The Development Authority of Warner Robins (DAWR) met via Zoom conference on Thursday, January 7 for their first meeting of 2021. Chairwoman Robbin Gosline called the meeting to order and the board adopted the provided agenda.
Board member Kent Jordan called to revisit the Seyfarth Shaw Attorney invoices that were previously discussed at the last meeting on December 17 of last year. No vote was issued, and Jordan wanted to be able to bring forth several vital updates from a meeting he had earlier in the day with Jeanette Clay, a legal assistant at the aforementioned law firm, regarding the past invoices.
Jordan recalled that everyone had seen the “four or five” invoices and discussed how he and Maggie Williams went line by line with Clay to address several questions they had regarding the charges. Ultimately, the charges initially totaled $21,633. After their discussion, the authority was able to save $11,850, resulting in the final total of the multiple invoices being dropped to $9,783. He informed the board that Seyfarth and Shaw will be updating the invoices and the DAWR will be able to vote on the official amount next month for the following meeting.
Board member Lauren Schultz raised the question of why the total was reduced by that notable amount and Jordan explained that the firm “understood our concerns. They do understand that we do have a lack of revenue stream right now and that played into the decision.”
Gosline noted, “I do know that…it looked like there were some charges going to our development authority that were actually going elsewhere to another authority. Those were easy to identify and eliminate from it, so that was some of the expenditure.” She further went on to point out, “There was a couple in which there was more like double-billing that could have been totally accidental or not, meaning that multiple attorneys might have been in it, and we should not have been billed for it, but they were there. There were some very practical, legitimate reasons, but overall, I’m not sure what the total net was. I think some of these were just writing it off. These are old charges.”
Upon hearing the explanations, Schultz offered that the board should follow the invoices in more detail. “With that much of the reduction, I would think that either then we need to look at them more closely each time, or we need to maybe come up with some different type of compensation scheme for them and discuss that with them.”
Jordan mentioned that Williams will be forwarding the invoices immediately upon receiving them from now on to help clear any confusion and to allow the board to unanimously look over everything. “She’s going to send it out to the board; that way, we will all have time to review it, ask any questions, make any modifications and still be able to hopefully vote on it at the next meeting instead of these things dragging out.”
The board agreed and moved on to the financial report given by Chief Financial Officer Theresa Thornton followed by discussion of setting a date for the 2021 Project Planning Workshop.
Gosline explained that the strategy for the planning session will be a multi jurisdictional meeting with other authorities in play and indicated that it is set to be closed to the public. As she proceeded to offer the dates discussed by the multiple authorities, Schultz interjected with a few technical concerns.
“Robin, I guess my question first is, what are the other jurisdictions planning on being there? And second,” she went on to clarify, “I want to make sure it’s clear that while this board chooses to close it, it is not required under the law that it be closed. There are very limited circumstances where closing a session is actually required. It may be permissive, but not required.”
Gosline carefully pointed out that, “We are ‘permissing’ it be closed. The projects that are going to be discussed with the others [are] not in a time or position that we can publicly do that or it will be at risk of the opportunities at hand.” She further explained that the agenda is still in the beginning stages and is not quite ready to be presented to the public. “And as per our attorney, Dan McRae, this is the way the rules are written and the process that we are to follow that it is legitimate to be closed and we are requesting it to be closed, not only by us, but by the other jurisdictions.”
“I just want to put on the record that there is also a difference between a closed session and something that is not considered an actual meeting under the law,” Schultz countered. She then shared, “If we are doing this as a closed meeting, it still has to be advertised, notice given, and there’s a proper way to close the meeting, as opposed to something not being a meeting under the law.”
Agreeing to share the agenda with everyone, Gosline stated that she was following her understanding of the Georgia guidelines according to the attorney. The scheduled date of the work session is February 3.
The board then voted on the HUD Use Agreement for Phase 2 of Gateway Pointe Apartments under Pennrose, discussed pending litigation during an executive session and finally adjourned the meeting.
HHJ News
