Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutUrban Redevelopment Agency Meeting March 14, 2 URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY COMMISSION CHAMBER MEETING MARCH 14, 2014 PRESENT: Henry Ingram, Chairman, Larry Jones, Vice Chairman; Bob Young, Brad Owens, and Terry Elam, members; Jim Plunkett, Attorney; Tameka Allen, Interim Administrator; Tim Schroer, Assistant Finance Director; Marion Williams, Commissioner; Nancy Morawski, Deputy Clerk of Commission. Mr. Ingram: First, thank you so much for coming. You have the agendas in front of you. Are there any additions or modifications to the agenda? Okay, we’ll go ahead and ask for a motion just to go ahead and approve the agenda. Mr. Owens: So moved. Mr. Elam: Second. Mr. Ingram: Proper motion and second to approve the agenda. Any discussion? All those in favor vote Aye. Opposers nay. Let me make a statement before we actually start. There’s been some inferences that there’s been some satellite or peripheral meetings to determine, predetermine whatever vote that we might in fact take today. Let me just utter these words. That is untrue, it’s not happened. I for one have not talked to anyone other than Brad and I think you, Bob, in terms of setting up a lunch meeting. So as the situation I’ve been told that there was an inference to that in the paper that it seems that the votes were already there. That is not correct. What we want to do is do what I think Commissioner Williams, we want to be transparent and do the right thing. And so I think one of the things we ought to do is trust each other and believe that we have integrity in doing our job that has been asked of us to do. So I hope we’re all on the same page because if we’re going to talk to one Henry Ingram I’m going to talk to all of you. There won’t be any separation of (unintelligible). I thought I just needed to make that statement. Brings up the discussion of the Municipal Building Project in financial terms of the project. Mr. Young: I have some questions I’d like to ask if I may, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingram: You’re recognized. Mr. Young: On March 11, 2013 a full year ago the Commission approved a resolution issuing up to twenty-six and half million dollars in bonds for the project. If there’s a sense of urgency today, why has it taken a year to get to this point? Mr. Ingram: Well, Tim, I guess you would the person that’s on the spot to answer those questions. The floor is yours. Mr. Schroer: Thank you. The sense of urgency is we’ve been working on this project for a year, since March of last year. (Inaudible) and the parameters of which was to give the project more support and keep it from taking that much time. 1 Mr. Young: The Commission authorized you according to the minutes here take whatever action was necessary to issue these bonds a year ago. th Mr. Plunkett: Some time after March 11 of last year Mr. Schroer and the Administrator Fred Russell and I along with consultation with Diane McNabb, probably Terri Finnester at Murray, Barnes, Finnester, we talked about how to issue debt for the building. That occurred predominately those conversations were March, April, May, June of last year as to what was the best debt structure. We talked about issuing debt through the Urban Redevelopment Agency because it is empowered to be able to do public facilities as well as private facilities. As you may be familiar with it has to be an urban redevelopment area, it has to be designated and as you know that has the requirement under the statute to make a finding that certain conditions exist, i.e. that a slum area exists. That was an initiative discussed back and forth. About that same time we were working on a tax allocation district for downtown which that area had been previously in December of ’12 it had been set by the Commission to be ordered roughly by th Reynolds Street, Walton Way, Gordon Highway and 15 Street. After some discussion the Administrator said you know this slum designation issue that we would need to go ahead and move forward with that. The URA is the best way to go forward with it. That conversation went forward I want to say about October of 2013. So there’s been some discussions and the matter came back before this board roughly the third or fourth quarter of the year. And at that point in time there were some discussions based on some media reports and discussion by the commissions that they were concerned about designating downtown Augusta as a slum. The area was supposed to be, not supposed to be but the suggestion was to taking the same parameters as a tax allocation district, the same four general areas. That was debated a great deal. The area was reduced approximately December which are two, two and a half months of discussion of that to a smaller area. But the membership was not designated. Membership was designated of the new board I believe I provided you all copies of that resolution. And I apologize I may have it with me. I want to say it was February of this year. So it took us from basically October to February to get a board constituted. At the same time this project has been ongoing in this facility and we’re now in a situation of moving forward with those bonds with the new body. Shortly after the new members were appointed we called for a meeting probably within a week to two weeks of that and that’s where we are now. So that time got eaten up by political debate, February 18 by the way, of that period of time. Mr. Young: All right, well it’s just that the fact that it was adopted in a called meeting so there was a sense of urgency in March of last year that we had to do this because we had a called meeting, a special meeting of the commission to approve this. And then it just dallied out there for a year. And then it comes before us and we’re told that we’ve got to do something by a certain date or the whole project’s going to stop. Something’s wrong with that picture. But anyway I have another question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. Mr. Ingram: Go ahead. Mr. Young: The bond resolution says the principal amount is as much as $28.5 million dollars, $2 million dollars higher that the amount approved by the Commission on March of 2013. Now does not a resolution of the Commission have the effect of law? 2 Mr. Plunkett: I would say arguably yes. Mr. Young: Okay, so we are only authorized to issue debt up to twenty-six and a half million dollars based on the vote of the Commission. Is that correct? Mr. Plunkett: There is a subsequent IGA that’s approved by the board, by the Commission that with parameter resolutions up to $28.5 million dollars. So that resolution would be there. The reason why there’s a parameters resolution, and Mr. Schroer may can talk more to this, when bonds are issued and you’re trying to get a sum certain that is you need a net amount due to premiums and discounting and the way the bond is structured there could be a fluctuation that would mean you would have to issue slightly more than that. Ms. McNabb, to myself who is bond counsel on this, suggested that amount but that would give you the coverage for the discount/premium that may be incurred. There’s no additional money being other than the net amounts of cost of issuance that’s what we issued the IGA would pay and the parameters resolutions allowing for that flexibility. Mr. Young: But it would seem that the parameters were set when the Commission voted because they said up to 26.5. So they took into account that perhaps you were going to need a little bit more than the amount of money you actually needed and authorize it up to 26.5. But we’ve not been furnished that I’m aware of with any subsequent action by the Commission that changed the ceiling on the bonds that we’re authorized to issue. Mr. Plunkett: I believe that the resolution, that resolution is (inaudible). I will look for it. I believe I have copies of those. Mr. Young: Okay, I just have one other question. --- Mr. Ingram: Go ahead. Mr. Young: --- if I may then I’ll shut up. Mr. Ingram: Promise? Mr. Young: This information comes out of the documents that were furnished to us. According to what I read in this and I’m going by the documents in front of me not what’s been said in a meeting or certainly by anybody but from the documents that we’re asked to approve. The only methods for paying off the bonds and the bond resolution is to levy such ad valorem taxes as may be necessary to make the payments. That’s on page twenty. And then the only discussion for paying off the bonds in the intergovernmental agreement on page fifteen is to levy an Ad Valorem Tax on all taxable property to produce the revenue sufficient to fulfill Augusta’s obligations. So I’m, I’m hearing in this that the Commission is authorized by this to increase property taxes three million dollars a year to pay this off if the SPLOST fails. And there is no mention of the SPLOST in either of these agreements, that’s I guess you travel on the fact that the SPLOST list was approved last week there’s money in there to pay these off so the inference is there that’s what the Commission wants to do. But if there’s no SPLOST it seems to me that we’re set up for a property tax levy to pay off the bonds. 3 Mr. Plunkett: That is the collateral that, there’s ability to pay from any other sources of the government. They could pay the debt service from the general fund but they’re also authorized to issue, you know, to impose a tax necessary to pay the debt. So I’m not sure that’s addressing your question. Mr. Young: Well, it says they’ll pledge the full faith and credit. Mr. Plunkett: Of the taxing ability so they will honor their IGA. They will make sure if necessary they will impose. It’s not an obligation that they impose a tax. It is that they will if they have no other sources of revenue to pay it. Mr. Elam: Well, I didn’t read that. And what I saw seemed pretty straight up pages 20 and 15 of the IGA. So that being that way. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ingram: Okay, thank you, Bob. Any other discussion on Item 2 on the agenda? Brad? Go ahead. Mr. Owens: I’ve got a couple of questions and you know I already related through you to the agenda to come back with it. There was a question I’d like to direct to Tim if it’s okay. Tim, we were talking about how much money is in the current account, this allocated for this. And then we were talking about the current contracts. Now my understanding is, is that we’re being asked to move forward because the current payment schedule is going to exhaust the money that’s available before the SPLOST vote to make it possible to borrow more money or to issue the bonds and borrow against them. Is that correct? Mr. Schroer: Where are you going with that? Okay, get my good side. Where we’re at today with the funds we, the Commission approved the $40 million campus project. We had funding from SPLOST VI for the Municipal Building, we had, amount of $16.28 million dollars. As of today we’ve spent about approximately $9 million dollars so we have so we have $7 st million dollars left in cash. The urgency comes with we cannot wait until May 21 to decide if we’re going to issue bonds or not because we have to look at the entire project and the campus. After discussions with HEERY and our contractors we have determined that we need to either suspend construction and stabilize the building, finish what we can and stabilize the building and then move forward if the bonds are approved. We can’t just keep going because we’re going to finish the work on floors two and three today. By May we’ll be finished with those. We’ll be on the other two some other two floors I think that’s six and nine. Each time we’re going to be th incurring costs. By May 20 we’ll have burned through all that funding and still have additional costs and only half has occurred. It’s a matter of what we spend. If we stop today will we spend the entire $7 million dollars? Probably not because we’re going to suspend work. You can’t just st go May 21 and then you pass and you guys go home. We have to look at the building do our responsibility and say, how can we stabilize the structure in the best way to minimize any impact on future costs. 4 Mr. Owens: Okay, I have a question from a contractor’s standpoint because that’s what I do. Once, when a contractor submits the invoice to you what’s the timeline for payment on usual invoice from the primary contractor? Mr. Schroer: We try to get everything through in 30 days. Mr. Owens: Thirty days. That’s pretty fast. You know I ask, I mean because we’ve waited, we’ve had to float stuff for 90 to 120 days before we received payment from the government on some things. Mr. Schroer: We try to keep it within 30 days. Now it could get, sit on somebody’s desk for a couple days but we go through the invoices, submit it to our project manager HEERY. They review that and --- Mr. Owens: Do they have a rep here today? Does HEERY have a rep? Mr. Schroer: No, they don’t. They’re out of town today. Mr. Owens: Well and that was my question. So I have a question for your finance. Okay so, what I’m looking at is I’m looking at tax liability for the taxpayer of the county. My concerns are, you know, this has already been decided. The will of the body for the Commission is to spend this money on this project. So it’s going to be done one way or another. These contracts are going to be honored, correct? Mr. Schroer: If we stop today then we suspend construction we will stop and appeals will be, you know, we’ve talked to our contractors and they’re aware of this. They know if there’s no funding we will stop construction. Mr. Owens: What I’m saying the county is still obligated to pay that money. Mr. Schroer: If they go through to complete the project. Mr. Owens: Right. Mr. Schroer: If you complete the project then --- Mr. Owens: Now if that, what you said happens, is it going to increase the cost of finishing the project? Mr. Schroer: Yes. Mr. Owens: Okay, have ya’ll done any type of projections on that? I mean is it going be, how bad is it going to be on the taxpayers if we don’t go ahead and issue these bonds? That’s my question. Mr. Schroer: If you do not issue the bonds today or pass that resolution --- 5 Mr. Owens: What I’m saying (inaudible). Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. Mr. Owens: Thank you. Mr. Schroer: But there are a couple costs we have to look at. The projections that I’ve received from HEERY is it’s going to be one to two, $1.5 to $2 million dollars in additional costs because we have to keep, we have a very good team on board, a construction team. We’re going to have to spend out to stabilize the building, there’s going to be some additional costs with that that’s included in the original cost factor. And then if we’re going to keep Turner, HEERY and some of our other major contractors in place we’ll have to pay them to have them stay there. You can’t just, you know, the team here they can’t just go away and come back in three months. They’re going to go where the jobs are. So to keep them here we’ll have to incur costs from Turner. Mr. Owens: So just so I’m clear in layman’s terms. I need you to --- Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. Mr. Owens: The bond issuance in the long term, given the situation we’re in, the Commission’s already decided to do this project and we’re into it, okay. If we do not authorize a bond issuance before the vote it’s going to end up costing the taxpayers more money to finish this project. Mr. Schroer: At least $2 million dollars. Mr. Owens: Okay, that’s one question. And the other question is, is that --- Mr. Ingram: Let this be the last one. Mr. Owens: Yeah, it’s related to this. If we do authorize the issuance today okay, how soon I mean is that, is today the gap closing measure? Do we have any more time or is today kind of the drop dead point? Does a decision have to be made today? Mr. Schroer: Today’s the day. Mr. Owens: Okay, today’s the day. Okay, thank you sir. I appreciate it. Mr. Ingram: Thank you. One of the things I think that we have to, have to really zero our thinking on is that we’re not here to reinvent the process, to reinvestigate all that goes into the decision making process from elected officials. I don’t know what you’re position is yours, your, yours but we’re here just to make sure and insure that we do the best that we can for the citizens of Augusta, Georgia. I don’t think reexamining every nut and bolt of the agreement and the conversations and discussions that are going on is in our best interests. Now the fact we 6 won’t get anything done, will not get anything done. We have to rely on the elected officials who are charged with carrying out the duties that they’re sworn to carry out and that is to act in the best interest of the citizens of Augusta, Georgia. And for us to sit here and then reinvent the whole process we can’t move forward. And I’m speaking as chairman and personally is some of the questions that were asked I think are so minute and so detailed that it is going to be hard to extract them from Tim and some of the other, some of the other individuals that they want to get them from. Any other discussion on this item? Terry? Mr. Elam: Yeah, I think we put ourselves in a really precarious position. And I apologize for not being here on that Monday but it was short notice and I had a doctor’s appointment in Atlanta and I could not be here. I really don’t like the publicity of not making a meeting but that’s part of the deal. I wasn’t asked to be on this committee, I was appointed. Nobody called me, nobody explained anything to me so I’m looking at this simply from the outside as a citizen of Richmond County. I can’t go back and redo what the Commission has put in place but I can say this. I think the Commission needs to be very clear to us their intent to repay this debt if the voters do not approve it. And that’s my only question. And I just want that message to come clear from the Commission. I don’t think it’s my job to come up with the answer to that or this committee. That’s something because we’re just a conduit as you said. And I think that has to be clarified that what the potential is. To me this is the same as going to a car dealership and you do a credit application and you drive off in a new car. You come back in a week and they didn’t approve your credit application and now you’ve got a debt that you’ve got to deal with and the consequences of it. We started a project before the funding was in place, that’s the bottom line. The bottom line is we started this project the county has. Now whether you use bonds or taxpayer’s money it needs to be clear where the money’s going to come from to retire the debt. And that’s the only question I have. Mr. Ingram: I think, Terry, in our last meeting Jim gave us an option as to where those funds would actually come from. Mr. Elam: But that’s not an option. It comes from the bond attorney. That option should come --- Mr. Ingram: No, I think this is an option that --- Mr. Elam: From the county. Mr. Ingram: --- was already put in place by the county. And I think you ought to go ahead and repeat that, I think it’s .71 mill? th, Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir. There was a workshop held on March 8 Terry, at which time the project was discussed. There was multiple options in how to do the building, certain floors, the whole building things of that nature. Diane McNabb who’s the financial advisor to Augusta has been, has held that position for a couple of years, several in fact, made a presentation. Unfortunately she’s out of the country and I can’t bring her materials. And then at that point in time she explained that the idea was funding would come through, SPLOST VI, which is existing. 7 Mr. Elam: Right. Mr. Plunkett: That if SPLOST VII was passed those funds would be used to be able to pay the debt service on the bonds. That if that failed then there is a $.71 mill use for capital th purposes and that can be used. Then on March 11 there was a Special Called Meeting at which time there was a slight discussion about that at which time Fred Russell made reference to the capital fund meaning that capital mill that was the backup. That didn’t happen. I did some little what I refer to as lawyer math. If they bonds were issued fairly soon and that seven mill, $7 million dollars in hand was not used based on the debt structure that’s been proposed it would arguably carry the debt the annual debt service for, you know, when it was $9 million, I calculated it and it was like eight years. So it’s there, the backup that .71 mill is relatively I don’t want to say the word remote but the SPLOST would have to fail probably fail again and possibly fail again if this body voted today to move forward with the issuance of the debt and that $7 million dollars was still in hand to help pay debt service. Mr. Elam: But my question is where is the resolution from the Commission that addresses that one issue? Mr. Plunkett: Well --- Mr. Elam: Not a workshop. th Mr. Plunkett: I understand. On the March 11 the direction to go forward was based on th that discussion. Okay, that where that Fred referred to the backup. Then in December 17 of this year the Commission approved an IGA substantially the same form as this. There’s one small change and I’ll be happy to explain that to you. But in all intents and purposes all funding issues were the same. So the body approved that funding and to understand, or they had the ability to read it. I don’t know if they read it or not. The IGA was put in front of them as to move forward understanding that they would have to issue, you know, as Bob was putting in earlier, you know, raise the tax if necessary to make sure they paid it. So that has been approved, the IGA has been approved but the county, it will need to go back simply because we need to do something relative to title of the building that’s a little bit different. But that’s, the funding was there and it was I don’t know how full of a discussion was there but it certainly was before the body. Mr. Elam: Okay, my question is when we vote to issue the bonds before they can be issued the Commission is going to have to take another vote. Mr. Plunkett: It would approve the IGA and what happened on that is that the in order for the bonds to be paid through SPLOST the debt service the counsels using government SPLOST transactions as opposed to original bond attorney here wanted a change in the IGA in that the title to the building would be transferred back to Augusta immediately as opposed to at the end of the debt service because this has to be a purchase agreement. But other than that everything else is the same. But the Commission would revisit that prior to the bond sale. 8 Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Terry. Mr. Owens: Mr. Chairman, one more question on the --- Mr. Ingram: Go ahead. Mr. Owens: Jim, the .71 mills that’s been identified inside of the capital fund. Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir. Mr. Owens: What is that, is that just a fund that’s there, is it earmarked for something already? Do we know what will be cut? Mr. Schroer: That’s an internal designation from our millage rates. We should identify that for capital projects, smaller capital projects, not SPLOST but capital projects, non- emergency vehicle purchases, IT equipment. So it would be, we’d use those funds and set up purchasing capital equipment for capital projects. We would use that for debt services. In the past we haven’t used that for other reasons other uses than just the capital. Mr. Owens: So it has been allocated for other things (unintelligible). Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. Mr. Owens: Okay, clear. I just wanted, So nobody’s going to lose their job. Mr. Schroer: No, sir. Mr. Ingram: Okay any other discussion on Item 2? Item 3 discussion regarding joint workshop with Augusta Commissioners about this Municipal Building Project. I think Bob Young and Brad I think all of us that it would be in our best interests to get together with the Commissioners because there’s been some conflicting verbiage coming across as related from one Commissioner to the others. So it’s kind of a consensus that we actually come together with the Commissioners to make sure that they convey to us our true charge which seems to me to be sound reasoning. You don’t have to be a Rhodes Scholar to understand that sound doing that. I think not only for this project but since it seems that this body will be charged with some very significant things going forward even formulating and framing some projects which we found out the board had been kind of dormant for a long time. And I guess because of these diverted individuals on here now we can get some work done. Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, if I may. I don’t want anybody to think I’m against this project. I’ve worked in this building for six and a half years and it’s long overdue. And you know I see us here as executing the will of the Commission. They’ve made the decisions. They’ve done the homework and the research but just like Terry mentioned, I don’t have the clarity they understand what they’re going to do to pay these off if SPLOST fails. Now staff has made recommendations but staff is not the will of the Commission. The Commission speaks from that chamber next door for resolutions and motions and other such things. Or even if they 9 all just sign a joint letter I, I’m ready to vote for these bonds as soon as I get that clarity. I’m ready to go. Mr. Ingram: Okay so we’ll have the opportunity to vote one way or the other very shortly. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Ingram, if I may. And Mr. Sherman needs to address this so that you’ll understand it. The body if the will of this body is to have a workshop prior to voting for the bonds, and this was, you know, I made the agenda and I did that because Mr. Young had suggested once I, you know any need that was suggested that seem agenda item ‘ish’ I put it on there. That may or may not require there to be a postponing of the building project. In other words I don’t know the urgency that the Commission could call a workshop or even if the county commission would even agree to a workshop. I mean those are outside of my parameters. Mr. Williams may address that more readily than I could but if they said they’re not going to do it then you’re reconvening to vote again to vote on other things. And at some point I mean Finance is going to recommend to the Administrator to, you know, suspend this building. So I just was putting that in there. It’s almost an inconsistency of three and four. So I just wanted for clarity that, you know, if you do one, you might hinder the other. Mr. Elam: Yeah, if we vote for four then three isn’t necessary. Mr. Young: With respect to this project. Mr. Elam: That’s right. Mr. Ingram: Right, I think what we’re saying is it’s going to be good going forward that we have that meeting with the Commissioners irregardless what we’re talking about now going forward with additional projects that have been identified and might come before us in terms of the things we’ll get to do (unintelligible). Mr. Owens: Mr. Chairman, we were tasked by you to talk to, to caucus with our Commissioners. Mr. Ingram: Right. Mr. Owens: Okay? That’s what I did. I talked to the two Commissioners that appointed me plus one that I’m know. And they conveyed to me that they were aware that this is the alternate funding source. It’s going to come out of capital funds or come out of somewhere if the SPLOST didn’t pass. Okay? One of the Commissioners that appointed me voted for this project and one voted against it. So they told me I’m not going to tell you how to vote, Brad. If I wanted somebody that’s going to vote the way I told them I’d have put somebody else on there. They wouldn’t have they put me on there. They asked me to vote with my conscience. They were aware. I don’t know if they, you know, I don’t know if the way the Commission works and works with the staff if they demanded a level of detail, need to drill down to what truck’s not going to be bought. This stuff happens. I don’t think that’s what they got into and that’s okay. But I did what you tasked us to do and I talked to my Commissioners and they are aware that this 10 is where the funds are going to come from now. They may, there was no confusion when I finished my conversation and it’s going to be the capital fund. So my only concern was that, you know, this was that we didn’t cost the taxpayer more money by not acting now. That’s my concern. So that’s my question and it’s been answered. I do think a workshop would be great. I don’t necessarily think it’s, if we’re going to, you know, vote on item 4 if it passes or doesn’t pass I don’t think it necessarily, you know. My understanding and the way the resolution was written is that this is the will of the body. They wanted to enter into this debt, they want to do this $42 million dollar projects. So for me if we’re going to issue revenue bonds the revenue stream to service the bonds are URA issued it doesn’t matter to me if it comes from, as a URA member now it doesn’t matter to me if it comes from the general fund or the reserves or capital fund or a tax increase. As a citizen I may have a different opinion but if you are a URA member my concern for fiduciary duty is that do I believe Richmond County’s going to pay these bonds back if we issue them and I do. And that’s what I have to say about that. Mr. Ingram: Well, great. Still on number three what I would ask you to do is to put together a workshop between URA members and the Commission and give us some dates to see what it works for them and works for us. Because again keep in mind not only for this project but for our involvement in service on this board going forward we just need to have some type of semblance of the will of the Commission as it relates to the URA Agency. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Chairman, on that workshop would it be permitted as we talked last meeting that this should be an annual report. If we may at the same time provide the update to that same workshop, I know it would be more formality, but I say you know Mr. Wheeler sometimes wants to give an update as well. If it would be within the parameters of this board --- Mr. Ingram: --- talking quicker you sound like you’re talking longer. Mr. Plunkett: I’m talking a couple of days. Mr. Ingram: Oh okay. Mr. Plunkett: I’m independent. I have to do these quick. Mr. Ingram: What we will charge you to do is to come up with some dates to make sure it’s acceptable to this body and we’ll go forward with that. Is that the consensus, I think everybody’s on board with that direction. Okay. Any other discussion about that joint meeting that we’ll have with the Commission? Item 4. Approval of the Bond Resolution and Intergovernmental Agreement with Augusta Georgia. What is your pleasure? Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman I make a motion we table that item in view of the fact that we’re going to have a workshop. Mr. Ingram: We have a motion that we table the item in view of the workshop conversation. Is there a second? Is there a second? Is there an alternate, another motion? 11 Mr. Jones: Does it mean that if we don’t vote today in lieu of having a workshop. For clarity is that what we’re --- Mr. Ingram: Well actually that’s what he, we wouldn’t do any of that today. That’s the motion without a second. What is your pleasure? Mr. Owens: Are we allowed to discuss that before there’s a second? Can we have a little clarity from Bob? Mr. Young: The motion to table is not debatable. Mr. Ingram: You mean that just sticks. Mr. Owens: Because I had a question, a Point of Parliamentary Procedure. The motion thst we passed was to table this issue to the 20? The 21 I thought that was what we do. Mr. Ingram: Do we not have the minutes from that meeting? The Deputy Clerk: No, sir, we do not have those ready yet. Mr. Owens: Okay, well the motion I made was to table this issue not to deny it but to stst table it until the 21. So the issue’s already been tabled to the 21 --- Mr. Elam: Of March. Mr. Owens: Right after the vote so --- Mr. Young: --- May --- Mr. Owens: May, excuse me. So this was this would be reconsidering the motion to approve? What is number four exactly, Jim? Mr. Plunkett: Also it’s to your point they’re also after you to motion to table last time there was a second comment in the form of a motion that this could be brought back up. Mr. Ingram: Yes. Mr. Plunkett: Reconsideration. This would be if number four what we are looking for there was if that was approved is this would be approving the IGA, approving the bond resolution, moving forward with the issuance of debt. So this is moving forward with the bonds. Mr. Owens: A question on that. Now after the bond issue, after the sales or the negotiations have taken place, this does come back to us for final approval after the sale, after the sale takes place, correct? 12 Mr. Plunkett: There’s going to be two different actions that are going to be taken. One would be the IGA would cause a small edit which would go back to the county commission. At that point in time I certainly will address all of ya’ll’s concerns with them that they understand that. The second part is that there’s two, today would be the approval to move forward somewhere around the first of April. There’s a concept in pricing and that is when the financial advisor goes out into the market place its quotes based on the bids on that. Then later that same day this body would go forth and approve that pricing. And then approximately three to nine days later, typically closer to nine than three, the funds are made available to Augusta in that process. Mr. Owens: One question. When are you taking this back to the Commission to approve the amended one? Mr. Plunkett: As soon as I can. But it’s --- Mr. Owens: Is it possible we could get a meeting in between now and when they would vote to reauthorize that IGA? Mr. Plunkett: The --- Mr. Owens: We can’t move forward without that approval from the Commission is my question. Mr. Plunkett: Yes, you can. Mr. Owens: Okay. Mr. Ingram: Let me just go ahead an answer that. But we do have a motion that without a second. I need to know what the pleasure of this body is. Mr. Young: The motion dies for lack of a second. Mr. Ingram: Right but is there another motion? There seems to be a yes/no motion to approve. Mr. Elam: Could I make a, I don’t want to make a motion I mean make it into a motion. If we’re going to have this workshop the fact that we have not passed the motion to me would put the workshop on the fast track. And I think most of us would feel comfortable taking a vote once that meeting has been held. So I don’t think a lack of a motion today takes away the support. I just think we, I would feel a lot more comfortable and I have to say I’m behind the ball on this because you guys commit before. I would feel much more comfortable voting to delay our vote until we have our workshop with the Commission. st Mr. Ingram: It’s already been tabled to, you know, the 21 --- Mr. Elam: Well, my motion would be that we bring it from the table so we could do that. 13 Mr. Owens: I’ve got just a couple more questions before we let this die at this meeting, okay? I’m sorry but I just got to know stuff. Mr. Ingram: Let me ask you this. Is the question pertaining to something that will be worked out in the workshop? Mr. Owens: No, it’s related to whether or not I would make a motion to approve number four right now. Mr. Ingram: Go ahead. Mr. Owens: Jim, can we amend this motion if we approve it today can we amend it? Can we say pending I think that letter Bob was talking about that would satisfy me. So what I’m saying is that I want to put the work back on your plate. If we approve it with the addendum that would require a majority of the Commission to sign off on the where the debt’s going to come from. Now you’ve already made a motion to approve, I understand that, but, you know, for the sake of clarity for everyone here in good conscience could you do that? Is that something that would be applicable? So in other words if we approve it now and it will move forward with the once the Commission confirms that, you’re going to meet with them for the IGA anyway, correct? So is it possible to get them to reconfirm the terms in the IGA that named the capital fund as the means of doing it? That’s my question. Mr. Ingram: But procedurally, how would we do that? Mr. Plunkett: I think the, from a finance and a bond issuance situation that I think that this body could always subject to the date of the pricing to withdraw its agreement. Rather than making a conditional approval I would think the better source would be affirmative act to move forward. Then everybody, Tim, Smith Gambrell has notice to go forward because it starts the validation process and things of that nature. And each week or each day that we wait those times just extend further out. If this body then said we have this workshop and it comes out that the body does not, the Commission doesn’t know what their, you know, understanding these things, I don’t want to say they don’t know what they’re doing but they don’t understand, they’re not understanding those issues, you know, that would be you know then this body could I think could rescind this act. I think that would be a better choice. The letter agreement --- Mr. Owens: Where’s the compromise here? How can we help get this moved forward and make sure that everybody’s concerned or it’s done? I mean that’s the question. Help us. Mr. Plunkett: Compromise is simple. Even before today you have workshop. You address the issues in the workshop that says we want to make sure you know what we did. We want to make sure that next time we get to this situation these things are going to be provided to us. So you’re moving forward and you’re also clarifying that we did this. Understand now put in the opposite order that’s, I think that Mr. Young made his feelings situation there but if that commission workshop does not occur, if the county commission says we don’t want to attend, none of them show, would this body then act? So what I’m saying is I don’t know the workshop 14 in of itself you know may or may not occur your three commissioners are already familiar with it. They may not show for that reason. To get this letter that you’re looking for is an act of the commission, okay? And if it’s going to be an official act that’s got to go through the whole commission process as well. So that’s what I’m concerned about is that I think you need to move forward. First let’s see if you can keep this going. We have probably 20 – 30 days before we are coming back to approve this action and if during that 30 days ya’ll said that it wasn’t appropriate, we rescind and everybody stops. We just don’t, we don’t have a green light yet to do anything and that’s what we’re looking for. If you want to put that stop sign up later on, okay, but we’re not moving until that, until someone tells us to go the first time. Mr. Young: I feel like I’m on a 777 out over the ocean. I don’t know where I am. Mr. Owens: I mean, Mr. Chairman that’s the thing. I mean you know it just, I would mind just having a (unintelligible) to move on until we just have a little bit more discussion amongst, you know, just us board members talking to each other. Because I, I hear right now I’m just a little I’m just torn, I’ll be honest with you. I don’t want to stop the project. You got Finance sitting over there saying it’s going to cost the taxpayers more money if we don’t move ahead. We’ve got some Commissioners saying that they knew about it, they don’t know about it. You know I understand your point about injecting politics back into it after it’s passed. I mean that go (unintelligible). It just seems like it’s there’s a lot of unanswered questions which makes my gut wants to say we should have the workshop first. But if we don’t vote today they’re saying that this is going to put brakes on the project. So see that’s where I’m torn. I mean I really haven’t heard, I’ve just, how can we move forward without clarity but we have clarity on what the repercussions are going to be if we don’t move forward. Mr. Ingram: Let me just say. We’re kind of bouncing this ball around and realistically saying the same thing. Let me just say my only concern is what was uttered earlier if in fact we can hold that to be true the $2.5 million dollars the amount that it would cost to re-halt the project. Mr. Schroer: If we halt the project our increase will be at least $1.5 to $2 million dollars. Mr. Ingram: Well, that’s resounding to me. You know it’s a situation where we have a responsibility, the elected officials have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the taxpayers money and it’s a situation, we’re not trying to break anybody’s arm one way or the other. But it’s a situation where one of the things it seems we’re trying to do again is to reinvent the process. You know it’s a situation you know I understand in all of the tidbits and tentacles that have been attached as to the argument why we should do it and why we ought not do it but it’s very resounding to me if we in fact delay it and it costs the city $1.5 to $2 million dollars and then we go forward with it anyway, you know, that’s kind of irresponsible to me. So it’s a situation where if there is no motion forthcoming to approve then, Jim, the only thing that’s left is to try to pull together that workshop as soon as you can. And I would suggest I would suggest I don’t know what the Commission’s schedule is if they’re as concerned as we are and I think you could convey to them or maybe along with myself and whomever else how important it is for this board to get to a certain point to approve. That just needs to happen right away. And I know I think committee meetings are on Monday --- 15 The Deputy Clerk: No. Mr. Ingram: --- Tuesday. Mr. Young: The week before the commission meeting on Tuesday. What time’s your meeting, Commissioner? Mr. Williams: Two o’clock. Mr. Young: Two o’clock. Mr. Ingram: I’m just thinking, I’m just thinking that we need to do something and the something we need to do is make ourselves available before the commission meeting when all the Commissioners are there. They don’t have to arrange their schedules to come because I think one of the things that our philosophy has to be you know we have to trust our elected officials. Mr. Young: Absolutely. Mr. Ingram: We have to trust them and we cannot we cannot micro manage their process. They are our elected officials. And if it’s a situation where if we don’t trust then we shouldn’t even be sitting here we should not have accepted the appointment to come on this board. Mr. Elam: If we meet with Finance Tuesday, that’s three days, business days, would it be okay if we take the vote Tuesday? Mr. Schroer: Practically it won’t stop our construction. My concern is if you meet Tuesday that just keeps going and going. Mr. Elam: No, no --- Mr. Ingram: Somewhere we have to (inaudible). Mr. Elam: No, no I think that Tuesday we could say that we are going to take a vote. You will know one way or the other. I think we’ll all have time to be prepared for that vote with the consultation with the Commission. And because of this meeting we’re probably going get more information than we ever wanted. Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. If you can get a resolution on Tuesday --- Mr. Elam: That would be my suggestion. Mr. Ingram: One of the things I think is going to be important in the discussion is to bring to us some actual numbers as to what the cost will be if we don’t do it. You know they have to be predicted but I think that to me to me is one of the most important things that I’m 16 considering whether my support goes one way or the other. I think it’s important to, I don’t think any Commissioner that sits on the commission wants the taxpayers of this city to lose one dollar because we didn’t do something. But at the same time they want us to be prudent in our decision making process. I understand that (unintelligible). If you could make sure that that’s part of what you bring what it would cost us if we don’t do it. I think that’s very, very important. I think I concur with that if we can do it Tuesday and it works within the time limits as to a public meeting, and I think it does. Mr. Owens: I’m available. I’ll make myself available, sir. Mr. Elam: I’m available at one o’clock. Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, motion to table. Mr. Jones: I second. Mr. Ingram: Okay, it’s been motioned and seconded that we table the vote until, I guess, Tuesday. Mr. Young: Until such time as it’s pulled off the table. Mr. Ingram: Any discussion? All those in favor vote aye. Opposers nay motion carries. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding that you’re calling for a meeting next Tuesday? Mr. Ingram: Tuesday. What we need we probably need to caucus with the Commissioners to see, to make sure --- Mr. Plunkett: It will be immediately following, I mean, fifteen minutes after the workshop. Mr. Ingram: Any other business to come before the URA? Mr. Young: No, I think Larry ought to bring one of his snakes with him to the next meeting. Mr. Ingram: Meeting adjourned. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Nancy W. Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission 17 CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Urban Redevelopment Agency Meeting held on March 14, 2014. _________________________ Clerk of Commission 18