Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRegular Commission Meeting May 6, 2014 REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER MAY 6, 2014 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., May 6, 2014, the Hon. Corey Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Mason, D. Smith, Williams, Fennoy, Jackson, Davis and G. Smith, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Absent: Hon. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. Mayor Pro Tem Johnson called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Reverend Dr. Jim Higgins, Pastor, Aldersgate United Methodist Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of American was recited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Pastor, we have something here for you today. Office of the Mayor. By these present let it be known that Rev. Dr. Jim Higgins, Pastor, Aldersgate United Methodist Church is Chaplain of the Day for his civic and spiritual guidance demonstrated throughout the community serves as an example for all of the faith community. Given unto my ththth hand this 6 Day of May, May 20 2014, sorry May 6 2014. Ready to get it over with, that’s right. Thank you, Reverend. (APPLAUSE). Okay, Madam Clerk, we can go on to the recognition portion of the agenda. The Clerk: RECOGNITION(S) Employee of the Month A. Ms. Bonnie Whitehead, Coroner Assistant, Richmond County Coroner’s Office May 2104 Employee of the Month. The Clerk: And I’ll read the accolade from the Employee Recognition Committee. The Employee Recognition Committee has selected Bonnie Whitehead as the May 2014 Employee of the Month for Augusta Georgia. Ms. Whitehead is a Coroner Assistant for the Coroner’s Office where she has been employed since August of 2008. She was nominated by Coroner Mark Bowen. One of the many responsibilities of Bonnie Whitehead’s position is to daily interact with grieving families who have lost loved ones due to accidental or violent means. Bonnie has expressed a sincere desire to comfort and help these families during their time of loss. As a result the Coroner’s Office has received numerous compliments on how Ms. Whitehead handles herself while dealing with these families. She frequently has to return to their survivors the personal property that belonged to the deceased which can be quite an emotional time. Bonnie makes it a practice to unselfishly spend as much time as needed with these families. Her thoughtfulness and commitment is an excellent example of the customer service Augusta Georgia strives to provide to all of its citizens. The Employee Recognition Committee felt that 1 based on this nomination and Ms. Whitehead’s dedicated service we would appreciate you joining us in recognizing her as the May 2014 Employee of the Month. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And we have another token from the Office of the Mayor. Dear Ms. Whitehead. On behalf of the City of Augusta it’s with great pleasure that I congratulate you for being recognized as the Employee of the Month for May 2014. Your contribution to your organization Augusta Richmond County Government and the citizens of Augusta has earned you this recognition. I appreciate your willingness to go above and beyond the call of duty and your outstanding work ethic. You are truly and asset to the Coroner’s Office and the citizens of Augusta, Georgia. Please accept this personal congratulations on behalf of the Mayor’s office. You are truly deserving of it. Sincerely yours, Deke Copenhaver, Mayor. (APPLAUSE) Would you like to say anything? Ms. Whitehead: I just love what I do and everything that we said. I love working in the office with people and a kind of caretaker that’s what I am and I enjoy it thank Mark (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, congratulations again and we know that the work ethic don’t go unnoticed and that’s a great thing. And we’re just blessed and fortunate to have someone like you there. And, Mark, thank you y’all for the job you’re all doing as well. And again, congratulations. Ms. Whitehead: Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Okay, Madam Clerk we had an item that was actually supposed to be added to this agenda on behalf of the local delegation. And they wanted to be added to the five minute portion of this agenda. And of course we will need unanimous consent to do so. So I just want to see do we have unanimous consent to add this local delegation. They want to actually bring information about South Augusta Initiative and I just want to know if we’ve got unanimous to do so. Okay. All right, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’ll go ahead proceed with them first. We do have a representative here from the local delegation. ADDENDUM 42. Rep. Ernest Smith RE: Resolution of support the South Augusta Strategic Initiative. Mr. Smith: Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and all of the Commissioners, Representative Ernie Smith District 125 from Hephzibah down to the river and a member of the local legislative delegation. During this past session the local legislative delegation unanimously drafted a resolution that focused solely on South Augusta growing a tax base for Augusta through the conduit of South Augusta that has not been developed to the point where we really and truly need to develop South Augusta. And so what we’re simply seeking is unanimous agreement from this body to create a South Augusta Strategic Initiative so that we can look to do 2 some things that if or have not been done. In light of where we’re going Augusta is in a significant growth phase now and the opportunities are many and we’d like to be able to capture as many of these opportunities as we possibly can not only from retail but hoteliers but the making the opportunities from major corporations to bring their headquarters to South Augusta. We’d like to see some ten or twelve story high rises in South Augusta as well which would really and truly enrich the tax base for Augusta Richmond County. We’re seeking the consent and agreement of this body because we’re not looking for funds to do this we’re just looking for willing hearts and hope to have a willingness to work for the greater good of all Augusta through the conduit that we call South Augusta. So that’s what we’re seeking to get from this body since because we were all unanimous in our agreement in the resolution that we all signed during the Special Legislative Session. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Representative Smith. I think it’s a great opportunity here. I know that we do have the of course the governing authority. Of course you all are very familiar we him working with us well. But I think this will actually provide an opportunity to strategically deal with the just the South Augusta portion of this and focus on redeveloping and the development industry as well as retail for the South Augusta area, correct? Mr. Smith: Exactly. As you know we’re not talking about another Development Authority. I think that term has pretty much been, it’s been used enough and we’re looking to again start this South Augusta Strategic Initiative because as you know the harbor in Savannah is being dredged which we have our railway stubs in South Augusta. Our airport is in South Augusta. Much of the undeveloped region that we have for Augusta undeveloped is in South Augusta. So a similar strategic focus exclusively on South Augusta would really and truly help Augusta to move in a direction that we hadn’t done. And it’s no redundancy with the overall Augusta Richmond County Development Authority because their mission is unique in its own right. The Downtown Development Authority’s mission is unique in its own right but this focus will be exclusively on South Augusta. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Representative Smith, first of all let me say thank you for coming forward and bringing this idea to the forefront of this proposal. The good thing that I’m hearing is that there’s no funds associated with it at this particular point. But the other piece of it and more importantly is that that’s an area that must be looked at more sooner rather than later. And I’m glad to know that you’re coming forward at this particular time. With the Cyber Command coming and we know that Columbia County as well as Southwest Augusta and South Augusta is going to bear a big brunt of that growth that’s going to happen there so I firmly believe that it’s better for us to plan for our growth versus having our growth planned for us haphazardly and then we get what we get. So I’m certainly in favor of this initiative. I don’t think we can ever have enough eyes or enough folks looking at what we can to do better our community especially in an area where 70% of the land could be developed on resides in the South Augusta area and half the citizens live in South Augusta. So, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m certainly in favor of this initiative and give my 100% support for it. 3 Mr. Mayor: All right, thank you. Commissioner Guilfoyle and then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Smith, thank you for coming before us (unintelligible). It’s great news what this delegation is actually trying to do. If there’s anything as an individual as I am from South Richmond County I’d be happy to do my part. Mr. Smith: Well, yes, sir, you’ll be getting a call as well. As a matter of fact I wanted everyone to be assured that we will be calling you. We try to communicate with everyone but going forward we really need the input of everyone because we want to do some things that have not been done so that we can all feel good about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. And I think that everyone would kind of agree that we can do this thing and do it in a really unique way. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Absolutely. Commissioner Guilfoyle, are you finished? Mr. Guilfoyle: No, sir. Mr. Smith, it probably would be a great idea if we reach out to the Mayor of Blythe, the Mayor of Hephzibah to get them involved because they are a part of South Richmond County. Mr. Smith: Absolutely. Mr. Guilfoyle: And I can set that meeting up if you so desire. Mr. Smith: Thank you, thank you. We would love to do that but I wanted to get with this body first because this is the anchor. In order to get the anchor in line and in tune and get the anchor energized so that we can get some things that Augusta really and truly would be happy about. It’s rising tide to raise all votes without a doubt. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s right. Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Representative Smith, I’m excited about the initiative. South Augusta has been overlooked for a long, long time. And as you indicated if there is a potential for Augusta to thrive and live up to its potential. I’m really glad and I hope this is the beginning of a better relationship between this governing body and the delegation because we haven’t had that since I’ve been on the Commission and it’s been to our detriment that we have not had it. So I hope this is the beginning of good things to come because all of us working together towards the collective effort we can do good things. So when each one of us is going in a different direction we really ought (unintelligible). So I want to thank you and the delegation and of course offer my support in any way I can. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Absolutely. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem and to the representative. I think everybody’s excited and all this sounds good but my question would be how would it be set up so like Mr. Lockett just said it won’t be an initiative going off on its own or different from what we’re trying 4 to do together. So I guess my question is with the blessing that comes from this board how would it be set up to where we’ll all know that that rising tide you talked about we’ll pull our boats and some of them will be tied to the dock. So I mean I guess it’s in the preliminary stages now or have y’all got to that point where we know how this is going to be directed? And you know I guess the bottom line is how’s it going to work? I mean have you got those things in place yet or not? Mr. Smith: I think that’s a fair question, that’s a fair question and the answer to the first piece is no we’ve not codified any of that but what I will tell you is from the planning perspective what we’re going to look at doing is identifying five identical objects that we can really look to benchmark and develop and make happen that are not already occurring. And so what we’ll do is seek to get a meeting after this time so we all sit down and kind of lay out the framework so that you can see where it’s going so we can nip and tuck and cut and paste whatever needs to be done so that that piece that comes out is something that everyone can feel really, really good about. Mr. Williams: That’s all I have, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Mason, you had another question? Mr. Mason: Yes, I just wanted some clarity. I want to make sure is there a specific request from this body here in terms of some letter of support? I mean what is it --- Mr. Smith: At this juncture --- Mr. Mason: --- get us up here so I’m not north and south and then, you know, we don’t know. So what is it that you --- Mr. Smith: At this juncture we’re just simply seeking unanimous agreement that this is something good that Augusta really and truly could benefit from to develop our tax base to a much more meaningful development level. And also that going forward we’ll sit down and craft a unique strategy that everyone can feel good about. Mr. Mason: Okay, well as you well know, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’ll finish here to get some sort of official unanimous agreement a motion must come out of this to some degree or another unless you’re just going to do some sort of hand poll. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, I was going to suggest that if we can get a motion to draft a resolution in support. I think that would be amenable to this a (unintelligible) to this. Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is that what you were going to say, Donnie? Mr. D. Smith: Yes, sir, that’s correct. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I want to make a motion we pass a resolution supporting the delegation’s efforts to grow South Augusta. 5 Mr. Mason: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? Okay, hearing none vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Smith: Thank you all so much. And we will definitely be getting in contact with all of you so that we can in turn do what Augusta really and truly deserves --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Absolutely. Mr. Smith: --- work in a unanimous fashion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you so much. Thank you Representative Smith. Okay, Madam Clerk, we’ll move on to --- The Clerk: Can I publish this vote? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. The Clerk: Mr. Lockett, are you voting? Mr. Lockett: I don’t know because he took my motion. Motion Passes 10-0. The Clerk: DELEGATIONS B. Mr. Al M. Gray, President Cost Recovery Works, Inc. regarding Augusta’s contracts under SPLOST VII. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, you’ve got the floor. State your name and address for the record and, you know, five minutes. Mr. Gray: I’m Al Gray, 2573 Salem Church Road in Lincolnton, Georgia. And, folks, this is a prop I took, Commissioner Smith’s as probably seen it. It’s a bucket with Augusta SPLOST, it’s got holes in it, a lot of holes in it. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson and members of the Commission, for allowing me to speak today. This holey bucket made up as a prop for one of your TEE SPLOST meetings, SPLOST meetings now I’m getting confused is stunningly perfect as a depiction of Augusta’s Sales Tax Program. Properly designed, your liquidity slowly meters out the one hole out in the bottom. But the way this one is liquidity 6 spurts out all over the place leaving the tree to whither. Augusta’s been to the well too often with a bucket like this and this might be the final trip before the well runs dry. We have a $12 million dollar parking deck funded with sales tax built on land you did not own. That’s a pretty big hole. We have $2 million dollars of sales tax funded kitchen equipment you were never supposed to pay for in exchange for land that was supposed to be donated. That’s a doubly big hole. When those sales taxes build a facility that drain the general fund to the tune of $200 thousand to $250 thousand dollars a year for things to pay for such things as staff that were free under another agreement, that hole becomes a gaping (unintelligible). When you used sales taxes to fund the Municipal Building and don’t use the right contracting methods $20 million dollars to $40 million which I believe it’s done all the way to $65 million. When you don’t recapture what contractors owe you, you lose $750,000 dollars on your sewer treatment plant contact, close to $150,000 dollars on a substation building, untold millions on the convention center. These are the big holes. The money lost from the myriad small ones make it greater because Augusta doesn’t even have a sales tax program control manual built into the sales tax management contract. The liquidity coming in from SPLOST has been shouted to the heavens in timely initiatives designed to promote the SPLOST vote isn’t there and it won’t be there. For instance past SPLOSTs make extremes of interest income that have been evaporated and further diminished by the use of high cost or inefficient banks as Columbia County maybe learned today. People get excited about lining up with the holes in your new SPLOST II. The Marriott folks want a million dollar sky walk we see. Before giving them the money which a former commission, commission approved wouldn’t it be prudent to see if they’re offsetting charges from Augusta back to the Marriott? The Augusta citizens who I was helping two years ago looked into several areas potentially offsetting that one million dollars but were stonewalled by the former Administrator. Most of those centered on the conference center contract that was extended. The biggest hole of them all is the chasm where the troops should be. When the “news media” is so imbedded in the subject of a story as the Chronicle was with the convention center management even their closest allies lose. Poor Rick Allen, the TEE Center contractor, believed what he read in the daily newspaper and became so unwitting there were loose ends that he accepted $7,000 dollars in campaign donations from the Marriott management. I somehow think that’s going to come back to haunt him. I kind of miss that the Mayor wasn’t here today because he has issued several challenges to me regarding my credentials. I don’t have any credentials. I’ve got your records and his records which I try to bring to you to make points. And it’s been very gratifying to see the Commissioners have moved to meet me part way or the citizens actually part way into making some reforms. So it’s been a very gratifying process over the last 30 months. But I just feel like with a news media that’s this biased maybe I should be asking them their credentials instead of being, my credentials being put forth as he put it for their examination. Augusta has another year to take the time to fix all the holes in SPLOST while the city and region rests with the burgeoning TSPLOST TIA 2010 debacle which centers in Augusta too. I have to say this. I’ve come before you as very sinful man, I have no hope of salvation except for the books that are found in the books of Romans and Athenians. And while we’re talking about sin it looks like to me what we’re doing here will be if this SPLOST is passed you’ll be covering up the sins of the past with sins of the future. Take the time, fix the holes, there may not be many buckets left in your pot of money. 7 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Mr. Gray, I think we just exceeded the five minute mark now. Thank you for your presentation. Do we have any questions on the floor? Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Gray. You said a mouthful there. What do you think with the things as we as a Commission or even as individual commissioners could’ve done differently to control these SPLOST projects that you have referenced even besides the Convention Center and the parking deck? Mr. Gray: Well, I thought so when the $400,000 dollar change order for the HVAC at the Conference Center and TEE Center came up Commissioner Smith then the HVAC contractor, you know, would’ve been very helpful if he had weighed in and I think it still would be because we have some still some questions involving that particular subject. And beyond that, you know, beyond that another thing I would add is that when you have Heery, when Heery came forth with their proposal they extended for a sales tax management I think it would’ve been very nice at that time to ask them about their procedures manual. We’ve had a project in Lincoln County where there was a bad bond and that, you know, about $5 million dollars just went away for the residents and owners of residential property up there. And I don’t know that there’s even a procedure in Augusta’s process that checks for those sorts of things. But there’s very, very big money involved in capital projects and sales tax projects that I think you might be missing. Mr. Mason: Just for clarity you’re referencing which Smith. Mr. Gray: Mr. Grady Smith, Mr. Grady Smith that is the mechanical contractor that specializes in heating and air. Mr. Mason: Okay. Well, what would be some examples of timely Augusta initiatives to promote SPLOST to the public and why is there a history of failure of doing so because that’s one of my pet peeves as far as letting the public being a part of this process. Mr. Gray: Well, I would give as a prime example the Villages at Riverwatch tax allocation district and especially the development agreement with COSTCO. That particular agreement Augusta agreed to pay back $10 million dollars over some years and up to 7% interest. And the tax increments were supposed to be in range of $750,000 dollars a year. In the first year they were, you know only 40% of that up slightly since then but I don’t think you’re anywhere close enough to pay off 7% interest. Now whether the 7% interest exists or not has been subject to debate internally and this is not something I brought forth to the public before but that entire agreement has got a lot of problems with it because there doesn’t seem to be any willingness to reach out to the developer and ask them confirmation of what is owed on that because the way the agreement reads he could very well be recording those payments of tax increments as interest while Augusta is treating it as principal. And I think it behooves Augusta to get to the bottom of that one because that thing could rock along and then and then maybe fifteen years down the road you could end up paying twelve or thirteen million dollars to somebody and not know it. 8 Mr. Mason: That’s probably why they pulled for the incentive package, just curious. Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Gray, thanks again. I really appreciate all the efforts you’ve contributed over the years since I’ve been on this commission. It’s so unfortunate that we don’t have someone on our payroll with your qualifications that will attempt to look out for us as you do. Some of us have tried to tell others that the Special Local Option Sales Tax in Augusta Richmond County aren’t working the way it’s supposed to work to include the TSPLOST and to include the SPLOST VII Referendum. I want go any further on that but you mentioned something about $2 million dollars for kitchen equipment. Now was this, who was supposed to pay for that? Mr. Gray: Well, when the term sheet first came out there were several, that was kind of a one thing process. The term sheet came out, it even came out in the Augusta paper that, you know, that there was going to be no cost to Augusta. And one of the things that wasn’t supposed to be in an Augusta costs was kitchen equipment and it said it repeatedly in there. And I don’t know if you recall this or now but Ms. Davis I believe the open records request, Georgia Open Records Request and the Legal Department couldn’t find anywhere. We cited a number of places which said specifically Augusta was not responsible for kitchen equipment. And Legal couldn’t find it, your Legal Department couldn’t find it but somehow the general contractor W.R. Allen had purchased that equipment and there was a lot of controversy because of the inconsistencies in their billing about where that equipment was because they were showing it as in place and the kitchen wasn’t even there yet. So we took a really close look at that and it turns out that the process wasn’t followed in that case because you have an architect in that case it was TVS who’s your architect. The process is that all change orders go through the architect. The architect wasn’t involved in the change order when they bought that kitchen equipment. They even, because he was, the statement, I’ve got the paperwork here somewhere that says that the Change Order 1 the kitchen equipment change order was executed between the general contractor and the city management without our involvement. So they were kind of objecting to that whole process. So then the kitchen equipment was bought and then in the process of trying, Mayor Pro Tem Johnson was involved in trying to settle all these issues we ended up, well, not we but the city ended up in a position where they had to trade that $2 million dollars of kitchen equipment for a piece of land that the Marriott owned that’s under the TEE Center, I mean the TEE Center was built over this piece of property. I mean it was up and built. So Augusta had built this building across this piece of property which you didn’t have any right to. So in order to straighten all that out I guess in negotiating the matter the kitchen equipment got put into the management so it is Augusta’s responsibility. And what Augusta got in return for it was that lot, that lot under the Marriott. Now if you base the value of that lot on the corner lot next to it which was the Harrison Building that was 1.5 million an acre. This lot was .23 an acre so it’s $345,000 dollars. So basically you switched $2 million dollars of kitchen equipment for a $345,000 dollar lot plus other things like (unintelligible). 9 Mr. Lockett: Mr. Gray, is there any way that this government, this governing body can actually find out what is going on with these SPLOST monies other than employing a forensic auditor? Mr. Gray: I don’t think a forensic auditor is necessarily needed. In the case of these agreements where you’ve got an overlap between the existing conference center agreement that was supposed to be carried forth fifty years and the TEE Center that you’ve got it seems to be some moving parts and parts that got bought that we subject to one that weren’t included in the other and trying to divide all that out it’s just going to need to really have an open book audit of both the Conference Center and the TEE Center or Convention Center rather agreement. The problem is under the Conference Center agreement I understand the (unintelligible) don’t have the right to audit, I mean (unintelligible) financial space. But how do you pay you can have personnel that are doing work in both areas. Without that I don’t know. Mr. Lockett: In other words we’ve gotten ourselves in a precarious position. Mr. Gray: Well not, the biggest thing that’s missing is the determination not just a determination not to sweep this under the rug. Nelson Mandela in South Africa had in I guess and Mr. Tutu had a wonderful concept. They called it a truth commission. So after something went wrong like this in the community you sat down and you talked it over and you worked it out. And that’s a wonderful facility over there on Reynolds Street. There’s a lot for people to be proud of. I don’t want to diminish that but there are also a lot of things out there that went on that shouldn’t have and there’s a lot of money involved. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Gray, from my perspective I really applaud you for efforts and keep up the good work. Mr. Gray: Thank you, sir. I appreciate the compliment. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Williams: Mr. Gray, you have spoken very well about a lot of things that I’ve been asking the Commission to do and that’s talk about it let’s have a conversation and they think there’s too much conversation and not enough information. Then that would be a lack of information because we have not had those conversations. I’m not going to go back through all the stuff you mentioned because I know a lot of it is true. I can attest to it. I was here for some of that and some of it I was not. But I want to go the part about the parking deck that the city paid for that’s built on somebody else’s property and they came back last week and wanted us to build a skywalk across the street. And I got no problem building a skywalk but my problem is we’re supposed to have a clear title on the land if we build a skywalk. Now we talked about a skywalk last week but no one mentioned about the clear title that the way I understand is $7 million dollars and we still don’t own the property. So it is a mess. It’s a lot of stuff. I don’t know when we’ll ever get out of it or get straight with it I don’t know. But I do know like you talked about, Nelson Mandela, but you got to talk about these issues and you can’t have employees talking about issues that the Commission don’t talk about and we don’t know. We 10 have to we’re the ones that make the votes, no employees make that vote. I don’t care how bright those employees are or what you want to say about them but the buck stops with us but we don’t want to discuss, we don’t want to interact with each other and talk about those issues we’re simply going to move it forward and let it move down but can you elaborate a little bit on that? Mr. Gray: Well I, --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on one second. I want to try to keep it to the SPLOST VII that’s what the item’s about. We can probably talk about that at another, if there’s anything pertaining to the actual item let’s kind of keep it that way. Mr. Williams: Okay, I can go back, I can go back. I’m not opposed to SPLOST VII so that’s even better. I know about the deal with the (unintelligible) let’s agree to see if (unintelligible). But let’s talk about SPLOST VII, Mr. Gray. Mr. Gray: Well, SPLOST VII there was a SPLOST VI money you’re talking about I think. Mr. Williams: Okay, let’s go to seven I want to follow the Mayor Pro Tem, I want to do this thing right. I want to talk about the fact that we never had a meeting, and I want your input. We never had a meeting among ourselves. In fact I don’t think no four Commissioners ever been in any position to come to present what they wanted. And the last presenter came on Thursday. I think maybe two Commissioners was here and I’m being generous in giving them one but I’m going to say two Commissioners were here that day. And the next day we called a Special Called Meeting to approve it. So give me your feedback on this SPLOST VII initiative that we’re trying to get passed and rushed to push it down these people’s throats. Mr. Gray: Well, you crossed over into an area that’s close to my heart. In Columbia County they really have gone through a lot of meetings and (unintelligible) and things like that to prioritize the sales tax and we get a lot of input. I haven’t seen where that’s happened a lot here. And then also the thing I mentioned about not having procedures in place. The biggest thing that you’re talking about though is the, I guess, the Charter of this body and this government that things come to the floor and they can just come, I’ve seen things come out of nowhere. And you just have a few votes and just a few annoying people be here but don’t have to go through a committee and really nothing should come to this floor or this body without going through committee and being vetted very thoroughly first. And I’ve seen that happen a number of times since I’ve been coming down here. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Al, thank you for coming and doing your presentation. The question I was going to ask you about is there any other land between the Convention Center and the Conference Center. You had already answered that when you were speaking with Mr. Lockett. You know the problem that I see on this floor, this process is we’re 11 having to do things that we shouldn’t do where it’s beyond our capabilities. For instance the parking deck, the conference center, this building right here. We are moving forward on the contract specialist that would resolve a lot of the issues that, as a matter of fact, if we had contract specialist back six, seven years ago we wouldn’t be having this discussion now. You know, I’ll have to give it to the employees they’re doing the best they can with what they have to work with. I’m not going to (unintelligible) but a lot of this stuff was done one on one and then it was presented to this body. This body was warned about you had said it went from $20 million dollars, $40 million dollars. You mentioned the word sixty-five, the number $65 million dollars. Where did that come from? Mr. Gray: Well, when you start on an old building and you don’t have a defined scope of work what you end up with is risk based premiums built into all your costs and you keep getting change orders because there’s no definitive scope of work to know exactly what you’re to going you run into. Then you run into all kinds of things there are not any drawings anywhere and it just the projects like that just tend to be disastrous. I mean you’re in midstream with this one so there is no telling where you might end up with. Mr. Guilfoyle: I understand. The problem and I appreciate you doing pro bono you and Brad working with Corey Johnson, Joe Jackson, Joe Bowles and myself on the TEE Center contract. That was informative and it actually saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands millions of dollars and I thank you for that. This body here was pre-warned about spending money we don’t have when it came to this building when we was, it was relying on the next SPLOST package where the rest of the money was coming from. You know this body is just as guilty as anyone else to me because we were the ones voting for it. And a lot of things, anything that happens in this government happens to this body. Mr. Gray: Well, the thing that occurs to me is that by going forward with the SPLOST the thing that really bothers me about it is that this Municipal Building project and the TEE Center project all ended up being a blend of different funding sources cobbled together. And I just don’t know how you’ll ever get through with it if you keep cobbling together these deals with, you know, pulling money from here to there. I mean it’s not consistent. Mr. Guilfoyle: Right underneath the SPLOST VI it’s designated where the money is to be programmed. You know you could get a (unintelligible) you have a building project and that building fell should you use it towards another building but you can’t use towards the (unintelligible) project. No different than the other funding for like the Sheriff’s Department vehicles and so on. So you have to spend alike and it has to be voted through this body again for it to be designated to that area. Mr. Gray: Well, I’m seeing some indications on the TSPLOST, you know, even if I don’t come back before you, there are sister counties that are in this regional government are going to have some severe problems. DOT did not give any thought into how they’re going to handle cost overruns. You go on to their site the reporting of numbers is inaccurate. Mr. Guilfoyle: Al, thank you for (unintelligible). 12 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Mr. Gray, the $65 million dollars that you spoke of that was a figure you just made up, isn’t it? Mr. Gray: Out of experience and a lot of years of --- Mr. D. Smith: But my question is you made it up. Mr. Gray: Yes. Mr. D. Smith: Okay. So there’s a good bit of your stuff that I think you just make up and that’s exactly the point. This body is elected to do the business of the government and we take the information that we get and make the best decisions we can and then we have to sit here and live with them. And we have to take criticism from people that portray themselves as a professional without any credentials. So I’m offended by that $65 million dollar remark that you tried to mislead the people in this room because that has never been a figure that this board agreed on about this building --- Mr. Gray: You didn’t agree to the $40 million either, did you? Mr. D. Smith: The scope of the work --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on, hold on. Mr. D. Smith: We changed the scope of this project and that’s how it got to $40 million dollars. But I just am offended that you would use fictitious information to try to mislead the people in this room to say this is going to cost $65 million dollars. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Smith: Sir, --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on. Commissioner Lockett and then we’re going to have to move on. We’ve got other business that we need to take care of today. Mr. Lockett: I’m offended by the comments of my colleague but we have a guest here that is attempting to serve the public. And I think what he indicated was there isn’t a firm $65 million dollar figure but based on his experience it makes sense to me and I’m not in the contracting business and I’m not an engineer. If you go into a building such as this you can have projected costs but then all of sudden you tear out a wall or you tear out a floor and then all of a sudden it skyrockets. So what he said based on past experience it could conceivably cost us $65 million dollars. Maybe it won’t, I hope it won’t but I don’t think he said it’s definitely going to cost us $65 million dollars. And we always talk about the way we treat people. Please respect. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 13 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you, Mr. Gray, for your comments here today. And we must move on. I ask, we all know this is not an easy job it’s not an easy task for anybody. Of course we do rely on employees who bring back information I know experts that we do hire and it’s always going to be some loop holes in there. It’s never going to be perfect you know but we do the very best we can with what we do have. We do thank you, Al Gray, for your participation in the past and definitely thank you for coming before us today. Madam Clerk, we can move on with Item C on the delegation part of the agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir. DELEGATIONS C. Dr. Saline Smith, Georgia Regent University, (GRU) regarding the Healthy Augusta Initiative-Breath Easy. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Cory Johnson) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you for being here today, Ms. Smith. I need you to state your name and address for the record please, ma’am, and then you can proceed forward. Dr. Smith: Saline Smith 4734 (unintelligible) Augusta, Georgia. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. Dr. Smith: Thank you so much for having me, Pro Tem Mayor Corey Johnson. I appreciate this opportunity to chat with you just a bit. My name is Saline Smith and I am a researcher, I’m a medical researcher. But more importantly I facilitate, I lead 25 community organizations here in Augusta that are joining forces with the Breath Easy Initiative to chat with you just a bit about the legislature that’s before you. So there are 25 organizations total that are a part of this. And you know many of these organizations such as the YMCA, the Richmond County School Board. One of the reasons I was asked to come was to make sure that you guys, you ladies and gentlemen, understood that this is a local issue. A lot of what has been said around this the model ordinance prohibiting smoking in all work places and public places has been around the fact that it was not a local issue. And so I’m a witness, I’m a seven month resident of the area and I am concerned about smoking in all places, in all public places. I can easily begin my appeal by giving you a bunch of health statistics because that’s what I do for a living and so I’ll throw just a few of them out at you. There are about 4,000 chemicals contained in cigarette smoke. And you’re in a confined space for just a few hours even the healthiest lungs, even the lungs of an unborn child are exposed to these chemicals. And they know without a doubt, I told you I’m a scientist and I’ve been at this for 35 years and I will tell you that cigarette smoking according to the Surgeon General of the United States and according to Saline Smith it does cause cancer. It can cause cancer not only in the smoker but in the person that’s breathing in the smoking. I could keep going and everything, I’d like to tell people about all these facts but sometimes it doesn’t exactly move them. Sometimes it takes seeing a victim of second hand smoke, an elderly person with COPD, maybe a person that has not smoked that has developed lung cancer. If I had that person before you I think it might be a little bit more convincing but I don’t have that person so I have a very simple appeal. I think a part of what you’ve heard from our local businesses and I do appreciate and understand the perspective of business owners. I understand their rights. I also understand that with rights come responsibilities and as a public 14 health professional, as a member elected member of the county commission you also have responsibilities and we share the responsibility protecting the health of the community. So I want to tell you that as a part of the Breath Easy Initiative we think that passing this ordinance has the potential to boost local businesses, we’ve seen that. I took a delegation when I first got here in October over to Savannah and we talked not only with the Breath Easy Initiative folks over there and hope that we’re part of Healthy Savannah we also talked with business owners. And some of them told us we really expected that this would impact our business negatively and to our pleasant surprise it did not. We actually were able to bring in more, businesses were bringing in more customers as a result of having a smoke free environment. So we believe that passing this ordinance will actually boost businesses. So a simple appeal we just ask you to keep in mind the health of your constituents as you make your decision around this ordinance. It’s a simple appeal not a lot of statistics, not a lot of fanfare just a simple appeal that we ask customers at bars and other places where smoking is currently around to simply step out of that environment for just a minute to have their cigarette. This is not a ban on individual freedoms and individual rights to smoke anymore than it is punishment for folks who smoke it’s just a matter of stepping aside, breathing easy and allowing others to breathe easy as well. Thank you, I appreciate your time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, thank you for that presentation, Ms. Smith. I know you and I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago. Welcome to Augusta, I know that you’re very, very educated in your field and that’s why you were sought after. And I just want people to know that this is not some foreign course or some outside agency coming in but this is a concern of the local community. But Healthy Augusta is bigger than just you know the smoking of course issue it’s bigger than that it’s more about a holistic approach, you know, from the low end of the carbon footprint, if you will, from manufacturing from automobiles, you know, things of that nature. Because of course through studies of course the southeast region is one of the most unhealthiest regions throughout the country. And that as a part to deal with of course things such as, you know, second hand smoke and carbon footprint that we do have here and not choosing to park automobiles and take public transportation. Unfortunately we don’t have one that’s very adequate but that’s something that we’re working towards. Hopefully in the near future we’ll have something that people will be proud of. But at this moment if we have any questions on the floor. Commissioner Davis? Ms. Davis : Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem and thank you for being here speaking today. You know speaking with Ms. Anderson as well over the past months and I definitely agree that our smoking ordinance, the existing one that we have in Richmond County, definitely needs some work. It’s very small and it’s not very county wide as far as dealing with that issue. I’ve spoken with Chatham County, Clark County and Columbia County as well and I’ve gotten their ordinances so I want us to have more discussion for this as a Commission. I thought when this came up before last year it was kind of the ordinance was here and it was all or nothing ordinance so I’d like for this Commission to really do that and look at comparable ordinances and we could as our legal counsel to help out in that regard and then that way we could just see what we think as a Commission would be best for our county. But I definitely agree that we So I’d like to move it to need to broaden the smoking ordinance that we currently have. committee so that we can have further discussion as we allow further discussion amongst ourselves and also residents. So that’s my motion. 15 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Do we have a second? Mr. Grady Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Dr. Smith, welcome. I’m a firm supporter. My youngest son is also a researcher at Virginia Commonwealth University in this particular field so I’m forced to. I told the Mayor Pro Tem I said you bring this thing back before I want to be a co-sponsor because I have a way that I think I could convince the people this is the right thing to do. First of all no one loses business because of this. We are here with a medical complex, Georgia Regents University all these other hospitals and we’re not helping. Other cities have done this. Why can’t we do this? And, you know, we have prevention of the cruelty to animals but yet there’s still some of us riding around in automobiles and smoke with kids in them. Let me tell you even if you have all the windows down that is still dangerous and it’s detrimental to their health. We need to do it. If you walk out this building and the first thing that hits you is smoke, that’s not good for you. And when I was a man of the world I used to wonder how did my wife know that stopped by this nightclub before I went home and I didn’t smoke. I carried it home. You know and this is a bad, of course we’re going to get an outcry from a small segment of the people but they’ll get over it. I remember when they said you got to wear seatbelt to operate or ride in a vehicle. Well, I couldn’t do that but now I don’t even think about it. Dr. Smith: I remember that too. Mr. Lockett: Yeah and so it’s basically the same thing. We’ve got to come back with a tougher ordinance because a survey was done in Augusta Richmond County 80% people supports this, okay? But we’ve got a problem. The prison system has found that e-cigarettes, they can make a profit off of it and they get all these young people addicted to it. And when they get out if they ever get out we’re going to be confronted with that also. And lastly those cigarette butts that you see on the ground I think the Chronicle just showed a tree and a sewer the other day that stuff goes down into the drainage system it goes into the water and it contaminates it. So this is something that we need to do and we’re making Augusta an Age Friendly City and this is going to be a part of that. And I hope that my colleagues are going to give their support to this wholeheartedly. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Dr. Smith: One of the things I do want to tell you is that Healthy Augusta is very aware of the cigarette butts and we are going to address that issue. And so if you start to think well if you take it outside there’s going to be more butts we can lead the education in that direction to solve that problem also. So Healthy Augusta would love to partner with the Commission. So we don’t want to stop just with passing the legislature. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Absolutely. Commissioner Davis, you had a follow up? 16 Ms. Davis: Just a quick follow up to what Commissioner Lockett mentioned about cigarette butts. In Clark County they said they have receptacles that they put on their parking meters and their telephone poles. So I guess ya’ll are aware of that but that sounded like a culpable solution. Thank you. Dr. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Thank you. We have a motion and a second on the floor. Andrew, you do have a copy of that particular ordinance that was drafted correct? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay if you can, I don’t know if everyone up here has a copy of that but if you can get that to everyone and let’s take a look at it and that way we can look at the things in there that we can agree on and the things we can, you know, we may have issues with and talk about those things and then bring it back before a vote hopefully by the next meeting. But definitely by the committee for next week. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I apologize. What was the motion? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It was just to actually get Andrew to get the ordinance out to everybody and take a look at it. And then it’s going to go to committee of course but by committee we’ll have a copy of it and then of course those who have concerns with certain items on areas of the ordinance to address it at the committee meeting. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could I’d like to make a substitute motion --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Mr. Lockett: --- that the General Counsel get together whatever it is he has and let us have a work session on it and let us determine what we can support before it comes up before the full Commission. And this is something we need to take our time and do it right. This is not something we need to do within the next week or two. When it comes before this body again we hope it’s going to sail through 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right. Well, the maker of the motion said she don’t have a problem with amending her motion to reflect what you just said so --- Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- the seconder of the motion, are you good with it? Mr. G. Smith: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right so we’ll do a workshop. We’ll set that up. I guess Grady you are the Public Services Committee Chair --- 17 Mr. G. Smith: Right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- so you’ll kind of set up the workshop and we’ll have that dialogue at that time. We do have a motion and a second on the floor. With no further discussion vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, I guess we’ll move on to the consent --- The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- part of the agenda. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Our consent agenda consists of items 1-26. And under the Public Services portion of the agenda I’ll read the alcohol applications and if anyone has an objection would you please signify your objection by raising your hand. Item 2: Is to approve a request for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hanot, LLC DBA Raceway located at 3481 Wrightsboro Road. Item 3: Is to approve a request for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection Wheels located at 879 Broad Street. There will be Dance. The Clerk: Does anyone have any objections to either one of these alcohol petitions? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: None noted, Madam Clerk. The Clerk: Yes, sir, so our consent agenda is 1-26. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have any items to be added to the consent agenda? Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Any problem with items 39 and 40? Mr. Lockett: I’ve got a problem with number 39. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: How about 40? Mr. Lockett: I’ve got a problem with 40 too. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We don’t have consent for those two items. Okay. If I may, Madam Clerk, we can send 33 back to committee. The Clerk: Yes, sir. 18 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Williams had his hand up first, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. Williams: I’d like to add 27 to that list to be approved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To the consent? Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on one second, I’m sorry. Commissioner Donnie Smith then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. D. Smith: Number 29 since it didn’t have an opportunity to go through the Administrative Services committee I’d like for that to go back so we can have some work with that and the Airport Commission if Mr. Chairman would agree to that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. D. Smith: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if these haven’t been called I’d like to add number 28, number 35, number 41 to consent. And, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I believe that agenda item number 30 is going to have to be in Legal. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yeah, I think that item is one that we --- Mr. Williams: I don’t feel, if I can Mr. Mayor Pro Tem --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: --- thank you. Number 30 was is something we discussed. We talked about in Legal but we were supposed to have a meeting set up to talk about it. This is not a legal issue. I don’t understand why we can’t talk about it on the floor. I’ve been trying to get these two parties together for months now and have not been able to do that and that’s why it’s on the agenda to be talked about today. I really need to know where we are with that. I’m considering making a direction myself but that does not have to be sent back to Legal. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney? Mr. MacKenzie: I think what he’s describing would be something that was a policy matter then we should take it up in a normal court. 19 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So it can be held here? Mr. MacKenzie: Based on what he said it would be something that would involve a policy matter. If the discussion does mention something that would be legal you can address that when the item comes up. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So discuss the item in Legal? Mr. MacKenzie: No, I’m saying it would be best to just proceed with having it heard and if it gets to a subject matter that would be definitely discussed in Legal then you could address that in Legal. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, all right. Did you get that, Commissioner Lockett? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, on this particular agenda item if we’re going to discuss it, the General Counsel is going to have to leave his seat and let another attorney come in. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think what he’s saying is if it gets to a certain point in the discussion than that may have to happen but let’s see what happens and if it does excel over into that portion than we will make a decision at that point either to face him or hear it in Legal. Mr. Lockett: Well, the way I look at it, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, and I could be in error but it says discuss the EEO Director and General Counsel matter. Now this is a matter this is between the EEO Director and the General Counsel. Now how is the general counsel going to act as parliamentarian when we discuss him and somebody else? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, that’s what we need to find out and I guess once we get to the item we can make a decision to go into Legal at that time. Let’s see what his point is at that time and then we’ll make a decision based on that matter. Do we have any other items to be added to the consent? Mr. Williams: What items have we already added, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Items 27, 28, 35 and 41 added. Is that correct, Madam Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I could read number twenty-seven and see if there are any objectors to that one. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, please. The Clerk: It’s a request for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Pauley’s located at 952 Broad Street. Are there any objectors to that item? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: None noted, Madam Clerk. 20 The Clerk: Yes, sir, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right do we have any items to be pulled off the consent? Commissioner Williams then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Williams: I’d to get some clarity on number 5, 7, 10 and 11 I think, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Five, seven, ten and eleven? Mr. Williams: Right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you. I want to pull item 14 to get some clarity. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, so we’re 5, 7, 10, 11 and 14. Any others? All right, can we get a motion to approve --- Mr. Mason: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- the consent? Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. CONSENT AGENDA PLANNING 1. ZA-R-231 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta Georgia Planning Commission to approve a petition to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by adding a new section, Section 25-F, Professional Office Park District Classification, and for other purposes. (Approved by the Commission April 15, 2014 – second reading. PUBLIC SERVICES 2. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 14-14: A request by Ahmed Fouitah for a retail package Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Hanot, LLC DBA Raceway located at 3481 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 28, 2014) 3. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 14-16: A request by Anthony J. Evangelista for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Wheels located at 879 Broad St. There will be Dance. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 28, 2014) 4. Motion to approve a request by Lucretia Haynes for a Dance Hall License to be used in connection with Cheerz Lounge located at 2059 Gordon Hwy. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 28, 2014) PUBLIC SAFETY 21 6. Motion to approve purchase of ESRI Professional Services for the Information Technology Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) 8. Motion to approve a request from the 9-1-1 Center to add five additional Communication Officers in support of the new community policing “zone manager” concept for the Richmond County Sheriff. This increase also enhances safety as the number of additional call takers will reduce 911 call wait time. Funding in the amount of $60,000 - $75,000 for 2014 to come from Fund Balance if it cannot be handled through the current personnel budget. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) 9. Motion to approve the appointment 9-1-1 Center Director, Dominick Nutter, to the Region 6 EMS Council. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) 9. Motion to approve the appointment 9-1-1 Center Director, Dominick Nutter, to the Region 6 EMS Council. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) FINANCE 13. Motion to approve exercising additional year option in the city’s agreement with MAXIMUS to perform Augusta’s 2013 Indirect Cost Allocation Study. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2014) 15. Motion to deny a request from Mr. Virgil Wimbush regarding a waiver of taxes and penalties for the house located at 2035 Old Savannah Road. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2014) ENGINEERING SERVICES 16. Motion to accept Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Contract Item Agreement (CIA) with Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) concerning the costs of relocating water and sanitary sewer mains on GDOT Project Windsor Spring Road Phase 4 (P.I. No. 250610) and on GDOT Project Windsor Spring Road Phase 5 (P.I. No. 245320). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 17. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right-of- way, temporary construction easement and temporary driveway easement (Parcel 041-1- 061-00-0) 1402 Marks Church Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 18. Motion to approve award to Southeastern Tank in the amount of $46,400.00 for Bid Item 14-128, Morgan Road Ground Water Storage Tank Installation of Water Storage Tank Mixer. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 19. Motion to authorize the three year renewal of an agreement between the Georgia EPD and Augusta for regulatory testing of drinking water at a cost of $32,500 per year for the period covering July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2016. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 20. Motion to approve CSX613700 Railroad Crossing Agreement for the AUD #10153 Project – Gordon Highway 24” Water Main. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 21. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property for right of way and temporary easement, (Parcel 061-1-163-00-0) 701 Albany Avenue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 22 22. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property in fee simple and permanent construction and maintenance easement (Parcel 209-0-047-00-0) 4646 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 23. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire title of a portion of property in fee simple, permanent construction and maintenance easement, and one temporary driveway easement (Parcel 193-0-096-01-0) 4608 Windsor Spring Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) 24. Motion to approve $1,500,000 to continue the funding for the current On-Call Concrete Repair, Concrete Construction & Emergency Repair Contract with the Horizon Construction Company, Larry McCord LLC, and SITEC LLC. Funding is available in the Grading & Drainage, Suburban Forces, Resurfacing, and Sidewalks Cuts & Replacement accounts as requested by AED. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS 25. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular and Special Called commission meetings held April 15 and Special Called Meeting held April 28, 2014) PUBLIC SERVICES 27. New Application: A.N. 14-15: A request by Christopher King for an on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Pauley’s located at 952 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee April 28, 2014) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 28. Discuss as information amending the 2010-2014 Action Plans to reprogram $93,403.04 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. 35. Motion to approve the resolution supporting the Augusta Housing Authority and Walton Communities, LLC’s application for low income housing tax credits to be named th 15 Street Redevelopment-Phase 1. ADDENDUM 41. Motion to approve going into a legal meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. [Items 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15-26, 27, 28, 35, 41] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, let’s start off with the first pulled item which is item five. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 23 5. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete computer equipment (laptops, computers, servers, printers, scanner, switches, router, other telecommunication devices, and MDTs) as well as the purchase of any required computer software upgrades. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Yes, I guess my question for Ms. Allen. Have any of these computers already been replaced? Ms. Allen: There have been some replacements that have taken place with the Enterprise department because their funding is totally different than the general fund. But none of these have been replaced that’s on this list I’m sorry no they have not. Mr. Williams: So no computers have been moved as of yet not counting the Enterprise. I’m talking about within this --- Ms. Allen: Well, it’s one, I don’t want to say none have been replaced but one has you know you had a hard, you know, a failure of something we may have replaced it but none that the list of end of cycle equipment is what we’re actually looking at replacing right now. Mr. Williams: Okay, I’ve got some information and I asked you about this before private information public now about the computer Mr. Russell had in his office. Is that same computer still active and still there? Ms. Allen: We still have that particular computer, yes, sir. It has not been replaced. Mr. Williams: I didn’t ask you that. I said has it been moved from his office? Ms. Allen: Oh, yes, it has been removed from his office. We took it to our office --- Mr. Williams: Okay. Ms. Allen: --- for --- Mr. Williams: When did that happen? Ms. Allen: When the initial response was sent from the Commission for the hard drive information. Mr. Williams: Okay, and that computer is where now? Ms. Allen: It is in our, in our office, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay, now if it didn’t move from his office until after that is what you’re saying is that right because I’ve got some information. I just want to be sure that my information 24 is correct and that’s why I asking you this question. I don’t want to confuse things but it’s still in your possession. Ms. Allen: It’s still in our possession, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: It’s still in his office. Ms. Allen: Not in his office but it’s still in Information Technology’s possession, yes, sir. Mr. Williams: Okay, what is the MDT? Ms. Allen: An MDT is a Modem Data Terminal. That actually is the device that is in the Sheriff’s vehicles or other public safety vehicles, fire trucks. Mr. Williams: A lot of these Commissioners even Commissioner Davis knows what an MDT was but I had no idea. I thought it was a motion to disable the transmission or something. I had no idea what that was but (unintelligible). I take issue with that because of what happened with the last hard drive here and how we had not secured a method of making sure that this never happened to us again. And when you’re talking about replacing it and changing out it really kind of, you know, got my attention because of that. But now if you say that computer’s still there --- Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: --- and not been moved. I’m going to take your word for it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can I get a motion to approve? Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion to approve. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Ms. Allen, what happens with the equipment that we replace? Ms. Allen: What we’ve done and actually we had an agenda item that came I think of one of the previously commission meetings where we actually requested the Commission for us to utilize the computer that we’re actually taking out that can still be operable to a certain point. It may not be business operable but we can utilize it in some of our recreational facilities. And it was on the agenda and we have those designated to go to various recreational sites. We’ve met with the Recreation Department and partnered with them and we actually did an assessment of all their sites so I know one of them was saying he, that you questioned and we’re, that’s on our list for us to go ahead and do and set up a lab for them as well as several other sites. I think Mc 25 Bean is one we’re also designating some at Doughty Park so we’ve also we made sure that the equipment that can be utilized that’s going to be utilized in our recreational centers that we would actually support those items. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and my next question is what is the shelf life? I mean how long do we keep a computer before it becomes obsolete? Ms. Allen: Normally we keep a, the end of life cycle is normally anywhere between four to six years for a desktop, maybe a little longer for a laptop depending on what the specifications are with that piece of equipment, you know, additional RAM or anything added to the equipment when it was actually ordered. But we look at making it last anywhere between four to six years. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Jackson. Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Ms. Allen, are these the MDT’s the fire trucks and the police cars as well? Ms. Allen: Yes, sir. Mr. Jackson: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, item number seven. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY 7. Motion to approve Capacity Agreement for FY2014 for state inmates being housed in the Richmond County Correctional Institution. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams, I think this was your item. Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, thank you, sir. I just need to know what was the, I guess old capacity, what was different, what we’re changing down there. We promised that we wasn’t going to add any more people out on Phinizy Road. I know we went back and build it, there’s a lot of other stuff at your location. What was the old capacity or what’s different now? How much more are we doing? 26 Mr. Joseph: Yes, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission the Capacity Agreement is the same as this year. Capacity will stay at 215 so there’s no change. Mr. Williams: So we’re renewing (unintelligible) Mr. Joseph: Yes, sir, it’s an annual renewal. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can I ask one more question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right go ahead. Mr. Williams: The inmate labor that we use which I guess will be related to this capacity thing how much and I guess I went to the landfill on a rainy Saturday. I didn’t take the car but I took the trailer out there and I saw how the landscaping and the landfill looked. Then on Sunday I went to The Patch and walked around and I just seen what a tremendous difference. And with all of the staff that you’ve got up there, how is it that the landfill and that’s not a question to you I’m just interested myself. How can the landfill look like the Augusta National when you pass by there but The Patch don’t even look like The Patch? I mean it looks like, I mean, can you help me because you’ve got 215 you said? Mr. Joseph: Yes, sir, Commissioner I’ll try to answer that. What we do is we partnership with other departments so we partnership with Parks and Rec. We have eleven details, solid waste he has three so we don’t dictate to the departments where they use the inmates so it’s up to the other department heads and different departments to decide where they want to use those inmates. I can’t speak for Mark, I don’t know how he kept this place (inaudible). Mr. Williams: Nobody knows that’s what I’m trying to find out, nobody knows. But I’m going to find out I guarantee it. That’s my question with all of the staff or the people you got that can work and all of this stuff. When I saw the landfill and, you know, not inside the landfill itself. But when you go to the entrance you think you’re looking at Augusta National. I mean and I don’t want to question theses lawnmowers because he’s got to have a special lawnmower to cut this. I mean this ain’t no (unintelligible). That’s all, no changes --- Mr. Joseph: No, sir. No changes with the contract whatsoever. Mr. Williams: I make a motion to approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a proper motion and a second. Commissioner Donnie Smith. 27 Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Mr. Warden, you talked about having eleven crews that are supplied and those are spread out to Recreation and to clean ditches in support of Engineering. Mr. Joseph: Right, now let me correct you, Commissioner. The Parks and Recreation has eleven crew. Abie he has eight, the landfill has three, DOT has two, Utilities has one and Animal Services has one and the Board of Education has one. Mr. D. Smith: Now that’s details. How many people are on each detail? Mr. Joseph: They average from two to ten. Mr. D. Smith: From two to ten. Mr. Joseph: Yes, sir. Mr. D. Smith: So three details could be six people and four could be thirty people. Mr. Joseph: Right. Mr. D. Smith: I was just wondering, you know, because we have I think 65 parks that in Recreation that have to be maintained and cemeteries and then I think we’ve got a hundred and twenty something retention ponds throughout the county that need to be cleaned and so I was just wondering how many times, what’s the total amount of prisoners that go out on a daily basis? Mr. Joseph: On average Commissioner we try to send between 60 to70 percent out there. The others are kept in the building to maintain operations such as the kitchen, sanitation, laundry but on average between 60 and 70. Mr. D. Smith: Ya’ll are doing a good job out there. Thank you. I just wanted to find out what the total number was. I appreciate it. Thank you. Mr. Mayor: All right Commissioner Fennoy, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Fennoy: Quick question. What is the cost, what does it cost for ya’ll to house a prisoner at RCCI? Mr. Joseph: The state pays us Commissioner $20.00 a day to house each inmate. And we could house them annually, daily the cost of about $53.00 so when you deduct the $20.00 you’re looking at about $33.00 more on average per year per day per inmate. Mr. Fennoy: So it actually costs us $33.00 a day. Mr. Joseph: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: Okay and the inmates that you all house are state inmates (unintelligible). 28 Mr. Joseph: Yes, sir, all (unintelligible). Mr. Fennoy: All (unintelligible). All right, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You all have monumental task out there but I want to try to get (unintelligible). I don’t know if you can accommodate it or not but Commissioner Williams and I we’re going to recommend that we buy some goats to take care of the retention pond. Now some large cities are doing that. And Commissioner Williams I understand brought that idea out way before I came on the commission and they wanted to run him out of town for it. But hey, that’s a good thing. I mean it’s win, win, you can’t lose. You put the goats there they don’t eat you can eat the goats. But you don’t have pollution and according to Commissioner Williams all you need to do is put them there and give them a shelter and when they eat up everything move them to another location. Have you ever considered that? Mr. Joseph: No, sir, I haven’t. Mr. Lockett: Well, I’m really surprised. You know I thought that your department was on the cutting edge of these things. I mean that’s something that we’re really missing out on let me tell you. Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got a motion and a second. No further questions? Vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk Item 10. The Clerk: FINANCE 10. Motion to approve the acquisition of two field mowers for the Augusta Recreation Department-Operations Division. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: Thank you. Who is going to address this, Ms. Allen or Finance --- Ms. Williams: I’ll do my best, sir. Mr. Williams: Donna, I just had talked to them about the landfill and how the grass looks. I want to know are these the same type mowers or do they have a private entity doing that at the landfill? 29 Ms. Williams: I’m not prepared to answer that question, sir. I’ll try to answer it. I do know that these are larger mowers than what the Recreation Department had. They are higher capacity and they’re supposed to be heavier duty. They were requested by Mr. Levine. Mr. Williams: Okay, I know we have a bunch of equipment out there and I asked Ron to give me a list. He gave me a list of mowers. I didn’t get all of the equipment but I did get a list. We had a big problem out there at one time and I think that got resolved when the, go the Rec Department wherever the equipment is and ask for another mower they give you another mover. The old ones sitting out there that need a rope but on it or something to start it, I don’t know. I think the chains I think I hope (unintelligible). Anyway we have inmates that were getting a lot of stuff that should be getting it directly from the Rec Department at one time and that was what brought this to my mind as to what equipment we have, what kind of responsibility, are we trading equipment in? When you take a mower, when you get a mower in you ought to be able to turn in one. You ought not be just have that mower (unintelligible). Rec has more equipment out there than we got at the shop up here. If you go by there behind the Water Works and look at the facility out there. I see Mr. Levine just stepped in. Maybe he can answer this question that this mower we’re talking about, Mr. Levine, I guess my question was when we what happens when you get a new mower? Mr. Levine: Okay, there are two (inaudible) mowers, we don’t anything like it. They do the work of, one of them does the work of four of the mowers we have; one of them does the work of three of the mowers we have so there’s two of them. One’s 16 feet, one’s 11 feet and they’re designed to increase productivity. As you know we the Rec Department eliminated nine positions this year. One of the ways we can do that is by having larger machines that can do the mowing of, one man can do the work of four. Mr. Williams: Okay, I guess my question is what happens when you get a new mower in and is it assigned to a crew? I mean how does that work? Mr. Levine: It will be assigned to a district and will be assigned to properties at which it’s the most appropriate thing for use. So the large mowers will be assigned to the larger areas. One of them, the smaller one, the 11 footer will be trailered around the city and do all the athletic fields and they’ll do them they can do a large field so quickly with that. It will be --- Mr. Williams: So you’re not going to be replacing anything. You’re adding to your fleet with this. You still don’t keep the other mowers that you had to other things with, right? Mr. Levine. Right. Typically though you’re replacing, when we’re asking for a four, forty-eight or a 60-inch mower we’re replacing a piece of equipment that is no longer operational. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Grady Smith then Commissioner Fennoy, I mean Guilfoyle. Mr. G. Smith: Just one question from a taxpayer and local business man. Can we find these machines locally? 30 Mr. Levine: They’re coming out a place called (unintelligible). I think they’re in Birmingham? Mr. Jackson: Jacksonville. Mr. Levine: I think their warehouse or their local shop is in Atlanta. Mr. G. Smith: Okay. Mr. Levine: But they’re under state contract. Mr. G. Smith: Okay, well, any other thing let’s try to buy locally if we can. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Robert did answer my question to make sure we did procure through the Motion to approve. state (unintelligible) process. Thank you. Mr. G. Smith: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a proper motion and second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Item number eleven. The Clerk: FINANCE 11. Motion to approve the replacement of 39 Public Safety Vehicles for the Sheriff’s Office for 2014. (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams, you had this item? Mr. Williams: How in the world do we replace 39 vehicles at the same time? Donna, can you help me out with that? I can’t understand that. I just can’t understand that. Donna -- Ms. Williams: The financial aspect or the reasoning behind the replacement. I’m not sure. Mr. Williams: The reasoning behind 39 vehicles at replacing. Donnie Smith gets on me all the time because I drive an old Ford with 400,000 miles on it. And I’m proud of it. I’ll drive it to China if you put a road across that water but I don’t understand how we can replace 39 cars because of what? 31 Ms. Williams: We typically try to replace a third to 25% depending on whether or not they’re pursuit vehicles. We try to rotate through those when they reach a certain mileage and repair criteria those are replaced. And you see thirty of these are actually high mileage pursuit vehicles and these will be moved over to the Dodge Chargers from the old Crown Vic’s. They’re no longer available. There are two traffic, four pursuit vehicles for the Traffic Division, there are some for CID and there’s motorcycle that will be replaced at a later date. These are coming from the sales tax allocation from the 2011 funds that were available for public safety vehicles. Mr. Williams: There’s going to be no impact, this is already been you know we hear about how tight things are now how we up against the wall but since this is an 2011 situation we won’t feel any impact on this, right? Mr. Williams: This is out of the sales tax monies that were designated for public safety vehicles in the last package. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. D. Smith: I was just going to make a motion we approve this. Mr. Jackson: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a proper motion and a second. Any further discussion? You may now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item number 14. The Clerk: FINANCE 14. Motion to approve development agreement with Cabela’s Wholesale Inc. in the Village at Riverwatch Tax Allocation District (TAD2). (Approved by Finance Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Yes, I don’t who’s to speak to it but I just want a brief synopsis on this development agreement to make sure that I’m clear on what we’re doing and what we’re getting and what we’re giving up. Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Mason, either I could or Tim Schroer could. This is a reimbursement agreement. It’s for the development costs that Cabela’s incurred in doing this. Basically what happened is because the TAD is already created the property increment that’s due to growth in 32 the second phase of the Village at Riverwatch that goes into a special fund. That fund will reimburse approximately $2.5 million dollars in redevelopment costs to Cabela’s. I apologize I see two ‘c’s. I keep getting them interchanged. If the increment is not there they don’t get reimbursed. If it’s there they get reimbursed. It has a time limit of 16 years. So if they don’t get reimbursed over the next 16 years it’s $2 million dollars, they get two million. If it’s a million and a half they get a million and a half. If they reach the $2.5 million dollars before sixteen years it stops at that point. That’s the same deal effectively that is with COSTCO. COSTCO hits a number either by time or amount. And once that is achieved that’s all they get reimbursed. Mr. Mason: And that’s for how long? Mr. Plunkett: It’s approximately 16 years. It should pay out less than sixteen and again this is, as you know the outlet malls have been talked about. These are the inducements for in fact I should say incentives because the growth in that area other folks will look at coming in there. If the outlet malls came in and developed they will be reimbursed in a much, much shorter period of time. Mr. Mason: So this is due to if I recall that COSTCO deal or one of the things I had an issue with is the length of time. If we could do, is this built in, did we have any negotiations in terms of perhaps versus 16 years, 10 years, 8 years 4 years, do we recall any of that? Mr. Plunkett: Yes, sir, what you’d look at is you look at today’s tax structure and you look at based on basically flat growth that the buildings are not going to go up particularly degrade in value because at this level how long would it take based on current mill rates to create that amount of taxes. And then you kind of look at that and go is that a realistic number or unrealistic number of and you know you could say we’re going to increase and it’s going to be assessed at 125% or 130%. And say it was going to be paid back in a shorter period of time. So we try to do a number that is realistic in today’s environment and we look at that and we say okay this is saying it’s going to take a minimum of 19 years maybe 24 years and we kind of said okay we’ll go to say 20 years. That’s to encourage them to create more value in their property and hopefully they’ll be reimbursed much shorter. Nobody wants the (inaudible) to go out for long periods of time. They’d like to get the money back quickly. Mr. Mason: So is this a capped cost. You said $2.5 million. Is that the maximum amount or --- Mr. Plunkett: That’s the maximum amount. There’s no interest again if something came along and other things developed in that area and the value doubled it would shorten the period of time by half. So it’s realistically it’s we’re assuming that nothing else develops that second phase of the Village of Riverwatch and with hopefully realistically you get a COSTCO and a Cabela’s something else is going to come along. Mr. Mason: So from what I looked at and that’s why I wanted some clarity from you as well this is when you say similar but this is not the exact same incentive package that was given to COSTCO. 33 Mr. Plunkett: It’s not; it’s a lesser incentive package. Mr. Mason: Exactly. Mr. Plunkett: --- because the person who gets to the table first gets the best one. The second one got a little less, the third one’s not going to get as much. Whatever ya’ll agreed to but it should go down because you’ve already induced as we call the COSTCO folks. If Cabela’s had come first they would have this deal and we told that to the outlet malls that you may be the big dog but you were the last to dance. And so that’s kind of how we look at it. Mr. Mason: I just kind of wanted to make sure we weren’t doing the same thing twice. I wasn’t really in favor of that first piece. This quite different and when you said similar I wanted to make sure we --- Mr. Plunkett: Similar but it’s tighter each time you try to move -- Mr. Mason: --- but it’s a big distinction. Mr. Plunkett: -- tighter so that it’s not as, you know you want to get the people in there and you want them to develop on their own not us to have to develop everything for them. Mr. Mason: Okay, thank you, Jim. Mr. Plunkett: Certainly. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: You made a comment about the first (inaudible) to come along gets the best deal. How would you compare the deal that COSTCO got as to the deal that Bass Pro Shop could’ve gotten? Did you have to up the ante because of Bass Pro Shop backed out? Mr. Plunkett: Personally I’m glad the Bass Pro deal didn’t go through. It was probably a greater deal than what COSTCO ultimately got. Bass was, Bass Pro had a certain image to be a certain size store. It was going to be about twice the size of the existing Cabela’s. It was one of those (unintelligible) and so we were there and when they said hey you kept asking and asking and asking and it hit a point. So when it hit the point it was there was no deal and hindsight being 20/20 we’re better off with COSTCO and Cabela’s I believe. Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Plunkett: (inaudible). Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve. Ms. Davis: Second. 34 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Madam Clerk, I think the next item would be item 30? The Clerk: Yes, sir. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 30. Discuss the EEO Director and General Counsel matter. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams, your item. Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’ve been trying to get this matter brought and it’s not a Legal matter I don’t think but this matter I don’t know what it is. So I’m going to ask the EEO Director to come and enlighten us as far as to what is being taken place or what is I want to say charge I guess, whatever it is. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Ms. Humphrey. Ms. Humphrey: Jacqueline Humphrey, EEO Director. The concerns, sir, in regards to? Mr. Williams: The Legal Department and the Bar Association. Ms. Humphrey: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on one second. Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I would just like to state for the record that any complaints or any items that have been filed with the State Bar of Georgia are deemed confidential under Georgia law. And I would request those items not be discussed in public forum. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. I think it is probably going to cross the line of legal so we can get a motion if you --- Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, now I can this discuss this now discuss this conversation because we’ve been in legal and we can’t get a conversation in Legal. I’ve been trying to get these two parties together in Legal that’s why it’s on the floor. Now we’re saying we got to go into Legal. When I tried to, and my colleagues on my left and right as my witnesses, I tried to get this meeting to happen inside and we couldn’t discuss it in there. So if we can’t discuss it back there and we can’t discuss it out here then where can we discuss it at? 35 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think based on what the General Counsel has stated I think if it’s anything dealing with policy or legal or potential, legal or pending litigation, correct? Mr. Williams: Now let’s not --- Mr. MacKenzie: Personnel. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Personnel, policy and personnel then it will have to be discussed in Legal. Mr. Williams: Okay, can you answer, I need you to answer for the Attorney because he don’t answer to me. I need to ask the Attorney, why couldn’t we discuss this in Legal two to three sessions ago when I asked about the same situation then? That’s why it’s on the floor because we couldn’t take any information and I said nobody’s been charged with anything. He brought a situation, he brought this to this body and shared it. He did. And I said if you’re a part of this any then maybe he can’t discuss it. But it wasn’t a legal situation. So somebody needs to tell me where we share it at. If you want to go in the room we can all go back there and talk about it, it don’t matter but we had not been able to do that. He said we couldn’t talk about it back there because we couldn’t get no information. So if you can’t talk about it how are we going to ever know? There’s been a claim somebody filed a grievance with the Law Department about the Attorney and it’s supposed to have come from Ms. Humphrey. So I need to know what is that. Am I sitting with someone I shouldn’t be sitting with? Is he sitting in the seat he shouldn’t be sitting in? Is she in a position she should be in? Now we we’re going to have a meeting, Ms. Allen was supposed to put a meeting together, I think Ms. Allen was supposed to because nobody else was interested. We was going to meet. I hadn’t heard anything about that. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, if I can --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Hold on one second. I think Mr. Andrew, the Attorney had a --- Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, if the question being asked is what is the proper reason to go into a Closed Meeting the proper reason would be to discuss to deliberate personnel matters and the hiring and firing, compensation or other items relating to personnel with the exception to the Open Meetings Act that would be the reason to discuss those things in a closed meeting. If the discussion is not related to one of the exceptions that the Open Meetings Act allows for then it would be a discussion that could be in public forum. However there are limitations under the Georgia Law with respect to confidential in nature of certain things that are filed with the State Bar of Georgia which I’m recommending and requesting aren’t discussed in public forum to be compliant with those requirements. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I would like to make a friendly motion that we take this in Legal -- Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. 36 Mr. Lockett: -- and get it resolved because as I indicated early on this is something that we couldn’t talk about out here. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: I think in the past when this issue has come up in Legal, Commissioner Williams had wanted the question answered. But the question couldn’t be answered in Legal because you did not (unintelligible) or receive information. And now I understand that it can’t be asked out here and the place to answer would be out here on the floor but we can’t ask it out here because of what you just said. And I guess my question is where can we ask these questions or how do we phrase these questions so that we won’t be violation of the Open Records Act and won’t be in violation of what you just talked about? Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, I’d be happy to address that. I think the distinction to be made as to whether or not the Commission body is quote receiving evidence relating to a personnel matter and where there is an exception to the Open Meetings Act that deals with that. And those are the things to which it would be proper to have a public forum to do that. But if what’s being done is to deliberate information that you already have with respect to employees and you’re trying to make a decision about what discipline to implement or what do about issues that you’re already aware of then that is a reason to go into a closed meeting. I know that’s a fine distinction but it has to do with the way that the Georgia Open Meetings Act is drafted and written. And those are the exceptions that are in the law. And so I can understand how it can be confusing to a certain degree but the general rule is if you’re receiving evidence of a personnel matter in a similar hearing type format as you would with a personnel board then the receipt of evidence needs to be in a closed forum. That’s when people are testifying about employment an employment matter then you would receive that evidence in a public forum. If you’ve already got the information you’re just making a decision about the information you already have, then that’s something that you would be deliberating which would be done in a closed forum. Mr. Fennoy: And I think at this stage of the game you know we don’t have any information and what we’re trying to find out is what happens and why and do we get those questions answered out here on the floor or do we get those questions answered in a legal meeting. That’s my question. Mr. MacKenzie: I understand the question. I think there’s another issue too that’s here which is there are several laws that govern the confidential nature of the complaint following the state laws of Georgia that I would think would need to be complied with as well. So if the nature of the question pertaining to those issues and that’s another issue. But if what you’re questioning as commission body is the performance of an employee when I have a hearing to receive evidence with regards to an employee’s performance, that’s something that would take place in a public forum. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Donnie Smith then Commissioner Williams. 37 Mr. D. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. Mr. MacKenzie, I want to get something cleared up in my mind here about this. We cannot discuss the information in the bar complaint. Is that correct? Mr. MacKenzie: I’m saying the rules related to bar complaints state that they are confidential. And it doesn’t mean that you can or can’t do that it’s just the bar protects those as being confidential and how the process of those are issued. Mr. D. Smith: All right, can I follow up? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, go ahead. Mr. D. Smith: When, would the, all of us want to hear the facts and I don’t think (unintelligible) do the wrong thing and violate the Open Records rules nor do we want to compromise any investigation that may or may not take place. Would it be more appropriate if anybody on this commission that had or questions would it be more appropriate if we submit those in a written format and have them approved as to whether or not that would be going into an off limits nature? Mr. MacKenzie: I presume then those questions would be brought to the H.R. Director? Mr. D. Smith: Or whoever would be responsible for answering them. And I think what the goal here would be maybe we could get preclearance from our Legal Department about whether or not those were questions that should be answered in an open meeting or a closed meeting. Mr. MacKenzie: That is one approach that could be considered. The danger of that is when you would be looking at the Open Records Act and whether or not such records could be subject to disclosure under that. That’s one way to look at it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: The Attorney brought this in Legal to this body and I said and Mr. Lockett brought up the point he needed a different attorney (unintelligible). But he brought it to us and I asked the question if you’re involved do we need another attorney to tell us, we don’t I don’t know. I’m not talking about anybody else. I don’t know what’s what. I do know there’s supposed to enter a complaint (unintelligible) on file but that’s as far as we’ve been able to get. Now I asked him several times in Legal then we’re going to go outside and if anybody wanted to do it and now I need to know, this shouldn’t be about hiring or firing anybody. It ought to be about using information so we’ll be abreast of what’s been filed, why it was filed, what’s been done, are we involved, should these two parties be together. We can’t find anything and we’re never going to (unintelligible) like that. Now I’m thinking about filing something myself because I’m not getting the leadership that I think we ought to be getting. So if something’s been filed I wanted to know why and whether it’s justified. I don’t understand that. Now we’ve been back and forth out here before so, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, what do we do? 38 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, I think what we need to do is we’ve got a motion and second to go into Legal and let’s go in and get what information we need to proceed and whatever we can come back out here we will hopefully so we’ll go with Commissioner Mason here and then we’ll make that decision. We do have a motion and a second and I think we’ll take a vote on that. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. First of all I’m not sure. We’ve been doing a lot of talking but nobody has said anything. We’re dealing with what she’s standing here for and we still haven’t heard anything from her about what we should be talking about but nobody’s said anything yet. So I’m not sure what we’re going back there to do because again nobody said anything. At some point somebody’s going to have to say something because there’s nothing been said. I know I sound redundant but that’s exactly what we’re doing here redundancy and I still don’t know where we’re at at this point. At some point we’re going to have to have some transparency in this government and we don’t seem to be getting that the way that we need to. If we are talking about going into Legal first of all we’ve got business we need to be handling. If we’re going to go into Legal I would ask the maker of the motion that we go into Legal after the remaining business has been taken care of because we’ve got people that we can take care of business and so if the maker of the motion would accept that friendly amendment to your motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I concur. So we do have a motion to send it take it into Legal after the remaining business has been (unintelligible) agenda item. Mr. Lockett: I will second that previous (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion and second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Motion Passes 10-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk Item 31. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 31. Approve Laney Walker/Bethlehem Revitalization Project-Bridge Loan Request of $2,500,000.00 to continue existing/future development projects until the next bond issuance in middle to late 2015. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wheeler, I know you had this item on last week when we didn’t have a quorum to discuss it in committee. Would it be appropriate we get this item sent back to committee to have further discussion? Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I think we all know what it’s about. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. 39 Mr. Lockett: And I think this is something we need to get approval on today before we send it back. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, okay, what we’ll do then is we’ll go ahead and hear from Mr. Wheeler. I just wanted to give you an opportunity as the Chairman of the Administrative Services to see if it was appropriate to send it back. We’ll go ahead and hear from Mr. Wheeler and then of course Commissioner Williams and then Commissioner Mason. (Unintelligible) questions pertaining to prior to him speaking or are ya’ll (unintelligible). Mr. Mason: Well --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Mr. Mason: --- I just have one question before we get into this. Has the, has this been vetted through the URA Board already? Mr. Wheeler: No, it hasn’t. Mr. Mason: Is there --- Mr. Wheeler: It doesn’t require URA approval at this point in time because the funds will not be issued until next year at the end of 2015. That’s when (inaudible) required to go back before the (inaudible) to present and discuss with the Finance as well as the Interim Administrator (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I’ve got two questions. The first question is (unintelligible) why is this so important now at this juncture is the first question. Mr. Wheeler: And to answer that back in September of last year I presented this request and at the time it was deferred. And at the time I also stated that I had $750,000.00 dollars coming in in land sales and we are almost at the end of our cash flow. And if we do not get some additional funding to carry us we’re going to have some challenges and I wanted to – Mr. Williams: Okay and we (unintelligible) challenges I remember from back before when you were saying there was a fee for consulting. Has that been modified? Has that changed? Has it changed from the numbers we were paying (unintelligible) because a lot of this money and that was a concern of mine. Mr. Wheeler: Yes, sir, the change that I issued contracts, we reduced the project manager’s contract by $117,000 dollars. Mr. Williams: From what? 40 Mr. Wheeler: From three twenty-five I believe (unintelligible). We took $117,000 dollars off the contract and I cut the marketing and branding the contracts by (unintelligible) dollars. Mr. Williams: That really bothers me I guess and I ought to be excited about it but that bothers me when you do that when you didn’t do that before now. That tells me that we’ve been doing some things that are different. If we can do that now and you see how important it was and we were talking about how much money that was being spent in one area and the home style wasn’t really doing a lot because we was spending a lot of money on a consultant. Mr. Wheeler: Mr. Commissioner, I have not brought back to you my recommendation how we’re still going to move forward with the services that we cut. At this particular time I realize that there are services that were cut. I have not assumed those in house (unintelligible) recommended that we hire a development manager to assume some of the responsibility and I have not the time (unintelligible) because I wanted to address the issue of resuming operations first and then I would address those items that have been deleted from the contract. Mr. Williams: Mr. Wheeler, wouldn’t you think that that should be something that was brought to us because you want two million five hundred. I mean we’re not talking about a small amount of money here. (Unintelligible) put all of those things in a packet so we would know and making sure that we understand (unintelligible) vote on stuff and after we voted two days ago I shouldn’t have voted. So I mean don’t you think those things should’ve been easily worked out, not easily worked out but worked out and put in a format so that we can look at it and say hey, is this the best we can do? I’m not going to vote for something --- Mr. Wheeler: I presented to you a revised (unintelligible) summarized on one page all the task orders and it shows a reduction in all of our subs (unintelligible). With all due respect sir it’s in your package. What I did was consolidated the information to show a total budget (unintelligible)--- Mr. Williams: Didn’t you just say to me that you had not worked out the final I guess plan or the final numbers? (unintelligible) but you know (inaudible). Mr. Wheeler: What I was trying to do was respond to the desires of the Commission and they advised me without any vagueness --- Mr. Williams: The commission? Mr. Wheeler: Commission, yes, sir. Mr. Mason: I’m a part of that. I mean I don’t know about anybody else but I mean --- Mr. Wheeler: With all due respect, sir, I felt like I was instructed by this commission to cut consulting services as well as the report that came back from the (inaudible). I thought I was complying with the request as directed (inaudible). 41 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Fennoy and then Commissioner Grady Smith. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Wheeler, what would the impact of not having this $2.5 million have on not only your department but the Laney Walker neighborhood? Mr. Wheeler: We will cease to develop, sir. Mr. Fennoy: And how many houses have you, you know built so far? Mr. Wheeler: Twenty plus and we only have, everything on High Street has been built and been sold. There are only, there’s one vacant lot and two or three rehab restorations that th have not been started yet but we have families that are looking at all of them. On 11 Street I only have two units that have not been sold. And right now I have four families that are looking at three lots on Pine, a lot on (inaudible) Street (inaudible). Mr. Fennoy: And there was some question about your use of consultant. What role does the consultant play in the overall operation of your department? Mr. Wheeler: Well, when we started the project, sir, I was not given any staff so I had no fulltime staff in my department to play a role in the (unintelligible) Laney Walker/Bethlehem. So the staff to operate the project was developed within a consultant (unintelligible). So they serve as an extension of my department to allow me to undertake the work that had to be done. Again I cut down (inaudible) to a large degree because I was following the direction from the Commission. So without staff this project will not be able to go forward. So I needed staff but I also needed resources to continue development and I speculate to say I think we’ve been extremely successful. The results are (inaudible) and we have families every day to come in to buy property as needed by using a design that we already have (unintelligible) for Laney Walker/Bethlehem. Mr. Fennoy: Earlier you had mentioned that I think in September you sold property. Mr. Wheeler: We had seven (inaudible) thousand dollars of land that was sold to the Housing Authority and they are waiting for all work to begin on Twiggs Street which was handled through the Engineering Department and we anticipate that work will start somewhere between September and October (unintelligible) and it has (unintelligible). Mr. Fennoy: Approximately how many parcels of land that you all have that --- Mr. Wheeler: It’s well over 25, sir. I don’t have the exact number (inaudible) in terms of what we have purchased --- Mr. Fennoy: Not necessarily the number that you have in your possession. Mr. Wheeler: I would say we purchased about 275 lots since day one. A lot of them were combined because they were small lots. Some of them had, they were dysfunctional in 42 terms of a development nature so we had to combine sometimes two or three small lots to get one lot. Mr. Fennoy: So unfortunately your funding you used a portion of it to buy land --- Mr. Wheeler: To buy land. One of the challenges was the acquisition of land and the private sector development they don’t have the time to put to you or resources to get into buying land, selling land, clearing titles. So what we do is serve as that (unintelligible) is buy land clear some land and then sell it. And that’s what we do. To date we’ve sold over a million dollars of land to developers who are realtors. That’s why spent money so the private sector will take over. Mr. Fennoy: And my last question is how would those two hundred pieces of land be maintained if you don’t get $2.5 million? Mr. Wheeler: Then we’ll have to (inaudible) resources to maintain (inaudible). Mr. Fennoy: Okay, and I just want to say that I don’t live in the Pine Street area, I’m on the other side. And Mr. Wheeler and his staff have done an excellent job in redeveloping that area. Mr. Lockett and I had an opportunity to go to Chicago where this area received a national award. The latter part of April an award was given in Atlanta for the outstanding job that they have done. I think that the Commission would do this neighborhood a grave injustice if we do not allow this project to continue. The area looks 100% better. We’ve changed raggedy, dilapidated houses into houses where every part of this (unintelligible) have brought people from various aspects and walks of life into this neighborhood. I would love to see this project continue and I think there’s only great things ahead if we get the full support of the Commission he needs in order to move forward. Mr. Mayor: All right. Commissioner Grady Smith then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. G. Smith: I know we’ve had some questions and I’d like to make a motion to send this back to committee for further discussion and you know get everything on the table (inaudible) discussion. Ms. Davis: I’ll second it. Can I make a fast question (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle --- Ms. Davis: Can I ask a quick question? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- do you yield to the lady? Mr. Guilfoyle: (Inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Commissioner Davis. 43 Ms. Davis: Ms. Williams, as far as the bridge loan will you explain it just a little quickly and then we’ll talk about moving it back to committee. But I don’t know if we’ll get consensus today on this today Mr. Wheeler (unintelligible) but Ms. Williams, can you explain the bridge loan, where that would come from and just basically how would that effect our budget? Mr. Wheeler: The development of the land $11.9 million dollars. Of that amount $8.2 is kind of (unintelligible) Housing Authority and some other private investment banks and developers. We’d sooner have the $3.7 million dollars (unintelligible). Of that $3.7, $2.5 is coming in the form of a bridge loan and it’s been recommended that it come from the Urban Services Fund and not the general fund. And then the bonds that we finance in November of next year the Urban Services Fund will continue to pay. Ms. Davis: What is the Urban Services Funds? Would that put any other projects in jeopardy? Mr. Wheeler: No, I’ll ask the Finance Director to respond to that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Donna. Ms. Williams: The Urban Services Fund the estimated fund balance at the end of 2013 is approximately $4.2 million dollars. The $2.5 usage of that would be $1.7 which is still about 14% of your annual operating funded. The timing of this with the money being scheduled to be paid or repaid is approximately in October of 2015 would be just before the tax collection. We go out and solicit a source of funding for Urban Services (inaudible). That would make sense at this level we don’t see that putting a strain on this Urban Service Fund balance at this time. If everything falls into place the money is repaid as scheduled. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Donnie Smith. Mr. D. Smith: I think Mr. Guilfoyle (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Donna, is there any guarantees we will (inaudible). Ms. Williams: The bonds must be issued through the URA. Mr. Guilfoyle: Different from what. Mr. Wheeler just said they had to approve it. He said the URA doesn’t have anything to do with the bonds. They have some --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, they do have something to do with the bonds just not this particular process with the bridge loan. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, I now understand it about the bridge loan but as far as the bond it will have to approve (inaudible). 44 Ms. Williams: They will have to approve the issuance of the bond. Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay. As far as the bond in October of 2015 that you talked about (inaudible) paid back to (inaudible). Ms. Williams: It’s the second phase in this scheduling of the rolling bond issuance to fund Laney Walker. (Inaudible) Mr. Guilfoyle: Okay, how does that $9.325 come out of --- Mr. Schroer: (unintelligible) Mr. Guilfoyle: Can you clarify that? Mr. Schroer: The issuance of the bonds for (inaudible) approximately nine and a half million dollars. Out of the nine and a half million dollars we would have to allocate two and a half million dollars (unintelligible) approximately $6.8 million dollars. Mr. Guilfoyle: (Inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Now hold on. If I can, Tim, at that particular moment when you issue, wouldn’t URA issue a new bond for the second or third phase or second phase of the project? Mr. Schroer: The bonds we’re issuing are based on the amount of funding we have available. (Unintelligible) $50,000 dollars a year for the Laney Walker/Bethlehem project. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right. Mr. Schroer: Debt service on that would be approximately $675 to $700,000 dollars a year for a nine and a half million dollar bond. So there would not be a large influx of money when we issue the bonds. Basically borrowing and advancing the money today as opposed to waiting until next year. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Right. Yeah, we need to go back to committee with this and it’s a lot of talk and I think we need to go ahead and make a decision now to do that so we don’t go back and forth. It’s 4:15 already. We do have a motion and a second on the floor to go ahead and send it back to committee so if we can we’ll go ahead and take a vote on that. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, no disrespect but I’ve had my hand up for (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead, Mr. Lockett. Mr. Lockett: You know it’s hard for me to comprehend how we can have something that comes before this body so many times but yet it’s still when it gets before us to make a decision 45 we got to send it back to committee so we can go and do what we should’ve done before it came here in the first place. To me this is a stalling tactic and I’ve been told so many times before since I’ve been on the commission what we need to resolve is what our department director said. And I think the director of HCD said that this is the thing that we need to do. The Administrator or acting Administrator she didn’t say it but it was said that she was in concurrence with it. The Finance Director and the deputy director seem to think that it’s something that will work okay. The track record that they’ve had they’ve been selling those houses as fast as they can build them and remodel them. And the housing market is getting better so why go on with this? There are other things that we need to be concentrating on rather than constantly kicking things back to the committee which will eventually have the same outcome. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, just for the record I do know how important it is. I want to make sure we all have a real decent understanding of what is taking place where the funding is coming from and how we allocate it not just now but in the future. So just for safety I think that it’s best that we just go on. The motion’s been made to send it back to committee. That way we can have a better understanding and won’t be (unintelligible) questions at that point moving forward so that everybody will be clear in exactly what’s taking place here and that we’ll have a clear understanding of moving forward what Mr. Wheeler and his department will have to continue on with the process here in Laney Walker/Bethlehem so do you have a motion? Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Can you give me a date as to when based on the lack of action from this committee when ya’ll stop something how long can (inaudible). Mr. Wheeler: What I’m going to try to do is finish the houses that I have and then we’ll stop. Mr. Fennoy: What’s your timeframe? Mr. Wheeler: We have a commitment date of having two houses completed by June 24, st maybe something like that. We’ve got a July start date, close date the 1 of May so we don’t have but maybe another two months that we’ve got to have those last two houses completed (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I think what Commissioner Lockett is trying to do to clarification (unintelligible) the continuation of what Chester Wheeler and his staff has been doing is the two and a half million dollar loan that is coming from us is not putting us in any kind of predicament because whether we do it now or in 2015. But if we do it in 2015 to do the bonding for him to receive that two and a half million dollars he’ll be at a dead stop if it takes one year and six months. So I understand what Mr. Lockett’s saying but the only thing I’m worried about, Mr. Wheeler, is you have about a year and a half of this two million, two and a half million dollars because after the first payment of the $6.8 (unintelligible) like (unintelligible) evaporated quickly. What’s the succession plan after that? 46 Mr. Wheeler: One of the things I was asked to do back in December when the report came out was to approve long-term funding up until (unintelligible). So that is our next step. Once I get this (unintelligible) because my fear is if we stop, no more building (unintelligible) then the development will stop. If you stop, it’s over because the public is not going to have any confidence in you. That’s the bottom line. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I do understand that we do have some things in the table willing to invest. I know how important it is Commissioner Lockett as well. I think this you know if I’m not wrong I think we can make that decision come Monday following the commission meeting it shall be done and we should be able to keep going. But I just wanted to make sure we have a consensus amongst us to go ahead and do that. I don’t want to vote it today of course we don’t have a consensus to do so so the chances (unintelligible) to get it done at the next meeting. I think we’ve got to move it to committee of course then go forward. Commissioner Grady Smith. Mr. G. Smith: I just want to say we had a meeting here this morning earlier you know chastising us all about these crass decisions and spending money (unintelligible). The thing is I feel comfortable with a little more information about what’s going. I’m in the construction business too (unintelligible) breakdown and I’ve just got a few more things I want to ask. I’m not stalling anybody else but I think we’ve got a meeting next Monday to get a lot of this stuff answered (unintelligible) go over some things with us and make us feel a lot better and then when we talk to people and ask us about it instead of saying, “I don’t know” (unintelligible). And that’s what we got chewed out about this morning but I don’t want to go that route. So I’m going to make the motion to go back to committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I would like to say if anybody has any questions off the top of their heads they want to call Mr. Wheeler’s office about it and try to get the answers to them prior to the meeting on Monday please do reach out to him and do that. I appreciate your willingness to handle any concerns that you may have between now and then so you don’t have to ask so many questions on committee. That’s not what it’s for but if we can expedite the process I’d like to do that as well. Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, you said exactly what I was going to say. If any of my colleagues have anything other please sit down with Mr. Wheeler and his staff. I’m quite sure they’d be glad to take the time and explain the whole process to you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Fennoy votes No. Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 8-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item 32. 47 The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 32. Receive report from HR Director regarding ARC open/vacant positions. (Requested by Commissioner Mary Davis) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Davis, this is your pull for the item. Ms. Davis: Yes. Ms. Bryant, how are you? Ms. Bryant: Doing well. How are you? Ms. Davis: Good. Were you able to compile (unintelligible) request? Ms. Bryant: (inaudible). Ms. Davis: When I had it in committee I didn’t have a quorum last week so I’m happy to move this back to committee for discussion. I just wanted it mostly before committee but if you have it is there a way to get back to us before that next week so we can have some more open discussions (unintelligible). Ms. Bryant: I think (inaudible). Ms. Davis: Can you email it or is that (unintelligible). Ms. Bryant: (inaudible) ask the question (unintelligible). Ms. Davis: Okay. Mr. Lockett: Move that we send it back to committee. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a proper motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, item number 34. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 34. Approve salary increase for the Procurement Director of $113,000; funding source will be the elimination of a position in the print shop and on the condition that Procurement 48 and Law Departments execute appropriate release agreement. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This was Commissioner Williams’ pull. Commissioner Mason and then Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Mason: Well, I was going say it is Commissioner Williams’ agenda item. Clearly I would make a motion that we move this to the next, what is it committee he’s not here. (inaudible). Right so you, clearly we shouldn’t deal with this today (unintelligible) embarrassing situation. This is Commissioner Williams’ pull. I would suggest that we push it back unless Commissioner Lockett has something else. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you making a motion to that effect? Mr. Mason: Yes. Mr. Donnie Smith: I’ll second that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. For clarification purposes this is not a pay or salary increase. What this is, is an internal salary inequity adjustment. This deals with the department the way that department is rated or evaluated with the other departments (unintelligible). This is not a procurement director pay increase. It is just bringing the department director’s pay in line with the other directors. Ms. Sams just happened to be sitting in that position. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, thank you for that comment. Any further questions? Okay now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Speaker: (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, to send it back to committee. Mr. Johnson, Ms. Davis, Mr. Mason, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Donnie Smith and Mr. Grady Smith vote Yes. Mr. Fennoy, Mr. Guilfoyle and Mr. Lockett vote No. Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 6-3. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item 36. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 49 36. Discuss SPLOST VII $5M allocation for Administrator/Mayor’s “Project Administration” and the legality of outside agencies receiving SPLOST funds and the generally accepted practices of other municipalities as it relates to outside agencies in particular, private, state, non-profit and not-for-profit agencies. (Requested by Commission Alvin Mason) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason, I know this was your pull however I would first of all let’s get some clarity. I know we have a legal opinion actually on this particular item so let me make sure that before we get into discussion and do the same thing we need to be cognizant of. Mr. MacKenzie: I would recommend with respect to the legal questions of something that is currently subject to litigation’s that’s pending in superior court and federal court that is something we should discuss in a closed meeting. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Commissioner Mason, what do you want to do? Mr. Mason: I’d like to be as transparent as possible. One of the main things I guess I’m not sure who’s going to speak to this since unfortunately the Mayor’s not here. This $5 mill, five million or five point two five or whatever it is the allocation for this project I want to get a clear understanding. I think since this not a clear understanding of exactly of what that, what it’s to be utilized for, for two reasons. One it’s the right thing to do and secondly that is part of the immediate bonding money that will be available should the second question on the SPLOST package pass about the $21.7 million dollars. That’s money supposed to be bonded and available rather immediately. So if that’s one of our greatest needs since it’s being bonded immediately I’m trying to figure out what exactly we’re going to do with it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Schroer. Mr. Schroer: (Unintelligible) $5 million dollars out of this project for administration. That is to cover the indirect cost allocation charges that are charged to SPLOST to (inaudible) general fund. In addition to (inaudible) there will be a premium (unintelligible) also paying for legal fees and advertising fees for (unintelligible). That’s what the $5 million dollars is for. Mr. Mason: $5.25. Mr. Schroer: That is for that’s a different pot of money, sir. Mr. Mason: What’s being bonded? Mr. Schroer: $5.25 is for the (unintelligible) Sibley Mills Campus project. I believe that was for land acquisition. Mr. Mason: You believe? 50 Mr. Schroer: That’s what the documents that I was supplied with say (unintelligible) land acquisition. Mr. Mason: (unintelligible). Mr. Schroer: I’m not, I think it was land acquisition in Harrisburg around the Mills Campus. Mr. Mason: (Unintelligible) and my other question is if we could is that part of the $21.7 that’s being bonded immediately? Mr. Schroer: $5.25 is, yes. Mr. Mason: Yes, so if it’s being bonded immediately I really think the public will want to know what Alvin Mason wants to know what is that going to be utilized for since that’s going to be an immediate package because there was some statements even from the Sheriff about how important public safety was but there’s no public safety being bonded immediately. And so if public safety is so important, I’m trying to figure out why that isn’t part of the immediate bonding (unintelligible) the $5.25. Now what are we doing with that? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Dallas, can you speak to that? Mr. Al Dallas: Yeah, in regards to the 5.25 million for the Mills district it’s land acquisition (unintelligible) county property in the city of Augusta. It’s not for the Augusta Canal Authority’s property. The original request was for $12 million. So in terms of making it contiguous between MCG’s property, the MCG Foundation, the Augusta Canal Authority there was $12 million dollars that was needed to make that connection. Not all of that property is necessary. Now the $12 million figure came from $8 million that was on the tax digest and that packet was put together (unintelligible). Mr. Mason: Okay, but I still haven’t heard exactly because it’s going to be bonded immediately and so that means there’s some use in somebody’s mind in terms of what that’s going to be used for because clearly that’s more important than roads, bridges, public safety, sewage and drainage issues that we have in this community so I’m trying to figure out what are we doing to do with it? Mr. Dallas: Well, I don’t think it’s more important. I think it’s a matter of timing with GRU’s master planning process. They are hoping to get an RFP on the panel to construct 600 beds by July 2016. So in order to, you know, get this as the master of GRU’s land acquisition needs to occur in order for this to become a reality. Mr. Mason: They’re on board, GRU’s on board? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Dallas: No, this is an option for that they’re evaluating. Mr. Mason: I, maybe I missed something, I don’t hear (unintelligible). 51 Mr. Dallas: They’re in the process of their master planning process. This is a very viable alternative for them in terms of the discussions they’ve had. But in order to make this a real option the land must be controlled. Mr. Mason: What land? Mr. Dallas: If we had a map I could show you the (unintelligible) plan. Mr. Mason: Well, I mean --- th Mr. Dallas: Essentially along the canal along Broad Street and 15 Street corridor along the north side of Calhoun Expressway they have GRU’s medical district. You’ve got the MCG Foundation property which is the Kroger property. You have Calhoun Expressway then you have the Augusta Canal Authority’s property across the street from the Sibley Mill. You then have other parcels that are not controlled but what we refer to as, you know, friendly participants. So MCG Foundation, the Augusta Canal Authority are all associate partners in medical district. And then you have private landowners are very interested in order to make contiguous linkage between medical district and the two mills that we need to control. Mr. Mason: Okay, I think you’re slowly and painfully getting there. Who are these private landowners that property that we’re interested in? Mr. Dallas: They’re various and we wanted to not indicate which are the critical parcels because obviously if a property owner knows that they’re willing to sell, then suddenly the value of that goes up. And so there are critical pieces that we’ve identified in order to make this linkage but in order to because we don’t want to give out eminent domain I would want to compensate someone adequately for their property. And so that’s been a part of utilizing the fact that GRU has not publicly made a decision, you know, I think works to our advantage in order to be able to acquire these properties at what is now market rate as opposed to after GRU has made some decisions and then suddenly the value of that real estate is much more valuable. Mr. Mason: Well, I appreciate you trying to explain it the best you can. It certainly appears that for monies at this point to be bonded immediately (unintelligible). The monies that are going to be bonded immediately that is going to be available before we ever do one street, one road, one sewer, one drain, or any of the public safety stuff that the Sheriff said he was (unintelligible). That what he needs and none of that money is bonded up front. This is why I have a problem with that because I mean (unintelligible) you do the best that you can in terms of getting the information out but that would be something that would be awfully difficult for me not taking the commission hat away as a voting citizen to go and check yes for when there’s just so many unknowns. So I do appreciate you explaining it the best you can. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I just want to follow up. I know we’ve got Commissioner Donnie Smith, okay we’ve got Commissioner Mary Davis and Commissioner Lockett but I just wanted to follow up. As far as this property goes, if it does not transpire for GRU as part of their 52 plan goes does that money just sit in a pot and then be paid back to the bank or how does it work because I know we get that same question about the $8 million? Mr. Dallas: That would be a decision for this body you know yeah, the total cost to us in terms of this development what the Mayor is supporting is that with the utilization of these mills there are roughly $80 million dollars of untapped potential through the hydroelectric power through the historic tax credits, new market tax credits. They need to utilize to you know (inaudible) you know another, however if this body you know assuming the SPLOST passes and we have some prior notice of GRU’s master planning process what decisions they have or haven’t made in regards to the mills we could certainly, you know, utilize that plan in terms of what the Mayor is pushing for is that, you know, whether or not GRU you know chooses this alternative in regards to the master plan process we have the ability to make a very lucrative development that will be (unintelligible) not only to the city of Augusta but also the citizens of Harrisburg. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Commissioner Davis. Ms. Davis: Thank you, Mr. Dallas. I mean I feel like that your presenting this for the first time and it’s not like I’ve heard it 50,000 times so I appreciate all the work you put into it. When did we start working on everything on this campus? It was before you even came when we started discussion with that. So I know a lot of times I’ve seen presentation after presentation and I’m in full support. I just appreciate (unintelligible) work to it our Finance Department and of course the Mayor’s office. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You know obviously this Mayor’s project is important so what we tend to be doing is trying to put the unknown in front of the known. We don’t know how these things are going to work out and we don’t know if GRU is going to ultimately have an interest in it. If they don’t know what’s going to happen to it? But we do know what could happen with the $2.5 million dollars they’re about to have in development (unintelligible) and I don’t hear let’s send this back to committee. Now another known and unknown, another factor is the Cyber Command is here and more people are coming. Where are those millions that we’re investing on Gordon Highway, Deans Bridge to keep those people from coming out to Fort Gordon, going left into Grovetown or keep this thing across Dyess Parkway going into Columbia County? Where is that investment? That’s the known. And the other project is maybe. Mr. Dallas: The only thing that I would offer to that is twofold. One you know we have received those terms from the (unintelligible) in terms of where the area’s (unintelligible) will occur. And that will be in the urban center. The alternatives that they are looking at, the Mayor, the Augusta Regional Collaboration Project did not force the mills district in terms of what they presented. Where this started was the Mayor interjected himself in GRU’s dormitory plans. Initially the plans were to construct dormitories on the Summerville campus. The Mayor did not think that was beneficial to the city and as a result said we would like to work with you and see if we can do the planning in conjunction. The first thought since GRU and the university system of 53 Georgia controlled the golf and gardens property was to make linkage between the medical district and (unintelligible). That was the original thought. It didn’t become a viable option due to the number of parcels that had, would have to be acquired. It was difficult to assemble that plan to make it contiguous. So through the research as well as essentially this hidden amount of revenue through power generation as well as tax credits available this really became the best option. And like again and will not speak for GRU and their master planning process. That has to go on. Certainly we have received positive feedback in terms of this alternative. That doesn’t (unintelligible) in any way because certainly the Board of Regents has to make that final decision. This is not a (unintelligible). This is a very solid development (unintelligible) we know that GRU will be vetting but certainly we can’t speak with them until they’ve reached their decision. Deke has reported you know this is being some sort of a (unintelligible) in terms of the conversations that we’ve had the meetings we have met with their outsource planning consultants who have been in town on several occasions you know they certainly understand you know (unintelligible). Mr. Lockett: Lastly this is the month of May, this is the Regency Mall. Let’s put about one-fourth the effort into developing Regency Mall as we’re doing for the (unintelligible) and I’ll be a happy man. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. The other portion of this I think you said that it would be in legal (unintelligible) whatever else we need to deal with. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s correct. Mr. Mason: So with that the purposes of these five million allocations of that I can receive as receive that as information which is basically all I can do with it anyway to information. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Mr. Mason: But thank you but we’ll do the other piece of it in Legal. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. All right we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Williams out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item 37. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES 54 37. Discuss the removal of SPLOST VII from the ballot and rework it to deal with infrastructure, and bring back at the appropriate time. (Requested by Commissioner Alvin Mason) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: I’ll be as quick as I can with this. I brought this up from a community meeting that we discussed this item came up to see if we could remove it. And I said I would put it on the agenda item to ask the legal question as to whether that could be done. So my first question would be to General Counsel. Is this something that could legally be done and if so how would that be done and what would it take to make that happen? Mr. MacKenzie: I’d be happy to respond to that. First off also just to state to the extent of cost for a legal opinion I would recommend that you have that done in a closed legal meeting. I have talked with the Board of Elections director with respect to what kind of I guess administrative expense would be associated with doing that at this particular point in time. She did provide some feedback regarding that and some information that if you need to hear from her you can. But it would be, there will be some serious difficulties of this stage as the voting has already started as well as what it takes to undo the sealed voter boxes and all that technical information that she can speak to. Another challenge that you would have as the commission rule that you all are aware of that once the commission has taken an action and a positive action is taken towards the conclusion of that and you have a rule that prohibits that from being rescinded. That would also be something that would have to be seriously considered if it is the will of the Commission to go in that direction. Mr. Mason: So I’m going to back to my first question that I asked you which is really the crux of what I’m asking. Is this something that can be done? You gave all the reason why it probably shouldn’t be done. What my question was can it be done and what manner could it be done if it can be done? Mr. MacKenzie: Logistically speaking it can be done according to the Board of Elections. Legally speaking it’s just something I have to give you legal advice which I would recommend in a closed meeting. Mr. Mason: All right. Commissioner Fennoy I’m sorry (unintelligible). Mr. Guilfoyle: (Inaudible). Thank you, Mr. Pro Tem. I was just wondering if we could have come up here, Lynn Bailey the Board of Elections if she could respond to this question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Bailey. Ms. Bailey: Good afternoon. I can respond to any of the questions about any perspective of the relationship (unintelligible) legality of it I have no idea. What I do know is the Board of Elections took affirmative action based on the resolution from this body to put this matter on the ballot, so it was to be publicized and all the steps that we would normally take to put this matter on the ballot had been done. So at this point we’ve done a little bit of math if you will about the 55 logistics of it to pull something like this off the ballot two weeks prior (unintelligible) elections would cause the employee and manpower bill (unintelligible) you have to understand at this point the voting equipment has been (unintelligible) not to mention the fact that we have probably 1800 or so people who have cast ballots and those ballots would certainly have to be taken into consideration somehow. There’s a difference though between removing (unintelligible) ballot and treating the matter like one might as a withdrawing candidate or something on the ballot. So there’s ways to go about that but the one thing I do know for certain to take a step such as this, this close to an election, would be a strain to put it mildly. This would be a huge undertaking to have that happen and happen effectively. It could not be done easily and would require a lot of manpower not that we’re not up to the task but I’m just saying it would be a huge undertaking. You know again as to the legality of it (unintelligible). Are there any specific questions that (unintelligible)? Mr. GuilfoyleI make a motion to receive as : Thank you I appreciate your time. information. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second to receive as information. Any further discussion? Okay, now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Mason votes No. Mr. Lockett, Mr. Williams and Mr. G. Smith out. Motion Passes 6-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item 39. The Clerk: Thirty-nine, 38? The Mayor Pro Tem: I’m sorry. It’s 38. The Clerk: FINANCE 38. Review of approved guidelines for the distribution of SPLOST funds to outside agencies. (No recommendation from Finance Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: This came from the Finance Committee no recommendation. Tim, officially (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: I asked Tim a question the other day and still haven’t got an answer yet. Who comes up with the list? Who makes the list of the agencies that will receive (unintelligible)? Mr. Schroer: For SPLOST VII? 56 Mr. Williams: Yes. I know we don’t have, you might have it. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, I think that comes from this body to make that (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: This body never met this body (Unintelligible) that’s my point. How can we approve this when we never came together and said (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Well, no, I agree with what you’re saying. I think (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: So how can we approve this if we never (unintelligible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think what happened was of course based on the process there was six who approved what was presented. And it was four out. And out of the six that was here, that’s all it takes for approval. So based on the process, six votes said yes, these are the items we want on the SPLOST VII package. Mr. Williams: Why are we trying to do it again? Why are we trying to approve it if it’s already been approved? If six voted for it and the list was present then because my understanding there was no list until later. I mean we’re talking about (unintelligible) infrastructure and I think $1 million dollars putting in Augusta for infrastructure and we didn’t (unintelligible) but if the list is already there when they voted on it, why are we approving it again? That don’t make no sense. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll go ahead and recognize Donna Williams to answer that. Ms. Williams: This item is not for an approval of a list. During some of the previous meetings there were some questions asked concerning what process was used and what type of contracts and that these various agencies that did receive funds had to adhere to in order for us to release their funds to them. This is merely to present ya’ll with the information. These are some guidelines that were adopted by the Commission since 2009 that sets out the process by which the agencies can apply to receive the funds that were already approved in their name. They have to comply with a certain requirements in order for us to cut them a check. This is simply to present you guys with the guidelines that were adopted by this commission since some of the commissioners may not have been there or may not have been familiar with these. Just to present this as information. Mr. Williams: Okay, so my question to Ms. Donna, Ms. Donna, are you saying that this list or these guidelines (unintelligible). Ms. Williams: This is the guidelines that have been used and have been approved by this commission --- Mr. Williams: (Unintelligible) and I understand but I’m asking you --- Ms. Williams: --- and have been cleared through our legal process. 57 Mr. Williams: So I guess I need to direct it to the Attorney. This guideline that we’re using, is this guideline within the guidelines of the law or not, just a yes or no answer. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. General Counsel. Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, based on my review of the guidelines there doesn’t seem to be anything inconsistent with the law in the guidelines. Mr. Williams: I’m going to take that as a yes. I mean you know is that what you’re saying, yes? Mr. MacKenzie: This --- Mr. Williams: Yes or no, I mean (unintelligible) just give me one. I don’t need the whole song I’ve been out (unintelligible), yes or no. Mr. MacKenzie: The guidelines don’t address all the requirements of the law but it is within the guidelines that’s consistent with the requirements of the law. Mr. Williams: That’s a no then, okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Attorney, is that a yes or a no? Mr. MacKenzie: It’s a qualified answer that says that the guidelines are perfectly fine and consistent with the requirements of the law. But the guidelines do not have all of the requirements of the law. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I guess what I’m saying is if it doesn’t have all the guidelines of the law, does it make it legal or illegal? Mr. MacKenzie: I’m saying you have to look at the law and above that condition to the guidelines which are consistent with the law. Mr. Williams: (unintelligible). Mr. MacKenzie: Okay, the guidelines are consistent with the requirements of the law. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, so the guidelines are consistent with the requirement of the law --- Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- meaning that that’s it’s legal based on the guidelines within the law that I guess you’re saying an ordinance on the books used for SPLOST dollars. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. 58 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So I mean I don’t want to spend any more time on this. So in other words based on what Ms. Williams has just said the money that is, the guidelines that is appropriated for outside agencies they must meet these requirements to receive the funds from SPLOST. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Williams: No, how did you get a yes like that (unintelligible). Mr. MacKenzie: Because that question was whether or not the agencies are required to comply with the guidelines and my answer is a fair yes. Mr. Williams: Either you’re right or wrong, yes or no and I didn’t get that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I’m sorry but it’s strange now. I asked the question, just because we’ve been doing it a certain way a long time does that mean that we’re right or we’re wrong? I mean I’m not questioning I’m just saying that because we’ve been doing it the same old way and I heard that from my attorney Mr. Williams been doing it. My question to that is these guidelines and we know there are guidelines for the agencies receiving the funds. They got to by these guidelines. But is that within the guidelines or the law not policy, not what we think or what we want. But is it in the guidelines of the law because you’re supposed to know the Charter. You’re supposed to know what we can and cannot do. I know it but I need a legal opinion. Yes they are or no they’re not. Mr. MacKenzie: I understand. The answer is yes the guidelines are consistent with the requirements of the law. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, all right. I guess what we need to do is Commissioner Lockett, did you? Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think this is I’m going to take a chance and direct this to the General Counsel. Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: This is SPLOST authorized projects and I’m talking about the official code of Georgia annotated 48-8-111(a)1. And that contains a list of specific types of projects which are eligible for SPLOST funding. Counties and they go on to say counties and municipalities are not limited to that list and (unintelligible) any capital project so long as it is on or operated by a county qualified for this municipality or by local authorities. Now my question is those things that’s on the list do we own them or do we operate them? Are there any on there that we don’t own or operate? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. General Counsel. 59 Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, if I can just respond to that particular inquiry. I’m looking at the very next section subpart ‘E’. This is a list of all of the allowable for purposes of the use of SPLOST. You read part ‘D’ that has the ownership requirement. If you look at subpart ‘E’ which is right below that that says a Capital Outlay Project doesn’t qualify with respect to being owned by the county, government or municipal governmental governing authority consistent with a cultural facility, recreation facility or historical facility. And these are a comprehensive list of possible uses for SPLOST. So it’s not just those listed in ‘D’ there are several other categories of uses which are also permissible under the law. Mr. Lockett: Mr. MacKenzie, have you ever heard the name Clint Buehler of the Association of County Commissions of Georgia? Mr. MacKenzie: Yes. Mr. Lockett: He’s the legislative director and I think he’s the author of this Special Local Option Sales Tax publication. And his comment was that there’s a need for you to have at least some ownership. Now you’re telling me he wrote it but yet he’s wrong? Mr. MacKenzie: I’m not saying he’s wrong at all. All of the governmental contracts that were required for uses of SPLOST actually do have an ownership requirement and a leasehold interest requirement as part of the requirements that all of the outside agencies are required to apply with it. So there actually is an ownership interest in all of the capital improvement projects that are funded in SPLOST. Mr. Lockett: Well, what ownership do we have in the Miller, the projected Georgia Regency University Cancer Center. What ownership do we have? Mr. MacKenzie: Those are servitude leasehold interests. Mr. Lockett: And this is legal. Mr. MacKenzie: It is consistent with the requirements of the law under the SPLSOT funding. Mr. Lockett: If it’s consistent, will you tell me where the official code of Georgia annotated that it states that? Mr. MacKenzie: It’s in the same section that you read here. Mr. Lockett: Will you please read it to me? Mr. MacKenzie: Sure, the subsection I just read to you is part of the same statute and it says: It’s A1(e). And I think the part that you referred to was ‘D’ and it says, which may include and of the following purposes. You’ve A, B, C, D and E and E is a Capital Outlay Project consisting of a cultural facility, recreation facility or historical facility or a facility of 60 some combination for such purposes. And that’s the category in which all of the outside agencies fall within (unintelligible). Mr. Lockett: But it definitely states that you can exclude the requirement to have part ownership or operational responsibilities. Or is that something else assumed. Mr. MacKenzie: The statute may not have that requirement so far. Mr. Lockett: So that’s your interpretation. Mr. MacKenzie: I’m just saying the plain language the statute does not contain (unintelligible). Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. General Counsel. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think that the best way to clear this up and I’ve done some research on it and your absolutely correct on that portion of it, Commissioner Lockett, as well as with General Counsel is where based on these outside agencies it’s what they call a Public/Private Partnership. If the city invests a dollar amount in any facility, they become a vested interest. In other words to the tunes of a private or silent partner. And this is what I interpret from what I read of course and through GMA. I would be just like if Commissioner Williams wanted to open up a facility and it’s going to be a facility that’s going to cater to the general public, just say a boxing facility or a gym, and we become a vested interest partner in that. If he was to sell that facility then you would have to pay the interest that the city has vested into it back to the city. Am I correct on that and I guess, Jim, you’re here. I know you can speak to the tunes to this but they would have to bring that back so that’ll have to be paid back to the city but the city would become a silent partner in his entity and therefore it will be public use. And in fact if anything was to happen with that facility the city would have to be reimbursed for their vested interest. That’s the way the city invests without operating and controlling it. I want to make sure we’re clear here so if you want to speak to that based on that am I correct in that interpretation or am I wrong? Mr. Plunkett: I’m coming in I apologize I’m a couple of minutes late on the conversation but basically the idea is that the government can own and operate any facility. The public/private situation there we can have an interest in the property either servitude reasonable interest or alternatively we can take a fee simple portion of the issue there. You were talking about the kind of draw down issue is that if we had a interest in the property and it was subsequently sold by our partner then that issue then we would collect back by contract basically the unamortized amount of that request. So let’s say that typically for capital purposes it’s 25 years. If you had a $250,000 dollar grant after five years it was sold you would get you know $200,000 dollars back for that SPLOST because you’ve effectively used up that interest in that property. I’m not sure I think that’s what you’re referring to. I’m a little bit late on that, it’s a contractual issue that have our ownership interest in that property and the interest is that we focus on is that we have that because all of these projects are functions that the government can do in and of itself. You know it’s a museum, we can operate a museum or we can partner with 61 someone else for the museum. And so it’s the fundamental issue is do we have any interest in that property. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That’s what I was trying to get out. And I’ll be putting things in layman’s terms so people can understand it. I mean all it takes is for people to understand it and so what I’m saying is at the end of the day, this is what I’m saying now, this is very cut and clear. If you have vested interest in any facility case in point the HEAL complex. They were going to build a wellness center of Laney Walker Boulevard. They only had $250,000 dollars to do them. Instead of them trying to resurrect a facility with $250,000 dollars, they decided to invest into the HEAL Center by way of the $250,000 dollars from Housing and Community Development to allow citizens to utilize that particular facility because it had already been resurrected. And it would’ve been less cost effective for the city because we don’t have to run it or operate it and the citizens still have access to it. Am I correct, Jim? Mr. Plunkett: That’s the general theory, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, what we’ll try to do is put it in layman’s terms so we can get a better understanding because I think the way it was broken down to me that’s how I got it, okay, because I had the same question how can we do that and is it legal? So I just wanted to get that out so people can understand it I guess the way it was told to me. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I think we’ve got to be careful. Ya’ll know this is being recorded. Everything we say here is going to be repeated somewhere so we better be telling the truth about it. Let me get one thing straight. I need somebody to give me the definition for capital outlay. I keep hearing capital outlay and projects but I ain’t heard nobody explain capital outlay. That’s the first thing I need to get straight. Jim, you can do it or --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Jim? Mr. Plunkett: It’s a defined term 48-A 110 (a) I believe if I’m not mistaken. I don’t have the code in front of me but it’s based, it’s a long term asset is what it boils down to of a capital nature and we can take the position of (unintelligible) issue of 25-year period of that. I do have a copy of the code back in the committee room --- Mr. Williams: I didn’t hear something. I mean I know where to find it. I need someone to say it here. I mean I need to be I need to know what it actually means. Mr. Plunkett: I’ll be right back. Mr. Williams: --- okay maybe the attorney’s got right here. If what I’m hearing is right, out of all the projects that we have done have been over ten or twenty years, well, I won’t say twenty over then or fifteen life span and has been gone away. And we didn’t get any money back from some of these projects I’m thinking about now. So if that’s the case ya’ll are teaching me something so. 62 Mr. Plunkett: Mr. Williams, a Capital Outlay Project for SPLOST purposes means major permanent or long lived improvements or betterments such as land and structures such as with the properly chargeable to a Capital Asset account and it’s distinguished from current expenditures in ordinary maintenance and expenses. Terms shall include but not be limited to roads, streets, bridges, police cars, fire trucks, ambulances, garbage trucks and other major equipment. Mr. Williams: So you’re telling me these agencies on this list meet that guideline you just read? Mr. Plunkett: The projects that we are with would be capital improvements. I apologize, I didn’t hear the list that you read but you, a building is a capital project. Mr. Williams: Okay, so a building is, so any money we put into a building would be a capital outlay project, right? Mr. Plunkett: That if we have an interest in that building that would be a capital outlay project. Mr. Williams: If we put money into that we’re going to have an interest because we did this as a government that put the money in so those buildings I guess those agencies that are listed here --- Mr. Plunkett: Then, sir, you have to make sure that it is for a purpose under 48-8-111. So that’s the other part of it and so is that building and most of these projects fall under 48-8-111 (a)1(e) which is a capital project consisting of a cultural facility, recreational facility, or historic facility or facility for some combinations for such purposes. Mr. Williams: I don’t have nothing else. I was a bit confused but I’m really confused now. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And I can understand how confusing it is. That’s why I called GMA so the county could get a better understanding how it works. Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: I’d like to make a motion to receive this as information. Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a proper motion and a second. Any further discussion? Hearing none now vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Williams votes No. Mr. D. Smith and Mr. Jackson out. Motion Passes 7-1. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, Madam Clerk, Item 39. 63 The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 39. Approve the projects to be funded by SPLOST VII as recommended by the Engineering Department. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Ladson, you have the floor. Mr. Ladson: Thank you. Mayor, members of the Commission, last week we presented a list of projects that included the $50 million dollars. However there were some issues or some concerns with particularly some projects some drainage projects in East Augusta there. So what we did we went back and looked at the list and where we had $8 million dollars that was th proposed for 15 Street pedestrian improvements, took $2 million dollars off of that and put it on East Augusta Drainage Improvements Phase 3, Marion Homes area and East Augusta Roadway and Drainage Improvements Phase IV (inaudible) Albany Street area. So that increased those two projects up to $3 million dollars. So that’s the change that was made last week to the dates. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, that’s the only change. Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Thank you. Mr. Ladson, you’ve got some serious drainage and sewage issues in this town, don’t you? Mr. Ladson: That’s right. Mr. Mason: Is any of that money bonded in the first $21.7 million dollars for those serious issues you have? Mr. Ladson: No (inaudible). Mr. Mason: Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Fennoy. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Ladson --- Mr. Ladson: Yes, sir. Mr. Fennoy: --- exactly what is the $50 million pedestrian improvements? What is that? Mr. Ladson: It’s actually a Transportation, a TIA project and what it involves is walkways, crosswalks, widening the sidewalks from the area of Paine College down to Butts Bridge and it also includes some drainage on that also. Mr. Fennoy: Down to where? 64 th Mr. Ladson: It’s from Paine to Butts Bridge to 15 Street. Mr. Fennoy: (inaudible) Laney Walker (inaudible). Mr. Ladson: No, it’s Butts Bridge (unintelligible). Most people are familiar with Butts Bridge. Mr. Cassell: It’s essentially what we refer to as a road dive. You’ve got three lanes in each direction from there down to two lanes in each direction so we provide bike lanes, wider sidewalks (unintelligible) with streetscapes, improved lighting, putting power in the ground to improve the esthetics in that area as well as the traffic flow, the ability to use the streets. Mr. Fennoy: The, I mean that’s a great idea to probably look good but if you go down on East Boundary whenever it rains they need boats to get around. And Broad Street, I mean this and they’re not talking about something that looks good they’re talking about people having to put sandbags in front of their houses every time we get a good rain. They’re talking about the mustiness with that water sitting there it just makes that whole area unsafe. And I really do appreciate the additional $2 million dollars for that area but we need ten down there in order to -- - Mr. Ladson: Well, what we, like I said the East Augusta project is an ongoing project and we, like I said, we divided it up into eight different phases. The first phase is actually already completed from construction. We’re in Phase 2 right now which is about $4 million dollars in construction and actually doing construction on that. And Phase 3 of course is the Marion Homes area and that’s estimated at about $2.5 million dollars. So the total cost for that whole area which is bounded by Sand Bar Ferry, I-520, Laney Walker and East Boundary it is right at about $14/15 million dollars. So if we get this we’ll pretty much be almost halfway there. This is SPLOST money but if the storm water utilities fee is passed by this body that project would I mean we would like I said we would already have the (unintelligible) of saying pretty much funded. But that also helps a lot to fully fund these much needed projects. Mr. Fennoy: And you know I remember a couple of commission meetings ago when Mr. Forest that lives in the Kingston Subdivision came before this commission and he talked about the possible flooding because of the work that was being done I think near the Marks Church Road. And he was assured, he was assured that they would that I mean than Engineering would do whatever was necessary so that flooding won’t be an issue in that area. You know my concern is that people from East Boundary from Broad Street all the way back they’ve been for the past fifty years they have been dealing with draining and flooding issues. And one of the reasons that they want to support SPLOST VII is because they don’t want any more promises they want something done about the flooding issues. And it’s that difficult for me to tell them that that ain’t going to happen. Mr. Ladson: Well, that’s not the case because there are, there is something happening out there. It’s not, plus you wouldn’t want that whole area under construction at one time anyway. If you have it under construction at one time it’ll be a big mess down there. You want a phasing 65 and you know I’ve been down there on several occasions I mean for years and it’s pretty much explain it. You don’t want everything under construction at one time. That’s just not what you want to do. You want to phase it like that but if we don’t have SPLOST then you know it’s really going to slow it down. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I think what we probably need to do because of course in SPLOST you’re not going to have enough money allocated to one area at one time. But I think if you’ve got some type of plan at least something that can break down how the construction will be done in phases because I understand what you’re saying. You try to go in and disrupt the whole thing people can’t even get to their houses based on everything that is taking place trying to correct the issue. But and you may already have something like that that could be presented. I think just speaking and I know I’ve talked to several residents down there from that area that if they know exactly how it’s going to play out and how the funding is going to be allocated I think it would ease their conscience on this whole thing. But with the uncertainty of how it’s going to happen, when is it exactly going to happen and also the funding stream I think that’s the concern that they have. And I understand you’ve got to pull from different pots to make that happen it’s just not going to pull enough for it out of SPLOST because we do 100% infrastructure in the $200 million dollar project that’s an infrastructure (unintelligible). So I think if we could probably do something like that it would kind of help Commissioner Fennoy with being able to explain to them how it’s going to happen and in what aspect in phases it would take place to correct the problem and get it done because I think they just want a solution. I ain’t going to think I know what they want they want a solution and know that this problem’s going to be fixed because it’s been going on for decades after decades and that was the old county. For people that don’t know that was not the city at one point in time. That part was actually the county. You come up from East Boundary and then proceed over to I think crossing East Boundary then you went into the city so that was it was very unique based on the breakdown of the drawing (unintelligible) so that was actually the county back before consolidation so it was not a city project but we did inherit that through the consolidation so it is at this point. But I think if you could do that that will help. Commissioner Williams. Mr. Williams: I just wanted to remind Abie that the old county commission was here then along with the city council all that was here those people have been dealing with work all of these years. And they’ve been told for years and years and years and Commissioner Fennoy is right fifty years, I mean two or three generations come out of there and it hasn’t been fixed. And nobody wants to do all of the construction at one time and we know that’s not feasible but we want, it should’ve been fixed and fixed right a long time ago. It has not been done you know has not been fixed so we’re still dealing with that. But if you borrow from one pot and put it over to another pot but it’s still nothing to do nothing with. People are tired of that construction too now. Every time you look around and you’ve got to go a different way because we’re still done there fixing stuff the infrastructure the water the pipes and none of that’s been touched in years and years and years. There’s a master plan that’s already been developed for East Augusta. Now how can you have a master plan developed if you hadn’t done the infrastructure work yet? There’s a stable with horses and all kind of stuff and if I can see the master plan I can get you a copy of that. (Unintelligible) But I need to get you a copy of that master plan, it’s some plans coming out in that direction but the people down there now need some attention now so when the master plan comes we don’t want to wait until people die or moved or what would happen. And 66 then we say oh we’re going to fix it now, we’re going to get it right. These people are residents, they’ve been there for all of these years and this ain’t no knock on you. I think if you had the money you’d go in and spend it you would go in and start it. But this body needs to understand how important it is. This SPLOST VII ain’t a drop in the bucket compared to what they need down there. That’s why I’m not supporting it. That’s why I can’t, I hope the people don’t pass because it’s wrong. It wasn’t thought out, it wasn’t talked about, none of that so that’s a band aid that you want to put on situation that needs more than a band aid and I can’t see that. That ain’t going to do it so Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that’s my comments. I know Mr. Ladson’s done all he can but we’ve got to get some money to go in there. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right. Do we have a motion? Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a proper motion and a second. Mr. Williams: Substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a substitute motion. Mr. Williams: Substitute motion to refer this item back to the drawing board send it back to committee. I mean we can’t approve this. I mean (inaudible). Mr. Lockett: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a substitute motion to send it back to committee. Do we have a second? Mr. Lockett: I got it, I got it. Mr. Fennoy: Abie, on the $50 million dollar project (unintelligible) with or without the changes what percentage of that money will be spent for consultants? Mr. Ladson: Normally when you have a design in construction the design only represents about 8-12% of the total costs. Mr. Fennoy: Okay, so on a $50 million dollar project it’s not unusual to expect (inaudible). Mr. Ladson: --- five to seven million dollar project. Mr. Fennoy: (inaudible). 67 Mr. Ladson: Now some of these projects let’s say for East Augusta, East Augusta the majority of it is already designed so some of these projects that we actually have on this list are already, you know, under design or are (inaudible). So the biggest thing is pretty much getting the construction. So that (inaudible) realistically probably would be I would say probably 70- 80%. Mr. Fennoy: Okay. All right, thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Dr. Ladson, some people are under the th belief that the SPLOST VII referendum passed on May the 20, May the twenty-one you’re going to be out there extending those funds. These $50 million dollars that you’re talking about here what would be the earliest that any of these monies will be able to be provided for development for the people that are being flooded in East Augusta and all the blighted structures that we have and so forth? What is the earliest any of this money will be available for that? Mr. Ladson: (Inaudible) would probably have to answer that when that money is supposed to be released. Mr. Lockett: Okay, SPLOST VI --- Mr. Ladson: You’re talking about SPLOST VII, right? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Tim can you answer that question for us? Mr. Schroer: Sure what was the question? Mr. Lockett: Some people are being misled and they believe that if this SPLOST VII referendum passes we’ll be extending monies from that beginning May 21. And we all know it’s not true because SPLOST VI pays out until approximately the second quarter of 2016. Now if the SPLOST VII referendum passes some of those people that are listed on there as beneficiaries it may be how long before they receive any of the money? Mr. Schroer: Well, it could be up to 2020. SPLOST VII we’ll start a collection approximately the second quarter of 2016 if we’re projecting it’s going to be five a little over five years so 2020, 2021 before all the collections are done. Mr. Lockett: Okay so it’s a good possibility those people that are flooded today are going to be flooded in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and possibly 2019 they’ll still be flooded. It’s that possibility. Mr. Schroer: Yes, sir. Mr. Lockett: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. 68 Mr. Mayor Pro Ten: Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Fennoy: Mr. Ladson, one question. If SPLOST VII doesn’t pass and you requested your request was $300 million dollars originally. The Ladson: The initial, you’re talking about the total infrastructure in Engineering --- Mr. Fennoy: (Unintelligible) Mr. Ladson: --- is $378 million dollars. Mr. Fennoy: Then you got it back down to $50 million? Mr. Ladson: That’s correct. Mr. Fennoy: If SPLOST VII does not pass, what would you get the $50 million to do the projects that you have on this loan? Mr. Ladson: They won’t get it because the, as far as the Engineering Department and infrastructure the majority of our funds come from SPLOST, well, I would say the majority of the funds come from SPLOST but the actual majority it actually comes from the infrastructure that you see going on it actually comes from FEMA. We, I mean, we did an array of different type fundings from FEMA but for, you know, as it relates to our local type drainage type projects and that solely relies from SPLOST. We don’t have any other mechanisms for funding. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Mason --- Mr. Mason: All right so --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: --- oh, I’m sorry Commissioner Guilfoyle and then Commissioner Mason. Mr. Guilfoyle: Go ahead, Commissioner Mason. Mr. Mason: Okay based on the question my colleague asked you here I just wanted to make sure that we’re clear. If in fact SPLOST VII didn’t pass, it comes back again to be reworked. Okay? But the fact of the matter is we just heard that it really wouldn’t be any monies expended for those particular projects probably before 2020 anyway. So the fact of the matter is it comes back to be reworked instead of what’s being bonded now some of the money that you need could be bonded right away. And once that passes then you will get some upfront money a lot quicker than you would in 2020 with what we’re proposing right here. Is that a possibility? Mr. Ladson: Yes, this is a possibility. Mr. Mason: Absolutely. 69 Mr. Ladson: I think the biggest question for us in the Engineering Department if it passed, I mean even (inaudible). Mr. Mason: But it’s right, my point is, whether it’s right here in May, whether it’s next May, you’re still not receiving any funds you understand. Mr. Ladson: That’s correct. Mr. Mason: Well, I want to make sure we’re clear about that. So it’s not like if it did not pass that you were getting something you’re losing out on something because you don’t have it and you’re not slated to have it okay? So any reworking could actually work to your benefit versus your detriment. In fact you could see more than the $50 million because you certainly need more than that, right? And when we decide to bond or prioritize projects yours should be first versus last in the chute. So I just want to make sure that we’re clear about the big picture and not have tunnel vision here. There’s a number of ways nobody’s saying that SPLOST would not ever pass or that you wouldn’t receive any funds as it relates to SPLOST. Whenever it passes Engineering is going to receive funds. It’s about how much funds and how we’re going to prioritize those funds. That’s the facts of the matter. Mr. Ladson: Let me, if I can just say one more, the way I mean futuristically where we’re looking at we just, I mean we just can’t rely on just SPLOST. We’ve got rely on if the storm water passes we’ve got to rely on that and of course there’s the TIA also and we‘ve got to rely on that. Just the SPLOST alone wouldn’t actually do everything infrastructure wise. So I just wanted kind of make --- Mr. Mason: I’m glad you made that statement. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, we have a motion, well, we have a substitute motion --- Mr. Guilfoyle: --- we’ll have time next week. I got to be somewhere here in a little bit. Are we sending that back to committee? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, the substitute motion is. Any further discussion? Yes. Mr. Ladson: I have a question. If we’re sending it back to committee, what’s my task as far as what I have here? Mr. Fennoy: Well --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner? th Mr. Fennoy: --- what I would like to task you do is look at that 15 Street pedestrian improvement and put that into, look at eleven and put eleven and sixteen and seventeen. 70 th Mr. Ladson: You won’t be able to because the 15 Street project is an existing project. As a matter of fact a big portion of that is funded through TIA. And that has to be done. So that is a priority project. Mr. Fennoy: And I understand them saying, Abie, I guess your priorities and mine, I mean I understand what you’re saying but we’ve got different priorities and you know we (inaudible). Mr. Guilfoyle: We’re a big city here, we’ve all got (inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, let’s go ahead and vote dispose of this item. We’ve got one more item to get to. All right vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Lockett: The motion is what? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: To send it back to committee. Ms. Davis and Mr. G. Smith vote No. Mr. Jackson and Mr. D. Smith out. Motion Passes 6-2. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Madam Clerk, Item 40. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES 40. Motion to approve the report from Traffic Engineering staff to include 1) removing a few trees to provide better sight distance 2) installing a rapid flasher signal and 3) move the crosswalk to a mid-block location with the funding to be charged to the proposed project for improvement on Highland Avenue. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee April 28, 2014) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Lockett, you had this item? Mr. Lockett: Yes, first of all I’d like to know what is a few trees? Mr. Cassell: That’s a good question. But you know we’re going to look at each intersection in detail and get the proper sight distances we need. So we don’t have an exact number on it. Each intersection is probably going to need at least one. We want to lessen the impact as best we can and we want to be right on this. There’s a mature tree with a good canopy on Highland Avenue so we don’t want to you know to clear cut it. We’d probably kill it if we do but there’s definitely some issues there with sight distance so we do a (unintelligible) exactly what needs to be removed. Mr. Lockett: I support the effort. The only reason I pulled this was define what a few trees were and I wanted to highlight the fact that Milledgeville Road, Gordon Highway, Peach 71 Orchard, Deans Bridge we have a much more serious problem with fatalities, deaths and fatalities and so forth. So while we’re looking at Highland Avenue which is extremely important and which I support let’s don’t forget about those others (unintelligible). Mr. Cassell: We’ve actually got a project on Gordon Highway and Deans Bridge Road but Milledgeville Road was also another area I want to try this treatment on. It’s been successful on Phinizy Road like that too. You know it’s not brand new technology but with the TSPLOST and the discretionary fund we have some opportunity to try some stuff we haven’t had before and this one of them. Mr. Lockett: If we have anybody in attendance that was sitting here waiting for that agenda item I apologize. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, I don’t think so. Commissioner Fennoy then Commissioner Williams. Mr. Fennoy: Yes, I’d like to make a motion we send this back to committee. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Commissioner Guilfoyle. Mr. Guilfoyle: Motion to approve. Ms. Davis: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Commission Williams? Mr. Williams: I don’t see my question, we’ve got all these motions out here and I can’t understand a word. Steve, how much money are we talking about spending roughly? I mean talking about taking out a few trees and flashing lights and all that? How much money are we talking about? Mr. Cassell: You’re probably looking with the equipment and everything else probably looking at six to seven thousand dollars. A lot of it will be absorbed under the Highland Avenue Resurfacing Project. The trees we’ve got funding for the trees (inaudible). Mr. Williams: Somebody didn’t (inaudible) take down too many but in an area where the people are tree huggers up there and you’ve got some old trees that’s been hugged long time. So and some of them I think serve a useful purpose but you just can’t go in there and just because it’s going to put up fences and lights. When I rode by there and looked at where that situation is, it’s going to be kind of difficult to move (unintelligible). Mr. Cassell: (unintelligible). Mr. Williams: Okay, well I just wanted to be careful, that’s all because (unintelligible) cutting up trees and removing them --- 72 Mr. Cassell: Absolutely. Mr. Williams: --- trimming them and removing them. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a motion and a second to approve. No further questions vote by the usual sign of voting. Mr. Jackson and Mr. D. Smith out. Motion Passes 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, Madam Clerk. Mr. Speaker: (Inaudible). Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, motion to approve. We didn’t get a second on that motion. That was the last item, Madam Clerk? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we’re not going to have a quorum for Legal so those items can be moved to the beginning of committee meeting. Mr. MacKenzie: You mean the next Legal? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have some people leaving, they got to go. Grady, are you staying? Ms. Davis: My child is getting an award so it’s not by design. Mr. Williams: Well, I don’t mean you now. Let me tell you what my grandpa used to say (unintelligible) we’ll holler. I didn’t say, I didn’t call no name. I just said (unintelligible). Okay --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have seven people that can stay? Grady, are you staying? Mr. G. Smith: I got a, any of ya’ll looking at me (unintelligible) you’re killing me --- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: If we’ve got enough we can go, we should be fine with this. Mr. G. Smith: All right. You made me feel guilty. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we’ve got a couple items we need to discuss in Legal. LEGAL MEETING A. Pending and Potential Litigation. B. Real Estate. 73 C. Personnel. ADDENDUM 41. Motion to approve going into a legal meeting. Mr. MacKenzie: I make a motion to go into a closed meeting to discuss personnel and pending and potential litigation. Mr. Williams: So moved. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Fennoy: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right, we have a proper motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis, Mr. Jackson and Mr. D. Smith out. Motion Passes 7-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we’re in Legal. [LEGAL MEETING] Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’ll call the meeting back on. The Clerk: Yes, sir ADDENDUM 43. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to execute the Closed Meeting affidavit. Mr. Lockett: So moved. Mr. Guilfoyle: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All right we have a proper motion and a second. Any further discussion hearing none vote by the usual sign of voting. Ms. Davis, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Jackson and Mr. D. Smith out. Motion Passes 6-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Meeting is adjourned. 74 [MEETING ADJOURNED] Nancy Morawski Deputy Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on May 6, 2014. _______________________ Clerk of Commission 75 76