Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2000 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS February 1, 2000 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough, Handy, Kuhlke, Mays, Shepard and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also present were Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission; Mr. Oliver, Administrator; and Mr. Wall, Attorney. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY REV. H. K. McKNIGHT. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you’ll proceed with any additions or deletions to the agenda? Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, we have one item under out addendum agenda: 1. Motion to approve the transplantation of trees adjacent to Radisson Hotel parking plaza which will be otherwise destroyed due to hotel expansion. Mr. Oliver: What this item is, Mayor and Commission, the Radisson has started the expansion of the new hotel. There are a couple of trees that are in our medians in the parking lot that would be destroyed. We have had somebody that has offered to come in and have them transplanted at their expense provided that they can get the tree. The cost to transplant them is about $600 per tree, and we are recommending that they be given the opportunity to do that rather than destroying the tree. We don’t have a need for them. Mayor Young: Gentlemen, would you like to add this to the agenda? Mr. Kuhlke: I so move. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any objection to adding this to the agenda? Motion carries 10-0. Mayor Young: So ordered then. Clerk: First item on the agenda is our delegation. Academy of Youth Athletics, Inc. Mr. Edwin R. Wilson. 2 Mayor Young: Mr. Wilson, if you’ll come to the podium and identify yourself and give us your address for the record, and you have five minutes to address the Commission. Mr. Wilson: My name is Edwin Wilson. Address is 2929 Arrowwood Circle, Hephzibah, Georgia 30825. First of all, thank you for the opportunity to stand before you and speak. I’m coming to you from an organization called Academy of Youth Athletics. What we are, the Academy of Youth Athletics is a non-profit organization based right here in Richmond County, Augusta. We deal with youth from age 7 to 18 years old. Included in the packet I gave you an overview of the organization and what all we do within the organization. My main objective here today is to inform the city of Augusta that the Academy of Youth Athletics has won the bid to host the 2000 Amateur Athletic Union State Track and Field Championship, and with that in mind, we would like to see the City of Augusta come along and also support us in this endeavor. What is it, a ?? possibly about 800 to 1,000 amateur athletes participating here in Augusta between the time of June 15 through 18. Right here in Augusta. Right now it’s at Cross Creek High School. The Amateur Athletic Union, if you’re not familiar with it, it’s an organization that is over a hundred years old. And ?? to Augusta, we’d like to put on a very good show and we are here again asking that you all take a look at what we have in front of you and we can sit down with your key personnel and let them know all the specific details so we can put on a very good track meet here, representing Augusta in front of the whole state of Georgia. Mayor Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson, for bringing this to us. We will pass thing among our staff and take a look at it. Does anybody have any questions or comments? Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m just wondering if this is something that we could, that Kevin Mack’s department could deal with as far as a funding source? Mayor Young: I think that would be appropriate, and also perhaps the Convention and Visitors Bureau might also be an option. Anyone else? Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I was going to say not to put anything else on Tom’s shoulders, but we might also let us be a part of that over in Public Services ??, because it might be something, even though we’re in a tight budget, but there might be some things we’re able to deal with, particularly on an in-kind basis. ?? Georgia Games from this year ?? and so I think the Sport Council ?? that we can probably get together on a separate committee and work with you on that and see out of those three groups what we might be able to do in terms of helping you with. Mr. Wilson: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: We appreciate the fact that you’ve gone out and obtained this event for Augusta, and certainly we welcome the competition here and we’ll do everything we can to help 3 you make it happen and we’ll have our appropriate staff people get back in touch with you to see if we can find some in-kind support. Mr. Wilson: Thank you, sir. Mayor Young: Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Clerk: The consent agenda, items 1 through 36: PLANNING: 1. ZA-R-111 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning ordinance for Augusta Richmond County to add an inert landfill as a permitted use in a HI (Heavy Industry) Zone. (Approved by Commission January 18, 2000 - second reading). FINANCE: 2. Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford for three (3) Ford Crown Victoria Full Size Automobiles for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-139) at a cost not to exceed $21,583 each w/special seating package for Mayor’s vehicle. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 3. Motion to approve award to Mays International Trucks for one (1) 26,000 GVW Single Axle Dump Truck for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-146) at a cost not to exceed $37,550. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 4. Motion to approve award to Mays International Trucks for one (1) 26,000 GVW Single Axle Flatbed Dump Truck for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-147) at a cost not to exceed $41,243.60. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 5. Motion to approve award to Mays International Trucks for one (1) 33,000 GVW Single Axle Dump Truck for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-148) at a cost not to exceed $41,548.58 each. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 6. Motion to approve award to Mays International Trucks for four (4) 64,000 GVW Tandem Axle Dump Trucks for Model Year 2000 (Bid #99-150) (3 @ $66,500 and 1 @ $65,970). (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 7. Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford for five (5) Ford F150 Full Size Pickup Trucks for Model Year 2000 (Bed # 99-142) at a cost not to exceed $68,023.50 (average cost $13,604.70). (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 8. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $258.59 to James Little, Jr. for overpayment of taxes on Map 109-3, Parcel 58. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 9. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $516.21 to James R. Simmons for overpayment of taxes on Map 97-3, Parcel 12. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 4 10. Motion to approve refund of 1997 and 1998 taxes in the amount of $51.62 to J. C. Coleman for overpayment of taxes on boat account 96918. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 11. Motion to approve addition to 2000 Budget of $7,000 to pay quarterly management fee for the Small Business Incubator to be funded from General Fund Contingency. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) 12. Pulled from consent agenda. 13. Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford for two (2) Ford Explorer 4 Door Sport Utility Vehicles for Model Year 2000 (Bid # 99-144) not to exceed $21,260 each. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 14. Pulled from consent agenda. 15. Motion to approve a request for the 1998/1999 HOME CHDO set aside be reallocated to Laney-Walker Development Corporation from Miracle Making Ministries, Inc. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee January 25, 2000) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 16. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Amendment Number Two in the amount of $847,000.00 from the Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recaptured Funds and award the contract to the low bidder, Chandler Utility Construction, in the amount of $1,365,564,00 subject to the receipt of signed contracts and the proper bonds. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 17. Motion to approve Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolution submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Walton Hills Subdivision, Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 18. Motion to approve Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Woodberry Subdivision, Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 19. Motion to approve Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Walton Hills Subdivision, Phases I-A and I-B. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 20. Motion to approve revised scope for Traffic Engineering Improvements as presented in the Construction Work Program and rename Traffic Engineering Improvements, Phase I. Also approve Capital Project Budget Number 323-04- 200823591 and award engineering services contract to Godefroy & Associates in the amount of $17,300.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 21. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two in the amount of $16,858.64 to Mabus Brothers Construction Co., Inc. on the International Boulevard Project to be 5 funded from the project construction account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 22. Pulled from consent agenda. 23. Motion to approve termination of lease agreement at 1976 Goodrich Street. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 24. Motion to approve acceptance of deed of parcel from Willette P. Jeffcoat consisting of 0.48 acres to the City. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) 25. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $80,000 to AquaSouth Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the Water Treatment Plant on Highland Avenue. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) PUBLIC SERVICES: 26. Motion to approve a request by Kim Bohne for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Bohne’s located at 2701 Suite 2 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 27. Motion to approve a request by Donald Brantley for an on premise consumption beer license to be used in connection with R Pizza located at 3254 Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 28. Motion to approve a request by Larry E. Edenfield for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with Gracewood Mall located at 3745-B Peach Orchard road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 29. Motion to approve a request by Larry E. Edenfield for a retail package liquor and wine license to be used in connection with Edenfield Package Shop located at 3745 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 30. Motion to approve a request by Sun Cha McZorn for a massage parlor license to be used in connection with Peach Health Spa located at 2601 Deans Bridge Road. District 5. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 31. Motion to approve a request by Bonnie Price for a massage parlor license to be used in connection with Bonnie Price therapeutic Massage located at 44a Highland Avenue. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 32. Motion to approve a request by Deloris Barretto for a massage parlor license to be used in connection with Therapeutic Massage located at 720 Broad Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 33. Motion to approve a request by Susan D. Lee for a massage parlor license to be used in connection with Touch Communications at Coco’s Tanning Salon located at 2185 6 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 34. Motion to approve a request by Patricia James for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with P.J.’s located at 1543 Aviation Way. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 35. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held January 18, 2000. APPOINTMENTS: 36. Motion to ratify the Legislative Delegation appointment of Dr. Williams J. Welsh to the General Aviation Commission - Daniel Field. Mr. Shepard: I move we adopt the consent agenda. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and second on the consent agenda. Final call for pulling items. All those in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye. Mr. Bridges, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote no on Item 34. Motion carries 6-4 (Item 34). Motion carries 10-0 (Items 1-33, 35-36). Clerk: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, for the benefit of any objectors and for our records, I need to address the location of the retail package– Mayor Young: Go ahead. Clerk: Item 26: Motion to approve a request by Kim Bohne for an on premise consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Bohne’s located at 2701 Suite 2 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) Item 27: Motion to approve a request by Donald Brantley for an on premise consumption beer license to be used in connection with R Pizza located at 3254 Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) Item 28: Motion to approve a request by Larry E. Edenfield for a retail package beer license to be used in connection with Gracewood Mall located at 3745-B Peach Orchard road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) 7 Item 29: Motion to approve a request by Larry E. Edenfield for a retail package liquor and wine license to be used in connection with Edenfield Package Shop located at 3745 Peach Orchard Road. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee January 25, 2000) Item 34: Motion to approve a request by Patricia James for a consumption on premise liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with P.J.’s located at 1543 Aviation Way. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. Are there any objectors? No objectors, for the record, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Let’s go back to Item 12. Clerk: Item 12: Motion to approve award to Willoughby Ford for seventeen (17) Ford F250 8,500 GVW Trucks for Model Year 2000 (Bid #99-143) at bid prices shown. (Approved by Finance Committee January 25, 2000) Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Motion for approval and second. Any discussion on this item? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a little discussion on this. Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I was on the Finance Committee and when this came about, I voted against it, and the reason I did is that I believe, we’re talking about 17 F250 vehicles and I wanted to know about the age life, the trade in [inaudible] buy new vehicles 17 at the amount that was appropriated here for these. I think we should, someone should be able to determine whether the life expectancy of these vehicles [inaudible] instead of just trading them [inaudible]. I think there needs to be some more elaboration on that. If someone could just kind of help me out as far as why we’re buying 17 at one time and what the life expectancy and what type are the old ones. I just think that repairs could be made in a lot of instances where we are buying new vehicles that we should be maybe spending money in a different [inaudible]. Mayor Young: Mr. Siddall, our fleet manager is here, and perhaps he can respond directly to your questions. Mr. Siddall: What we have in many cases on the pickup trucks, in particular, we have a lot of pickup trucks that are [inaudible] years with age on them from back in the 1980's. A lot of those vehicles we have tried to recondition whenever possible, putting in new engines, putting in new transmissions and so forth and trying to extend the life. In those cases we do, but we’ve also got vehicles that [inaudible] or usage over the years [inaudible]. What I’ve tried to do the 8 last few years is try to clean out [inaudible] what I would consider inventory that is not safe, not serviceable, should not be on the street. That’s why you see such a demand at this time on the pickup trucks, because we are so severely under the limit of what we should have had and also a lot of the vehicles I had taken out of the fleet over the last two years because they were not [inaudible] repair. Mr. Oliver: The emphasis the last two years, frankly, has been on the Sheriff’s Department and I think we have the Sheriff’s Department fleet in excellent condition and we’re trying to work on some of the other areas. Mr. Williams: I’ve still got a question. I’m still not satisfied. I understand your answer, even in 1980, if these trucks had been [inaudible] or was in an accident or some kind of physical aspect, if you change motors and you say you have done some of that work, if you have, if you recently changed motors and transmissions in a lot of those service trucks, I can’t see why we can’t get the life out of those service trucks, cause if the body is still in good condition, I’m thinking if we maybe need to look at more--we own a mechanic shop, is that right? We do have personnel to do that? Mr. Siddall: Yes, sir, we have a contractor who runs our maintenance for us, and that’s part of the task of what they do. They have a requirement that any vehicle, when it reaches a certain age or mileage, that when they, or before they can repair it if it exceeds a certain dollar amount, they bring that to me each and every time. And we judge at that time whether the vehicle seems like its reasonable and justified to repair based on the age and mileage and condition of the vehicle and whether it’s met its general usage and expenditures. But it’s like a bell curve. Whenever that vehicle starts to climb that curve, you’re going to see increased costs. And at a certain point, it’s going to cost you more to rebuild that vehicle and to keep that vehicle than it is in fact going to cost you to purchase a new vehicle. And a majority of the vehicles that we do purchase are purchased under the GMA plan, so we split that cost or share that cost over basically about 36 months. Mr. Oliver: And our policy is five years, 100,000 miles; is that correct? Mr. Siddall: Actually on the pickup truck, it’s seven years and I think it’s 175,000. Mr. Oliver: So we aren’t replacing them, Commissioner Williams, unless they’re at least seven years old and 175,000 miles; right? Mr. Siddall: Yes, that’s correct. Mr. Oliver: If they meet either one of those two criteria. Mr. Williams: I understand. Like I said, I voted against it in the Finance Committee and my thought is to still vote against int. But my think is because it’s seven years old and got 175,000 miles on it, it still could be good for usage [inaudible]. I’m not saying we should be 9 riding in something that’s going to fall down on us or dilapidated, but I’m just thinking as long as it’s good equipment, that probably needs maybe not a rebuilt engine but a new engine installed, it would be good, especially in rough areas, a lot of places we have to go on [inaudible] and end up costing [inaudible]. Mr. Siddall: I understand that. And I will do that. I take vehicles, depending upon a vehicle that is transferred in from one department to another, I’ll evaluate that vehicle and determine whether it can be used in one of those high usage, high risk departments where it could possibly be used, and in certain cases I’ll transfer the vehicles out from one department to another in order to do that. As a matter of fact, we had, when I first got here, a 1965 Chevrolet pickup truck that was down in the garage. I pulled that vehicle up here so it could be used to help move trash and so forth [inaudible] landfill. So whenever possible, I will use vehicles to the last or it’s extinct. If there is life available in it, I’ll use every drop of it I can. Mr. Williams: Let me ask you one more question and then I’ll be quiet. When is the last time we bought vehicles--we’re buying 17 of them on this agenda--but when is the last time we purchased pickup trucks and how many did we get? Mr. Siddall: We purchased trucks last year also. Not to the number that’s here today, because again, we tried to allocate most of our revenues last year for law enforcement vehicles. So we pretty much got law enforcement area in good shape. So now we need to concentrate on all the rest of the departments that have not had the capital available to upgrade or improve their fleets. But again, many of those departments were without vehicles at all because [inaudible] not worthwhile to repair them. Mr. Williams: How many did we buy last year? That was my question. How many pickup trucks did we purchase last year? Mr. Siddall: On F250s, as you’re seeing here on this particular agenda item, I think it was approximately five to seven. Mr. Williams: Five to seven? Mr. Siddall: I’d have to get the exact number. Mayor Young: Is there any further discussion on this item, Item 12? We have a motion and second on the floor. Let’s go ahead and take a vote, then. All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Williams votes no. Motion carries 9-1. Mayor Young: The next item is Item 14. 10 Clerk: Item 14: Motion to approve excess coverage through Republic Western Specialty Underwriters, Inc. at a cost of $76,790 for two-year period from January 31, 2000 to January 30, 2002. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: I asked this to be pulled. Mr. Oliver, I believe, and the reason for it is I think that figure should be $79,853; am I correct? Mr. Oliver: No, I think the figure should be--we changed that figure to $76,790 and that’s correct, isn’t it? We worded the agenda item based on the Committee review and I believe the correct number is $76,790. Yes. We corrected--the agenda item in the printed agenda on the front part is correct. On the agenda item in the book, the $73,727 is incorrect Clerk: We changed it in Committee. Mr. Oliver: It was changed to the correct number in Committee. It’s $76,790. Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. I got you. Mr. Oliver: The $76,790 is correct. Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote with the green light. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 22: Motion to approve in concept the Municipal Services Benefit Unit (MSBU) for special assessment to pave unpaved roads with the exception of private roads. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion on this subject? 11 Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Mayor, the reason I had this pulled. I’m not opposed to this concept. I’m still supportive of it, but the motion that’s on the floor involves if somebody wants to move up on the unpaved road list, the City will pay for a third, the homeowner on either side of the street will for a third. I’d like to expand that so that as long as the City only pays a third, a street can be moved up. I’ve got a situation in Hephzibah with Eugenia Road, which is a road on the list. It’s down at the bottom. The City of Hephzibah, in conjunction with a contractor that’s developing a subdivision at the end of that road, is willing to put up two-thirds of the cost of paving the road, including drainage, and we would oversee the design of the road, it would meet our standards, but the City of Augusta would only put up one third of the cost. I’d like to ask the maker of the motion if he would accept that as an amendment. Mr. Shepard: I accept, so that the other two-thirds can be paid by parties other than the adjoining landowners; that’s what you want? Mr. Bridges: Yes, that’s it. As long as the City pays only one-third. Mr. Shepard: The City is still limited to a third. Mr. Bridges: One-third; correct? Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: Any objection to adding that? Any other discussion? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: I want to object to the amendment because I think that’s playing strategy politics and it could very well be put on the motion in a different way. But I’m still as afraid of this vote as I was when it was proposed about a year ago. I’m even a little bit more afraid of it with the amendment on it. It’s probably going to pass but I just have to vote my conscience on this one because I think that it’s very well intended, but I think it could be setting a dangerous precedent for possible abuse that if you’ve got development in an area which may exclude a development but may have in the same situation, I think Mr. Shepard is to be commended for bringing this in and working with Mr. Oliver, but let’s cut the chase on it. This started with how we’re going to deal with Bel Air. Bel Air has been historically written out of plans for this County, and I’m saying this for the record because when it came up earlier, people there basically exists on paper street which the County said had never been maintained, never dedicated, then all of a sudden, on the last day of the former Director being here, the paperwork was found, they had been accepted, then all of a sudden they were good streets. Well, that gets us to the point then if you’ve got some parties that might contribute, is that getting into the precedent where those who are able to pay get services out of the pot, but those that may be in 12 there still building home, may still be development, that because there is no development, because there is no sister government, then they still remain at the bottom of that pile. Now they were written out of the ‘87 sales tax proposal, yet they were solicited and promised. They came back four years later in ‘91, they came back when the former Commissioner, and like I say I applaud this Commissioner for at least writing them in, but I think it’s ridiculous to be written out of three sales tax proposals and put to the bottom of a priority list when you’ve got folks being six figure homes out there and can’t participate in a road paving process. This is not like we’ve got a situation whereby you’ve got two or three houses somewhere on a dirt road that’s been sitting there for 35 or 40 years. You’ve got people that the more you expand you out there and the more you pave, the development will be there and coming. They just do not have a principal developer who is in charge of it. So it is a situation whereby we are correcting a wrong, but it’s one of those where the rich get rich and the poor get poorer, and I don’t know whether this is the best test precedent for the City to start setting, that when some folk get together they can jump up and move off the list. They were intentionally placed down there and the only way out is it’s going to be a monkey deal to get them out, and I think you’re going to end up to a point where you’ve got some folk there that’s going to justifiably fight us on the sales tax and be able to get some friends and other parts of the sales tax to do it. And that’s just my personal opinion on it, and I think it’s going to pass, but I’ve got to express that for the record. That I don’t think this solves our problem. I think it creates another one. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. J. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: I pass, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: [inaudible] Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: I’m kind of like Mr. Mays. I don’t think this is fair and the way for us to govern or guide this City, where someone may be able to pay for a percentage of the paving and for someone who has been here for quite a long time and do not have a developer, and I know exactly what Mr. Mays is talking about. I don’t live in the area, but I have got a lot of people that I know that live in that area that are very much concerned, and I think if we lead in that direction we’re going to, I think we’re setting ourselves up to show this community and this City that we’re not going to be fair. Money isn’t always readily available for everyone and money is not everything, I understand that. If we’ve got a list, we’ve got a project list we had already established, I think we need to stick to our original list. Before when I heard this in Committee, I didn’t agree with it and I still don’t agree with it, and I’m going to have to vote my conviction. That’s not the way we need to do it. That’s my personal opinion. Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The intent of this Municipal Services Benefit was to take those who wanted to come out of priority order on present policy on unpaved roads into a priority position, and I think the other alternative, if they don’t want to and they can’t get together [inaudible] on their own road, in their own area specifically, what they’ll have to do is 13 wait on slots. There are certain folks who don’t want to wait on the slots and are willing to pay extra, I believe, to come to the top of the list. So this doesn’t commit us to do this. It just gives us a vehicle for those areas who can get together and move one step forward and go ahead and pave their roads. I know that the unpaved road list was passed I guess about 18 months ago, and we have that policy and we have to tell these people no. I know this gentleman came forward, that I’m thinking of, came forward and asked for an exception. This would be a way to serve him and preserve the priority list. I understand what your convictions are, but my convictions are equally strong. If we pass this additional vehicle, we’re getting some roads paved before slots come along. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add a point, too. This actually opens up more money to pave more roads as a result of the City only having to pay one-third of say Scott Street or Eugenia. We only have to pay one-third of the cost rather than the full 100 percent. So two- thirds of that cost goes on further down the list to another road that might need to be paved. So you’re actually--we’ve only got so much money. We know we don’t have enough money to pave all the roads, but this actually opens up more money to pave more streets with, and I think it’s a beneficial endeavor. Mayor Young: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Bridges I understand what you’re saying and I feel with that, but I still think that--my statement about money not being everything. Everybody is not able to do the same things, and if we got to treat everybody in this City fairly, if we got a list already, I think we should go by the list that we’ve got. We need to bring funds and do some things to generate some revenue in order to do some more streets. If that’s the avenue we’re going to take, but I think if we’re going with this, just the people that’s able to do it, they going to have their street paved. And the people that is not able to do it, they still going to be left behind. And they’re on the list for a long time. I certainly am lucky where I live in District 2. I don’t have any sidewalks but the street is paved. But if my street was not paved and I heard that you had okayed an ordinance or changed the rules so someone else who have the money could do it, I mean I would be highly upset. I just don’t think that this is--with all respect to all the Commissioners and their work and efforts, I don’t think this is what we need to do. Mayor Young: Well, I think we [inaudible] of this issue, so let’s go ahead and call the questions and put this to a vote. All in favor, please vote aye with your green light. Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote no. Motion carries 8-2. Clerk: Regular agenda, Item 37: Motion to approve a request of funds not to exceed $2,700 from promotional account for city keys, frames and nameplates. (Masters® reception) 14 Mr. J. Brigham: I move approval. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Clerk: Item 38: Consider approval of the purchase of 3000 ft. of ductile iron pipe (DIP) at a cost of $143,760 from the low bidder, McWane Cast Iron Pipe Company. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee January 25, 2000) Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Mays: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: This was--I’d like to hear a little bit from the Director in reference to this particular item. It came forth with a no recommendation on it, and I think he can better explain it as to how that no motion for those non-Committee members might want to know how we got to that point. Not so much for objection of what he’s proposing, but the fact that they deliberated on the cost of this based on the fact that there possibly might be, might be I say, a better bid estimate but also may cost more because of the material. I think past governments have been criticized because they were urged to do things with better material. We know the problems we’re incurring right now in terms of water, with leaks popping up like holes in Swiss cheese, and we don’t have enough fingers to stick in the dike as it is. We’ve got an opportunity to deal with a better material for a small percentage, in light of all the other six and five figure change orders that we do in this City from time to time. We need to hear from the Director, I think, first on what the pros and cons are [inaudible] bring back two different cost quotes [inaudible] and hear the pros and cons in reference to the [inaudible] that’s involved. We’re talking about going underwater, dealing with the Augusta Canal, and I think if there’s a better option, that almost may be the most costly option, but we ought to hear that out. And that’s why there was a no recommendation, not a rejection, per se. Mayor Young: All right. Let’s hear from our Water Works Director, Public Utilities. Mr. Speaker: Gentlemen, to assist us in the deliberation this afternoon, and believe me, I do appreciate the thought that has gone into this, and that is that you have two good materials 15 and one is good and one is better, the better one should cost more and why not go ahead and do it? And I appreciate that thought, but in order to assess the two materials, I’ve asked Jorge Jiminez with Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold Engineers to address the item of material, then I’ll speak so far as our work in construction and maintenance is concerned. Mayor Young: Mr. Jiminez, if you’ll give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Jiminez: Jorge Jiminez, ZEL Engineers, 435 Telfair Street. Good afternoon, gentlemen. We evaluated all available materials for this particular job, which is a force main, and we issued a report to the [inaudible] Department on it. There were three materials we judged acceptable for the project. We would not have recommended all three if we didn’t think that all three would perform. Obviously, there are deficiencies in all three materials, which are slight, and we felt that the iron pipe with the kind of coating that we called for would be suitable. The polyethylene pipe, of course, is suitable, also the PVC pipe. Each material has various deficiencies that in this particular application, none of which are substantial for the difference in funds. The only advantage of the polyethylene pipe is that it has welded joints, so we have no joints, while the iron pipe has joints every 20 feet. And that is a deficiency on the part on the iron pipe, it has to have a coating to protect it from the environment it will be in, which is sewage. And the foul-smelling, rotten egg smell that hopefully you haven’t smelled is hydrogen sulfite and it attacks a number of materials, including concrete and iron. So the iron will be coated with a ceramic epoxy to protect the iron. With that kind of coating, the iron pipe will do a satisfactory job. This is pretty big pipe. It’s 30 inches in diameter. And the total job will be 12,000 feet. So it is a suitable project for the City, but as I said, I believe all three materials will do a satisfactory job. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I hate to interrupt your speech, but my understanding is this pipe is also better because it is jointed and the area that they’ll be placed you won’t be able to roll long lengths into place, that this would be more beneficial and time saving in that regard. Mr. Jiminez: In that regard, the polyethylene pipe, which is not the iron pipe, is normally welded outside of the trench, and then it is rolled into the trench. In this particular section, which is along the canal, there are no other utility crossings. So essentially you’re able to handle a longer length of the polyethylene pipe if that should be the type you are using. The iron pipe is built just like your [inaudible] going in. It’s the same type of construction and to its credit, all of your folks that work with it are very familiar with our pipe. They can get replacement pieces very easily and fast also. And they don’t have, we don’t have any polyethylene pipe in the system, you don’t have any, except in the bottom of your landfill. The big pipe at the bottom of your landfill is polyethylene pipe. So we stand by our recommendation and that you purchase the low bidder. We are certain it will be an adequate pipeline for you. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough? 16 Mr. Colclough: You keep using the word satisfactory. What happens as unsatisfactory when these joints meet and your [inaudible] coating deteriorates on the pipe, and satisfactory [inaudible]. You know that’s a kind of word that kind of tells me that [inaudible]. Mr. Jiminez: Not in the near future. Satisfactory means because the iron pipe has joints– Mr. Colclough: I understand what you’re saying. Mr. Jiminez: Let me explain this. This pipeline is not a pressure line. This is a suction line. It is a vacuum. And you will be moving water on the negative pressure, which is hard to understand, so the reason for being cautious about the joints is only that we don’t want air to get into the pipeline. That’s the only problem. Mr. Colclough: The problem is iron will rust. Mr. Jiminez: The iron would rust if you did not have, if it did not have the epoxy coating. Mr. Colclough: That sewer gas? Mr. Jiminez: That’s the purpose of the coating, to protect the iron. Mr. Colclough: You guarantee that this protection of this coating that you keep talking about will be satisfactory [inaudible]? Mr. Jiminez: Yes, sir. Mr. Colclough: What I’m trying to get at, sir, is that we’re putting something underground and we’ve got all these pipes bursting and we’re going to put them underground, why not put the best that we can? Mr. Jiminez: Commissioners, we have to recommend to you what we felt was a proper material for the job. Now some materials are better than others. My preference, personal preference, is the polyethylene pipe. I’ve expressed that to the Utilities Department, but it costs more money. That’s not to say that the pipe we’ve recommended will not do the job or won’t do it adequately for 25 or 30 years. But see sometimes I like to look beyond 25 or 30 years. This is a pipeline that should hopefully last 50 years and I’m not 100 percent certain that the coating on the iron pipe, cause they haven’t done it for 50 years. Mr. Colclough: Since you feel that the polyethylene pipe [inaudible] why wouldn’t [inaudible] recommend that in the proposal? Mr. Jiminez: Well, we judged that all three materials would do the job and you have a requirement to competitively bid them, these items. And we did that. And it was, if it had been 17 your second low bidder, the difference in the second low bidder which was iron, also, and the polyethylene, I think was $3 a foot, so I would definitely have recommended it. Mr. Colclough: We’re not talking about low bidder or high bidder, we’re talking about the best material to put in the ground. Mr. Jiminez: The best material is the polyethylene. Mr. Bridges: Excuse me, Richard, I can’t hear you. Mr. Colclough: I say we’re not talking about the low bidder or the middle bidder. What I’m questioning is the best material that we can put in the ground where we can feel confident that this material will be there for a while and we won’t have to worry about [inaudible] because #1, someone down the line, we’re going to be coming back with change orders. If you put it in the ground the first time, hopefully they won’t have to come back and submit change orders. That’s the point I’m getting at. I’m not– Mr. Jiminez: Mr. Colclough, the best material for the project is the polyethylene pipe. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke, you wanted to talk? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. What is the difference in cost? Mr. Jiminez: On this 3,000 feet, it’s $30,000. You have another 9,000 feet you’re opening bids on with the contractor in 30 days. So for the full project, it will be $120,000 our of $1.4 million. Mr. Oliver: Jorge, if the polyethylene pipe gets broken, do we have the capability within the Utilities Department of [inaudible] to fix it? Mr. Jiminez: That has to a small point of concern by the Utilities Department, the maintenance people, that would not have any of this material anywhere in the system, so they have never worked with it, and that is their concern. And that is, like I said, all materials have some--you have to have someone learn how to fix it. It’s not that difficult. In fact, they’re putting some 1300 feet of this material [inaudible] this week. Very similar. This material is ten inches thick. Whether, but your people have never worked with this material. Mayor Young: I mean they came from Model T’s to new Ford pickup trucks under Mr. Williams here, so I think they can train to work on it. Mr. Cheek had a question. Mr. Cheek: Have you done any quality assurance work on your coatings and environmental simulations? Mr. Jiminez: We have reviewed all the literature, all the material, and coating on the iron, and the coatings are completely not affected by anything. The only thing that I am concerned 18 about is they haven’t been making this ceramic epoxy for more than 25 years. So when we get beyond 25 years, we’re in sort of a fuzzy area about longevity. Mr. Cheek: You can demonstrate that by accelerating pressure and temperature? Mr. Jiminez: They have done accelerated tests. Mr. Cheek: And those are satisfactory? Mr. Jiminez: Those were satisfactory. Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] some of these concerns in the Engineering Services Committee and my concerns were dings from wrenches and things at the joints, and after discussion with the Director, I feel very comfortable with this pipe, that it would serve the purposes and be more cost effective. Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: A couple of things? Mr. Jiminez: Yes? Mr. J. Brigham: Has there been any failure with the iron pipes with the epoxy coating anywhere in the past 25 years that you know of? Mr. Jiminez: Not that I know of. Mr. J. Brigham: How long is the epoxy, the fiberglass pipe, how long has that been around? Mr. Jiminez: Polyethylene pipe has been around for a long, long time. Since just past the war. Mr. J. Brigham: We’re talking about 50 years? Mr. Jiminez: 50 years. Mr. J. Brigham: Do you know of any failures with any of that? Mr. Jiminez: No, sir. Mr. J. Brigham: Thank you. Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? 19 Mr. Bridges: I have one other question, Jorge. If in 25 years it eats through the coating, does it still have eat through the metal, too? Mr. Jiminez: Sure does. Mr. Bridges: Okay. So how long will it take it to eat through the metal if it gets through the coating in 25 years? Mr. Jiminez: You don’t want to know. Two years. Mr. Bridges: That’s not good. Mr. Kuhlke: Jorge, how thick is the coating? Mr. Jiminez: The coating is 40 or 60 mils. I’m not sure whether it’s 40. I’ve looked at so many. It’s either 40 mils or 60 mis. Mr. Kuhlke: About a quarter of an inch? Mr. Jiminez: No, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: An eighth of an inch? Mr. Jiminez: Less than that. I’d say a sixteenth of an inch. Mr. Kuhlke: Sixteenth? Mr. Jiminez: Yes, sir. Mr. Kuhlke: it was yours, you would have that? Mr. Jiminez: If it was mine, sir? Mr. Kuhlke: Yes. Mr. Jiminez: I’d put polyethylene in the ground, sir. Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess I’m kind of like my old friend [inaudible] Neal up there, he likes to talk about public officials and [inaudible] raise your hand and put it on the Bible than the day you were before. And we have to rely on Mr. Jiminez, Mr. Hicks on certain things. I realize some things [inaudible] but a lot of them are professionals. And I try and respect the 20 professional dealings of all of our people in different departments, but we set policy and that’s not an area where we got any expertise, regardless of what the skills made be [inaudible] and that’s where we have to go. But in searching as one policy makers, it’s a little unnerving in that right now we’re in a crisis in this City. Some people may not want to call it a crisis, but we’ve got to deal with two things that drastically hit us in the face. We’ve got to deal with the conditions of how we feel with water, and that can be from sewage to water to high pressure to low pressure, whatever. You mention water, that’s a concern of the City. And we’ve got to deal with housing. Two thing we’ve got to deal with. So when we call upon the professionals, we’ve got to deal with that. Try to have some comfort zone level. We got to this point the other day because some of us didn’t have a comfort zone level. It wasn’t that we were in doubt that we wouldn’t get recommended the proper thing, but if a planning folk tell me, and you all are professionals, but if you tell me y’all are wrestling with something, then I hear we got an emergency and I guess I’m kind of like that sign, Mr. Mayor, you know, [inaudible] whatever on your part doesn’t constitute an emergency on mine. You bring me something, you tell me you’re in a hurry, you’ve got to get it done, but then you’ve got self doubts when you bring it to a point that you wrestle over something and I don’t know anything about it. I got to deal with what you give me, what you bring me. Then you get in here and this will be recorded for all the elements of time, you tell me professionally if it’s your house, then you’d use the better one that’s in there. Well, this is the people’s house. It’s their canal. If you tell me ten percent more, and I say that because we’ve sat on a lot of stuff that’s been 10, 15, 20, we got the highest number of darn change orders of counties in this whole state. We can search and walk it. It may not rank first but we are way up there, Mr. Mayor. And what I’m getting to is the point that if I’ve got to make a decision based on what I have to rely totally on what’s presented to me, and if there’s doubt, if there is jockeying back and forth, then I certainly feel more comfortable with what’s best than I do guessing. Now I realize all this is man-made stuff. The best one can break down in two days after you put it in there. But I have one more question. Wasn’t there a question about what the cost was going to be on installation, even though the material was going to be higher? Wasn’t there going to be a considerable savings on the installing of the more expensive pipe and are there numbers that relate to that? Because we were told we would be presented with a two-fold proposal, and that I guess that should include both installation and material. I’d like to hear what the installation cost is going to be on both and what do we save on one versus what we lose on the other. Either one of y’all can answer that, I’m not particular. Mr. Jiminez: I’ll address it. Mr. Mays, this purchase is for 3,000 feet. As I said, on the last day of this month we will be taking bids on the remaining 9,000 feet. Those bids will be for not only the material but for the installed price, for the 9,000. We have in the bid pricing for all three materials. We’ve asked the contractors to give you prices on at least two. Any contractor. At least two of those three so that you will be able to assess what the total install costs. The reason you are having to purchase this 3,000 feet is one of expediency as it relates to how long you can keep the canal down in order to install this 3,000 feet, which means that you have to order material right away so it will be here. Mr. Mays: Jorge, let me cut you off one second, and I’m going to shut up, Mr. Mayor. The canal’s urgency, I think, is important to all of us, and we realize y’all [inaudible] do that 21 during July 4. But I still repeat the same thing. We knew we were going to have to draw the canal down. We knew this was going to be. But when you come to me and tell me that all the time factors rests on our shoulders, I have a little bit of a problem with that, because this wasn’t going to be one that you were going to have to say this just came up, we knew this was going to happen, and then when it’s presented to me in a committee a week ago, then there is a certain amount of self doubt. I hope you all can understand, this is not a grilling to deal with your professional ability or anything else. It’s a point whereby 200,000 folk are looking at us right now and giving us hell with everything we deal with with water. And we don’t have any room nor comfort zone to deal with making decisions where it looks as though we’re getting doubts professionally and we are doing it based on price, when folk are telling us y’all are wasting a hell of a lot of money on everything else. That’s the only thing I’m trying to get y’all to understand, that this ain’t personal. This is about business and if it’s clear where you’re going to go, if it’s clear where you guaranteed it, then I don’t have a problem with it cause I don’t know about it. [inaudible] If it was, I could tell you. But this is something I got to depend on y’all to deal with, and what I dealt with in that meeting the other week, I’ve not reached that comfort zone to where if this is where we are going, then all of a sudden all the emergencies pop up. If it’s going to be an emergency, Mr. Mayor, by drawing down the canal, y’all ought to have started sooner. Mayor Young: Depending on what the Commission does today with the 3,000 feet, are you locked in to the same material on the 9,000? Mr. Jiminez: No, sir. You’ll just have, if you get two different materials, you can have a section of different material. That’s not a problem. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we go with the more expensive pipe simply because of the track record standpoint and it concerns me a little bit the coating on the inside of the steel pipe, and if we had anything to happen there, you indicated that it would attack the steel pipe in two years and we could have a real problem. So I think it’s in the best interest of this community to go with the, what your gut feeling tells you we ought to. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I’d like to, if Mr. Kuhlke would agree, to add an amendment to that, that we provide, if we do go with the polyethylene pipe, that we provide for the training and technology to be made available for our people in the Waterworks Department to be able to repair and replace this piping should the need arise. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll accept that. 22 Mayor Young: Is there any objection to amending the motion? Is there any further discussion on this issue? Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say that, like Mr. Mays I agree we’ve got a lot of change orders and I’d like to verbally say that I hope whatever we decide to do with this pipe, that everything will be covered so we won’t have to come back again and go over a change order down the road to do what we’re doing now. We are changing our pipe and getting a special one and I think that’s what we need to do that, but I think we ought to consider everything into the pie, so when the pie is done, you won’t have to go back and put the sugar in it. Let’s do everything while we’re doing it. We’ve got a lot of change orders coming back, and while we’re going with this canal, I think we ought to consider everything. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: I just wonder where the extra money is coming from. Mayor Young: I was just getting ready to ask that question. Do we have a total figure of what this will be with this alternative? Mr. Oliver: Mr. Hicks can– Mr. Hicks: [inaudible] Mr. Oliver: Do you have the precise figure? Mr. Hicks: I don’t have the precise figure. It will be roughly $175,000, but we will have the money for that additional $3,000 for this portion. It is a bond issue project. We do have that contingency money bond issue, so we’ll have sufficient funds to buy the [inaudible] pipe also. Mr. Bridges: So it will not impact any other projects? We won’t have to do anything in that regard? Mr. Hicks: No, sir, it will not. We will be able to provide that. Mr. Bridges: If the motion passes to get the more expensive pipe, are we making basically a policy decision that this is what we’ll continue on with in the future? I guess I’m asking the Commissioners. Is that the way the staff understands this? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? 23 Mr. Mays: What I think we need to do is that we at least need to give, whether it’s this Department or any other Department, the comfort zone and the freedom, and I won’t call any past names, but we need to operate under the assumption that the wicked witch is dead. They can bring to us professionally without fear what they think will work in the best interests of the City and then be able to defend it and back it up. Not come in to a point where they are half stepping to a point because it’s going to be price only. If it is something that they know we’ve got to have, they will bring that quality first and be able to back it up. That’s the only thing that they need to understand, but they do not need to operate under the feat status that they are going to come in and get hit across the head when we’ve got real serious safety that we’ve got to depend on. I don’t think that changes our course that they shouldn’t be prudent and conservative with the people’s money but I think where they have a choice, a choice to bring us something that’s good or better, they won’t be afraid to express the better. And I think for too long, some have had that fear because it may not be the support there, and that they need to get out of that box. Mr. Bridges: Max, once again, the money is coming out of the bond money contingency? The extra money? Mr. Hicks: Yes. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: A question, Mr. Mayor. Where do we usually get our money from when the change orders come in? All these unexpected things happening around, and we need to come up--when we have a six figure change order, where do we--no one asks where the money is coming from at that point, but we usually come up with it. What I’m saying is we need to put the stuff in the ground that is going to be there for a while, we won’t have to worry about it, and pay the cost for it, rather than coming back and having to pay the cost at a later date. That’s what I’m saying. Mr. Oliver: For just general information, when we set up a project, we budget a ten percent project contingency. That is policy. And within than contingency, that’s where those types of items are addressed. Mayor Young: Any further discussion or questions? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: A quick question. I’ve worked with poly pipe for about 23 years and the only time I’ve seen it fail, basically, is under ultra high pressure or vacuum conditions like you’re talking about and walls collapse. Is there adequate wall thickness on this to ensure that it will not collapse under these pressures that we’re going to put it under? Mr. Jiminez: Yes, sir. 24 Mr. Bridges: Is that guaranteed by the manufacturer? In other words, they will repair it if it collapses? Mr. Jiminez: I don’t know whether--how to answer that question. But we have designed it, I have designed it, with [inaudible] pressure of absolute zero, and that calls for a two inch thickness of that pipe of that diameter. According to the design manual for that pipe and the loading and the fitting for the pipe. So the pipe will not collapse on vacuum. Mr. Shepard: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Oliver: What about ultraviolet light? Mayor Young: The question has been called. All in favor of the motion to go with more expensive, the motion amended to include training and technology, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0 Clerk: Item 39: Consider approval of invoice no. 20818 from C. & B Foster’s Inc. for service rendered in connection with the removal of debris from the river bottom and banks as a result of the Corps drawdown of the Savannah River in the amount of $57,797.09 and $5,502.52 to Martin Marietta funded from General Fund Contingency with reimbursement to be requested from the Corps of Engineers. Mr. Oliver: I would note I’ve received from Mr. Beck a further estimate of $136,314 to repair the damages that were done to Lock & Dam Park, and that would bring it back to the condition it was before, however this is something we’re going to have to wait on until we get an appropriate response from the Corps because we do not have funds budgeted at this time. Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mayor Young: We have a motion and second, and this will come out of the General Contingency? Mr. Oliver: Yes, sir. Mayor Young: And what will the balance of that fund be after this money is taken out, Randy? Mr. Oliver: $500,000 less $7,000 less these two items. 25 Mr. Shepard: About $430,000. Mayor Young: Thank. Mr. Shepard: $429,739. Mayor Young: Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. J. Brigham: At this rate, how long will the contingency last? Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: We are still working to get the Corps to reimburse us for this damage? Mr. Oliver: Yes. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Mr. J. Brigham votes no. Motion carries 8-1. Clerk: Item 40: Motion to approve a Resolution asking the Congress of the United States to reject the Corps of Engineers’ request to decommission the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam; supporting the call of an Environmental Impact Statement on the decommissioning alternative for the New Savannah Bluff Lock and Dam by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and compensation to owners of private property damaged during the “live demonstration” to the extent as provided by law. Mr. Bridges: I move for approval. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Gentlemen, I had this placed on here and it follows discussions we had with the Georgia Department of Natural Resources, the Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, with our members of Congress, and also with the Corps of Engineers. I think this pretty much is a good position for us to take at this point. We had a meeting this morning with Congressman Norwood’s sponsor, with potential stakeholders in this project, and everyone agrees that what is in the best interest of this community is to find a solution that will take us 50 years down the road, if not longer, and I think this resolution us gets us in that direction if we take that action. Any other discussion? All in favor of the resolution, please vote aye. 26 Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, if you would forward that to the certain parties. Clerk: Item 41: Motion to accept the recommendation of Robinson & Humphrey regarding the 1949 Pension Fund to take approximately one-half of the assets $4.1 million, from INVESCO and divide equally between Laurel Capital Advisors and Baird investment Management. (Approved by Pension Committee January 26, 2000) Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Item 42: Consider approval of Goals, Objectives and Evaluation procedures for Administrator. Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke? Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, our Committee met several times, along with the Administrator. You have in front of you somewhat of a revised, even though it’s the same thing you have in your book, list of goals and objectives that were set forth for the Administrator for the year 2000. The one that Ms. Bonner passed out, in addition to listing the items that we want to have on there, gives a time frame of when these activities will take place and also it tells you what the cost impact is on each one of these items. It was unanimously approved by in Committee last week to pass it on to this body for final approval. In addition to the goals and objections, we set out the way that we would like to do the evaluation, and what we have decided to do, and this is a little contrary to his contract, but rather than have an evaluation every six months, that we will get an update in six months and then the final evaluation will be done at the end of the year. Our evaluation will not be done just by the Committee but it will be done by the Commission as a whole. So I commend this to you and would like to make a motion that we approve these goals and objectives. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? 27 Mayor Young: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Just a point of information. I congratulate and thank the Chairman for the very good job of his Committee in working along with the Administrator. I just want to ask, just for question, we’ve had some other things--and maybe this [inaudible] some other items that were submitted or the possibility of submitting some. Were they incorporated into this list or we basically add those? Mr. Oliver: The only item that requires further evaluation on that list is really the joint purchasing option, which we will do that. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, to answer your question, my specific points dealt with some proposed expenditures of SPLOST money, and one of the goals as to SPLOST, I think we’re in the process of setting goals through the Citizens Advisory Committee and I did get the railroad switch project in there, so that was my main objective. Since you’re an ex-officio member of that Committee, I assume you’d still be in support of that project. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, he had about eight on there. I said lawyers move pretty good quick, so I didn’t know if he had his eight on there or he just got one of his. But I didn’t know until we saw that list and didn’t have any objection. I just asked whether or not they were on that list or not. Mayor Young: I, too, would like to commend Mr. Kuhlke and the members of the Committee for the work that they’ve done on this. Truly this brings it to performance-based government and it would be wonderful if we had one of these for the year 2001 done and build our budget for next year based around a set of goals and objectives, and it would give us a work plan for our budget. We have a motion on the floor and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Item 43: Discuss hiring a legislative lobbyist. (Requested by Commissioner Bridges.) Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I asked that this be put on the full Commission agenda for the purposes of just really discussing a lobbyist. We’ve brought this up for four years now and every year we seem to bog down. We never had have a lobbyist to go to Atlanta for us. We’ve budgeted money for it. We’ve debated over who to send and we’ve debated Congressmen, former Mayors, former citizens, and never can seem to come up with somebody to go to Atlanta to represent us in Atlanta, although we recognize the need to 28 have a lobbyist there. And I know there have been several names proposed this time. I know Jerry mailed a list of some names he got from the ACCG. I’m sure they’re all qualified and good people. I’d like to throw the name in the hat of Dave Pratt, who is a lobbyist as well in Atlanta. He’s worked for some local Congressmen on their team. And I would not be opposed, I think basically the motion I’m going to make, we’ve gone through 25 percent of the Legislative agenda now in Atlanta. We’ve got 3/4 left. We don’t have a Legislative representative yet. I’m going to make the motion that we ask the Mayor to appoint a committee of his choosing, hopefully a speedy committee, to bring back a recommendation of a lobbyist and that each Commission be allowed to place someone as a recommendation for that lobbyist. I think it’s important we have one and I think we’ve missed out in the past by not having someone to lobby for us and I think it’s something we always wait too late to do it, and maybe this is too late as well. Maybe we should start in the middle of the year for next year for this next time around. Maybe we can get our politicking done and agree on somebody, but I just make that in the form of a motion. Mayor Young: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, just refresh my memory. What funds, if any, do we have budgeted for a lobbyist, Mr. Bridges or Randy? Mr. Oliver: About $14,000 is budgeted. Mr. Shepard: Thank you. This motion, Mr. Bridges, would not commit us to spend that much? Mr. Bridges: It would not. I mean even if the Mayor brought back a recommendation, you wouldn’t have to vote for it, you still wouldn’t have to spend it. It’s to allow the Mayor to appoint a committee of his choosing to hopefully study the matter and bring us back a recommendation of what we need to do in this regards. Mr. Shepard: For $14,000 I don’t even know if we can get an Atlanta lawyer to take the job. Mr. Mays: Definitely not an Augusta lawyer. Mr. Shepard: I know one that would have a conflict of interest, Mr. Mays. Mayor Young: Gentlemen, any further discussion on this? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 29 Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mayor Young: The Mayor will quickly appoint the committee and hopefully have a recommendation for you at the next meeting. In the meantime, let me ask each Commissioner if you have suggested names for a lobbyist, if you would please get those to my office in the next 48 hours, that will expedite the process. Thank you. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, one recommendation I’d make, too, is the names--I don’t know how you’re going to do it, bring back one or several, but it might be good if the committee would kind of feel the people out to make sure they’ll do it for $14,000, like Mr. Shepard says. Mayor Young: Yes, sir, we will. I would envision the committee bringing back a list of names for you to choose from with some resumes so you’d know of their particular experience and how much they cost. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I would like to add that it might be good that since we have--I know you’re going to move fast with the committee, but I think probably we ought to realistically look at something that might deal with another time frame, and I think it’s good to bring it up today and it’s one Jerry has been on for quite a while, as well as you. But it might do us a little free time that in the process of those that might be going ACCG, [inaudible] we have our [inaudible] that is coming up in February, to take it upon ourselves to do some networking of one in that process while we’re at the [inaudible] and do some feeling out, you know, of multiple persons that might be productively working for other cities right now and some that may not be working for other cities, because sometimes that’s a dual-edge sword because sometimes those parties and interests cross and lobbyists have to make a decision, and it’s who is paying the most and who they want to swing a certain situation for. So all that goes into it. But I think we have an opportunity since we are going to be there, some of us on at least two different occasions, that we can do some lobbying of our own at that time in reference to that same issue. Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s move on. Clerk: Item 44: Motion to authorize condemnation of the parcels shown on Exhibit “A” attached hereto. Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Any discussion on the list? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. 30 Clerk: Item 45: Motion to approve tender agreement and replacement contract naming Team Four Contracting, Inc. as replacement contractor. (Approved by Public Service Committee January 10, 2000) Mr. J. Brigham: I so move. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Oliver: We have had to default the contractor and the bonding company stepped in to complete the job. We’ve come to an understanding with the bonding company for completion of the job and the outstanding expenses. We recommend approval. Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second for approval. Does anyone have any questions about this? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: What is the schedule for completion of the facility? Mr. Wall: The contract gives them 120 days. Mr. Cheek: 120 days? Early April or pretty close to that? Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Clerk: Before we go into legal meeting, Mr. Mayor, if we could just public notice that our th February 15 Commission meeting has been scheduled for the 14. That’s Monday, February th 14. Mr. Oliver: And you may also want to mention, Mr. Mayor, that the CH2M master plan th will be presented the 4, this Friday, in the Chambers at three o’clock and the meeting with the th Judges has been set up for the boathouse on the 24, again at three o’clock. Mayor Young: Since we’re making announcements, we had a news conference earlier that the [inaudible] will be here with the Blue Angels in an air show at Bush Field and announced that Susan Still will be with us all weekend. Anybody else have an announcement? Let’s take care of the addendum agenda. Addendum Item: Motion to approve the transplantation of trees adjacent to Radisson Hotel parking plaza which will be otherwise destroyed due to hotel expansion. Mr. Shepard: I move for approval. 31 Mr. Bridges: Second. Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Item 46: Legal Meeting: ? Property ? Personnel ? Update on sludge and other pending litigation ? Advice regarding potential litigation Mr. Wall: We’d request a legal meeting to consider the items that are listed there, to include property, personnel, update on the sludge and other pending litigation, as well as to give some advice on some information concerning some potential litigation. Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any objection to going into the legal motion to discuss these issues? No objection heard, so we will recess for this meeting. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. (Legal Meeting) Item 47: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia’s Open Meeting Act. Mayor Young: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the motion to sign the affidavit . Mr. Shepard: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mayor Young: Is there any opposition? Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mayor Young: We will executive it without opposition. 32 Mayor Young: Other business to come before the Commission? Mr. Wall: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that we add to the agenda the settlement of the Donna Murray claim and consideration of that. Mr. Shepard: I move to add it, Mr. Mayor. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mayor Young: Motion and second to add. Any opposition or any objection? No objection heard. Mr. Beard out. Motion carries 9-0. Mayor Young: It is added to the agenda. Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: The motion is to approve settlement of the Donna Murray claim against Harrison Sears as well as the City and the Board of Tax Assessors by payment of the sum of $50,000 and adjustment of the salary to $53,380. Mr. Oliver: Is the salary adjustment effective the first of the next pay period? Mr. Wall: Yes. And I recommend approval. Mr. H. Brigham: I so move. Mayor Young: We have a motion. Do we have a second? Mr. Williams: Second. Mayor Young: Any discussion on this item? No discussion. All in favor of the item, please vote aye. Mr. Beard out. Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote no. Motion carries 6-3. Mayor Young: Any further business to come before this body this afternoon? Is there a motion to adjourn? We adjourn without objection. (Meeting adjourned) 33 Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on February 1, 2000. Clerk of Commission