HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-1997 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
June 3, 1997
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:10 p.m., June 3, 1997,
the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County
Commission.
Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Randy Oliver,
Administrator; and James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to
the Regular Meeting of the Augusta-Richmond County Commission-Council. We'll
have the Invocation today by the Reverend Gene R. Swinson, Pastor of the
GraceWay Baptist -- excuse me, the GraceWay Church, and if you'll remain
standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
THE INVOCATION IS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND SWINSON.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Swinson. Ms. Bonner, do we have
any additions or deletions?
CLERK: No, sir, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 1, please?
CLERK: Item 1 is to discuss increasing the retirement benefits for
members of the 1949 Pension Plan.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this did not come before the Finance
Committee. I think we need to hear from our Comptroller on this item.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie?
MR. McKIE: Gentlemen, a request was made by retirees of the 1949 city
plan for additional benefits to be granted to those people who are retired,
and in honoring that request we initiated a report from our actuaries to
determine the feasibility of the amount of the request, and that was deemed to
be prohibitively expensive. They were instructed to go back and consider
three other alternatives. The three alternatives that were originally
suggested would mean that, were they granted, the city would have to
contribute anywhere from I think a minimum of some three to four hundred
thousand dollars out of taxes or current revenue to that plan to pay for those
benefits. At the minimum, which are alternatives four, five and six on the
worksheet that you have, those would not require [inaudible] and could pay for
that.
We've all heard stories about how much money the plan has--it has some
sixty million dollars--and how it is overfunded. That is, in fact, true;
however, there is a law with regards to pensions that plans must be overfunded
by a hundred and fifty percent. Now, this plan is just slightly over that,
somewhere around one fifty-five, one sixty. So granting additional benefits
brings us dangerously close to the minimum that we can do. You do have a
choice of three things there that, should you choose to grant additional
benefits, you could. However, I would recommend that we take a prudent step
at this time and wait until our total review of all pension plans and
potential benefits for the consolidated government is completed. Mr.
Oliver and I have worked on this. We have some more work on it, and the
recommendation at this time is to wait until that's completed and bring it
back to you. Now, at that time should you choose to grant benefits, you can
always make it retroactive to this point, so there will be no adverse effect
on retirees by waiting. The recommendation is that we do nothing at this time
until the review by this office is complete.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we accept the recommendation of
the Comptroller and the Administrator.
MR. BAKER: I would like to have something to say before you do vote, if
you would.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second the motion to get it on the
floor for discussion, and I have some discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay.
MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor, members of City Council, in the last few years
they have give increases in pension funds to the people that were still
working, and the ones that are since retired, they raised it from two percent
to two-point-one-five. And then they also, instead of going back five years
on the pension like they did when I retired and like all other retirees, they
reduced it down to three years in averaging it out.
In discussing this with many other retirees -- and number five here,
estimate number five states that they can give a half a percent -- a half a
percent for each year retired; therefore, it would give great benefits to
those that have been retired many years that didn't get any retirement hardly
at all. Some of them retired at two and three hundred dollars a month. And
if you give a half a percent, they would benefit more from it than any others.
And it's -- the actuary report under this estimate [inaudible] it wouldn't
cost the city or county any money whatsoever, and that would be a half a
percent for each year that one has been retired under the '45 pension act.
And we would like for you to go ahead -- we've been discussing this for
-- since way last year. And first we were told that we could get a twenty
percent increase, the same as you gave people ten years on their retirement to
go ahead and retire, but we're not asking for that. We don't want this to
cost the city or county or the taxpayer any money whatsoever. But if you give
this last estimate, a half a percent per year retired, we would certainly
appreciate if you would go ahead and do that today. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my questions is basically for Mr. McKie.
On the cost of living, how much are we giving over the years? Do you have a
history of what the former city and what we've done since we've had the
consolidated plan?
MR. McKIE: That's in the neighborhood of some three percent a year, Mr.
Todd.
MR. TODD: Three percent a year? Did you consult with the actuary on
whether it's possible to do what they are requesting?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, and those results are shown as Exhibit A-2 on this
agenda item.
MR. TODD: And when you're counting the hundred and fifty percent that
you must be overfunded, are you counting the proceeds from the property that
was sold that the '49 plan owned? It's my understanding the '49 plan owned
some properties that were sold in the yard sales the former city had.
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, this is the actual asset value as of the end of
the year.
MR. TODD: That's counting everything?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. Now, there is still real estate property that's
held by the plan that has not been sold.
MR. TODD: Right. And the reason for the recommendation to not do
anything, what was the influence or the greatest influence, was it the dollars
or was it the need to wait until we work out the concerns of the other plan?
MR. McKIE: The former, Mr. Todd. There are, as you know, several plans
that we have, three that are currently overfunded [inaudible]. All of them
are overfunded, not quite as much as this one [inaudible], but we have people
looking at those plans and they will come back and recommend to you a course
of action regarding [inaudible].
CLERK: Butch, they can't hear you. Could you lift the mike up and talk
in the mike? Lift it up.
MR. McKIE: The primary concern, Mr. Todd, is that the consultants who
have been hired are redoing all of the plans and all of the -- well, several
projected methods of providing benefits for future and current employees and
the resolution of what to -- or how to treat each one of these plans and any
possible changes. And this really is taking something out of context in terms
of the entire review.
MR. TODD: What we're looking at, Mr. Mayor, in the review, is that to
consolidate all plans? And if we do that, wouldn't that change the
percentages that we are overfunded?
MR. McKIE: Well, that's a legal question, I think, Mr. Todd.
MR. OLIVER: Having worked in that arena a little bit, you're not, in
all probability, going to be able to consolidate these plans. It would take
the consent of all the individual participants. What we are suggesting is
that we believe this needs to be looked at in totality, primarily from the
standpoint of being equitable for all plan participants. Because obviously if
someone is in another pension plan and you elect to do an increase in one
pension plan, there may be an expectation that people in other pension plans
ought to get at least the same increase. So what we're saying is we believe
that you need to look at the impact both financially and actuarialy, as well
as practically, on all the plans and to see what you can do and to be able to
express to these different participants the reasons why you did it.
MR. BAKER: Mr. McKie, Mr. Oliver, members of the Commission-Council, I
would be of the opinion that each pension must stand on its own merits. I
don't think that you could say that you could give one pension an increase if
it wasn't actuarialy sound. What we are asking for today is this half a
percent per year that a person's been retired, and according to the actuary
and to this schedule that you have here, they could give that half a percent
and it wouldn't cost the city or county any money whatsoever. I don't think
that a pension that's been bankrupt, I don't think a pension that's not
actuarialy sound, I don't think anyone would ask that they be increased. We
are asking, since our pension is actuarialy sound, that it will not cost the
taxpayer any money whatsoever, we are asking for this half a percent increase
and certainly would appreciate if you would do it today.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think looking at the realistic side of when
you're talking about combining pensions and folk agreeing -- and I thoroughly
agree with my former colleague, Mr. Baker, on that. You're not going to get
any agreement on that situation of commingling. I do --the question I was
going to ask: Butch, on item -- I believe it was on the fifth one, on the one
where the no support situation, no increase in city funds in that one, even
though I know we're slightly over the hundred and fifty percent mark, with
that smaller amount -- what type of range of risk does that one put us in with
it being that minute and with no contribution being required? And I guess my
reason for asking is that, you know, we've kind of been dealing with this
particular situation and request for some time now going into the half of the
year, and I think it will be voted up or down whatever way, you know, this
Commission wants to do, but it was something we said we would wait until this
particular report came back in order to make a firm decision on it.
And if we're at a point where this can be done -- and I know some of
these folk were at retirement age, a few of them, when I came into city
government in '79, Mr. Mayor, but -- and they're as tough as nails, and don't
want to put life expectancy on folk. But I think if we're going to try and
make any impact where some of these people to be able to enjoy some of it
before they get ninety/ninety-five years old, and if it's sound enough to be
able to do that without putting it in a risk situation, then I don't think
it's any more of a risk than what we've done with some of the creative
financing that I've seen maybe within the last year or two; that if it's
possible in order to at least grant this one, and then when we get all of the
final reports in, if we're able to do more, then do more. If we can't do any
more, then at least deal with the percentage that we are dealing with now.
Because so many of them -- those numbers and percentages are not changing
fast enough to help with some of those lifestyles, and many of those people
that retired from the city under that plan were not amongst your highest pay
echelon folk that were retiring. A lot of those came out of Streets and
Drains, out of Sanitation, out of some of the places whereby when they left
the city they couldn't go anywhere else, physically nor educationally, to do
anything else as far as an income. And I think if we can do it, then we ought
to do it.
MR. McKIE: If I could answer your question, Mr. Mays, if I could refer
you to the schedule and look at column one, the current plan. Line five will
show you the unfunded accrued benefit liability, and those numbers are in
brackets, which means that we're overfunded. Compared to market value, we're
sixteen million seven. If you do it on an actuarial basis, we're considerably
less, about four million. Now, if you project everything out all the way to
the end of this pension plan in future years, on line six, compared to market
value we are still ahead of the game. But we do have -- compared to the
actuarial value, which I will not attempt to explain to you because I'm quite
frankly not competent to do so, but -- and so we're a little bit behind on
that and expect to make that up over the intervening years.
If you go back up to line one, estimate five, that item is $707,000.
That's the increase in actuarial liabilities that that would cost, so you see
that would raise our 2.6 million up to 3.7 and take our over funding of
420,000 and move it down to another fund of 300,000. It's a cost of $700,000
against the plan. And you have to weigh the fact that some thirty percent or
so of the plan's assets are in equities. The stock market is doing very well
right now, but how much margin do we have for that.
MR. OLIVER: Two questions, Mr. McKie. Does this analysis include the
health insurance benefit that the plan is paying in the analysis?
MR. McKIE: No, sir, it does not. That adds further cost.
MR. OLIVER: And that, I think, is a major consideration. The second
thing, while there's been an inflationary increase provided, as I understand
it, many of the participants in this plan are pegged to whatever the salary is
paid in the position that they used to occupy; is that correct? Because I
know we have many plans and I'm just not sure on that particular element.
MR. McKIE: That's the '45 plan.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. But insurance benefits --
MR. McKIE: No, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Jim better answer that one. I
think you're right.
MR. WALL: The '49 plan has that in there.
MR. BAKER: The '49 plan, you don't get any increase, only cost of
living increase.
MR. WALL: No, but isn't it tied to the person? It's not? The '45 plan
is the only one?
MR. McKIE: It is the '45 that's tied to the current job. Okay.
MR. BAKER: The '45 plan, where a person retires, as the years go by
they get half of what anybody else gets in their position. But the '49
pension act doesn't get that. The only increase that we've been able to get
is the cost of living increase each year. You take -- when I retired as a
captain on the Fire Department, I'll give you an example, I retired with just
a little over $500 -- I mean $5,000 a year. The same captain in that same
position with the amount of years that I had, if he retires now he gets over
$20,000. So you see how that leaves us low on the totem pole. This will give
us some increase. It won't be much, but what we are asking for, this half a
percent per year that we've been retired, it won't cost -- according to this
report from the actuary, it won't cost the city or county or the taxpayers any
money whatsoever, and we certainly would appreciate if you would pass it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir?
MR. BRIDGES: Jim, is there any legal reason we cannot do for one of
these funds, say the '45 plan, and then are we legally required to do the same
for another fund?
MR. WALL: No, you're not legally required. It's a question from a
policy standpoint whether you want to have some equalization among the various
pension plans.
MR. BRIDGES: Another question I've got is, Butch, you said that this
estimate number five does not include the health insurance?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: Is that right?
MR. McKIE: That's correct, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: What about the current plan analysis here?
MR. McKIE: That does not include the health insurance either.
MR. BRIDGES: How can we make a judgment then if all the costs aren't
included here?
MR. McKIE: Well, that's a good point. There is some additional cost
that has not been included, and we've cut your margin of safety down
considerably.
MR. BRIDGES: When is the study -- Randy, that you want to wait on, when
is that going to be completed?
MR. OLIVER: You authorized that two weeks ago. My opinion is that's
probably going to take several months. I would say that would be back by
August, September at the latest.
MR. BAKER: But I would like to ask a question. Every pension plan has
to stand on its own merits, doesn't it? So if ours is actuarialy sound and
they can do this now, it'll give us some relief now, and we certainly would
appreciate if you'd act on it.
MR. BRIDGES: Butch, what kind of difference are we talking about if we
include the health insurance in this study?
MR. McKIE: I'm afraid it would be significant. I don't know really.
We've got them working on those numbers now, but that's -- it's got to be a
significant number. To give you an idea of the different plans that we have,
the old city had, I believe, three 1945 plans that have no assets at all. It
currently costs close to a million dollars a year to support those. The '49
plan, of course, has some fifty-nine million in assets and we've made no
contribution since 1988 -- '88 or '89. The county '45 plan is overfunded by
more than the legal requirement, we've not contributed to that, and then we've
contributed to the 1977 county plan. There is one more plan, the city GMEP,
which is the Georgia municipal plan that we currently contribute right at
200,000 a year to. We're overfunded in it. We're very close to the hundred
and fifty percent mark and we will probably be over that this year, so I don't
anticipate any future funding with that for the time being. But our total
contribution to pension plans are probably over a million dollars a year.
MR. BRIDGES: If we include the health insurance in this, we very well
could be -- if we took option five and wanted to include the health insurance,
is it possible that we would have to make a contribution?
MR. McKIE: I'm hesitant to say. It'd be very, very close if not, I'm
certainly positive.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I'll yield to Mr. Powell, Mr. Mayor, or Mr. Zetterberg.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: When will you know that about the health increase if
that's factored in? I happen to have a little empathy with Mr. Baker, but
then I'm a little torn right now on the health thing because I didn't realize
that was going to be a problem.
MR. McKIE: Well, we provide those benefits to retirees, and it's not a
part of the plan.
MR. OLIVER: But it should be.
MR. McKIE: And as Mr. Oliver says, it should be, because that is a
future liability for us as long as we continue to provide that.
MR. OLIVER: And the split on that so people knows how much percentage
of the cost that we pay.
MR. McKIE: Gail, could you answer that?
GAIL: [inaudible].
MR. McKIE: Ten percent employee, ninety percent government.
GAIL: That's just for the '49.
MR. McKIE: The employee pays ten percent of the current and has the --
not the HMO plan but the provider plan.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Does the health benefit come out of this money here?
MR. McKIE: It would if it were included in the calculations.
MR. OLIVER: It should. It should.
MR. McKIE: But it doesn't.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So it should?
MR. McKIE: Right.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So the figures that we have here are not accurate?
MR. McKIE: Correct. They exclude health.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Nor the figures that Mr. Baker has are not accurate?
MR. McKIE: Correct.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Thank you.
MR. OLIVER: How long would it take if you gave the actuary the figures?
Within two to four weeks could he recrank the numbers?
MR. McKIE: I think it would probably take at least four weeks, Mr.
Oliver. One of the problems will be assimilating the historical information
on the participants and claims and so forth. But we could get that to them
relatively quickly, I believe, and I would expect a three to four week
turnaround from the professionals.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Just one last point. There really is no relationship
to the other plans to what we're talking about here now; right?
MR. McKIE: Correct.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So, therefore, we really could go back and analyze that
and come back at a earlier date. We don't have to wait for all of this to
happen because it's mutually exclusive.
MR. OLIVER: There's not a legal impediment, no.
MR. ZETTERBERG: There's no legal impediment, there's no relationship,
so if you go back and look at the costs and get that in and then give us
another figure -- I think most of us are in agreement: we would like to give
relief to the people under that pension plan, the question is how much.
MR. BAKER: Well, if they give us half a percent --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, if he's saying that -- he's saying that we can't.
Is that true?
MR. McKIE: The only part that I would disagree on is that when we
include medical in this plan and the county '77 plan, both of those may
require funding and so that may impact our budget on a cash basis out of
current income significantly.
MR. ZETTERBERG: But does that have anything to do with the money that's
in the plan that they put in the plan?
MR. McKIE: It doesn't, but it might impact on your decision as to
whether or not you want to contribute monies for that.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, does that mean that I could take money out of
their plan that they put in to fund something else?
MR. McKIE: No, sir.
MR. ZETTERBERG: I don't quite understand the relationship then.
MR. OLIVER: Here's the only relationship, that on a pension plan we are
in an enviable position in that this is overfunded, but when all of your
liabilities to make payments are completed, in other words, there are no more
participants drawing benefits, any money that would be left over would revert
to the government.
MR. BAKER: And that would be millions and millions of dollars.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, yeah, and I understand that, but what does the
health cost have to do with this?
MR. OLIVER: We are paying, let's say, the health premium. And I don't
know what it is, if it's $200 a month for a family or whatever it is. Okay,
we are paying $180 of that or roughly $2,000 a year per participant, or
whatever the number is.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And some of it comes out of their pension plan?
MR. OLIVER: That should have been computed in the actuarial figures.
MR. ZETTERBERG: That's what we're talking about is that delta--
MR. OLIVER: Yes.
MR. ZETTERBERG: --that little bit of money that they --
MR. OLIVER: Well, I don't think it's a little bit of money.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, the money that they contribute, whatever it is.
MR. OLIVER: Well, no, it's the ninety percent of the --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Y'all are clear on this?
MR. McKIE: It's the ninety percent that we contribute.
MR. ZETTERBERG: We contribute ninety percent. The ten percent, does
that come out of this fund?
MR. OLIVER: No, the ninety percent comes out of this fund.
MR. ZETTERBERG: The ninety percent comes out of this fund.
MR. McKIE: Should come out of this fund.
MR. OLIVER: Should come out of this fund, yeah, and should be included
in the computation. Because to do it any --
MR. ZETTERBERG: And it wasn't?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Mr. Beard.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think we all have a little empathy for the
people involved here, but I think we really need a more definitive answer, and
I was just wondering if Mr. Kuhlke -- if we could make an amendment to that
motion that we wait the four weeks. I don't think four weeks would hurt
anything at this point because I think most of us are not clear. If we could
wait until four weeks and get a more definitive answer from the Comptroller
and including all of the particulars that we talked about at this point, if we
could do that I think it would be in order, and I so move at this point.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll accept that amendment, and I -- but rather than four
weeks I would -- you know, to me, something like this comes to this Commission
premature. I don't think we had enough time to really digest what you had in
this report. And I don't know what pressure was put on you to bring that to
the committee like -- or to the Commission like you did, but I -- I will amend
my motion that hopefully within four weeks you can come back with all of the
details so that we can understand this. If it takes longer than four weeks,
just don't come back to us with incomplete answers.
MR. McKIE: Would -- I beg your pardon, would you also include in that
the authorization to finance the additional actuarial work? It costs money.
MR. KUHLKE: I will add that to my motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess that I'll go back to some concerns that
I've had for a long time. As trustees of the pension plan per the county
ordinance or code, I think that we should deal with pension matters separate
from regular meetings, and we should be more involved in the -- as trustees,
of what's going on with the pension. And where I can agree that we haven't
had a lot of time to, you know, take in this information, that the group
that's concerned about this issue was at the last committee meeting and we
told them that we would have it on this agenda.
And I also understand that the study that we're having done or that's
been done for us, is this the study that is not costing us anything, that the
interest or the influence of the folks that's doing the study is that there's
a possibility that we may be able to consolidate the plans, and also that they
would be involved in investment of the funds?
MR. McKIE: No, sir.
MR. TODD: We are paying for this study then?
MR. McKIE: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Okay. I just want to be clear on that because I --
MR. OLIVER: Let me clarify that because that's not exactly right. The
actuarial work we are paying for. As it relates to the alternatives for our
pension plan, developing a new pension plan, and looking at possibilities as
it relates to what's called rollover and alternatives there, there is a
company that's going to do that at no cost to us. But as it relates to the
actuary work, we are compensating actuaries for that.
MR. TODD: Yes, I understand that. Well, that's what I wanted to get
out on the table, that -- to the folks that's concerned about the plan, that,
you know, I would hope that this entity could be objective and not give us
what we want in the sense that they are looking for something, at least
participation in the future. As I've said before, I do take my responsibility
as being a trustee of this plan serious. I know that the lives and
livelihoods of the retirees depend on me doing a good job and I want to do the
very best job that I can. I don't think that I have all the information here
today to do that job as far as a half percent. And is it also my
understanding that we're talking about a half percent per year back to the
year that the individual retired?
MR. McKIE: Yes.
MR. TODD: Okay. So actually when you add it up, you know, we're
talking about -- you know, it could be more than this half a percent of a
person's retirement.
MR. McKIE: We split the paid work out on the -- the other work for that
very reason.
MR. TODD: Yes, sir. I'm going to second the amendment. And I think
that we can get it back and get it back in a timely manner, but in the sense
that it's stand alone I don't think we necessarily need the information back
from the entity that's doing the study at no fee. I think we need the
actuarial statement on what the trustees can do as far as this half percent go
and we vote it up or down based on the merits of the actuarial study.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I had a question back when we gave the early
retirement to employees that were leaving with the enhanced retirement package
that we offered. At that time my question was if we're giving people who are
retiring on the same pension plan ten years of extra retirement, what is this
going to run us into with the people who are already retired? At that point
we were assured that there wasn't going to be a problem. Well, we've got a
problem. These people have a legitimate claim. We've dabbled in their
pension plan and we haven't treated everybody in that pension plan equally,
and I've got a real problem with that. And I feel like that I've misled on
this whole deal with the early retirement package, and I've been misled
because this thing has come back and surfaced that we do have a problem and we
have been unfair, and I'd just like to put that in the record.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I was going to call for the question
because we've discussed all this and we're going to come back with it. This
is taking up a lot of time and don't have the answer for it, so I call for the
question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm going to allow one more statement.
MR. BAKER: I'd like to make one more statement. This is the actuary
that our Comptroller and our Commission has asked for. This is the different
schedules, and it says in this schedule on entry number five that they can
give us -- this is what you asked for and they said you can give it to us and
it won't cost a dime, and we would like for you to go ahead and implement
this. And if it does turn up, then take action on it later, but this is what
you have asked for and this is the answer here.
MR. KUHLKE: Oscar, I hope you will bear with me a little bit about
being ignorant, but the book you have in your hand, I've never seen it and
that's the reason I'm asking for a little bit of information; okay?
MR. BAKER: This book here --
MR. KUHLKE: I can't read it right now.
MR. BAKER: I know you can't, but this book right here is what was give
to me by the Comptroller's Office, an actuary from William Mercer.
MR. KUHLKE: I understand. I said I haven't seen it and I don't know
that any of the others --
MR. BAKER: And this is --
MR. KUHLKE: I've seen that.
MR. BAKER: Oh, okay. This is the schedule they asked for to see if
they could actually give it to us.
MR. KUHLKE: I hope you -- all of you understand that I feel like that
we are sympathetic to what you're asking for. The only thing that I'm
suggesting is to give us some time so that we know accurately what we're
talking about. At this point we don't.
MR. BAKER: I don't know who you've been talking to or not talking to,
but this has been going on since last October.
MR. KUHLKE: I met with y'all at one time when you made this request.
At the time I met with you, that next day I asked David Collins to give me as
much information as I possibly could get. He told me that we're having the
study done, he would get it to me when it was completed. The first time I saw
any of this was last Friday. So all I'm saying is that for me to make an
intelligent decision on which way we need to go on this, I want the time and I
want the facts --and I want all the facts, not just part of them.
MR. BAKER: That is the facts.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question, please.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I want to say is that I think that
the insurance factor now being put in, while it may be legitimate in terms of
discussing the numbers, I think it still gets us back to a question that we're
going to have to answer eventually about the solvency of each one of these
pensions independently and by itself. And I would hope that the insurance
factor does not become a punitive measure, that we get like Scrooge in terms
of figuring it in. I think a lot of people have worked and retired, and based
on certain -- whether even if they were oral situations before they left the
City of Augusta, and I don't think we ought to get in the fifth down, ball
four, you know, changing rules as we go along.
Now, if the numbers that we were talking about that we've been waiting
on for six months --and while I'm willing to wait today, this is the first
time -- and this is not a new discussion. You're right, it's come up before.
And they've done it legally, they've done it legitimately when they asked us
in terms of seeking help to see if anything could be done, so I don't think
it's any surprise measures popping up. You know, Mr. Mayor, this does get to
be a Commission that remembers what it wants to remember and forgets what it
wants to forget. But I think every mule with this pension plan ought to be
able to carry its own backpack, and when it gets back to us I just hope that
the commingling doesn't get to be a punitive measure to deal with the ones
that can stand alone, and that's all I'm going to say about it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. All in favor of the motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 2, please?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, Items 2 through 13 can be carried as a
consent agenda.
[Item 2: Motion to approve request from David J. Reeves (Sheriff -
Administration) to purchase 10 years 4 months prior years services in the 1977
Pension Plan. Item 3: Motion to approve updated, expanded and
consolidated Construction Work Program for the period ending 4-30-97.
Item 4: Motion to approve engagement of the Association County Commissioners
of Georgia (ACCG) to provide Cost Allocation Plan. Item 5: Motion to
approve creation of Land Bank Authority and directing County Attorney to
prepare necessary resolution to establish such Authority. Item 6: Motion
to approve modifying the Assets Tracking Form for asset transfers, removing
the requirement of Commission approval. Item 7: Motion to approve
reprogramming $400,000 Special 1% Local Option Sales Tax, Phase III, 1997 for
libraries to fund library repairs, renovations, furnishings and equipment.
Item 8: Motion to approve commitment to abate taxes on Olde Towne
properties upon closing of sale of said properties. Item 9: Motion to
approve abatement of 1989 and 1990 City taxes for building at 102 Fifth
Street, $53.91. Item 10: Motion to approve abatement of 1996 business
tax account #1228015 for River Restaurant, LTD d/b/a At the Levee in the
amount of $409.04. Item 11: Motion to approve the cancellation of
uncollectible leasehold accounts in the amount of $3,407.93 for 1995 for El
Chico.
Item 12: Motion to approve request of $7,657 to implement the
Electronic Data Transmission Capability between the State of Georgia and
Augusta-Richmond County. Item 13: Motion to approve consent to
Architectural Contract between Immaculate Conception School and Sydney Carter,
P.C., in the amount of $20,000.00 pursuant to SPLOST Agreement with Immaculate
Conception School.]
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen?
All in favor of --
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir?
MR. KUHLKE: I'm not exactly clear on Item Number 5 and I'd like to pull
it out and just get some clarification on it, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Would you pull Item 5, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Uh-huh [yes].
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's Items 2 through 13, minus Item 5. All in favor
of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 5, please?
CLERK: Item 5 is a motion to approve the creation of the Lank Bank
Authority and directing the County Attorney to prepare necessary resolution to
establish such Authority.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Discussion, please? Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to ask the County Attorney, under
the analysis of this it says employees of the government can be on the Land
Authority, thereby ensuring against self-dealing. What -- doesn't appear to
me -- starting to sound like to me that's self-dealing. Explain that to me.
MR. WALL: Well, the concern was that if you had -- not picking on
anybody, but let's assume a real estate agent was a member of the Land Bank
Authority. Then the fear was that unless there was some control over that
individual, he might sell the property to a fictitious buyer or a straw buyer
and then turn around and reap a profit off of it. And the idea was that if
you had government employees on the Land Bank Authority that are subject to a
code of ethics, subject to disciplinary action, subject to control of the
Commission, that you could protect against that. That's what I meant by the
sentence.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. And the resolution, you're going to only have four
members?
MR. WALL: That's all the law provides for.
MR. KUHLKE: Four members, and with the idea of the Administrator being
a member, and then the rest of the members would be made up of the employees
of the county?
MR. WALL: Well, there was a committee formed or appointed in the
subcommittee to come back with a recommendation. I'm looking for input as to
suggestions of who would be a legitimate member of that Land Bank Authority,
recognizing the concerns of the potential for abuse.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke, were you through?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, I was through.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I'm kind of like Bill on that one, Mr. Mayor. I think the
creativity tends to lend for some good things that could happen, particularly
with the amount of land that governments often end up with, whether it's
similar to Atlanta's west end dollar program in terms of being able to get
investment and being able to get folk to move back in and to do things with
it, if this is going to move in that type of direction. But I think that the
flip side to that coin, in this particular legislation, Jim, are we providing
a check-off to where this governing body has the final say or are we creating
another muscular arm for four folk to decide on all the property that's left
in the hands of Richmond County, to decide what way that's going to go?
And I see good that can happen with it, but I also see it becoming very,
very, very powerful and somewhat of a serious delegation of authority. I
think that we can do the same thing with a board that's overseen by this body
if one is going to serve in terms of a recommending board, but I see a mad
scramble in a lot of cases to be one of the final three that's left on this
board. And I'm not ready -- as an individual I'm not ready to make a decision
on this one today. It's going to be voted on, I probably will end up voting
present on it. But like I say, I think it has some good intentions, and the
world is full of them, but I see us right now where people are having
questions about various authorities and boards that were created and then we
come back five and six years later, whether it's a different Commission, a
different attorney or who, and say, well, we didn't know they had that much
power. That can be a lot.
MR. WALL: If I may respond. First of all, let me clear up. This is
only tax delinquent properties. It's not all of the property that the county
owns. Following the meeting last week someone asked that question. Let me
clarify it. It's strictly applicable to tax delinquent properties, so only
those properties would come into play. As to your question and point about it
being independent, yes, it would be, and that's the reason I think that a lot
of thought needs to be put forward into who ought to be members of that board
because they would have the discretion to sell, combine properties, negotiate
for the purchase price, et cetera.
And you say that the Commission can do the same thing, and the
limitations and the problem has been several. First of all, we cannot
negotiate, it has to be a sale on the courthouse steps or a closed-bid sale.
Secondly, right now there are a lot of properties that there are delinquent
taxes on. If they're bought in, then we're paying -- approximately seventy
percent of the monies that are bid at the property go to the Board of
Education. We then have those properties. Right now we have no method for
marketing those that we can't negotiate. Frankly, the only way that they
are disposed of is if a neighbor or some interested party contacts the Tax
Commissioner's Office or my office or the Administrator's Office and says
they're interested in acquiring such-and-such a property that was bought in at
a tax sale. We then go through the process of advertising it, declaring it
surplus, having the sale, and then they may come in and offer a hundred
dollars when there are three, four, five thousand dollars worth of back taxes
and demolition charges. And then, you know, it winds up being a no sale. So
this would give us some flexibility. The only drawback in the procedure,
I think, is the potential -- and I think that all of us need to recognize that
it's there, the potential for abuse. And by making the four members county
employees, Mr. Mays, I think that you do retain some control over that
process; whereas if you go out and have three other members that are John Q.
Public, then you will not have the control over them that you might otherwise
have, and that's my thought and the reason that I put that in there suggesting
that you might want to have county employees, because they are ultimately
subject to your direction.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Wait a minute. Were you through, Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: No, I'll yield to Moses. If anything, it's not [inaudible],
but I'll yield to Moses.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question to the County Attorney is if the
legislation calls for a disconnect from the Commission, then if we put our
employees on the board, then would we have that independence or disconnect
where individuals can go out there and do the things that the legislation is
trying to afford us the opportunity to do, move property and do things
creative without dealing with the closed-bid process?
MR. WALL: The statute specifically authorizes county employees, and so
obviously the General Assembly was comfortable with that. I do think that the
disconnect has to be there, that they have discretion; but my point is simply
that in the event a county employee does get involved in self-dealing -- and,
again, that's a violation of the code of ethics that the county government
has, and so you do have some control over that employee from that standpoint,
not insofar as any specific deal that he might negotiate for.
MR. TODD: Yes. I'm going to support the Land Bank initiative. I think
that it affords the opportunity for us to do a lot of things with land that
either been foreclosed on taxes or should be foreclosed on taxes and putting
it back in the digest as far as development property, et cetera, and sometime
where one piece is not enough to put it in a land bank and put together a
tract of land, that we may be able to do something to get it back. And I think
it's more important that we do the redevelop-ment and get it back on the tax
digest sometime than the amount of money that we receive up front, that the
payback could be, over three years or five years or ten years, a lot greater
than to collect the taxes at the day's rate on it for the next five, ten,
fifteen years if we have the redevelopment. As I ride through the city I see
large tracts of land that obviously has been foreclosed on or should be
foreclosed on where there's no one doing anything with it, so I'm going to
support it when it comes to a vote. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Mr. Mays, did you want to finish?
MR. MAYS: Yeah, Mr. Mayor. And I don't plan to start World War III
with this one, but if it's a start to what we really need to do, Jim, you
know, I don't have a problem with it. You and I have talked personally about
trying to deal with some legislation to get some of this stuff moving, and if
this puts us in the first-step direction -- but one of the things I want to
see is that it's not a last step, that this is the very first initiative, that
the creativity hopefully will follow, that development and investment or
reinvestment -- because most of these areas that you're talking about in terms
of that have been seized by taxes, basically it does no good to shift from
somebody sitting on their butt A or somebody sitting on their butt B.
If it's going to be sold and if this board is going to move those
properties, then I think there should be a positive plan once those properties
are transferred, sold, or leased or whatever the agreement might be and not
get into the situation of where some communities that have tried this, that
it's gone from one share of slum holders to another one and you're basically
sitting there with folk holding speculative property that the only difference
being in them and the other one is that it's relieving you of a tax burden
situation, and then those folk have the ability to pay the tax, but they're
then sitting around for another eight to ten years waiting on something to
happen or for a McDonald's to pass through the area another fifteen years down
the road before anything is done with the property. So I think it should
have some attachment legislation coming with it that's going to produce some
development and investment in those areas. If it's not, then I don't really -
- I don't really see us getting any better with it. The only thing I see is
it does relieve the government from the taxing side of it, but for the people
who have to look at it, for the people who are surrounded by the infestation
of what you've got there, if it contains nothing to move those properties
along and to develop those areas, then, you know, I just think you're swapping
the woods for the devil in it. But I won't -- I won't vote to kill it, but
I'd like to see a little bit more in phase two coming with it other than it
being a dump-off to get it where we are not assuming the tax and we are not
having to be the holders of this property but then it's then dumped onto some
of these massive landholders who then sit around with it, and these the same
ones that you're probably fixing to face up with with the sign that you got
coming further down on the agenda.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, first I'd like to request that we go back to
one person get a chance to talk and then come down the line rather than having
Moses and Willie do all the talking for us. I'd like an opportunity at times,
too. The second thing is in the Finance Committee it was my understanding
that this was not a motion to create a Land Bank but to draw up a resolution,
so what we should be voting on here today is not to -- not favorably for a
Land Bank yet but to draw up a resolution, let the Finance Committee review
the resolution, make a recommendation to the Commission, and then we can vote
-- at that time we would vote on whether we're forming a Land Bank. So it's
my understanding what we're truly voting on here today is simply to allow Jim
to create the resolution to bring back for our review, and I'm looking back at
the Finance Committee minutes that were recorded and that was my -- Lee, that
was my understanding of your motion.
MR. BEARD: That's what it was.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. So I just want that clarified for the record, we
are not creating the Land Bank today.
MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MR. POWELL VOTES NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3. [MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 13, please?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, we in the Finance Committee approved the
request to become a creditor --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Excuse me, I'm sorry, 14.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The Finance Committee voted to become a creditor for
River Race Augusta, and in that process we accepted the way the money was
spent, and I bring to y'all that in the form of a motion.
MR. BEARD: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Beard.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: I just think from an -- this should be handled from an
administrative standpoint as to how this is to be paid back. I think it
should be something that we can reasonably expect to get funds back from River
Race, and I don't expect to be the bottom man on the totem pole when the funds
come to being distributed from River Race. I think -- I expect to be
somewhere near the top, and I think we have a reasonable opportunity to get
this money back. But I think that can be handled administratively, and we
discussed these matters with River Race.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just got one reminder to the
Commissioners, that what we're asking them to do today is to -- we're going to
have to down the road loan them money to pay us back, because they're still
going to have to come to us to put on the race in order to make money to pay
us back, so we're still going to be investing in this River Race Augusta in
order to get back the $50,000 that we already invested. I just want to remind
everybody of that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly River Race Augusta indicated that they
would possibly need to be granted some funds in order to put on their next
race, but my position stay the same, that I think it's -- I've heard a
different story every time I pick up the newspaper, and I would have to assume
the newspaper is correct in the sense that no one is requesting retraction of
the story. So, therefore, I've heard a different story on how things
happened, and I don't think we got to the truth. And I think it's more
important to get to the truth, or as important to get to the truth than it is
to get to the money.
And certainly the monies can be raised if the race happen, and if the
race don't happen the money can be raised because I understand they're going
to do a fundraiser. Well, you know, I've done fundraisers and I've had to
raise money, and if I know that if I got the cause and I go out there, that I
can raise the money to do what I need to do. So, therefore, I think that in
them being creditors we need to decide how much they're going to pay in year
one and how much they're going to pay in the last year and certainly have that
agreement, and how they raise the money I could care less, you know, whether
they put on a golf tournament or whether they do other things there. But,
again, it's my position we haven't gotten to the truth, and the most important
or as important as the money is getting to the truth as far as the turn of
events. Thank you.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie, how about just telling us who authorized you
to cut the check. Maybe that'll satisfy Mr. Todd.
MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, I'd respectfully decline. As I say, I don't
remember everybody that was in there, so [inaudible].
CLERK: Excuse me, Butch, could you come to mike? We can't pick you up.
MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, the event was the birthday party for Doug
Batchelor, and as you recall there were a number of people up there.
[inaudible] one person has said that they were there, so for me to name anyone
else would be to call someone on this Commission a liar, and in my eight years
of county government I've not found one occasion where an employee comes out
ahead by doing that to an elected official, so I respectfully take the same
position that Mr. Staulcup took last week. But I can for the sake of the
public say that you have never ordered me to do anything wrong, immoral, or
anything else.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I ask Mr. McKie for a clarification? Did I
hear Doug Batchelor or Doug Bernard?
MR. McKIE: As I recall, it was Doug Bernard. It was a birthday party in
-- early in December.
MR. TODD: Well, maybe I misunderstood who you said the party was for.
MR. McKIE: I wouldn't have been at a birthday party for Doug Batchelor.
I don't even know him.
MR. TODD: I really don't either, that's why I raised the question.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Which birthday party was it?
CLERK: Doug Bernard. He said Doug Batchelor, but he meant Doug
Bernard.
MR. McKIE: I did say Doug Batchelor. I'm sorry. It was Doug Bernard,
the Congressman.
MR. TODD: Yes. And, you know, we can make mistakes and I understand
that, but I just wanted a clarification, you know, because this is the first
time I understood what the event was for, and to my recollection I wasn't at
that event.
MR. McKIE: If I may quote General Richard Ewell after the Battle of
Gettysburg, he said he certainly understood the mistakes that were made
because, lord knows, he's made a few of them himself.
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I have one other question in the sense that
we're in discussion. And I know that Mr. Wall sometime keep a record of who's
at certain events in the sense that the board had one Commissioner there, I'd
like to request of Mr. Wall to give us his calendar of events who was there at
that meeting -- or birthday party.
MR. WALL: I keep a record of the events, I don't keep a record of who
was at the events.
MR. TODD: Okay. Well, thanks for that clarification. I was thinking
that you might have had also a list of who was there.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this is getting far adrift from the motion
on the floor. Let's go back to that only.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up. Mr. Kuhlke, do you want to
say something?
MR. KUHLKE: The only thing I wanted to say is that I was at that event,
but I had no conversation with Mr. McKie concerning River Race.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. All in favor of the motion on the floor --
MR. ZETTERBERG: Wait one second. I was also at that event, but I
thought Mr. Kuhlke and I were the only Commissioners that were at that event,
and I have absolutely no knowledge of ever having a discussion. If we're
talking about Doug Bernard's birthday party that really ended up being a roast
of Mr. David Bell -- is that what we're talking about?
MR. McKIE: I got there late, but I believe that's what it was.
MR. ZETTERBERG: And I don't know, absolutely nothing. I guess my big -
- one of my biggest concerns about this whole thing is that how can we as
Commissioners be assured that this will never be done again, that we'll never
end up playing loose with money without it being approved and voted by the
Commission? We're obviously not going to get the names of the people who were
there, but how could we assure ourselves that this never happens again?
MR. McKIE: I can answer that for you. After all that I've gone through
on this, and you have, it'll be a cold day in hell before that ever happens
again and will be over my dead body.
MR. OLIVER: And he'll have my back.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So now we have two people, but nothing in writing or in
our rules. Is there a need to have something in our rules?
MR. OLIVER: We are in the process of doing that. There will be a
policy coming forward within the next couple of weeks. We want to make sure
we cover all the points that -- as I've previously expressed, we will require
a contract with all parties delineating the services, delineating the amount
of money, and providing for either reimbursement or if they have the money to
make the expenditure, or we will write a three-party check much similar to
what you would do when you build a home or something like that with a bank
loan, so it would be made payable to three parties. We've also agreed that in
the budget that it would be clearly stated who the money is going to in that
sometimes we have to do things for certain reasons, but if we do we would
indicate in parentheses after who we're making the payment to and who the
ultimate recipient will be.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Another question. Are we going to place a lien against
River Race Augusta for $50,000?
MR. WALL: I don't know that there's anything to lien. I mean, in
essence -- the Commission needs to understand that the Commission cannot loan
money out. This is settlement of the disputed claim is the only way that it
can be viewed, and, you know, so this would be a claim against them, a
settlement with them, assuming that they are agreeable to repay the money.
MR. ZETTERBERG: So this -- we really can't do this then.
MR. WALL: No, you can approve becoming a creditor of them. You cannot
approve loaning them money. This is saying we're asking for the money back and
--
MR. ZETTERBERG: We can't approve of loaning it and we can't approve
giving it either -- or we didn't approve giving it.
MR. WALL: Didn't approve it apparently. You could approve funding the
River Race. It would be a legitimate expenditure.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Out of this, is there any expectation that we will get
$50,000 back from River Race Augusta or is it just -- just fluff?
MR. WALL: I think y'all have to make your own determination about that.
I don't know.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Well, I know I didn't vote for it, and I know that I
won't vote for giving them any money in the future unless I can have some
degree of accountability.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call the question.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Since I can't loan money to them, I guess I can't ask
them necessarily for it back.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Beard. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. ZETTERBERG VOTES NO; MR. TODD ABSTAINS. MR. MAYS ABSTAINS [see
pp. 62-64].
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 14a?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, in the Finance Committee there was a motion
to -- we had a lease from WKZK to approve a contract for a rental agreement
for twenty years for $300 annual payment that was voted down. I see on the
desk that there's a different agreement that's on the table. I've just gotten
this today, but the terms that I see, it's something that I can agree, and as
an individual Commissioner I'm going to make a motion that we accept the terms
as outlined on the WKZK in the letter that's laying on the desk.
MR. HANDY: And I second that, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to know what the main points of the letter. This
is just the first I saw it. How is different from -- well, I'll ask Jim. How
is it different from what we had looked at before?
MR. WALL: Well, I prepared a lease according to the terms of this
letter back in November, which was $1,200 per year for ten years, with $1,400
per month for the first five years and $2,000 for the second five-year option.
When I present that for their signature they balked at it and said that they
could not pay that, and that was the reason that I made the lease proposal
that was presented to you, which was for a twenty-year lease. They indicated
that they intended to construct a building out there, needed a longer term
than the ten years, and also indicated that with the insurance requirement
they could not pay the $1,200 per year and asked for the 300, and that's the
reason it was presented in the form that it was. But I did present them with
a lease according -- exactly as outlined in this letter.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm more concerned about the safety factors more
than about the dollar amount and [inaudible]. How about the antenna, do we
have a stipulation there, Mr. Wall, where we're going to make sure that the
antenna is safe and that it's the break-away kind and that it's not going to
wind up on the high voltage transmission lines that's down there?
MR. WALL: Well, the tower is already in place. The insurance
requirement would go toward protecting against that event, but the tower is
already existing there and erected onsite.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, we're doing a new lease, though, and we can put
criteria on the tower as far as improvements and making sure that's a break-
away tower instead of something that's going to fall on the transmission lines
and knock out most of the power for that area. So I'm not going to support it
in the sense that the issues that I was concerned about haven't been
addressed, and I have some problems with the tower situation. It's never been
the amount of money.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, it's impossible to get what Mr. Todd
want as far as the antenna. The FCC has control of that. And the tower is
where it need to be, and it just can't be moved or put any place. It have to
be where it is and it is away from the -- it's only a hundred and eighty feet
tall, and the power line is above the hundred and eighty feet, so it will not
fall on the main transmission line coming through there. And even if it did,
that's what the liability insurance is going to take care of anyway. So
whatever damage it causes, the insurance is going to take care of that, so
that part is covered. You just can't put a tower anywhere you want to. They
come up with that long before they give you permission for a station.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I understand the need for the tower to be
where it's at. There's nothing saying that the tower can't be reconstructed
to be a break-away tower, and that's what I've been looking for from day one,
along with some other issues is that this tower not knock out the power if it
should be brought down by high winds. And I'll vote present. Maybe it'll
have enough votes to pass.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the question, please.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. TODD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MR. OLIVER: Let me clarify one thing. I want to make sure I'm right.
That's a ten-year lease with two five-year options?
MR. WALL: Uh-huh.
MR. OLIVER: Okay.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes. Mr. Mayor, pardon me, but on Item 14, on clarity of
establishing ourselves as a creditor -- and I think we should, but what's
confusing to me in that, I guess, is how do we do it. And I would like to see
us be able to have a plan situation, whether it's by suit, whether it's by
certified letter, whether it's an attempt to do it or whatever, and that's why
I'm changing my vote to present and to abstain. I think it should be done,
but I think a legal mechanism ought to be established by this body in order to
do it. I mean, it's like saying somebody owes you and you send a bill to
them. I think if the vote is there that we become a creditor -- you can't
just become one because you want to be one. I think legal action has to be
taken in order to establish that fact, and since that's not in place, then I
will respectfully ask that my vote be changed to present.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, so that -- to clarify, I intend as a result of the
action taken to present them with a settlement agreement to settle the
disputed claim, which would call for the repayment.
MR. MAYS: Will that be presented to us or is it enough language in what
you said -- and I beg everybody's pardon if I heard it wrong. Maybe it was
just said in jest, but when we asked how was that to be done I think you
replied I don't really know. And I guess, you know, I'm kind of like the
sheep and the shepherd, I'm following your lead. You know, if you're doing
the legal matters on it, then, you know, I want to know how do we do it, you
know. And if that's the case, then I can vote for it in order to do it; but
if it's not, then I'll wait, and then I'll assume whatever we -- you know, if
we get that type of -- whether it's through declaratory judgment or whatever
way it's reached, then at that time I'll be supportive of it. But if it's
unclear to say we just become a creditor, you know, it's like, you know, me
picking somebody out of the audience and becoming a creditor, you know, on
their check. You know, I want to know what I'm going to do to do it, serve
somebody, you know, for profit, nonprofit group. I think that thing, that
needs to be spelled out a little bit better than what we've got it, or at
least give you the authorization to do it, then you bring it back to us and
then we decide.
MR. WALL: And it's going to be brought back. I mean, the settlement
agreement will have to be approved.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Well, I'll abstain until that time, and then we'll
have an opportunity to vote on it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 15, please?
CLERK: Under Engineering portion of the agenda, Items 15 through 22
were approved by the Engineering Services Committee on May 27th.
[Item 15: Motion to approve resolution to abandon portions of Market
Street and 12th Street and Tatnall Street Tract-I for development of the
Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. Item 16: Motion to approve Change Order #1
for Paving Various Roads, Phase V, Project Number 55-8708-096 with APAC-
Georgia, Incorporated in the amount of $57,084.50. Item 17: Motion to
approve Ordinance amending Richmond County Code to provide for procedures for
the tree removal on public right-of-way. Item 18: Motion to approve the
renaming of Sunset Avenue (Martin Luther King Blvd. to Olive Road) Essie
McIntyre Blvd. Item 19: Motion to approve Capital Project Budget #57-
8657-097 with funding in the amount of $17,900 from special One Percent Sales
Tax, Phase II Allocated Funds and approve the Engineering Proposal from PM&A
Consulting Engineers in this same amount for the Antler Drive West Drainage
Improvement Project.
Item 20: Motion to ratify an oral agreement between Augusta-Richmond
County Utilities and Searle and NutraSweet to provide uninterrupted service
during construction of the East Augusta Drainage Improvement Project. Funding
of $23,000 is to be 50% from each industry. Item 21: Motion to approve
bid award to low bidder of $26,962.40 from Blair Construction, Inc. regarding
the vertical change (lower and relocation of the existing 24" water main
located at Doug Bernard Parkway and Gordon Highway. Item 22: Motion to
approve settlement of condemnation case styled Richmond County v. M&M Realty,
et al, by swapping 0.9969 acres of property condemned for 1.04 acres presently
owned by M&M Realty.]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I move that we accept the Engineering
Services Committee report as a consent agenda.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Powell, seconded by Mr. Handy.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 23?
CLERK: Item 23 was approved by the Public Safety Committee on May 27th.
[Item 23: Motion to approve purchase of Linescan 222 X-Ray Security
Screening System for $19,645.00 from Capital Budget.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, this item was approved and I move for
approval by the main Commission.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 24?
CLERK: Under Public Services, Items 24 through 28. And there was a
correction on the sign for Item 25. Where it says violation, it should be
cited.
[Item 24: Motion to approve Memorandum of Agreement between Augusta
Housing Authority and Augusta-Richmond County Recreation and Parks for Summer
Youth Recreation Program, funded by the Housing Authority and implemented by
the Recreation Department in the amount of $50,000.
Item 25: Motion to approve installation of signs upon citing property
for case violation(s) and upon property owner being found guilty of code
violation(s). Item 26: Motion to approve authorization of $1 Million
Dollar Blanket Purchase Order to Texaco Refining and Marketing, Inc. to
expedite payment for aviation fuel for six (6) months and request RFP's for
"98" purchases effective 1-1-98. Item 27: Motion to approve 5-year
General Consulting Services Agreement and Work Authorizations One and Two for
Professional Services with LPA Group in the amount of $212,014 to provide
construction cost information and design services for implementation of the
Airport's FAA approved Updated Master Plan/Terminal Area Study. Item 28:
Motion to approve selection of the firm of WK Dickson to provide consultant
services for planning, design, and construction management at Daniel Field.]
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I make the motion that we approve Items 24
through 28.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Kuhlke, seconded by Mr. Todd.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I would like to pull 25 and 26 for verification.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that all right with you, Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes, sir, that's fine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Ms. Bonner, now we've got 24, 27, and 28; right?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 25, please?
CLERK: Item 25 is a motion to approve the installation of signs citing
property for case violation or violations and upon property owners being found
guilty of code violations.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we --this be the first reading.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, if you want to start on this end.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, the year and a half that I've been down here in
the consolidated government I've heard numerous complaints about the
environment in the old urban service district and seen numerous efforts to
clean it up and participated to some extent. And let me point out just for
clarification that none of District Four run into the old urban service
district, but I've worked with ever whom was concerned and I have concern.
We've brought crews in from the landfill, inmate labor crews, we've
participated every which we could, and I think that the problem didn't start
January 1, 1996, the problem existed way before. But not for placing blame,
just taking corrective action.
Now, we've made every effort to take corrective action and this is where
we're at. When we hired a License and Inspection Director, one of the issues
that we brought up was the code violation and doing something about it, and if
we're going to be serious about this and do something about it, we've got to
do something other than just throw money. And if we happen to embarrass
somebody on the way that owns some slum property that refuses to take
corrective action and come in compliance, then so be it. About the only thing
I can say for them, you know, is to get it in compliance with the code and you
don't have a problem, you won't have to worry about being embarrassed. I
understand also that we may have some poor folks that can't possibly do any
better. Well, my answer to them is that we possibly can help them through
Augusta Clean and Beautiful and Community Service folks and other ways, but we
cannot take county employees in and clean up, we've got to do it through
nonprofits, et cetera. And we do some of that now and I'm sure that we'll do
some more. And there is a possibility we can do some things as far as
landfill fees go, et cetera. But we got to get serious about it, and if I'm
going to spend money to do it, then I want to go through due process. And I
think we can do some things other than going -- spending the money, and I
think this will be one of them, and I think that it will at least get a
percentage of the property cleaned up without the government having to take a
action after that first sign go up. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Coming around. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I think you skipped Mr. Mays.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't see his hand.
MR. MAYS: I'll yield to Mr. Beard, and that way Ulmer will get a chance
on that [inaudible].
MR. BRIDGES: I don't have anything to say on this one. Willie. Thank
you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I do agree with my colleague about the -- we need
to be serious about this, but I think we're using a Band-aid approach to the
problem. We talk about, you know, fifteen days. I think we've been talking
about this, and we had the same problem last summer. You know, maybe if my
colleague had as many people calling me as -- calling him as calling me in the
urban area, then maybe he would feel a little different about the lots.
People are calling me and telling me they can't come out their back door
because there are vacant lots next door to them that's being infested there,
and we're going to have to wait fifteen days or are we going to just put up a
sign there? What does a person in New York or California care about you
putting up a sign there? I mean, this doesn't make any sense to me.
The point that I've been trying to get over the last few months to my
colleagues is that we need to clear the urban area of these vacant lots, these
infested lots. We've got houses that are run down. Yes, we have the people
there to enforce the codes, but I am more concerned about the vacant lots
being cleaned up, taken care of, so that the people in the city will be able
to enjoy what we have here. And I think that -- we keep saying that we can't
go on private property, and I know that we can't go on private property, but I
think that after talking to the Attorney, that something could be worked out
wherein -- as we've done in other cases, cut those lots, have people going in
and cut those lots, clean them up, and bill the people. And I'm not
asking that we just go in and clean up and not -- and the people are not
paying for it. They should have to pay for this. And if we do that and get a
crew in there -- or even outsource it, so that we can keep our city clean.
And it's just deplorable how many lots we have. And how many signs are we
going to put up? The three hundred or four hundred signs that we have, we're
just going to stick them up throughout the city? I just don't see this, and I
think we need another approach to it and I think we need to get on that as
soon as possible, but the signs are not the answer to it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to go along with some of
what Mr. Beard is saying on this. My question is, what safeguards are
currently in place to clean up these illegal properties? Don't we already
have safeguards in place?
MR. OLIVER: What do you mean by safeguards? I mean, we go through the
judicial system and the judicial process, and I don't think that -- obviously
with our court backload, backlog and things like that, the movement through
that system is not as expeditious as perhaps we would like. One of the things
I'd also like to point out is I agree with Mr. Beard in that putting up a sign
such as this would have no effect on what I call an absentee landowner that
would be out of the city, and that would not be the people we want to target
because obviously it isn't going to make any difference to them. What we are
-- and I agree that it takes a comprehensive approach. The point in this
approach is to try to make this one of the armaments in our arsenal, if you
will, to address the entire problem.
MR. POWELL: Okay. Second part, we can't go on private property to
clean up illegal dump sites. The Commission has already voted that we're not
going to do that. We've got people out here that own property, they pay their
taxes, but yet they're getting the punishment basically, from what I see,
because someone is violating the law. The second thing -- or the third thing
is, what about all these city lots that we own that we don't have cleaned up.
Whose name is going to go on that? And how much labor and expense is this
going to incur to the taxpayers? Are we fooling ourselves to go out there and
nail up a sign? Do you really think that somebody comes along and sees a sign
like this in front of their place, that they're not going to pull the damn
sign up?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I think it's a good idea to do what we
are doing, and I am going to support it because there's a lot of property out
there owned by even some politicians that need to be straightened out. And I'm
just going to go ahead on a say it, and I don't know why it is that some of
the Commission want it and why some of them do not want it, but this is a good
start. And it's not necessarily that I'm going against Mr. Beard, but the
thing of it is, is that he says the city. Well, Augusta-Richmond County is
the whole city, so it starts from the river all the way to the Burke County
line, and so everything needs to be cleaned up. And doesn't matter who owns
it, who has their name on it, whether it's a taxpayer down there, it needs to
be a sign put there that may embarrass a person to get something done about
it, and I will be supportive of the motion.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I believe our Director of the License and
Inspection is here, so as far as code enforcement I'd like to hear from him on
what his plans is to write folks up, what the process is, being that some of
us don't seem to understand. When I voted for it, it was my understanding
that he understood that there was pretty high priority as far as code
enforcement go and doing something about it.
MR. SHERMAN: Yes, Mr. Todd, we are getting serious about the code
enforcement. Just as of last week we realized that we had eight hundred and
eight cases that we're working on right now. The process is that we go out --
we get a complaint, we go out and we inspect the property to determine what
the problem is. Once we make that determination we will notice the property
owner that they are in violation, that they have so many days to clean up the
property. If they don't respond to that notice, our next step is to then send
it to Magistrate Court, who will issue a citation, and then they would appear
before the judge and the judge would make a determination whether the county
or the city is correct in their assessment of the property or if he's going to
charge the person with a violation.
If the person does not have the money to make a correction, then that's
where we are, we've got to decide what to do. The Land Authority, I think
that would be a wise move. Then we could take the property over if we can
negotiate a sale. The signs, I don't really see how we can lose on them. If
fifty percent of the -- they have an option of cleaning it up or not. If they
clean it up, it's a lot less costly than going through the judicial process.
MR. BEARD: What is the time line on the judicial process.
MR. SHERMAN: Jim may have to help us on that, but we've got to give
them notice, we've got to go through the legal process of advertising the
properties --
MR. WALL: It's thirty days in which the court --
MR. BEARD: And by that time summer will be over. We would still have
the vacant -- the lots there, overgrown lots there. And what I'm saying is I
don't have a problem with the signs, I have a problem with that we have not
injected anything to clear the vacant lots. Now, you tell me what we're doing
to clear these vacant lots. This is what people are calling me about.
MR. SHERMAN: Well, I think we have -- there are two ways of going about
it, either the county or the city cleans up the lot or the property owner
does. I think the sign is one way of getting the property owner's attention.
MR. BEARD: I'm not talking about the signs, I'm talking about lots, how
do we clear these vacant lots, and I think we need to come up with a solution.
I don't have a problem with -- that much problem with the signs because I
don't care about that. I'm saying the sign -- the signs, they do not or will
not correct the problem, and that's what I'm talking about. And these people
want to talk about a sign and politicians and all of that, I don't care about
that. I care about clearing lots so that people can come out in the backyard
of the house next door and feel comfortable in sitting out there, that's what
I'm talking about. Now, if you want to come up with a plan or the Commission
want to come up with a plan that will alleviate that problem, then we can go
from there.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I still have the floor, the -- what I wanted
was a clarification on the process. And I think that if -- we have the
mechanism to cite folks now, we don't have to wait the thirty days as far as
the second reading of the ordinance. All this do is when we get to that
point, they've been cited, is give them the opportunity to post the signs.
The other is already there, the law is there.
Now, the other point that I'd like to make real fast is that if the
county-owned lots is not cut, then the person that's over that department
should be fired. It's simple and it's clear. I hear this argument every time
this come up, how about the county lots. Well, I have that listed in the
specs for the space allocation. I've looked at the lots and they appear to be
-- or most of them has been cut. They are not the overgrown lots that's been
overgrown for the last ten years. But if the county is not doing their part,
then the folks responsible for getting them cut should simply be fired. That
should have nothing to do with the issue as far as the private-owned lots that
folks is refusing the clean up. And most of them, if there's a home there
or not, but especially ones with a home on it that's grown up that have
certain real estate name on the door that it's for rent and it looks like a
urban jungle with trees and bushes and grass grown up waist high, it's
ridiculous and that's what we want to do something about. And, yes, we have
politicians that own homes in inner-city or old urban service district that is
not maintaining their property, and I would love like heck to be the one that
nail the sign up that nail them as far as the public go that they are not
keeping up their property.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I may have been one of the first people that
discussed this -- the signs with Mr. Oliver in terms of looking at them in his
office in terms of the note from one of our publications and the sample sign
that was done at the time. I have no problem either with the signs going up.
I think that's -- if that's going to be in the arsenal of doing things,
that's good. There's nothing wrong with having that weapon in your arsenal.
But if one of those persons I've heard diligently making a speech on it --Mr.
Todd said that he has no folk in the old urban area and Mr. Beard is in the
heart of the old urban area. Well, I got everything from the river to Tobacco
Road, so I got both of you and all of you, so I can speak both ways. It's not
just an urban problem. It may be concentrated more in the urban area because
of the density of a lot of those homes. Some of it's in the suburban areas as
well. Maybe not as many, but you got a lot of them in suburbia that are out
there.
I think two issues that we got to look at is, one, those containing
property and one containing vacant lots. I think you've got a difference in
there in terms of maybe how we need to deal with that particular approach
because I do think you've got some problems there with buildings and how
you're going to deal with it, want to go ahead with the sign situation and
those. But I think the overgrowth, the simple weeds, Johnson grass, whatever
you want to call it that's out there, that there is enough -- we got enough
stuff now that's being over-legislated. There's enough stuff out there to get
a bunch of that clean, doesn't have to be with folk going on private property.
There's enough people out there who will deal with small contractors who will
go in and clean a bunch of those lots. You got Public Service folk out there
that the numbers are backed up to a point that where if you may have
recreational events sometimes they walk on each other's heels in cleaning up
the same amounts of trash and putting it in a can. There's physical specimens
that can get a lot of this done.
And I agree with Lee, you know, you get a bunch of folk whereby when you
get these calls coming in to a point of where a lot of this stuff is cleaned
up. It's not just in lots. If we're going to talk about cleaning, let's talk
about everything in the cleaning. Let's talk about the right-of-way
abandonment, which is owned by us truly. A lot of these right-of-ways, old
fire lanes -- fire lanes now big enough to start a fire, and you wouldn't take
a fire truck down them in this day and time anyway. That type of stuff is
owned by this city, this new consolidated government. It belongs to us. Some
you wouldn't take a hoister down through there. And I'm just saying that
the signs ought to start first. If we're going to put them up, then let's do
like the sign, Mr. Mayor, over to the Golf Hall of Fame. Let's put on there
that this property is owned by the new second largest city in Georgia,
Consolidated Government, Larry Sconyers, Mayor, and then let's go down in
alphabetical order and put every Commissioner's name on there, and then let's
get to the point of dealing with how you deal with the department head.
Because if you're not given in those departments the people and the direction
to get those things done, then laying the blame on the department head and
firing them is not necessarily going to be the answer. The buck ought to
start up here, and if we own it, then, hell, let's put the first sign on a
bunch of that that we own. We can still go through a bunch of these back
streets on property that we've confiscated that's owned by us that has never
been touched. And you're right, Moses, a lot of it is inherited stuff that
may have come from it, but with the inheritance we reap it, it's now ours. So
if we're going to deal with the embarrassment factor, let's deal with the
starters if we're going to put them up, let's turn and stick them on ours.
But are we interested in results? The signs, I think, Mr. Oliver, is a good
idea to have in the arsenal, but I think this is an age-old problem to a point
that a lot of these lots in terms of getting them clean --when folk call me in
the 1400 block of Florence Street and little girls can see snakes three and
four feet long, and walk out and clean when you have a cookout in the
summertime, and it doesn't belong to a slum lord, it belongs to the city, then
I think then we bear some responsibility of dealing with our own, too. Every
one of them haven't been cleaned up. And them suckers, if you clean them up --
and I know from ones that are in my name that I had a responsibility of having
to pay somebody to clean them up, you can clean them up today and if it rains
a little bit of time -- even in dry weather. They don't need water to grow,
they'll grow on anything. They'll grow in wine, they'll grow on grass,
they'll grow on rocks. It'll be back up two and three feet high and you got
to clean it up.
So, I mean, if we're going to do it in the arsenal, then let's do it
both ways. You want to deal with the embarrassment factor, that's fine. But
if the whole thing is to get results, then let's do with what we got on the
books. You got -- many times we complain about the court -- and I'm going to
shut up on this, but the one thing about the court system, yes, it's bogged
down, but how many times do we put a priority on the cases that we cite that
go to court? Most of these cases in overgrown, urban, poor, depressed areas,
when they go to court they are not priority areas, that where if we're trying
to acquire some big piece of property for a right-of-way we go in and we fight
those cases. The Commission maybe needs to make that a legal priority of
saying to the Attorney we want you to go. We may also want help from the
neighborhood association clusters to go in and to say to judicial people this
has to be a priority. Those are things we are not doing. So I don't have
a problem with the sign, Randy, but I do think we need a multi-prong approach.
And I don't think the lot part of it can just be left to where we stick the
sign, because when it reads owned by Acme Corporation, Post Office Box such
and such, what's on the tax books, these folk that call me, they could give
less than a rip about what reads on that sign. They want to see it cut.
MR. OLIVER: Let me make two points. This is geared towards buildings,
it's not geared toward vacant lots because it isn't going to serve any useful
purpose, and we are in the process of developing a plan to address the vacant
lots. And one of our concerns on the vacant lots is we can go out and mow
them, but the question is going to be, if it costs ten or twenty or whatever
in dollars, the question is going to be what's the likelihood we're going to
get paid for doing it, and that's the part of it that we are trying to assess
right now. The actual ordinance to permit us to assess the fee is fairly
mechanical in actually getting it done, but I want to look at what the
financial impact is to everyone involved.
MR. MAYS: I think part of it can be answered -- if those are currently
paid lots that are up to date on the tax books, they're going to pay what you
send them that's out there. And by the time you clean it over the course of a
year three to four times, whether it's twenty-five or whether it's seventy-
five, in order to retain it, then they are going to pay it or else it's going
to be one of those that goes to the Land Bank, it's going to be one of those
seized properties. And that's what I was talking about the creativity in the
Land Bank of being able to do something with property other than just swapping
it from one slum lord to another one, having it where people are going to
reinvest in that area and to do something with those properties that are
vacant. So if they are paying the tax on it, they'll pay the taxes and
cleanup fee or they'll lose it. And that's always been the argument from
those of us who've lived around that infestation to a point that if it's paid,
they're going to pay one with the other one or they're going to lose it.
MR. OLIVER: And I agree with that, but the question may well become
then do we only cut the ones that pay their taxes, and I don't think that's
going to totally obtain the objective desired.
MR. MAYS: Seize it and sell it for a dollar with the agreement to put
some back on it.
MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask the Administrator what kind of time
line are we talking about, because I need to answer some questions from all
the people that they are asking about these lots. And since you said we are
working on something --
MR. OLIVER: We'll try to bring it back to committee next time. If we
can't, it will be the following time.
MR. BEARD: Okay.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to know from Mr. Sherman how many
complaints he have about lots that's next door, et cetera. I'd like to have
something to weigh this against.
MR. SHERMAN: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
MR. TODD: I'd like to know how many complaints you have as far as lots
go, grown up lots.
MR. SHERMAN: Property maintenance, right now we're working on five
hundred and ninety-seven cases.
MR. TODD: Okay, so you have five hundred and ninety-seven complaints.
Okay. At what point will those complaints be in the courts and what time --
when do you start and when do you expect a disposition?
MR. SHERMAN: Well, I can't answer that on each one specifically, but
the process is that we notify them that they're in violation, give them a
chance--I think it's sixty days on a lot--to go out and clean it up. The next
-- and then the inspectors will go back by the lot frequently to see if
they're doing that, then it's a matter of getting it on the docket in the
Magistrate Court.
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Sherman again. Have these five
hundred and some cases been made since you took responsibility of License and
Inspection or?
MR. SHERMAN: These are since -- well, actually since the first of the
year there have been one thousand one hundred and nine cases. Forty-six of
those cases were carried forward from '96. Now, I've been out there, I think,
three weeks. I don't think that five hundred and ninety seven -- no. I
couldn't tell you how many have occurred since I've been out there.
MR. TODD: So they're somewhere in the time line. The point that I'd
like to make is that per statute and opinion of the Attorney General, that we
can't put folks out on lots to clean lots up, if we wanted to go out and hire
folks or contract, et cetera, unless we go through due process or have a
mechanism of collecting the taxpayers' money back. We cannot give gratuity or
whatever you call it to the property owners of private property. Now, there
may be another way to handle this. If the Health Department was saying that
it's a health hazard or something, then we may be able to go in there and do
an emergency situation as far as cleanup go, I don't know. But I don't think
that the solution is -- I hear some folks saying that we need to just go on in
and spend the money and clean it up.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to call the question. I think
this [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges had his hand up over here.
MR. BRIDGES: That's what I was going to do, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion,
let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 26?
CLERK: 26 is a motion to approve the authorization of a Million Dollar
Blanket Purchase Order to Texaco Refining to expedite payment for aviation
fuel for six months and request RFP's for "98" purchases effective 1-1-98.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Handy. Discussion,
gentlemen?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I think I asked that this be pulled, and I just
need a couple of explanations here. You know, is this a sole source -- why is
-- why don't we have any competitive bidding for this, and do we just fall for
every million dollar blanket purchase order?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McDill, do you want to answer that for him, please?
MR. BEARD: To the Administrator or --
MR. OLIVER: Mr. McDill is here from the Port Authority -- oh, Aviation.
MR. McDILL: Commissioner Beard, it is a sole source presently. The
contract is with Texaco. The contract has been in place since 1988. They
provide us an exceptionally good price. And, you know, the condition was
imposed when we requested the purchase order to expedite the payment that we
seek competitive bids, but -- in fact, we will put an RFP together, but you
will not get a hard, firm bid on a gallon of gasoline from jet fuel to be
delivered over a period of a year. It's going to be whatever the tanker load
price is on a given day. When the price changes, they're going to invoice us
for whatever that tanker price is. It doesn't hinge on anything that's fixed.
I'd be surprised if we get any kind of a fixed price out of this request for
proposals.
MR. BEARD: I was just a little concerned because everything else we --
come before the Commissioners we talk about bidding and going through the
bidding process and here I see, with all of this involved, we're just using
one source here.
MR. McDILL: It's going to be bid. It's going to be bid in '98.
MR. BEARD: And how long is this --
MR. McDILL: Well, the intent here in the condition that was imposed, I
think Commissioner Kuhlke was the one that requested that we go through the
RFP process. It's intended for one year is what I think was proposed. But
what I explained at the time was that there are so many things that get
factored in besides the price of a gallon of fuel. That influences the price,
of course, but there are so many things that we have to have: the credit card
system, equipment that gets supplied by the supplier, the fuel supplier, sixty
million dollars worth of product liability insurance -- a number of other
things that go along with this; a long list of them, in fact. So that's what
will go into the request for proposals, to get some indication to see if there
is a better price out there, but we're not going to get a firm price. It will
surprise me if we do.
MR. BEARD: Okay. So we're going into this after this --
MR. McDILL: Yes, sir. That was the condition that -- what I understood
to be the intent.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Beard, in our committee -- this request is twofold.
One, it's about a six-month supply of fuel. The second thing is that there
are discounts available to Bush Field by giving a blanket purchase order. It
will help expedite the payment to be able to take advantage of the discount.
And we felt like that it may take Mr. McDill and Mr. Oliver about six months
to get the paperwork together to go out for an RFP and to make a comfortable
transition should there be a change in the supplier, so these type things were
discussed in our committee meeting. But we also felt like that it was in the
best interest of Bush Field if they would go out and take a look and get some
comparison and feel comfortable that they're getting the best price on their
product.
MR. HANDY: We call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Mr. Todd's motion --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I made the motion to approve this, and I think
that it's pretty much --
MR. HANDY: And I seconded it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Right.
MR. TODD: It's pretty much in there that we are going to do it in 1998,
but I'd like to point out that we inherited this situation of sole source and
we inherited it from the former government. And where I agree with Mr. Beard
that we need to take corrective action when we have a situation like this,
there are certainly other needs, as Bill has pointed out, as far as quality
assurance, product liability, and other issues dealing with jet fuel,
including your major carriers and them being satisfied with the fuel that you
are providing. So certainly I think that we're taking corrective action now,
that this something that the former airport commission and former govern-ment
should have done years ago. And, you know, I certainly appreciate Mr. Kuhlke
for his oversight and, far as the committee go, in chairing the committee and
catching it and taking care of it. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of the motion, let
it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BEARD & MR. POWELL OUT]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Item 27, please -- oh, I'm sorry, 29.
CLERK: 29: Appointment to various boards and authorities. The
following appointments have been recommended. To the Development Authority of
Richmond County, Ms. Charlene Sizemore for a two-year term; Harold Tiller for
a four-year term; Monty Oldstein for a four-year term; Abram Serotta, two-year
term; Bill Thompson, two-year term; Dr. Ronald Lewis, a two-year term; Mr.
Terry Elam, four-year term; Mr. Walter Hornsby, four-year term; and Mr.
Charles Walker, four-year term.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
CLERK: We have further appointments. To the Coliseum Authority --
MR. BRIDGES: I've got a question on that one. What authority was that?
CLERK: This was the Development Authority of Richmond County.
MR. BRIDGES: Industrial Development Authority?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. BRIDGES: Is that all the -- is that all the members that can be
placed on there?
MR. WALL: That's nine members, right.
MR. HANDY: Just nine, right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Shouldn't we go ahead and vote on that one?
MR. BRIDGES: Can I make a substitute on there?
MR. WALL: Sure. I mean, those are the recommended names, though.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. I'd like to recommend Charles Dillard, the former
administrator of the government, be placed on that board.
MR. TODD: And who are you recommended, Mr. Mayor, to be removed?
MR. BRIDGES: I'd remove -- well, just pick one. Just pick Mr. Tiller.
MR. HANDY: You need to pick another one.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, if you think that's going to lose somebody, just
pick one, but I think Mr. Dillard would be an excellent choice on that board.
He's expressed an interest in it. And I wasn't -- I didn't realize we were
voting on this today or how those recommendations came about, but I'd like to
see him on there.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let's go back to the guidelines as far as being
appointed to the boards and authorities, et cetera. Did Mr. Dillard have a
talent bank application in?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes, he does.
MR. TODD: He does? May I see the talent bank application?
MR. BRIDGES: It's in your file.
CLERK: It's in your book.
MR. HANDY: In the file?
CLERK: In the book.
MR. BRIDGES: We all got two great big old books with the talent banks
in it.
MR. TODD: We're talking about the big book?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I didn't necessarily get the big book file for
every district, I'm not really sure, but I certainly would like to see the
application now because that's what we set out as far as criteria go, and we
may want to see the talent bank application for everybody that's vying for a
position or has been requested to serve. And, Mr. Mayor, I read your memo in
reference criteria and what would meet this criteria for appointees, and I
think that the appointees that's on this certainly meets that criteria. And
Mr. Dillard, I'm sure, would meet the criteria also as far as being the former
administrator for the city government, and certainly he meets my criteria as
far as being from Hephzibah or deep South Richmond, but I think to change or
pull someone sends the wrong message.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, if your going to do it, now would be the time to
do it. What's your pleasure, gentlemen, so we can go ahead and discuss this?
MR. BRIDGES: Could I hear a list of the names again, please?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to reread it out, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Charlene Sizemore, two-year term; Harold Tiller,
four-year term; Monty Oldstein, four-year term; Abram Serotta, two-year term;
Bill Thompson, two-year term; Dr. Ronald Lewis, two years; Terry Elam, four;
Walter Hornsby, four; Charles Walker, four.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, now, help me a little bit. I thought that anybody
who was appointed had to go when the Commissioner that appointed them went
out; is that right, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: I'm sorry, do what?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I thought that [inaudible] had to go out at the same
time the appointing Commissioner went out.
MR. WALL: Well, this is not a Section 13F board, it's one that the
Commission as a whole makes the appointments. And what we were trying to do,
since all of those appointments have expired, is to stagger those in. So it's
not by district on these.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay.
MR. BRIDGES: Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir?
MR. BRIDGES: Could I offer Charles Dillard in place of Mr. Ronald
Lewis? And the only reason I ask that, I don't know Mr. Lewis, so I guess I'm
going to have to pick somebody I don't know.
MR. TODD: That's not acceptable, Mr. Mayor. And I'll introduce you to
Mr. Lewis. Mr. Lewis is Dr. Lewis. Ronald Lewis is the husband of Paine
College president.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. If that's not acceptable, Mr. Todd, then how about
Abram Serotta?
MR. TODD: No problem there.
MR. KUHLKE: That's not acceptable.
MR. BRIDGES: Charles Walker?
MR. ZETTERBERG: That's not acceptable.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, let's just vote on it and then we can take an
individual --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, who submitted -- excuse me, who --
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, could I suggest this: I haven't seen the list.
I didn't know -- I wasn't aware we were picking this position today. I
thought we had three positions we were picking today and I wasn't aware this
was one of them. Can we place this off till the next meeting?
MR. HANDY: You don't have to vote on them.
MR. BRIDGES: Huh?
MR. HANDY: You don't have to vote.
MR. BRIDGES: I want to vote.
MR. HANDY: Oh, okay.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir? I'm sorry.
MR. KUHLKE: Let me, from the standpoint -- I don't mind seconding, if
that's required, Mr. Bridges' recommendation. But I think that this is a very
important authority. It's been in flux for a number of months. I think this
needs to be done today, so -- and we're going to vote on it and so we can
bring it to a resolution. So whoever Ulmer would like to substitute for, I'll
second that, and then I'd like to call the question.
MR. BRIDGES: I'll just offer Mr. Serotta -- Mr. Dillard in place of Mr.
Serotta.
MR. KUHLKE: And I'll second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I move we elect the other eight.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. WALL: Well, y'all ought to vote on this and then vote on the other
as a substitute.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: (inaudible]
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, this is a -- point of information, Mr. Mayor and
Mr. Parliamentarian. I believe we had a motion on the floor, then we had a
substitute motion offered, so I would assume that we're voting on the
substitute motion first.
MR. WALL: And I agree with that. I think that you -- the motion was
that a slate of nine, and this would be in the form of a substitute motion for
one of those nine.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. Substitute motion first, made by Mr.
Bridges, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke. All in favor, let it be known by raising
your hand, please. Do y'all know what we're voting on?
MR. BEARD: No. What are we substituting?
CLERK: Substitute motion was replacing Mr. Serotta with Mr. Dillard.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Replacing Mr. Serotta with Mr. Dillard.
MR. BEARD: Who is Mr. Dillard?
CLERK: Charles Dillard, former administrator.
MR. HANDY: Your former boss.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the substitute motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION FAILS 5-4-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We've got 5-4-1. No vote. Back to the original motion
to elect the slate presented.
MR. BRIDGES: What's the motion, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: To elect the slate as presented that Ms. Bonner read.
All in favor of the motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MAYOR SCONYERS: Six to two. I must have missed some hands on that.
MR. BEARD: No, I didn't -- I just didn't --
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for a roll call vote.
CLERK: Okay. Mr. Beard? This is for the slate of officers, motion by
Mr. Todd -- I mean slate of appointees to the Industrial Development
Authority. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: [inaudible]. I mean, you'll have to read it.
CLERK: Charlene Sizemore, Harold Tiller, Monty Osteen, Abram Serotta,
Bill Thompson, Dr. Ronald Lewis, Terry Elam, Walter Hornsby, and Charles
Walker.
MR. BEARD: Is that nine?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: No.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yeah.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: The next appointments, the Coliseum Authority: Mr. Jerry
Brigham would like to place Mr. Austin Rhodes; Mr. Ulmer Bridges, Billy
Holden. On the Public Facilities: Ulmer Bridges, Erma Williams; Bill Kuhlke,
Duane Grice. The Planning Commission: Mr. Lee Beard would like to appoint
Ms. Patricia Jefferson.
MR. KUHLKE: Is that the Coliseum Authority?
CLERK: Two appointments to the Coliseum Authority.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Shouldn't we vote on them one at a time? Shouldn't we
vote on the Coliseum Authority by itself and then the next one? I'm like
Bill, I got a little confused actually.
CLERK: Okay.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I believe the Coliseum Authority is a
legislative commission. I think the other one is a Section 13F.
MR. WALL: That's right.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: [inaudible]
MR. WALL: The others are by Commission district, the Coliseum Authority
is by the Commission as a whole.
CLERK: So the Coliseum by itself, Public Facilities and Planning
together.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to so move that we approve the slate of
appointees.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I want to find out exactly where we're at. I
think we're going to do it one at a time so everybody knows exactly what's
going on. It gets confusing if we don't, so let's do it one at a time.
MR. TODD: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the Coliseum
Authority appointees.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Did everybody hear the names, though?
MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like them restated.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're not going to accept that motion. Reread the
Coliseum Authority appointees.
CLERK: Austin Rhodes and Billy Holden. Austin Rhodes and Billy Holden.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move that we approve the Coliseum Authority
appointees.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Bridges.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I guess this is one where, you know, have we
eight appointees and those eight appointees is going to be given to the eight
Commissions districts and not super districts, and I certainly will talk to
Mr. Mays before my appointee is brought forward and we'll work on that for the
Fourth District. One of the other things that we've done is that we've kind
of respected the right and the opinion of the individual Commissioner to
appoint a person, and I'm not going to deviate from that whether I agree, you
know, politically or otherwise or even like the appointee. I'm not going to
let personalities get involved, I'm going to support the person that the
individual from the district bring forward. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Further discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to agree with Commissioner Todd on
this. These are district appointments, right? That's the only question I
really have.
MR. WALL: Well, the Coliseum Authority appointments is by the
Commission as a whole. Informally y'all have agreed that the eight district
commissioners would each appoint one, but you as a body have to approve all of
them. It's an --
MR. BEARD: Yes, I know, but if this is coming like the other
appointments wherein these two districts -- the two people that are being
appointed are coming from the district that these people whoever are
appointing them, I would respect that. But if it's something that we all have
to do, then I would have to take another look at it. That's what I want to
clarify.
MR. WALL: Let me try to explain. Section 13F of the Consolidation Bill
says that each Commission district should be represented, and through that
each of you has an appointment to those various boards and authorities. The
Coliseum Authority is not one of those Section 13F boards; however, in an
effort to try to come up with a method to fill the appointments to some of
these other boards and authorities, it was recommended that eight individual
districts would each select one member and recommend those. And so that's the
process that is being used insofar as the Coliseum Authority is concerned, but
they still are an appointment by the board as a whole.
MR. BEARD: Okay. I think I finally got the picture.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. BEARD: And I -- I'll yield to Willie.
MR. MAYS: The only thing I was going to say -- and I guess me and Bill
probably got less to say about it than anybody. He got a hundred thousand
folks, I got a hundred thousand, and we ain't got no vote. But -- at least we
don't have a nominee. But is it not true, Mr. Mayor or Mr. Attorney, that
while it may not fall under that section, that it's pretty much under
Commission to do that? I won't say, gentlemen, I think that's -- you know,
that's what it is right now, all ten guys. But, you know, didn't we pretty
much set that with these nominations if the two super districts were stepping
back, that the single district people, whether they coordinated with me and
Bill or not, would basically make those nominations? I mean, whether that's a
legality or not, I think we pretty much said that that was what we would
respect.
MR. WALL: That's what I was told.
MR. BEARD: And I do respect that.
MR. MAYS: That's all I wanted was just that clarification. I know it's
not law, but, you know, that's what we said and I can live with that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. The appointees were Mr. Rhodes and - CLERK:
Billy Holden.
MAYOR SCONYERS: And Mr. Holden. Now we need a motion.
CLERK: We have the motion by Mr. Todd and seconded by Mr. Bridges for
these appointments.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it
be known by raising your hand, please.
[VOTE COUNT UNCERTAIN]
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to be -- I'm voting affirmative for
Mr. Rhodes and present on Holden.
MR. HANDY: I'm voting affirmative on Rhodes, too, and present on
Holden.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I voted affirmative on both, and I think that as
far as Mr. Holden's possible conflict go, that if he have a conflict he should
decline to serve.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Holden doesn't have a conflict there.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Move on to the next board.
CLERK: On the Public Facilities --
MR. BRIDGES: Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. What was the vote on that?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I'm not really sure.
CLERK: Eight to two on Mr. Austin Rhodes and nine to one on Mr. Holden,
with Mr. Handy voting in --
MR. HANDY: Two. Jerry voted against also.
CLERK: On Holden?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Okay. It's eight to two, with Jerry Brigham and Freddie Handy
voting present.
MR. HANDY: Ms. Bonner, I think it's seven to two. I think Mr. Powell
voted no for Holden also.
MR. POWELL: No, Mr. Powell didn't vote no. Mr. Powell voted present. I
appreciate it, but Mr. Powell keeps up with his vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We're going to have a recount and, Ms. Bonner, why
don't you do it with a roll call.
CLERK: On Mr. Austin Rhodes --
MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you going to do it individually?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: This is going to be a roll call vote for Mr. Austin
Rhodes.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I'm going to -- yes, because I think we should honor our
commitment as far as individuals are concerned.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes. Who nominated him, that was Jerry Brigham?
CLERK: Jerry Brigham.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Okay. Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I'll qualify my vote. Yes, and I believe Mr. Rhodes can keep
Mr. Holden straight.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Okay. Mr. Holden. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: No conflict, I understand they said. Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm voting present because I want to honor my
commitment not to vote against him.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Present.
CLERK: Present?
MR. HANDY: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Zetterberg?
MR. ZETTERBERG: Yes.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. HANDY ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2.
CLERK: On the Public Facilities, Mr. Bridges placed in nomination Ms.
Erma Williams; Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Duane Price.
MR. BRIDGES: That's not Public Facilities, that's Neighborhood
Development.
CLERK: Oh, I'm sorry. That's true.
MR. BRIDGES: I don't have an appointment for Public Facilities.
CLERK: Neighborhood Development on Ms. Erma Williams, and Mr. Duane
Price, Public Facilities.
MR. KUHLKE: Grice.
CLERK: Price -- Grice?
MR. KUHLKE: Grice.
CLERK: Grice.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, may I ask just one question? I think I
asked it to Jim and I want to make sure I'm right on this. These
appointments, do they go by the terms of the person in that particular
district, other than Coliseum Authority?
MR. WALL: This is one of those Section 13F boards and, yes, it would
correspond with the Commissioner who has that appointment.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: On the Planning Commission, Mr. Lee Beard placed in nomination
Ms. Patricia Jefferson.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that the only one we've got on there?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I need a motion, please.
MR. BEARD: I so move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Todd. Discussion,
gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by raising
your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Next item?
CLERK: Next item is a motion to rescind the appointment of Mr. Chuck
Whigham to the General Aviation Commission (Daniel Field) due to a conflict of
interest.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept Mr. Whigham's
resignation.
MR. ZETTERBERG: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Zetterberg. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by raising
your hand.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 32, please?
CLERK: 32 is a motion to approve the recommendation of the Space
Allocation Committee to award contract to Duckett & Associates for
professional services associated with a Space Utilization Study at a cost not
to exceed $93,000.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: I so move that we award the contract to Duckett as far as
being the best proposal, and that's in the form of a motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Henry Brigham.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor and my colleagues, when I done the assessment of
the written proposal, I done it based on what Mr. Drew Goins, the Urban
Service District, I guess, Engineering Services Director, if I got that right,
Mr. Goins had drawn up as far as specs. And those specs pretty much outlined
the points that I could give for each category that I would consider, and it
also given the categories that I could consider. And a -- for example, the
most points that I could give for cost, if the entity gave us the service like
the entity that's doing the retirement feasibility study, I guess, was thirty
points. And so certainly I deducted the appropriate points away from the
other two entities, even though the points that I'd given for the -- the
proposal being fifty percent, I wasn't sure that I was correct in giving the
points in the sense that the proposal was ridiculously low from the low
proposal entity. I gave those fifteen points. That was half of it. The cost
was half or fifty percent.
And when I tallied my points for the -- for Carter Glover and Duckett,
certainly the outcome -- because of Duckett and their participation and the
team that they put together and the folks that would be doing the work, I gave
them high points. Carter Glover got higher points for their scope of work.
And I called it like I seen it, and race wasn't involved in it. I went by the
specs. Every Commissioner, I would assume, had the opportunity to go by the
specs or at least informed what the specs said and how the points would be
allocated. In the interview I done basically the same, and the outcome was
per what I recommended in my motion to award the proposal.
Now, we can have the arguments that's been -- I guess that they're
common sense arguments if you don't have specs to go by on that ever who is
lowest should get the work. But I wasn't told by Mr. Goins, the staff person
-- and I assume that was approved by Mr. Randy Oliver, and I've had the
conversation with Mr. Oliver that we was going to let common sense prevail
here or we was just going to go based on common sense. I wasn't told that we
had to go by the Georgia bid statute, which we don't. I wasn't told that we
had to go by race or we was going to give a certain number of points for being
a minority, because that's not the case. Criteria was set forth, I went by
it, and I'd like for Mr. Goins to read criteria that he set forth so my
colleagues will know what that is and the maximum points that can be given for
any category, Mr. Mayor, if that's possible.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Drew, do you want to read that?
MR. GOINS: Well, sir, I can do better than that. I can pass out to the
Commission the scope of work or excerpts from the scope of work, and it lists
the criteria and the point value associate with those.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Can I make a substitute motion?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Absolutely.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to make a substitute motion that we accept the
original quote of the low bidder subject to their ability to perform the same
scope of work as that provided by CGA.
MR. POWELL: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell.
Discussion on that motion?
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, there is. Certainly, you know, we have a
entity that's doing a proposal for us for free that we talked about a little
earlier when we was discussing another issue. And as I've stated earlier, if
the cost was free for the low proposal, the maximum amount of points we could
give is thirty points; therefore, I think that when we're making this decision
we should base it based on the points that we would give in other categories.
And if the -- taking the thirty points away, if that's the way you would do
it if it's given to us free, then if they receive the most points, then that's
how this bid proposal would be awarded.
But this proposal should not be awarded based on any other facts than
what's in the specs and what the entities that was putting in proposals was
told that would be considered, period. And the most points is thirty points,
I would assume that you could give them that thirty points. Then if you also
had -- you know, went through the list, that you could give them the maximum
points and everything else and they would have a hundred points and, at best,
they would be tied or in a toss-up with someone else possibly.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Goins, prior to meeting last -- last
Commission meeting I think I asked Mr. Oliver, and I'm sure you were involved
in it, to look at all the proposals to satisfy me that all three met the
criteria of your request for proposals, and the matrix that I got from y'all
indicated that they all met the criteria. Am I correct?
MR. GOINS: Yes, sir, you're correct, but there were -- that's for the
seven items that were required under the scope of work. A condensed version
of that is listed in the matrix you referred to, and all of the proposers met
those criteria.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Yes, Mr. Mayor. And I pardon -- beg the Commission's pardon,
but having to work on the day that you all had the fireworks on this proposal,
and I'm not a member of the committee that it originated in, however, I have
been keeping up with my correspondence by writing. I guess a couple of
questions that I would have either to the Administrator or the Attorney,
whoever wants to answer it. First, I'm sitting here with two motions on the
floor: one on Duckett and Associates, substitute motion on the original low
bidder. Now, what I got from my written correspondence, until recently -- I
guess my first question would be what happened to the original recommendation,
and maybe I'm wrong, which does not contain -- is not contained in either
motion on the floor.
I believe that that one dealt with the second bidder in which the
justification was on the best bid, and with the low one being in a high range
of questionability. If that's the case and if we shift it to a different
recommendation, has something occurred that has dealt with the legality
question in terms of moving then to the highest bidder? And that would be my
question to either one of you gentlemen because it seems as though there's
been a shift in that two weeks, and whatever may have been done or negotiated
I would like to know prior to voting.
MR. OLIVER: Commissioner Mays, in response to that, we got -- and I
don't remember the exact number, but we got some nine proposals in. There was
a group of staff members that rated those proposals based on a rating matrix
and the criteria that were submitted, and the top three firms are the firms
that you have before you. That rating process, the purpose of that, if you
will, was to get these three parties to the dance and then to be able to
physically see and to hear what these three firms had to offer. At the point
that the proposals were evaluated it was based on whatever these firms had to
say about themselves, which, you know, we were not able to confirm at that
point.
The purpose then of the presentations made to the Space Allocation
Committee was to permit that committee an opportunity to rank those three
firms. In that regard, you know, we are comfortable that any of those three
firms have the capability to perform this engagement and perform it
successfully; however, we do believe that the CGA proposal had the scope of
work delineated in the best manner possible, and we plan to incorporate their
scope of services into a subsequent contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. MAYS: I'm still confused.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Bridges, and I think it may
give the Commission some degree of comfort, if he might amend his motion by
allowing the Administrator to enter into negotiations with the low proposal so
that we -- he can come back to us and satisfy us that the format of their
proposal is going to be acceptable to him and also to us that we're going to
get what we want.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, I think that's basically what we've got. If they
have to abide by the -- by what CGA put up there, we're going to be comparing
apples to apples, and that's what I'm looking for.
MR. KUHLKE: Okay.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: If my colleague to my right would yield. I think that CGA,
if I'm reading the staff's evaluation correctly, was evaluated as number one
or the most points per the criteria that was set forth for us to go by, so
certainly they probably should be the ones to get the work if I was going to
go by the staff recommendation. Number two is Duckett. My rating was -- has
Duckett, you know, ahead a few points, and the interview I put Duckett ahead a
few points.
Now, the bottom line is that we set forth criteria to go by as far as
how this thing was going to be done. And we talk about level playing fields,
I don't have a problem with a level playing field. I do have a problem with a
unlevel playing field, and where we're headed here is that we're throwing
something else into the process. The low proposal was number three on the
ranking as far as the staff go, so the one that I made the motion for, from my
interview and from my assessment, was number two. I don't think I'm that far
off. The other point that I'd like to make, that the average cost, if my
understanding is correct, as far as proposals go was along in the area with
Duckett, and I think that should tell us something. Now, would we accept
it for free if it was offered for free? I think that, yes, we would, just
like we did on the pension study. But on the pension study we had a entity to
walk in and say, hey look, I'll give you this if you will consider me or at
least I'll give you this for opportunity to gain the information so I may
participate in a future, you know, service to the county. This proposal, the
specs didn't go out that way. The specs went out setting forth the criteria
that we would go by. I done it per the specs. Now, if I'm doing it wrong,
then my constituents will have an opportunity to vote me out of office at
election time, but I'm going to do it right here. I'm going to do it where I
don't have to worry about someone coming back with a civil suit and saying no,
you know, you didn't go by your own specs or your own criteria. And that's
the point that I'm trying to make here, we should finish with the process we
started with and we shouldn't change the rules when the ball is up in the air.
And I can support Carter Glover or I can support the number two. I'll
compromise that far. I will not compromise to the number three.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I just also would like to make sure that the
Administrator when he begins his negotiations makes sure that included in this
study is renovation cost for proposed facilities, both structurally and ADA,
to make sure they meet ADA requirements.
MR. OLIVER: All three proposers agreed to that.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Substitute motion first, made by Mr. Bridges. Do y'all
need the motion reread? All in favor of Mr. Bridges' motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MESSRS. BEARD, H. BRIGHAM, TODD VOTE NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 33, please?
CLERK: Item 33 is a motion to approve the minutes of the regular
meeting held May 19th.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, seconded by Mr. Bridges -- I mean
Mr. Brigham, excuse me. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 34 is discussion of the Commission Chambers layout.
MR. OLIVER: A number of Commissioners and myself were with
representatives of the Chamber and other entities in Washington, and at that
time we had an opportunity to look at a number of different layouts that were
used in the congressional arena. And upon conversation with Commissioner
Zetterberg, Commissioner Zetterberg had asked that we look at how we could lay
this out differently, and Commissioner Kuhlke sometime back had asked about
the possibility of taping it out, and we have taped it out onto the floor.
There's some missing up there about where Mr. Beard sits -- where Mr.
Beard and Mr. Powell are, but the tape would show how this would be turned
around so that it would be a horseshoe facing out. And under that proposal
the Commissioners and the Mayor would sit -- the wings would come out from
where the Mayor's table is out, and it would come out to approximately the
point that's just on the other side of the -- of where the Commission is
currently seated, and then the space for the Clerk, myself, and the Attorney
would remain down front.
Again, the purpose of this was to try to make the Chambers more
conducive to holding board meetings and that type thing. We would propose to
do this with inhouse forces. We believe the cost would be less than $5,000.
A lot of this would depend upon, you know, some of what we run into, but we
believe that the materials cost would be less than that. Again, we would be
doing this with our own labor. Because of the unique shape of this room there
was no other layout that really worked well. There were some horseshoes while
we were in Washington or some rectangular shaped configurations which were
better, but because of the unique geometry of this room that just did not
work.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Are you going to gain or lose any seats?
MR. OLIVER: Under this proposal you wouldn't gain or lose any seats.
Originally we talked about trying to move this back a little bit to pick up a
little seating, and under that scenario we could have gained some. The
present proposal we would lose none. One of the things that we would like to
do, however, if that were done, would be to move the mike here to the center,
so that as somebody came to address the Commission they would be in the center
and could see both sides equally well and Commissioners could see them equally
well. And it would also place the Commission basically two steps up so that
the Commission would be looking down on the audience slightly and the audience
obviously looking up at them.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, are you looking for a motion?
MR. OLIVER: I'm providing this as information at this point, and then
you all can tell me, you know, whether you like something differently, you
like the way that it is now, or if you'd like to proceed.
MR. BRIDGES: Anything different from what we've got now is an
improvement, and it looks like we'd be able to face each other. If that's the
best configuration we can come up in this, you know, in this room, I have no
trouble with it at all.
MR. BEARD: I so move that we accept that.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Beard, seconded by Mr. Bridges. Do you
think facing one another is going to make a better Commission?
MR. MAYS: I was getting ready to say, Mr. Mayor, you know, that -- if
it ain't going to change the way of thinking, you know, I'd just as soon sit
just like we are. I can see everybody down on that end, I can see the two on
the other side of me, and if it's not going to change [inaudible], you know, I
don't see any need in spending the money.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, if Ulmer raises his hand I can see him, but I
can't see him with his head turned sideways.
MR. POWELL: You can't see me, can you, Jerry?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: J.B., I got you well in sights.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All right. All in favor of the motion, let it be known
by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I counted six to one. We must have lost some people.
MR. TODD: Roll call vote, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Six is enough to pass, so that's all right.
MR. HANDY: What's wrong with your voice, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: I got wet last night at the ballgame, I guess, but I
don't know. Any other business we got?
CLERK: No, sir. Legal Meeting. You need a meeting?
MR. POWELL: On the last item, how much is that going to cost?
MR. OLIVER: About $5,000. We're going to do it with inhouse labor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I think we ought to have a sketch of everything laid
out and let us look at it good before we do anything.
MR. OLIVER: That's fine.
MR. TODD: I was thinking that's what we were hiring the space
allocation folks for. Looks like we're getting ahead of the game.
MR. KUHLKE: They're not qualified.
MR. TODD: They're not qualified? They can't do it for the money
they're bidding for.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We need a legal meeting, gentlemen. Does anybody want
to call it?
MR. HANDY: Move for approval, legal meeting.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Handy, and who seconded?
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham. All in favor of the motion, let it be
known by raising your hand, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
[COMMISSION RETIRES INTO LEGAL MEETING AT 4:40 P.M.]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a
true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta-
Richmond County Commission held on June 3, 1997.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission