Commission - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you so much for being here. We're waiting on one more commissioner so that we have a quorum so that we can begin. We appreciate your patience. We'll be with you momentarily. Thank you so much. All right, colleagues of the Richmond County, Augusta Richmond County Commission, if you make your way to the dais, that will be great. Madam Clerk, it appears that we have enough for a quorum. The time is now 2.07 p.m. I'm gonna call this meeting to order. This is the Thursday edition, May 21st of the Augusta Richmond County Commission meeting. It was moved because of voting. Thanks to all of you who participated in our election process. Congratulations to the winners. Congratulations to all those that participated. Also, it is the day before the unofficial start of summer, the weekend before, Memorial Day. Let us not forget the reason for that holiday, Memorial Day, paying homage to all of those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for the protections of the democracy in which we just enjoy it by voting. So pray for the families that are involved, pray for all of our service members, and thank everybody. With that, Madam Clerk, we're prepared to get started. Thank you.

Great PSA, Mr. Mayor. That was great. call your attention to the invocation portion of our agenda, which will be shared with us today by one of Augusta's renowned pastors, Bishop Rosa L. Williams, who is the pastor of the Ever Faithful Missionary Baptist Church.

We bless God for his goodness and his mercy. And I do ask that you come along with me to the throne because we all need him. God, our Father, we love you. And we thank you that you have been far greater in your love than our love has been. because you gave up the ultimate, everything for us. And as we come here today, we come in here in your son Jesus' name. There are other names by other nations that they would call, but God, I know you by Jesus. And I do ask now in the name of Jesus that you bless us and make us one, because your words say that we are one. And as we come together, We're coming here not on Augusta's business, but we're coming here on kingdom business by way of Augusta.

We thank you right now in the name of Jesus that as you put us on one accord and let your will be released from heart to heart and mind to mind, that you will, merciful Father, help us to know your will and let your will be done. Because your will is the greatest will that ever can be. And merciful Father, as we come, we come humbly. Asking that you move in your mysterious ways. And take these, merciful Father, who has answered the call to serve you in this present age. And even though they may have many ups and downs. They may have, merciful Father, trials and tribulations. They may have to go through the fire, through the waters. Through the rivers. But Lord, you said, and we're going to hold you to it, in the name of Jesus, that you will never leave us. You said, merciful Father, that you will stand with us and for us. And if you be for us, who or what could be against us? Augusta wants you. Augusta needs you. But not just Augusta. Georgia needs you. Not just Georgia, but merciful Father, America needs you. Not just America, but mankind everywhere needs you. Because without you, we could do nothing. We ask that you bless us individually and collectively and make the garden city bloom, Lord. Bloom, merciful Father, with righteousness. Bloom with love. Bloom with unity. Bring us together and let us know that it's not about us, but it's about you. Because when this is all over with, we still have to have another government, merciful Father, who's able to keep you. And you said, and the government will be on your shoulders. So I ask them to turn to you who made the heavens and the earth. I ask them to turn to you who knows the ups and the downs. I ask them to turn to you who knows the answer for every solution. Oh God, I praise you today that as we look unto you who is the author and finisher of all of our faith, that Augusta will be all that you say she is. And we will declare and decree that your word and your will will not go out and come back void. Let every commissioner along with our mayor move forward in your will, God. Let everyone who is concerned about the love of God that will embrace us to bring us victory from day to day, that our city will grow in such a manner, God, that the world will have to say that God to be a God in Augusta. When it's all over, merciful Father, whatever the will is. Please, for God's sake, let us all say your will. We ask it in no other name but the powerful name of Jesus. And those who agree with me, I pray we'll say together amen.

Amen and amen again.

As the church normally say, thank you for sending up that timber on our behalf. That precious timber. Thank you. By these presents, be it known that Bishop Rosa L. Williams, pastor of the ever faithful Missionary Baptist Church, is our chaplain of the day. May your spiritual guidance and steadfast leadership continue to uplift and bless the citizens of Augusta. Given under my hand this 21st day of May, 2026, Garnett L. Johnson, Mayor.

Bishop, words can never thank you enough for all that you do. You are a godly woman, and you are a praying woman, and we thank you so much for everything. Just know that, okay? Thank you for being here today.

We thank the Lord, and I want you to know that you are on our prayer list. And when I say you, I'm saying you, Mr. Mayor, along with the officers of our city, and your names are called five days a week. We're asking God to bring you together in the unity of love, and love will destroy anything that tries to destroy you.

Thank you. Thank you, Bishop. All right. All right, Madam Clerk. I think we got a good start now.

We do. We do. Thank you. I call your attention to the delegation. portion of our agenda. Item A, Ms. Deborah Estep, regarding freedom of speech, calling out systematic concerns and community deflected as personal attacks.

Thank you so much. Ms. Estep, welcome back to the commission. Before we get started, I just want to say, please stay on topic, please. All right, that's all I ask. With that being said, please state your name and address, and you have five minutes.

Deborah Estep, 1523 Johns Road.

Ma'am, you have the floor.

Good evening, Mayor and Commission. First, what happened? At the last meeting, I was removed from this podium during public comment. The moment I was removed was the moment I publicly recommended a candidate for mayor. I was calm. I did not raise my voice. I did not exceed my time. I was not preventing the body from conducting its business. The officer who escorted me out was professional and was doing exactly what he was asked to do. My issue is not with him. My issue is the decision that put him in that position. Immediately after I was removed, the very next item on the agenda was a citizen position to provide legal justification for my removal. To cover this body from suspicion and to support what was clearly already planned. That placement was not a coincidence. It was concerning. It was prepared. Someone in this body knew what they were going to do ahead of time and arranged for the response in advance. Recommending a candidate for a public podium is something a citizen is allowed to do. And that was done in response to something that was choreographed. I want to be clear about why I made that recommendation because that has spinned since. I do not work for any candidate. No one tells me what to do with this podium. I recommend a candidate because I want money out of politics and out of elections. That principle will remain for any single candidate race as we move forward. It does not belong to any candidate. It belongs to the citizens of this city. Second, on how this has been characterized. Since the last meeting, there's been public framing on social media and in casual remarks by the people in positions of authority describing what I said at this podium as a personal attack. I want to be clear about why I made that recommendation because there has, oh sorry. I want to be precise about that. Naming structural failure is not the same as attacking a person. Asking documented questions of a public body is not the same as attacking a person. Officials who are doing their jobs do not need to characterize documented critique as a personal attack. The reframe is the giveaway. The minutes of these meetings, the recordings and the documents on file are what is evidence. Social media commentary by officials is not. Third, ban the box and where I stand. Important work has been done on ban the box, language in this chamber, and I support that work. I still support that work. I support the rights of formerly incarcerated. The cause is right. My line is clear. I support workers. I do not condone the use of a worker as a political arm. This is also worth noting on the public record. The public record shows citizens who come to this chamber to advocate held for hours, moved to the bottom of agendas, and told at the end of long waits that their items have been removed. That treatment, whatever its intent, has the effect of wearing a working class advocate down until inclusion on terms set by this body becomes the path of least resistance. That is a concern. It is a pattern worth watching for, and this is not the first time something like this has happened. Workers, yes. Workers used as the arm of dishonest political maneuvering, no. That line is mine and it stays. Fourth, the pattern. When citizens bring documented concerns to this chamber, the concern often disappears. In its place, the conversation becomes about the citizen, their tone, their procedure, whether they were sufficiently polite about being ignored. That is deflection. Deflection in the face of systemic failure is itself a failure of government. I work for the people of this city without pay, without reward, without political alliance. The pressure citizens apply in this room is not personal. It is procedural. It is the lever the public uses when the levers have failed otherwise. Fifth on the election, the voters have spoken. I have no quarrel with the voters of this city. My line is not which candidate won. My line is money. Money in the pockets of people who are supposed to represent us and I'm not working for any politician. I am united with the workers of this city and I'm not going anywhere. To this Diocese and to the people of the city, you cannot exclude people systematically and call it procedure. You cannot place legal justification on an agenda like a weapon and call it process.

One minute.

You cannot ignore documented concerns and call it order. I know the difference between a government that is trying and a government that is performing. This body has shown me which it is, and I'm not going to be the fourth wall you hide behind. Do right by this city, and you will not need me to return. That choice is yours. Thank you.

Ms. Estep, thank you so much for being here today. We appreciate your participation in this delegation portion of this meeting. Madam Clerk, I think that takes us to delegation item B. Yes, sir.

Mrs. Ikea Mabry regarding community stress and mental health, the emotional impact of environmental infrastructure and public trust concerns.

Ms. Mabry, are you here today? Ms. Mabry, are you outside? Third call for Ms. Mabry. Madam Clerk, I don't think she's here. Maybe the date changed with the election.

Okay.

Let's move on to, I think that takes us to the consent portion of our consent, correct? Yes, sir. Okay.

The consent portion of our agenda consists of items 1 through 23. Items 1 through 23. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Do we have any addendums, please?

Yes, sir. They've been placed at your places on the dais.

Okay. For the record and for the general public, can we put those up? Yes, sir. Read them aloud, please, once we get them up.

OKAY. Item number one is to discuss the Augusta common usage and the 2026 summer music series requested by Commissioner Francine Scott. Item number two is approval acceptance of a $1,010,750 Georgia Department of Transportation grant for airport hangar site development program with signed documents from Augusta due to GDOT, no later than May 23rd, 2026, requested by the Daniel Field Airport Via Administration. Item number three is to approve the installation of additional three speed humps along lower segment of Flagler Road with a construction cost of $22,000 funded by the Traffic Engineering Fiscal Year 2026 Operation Budget Traffic Calming Pavement Funds requested by Mayor Garnett L. Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Colleagues, is there any objection adding these three items to today's agenda? Madam Clerk, I see or hear no objections, so they are added to today's agenda. All right, do we have any planning or alcohol petitions that need to be written to the record, please? Okay. Well, they're on our regular agenda.

All right, let's just go, let's get through the... The consent portion?

Let's get through the consent portion. Chair recognize Mayor Pro Tem Wayne.

Mr. Mayor, I would like to see if the body wouldn't mind presenting these items.

Yes, sir.

Madam Clerk, you ready?

Yes, sir.

The agenda item number 30. 30. 32.

33. 34.

And 40. And my colleagues that has items for discussion, if they would like to, that's up to them if they want to push it back to the committee because that'll make for a very long discussion on these six items. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Chair recognizes Commissioner Brandegar from the 8th.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to add agenda item number 44 to the consent agenda. 44.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Garrett.

Chair recognizes Commissioner Don Clark. Item 38, 39 from the consent agenda. I want to move those both back to committee.

38 and 39.

Yes, ma'am.

To committee.

38 and 39.

38 is not yours.

Well, we talked already. Yeah. Commissioner Pulliam and I talked about those two. You still good, Commissioner Pulliam? All right, thank you. 38 and 39, move those to our committee. Number 45 as well, move that to committee. Number 42, I'd like for that one to be split into two separate agenda items. Divide the question. Yeah.

Madam Clerk, he wants to divide item number 42 into two separate questions on those two candidates that are seeking reappointment to boards or authorities.

It's actually called division under question.

Division under question.

And then item 46 and 47, let's move those to committee as well.

Item 46 and 47. All right. Okay, thank you, Commissioner Clark. Chair recognizes Commissioner from the 7th, Commissioner Tina Slendek.

Yes, thank you. Item number... 31, I was hoping we can companion that with 36 and Commissioner Pulliam and I are both in agreement that we would like to postpone discussion of this till we can have some more meetings with planning and also with some other stakeholders.

All right. Madam Clerk, she wants the companion items 31 and 36.

Okay. We'll put those on consent.

All right. Okay. Commissioner Slendak, you good? Yes.

Anything else?

No. All right. Chair recognizes Commissioner Lonnie Wimbler from the floor.

I need some clarification on one, but I want to pull number 13. And give me some understanding, what are we doing with 42? Are we pulling it or we just gonna try to split it?

Maybe I'll separate. That's the request has been to separate, divide the two into two separate questions. So we're pulling it? Yes.

Okay, we're pulling it to discuss. To discuss it and to divide the vote.

You got it. Remind us of that number 13 you wanted to, number 13, Commissioner?

What number did you say, 13? Number 13. Number 13, all right. And when we get to the addendum, I'd definitely like to be able to discuss.

We're pulling 13, Mr. Wimley? Yes, ma'am. Okay. Okay.

I'd like to be able to discuss number, addendum number three.

All right, you got it. We'll get to that in just a second. Madam Administrator, you're in the queue. You need to add something before I continue to go through.

Yes, sir. For number 44, if it just be added, the additional funding will come from general fund contingency.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Administrator. Chair recognizes Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Guilford.

Mr. Mayor, since we added the addendum agenda on, I'd like to consent agenda item number two of that addendum. That's a grant coming from the airport, doesn't cost Augusta.

Any two has been requested for consent on the addendum. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Chair recognizes Commissioner from the 8th, Commissioner Brandon Garrett. Oh, he's not here. All right, Chair recognizes Commissioner from the 2nd, Commissioner Stacey Pulley.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson. I'd like to pull item 37. I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT TO THE I'D LIKE TO MOVE IT TO THE NEXT TWO COMMITTEE CYCLES. NEXT TWO COMMITTEE CYCLES. SO NOT THE NEXT ONE BUT THE ONE SO NOT THE NEXT ONE BUT THE ONE AFTER THAT.

AFTER THAT. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S MY ITEM.

THAT'S MY ITEM. ITEM 37 IS TO BE MOVED TO ITEM 37 IS TO BE MOVED TO COMMITTEE CYCLES. COMMITTEE CYCLES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PULLEY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PULLEY. IS THERE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? IS THERE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL? NO, SIR. NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER WEMBLEY FROM THE COMMISSIONER WEMBLEY FROM THE FOURTH.

FOURTH. I WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE. I WANT TO MAKE I don't want to pull three, I want to pull two from the addendum.

All right, so three is okay, but you want to pull number two. Three is okay now. All right, so Commissioner, Mayor Pro Tem, Commissioner Wimbley is one to pull two on the addendum to discuss it. He's okay with number three.

Yes.

Okay. No, only addendum. It's only addendum agenda. All right, all right, colleagues. Can I ask for? Number two, motion to approve. Yes, he's going to get to him. Commissioner from the 3rd, Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice.

Oh, I was going to go ahead. And he's adding numbers. And motion to approve it.

But he's pulling it, so it won't be on the consent. All right, Madam Clerk, before we call for... For a motion on these, are we gonna read the alcohol petitions as well as the planning petitions?

No, so we're gonna have to go through the process of the petitioners coming up because they were not.

I understand, understood now.

So we'll move to the planning and development department. If you wanna consider them for consent after they've, okay.

Okay.

Ms. Cameron, can you have Ms. Priscilla? No, I was asking if Ms. Priscilla could come up to see. Yes, go ahead.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Commissioners. Today, I bring to you alcohol number 26-21. This is a new location. Amar Raza is the applicant for Skyrise Investment 2026, Incorporated, and they're requesting a retail package of beer and wine located at 3526 Rakesville Road, Augusta, Georgia, 30909. This is in District 5, Super District 9. Planning and Development and the Sheriff's Office have recommended approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors? Hearing and seeing none, sir, for the record, please state your name and address.

Mr. Raza was unable to make it, but he did send his representative as well.

All right.

Thank you. My name is Suchit Palredi-Lankala, and my address is 2201 Winchester Spring Road, Augusta, Georgia.

Thank you, sir. All right. Let's continue.

The next one's alcohol number 26-23. It's a new location. Ariza Albright is the applicant for Tiger Tailicious LLC, doing business as Sue Tai, requesting consumption on-premise liquor, beer, and wine, and Sunday sales. This is located at 123 James Brown Boulevard, Augusta, Georgia, 30901. This is District 1, Super District 9. Augusta Planning and Development and the Sheriff's Office recommend approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors to 123 James Brown Boulevard? Madam Clerk, colleagues, seeing or hearing none, Madam, for the record, please state your name and address.

My name is Alyssa Albright. The address is 123 Jane Barlboro.

Thank you so much. All right, ma'am. You have any more?

Yes, sir. You can go stand over there. Next one is alcohol number 26-24. It's an existing location, new ownership. Aziza Ratnani is the applicant for Alex and Kavita Food Mart, LLC, requesting retail package beer and wine located at 2078 Old Savannah Road, Augusta, Georgia, 30901 District 2, Super District 9. Planning and development in the Sheriff's Office recommends approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors to 2078 Old Savannah Road? Here in the CNN, sir.

My name is Aziz Ratnani. My address is 2078 Old Savannah Road, Augusta, Georgia, 30901.

Thank you, sir.

Is that your home address? Home address is 1170 Lake Washington Circle, Lawrenceville, Georgia, 30043. Thank you, sir.

All right, the next one's alcohol number 26-25. This is an existing location, new ownership. Darshana Samaiva is the applicant for Dawes Petroleum LLC, requesting retail package, beer and wine, located at 1898 Gordon Highway, Augusta, Georgia, 30904. This is District 2, Super District 9, planning and development, and the Sheriff's Office recommend approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors? 1898. Hearing or seeing none, let's continue. Ma'am, for the record, please state your name and address.

My name is Darshana Somaya, and my address is 635 Weeping Branch Court, Johns Creek, Georgia, 30097.

Thank you so much.

All right, the next one's alcohol number 26-26. This is a new location, consumption on premise, beer, wine, and Sunday sales. This is Kamarsha Johnson. She's the applicant for Anthony Johnson doing business as Big Mama Soul Food number two, located at 720 East Robinson Avenue, Suite 101, Grovetown, Georgia, 30813. This is in District 3, Super District 10. Planning and development, and the Sheriff's Office recommends approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors? Hearing and seeing none, ma'am, for the record, please state your name and address.

Kamarsha Johnson, address 836 Palladi Drive, Growtown, Georgia.

Thank you, ma'am.

The next one is a massage license, number 26-05. This is a request by Cheryl Connell for a massage operator's license to be used in connection with CUI Transformations located at 3154 Perimeter Parkway, Suite 1, District 3, Super District 10. Planning and Development and the Sheriff's Office recommend approval. Do we have any objectors?

Any objectors to Perimeter Parkway?

Cheryl Connell, 155 Moorhead Drive, Martinez, 30907. Thank you.

Is that it? Yes, sir. All right. Madam Clerk. I think Mayor Pro Tem was wanting to recommend that they be placed on the consent agenda. Are there any objectors?

Any objectors to these items being placed on the consent? Ladies and gentlemen, it's a little different today in that we didn't have committee cycle due to a lack of a quorum last week. So that's why we had to make these.

That's item 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28. Okay. 29, yeah.

All right, we got it. You want to put it on the screen for us, Madam Clerk, before I call for a motion?

Yes, sir.

Also, just a second. We're going to pause just a second, Madam Clerk, while we investigate. Okay. Madam Clerk, there's been a request to pull item 30. 30? Yes, ma'am. It wasn't... He presented, but of course it wasn't official and on the record because we didn't have a quorum.

Yeah. Okay.

All right. Colleagues, if the screen looks correct, I will entertain a motion. Motion to approve.

Second.

There's a motion to approve, Madam Clerk, and a proper second. Commissioner Wimbley from the 4th, I see you in the queue. Would you like to add something to the discussion before we vote?

So we move the addendum item number 2 for discussion, right?

Wait a minute. Let me look at it. Madam Clerk, you need to pull the addendum item number two for discussion on the addendum. It's not on the screen. Move to addendum. Mr. Mayor, it was not added to consent. Oh, it wasn't added to consent. Okay. All right. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You got it. All right, we have a motion and proper second.

That was Commissioner Rice and Mr. Garrett, Mr. Mayor.

That is correct. Commissioner Garrett made the motion. Commissioner Rice made the motion. Commissioner Garrett second. Right.

Mr. Mayor.

Yes, sir.

Commissioner Clark. Have we covered number 42 with the request to split? I don't see it on the screen.

Yeah, it's been pulled. It's been pulled, so we're going to discuss it and split that.

So 42 needs to be added to the...

It's not on our consent agenda. Thank you. All right. Madam Clerk, I think we're clear now. We're prepared to vote. Yes, sir.

That motion carries. It's unanimous.

I think, Madam Clerk, we're going to go in order. We're going to go to item 13, please.

Item 13 is a motion to approve service performance damage waiver request by Augusta Residential Waste Collection and Disposal Contractor, Coastal Waste and Recycling, covering initial 30-day period.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Commissioner Wormley, you request this item be pulled. Sir, you have the floor. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I understand the request to waive the service performance damage for COSA during the initial 30 days period. However, I have serious concern about forgiving a $70,000 plus liquidation damage assessment without a clear public benefit or accountability measure. This was not simply an internal contract matter. Missed or delayed waste collection directly affect residents, neighborhoods, sanitation, code enforcement, public confidence, and government services. If the contractor failed to meet the agreement, the agreed service standard, then waiving the full amount, in this case we went to have, send the wrong message. That performance requirement can be set aside. Letting others know that the performance requirement can be set aside is not a good picture. I'm not interested in being punitive for the sake of punishment, but I do believe there must be accountability. Therefore, rather than simply forgive the $70,000-plus, I will ask that Costa Wavin is willing to make a voluntary charitable contribution to one or more worthy local nonprofit organizations that provide direct social service to Augusta residents. This would include providing service to seniors, youth, neighborhood cleanup, food insecurity, housing instability, or other community needs. If the commission is being asked to show grace to the contractor, then I'm asking the contractor to show grace to the community. Thank you, Commissioner Wimbley.

Is there a representative here for Coastal? Is there any representative here for Coastal? I just wanna make sure they're not here today to give them an opportunity to address Commissioner Wimbley's concern and his request. Commissioner from the 4th, I don't see anyone here for Coastal today. You can certainly add this to either next committee cycle or agenda and make sure that they're present to hear your request. Let's move to the next agenda. All right. Committee. Commission. Madam Clerk, it's been requested this item be moved to the next commission agenda.

I object.

And there is an objection, Madam Clerk. Let's go through the queue. Commissioner Wimberley, yield for a second. Chair recognizes Commissioner Francine Scott from the 9th.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson. I'm disappointed that Costa is not here today because I deliberately gave them the address where the trash can should be delivered. And to this day, six months, the trash can is still not at the constituents' house. I started with Commissioner Clark. Calling somebody, but we still do not have the, so I just want, I'm not sure what the lack is or why, but I'm not sure, but I think we need to understand. I believe Dr. Malik said it takes five days from a request, but it's six months and this constituent still have not had the trash can. Thank you.

All right, the attorney's gonna handle it. Commissioner Wimbley, there's an objection to your request from Colson. They're not here to consider your proposal. There's an objection to moving this to the next commission. Our, as a commissioner, it's within your right to add it to the next commission, as a commissioner, so you could. Add it again through the regular process of having it added, but there's an objection to moving it.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Let it be known I want to add it to the next one.

That's noted, Commissioner, from the force. You got it. Thank you so much. Commissioner Garrett, you're in the queue, sir. Is there anything you need to add additionally?

Motion to approve.

There's a motion to approve item number 13, and I heard a second by Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice. Commissioner Wimbley, you're still in the queue, sir.

What are we approving, Mr. Mayor?

Motion to approve service performance damage waiver request by Augusta Residential Waste Collection and Disposal Contract. Coastal waste and recycling covered initial 30 days period. According to RFP 25-900A slash AE, approved by the Engineering Services Committee on May 14th. We are approving the motion to waive the additional fees. Commissioner Jordan Johnson from the first.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Yes, sir. Let's get the attorney to come back. All right, while he's walking, you have the floor, sir.

Attorney Plunkett, since this vote, it came to our attention that this particular company had been pretty gracious with some of their giving to some of us up here. Will that require an abstention due to a conflict of interest if somebody is voting on one of their contracts or any kind of things that's pertaining to that company? Do you need extra time to figure that out or how do we need to take on that?

Commissioner, I would like to look at the ethics.

So can we push this back to committee to give you time?

It would give me a moment to do that just because I'm familiar with our ethics, but I'm not familiar with the campaign ethics that directly. So if I could have a bit of time to look at it, it would help me. Yes, sir.

Substitute to move to committee.

All right. There's been a substitute motion made, Madam Clerk, to move item 13 to committee. Is there a second? There's a second by Commissioner from the 9th. Commissioner Lonnie Wembley, you're on the queue for discussion. Is there anything you want to add before we entertain the substitute motion? All right, Madam Clerk, we're voting on that substitute motion to move the committee. I see no colleagues in the queue. We're voting.

That motion fails. With Mr. Johnson voting yes, Ms. Pulliam voting yes, Mr. Wimbley voting yes, Mr. Lewis voting yes, Ms. Scott voting yes. Voting no, Ms. Rice, Mr. Clark, Ms. Slendeck, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Guilfoyle, and Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Johnson, I see you in the queue, and I have been made aware there is a representative from Coastal here, so if there's... A follow-up to my parliamentary inquiry is, are you aware, Mr. Plunkett, of any ramifications that might arise from any commissioner voting on an item where there is a conflict of interest?

I believe that the remedy would be a censure. at that issue and obviously if it's a campaign related issue, I don't think that would be an ethics issue there for the state issues, but I can do a quick look with the rules to see what that would be real quick. I think it would be, I don't think it validates the action. I think it would be an ethics violation, but I can try to find that pretty quickly.

So again, I think that it would be wise of this body to allow the attorney to get some additional information to protect anyone from an ethics violation. Certainly, if anyone wants to vote, regardless of that apparent conflict of interest, that's your prerogative. But just for the record, I would suggest that we allow the attorney until the next committee to do so. It doesn't change what's on the agenda. It doesn't change the item that's on the agenda. I don't even suggest that Coastal speaks because of that appearance of a conflict of interest. I would just hope that we would, in the interest of doing what's ethical, would allow the attorney to give us time to figure this part out. Thank you. And I would object to Coastal speaking because of that conflict of interest, Mr. Mayor.

All right, Madam Clerk, there's been an objection to Coastal speaking. We have entertained the substitute motion. Chair recognizes Commissioner Brandon Garrett.

This is the route that we're going to take, Mayor. I would suggest that all campaign contribution reports be made public and viewable up here, as well as any checks received from any department within the city as well, because I don't believe that anybody should be making any sorts of votes if they have received money from a department or for any company that does business with this city, if that's truly what we're going to do. But I'm just saying that has never been the practice.

All right, Commissioner Wimbley from the fourth. He had the floor, sir. I'll just second his motion. That's not a motion. Madam Clerk, it takes us back to the original motion. That motion is to approve this item. We're prepared to vote, Madam Clerk. I don't see any colleagues in the queue. There's been an objection to him speaking. There's been an objection to him speaking. There's been an objection by the commissioner from the first. So we're going to vote on the original motion, Madam Clerk.

Roll call vote, Ms. Bonner.

Madam Clerk, roll call vote has been requested.

Mr. Clark.

Point of clarity, if we can kind of, we've had a lot of discussion up here. Let's make sure we know what we're talking about. I'm looking at faces and they're just looking just as confused as I am on what we're voting on. So can we get a point of clarity on this?

We're voting on the original motion item 13. Motion to approve the service performance damage waiver. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, do we need to discuss what was discussed during committee again?

If you want to give a brief update as to what we're voting on, the damage waiver that was reduced to a certain amount, you're certainly welcome to educate the public and remind some of those on this body.

Yes, sir. Thank you. As the engineering chair, this was discussed last Tuesday during our engineering services cycle. So this is covering the period of the initial period that coastal waste and recycling took over ownership of our three zones. And there were a number of challenges and issues on Coastal's side and on Augusta's side that have been all identified publicly and have been discovered and discussed in depth. Again, there were some things outside of their that they really couldn't accommodate, and there were some on our side where there was some miscommunication and otherwise. The biggest thing that I want to make sure that everyone understands with this is it's no different from anything when you first embark upon it. There's going to be some challenges. They had some challenges. Since then, the amount of punitive charges that have come after this have greatly dwindled. Some of the charges, I think, from the very beginning were in the range of $30,000 and $40,000, which were missed pickups and otherwise. Again, there were some missteps on Augusta's side, and there were some missteps on Coastal's side. The 30 days is giving grace for covering and accommodating all of those challenges that we had from both sides. to ensure that they came in and appropriately took care of all of our trash services for Augusta, Richmond County, and of course introduced the recycling as well. So through a good faith effort and through the fact that since they surpassed their initial challenges, I think we are averaging, and Dr. Malik, clarify if I'm wrong, I think they're averaging maybe about $500 in punitive charges that they're receiving now. Is that what it is? Come on up to the mic real quick. Just come up to the mic real quick. Just want to make sure we're clear and transparent because I know this is a little confusing for those if they weren't here for committee cycle. Just want to make sure that we're being open and transparent with this conversation. So, Dr. Malik, just clarify again, if I missed anything, what the conversation was and why we led to where we are today.

Yes, sir. So, in the start, there was challenging in some areas. RELATES TO SPLITE CHAIN ISSUES AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO WE WORKED THROUGH ALL THAT. THAT'S WHAT MY RECOMMENDATION WAS, THE 30 DAYS. THOUGH MY INITIAL, I'M ON THE RECORD, YOU KNOW, I DON'T AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENT IS MADE, BUT I DO AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD AND ALL THAT. BUT BACK TO YOUR QUESTION, YES, SIR. SO EVERY MONTH THE PERFORMANCE DAMAGES ARE going lower and lower, so basically performance is improving as they move.

Right, and this 30-day period of waiving those initial charges, who made that recommendation?

That was my recommendation at the last engineering, last week at the committee.

All right, and you still stand by that recommendation, sir?

Yes, I just closed this matter out and acknowledging the slide-sharing issues

Yes, sir. Thank you. And again, I stand by what I stated during committee as well. The initial challenges are what we utilize as lessons learned, and they've continued to build upon and improve their service support they're providing to Augusta Richmond County. They have shown to be great partners. They also have shown in our engineering department as well, bridging the gaps of communication and trying to find additional areas of improvement as well for the efficiency of our operations. You stand by that as well, Dr. Malik?

Yes, sir. I see the improvement in service delivery and communication.

Yes, sir.

And re-implementing the new...

platform so they're working uh closely as a team with us to make sure that that platform um meeting the needs of both sides all right thank you um so hopefully that clarifies everything for the public of what we're talking about and then we're clarifying that we're voting again on this motion to approve is that correct madam clerk Thank you very much.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark, for that explanation. I see there's some colleagues in the queue. I don't know if they're in the queue for the roll call vote or is there something you need to address? Commissioner Garrett, are you waiting for the roll call vote?

Yes.

All right. Commissioner Wimbley, are you ready for the roll call vote? Not really, Mr. Mayor.

Do you have anything to add before we call for the vote? Since Commissioner Clark brought up that scenario of how things happen, I have some questions.

Okay. You have the floor, sir.

And now, this is also for, if Coastal want to answer, or it's okay if Mr. There's been an objection to Coastal participating, unless you're the colleague from the first. So they can't defend themselves, okay.

But them not being on the agenda, there's an objection to them participating.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll honor that. I'll go to... Engineer Director, Dr. Malik. Okay. How many routes, neighborhood, or household was affected during this 30-day period?

I don't have all the itemized detail on that, but the spreadsheet that's part of the agenda has the service, different service items on that. I believe I didn't print the, COMMISSION AGENDA OF THE COMMITTEE AGENDA. I WAS TRYING TO SAVE SOME PAPERS. BUT IT WAS IN ALL THREE ZONES. ZONE ONE, ZONE TWO, AND ZONE THREE. MOST OF THE CHARGES ARE RELATED TO THE WHEEL CART DELIVERY BECAUSE THE CONTRACT TIME IS THE TIME COASTER RECEIVED THE REQUEST AND THE COASTER DELIVERED FIVE DAYS. IN THAT TIME, THE SUPPLY CHAIN, REALLY, YOU CAN'T GET THE CORE. I'M NOT GETTING TO WHAT THE CONTRACT REQUIRED, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE REALITY WAS, THAT EVEN YOU PLACE THE ORDER, IT TAKES TIME TO GET IT DELIVERED. SO THAT CAUSED SOME OF THESE DELAYS TO DELIVER THE TIME AS THE CONTRACT REQUIRED.

So, Dr. Lee, the specific service failure, what was the trigger that caused the failure? Was it the contract or communication?

I would not say either one is really supply chain. That trigger, whatever we call it, delay or... failure of meeting the performance as stated.

So when you say supply chain, that's the part we talk about the cost, right?

Yes, sir, yeah. So ordering the cost to the manufacturer or supplier and then getting that order.

So there was no interest in a transition period WITH THE COTS, LEAVE WHAT'S IN PLACE UNTIL THE NEW COTS GET THERE SO THE SERVICE WILL CONTINUE?

THERE WAS THE COMMISSION OR THIS BODY APPROVED THE CONTRACT ON JUNE 3rd. SO SINCE THEN THERE WERE COMMUNICATION BY MYSELF WITH THE MANAGEMENT. I'M NOT SURE IF THE MANAGEMENT HAVE A COMMUNICATION WITH THE OPERATION OR NOT. THAT'S THEIR INTERNAL MECHANISM. I BELIEVE COASTAL BY THEIR OWN PRESENTATION PLACED FIRST ORDER SOMEWHERE IN JULY TO GET THE COATS AND ALL THAT. WE HAVE THE ORDER BEFORE THE CONTRACT AND THAT ORDER But again, facing the same challenge. So it didn't get delivered prior to the contract. So we transferred that order to the Coastal, because the contract required Coastal to buy back the cars we have in stock at the price we purchased. So for that reason, you know, my communication was, you know, we can take this card and we can bill you or we can transfer this since it's not delivered. So it was transferred to them and they paid that invoice to them and then they placed that order. So there were roughly 90 days, let's say June 3rd to August 1st, maybe 87 days. Apparently that was not enough to get the cards. but they needed, I believe the order was somewhere in the neighborhood of 10,000 or maybe 10,500, that's the place. So the rest of the course, which I guess the purchase was still in a good condition in use and probably most of still in use.

Thank you, Dr. Malik. Mr. Magid, one for the attorney. Okay. Please proceed, Attorney Plunkett. Mr. Attorney. Is there any legal or procurement concern with asking Coastal to make that voluntary charitable donation as part of this matter?

I think the issue is that The conditional situation is that if you don't make it, then you're not going to get this relief. So it's also, it's arguably not relief by virtue of they'll receive the $70,000 or whatever, but if you're required.

They don't get that.

Pardon me? But the question is if they have to dollar for dollar whatever reduction there is. So you can request them to do it. They can do it voluntarily, but you cannot, I don't think it can be conditioned in that regard.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Wembley. So I recognize the Commissioner from the second. Commissioner Stacy Pulley.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson. I have a question. We oftentimes talk about setting certain precedences, and my question is, have we done something to this magnitude before with other similar, well, I'm not going to even say similar, with other contracts?

So, not the service contracts, but in construction, yes, you know, because of supply chain issues.

Okay, so there are, can you give me like an average of how often this takes place?

It's not that often really, just the post-COVID thing and it's become to normalize now. Yeah, so unless we had another pandemic or situation like that. Right now, two things, you know, it's become to normalize and everybody is aware of the plan ahead.

Okay. So it's more seen, what I hear you saying is that we see this more in the construction world. So whether it's road projects or building projects.

A prime example is traffic. For example, their poles. One supplier supplies it and you You got to wait six, nine months to get it, and they will not give you real schedule when they're going to deliver it.

Okay. All right. So we have done this before?

Yes, I'm concerned. Okay. I just meant, yes, I'm concerned.

Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Malik.

Thank you, Commissioner Pulliam. Madam Clerk, I don't see any of the colleagues in the queue. There has been a call for a roll call vote by the commissioner from the 9th. We're prepared to vote. Okay. Mr. Clark.

Yes. Motion to approve. Garrett. Yes, ma'am.

Mr. Guilfoyle. Yes, ma'am. Mayor Johnson. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Jordan Johnson. Yes, ma'am. Mr. Lewis. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Rice? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Pulliam? No, ma'am. Ms. Scott? No, ma'am. Ms. Slendek? Yes, ma'am. Mr. Wimbley?

No, ma'am.

Motion carries.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's move on to item, well, I'm sorry. I got to recognize Commissioner from the 5th, Commissioner Don Clark. You have the floor, sir.

Yes, sir. I'd like to correct a mistake I made as we were going through the agenda items. I said item number 39 to pull that one. I meant items 38 and 40, since they were companion items to one another, to move those to committee. 39, I'd like for that to still be pulled for discussion. The team is here to make that presentation.

All right, Madam Clerk, do we need to receive that as a form of motion to get it approved before we can proceed to pull that item?

It would be best to, Mr. Mayor, if I may, it would be best to have a motion to amend the agenda to add number 39 back. And then if that passes, then you can head it back.

Okay, I'll make that motion since I made the mistake to move number 39 back to the agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark. I heard a second by Commissioner Brandon Garrett. Madam Clerk, I don't see any colleagues in the queue. We're voting. It's unanimous. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Before we get there, let's go to the soccer folks that were here, soccer park group that was here last week. Item number 30.

Item number 30, consider a request from Mr. Nick Edmond, Augusta Soccer Club regarding partnership overview and future collaboration.

Mr. Edmond, for the record, please state your name and who you represent, sir.

Nick Edmond, representing the Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club.

Thank you, sir. You're next. Bishop, thank you so much for being here. Thank you for that prayer. It's a great start of our day. Thank you. All right, Mr. Edmond, when you're ready. Thank you.

THANK YOU GUYS AGAIN FOR THANK YOU GUYS AGAIN FOR HAVING ME. HAVING ME. MY NAME IS NICK EDMOND, THE MY NAME IS NICK EDMOND, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE ARSENAL SOCCER CLUB. ARSENAL SOCCER CLUB. THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION AND THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION AND EVERYONE IN STAFF FOR HAVING EVERYONE IN STAFF FOR HAVING ME HERE. ME HERE. OUR MISSION IS TO DEVELOP OUR MISSION IS TO DEVELOP PLAYERS FOR LIFE THROUGH THE PLAYERS FOR LIFE THROUGH THE PURSUE OF EXCELLENCE IN PURSUE OF EXCELLENCE IN SOCCER. I'M HERE TO KIND OF REEMPHASIZE OUR COMMUNITY IMPACT AND RECREATION SOCCER. WE STRIVE TO MAKE SOCCER ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE FOR EVERY CHILD IN OUR COMMUNITY. COMMUNITY INVESTMENT THAT WE HAVE DONE FROM OUR SIDE, WE AWARD THIS PAST YEAR $40,000 IN SCHOLARSHIPS FOR PLAYERS WHO COULDN'T AFFORD THE REGISTRATION FEES AS WELL. WE'RE EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR FAMILIES THROUGH INCLUSIVE PROGRAMMING FROM OUR MLS GO REC KIDS from four-year-olds to 18 years old as well. And we're creating pathways for youth development both on and off the field. OUR MLS GO RECREATION LEAD GROWTH. WE STARTED LAST FALL THE RECREATION PROGRAM TO REVALUALIZE YOUTH REC SOCCER IN RICHMOND COUNTY. AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, WE HAVE RECREATION SOCCER. SO WE SERVED OVER THIS PAST YEAR OVER 100 PLUS PLAYERS IN OUR SPRING SEASON. IT FOCUSES ON PROVIDING A FUN DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY CENTERED EXPERIENCE. AND THAT RANGES FROM 4-YEAR-OLDS TO ALMOST 12-YEAR-OLD AS WELL. We're seeking to partner with Richmond County to officially promote and grow the recreation program through county platforms and outreach efforts. Our vision for our partnership with our rec league, our goal is to work alongside Richmond County in the model similar to partnership between Columbia United, Richmond County, which is in Columbia, where the club operates and supports the county recreation soccer program while expanding access and participation for local families. Kind of economic impact, we went over this last time, but we relaunched our Augusta Spring Shootout. It used to be at Fort Gordon years ago. We had 40-plus teams from Georgia and South Carolina come into Augusta for the tournament. And then we also have our DPL CrossFit event, our ladies playing. We hosted over 80-plus teams from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. They stayed over three days. The economic impact from Augusta Sports Council was over $800,000 to the community. We also have ODP, which is kind of the all-star group of kids. We hosted a regional identification center this past fall as well. Those kids were from Georgia and South Carolina that participated in it. And we just launched our own UPSL semi-pro soccer team in the spring. Those teams compete across Georgia, teams from South Georgia to Atlanta as well. That's just showing our growth over the last few years from player participation through kids out in the CSRA with the World Cup coming this summer. THE GROWTH AND BOOM OF SOCCER THE GROWTH AND BOOM OF SOCCER ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES IS GROWING SO THAT'S WHY WE ALSO GROWING SO THAT'S WHY WE ALSO WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW WITH OUR WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW WITH OUR REC PROGRAM BECAUSE KIDS ARE REC PROGRAM BECAUSE KIDS ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN PLAYING THE GAME. PLAYING THE GAME. WE'VE BEEN PROUD PARTNERS CITY WE'VE BEEN PROUD PARTNERS CITY OF AUGUSTA FOR OVER 30 YEARS OF AUGUSTA FOR OVER 30 YEARS THROUGH OUR LEASE WITH AUGUSTA THROUGH OUR LEASE WITH AUGUSTA SOCCER PARK. SOCCER PARK. TOGETHER WE BUILT As we look ahead, we see an opportunity to deepen our partnership with the city and secure the long-term future of Augusta Soccer Park. With less than 10 years remaining of our current lease, we're asking the commission to extend our lease at Augusta Soccer Park for another 40 years. A four-year agreement allows us to invest resources in reviving the rec soccer program in Richmond County, also continue investing our funds from donors in the park with confidence that comes from a long-term home. Again, thank you for your time. We hope for 30-plus more years of your partnership.

Mr. Edmund, thank you so much for that redo. I appreciate it. I don't see any colleagues in the queue for questions. Thank you for all that you do for the game of soccer. And are we involved at all with any of the World Cup stuff that's happening to the West?

We're going to have some watch parties here in Augusta.

Okay. Very good. Chair recognizes Commissioner Brandon Garrett from the 8th.

Nick, it's good to see you again and I appreciate you being here and for this request as well. Mayor, I do have a request. I think it's probably going to be a legal question. Yes. Attorney Plunkett, if we were to look at a new agreement, would that require this body to task you or your department to work on this agreement in order to be able to move forward with it?

It would be advisable for us to take a look at everything and come back with a recommendation whether or not to extend the lease or try to do a new agreement. We've been doing some preliminary work on it, but without a true direction from this body, we haven't pulled a trigger.

What kind of time frame would you need if you had direction from the body? Realistically. I know you're a little swamped.

20 days.

Oh, 20 days. That's a new one. It's usually 60 or 90.

We've already started some of the work.

All right. Ms. Bonner, does that require a formal motion? All right. I make a motion to test the legal department to work with Augusta Arsenal on their new agreement.

Second. Second. Lauren, I heard a motion by a commissioner from the 8th to test the legal department and look at renewing potentially an agreement with a second by a commissioner from the 3rd, Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice. Commissioner Rice, is there anything additional you need to add before?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to thank you all. I know you came last week and did a presentation and we weren't able to... listen and vote, but I think this is wonderful and I hope that we can partnership. This would be great for this community.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank y'all for coming out.

Thank you so much.

All right. Madam Clerk, I don't see any colleagues in the queue. There's been a motion in the proper second and we're prepared to vote. That's the task the legal department will look at extending the lease for the Augusta Soccer Park.

That motion carries with Mr. Clark out.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's move on to item 39, please, because we got the folks here from. Item 39? Yes, ma'am.

Update from the Augusta Marriott and the Augusta Richmond County Convention Center. Receive his information update from the Marriott regarding the 2025 usage metric for the Augusta Richmond County Convention Center, including event activity, performance trends, and upcoming developments.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Mr. England, welcome. For the record, please state your name, who you represent, sir.

Hey, everybody, it's Brendan England, and I'm here with Azalea Investments and the Marriott Hotel.

Thank you, sir. You have the floor.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, GOOD AFTERNOON, GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR JOHNSON, COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR JOHNSON, COMMISSIONERS, MAYOR JOHNSON, CITY ADMINISTRATOR ALLEN AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR ALLEN AND CITY ADMINISTRATOR ALLEN AND THE AGUSTA COMMUNITY. THE AGUSTA COMMUNITY. THE AGUSTA COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A FEW THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A FEW THANK YOU FOR GIVING US A FEW MINUTES TODAY TO COME OUT AND MINUTES TODAY TO COME OUT AND MINUTES TODAY TO COME OUT AND PRESENT. PRESENT. PRESENT. TRULY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TRULY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TRULY APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE. TO BE HERE. TO really have the honor and privilege and responsibility of overseeing the convention center here downtown, the city's own convention center. And our team's been involved since the very beginning, before the doors opened in 2013. And we do take tremendous pride in that convention center downtown. REALLY THE GOAL AND THE WORK THAT WE PUT IN, WE EXPECT THAT FACILITY AND WANT THAT FACILITY TO HAVE THE SAME LOOK AND FEEL NOW AS IT DID WHEN IT OPENED AND THE SERVICES AND THE STANDARDS TO COME ALONG WITH IT. SO WE ABSOLUTELY PRIDE OURSELVES. what that convention center represents for downtown Augusta, and we're honored to do it. Our goal this afternoon is to not just provide a one-time update. If it's the will of this body, we'd like to make this an annual presentation, giving you a clear picture on the convention center's performance, impact, and contributions to the community. We believe the convention center is one of Augusta's best kept secrets. and we want to help elevate awareness of the value it brings to the city and its residents. It's a great story and it's one worth telling. So I've got a couple of slides here I'm gonna walk through. I'll move through them efficiently and try to leave some time for any questions here at the end. So hang with me here. All right. First up, I'm gonna give you some background. The convention center did open in 2013. I've got the construction, original construction costs listed on there as well as the total space. So really we're just under 50,000 square feet and that includes the pre-function space and also the meeting space, the actual convention center space that's used. We've got two bays over there, Olmstead A and Olmstead B. I WELCOME ANYBODY TO COME OUT AND TOUR THE CONVENTION CENTER IF THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO DO SO RECENTLY, OR AT ALL. WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN TO TOURS AND WALKING ANYONE THROUGH. THE BIG THING THAT I WANTED TO HONE IN ON HERE IS THE ECONOMIC IMPACT THAT THE CONVENTION CENTER HAS PROVIDED THROUGH EVENTS, MEETINGS, JUST HAPPENINGS AT THE CONVENTION CENTER. AND SO FROM 2013 THROUGH 2025, That estimated economic impact, and those numbers are provided by our friends at Destination Augusta, is upwards of $238 million. And I've got a slide here I want to show you next. Kind of shows you the movement that the Convention Center has seen over the last 10, 12 years here. So 2013 opened up, produced about $10 million in economic impact, and that trailed along and and you can kind of see that upward trajectory all the way the last few years where we've broken that 25 million dollar mark in 22 23 uh 24 and and i want to make one highlight on on 24 that was the uh the hurricane year so we we lost some some activity there uh during the fourth quarter almost six million dollars i think it impacted iron man and some other events Last year was a record-breaking year in economic impact, over $36 million from the events that the convention center hosted. So those dollars, again, go back towards the community. It's people spending money at everything from restaurants and gas stations to shopping to hotel accommodations, you name it, whatever they spend on when they come to the community. So real positive outlook here over the last several years. We expect this to continue to move in a positive direction, especially as we establish more clients, more repeat business, and hopefully get some new ones in there as well. Just a couple of highlights here. It's got a real local impact. I mean, there's direct job creation, the opportunities for local vendors. So we do a lot of work with, you know, whether it's a staging company, audio visual companies, design companies, staging. A number of different individuals can partake and be involved with the convention center events. There's tax revenue that's developed from that 36 million in economic impact, not just through our hotel, but the surrounding hotels and businesses as well from visitor spends. And I think the big thing that you see through this presentation are a lot of the diversity of events that we can hold at the Convention Center from graduations to trade shows to sporting events. So it really has an unlimited variety of events that could take place. A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS PRIOR TO SPLOSS WERE WHY EXPAND THE CONVENTION CENTER, AND I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE IT AS BEST AS I CAN. MEETING PLANNERS WANT CONTINUOUS MEETING SPACE, SO THE GOAL IS TO HAVE A TRADE SHOW OR AN EVENT HALL THAT GOES FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER, NO OBSTRUCTIONS, NO OBSTACLES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE ULTIMATELY PROPOSING TO ACCOMPLISH OVER THERE WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE CONVENTION CENTER. You know, some of our current conventions are starting to outgrow the space. I think for those that have been in the market a while now, AFSEA and TechNet, our largest conference, is spilling out into Reynolds Street, into the parking lot. They've got tents, and we've got road blockades. This is a group that loves being here, and the city's been very gracious in working with them on their expansion. So really, really just... And not only that, there's a lot of possibilities that we get to in getting to 50,000 square feet of flexible meeting space. That seems to be the sweet spot for event organizers and event planners. When you hit that 50,000 mark, it just gives you a lot of more opportunity. There's been over $68 million of estimated economic impact loss because of the non-available space or not being able to put groups next door to each other. This expansion would allow you to hold two events basically simultaneously where there'd be a buffer between the two of them. So it really puts us in a different stratosphere with meetings and events. expansion plan. This just kind of gives you a visual and it gives you the square footage. So you can kind of take a look at it. If any of you have been over there for the basketball, the Nike Peach Jam, you see the four courts out there. So it basically put two additional basketball courts out there. So pretty cool sight to see. And the original developers, I think, put this convention center together with the plan that it was eventually going to have a possibility to expand. So we really thank the community for considering the expansion, ultimately voting on it. We're up against a lot of venues in Georgia, including South Carolina. So this is a quick snapshot of some of those that we're up against and the size and the space, you know, that they have. So, you know, that 37,000 square feet of meeting space for us is going to jump up to about 56,000 square feet. Again, with 50,000 of that being meeting space specific. So again, it really, you know... those groups and meetings that looked at us and said, hey, these guys just don't have enough, they're not meeting that 50,000 square foot mark, are gonna look at us now and say, hey, let's send these guys an RFP and give them an opportunity to host some meetings. So pretty cool to see where we're gonna fall within some of the convention centers and meeting locations around the states here. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I REALLY WANTED THIS TO HIT HOME. THAT CONVENTION CENTER CAN BE USED FOR SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS. WHEN THAT HURRICANE HIT, I THINK I HAD TO MAKE TWO PHONE CALLS AND ONE WAS TO CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND ONE WAS TO BENISH BROWN TO ASK FOR SOME SUPPORT TO GET GEORGIA POWER INTO THAT CONVENTION CENTER SO THEY COULD BRING OUR CITY BACK TO LIFE AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS BACK TO LIFE. when we say this convention center can be used for a number of things, this is a definition of how it can be used. And again, just want to thank everybody for their time today and appreciate the couple minutes you gave me. Does anyone have any questions? Or do we have time?

Mr. England, thank you so much for that presentation. And I echo the sense of congratulations on the passage of SPLOST 9. That gives us the opportunity to expand the convention center. I have Commissioner Dimeclock from the 5th. You have the floor.

Hey, Brendan, I appreciate you and the team for everything you all do. I requested for this to come forward, and you all graciously accepted. I think it's important that our partners that benefit the area bring forward, just like you all are doing, capability and metrics for us to really know and understand. So hopefully this is something we can kind of establish on a more recurring basis and frequency because I think it's important. I think it's important for the community to understand what they're receiving out of the investment, the partnership with Marriott, but more importantly, just like you just did, a full display of capability. So again, I appreciate your willingness to accommodate the request and looking forward to hearing bigger and better things to come from your team.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Chair recognizes Commissioner Lenny Wimberly from the board.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. You're going to expand to 50,000 square foot?

Well, 56,000 will be the total square footage, which would include the actual convention center space and the pre-function space that leads into it.

And I think you had it on one of the slides. Wouldn't you expect that to happen?

Oh, well, you know, with the SPLOST just passing, I think we're going to start our initial conversations with the city and some contractors and start to think of planning and those next steps. So hopefully soon.

No, okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Wimbley. Commissioner Stacy Pulliam from the Senate.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson. Thank you so much for your presentation. I get to, you know, come when you have different events and it's always good to see everything that's going on. With this new expansion, is this going to max us out one space? So for the next 10, 15, 20 years, will we be able to expand past this?

Absolutely. When this convention center was originally developed, the developers created a plan to have it expand almost doubled, well, doubled in size. So there would be room to expand to another bay when the time is right. So we could, again, basically what you see now could be doubled in size.

Okay. So we could be looking at a Savannah Convention Center at some point.

Ma'am, we're pretty large.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Pullian. Chair recognizes Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Guilfoyle.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. Thank you for your presentation and Commissioner Don Clark for inviting you here. I do appreciate the relationship that we have with you as far as Augusta and handling the Augusta Convention Center for us. I was here on the ground floor during the contract negotiations along with our esteemed attorney Mr. Plunkett and That was a give-and-take relationship, and that's what a lot of people don't understand. It wasn't just giving, giving, giving. It was a give-and-take is how we ended up where we're at today. With this expansion going on, which is going to be totaled about 56,500 feet, Madam Clerk, it might be good to send an email to ACCG, GMA, to where we don't have to travel to Savannah to do class or Athens, and maybe we can invite them to come to Augusta. Yeah, Ms. Bonner likes getting us out of the house, but that would be a great venue to have here in Augusta, have every other city councilman, commissioner, mayors, administrators, and attorneys here in Augusta. And we ain't got to go far. It'll save us money, too. But anyway, thank you for your great presentation. Look forward, again, continuing our relationship here in the future. Thank you, Wayne. Thank you.

All right, Mr. England, I don't see any of your colleagues in the queue. Thank you for your presentation. Appreciate your partnership.

Thank you all.

Thank you. Colleagues, can we receive this information without objection?

Without objection.

Madam Clerk, hearing and seeing no objection, We're receiving this information. Madam Clerk, we're gonna move to the addendum agenda. Commissioner, Mayor Pro Tem has requested we address item number two on the addendum agenda.

Item number two, approve acceptance of the $1,010,750 grant from the airport hangar site development program with signed documents and contracts from Augusta-Dude GDOT. No later than May 29th.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Commissioner Wimbley from the 4th, you had some questions regarding this. Sir, you have the mic and you have the floor.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Who's from the airport? Okay, there you are over there. Good evening. Good afternoon, rather. Good afternoon. Okay. You got a lot of construction going on that involve grants and GDOT and all that good stuff. Are we having any compliance issues with the funding management or the bidding process?

No, sir. So we are, the airport is an enterprise fund.

I know.

So the, So again, you're asking if we have issues with compliance as far as funding?

As far as your bidding process and management. You have to bid out your projects, don't you?

Yes, sir, we do.

So the beginning... You don't require you to meet compliance requirements, right?

Absolutely. Okay, that's what I'm asking. Yes, sir. So we have an engineer of record on projects I guess basically retain our consultant. So we have a five-year contract with our consultant, which is May's Hour. So they do any designing or planning project, we don't have to go out for bid for that. But when we get to the point where we're doing bricks and mortar, when we're actually doing the construction, we will definitely have to go out for a bid on that. And we will have to be in compliance with GDOT as are the state of Georgia, as well as Augusta, Georgia, with compliance.

So at that point, we have no issues with meeting the compliance requirements, right? No, sir. All right. I'll ask the question again in six months. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you, Commissioner Wimbley. Chair recognizes Commissioner Brandon Garrett from the game.

Motion to approve.

Second. All right. There's a motion to approve. I heard a second by Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice first. Madam Clerk, seeing no colleagues in the queue, we are prepared to vote.

Mm-hmm.

Let's see where we're at. Shenanigans. Madam Clerk, let's get back on schedule here.

Mr. Mayor, may I just make a statement or a comment about your administrative department? They have been stellar with us. We did not know about this money until, well, we knew about it in March, but we knew that it was gonna be a possible emergency agenda item for us to have approval because of the fact that the timing for the governor the commissioner to sign off on the additional funds and i just want to state for the record that mr jackson and miss stevens have been over the top working with us i mean mr jackson i've met him in the hallway and he's like where are you on that on that that grant where are you on that money we want to make sure that you don't miss out on it so i just want to say kudos to you administrator you've done a phenomenal job with your with your team As well as legal, I want to say for the record to Mr. Jim Plunkett that Robert stepped up to the plate, read the draft contract, and said he didn't have any issues with it. So GDOT is standing on ready to send the actual contract via DocuSign hopefully tomorrow. So Mayor Johnson will be looking for your signature on it by next Friday.

You got it. Looking forward to it. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Thank you, team, for the great work, and thank you for acknowledging them. Madam Clerk, let's move on. I think we got item number, let's see here, 35. 35, yes, ma'am.

Item 35, discuss indoor smoking ordinance. Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Commissioner Johnson, I think this is your item.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, members of the commission, it has been... a practice in our city. Well, let me go back a little bit. I think in 22, sometime in 22 or 23, maybe 22, the commission voted to establish, the commission voted to amend our indoor smoking ordinance to allow for the creation of cigar lounges, which is a pretty popular, I guess I can say, recreational activity that folks are using all over the country, and it's certainly become popular in Augusta. And one blind spot that I believe that we missed out on was the fact that another recreational activity, I guess I can call it a recreational activity, is hookah. If you're not familiar with what hookah is, hookah is found in a lot of I guess I can say bars, lounges, in the Atlanta area, even restaurants. You can have brunch with hookah. And it's just a part of a culture, and it's a part of an activity that a lot of our business owners in downtown are capitalizing on, they make money from it, and it adds to folks' downtown experience. And so I wanted to discuss this with this body about amending our smoking ordinance to carve out provisions, our indoor smoking ordinance to carve out provisions for hookah and I'm sure that we can you know have a conversation with legal about what that could look like but I wanted to to offer an opportunity to a few business owners who are in the room today who are somewhat impacted by the decision that the city has made to to crack down on hookah smoking I don't I don't guess I don't know where that came from but I know a few weeks ago they were THEY GOT A VISIT FROM THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE AND THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND THAT SIGNIFICANTLY HURTS THEIR BOTTOM LINE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. SO WE HAVE THE OWNER HERE OF TRIBECA WHO IS HERE. WE HAVE THE OWNER OF MIAMI VIBES. WE HAVE MR. WELL. WE HAVE A LOT OF BUSINESS OWNERS IN HERE WHO ARE IMPACTED BY THIS DECISION. AND SO BEFORE WE OPEN TO COLLEAGUES, SIR, OR ENTERTAIN ANY TYPE OF MOTION, I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU ALLOW MAYBE TWO OR THREE OF THEM TO SPEAK TO THIS ISSUE.

Commissioner Johnson, those business owners, where are you guys? Come on up. Thank you all for being here today. For the record, please state your name and address and what business you represent, please.

Jeremy Hall's, address 730 Broad Street, Miami Vibes.

Thank you, sir. All right, let's get that out of the way.

For the record, Alton Webb, Status Bar Lounge, Damascus Road.

All right, yes, sir.

Dennis Abrams, Tribeca Lounge.

All right, you guys got a few minutes. Let's go.

Good afternoon, mayor and commissioners. My name is Jeremy Halls. I am the owner of Miami vibes and upscale 21 and over bar located downtown Augusta. I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today regarding a proposed amendment to the local smoking ordinance that would allow licensed bars and lounges restricted to patrons 21 and over. TO PERMIT INDOOR HUCA SMOKING. TO PERMIT INDOOR HUCA SMOKING. SO WHAT IS HUCA? SO WHAT IS HUCA? I THINK JORDAN TOUCHED ON IT I THINK JORDAN TOUCHED ON IT BRIEFLY HERE. BRIEFLY HERE. FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE UNFAMILIAR, FOR THOSE THAT MAY BE UNFAMILIAR, HUCA IS A WATER POT USED TO HUCA IS A WATER POT USED TO SMOKE FLAVORED TOBACCO. SMOKE FLAVORED TOBACCO. IT'S BECOME AN EXTREMELY POPULAR IT'S BECOME AN EXTREMELY POPULAR SOCIAL ACTIVITY IN NIGHTLIFE SOCIAL ACTIVITY IN NIGHTLIFE VENUES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. VENUES ACROSS THE Today, Hookah is widely offered in major cities such as Atlanta, Columbia, Savannah, Charlotte, pretty much every city surrounding us. The current ordinance creates an uneven playing field. Under Augusta's current ordinance, only hookah establishments that existed prior to the ordinance taking effect are allowed to continue operating, while newer bars like myself, Status Lounge, and a few others are prohibited from offering the same service. Cigar lounges are also permitted. As a result, some businesses are allowed to meet customer demand, while others are denied that opportunity. even though they serve the same adult clientele as we do. This creates an uneven playing field and limits fair competition. We're requesting alignment with Georgia law. Simple. The Georgia General Assembly, through the Georgia Smoke-Free Air Act of 2005, already recognizes exemptions for bars and restaurants that restrict access to minors. We're simply asking Augusta-Richmond County to align more closely with the state law by allowing this exemption for venues that are licensed bars and lounges. They restrict entry to underage minors that are under 21. They do not employ anyone under 21. and choose voluntarily to permit hookah. No business would be required to offer hookah. This would simply provide owners and patrons with the freedom to decide what is appropriate for their establishment. Economic impact and competitive advantage. This proposal is fundamentally about economic competitiveness. Adult consumers are increasingly seeking venues that offer a complete nightlife experience, and hookah has become a significant part of that demand. When Augusta businesses are prohibited from offering what neighbor markets provide, patrons often choose to spend their money in those markets. That means lost revenue for local businesses, reduced sales tax collections, fewer employment opportunities, and less economic activity in our downtown entertainment district and in the city, period. Allowing hookah in 21 plus venues helps keep those dollars here in Augusta. Respecting adult choice. Every person entering our establishments, they're consenting adults. Adults already have the ability to choose whether to visit cigar lounges and other hookah lounges that already exist and can have hookah. This is a proposal, and it simply extends the same freedom to license 21 and over establishment. So in conclusion, we're respectfully asking the commission to amend the ordinance to allow indoor hookah smoking in bars and lounges that restrict entry to patrons age of 21 and younger. employ only adults 21 and over, and elect to offer the hookah service. This is a measured business-friendly amendment that supports consumer choice, fair competition, and economic growth while preserving protection for minors. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you, sir. Mr. Abrams, your bar, does it already have hookah?

Yes, sir. We are one of the two that a grandfathered in. We've been serving hookahs for going on almost 20 years. The gentleman spoke eloquently and he made a very plausible argument for letting them have hookah. I have no opposition to it. Everyone can benefit from it. There's enough, I think, enough people in the city that all of us can have a good living from it.

Okay. Is there anything you need to add, sir?

Nothing I need to add, sir. Everything that he spoke about, we brought all that together to work together as one.

All right. Attorney Plunkett, I'm going to bring you in because obviously this has some ramifications regarding from our health department as well as some others. What will be the process progress for it to addressing our ability to offer hookah in these other establishments?

We would do a review of ours and some other ordinances. We've looked a little bit at the Atlanta. Previously, there was a question about restaurants and things of that nature. Commissioner Johnson mentioned that to me. With the over 21, that makes it a little bit cleaner. In that regard, what we would do, we would bring back a proposed ordinance. I think we would probably have a couple of blanks in that for y'all, whether or not, for instance, a scar bar could also have hookah, or if it's just any limitations in that. And then we would do it and it's all ordinances. It takes two readings. So we would take care of that probably unlike the 20 days that we were already working on. It might take a little bit longer than that, but not substantially longer.

Got it. All right. Let's get up to the queue. Commissioner Johnson, you still have the floor, sir. Is there anything additional you'd like to add?

I'll yield for the time being to Commissioner from the 4th and then I'll come back.

Commissioner from the 4th, Commissioner from the 1st has yielded. You have the floor, sir.

I'm familiar with the term, but I'm not familiar with the process of using a hooker.

Yes, sir.

Hooker. All right. The product that is used in that apparatus is tobacco.

Yes, sir. Yes, sir.

Okay. And the method is You're drawing the smoke through water.

Through a water pipe, correct. That's correct. And the product is called shisha. It is a flavored tobacco. Generally, flavoring comes from additives such as grapes, strawberry, blah, blah, blah. And the vehicle for it is a glycerin or a sugar, and that's what makes it burn.

Okay. So... I TAKE IT WE'RE ASKING NOW, Y'ALL ARE ASKING NOW THAT THIS JUST BECOME PREVALENT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTY BASED OFF THE AGE GROUP AND CONSENT OF THE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE GOING TO COME INTO THE ESTABLISHMENT TO UTILIZE THE RIGHTS.

I'M SORRY, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I'M NOT ASKING FOR IT. WE'RE GRAND PROPERTY. AND QUITE HONESTLY, I LEARNED ABOUT THIS MEETING A DAY AGO. Obviously, I wanted to protect my interests. But again, I wish these gentlemen had come to us to speak about it so that we could have presented a united front on it. Again, I don't see anything wrong with them having hookahs. But you have to compartmentalize it. He's saying bars. And actually, there have been some restaurants that have had hookahs. I don't think that would be a good thing.

That's why I'm asking my line of questions is because I'm trying to figure out restaurants that mean If you are actually a restaurant then you go restrict your food to Twitter one and up.

No, that's not how that works. Well, I mean, actually, we're asking for bars and lounges, not restaurants. But if we want to truly be competitive like our neighboring markets, then restaurants probably should. But neither Alton or myself has a restaurant. We have a bar only, but I think you are, yeah, they're working on some food.

Right now, cigarette smoking. It's not a lot involved, right?

No, no public places.

No public place, right. And cigarettes contain tobacco.

Correct.

So you just took the tobacco out of the paper, and now you got it in a bowl, and you're smoking tobacco.

That's correct, and we're trying to do it for 21 and up, in which we're respecting the adult choice to make that decision themselves.

Also, the... the olfactory, what you smell is different than what you would smell with people smoking a cigarette, even cigars. I mean, some places you wouldn't even know that people were smoking hookahs.

I'll just give you some background on me. I'm a 30-year expert at smoking. more than 30 years ago. So I know what smoking is about and it's toxic. So no kidding about that. So here we go. So if we change the ordinance to allow

Say the word again, hookah?

Hookah. To allow hookah into bars, we actually allow them smoking back into bars. Because while that cigarette, while that tobacco is burning on the top, all of that smoke is permeating the air. It's going into the air. Am I correct?

That is correct. We're not asking for nothing new here, though. There are already lounges that exist. That are grandfathered in.

Somebody grandfathered in. I don't know who that was, but let that grandfather live on.

In addition to all cigar lounges.

Okay, right. But my point is, it's still tobacco.

Yes.

It's tobacco smoking. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Commissioner. Wimberly, Commissioner Johnson, you have the floor.

Yes, sir. We had a similar conversation when we were passing the cigar ordinance about five years ago. I sat on the floor and folks laughed at me, but I meant it. It's that something like this, even when we're talking about restaurants, A restaurant being able to serve hookah would only be permitted under special circumstances. If I'm a restaurant owner and I have a special exemption or a special license to do this, I will shut the restaurant down and have a specific event to where I could do this. It wouldn't be smoking around children or smoking around an elder. I made a comment then that this does not bring back smoking sections versus non-smoking sections in restaurants. That's not the narrative that we're talking about. But this is a specialty activity, is a recreational activity that people will only go to if they want to partake in this activity. If you don't like to smoke cigars, you know, I don't think it makes much sense to go to a cigar lounge, right? And so what I look at this more so as being as an economic opportunity for people who own these establishments to be able to you know, compete in general, make money like everyone else is able to make money. And this is not a taboo, it's not a taboo activity, so to speak. So I would just make a motion to task the legal department to bring us back a draft ordinance, amending our smoking ordinance to allow for hookah in certain establishments.

Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. I heard a second by Commissioner Francine Scott. Madam Clerk, we have a motion and a second. That's to task the attorney with bringing back a draft ordinance for us to consider to add hookah smoking to bars and restaurants where the age of entry is 21 or older. I don't see any colleagues in the queue for discussion. Let's vote. It's unanimous. Thank you, Madam Clerk. Gentlemen, thank you all so much for being here and thank you for the business that you provide to this community.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Bobby.

All right, Madam Clerk.

Waiting on you, Mr. Mayor.

Let's move on. Let's move on. Let's see here.

We got number 41? Number 41.

Yes, ma'am.

Item 41, proposed revision to the commission rules of procedure.

All right, who was that? I don't see a name on that. Attorney Plunkett, was that you?

Originally it was Commissioner Slendeck who requested to be done and I did the work based on her request. Okay. In the agenda packet there is a clean document and a redlined or edited version. The edits that we did were pretty much three components. One was kind of stylistic, maybe a capitalization issue, something like that. There were some parts that we thought that we should complete the index. The second thing was to try to make the document a little bit more consistent with Robert's Rules of Order, unless our rules were substantially, you know, clear that they were different. And then the third was a little bit more substantive, and those issues where one is that the mayor in the rules procedure could only vote to break ties, so obviously that's changed. So we removed those issues there. There was some consistency, inconsistency with the use of chairman, mayor versus just chairman or something like that, so we cleaned that up. The second thing was to, and this was what Commissioner Slindak was talking about, was potential disruptions in the the chamber, which was maybe signage and things of that nature. So we, I should give credit to Ms., since Mr. Kerr got some credit, I'll give Ms. McLean some credit. She did most of the drafting of this stuff. She researched that. And so the rules of that were that signage was not prohibited. We would suggest if y'all adopt that, that the rule, agendas show that there's no signages allowed, but also for disruptions and things of that nature and how that person could be called out of order. And then the third issue was the personal identification or personal information, and that's obviously been an issue that some of the citizens have brought forth, and I'm going to probably mispronounce Ms. Mabry's last name, but she's spoken on it multiple times, and she provided some information and we kind of looked at other places and we, The law department thought it was appropriate to continue to have information submitted to the clerk so that if the clerk needed to contact a speaker, they would be able to have that information. As far as at the time of the meeting, some places did just have a name, and we thought that it would be more appropriate that the person speaking indicated at least the county they resided in so that it's a resident of Richmond County or it's someone who's Not a residency may have a little different view of that and the same way if they're speaking on behalf of a company Whether that company maintains an office in Richmond County or not, so that was kind of the bulk of the changes there's obviously more that could be done, but we didn't want to just redraft things. We wanted to look at what was kind of stylistic and cleaning up things, and then the other part was to make some changes relative to conduct and personal identification and identifying information.

Thank you, Turner Plunkett. Chair recognizes Commissioner Brandon Garrett from the 8th.

Thank you, Mayor. Just one question in regards to the signage or whatever inside the chambers. Are there any First Amendment issues that... We should be aware of.

So while I gave her the compliment, I'll also say that Ms. McClain did the research and there's not. So it's kind of an inconsistency is where we get into trouble. But if we say no, and then we've also worked with the marshal. I believe we provided some information to the marshal for their policies. If you were trying to say that you cannot speak or protest outside of the building First Amendment issues. If you were to say that you couldn't come into the building, say the lobby, and do that, that could be a First Amendment. So you can identify places, but to come in here, it has twofold. One is disruption, but the other thing is, is it can be on occasion a security issue. And so by just saying don't, And we're talking about signage. We're not getting into clothing or something like that. This is obviously if it was an offensive shirt, not a candidate offensiveness, but it was inappropriate language on it, we could certainly say not to do that. So I don't think there's a problem saying no signs. It's just what signs will you get into some slippery slopes. Thank you.

So I recognize Commissioner Francine Scott from the 9th. Thank you, Mayor Johnson. Attorney Plunkett, I'm back. I'm on page 476 under those attending the meeting and being disruptive. How many times do a person, or is it the amount of time a person can be called out as saying being disrupted? Like if a person come one week and speak for five minutes and the mayor or whoever is saying that this person is being disrupted and asks them to leave, if they come back a second time, within a month or so. So is it a limited time? You can tell that person they are out of order or disruptive and be sensitive to not come back into the chamber for three months, six months or anything. I didn't see it here and I'm a slow reader too.

Yes, ma'am. And also on the five-minute, I did make a slight edit to that, that any questioning by the body would not go against the speaker's five minutes. In other words, sometimes the commissioners will engage someone, and you don't want that to necessarily limit the five minutes. We did not change that rule. So basically, the way it works is that the chair would... declare someone out of order. At that point in time, there could be a point of order if someone thinks that that person is not outside of the scope. And then the commission can overrule the chair in that regard and allow the person to stay. If the person is removed and the commission does not find any problem with that, in fact, maybe that's the right thing to do, the commission, not the chair, can make a motion to exclude that person for up to 60 days. That's existing rules. That's a vote on, and then y'all as a body say, we don't want this person to come back for 60 days. You could make it longer. Some places don't allow delegations. I think that would be considered, you know, repressing speech in that regard. One time it was asked, you know, maybe it should be longer, that the person can only come back on an item every 120 days, but then other people say maybe every time. And so we didn't touch that type of change. We really were addressing conduct, But you still have the provision that if you find that a speaker was so offensive, you can make a motion, and if seconded and voted on, you could ban that person for up to 60 days.

Thank you, Commissioner Scott. Chair recognizes the commissioner from the first. Commissioner Jordan-Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Question about signs and shirts and stuff that's deemed offensive. Who would make the determination if a shirt or something is offensive? If I had on a shirt that said, Jim Plunkett can't dance. Who would make that determination that that would be offensive? Other than you, of course.

I was going to say I'd take offense to that. If it was Jim Plunkett for a probate court, that would be a vintage shirt.

And I don't share that sentiment, Jim. I do think you can dance.

Thank you. That's the chair. But if the chair makes a ruling, the body, under a point of order, can challenge the rule, and if a majority says it's okay. The signage is easy. No signs. So we don't have that dismay. I don't think we're really looking at a... say, a candidate's shirt, I think what you're, you know, pick a sixth or seventh letter of the alphabet, and that might be something that would be inappropriate for there. So I think you have to allow the chair to have some discretion, and if you were a bit... find that the chair is finding issue with that, then the body kind of overrules. But if you think about this, we've had two issues in my 18, 19 months here. So I don't think it's something that happens frequently. One was a signage and The reality is that in that situation, the person wasn't really being removed by the sign. It was the issue of addressing the chair. The interaction is really the rationale there. Maybe ultimately the sign was going to be an issue, but it didn't get to that place. But you have the protection to overrule the chair. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson, chair recognizes. Commissioner from the 7th. Commissioner Tina Slendek.

Yes, I was going to see if I could get a motion to approve this, but I mean. Second.

All right. Madam Clerk, there has been a motion to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Brandon Garrett. There's still a few colleagues in the queue. I see Commissioner Don Clark and Commissioner Stacey Pulliam. Commissioner Clark, you have the floor, sir.

i was looking for the section that kind of protects um to what attorney plunkett was saying about some of the kind of outbursts and everything like that that still lies within the hands of the the chairman um for he uh or she to determine what's out of bounds and all that where is that I don't know where, I'm kind of like Commissioner Scott on that one. I'm a slow reader as well. Is that protection in here to clearly articulate that piece?

It's section 1.10. 1.10. That's the rules of conduct. And then if you go to 1.10.12, that is the penalty section with the chairman making that rule. Okay, and that's what was added. Yes, sir. If you're looking at the edited version, the red line, there is a little bit of blue. We, so to speak, ran out of red ink. But those two sections, 1.10.01 adds very specific what is, you know, what is considered disruptive. And then the 1.1, 1.10.12 is the penalty. You know, one of the issues is it's a little bit broader than just signage. You know, it does say shouting, chanting. One of the time we debated over the issue of applause. Applauding in some places is prohibited, but I don't want to have when there's a delegation and we are recognizing someone and say, well, that's... So it's more of the disruptive nature of it, and you have to assume that the chair will use some discretion in making those determinations.

All right. So I just wanted to make sure we were kind of protecting the sanctity of it all. Now, as far as the component about... The 90 day period. So if I come in, I give the clerk what I'm going to talk about. And then from there, I kind of go off, you know, script of what was what I was supposed to do. Is there any specific aspect of that? kind of mention, or is that still within the realm of responsibility of the chair to utilize discretion?

Well, it's... The idea is both already there in it, and it's also the idea that the person is going off track, and that the person, one could argue that they are being... inconsistent with what the agenda item is. Right. And so, for instance, we added the word germane in here relative to the discussion by the commission. In other words, when you make comments, it needs to be germane to the issue. Okay. And so you need to... There needs to be some latitude, in my opinion, when a speaker comes up, because if you don't have a little bit of latitude, then you're going to find that the speaker is going to be making some of the most vague requests, and that's going to put the clerk in a position of, is that admissible or not? If someone said, I'd like to talk about the status of Richmond County or Augusta-Richmond County, That's anything you want to say. So let the chair be reasonable. And again, once every nine or ten months that someone's called down is not a very frequent

Yeah, and the reason I ask that, I saw one of the requests that came through, and I saw the email traffic between the clerk, and the statement was made, going forward, I'll put a title up here, but I intend to talk about multiple topics.

And there's nothing, I mean, it's five minutes, and for the speaker's purposes, when you put three or four topics, you're now bound to the 90-day rule for all of those topics. Right. So, you know, it's they're better service and talk about one item or two items.

Right. But because right now it seems like the trend is as long as I do a different topic, I can come up as many times repeat over and over and over again because I'm just changing the topics. And what stated is. public comment on the same issue within a period of 90 days.

And it's not frequently, but on occasion, Ms. Bonner and I do communicate about whether or not this is the same item. And so to try to make sure that that 90-day rule is preserved. And then she, on occasion, will contact the speaker to clarify and to notify them that it's the same subject matter and they shouldn't You know, either talk about something different or don't come. That's the behind-the-scenes stuff that happens.

Yeah, and that was... Just speaking of that one particular situation, I had saw that kind of back and forth, and that's what kind of made me bring it up. Are we really kind of clarifying that? Because if not, then it kind of blurs the lines.

Well, there's a phrase in law that bad cases make bad law, and so we don't want to... If there's one speaker that one time did something, let's not redo the world just to create that situation. Okay. It's done well for the last, since 1996. So, I mean, we don't have a whole lot of errors in that problem.

Let me ask this and then I'll retire my statements. When it comes to the component of All right, I lost my place where I was looking. Okay, thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Chair recognizes Commissioner from the second. Commissioner Stacy Pooley.

Thank you, Mayor Johnson. Attorney Plunkett, in, what is this? Page 484, 3.04.07. Can you elaborate on that addition more? The portion about an affirmative vote on the motion to lay on the table cannot be reconsidered? Because previously I'm assuming it was not that. Well, I'm not assuming. I'm reading that that portion was not there.

So what does that change? Would you please state again?

Yes, sir. Page 484.

I only have it by the document.

I apologize. That's okay. 3.04.07.

Okay.

And the top of that page on mine says item 40. Oh, it's off item 41. That doesn't help.

So this is the supplemental motions. I'm sorry, I went too far.

It's on the lay on the table postponed temporarily. Okay.

Okay, so if you could restate your question, I've got it in front of me now.

How does this, the portion that is added that says an affirmative vote on the motion to lay on the table cannot be reconsidered. So prior to that, it could be reconsidered.

It would not be reconsidered under Robert's Rules of Order. It would be actually a motion. What was happening is that the initial thought was basically get rid of all the motion discussion and just say see robert's rules of order and my concern with doing that was it would look like we changed a whole lot and so what we were trying to do here is to tighten not tighten up but more clearly state how it would work in Robert's Rules. And so for instance, if the motion delay is done, delay on the table and everybody passes that, then we don't have a substitute motion. So this is consistent with Robert's Rules. It's consistent, should be consistent how this is historically be done. We just wanted to make, clarify that you don't go back and forth, back and forth. Once it passes, it's passed and it's done for the day.

And currently, the way it is...

It should be the same. It just wasn't clear in the document. So we were clarifying it by adding that.

So right now, we are able to go back.

Under Robert's rules, you would not. And Robert's rules is the fault. And so that we wouldn't... We're not changing anything. It's the current rule. We were just... expanding the language of it so that it would be more clear that this is what the rule means.

Okay, for me instead of doing an approval today I would like to do a substitute motion to move this back to committee. I know we didn't have most of our committees last time and so a lot of our items we just pushed on through without having discussions on them and some of them I was okay with that. This document is rather lengthy and even though we've gone through the majority of it I want to make sure that I am not overlooking anything and can really um ask questions that need to be asked so i would like to see this move to committee cycle since there was no committee because there was lack of quorum so that's my substitute motion madam clerk we have a substitute motion by the commissioner from the second to move this back to committee is there a second second there's a second by commissioner jordan johnson

Commissioner Tina Salindek, I see you in the queue before we vote on the substitute motion. Is there anything you'd like to add?

I would just like to say everybody's had this for a week in their books. So, I mean, I know it's been a crazy week for some of them, but it's not like this is the first time you've seen it. I mean, everybody, why are we... going to the time and expense for agenda books for you not, if you had an issue with it, but I'm gonna, I'm not in favor of that, but we'll vote it through and see where it goes. My original motion stands.

Thank you, Commissioner Slindak. Madam Clerk, I don't see any colleagues in the queue. We're prepared to vote on the substitute motion. to send this back to committee.

That motion fails. With Mr. Johnson voting yes, Ms. Pulliam voting yes, Mr. Wimbley voting yes, Mr. Lewis voting yes, Ms. Scott voting yes. Voting no, Ms. Rice, Mr. Clark, Ms. Slendeck, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Guilfoyle, and Mayor Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's move forward with the original motion, please. To approve. To approve. Mm-hmm. We're prepared to vote.

That motion carries nine to two with Ms. Pulliam and Mr. Johnson voting no. George Johnson voting no.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. Let's move on to item 42, which has been recommended. We break these two board recommendations into separate votes.

Mr. Mayor, just procedurally, you need to make a motion to split.

Okay.

And then that is voted on, and if it's split, then you vote on each one of them.

You got it. All right. I need to entertain a motion to split, please.

Make the motion to split.

Second. Second. All right, I heard a motion by the Commissioner Dunn, Clark from the 5th, and I heard a second first by Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Guilfoyle. Before we vote, Commissioner Wimbley, is there anything you'd like to discuss?

I'm confused on, this is the, the motion is right here, 42, right? Yeah, two separate boards, as I understand. So we get to not discuss the original motion?

We're gonna discuss them, but independently, separately.

No, you don't get to discuss the motion. I pulled a motion. I didn't pull this. So if there's going to be a motion to separate it, then I think, from my understanding, you address the original motion, and then that takes up the motion to split it up.

You know what, parliamentarian Plunkett?

If it would be appropriate for the motion to approve, then it would be a motion to divide. Then the motion to divide is voted on. If it passes, then you would have two motions to consider. All right.

Madam Clerk, we're going to address this motion number 42 as originally stated by the commissioner from the 4th. With both. And then if that motion passes or fails, if it fails, we're going to address the motion that's been made by Commissioner Clark and seconded by Mayor Pro Tem. All right.

But Mr. Mayor, I said we discuss it. So that means I could ask some questions about it. Sure, if you'd like to.

Would you like to ask some questions now? Because I had not made a motion. I'm just saying. Okay, sure. So would you like to ask those questions now before we vote on it? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. You have the floor. Thank you.

Thank you very much. But, Mr. Mayor, I'd like to address these to the clerk. Yes. Okay. Madam Clerk. Yes, sir. I'm asking so the commission is clear on the proper procedure before we vote, especially multiple appointments, when multiple appointments are listed. on one agenda item. So here's my question. For historical clarity, when the commission has ratified legislative delegation appointment in the past, has that typically been done as a group on one motion or have the appointment been considered and voted on individually?

Commissioner Wembley, historically, the legislative delegation usually sends in multiple appointments on a list, and I kind of thought we probably would be discussing this. Put that on the screen for me. Now that's one, but normally they send in several appointments at a time. And this has been a discussion over the years regarding these appointments, but it has been the rule and the process of the commission to receive the delegation appointments without question. It started at consolidation. It was quite confusing for the commissioners to determine if these were commission appointments or legislative delegation appointments. These are delegation appointments. That was, I'm gonna use one of Mr. Plunkett's words, it was opined by one of our previous legal counsel to this point, and I have kept this document. He referred to the consolidation F13F. Board of Commissioners of Richmond County or governing authorities of the City of Augusta shall be increased by creating two new members for each who shall be recommended by the Richmond County delegation in the General Assembly of Georgia and appointed by the Commission Council. That was opined by Mr. Jim Wall, Mr. McKenzie, as well as Mr. Shepherd, that the legislative delegation recommend and the commission appoint. There was no question up until now that the consolidation this gave the legislative delegation, the authority to appoint the commission ratified and that was done specifically for them to have a record of their appointments. So yes, sir, they have been done in multiple appointments because it was the prerogative of the legislative delegation to make their appointments without commission consent.

So my understanding now then is that when the delegation send, there are appointees on the list, then all we're doing is confirming who they sent.

Yeah, let me, if I could. I mean, this has come out to numerous commissions. This is not the first time because they were not familiar with it. This happened back in 2015. I'm gonna put it on the screen as well so you can actually see. What is being said, put that on. Or what is being asked of then turning general counsel.

Just got your order.

Mr. Fennoy asked Mr. McKenzie, since these are the appointments or legislative appointments and appointments from the Senate, why are we approving their appointments? Mr. McKenzie, I think the best answer to that is the consolidation act allows for a mechanism whereby the names will be brought to this body so that we can have a record of it that the clerk maintains so that we know who the official members are of each governing board and authority. Mr. Funoa, I think it's evidently the legislator in the Senate had these four appointments. He says you're right. And so that has been the process and the practice since consolidation regarding these appointments. They are legislative prerogatives. that the commission they recommend, we ratify. And that has been, and I showed you the other list, so that's how we have practiced this through these years.

So, Ms. Brown, I'm gonna direct this question to Ms. Bonner. Would you put that back up, the one you just took down? Which one? The one you just took down. Put that one back up. That one? Yes. So this is for the attorney, Attorney Plunkett. So all we're doing, according to Mr. McKenzie's response, is all we're doing is making a record of the appointment that the delegation is sending forward. We're not here determining who they are. appointee are, we're just making a record that they are sending forward a particular name to hold a particular position. Am I correct?

Mr. Wimberley, what's interesting about a number of these boards is, for instance, the Tax Assessors Board, it refers to two members being appointed by the legislative delegation. The Library Board, two additional members appointed by the legislative delegation. The Augusta Aviation is two additional members should the delegation choose to appoint two members. However, there's two boards, one of which is the Canal Authority and one of which is the Ports Authority. It says that two members shall be recommended by the delegation and appointed by the commission. So the language is different in two of these boards. I'm not... I'm not disputing, I don't know for a fact either way whether or not Mr. McKenzie or Mr. Wall was referring to all of them. But when this issue came up, I went to see what the language was for the particular boards, and some say, two say recommend. I did not look at every board, but it was interesting that there was different language in here. So that is kind of the issue that is in front of us is the language of recommending versus appointing. I do agree that if the body, if the delegation has the authority to appoint someone, then you're simply... memorializing we can call it ratifying if you want to but I don't you know that gets ratified appointment is appointment and you're really just acknowledging those appointments and I think in the past even for the canal authority the ports authority the The commission has not really deviated from saying their designees are who are gonna be put there. I'm not familiar with any canal authority or ports authority discussions either way, but these do have different language and doesn't say directly that they're appointed. In fact, says that this body has the authority to appoint those members. So that's why I brought that.

When you say this body, are you referring to the commission?

The commission, the language specifically says that in addition, two members shall be recommended by the Augusta-Richmond County delegation in the General Assembly of Georgia and appointed by the Augusta-Richmond County Commission. It's not an unreasonable interpretation that recommendation is the same as designee and that you should follow with the traditional language of ratifying, but I don't know that that is legally required.

So who owns the position? Does the body own the position or does the delegation own the position that is trying to be filled? So because if this body owns the position, why the delegation is able to present a nominee? If the delegation owns the position, will just, would you say ratify?

I think that would be an appropriate word. So I think it's similar to the idea that in the rules procedure that say that where the language may say that a commissioner has a right to appoint, your rules of procedure say that really the appointment is by the commission and they're ratified. That's in your rules of procedure. So I think a strict reading says that these are to be appointed by, for the ports authority and canal authority, they're to be appointed by this body, by the commission. But you're receiving recommendations for those two names.

But having said that, we don't need a recommendation from the delegation.

No, you should get recommendations because it says shall be recommended.

But if we don't approve what they recommend, then who are we going to put into position?

You'd be, in my opinion, you'd be requesting another recommendation.

So we'll be telling them who we want to represent them?

No, sir, I think you'd be telling them that you did not want the first named person to be on that board. I don't think it would be appropriate for this body today, hypothetically, if one of the gentlemen would, the gentleman that was named for the ports authority, if this body said, We don't appoint this individual. I don't think there's appropriate for a motion to be made to appoint someone else unless it's coming from the delegation.

So based on what you just said, if we don't appoint this person today and the delegation comes back with the same individual, then what is our recourse?

I think at that time you would be having the same conversation and do you at that time have you changed your mind and now want to appoint that person? But if the body is not willing to do it, I think you go back into a cycle of they recommend and you don't appoint. At some point you hope that people get together and find a name to put up there that everybody could agree to or at least six people could agree to.

All right. Commissioner? Motion. Commissioner? There's a substitute motion. I mean, there's a motion. There's a motion. You want to keep the original motion? Say again? You want to keep your original motion?

Mayor, I have a question, too.

Yes, sir. We're going to get to it. Commissioner Wimbley still has a floor. You good? Good. THE AGENDA ITEM WOULD BE MY MOTION. ALL RIGHT. AND IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT? DIDN'T COMMISSIONER JOHNSON SECOND THAT TO APPROVE THE ORIGINAL AGENDA MOTION? DID YOU SECOND THAT? I DID. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER JOHNSON JUST SECONDED THAT. WE'VE GOT A FEW COLLEAGUES TO GET THROUGH IN THE QUEUE. WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THAT IN JUST A SECOND. COMMISSIONER, BRYANT AND GARRETT, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR.

THANK YOU. Not sure who to ask this question to. It's either going to be to the attorney or to the clerk. I'm not sure who. I guess, who received these recommendations from the delegation?

The clerk's office.

Okay. Okay. I wasn't sure what... Okay.

We put them on the agenda.

Yes, ma'am. I guess my first question is... Was this a unanimous decision or a unanimous recommendation from the delegation?

Well, usually the chairman sends it in. I don't question the procedure and process.

Your mic's not on. Oh, I'm sorry.

I can hear you. Yeah, how they come about with their recommendations. That's a process and procedure that the legislative delegation has among itself. So once they send it to me, I mean, over the years, I haven't gotten any pushback from anyone else once they're submitted to our office.

I just know there was questions around whether a decision we had made and sent to the delegation was unanimous or not. So that's just the reason I was asking that question. Attorney Plunkett, I think this question is probably for you. I saw you did some research into other boards and authorities. Do you happen to have the one for the hospital authority?

I do not, but if you'll give me a second, I can see if I can find it.

I was just thinking because we've... Usually, like with the hospital authority, they send a group of names for us to consider, and then we usually go down that list to approve.

They're creating legislation. Their process is in there creating legislation.

Well, I just didn't know how it was worded in that.

It's an interesting, it was changed initially. It was certain classes, you know, like doctors and this, and now they provide a list, but They are, I believe, nominated essentially, and then y'all, they also tell you kind of, they're like the first slate of names to be, but they provide you extra nominations. Okay. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Commissioner. Chair recognizes Commissioner Don Clark from Fifth.

Hey, real quick. In the event that we go through, this is for the commission appointees. When we present our commission appointees, they're presented. If there's any objection from any of the colleagues for, let's say, an appointee that I make, once I receive, if I don't get the votes it takes to carry it, then what is my recourse in that situation?

So that language is in your rule. 1.11.01. And it says that when it's determined by the Consolidation Act or other rule or manner that it is a right or turn of a particular commissioner to nominate a candidate for position, such nominee must be elected by a majority of the commission. Right. If any nominee, however, nominated fails to receive a majority vote, alternative candidates may be nominated until the position is filled by majority vote. So in other words, if it is your right in quotes and the body does not agree with you, then it's essentially opened up for nominations from the commission. It's a little bit different in my reading of the ports authority is that it says shall be recommended by the delegation, it doesn't say unless it fails and then go to something else. Right. So I think that...

But it's still based on majority, though, correct? They have to obtain the majority for that appointee to be assigned. Yes, sir. Okay.

And I'll be quite honest. As Ms. Bonner is saying, I mean, this is somewhat, in my opinion, uncharted waters that the delegation has made you who they would like in... That's who you ratify to put there. You know, that's just kind of the way it's always been done.

Yeah, I get it. I mean, I get historical trends, but I think to this point, and I think when you have situations like this, it really kind of forces you to go back and update your documentation to make sure it's clear. Because in this regard, we have some ambiguity. Some of the boards have it. Some of the boards don't have it. So if we're going to clean it up, let's clean it up. Let's get it addressed. In this regard, it's kind of a moot point because it states that the legislative body recommends. They send it to us for a vote for approval. If it doesn't pass, then it sounds like to me what you're telling me, it goes back to the legislative body to bring another name forward for recommendation for us to vote on. Correct? That is the way I would read it. All right. So in this regard, we voted up or down, and we move on. But I think it does give us the opportunity, since we're having this discussion about the boards, it gives us the opportunity to really kind of dig in and make sure we kind of clean up. A lot of this documentation, even some of the docs that Ms. Ms. Bonner showed us, we're from like 97. Like this is 2026. We need to clean up the stuff and make sure we have something for everyone to really kind of have from a historical perspective and not just, hey, this is the way we've always done it. And I'm not saying that's what we're saying, but I'm just saying just to make sure that it's clean, it would benefit us to go ahead and dig into this. So I'll be putting this on a committee cycle so that we can start digging in and get some clarity because even some of the names that we have listed aren't accurate on the site. So we just got clean up all around that we got to do to ensure that we're tracking.

Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Mayor Pro Tem Wayne Guilfoyle.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, if you look at what's on the screen, this was back before my day, big time, and it was actually Recommend it by the delegation, local delegation, but if you look at the bottom, that motion failed. They didn't accept it back then either, even though they could have if that was the standard procedure and standard protocol. So I'd like to make a substitute motion that we divide this question so we could look at it from two different... Right, but... Okay.

Paul, would it be appropriate to use a substitute motion to divide these into two? Is that appropriate?

If there's a second and a vote to divide.

Mayor Pro Tem has called for a substitute motion to divide those two. I've heard a proper second by Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice from the third. Well, I thought that's what the motion was, to split them.

The original motion was as written, which was made by Mr. Wimberly and seconded by Mr. Johnson.

Yeah, Mr. Clark and Mr. Guilfoyle did a motion to split. Before he did the substitute motion, he just...

But the matter wasn't before the body, it was premature.

Oh, okay. Okay. Chair recognizes Commissioner Lonnie Wimberley.

Ms. Mattis is back for the attorney. Okay. Based on what my colleague from the 5th was saying about changing it, the wording, how would we go about doing that? Should have been the work of Charlie Wimberley.

I would need to look at whether the document I printed shows it is a code of ordinance for the creation of the Ports Authority. I would need to go back and verify that it's an ordinance and not a charter issue. And so I am not prepared today to be able to give you a final answer on that. But I should not be able to take too long to be able to figure that out.

But as you understand right now, there's nowhere in that to tell us to split this out, right?

You can split the motion because there's two questions.

The motion is the appointments.

The motions are appointments, which is the motion before. That's the question. And it could be split into two questions. Alternatively, if that... motion to split doesn't go forward, then your original motion will be up or down, and then there would be no appointments today if it failed. Obviously, if it passed, there'd be two appointments today.

So the term we're using here is split? Or divide.

Divide.

Does that mean we're going to vote on each individual?

Yes, sir. It would make it there's two agenda items, like part A and part B, One arguably would be Mr. Kevin Mack to the General Aviation Commission. And the second question would be Mr. Clarence Tompkins to the Augusta Ports Authority.

OK.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Commissioner Wimley. Chair recognizes Commissioner from the First, Commissioner Jordan-Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This question is for Ms. Bonner or Mr. Plunkett. How was the Port Authority created? Was it created by Augusta-Richmond County or was it created by the legislative delegation? Was it created by the general session?

It's a state authority.

Was it created by the legislature?

Yes, it was by state statute.

so that would make it a charter issue. I mean, I guess that's for Jim Plunkett.

It was created in 1959, and then it continued. There were some amendments in 1975 and 1999. So I would have to go back to Georgia laws to look at all of that.

But was it created by the county commission or the city council at the time?

I believe it was created by the legislature.

So if it was created by the legislature, would the legislature have to... change how the appointment process is made or is that something that the commission will have to do?

Again, I need to take a look at it. I'm looking at the The reference to the membership is in the Code of Ordinances, and it refers to how they're appointed. So I wasn't prepared today to go into a deep dive into the Port's Authority history, but I would be more than happy to brief you all at the next meeting.

Okay. Yeah, it's just my baseline understanding that if... If the General Assembly created this authority in the process, I would assume that they would have to change it as well. That's my general assumption. I mean, I'm like Commissioner Slindak on this one. We had this for a few weeks. I mean, we should have known what we were coming into from a historical perspective, you know, facts. She said it was hectic, but we've had it. So I really would agree with her on this one. So I would like for us not to push this back too much further because it's a really serious thing. And I would also caution us before we start talking about, well, I'm still speaking, sir. I was very rude of you. I would also caution before we start changing our appointment processes and things like that. I think it's just been a general consensus that the commission respects its appointees. I know this is a little bit different, but it's a general consensus that the commission respects its appointees. There's been plenty appointees to this board that this board has made that I didn't agree with, but I supported them because I support my colleagues. And so I would hope that we don't go too far into the weeds on that one. BUT IF YOU COULD GET US A DETERMINATION AS TO HOW IS THIS AUTHORITY CREATED AND WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO MAKE CHANGES TO THIS APPOINTMENT PROCESS, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. AND PERHAPS WE CAN GET THAT BEFORE NEXT MEETING.

YES, SIR. MR. JOHNSON, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS IN THE CODE, IT REFERS TO AN ACT CREATING THE AUGUSTA PORTS AUTHORITY. a lot of what happened is that acts were then just kind of put into the ordinances in that regard almost verbatim. And so not having the act, I don't know, but I believe that this was probably taken verbatim, which would have the language that says recommended. So the General Assembly would have said, these individuals are to be recommended, not appointed.

But when you say verbatim, it's verbatim from perhaps the state law? From the Georgia law, yes. From the Georgia law, okay.

And I have to go to the... public library because that's where the law library is now held and it's not available i can't find it online i go to that physical book from those years so it takes a little bit of time to get to it yeah i'd be more happy to provide you all the relevant data i can on the ports authority and its creation and amendments that'd be helpful thank you now you can call for your

All right, Madam Clerk, there's been a call for the question. I don't see any colleagues in the community. But just for the record, Mr. Mayor, the commission came back and did approve this.

At the time, I was just showing you the discussion that they were having among themselves, the back and forth, and then they came to the conclusion, as stated in the Consolidation Act, that they shall recommend this commission approved for there to be an official record. That's what has been the practice in our office since consolidation, that it was that way.

Madam Clerk, that is noted. There's been a call for the question. We're prepared to vote on the motion that's been brought forth by Commissioner Brandon Garrett and second it. I'm sorry, the substitute motion that's been brought forward by the Mayor Pro Tem that has a proper second by Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice. And that is to split these two individuals into separate votes. All right, so we're gonna vote in the substitute motion for us to split these two appointments into separate votes. Colleagues are voting.

That motion carries with Ms. Pulliam voting yes, Ms. Rice voting yes, Mr. Clark voting yes, Ms. Slendeck voting yes, Mr. Garrett voting yes, Mr. Guilfoyle voting yes, Mayor Johnson. Voting no. Mr. Jordan Johnson, Mr. Lonnie Wembley, Mr. Tony Lewis, and Ms. Francine Scott.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. With that vote passage, I ask for a motion on the first individual to be considered for appointment. Let's go and perhaps, is there any alphabetical order to this? Let's just go in the order in which they are. Mr. Kevin Mack, is there a motion to approve Mr. Kevin Mack, please?

So moved. Second.

I heard a motion by Commissioner Brandon Garrett first, seconded by Commissioner Catherine Smith-Rice. Madam Clerk, we're prepared to vote. Madam Clerk, we're voting.

Mayor, I have a question before I cast my vote.