HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-1998 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
July 7, 1998
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m.,
Tuesday, July 7, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Powell, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND PETERS.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA: Item #9.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Motion to award a purchase order to NAFECO for two (2) flat- bottom
rescue boats at a cost of $26,976.00 for the Emergency Management
Department.
2. Motion to approve and award the bid for the installation of
a complete irrigation system for the Augusta Golf Course
Improvement Plan to Blair Construction in an amount not to
exceed $450,447.
3. Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Georgia and the
Children and Youth Coordinating Council authorizing the
acceptance of a grant in the amount of $46,400 for Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention and Early Intervention Program.
4. To accept a presentation from the Southeastern Firefighters Burn
Foundation to the Augusta-Richmond County Fire
Department.
MR. HANDY: Move for approval.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, Items 1 and 2, why would they be sent back to
the Finance Committee?
MR. OLIVER: They can be sent back to the Finance Committee. The bids
didn't come in until after the committee meeting was over. Mr. Beck has
indicated to meet the schedule for the golf course, which is Item Number 2,
that this requires approval prior to that. And Pam Tucker, the EMA
Coordinator, indicates that she would like to have those boats for the race
coming up within the next two weeks.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with Number 2, so it will not go
on the agenda. It may be taken care of in a special meeting if you care to
call one. I understand it's $35,000 over budget, and I think that if we're
talking about running a water pipe [inaudible].
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, Item Number 1, I think it should go before the
Finance Committee, and at this point I'm not going to be able to vote on it if
it goes on the agenda today.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to drop my motion to approve and let
them take the items one by one instead of doing it all like that. I think we
need Item Number 1 definitely far as safety-wise, so I'll just drop my motion
and you can do it any way you want to, one at a time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read them out one by one.
CLERK: Under Deletion, Item 9.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. TODD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 1: Motion to award a purchase order to NAFECO for two
(2) flat-bottom rescue boats at a cost of $26,976.00 for the Emergency
Management Department.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'll so move in the sense that we need this for
emergency rescue.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that these boats can be used by
Emergency Management when we have events like boat races; the rescue dive
teams can use them; and, also, if the fire services should need them, all
they'd have to do is make a phone call to Pam Tucker and they would be made
available. So I think that we're going to get the use out of these boats and
certainly enable us to do more on the water.
MR. BEARD: It's not that I'm not in favor of the boats, it's just that I
think that it should come before the Finance Committee and there should be a
little more explanation given, and then what we're going to do with them, and
I think that we have ample time to do that. I don't see any sense in rushing.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Tucker, do you want to address that, please?
MS. TUCKER: Yes, sir. The reason that it didn't go before Finance
before coming before this group is that the procedure for getting the bids and
all of that took so long and we're pressed for time. We need to have them in
by July 17th for the drag boat races. The dive team conducts all of the water
rescue for the drag boat races, and these boats are the type that hook
together to make a dive platform and to easily, you know, conduct the rescues
as well. When we went through our budget hearings we had justified the need
for it. The Commission spends no money on the dive team except about every ten
years--exactly ten years, in fact--they do buy a new boat. And the boat we
have, when you try to start it, it is not always a dependable boat, it may or
may not start. And it's just old, and we try to do maintenance and everything
on it, but we really need these boats to be able to make sure that we can do
the rescues we need to do.
MR. OLIVER: I would note these bids were received on June 26th, which
wasn't in time to make the deadline.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO.
MOTION FAILS 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Nine to one. We have to have unanimous consent to put
it on, don't we?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I'm sorry, Ms. Tucker. Maybe we won't have an accident.
CLERK: Item 2: Motion to approve and award the bid for the
installation of a complete irrigation system for the Augusta Golf Course
Improvement Plan to Blair Construction in an amount not to exceed $450,447.
MR. OLIVER: That amount should be 435. I apologize.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we send it back to Finance and not
add it to the agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like for Mr. Beck to address this to us. I
don't know what it's doing for the schedules.
MR. BECK: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we didn't open bids
until last Tuesday on this important part of our plan. This irrigation is
very critical in the time frame for the improvements to the course. We have a
grassing contractor ready to start. With the time table, we can't do the
grassing for the golf course unless we have the irrigation there. Losing two
weeks with this particular contract could move us into the fall where we're
going to have a tougher time getting the grass established, which may end up
meaning we have to have more holes closed during the fall and winter, so this
is a fairly critical part of the time frame with the project.
MR. TODD: Where are you going to get your water from?
MR. BECK: Well, we're hoping from Waterworks. This is in the domestic
system, so.
MR. TODD: Well, I think in the two weeks time period going back to the
Finance Committee and coming back we'll know more about where we're getting
the water from, and I'll probably support it then.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion to send it back to committee, let it be known by the usual sign
of voting, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of order or information. Can I make that
motion in that we're deciding what will go on the agenda? I don't want to
vote yes and it--and we have ten yes and we're on the agenda. So the
parliamentarian-- MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, how about just reading the
motion.
CLERK: His motion was to send the item back to Finance and not add it to
the agenda.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, isn't that permitted?
MR. WALL: [Indicates affirmatively.]
MR. TODD: Okay. I'm ready. I just wanted to make sure I'm not putting
myself in a corner.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Please vote by the usual sign of voting, gentlemen.
MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. KUHLKE VOTE NO.
MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3.
CLERK: Item 3: Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Georgia
and the Children and Youth Coordinating Council authorizing the acceptance
of a grant in the amount of $46,400 for Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and
Early Intervention Program.
MR. OLIVER: And I would add on to this, if you wish to consider this
today, "provided no matching funds are required from Augusta-Richmond County,"
and I believe that was the representation that was made when this grant was
endorsed by the Commission to send it in, and "subject to the approval of the
Administrator and the Attorney" because we've not read the grant conditions at
this point.
MR. KUHLKE: So move, subject to those additions.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, is this the Family Connection grant?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION FAILS 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have one abstention, Mr. Handy, so that kills that.
Let's go to Number 4.
CLERK: Item 4: To accept a presentation from the Southeastern
Firefighters Burn Foundation to the Augusta-Richmond County Fire
Department.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Beard's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 8-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have an abstention, so that doesn't go on the agenda.
Now, can we return to our normal--to the agenda, please.
CLERK: Presentation: On behalf of the Mayor and the members of the
Augusta Commission, this Certificate of Recognition is given to Mr. William G.
Hatcher, Sr., CEO of
MAU Human Resources and Staff Services, for being awarded the "1998 Georgia
Family Business of the Year." Dated this 7th day of July, Larry E. Sconyers,
Mayor, Augusta, Georgia.
MAYOR SCONYERS: This is really a great honor bestowed on this family for
all the work they've done in our city and throughout the state, so it's a real
honor to have y'all here.
MR. HATCHER: Thank you very much. I appreciate this very much, Mr.
Mayor, on behalf of my family and our entire company. As most of you know,
just to take one second, we started our business 25 years ago. And it's known
as MAU, Incorporated, but better known to most of you in here probably as
Mr./Ms. Temps and Hatcher Personnel, and as I look across the room I see some
people that we've helped over the years find jobs. We're glad to be of
service to you, proud to be a part of Augusta, and thanks again very much for
this honor.
[A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN]
CLERK: Under Delegation: The Augusta Canal Authority, Mr. Dick Fox,
Chairman, in reference to appointments to the Canal Authority.
MR. FOX: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, Commission-Council, county staff. I
bring you greetings from the Canal Authority. The Canal Authority welcomes
this opportunity to provide input to the Commissioners with regard to
appointment of members to the Authority. In 1995 a summary of organization
was prepared for the Augusta-Richmond County Consolidation Task Force by our
Authority Chairman, Mr. Tom Robertson. An updated version of that summary has
been passed to each of you. As you can see, the five Authority members reside
in four different districts and in both super districts. It is our
understand-ing that the Commissioners wish to expand this voluntary Authority
by requesting the Legislative Delegation to amend the act that sets our number
at five. The desired number that we've heard the most often is ten. We
respectfully request that we not be increased to more than ten. I would
like to point out that the present five members comprise a rather diverse
group of individuals who bring special skills, abilities, and experience to
our meetings with a collective attendance rate of over 92 percent. The
addition of talent and energy to the Augusta Canal Authority is an exciting
prospect, and we urge you to make additions and replacements in such a way
that our experienced core group will stay on the job as long as possible. We
are aware that ultimately we will each have to rotate off for a time. We also
agree to assist, if you wish, in the search for candidates who exhibit the
enthusiasm for the Canal projects and the care and consideration and hard work
that those projects deserve. Our most recent project is the new bike/hike
trail, and it is almost ready for public venue. This trail will be 15 miles
long, with at least four new bridges, and will connect the Canal head gates to
downtown with connectors to Harrisburg, Walton Way, Laney-Walker, and
Riverwalk. DOT has provided one million dollars for this project, and our
local match is a quarter of a million dollars. We were just awarded another
million-dollar project at the head gate lock for another DOT/ISTEA project,
and many, many, many balls are in the air, so we would like to retain as much
continuity as possible. Thank you. Are there any questions?
MR. BEARD: I would like to congratulate this group, that committee,
and I had advised this committee to come before us today to make a
presentation for that because I thought that the continuity that exists
with this committee need to continue and an addition need to be added to
that committee because it's a small committee and there's a lot of work to
be done on that. And I think that they have done an exceptional job with
the members that they were working with with this committee, and I think
that it should be brought up somewhere today that maybe we can send a
letter or resolution to our Delegation asking them to do this in the next
session because I think it is needed. And if a motion is needed in that
order I would like to make that motion, that the Commissioners go on record
as supporting this suggestion by the committee that it be enlarged. I'm
not sure if the members--I think we need to meet with the Attorney on that,
but at some point down the line in the future maybe our committee will work
with the committees to formulate such a plan in the future so that we can
come up with a number of people, whether it be ten or what the addition
would be, but I would like to recommend that at this time.
MR. SHEPARD: I'll second that motion, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask Mr. Wall, with that being an
Authority, is this a joint request that we go to the Delegation to expand that
or does it go from the Authority or does it go from the Commission?
MR. WALL: Well, only the Legislative Delegation has the right to change
the local act which created the Canal Authority, so this would just be a
request joining with the Canal Authority to increase the membership.
MR. KUHLKE: And would we have a situation where--they are requesting
ten. Is the Delegation going to insist on two appointments from them or are
we just going to request ten?
MR. WALL: Well, as you are aware, sometimes we may request one thing and
they may do something else, so. They have the ultimate decision to make it
whatever size they desire.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Kuhlke, that was the reason I was saying that maybe we
can get with the Attorney and determine which way we want to go in that
direction and then make a recommendation to the Delegation as to what they
want in that regard.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask Mr. Fox: does the Authority
maintain a advisory board in addition to the five voting members, as some
local boards do, with interested individuals? That might be a place for
interested individuals to continue their interest in the Canal Authority.
MR. FOX: We do not at this time, Mr. Shepard. However, that topic has
come up several times at meetings and has a good bit of support on the
Authority. So if there appeared to be a specific need, we would certainly
fill that.
MR. SHEPARD: But your enabling legislation would authorize you to do
that now; is that--or would it?
MR. FOX: Yeah, the legislation would allow us to do it, however, that
board would be an advisory board only and would not be--it would not have any
vote.
MR. TODD: Mr. Fox, do your board have the authority to float funds at
this time?
MR. FOX: Yes, we do.
MR. TODD: Okay, great. I wanted to make sure if we were doing
legislation, that we incorporate everything the board would need because I
know the revenue [inaudible].
MR. FOX: Thank you, sir. And if you would, of course, I would like to
ask each of you that, and the County Attorney, to take a look at the
legislation, and if there is anything in there that you see that the
Legislative Delegation could be asked that would help our Authority and
strengthen it, then we'd certainly--you know, we'd like to go along with that
and encourage you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO; MR. POWELL OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: Goodale Homeowners Association regarding the development of
Parcel C at Goodale Landing.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a spokesperson for Goodale?
MR. JEFFORDS: Yes, sir. I'm Bill Jeffords. As you recall, we came
before the Commission about two months ago, and I'm representing the
homeowners. A number of us came down today. We came down because we're still
concerned about that development. We went before the Riverfront Review Board,
as directed by the Commission, and the Riverfront Review Board made a
unanimous decision, six to zero, to not proceed with the current development
plans. Their decision was based on the aesthetics and consistency with the
adjacent neighborhood, which is our neighborhood. I want to impress upon you
that our wish and desire is to develop that parcel. That has been our desire
from day one and it still is. We just would like it to be consistent with our
development, which is what the original contract with the city in 1987 called
for, and we're asking you to uphold that contract and acknowledge the
Riverfront Review Board's decision to make that development consistent with
ours in Goodale. We sent each of you a pamphlet that presented our
position to the Riverfront Review Board. If you will notice in there, on Page
12, and I'm hoping some of you brought that with you today, that we go through
there some of the history, and it starts in June of 1994. And I believe I
went through most of that history with you in the past, and I hate to belabor
that, but I want to stress to you those plans are the same plans that were
rejected in 1994 by the Riverfront Review Board and they're still rejected
today. Now, there's a pending court case that the developer has, and his
claim is that the Riverfront Review Board doesn't have jurisdiction. The
record of decision is from the Commission back in 1996 when our position in
this matter was not heard, and that's why we're asking today to change your
position to have those plans denied--officially denied. And in my view, that
makes the court case really moot because the Commission has made the record of
decision, and that decision is the plans should be rejected. I'd like to
point out to you in the pamphlet we've given you a number of pictures to
demonstrate why it's not consistent and aesthetically similar, and those items
are pointed out on Page 11. And there's a number of pictures that show the
property and the adjacent vacant lot, and hopefully you can tell by that the
smaller homes and the size and the consistency is just not there, from the
boat docks to the decking to--the whole matter is it's just not there. As I
pointed out to the Review Board, the builder continually brings up these items
and says these are almost the same, and I guess that's really the problem.
That's why we're asking you to reject his plans.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Jeffords and Mr. Dunbar and I have all spoken
concerning the fact that this is in litigation, and although I understand the
position of Goodale Landing, my recommendation to the Commission is that you
receive this as information. The court hearing is on Thursday of this week at
11:30. From a strategy standpoint and representing the Commission, I am
concerned and think that it would be inappropriate to take action today in
light of that pending case with the mandamus. And in the event that we
prevail in that case, then bring it back at that point for a decision as far
as whether or not you want to change the decision as to the number of units.
The decision by the Riverfront Review Board dealt with the aesthetics, which
is not something that this Commission has previously decided nor is it
required to decide, and that is a recommendation from the Riverfront Review
Board to the Planning Commission. So my recommendation is that you receive it
as information and postpone any action insofar as changing the previous
decision if that's, in fact, what you're allowed to do under the court
decision and choose to do until a further--until after the court rules.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt the Attorney's recommendation
and receive it as information.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. DUNBAR: If I might make one point of inquiry. Mr. Wall is going to
defend, I guess, the city in this action, and it's been brought up before and
some of my people have asked me to make this inquiry. The real party in
interest in this is not the owner of record but the primary developer, Mr.
John Tompkins with ConSpec, Inc., that originally built this place and who
they had been told would do the construction work. And I would ask that Mr.
Wall tell us whether either he or his predecessor, Mr. Daniel, or any member
of his firm has ever done any legal work either in the past or currently for
either John Tompkins or any of his companies--that would be ConSpec or Aft or
any of these other companies--because I think if they did, that would create a
conflict of interest which would disqualify him from representing a party in
this action.
MR. WALL: I have not represented any. I've not done any internal search
of our files to determine--I'm not aware of any representation by any of my
partners of any of these parties. Now, you may know something I don't know,
but I'm not aware of it.
MR. DUNBAR: Are you saying that no one-- MR. WALL: I have not.
MR. DUNBAR: You have not? What about members of your firm?
MR. WALL: I've not been asked to do any search as far as a conflict
because that's the first I've heard that someone contends--because ConSpec is
not a party to the action.
MR. DUNBAR: Well, I understand that, but the primary owner of ConSpec,
Mr. John Tompkins, is a major player in this thing, and it's been brought up
before has been pulling the strings behind the scenes on this for years and is
still involved, and has been represented to my people as the man that's going
to actually build the units. So I would ask that Mr. Wall go back and do an
internal search to see if either he or any member of his firm has ever done
any work for either Mr. Tompkins or ConSpec and that that matter be addressed
before they appear for the hearing. Because I am concerned that when the
person appears at this hearing--which is scheduled for this Thursday, I think.
The only action taken by board so far is to approve, as I understand it, the
building of these units.
Now, at the last meeting you found, after having a legal meeting and you
came back and I think everybody was pretty much in agreement, that that
approval was granted, but the proper procedures had not been followed.
Because the procedures require that before any vote is taken on approving
something like that it be reviewed by the Riverfront Review Board to get their
input as to whether what is proposed is compatible with what is down there.
That's why the Riverfront Review Board was set up. And I think the vote was
unanimous to send this back to the Riverfront Review Board to make that
determination, and the Riverfront Review Board has done that since your last
meeting. They unanimously voted and decided that it was not in any way
compatible and it was going to have an adverse effect on the value of that
property that's down there, and they made that recommendation back to this
board. Now, I'm concerned that if this board does not take action today,
when this matter is presented before the judge--and what he's doing is asking
for a mandamus, in other words, asking for the administrative people to be
compelled to do what the law requires, which is issue a building permit. And
if the judge looks at what has transpired and says, well, there's nothing to
prevent the administrative person from issuing the permit--the council has not
retracted their decision, and until they do it the administrative people have
no alternative but to issue the permit and he'll issue an order that the
permit be issued. And at that point the man can start to work, and by the
time this council gets around to meeting again he could have his foundation
laid. And then he could come in and say--if you tried to stop him then, he'd
say, well, now I've changed my position and I've invested money and I've
incurred expense and I want to hold you liable for damages for stopping me
from doing what I'm doing. So my request is that you afford these people
the courtesy and fulfill your obligation to go ahead and make a vote on this
issue, not postpone it any longer, and based on the unanimous recommendation
of the Riverfront Review Board make a decision that this is not compatible,
it's improper, and reverse your decision. And then when they have the hearing
next Thursday, the law as you have made it by your actions here will preclude
the issuance of a building permit, and that's the way I think it should
proceed. We have all these people in this room that have taken time away from
their jobs, their families, and their homes to come down here. They feel so
strongly about this issue to come down here. This is the third or fourth time
they've been to this body. They also came to the Riverfront Review Board
meeting. They've been down here over and over and over, and every time they
sit very patiently while the matter is postponed or referred to somebody else,
and it's simply time for a decision to be made for these people to help them
out on that issue. So I request that you put this matter to a vote and that
you, prior to the hearing, have your Attorney make the inquiry to determine
whether he has a conflict of interest in this action.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to go on and give the attorney the
courtesy of a substitute motion that we approve the recommendations of the
Riverfront Review Board, and I'll make that in the form of a motion.
MR. MAYS: And I'll second it.
MR. TODD: And, Mr. Mayor, I think that the way that I've seen the issue-
-I've voted with the good citizens down there on the river, Goodale Landing.
But, you know, I can't help but sit here and think in reference to the
accusations that Mr. Dunbar has made against the County Attorney and that he
undoubtedly represented the city when this deal was put together, you know, in
the beginning, so I would question whether we have a conflict of interest on
that side of it in that, you know, we're going to trial with it. So, you
know, that's just a question for Mr. Dunbar. You do have a conflict in the
sense that you helped put this original agreement with the builder and the
city together.
MR. DUNBAR: Well, you don't have a conflict of interest as long as the
people who you are representing are aware of who you have represented in the
past and they waive or consent to that. Now, everybody in this room knows
that I was the City Attorney when this was done, and so as long as the people
you represent know of your conflict of interest and don't object to it you
never have a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be waived. So
even if I had a conflict of interest, it has been waived by these people.
They're fully knowledgeable of what role I played in this, number one, and
certainly I'm not taking a position against the City of Augusta, I am simply
asking for some action to be taken. And, number two, I'm not making any
accusations at all against the County Attorney. I'm simply inquiring as to
whether there are any representations that he has made or any members of his
firm have made which would give the appearance of impropriety, which would
constitute a conflict of interest, which he should take into consideration.
And he said, quite frankly, he didn't know but that he would go back and take
a look at that. So I'm not accusing him of that, I'm simply inquiring, that's
all.
MR. WALL: And why didn't you inquire last week when we talked about the
case, and I could've had an answer to that, is what I don't understand--or the
multiple times we've talked about the case.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Wall, can I ask a question? I've got Mr. Jeffords'
letter indicating that the Riverfront Review Board voted six to nothing. Who
does the Riverfront Review Board report to? And the reason I ask that is that
in your packet and in your letter you refer to their decision, but I'm a
Commissioner that's got to make a decision and I don't have anything in
writing from the Riverfront Review Board other than what's in your letter. So
I'm asking the question of the County Attorney that if we've got to make a
decision based on what somebody says and we have nothing substantial in
writing from that board, how are we expected to make a decision?
MR. WALL: The Riverfront Review Board reports to--makes recommendations
to the Executive Director of the Planning Commission. He is the one who acts.
Now, it's George Patty's decision, and that's the reason that I--again, Mr.
Dunbar says that he's not taking a position adverse to the city, but my
concern in representing the Commission is that you are putting the city at
financial risk. Now, I understand why he would want that action on the part
of Goodale Homeowners Association, but in my opinion it's not in the best
interest of the Commission to take this action at this time.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Shepard made a motion prior to Mr.
Todd's motion, and I seconded that motion; right?
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have two motions on the floor. We have a motion made
by Mr. Shepard and seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, and we have one by Mr. Todd,
seconded by Mr. Mays, a substitute motion.
MR. HANDY: I've got two questions of Mr. Dunbar. I think Mr. Todd asked
the same question. The last time you was here I asked the same question about
this same item Mr. Todd asked, something that you put together now and you
representing the group to fight Augusta. What I really want you to explain to
me, since you were the City Attorney--you made in your statement a few minutes
ago that we like to put things off. Are you telling me that you never put
anything off or you never advised the Council to put things off like Jim just
advised us to do when you were the City Attorney? Or the city, when you was
there, it was more perfect than we are now; is that what you're trying to tell
us now?
MR. DUNBAR: No, I didn't say any of those things, and I don't know how
you could possibly have reached that conclusion. Obviously there are times
when it's appropriate to postpone matters, and I'm certainly not here to pick
a fight with the County Commission and I'm certainly not here to take a
position contrary to the Commission-Council. What I'm trying to do is to
simply see to it that these people get a vote on what they've asked to do,
which has been delayed now for, I don't know how many months,
three/four/five/six months.
MR. HANDY: And you also stated that these people took off their jobs,
they came here, they also went to Riverfront. If they have a interest in
protecting theirselves, they're supposed to take off their jobs and do this.
So they're not doing anything special for us by being here today, they're here
to protect themselves.
MR. DUNBAR: Well, that's exactly right. They are here asking for you as
their elected representatives to help them protect their property, and they
have been down here a number of times to do that, and I pointed out that they
do that at inconvenience to themselves.
MR. HANDY: And, finally, when you were Attorney for the city you never
asked your Council to wait until a decision being made, like Jim is asking us
now, and then here you are trying to tell us to go ahead on and vote for
whatever the people want and we know we have a court date Thursday?
MR. DUNBAR: In this case, and I've explained and I'll explain again, I
think it will be if you--that justice delayed in this instance will be justice
denied. Because I think if you do nothing today, then when you go to that
hearing tomorrow, I think whoever represents the Commission-Council is going
to lose and I think they're going to have an order issued and that mandamus is
going to be granted if you don't take action today.
MR. HANDY: Okay, I thought I was finished, but I wasn't finished, Mr.
Mayor and Mr. Dunbar. If there is something that--the question you asked Jim
about whether he has worked or his partners have worked, if you know of
something, if you have this on record, why don't you tell us, and then we
could make a decision, rather than waiting for him to go back and do some
research. So you had to come up with this idea of thinking something or you
wouldn't have just came up with it.
MR. DUNBAR: If I had documentation to that effect I would tell you that.
I don't. That question has been raised, though.
MR. HANDY: By whom?
MR. DUNBAR: By a number of people that I represent.
MR. HANDY: Well, do they have documents? They should give them to you
[inaudible].
MR. DUNBAR: I think the proper way to do this is to have Mr. Wall go
back and make inquiry. Now, I guess, you know, we could guess who's got
information and all of that, but I think he can go back and check his firm's
records and find out if his firm has ever done any legal work for John
Tompkins or ConSpec. I'm perfectly content to rely on his representations
about who he's represented or not.
MR. HANDY: If you want Jim to go back, then why would you want us to
make a decision if you don't want to wait until then? If you want him to go
back, so why can't we just postpone everything until he finds the information
also, too.
MR. WALL: Mr. Handy, I've got an ethical obligation, and if I've got a
conflict I will certainly disclose it. You know, no question has ever been
raised about that before today. I don't know why it was not. I'm not sure,
you know, if some attorney in the firm represented them in the past on an
unrelated matter, whether or not that's a conflict or not. I'll just simply
have to go back and research it. But I don't want to put myself in a position
to have someone challenge my
representation of the city, you know, over some conflict.
MR. DUNBAR: I think one possible solution might be to request--if you
don't want to vote today, would be to ask that the hearing be continued until
such time as Mr. Wall can make that inquiry, and then the Commission can come
back and take action. But I'm concerned that the court might not grant that
continuance, and I'm very concerned that if you go to court with the posture
this case is in right now, and with the only action that has been taken by
this Commission-Council is to approve this project, in essence, then I think
it's very likely that the court is going to issue a mandamus that they proceed
and issue the building permit. That's what concerns me and that's why I think
it needs to be addressed. I had hoped that this matter was going to be on the
last council meeting, but for some reason it was not.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I think I can be real neutral and fair in this
situation and hope we can get back to what we were talking about. I've
received legal advice from Paul Dunbar when I sat out there and I've received
legal advice from Jim Wall. I probably disobeyed both of them, had my arguing
session with both of them, had my agreements with both of them. What I hope
doesn't get lost in this sparring match between Matlock and Perry Mason is
that we lose sight of the fact that we're talking about what the residents'
needs are versus what's happening with the developer. And I think somewhere
in there we get caught in the middle of a mumbo-jumbo of whether Paul is
right, Jim is right, but then, you know, what are we doing to the people's
rights in this. That's where we ought to get that on the front burner. We
reconsider actions based on the fact, I think, in any case as to whether or
not you feel like you've got a change of circumstances or different evidence
or what. What bothers me about not going ahead and taking a vote is the fact
that I think under the good conscienceness of a newly-elected government, that
basically, for the most part, and probably--well, in '87 I was--y'all was
kicking me out of city government then, Paul, but Lee was the last person, and
Steve, to deal with the Riverfront Committee as a former member of the City
Council. But of catching a new government now, basically not dealing with a
particular committee, we come up brand new, and you've had actions taken by
that board that have given a resounding note to what we put a yes tag on. Now,
I wouldn't say that anybody finagled that. I didn't say I didn't think it,
but I said I don't say it. But to come here--and I think it puts us in a very
conflicting position when we question which boards or which authorities have
so-called God-given rights to play God, some that deal with bonds, some that
condemn folks, some that put us out. And you're looking at a living witness
of going through hell for 17/18 months just to stay on the corner where I'm at
because, you know, the Commission basically let another board decide what it
would do with a seven million dollar project, yet it was spending county money
and we didn't have the background to say when it was messing over folks, but
they were right. Now, we come back now and the board doesn't have any power
because we're the great Commission. Now, somewhere in there boards ought to
mean something or they ought to mean nothing, or there should be some balance
in there. Now, if we've got a hearing without all the facts, per se, and
if that's what the reconsideration is about, then I think that's what we ought
to be considering: whether or not the covenant that these folks made their
investment under is what's being challenged at this point and undermined it,
even by accident, by actions of this committee. Now, if we're out there in
court and the action that we took is based on that '96 vote that we took in
there and we're going to disregard any other considerations that are out
there, then I think we do do them a disservice and basically need to tell the
Riverfront Committee go to the devil and just disband. We've not done that
with a lot of other committees because, you know, we've let them be judge and
jury. They move funds, they do whatever they want to do. You know, they just
move money, they build stuff, but yet we want to pick and choose who's right
and who's wrong based on the fact of what somebody is doing. I think if you
let this cart get before the horse, then, no, you don't have a leg to stand
on. I think if you feel like there has been a situation that's wrong, we
ought to vote it up or down, but I think to let it stand in court and ignore
what you've got a board that's done is disservice to folk that you represent
because then you're totally ignoring what's happened in that decision. I
mean, you're just bypassing that all together. And the only vote that's
going to stand out in court is what the vote of record is. That vote of
record is that we gave approval to it. And yet we've had them here time after
time, but basically their dialog, in essence, means nothing, the vote of the
board means nothing. And Jim and Paul, they'll go eat lunch and they'll deal
with this some other place. But I think we ought to deal with what's on the
table as to whether or not we are harming citizens that made an investment
under one set of rules, we come in, even if it's by accident of not knowing
all the facts, vote a certain way, and then when we see other things that are
there, then we choose to just ignore it and basically say we are the
Commission, we've got the power. But I sure wish like the devil y'all would
have done that in a whole lot of other cases where you've actually spent money
at and it's not built necessarily with private money. We've had it done with
governmental money and we've allowed boards to do that. So certainly if they
recommend on the basis of where private investment is, then we ought to be
concerned about it. And, Mr. Mayor, that's why I second the substitute
motion, and if it's withdrawn in any way, then I will make the motion that it
still stand on the floor and hope that I get a second on it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can I ask Mr. Wall a few questions about the
Riverfront Review Committee since that seems to be where the--Jim, what are
the Riverfront Review Committee's authority? Do they make planning decisions?
Do they make recommendations? Give us a brief overview so we all understand
what they do.
MR. WALL: Well, let me just read from the Planning and Zoning ordinance.
The Riverfront Development Review Board shall review all plans for
development of properties lying within the boundaries of the planned
development riverfront zone. The review shall consist of an evaluation of
compliance of the provisions for this section and the relationship and the
compatibility of the proposed development with adjacent develop-ments. The
Review Board shall make a recommendation in writing to the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission for approval, modification, or disapproval of the
proposed development. No site plan shall be approved or building permit
issued until such written recommendation has been received and considered by
the Commission--talking about the Planning Commission--provided, however, that
such recommendation shall be transmitted no later than 45 days after receipt
of the proposed development shall be deemed to be approved by the Review
Board. So the Riverfront Review Board reports to the Planning Commission
and, in this situation, that authority is to the Executive Director, George
Patty.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Has that been done?
MR. WALL: Yes. That was done--the original recommendation, and that is
an issue that will be decided in court as far as what the effect of that was.
And then, subsequently, the minutes from the Riverfront Development Review
Board held in April, as I remember, those have been transmitted to George
Patty as well, yes. And then immediately on the heels of that is when the
lawsuit was filed seeking the mandamus.
MR. DUNBAR: And, you see, the problem that we had with that--he's
absolutely right, that has happened, but the problem was that that was not
done before y'all voted on and made this decision, and so the procedure had
not been followed. You did not have the benefit of that review and that
procedure, and so that's why I think that the process is flawed and that
procedure should be set aside until you get that report, which apparently you
haven't received.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: But, Mr. Dunbar, if we do what you're asking us to do,
we're guaranteeing you to win, too, are we not?
MR. DUNBAR: Guaranteeing what?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: You to win--your side to win in this argument if we do
what you're asking us to do.
MR. DUNBAR: No. Because when you set aside this--your decision, then
when the decision from the Riverfront Review Board comes before you and you
have the benefit of that information and their finding that the proposed
housing project is incompatible with what's down there and has an adverse
effect on what's down there, then when you vote you have the benefit of that
information and your vote may be different. If you vote the same way that you
voted last time, then he'll get his permit and he'll build his houses. But
what I'm saying is if you don't do something today, then they win
automatically--or could win automatically.
MR. WALL: I disagree with that.
MR. DUNBAR: Well, when that judge is faced with issuing a mandamus to
require the people that issue permits to issue a permit, he's going to ask the
question, "And why haven't you issued the permit? Haven't you been ordered to
issue the permit by City Council?" And he's going to have to say, "Yes, sir,
I have." And then he says, "Well, why haven't you issued the permit?" And,
you know, I don't see what answer he's going to have for that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Well, I thought we took a vote not to issue a permit.
MR. WALL: The only vote that y'all have taken is to approve a unit
increase from seven or nine up to ten units. Y'all have never voted on the
compatibility issue. You sent that issue back to the Riverfront Review Board
and that's what they considered, just the compatibility issue, not the number
of units at the April meeting, and that was submitted, too. Now, I don't know
how else to address the issue. I mean, Paul and I do disagree insofar as
strategy. He's representing the Goodale Homeowners Association, I can
understand his rationale in asking for it. From my standpoint representing
the Commission, I think that, as Paul and I have talked about and as he, I
think, will recognize, the mandamus issue is decided based upon the facts
presented at the time Mr. Kitchens appeared for a building permit. So from
the standpoint of an impact on the mandamus, I think the decision today,
whether you change that number or do not change the number or whatever, is
really meaningless insofar as the mandamus. My concern is the financial
exposure to the city and willy-nilly going back and forth and changing the
decision as well as, just from a strategy standpoint, changing something two
days before the hearing, and I think it's a mistake.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. Wall, can they, in fact, go and get a building
permit?
MR. WALL: They went to get a building permit and it was refused because
the Riverfront Review Board had denied the compatibility. And based upon my
advice, they did not issue the building permit.
MAYOR SCONYERS: If they went tomorrow or today after this hearing, can
they get one?
MR. WALL: Not unless the court says they're entitled to it.
MR. DUNBAR: See, that's exactly why they're going to court. That's the
whole issue. The man refused to issue the permit, now they're going to court
and say that he has no alternative, he has no discretion but to issue the
permit. They want the court to issue an order compelling him to issue that
permit, and that's why I want the council to have acted to deny him that
opportunity before the hearing.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is there a way we can stipulate that the permit cannot
be issued until after y'all try this case or whatever y'all are doing?
MR. WALL: Well, I advised License & Inspection not to issue the permit
following the Riverfront Review Board because the Riverfront Review Board had
denied it based upon compatibility. And, you know, they went and applied for
it, and Rob Sherman and I talked and said don't issue the building permit.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, could I ask Mr. Wall this? In every building
permit I've had to get there had to be an approval by the Planning Commission.
Was an approval given on the site plan and then they went to the Inspection
office to get the permit?
MR. WALL: And the answer to the question is yes. Now, in this case the
Planning Commission delegated that responsibility to George Patty. George
Patty did, in fact, approve the site plan back in '97 sometime, and
subsequently is when the compatibility issue was raised again, because the
minutes from the Development Review Board the first time arguably did not
address the compatibility issue. It was felt that they did not address the
compatibility issue, that's when it was brought back up here, and you will
recall the vote that you dealt with was specifically to send it to the
Riverfront Review Board to deal with the compatibility issue, not the number
of units.
MR. KUHLKE: Did the Planning Commission, subsequent to getting that
report, did they revoke their approval?
MR. WALL: No. The Planning Commission itself has never voted on it or
taken any action. All the action has been by George Patty as having the
delegated authority from the Planning Commission, and, no, he has never
revoked the approval of the site plan, but no building permit has been issued.
MR. KUHLKE: As a result, you advised the Inspection Department not to do
it?
MR. WALL: Correct.
MR. KUHLKE: So the way I'm looking at it, Mr. Dunbar has a valid point,
and that if the Planning Commission by virtue of Mr. Patty approving the site
plan, then the only question that comes up is are they entitled to a building
permit. And if they've gone through all of the proceedings, and if the
action of the review board took place in April and here we are talking about
this--and I mention I don't have any correspondence from George Patty or
whatever in regards to this--where is George? George, my question to you is
this: you've got the minutes from the meeting of the Review Board?
MR. PATTY: Right.
MR. KUHLKE: They voted six to nothing to deny it in regards to the
compatibility?
MR. PATTY: Right.
MR. KUHLKE: And so since they've done that, what are you going to do?
MR. PATTY: Well, here's my one-minute version of it, okay? In October
'96 this board, you know, I'll quote from the minutes, voted to issue the
permits for this project. And in a letter from Jim subsequent to that, his
opinion was that they should issue it. Based on that, I signed the site plan
when it conformed to all the county rules and regulations, and the legal
issues apparently had been dealt with. I don't remember what all the
different hearings were or what happened, what the chronology of it is, but
when you all met recently and decided to send this thing back to the
Riverfront Development Board, it did go to them and they did deny it. And the
next day I talked to Jim about what the appropriate action would be, and it
was his opinion that the writ of mandamus they're seeking would be based on
the situation as it existed at the time they went out here and applied for the
permits and, because of that, whether or not I rescinded the site plan would
be moot. And based on the fact that that minute in time was frozen apparently
is all that matters, it didn't make any sense to me to rescind the site plan
and I haven't done it. Now, if you want to direct me to do it, I'll be happy
to do it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I've enjoyed all the legal sparring here, but
I'm going to play Judge Judy and call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the substitute motion
first, please, made by Mr. Todd?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The substitute motion was to approve the
recommendations of the Riverfront Review Board.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. H. BRIGHAM, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE & MR. SHEPARD
VOTE NO; MR. HANDY OUT.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go back to the main motion, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: The main motion by Mr. Shepard, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, was to
accept the Attorney's recommendation and receive this as information.
MR. BEARD, MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
CLERK: Item 1: Request for concurrence with the decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Tina R. Sewell requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-3B (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) on property located on the east right-of-way line
of Bertram Road, 120 feet, more or less, north of a point located where the
centerline of Center West Parkway extended intersects the east right-of-way
line of Bertram Road (1058 Bertram Road).
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I will second it, but I want to see what the lady wants
to say.
MS. SEWELL: I'm Tina Sewell, my address is 1058 Bertram Road. Mr. Mayor
and members of the Commission, I would like to withdraw my request for this
particular zoning and come back and request a professional zoning for my
property.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think that's an appropriate thing and
I'll allow the lady to withdraw without prejudice.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: And I'll withdraw my motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: And I'll withdraw my second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Patty, I understand what this reason is and why it's being
done. Will she technically have to go through the whole readvertising process
to deal with even a so-called softer zoning or a zoning that's less--well,
it's more restrictive in terms of being under a professional zone as opposed
to a neighborhood business.
MR. PATTY: She will have to go back through that process, yes. She will
have to go back through the process.
MR. MAYS: Well, let me ask this question then, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to
support the lady's right to withdraw, but let me just ask this. And I was
absent at the last meeting, but what is the case--my question would be why was
this not put under--I mean, you've got somebody basically that doesn't know
what zoning they might be going in, and they come there and ask y'all, you
know, kind of like where to go. Why would this not be directed to go probably
under P-1 or something professional from the very beginning as opposed to
neighborhood business?
MR. PATTY: Okay, she's doing two things here, as I understand it. She's
doing massage therapy and she's got a beauty shop. And, you know, on the
surface it's a commercial use. If somebody walked in the office and said this
is what we're doing, we'd say it's got to be commercial. But because of the
sensitivity of that area and the fact that the Commission has taken the
position they have, I think that we can justify the massage therapy being the
primary use, which could be commercial --I'm sure she's licensed and all that-
-and the beauty shop could be considered incidental to the other. The problem
we had with this thing is that, you know, there are seven little lots in there
with houses on them, and whatever happens to one obviously is going to happen
to the rest of them. And the biggest problem we've got with it, there's no
place to park on this property. Now, P-1 would be a little better than B-
1 because of the fact that there are a lot of commercial uses that could be
made with the seven houses, but what you're looking at is seven lots with
seven sets of driveways and the problems that that would cause now, and even
worse if Bertram Road is connected over into Alexander. Which, you know, the
plans have been around for years, and I don't know whether it will or not, but
I think that's where the Commission is coming from. Now, to defend the staff,
there is other commercial zoning in that area. You've got commercial zoning
right across from it. Even though Walton Rehab now occupies that, it's
obviously a residential-looking use and a residential use. But there is other
commercial zoning in the area, so it's not totally incompatible with what's
there with the B-1 that she's asking for.
MR. MAYS: And how are they zoned?
MR. PATTY: They're zoned B-2.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Like I said, I'm going to support it, I was just
curious, in reading the background and with the medical and professional
references probably, why she maybe wasn't directed to deal with the softer
zoning from the beginning. You know, because when people apply they don't
know many times whether they're going to special exception, light industry,
heavy industry, they are directed by what y'all tell them. What did your
staff recommend?
MR. PATTY: The written staff recommendation was for approval with some
questions about how the parking would be handled, because where the house sits
on the lot you cannot drive into the back yard. So because it was compatible
with the surrounding properties, land uses and zoning and plan, the staff
recommended approval. But these questions about parking and the precedent
came out at the meeting, and some Planning Commissioners, based on the number
of customers she represented she might have and the configuration of her front
yard, you know, felt that it was a bad decision, a bad idea, and that's really
when the problems with this first started.
MR. MAYS: I read the minutes of the last Commission, I didn't read your
minutes of that particular meeting, but I--you know, in looking at the, you
know, appointment only, not walk-in, the amount of customers and that deal in
there, you know, I was kind of amused or dumbfounded because it seemed like
y'all started off dealing with parking two weeks ago and as the applicant or
Mr. Beard was raising the question in terms of trying to answer parking, then
it drifted off into everything else and never did get back to parking. I
mean, that was just what I read in the minutes, you know. And like I said,
I'll support the withdrawal because I think that's probably the only way that
this thing is going to work out is just redo it. But I agree with what
Mr. Todd said in that meeting in terms of the business friendliness of it. It
just seems like, you know, you get somebody to go through that process, the
advertising, get approved by staff, then get turned down--and, I mean, that's
the privilege of the Planning Commission and it's also the privilege of this
Commission to vote it up or down. But to come back, go through that process
all over again to deal with and then get to this, that we maybe need to screen
on some of these borderline ones what might be the softest acceptance to a
neighborhood. I mean, none of us are invisible to the point of what folk on
this Commission are going to object to and what they're going to agree to,
what they're going to fight and where they're going to fight about it at, and
we know that. And if that be the case, then we need to start looking then at
friendlier confines of what we will recommend on the zoning that it won't get
fought as hard or get fought out of the question as though you're getting
ready to turn it into a nuclear waste dump or something, you're simply having
it, you know, revert back to a P-1 zoning. That's all I want to say. And
I'll support her withdrawal, but I just think that it's very cumbersome and
very unneeded to have to deal with that whole process when probably that
should have been the recommendation from the very beginning.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Brigham's motion to let her withdraw, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Under the Finance portion of the agenda, Items 2 through 6 were
approved by the committee on June 8th.
2. Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Georgia and the
Augusta Mini Theatre for $450,000 from the Urban Services
District portion of Phase III SPLOST.
3. Motion to award a purchase order to Malcolm Enterprises for one
(1) trailer-mounted mulch spreader at a cost of
$13,975.15 for the Public Works Department Solid Waste Division.
4. Motion to award a purchase order to Malcolm Enterprises for one
(1) trailer-mounted landscape seeder at a cost of $23,290.00 for the
Public Works Department Solid Waste Division. 5. Motion to approve a
funding request from the Augusta Task Force for the Homeless in the
amount of $3,600 to be paid from CDBG funds to cover one year's rental
of office space. 6. Motion to approve abatement of 1994 taxes for
Map 66, Parcel 57, in the amount of $5.82.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, the Finance Committee makes the
recommendation that 2 through 6, not including 6a, be approved as a consent
agenda.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. So we're actually voting on 3 through 6.
Discussion, gentlemen?
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I would like to point out on Item Number 5
there, that $3,600 to come from CDBG, if I remember the discussion correctly,
that was subject to those funds being available there.
MR. OLIVER: I've talked with Mr. Mack and he says those funds are
available, but I think that's-- MR. BRIDGES: That's a moot point then.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Bridges' motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. POWELL OUT]
CLERK: Item 2: Motion to approve contract between Augusta, Georgia
and the Augusta Mini Theatre for $450,000 from the Urban Services District
portion of Phase III SPLOST.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only question is whether the entity is building
the Mini Theatre in the urban service district or outside of the urban service
district. Is there any change, that's all I need to know to vote.
MR. BUTLER: No, there's no change since the last meeting.
MR. TODD: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, could I ask one question of Mr. Butler? Mr.
Butler, Mr. Acree did a cost breakdown and it pretty much tied in with what
you had on your cost breakdown. The thing that I saw, if Mr. Acree is here, is
that when you got to the bottom line, from the standpoint of land acquisition
there seemed to be a shortfall. Is Mr. Acree still here? Rick, did I read
your numbers correctly? You showed, I think, $190,000 for the cost of the
land, and Mr. Acree, when he got to the bottom line, based on his figures it
only left about 120-some-odd-thousand dollars to purchase the land, if I read
that correctly. And the only reason I'm bringing this up, you know, I want to
make sure that you feel comfortable with the numbers you've got and you're
going to be able to do what you need to do.
MR. ACREE: Mr. Butler can tell you [inaudible], and they felt that they
[inaudible] make up the difference between what we provide [inaudible].
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got a question to the Attorney. I need a piece
of paper.
MR. WALL: Are you talking about the contract?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, the contract. The question I asked for, that's what--
MR. WALL: It is legal for you to spend the money. It is not a question
of legality versus illegality, it's a question of construction of the contract
as to whether or not this is an expenditure for the urban services district.
MR. HANDY: That's in writing or that's an opinion?
MR. WALL: That's an opinion. The contract specifies that the money
would be used for the urban service district's projects, but, I mean, as far
as-- MR. HANDY: [inaudible] urban district project outside the urban
district?
MR. WALL: Yes. I mean, it is a county tax, and so from the standpoint
of where the money can be spent, it can be spent anywhere within the county.
Now, the question is one of interpretation or intent or whatever insofar as
the contract is concerned which was entered into prior to consolidation, which
at that time the then-City Attorney insisted that the language be included
that it would survive consolidation and the money would be used for those
urban service district projects. Now, you can have a project that's outside
the urban service district, I think, that primarily services residents within
the urban service district and meet that criteria if that's the decision that
y'all make. So it's more of a construction of the contract and an application
of the contract than a question of legality, because it's clearly legal.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Butler, is this piece of property you want for you to
be able to do what you want, it's the cheapest and the closest to the area
that you'd like to serve that you can get to be able to complete your project?
MR. BUTLER: The question is yes. For the past year we have looked at
other sites within the inner-city. As I mentioned at the last meeting, we
thought we had a site, but the desirability issue [inaudible] the problem is
we just haven't been able to find the property, and it probably will be hard.
That's about as close, I think, as we can get to the people that we do serve,
and it's sort of in a position so that we can serve not only that particular
area but it's available where you can get to any part of our county. So we
are very concerned about that as well, that we serve not only that district
but the entire county.
MR. MAYS: What is the total acreage, Tyrone, that y'all will be
acquiring on that piece?
MR. BUTLER: At least six acres.
MR. MAYS: Okay. Mr. Wall, while you don't think I don't still love you,
I might agree with one of your opinions today. But let me just ask you this,
on the acreage of the property that we own that's on that road going toward
Gordon Highway, what's the acreage on that parcel where we did the major
demolition at that we've not been able to do anything with? And it may not
even be a comparable comparison, but I just wanted to know from the
standpoint--this is trying to help you with your dollars if that was in the--
and it won't hang me.
MR. WALL: The Damascus Road property?
MR. MAYS: Uh-uh, on the other end.
MR. WALL: Olive Road.
MR. MAYS: On the acreage, do you know what--just in comparable acreage,
that's all.
MR. WALL: Didn't I see North here a minute ago? It would be a wild
guess because I don't know.
MR. MAYS: I can still support the motion that's on the floor, Mr.
Butler. My reason for asking is don't it--what you're looking at in terms of
scrapping with the numbers, and we cleared out part of an eyesore, but at the
same time we basically have not done anything with it as far as a sale, as far
as anybody looking at it, and I didn't know whether you all might have looked
at that when you were doing your search on your opposite end. But it may not
be enough to deal with what you're looking at for future expansion. But I
believe when--off the record, when we were probably looking at that and some
people maybe wanted to buy that property and we were probably talking maybe
far less than what you all are talking about on the other end, you know, two
blocks up, and that was my reason for bringing that up. Either way you're
going to still be in the former suburban area, but right in the back, you
know, of Southside Terrace, but basically still serving the same folk. But I
just brought that up from the standpoint that I didn't know how big it was in
terms of acreage versus what you were going to be looking at in Martin Luther
King and Olive Road area.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mays, I would also point out there would be a timing
problem for that. It would probably be at least 14 or 15 months before you
could get clear title for that property.
MR. MAYS: I thought we already owned it.
MR. WALL: No. And I at one time thought we did, too, but it has never
been sold for taxes because of the amount of the demolition work, and so we
would have to go through a tax fore-closure, and then you would have the one-
year right of redemption. You could probably do it through the Land Bank
Authority unless you got a deed in lieu of foreclosure, which you might be
able to do on that property, I don't know. But, no, we never did--never been
sold for taxes, and I thought it was at one point.
MR. MAYS: Well, I know that's another issue and another day then, but if
we did that much demolition work out there, we need to own it. We need to put
that on the agenda, Ms. Bonner, for next week then and let Mr. Wall work on
that. Because, I mean, if it cost us an arm and a leg to tear that sucker
down, we need to go on and own it regardless of who gets it. You know, at
some point that needs to be where we can get some type of negotiation with it.
But I just threw that out there, Tyrone, in terms of trying to help you with
your numbers. Because if you were going to be outside of that invisible line
of the urban district, that means you'll still be on the same street where
you're going, you'll just be going two blocks in the other direction. And if
you can go with 50 percent less on the land acquisition, that'll save you 75
to 80 thousand dollars from what we were looking at in the price of it, and
I'm sure you probably could use 75 to 80 thousand dollars. I'm not looking in
your pocket, but I think you probably know what I mean.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the motion for us, Ms. Bonner, please.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the contract.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion to approve, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
CLERK: Item 6a: Consider contract with ACCG/David M. Griffith,
subject to the approval of the Administrator and Attorney, not to exceed
$167,400 for Management Review of County Operations. Funding, $10,000 from
consulting budget Administrator's Office; balance of $157,400 from Sales
Tax Distribution from state.
MR. KUHLKE: So move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second. And when we say sales tax, we're talking about the
sales tax that goes to the General Fund, I assume?
MR. OLIVER: Yes. These were the funds that came back a couple of months
ago from the state based on the distribution, you know, of what there was an
underpayment. It was unanticipated revenue.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I've got a question of Randy. How much did we
get back from the state in total in that fund and where can that money be
used--what can it be used for?
MR. OLIVER: Well, there are two components to that money. One is
special purpose local option sales tax, which goes to capital projects. Those
funds are basically limited by the referendum that was approved by the voters,
meaning that--and, roughly speaking, they were about a half a million dollars
each. I don't have the exact figures here, 400,000 or so. Those funds were
budgeted, and we collect revenue on those particular funds until either the
five years expires or we hit the cap for the collection. On the other portion
for the local option sales tax, which is a reduction to the property tax, that
can be used for any lawful purpose. And at this point, I mean, those funds
would go into reserves unless-- MR. BRIDGES: Now, where is this 157
coming from, the capital?
MR. OLIVER: No, this would have to come from the other portion, the
LOST.
MR. BRIDGES: Okay. And the capital will be things like building
structures, recreational equipment, that kind of thing?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. But the caution there would be that is not
new money that's unanticipated because the resolution that was approved by the
voters specified certain projects as being Tier I and Tier II. Now, clearly
the Commission, if they wanted to, could reassign the priorities to move that
money around.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I asked Mr. Oliver back when we had this
funding coming available, he said he--initially told me he wanted to put it
all into reserves. And we have projects that are underfunded that are sales
tax projects that have not been addressed, and now we're coming up with
another study that's taking the money out of the sales tax that people voted
on for the projects, and now you want to do a study. I don't understand that.
MR. OLIVER: That's not quite correct, Commissioner Powell. There are
two components of the sales tax: one goes to capital projects and one goes to
what we call operations. Now, that's not to say that operations money can't be
used to fund capital projects. Historically that's not been done, okay? But
those are the two components of the refund we got from the state.
MR. POWELL: I understand that, but we're still taking out of one pot and
putting it in something that hasn't been voted on. It hasn't been brought up
before the public, but you're taking the money out of the funding that was
approved by the public for certain projects, a list that we voted on.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, just a little in response to Mr. Powell. You
know, we funded a space study and we haven't really massaged that study at
all, but it would appear to me that--you know, we had a subcommittee that
looked at some reorganization of the government and so forth, but a
prerequisite to...[end of Tape 1]...critical to this government over the long
haul, and I just urge my colleagues to support this so that we can move ahead
and begin to become a little bit more efficient in this government.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to respond to Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Kuhlke, I
have no problem with the efficiency study, but when it was voted on the last
time we asked Mr. Oliver to put it in next year's budget. What you're doing,
though--and we're continually going back and taking money out of the sales tax
projects that the public voted on, a list of projects that was voted on by the
public that they wanted to see done. You keep shuffling that money around.
We found four or five ways to move the sales tax money, and then here we go
again. If you're going to fund something out of sales tax, fund the projects
that the voters voted on. If you want to do the feasibility study, then put
it in your General Fund budget and find a way to do it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Powell has got a valid point, but
I think he's also mistaken. There's two pennies on the sales tax, and one
penny goes to the General Fund. And what my discussions with Mr. Oliver about
this $157,000 is that it's coming from the one penny that goes to the General
Fund, not the one penny that goes to capital projects. I think it's an
appropriate expenditure, and without this I don't think we can align our next
year's budget to the right size with this government.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we need to deal with the pennies. I
was going to try to deal with the two pennies for my Chairman of the
Engineering Services Committee, but I think Mr. Brigham has already done that.
And I think when the motion was first made I brought the concern up of what
penny we're talking about, because it's illegal, Mr. Mayor, to use the one
penny that my colleague, Chairman of the Engineering Services Committee, spoke
of to do anything other than those projects and/or public works, you know,
related as far as the administration of those projects, so I wanted to make
that clear. It's illegal, so I think the County Attorney would simply tell us
that we couldn't do it if that's what we're talking about, so let's not
confuse the two pennies. The other penny is the penny that's there for
giving us tax relief on ad valorem tax, Mr. Mayor. And I think that we're
talking about a half a million dollars. I believe that one mill brings in
approximately two and a half million dollars, so there is not a great deal of
need to try to do anything as far as additional tax relief with this, but I
think, Mr. Mayor, that the efficiency study will put us in a position where we
may be able to reduce the budget next year, may be able to not raise taxes
next year, may be able, Mr. Mayor, to reduce taxes next year. That's what the
efficiency study is about. And, Mr. Mayor, Fulton County has already signed a
contract and anticipates, you know, savings. Other cities and counties save
money, Mr. Mayor, through efficiency studies. Mr. Mayor, the bottom line is
that this is something we should do. We received some money. It's kind
of like going out there and playing bingo one night, you know, and you win and
you got some extra money that wasn't in your household budget, you know. And
what do you do with it? I think you prioritize and you spend that windfall or
that extra money on what you need the most, what's going to be most effective
in that household. And, Mr. Mayor, I think it's the same way in this
government, that we should fund this efficiency or management study. And, Mr.
Mayor, if we're going to question whether we need this--I hate to keep
referring to water, but basically all you need to do is look at our Waterworks
operation. And I'm not going to sit here and take the blame for the entire
situation because this is something, as Mr. Powell has stated earlier today in
another conversation, that occurred over 15 years of another administration,
Mr. Mayor, not your administration. But certainly this study should enable us
to do a better job whether it's Waterworks, Public Works, law enforcement, Mr.
Mayor, or the administration of the County Commission Office. Thank you.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my colleagues giving me a class
or a crash course on the one-cent sales tax, but I assure you I'm very aware
of all pennies of the one-cent sales tax. And, Mr. Todd, you're talking about
using the sales tax so that we won't have to raise taxes. Well, let me tell
you, the penny that you're talking about was originally put in the sales tax
to roll back property taxes, okay? So I don't need a crash course on the one-
cent sales tax. I do appreciate your efforts, but I want to tell you now
you're still doing the same thing that I told you before. The one-penny sales
tax that you're talking about using to fund it from was put back into the
General Fund to roll back property taxes, okay, to save money, it was not
meant to fund the study. And although I think the feasibility study is an
excellent idea, I think it needs to find a funding source known as the General
Fund and not out of the General Fund monies that come from sales tax. If
you're going to ask the public to support you and you're going to ask the
public to come out and pay an extra penny and vote on this, when you give them
that list of what you're going to do, then you ought to abide by that list and
quit shuffling this money around.
MR. HANDY: I've just got two questions. Could this money be used for
the water department?
MR. OLIVER: General Fund money can be used for any legally available
purpose.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Later on down here is an item that we're looking for
about $600,000 for the water department, so why are we putting the study ahead
of the water department?
MR. OLIVER: The funds are available currently within Waterworks to do
those projects.
MR. HANDY: That's not what we were told last week.
MR. OLIVER: That's what David told me just--where is David?
DAVID: We have currently about four and a half million dollars in Water
and Sewer that we can [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: We have money available for that.
MR. HANDY: Then if we've got four and a half million dollars in reserve,
then why we haven't fixed it before now?
MR. OLIVER: I think those are issues that we've got to look at, but the
question becomes as it relates to the plan. And we can either discuss that now
or when it comes up on the agenda, and I think-- MR. HANDY: Well, no, I
was just thinking about if you needed money--well, you've got four million,
you don't need it--then why put this hundred and something thousand dollars in
the study versus the water department, that's all. That's why I asked that
particular question. Now, my next question and final question concerning this
is I think my colleague said that there was a study and there was something
going on. Now, do we know exactly what we have at the water department and
what need to be fixed or what is broken?
MR. OLIVER: There was a feasibility study done as part of the bond
offering. The bond offering required the engineering firm who did that, as
the Engineering Chair is well aware, to delineate what was required, I think
it was over the next ten years, in capital improvements and things like that.
Now, clearly these will be the major capital improvements, and there are
going to be changes that occur particularly as you get further into the work
program. The difficulty has been that the work program, while started--and
I'll give you a good example. The 60-inch water line, for example, has been
designed to get to the reservoir. It's scheduled to go to bid next month.
The problem is that, you know, that didn't accommodate the schedule. So
there's engineering that has to be done before we can go out and start laying
pipe, to illustrate a point. But that work was done by the respective
engineering firms, and you all hired a couple of months ago CH2M Hill as the
program manager to oversee the implementation of those various projects.
MR. HANDY: Right. But my question was--I read in the paper and I saw on
television that we had four pumps: two completely broken, one just went down.
We already knew that, that those pumps was already broken? That's what I'm
asking.
MR. OLIVER: Yeah. But, remember, this is a ten-year work program. The
pump, for example, that went down was scheduled to come down this fall after
the summer demand, you know, was completed and to be totally overhauled. The
problem was it didn't make it until this fall. But that was in the work
program to be, you know, refurbished in the fall.
MR. HANDY: Okay. What about the other two that's not working at all?
This came from the media, now, not from anybody in our office.
MR. OLIVER: Well, there are two nine-million-gallon turbines, one of
them works and one of them doesn't work. In the scope of things, they would
have helped, but they really aren't that big. I mean, in the total work
program it asks for a new pumping station totally to be built after that 60-
inch water line is brought on line, but that can't be done until the permits
are consolidated with the two different intake points. And Mr. Hicks can
explain that better than I can.
MR. HANDY: Okay. All I'm asking is that if we knew of all these things
that was broken, why haven't we fixed them? If we did not know that they was
broken, okay, that's a different thing. So what I'm saying is that the money
that we have, if financing is not a problem, then why haven't we done
something about it? That's what I'm asking, okay?
MR. OLIVER: As, you know, you well know in your business, for example,
in your radio transmitter you expected certain things to happen, you expected
it to have a certain life. Mr. Hicks had programmed it into his capital
budget to refurbish that turbine when the demand for water went down this
fall. The difficulty was that that forecast on his part did not prove to be a
good one and that it required refurbishing prior to that. There clearly were
and there clearly are some other things that were unknown. Mr. Siddell, at my
request, has gone through and made some recommendations. That is what is
before you today. Mr. Siddell, at my request, is also going through the
filter plan, and there will be a couple of recommendations he makes there as
well as the pumping station off Peach Orchard Road because there are some
issues there. But what I've asked him to do is to go through and do what I
call what-if scenarios where you go in and you assume, hey, we lost the power,
the power is going to be out to here for two or three days, what's going to be
the effect of that, what's the effect if we lose this particular piece of
equipment, and that, I don't think, has been done to the extent that it should
have been. And as I say, that has now been completed for the pumping station,
and it's in the process of being done at the filter plant and then also at the
Peach Orchard Road facility down there. I would expect to have that back
within the next two weeks.
MR. HANDY: Okay, thank you. What I wanted to know was is somebody
looking at exactly what needs to be done and what's left out there and not
just waiting. I know you said you had a maintenance schedule and everything,
and I do know how the maintenance schedule works, but do we actually know all
the things we need to make sure that this ain't going to happen again, that's
what I'm talking about.
MR. OLIVER: I am comfortable at this point that at the raw water pumping
station, that with this approval we will have all the components we need. My
one concern, and I'll be candid, is that even though you approve that today
it's going to be some two or three months before we have the parts in here.
But once we get those parts in here, I'm convinced that we can handle, you
know, any reasonable emergency. I mean, if the Canal breaks or something like
that, that's something that's going to be very difficult for us to handle.
But, you know, we have planned for those. And as I say, if you approve that
particular item today, as soon as those parts come in we will be able to
address that fully.
MR. HANDY: Okay. That's good, but now I'm going to get onto all of us
in my final statement. I'm going to go against myself as well as the other
Commissioners. If we have the money, the money is available--when we want
little simple things we float a letter around to get six signatures--why
haven't we done this and went on and ordered the part for the pump for the
water versus wait until today to do a meeting? You see what I'm saying?
You're saying we need water and you have the money, but little small things,
we float a letter around to sign for. Well, when you need this, why didn't we
sign a letter and do this?
MR. OLIVER: But let me explain. I mean, as an emergency
authorization we have a foundry that is refabricating the paddles for the
diesel pump. That is already in process. If we had the diesel pump up, or
available--I shouldn't say up, because even if we had it up we couldn't use it
because we couldn't pump any more water than that--I would clearly feel more
comfortable. As it relates to the other thing, it was a matter of drawing the
materials together. And perhaps we could have saved a day or two by floating
a letter around, but we tried to get all the information back together and
it's basically taken us about a week to get that information to determine--I
mean, for example, on the engines down there we looked at using natural gas
compared to diesel because natural gas has a longer life. The difficulty was
the availability of natural gas to the site. And then we found out that a
natural gas engine of that size would be very hard to get replacement parts
for because they aren't commonly made, so we felt it was better to get a
diesel that was a large diesel and be able to have readily available parts.
So that's really the reason.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Time out, gentlemen. Let's see if we can get back to
the David M. Griffith study, because we've got water on down a little bit
further. Now, if you've got a question about that, fine. If not, let's move
on.
MR. SHEPARD: I wanted to return, too, Mr. Mayor, to Item 6a, which is
this contract. Would the maker of the motion consider making it expressed
that we coordinate--have this efficiency study coordinated with the space
study, because it seems to me that one without the other may work at cross-
purposes. I think they've got to work together.
MR. KUHLKE: I have no problem in making that amendment. The only
problem, Mr. Shepard, that I would say is that all we have at this point is a
preliminary study. I don't think it's been refined, but I think--and Mr.
Oliver can speak to this. I would think that the completion of the efficiency
study would then give us the information we need to really evaluate the space
study, and the way I understood the last meeting that we had with the
consultant was that we will have subsequent meetings with this consultant to
take a look at it. So, you know, I don't have a problem amending the motion
that they take a look maybe at the space study as they go through the
efficiency study, but I don't know that we are at a point where it would be
meaningful at this point.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, rather than amending the motion, subject to the
approval of the Attorney and the Administrator, could we not have that
coordination in that approval? I mean, it seems to me that--I'm a little
frustrated we have so many studies, but it seems like we have to have someone
taking the leadership here that indicates how an efficiently organized
organization could be housed in that. How are we going to handle that?
MR. OLIVER: And I think that's an excellent point. We have to remember,
however, that if there is a recommendation to reduce a given area by, you
know, a person or two or three or add a person or two or three, that that
doesn't really impact the efficiency study. What impacts an efficiency study
is if they say this particular department and this particular department
should be combined, okay? And I think that's an excellent observation. What
I would point out, however, to do that we need to hold the space study then
until the efficiency study is completed, and that's fine if that's the desire
of the Mayor and Commission.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, I just think I desire that they be coordinated in
some way, and it could probably be coordinated through the approval of the
Administrator and the Attorney.
MR. KUHLKE: I have no problem with amending my motion if Mr. Brigham has
no problem with it.
MR. TODD: I seconded it, and I have no problem with it. What I would do
if I had a option, Mr. Mayor, is to table this until we take care of the
water, then there is not an issue of whether money is going to be left for
water when we resolve that issue.
MR. KUHLKE: I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard had his hand up.
MR. BEARD: At this point I clearly support the efficiency study that is
being asked for him, and I'm going to support that simply because I think we
need it. I don't think you can run an organization this size unless you look
at that. Getting into the money, I'm not going to get into that because I
think we've talked that enough. But I do think that we need to look at our
government. A government this large needs to be evaluated, and an efficiency
study is needed at this particular time, and I think we all agree to that, so
that we can understand where we're going. And I think also there's a little
bit of planning needed, and I think at some time I'm going to ask my
colleagues, and I hope we can do this in the near future, that we need some
time that we can sit down, and I've asked for this a couple of times, and talk
about the future and what we're doing and planning. And I just hope at some
time we can schedule this in the near future and possibly some time next month
get together where we can look at this and see where we're going. And I think
this is very much needed, and I hope that the Administrator and the Mayor
would come up with a time that we can meet next month to look at all of this
and make some projection of where we're going.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I do not envy the position you sit in at all. Out
of respect for you as the chair of this group and the parliamentary procedure
and the rules according to what's on the agenda, I'm going to be very
respectful of that. You asked if we had a comment about 6a and David Griffith
and that's what I'm going to make my comments on. Now, when we get to 39 I'll
make my comments probably in addition to what some of these other fellows have
made during 6a. But I agree that the Administrator, from time to time this
Commission in general, may need different tools to fully be able to evaluate
where we are, where we're going, the whole nine yards. Sometimes that requires
a study, and I agree with the Steve, sometimes we can study things to death.
We've probably got a lot of studies we paid for that collect dust that have
never done anything other than been paid for and collect dust. But you
asked specifically about David Griffith. Now, Jim, I'm going to love you even
more on this because I'm probably fixing to say something, if I'm going to it
and you think I might get sued--you know, the old poor boy from James Brown,
you know, he can kind of hold his own pretty good, you know, I've proven that.
But you're asking about David Griffith. Now, if we vote today I'm not going
to vote against Mr. Oliver having that tool to be able to come into this
government and have an efficiency study, but I'm going to vote against where
we're going and I'm going to tell you why. And, Jim, you can cut me off
through the Mayor whenever you get ready with it. Now, I've been down the
road with the same company. You're asking, Mr. Mayor, about 6a. I'm going to
be the only one talking about what's on 6a. Now, we've dealt with
previous departments, and the only time--we don't always agree as a government
what comes out of a study. Sometimes we don't go back and implement it. But
I do have a problem when--I guess it's like Muhammad Ali said, we all got bit
by the same dog. I don't like to get bit twice by the same dog, okay? Now,
question in point, two different depart-ments we dealt with before most of you
got here. Where is some of the worst mess? Out in Building Inspection in old
county government. It turned up, it should have been obvious to everybody.
Now, if this is going to be a stack checking survey that probably we could
contract college students to do, then I'm not for it. Because I think what
happened before when we dealt with it, it obviously had to be no better than
that because some of the recommendations that came back in order for us to
merge one department with another department and the one that we were asked to
allow to take over the other one was in dog-worse shape than the one that we
were giving up. Now you're asking me to vote for the same set of
professionals who did that. Now, it's agreed that y'all weren't here.
Randy wasn't here. And I'm not--I want you to cut me off on where I may get
loud with this thing, but I've got to be honest about it. The Mayor asked me
to deal with 6a, so I'm talking about 6a. Now, there were some obvious things,
if a real study had been done, that should have been pointed out. That place
was running amok out there, but yet the folk they were trying to run off--we
brought in a study group that basically did what we told them to do, or what
some folk told them to do, and they went out and signed off for it. Now, the
principles in what they're going to conduct this whole efficiency study on the
whole government, if it's going to be different, then I don't have a problem
with y'all supporting that. I'm going to abstain on it because, like I say,
I've been bit by that dog before. We paid money for it. We dealt with it
in Recreation, but we also dealt with it over on Marvin Griffin Road, License
& Inspection and in Building, and we had the worst mess over there that
somebody should have obviously seen unless somebody didn't want to tell
anybody about it. But we paid dearly to get some information that was
thoroughly bad, and I'm being asked to come back today--now, maybe some things
have changed. Maybe with you as the new Administrator, you're going to tell
them you don't want them going out stack checking and to bring back the truth.
And if it's followed up on and some heads need to roll and some butts need to
be kicked, then that's what we need to do, because I'm sure there's some folk
that can greatly come in and would like to have some of these 50 and 60
thousand dollar a year jobs we place. But, Mr. Mayor, I'm sitting here today
with a problem of some confidence in the levels of where we're paying folk and
what we're paying them to do. And we're talking about efficiency, to pay a
hundred and some thousand dollars to get it, with somebody that I've been down
that road with before. Now, whether it was the Commission's fault,
whether it was their fault on what they brought back, they are here, and we
were not told by somebody. I don't know whether it was the person in charge
of our side of government at that time or whether it was the people who did
the work, but as far as I'm concerned we wasted a ton of money. And I think
everybody that was in news at that time, George and all of y'all were here,
you know the mess we had out through there. And yet we were trying to get
some folk run off from out there on Marvin Griffin Road at that time, and we
successfully did it by getting a study to prove that we needed to do it. And
the department that we merged it in was one of the worst that we had in county
government, and the stats prove that out, and that's why we had so many
problems out of it. And it started with building code violations from West
Augusta all the way out to the south side, and that's documented, that ain't
nothing that I fabricated. So, I mean, if I'm going to deal that way
twice with somebody, I want to know whether or not their set of rules has
changed any. This is not against Mr. Oliver in doing this. He's cleaning ship
in bringing it on, and I think you got enough votes to do it. I won't vote
against you, Randy, in dealing with it that. I don't have a problem with
where you need to deal with a tool, but I do have a problem coming back down
this same road standing a chance of getting bit twice. So I'm going to abstain
on it, Mr. Mayor, and I hope I kept that in the confines of 6a.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Ms. Bonner, do you want to read
Mr. Kuhlke's motion, please?
CLERK: The motion was to approve the contract with ACCG/ David M.
Griffith, and that this study be coordinated with the space study.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a roll call vote.
CLERK: Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Pass.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Abstain.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I can play this game. I'm going to abstain, too.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: I'm with the majority so far. I'm abstaining.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I'll be different. No.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: I vote no.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MOTION FAILS 4-2-4.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day.
CLERK: Items 7 through 10, with the exception of Item 9, were approved
by the Administrative Services Committee on June 22nd.
7. Motion to authorize donation of two (2) 386 PC's each to Augusta-
Richmond County Weed and Seed project and Good- will Job Connection to
permit them to provide computer
training for program participants. 8. Motion to approve coordinated
effort with World Changers and New Hope Community Center to
rehabilitate approximately 15 houses in Bethlehem housing area with up
to $156,700 in funds unused from 1994 Housing development line item.
These funds are only to be used for the purchase of materials. 9.
Item deleted from the agenda.
10. Motion to approve request to create a Secretary position in the
Code Enforcement Division of the License and Inspection Department.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I move that these be voted on unanimously
as a consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion? All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 10a: Discuss the creation of an Ad Hoc Committee
to study the designations of "Enterprise Zones" in Augusta.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, several of us were meeting in Savannah
last week while the Fire Chief and some of the others were up here fighting
fires. Just for the record, for those who wanted to know where we were, we
were in Savannah at a meeting, and out of that meeting came a very stirring
session showing enterprise zones. And it's my understanding that in 1994,
and I don't know if Ms. Bonner has that or not, but a study was done that--
the city did a study of enterprise zones, but it was not approved, but I
would hope that we would approve the concept this time. Columbia, Georgia
is doing it; Atlanta obviously is doing it. They've got some of the money
for it. But what we would like to do is ask our colleagues, and I
certainly hope we get your support in doing this, is to approve it in
concept. And I also would like to go just a little bit further and
establish one of those subcommittees, Mr. Beard, as you was talking about,
to get things done. I was going to ask Mr. Kuhlke, who represents District
Nine, and I was going to ask Mr. Mays, who represents District One [sic],
and I was going to ask Mr. Steve Shepard, who was in the meeting in
Savannah and was with the old city at that particular time, and I'd like to
serve on it. And I've talked to Mr. Mack about it. We're going to dust off
what the city did some years ago and see can some of these things that we
are talking about today become a reality and we can get beyond those
boundaries that we have and move it out just a little bit more. Mr. Mayor,
I'd like to put that in the form of a motion.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to second that motion. I just want to
make one correction, Mr. Brigham. I think the city did--HUD did not approve
it, but I believe that the city did.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: That's right. They applied and I understand that it was
turned down for some reason or the other. I stand corrected.
MR. BEARD: I just want to get that on record for the old city.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess Ms. Bonner corrected the districts that the
individuals represent?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: Okay. I'd like to commend the Administrative Services
Committee. Certainly I think it's at least a situation or an instance where
they are thinking outside the box, and we've got to do more of this if we're
going to do things right and bring money into this community. I think we've
got to go beyond the Community Block Grant money to do that. Thank you, Mr.
Mayor.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I fully support Mr. Brigham's motion. We had some
good sessions in Savannah, everything from downtown development to enterprise
zones. And in addition to it, and I don't think it has to be named out in the
motion, but I hope to in that subcommittee [inaudible] further legal creative
ways that have just been passed in a bill by the State of Georgia that will
help us to go into particularly blighted areas and to do a tax assessment
district. Of course, it's a step-by-step deal in dealing with it, but I would
hope that not only Mr. Mack's office but the Attorney and everybody else will
abreast themselves particularly of the rules that are being played because
there are many citizens that are going to take advantage of that. Savannah and
Columbus are already on board in terms of doing it. I not only represent but
also live in one of those districts where economic development took a giant
leap and passed over and a lot of monies that didn't come in, and we need
those special incentives many times to encourage people to invest and to deal
with coming in. And there are legal ways to do that, and I think if we miss
that opportunity, Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chairman, that we would do an awful
disservice. So it's going to be a very competitive market, and I hope that we
be very much on top of it. As the new second largest city, we're going to
need all the money that we can get, and isn't much of it out there, but we're
going to be prepared to take advantage of it anywhere we can get it.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I got one question. I'm not against this
particular item because I was in Savannah also, but how did this get on the
agenda without all of us knowing about it?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: When you say all of us knowing about it, what us are you
talking about?
MR. HANDY: Well, how did it get on the agenda?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: By calling into the office requesting that it's put on
the agenda for discussion.
MR. HANDY: Without going through committee?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, it came out of that committee, and the committee
was polled and they agreed to do it.
MR. HANDY: We'll talk about it later.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess to clear this up, it did meet the deadline,
Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: And I'm understanding the chairman had it put on there, and
members of the committee?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir.
MR. TODD: You know, I think I can support it and I don't have a problem
on how it got there. It's not there that it's coming from the committee as
approved, it's to discuss. And, you know, where I've been accused of being
disrespectful to committees for putting things on the agenda, I feel that any
Commissioner have the right to put an item on the agenda for discussion. And
maybe that'll help clear it up some: it met the deadline, that it was put on
for discussion, that it didn't come to us as approved by the committee.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Okay, Mr. Mayor. If this come on for discussion,
then--it says discuss, okay? We're going to discuss this, so who's going to
make a motion to accept the information and bring it back then? That's not
what you're doing, you're asking to approve it. It said discuss, now.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a substitute motion, I believe, has been made to
send it to committee.
MR. HANDY: Well, I just want y'all to be right when you're right, not
just try to change things to benefit certain things, that's all.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might. I think some of us were in different
sessions at the same time, simultaneously, and to clear up hopefully the
Commissioner's problem with that is that it was even discussed, particularly
after that afternoon session, particularly since the Columbus people were part
of that panel, that we even went as far as the Chairman of Administrative
Services of talking with Bruce Green of GMA of even about being the
facilitators on coming in [inaudible] forerunner looking at some things and
some of our needs and of bringing in those consolidated governments,
particularly Athens-Clarke, Columbus-Muskogee, and of meeting with us now and
sharing some ideas particularly on needs that we're going to have. And that
kind of, Freddie, was an outgrowth of where that whole thing came from. And
there are some people in those cities that will do that [inaudible]. And you
well know, Bruce is probably one of the best presenters and one of the best
idea people that Georgia Municipal Association has whether it's dealing with
Main Street, downtown development, community development or anything else, and
that was one of the things discussed with him about bringing him on board. And
we realize everybody cannot go everywhere, to every trip, all the time, and we
thought about that being a useful way-when we talk about the best use of the
money if we could get some mileage out of associations that we pay into, and
this was kind of a forerunner to deal with that. That would only be an ad hoc
group, but what we are hoping is that everybody will be concerned about it and
that all eleven of us will want to join in with what we need to do in terms of
taking advantage of that money, and I hope we will support the Chairman of
Administrative Services on that one unanimously.
MR. HANDY: Discuss and approve should have been on there if you want to
do that, Mr. Mays.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I also talked with Mr. Oliver about it, so, Mr.
Handy, I'm sorry if we couldn't find you that afternoon.
MR. HANDY: Well, I see that you didn't look long either.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MR. SHEPARD: I second that motion.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: The person we really needed was our Attorney, and
certain [inaudible] because I know the posture of the papers, they don't want
us to go anywhere, they don't want us to do anything, and they always
question. I got a call that night in the hotel from--it wasn't this young
lady, some other young lady from the paper.
MR. POWELL: I'd watch what I said there, Mr. Brigham.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I think that we ought to support not only him, Randy,
our Attorney. You go there and those other places and those folks are there.
Mr. Shepard was there to see their function. Randy knew about all of this.
And certainly we think that for us to not kind of somewhere down the line
present something and project it out front there--Mr. Eskola is mistaken, I
think we ought to really project it out there and put Augusta on the map. And
we've got the people here to do it, that's the thing that kind of bugs me.
We've got the talent around this table, Mr. Mayor, to do what we need to do,
but sometimes we let self get in the way, and I don't mean the fellow that
used to work for me called Self.
MR. BEARD: I call for the question again, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the motion, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the ad hoc committee to study the
designation of the enterprise zones, and Mr. Brigham appointed Mr. Kuhlke, Mr.
Mays, Mr. Shepard, and himself as the ad hoc committee.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Under the Engineering Services portion, Items 11 through 21 were
approved by the committee on June 22nd.
11. Motion to award construction contract to APAC-Southern
Roadbuilders for the McCombs Road Improvement Phase I in the amount of
$802,733.95 and authorize the execution of contract. 12. Motion to
award construction contract to Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company,
Inc. for State Highway 56 at Phinizy Road Improvements in the amount
of $266,659.00 and authorize the execution of contracts. 13. Motion
to award paving contract to APAC-Southern Road- builders in the amount
of $1,119,975.00 and authorization to execute contracts. 14. Motion
to approve establishing Curbside Recycling in the Urban Services
District, the proposal from Augusta Disposal and Recycling, Inc., and
the purchase of recycling containers at a cost not to exceed $24,000.
15. Motion to approve Scrap Tire Recycling Program for City of
Augusta to include disposal location and associated fees for
disposal location and associated fees for disposal. 16. Motion to
approve authorization to execute Change Order No. 1 in the amount of
$60,470.00 with Beam's Pavement Maintenance Company, Inc. to install
conduit for interfacing traffic signals and for future installation of
a computer- operated Intelligent Transportation System.
17. Motion to award bid for chlorine system improvements at Messerly
WWTP to Aqua South Construction in the amount of $156,944 and
authorize execution of contract documents. 18. Motion to approve
appointment of Ralph Herndon, Board of Health employee, as a member of
Subdivision Regulation. 19. Motion to approve Georgia Department of
Transportation County Contract Number PRLOP 8530 56 (245) C1 for their
participation in the Cook Road and Glendale Subdivision
Improvement Project in the amount of $826,592.80. 20. 20. Motion to
approve Co-Location Lease Agreement between Augusta, Georgia and
Triton PCS Property Company, LLC for the location of communications
equipment on the Tobacco Road water tower.
21. Motion to approve Co-Location Lease Agreement between Augusta,
Georgia and Triton PCS Property Company, LLC for the location of
communications equipment on the Highland Avenue water tower.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion that we take
Items 11 through 21 as a consent agenda.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BEARD OUT]
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, would it be in order for me to make a comment
on the equipment and stuff that we purchased for the water Treatment plant and
the pumping station?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we're in the process of trying to do some
repairs on the pumping station. We've got the pumping station up and going
for the public, which I'm sure the public is aware of. These items are
absolutely necessary, and I appreciate the Commission's approval of these
items as showing confidence to our Utilities staff that we have the utmost
confidence in their abilities. I know they have been catching a lot of flack
in the media and I know that the public is somewhat disturbed with them at
this point. However, I think that it's time we clarify one thing to the public
that has not been done. The Waterworks department has been pillaged for a
period of eight years prior to consolidation, and I don't think the public is
aware of the amount of money that has been taken out of the Waterworks fund by
the previous government. That total is $74 million that has been taken out of
that fund. We have a corrective plan of action in the Utilities Department to
correct this situation, but, ladies and gentlemen, no corporation and no
municipality the size of Augusta or even larger could take a $75 million loss
and turn it around in two or three years. It's going to take us some time, I
hope the public will be patient with us. We're limping, but we have domestic
water to drink, we have fire protection--which we realize that we have got an
adequate supply for public safety: the other day when we had the fire on
Bobby Jones. But I think the public really needs to understand that the
government took a $74-plus million loss in the Water Reserve. That was the
money that was to be spent to repair and upgrade this system. And that was
done by the
previous administration. I'm not casting blame, but I want the public to know
how much money was taken out of this account prior to consolidation. Thank
you.
CLERK: Under Public Safety, Item 22 was approved by the committee on
June 22nd.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to offer a motion to approve Item 22
and 23. 23 is no recommendation, but I put that in the form of a motion.
22. Motion to approve "Best Bid" purchase award for protective
clothing for the Fire Department.
23. Motion to approve Resolution imposing a wireless enhanced 911
charge on wireless telecommunications connections within Richmond
County, Georgia.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we have an action motion, Mr. Chairman, on Item
23? I know it's coming to us without a recommendation from Public Safety. Do
we want it to go through that way or do we want a motion to approve it?
MR. HANDY: After I saw that no recommendation from the other committee I
said 22 and 23.
MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
MR. MAYS: Again respecting protocol, Mr. Mayor, and the Public Safety
Chairman to get this on the floor, as a member of that committee I went ahead
and seconded that to get it on there. We had a lot of discussion that day,
and what I probably want to ask the Attorney and/or the Administrator, we
talked about--and probably I was the bull in the china closet that wouldn't
give it a second and that's why it's got no recommendation down there. But I
want to know if anything has changed since that time because part of that
debate centered around whether or not we were going to start dealing with
monies with no established rules and whether or not that particular committee
has met yet and whether or not anybody has worked out any rules and any
parameters to deal with it, and that's my question regarding that situation.
And like I say, I seconded to be polite, but, you know, we're in discussion
now and, you know, either one of y'all can answer it.
MR. WALL: Well, I guess I was going to ask the Chief and--Chief Sid
Hatfield was here earlier. I understand that there was a meeting--I'm sorry,
I didn't see you--that there was a meeting earlier and maybe they can address
it better than we can. I hope I'm not putting anybody on the spot.
CHIEF FEW: The Sheriff and I met this morning and we didn't come to any
conclusion. We thought that--he thought it would be best that you hammer it
out. I will say this: I don't think you can allow 911 fees, a dollar and a
half fees, coming in for Public Safety--that you can distinguish between law
enforcement, fire services, and EMS. When people pay a dollar and a half,
they pay for communication services for both police and fire service, as well
as EMS. My contention is I guess I want my forty acres and a mule, too. And
we didn't come to any conclusion on it, so I think that it may be best for you
to probably hammer that out. I was going to speak with Mr. Oliver about that.
I don't want to do anything without his blessing, because I haven't spoke to
him in detail about it, but I think that you cannot keep allowing the Fire
Department with a very deficient budget and allow them to take money out of
fire tax cap where they can't get any money from the General Fund and then say
pay employees and give them raises and then operate, and each year the
operating cost of the Fire Department is going up, but you can't get any extra
funds. In the Year 2000 we're going to be in trouble, there's no doubt about
it. I don't have the personnel. I didn't know when I came here that we
allow two people on a piece of apparatus. I made that known to the Sheriff,
and I tried to make him understand that I wasn't trying to take anything from
him. And I'm not asking to run the 911 Center. I'm saying all I want is a
portion of it so that my dispatchers can be paid, trained, and uniformed as
the rest. Now, you have money on the table now and I'm asking for that money
to go to the fire services so that they can have the same benefits of any
other department.
MR. TODD: Chief Few, how many individuals do you have in 911?
CHIEF FEW: I have seven individuals.
MR. TODD: And that number haven't increased since you got here, that's
the number that you inherited?
CHIEF FEW: That's all. I've got seven people.
MR. TODD: And what is the payroll for those seven individuals roughly?
CHIEF FEW: It's about two-fifty.
MR. TODD: Two-fifty? And we're anticipating bringing in approximately
$400,000, Mr. Mayor, I believe?
MR. OLIVER: No, that's not exactly correct. We estimate it to be
between a hundred and fifty and two hundred. I would note that we are
subsidizing the 911 operation $350,000 right now out of the General Fund,
which this last year was the first year that we subsidized it, and clearly
some decisions need to be made as to how that can be best--operated in the
best possible manner.
MR. TODD: When you add what the Chief is funding out of his fire tax and
other revenues from fire services like insurance tax, etc., what's the total
amount we're subsidizing 911? Because I don't think that you can say we're
just doing $300,000, I believe we've got to add the two together.
MR. OLIVER: If you add his two-fifty, we are subsidizing--between the
General Fund and the Fire Department, we're subsidizing 911 $600,000.
MR. TODD: Yes. And, Mr. Mayor, if we're talking about who's going to
get paid, then I think it's high time that fire services get paid or at least
get a substantial amount of what they are subsidizing. And I think that also
the General Fund probably should get paid, too, so I would be for, you know,
doing a 50-50 breakdown on it. But certainly I have a problem with the
committee not meeting. I think it's a slap in this Commissioner's face in the
sense that I pushed for this committee to be functional, and it's not
functional, back when Linda Beazley was Administrator. And I think it's a
disservice to this community for that committee not to be functional and bring
recommendations back to this Commission. You know, if I'm not getting
recommendations, if I don't have someone telling me what's wrong--you know,
why we're not running efficiently, why it's costing $300,000 more. I
initially thought it was capital outlay when we done the 911 Center that we
overrun what we had in the budget. At one time we had money to burn in our
pocket and spend, you know, burning a hole in our pocket. Now we have a
deficit, and I think that we need to get that deficit under control. But I
want to get out of this political debate that's been around ever since the two
governments existed on who's going to pay for what call-takers over there and
with one having to pull from the General Fund. 911 is supposed to pay for the
call-takers. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, for the benefit of Mr. Handy who missed the
committee meeting, part of the debate that went on ideally would be for the
committee to get together and come back to us with a recommendation. That's
not going to happen, and that's what Mr. Mays was pushing for. But Mr. Oliver
suggested that what we do is that we approve this resolution, but that we
approve this resolution with the added wording that the distribution of these
funds will be worked out through the budgetary process.
MR. OLIVER: It takes 120 days, I might add, before this revenue would
start to be collected, so it would be December 1st anyway, and I think that
that provides an ample window of opportunity to decide how that can be best
allocated.
MR. HANDY: I just want to make a statement. I knew from the beginning
that I was not here, and Mr. Kuhlke was there, but I've talked to both
parties. I talked to the Chief, and I knew what they wanted to do with the
money, and I think, if I'm not
mistaken, I even mentioned to Randy or Jim about it. But this book says the
resolution imposing the thing, it didn't say nothing about distributing the
money. So I'm well aware of this situation. I've talked to both parties
about this, and I know the hangup was money, but they don't have any dollars
down here on this particular item today and so that's why I went on and said
approve it.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from Chief Hatfield and hear
the other side of this thing. And I can probably support what Mr. Kuhlke is
wanting to do.
CHIEF FEW: I would like to add that last year, just to allow--when we
had consolidation--to allow all of the stations to be dispatched, because it's
so dangerous dispatching two or three different ones that type of way. I had
to then take and refund some money, and we paid them almost $360,000 just to
make sure that we communicate the same way out of all the stations, and I
don't think we can ever take a hit like that.
CHIEF HATFIELD: Let me begin by saying--and this is just maybe a note to
all of us in this room. Certainly the Commissioners and County Attorney and
Mr. Oliver would support me in this. Please remember and make note of the
fact that 30 percent of these revenues, whatever they may be in coming, must
be by law, Randy, and please correct me if I'm wrong, set aside to pay for and
fully support the continued maintenance and upkeep, for lack of a better word,
of the 911 functions in the center. Am I correct, 30 percent?
MR. OLIVER: Thirty percent of the new revenue of the dollar has to be
set aside--30 cents of the new dollar for cell phones has to be set aside for
enhanced communication to pinpoint cellular phones, that is correct.
CHIEF HATFIELD: So that simply dictates to us 70 cents out of every
dollar is what we're going to be talking about to disburse in whatever manner
you so choose to do. I think Chief Few, in doing exactly what the nature of
the job calls for him to do, he's doing it as best he can. Unfortunately, he
is restricted somewhat, as he has demonstrated to you and as he has so
genuinely been concerned with the cap which he deals with. He not only has
concerns of a 911 function with salaries and employees, he has the engine
house, he has the machines outdated, he has on and on and on problems. And we
have ours. But let me just make a couple of quick comments for you from the
law enforcement side of the 911 Center. Chief Few did, in fact, meet with the
Sheriff earlier today. I was summoned by the Sheriff, I was present during the
latter part of the conversation, and I can tell you that what Chief Few has
told you is absolutely correct. They did meet, it was a good conversation,
and I can assure you on behalf of the Sheriff that he would have me tell you
that he will work with Chief Few and with this Commission any way possible to
do what he can do to help in solving this problem.
Chief Few does have eight employees and one supervisor--excuse me, seven
employees and one supervisor, a total of eight.
CHIEF FEW: Seven. Six employees.
CHIEF HATFIELD: Six employees and one supervisor? Okay, I stand
corrected. Six employees and one supervisor, a total of seven is represented
for the fire service in the center. The Sheriff's Department has 41 employees
on any given 24-hour period of your choice. I can give you the documentation
where Sheriff's Department employees perform 98 percent of the tasks that go
on in that center. Be it a phone call, incoming, outgoing, be it receiving,
dispatching, sending, they simply pick up the phone and say 911 Center and
they give it to the Fire Department or they give it to the ambulance service,
which incidently, as you all know, no longer is located in the center. But we
still are the people who are responsible for pushing that button, ringing down
that incoming information to the ambulance service or giving it to the Fire
Department, so we perform 98 percent of that. There is in the General Fund a
budget, if you will, which is in the Sheriff's Department which we plan for
and we project every year to operate that 911 Center. It does not include
fire personnel, it never has. That's not to say that it won't or it should
not, but that's just the way it is as we speak. The Sheriff, again, would
support you in every way and work with the Chief, and I'm going to be, I'm
sure, the guy who you will appoint to do that with. We've been doing that as
best we can so far. That's just some of the basic side that I give you from
the Sheriff's Department. We've done some research on this. I gave some
facts and figures to the Sheriff in the past couple of days which are
computer-generated which track for us how many phone calls come in, how many
incidents of nature, what type they are that we receive from the call, who
dispatches those particular types of incidents, and the records that are kept
relevant to that. If there's anything else I can comment or you might want to
ask me about, I'll be happy to do so.
CHIEF FEW: Last year we probably ran 5,700 calls. By 1999 when I put in
emergency medical response you will run somewhere--the fire service will
probably run at least, at the minimum, 11,000 calls. My call volume is going
to pick up 50 percent. It's the way you set up the 911 Center. And I can say
the same thing, if you let me take all the calls I'll disperse them to you.
It's just a matter of how you've got 911 set up. We don't need to get into
that. My thing is that I just want to do what's fair, and I think what's fair
is to--I don't know what percentage, but if you want to work out percentages,
work out percentages. I don't care how we do it, but I just don't think it's
very fair with a very deficient budget--which Mr. Oliver and I both know that
I'm going to have some other problems [inaudible]. I don't want to be
standing up here, and I don't make excuses for citizens. When you put me head
of the fire service and I make excuse that trucks are breaking down and we
don't have the number of
personnel in place to make sure things operate efficiently--I don't like to
make excuses, so I'm telling you at this point now that something has got to
change the way distribute the money down at the 911 Center. I don't want
to be in charge of the 911 Center. They can have the 911 Center. Because,
see, one thing I know, I'm moving toward making sure that dispatchers are
emergency medical dispatchers. I don't know what may happen, but I know that
if something happens and we don't have an ambulance service in this community
I'm going to be able to take care of that service because those people we have
now are going to be emergency medical dispatchers and all the other things
that go along with being a 911 Center. And I've got almost 50 percent of that
done now, and I'm going to make sure that when we have an emergency in this
city I don't have to make excuses to you nor the citizens, and that's why at
this point I think that we need to really work something out. And the Sheriff
and I are not mad with each other, don't even get that wrong. I'm doing what
I'm supposed to do, I'm fighting for my department.
MR. KUHLKE: Chief, let me ask a question. You mentioned the emergency--
CHIEF FEW: Medical dispatchers?
MR. KUHLKE: Yeah, that you're going to put out, and you're expecting
11,000 calls this year?
CHIEF FEW: No, in 1999. I got all of my people in training right now.
MR. KUHLKE: Now, let me just look at that. 1999, 11,000 calls. That's
30 calls a day; is that right?
CHIEF FEW: Yeah.
MR. KUHLKE: And you've got six people. That's five calls per person.
CHIEF FEW: Right. And I'll tell you what I did to make sure that could
happen-- MR. KUHLKE: I'm just--you know, in the last week and a half
I've gotten more than that in an hour on water. I just wanted to clarify
that. I mean, it just doesn't sound like a lot of calls.
CHIEF FEW: Well, you've got to understand that a call just don't stop
once you take the initial call. You know, if it's a fire, it may last 35 or
40 to an hour, so that ties up one person, you know, to do it. If you took a
look at the calls we made in the last couple of months you'd say, well, what
kind of--man, this call volume is going to be up quite a bit, because we
certainly have ran a number of calls.
MR. SHEPARD: I'll address this question, Mr. Mayor, to both Chiefs. If
we don't go ahead and enact some kind of charge on the cellular phones--right
now what we have is the non-cellular phones subsidizing your operation; isn't
that the point? I mean, we're trying to tie the charge to the source of a
significant number of 911 calls?
CHIEF HATFIELD: If I may, for clarity on my part, when you refer to non-
cellular phones, is that the typical home phone?
MR. SHEPARD: Well, or business. Yeah, the non-cellular would be a wired
phone rather than cellular. I mean, I think the data which we were presented
in committee was that we have a significant number of 911 calls coming from
cellular phones. Those cellular phone users are not paying their appropriate
share of this service.
CHIEF HATFIELD: That is absolutely correct. And as best I can, standing
in front of you now, Commissioner, I would say probably 30 percent of the
incoming calls we receive are generated from cellular telephones.
MR. SHEPARD: Right. And those are paying nothing at this point, but
what we are trying to do today is to make the users pay for the service which
are not. We didn't have this ability to do it until we had, I think, the
state-wide enabling legislation which passed the General Assembly this year.
Now we have this ability to put the charge more in part where the user of it
pays, and I think that's the question before us today. As I understand the
resolution, you know, the resolution is to approve the revenue source so that
we have a more equitable sharing of this cost by the users.
CHIEF HATFIELD: And that is absolutely correct. Today is not reasoning
for how much or who will receive. That's not the purpose. And I would close
again by telling you the Sheriff is going to work with Chief Few 100 percent
plus in trying to help him. He has no problem with some monies being
generated toward helping his personnel. Chief Few is the manager of that
department and is trying to do the very best he can to get some of these
generated funds to pay his dispatchers so he can free up that money and maybe
get him a better machine than what he's got. He's got a really tough task
ahead of him trying to clean it all up, that's just one part of it. We're
going to help him any way we can, but I don't think anybody in this room, and
I stand corrected again, can really get a feel for what numbers we're talking
about that are going to be generated from these cellular phones. You know,
you're typically going to have some people, like it or not [inaudible] "I
can't afford a dollar and fifty cents a month, I'm not going to pay it, sue
me, do whatever you have to do." You're going to have some cellular users,
you're going to have some casual users, you're going to have some roamers. We
can't target all of those people, but basically whatever service provider we
have locally, be it A Company, B
Company, C Company, I think those are the people you're going to have to
basically depend on to tell us who their subscribers are and where the
revenues come from.
MR. SHEPARD: I think, as I understood it in committee, that the tax
would be imposed upon the home address or the billing address of the phones;
isn't that correct?
MR. OLIVER: Correct.
MR. SHEPARD: And I think without the revenue source, the discussion of
how we split it up is moot.
CHIEF HATFIELD: And we would still hold that the cellular phone
revenues, whatever they may be, are going to subsidize--we have a budget, we
are budgeted, and we plan for that on an annual basis obviously. And we're
hoping, and the Chief feels as well, that this will be a subsidized portion of
money that could help all of us. You know, fire services and law enforcement
services are something we're all interested in and we're all going to do what
we can to get the best out of them.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just would like to know at this point--I
understand the resolution here, which I have no problem with that, but I don't
quite understand who or what committee--will the Public Safety Committee be
responsible for making this decision and bringing it back to the body as to
what percentage each person or each department is going to get or will we have
a special committee? I would just like to be clear on that. How is that
going to be done?
MR. WALL: Well, I think it's up to the Commission, obviously, how they
want to assign it. My approach to it has been it's a budgetary issue. And in
the proposed budget, when the Finance Committee and then subsequently when the
full Commission looks at that, you know, I think you want to be sure that the
expenses that can be attributed to 911, including the Fire Department
dispatchers, you know, get a fair share of the money. I view it as a budget,
Finance Committee initially, function. But, you know, if the Public Safety
Committee wants to look at it and make a recommendation to the Finance
Committee, I mean, certainly it could flow that way.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess I've probably got a question for Jim, but
let me say this to the Chief and to Chief Hatfield. My position in committee
was not to start World War III over 911 money because I know, one, that's a
small source in relationship to overall budgets of what both of y'all need,
and I think I can be fair when I say the position I took as a strong supporter
of law enforcement's budget in terms of increasing our personnel and other
things when a lot of folk wanted to run away from it. But, you know, my point
that I was trying to make in there was that if there is, if there was, or if
there is going to be a formula to deal with 911, with the discrepancies that
we've got in the Fire Department, regardless of the number of calls, what I
was looking at was that the folk still have to be paid. If they are in the
building over there by Red Lobster, and if they are being paid out of one
source and if law enforcement's are being paid out of another source, the
point that I was trying to make, with the strapped budget that he's got, just
as both of you gentleman have eloquently put it, with where he gets his funds
from, was that if the formula that's in place does not allow for him to draw
down to deal with his folk over in there, then--I guess, Jim, you can answer
this: does then the committee which is so designated by law for us to have,
who then has that power to say? Now, what I've got a problem with--and I
don't mind making it and saying it's a budgetary problem, but I don't want to
get into a situation where we deem the formula and then we have a committee
that's so designated by law that's supposed to deal with the 911
recommendations that maybe doesn't like what we pass on as a budgetary item
and how it's to be split, then, you know, who wears the pants in that deal,
who wears the top? Because, I mean, I don't mind making a motion to deal with
it. You know, I've told you on record and off record, I've expressed in the
committee where we can go with it and how we're going to deal with it. But I
was trying to be fair in both entities. It wasn't to take from one and give
to the other, but I recognized the need that was not being addressed in 911.
We're not going to get enough to deal with both of them anyway, we're still
going to have to subsidize it. But if we're not going to--and I hear people
say, well, that's not the issue. All of us have been in politics long enough
to know, whether it's your first year or whether it's your last one, that when
you play these games and allow monies to be collected, if you don't set up
rules to go with, then they're spent by somebody else or they're spent by you.
Now, if the two parties come back and say, well, y'all handle it, then, hey,
I'm a big boy, I'm big enough to vote how to handle it, you know, and it may
be where both of y'all might not like it. But I don't think we ought to
go out here and approve the resolution, we get some more money, and then we
don't know how the formula is going to be worked out in it or whether we come
up here and budget things and whether you ask the Chief to make a distinction
between paying his folk at 911 out of this budget or whether or not he fixes
equipment and capital. And I think that is a real issue that ought to be
addressed, and it ought to be addressed while you're putting a resolution
together to go out and get some more funds. Because if the formula is in
place now, if it's not going to address--and I don't think it can address all
of his, but if it's not at least going to address it on a prorated share
that's fair, then where does he turn? And I think we've proven by the
budgetary process that we're not going to address that because we've already
dealt with some inequities. And like I said, I can say it because I've been a
strong supporter and will continue to be, but I also think we've got some
other things that we're going to have to be strong supporters of. And when I
saw that being another source of funding, and he's got folk over in there that
he's having to take out of a cap that he can't afford to pay and deal with
that budget, and we're not going to change the formula, the two folks meet and
they tell us to work it out, then I think we ought to work it out.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my only interest--I know we've got to approve this
before we start collecting the money. My only interest is that the 911
committee function. And, you know, perhaps Mr. Wall can read off what the law
say as far as the calls for the 911 committee. I don't know the scope of
their responsibility, but I know that they are not functioning. I know that,
you know, since pushing for this committee to be formed, that I don't think
they've probably made a meeting in the last year, and that concerns me. And
if I stand to be corrected, then I wish someone would correct me. But the
bottom line is that the committee is not functioning and the committee needs
to function. The committee probably could make some recommendations to us on
whether there is 41 individuals needed in 911, or seven firefighters, you
know, where we can gain scales of efficiencies at, and I'm going to call for
the question with the statement that I want to see the darn committee
function.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to read the motion, please, made
by Mr. Handy?
CLERK: The motion was to approve as a consent agenda Items 22 and 23.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-2.
CLERK: Under the Public Service portion of the agenda, Items 24 through
31 were approved by the committee on June 22nd.
24. Motion to accept bid of Mundy and Salley, Inc. in the amount of
$14,630.00 to update the electrical facilities in the
north hangar of Daniel Field Airport.
25. Motion to approve new application request by Alan Brosious for a
retail package beer and wine license to be used in connection with QVS
Holdings d/b/a Pump & Shop #18 located at 2058 Central Avenue.
26. Motion to approve new ownership request by Alphonso Doleman for
consumption on premises beer and wine license to be used in connection
with Lil Vegas Bar & Grill located at 1719 Laney-Walker Blvd. There
will be a dance hall. 27. Motion to approve new ownership request by
Howard George Dunn for a consumption on premises liquor and beer
license to be used in connection with Kelli's Sports Bar located at
2320 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. 28. Motion to
approve new ownership request by Leila Kalili for a consumption on
premises beer and wine license to be used in connection with the
Eggroll Station located at 1642 Gordon Highway.
29. Motion to approve new application request by Kari Hatlen for
consumption on premises liquor, beer and wine license to be used in
connection with Don Pablo's located at 277 Robert C. Daniel Parkway.
There will be Sunday Sales.
30. Motion to approve annual contracts for Richard Hatfield, Newman
Tennis Center Manager; and Steve Dorkin, Head Tennis Professional at
Newman Tennis Center.
31. Motion to proceed in concept the joint project between the
Augusta Commission and Richmond County Board of Education regarding
construction of a gymnasium at Garrett Elementary on Eisenhower Drive.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, the items so numbered were approved by the
Public Services Committee. I'd like to make a motion that we accept those
items as a consent agenda. And with Items 25 through 29, since they relate
to alcohol, that the audience so be polled to see if there are any
objectors, and that we approve them as a consent agenda.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any objectors for any of the alcohol
licenses? [No objectors were noted.] All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion to
approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to go on record as voting no on Number
29 due to Sunday sales.
MR. POWELL: Likewise, Mr. Mayor.
MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO ON ITEM 29. MR. HANDY &
MR. SHEPARD OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 6-2, ITEM 29.
MOTION CARRIES 8-2, ITEMS 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30 & 31.
CLERK: Item 32: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission held June 16, 1998.
MR. TODD: So move.
MR. MAYS: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY & MR. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
CLERK: Item 33: Motion to approve the appointment of Chief Ronnie
Few, Augusta Fire Department, as Augusta-Richmond County Representative to
the Region VI Ambulance Service Board subcommittee on ambulance service.
MR. OLIVER: I would note that yesterday about 5:00 I got a call from the
lady at the Region VI EMS Office. She indicated that she had become aware of
that, and she talked with the State Health Department, Dr. Meehan, and she
indicates that it's a conflict of interest for a Council member to serve on
this committee. To be candid, it's a little unusual the way that she stated
it because the other four members are members of the Council. It's Chief
Porterfield from Burke County, David Haron, Pat Sizemore, and B. Thompson.
Mr. Haron and Mr. Thompson are from outside of the local area. All four of
them are members of the committee. She read me the particular section of the
statute and I didn't quite interpret it the way that she did, but she
indicates that, in their opinion, that it needs to be a person that's not
currently on the EMS Council, and Mr. Few is on the Council.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that it be approved since the
Administrator [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: I haven't read the statute and I would ask Mr. Wall.
MR. WALL: Have you got it?
MR. OLIVER: No, I don't have it. Well, maybe statute is the wrong word,
maybe it's an internal policy that they've adopted, but I can get it. And if
need be, if Mr. Wall agrees with them, we can do another appointment at a
later date.
MR. BRIDGES: Why don't we find out what--you know, the regulation or
whatever it is, and then come back at the next meeting with it.
MR. KUHLKE: Why don't we approve it subject to a review?
MR. OLIVER: That's fine also.
MR. BEARD: I would add that to it if that's okay.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. We've got a motion by Mr. Beard, do we have a
second to Mr. Beard's motion, subject to review?
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I've bent over backwards this afternoon to be a
gentleman and respect the Chair, but look like I'm being dissed, if you know
what I mean. Thank you. No further discussion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I resent that, Mr. Todd. Each time you've asked
I've recognized you, haven't I?
MR. TODD: No, sir. I think if the tape is played back it will show that
I've tried to get your attention and you've told me to wait. And whether it's
the--my colleagues is not showing respect to the Chair, but certainly you're
not calling their hand on [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, when you get to be the Mayor you can run the show
however you want to. Is there any more discussion, gentlemen?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I just want to ask, what are we doing in that
motion?
CLERK: To appoint Chief Few, subject to review.
MR. OLIVER: Subject to the approval of the Attorney or not being a
conflict.
MR. BRIDGES: I'm still a little bit concerned about it. What are we--
we're voting on here to approve it subject to the Attorney approving it?
MR. OLIVER: Subject to the Attorney determining if it's not
contradictory, I assume, with regulations of, you know, the governing body of
the state agency.
MR. POWELL: Is that their attorney or our attorney?
MR. OLIVER: No, it would be--in my opinion, it's our attorney. As far
as I know, they haven't had an attorney look at it. It was the State Health
Director, Dr. Meehan, and a lady at the Region VI Council who questioned it.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my only problem with it--and I'm going to vote for
the motion, but, you know, I--I'm kind of like Richard Pryor, I got to say it.
You know, I hope this is not some shadow, because there have been mentionings
about the possibilities of better training and maybe getting into the area of
EMS that this one was questioned. And I hope that in the inquiry, that if
that's the rule, then, yes, we take our Chief off that. But then we also
request of anybody else that's in the same status to do the same or then we
bypass it and then we appeal to anybody else to say, you know, the question.
If folks are there that are in violation, if one is being asked to play by the
rules, then everybody play by the same set of rules.
MR. BRIDGES: Randy, are you saying that these others are fire chiefs,
too, and they're serving on it?
MR. OLIVER: She read me the section, and, to be honest, you know, just
from hearing it I couldn't really make any kind of determination, and it was
too late to get it resolved before the meeting. But she indicated that the
representative from the county, that it couldn't be a conflict of interest,
and my question to her was I didn't see it as a conflict, and for some reason
she did. But I've not seen it. I can tell you this as a fact: Chief
Porterfield is on the Council, I know that. But she interpreted when it said
the county being us. The affected county I think is the word she used. David
Haron, Pat Sizemore, and Blake Thompson--all four, as I understand it, are
members of the Council. Chief Few indicates that Mr. Porterfield chairs that
committee.
MR. BRIDGES: Is there a reason as far as emergency we need to go ahead
and put Chief Few on there?
MR. OLIVER: Well, she said they can't meet until there's an appointment.
There seems to be, as you can well imagine, between Gold Cross and Rural
Metro some desire to resolve it as quickly as possible, particularly on Gold
Cross's part, and they can't function until this occurs. I talked to her
about, you know, postponing it two weeks, and they've indicated that, you
know, the quicker the better from their vantage point, but if it was deferred
two weeks, that they'd have to live with it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Oliver, it seems to me that with e-mail and, you know, the
technology that we have, that if they have internal regulations, state
statute, or just their opinion on our appointee, that it's simple to wrap it
and e-mail it to us, put it in writing. If it's not in writing, Mr. Mayor,
then I think we should send them our appointee that we shouldn't let them
dictate to us as far as who our appointee is going to be. And at the point
they give us something in writing saying that we can't do it or it's against
regulations, then we adhere to that at that point. And I think that we've
decided--the committee decided that they would, you know, do Chief Few as the
appointee. I see no point in delaying. With the technology out there--you
know, I'm sure you have an e-mail address and I'm sure they have an e-mail
address, and I'm sure they have a fax machine that this information could be
in our hands today to make a decision.
MR. OLIVER: As I mentioned, I talked with her about 5:15 or 5:30
yesterday, then I talked with Chief Few. With some things that I had to do
this morning, I talked with her about 12:00 or 12:30 and--you know, I could
have asked her to do that, but at that point I wasn't thinking in that regard.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, if I could complete what I was talking about
before. I don't have any problem with appointing Chief Few if the Attorney
feels that's, you know, proper. I would like to have it on the agenda to
explain why it is or isn't or where the confusion came from, a copy of the
ordinance or something like that because that--you know, I don't want us to
say, okay, appoint Chief Few, then the Attorney says it's okay, and then I
don't understand why it is or it isn't, you know, I want to understand the
reason for it.
MR. HANDY: I've just got one question. Randy, did you say that there
was someone else on the--in the same position that we're about to put Few in
is on the same Council?
MR. OLIVER: They're on this particular subcommittee, and she indicates
that the representative from the county is handled slightly differently
because it says the--it uses a little different verbiage. I indicated to her
that I felt that Augusta-Richmond County had to appoint the person that was
most knowledgeable as it relates to EMS services, and in my opinion that was
Chief Few. And she understood that, and she agreed that it had to be somebody
that was knowledgeable in that particular arena and didn't have a vested
interest in it except to the extent that it served and benefitted the citizens
of Augusta-Richmond County.
MR. HANDY: Okay, maybe I don't understand what you're saying. What my
question was, there's a separate Council for-- MR. OLIVER: I think Chief
Few can explain the numbers better than I can. As I understand it, there's a
large Council for this particular region, and this particular committee will
be a subcommittee of the large Council, but I think he can explain the makeup
of the membership better than I can.
CHIEF FEW: This is made up of physicians as well as EMS people or
ambulance people, whatever you want to call them. This is a large committee,
which is a EMS Region VI committee. In that committee they put together what
are called subcommittees, which Chief Porterfield is chair of that
subcommittee.
MR. HANDY: Who is Chief Porterfield?
CHIEF FEW: He's the Chief of Burke County.
MR. HANDY: Okay. So why can't you be on there if he's on there?
CHIEF FEW: I don't really know. I guess-- MR. HANDY: Okay.
That's what I want to--you don't have to explain no more to me now, that's
what I wanted to know right there.
MR. OLIVER: I agree with you, but she indicates that there's a little
hook in there as it relates to the county. When there's a jurisdictional
difference, there's a little hook in there, and I haven't seen it.
MR. HANDY: Right, okay. That's the answer I was looking for right
there.
MR. WALL: Chief Few, is this subcommittee just looking at ambulance
service in Richmond County?
CHIEF FEW: No, it's the whole Region VI, which includes 13 counties.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, read the motion, please.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the appointment of Chief Few to the
Region VI Ambulance Service Board subject to the review and approval of the
City Attorney.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 34: Appointment to Authorities, Boards and Commissions
from the Sixth District. Commissioner J.B. Powell offers the following
nominees: Mr. Roy Stampley, Jr. to the Coliseum Authority and Ms. Joy
Flakes to the Tree Commission.
MR. POWELL: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Powell's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Ms. Bonner, I want the record to note that I voted
against Mr. Stampley since Mr. Powell voted against mine on me.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO ON MR. STAMPLEY.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
CLERK: Item 34a: Appointments to fill five vacancies to the Downtown
Development Authority.
MR. BEARD: We had the subcommittee to look at this and we came up with
[inaudible] a couple of ways that we will do it, and I think that we are
saying the person who got the six votes would be the one that would be
nominated since we only needed five. And at this time I would like to
nominate the following five: Matthew Aitken, Ernestine Howard, Robert Gordon,
Jeff Gorelick, and Les Morton.
MR. KUHLKE: I'd like to nominate Dr. Charles Freeman.
MR. BRIDGES: That'll make it six, though -- [End of Tape 2].
MR. WALL: Now, downtown development authorities have got sort of a crazy
history, and you have some downtown development authorities that were created
by a local act prior to this general statute.
MR. MAYS: And that was why I asked, because in the meeting where you had
a mixture of those towns that have done a tremendous job with their resources,
in fact, where you may have more active people on it than the City of Augusta
has, and that was my only reason for bringing it up. It wasn't to muddy the
water in it. But I thought if that limitation of an inactive board, that that
might be some reason that we could not look like we are rejecting persons who
want to readily serve. It's not often where you get a whole of them that
you've got to eliminate somebody to deal with it. Most of the time you're
trying to find people to put in those positions. That was my only reason for
asking that. But it might be good if that's something that we could get up
and running and get an idea if that's something we want to do on a local act,
you know, in trying to get something different going with it, especially since
it's inactive.
MR. BEARD: I just want to remind my colleague, Mr. Mays, and my
colleague to my immediate right here, that this is what y'all kind of came up
with in doing this in this subcommittee. I don't know whether we ought to
maybe vote on each one individually, and I don't--you're bringing out a point
which is well taken that, you know, people don't like their names kind of
thrown out like this and be voted on, but this is, you know, one of the
decisions that was made in the subcommittee, if you recall on that.
MR. MAYS: One that I served on?
MR. BEARD: Yes, sir. Because we [inaudible].
MR. MAYS: That's not the one I refused to come to meet on that was mixed
up with something else?
MR. BEARD: No.
MR. MAYS: Okay. I just want to know because I usually remember, now.
There was a subcommittee that I wasn't there on purpose.
MR. BEARD: That was one that you and Mr. Powell kind of agreed this is
the way we would handle it, and I was kind of against this method, but y'all
wanted this.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my question would be to the Mayor Pro Tem. All of
the appointees have a downtown business interest? You know, when I look at
Flash Gordon, I know that he has been there probably ever since I've been
here. All of them have downtown business interests?
MR. BEARD: I would think most of these, that I'm aware of, have business
interests. They may not be exactly downtown, but they have business
interests.
MR. TODD: Yes. Is this the board that vote on the tax assessment on the
downtown as far as development or do they make the decisions as far as the
development and there's another board that vote on the taxes to pay for it?
MR. WALL: Y'all vote on the taxes. They don't have any authority to
tax.
MR. TODD: But they make recommendations?
MR. WALL: I suppose they could. Typically they're a funding mechanism,
revenue bonds.
MR. TODD: Right. I'm just trying to get a better understanding. I
would certainly--it would help me if I knew the ones--probably the only ones I
can vote on is the ones that have a downtown business interest. District Four
runs downtown and I kind of get involved in this. I would like to see us
repeal that assessment tax if we have all projects that they've put forth in
the past--paid for.
MR. BEARD: I could point out the ones that I'm aware of. Ms. Bush, Dr.
Freeman, Ms. Howard, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gorelick.
MR. TODD: Okay, thank you. That helps.
MR. HANDY: There's only two on here that don't have businesses downtown.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, as we go through each one of these, could we
have one Commissioner to speak to each one of them so-- there's only one down
here that I know, and I'd like to know something about the other people. And
I'd like to speak to the one I know.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I don't have a problem with that. I think y'all need to
know. Ms. Bonner, call the first name, and whoever wants to speak for this
person.
CLERK: Mr. Matthew Aitken.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Who's going to be the spokesperson for Matthew?
MR. BRIDGES: I'll do it. I'd like to say this is the only gentleman I
know. He's called me several times. He lives in my district, and I'm not
sure if he's got any business interest downtown. I didn't ask him at the time
he called, I didn't know that was one of the requirements for this position,
but this gentleman has a lot of interest in downtown. He's asked to be put on
something that would affect the development of downtown. He's concerned about
it. He said it didn't matter if it was the Riverfront Development Board or
whatever, he wanted something that he could give whatever talents he has to
the improvement of that particular area. I do know that this gentleman is
somewhat of, I guess, a lay preacher of some sort and he's active with the
inner-city youth, and I guess that would include some of the downtown youth.
And he's very much interested in seeing downtown developed properly and come
back as an economic entity, and I wish you would consider him as a candidate.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All that want Matthew Aitken, please cast your vote
accordingly, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. KUHLKE, MR. TODD AND MR. H. BRIGHAM VOTE NO. MR.
HANDY AND MR. MAYS ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-2.
CLERK: Annette Bush.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Does somebody want to speak for Ms. Bush?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I nominated her, so I guess I'll speak for her. She's
not a resident of my district [inaudible] but she was very instrumental in
helping establish Artist Row on Broad Street, and I believe that that is the
criteria of what we are looking for on downtown development is to help people
to be innovative and establish businesses in the downtown section.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All who want Ms. Bush for this position, please cast
your vote accordingly.
MR. BEARD, MR. BRIDGES & MR. POWELL VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-3.
CLERK: The next one is Dr. Charles Freeman, Jr.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I nominated Dr. Freeman, and the reason--and he's
not in my district, but he's got quite an investment downtown. He has an
awful lot of interest, a lot of enthusiasm, and I think he'd make a strong
contribution to the Downtown Development Authority.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Dr. Freeman being a member, please cast
your vote accordingly.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO. MR. BRIDGES, MR. MAYS & MR. POWELL ABSTAIN.
MOTION CARRIES 6-1-3.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ernestine Howard. Who's going to speak for her?
MR. TODD: I can, Mr. Mayor, if I need to. Ernestine Howard has been in
business on Broad Street a number of years, I think several years. She have
an interest there, a substantial investment, and I'm trying to think of the
name of the business.
CLERK: Tina Shoes.
MR. TODD: Tina Shoes, right. And so we get that plug in as far as a
commercial, Tina Shoes. Ladies need shoes, go by and see her. [inaudible]
believe in downtown.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All those for Ernestine Howard, please cast your vote
accordingly.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Robert Gordon. Who's going to speak for him?
MR. MAYS: I made the nomination. And I guess like Jerry's nomination,
he doesn't live in Super District Nine, but he's got two businesses in Super
District Nine. He made a move to the South Side, but he didn't abandon his
location on Broad Street. He's been in two or three different locations there
on Broad, has weathered the storm, and particularly a lot of the people have
come in to do business with Flash over the years even though in some ways
displaced a lot of his clients because of the relocations of public transit.
But he's still maintaining and still was able to do a good job there and be in
a successful business in both places, Broad Street and in South Augusta. He
finally after many years of struggle and fighting was able to finally get a
facade grant after being passed over so many, many, many times and doing all
of his improvements and moving at his own expense, so he's somebody that does
love and care about downtown. A tremendous radio and television personality,
promotional person that could add a lot to doing things in downtown
[inaudible] and I think he would make an excellent nominee to that board. And
I might add that even though he has been broke into three times this same
year, that he still loves downtown. And the new building that we just fixed,
it's been robbed as well there on Broad Street the same night that Home Folks
was. So I think he can add a lot of input to maybe some things that we could
do there on Broad Street.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to have to break this bubble, but I
think that--and he would be a good nominee, but I think he lives in Columbia
County.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I disagree. He lives in my district.
MR. BEARD: He lives in your district?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes, sir. Old Trail Road is in my district.
MR. BEARD: Okay. I thought he lived--that's fine, because [inaudible].
I thought that he lived in Columbia County.
MR. MAYS: Remember, I'm the one that got on y'all about making
nominations out of Columbia County. I make mine out of Richmond County. They
may not live in District Nine, but they are Augustans, I'm going to make sure
that they're that.
MR. HANDY: Could I make one statement? Just one small statement. He
lives so close to Columbia County he can throw a brick over there, Jerry.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Robert Gordon, let it be known by
casting your vote.
MR. SHEPARD ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 9-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Jeff Gorelick. Who's going to speak for Jeff?
MR. HANDY: I will. Jeff is in business, that's Woody's Department
Store, and plus they own the Landmark--the former Landmark, which is the--
what it is now, Radisson?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ramada Plaza.
MR. HANDY: Ramada Plaza. So he's very much interested in downtown and
business downtown, and I think he would be a good nominee for the Downtown
Development Authority. I wasn't planning on speaking on behalf of Jeff, nor
was I asked to, but I know him and he would be a good person to put on the
committee -- as well as all the other people on this list is good people, but
unfortunately we've got five positions and we've got seven names.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may comment also on Jeff. I call him Jeff
Rubin, but he certainly has an interest in downtown. Any time there's
anything going on downtown, he usually calls me and lobbies for it. Now, I
don't always agree with him, and I can't go by the store right now because of
a hotel vote, but certainly he calls a lot.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Please cast your vote accordingly for Mr.
Gorelick.
MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO; MR. POWELL ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we've got Annette Bush, Dr. Charles Freeman,
Ernestine Howard, Robert Gordon, and Jeff Gorelick; is that correct, Ms.
Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we need to do anything else with that?
CLERK: Mr. Mays had asked--and we'll need a vote to add it as well
as to approve the appointment of Mr. Terrence Dix as a nominee for District
Nine to the Human Relations Commission.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We have a motion by Mr. Jerry Brigham, seconded by Mr.
Kuhlke, that we add it; is that right?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Could the vote take care of both, Jim? The vote could
take care of both, to add and to approve.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Is that legal?
MR. WALL: Well, it'll be legal if it's unanimous. If it's not
unanimous, then we're going to need to divide it up.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion, let it be known by
casting your vote accordingly.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might thank these fellows. I didn't say
nothing during the discussion, but when I was at [inaudible] and couldn't be
here, that was the week that it was supposed to have been added and I would do
it, and I had dropped it, so it was not the Clerk's fault. But this
particular young man has probably been going to HRC meetings for the last year
to year and a half, so much so that Mr. Thomas thought he was already a part
of the board. And today we put him on, and I think the board thought he was a
member of the board already from being over there. So he was the one that's
been campaigning for close to two years to go over there, so I'm glad because
I know I'll see him this evening to ask whether y'all put him on there, so I
appreciate that very much for adding him.
CLERK: Item 35: A report from the Attorney regarding Zoning
Ordinance violations of a business on Stewart Avenue.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, this was rezoned in 1978, and I
think that there was some confusion as a result of a decision that I had with
Mr. Craig concerning it, but it was rezoned for a business. However, the
ordinance and the stipulations that were put into effect are not being
complied
with. Specifically, the zoning ordinance as it existed in 1978 provided that
all operations, including storage of materials, shall be conducted within a
building. From my observation of the property and from my discussion with Mr.
Craig, it's obvious that they are storing cars both on an adjoining properties
as well as other properties up and down the street, and that is not
appropriate and can be cited and we intend to pursue that. The second
thing is that the ordinance that was in existence at that time provided that
there would be no openings in the building on any side facing a residential
district. My under-standing, and although it's difficult to see from the
street, it appears that the bays--a number of the bays are open. There is
basically an awning where certain of the work is done, so it is not in
compliance with that section and also can be cited for violation of that.
In addition, the stipulation that was approved at the time of the rezoning
required that there be fences along the east, west, and north properties
lines. Unfortunately, I think the people read this hurriedly and thought that
that was the rear property line when, in fact, that's the front property line.
Basically, the front yard should be enclosed in a fence, and that is not
done. And so those are three areas that we think that we can enforce the
ordinance and require that they do that. In addition, the adjoining property
owners that are allowing storage of vehicles on their lots are in violation of
the zoning ordinance and, in all probability, we're going to enforce that, but
with some discretion, because frankly I think that he is using particularly
one elderly lady in the neighborhood, and we obviously don't want to cite her,
but hopefully through some discussions with her we can convince her not to
allow storage of vehicles on the property. We probably missed an
opportunity. He's gotten two building permits since he had the property
rezoned. It would have been a non-conforming use and should not have been
allowed to expand the operation, but those building permits were issued in
1987 and one subsequently around 1988. I think it's too late to do anything
about that, however, he should not be allowed to expand the business any more.
The other item is the noise. In the event that there is noise coming from
there--I understand air wrenches and tuning of the engines, racing of the
motors, things of that nature--we should be able to cut down on that. So
those are the items that we intend to pursue, as well as the posting of the
street for no parking. Under the zoning ordinance in effect then, everything
was supposed to occur inside the building, which would include any vehicles
that are waiting to be worked on.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask the Attorney: does your report
require any action by this Commission?
MR. WALL: No, it does not.
MR. SHEPARD: Can you just enforce it?
MR. WALL: I can just enforce it.
MR. OLIVER: We'll send it out to License & Inspection for enforcement.
MR. WALL: There is another item, and depending on what kind of response,
we may bring it back. Let's see what kind of response he makes. He should be
reporting his gross revenue from his business and he has not been doing that,
and that's cause for revocation of his business license. We'll see what kind
of response he makes to that.
MR. HANDY: Jim, have you brought this to us before?
MR. WALL: No, sir. This was brought back at--Mr. Craig came at the last
meeting and I was asked to look into it, and it was put on there to make a
report, so I'm reporting on it.
MR. HANDY: Okay. This is the gentlemen we were talking about with the
race cars?
MR. WALL: Yes.
MR. HANDY: Oh, okay. I know I've heard it before, I was just wondering
where it came from.
MR. WALL: That's it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Wall. Item 36, Ms. Bonner, please.
CLERK: Item 36: Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the
demolition of certain unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Turpin
Hill, East Augusta and Lombardy neighborhoods: 1728 Meadow Street; 1108-
08 Seventh Avenue; 231 Thompson Road; 123 Pollard Drive; 804 East
2
Boundary; and to waive second reading.
MR. BEARD: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
MR. TODD: Second. Mr. Mayor, I think it's good that we're moving on on
this, and hopefully with Mr. Beard's program we can have this place looking
decent by next year this time.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make a comment, if I may.
It's pertaining to this item, but one item I missed. Maybe that's when we was
all trying to outdo each other earlier here. But I missed something here, and
I would just like to say this to all the Commissioners on different committees
that I'm not on. Anything comes up in District Two I need to know about it.
I would like to know about it, so I would like for them--either Randy or
somebody, let me know. For example, the Bethlehem Center. You all decided to
give this money to repair the houses. That's my district, I know nothing of
it. Nobody asked me anything, nobody came to me about it. And, plus, Mays
represents that super district. And these houses you're tearing down, that's
still in my district, but no one mentioned anything about it, you know, so I'm
just asking if somebody could let me know. When something in District Two,
then I'll be more familiar with it in case somebody asks me a question rather
than reading it in this book right here. That's what I need to know. Any
changes, I need to know about it.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, if I might, I have no problem with the motion on
the floor, per se, because I think they are trying to move and do their job.
And they got a herculean job to do. There's a lot of stuff that has to be
attended to. My only question is in reference to one particular house on
there, and it's in the district that both Mr. Beard and I represent, and
that's 804 East Boundary. And my reason for bringing it up, it may be the
only thing legal that we can do at this point, but what I wanted to ask Jim,
Mr. Mayor, in this case--and I'm not being argumentative here, but I'm just
trying to do something, Lee, that we might be able to get the best of both
worlds out of this. We're talking about demolishing it, and you know--you're
familiar with the home there in reference to whose house it was. It's the
old--many of you remember from the old television days, it belonged to an
older gentleman by the name of Nathan White. It was on a gospel program. He
and his wife are both deceased, kept a very lovely home there on East
Boundary, into a legal situation where nobody is in it, a complete eyesore.
But what I'm looking at, you've got a good house there. You've got some
people that have offered--for instance, neighbors on both sides that want to
buy that house. Because it's a liveable place, and it's where both--I know
Lee and I have argued in reference to--on the same side of trying to get in on
some of these properties and have been prohibited in some cases because of the
so-called private property deal. But I think to spend $4,000 to tear down a
small brick home that basically you can't see right now because there's a ton
of mess beside it and growth that's in there, would be better served to a
neighborhood taking some kind of vote and allowing our folk to go in there and
clean it up. I would rather fight for seizure of it, put it in the land bank,
let somebody buy it. I've had neighbors, Ms. Sullivan on one side, Lee, as
well as neighbors on the other, that will buy that home. We're going into
what I don't think is a cost-effective means of getting rid of that property.
That's property that could stay on the books as opposed to tearing that one
down. And God knows we've got a ton of them that probably need to come down,
but I'm just saying in this case. And I think they're only doing their job.
It's been an eyesore and it definitely has been complained on enough. Folk
have been really complaining about it, but it's mainly because of the growth.
It's because when it grew up people have gone in it, and they're living in
it, and you can't see them where they're in there. But this is a nice little
house that looked as good or better than any of the houses right there on that
block span, and if it's up for demolition--I'm just saying that I would much
rather send our folk over there, clean it up, put it on the tax books of that
estate, make them pay it, but at the same time, if we're going to try and do
something with it, let's seize it, get it in the land bank situation if it's
not going to be cared for, and then--so that someone down there in that
neighborhood can buy that home, because that's a nice home. Because if we
tear it down, the only thing that's going to happen in that area, it's going
to be another lot that Augusta-Richmond County owns that's going to grow up
that we're going to have to clean, and that's my only reason for bringing that
one up or pointing at it. I hope we could hold, but not hold it to do
nothing, but hold it to go on in there, Lee, and clean that one up, you know,
and not get caught up in the legal mumbo-jumbo that we can't go with it. It's
a terrible eyesore, it is that, and it needs to be dealt with, but tearing it
down for $4,000, I think that's a bad move.
MR. OLIVER: You know, if somebody is clearly interested in it, we can go
ahead and move to sell it at tax sale and just let them buy it. I mean,
that's not a problem. The determination that Mr. Sherman made, and he is on
vacation this week, was that the cost to repair it was more than 50 percent of
the value of the property. And there may be, you know, other reasons for
saving that, but clearly if you know that there's a person that's interested
in buying it, we can go ahead and move to sell it at tax sale, and then if
nobody buys it, bring it back. But my recommendation would be, if you're
aware of that, that we just delete 804 East Boundary from this list.
MR. MAYS: One young lady particularly there, her mother lives at 802, a
FedEx employee, moved back here to take care of relatives, fully capable of
doing the repairs, and it would be an excellent situation because her mom
lives next door. And has actually pursued trying to buy it, but because of the
legal entanglements was basically turned away and said that it was, you know,
basically not for sale. But if we've got a way to go in and tear it down,
then we ought to have a way that it can be seized to a point that somebody can
buy it because that's an active house that can be kept on tax rolls.
MR. OLIVER: If we sell it at tax sale it wipes everybody else out, and
the legal entanglement, I believe, goes away; doesn't it, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: It does, but, I mean, that's a 15-month--I mean, the property
owner would have a right of redemption. I mean, she could buy it at the tax
sale, but she wouldn't be able to do anything with it for at least 12 months.
MR. MAYS: I guess what's confusing to an idiot like me in the law is how
can you wipe a house off the map by tearing it down, but then you can't seize
it and sell it to somebody and keep it there where somebody can live in it? I
mean, we don't write that type of law, but that's idiotic as the devil. Now, I
think we've got enough forces--and they finally got over there on James Brown
Boulevard across from me and cleaned that mess up over there. But the same
folk that we let finally come out there to clean that up could go down there
on East Boundary, clean around that house that's next to Ms. Sullivan down
there, and get it where you could see it. That would probably eliminate the
hotel there, because nobody's going in there to check on them, utilities are
off in there. But that's a nice house, and what I'd like to see us do is not
simply do nothing, I'd like to find a way that we could go over in there,
Randy, quite frankly, and clean the darned place up. If we plan on taking it
in a tax sale, let's clean the sucker up. If it's that much of an eyesore
that we're going to tear it down, then it ought to be enough of an eyesore
that we can find a creative means, Jim, to clean the property up.
MR. WALL: If we get it in the Lank Bank Authority, if they buy it in at
the tax sale, the Land Bank Authority, then they can go in there and clean it
up and market it and clear up the title.
MR. MAYS: Jim, I guess what I'm saying is this son of a gun has got
shrubs as high as that chandelier over there, and they've been going without
water. Now, we ought to be able to find a way to call over to Public Works
and tell the folk to go down there and clean the darned thing off. Now, if
we've moved this far to tear it down, somewhere there ought to be some common
sense in the law that it ought not to have to wait to go to the Land Bank area
over there. If ain't nobody concerned, who's going to sue you for cleaning it
up?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can't we just simply delete that one and-- MR.
WALL: And we've got a way to--give them a notice, tell them we're going to go
in there and clean it up. And there's a short period, but we've got to give
notice because we're going to put a lien on the property for the cost of
cleaning it up.
MR. MAYS: Jim, you and I have debated this, Bob and I debated it
[inaudible] but I'm trying to get it out of the complicated way of where
you've got to take it through the darn court. The same way them folk got
their butts out there and cleaned that raggedy mess out across from me, and it
took so long to clean up, pick up the darn phone and send them down. Who are
we going to get a case one from? Every neighbor on East Boundary will send
you a medal to go down there and clean that mess up. If you went to court,
they'd come down there and applaud you for dealing with a public nuisance.
The judge would be on your side. But something--I mean, we got to many darn
rules in this city, while it's rotten, to go through this mess here. And in
the sense of tearing it down, that's the easy answer, bulldoze it down. Keep
it liveable. It doesn't make no kind of economic sense to do that with it if
somebody will buy something, live in it and pay taxes on it. That's crazy.
And I'll be for taking a vote to give the Mayor the executive authority to
call out to Public Works, tell them to send some prisoners over in there or
whatever and clean this sucker up.
MR. WALL: Well, let's go through the process. I don't want somebody
working on-- MR. MAYS: That's the kind of boldness you need to get some
of this mess done, but we keep sitting around here going through all these
rules and silly regulations about how we're going to clean this raggedy city
up, and part of it looks like a war zone. People are frustrated as the devil
looking at this mess, and that's a perfect example of where neighborhoods and
folk want to do something, but [inaudible].
MR. WALL: Well, we have expedited the process as much as we can. If
we're going to put a lien on the property--first of all, we can't go on
private property just because you don't like the way it looks and clean it up.
We've got to cite them, we've got to give them notice, give them an
opportunity to clean it up themselves, then we can go in there and mow it and
clean it up. It becomes a lien against the property and we can collect our
investment in the property at the time that it's sold. But regardless of
that, even if we were willing to write off the cost, we just can't simply go
on somebody's property and start cleaning it up. I realize in this situation-
-you say, well, it helps out the neighborhood, it's for the good of
everything. But I promise you, there are a lot of other properties that would
be the same situation and you start a process that simply has no end. And
literally within less than 30 days we can get it taken care of, and I realize
that 30 days is a long time when you're living next door to it, but that's--
MR. MAYS: Jim, they messed up when they ran out of money, but part of
what--I give credit to what the old city was doing, and it started when
another person got on them to go in there and deal with some of that private
property and bill them folks. But that citing process, Jim, if we've got to--
what I'm saying is how do you owe one side the balance and getting to where
you're going to demolish somebody's property, but yet you've not carried it
far enough legally that you can go clean it and bill them folk. It seems to
me the ultimate thing in the taking laws, if you're going to demolish a house,
you've already bypassed enough that the court could support you on. To me
that's a legalized waste of time, and you can spend your budget better doing
something else. Mayor, Public Works Director, send them down there and clean
the darn thing up. If you get a darn lawsuit from it or anything else or
anybody gets sued for doing something like that, then, you know, I'll be the
first one to resign and go on.
MR. WALL: I'll be glad to review the notices that have gone out and see
if they give us the discretion to do it and expedite it as much as we can.
MR. MAYS: If they're fixing to demolish that sucker I hope they done got
some notices out. [inaudible]
MR. WALL: Well, they have, but-- MR. BEARD: We can just exclude
that one until you have time to look at that.
MR. OLIVER: And if you would have the person, Mr. Mays, interested in
that property give my office a call, we'll be glad to facilitate making that
happen.
MR. MAYS: I can get her to call you at home tonight or in the morning.
She lives right next door to it and she's been trying to buy it for the
longest. She's called everybody practically in the courthouse trying to get
heads or tails on how she can purchase that property, and they say it's a
legal entanglement, they can help them with it. So if we're finally glad to
help them with it, they're willing to buy it and willing to repair it and got
the money to do it with.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, my thoughts on it is perhaps on the next one where
we go in to demolish, that we would also at the same time do the cleanup.
Because I can't see how you can demolish without cleaning up. And if you
decide not to demolish, you could at least go in and cut everything and neaten
it up and haul it off. I think that my colleague make a lot of sense in that
if we've gone far enough and got the authority to demolish it, why don't we
have the authority to cut the shrubbery back and haul off the debris, etc.
MR. OLIVER: You have to remember there's a certified letter that's sent
to the owner of the property in the case of demolition, and then there's a
hearing held. And the hearing held is to determine--if someone says, hey, I
can fix the property, or it's not 50 percent of value, they can come in and
appear. Now, as it relates to cleaning the property before you demolish it,
what you typically do is--when you have brush and things like that, that may
happen, but you throw a bulldozer or whatever in there and you put that debris
in a dump truck and you carry it off, so.
MR. TODD: Yes, I understand, but perhaps the committee can take care of
that so we won't run into this situation again where we go through both
processes. If it's any way possible that the property can be repaired, then
we kill two birds with one stone and we don't get caught in this situation.
MR. OLIVER: Well, a hearing was held, but the person perhaps that Mr.
Mays says is interested in the property was
unaware of the hearing. But a hearing was held, and I would venture to guess
nobody showed up. But the only person that would have been noticed would have
been the property owner.
MR. WALL: Let's exclude it and let's see if we can deal with it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're going to out 804 East Boundary and then leave
the rest in the motion. Is that all right with you, Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Yes.
MR. HANDY: Who decides the houses that get on the list? For the simple
reason that now we have permission to tear it down, but we don't have
permission to clean it, so how did it get on the list to get that far? That's
what I need to know. All these houses that we're tearing down now, who decided
that these are the ones we're going to tear down and who approved those to get
on the list?
MR. OLIVER: It was cited by License & Inspection, Code Enforcement.
They go out and do a physical assessment of the property. Based upon that
physical assessment, they determine if it's a maintenance issue, for example,
the grass hadn't been cut or whatever, and then they would issue a notice that
says, Mr. or Mrs. so-and-so, you have X number of days to cut the grass; if
you don't do that, we will go out and cut it and we will assess a lien against
your property. In this particular case, their determination was that the cost
of repairing the building was greater than 50 percent of the value, so it was
their opinion that it needed to be demolished. As a result of that, there was
a letter went out to the property owner who was absentee, didn't have a real
interest in the property. I would venture to guess they did not show up. The
hearing examiner, Mr. Sherman in this case, held the hearing, nobody showed
up, the code officer came in, had pictures, that type thing, and said that in
their opinion it was going to cost more than 50 percent, so therefore that's
how it came to you. The determination at that point was made for demolition.
The difference in the two notices was one of the notices said, you know,
we're going to assess your property if you don't clean it up for the
vegetation and things, the other one said we're going to demolish your
property because we don't believe the value of the property warrants fixing,
and it's a question of how you've been noticed on that particular item. And I
would note that the demolition noticing takes longer than the vegetation
cleanup.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you want to read the motion, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: The motion was to approve the ordinance providing for the
demolition of properties in Turpin Hill, East Augusta, and Lombardy: 1728
Meadow Street; 1108 and 1108 Seventh Avenue; 231 Thompson Road; 123 Pollard
2
Drive; and to waive the
second reading.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of the motion to approve, let it be known
by casing your vote accordingly.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT]
CLERK: Item 37: Motion to approve amendment to Code regarding budget
adoption by Commission third Tuesday in December. Approved by Finance
Committee June 22nd.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT]
CLERK: Item 38: Approve a Resolution and Contract between Georgia
Department of Natural Resources and Augusta, Georgia authorizing the
acceptance of a grant in the amount of $10,000 for Hillside Park.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 39-A: Authorize purchase of the following equipment for
the Raw Water Pumping Station: (1) new 1500 HP diesel for Pump #5, cost
estimated at $193,000; (2) new gear box for Pump Units #2 and #3 from
Prager, cost $106,860; (3) spare "running assembly" for Pumps #1 and #4 at
an estimated cost of $225,000; and (4) rebuild Pumps #2 and #3 at an
estimated cost of $64,000.
MR. POWELL: Move for approval.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess we've done all the discussion before we got
to the item, and, you know, I don't have any problem with that. But
certainly, you know, I've gone to the pumping station, as you have, Mr. Mayor,
in that walk-through, and certainly this is something we need to do. I think
it's urgent that we replace this equipment and do it soon. On that note, I
think that there are some other things that we need to do that I will address
on B and C. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I guess my district is the one district that's been
highest and driest the longest. I think this is the area that's got to be
done. I'm fully supportive of this. I wish there was other things that we
could do right now at this present time to relieve this water issue. It is
ridiculous that we have the quality of water we have [inaudible], and I know
that this Commission in the last three years has made every effort every time
it's had an opportunity to do that and we're just plain catching it because of
things that are not our fault. Now, we're on the hot seat, we are the people
that are going to catch it, and, yes, we're going to deliver clean, pure
drinking water as quickly as possible for the citizens of this community. And
I'm very supportive of this.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, this one ought to pass ten-zip. I don't see any
problem with what's on the agenda, but I would hope --we were talking earlier
today, or we came up with the confusion about the efficiency and the
efficiency study. I'm going to be very brief about getting into
personalities. But I would hope that since God's water has got to be probably
more critical than anything else that we've got to deal with in this
community--and we pay dues to professional associations to bring back ideas
about community development and everything else, and all those things are
good, but I think also hidden within those associations is a lot of free help
and a lot of expertise that we aren't really tapping on even to deal with this
issue. This is not to be critical in terms of personalities. I will support
any of the repair things that come there, but I think in the interim, before
we do the major bonding work, that even in the cradle of great medical city,
even our medical folk tell us there's nothing wrong with seeking a second
opinion. I think that somewhere, Mr. Administrator, that we need to deal
with some up and running professional places that we've got available to us
that we can get through our membership that as we go along in the interim
before the major things are done, that if we can have a checklist to support
our Waterworks Director and our folks there, but at the same time I think we
have available a successful water system and I don't think we should ever be
afraid of asking for help. Nobody has any great monopoly on ideas, they all
started somewhere. And I would hope that within that professional membership,
and I think you've got some successful counties and cities that are running
their own systems, that we ought to welcome a good small team to come in in
the interim and look at what we are buying and what we have to do on a short-
range basis, go ahead, and if the figures are correct, out of $4 million, then
we ought to be finding a way to get that done. I've stayed back, I've not
been in the fray, because I believe in folks doing their job. I don't
necessary like the look-over-the-shoulder deal. You deal with the day-to-day
operations, we set policy, but we have to depend upon our
professionals. But at the same time I'm open-minded enough, and I hope that
you and the other members of this council and the Mayor be open-minded enough
to also be glad to welcome other opinions as we move along in this process.
And I think we need to fast-track that, do it, and if we got the money to do
it with, then it's something we ought to be talking about doing yesterday.
MR. KUHLKE: I'm going to support it.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: I'm going to support it, but I think that about three or
four years ago some of us got blistered on the front page of the newspaper
because we voted to go up 25 percent on water, and that was a tough day for
us. But I do think that somewhere there are some plans made on some shelves
around here that we are supposed to have for the water in this area. And I'm
not going back to where we bought the million dollar pipes up in Columbia
County in order to get the water back down here. I'm not talking about that
right now, but maybe we ought to talk about it. And I hope that what Mr.
Hicks and those have done, and the chairman, I think they've worked on it real
hard, but I'm also of the opinion that--as a doctor would do, another opinion
may be necessary, Mr. Powell. I'll support it, but I do think that we're
going to have to do more than just this, in my opinion. Because I think if we
don't make some plans, Mr. Administrator, beyond what we've done here,
somewhere out in the future, a year, four years or five years--I'm not pinning
anything on anything that happened years ago, I don't think that that's going
to help any of us, but I think if we sit here now and somebody come behind us
and said on this day, in July 1998, we had an opportunity to do some things
for the purity, whether it's the efficiency study--I'm not sure that's going
to even include water, I don't know. Is it? It will include water. Well, in
that case, if Jerry Brigham brings it back, or somebody, I'll probably vote
for it. But I do think that we're going to have to do a lot more planning in
this community and not throw a lot of the blame on what has happened. But I
think if we can do that, we can come out of this thing.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, you and Mr. Todd are not the only Commissioners
who went down to Waterworks, I was over there yesterday, and it reminded me
that we use the water and pump water that reminds me of the foresight of this
system 100 years ago, that we benefit from the energy that doesn't have to be
derived from coal or other fuels. And I think that one of the most
constructive comments I received from a constituent was she asked simply, "Do
you have a plan?" And I'm glad to see that we interimly planned with the
Administrator and our Waterworks Chairman and you, Mr. Mayor, and our
Waterworks Director, and I think this is the first step that this Commission
can make, but we're going to have to look at the system from the intake
through it's ultimate delivery. We've got to look at the filter plan and
continue to make incremental improvements. I think we have the money for
this, and I certainly think it's important, and I seconded it and I fully
support this as well.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say that I agree with what has been
said, and I do support Item 39 wholeheartily and whatever else we need to do.
I do agree with what many have said about the plans that need to be developed
and that we shouldn't look back, we should look forward and make sure that
this type thing does not happen again. And I also wanted to just extend--you
know, we talked about a lot of things, but we haven't talked about the people
or personnel who have worked very diligently and worked around the clock to
see that we were able to get this as quickly fixed as possible. We had two
crises here in the last two weeks, and our personnel performed brilliantly in
both of those instances. And I'm talking about the water situation, I'm also
talking about the fire situation out there. And I think those people in those
departments and other departments who worked around the clock, we've kind of
forgotten about them in the fray, but I think they need to be congratulated
for a job well done. Because these people did not create the problem, but I
think they were a means to an end of those problems, and I just want to
personally thank those two groups that worked and all the personnel that work
very diligently toward that.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I hear a lot of the concerns that's coming
across from my fellow members of the board. I want to assure each and every
one of you that we haven't--we didn't start making plans after this crisis, we
started making plans six to eight months prior to. The Water Director has
done an excellent job on, first of all, getting the team assembled to repair
these pumps. I think he's done an excellent job, and the crews there done
everything they could do to get these pumps repaired. This is an immediate
fix that we do need to do to our water system. I hear Mr. Henry Brigham
saying we need some plans, and I agree totally with you, Mr. Brigham. We've
had a survey that is being prepared now, and it's, from my understanding, in
draft form of an overall review of the system. But that didn't start after
the crisis, that started before. But keep in mind that any business or
any municipality works off of funding. Our water funds have been depleted
over an eight-year period in excess of $74 million. It's not going to be a
quick fix to fix it overnight, to recoup those funds that have been taken from
maintenance of our system. I think Mr. Hicks is putting together a very
comprehensive plan, and I just hope that the public will bear with us through
this crisis. I think that if we all work together we can overcome this thing.
But I do want to echo that the Waterworks has a plan in process. It is not a
plan that has just started since this crisis, so I don't want you to think
that those folks have been over there sitting on their duff, because they've
been working and trying to get this system upgraded. We had a situation
where, prior to consolidation, these gentlemen couldn't even buy hand towels
to wipe their hands when they worked on the equipment, couldn't buy paint for
the rusty parts, so please keep that in mind and give these gentlemen your
support at the Utilities Department because they are very competent
individuals. They are professionals and they know how to handle this
situation if we'll just give them the resources that they need. Thank you.
MR. HANDY: I just want to say, Mr. Mayor, that I'm in 110 percent
support of these items on the agenda here today, and that's all I have to say.
I'm in support of it, I will vote for it, and there's nothing else to say.
We had a water problem, we're just about to solve it, so ain't no sense in
keep talking about it, just go to work and fix it.
MR. BRIDGES: I'd like to know where the money is coming from. Is this
extra money we have sitting around or are we moving this around, David? Is
that some of that extra $4 million I heard about a while ago or what's going
2
on with that?
DAVID: As of this morning we have $4 million in cash that's liquid
2
[inaudible].
MR. BRIDGES: We're doing an extension, is that where it's coming from?
Where is that money sitting at?
DAVID: It's in Georgia Bank and Trust. It's the operations account.
Now, this is not including the $40 million in bond money, this is operational
account.
MR. BRIDGES: So it's renewal and extension money is where we're getting
it from then?
DAVID: Well, also it has to be used for payroll, any other expenses of
the system.
MR. BRIDGES: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is, what I kind of heard
you say over there before when we discussed this thing about three times today
was we had $4 million extra dollars just sitting around that we didn't
2
spend, and I'm going to have to answer why we haven't--if we had that much
sitting around, why we haven't already spent it on something like this.
DAVID: I wouldn't suggest spending it all.
MR. OLIVER: But you've got to remember that that $4 million is to pay
2
the payroll for the Utilities Department and to pay for parts that you need.
That represents about 13 percent of your budget for Utilities, and-- MR.
BRIDGES: So we aren't moving this out of money that was already budgeted for
another purpose and we're just adapting our budget to fit--to be able to spend
this $600,000?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. And there's some in bond money that will--
ultimately this will free up because there was some money in future years in
the bond money that was proposed for raw water treatment enhancement.
MR. BRIDGES: I just didn't want to [inaudible] and get out there and we
had this extra money sitting around and we decided we're going to spend some
of it on this. But, you know, naturally I support this. I think this is
going to be beneficial to everybody. And at some point I guess we can vote on
this, Mr. Mayor, but I'd like to know what we are planning on doing as far as
odd-even, how many hours, that type of thing. Maybe Mr. Hicks can address
that for, you know, the next week or so.
MR. HICKS: For the past two nights what we've tried is the odd-even with
the watering from 9:00 to 11:00. One particular section of our system has had
difficulty both nights, and that's the area on Washington Road from Lake
Olmstead to Bertram Road. It's an area that encompasses Country Club Hills,
Vineland, Lakemont, Windsor Forest, Windsor Court, part of National Hills, and
Bedford Heights. What we're going to try in those areas tonight is a staggered
start. For instance, instead of everybody starting at the same time, we've
put out a notice that those in those particular areas with the last names
beginning with A through M can start watering at 7:00 and water until 9:00.
Those whose last names begin with M through Z can start at 9:00 and water
until 11:00. And it still is the odd-even. In other words, this is an odd
day, it's the 7th, and so if your house number had an odd number and your last
name begins with A through M, you can water tonight from 7:00 until 9:00.
Now, the difficulty is how to police that. Well, what we're going to do is
have people watching, and, of course, we can easily tell whether it's on a odd
or even side of the street. Now, if they start at 7:00 and try to water until
11:00, then we'll know, hey, you can't do that. I mean, it's either 7:00 to
9:00 or 9:00 to 11:00. And by doing that we're trying to ensure that the
people that live in the areas that were without water last night for two hours
will have water tonight. There were some areas where the tanks dropped real
low, but the people still had water. We did not have the calls and complaints
of no water or low water pressure. There's only one other main area, that was
out toward where I live in Brookfield West. There's a little high area out
there and we had a call or two about low water pressure out there. We had low
water pressure at our house. But the rest of the area, you know, they did all
right. So our plans are to continue with this odd-even, 9:00 to 11:00 at
least for a few more days. I mean, there are some that would like to break it
and go to an odd-even all hours of the day, and if we could be assured that
the people would water no more all day than they do during that two hours at
night, we'd be all right, it'd be a piece of cake, we could make it. Our
theory is that people would water for hours at a time, you know, and then some
tanks might bottom out.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Hicks, I'm wondering if--this is something I want to
throw out because I've had it asked to me from some of my constituents that
are served off of wells. If there are some of those wells that are not--that
people are not, you know, over-watering with them, if we could allow the
people that are served by those wells to go to a longer--maybe still
staggered, but a longer watering time, like the Old Waynesboro well or
something like that.
MR. HICKS: There were certain areas, for instance, those served by
Georgetown, those by the Old Waynesboro Road tank, Highway 56 tank, that the
tanks really did not pull down excessively. They perhaps could make it for
more hours. The difficulty there again is if we start doing it for one area
and not another--for instance, even in the Washington Road area, we're trying
not to give anybody more than two hours, just have a staggered start so that
people don't lose their pressure. But, Commissioner Bridges, there areas that
could right now water longer. It's how to enforce that and how to keep it to
where everybody feels like they're being treated fairly.
MR. OLIVER: And it's a communications issue.
MR. BRIDGES: I understand. I wish you would consider that, you know, in
coming up with these things because, you know, assuming the Lord continues to
withhold the rain from us, which would be the obvious answer to all the
problems, we do have those wells out there that really I guess would be under-
utilized and might could allow them to do it. So I just wish you'd look at it
and see if there's anything you could do for them.
MR. OLIVER: And if we could get a good rain, we could go back to odd-
even immediately. And that's ideal thing, but that doesn't appear on the
horizon at this point.
MR. HICKS: Let me mention one other thing. We've had mentions about
plans. On the Engineering Services Committee agenda for Monday you will
receive three reports that have been completed, and they were started months
ago and they're getting completed. One of them has to do with the Canal
utilization for raw water pumping. That was begun as part of the Canal
relicensing effort. That was a charge that they had, looking into that. The
other one is the comprehensive water system report and study, that also is
being completed. And then the other one is a performance analysis of our water
treatment facility that was done by Rothberg, Tamborini & Winsor. It'll also
be before you, so we do have plans. The next step beyond that is to pull all
of it together and look at our funds and look at what priorities we want to
set for what projects. But we do have plans for future increases and
extensions.
MR. POWELL: One thing that I think we need to address, Mr. Hicks, that
we've somewhat left out is what our immediate plans are as far as our 42-inch
water main and the immediate plans--or the backups that we have in place to
assure that we maintain some water should we get an excessive demand and
experience some more problems that we're having now.
MR. HICKS: There's two steps that we did take. The first step would be
to pump directly into the filter plant treatment facilities instead of to the
raw water reservoirs. That would reduce the head by about 20 feet. That would
enable us to pump more water. That's the way most communities operate their
treatment facilities because most communities don't have the raw water
reservoirs such as we have ahead of them. They don't have that redundancy and
that ability. We do have that we could do. The other thing regarding the 42-
inch raw water line, the gentlemen are back in town this week, they are
uncovering the most troublesome spots, they are looking at repairs, and we
hope to get it back up just as soon as we possibly can. We had originally
feared that the whole line might have to be sleeved or repaired, but that's
not the case. It is not the case, and so we are going to be able to get that
42 up and back in service safely. That's the whole key to it is getting it
up and operational safely. We did not want to do anything before it was
inspected from one end to the other, so that's where we are now.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Hicks, I know you've had a full plate the last couple of
weeks. Just one thing that I think every Commissioner would like to know.
Most of the communications that we've got from your department is when we're
going to have a ban or when we're going to try to water, but it would be very
helpful to me and I think every one of us is if maybe at least once a day we
could get some kind of update on what's taking place, whether we're going to
change the watering cycle or whatever it may be. And if you can do that, even
through the Administrator's Office, because we are the ones that are getting
most of the calls. And the other thing is when you have your Engineering
Services Committee, I don't know whether it will be in the book or not, but if
by chance there's a pass-out to that committee on what your plans are, if you
can put it in everybody's packet to go out on Friday so that we'll have a
chance to take a look at it.
MR. HICKS: We have enough copies of two of the reports that are bound
for every one of you to get one, so we will certainly do that. We have them
in the office right now. The other one by Rothberg, Tamporini & Windsor,
we'll run copies of it so that you--it won't be a spiral-bound copy, but each
one of you will have a copy of all three of those reports by Friday.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Max, I'm the one that's got the high-and-dry section, as
you're well aware of. Please relieve my fears that if we have a four-hour ban
tonight, that if the people that are on top of that hill doesn't have any
water, that we've got another game plan that will ensure these people that
they will have water.
MR. HICKS: What we'll have to arrive at, Commissioner, is a way of
having few enough people start at one time so that it doesn't drain their
water off. Trying it this way, it will cut it in half. It will cut it in
half. Now, they had water in the lines in their street, there was just not
enough pressure left to get it up, you know, into the house. I'll be able to
tell you more tomorrow if we need to then go to even a further breakdown of
alphabets, but we will break it down as far as we have to in order for them to
have water. And we know that it's achievable because the people have told us.
They've been very understanding when our crews were out there checking the
valves and everything. They told us we didn't have a problem before, we've
never had a problem with regular water to do whatever we needed to do. So
once we can go back to where we're on odd-even without everybody starting at
the same time, it'll correct itself. And in the meantime, Commissioner, we
will keep on until we get the staggered starts finely spaced enough to where
people will have water at all times.
MR. OLIVER: I would note also that Mr. Hicks' department last night
pushed up the water pressure in that particular section, and you've got to be
careful doing that if you've got full line capacity, but that was insightful.
They'll be doing that again tonight at 7:00, and that was one of the reasons
that he was able to keep the Washington Road tank full. The difficulty has
been that, if you can envision running a hose from Mr. Todd to Mr. Bridges, if
everybody turns on the hose at the same time, by the time it gets to Mr.
Bridges he doesn't get anything. So what we're trying to do is to control the
number of people that are taking off water. It's just when you design a water
system you don't anticipate that everybody will be using, you know, the full
amount of water they can draw out of the system at the same time.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I'm very appreciative of that, but the difference is
it's more like running a hose out of this window and the people at the bottom
of the window is going to get the water and the people at the top of it is
not. It's not a lateral problem, it's a height problem. And I really
appreciate what you've done, but I suspect I'll know before midnight tonight
whether or not it worked. I mean, I pray that it works, I really do. The
other thing I would like for either you or Mr. Oliver to do is to do something
that this community hasn't had, but will y'all give us a verbal review of
what's taken place since this crisis or these problems that started in May as
far as the efforts to fix and what all has taken place, because I think most
of the people in this audience want to know the answer to that question. I
know that we have some knowledge of it, but I'd like to hear a verbal review
so the public can hear it.
MR. HICKS: Okay. On April the 16th the #1 turbine malfunctioned. On
April the 20th we sent it to Thomas Brothers Hydro in Covington, Georgia, to
be repaired. They told us at that time that the repairs would probably take
about eight weeks, so then we began using the diesel backup pump. Initially
the fuel pump failed on the diesel backup pump, so that put it down for a
short while, and that's when we had the first watering ban was when the diesel
backup pump was down for that fuel pump. We got it in, replaced it, got the
diesel started back up again, and it ran successfully so that we stayed on
odd-even. And we were going along real well and were, as a matter of fact,
building up levels in the raw water reservoirs constantly to the point that I
was feeling real good about it, and this was the weekend of June the 12th or
13th because the turbine was due to be back in June the 15th. That was that
Wednesday. So I was feeling real good about it at that time because the
diesel had run, we were going on odd-even, everybody was able to water every
other day, and the reservoirs were building back up. Now, what happened
that Sunday evening was that the diesel failed again. This time it turned out
that we had bearings and also the vertical turbine pump had failed. So
everything then had to be worked on, and we had to pull the vertical turbine
pump out and ship it to Hydro South facilities in Atlanta to be repaired. It
will be back in next Saturday. We had hoped to get it in sooner than that,
but they had to cast a new [inaudible]. That took a little longer time, so it
will be back in next Saturday. Now, when that happened, we then started using
our #3 pump. The #3 pump is one of the older, smaller units. And so we began
using it--and I will tell you that these turbines can have a long life because
the one driving that pump is 100 years old and the pump is 60 years old. But
we began using #3 in conjunction with #4. #4 is our largest and our newest
and most dependable turbine pump. And so they have been operating--or we used
the #4 and #3 together until we had the #1 turbine come back in and were able
to get it installed. Now, we ran into difficulties with the #1 turbine,
getting it back in. Due to the couplings that were on it, it began to
generate heat in the shaft bearings, and so we had to order a new set of
those. That delayed us from Thursday until about Monday. Otherwise we'd have
been up and running that Thursday, instead it was the following Monday before
we were able to get it up and running. Now, that Monday we had wanted to
relieve whatever area that we could, you know, and put them back on full odd-
even. That's when we went to full odd-even with the area south of the Gordon
Highway. That was the 29th that that happened. The tanks really were pulled
down that night. They began to recover some, and then the people on the next
side of the street started watering that morning. When they started pulling
down the second time we called the total ban again, and that's been the
circumstance up until we were able to begin the limited odd-even from 9:00 to
11:00 at night. But the #1 turbine and the #4 turbine are operating
together. We're pumping right now about 34 to 35 million gallons of water a
day. We're able to hold our own in the raw water reservoirs. If and when we
can get the 42-inch line back in service, then we will really be able to
recover and fill the reservoirs. But that's the sequence of events with the
#1 turbine going down, the diesel engine and #5 vertical turbine pump going
down, and then the repairs and getting the #1 unit back up. But it is up and
running.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Hicks, one other question, then I'm going to relieve
you from my grilling--and I really have not tried to grill you because I
really want the information now. Please assure me and assure this Commission
and assure the
public that no expense has been spared in obtaining the professional help and
the parts or whatever that was needed for any of these repairs at any time
along the way.
MR. HICKS: It has not been. As a matter of fact, we contacted Thomas
Brothers Hydro in Covington and told them to work overtime, work day and night
if you have to, do whatever you have to do to get it repaired, and they did
that. The same way with getting the bearings and the couplings that we
needed, we made every effort to have them shipped especially for us either by
Delta Dash or by a trucking line going straight from there to our facility.
We have told them at Hydro South to, there again, work day and night if they
had to, get that pump back to us as quick as they could. So we have not. And
insofar as the expertise of people coming in, the fellows who were doing the
laser alignment setting up that vertical turbine and--I mean, excuse me,
setting up that horizontal turbine in pump #1, they were from Macon, Georgia,
and were reputed to be as good as there was. They do a lot of work for big
industries in this area and all over the state. They were much in demand. The
young man who they sent here and who stayed here, he was to have been in
Florida, he was to have been in two or three other big companies, but they
left him here because we needed him, and he stuck with us until we got it.
And Hope Thomas with Thomas Brothers Hydro, he came and stayed to oversee, you
know, the alignment and get everything up. So we didn't cut any corners, we
used people who knew what they were doing.
MR. OLIVER: We also talked about--in the case of the bearings, Mr. Hicks
and I talked about, if necessary, chartering a plane to go to Milwaukee to get
those bearings. As it turned out, we could get them quicker, frankly,
commercial. But we even looked at that possibility.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Hicks, I want to thank you for what you've done with
this thing, and I'm appreciative of it, but I think the biggest thing that my
constituents are concerned with is that when they hear their neighbors are
high and dry for three hours a night, they can't drink water in their house,
they can't take baths because they don't have bath water to clean their
children, they get extremely upset. And we're catching the brunt of that.
And we're not trying to blame people, we're trying--and I know you're trying
to get this system fixed.
MR. HICKS: Trying to get a stagger started, Commissioner Brigham, is the
most difficult thing. Obviously when you're on a full odd-even watering
program not everybody is going to begin at the same time. Some people will
water their yards early morning, some people late at night, some in the middle
of the afternoon, so you don't have everybody trying to use it at the same
time. But right now, coming off of the total ban that we have, then everybody
is just poised and waiting, and when it hits they turn it on, and there were
those two areas that were hard hit two nights in a row. We agonized trying to
decide how to institute a staggered start that would not affect them like that
again, and the best way we could come up with was an alphabet. You had
proposed street numbers, that would be another way that could work. Any way
that we could break it down to get a smaller number starting at one time, that
would let those people have water. We will do whatever we need to do. I
mean, tonight we'll have to see, Commissioner. I'm hoping it does it. We
have no exact count, we don't know what the people's last names are, it's just
that was the best way we could come up with.
MR. TODD: Mr. Hicks, I understand the efficiencies that you've gained by
pumping directly into the treatment. Is there any risk associated and, if so,
can you tell us what those risks are other than the pressure risks?
MR. HICKS: No. Actually, the way we're planning on doing it the
pressure risk would be relieved because we would leave the lines open into the
raw water reservoir, so therefore the line wouldn't see any more pressure.
That was one of my first concerns, and then the line wouldn't see any more
pressure than it does now. The other is coordinating the treatment capability
of the filter plant with the delivery of the raw water. Now, we have a valve
at the entrance to the treatment facility that we can use to control the water
going into it. If we close that valve down it will just back the water up in
the raw water line and then it would run out in the raw water reservoir. So
that's the plan that we have in mind, that if we needed to go to that we could
go to that.
MR. TODD: But no bacteria risk?
MR. HICKS: No, sir. No, sir. They found no tripto-sporidium or any
other thing in our raw water supply either from the Canal or from the raw
water reservoirs.
MR. TODD: Okay. That was the one concern I had about the suggestion
that I heard. I know that you get recommendations from a lot of different
places, and certainly we want to support the recommendations as long as
there's no risk as far as bacteria go. Probably the other concerns I have
I'll address in the other agenda item. I do have some concerns about the
overall operation, contractors, etc., and I'll address those later.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Hicks, tell us about the 42-inch line [inaudible].
MR. HICKS: Okay. So far as the 42-inch line is concerned, we had to
construct access ports all along that line so that the men could get in, so
that fresh air could be blown into them. They carried oxygen and gas monitors
with them to make sure they had ample oxygen supply at all times, because the
men that inspected it actually crawled through the pipe from one end to the
other, took pictures, and looked at every foot of that pipe all the way from
the raw water pumping station up to the last valve at the raw water reservoir.
They then gave us a review the other week, and that's when we found that it
wasn't--and when I say the other week, it was last Friday they gave us the
review. And it was at that time that we found that it wasn't nearly as bad as
we had feared it would be, but there were some areas that they wanted to take
another look at. We got in touch with them this weekend and they drove back
down. They left Sunday night, got in here Monday about noon time, the
president of the company and his other number one inspector. They then
went out to the pipe site, went into it yesterday, and they are working out
there today. I've not been able to find out exactly what, you know, they were
able to get done today. There was one repair they had to do. There was a
rolled joint--if any of you are familiar with pipe, when you shove it together
sometimes the gasket will roll and get out of the seam. They saw that on one
of the repairs. They had to dig that up and get it repaired to get it back in
proper order. Then the next thing they were going to do is dig up a spot on
Azalea Drive and look at it. That was the worst area. So I'll be able to
give you a further report after that, and I'll be glad to keep every one of
you informed as to their progress in locating and inspecting the 42-inch line.
But as I say, I had first feared that we would have to maybe line that pipe,
the whole four miles of it, with either ductal line or steel. That's not the
case. That's not the case. But I didn't feel like that we could put it back
in service, though, before we had it inspected. It passes too close to some
houses to do that, we just couldn't do it.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Hicks, I also want to thank you for what you've done, but
I want to also put emphasis on that if you could, through your office--because
I've been receiving the faxes when you have the ban and, plus, the
Administrator's Office has been sending them as well as the Clerk's Office, so
I get three or four bans or closings or whatever you're doing on the water
system. But this is an item that affects all eleven of us up here, and so if
you could just keep us informed. Now, I don't want you to call me personally,
but your secretary can send me a fax or send me something. Because if you let
Mr. Powell know because he's the chairman of the committee, that's not going
to help us because it--this affects all eleven of us. And I know that you and
Mr. Powell have been trying to work out some things, but we still need to know
that you all are going to work out too much that nobody knows but you and
Powell and we don't know what's going on. Because everybody don't call you or
call Powell, they call Handy from District Two, and this is an effort that we
all need to work together as one.
MR. HICKS: I apologize for that. I have to admit I've been so caught up
in the other I have not sent communications to all of you, and I will. That's
a point well made and well taken.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Sir, do you have something you
want to say?
MR. LYONS: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, Administrator, and staff, I'm Marv
Lyons, I live out on Lakewood Drive off of Kissingbower Road. First of all,
let me comment about the remarks that I've heard voiced here this afternoon.
I think they're highly commendable to the ones concerned. I have one question
in that regard, though. If the budgets have been submitted previously
containing five, ten, fifteen or what have you years of planning addressing
the total infrastructure and have been ignored, then somebody is to blame for
this crisis, if you want to call it that, that we're now experiencing. So I
would hope that that question in reference to the planning for the
infrastructure maintenance, repair, and replacement is being adequately
addressed year after year. And the Waterworks Department people are only to be
commended, more than all of us can put into words. I do have a question,
however, about the public relations aspect of some of the rulings on the
watering. 9:00 to 11:00 at night doesn't do much for senior citizens. You
can't expect a semi-invalid, 70-year-old lady living alone to go out with a
flashlight and try to water her lawn at that time of night, so there must be
some way that those hours of two hours late at night can be changed and split
up among the other 22 hours in the day. We talk about policing those people
who violate the watering rules, put a rule into effect that applies to
everybody. It goes against the grain of a person out there to say you can't
wash your car in your driveway, take it down to the corner to the commercial
car wash. When we're talking about water conservation, it's the same gallons
of water that's going to be used. So if the citizens are expected for their
lawns, their shrubbery, and their ornamentals to be burned up, to the tune of
hundreds of thousands of dollars, then let's look at the other people who are
expending water likewise. Thank you.
MS. WATKINS: Gentlemen, I'm Kitty Watkins and I live at the bottom of
National Hills. I'm one of the old critters he's talking about having to go
out at night to water my lawn. Now, in National Woods down on Spring Wood in
National Hills, this time of the year those snakes are coming up trying to
find water. Now, every night when it's my turn, if I'm going to get any
water, I call my son in Millen: "I'm going out to turn on my faucet," which
is in the hedges and flowers, "and if I don't call you back in ten minutes,
come and get Mama because a snake did and get me to the hospital." And
another thing, y'all have made those jokes, so I want to tell you one. Now,
I'm 75, and when I go on my last trip I don't want to leave this world a dirty
old woman, I'd like to be clean when I go. I wanted to come down here to you
gentlemen at your meeting a clean old lady, but I ran my tub water and when I
started to get in it the whole top of it is filled with brown something
floating all on the top. I took a tissue and wiped up a little sample to
bring to you. Now, I had to forego coming down here a clean old lady and used
my little jug of water I had bought to drink out of my refrigerator. So if I
get up in the middle of the night and get a glass of whatever this is, I might
go on that last trip sooner than my doctors
expected me to. Please help us.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Siddell, on the pump, the engine, do we already have
bids on those? Have we already requested bids for them?
MR. SIDDELL: Yes, sir, we've already requested bids, and the final
information should be here tomorrow. We have an estimated bid of $197,000
from a local [inaudible]. This will be a turn-key operation and the entire
diesel engine pump will be totally taken care of and updated to current
requirements.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So how long after we get those bids will we expect to
have that inhouse?
MR. SIDDELL: They would start the process immediately and we would
expect to see that finished in about two weeks.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Bonner, I think we're
ready.
CLERK: The motion was to approve the purchase of the equipment as listed
in Item 39-A.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion, please let it be
known by casting your vote.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
CLERK: Item 39-B: Discuss Crisis Management Team and Subcontractor
for Waterworks Department.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess this is where I will comment and have a few
words to say. As you know, Mr. Mayor, I'm an industrial pipefitter/plumber,
and where I don't pretend to be an expert in all fields, certainly to the
extent of piping to plumbing, and I'm talking piping to any size pump whether
we're talking, you know, a five-foot pipe, sixty inches, or down to a half
inch, that's where my expertise is. I'm a little light on the plumbing side,
and I'll be the first to tell you, you know, I'm out of Plumbers and
Pipefitters Local, but light on the plumbing side. And, Mr. Mayor, I think
that the contractors that we had, and I'll leave them unnamed, where they're
electrical/ mechanical contractors, I think they're a little bit light on the
millwright side and some other areas where we needed expertise. And I'm
concerned--and I'll address the contractors first. I'm concerned about the
contractors that we're using, that we're not doing turn-key operations, that
the city-county is purchasing equipment and purchasing material, then relying
on someone to come in and do the installation. I understand, Mr. Mayor, on
these repairs, that sometimes you can't do a turn-key. But, Mr. Mayor, if
we're talking about qualified folks to do the job--and I'm not knocking the
Waterworks subordinates under Mr. Hicks that we pay or bring in for less than
$20,000 a year, I'm talking
about subcontractors. The same subcontractors that's been working on this
equipment, I would assume over 10/20 years, they've been patching it over the
last 10 to 20 years. And certainly I think that to the extent that they've
been patching it, they should be commended, but there come a time, Mr. Mayor,
when you should go out for statements of qualification, see who is out there,
who can step up to replace pumps, to replace turbines, etc., and who can --
[End of Tape 3] ...where we have a outage, Mr. Mayor. When you don't
have a water or you have a pump that won't work or a engine that won't work,
you have a outage, Mr. Mayor. And, Mr. Mayor, we deal with these situations
all the time in industry. Sometimes they're scheduled, sometimes they are not
scheduled. It's a unplanned outage. You have a turnaround and you go in there
and you make your turnaround. So I'll take this to the Engineering Services
Committee, but certainly I feel that we need to do statements of
qualifications of who is out there and what is out there. We've been
basically doing business with--if we're talking the treatment plant, with one
or two entities; if we're talking the pump station, one or two entities.
And, Mr. Mayor, I'll touch a little bit on the crisis management team. Mr.
Mayor, it's essential that we have a crisis management team where that team
work, Mr. Mayor, whether you or the Chairman of Engineering Services Committee
or the Administrator is in town or not. And certainly the Mayor, or the
Chairman of Engineering Services in this case, the Administrator, the Director
of Utilities should be on that team, but I think the Fleet Manager should be
on that team. Perhaps your top communications person should be on that team
and perhaps others like the Fire Chief when it comes to water, Mr. Mayor, or
the Emergency Management Director. And I would like to see the Engineering
Services Committee, Mr. Mayor, devise a team that will deal with a water
situation because a water situation is the most serious situation, Mr. Mayor,
that this community could get into with the exception of law enforcement. And
I'm not proposing that we have a cover-all, Mr. Mayor, crisis management team
in this government. I think that the Mayor's Office should deal with what the
situation would be if he had a civil emergency, and I'm not proposing that.
That's the Mayor's responsibility. I'm proposing as far as Engineering
Services go, which I serve on the committee, and water and possibly waste
water, and I don't think waste water is as serious as the water, but certainly
it's a issue that we should look at. I'm going to make a motion, Mr.
Mayor, that we receive this as information and that we take a action on it
at the next Engineering Services Committee, and I will put it on the next
Engineering Services Committee agenda, Mr. Mayor.
MR. POWELL: I'll second the motion. Mr. Chairman, I would like to
address Mr. Todd's concerns as to the qualifications of the individuals that
we brought in to repair the turbine. I don't mind naming the individuals if
the County Attorney has no problem with that. First of all, we'll take on the
concern you had with the electric company, Mr. Todd. The electric company
who came in to do the repairs and the alignment for the pump is not an
electrical contractor, they are an electric apparatus repair company, and
they're the largest in the state of Georgia, Ingleside Electric. They have
offices in Atlanta, Macon, outside of Augusta, and I think they also have one
in Savannah. They're a very large outfit and have very well-trained
individuals. The other individual that we brought in was from Thomas
Brothers Hydro, Mr. Hope Thomas, who is the president of that company. And
they're a very large turbine rebuilding outfit, that's what they specialize
in, that's all they do. That gentleman was down here and he was just as
greasy as the next one trying to get this thing going, I promise you. He was
trying is best to accommodate us to get this water system going. The
other individuals that were there were on the mechanical end, Mr. Todd, and we
used Master Fabricators in Augusta. The equipment there is very old. Mr.
Mason has a tremendous amount of experience in babbitted bearings, if you know
what that is. We don't have a babbitted bearing that's used commonly anymore,
we have a roller-type bearing. Those babbitted bearings are antique, and he
is probably the premier babbitted bearings gentleman in this area, I assure
you, because he knows how to work on that old equipment. And I think that
Mr. Hicks has done an excellent job on putting that team together to repair it
with getting Mr. Thomas in here. But to clarify, Ingleside Electric is not an
electrical contractor, they're in electric apparatus repair. They worked on
the pumps, they worked on electric motors, lining them up, gear boxes and all
that. They have a real big shop down in Macon that's really fascinating to go
and look at. I have been privileged to go check them out.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I know what a babbitt bearing is, and
when I was told that it was too big by at least one individual to fly in on an
airplane for the gear box that I had looked at, I thought, well, maybe this
person was misinformed. And, you know, the bottom line is that, you know,
we'll deal with it at the committee level. But I'm no expert, don't claim to
be, and I talked to Mr. Oliver and certainly wanted Harry to go down and take
a look at what was going on. And I think that, you know, we have somewhat the
historical data to review because television, they offer a lot, and there was
pictures taken, etc, and it seems to me that basically there was no one in
charge or no one in the authority or decision-making position to call the
shots. And let me say that, you know, unfortunately or fortunately, I wasn't
one of the individuals that was in Savannah. I did spend some time there, I
did not micro-manage, you know, but I was concerned. And certainly, you know,
I think that the concerns are grave enough that we need to do that peer review
of the overall situation and look at what we do and what course of action we
take the next time we get in this situation. Because I can assure you that we
possibly had a streak of bad luck, but possibly some of it was caused by some
folks that wasn't quite sure of themselves or what they was
doing.
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Mayor, with your permission, either you can or I will
address the people that were involved in the various meetings, whichever you
prefer, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead.
MR. OLIVER: Okay. Mr. Todd, I agree with you on the crisis management
team. I guess to formalize that structure would be meaningful, but, you know,
the Mayor, Mr. Powell, myself, and Mr. Hicks met to discuss the situation at
various points. We called the Fire Chief, we asked the Fire Chief to make
sure that he had Burke County and Fort Gordon on alert and had our tanker
filled with water in case that need should arise. Pam Tucker has been very
intimately involved in helping get information out and that type thing, and
Mr. Siddell--and it was your suggestion and I think it was a good one. Mr.
Siddell went out at my request and did a further follow-up, and I think he's
been a tremendous benefit to the team. But I think that we perhaps have had a
less formalized structure, and maybe a more formalized one is very
appropriate, but I don't want anybody to think that there hasn't been
leadership because clearly I think there has. In addition to that, Mr.
Powell made a suggestion, and I will pass these out, that we include something
in the next utility billing regarding watering. Because a lot of people don't
realize that if you haven't watered for a day or two, that, you know, perhaps
you need to double water, and that's part of what is creating Mr. Hicks'
problem. And we're hoping people will read this. It'll give them a better
lawn and it will also decrease their water usage and the demand on our system.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Oliver. Further comments, gentlemen? We
have a motion by Mr. Todd to accept this as information and pass it on to the
committee. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual
sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-O. [MR. MAYS OUT]
CLERK: Item 39-C: Discuss the advertisement of the Attorney for the
in-house law department.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Lee, what's the status on them bringing that report back
to us?
MR. BEARD: There's a letter from Mr. Woods, if the Clerk want to read it
or you want to read it or whatever, and that will give us an idea of where
they are.
CLERK: "Gentlemen: On April 6th, 1998, our committee was appointed by
the Commission and charged to study the procurement of legal services for
Augusta-Richmond County. We were asked to evaluate the effectiveness and cost
of, one, outside counsel; two, inhouse counsel; or, three, some combination
thereof. We began our work when we first met with you on April 15th. Since
that time we have been talking with key people related to the delivery of the
Consolidated Government's legal services, gathering data to use in developing
our recommendations to the Commission. We have had extensive discussions with
Randy Oliver and Jim Wall and will talk with others who can help us understand
better what is needed locally. The data from the Georgia Municipal
Association and the Association of County Commissioners have been quite
helpful in assessing which Georgia local governments have used inhouse counsel
and evaluating the cost of legal services. Unfortunately, we must update that
information since some of it is several years old. More current information
is necessary in order to make reasonable comparisons with such cities as
Savannah, Columbus, or Athens. "We are moving ahead to get this
information, but gathering this and other data means that we cannot complete
our work prior to September 1st, 1998. If there are other persons you would
like to have us talk with, please let us know and we will be glad to do so.
We believe that a careful, reasonable analysis of the scope and cost of legal
services needed and delivered and the best methodology for providing legal
services in Augusta will require a couple of months of deliberation. We have
discovered that summer vacation schedules are making it difficult to get the
committee together and to coordinate meetings with those with whom we need to
speak. We know how important this matter is to the Commission and we want to
ensure that we give you the most thoughtful recommendation we can. Sincerely,
Gerald Woods."
MR. POWELL: Move that we receive it as information.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I don't want to be troublesome today or tonight or
whatever, but that letter right there could have been in our books already, so
do why we have to have somebody read something in like that? That could have
been in our books. We could have had that information already. That's all I
got to say.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that maybe they talk to the
Attorney General, you know, to tell them whether they need to go by the
legislation that was passed as far as establishing the law department. That
would be my suggestion to Mr. Woods, and certainly he know that being a
lawyer. And, you know, we're going to block and delay this thing, block and
delay this thing. What the voters voted for in the referendum that called for
consolidation, and in that referendum there was a law department, in that
legislation there was a law department, and certainly, you know, as I've
stated earlier, I don't need a committee to tell me that I shall go by the
law. It didn't say, you know, you may appoint a law department, it said you
shall appoint a law department. You know, I'm not going to make a substitute
motion here today and play the little game with you gentlemen. I think that,
you know, you know what you want to do, you just don't have backbone enough to
do it. The County Attorney know what you want to do. You want to delegate
the responsibility of it happening on somebody else. It's plain and simple,
Mr. Mayor, the legislation say you shall establish a law department. Well, the
one mistake that our brilliant legislators made when they said that you shall,
I guess they didn't put a time line on it. They didn't say you shall
establish a law department in 60 days, 90, days, you know, one year or a
thousand years. And I assure you, until they put a time limit on it, it will
be a thousand years before this community see the law department that the
citizens voted for. Thank you.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? Was that on the letter
and on Item C?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Powell's motion for the
letter and Item C, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. MAYS ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1-1.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we reconsider
Item Number 6a.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to call for a roll call vote.
MAYOR SCONYERS: This is a motion to reconsider, and then we have to have
another motion to vote; right?
MR. WALL: That's correct.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Now, do we have to have it unanimous in order to
reconsider or just a majority?
MR. WALL: Six, a majority.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to
reconsider--you wanted a roll call vote.
CLERK: This is a roll call to reconsider Item 6a.
MR. HANDY: We don't have no discussion on that?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, I think we discussed it to death while ago.
MR. HANDY: That's what
I want to know, why are we bringing it back then if we're not discussing it?
What's the difference in bringing it back today? I mean, what's the use of
bringing it back today? You can put it on the agenda for next week or the
next meeting.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I want to go on and get it over with.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any discussion on Item 6a? Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: I don't see any need of bringing it back. Y'all voted
before, so I would say no, let it stay like it is.
CLERK: Mr. Bridges?
MR. BRIDGES: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Henry Brigham?
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Present.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve
Item 6a.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Roll call vote again?
MR. POWELL: Yes, sir.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, may I say this? I didn't block it coming back up,
but if we're going to go ahead and do a vote--and I said I would respect the
Chair when we were talking about this item, and I think I probably was the
only person that kept mine to 6a. And I probably will vote again because I--
and for the same reason I want the record to state that this is nothing to
impede what the Administrator is doing, but I definitely don't want to get
sued. But I'm a little concerned about the scope, I'm a little concerned
about the company. They've done work for us before and we ignored it. I'm
simply stating it for the record on whether this was a fact-gathering
information and a bad, bad study. If something has changed, then, you know, I
stand to see them do differently, but I would like for us to--and maybe the
Administrator may want to comment on it and I might have a change of heart
about it. Now, maybe if this study in terms of evaluation of where it's going
to go in the overall departments is going to address that particular critical
need first--because I know when they did it with just two departments it took
forever and a day to deal with it. We're talking about all of county
government, it may take forever and two days in order to do it. And I think
we maybe need to wait and see and see what we're going to have to spend in
terms of some professional evaluations and second opinions on what we're going
to deal with with water in this county before we deal with that particular
item overall in terms of exploring this whole government and we don't know
where we're going with that. And that's my position on it. It's not to
stifle the Administrator, but I'll have to abstain on the vote for it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do you want to call the roll?
CLERK: Yes, sir. The motion is to approve Item 6a. Mr. Beard?
MR. BEARD: Before I vote on that I would like to hear what Randy has to
say about the question that Commissioner Mays has made. Because this is
something that I've always said we needed, and I just want to make sure, since
he brought up some--more or less making confessions about the company, I think
we need to qualify that, if you can qualify that at this time.
MR. OLIVER: Well, I can't speak to the previous work that this firm may
have done for Augusta-Richmond County. I don't know the quality of it nor the
scope. I've dealt with this firm on several occasions, as I mentioned before,
in the past. I've done some work for this particular firm. I agree with Mr.
Mays
from this standpoint, that a lot of it comes from whose got the helm. And you
have to make sure that when you're working with a firm of this caliber, that
you get them to bring back honest, candid evaluations and that those honest,
candid evaluations are not flavored, you know, in favor of making a particular
area look good nor look bad. The intent is not to criticize, the intent is
not to praise, the intent of a study such as this is to enhance the operations
both from an operational efficiency standpoint and also from a financial
standpoint. And, again, it's no better than the oversight that it's received,
and I've been in that position before.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did you say you worked for them, Randy?
MR. OLIVER: A long time ago I did do some work for them, as I mentioned
before.
MR. HANDY: That's not a conflict, is it?
MR. WALL: No.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Go ahead, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard?
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: No.
CLERK: Mr. Kuhlke?
MR. KUHLKE: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: I abstain.
CLERK: Mr. Powell?
MR. POWELL: No.
CLERK: Mr. Shepard?
MR. SHEPARD: Yes.
CLERK: Mr. Todd?
MR. TODD: Yes.
MOTION CARRIES 6-3-1.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do you need a legal meeting, Mr. Wall?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir, we do.
MR. OLIVER: There is one item that I'm aware of that we definitely need
to discuss.
MR. WALL: Real estate and litigation matters and a personnel matter I
need to talk to you about. Hopefully, with the exception of one, I don't
think it'll take long, and that I don't have control over.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move to go into legal session.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 7:20 - 8:06 P.M.]
MR. WALL: ...approve Grant Agreement with Indigent Defense Council,
subject to the Administrator and the Attorney's approval is (b); (c) is
motion to approve deletion of the administrative position at Indigent
Defense, salary grade 44, and create an investigator/attorney position at
an initial salary of $32,000.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MR. POWELL VOTES NO. MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 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 the Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on July 7, 1998.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission