HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-06-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
February 6, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:04 p.m., with the
Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond
County Commission.
Also present were Jim Wall, Attorney; Walter Hornsby, Interim
Administrator; and Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hunter.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
PRESENTATION:
Proclamation Augusta Pride & Progress
Mr. Jimmy Smith
Mr. Mayor: The first order of business is a presentation of a proclamation to
South Richmond County Pride & Progress. Madame Clerk, if you would read the
proclamation to us.
Clerk: [reading] In recognition of Pride & Progress,
Whereas, Pride & Progress was formed in 1991 and became an arm of the
Augusta Metro Chamber of Commerce in South Richmond County and has developed
into a public forum for community issues and development; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress has diligently worked with the Chamber of Commerce
to promote and assist with economic development, not only in South Richmond County,
but also in Greater Augusta by participating in trips to Washington, D.C. and Atlanta,
Georgia; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress has diligently worked with the Augusta Richmond
County Planning Commission to promote and assist with establishing strong planning
and zoning guidelines for greater Augusta; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress has worked with the Sheriff’s office and the Augusta
Neighborhood Alliance to secure the U.S. Justice Weed & Seed grant for Barton Village
and the grant to hire additional deputies; and
2
Whereas, Pride & Progress has worked with Richmond County Correctional
Institution and formed a group of concerned citizens to adopt a highway litter program
for South Richmond County, completes two clean-up projects each year in the spring and
fall; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress has worked to promote and adopt our consolidated
government, the local sales tax renewal and the school bond; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress has worked with Augusta Tomorrow to form Greater
Augusta Progress, Inc. that assists the Planning Commission to develop a master growth
plan for Greater Augusta; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress promoted and assisted with the study to revitalize
Regency Mall and the gateway project for Greater Augusta as well, promoted and
assisted with locating the University Medical Center South on Peach Orchard Road; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress worked with local banks to develop and deliver
banking courses for rising seniors at Butler, Glenn Hills, Hephzibah and Cross Creek
High Schools; and
Whereas, Pride & Progress worked with Augusta as well as West and South
Augusta Rotary Clubs to locate the state of Georgia’s Second Youth Challenge at Fort
Gordon;
Now therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby proclaim
January 29 to be Pride & Progress Day in Augusta and urges all its citizens to recognize
the positive contributions of [inaudible] success to the Greater Augusta community.
Mr. Mayor: Jimmy, with pleasure I present this to you and congratulate you on
the work you and your organization have done in the last ten years. And you’ve got quite
a job ahead of you because [inaudible].
Mr. Smith: Thank you very much.
[A round of applause is given.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and do the delegations first and then we’ll do that.
DELEGATIONS:
Clerk:
3
A. Central Savannah River Resource Conservation & Development
Mr. Greg Kist, Executive Director
RE: Update on Council’s Activities
Mr. Mayor: Greg, it’s good to have you with us today. If you would be kind
enough to note that the rules of the Commission give you five minutes to speak to the
Commission.
Mr. Kist: Thank you. Good afternoon. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
and address the Commission. My name, as introduced, is Greg Kist. I’m the executive
director of Central Savannah River RC&D Council. I spoke with the Commission on a
couple of occasions in the past, told you about the programs and the projects the RC&D
Council has been working on. Today I come to tell you today about a new program we
are working on. It’s called Wheels to Work. We’ve been working on this project for
about four months. In this project, we’ve been partnering with the Department of Family
and Children’s Services and the Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority. The
funding has come from federal TANF, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and
the Lt. Governor and the State Legislature saw that those funds were directed to us,
helped implement this program. The Wheels to Work program is set up to help people
coming off of public assistance, to get past that barrier of transportation to get to and
from work. These people have a job or are just starting a job. They are then working,
self-sufficient, tax-paying citizens instead of being on public assistance. Persons would
apply for this program at the Department of Family and Children’s Services and the
agency would refer the qualified applicants to the Central Savannah River RC&D
Council program manager for this particular program. The RC&D Council then sells
each of these individuals a car at zero percent interest. The cars are usually in the
$3,000-4,500 range. 24-36 month note that they’re repaying. Payments of $100-150.
The RC&D Council is the lien holder on this particular project and the cars are all
purchased in the local market. This is not a give-away program. They are purchasing the
car and if payments are not made, the car will be repossessed. So far, in the four months
we’ve sold 72 cars. Our goal is to do 130 cars before August 31, and I guess kind of a
sub-goal that we’ve got in our minds is to do 200 cars. We hope to far exceed our goal.
Of course, this is across our 13-county area, not just the Augusta Richmond County area.
In Richmond County, so far we’ve sold 29 cars to individuals and we have 14
applications that are pending. The good part about this program is that all repayment
funds would come from the [inaudible] are going to be recycled to purchase additional
vehicles and keep the program running for as long as we possibly can do that. With that
I’ll stop and ask if there are any questions about the program, and I appreciate the
opportunity to be here. I do have a brochure that I’ll pass around and let everyone have
an idea of a little bit more about the program.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Greg. Any questions from the Commission?
Mr. Kist: No? Thank you for your time.
4
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Appreciate your work on this most worthwhile project.
Next, Madame Clerk?
Clerk:
B. Let’s Improve Lovely Augusta (LILA)
Mr. Willis Irvin, Jr.
RE: Community concerns and issues
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Irvin, welcome. Councilman Irvin, welcome to the Chambers.
We’d like to remind you under the rule of the Commission you have five minutes for
your presentation.
Mr. Irvin: Mr. Mayor, I was watching on TV some weeks ago and I saw how you
folks are struggling down here with your budget and all the problems you have. Since I
wrote this letter, a lot of things have changed and I just wanted to comment on some of
them. Some things that we did 40 years ago you are wrestling with now. Seems like we
haven’t made too much change in all these years. But I’ve always been in favor of the
strong mayor form of government, and we almost had it at one time when I was serving
on the City Council. Bill Kuhlke’s uncle was the Mayor and I was the bad boy of that
outfit, and I don’t think you ever hear a politician confess his hand, but this is a
confession. I feel the problems that you are going through right now are the problems
that I couldn’t solve 45 years ago. So as a father, I just want to pass along a little advice
to you and hopefully we can end some of these problems. Mayor Hamilton was a very
progressive young man and I had just come back from the war. I was shooting bullets all
over the war and I could write my name in machine gun. I had no talent at all. And
suddenly the [inaudible] shifted and I was in power. I was an independent independent.
We had the crackers, then the independents. I was the only one that could bring them
together. So I had the power and I didn’t have the brains. So we did exactly what you
plan to do. We had the University of Georgia law and government come down and they
recommended, they formed a government for us and we visited all these cities and we
passed a resolution and we got it on our agenda and all of a sudden the office of Mayor
changed and we couldn’t get the Legislature to pass the new bill. So now the problem
that you have is the exact same problem we had 45 years ago. And I don’t know, we
haven’t made any progress. I haven’t seen any progress. We had four or five times I’ve
watched that the problem has come up. Everybody believes that somebody ought to be
the strong figurehead of a government. And we all agreed on that, but it just hasn’t
happened. And our city attorney told us at the time, said Willis, you’ve been changing
problems each year, and you adopt the rules of order by adopting a rule of order for a
strong mayor, a weak mayor, a strong commission or whatever you do. If you do it each
year, each year you have to renew that. Change it around. So I pass that along to you.
You remember, as I’m sure that your Attorney has told you that you can do something
like that. It’s only a stopgap situation. But I believe that that’s what we need in this
government. I was the cause of some of the problems that you have and I hope that at
some time that I can reconcile the problems that I kept to myself and pass them on to you.
The second thing that I want to talk to you about is our picture there of me with some
5
golf carts. I’m interested in the redevelopment of the areas, the blighted areas of our city.
Most of them have very narrow driveways. I feel that the people who will colonize these
areas will be elderly people and handicapped people at first. Later on, you ought to be
able to get some others to do it. But you got to have somebody to come in and colonize it
first. I would appreciate it if I could work with a good golf cart ordinance that I could
spell out for the people who might be best in this thing and support our efforts. And that
would mean that you would have certain thoroughfares that golf carts could be used on,
certain that they could not. You could license golf carts. You could license drivers. Do
all sorts of things of that type. It would help me to know that. The next thing I want to
talk to you about is the --
Mr. Mayor: You have about 30 seconds left.
Mr. Irvin: -- [inaudible] Augusta National golf course. My father was the one
who negotiated that big fight through the Augusta National golf course and the Augusta
Country Club, with Mayor Tom Barrett. For years the taxpayers of Augusta have been
providing water, raw water to those people out there. Now they have reached a stage
where they give millions of dollars back to the local community and different things of
that type. But it’s time they gave something to the water maintenance fund. The
taxpayers have provided them with the water all these years. And I don’t know how
you’re going to do it. Everybody is scared to death of the Augusta National people.
Mr. Mayor: I think I can answer that issue. Your time is up, Mr. Irvin, but we are
compensated for that water.
Mr. Irvin: I just don’t think you’re compensated enough. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much for your attendance today, and if there is any
additional information you would like to share with us, please feel free to pass it along.
Any questions for Mr. Irvin?
Mr. Mays: Just one, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: That might take another five minutes.
Mr. Irvin: [inaudible] sheriff’s deputy [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The next delegation?
6
Clerk:
C. Parsons Engineering Science, Inc.
Ms. JoAnn J. Macrina, P.E.
RE: Formation of Citizen Advisory Groups
Watershed Assessment.
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon. And again under the rules of the Commission, you
have five minutes for your presentation. But since we’re paying you for it, we’ll
probably give you a little more time. Go ahead.
Mr. Speaker: Mayor and Commission, we appreciate your time and attention to
our presentation. My name is [inaudible]. We are the firm of U.S. Super Structure. I
have two other people here, [inaudible]. We have another firm that is participating,
[inaudible]. They could not make it today. But we are here to tell you about the project,
the two projects we’re going to be working on for the county -- the city and the county.
The Watershed Assessment project and the Source Water Assessment project. Two of
them are required because the county, the city is updating the [inaudible] we draw and
intake from it. Section 1453 of the amendments to Clear Drinking Water Act requires
that every state [inaudible] intake of water. For the Watershed Assessment, we are going
to be gathering data that could give us information on new application sources of water
pollution would be or for the streams within these counties, we are going to be collecting
water samples, were going to be looking at data of samples that have already been
collected before in these counties, then we are going to do our model. It’s going to be
telling us what is happening with the watershed and then predict for the future what is
going to be happening based on the [inaudible] use and all the data we are going to be
gathering. Then finally we are going to come up with a watershed management plan that
is going to be given to you with things that can be done to protect water [inaudible]. For
the Source Water Assessment, this is predominantly for the intake for drinking water.
This covers a six-county area. And we are going to be looking again at potential causes
of pollution in those areas, collecting data, and coming up with a source water protection
plan. Both of these projects require public participation. That’s why we are here,
requesting you to help us identify divisions that can work with us directly. We have two
groups. One of them is called the Citizens Advisory Group. It consists of [inaudible]
members. We are requesting the Mayor and each Commissioner to appoint a member to
that group that would be working with us directly and then passing on the information to
the public. We believe that public involvement is very significant on projects like that,
because people here know more than we do about what is happening in their watershed.
We have another group called the Technical Advisory Committee, and that would could
be more technically-oriented, from industry and environmental groups and others that
could be water resources [inaudible], water and engineering and other disciplines related
to these projects, would be more technical and probably meet more frequently, review
our information, make recommendations to us, and want to get together with the Citizens
Advisory Group to make sure that we are covering all the areas that needs to be covered
and the information that is going to be disseminated to the public. We will have several
7
public meetings in these areas, have workshops for the community for their involvement.
We’re going to be asking them questions about [inaudible] areas we need to [inaudible]
and make sure that we are compliant in our work. In addition to the 11 members that the
Mayor and the Commission appoint individually, we are also going to ask the
neighborhood associations to select two members, to make team members for the
Citizens Advisory Board. We’d like to have those two groups appointed by you and
approved before the end of February so we can meet during the first or second week of
March [inaudible]. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let me clarify something, because the documentation
and the back-up talks about the ten Commissioners each selecting one representative
from their District and the remaining three coming from the homeowners association
group. Today you’re saying that the Mayor and the Commissioners could appoint 11
members and two would come from the homeowners.
Mr. Speaker: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I was going to ask you to do that anyway, but I appreciate it.
Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a couple of quick questions. I guess on both these assessments,
how far along into the process are we?
Mr. Speaker: We are just getting started. We think we’re going to be finished
within 15 months, probably sooner than that. We have not done any water [inaudible]
sampling yet. We have started data gathering. But a lot of this is from the internet, the
[inaudible] of some data that we need. We are going to be doing more of that within the
next two or three months.
Mr. Cheek: To follow along with our 2000 Master Plan for Water, on the
commitment we’ve made to the people of Augusta, timely gathering of this information is
essential. We cannot select our new intake site or the location of our filtration plant until
we have this, so by all means put every effort into it.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions? All right. I need to ask the Chairman of
Engineering Services, do you want to refer this to your Committee or do you want to go
ahead and approve the concept today?
Mr. Bridges: We can refer it back to Committee, I believe, Mr. Mayor, if we
want to do that.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that, then.
Mr. Bridges: Do we have all the other [inaudible] here today? Okay. Okay.
8
Mr. Mayor: So with the consensus of the Commission, we’ll just refer this to
Engineering Services at the next meeting. Thank y’all very much. Okay. Then the Chair
will recognize Mr. Henry Brigham.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, at the appropriate time, I would
like to add a resolution commending the [inaudible] the Delegation in the Cancer
And if we can add it to agenda, if that’s the
Research Center, a letter of support.
proper way, and then ask you all to draw up a resolution
. I would hope that my
fellow Commissioners would support that idea and we get it to them as soon as possible,
since there is quite an [inaudible] right now in trying to get the Cancer Center in Augusta
and at MCG.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that item to the agenda today? None
heard, so it is added, Mr. Brigham. We have a couple of other issues for the addendum
agenda. Ms. Bonner, you want to tell us about those?
Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
INFORMATION: Back-up material for Item #48A.
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
1. Discuss rescheduling of Phase IV SPLOST Priority List.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding discussion of the rescheduling of
Phase IV SPLOST Priority List? None heard, so we will also take that up. Okay.
Madame Clerk, if you want to proceed with the consent agenda.
Clerk: The consent agenda, items 1 through 63A.
Mr. Mayor: Do you have anything you need to read out?
Clerk: Yes. For the benefit of any objectors to liquor petitions, if there are any
objectors, please signify your objection by the raising of your hand?
57. Motion to approve request by Vincent E. Clayton for a consumption on
premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with 706
Sports Bar & Grill located at 2623 Deans Bridge Road. There will be a
dance hall. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors present for that? All right. None are noted.
Gentlemen, what is your please with respect to the consent agenda?
9
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve resolution exercising option to extend term of Public
Purpose Lease with Richmond County Facilities, Inc. for a period of one
year. (Certificate of Participation COPS issue) (Approved by Finance
Committee January 29, 2001)
2. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$46,068.30 to Atlanta Gas Light for overpayment of taxes on Account
0585507. (Approved by Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
3. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$12,374.15 to Atlanta Gas Light for overpayment of taxes on account
2006687. (Approved by Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
4. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$154.04 to Atlanta Gas Light for overpayment of taxes on Account 2006688.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
5. Motion to approve refund of 1996, 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of
$359.18 to Atlanta Gas Light for overpayment of taxes on account 2006689.
(Approved by Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
6. Motion to approve contract with Development Authority of Richmond
County for year 2001 at a cost of $96,500.00. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 29, 2001)
7. Motion to approve execution of Quit-Claim Deeds. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 29, 2001)
8. Motion to approve lease agreement for calendar year 2001 for the Tag Office
of the Tax Commissioner at the Farmer’s Market. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 29, 2001)
9. Motion to approve abatement of year 2000 property taxes of $54.60 and
penalty of $5.46 on 1118 Davidson, for a total of $60.06. (Approved by
Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
10. Motion to abandon a portion of Saybrook Drive. (Approved by Finance
Committee January 29, 2001)
11. Motion to approve Contract of Sale on 3103 Chelsea Drive, 1903 Farris
Street and 229 Delmont Street. (Approved by Finance Committee January
29, 2001)
12. Motion to approve waiving property taxes for 1929 Walton Way. (Augusta
Boxing Club) (Approved by Finance Committee January 29, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Motion to approve $110,900 from 2000 Housing Funds to be allocated to
Promise Land Community Development Corp. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
14. Motion to approve the retirement of Rachel Hendrix. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
15. Deleted from consent agenda.
10
16. Motion to authorize Human Resources Department to make the annual
increase of insurance premiums effective on the first pay period in March
2001 and January each year thereafter for all active employees. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
17. Deleted from consent agenda.
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
19. Deleted from consent agenda.
20. Motion to approve the elimination of two positions, Administrative Assistant
I/Rural Transit Supervisor (grade 44) and Administrative Assistant I/ADA
Coordinator (grade 44). These positions will be replaced with Special
Services Manager (grade 45) and Administrative Assistant III/Special
Services Assistant (grade 42). (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
21. Motion to approve a lease agreement between the Housing Authority of the
City of Augusta and the City of Augusta Weed & Seed Program regarding
the lease of property located at 3634 London Boulevard in Barton Village.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
22. Motion to authorize condemnation against Ronnie C. Johnson (Tax Map 40,
Parcel 48). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29,
2001)
23. Motion to approve Change Order No. 2 in the amount of $65,815.50 to Blair
Construction, Inc. for additional work done on the Old Waynesboro Road
16" water main. (Funding is available in account # 508043410-5425110.)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
24. Motion to approve Change Order No. 7 in the amount of $80,675.73 to Blair
Construction, Inc. for the construction 440 linear feet of sewer line along
Brentwood Place, material overrun, and additional work performed after
final inspection. (Funding is available in account#507043420-
5425210/89800090-5425210.) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
25. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,040.20 to Blair
Construction Inc. for additional work performed on the Tobacco Road-
Deans Bridge Road Interchange (Water Main Relocation). (Funded from
Account # 507043410-5425110/80000001-5425110) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
26. Motion to authorize condemnation against Johnnie C. and Nettie C. Jenkins
(Tax Map 83, Parcel 195). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
27. Motion to authorize condemnation of property of Ronald and Barbara West
(Tax Map 83, Parcel 205). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation against the Estate of Lillian Duffie (Tax
Map 83, Parcel 10, Project Parcel 30). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
11
29. Motion to settle pending condemnation case for property owned by 1075
Hospitality, LP a/k/a Holiday Inn (Tax Map 12, Parcel 8-05). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
31. Deleted from consent agenda.
32. Deleted from consent agenda.
33. Deleted from consent agenda.
34. Deleted from consent agenda.
35. Deleted from consent agenda.
36. Motion to approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C.
in the amount of $73,350 to perform a Route Study and prepare a Concept
Report for the Rae’s Creek Relief Sewer. (Funded by Account Number
509043420/5212115 80160110/5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
37. Motion to approve bid awards of Pest Control Contract by Sections.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
38. Motion to authorize and execute local government engineering supervision
for the Laney- Walker Roadway and Drainage Improvements Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
39. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to notify
consulting engineers of results of selection process and proceed with
negotiations for contract for engineering services on the Windsor Spring
Road Phase IV and Phase V Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
40. Motion to approve Change Order Number One for Second Street Outfall in
the amount of $197,591.70 to Mabus Brothers funded from Phase II
Recapture. Also, approve CPB # 327-04-296812004 in the amount of
$197,600.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29,
2001)
41. Motion to approve certifying the project right-of-way and execute the
Georgia Department of Transportation Right of Way Agreement for the
Stevens Creek Road Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
42. Motion to approve Revised State-Aid County Contract Priority List.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
43. Motion to approve request from the Development Authority of Richmond
County to provide water service to the median of the entranceway to the
Augusta Corporate Park at an estimated cost of $900.00. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
44. Motion to approve lease server for Law Enforcement CMS system.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee January 29, 2001)
45. Motion to approve Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta Richmond
County Fire Department and Grovetown Department of Public Safety.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee January 29, 2001)
12
46. Motion to approve the Department of Animal Control to change hours of
shelter operation. (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 29, 2001)
47. Motion to authorize the Department of Animal Control to charge reasonable
fees for services in the event an animal placed for adoption is reclaimed by its
owner. (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 29, 2001)
48. Motion to approve the substitution of an IBM Model 820 for an IBM Model
720 and allow New World Systems to retain the rebate in the amount of
$5,200.00 (Approved by Public Safety Committee January 29, 2001)
48a. Motion to approve settlement of claim of AT&T for long distance service
during prior years for $25,000 and authorize payment. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee January 29, 2001.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
49. Motion to approve a request to submit a Pre-Application to the FAA, under
AR-21 for a Grant for pavement projects at Daniel Field. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
50. Motion to adopt Ordinance to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 7-1-
16 so as to amend The Technical Codes by deleting the 1994 Standard
Plumbing Code, The 1994 Standard Mechanical Code, The 1994 Standard
Gas Code and adding the 2000 Standard Plumbing Code (2000 International
Plumbing Code), 2000 Standard Mechanical Code (2000 International
Mechanical Code), 2000 Standard Gas Code (2000 International Gas Code),
and Georgia Amendments to the 1995 CABO Code. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
51. Motion to approve waiving property taxes for 1929 Walton Way (Augusta
Boxing Club). (Approved by Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
52. Motion to approve twelve month probation of Lucy’s Love Shop due to the
sale of merchandise deemed obscene by Order of the Court. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
53. Motion to approve budget increase of $24,000 and award of contract of
$19,000 to A+ Sprinkler Systems for irrigation system installation. Also,
approval of final payment to L.J., Inc. of $40,331.90. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
54. Motion to approve contract award of $14,936.00 to Earl L. Babbitt, Inc.
(Approved by Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
55. Motion to approve the LPA Group, Inc. Work Authorization No. 14 for
professional engineering services for the Runway 17-35 Lighting
Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $42,000.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
56. Motion to accept Federal grant offer issued under the Airport Improvement
Program Project (AIP) Number 3-13-0011-21. The grant offer is in the
amount of $340, 151. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 29,
2001)
57. Motion to approve request by Vincent E. Clayton for a consumption on
premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with 706 Sports
Bar & Grill located at 2623 Deans Bridge Road. There will be a dance hall.
13
District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
58. Motion to approve a request by Theresa D. Dunn for a massage therapist
license to be used in connection with Dream Touch located at 2914
Professional Parkway. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
59. Motion to approve a request by Cindy Kennedy for a massage therapist
license to be used in connection with Cindy Kennedy Therapeutic Massage
located at 3540 Wheeler Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
60. Motion to approve an agreement with Saturn of Augusta for membership in
the Augusta Sports Network. (Approved by Public Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
61. Motion to approve the elimination of two positions, Administrative Assistant
I/Rural Transit Supervisor (grade 44) and Administrative Assistant I/ADA
Coordinator (grade 44). These positions will be replaced with Special
Services Manager (grade 45) and Administrative Assistant III/Special
Services Assistant (grade 42). (Approved by Public Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
62. Motion to approve a resolution in support of Recreation Assistance Fund
appropriations for the State of Georgia in the 2002 budget. (Approved by
Public Services Committee January 29, 2001)
APPOINTMENTS:
63. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Brad Kyzer, Jr., to the Augusta
Aviation Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Ed Skinner
representing District 8.
63a. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held January 16, 2001.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to approve the consent agenda. Do
you wish to pull any items? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: 15 and 17.
Mr. Mayor: 15 and 17, Mr. Shepard. Okay, anyone else? Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item 31, 32 and 33.
Mr. Mayor: All right. 31, 32 and 33. Anyone else?
14
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Not so much a point of order, but just clarification. When we get
through the consent agenda, we skip over to the regular agenda with those first
[inaudible] items in there, I notice some of those being pulled in that bunch.
Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding the items that Commissioner Williams has
asked us to pull actually authorize the positions and then when we get to the regular
agenda we pull the positions. Is that correct, Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: The situation occurred was in the Administrative Services Committee,
the agenda items were sent forward with no recommendation, and in the Engineering
Services Committee there were actually some recommendations made. They were the
same positions but just different handling from the two committees. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: So these are the same items, approved by one committee and with no
recommendation from the other committee?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I would point out these are actually -- although they’re
concerning the same thing, they’re two different motions. The one that passed
Engineering is a different amount with different stipulations, transition stipulations on
them. So the one that’s in the consent agenda is actually different, even though it’s
concerning the same position, it’s really a different motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That kind of was what I was getting to, Mr. Mayor, because even
though there may be different wording, but it involved a decision by eight people out of
ten out of two committees to deal with basically the same items and we’re talking about
something that in actually is five items, where we are talking about dealing with the
creation of a position, whether it’s lateral movement, you’re talking about better then
$300,000 worth of jobs, and I’m just thinking that maybe all of that at some point rather
than getting it out of the way [inaudible] and rehashing it again somewhere down the
road, maybe we just need to deal with all of it at one time and then quite frankly be
through with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I think you also wanted to include items 34 and 35,
didn’t you?
Mr. Williams: 34 and 35 as well.
Mr. Mayor: Include all those. Okay.
15
Mr. Mays: I might also add, I think at that time, [inaudible] appropriate, I guess
why I was trying to get some clarification. Do we hear from HR during the point of
consent where they are full or do we and deal with it during the point of the regular
agenda? I can work either way, but I didn’t want to let it pass and then we pass
something and then we are back to where we’ve approved it and then are over in
Administrative Services and then that particular horse is out of the barn and that’s not the
time to discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, I think what the Chair will do to expedite the discussion
of these items is to take the items we pulled, along with 64, 65, 66 and 67, so we can
discuss all of those issues at one time.
Mr. Beard: Is 18 included in that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: No one had asked for 18 to be pulled, Mr. Beard, but certainly we
can add that to the list.
Mr. Beard: Isn’t that a part of what we’re talking about?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is not in a position to answer that. Perhaps Mr. Hicks can
or Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Hicks: [inaudible] Items 18 and 19, items 18 and 19 were approved by both
committees. But items --
Mr. Beard: Let’s pull -- I would like to see 18 pulled.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: That looks like 30 as well, Mr. Chairman. 18 and 30 are the same
ones, just different committees.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Clerk: 19 and 31.
Mr. Mayor: 19 and 31 are the same items? Okay. All right. Let’s see. Let’s go
back here and make sure we’ve got it right. We’ve got items 15 and 17, and then 18 and
19, and 30 and 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35. Were there any other items that y’all wish to pull?
Mr. Kuhlke, did you have something you wished to pull?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Are you going to pull 30 through 35 and we’ll discuss them in
the regular agenda?
16
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. In concern with 64, 65, 66 and 67. You have conflicting
recommendations.
Mr. Kuhlke: Right. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Need to pull any other items? Madame Clerk, did you get the list of
those items we pulled?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, minus
those items. All in favor then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-14, 16, 20-29, 36-63A]
Clerk:
15. Motion to approve 2001 Cost-of-Living Increases for Retirees. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Question, Mr. Mayor, for the Attorney and the Administrator.
Should this, having action taken in the Pension Committee, meeting quarterly, it doesn’t
meet as frequently as the Administrative Services, do we need to take any action in the
Pension Committee? The Pension Committee -- the pension funds are the source of all
but the unfounded 45, I think. Do we need to run this through the Pension Committee?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: So the answer is no?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
That’s all I need to know.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
17. Motion to approve recommendations of Position Control Committee
regarding the Tax Assessor’s Office. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
17
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, item 17?
Mr. Shepard: The question I had, Mr. Mayor, I see that this is the first report that
I can remember coming out of the Position Control Committee and I just wondered how
we were coming on abolishing the position the Information Officer, Public Information
Officer, or is that to come in the future report?
Mr. Hornsby: That is a future report. That’s not on this list [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard:
The next coming Monday to Administrative Services? Thank
I move approval of this item.
you.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of this item, item no. 17, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s take up items 18 and 30, which are the same
item. We’ll take those items up, those two issues first.
Clerk:
18. Motion to approve the deletion of Application Manager II with Job Grade 52
for Utilities Department and creation of CMMS Manager with Job Grade 52
and Job Description for CMMS Manager. (Funds budgeted in personnel
accounts under 506043110) (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
30. Motion to approve the deletion of Application Manager II with Job Grade 52
for Utilities Department and creation of CMMS Manager with Job Grade 52
and Job Description for CMMS Manager. (Funds budgeted in personnel
accounts under 506043110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, with respect to items 18 and 30, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: I’m going to second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Did you have some discussion, Mr. Cheek?
18
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is basically the renaming of providing this job with
the appropriate title, rather than Applications Manager, which caused some confusion; is
that correct?
Ms. Byrd - Pelaez: Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? All in favor of approving items 18 and 30,
please vote aye.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: And next we’ll take up items 19 and 31, which are the same item.
19. Motion to approve additional personnel for the Utilities Department to
perform engineering, inspection and land acquisition tasks required by the
2000 Bond Issue Program and subsequent Bond Issue Programs. Subject to
reorganization of land acquisition tasks. (Funded by Account No.
509043490-51111110/80199999-5111110 for Salary & Wages) (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee January 29, 2001)
31. Motion to approve additional personnel for the Utilities Department to
perform engineering, inspection and land acquisition tasks (subject to
reorganization of land acquisition tasks required) by the 2000 Bond Issue
Program and subsequent Bond Issue Programs. (Funded by Account No.
509043490-5111110/80199999-511110 for Salary & Wages) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee)
Mr. J. Brigham: I move to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: I would like to hear from [inaudible] in terms of [inaudible]. I know
we [inaudible] not necessarily parallel type situation on the other side of Public Works
and [inaudible] but [inaudible] and if so, how does it compare to the Public Works side in
reference to the acquisition position that’s over in there, that’s been under contract for
some years and [inaudible] kind of [inaudible].
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: To answer your question, there is a corresponding position in
the Public Works Department for the land acquisition position. They are the same job
grade. So there won’t be a difference in [inaudible] salary in that regard. [inaudible]
19
during the committee, there was some talk that perhaps at a later date we can see how we
can merge these positions into [inaudible] department, which the [inaudible]. Let me say
the reason for this agenda item altogether is because when the positions were sent down
to Human Resources to post, we did not have any record of these named positions, so we
would rather have had the Commission realize what positions they had approved, so we
asked Max to come back and spell out those positions in the bond project and where they
were going to be located so that we would all be on the same page. That’s the reason for
the agenda item.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] corresponding [inaudible] that we do on the sales tax
situation [inaudible] Public Works [inaudible] monies [inaudible] utilities project?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Mays: Both stay the same grade?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: They will be at the same grade.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough: You had a question?
Mr. Colclough: What is the salary range for this position?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: I actually have no idea what the salary range is for this
position.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, do you know? The question was the salary range.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. [inaudible] it is in keeping with the salaries that are paid,
cumulative salaries that are paid for those positions [inaudible] and in keeping with the
[inaudible].
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: If you’d like, I could get that answer. If you give me a couple
of seconds I could get it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll continue around the table while you look for that.
Mr. Henry Brigham, you had a question or a comment? Okay. Mr. Shepard and then Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, these are positions being funded not
out of the General Fund but out of utilities Enterprise type fund; isn’t that correct?
Mr. Hicks: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
20
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. As Ms. Pelaez is getting these salaries,
for that. I’m concerned, and we talked about it before and about car allowances and that
kind of thing. When the salary comes back, would that include any other additional
money that would go with these positions, with that salary?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, could you respond to that?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, I would not anticipate any automobile allowance. We don’t
have any positions that have automobile allowances within Utilities. We wouldn’t
anticipate using this. Our personnel either drive a city vehicle while at work, or if they
drive their personal vehicle, they get paid for mileage.
Mr. Williams: So that makes that no car allowance or any other?
Mr. Hicks: Not in these positions.
Mr. Williams: Not in these positions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’m still a little unclear on item 19, and maybe you can help me out.
Mr. Hicks: Item 19?
Mr. Beard: That’s what we’re on.
Mr. Mayor: 19 and 31, they’re the same item.
Mr. Hicks: Inasmuch as the positions that are needed for engineers and inspectors
and land acquisition personnel?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: As we’re all aware of, we have embarked on the first step of our
Master Plan in water and sewer improvements and expansion and we have passed the $90
million bond issue and it involved a capital improvement program and in the background
you’ll see the list of projects that are to be undertaken and completed, as much as we can
in the next three years. So to embark on that program and complete these jobs within that
time frame, we need the additional personnel in engineering, in inspection, and also in
land acquisition in order to review the design, in order to inspect the work as it’s being
performed, and in order to acquire the easements and properties that are needed. So
that’s the reason for these positions being put forth and for them being funded out of the
bond issue.
21
Mr. Beard: I keep hearing they’re funded out of the bond issue and I think we all
understand that, but still it’s government money and although we have, as you say, a
[inaudible] to fund it out of, it doesn’t mean that we should be [inaudible] in that. I think
people agree to that. We don’t have anybody in any other -- you know, I’m not on
Engineering Services Committee and I don’t know a whole lot about these things, but we
don’t have anybody in Public Works who is doing possibly the same thing or could this
be a combination of persons? And I may have asked this some time ago.
Mr. Hicks: Public Works also has positions of engineers. And I think they
perhaps call them project managers. Similar type positions. They would also have
inspectors and land acquisition personnel. Insofar as engineering and inspection, we have
not really had personnel from Public Works inspect Utilities nor Utilities inspect Public
Works jobs, but Public Works personnel have been very helpful insofar as land
acquisition efforts. It’s just that with the sales tax projects that are ongoing, the land
acquisition personnel in Public Works are pretty well swamped. They just, they too have
got their hands full, so we needed these personnel in land acquisition in order to move
those projects [inaudible] on forward. To the greatest extent we have, there has been that
assistance already from Public Works insofar as land acquisition.
Mr. Beard: I think we kind of touched on this once before, also. It appears that --
and I’ll just be frank -- it appears that most of these positions are curtailed to people
instead of positions. And that’s going to come up later in some of the others, I believe,
too. And I’m just wondering. Do we have a person here already designated for this
position? Is it a job for regular bidding? I mean the process would be taken care of as we
normally do as we’re hiring people?
Mr. Hicks: Absolutely. In other words, this and the other positions that will be
addressed later will be approached in the same way. That is, there will have to be
advertisements posted. People will respond, both from outside and within the county
personnel. We will have to form a committee to review those and wind up selecting an
individual. It will be the same process.
Mr. Beard: The process will be followed?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. There has been no --
Mr. Beard: We have not indulged in that process prematurely?
Mr. Hicks: For these positions, no, sir.
Mr. Beard: None of them?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. We have not. We have not any advertisements or land
acquisition personnel or inspectors or civil engineers. There was at one time where an
advertisement had gone out in Public Works for land acquisition personnel, and we were
22
trying to move this rather quickly so that we could collect from that same list of
applicants. I think applications are good for --
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: 90 days.
Mr. Hicks: -- 90 days and we were trying to see if we could actually get this
approved in the 90 days day, we could choose from the same applicant pool.
Mr. Beard: Maybe I should ask another question. No promises have been made
to individuals in reference to these positions?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Beard: Okay. [inaudible] for the record.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to point out that we do need to
move fairly quickly with reorganizing the land acquisition task. This is an opportunity
for us to pay for out of bond money part of the salary of our staff attorney and acquiring
land, which is a routine function of government, is something that should be a routine
part of our staff attorney’s job function, in association with some other support personnel.
But this is a tremendous way to cut the costs of the staff attorney and apply those services
to a very routine task and I hope we’ll move quickly with it.
Mr. Mayor: Any other questions or comments with respect to items 19 and 31.
Mr. Colclough, is your hand up?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Hicks, this position requires -- what are the qualifications for
it?
Mr. Hicks: For the civil engineering position --
Mr. Colclough: No, no, the one we’re talking about. No. 19.
Mr. Hicks: It involves civil engineers, inspectors and land acquisition personnel.
In land acquisition personnel, we would use the same data that has been previously used
to hire in Public Works, as far as the land acquisition personnel. They would need to
have familiarity with land acquisition procedures, what’s an easement, what’s a fee
simple process. They would need to need to know about --
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible]
Ms. Byrd-Peleaz: High school diploma.
Mr. Colclough: High school. Thank you, ma’am.
23
Mr. Hicks: Oh, okay.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have that information for Mr. Mays?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. And thank you for catching me off-guard. The land
acquisition supervisor with a beginning salary of $32,659. The land acquisition I, with
job grade 48, which begins at $29,624.
Mr. Mayor: Could you give those numbers again? Mr. Beard is having trouble
hearing you.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: The land acquisition supervisor is a job grade 50. That’s a
beginning salary of $32,659. The land agent, land acquisition agent I, that he is
requesting, which is a job grade 48, and that is $29,624. And the position that I was
telling you about was a corresponding position that we recently filled in Public Works is
indeed a land acquisition agent I with a job grade 48. And to answer the question, both of
these positions have a requirement of a high school diploma.
Mr. Mayor: Any further questions or discussion? I don’t believe we have a
motion, do we, Madame Clerk? We need a motion with respect to items 19 and 31.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. It’s been seconded by Mr. Cheek.
Any further discussion? All in favor then, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Now we need to move on to -- we’ve got 32 and 64. Make sure
we’ve got the right two together here. Items 32 and 64, which is the Assistant Director -
Engineering and Construction. They have different amounts and stipulations in them.
32. Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Engineering and
Construction in the amount of $65,000.00 with 120-day transition period;
and subject to the Pre-Construction Engineer and Asst. County Engineer
positions filled and the advertising of the Asst. Director and County
Engineer’s positions. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for Salary
& Wages) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 29, 2001)
64. Approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to
selected candidate for Assistant Director – Engineering and Construction in
the amount of $67,500.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for
24
Salary & Wages) (No recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
33. Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Water Production
in the amount of $65,000 with 90-day transition period; and subject to the
Pre-Construction engineer and Asst. County Engineer positions filled and
the advertising of the Asst. Director and County Engineer’s positions.
(Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for Salary & Wages)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 20, 2001)
65. Approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to
selected candidate for Assistant Director – Water Production in the amount
of $67,500.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for Salary &
Wages) (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
34. Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Wastewater
Treatment in the amount of $65,000.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-
5111110 for Salary & Wages) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
66. Approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to
selected candidate for Assistant Director – Wastewater Treatment in the
amount of $67,500.00. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for
Salary & Wages) (No recommendation from Administrative Services
Committee January 29, 2001)
35. Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Finance and
Administration in the amount of $65,000.00. (Funded by Account No.
506043110-5111110 for Salary & Wages) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 29, 2001)
67. Approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of employment to
selected candidate for Assistant Director – Finance and Administration in the
amount of $67,500.00 (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for Salary
& Wages) (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I just make the motion that we approve item 32 as it’s
printed.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve item 32. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: I second that.
25
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second from Mr. Cheek. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I notice we’re looking at 120 day transition period in that. Is that
because you won’t need anybody in that position for that period or time or are you just
giving Teresa time to do something?
Mr. Hicks: Commissioner, it’s for that reason.
Mr. Kuhlke: Which reason?
Mr. Hicks: The latter reason. The procedure was followed and we interviewed,
for this position we interviewed five candidates, and the one selected was or is currently
employed in the Public Works Department. Now with that occurring, we felt that it would
be much better, since the departments do work together and enjoy a good relationship, if
we did in fact cooperate in that way, and that is Public Works has a lot of work on their
plate also, what with the ongoing sales tax and the new one, that we felt it would be
appropriate to work with them in that regard. We need somebody, we would like to have
the person as quickly as we could. However, we recognize the fact that the position is an
existing one in another department and there needs to be an element of cooperation.
Mr. Kuhlke: Would it be more appropriate rather than putting a 120-day
transition period, of putting up to 120 days in the event that person became available to
you before that period of time?
Mr. Hicks: That would be super. I mean, but this is just what was agreed to after
the Engineering Services Committee meeting, Commissioner Mays requested that Human
Resources, the Administrator, Public Works, and Utilities gather and come up with a
proposal, and we did, and this is right in line with what was proposed in the Engineering
Services Committee. But if it could be worded that way, it would be super. But I don’t
know how long it will take to actually advertise, hire and bring in. We would like to have
the person as quickly as we could, but we need to [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d incorporate that item in with the motion if the
seconder would approve.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the
language up to 120 days?
Mr. Cheek: No objection.
Mr. Mayor: No objection heard, so it’s ordered amended then. Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Max, I’d like to ask you just a crazy sort
of question here, but how did we arrive at the scale of $65,000 that we’re talking about
26
for an assistant director? And I know there’s similarities with all of them, but I’d like to
know how did we come up with this amount?
Mr. Hicks: For this particular job grade, which is a job grade 59, the mid point is
$63,333. That mid-point indicates the going rate for that particular kind of job. If you
were to go out and poll a lot of places and say you’ve got people, that would tend to be
the average for that position. Now the reason we arrived at the $65,000 is it seems as if
in our area there’s perhaps a little disparity and perhaps a slightly higher salary would be
appropriate in that when we had personnel applying previously, when we advertised for
an assistant director, it was I guess about a year ago when we were in that process, a
number of the applicants, probably more than half of them, already had salaries in the
range of $65,000-70,000 so we felt like $65,000 would be an appropriate figure in that it
would be comparable to what we had seen from those applicants before and also it’s
slightly above the mid-point, which is taken to be the average for that type of position.
Mr. Williams: One other question. Max, you know, talking about the 120 days
transition period, so this is a lateral move; is that right?
Mr. Hicks: Let’s see. This one is for engineering and construction. This is not a
lateral move. It would actually be a promotion.
Mr. Williams: Actually be a promotion?
Mr. Hicks: A promotion.
Mr. Williams: Within the same department?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. This person is currently not an assistant director. This person
is currently a county engineer.
Mr. Williams: But in a different department; is that right?
Mr. Hicks: In a different department.
Mr. Williams: I mean, Ms. Pelaez, as Human Resources director, what is the
criteria, what’s the language on the lateral move? What I’m concerned about, I’ve got
the list of directors and assistant directors. Directors are not making that kind of money
and that’s going to really create in my thinking a snowball effect when we got directors
that’s not making as much as assistant director going to be making and probably doing a
greater amount of work. What’s the language on that?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: On this particular position that we’re talking about right now,
dealing with the engineering section, it’s actually a promotion and it’s also an inter-
departmental transfer. So under the promotion policy, one is able to get 15%, up to a
15% increase or the minimum of the new salary range of which they’re going to. For Mr.
Cheeks, the salary range that he’s going to, the minimum is $48,718. So therefore he
27
would be better off being at 15% which would take him to $54,990.04. Does that answer
the question?
Mr. Williams: And that’s not considered a lateral move?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: No, sir, the lateral move is where an individual is going from
one job grade to the same job grade, which is in a position that we’re going to discuss
next, where the individual is already in a job grade 59 and the position that he’s going to
is also a job grade 59. That’s a lateral move.
Mr. Williams: So as a Human Resource director in that department now, you feel
comfortable with other employees who are making less money than -- I’m talking about
directors that’s going to be making less money than assistant directors are going to be
making, with greater responsibility? I mean I can think of several people and I thought
about it first of all Mr. Rob Sherman, who I deal with a lot. I probably worry this man as
much as I worry anybody trying to help clean up, and the amount of work and the amount
of responsibility that that office got and then as director then you got an assistant, it really
don’t make a lot of sense to me. I mean a heap of things don’t so I guess that’s not news.
But I really don’t understand that.
Ms. Byrd Pelaez: To answer your question, no I don’t think that an assistant
director should make more than department directors, the main reason being is the
budgeting responsibility and the personnel responsibility that the department director has
and also at the assistant level, an individual still gets grievance rights if they were to be
recommended for termination, whereas a department director at the will of the
Commission upon six votes, they are out of there. There -- I can’t answer how it came
about that have assistant directors that are at the same job grade as directors. I would
recommend that it be changed. We have a lot of things going on here.
Mr. Williams: But you do think this is going to create a snowball effect?
Ms. Byrd-Peleaz: Oh, definitely. I’ve already heard from several directors.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I was going to wait until we got probably down to the
next item but [inaudible] lot of difference where we start at. When we started
[inaudible]. I’m going to say the same thing I said in committee and I’m not going to be
hypocritical. I voted for it to get it out of committee, to get it out here where all of us
could have a discussion about it. I kind of have mixed emotions about where we are
going with this whole thing. I think the positive sign on it in terms of where I support it
is that I think for some time, particularly with the amount of work that we have to do in
Public Works, both on the Utilities side and Public Works side, as to whether or not that
whole area of professional people we have, whether we’ve got enough money based there
28
to retain a lot of trained professionals that are there. Now I’ve argued and been on the
losing side of this argument to a point that I think we’ve already lost some good people
out of Public Works. I can go to our neighboring county, and our environmental engineer
that I helped to bring on board is over there. I look at EMA which is not in Public
Works, but $3,000 off that director and put them over there. I think we found a good
person to put in the landfill. Macon found them even better and they are now the Public
Works director down there. I think there’s an effort in that area to deal professionally
with those that require certain requirements. A higher level. That we do look at that.
That’s why I made no apologies for the argument that I made during the Public Works
argument. In terms of what we put for our director [inaudible]. Not going to be
hypocritical in one area and support it, and in another one not support it. But what I think
we need to be serious about this deal is that if we’re going to do an upgrade in those
professional categories, then I think we ought to still look, and this is why I [inaudible]
overall budget, because I knew we’d be returning to some of this. Because we’re not
returning just to a point because some of these folks are not going to be able to be paid
out of bond money. Some of them are not going to be able to be paid out of sales tax
money. [inaudible] here today. But the ones who start cackling after today are not going
to be paid for out of that specific category. That’s what your new HR director is going to
have to deal with. Now I can still support that kind of language if we’re going to be
willing to look at those inequities where we’ve got departmental head people working,
where we know we already have a problem, where we’ve cut areas to the bare bones, and
where they are working below what you’re talking about dealing with numbers two’s in
these areas. I also think that there should be not with this particular one that we’re on,
cause I think that one maybe stands alone by itself. But I also have a concern, and I
guess I might as well as throw this in this discussion loop. We’ve had water being our
attention getter for the last three or four years. We have finally gotten money to start
dealing with that. I agree with Andy, we need to move. But now we’ve talked about
some of these changes in Utilities, about what we wanted. With all due respect to Max, I
hope both of us live to be 151 years old, and I want to live 151 and one day, cause I want
to be here one day after you, Max. But in this move of where we’re talking about, it may
not be lateral. But I want to make sure that we’re getting the best folks. We’ve argued
about this qualification thing and we are moving three situations here today, where Max
has just said they are going to be advertised and [inaudible]. In reality, [inaudible] all
intents and purposes let’s be realistic with each other. They are being filled already.
Now if the director is comfortable with this, if we have gone to a point where water is our
most visible Achilles heel, you are picking the best and the brightest. I’ll take your
professional opinion. But now I don’t want it said to a point that we moved some folk
when we get into a hellacious summer, excuse the expression, and we need something
else over in that department. Now if we’ve looked and if you are satisfied, then I’m
going to be satisfied. But you know, I’m a Democrat, but I got a memory like an
elephant. And I’ll bring it back up. Now if you are certain that this is where we ought to
go, and if the nuts and bolts can be worked out in HR, and I’m not sure whether or not,
when we get down into these others, Mr. Mayor, if you don’t have some lateral problems,
because of the change in policy. [inaudible] deal with rules and [inaudible]. I don’t think
that they ought to be an exception. So [inaudible] stand alone, I can vote for it like I did
29
in committee. But I think if we’ve got some policy problems, we ought to talk about it.
And then we deal with it in a legal way.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I agree that we need to move on this, on the ones that are
in front of us before, the four [inaudible], maybe five. But I do have problem with the
salaries. I mean here we’ve got five people, four or five people here and they are all
getting the same salary, all at $65,000. To me there’s something wrong with that. I mean
they’re doing different jobs. Some of them are coming from, you know, you have one
with a lateral move, you have others where the director there is saying $64,000. It just
looks like to that there needs to be something worked out here salary wise by you and the
director here that we can all agree on, and maybe that’s one we’re talking about now,
$64,000, that may be what needs to be there. But then we get to these other, we are going
to have a problem with that because they’re not going to be doing the same thing. And
they’re not going to have the same experience. So you know, what I would like to see on
all of this is that we come back with some salaries that I think everybody up here on the
podium can agree with and deal with, and I’m going to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, what is your substitute motion?
Mr. Beard: That the Director get with the Utilities Director and work out a
salary scale that is -- that deals with the policy that has been established by this
body here and present it to us with these and bring it back to us at the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: And would this be for Items 32, 33, 34 and 35, as well as items 64,
65, 66 and 67, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I believe that would be all four of those.
Mr. Mayor: All four of those positions?
Mr. Beard: Those four positions, right. Those are the positions that I’m
talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that substitute motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the substitute motion. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Kuhlke: Brenda, could you tell me what policy Mr. Beard is talking about?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. He’s actually talking about a promotion policy in the
case of the county engineer going over to a higher position. I put it this way. I am only -
30
- I can’t sign off on anything that goes over the 15% increase. It has to come before the
Commission. So it’s the Commission that would have to make the decision to go over
that 15%. And that’s essentially what Max is doing today by asking you to vote -- I don’t
know if it’s item 65 or 67.
Mr. Hicks: 65.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: 65, which is I’m not authorized to sign off on that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible], but I got two points I
want to make. First of all, I think we ought to be conscious of trying to pay our
employees as best that we are possibly able with the funds we have. I think that
upgrading in money is very, very important. The more money you make, the better job
you ought to be doing. So I’m not against that. But I just can’t sit here and go along with
paying out of whatever funds, whatever money assistant directors or assistant people
making more than people who got all the responsibility, who would answer to the
Commission [inaudible]. I don’t think that’s right and I don’t agree. The last point I
want to make is we’ve been under pressure about water for a long time, getting water to
different locations. But in my mind, it just as important for the citizens of the community
of Richmond County to move that water as well as to get the water. We’ve got people
out there in that area when it rains an hour, seem to be flooding. I mean water is a
problem either way you look at it. So getting the water to it someplace is no more
important than getting it away from that place if it’s necessary to move that. So I just
want to bring those two points out. I’m not against the money if we can do everybody,
that’s legal and fair and upright and whatever else, I got no problem with it. But I can’t
agree to do it out of some funds and then other employees that are doing a really good
job, and not getting paid.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it’s just based on my experience, people in departments
in industry are not all paid the same depending on department heads or assistant
department heads. A lot of it has to do with a calculation that includes the total head
count that they have reporting to them, the market availability of individuals to fill those
positions and the dollar value they demand, which we heard here was within this price
range, and the total amount that they are responsible for, especially when it comes to
health and safety of the community certainly which these assistant directors will be asked
to be responsible for. I, too, would like to see us go look at all the departments and the
calculations and the car allowances and the things that have been kind of factored in to
what we call the yearly annual income of that individual and straighten it out. And the
truth is a few months ago we made a decision to hire and promote someone above and
beyond the 15% range, who was the right person for the job at the time. For these
individuals we’re trying to fill these positions with, they are the right people at the right
time. It’s a tremendous opportunity to do some team building, where we have people
31
actually working together from different department, make that transition. It will better
enable us to work together in the future. I would just like to see us approve this. It’s
consistent with industry practice and then go back and correct the sins of the past.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Brenda, what is the 15% on item 32? Where would that bring us up
to?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: That would be $64,990.04. Let me say this. I am calculating
in that 15% not including the car allowance that is in that current person’s salary,
[inaudible] the person’s base salary.
Mr. Bridges: And I understand that. And so we’re talking about $6 difference
between the $65,000 and the $64,994. Have I got that right? The first motion is to pay
this position $65,000 and you’re telling me 15% would be $64,994?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: No. $64,990.04.
Mr. Bridges: Okay, $10 difference. Okay. I think the substitute motion is to
send this back for you and Max to work out. Gentlemen, as Andy and Willie have
pointed out, we’ve already this year promoted someone above the 15% and I have no
doubt that that person will earn that amount this year certainly. And I think we should,
we’ve known for some time that our professionals in our government can get a higher
salary out in the private sector, even locally, and many times comes and we’ve trained
them, they leave, they go to other positions in this city. I think this is an opportunity to
keep someone that has proven themselves with our government, that we can keep in
house, in with out government rather than have, risk the potential or the possibility of
these people leaving. I think we’ve got to -- we’ve discussed this many times -- forming
a committee or studying what salaries our professionals should be given and what they’re
getting and moving them up en masse to that level, but that’s not how the issues are
coming before us. They’re coming before us individually. We’ve already set the
precedent in this early in the year, and I think it’s no problem with $10, at least on item
no. 32, approving this item and moving on with this position.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead -- let’s hear from some people who haven’t spoken
yet. Let’s do that. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: That’s correct. But car allowance is not salary.
Mr. J. Brigham: I understand that [inaudible].
Mr. Hicks: This is strictly a salary. There is no car allowance.
32
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Which way? By adding the car allowance into the salary?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: So then we’re going to add everybody’s car allowance into
their salary?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: No, no.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: There’s two things. One is [inaudible] but very seldom do you
have employees making the same identical thing. Isn’t it true that some of these
gentlemen have been in the government longer than others?
Mr. Hicks: The reason that I set them all the same, these are four brand new
positions. Assistant director in Utilities Department. And it seemed appropriate that
each one start off at the same salary. We would not have any carrying on about well he or
she makes more, he or she makes less. And when we look at the positions, particularly if
you include the car allowance, and we’ve had that discussion, there are two of these
individuals that are very close to the $65,000 range already. One comes from outside the
present Augusta Richmond County employment, and then the third one has a professional
certification. And if we’re going to recognize professional certification and pay our
people appropriately, that’s why we proposed that each of one at that same salary, that is
$65,000. It seems the appropriate salary based on the midpoint of the range and based on
what we have seen with people coming in to apply.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Last week we lost a department head because we were not able
to come up to a certain amount and now we’re going to pay the assistants more than --
and I think Mr. Brigham said this -- more than several of our department heads. I have a
problem with going along with this. If we can look at all of the rest of them and give
some idea of what we are going to do with them.
Mr. Hicks: And I certainly as an employee of the city would support that. I have
no problem whatsoever with other department heads being reviewed and if the salary
wants to be raised, to raise it. Only you gentlemen can do that. If you needed it, you’d
33
have my wholehearted support and vote. But [inaudible] I would like to go ahead. The
reason I set them all the same is that they’re all brand new, they’ll all be starting at the
same time, and I’d like to see that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Hicks, all these four employees have the same qualifications
and same educational background?
Mr. Hicks: Each one of them has a college education. One of them has a
professional engineer’s. The other one has a CPA certificate. The other one is a Class I
wastewater treatment plant operator with a college background. And then the third one
has a college degree with extensive experience in public utilities work.
Mr. Colclough: Question number one. The gentleman with the certification.
He’s going to get paid the same as someone without the certification. You’re saying the
wastewater treatment -- is one of these people going to wastewater treatment?
Mr. Hicks: Number 34 is the assistant director of the wastewater treatment.
Mr. Colclough: Don’t we have that under private contract?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Why would we put an assistant director over with private
contractor?
Mr. Hicks: That person at this time would be overseeing all the consent orders
that we have, the plans that we have for any sort of wastewater collection and treatment,
and within about a three-year period what we plan on doing is another reorganization and
that is have water production and distribution and have wastewater collection and
treatment. Right now, our department is heavily loaded in engineering and construction.
But as time goes on -- not as time goes on, but even now the state of Georgia requires
certification in water treatment and wastewater treatment. It also requires certification in
collection system operation and distribution system operation.
Mr. Colclough: My question is, Mr. Hicks, is why would we want to pay
somebody to go to wastewater treatment when we’re paying a contractor to do the same
thing? And they have just returned a whole bunch of money.
Mr. Hicks: His responsibility in that area would be considerable, that is dealing
with the consent orders, working with that fellow and then later on taking on the whole
collection system operation.
Mr. Colclough: So that means that we’re not going to renew the contract with
OMI and we’re going to let our man --
34
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Try to help me out, Mr. Hicks. I mean why would we -- I mean
we’ve got a contractor over there who just returned $700,000 to us, doing a good job we
all say, we got a commendation for doing a job in wastewater treatment, but we’re going
to hire as assistant director, pay him $65,000 or $67,000, put him over there to work with
the contractor? Why do we need a contractor?
Mr. Hicks: That person would be not just working with that contractor, but that
person would be overseeing all of our consent orders, staying current with them, also
preparing -- no, sir, I would not for all the world want to get rid of OMI. They have done
a super job.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just didn’t want anybody to believe that I was haggling
over $10. I was haggling over procedures. Okay? The procedure say 15% and I’m
saying that I have no problem if that comes out to $64,900. That’s fine for me and I
probably will vote for that. But the others, I don’t think they’re going to come out that
way. And my only reason for offering the substitute motion was that let’s get us out of
this and let’s come back with some figures that we all could deal with, but if we’re going
to sit here and go through all four of them and deal with them as we’ve dealt with 34,
that’s fine with me.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, final word.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just want to touch on what Commissioner
Bridges has said. We’ve got directors all throughout this government making different
range, different salaries. But when you take an assistant and pay that assistant as much or
more than some directors are making, then we’ve got a problem. And I guess those
directors, depends on the level of responsibility or level of employees they’ve got to deal
with. For whatever reason, I’ve got a salary grade here with the numbers and the salary
of all our directors and assistants. But I can’t sit here and support whatever pot the
money is coming out of, pay the assistant and we’re going to have a snowball effect with
all our other employees coming. And I wouldn’t blame them one bit if we do that. And
they’re not going to look at where the money is coming from. I mean they’re going to
look at the money that’s going in their pockets.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Commissioner Williams. Let’s go ahead and call the
question if we may on the substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, can I have a clarification on something?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays.
35
Mr. Mays: What I wanted to ask [inaudible] and I guess [inaudible] is that
including the one that we are on now in reference to the one that can pass procedure as it,
but we’re dealing with the monetary difference as far as just dealing with all of them?
Mr. Mayor: It deals with all four positions, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Beard: The substitute motion dealt with all four of them simply because of to
get us out of this so that we could come back and work on all four. No. 32 here, I think
here there is almost an agreement here that the person there going into this would be at
that particular salary, but the others would not be. So now and that was the whole thing.
If we’re going to take them as a group and Max is going to bring them as a group here
with $65,000 -- one paid $65,000 other paid at $67,000, it looks like we’re just reaching
at some numbers, okay? Cause that’s what we voted on in Administrative Services,
$67,000. Here it’s $65,000. I don’t know what y’all voted on in Engineering Services. I
guess $65,000. But it’s two different numbers here and I just want some clarity on here.
But I don’t see a problem with 32 because --
Mr. Mays: That was why I was asking on the clarification. And my concern was
not about the money but in terms of where the money is swapped out at and I think
certain questions have been answered. I can deal with that as long as procedures have
been followed and I think procedures fall in on that particular one. I do agree with you
that we need to review those others because I think there are some questions, not only
about where we deal with lateral transfer but how does lateral transfer affect what
procedure we’ve got in place and how that trickles down in terms of affecting other
departments. And that’s why I was wondering whether or not if 32 can be released from
that particular package and the substitute motion going to deal with that or make the
substitute motion on the others in there. If they pass her muster out of HR, if the
procedure is correct, if we going to be back to a $10 deal with it, then I’m ready to let that
one go. But I think we do have some questions regarding the rest of is. And I think that
we may be [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let me do this then. Is there any objection to amending the substitute
motion to delete from that items 32 and 64? And that is the original motion. Is there any
objection to deleting those two items, 32 and 64, and that’s the position we’re talking
about. No objection is heard. So we have a substitute motion on the floor which would
send back to Human Resources and Public Utilities to bring back a report to us at our
next meeting 33/65, 34/66 and 35/67.
Mr. Bridges: Point of order.
Mr. Mayor: And approve items 32/64. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I was going to make that as a point of order. I didn’t know if we
passed a substitute if we could go back to the original motion to approve that. But my
understanding now is you’re incorporating that, approval of 32 in with the substitute.
36
Mr. Mayor: Right. And that would be approving 32. I guess actually no action
on 64 because that has a conflicting compensation in it. So we’d approve item 32 and
then item 64 would just go away.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could we not, Mr. Mayor, set the salary in 65 and comply with the
guideline?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. And that’s what item 32 does.
Mr. Kuhlke: 64 says $67,5000.
Mr. Mayor: Right. That item would just go away.
Mr. Kuhlke: That would go away.
Mr. Mayor: It would just go away, right. So we’d approve item 32. Does
everybody understand that? We’ve got a substitute motion that’s been amended to say in
effect that we’re approving item no. 32, we’re setting the compensation at $65,000, with
up to 120 days for the transition.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Hornsby: I ask a question. Does that also provide the opportunity for Public
Works to go ahead and start immediately to advertise for the position?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That’s the consensus of the Commission. And
then, Mr. Shepard, items 33, 34, 35, and 65, 66 and 67 would be sent back to Human
Resources and Public Utilities, come back to us with a recommendation in two weeks.
Mr. Shepard: It’s not going back to committee, it’s going to come back to this
full body?
Mr. Mayor: Come back to the full body.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I must be the only one that doesn’t
understand.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, you have all that?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
37
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion as we’ve just
stated it. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Those are all of the items on the consent agenda. The next item
would be item 68.
Clerk:
68. Motion to approve quit-claim deed to Mildred Willingham for property
located in Lots 31 and 32 of Block A, and Lot 8 of Block C. Summerfield East
Subdivision. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
Mr. H. Brigham: I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Wall, is there something you wanted to
say about this? You looked like you started to. Okay, discussion? All in favor then,
please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Make sure the clarification of the abstinence man on that. That item
st
number. That would be my 71 abstention, but Ms. Willingham is an active client of
mine currently and for those reasons I will be abstain, and I think, I believe [inaudible] so
that makes a triple conflict in there. So I’ve got a very legitimate --
Mr. Mayor: I didn’t know a mortician had active clients, Mr. Mays. That’s
interesting.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item no. 69, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
38
69. Consider approval of Administrative Assistant Position for Juvenile
Court(No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee
January 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with this?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please
vote aye. Ms. Pelaez, you needed to do something? They’ve already approved it.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Well, I kind of need you to know something so that it doesn’t
come back on you later.
Mr. Mayor: Will it change the vote or you just want to put something on the
record?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: It will change the vote maybe.
Mr. Mayor: Perhaps we should clear the board, Madame Clerk and let’s suspend
the voting to hear from Human Resources. You’ve got to be fast around here. Go ahead.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: When I presented this item before the Administrative Services
Committee meeting, I was thinking that only $8,000 would have to come from the
General fund to fund this position. I have since learned that it is actually $42,330 of
funding that is going to come from General fund, so I just kind of thought you might
want to know that before voting.
Mr. Kuhlke: Where did the $8,000 come from? What that from when it was
presented last year?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: That was when it was presented in January. In January, I
thought that when Judge Kernaghan went to full-time status, we were -- prior to that we
were compensating that position at $25,000 and I was hoping that the $25,000 that we
had been paying was still in the 2001 budget. Well, it is not. So therefore we have to
cover this entire position, including the benefits.
Mr. Mayor: Does that change the motion that’s on the floor?
Mr. Colclough: So that position is $42,000?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: The total. That would be the salary plus the benefits, yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And this money would come from --
39
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: General fund.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not budgeted in the General fund? So this would come from
General fund Contingency?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Why not send this back to -- since it’s a change here.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make that motion?
Mr. Beard: I so move that this would go back to the Committee for
reconsideration.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion to send this back to the Committee for
reconsideration. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: M. Mayor, with all due respect to procedure, but I guess [inaudible]
Ms. Pelaez or the Attorney can answer this one but I’d rather Ms. Pelaez answer it, but
we’re dealing with an active court system and that position, I believe, in terms of that
being a full time job?
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. Yes, it is.
Mr. Mays: I’m not sure whether or not, gentlemen, there are any alternatives to
what’s there. It’s a matter of whether we fund it and we deal with getting somebody in
this particular position or we end up with them doing a temporary type of situation, being
it contractual, court reporting or some other means, but it’s one of those deals we’re
going to pay for it out of the left hand or the right hand, but it’s going to come back and
it’s there. I don’t see us having a legitimate way to do anything other than to deal with
the [inaudible] and that’s one of those areas and it’s not going to be any additional cutting
to those offices that are there that involve those particular judgeships, because the only
thing you’ve got basically in them is the judge, whoever the secretary or assistant is, and
in dealing with stationery. You’ve basically dealing with services and procedure over
there. So I’m just not sure whether in terms of investment of time whether we’ve got a
choice in terms of dealing with it. That’s the only thing I wanted to point out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
40
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think this should go before the position review
committee and I guess that’s the committee that Commissioner Beard is referring to. I
know that if we talk to all of our department heads they’re all in desperate need of people.
This is an impact to the General fund and would possibly make it where we could not
fund other essential positions by funding this. So they need to justify it just like
everybody else.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Commissioner, from what I’ve been told by our County
Attorney, this is an elected official and they have their own budget. They don’t have to
go through the position control committee. That’s why I brought it before the committee.
Mr. Cheek: But if I understand the function of this government correctly, they do
have to come to us for money, so they can hire the person and pay them out of their
pocket or they can go to the position review committee.
Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any further discussion?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, my understanding is it is going back to the
Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: That was the Chair’s understanding.
Mr. H. Brigham: And I was wondering, Mr. Wall, could you kind of comment on
what Mr. Mays -- that was my understand of what Mr. Mays said. It came down from
Atlanta and [inaudible] anything that comes down from Atlanta.
Mr. Wall: You will recall last year that there was legislation passed by the
General Assembly which created a full-time Juvenile Court judge and created a Circuit-
wide Juvenile Court system. As a part of that process, the salary that had previously been
paid out of county funds for the Juvenile Court judge was not longer required to be paid
and in lieu of that, the State was sending the funding for the full-time Juvenile Court
judge. The Juvenile Court judge is currently operating a Court, along with an assistant,
without clerical assistance. And this position was a part of the budgetary process that
was recommended for approval, to fund the position. It did not get added. The position
is needed and I understand to some extent the fact that you’ve been given additional
information today, but as far as the need for the position, the need to go ahead and fund
the position and create the position that’s there, I’m not sure what additional information
we could provide in Administrative Services or otherwise that would influence it, if the
position is needed and either create it and fund it or not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you just mentioned something very interesting. You said
this is a Circuit position; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: The full-time judge is responsible on a Circuit-wide basis.
41
Mr. Mayor: So should not the other two counties in the Circuit then contribute to
paying compensation to the secretary that he has?
Mr. Wall: Well, you know, the Court system itself is reimbursed to an extent
from the other counties in the Circuit.
Mr. Mayor: But that reimbursement level hasn’t been adjusted with the addition
of --
Mr. Wall: It’s not been adjusted for the creation of this additional position, no.
Mr. Mayor: Well, it should be, shouldn’t it? Maybe that’s something the
Committee needs to look at. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just wanted to add. This is a deep concern of mine that
these other constitutional officers that we fund may not be going through the same
budgetary exercises that we are. Again, I think it’s essential that they be made aware of
and allowed to participate in the process of justifying these positions, just like we do.
They may, after reviewing things, find out that they can do what they need to do with
existing staff. But it’s important that we go through these budgetary exercises. They
continue to add to overhead while we squeeze our other departments and plainly it’s just
not a good way to do business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have a substitute motion on the floor. The original motion
is to approve it and the substitute motion came from Mr. Beard which is to send it back to
Committee.
Mr. J. Brigham: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question is called. Do you have a point of inquiry, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yeah. Just one thing I wanted to point out in this whole process.
When the State shifted this level of responsibility, we asked [inaudible] along with
[inaudible] jail reimbursement, [inaudible] that we asked for in terms of that money,
along with relief on this Juvenile burden. Where I think we run the risk in this particular
one is that while we are paying for the clerical side of it, we have got the support on the
judicial side of it to be picked up from the State. Therefore the biggest source of the
burden has been lifted. Now the risk we run in this, we don’t have to fund it at all. We
don’t have to take it anywhere. But what you’re going to send a signal off to the
Judiciary is okay, fine, we give you a judge and pay for it, y’all down there ballyhooing
about whether you are going to put the clerical folks in there, tell you what, y’all pay for
42
the secretary, pay for the judge, too. That can happen to you. That’s the only thing I
wanted to point out.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion, which is to
send this back to the Administrative Services Committee. The Chair will call for the vote
on that, the substitute motion. Do you have a point of inquiry?
Mr. Shepard: Point of inquiry. We voted once on this to approve it. So the chair
is ruling that motion [inaudible] that was not voted on?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Okay. And now we’re going to vote first on Mr. Beard’s
substitute?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: And then the original motion to approve?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. The original motion. So the substitute, the question is
called to send it back to Committee. All in favor of that, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to restate his concern that since this is a
Circuit-wide office, that there should be some compensation, some of this compensation
should be covered by the other counties in the Circuit, and for that reason I am going to
vote for the substitute motion to send it back to Committee so the issue of cost-sharing
can be addressed when the matter is brought back before this body. Mr. Wall says it’s a
Circuit-wide office.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges: Call for order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: It’s a three-county Circuit. Move along to item 70.
Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
43
70. Consider the following recommendations from the Richmond County
Legislative Delegation for appointment as Chairman of the Richmond
County Board of Elections:
Mr. Timothy McFalls (I)
Dr. Eddie Cheeks
Mr. Jack Usry
Mr. Mayor: We have three names on the agenda that are nominated in order of
Mr. Timothy McFalls. I guess that means incumbent, he holds the position, and Dr.
Eddie Cheeks and Mr. Jack Usry. I guess these nominations come from the Delegation
so we don’t make any [inaudible]. So we’ll take them in the order they’re nominated.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion. I move we reject all of
them and send it back to the Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask my Parliamentarian if such a motion is in order, to reject
the nominations sent to us from the Delegation.
Mr. Wall: Can you table that and come back to it and let me pull the act creating
the Board of Elections?
Mr. Shepard: I move to table it then. Isn’t that always in order, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, that’s always in order. Why don’t we just let Mr. Wall
leave the room here and move on to the next item, be more expeditious.
Clerk:
COMMUNICATIONS:
71. Discussion of Special Grand Jury's presentments and method of
implementation. (Requested by Commissioner Ulmer Bridges)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this
issue. I’d like to comment the Special Grand Jury for the work that they’ve done.
They’ve done a yeoman’s task of arriving at a document that I have before me. They’ve
sacrificed a lot of their personal time to serve on this Grand Jury. And I commend them
for it and I think they’ve received some criticism from elected officials in the past. I
think that’s regrettable. These people have done a fine job and done a great service to
this community and I think they deserve our respect and admiration and that’s why I
bring this item for discussion on the floor today. Mr. Mayor, we as Commissioners,
many time, a lot of the time we live in a fishbowl as Commissioners. A lot of people tell
us what we want to hear. I have heard from the public criticism of every Commissioner
up here, including the Mayor, but apparently I’m the only one that’s hearing it from the
public, the person talking to me at the time, that’s immune to that. And I know you’ve
44
heard the same thing, each and every one of you. So we live in a fishbowl. Many times
we hear what the public thinks we want to hear. But these people on this Grand Jury
have interviewed a lot of people, including us. They’ve arrived at this document and I
think they’ve done it in a fair and honest manner. I’m just looking at it here and I see
they’ve reviewed our roles as Commissioners. I think they’ve read our mail, they’ve
done a very good job here. Our role as Commissioners all the way down to the racial
aspects on the Commission, which I note in the Grand Jury report and note from memory,
too, that many times the racial aspects that we arrive at or we come to on the Commission
involve personnel just about in every case. And I note that in the Grand Jury report. And
I think that’s accurate. What that tells me is really we as Commissioners don’t need to be
getting involved in personnel issues, no further past the Administrator, or at least the
department head level. In some cases we violated that. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor I was
going to make a motion, but today I’m not going to do that. I’m just discussing these
items here. I think we already have a committee appointed to discuss the role of
Commissioner, to review the other charters of the other cities. Andy, I believe you’re
chairing that committee and it met earlier today. My motion was going to be to pass this
information from the Grand Jury to that Committee, but the Committee is already looking
at that information, and I’d like to point out to the public that this Committee that was
formed, if I’m not mistaken, Jim, or somebody can correct my memory, but it was
formed before the Grand Jury report came out. So it was an issue that we already
recognized that we needed to deal with, the role of Commissioner. And I just would
commend to that Committee the Grand Jury report. I believe they’ll look at it honestly
and fairly and come back to us with a recommendation of what the role of Commissioner
and what we should be doing or not doing as Commissioner, what our charter should look
like. We also have a charter committee that is reviewing our charter and will also address
many of these same issues that we have in the Grand Jury report, so I’m not going to
make a motion today but I do appreciate the opportunity to discuss the issue. I think as
Commissioners we should show the respect to the Grand Jurors that they deserve for the
hard work they’ve done by addressing it in these Chambers and I would just welcome
any comments from other Commissioners.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to follow up on what Mr. Bridges
has said. We did meet, the Delineations Committee, which our Chairman, Mr. Cheek,
has acronymed the DOR Committee, the Delineation of Responsibilities, and I commend
him for that name. Mr. Bridges, you’re correct. This was authorized by this Commission
in October, which certainly anticipated or was ahead of its time as far as compared to the
Grand Jury. And I just want to say that philosophically I agree with the Grand Jury’s
statement that we should be focusing on the big picture. We are part-time citizens
representatives and out watchword should be the delegation of duties to full-time
administration and the setting of policies and the budget should be our primary
responsibility. I think we should be also the voices of our constituents because
oftentimes they are the voice of the voice, not necessarily [inaudible] but they just don’t
know who to go to, they come to us about persistent problems, and I hope that that would
be the work that Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek and I will undertake on the Delineation of
45
Responsibility Committee. I think that has to be balanced, the idea has to be balanced that
we are constituents’ voices with the idea that we should be part-time citizen
representatives focusing on the big picture. I don’t think we should give orders to any
employees and I’ve expressed that in the DOR Committee. I don’t think we should be
involved in employee discipline. I don’t think we should [inaudible] what the
administration has done. I want also, if we could, it’s difficult to deal with some of these
Grand Jury recommendations when we have the cloak of secrecy surrounding some of
the allegations, and I’m particularly interested in the allegation about key finance
department employee that resigned his or her position -- they don’t say which -- after
being targeted with racial allegations. And so as chairman of that committee, I would
certainly welcome any inquiry into that area and we can conduct it at the committee level.
Finally, I note that the Grand Jury ventures into what I think is the policy-making area.
And I welcome them into the policy-making area. We are certainly aware of a process
here on this floor and in our committees that’s a public policy making arena. My
suggestion is that valid policy suggestions come from -- they come from this body, they
come from our staff, they come from our administration, they come from the public, they
even come from our media. And I think if the Grand Jurors are going to get into the
policy making of this government that we should consider that they waive the secrecy
surrounding their meetings and let the open meetings and Open Records Act apply to
their meetings. And I think one thing that struck me as particularly critical and
particularly subject to the open agenda or open nature of the meetings, open records
nature of the meetings is the recommendation that we go from eight districts to, I believe,
six districts and two Commissioners to four Commissioners. Well, I have a 25,000
member district. I think all of y’all have another one, 25,000 and the eight
Commissioners and the two Super District Commissioners have half this county each,
which by my math would about 100,000 people each. That’s a very large District to
cover. And I tell you, I would appreciate that we open the doors and have the policy
discussed in the open meetings. If they want to make policy recommendations, that’s
fine, but let them feel the policy pressures that we feel from all sides when we have these
folks come before us in these rooms with the positions advocated here, that we get in our
mail, that we get in our emails, that we get in our telephone calls, that we get in people
meeting us on the street or in our businesses. So like I say, come on in the policy making
arena, but do so with the way we have to undertake our policies and that’s in open
meeting with open records. Thank you very much, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to echo my good friend
Commissioner Shepard in what he said. I do support and thing the Grand Jury did a good
job in a lot of respects. There are some things I disagree with in the report. I first of all
like to say that if we, it’s on the agenda to be discussed and I’m willing to discuss any
part of this that any Commissioner or the Mayor wants to talk about. But if we do
discuss this, I don’t want a time limit on it cause if we going to talk about it, I think we
need to really talk about it. There’s a lot of issues that we have. We talking about
personnel, not being involved in personnel and I don’t think any Commissioner have ever
directly told any employee to do or not to do something that his supervisor or even the
46
Administrator told him different from doing. But I think personnel being as large as this
city, as this government is, it’s going to be a part of the trouble, a part of some of the
things going on, cause you got people that interacting with other people. So I think
personnel is going to be a major part of government. I think we forget about how
important the employees of this Richmond County is, not only to us but to the day to day
operations of this government. And as elected officials, we should want to support or
bring in or make sure that everybody is treated fairly. We should serve everybody from
the same pot. A lot of times, that has not happened and I still don’t think it’s happening
to this day, but I want to close, but I want to say if we’re going to discuss this, any part
that we want to talk about, I’m willing to talk about, but I do not, Mr. Mayor, want a time
limit put on me saying that’s five minutes or six minutes, whatever. If we going to talk,
let’s talk.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was [inaudible] last year [inaudible] credit for that, and I think
that being a city of ethics is important, but the Grand Jury did not pick that up
[inaudible]. They said that some of us were lacking in that. And I also [inaudible] come
to the meetings and the idea of walking out needs to be cleared up. Most of us have
businesses, we have families, and to sit here from 2 o’clock until 7 o’clock without
walking out that door is a little hard. And I am just wondering how we are going to do
that. They didn’t give no recommendations on that. [inaudible] concern that they have.
But as far as the walking out. I don’t think that [inaudible] year that we have had that. I
don’t think. But if we’ve had, I’m sure they can substantiate it. I’m sure [inaudible] go
back to those days when they did vote absentee [inaudible] but I would hope that we
would [inaudible] the whole thing of ethics. We passed it and if I recall, we passed it
unanimously that we were an ethics city [inaudible] sent to Atlanta or wherever we sent it
to and they are proud of us and I’m proud of it myself, too. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Henry. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I don’t know for sure, but I may share the lone
distinction of being the only Commissioner not asked before the Grand Jury. I have
talked to the District Attorney and requested a hearing and the time that I would be able
to give my side of any of these questions they may wish to ask me. As I reviewed
documents governing the behavior of Commissioners from the state level down, there’s
absolutely no guidance for day-to-day behavior or interfacing between Commissioners
and elected officials and department personnel. Therefore with any ten individuals or 11
you have up here, you’re going to have 10 or 11 different types of behavior. Our
Committee will provide clear and concise guidance, not only for us but future
generations. To clear up the gray areas and know where our boundaries are and where
the boundaries of the administrators and the expectations that we have of the
administrator and so forth. But let me go to the bottom line on this. We are the elected
representatives accountable to the people. We are tasked with the function according to
our Code of Conduct to provide economical and efficient operations of government. We
are the quality assurance representatives of the people, to make sure the government is
47
delivering the goods and services the people want, not what the government wants to
deliver. I am not a representative of the government to the people, I’m a representative of
the people to the government. We have got to incorporate quality assurance in all that we
do. There needs to be a clear understanding across this city of the difference between
quality assurance and micro-management. I’ve heard comments throughout time of how
this board should be more like a bank board of directors. I don’t know my bank board of
directors. I’ve never seen my bank board of directors. I’ve never heard of a public
meeting or anything else. That’s diametrically opposed to what the people want. They
want open, honest, professional government, delivering goods and services at or a better
price than what they can get through the public. To do that, we need to have a
fundamental knowledge of everything that affects this government. That doesn’t mean
we tell people what to do. It doesn’t mean we don’t follow the chain of command. But it
means that we go out and school ourselves, not only on what our departments are doing,
but what the needs are within our community. These are the things this Commissioner
has endeavored to do since I’ve been here. And again, I look forward to my opportunity
to discuss with the Grand Jury these issues or anything else that this Commissioner has
done. I will continue to represent the people on this board and not this board to the
people.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else want to respond? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible] a person of few words and I got my
[inaudible]. Let me say this first. I respect the process [inaudible] as being the senior
member in terms of total years until maybe Willis Irvin walks in this room. I started off
th
in this chamber prior to my 29 birthday. I will be 50 years old in July. I’ve had the
opportunity to represent people in all forms of local government. City council. County
commission, chairman, consolidated government on both district and at-large basis.
That’s a lot of folks and a lot of period of time. Seen a lot of progress happen in the city.
I respect the process of the Grand Jury. But let me just say this. I think that when people
are called to do a task, and I think what every Commissioner is saying, it’s worth noting,
and particularly Commissioner Shepard, because I think to adequately respond when we
read in generalities of what some things you [inaudible] accused of, I think that’s
something that does come with the territory. When you say Congress, it refers to
Congress. When you say Legislature, it refers to all Legislatures. Commissioners refers
to all Commissioners, not necessarily on a vote-by-vote basis of what we do but what we
do collectively. I respect their rights to their opinion. And when you have opinions, I
won’t be in a joking matter about that. But that’s what happens. You have a personal
opinion of the way people arrive at a decision on what’s been given to them. Rather than
if been through the process of individuals, groups, as Steve has said, in the process of
secrecy, and I might add without the due process and I respect the system because that’s
the way the system is. But it does not require any process of cross examination. But we
live with the process. I think that it’s needed. We have to have it. But I also think that
we ought to be fair in terms of where we take this whole situation. We’re concerned
about where our community is going and the image with it. Well, I’m concerned, too.
People look us up on the website not just about the trip I made, but about the trip that
we’re on every day right here at home. And I think if you’re going to take that into
48
context, then let’s take everything into context. I’ve even said to some folk if you want
to deal with one deal, Mr. Mayor, then let’s get a copy of that tape from Mayor
[inaudible] and let’s go through it line by line. Inasmuch I guess that if I started all the
commotion that I started every problem that we’ve got, and everything originated with
Willie, if I had that much power, I’m sure there’s a lot of things I would change, other
than just making a trip. I don’t have a problem discussing anything, anywhere, any time.
If it’s going to be said that some things are said at home. Some of you know some things
that I’ve said away from home, I’ve said a lot of it at home. I don’t print the papers. I
don’t control the media. I don’t deal with the news. I just call it like I see it and that’s
my opinion. And the only thing I have to do is to be respected for my opinion, as I
respect every other colleague up here, the Mayor and Commissioners, as well as the
members of the Grand Jury. Because that’s a legal process. But do I [inaudible] start to
do what’s best for our city? Remember that the clock ticks on all of us. We pay not only
for what we do in terms of this community, I made a statement the other day so I won’t
be accused of making that one in Atlanta that I didn’t make here, I made the statement, I
said that at a point we do need the regular process of the Grand Jury, we’ve had it for
decades, it does not need to change. The special emphasis the law provides for that, there
is no time limit that we deal with. I think that that has to be done in some cases. But I
also think we have to look at the overall effect of what we deal with in this community as
a whole. So you get to the point where people choose sides based on what they think
might happen the next week in a Grand Jury? [inaudible] a point whereby that’s how we
start [inaudible]? And I made the statement that if we are not the target of a criminal
investigation, if there are folk quite frankly, whether they are up here or anywhere else,
that if they need to be indicted, if they need to be prosecuted, and if jail is the place then
so be it, but let’s at some point deal with some instructional value to bring some closure
at least to this process, good, bad or indifferent, as to where it should finally go. America
can spend $55 million, Mr. Mayor, to find out that a man had an extra-marital affair. We
also paid for the time that the Grand Jury [inaudible]. That’s the process that’s paid for
by taxpayers. I think there should be some finality, or as Steve said, just get it into the
open market, let’s deal with what the accusations are, let’s bring some closure to those
things that we can and those things that are rumors that cannot be proven, then let’s put
them behind us as a total community. We are always going to have differences. That’s
the part of the democratic process. But I think there is a process to deal with when you’re
displeased with elected officials. It’s called an election. There is a place for it. It’s
called a ballot box. And to [inaudible] of their duties or not. I find it so ironic, and I
mentioned it the other day, that I remember when the Mayor was moderating the
consolidation program at Augusta Tech, [inaudible] Mr. Irvin, was the fact that I
probably made the longest and hardest argument that this city didn’t have a charter. We
were governed by this charter. Lee was under it, Steve was under it, we were students of
that charter. And it was a darn good charter regardless of what side of the fence you fell
on, [inaudible]. I was told we didn’t need one. Jim and I have had plenty of arguments
about whether or not we even had one. But it’s ironic that when folks felt a certain way
only in the last few months that all of a sudden the rush has been to the charter. Well,
I’m finally glad that everybody came over to Willie’s side. I’ve been asking for one for
the last six years. We’ve not got it. And as far as my defense about people who are in
need, I don’t care whether it’s Ronnie Few or whether it’s Pam Tucker. I don’t care if
49
it’s a room full of pensioners that I’ve known longer than any government official in this
room, that occupy these tables, and when I look out there, I see folks who don’t look like
me, but I see people who are in need. I’ve never had a problem with that. When our
[inaudible] was victimized under mandatory insurance forms that they had to take out,
when they had to go to one hospital not of their choice, the majority of those people did
not look like women. I never asked what was their make-up. I have been in [inaudible]
many times [inaudible] on this Commission and the other two that I served on, where I
never asked or cared what folk looked like. I never have and I never will. It made no
difference to me. When I had to fight for those justifications on women, it didn’t start
with Teresa Smith. It started way back when we had females in old city government who
had to replace men that my white counterparts did not have the intestinal fortitude to
stand up and say we needed to pay those women what we are paying those men. But I
never found anybody who had a problem, even if I was the lone vote that dealt with that.
And I take some exception about the 21 years to this point that I caused everything. Now
I can raise enough hell by myself. That’s true. But the problem did not start with me, nor
will it end with me. And anytime you want to have a frank, open discussion about how to
get some of this beyond us as it relates to government, because we are a good city, we’re
a city of good people, and I’m going to clear that up one final time. I hope that anybody
whose family has been in business for 80 years, whose grandfather was able to pay for a
building, build a house for his family during the depression, I think the city has been real
good to him. Real good to his family. And I believe to whom much is given, much is
required. This is a good city of good people. What I challenge are two things. I
challenge in one court the media take and spin on some of the activities that surrounded
some of the things that we did. Also what I challenge is the fact that if we were going to
uncover things to be sent to the Grand Jury, getting back to what Steve said, we have got
enough of a laundry list that can keep it going forever on things that have never been sent
there that seriously question the violation of that city charter, particularly with regard to
deficit spending that was done that nobody, nobody has ever had the answer to. Not one
time. And that’s not a [inaudible]. So I think if we’re going to do that, then let’s be fair
about the [inaudible]. Let’s get some final determination about where we are going to go.
Because like Patton to Rommel, everybody right now is reading our book. And what’s
going on today [inaudible]. And if we’re going to move that and we got bigger fish to
fry, as they say in politics, then let’s cure some of what’s not coming [inaudible].
[inaudible] issues like we talked about the other day in Atlanta. Our cancer research
center. Being able to create those types of initiatives that will help to bring jobs to this
community. And we’re not all the time fussing about [inaudible]. And last but not least,
everything -- and I can’t speak for everybody -- but when you get with that one
paintbrush, then if you’re going to deal with the solvent then it’s up to you to deal with
the solvent. I have always respected and followed whatever process of government I
have been in. Everything that has happened with this consolidated government when
there was a challenge about what a department head may or not been doing, it was
handled in the office of our Administrator. Have I always agreed with the Administrator
when he’s here? No. But I didn’t know it was against the law to have a difference. I
didn’t know it was against the law to cast a vote [inaudible] and I didn’t even know that it
was against the law [inaudible] and we had a very good [inaudible] coming from, but the
fact that in America, this was pointed out recently in Florida, folks have the right
50
[inaudible] election booth [inaudible]. If I choose to [inaudible] what the Mayor does,
sometimes I will abstain and it will be on vote that leaves me [inaudible]. It’s a
constitutional right as long as it’s legal to vote the way that you want to vote and that you
think that’s in the best interest of the constituents you serve. This is still America and I
think I still have that right. The bottom line lies with those persons that I serve. But I
respect the process. I respect their right on the Grand Jury. I respect my colleagues’
right where we agree or disagree to have an opinion. But I also demand that they respect
mine. And I think they know that very well. And in any [inaudible], any place that we
need to carry on, to discuss is, we can. And I think we know how to do it in an intelligent
way and in a gentleman- and lady-like way of people in this community. But at some
point we need to also get this behind us and deal with it in its finality. But I still do
respect the process.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Anyone else? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. [inaudible], I just want to know do you have any questions, or
any other council members or anybody got any questions? I think if we going to talk
about this, I think we ought to do it so we can put some closure to it.
Mr. Mayor: Let me make a couple of points, if I may. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just wanted to say a few things.
Mr. Mayor: If you would like to go ahead. I had a couple of brief points I was
going to make, but if you’d like to go ahead, I’ll yield to you, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I’ve really been sitting here trying to determine if I should really get
involved in this. But I guess since I was the one who did not let it go on the agenda when
my colleague asked for it to go on the agenda and I didn’t do that and I never had the
opportunity to explain why I didn’t do it go on it on the agenda, because I thought it was
a political move by my colleague at that time, and I didn’t think that we were ready to
venture into that at that time, and I think some pointed comments have been made here
this afternoon. And I think [inaudible] by all of our Commissioners. You know, I think
we all respect the process of the Grand Jury. This is part of our country. It’s made up
that way. And we respect the process. But you know, I sometimes, when we get in
positions, we forget what we are there for. And we utilize special agendas and
sometimes things are driven by a few people who have special agendas. And I
[inaudible] that the Grand Jury said here, I agree with some of the things that they said,
but most of it I don’t agree with because I think they were off-base on a lot of things.
And I’m going to read, it says the government [inaudible] and vital as the people we
elect. And I think that can apply to the Grand Jury also. The people who serve on the
Grand Jury. [inaudible] those people who serve on there. And if they have a fair mind
and an open mind, and I think fairness is the basis that most of the Commissioners up
here have dealt with. All we wanted was fairness. And it appears here, and we’ve been
accused up here of -- as I look through the report I see nothing but race, race, race. I
don’t see anything about the accomplishments that we’ve made. When we go throughout
51
the state, the other two counties who have gone into the consolidated government, they
keep asking the question how you accomplish so much in such a little time. And you
know, we never hear that. But for two years, almost two years, we’ve been held hostage
here in the city, with a Grand Jury. And I respect some of the things that my colleague,
Mr. Mays, made. We ought to have some type closure on this. I don’t think anybody,
and I probably been before the Grand Jury more than any other Commissioner up here for
some reason, but I just don’t think people should be held hostage. I don’t think they
should be drilled. I don’t think they should be prosecuted. I think they should be
respected and I think there should be a fairness there. I think that some of us have
forgotten that we represent two different groups of people here. You are representing a
group of people whom [inaudible] in that community and they thing you’re doing a fine
job. You don’t get the stares and the looks when you go into that community. And you
know I think I can sum it up in saying that in election time, these are when the decisions
should be made by the people, and not a group of people who are listening to something
that someone come down in secrecy and tell you and they may tell you anything. But a I
go through this report, there are a number of things that I could clarify if you wanted to
open discussion on it. I can go through this report and I can pick out almost to the nth the
degree the person that they’re referring to, and most of the persons that they’re referring
to it this report, it looks like me. And you would have to wonder where is the fairness.
And I really didn’t intend to get into this this afternoon but I think I feel a little
[inaudible] about this [inaudible] if you want to talk about it, and our colleagues want to
talk about, what they wanted to talk about, and this has been talked about and talked
about in Atlanta. It was talked about in the media. It’s been talked to death. And it’s
time we do something about it and we have done some things. One of my colleagues
mentioned the ethics committee that exists. We did that back in the first year when
Mayor Sconyers was here, when we did ethics. We have done a lot of things and I don’t
hear any of those in the community. The only thing I hear is about negative, and the last
thing I’m going to say is that I think that we ought to respect each other up here. And I
guess this is the first time I ever referred to a colleague up here today. But on two
separate occasions in the last couple of weeks and that what we are coming to and that’s
what we are being drive to, is attacking each other. I think we’ve been attacked in the
media by colleagues and I don’t think this should happen. And we’ve been attached and
said that this was a cesspool. And I don’t think that [inaudible] should happen. There
should be an amount of respect. And the verdict will come in in November when all of
us are elected, because the people will make the decision, and no one else. Thank you,
Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. I just wanted to say that I’ve been given a lot
of the credit, or the blame, if you will, for what’s going on with the Grand Jury. And I’d
certainly like to think that the Mayor of Augusta has the power to organize and control a
Grand Jury, but we all know that that’s not the case at all. But the Grand Jury process is
a normal process in this community, that every two months there is a Grand Jury.
Essentially every two months a Grand Jury reports back after examining the operations of
this government and makes recommendations and make reports. So this is nothing out of
the ordinary. It seems though, for the last year or so, we’ve been spending an inordinate
amount of time focusing on rumors and allegations that somebody is going to be indicted
52
or some criminal charge will come. Let’s have the indictment or go home. But we have
to recognize that equally important is the Grand Jury’s role of an organization, a group
that inspects the operations of this government and makes recommendations for
improvements where needed. Indeed, the Grand Jury has made a series of
recommendations in the almost year-and-a-half that it’s been empanelled. Most
disturbing to me in this report were the racial overtones that were discussed and the
potential for racial discrimination. And I met earlier this week with a member from the
Human Relations Commission. This body has passed an ordinance establishing a civil
rights organization to review this community’s racial attitudes and the way we conduct
ourselves, both as a community and as a Commission. Indeed, the Human Relations
Commission already has a copy of the Grand Jury report and has looked at it and is
meeting in a retreat this weekend and will go through that report and determine for itself
how it will address trying to perhaps build some bridges and heal some wounds and try to
bring this community together and take down these things that divide us by race. So I
think that’s an important process, that this is a process that we have established as a
government, to use the Human Relations Commission -- it’s probably well past the time
to turn to that body and see if it can exert some influence in these areas. So is there any
other discussion with respect to the Grand Jury report? If not, we’ll move on with the
order of the day. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Since we don’t have a time limit on us,
I’m not going to prolong it, but what I want to do, I want to address a couple of issues
that Commissioner Beard brought to light about what this report and who this report
reflects on. And I see some statements in here, some things that I know like
Commissioner Mays said, I know who they resemble. I want to mention here that we had
a discussion in our committee about our finance department and the statement was made
that we needed to get somebody in that position. And it was blown all up and all out as if
I as indicating that we ought to just find somebody on the street just coming alone.
We’ve lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in investments because we had nobody in
that position doing anything for months and months and months. And had a director in
that particular department who said that everybody that came through didn’t want to
work with this government. It wasn’t that they weren’t qualified but didn’t want to work
with the government because of the bad report or the bad stigma that went with this
government. What I’m saying is that this is a new day. This is time for the people of
Richmond County to come together and make this city the second largest and great city
that it could be if we would just forget about our differences and start looking to the
future. But things like that that have been reported and been said. Anything I said, I
repeated before, I don’t have anything to hide from anybody. I just think that it’s time for
us to look at the progress and the things that we can do, especially together. No one
wants to talk about race. But there’s no more racial problem in this city of Augusta than
any other city in the United States of America. People are growing, people are learning,
people are understanding, people are being more educated, people will find out that this
black don’t rub off on somebody else. If God didn’t give it to you, you can’t get it. So
my thing is we need to forget about that kind of thing. If we got a problem in this city, I
said it before, it’s right up on these ten men. Excuse me, 11, I’m going to count you, Mr.
Mayor. It’s right up on this podium where our problem is. We can’t come together
53
because we still one-sided. A gentleman stood up this afternoon, excuse me, sir, I don’t
remember your name, he said we are still doing the same thing we did 40 years ago.
Well, that’s proof tome that I’m not crazy. Because when I came in this building I told
them we were still doing things in the 60’s and we’re still doing it. Thank you, sir, you
and the lady there. I know at least three times. And we haven’t sold the problem yet.
And if you keep doing the same thing, you’ll get the same results. You’ve got to do
something different. But we really don’t want to grow. We really want to stay so we can
fuss among ourselves. We want to point fingers at one another. We want to hold
somebody down. Commissioner Cheek and myself have always said it ain’t a black or
white thing, it’s a right thing there. And what’s so crazy is folks don’t think you can do
that. Folks don’t thing that God got good people who are really concerned about people
and not colors. It’s all right to be prejudiced, but it’s a problem when you discriminate.
I’m a Chevrolet man. I said it all the time. I don’t want a Ford or Chrysler or anything
else. But I don’t discriminate when you drive in my driveway with your Ford or your
anything else. That’s where the problem comes in. We want to discriminate. And it’s
time for this Commission to be about the business of the people of this city. I wasn’t
elected by black folks. I wasn’t elected by white folks. I was elected by folks. And I’m
[inaudible]. Let me tell you what I discovered. The whole time when I ran for this office,
I never had a fund raiser. Didn’t have no money. Run on a shoe string. I didn’t even
that. But I was talking to a friend of mine and it came back to me. I wanted to hold one
but I didn’t have the money the buy the food to even share with anybody. And I’m going
to do what’s right while I’m here. Like it or not. Black or white. If you’re right, I’m with
you. If you’re wrong, so long. It’s just as simple as that. And I think if we all look at it
that way, if we all tried to do what is right, you are going to make the mistakes, cause
none of us are perfect. But when you try to do what’s right, when you try to help people,
then we going to move this city forward like we ought to be. The last thing I want to say,
let’s go back to this trip that people keep asking me about. I was in Atlanta, Georgia, a
man told me that our former Chief got a car out of the deal. I said that’s not the only
thing, I heard he got a house, too, one time. But all I’m saying is I went to Washington,
D.C. to tell the committee that I thought the man that we had, whether he was purple,
green, or yellow did a good job. And I said to them like I said just now, when I came in
this government and living in this city all of my life, I didn’t just come to here, working
in this government, building this building so many times I can’t count them, been with
the Augusta Fire Department in 1968, worked there for about nine years, knowing how
the system has been run in this city. And it’s time [inaudible] it’s been run. The train has
got a different job, and as long as we’re on the track, you ought to get on board. Now if
we’re derailing we ought to get off. But because we got a different engineer, you ought
to stay on. You ought to hold on for the ride. And the last thing, Mr. Mayor, if every
Commissioner on this Board would look at this as a job to help the people of Richmond
County, we wouldn’t have near the problem we’ve got or the tension we’ve got between
each other. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anybody else? Thank you very much. The Chair will
declare a five minute recess so those who need to can leave the room, and then we’ll
come back and resume.
54
Mr. Beard: I was just going to ask could I be excused to go to the bathroom?
(Brief recess)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go back to item 70. I think the Attorney has a
ruling for us.
Clerk:
(Continuation of Item 70)
70. Consider the following recommendations from the Richmond County
Legislative Delegation for appointment as Chairman of the Richmond
County Board of Elections:
Mr. Timothy McFalls (I)
Dr. Eddie Cheeks
Mr. Jack Usry
Mr. Mayor: The question from Commissioner Jerry Brigham, a motion actually
from Commissioner Jerry Brigham was that we reject all three applicants and send them
back to the Delegation. Your ruling on that, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It would be out of order to do that. You select from the three names
that are submitted by the Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I move that we select Mr. Timothy McFalls since he is already in
that position.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second for Mr. McFalls. Any other
nominations?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The record will so reflect that. All in favor of Mr. McFall’s
nomination, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
55
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 72.
ATTORNEY:
72. Resolution requesting the Richmond County Legislative Delegation to
increase the membership of the Commission's appointments to the Coliseum
Authority from eight (8) to ten (10) thereby giving Super District
Commissioners an appointment. (Requested by Commissioner Bill Kuhlke)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, this is your item.
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Mayor, what I am asking my colleagues here is to maybe
make the appointments to the Coliseum Authority consistent with the other Authority
appointments, thereby giving Commissioner Mays and myself an appointment to the
Coliseum Authority and through a resolution asking the Legislative Delegation if they
would do that.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Ms. Speaker: Mr. Mayor, could we [inaudible]?
Mr. Mayor: They unrelated item so I think we ought to handle those separately.
We have a motion. Is there a second to that?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion? Is there any discussion? I just
throw this out for what it’s worth. The Mayor would appreciate it if you would give him
an appointment to this, go to 11. Throw that out for what it’s worth. No discussion.
We’ll call the question.
Mr. Mays: One piece of discussion. Before the commotion is caused, I might
ought to give you mine. I’m kind of glad I didn’t have one. I don’t know if I want one
over there now.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item no. 73, discussion of personnel.
73. OTHER BUSINESS:
A. Discuss personnel. (Requested by Commissioner Marion Williams)
56
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In legal we talk about personnel and we
just got through discussing personnel a few minutes ago. And I find it uncomfortable, I
find it not necessary for us to go behind closed doors to talk about personnel which
concern this government. Mr. Bridges brought it up to us before that we need to discuss
it on open floor. I want to bring the issue of personnel to the floor, Mr. Mayor, where we
talk about any of the government business that’s run by the city. We got a lot of
controversy and that’s what brings a lot of that when we go behind the door and talk, then
somebody else gives out information that’s not quite accurate, I guess is a good word, but
if we discuss it on the floor, I mean it’s open record, I mean anybody can participate or
hear exactly what is being said. We got a lot of criticism because we been talking about
issues with personnel within this government and we always go in the back and talk
about it, and then we come out and if we don’t take any action then it leaks out a or leaks
out wrong or leaks out in certain places and it’s not what we really talked about.
Mr. Mayor: Did you have a specific personnel item you wanted to talk about, Mr.
Williams, or are you just talking about the procedure?
Mr. Williams: I’m talking about the procedure as a whole, when we discuss
personnel, I think we need to discuss it on the floor. Commissioner Cheek and myself
made the decision not to go into legal in order to talk about anything that wasn’t going to
be a law case, a lawsuit, where it’s going to mention a name or put somebody in jeopardy
with something. But to go in legal and talk about personnel, I think we need to discuss
that on the floor so it will be open records so everybody would know exactly what was
said and when it was said. That way we wouldn’t have the problems or the past history
that we’ve been having, cause there are a lot of problems in our government with our
personnel and I think we need to talk about it on the floor, then we’ll have it in the open
and everybody know where we’ve been.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We go on to the next item then. Thank you. Discussion of
the Judicial Center site selection.
B. Discuss the Judicial Center site selection. (Requested by
Commissioner Steve Shepard)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, we’ve talked about the
Judicial Center. It’s the, I think, the single-largest item in the sales tax. There’s been
money appointed from the previous SPLOST that was designated for improvement of the
building here that was for benefit of the Courts and you and I have had some discussions,
Mr. Mayor, that if we look at the site to the immediate west of this block on Greene
Street bounded by Greene and Telfair and Sixth and Seventh and worked with the church
and the Coliseum Authority, there might be another possibility of leveraging our money
for the purposes of clearing the parking lot for the Civic Center. So, Mr. Mayor, I think
57
we should make a move in this direction. I think that if we selected the site next door we
could utilize this parking lot, we could utilize the Civic Center parking lot, we could
build in additional parking on that site, we could eliminate I think one of the most
expensive features of the Judicial Center plan, which is the parking deck that’s associated
with it. We eliminate that and we put our money toward courtrooms and associated
facilities, Clerk facilities, District Attorney. I think the public is ready for us to take
direction in this regard. There’s been master plans made for this area and I think the legal
community of which I’m a part of has invested heavily in this community, in this
particular part of this community they are one of the last professions down here in great
numbers and they have made their commitments with their pocketbooks. They’ve
showed us the money as far as they’ve developed around this area. There would be
continued vitality around this area. So I’d make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we designate
the Judicial Center site as being the block bounded by Sixth and Seventh and Greene and
Telfair and that we put together a working group to interface with the judges so that we
heard their concerns and that we move forward with this project and we find the
remainder of the funding.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second from Mr. Henry Brigham. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to agree with Commissioner Shepard on this. I
think it’s time that we moved forward on this and start working on it, and I think as I
heard, I think it was a couple of meetings ago, or last meeting, that we hadn’t selected a
site, but I think it is time. I know we’ve discussed the sites. I didn’t know whether we
had really gotten down to selecting one. But we have discussed this and I think it’s time
that we moved forward on this and I have no particular problem with the site next door
that he’s referring to.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else have any other comments? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I already been to the bathroom so I can’t go again
and I don’t want to put my [inaudible]. One of the good days that the newspaper and I
agreed 100%. After two abstentions I made concerning this matter, to get it to a point of
when it stays hung, and I’m ready to get it off the hook, too, but the only problem I have
a little bit with, this has kind of been dormant coming up to the budget and where we’ve
been since then and maybe just I mention just a little bit of discussion as to where we left
some numbers concerning going next door, what we had to condemn, what we had to
acquire, or what we had to trade out on. Because we already are talking about a scaling
down situation of where we are already skinny with the money that’s being put in there.
And not raising any devilment today, but just for the sake of dollars, and while I probably
can support the motion that’s on the floor, but is there any way maybe that the maker of
the motion, the seconder or you, Jim, can bring me if any of the other Commissioners
may not remember where we were concerning estimated dollars on going next door
58
versus maybe another alternative to a point that if we’re talking about not having enough
money going in, I certainly don’t want us to a point -- I guess I just need to know how
much money we’re talking about spending going in before we get in to bricks and mortar.
If bricks and mortar is the most important thing, then maybe we need to look back at the
numbers that we were talking about that [inaudible] Law Enforcement Center to a point
of where we were dealing with May Park and shifting the relocation there or in some
approximate vicinity there.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s let Mr. Acree come up and see if he can respond to your
question, Mr. Mays, about the site acquisition process.
Mr. Mays: I’m not fighting it. I just got an old brain and trying [inaudible]
millions of dollars. It’s not like losing $10 or $12. Like on that salary a while ago, we
debated $10. But this is getting into a million dollars or two. [inaudible] where we are
with that. That’s been a long time ago.
Mr. Acree: I’m going to have to kind of wing this. I don’t have the figures in
front of me. When you’re talking the size of the Judicial Center, [inaudible], going back
and forth between the consultant and the judges, we determined, the figure came up of
200,000 square feet. From that, I backed into a site size that would accommodate parking
required by ordinance, which is 1000 spaces, which is a parking space for every 200
square feet of building. That’s what our local ordinances require. And go to the square
foot numbers, I determined that to provide on-grade parking was a five story building
which is what the consultants are recommending as the most efficient and effective
configuration for a Judicial Center, would make a site of approximately ten acres
necessary to put all parking on site on-grade. The site that we’re discussing is 4.02 acres.
We can put 334 parking spaces on-grade on that site. The remainder would have to be
made up either at the Civic Center lot, I notice there has been some mention of putting
parking on this site. When we consolidate Richmond County offices on this property and
in this building, I don’t believe you’re going to be able to count on this site for any
significant parking for the Judicial Center because I believe you’re going to fill up most
of the spaces with our other operations. As far as the cost of the building, we used an
average of what similar centers have been built for in the Southeast, and the low was
$135 a square foot. The high was $160 a square foot, $165 a square foot. The average
was $150, which work out to $30 million for building. Site acquisition we guestimated
based on tax values at $5 million for the property we’re discussing. Bottom line, the
number came out between $43 million and $45 million. Somewhere in that range. I
don’t have the numbers in front of me, but that’s my recollection that’s where they are
right now.
Mr. Mays: Now I know we were particularly -- and I’m very sensitive to where
the legal community uses the center. I’m not going to [inaudible] to deal with that. But
how does that compare with what we conservatively put in those numbers that we put in
that referendum? And I guess what I’m getting to a point that I’m more concerned about
having the availability to, whether we’re talking about decking or whether we’re talking
about adjacent property that might be cheaper, and at the same time staying within the
59
downtown corridor and staying within a stone’s throw of where we are talking about with
the legal community having access, but also in terms of the fact that we’re still talking
about transporting prisoners, I presume, from the standpoint of Law Enforcement Center
over to this area. Because I know we had talked one time about the site west of James
Brown Boulevard. And [inaudible] the old James Hotel and [inaudible] Tenth Street, in
that area. And while I want to support Steve’s motion on that, I think I could support it
better if we left here with that being a priority target to look at, but not nailed down in
stone position to a point that if we’re not putting on the table what the other areas have
[inaudible]. I mean, I’m hearing what that’s going to cost, but I’m not hearing what it
would have taken to maybe acquire [inaudible] other sides of the [inaudible] Law
Enforcement Center, maybe even to a point of where we may work out a situation of
working with Rec and Parks, and even if we built [inaudible], relocate May Park, and
dealt with that, Mr. Mayor, on a deal with the Exchange Club which is willing to maybe
do a multi-purpose [inaudible] that would still keep May Park in that area. Since we
couldn’t [inaudible], but we could do the park there, move it first and maybe deal with
something right next door to where the jail it. [inaudible] right next door. Even to the
point that if you tunnel from 401 to where your access building is and cut some of the
costs in there that you’re dealing with with the transport. I’d like to hear more than just
nailing down today one deal of going next door. I want to get it off of square one, too, but
you know I’ve not heard [inaudible] kind of got stopped cold. But I’m going to return to
it today to make [inaudible]. I kind of want to know what we’ve got left on that
[inaudible] numbers, because if [inaudible] set in our minds that that is where we are
going to go, then that’s where we’re at. And I just think there may be an alternative or
two there that at least we ought to look at and if you put that as priority number one, I can
support that and deal with it, but to say that’s the only thing out there, when we’re talking
about $35 million to $45 million, I’ve been down this route before, Mr. Mayor, if where
we’re [inaudible] Phinizy Road, [inaudible] but [inaudible] a little bit better what the
numbers going to cost and I think in all fairness we’re talking [inaudible].
Mr. Acree: I some months ago prepared an estimated cost based on several site
options in the downtown area. May Park was not one of them. I don’t know how much
you would have to pay to purchase or make an agreement with the Exchange Club on the
fairgrounds. I know from an operational standpoint we’d need to speak with Sheriff
Strength on what he spends to transport prisoners back and forth between the Law
Enforcement Center and the Municipal Building. I do know that the heating and air
systems in the existing Law Enforcement Center was sized for that additional tower and
would probably accommodate the load for at least half of what we’re getting ready to
build. It was put in that building with the intention of having another 100,000 square feet
on that building.
Mr. Mayor: We just had a Grand Jury recommend, too, that we phase out --
Mr. Acree: That’s another consideration, for y’all to consider.
Mr. Mayor: There are a lot of things on the table. Mr. Jerry Brigham, did you
want to same something?
60
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to make a substitute motion that we form a site
selection committee [inaudible]. I think [inaudible] do not own the property and
we’re considering their property and that will definitely inflate the costs of these
properties to the taxpayers. I have a real problem doing that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You already have a second.
Mr. Cheek: I seconded, Jerry.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. The other thing is [inaudible] and I heard Mr. Acree and
I’m not real good at figures, but I [inaudible], about $35 million for the [inaudible] and
we’ve got $20 million allocated from sales tax.
Mr. Acree: That money didn’t include site acquisition or development. We’re
looking at --
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Acree: That’s purchasing the site. That’s not doing anything with it. That’s
just -- I don’t have any way of ascertaining the [inaudible] numbers.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] when it came in for $42 million and [inaudible].
We’ve got to get a little bit more creative in this government if we’re going to build a
courthouse with 200,000 square feet, which I’m not completely sure that the number of
square footage we need. I might be wrong about that, but we also have a budget that’s
been given to us by the voters [inaudible] and everybody else, so we got to first try to
come in on budget, not above budget. [inaudible] I have several concerns, but those are
my main ones.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go over here to the person that seconded the motion, Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, as I said in Engineering Services, I’ve heard change
order after change order after change order because the scope was not clearly define from
the beginning. I have no problem with locating it across the street, but I’d sure like to see
a spreadsheet with the impact on the utilities in the area, the additional costs for
sidewalks and things to make it safe for pedestrians to transit from wherever the parking
is to this area. Also, the breakdown of the cost to build on each site. I’ve heard $43
million now and I’ve studied a lot of the early documents Mr. Acree provided for me, and
$43 million seems to be a pretty good round number, and like Commissioner Jerry
Brigham, that’s still based on using money from this building’s renovation fund and the
61
$20 million in the SPLOST, leaves us $13-16 million short, based on fuzzy math of
course. Before we get into the business of encumbering the people of Richmond County
for that amount of money on some type of financing, I think we need to be up front with
that. These are things that need to be addressed up front. I support and am really glad
the legal community is downtown, but does that justify encumbering all the citizens of
Richmond County to two or three additional million dollars because we want to put a site
there to make the attorneys happy? I don’t think so. The needs of the many in this case,
especially when the budget is as tight as it is, I want to see us build this, I’d like to see us
build within our mean as has been said. Certainly I want to reiterate something I said
before. A campus concept is something that I believe is buildable. It is feasible from a
security standpoint and it can be built within our budget, but of course it’s not a high-rise
and it doesn’t have a parking deck. It would require us to use some place similar to the
fair grounds. But when you can build Cross Creek High, buy 100 acres of land, build a
stadium and accommodate nearly 2,000 students there, I certainly think we can
accommodate the needs of a court system when we have $20 million and they had $21
million to build that facility. It’s certainly worth considering. Again, we don’t need to
get in the business of approving a site without all the facts in front of us, and we again
don’t need to go ahead and move forward with a judicial center until we identify the
remainder of the money.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Actually Commissioner Mays took the
words right out of my mouth, but my concern with it is similar to his and I have a
problem with voting today to move on purchasing a site and I received no information as
to costs, cost breakdown, other sites, and why those locations were not feasible. I’ve also
heard about the site selection committee, which like the Mayor and others, that’s the first
I heard about it was when I read it in the paper. And I think the substitute motion is a
good move for us to review the sites. We may wind up at that location. I don’t know that
we won’t. But I have trouble voting to spend $3 million or $4 million without looking to
see some numbers in front of me. And I want to say I understand this thing is going to be
downtown. I’m not married to any particular site downtown, but I really don’t have a
dog in this hunt as far as particular agenda and which site it is. So you know I’m willing
to be as open as possible looking at this. But I’d like to see some cost figures first.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I may have missed a meeting, but I don’t think we
prioritized the sales tax money, have we?
Mr. Mayor: No.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think to me it’s sort of premature for us to do anything on it until
we get to that point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
62
Mr. Shepard: I think it’s going to be inescapable, a few facts. One is the fact of
geography. There are two large courtrooms in this building and I don’t think we need to
duplicate those courtrooms and we might want to have one courtroom still available for a
large use for a trial, like the Lumpkin trial comes personally to myself and Mr. Handy in
the audience. We don’t need to duplicate that. We need to have as close to the existing
facilities, it just seems to me that we can delay, but we’re going to eventually come back
to the site next door and I think it’s time to bite the bullet, gentlemen. The math may be
fuzzy but I’m the position of trying to build a house and I know from being up here and
being in trial, it’s a lot easier to tear down the house than the build the house, and you’ve
expressed concerns here and concerns there. And that’s fine, but I don’t think the motion
that I made committed us to spend a dollar. It committed us to focus on this one site and
get a plan together with the church and with the Coliseum Authority. But the way I see
the pot of money, gentlemen, is this was. We’ve got $20 million in the SPLOST which
has been approved for that purpose. We have approximately $7 million from the
SPLOST. Rick just told us that the cost of 200,000 square feet of courtroom space,
which I would respectfully differ from my colleague Mr. Cheek, I think that’s different
from building a high school. I think maybe it would be interesting , Rick, if you went
out and see what the cost per square foot of a high school is, I don’t think they have to
retain dangerous criminals and holding cells and they don’t have to have juries and they
don’t have to have the security concerns with the extent that the courthouse does. But
that’s just an aside. But in any event, my pot now comes to $27 million. I think the
Mayor made a good suggestion to me the other day that we look to use CD funds to
acquire the land for the Coliseum Authority at the other end of the parking lot so we have
no site acquisition costs out of the present pot. So we are about 90% of the way there,
gentlemen. So I’d rather be -- whatever the vote is today, that’s fine, but I’d rather be
90% of the way there than 0% so I commend to you, if you want to call it the priority site
or whatever we want to call it. I think we are going to come right back to next door and
we might as well bite the bullet today. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and vote. Yes, Mr. Acree?
Mr. Acree: I’d just like to correct one thing for the record. The funding in Phase
III for the renovations to this building were $8,721,250. Of that amount, $2,832,907 have
been either spent for or encumbered, and that leaves a balance of $5,888,343.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, also on any information we get about sites or anything
else, this money that we do encumber or take away from this renovation project, I’d like
to know how it’s going to impact the life safety aspects of operating this building and the
facility infrastructure itself, elevators and different wiring and different services, fire
systems and so forth. Before we take it away, we have to occupy this building for the
next five years and that would be probably when we would ask for the additional money
63
to renovate it. But again, I’m all for building a house but I’m also all for building it with
money that we have. And too, for this government to run efficiently and effectively, we
need to know how much it’s going to cost before we begin, and that’s the right way to do
things.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a substitute motion on the floor from
Commissioner Brigham that would form a site selection committee.
Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Mayor. How would that committee be
formed?
Mr. Mayor: Well, I was going to ask that question after you voted on it. And that
may be a good one to ask the maker of the motion what he had in mind.
Mr. Bridges: I have no objection to the Mayor appointing it.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I didn’t particularly have anything in mind. I
thought we needed as a Commission to have a site selection committee. We obviously
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: That might be a good job for the Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Acree, you
have something else you wanted to add?
Mr. Acree: Yes, I just wanted to also -- let me just add about the additional costs
for upgrading this building. When the space consultants performed their study, they
estimated the total costs of renovating the Municipal Building of $13 million and based
on the rough estimates in terms of additional HV and electrical up into the towers, rather
than just in the basement, restrooms, elevators, interior, the renovations, exterior
renovations and ADA compliance issues, which the restrooms we have in the building
now we cannot make compliant with those regulations -- we’re going to need, we would
need an addition $11 million, which puts it right at the $13 million figure that the
consultants brought.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We are going to call the question on the substitute motion,
and that is to appoint the site selection committee. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s take up the two items on the addendum agenda, if we may,
Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
64
Addendum Item 1: Resolution in support of the location of a Cancer Center in
Augusta.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, if you will draft the appropriate resolution for us.
Clerk:
Addendum Item 2: Discuss the rescheduling of the SPLOST Phase IV Priority List.
Mr. Mayor: Whose item was this? Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: No.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I noticed in the previous minutes, the verbatim minutes,
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, that we suggested that we would be prioritizing the SPLOST today.
I understand that the minutes got a little ahead of the Administrator, and I’d rather be
ahead of the Administrator than behind the Administrator. But after the DOR Committee
we have a second work session on the
today, it was suggested by Walter and Lena that
th,
SPLOST on the 12if you want one, gentlemen, and that would be at 12:00 noon
prior to the Finance Committee, which I’m told by the Chairman of the
Administrative Services Committee, who is the Vice Chairman of my Finance
Committee that I darn well better start on time at 1 p.m. and be finished by 2
because he had important business to handle in Administrative Services, and that
th,
the prioritization take place on the Called meeting on the 14, added to our agenda
th
on the 14. I make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Could I have those dates and what’s happening on them again,
Steve?
Mr. Shepard: Well, we’re going to have committees around here on next
Monday, and so the idea was if you’re going to have work session that we go ahead and
do it on the day that we’d all be here and the work session would convene at noon, then
th
the [inaudible] convene at 1:00 [inaudible]. The 14 we have a meeting here, I’m told,
65
to have, to receive the recommendations of Bennett & Associates on the Administrator,
so we’re going to be here anyway, I think.
Mr. Mayor: That’s at 2 p.m.
Mr. Shepard: 2 p.m.?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Shepard: So I would suggest we prioritize the SPLOST at the same time. 2
p.m.
Mr. Williams: 2 p.m.?
Mr. Shepard: 2 p.m.
th
Mr. Mayor: 2 p.m. on the 14.
th
Mr. Shepard: The 14.
Mr. Mayor: We don’t need a motion on that, do we, Mr. Shepard? Just note that
on our calendars?
Mr. Shepard: Well, the last time we passed the motion it didn’t get on the agenda,
so I mean maybe the calendar would be the better was to do it.
Mr. Mayor: Everyone please note those dates and time on your calendars, please.
If you missed them, you can refer to the verbatim minutes. The next item is Mr. Wall.
74. LEGAL MEETING
Discuss Litigation matters.
?
Mr. Wall: The only thing I have, contrary to what’s in the agenda, is just
litigation matters.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I have a question I want to ask in that regard to
litigation matters, too, Jim, in the legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion we go into executive session to discuss --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, a point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
66
Mr. Williams: Any personnel matters, Jim?
Mr. Mayor: No, he doesn’t have that. He doesn’t have a personnel matter and he
doesn’t have a real estate matter. He has litigation to discussion with us. Do we have a
motion to go into executive session?
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: We will move into executive session without objection.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:11 - 6:02 P.M.]
Mr. Mayor: We will come back to order. The Chair will entertain a motion to
authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit.
75. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? Signed without objection. Is there any other
business to come before the Commission?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to take this opportunity to invite everybody
to the first and hopefully annual state of the Sixth District Community meeting tonight at
the Gracewood Community Center from 7 until 9. Y’all come.
Mr. Mayor: Is it free?
Mr. Cheek: We have water in the water fountain [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Any other business? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn. We are
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
67
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 6, 2001.
Clerk of Commission