HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommission Meeting - April 1, 2010
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
APRIL 1, 2010
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 5:00 p.m., April 1, 2010, the Hon.
Deke Copenhaver, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Lockett, Smith, Mason, Grantham, Hatney, Aitken, Jackson, Bowles
and Brigham, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Absent: Hon. Johnson, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
The invocation was given by Father Matthew Erickson, Parochial Vicar, St. Joseph
Catholic Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was recited.
DELEGATIONS
B. Mr. Dan Walton, Executive Director. RE: Update from Richmond County Medical
Society Project Access, Inc. relating to program operations and statistics.
Mr. Walton: In 2009 we served 678 participants from Richmond County. Since Project
Access’ inception July of 2002 we’ve served more than 3200 patients or participants. As of
st
December the 31 2009 we had 501 active Richmond County participants receiving services
through Project Access. Our enrollment was up 30% in 2009. In 2009 Project Access provided
over 7500 prescriptions. We provided more than $1.88 million dollars in hospital donated
hospital physician and prescriptive services. Very quickly I’ll provide you with an analysis of
the patients we served in 2009. 31% of our patients were male, 69% were female. 33% of our
patients came from zip code 30906, 19% from 30904, 17% from 30901, 15% from 30815 and
11% from 30909. 5% of the other patients came from various other surrounding zip codes. 39%
of our patients were ages 50-59, 30% of our patients were 40-49. 13% were ages 60-64, 12%
ages 30-39. And 7% were ages 19-29. 60% of our patients were African American, 38% were
Caucasian. 2% were various other races. Lastly again I’d like to thank you funding this
program. I think it’s important. As most of you know Congress passes a sweeping healthcare
reform. I think we’re still unsure as to how that’s going to work out. From what we’re being
told a lot of the, we won’t see a lot of this for several years. So I’d just like to stress the
importance of how many people this program has helped over the past eight years and thank you
again.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, onto the next delegation.
DELEGATIONS
C. Mr. John Shields, ShieldsDESIGN LLC RE: Update relative to the Augusta
Development Plan; Augusta Green Agenda.
Mr. Mayor: And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, sir.
1
Mr. Shields: Absolutely. Actually all I’m going to do is I’m going to hand out some
summary sheets that I have developed as to where we are in the plan so far. And I’d like for
people to this is kind of one page says all. There’s a lot of questions in it I’m pretty sure. I
would just like for everybody and anybody who to take a good look at it and I’m sure there’ll be
some questions. I beg people to be in touch with me. I think you all have my contact
information. Just the other thing I would say is that I am in town now for actually on and off for
the next three weeks. And I’m meeting individually with the stakeholders with regards to the
plan that we’re trying to put together and the project areas that we’re trying to put together.
Meeting individually this week and then well Masters Weeks you know what that is. And the
following week we’re going to be doing some round table discussion in each of these project
areas or at least several of them, as many as we can get a group together to talk about it. So in
conclusion I’d just like for people to remember that this is an action agenda, a development
agenda. This is supposed to guide growth and development in the city for the next twenty years.
It has two basic components to it. One is an Overall Growth Management Plan for the city of
Augusta. And so it’s you know looking to the citywide. And then we’re focusing in on several
specific project areas that have that we think are high priority areas and there’s some really
ambitious initiatives in there. And that’s what we’re meeting with the stakeholders on. I’m now
trying to build a group of champions. And I’ll just conclude by saying it’s really an exciting
time in the process because I’m getting and awful lot of positive feedback.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you so much, John. Madam Clerk, on to the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1-39, items 1-39. For the benefit of any
objectors to our alcohol petitions, once the petition is read if you would signify your objection by
raising your hand.
Item 1: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection
with the location at 3179 Gordon Hwy.
Item 2: Is for an on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be in connection with
S. Bar located at 1505-A North Leg Road.
Item 3: Is for an on premise Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with 1032 Broad
Street. There will be Sunday Sales.
Item 4: Is for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with Augusta
LLC at 78 Milledge Rd.
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions?
Mr. Russell: None noted, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, our consent agenda consists of
items 1-39 with no objections to our alcohol petitions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am. Do we, yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, if I can. Item 40 the reason it was not consented is that it didn’t
meet the time threshold when we met before. So if it would please our constituents or our
2
colleagues at least that we consent that because we already approved it but we couldn’t put it on
the consent agenda because of the time factor.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other additions?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you. If you don’t mind I’d like to have a little further explanation
on that Item 40 as to these funds had already been directed and now it appears that they’ve been
redirected, reprogrammed for various other projects and I don’t know that we reviewed those
projects they’re going to.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we will keep that one off of consent. We don’t have unanimous
consent.
Mr. Grantham: You ready for any pulls?
Mr. Mayor: Not yet. Do we have any items to be added to, I think forty-three,
absolutely. Any further items to be added to? Any items to be pulled for discussion?
Mr. Grantham: Item 12.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham, number twelve?
Mr. Grantham: And number 26.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Number 27.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Number 9 and number 19.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have any further items to be pulled for discussion? Hearing
none, I would look for a motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Mason: So moved.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
3
CONSENT AGENDA
PUBLIC SERVICES
1. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 10-14: A request by Jack B. Lee for an on
premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Punch
Bowl Lounge located at 319 Gordon Hwy. There will be Dance. District 3. Super District
10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 22, 2010)
2. Motion to approve New Application: A.N. 10-15: request by Roderick D. Stokes for an
on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with S. Bar,
Inc. located at 1505-A North Leg Rd. There will be Dance. District 3. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 22, 2010)
3. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 10-16: request by Sae Shin for an
on premise consumption Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with the Soy Noodle
House located at 1032 Broad St. There will be Sunday Sales. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 22, 2010)
4. Motion to approve New Ownership Application: A.N. 10-18: request by David H.
Ryther, Jr. for an on premise consumption Beer license to be used in connection with the
Hospitality Food Services – Augusta LLC located at 78 Milledge Rd. There will be Sunday
Sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 22,
2010)
5. Motion to approve Amendment #3 to the Cooperative Agreement for nutrition program
for Senior Services with CSRA RC. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 22,
2010)
6. Motion to authorize a Pre-Application to the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
for a 2010 Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Grant. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 22, 2010)
7. Motion to approve the 2010 Operational Agreement for the Augusta Soccer Park with
st
the Administrator providing a funding source at the April 1 meeting. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 22, 2010)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
8. Motion to approve Redevelopment Plan and Formation of URA as well as approval of
an Intergovernmental Agreement between Augusta and the Newly Formed URA with some
minor cleanup changes and one substantive revision to delineate between the bonding
powers under the urban redevelopment law and under the redevelopment powers law, to
approve the two accompanying resolutions and to approve the appointment of the board to
include Tameka Allen as chairman to a three-year term, Betty Beard as Vice-Chair to a
three-year term, George Patty to a two-year term, Tim Schroer to a two-year term and
Erik Montgomery to a one-year term and no term limitations. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 22, 2010)
PUBLIC SAFETY
10. Motion to approve awarding of Bid Item #10-038, Work Uniforms for the Augusta Fire
Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 22, 2010)
11. Motion to approve acquisition of Icon Case Management Software for the Richmond
County Civic & Magistrate Court Clerk. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March
22, 2010)
4
13. Motion to approve the submission by the Superior Court of a grant application for the
continuation of treatment services for the Augusta Judicial Circuit Drug Court for the
period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 with no matching funds required. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee March 22, 2010)
FINANCE
14. Motion to approve replacements with three Crown Victoria vehicles for the Marshal’s
Office. (Approved by Finance Committee March 22, 2010)
15. Motion to approve request from Public Services Department-Maintenance Division to
replace a current 48-month lease of two motor graders with a new 60-month lease from
Yancey Brothers Caterpillar, Inc. of Augusta, Georgia for $2,030.28 each per month
(Georgia State Contract Bid #SWC-9078254621). (Approved by Finance Committee March
22, 2010)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of 5 Chevrolet Impalas for the Sheriff’s Office,
Criminal Investigation Division (CID) from Grant Funds. (Approved by Finance
Committee March 22, 2010)
17. Motion to approve for the purchase of Sheriff’s Office public safety vehicles for 2010
from Capital Outlay funds. (Approved by Finance Committee March 22, 2010)
18. Motion to approve abatement of ad Valorem taxes on property acquired by Augusta
and Land Bank. (Approved by Finance Committee March 22, 2010)
20. Motion to approve the purchase of additional shelving and other items in the amount of
$475,600 funded from SPLOST III, IV and project contingency. (Approved by Finance
Committee March 22, 2010)
21. Motion to approve the amounts of disbursements to outside agencies from April
through the end of June 2010 with the 15% reduction. (Approved by Finance Committee
March 22, 2010)
ENGINEERING SERVICES
22. Motion to approve and authorize Augusta Engineering Department (AED) to offer mid-
range salary to a potential candidate for the Chief Surveyor (Civil Engineer III) position.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
23. Motion to approve contract award to ATC Associates Inc. for storm water permitting
services. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
24. Motion to approve construction contract award to Blair Construction in the amount of
$771,378.13. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
25. Motion to approve the Solid Waste Department to purchase fuel using the most
economical means – the state contract and/or the Augusta bid item. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire 8,994 sq. ft. of permanent easement of
2993 Willis Foreman Road – PIN: 151-0-020-00-0. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 22, 2010)
29. Motion to authorize condemnation to acquire 11,556 sq. ft. of permanent easement and
5,658 square feet of temporary easement of 4116 Deans Bridge Road – PIN: 150-0-002-00-
0. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
30. Motion to approve the purchase of parts to rebuild 5 control panels for various lift
stations. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
5
31. Motion to approve Georgia Power Company Governmental Encroachment Agreement
No. 31189. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
32. Motion to approve and accept a Deed of Dedication and Maintenance Agreement for
Highland Ridge Office Park. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22,
2010)
33. Motion to approve and accept a Deed of Dedication from USPG Portfolio Two, LLC
(WalMart, Bobby Jones). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
34. Motion to approve an Option for the purposes of acquiring an easement between
Electrical Realty And Sales Company, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, as optionee, in
connection with the Marvin Griffin Road Improvement Project, (300 sq. ft.) permanent
drainage and utility easement and (6,459 sq. ft.) of temporary construction easement from
the property located at: 1432 Marvin Griffin Road, private, at the purchase price of
$600.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
35. Motion to approve award of Construction Contract to J. Harris Trucking and
Construction, Inc. in the amount of $297,101.48 for the Storm Drainage Improvements at
Village West, subject to receipt of signed contracts and proper bonds as requested by AED.
Funding is available from SPLOST Phase IV Fund Account Balance. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
36. Motion to approve the Capital Project Budget number 324-041110-201824333 and
award the Design Consultant Services Agreement to Cranston Engineering Group, PC, in
the amount of $196,430.00 for the Wrightsboro Road Widening, Phase I project. Funding is
available in the project engineering account for the Engineering Department. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee March 22, 2010)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
37. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held on
March 16, 2010.
APPOINTMENT(S)
38. Motion to approve the following appointments Brenda Morton, Augusta Library
Board, Paul Muckenfuss Sr., Riverfront Development Review Board, George (Chip)
Fisher, Jr., General Aviation Commission, Harry James, Historic Preservation
Commission, Gregory O’Connor, Public Facilities, Inc., Cary Rivers, Augusta Port
Authority, Aishia Leverett, ARC Personnel Board, Thomas B. Burxton, Citizen Small
Business Advisory Board, Brook H. Buxton, Canal Authority, Donald Thompson, Augusta
Aviation Commission, Rick Keurogllan, ARC Planning Commission, Birkie Ayer, ARC
Tree Commission representing District 1.
ATTORNEY
39. An Ordinance to amend the Augusta, GA Code Title One Section1-2-2 relating to the
time and place for Commission and Committee meetings of the Augusta-Richmond County
Board of Commissioners; to repeal all Code sections and Ordinances and parts of Code
sections and Ordinances in conflict herewith; to provide an effective date and for other
purposes. (Approved by the Augusta Commission March 16, 2010 – second reading)
OTHER BUSINESS
6
43. Motion to approve a Resolution urging completion of the planned permanent repository
project at Yucca Mountain. (Requested by Commissioner Joe Jackson)
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Mr. Hatney: Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: It’s unanimous.
Mr. Hatney: I abstain on alcohol.
The Clerk: That motion carries with Mr. Johnson out and Commissioner Hatney
abstaining on the alcohol petitions.
Mr. Hatney abstains.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 1-4]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 5-8, 10-11, 13-18, 20-25, 28-39, 43]
Mr. Mason: The additions. What are we doing?
Mr. Mayor: And, I’m sorry, I missed the additions to the agenda. We have three
additions to the agenda that should be in front of you.
The Clerk: And we also have one that was just handed to us. It’s regarding a resolution
to authorize the solid waste management authority regarding the bond project out at the Solid
Waste Department.
Mr. Brigham: You don’t have unanimous consent.
Mr. Grantham: You don’t have to have unanimous consent.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Can we amend the consent agenda with the addition to the agenda as
item number one?
Mr. Mayor: Adding number one to the consent?
7
The Clerk: Well, do we have unanimous consent to, objections?
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objections to that?
Mr. Mason: To add one and what two?
Mr. Mayor: No just one.
Mr. Mason: Okay.
The Clerk: To the consent agenda? Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
The Clerk: So that’s to add and approve, right?
Mr. Grantham: Right.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and do we have unanimous consent to add two and three?
The Clerk: To the agenda?
Mr. Mayor: To the agenda.
The Clerk: To add, okay.
Mr. Grantham: To add.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay um, Madam Clerk, let’s go with the pulled items first.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
9. Motion to approve proposed pay study process for 2010/2011/2012. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 22, 2010)
Mr. Mayor: And these were being pulled so fast. Whose pull was that one?
The Clerk: Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
8
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There’s been considerable discussion as to whether
or not this has been in the best interest of the county. I would like to direct if I could, Mr.
Mayor, a couple of questions to our Administrator. He according to the information I have was
the one that prepared the proposal or the justification for this being on the agenda today. The
proposal indicated that internal pay and equities between positions and classes of positions could
exist. And it is anticipated that corrective action is necessary. My question to the Administrator
is isn’t it true that these things do exist and that corrective action is necessary? Your proposal
also reflects and I quote. “To correct any existing problems and avoid future legal challenges
such as EEO complaints paid aperitifs charges, Lilly Ledbetter (inaudible) violations and
etcetera. A fair and systematic classification review process should be completed and
implemented. What agenda item number nine is recommending is not in regards to what was
mentioned there. Also in the proposal it’s reflected that the most effective and fastest method to
address all the issues that may require corrective action would be to contract with an outside
compensation authority through RFP’s. And this approach would allow for a complete analysis
of the grade and pay structure for all positions at about the same time as opposed to over a three-
year period. And it goes on to say that the anticipated costs of implementing all of the
anticipated recommendations at the same time would be cost prohibitive. Mr. Administrator, I
would like to know when you say cost prohibitive are you referring to the cost of the study or the
anticipated increased costs of salaries. He also stated and, Mr. Mayor, I think if you’ll give me a
little liberty here in your proposal Human Resources recommends a less costly and more
methodical approach that would not require contracting with outside resources and would allow
for a systemic and comprehensive review cycle for all departments. We talk about
(unintelligible) process ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Lockett, you’re getting well over ---
Mr. Lockett: Can I have five seconds?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Administrator, Ms. EEO Officer, Ms. Human Resource Officer, you all
know that this is contrary to the federal regulations. This is definitely pay disparity. In this
county, we paid our settlements we’ve had lawsuits and we can’t afford to have anymore because
it could possibly bankrupt us.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: You know I think the reason you have this in front of you is we can share,
we share Commissioner Lockett’s concerns. As you know over the past ten years and even prior
to that during the consolidation we have created issues that we have not done a very good job of
solving. We have got situations where we have looked at this. We tried to look at a fairly
comprehensive use several years ago. Upon my first arrival and we didn’t do a very good job of
getting it passed. We’ve taken department by department and tried to fix that. And that seems to
be the most successful way we’ve done that. I think what you’re looking at before you today
Commissioner Lockett is an attempt to put together a process that moves us towards the goals
that you’ve established. That process is not going to be pleasant and the fact that a lot of times
9
you’re going to be running into people that think they should get a whole lot more money than
what they should get. And a lot of times you’re going to create situations that um, that might not
be pleasant and that’s one of the reasons why it’s probably not a political process. It needs to be
a process managed through in my mind, my office and HR as we go forward. We’ve got some
work to do and that work is going to be tough. And we thought that if you did it over a period of
three-years and continue the rotation of that process and looked at those jobs every three years as
you move forward you’re going to find that you’re going to be a whole lot better off in solving
those problems. We’ve had that conversation and I’ve had that conversation with HR. I’ve had
that conversation with our Attorney and I’ve had that conversation collectively with the EEO
Office. And while this might not be the best approach I think it’s the most realistic and the most
plausible approach and will probably have some degree of success as we move forward. As with
a lot of things in my mind we can no longer afford to do nothing. And this is the first step in the
direction to correct issues that have been here in both the county and the city prior to the joining
and have been brought forth in the consolidated government. So I would disagree that that this
isn’t a good thing. I would suggest that this isn’t perfect but it is the first step of what’s going to
be many as we continue to keep putting our house in order. And I would urge you all to support
this resolution.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, if I could be recognized.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett, this will be your second time.
Mr. Lockett: And I appreciate that. Mr. Administrator, I heard what you said and I
understand what you said but I disagree with a good bit of what you said. I would like for you to
tell me if this is approved what will be the projected high and low salaries. It’s my
understanding that some people will get as much as fifteen or twenty thousand dollars pay
increase in year one where we got some lower level employees that won’t see a pay increase at
all if then two or three years later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Lockett, you’re potentially exactly right and we won’t know the end
result of that until we actually proceed forward with what we’ve got. But as you do know
because we’ve had this discussion over the years we’ve done a very simple cost of living
increase across the board. That has done nothing but exaggerate some of the differences that we
have. We haven’t taken a look at some of the midrange and upper range people to look and see
what they actually should be paid. You know there are two different approaches and the
approach that we’ve taken in the past has been that easy way out by giving everybody a
percentage. The tough questions we haven’t asked on what are the jobs worth, what’s the market
value and what do we need to have in those jobs to continue to attract the best employees to
serve our citizens. And that’s what I suggest we do now. And you know it’s one of those things
you suggest that’s going to do nothing but create some consternation but it’s time for us to do
that I think and fight those battles as we move forward.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Although I don’t necessarily disagree that it’s, that
we need to look at right sides and in doing what’s necessary in terms of equitable pay I don’t
10
know that we’re at point to move forward with this right now. I do need to hear from the Human
Resources and then I need to hear from the EEO, their standpoint or opinion in reference to
moving forward with this and I may have some questions in between that point if we could get
Chester ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell: --- Powell.
Mr. Powell: Good evening, Rod Powell, Human Resources Director. Sir, what can I
address?
Mr. Mason: Well uh, you were I guess tasked or co-tasked to bring this, put this together.
Is that correct?
Mr. Powell: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so in your opinion, and you’ve been here what, a little bit over a year,
a year and a half or so? So you’re saying that you saw some disparity there or you’re basing that
on what exactly?
Mr. Powell: Well uh, years of experience. I have been in this career field for, I hate to
admit it but over 30 years. I’ve been through a number of extensive pay studies in city and
county government in the past. Just looking at the situation here as the Administrator spoke to
this issue it’s been a long time. It’s been since ’96 that any kind of comprehensive studies have
been done. The rule of thumb in HR is you do a review about every three years. So we’re a little
bit behind. What happens over the course of time is jobs that are out of alignment get further out
of alignment and without addressing that making sure that internally jobs are paid at the proper
rate and people at the same level of work are paid at roughly the same grade level. That’s one
issue. That’s called Internal Equity. The other is called External Equity and that is do all of our
jobs stack up against similar cities and counties throughout he southeast about our size. So the
two issues that need to be addressed is our pay scale, where it ought to be and the people paid
equitably internally. I would say both of those things need to be addressed. And to be honest
with you the best way is to do it all at once do a study. That’s the best way to do it. And then we
don’t have people waiting two or three years for their turn to come up because that’s two or three
more years they’re waiting to have their pay appropriately addressed. So the best way is all at
one time. The compromise is to do a three-year plan as we proposed. So that’s, that is a
compromise.
Mr. Mason: Okay, so what I hearing you say is the best way is to do it all at once. So the
most fair and most equitable way is to do it all at once not the way that’s being proposed here
today.
Mr. Powell: Yes, it is the best way, it’s the most fair and equitable way because you
review everyone at once. The other part of it is, is we have a very small staff. To look at pay
you need to bring in an outside consultant who is objective, nobody questions their integrity and
11
professionalism. They look at all of it at one time, internally and externally and then make the
recommendations and tell it like it is. But every, all the jobs get looked at together and then
nobody’s left behind. That’s it is the most fair way. It is the big pop it’s the most expensive way
too but you sort of take your medicine and move on. And there are ways to deal with that. You
can spread out the cost over several years to implement it. But at least you’ve got the data that
gives us a roadmap on where to go. So ---
Mr. Mason: Absolutely, thank you. If I could thank you very much.
Ms. Speaker: Jacqueline Humphrey.
Mr. Mason: Thank you. The question I have for you in reference to, well first of all were
you involved in the I’m going to say not necessarily the decision making process but as we came
through this process you were involved in this process I terms of putting this proposal together
here?
Ms. Humphrey: We did discuss that proposal there.
Mr. Mason: Okay, well let me just ask you this. What is your opinion professional
opinion in reference to the proposal that’s sitting in front of us here today?
Ms. Humphrey: The proposal that’s in front of you today is part of a attempt to solidify
the disparity that is within in the city. Why it hasn’t been done no one can really pinpoint why.
The point is it’s not done. Is there a problem? Yes. Do we need to address it? Yes. Which way
you want to take your medicine one time or in little bits or pieces? There is a problem with
disparity within the city. It does need to be addressed.
Mr. Mason: So do you have an opinion one way or the other in terms of the method of
addressing this particular issue?
Ms. Humphrey: It needs to be equal as we do it. People need to know that’s it’s going to
happen. How we’re going to do it we need to have a solidified plan to say we’re going to about
doing this and reaching this point where we need to be at this time. The fair way of doing it I
don’t know if there’s a fair way because you’re going to have to select different directorates and
different departments. How do we go about saying this department does first and this one goes
second?
Mr. Mason: But there has been a determination made as to which department is going
first and second hasn’t it, has there not?
Ms. Humphrey: Yes, it has.
Mr. Mason: Do we know what those, which departments those are?
Ms. Humphrey: Yes, it’s on there.
12
Mr. Mason: And so based on that information have those departments received any
increases in the previous three, four, five years, six years or anything like that? Because I heard
somebody say 1996 but I was under the impression that there had been some, some departments
looked at previous and perhaps received some, some increase. Yes, no?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, in fact there have. We and that’s the issue we’re trying to address is
that we have because of significant differences in the pay scales and the availability of people
made some stopgap changes. IT we looked at that several years ago and made changes based on
the fact that we were unable to attract and keep qualified people. Public Safety in its infancy we
made some across the board decisions there because as the Sheriff came in and talked we were
unable to keep trained law enforcement people. So you made some bumps there. I’m not you
know saying this is the best way to do it, the recommendation. Based on my experience here this
seems to be the best way to move us forward and the most, and the best way to be able to afford
to move us forward at this particular point in time. All things being equal I would love for y’all
to dedicate the significant resources to hire a consultant to come in and solve all those issues as
we could given the conversations we have on a regular basis about the availability of dollars.
You know what you’re looking at is a compromise that moves us towards the end goal in a
format in a manner that I think we can afford. Is it perfect? No, but it does move us in a
direction and the question becomes at that point as we bring these things to you, you need to look
at them in a favorable manner. And that’s part of the issue there too that we’ve had in the past is
the discussions become involved with issues beyond the job itself and the pay for the job itself
and the market of that particular position. And that’s why it needs to be done in my mind and
the most neutral manner possible and you deal with it in that manner. I think all of us, the HR,
Jacqueline and the Attorney share the same concern that we need to take some step to go
forward. I don’t think any of us would say that if we can find the dollars to do it all at once and
try to make those changes would be the best way to do it but I think based on the experience of
trying to get massive things through this Commission, because of the complexity of the issues we
try to pick those areas that are the hardest hit and try to move forward with those. And that’s
what we’ve done. Just in the last year we did Engineering. And y’all approved some changes
there. Part of this needs to be timed with reorganizations not only as we look at the jobs
themselves and look at the duties of those responsibilities but look and determine whether or not
we continue to need those jobs. I mean some of the recommendations that were out there before
that generated this we were eliminating some positions in hopes in expanding the duties of those
people there which some involved some increases. The problem becomes as you look at the
volume of what we’re trying to do it gets overwhelming. When you look at it specifically it
unfortunately narrows it to the point where we’re might not be making somebody happy at the
other end. So there’s a double-edged sword there. This hopefully gets us in the direction we
need to be and it’s still going to be a tough fight.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: In the Engineering Department the Director and maybe HR and somebody
else came up with the solutions there. Is that not true, Fred?
13
Mr. Russell: Yes, the Engineering Department that was blessed by HR we, and came up
with those solutions that moved us forward in those areas. As we look at the departments we’ve
got to do it both vertically and horizontally because not only do we have specific positions in
each department we have positions that are shared across departments. So it complicates the
issue tremendously as you move forward there. But that was the general approach, sir.
Mr. Smith: I know but didn’t that work out pretty good?
Mr. Russell: It worked out great if you were in Engineering. If you were in some of the
other departments it probably didn’t work out as well as you’d want it because they’re coming to
a saying well you did this for Engineering how come you haven’t looked at us yet or how come
you haven’t done that. I mean what we were trying to do with those moves was fill stopgap
needs to make sure we get qualified people as best we can in those positions. That’s why we’re
saying we need a plan. And what you have in front of you today is just a plan. You still get to
look at each department. You still get to have your input there if you want that input. If I was
somebody sitting in your chair right now I would say you know HR, EEO, Administrator and the
Attorney figure out what to do and let’s move forward.
Mr. Mayor: And I’m just going to say and, Reverend Hatney, I’ll get to you in a second.
But that’s, you know, Jacqueline said she doesn’t know why it hadn’t been done. Well the
longer we go without doing this the worse it’s going to get. And to go from 1996 to now and not
to address it even if this is not perfect we definitely I think we’re all in agreement that we need to
start stepping and get moving forward. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Just a couple things, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Administrator, if I’m not mistaken a
few years ago I believe it was in ’08 we did have a study done by somebody that we paid
$25/30,000 dollars to, to try and get us I thought started. And it seems like we’re not using any
of the suggestions that they brought forth. The other thing here that concerns me is that in as you
look at your recommendation area there is one department in there that recently within the last
three years along with some others did the same thing you’re trying to do now. They did it then
and they’re back in the first group now. Now my nervousness is that when you look at how you
have it structured the, and this is not, may not be a proper statement but people need a living
wage not so much a minimum wage. And the folk who are really not making much money are in
the third year. That bothers me. I don’t have any problem with getting your Directors where
they ought to be but then to me it looks like we need to start from the bottom up rather than
going from the top down. There’s something wrong with that picture.
Mr. Mason: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mason: Yeah, my final comment on that is and I agree with you one hundred
percent. I think all of us up here wants to see the right thing and a fair thing being done. I think
it’s a shame and a sham really that this had not been looked at appropriately since 1996 or
whatever the case may be. So make no mistake about it I’m very much for righting the ship but
there’s a right way to right the ship. And we’ve been given one choice here today. I can’t
14
support that one here today but I do 100% feel like we need to take a look at this and determine
which avenue of approach or methodology we need to look at. In addition to that I understand
that this was done internally and maybe I have some reservations about that this being done
internally. Maybe we do need some outside eyes looking at it. Maybe they already have and we
haven’t taken those suggestions as being done. So there was a question brought up about 2008.
Was there a consultant already done in 2008 or consult done in 2008 where it gave us some
suggestions on which way to go?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir. Buck Consultants came in and did a second study. They did one
years and years ago. They did a second study in 2008. Those findings were presented and ran
into some of the issues we face here. They weren’t very broad. There were some things there
I’ll be happy to let you review but it becomes and issues of whether or not you have the political
will to go ahead and make some tough decisions and move forward. And that becomes the issue
that we’ve got all along. We begin to become mired down in the detail and not looking at the big
picture. And that becomes an issue that’s very tough to deal with. Like I said you’ve taken
some emergency action but in my mind you need to look at the whole situation. To respond to
Dr. Hatney’s question I don’t disagree that you got to go from the bottom to the top. You’ve
also got to go from the middle out and whatever. This isn’t about you know providing a wage to
somebody. It’s about determining how much they should get paid for the duties that they
perform. And one reason if and one, landfill, if landfill is what I believe you’re talking about,
solid waste we might go through there and find out that we did a pretty good job several years
ago and don’t have to make any adjustments there. And that’s one of the issues that you look at.
So but I think the issue becomes you need to adopt a process to go through that and make it
done. And that’s where you’re going.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: After all this lengthy discussion I’m going to make a motion to approve.
And if we’re not ready to vote on it maybe somebody will make a substitute to send it back to
Committee. But I think it’s time to move on.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: My substitute motion would be is that we allow the, take a look at that study
that was done in ’08 with the same folks that’s doing this. And somewhere in between what
you’re talking about and what they’re talking about we should find an equitable way of
approaching this thing. Because I just tremble when we take the folk that are making a decent
wage take them first and you’ve got fold down the ladder who can’t hardly pay to ride the bus.
There’s something wrong with that picture when you’re talking about being fair and equitable.
So I’m just ---
15
Mr. Mayor: Okay and that’s a substitute motion?
Mr. Hatney: That we take that study that was done in ’08 and those same folk who were
looking at this go back and review that and review what you’re talking about doing here. And
somewhere in the middle you ought to be able to come up with something a little more feasible
for, give a little bit more better feeling towards what we’re trying to accomplish.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Mason: I will second that motion but I would hope that we can add on to that that
given the fact that there’s been other departments that have already received a raise or look in the
last two, three four years I’m not sure how they could be a part of the first ones that are going to
be looked at as we look at this one. So some kind of way if we can add to that motion that we
look at the priority of who it is that will receive these raises if that’s determined that is deemed
necessary. I would hope that we can look at that as well.
Mr. Hatney: Add that to it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, you’re adding that to it? Okay, we have a substitute motion and a
second. If there’s no further discussion Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of
voting.
Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Brigham and Mr. Grantham vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mason: You get to break the tie.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can’t do it. We will now vote on the original motion. And I would
just urge once again the longer we go without taking any action it’s just going to get worse and
worse. So those are my thoughts on that. Commissioners will now vote by, on the primary
motion by the usual sign of voting.
Mr. Mason, Mr. Lockett, Mr. Smith and Mr. Hatney vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
The Clerk: The motion fails 5-4 with Mr. Aitken voting yes, Mr. Bowles, Mr. Jackson,
Mr. Brigham and Mr. Hatney. Voting no, Mr. Alvin Mason, Mr. Lockett ---
Mr. Grantham: Madam Clerk, you need to correct that. Mr. Hatney voted No and Mr.
Grantham voted yes.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: I realize we look a lot alike but.
16
Mr. Grantham: We’re both bald.
The Clerk: One’s blond, one’s a brunette.
Mr. Hatney: That’s right!
Mr. Mayor: No action taken but that illustrates to me, you know, when we can’t agree on
something it’s not going to be perfect but we need to move forward. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: Mr. Mayor, if you’d like I would be happy to try to bring back something
that working with the Administrative Services Committee, to bring back something that moves
us forward with this. We do need to address this issue. We can no longer end up with 5-4 votes
as we move forward. We need to bring back something you can approve and I’ll work to do that,
sir.
Mr. Mayor: Please. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY
12. Motion to approve the Administrator’s recommendation to award Design/Build
Construction of a new Substation for the Marshall’s Office to Allen-Batchelor
Construction. (Approved by Public Safety Committee March 22, 2010)
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I think that was one ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: In reviewing the motion here to approve the Administrator’s
recommendation I was sitting at the Public Safety meeting and I reviewed some of the
information the backup information in regards to this and it puzzles me that we had several,
several bid packages and all of them conformed to our bid request. And in addition to that what I
understood as the first time this bid went out there was only one company that conformed to the
bid package. And I guess it was at the decision of the Procurement Department to go back out
on bids. And when that was done these four qualified in that regards and then a evaluation sheet
that is in your backup was put forth as to the decision made on presenting this project to the
bidder. And as I read it and if you would to turn to it. It’s so close in the two companies that
were involved in this that the total grade that was given to these two companies indicated you
know they were very qualified. In addition to that there was a small variance into the amount of
the bid dollars that was involved and I don’t know if it was a discussion made with each of these
companies on any reduction of their package of whatever. But I can’t understand why if you
grade higher and in the past that it seemed to be that that person winning that particular grade
evaluation was awarded the projects. The problem I’ve got is within the $4,000 dollar bid
package of these two companies. We’re leaving this up to a committee decision made up of
various people and I’m concerned that this may be falling into a personality situation.
17
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t have a recommendation as to approve it or disapprove it but I’m
just looking. We’ve been going through our procurement process for the last month in trying to
get this in order. And I hope this is not a reflection as to what’s taken place in our procurement
process right now as far as something like this happening again.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: I don’t have a recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion on this?
Mr. Mason: Motion to approve.
Mr. Smith: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madam Clerk, as we breeze through this agenda next agenda item, please.
The Clerk: Number 26. I believe Mr. Grantham asked for that one to be pulled as well?
Mr. Grantham: That’s right.
Mr. Hatney: Nineteen.
The Clerk: Nineteen, I’m sorry. Mr. Lockett I’m sorry.
The Clerk:
FINANCE
19. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Administrator to allow him to work with
Dr. Bloodworth to negotiate and come back with a final detailed plan to accomplish the
needs of both the city and the university regarding a 9.5 acre tract adjacent to their current
housing facilities in association with Augusta State University’s Master Plan. (Approved by
Finance Committee March 22, 2010)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
18
Mr. Lockett: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, the only thing I wanted to do is make sure that
included in this is the fact that the Aquatic Center would be allowed ‘x’ amount of square
footage for parking. I want to make sure that’s a part of it. Is that correct, Mr. Russell?
Mr. Russell: What the motion would be was for me to come back with a final deal
between the Augusta State, a final proposal between Augusta State and ourselves in relationship
to that. We’ve had discussions about the parking issue and several others and they’re ongoing at
the moment. But what this would do is actually authorize me to put together the final product for
your approval or disapproval at that point. And I would urge you to give me the opportunity to
do that.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grantham: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Jerry, did you?
Mr. Brigham: I just got a couple things I want to make sure that we got in there. We are
going to have this property appraised since ---
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Brigham: --- and we’re also maybe in negotiations for another piece of property
from the state?
Mr. Russell: There’s another piece of property that’s my understanding that’s owned by
the Board of Regents that we have a great deal of interest in and I would be neglect in not trying
to make sure we can make that an agreement between the board and them.
Mr. Brigham: And we’ll have that piece of property appraised also?
Mr. Russell: Yes, sir, we will.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham, I had a conversation regarding that with Steve
Stancil, head of the State’s Property Commission last week.
Mr. Brigham: Just thought I’d make sure.
Mr. Mayor: I appreciate your due diligence. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: That conversation you had with Mr. Stancil before or after we were
threatened to make a takeover our landfill?
Mr. Mayor: Okay, can I get a motion on this?
19
Mr. Mason: I’d like to hear more from Mr. Bowles.
Mr. Mayor: Come on, let’s get a motion.
The Clerk: We have a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Oh, we have a motion and second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign of voting. I think it’s going to be the Joe and Joe
show here.
The Clerk: Well, you might here on 26 and 27.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Mr. Smith, would you have any objection if these two companion items if I
call them at the same time ---
Mr. Smith: That would be fine.
The Clerk: --- to discuss? Okay.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES
26. Motion to approve or deny the use of Compressed Natural Gas as the required fuel
source for the Solid Waste Collections Contract. (Approved by Engineering Services
committee March 22, 2010)
27. Motion to approve the Solid Waste Department bonding of $20 million dollars for its
gas collection and control system. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
27, 2010)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith, this was yours?
The Clerk: Mr. Grantham and Mr. Smith. Mr. Grantham pulled twenty-six, Mr. Smith
pulled twenty-seven.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, which ever would like to start. Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, on the, the reason for pulling this I think it’s a grand idea.
And I think it’s something that we need to explore further. But I do think that something of this
magnitude with what we’re doing as far as our landfill is concerned and as far as the costs that’s
involved in something like this that we need to have a further information and study in regards to
this methane gas that, this fuel that we’re talking about. And I think that you know to go out and
go borrow $20 million dollars right now without having any broader explanation as to what the
use of it is and how it would be put into place is a little quick for me. With that being said I feel
20
like that we have contracts with our waste haulers and they have subcontracts with other waste
haulers and to impose such a mandate on any of them I think is out of our character and out of
our reasoning for doing business particularly in a privatized area. So I think we need to take this
and refer this back to committee as well to our Administrator to get additional information in
regards to this particular project. And I put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Hatney: Twenty-six and seven?
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Hatney: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I hate to disagree with my good friend, Mr. Grantham ---
Mr. Grantham: That’s not unusual.
Mr. Russell: --- but I hate it every time I have to. It just makes me feel bad. What we
asked for was the approval of the concept. And that concept would be to move forward with
what we thought to be using natural gas to not only fuel the trash trucks as they move through
but have a potential of moving forward with the, our own vehicles the compressed gas. In
addition it would give us an opportunity to go into the natural gas pipeline and move forward
with opportunities to sell that. What we’re looking at is a little bit broader approach in what
we’ve taken in the past there but one that would impact greatly not only on the 60,000 or so trash
customers that we have by hoping to keep their rates as low as possible but also impacting upon
the 200,000 citizens we have by hoping to manage their dollars a little bit better as we move
forward. And hoping to also impact on non-attainment status as we looked at that. What we
asked for in committee was an agreement on the process, an agreement on the long-term goal.
And that’s what that is. The $20 million dollar bond that follows that needs to be done in two
different sections there in my mind. You have the option there to do a $9 million dollar bond
and fix what we have to fix. And let me emphasize that. Fix what we have to fix, the EPA
regulations on the gas situation. The balance of that would be used to continue to move forward
in the collection of gas that would allow us to sell the product in addition to whatever. As you
know we are selling some to the (unintelligible) and that’s been successful. And we think we
can continue to do that and broaden that out a little bit more. We’re a long way away from
making this happen but like many things this is only the first step of a journey and we need to be
concerned on whether or not we’re going to make that step. The least thing that we need to do
today in my mind is approve the authorization to go ahead and fix those requirements that we
need to fix. And that’s about the $9 million dollars that’s required to do the EPA adjustments or
we are going to be not presently surprised with the EPA rulings that come out of that. What I
would suggest that you do though is continue to move forward on the path that Engineering took
to let us look at that. We’ll have many opportunities to learn more, many opportunities to deal
with the product. But once again you’ve got to look forward to a greener Augusta and this is one
of the steps that we’re trying to do to get there. So I would urge you to not to send it back now
but let us continue the process and continue to provide you with information as we go forward so
21
you can make good decisions on how we do that. It’s not an overnight deal. It’s a long-term
project and that’s what we need to move on that project.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I just want to make a quick comment with regards to what Fred said
about non-attainment status. Ultimately we’ve got to do something to improve our air quality.
This helps with that. If we go into non-attainment status you’re looking at our citizens having to
have their vehicles inspected at a cost to them each and every year. And as well as this being a
long-term revenue stream when you consider all the costs being pushed back on us by the state
that are going to continue to be I think we need to look at more revenue streams for the city.
Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to hear from Mark the emergency need
that he needs.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson: At this point we’re under a consent order from EPA or EPD, which is the
state agency, which is managing the federal rules for EPA. We signed that consent order we’ve
th
paid a fine and we need to, we have a September 14 deadline to have changes in play for that.
We need a new compressor, we need a new blower we need a new flare. In that $9 million
dollars we added a power generator that could be used to generate power for either putting it on
the grid or for offsetting our electricity costs if we go to C&G. But at a minimum compressor,
flare and blowers need to be bought and we need to make some expansion on our gas collection
field to minimize our impact.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Jackson.
Mr. Jackson: With that I’d like to make a substitute motion for the $9 million
dollars to get what needs to be done in compliance.
The Clerk: Um, ---
Mr. Mayor: Is there ---
The Clerk: What are you going to do on twenty-six? The motion was to send both of
those back to committee. That was the primary motion. So ---
Mr. Jackson: Well, it would just be twenty-six, well.
The Clerk: So your substitute motion would be sending twenty-six back to committee
and twenty-seven to do the $9 million?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Okay.
22
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second on that?
Mr. Aitken: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Commissioner Bowles, I know your hand up and then
Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And my concern is and T. Boones Pickens
summed it up this week as he’s testifying in front of Congress that our country has no energy
independence goal. And natural gas is that only goal. And if you look at hybrid cars with
electric batteries T. Boone Pickens summed it up when he said I don’t want to be dependent of
Saudi oil or Chinese batteries. And compressed natural gas is something and or course a lot of
people say us Commissioners up here emit a lot of high gas too but this is the only renewable
source of energy that this country produces that can power our vehicles. And it’s you know
you’re looking at a cost for large vehicles that are out of their life expectancy of about $25-
30,000 dollars to retrofit to be compatible for natural gas. And Congress is in the process of
setting up tax incentives for these companies and we’re not looking at implementing this for
three years. The contract expires at the end of this year so I don’t think we are leaving any
haulers out in the dark. I mean they’ve got three years to retrofit their equipment.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concerns, one I think we need to have some more
discussion on this $20 million dollars. From what I’m hearing us say we’re going to spend $9
million dollars whether or not we spend the twenty. And so I see we’re spending half of it
already. The other half I thought from what I heard in Engineering Services maybe Mr. Johnson
can make sure that I got it straight but this was an opportunity for us to get cleaner natural
methane gas to be used and it was opportunity to have it engineered and do the work at the same
time. And you know I’m kind of in favor of going to the natural gas. I think that we need to do
that. So I’m very much in favor of going on and approving item number twenty-six. And also I
think we need to have a better explanation of twenty-seven. I don’t think we’re getting a full
explanation of what’s going on here. Because if we’re going to spend $9 million dollars if we
can do the other things that we need to do for $11 million dollars at the same time I believe there
will be cost savings in the construction and also in the engineering to do that at the same time.
And that’s what I want to hear about. If we’re going to end up doing the project it makes more
sense to me to do both of them at once than to do them separately. That’s the same problem I’ve
had with some other things that we’ve done where we done it in piecemeal.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: I was just ---
Mr. Mason: Like to pay study.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Hatney then Commissioner Smith.
23
Mr. Hatney: Question, item twenty-six is simply to approve the usage of the natural gas.
Is that what, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: Yes, you’re right, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Just set things in motion actually. Now twenty-seven is where the rubber
hit the road.
Mr. Russell: Where the money’s at, yes, sir.
Mr. Hatney: Now I think Mr. Johnson you said you there’s some mandates from APD,
th
EPD whomever that has to be done and you got until September the 14 to do it. And that’s
going to cost $9 million dollars. Is that what you’re saying?
Mr. Johnson: It will cost ---
Mr. Hatney: Come on back, please, sir.
Mr. Johnson: It will cost less than $9 million dollars. $9 million dollars also had a power
generator in there to make some enhancement. But fundamentally I’ve got to get a blower, a
th
compressor and a flare in place by September 14. We would need to be utilizing emergency
procurement rules to get that done because just getting the equipment is a five month process.
Mr. Hatney: My question is then these items that you know you have to have and Mr.
Johnson and don’t take this personally please, should it have been listed out line what it’s going
to cost and presented to us so we’ll know what we? You know we’re asked to vote in the blind
here, that’s what we’re doing. You say you know what you want but we ain’t got a clue. Some
of these other fellows may know but I don’t have a clue what nothing costs. If you say you need
this it should be a cost item, that cost item. And then told that being part of the package. You
wouldn’t be asking as many stupid questions. I won’t say you wouldn’t be asking none but it
wouldn’t be as many. That’s all I’m saying.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith: Are we talking about both these agenda items at one time here or just twenty-
six?
Mr. Mayor: Both.
Mr. Hatney: They’re companion. One ain’t goin’ nowhere without the other. Twenty-
six is to approve I thought he said the usage of the natural gas. That’s all that’s for. That’s
against the process. Without that there ain’t no twenty-seven.
Mr. Smith: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
24
Mr. Smith: There’s no doubt about we’ve got to do something. We know that, there’s no
question about it we got to do something. But in talking to Mark about this, this $9 million
dollars is what he’s got to do. It probably won’t run that much. But the changing of this stuff
the technologies is moving so fast on it the other part that he’s talking about may never happen,
the rest of the $20 million of the whole $20 million. And I remember back in 1980 when the
county changed over to LP Gas on all the county vehicles and that was a can of worms that cost
this county lots of money. And what I’m hearing from Mark is these small haulers that contract
individuals that they’ll have to have their trucks retrofitted to fit this gas or buy a new truck to
the tune of about $250,000 dollars. And I don’t think they can do that. I don’t know how many
of these haulers can do it except the big ones like Waste Management and the others that are real
large which they get the contracts and then sub them out to these smaller guys. But if they do
that have to buy them buy new trucks then you know that our cost is going up. It’s got to for
them to pay for them trucks. So I think we need to take one step at a time with the $9 million
and let him go ahead and do what’s mandated to do by September. And we don’t know but
things might change out at Kaolin Plant that they might be using more now when things change.
At one point we was getting $100,000 a month from them. And of course the economy the way
it went down it’s dropped down some and I don’t know how much they’re getting now. But I
know that other things can come into play and we’ve talked about them and I don’t really think I
really need to bring them out at this time because I don’t know enough about it. I think we need
to have a ---
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Smith: --- a workshop, bring it back to committee and talk about it. Put all the
information, the unknowns on the table and talk about it before we vote on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and just um, Commissioner Lockett, I’ll get you but I just want to re-
clarify what that substitute motion was before we get to far down the line.
The Clerk: The substitute motion was to refer back to committee item 26. And on item
27 to proceed with the $9 million dollars to address EPD consent order.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My only question was, Mark, is there a
significant cost savings if both things should be approved? Or would it basically be about the
same amount if it’s broken down into two separate entities?
Mr. Johnson: If we bonded them separate you would have bond acquisitions fees that
would be about $400,000 dollars. What I’ve asked Finance for is can we do the Phase One
project out of fund balance and that gives you guys about 45 days to make a decision as to a
direction. And then whichever way you chose to go we will bond that solution, my fund balance,
enterprise fund balance.
Mr. Mayor: It’s not coming out of our money.
25
Mr. Johnson: It’s not coming out of general funds.
Mr. Mayor: Exactly. Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Johnson, with the Mayor’s permission my concern is and I do think we
the only way I see this can work is that we go ahead on and approve twenty-six. But in the
meantime you should bring back to us an itemized listing of materials, what they cost, estimates.
And I think it’s not fair to us to ask us to authorize you to spend $9 million dollars when we
don’t know what you’ll be buying.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Russell: If I could ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell.
Mr. Russell: --- respond to that Dr. Hatney. The problem with that at the moment is as
we move forward with that we need to go ahead and make those expenditures as we go down the
line. I was very close to authorizing, but if this meeting had not been scheduled today I was
close to authorizing that as an emergency nature to move forward. I understand your concern but
we really need to move forward with that and we will give you any detail that you need as we do
that. But if the best I can get today is the authorization to move forward using fund balance from
the landfill to bring and then replenish that with a bond at a later date to take care of the
emergency needs as demanded by the EPD, EPA I believe that would get us where we need to
be. Allow us to have a continuing dialog on the bigger question of do we want to continue to use
the gas and move forward and let you have the time to get input on that. But you know at this
point I need, we need to go ahead and move forward with fixing the consent order needs there.
Mr. Hatney: But I’m sure when EPD pointed out stuff they named them. They didn’t
say you got a problem and you need to fix it. They named the particular things that needed
fixing. That’s all I’m saying. If they had the listings of things that they named that needed
fixing had been presented to us today with and estimated probable cost I would’ve had no
problems supporting it the whole thing. It’s too often that we’re asked to vote on millions and
millions of dollars and we don’t have no idea where they’re going ---
Mr. Russell: I understand.
Mr. Hatney: --- and what’s going to happen. We’ve asked this, and I know I’ve asked
for it for four years. It’s a separate process. Because when he got his notice from EPD they told
him exactly what you needed to replace didn’t they, Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Johnson: (inaudible)
Mr. Hatney: Exactly.
26
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hatney: But it would’ve been nice if you brought that to us so we would’ve know
exactly what you’re talking about with the estimated cost of each one of them. And we would’ve
had no argument. We’re not trying to get you in no more trouble than you’re already in.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and I’m going to just for the point of clarity. Mr. Johnson, you said
that basically to get the equipment that we need to fix it’s going to take, there’s about a five
month lag time. Correct? Which is why we need to expedite the process on approving the
funding today because we’re under that consent order. And if I’m not mistaken if we don’t take
action those EPA fines can be huge.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, we still haven’t heard what it’s going to cost.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: I’d like to ask Mark a few questions so you’re not quite done, Mark. First
question is doesn’t the current contract require our haulers to maintain updated equipment?
Mr. Johnson: In our current contract we’ve negotiated an average age of fleet where I
believe it’s on a five-year average. So they can have one truck that’s brand new and one that’s
ten years old but at the end of the day it has to average out to five.
Mr. Bowles: Okay, thank you. And next is why do you need the flare?
Mr. Johnson: The flare is if it doesn’t go to an end use. Right now it would be the mine
then it runs up through the flare and we ---
Mr. Bowles: And you burn off electricity.
Mr. Johnson: We burn off a resource.
Mr. Bowles: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a substitute motion and a second. If there’s no,
Commissioner Jackson.
The Clerk: Financial breakdown?
Mr. Jackson: Yes, the financial breakdown (inaudible) emergency purchase.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, and so you’re adding that in the motion the financial breakdown of
the emergency purchase.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, will you reread the motion?
27
Mr. Mason: Yes, please.
Mr. Mayor: That’s why I asked for it to be clarified. Madam Clerk.
The Clerk: The motion was to refer back to committee item 26, which is to approve the
use of compressed natural gas as the required fuel source for the Solid Waste Collections
Contract. Item 27 was to approve the $9 million dollars for the gas collection system to address
the EPD consent order with a financial breakdown of the purchased equipment provided to the
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Hatney: How can you leave twenty-seven?
Mr. Bowles: Mr. Mayor, where’s that money coming from?
The Clerk: Twenty-six is referred back to committee. On Item 27 he’s only addressing
the EPD consent order.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Grantham: That’s all he’s doing.
The Clerk: That’s all he’s doing.
Mr. Grantham: He’s going to bring it back, the whole contract.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Commissioners will now vote by the substitute sign of voting.
Mr. Bowles and Mr. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Madam Clerk, I think that takes care of our pulled items. Let’s go on
to the regular agenda.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
40. Motion to approve amending the City’s 2207, 2208 and 2009 Action Plans for the
reprogramming of $113,045 in CDBG funds and allow a change in beneficiaries for certain
Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing (HPRP) Projects.
Mr. Mayor: And, Commissioner Grantham, I think you had a question on this.
28
Mr. Grantham: Right, I was asking, you know, where these funds are going to be
directed to and where they were from the beginning. And why weren’t the projects worked on
and completed when they had been funded originally.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Russell?
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wheeler.
Mr. Russell: If you look in the back it’s there. Chester can answer questions or
whatever.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wheeler, Ms. Johnson? Welcome to the podium.
Ms. Johnson: Thank you. This was presented to you a month ago with a list of where the
funds originally came from and where we had proposed to move them to. It was presented as
information only at that time because we are required to do a 30-day comment period where it’s
run in the paper and the community is given 30 days to respond. So when it came back to you on
nd
the 22 we only had one comment. We met with this young lady. She came in to meet with
staff and we went through how the process works and why those funds were going to be, why we
were requesting to move them. I think Mr. Grantham wanted to know why those projects that
didn’t work for various reasons.
Mr. Wheeler: The only one that did not have any activity was the Bethlehem Community
Center acquisition. That was to build a basketball court. And that project did not materialize.
And we’ve moved the funds and at the time we requested from Parks and REC to give us an
alternate project and this was the alternate project that was submitted.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wheeler, was this the money that was
supposed to have been taken for recreation and diverted to Brigham Community Center?
Mr. Wheeler: It was a recreational project moving it to another recreational project. It
was a basketball court going to a tennis court.
Mr. Lockett: When we met last time and we talked about this particular item didn’t
Brigham Community Center’s tennis court come up on this particular item?
Mr. Wheeler: Yes, sir.
Mr. Lockett: What happened?
Mr. Wheeler: I mean it’s still there.
29
Mr. Lockett: It’s still there? Oh okay, I’m just trying to get information that’s all. Okay
Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Lockett: Well, I withdraw my comments.
Mr. Mayor: Well, would you like to now make a motion?
Mr. Lockett: I would make a motion, yes, I do.
Mr. Grantham: To approve?
Mr. Mayor: And that motion would be?
Mr. Lockett: To approve.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. If there’s no further discussion
Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Aitken votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: And, thank you, Commissioner Lockett. Good doing business with you.
Next agenda item, Madam Clerk.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS
41. Consider an appeal hearing for Hill Baptist Church regarding the denial of their
request from the Historic Preservations Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness
(COA) relating to the demolition of their property located at 1111 Troupe Street.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, do we have somebody here representing both sides? Representing
Hill Baptist Church and representing the Historic Properties Commission?
The Clerk: Yes, she’s here with Ms. Rogers.
Ms. Rogers: Ms. Rogers, Preservation ---
The Clerk: Preservation.
Mr. Mayor: Historic Preservation Commission. And just to make sure we’re following
proper protocol, Mr. Attorney, to give each side five minutes, correct?
30
Ms. MacKenzie: That will be fine.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And I will just go ahead and subjectively ladies first if that’s okay
with you? And if you could keep it to five minutes, please, ma’am.
Ms. Rogers: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners. I’m Annie Rogers, Chair,
Historic Preservation Commission. Concerning demolition of the house on the property of Hill
Baptist Church the Commission considered the following. The public necessity of the proposed
demolition. Whether or not the building contributed to the character of the district. Whether the
demolition adversely affects the character of the district. The reason for demolition and whether
alternatives to demolition exist. Also Historic Augusta states that there is no compelling reason
for the demolition of the house. The house is a contributing resource to the character of the
neighborhood. After review there appears to be enough room for a playground at the rear of the
house. Alternatively a green playground area could be carved out of the parking area adjacent to
the (unintelligible). Rather than tearing down the house perhaps it could be utilized for a daycare
center or for ministry housing. Additionally Ms. Becket Douglas, 1114 Troupe Street, stated that
she lives across the street from the church and that while she commends their activities she
objects to this request. She feels that demolition of this house will impact the historic integrity of
the entire block. Ms. Douglas’ mother who also lives with her said the style of the subject house
adds character to the neighborhood. Therefore the Commission voted to deny demolition and the
vote was unanimous.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, ma’am. Yes sir. I’m sorry if you could state your name
and address for the record as well.
Mr. Stalnaker: Mr. Mayor, my name is Ed Stalnaker. I work with Beth and I’m a
member of The Hill Baptist Church. We would like this Commission to grant a Certificate of
Appropriateness to our church to remove this building. On April 20, 1930 our church bought a
house at 2165 Kings Way. That was the beginning of the Hill Baptist Church. A little later on
this month our church will have served our church community and the community here for 80-
years at that site. We about 55 years ago bought this house at 1111 Troupe Street. I know
you’re familiar with this area I hope so. I know Mr. Aitken is because he was kind enough to
come and take a look at it. We’re right up near #7 Fire Station. You go up Central Avenue,
Kings Way, Troupe Street, our church is at the intersection of Kings Way and Troupe Street.
This house that we’re talking about is right behind our main church. The sanctuary is right here
on Troupe Street. We’ve used that house in the past fifty something years ago for a residence for
a minister of education. Later on it’s been used as a youth house. It’s been used as a guesthouse,
for a guesthouse ministry and it’s now been used as a storehouse. We’d like to remove it. Let
me tell you why. For a number of years this house was used for what we call our guesthouse
ministry. We had people who came to Augusta. They go to the Medical College they go to the
burn center out at Doctor’s Hospital. They’re at the Veterans Home, the Veterans Hospital.
They’re treated, their families come they can’t have a place to stay they can’t afford a place to
stay. So as the ministry of our church what we’ve done is allow the families of the people of
these folks who are receiving burn treatment or cancer treatment or treatment over at the VA
Hospital to come and stay there at little or no cost. The house we’re talking about has a little
31
under 1500 square feet. We’ve had it examine and it’s unfortunately in poor condition. It’s just
we felt was not economical and feasible for us to go ahead and refurbish it. So about five years
ago we purchased the house next to it at 1109 Troupe Street. We improved that, furnished that
and that provides four apartments now that we use. Today people being treated for cancer their
folks are there. So basically what we did and what we’re doing is not using the house at 1111
but using the adjoining residence at 1109 for the guest ministry. What we would like to do is for
y’all to allow us to remove that house or if someone wishes to move it to another site in
Summerville that would be fine with us and to replace it with this. For a playground for the
benefit of the children of our church, the children in the neighborhood and also for a green space
to put in front of this particular property. If we did this we think this would be agreeable with
our long-range plan. It would be the highest and best use for this property and it would allow us
to improve and continue to serve our ministry. And in the couple of minutes left let me address a
couple of things.
Mr. Mayor: A minute thirty.
Mr. Stalnaker: This house ain’t historic, it’s just old. There’s a, if we’re allowed to use
this property for this purpose we think it would not detract from the neighborhood but would in
fact improve it. We tried to reason with the committee about this. They suggested we put a
recreation area and a parking lot. That’s just not feasible. We have a parking lot on Milledge
Road. This area takes 30x65 to put and it wouldn’t fit. It wouldn’t work on Milledge Road and
then it would diminish the parking. If we’re allowed to do this we think it would in fact improve
the neighborhood as stated. Let me close with this. Dickey Boardman and his family have had
the property across the street for a long time. His family lived in it while he went to school. I
talked to Duke. He told me two things. “Ed, when you improve the house at 1109 it actually
made that neighborhood better and I appreciate it”. And he said, “Ed, my property is right across
the street. Been in my family a long time and we would have no objection if the county
commission issued a Certificate of Appropriateness for you to remove it and to place the
playground with a green space up front”.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Stalnaker: We ask you to do so.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you, sir. Okay, do we have any questions? Commissioner
Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: Mr. Mayor, sir, your name again, please? I’m sorry. Your name again,
please.
Mr. Stalnaker: My name, Reverend?
Mr. Hatney: Yes.
Mr. Stalnaker: Ed Stalnaker.
32
Mr. Hatney: Did you say that that building was direct with the improvements that would
be done. Are you saying the building is actually sitting right where this stuff is? The building
you’re talking about taking down.
Mr. Stalnaker: Reverend, the building we’re talking about taking down is where if you
look on this screen you can see the park, the proposed park right there. It’s a fifty-foot lot by
165-feet deep. The playground would be about 35x65. The lot grades up to the rear. The house
is on level ground so that’s why we better have the playground area placed basically where the
house is. There’s just no way to put them practically together so you’ll end up with something
that will be workable.
Mr. Hatney: But what you were using it for you have transferred that usage to another
address when you purchased another home you said.
Mr. Stalnaker: That’s correct. The property we’re talking about is 1111 Troupe Street.
If you go up Troupe Street right next to it is 1109. We have purchased that property. And that’s
the current guesthouse that has about 3500 square feet, four units. This one only had two.
Mr. Hatney: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Smith.
Mr. Smith:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I did go up and look at the house and the
neighborhood. And I don’t see where there’s any historic value to that house. And I can see
where there’d be a lot of value to change it over to this picture they’ve got here for the children
And I’m going to make a motion that we allow
as well as the appearance for the community.
these people to take down that house.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Stalnaker, and I understand Commissioner
Smith’s comment because if you drive down the block there are six houses on the block and they
all look exactly the same. My concern is if we allow this one now I just want some assurance in
ten years you won’t come back and buy the one three down and then tear the second one down
and expand it just so that we don’t lose that neighborly feeling. Because I do live in the
neighborhood and do have that concern that you know we’ll allow this one that you won’t come
back in 20 years and try to get 1111 torn down. I know you can’t predict the future.
Mr. Russell: I hope I’m still alive when that happens.
Mr. Stalnaker: I don’t think so and for two reasons. One with this we will have enough
space there to create something we think is you know meets the present needs and the future
needs. And the second one we put a lot of time a lot of money in 1111. It gives us apartments
33
for four people. It really fits into our long-term ministry plan and we have no, we have no plans
to change that.
Mr. Bowles: And we sure do appreciate what your church has done for the
neighborhood.
Mr. Stalnaker: We thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Aitken.
Mr. Aitken: Ed, you mentioned that you would be willing to donate that house if it could
be moved ---
Mr. Stalnaker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Aitken: --- versus tore down?
Mr. Stalnaker: Yes, my concern is to have that site available to build a playground. If
anyone would like to take it we’d be pleased to have it removed. We would like it if you could
do that in maybe thirty days, sixty days then I’ll have a time limit where we can go ahead. But if
someone wanted to move it at their expense we would be glad to give it to them.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor, would Historic Augusta be willing to take that house on?
Mr. Mayor: To remove it, the Historic Preservation Commission.
Mr. Aitken: Yes.
Ms. Rogers: Well, the committee suggested instead of removing the house that the area
be carved out of the parking area adjacent to the (unintelligible) and utilize it for a daycare center
or for ministry housing. So we would not be in favor of trying to have the house moved.
Because we considered as I fore stated the items that we were supposed to adhere to according to
the guidelines.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor, if this motion passes would you be willing to take the house?
Ms. Mayor: I don’t know that you could speak on behalf of the entire Historic
Preservation.
Ms. Rogers: I hesitate to do that.
Mr. Aitken: Mr. Mayor, also, too, I think as we move this city forward we look at the
quality of life and I think as we look at young people we look at the value of them versus the
building. And I’m all for historic preservation. And our family won a Historic Preservation
Award with our house. But I think that the quality of life in our young people being in that
34
neighborhood I think it would be a blessing to the church that has been a anchor in that
community. So thank you for what you’re doing there.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I think we need to kind of explain why we’re voting
the way we’re voting up here. I have not heard a compelling reason not to approve this
Certificate of Appropriateness. I think if I had a compelling reason not to it might be a different
result but I think given what we have been given I don’t think we have much choice in this. I
don’t think this commission or any other commission needs to instruct somebody how to use
their personal properties or their real properties. I think that we should be allowing them the
greatest freedom to determine whichever uses they consider proper for their own properties.
And I have not heard anything not to suggest that they should not do this.
Ms. Rogers: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, ma’am.
Ms. Rogers: I think that it would set a precedent if we allow this. I just think it would set
a precedent.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Just a point of clarification for the record and to insure that the decision
that’s made by the Commission is in compliance with the Augusta Richmond County Code.
Section 7-4-32 of the Code sets forth the standard for the Commission to review decisions that
have been made by the Historic Preservation Commission. And that standard is a finding by the
Commission that the Historic Preservation Commission abused their discretion in reaching the
decision that they made. Just to clarify I want all of y’all to understand that the decision that
you’re making is that the Historic Preservation Commission abused their discretion. If you have
reached that standard then you can reverse or modify the decision that has been made by that
body.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Mr. Grantham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll have to ---
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Grantham.
Mr. Grantham: --- I’ll have to recuse myself from the vote due to personal conflict of
interests with a relative.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you, sir. We have a motion and a second.
Mr. Lockett: Mr. Mayor, if I may.
35
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Did Mr. MacKenzie say that the only that way we could rule against them
is if we felt that they had abused their authority? Is that what he said?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Referring to Section G of Section 7-4-32 of the Augusta Richmond
County Code and that specifically sets forth the standard whereby the Commission can review
decisions made by the Historic Preservation Commission. And that standard is you can either
affirm the determination that was made by the Preservation Commission or you can find that the
Historic Preservation Commission abused its discretion in reaching its decision. So you have an
either or choice. But if you’re going to reverse this I’m advising you that you should consider
that you have to find that they’ve abused their discretion before you can reverse it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Hatney.
Mr. Hatney: The only comment I would make is that to what the Attorney says is that
when the offer was made, when the offer was made to give the house and then they said they
wouldn’t want that done, I think they went too far there.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second.
Mr. Mason: Can you read the motion, please?
Mr. Mayor: If there’s no, Madam Clerk, if you could read the motion.
The Clerk: The motion was to approve that a Certificate of Appropriateness be granted
to Hill Baptist Church regarding the demolition of property located at 1111 Troupe Street.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
The Clerk: Mr. Grantham is not voting. Mr. Lockett, we’re waiting on Mr. Lockett.
Mr. Lockett: Yeah, I’m still trying to understand what you’re expecting me to do here. I
don’t feel ---
Mr. Mason: That they abused it.
Mr. Lockett: --- that they abused it. Okay?
The Clerk: So you vote No. You vote No.
Mr. Mason and Mr. Lockett vote No.
Mr. Grantham not voting.
36
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank y’all. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE
Chronic Nuisance Property Ordinance
42. Update from Commissioner Joe Bowles, Chairman of the Chronic Nuisance Property
Ordinance Study Subcommittee.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bowles.
Mr. Bowles: It’ll be real quick. We’ve got a draft ordinance, which will be dispersed, to
the Commissioners. And it’s strictly that, a draft ordinance. We’ve done a lot of work and I
think I don’t know if Mr. MacKenzie wants to comment but we’ve got, the issue now is we’ve
got a draft that land owners and neighborhoods can look at and make comments on. But the fine
line we’re walking right now is what’s constitutional and what we can do. And that’s what we’re
going to develop. It’s probably going to be another 90-120 days before we get back to the
Commission. Andrew, do you have anything you want to add?
Mr. MacKenzie: I would just say ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie:
Mr. MacKenzie: --- that the Law Department is considering all of the possible solutions
to this particular problem. And I’ll just second the comments made by Commissioner Bowles
and state that we’ll be happy to provide you with our opinion once all of the input has been
brought in front of the community. And at this point I don’t have any further comments other
than that. Thanks.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And Mr. Bowles I appreciate you agreeing the chair that committee
as well. Can I get a motion to receive this as information?
Mr. Mason: So moved.
Mr. Lockett: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: Do you need a Legal Meeting?
Mr. Mayor: What’s that?
37
The Clerk: Legal Meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Magnanimous?
The Clerk: Magnanimous.
Mr. Mayor: We have two more, the additional items on the agenda.
The Clerk: Item 2 on the addendum agenda.
ADDENDUM
45. Discussion on repairs to the Lock and Dam. (Requested by Commissioner Brigham)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Brigham.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Beck I mean Mr. Mayor I’d like to hear from Mr. Beck on this. I
think he’s prepared to give us some information.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beck.
Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission as you are aware we operate the city
operational locks at the Lock and Dam under a lease agreement with the Corp of Engineers. And
there are six hydraulic cylinders that operate those locks. And two years ago if you remember
two of them went down and you approved the emergency repair of those two cylinders. Well
we’ve got two more that have gone out. The problem we’ve got right now from an emergency
standpoint we’re in the fish passage season, the spring spawning season for the locking in of
Shad which under contract we’re obligated to do. So what we’re requesting is emergency
authorization to spend up to $45,000 dollars. We have a quote from our contractor on the job
that was issued the repair of the locks two years ago. We’re comfortable with this contractor to
get the job done in an expedient manner. So we would recommend your approval of that. I
think the source of funds is Capital Outlay.
Mr. Brigham: Mr. Mayor I’m going to go on and make that in the form of a motion
to do these emergency repairs.
Mr. Bowles: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Um, if there’s, is there any further
discussion?
Mr. Mason: I just want to ---
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
38
Mr. Mason: Yes, thank you. I just want some clarification I think it’s from Fred or
whomever, maybe Finance. Where’s the funds coming from?
Mr. Russell: We have allocated dollars for capital improvements would be taken out of
that. It would not be general fund dollars it would be capital improvement dollars.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the
usual sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
The Clerk: The Administrator needs to for a part of the record to identify the funding
source for Item 7.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Administrator.
Mr. Russell: I apologize for not adding this. But that would be taken from contingency,
general fund contingency.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, sir. Madam Clerk, next agenda item.
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM
49. Motion to approve a Resolution temporarily waiving age and part-time driving
restrictions for the Augusta Regional Airport and for other purposes.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have anybody here to speak to this?
Mr. MacKenzie: I can speak to it. I put the item on there at the request of the airport. I
was hoping somebody would be here but I can speak to some it. I’ll put it that way.
Mr. Mayor: Okay and please do. Or, Mr. Russell, you look like ---
Mr. Russell: You didn’t ask if we’d like to. You just asked if we could sir. What this is
is during The Masters they hire part-time people that would be able to and our policy says you
can’t drive our vehicles unless you’re in a full time position. We’ve been doing this for a while.
They new airport director and our attorney brought it to my attention that we need to get this
approved. What we would like to do is add a minimum age of eighteen to do that. And so you
have to be eighteen of age part-time. And it’s only limited for Masters.
Mr. Grantham: Motion to approve.
Mr. Jackson: Second.
39
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual
sign.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, we do have a need for a Legal Session for Pending and Potential
Litigation and Real Estate.
LEGAL MEETING
A. Pending and Potential Litigation.
B. Real Estate.
C. Personnel.
ADDENDUM
44. Motion to go into a Legal Meeting.
Mr. Mayor: A short Legal Session?
Mr. MacKenzie: This one will not be short.
Mr. Mayor: Can I get a motion to go into Legal Session for those reasons?
Mr. Brigham: For what reasons again Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. MacKenzie.
Mr. MacKenzie: Potential Litigation ---
Mr. Mayor: Pending and Potential Litigation and Real Estate.
Mr. Brigham: I’m willing to make the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham made a motion.
Mr. Mason: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Commissioners will now vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Bowles votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
[LEGAL MEETING]
40
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We’re prepared are we not, City Administrator? I’ll call the
meeting back to order.
51. Motion to authorize execution by the Mayor of the affidavit of compliance with
Georgia’s Open Meeting Act.
Mr. Bowles: So moved.
Mr. Hatney: Second.
Mr. Mason: We have a motion and second. Any discussion? Hearing none we’ll vote
by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. MacKenzie: We have three items of real estate that Mr. Bray will read into the
record if you’d like to authorize those motions as well. Ready? Okay.
ADDENDUM
48. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the settlement of all claims in a
condemnation action for Michael Bower in the aggregate amount of twenty-seven thousand
dollars (27,000.00); authorizing the County Administrator to disburse the amount of
$27,000.00.
47. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the settlement of all claims in a
condemnation action for Grovetown Center, LLC, in the aggregate amount of twenty
thousand dollars ($20,000.00); authorizing the County Administrator to disburse the
amount of $20,000.00.
46. Motion to approve a Resolution authorizing the settlement of all claims in a
condemnation action for Doris Gaines Hughes, in the aggregate amount of two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00); authorizing the County Administrator to disburse
the amount of $250,000.00.
Mr. Hatney: So moved.
Mr. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mason: And motion?
The Clerk: We have a motion and second to add and approve.
Mr. Mason: Add and approve. Any discussion? Hearing none vote by the usual sign.
Mr. Grantham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
41
Mr. Mason: Unanimous. No further business we stand adjourned.
Mr. Russell: Have a nice and safe Easter.
The Clerk: Happy Easter!
Mr. Mason: Happy Easter, happy Good Friday and all that other good stuff.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena 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 the Augusta Richmond County Commission held on
April 1, 2010.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission
42