Board of Mayor & Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Hey, good evening, everyone. Thank you for coming. I prepared a statement that I would like to read. I just want to take a few moments to address the incident that occurred after the June 23 millage rate hearing, and in particular the allegations regarding my involvement with Avondale FYI. I believe we can all agree, regardless of anyone's suspicions or concerns, the events of June 23rd were not the appropriate way to address them. If there were any questions about my involvement, I would have welcomed a direct conversation. Questions should be asked before conclusions are reached and concerns

If anybody's planning to go to the gala and would like to volunteer to help, please reach out to me and let me know.

Well, because, you know, I generally don't like to vote for things, you know, in one reading. You know, that's kind of the way I feel that we should have the two readings. But if this is just something to clean up the financial stuff in order to get the audit finished, then I'm okay with it.

I think my main question really is, is this stuff that's already been done, it's just being documented? Correct. Okay.

Is this going to be something we'll be seeing on a periodic basis?

So is this the number that's that number after the 3.5 and the 1%?

Okay. Yeah, anybody else? I have a few questions. Okay, one where it's underspoken. Is that money that's actually, I know we got $2 million from the county from their SPLOST funds that are in there that we've already received. So are these county funds, do we have additional coming in or are those already in the SPLOST 2 fund?

Okay. So we already, that's part of our balance sheet. Correct. Okay. So let's see. So this one, okay, this $1 million and the $440,000, those were taken out for the part of the $2.2 million.

The DDA was already had. So my question is, is this SW-2601, is this no longer needed now for $729,200? Because, I mean, technically we gave $2 million for all this kind of stuff.

So is this something, are y'all getting grant money for this?

So we're looking at the $729,000 plus the $355,000?

Well, I understand it's a completely separate project, but it's also in the downtown.

Well, I don't know whether to talk about it now or talk about it later. But, you know, the DBA was created to, you know, help with projects. items like this and infrastructure, you know, to promote downtown development and everything and assist with that. But it was also to help deal with, you know, repairs and stormwater and infrastructure within that area. You know, we already put in $2.2 million this year towards the downtown, this project, plus we've got another $521 million K that we put in every year, you know, that we're paying, that's coming out of the general fund. That's most of that

Well, this 355 actually, you know, it said that it was being constructive to serve the Maple Street development in the resolution.

Do we have floor plans and estimates on the City Hall renovation?

And then we would be getting copies of all of that.

not a problem yeah well i'm not comfortable with the city transferring money to the dda to bypass um bids i mean i understand what you're saying but to me if it's because the developer is already going to do the project that just says to me even more that the dda should be picking up the cost on this that's just my opinion

Yeah, that is kind of vague. I agree with you. That's why I felt like it should be clear because my problem with the original template is it just really addressed the board's relationship and our relationship with the residents. And I think it should be applied to all appointed officials, employees, and board. And so that's why I made some changes to it.

It does say in the original template, this pledge strives to show courtesy by treating all colleagues, staff, and members of the public in a professional and respectful manner. But I guess that is just basically saying that the board and the city manager are to do that. So are we going to specify board and city manager through this? Instead of just telling city officials so it's clear?

i it may just be me being a little obtuse i don't really understand the function of adding that entire clause that whereas well because um you know there are distinct responsibilities of the board and distinct responsibilities of the city manager by charter and we need to respect those responsibilities in each other as well as saying

I don't think it's the drug standing. I mean, we have talked about mutual trust and accountability and respectful communication, but... I do think that recognizing our roles is important in what we do.

Well, did you say we would also talk about version four? I did add a couple of them. Well, the blue, the blue.

Okay. Yeah. Well, I'll read the three things I added. Okay, so this is, whereas the Board of Mayor and Commissioners recognize that maintaining the public's trust requires all elected officials and city staff to conduct themselves with integrity, professionalism, and every official interaction. And, I mean, we could take city staff out of there and just put...

And then I've got after the end of avoiding personal ill will, which results in the best interest of residents, and then I put and, and then I added recognize that those responsibilities are best fulfilled when Elected officials and city staff respect one another's roles and work collaboratively in carrying out the city's business. What section is that one? It's the one, one, two, three, four, fifth whereas.

And then the last one is, this is one where... This commitment extends to all interactions, whether occurring during meetings, at city facilities, during city-sponsored events, through written correspondence, electric communications, or in any setting where city officials or staff are acting in their official capacity. Do you have a copy of it, Stephen?