HomeMy WebLinkAboutCalled Commission Meeting December 8, 2014
CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
December 8, 2014
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 12:00 Noon, Monday, December 8,
2014, the Honorable Corey Johnson, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Guilfoyle, Harris, Williams, Fennoy, Hasan and Davis,
members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hons. Deke Copenhaver, Mayor; Mason and Smith, members of the Augusta
Richmond County Commission.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Madam Clerk, we’ll go ahead and call the meeting to order. I think
we have a, Mr. Attorney, I think we have a need for a legal.
1.LEGAL MEETING
A.Pending and potential litigation
B.Real estate
C.Personnel
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, we do. I’d entertain a motion to go into legal to discuss pending
and potential litigation, real estate and personnel.
Mr. Johnson: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Lockett: So move.
Ms. Davis: Second.
Mr. Johnson: All right, it’s been properly motioned and seconded. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk, we are in legal.
[LEGAL MEETING]
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Madam Clerk.
2.Motion to approve authorizing 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.
1
Mr. Johnson: Can I get a motion to that effect?
Mr. Williams: So move.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Second.
Mr. Johnson: That’s been properly motioned and seconded. Any further discussion?
Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Fennoy out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Andrew.
Mr. MacKenzie: I would entertain a motion to approve a resolution authorizing a
settlement of all claims related to the real property of Patricia Harper located at 3603
Audobon Place, Augusta, Georgia in the amount of $34,266.84 and to direct the payment of
emergency cleanup for this property.
Mr. Lockett: So move.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Johnson: All right, there’s been a proper motion and second. Any further
discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Fennoy out.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. MacKenzie: That’s all I have.
Mr. Johnson: All right. Okay, Madam Clerk, we have one more item.
3.Personnel Issues. (Requested by Commissioner Mason)
The Clerk: Yes, sir. Well, item three, I guess we can defer that to the next meeting. Mr.
Mason is out.
Mr. Johnson: Oh, yes.
The Clerk: Okay, we’ll defer that to the next meeting.
4.Motion to reconsider the action taken by the Augusta Commission on December 2,
2014 to task the Internal Auditor to conduct an audit of all expenditures associated
with the Hyde Park Relocation Project broken out in defined/appropriate categories
2
and submit a comprehensive/detailed report of findings to the Augusta Commission.
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Johnson)
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Madam Clerk. This item was actually put on by myself to actually
reconsider the action that was taken last week and to take the emphasis off the Hyde Park
Relocation and Project and to solely direct it to the Housing and Community Development. I
thought it would be prudent to take this action because of course the resignation of Mr. Chester
Wheeler last week. Of course we want to know the state of that department as well as
understanding where we are financially not just with the Hyde Park but with all the projects that
they’re working on. We do know we have the Interim Director Mr. Hawthorne Welcher who is
assuming the role so it would in the best interest to make sure that we have a, some type of
inquiry of exactly where we are moving forward and for the commission to know exactly what
we need to be doing and what we need to be focusing on as we proceed into the next year so I
just wanted to reconsider that action and then of course make a motion at that particular time to
focus solely on the Housing and Community Development as an audit item.
The Clerk: The entire department?
Mr. Johnson: Yes and I will put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Hasan: Second.
Mr. Johnson: All right, well, actually no, I can’t, I can’t make the motion but I can
second so if you want to make a motion you can do that, Mr. Hasan. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before we make any motion to reconsider
anything, why can’t we just make a motion to add to? Why are you going to reconsider this and
then turn around and make another motion to add something else to it? Why don’t we just make
a motion to add to this the entire department versus reconsidering this? Now I’ve got some issue
when you want to reconsider this when we can just make a motion to add to the motion that has
already been approved to look at the entire department versus –
Mr. Johnson: Well, the reason being is because when you talk about an audit on Hyde
Park that involves several different departments. It’s not just Housing and Community
Development. Now if you want to say as it relates to Hyde Park Housing and Community
Development we can say that which that’s what I was talking about earlier as I define some of
the other projects Laney Walker Bethlehem and so forth and so on but if you talk about just
expenditures of Hyde Park you’ve got to look at Engineering, you’ve got to look at Housing and
Development, you’ve got to look at Finance –
Mr. Williams: If Engineering and Finance is involved with the Hyde Park
Redevelopment with that $4.5 million dollars, then everything need to be looked at and that’s
why we would be doing an audit. Now I’m not leaving out any department because I mean I’m
not going to their department but if it’s connected to Hyde Park, we still got to do the same thing.
I mean how can you look at Hyde Park and just help me out with this, how can you look at Hyde
Park and say well, if on the Engineering side we don’t know that or if it’s the Finance side we
3
don’t know that. I don’t think Mr. Welcher out there, they don’t write the checks so all that’s
connected together and I think we need to have that brought back to us but I mean somebody
need to explain that to me.
Mr. Johnson: Well, hold on one second and I’ll get Commissioner Hasan, let me just say
this. With Hyde Park being an ongoing project it’s kind of hard to do an audit, a thorough audit
on the department, because it is an ongoing project and we got people right now, they’re actually
going to closings as we speak and we’re talking about doing an audit, it won’t be efficient
because it will not give us the information that we’re trying to obtain because it’s not a complete
project. If it was completed then we could do an overall audit and get the information but
because it’s still ongoing, we just couldn’t get the adequate information that is and I know that’s
the intent of this item is to try to get the information as it relates to the whole project in its
entirety but we just can’t get that because it’s still an ongoing project and it’s still information
out there now even financially that we won’t be able to obtain because it is an ongoing project
and so that’s why, you know, just talking with the attorney that’s handling it, Wayne Brown, it
wouldn’t do us any good to do that so and it would make more sense to actually direct this to the
department in its entirety if we want to try to get an understanding of what they’ve done with
Hyde Park along with the other projects that they’ve already implemented because the only one
that’s ongoing is of course is Laney Walker Bethlehem. But everything else is still in motion
and some of them are, well, let me say most of them are completed projects but the ones that are
still in the process are Laney Walker Bethlehem and Hyde Park and Hyde Park of course is
threefold. You’ve got the attorneys, you’ve got Engineering, and then you’ve got Housing and
Community Development. So it’s three major departments who are handling this process and so
it would just be more cumbersome to try to get all that information on something especially
being at this point so financially I just don’t think it would be in our best interest to do that and
then I just think, you know, looking at the state of the department as we move forward since the
resignation of Mr. Wheeler I think it would be in our best interest to look at where we are and the
state that Mr. Wheeler left the department so we can kind of start a clean slate moving forward
and that’s why I wanted to reconsider this item and the motion will be to reconsider this item
first and foremost and just solely direct it to an individual department so that would actually be
the motion that need to be made.
Mr. Williams: If I can respond, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Housing and Neighborhood
Development has a lot of projects that had not been completed.
Mr. Johnson: Right.
Mr. Williams: So if we’re going to look at their entirety and their body, they’ve got
projects that are not completed now just like Hyde Park is not completed so how can we get an
accurate report or audit done with them then if what you’re saying is true. What I’m saying is
when you do an audit you don’t stop your process and say we’ve got to wait until we finish it
because if there is something that is being misused, mishandled or misunderstood, that ought to
come up with that audit and that’s why we’re doing it so that argument won’t hold water with me
as far as they hadn’t finished and there are people out there. I totally disagree with that. I just
think that we’re doing our audit, we’ve got it going, we can add to it and expand it but as far as
you saying that because it hadn’t been completed we wouldn’t get an accurate report, I disagree
4
because Housing and Neighborhood Development has got a lot of projects they’ve been doing
not just in the Laney Walker but all over this city that hadn’t been completed. Mr. Welcher
might want to come up and step forward to help me out. If that’s not true, then somebody need
to share with me that that’s not true. If it is, then how can we stop with one and not do
everybody like you’re saying.
Mr. Johnson: Well, hold on and let me get Mr. Hasan and then we’ll –
Mr. Hasan: Mr. Williams, I agree with your comments. I think you’re absolutely right in
terms of ongoing projects we’ve got but I think really the real issue for Hyde Park that gives me
heartburn in the fact that the attorneys in this government made a conscious decision to do
business over there as a single real estate transaction and it being that way and they were still
purchasing properties, still trying to relocate people even though it was at a snail’s pace, they’re
trying to protect the integrity of that process and if we do an audit of that I’m just not sure how
we’re going to keep control of the information and keep it as a single real estate transaction so
the integrity of that process would not be violated. That’s the only concern so it has nothing to
do, in my mind, I didn’t say that so I don’t have to take responsibility for that but that’s the
concern for me is a single real estate transaction to protect the integrity of that process and if we
do that (inaudible) we have no way to control it and that was the concern. That would be the
concern here.
Mr. Williams: And my response to that would be to the best of our ability we have to do
what we can. Either we don’t do the audit and there’s something wrong. I understand about
what you’re saying about wanting to use that protection. But to the best of our ability and doing
things the proper way through the audit, we have to do the best we can. And some of these
things are probably going to get out, leak out, be told, however you want to phrase it but we can’t
just use an excuse to say because they’re not finished and we’re going to create something and
people are going panic and whatever. Too much money has been spent, man, for us to sit and
even hold this conversation. We’ve got committee meetings that we need to handle.
Mr. Johnson: Well, I think that the whole intent is to really try to gain some control with
the audit and specifically directed or not, I mean regardless of whether or not the projects are
finished it’s not just contingency on that, Commissioner Hasan had a very valid point in my
opinion, but I think as we transition from the, in the Housing Department I think it would be
prudent that we do that in that department because it does give us a better understanding of
where we are with projects as it relates to some that’s been completed, those that are still
lingering, those that hadn’t even been implemented at all, they haven’t even attempted to break
ground on them so we’ll know exactly the state of the department moving forward and then the
commission at that time can reevaluate some things and decide whether or not you want to go in
a different direction or you want to redirect some things to something different but all in all I just
don’t think us doing an audit on Hyde Park because we did get a breakdown on expenditures or
where the monies has gone thus far two weeks ago and in my opinion that was enough to show
us exactly where we have spent money. We know that it’s been some things as it relates to the
process that we may not agree with but this is the first time we ever did something of this
magnitude so I don’t think the audit is going to really do anything for the people out there
because again it’s not helping them one way or the other. It’s really for us and I think this is
5
what the intent was to try to get a better understanding of where the money has gone and so in a
nutshell I mean I know audits can be very costly. They can be very expensive and I just feel like
if we take the money and finance it and we still need to go to Finance and see exactly what this is
going to cost us to even do that particular audit but I think it would be more fruitful to direct the
audit to that department solely especially with the circumstances, the new circumstances
surrounding Housing and Community Development and give us a better understanding so like I
said before we start with a clean slate and as it relates to Hyde Park the information that we need
you can go to Engineering, we can go to Housing and Community Development, we can request
individual documents that is needed to satisfy the concerns that you may have or anybody else
may have as it relates to the expenditures but I don’t want get into compromising the integrity of
the process and I think it just, it wouldn’t really provide a lot of opportunity for us here as it
relates to the community. We know it needs to be done. We understand that we’re still trying to
identify more funding and as we spoke about before the project is still on course. It’s not
defunded in other words. Some people were told that the project had basically, we went broke.
And so we’re still moving as we speak. We just don’t have the finances that we would expected
to have at this junction solely that depended on or relied on the SPLOST VII to pass and that did
not pass in May. We were looking at options to find funding sources in which they have
identified and I think at this point, yeah, I know Commissioner Guilfoyle had –
Mr. Lockett: No, I’m Lockett.
Mr. Johnson: No, no, he did have his hand up too and then we’ll go to you,
Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Anyway I’m sitting here listening to my colleagues. Why don’t we try
this? First we’ve got to look and see what the audit’s going to cost, what type of audit we’re
going to be looking at. Are we going to spend $300,000 just to find 30? Hawthorne has been
part of that department for, ever since I’ve been on the floor. It’s not like he’s not privy to some
of the information but now that he’s the Interim Director he’s actually privy to all of the
information. Why don’t we rely on him and his expertise to go through the books, go through
the numbers to find out if it’s feasible and for him to come back before this body to find out if
it’s necessary to spend the money and first of all, we’ve got to figure out how much money we’re
going to be spending on the audit.
Mr. Johnson: Well, I know that it was approved last week to do the audit, Hyde Park
audit, so I don’t know what the numbers were on that particular audit but I do know it was
approved so we may look at that in detail to see exactly what the numbers were. Commissioner
Lockett then Commissioner Hasan.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all it is just going to be a regular
internal audit. Why should we have one now when we just had one a few months ago when all
the departments were audited? If we suspect that there was wrongdoing, we need to have a
forensic audit. In order to have a forensic audit, there are certain things that you must do. How
do I know? Because we did it before. It took days of us sitting down meeting, fine tuning
exactly what we wanted the auditors to look for. And I’m a little upset that we keep bringing the
former Housing and Community Director’s name associated with audit. The implication is he
6
did something wrong, he did something illegal. I wish we would separate the two. I have no
problem with an audit but I do have a problem with character assassination. If we want to do a
forensic audit, let’s go through the steps and find out what we must do therefore if there is
wrongdoing, there can be prosecution. So let’s go all out and do it right or not do it at all.
Mr. Johnson: Well, I think just for the record I will state from my perspective I never
said it and never intended for it to be assumed that Mr. Wheeler has done anything wrong or
remotely broken any laws. We just wanted to make sure that moving forward we understood the
state of the department as a whole and that was solely the intent so I mean I agree. I don’t think
at the end of the day a forensic audit would be a bad thing. I think it would be probably the best
thing to do to kind of pinpoint the areas that need to be targeted.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, if I may and I apologize for interrupting you. But I do agree
wholeheartedly with Commissioner Williams. You can’t put a boundary on this audit. You’ve
got to go where you think the wrong is and it may overlap into Finance, it may overlap into Parks
and Recreation, it may overlap into the Administrator’s Office or the Mayor’s Office. You can’t
put no limit on that investigation if you want, if you really want to find out what is going on.
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Hasan.
Mr. Hasan: Yes, I would like to make a motion to rescind the action of the
Commission on December 2 related to the internal audit of the Hyde Park Relocation
Project.
That’s going to be my motion now.
Mr. Johnson: Okay.
Mr. Fennoy: Second.
Mr. Lockett: Madam Clerk, will you read that motion please?
The Clerk: The motion was to rescind the action taken by the Augusta Commission on
December 2, 2014 to task the Internal Auditor to conduct an audit of all expenditures associated
with the Hyde Park Relocation Project.
Mr. Johnson: All right. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. You mean to tell me that we sit here
and decided that $4.something million dollars has been spent and we don’t know where it went
and who spent it and now we’re going to rescind, going to go back and vote to not proceed with
what we already put in place. We want to first of all say that the audit had not been, it can’t be
completed because we hadn’t completed the project and it’s going to spill over into another
department. Are we afraid to make the hard decision to do what’s right and nobody accuse
anybody of anything? But that’s what an audit does, show us where everything is right or if it’s
wrong and now we’re going to rescind that? I mean I really don’t understand. I’m won’t go
with that, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
7
Mr. Johnson: Go ahead, Commissioner Hasan.
Mr. Hasan: Yes. I just want to know, I’m not sure whether Ms. Jackson had an
opportunity to meet with the HUD office, Mr. Welcher. And I know we had been in legal for
quite some time. If she has, is it anything she wants to share with the commission, any directions
or anything? I don’t know whether it is appropriate on the floor to do that if you’ve had the
pleasure of meeting with them. We didn’t get a chance, if you did, and if you did is there
anything that we need to know for the most part?
Mr. Johnson: Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Jackson: I have not met with the HUD office in Atlanta yet but Mr. Welcher has
provided me with their contact information. It would typical even outside of a standard audit for
me to get with the HUD office to see if they have any problems, concerns, review any
documentation that they have provided on the department in the past. So that would be part of
what I would do regardless and I fully plan to do that in this instance but that would not, if you
want something, what I’m describing more like a forensic audit that would certainly be above
and beyond that first conversation with HUD but if that is the will of the body would be asking
them for their direction on the appropriate people to conduct such an audit and how to go about
it.
Mr. Hasan: Okay, but my basic question also was to the point of you meeting with the
staff there in the HUD office in some sense of direction or things of that nature and I’m asking
was that appropriate for a public setting if you have had the pleasure of meeting with Mr.
Welcher –
Ms. Jackson: The HCD staff?
Mr. Hasan: Yes.
Ms. Jackson: Okay, yes, I did have a brief meeting with them to just talk through the
process of where we go from here, search process for a new director, etc., etc. so those were the
types of conversations and the fact that I need to get familiar with their programs and projects.
So that was basically the substance of my meeting with them last week.
Mr. Hasan: Thank you.
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Guilfoyle.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Thank you. I wonder if I could ask Hawthorne a couple of questions.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, yes, Mr. Welcher.
Mr. Guilfoyle: Mr. Welcher, your money is federal money, is that correct?
8
Mr. Welcher: Yes, sir. It is actually an annual allocation of entitlement funds which
basically means based on the population size of the city of Augusta that we don’t have to apply
for this funding on an annual basis. So basically what you have is you have HOME Investment
Partnership funds, which allows us to be able to provide funding for leveraging for affordable
housing. We also get a pot of funds called Community Development Block Grant funds. Mainly
that goes to our area non-profits who provide services for the good of the community. We also
get what is called HOPWA, Housing for Persons with AIDS funding. This funding actually goes
to those agencies and this is those agencies from the CSRA standpoint. That goes to those
agencies that provide service to persons who have AIDS and then you also have what is called
ESG or Emergency Solution Grants fund. That funding actually goes to help persons, those
persons who help the homeless and the homeless needs.
Mr. Guilfoyle: All right. Explain something to me. As far as the rules, guidelines and
for you to be in compliance with using federal grant money, is it stricter than what the rest of our
departments will comply with? There’s a lot more paperwork involved and –
Mr. Welcher: I would say that it is definitely stricter, there is definitely a lot of
paperwork involved because, you know, if I take, if you look at the Laney Walker Bethlehem
development, if you look at the Laney Walker Revitalization Project which is not federal but we
have actually leveraged federal funding into that project, basically what you have there, we’re
serving as the master developer so we’re the ones actually using the funding. However from a
federal standpoint to specifically answer your question, it’s a little hard on our side because for
the most part the funding that we have, we’re providing it to non-profits or we’re providing it to
for profits, we’re providing it to agencies who are actually providing the services or to non-
profits who are actually developing the housing so it’s harder because we’re actually committing
the money to them for eligible activities so we have to be sure that they adhere to pretty much
those eligible activities. Now one of the things about it is we always pay on a reimbursement
basis so from a contractual standpoint and an active engagement we’ve already gone through and
we know specifically what they’re doing. We verify that the actual action that they’re carrying
out is eligible activity as, we substantiate it by what is called CFR or Code of Federal
Regulations. So one of the things that we do internally when we actually create an agreement is
we cite the Code of Federal Regulation in regards to exactly what that non-profit or for profit is
actually carrying out. Now you’re talking about audits. Well, one of the things that the HUD
regional office does every year is, you know, they audit our department every year. Now they
don’t audit every single program but they pick and choose in regards to exactly what program.
This past year they actually audited the CDBG program. This upcoming year, they flip flop, of
the year ‘15 they’ll look at the HOME program. As recently as yesterday they looked at our
Environmental Review Monitoring Concept and what was submitted to Madam Administrator
was that pretty much we had met all compliance components in regards to environmental
reviews, how we go about using our monitoring, because when you put federal money into a
project, you actually have to do an environmental review first before you even look at
committing money so that our monitoring concept or practice that we use, that was approved as
well.
Mr. Guilfoyle: One last question and I appreciate all that information. As far as Hyde
Park I know it was manufactured on this floor because that was not a SPLOST project that was
9
approved by the people. We actually had something like 4.3 mill that we set aside for that one
project knowing that we did not have $18 million dollars set aside for it. This body also
approved following the federal guidelines for the movement of the people. Now if we would
follow just our local guidelines, would we have gotten a lot farther and quicker and cheaper?
Mr. Welcher: Well, you know in my opinion if you look at, we’re talking about
relocation, correct?
Mr. Guilfoyle: Yes, sir.
Mr. Welcher: Well, in my opinion if you’re talking about local guidelines, in my opinion
you would have to have defined what are your local relocation guidelines. The Uniform
Relocation Act of 1971 basically was very specific in what it says. And basically what it says is
that you’re going to actually make a person whole based on their current living conditions. So if
my grandmother actually stayed in Hyde Park for 30 years she didn’t have a mortgage. She
stayed in a house that was a three-bedroom, two-bathroom, well, guess what? When I move her,
she can’t have a mortgage either and I also have to put her in a house that is at least a three-
bedroom, two-bathroom bath. Now I can go up. I can give her four bedrooms but one of the
things about the Uniform Relocation Act –
Mr. Guilfoyle: Hawthorne, I appreciate that information.
Mr. Welcher: All right, thank you.
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: Yeah, Mr. Welcher, before you sit down please. A couple of questions.
Housing and Neighborhood Development. You talked about for profit and non-profit. Who
makes the decision on who gets those funds? For profit or non-profit. What organization. How
does that work?
Mr. Welcher: When I say for profit or non-profit, the only program in which we can
actually help for profits would be the HOME Investment Partnership program.
Mr. Williams: But I’m asking who makes that decision on who gets what, I guess, either
one of those, non-profit or for profit?
Mr. Welcher: It could go to either. It’s based on an application. It’s open for anybody.
Mr. Williams: I understand. I’ve been on Hap Harris too long. I can’t explain myself.
I’m trying to ask you who makes the decision to give the monies to either one of those entities.
Mr. Welcher: Our department internally based on the applications.
Mr. Williams: Okay, your department on the applications.
10
Mr. Welcher: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Following the federal guidelines that have been used to move the people
out of Hyde Park and not using federal monies, what correlation is that, I mean, is that because
we had to do that and we use different monies or we use those guidelines, we had to do certain
things about and just for information for me.
Mr. Welcher: We did not have to use the Uniform Relocation Act. That was just pretty
much the relocation tool that was thought about and used because that was one that we were very
familiar with. So that was one that my predecessor indicated we would be able to articulate from
beginning to end and we were very familiar with. He felt as though it was fair but we didn’t
have to use that tool however I go back to the same question. If you don’t use that tool we could
have manufactured one. Yes, we could have. But that’s just the one that he chose to use.
Mr. Johnson: Well, I’ll take the hit for that because I did request that we use that after,
during the research on the Federal Relocation Act, I understood that the guidelines was very fair
and they were very thorough and I wanted to make sure that the people were confident so that if
they had any questions they could go and look up that Act and see exactly how it applies to them
and anybody and so as a result of that, a lot of them have went to the website and pulled it up and
they’ve been able to read up on the Federal Relocation Act and see exactly how it applied and
what it means for them to make sure nothing was being done because as you said before, we
could have invented something here on a local level but it wouldn’t have gave them much
confidence in knowing exactly what it means for them. But having something like you said
where they can go to the website, see what it means, see how it’s worked in the past with other
relocation efforts and so forth and so on, and so I wanted to be fair. I wanted them to know they
were going to be made whole. It was going to be equal to or greater and that was just the whole
theory behind using that Federal Relocation Act. So that was the gist to bringing that to this
particular whole relocation process. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Williams: I didn’t have my last question because you interceded and claimed that –
Mr. Johnson: Go ahead, Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Williams: The relocation and all the things in Hyde Park, how do we decide on the
people who did the different services in Hyde Park as far as land acquisition, I mean, all that
come out of one department out of what. How did we decide on those entities that did the work
in Hyde Park area because we’re talking about doing an audit, don’t seem to be on the same page
today but it won’t go away, I promise you that. It’s going to be around here for a while. If we
don’t do it today, we’ll do it tomorrow but sometime or another. Who decides that is my
question.
Mr. Welcher: That was a conversation between the Engineering Department and the
Housing Department in regards to exactly who was going to carry out which action.
Mr. Williams: And that’s all. Thank you, sir.
11
Mr. Johnson: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Chairman, after we complete this agenda item if I could have just a
brief point of personal privilege, please.
Mr. Johnson: Okay. All right, we do have a motion and a second on the floor, Madam
Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson: Any further discussion? Hearing none, vote by the usual sign of voting.
Madam Clerk, if you can, please restate the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to rescind the action taken by the Augusta Commission on
the December 2, 2014 meeting to task the Internal Auditor to conduct an audit of all expenditures
associated with the Hyde Park Relocation Project. Mr. Hasan and Mr. Fennoy.
Mr. Johnson: All right, vote by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 7-1.
Mr. Johnson: Okay, Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to announce the untimely demise of
one of our employees. One of the members of the Housing and Community Development, the
department and I would hope that we could just have a couple of seconds of silence in
recognition of that.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir.
Mr. Hasan: Miss Nicki Barnes.
(Moment of silence is observed)
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Johnson: You’re welcome. All right, Madam Clerk. That concludes our special
called meeting.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
12
Mr. Williams: Would you put this item back on the regular agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: For the audit to be done.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Johnson: All right, Madam Clerk, we stand adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy
of the minutes of the Called Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
December 8, 2014.
________________________
Clerk of Commission
13