The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRegular Commission Meeting June 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER JUNE 4, 2013 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., June 4, 2013, the Hone. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, G. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson, Jackson, Davis and D. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: I’ll call the meeting to order. And I’d like to call on Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor of National Hills Baptist Church for our invocation. Please stand. The invocation was given by Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor, National Hills Baptist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Pastor. And I have something for you if you could please come forward. Office of the Mayor. By these present be it known that Dr. Kevin Steele, Pastor, National Hills Baptist Church is Chaplain of the Day. For his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community serves as an example for all of the faith community. th Given under my hand this 4 of June 2013. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the delegations. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS A. Mr. Henry Coward regarding dilapidated property located at 1125 Carrie Street. Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir. Mr. Coward: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Good evening Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, board, I come today on behalf of the Friendly Church of God-Christ regarding the property that is dilapidated. And we submitted a request for assistance in entertaining a disposition of that property. And we’re pretty satisfied. There’s an official annual notification that is published that has some guidelines there and we’re pretty satisfied with the intentions or the conjunctions of what is projected to happen with the dilapidated property (inaudible). So this notification came out or was published after we had submitted the request for this agenda item so we still wanted to come to the meeting to address the matter. Any questions for me? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes, Mr. --- Mr. Coward: Henry Coward. 1 Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Coward, how are you doing? Mr. Coward: Good. Mr. Fennoy: The property is at 1125 Carrie Street? Mr. Coward: Yes. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, on Carrie Street how many dilapidated properties would you say are within a block radius of this property right here? Mr. Coward: I’m not certain, Commissioner. Mr. Coward: Okay. Mr. Coward: There are some, I’m not certain of the number. There are some other new construction homes that were built I guess through the ANIC Program in and around the same area. And that property’s just an eyesore and a nuisance. Mr. Fennoy: And the reason I asked that question is because I ride my bike on Carrie Street at least four times a week and I’m very familiar with the property that you’re talking about. But I’m also familiar with at least 20/30 other properties that are as bad as the one that you’re talking about. In front of Homily Baptist Church we have about six houses that are dilapidated and it’s any eyesore to the community. I want to thank you for being concerned about your community and want to get something done about it. Mr. Coward: Yes, the safety issues is one of the biggest concerns of course you know with the roofs which are tin. It’s about the fly away and we’re really concerned about in the event of high winds if there’s you know residents or a pedestrian or you know personal property vehicles and those sort of things that could be damaged. Mr. Fennoy: And another one of my concerns is the criminal elements that are drawn to that area because of the abandoned and dilapidated houses. Mr. Coward: Yes, the property values, I guess as full disclosure I am a licensed real estate broker in the state of Georgia, but for property values sake and those are the big concerns. There needs to be a program and I can see that there is some sort of initiative being taken to address those things those issues about the dilapidated properties so we’re satisfied with that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Williams: Mr. Coward, thank you for coming and I appreciate your patience. We have, we should have done something a long time ago in that particular area but it’s not just an area like Commissioner Fennoy just stated there are a lot of abandoned properties and a lot of neglected properties in there. And we need to get progressive as a city to get those property owners. Now if you own the property, I don’t care how young how old, if you own that property 2 you ought to maintain it. And we have not done that. Hopefully we can get progressive even now. We’ve already found a way to do some things and some things we kind of turn our backs on. We kind of put it at the bottom of the barrel I guess you’ll say. And I’m committed to you to help you get that property along with I’m not speaking for my colleague he can speak for himself but as part of the Super District I plan to call License and Inspection. They know me well. I call everyday and I don’t understand why as a Commissioner I have to report those things because there ought to be somebody else out there reporting those things. Mr. Coward: --- right Commissioner --- Mr. Williams: That’s exactly right. So I want to thank you and I’d like to give you my number and you can call me to come by and sit with you and try to figure out what we can do as a body to get that done. I can give you my cell. Mr. Coward: Okay, Commissioner. Mr. Williams: 706-910-2582. And it’s on 24/7. Mr. Coward: Got it, Commissioner. Okay thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if it’s okay I’d like to since the subject is up before this body is for the Administrator or someone of his charge to explain exactly what we’re doing. It’s not the fact that we are just sitting by, driving by looking at dilapidated houses. We do have a process that’s going on now and if it’s okay I’d like for the Administrator or someone to just give this body or this group of people here a brief overview as to what we are doing. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell? Mr. Russell: Yes, Mr. Sherman can speak to that. As you know Georgia’s a very property oriented state so it’s not as easy as finding a problem and dealing with it. You’ve got to go through a process and Mr. Sherman can explain that, give you an update on where we are and the fact that we are taking advantage of some of the money that you allocated last year to go ahead and begin tearing some of these places down. Rob? Mr. Sherman: Good afternoon. As far as the dilapidated structures go we do have a process that we have to work through. It’s a state code. It’s Nuisance Abatement. And where we are on this property is that we have requested a title search and there’s some issues with the title itself. The Attorney that’s working on that is working to get it back to us as soon as he can. Once we have the title search we have to post the property, we have to advertise it and then get a court date with Magistrate Court through what we call our Public Officer Hearing. At the hearing in the past we’ll take 20/30 properties before the court and request that they give us, issue an order for demolition. They issue the order to the property owner if they property owner shows up. In most cases these are abandoned properties but the court order is issued in the event 3 that the property owner doesn’t comply with the order. Then the city through your approval we can bid out the projects and have them demolished or record liens against the properties. As far as the money you allocated last year appropriated $500,000 we are finishing up with that money. Actually it is gone. We did a little over 100 properties so that’s where we are with the demolition. We continue to inspect for violations and we request the title searches so that we will be ready when the additional funds are available. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I’m glad my colleague asked that question and Mr. Sherman responded. We’ve got three and I know of three means of disposing of those properties and one is right-of-way with Public Works and we’ve got a private company we pay to cut vacant lots I suppose. Then we’ve got inmate crews. And I’m really confused as to who does what, when and where. I see different crews working but I know the right-of-way crews only work with the right-of-way. But we approved a $100,000 dollar judge maybe more a few weeks ago to a outfit to cut right-of-ways to cut yards and I asked the question. When and how much do they cut? How do I know they cut them? I’ve got complaints where people said they maintain their property but they got people coming by Rob saying they just cut it. And if we don’t have nobody to inspect what we expect than we’re not going to know if we’re getting what we’re supposed to be getting. That doesn’t leave Mr. Coward I guess for what he wants to do. It’s a lot in the inner city a lot of people walked away on their property and we’re working on it. I didn’t mean that we’re not paying any attention but there’s just so much and so overwhelming. I’d just like to know what I can do to help you as far as getting that process speeded up. Mr. Coward: We’re just asking for some, we’re hoping that we can be, I know you’re going to have to prioritize. And we’re hoping we can move up on the priority on that particular property because it’s kind of strategically located to be a real nuisance. Mr. Mayor: And he does keep that cell phone on 24/7. I can tell you that. Mr. Crawford: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, prior to going to the next delegation I did want to recognize. We have a group of visitors in the back in from the Ukraine, a group of journalists that are visiting us here in Augusta. So thank you for being here. They’re observing our meeting today but I think they’ll find our meeting a might be a little more open than what they’re used to experiencing but thank you guys for being here. Madam Clerk, on to the next delegation. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS B. Mr. Michael McCullen regarding public transportation. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Not here? 4 (Mr. McCullen did not appear before the Commission) The Clerk: Item ‘C’? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS C. Mr. Remer Brinson regarding public transportation. Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir. Mr. Brinson: Definitely. Hello, my name is Remer Brinson and I wanted to talk to ya’ll a bit about transportation. My junior year of high school as I was planning on what I was going to do with my life like all junior’s in high school tried to do, I was at a, I got asked to give the invocation at United Way. And people got up and you know the American Red Cross all these different groups from around town. And I’d always volunteered around Augusta in all sorts of different capacities. But I remember distinctively turning to my Mom and saying I want to figure out a way to do this full time. I want to figure out a way to help people as a career. So I went off to school. I went to school in Chicago which by the way has a great transportation system and came back to Augusta. And for the last two years I have been working amongst all sorts of different marginalized communities in and really around a lot of different issues and injustice. So I just wanted to share with you all a couple of stories I’ve heard over the last two years of working because I’ve dealt with a lot of issues. I’ve helped start a Farmer’s Market in Harrisburg for food access. I’m on the board of Interfaith Hospitality and still working on housing for homelessness. But one issue that I see being prevalent in every one of our major social illnesses in our community is transportation. I mentor some boys and their mother Daisy was having a hard time getting a job so I helped get her a part time job at Lucy’s Laundry out in Columbia County or almost in Columbia County out Washington Road. It’s technically Richmond County. And she was unable to take the job because it was a Saturday/Sunday job and the bus doesn’t run on a Sunday. I have a tendency to pick people up off the side of the road. I pick people up all the time. I know it’s dangerous. I don’t care. I pick people up all the time when they look like they’re trying to get somewhere in a hurry. And I picked up a young man who over the next couple of months I found out had psychological illnesses. And the only place that he could get his prescription refilled was a Serenity which is way out in South Augusta. It literally was an all day bus ride to get him there and back. So time after time after time on the day that his medicine was due he’d call me or my Dad and one of us would run him out there, figure out a way to get him to the different pharmacies. I also did a bunch of research in the Harrisburg area before we started the Farmer’s Market. And elderly person after elderly person in the community told me that they couldn’t get healthy food because they couldn’t carry th the food from the grocery store or the 15 Kroger was the one that most of them shopped at. They couldn’t get the food from the grocery store to their home up on the Milledge Road side of the community. And lastly I taught a Faith and Finances course at St. Luke United Methodist Church. I work at Trinity on the Hill Methodist Church. And one thing that really impacted me is a lady named Lisa. We were talking about transportation needs and she looked up at me and 5 said yeah, I used to be a walker. I said what do you mean a walker? She said, well I used to walk. I you know knew the bus wouldn’t go the places I needed to go so I walked. And I said oh really. She said yeah, it was terribly embarrassing. It was terribly embarrassing. This woman had been unable to get from place to place but she was, she’s actually termed the Block Advocate. She’s very forward thinking, hard working but she couldn’t get to where she was going. And now she has a car but for years she and her daughter were embarrassed as they walked to places because everyone in town knew that they were people who had to take the bus or couldn’t get to where they needed to go. So I hope that as we move forward with transportation that we can work on a solution that’s comprehensive but expands transportation access for people across our city. And also a plan that’s community responsive. It’s not, I’m not holding you all personally responsible for something as complicated as transportation but in order for it to be a community wide effort there’ll need to be a community responsive strategy for moving forward. Thanks so much. Mr. Mayor: Well, Remer, I just want to say thank you so much for all you’re doing. And thanks for coming in. We need more people out there at the grass roots level rolling up their sleeves and getting their hands dirty and helping. So I appreciate it. I know that this Commission is committed to and you hit the nail on the head. It’s a complex issue but the will of this body is to improve our transit system. I think Denise has been here a lot of times and there’s, it can’t happen fast enough for us but we will get it done. So thank you. Mr. McCullen: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda please. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-42. And under the Public Services portion of the agenda I’ll read the alcohol applications and if there’s anyone here who has an objection would you please signify your objection by raising your hand. Item 7: Is a request for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hop N Go, Inc. located at 3755 Wheeler Road. Item 8: Is a request for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Smile Grocery located at 830 Stevens Creek Road. Item 9: Is a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Pandora’s Lounge located at 2623 Deans Bridge Road. Item 10: Is a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Makhanga, Inc. DBA Genghis Grill located at 250 Robert C. Daniel Pkwy with Sunday Sales. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to any of these alcohol petitions? Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: So our consent agenda is items 1-42. 6 Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Lady and gentlemen, do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Is it possible to consent item 44? Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any further items to be added to the consent agenda? Hearing none, do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, can I pull 22 and move that to committee please? Mr. Mayor: Everybody okay with that? Mr. Mason: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: If we could pull item 13 please? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: I’d like to pull item 24, 26 and 29. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 34 please. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Commissioner Guilfoyle. I’m just trying to keep track of who pulled what. Mr. Guilfoyle: I understand. Let me pull item number 20, number 35, item number 13. Mr. Mayor: It’s already been pulled. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Sorry about that. And item number 36 so we can see what the Administrator had brought forth on our garbage contract. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Item 18, Mr. Mayor. I’d like some discussion on it please. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madam Clerk, if you could read back the items added to and the items pulled please. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Item 44 was requested to be added to the consent agenda. And the pulled items included item 13, item 18. Item 22 to be referred back to the committee. Item 24, 26, 29, 34, 20, 35, 36 and 18. 7 Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Mason: So moved. Mr. Jackson: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. SA-49 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Subdivision Regulations for Augusta, Georgia by amending the language in Article II I-Section 302-development plan checklist-by adding that any project within 100’ feet of the Augusta Canal must be reviewed and approved by the Augusta Utilities Dept. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading. 2. SPA-10 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Site Plan Regulations for Augusta, Georgia by amending the language in Article III-Section 301-site plan checklist-by adding that any project within 100’ feet of the Augusta Canal must be reviewed and approved by the Augusta Utilities Dept. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading. 3. ZA-R-225 – 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 Section 28-A-7-J-Telecommunication Towers-inventory of towers and their carries. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading. 4. ZA-R-227 – 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 Section 2-B (Signs)-approval of billboards to be erected on State routes, streets and roads in the National Highway System in accordance with Title 23 USC Section 103. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading. 5. ZA-R-228 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia by deleting the word “parochial” from Section 26-1-(b) – Special Exception – parochial and private schools. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading) 6. ZA-R-229 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia by amending the language in Section 5-3-(b) (Non-conforming Uses) – non conforming use of nonresidential structures. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading. PUBLIC SERVICES 7. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 13-11: request by Wael S.E. Ibrahim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hop N Go, Inc. located at 3755 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 8. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 13-12: request by Kyoungo Kim for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Smile Grocery located at 830 Stevens Creek Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 8 9. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 13-13: request by Nellinesha Holland for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Pandora’s Lounge located at 2623 Deans Bridge Rd. There will be Dance. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 10. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 13-14: request by Matthew Klatt for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer and Wine license to be used in connection with Makhanga, Inc. DBA Genghis Grill located at 250 Robert C. Daniel Pkwy. There will be Sunday Sales. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 11. Motion to approve an amendment to the Code at 7-1-27 to correct references to the Director/Building Official of the Planning and Development Department. (Approved by the Commission May 21, 2013 – second reading) 12. Motion to approve the Program Managers recommendation to select Total Systems Commissioning, Inc. as the Commissioning Agent for the Augusta, Georgia Municipal Building Renovations and Modernization project for a lump sum price of $97,850. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 14. Motion to task the Law Department and Ms. Allen to develop the bylaws for the board and that the Commission in the meantime consider who they want to appoint to the board with three appointments to come from each Super District and one appointment from the Mayor relative to the formation of a Citizens Advisory Committee for Transit. (Approved by the Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 15. Motion to approve the suspension of the Business Tax Certificate for Ms. Saundra Milton, d/b/a: The World of Sugie’s Kitchen until Richmond County Health Department fees are paid in full. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 16. Motion to task the Administrator to get information regarding the square footage of the depot at 5h and Reynolds Streets and make recommendation(s) concerning some better use of the facility. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 17. Motion to approve Discussion: A request by William A. Melvin for a Therapeutic Massage Operators license to be used in connection with Avant Williams located at 2834 Washington Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 19. Motion to approve having commissioners sign the Code of Conduct at the first meeting each year. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) 21. Motion to refer the matter of downtown parking to a work session for further discussion with the inclusion of the appropriate people such as the Sheriff’s Dept., small businesses and downtown companies with a number of employees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) 22. Motion to approve rotating the scheduled meeting time for all committees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) 23. Motion to approve the proposal from Carl Vinson Institute of Government to provide organizational review services as part of the 2013 Commission Goals and Objectives. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013 25. Motion to approve the renewal of the Rental Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and the Georgia Department of Human Services for office space for the Department of Family 9 and Children Services located at 520 Fenwick Street for the period beginning July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2104. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) PUBLIC SAFETY 27. Motion to accept non-matching grant award in the amount of $115,989 for the Felony Drug Court offered by the State of Georgia Accountability Courts grant program. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) 28. Motion to approve accepting the Segways formerly used by CADI and allow the Richmond County Sheriff’s Department to use them in their mission. (Approved by Public Safety Committee May 28, 2013) FINANCE 30. Motion to approve the acquisition of 5 Explorers for: Traffic Engineering (1), Engineering (2) and the Tax Commissioner’s Office (2). (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) 31. Motion to approve request from the Augusta Utilities Department to purchase three (3) replacement vehicles for various divisions. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) 32. Motion to approve the FY 2014 Metropolitan Transportation Planning Services contract between Augusta, Georgia and the Georgia Department of Transportation. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) 33. Motion to approve a Budget Resolution and a Contract with Georgia Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for Phase 2 of the Summerville Historic District Survey. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) ENGINEERING SERVICES 37. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring a Right-of-Way between Janice R. Koss, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the Marks Church road Reconstruction Project, 0.048 acre (2,079.63 sq. ft.) in simple and N/A acre of permanent easement, more or less; and 3, 178.41 sq. ft. of temporary construction easement, more or less, and One (1) temporary driveway easement(s) on Project Marks Church Road Reconstruction, from property located at: 3379 Wedgewood Drive, private, at the purchase price of $4,795.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2013) 38. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring a Right-of-Way between Equity Trust Company Custodian FBO Beverly K. Mims, IRA as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the Windsor Spring Road Phase V Project, consisting of 0.172 acre (7,472.37 sq. ft.) in fee and 0.135 acre (5,892.28 sq. ft.) of permanent construction & maintenance easement, more or less. Also granted is (are) one (1) temporary driveway easement on Project Windsor Spring Road, Phase V, STP00-1105- 00(004) from property located at: 4626 Windsor Spring Road, private, at the purchase price of $4,800.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2013) 39. Motion to approve award of bid item #13-135, trash services for permanent sidewalk receptacles to Coleman Sanitation. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2013) 10 40. Motion to approve the abandonment of Oak and Emmett Street that are on the campus of Paine College. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2013) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held May 21, 2013 and Special Called Meeting held May 28, 2013) APPOINTMENTS 42. Motion to approve the reappointment of Mr. Larry McCord to the Citizens Small Business Council representing District 9. PUBLIC SERVICES 44. Motion to approve the Contract with Modern Business Systems, Inc. in the amount of $202,400.18 for the purchase and installation of the Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment for Webster Detention Center. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-12, 14-17, 19, 21-23, 25,27, 28, 30-33, 37-42, 44] Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, let’s go to the first pulled agenda item first please. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 13. Motion to approve 30-day suspension and 6-month probation of the Alcohol License and Business License for Mr. Timothy W. Lowery, d/b/a: Skittlez Bar and Grill, 1855 Gordon Highway, for failure to comply with the Augusta-Richmond County Alcohol Ordinance, Adult Entertainment Ordinance, Dance Hall Ordinance, and Occupation Tax Ordinance. (Approved by Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: And, Mr. Mason, I believe this was your pull. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I simply want to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that, that we put this as a 90-day suspension with a one year probation of the alcohol license. Mr. D. Smith: I’ll second Mr. Mason’s motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can we hear from License and Inspection or is that --- Mr. Sherman: You know I’m not sure there’s anything we can add to what was said the other week. You’re asking me to revoke his alcohol license, dance hall license and business license. He um, the Sheriff’s Department was here and can report to you that he allowed 11 underage into the establishment. They were having an adult entertainment show that night. They failed to pay the regulatory fee and it went beyond what we believe is acceptable. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Can we hear from the other side? Mr. Crane: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Hank Crane for Mr. Lowery here this afternoon. At the committee meeting it was recommended that a 30-day suspension would be in place. And so that’s what we thought we would be dealing with today. Of course that’s been enhanced apparently. And so we’d like to address that. Ninety days brings up an interesting issue with this club. In the past this Commission has dealt with other clubs, one is Club El Fiasco or Fiasco where there was a homicide, numerous minor consumption and underage drinking inside and I believe one adult entertainment violation. So that club had numerous calls, numerous violations and one homicide where a murder took place. This Commission imposed a 90-day suspension on that club. This is Mr. Lowery’s first violation and you can check the records. There are no other violations for this club. He’s operated for over two years. He does admit that someone underage entered into the establishment. We believe that was done by use of a fake I.D. There was a man there that night that there was nudity involved that was not intended. Once that occurred that was stopped immediately by Mr. Lowery and his staff. But we think that 90-days, the Commission needs to have some consistency in its rulings and it’s enforcement and so forth. And to punish Mr. Lowery with 90 days of suspension and place him parallel to the club where a homicide and numerous other violations took place and they received the same punishment. We feel that’s too severe. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When this came out of committee and with the 30 days and I think a year’s probation, 6-month probation I think this year. I thought it was maybe not tough enough but I didn’t think 90 days compared to what the Attorney just stated that we had other businesses to come in. And I don’t condone any of the activities that went on there but I do know it’s a business. I do know that if we put them on a 6-month probation and they violate anything else then we can turn around and revoke their license and do whatever. Put them out of business for good. But to do 90 days and I’m wondering why it came out of committee and then today we propose something else. We need to be consistent. I agree, the Attorney said that and I think we ought to be consistent. I just think that’s pretty, in fact the event that happened I talked with Rob Sherman about it. I didn’t go view any of the pictures. I know the officer was here and talked about how bad it was. And I’m sure it was. I’m not making little of that. But we made a decision. It came from the committee to do 30 days and with six months probation. And hopefully we’ll have somebody in that establishment more often or more frequently to kind of keep an eye on what is going on down there. So I’m just wondering why the change. Commissioner made that motion and my colleague Mr. Smith seconded it but was there any other reason other reason that I’m hearing other than just what we heard already? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mason. 12 Mr. Mason: Sure, I’ll be happy to respond to it. Number one, I think Commissioner Williams is very well aware that committee decisions are not final decisions. In fact on several occasions it’s come out of committee for approval but Mr. Williams has went against it and made several motions to change. So from that aspect the only thing I’m saying here is that I’m not a part of the Public Services Committee. I am a part of the discussion but I’m not a part of the voting piece and I would have never voted for that 30-day suspension. And so I’m utilizing my right as an individual Commissioner to state what my opinion is of this particular matter. And that’s so that’s the motion I made, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith, you had your hand up. Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir. In response to this Mr. Crane and I promise you I will not take you to task but there are rules of decency in this society. And that gentleman allowed those rules to be violated. And it wasn’t for five minutes, it was for an extended period of time. And the rules of decency are applied by this government. So I wasn’t on the Public Services Committee and I would not have voted for ninety days, for thirty days. Sir, you run a business and your Mama would not have appreciated what you allowed to go on out there. Just like the constituents in my neighborhood will not allow that to go on. So there has to be a penalty and it has to be severe. And that’s why I say 90 days is sufficient. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams you had? Mr. Williams: Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I want to respond to the Commissioner who has a right to address or go along with or deny. That’s up to him. I mean I’m not asking to vote any particular way. I wanted to hear why he and Commissioner Smith gave a good reason for his second. I hadn’t heard anything before we got to this board. But what he does is within his I’m going to go ahead and call rights as a Commissioner I do as a Commissioner is my right so for the question, Mr. Mayor, that we go ahead and vote. I’m not going to get into personal stuff that I’d like to get into right now. Mr. Mayor: Okay the question has been called for. Are there any objections to that? Mr. Lockett: Yeah, I’ll object because I had my hand up. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Well, we have an objection. Now, Mr. Attorney, correct me if I’m wrong we need to vote on that. Correct? Mr. MacKenzie: Yeah, you would vote on whether or not to have the question called. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mason: Uh, what is this? Mr. Mayor: To approve the calling of the question to vote on the matter. Mr. G. Smith, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Williams and Mr. D. Smith vote Yes. 13 Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No. The vote ties 5-5. The Mayor votes Yes. Motion carries 6-5. Mr. Mayor: Now we vote on the primary motion that was made. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: It’s, we’ve already called for the question. Mr. Fennoy: Can I ask for --- Mr. Mayor: After the question has been called for it’s --- Mr. Fennoy: --- on the floor can I ask for people to vote as a roll call vote? Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Attorney, he can request a roll call vote? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Fennoy: Okay I request a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Clerk: Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: No. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: No. 14 The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: No. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: No. Ms. Davis, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Mason, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. G. Smith vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion Passes 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, we’re moving on to the next agenda item. Mr. Crane: I realize, there was one other issue I wanted to address and if ya’ll have a second. Mr. Mayor: I’ll tell you the motion has been, we’ve already disposed of the agenda item. So thank you, sir, I apologize. Mr. Crane: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk? The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 18. Motion to approve and authorize the Administrator and Augusta Housing and Community Development Department Director to offer the newly selected candidate for the Finance Officer position (requested by HCDD) and annual salary similar to the departing Finance Officer’s current annual salary. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) 15 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle, I believe this was your pull. Mr. Williams: No, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, this was yours? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I just needed some explanation. I think the current salary was fifty-three? Mr. Wheeler: No, sir, it’s not. Mr. Williams: In the back of looking at it, it was fifty-three. I think that it came to seventy to seventy-three. It’s that right? Mr. Wheeler: The current salary is $70,000 dollars. At the beginning of the scale it’s fifty-three. When the person was hired the new personnel policy manual was not in place. The person was offered a salary commiserate with their experience so it’s further out on the scale. The new salary for that pay grade, I think it’s a pay grade fifty-three. No it’s not, it is a pay of $53,000 dollars. Mr. Williams: The pay of what? Mr. Wheeler: The existing person makes seventy. Mr. Williams: The existing, but the new person coming in I’m talking about now. Mr. Wheeler: Between seventy and seventy-three. The existing person has not received a pay raise since they started work which was a few years ago. So the $70,000 dollars is not compounded. That was the original pay from day one. Mr. Williams: And HR is good with this, Human Resources. Mr. Wheeler: They are in the process of evaluating where to properly place the pay grade. Mr. Williams: Now let me ask another question. I think your department, and Housing and Community Development is the only department that has forty hours a week. What are ya’ll ten hours a day four days a week? Eight hours a day four days a week. Mr. Wheeler: This first person goes in at 6:30 and the last one leaves at 6:00. It allows us to have appointment with individuals who normally have to take off of work to come and see us. And we have appointments starting anywhere between 6:30 through the day as late as six at night. 16 Mr. Williams: This is not the agenda item, Mr. Mayor, and I’m not going to into it but I’ve got numerous complaints about the four day work week that people can’t get there on Friday when people try to handle business on Friday your office is closed. There’s nobody there. Mr. Wheeler: I’ve not had anyone --- Mr. Williams : No, no, hold it. Hold it now. I had complaints. I don’t know who talked to you. I don’t know how to even get to you but that cell number I gave out I knew what I was doing when it went out all over. Everybody got it and I don’t mind them having it. But I’ve got several complaints about your department being closed. Now that’s not the agenda item, Mr. so I’m going to go ahead and make a motion to approve --- Mayor, Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Williams: --- but that’s an item I will bring up later. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. 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. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next pulled agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 20. Motion to uphold denial of bid protest regarding RFP #13-145 Ambulance Services, for the Augusta Fire Department filed by Metro-Health EMS. The Procurement department has denied the request from Metro-Health EMS which stated that the Procurement Department failed to provide notice of the mandatory pre-proposal conference. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle, I believe this was yours. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to table this because item number 47 as well deals with that ambulatory service. So I’d like to table it to the end of this discussion today. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney, would that be? It seems like it’s ambulance issues but they’re two completely different --- Mr. Guilfoyle: I’d be happy to discuss it now, Mr. Mayor, then. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell: What I hear him saying, Mr. Mayor, is that he wants 46 and 47 to be companion items. 17 Mr. Mayor: Twenty and forty-seven. Mr. Russell: I’m sorry, 20 and 47. Mr. Mayor: Are they? Mr. Guilfoyle: So can we do that at the end of this session, sir? Mr. Mayor: We can, yeah, I’m fine discussing 20 and 47 at the same time just because they’re both on the ambulance issue. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: Are we going to do it now since it’s been pulled? Mr. Mayor: We’re just going to discuss the two with each other. Okay, Madam Clerk next --- The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: --- pulled agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 24. Motion to approve the renewal of the Rental Agreement between the Department of Driver Servicesand Richmond County for use by Customer Service Center #51 of office space located at 3423 Mike Padgett Highway for the period from July 1, 2013 through June 30, 2014. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Jackson: Move to approve. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commission Fennoy, I believe this was you? Mr. Fennoy: Yes. And the reason I had this item pulled is because I don’t have a problem with, the problem that I have with this is that area is dirty. Every time I go out there the driver’s license place is dirty. And I think if we’re going to, if it’s going to represent the city then whoever’s responsible for keeping that building clean should do a better job of it. I think we’d do a good service to our citizens whom we allow them to come out to a filthy building that 18 the city owns. And I don’t have a problem with them having the building but whoever’s responsible for keeping that building clean needs to do a better job of keeping it clean. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: I have no problem with making that a condition of the lease that we do a monthly inspection if you’d like. I mean I don’t disagree with that. So if you’d like for us to emphasize that or take some other action to insure that happening we’d be more than happy to do that as we go forward. Mr. Fennoy: All right. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m glad you got the name right this time and this is addressed to our Administrator. Mr. Administrator, your recommendation is to verify and check it each month. The problem I have with that is like our animal center we have out there off of, my mind just went blank. Mr. Mayor: Tobacco Road. Mr. Guilfoyle: Off of Tobacco Road and I mean we’ve got doors that are eroding out due to rust. We cannot even keep an eye on that how are we going to watch this facility every month? Mr. Russell: Well, if I may, this is one that we’re not responsible for maintaining. If you’re not happy with the condition we can inform the state that they can maintain it to a level that meets you satisfaction or we deal with the lease. Of course you’re always taking the option they might decide they don’t want to provide the service there too. So there’s a sword you might unsheathe when you do that but you know I think the simplest thing to do would be to express your displeasure if it’s such, the condition of the building and ask that they do a better job of keeping it up. Mr. Mayor: I believe that we have the will of the body is to do that. All righty, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next pulled agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 19 26. Motion to approve a Resolution transmitting the Draft Short-Term Work Program, 2013-18, for review by the CSRA Regional Commission. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy, I believe this was you? Mr. Fennoy: Yes. And I just don’t know what this is. I see where they got projects that was approved from 2008 to 2012 and they have projects on the board from 2013 to 2018. But I have no idea who approved these projects. Mr. DeCamp: I’ll be glad to answer --- Mr. Mayor: Mr. DeCamp. Mr. DeCamp: --- question. This is a draft list of projects. Every five years we’re required by the Georgia Planning Act to update the projects that the city government and other organizations in the community intend to carry out over the forthcoming five year period. And we at the Planning and Development Department coordinate the development of that list. We solicited comments from a number of city departments from a number of other organizations in the community in developing the list for 2013-18. And the basic purpose of this is to outline projects that help the community achieve the comprehensive plan that was adopted by this body in year 2008. And it also keeps us in good standing with the state with regard to the standards that have to be met to maintain our qualified local government status with the state. This, the final list to directly answer your question Commissioner, the final list will be subject to approval by this body once this, the step we’re at right now is to transmit the graph list so it can be reviewed by the Regional Commission and the State Department of Community Affairs to make sure that it meets the basic requirements of the Short Term-Term Work Program. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. DeCamp: Does that answer your question? Mr. Fennoy: It does and I guess my next question is how can communities get involved in this process to see that the needs of their particular community is addressed? Mr. DeCamp: They can contact us at the Planning and Development Department and we’ll be, we try as best we can to get a good well rounded list of projects to put on the Short Term-Work Program. And the challenge of course is to not get so specific that we’re tying our own hands with you know the specific projects that might not be achievable within that five year period. But we certainly welcome comments and suggestions from any part of this community. Mr. Fennoy: Okay thank you. Mr. DeCamp: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have a motion on that that’s been? 20 Mr. Johnson: Motion to approve. The Clerk: No, sir. Mr. Smith: 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. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: FINANCE 29. Motion to approve use and management of 1735 Goodrich Street by ARC Project and authorize $300,000 for planning of the Mills and Cultural Campus. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Jackson: Move to approve. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Fennoy, this was yours? Mr. Fennoy: Yes. I guess the reason I had this pulled from the agenda is that I get saturated with phone calls from residents that are complaining about abandoned property and complaining about lights, and complaining about flooding and drainage. And we’re about to spend $300,000 for a plan on a project that may cause $1.5 million dollars. Now I understand that the city has a $4 million dollars deficit. I look in the paper Sunday’s paper and see where our Board of Education is going through a $7 million dollar deficit and it’s seems to me what we are about to approve is a project that we can’t even if we come up with a good plan than how are we going to fund this project. And some of the feedback I’m getting from the citizens is that our kids may not be able to participate and go to these schools because our educational system would neither provide them with the basics to prepare them for these schools. And I don’t think that it’s right for us to spend $300,000 and then we’re talking about and even if like I said come up with a good plan where are we going to get the $1.5 million dollars to implement this plan and what do we tell the citizens that have been dealing with flooding and abandoned property for thirty and forty years in Richmond County. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor? 21 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d appreciate it if you would share with this body what you did with the media about the contact you received since the idea came up about the rehab and the (inaudible) and whatever. Mr. Mayor: And I will actually if it’s okay with you, Commissioner Lockett, let Matt Kwatinetz who’s here address those issues. Mr. Lockett: That’ll be fine. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kwatinetz and if you could keep it to five minutes, please. Mr. Kwatinetz: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Fennoy, I think you bring up a lot of good points. And we actually rehashed this proposal so that it doesn’t use any taxpayer dollars. This money is all going to be generated with the solar project that is paid for through Georgia Power which is why the use of the land which is currently unused is proposed. The financing for the project we actually have an offer for financing from outside the county currently. We have two different offers to finance the entire district which will include investment not just in the university but also in things like education, new businesses, new housing, urban development, new jobs things that will directly affect the issues that you brought up. And in addition from what I understand by talking to the traffic engineer Steve Cassel this actually will speed the process of addressing some of those issues with storm water. Mr. Fennoy: Again my concern is that we’re talking about an ongoing problem. We’re talking about a problem that has been in existence for more than 30/40 years. Why does it take a project like the Mills in order to get something done that should’ve been done 30/40 years ago? Now you can find I mean be creative and come up with funding for this project that will generate funds for the projects that I’m talking about but what I’m hearing is this is something that should’ve been done 30/40 years ago and it should precedence over what you all are presently planning. Mr. Kwatinetz: Sir, I don’t think that’s and either or. I think what we’re talking about is bringing in additional funding here. My goal here is to create something on the order of 1,000 to 2,000 new jobs and not just put up patchwork into one issue or the other issue but grow the tax base. You could deal not just with the issues that you’re raising but other issues that some of these other Commissioners may have. I think that the issue you have right now is you have a lot of land that is underutilized and not generating any tax or any jobs. And so you need some big projects to help with that and this is not an either or. If you vote this down this money and these jobs just won’t come here. It won’t accelerate the process of what you’re talking about at all. And it’s not that this money would go to something else. This money is being generated from the project. So if you vote against it all you’re doing is taking away jobs and taking away development from Harrisburg. Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Fennoy, and I would just and I appreciate my colleague Commissioner Lockett requesting that we bring that up. But it’s you know I think that 22 significant investment in Laney Walker/Bethlehem should’ve come years and years ago. And it’s unfortunate that this government didn’t step up to the plate and do it years ago but we are doing that now and we’re seeing the results of that you and Commissioner Lockett we’re able to go to Chicago to get this great award and hear them talk about what we’re doing right in Augusta. And I think this just as far as community revitalization, neighborhood revitalization goes this is just building on what we’ve already got. We’re not going to get it all done overnight but it’s encouraging to me and I think the will of this body is to do what government’s here have not done in the past. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to elaborate a little bit on what my colleague was talking about here. When you start talking about storm water projects and storm drains and issues such as that, it’s such a huge complex issue in this city that the funding source for that is very difficult. And in the past what we have done was use SPLOST dollars by getting the Engineering Department to put together a list of projects that is needed to be done. And of course it’s brought before the voters to vote on it as a SPLOST project and a referendum goes out for you all in November to vote on it to move forward with those projects. But we asked our Engineering Department Director Abie Ladson to do was look at creating a storm water fee. And a lot of people say well some folks in the media call this a storm water tax. Every other county around us has that. That’s why when you go across the river it’s beautiful. The drainage is sufficient, well, in some places going into the weekend you see some flooding and road cave ins. But you go to Columbia County the same thing is happening there. We never had a funding source. During consolidation you was promised to have the ditches eradicated and of course you’re going to have sufficient storm water, you don’t have that because they never had a funding source. They never told you all how they was going to pay for it. Well now it is some things being put in place and then Mr. Ladson spoke with us last week at the Engineering Committee about that storm water fee and how it will be implemented. And we hope that by the end of this year they can have the ball rolling the first of the year. It will start being collected and that will generate over $10 million dollars a year to deal with storm water. Now you’re talking about revenue. That will be a source of revenue to deal with storm water. But you can’t even begin to do anything with $300,000 dollars. Now I’m not defending that situation but I just think that we have to look at underutilized property. If not you and I are going to be made to pay more property tax because we don’t have enough dilapidated property to generate tax revenue. So you’ve got to look at this thing twofold and just playing the devil’s advocate there if we do not occupy the property that we do have we’ll continue to be in the situation because we’re draining each other to deal with these issues. I’m asking more from you, you and you to deal with the issues. We can’t keep doing that. We need to put some bodies, some people in there that owns these properties --- Mr. Mayor: Another two minutes. Mr. Johnson: --- to generate, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I need another two, please. To generate the dollars to take the burden off the citizens as we move forward. So just to kind of put that out there. That’s how it works. And I took a lot of time initially in my first term and learned about this. Just like dilapidated properties why we can’t deal with it you know quickly. Well Georgia is a property rights state. It don’t allow us just to go on somebody’s property and tear it down because it’s dilapidated. You have to go through the courts to do that. It’s a 23 process. Is it quick enough? No, it’s not but they do the very best they can and as soon as they can get rights and I guess approval by the court to tear it down they do that. So it is a process but we are passionate about that. Commissioner Fennoy is, I’m working with him just as well as I’m working in my district and other district that has flooding issues and hopefully we can deal with it. But we have to start to put people on these vacant properties to generate more tax revenue. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In response to my colleague I would like for him to have an understanding that naturally in my district again District 8 I don’t mind supporting storm water fees only if my recipients or the residents has storm waters. We have ditches we’ve got dirt and this something I had asked the Administrator the Attorney as well as the Engineering Department to help come up with a solution to where we could because there’s nothing worse than being charged for a service that they don’t render. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Fennoy votes No. Motion Passes 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next pulled agenda item. The Clerk: FINANCE 34. Motion to approve finalizing the 50-year property lease with the Savannah Riverkeeper regarding public/private partnership. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: No, sir, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The issue that I have is we don’t know where the heck we’re going to be in 50 years. So I was going to, I wasn’t here for the presentation because I had a son graduating so I don’t mind entering into a property lease but I’d rather see a five year with a performance. Then an additional five years down the road with a private entity because we don’t know. Is Tanya here? Nothing against Tanya but. Mr. Mayor: You don’t talk anything against her while she’s sitting in the front row. Ms. Bonitatibus. Mr. Jackson: Oh, I didn’t see you. Fred’s blocking me. I’m sorry. 24 Ms. Bonitatibus: Well, one of the reasons that five years just wouldn’t work is one the super fund of the ground fill program is going to take ten fifteen years to clean up. And then the other part if we invest so much in actually cleaning this property up to five years later to have it taken out from underneath us so it can become condos that’s not really something I’m interested in. So that’s really my, and that’s what I’m trying to protect is to make sure that this property when we do invest the time to clean it up actually retains that ability to be open to the public. Mr. Jackson: I don’t disagree with the extension of 10/15 years but I know that part of the master plan that John Shields brought up to us and we worked so diligently for is to keep some kind of government control. And I think a 50-year lease is a little bit too strong in my opinion. And I’d compromise with a 20-year lease. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. D. Smith: I will not try to call, I’ll just say Tanya because I butcher your last name every time. You met with Augusta Tomorrow. Is that correct? Ms. Bonitatibus: I did, yes, sir. Mr. D. Smith: And Augusta Tomorrow is in 100% agreement and they’re working hand in hand with you in this matter. Ms. Bonitatibus: Actually they’re very excited about it. This gives them the ability to begin working on the river. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. And how many cubic yards of garbage and trash and stuff have ya’ll hauled away from down there? Ms. Bonitatibus: It’s about 240 tons right now. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. And you’ve done all this over a period of time so you have a commitment level to that project. Ms. Bonitatibus: It’s been about seven years now since we started. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. So you are going to apply for Super Fund Cleanup money to do this with right? Ms. Bonitatibus: Yes. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, and that takes a period of time to get done. And then you’ve got some more cleanup that’s going to take, you’ve taken seven years to clean it up. We certainly took many years to pollute it and so my question is that you need some time to be able to recoup and build all this stuff in and five years would not do that. 25 Ms. Bonitatibus: No --- (inaudible). Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t know if I need to say anything or not because I’m in agreement with Commissioner Smith, Donnie. I wish my colleague Commissioner Jackson, I’m glad your son has graduated but I wish you would’ve been here for the presentation. Lots of work effort has been put into this project and there’s lots more to be done. And I don’t know how many years that land’s been sitting there in its contaminated format. We haven’t been doing anything with it at all and I think with the sincerity and the expertise that’s brought before this body that we could not go wrong. If we had to wait another fifty years to do something with this as far as the private sector is concerned that’s great. But they’re in the process of doing something now and that’s what we need. We need more now as opposed to what could be down the road. And I wish truly that my colleague Commissioner Jackson would support this. And I would like at this time to make a motion to approve. Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. And I’m going to make a quick comment. I think one of the biggest issues that we have in Augusta is we’ve turned our back on our riverfront. We between the Golf Hall of Fame property, the Pension property, unpaved surface parking we’ve got nearly forty acres of undeveloped river front property downtown. This brings more access to the river. The Savannah River Keeper has not turned her back on the river front. So I just want to say I applaud what you’re doing but the more pedestrian uses we can get too, I mean to me the river is the public’s river. It’s the public’s river front. So I think this goes best with that. Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Well, I’ll tell you what. Since it’s that sweet of a deal let’s just go to a 100-year lease. Mr. Mason: Second. Was that a substitute motion? Mr. Jackson: That’s a substitute motion. Mr. Lockett: We can live with that. Mr. Mayor: No, it’s also in the flood plain so we’re not building on it anytime soon. But we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. D. Smith: Which motion? Mr. Mayor: Was your substitute motion --- 26 Mr. Jackson: 100 years. Mr. Mayor: Was there a second on that? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We will vote on the substitute motion. Mr. D. Smith: Tanya, will you be here to administer that in 100 years? Because I don’t know that Joe or I won’t. Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Jackson, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Guilfoyle vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Ms. Davis, Mr. Williams and Mr. G. Smith vote No. Motion Passes 6-4. Mr. Mayor: And just to clarify Commissioners do know that was on the substitute motion. Okay. Okay, let’s go on to the next. The Clerk: FINANCE 35. Motion to approve having Mr. Vishal Patel pay delinquent property taxes and city waive penalties in the amount of $7,945.00 for the property located at 1602 Gordon Highway. (Approved by Finance Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Was this Mr. Guilfoyle? Mr. Guilfoyle: It was. Mr. Mayor: Okay. You forgot the name of Tobacco Road. And so what that, you know, what that senior moment’s like. Mr. Guilfoyle: The problem I have with this is the gentlemen knew that this delinquent tax was due on it. There’s no reason for this governing body to waive it. And I would like to put motion to where he would have to pay it. Mr. Lockett: I’ll second that motion. Mr. Mayor: And that’s a motion to deny his appeal. Correct? Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: I’d like to offer a motion to --- Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion? 27 Mr. Johnson: Substitute motion if you will to actually give him the relief for the --- Mr. Donnie Smith: I’ll second the substitute motion. Mr. Johnson: --- and let me finish here. This guy took a piece of property of course he bought it through an auction sale or what have you. He was unaware of some of the things that I guess fees or what have you that was pending on this property. And he found out later on. But he’s actually invested millions in that particular area. It’s going to generate way more tax revenue than we’re talking about here. This is pennies on the dollar compared to what he’s going to generate. So we would not be wise to approve this to get them started on the project. So I move to move forward. Mr. Mayor: We would not be wise to deny the appeal? Mr. Johnson: Right, I’m saying not to approve the, giving him the seven grand for the penalties. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that those fees have already been paid. I haven’t purchased any property lately but I was under the impression that you had to have a title search, if there was any outstanding liens or anything of that nature you had to be fully aware of that. And I’m quite sure this gentleman had legal advice. He went into this transaction with his eyes open and now after the fact we’re going to reimburse him because that’s going to enhance our economy? I think that would be a rather ridiculous thing for this body to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes. When people buy property through an auction if there’s a lien on that property is that noted during the auction, Andrew, if you know? Mr. MacKenzie: The answer is pretty complicated pending on the nature of the auction. What type of property it is, there’s all kinds of issues that could be related and I don’t know the details on this property. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so it is possible to buy property at an auction and there’ll be a lien on it and whoever purchases the property not be aware of it. Mr. MacKenzie: It’s very possible. They may have had the option to figure that out. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Just one quick question for Andrew. Andrew, to make sure I’m clear on this. We are voting, he’s going to pay the back taxes. It’s not the back taxes that we’re giving forgiveness on. It’s simply the penalties and interests on back taxes that he did not owe that 28 somebody else owed on a piece of property that he bought to renovate to enhance retail and stuff out on Gordon Highway. Am I right? Mr. MacKenzie: That was my understanding. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett has pointed to Alvinio Ross who’s conveniently hiding his face from me behind two pieces of paper. Mr. Ross? Mr. Ross: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Mr. Mayor: You pointed to him, Bill. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What’s going on here, Mr. Chief Appraiser? Tell us what has happened? Mr. Ross: Commissioner Lockett, the property technically the property is in the ownership of O.M. Shashataki, LLC which is associated with Mr. Patel. At the committee we presented additional information at the outstanding balance at that time was in excess of $33,000 dollars. The committee that dealt with primarily taxation for eleven and twelve. There’s been reductions in the value. The value is not under dispute. The current valuation of $357,750 down from a high of $209 at one point $325 million. As we speak today Mr. Patel has made payment to taxation. The outstanding balance is now that is still outstanding is $8,370.70. I believe the committee on a three to one brought to this body consideration to forgive the penalties and interest. On the issue of knowledge of lien it is always stated (unintelligible) Buyer Beware. If you are participating you should be knowledgeable. It is certainly not a value dispute issue and it appears as we speak not to be a tax issue but simply the penalties and interest. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I just want to remind Mr. Alvino he’s not an attorney, he’s a property tax appraiser. And I appreciate your concern but I think we need to go ahead and give this business the opportunity. We are not relieving any taxes. It’s the penalties and interests that somebody else accrued. So the motion from the Mayor Pro Tem I think something has been made already and if everybody else is ready I’m ready to vote, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Ross, are we setting precedents? Mr. Mayor: No. Mr. Jackson: Thank you. Mr. Ross: Not in my opinion, sir, even though I’m not legal. 29 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion and no question of anybody’s legal degrees the substitute motion is to approve. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Lockett and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Motion Passes 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, final pulled agenda item. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 36. Motion to approve tasking the Administrator to meet with Mark Johnson and both prime contractors regarding an accommodation of some of the issues of concerns to both the community and the Commission and report back to the Commission on Tuesday (6/4) relating to the Environmental Services resolution as well as the associated policies affecting fees and exemptions. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Guilfoyle, was this? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, I would just actually pulled it so we could see what the Administrator as well as the Director had come up with. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, after consultation with legal advice prior to any action being taken it’s my feeling it would be inappropriate at this time to actually meet with these contractors in reference to the bid that’s already out there. We would like to go ahead and move forward with our initial recommendation. With the intent of the tweaks that were available to us as far as things that we were comfortable with Mr. Johnson has a presentation in regarding of several of those issues. So that’s where we, where I stand at the moment, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little confused. I thought that we were, well, I didn’t hear what I needed to hear. You said that you basically changed your mind but I don’t know why you changed your mind. And what is that based on as far as I need some further explanation because I’m kind of lost right now. Mr. Russell: Okay, let me try to clarify that to some degree. There was some initial conversation last week at the committee in reference to using small businesses in the current contract endorsement that we had. Obviously there was some unrest on the selection of those and we were attempting to try to broaden that horizon as far as a small business program went. Upon looking at that and having an in depth conversation with the Attorney it was my feeling at 30 that point that it would be inappropriate to try to change that particular conversation or those requirements that they lived up to. They are meeting the standards that we set even though they’re doing it in a way that, well doing it in a way that meets the standards as far as that goes. So that I felt that it would be inappropriate to have further dialogue that would put us in some jeopardy in reference to the bid itself at that particular point in time. There are some changes that we can make as far as the service levels and exemptions that would meet some of the concerns that we’ve heard and we’re willing to make those recommendations now. Did that get you where you need to be? Mr. Mason: No, but I do want to hear whatever those recommendations are but I know was tasking you the Administrator to meet with Mark Johnson and what you’re giving me is basically your opinion, and individual opinion which I respect that but I guess once we hear from Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mayor, perhaps I can address some specific issues because right now I’m just hearing an opinion of an individual who is our City Administrator. But that’s one opinion so I need to hear a little bit more. Mr. Russell: If I can though that opinion is based on a conversation with our attorney and puts me in a position where I feel that that’s the best advice that we have at the moment. Mr. Mason: I do get that, Mr. Administrator, but I’m just not privy to all of that so I don’t know what all that was based on so I --- Mr. Russell: I understand. Mr. Mason: --- so this will maybe help us out. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Russell: If we can, though, if we can deal with the issues that Mark has in reference to that then we can talk more globally on that. Mr. Johnson: The four issues that I am bringing back to address was related specifically to exemptions. That was one of the significant main points that was brought up. And so I brought back changes to that to find policy. It does involve right-of-way links to roads, changing it. We have the ability to change it from 300 to 200. One unique thing that is specific to South Richmond County was farm land. It’s not addressed. We want to include that if it’s greater than 10 acres and it falls under Georgia Agriculture Tax Exempt or some other program similar to that where agricultural or farming purposes than we can let them out. One nuance is there. It would include the parcel that the property owner lives because if it’s forestry most of the time those are separate. The contiguous but they’ve cut out an acre for themselves. If they have a dumpster for their farm they wouldn’t need it for their house. And then the last one that we can deal with is a political will type question and it’s, if you’re exempt or you are required to have secondary service from our vantage point that’s a political question that could go either way. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Mason, are you? 31 Mr. Mason: Well, I mean that really didn’t address anything that I was looking to speak to. You know, Mr. Mayor, every time we talk about this garbage contract it seems to smell worse and worse. I’m not sure you know where we’re going from here but no, that doesn’t address that portion. But I think some people want to talk about some exemptions but that’s not what I’m looking to talk about. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Mark, I know that you haven’t gotten any sleep or rest because my phone has been ringing off the hook about this garbage thing and I’m sure yours has too. But I have a specific question about exemptions. In West Augusta there’s a private road Brindle Place which is off of Washington Road up behind Weinberger’s. And Brindle Place in the previous garbage contract because they’re condos and they’re on a private road were exempted because there’s no place for people to put a garbage container, a 95-gallon container other that directly in their front yard of these small condos. So they were given an exemption and they get a dumpster for better terms, is what we’ve done for the past years. And today their neighborhood association called me up and told me that they were told that they could not get an exemption anymore, they’d have to get a garbage can. Each individual condo would have to get a garbage can. Mr. Johnson: That’s some of the things that are included in the resolution would allow for commercial service at properties like that. In what we have with the new contract and not having some form of latitude we’re stuck with the old resolution and the way that is was configured then. And so the only thing would be private road safety issue and address it that way. Mr. D. Smith: And how does a neighborhood group go about doing that other than calling me on the telephone? Mr. Johnson: They would call 311 and make their request --- Mr. D. Smith: Which they did. Mr. Johnson: --- then it will come to us through a work order system. Mr. D. Smith: And do you make that decision or Tiffany makes that decision to deny or to uphold it. Mr. Johnson: It goes to a person named Avis Brown and then that goes to the Deputy Director for signature. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, so you and I will have to talk privately about this afterwards. But you’ve given me the mechanism about how to handle that. Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. 32 Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I think the last time we had a representative here from one of the prime I asked him if he would go back and meet with his corporate headquarters to see if there was any way that they could include some of the subcontractors that was omitted from the um, from the contract. And I think at the last meeting we had, Mr. Administrator, you was sort of tasked to I guess meet with the primes and see if this could actually take place. And since the prime agreed that he would contact his corporate headquarters to see if any adjustments could be made and sent, you know you were more or less tasked with not only trying to make that happen but make other things happen with the garbage contract. What, and I know you received advice from our Attorney and I’m wondering if this is something that we need to talk about in Legal or is it a dead issue? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Attorney. Mr. MacKenzie: I would recommend that this is something that we address in Legal. It’s something that some of the newer Commissioners might not be aware of because a lot of these issues were handled you know over a year ago. And it is something that I think it would be fruitful for us to discuss because it does relate to a court order that’s already in place that was amended from 2007. And it’s those issues that are a part of the legal issues that the Administrator raised. We can either do that today or we can do that Monday at our regular scheduled meeting. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and then my next question is that my phone’s been ringing off the hook about the one day service. And since we’re in a 5-year contract I guess for one day a week service are there any provisions in the contract that if one day doesn’t work can we somehow go back to a two day a week service based on the need. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy, I’ll recognize you for another two. Mr. Fennoy: I’m finished. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. MacKenzie, do you want to? Mr. MacKenzie: That could be renegotiated with whatever vendors are involved. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Davis then Commission Guilfoyle. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m concerned about the distance that some of the south Augusta residents have to deal with. And I know Mark said he could change it from 300-200 feet. And there were something else in the resolution and I don’t know what’s in the resolution and I got some issues with agreeing to stuff that I don’t that’s there. Mr. Fennoy brought a point up about the other vendors who was supposed to be in this bid and I think we approved item 39 my colleague showed me that I missed. I let it get by. You all write that down now so it ain’t going to happen no more. But I don’t know how we cannot have a contract with 33 no null and void when the contractor the contractor left out or put in someone and used that name and then took them back out. To me they nulled and voided their own contract. Now, Mr. Alveno, you know I wouldn’t practice law without a license but I’ve got enough sense to know you can’t do that not without a fight, not without a legal fight anyway. So now we done gave him a bid and I’m looking for some more people to come up to say their turn’s going to come up because we done gave Mr. Coleman something that he didn’t bid on just to bring him back in to what somebody took him out of. And I think that’s very unfair. It was done wrong in the beginning and it’s getting worse. It’s going to get worse and worse. If you look at the city today it don’t look like the same city like it did last week because this stuff has not been picked up, people are starting to put stuff out and think the new contract people are trying but they can’t catch up. It just ain’t going to work. So going back to my question though the distance that they people got to live got to deal with in south Augusta or west Augusta there’s a lot of condos that have private dumpsters --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll recognize another two. Mr. Williams: --- yes, sir, I need four but --- Mr. Speaker: You can have my two. Mr. Williams: --- but, okay, you help me out two. But there’s private condos who’s go private driveways who’ve got dumpsters those people need to be considers. I mean there’s a lot to this but I ain’t heard nothing yet about the change of the 300 feet distance for people to have to bring their garbage cans or their rolling garbage cans 300 feet or better to the street. So now if we’re going to make some adjustments I need to know they are. I need to know what I’m voting on. I don’t need to be waiting and say yeah, we can and then we didn’t because some are going to be in some are going to be out. That’s, I need to hear from Mr. Johnson those changes or those adjustments are going to be made in the resolution. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: In the original package that we brought forward we brought a policy that was 300 feet. We addressed agricultural land. We didn’t not address the secondary resident and we required secondary service, auxiliary service. That was what was in your package for committees. We were tasked with addressing the ping points and those were the ping points from south Augusta was wanting shorter lengths, to address dirt driveway, dirt roads, not wanting to have alternative service and to be able to include the primary resident parcel for agricultural land. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, if I could respond. Not thinking about the agricultural land that’s part of but the secondary homeowners that’s in that area that’s got the dirt driveways. We know that the trucks can’t get up there so they got to bring it down. I mean that’s a given right? Mr. Johnson: Correct. Mr. Williams: Okay, so the distance you’re saying is acceptable is 300 feet? 34 Mr. Johnson: In our current rules it is set by the Commission at 300 feet. Mr. Williams: The commission set the rule that you bring, Mr. Johnson. I mean we trust you. We trust you to give us I mean I’ve been in a lot of areas but I ain’t walk no driveways (unintelligible) so we truck what you bring to us. But the residents in that area are going to have to deal with whether we vote on it and we all have to accept the ruling but 300 feet, don’t you think that’s kind of far for people especially seniors. I don’t think none of the young people are buying no farm land out there. I mean one or two but I don’t think the majority is doing that. I think that most of them, it’s retired people who are in that area. Mr. Johnson: In 2005 the standard was set at 300 feet, actually it may have been 2006 because that was done with Commissioner Jimmy Smith. He brought back and requested change that was adopted. So 300 feet was the standard adopted by this commission. Now in the proposal that was just put before you it was reduced to 200 feet and that would be before you to select which standard you would like to use. Mr. Mayor: Okay, actually Commissioner Davis then Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Lockett. Commissioner Davis? Ms. Davis: I’m trying to get, and I appreciate those two changes that were made. And a lot of us weren’t here when the contract was voted on last year so we don’t know right now what could be renegotiated, what could be amended as far as the resolution. And I’m trying to figure out how we get to that point where it’s line item by line item of what the specifics are of the contract and what possibly could be renegotiated or amended just so I can at least answer these questions as well. Mr. Mayor: Okay to get us past, I know that we’re going to have to discuss a portion of this in Legal next Monday. And it sounds like we might need to send this back to committee as well. Mr. D. Smith: I’ll make the motion that we send it back to committee. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, the changes that’s being proposed right now it’s listening to the concerns of the people in my district. I can’t save them all but this really helps about the 300 feet reduced down to 200 feet it stops that Wellness Program where we got to have our veterans, our retired and whoever else pushing a cart down the length of a football field, not once but twice. The, a lot of our residents uses the landfill. A lot of them actually takes it to their job site where there’s a dumpster that the county still gets paid for. That’s the reason why the exemption came in. We have farmers out there that wasn’t thought of in the original contract where they have big parcels of land that’s under conservation, agriculture and forestry. That’s the reason 35 why we put the Gate Program or equal. If we send this back to committee my residents or all of our residents shall I say are going to have to pay a month’s worth of service and they’re not even using their trash cans at this time. If you ride down Highway 56, Highway 25, go down Highway 88 and you’ll see these trash cans in the ditch. And the only thing I can ask from this commission, if we could push this ordinance or policy change through and let’s address the other issues second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Guilfoyle: That’s all I’m asking for. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: And well hang on so we do this procedurally correct. Um, so, Commissioner Guilfoyle, you’re making a substitute motion to incorporate the recommendations of Mr. Johnson, his amendments to the resolution. Is that correct? Mr. Williams: No --- Mr. Mayor: To include --- Mr. Williams: --- 200 feet, right? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, move it down to 200 feet, you don’t have to show an alternative --- Mr. Mayor: Okay that’s, that’s the only amendment you want to make at this point. Mr. Guilfoyle: And the farmers. Mr. Mayor: Okay and just to be clear, Mr. Johnson, so we say and the farmers. But I just want to make sure that this is read into the record that --- Mr. Johnson: So in summary you want to adopt the exemption policy as drafted. Mr. Williams: No, we’re saying. I can’t hear that. We said 200 feet Mr. Johnson. Mr. Russell: That’s --- Mr. Williams: That’s right but there’s some other stuff in there too. Mr. Mayor: There’s several recommendations. Mr. Johnson: In here, I mean I’ll read you the fourth. Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s just go with the two that Commissioner Guilfoyle --- 36 Mr. Guilfoyle: This applies hand in hand. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Guilfoyle: There’s nothing shady in hand being done, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay, it’s to --- Mr. Guilfoyle: If you’d be kind enough to read it out, please. Mr. Mayor: Or put it up on the, and this was submitted with the agenda item correct? Mr. Johnson: The original was submitted with the agenda item. The modifications were made this morning. Mr. Williams: And we don’t know what those are. your Mr. Mayor: And so just trying to get us clarity. Commissioner Guilfoyle, substitute motionis to amend the resolution to reflect the reduction to 200 feet --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. The farmland the acres or more with the farmland and any exempt. If you follow the exemptions status you don’t have to show alternative service. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. G. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Johnson or Commissioner, it’s been a long day already. Mr. Johnson, that’s you can implement those. Okay. Okay we have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioner Mason, did you? Mr. Mason: I think was Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I went to you first and then, but I thought you were. Commissioner Lockett, please. Mr. Lockett: I just, I can understand my colleague Commissioner Guilfoyle’s situation. I’m very supportive of that. However my question is we have a GIS system and so forth. Is District 8 is that the only district that have homes and so forth that’s on properties ten acres or larger, more than 200 feet from the right-of-way. Will they be covered in this or will it only be to cover the people in District 8? Mr. Johnson: This is a policy that applies to everybody county wide. Mr. Lockett: All right. And one other question. You made a comment to Commissioner Donnie Smith that if I understood you correctly to say you didn’t have very much latitude when 37 it came to this existing contract. Why would you enter into a contract that’s going to be devoid of latitude? Mr. Johnson: The contract doesn’t have latitude. These policies provide us guidance for implementation of that policy. So the contract says please pick up these customers, deliver this service. You decide who gets that service 300 feet 200 feet. That is the latitude. Mr. Lockett: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to try to bottom line this from my point of view. For the new Commissioners that were not here when this contract came through I didn’t support it then and I don’t support it now. The fact of the matter is that Mr. Johnson even though he’s the Director of Solid Waste, he’s a recommender. And that’s it. At the end of the day this body can either go with that recommendation or not. I chose not to but I was in the minority at the time. At the end of the day six votes at a minimum can get this thing right. At the end of the day six votes can get it right. So I’m wondering who’s willing to get it right. And we’re all being beat down with phone calls and everything else. Summer time’s hitting with our trash sitting on the street and we’ve got people out of work but the same amount being charged. I’ve got some real issues with all of that. Okay? So at the end of the day six votes or more can get this thing right period. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Is there a provision or was there a provision in the past contract and there is a provision in the existing contract where seniors regardless of how many feet they stay from the road cannot get their trash can to the road that the service provider will go to the side of the house and pick it up and return it there? Mr. Johnson: It is not driven on age. It is not based on senior citizens. It is based on a medical condition that a doctor would deem them not able to do that and then we pick up trash and recycle. We do not pick up yard waste or bulk waste. So it’s called Assisted Collections. We do assist the resident if they have a medical condition and can’t do it themselves. Mr. Fennoy: And in order for them to qualify they need to get a statement from their doctor that says they are not physically able to push the bin to --- Mr. Johnson: We actually have a form that they fill out. Their doctor signs it and we just apply that to their account. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Madam Clerk, could you repeat the substitute motion? 38 The Clerk: Yes sir. It was to approve with the three recommendations brought forth by Mr. Johnson, the three changes. Mr. Mason: I want a clarification of the three changes. Mr. Mayor: Um, --- Mr. Mason: I need some clarification. I’m voting. I just need some clarification. Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you one minute point of personal privilege. Mr. Mason: I don’t even need a minute. I’m just, I’m, did is that the only thing we’re addressing. We still haven’t addressed any of the other that Commissioner Davis brought up and other things. What we doing in reference to that? Because that’s going to depend on how I vote. I don’t want to not do nothing but we haven’t addressed those other issues that we brought up and was it going to be sent to File 13? Mr. Williams: (inaudible) committee. Mr. Mason: Well, he didn’t say that though. Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t see anybody. I don’t know that we’re going to get that clarified in this meeting. Mr. Williams: If the maker of the motion, Mr. Mayor, would vote on this and send the rest back to committee we still got to talk about it some more anyway. Mr. Mayor: Exactly, it can be requested to be on the next committee to clarify that point. So a substitute motion has been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Williams and Mr. Grady Smith vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Donnie Smith vote No. Motion Passes 6-4. Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk, I’d like to get you to put that on Legal for our next Legal Meeting to talk about the garbage. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: There’s a whole --- 39 Mr. Mayor: You’ve got to wait until I recognize you. No, but we’ve still got, I understand like I say we are going to get done with all the garbage today. Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda please. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 43. Motion to extend the contract with Heery International for Capital Improvement Program Management on SPLOST projects through April 30, 2015 for an extended contract price increase of $1,646,566 and a revised estimated not to exceed contract amount of $11,615.082. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a motion to send this back to committee . I understand there is a host of questions that need to be answered and that would give them adequate enough time to prepare and bring it back before the committee. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’m wanted to discuss this while it had it here. I mean this, it’s not going anyplace. It’s going to meet us in the morning or meet us right now. We need to go ahead and talk about it. Going back to committee’s just going to send it right back and give us the same opportunity we have now. But if my colleagues want to send it back I’ve got no problem sending it back. My question can wait until the end if you want to. Mr. Lockett: I’ll second that motion if you haven’t got a second. Mr. Mayor: No, it’s been motioned and properly seconded. And thank you Commissioner Williams. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 45. Update/status report from the DBE Coordinator regarding the Disparity Study. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. 40 Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I am really, I’m really to my ends on this DB, Disparity Study. We spent $500,000 dollars of the taxpayer’s money and here we are just still before us now. So Ms. Gentry, can you bring me up to speed? Tell me where we are and what we need to do? Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, as requested by Commissioner Williams I would like to provide you with an update on the Disparity Study. To date the following has occurred. The Law Department completed the language for all the documents requiring contracts to provide subcontracting data. This is information was provide to our Procurement Department back in December 2012 and as of January 2013 that language is in there. In January the City Administrator mandated all departments to adhere to establishing a percentage goal for contracts over $100,000 dollars. That information was provided to our Procurement as well as the DBE office in April 2013. Currently the DBE Department is waiting on General Counsel to provide procedural guidelines, training and to ensure that all internal mechanisms are adhered to as it relates to the $100,000 contracts. The DBE Department has reviewed all contracts approved by this commission from 2008 to current and requested --- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith, sorry about that. Donnie, if you leave the room we’ve lost our quorum I believe. Okay. You can cycle out when somebody comes back in. Ms. Gentry, please. Ms. Gentry: Okay. To date 80% of the vendors have provided the subcontracting data and we are still aggressively trying to collect that 20%. In 2007 the judge imposed an enjoinment due to the developing of minority programs in utilizing an outdated Disparity Study. NERA was commissioned in 2008 and provided Augusta with a new Disparity Study. The collection of that data was from 2003 to 2007 and they recommended we start collecting it in 2008. In preparation for this meeting I contacted NERA’s vice president Dr. John Wainwright to seek additional clarity on the collection of the data as well as the study. He informed me collecting the data was very important to identify the program has improved based on the implementation that we’ve made (unintelligible). However it was his professional opinion. The study provided in 2009 was adequate as well as sufficient data which should have been presented to the judge requesting removal of the enjoinment. It was also his professional opinion conducting another study would yield the same information received in 2009. Considering the enjoinment is still in place and Augusta has not established a program to address the discrimination identified in 2009 study. I also made this recommendation to you on January the th 14 at the workshop which was requested by Commissioner Lockett. We are consistently collecting our date. Now that we have language in the BID document I am confident that we will get the data as required. However again we’re not moving anywhere because we’re still enjoined. We cannot --- Mr. Williams: And I’m sitting here listening to you, Ms. Gentry, but I’m really embarrassed about how long this has been taking to, we’ve got Legal staff that’s getting paid to do what’s necessary. Now you’re telling me that we’ve got the data except for 20% I think you said. Is that right? And that’s not enough to go to the courts to move this thing forward? Someone has been sitting down doing nothing but getting paid. And I don’t care if the shoe fits. Somebody needs to put it on. It don’t make sense for us to have to go from 2007 to 2013 and 41 have not even collected the data that we need. Now I want to know from you what’s our next step. You said some guidelines need to come from the Attorney. You said that we should have already been to the court. What’s holding us up? Point blank, what’s stopping us from going to get this process straightened out? Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, I have documentation where I have suggested, recommended, asked --- Mr. Williams: Listen I want to know, you just tell me what do we need to do? Ms. Gentry: I’m going to defer that to our Attorney. I’m not an attorney --- Mr. Williams: I don’t want you to be an attorney. I’m asking you as a director what do we need to do to move this forward because we’ve been talking about it, we’ve been listening to it for forever and a day. So I need to know from you what do we need to do. If the attorney done had that language if the attorney needs the language we talked about all that before. I want to know why it has not been done. Nobody’s been on vacation. Everybody’s still getting paid so why hadn’t that been done, Ms. Gentry. Ms. Gentry: It’s my professional opinion that we need to take the data from our Disparity Study, go back to our judge, and get the program enjoined. Mr. Williams: And why hadn’t we done that? I hadn’t heard that before. I hadn’t heard that no time before. Why hadn’t we done that to get, go to the judge. We got ten twenty lawyers. We’ve got plenty of lawyers to go with us. So why hadn’t we got that process underway? Ms. Gentry: Commissioner, once again I have asked that question to our General Counsel. I would like to defer that question to him because I can’t tell you why. I don’t, I can’t tell you why he --- Mr. Williams: You are the DBE Coordinator. You’re, that’s --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You, that’s your task. His job is to do something else. Now you need to give us as a body the information we need so we can task him. Now you might not be able to tell him I understand that. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. Mr. Williams: I’m not finished, Mr. Mayor. He can get all the personal privileges he wants, Mr. Mayor. Let me finish please. Mr. Mayor: Let him finish up his two minutes. 42 Mr. Williams: All I need from you, Ms. Gentry, is for you to tell us --- Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, we need a legal opinion here. I asked for a point of personal privilege. Mr. Williams: He can have it when I’m finished, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I’m letting him finish his two minutes to --- Mr. Lockett: We’ve got a General Counsel --- Mr. Williams: I don’t care about the General Counsel, Mr. Mayor, I’m speaking as a Commissioner now. And the General Counsel wants to speak he’s got that right when I finish. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams has the floor. I’ll let him finish his two minutes. Mr. Williams: Ms. Gentry. Ms. Gentry: Commissioner Williams, I have aggressively spent receiving the Disparity Study. A presentation was done to this board. I have aggressively since 2008 have asked for our attorney to go back before the judge. I don’t have the authority --- Mr. Williams: I understand that. Ms. Gentry: --- to mandate him to do it. I’ve shared it with you. I’ve shared with each Commissioner on this board as well as the ones prior to you. Mr. Williams: Ms. Gentry, the last thing I heard was we were trying to collect the data that we need to do to make the Disparity Study to go back to go to the next step. That’s the last thing I heard, we were still collecting. Heery just left here and we talked about that issue whether or not they gave the data that we’re supposed to have. Now I’m thinking we can’t collect the data. I talked to the Administrator about the data which we ought to be able to pick up the phone and hit a button on the computer and kick it out. Now I guess the attorney can tell us why he hadn’t done what he needs to do to get us back to court. Ms. Gentry: Before you move on the important thing about collecting data you must tell a prime contractor on the front end if the data is being requested. That was not done until 2013. Again I’ve discussed it with the Commissioner, I’ve discussed it with Legal. I have documentation to show that I’ve been asking since 2008. Mr. Williams: We spent $500,000 dollars, Mr. Mayor, to do a study that came back and said that we are discriminating women in minority and we’ve been sitting here waiting on somebody to file some paperwork or to request something. I’ve got no problem telling somebody on the front end or the back end what we’re doing. We’re not trying to hide anything but it don’t make sense to wait from 2007 until 2013 to hear that we’re almost ready to go to court with it. 43 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. MacKenzie, Commissioner had requested that --- Mr. MacKenzie: Yeah, I was just going to speak to the motion of personal privilege that that be heard. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what Commissioner Williams said but I don’t agree with the way he said it. The DBE Coordinator told him on I don’t know how many different occasions that she could not answer the question. But he kept on force feeding her with answer the question, answer the question. And I think she in so many ways said it’s not my responsibility. I don’t have the authority to do this ask the, direct the question to the person who has the authority. And that’s the General Counsel and that’s the only reason I asked for a point of personal privilege. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Yes, ma’am. I’m sorry I’m thinking of my question. I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gentry, I spent two nights reading 363 of the Disparity Study. I can tell you exactly how many pages there are involved in that thing. And please lead me to an understanding here because I think there’s some people sitting in this room that probably are confused about what we’re talking about here. The data that you’re talking about is data that a company, a prime contractor wants to do business with us. And they have to show the number of minority people men, women, race whatever that work for them. Is that right? Ms. Gentry: Not minority. We took minority out of our database since 2008. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Ms. Gentry: You’re absolutely correct. What we’re having to do is request for contractors to provide us the data as it relates to the location of their sub, the race and the gender. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Ms. Gentry: That is done on every contract that was let here in Augusta. The problem with it Commissioner is that it was taken out in 2007 based on the recommendation of General Counsel. It was never put back in even with my repeated plea to put it back in. Because in essence at the end of the day this commission is holding the department responsible to provide how many companies are located in Augusta, how many dollars stay here in the city of Augusta. Well in essence that information did not actually get put into the document until 2013. So yes Commissioner it is very hard to go back to a vendor that did not have that requirement. Now we’re mandating that requirement even with our large prime contractors. I mean we --- Mr. D. Smith: So let me follow up with a question if you will. The predicament that you’re in is caused by our decisions at the Commission level. Am I correct about that? And so 44 there’s a movement to try for us to go back five years and six years and force prime contractors who have completed work with us to provide information to us that they don’t necessarily have to provide because we didn’t require it back then. Ms. Gentry: That is correct. That’s just one aspect of it. The second aspect is that we’re enjoined. You have a Disparity Study, Commissioner Williams is correct. You paid a half a million dollars for it that you’ve not implemented any of the recommendations to correct the discrimination that was shown to you by the data. My concern is when are we going back and I’m voicing this question to you as Commissioners. When are we going to go back to the judge and request to be released based on the half a million dollar study? We’re continuously collecting data but we’re not doing anything with it. Mr. D. Smith: And see I think this conversation that you and I have just had is a conversation that will help us through this process. We now understand as a commission where we are and where we’re trying to go. And so hopefully this conversation will allow some of us to work amongst ourselves to try to figure out a road map to get us to the point that we’re trying to all get to where we can comply with the court order and deal with the subject of the Disparity Study the end result. So thank you for walking us through that. I think that you have given us the answers that we’re going to get and so now the emphasis is on another part of our government to tell us how we get to that point. Ms. Gentry: Don’t forget the Disparity Study you paid a half a million dollars to have sundown which ends at the end of five to six years. So the ultimate goal with the Disparity Study you implement if not all the recommendations some of the recommendations. And at the end of five years you’re able to identify whether or not your goals that you set or your whatever the recommendation has improved the program or did it not improve the program. We’re at the end, almost at the end of five years and we don’t have anything. I can continuously collect data but that’s nothing more than a continuation of the data from 2003 to 2007. We still have not implemented a program to correct the discrimination that was identified in the study. Mr. D. Smith: Is the roadblock to that, us going back to the judge. So that question cannot be answered by you. Mr. General Counsel --- Mr. Mayor: Okay, two more minutes. Mr. D. Smith: --- can you enlighten us about where we stand and what your plan is to deal with this, sir? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, I would be absolutely happy to do that. And I’ll try not to give too much history into this but a little bit will be necessary to help us realize where we were, where we are now and whether my legal opinion is necessary to move forward with respect to this matter. Where we were is we had Race and Gender Conscience Program in 2007 that was deemed unconstitutional and was stricken down. And the reason that it was deemed unconstitutional and stricken down was because it relied on data that was from a Disparity Study that was many, many years old and could no longer be relied on because so much had changed in that period of time. Well, Ms. Gentry is correct in that what has happened was after that the 45 Commission the program, the enjoinment was stricken the program we had. A new Race and Gender Neutral Program was implemented at that time in 2007 which is called the Local Small Business Program. That program has been amended over the years to be as aggressive as possible to address the problem that was identified. In the Disparity Study the most recent one is that there was evidence of discrimination. That is there is a program in place now that has the express purpose written in the code of eliminating the problem of discrimination. That program is being run right now. Then the question comes what do we need to do next to move this city forward to stop discrimination which I think is really at the heart of the answer which all is what you’re asking. And the answer to that lies in the constitutional requirement. There is an issue whether or not we can have the injunction lifted. The court order itself actually specifically allows for the injunction to be lifted if we come to a place as a government where it’s time to do that. And the question is when is that time I’m sure you’re asking. When you use this area of the law there’s something called the least restrictive means. And there’s something that’s called narrowly tailored. Those are constitutional terms. That means when you are at the highest level of constitutional review or the government taking action to give a preference to women owned business or a minority over non-minority owned businesses it falls within that narrow category of the highest constitutional standard. The courts requirements are before the government can do that legally the government must show that it took that narrowly tailored program to fix that problem and it took the least restrictive means to accomplish that goal of eliminating discrimination before going to a Race and Gender Conscious Program. What does that mean? Break it down. It means that we need to show the court we’re following the program we have in place now. That has been where a lot of the challenges are coming. That’s where you hear Ms. Gentry saying that she wished some changes were made with respect to you know adding different language in here and there and for the data collection part of it. So that’s the threshold issue. I would be more than happy to go to the court and petition the court and ask that this injunction be lifted if it’s time for this government to move on to petition the court and ask for a Race and Gender Conscious Program. But to do that the threshold issue that I see that needs to happen is evidence that would withstand scrutiny in court showing that we have taken the least restrictive means to accomplish that goal now. And the second part of it you cannot move forward without having another Disparity Study. Otherwise we will be in the same position we were in 2007 when the program then was stricken down. You’ve got to have a recent Disparity Study. The data period expires at the end of this year. You’re going to have to do another one. You’re going to have to do it every five years. That’s part of the nature of that business is you have to do a snapshot of the market place to see what your availability is there and compare that data to the internal data to see if there still is a disparity that you need to fix. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Gentry. Ms. Gentry: I would like to make a recommendation to let Ms. Holt who has indicated that you read the Disparity Study in its entirety. Commissioner Williams, you remember Ms. Holt she is an attorney who has fought numerous affirmative actions at the highest level Department of Transportation in different cities. I would to make a recommendation that several of you do a conference call with Ms. Holt to give her to allow her expertise. The General Counsel is correct, you must build a program. And when she was here, Commissioner Williams, if you remember also Mr. Johnson, Commissioner Johnson, you all indicated that you would 46 bring her back to make sure that a program being developed that would withstand the strict scrutiny. That has not occurred. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith, did you have? Mr. D. Smith: I just want to tell you thank you for being very calm in presenting that information to us because it is a very emotional thing in our community. But I want everybody to try to understand that we want to try to find a solution for this problem. And I am not blind to it. Like I say I’ve spent many nights reading over and over that so I encourage you to work with us through the Administrator to let us know how to proceed. We don’t want to put this back on the shelf. And I understand what our General Counsel said about we got in trouble with the Federal Court for using 1980’s data. We are fixing this data that we have collected now for the last five years. It’s fixing to be in the same boat the 1980’s that it was it’s not going to be worth a darn which will then prolong the next phase because we’ll have to collect five more years worth of data. So I understand. I just want you to know that are many of us that want to find a solution for this problem. So reach out to us. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, I’ll get you another one minute then Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Lockett: For going to forget me all over again. Mr. Mayor: Well, I didn’t see you. Mr. Williams: Just the one, Mr. Mayor. I need to know what has been done. Ms. Gentry just said that the things that came back on the Disparity Study had not been implemented. What has not been done or what do we need to do? I mean if the study came back and said A, B or C and we had not done A, B or C it ain’t going to do it by itself. So if the Attorney or Ms. Gentry or the Administrator needs to do those things we won’t ever get further down the road unless you start making the steps. So my question to the legal counsel is why those things hadn’t been done. Mr. MacKenzie: The short answer to it is, is that this body has not required it to be done. The biggest problem that we have had with respect to the compliance of this program has been that it has not been complied with. And I’m talking about the program we have in place now. The government has done everything it can do to procuring everything in accordance with the program we have. That’s identifying projects that fall within the scope. Ms. Gentry mentioned goals being set on projects over $100,000 dollars. It hasn’t been consistently done over the period of time and that has been the challenge. So it’s in ya’ll’s lap. Make a decision. If you want to hold people accountable to it then the ordinance is already there. It already holds every department accountable to working with the director of the program which we don’t have because that position’s been vacant. And the department’s to set the goals on and that’s one of the areas there’s room for improvement on. Mr. Williams: Can I make a motion, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Sure. 47 Mr. Williams: To set those to task the Attorney to go ahead and set those goals ASP to get the Disparity Study to where it needs to be. Mr. Mayor: Do we have? Mr. Johnson: I’ll second the motion but I’m just making sure we’re clear. Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. MacKenzie: To clarify the goals that I’m referring to are not something that I can set. Code requires the Director of the Minority and Small Business Program as actually mentioned in the charter to get with the departments to have those set on very procurement that’s over $100,000 dollars. That’s one of the things that there’s room for improvement on. We don’t currently have a director which is another issue that needs to be dealt with, with respect to this whole thing too but that’s one of the goals that needs to be set are. And that’s not something that I do. That’s, I’m not involved in the procurement process. Mr. Mayor: Who do we task with getting the implementation of any kind of process in this situation? Mr. MacKenzie: I would recommend you task the Administrator with drafting an administrative rule that would have some accountability for departments that do not or have not complied with this requirement. And that’s what I need in a court of law if we go to the next step. I need to show that we took the least restrictive means of the government. What does that mean? It means this government needs to show it’s serious about making this program work. It means you hold people accountable when they don’t do it. Ms. Gentry: Andrew, the city Administrator met with us and gave me that guidance. We have just not come forth with the document --- Mr. Williams: Now we’re getting somewhere. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Gentry: I mean I don’t mean to be disrespectful. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to substitute, to amend your motion to give the Administrator the direction to do that through this body, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I will, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, does that mean I’m not going to have the opportunity to speak. Mr. Mayor: Man, you come sit here and try and keep track. 48 Mr. Lockett: Don’t give me too many invitations. I might take you up on that now. Mr. Mayor: Okay, there’ll be a seat available after next year. And the seconder of the motion is okay with the amendment to the motion? Mr. Johnson: Yes. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Bill then Bill then Wayne. Mr. Lockett: The good looking Bill or the other Bill? Mr. Mayor: Little Bill, Big Bill and Wayne. Mr. Fennoy: I’ve got two questions. My first question is to the Administrator. And that question is, is there anything that could be done between now and the end of the year that would, that we could take to the courts to have the injunction lifted. And my second question is that if, if a program had been put in place over the five years to make us compliant with this being the end of the fifth year would we still have to do another Disparity Study? Mr. Mayor: And I think that would be for the Attorney. Mr. MacKenzie: I would agree to that if I may, Mayor. The answer to the second question is you would need first of all to have another Disparity Study procured. And you would have to have that done every five years if you’re anticipating having a Race and Gender Conscience Program. Even if you do implement a Race and Gender Conscience Program it would be even more important then. You must have that done every five years or else the program data will be deemed too old and the court will strike it down because you can’t rely on data that’s more than five years old. You’re going to have to do that every five years. Now that’s something that can be programmed into the annual budget. You can identify funding up front any maybe you amortize it over the five year period so it’s something that you constantly have in your budget. That would be something that would help. And then, what was your first question? Mr. Fennoy: Is there anything we can do between now and the end of the year --- Mr. MacKenzie: All right, let me just make it clear. You have a program that’s in place now that’s Race and Gender Neutral that needs to be maximized, used to its maximum potential. You can definitely focus on those things and that’s what Ms. Gentry identified the procedural guidelines and that was actually an idea I came up with because it’s already required in the code. It’s not been consistently applied over the last five year period that it’s been utilized. So I thought what more could we do? Well you could add another level of accountability which would have administrative rule do that. And I would be happy to have that done. I could have that reviewed in short order. It’s just there’s been no direction from this body to do that at this point in time. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. 49 Mr. MacKenzie: I can get that done relatively quickly if all we need to do is review that. Mr. Fennoy: And my last comment is that I can remember Juriah Lewis standing at the podium asking questions about the transit system. And a master plan for the transit system and what Juriah said is that we already have a plan. And when the question was asked well why hasn’t it been implemented and he said that he’s waiting on direction from the Commission. Now I’m wondering if one of the reasons that we haven’t really done anything --- Mr. Mayor: You’re getting a little off the --- Mr. Fennoy: Well, I’m talking about the Disparity Study. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Fennoy: --- because if we have a plan and the Commission is not going to implement the plan then why have a plan? And I, and what I’m saying we have one with transit, we’ve got one with disparity. I was told why the one with transit wasn’t implemented and what I want to find out now is whether the reason that the Disparity Study wasn’t implemented was because we didn’t do our job. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay Commissioner Lockett, Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Jackson then I think it’s about time to move along after that. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, the ten questions I had have been answered. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: You need to get him quicker. I know that. This is for the Attorney. Andrew, you had spoken about per the charter that we need to have a director. How is the charter stated, please? Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I don’t have that language in front of me but this is an issue that’s also had a history before the Commission. And I’m not here to provide any recommendations of which way you go with it except to say the Consolidation Act which is the act that created this government says that there shall be a person who will be over two primary functions of the government. That would be the Equal Opportunity function that’s kind of you know investigating allegations of discrimination, things of that nature. And then the Minority and Small Business function. So the Consolidation Act says that that is a person. And right now that position is vacant. It’s a director level position that’s been vacant for a long time. We currently have two coordinators neither of which have the title of director in their job description performing those functions. And so one of the challenges that you know would have us, we don’t have a director over the program. But the accountability that’s built into the code says that that director’s the one responsible for making this program work. And so that’s one of the things that I would recommend that needs to be addressed. It could addressed one of two ways either 50 you can fill the vacancy which we go out and hire a person to fill that job or you could amend the Consolidation Act which would take a 2/3 vote to split that requirement up. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, what he’s talking about I don’t think is germane to this particular thing here. We’re talking about the Disparity Study. He’s talking about organizational changes. Mr. Mayor: I concur with you. So we’re getting, Commissioner Jackson, did you want to speak? And then I think we’re --- Mr. Jackson: I believe that Andrew was correct saying that there’s not a department head over both actions of DBE and EEO. And I was going to make a substitute motion if there’s wasn’t a motion made to go out and hire a person of that department and try to get us into compliance within 120 days or 220 days that would get us to where we need to be in compliance with the Disparity Study and then moving forward to the next Disparity Study. Ms. Gentry: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. That’s a substitute --- Mr. Jackson: And I’ll put that in the form of a motion. Mr. Mayor: And how many day? Mr. Jackson: I would say by the time you hire somebody it’s going to be at least three months, 120 days, I’d say 200 days. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have a second to that motion? Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Yes, Ms. Gentry and then. Ms. Gentry: I understand my title as coordinator but I am the director of the department. And I’m also certain (unintelligible) feels the same way. You all, we this is what we applied for. We didn’t apply for coordinators. At the end of the day we are the directors of the department. Now we cannot help it because this Commission’s counsel did not follow through with the recommendation that was made years ago. Mr. Mason: I’m going to withdraw my second. Ms. Gentry: I mean, I’m sorry but --- Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there and we’re obviously not going to resolve this issue today. I mean it’s been but hang on. So the maker of the substitute motion has been made but the second 51 has been withdrawn. Is there another second to the substitute motion made by Commissioner Jackson? Mr. Guilfoyle: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I just want to state for a point of clarity that I think we need to get some clarification first and foremost on the job descriptions of these two. We don’t need to move forward with anything else until we get that done. We do have a motion that Commissioner Williams did make --- Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Johnson: --- and I did here a substitute. We need to move on with that one, get clarity of that and get that cleared up because obviously there’s some differences of opinion on the charter and what they were hired to do. And if the charter’s saying one thing and they were hired independently to be directors then that’s a problem. We need to get that cleared up and we can’t move forward until we do that. So let’s move forward if we can with the original well --- Mr. Mayor: No, we have to vote on the substitute motion first. Mr. Johnson: --- a second that’s correct and then we will do, Wayne, Commissioner Guilfoyle seconded it so let’s go and dispose of this. Mr. Mayor: We’ve had plenty of discussion. We have a substitute motion that’s been seconded. Madam Clerk, just for clarity if you could read back the substitute motion. The Clerk: As I understood it the substitute motion was to hire a director in order to help get back into compliance within 200 days. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign. Mr. Jackson and Mr. Guilfoyle vote Yes. Ms. Davis, Mr. Fennoy, Mr. G. Smith, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion Fails 2-8. Mr. Mayor: And now, Madam Clerk, back to the primary motion which if you could for the point of clarification read back. The Clerk: As I understood it the motion was to task the Administrator to draft an administrative rule that would be followed by the department heads regarding the collection of data for the study. 52 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Lockett and Mr. Jackson vote No. Motion Passes 8-2. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: Is there any way we can get some clarity, this Commission can get some clarity on the department heads. Not necessarily at this meeting --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- but at another meeting? Mr. Mayor: I think that would be fine. And I think that would be good as far as the role of the department heads or the positions. Mr. Fennoy: Well, I think that the discrepancy between what Ms. Gentry and --- Mr. Mayor: Yes. I think we can arrange that. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 46. Update/status report from the Director of Housing & Community Development Department regarding the Hyde Park Relocation Program. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler: Good evening. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I understand Mr. Wheeler can speak but I just as a Commissioner I had this put on. I’ve got some people from Hyde Park here. And I know Mr. Wheeler’s been working but I’ve got a serious problem when the rentals are being moved out or 53 being handled first when there’s seniors, that some of those are still here today, sitting out here. Now when you rent an apartment or rent a house you renting from somebody. When you move those rentals you’re transferring or moving those people out of rental situation but the people that’s renting those houses don’t live there. But the seniors who have been living there and still over there are still suffering. So my question to Mr. Wheeler is and some of the Hyde Park residents are here now. They waited through all of this. I got several calls and meeting here today. Why, how much longer is it going to take to get the residents? I’m not worried about somebody renting an apartment or renting a house from somebody else who don’t live there. But the people who actually pay the taxes who have suffered, who have been left in that situation for many years when are they going to be moved? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler: Today, well, on last Thursday the Engineering Department received nine files from the review appraisers on today I received seven files for homeowners. I didn’t my staff did. So and I have been told that my Friday of this week no later than Monday of next week the Engineering Department will receive a minimum of another nine files that have gone through the second review appraisal. On tomorrow morning my staff will begin to establish meetings with those seven families who already have an inventory of over 100 homes that can used as comparable. Those families will be given 90 days for us to work with them to relocate. It may take longer if that individual has mortgage on the house which will take an intervention by a bank to make the new deal work. So that’s where we are. Mr. Williams: So what I’m hearing and I want the constituents to here as well that within 90 days’ time you’ll have at least seven of those. Is that right? Mr. Wheeler: (inaudible) Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Wheeler: That’s not what I said. Mr. Williams: I’m I know they don’t understand. I don’t understand so help me out. Mr. Wheeler: What I said was, Commissioner, in 90 days it will be our goal to have those families relocated. If there is a mortgage on it which will take intervention of a mortgage company for the new home it could very well take more than the 90 days. But that is a real estate transaction and that’s what we have to go through. So this is not just guided by me and my staff it’s guided attorneys and bankers. Mr. Williams: Mr. Wheeler, I understand that. And I see one of the residents standing there, Mr. Mayor. I’d like hear, give her a chance to speak. But before that let me say this. Whether you know it or not the area’s being trashed even more so because they know people are moving out and nothing’s coming in. People are taking stuff over where they’re not participating with the garbage they’re throwing it on the streets. The locks have not been even the locks that the city owns have not been addressed, rodents is growing and running everywhere. These are 54 seniors who have paid their dues and I really feel bad because we moved the rentals first. That’s a process I didn’t have anything to do with that’s a process ya’ll came up with but I want them to know that we had not forgot about them, that we have not turned our backs because it’s overgrown because the dumping is going on in that area. People have not respected Hyde Park even when it --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: --- thank you, Mr. Mayor. They still, they’re still doing some things that’s not pleasant I’ll say but one of the residents is here. Now, Mr. Mayor, if you’ll just give her my other two minutes and let her talk please because it’s embarrassing. Ms. Speaker: Good evening --- Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Speaker: --- I would like to say to the Commissioners of Augusta who we elected who we also trust. They have promised to relocate us. This wasn’t just yesterday this has been over thirty something years that we’ve been fighting to relocate. Okay? Now what happened was when they got ready to relocate the property owners they said that they had knocked down enough premises. To the Commissioners and to Mr. Wheeler you have also moved people before. So therefore you all should have known to get an appraiser to come out and appraise the home so that we could move. Was this another delay to keep us in Hyde Park or what is it? And I’m asking to the Commissioners this afternoon speaking for the Hyde Park Neighborhood, I’ve been out there over fifty something years and I would like to know how long does it actually take to relocated less than 100 people? Why are prolonging 90 days to move three or four people when we can go ahead and say we’re going move those many people this week this many next week. You have studying what you’re going to give us. So that shouldn’t be a hang up in the situation now. It should be that we need to go ahead and do what you say you’re going to do and that is relocate us. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Speaker: No property owner has been moved yet all was rentals. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Ms. Speaker: I thank everybody that has a position knows they (unintelligible) and I’m asking them to do it please, sir, and please, ma’am. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. And I just will say and I do agree but I made the point earlier in the meeting there are a lot of things that should’ve happened a long time ago that this Commission and this government is doing now. And so I understand people you know nothing happened for a long time so I understand how you feel. So thank you, ma’am for coming and making your feelings known. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 55 Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do concur with her statements and her feelings and I understand the concerns. Unfortunately this is not a snap your fingers and everybody is out of this situation. If it was it would’ve been done. But I’ve got to give kudos to the Commission, some of us who are up here now and some of those who were up here before for allowing us to take the next step to start to get the people out of there. And I can’t control, I said this when I ran for office. I can’t control what people did before me. I made a commitment. People say you promised. No I told them I will promise to do all I can. But I made a commitment to do all I can to get them out of there and we’ve been able to get that done on this Commission as far as moving forward with the concept and I did get them out of there. But it’s not going to happen as quick as most people want it. If I can get this thing sped up and I see Abie Ladson over here to my left, Jim Williams and they are working on the appraisal process. When you’re dealing with land acquisitions you’ve got to be very, very careful. If you miss anything if you miss dotting an ‘I’ and it look like an ‘L’ somebody can come back and take that property from. You you’ve got to be very understanding that is very strategic in how that happens. That’s why even if I wanted to go purchase a house today it would take at least 45 days, at least 45 days at the most about anywhere from 60-90 days to get that process completed. That’s just with a person that don’t have any issues with that. It can take that long to do it. Now some of you may disagree but go out there and see for yourself unless you’re buying it from ‘a’ individual when you go through the bank process it’s a process. You have to get an appraisal done. Sometime they want two appraisals. With the recent homeowners crisis they’re very strict now on how they operate. So try and see. I’ve tried to even get my rental property, I went and tried to get it. They would not do it because they are very strategic on the process. S I understand it’s not happening it’s quick but if they can get this ball rolling quicker I will make sure they get it done. I know Commissioner Williams will and I just, I want you all to understand that we are not sleeping on this. We’re not and it’s going to take a little time but it’s not going to happen --- Mr. Mayor: Give you another --- Mr. Johnson: --- no I appreciate it, Mr. Mayor, I’m about done. But I just want to state that because the hard part believe it or not was done. Now it’s just a process and it’s like anything else. A baby ain’t going to come no quicker because God says it’s going to come quicker than nine months because it has to go through a process. And that’s what we’re dealing with here. So we’re not sleeping on this. I know this Commission is passionate about it. And I will make sure as I’ve been doing in the past to make sure that it happens and it happens the way it should and that’s right. We don’t want any quick, fast and wrong. We want it right. And if that takes another month or two to get it done so be it. But it has to be done right. Because you don’t want to be in your house and find out later on that you’ve done something wrong or something was done wrong in the process and now you don’t own the property you thought was yours. I just wanted to clear that up make that point for clarification, Mr. Mayor, and hopefully they can understand this is what it is. I mean I know it’s been less than 60 days since Mr. Wheeler was before us making his presentation but we need to keep bringing it up but it’s not, it can’t it just can’t speed the process up. Mr. Williams: I want to make a motion, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Okay. 56 Mr. Williams: My motion is Mr. Wheeler or some of his staff be back in 30 days or every 30 days to show us where they are, what they’re doing. Now I agree with Mr. Johnson we can’t snap our fingers but it shouldn’t take no fifty years to move people out of a contaminated situation now. So every 30 days somebody needs to be back sharing with us what they’re doing or what they’re not doing. If there’s a stumbling block we need to go to the next person. We can’t stop because there’s somebody who hasn’t got their paperwork together. There’s still a process. These are human lives that have been living in a contaminated area for too long. So that’s my motion. Ms. Speaker: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor: Hang on, ma’am. Is there a second to that? Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor, I’ve got to be reasonable. I understand Commissioner Williams’ concern but 30 days is just not enough time for them to do that. I would say at least 60 days because it takes time to get that stuff done, get it processed and get it in. I think by that time they should have an open and closed statement to let us know where they are and you know how far the process has come, at least 60 days. But I know you can’t do much of nothing in thirty days. Mr. Williams: I’m not asking for that, Mr. Mayor. My motion is to ask for them just to report to let us know, to keep us, to let us know that these people have been waiting now. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion. Is there a second for that? Okay we do not --- Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. And, ma’am, I’ll recognize you briefly and then. Ms. Speaker: The only reason I came up here is because I understand the frustration. It has been going on as long as I’ve been living. Mr. Johnson has put forth I feel like a good effort. I have contact with him to find out what’s going on and legalities in it is what’s taking the longest. I understand that. Even with people, I mean if you’re in the first phase or not if you don’t know to get your property probated get it probated. I asked was told no I found out at the last minute I had to get it done or I have had to get it done but just including the legalities when you call to the office that is located in Hyde Park they can’t tell you anything because it’s in the city’s hands. So I feel like if it’s in the city’s hands then the city should be who contacts us up. I was told that you get a phone call. Then I was told you would get a letter. And in the beginning of this whole situation we were told there would be transparency. And that’s all I’m asking for is transparency to know if this is the step that we’re taking which there was a community meeting that told us this person is going to handle this, this person will handle this, this will handle this. But our contact point was supposedly the office that’s located in the neighborhood. And if I call you and I’m told well I can’t tell you anything but it’s out of our hands you’ve had your appraisal done that’s not transparency. I called and asked their contract person that I could get in 57 touch with in the city that could tell me what my appraisal value was at least or has a second appraisal been done at least. I can’t tell you anything. All I can you is you have to wait until you get a letter. That’s why I came up here because a lot of these even elderly people but not elderly people my mother passed. I’m over her property. I would like to know what’s going on. And if I call my contact point and you can’t tell me what’s going on that’s where the issue is. We’re not trying to cause confusion. We’re not saying you’re not doing your job we’re just asking for more transparency. And if can be possible more expediency because people are still dying. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler: My staff could not respond to any questions until we receive the file back from Engineering. Until I get that in my hands there’s nothing I can do. I couldn’t tell you anything. I couldn’t say. All I can say is and I didn’t say it. The engineers are dealing with the appraisals. Now that I have seven appraisals, now that I have a second appraisal I can establish a meeting time with those seven families and begin to deal with costs. She is right on one point. If there are any legal matters dealing with the title of those properties it will delay it indefinitely. There’s nothing I can do to correct that. Nothing. Mr. Mayor: I understand. Mr. Wheeler: But I’m going to take those seven that we have, I will schedule meetings beginning tomorrow and believe it I’m not turning my back on those families. But I can’t do anything until I get the paperwork in my hands. I now have the first set so if I’m committed to do my job I will do it. I do it well just, please, Commissioners, let me handle my job. If I don’t do it then you deal with it. But I know what I know how to do if you give me the paperwork. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, Chester. And Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Wheeler, everything being now that you have the paperwork that’s necessary what’s the approximate length of time that it would take to start and finish a transaction. Mr. Wheeler: Families will begin to immediately select their comparable and select the home that they want. It is my goal in 90 days to have them out. That’s pending no problems with the bank and pending no problems with the title. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. And I guess my next question is that even though we haven’t finalized the move can the families that live in Hyde Park now start looking at comparable so they don’t --- Mr. Wheeler: They don’t know the value’s established by the appraisers and the number of bedrooms determine where I get my comps. So until we get those documents in my hand it’s nothing I can show them. I have over a hundred comps already. Now I have to take the individual file and match them up with the comps and say this is a three bedroom here. Twenty- bedrooms you can go look at. That’s the way we have to do it. But until I get that there’s nothing I can do. And I can’t tell anybody anything. 58 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Mr. Guilfoyle, did you? Okay, sir, and I give you just a brief. I’ll recognize him. Mr. Holiday: I’m Aaron Holiday. My question is, what are dealing with. You said comparable. All right if you’re in a home that you own and you have no lien on it for instance how are basing it? Is it square footage and number of room? Mr. Wheeler: Yes, it is. Mr. Holiday: So that changed several times. Mr. Wheeler: I’ve been doing --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Wheeler: --- for twenty-years. I’ve never changed. I know the (inaudible). You always and if you can’t find, if I’ve got a 900 square foot house, it’s three bedrooms, first of all or two, I’ll give an example two bedroom. First of all, I’m not going to find any two bedroom house. So I might as well move out. Don’t even deal with that. Go look for a three bedroom house that you can put a family in. So I have to do that. That’s what the regulations say. That’s my first. I have to put them in a safe, decent and sanitary housing. And I always look at the number of rooms and the size of the house. We are not going to find, there are some houses out there that at 500 and 600 square feet in size. Five and six hundred square feet and you won’t believe the number of rooms those that those houses have been chopped up into. So my deal is I know I can’t find a three bedroom house and its 800 square feet. So don’t even, I’m not even telling my time, myself don’t even waste your time. We know that you’re going to at least start off with a 9/11,000 square foot house. I mean that’s just the bottom line. So where do I have to choose them for. That’s what I have to do. And that’s when my staff goes out and locates these properties and they provide and then we’ll let them choose the house they want. But it takes time. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. Mr. Holiday: My next question is in regard to the title search. Who’s responsible for that? Mr. Wheeler: The attorney’s. I’m not involved with the titles. Mr. Holiday: Because as long as this process should be going on shouldn’t that have been started at the beginning of the process? Mr. Mayor: Sir --- Mr. Holiday: Especially with that phase. 59 Mr. Mayor: --- but I’m just saying with the two of ya’ll here is there any way that you guys could discuss this? Mr. Wheeler: That’s a legal question. I don’t deal with, but I can’t answer the questions about the titles. Mr. Mayor: And that’s a legal question. Mr. Wheeler: That’s not my area of expertise. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: I’ll get the answers for you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll get with him today and I’ll call the attorney. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you Commissioner. Okay, we’ve had a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, can you ask the Madam Clerk --- Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, could you read back the? The Clerk: Yes, sir. The motion was to ask Mr. Wheeler to come back in 30 days with, to provide an update on the relocation process. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes. I don’t think that’s suitable. I mean to be able to give it 30 days you’re talking about a circular or something like that that’s not going to, I mean that’s something different. But if we can do it, idea of a substitute motion --- Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. There was a substitute motion? Mr. Johnson: 60 days. Mr. Guilfoyle: But it didn’t get a second. Mr. Mayor: And it didn’t get a second. Okay, so there was a substitute motion made by the Mayor Pro Tem that was seconded by Commissioner Jackson for Wheeler to report back in 60 days. Okay. Yes, sir. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, listening to Mr. Wheeler I don’t care if it’s next week, next month. He cannot give us anymore information until he gets information then he can tie the two knots together to make one. We’re requesting something from him that he cannot respond on. I mean he’s made it point blank clear and we ask a director to do something magic tricks for us 60 and we shouldn’t be forcing him to pushed into a corner. There’s no answers to be given. I make a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Mayor: There’s already a substitute motion and a primary motion on the floor. So we’ve got to vote on the substitute motion first then the primary motion. The substitute motion is for Mr. Wheeler to report back in 60 days. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis and Mr. Mason vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. G. Smith, Mr. Jackson, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion Fails 3-7. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we now have a primary motion on the floor for Housing and Neighborhood Development to report back in 30 days. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason, Mr. Williams and Mr. G. Smith vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Jackson, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Motion Fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 47. Motion to repeal the RFP for ambulance service and discuss the RFP process. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee May 28, 2013) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 20. Motion to uphold denial of bid protest regarding RFP #13-145 Ambulance Services, for the Augusta Fire Department filed by Metro-Health EMS. The Procurement department has denied the request from Metro-Health EMS which stated that the Procurement Department failed to provide notice of the mandatory pre-proposal conference. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Mayor: Let’s do number 20 first. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor I’d like a motion to uphold the denial on item number twenty please. Mr. D. Smith: I second that one. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Is there any further discussion? Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 10-0. 61 Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, agenda item number 47. The Clerk: Forty-seven to, motion to repeal the RFP for the ambulance service and discuss the RFP process. Mr. Jackson: So moved. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Do we have any further discussion? Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, I wanted to ask Chief James a couple of items about the bid process. Mr. Mayor: Chief. Mr. Guilfoyle: Chief James on January 28, 2013 you interviewed with WRDW and you stated the company has met the contract guidelines. The minimum amount of ambulances is the problem. Do you recall that? My question is does the RFP state anything about the amount of ambulances to qualify for this bid. Chief James: The RFP states that whoever the vendors are that will be assigned for this RFP will give us a systems status management that will include the minimum number of ambulances that they will provide. We didn’t tell them specifically you will give us this many ambulances. We told the companies that will be bidding on this process to evaluate our city, to evaluate how they would run an ambulance and then they would propose to us what their minimum number of ambulances would be. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. So the bid is written that you have to all you have to have is a state license to qualify to bid this package, ambulatory state license? Chief James: I mean to my knowledge any company that applies for the ambulance bid would have to be, have a State of Georgia Ambulance License. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so there’s no qualifications necessary. Would that be true to say? Chief James: The qualifications being what’s in the RFP. Mr. Guilfoyle: If they, their experience --- Chief James: (unintelligible) Mr. Guilfoyle: --- are they licensed, EMT qualified? Clarify that, sir. 62 Chief James: In the RFP it tells you that you have to have EMT’s. It tells you whether you have to have paramedics or EMT’s riding on the units. That’s state requirements as well. As far as what, if you have an ambulance service that the ambulance is going to transport patients that you have to have at least a basic EMT and one other EMT that’s hired in that level either intermediate, advanced or paramedic. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so also --- Chief James: Those would be state requirements. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. Also underneath the state requirements the ambulance could be a 1975 as long it has less than 250,000 miles versus what we have now. Is that correct? Chief James: I don’t know that the state requires you to have a specific year of ambulance on it. Mr. Guilfoyle: It could not be more that forty years old. That’s scary. Chief James: I’m not, what the state requires I’m not sure. Mr. Guilfoyle: Is there a clause in the BID that dictates the amount that an ambulance could charge, sir? Chief James: No. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so an ambulance could charge to the $2,500 plus additional procedures that was done with no respect to cost? Chief James: That would come in is that they would present that cost thing when they presented their request for proposal. When they presented their proposal they would list those costs in there and then as you looked at the different companies that presented their proposals that would be part of the selection process. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. The BID is also asking to provide all Workman Comp claims for the last three years it states in there. Is that correct? Chief James: Yeah, that was a legal question as to why that was in there. Mr. Guilfoyle: Under the federal law HIPPA this is not allowed and I guess our legal staff could respond to that. Chief James: Yes. Mr. Guilfoyle: Andrew, would you be kind enough to respond to that please? Mr. MacKenzie: What was the question? 63 Mr. Guilfoyle: The BID is asking to provide all the Workman’s Comp claims for the last three years for potential bidders. Under the federal law HIPPA this is not allowed. Mr. MacKenzie: Are you saying the RFP requires them to give a claims history? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. Mr. MacKenzie: I don’t see that this is, the claims history itself I don’t think would be barred from release on HIPPA. Any specific data might be relating to individuals who have medical information to be protected. But usually that’s done to get an idea of whether or not there’s high claims with respect to the employees. Mr. Guilfoyle: Wouldn’t it be better to ask for a MOD rate? Mr. MacKenzie: A what? Mr. Guilfoyle: A MOD rate. Any time that you have workman’s comp i.e., owners companies if you have a high claim history your MOD rate goes up to where you actually pay more. Mr. MacKenzie: That could’ve probably been done. It just wasn’t on this one. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir. That’s enough for me. Thank you, Chief James. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mason then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I see Fred’s walking around. I hope he’s listening at the same time. Mr. Russell: Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Mason: Oh, okay. At the end of the day I mean I don’t know where we’re going with this but contractually speaking and the Attorney too Mr. Mayor, the previous or the current contract speaks to the RFP and being notified one way or the other of an intent of this government which to my understanding at this point we met that. Is that correct? Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: Okay, so now as a result of this what does that do legally to, to the contract currently which is supposed to have notification which was done. But is repealed. Does this nullify all that and then what goes along with all that. Somebody explain that me. Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’d be happy to try. A lot of this could be, there actually were some different motions made at various levels on several agendas. The answer to the first question is this doesn’t have any impact on the notice that was given. It was my understanding 64 that notice was given to terminate the contract. But the specific item in front of you now is just to repeal the current RFP process and service. It would be my recommendation if it was the intent of the Commission to see about continuing with the current vendor that we’ve already sent the notice to. It would be to maybe freeze or put a hold on the current RFP process and instruct the Administrator to negotiation with the existing vendor and come back with a proposal to continue services with the same vendor. That would address both the legal issue which would you know if the Commission agreed then you would withdraw the notice of termination. But that’s not currently in this motion. Mr. Mason: Okay, so as a follow up, Mr. Mayor, if I can finish. Two things one, what would be the legitimate reasoning for that. What would be utilized for that? And then two, as we move through this process and I’m looking at this motion you’re talking about discussing RFP process okay so we’re going to stop and discuss it and then what exactly? I mean so I mean I don’t know where we’re going with what I’m viewing here so. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: If I can attempt to (unintelligible) to what I believe the intent of the motion --- Mr. Mason: But can you first excuse me, can you first discuss what would be a legitimate reason for even --- Mr. Russell: At this point in the process and stop me if I’m wrong, Andrew, but if the Commission’s uneasy with moving forward with this process that’s all the legitimate reason that you need. I would suggest that you suspend the process and instruct me to negotiate with the current provider to determine if there is a potential of continuing forward if that’s the will of the body. That gives me the most advantageous position to deal from. If you do away with the process then we’re sort of negotiating in the dark and I have no follow up there. I think you need to put me in a position where I have some opportunity to be able to negotiate and not just listen to what they want to provide. So I think if that’s the will of the body I don’t think you need a reason. I think you could make that determination. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner --- Mr. Russell: I would like to be placed in a position of some level playing field --- Mr. Mayor: --- Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, I’d like to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor, is that we instruct the Administrator to start the RFP process and enter into negotiations with the current provider to continue to provide service. That’s my substitute motion. Mr. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett. 65 Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think if we stop in the middle of the stream we’re not going to be able to realize if what other companies could possibly offer that might be better than what we have at a more reasonable price. One would think that if we continue with the RFP process that would give us an opportunity to not only look at this particular company but look at those other companies that interested. And if this company has the best offer well I wouldn’t be reluctant at all to vote for it. What we’re trying to do is get the best for this community in service and cost. I mean I think that’s what it’s all about. And about a month ago this body voted unanimously that any contact in excess of a million dollars we would go out for an RFP. So now are we, why are we talking about changing now, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Smith, you had? Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, just for a point of clarification. The motion should be suspend the RFP process. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by --- Mr. Lockett: Roll call, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute fashion in a roll call vote. Mr. Lockett: What is the substitute motion? Mr. Mason: (inaudible) substitute motion please. The Clerk: The --- Mr. Mayor: Please repeat. The Clerk: The substitute motion was to suspend the RFP process and to task the Administrator with negotiating with the current provider to continue to provide service. Okay, Ms. Davis? Ms. Davis: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: No. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Could you please say that motion again? 66 The Clerk: It was to suspend the RFP process and to task the Administrator with negotiating with the current provider to continue to provide service. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: No. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: No. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: No. The Clerk: Mr. Donnie Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Grady Smith. Mr. G. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes. Motion Passes 6-4. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: FINANCE 48. Not to approve account transfer within Probate Court budget pursuant to Augusta Code Section 2-3-8(b) (No recommendation from Finance Committee May 28, 2013) Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to deny. Mr. Jackson: Second. 67 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Mr. MacKenzie. Mr. MacKenzie: No, it’s Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Judge James is here and waited for his opportunity to speak to this. I think it would be appropriate to allow him to do that. As you know the issue that I have is he wants to make a movement from operational line to a personnel line item and that’s above my authority. And that’s why the matter’s in front of you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. James, your Honor, if you’d like to? And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir. Judge James: We’ll keep it within five minutes. First, Commissioners, thank you for letting us say a few words. I have with me my director Angela Rice. First thing you must understand the money that we’re talking about moving from one area to another is a small amount which is no more than $7,000 dollars, $8,000 dollars in total. It’s not going to cost the city not one cent. That money’s already in the budget. It is just not at this point being utilized. Before I became judge this body appointed and placed funds in the budget for an assistant judge for that court. Well once that was officially done it freed up some other monies which amounted to $8,000 dollars which was in the budget for legal services for contingencies to pay a substitute judge when the judge was unavailable because of sickness or out of town or what have you. Well gentlemen and lady that money’s not needed at this point so we do have $8,000 dollars sitting in our budget that we could utilize to pay some additional monies to some of our staff. The Probate Court is a very specialized court. We have specialized clerks with a lot of knowledge and quite frankly some of them are grossly underpaid. And in order to keep good people without going through years of training people over and over again two things must happen. One they have to feel that they are being recognized and appreciated. And secondly even if we can’t under the present system pay them what we feel they’re worth at least we can give them and show them some encouragement by giving them something. What we are talking about is monies that’s just sitting there and we’re talking about splitting $8,000 dollars over four different staff members to encourage them to keep going to our seminars and state seminars that are given and to keep doing a good job. This is needed. Some of these people haven’t had a raise in my God five six years. This is no more than to encourage them. We can either utilize that money to encourage them or the money can just sit there. And what I’m suggesting what I’m asking is to allow me to pass that money on to staff in our office to people who are most deserving of any amount that we can give them. Even though it’s a little amount it’s still better than nothing. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion please. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: That we go ahead and approve this item from Mr. James for the staff people in his office. 68 Mr. Johnson: I’ll second that motion. Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. James --- Mr. James: Yes. Mr. Guilfoyle: --- as far as you saying there’s $8,000 dollars left in your budget and you want to turn that over into the labor side. So next year I don’t know what you’re budget is per year. Can you tell me that? Mr. James: We have the statistics here. Entire operating budget was approximately $665,000 dollars. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so next year with $8,000 dollars going into the labor we can reduce the $665,000 by $8,000 dollars next year. Would that be correct to say? Because you’re automatically --- Mr. James: That would be correct to say however I would point out that we can’t just say that as gospel because we do have to replace equipment, books and things of that nature. And so we can’t concede those contingencies down for what may occur next year. And then let me let the director say something. Ms. Rice: That figure that you gave me was a total (inaudible). Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Speaker: And right now the $8,000 dollars is in operating expenses (inaudible). Mr. Rice: Speak up, please. Mr. Mayor: Please. Ms. Rice: --- some of it Judge James has addressed. In 2009 the current judge was out. We had to come to the Commission to get $6,300 dollars approved to pay court appointed legal when the judge was absent. And that money stayed in there and the previous judge had requested an associate position to be opened at the rate of $26,000 dollars a years. That was denied. However some of that money was still left in court appointed which is a whole separate item number. So there’s a fifty-one account, I’m sorry instead of a fifty-one account there’s a fifty-two again. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, but Mr. James has said that this $8,000 dollars has been sitting in there for quite some time. 69 Ms. Rice: Yes. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay so --- Ms. Rice: When we budgeted for 2013 Judge Slaby at the time was the judge. When we were asked to cut the budget we cut court appointed down to $10,000 because it was in the plans of having an associated judge position requested which has been approved. But now we’ve got $15,000 dollars less than what we’ve spent so far this year which is normally an expense of $7,000 for court appointed so that leaves $8,000. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, so my statement earlier if you’re getting $665,000 next year would you be willing to reduce it by $8,000 dollars. And Mr. James said well that cannot be a promise. But what’s to keep other departments from coming before us and doing the same thing? That’s where I have a --- Ms. Rice: This is an unusual situation for --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Doesn’t the Administrator have the authority to give up to a 15% raise without having to come before this Commission? Ms. Rice: As long as the money’s in the budget. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Rice: And the problem is the money is sitting in the fifty-two office account instead of the fifty-one salary account. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Johnson. Mr. Lockett: Judge James and Ms. Rice, I want to apologize to you all for having to wait so long for $8,000 dollars. But this question is for our General Counsel. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Looking at the, under the agenda item under background it said the Probate Judge of Richmond County is an elected, constitutional county officer. As such Augusta Georgia has the authority within certain restrictions to set the budget for the Office of the Probate Judge. However once that budget is set the Probate Judge has the authority to decide how these funds are spent. Is that correct Mr. General Counsel? Mr. MacKenzie: That is correct if the funds were in the salaried fund. But there’s something called a legal level of control if it’s in an operational fund and it’s being moved from something that doesn’t have an annual commitment to something that does have an annual commitment like this request. And there’s some other authority that would suggest that the governing authority has the ability to set that legal level of control at a lower which this government has done. 70 Mr. Lockett: Well, no disrespect, Mr. General Counsel, that is not what the background information states on here. It says once the budget has been set, once it’s been set and obviously it’s been set. And it said this elected judge has the right to do whatever he or she wants to do with it. Mr. James: Commissioner, that was our position all along. However it was my understanding that locally here there’s a code section that says for moving one amount to another 52 to 51 you still have the have the council (inaudible). That’s the only reason why we’re here. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell. Yeah, I’m about ready not to be here myself. Mr. Russell. Mr. Russell: Judge James and I have talked about this and my issue becomes I did not have the authority to sign off on that move because I’m required when it’s from an operational line item to a personnel line item but I’m not authorized to okay that move. So that’s the reason we’re here today is that I can’t do that. Mr. Mayor: Corey and --- Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess the only question that I have is I understand it’s $8,000 dollars in operation funds and you want to transfer it. Now this is going to be, is it you’re trying to give an annual raise or this is going to be ongoing thing or just a onetime deal here because you’re giving them an increase. You want to kind of increase the salaries for some of the employees, correct? Mr. James: That’s correct. Mr. Johnson: Now how is it going to be paid for next year and the year after? I think that’s because I know Commissioner Guilfoyle is saying reducing it by $8,000 because of that but I mean I understand it’s two even pots so you can’t say you want to take that from the operational budget because it’s a different pot. But next year as far as the salaries the budget for the salaries how will you continue to pay that level of salary if your budget is the same? Mr. James: Well, we’re just talking about an amount of $8,000 dollars. We plan to build that into our new budget. Mr. Johnson: Okay, so that will be added into the new budget going for salaries. Mr. James: Yes, even if we might have to look at fine tuning to cut back on some other areas. But I think it’s important. And someone mentioned I’ve been here a long time for $8,000 dollars. I will stay all night to help my staff. They’re doing a great job and I want to help them as much as I can. Mr. Johnson: I understand and I concur with that. I know it’s hard to keep good people in place. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. 71 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion that’s been properly seconded to and, Madam Clerk, if you could read that back. The Clerk: That was to approve the request. Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Williams vote Yes. Mr. G. Smith, Mr. D. Smith, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Guilfoyle and Ms. Davis vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Clerk: The Mayor votes Yes. Motion Passes 6-5. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: FINANCE 49. Motion to approve a request by Ms. Pearlie Mae Brunson regarding a claim for damages in the amount of $546.72 resulting from an incident in which her automobile was damaged when it struck a pothole on Cadden Road. (Approved by Finance Committee May 13, 2013 and No Action Vote May 21, 2013) Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Jackson: Motion to deny. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion to approve that has not yet been seconded that was made first and a motion to deny that has not been seconded. Mr. Mason: Second the motion to approve? Was there a motion to approve? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Mr. Mason: I’m seconding that motion. Mr. Mayor: And Commissioner Smith you seconded? Mr. G. Smith: Well, there’s like a --- Mr. Mayor: The first motion that was made was by Commissioner Williams to approve. So yours would be a substitute motion to deny --- Mr. Jackson: Correct. 72 Mr. Mayor: --- that’s been properly seconded. Okay. Okay is there any discussion? Yes sir. Mr. Jackson: Andrew, are we not setting precedence by approving this? Mr. MacKenzie: This would normally fall within the authority of the Risk Management Department to settle claims of this nature. The Risk Management Department denied the claim and provided reason why it shouldn’t be approved. I think each case stands on its own facts and if the Commission wants to do something different than what the department does you have the authority to do that. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion to deny that’s been properly seconded. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. G. Smith, Mr. Guilfoyle, Ms. Davis, Mr. Lockett and Mr. Jackson vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Mason, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion ties 5-5. The Mayor votes Yes. Motion Passes 6-5. Mr. Mayor: We’ll deny but, ma’am, if you could come see me I will help to make it a little easier (inaudible) restitution to take care of it. Mr. Mason: Is that it? Mr. Fennoy: No, one more. ENGINEERING SERVICES 50. Update/status report from the Director of Engineering Department regarding the Wilkerson Garden Drainage Project. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams has said that can be referred to committee. So can I get a motion to refer agenda item number 50? Mr. Johnson: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. D. Smith: Second. Mr. D. Smith: We’ve got to vote. We’ve got to vote guys. Mr. Lockett: What are we voting on? 73 Mr. D. Smith: To move this to another, Mr. Williams wants to move it to another meeting. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. The Clerk: That motion fails 5-3. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk --- Mr. Jackson: Motion we adjourn. Mr. G. Smith, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Lockett vote No. Ms. Davis and Mr. Guilfoyle out. Motion fails 5-3. Mr. Mayor: --- we request that you put that on, no action taken, on next week’s committee. With no further business to come before the body (inaudible). [MEETING ADJOURNED] Nancy Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonnie, 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 June 4, 2013. ___________________________________ Clerk of Commission 74