HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-07-2000 Regular Meeting
1
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
March 7, 2000
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:03 p.m., Tuesday, March 7, 2000,
the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, H. Brigham, J. Brigham, Cheek, Colclough, 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. TERRY PHILLIPS, SR.
THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, before we begin, let me just state for the record that we
have a large number of people in attendance today who are here because of an ongoing interest
in our Animal Control shelter. A request was made by this group to appear at the meeting today,
but it came in after the deadline for items to be placed on this agenda. And compounding it, we
have a lot of issues on the agenda today and we need to be out of here by six o'clock so the
Board of Elections can count the votes in here tonight. The group is on the agenda for the Public
Safety Committee meeting on Monday--I'm sorry, the meeting is on Wednesday, Wednesday
afternoon, and they will certainly be glad to hear from them and hear their concerns. Ms. Sallie
Manning faxed me a statement today that she had planned to present orally today, and I have
supplied that written statement to the Commissioners. So having said that, we thank you for
your attendance here today, and Madame Clerk, let's move along with the order of the day,
please.
Clerk: Yes, sir. Additions to the agenda:
1. Approve contract with JS Haren Co. in the amount of $122,000.00 regarding
the renovation of the Wrightsboro Road Booster Pump Station. (Funded by
Account No. 508043410-5425110.
2. Approve contract with Mabus Construction, Inc. in the amount of
$1,891,216.83 regarding the construction of the mid city Relief Force Main.
(Funded by Account No. 508403420-5425210)
3. Appointment of Davida Johnson to the Animal Control Board. (District 2
appointment)
4. Approve award of contract with Frank Shelton, Inc. in the amount of
$214,500.00 for the cleaning and painting of the Tobacco Road Elevated
Storage Tank.
Mayor Young: Do we have a motion to add these items to the agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection? None heard. These items will be added at the
appropriate time.
Clerk: Proclamation in support of Census 2000.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, would you like to have a copy of it?
Clerk: Would those representing the Census 2000 Complete Count Committee join the
Mayor at the podium, please. [Reading] In recognition of the Census 2000, whereas the United
States Government is required by the Constitution to accomplish a count of every resident of this
country every ten years, and whereas the 2000 county is scheduled to begin in March 2000, and
whereas an accurate count is important to the City of Augusta for their portion, representation,
and allocation of federal funds, and whereas the City of Augusta was undercounted by an
estimated two percent of its population in the 1990 census, and whereas the City seeks to attain
less than one percent under count during the 2000 census through 100 percent participation by all
residents; now therefore I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do hereby declare March
2000 as Augusta Census Month, to encourage each resident of Augusta Richmond County to
complete and return their census questionnaire by April 15, 2000. All residents should
encourage their family, friends, neighbors and coworkers of Augusta Richmond County to
complete their census questionnaire as timely as possible and be counted for the sake of
improvements in our community. In witness thereof, I have unto set my hand and caused the
seal of Augusta to be affixed this first day of March 2000.
Mayor Young: Madame Clerk, I'll present this to Mr. Sol Walker, who is the chairman
of our Complete Count Committee. Let me just say that Mr. Walker and his committee have
been working almost a year now to get us up to this point as we prepare for the census forms that
will be in our mailboxes in the next week or so. They have some wonderful plans in place and
we have Wendy Brown, who is heading up our census office here as our full-time worker, and I
guess neighborhood activist would be a good term, because she is going to be out in the
neighborhoods, encouraging people to return the census forms. We're looking for a good count
in Augusta this year. Mr. Walker, we want to commend you and thank you for what you've
done.
Mr. Walker: First of all, I'd really like to thank Mayor Young and the council for the
proclamation in the hopes that it will spur all of our citizens to return their form when it comes to
your homes so that everyone can be counted. But I really want to recognize this young man. I'd
like to have his mother, Ms. Virginia Anderson, to come forward with him, because without her,
there's no him. The Census 2000 Committee had a contest and we asked all of the students of
3
Richmond County, I think they were high school students, to compete by making a Census 2000
poster, and this young man's was picked as the winning poster. And I hope the media can get a
picture of this. He represents the best that we have to offer. So often we see in the paper, we see
the negative stuff. But this young man has been very positive and public spirited and has won a
contest in support of this community. And so I want to present him first of all--his name is
Ernest Anderson. Ernest is a twelfth-grader at T. W. Josey. He tells me he's not interested in
being an artist but wants to be a scientist. First of all I want to give you this Census 2000
Everybody Counts tee shirt, and the next time I see you, I want to see you with it on. And we
have another package here for you that I think I'll give to your mother, because it's got something
important in here and that's also very valuable. You might lose it. But we do want to
congratulate you for your being public spirited, for the civic mindedness that you've
demonstrated by doing this poster. I just hope that all of our citizens can take your lead and be
sure that they're as public spirited and civic minded as you are. Thank you very much and good
luck.
A ROUND OF APPLAUSE IS GIVEN.
Mayor Young: I might add, while we have a moment and we have some press here, that
the Census Bureau this week is sending out advance letters and the one that came to the Mayor's
home had the wrong address on it. And most of those that go out will have the wrong address on
it, but we are told not to worry because the actual questionnaires have the correct address on
them. So if you get it in the mail, don't fret. Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Under our delegation, we have Mr. Ed McIntyre, regarding the African-
American Historic Walk on Laney-Walker Boulevard.
Mayor Young: Mr. McIntyre?
Mr. McIntyre: Mr. Mayor and to the members of the Commission, I have all of my life
in Augusta tried to find ways to educate, communicate, and to inspire the citizens of our
community to do things that I felt would bring about some positive change in our community.
So a few weeks ago, and I don't want to go through all this because I furnished advance copies to
all of you, we announced that we think that it would be important as we look at people and try to
make sure that we can appreciate where we're going, there's no way we can do that if we don't
know where we're coming from. So we proposed a few weeks ago that we would promote a
historical walk on Laney-Walker Boulevard for deceased African-Americans who made sizeable
contributions for the enhancement of life for the people in Richmond County. To give you a
little update, we do have a committee that's already functioning and working on this, but the one
thing that we'd like to ask the City to do is first of all, is to give us permission to mount these
trophies or plaques all up and down Laney-Walker Boulevard, which will take several years.
We've asked our committee to bring to us next month the names of the first five people that we
would so honor. These individuals would be based on the years of their contributions, starting in
th
the 18 century and coming forward. This project could take two or three years to complete.
Let me just tell you what we think we can get specifically from these walks. Number one, we
think it would be educational for young people and for old people to find out a little bit more
about their heritage and the people who made contributions for this community. In addition to
that, we think that it could become a major tourist attraction for this community. In talking with
the Mayor, he indicated in a letter to me that I appreciated that he thought it was a fine idea and it
was something that he had been thinking about. We are not asking the City for any money, but
we do ask that once we are given the approval to do this, and given the guidelines that the City
would give us permission to put these on the outside of the sidewalks along Laney-Walker
Boulevard. We would also ask the City to beautify this area and to maintain it, as we develop
these walks or these monuments down the walk. We have established a committee comprised of
Frankie Ramsey, who is an assistant to me; Mr. Quincy Robinson, who recently retired as Vice
President of Paine College and will be our treasurer; our legal advisor is Harry James. Our
selection committee, people who will recommend to us the names of the individuals to be
honored are Dr. Jimmy Carter, who is the unofficial historian for the African-American
community; Miss Christine Betts, who is director of the Laney Museum; and Dr. I. E.
Washington. Also, the inscription committee would be headed by Dr. Mallory Millender, and
the monument committee would be chaired by Henry Brooks. We do ask for a favor of approval
on this so we can get started and to give us a timetable, Mr. Mayor, as to when we can start
erecting these monuments. We are looking to have private sponsors to pay for these monuments
to be erected. Again, I'd like to thank the Mayor and the Commission for giving us this
opportunity and I now ask for your approval.
Mayor Young: Thank you very much, Mr. McIntyre. As I indicated to you in the letter,
just quite coincidentally we have had some requests for some monuments on Greene Street and
our staff in Public Works now is developing a policy for this Commission to consider concerning
the placement of monuments and also we are in the process of doing some improvements on
Laney-Walker and we're setting up a public hearing in the community on March 21 so we can
further address this within the community, but we want to thank you for your initiative and your
willingness to step forward and undertake a project like this. We congratulate you and those
who are working with you. Any comments or questions?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: If we need to, in terms of the concept, I'd like to make a motion that we
approve the concept of what is being done and that as we formulate the policy on the
monuments, period, and particularly since the Laney-Walker improvements be discussed
at that public meting and as we continue to do what sidewalk improvements and street
beautification that we're going to have to do, that we assign this group and any other to the
appropriate committee so that they can work in conjunction with each other, both in terms
of the territory and layout, so that they are not just laid out but that everybody is singing
off the same sheet of music, but that the Commission today go ahead and at least support
the concept of going ahead and doing this.
5
Mayor Young: All right. I'll entertain that motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. McIntyre.
Clerk: We'll now hear from Ms. Lora L. Wooten regarding the homes on the canal bank.
Mr. Wooten: I'm Tom Wooten.
Mayor Young: You're speaking for Ms. Wooten?
Mr. Wooten: I'm speaking for Ms. Wooten.
Mayor Young: All right. If you'll give us your address, please.
Mr. Wooten: I live at [inaudible].
Mayor Young: Thank you.
Mr. Wooten: I own the house on the river bank. On the second I received an eviction
notice from the City of Augusta. I contacted a lawyer, an attorney, and he tells me that the house
is below the high water mark, so the City of Augusta has no authority to evict me. This has been
tried before. I remember my mother and my father fighting the City of Augusta tooth and nail
because of this. I'm informed that the State owns the land. I don't know if y'all have any
documents saying the City owns it or the State owns it. But I was not contacted by anyone. Mr.
Dayton Sherrouse, I understand, with the Augusta Canal Authority, is the one behind this that is
pushing for these two cabins to be removed off of the river. Am I correct?
Mayor Young: Let me ask you a question. Do you have signed lease with the City?
Mr. Wooten: I have a signed lease.
Mayor Young: Does that have a termination clause in it?
Mr. Wooten: It is my understanding, since the City does not own this land–
Mayor Young: Does the least that you agree to have a termination clause in it?
Mr. Wooten: No termination clause.
Mayor Young: Since you've questioned our legal standing in this matter, I think it's
something more appropriately referred to our attorney, and you probably just need to contact him
directly on this.
Mr. Wooten: I need to contact your attorney?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Jim Wall right here.
Mr. Wooten: Jim Wall. I'll call Mr. Wall, get in touch with you.
Mayor Young: Okay, is there anything else?
Mr. Wooten: I was under the understanding, from what my attorney has told me, that the
City of Augusta does not own this land, that I should never have had to pay a lease to the City of
Augusta, because y'all do not own it.
Mayor Young: Well, I think it's obvious our legal information is different from the legal
information you have, and we do contend that we do own the property and that's a matter that
your attorney and Mr. Wall probably need to discuss. Thank you very much.
Clerk: The consent agenda, items 1 through 55:
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve Communication from the Mayor regarding a request for funding
in the amount of $1,000 to proceed with the application process of Augusta for the
All-America City designation. (Approved by Finance Committee February 28,
2000)
2. Motion to approve advertising under the Home Rule provision to enact an
ordinance to alter the provisions for the selection of external auditor. (Approved by
Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
3. Pulled from consent agenda.
4. Motion to approve $25,000 from Victim Witness Assistance Program ("VWAP") to
rape crisis/sexual assault services. (Approved by Finance Committee February 28,
2000)
5. Motion to approve $2,500 from Victim witness Assistance program ("VWAP") to
fund vehicle expense for new Victim Witness Investigator. This will increase the
fleet by one (1) vehicle with car initially to be provided from auction pool.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
6. Motion to approve maintaining Augusta Richmond County's position with regard to
the twenty-two 1949 participants who retired after January 1, 1995 which requires
them to remain in the status that they are. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 28, 2000)
7
7. Motion to authorize the Mayor to expend $20,000 from the promotional account on
the Blue Angels. (Approved by Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
8. Motion to approve authorization ti dispose of surplus obsolete computer equipment
for sale at a reduced price to local government employees. (Approved by Finance
Committee February 28, 2000)
9. Motion to approve authorizing contract negotiations with Georgia Municipal
Association to provide Hotel/Motel and Alcohol Tax Collection Audit Service on a
contingent fee basis subject to the approval of Attorney and Administrator.
(Approved by Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
10. Motion to approve authorizing expenditure of $1,500 from promotion account for
Commissioner Shackelford appreciation event. (Approved by Finance Committee
February 28, 2000)
11. Motion to approve authorizing issuance of Request for Proposal for Municipal Bond
Underwriter(s) for Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds and approve Bond Inducement
Resolution. (Approved by Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
12. Motion to approve combination of Harrisburg and West End neighborhoods.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
13. Motion to approve reprogramming of $295,000 in CDGB funds for public services
projects and one public facility project with Blount Park to be closed and SPLOST
funds for that project reallocated to new park. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 28, 2000)
14. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Eddie J. Berrian. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
15. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Marion Harris. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
16. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Bobby Hester. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
17. Motion to approve the petition for retirement on Johnny Sims. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
18. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain unsafe and
uninhabitable properties in the Sand Hills Neighborhood: 524 Fleming Avenue,
(district 1, Super District 9); Laney-Walker neighborhood: 1014 Twelfth Street,
(district 1, Super District 9); Old town neighborhood: 200-202 Telfair Street,
(District 1, Super District 9); East Augusta Neighborhood: 105 McElmurray Drive,
nd
(District 1, Super District 9); and waive 2 reading. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 28, 2000)
19. Motion to approve the review of accounts receivable for Economic Development
loans within the Department of Housing and neighborhood Development and
authorize collection on all accounts over 120 days. (Approved by Administrative
services Committee February 28, 2000)
20. Motion to approve renewal of Public Official Liability Coverage. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
21. Motion to authorize Mayor to execute contract with Augusta Technical Institute to
operate Small Business Incubator at no cost to Augusta Richmond County, subject
to the approval of the Administrator and Attorney. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 28, 2000)
22. Motion to approve the creation of Enterprise Zone. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 82, 2000)
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
23. Pulled from consent agenda.
24. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road
resolution submitted by the Engineering Department for South Park Drive in South
Park Commons. (Approved by Engineering Services Department February 29,
2000)
25. Motion to approve repair of High Service Pumps 1 and 2 and Fort Gordon Pump
Station Pumps 5 and 6 by GPM Environmental, Inc. at a cost of $27,834.00. Funded
by Account No. 506043520-5425110. (Approved by Engineering Services
Department February 29, 2000)
26. Pulled from consent agenda.
27. Motion to adopt an ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-
9-17 so as to prohibit motorized vehicles on the public property within the Augusta
Canal national Heritage Area without a written permit from the director of the
Augusta Canal Authority. (Approved by Engineering Services Department
February 29, 2000)
28. Motion to approved for the Public Works and Engineering Department to accept
and manage the Georgia Department of Transportation State Aid County Contract
on the Katherine Street parking Lot for Augusta State University and the
Administration Building parking Lot Paving for Georgia Regional Hospital,
Augusta (GHRA); award a contract to construct the ASU Parking Lot and
construct the GHRA parking Lot with County forces. (Approved by Engineering
Services Department February 29, 2000)
29. Pulled from consent agenda.
30. Motion to approve Change Order Number Two in the amount of $11,000 to APAC-
GA, Inc. on the McCombs Road, Section I Project (CPB# 323-04-296823905) to be
funded from the project construction account. (Approved by Engineering Services
Department February 29, 2000)
31. Motion to approve Capital project Budget number 322-04-299822391 Amendment
Number Two in the amount of $3,000.00 and the Engineering Addendum with
Godefroy & Associates for the amount of $3,000.00 on the Skinner Mill Road
Culvert Extension Project to add design of improvements to Rae's Creek at Chelsea
Drive to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I Recapture. (Approved by
Engineering Services Department February 29, 2000)
32. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments for Spirit
9
Pointe Subdivision, Section One. (Approved by Engineering Services Department
February 29, 2000)
33. Motion to approve funding of the local match in the amount of $25,000 for Corridor
and Gateway Enhancement Demonstration Projects by transferring funds from
Special Purpose Local Option Sales Tax Phase I Recapture. Account # 322-04-
292822333 to CPB# 322-04-200822999. (Approved by Engineering Services
Department February 29, 2000)
34. Pulled from consent agenda.
35. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreement and Road
Resolutions submitted by the Engineering Department for Spirit Pointe Subdivision,
Section Two. (Approved by Engineering Services Department February 29, 2000)
36. Pulled from consent agenda.
37. Motion to approve request from King Mill to charge only for cooling water when
Canal is drained with no sewer to be charges. (Approved by Engineering Services
Department February 29, 2000)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
38. Motion to approve bid award # 100-001 to Intellisystem from 2000 computer
maintenance budget. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 29, 2000)
39. Motion to approve expenditure maximum of $250,000.00 for the purchase of a
mobile command post. These monies to be supplied out of surplus vehicle sale fund
with no additional funding required from General Budget. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee February 29, 2000)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
40. Motion to approve an agreement with the Academy of Youth Athletics (A.Y.A) for
operation of Hickman Park Recreation Center. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 28, 2000)
41. Motion to approve an agreement with East Augusta Neighborhood Association
(EANA) for operation of Eastview Recreation Center. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 28, 2000)
42. Motion to approve taxicab "flat rate" fee structure for Masters Week, April 2 - 10,
2000. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
43. Motion to approve a request by Barbara Usry for consumption on premise liquor,
beer & wine license to be used in connection with Walton Way Pub located at 1923
Walton Way. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee February 28, 2000)
44. Motion to approve a request by Sun Knight for a retail package beer & wine license
to be used in connection with Sun's Grocery located at 3745 Peach Orchard Road.
District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee February
28, 2000)
45. Motion to approve a request by Eric Paige for consumption on premise liquor, beer
& wine license to be used in connection with The Big Easy New Orleans Style
located at 3160 Wrightsboro. There will be Sunday sales. District 5. Super District
9. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
46. Motion to approve a request by Mike Smith for a consumption on premise liquor,
beer & wine license to be used in connection with mike Smith Catering located at
2501 Washington Road. There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super district 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
47. Motion to approve amending the technical codes by deleting the National Electrical
Code 1996 Edition and adding the National Electric Code 1999 Edition with
Georgia amendments. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
48. Motion to approve appointing a member of HomeBuilders Association to the
Subdivision Regulations Committee with the caveat that the appointee must reside
in Richmond County. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
49. Motion to approve a request by Terry Cato for consumption on premise liquor, beer
& wine license to be used in connection with On the River Café located at #2
th
Riverwalk 8 Street. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee February 28, 2000)
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
50. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
February 14.
APPOINTMENTS:
51. Motion to approve the following District 2 appointments:
Mr. Earnest G. Smith, Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field
Ms. Belle Clark, Coliseum Authority (reappt.)
Rev. Gregory Young, Board of Zoning & Appeals
Ms. Thelma Mack, Planning Commission (reappt.)
Ms. Davida Johnson, Animal Control Board (Addendum Item 3)
52. Motion to approve the following District 4 appointments:
Ms. Barbara Jean Cooksey, Animal Control Board
Mr. James H. Drew, III, Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field
53. Motion to approve the following District 6 appointments:
Ms. Jeanne J. Corley, Planning Commission
Ms. Sandra K. Mercer, Library Board
Mr. Roscrane L. Archie, Personnel Board
Ms. Mary K. Martin, Canal Authority
54. Motion to approve the following District 8 appointments:
Mr. Robert J. Baurle, Augusta Ports Authority
Mr. Dietrich W. Oellrich, Jr., Canal Authority
Ms. Lorie Irma Williams, HND Advisory Committee
Mr. Michael G. Elliott, Human Relations
Mr. Jon Winters, Personnel Board
Mr. Hugh Fulcher, Jr., Planning Commission
Mr. Avery Willis, Public Facilities Board
11
Mr. Sid Mullis, Tree Commission
Mr. Hardie Davis, Zoning Appeals
Ms. Erica Mallard, Animal Control
ATTORNEY:
55. Motion to approve and Ordinance to amend the Augusta Richmond County Code,
Title 6, Chapter 2, by adding a new Article 5 to provide for a Food Caterer's License
to sell alcoholic beverages off premises at catered events. (Approved by
Commission February 14, 2000 - second reading)
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, what's your pleasure with the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I move we adopt the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor, as outlined by the
Clerk.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Let's start down here with Mr. Cheek and we'll come around. Mr.
Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to have Item 23 pulled, please.
Mayor Young: Item 23 is pulled.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I'd like to pull Item 29.
Mayor Young: Number 29 is pulled. Anyone else on this end? We'll come around this
way. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Items 26 and 3.
Mayor Young: 26. That's not the 3 from the addendum agenda, but from the consent
agenda?
Mr. Mays: The regular consent agenda on finance.
Mayor Young: And Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: He's pulled the item.
Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, is Item 36, is that the same as the two items on the
addendum agenda?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, it is. It's those three items. That's correct. They went through
Engineering Services. We said the bids were going to be late, that they would not come in until
after the committee. I think two of the bids came in Friday and one of the bids came in this
morning.
Mr. J. Brigham: Then we need to pull 36.
Mayor Young: Pull 36. Want to pull anything else, gentlemen? All right. Mr. Wall,
you want to pull something?
Mr. Wall: Item 34, insofar as the stipulation is concerned. We need to discuss that.
Mayor Young: All right. We'll take out Item 34. Any other changes? We have a
motion to approve the consent agenda, minus Items 3, 23, 26, 29, 34, and 36. All in favor of the
consent agenda, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 9-0 [Item 13].
Mr. Colclough, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote no.
Motion carries 6-4 [Items 45, 46 and 49].
Motion carries 10-0 [Items 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-33, 35, 37-44, 47-48, 50-55].
Clerk: Item 3: Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond
County Code Section 6-2-105, providing for the appropriation of beer excise tax revenue to
the Augusta Richmond County Coliseum Authority, so as to limit the appropriation to
30% of the proceeds from the beer excise tax.
Mr. Oliver: This was a decision that was made during the budgetary process and this is
required to reflect that decision that was made during the budgetary process.
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Discussion?
13
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That's the only thing I wanted to get, the clarification. Are these the same
numbers and percentages that we dealt with in the last year's, end of the year approval? And my
reason for asking that--and I agree at that time with that reduction and I think they were receptive
to the reduction, but I had heard that what we approved at that time and the 30% was not panning
out to be the same numbers, that there was a big difference in them.
Mr. Oliver: I'd like to just for the record--David Collins and Mr. Wall were the two that
worked on it. David, you want to address that? It's my understanding this is reflective of the
budgetary action.
Mr. Collins: I think basically we had two problems. We had inconsistent percentages
being applied to different container sizes, and what this would do is it would be consistent 30%,
which would generate about $150,000-200,000 a year extra for the county, depending on the
type of beverage sales and the volume, if that answers your question.
Mr. Mays: I think everybody was in agreement that there would be a reduction. I just
wanted to--I don't know if anybody from the Coliseum Authority wants to speak to that
particular issue, but it was pretty much agreed. But I'm hearing, as I say many times, Mr. Mayor,
you don't have any secrets in this court house and I hear the rumbling that that's not the same. I
just want to make sure that we were on that same track with the same numbers and same
percentages as we were on that day at the end of last year.
Mayor Young: I believe the representation from the staff is that we are on the same
number.
Mr. Collins: I'll be happy to meet with the Coliseum Authority if there is a difference to
try to find out why there is.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Collins. Mr. Jack Usry is here from the Coliseum
Authority and asked to be heard.
Mr. Usry: Thank you, Mayor and councilmen. We were under the understanding--I
came in and saw this on the agenda today. We were under the understanding that we were going
to lose $65,000. We knew all along the formulas were being miscalculated. I am not totally
speaking on behalf of the Coliseum Authority but I do feel that this item needs to be pulled,
addressed to the Coliseum Authority, and let us know. We, as you, have budget problems
coming up. We have things we have obligated ourselves to and would like the opportunity. Like
I said, our understanding was that the first year we were talking about a $65,000 reduction only,
nothing else. And we would like the opportunity for our board to sit down with y'all and discuss
it and make sure that we're talking the same thing, apples and apples, so that we can make our
plans on what we plan to do here in this next year, as far as fixed assets and improvements to the
facility.
Mr. Oliver: What we've been doing, so the Mayor and Commission know, over the last
several years, during the budgetary process, we had kept the money going to the Coliseum
Authority the same. As you're aware, with the strength of the economy, the hotel/motel tax was
increasing and we were gradually decreasing the liquor tax to the point of the limit that we were
legally required to do, and it was our intent to phase that out next year. As part of the budgetary
process, you elected to phase it out this year. But it's your pleasure. That's the way we budgeted,
so any shortfall would have to come to from contingency.
Mayor Young: Any comments, any questions from the Commissioners? Any
discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I voted for the reduction and have no problem with still staying with the
reduction. My point in getting it clarified was the fact that if there is--sometimes when you mix
percentages and numbers together, everybody is not dealing with the same common
denominator, and the end result is not going to be the same. And I just don't want to rehash this
at another time. They've got to live with whatever we give them. But I think if there was a
dollar figure put in, be it $65,000 or 65 cents, then whatever we basically agreed on, I just want
to make sure that that's still the same today as it was then. And whether if their argument is valid
that there is a difference in there and this further reduces that. Now if we're clear on that, I don't
have a problem with it. But if there's something there that's different, then I think that in all
fairness we need to know. We talked last week in committee in reference to how we deal with
one thing in budget, then we come back and deal with something else. And I think it just ought
to be in all fairness the numbers ought to even out. Whatever we said we were going to take,
that's what we ought to take.
Mayor Young: Can you comment on that, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: You have to remember in fairness to the budgetary numbers the actual
alcohol number or the actual hotel/motel number will actually be based upon whatever activity
occurs this year. It's like with sales tax. The number will go up and the number will go down.
It's based upon a formula. But if the Mayor and the Commission would like, we can meet with
the Coliseum Authority and go over the methodology.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
15
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, Randy, what you've proposed here, as I understand it, ends the
excess that we were giving the Coliseum Authority from the sale of alcohol, over and above
what we were legally bound to do; is that correct?
Mr. Oliver: That's correct. That was my understanding, what we intended to do, and
then there was some question that came up as it relates to amending this particular ordinance.
But we were giving them more than, as I understood it, we were legally required to and one of
the things that came up during the budgetary process. Mr. Collins made a computation of how
much we were in excess of what was the requirement.
Mr. Bridges: So this is not--the amounts may vary but the principle remains the same as
we budgeted in the budget? We're not giving any excess over and above our legal requirement?
Mr. Oliver: As I understand it, that's the concept. Mr. Wall may be able to speak to this
but I think that the County or the City one did it on a percentage and the other one did it on a per
drink or container size or something. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Under the old County ordinance, the average that was taken was
approximately 47 percent of the beer sales. By State law, you're limited to five cents per 12
ounce, and what the County had done was prorate that five cents based upon a container size, so
that it equaled out tofive cents per 12 ounce, and then I looked back to 1973 and the same
allocation had been in place insofar as the County since 1973, and I do not know nor have I been
able to talk to anyone why there was, say 50 percent of one size container, but say 42 percent of
another size container, but it averaged out to 47 percent. In drawing up this ordinance--let me
back up and add one other thing. The bond document for the Coliseum Authority has an
agreement and it was an agreement between then-City and the County, as well as the Coliseum
Authority, that 30 percent of the beer and wine tax would go to the Coliseum Authority to pay
off the bonds. Despite that contractual agreement, we have been paying, as I say, approximately
47 percent of the taxes that were collected, and so what the ordinance does is reduce the number
from 47 percent down to the 30 percent that are in the bond document.
Mr. Bridges: Which is the legal requirement?
Mr. Oliver: And when you say legal requirement, bond document.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. Do we have a
substitute motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I may still go ahead and make one. I would like to ask the one
member from the Authority that's here, have you all discussed since our budget process was
taken, within your board meeting what you were looking at, whether it be real numbers or
percentages in terms of how it reflects upon your budget there? Because I think everybody
understood there was going to be reduction, but if that's something drastically different then I
would like to at least let them get a final shot at saying what this is rather than us getting back
into a situation of having to come back midyear and say that there's a problem. I think they at
least, if nothing else from the outside looking in, have turned the corner, particularly in some of
the newer attractions and events that are going on, and I would hate to see us to a point that if
there is a difference of the mind set of what these numbers are, that as they start to get on a
progressive level, that we snatch that particular rug out from under them if there's a difference.
Mr. Usry: Mr. Mays, we understood, we discussed it in our meeting. At the timewe
discussed it, we discussed a dollar amount that was brought before us. Chief Few: Maddox,
who is our chairman, told us that there would be a $65,000 reduction and that we understand that
next year the formula probably would change again, and that was what we were under the
impression, that the–
Mr. Oliver: The formula can't change again next year because of the bond covenant.
Mr. Usry: We were under the understanding that we would receive a reduction because
of y'all's budget restraints of $65,000. Then this new coming year, it would go down, the
reduction would reduce down to the 30 percent, exactly what the legislators have put into the bill
regulating the Authority. We understood it would take a two-year response rather than a one-
year. $65,000 is not what you're talking about now. You're talking $150,000 or more, and I'm
saying that it's going to impact some of the things we want to do at the Coliseum. What we are
suggesting is, or what I am suggesting is, I understand the $65,000 and we had no problems with
it and did not bark or fight with anyone after we found out what the amount was. What we're
requesting is that the formula be kept the same this year as it was last year for the exception of
$65,000 and then next year let us deal with it. Give us time to do our budgeting restraints and do
our budgeting, just like y'all do.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Usry. Mr. Oliver, is it not true that the budget we've
approved takes into account the complete cut and if we cut less than the amount that was
indicated today that we have to dip into our reserves or make it up some other way?
Mr. Oliver: That's correct.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I want to say--and I won't make a substitute
motion, but I will say this. I hope we don't have any more $5 or $10 of lunch money
understandings, from the standpoint that if a whole board--and I realize you're talking about one
Commissioner sitting over there, but I just think that there needs to be clarity in terms of when
you're talking about numbers. I mean if an authority understands something to be one way and
we're deeming it another way, that's why I'm such a stickler for verbatim minutes, letters in
writing, and we approve those things that are written only and you spell them out in plain,
simple, everyday folk language. Because this is not a time to have $85,000-90,000
17
misunderstanding, because they could pop up every week. That's the only comment I'm going to
make on that. I voted for the reduction, but I thought all parties were in happy agreement with it.
But if there is a misunderstanding between an agency of that much on those numbers, just out of
the fact of common courtesy, somebody ought to want to know whether or not the whole group
had a misunderstanding, whether Jack's just got a misunderstanding, or whether or not we're
going to have to deal with this at some other time.
Mayor Young: Thank you very much, Mr. Mays. We'll call the question on the motion
on the floor, and that is as stated in the agenda item, to limit the appropriation to 30% of the
proceeds from the beer excise tax. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mayor Young: Next item.
Clerk: Item 23: Motion to approve authorization of contracting with CH2Mhill to
provide inspection services for Utilities Department projects. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee February 29, 2000)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to voice my concerns. I'm very concerned with us
adding temporary personnel to what is going to be a long-term resurrection of our water system.
We need to add personnel that will be permanently attached to our water system to help us repair
and upgrade our system. Temporary personnel will evaporate at the end of the projects. This
again reminds me of that 42" cheap fix that we have laying over across the canal now that we
can't use. I would hope that we would at some point begin to add engineering and inspection
staff that will enable us to oversee and upkeep this water department in the future, unlike the
current situation that exists now where they are understaffed and overworked.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. With respect to Item 23, do we have a motion?
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 26: motion to approve incentive for early completion by contractors on
the Hwy 1/Tobacco Rd. 20" Transmission main and 5MG Tank & Pump Station projects.
Funded by Account No. 508043410/5425110 (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee February 29, 2000)
Mr. Mays: I move it be approved.
Mayor Young: We have a motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a second. Any discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I fully support the incentive proposal on this project and I'm going to vote for
it. The only reason I pulled it was that in committee, in conjunction with this particular motion
but not tied to it, just only in the discussion formula was the fact that we discussed putting
togetherat least numbers for us to discuss in reference to the fall project, and what maybe we
could do on a larger project. I understand there's some debate about that, from the standpoint of
running ahead of schedule, Mr. Mayor, but we were talking about at least compiling numbers for
the committee and for this Commission to look at in reference to try and speed this project up
and to see if we could get approximately 30 to 60 days out of the project and I'm wondering are
we still going to have something to present to us in number form that we can make a decision on.
Mayor Young: Can you respond to that, Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Commissioner Mays, we had contacted the contractor on the 60"
raw water line project, and he actually faxed us a letter this morning stating that what--he looked
into adding another crew or crews to that project in order to speed its completion, and he came
forward with an amount of $2,000 per day to speed that day. He actually said in his letter, and I
could have brought it with me this afternoon but I didn't want to cloud what else was going on
this afternoon but we do have that. I plan to present it to the committee next Wednesday, but he
actually stated that while their goal would be to complete it by June 1, he felt like June 15-30
was a more reasonable deadline. So I think this would be really good if we could get it
completed in that amount of time. But then looking at $2,000 a day, we're talking about
substantial amounts of money so that's why I wanted to bring it to the Engineering Services
Committee first. But he did respond, we did look into it, and I think it's encouraging that we
could get it completed that quickly.
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough?
19
Mr. Colclough: Go ahead, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to make sure that we were going to at least have the opportunity
to discuss that, both as a committee and a Commission, and I'm even happy that those numbers,
at least on a per day basis, are in that frame. I would like, even before those numbers come
forward, to remind my colleagues that in terms of this proposal, even if it's double what we are
looking at on the incentive project that we are working with on this other line, that the other side
of that coin and the liability and the perceptive and possible negativity is far worse than what we
might pay in terms of speeding this project up. The possibilities of having hinging in September
$165 million over five years that we may or may not get, depending on whether or not we extend
water to those desperate areas out there in this summer--if you've got 1,000-1,500 folk that will
lose anywhere between $500-1,000 apiece, they're going to pay out their pockets, even a half
million dollars in there. So I'm encouraged at least from the point of where that stands at $2,000
per day. I'm looking forward to you bringing it to the committee, and if we talk about cost
effectiveness, then I think if also we look at numbers of what something costs, we have to look at
the bigger cost of what we could lose if we don't move ahead and deal with those type of
projects. I'm happy that that will get the attention in that committee that we need to do, and if
we're talking about bringing that back to a committee, I would even suggest, Mr. Mayor, that in
light of this project being as big as it is, if Mr. Hicks can have those numbers to present, that
whether it be in the form of a special called meeting to deal with that one item on that particular
project, to vote it up or down, but if those numbers are ready, I think if it falls somewhere in the
parameter of having to wait on a committee meeting and then another Commission meeting, we
need to at least consider the fact that this is something that warrants us coming in, if it's only one
item, to take some action on it. If we can move that project 30-45 days, then I think not only do
we cure a perception problem, we cure a need, and it's one I think that if we've got the money
there in reserves, we're not taking any drawdowns from the general fund, this gives us the
opportunity to do something that's not only cost effective, but to do the right thing and to do the
reasonable thing.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I think it's duly noted that this project is a
priority. This and a couple of others are a priority for this government today. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Hicks: If you'd like the figures off the top of my head, I can give them to you. I just
don't have them in writing.
Mr. Colclough: What caught my ear, Mr. Hicks, you said that the contractor agreed to
have this project completed by June 1. Now you're saying the most reasonable date is June 15
through June 30.
Mr. Hicks: He said that his goal would be to complete it by June 1. In other words–
Mr. Colclough: I think we gave this contract to him because he said he would complete
it at that time.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir.
Mr. Oliver: His contract completion date is December, isn't it, Max?
Mr. Hicks: His contract completion time was never June 1. His contract completion time
is actually sometime in December.
Mr. Oliver: So the $2,000 a day would apply from June 15 to December.
Mr. Colclough: So you're saying that this contract will run through the summer into the
winter without being completed?
Mr. Hicks: No. If he were to adhere strictly to his completion time, it could. However,
he has been well ahead of schedule. He's performed very well on his contract. He actually was
anticipating completing the project sometime in June already, and then in response to a request
that we provide additional water and more dependable water to Augusta State University, we
added a 16" water line from the filter plant over to ASU.
Mr. Colclough: We've got the two lines mixed up. I was thinking about the Tobacco
Road project.
Mayor Young: The agenda item is for Tobacco Road here, so let's try to–
Mr. Mays: That's what I'm talking about. I know we're not talking about Tobacco Road
as an agenda item, but I wanted to get that out on the floor. It wasn't on the committee the other
day as an agenda item, but when Mr. Hicks was explaining the cost to deal with this incentive, it
was when I raised the question what could we do with the other incentive, and that's why I'm
asking today, not just for the incentive that we are voting on. I think the bigger question and the
bigger picture is that we deal with some numbers on what is the bigger item that we are going to
have to get to, and I'm trying to say that in my James Brown Boulevard mathematics, Randy, that
the possibility of losing $150,000-160,000 because we've not completed that project, that if we
can spend $2,000 a day and guarantee it, get it out of water works reserve that we've got, then it's
not just a PR thing we're playing with, it's one that if we have a drought on the deep south side,
we're going to be hell bent to deal with a sales tax, we're going to be possibly looking at some
recall in the face, and a whole lot of angry folks. Now that's where my cost effectiveness is
coming from, and I think if we're going to be policy makers, we need to have some numbers that
we can do it with. And that's why I want to make sure that the numbers are coming back to us
and that we've got something to act on. I admit that's not an agenda item, but if there's anything
more important, Mr. Mayor, than what we've got to deal with on that big water line, I don't know
where it is.
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, you're absolutely correct, but what we're trying to do is keep
the two items separated here. I think Mr. Colclough is a little confused with some of the
21
information. I don't want anybody to get confused as we go through this. Mr. Colclough, is
there anything else you wanted to say? Any other questions?
Mr. Colclough: The Tobacco Road project, where is that?
Mr. Hicks: The Tobacco Road project is scheduled to be completed. With these
incentives that we're offering him, he is anticipating completing by the end of May.
Mr. Colclough: Not with the incentives, I'm not talking about the $2,000 day. Where is
he at without the incentives?
Mr. Hicks: Oh, oh, oh. Now you're talking about the 60" raw water line.
Mayor Young: He's talking about Tobacco Road, Mr. Hicks.
Mr. Colclough: I'm talking about the south side. Tobacco Road. Morgan Road and
Tobacco Road..
Mr. Hicks: Okay, on the south side, insofar as the water line itself, the 20" water line–
Mr. Colclough: And the tank.
Mr. Hicks: His completion date on the water line is around June 30. His completion date
on the–
Mr. Oliver: Without incentives.
Mr. Hicks: Without incentives. His completion date on the ground storage tank and
pump station is about--I want to say the first to mid July. And so both of those, they anticipate
speeding up and getting complete.
Mr. Oliver: This change order would move those dates up one month so that the June 30
becomes May 30 and the early July becomes early June.
Mr. Colclough: Let's forget about the change order. When is the completion date of that
tank and that water line? The only thing I want to know--what I want to know from the water
director is what the completion date on those items are, the tank and the water line.
Mr. Hicks: As the water line stands right now, the completion date is around June 30.
That's for the water line.
Mr. Colclough: And the tank?
Mr. Hicks: As far as the tank goes, its completion date is around the middle of July.
They are two separate contracts and the tank would take somewhat longer to build than the water
line.
Mr. Colclough: So by this summer, we will have water coming out of that tank?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: That's all I have, sir.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Oliver: This agenda item would move those completion dates up 30 days.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams was next, and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Mays: But you're going to bring the numbers on the big items?
Mayor Young: We'll get those, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I know that we had the committee meeting, we got split up last week and
it kind of through me off, and I know that water is really important, even if it's rain water in this
area at this time, and this coming summer it's going to be even rougher. I was trying to find out
that if we paid the $2,000 per day, how much more faster, how much more time will we save
than what we've already got in place now. I'm in agreement with Mr. Mays, we've got some
people in south Augusta, not only in south Augusta but all over this city, have been really
suffering for water that we should have had for them a long time ago. So if it's going to cost us
to do something that's going to help us and going to affect us to bring in more revenue, how
much faster will this happen if we do the $2,000 a day additionally?
Mr. Hicks: When you talk about $2,000 day, that was the figure for the 60" raw water
line. Is that the one you're asking about now?
Mr. Williams: Yes, let's go with that one now.
Mr. Hicks: On the 60" raw water line, with a completion date--and there again, by the
contract his completion date would be in December. However, he was aiming to complete it by
September 15. The completion dates that we could reasonably see from his letter would
somewhere between June 15 to June 30, so we'd really be cutting off July, August, September.
We'd be cutting 90 days off of that contract. And that would mean roughly $180,000 but it could
be money well spent. That's for the 60" raw water line. That's not for the one that you're voting
on right now.
Mr. Williams: That's the 60" line?
23
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: I was just trying to get some idea. I heard you say about the $2,000 but I
didn't get a time that was affect that $2,000 per day and in trying to figure out whether that
would be cost effective–
Mr. Hicks: It would be cost effective because we would have--I'll drop back and make
one other comment. We had applied to the Georgia EPD for them to let us go to 60 million
gallons a day raw water withdrawal and treatment this summer. They have sent a letter giving
that approval. We've got to fill out the forms, send them back in. So we now have the approval
to go to 60 million gallons a day at the filter plant and at the raw water pumping station. The
early completion of this 60" line would ensure the delivery of that 60 million gallons a day.
Mr. Colclough: And we did the same thing with Tobacco Road, right? Tobacco Road is
a different issue. On Tobacco Road, you think we would cut 90 days?
Mr. Hicks: On Tobacco Road, we will cut about 30 days off of one and about 40 days off
of the other, is what they're anticipating.
Mr. Oliver: And that's what's being considered today.
Mr. Hicks: That's what's before you today.
Mayor Young: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I'll pass.
Mayor Young: Okay, anyone else? Any further discussion? Did we get a motion on
that?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, could I make an amended motion?
Mayor Young: Mr. Colclough, you'd like to amend the motion?
Mr. Colclough: Yes, I'd like to make an amendment to Mr. Mays' motion to go ahead
and take of it, to provide the funds to take care of the water line.
Mayor Young: You want to include the 60" in this, and that's the incentive of $2,000 a
day?
Mr. Colclough: Yes.
Mayor Young: Is there any objection to amending the motion to include the 60" line?
Mr. Kuhlke: I object. I'd rather see it go back to committee and then back to us where
it's been digested.
Mayor Young: It will take unanimous consent to amend it, so the amendment motion–
Mr. Mays: No problem. I was going to accept it, but that does take unanimous consent.
I'd like to ask the parliamentarian can the make of the motion make a substitute motion as well?
If not, I'm searching for one I'd rather have, I'd rather have it off the floor. I think we've digested
this since we've done this government, and I didn't know these numbers would be back this
quick. They are here. They are upon us. If the numbers are correct, and they've got time to
work that out between Max, Randy and Jim, we need to get this show moving. We don't need to
wait back on another committee and then have a meeting out here with it. The more we delay in
getting to it, the longer it's going to take hell to get done. Now can I make a substitute or one of
you gentlemen that want to get that water rolling out there, go on and make the substitute and we
do both of these things together? Let them work it. We pay them to get that done. This thing
needs to move.
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Mays, I've got your substitute motion.
Mayor Young: Would you go ahead and make it, please?
Mr. Cheek: I'd like to make a substitution motion that we approve Item 26 and the
incentive package for the 60" line to bring in on line ahead of schedule.
Mr. Mays: And I second that.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second, a substitute motion. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I'd like to ask the maker of the motion if he would cap that incentive to
$180,000?
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Hicks and I have talked about it, and Mr. Hicks said that's what the
number should be roughly and we can work it from there, but I think it would be prudent to cap
it.
Mr. Cheek: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Mays: As the seconder of your amended motion, let me give you a piece of
freshman advice, Andy. We're going to deal with cap. You're on that committee. You represent
deep south. Now reasonable caps are fine. We've got the money there in reserves. Technically
speaking, if this motion goes to $181,000 then it's out of bounds and you don't need for them to
play games with you about the money. We need to get that darn thing done. Now he's
25
estimated. They can always work those numbers out. $2,000 a day is $2,000 a day. And that's
what we ought to stay with. Just be aware of that. This is a war of words and numbers in print.
If you don't get it that way, it can be easily turned around. Why are you going to cap something
if you know what the figures are going to be for the construction costs?
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays, let's see if there's unanimous consent to amend the motion to
include the cap first before--does anybody object to the amendment to include a cap in that
motion?
Mr. Mays: I do.
Mayor Young: All right, then the amendment is defeated. It's not unanimous consent.
So that takes us back to the original substitute motion. Is there any further discussion on the
substitute motion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'd just like to add that I hope with the addition of the software
tracking, project tracking systems we're bringing on line in the water works department and some
other things we're doing, that we will make it under the amount that the administrator and water
works director believe we can. That's all.
Mayor Young: Thank you very much. All in favor of the substitute motion, that is Item
26 as stated to include the incentive for the 60" line, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: We just went through Washington, D.C. to get to Miami, but we got
there. Okay. Item 29?
Clerk: Item 29: Motion to approve the reallocation of SPLOST County Forces,
Phase III Grading/Drainage & Resurfacing funds in the amount of $1,698,000 to purchase
approved capital equipment for Public Works and Engineering Department subject to the
Attorney's approval. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 29, 2000)
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Wall has given his opinion that only the repaving equipment can be
purchased with sales tax and we will reflect that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled because I wanted to get some information
from the attorney. If I'm not mistaken, on the last committee meeting, we was all over the place.
If I'm not mistaken, I thought there was some other equipment to be bought with this SPLOST. I
think there was some cars involved with this, along with some other equipment, and I'd like to
get some clarification from our attorney if we can.
Mr. Wall: I'm looking for the list that was given to me. There are--let me just look to it.
What was taken out of the list are the tractors and the mowers. The rest of the equipment, I
spoke with Mike Greene, who furnished information that satisfies me that the other pieces of
equipment, including the vehicles. Because you have dump trunks, you have inspectors' trucks,
you have other things that will be utilized as a part of the paving process, and they would be
legitimate expenditures under the special purpose local option sales tax resolution that was
passed. But tractors and mowers are legitimate items if they had been a project for it to be
assigned to.
Mr. Oliver: And the amount is $1, 411,000 and that excludes the tractors.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams, any further inquiry?
Mr. Williams: No, sir, I just wanted to get a clarification there. And what we're saying
there is that it is okay to take the SPLOST to do those items except for the mowers, is that what
you're saying?
Mr. Wall: That's correct.
Mr. Williams: Any automobiles that are going to be related to this, not just to
construction but any other automobiles that we need to buy?
Mr. Wall: I'm okay. Mr. Greene furnished me the list and I'm looking at it now. You
have a dump trunk that would be used for transporting materials, actually–
Mr. Williams: Other than the working equipment, how many cars, Mr. Oliver? I see
you shaking your head. How many cars and the price of those cars on that list?
Mr. Wall: We have three compact pickups.
Mr. Oliver: They're all trucks.
Mr. Wall: One compact pickup. Item 9 is another compact pickup.
Mr. Williams: But there are no automobiles, you're saying?
Mr. Oliver: And several crew cabs, but they're all trucks. There are no automobiles that
I see on this list.
Mr. Williams: 4 by 4?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, it's a truck.
Mayor Young: All right. The list of vehicles is in the backup material for the agenda
item. Any further discussion? Any further questions? We'll entertain a motion.
27
Mr. Bridges: Motion to approve.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Clerk: Item 34: Motion to approve Co-Location Lease Agreement with AGW
Leasing Company, Inc. for a term of 5 years at an annual rental of $21,600.00 with the
stipulation that the company accepts the responsibility for our electronic equipment in the
event of a lightning strike. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee February 29,
2000)
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, this is to lease antennae space on the Tobacco Road water tank,
and there was question at the Engineering Services Committee meeting requesting that the
company accept responsibility for the county's electronic equipment in the event of a lightning
strike. I spoke with Mr. Reagan Walters and he indicated he's going to be here. I've not met the
gentleman. I don't know whether he's here or not.
Mr. Walters: I'm right here.
Mr. Wall: And they were not willing to accept total responsibility for electronic
equipment in the event of a lightning strike. There is an indemnification provision in the event
that they fail to properly ground their equipment and we're able to establish that it was as a result
of their negligence. They are willing to accept responsibility for damage to their own equipment
as a result of lightning strike. And that's the reason I pulled it out, because I was not able to get
the concession that the committee had asked for.
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek, you're the one who brought this up in the committee. Go
ahead.
Mr. Cheek: I have no problems with them not taking responsibility as long as we will tie
into the same grounding grid that the tower's on. I don't want to have two different potentials
and have either of our equipment burned when lightning comes in, so is that something that we
can get the vendor to do?
Mayor Young: Would you come up to the podium, please, and just give us your name
and address for the record?
Mr. Walters: My name is Reagan Walters and I'm from Isle of Palms, South Carolina. I
work out of Charleston. I am representing [inaudible]. They're willing to ground it to or beyond
any local codes and they have no problems grounding it.
Mr. Wall: Installation is subject to our approval, so we have to approve it and that's
what Engineering required.
Mr. Cheek: Engineering may not specify tying it into the same exact grounding grid as
the tower. If you have two different grounding grids and they are the specs you are going to
have a different potential across the tower. So what I'm saying is we need to tie those two
together, just clamp the copper cables together.
Mr. Oliver: I think we can just specify in the lease that they'll tie to the same grounding
grid.
Mr. Walters: There's no problem with that.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: Motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: All in favor--do we have any stipulations we're putting in the lease?
Mr. Oliver: The stipulation would be that they tie to our grounding grid, as I understood
it.
Mayor Young: And that's the way the motion is stated. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 36 is related to the addendum agenda items 1, 2 and 4.
Item 36: Motion to approve request to present contract approvals to Commission
meeting on March 7.
Mr. Oliver: As was mentioned in the committee, the last time the bids were taken for
these three projects, two of them came in at the end of last week, one came in this morning. The
first one was for Item 1 on the addendum agenda, is for $122,000 renovations for the
Wrightsboro Road booster pump. Item 2 is approve a contract with Mabus in the amount of
$1,891,216.83 regarding construction of the Mid City Relief Force Main. That's necessary due
to the canal being down. It will be far better. Item 4 relates to the painting of the tank on
Tobacco Road. We would note on the painting on the tank on Tobacco Road that we want to be
sensitive to the water needs in that particular area and because you have to take the tank out of
29
service to do the painting, and if we do need to put that back into service, we will postpone that
work being done. But I think it will be a better reflection on our system to get that work being
done and we think there is a window of opportunity providing the weather holds. All these are
the low bidder and we would ask your approval.
Mayor Young: Do we have any objection to taking these three items together as a
consent agenda?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: All right, we'll take them separately them. With respect to Item1 of the
addendum agenda, any discussion, gentlemen?
Addendum Item 1: Approve contract with JS Haren Co. in the amount of $122,000
regarding the renovation of the Wrightsboro Road Booster Pump Station. (Funded by
Account No. 508043410-5425110.
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval
.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second on Item 1. Any discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to see this added to the Microsoft project tracking
software so we'll get a completion date and be able to follow it.
Mayor Young: Is there a problem with that, Mr. Oliver?
Mr. Oliver: None.
Mayor Young: All right, that will be done. Any further discussion? All in favor of the
approval of Item 1, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Okay, the next item is item 2 on the addendum agenda.
Addendum Item 2: Approve contract with Mabus Construction, Inc. in the amount
of $1,891,216.83 regarding the construction of the Mid City Relief Force Main. (Funded by
Account No. 508403420-5425210)
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Max, I note in here on that Mabus is the lower bid on each of them, but it
depends on which pipe you use as to what the price is. It actually goes up $100,000 to use that
HDPE pipe. What do you recommend, the HDPE or the DIP? What are we familiar with
utilizing? What would be the pros and cons on each of them?
Mr. Hicks: This was the element of discussion that took place with regard to the award
of the contract to purchase the first 3,000 feet of that pipe, that is the HDPE plus the ductile iron
pipe with the ceramic epoxy lining. And our construction and maintenance crew just are not
familiar with working on the HDPE pipe. Of course, that was pointed out then and the vote was
that our personnel would be trained in working with that pipe. Each one has strong points, but if
it would be all right with you, if you wanted to hear from the suppliers of each pipe, we have
asked them to come, and if they wanted to make a brief presentation regarding their material,
they could.
Mayor Young: Mr. Hicks, it's your recommendation we continue this project with the
HDPE pipe; is that correct?
Mr. Hicks: That was the recommendation from the engineer.
Mayor Young: Well, what about the department director? Is that your recommendation?
Mr. Hicks: Frankly, I would just as soon see ductile iron pipe, but HDPE is the pipe that
was approved by the Commission and as Mr. Jiminez stated in his letter of recommendation, we
[inaudible] our position that the ceramic epoxy lined ductile iron pipe is an ample product for the
expected duty, however the City Commission has raised the bar of acceptability by demanding
the best material for the job, in our opinion the HDPE is the best material. Now there again,
gentlemen, you get into difference of opinion between professionals on items. There you have it.
And our folks are just not familiar working with the HDPE
Mayor Young: But they will be because they've got to learn to work on the other
segment of it. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Max, one of the arguments that came up in that regard, I would like to hear
whoever has the ductile iron pipe, because one of the arguments came up that on the ductile iron,
when it eats through the ceramic, in two years it will eat through the cast iron or metal pipe or
whatever it is, and since then I've heard we've got pipe that's bare like that and it's rolling, you
know, been rolling for 14, 15 years. I'd like to know will it eat through that pipe after it gets
through the ceramic on the ductile iron or will it not? And whoever, Max, whoever needs to
address that.
Mayor Young: Is there someone here who can answer Mr. Bridges' question?
Mr. Hicks: We have an engineering sales representative from the potential supplier for
ductile iron pipe, and that would be the US Pipe Company.
31
Mayor Young: Please give us your name and address for the record and see if you can
respond to Mr. Bridges' question.
Mr. Raulk: Thank you very much for allowing us to come over and make this
presentation. My name is Richard Raulk. I'm a professional engineer. My title is sales engineer
with US Pipe and Foundry Company. I come from Birmingham, Alabama.
Mayor Young: I don't mean to cut you short, but let's try to respond to questions rather
than give a presentation, if you would.
Mr. Raulk: That's what I intend to do.
Mayor Young: Thank you.
Mr. Raulk: Regarding your question, the protective [inaudible] lining was developed in
1979 and is [inaudible] protective coating for ductile iron pipe [inaudible]. The first commercial
installation was in 1981. To date, there have been several hundred miles of pipe throughout the
world with [inaudible] lining. To date, we have not had one documented failure of the lining.
Mr. Bridges: When it eats through the ceramic–
Mr. Raulk: It won't eat through the ceramic.
Mr. Bridges: It won't eat through the ceramic? If it did eat through the ceramic, how
long would it take through the metal pipe?
Mr. Raulk: That depends on several variables, such as how long the, what the aggressive
rate of the sewers would be and how much thickness per year it would take up. But I reiterate it
will not eat through the ceramic.
Mr. Bridges: In your testing, how long has that ceramic held up in matter of years?
Mr. Raulk: I have been advised by the manufacturer of this material–
Mr. Bridges: Not the maximum, but the least amount it's held up.
Mr. Raulk: I have been advised by the manufacturer of this material, Duron Company in
Birmingham, Alabama, that they have tested [inaudible] in testing from the original material that
have not failed to date.
Mayor Young: I think what Mr. Bridges is trying to ask is what is the least amount of
time before there was a failure. Is that what you're trying to ask?
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. Raulk: I'm trying to tell you, Your Honor, is–
Mr. Bridges: He's saying it hasn't failed yet.
Mr. Raulk: In 19+ years there is no recorded failure.
Mayor Young: No record of a failure?
Mr. Raulk: That's correct.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Bridges: Max, I'm hearing, too--I don't think we messed up with the 3,000 foot
because as I understand it, it's a long length. But now we're getting into bends and elbows and
all that kind of stuff and is there a problem with that? Can you answer that or would Brian
maybe address that for us?
Mr. Hicks: I don't know if I would be the appropriate one. I have my own fears in that
regard. As far as that additional 3,000, that initial 3,000 feet, you're absolutely right. That's an
ideal laying condition for HDPE pipe. Straight run along the canal, easily dropped in. When we
get into the other part of it, you're going to have more bends and fittings. However, I don't have
any experience with that HDPE pipe, so the best one to respond to that would perhaps be the
HDPE supplier, who I understand is also here.
Mayor Young: If you'll come up to the podium and give us your name and address for
the record, please.
Mr. Oakley: My name is Sid Oakley and I live in Kennesaw. I work for Isco Industries
and we represent Phillips Drisco Pipe which is a division of Phillips 66. We represent Phillips
Drisco Pipe, which is manufacturer of high density polyethylene and Philips is a division of
Phillips 66 Petroleum. I'll be glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Young: I think Mr. Bridges just asked a question.
Mr. Bridges: I'm concerned about what I'm hearing from some of our maintenance
people, that when we get into bends and elbows, that with the ductile iron they know how to
repair that, they know how to fix it, they know how to tie into it if there's a breakage or anything
like that. But what about this pipe that you've got? Is that a problem? Can it tie into--does it
have to be tied into only the HDPE?
Mr. Oakley: No, there are connections you could tie into, ductile iron pipe, you could tie
into PVC pipe, you could tie into virtually any kind of pipe with it. There are flange connections
available, mechanical connections, virtually any kind of connection available.
33
Mr. Bridges: Are they going to be more expensive than tying ductile iron into ductile
iron?
Mr. Oakley: Should be no difference in cost on those.
Mr. Hicks: I think the basic question had to do, though, with installing the HDPE pipe
with the bends and fitting going down under existing pipe and that sort of thing, and with it
having it being fused. How is that done?
Mr. Oakley: Bends and fittings are available. Virtually any bend would be available in
polyethylene that would be available in ductile iron pipe. And even some bends that would be
non-standard in ductile iron pipe would be available in polyethylene, such as six degree bends
and things like that. So bends are available without any problems.
Mayor Young: Okay. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'd make a motion that we award the
contract using the HDPE pipe and I would ask two questions to follow that motion.
Mayor Young: That's the motion as stated on the agenda item; is that correct?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir.
Mayor Young: Is there a second?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: Mr. Henry Brigham seconds. Okay, go ahead Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: The question I had, I thought this was the exercise we went through, Mr.
Colclough, a few weeks ago where we got the same pipe?
Mr. Colclough: Same thing. Same pipe.
Mr. Shepard: That was one question. The other question, Max, you know they don't let
me serve on Engineering Services, I'm on other committees, but what does it mean when a pipe
flow surcharge? I know what a financial surcharge is.
Mr. Hicks: What is means--with a gravity sewer line, it is generally designed to flow less
than full because it depends on being able to flow downhill. That's the way it's conveyed. And
so the pipe flows less than full. The household connections, other connections are designed and
attached on the basis that that pipe is not going to be flowing full. When we say it flows
surcharge, it means that that pipe is full and if you were to open a manhole, you'd see water
standing in the manhole but you couldn't see the pipe. That means that you've got an increased
danger of households being flooded, the sewer line running over, that sort of thing.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you very much.
Mayor Young: Mr. Lee Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, the only thing I have a little problem is when the director is
saying one thing and then we have a couple of other gentlemen up here saying something else. I
do understand that at one time we had some examples of these pipes and I'm not on Engineering
Services Committee so I don't know exactly what transpired there. And I have an little difficulty
when you bring me an agenda item that we're adding to it. I assume we're adding to the agenda
here and we haven't had time, but maybe this could go to Commissioner Colclough, is this the
same type pipe that was done at the demonstration?
Mr. Colclough: No, this is not the same type pipe. This is the same pipe, the engineer
that we talked about at our last meeting and at that time, we asked the engineer if it was his pipe,
which pipe would he put down and he said he would put down the best, which was the HDPE,
and that's the pipe we voted on in our last session.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Thank you. And so this is the pipe we're talking about now?
Mr. Colclough: Right.
Mayor Young: The same pipe that you approved in the previous work on that. Let's
start with Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams, and Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Cheek: Just a question for the gentleman representing the ductile iron firm. Did you
do any experiments with [inaudible] showing flaws in the ceramic based on a wrench drop or
something cracking it?
Mr. Raulk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: And your life expectancy at that point under constant temperature and
pressure?
Mr. Raulk: It's been 19 years.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Raulk: Let me rephrase that. They've had ongoing testing programs with the
manufacturer where they have damaged the lining. What I'm going to try to explain to you is if
35
you give me a couple a moments is [inaudible] 401, the force taken to remove it from the pipe is
more than the force taken to break a piece of it apart.
Mr. Cheek: And the impact of a wrench is several thousand PSI on a point.
Mr. Raulk: That's correct. Now what has been found out is if the lining is compromised
so that you have bare metal showing, what happens is you get some corrosive products scale
building up over that area and it seals it off. The corrosive products do not migrate under the
linings between the pipe and the lining to life the lining off. And I've been shown samples by the
manufacturer of the material that he advises me have been in tests since the original matching
and formulation and that has been in continuous test for 19 years and have not been.
Mr. Cheek: Those were with perfect non-field specimens prepared in a laboratory?
Mr. Raulk: No, sir, they were lined on ductile iron pipe and then cut from the pipe.
Mr. Cheek: Cut from the pipe, but they're still perfect surface with no flaws from
installation or anything.
Mr. Raulk: That is another feature of this particular product. Because the manufacturer
of the product desires to maintain their record of zero failure, it is only applied by Induron-
approved and certified applicators to Induron specifications. They do not allow their
specifications or application specifications to be modified in any way or form.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I think my question has been answered, but as far as damaged, what Mr.
Max has already told us, that he would use the best pipe if he was putting it in his home, so we
decided on the better pipe. But if there was a chip or able to be eaten through, if this pipe has
this stability and lasts this long and we already decided on it, we need to go ahead and move and
get the pipe in the ground.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I think we're headed in the wrong direction here. I think
with the ductile iron pipe, this is the true lower bid, we've got a director saying that's the
one that he would prefer to put in, we've got our maintenance guy out there that works
with it and he repairs it every day that says that that's the one that he's trained, his people
are trained to repair, they have to go to less trouble to repair it, they don't have to call
anybody in to repair it. And I think we need to go with the true lower bid, and I make a
substitute motion that we go with the low bid here, which is $1,799,004.46.
Mayor Young: Do we have a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: We have a second. Any discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I'd like to hear from Brian, if we could. He deals with the repairs on the
lines and I'd like to hear what his thoughts are on which of these two pipes to have and why.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners. Yes, I deal with
this on a day-to-day basis. The ductile iron pipe has been--I've been in the water works business
for 20 years. I do know of ductile iron force mains with industrial sewer that's been in existence
since mid 1980's. 1984, 1985. There's never been a problem developed with this particular
ductile iron pipe. A point I want to make also, along with ductile iron, I do feel that my crews
today, every crew I have got has got the experience of doing the repairs. We do not have to have
a fusing machine or other specialized equipment to do this type of repair. Also, the depth that
the pipe is going to be installed is of such a nature where to repair it with a fusing machine would
cause a large excavation to take place. It is strongly my recommendation that this Commission
agrees that the ductile iron pipe from our past experience of working on it is the best pipe for this
application.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I would like to hear from our home grown engineer here. Could you
come up here.
Mayor Young: Let's see if he's finished. Did you want to add anything?
Mr. Speaker: One thing I will add as representative for ZEL Engineering, above what this
pipe is being installed, right now, for the proposed pipe for this to go, is 48" ductile iron pipe.
For many miles. This was designed and engineered by ZEL, a section of it was. Another section
was designed and engineered by Toole. It's 48" ductile iron pipe without the coating. To travel
the same soup. So why now is it being used as a [inaudible], has it become a difference in
quality of pipe?
Mr. Bridges: Brian, are you telling me you've got ductile iron pipe that doesn't have the
coating on it that's being used for sewage and has been for more than two years?
Mr. Speaker: That's correct.
37
Mr. Bridges: How long has it been used?
Mr. Speaker: I know for this one particular project it's been in existence for four years,
the ductile iron pipe without coating on the [inaudible] it's 48". The coating, I'm not sure of the
coating factor. The other force main, we've got 14" force main which handles industrial sewer.
It's been in since mid-80's. There's never been a problem developed on it.
Mr. Bridges: So you've talking about something that's been in for 15 years, no coating,
no problem?
Mr. Speaker: No problem. Designed, recommend by local engineering firm.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Colclough wanted to hear from Mr. Jiminez. We have a
copy of the letter Mr. Jiminez sent to Mr. Hicks with his recommendation in here. Is there
anything that you can add to that, Jorge?
Mr. Jiminez: Well, sir, based on what I understood the Commission's feelings were, that
you wanted the best pipe for the job, we made our recommendation. Now it is based on the fact-
-this is something that is easily misunderstood. This is not the typical application. If it was the
typical application there would be no question that this would be a ductile iron pipe job. This is
the only siphon in the southeastern United States. It's a siphon. It means we cannot let air in the
pipeline, because if you lose your siphon, then instead of using Mother Nature's gravity to move
the sewage you have to pay electricity to move the sewage. We gave you in the letter of
recommendation, the present work for the power, if you lose the siphon, which is $1.6 million in
today's dollar, the issue really isn't that much whether the epoxy lining is going to fail or not.
The real issue is will it keep the air out for 50 years, which is the life of this project, of any
pipeline project we put down. In our opinion, the only way to minimize that air is to use the
fusion joints on the polyethylene pipe. That's the reason I will tell you I am certain the ductile
iron pipe with the coating will last 25 years. I am certain of that. I don't know that it will last 50
years. And that's how long it has to last. In 1974, the City Council of Augusta saved the city a
quarter of a million dollars and approved prestressed concrete pipe, against our recommendation
to use ductile iron on the 42" raw water line.
Mayor Young: That's not an option in this case, Mr. Jiminez.
Mr. Jiminez: I know that, sir, but I was just giving you an example of what happens
when you're nor farsighted enough. So that's the reason we support this pipe. We have never
called for this pipe anywhere else. It's just that it is a siphon and you do have hydrogen sulfide
and if it fails, if the coating fails, then you're going to have a problem. And it is not correct that
you haven't had any failures in ductile iron. You replaced the 12" ductile iron main on Columbia
Nitrogen Drive that was completely disintegrated. So I'll object to some misconceptions that
have been presented here, and if you have any questions, I'll answer them.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Jiminez.
Mr. Jiminez: Thank you, sir.
Mayor Young: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I just would like to say. I initially, when we brought this discussion up
several months ago comparing the two pipes, discussed this issue with some independent experts
in the field and I have no problem with the ceramic liner if it will be warrantied by the
installation and manufacturer to cover that. The materials are comparable. I would just like to
see us not get into a situation where we are dumping sewer or have line failures that are going to
cost us much more down the road to repair.
Mayor Young: A final word from Mr. Bridges and then we'll move to the substitute
motion.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, in this regard, our director and the man that works with this
stuff every day and runs the crews is telling us that the ductile iron pipe is what we need to go
with, it's what they can repair quickly and easily, without a lot of trouble. And I'm reminded of a
time years ago, and I wasn't here when this happened, but I've been told that there's a gentleman
named Masserly, who the Masserly Treatment Plant is named for, that told the old City of
Augusta that they were fixing to put in a line and that they should not put in the line that they're
putting in, that it's going to cause trouble, it's going to break, and you're going to have trouble
with it for a long, long time, if you put in that line. The old City of Augusta went against his
word, put in what they had recommended from other sources other than Mr. Masserly, the man
that worked with it, and the line I'm talking about is that 42" water line that breaks about every
summer. That's the one he told them not to put in. And I'm not comfortable going against our
director and our people that work with this, and taking their recommendation on it. I respect the
opinions of ZEL and the engineering, but I'm talking to the people that put it in and work with it
and work the crews, and I think we ought to support the substitute motion.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Let's go ahead and vote now. We'll call the
question on the substitute motion, which as I understand is to award the contract to Mabus
Construction in the amount of $1,799,004.46.
Mr. Oliver: That's with the ductile iron pipe.
Mayor Young: That's the ductile iron bid. All in favor of the substitute motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote no.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Oliver: So this will be to put the ductile iron pipe in?
39
Mayor Young: Right. We'll go to Item 4 on the addendum agenda.
Addendum Item 4: Approve award of contract with Frank Shelton, Inc. in the
amount of $214,500.00 for the cleaning and painting of the Tobacco Road Elevated Storage
Tank.
Mr. Hicks: This is a tank that's in desperate need of being painted. Like the
administrator said, if it looks as if we're not going to be able to get all of it done before the
weather hits and the time that we need the extra water, then we won't take it out of service, but
our plans are to try to get it in this window between now and the first of May and so the
$201,500.00 is the low bid that was submitted for that tank painting.
Mr. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of painting the
tank, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: We're back to the regular agenda.
Mayor Young: Item 56 is next, I believe.
Clerk: Item 56: Motion to approve Indigent Care Contract with University Health
Services, Inc. d/b/a University Hospital. (No recommendation Finance Committee
February 28, 2000)
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I'm one of those persons who voted for the indigent care
package and I can appreciate what is being done for those people who are indigent, and I'm
convinced that the level of service needs to be maintained. For the last day or two,
Commissioners and people like University Hospital have been trying to work together to
possibly work out some type of compromise and I feel that we've reached that point at this
time, so I'm going to move that we inject here a figure of $1,250,000.00 for Indigent Care to
the University Hospital.
Mr. Shepard: Second that motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mayor Young: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I'd like for something to be added to motion or maybe I need to make a
substitute motion. Along with what Commissioner Beard said, I'd like for us to consider those
people who are under the University Hospital Indigent Care and need that. We need to maintain,
make sure that we are maintaining the level of treatment and service to those people and I think
we need something in writing [change of tape] rather than just saying what we're going to do.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I refer to the attorney, because I don't have a problem with what Mr.
Williams is saying, and if that can be worked out between the attorney and the administrator and
University Hospital, and I'm sure it can be in some form, since we want this in writing, I see no
objections to it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Wall, do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Wall: Well, the point I was going to make is this is the same contract that we've had
in the past, and so the level of service is going to be the same as it has been in the past and so I
think that that's already covered in the contract is the point I was going to make.
Mr. Oliver: And you may wish to ask a representative from University Hospital to put
on the record if they believe any differently.
Mayor Young: I'm trying to get his attention right now. Mr. Parks? Who is going to
speak for the hospital?
Mr. Read: I'll speak to it, please.
Mayor Young: Sir, if you would.
Mr. Read: Yes, sir, we'd be happy to make that commitment that we would maintain the
same level of care for the patients as we've been doing. I think, though, it also speaks to the long
term issue, though, and that's where a number of us have been talking about, it really zeroes in on
that committee that Councilman Shepard has put together that will allow us together to look at
long-term funding for these patients and we think that's very important at University and we
know you do, too. But we'd be happy to put that in.
Mayor Young: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to publicly thank University Hospital for their
cooperative attitude in the last few days toward reaching a compromise on the 2000 contract, and
I've asked the chairman of the Indigent Care Funding Study Committee to call a meeting of that,
and I think that has been done and an initial document request has gone out, and I'll allow the
chairman to refresh my memory as to when that committee is going to have its first meeting, but
41
I think our first step, and I understand University has been very cooperative in furnishing the
materials. What is that first meeting, Jerry, if you would let me know?
Mr. J. Brigham: It's going to be April 20. Thursday afternoon at 3:30 is the current
place.
Mr. Shepard: It's the earliest we've ever started in trying to address this issue in a
sensible way, in an orderly way, and appropriate that the care is delivered and it's appropriately
financed.
Mr. Read: We appreciate the effort and we look forward to working with all of you.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I was just going to question the difference in money. I
understand will go into Contingency; is that correct?
Mr. Oliver: Yes, if it's a budgeted item that comes in at less than budgeted, it ultimately
falls into Contingency.
Mayor Young: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: That's what I wanted address, too, Mr. Mayor, that the difference will go
into Contingency.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Any further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I know that Jim said that the contract would remain the same and I think
inasmuch as Mr. Read has agreed to making sure that the level of care remains the same, and it's
hard to put a dollar figure when you're talking about care for people, whether it's inpatient,
whether it's preventive, or even after care type treatments, but I'm glad to hear that. Jim, where
does--and you know where I'm coming from. I'm going to be very, very, very sticky on this
because I like to play with exact numbers and exact words. Now we're talking about basically a
40 percent reduction in what we voted on. There were those of us who fought for that need, not
as any type of pro-University type of constituent, but they were the people providing services. It
was for those people who had a need. And with this Commissioner, that's where that fight still
is. Now we live in a real world, gentlemen, and in a real world it's hard for government, private
industry, anybody else to deal with 40% reductions and making sure things stay the same. Now
what I'd like to know in that contract, what section in there does one need to be added that
highlights what they are talking about and what we're talking about. Because I don't have a
situation here whereby I think this needs to be polished over because either one of us, whether
it's this council or whether it's University, has a problem in terms of how many times this issue
hits the news. It can hit every day as far as this Commissioner is concerned. I want to make sure
that the needs are taken care of. Now if we're talking about a 40% reduction, I think somewhere
in there, Jim, it needs to spell that out specifically because we're talking about at a level of which
we were giving far less than we were giving years ago. I'm grateful that we're going to move
forward in terms of discussing this in long-term care. I think every Commissioner wants to do
that. And I hope that the committee will do that. I think we together have to put together some
factors that deal with state government, what we receive on a federal level. Because it's been
said that this one issue should not cause us to have to deal with the unwrangling of a budget
every year. But there are people who hang in that balance that don't sit on University's board.
They don't sit here. They don't show up in these types of board rooms. They basically are those
people who for the most part are politically and financially powerless and have to depend on
somebody to make those decisions. Where in that contract will it deal with the non-reduction of
the services at the level that we are going to provide for $1.2 million?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mays, what had I had reference to and what I think covers the situation is
subparagraph D, which is on page 8 of the contract, and it's part of the agenda book. And what it
says is, with the exception set out in this section, covered health care services includes only those
inpatient services, outpatient observation admission, outpatient surgical services and emergency
room services generally provided at University Hospital. Only those covered health care
services which are medically necessary are to be provided to certified indigent residents of
Richmond County pursuant to this agreement. So you have the language in there without
itemizing every surgical procedure, every test, every diagnostic procedure, etc. that are generally
provided at University Hospital are to be provided as part of the care. This is the same standard
that was in place last year, been in place for several years. That language has not changed
through the years. Then the medical necessary, that's a medical decision. I don't know of any
way to define that, but if it was medically necessary, I guess maybe the standard medical care
may change, medically necessary may change from one year to another, but that's the language
and I think with that being the same language and saying that an indigent person is to receive the
same care as is generally available at University Hospital means whether you're rich or poor,
insurance paying or indigent, you get the same care.
Mayor Young: That's the original language from previous contracts, and I think the
people from University can vouch for the fact that all the indigents have received care, regardless
of what Richmond has participated; is that not correct? There would be no change in that
standard of care, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I have lived through good faith efforts. I have lived through
language that this government, and I've served on all three of them where we put language in that
we'll make our best effort. We will try. We'll see you next time. The money ran out. We'll get
to it later. I am very much aware, Jim, I already read what you read. I'm aware of what's in that
contract. I'm aware of what we've been dealing with for years in there. I still go back to the
premise, Mr. Mayor, that if we're dealing with something that cause this much havoc to deal with
43
$2 million versus $1.25 million, and that was a compromise figure that we reached from a
number that got into categories deeper than that. I think it should be--Jim made one good point,
and he's a very good lawyer. He's my friend. But he also said something that was there in his
opinion, and his opinion gets like that other old statement, and I won't go into that one. But you
don't get into opinions with contracts. I think this is one that has caught this budget in a
stranglehold in terms of where we've had to deal with this, and I say this on University's side and
the City's side. But if we're dealing with this now, three months after we dealt with a budget, and
there's going to be that size of a reduction, just as we held up the contract without paying the
bills that were created for the first two months, I think something needs to added to that contract
which spells out specifically that how it relates. Because this is only a one-year contract. It's
still got to be either renewed, changed or whatever. And it is being changed because it's altered
from what was voted in during budget time. I think it should spell out specifically as it relates to
this reduction that that level of care, and while I trust these good folk here, they're going to do
their humane best to deal with that. But I think if a question should arise, seriously, in reference
to a 40% reduction of what we are dealing with, a contract should be included that spells out that
language and not left to chance. We have seen too many things where it's left to chance and
challenge and then it gets to a point of opinion or about what somebody thinks. The easiest way
to cure that is to write three lines in reference to what it says, Mr. Mayor, and deals with the
specific amount that we are reducing, that that will not cause any change in what we are dealing
with with this year's contract. And I think that will at least ensure from the standpoint of those
who do not have a political soapbox from which to voice their concerns and to deal with those
needs. I think that at least gives them that degree of safety, that they are included in specific
language to deal with that contract. I think that the automatic reversal of what was done in the
budget and a 40% reduction calls for us not to deal totally with the status quo of the existing
contract, but further language needs to be spelled out so that that's included.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I'll address my remarks to my law partners, Wall and Mays in
this situation. They've probably read the contract as much as I have. Mr. Mays, I'm going to call
your attention to page 11, 15 in our agenda book backup materials, section G4, which says cap
on payments. And I'll read that into the record. It says regardless of actual costs and/or charges
incurred and billed under this section 2, County shall not be required to pay in excess of, and
there's the figure that Mr. Beard's motion in inserting, that would be $1,250,000, hereinafter
referred to as the cap for covered health services rendered pursuant to this agreement. When you
read that in connection with the cited language that you and Mr. Wall have read, we are capping
the cost, Mr. Mays, in my opinion. We are not capping the care. The care is not capped, and I
think that University Hospital has indicated that pretty affirmatively on the record. And here
again, Mr. Wall, I'll ask him to look at that language. That's the language we've been focusing
on. We're capping our participation in this 2000 agreement. We're not capping the care that
University provides.
Mayor Young: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: It looks like it's a very simple task here. I don't see where we have to have a
long discussion on this, in that if Mr. Mays, and I think a lot of us want that written in, why don't
we just write it in, move on? We are beating this thing to death for the last two or three months
in trying to get something, so what is the problem with that? University has agreed to that. All
Jim has to do is write it in and we move on.
Mayor Young: Are you calling for the question, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, I am, but I should include that if Jim is going to write that in, then I'm
calling for the question and we go on.
Mr. Wall: We can write it in in the cap paragraph that it's agreed that there will be no
reduction in service as previously provided by University Hospital under the indigent care
contract.
Mr. Beard: Is that satisfactory with you, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: That does cure what I'm talking about, but also back to my other–
Mayor Young: The question has been called, so that ends debate on the motion.
Mr. Mays: Well, not necessarily, Mr. Mayor. I can make a substitute motion if I so
desire.
Mayor Young: Let me ask the parliamentarian. The question has been called, so the
chair is under the impression we move ahead with the vote and that ends debate and discussion.
Mr. Wall: Well, that is correct except that the Commission can overrule that since you
are the one who called the question. If there is further discussion that needs to be had.
Mayor Young: Y'all have a chance to overrule me if you want to.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I've got a statement I need to make, please, sir.
Mayor Young: All right.
Mr. Williams: When I came to this Commission, when I couldn't vote and faces were
balled up about indigent care more than anything else and I ended up voting on a budget that I
had nothing to do with, University Hospital was saying they would not take any less, and when
you change, I'm going to go back to what I tell Mr. Oliver all the time and Mr. Shepard, my
favorite Commissioner, but he have not lived on this side of the tracks. But to put it in writing,
and if everybody agrees, it ought to be a simple thing to do. But as I said before and I say again,
I agree with Mr. Mays, if that's the case, if we're not going to give any less of any or change
anything, it should be just simple to go ahead and put it in. But there are people who don't know
45
who have not got the voice to stand up or to speak up and some people don't even know where to
go for help. But if we're going to do this, it's just as plain as day to put it in writing so we have it
and we'll have it in black and white so we can always refer back to it. I go back to my situation.
I had to go all over this building and probably under this building to find some documents that
we say we didn't have. If you ain't got no paper trail, you ain't got nothing, so I would rather
have it in writing if we can.
Mayor Young: The attorney has already assured us that he would put it in writing in the
contract.
Mr. Oliver: I think the attorney has written it.
Mayor Young: He's already written it? Would you like to read that back, Mr. Wall, and
then let's find out from University if that language is acceptable to them?
Mr. Wall: It is agreed that the level of care provided under this contract shall not be less
than the level of care provided to indigents under the contract dated--and I was going to find last
year's contract date.
Mayor Young: Is that acceptable, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: In relationship to a 40% reduction.
Mr. Wall: I was going to put it in the cap in payments. I can refer to–
Mr. Mays: What I'm getting to, Jim, is I think we're going to get $1.25 million in care
work. I don't have any doubt about that. But what I'm saying is there's a very fine line to a point
I think it should be written, that if you had to deal with $2 million with what would satisfy what
was going to be gotten and you are taking away 40%, then I agree with Mr. Shepard, and this is
what I was going to say and I am not going to make the substitute motion. I agree with him that
it does underscore what it says about we won't be billed, but will it surpass that in terms of where
that $1.25 million runs out in relationship to the $2 million? Or to the $4 million?
Mr. Wall: If we just add a phrase at the end, even though funding has been reduced to
$1.25 million.
Mr. Mays: Fine.
Mayor Young: Is that acceptable to University Hospital? You believe you can sign a
contract with that language in it? They're nodding their heads in agreement that they can. We'll
move along with a vote on the motion, then, as stated by Mr. Beard. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 57: Authorize the sponsorship of an art ball with the Downtown
Development Authority in the amount of $2,500 from the "Commission Other Account."
(No Recommendation Finance Committee February 28, 2000)
Mr. Shepard: I'd make the motion as chairman of the Finance Committee--we had
problems reaching into the "Commission Other Account"--this time I make a motion and
try the Promotion Account. It seems like we are promoting downtown Augusta, Mr.
Mayor, and that's what a promotional account is for. So I would make the motion that we
purchase this art ball from the Promotion Account.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mayor Young: All right. Any discussion? All in favor--did you have discussion, Mr.
Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Not at this time.
Mayor Young: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 56: Administrative Services - To consider eliminating two part-time
bailiff positions and replace with one full time deputy position at an additional cost of
$7,355 annually. Funded from General Fund Contingency. (No recommendation
Administrative Services Committee February 28, 2000)
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, your pleasure? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just have a little problem with spending Contingency Fund.
We are just putting some in there and it appears to me that we're going to go into safety. There's
a committee working on safety for the buildings and I just can't see, and I will not support a
motion here at this point of going into the Contingency fund for this when I don't think it's
necessary or we need it.
Mayor Young: Mr. Bridges, you had your hand up?
Mr. Bridges: I think I found my question, Mr. Mayor. I was wanting to know if that's
the marshal or the sheriff and it is the sheriff's department.
Mayor Young: Yes, sir, that's the sheriff's department. Gentlemen, your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I'll move for approval.
47
Mayor Young: Do we have a second to the motion?
Mr. Cheek: I'll second it for the discussion.
Mayor Young: Discussion? No discussion.
Mr. Bridges: I've got a question, Mr. Mayor. During discussion in Committee, was
there any discussion of getting the extra money from the sheriff's department somewhere?
Mayor Young: There was some discussion about the sheriff pulling it out of some drug
money.
Mr. Oliver: I don't think this is a legitimate expense out of drug money.
Mayor Young: Okay. And I think someone mentioned [inaudible] salary, too.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: That was what I was fixing to ask. Mr. Oliver, I know we budgeted
some [inaudible] salary in the sheriff's department. Is [inaudible] salary running ahead or behind
what we budgeted?
Mr. Oliver: We budgeted all positions full, which means that at the end of the year you
would always have some money.
Mr. J. Brigham: But I thought we budgeted--so a reduction in funds for [inaudible]
salary for the sheriff's department if I'm not mistaken?
Mr. Oliver: That's true.
Mr. J. Brigham: Are we running ahead or behind in those [inaudible] salaries?
Mr. Collins: I have no idea at this point in time.
Mr. Oliver: It's too early to tell, really.
Mr. J. Brigham: I'm going to make a motion that we fund this out of just the
normal salary account and that we review that at a later date.
Mr. Oliver: This is going to be something you're going to have to pick up next year as a
budgetary item because the cost will go forward to next year.
Mayor Young: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I'll second it.
Mayor Young: Discussion on the substitute motion? Unheard. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Mays out.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Shepard vote no.
Mr. H. Brigham abstains.
Motion carries 6-2-1.
Mayor Young: Let's move along with the next item, Item 59.
Clerk: Item 59 - Engineering Services - Motion to approve Capital Project Budget
No. 322-04-200822199 to fund five (5) radio controlled hydra switches at a cost not to
exceed $100,000 to be funded from One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I Recapture and
authorize the agreement with the railroads subject to the approval of Public Works and
Engineering and County Attorney. (No Recommendation Engineering Services Committee
February 28, 2000)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, just briefly.
Mayor Young: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: It's been a project that I've been interested in for two years and I've spread
an article to each one of you that indicates some of the technical aspects of this, the fact that it's
used in other areas. I've had the input of committee that's consisted from all time of Mr. Beard
and I. We've had Mr. Mays on the committee, we've had Mr. Williams on the committee. They
have all been unanimous that we proceed forward. We've also benefitted from the input of Mr.
Murphy, Mr. Smith, and Jim Wall has been invaluable in negotiating with the railroads. Also I
notice Pete Belvin was here and has been very supportive of this project. I commend it to you,
gentlemen, lifting up that it can be remotely controlled by either wire or by radio signal and it is
use in yards. The second page of the article, and I want to give proper attribution to the article.
It's from the Trains magazine, October 1998 issue, and it says that there are as many as 120 of
49
these type devices in a railroad switching yard that's run by a railroad we're not too familiar with,
doesn't run here. It's called the Burlington Northern Santa Fe. It's a very large--maybe the
largest railroad in the United States, but they use 120 of these type machines in their freight yard
called the Argentine Yard in Kansas City, so I think that we should take the step forward and
help cut down the wait times at the crossings from Laney-Walker north to the river.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. And certainly the chair would acknowledge
the work you and your committee have done on this and certainly join all the other commuters in
downtown Augusta who applaud you for this effort and the spirit of cooperation that that
railroads have shown. And I think we probably ought to state for the record, too, that in a
meeting with the railroads, they said this would not cure all of our problems downtown but it
would certainly eliminate some of the more chronic problems that we have downtown. Any
further discussion on the motion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 60 - Petitions & Communications - Ratify letter of consent for support
of grant application to Office of the Governor Youth and Children Coordinating Council
from Augusta Richmond County Community In Schools, Inc.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mayor Young: Next item?
Clerk: Item 61 - Appointments - Motion to approve ex-officio appointments to the
following Augusta Richmond County Boards, Authorities and Commissions.
Commissioner Andy Cheek Richmond County Board of Health
?
Commission Henry Brigham Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field
?
Commissioner Bill Kuhlke Arts Council
?
Commissioner Richard Colclough Planning Commission
?
Commissioner Steve Shepard Library Board.
?
Commissioner Jerry Brigham Daniel Field Airport
?
Mayor Pro Tem Mays CVB
?
Commissioner Henry Brigham Board of Education
?
Commissioner Marion Williams Family Connection
?
Commissioner Lee Beard Richmond County Hospital Authority
?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mayor Young: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk: Item 62 - Public Services - Consider appeal of Commission action taken in
meeting held January 18, 2000 denying a request for Sunday Sales from Mr. Johnny
Glasker of Johnny's Supper Club.
Mr. Oliver: Mr. Glasker requested this and made a last-minute request to have this
added and we did that to try to accommodate him, but I don't believe anybody here is
representing him, or Mr. Glasker, I haven't seen him. And this is an appeal. We would stand by
our recommendation that it be turned down because we don't believe it meets the standards.
Mayor Young: Do we have a motion to that effect?
Mr. Bridges: So moved.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk: Item 63 - Attorney - Motion to approve Ordinance pursuance to Home Rule
to amend the Consolidation Act so as to provide that Augusta "may" create a Law
Department.
Mr. Shepard: So moved.
Mr. Williams: I second for discussion.
Mayor Young: Motion and second for discussion. Mr. Wall, just for the record, this
requires two readings?
Mr. Wall: It requires two readings at two consecutive meetings.
Mayor Young: All right. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I was here two years ago and recommended this change.
If nothing else, I'm consistent. I still recommend the change. As to this I'm consistent. The
51
item, I noticed on item 2 of our agenda we have utilized the home rule power just today to alter
the provisions as to the external auditor. I think that every law just about on a statute books has
been enacted and then amended to do various things with it. I asked Mr. Wall beforehand if he
would look in a publication called Shepard's Citations, and it's spelled the same as Steve Shepard
but there's no relation. I don't think I would be here today if I published Shepard's Citations for
all lawyers in the United States, and Mr. Wall might like it to be Wall's Citations. But it shows
the times that the charter of the City of Augusta, which was first passed in 1798, was amended as
the people and the times dictated that changes be made in the charter. And I'll pass this up and
down. I didn't have many copies of this made, but I see three pages in Shepard's Citations and in
indexes that show amendments that have been made, Mr. Mayor, to our charter when the times
dictated. And what I like about this particular change is that it sets the stage for our committee
that's going to come back that Mr. Beard is heading that would give us the full opportunity to
implement a law department, either a total in-house law department to maintain as we call it
jokingly an out-house law department, Jim, but we know that's technically called outside
counsel. Or we could use a hybrid of the two. And I think this would just set the stage to give
the committee the total freedom of action that they might need to come back to a
recommendation in this body. I think it would be appropriate. I thought it was appropriate in
1998, and I again commend it to you, gentlemen. I'm going to be brief, given the hour.
Mayor Young: Thank you. Mr. Williams, you wanted to speak to this?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. Given, taking my hat off to my favorite Commissioner, Mr.
Shepard, who is consistent and I understand that. But at the same time, I disagree. I think that
we have probably got into more than we need to get into with changing our laws around and we
as policy makers and the law have already stated, not just last year but when we merged the
county with the city as to what we should have done. If we were going to change it, I think that
would have been a good time to change it. We done been too long getting to this point. We
need to remain faithful to the law if we want people to adhere to the law and we need to do
likewise. I just disagree. I think we should vote not to change the wording from "shall" to
"may." There are a lot of things that probably need changing, and if we get into changing we are
going to be changing probably every week. Every meeting we are going to have something that
we should have changed. But the law has already been set. The judges have come together.
People have come together in this community to establish these laws. I don't know of anybody
on this council who is present or had any input or not. I know I had not any, but people have set
the rules or made the law for this Augusta Richmond County, and we need to adhere to what the
law has stated us and demanded that we do, and we have been negligent in doing that several
years now. So we need to go ahead and do what the law has required us.
Mayor Young: Thank you, Mr. Williams. Any further discussion, gentlemen? All in
favor of the motion, please vote ay.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Cheek & Mr. Williams vote
no.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mayor Young: Next item?
Clerk: Item 64 - Other Business - Consider proposal from Southern Crushers, Inc.
to enter into a demonstration project with the Augusta Trees and Landscaping
Department.
Mayor Young: Mr. Jerry Brigham, your name was on this item in the backup. Are you–
Mr. J. Brigham: I got a phone call. I'll tell you what I know about it.
Mr. Oliver: I would soon this go to committee. I didn't know anything about it until it
was published.
Mr. J. Brigham: What I understand it is, is the company involved, I think it's
Southern Crushers, is offering to do, with our [inaudible], Trees and Parks Department,
put some crushed wood into flower beds for the mulch, but it's not a mulch. It's brick, it
keeps water there. And this I understand also keeps down the amount having to be redone
and recycled year in and year out. They are willing to do this for free to show us so that
maybe in the future we are interested in doing this in other places. Kind of a
demonstration project, and I would recommend it and make a motion that we do that. I
think the reason they want to do it right now is they've got planting times and they want it
done before we get too far along with that.
Mr. Bridges: Have we got anybody who can speak to it in more detail, Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: Pete Belvin was here. He's the one that called me about it and he left
earlier.
Mr. Oliver: I don't have any objection if the Commission wants to try one. I wouldn't
want to do any massive effort at this point.
Mayor Young: Maybe we can just handle this administratively.
Mr. Oliver: We can handle all this administratively.
Mayor Young: Just do it that way, gentlemen. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: If you're going to do that, I guess--I was going to say when--I really have no
strong objection to this because I really don't know what it is, but I'm going back to procedure
and what we've talked about many times. If we're going to do something like this, why don't we
take it to the committee and let the committee move it forward. Do we have--is there a rush time
on this, a time line that we must do this today?
53
Mr. J. Brigham: Lee, let it not be misunderstood. This is not my project. As far as I'm
concerned, if they want to do it administratively or if they want to do it or not.
Mr. Beard: I move that we send it to the proper Committee so that we can continue
to follow procedure.
Mayor Young: Motion to send this to Committee. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mayor Young: Okay. All in favor of sending it to the appropriate committee, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: That brings up down to Item65.
Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss pending litigation, as well as personnel
matter.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mayor Young: Motion and second. All in favor of going into executive session for the
reasons stated, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mayor Young: Gentlemen, Mr. Henry Brigham has a statement he'd like to include in
the record.
Mr. H. Brigham: On Item13, show that he abstained.
Mayor Young: Mr. Brigham would like the record to show that he abstained on Item 13.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:15-5:15 P.M.]
Mayor Young: We will come back to order. We need a motion for the Mayor to sign
the affidavit.
Clerk: Item 66: Motion to approve authorization for Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
54
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mayor Young: Any objection? The Mayor will sign it without opposition, then. Is
there any other business to come before this Commission? We are adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
54