The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRegular Commission Meeting April 1, 2014 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER APRIL 1, 2014 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., April 1, 2014, the Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Johnson, Jackson, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Mr. Mayor: --- and call the meeting, the full Commission Meeting to order. And I’d like to call on Reverend Kerwin Myles, Associated Pastor of Augusta Deliverance Evangelistic Church for our invocation. Please stand. The invocation was given by the Reverend Kerwin Myles, Associate Pastor, Augusta Deliverance Evangelistic Church. Mr. Mayor: Please join me in the Pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited. Mr. Mayor: And, Pastor, could you come forward? I’ve got a little something for you. Thank you for that wonderful invocation. By these present be it known that Reverend Kerwin Myles, Associate Pastor, Augusta Deliverance Evangelistic Church is Chaplain of the Day for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community. Serves as an example st for all of the faith community. Given under my hand this 1 Day of April 2014. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE) Madam Clerk, recognitions. The Clerk: Yes, sir. RECOGNITIONS April Employee of the Month A. Congratulations! Ms. Rebecca Roberson, Communications/Dispatcher I Operator, Augusta Utilities Department. The Clerk: And I’ll read the letter from the Employee Recognition Committee. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Rebecca Roberson as the April 2014 Employee of the Month for the City of Augusta. Ms. Roberson is a Communications Officer Dispatcher I for the Augusta Utilities Department where she has been employed since Augusta of 2011. She was nominated by Tangela Gibson. During the recent ice and winter storms Rebecca Roberson demonstrated the poise of a seasoned Communications Officer while working under extremely stressful conditions. Rebecca operated her radio channel assisted other dispatchers and insured all the First Responders assigned to her were safe despite her top group having twice the normal traffic on one top group. Ms. Roberson’s personality and demeanor is an enhancement that assists her in handling even callers that may be uncooperative. She remains calm under pressure and brings a light hearted sense of humor to the shift. She uses all available resources to assist callers, peers and other agencies. Rebecca also demonstrated her resourcefulness when she 1 created a system to decrease processing time and streamline operation during the department’s conversion to a new computer aided dispatch system. Her ingenuity allows dispatchers to receive information faster. Rebecca Roberson’s performance exemplifies dedication to excellence. The Employee Recognition Committee felt that based on this nomination and Ms. Roberson’s service above and beyond we would appreciate you joining us in recognizing her as the April 2014 Employee of the Month. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor: And, Rebecca, I just want to say congratulations. Truly our employees are our greatest resource and that was never more realized so great job and thank you. Well deserved. Would you like to say anything? Ms. Roberson: Oh no, thank you, I talk enough. Mr. Mayor: She does have a sense of humor. Ms. Roberson: Yeah, I talk enough. Ms. Gibson: Mayor, may I correct. She is from the 911 Center not Utilities, Rebecca from the 911 (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank ya’ll. And before we get to the consent agenda I just ask that Commissioners there is a grand opening for the new Holiday Inn Express on Broad Street at 5:30 today just in time for Masters. So could we I’d ask that we try to work on getting through this in a timely fashion so that we can all celebrate that with the owners and a great investment in our city. Mr. Speaker: (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Um, all right. A motion’s been made and properly seconded and I think it’s unanimous. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir. The consent agenda that would be items 1-31. And under the Public Services portion I’ll read the one alcohol license request. Item 4: Is a motion to approve a request for a Special Event License Liquor, Beer & nd Wine to be used in connection with Mi Rancho located at 3064 Washington Road May 2 through May 5, 2014 for Cinco De Mayo. There will be Sunday Sales. The Clerk: Are there any objectors to this alcohol petition? No, sir --- Mr. Mayor: Noted. The Clerk: --- there doesn’t seem to be. So our consent agenda is 1-31. Mr. Mayor: Lady and gentlemen, do we have any additions to the consent agenda? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, did I hear you say hmm, hmm? Commissioner Guilfoyle. 2 Mr. Guilfoyle: Item number (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further? Okay, do we have any items to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One, two, five, six and seven. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion? Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item one, (inaudible) ten and twenty. Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion. Hearing none can I get a motion to approve the consent agenda? Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PUBLIC SERVICES 3. Motion to approve an award of contract with Georgia Power Company for $74,380 for tree abatement and pruning at the Augusta Riverwalk. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) 4. Motion to approve a request by Melissa Outley for a Special Event License Liquor, Beer & Wine to be used in connection with Mi Rancho located at 3064 Washington Rd. May 2 thru May 5, 2014 for Cinco De Mayo. There will be Sunday Sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 8. Motion to authorize the Procurement and Recreation, Parks & Facilities Departments to finalize plans to relocate the Augusta Printshop and Mail Service to May Park Annex th Building adjacent to the May Park Athletic Complex & Office at 622 4 Street. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) 9. Motion to approve Excess Worker’s Compensation Insurance with Safety National with Statutory limits and an $850,000.00 Self Insured Retention (SIR-otherwise known as the deductible) to cover all positions for a premium of $240,555. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) PUBLIC SAFETY 11. Motion to approve the purchase by the Augusta Fire Department of seven (7) additional pumpers and two (2) additional aerial trucks through Bid Item #13-187A. (Approved by Public Safety Committee Marcy 24, 2014) FINANCE 3 12. Motion to approve the replacement of one (1) 2000 emergency response fire apparatus for Augusta Regional Airport. (Bid 14-133) Approved by Finance Committee March 24, 2014) 13. Motion to approve the purchase of mid-sized hydraulic excavator with transport trailer for Augusta Engineering Department-Maintenance Division. (Approved by Finance Committee March 24, 2014) 14. Motion to approve abatement of all County Ad Valorem Taxes on Land Bank owned property. (Approved by Finance Committee March 24, 2014) 15. Motion to approve budget for initial phase costs related to ice storm clean up. (Approved by Finance Committee March 24 2014) 16. Motion to approve lease agreement for OPEX Mail Processing Machine. (Approved by Finance Committee March 24, 2014) ENGINEERING SERVICES 17. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property in fee simple and permanent construction and maintenance easement (Parcel 209-0-014-00-0) Project Parcel 40, 2040 Ebenezer Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 18. Motion to approve funding to Christopher Booker & Associates, PC in the amount of $102,500.00 for the conceptual design of the Library Renovations for AUD. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 19. Motion to approve award to Blair Construction in the amount of $894,685.74 for Bid Item #14-126, Jamestown Sewer Extension Phase III-B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 21. Motion to approve award to Constantine Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $1,147,000 for year 1 for Solicitation #14-137, Program Management Services. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014). 22. Motion to approve funding to W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $197,615.00 for the design of the Rocky Creek Trunk Sewer Replacement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 23. Motion to approve an acceptance of a donated right-of-way between Martha R. Allen and Julian Allen, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in connection with the Storey Mill Road Project, said right-of-way consists of 1.759 acres (76,624 sq. ft.), more or less; and N/A sq. ft. of temporary construction easement, from the property located at 4967 Storey Mill Road, private. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 24. Motion to approve the drafting of a resolution for the commission to ask the delegation to request the State Legislature keep funding in place for floodplain mapping and to make Augusta, GA a priority within the State of Georgia and present it to the commission for approval subject to Law Department Review. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 25. Motion to award the Design Consultant Services Agreement to W.R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $647,655.31 for the John C. Calhoun Expressway Repair and Reconstruction Project, subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 4 26. Motion to approve Norfolk Southern Activity No. 1188892 Crossing Agreement for the water and sanitary sewer upgrade on Marvin Griffin Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 27. Motion to approve notification of award for a construction contract to Blair Construction, Inc. for the Winter-Norton Road 6” Water Main Replacement project, Bid Item #14-139, in the amount of $116,660.35, under the Task Order Program for infrastructure RFQ #11-130. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 28. Motion to approve beginning the process of deeding the road (South Atlantic Drive) to city, determining the cost for repairs and come back with a recommendation to the next committee meeting. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) 29. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement Number Sixteen, Change Number Eighteen, in the amount of $82,979 from Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. to design landscaping and irrigation system plans (IV & V); updates to the environmental document to include new threatened and endangered species identified in Augusta; provisions t protect migratory birds during the construction of the bridges; distribution of informational flyers to citizens advising them of temporary side road closures that will occur during construction; and design Advanced Transportation Management System Plans (V), respectively, on the projects to improve Windsor Spring Road from SR 88 in Hephzibah to Willis Foreman Rd. (Phase V) 323-04-299823786 and from Willis Foreman Road to Tobacco Road (Phase IV) 323-04-299823766 as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 30. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held March 19, 2014 and Special Called Meeting held March 24, 2014. APPOINTMENTS 31. Motion to approve the appointment of Tommy Boyles to the Augusta Canal Authority representing District 9. FINANCE 39. Motion to approve the Continued Purchase of Public Official Liability Insurance with Employment Practices Endorsement. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion carries 10-0. [Items 3, 4, 8, 9, 11-19, 21-31, 39] Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, let’s go with the first pulled agenda item first, please. The Clerk: Yes, sir, that’s item one. PUBLIC SERVICES 5 1. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute FAA Grants for Augusta Regional Airport which have expedited deadlines for the Fiscal Year 2014 as approved by the Augusta Aviation Commission at their February 27, 2014 Meeting. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I believe this was your pull and now that we’re into the regular meeting we’re back on the clock. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My concern the Aviation Commission that board meets once a month. We need a minimum of four times a month sometimes five, six, seven, eight times a month. And I could not, I’m unaware of where that is a single incident where they could not receive a grant because of the timeliness on the part of this Commission. And I don’t know a single Commissioner that would not show up for a Special Called Meeting if the airport was going to be the recipient of a three or four or five million dollar grant. So to me I don’t see any legitimate purpose for this particular request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know as the liaison between both the commissions things have come down the pike that has to go through their committee, their commission. Congress meets and even talking with Congressman Barrow there’s some funds that are let out that we have minimal time to respond and it doesn’t happen on a daily or weekly or monthly basis. It’s kind of like how we give raises sometimes. So you know at the end of the day it’s, they have to have a response and then they’ll have to before their committee, their commission be approved then our committee and then our commission. That’s, just bringing that to your attention. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, could I follow up before we vote? Mr. Mayor: Actually hang on and I’ll come back to you. Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Jackson as our liaison the Airport Commission meets once a month on Thursday. How is it that they’re going to get something approved if it comes after their meeting on Thursday? How do, how do ya’ll intend to get that done and get it back to us if we stay with the current, I mean I’m just confused if you only meet once a month how is this going help them if it’s such an emergency. Mr. Mayor: Well maybe that would be a more appropriate question for airport staff. Ms. Johnson: Diane Johnson with the airport. We do have, we’ve had several situations that have come up in the past and we will have in the future as well. It’s the way that the system works and what happens is the federal government assigns grants to different airports around the country. Well it, an airport, we’ll use our airport as an example, it’s working on a particular project and was not able to accept a grant as the federal government gets closer to the end of their budget year what they do is they take that money that was already awarded to someone else and they turn around immediately and they look for other airports that might possibly have a 6 project that they know is coming up and that has already had some kind of discussion with them. And they’ll call you and they’ll say we’ve got a day, do you want it, we call our Commission they meet right then. It’s a Special Called Commission Meeting and they approve it. And so sometimes we do just have one or two days to turn it around. Mr. D. Smith: So if your commission has one or two days to turn it around there’s nothing that would prohibit this commission to approve it using the same approach. Is that, would that be correct? Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Actually, Commissioner Lockett, I then I’ll come right back to you Commissioner Williams. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You know Commissioner Smith pretty much alluded to the fact of what I was concentrating on. How often do you have a Special Called meeting? Ms. Johnson: We have them when we need them. Mr. Lockett: And how often would you say --- Ms. Johnson: It’s not frequent. Mr. Lockett: In a twelve month period how many do you think you have? Ms. Johnson: Again it depends on the year. Sometimes we have one or two other times, we don’t have any. Mr. Lockett: Well, we have 25 to 30 Special Called meetings each and every year and I can assure you, I’m not speaking for my colleagues, but I know (unintelligible) is if the FAA said and they promised ya’ll several million dollars that same 24 to 48 hours that you are trying to get your people together to make a decision we could be doing the same thing. And I can assure you that there would be a sufficient amount of Commissioners here to make sure that ya’ll don’t lose that money. So that’s why I said to me this request is frivolous. And there have been no circumstances within the past four and a half years I’ve been on this Commission that you all lost money because of the lack of this governing body doing what we’re supposed to do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Davis then Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Williams: Thank you and thank you, Commissioner Lockett, you touched on what I was going to ask. I’m just going to make a comment. If the federal government on the aviation side is moving that fast we might need to find out (unintelligible). I just don’t know of any situation where we have held up or they have gotten to this juncture and stopped or we didn’t do what we needed to do to support the airport (unintelligible) so I’m in agreement with my colleagues on that one. 7 Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Davis the Commissioner Fennoy. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Are you all just asking for approval for the fiscal year 14? Is that correct? Ms. Johnson: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Davis: And you’re just asking to be able to when you’re going to receive federal grants. Ms. Johnson: Yes, ma’am. Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion to approve. Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: How will the monies that come from the federal government affect our budget here in Richmond County? Ms. Johnson: It shouldn’t affect your budget at all. Mr. Fennoy: So what do, what you’re asking for who or if the grant comes from the federal government --- Ms. Johnson: To the airport. Mr. Fennoy: --- to the airport then you want to be able to approve that grant without coming before the commission. Ms. Johnson: No, sir, it will come before the Commission after the fact. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so you won’t, so you won’t go forward the airport board if they approve their grant and then you’ll bring it to the Commission. Ms. Johnson: Because of the time of the situation what we’re asking is that the Aviation Commission be allowed to accept the grant and have it signed by the Mayor. And once we’ve had that then it will come back to your regular commission. Mr. Fennoy: And no funds will come from this government. Ms. Thompson: That’s correct. Mr. Fennoy: All right, thank you. 8 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I’ve got one question, Mr. Mayor, and the agenda item says for the year 2014. If this is a legitimate complaint, why is it that it’s limited to just fourteen and not just changes indefinitely versus the year ’14? If something pops up I just need to know. Ms. Johnson: Well, I’m not sure what the nature was they decided that. My assumption is is that they, you know, the executive director would come back to you again next year if he thought that that was necessary. Mr. Williams: (Unintelligible). Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to make a substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to make a substitute motion to deny because I still think it’s a frivolous request. It has no justification for the need. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Mason and then Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Williams: I’ll second that. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Okay. I have one question so I know where I’m going here. You mentioned several times because of the timeliness that’s required so how many untimely events have you had? Ms. Johnson: I don’t know exactly how many we’ve had but I do know that the federal government has offered this on multiple occasions. What’s happened over the last six or seven years is the federal government has worked on continuing resolutions. So a lot of the airports that are in the aviation system around the country are offered grants but where it used to be that they would budget for a number of years, now they budget for months. So it has thrown the whole system into somewhat of a chaos to where we have to be able to respond sometimes, you know, in a day or two. Mr. Mason: Sure I understand continuing resolutions that portion is clear to me. But what’s still unclear is because what you stated as timely and the fact that what was (unintelligible) is that your board would have to do the same thing, you’ve got to get them together and meet so with the absence of any real justification or timeliness the process is still the same. I’ll support that substitute motion. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor? 9 Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m just trying to wrap my arms around the mere fact that we are saying that we, I mean I understand what she’s trying to say is, you know, I guess from her perspective that they’re just asking for fiscal year 2014. I understand the question that Commissioner Williams made but I think this is solely pertaining to this year and if next year needs to be that way, then that will happen. However they are receiving actually to have the board that we appoint. I can see these dollars, it’s still coming before this commission. I’m just trying to see what the real issue is for their going forward with approving it and us of course we’re going to be notified of it. It will be on the agenda but they’re not asking to spend dollars, they’re asking to accept dollars. So I don’t see what the real heartburn is about it. I mean we appoint that board. As a matter of fact I mean it’s a paid board and we ought to trust that board to be delivering the results that we put in place to do. I just don’t understand some things we got to allow the people that we appointed to do to do the job that we appoint them to do. There was a mere fact that they had to spend money or they’re going to take the dollars and spend it and we not know about that and I can understand the issue, but I mean they’re just saying we need to receive the dollars and we need to and they would like to allow the board to go ahead and approve it. But they got to get them together, then get us together and you know how that can be at times. It’s a possibility that it could go (unintelligible) and could endanger them so they’re not asking for anything in authority to spend the dollars, they’re just asking to accept the dollars and move forward. So I don’t know maybe it’s just me seeing it that way but I’m just trying to see why it’s a real issue with them receiving the grant dollars. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. We, Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: I just want to ask Ms. Johnson a question and then I’ll request a roll call vote. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. D. Smith: Commissioner Johnson talked about ya’ll being able to accept the money and grants. Grants sometimes come with matching monies, don’t they? Ms. Johnson: Yes sir. Mr. D. Smith: And sometimes they come with strings that require the government to do things. Am I right? Ms. Johnson: The monies that we get come from the federal government, the Airport Improvement Trust Fund which we pay into. When we have to match funds the airport revenues match them. Nothing ever comes out of the county monies. Mr. D. Smith: But there are situations where grants have ties to them that this government would not know about if this procedure were to go on. We wouldn’t know about it until after the Mayor signed contract. Am I right? 10 Ms. Johnson: No, I don’t believe you are. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, so how would we know what those stipulations are on the grant if it goes from the Airport Commission straight to the Mayor? Ms. Johnson: The grant assurances are always the same. For any grant that we get from the federal government the grant assurances are laid out there so there are no extra stipulations. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly seconded. A roll call vote has been requested. We will have a roll call vote by the substitute, on the substitute motion. The Clerk: Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: No. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: No, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: No. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. D. Smith. Mr. Smith: Yes. 11 The Clerk: Mr. G. Smith. Mr. G. Smith: No. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes. Ms. Davis, Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Guilfoyle, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Johnson and F. G. Smith vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: We have a primary motion on the floor for approval. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. D. Smith: Can we also have a roll call vote on this one? Mr. Mayor: I will honor your request, Mr. Commissioner. We will vote by a roll call vote for approval. The Clerk: Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Yes, ma’am. The Clerk: Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: No. The Clerk: Mr. Mason. 12 Mr. Mason: No. The Clerk: Mr. D. Smith. Mr. D. Smith: No. The Clerk: Mr. G. Smith. Mr. G. Smith: Yes. The Clerk: Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: No. Mr. Lockett, Mr. Mason, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion Passes 6-4. Ms. Johnson: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Madam Clerk, on to the next pulled agenda item which I believe is number two. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 2. Motion to approve funding for phase I of the 290 dilapidated structures that the Planning & Development Department has identified that are categorized as nuisance properties that should be demolished due to the structures being uninhabitable and unsafe and causing a blighting condition in the neighborhoods. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman or Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if it’s okay I’d like for Mr. Sherman to explain what we’ve got here before I ask my questions if I could please. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Sherman. Mr. Sherman: Okay, the Planning and Development Department has identified a total of 290 properties that are considered nuisance properties. Of those 290 properties we have 115 court orders for demolition of those properties. That means we notified the property owners waiting for their replies. They didn’t. We went through public health process where the judge ordered them to bring it into compliance or demolish it or if they did not the city would. So we’re asking for, well, we had $35,000 that was approved in our 2014 Demolition Budget. We’re asking for $165,000 dollars for a total of $200,000 dollars that we’ll use to demolish approximately 36 structures in the first phase. We looked at the number of structures that have a 13 court order by commission districts and I believe that was included in your handout. In District 1 what we’re going to attempt to do in the first phase is 14 structures, District 2, 14, District 3, one, Five two, District 6 four and District 8 one. So that is the first phase. And then each additional one roughly $5,500 dollars is made available to us for future will handle another demolition. That’s because just because on the average with all the ones we’ve demolished in the past two years the average price is five thousand (unintelligible). Mr. Jackson: Move to approve. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Lockett, back to you. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Sherman, I think this whole thing is extremely misleading. A couple of weeks ago we had little or no money for demolition and now because of thirty some thousand, this remaining $165,000 now where is that coming from? That’s all a part of phase one. Mr. Sherman: The $35,000 was approved in the 2014 budget. Mr. Lockett: Right. Mr. Sherman: Okay. The $165,000 is coming from the Administrator, the former Administrator it’s coming out of capital --- Ms. Allen: Capital Outlay. Mr. Sherman: --- Capital Outlay. Mr. Lockett: Okay, so that’s been allocated, right? So that means we’ve got $200,000 dollars and that $200,000 dollars is phase one. Mr. Sherman: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Okay. I read that we’re going to have $3 million dollars for demolition. Where’s the rest of it coming from? Mr. Sherman: That we’re going to have $3 million? We requested $4 million in SPLOST provided that gets approved. Mr. Lockett: Okay, the way this thing reads or what you wanted us to believe is we’re getting ready to start tearing down dilapidated structures today. The average citizen doesn’t realize that this is going to be years down the road before it could happen. Now we could have, st we could have done this on May the 21 had we treated the blighted structures the same as some 14 other things in the SPLOST VII referendum. Now this is something that many, many years down the road we’re still going to have dilapidated houses and we’re going to have more and more and more of them popping up on a daily basis. So I don’t want to see my constituents or anybody else’s constituents to get a false sense that this is something that’s going to be taken care of because with the ten that we tear down there’s at least 15 or 20 more that’s in just as bad a shape. So I think we can be perfectly clear on that. There are lots of things that are standing out there that can get to this process. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Donnie Smith, Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rob, you ran off (unintelligible) that’ll be demolished by district and I noticed that District 7 was omitted. Mr. Sherman: District 7 is just at this time because we don’t have a court order. Of those 115 there are none in District 7. Now we’ve got an additional of the 290, 175 that are nuisance properties and I can’t tell you how many of those may be in District 7. But that first list of just of the 115 that have a court order and so there are none in your district. Mr. D. Smith: So, Mr. Mayor, can I follow up? Um, these are ones that we have an adjudicated court order for. And once, so who determines the priority for how this gets done once we get a court order? Who determines that, Ms. Wilson? Mr. Sherman: Well, Ms. Wilson or the code enforcement manager or the just from complaints. If there is someone who is still living in the neighborhood or adjoining the property, we’ll try to move that to the top of the list. Mr. D. Smith: So if someone has a need basis which ones are the most urgent? Mr. Sherman: It is. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Williams: Rob, where, my question goes back to what Mr. Lockett said. Where’s the additional money going to come from in your mind, Rob, to continue if we approve this that statement that we start working on. Are we (unintelligible) are we looking at sales taxes to continue this? Mr. Sherman: At this time I think that is the big pot of money, that’s $4 million that I understand is contained in SPLOST. You know over the years the commission had approved funds and we’ve done roughly 700/800 structures that’s just over the last 15 years and as money is available. But as far as a program goes where we’re continuously working on it last fall, well, I think you approve about $100,000 so where’s the money coming from it (unintelligible). 15 Mr. Williams: Well, I mean and we know that had not taken place within the last 15 years now. We’re talking about here and there’s a big difference from five hundred and four million. And so I’m wondering are we depending on the sales tax to do this. I mean I think it could’ve been done differently. I don’t think the sales tax is going to pass in my mind. That’s just my opinion but I think that we will be misleading if we did that within the intention of tying them together because I’m thinking if we approve this then people will say okay why this coming next year at least but if it doesn’t happen with the sales tax and then what’ll we do? Mr. Sherman: Well --- Mr. Williams: Go to the Administrator to find out where could we use, does she have another source of revenue that we can use rather than the sales tax? Mr. Sherman: Well, again at this time this is only the first phase and ideally if we we’re going to address the problem as we’ve identified it 290 structures then approximately 250 additional ones that have fallen into that nuisance category we would need the SPLOST funds. I’m not sure where the $4 million dollars would come from otherwise. Mr. Williams: Well, that’s and I’m in agreement with you. I think they should demolished, I think they should be taken down but also I agree we don’t have the funds. The funds are not there (inaudible) the sales tax. Now if we approve this and it’s not going to be tied to the sales tax I got no problem with it. Mr. Sherman: This is more or less background information or additional information for you. The only thing you’re approving now is the $165,000 that will build out the existing $30,000 and we want to demolish approximately 36, hopefully a few more in that range. Mr. Williams: Okay, I got no problem, I can support that if it’s not limited I mean not tied to any additional funds that we might or might not get. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Rob, as far as the bid process of tearing down these structures (inaudible). As far as the debris that they take off the site is there anything on the contract, I got a phone call today regarding this agenda item where people are taking the product or waste product and using it on (inaudible). Is there anything on the contract? Mr. Sherman: There isn’t, we don’t tell them where they can dispose of it because they’ll separate the construction from anything else and anything else they have to take to the landfill. So this time there is no condition in the contract. It all has to go to the Augusta landfill. They use that permission I suppose (inaudible). Mr. Guilfoyle: Well, I’ll reach out to my colleagues and see if we need to address (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. 16 Mr. Fennoy: Is the city in a position to tear down the dilapidated houses as opposed to contracting it out? Mr. Sherman: Not at this time. We tried that a couple, two three years ago. Mark Johnson helped us out and used or he provided his crew and equipment and put, this is a long answer you asked. His equipment is actually too large to mobilize to take to these sites so at this time we’re not set up to do the demolitions. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. And I’m quite sure you’ve had an opportunity to ride through, what was you said was in the estimated number of dilapidated houses we have in Richmond County? Mr. Sherman: Well and that was the number I was giving you. Roughly we have 290 --- Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Sherman: --- 115 we have court orders on that’s 175 that we’re moving through the court order process. Then there’s an additional 250 that are falling into that condition. Mr. Fennoy: Okay and what would it cost, to if all of the 290 were court ordered and approved. What would be the cost to tear down those houses? Mr. Sherman: Well, the cost would be $163,700.00. Mr. Fennoy: Okay and you’re talking about $200,000 for this year? Mr. Sherman: Yes. Mr. Fennoy: Okay and if we get the $4 million coming from SPLOST how long would it take before those, assuming they are court approved, to be demolished by the order? Where do we begin tearing down the 290 as opposed to, because we can only tear down 35 if this passed. We can only tear down 35 now and that’s going to leave roughly two hundred and what, fifty five --- Mr. Sherman: 175 and then say (inaudible) plus there’s an additional 250 so say 175 --- Mr. Fennoy: Okay. So if SPLOST VII would give us the money in order to take care of that if it passes? Mr. Sherman: (inaudible). Mr. Fennoy: Okay all right. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Mason. 17 Mr. Mason: Thank you. Rob, on this number that you’re referencing as far as for these funds you mentioned a flat history. The 36 have they been identified by parcel? Mr. Sherman: They have. Now we’ve identified, let’s see actually we have 23, 14 others and actually in District 2 we’ve been in discussions with Commissioner Fennoy. He’s got 80 that are, his constituents are calling him on but otherwise we’ll just go with how the list as we add them. Mr. Mason: Okay, well I see on the computer way more than 36 that’s why I’m asking, well 35 or whatever the number you’re talking. So you don’t know specifically right now at this point which 35 you’re targeting. Mr. Sherman: I know 22 of them. Mr. Mason: So okay so there’s 13 more floating around. Mr. Sherman: Well, the 13 others are in District 2. Mr. Mason: Yeah, yeah I realize there’s none in District 4 but I’m just trying to figure out what, how you prioritize or how you determine which ones -- Mr. Sherman: Well, for instance this house on Manager Court we’ve been working on. The neighbors continue to call (inaudible) to try to resolve the issue and try to find someone who would be willing to buy it from the property owner (inaudible). Kids are going in the house, vandalizing it, hanging out there that would be one of the um, (inaudible) list --- Mr. Mason: No, no I was wondering because the list that we have is the list with much more than 35. So I’m just trying to figure out in case you already determined which 35 that you’re asking for these funds which 35 how you would prioritize the (unintelligible) those 35 that you’ve identified. Mr. Sherman: Oh, we’ve identified them all --- Mr. Mason: Yeah, I see that. Mr. Sherman: --- and we have with the list of the first 22 then (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next pulled agenda item which I believe is number five. The Clerk: 18 PUBLIC SERVICES 5. Motion to approve a transfer of ownership of an original watercolor painting of the old “Patch” Clubhouse from the Department of Recreation, Parks and Facilities to the Augusta Museum of History. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I believe this was yours. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically all I wanted to know is whether or not this is a typical transaction. Have we done it in the past? Does the value on the particular painting have any relevance or does anybody know how much it costs? Mr. Levine: We do not have a value based on the painting but we’re just trying to be better protected in the museum rather than hanging in the clubhouse. Mr. Lockett: All right my last comment is why didn’t we just loan it to them on an indefinite basis so if we find somewhere down the road it’s worth $10 million dollars then we can back to the Patch and do something big time. Mr. Levine: That’s not an option we anticipate. Mr. Lockett: We love to give things away. You know I don’t mind giving it but sometimes you know you got to get something back. And you’re taking it from the Patch and you know how I feel about the Patch. Mr. Levine: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: I want to make sure we have a good deal. Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Hang on. Commissioner Smith. Mr. G. Smith: I played there twice this weekend with my grandson. How much is that painting worth, I’ll buy it. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I’m going to make a substitute motion that we just house it there for a temporary situation or put it on loan. Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe we had a primary motion. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m going to make a motion then I don’t have a substitute motion to do that. I mean in agreement if it’s that valuable then they can hold it over there then we might be able to keep it for the Patch itself. I mean I think the Patch is still here so if it’s that valuable we can let them house it, take it and hold it and give it to them when they’re ready for it. 19 Mr. Mayor: And sometimes we make things a little open-ended up here. Do you just want to just put a timeframe on say loan it at no charge to the museum for a 30-year period or a 20-year period or? Mr. Williams: You’ll have to ask my colleagues. I don’t want to say that I put it up for 10-years or 20-years (unintelligible) for two years. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, why don’t we just say for an indefinite period. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. G. Smith: I found out that we’re pretty close to negotiations with the, one of the two firms that we’re dealing with. And why don’t we see if we can’t use it up there in the clubhouse because it’s the old clubhouse and it’s nostalgia and some history to it. Put it in there once they take over with the stipulation of how we want to handle it. Well, everybody knows how sentimental that old sand paddy is. Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Please. Mr. Levine: The museum was going to give us a digital copy of that painting to place up at the Patch so we always have a copy of it there. Mr. G. Smith: Why don’t we give them the digital copy? Mr. Mayor: Because they’re a museum, they like old stuff. They don’t like digital stuff. Okay we, I think Commissioner Lockett you suggested in that we Mr. Williams, excuse me. Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: How about, Commissioner Williams, I agree with you and if we maybe hear this from Nancy Glaser from the museum just to see what she recommends and maybe we put back to committee pending a report from her as far as what’s feasible. Would that be good? Mr. Williams: I’ll go along with that. Mr. Mayor: Would you like to put that in the form of a motion? Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. G. Smith: Second. 20 Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Johnson out. Motion Passes 9-0. Mr. Mayor: Next pulled agenda item, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 6. Motion to approve the elimination of the requirement for Department Dire3ctors to clock in and out and changing the wording from Department Directors to “SES Employees” and the attached listing of the names of the SES employees. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, was this your pull or was it Commissioner Lockett? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, he can have it because I move to approve on that. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you but I mean I didn’t see the attached list of names associated with that and I’d like to know why is that not a part of the agenda item today pertaining to have them sign in and out. I mean there’s a (inaudible). So I mean filling in for how long. Who -- Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen would like to, Commissioner Lockett’s got his hand up. Mr. Lockett: That was my agenda item, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams: I’m trying to figure out the justifications for changing that. I didn’t see the list anyway. I’m looking for the facts, the name of employees that was there (unintelligible) not there, that’s the first thing and why is that so important now to not to have them to be accountable. You know we was told (inaudible) overtime anyway they were late and all this stuff we found out it was not true. So I don’t think a department head gets overtime do they, Ms. Allen? Ms. Allen: No, a department head does not get overtime. Mr. Williams: Can somebody tell me why we even got this on the agenda? 21 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I placed it on the agenda and I’ll tell you why. It’s extremely demeaning to have your upper level employees clock in and out when many of them are working 60-70 hours a week and not being compensated for it because they’re not hourly employees. If we cannot trust the people that we have in those positions we should remove them from the position. And I always put myself in the other person’s position. How would you feel if all of a sudden you and I had to clock in and out? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: And you, you’re at 52 seconds, Commissioner Williams, so I’ll let you continue that (inaudible). Mr. Williams: (inaudible) Mr. Mayor. I mean anybody that works for a body that, this is just my personal opinion but first of all I was disappointed because I didn’t have a backup I get this book and I don’t enjoy it but I get it and I take my time with it. The information was not there. But when you’ve got an employee who you said Commissioner Lockett that you don’t trust (unintelligible) but I can’t do that by myself. But if you can’t clock in and clock out and I don’t know of any other job you can just do like you want to well I (inaudible) government you do like you want to, come in go do whatever. There’s no (unintelligible) on the employees. But I was in support of giving them a raise, raising the taxes to give them a raise because I criticized what was the best thing to do. But when you don’t have no accountability you can’t inspect what you expect and I can’t inspect it even when they sign in and out. I just don’t see what the significance is in changing the name from director to SES employees. To me it just don’t cut it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Yes, is Ms. Bryant here? Mr. Mayor: Yes. Ms. Bryant? Mr. Fennoy: How are you doing? Ms. Bryant: I’m doing okay. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. What is the difference? Can you explain the difference between a department director and as SES employee? Or is there a difference? Ms. Bryant: It’s my understanding that the SES did take the place of the director. Just you want to call him director (inaudible) SES which is taking the place of the director (inaudible). Mr. Fennoy: So it’s the same (unintelligible). Ms. Bryant: Yes. 22 Mr. Fennoy: Okay, all right. And I guess my next question is what or who would be impacted by this (inaudible). Ms. Bryant: I’m sorry. Mr. Fennoy: Who would the employees that would be impacted by -- Ms. Bryant: All of the directors. There is really not an impact I mean versus clocking in or clocking out (inaudible). There’s not an impact anyway it would just mean you don’t clock in. As Commissioner Williams mentioned there is no overtime or anything attached to clocking in or clocking out. Mr. Fennoy: Okay as the HR Director have you received any complaints --- Ms. Bryant: No, sir, I haven’t. Mr. Fennoy: --- concerning directors clocking in and out? Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. And what the complaint I mean that they felt like they shouldn’t have to? Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir and most of them at that level don’t clock in and out. Employees work until the job is done. You don’t clock in and clock out normally in higher level positions like that. That is the majority of the complaints is that you were clocking in and clocking out (inaudible). Mr. Fennoy: And my last question is does he always want to talk about what time, I mean (unintelligible). Well, you know, do they the directors clock in and out or just? Ms. Bryant: I’m not absolutely sure of this. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. All right, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Guilfoyle then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Tanika, as far as the SES employees is the severance packet different from a director’s? Ms. Bryant: There is no distinction between from what I see at the PPPM between directors or SES as far as severance. Normally it’s different severance for SES so it doesn’t work with directors on the far end it just wouldn’t (unintelligible). 23 Mr. Guilfoyle: All right this question here if for the Interim Administrator. As far as your position we had been discussing Mr. Lockett, Mr. Mason and myself had been trying to bring this up for three years. As far as evaluations --- Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Guilfoyle: --- we do away with this tool on accountability, and I agree with what Mr. William’s has said when you take time and attendance out how do you do your evaluation process with somebody that violates or does not come in for a week? There’s no control there’s no governance over it. Ms. Allen: Now they will have to account for any time that they take vacation or sick. You just don’t have to clock in everyday. But anytime that you’re taking out of your vacation or sick time you do have to clock that in. So you’ll have to account for that. Mr. Guilfoyle: So as far is coming in late or leaving early it will not show. Ms. Allen: No, sir, it would not. And in most cases it normally does when it gets to that level because it won’t actually show either when you’re at home working midnight to two in the morning and trying to get a project or presentation ready to present to the Commission. It’s not going to show that as well so because you’re not near a clock to actually clock it in. So what they do is normally at that level is they expect you to do just what Commissioner Williams said if you want, you can’t inspect what you expect so when we come here and we’re supposed to present something to you, you would have assumed that we’ve done our job no matter what it takes for us to do it. And that’s what we’ve done. So normally at that level it’s not about clocking in and clocking out it’s about what we present and what we produce at the end of the day. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle, are you still --- Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, if you don’t mind. So as far as your evaluation process that you have done over these past ten or eleven years let’s say (inaudible) the Administrator, when you evaluated the department directors, was time and attendance ever a part of that? Ms. Allen: On the evaluation sheet it does bring up the performance evaluation sheet that we currently have. It does bring up time and attendance if there’s a problem with it. And in normal cases there’s a problem if you find that someone is abusing sick time. I mean if you notice that because like I said you have to put in your sick time. You just don’t normally just not clock in on that end. So if you’re utilizing too much sick time or is it looked at that as too much sick time then you could notate that on the evaluation. So there is a mechanism to notate whether or not it’s an abuse of sick time and or whether or not if you know your vacation time or you’re not in the office enough. There is a mechanism in place because that time actually has to be recorded. So by not clocking in and out it doesn’t mean that any time they’re out of the office is not recorded. Yes, sir, it is. 24 Mr. Guilfoyle: All right so the additional 2700 employees we don’t have require separate (inaudible) which is only pertaining to SES. Ms. Allen: No, sir, the department directors are currently SES because of the PPPM it automatically identifies the employees and that was part of the manual that was approved by the Commission. They are already, it’s interchangeable. They are that already. The hourly employees have to clock in and out because by federal labor standards act that they have in order for us you know to calculate what they’re being paid during the hourly, they’re being paid hourly. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams and Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Williams: Ms. Bryant, let me ask a couple quick questions. What happens when somebody don’t sign out. I mean (unintelligible) what happens. Are they penalized or are they does anything happen to their salary if they don’t clock out? Ms. Bryant: If they are exempt employees and they don’t sign out they’re still paid for their (inaudible). Mr. Williams: Okay so they’re not, they’re under a different standard because they forgot to do it because under a normal basis they’re going out the door and (unintelligible) you can’t do that. But there have been some that just overlooked it. You know, is that right? Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay. The other question I got is an SES employee versus director when you are director at a facility and you are (unintelligible) job duties at another facility and you call and want to know about the person that’s the director. Are they Director I, Director II or are they SES employees? Would it create another hassle or I’ll say another problem when you trying to figure out but because if I had a director over here and I called somewhere else and they said well we got, we don’t have a director we got an SES employee. I don’t know if that’s the same or not. Mr. Bryant: It would depend on the job description because you know the title is one thing but they can look at the actual duties and -- Mr. Williams: That’s in a real world when you do things right. But when you look at this government and you say are you a director or are you a Director I? So there’s a difference between a director and a Director I. So to keep things simple is to keep it simple as we can get it I think. I just don’t see the significance of change. I’ve got no problem with it. I mean I don’t make that kind of money. I mean I don’t clock out and I don’t plan to clock out. In fact I can’t hardly (unintelligible). But we need to keep it as simple as we can and make sure that everybody is treated fairly. 25 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Smith. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know in my 48 years of government service I found most of the years being in a supervisory position that often times you cannot pay your workers what they deserve. But the cheapest form of pay is to treat them right and to respect them for what they do. Don’t degrade them, treat them with the utmost respect. To not have SES employees clocking out is not going to cost this government anything but we should be concerned about the impact it’s going to have on the employees, how he or she is going to feel. They’re going to feel that this government is concerned about us. A few weeks ago we talked about the (unintelligible) and this is a way to let all of our employees not just SES but the other employees know that we are concerned about them and their welfare. Let them know that we’re doing everything that we possibly can to enhance their employment the way it’s (unintelligible). And I don’t think this to me should be a no brainer. And there again if we have an SES employee is not doing what he or she should do then we are supposed to do what we’re supposed to do and do a performance evaluation then that would take care of itself. Mr. Chairman, thank you again. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Mr. Mayor I’m about (unintelligible). Is there a motion on the floor? Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion to approve the agenda item as submitted. Mr. D. Smith: I would make a substitute motion we separate these into two different items because they require two different things. One is to stop them from clocking in and out and the other pertains to names. I would make a substitute motion that we deal with those separately. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: I just want to notate that that is actually a list of the SES’s, Commissioner Williams, every respective position as identified as an SES. And you will note that some of the positions are not necessarily directors but have been identified in the Personnel, Procedures and Policies Manual as SES’s which was approved as part of the Policy and Procedures Manual. Mr. Mayor: Okay, I’ll give you one more minute to respond. Mr. Williams: I don’t need a whole one just why wasn’t’ it in my package? Ms. Allen: Sir, I didn’t, we didn’t put that agenda item on. I apologize for that. Mr. Williams: Whoever put it on. It says backup was there. That’s all I need to know. Mr. Mayor: Okay and --- Mr. D. Smith: I withdraw my motion. 26 Mr. Mayor: Okay, the substitute motion has been withdrawn. I don’t believe it was seconded. We have a primary motion on the floor to approve. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Williams votes No. Motion Passes 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 7. Motion to approve waiting until the consultant who is working on the (ADA) Americans with Disabilities Act Assessment and Compliance Plan comes on board before any action is taken on the development of a plan relative to the Interfaith Community’s request. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, was this you? Mr. Lockett: Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I do agree. All I want to do is emphasize the fact that this particular agenda item is definitely time sensitive and we need to as fast as we possibly can to get into compliance with ADA rules and regulations because you get out there and walk around the city you find that there are few things that need to be done. And if we don’t get it done we’re going to find ourselves in big trouble with the government. Thank you very much. Mr. Jackson: Motion to approve. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second? Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: And prior to recognizing Commissioner Williams as Commissioner Locket took the lead on getting us designated as an Age Friendly City by the AARP which the ceremony took place last week Commissioner Lockett I’d like to applaud you on your leadership on that and to share with you Tim Hollobaugh has been a long time activist on ADA issues. He came up to me after that meeting and said if only when you first got in office that we’d worked on the stuff and it’s good to see that we’re making progress now. So that made me feel good so thank you for your leadership. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve been thinking that this SPLOST out there that we passed is there’s nothing put in place for the amphitheater downtown with not ADA acceptable, something we need to look at. There’s no (unintelligible) up and down on either side, on one side at least that’s what I think. But the other side is definitely something we need to make sure that we consider. I applaud Commissioner Lockett as well and I applaud you, Mr. 27 Mayor, and everybody who had anything in that. But I just think we need to look at all these entities and that’s one that don’t have handicap accessibility for the all of the 60 steps to come up and down on one side of the amphitheater. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. We have a motion that’s been made and 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 pulled agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 10. Motion to approve eliminating the inequalities as indicated in Ms. Bryant’s report and task the Interim Administrator and Ms. Bryant with looking at the individual department’s budgets as possible funding sources and refer it to the full commission. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, this was your pull. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Ms. Bryant (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Ms. Bryant. Mr. Williams: (unintelligible). Ms. Bryant: I was directed to look at all of the director’s positions SES I and SES II to determine if there was inequities in salary. What was found was again externally as compared to market all of the positions were pretty much within the range or above. The inequities became evident internally. But the internal comparisons were at the department directors. I identified that there were two SES Directors and one SES I director that was (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: I need to go back now. You’re saying SES Directors. Now we got through eliminating director so are they going to be a director or a SES because you’re saying both now. Ms. Bryant: Like I said they’re interchangeable so --- Mr. Williams: Okay but --- Ms. Bryant: --- directors. Mr. Williams: Okay, that’s fine. That threw me off a little bit. Don’t brag because it don’t take much to throw me off so the report that you went out and done you talked with all those employees? 28 Ms. Bryant: Pardon? Mr. Williams: Did you sit down with each director or SES person and talk with each one of those? Ms. Bryant: I did not talk to the directors. Mr. Williams: Okay, how do we know what the job does and what they do or what they don’t do versus what they ought to be doing? Because some people ought to be (inaudible) what they’re doing. So I’m asking you how did you come up with your report I guess? Ms. Bryant: (unintelligible) the report is how they were looking at the scope of responsibilities for director level positions which I outlined in the beginning and outlined on the job descriptions. Actual job duties of each particular director is going to change based on the department so that’s not a big factor as far as each (inaudible) department for this particular analysis as to what each director does. It’s a scope of what their responsibilities and duties are as a director at a director level position as defined in the PPPM and as defined in the scope of responsibilities in all of the director positions (inaudible). Mr. Williams: Okay now when you are defined a certain job duties you don’t need to be doing those things --- Ms. Bryant: Absolutely. Mr. Williams: --- but you ought to be defining certain job duties and you’re paid to require (unintelligible) according to those duties that you’re supposed to be performing. So for instance the Mayor makes $65,000 a year so when the next Mayor comes in he may not do the same job and they give him the $65,000, right? Ms. Bryant: Well, that depends and it’s not necessarily always true. It would depend on education, experience and the same types of things we take a look at when we looked at positions here. Just because the Mayor makes $65,000 doesn’t mean the new person coming in is going to make that. Mr. Williams: Well, let me go back to department heads. Let me go back to Sylvia Cooper who’s sitting next my friend J. R. Rouse. They’re in the newspaper business and they make the same money doing the same job. I’m trying to establish that the job we’re paying the same amount of money if that’s if you meet the requirement and get that job. So I’m trying to figure out how do we know that if we bring somebody else in and that person is making or doing the things they’re supposed to do to get that kind of money that’s the only reason we ought to be looking at this that they are doing or not doing versus saying well they’re qualified for it. Am I making sense to you? Ms. Bryant: I just need a little bit more. If you could help me out just bit more. 29 Mr. Williams: Okay, I’m saying that you done the report and you’re trying to look at different positions to see who should be brought to the job title, right. Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two minutes Commissioner. Mr. Williams: Yes sir and that report you done you were tasked by the Interim Administrator to do that. Is that right? Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Not the commission but the Interim Administrator. Ms. Bryant: The Interim Administrator tasked me with the (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: The train’s coming and I can’t talk. It keeps getting louder. I can’t compete with that. If that’s the case how can we justify what we’re doing, that’s all. Just help me out on that. Ms. Bryant: Let me tell you what I looked at as far as comparing directors, directors on level II’s. As of hire those who plan and accomplish goals, lead and direct others, oversee the entire regulation or process for the services requiring government interaction, direct the overall planning, development, operation and administration of the department including implementation of personnel, policies and procedures, developmental polices and insure compliance of federal and state laws. That’s (unintelligible) for all directors. So what I did was after looking at that and understanding that all of our directors have the same focal responsibilities then I’m looking at what is the education requirements, what are their years of experience and how does that compare as far as what comperational analysis shows us. And what I found when I looked at all of those directors that had the same level of experience and their scope of work is about the same then I used that as a bench mark to compare where they should be as far as where the market says they would be internally looking at our internal market rating for these positions. What I did was I came up with what’s called an internal comperational and that shows us where each of these individuals are as far as their salaries are concerned. If an employee is at 90% of the comperation that means their entry level that’s where you would (unintelligible) each level person. 97% are for those that are still in learning curve. 97-100% are fully qualified employees. So when I took a look at the report and looked at every department and where they are internally I saw that we had some low (unintelligible) department directors internally was at least 97% and above. So that told me that they’re within the internal comparational range and they are fully qualified to being paid and compensated this way. There was two directors that were not internally at that range and so when I looked at the directors as far as comparing these are some (unintelligible) departments or they are (unintelligible) similar years of experience and education. And that shows me that’s an inequity. You have one department director that that has 103% compare ratio, one is at 81% that’s an internal inequity. Mr. Williams: Let me cut you short, Ms. Bryant. I just need to know are we looking at bringing everybody up to where they need to be or are you talking about just those two? 30 Because if you’re not talking about everybody then you’re going to create another scenario that you’re very familiar with. Mr. Bryant: And that’s the whole purpose of this. Not everybody was out of line. There was only two that were out of line. So I’m talking about bringing those two up. All of the others are at least you know between 100% and above so there’s nowhere to bring them to I guess that’s what I’m saying. So only the director’s those individuals that were not within in the appropriate compare ratio and those would be the only ones we’re looking at. Mr. Mayor: So just basically recapping. You used a methodology and a process that was based not on objectivity but subjectivity to make sure that we’re doing this right. It’s not because somebody likes these folks or doesn’t like these folks. It is based on, you know, that methodology that takes that out of it, correct? Ms. Bryant: Absolutely, it based on numbers and nobody’s going feel they have emotions, they are what they are. And unfortunately maybe in the past and that’s why it was a little bit difficult. This time there was nothing that tied why these raises or increases at their work (unintelligible). So that’s (unintelligible). So we’re just trying to bring it up where it should be across the board. That’s why I was asked to do this. Mr. Mayor: Absolutely. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted correct something for the record. She was not tasked to do that by the Interim Administrator, she was tasked to do that by a former Administrator. And while I got the mike I just want to say that I have never been proud of a person or a department than I am of Human Resources because most of you know what I went through in order to keep or to get a Human Resources Department. Because if it wasn’t for them, we’d still be calling the Philippines or (unintelligible) on our employees. But I just wanted to thank you in front of everybody for the outstanding job you’re doing. And I don’t know how much longer you’re going to be able to do the 60 or 70 hours a week but I’m appreciative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Smith. Mr. Fennoy: Thank you. This question is for the Attorney. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: The motion is to approve eliminating the inequalities that are indicated in Ms. Bryant’s report. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Fennoy: Okay in order to eliminate the inequalities that’s indicated in Ms. Bryant’s report. 31 Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Fennoy: In order to eliminate the inequalities that are indicated, what must this Commission do? Mr. MacKenzie: It would be my thought as indicated by the motion you would need to identify a funding source and track that with the motion and approve the numbers indicating the reports that you have specific direction for staff to be able to execute the motion as approved by the Commission. Mr. Fennoy: Okay now and I guess my question is this since we have I guess two departments that have been identified is this something we need to talk about in Legal? Mr. MacKenzie: If you’re talking about the salary of a specific individual you could do that in Legal but you don’t have to. That’s always an option but that would be an option the Commission would have to deliberate whether or not it like to provide the increase that’s being requested by the HR Director. You could do that (unintelligible). Mr. Fennoy: Okay and I guess what’s confusing me that in order to respond to the report that was done by our HR Director or to eliminate then we would have to make the department whole. And I guess the first step in making them whole would be to bring them up to the same pay scale that we’re paying our other department heads. That’s not necessarily so. Mr. MacKenzie: I think the bottom line of it is I think what would help moving forward with this agenda item is to identify the specific amounts that you’d like to increase the relevant persons who will be receiving the increase and a funding source. As long as you have those two items then that would effectuate the goal that Ms. Bryant appears to have had in this endeavor which was to provide increases for certain employees Mr. Fennoy: Okay, again is this something that we do in an open meeting or something we do in Legal? Mr. MacKenzie: Either way. I mean if you discussed it in a closed meeting there would have to be on the record to be included. Mr. Fennoy: But it shouldn’t be discussed before it’s approved or not necessarily so. Mr. MacKenzie: It doesn’t have to be. It depends on whether or not you feel it would be needed to discuss the proposed increases for the individual salaries. You can but you don’t have to. I know that’s there’s been a lot of discussions about salary. Mr. Fennoy: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith then Commissioner Davis. Mr. D. Smith: Which Smith. Which one? 32 Mr. Mayor: Oh, Grady, did you? Mr. G. Smith: Yeah. Mr. Mayor: Don’t get so excited. Mr. G. Smith: What I’d like to know is, you know, out of these two people a little bit of history as to why were they neglected and why they feel that way and what evidence do they have. Also when we move up, you know, we don’t want to all of a sudden set a precedent where you know I worked two years ago under this guy and he didn’t like me I should’ve gotten a raise but I didn’t. And then all of a sudden we’re doing something (unintelligible) and the next thing we know we’ve got a trail of them coming in saying hey I was mistreated five years ago give me back my seven/eight thousand dollars I should’ve had by now. You know I believe in being fair as anybody that runs a business but (unintelligible) and buddy you better make sure when you do something for one watch out whoever might be coming in when you start that word precedent going once that starts now, you know, when do you stop. The only thing I’m saying is depending how much then all of a sudden so and so is here and the rest of them hear it. I would think we take a look at just because they’re SES or SRS or a director or whatever their titles are then the next thing you know you’re going to bring everybody up just because he’s a director? I mean this guy’s got 105 employees under him this guy’s got five. I mean are you going to try and get them equal? (Unintelligible) Anyway so I just think there’s a lot of things we’re doing here and I want to get this, get everybody on the same range if we can. But let’s make sure that we have a way the way we’re drawing these inequities from or inequalities (unintelligible) --- Mr. Mayor: Do you want another two minutes? Mr. G. Smith: What are the areas we’re looking at? Are we looking at Chicago, New York, Los Angeles? You know and I think those folks are a little above us in a standard of living because of the cost of everything there. I just think that, you know, I don’t know what all we’re looking at but once we do something you’re starting that precedent and then we’re stuck. Mr. Mayor: Okay --- Ms. Davis: I just want to say --- Mr. Mayor: --- can I just make one quick interjection too. I think one thing needs to be clear that we’re talking positions and not people. I think that’s when you start talking about people is when you talk about things in Legal it’s position. But I think that’s important why the methodology is in place. And Ms. Bryant said you know the numbers and not individuals. Go ahead, Ms. Bryant. Ms. Bryant: And that’s exactly right. I just want to note the fact that, you know, there is a methodology as to how this is done. This is not something (unintelligible) precedent here. But again going over the argument there are things that justify this from the numbers based on you know analysis on a systematic approach rather that than just I like this person I’m going to get 33 this, you know, that’s the call that’s going to be made if you (unintelligible) it wouldn’t be a recommendation for the job anymore. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Grady, you had a little bit more time left on the clock. Mr. G. Smith: Thank you, sir. What I’m saying is, you know, I’m the business one of the toughest there is a family business and sometimes I don’t need to (unintelligible) because so and so needs a raise and something like that and the next thing you know you’ve got your great grandmother calling you and saying you give Johnny a raise. We don’t need that. And I just saying until we get in the black with our economic status here in Richmond County, you know, I’d like to see us get in the budget and stay in the balance and then we can look around. And I’d like to see as many people that deserve raises get raises. I don’t care what their names are. Call them a 301 I don’t care. But I think we ought to be really careful what we do because we’re spreading out a path here that (unintelligible) you’re really going to make some folks mad and then we have to go through that whole process again. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: I think Commissioner Smith was ahead of me. Mr. Mayor: Okay we’ll go Commissioner Smith, Commissioner Davis then I saw Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Mason. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bryant, you talked about inequities and you talked about internal and external comparison. And my question to you is externally when we when you did your comparison everybody is okay all the positions are correct or at an adequate funding level. Correct? Ms. Bryant: That’s correct. Mr. D. Smith: So --- Ms. Bryant: I’m sorry that’s with the exception of one department director. Mr. D. Smith: Was that in now because I heard, maybe I misunderstood this but I thought you said externally everybody was okay. Internally, we were not okay. Ms. Bryant: SES, that’s for the Director IIs. I did Director Is and IIs. Mr. D. Smith: I’m getting confused. Let’s go back. Two is not externally okay. Is it director’s or SES IIs? Ms. Bryant: Director. Mr. D. Smith: So you have one director --- 34 Ms. Bryant: One director. Mr. D. Smith: --- externally that is not at the whatever. Ms. Bryant: Yes. Mr. D. Smith: Internally how many directors do you have that do not need that within the 97%. Ms. Bryant: Four. Mr. D. Smith: Four okay. My next question to you is when you do this, do you consider time and grade as part of the formula? And my example would be we hired you in your position at ‘x’. And if another department director has been here who has the same responsibilities and the same qualifications as you do but has been here 27 years 15 of which have been in that administrative position that is comparable to yours, is it your opinion that this one year employee should be absolutely equal with the other even though one has 15 years in grade? Ms. Bryant: Absolutely not. That is, if you want to speak about my position --- Mr. D. Smith: I’m talking --- Ms. Bryant: --- that would put me equal or nowhere near no one else. I’m at 81% now so for a total as far as externally and internally would only put me at 90% according to the comparational is what it should be. So that’s where that comes from. I’m not, you know, suggesting that my position should be at a 100% or at a 103%. Absolutely not. But it should be at (unintelligible) just when we’re looking at the total comparational (unintelligible). Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor we’re getting into personnel now. Mr. D. Smith: This was just simply about where we’re, I don’t care about her salary. What I’m trying to get to --- Ms. Bryant: And again this is not again a request of my own. I did approach for this. This was a part of the study (unintelligible). Mr. D. Smith: I mean you don’t have time and grade and that was my point. I wanted to know how and specifically about the other positions that we’re talking about how time and grade supported one versus the other. That was the point I was trying to make. I was not --- Ms. Bryant: Did I answer? Mr. D. Smith: --- you did. And I was not trying to bring you to (unintelligible). I simply want to talk about time and grade. Okay. Thank you, ma’am. 35 Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Fennoy the Commissioner Mason. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Bryant, did we find a funding source or do we need more time to have this brought back to us as far as that’s concerned? Ms. Bryant: We probably need some more time for some others. There are plenty of sources we can tap for it. Ms. Davis: Well, I know that we also have scheduled the Carl Vinson Institute to come in and do a review too for departments each year. What’s that schedule as far as this year? Ms. Allen: They’re still at this point right now, Commissioner Davis, they’re still working on the Finance Department. Ms. Davis: Okay now what’s the next part of the plan? Ms. Allen: The next department is Procurement. Ms. Davis: Okay, I just don’t know if we’re going to get through consensus with this item today. And I appreciate all the work you’ve done, Ms. Bryant, but I’d like to make a motion we receive this as information. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second for that? Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Bryant --- Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- I think how we got to where we are now is that I asked how many directors that’s been approved for a pay increase that have not gotten one. And we had one director I think at the time --- Ms. Bryant: That’s right. Mr. Fennoy: --- that’s been approve for a pay increase that then you know I’ve had my 33 years of experience, 27 in this government that was being paid entry level work. And I think the inequality, the inequities comes in when you have other department heads that’s being paid what they should be paid. And it’s not about everybody asking I want a raise, I want a raise, I want a raise but when you have one department that’s being paid at one level and you have every other department that’s being paid at a much higher level the problem comes in when we ask Commissioners to recognize this and refuses to do anything about it. The reason this came up is 36 because they had been promised a raise. They have years of service with this government. They have done an outstanding job for this government. So why is it we are paying them at a much lower scale than we’re paying anybody else? So this is how this came about. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy, I’ll give you one more minute. Mr. Fennoy: And well I just think that now is the time for this Commission to do the right thing. I think now it’s time for us to do the right thing and we can no longer talk about the treatment of our employees, we cannot afford to treat our employees differently. There has to be some equality especially the position (inaudible) and we expect top quality services (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Mason and then I’ve gotten you twice Commissioner Williams. I’ll give you one more minute. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Bryant, as I look at this motion here it’s there’s a lot here that you can pull from this (unintelligible). Motion to approve eliminating the equalities or the first piece to me is that there’s been inequalities identified that’s going on over a period of time. This doesn’t say what the period of time is but certainly it shows that there’s an inequality there. So that’s one recognition where to me it was something that failed to recognize it and there are inequalities so that’s point one. Secondly to eliminate those inequalities I’m concerned also not with just with monetary value but what course of action do you have in place that this won’t happen again. That has to happen and that goes to the bottom line. So we don’t want to put a bandaid on the situation and then the inequalities still exist in other areas where you have to put a course of action together to make that happen. The other thing that I would say in reference to this is that if you have funding sources at this time for all those I’d like to hear about that and then where that money is coming from. My third piece is in eliminating the inequalities if you’re truly going to eliminate the inequalities that it is certainly have been identified as any inequalities exist then if you can determine how long that is going on that Mr. Fennoy, Commissioner Fennoy mentioned about old. Old is the fact that if that inequality has been going on four years then it should be taken care of for those four years that that inequality has gone on. I mean you could look at it from that perspective as well. So I’m trying to look at it from this holistic approach what all is going on here because there’s a lot in here and, you know, if we’re talking about the past --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Mason: --- thank you we’re just talking about receiving as information which most of the time it goes in the file 13, the trash can. So based on those things I said as far as the eliminating obviously that’s not going to buy it correct? There’s been inequalities identified. Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Mason: Have you indentified how long that has gone on for each one that you have identified as an issue? 37 Ms. Bryant: Not current (unintelligible). Mr. Mason: Is that not important to you? Ms. Bryant: (unintelligible). Mr. Mason: I mean that’s not (unintelligible) I was just you said is that not something that you think is important? Ms. Bryant: It just, I mean it’s not something that’s actually been necessary unless it’s something that’s asked of me to do. If you want to go back that’s fine so that’s something that’s specifically (unintelligible) but if that’s something that this Commission wants to do then absolutely we can go back and get the numbers and (unintelligible). Mr. Mason: It’s not just me individually. I’m just saying I want SES or directors or whomever whatever name you call them today that they be holistic in their approach when they’re doing this type of research in asking for additional funds for any inequalities that you state have been made. I would like to have more information as to how long that’s happened, what potentially caused that to happen and then of course, you know, that would kind of get me to where I’m looking at. And in the whole situation I want you to kind of address that is that not something (unintelligible) as far as, I know you’re talking about bringing it up now to a certain standard but in your industry practice you wouldn’t be a standard of industry practice to look at the length of time that (inaudible) going on (unintelligible). Ms. Bryant: And (unintelligible). That’s not something that is (unintelligible) hard facts (unintelligible). In my experience it’s been (inaudible) correct the salaries and go forward but it can be done, absolutely, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: And I’m going to recognize you, Commissioner Williams, for just one minute then I’ll come down to you Commissioner Lockett. But would approval of this agenda item as submitted be the next step in the right direction to get there, Ms. Bryant? Ms. Bryant: Absolutely. I’ll go back to the initial request that Commissioner Fennoy (unintelligible) based on the Procurement Director. And the final thing that this was something that initiated in October. All of the others we have identified as sources and things of that nature (unintelligible). Based on that recommendation on where this came from initially that that absolutely needs to be resolved and satisfied first (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I need another minute (unintelligible) and ask our Attorney to step in and help me out because I need to understand something. When you make somebody whole, if you bring them up to where they need to be and then go back and start at the beginning when they were left out so to speak wouldn’t that not be a legal aspect for any intelligent SES, what is that SES or department head? Would that not be a normal course? 38 Wouldn’t we have to make them whole at the beginning when it started? I’m talking about what the law is concerned not politics but the law. What does my Attorney say? Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, well I’m actually glad you brought that issue up. I think there’s a distinction between any potential legal claim by anyone, the claimants. We are not talking about any specific individuals that were not in context for any of these persons that filed any claims alleging a violation of any particular law like Title VII or any state law that would be under a particular category. Mr. Williams: (unintelligible) side bar. I don’t need that stuff. I’m not talking what’s in file; I’m talking potential filing. There is such a thing as potential. I think if you do not make them whole from the time started Mr. Mason and Mr. Fennoy brought up from the time it began when you realized it was deficiency. At that point --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams, it might be time for that side bar. Mr. Williams: Okay but again my lawyer had --- Mr. Mayor: And he can respond to that. Mr. MacKenzie: I’ll do my best to respond to that. I think what you’re asking is are we creating potential liability if we don’t as a result of correcting the inequities identified by Ms. Bryant creating potential liabilities for the government should we include that as part of back pay or something along those lines as part of this action to move forward. My response to that is they would need to be analyzed on an individual basis and it would only be if there was a claim that we gave them a release for and if it was the decision of the government after receiving legal advice which usually is in a closed meeting to include additional fund for that reason and that’s something that could be considered. Mr. Mayor: Okay and I believe the maker of the motion wanted to amend the motion? Ms. Davis: Ms. Bryant, if this will get you just you get back to us with further information as far as (unintelligible) and more information with this agenda item meets that. I just wanted to, we weren’t getting I don’t think where we need to be today so I’m happy to make a motion to approve this pending coming back with more information. Mr. Mayor: Okay, the motion has been amended. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I applaud Commissioner Davis for making that motion. About over, well over a year ago I had on the agenda and we discussed some with pay disparities within this government. And I specified the various departments and so forth. And the trend was prevalent. This disparity is deliberate. And the reason I say it’s deliberate because we are fully aware of it and up to this point we haven’t done anything about it. And if you look at the, what’s on the media about a week ago the comments that were made that was almost a law suit within itself. We cannot do those things. We cannot have inequalities among our 39 employees. That is definitely against the law and I’m talking about the local and state I’m talking about federal law and especially when you’re dealing with females. They should get equal pay because they’re definitely doing equal work and in many instances they’re doing more than equal work. So I think that we need to take this thing quite serious and I think we need to take some positive action before we end up in the court system. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bryant, I just have a quick question. We are currently preparing to deal with a head hunter to find a new Administrator. And so we offer the new Administrator ‘x’ amount of money whatever ‘x’ is. Then in two years from now I mean and this Administrator takes our offer, there’s some negotiations back and forth so we come up with ‘x’. So is it your position that in two years from now we’re going to have an inequality because we come back even though that person accepted this job at ‘x’ amount at some point we’re going to be wrong because they want a raise? I’m kind of, I’m that’s what I’m asking. How do we get to the point where it becomes some sort of inequality when we gave them an offer they gave us a substitute offer we arrived at it and both parties now work for that and within a year or two that Administrator says oops, I think I should be paid some more money. So there’s an inequality here. How, tell me, explain to me that will work. Ms. Bryant: Well, my hopes is as far as the HR Department action I should be able to help you with that is to make sure that it’s paid (unintelligible) appropriately to begin with and so that will keep from you know --- Mr. Mayor: He or she. Ms. Bryant: Exactly. So I mean that’s the (unintelligible) Commissioner Mason asked about the course of action and to keep that from happening. So that’s exactly what we’re doing now. You can release the numbers and use them as (unintelligible) to keep these things from happening again. The Interim Administrator does not have a comparable internally so this is again an internal analysis based on department director level positions. There is a comparable in her (unintelligible) administrator salary. Whatever that salary (inaudible) it is what it is. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, so if we compare the airport’s going to be looking for a new administrator out there and they hire somebody at one rate and then we hire somebody or whichever one hires first you’re telling me then that guy can’t or that person cannot turn around and say well this one out here is getting this and I’m getting this so there’s an inequality here? Ms. Bryant: The airport director has been, and administrator again that is two different positions. There’s one administrator and that would be the person that we would hire. So there’s not a comparable under the airport or someone else because their sole responsibility is totally different than the administrator. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. 40 Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded to approve the agenda item as submitted. Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: Okay, if I could just get some clarification as it relates to the approval of this agenda item. I mean are we saying that every director that she identified with inequalities that we’re going to go ahead and supply them with the funds to get them where they need to be or I just want to make sure that. Mr. Mayor: I thought it was to provide where they need to be as well as come back with the funding sources to get them there. Does that what the maker of the motion? Ms. Davis. Ms. Davis: Basically we need more conversation with this. I’m trying to figure out the best motion to be honest with you. Mr. Williams: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Well and I’ve recognized you twice and given you an extra. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: I think what we can do, Mr. Mayor, is to have her come back with didn’t you say that it was a few to have a funding source identified, correct? Ms. Bryant: Well there is one that has --- Mr. Johnson: Just one? Okay so we already did that and one we already know of. Ms. Bryant: Yes. Mr. Johnson: Okay, so we already know that. I think the others may need to be brought back to us or it is somewhat twofold because as Commissioner Mason said there’s a lot of moving parts to this item. So I think we need to move forward with that particular one. Whatever we have to do to get that back before us and get that approved that’s fine. But the others you can come back with a potential funding source and let us know and then we can make a decision on whatever needs to be done at that point. But it’s just, we need to kind of focus on what we do have a funding source for. So we need to take that motion --- Mr. Mayor: Would you --- Mr. Johnson: I’ll make a substitute motion --- Mr. Mayor: --- like to send it back to committee and to bring the funding sources (unintelligible). Mr. Johnson: Absolutely. I’ll make a substitute motion to send it back to committee and bring us back a funding source. 41 Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded, substitute motion. Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Nancy, could you state the substitute motion? send it back to the committee with Ms. Bryant to bring The Clerk: Yes, sir, it was to back the funding sources. Mr. Lockett and Mr. Guilfoyle vote No. Motion Passes 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, on to the next pulled agenda item. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 20. Motion to approve award to Eagle Utility Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $646,176.50 for Bid Item #14-134, Marion Homes Water Main Installation Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Tom, I just need to get some information from you. It’s clear to me, you know, we don’t work in East Augusta especially Marion Homes for a long time and I guess for a long time they needed a lot of work down there and it’s been neglected for a long time. My question to you is, is this going to fix what they’re doing down there? I know we’ve been hearing a lot of issues with water coming up and all that stuff. What is this going to do? Mr. Wiedmeier: This will completely replace the water system in Marion Homes. Mr. Williams: Completely erased, replaced. And what about the additional work that’s supposed to be coinciding at the same time? Now I need to know that too. Now we talked we met with Augusta Mall and several other groups. We met with the residents down there so I need to know what are we talking about. What needs to take place first to keep from going behind somebody else and redoing something we’re doing now. It ought to be thought through. Mr. Wiedmeier: Well, there is a project that has been designed or is being designed that will address drainage issues in there. That’s under Abie’s department. We were originally going to wait until their project went but we felt like we needed to get the water main replaced. There were, the breaks were too frequent in there so we are going first and I’m sure what the timing for the drainage project is. Mr. Williams: Okay, ya’ll hadn’t had any conversation? 42 Mr. Wiedmeier: I think his hinges on funding issues so I’m not up on that so. Mr. Williams: Well and the reason I’m saying we had a long conversation about this and I wanted to make sure we didn’t go back in there and impact the residents again doing some more work, tearing up the roads again because when we go in there I mean I was afraid everybody was going to be waiting to make sure we had everything lined up so we can work simultaneously together to, you know, as much as possible. Now I’m not saying it’s not going to work like hand in glove but at much as possible we can go and get that fixed and get it fixed right. Mr. Wiedmeier: Well, we’ve been in close touch with the residents in Marion Homes and they are fully on board with us going first. Mr. Williams: Okay, can I ask you did you have a conversation with Engineering Department and at least you know I’m in support of this project 100% but I want to make sure that we done dot all our ‘I’s’ and crossed all our ‘T’s’. If we got to go back and do some infrastructure the road work and all that stuff we can’t do it over again you know and pay somebody to break up the road then we got to pay to put the road back down. I’m hoping we’re going to leave the road like that until Engineering decides to come there. Mr. Wiedmeier: We’ll patch it I mean it won’t be, we’re not going to completely resurface. We will do patching and make it rideable but we’re going to completely resurface the road because that would be a huge waste of money with them following with their project. But we will coordinate with Engineering. Mr. Williams: Okay so moved, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Wiedmeier. Mr. Wiedmeier: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: I think the reason you’re doing this right now rather than wait until Abie gets rid of his project (unintelligible). Mr. Wiedmeier: We were having too frequent breaks. It was really impacting the residents in there. We felt like we needed to go ahead and get this done. Mr. Fennoy: And whenever they have a water break they have no toilet, don’t have drinking water. Mr. Wiedmeier: Right, it’s gotten pretty bad in there. 43 Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and I think you are, it’s costing you additional monies to go ahead and proceed with this project now rather than wait. Mr. Wiedmeier: It’s costing a little more than it would otherwise so we estimated $50,000.00 which is our extra cost but it’s worth it. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. All right thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there is no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, on to the regular agenda please. The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES 32. New Ownership Application: A.N. 14-13: A request by Pritankumar D. Patel for a retail package Liquor license to be used in connection with Prime Liquor Store located at 2574 Tobacco Rd. District 4. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Sherman: Mayor and Commissioners, at the committee meeting the Planning and Development Department and the Sheriff’s Department recommended that this item be approved. Since that meeting we’ve come across the fact that we don’t have any paperwork on them. So what we’d like to do if you would approve is to postpone this until the next Commission meeting we can get with the applicant and make certain we have all the paperwork in order and then we’ll come back to you. Mr. Mayor: Would somebody like to make a motion? Mr. Grady Smith: So moved. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Mason: Before we (unintelligible) let me make sure that we get on record here what the issue, what the real issue is with the paperwork. Mr. Sherman: Okay the paperwork the, let me turn to this name so I, Okay Mr. Pritankumar D. Patel is the name that’s on the application. The application was originally 44 submitted I believe it was in November as an application for a liquor store out on Tobacco Road. During the review in processing the application we found the property was not properly zoned. It was a neighborhood business B1 to B2 General Business. So we held the application the owner (unintelligible) the process rezoning the property (unintelligible) is was properly rezoned to General Business. Then in the past I guess a few weeks, I can’t tell you exactly when, the gentleman was in here the other day at the committee meeting, came to the office and he wanted to reactivate the application going back through the process. That is not Mr. Patel. So Mr. Patel I believe had moved to Virginia though the application still had his address as Fairview. That was one of our mistakes. The other is that we didn’t have an agent here because Mr. Patel wasn’t a resident of Richmond County in Augusta. So the paperwork just is not correct. As far as once we review the application we could follow the same as it did under the review. With what we presented to you our recommendation would be that you approve it at that time. At this point we don’t feel that we have accurate documentation that we should have (unintelligible). Mr. Mason : Well, I’m a little disappointed as the Commissioner of the district that we do not have appropriate paperwork and/or perhaps things were brought to us intentional or perhaps unintentional I would think that a person knows where they live. I would think that a person knows who they are. So for that reason and many more that we don’t even waste time I’m going to make a substitute motion that we deny. getting answers today, Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. Commissioner Lockett, did you? Mr. Lockett: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: I just had a quick question, Mr. Mayor. I know that (unintelligible) substitute motion to bring it back. If we do that, does it go back through the Planning and Zoning Commission and the entire process first? Mr. Sherman: No, it wouldn’t go through the Planning Commission for a zoning because the zoning is in place now. It would go back through the Public Services Committee just as normal alcohol application. Ms. Davis: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Rob, go ahead. Mr. Sherman: Bryan just pointed out that the (unintelligible) if you do deny it then no one would be able to file for an alcohol application at that location (unintelligible). 45 Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I was going to ask was there any reason, I mean I think the people in here do but I just wanted to put it on record to make sure that we’re dotting our ‘I’s’ and crossing our ‘T’s’ and we’re not putting ourselves in the position. If that’s the case, I got no problem. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a substitute motion to deny on the floor. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. D. Smith abstains. Motion Passes 9-0-1. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, it has been, I know Commissioner Davis has to leave. She’s requested that I call on the rest of the agenda the two actionable items first which I think would be number 35 and 38. Mr. Williams: (Unintelligible). Ms. Davis: Mr. Mayor, my plans have, they’ve all gone out the window so --- Mr. Mayor: Okay. Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 33. An update from the Interim Administrator regarding identifying a funding source to fund Disparity Study, related IT programs and approve same being done. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Ms. Gentry sent me some information regarding the potential cause to do a new Disparity Study as well as the actual programs that’s necessary. Based on the information that I received it will be an estimated $100,000.00 that will be needed probably in 2014 with the remaining balance expected to be due in the year 2015. So based on that the actual funding for the court to go ahead and start the process of the $100,000.00 to be allocated in 2014 would come from the actual capital outlay budget. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. You know this is an old agenda item probably about six weeks now (unintelligible) Ms. Gentry (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Ms. Gentry. 46 Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: (Inaudible) funding and (unintelligible) do we understand anything other than Ms. Allen said there is fund for it the (unintelligible) agenda item that we were supposed to have done and we approved (unintelligible) funding. I need to know what’s the next move. What do we do from here? I mean --- Ms. Gentry: The next step would be for me to go ahead and meet with IT. I’ve met with Mr. Blanchard previously and we’ve had dialogue. We’ve also gone out to several of the software companies actually soliciting them for information and which they’ve done. The next step as it relates to the software is to go ahead and meet with Mr. Blanchard to allow him that this commission voted for us to move forward. The second thing is putting together the Disparity Study. We’re going ahead moving forward with that so that we can actually get our RFQ on the street and get our proposals back to be reviewed. Mr. Williams: Well, I need to make a motion to approve this and then go forward from there. Ms. Gentry: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: My motion is to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there is no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. And, Madam Clerk, could you read back the motion for clarity? The Clerk: It was to approve going ahead with the study and meeting with IT regarding the software. Is that right? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: And actually add $100,000 dollars not to exceed $100,000 dollars from the capital outlay budget in 2014. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Lockett, Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Williams vote Yes. Ms. Davis and Mr. G. Smith vote No. Mr. Mason, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Guilfoyle out. Motion Fails 5-2. Mr. Williams: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. 47 Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Ms. Morawski, will you put this back on the next agenda for the next commission meeting, please, ma’am? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 34. Discuss job title for the EEO Director. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is another one that’s six weeks old, an agenda item that we’ve been walking out on and sending it back to committee all kinds of stuff too. There’s been quite a bit of discussion (unintelligible) as well. But I need to get some clarity on the EEO Director or SES, Department Head or whatever that is now if it said she’s was a coordinator then it says she was a director. We make this down on paper at one point and never brought it back up. So I’m interested to know now as we just approved to change the name again which didn’t make any sense to me but we just did it. What’s our status? Is she a director, is she or who? Can somebody help me on that? Mr. Mayor: Can we hear from Ms. Bryant? Ms. Bryant: I don’t have (unintelligible) have all of the documentation that’s really kind of important (unintelligible) piecing together all the information that was provided by (unintelligible) pulled from the file. Mr. Williams: I guess you need to (unintelligible) I don’t even (unintelligible) if I didn’t get this and I’m sick and tired of being denied of getting this stuff or don’t get stuff. I just need to know from you what her status as you say as the H.R. Director because I know what this body voted on. I know what the job title, I know what the advertisement was. I know everything except one piece of paper that you ought to have, one piece of paper that you ought to have. I don’t know what you’ve got but you ought to have one piece of paper that maybe said something other than a director. Everything else should say director. So really I’m not, I might be phrasing my question to the wrong person. This body who voted on the EEO Director not the H.R. person. In fact I don’t need to talk to you, Ms. Bryant, but stay up here for a minute. Ms. Bryant don’t make those kinds of decisions. We make those decisions. Now do I need to get the Interim Administrator to tell me what the Commission voted for and voted on, when they did? Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: I wasn’t joking (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: And the Chairman sets --- 48 Mr. Williams: I see (unintelligible) Mr. Mayor: (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: (unintelligible) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner, I’ll give you another two minutes. Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. I need to hear from this body or the Interim Administrator not Ms. Bryant. Ms. Bryant don’t make the decisions as to whether or not any department head is a department head. We make that decision. So we had it on the table, nobody wanted to talk about it. We laid it down nobody, and this was (unintelligible) about six weeks and I repeatedly put it back on the agenda every time and they walk out one by one like dead flies walking off for something and we don’t do anything about it. So I need to know from this body or the Interim Administrator what was voted on. Not what she thinks or what she believes or even what she’s got. What did we vote on? Mr. Mayor: I guess Ms. Allen and I think we’ve gone down this path before but -- Ms. Allen: According to the minutes Commissioner Williams and Mayor and th Commissioners there was an appointment #24 actually that took place on the November 5 2009 commission meeting. The motion was to approve the appointment of Ms. Jacqueline Humphries as the ARC EEO Coordinator. At the time Commissioner Hatney moved it. Commissioner Holland second moved it and they had a motion and a second. There was no further, there was some discussion but the position is budgeted. They questioned about the budget. Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham, Mr. Smith and Mr. Grantham voted No so there was a tie. Mr. Mayor voted and the item was budgeted go ahead and vote to approve the recommendation of the committee. So the Mayor votes Yes. The motion carries 6-5. And that’s what the actual minutes for that meeting shows, sir. Mr. Williams: It’s been stated and brought out that the Commission does not vote on coordinators. The Commission votes on Directors or Administrator or whatever. We, that’s proven and I’ve got the minutes and if ya’ll will give me a little time. I ain’t got people making my files. I keep my files with me. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, please make your case. We have what the minutes say we know what the H.R. Director said so -- Mr. Williams: H.R. don’t have no place (unintelligible). I need someone to come up I mean I need to know what she applied for. Somebody needs to say something here. Mr. Mayor: We have been down this road before. If there’s somebody who’d like to come up, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 49 Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. What I was going to say is I think we’ve got an item which is Item 35 which we talked about somewhat last week which I think would help us. And I think maybe on the same page here we’re trying to eliminate that problem in that Charter. I know it’s going to take some time but we do have a position that ain’t never been filled based on the Charter. So I think we really need to probably focus more on that than that will help us address that particular situation and get some clarity from the vote. And from that we can get some clarification in it but this is something we did talk about before and of course one thing says something else and then of course the agenda reads coordinator. Now my personal opinion I think will be (unintelligible) where it’s a director for the EEO position. But again I think we can address the thirty-five which is the agenda placed on here today that we can probably get some (unintelligible) that we did before. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams you’ve had (unintelligible) --- Mr. Williams: And --- Mr. Mayor: --- time left. Mr. Mayor: --- we addressed this issue six weeks ago when it was (unintelligible) on the table then. So I need to get this clarified. I need to know whether we can and what she’s doing, is it a director’s position or a coordinator’s position. And it really don’t matter to me but it’s been said in other corners but it’s never been said in this chamber and it was never said to her. And I inquired, I wanted to know what her job application that she filled out, the job advertisement that went out all of those things said director. But now we want to switch it to a coordinator and there was one piece of paper that Mr. Jackson showed me that came from H.R. at that time saying coordinator. But several pieces of paper that I gave him said coordinator. Now which is right? You got four --- Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you one more minute. Mr. Williams: --- or five saying that it’s a director position and one piece saying coordinator. So we voted on it. I wasn’t here at that time but this body voted when the body votes that’s supposed to be law. It don’t mean it is but it’s supposed to be law. So I need to know which is it, Ms. Humphries did you, you don’t mind --- Mr. Mayor: I’m fine with hearing from Ms. Humphries but then I think it’s appropriate to move on to 35. Commissioner, I would say stress once again during the discussion we had before if we’re talking about positions not people. I think that’s what we need to focus on. Mr. Williams: Okay but and (unintelligible) position. What did she apply for? What was she hired for? And if she’s not a coordinator and that position was for a coordinator then I need to know that. I don’t know why we’re running from it because it ain’t going nowhere. Ms. Humphries: Jacqueline Humphries. The announcement was placed in the Augusta Chronicle as an EEO Director. That’s what myself and any other candidate’s applied for. Those 50 applications are out there. I have latest edition of what was announced in the paper at that time. I was not employed here with the city at that time. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. And (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: I need this body. You’re the chief officer, you tell me. What is the name that’s what we voted on as a body that she applied for what the job description said, what the advertisement said. So what is it? Mr. Mayor: You know, I’m going to tell you Commissioner Williams I would go based on the level of expertise of the HR Director because she’s --- Mr. Williams: (unintelligible) we elected (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: --- okay but you just asked me what I would go with it so that’s what I would go with. Commissioner --- Mr. Williams: I asked you to say something I didn’t ask you to go with nothing. I want you to tell me (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Allen, can you restate what the, was passed on this floor and how the vote came out please? What was the agenda item (unintelligible). Ms. Allen: Yes sir. The agenda item for the November 5, 2009 Commission Meeting was #24 – Motion to approve the appointment of Ms. Jacqueline Humphries as the ARC EEO Coordinator. And the Mayor voted, it was a tie. The Mayor voted Yes. The motion carried 6-5. Mr. Guilfoyle: It’s pretty clear. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Okay. As we’re going to get another bit of the apple on agenda item 35 and Commissioner Williams respectfully I’ve recognized you twice for two minutes once for one minute. Can we get a motion? Mr. Lockett: Motion to receive as information. Mr. Grady Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, a motion made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 51 Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk, would you put this back on the agenda for the next commission meeting for me? I will have the information at that time. I’m sorry I don’t have any in front on me here now. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item please. The Clerk: Can I get to publish the vote, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Williams votes No. Mr. D. Smith out. Motion Passes 8-1. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 35. Approve a Charter Amendment which will eliminate the current EEO/DBE Director Position and simultaneously establish a separate EEO Director Position and a separate DBE Coordinator Position. The HR Director will conduct an extensive job audit to determine the proper classification of the two proposed positions. (Due to the fact that both positions are viable positions that perform critical duties for Augusta, it is without question that both incumbents will continue to perform their respective duties). (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s been said over and over and over I don’t know how many times the four or five years I’ve been on this Commission that we don’t have an EEO Director because we were playing games with the name. The Charter has EEO/DBE. I went last year our Human Resources Director that we have now and I said I want you to find out if such a position exists anywhere in the world. And this is her response dated November 1, 2013. And I said that to say this. I saw in the media where they EEO Director was being demoted. This has nothing at all to do with a demotion, nothing whatsoever. My response to the HR Director November 1, 2013 this is part of what she said. There has been research conducted to find a DBE/EEO position as (unintelligible) in the Charter including contacting GALGPA which is the Georgia Local Government Personnel Association and researching comparable candidates and found that this position would be very difficult if not impossible to fill because one, the position does not exist. Two, the skills that’s required for both positions are very specialized and extremely different unique only to the two positions. Due to the fact that both positions are viable positions that perform critical duties for Augusta, it without question that both of those persons filling those positions that they would be able to continue to perform the duties. But the question is in what capacity. My recommendation was that we amend the Charter to delete or get rid of that nonexistent position they have there and at the same time simultaneously establish the position of EEO Director and DBE Coordinator. Now that would bring the Charter up to date as far as the positions are concerned. We would not have to hear 52 anymore about the fact that they are not an EEO Director. So that is pretty much where we stand on that particular agenda item. Mr. Mayor: Are you accompanying that with a motion for approval? Mr. Lockett: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second for that? Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you. I grateful what you did for me, Mr. Mayor (unintelligible). We did the Charter was designed, set up the way it was set up by the legislature. And we did have a DBE and a EEO Director as one person Ms. Brenda Pelaez had the job. And it was so much work and was so overwhelming that we as an elected body decided to divide that job into two positions. So that monster that Mr. Lockett said there was no such animal there was because the Charter created it that way. You ain’t got to like it; I don’t like it myself but that’s what it was. It was one position, one person with two positions but the work was so overwhelming that she said that she couldn’t do all the work. She didn’t have sufficient staff, nobody else to help her with that so we as an elected body chose to separate those two departments. And that’s how we got to where we are now. Now we’re saying we’re going to go back and put them back together. It was one person doing that. You can’t handcuff either one of those departments. You can’t set them in a room and put this person and that person under them or over them and tell them what they can and cannot do. The law dictates that. So that animal that we hadn’t seen before it’s roaming up and down these hallways right now because we did have a certain animal as one person but it was too much work. And that’s when we went out and hired the people we got in those positions right now. Now you may not appreciate it and may not like it but that’s what the Charter called for and that’s what we had. We as a governing body separated those two positions and made it into two positions. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: And I guess one of the questions that I have if we do what Commissioner Locket is proposing and from my previous conversation with Ms. Bryant there’s a distinct difference between the coordinator and a director. And if we hire an EEO Director and I think the position that she’s presently in today, coordinator, then where would that, would that qualify her for the position she has now, would that qualify her for the position or are we talking about hiring a director and then two coordinators? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, may I respond to that? Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, I’ll allow you to respond to that. 53 Mr. Lockett: To my colleague you may have noticed the job titles will change but the duties will remain the same. The EEO Director or EEO Coordinator whichever one you want to call it is performing those duties now. The DBE whether it’s director or coordinator are performing those duties now. And I specifically indicated in here that the two incumbents would fill those positions not that we got to go outside and recruit somebody else. The two incumbents would fill those. That is in the agenda item. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Yes, sir and you started --- Mr. Fennoy: And in according to the agenda item it says both positions are viable positions that perform critical duties for Augusta, it is without question that both incumbents will continue to perform the respective duties. Would they perform their respective duties until someone is hired or would they perform their, I mean it’s not spelled out. And from my understanding there are positions that are in the Charter that are not filled now. We have two coordinators and I don’t see any reason to mess with or change the Charter at this particular time. Mr. Mayor: You know and I’m just going to say that at some point we need to have somebody and I would say an outside agency or Carl Vinson Institute thoroughly review our Charter because it is not clear on so many issues. It creates so many issues that we deal with regularly. It’s not going to happen on my watch but it needs to happen. Commissioner Williams did you have your hand up? Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bryant, can I ask you a question please? These two positions report to who in this government? Ms. Bryant: The Mayor and Commission. Mr. D. Smith: So the direct supervisory chain runs through, there’s nobody below the Commission and the Mayor to evaluate their work. Ms. Bryant: According to the current reports (unintelligible) that would be the Administrator below the Commission and the Mayor. That’s not the way it’s set up (inaudible). Mr. D. Smith: So if we were to do this Charter Amendment and we have one of these positions as a director and the other one as a coordinator, would that change the reporting responsibility for that position? Ms. Bryant: It should. Typically coordinators do not report to the highest level of authority. Mr. D. Smith: Would that position then report to the Procurement Director or through the Administrator or where would that line go or would this Commission have to set that rule? Ms. Bryant: Well, I can tell you where the lines are in the comparables that I looked at. 54 Mr. D. Smith: How about in and I work for a state agency and the EEO officer works underneath or directly reports to the personnel director or the HR Director. Is that the way it is in most governments that you surveyed? Ms. Bryant: In all the comparables, that’s the way it is. Mr. D. Smith: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Johnson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Commissioner Lockett, this is your motion to approve. This is your item, correct? Mr. Lockett: Yes, that’s my item, yes. Mr. Johnson: And you want to vote to approve this today correct? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to the Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor: I’m going to allow you, you’ve got about (inaudible). Mr. Lockett: (Unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Lockett: I just wanted us to do something positive so I went out to here again and we can have an EEO Director. And the Charter, my colleague indicated about this lady performing two jobs. So the thing about it is these things are so wide apart on their responsibilities and so forth I can see why she only gave it a short period of time and quit. This is two positions. I think my colleague when he said they broke it down into two positions they did a good job of doing that but they did a lousy job because they didn’t change the Charter. Thank you. Mr. Johnson: Well, I support the, you know, the move on this and I think it kind of clears up some of the questions that we have and concerns about this about the Charter and about the one position EEO/DBE Director position. And I think we need to be clear on what the reporting aspect would be and whether or not there would be I guess I assume there will still be coordinators. So we need to clear on that as well in our efforts to approve this. But I think at this point we need to make sure that we’re clear on that moving forward and if that’s the case then everybody’s on the same page as it relates to what their positions are where they report to is what we’re talking about so. But I do support it and I think it’s something we need to do. So if it’s a motion I’ll second your motion as long as we have clarity on their positions and whom they are to report to. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Williams. 55 Mr. Williams: I need some clarity as well. I don’t know who’s on first and what’s on second. I need to know what those departments, which is director, which is coordinator. I need to know who we think has to report to. Those positions are not reportable to the Mayor nor the Commission. The law would dictate what they do or don’t do as far as (unintelligible) there is a chain of command is. But we’ve got an EEO Director that, who is to investigate. How can you put them under another department who may say to anyone that you can’t do that? That’s the position and I need to look at the Charter and see how it’s explained in that whether we like it or not and all of the flaws as you said, Mr. Mayor, but it’s created by man and man is going to make flaws but it’s our job to iron them out. When we hire a person as a director they ought to be a director. But we’ve gone back and forth for a long time and then we finally what the day is and nobody put a cover on it so I asked about it again. That’s when all this came up. So I need to know who’s on first and what’s on second. Who’s the director, who’s the coordinator? Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Williams, I will say too with the Charter it’s also a document, it’s the foundation of this government. It was created eighteen years ago. Is fundamentally our business plan and if you’re in business --- Mr. Williams: (unintelligible) Mr. Mayor --- Mr. Mayor: --- and if you don’t update your business plan on a regular basis you go out of business. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, Ms. Tanika Bryant, can I ask you a question please? So the coordinator position and a director’s position are two different altogether skill sets and all? Ms. Bryant: Some of the responsibilities for a director is a lot higher than a coordinator. What those functions entail with your question would be does it do more in that position? (Unintelligible) How do you want this position to function (unintelligible). I mean the duties (unintelligible) if those duties can be absorbed elsewhere and it is absorbed elsewhere in other areas and that’s a pretty big clue as to the level of responsibility that these positions normally take on. Mr. Guilfoyle: So as a coordinator what Commissioner Smith was speaking about do they actually, how do other cities do it where HR, the EEO, I mean the DBE works under Procurement, the EEO works under (inaudible). Ms. Bryant: Yes, sir. Mr. Guilfoyle: The gist of it. Ms. Bryant: I asked the actual question on comparables how would they handle components of that nature. Now if there is a complaint internally has to go there where they exercise their right to EEO too. Mr. Guilfoyle: I’d like to discuss this more. I don’t know if my colleagues will though. I’d like to make a, is there already a substitute motion? 56 Mr. Mayor: No, there’s a primary motion on the floor to approve. Mr. Guilfoyle: I’ll make a substitute motion to send this to committee for more discussion plus (inaudible). Mr. G. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Guilfoyle: Can I revise that? Can we do a workshop? That way it’s open discussion for everybody. Mr. Mayor: Yes. Okay, we have substitute motion that’s been made and properly to set up a workshop seconded to further discuss this. If there’s no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign. Mr. Mason votes No. Motion Passes 9-1. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 36. Discuss emergency pay for city employees who were required to work during the recent ice storm. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, this was your item? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. It’s six weeks old but it made it to the floor. When the ice storm was affecting this city and we had those workers my question was, was this emergency work done by (unintelligible) the laborers when we talk about haulers and department heads as well. Maybe you can answer the question. I need to know who was paid, was that pay for the everyday worker or was that paid by the department heads alike. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, the actual, for the ice storm an agenda item was presented to all of the workers, hourly workers to be paid. And an agenda item presented to the Commission to actually compensate the exempt employees that worked during that time as well and that was approved by the Commission. If that’s answering it. 57 Mr. Williams: That is answering it. That’s not what I thought at the time and what I (unintelligible) at that time. I was thinking it was just those employees until I found out that it was not just those employees (unintelligible) as well. Am I right? Ms. Allen: Excuse me, sir, I’m not --- Mr. Williams: So it wasn’t just the laborers the people that had to come in and move the limbs out of the way and that kind of stuff. I thinking it was those workers that we had that physically go out there and work. This was for everybody. Ms. Allen: The laborers as well as the other employees maybe their supervisor was actually out there with them as well but identified as an exempt employee. Mr. Williams: Well, I guess my question then is how do you know which exempt employee got paid because the exempt employees a lot of them that’s the best workers I guess. Did they get paid too? Ms. Allen: They are considered, they are considered exempt employees if they worked during the ice storm, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: I mean what it is, what did they do? Now I understand about the supervisor on the ground. I’m not talking about the directors and people who supervise. I’m talking about, because when you lump it all together I don’t know I’m assuming that you’re giving me the right information and I got the right stuff. I don’t think nobody that’s walking around this building ought to be paid because they had to come in here at 10:00 o’clock at night. No, ma’am, I don’t think so. I think you already get that kind of pay. So I had no way of knowing that. That’s why I requested (unintelligible) put back and put back and put back. Mr. Mayor: I’ll give you another two. Mr. Williams: I’m sure the pay has been received and spent now, Mr. Mayor, so I just wanted to address it. Mr. Mayor: Well and I just want to say it was an emergency situation but our staff, I mean you had people down here at the 911 Center, you had people going over and above the call of duty working very long hours and I’m very proud of our staff. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Yeah, I’m just curious of that, Mr. Mayor. I’m curious about this agenda item and if we’re talking about an emergency situation and pay does this include, does this include Public Safety personnel and the other departments as well? What are we talking about here? Ms. Allen: As part of the initiated rules that were presented that follow the policies that were set for inclement weather, it did not actually include the emergency 24-hour operation departments like 911, the fire, the Sheriff and the RCCI departments were recognized as 24-hour operations. (Unintelligible) with the Marshal as well. 58 Mr. Mason: So (unintelligible) have the Chief come up, the Fire Chief. Mr. Mayor: Chief? Mr. Mason: Chief, in reference to this agenda item here and I’ll see if I can share this department with the Marshal too, what is your take on this pay and I mean the way I see it there’s a lot of public safety folks that maybe got the, I don’t know how to say it, the shaft. I mean what do you feel, what’s your feeling on that? Chief James: Our non-exempt employees they were paid by the hour. If you were an exempt employee on the Fire Department any other chief officer that are exempt that would have came into work and some of us paid the EOC for two or three days. None of us will receive this pay. The other chiefs that came in, well, we pulled all the chiefs in to run calls and to do other things. None of them received pay. Mr. Mason: What, you where the defining line is in this hierarchy that you’re talking about. Chief James: On the Fire Department once you go over the rank of Captain then you become exempt. And then so all of the battalion chiefs or the division chiefs, the Fire Marshal any of those folks that came in and worked the ice storm, the hours that they worked over and above what they normally would’ve worked they can receive pay for those hours. Mr. Mason: So our rank and file guys the ones that are in the trenches there they were compensated appropriately. Is that what you all (inaudible). Chief James: The guys that worked in the station they work 24-hours shifts. Those that came in extra they received overtime pay like they normally do. Mr. Mayor: Do we have any more questions? Commissioner Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Chief, I want to make sure I’m clear about this. Your rank and file, Captain and below got paid if they worked over their scheduled hours. Correct? Chief James: Yes. Mr. D. Smith: But, Ms. Allen, you’re telling me that the Sheriff’s Department’s rank and file didn’t get paid? Ms. Allen: Oh, no, sir, no, they did get paid. No, anybody who’s rank and file they got paid regardless. I’m talking about the exempt. I’m sorry. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. Ms. Allen: I was talking about --- 59 Mr. D. Smith: I just wanted to make sure that Ms. Williams and I find that we’re on the same page. The exempt people meaning the people which rank in the Sheriff’s Department any of those people and the ones in the Marshal’s Department and the ones in the Fire Department --- Ms. Allen: That --- Mr. D. Smith: --- that are exempt from the 171 hours and the 28-day work cycle are exempt from being paid. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. D. Smith: I wanted to make sure we’re on the same page and I get an accurate explanation about it. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, and I apologize for any confusion. Anybody who is an hourly employee that worked the ice storm was compensated. There was an agenda that was brought forth as it related to the exempt employees to give the authorization to compensate them at the hourly rate because normally they would not be because they are exempt. So there was compensation that was approved by the Commission for that. In the regulations it also states that essential 24-hour operation personnel who are required to work during those delayed operation hours shall receive comp time equivalent to the actual numbers of hours worked. So truly everybody should be compensated. Mr. D. Smith: Chief, you’re going to say 212 hours I know what you’re going to tell me about that. Chief James: No, just speaking up for my chief officers that are not here and allowed to speak that are exempt fully. When we ran the EOC was we pulled in chief officers to run that EOC. So we were there for two or three days. Other departments within the government they have exempt employees there got paid because they were not with the 24-hour operational department. So what I have is two employees that are still in the same center working days and both of them are exempt. One got paid and one can’t get paid. I mean that’s just putting it straight on top what the issue is. I would be negligent if I didn’t speak for those other chief officers that want to receive their pay too because they see the others receive pay. Ms. Allen: And the Chief is actually correct in that. And we admit that this policy actually needs to be modified and we have not like you said in the past had these types of situations. And the initial situation that caused this policy to work at the time but during this disaster that we recently had with the ice storm it does not really compensate, I mean, I’ll give the Chief credit as well as the other people that worked during the ice storm. All of them did a tremendous job, tremendous job. And, Commissioner Williams, just for the record I didn’t get paid. Tremendous jobs for all of the work that they’ve done and I would ask that Commission consider the situation that he has and approving that those people that did not get compensated that did call in the 24-hour that they get compensated as well. I have no objection to that but they, keep in mind they’re getting their comp time, they have an opportunity to turn comp time 60 in which also it does get them compensated. So I don’t want anybody leaving here thinking they don’t get compensated. Mr. Mayor: And I would just ask Chief if there would be a way for you to develop an agenda item to address that issue to be placed on the next Finance Committee meeting. Mr. D. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I was going to, that was what I wanted to be recognized Would it be all right with my colleagues if we tasked our Administrator, our Interim about. Administrator and our HR Director to develop a policy that will address that issue --- Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, we are working on it as well as the Law Department --- and bring that back to us within 60 days. That’s my motion. Mr. D. Smith: --- Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think that’s a good motion to have up here because I don’t think that will address the issue, the pay situation that you were referencing as far as the agenda item being brought back by the Chief to the Finance Committee. So I don’t know if that needs to be put in the motion to just do it. Either way that’s something that, I think that’s what you were saying. Mr. Mayor: Yeah, I think the Chief can request that agenda item or I can request it for the next Finance Committee. Yes, sir. Chief James: And I mean I know I’m only supposed to speak for the Fire Department but as we said earlier there are other departments the 911 Center, you know, they’re considered 24- hours. I don’t know everything that the Warden’s Department done but they were considered that as well. And so --- Mr. Mayor: I think the way that our team performed in that situation we’ve got to be fair across the board with this. Ms. Allen? Ms. Allen: Yes, sir, I was just going to ask that you request that I bring that recommendation back to the Finance Committee. Mr. Mayor: Amen. Commissioner Lockett. Oh excuse me Commissioner Fennoy had his hand up. Mr. Fennoy: A quick question. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. 61 Mr. Fennoy: Will the overtime that the city will incur will that, do we bill FEMA for that? Ms. Allen: All that actual time is recorded, yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so we will get what 85% back --- Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- from FEMA (inaudible) so it’s really not --- Ms. Allen: It’s a certain percentage that we’re given. I’m not sure if it’s 75 or 80% but Steve may --- Mr. Mayor: Steve, 80%? And it’s based off the days --- Mr. Cassell: (inaudible) how many days (unintelligible). Mr. Fennoy: And my next question and I’m not sure who will answer this question. But if we have employees that worked (unintelligible) --- Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- and during the ice storm when some of them did not come to work. Do they get paid even though they didn’t come into work? Ms. Allen: If depends on if their supervisor approved it if they called in sick or they took a vacation. Mr. Fennoy: Well, when the buildings were closed. Ms. Allen: Oh, you’re talking about when the city was closed period. Mr. Fennoy: Yeah, yeah. Ms. Allen: Yes, everybody got administrative leave is what that was considered. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, then my next question, those that came to work how do we go about compensating them? Ms. Allen: You compensate them at their normally hourly rate. I guess you’re saying they don’t get anything extra than if the other person stayed home. Mr. Fennoy: Right, right, right. If they’re --- 62 Ms. Allen: But they got their pay administrative leave plus the time that they actually worked. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so they did get paid. Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. All right. Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion that’s been, oh Commissioner Lockett did you? Mr. Lockett: I just wanted to ask the General Counsel something. I’ve heard this (unintelligible) too many times before. I support compensating the people who did work but, Mr. General Counsel, I know you’re going to tell us it’s illegal for retroactive pay. Mr. MacKenzie: This will not be considered retroactive pay. It will be perfectly legal. Mr. Lockett: I’m sorry I didn’t hear you. Mr. MacKenzie: I said --- Mr. Lockett: Can somebody please? Mr. MacKenzie: --- this will not fall in the category of retroactive pay. It’s legal from (inaudible). Mr. Lockett: And why was that please. Mr. MacKenzie: Because they’re being compensated for work that they have already done or that they were not otherwise compensated for it. It’s not the work they’ve already done but they are definitely going to get some type of equity. They get something additional if they work part of the normal every day duties. Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Cassell: For everybody it’s 75%. Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. If there’s no further discussion --- The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, who seconded that? I didn’t get it. Mr. Lockett: I seconded it. The Clerk: Okay. 63 Mr. Mayor: Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, next agenda item. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 37. Discuss the appointment process for the Urban Redevelopment Agency (URA) as approved by the Commission January 21, 2014 and discuss the residency of URA members. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. That appointment by my colleague to my left made a motion that one, two, three, four, five or six, seven, eight can’t make an appointment but nine and ten (unintelligible) appointment which would be Commissioner Smith and myself. And that brought that point to the Commission at that time. My other colleague to my left said it’s not, that wasn’t the way that wasn’t so. But I’m losing a lot of stuff. I’m losing my hair, it’s turning gray but I still got my mind. I still remember. And I went back and forth with the minutes I was exactly right but I had an appointment and Mr. Grady Smith Super District 10 had an appointment but we wasn’t allowed to do that. So I had this item put back on the agenda and it was put off weeks again. Bringing up to the point today but that’s what was put together and not by the body voting on the true motion that my colleague Grady Smith made which was combined except for two. So I feel like that board should not legally put together right so Commissioner Grady Smith nor myself had an opportunity to appoint or put into the board. And I said to you, Mr. Mayor, that you said no one had contacted me and I said that was my appointment. I needed to be contacted for my appointment and it still went forward so what do we do about that? Mr. Mayor: The Commission and so often you stated it takes six votes. I think we had more than six to approve the URA Board. They’re already working, they’re in place. And, Commissioner Williams, I’ll tell you the way the state law works is that the Mayor recommends and the Commission has approval power. So it was just trying to get beyond the log jam. Commissioner Smith was directed in that but you said you appointed, that you were on board getting with Grady Smith appointing Larry Jones so the board is in place. Mr. Williams: And I had a side bar with Commissioner Grady Smith because I was forced to do that. I had an appointment, Mr. Mayor, but I after I was convinced that I was wrong which (unintelligible), Nancy, that I was right and I wasn’t wrong. But since I found out I brought it back to the board. I’m not saying this is not a vote but we ought to be mindful even though people don’t like me bring the issues up. We need to make sure we knew what we voted to do. And that was a legal binding vote that my colleague put a motion on the floor that said what we do, we agree to that. And then we didn’t do it. So why should we put the effort into putting a motion together then we do what we want to do. 64 Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith. Mr. G. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I won’t say first of all I think you’ve got a good board set up but Mr. Williams did agree on Larry Jones but I also see and have been approached several times and by people who are concerned that there were no business people on the board. But Commissioner Williams and I agreed on Mr. Jones but then I was thinking of too also about a lady member who’s been an integral part of downtown Augusta, her family where she was and now she’s a business woman. I’d like to see if there’s any way that we at least have some representation in that area. You know I was prepared (unintelligible) right now but it would, you see where the picks at five a member board and make it seven and have a couple of ladies who are involved with downtown and involved too. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: And my question is for the Attorney. If the Commission approves Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 would have four appointees and the Super Districts each has their appointees and that was what the Commission voted on and that did not happen. And what, I mean what can we do at this end? Mr. MacKenzie: First of all let me just add I have actually spoken with Nancy. I believe she had went back and listened to the audio tape. She’s here and can speak for herself. The one question you asked I don’t think it’s actually reflective of what actually occurred in the earlier meeting but what did happen was when the next meeting came along and the board was actually appointed there was a decision of the Commission wanting to do that and were sufficient votes to do it. That was a later action in time even if there was an inconsistency earlier which Nancy can speak to that. That would still be a legally viable board that is still legally capable of doing the duties that is brought before it. Now it’s not to say the Commission couldn’t change the membership of the board now if you’d like to do that but there’s nothing illegal about the appointment of that board and if Nancy would like to, she can speak to the initial action that was taken with respect to the compilation of that board. Mr. Mayor: Nancy, would you explain, oh Commissioner Fennoy? Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I would like to hear what (inaudible). The Clerk: Well, looking at the minutes and those are the verbatim minutes attached to your item. It did indicate that Districts 9 and 10 were to appoint one person together. Mr. Fennoy: One person together? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: No, I don’t know how that ---- Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams. 65 Mr. Williams: --- I don’t know how that appeared and I understand, Nancy, I really appreciate what you do. Commissioner Donnie Smith who made the motion and then when I went back and looked at my minutes it was that I had and Grady had a separate appointment. There was nine, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 all this together. The Clerk: It’s in the --- Mr. Williams: Nine and ten we’ve got an individual appointment from what I understood it. When I went back and looked at my minutes I checked --- The Clerk: I don’t think that’s what it says. Mr. Williams: You don’t think that’s what it said. Mr. Mayor: To the best of my knowledge the maker of the motion what was your intent with the motion? Mr. D. Smith: My intent was we appoint five people and I think I even said that originally on. But I didn’t, after Mr. Williams brought it to my attention I said, you know, it was so long ago I actually don’t remember. I know that my first intent was to make sure we had five people because that’s what the previous board was. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Guilfoyle, are you (inaudible). Mr. Guilfoyle: Looking at the text for that that’s in our agenda book, Mr. Mayor, from st January 21 2014 Mr. Plunkett says over three or four times that it was a five member URA Board. So that would coincide with what Commissioner Smith is saying 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6, 7 and 8, 9 and 10. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Davis and then let’s, we’ve got one last agenda item after this one. And I know that we all do want to try and get to the Holiday Inn grand opening to celebrate a new business entity in town in time for Masters Week. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Ms. Davis: I was just going to say I have the minutes in front of me. Do you want me to read it? Can we get a motion to receive it as information? Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on. Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Johnson: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion that’s been made and properly seconded. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign. 66 Mr. Fennoy and Mr. Williams vote No. Motion Passes 8-2. Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, our final agenda item. The Clerk: FINANCE 38. Motion to approve $78,000 for the 2014 fiscal year operating budget for the Land Bank Authority. (No recommendation from Finance Committee March 24, 2014) Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, motion to approve. Mr. Michael has stayed here all afternoon and that ought to be worth something in itself. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second on that? Mr. Johnson: What was the motion? Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Mr. Johnson: Oh yeah, second. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Allen? Ms. Allen: Just the funding mechanism being from the contingency. We can state that it will come from the contingency. Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a substitute motion. I’m sorry that (inaudible) it’s just the way it worked out. But I’d like to make a motion to approve the funding that it comes out of the contingency fund but for them to come back with a plan to where you are self-sustaining in two years. The original startup of this Land Bank was the Augusta Richmond County (unintelligible). So you’ll have a two year plan to work on it to where we don’t have to worry about (inaudible). Mr. Mayor: Your substitute motion is to approve the funding but that also the Land Bank develop a future plan? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir, to be self-sustaining. Mr. D. Smith: I’ll second that motion. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Michael. 67 Mr. Michael: (Unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: This question is for our Attorney. As far as the Land Bank that’s an authority itself, is that correct? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, that’s correct. Mr. Guilfoyle: In order for them to work with let’s say the URA which has the same governing authority to buy and sell property. How would that work? Mr. MacKenzie: For them to work with them? Mr. Guilfoyle: Yeah, work with them or one take over the other or? Mr. MacKenzie: Because it is a separate authority that would a decision for their board to make. They can then in turn do an intergovernmental agreement so they could look at the articles of incorporation to see if there’s a way maybe to dissolve one and incorporate it into another would be some options. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, sir. Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Just one quick question. I think when you gave your presentation before the committee you mentioned your work that you all do for housing and development. And I think one of the things you actually do is to come back with a list and then they attach a dollar value to what you do for housing and development. And I guess my question is should we, is there any way you can deal, I mean, if we rob Peter to pay Paul (unintelligible). Is there any way we can deal with that, those services that you provide? Mr. Michael: No, that (unintelligible) moving forward. I’m certain (unintelligible) actually charge 75% of taxes on property going to the Land Bank (unintelligible). That will go a long way towards funding (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioner Lockett and then let’s --- Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d just like to take a couple of seconds to thank Mr. Michael for all the work that he has done and will do in the future assisting us with becoming an Age Friendly Community. He’s done a yeoman’s work and we need to make sure that he stays and this is fully funded for the Land Bank. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: I agree and I’d like to applaud him for going to the ‘Y’ everyday too because we see him there all the time. Okay we have a substitute motion that’s been made and properly 68 seconded to approve funding with the development of a two year plan by the Land Bank. If there is no further discussion, Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting. Mr. Mason and Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor: With no further business to come before the body we stand adjourned. [MEETING ADJOURNED] Nancy Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on April 1, 2014. ______________________________ Clerk of Commission 69