HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-1998 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION MEETING
August 4, 1998
Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 2:15 p.m. Tuesday, August
4, 1998, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Handy, Kuhlke,
Mays, Shepard and Todd, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. J. B. Powell, member.
Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, Mr. Oliver,
Administrator; and Mr. Wall, County Attorney.
THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY BUDDY ROLAND.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Ms. Bonner, do we have any additions or deletions?
CLERK: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we have a
request to add one item: Approval of the purchase from Adaptive Engineering,
Ltd. one (1) non-motorized Disabled Passenger Access Lift for Bush Field
Airport in the amount of $24,950. This item was deleted from the August 19th
agenda and it should have been on our agenda today. We have a request to
delete Item 13A.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move by unanimous consent.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Todd's
motion, seconded by Mr. Kuhlke, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell is going to be out the whole meeting; is that
correct, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. And Mr. Shepard will be running a little late today.
MAYOR SCONYERS: First item of business, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: The first item is a Resolution of Support of the Plutonium
Mission at the Savannah River Site:
"Whereas plutonium handling must be in the hands of
professionals with proven experience; whereas DOE has already expressed
confidence in SRS by assigning the site [inaudible] missions; whereas the
use of all parts of the plutonium disposition mission, including pit
disassembly and conversion, can save taxpayers at least $1.6 billion based
on avoided costs of new structures and equipment that would be required at
other DOE sites; whereas the Pantex facility in Texas has never possessed
plutonium, therefore, there is no plutonium handling infrastructure and
competency at Pantex; whereas transportation should not be an issue
relative to choosing SRS, the pits are already being transported to Pantex
in Texas; whereas the DOE plutonium missions are safe, especially when
performed by people with demonstrated competency such as the people at SRS,
tens of thousands of nuclear weapons workers have been involved in U.S.
plutonium operations, comprehensive medical surveillance programs at SRS
and other sites have never found a death or even a cancer that could be
related to worker exposure to plutonium; now be it resolved that the
Augusta Commission strongly endorses major plutonium missions for the
Savannah River Site and urges the Department of Energy to designate the
Savannah River Site as its local facility in plutonium management and
disposition."
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: I might add that on the 13th they're having a public
hearing at the North Augusta Recreation Complex at 1:00 and 6:00 and as many
supporters as we can get to go to the one o'clock meeting would really be
great to let people really know how much we're all in favor of keeping this at
SRS. So if you have some time that day at 1:00 or at 6:00, please go over and
show your support for a great new endeavor and get behind SRS.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, may I also state that it's important that we stay
involved with the Community Energy Alliance and we're going to need someone to
go on that board as one of the board directors.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion
to support it, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Under the Finance agenda, Items 1 through 4 as a consent.
Approved by the committee on July 27th.
[1. Motion to approve refund of prior year taxes for 1997 in the
amount of $81.88 for overpayment on account 2006697. 2. Motion to
approve refund of prior year taxes for 1997
in the amount of $9.27 for overpayment on account 2027073.
3. Motion to award a purchase order for three (3) utility
carts for the Sheriff's Department Road Patrol Division at a total cost of
$20,700.00. 4. Motion to award a purchase order to Yancey Brothers
Company for a three-year lease of one (1) earth-moving scraper at a total
cost of $214,900.00 for the Public Works Department Solid Waste Division.]
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, we present this as a consent agenda.
MR. BEARD: I'll second that.
MAYOR SCONYERS: 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.
CLERK: Item 5 is a motion to approve funding request of $3,000 from
D.C. Flyers Track Club, Inc. to support their youth trip to Norfolk,
Virginia, to be paid from "Commission Other" account.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I believe we have the persons here who requested
that and maybe we should give them an opportunity to come forward and tell us
what this is all about.
MR. THOMPSON: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and the Board of Commissioners.
My name is Charles Thompson. As you can see, I work for you. And if I'm not
working for you, I spend a lot of my time as President of D.C. Flyers Track
Club. It is a nonprofit organization, 501-3(c), and our track club serves all
the youth in the CSRA from 7 to 18 and we compete locally, regionally, and
nationally. We have 40 youth that competed in the district meet between
hosts, which is the directors for the Georgia State Games. We took 40 youth
to Savannah for the state meet for AAU. Out of that we had 37 that qualified
to go to the region, which was in Knoxville, Tennessee. Out of those we had
22 that qualified to go to the nationals, which is in Virginia. We brought
back 17 golds, 9 silver, 11 bronze medals, and 3 ribbons. And we're supposed
to go to the Georgia State Games, but not having the funds to do that we
elected to take what funds we have to try to go to the nationals, and we're
here to ask support for those 22 athletes to help them go to the nationals in
Norfolk, Virginia. And these youth are not only representing themselves, they
are representing you and every one of us in the CSRA, and I would like to be
able to get a donation to help them make this trip. If anyone has any
questions or anything else, I'd like to address them.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Thompson, I believe back at our last meeting we had a
request in from your organization and we referred it to Mr. Mack, I believe.
Didn't we, Keven? We
approved it subject--
CLERK: That was the Art Factory.
MR. KUHLKE: Oh, that was the Art Factory. Oh, okay.
MR. BRIDGES: Have you been funded? Has the city funded you this year
previously?
MR. THOMPSON: No, they haven't. This is the first time we've been
before the Commission.
MR. BRIDGES: Don't y'all receive funds from CDBG?
MR. THOMPSON: Last year we got some from Mr. Mack's office, but we
didn't get anything this year. We put in a proposal, but we didn't get
anything from them.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I know that most of us don't like to fund
organizations, and I can partially understand that. But I have a fine
regard for the youth and I know that a lot of these people, the youth
[inaudible]. And we do have the Commission Other account, and I think
these are the things that we need to utilize it for, and then we could
assist our youth in going forward and doing something positive. And when
we have an opportunity to do that, I think that it's well that we do it,
and I move that we--this will kind of be deviating from what we normally do
and what we've espoused here, but I'm going to make a motion here that we
fund the D.C. Flyers from the Commission Other account.
MR. MAYS: I'll second it.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, let me ask one question--not about the
worthiness of the organization, but I'd like to address a question to the
Attorney. Mr. Wall, in other contexts we have--for example, when we were
working with World Changers we were careful to stipulate that we had a
contract with such an organization. And I've been sensitized lately to the
gratuities problem with--the provision in the Constitution. I mean, this is a
request for a donation, and I understand that in most cases a private entity
would be able to claim a tax deduction. That wouldn't be [inaudible]. But
I'd like to--not because of this particular request, but just in this area
generally if you could give us a little advice about whether we can legally
under the gratuities clause fund these. This has come up before, there's been
some discussion in the media, and I think we should have the benefit of that
thinking.
MR. WALL: Well, you cannot make a gift to an organization. Now, the
question is whether or not this is furthering recreation within Richmond
County. And the Accounting Department, in the event that this is passed,
would typically call me and would require a contract between the organization
and the county before they would issue a check or deliver a check. So if this
is approve, then it would be my intent to draw up a contract spelling out that
the purpose is to further the recreational activities within Richmond County,
and then it would be a legitimate expenditure pursuant to that contractual
agreement. So it is not a gift. It would be funding a contractual
relationship between this organization that is enhancing recreation in the
county, if it's approved.
MR. MAYS: Just a couple of things. Did you need, Jim, for that motion
to so state that?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Although Accounting sends those up to me, so we
ensure that there's a contract in place before any checks like this are
issued.
MR. MAYS: Because it went over to Finance and that's where it should go,
where the money is, but we didn't get it in Rec. The only thing I'd say is
this, and I kind of wish maybe we had had it probably in Recreation and had it
a little bit earlier. You know, we deviated, and I think justifiably so, but
we deviated from some standard projects that were voted on in the sales tax
proposal so that we could make concessions and do what we needed to do for the
Georgia Games, to speed it up for the natatorium and other things. You know,
it kind of gives us--and I know, you know, everybody has their own opinion on
this, but it kind of gives a little bit of egg on our face with the hosting of
the Georgia Games next year if we've got that many kids qualifying for the
next year's host city that basically won't be going or participating, having
to make a choice. If I'm going to have a reason to spend something out of
that account, I'd much rather spend it on young folks than some other things
we might be thinking about doing. But I think if we made all the other
changes to deal with saying we are the Games' host that are doing that, then
on the other hand we have a large contingent of young people that represent us
on a state and national level that we won't be sending or have an opportunity
to maybe do that and can do it legally, then I think that's kind of a mixed
signal with everything else we've touted about the Georgia Games and all the
other things that we've done in project shifting and postponements in order to
make room for the Georgia Games when, in essence, we've got folk right here in
our city that won't be going. But at the same time, I think this is kind of a
little bit--but at least it's a situation where they can go on a national
level and compete. I kind of wish they had done it through the Rec
department, but, I mean, this salvages something out of it to get it done.
But I think to be next year's host city and to deal with this issue now
publicly and not do it just kind of sends, I think, a little bad PR light. I
hope we can support it and do it.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Further discussion, gentlemen?
All in favor of Mr. Beard's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. SHEPARD & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION FAILS 4-4-1.
CLERK: Under the Administrative Services agenda, Items 6 through 13 as a
consent was approved by the committee on July 27th.
[6. Motion to approve changes to Economic Development Loan Fund
Policy Manual establishing interest rate on loans at the treasury rate with
the rate being fixed at time of closing (policy to be reviewed in twelve
(12) months) and reduce the processing fee for loans from $500 to $100 as
recommended by the Augusta-Richmond County Economic Development Loan Review
Committee. 7. Deleted from consent agenda. 8. Motion to
approve the establishment of Custodial Account and Life Insurance Transfer.
9. Motion to approve training program with People & Solutions and
the University of Georgia's Carl Vinson School of Government not to exceed
$21,000 and $15,750, respectively. 10. Motion to approve First
Amendment to Professional Services Contract between Augusta, Georgia and
Augusta/Richmond Clean & Beautiful, Inc. 11. Motion to accept the
University of Georgia Family Development Specialist/Extension Agent for
one-year pilot project with $4,000 match from General Fund Contingency and
our commitment end when the grant ends. 12. Motion to approve a
funding request from the McBean Senior Center for the purchase of an ice
machine at an approximate cost of $2,500 from CDBG Contingency. 13.
Motion to approve the creation of the position of Finance Director for the
Utilities Department.]
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move that the items done by
consent be approved.
MR. BEARD: I'll second it.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull Item 7.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other items that y'all want pulled, gentlemen? So
it's 6 through 13, minus Item 7. Discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor
of Mr. Brigham's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 7 is a motion to approve conveyance of five
parcels of property through the Land Bank Authority to Anointed Holding
Company, Inc. to construct single-family housing subject to approval of
site and construction plans by Administrator and
Director of Housing and Neighborhood Development. Construction
to be completed within six (6) months of commencement. MR. J.
BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the reason I asked for this to be pulled, I don't think
it's in our realm or scope that we direct the Land Bank Authority on what to
do with their properties, and I would prefer that we don't take any action on
this at all. The Land Bank has the authority to do what's suggested in this
agenda item, is my understanding, and I don't think that we as a Commission
can just will another Authority to transfer the property. I think we have to
[inaudible]. Mr. Wall, if I'm wrong, if you'll correct me I'd appreciate it.
MR. WALL: Well, generally I'm in agreement with what you're saying. I
mean, the Land Bank Authority is a separate legal entity that has been
created. It now has title to the property. Y'all conveyed title to the Land
Bank Authority and at this point it is up to the Land Bank Authority to
negotiate and to enter into such contracts as it deems appropriate. And at
the time, you will recall that in the discussion of the makeup of the
directors of the Land Bank Authority you designated individuals who work for
you, for the most part, and so therefore, you know, if the Land Bank Authority
starts making decisions that you are uncomfortable with you have indirect
control through the people that are serving on that Authority. But this was
set up for the Land Bank Authority to make those decisions. This is the first
instance in which the Land Bank Authority has entered into such an agreement,
and I think the feeling is that, in general, we want to be sure that the Land
Bank Authority is operating under the policies that y'all expect and want to
approve. And in the future, I mean, with those implicit blessings from the
Commission, the Land Bank Authority can act on its own.
MR. OLIVER: And I concur with Mr. Wall in that regard. We just want to
make sure that everyone here has the same understanding, that if you don't
want these types of things to come before the Commission, we understand that,
but we also want you to understand that you're giving us the latitude to
negotiate what we think is in the best interest of the Mayor, the Commission,
and the citizens of Augusta-Richmond County.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I thought that was the purpose of having the Land Bank
Authority.
MR. OLIVER: It is.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'll make a motion that we delete this item.
MR. KUHLKE: I'll second. Mr. Brigham says to delete it. Are you saying
delete it and refer it back to the Land Bank Authority?
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I think the Land Bank Authority has the power to act
without us instructing them in what to do.
MR. KUHLKE: I don't see anywhere on this that says that it's coming to
us from that Authority. It's coming to us from Keven's office, I believe.
MR. OLIVER: We are not required as the Land Bank Authority, as Mr.
Brigham has indicated, to bring these items here. We have the authority
within the enabling legislation for the Land Bank Authority to negotiate a
transaction. However, we also are cognizant of the fact that we want to, you
know, perform in accordance with the expectations of the Mayor and
Commissioners. And so as long as you all are comfortable with the
understandings and representations we've made, we're comfortable also in going
ahead.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The only thing I would think, that y'all might want to
give us a quarterly or semi-annual report of any transactions. But other than
that, I don't think we need to see this on each and every transaction.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm supportive of it, particularly where
construction replacement is going to happen. Because some incentive is going
to have to be given, particularly in a lot of these areas, in order to get
anybody interested in them. I've noticed you had a six months commencement
time in there. Is there any completion time?
MR. OLIVER: That will be negotiated as part of the deal. They are to be
completed within six months of commencement. What we don't want is a
situation where somebody starts a property with a bunch of volunteer labor
and, you know, good intentions, but two years later it isn't completed. So
our intent is to approve the property that's going to be constructed and then
to require them to complete it within six months. That's our intent and
that's the reason for the clause.
MR. MAYS: And that gives you pretty much a wrap-up time of about what
overall?
MR. OLIVER: Well, I think it will probably take, from what Mr. Wall said
to go through a redemption process, probably going to take a couple of months
to do that. During that time we will, you know, work on the plans and the
specifications and make sure we're consistent there, and then have six months
to do it. So I think you're probably talking, you know, ten months or so
before there will be anything on the ground, assuming this particular
organization, you know, proceeds forward as they've indicated they're going
to.
MR. MAYS: I don't have any problem with that. I just wanted to make
sure and I think I brought this up when we were
forming the Land Bank, and I supported what we were doing, but I wanted to
make sure that we didn't get into a speculative process. And I think you all
have that under control, but I just wanted to make sure that's what we were
doing contractually so that we didn't get people speculating on some--
acquiring land and then basically we go from one set of absentee folks, you
know, owning vacant lots to folk that we know it would be given to them and
nothing is going on on their property. That's the only thing I wanted to make
sure, that we had a reversion in there so that if within that reasonable
period of, say, twelve months nothing happens there, then--you know, if you
got something, you got a shell frame on it and you're not doing anything with
it and you're still speculating, we got a way to go back in there and either
try and help to speed that process up or take it and deal with some nonprofit
that will go ahead. And I think you've got willing parties here to do it, but
I just think we need to make sure that we're on that track with it. I support
what we've got on here, but I just wanted to make sure we got that safeguard
that we don't get into just folk because somebody else didn't [inaudible] and
then all of a sudden you've got five or six folk owning a whole lot of
property and no activity going on.
MR. OLIVER: Well, as I understand it, the intent of this particular
organization is to build the property on speculation. tion. I mean, they
don't have a specific buyer. Whether they may acquire a specific buyer
before, you know, they commence construction, I can't answer what their intent
is, but it's their objective to turn that property over ultimately and sell it
to somebody. If they're going to invest, you know, either through a
construction loan or private funds the money to construct the property, I
would think that they're going to actively look, you know, to sell it.
MR. MAYS: I agree. And if they get somebody in there, they're going to
find a way. Even if they're not buying, they're going to be leasing it,
renting it, or doing something. They're not going to make that kind of
investment and build and then keep it vacant. But I think the key thing is
getting something built, that it doesn't just stay that way. And I support
what you're doing, but I just wanted to make sure we had that type of clause
in there to protect it.
MR. HANDY: I'd like to know who is Anointed Holding Company? Who is
that?
MR. MACK: That organization is from Atlanta, and there is a local
person--I can't think of his name now, but I've had several conversations and
I've had several meetings with him, and he's with the understanding that this
was going before you all today.
MR. HANDY: But what I'm asking, Mr. Mack, who is this person and who is
this company?
MR. MACK: Anointed Corporation is an organization from Atlanta,
Georgia, that's interested in coming to Augusta to construct houses with
property that we can donate to them from the Land Bank. From my
understanding, they have been in this business before in other communities
constructing houses. MR. HANDY: How did this particular company get
recommended to do this?
MR. OLIVER: I've made the offer to a number of places. If you look at
the five or so parcels that they're going to be acquiring, these are not some
of the most desirable lots to do. But we have given the list out of
properties to a number of different organizations and we've asked them to come
back with proposals to us for properties they would be willing to construct,
and this is the first one that's come back to us with a proposal. And the
proposal is that we give them the lot and that in return for the lot they'll
put this property back on the tax rolls. The lot has little or no value to
us, and as a practical matter, you know, since we own the lot, we have to cut
it and keep it up and that type thing, so it's in our best interest to get it
back on the tax rolls.
MR. HANDY: I just wanted to know who it was. But every one of the lots
is in the district I represent, so that's no problem. That'd be good to have
some houses back there and possibility of having some people in the houses.
But I just wanted to know--I never heard of the company, and then all of a
sudden the company comes up and willing to do something and nobody know
anything about it. That's why I just wanted to know who it was. That's all I
have, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Handy. All in favor of Mr. Brigham's
motion to delete, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD VOTES NO; MR. H. BRIGHAM ABSTAINS.
MR. KUHLKE NOT VOTING.
MOTION FAILS 6-1-1.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd call for the order of the day. If we don't have
unanimous consent, then we don't have a deletion, so we need a action motion.
MR. WALL: It takes unanimous consent to delete after it's been on the
agenda.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that inadvertently it got on
our agenda, and I don't have a problem with them being with it, and that we
support the action taken by the Land Bank.
MR. BEARD: I second that motion.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, can we instruct the--we don't
have the authority to instruct the Land Bank Authority as to what to do--is my
contention. The motion--the way it's written, we're
plainly telling them what to do. MR. WALL: Well, it's giving them
approval to it, it's not instructing them to do it. It's in the event that
the Land Bank Authority makes the decision when they meet, then this would be
approval of it. I realize maybe we're getting the cart before the horse in a
sense, but--because the Land Bank Authority has not yet met to approve this,
but it would be to give approval once the Land Bank Authority approves it, and
the Land Bank Authority would be the one who has to convey the title out.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, is it necessary for us to approve it if they
approve it?
MR. WALL: As a legal requirement, no, sir, it is not necessary. I think
the reason that it's on here is because we are giving away property--the Land
Bank Authority is giving property in exchange for a house to be constructed,
and from a policy standpoint we wanted--the Land Bank Authority wanted to be
sure that that met with the approval of the Commission to negotiate those
types of arrangements.
MR. TODD: Mr. Wall, it would be my position--and I don't have the degree
or the license to practice law, but it would be my position, based on what
you've counseled us in the past on, if we make this decision, then we don't
have an arms length or a separation; therefore, we would have to go out for
public bid for this land, that we can't circumvent the public bid law if we're
taking an action before the Land Bank. Now, that's the way I understood your
counseling early on when we were setting this up, so maybe we can get a
clarification.
MR. WALL: Well, you are correct in that I wanted there to be an
independence between the Land Bank Authority; however, the overall guidelines,
I think, is something that the Commission can certainly have some input in.
No, it's not necessary that this Commission approve it, but insofar as just
approving this as a concept, with it being the first transaction, I don't
think it creates a legal problem for the Commission. And I think in the
future, based upon the discussion here today, I think the Land Bank Authority
will proceed to act and give periodic reports and avoid this kind of debate in
the future.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I didn't really attempt to start a nuclear war by
the motion that I made. It was mainly out of just--and it's on the agenda.
I mean, if we want, you know, to just take it off, and if we--that failed.
What I didn't want us to do was to reject a creative idea brought to us
basically through a hometown young man doing well, trying to do something,
quite frankly, on some ratty property that basically we've had to inherit,
take over and do, and to deal with six houses on dilapidated lot situations.
I think the only thing that I was trying to do with my motion was to say that
we support that type of creativity as long as it's legal. And, you know, I
have no problem--I think they kind of were looking for guidance at the Land
Bank since nothing basically had been done. There have been those of us who
have been trying before the Land Bank was established to do things such as the
Dollar Program at West End like people have done in other cities on property
that they have had to take over to get some type of incentive movement going
on it. And I think, you know, it just sends a good message to someone
particularly that a government stands behind them wanting to come in and clean
up a neighborhood, and that was the only reason I made the motion. If it's
going to start that much hell about that with it, I'll withdraw it, but I just
thought from the standpoint of public relations that to have that in the city
was supporting what we are doing. But, you know, if that's going to create a
problem with it, I'll withdraw it.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Well, I'll make the motion. I made it before and the
committee discussed this, and there was no objection in the committee when
they came to us and asked us to take a look at it. We unanimously passed it,
and I don't see anything wrong with accepting it here. And I moved before and
I'll move again that we accept what they have asked us to do in accepting
this. There was no objections when it came to the committee the other day.
The Attorney and the Administrator asked that we approve it, and I don't think
that there's anything wrong with it.
MR. MAYS: I said I would, but I don't necessarily want to, but I'll
leave it where it is. But I admit I was dealing with that to be sarcastic to
this point to get somebody to come in and want to do something with it. And I
think it ought to be ironic to some folk in the room that we've not been able
to get any takers on a bunch of this type of stuff unless it's been outside of
our city, so at least we've got a hometown person working with somebody else
that wants to come back and do something with it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask--I'm not sure which motion is on
the floor, but I'd like to ask Mr. Brigham if maybe he would amend the motion
just so that we can keep things in order maybe, is that we approve this as
presented subject to the approval of the Land Bank. And it doesn't put us
necessarily in front of the Land Bank, but it makes us compatible.
MR. HANDY: I'm going to second Mr. Brigham's motion.
MR. BEARD: The motion was already on the floor by Mr. Mays.
CLERK: He withdrew his.
MR. MAYS: I said I would. I can leave it where it is. I just threw
that out there to see if y'all are going to continue on with somebody trying
to do something for the city for a change instead of being in front.
MR. KUHLKE: So who do I ask?
MR. MAYS: I'll put in the motion whatever you need to put
in there to get it passed. It's accepted, yes. It's accepted. And you all
will be making a report to us; right?
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we're back to the original motion from Mr. Mays,
seconded by Mr. Beard, with Mr. Mays agreeing to add Mr. Kuhlke's amendment?
MR. MAYS: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have any other discussion? All in favor of Mr.
Mays' motion with the addition, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM VOTES NO.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1.
CLERK: The Co-chairman of the Engineering Services Committee would like
to offer as a consent agenda Items 14 through 21.
[14. Motion to authorize condemnation of 5,500 sq. ft. of permanent
sanitary sewer easement and 8.258 sq. ft. of temporary construction
easement on property owned by James M.
Harden (Tax Map 168, Parcel 4). 15. Motion to approve proposal from
APAC-Georgia, Inc. in the amount of $27,994.90 regarding the extension of
sanitary sewer main along Barton Chapel Road at the intersection of
Wrightsboro Road. 16. Motion to approve option in the amount of
$80.00 to purchase 1,119 sq. ft. of permanent easement and 1,678 sq. ft. of
temporary construction easement (owned by First Baptist Church of
Gracewood, Tax Map 155, Parcel 38) in connection with the R.C.C.I. Trunk
Line Wastewater Collection System Project. 17. Motion to approve
award of Annual Container Service for Augusta-Richmond County in the amount
of $62,460 to Lewis Disposal. 18. Motion to authorize the engineering
services for Warren Road Improvements with Brian G. Besson and Associates
in the amount of $70,000. Also, approve Capital Project Budget #57-8314-
098 in the amount of $1,211,000 for the project. Funds for the project to
be allocated from Special One-Percent Sales Tax Phase III.
19. Motion to authorize execution of Change Order #3 in the amount
of $26,845 with Mabus Construction Company, Inc. to install handicap
wheelchair ramps and traffic control conduit at the Jackson and Wrightsboro
Road intersection.
20. Deleted from consent agenda.
21. Deleted from consent agenda.]
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second. MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to ask
that Items 20 and 21 be pulled out of the consent agenda.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, so Items 14 through 19. Do any others need to be
pulled out, gentlemen? Any discussion on Items 14 through 19? All in favor
of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 20 is a motion to receive as information the report on
Model Simulation of Proposed Wellfields at Kimberly-Clark Site and Little
Spirit Creek Basin.
MR. HICKS: Anticipating looking into developing as much wellfields as we
could in the area of our service, we had asked that there be a model prepared
indicating how much water could be withdrawn from the aquifer in the southern
part of the county. This is a report on that model simulation. It was
prepared by Parsons Engineering Corporation. The fellow who is in charge of
it, Lee Gorday [phonetic], used to be with the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources, he was a professional geologist with them, and did what is the
study of the aquifer in this area. He also is the same one who did the
Kimberly-Clark site study, so their firm already had a model prepared--or had
a large part of a model prepared, so we asked them to do it. Now, the
model has several presentations and proposals in it. We met last week, last
Monday as it were, with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and
discussed this model with them. They offered the comment at that time that
the most that they really were interested in seeing at that time was 3.25 MGD
wellfields in the southern part of the county. The reason they said 3.25,
they now prefer to use average daily flow instead of maximum flow. So this is
pretty well what we had expected they would do, and that is approve that
application. Now, this doesn't say that they are going to finally approve
those two wellfields. As a matter of fact, instructed us that they had a long
time been of the opinion that they felt that more of the supply should come
from surface water instead of ground water. But this is the model that really
indicates how much truly would be available were it developed to its maximum
extent. Any questions?
MR. KUHLKE: I particularly asked to pull that, Max, since you
previously had a meeting with EPD and to see what impact that meeting will
have one the results of this study.
MR. HICKS: The study had pretty well indicated, Commissioner, that the
most that I thought we could hope to get from them, particularly with this
initial application, would be those two wellfields and the maximum of five,
and they've referred to an average of 3.25, because other considerations would
lead to draw down, particularly in the Hephzibah area and in other existing
wells in the area perhaps would be unacceptable. So what they've told us is
pretty well what I had anticipated regarding the aquifer, but the additional
information that they gave us regarding the desire for us to move more to
surface water was new.
MR. TODD: Mr. Hicks, who made the recommendation to accept as
information the report?
MR. HICKS: I put it that way on the agenda, to receive it as
information.
MR. TODD: My concern is that you've already obtained the permit
application and preparing to move on this; is that correct?
MR. HICKS: We have been studying those permit applications. They are
fairly extensive in that in 1994 there is--since then there is a new
requirement that there be a water conservation plan included, so it's a little
more lengthy than just a straightforward application at this time. We are
working on it, but it has not yet been completed or submitted.
MR. TODD: I'm somewhat reluctant to deal with a receipt of
information motion that--you know, it's been pointed out to me this is an
effective way to kill it. So what I'd like to do is to make a motion that
we approve it, the study, even though I--that we approve the study and that
we approve you going ahead with the permit for what EPD recommend we do a
permit for. That's in the form of a motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, it's my understanding that this modeling that was
done with the--it was a very conservative model, but, you know, [inaudible].
You know, I think that all of us are concerned about the aquifers, concerned
about the draw down and the negative effect that it may have on scales of
efficiency on our existing wells and on our neighbors' wells, but I think that
there are some other concerns that we need to request that our consultants and
EPD come into Augusta-Richmond County and do a environmental impact statement
on the aquifer and also do a water statement of impact on the aquifer. I
think it's important that we do those two and that we have folks, you know, at
least discuss the aquifer. Because I can assure you that without using true
science the good citizens in South Richmond is not willing to come off the
well water, nor should they, when we're talking about probably 18 cents per
thousand gallon difference in the treatment of surface water versus well
water. And when we talk millions times 18 cents, we're talking real dollars.
MR. HICKS: I would like to offer--and it is a conservative model. The
difference was this, as it was presented by Mr. Gorday at the meeting: the
draw down using the conservative model in the Hephzibah area would be 11 feet
in this proposal. Using a not-conservative model and probably the most
liberal approach would be a draw down of two feet. So we're talking about that
kind of differential. But it is true, this is a conservative approach. And I
appreciate the motion to go ahead and develop the wellfields, or to approve
that application, because then we can set up further modeling once we do these
wells, if we can get that approval, and determine exactly what the nature of
the aquifer is in that area.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Todd's motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Item 21 is a motion to approve a contract with Rothberg,
Tamburini & Winsor, Inc. for water and wastewater Facilities Master Plan at
a cost not to exceed fee of $40,000.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. KUHLKE: My reason for pulling that, Mr. Hicks, is this: I
understand that we're going to have a meeting on September the 19th to look at
the long-range plans of the Utilities Department and so forth in conjunction
with the Planning Commission to see where our growth corridors are going to be
and so forth. If we approve this today, is this something that should be
included in that meeting that we have in September to see--or should these
people be involved in that meeting so that we know that we are compatible with
Utilities' long-range plans and the Planning Commission's long range plans as
far as the growth of this community goes?
MR. HICKS: What we had asked them to do was to look at the ability of
the water treatment plant and the wells to meet their design criteria. The
wells at each plant were designed for 10 million gallons a day and there's
been no proposal to expand to 60 million gallons a day. That was the original
design criteria. The purpose for having them come in and do a comprehensive
performance evaluation was to have a verification that each unit or facility
was capable of being expanded to 60 million gallons a day. They determined
that it was. Now what we need to do is put some meat to that and get some
cost of it. It would be very good to have that when we come together in
September. The filter plant really is the key to the water service to this
whole area, so this will be very valuable information when we do come
together.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I certainly agree with the Director. I think that
anyone that's looking at Augusta-Richmond County on the Internet and looking
at the problems we've had with water would want to know--and I'm speaking of
potential industries looking to come here--would want to know what we're doing
about the situation. And I think this is a proactive initiative where we're
talking about doing a five-foot line up to the filter plant, but we haven't
dealt with doing the value engineering as far as [inaudible] 60 million versus
45 million. If we're not going to do that, then there's no need to have the
capacity to put the 60 million there at the treatment plant, the physical
plant. So I certainly think that we need to do this and I would urge my
colleagues to support this. And, you know, the bottom line is regardless of
what we do on well water, we still need this additional capacity on the
surface water side because right now we don't have water--if we look at what
we show on the Internet as far as the Chamber's home page, etc., we don't have
the water to give industry. And we need that water to give industry and we
need it regardless of what source it come from, surface or well. I shouldn't
say--excuse me, not give, sell. Thank you.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I think that some of the comments we've heard
during the water situation have been, you know, do you have a plan, and this
is an affirmative way to answer that we are planning to cope with this
situation. And it strikes me, Commissioner Todd, that another group who might
be interested in the progress that we are making in terms of this situation,
not only with reference to this agenda item, Number 21, but also agenda item
Number 13, is the Grand Jury. I think that one Grand Jury would refer the
continuing inquiry to another Grand Jury that would come in, and I was
wondering if you would accept an amendment to the motion, which I did second
it: we forward the results of our progress of these relevant items, such as
the creation of the Finance Director for the Utilities Department and the
proposed master plan contract, on to that office as well so that Mr. Craig
could--on day one when they come in, I think the next one comes in in
September, they could have this information from this body.
MR. TODD: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I would accept that. And may I further
comment, Mr. Mayor? I'll make it brief. I addressed the Grand Jury this
morning, it was on a volunteer basis, and certainly I forwarded the
information that I have obtained, or at least copies of it. And I think it's
important that we keep all grand juries and people in this issue informed of
our progress and our corrective action as far as water go.
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.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. HANDY OUT]
CLERK: Under Public Safety, Items 23 and 24, consent agenda.
[23. Motion to approve Phase 2: Purchase, under State Contract #466-
00-50041, for Mobile-Vision System-5 In Car Video System (in use by Georgia
and South Carolina State Patrol) for 35 patrol units at a total cost,
including installation, of $127,419 ($3,470/unit plus $150/unit
installation, and four 75' cables to make cameras portable for use in
working fatalities at a cost of $400.00 for all four cables. 24.
Motion to approve bid award for printing services for Augusta-Richmond
County Information Technology Department to low bidder, AccuData Solution,
Inc.]
CLERK: Do you offer that, Mr. Handy?
MR. HANDY: Yeah, if somebody will give me a second.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 25 is a motion to approve hiring an Application Manager I
for the Finance project, an Application Manager II for the Tax Assessor
project, and a System Administrator II, with salaries within their
respective salary ranges.
MR. OLIVER: There have been some changes. The person that we had
proposed to hire to be the Finance project manager elected to stay with the
firm that they were with. The person was concerned that the ongoing business
viability, because another product had been developed and business had
downturned, but they made some agreements with her that made her feel more
comfortable, so she has elected to stay and she has withdrawn. She was the
person there was substantial discussion at committee about doing one thing as
it relates to accruing vacation. In light of the fact that she withdrew, what
we are asking for here is to hire, and we have one candidate for one of the
three positions asked for here, but to give us the flexibility to hire a
person or any of these three positions within the range. As you can well
imagine, right now the difficulty is, particularly in the Information
Technology area, that resources are hard to come by because of the demand, and
the Year 2000 problems additionally. The one person that left that was an
Application Manager was a senior person and they were very close to the top of
the range, and obviously you need a senior person in that position.
The only one we actually have a person to fill is the second one, and
that is the Application Manager II, and what we're asking for is to bring that
person in at $40,000, which is about 18% above the bottom of the range.
Within administrative flexibility, we have the ability to bring them in at 10
over. The person that they are replacing made $45,426, so we think that the
numbers are in line, but we're asking for the flexibility to hire within the
range. Mr. Rushton is here if you have any questions of him, the Information
Technology Director.
MR. KUHLKE: I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. HANDY: I just have one question. Mr. Oliver, 10% you say we can do-
- MR. OLIVER: Administratively, 10% is the limit that I have the
authority that you've given me to do.
MR. HANDY: And you're asking for eight more percent?
MR. OLIVER: That's correct. That's for just the one position, now. The
other two would be anywhere within the range.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is probably similar to what it
was in committee, and we're not having to deal with that today and for that
reason I think that's good. I thought at that point that we probably might not
be able to keep that person anyway, and I really think--and this is in all
fairness, particularly to Mr. Rushton and the changes that are going on there
in that department. He can't control that marketplace, and maybe a separate
dialogue of some type maybe needs to be done with this Commission as we relate
to it, but I'd still like to also deal with the fact of better than 2,000
other folk that we employ. Now, you know, we can't--we have some things that
need to be articulated a little bit better. When we start swapping these
numbers around and we start saying to some departments what we--not can't do
but what we aren't going to do, that we aren't going to go past certain ranges
and certain percentages, that's it, and we're going to take some in some
ranges and we ask for that flexibility. And I realize six votes pretty much,
as they used to say in the old days, does anything, we're getting into a
situation whereby--and I was going to bring this up with the other one, but
I'm going to go on and bring it up even though that's not on there and even
though that's been taken care of. You know, when you hear the type of
language that floats around that folk--and I'm going to apologize to Mr. Rush-
ton because this doesn't necessarily deal with his department, but it deals
with the way some of this stuff is coming to us, and there ain't no better
place to discuss it than in this room.
You know, we talk about who's overly qualified to go certain places and
certain areas, and we hear that kind of language. Some of us have heard it
for decades where you get overly qualified so you're not going to stay, and so
then we're not going to look at you, and yet we go out of our way to want to
offer the world in some cases to folk that we say we can't miss and we got to
have. I just think, Mr. Mayor, somewhere we need to start playing that game
in Personnel a little bit by one set of rules. I realize in your department
we're going to have to
probably make some exceptions, but I think with the number of grievances that
we've heard based on a salary study that the employees did not initiate, did
not vote on, did not put into place, we did that as the policy-makers and
caused the havoc that we got out of it. And having to deal with that--and I
realize Mr. Oliver and those have done an excellent job of going through those
persons and through those numbers, but I just think somewhere there needs to
be a little bit more of a common denominator other than the fact that
sometimes we pick a place where we can't miss. And those persons may not even
be running a department. We have people in areas that are running the whole
ball of wax, and if the train jumps off track they've got all the
responsibility for it, 100% of it, and yet we can't make certain adjustments
in those departments, and I think that's a little bit kind of speaking with
forked tongue. Now, I'm not going to vote to oppose what you're doing in
this one, but I'm just putting that in there for the record that I hope that
when we are considering what we're going to do in some of these other areas,
that we also realize that many times when people make contributions,
particularly that can save departments money, that can better benefit the city
and make the city look good, that we ought to go by that same type of rule,
too, when we're going to talk about other incentives in those departments.
And I just wanted to put that in there, Mr. Mayor, for the record because
this--again, I don't think we ought to get in the business of sending out
different types of messages in the same [inaudible].
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I just want to clarify a couple of things here,
or maybe one. To the Administrator, we are only dealing with Application
Manager II here?
MR. OLIVER: No, we're asking for the flexibility to deal with all
three. And the reason we're asking for that flexibility is that by the time
we bring those qualifications back to you all, anybody that's actively seeking
a job--it takes about three weeks by the time we get through committee,
potentially at a minimum of two weeks, and so consequently we can't react
quick enough and any qualified candidate already has another position. So
we're asking for the flexibility on the two that we don't have a candidate for
at this time because the one person backed out, to have the flexibility to do
it within the salary range based on qualifications. As you can see--well, I
don't think you got the memo that was furnished to me by Mr. Rushton, but the
person that was in that job before was making--in the Application I slot was
making $53,467, and we were asking for 55, and basically she had a high school
education with some minimal college training.
MR. BEARD: I just want to clarify a few things. When we give you that
approval, are we going to talk about 10, 15, or 17 or 18 percent?
MR. OLIVER: Well, what we were originally asking for with the other
person--and I've got no problem with capping the limit at the same 55. I
don't have a problem with that. The range is 35,972 to 57,556. And as Mr.
Rushton, I'm sure, will agree, the person that oversees your financial
implementation needs to be a very senior person that's very skilled.
MR. BEARD: But I guess what I'm getting at is that, you know, normally
you give, what, 10%? You said you could go up to 10%, and I think with
authorization 15%?
MR. OLIVER: Right now the policy provides, with the Administrator's
approval, that the salary can go over 10% of the bottom of the range. What
that doesn't allow for, however, is to bring in a person that in case had 13
years or 12 years of experience.
MR. BEARD: Well, I guess I'm concerned, and I'm echoing what
Commissioners Mays said, but I'm concerned about people in that same
department, counterparts to this Application I Manager, persons who have been
there or a person who's been there for years--and this is not only in this
department but some other departments, and I think that is sending the wrong
signal when we say these people can come in at an increase or a salary higher
than those people who have been there for some time. Most of them are doing
the same thing, and sometimes they are doing more than that. And I do
understand the position that Mr. Rushton is in and that department is in, but
I think that if we're going to--the disparity that exists, that we're going to
have to really look at this, and maybe in some of these work sessions that
we're going to propose for the future between now and December maybe we can
look at that and come up with some conclusions. Because I think we're going
to create a [inaudible] at a higher rate than those who have been there, it's
going to really create a problem, and I'm just wondering about the fairness
that exists when we do that. So I think we're either going to have to hold to
that or find some other methods of doing this.
MR. OLIVER: Well, I think--and I'll let Mr. Rushton speak to this if he
likes, but clearly at it relates to this Application Manager I in Information
Technology, there's no one over there that can perform to that level. The
qualifications aren't there. I think that--and there was no one that could be
promoted into that position that could effectively do that. Might I suggest
as an alternate that you give us authority to go 50% over the minimum in IT,
because I think that will give us the flexibility and perhaps narrow the gap,
if you will, and still achieve the objective.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that if I understand Information
Technology and how fast the industry is changing, and surely if the industry
is changing, then the technicians has got to change on the same speed or
they're left behind. And the demand for the technicians and analysts, that I
don't think we're going to fill positions unless we're willing to pay for
them. And the difference is that I think it's probably the difference
in a general practitioner, if I'm looking at a doctor, and a brain surgeon.
The bottom line is that we're going to get what we pay for. And I think that
if our folks that's in-house want to make the same kinds of money that this
market is going to demand, then maybe, you know, we need to look at helping
them obtain the level of training to enable them to move into the positions.
But if the person is not trained, I don't see the person being able to do the
job; therefore, we're dumbing down our Information Technology where we're
going to be on the slow highway versus the fast highway as far as technology
go. And I would hope that we could find a way to do this and at the same time
be fair to our career employees. We've hired some folks since we
consolidated, some pretty high-dollar folks, you know, in that we never paid
anyone the kind of money we pay Randy Oliver. We probably never paid anyone
the kind of money that we pay Mr. Rushton for the position that he have, you
know, etc. Where I'm for not spending any more than we absolutely have to,
and I'm for being fair to those career employees that's, you know, probably
not fighting us but trying to survive tooth and nail on these grievance
hearings, and I'm not sure they're getting a fair shake, I'm also for spending
what we need to spend in a high tech area such as Information Technology.
Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, just one thing, and I'll be real brief on this
before Mr. Rushton speaks. And this is just a consideration, and I know we
get something similar in sales tax, and this is why I've been saying that
probably this is an area--
and I've expressed it privately with Mr. Rushton, one of the reasons I don't
want to beat him up on getting [inaudible] because you do have a fast-changing
situation there with Information Tech. But maybe one of the things we may
want to consider--and I don't know, Mr. Wall, how legally we can do this. My
thing is not so much on the fact of us settling to dumb down on people we
hire, but, in all fairness, first we're going to get back to that Manager I
position and what was required in there, and that's why I brought up about in
other areas about folk being overly qualified where we turn them down and
don't hire them. We've had that to happen recently. That's no fault of
yours, Mr. Rushton, at all, but--and it didn't occur in your department. But
what I'm saying, when that type of language goes out, that you won't stay in
this area because you're too overly qualified, but then you beat down the
bushes in the world to get someone in another area that is, even above what
you put in the job description requirements, then I think you ought to think
about it and ask a couple of questions about it.
And what I think it ought to lead to, Jim, if you can legally do this,
and may not be able to, if you're going to--I'm concerned about not only
attracting people in Information Tech but also in keeping them there, and
maybe there might need to be a specialized situation to deal with Information
Tech that if you're going to have to go out--maybe what we're doing, maybe it
isn't enough top to bottom there. Maybe we need to deal with yours
differently and in some different numbers. But if we're
going to deal with it that way, then I think we need to think of looking at
what we can deal with with some type of minimum contracts that will tie people
to that department. And I brought up the situation about the revolving door
situation that we had some years ago in terms of law enforcement. We can't
also become a public government training ground either while Information Tech
advances. What I'm saying there is if you're going to do that to get people,
then we ought to do some things to keep them. I'm for giving you, if
necessary, Mr. Oliver, giving you 25% to get them if it's going to run what
he's got. But if somebody else comes along--like you had a guy over in there
that went from, what was it, 30-something to 70-something on what he scored on
the test. He took off and left that same day. The ones that we give you 18%,
if that's the case, they're going to be gone too and you're still going to be
back to hiring somebody else. So I think somewhere in there we need to
look at a different methodology on how you're going to attract, but also how
you're going to keep. It doesn't make a lot of sense to go out of that mode,
deal with possibly downing your morale to do it, but then not having a way to
get those people to hold. Those incentives, yes, put them out there as a
government, but also you ought to be able to at least keep somebody in place
for a certain period of time. And I don't think necessarily while your
marketplace is going in that manner, that you're going to be able to really
hold them even if what you're dealing with there is looking at 18% if you're
going to look at it from that theory point of it. So I think we need to talk
about that some, and if you're going to do that and give you those kind of
exceptional numbers, then maybe tie some contracts in there to say, hey, you
know, you're with us for a certain period of time; and, you know, if not, then
we prorate on that. But there's ways you can deal with contractual employees.
MR. OLIVER: What a lot of organizations in Information Technology are
doing, and we've had some discussions and I agree with you, Mr. Mays, is they
will give them what's called an annual amount of money. In other words, it
basically says, okay, after you've been here a year you get a lump sum or
after you get this application up, because the key thing to us is to get an
application installed, you get an additional lump sum. The advantage to that
is it keeps them there till the project is completed. We are evaluating that
because we believe that there are unique needs at this point in Information
Technology, and we're hoping within the next couple of weeks to have what we
suggest. But the key there is we don't want somebody that's here for half of
the implementation of a project and then somebody else has to pick it up after
it's half way or three-quarters of the way done, and we're trying to look at
things that are innovative and creative, but yet fall within the parameters of
the laws of the state of Georgia.
MR. MAYS: Well, I guess then--and I don't want to look like I'm beating
Rush to death because he needs what you're going to have to deal with in that
department. Would the maker of the motion have any problem with incorporating
that language to move forward into that type of agreement to study those type
of options to try and help to state that? And I know you can't stabilize it
because you're dealing with a situation that's a little different and
constantly moving, but at the same time I want to make sure that we aren't
revisiting this type of thing. I don't think it's fair to you, I don't think
it's fair to the citizens of this city if we got to keep revisiting it.
Something in there that can help to stabilize that maybe on a different
methodology to where we can maybe look at--and you were talking about with
that type of incentive, Randy, as opposed to doing it just to grab and then as
soon as the next offer comes along, you know, then that person is gone. And I
think a good example of that, while even I argued against it and didn't vote
for it, is the fact that just how quickly, you know, somebody may have been
out of a job and we were doing all the things we could do to get them, and
then at the same time that person changes their mind from that week to this
one because of other incentives over there. You're going to have the same
thing unless you tie some folk to something that--they're going to be gone
anywhere and Rush is going to be back over here pleading for some more folk
because he's going to be the only one over there, as Moses said, in one of
them high-paid jobs. He's going to either have to perform it at the salary
he's in or else he's going to pass the test for it and then be gone, too, if
somebody can get him back into a six-figure language of leaving Augusta-
Richmond County. So, I mean, if the maker would do that, I'd like to see
something put in place to get y'all--if we're going to deal with some folk
differently, then let's sit down and talk about how we're going to deal with
them.
MR. OLIVER: And we don't expect this problem to ease up until after the
turn of the century because of all the computer needs at least through that
point, and probably it's going to languish into the beginning of the next
century. Because I think you can read any publication regarding employment
opportunities and they'll say go into the computer field.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, who was the maker of the motion? I can't
remember.
MR. KUHLKE: I was. And I would amend my motion that we include the
first 20 minutes of Mr. Todd's [sic]--amend my motion that we direct the
Administrator to look at alternative ways to enhance people to stay in a
position and to develop alternative incentives. Does that kind of encompass
what you're talking about Mr. Mays?
MR. MAYS: Keep going, it's sounding good.
MR. KUHLKE: That's all I can remember. That's basically your--
MR. MAYS: That's fine. I just think somewhere in there--and I've
talked to him about that and some things maybe we need to do and get it in to
try and help make that work, but I just want to see us get off square one
other than the fact of just trying to up salary and do a matching game. We
don't have the money to do that.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, you know, I don't know whether it's appropriate to
say this, but I believe Mr. Rushton loves Augusta so well that he took six
figures or maybe seven figures and stayed here, and so hopefully he's not
going to leave us behind. And the other side of it is that I would assume
that everybody got their letters in reference the Information Technology
luncheon at Fort Gordon, and please let's go out and support our Director in
that, have lunch at Fort Gordon and participate in some of it, and I'll try to
be there, Mr. Mayor.
MR. RUSHTON: I would like to address some of the things that have been
said. First of all, we had three Application Manager I positions open. Of
the three, we did promote one in-house into that position, so we have promoted
one into that role. We still at this time have the two openings for
Application Manager I. For the ones that we're looking at, and it's in your
write-up of the agenda item, the ones that have applied have taken jobs
elsewhere anywhere from 63 to 75 thousand. Matter of fact, Mr. Beard, one of
the ones you gave us took a job at 63,000. If you approve this at only 50% of
the salary range, that means the maximum that we could hire someone into this
salary would be 46,000, so we're competing at 46,000 compared to the ones that
are taking the 63 to the 75 thousand
type jobs. And these are local jobs. These are not in Atlanta, these are not
in Charlotte; we're talking about in Thomson, Augusta, Aiken. We're talking
about local jobs that these people are taking at these salaries. Second of
all, we've got local people that we are trying to work with in some of these
other positions that are open. The 50% is going to be hard to track. We are
having to take--people to take price cuts to stay in Augusta, as Commissioner
Todd mentioned, and 50% is still going to be hard to accomplish that.
One of the other areas we talked about is completing projects. Like
Randy Oliver has said, we've got two projects, two major projects, that we're
in the middle of. We had to stop, delay three months, try to hire somebody,
try to juggle people to finish, because the leaders of these projects left in
the middle of these projects. And we have contract obligations to these
vendors to pay them on dates and off of points that--it's our fault the reason
we're having implementation because of the people leaving. So this is another
area we need the help to get these projects implemented and contained. And
back to Commissioner Mays' point, we need whatever type of incentives, and
we'll be glad to research that to see that the incentives retain the people.
We need to retain them because we do not need to be a revolving door once we
do put this in place. I appreciate all y'alls effort on approving this
motion.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, sir. All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion
with all the addendums added to it, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Under Public Service portion of the agenda, Items 26 through 34
were approved by the committee on July 27th.
[26. Motion to approve new ownership request by Warren Keith Rendt for
a consumption of premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in
connection with Chili's Grill Bar located at 273 Robert C. Daniel, Jr.
Parkway. There will be Sunday sales. 27. Motion to approve new
application request by Eugene Curry for a retail package beer & wine
license to be used in connection with E&J Grocery located at 1229 12th
2
Street. 28. Motion to approve new application request by Lonnie G.
Anderson for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with
Bryant's Food & Fuel Store located at 2361 Washington Road. 29.
Motion to approve new ownership request by Rose C. Bass for a consumption
on premises liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Kokopelli's Lounge located at 3415 Wrightsboro Road. There will be a
2
dance hall. 30. Motion to approve and award professional services for
architecture and engineering to Johnson, Laschober & Associates for $14,200
for Eastview Park Improvements. 31. Motion to approve a capital
expenditure of $1,925.00 for Change Order No. 1 for the construction of the
Augusta Swim Center to Two State Construction Company. 32. Motion to
approve and award the new heating and cooling units for W.T. Johnson
Community Center bid to Busby's in the amount of $45,998.00. 33.
Motion to approve contract with Two State Design Group to provide
architectural and related consultant services for the planning and
completion of renovation and repairs to the Augusta-Richmond County
Libraries at a cost of $72,750.00. 34. Motion to deny the request by
Johnny Glasker, Sr. to add a Sunday Sales license to his present
consumption on premises liquor, beer & wine license used in connection with
Johnny's Supper Club located at 1669 Olive Road.]
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve those items so
numbered as a consent agenda, and that the audience be polled to see if we
have any objectors on the alcohol.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I second the motion.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Todd. Does anybody want any pulled
before we proceed?
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry to interrupt you. We had a phone call,
at least to Mr. Walker's office, that he might want to comment on them, but I
don't think it will affect my--change the way I made the motion because I
think--and that's on Item Number 34. Because the party still has the right
for reconsideration on that particular one, so that wouldn't change or take
anything away from his rights, but he may want to comment on that.
MR. WALKER: We just had a telephone call from Mr. Glasker a little while
ago saying he was in the VA Hospital and asked that we postpone the hearing
until the meeting or until he gets out. But as Mr. Mays says, if it's denied
today he's still got the right to ask for a reconsideration of it at the next
meeting, so you would hear it again if you wanted to.
CLERK: [Reads alcohol license requests.] Are there any objectors to
those applications as read? [None noted.]
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect that I voted against 27.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, let the record reflect I voted against Sunday
sales on 26.
MR. TODD VOTES NO ON ITEM 27.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEM 27.
MR. BRIDGES VOTING NO ON ITEM 26.
MOTION CARRIES 8-1, ITEM 26.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0, ITEMS 28-34.
CLERK: Item 35 is to rescind the appointment of Mr. Robert Gordon to
the Downtown Development Authority and consider the appointment of Mr. Les
Morton.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I so move. And for the record, the reason that
Mr. Gordon was not appointed is because he lives in another county.
MR. TODD: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, Lee and Jerry and Bill went out and moved that
line, and that's how that happened. Lee and Bill did anyway. Me and Jerry
tried to shift the line around the side of the house.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, are these separate votes or are these one
vote? CLERK: Mr. Wall said one vote.
MR. WALL: Unless somebody wants to separate them. If you want to
separate it, you can. But, I mean, unless there's an objection it'd be one.
If there's an objection, we need to separate them.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: I would rather separate them.
MR. WALL: Then we need to take the rescission first.
MR. KUHLKE: I so move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do my colleague down there, Mr. Beard, have some
salt I can put on my part of the crow I got to eat?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Beard, do you want to withdraw your motion so we
can-- MR. BEARD: I will withdraw my motion so we can take them
separately.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So it's Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard to rescind.
Discussion on that, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion to
rescind, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we open the floor for nominations for
the appointment to the Downtown Development Authority.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We don't need a motion, just start making your
nominations.
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we appoint Mr. Les Morton.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear other nominations?
MR. HANDY: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I have one, but let me find out what
her last name is. I know her first name is Jackie. Ms. Bonner, could you
help me a minute?
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, a point of information. If I remember the
procedures, that there were--we all had an opportunity to submit applicants,
and I guess the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem received five names or six and we
pull from those, and that was our option as far as nominees was from those
that was presented
to us. MR. BEARD: It would appear to me that we have two names that we
can consider that we didn't consider, because the names that were submitted,
you only have two left. Mr. Morton was one, and I think there was one other
name which I can't recall. And those were the two left that we had accepted
at the last meeting, and it appears to me that those are the two we would have
to vote on.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I put in the name of Matthew Aitken, and that
was the second one.
MR. BEARD: So if we're going to vote, then it appears to me--I don't
know [inaudible] but those would be the two names that we could vote on.
MR. HANDY: But I've got something to say about that. We've lost one,
you withdrew one, so there is an opening.
MR. BEARD: Not really, because we were asked to support those--turn in
our list, and those were the names that were submitted.
MR. HANDY: What you got to say about that, Jim?
MR. WALL: In the past y'all have adopted a policy that you had to turn
in a talent bank sheet in order to be considered for appointment to a
position, and there was an advertising process by which people were notified
of the availability. Y'all have been through that process. Now, I don't know
whether the additional person has a talent bank sheet or not. I think the
process that Mr. Beard has reference to is that apparently a letter was sent
out to the Commissioners asking them to nominate people for this particular
position. I think that was done--and I may be in error, but I think that was
done as an administrative effort to try to do this. The only requirement that
I know of that has been voted on by the full Commission is that they have in
the Clerk's Office a talent bank questionnaire, and I don't know whether these
people-- MR. BEARD: And that questionnaire should also be submitted to
the--in the book here so that we would have an opportunity to view it. I
would move that we--where are we now?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, we've got two names. We've got Les Morton and
Matt Aitken.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Mayor, I move that nominations be closed.
MR. BEARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Morton, let it be known
by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. HANDY & MR. SHEPARD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MAYOR SCONYERS: So we need to move on to Matt Aitken. All in favor of
Mr. Aitken, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD, MR. J. BRIGHAM, MR. MAYS & MR. TODD VOTE NO.
MOTION FAILS 5-4.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, call for the order of the day.
CLERK: Item 36 is to discuss the appointment of Ms. Susan Bennett,
Mr. John Green, and Mrs. Anna El Gammal to the Citizens Advisory Committee
of the Augusta Regional Transportation Study as recommended by the Planning
Director.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, the way I read this letter, this looks like
we're trying to replace these people, not trying to nominate them. Maybe I'm
wrong. Are you wanting names or are you wanting to name these people?
CLERK: Well, Mr. Oliver put it in to discuss appointment--to replace, so
it's worded wrong on there. So I guess what we should do is consider
replacing those appointees.
SPEAKER: That is a letter essentially saying that these three people
have resigned. They were requesting that you as a body appoint three people
in their place.
MR. HANDY: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to postpone this one,
because we're not ready for that yet.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. OLIVER: Well, the reason I placed it as discuss is these are
recommendations of the Planning Commission, and obviously you're free to
accept the recommendation or reject the recommendation.
MR. WALL: No, these--they resigned.
MR. OLIVER: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I apologize.
MR. HANDY: We have to get three people now.
SPEAKER: ...certainly work with you in any way we can to help
facilitate the new appointments.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I would suggest that we get with our board
appointees to the State Board of Transportation and certainly have some
individuals involved that's interested in overall transportation in this area
and know what the local government, Chamber of Commerce, industrial
governmental authorities' priorities are. I think that's very important.
Those are my comments. I attended a meeting at the Medical College building
some years ago and [inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, maybe we can get Mr. Patty to help us here.
SPEAKER: Yeah, we'll be glad to help y'all.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy, do you want to change your motion then to--
MR. HANDY: No, I want it to stay like it is until George give us a list
so we have something to work with.
CLERK: Your motion was to postpone?
MR. HANDY: Right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BRIDGES NOT VOTING.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0.
CLERK: Item 37: Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting
of the Commission held July 21, 1998.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion to approve, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, gentlemen.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 38: Reconsideration of the action of the Commission
taken (June 2, 1998) in denying a request of abatement of taxes request
from Mr. Edward K. Woltz.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, do we have someone here to tell us why we should
reconsider?
MR. WOLTZ: If I could, I'm not requesting abating the taxes
but the penalties and interest associated with it. And if I could just give
you a brief reason why, I think--I'll try to be as brief as I can. Going back
as far as November '92 when I paid my taxes on the property at 3224
Wrightsboro Road, I received the tax bill at my office at 1310 Whiskey Road.
December 1st, '92, a letter was sent to 1320 Whiskey Road that I never
received saying that the '91 taxes have not been paid. I never got that
letter, it went to the wrong address. December 10th, '92, I received a
Sheriff's levy at my home at 1014 Westwood Drive for the '91 taxes. I
investigated and found that the '91 bill had been sent to Ed Woltz,
Wrightsboro Road. The post office could not deliver that, and we corrected
that problem at the Tax Office and have since paid the taxes. Since that time
and all the way through '94 all of my tax bills went to my office at 1310
Whiskey Road. In 1995 I moved and my bills were sent to the property address
at 3224 Wrightsboro Road and have always been paid on time. In March of
this year I went to my old office at 1310 Whiskey Road, which was scheduled
for demolition, and found a notice in there for the '97 taxes saying that they
haven't been paid and they were past due and there's penalties and interest on
them. The original notice was never received by my office or sent to the
appropriate address. On April 2nd--or right after that, rather, I spoke to
Mr. Williamson, and he looked in the computer and somehow the address was
wrong, and he corrected the address once again in the computer. On April 2nd,
on Mr. Williamson's advice, I wrote and requested an appeal on those taxes
because he said that the penalty and interest would have to come through this
board. On May 20th I received a notice of a Sheriff's levy again on that
property. And that was served at my home again at 1014 Westwood Drive, so it
seems like whenever I'm in trouble they can find me at home, but the rest of
the time they can't get my bills to me. On May 28th I called Mr.
Williamson's office to find out why I had not been able to appeal this. He
was not in, so I came down to the office and I spoke to someone who's name, I
apologize, I don't remember. But the gentleman down there informed me that
now I had to pay the taxes and that I needed to pay it all in full before the
time is up. I received a call back [inaudible] Mr. Williamson saying that I
had an appeal here June 2nd, but I received no notice of that, so I talked to
him about it and he said he would get back with me and tell me when I could
write again. So on June 30th he did and said I should send the request for
review, and I did, and so I'm here. Now, I've had these notices sent to the
same address for years. For some reason one year it went just to me and some
road. I don't know what happened in '97 and why it got done. Mr. Williamson
corrected this back in March, but on July 23rd this year, just recently here,
I was sent a tax appraisal on that same property to a post office box.
Fortunately, the mailman recognized the name and delivered it to me. That's
not even my post office box. All I'm requesting is, not abating my taxes,
but the $570.98 this exercise has cost me. In '92 I paid it when it got sent
to the wrong address, and now I'm stuck again with having it sent to the wrong
address. And it was supposed to have been corrected in
March of this year, but in July it's still happening again. And yet every
time they want to sell the--or, you know, do the Sheriff's action against me
they can find me at home. I'm just requesting--I've paid it all now, and now
I'm requesting a refund.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I don't have a problem with the penalty and I don't
have a problem with the interest over what you would have made, you know, in
having the money in the bank, so-- MR. WOLTZ: I'm just requesting, you
know, the difference it cost me, what your bill was.
MR. OLIVER: Ms. Watson called down to Mr. Williamson's office, and Mr.
Williamson is at a doctor's appointment. She talked with Mr. Saul. Mr. Saul
indicated Mr. Williamson had been working on this. We have pulled the prior
agenda item, and what Mr. Saul has asked is that this be postponed until Mr.
Williamson can be present. For the record, the minutes say this is a case
where Mr. Woltz contends that he didn't get a bill. A bill was sent, and he
says to the same address, and beyond that I can't answer that. And as I say,
Mr. Saul has asked that it be postponed till the next time to give them an
opportunity.
MR. BRIDGES: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. TODD: I'll be as brief as I can. Mr. Mayor, you know, I had alluded
to the taxpayer paying us the interest up to what he would have made on the
money if it was in the bank. I would hope that if we drag this deal out and
he's already paid, that we would pay him this number, and if we agree to
waiver these, that we would pay him the difference in the interest that he
could have made on his money. And that's where I'll leave it.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, it sounds like a comedy of errors to me as far
the mailing and so forth, and here's a gentleman that has taken his time to
come down here and appeal before this board. I'd like to make a substitute
motion that we rebate this gentleman for the penalty and interest--
MR. WALL: I don't think we're doing interest.
MR. KUHLKE: --penalty and get it over with.
MR. TODD: I'll second that to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor, on the
interest side, what do we charge a taxpayer in interest and is it more than
what he would have made in the bank if he had it in the bank?
MR. OLIVER: Mr. Todd, I would contend that obviously if a
person is assessed a penalty and they don't believe that the
penalty is appropriate, that they would come in and make their case for that
and that type thing. So, you know, two weeks worth of interest isn't going to
be all that much on--it's 300 and some odd dollars, I think that it is.
MR. WALL: I think the penalty is the main thing he's after. That's a
significant-- MR. KUHLKE: Is that what you're interested in is the
penalty?
MR. WOLTZ: Anything compared to nothing at this point. I'm tired of
coming back down here, to be honest.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other discussion, gentlemen? The substitute motion
first made by Mr. Kuhlke. Do you want to read that, Ms. Bonner?
CLERK: Yes, sir. To rebate the penalty.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. HANDY VOTES NO; MR. BRIDGES ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1.
CLERK: Item 39: Discuss the repealing of Section (2) of Ordinance
No. 5904 entitled "An Ordinance to amend the Personnel Policies and
Procedures Manual for Richmond County, Georgia so as to modify the
grievance and appeals process for employees.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, in the essence of time, I don't have any problem
with this going back to the respective committee, I guess over in
Administrative Services. And one of the reasons I put it on in reference to
discussion is that I hope it will not only--there's been some discussion in
reference to what was intended when we passed this particular ordinance, and
some of us had talked individually, groups of ones, twos, the whole nine
yards, in reference to the fact of how we would deal with it in the final
analysis on whether we still retain that right to hear an employee. And I
think what a lot of us were looking at, particularly in the cases of long-
term, tenured employees, of having still a right to come before this
Commission, and it's simply out here for discussion at this time. And I don't
have a problem, like I said, with it going back to committee, in the essence
of time, and giving it an opportunity to be discussed in Administrative
Services, but I think it's something that probably a large number of us have
maybe a different interpretation of what the ordinance says. I don't think
it's been [inaudible], but some people have said recently, you know, I thought
that we still retained the option when we were allowing Personnel to do it
totally. Some it's been where we didn't have it, and that was
my reason for putting it out there.
But my second reason for putting it out and definitely something that we
can't do today, but I think it's something that it needs to lead to, and that
being some type of merit situation in terms of the people who work for this
government. We've got a lot of people that come through Human Resources and
Payroll that we are somewhat the guardians of as though they are not employees
totally lock, stock and barrel, but this Commissioner feels like there's
probably been a loose interpretation of people working at the pleasure of.
Working at the pleasure of doesn't disturb me as much as what happens when you
work at the displeasure of. And I think that's something that needs to be
looked at and addressed on a long-range basis, particularly when you've got
tenured folk, and you may have occasions of where folk in certain departments
can work a year and a day and they actually have more rights than people that
stay here 19 or 20 years and simply because that pleasure runs out they don't
even get a chance to address this group in a public forum. Maybe they still
have that right, but that was one of my reasons for putting it here at least
for discussion. And if it goes back to that particular committee, I don't
have a problem with it, but I think at some point we need to address it,
particularly if we've passed an ordinance and there are different
interpretations of what that ordinance says in relationship to employees, and
that was my reason for putting it on.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I move that we refer this item to the
Administrative Services Committee.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's
motion, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. TODD OUT]
CLERK: Item 40 is to accept Commissioner Todd's letter of
resignation.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess he's out of the room, so I can't ask him
probably the intent of his letter. I don't know whether he plans to return or
not during the basis of this discussion, but probably Mr. Wall I might would
like to hear from--well, my colleague is back now and I basically can ask him.
There was some concern in reference to the timing of the particular letter
dated a forward date, at the end of August, and whether or not we deal with
that in terms of acceptance or we accept that as information or are we
accepting an actual resignation based on that particular date. And my
colleague, you
know, can answer that or, Jim, if you've got an interpretation as to how we
can specifically vote on that particular letter inasmuch as that's a forward
date, and I think that ought to be clarified.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Mayor, as I stated earlier, I've
learned--and I learn lessons well. I've learned that accepting something as
information is an effective way of killing it, so, you know, I certainly would
hope that you don't accept it as information, that you accept it as of August
the 30th, 1998, that Moses Todd is no longer a member of this board. And I
think by virtue of my action on August the 30th--between August the 31st and
the closing of qualifying for Mayor, that I would render the letter, you know,
where it wouldn't make a difference anyway because of state law, and I think
that we've got to go by state law. Mr. Mayor, I was just merely trying to
give my colleagues time to plan, you know, for my replacement and look at
qualified applicants. And, Mr. Mayor, I'd venture to say that 90% of the
folks that live in the Fourth District is qualified for this position, so
you've got a large group of folks to pull from, choose from. So certainly the
letter speak for itself, effective the 30th I'm no longer on this board. And
I'll end by saying this, Mr. Mayor: I shall return, but not as a
Commissioner. Thank you.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, if we accept the resignation today, does that
start any time line for-- MR. WALL: It starts the time line running from
August the 30th. Mr. Todd has clarified both today and in a previous
conversation that I had with him that the letter was intended to resign
effective August the 30th and the letter was intended to be his resignation
effective that date, so the 45 days that this Commission has to choose a
successor would begin to run on the day following August the 30th. He would
serve through August the 30th.
MR. BEARD: What are we doing with this letter, just accept it?
MR. WALL: The Commission needs to accept it--accept the resignation
effective August the 30th.
MR. BEARD: I just would like to make a statement before I make that
motion. Seems like Mr. Todd has requested that we make the motion and not
accept it as information.
MR. HANDY: I already made a motion to accept his resignation, and we
have a second, so there's a motion on the floor.
MR. BEARD: Well, I also said I would like to make a statement, Mr.
Handy. If that's okay with you, I'll make it. I think we only wanted some
clarification on that and that we were
referring to the Attorney for that. But I just want to say that
I would like to at this point--and I know that there will be congratulations
prior to that time, Mr. Todd, but oftentimes we have not agreed, but I think
you have been a dedicated Commissioner and you always strive to look out for
and be fair and giving the citizens of this city the best that you could give
them, and I would just personally like to applaud you for that and what you
have done as a Commissioner with this body.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, my colleague in District Four--and we've been in
car wrecks together, we've been in traffic together, we've done a lot of
things together, we've even argued together and then flipped to see who was
going to buy food on the same night. But let me just say this: one of the
reasons that I questioned this, and he knows where I'm coming from with it,
this is still America and we still make pencils, they still got erasers on the
other end of them, and I'm going to be real point blank with it in terms of
this resignation. It leaves, as you probably know, right now a mad scramble in
District Four. Probably the better question we might ask is who is not
running as opposed to who may want to be a commissioner in that district. And
I appreciate you giving us and the people that opportunity to prepare some
time in order to do that, and there might even be possibly some things that
this Commission wants to do whether it be terms of off the record but open
public meetings similar to a mini convention because we've got to deal with
making an appointment. And I may be a little off when I say this, but I think
that as we continue to correct things in the reorganization deal, this is one
that I think probably we need to put on--and I'd say this whether it was Moses
or anybody else, put on our list in terms of asking the legislative delegation
to do in terms of changing that part of that bill to deal with a special
election in terms of people when they resign as far as being able to--this
Commission to appoint it. I served in the old City Council, I can remember it
in terms of both being good and bad. I can remember one time when possibly 6
of the 16 members were appointed because of death or resignation. I think
that somewhat deprives the electorate of the process of voting, but we've got
to go by what's in that bill and make a decision should Mr. Todd resign.
Now, this leaves us another opening, Moses, from the standpoint of the 30th,
and I think what our colleagues were trying to do is that if your intentions
are true in terms of qualifying two days after that, it's a moot question in
terms of what we do with this anyway because by state law you will vacate this
seat and technically you would be gone. But if they cast this affirmatively
today and you do the eraser thing and turn around, then you will have resigned
and we will have accepted that. So in your spirit--I know you wouldn't want
your resignation to be unanimous at all, you've argued about too many things
for it to be unanimous, so in your spirit, Mr. Mayor, I'm going to vote
against his resignation just for the mere fact that I know he'd want that to
be argued about, too. So out of friendship, I'm going to cast a no vote on
your resignation. That way it won't go down in history as being unanimous.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Handy's motion to approve accepting Commissioner Todd's resignation, let it be
known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. J. BRIGHAM & MR. MAYS VOTE NO. MR. KUHLKE & MR. TODD ABSTAIN.
MOTION FAILS 5-2-2.
CLERK: Item 41 is a motion to approve increase ($1.50) in taxicab
rates. Approved by Public Services July 27th.
MR. HANDY: So move.
MR. WALL: Well, the only thing that I would like to point out, you have-
-I put on your desk this afternoon the rate card that will be in effect.
Because what, in essence, you're doing is you're only adjusting the rates
which--rather than define it as the old city limits, we're defining it as
north of the Gordon Highway to Bobby Jones Expressway.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do we have a second to Mr. Handy's motion?
MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I understand that there is a particular cab company
that wanted an increase and petitioned the Mayor's Office and the Commission
for an increase. Mr. Mayor, did they give us any data that justify an
increase on cab fares? I also understand it's probably been some time since
we've had an increase. Mr. Mayor, have we had any hearings? Have any other
cab companies been involved in this process? And, Mr. Mayor, I would strongly
suggest that we schedule public hearings and that we hear what the public have
to say--the cab-riding public have to say and hear what the other cab
companies have to say, then we make a decision. I'm sure that we probably
will grant this increase, but I'm concerned that we go through the process.
The cab company that made this request, you know, his brother is a good friend
of mine and, you know, I think that they wouldn't request anything that's not
fair. At the same time, I think that we've got to do our part as far as what
should be required of us, and those are my comments in reference it. I don't
think I've been given some information here now-- CLERK: Yes, sir, it
was in the committee books. It was voted on--it was in your committee book
information. That's the information the committee used when they approved the
rate increase.
MR. FIELDS: Well, it wasn't just our company that asked for the
increase. I was speaking on behalf of actually the industry
in Augusta. Mr. Bowdry with Curtis Cab is sitting here with us
right now and he's in agreement with it. We're really the only two real cab
companies in Augusta. Y'all granted licenses to all these other people and
they put Joe's Taxi on the side, just kind of come out on the weekends and
work and kind of compete against the people that actually try to provide real
taxi service 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, have a business office, have
two-way communications with cabs and all that stuff. Our cost of doing
business since 1990 has gone up drastically. As y'all know with your city
fleet, the cost of buying vehicles, the cost of insurance, the cost of parts,
the cost of labor to keep the cars running, everything has gone up since 1990.
And in the packet that you've got, Mr. Todd, there is plenty of
documentation. Those are rates all over the country. And, actually, those
rates are from 1995, those aren't even the current because the current ones
aren't out yet in our international industry. But, you know, our rates are
still lower than anybody's in the country, so we're just trying to get them up
to a standard. And that don't mean every company has to go up to this maximum
rate. This is the maximum. Y'all set the cap and we can charge--let
competition choose what the market bears. So, you know, that's our request
and we really do need it. Thank you.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I probably can support the request. I would want
to know are we passing an ordinance here, and I guess the County Attorney can
answer that. And I note that one commodity that wasn't mentioned is gas, and
it's down, and I know that that can go up tomorrow, you know, and that you
don't have any way of coming back making those adjustments for that cost
because it can be so unstable even though we're in good times now. Mr. Mayor,
is there a requirement that we pass a ordinance to do this or can we do it
through resolution where we wouldn't need a hearing or a first reading/second
reading?
MR. WALL: The city code had a specific ordinance; the county had a
provision where it just required that the rates be on a rate card and approved
by the County Commission. When we consolidated the code, we went with the
latter provision which just simply said that the rates would be on record in
the Clerk's Office and that a vote of this Commission to approve the rates or
to change the rates and to require those rates to be kept in the Clerk's
Office is all that was required. So it does not require an ordinance, it
requires simply the approval of these rates.
MR. KUHLKE: Call the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Handy's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 42 is a motion to approve an ordinance to amend Section
6-2-62 and 6-2-64 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code so as to conform to
State Law regarding the issuance of licenses forthe sale of alcoholic
beverages.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. KUHLKE: Second.
MR. BRIDGES: What are the changes here, Jim, specifically?
MR. WALL: The only change is state law now eliminated the requirement
that you have to have a resident of the county and now we're allowing a
designated person to serve, and then it expanded the definition of a school,
but the distance requirements did not change.
MR. BRIDGES: Expanded the definition of a school from what to what?
MR. WALL: I can't really address that. Lori drew it up, but I know it
expanded the definition. I can't tell you specifically without the statute as
to the exact changes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 43 is a motion to approve an ordinance to amend the
City's existing Atlanta Gas Light Franchise Ordinance so as to modify the
franchise fee calculation provisions. Approved by Finance on July 27th.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Second.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess to the County Attorney, are we on the same
rate as we are with the power utilities, etc.?
MR. WALL: Well, not with the adoption of this ordinance because, again,
this is a negotiated rate. It is to preserve the existing fees that we are
currently collecting under our franchise ordinance. Before this franchise
ordinance was adopted, yes, it was the same as the other utility companies,
but this will be a different measurement rather than gross revenue. But it is
a factor that will be applied so that it will generate the same amount of
money to the city, so in a roundabout way it's the same amount--same.
MR. TODD: So it's revenue neutral. And if there is a protest or a court
claim that we are treating different, then do you feel that you can defend
this?
MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Okay. My concern, and you probably
know, is the Telecommunications Act that pretty much say you've got to treat
them all the same. And if we can meet those tests, then I don't have a
problem.
MR. WALL: We're okay.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I understand this, GMA recommends this, do
they not, Jim, and to do nothing is to risk a reduction in the franchise fee
revenue?
MR. WALL: Correct.
MR. SHEPARD: And I would be open to be educated as how telecommunication
involves natural gas, Mr. Todd, and we'll do that after the Commission.
MR. TODD: Certainly. And also I'll give you an 800 number to
[inaudible].
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
CLERK: Item 44: Motion to approve Road Naming and Addressing
Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia. Second reading. Approved by the Commission
on July 21st.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, if I could make one comment. The ordinance as
prepared by Planning and Zoning did not amend the code. I have redrawn it.
The provisions are identical to what's in your book, but it's in a different
format so that it will go into the code and will be assigned code numbers, and
so I wanted to be sure that in the event that someone went back and looked at
the code and felt like that was something different than the book, but it is
not. It's the same provisions, but it's been assigned a code number.
MR. OLIVER: And I would note that this revision, which I think is a good
one, requires house numbers on each property, and it's primarily for the
benefit of emergency vehicles and things of that nature.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Further discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr.
Shepard's motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0. CLERK: Item 45: An Ordinance to amend
section 6-7-10 of the Augusta-Richmond County Code regulating Taxicabs; to
remove the limitation on the number of taxicabs; to provide an effective
date; to repeal conflicting ordinances; and for other purposes.
MR. WALL: In preparation of an update of the code and getting a copy of
this particular ordinance, we noted that it had never been called back for a
second reading. This was adopted the first time back in November of '97. I
had Ms. Bonner check and it was a part of a consent agenda, so there was no
objection to it, it was just that it was not carried forward on the next
agenda. In order that it can have a second reading, I'm asking that you
approve it at this time.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MR. MAYS: I probably worried Jim about this one more than anybody else.
You inherited that worry. I was worrying Bob before you got here in
reference to getting some further clarity on this. Did we separate the
language on the licensing in reference to the taxicabs and limousines into a
separate ordinance? And my only reason for asking, and I can vote for what
you've got here, was that I notice that you're only dealing with the ones
dealing with the taxicabs. And if so, if we were dealing with a different
form then, have we done one, you know, on a first and second reading regarding
that or is this supposed to encompass all of that? And I'm just asking for
information.
MR. WALL: The limousines are a separate section, and in the
consolidation of the code I frankly don't remember which version, whether we
carried forward the city version or the county version of that section. I'll
need to check, but we did--they're still separate ordinances.
MR. MAYS: I don't have a problem with going ahead with the one you've
got now, but I thought we were trying to deal with, you know, everything at
one time and that the common denominator was going to be standards versus, you
know, control. And I think, you know, if we're going to be a body that allows
the rate increases and to try and be business-friendly and to accommodate our
people that are in the taxi business in terms of doing that, then, you know, I
think your ordinance here fits in line with that from the standpoint that our
main concern should be things such as insurance, cleanliness, communication,
those type of things, as opposed to us setting a generalized type of limit,
and I think that's what got us this ordinance. But I guess I want to know
still, and maybe this can be done at a different time, I didn't know whether
you need to do within this ordinance to come back and deal with that or
whether you would need to deal with a separate ordinance to deal with the
limos at that time. And I guess before we pass it as a second, probably what
I need to ask
is what would be easiest on you, whether to come back to us withsomething
incorporating into this or to deal with a totally separate ordinance all
together.
MR. WALL: Frankly, it would be easier to deal with them separately
because you've already had a first reading on this one and we can pass this
one, and I think it probably has already been treated as though it's in
effect. And we may not even need to deal with the other one. We may have
already corrected that in the adoption of the code and I just simply need to
go back and check. I don't recall, but I will do so.
MR. MAYS: That satisfies me, but I think we probably need to deal with
it before it resurrects itself in some manner and we maybe are still out there
looking to see whether we've addressed it or not. I just wanted to make that
observation on it.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, certainly I believe in free enterprise and believe
in letting the marketplace, you know, hold itself to that extent. I probably
voted for this in the first reading, and with the understanding that we have a
separate situation for limousines I'll go on and support it here, but I would
hope that when we're doing ordinances in the past, that we be as business-
friendly and less restrictive as possible.
MR. FIELDS: The way I read the new ordinances, the way they were set up,
they were adopted back in--I don't have my glasses with me, but it was March
of 1997, I guess. The taxi industry in the past in the City of Augusta--and
we've been around a long time. We've been in business since 1937 or so. The
only way we were able to grow our business was to go out and buy these
licenses from people. Every day people. We had to go buy--we had ten cabs,
and in order to increase a cab we'd come before City Council and try to get
more licenses. City Council says no, no, no, you can't do that, you can't do
that, you can't have licenses. So the only way we were able to grow over the
years was to go buy existing companies and pay a lot of good people a lot of
good money. Money and good will. And I know a lot of you know it because you
were there, you were in the approval process. In order for us to buy these
licenses we had to come before the City Council and ask your permission and
your blessing for us to buy these companies. The taxi industry isn't a very
profitable business, but it is a very important business. We haul a lot of
people in this community. And I just don't think it's right after we've had
to go through the expense of buying all these licenses--and there's still
plenty of licenses available. It's not like we own all the licenses since the
county got involved in the taxi industry. Because years ago there wasn't any
business in Richmond County, it was all in the City of Augusta. Now the City
of Augusta has grown and expanded, but even back during the Richmond County
days, Richmond County had 210 licenses versus the city only offered 130
licenses to taxi companies. And the ones in the county couldn't work in the
city and vice versa unless you
both, so we had to buy licenses in the county and in the city. But the way
I read the ordinances they way that y'all adopted in 1997 says that you've
got--whatever number of licenses were in the city and whatever licenses were
in the county at that time, that's the number you're going to adopt, so you've
increased the number by 125 licenses. And I'm sure the cap hasn't been met
with Richmond County as far as the way the old county used to be with 210
licenses. I mean, we used to buy extra licenses because we thought it
probably would come to this, that everybody is going to turn up for licenses.
But for 15 years we paid for 50 licenses we never used, every year, just in
order to keep those licenses in effect in case we had growth. We haven't had
the growth. I would say back in 1984 we had 125 cabs on the street. Today,
right now, we have about 81 cabs operating on the streets of Augusta. That's
Augusta and Richmond County and Fort Gordon. And I just don't think it's
right to open up the taxi industry. I mean, every town everywhere in the
country, they limit the number of taxis because it has to be viable. We have
to make a living. And if you just give anybody licenses to go out there to
work and put their names on the side of the car and just go out there and work
and not provide a service to the community--which they're not doing now.
We've got 25 to 30 cabs out in the county right now that do not even meet the
ordinance that y'all adopted, and they're not enforced at all. And we try to
do it right. Myself, Mr. Bowdry--and I'm sure he'll back me because we don't
get any help from anybody else. And we have to regulate the cabs, I mean,
people depend on us to do--to provide a service to them. The quality of
service will go down. If you just open up the numbers and just let anybody
drive a cab that wants to drive a cab, you won't have any taxi business in
Augusta. Call one of those other companies, see if you can get a cab. I just
disagree with increasing the numbers and opening them up. I think you need to
just leave that ordinance the way it is.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, if I could ask a question of Mr. Wall. Maybe
someone else could enlighten me as well, but how can we, under the antitrust
laws, limit the number of entrance into any business? I mean, we had limited
it under the previous one, now we're not limiting it, so--I mean, we can't
limit the number of plumbers, we can't limit the number of lawyers, beer
halls, barbecue restaurants--have I left out anybody? Accountants, radio
stations, kaolin mines. Is that everybody now? I mean, I'm sympathetic to
what Mr. Fields says, but I just think that the ordinance may be--it's like
trying to limit the number of train cars that roll down Sixth Street, you
can't do it constitutionally. Maybe we need more thought, Mr. Wall.
MR. WALL: I don't have an answer to that, I don't know. I didn't put the
limitation in originally and I--I don't know.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, why don't I withdraw my motion and ask
you to research that and come back with a recommendation. I mean, it seems to
me we can't have a limitation that violates theantitrust laws, but this
industry may have had exceptions. Sometimes you can grant monopolies, but--
Mr. Mayor, I'd withdraw my motion that we approve this second reading and
allow Mr. Wall a chance to look at this again.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, could I ask one question? While he's looking
at that--and I was and some of the others were part of that old county thing
where we had, quote, battles with the taxicab companies, but can we tell how
many permits are out there now? And Mr. Fields said that the number has
decreased as far as the number that's operating-- MR. OLIVER: I'll find
out from Mr. Sherman. The only thing is, remember, that the figures that Mr.
Sherman has will have how many have been issued, it won't tell you how many
are active. So if somebody has a permit and, like this gentleman says, has 50
that he hasn't used, we aren't going to know that. I would encourage any of
the people within the industry that if you have a tag number of a person that
is operating a taxi illegally, if you will, if you will call us we will do the
research. Obviously it's very difficult for anybody from Codes or whatever to
determine whether a cab is operating legally or illegally. So we will handle
that, you know, in a discreet manner.
MR. H. BRIGHAM: If you would do that, I'd appreciate it.
MR. FIELDS: May I address the Council? I don't know about the antitrust
or the differences in the old county and the city. What I want you Council
members to realize--to understand the taxicab business. We in Augusta,
Georgia, we're trying to promote tourism, business. People ride taxicabs from
the airport to the hotels. I don't know if you're aware of how many indigent
people we transport that I guess the government pays for. Dialysis patients,
they need transportation at two o'clock every Tuesday to get to the doctor,
to--you know, any time they need transportation. And when you have a
regulated taxicab company, as Mr. Bowdry and as we have, there is some
accountability. You have late-model cars, you know who to call if a driver
does not charge a fare correctly or fairly, you have 24-hour dispatch service;
you don't have taxicab drivers driving on the 1st and the 15th, which is when
all the soldiers get paid and everybody else in the world gets paid, so they
go out and they drive people to Augusta Mall and up and down Gordon Highway or
downtown, and then they make enough money that they don't need to work and
drive a taxicab until the next pay period. And if you let the floodgates open
and allow people--anybody and everybody to get an old car and stick a Joe's
Taxicab sign on there, you're not going to have good service, and I think that
that's the key to the issue. I don't understand the differences in the
county, but that's what you need to understand about the taxicab business.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall, didn't we say that other
jurisdictions [inaudible]. MR. WALL: Well, I think that there have been
limitations in other jurisdictions, and I can imagine why there would be an
exception, but I'm just not prepared to speculate as to an exception under the
antitrust. But I'll do some research and come back, and I'll check on the
limousines. We'll try to address them all.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, this isn't exactly on course, but I do have a
concern since this was previously read and this is a second reading. Do they
not need to be in consecutive meetings?
MR. WALL: Well, I had called Lena before I came over here to see whether
or not this was controversial last time because I didn't remember why--didn't
remember it being controversial. Assuming that this was going to be sort of a
formality in the second reading, I was prepared to say that it's okay. In
view of the concern that's been expressed, I do think we need two readings,
and we probably need to start over with the process so that we can be sure
that everyone has a fair input into this process.
MR. OLIVER: And my suggestion would be we send this back to committee,
get the information that's been requested, the appropriate committee, and also
as it relates to the number of licenses.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Then I'll make a motion to that.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, that motion is going to pass, but I'm going to vote
against it. I can live with it, but I'm not going to be hypocritical. Both
of these gentlemen I consider friends. They are reputable business people.
And one of the reasons I stated earlier in voting for a fare increase was of
us being business-friendly and so that we would not be restrictive in terms of
what we were doing in terms of fairness. But, now, you know, I'm just kind of
like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz, you know, we can't be asked to go both ways
when confronted with the yellow brick road. Now, if you want us to deal with
granting fares without public hearings, without objections to anybody, we've
heard from this body in a business-friendly sense, then I think we ought to go
back a little bit in history--and I don't want to disagree with Mr. Fields on
this. I probably was one of those objectors in the old days in reference to
some of the things the way the old city did business. Now, I only bring that
in because you brought it up in terms of the buying and the acquisition of a
lot of those cab companies. That probably was an unfair process, and I agree
with you, I was one of those that fought it. Maybe I fought it for a
different reason, and my reason being when I left it in the old city, I
inherited it in the old county.
Now, if we're going to talk about that, let's be realisticand fair about
how we got to this move and how you were pushed, Jim, to write this ordinance
that's on the books. What was happening, happened in the old city, happened in
the old county, the politics got into it that if all the hack tags were bought
up and we were restrictive, if somebody came in--and I have to agree with
Moses, the standards should set the course. If we've got to accept
recommendations from you as reputable companies on things you would like to
see, and we talked to License & Inspections about it, I think we should be
very much open to deal with that. But I think by the same token we have to be
fair as a government. And I found this very restrictive, unfair, and I found
it discriminatory and downright unconstitutional. And Jim will tell you, I
worried his predecessor and I've been worrying him about getting us to the
ordinance that we got to today. What was happening was that maybe somebody
legitimate--maybe everybody wasn't Joe that just wanted to put his name on the
side of a cab. Maybe you did have reputable people. Maybe they wasn't as big
as the two major cab companies being represented. But by the same token, if
they were reputable with the standards that were in place--and maybe the
standards need to be changed. I don't think this has damaged the industry
at all, even in the spirit of the new ordinance. You all have basically said
yourself that you have less cabs running with the free enterprise system than
you had when you had the restrictions on the hack tags. Now, that's the part
that I can't buy and can't accept. Now, if there are less of them, then I
don't understand the fear. Let's deal with the standards. But the numbers
that were there, what was happening with the old city, and as you know, both
of you gentlemen being in business, the old city got around to finally
outlawing that archaic mess. The county was still doing it, and what will pop
up--I can remember folk would come in, whether it would deal with a limousine,
deal with cab, and say, well, we can't let you go in business because all our
hack tags have been bought. Now, we may not have had that many cabs running,
but all the licenses were bought up. Now, what we were lucky of was that old
Joe just didn't have the money to go out and get him a good lawyer and sue the
County of Richmond. That's what prompted us to try and put this ordinance
into place. Now, I don't mind a delay, I don't mind you all as the major
players of that industry, but I don't think we ought to be in the business of
granting fare increases, and particularly doing them in lieu of a Public
Service Commission if we are the answering body, then at the same time grant
you a restrictive covenant to deal with how many cabs you all want to deal
with in this community. I'm sure Larry would like to be the only barbecue
person. I don't necessarily like the way the nature of my business has
changed. I've got folk that--you can order a casket from anywhere you want
to, but that's fair. It's part of the American system. You come to me and
you've got Grandmama's casket on the back of a truck, I got to accept it.
That's called free enterprise system. I can sell my services for what I think
those values are, and I think that's what we ought to be concerned about. And
I'm open to any suggestions you all would
have in helping us to raise that bar and those standards, but I think we ought
to be fair about how this thing got to this point because there were a lot of
people--they may not have had the money that you all had, David, to buy up
other companies. Some came in and they couldn't go in business because there
wasn't nothing available for them to do. They couldn't buy out anybody else,
so they basically had to just drop the idea of being in the cab business.
They couldn't come in and run two cabs, we wouldn't grant them a hack tag, and
that's what forced us to write this ordinance that's in place now. That's how
it got there, and it took some of us five to six years to argue to get it
written and put into place. Now, y'all are going to send it back and I
don't have no problem with that. That's part of the eraser system, that's the
good American way. But I hope that since we voted on it, since it obviously
has not damaged your industry, nobody's gone out of business, we're still a
friendly Commission which just granted you a rate increase, then I would hope
that this Commission when Mr. Wall researches and brings it back on the cabs
and the limousines, whatever day he brings it back--I just hope it won't be
six years later because it took me that long to get it done in the first
place--no, it took me seven years. It took me from May of '90 till November
of '97 to get a darn ordinance that would deal with free enterprise system.
And that's all I'm asking, that's all I want my colleagues to do.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I want to amend my motion to make sure it
goes back to Public Services.
MR. SHEPARD: I accept that amendment.
MR. BEARD: I would just like to ask the Attorney how long this is going
to be, because I'd hate for Mr. Mays to have to wait seven more years on this.
MR. WALL: I think you ought to put it on next Monday's committee agenda,
and I'll--I may not have the research in your book, but I'll have it by
Monday.
MR. MAYS: Is it going to be Public Services or Public Safety?
MR. OLIVER: Services was the motion.
MR. MAYS: Because there will not be an official meeting of Public
Services on next Monday. You got two members that will not be here for Public
Services Committee.
CLERK: Or Public Safety.
MR. WALL: When do you want it, the next Public Services Committee?
MR. MAYS: That would probably be better. That'll give you
time to get it back to us. MR. HANDY: The second gentlemen that spoke,
what company do you work for?
MR. FIELDS: I'm the vice president of Radio Cab.
MR. HANDY: So both of you all are from Radio Cab?
MR. FIELDS: Yes, sir.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Unless I'm mistaken, just any and everybody cannot go
out to Bush Field and run taxis, it's just designated certain taxis run there.
Do you all represent that company, too, or that's a different company?
MR. FIELDS: We represent them.
MR. HANDY: So you've got two different companies?
MR. FIELDS: We have several companies that we've had over the years.
MR. HANDY: All right. So that means that nobody--I heard someone said
somebody about raggedy cabs picking people up and image and all that. That's
the same people you're talking about; right?
MR. FIELDS: Yeah.
MR. HANDY: What I need to know is, Jim--nothing to do with all this
stuff that went by just a few minutes ago. I don't have anything to say about
that. Do we need to change our ordinance to specify, like we have in our
fleet, special size cars, special cars to do--because I see a lot of raggedy
cars out there, and since they opened up a can of worms out here about how we
do it and we don't control our ordinance--in other words, it sounds like to me
he's talking against us, that we don't police our ownselves. We got people
out there doing things that are illegal, so why can't we set an ordinance that
a car have to be a certain size and a certain color, and then if it--and
everybody abide by those same rules. I mean, if-- MR. WALL: We do have
certain provisions in there.
MR. HANDY: Okay. Why don't we start policing that and make sure that
everybody [inaudible].
MR. OLIVER: On license renewal we can require them to present the
vehicles. I mean, I don't know what our process is, but how about between now
and the next committee meeting we will,
you know, figure that out and see what our options are.
MR. HANDY: What kind of figuring needs to be done? If we're going to
grant the license, all we have to do is tell them
what we want. MR. OLIVER: I can't answer what the specific requirements
are. I just want to look them up and see what they are, and then I can better
speak to it.
MR. HANDY: Well, Jim, what I would like for you to do for me, I would
like to know whatever it is that a taxicab is supposed to look, size, and act
and talk if they have to. That's what I need to know. And then if any cab I
see out there is not abiding by that, I'm going to get the information off the
taxicab and I'm going to be the police and I'm going to turn it in.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, can we have one of the two owners to tell us what
the requirements are? They have to go through those inspections-- MR.
WALL: It's in the ordinance, I just don't--I can't cite it off-- MR.
FIELDS: It's in the county ordinance and I've got it right here if you'd like
to know what it is.
MR. TODD: Yes, read it so we'll have it for the record.
MR. FIELDS: What do you want to know? I mean, it's about ten pages
long. You've got to have seat belts, got to have lettering on the side--are
you talking about just the vehicles?
MR. HANDY: I've made my request what I want, so I'm waiting on the
Attorney to get it.
MR. FIELDS: Well, I mean, there's already laws in place right now. I
mean, you know, you're supposed to have your cab inspected twice a year by the
Richmond County Sheriff's Department. That's pretty much--in the old days it
used to be every month by the Augusta Police Department before consolida-tion.
You've got to have--you're supposed to have a place of business; you're
supposed to be an active business; you're supposed to have two-way
communication; you're supposed to provide service 365 days a year, 24 hours a
day. And there's a lot of licenses--you can't have a vehicle with more than
10 passengers. Anything bigger than 10 passengers is not a taxicab; it's
either a bus, a van, a limo, or whatever. And, you know, there's 15-passenger
vans out here on the street running this taxicab. And that's all I'm saying
is we're not enforcing our regulations that we have in place now, and I have
complained about it.
MR. HANDY: But I'm going to help you now. I'm going to
complain about it now.
MR. TODD: Mr. Fields, you're not talking about the interstate commerce
like the railroad service, that's excluded;
right? MR. FIELDS: No, I'm just talking about the taxi business in
Augusta, Georgia--Augusta-Richmond County. It don't have anything to do with
anybody else but us. You regulate the taxicabs in Augusta.
MR. TODD: And I agree with you, and I agree with you that we have what
we call, I guess, wild-catters or whatever. It's not new.
MR. FIELDS: These people have business licenses, so, I mean, they
supposedly passed all the checks and balances, and nobody has looked. I mean,
you've granted them the license, but they don't have a place of business.
They don't even have--the ordinance says you must have your company listed in
the Yellow Pages. Pull out your phone books and see how many cab companies
are in the Yellow Pages.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Brigham's motion to send it back to
the Public Services Committee at the second meeting, let it be known by the
usual sign of voting, please.
MR. BEARD & MR. MAYS VOTE NO.
MOTION CARRIES 7-2.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's take the addendum next, Ms. Bonner.
CLERK: Yes, sir. It's to approve the purchase from Adaptive
Engineering, Ltd. one (1) Non-motorized Disabled Passenger Access Lift for
Bush Field Airport in the amount of $24,950.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I so move.
MR. BRIDGES: Second.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Mayor, I know this was deleted from the May agenda,
but why was it deleted from the May agenda?
CLERK: At the Airport Director's request. And that should have been the
July meeting. He requested that it be pulled and then he asked that it be
placed back on this agenda, which was an oversight.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: The other question I got, is this the low
bid or best bid or what?
MR. SINKFIELD: I'm Gary Sinkfield, the airport engineer.
The item was originally taken from the agenda when we--we sole-
sourced this item at first, and then we became aware of another
new product out there that we wanted to take some time to evaluate and see if
it would work better for us and be lessexpensive. After we evaluated the new
product, we found that the original as-bid item was the product that we
wanted.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: So this is a sole-source bid?
MR. SINKFIELD: It's not a sole-source item any more, no, but the item--
the new product that came out did not meet our needs.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Is the bid from Adaptive Engineering, Ltd. a sole-source
bid?
MR. SINKFIELD: No, sir.
MR. OLIVER: It's the only bid they received, so I believe in that
instance it is.
MR. TODD: This is a best bid?
MR. SINKFIELD: It's the only bid that meet our needs. It's the only
product out there that meets our needs.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did we send out to more than one bidder?
MR. SINKFIELD: We advertised for bids and only received one.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Did we send out specs to more than one
bidder?
MR. SINKFIELD: Yes. We sent out--I can't--that may not be the correct
answer. We advertised for bids.
MR. OLIVER: Geri Sams has signed off on that, so I assume--she's not
here, but I assume she is comfortable. It's our policy to require the
Purchasing Director to sign off on all bids like that.
MR. SINKFIELD: I wasn't directly involved in the advertising of that
particular product.
MR. TODD: This is going to be able to do your ADA service delivery?
MR. SINKFIELD: Yeah, it's to assist disabled passengers
board commuter aircraft.
MR. SHEPARD: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. 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. H. BRIGHAM OUT]
MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, before we go to the next item I would like to just
ask your opinion of something. Dr. Lewis Willingham would like to speak to
the Commissioners for a few minutes, and I was wondering if you would suggest
him doing this, if we give him that offer, before the water or after the water
situation, whichever one you would do.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, what is this in reference to?
MR. BEARD: He wants to speak, he said, for the D.C. Flyers, if he could
just speak for a few minutes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: We already voted that down earlier in the day.
MR. BEARD: Yes, I know we did, but he's in here and he said he would
like to speak, and I was wondering if we could give him that courtesy to speak
for a couple of minutes.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do y'all want to hear that again, gentlemen? You
already voted it down.
MR. MAYS: What have we got, two items, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SCONYERS: Two more items.
MR. MAYS: I voted for it. Why don't we do this, Mr. Mayor, and this is
just a suggestion. We've got two items here, why don't we go ahead and
discuss them, Lee. And I don't mind making a motion or you can make it since
we--I think we made the motion and the second before on reconsideration to do
it and at least allow him that opportunity to come back.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question to the Parliamentarian, is
there any provision for a citizen at the end of a meeting to address the
board? I know some commissions have it and some have it where they do it
through a delegation.
MR. WALL: No, there's not, except with the consent of the Commission. I
mean, the rules require that they make a request to the Clerk in advance of
the Commission meeting and be on the agenda, but the Commission has the right
to recognize somebody.
MR. BEARD: I feel that the water discussion will be long,
and if we're not going to allow him to do that there's no need
for him to sit through another hour of discussion. That's the only reason I--
if we want to hear--
MR. TODD: Do we hear a motion, Mr. Mayor?
MR. MAYS: I move for reconsideration. MR. BEARD: I second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Mays' motion
to reconsider the D.C. Flyers, let it be known by the usual sign of voting,
please.
MOTION FAILS 5-2-1.
MR. BRIDGES, J. BRIGHAM, KUHLKE, SHEPARD, AND TODD VOTING NO.
MR. HANDY ABSTAINS. MR. HENRY BRIGHAM OUT OF THE ROOM.
MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the order of the day.
CLERK: Item 46 is to discuss water situation regarding Columbia
County.
MR. MAYS: Mr. Mayor, I guess I'm responsible for that one, too. My main
reason for putting this on, quite frankly, was to just get some simple
clarification in reference to the statements that were made after the last
committee meeting. And I repeat, strictly for clarification. Now, I sat in on
the Engineering Services Committee, and at the end of that meeting was when
this was brought in and I think we had kind of a sense of two different
directions. At the close of that committee meeting, Mr. Weidmeier made a
brief statement in reference to this, and I think it probably caught those
committee members off guard. I know it certainly caught this Commissioner off
guard. And that's not the first time I've been caught off guard in my life,
but the thing that I wanted clarified was that when we have another commission
that, probably justifiably so, comes back 24/36 hours later in reference to
statements that this was not the intent of what they may have been talking
about, I just think that needs to be cleared in terms of what really we were
supposed to be talking about. Because I think from the constituent
standpoint--and I just asked this more not as a Commissioner but as a
constituent, and I think some of us kind of joked and we said, well, you know,
we're talking about selling water, we just got over a drought. We've not
really had a meeting where we planned to talk about all the overall things in
water and yet we're talking about selling some. Well, what followed
basically now is history. We've had statements made by people in other
governments, we've had media to discuss it, and that particular day I put it
on, but I still feel like there needs to be a clarification publicly inasmuch
as
we're not going to--excuse me, from what I understand now, we're
probably not going to talk about things related to Grand Jury and water and
other stuff until another month from now. I definitely think that one needs
to be clarified, put to rest on what was there, and that was my reason for
putting that on the agenda as
to what's really the case with it.
MR. OLIVER: Well, if I may start, because if you remember, Mr. Hicks
was in Atlanta that particular day. Mr. Wiedmeier called me and indicated he
received a call from the utilities director in Columbia County, Billy Clayton,
and that Billy Clayton had asked about the possibility of receiving water from
us, and the intent of that was to just make you all aware of that request. I
was not aware and I can't answer whether Mr. Wiedmeier was aware at that point
in time about the water that was obtained earlier because of the tank that was
undergoing maintenance and that type thing. But we felt in light of the
situation, that we didn't want to be doing something that you were unaware of
and we felt that, you know, being that we brought everything back on line,
that it didn't, you know, pose an issue to us. Mr. Hicks has subsequently
done a memo to each and every one of you which summarizes the events, you
know, as it related to the maintenance of that tank and the amount of water
that we had gotten from them, and this is something that there is an existing
agreement in place on and it's been done over the past several years. I
believe, Max, and correct me if I'm wrong, this was the first year we got
water from them in that the tank was down for maintenance; is that correct?
MR. HICKS: This is the first time since 1991 that we had gotten water
from them. I can't speak prior to that. I have heard it alluded to that in
years past perhaps Augusta, the city, had gotten some water from Columbia
County. I would imagine
that would've been maybe when the 42-inch line broke, you know, previously or
something like that. But that's why the information that I gave you regarding
the amount of water that Columbia County had purchased from Augusta since
1991. I had figures prior to that, but I just included those.
MR. OLIVER: But I think the intent of it was just for everyone to work
together, and I think that the media attention that focused on that was
somewhat overwhelming.
MR. MAYS: Well, let me say this, Mr. Oliver: inasmuch as--and I've
always tried to be a person that let's folk do their job, and I have no
problem with this Commission or anybody I served on being out of the day-to-
day telling folk how to do that. I think we should set policy. But let us
also remember that if we're going to set policy, we've got to be abreast of
what is actually going on and what's really the truth. Now, when you pick up
the paper every day when looking like the same countdown that was done in the
Iranian crisis and other things, when you're on the daily news, that every
time when you start going to the grocery store at late hours in the morning
because
every conversation you meet is going to be about water, then you definitely
want to make sure that at least when you're right,
that you're darn right on those days. And I appreciate what Mr. Hicks may
have provided us after the fact, but what my problem
was that if it was minimal and if we have an agreement in place,
then it probably was one of those things to a point that, yes, it should have
been discussed with members of this Commission. Butwith the sensitivity of
the nature and a population out there not realizing about in-place agreements-
-and even with in-place agreements I think you got to have something to give
somebody or sell somebody regardless of what the agreement is. And my problem
with it was that it just added to a blast, and maybe nobody else felt that
blast, but that we've been experiencing. We make enough mistakes on our
own and don't mind doing them, but I said this in the old city government,
said this is in the new one we put together, I don't mind giving our folk in
any department the opportunity to run it and do their job, but when we're
setting policy--and I guess I'm kind of like the lawyer that's defending
somebody that killed somebody, tell me the truth if you don't tell nobody
else. I don't like surprises that's going to take us in the opposite
direction, and that was my reason for putting it here, particularly when it
gets into the direction of unnerving another government. Then we ought to
comment on what it is, put it to rest and deal with it. And I think any
future things that we deal with, then before we get off on our sound byte
kicks--and I'm saying this in a general statement. Whoever this hat or shoe
falls out there [inaudible] I don't really care, but as a policymaker I don't
complain about what I make, but if I'm going to follow the directions of
professional people, then think about what you tell me before you ask me
something that might end up being policy. It was commented in that room
that day that we had seven Commissioners, it was almost like we were sitting
there in a meeting, that we could go ahead and make some kind of decision
about it. Now, those were things that were said. Now, where that goes, who
wears it, don't know, don't care. But if it's going to be directed--if it's
going to be public statements out there, then let me know and I think let us
know. When those kind of statements are made with the type of scrutiny that
we have been under, and probably justifiably so--God knows we don't need any
unnecessary things to worry about and to deal with when those are things that
we are not even doing, and then we turn around and make two to three days of
unnecessary news when we don't have to, and then you develop calls from
citizens wanting to know when you're going to start the buying in the next
county. I got hit with that--and maybe nobody else did. I walked in the VA
Hospital [inaudible] in order to make sure she could address me about where
she wanted her water going. And I just think we ought to be careful about
what we say and do. Yes, the public has a right to know and we ought to
always tell the truth, but if we've got something that's not going on, then we
ought to be clear about that and not disseminate it to a point until we have
it in place about what the real truth is. And that's all I'm
saying. It's not a beat-across-the head session, but I just thing that needs
to be done collectively by the people who bring
us those ideas and things to vote on to make a policy decision,
that's all I'm saying.
MR. OLIVER: Point well taken, and we will handle that situation
differently in the future. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that we need to
have a course of action with this agenda item. We either need to authorize
Finance to pay Columbia County for the water that we used of theirs, and
I'm told that we were purchasing water, and if that's not the
understanding, then we owe them water and we need to authorize Utilities to
repay them water to the extent that we can afford to without putting our
folks in jeopardy of being without water, to start sending them water,
whether that's 500,000 gallons or a million gallons a day or whatever. I
don't think we need to let this hang out there that we owe them X million
gallons of water. We haven't sent them a check for it and this has been
since sometime in April or May. And when they suggest that they take water
versus money, we're in a position where we're saying we can't give you
water. I think that we need to pay them, and if that means cutting a check
tomorrow to pay them for ever how many millions of gallons of water, then
we need to do it. If we have an agreement, we have an agreement. A deal
is a deal, and if we want to stick with the deal on paying them for the
water, then we ought to send them a check. I'm going to make a motion, Mr.
Mayor, to that effect, that we settle our score with Columbia County by
cutting them a check. That's in the form of a motion.
MR. MAYS: I'll second that to get it on the floor.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Max, what is our usual procedure for that?
MR. HICKS: In the past it has been that Columbia County would get water
from us and would pay us. We would send them a bill, they would pay it. I
had frankly presumed that that was what would be happening in this instance
also was that we would send them payment for the water that we had gotten from
them. That's in accordance with the agreement that we have with them, that
water would be exchanged either way at the rate of 90 cents per thousand
gallons, so that had been my presumption. We will actually get from Columbia
County during 1998 in terms of sewerage treatment fees probably about $64,000
more than we pay them. I mean, there is an exchange of monies that go on and
have gone on in years past for water and sewer services between the two
counties--or between the two agencies. I regret that I was not here on that
particular day when this came up and that I had not in the past made the
comment that we had actually gotten this much water from them. In the past it
had never been an issue, it had just been handled between the two water
departments. If we had water and the other one didn't, if they called and
said "Can we get water from you" and we didn't have it, we'd tell them "No,
you can't, because we're short ourselves." And so that's just the way it
worked. So I apologize for that if I created or added
to the situation in that regard, but it was just a case of doing
things the way it had been done, so I won't do that.
MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Hicks, have we received a bill from Columbia
County? MR. HICKS: No, sir. They didn't even know how much we had gotten
from them total. I don't know where Bill Clayton got the figure of 30 million
gallons because I called to get the figure and turned out it had not yet been
calculated. So I then obtained the figures and calculated it, which was on
page two of the memo that I sent you, to calculate the total gallons that we
had gotten and commented that that was a reasonable number of gallons based on
the use in that area by a previous study. They have not sent us a bill, no,
sir.
MR. KUHLKE: Mr. Mayor, I agree with what Mr. Mays had said, but I do
think that part of the controversy came from comments made by some people in
this building that sort of rubbed Columbia County officials the wrong way.
And, you know, I would hope we could go ahead and put this behind us. I think
we need to be friendly with our neighboring county. We've got a lot to offer
to each other. But I think some of the comments that were made that made some
of the Commissioners in Columbia County was because of the lack of information
that we had, so those comments were probably--at face value, were probably
right in saying, but on the other hand I think, you know, that's how things
get started and create some problems for us. But we have a process
administratively on how to handle this kind of stuff, and in my
opinion this should be handled administratively and we shouldn't get into this
situation.
MR. SHEPARD: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of questions. Max, isn't it
prudent to have all this interconnection in place between these two systems?
I mean, they kept the pressure on when the elevated tank at Belair Road was
being painted; isn't that correct?
MR. HICKS: Yes. What we did in the past when we had drained that tank
for its inspection, we had to run the pumps at the pump station on Central
Avenue and then open hydrants out in that area in order to, you know, let
water relieve itself and at the same time put a pressure gauge on a hydrant
near the Belair Road tank. Because with the pumps running and no way for the
water to relieve itself, you could over-pressurize the system and burst the
pipes. So that particular time we did it that way, and we wasted a fair
amount of water, I would have to say. Well, realizing that we would be down
for perhaps a couple of months, and it turned out to be longer because of
rain, you know, during that period when we first started, then we didn't want
to waste that much water and that much electricity. I had in the past run
pumps while painting the Highland Avenue tank and, believe you me, it
increases your electric bill the whole remainder of the year because you incur
that cost, you know, that you set for that
month for the whole rest of the year. So we first tried to see
if we could have water come in from the Tobacco Road elevated tanks. Those
were closest to our system. At that time the Barton
Chapel Road lines was not in place, and so we could not back water in that
way. So then realizing that Columbia County had a
tank just right down the road, I asked them if in fact we could
get water from them, and Bill Clayton was more than glad inasmuch as he had
always been getting from us and for the first time I was asking him "Can we
get water from you," and it was "Yes, you can," so that's the way that took
place.
MR. SHEPARD: Max, it's like a mutual aid agreement, isn't it? I mean,
that's what it boils down to. The two systems border each other and you
exchange water as necessary, and then we treat some sewerage, too. Would you
comment on that, do they not owe us for some sewerage treatment or am I
incorrect on that?
MR. HICKS: What happens is that there are certain areas--for instance,
in Brookfield Subdivision sewerage goes to Columbia County, and so we
calculate how many gallons went to them and pay them for that. Now, in a
number of other areas, particularly immediately west of Bobby Jones Expressway
behind Golden Corral and in that large area, the flow from that area comes to
our wastewater treatment facility. They calculate that and send us a check
for it. That takes place on a quarterly basis, so there is an exchange of
payment for those.
MR. SHEPARD: Well, we're still in the quarter when the reconciliation is
going to take place for both water and sewer then, are we not?
MR. HICKS: Yes. I mean, we can reconcile it this quarter, yes, sir.
MR. SHEPARD: I mean, isn't that the practice, I mean, you would
reconcile it quarterly? That's the administrative process and I don't know
why we have to--I mean, if owe them, we pay them; if they owe us, they pay us.
Isn't that-- [End of Tape 2]
MR. TODD: ...we have to say to our good neighbors, "Hey, send us that
bill, we're ready to pay you," or we calculate what we owe and we send the
bill. If they pay us on time, we ought to pay them on time. So that's all I
have to say on it. You know, I'm sick and tired of water, I've almost stopped
drinking it.
MR. BEARD: I was just going to call for the question. Let's move on
with it.
MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Hicks, you say normally we do cut a check
to them and they cut a check to us?
MR. HICKS: That's right.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Read the motion, Ms. Bonner, please, made by Mr. Todd.
CLERK: The motion was to cut a check to pay for the water received from
Columbia County.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known
by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. SHEPARD VOTES NO; MR. HANDY ABSTAINS.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1-1.
MR. WALL: I need a legal meeting, if we can, to discuss real estate and
some litigation matters.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Do I hear a motion to that effect,
gentlemen?
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING, 5:20 - 6:30 P.M.]
MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, on Item 47A I'm asking that y'all approve an
amendment to the contract to grant an additional 45 days for the closing of
the Old Towne property.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor, cast your vote
accordingly.
MR. MAYS ABSTAINS; MR. BRIDGES OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
MR. WALL: Then, Mr. Mayor, I'd ask that the Commission add
two items to the agenda. The first one is to approve a settlement in the
amount of $28,515 of a subrogation claim for property damage arising out of an
automobile accident occuring on January 5, 1998, with a Marshal's Department
vehicle. Item number two would be a motion to approve acquisition of 21.67
acres approximately on Hephzibah-McBean Road for $5,538 per acre for the
McBean Recreation Park to be funded from Phase III Special Purpose Local
Option Sales Tax monies.
MR. HANDY: So move. MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Handy's
motion to add--
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT]
MR. WALL: The first item is to approve settlement in the amount of
$28,515 for property damage, subrogation claim.
MR. SHEPARD: So move.
MR. HANDY: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Shepard's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [MR. BRIDGES OUT]
MR. WALL: Motion to approve acquisition of 21.67 acres on Hephzibah-
McBean Road for the sum of $5,538 per acre for the McBean Recreation Park
to be funded by SLOST funds.
MR. KUHLKE: So move.
MR. SHEPARD: Second.
MAYOR SCONYERS: Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of Mr. Kuhlke's
motion to approve, let it be known by the usual sign of voting, please.
MR. TODD VOTES NO; MR. BRIDGES OUT.
MOTION CARRIES 7-1.
MR. HANDY: Move we adjourn.
MAYOR SCONYERS: That's non-debatable. Thank you.
[MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:45 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 August 4, 1998.
_________________________
Clerk of Commission