under the specialist of the Housing Authority?
Mr. Welcher: No, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: It will not?
Mr. Welcher: Actually the Housing Authority could participate if we decided to
participate and I’ll tell you how. Because we are, the Housing Authority, housing authorities all
across America they charge for doing two things. If you go back the Housing Act of 37 or 34
they only charge for doing two things, administering of Section 8 vouchers and providing public
housing all over the country. This has nothing neither are the same. If you look at it we could
accept Section 8 vouchers if you all approved it by becoming what is called a participating
landlord. That means we would have to go out and fill out the paperwork at the Housing
Authority but we’re not involved in any kind of way. This is totally exclusive. And keep in
mind our units are for persons consider low to moderate income, okay? So what that means is
that just say for a one person household with a home use our units can go for somebody who
makes $32,000 a year or less. And then from an NSP perspective I think for a one person
household you’re looking at somebody who makes around $48,000 a year or less. So these units
aren’t ---
19
Mr. Guilfoyle: Is this kind of like Magnolia Trace what they’re doing in Columbia
County?
Mr. Welcher: No, I think that’s a ---
Mr. Guilfoyle: $60,000 income or less.
Mr. Welcher: Right but that depends on the number of persons per household. That’s, I
indicated for a one person household and it goes all the way up to an eight person household. So
I think what you’re talking about is a 9% tax credit deal which is not HUD. That’s Section 42 of
the IRS code.
Mr. Guilfoyle: You know your stuff.
Mr. Welcher: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Do you want to make a motion?
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, sir.
Mr. Bowles: I have a question.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Hawthorne, I assume that you all had to present a business plan and some
market research to HUD to get these funds. But looking at this I see one page with no
information for me as a Commissioner to make a decision on. I mean it tells me how much
money we’re getting and that we don’t have to, we’re not on the hook for it. But I remember
about three months ago we just sent $700,000 dollars from your department back. So we are on
the hook for what you’re doing. But I don’t see any performance statements on rental income ---
Mr. Welcher: I have the forms here with me if you like.
Mr. Bowles: --- I mean before I make a decision I have to see that information. I’m just
not ready to make a vote today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know we’ve been talking about low income
housing and $32,000 dollars a year certainly is something to look forward to. But you know
Dover Lyman has lacked for years and we’ve taken money out of Turkey Trail to Dover Lyman
and it gets sent back to Washington not once but twice. And then we put it in SPLOST VI and
we’re still not there yet. We’ve got people that want to move in there but yet we have
dilapidated houses. You know burned out houses right next to a brand new one. You know I
could support something like this if it was fair and equitable. And I understand Barton Chapel
needs work as well. It’s just really disheartening that we’ve got a burned down house right next
20
to a house that you guys are trying to sell for a buck and a half. And who in the hell wants to
live next to it? I know I wouldn’t. And I know that there’s one of the staff in this government
that’s looking to buy in that neighborhood. And you know it’s disheartening to have to wake up
every morning to see a dilapidated structure. We’ve tried, we’ve failed, we’ve tried and we’ve
failed. There was a plan that got kicked back and we had to pay the government back the
money. So now we’re in SPLOST VI. What are some of the extra additives that we’re going to
revitalize that area? I mean you’ve got a prominent restaurant that’s ready to pull the plug on
Richmond County right now because of the area. And it just goes back to I don’t mind
supporting it but it needs to be in the other areas that are low to moderate income. Thank you.
Mr. Welcher: Commissioner, to address your question what you’re talking about I totally
agree with you 100%. A portion of this funding as well Neighborhood Stabilization Program 3
is going to actually demolish six to eight, six to ten properties in Dover Lyman. We’ve already
th
submitted the paperwork as of August 27. Too, we’re in the process of doing our
environmentals now. So after the environmentals are complete our next phase is to work with
Rob Sherman’s department to demolish those units because you’re right. So we have done that.
And if you want me to provide you with that paperwork we’ve already done the environmentals
in that area.
Mr. Jackson: But I don’t think the environmental ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: --- thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think the environmentals have changed
in the past eighteen months or 36 months. It’s all, it is what it is. Those houses were built in ’52
’53 and they are about the same. So, you know, I know that Commissioner Mason needs help in
his area but you know Dover Lyman has been the heart beat of the area. You have a brand new
million dollar plus Marshal’s substation and it would compliment to try to build more in that
area. We’ve worked closely with the Walton Rehabilitation and that seems to have fallen on
dead feet. It’s been a dumping ground like everybody else’s district in this county. And I would
hope that with this we can find common ground and really revitalize what we mean to do. Thank
you.
Mr. Welcher: And just to, you brought up Walton Rehabilitation as well. I just want to
speak to that. And that is the fact that all the environmentals as actually good for six months and
then you actually must go back out. We’ve actually just approved $120,000 dollars that Walton
Rehab needed to actually complete their project. They’re still in the design phase but it hasn’t
fallen. One of the things, this is a concept. I don’t want you all to get, this is a concept that
we’re looking to employ all over Augusta Richmond County where needed. So it’s not, we’re
here now but this is a concept and once again that we’re looking to employ where needed.
We’re looking to help stabilize those areas so you tell me what you want. You tell me what you
want. It’s your job to give the credit and it’s my job to figure out how to make it work. So that’s
the attitude.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mason.
21
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I certainly appreciate and respect my
colleague’s opinion in reference to this item. For clarity this, where this is being placed it’s on
Barton Chapel Road it’s actually in District 5 which is Mr. Lockett’s district but we split Barton
Chapel. He’s got one side of the street and I’ve got another. Now the purpose of this and the
good thing about this is that we’ve had some developers from Atlanta who has come in and done
quite a nice job just behind where you’re talking about putting this. So you would have almost
like a mixed use development if you will where you have different levels of people without
calling it an actual mixed used development is being almost developed as such. This has been
the area one of the second worst areas in the district in that district and it’s being cleaned up by
other folks. So this is a good thing, it’s a potentially good thing. The other thing in reference to
this is that it’s the appropriate use of the land bank as opposed to some other deals that we’ve
done. You don’t have to justify this any kind of way. You don’t have to tweak it you don’t have
to turn it you don’t have to twist it. This is what it was meant for in terms of the Land Bank
Authority taking dilapidated or old property that’s no good and putting it back on the rolls to be
able to be beneficial for this community. I don’t see what the issue is. At some point I would
like to see south Augusta Commissioners support south Augusta initiatives. We do it for
downtown and we should, that’s great. We do it for other areas. At some point it would be nice
if south Augusta Commissioners would represent south Augusta. How can we expect the other
Commissioners to come on board with us if we’re not going to support what we have? I
understand there would be a priority way you might want it first or second I’d love to have a
Marshall’s station in District 4 but it didn’t happen. But I’m glad it’s in six because it’s fairly
close. I have one question, liability.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, hang on. That’s two. I’ll recognize you again.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, sir. The liability of getting into this type of housing for the city
is what exactly.
Mr. Welcher: Well, from a liability standpoint, actually the liability lies with the actual
Land Bank Authority. And liability wise we’re actually looking into, I mean we’ll make sure
that the correct insurance is actually in place on a per unit basis. But one thing that I want to
point out with what Mr. Mason indicated is very, very important is that we’re not looking to get
into the business for the city of Augusta. We’re actually looking to have several partners. So
you will have the land bank actually owning the property then we’ll actually go out, then we’ll
go out and procure for a property management company who is certified to do property
management. And then from there if approved, if that’s approved then we’ll actually move to
procure for A&E services as well as look to procure for contractors. So all we’re doing is
actually serving as the developer but we’re looking to bring those persons who have expertise in
the desired fields to the table to get this done.
Mr. Mason: Motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Aitken: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hatney.
22
Mr. Hatney: One question, sir. You mentioned I believe that the land bank will have the
liability.
Mr. Welcher: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Will they be getting the rent?
Mr. Welcher: All rent pass goes through the land bank.
Mr. Hatney: Not through are they going to be getting the rent because they got the
liability they should be getting the rent. However got the liability is supposed to be getting the
rent.
Mr. Welcher: Well they, the rent, they do get the rent, sir.
Mr. Hatney: You said pass through now you’re saying paying. Come on, brother.
Mr. Welcher: I mean you tell me ---
Mr. Hatney: I ain’t trying to be funny. If the land bank has the liability, I have no
problem with the project but if the land bank is the one with the liability that’s the entity that
should be getting the rent. Hallelujah.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Jackson, Commissioner Bowles, Commissioner
Brigham then Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have a problem supporting this but I’ve
disagreed with Augusta Richmond County being in the hotel rental business, landlordship, who’s
collecting the money, who’s getting the money, where’s the money being applied and like
Commissioner Brigham just said, how does it affect the digest. I don’t have a problem
supporting low to moderate income I think it’s needed. But I think there can be a better way to
adapt what we’re trying to get. And if it’s just a, as Commissioner Bowles says, a shell game to
not sure who in the hell’s going to get the money or where the money’s going and who’s paying
the property taxes I’ve got some issues. I believe that low income housing is needed all across
this county. And I believe that the Housing Authority does a good job of that. Why are we
going to spend taxpayer’s dollars to get into the rental business of houses and condos, if you
will?
Mr. Welcher: I think another thing that’s to point out when I say there’s a pass through
the funding. Actually it is a pass through. It is a pass through because the land bank actually
takes a certain percentage. The funding goes back into the pot for future development. You
know our department has put up 100% actually has 100%, I mean we’re investing 100% of the
money. The land bank is actually our partner in the deal. But the thing about it is, it’s not a shell
game Commissioner with all due respect it’s really not. My thinking is every year come budget
time every year come budget time you know we’re having to say okay how are we going to fill
again. Does somebody need to be laid off? How are we going to fill this gap based on the city
23
saying okay this is all that you can get. So we have an engine in place which HUD says we can
use this funding. 100% legal. 100% rental activities which we’re actually moving forward to
do. And we’re trying to exercise partnerships all throughout. And this is a way also that we can
get development done in Augusta Richmond County, it doesn’t have to be rental it could be lease
purchase it could be homeownership. But this is the engine that’s in place at you all’s disposal
that we can actually use anywhere in Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Jackson: I don’t disagree with that statement. But we’ve had a house, South
Augusta Redevelopment Authority has had a house on the marker for three years and have yet to
find an owner for it because of the dilapidated neighborhood. And we have them in everybody’s
district. It’s just a shame that I believe that we need affordable housing for everyone. But you
know putting this out there is great but I don’t believe that Richmond County needs to be in the
rental business or hotel or houses. If it can be if you can get somebody qualified to buy the
house in a certain time that’ great. But it isn’t going to happen. We’re in reality. I don’t want to
see our taxpayer’s dollars spent to pay for houses that you know that sit vacant. That, go out
there. I mean it happens every day.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: This might be a question for Andrew. I’m going to piggy back on what Al
said. I’m not concerned about low income housing and all those other things. I’m more
concerned about the city’s liability when it comes to when something goes awry like it did seven
months ago and we had to pay back $700,000 dollars. So are, since you and Chester developed,
I assume that you and Chester are taking responsibility to insure that we never have to send any
of these funds back. Because we can put it in the land bank’s name or whoever’s we want to.
The Federal Government is going to come back to this government and say we want our money
back.
Mr. Welcher: And that’s correct and that’s the reason why you have a certified property
manager, property management company actually in place to be sure that tenants recertify on an
annual basis to be sure they stay within the certainty allotted. Total household income based on
the number of persons within that household.
Mr. Bowles: Okay, well, what ya’ll be on notice that this is ya’ll project and you know
next time we send $2 million dollars back it’s going to be a lot more sent back than just money.
And I’d advise you, I heard you say earlier that this is filling the gaps and you’re not going to
operate it to make money. You better operate it to make money if you’re going to fill in a budget
gap with this. And you’d better run it like a business.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Brigham.
24
Mr. Brigham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I only have a couple concerns. One concern that
I still haven’t been addressed is how does affect my digest. From what I can hear it doesn’t do
anything for my digest. From what I’m being told either we as a government’s going on this
project or the Land Bank Authority which is a government institution on this authority which we
exempt all their property taxes. So I don’t see anything in it for the local taxpayer’s from the tax
perspective. I don’t know since Mr. Hawthorn Welcher’s been up there he said it’s going to go
to the department, the money’s going to go there it’s going to go the Land Authority. I’m not
sure where the money’s going. I’m assuming it’s going to rest with somebody. It either works at
the authority of this government but I don’t believe that we’re going to continue to balance the
budget this way. I will say as it’s been said earlier this is out of the box thinking and I commend
you for thinking out of the box but I think you’re trying to get us into a box that I don’t think we
need to be in and that’s to be landlords.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know it’s so ironic that if we want to do
something in south Augusta or east Augusta the debate never ends. And it appears that some of
you are trying to send a message. What Mr. Welcher is talking about here we’re not talking
about any dollars that’s coming from our general fund. We’re talking about federal dollars. All
of a sudden we’re concerned about whether or not the funds are going to be misappropriated or
whatever. But I want to show the double standard we have. When we talked about the TEE
Center parking deck we had no concern at all about the millions of dollars. Now we are trying to
help poor and middle income working people that do pay taxes. The location that they have
chosen is an outstanding location with the infrastructure. There are new houses that are right
next to it that’s close to $200,000 dollars or more. There’s an old neighborhood there that needs
the help because their property values will go up with this. In turn that would be more tax
dollars. Sometime we need to do is do what government is supposed to do. We will be helping
lots of people that cannot afford to go out and buy a home. We’ll put them in this rental
property, there will be stringent controls to make sure the property stays up and I don’t foresee
any liability any more than the liabilities that we have on things that we vote for on a daily basis.
I wish my colleagues would just think about those people that will occupy those premises. I
think everybody’s entitled to a very nice place to live whether they rent or whether they’re
owners. And I think we need to get rid of the double standard and this government should have
one standard that’s one that’s going to be fair to everybody.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, do you need ---
Mr. Lockett: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been properly seconded.
Mr. Mason: Can you repeat it?
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
Mr. Mason: Can you repeat it?
25
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, would you, after that spirited debate, would you please read
the motion?
The Clerk: The motion to approve and allow the Augusta Housing and Community
Development Department to proceed with the Auburn @ Barton Chapel Road rental housing
project.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No.
Motion Passes 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: Ya’ll could teach Congress a lesson on bipartisan support with that one. On
to the next pulled agenda item.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
13. Motion to approve Bid Item #12-193 Emergency Repairs Fire Station Number 9 for
Fire Department with award to Continental Construction. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 27, 2012)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Number 13, oh Chief James, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Chief?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Chief, as far as the building on Walton Way, when it is supposed to be
torn down or are we looking the buy another piece of property? I read this in the paper and it
raised eyebrows how we decided to do that.
Chief James: Right now there’s not another piece of property that we are looking at build
at this specific time. The bid has been awarded, well if you vote for it, it will be awarded to
Continental Construction. As soon as it’s awarded the Legal Department will put the contract
together. As soon as the contract is complete then they’ll have a 60 day period to complete the
repairs to that building.
Mr. Guilfoyle: So in five years from what I read in the paper from wherever she’s at,
stated that we will be tearing down that building looking for a new location or Mr.
Administrator?
Mr. Russell: Obviously as we continue to try to provide the best fire service we can we
actually had conversations at some length about whether or not it was better off to look for a new
26
location at this particular point in time or repair the particular building that we’re in. The
discussion led us to a conclusion that there’s actually no property within that area that we could
afford that would be sufficient to do what we want to do at this particular point in time. In
addition to that to replace that on site would be very expensive because we have to go up as
opposed to going out because of the size of the lot. So you end up with the base and then the
support area above that. After some consideration and a great deal of concern about the current
response time and the current availability we decided that if would be better to go ahead to make
those repairs as necessary and re-staff that station. Down the line at some point there’s going to
be a need to be a conversation about how to replace that building. But that’s probably down the
line a whole lot further than what we anticipated. There’s no SPLOST money available. We’d
have to put in a new SPLOST, we’d have to find a location all of which have proven to be
challenging at the moment. So the best case scenario at the moment is to go ahead and replace
what we’ve got and keep out eyes open.
Mr. Guilfoyle: It takes what we’ve got.
Mr. Russell: It takes what we’ve got, yes, sir, I’m sorry.
Mr. Guilfoyle: I make a motion to approve.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Fred, how do we go out for bids on this thing since it’s an emergency?
What was the process?
Mr. Russell: Geri, can you speak to that?
Mr. Hatney: Tell them you don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams.
Mr. Hatney: Tell them you don’t know.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bowles: I’m just trying to figure out did we approach the contractors. Did we put an
ad in the paper? What was the process on this one?
Ms. Sams: No, sir, we didn’t we went out for bid on it because we wanted to get some, a
bid that was competitive. And we also wanted to address the neighborhood and your
Commissioner’s concern. So we took the emergency and put it through a process.
Mr. Bowles: We only had two respondents?
27
Ms. Sams: We had two respondents.
Mr. Bowles: Do we have a list of the people that we asked to bid on it?
Ms. Sams: Certainly.
Mr. Bowles: My reason for asking is I keep hearing that local contractors are so hungry
and we only have two bid on it. That kind of surprises me.
Ms. Sams: It surprises me as well, Commissioner, especially since we have about a 70%
ratio of local participation. But in this case there were, can I put it on the screen, two vendors
who submitted on the project. And I believe there were a total of thirteen who actually was
notified or actually hit the demands starred of the Procurement Department.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there is no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next pulled agenda item.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
17. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator to meet with Mr. Langham immediately
to determine the best course of action moving forward regarding the issue of short-term
housing relating to the flooding of his home in the Hollywood Subdivision by Rocky Creek.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2012)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, I was actually, I pulled this for one reason and I know it was on
short notice. The Administrator was on vacation so when he got back I know his hand was full.
I don’t know if this needs to be on the agenda today. I was relying on the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Because of the nature of the request I took the liberty of going ahead and
meeting with Mr. Langham last week on Friday. I’m also in the position to make a
recommendation. But because of the fact that it might pertain with legal action I prefer to do that
in a legal setting.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to get a motion to go into legal?
28
Mr. Russell: If you could wait there a couple of other items that are probably going to
put us there so I’d prefer to do that if we had to for a quick session.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Jerry?
Mr. Brigham: Mr. MacKenzie is a motion in order to instruct the Administrator to come
back with a plan to come up with a way to buy out these flooded houses and have him report
back to the Commission at this point?
Mr. MacKenzie: If you’re talking about as a policy for the whole area or are you talking
about this one individual.
Mr. Brigham: I’m talking about a policy for the area not as the one.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, that would be appropriate for a policy decision on the whole area
not talking about individual ---
Mr. Brigham:I’m going to make a motion that we
Right I think that we ought to
instruct the Administrator to come up with a plan that we can go in and acquire flood
prone areas to relieve people that are in the flood plain and that have been repeatedly
flooded in their homes.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I support what my colleague has recommended.
I only wished that this would have been done probably done the committees because Mr.
Langham is sort of on hold between a rock and a hard space. And the more we delay this the
more difficulty he and his family are going to have. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mason. I just need some clarity. I heard the motion so I’m
clear with that but that was dealing with it broadly in terms of what is there still I heard my
colleague talk about going into Legal. Is there still the legal to deal with that individual situation
or where are we right now?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s correct. I would recommend you discuss that in Legal which we
were planning to today.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no
further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
29
Motion Passes 9-0.
The Clerk: Item 22?
Mr. Mayor: Item 22.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
22. Discuss approval of the submittal application for the Bloomberg Mayor’s Challenge
Grant. (Requested by Mayor Deke Copenhaver)
Mr. Mayor: Did you move to approve, Joe?
Mr. Hatney: Can I ask a question, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes sir, Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: My question is what is this?
Mr. Mayor: I apologize. This is a grant proposal being submitted to the Bloomberg
Foundation. We were one of I believe oh, 300/400 cities in the nation to be requested that we
submit. Should the grant come through it would be $5 million dollars. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know I read this and I said boy this great
for us to be recognized nationally for the work that we’ve done over at Laney Walker. Now
those are the same people that were just here a few minutes ago trying to get approval on this
project for Barton Chapel. And he indicated that this is something that they were planning on
going throughout the city with it. So it’s a great possibility two or three years from now we may
in a position to get an award for that also. And this definitely thinking outside the box. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. And I apologize for not running it through the committee cycle but
th
the grant application is due on the 14.
Mr. Lockett: Move to approve.
Mr. Aitken: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: A vote for this would be in no mean to show support for Mayor Michael ---
Mr. Mayor: If his foundation comes through with $5 million dollars. Okay we have a
motion that’s been properly second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now
vote by the usual sign of voting.
30
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, gentlemen. Item 24.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
24. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Administrator to proceed with Option 2d
and identify additional funding sources for Commission approval for the Augusta, Georgia
Municipal Building Renovations and Modernization Project. (No recommendation from
Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2012)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, last week or several weeks ago we ran into some issues with this
particular building. We discussed them at some length in reference to the needs that we have.
We made the recommendation that we would go with Item 2d which basically included only the
repair of the heating and air in the basement which is a major cost. But additional would address
some life safety issues around the elevators and ADA issues that unbeknownst to us were
outstanding there at this particular point in time. What that basically did would allow us to do
the outside elevator to meet ADA requirements. In addition to that meet the life safety issues of
the smoke chambers or smoke hallways around the elevator for safety. As we talked about at
that point there was a great deal of discussion amongst staff on whether or not we actually had to
meet those requirements. Because of the amount of dollars we’re spending on the building we
probably don’t come to the 50% replacement threshold that you’ve got. But I had a great deal of
issue representing to you that we should do these other activities without meeting these life
safety requirements. I think the fear I would have would be that as soon as we did that we’d
have an issue and I’m the one who’d have to deal with that as of, we ought to do it right if we’re
going to do it. That allows us to move forward with what we’ve got. Additional costs are about
$6 million dollars. We’ve looked at that and we’ve got that money basically available as we go
through a SPLOST dollar’s and deal with that as we narrow that down. The issue becomes at
this point the planning issues that we’ve got and I’ve had discussion with one or two of you
about whether or not we’re being pennywise and pound foolish by only doing this in the stage
aspect that we’ve got here. Additional funding would be necessary to do the complete building.
As you know that number’s a little hazy at the moment because of the fact we don’t have the
firm numbers yet as we go forward. We’ve got estimates and there would be a total of about $22
million for this building totally. In addition to that as we today have been thinking outside the
box more so than ever before and that’s always a little scary but it does sort, it does sort of put us
in a position where the philosophical and the rational question would be are we better off to use
today’s money and do it all or are we willing to wait and have the increased costs of doing it over
a phase period of time. The estimates that we have at the moment are additional waiting periods
would be approximately $2 to $3 million dollars if we wait and do it later on at additional costs.
That led me to go to our bonding people and say okay if I want to do this total building at one
time what’s the best way to do that from your perspective? Their suggestion and
recommendation would be that we go for a bond to pay that two years out of outstanding dollars
31
that we have available and then go for the balance in the next SPLOST. We’ve done that in the
past. The only issue I have there is we’re about a year and a half two years away from that vote.
Prior to the TEE SPLOSTS votes a vote I had little question recommending that and probably
was a little hesitant. I think the TEE SPLOST vote in our community is very significant of the
fact that our citizens recognize the fact that we do what we promise and promise what we can get
done. And I think that’s reflective in the passage of that vote in this particular area. That makes
it a little bit different than the conversation I had with you a couple weeks ago. I feel that
probably the most progressive thing to do if you’re willing to do so would be to go ahead and
bond additional money, do the whole building, pay two years out of the SPLOST money that’s
available and then pay the balance as we’ve done in the past out of SPLOST dollars. The
downside of that would be if that SPLOST is not passed we’d have to cover another year of
funding source if you look at that. But that’s probably about 1.2 to 1.3, $1.2 million a year if you
take the bond out 30 years. And that bond would do a little bit more than what we anticipated.
It’s about $14.5 for this building. If we’re going to bond that the difference in bonding an
additional $7 million dollars is nothing in the grand scheme of things. That $7 million dollars
would allow us to address and IT building on this site which is going to be necessary at some
point down the line. We get to build it sooner, we get to build it with today’s money as opposed
to money four or five years down the line. And it gives us the opportunity to go ahead and finish
off this campus in a way that I think actually does what we need to do. I know that’s a little
different curve than what we’ve got. My safe recommendation is still 2d which does the two
bottom floors, the outside power, the heating and air to makes this fund $6 million dollars. My
outside the box recommendation would be that we go ahead and authorize the bonding of an
additional $21.5 million dollars to do this building right and do the IT building to sit somewhere
on this campus that we go ahead and do that. There’s a difference between these
recommendations and its real simple. The first recommendation for 2d is based on government
dollars and being conservative and pretty darn conservative. The second recommendation is how
I think we ought to treat our own dollars and can use a little progressiveness in how we deal with
that. So Option A would be and this is going to get confusing. Option A would be 2d and that’s
what we’ve talked about before. I’m comfortable with doing that if that’s the will of the body. I
thinking the smarter thing to do at this point would be to go with Option d which would be the
authorization of us bringing back some bonding information for you on a $21 million dollar bond
and that we move forward with a $21.5 million dollar bond, move forward with doing this
building right with today’s dollars while money’s cheap and go ahead and looking at a building
for our IT Department which you were going to see in the next SPLOST anyway as you move
forward.
Mr. Mayor: I’m just going to say I support the second option. I think that short sided
decisions have cost this government a lot of money in the long run and it’s better to do it right up
front. I will go, I saw Commissioner Jackson’s hand up first then Commissioner Lockett then
Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have a problem with Option 2d. I believe
that and I’ve said this once and I’ll say it again. The next SPLOST needs to be an infrastructure
of this county. We have potholes; sink holes, trees, complaints across this county. I understand
the TEE SPLOST passed, that’s great in some eyes and sad in the others. It gets to the point that
we need to take care of our buildings and our structures that we have. There again I’m not going
32
to bond $23 million dollars, $21 million dollars, $19 million dollars to bring it up to current
standards. I believe that we owe it to the taxpayers to be frugal with the money. And what is
actually needed and what is wanted are two different things. I believe that there is an alternative
storage, alternative office space. I would like to see as Commissioner Brigham and I have had
this conversation having the whole government here under one roof which would be great. But I
don’t see it for need having a metal detector to come in to pay my water bill or a metal detector
to pay for my tax bill. You can go to Columbia County and you have no issue. I would look
forward to further I guess discussions how to secure second floor up general public first floor.
And I understand you had a meeting room on the front balcony and a place to come in and early
vote which is great. But I think for somebody to come in to vote or pay their water bill or get
their water turned on needs not to go through a metal detector or have better accommodations.
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know, Mr. Russell, I had a list of questions I
wanted to ask but you answered almost all of them. I listened to your Option 2d and it was okay
however let me ask you a couple of questions.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: The losses that we had that delayed the progress on this particular building.
How much did that cost us?
Mr. Russell: It’s hard to say exactly but our estimates are about $10 million dollars.
Mr. Lockett: If this project is delayed until the next SPLOST I believe you said it was
going to cost us about $3 million dollars?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. If we do 2d and then do the additional after that it’s about a $3
million dollar increase projected.
Mr. Lockett: Okay, so we’re talking about at least $5 million there. Construction labor is
not going to get any cheaper than what it is now. Sometime we’ll have to be proactive. Other
cities and counties have done what we are attempting to do. I fully support your
recommendation and the Mayor’s recommendation that we go it on and do the whole thing to
include the IT Building. And I’m quite sure that everything will work out if we do so. If not
we’re being concerned about the taxpayers and their money that’s what we talk about every
meeting. We know we can save the taxpayer’s $5 million dollars at least. We know that up
front. And so I would hope that enough of my colleagues will support going on with the entire
building as you suggested. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham then Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Russell, intriguing, I will say that it is intriguing.
33
Mr. Russell: We’re attempting for a new approach. Intriguing is what we we’re after.
Mr. Brigham: But intriguing is not dollars in the bank. And this bond that you keep
floating around I don’t understand that bond. I’m sorry I’m a little simple today. I need some
reassurances. Are you talking about a general obligation bond or are you talking about
something else? What kind of bond is this bond that we’re going to pay off?
Mr. Russell: I believe the term would be a back door G.E.O.
Mr. Brigham: A back door G.E.O. Does that mean, yes, it sounds very painful.
Mr. Russell: We’re intriguing and painful today. That’s where we’re at.
Mr. Brigham: So I guess I need to go see my proctologist is what you’re trying to tell
me. I just ---
Mr. Russell: We’ve talked to our bond attorney’s and talked to Diane. They have the
formula and the methodology to do that. I know you have a lot more respect for them in their
bonding lingo than you have for me and I don’t blame you because I didn’t understand it until
they said it was okay. But if you, you know if you’d like for them to come down and explain it
I’d be more than happy ---
Mr. Brigham: Before I commit to spending money I think I need to hear somehow how
we’re going to do this. And ---
Mr. Mayor: Well ---
Mr. Brigham: --- I’m not as willing to write that check at this point.
Mr. Mayor: Would it be appropriate to, Fred, do you need approval on this today? Could
we put it on the next Commission agenda and have the bonding group here?
Mr. Russell: If we could, we’re continuing to move forward with the plans. If ‘d’ is
acceptable as it was in the in the area if you could approve that and have the bonding people
come down and explain the options the architects already been directed to the full plan because it
only makes sense to do that. The question is at what point do we pull the trigger to tell him to ---
Mr. Brigham: Well, I would feel ---
Mr. Russell: --- do something different. I can understand you hesitancy on my
somewhat inadequate explanation of the bond. And I have no problem with getting Diane down
here to explain that.
Mr. Brigham: Somebody’s going to need to explain a lot of things. But um, I just um, ---
Mr. Russell: Sir, we can explain the bonds ---
34
st
Mr. Brigham: I hope you can explain it before December 31 because I sure would like
to hear some of it. But I would be willing to support the 2d proposal at this point because I know
that’s something we have to do. And I know that we basically have the funds to do it. I am a
little more hesitant to do anything else until I can understand how it’s going to be funded in the
future so that it can be paid off sometime in the future. And I wouldn’t certainly like to see my
colleagues get ran out of office because of something that was not properly vetted so that
financing could be worked out and understood by at least the majority of us. And at this point
I’m mighty weak of the understanding.
Mr. Russell: Obviously we’re not afraid of vetting anything and that’s part of the deal
that we anticipated. It would be good to continue us moving forward if the motion would
basically adopt 2d and ask for a report on the funding capable and funding opportunities to go
forward with the other from our bond attorney’s.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: I uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Option B I’m in for. I think now it’s time to
streamline this efficiency of our departments. I think we owe it to the taxpayers to do that.
That’s something that I wanted to see early on and I think as we’ve been a conservative
government we’ve been, we’ve handled the citizens money well. And I think that this is the time
to bite the bullet and do it and make this campus what it should be. I remember a meeting
Reverend Hatney and I had with Mr. Russell and we talked about the campus and they way it
looked. The appearance really wasn’t what it should be as a government building. I think we
looked at that across the board and he said that outside the church this should be the best building
looking building in town. And I think we owe it to the taxpayers and I think with a law suit that
was mentioned today it’s a disgrace when our business community sues us in ways. Some of its
merited some of its not but I think it’s too how we protect the investment of our community and
how we pull this together to streamline departments so we can make it a one stop shop. It makes
us efficient in those ways of doing business on a government. So I’m all in favor for the Option
B with some clarity that we would have some concern from our other colleagues and how we do
that and get that understanding. But I’m all for supporting it and doing it right the first time and
get it done and get it out of the way. That’s what I was hoping for before the law suit came up.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Johnson, did you?
Mr. Johnson: Well, Matt pretty much echoed the sentiments that I was going to say as
well. I think we do need to look at providing an option to move forward funding wise. But I
think also I would just like to add if Fred could also add to his list that if the SPLOST doesn’t
pass how could we repay the bond if we did take the bond out. So just add that to your do to list
and bring that back to us.
35
Mr. Russell: Thirty year payments are about $1.2 million a year. We would look at
repaying through the capital which is tight. That would basically hurt us a lot but the money
would be available there to do that. I was just talking to Tim and Diane will be up here to talk
about the water sewer bonds in the next little while. I don’t think it’s important at the moment to
do that but if that motion passes I believe we can have her up to talk about the other options and
you can get a better feel for that. And I fully understand why you would want to listen to her
instead of me on this.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason.
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor, I’m just trying to get some clarity because I
heard I think Mr. Brigham said ‘d’ and then he said ‘b’. What are we?
Mr. Johnson: No, he said Option B.
Mr. Mason: Option B, okay, so what is that?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, it’s basically, we’re approving. If we approve this 2d what I believe -
--
Mr. Mason: 14 point some odd mill?
Mr. Mayor: --- and tasking him to bring back the financing options for the plan b which
was not 2d but the second thing he talked about today.
Mr. Mason: Okay, okay ---
Mr. Russell: I had it all figured out ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Russell: It probably wasn’t your question at all, was it?
Mr. Guilfoyle: No, actually none of them. Mr. Administrator, I’m concerned about one
thing. We had an original drawing one year ago in order to hire the architect. I think a contract
went out for that. And we hired a contractor to contract one out for that. One year later we’re
looking at something that’s going to cost us $6 million more dollars because we ain’t ADA
compliable which should have been caught a year ago. I’m worried about that for one reason.
Even though you’re talking 22/23 million dollars at this point where are we going to be at a year
from now and will we exceed the cost of the Judicial Center. That’s where my concern is, is
what else has been missed? I think we need to slow down a little bit to realize that no different
that this parking deck things were missed because we actually built the building before a contract
36
was written. I don’t want to get into the same scenario. It’s not a good place to be at especially
being up here on this floor and it’s not a good position for you to be in looking at us, I know.
Mr. Russell: Well, I think the difference here is that we actually know what we’ve got in
this particular building. As you look at what you’re looking, if you look at the building itself
we’re doing a remodel. The delay actually it’s my understanding kicked in the ADA
requirements to revise in 2010. The smoke issue is something that you probably could argue one
way or the other whether or not you had to do that. My position is that I’m not going to suggest
to you we build a building based on current stats. The current statuettes they’re not sufficient to
meet those at this point. You could’ve had the philosophical argument all day long and save that
money that you know we’re not doing enough changes to this building to kick either one of those
in and grandfather it in.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Right.
Mr. Russell: That just doesn’t in my case and my feelings I cannot do that with good
conscience. I mean that’s a decision you can make as a policy and we can do that and save some
money but that doesn’t get us where we need to be.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, I need ---
Mr. Russell: The architects were in the examination phase and were doing that and that’s
why we’ve come up with bumps we’ve got into. The elevators from my understanding missed
by three inches. It’s a very expensive three inches but it’s as good as a mile when you start
looking at the federal standards. So that’s and you know I asked the same questions is how come
we didn’t know that when we started talking about it and it kicked in and that’s the 2010
standards kicked in. As you know we sort of waited a little bit on our ADA requirement. We
had DOJ down here what three years ago, two years ago now and we’re still waiting for their
final report to tell us what kind of condition this particular building’s in. So we’re trying to be a
little bit proactive in that and we have had conversations with them to have their architects look
at our plans prior to any development to make sure that we are compliant with that. So it’s an
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Would you give me some clarification on something, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Guilfoyle: The original bid was what, $18 million dollars to renovate this building.
Mr. Russell: The original estimate that we made was about $18 million dollars.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. And then we’re increasing up to $23 million at this time. You
speak of $6 million dollars. You spoke about that during your speech but you’re talking about a
$21.5 million dollar bond. How much money do we have set aside for this project?
37
Mr. Russell: $18 million approximately in the budget to do that. What we’re looking at
is a total budget to do it all of about thirty-one. So you’re talking about 13.2. $7 million of $21
million dollar bond is for what I would suggest to be designated for the IT building that we
haven’t done yet. So you’re looking at about $14 million in the bond plus another $7 million.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, the IT won’t be in this building whatsoever?
Mr. Russell: No, it’s not designed to be in this building.
Mr. Guilfoyle: No further. Thank you.
Mr. Russell: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Very intriguing, Mr. Russell, very intriguing. All right we have a motion
that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no further ---
Mr. Brigham: (inaudible) motion?
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk?
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the recommendation of the Administrator to
proceed with Option 2d and to pay the amount out of the current funding and the remaining out
of the next SPLOST. And to authorize him to have the bonding consultants to come back with
the bonding capabilities for Option B which is to do the entire building in addition to the IT
building. Is that okay, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: That’s surprisingly good actually.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Guilfoyle votes No.
Motion Passes 8-1.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if I can ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: --- a point of personal privilege. There’s a gentleman here that I’ve had a --
-
Mr. Hatney: Personal privilege? You ain’t no Commissioner. Come sit down.
Mr. Russell: But I get to debate like ya’ll do. It’s in the rules.
Mr. Mayor: Say what you want to say.
38
Mr. Russell: I won’t say anything now. I’ll go sit down.
Mr. Mayor: Who did you want to recognize?
Mr. Russell: I don’t want to recognize anybody. I just wanted to mention (inaudible).
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. MacKenzie, you said we had a need for a Legal meeting?
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, we have a need for short Legal meeting hopefully regarding two
issues. One pending and potential litigation and one real estate issue.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
ADDENDUM
25. Motion to approve going into a legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to go into Legal for that affect?
Mr. Guilfoyle: So moved.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign of voting.
Motion Passes 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’re in Legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
29. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Motion Passes 9-0.
ADDENDUM
39
28. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the purchase of .35 acres of a property
parcel identified as TPN #145-0-006-00-0 located at 1822 Phinizy Road, Augusta, Georgia
in the amount of $16,100.00.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to that?
Mr. Smith: So moved.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney out.
Motion Passes 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, I believe we had two additions.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
ADDENDUM
26. Motion to approve acceptance of Federal Aviation Administration Grant in the amount
of $472,050.
27. Motion to approve a five (5) years U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Contract with the
Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have unanimous consent to add these items. Okay. Yes, sir.
Mr. LeTellier: Mr. Chairman, this is a last minute grant offer from the Federal Aviation
Administration and we got it I think we got it Friday. And so it’s a quick turn-around or we will
lose the money and our board met this morning and approved it and we’re asking you to do the
same this afternoon.
Mr. Lockett: Move to approve.
Mr. Johnson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there is no further
discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney out.
Motion Passes 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: And agenda item number two.
40
Mr. LeTellier: Mr. Mayor, this second item is a Department of Energy Contract. We
were asked by the Department of Energy to handle this as an emergency since it’s again at the
end of their fiscal year. They’ve got some concerns about sequestration and this contract is
associated with Savannah River Site and the handling of special materials. So they did not want
to take the chance and we’re asking you to approve as well.
Mr. Johnson: Move to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there is no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Hatney out.
Motion Passes 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
September 4, 2012.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
41