HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
February 21, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., with the
Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Kuhlke, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Mr. Revell, for Attorney Wall; Mr. Hornsby, Interim
Administrator; and Ms. Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was presented by the Reverend Hill.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the
agenda today?
Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
Additional Information:
Item #59
Addition to the Agenda:
1. A request from the CSRA Transitional Center, Inc. for a letter of support
from the Augusta Richmond County Commission regarding their application
for a grant from the Governor’s Children & Youth Coordinating Council.
Clerk: Their deadline for submission of this grant is March 3, and our next
meeting will be March 6, so they’ve asked if we could add this to our agenda to approve
a letter of support for this grant application.
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this item? None heard. So we will
add that and take it up at the appropriate time. Madame Clerk, let’s move along with our
consent agenda than.
2
Clerk: Our consent agenda is items 1-34A. 1-34A. For the purpose of any
objectors, I will read the petitions for planning items, and if there are any objectors,
if you would please signify your objection by the raising of your hand.
1. Z-01-09 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from John
Kelly, on behalf of Hudson Memorial CME Church, requesting a Special
Exception for church related activities per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Taylor Street
and East Boundary. (#2 Taylor Street) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-01-10 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from David F.
Melbourne, on behalf of Castleberry/Snow’s Brands, Inc., requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-Family Residence) and Zone LI
(Light Industrial) to Zone HI (Heavy Industrial) on property located on the
th
northwest right-of-way line of 15 Street, 292 feet south of the southwest
thth
corner of the intersection of Government Street and 15 Street. (1621 15
Street) DISTRICT 5
3. Z-01-11 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim
Reeves, on behalf of Southeastern Business Management, Inc., requesting a
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industrial) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Fenwick
Street, 250 feet northwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of
Fenwick Street intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Eighth Street.
(828 Fenwick Street) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-01-12 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition, 1)
should the daycare operation cease to exist the zoning shall revert to its
former P-1 (Professional) zoning; a petition from George Carswell, on behalf
of William E. West, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of North Leg, 345.05 feet northeast of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Wildwood Drive and North Leg (1606
North Leg) DISTRICT 5
Clerk: Under our Public Services agenda, liquor applications, Item 32:
32. Motion to approve a request by Lewis C. Blanchard for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Somewhere In Augusta Restaurant located at 2701 Washington Road, Ste 2.
There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 12, 2001)
33. to approve a request by Matthew Inglett for a retail package beer
Motion
& wine license to be used in connection with Garden City General Store
3
located at 224 Eighth Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee February 12, 2001)
Clerk: Are there any objections to those petitions for zoning?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted.
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-09 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from John
Kelly, on behalf of Hudson Memorial CME Church, requesting a Special
Exception for church related activities per Section 26-1, Subparagraph (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County, on
property located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Taylor Street
and East Boundary. (#2 Taylor Street) DISTRICT 1
2. Z-01-10 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from David F.
Melbourne, on behalf of Castleberry/Snow’s Brands, Inc., requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1C (One-Family Residence) and Zone LI
(Light Industrial) to Zone HI (Heavy Industrial) on property located on the
th
northwest right-of-way line of 15 Street, 292 feet south of the southwest
thth
corner of the intersection of Government Street and 15 Street. (1621 15
Street) DISTRICT 5
3. Z-01-11 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim
Reeves, on behalf of Southeastern Business Management, Inc., requesting a
change of zoning from Zone LI (Light Industrial) to Zone B-2 (General
Business) on property located on the southwest right-of-way line of Fenwick
Street, 250 feet northwest of a point where the southwest right-of-way line of
Fenwick Street intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Eighth Street.
(828 Fenwick Street) DISTRICT 1
4. Z-01-12 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with one condition, 1)
should the daycare operation cease to exist the zoning shall revert to its
former P-1 (Professional) zoning; a petition from George Carswell, on behalf
of William E. West, requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) on property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of North Leg, 345.05 feet northeast of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Wildwood Drive and North Leg (1606
North Leg) DISTRICT 5
4A. ST. GEORGES TOWNHOUSES – PHASE I –SECTION III – FINAL
PLAT-A petition by Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of ATC Development
Co., requesting approval of the final plat for St. Georges Townhouses, Phase
I, Section III this development contains 31 lots and is located on Abba Drive,
next to St. Georges Townhouses, Phase I, Section II.
4
FINANCE:
5. Motion to approve counteroffer to acquire property identified as Tax Map
37-3, Parcel 108 for $66,500. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12,
2001)
6. Motion to approve the purchase of one (1) Elliptical Tanker Fire Truck for
the Augusta Richmond County Fire Department from Harless Fire
Equipment Company of Bessemer, Alabama for $156,300.00 (lowest bid offer
on Bid 00-104). (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
7. Deleted from consent agenda.
8. Deleted from consent agenda.
9. Deleted from consent agenda.
10. Deleted from consent agenda
11. Deleted from consent agenda.
12. Motion to approve the purchase of one Stakebody Truck for the Augusta
Richmond County Fire Department from Isuzu Trucks of Augusta for
$25,745.00 (Bid # 00-161). (Approved by Finance Committee February 12,
2001)
13. Motion to approve a request from Historic Augusta, Inc. regarding a local
government match regarding their application for a Certified Local
Government 2001 Historic Preservation Fund Grant to create design
guidelines for the Downtown National Register District with 40% in-kind
services match. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
14. Motion to approve abatement of 1995 and 1996 taxes on property on Pillar
Lane. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
15. Deleted from consent agenda.
16. Motion to authorize the Internal Auditor to render report on cash receivable
accounts. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
17. Motion to approve Finance Director’s Salary Grade of 61 and approval to
begin advertising process. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12,
2001)
18. Motion to approve Contracts of Sale on 1925 Rozella Road and 2426
Castlewood Drive. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
19. Motion to approve settlement of delinquent ad valorem taxes by accepting
payment of $24,318.00. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
20. Motion to approve early retirement of Charles Chavous. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 12, 2001)
21. Motion to approve reclassification of PIO title. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee February 12, 2001)
22. Motion to approve recommendation of Position Control Committee to delete
Secretary I (demolition Project) and reclassify the Manager of Customer
Service to License Manager job grade 53 in License and Inspections
Department. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 12,
2001)
5
23. Motion to approve recommendation of Position Control Committee to create
an Animal Control Officer III, salary grade 36 and two-part-time Kennel
Masters positions in Animal Control Department. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 12, 2001)
24. Motion to approve an Administrative Assistant Position for Juvenile Court.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee February 12, 2001)
25. Motion to approve recommendation of Position Control Committee to delete
a full-time Deputy Clerk III position, salary grade 36; to delete a part-time
position; to reclassify two part-time positions to full-time positions to Deputy
Clerks at salary grades 38 in Clerk of Civil/Magistrate Court. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee February 12, 2001)
26. Motion to approve Finance Director Salary Grade of 61 and approval to
begin advertising process. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
February 12, 2001)
27. Deleted from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
28. Motion to approve contract between Augusta Richmond County Fire
Department and Richmond County Board of Health/Smoke Detector
Program. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 12, 2001)
29. Motion to approve reclassification of PIO title. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee February 12, 2001)
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
31. Deleted from consent agenda.
32. Motion to approve a request by Lewis C. Blanchard for an on premise
consumption liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with
Somewhere In Augusta Restaurant located at 2701 Washington Road, Ste 2.
There will be Sunday sales. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 12, 2001)
33. Motion to approve a request by Matthew Inglett for a retail package beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Garden City General Store located
at 224 Eighth Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee February 12, 2001)
34. Motion to adopt Ordinance to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section 7-1-
16 so as to amend The Technical Codes by deleting the 1994 Standard
Plumbing Code, The 1994 Standard Mechanical Code, The 1994 Standard
Gas Code and adding the 2000 Standard Plumbing Code (2000 International
Plumbing Code), 2000 Standard Mechanical Code (2000 International
Mechanical Code), 2000 Standard Gas Code (2000 International Gas Code),
and Georgia Amendments to the 1995 CABO Code. (Second reading
approved by Commission February 6, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
6
34A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held February 6, 2001 and the called meeting of the Commission held on
February 14, 2001.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
38. Approve Change Order #10 in the amount of $45,153.00 to Aqua South
Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the Water
Treatment Plant on Highland Avenue. (Funded Acct # 508043410/5425110)
39. Approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of $181,350 to
prepare a design for the Fairington Sanitary Sewer Extension. (Funded by
Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150200-5212115)
40. Approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of $44,640 to
prepare a design for the Horseshoe Road Water System Improvements.
(Funded by Account Number 509043410-5212115/80110350-5212115)
41. Approve a proposal in the amount of $55,044 to James G. Swift & Associates
for the completion of design work for the Boykin Road Sanitary Sewer
Project located in the Spirit Creek basin. (Funded Acct. # 509043420-
5212115)
42. Approval a proposal from Gannett Fleming, Inc. in the amount of $165,792
to provide professional services including water main design services during
construction and resident observation for approximately 14,200 linear feet of
16" water main. (Funded by Account Number 5090434210/5212115
80110106/5212115)
43. Approve a proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $248,580 to provide professional services including wastewater
conveyance design services during construction and resident observation for
approximately 22,600 linear feet of 18" and 24" sanitary sewer main.
(Funded by Account Number 509043420/5212115 80160105/5212115)
44. Approve a proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $110,575 to provide professional services including pump
rehabilitation/replacement design, electrical and control system design and
services during construction. (Funded by Account Number
509043420/5212115 80150260/5212115)
45. Approve a proposal from Stevenson & Palmer Engineering, Inc. in the
amount of $172,450 to provide professional services as well as survey, CCTV
inspection, and design of replacement/rehabilitation options of the Mid-City
and Main Interceptors between Laney Walker Boulevard and the Messerly
Plant. (Funded by Account Number 509043420/5212115 80160115/5212115)
46. Approve a proposal from Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst, P.C. in the
amount of $12,560 to revise the design of the sanitary sewer collector system
for the Kissingbower Road Phase IV & V sanitary sewer pocket as well as
fund the construction phase services and complete a full set of Record
Drawings for the Utilities Department. (Funded by Account Number
509043420-5212115/80150100-5212115)
47. Approve proposal from James G. Swift and Associates in the amount of
$58,800 for engineering services required for design and construction of the
7
Highway 1/Bath-Edie Road Water Main Project. (Funded by Account No.
509043410-5212115/80110375-5212115)
48. Approve proposal from James G. Swift & Associates in the amount of
$52,000 for engineering services required for design and construction of the
Etterlee Road Water Lines Project. (Funded by Account No. 509043410-
5212115/80110235-5212115)
50. Approve closure of approximately 750 feet of Curry Street adjacent to the
Augusta Canal for the Augusta Canal Pedestrian and Bike Trail
.
51. Deleted from consent agenda.
52. Approve Change Order Number One for the Augusta Canal Pedestrian and
Bike Trail, Phase I Project in the amount of $10,906.00.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’ve got -- Engineering Services Committee we did not have a
quorum at the last meeting. Commissioner Cheek was in fact the only one conducting
that. But I think we’ve had this information and background and have studied the items
under the Engineering Services portion, which is 35 through 52. Could I request that we
add that to the consent agenda, with maybe the exceptions of pulling specific ones that
Commissioners may have?
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding that the motion? None heard, so we’ll add
that to the motion to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Mays: Just one correction, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: My Chairman left as I was coming in. Commissioner Cheek was not
by himself. So for the record, this Commissioner was here, too. So we didn’t have a
quorum.
Mr. Bridges: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays. I didn’t see you. I’m glad there’s at least two
of us there.
Mr. Mayor: So the record will so be corrected. Gentlemen, we have a motion to
approve the consent agenda. Do any of you desire to pull any items from the agenda?
Mr. Colclough?
8
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. Item 31.
Mr. Mayor: Item 31, Mr. Colclough. Okay. Anyone else? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Item 30, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Item 30, Mr. Cheek. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
Mr. Mayor: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Williams: Also item 15. Just some clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. That’s items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 for Commissioner
Williams. Commissioner Beard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Beard: 35 and 37, unless they are somewhere else. I thought they were
somewhere else on here, too, but I may have been confused.
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: Okay, well if you’re going to include that, I think we need to talk
about those.
Mr. Mayor: 35 and 37?
Mr. Beard: 36 and 37.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: One more, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Item 37. I’d like to pull that.
Mr. Mayor: Item 27. And Commissioner Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: 51.
Mr. Mayor: Item 51 for Commissioner Jerry Brigham. Anyone else? Okay. We
have a motion to approve the consent agenda --
Clerk: We need a second.
9
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry?
Clerk: A second.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: To approve the consent agenda minus -- we’ll try to get through
these -- 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 27, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, and 51. Did we leave any out? All in
favor of the consent agenda then, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 33]
Mr. Colclough votes No.
Mr. Bridges votes No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 32]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-6, 12-14, 16-26, 28-29, 32-34, 38-50, 52]
Clerk: For the record, Mr. Kuhlke will not be with us today.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s go ahead and take these up in numeric order.
Commissioner Williams, you have 7, 8, 9 --
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. J. Brigham: Did 33 get pulled?
Mr. Mayor: No, sir, nobody asked that that be pulled.
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to vote No on item 33.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Did you get that, Madame Clerk?
Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Colclough: I also vote No on item 32.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough says No on item 32.
10
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I be on the record as voting against Sunday sales
on item 32?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All right, we’ll take these up in numeric order then.
Commissioner Williams, you had items 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, which all relate to
automobiles. You want to discuss those as one or take them up individually?
Mr. Williams: We can discuss them as one, Mr. Mayor.
7. Motion to approve the purchase of one (1) Utility Body Truck for the Utilities
Department - Customer Service Division from Augusta Dodge for $21,905.96
(lowest bid offer on Bid 00-123). (Approved by Finance Committee February
21, 2001)
8. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) 10,000 GVW Trucks for the
Utilities Department - Construction & Maintenance Division from Bobby
Jones Ford for $63,095.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-127). (Approved by
Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
9. Motion to approve the purchase of seven (7) Compact Pickup Trucks for the
Utilities Department - Customer Service Division from Bobby Jones Ford of
Augusta, Georgia for $104,973.05 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-132).
(Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
10. Motion to approve the purchase of five (5) Compact Pickup Trucks for the
Utilities Department - Construction & Maintenance Division from Bobby
Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $75,140.15 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-
132). (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
11. Motion to approve the purchase of three (3) Midsized Pickup Trucks for the
Utilities Department - Construction & Maintenance Division from Bobby
Jones Ford for $52,074.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-133). (Approved by
Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
Mr. Williams: I just need some clarification. I think in committee we talked
about the new vehicles, the new trucks we was getting for the Utilities Department, and I
asked then for a year was this a replacement on other vehicles, you know, what we was
doing on that, and if we was replacing, what year models were we replacing these with.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to address that?
Mr. Speaker: On any specifically or all?
Mr. Mayor: Well, if you could respond to Commissioner Williams’ questions.
Mr. Williams: My question was, I think in Finance when we talked about this,
what year model vehicle were we replacing and how soon were we doing this? We
talked about how many miles was on those vehicles. I just need to know, is this a new set
of trucks that we’re buying for a new --
11
Mr. Crowden: On the Utilities, sir, it’s a combination of both. For both -- mostly
customer service, construction and maintenance, and so forth. They have recently
undergone a reorganization, increased some meter readers, so we’re purchasing some
new trucks to support that requirement. They have in the meter readers section, if you
check with Alma Stevenson, they have some that are for her meter readers currently on
board, their trucks are in the -- the one that has the fewest miles that we intend to replace
on a meter reader is 74,798 miles. There are additional problems with that truck that we
feel that it should be washed out of the system. Now all other trucks, and this would be
the trucks listed on #10, all other trucks listed there are in excess of 100,000 miles. We
have done assessments on those vehicles and we really need to cut those loose.
Mr. Williams: I think what I was asking for was the year, and I know we’ve got
some different equipment here that we’re dealing with other than the meter readers. I
know that Public Works has got some different programs or different employees that are
coming on and we need to buy to supply those with equipment to be able to work with.
But those older trucks is the ones I was referring to. Are these trucks over five years old?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. Let me show you how you can pretty much generally tell
how old a truck is. If we list a truck as a replacement truck, if you see the first two digits
of the code, and this is with exception of the 51 series asset numbers, if you look at the
asset number that we’ve given as a replacement, the first two digits will give you the year
that that was purchased. So if it’s an 880552, that means that’s a 1988 truck. Same with
94 something something something, that means that that truck was purchased in ’94. So
that’s a ’94 model.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Crowden: The only exception would be if we buy it towards the end of the
year where in September they change their year models. Our asset numbers stay with
that same year. So if we bought the truck in October of ’94, it would still have a ’94 asset
number but it would be ’95 model truck.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor and Commission, I wanted to kind of enlight the board
on a situation we ran across in Athens the other week and we talked to other cities who
buy refurbished automobiles and use those automobiles for another 100,000-150,000
miles. And when you’re talking about water meter trucks that’s going to read meters, it’s
a lot cheaper for us to go back to the dealer and have them to install a new motor and
transmission for probably $4,000-5,000 than it is for us to turn around and buy a brand
new automobile that we’re going to keep for four or five years. Now if it’s damaged, if
it’s been in an accident, if there’s been some kind of default with the body or something,
I think you, you know, we can justify that. But when I look at how much money, when
you add up, this is over $280,000 when you figure up how much we’re spending in all
these automobiles. I understand that we need those, but there are some I think we can
save a lot of the taxpayers’ money by going back to the dealership and getting a warranty
and a installation done through the dealer rather than to buy a new vehicle. I just wanted
12
to pull that so we can find the year model on those and how soon we are trading and how
soon we are getting rid of those vehicles.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, and I won’t hold these up for this, but I really do feel like
we need to look at every vehicle purchased to make sure that we are fully utilizing our
fleet and that there are no other vehicles sitting aside that could be jointly used by some
of these departments. On meter readers and other things that require a routine type of job
with a non-specific type of vehicle, that we look at alternating shifts in order to save
money and not purchase additional vehicles and other things like that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move approval of items 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second. Further discussion? All in favor of those items,
please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, is #15, if you’d read the caption.
Clerk:
15. Motion to approve contract with Baird and Company to provide Internal
Auditing Services. (Approved by Finance Committee February 12, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked that this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, and looking at the caption in the back, I want
to just get a clear understanding. We talked in committee about this. The Administrator
is supposed to go out for bid on a auditor for the government and this reads as a year’s
contract and it does say at the bottom that we can terminate this contract within 60 days.
I think my concern was why are we doing an agreement at all if we going to hire a
temporary firm to do this until we can send out for bid. I just need some clarification on
what was actually happening with that.
Mr. Mayor: I think, Commissioner, the intent was that we had some projects the
internal auditor could do now, so this way we could go ahead and undertake those
projects as we look to the long term. Perhaps Commissioner Shepard, the Finance
chairman, can add something to that.
13
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, that was exactly the reason we did what we did, and I
see in the backup material that the letter of engagement was amended there in the
committee by Mr. Wall’s writing in that stated that the contract would be -- unless sooner
terminated, either party may terminate this agreement upon giving 60 days’ written
notice. But we went ahead and put them under contract because one project I think you
were interested in, Mr. Mayor, as we all were, was the collection of some of our
receivables or the determination that some of the receivables were uncollectible and this
was tasked over to the internal auditor.
Mr. Mayor: And that’s item 16?
Mr. Shepard: Yes. And I’d make a motion to approve it as the Committee --
to sustain the Committee action.
Mr. Williams: So a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor, that means --
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Mr. Williams. We have a motion on the floor. Let’s
see if there’s a second to that motion.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham seconds. All right, go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: A point of clarification. Is that meaning that we’re going out
immediately for advertising for a -- I mean it doesn’t specify that here. That’s what I
wanted to know. Was we going to have the Administrator or the proper person go out for
bid on that right away, I guess is my point.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I don’t know whether -- you want the Finance Committee to
direct somebody to do that or you want the Administrator to handle that administratively
or what do you suggest?
Mr. Williams: Well, I can make a substitute motion that our Administrator go
ahead and handle that immediately, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So your substitute motion would be for the Administrator to
immediately solicit bids or proposals for internal auditor and not approve the agreement
that’s on here? Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a second to that motion. Any discussion of the
substitute motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
14
Mr. Mayor: Yes, all right. Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. J. Brigham: Let’s go back for a little walk in the Dark Ages of the history of
these events, if you don’t mind. I believe this Commission has already directed that we
have a procurement done. We’ve directed it be done as of November. With all the other
turmoil in the Finance Department, that was not done. And with the fact that the
Administrator left. I think we’ve already given the instructions to the administration to
do that. I don’t have a problem approving the Baird and Company contract because I
don’t see it being done in time enough for us to be able to have a full functioning of
internal audit for this year. I am very concerned with the fact that we’ve never bid this
contract in the entire time that it has been awarded to Baird and Company. I think that it
should be bid. I also think that the internal audit position should be an internal position.
But I’m going to vote today to award the contract to Baird because I think we’ve got
bigger fish we’ve got to fry today.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: That was basically my argument. Not necessarily an argument, Mr.
Mayor. I think on the finance [inaudible], I was questioning, particularly clarity of what
was going to be in the contract. I think we’ve got to do the advertising and I don’t have a
problem with that part of the substitute motion, but I think where it leaves us hanging to a
point that somebody is going to have to do this work for a given period of time, and past
experience says that the earliest we’re going to get somebody in here is going to be six
months from now, settled and within a transition. And I’d much rather have somebody
under some contract, and I was more concerned about the provisions for termination, so if
we do it to a point where we got them here in July or August, then we’ve got a period
there that we can deal with that. But I think to have it out there where nobody, to a
certain extent, is under contract, with the situation that we’ve had there [inaudible] and
rebuilding Finance, that it’s just not prudent to have somebody there on paper, for
whatever given period of time. I think it’s good that we’re talking about hiring, but once
that direction is good, we got to bring them on, we got to interview, we got to see
whether that’s the folk we want, we got to see whether they going to accept, and there are
a lot of ifs in between there, and I just think to not have somebody there under some
contract -- and if the protection is there to terminate, then I think that should really
answer that part of it. I’m comfortable with the new language of the contract, but I’m not
comfortable to go out and then not have somebody in charge of a particular function that
you can hold accountable for that particular part of it. That’s why I am in uncomfortable
spot with the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I thought that’s what we put the language in there
with 60 days’ termination, that we could move in either direction that we wanted to. First
of all, I do think that I’m going to agree that we need to go out for bids, but I also would
agree that we need somebody presently working in that capacity, and I think that we kind
of slow dragged on this for the last year or so, because it was my understanding, and
15
maybe I was in error, that we were supposed to be looking at something all along and
developing something, but of course maybe I’m in error on that, like I am on most things.
But anyway, I think that we have to have someone now doing that. I don’t have any
problem with going out, and I think the other thing, Mr. Mayor, is that we really need to
know which direction we’re going. Are we going to have a firm doing it? Or are we
going to in-house? And I think that needs to be taken back to the finance committee for
them, the body itself, to review and see which direction we’re going. And maybe
somewhere along the road we find out which direction we’re going. But I think we are
moving just a little bit too fast on this, and I think it’s important enough to take the time
to do that. So I think with that, we need to keep what we have. The contract, I think it’s
good because you have the 60-day interim in there, and I think we ought to also decide
very soon in what direction that we’re going.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want my colleague to understand. I’m
not opposed to this company or any other company doing it. Like Mr. Beard said, we
was supposed to have moved on this earlier and we have not. I don’t have any direction
as to what was going to be taking place. Voting on this contract to me says that this
company, which evidently is doing a good job, and it’s not questioning their ability to do
a good job, but we don’t have any direction. We’re just still doing the same thing we’re
doing. Commissioner Brigham said go back in the Dark Ages. And I think that’s our
problem. We need to come out of those ages. We need to start holding accountable and
get some direction and to know. The 60 days is good. I have no problem with the
termination agreement. But we don’t have any direction as to whether we’re going in-
house or whether we going to advertise this year or we going to do it the beginning of
next year. All I’m asking is for some clarification. I just need to know what we going to
do and when we going to do it. The 60 days is fine with me. I mean I think that’s fair
enough to the company and fair enough to this body.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, just for information, I had placed on the next Finance
Committee meeting to discuss the internal auditor’s position, and my purpose is doing
that was to go ahead and officially say that we want to fill that position as working for
and reporting to the Commission and go ahead and advertise and doing it. And just
following up on, maybe some of the discussions we’ve had or instructions we’ve given
the Administrator, just to officially do that. So that’s the purpose in that being on there at
the next Finance Committee meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I think one thing you may want to add to that discussion
at the meting would be the Finance Committee develop a work place for the internal
auditor. If we’re going to have a contract with the firm to do this work for us, we need to
give them some work to do. Last year they only spent about the half the money we had
budgeted cause we didn’t give them any projects to do, and they work for the
Commission the way that it’s structured. So I think that’s something where we could
16
take some leadership in the Finance Committee and discuss that. The substitute motion
that’s on the floor is to put this out for proposals and the substitute motion did not include
extending the agreement with Baird and Company. So we’ll call the question on the
substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. H.
Brigham vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 2-6-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Just a couple of quick comments. One, we
started this process, to my understanding, for an internal auditor, had a candidate come,
we approved, she backed out, and then the ball was dropped. The internal auditor’s
position, to my knowledge, is completely separate from the Finance Department and
therefore the activities and the problems in the Finance Department had no bearing on us
not continuing that project. The thing that concerns me is we seem only able to do one
thing at a time. We should be hiring these people and proceeding with advertising for
these positions in parallel and getting these people in here on a regular basis instead of
taking one at a time, and I would hope that we would not get in that rut and not continue
to drop the ball. Just for information, I’ve got a document here that this is the Augusta
Richmond County Administrator’s authorities and responsibilities passed during the
consolidation bill. There’s a lot of things in here we don’t do, just like we didn’t follow
through with filling this position when we should have.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Takes us back to the original motion, which is to
approve the contract with Baird and Company to provide internal auditing services. All
in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 27. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the
caption.
Clerk:
27. Motion to approve recommendation of Position Control Committee to
abolish a Recreation Specialist IV, salary grade 41, Groundskeeper I, salary
grade 37, Planning/Development Manager, salary grade 50 - general fund,
and the creation of a Foreman Technical, salary grade 46 - sales tax and
Planning/Development Manager, salary grade 50 - sales tax in Recreation
17
and Parks Dept. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
February 12, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you again, Mr. Mayor. I’m somewhat confused on this one
as well. We talk about a 3-1/2% cut in the budget and I notice in Recreation this 3-1/2%
cut is not really a cut in my mind, and I wanted some explanation or some clarity on that.
And the other thing I need some clarification on is the recommendation from the Position
Control Committee to abolish. I thought that committee was to put in place those jobs
that was necessary, not to recommend abolishing jobs. I just need some clarification on
both of those.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we have Mr. Beck and Ms. Pelaez, so we’ll turn it over to them
and see if we can get the answers you’re looking for.
Ms. Pelaez: All right, let me talk about the positions first. Actually, I don’t under
the question, to be completely with you.
Mr. Williams: The recommendation from the Position Control Committee was to
abolish?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I didn’t think that that was the purpose of that committee
and that’s what I needed some clarification on.
Ms. Pelaez: That’s why it’s before you. We could only recommend that positions
be filled, and if the Commission decides that that’s not a good idea to abolish those
positions, then you make that decision.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Pelaez, I’m still confused. It’s easy to do that. But you -- it
says here as a recommendation of Position Control to abolish. So I mean in my mind that
tells me that you, your group, your committee says hey, it needs to be abolished.
Ms. Pelaez: We recommended it for your approval and/or disapproval. We’re
just a recommending body. You can overrule us at any time that this Commission
desires.
Mr. Williams: And these same positions will be funded out of the sales tax
money for the five years, I guess the sales tax. And after that, what happens?
Ms. Pelaez: After that, those positions will no longer be funded out of sales tax if
it’s not approved.
18
Mr. Williams: So those employees will do what? I mean will they be terminated?
What would happen? I mean something got to happen after the five years that we fund
them out of that; right?
Ms. Pelaez: After the five years, if those positions are no longer funded, then we
would see if there are positions available within the department; if not, then we would
have to go to a layoff status.
Mr. Williams: So it would it probably reflect back on the General Fund on a
normal situation; is that right? If the funds are there, I mean.
Ms. Pelaez: Possibly.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor, if I might.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: We’re working on the basis of the recommendations from the
department on how they absorb that 3-1/2%, how can you come to the 3-1/2? This is the
recommendation that came back to the committee. Then of course we looked at in
[inaudible] and send it to you.
Mr. Williams: I thank you, Mr. Hornsby, by I think what I’m getting at is that’s
unfair to the other departments because the other departments won’t be able to refer back
to the sales tax to take a 3-1/2% cut for employees or anything else. I mean because they
don’t fall under that guideline. So that’s really unfair to everybody else who made hard
core cuts and had to deal with the cutbacks and then not be able to switch over, I guess is
a better word.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just going to ask Mr. Beck, are these positions that you’re seeking to
create, are they -- well first on the positions to eliminate, how will that impact your
department? Is that consistent with your needs?
Mr. Beck: Commissioner Cheek, the positions that we’re going to eliminate --
and of course this is just our recommendation of how we can best meet the 3-1/2% -- it’s
not to say that we didn’t need the positions to start with, but to meet our 3-1/2%. These
are two vacancies that we feel like will impact the department the least. One is a vacant
recreation specialist IV that we’re suggesting not to fill, we’ll just meet those needs in
other areas. And the groundskeeper position is vacant and what we’re asking to do there
is to create a position in the sales tax fund because our regular operation maintenance has
been performing duties with the sales tax for the last five years, and it has taken away
from our regular general fund maintenance of parks because we’ve been doing 1% sales
tax through our regular general fund. And so what this is going to do is put a position
where it’s needed to be for the last five years, to oversee in-house projects as a foreman
19
in the sales tax fund. Also, the planning and development manager has been paid for out
of the general fund for the last five years and that is 100% of what this employee does is
works on 1% sales tax projects, has been paid for out of the general fund for the entire
time. This is actually putting these salaries where they should be.
Mr. Cheek: So both the employees that are in or will be in these positions will be
made aware that they are funded through sales tax?
Mr. Beck: One is currently filled, the planning and development manager. The
other is a vacant position that will be advertised within the department.
Mr. Mayor: I think the Commissioner’s question was, though, does he know that
in five years his job may be over with?
Mr. Beck: Well, that’s correct. And the way that it was explained to us by Mr.
Wall in the committee was that at such time in five years, if the sales tax does not pass,
that basically we’ll have to reduce our employment by these two positions or that amount
of money. So at that time, if we have other vacancies, we can shift those positions to
meet that accordingly.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Tom, it’s my understanding here, this item 27, by making this move
it allows you to meet the 3-1/2% cut in the general fund; is that correct?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: So if we don’t approve this, then you’ve got to go back and find that
cut in another location? Is that my understanding?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the recommendation of
the Administrative Services Committee
.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the motion to approve? All in favor please
vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
20
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 30. If you’d read the caption, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
Motion to approve and sign the contract with Jay Callaway for the
30.
support and maintenance of the Revenue Systems, Inc. (RSI) Tax Billing
Software. (Approved by Public Safety Committee February 12, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a question on this particular contract. We have a
problem dealing with the computer language between the Tax Assessor’s and the Tax
Commissioner’s office that needs to be resolved within one calendar year in order to get
our tax bills out on time. Is this the same contract that will oversee that writing of
computer code to resolve that problem?
Ms. Allen: No, sir. This is just for the maintenance [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: I guess it may or may not appropriate, but has that other contract
been let and are we working that issue?
Ms. Allen: We are looking into that issue, yes.
Mr. Cheek: Well, we have like $90 million worth of revenue we need to collect,
and if we don’t have that software problem resolved, we won’t be able to collect it. I
guess I’d like to go ahead and get that put on the Finance Committee agenda to track it.
The next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to approve. Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes. Just for information, they are in the process and we have
been examining software packages. They’ve been coming in. They are actively involved
in trying to get something through. But this item here is because of the simple fact that
the company that we bought it from no longer provides the service, the support I guess is
the way they use it, the support of the product itself, and in order for anything to happen
to it, if anything happens, the only way we can get support, the technical people who
really know the guts of the program, is to go this route. That’s a stop gap measure, stop
gap only. But they are actively trying to obtain a package that will benefit the citizens
and provide what they really want in the tax office.
21
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Cheek: Just to quote a line out of one the Jedi movies, try not, do. That’s got
to happen. And writing computer code, there’s a bunch of people out there that can write
code to make two different languages agree, we just have to get them in here and get
them to do the job.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to item 30?
Mr. Shepard: We have a motion to approve it.
Mr. Mayor: We do? I’m sorry. We have a motion to approve. All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 31.
Clerk:
31. Motion to approve in concept Library/Community Center model at Diamond
Lakes. (Approved by Public Services Committee February 12, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Colclough, you asked this one be pulled.
Mr. Colclough: I’ve been looking at this concept for quite some time since it’s
been put on the agenda. I really would like to see a committee, a site selection committee
formed by the Mayor, of this committee, to go out and look at different sites and give
them 12 months to come back to us with a recommendation. We’re talking about
essential services, and if we look at [inaudible] school out there, if we look at essential
services, if you look at where the people are living who will need to utilize this library, I
think if you get three or four sites going and some people from the Library Board as well
as some grass roots folks, to go out and take some site selections, get some pertinent
information and bring it back to this body, I think then we can make an informed decision
on where a library should go in this city. To put it out in an area where it’s going to be
inaccessible to get to, I think it’s going to be a little hard, but I think if you get a group of
citizens, along with the Library Board, to go out there and do some site selections, I think
we’ll have a better chance of getting an appropriate site for this library. And/or the
Health Department, if you want to include that. But I think this is what my
recommendation would be in this area.
Mr. Mayor: Are you making a recommendation in the form of a motion, Mr.
Colclough?
22
Mr. Colclough: I will put that in the form of a motion, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Beard: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: The motion has been seconded. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. On this one, I’m going to stand up. In
November, we started the process where we looked into this as a proof of concept. We
went through this with the Board of the Library, as well as the Board of Health. Those
boards have both voted in concept this location of these facilities at Diamond Lake. This
ought not to even be an issue that we’re discussing. In every town hall meeting, which
has been five since this came up, it has been overwhelmingly received. This is an
opportunity to do like dozens of other cities have done, combine facilities to make joint
use where we don’t have to buy property, where we don’t have to have two sewer lines
and two sets of sidewalks and two parking lots. It makes good sense. This 55,000 square
foot facility -- and all we’re asking for today is the same thing, and I’ll read this - that the
Library Board of Directors did. Dear Mr. Beck. And this is from the Library Board of
Directors. This letter is to inform you the Library’s intent -- this is the decision making
body on site selection -- to build its new south Augusta branch library at Diamond Lakes.
This motion reads as follows and was approved January 22, 2001 at the Augusta
Richmond County Library Board of Trustees regular meeting. Ms. B.J. Lester motion to
use Diamond Lakes property as a location for the south Augusta branch in partnership
with the Recreation Department as a combined facility or a separate building to be
decided upon later. Seconded by Darrel Byrd. Opposed by Ms. Frances Sizemore. We
look forward to working with the Recreation Department on this mutual project, progress.
If I can assist you in any way, let me know. Lee Ann Fisher. Mr. Mayor, we can save in
design, we can save in construction costs by unifying these buildings. Nearly a million
dollars is the estimate. Annual savings by combining conference rooms, bathrooms,
ADA-accessible entrances, parking lots and other amenities will be nearly $100,000 a
year. That’s just an estimate. All we’re asking for is an approval by this board in
concept that we proceed with research that would allow us to go out and do the design,
get the hard information to go forward with this project. This is an exciting opportunity,
and speaking for the Library Board and the Board of Health, they’re excited about
working together with this government. And I think we ought to also extend our hand to
I make a substitute motion that we send this letter, that we
work together with them.
generate this letter and approve this in concept for further research.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the item as captioned on the agenda,
and that’s been seconded. Mr. Colclough?
23
Mr. Colclough: Well, I’m not going to stand up because I’m on crutches, but one
of this things I think [inaudible] when this search started, non e of this was in the process.
We started this search back before -- I don’t know how long, looking for sites. We had a
site and we had some problem with the site. What I’m saying to you today is that this
government is not in the business of making money. We’re in the business of providing
services for people where people can get to the services. And I think sticking it out in the
boonies would be absolutely ludicrous. I mean we can save taxpayers’ money. That’s
fine. But I think to put it out there and it not be utilized by the taxpayers is not going to
get it. I think if we go ahead and look at some sites in this county where people can get
to, and if you’re talking about a health department, if you look at how we -- out there on
Barton Chapel, where it comes into Highway 1. You already have a bus going out there.
You already have a bus running up Barton Chapel Road. I mean those are the folks who
are going to utilize this health department. Those are the folks that are going to try to get
their medication, get their Medicaid card. I’ve been in health care for 37 years. And the
worst thing you can do is to put a facility where somebody can’t get to it. And just to
save a couple of dollars and have an empty building doesn’t really make sense.
Mr. Mayor: I think we’ve got somebody in the audience that wanted to speak to
this. The Library Director is here.
Mr. Colclough: There’s quite a few people that want to speak to this.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s do this. Let’s hear from the Library Director and
then we’ll come down here and take some additional comments from the Commissioners.
Mr. Swint: Mr. Mayor, the Library’s Board did do a survey, and sent out surveys
to the schools in south Richmond County. And they got a number of responses, well over
a thousand. And it’s about 3-to-1 in favor of a location at Diamond Lakes. The question
that was asked was you, and your use of library, if it were located at Diamond Lakes and
Recreation and Parks as a combined community center and library -- we got 974 yeses
and 245 nos. So it was overwhelmingly in support of the concept and the location at
Diamond Lakes. We also have Mr. Tom Sutherland, who is the chairman of our
Regional Library Board [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: In case y’all didn’t know, that was Mr. Gary Swint, who is the new
Director of the Library, who just took the job a couple of weeks ago, I think, and I don’t
think everybody has met you yet.
Mr. Swint: It’s been three weeks, two days, six hours.
Mr. Mayor: And one site relocation. We’ll go down the line here. Mr. Beard,
we’ll start with you.
Mr. Beard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I think we have two good ideas coming from both
sides of the podium up here. And I’m just wondering -- I know Commissioner Mays
24
usually puts on his striped shirt, but I’m going to try today to put on one, because really,
it’s going to be hard for me to vote today because simply I really don’t know enough
about what either one of these gentlemen are talking about to make a positive statement
up here. And I’m going to ask that, I hope -- I know there will be a lot of rhetoric, but I
hope that what would could do is kind of give everybody up here an opportunity to look
at this and maybe come to some meeting of the mind before we jump off on any one at
this particular point.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Beard: And since there is a substitute motion already on there, but I’ll just
wait and let --
Mr. Mayor: Stand by. We may need another motion before this is open.
Commissioner Williams and then Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek again.
Mr. Williams: I just want to ask the Director. You said the survey went out. Did
that survey went out just in south Augusta? Where did that survey go? What area did
you send?
Mr. Swint: I will ask somebody on the Board because I came in on the tail end of
this. I was with the collection. We have Gloria Greenbaum who is the vice chairman of
the Richmond County Board of Trustees.
Ms. Greenbaum: I actually don’t have the names of the schools where [inaudible]
but obviously they were the schools in the district that would be impacted by the location
of the library. I was on that original committee and it was on a rainy day that Mr.
Colclough, besides [inaudible] Johnson and I, looked at our choices of availability that
would not add to the tax burden of Richmond County. We had one area that was a gift
and it just proved totally unworkable. And then the Diamond Lakes which is already
owned by the county. So while it is far out, it is a growing section. It’s the only section
of Richmond County that has any growth let to it. And I do think within a few years,
there will be a much larger population in that area and hopefully more transportation.
The truth of the matter is that most people go to the library by car and while it is not in
the center of south Augusta, it is accessible by car, and as Mr. Cheek said there is ample
parking. There is a recreation area there already that is well utilized and we think that the
library would be well located there.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, ma’am. Commissioner Cheek and I had spoke about
this several times, and my only concern is about the library there. This is going to be one
of probably three or four libraries, but my concern is that if the park is generating that
much traffic with sports and other activities and with the congested roads in south
Augusta, and like you just mentioned about the growth that’s already coming and coming
to that area, just getting out of Atlanta this morning, and it was terrible and I can
understand how congested that could be when there’s an event going on and somebody is
there to deal with the library, and that’s what Commissioner Cheek and I talked about. I
25
don’t see how the traffic will help the situation when you coming and going to the library
to study and there is a lot of activities going on, whether it be baseball, football, whatever
is going on.
Ms. Greenbaum: I don’t know that there is any place that is going to be
accessible that there isn’t a great deal of traffic. I don’t think that that would impinge on
the library itself. At this point, it is not heavily trafficked, from what I could see. But we
are hopefully a growing city and with growth comes increased traffic. And unless the
city is willing to put money into an increased public transportation system, that means
we’re talking about two different issues here -- one is traffic and the other is the location
of the library. And I don’t think that they belong together frankly.
Mr. Williams: Well, what I was sharing with you, Commissioner Cheek and I
had spoke several times about it and that was my concern about how people would come
out and how they would be able to get in and out with the amount of traffic with the
activities and other things that’s going on at a park so big. And those are my concerns.
That’s going to happen. That’s going with the growth you’re talking about. You don’t
get just the good growth. It’s going to come in all shapes, size and colors, so we going to
have to deal with the traffic. But that was my only concern about how much traffic is
there now compared to the additional traffic that the library may project.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges, then Commissioner Cheek, and
Commissioner Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: First off, one question. I guess this is to Ms. Greenbaum. The
property that was going to be donated, was that at the corner of Tobacco and Windsor?
Was that the property being spoken of?
Mr. Swint: That’s correct.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. I knew that was in discussion for some time back. Mr.
Mayor, I guess the issue that we’re discussing here today is in concept to support merging
or marrying the library with Diamond Lakes. I don’t have a lot of problems with that. I
think that as has been mentioned, that is a growing location. We’re going to four lane
those, that road within the next -- probably all the way to Hephzibah -- within the next
eight years, and so as has been pointed out, most traffic goes by car and it would be easily
accessible to that. My concern with putting the library at Diamond Lakes is is it going to
be put down inside near the ball parks and that type of thing? I would not think that
would be good idea. I think it would be better to put it on the roadway of Windsor
Spring. And Tom, maybe you can respond to that. I don’t have any idea, any problem
with supporting this concept. But where I do have a problem with it, Diamond Lakes
itself, is exactly where the library is going to be located. I think it should be located on
the main drag of Windsor Spring.
Mr. Beck: Commissioner Bridges, to answer your question, we really don’t know
either at this point. What we’re asking, I think, you to do is what was approved in
26
committee last week was to move forward with this concept to allow us to look into this
possible scenario happening. It’s got a lot of advantages that could save us some
construction dollars and land acquisition dollars for the library operational costs. On
paper it could have some very positive benefits. But what we need to do is between the
library and the city and us is to look at a couple of these other sites that are existing out
there now, there are about 11 of them across the country that have joint facilities -- and
just to see how it works. But as to exactly where the site is going to be at this point, until
we see that that really -- that relationship, having both of them together -- that’s got to be
the first thing answered. Then we’ll look at where it will go on the Diamond Lakes
property, I think.
Mr. Bridges: Who will make the final decision of the location?
Mr. Beck: The Commission will.
Mr. Bridges: That matter will come back to the Commission then, as well as the
funding of it?
Mr. Beck: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: You want us to come back to you?
Mr. Cheek: No. To answer the question about the school survey, I have a letter
here from Sandra Kay Mercer, who is on the library board. The schools were Goshen
Elementary, McBean, Hephzibah, Blythe, Tobacco Road, Jamestown, Willis Foreman,
Windsor Spring, Gracewood, Rollins, Glenn Hills Elementary -- those were all
elementary schools. Hephzibah, Morgan Road, Glenn Hills Middle Schools. Cross
Creek, Hephzibah, Butler, Glenn Hills High Schools. Had a high percentage of returns
based on normal surveys. And as was stated earlier, there was a high percentage in favor
of. These are the people that will be using the library. I want everyone on this board to
ask yourself how many times have you driven down the road and passed a library and
th
said oh, there’s the library, I think I’ll go in. You’ll find out that less then 1/10 of one
percent of the people just happen to go into the library. The truth of the matter is is
Windsor Spring Road’s widening is on schedule to be underway within four years.
Willis Foreman Road, if you read the list we sent to Atlanta to D.O.T., there’s an
entrance to Morgan Road proposed for Diamond Lakes. Ladies and gentlemen, the
traffic, the design of Diamond Lakes in the master plan has been such that is
accommodates a place where now the largest number of children and adults in Augusta
congregate in one place most nights in the summer and fall and spring. If you want a
library in a place, I would think you would want it where there are children and adults,
and you can also have places where mom or dad could play ball or junior or his brother
could play ball and the other kids could do their research in the library. We can embark
27
upon the course this city has done in the past where we build smaller facilities, less
efficient facilities, but the truth is it’s time to step forward and build things in conjunction
with these other agencies, partner with them, save costs and electricity and utilities and
maintenance and upkeep. The truth is you look at the main library. There was not
funding there to keep that up. You look at some of the community centers. Until the
sales tax was around, we didn’t have money to keep them up. But when you have two
facilities together like that, there is a greater impetus to keep them up and to put the
resources in there to make these places look as appealing. This is a chance for us to build
a better library, a better community center, in a place that’s in the middle of 20+
neighborhoods, many of whom the rank and file people have supported this concept. It is
accessible. The truth is everybody in the suburbs drives everywhere you go. Very few
people walk. There isn’t public transit but there’s not public transit many places. The
south Augusta Board of Health, who wants to relocate out to Diamond Lakes, currently is
on Windsor Spring Road, there is no public transit, there hasn’t been since it’s been there,
and there are more people there than they’ve got room for. In fact, they’re asking to
expand that until we could build a new one. This is a good idea. We can delay and delay
and delay, but it’s a good idea. It’s successful in other places. It can work here. When
have you went to Riverview Park and gotten basically embarrassed at the fact that
Augusta can’t build places like that? We continue to be satisfied with small, rinky-dink
places. Let’s build nice stuff for the people of Augusta, stuff they can be proud of for the
future, that will be built now with the future in mind.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’ve been for over three years
this board’s representative on the Library Board and I’ve encouraged them in a small way
to proceed with this concept with coordinated facility in a very orderly and deliberate
fashion, and I think they’ve done just that. And the Library Board, I know, has spoken in
favor of this concept. Mr. Cheek used the word this morning or this afternoon in the
DOR committee, he said we should be into visioning, and I think this kind of concept is
visionary. I think it’s progressive. I think you plan for the future. You don’t react. You
try to be proactive. So often we are in the business of being reactionary up here to
problems. This is a chance to seize the moment and build a first-class facility in that
regional part of our county that we will all be proud of, no matter what district we might
hail from. It’s still an Augusta Richmond County facility. And I seconded this motion
and didn’t do that for the purpose of discussion, Mr. Mayor. I fully support this concept.
I think we have to take the long view. If you look back in the real estate records on the
th
5 floor, you’d see the parent company of Rich’s buying land at an undeveloped spot
along Wrightsboro Road, which later became the intersection of I520 and Wrightsboro
Road, but they did that years before they built the first store. The mall opened in 1978
and growth has come through that area and passed it. I think the same thing is going to
happen in the Diamond Lakes Park area. It may be the boonies now, but I think it’s
going to be a high growth area for the future. That’s where we’re going to grow in this
community, if we’re going to really grow in the future. So I want to add my full support
to the concept as proposed. Thank you.
28
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I still think we need -- we talk about looking at other
cities and copying what they do. I think it’s time for us to become original and look at
what we can do for the citizens in this town. I still believe that a regional library or
whatever we need to build, I have no problem in what district it go in, as long as it is
accessible to the citizens to use. Now the survey went out. It might have went out to
schools but I know that one didn’t go to my kid’s school because she didn’t bring it
home. Had a gentleman back there say his kids didn’t bring one home. Now that’s
beside the point. The point is I still believe, I do believe that a library needs to be built in
south Augusta. I don’t care where. But I don’t think it needs to go out -- and Mr.
Shepard, yes, it may grow out there right now. But you do have people other than those
teachers who use the library. Mr. Cheek, there is people who do ride by libraries and go
in. But I do think that we need to look at sites and bring them back to this board and not
jump on this issue. Because you can’t even tell me where the library is going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Beard [inaudible] middle [inaudible] and I thought he
was going to wear it today. He wore it for a little while and pulled it off at halftime and I
guess he done handed it back to me. Let me say this. I hope we can get to some
agreement out of this thing today without starting World War IV about Diamond Lakes.
As one of the three or four Commissioners that was sitting here when this project
originally started, and I’m still in support of Diamond Lakes. Its history there goes back
to and pre-dates any of the Commissioners who represent those districts. Larry Sconyers
was in District 8. Hobson Chavous was in Six. And Moses Todd was in Four. So I’m
going to remove all three of you out of that field as far as the territory is concerned. And
let’s talk about what we wanted to do there from the very beginning. The focus has been
brought up about the regional concept of a lot of things. And I think that’s good. I think,
and I voted for this to get out of committee, so that it would not die and could get to this
floor where it could be shared by all the Commissioners. I think there is a medium in
here that if both of these Commissioners -- and particularly, even though this is not a
district or even a three-district project, even though that’s how it got started, because
there was not enough money to go around. The three Commissioners in that area got
together and said we can’t service all of south Richmond, let’s find a way to put some
regional situation out there, let’s work towards that. That was what we did. That’s how
it got off the ground. Now some of that’s changed, and I think it’s changed for the better.
But I think also there is a medium between the makers of both motions. If we can deal
with backing up with a little pride on both parts, to a point that the concept I think can
still be looked at. But I think looking at alternatives to be there -- and let me tell you why
I think you still need to look at alternatives. You mentioned unclarity in this deal about
knowing even out there where it’s going to go. That’s number one. Secondly, we just
decided last week on a jail situation there, when the Mayor appointed a site selection
committee. And I’m thankful that we didn’t select a site before the committee met. Now
I know this is a little different because you’ve had some people meeting on this. Now I
applaud the efforts that our Boards put on. Library Board and the folk on the Health
29
Department Board. But I’m going to disagree a little bit. To a point, number one, no,
everybody in the suburbs, gentlemen, does not go everywhere in a car. Some folk may
not go at all. Now that may not have anything to do with what you going to deal with at
Diamond Lakes. But when this came to committee, my main arguing point and
observance was I was not going to support it when it got to this floor if we were not
going to talk about public transportation in the same breath. You say well that’s two
different issues. I disagree with you, Ms. Greenbaum, from the standpoint that there is a
growing population whether we like it or not, that’s even in south Richmond, that
apartment complexes that have gone out of business and gone down, that the Housing
Authority now takes over, that everybody is not in a car. People that are in
neighborhoods that are there in Section 8. And it shouldn’t just even be concepts of
when you’re talking about folk who may be in a certain income level when you talk about
public transportation. It ought to be a positive. When you think about public
transportation. For the simple fact that that retiree who doesn’t want to get on the road
can catch a bus, can get there. I think if we’re going to talk about the widening of the
road, then let’s talk about how to also get out there. Whether it’s there or whether it’s
somewhere else. I think you’ve got to talk about that component. Now I’m going to flip
back. My direct District goes from the north side of Tobacco Road to the river. From
Country Club Hills in the back of Augusta National to South Carolina. Now it’s reaching
in concept, but if I’ve got kid in Sand Hills or East Augusta and you’ve got a regional
program that’s out there, I want them to be able to get on that bus on East Boundary or
catch that bus on Wheeler Road and be able to get out there to Diamond Lakes. Now
that’s going to be an issue with this Commissioner. And I don’t think that’s downing the
concept of what you’re doing. But I think in this medium of bringing some togetherness
in it, that being the two Commissioners and three with Ulmer, where this borders up on,
y’all ought to bring all this in one package, I’m talking about. To a point of where that
may be the lead project, the lead location, in dealing with Diamond Lakes. But I think
we also ought to be bringing Mr. Johnson into the picture. Our Transit Director. We’re
talking about the second largest city and we still operating rural transit in one part of this
county and public transit in another part of it. Those things need to be put on the front
burner as we talk. And consider that in the whole plan. So what I quite frankly would
like to see y’all do -- by the way, both of y’all [inaudible], combine in some kind of way
that where you talk about some alternatives in there, that at least when we finalize it,
we’ve got a cause. Now I believe you can save money. I do agree with that in terms of
the mega complex style that’s there. But from a general public standpoint, since this is a
community situation, I think it at least behooves us to have the alternative there to see
what the others are going to cost, where it’s going to go, and if they are bad locations,
let’s at least put them on paper and let’s eliminate them. That way we can resolve it
when we get to that point once and for all. But I think to just say this is an all or nothing
situation -- because Health Departments [inaudible], whether it’s been Laney Walker or
anywhere else, if we start in this mode without considering, and maybe I’m just one of
those old transportation diehards who didn’t die and ain’t going to go away, but I’m
going to make sure that whether it’s behind Winn-Dixie, whether it’s through Windsor
Spring Road, I’m still going to put an arguing point in with both of these guys to a point
that wherever it goes that there is going to be some public access going in that direction
other than in a car. And I think if we’re talking about three to four years to get that done,
30
we ought to include all the components, not exclude any, and say at this point today
what’s important and what’s not important, and decide that in this fashion. I can support
that being the number one, but I do think that if we’re going to do that we ought to have
the alternatives to be presented, too, because if -- I said the same thing last week. If the
judicial center, if it’s a made-up mind it’s going next door, then the committee still ought
to meet, we ought to have some locations, and some costs ought to be beside each one of
them. Because it’s still public money that we spend. It’s major businesses’ tax money
and sales tax, as well as that kid who buys expensive Nike shoes and a McDonald’s
hamburger. Everybody’s money goes into that pot.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s move along. Let me hear from Mr. Brigham, Mr.
Cheek and then we’re going to vote.
Mr. J. Brigham: Call the question is what I wanted to do.
Mr. Mayor: Call the question? All right, let’s move along with the vote. The
question has been called and the Chair rules we’ve had adequate debate on this. The
substitute motion is on the floor from Commissioner Cheek to approve Item 31.
Mr. Williams: A point of clarification before I vote, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: What we’re voting on now is not the location of the --
Mr. Mayor: You’re approving the concept for a joint library, health building
community center there at Diamond Lakes. But not a specific location in the Diamond
Lakes area complex.
Ms. Sizemore: Mr. Mayor? I have something I’d like to say that’s very pertinent.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the question has been called, and under the rules of the
Commission --
Ms. Sizemore: We asked [inaudible] do a survey of that.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sizemore, I appreciate what you have to say, but under the rules
of the Commission the question has been called and we need to move ahead with the
vote. If this motion fails and we go back to the original motion, then the floor will be
open again for discussion.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
31
Mr. Bridges: Point of information, as well. My understanding that substitute
motion was to appoint a committee.
Mr. Mayor: No, sir. The original motion was to appoint the site selection
committee. The substitute motion was approve the item.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion from Commissioner Cheek to approve item
31. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Beard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting due to transportation component not being included.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mays: Ms. Bonner, for the record, let it state my not voting in there is that I
still have not heard the transportation component be put into this location yet and I voiced
that at the committee that if that’s not going to be put in there, I’m still going to be
arguing for it, gentlemen. I’m going to press you hard on it. I may lose, but I’m still
going to press.
Mr. Mayor: Well, this item will be back because we still have a site to choose
and plans to approve.
Mr. Mays: And I’m not going anywhere.
Mr. Mayor: Please don’t.
Mr. Mays: I will argue that point.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve finished with the item. Debate is over and let’s move on with
the order of the day, please. Item 35.
Mr. Beard, you asked to pull these. You want to do these three together or
separately?
Mr. Beard: We can take them separately, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go with 35, then. Madame Clerk, would you read the caption?
Clerk:
Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
35. Motion to approve
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Water
Production in the amount of $65,000 with 90-day transition period; and
32
subject to the Pre-Construction Engineer and Asst. County Engineer
positions filled and the advertising of the Asst. Director and County
Engineer’s positions. (Funded by Account No. 506043110-5111110 for
Salary & Wages) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
January 29, 2001 and deferred from the February 6 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we have some information from our HR Director and I
would like to hear from her on this item.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Pelaez?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir. This Commission referred this item back to Human
Resources to make a decision in application of the current policy and procedure, and in
order to -- the conclusion is that in order for this position to go forward and be approved
by Human Resources, the salary would have to be $59,882.68. That’s in accordance with
the lateral transfer policy and that’s because the current candidate that has been selected
for this position is an in-house candidate that is currently in the same job grade, which is
a job grade 59, and under the lateral transfer policy, an individual that is asking to go
from one job grade to the same job grade can receive neither increase or decrease in
salary, so Mr. -- the individual’s salary is $59,882.68.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to move that we approve the HR Director’s
recommendation.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second to approve the HR Director’s recommendation.
And what was your specific recommendation, again for the record?
Ms. Pelaez: That is my specific recommendation, is to apply the lateral transfer
policy.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And the limits contained therein?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Williams: Point of clarification.
33
Mr. Mayor: All right. Just a moment. Mr. Jerry Brigham and then we’ll come
down to the other end.
Mr. J. Brigham: The only reason I called, is if we end the debate on that end
before we can get a chance to talk down here.
Mr. Mayor: There’s more to be said over here.
Mr. J. Brigham: I understand. It’s a little hotter on that end than it is here. I’m
looking for cool air myself.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. J. Brigham: Ms. Pelaez, does your recommendation include the auto
allowance as salary or not? That is my question.
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir. The recommendation does not include the auto allowance.
It’s dealing strictly with salary and it’s annual salary. Not the car allowance that is
allocated for the position for the Assistant Director for Public Works.
then I’m going to make a substitute motion that we
Mr. J. Brigham: But it --
approve the request including the auto allowance.
Mr. Bridges: Is that the $65,000, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to stick within the policies, Mr. Bridges. I’d like to go
to $65,000 but I don’t think we can get there.
Ms. Pelaez: To include the car allowance would take it to $64,082.73.
Mr. J. Brigham: $64,082 and something.
Mr. Bridges: I’m sorry, take it to what?
Ms. Pelaez: It would take it to $64,082.72.
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Mr. Brigham, anything further on
that?
Mr. J. Brigham: No.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Ulmer Bridges, then Mr. Williams, and Mr. Cheek.
34
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think we’ve noted, all of us
have in the past, that we’ve got some concerns of Commissioners in regards to some of
our policies that aren’t quite fair. I think this points out one of them. If we were
considering somebody from outside, we could consider them without the $59,000 plus
the car allowance. Our policy does not consider car allowance part of salary. So in
essence our in-house people, although they have the degrees and are qualified and have
proven themselves, are at a disadvantage to someone coming from outside, so I think we
should be at least as fair in this position in regard to transferring somebody in-house as
we would start -- as we would to consider somebody from outside, and we’d have no
qualms at looking at the $65,000 in that regard. And I think the motion is a little less. I
think we can live with that, survive with that, and I hope my fellow Commissioners will
support the motion, the substitute motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a list here in my hand that shows
the Director and the Assistant Director and I’m afraid even with the $59,800, I think we
are talking about here now, for a lateral move or for a Assistant Director of any capacity,
would be making more than some of our directors. And the education requirements and a
lot of other things plays a part in this, but we’ve got other department heads who making
a lot less than $59,800 and I’m afraid we going to be setting a precedent. We going to be
opening up a door here that we ain’t going to be able to close when it come to other
employees who are doing an outstanding job in their department, and I think it’s going to
be unfair to them to raise an employee’s salary whether he be an existing employee or he
come off the street, someone we hire off the street, and give them more money as an
assistant than we paying department heads. And I just think that’s unfair. I think that we
going to open up a door and I wouldn’t blame all our employees for coming down and
lining up in front of this chamber asking for the same consideration, you know, for their
duties and their jobs.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In discussion about this particular position,
it became -- it came to light to me that back in ’97 I believe we, the Commission directed
the Administrator to do away with car allowances and it was done away with in the water
works, utilities department, but not in Public Works. The truth is a few months ago we
looked back and said we are going to look at providing salaries to people based on what
they are worth and we’re not going to penalize our own employees. We are going to
promote from within when there is a qualified applicant. These car allowances are
salaries. They have been used for years in Public Works for years for us to maintain and
keep qualified people in these positions. Although it’s been called a car allowance, I
don’t agree with car allowances or paying for people to drive to and from work, there are
appropriate places for that. But in this case, this is a situation where if we open the door
to someone, we will be paying someone from the outside $65,000 because that is what
the market dictates. Salaries are determined by market forces which indicate education
and experience. Department heads may make less than some of these assistant directors,
35
but they are not tasked with overseeing $200,000,000+ system, which is our water works.
We have to consider what these assistant directors will be doing, the total head count they
will have under them and their level of responsibility and education. In this case, this is a
good match. I think it is justified in rolling that car allowance in as part of the salary and
paying that $64,000 figure.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: You know what would have solved all this in common sense terms?
And we wouldn’t be violating a policy. Now I don’t think you can do both. We want to
set policies. We want to change them. We want to freeze them. But what should have
been done is that departmental people make decisions on people that they hire. That
don’t come through this Commission anyway. And we trust them and we rely on their
expertise to make those decisions. What would have been a whole lot easier rather than
asking to waive a total policy -- when we start waiving policies, you know, the one
you’ve got is not the only one you’re going to have. What would have come out better
would have been to allow HR to fully advertise the position, let folk apply for it, and then
quite frankly, the director is going to get who he wanted to get anyway as long as they
met the requirements. That would have solved this whole issue. Then you would not
have the policy question before you. Of lateral transfer and violating. That could have
been done and then the director, where we have no grounds of getting into that part of it,
would have been able to bring somebody forward. That’s just an observance in there of
how they could have gotten around that legally and then you could have asked for
whatever salary you wanted to ask for.
Ms. Pelaez: Actually, that was done. And it just happens that the individuals that
were selected are in-house employees. But I need to point out one thing. While we’re
converting a car allowance for this particular person, we have two issues here. The first
one is the other candidate that is an in-house employee that we just dealt with the last
Commission meeting, his car allowance was not converted into his salary. Had it been,
I’m sure he would have been asking for an additional 15% increase. So we have a
discrepancy there, as well as are we going to convert all the car allowances into salary
across this board or is this just a one time good deal? These are questions that I just need
to have answered, because I’m going to get the questions asked to me.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] dealing with the conversion issue at all? It seems to me
that the salary would be that we either pay them or we don’t pay them. But it’s on the
floor that there is an issue with the policy. So the policy to me would only come into
play when you are dealing with a lateral situation, unless you are picking somebody who
is there, and one way you do that is that you get a job, you want to take a chance on
another one, and to keep from violating policy, quite the one you’ve got. And you start
like everybody else. Now we went through the process the first time. Now it’s a little bit
36
of history in this one, too. This isn’t the first time we have been down the road about
selecting somebody number two. In [inaudible] and we wanted to go all over the world
to find out who was going to replace Max. And how that was going to be structured.
And I remember then all the hoopla about how talented they had to be. And I’m not
knocking the talents of the people you’re picking, but I’m just saying it seems as though
the complexion of the rules changed in there somewhere, to a point that we didn’t go
anywhere, and that may be good. But I think if we’re not going anywhere, then we ought
to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask our Attorney a question and see if we can solve this
maybe a little more easily. Ms. Pelaez says in her memo to us that she as the HR
Director and Mr. Hicks as the Department Director have spoken on several occasions and
not come to a meeting of the minds. Under our policy, it says the Administrator, which
would be Mr. Hornsby, must approve exceptions to these policies. It doesn’t say the
Commission does, it says Mr. Hornsby does. It says any disagreement between the line
management, which would be Mr. Hicks, and the Director of Human Resources, Ms.
Pelaez, will be referred to the Administrator. So Mr. Revelle, I would ask you, is this
item properly before the Commission or is this a matter that under the policy of this
Commission should be handled administratively by Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Revell: I don’t know if it’s gone to Mr. Hornsby and he prefers to refer it to
the Commission or not. I guess he probably does.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve heard from everybody but Mr. Hornsby on this.
Mr. Hornsby: The idea is that you had asked for -- at the last meeting -- you
asked that a recommendation come forth from Ms. Pelaez and --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, but my question is should it even have gone to committee in the
first place?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] would be that you apply the policy as it was currently
written, which is the same as the recommendation [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: I understand that. But my question is, is this a proper issue to have
even come before us through the committee process in the first place, given what the
policy says?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes. If you look on page 30, there’s two sections. And if we look at
promotions, it said that any salary actions that exceed what is recommended in a
promotion, that it has to come to the Commission on a recommendation by the
Administrator. And the backup of the agenda item, there is an annotation written by the
Administrator that this violates the policy. So it’s got the recommendation but it’s not in
accordance with policy so therefore it needs Commission approval.
37
Mr. Mayor: I’m relying on the interpretation in the exceptions section which
doesn’t make any reference like that. All right. We’ll continue the discussion then. Mr.
Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, to focus on that point a little longer that you are raising,
it said in the recommendation that Mr. Hicks and the personnel director have not come to
a meeting of the minds, and I appreciate that we all agree to disagree at some point. But
I’d ask Mr. Hicks if he’d defend his recommendation at this point. We’ve heard from
everybody but him and he’s been shy and retiring and then raising his hand, so I’d like
Mr. Hicks to explain his defense of this action.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: I appreciate that. Ms. Pelaez and I have discussed this on a number of
occasions and I would say we agree on most things, but on this one we just agree to
disagree and we did go through the process, as Commissioner Mays had outlined it. We
advertised, we had candidates that applied both from within the city employment forced
and outside the city employment force. We selected the best three or four in this instance
and we interviewed them and the city employee wound up the best candidate. Now there
is where you get into the policy. Even though we go through such a selection process,
it’s still called a lateral move. Actually we’re going to get into a similar discussion on
another position down the way and that is, when is a position a lateral move and when is
it promotion or when is it a position that has been competed for by in-house candidates as
well as those candidates from outside the city and a candidate from within the city
employment has been selected? Not promoted necessarily or not laterally transferred but
selected in winning a competition where we had people from both inside and outside the
employment apply. So that’s what happened in this instance and in this instance, as I had
explained before, we looked at the salary, the mid range for this position. The mid range
salary is $63,333. That says that that’s the salary that people in this position would make
in this area mid range. That’s just the general salary. Now what we’ve asked for I a little
more than that. My interpretation of mid range is wrong, then, according to Ms. Pelaez,
but I thought it meant that was the average salary in this area for that particular position.
And so we’d be looking at that range of salary and in knowing the ranges that we
received before, as Commissioner Mays referred to, we had gone out once before for an
advertisement for an assistant director, and in that instance, the salaries were actually
advertised from $65,000 to I think $75,000. It was in that range. In this instance, the
upper level we were looking at was $65,000. I was kind of surprise, frankly, at the other
range being as high as it was. But it was and so that’s the way that it was. But it was set
in this instance in a more equitable range, and that is the upper level we would like to
look at would be about $65,000. But I do believe that a person in this instance, a person
from within the city employment has been selected, that person’s take home income
consists of a salary plus an automobile allowance. And so we would in effect be asking
them to transfer and take a cut in their take home income. And where Ms. Pelaez and I
disagree as to what really constitute salary, but I must leave that to others. But we would
be asking the person to take a cut, and there is not only this person but I know of at least
one other who makes that much or more in their position, and they make more than some
38
directors of other departments. That is the case. But we can’t change that. But I would
like to defend my asking for $64,082 if that’s what the Commission were of a mind to do.
That would at least let the person consider transferring with no reduction in pay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. One quick follow-up. Max, you’re saying that this is
not a lateral transfer, it’s not a promotion, it’s a competition for a new position? My
question is we currently do not have an assistant director for water production; is that
correct?
Mr. Hicks: We do not. We had one assistant director and then we searched for a
reorganization plan that was recommended, and we had a recommendation from
[inaudible]. It was recommended that we have four assistant directors. That concept was
approved by the Commission, and now we’re trying to fill those four positions. And it
was indeed an open competition to people within and without to apply for that particular
job. So it was an open competition.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you wanted to be heard on this, and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Beard: Yes, sir. Appreciate it. You know this group, it’s amazing how we
can rationalize certain things and especially if we want to get away from policy. And I
think it was probably May or June of last year we met and we said that we were looking
for an assistant director and we said that because we were anticipating that maybe Max
wouldn’t be here that long, much longer, that we needed somebody and was growing.
All of this came into play and we said we was going to advertise and get the person and
groom that person to take Max’s place whenever he decided to leave. I don’t know what
happened to that, because now here we are almost a year later and we still trying to
decide on that. And that’s one thing. And we’ve kind of gotten away from that and
we’ve gone on to something else at this point. And I think only a few minutes ago we got
away from something when we talked about the internal auditor. We got away from that,
what we were supposed to do. And I just wonder if maybe anybody can keep us on track
as to what we are supposed to be doing. But to me, that was the essence of all of this, and
I think all of the Commissioners were willing at that time to do whatever was necessary if
you’re getting somebody to replace someone. Then the other thing that seems to amaze
me is when we talk about car allowances. I thought at one time, and you know I just
can’t keep up with all of this because at one time we said car allowance were out and you
know [inaudible] and that’s all I heard until it was coming out of my ear about car
allowance, car allowance, that kind of thing. Now we get to the point where we want to
include that in salary. So you know, Mr. Mayor, I just don’t know what we want or
where we are at this point. But I do know that we ought to try and follow policy, and it
comes down to me with fairness. If we’re going to do it for this person, you didn’t do it
last week, when we did it for the other person. How are we just going to make these type
exceptions? And as I’ve heard on many occasions before, you know, they know what
39
they’re getting into when they apply. I’ve heard that over and over again, you know.
And now I don’t hear that. I only hear that this is what we should do. And if we have, if
we’re going to do these things, we ought to have some rationale for doing them, and I
think it’s wrong to just jump up and do it as we do so many things. And that’s why my
motion is on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Henry Brigham would like
to be heard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ms. Pelaez, I’d like to know from you
first of all, Max said that they interviewed. I mean your department interviewed several
people in and out; is that right?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Okay. At any time, did we go to the second best applicant to offer
them, since it was going to be a conflict, it was going to be some trouble, I mean I’m sure
there was somebody else who made the grade but there was somebody else maybe stand
out a little bit more. But was there a offer made to any other employee, applicant who
tried to see would they accept a lesser amount? Cause really, I’ve got a problem
understanding how all three came to the exact same amount. I mean the level of service
going to be different, the level of responsibility going to be different. But was there any
time that anybody go back and offer? I think about our fire chief who was going to be a
department head and not a assistant, we selected a chief, he changed his mind, he wanted
to raise the pot, and we went to the next person. And I think we got a good fire chief.
But was that a consideration at any time, going to the next person, whether they was in-
house or not, to see whether they [inaudible]?
Ms. Pelaez: Actually what I’ve just been told is -- well, first no. And then the
second choice is also an in-house person, so we would be right where we are.
Mr. Williams: But was the offer made?
Ms. Pelaez: No, sir.
Mr. Williams: I mean if the offer wasn’t made, we don’t know whether they will
accept. I mean it’s hard to sit here and agree with an assistant making more than some of
our key people, the directors who are doing an outstanding job for us. My last thing, Mr.
Mayor. I don’t understand how it’s so important to get people out of one department to
put them in another department. It just as important to me to move a situation once you
get there as it is to get that situation to them. And we talking about Max’s department,
we talking about water. To me, it’s no more difference. If you got a person that’s good
enough to get the water to somebody, we need some people in that same other department
to move the water that the people get. So I just don’t understand. I mean I think we
should offer maybe the second runner-up or the second person, the applicant who didn’t
40
make the first cut, an opportunity to do it. They had to be some kind of way being close
in their decision to do that. So being in-house, I just think we’re beating a dead horse.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham and then we’ll have a final word from Mr.
Cheek and we’ll move on with the substitute motion.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I perhaps echo a couple of things that were said
before. One is the car business. We got out of it last year, including Mr. [inaudible] and
a whole lot of others [inaudible]. At one time. And now we going to come back and put
it back in there. And it seems to me that if we could solve that issue -- I know back in the
old county days, we did that in order to give a person maybe a raise. We gave a car
allowance. But that was threw out when we consolidated. But at the time, it was an
accepted practice and a lot of them got car allowances and gasoline allowances because
to make there salaries a little bit more. But I think last year we put it around the defeated
that issue and now we are back to that and we may need to resolve that, and when it
comes up again we won’t have this problem. Either they get it or they don’t. It ought to
be included or not included. So I think once we get to that, it would solve a whole lot of
problems. And I’m sure Mr. Hicks want to get on hid department, I’m sure Ms. White
want to get on -- I mean Ms. Smith. Cause we have a project on White Road that we’re
working on that we are going to have to get on. So I hope we can settle this one way or
the other and meet some kind of compromise, some meeting of the minds, that we can
kind of move forward on this issue. And then I may help the next time. But we’re in it
now and we try to get out of it if we could. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Andy Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess first is a point of clarity. What we
did last year was to prevent county cars from going home to and from the office for
people who generally come to the same office every day and have really no justification
for taking a car home. The budget was, if I remember correctly, somewhere around
$500,000 over in gas, not to mention wear and tear on our fleet. I think the underlying
good will of this board that I see is that we all want to make sure that our local employees
who are qualified and get a chance to advance are given that opportunity. The think that
is true, and Mr. Beard hit the nail on the head, we do so many different things. Many
Commissioners believe that the car allowances had been done away with years ago, and
then it comes to light that they hadn’t. And inconsistent application of the policies of this
government are the Achilles’ heel of this government. We have got to get to a point
where we are doing one thing and applying the rules equally across the board. We’ve got
to be fair with it. I think the question, gentlemen, today is -- and it’s my understanding
that if someone had come from the outside, they would have been offered something in
this salary range?
Ms. Pelaez: It would have to come -- and it’s going to be an issue -- that’s the
next one. Because the department director can only make an offer of 10% over the
minimum of the salary range, and so since this offer of $65,000 is over 10% of the salary
range, it will still come back before this Commission.
41
Mr. Cheek: And there again, how much over? What is the 10% figure?
Ms. Pelaez: It is $53,589.80.
Mr. Cheek: So we’re considerably over then?
Ms. Pelaez: Considerably over.
Mr. Cheek: Well, I guess the thing is that I want to look at is that we do not
penalize our local employees and that they do receive the same opportunity. Could we
hire someone of these qualifications from the outside for $53,000 with the years of
experiencing and engineering degree and so forth? And that’s what the market shows?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir, that’s what the market shows. We didn’t have a single
applicant, as we have spoken of, in last year’s consideration of applicants that was in that
range. We would not be able to get the person that we’re looking for for that salary
range.
Ms. Pelaez: Let me clarify something about last year. I need you to understand
that we can’t compare this to the one before. That was one assistant director and it was
with the idea that this assistant was going to take over the duties of the director, so the
salaries that we got for that particular position are not comparable to the ones where
we’ve divided up into actually four different positions.
Mr. Cheek: That was different job descriptions pre-reorganization?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: This is reorganized assistants?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: I just for the life of me hope that we’ll get to a position where we
clear up some of these gray areas.
Ms. Pelaez: I agree.
Mr. Cheek: And that we get to a position where we treat our employees as well as
those coming from the outside. We’ve got many qualified, competent employees. It’s a
shame that they would have to suffer not being paid that which someone else would just
because they happen to work for us for 20 years.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. Let’s move along with the vote on the
substitute motion, which is to approve the recommendation of the Human Resources
42
Director, while converting the auto allowance into the salary and the final figure would
be $64,082.72. That’s the substitute from Mr. Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: It’s not necessarily her recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: It is my understanding it was to follow her recommendation and
include the auto allowance. Did I hear that wrong?
Mr. J. Brigham: That’s what I said.
Clerk: Roll in the auto allowance.
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: That’s what I just said.
Mr. J. Brigham: She’s saying it was her recommendation that --
Mr. Mayor: To approve her recommendation and roll in the auto allowance to
bring the figure to $64,082.72.
Mr. J. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: Clarification on the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: Can I ask the maker of the motion, and this may get us [inaudible].
Do we have to even deal with the language of rolling over anything and just deal with a
salary amount if you’re going to state 64 in there? Cause where it is --
Mr. J. Brigham: The salary amount [inaudible] or not.
Mr. Mays: If you’ll me finish, you may get a vote.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Mays: What I’m saying is it’s going to be over, I don’t care what we vote on.
Mr. J. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Mays: And we’ve got to approve it. So rather than getting into the hassle of
violating policy about rolling on the car allowance, just put the durn salary at the 64 deal
that you’ve got, eliminate the language of the car allowance.
43
Mr. J. Brigham: So done, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Six votes will pass it. It’s going to be up to the Attorney to hear from
some of these other folk anyway, and Mr. Mayor, if he will change that. The reason I say
that is that I’m sick and tired of two departments being tied up. If we’ve got some folk,
quite frankly, it’s [inaudible] for the month of February. I’m willing to let some folk
have their freedom and get the hell on. If some folk want to leave, let them leave. Let
them go on over there. Let Public Works be able to hire the [inaudible] engineers to
replace them and that will settle all this mess. Because that’s the real issue that ought to
be on the table. There are some folk that want to get out. It ain’t about no money. They
want to get out cause of who is running the durn department. Let them get on out.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Mays: Put in the salary.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will state for the record that if the substitute motion
passes, the salary for this individual for this position will be $64,082.72 and you can
compute that any way you want to. So we’ll call the question on the substitute motion.
All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, that takes us to item 36.
Clerk:
Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
36.
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Wastewater
Treatment in the amount of $65,000.00. (Funded by Account No.
506043110-5111110 for Salary & Wages) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee January 29, 2001 and deferred from the February
Commission meeting.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you had asked for that one to be pulled.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, the way things are going today, I’m passing that off.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I make a motion to approve.
44
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and a second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, for discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a problem with this. One of the three we talked about.
And I just don’t agree with the salary for this position. If Mr. Hicks would so kindly tell
me what this position will consist of, what duties will be rendered under this salary and
this [inaudible]. What duties will they perform, Max?
Mr. Hicks: This person, the assistant director over the Wastewater Treatment
would be -- one of their duties would be to oversee the OMI contract. Right now we
don’t have anybody looking at that on a day-to-day basis, which has been recommended
that we do. Another item would be to keep up with all of our consent orders that have to
do with wastewater. We’ve been advised by the EPD that we needed someone to do that.
We have got a number of them. This individual would be very familiar with the
operation of the city system and could step into that position. Another thing that his
individual would do would be to work with our administrative effort in the Utilities
Department as we move to organize a wastewater collection and treatment division.
That’s our ultimate goal. Right now the largest group in the Utilities Department is
engineering and construction. Under the construction division, we have all of those folks
who maintain and operate both the water distribution system and the wastewater
collection system. The State has been moving very aggressively to have folks who
operate each system be certified in each system, that is a person now has to have a
distribution system operator’s certification, not just a plant operator, but if a person is
going to making decisions in water distribution maintenance, they need to be certified.
The same in collection. So he’d be moving to oversee and pull all of that together.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I appreciate your question, but the Commission has
already approved the creation of this position. We did that on October 17.
Mr. Williams: I wanted a point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: We’re at the point today where we need to approve the salary.
Mr. Williams: Well, I wanted a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor, before I vote on
the salary because, I mean, I think we just privatized the wastewater treatment with a
firm. And I really don’t understand. I mean we talking about approving salaries and
$65,000, whether it be a car allowance or however it runs up to that amount, for -- why
do we privatize? Why do we have OMI doing this work if we have to have a watchdog.
I rephrase that. If we have to have a supervisor over them and we paying them and we
have no [inaudible], in fact we have some money was turned back in to us for them doing
45
such a good job. They have not been in front of us. They have not had a negative report.
I mean I don’t understand why I should sit here and vote for a salary of $65,000 when we
got a firm that we hired to do the work and the report has been good on it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to say a couple of things. I’m going to vote
no on this, as I voted no on the other. Cause I’m -- I want to ask Max. We have selected
all the others as we brought them in here. This one has been selected, the person has
been selected also as you’ve selected the others?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. Again, this was an advertisement. It went to those inside
and outside the government employees.
Mr. Beard: Is this inside the government?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir, he is not.
Mr. Hornsby: It’s only above 10%.
Mr. Hicks: This is not an inside person. This is a person who has much
familiarity with the city system due to prior work for the city at wastewater treatment.
Mr. Beard: And this salary is in line with what people get for that?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: HR approve this salary also?
Ms. Pelaez: No. That’s why we’re here.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. I need some clarification. I see that this person worked
at the Messerly Plant from ’82 to ’94?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: Left and went back to college and earned a degree in counseling?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. He did.
Mr. Colclough: And he’s going to be managing your contracts and dealing with
the other engineers out at OMI with a counseling degree? I just --
46
Mr. Hicks: Might I respond or answer, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead, Mr. Hicks. Because since Mr. Colclough brought
that up, since this person was out there from ’82 to ’94, I’d like to know how many EPD
consent orders this city signed while that person was in charge out there.
Mr. Hicks: It really didn’t break while that person was out there. It really came
to light after that and this person really was a very valuable -- how would I say it? --
testifier. I wish Mr. Wall was here. I see Mr. Revell shaking his head. He was a very
valuable aide or source of information during the sludge hearing due to his expertise and
the way it was conducted in the past. He did real well while he was there. All the
records were fine. Everything was good, the record, stand on it. I look on this. Here’s a
man who by his trade has risen to one of the tops of his profession, that is able to operate
a 45 million gallons a day wastewater plant, but then went back to school and got his
degree in counseling, and as been said, this would give him the best of both worlds. He
said he wish he had had his counseling degree when he was out there operating the
wastewater plant. He would have known more how to deal with personnel issues, which
is probably one of the foremost items.
Mr. Mayor: Continue, Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Just wondering, you know. If he was such a valuable individual
out there and knew all -- he operated this huge wastewater, why didn’t he go get an
engineering degree? Why counseling? I mean it would seem that I would go and get an
engineering degree.
Mr. Hicks: If this is the appropriate time, I would, if I might respond, and I have
to go [inaudible]. He truly looks to the Lord to lead him and guide him, and in ’94 he
came to me and he said Max, I’m thinking about going into Christian counseling. I said
well, if that’s what you want to do that’s great, you’ve done a super job at the wastewater
plant. I wasn’t over him. He was really under the [inaudible] of Public Works in the
former city, and so he did that. And he went back and then he came back out and he
started working in that field, and as some of us have done who are in the ministry or in
that service and still have what we call a secular occupation, he still -- he had that interest
and he felt [inaudible] to apply for this and that’s the only way I can describe it because
that’s between him and the Lord and how he could do this.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] cause I got laid off.
Mr. Mayor: This is what they call that faith-based initiative. Mr. Shepard, please.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Hicks, here again, this candidate pool was inside
and outside employees?
Mr. Hicks: It was.
47
Mr. Shepard: And the purpose of this position would be to hold -- a word I hear a
lot -- hold OMI accountable to their contract compliance; is that right?
Mr. Hicks: That would just be one of the functions. We also want a person in
here [inaudible] personnel as we reorganize and bring other activities under that function,
bring the whole operation of the collection system under that function. In about, I guess
about three years down the road is what we plan on trying to do [inaudible] and we’ll
come to you with an organization [inaudible] wastewater collection in this group and the
water distribution under the water production group. And that would then give us the
organization as others of our size have it. When you’ve got a large water distribution and
a large water collection system.
Mr. Shepard: And this is your professional recommendation; is that is?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor and this is directed to Max. With all due respect, this just
does not pass the smell test, Max. This whole thing. The one we talked about before and
the one we’re talking about now and the one we will talk about in a few minutes. It just
doesn’t ring and pass with me, and I’m just surprised that we would get into this kind of
thing where we are just putting people in position just to put them in position because
some people want them in position, and I call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Madame Clerk, if you would read the motion, please.
Clerk: To approve the captioned [inaudible], to extend an offer of employment to
the selected candidate for the assistant director of Wastewater Treatment in the amount of
$65,0000.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion. All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, M. H. Brigham and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: Unless somebody wants to make another motion, we’ll move on the
next item. Madame Clerk?
Clerk:
48
37. Motion to approve Utilities Department proposal to extend an offer of
employment to selected candidate for Assistant Director - Finance and
Administration in the amount of $65,000.00. (Funded by Account No.
506043110-5111110 for Salary& Wages) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee January 29, 2001 and deferred from the February 6 Commission
meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Beard: I still want to know the HR Director’s recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Pelaez?
Ms. Pelaez: The recommendation is based upon our current promotion policy,
which would be to give a 15% increase which would make the salary $57,440.89. And
let me say this cause I know we’re going to ask the question of were there any other
candidates, but I would note that we have hired an assistant comptroller with a CPA
certification within this salary range.
Mr. Beard: I move that we accept the HR Director’s recommendation.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second to that motion. Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I’d move for approval as recommended by the
department director.
Mr. Mayor: And the recommendation from the department director is $65,000?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor, this employee has proved
extremely valuable to this government in regards to the bond hearings and just her other
daily duties at the water plant. For many years we did not have an accounting type
person in that position, and when we brought one on board, we realized we should have
had the position all along. In fact, maybe there are other departments we need an
accounting person, a finance director in those departments to assist them as well. But
this, the move to put a finance person in water works has proven to be a very good and
valuable and helpful move for this government. This was the person that during the
49
bond, I guess negotiations, maybe that’s not the right word, Harry, but that our contacts
in New York contacted. If they needed questions answered concerning the bonding
program that we went through last year. A very valuable asset. I have an accounting
degree, like this person. I don’t have her skills. She has a CPA. And I’m going to get
into a personal matter here that maybe I don’t like to do, my personal matter, that I don’t
like to do. But I see she’s making $49,900 here. With a CPA in that position. I work for
a small industry as the equivalent of this position in the county government. I don’t have
a CPA. I have an accounting degree, but I made more than she did two years ago. And
that tells me what is out there. The standard that we’re not meeting as a government.
This person was offered $10,000 more to go to a local college I understand as their
finance director. $10,000 more. And this was about a years ago and she chose to stay
here because she liked working with the people she worked with and working for this
government and has been a very valuable employee to us. It’s interesting the concept
people have of accountants and financial people. You don’t produce anything, you don’t
sell anything, you don’t bring any money into the organization, so you get the second-
hand chairs, you get the second-hand calculators, blah, blah. I’ve been down that road.
But these are the people, like I say, when it comes to proving themselves and having to
do the paperwork and having to produce the documentation that we need for auditors or
for bonding programs, they are there for us. I think this position warrants this move.
This is what you’d be paying for somebody of these talents if you brought them in from
the outside, and I think we should treat our employees equal to what we would for
somebody from the outside, and I’d recommend approval of the recommendation of
$65,000.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we should continue to listen to and
hold on to the Human Resource Director in her recommendation. We talked about
increasing salaries and helping the employees of this government and I’m for that 100%,
but we are not always playing with the same. I don’t think we’re bouncing the same ball
now. I think the ball, it’s a different ball that we’re bouncing and I think we going to
have a HR Director and they going to have policy, we need to follow that. I understand
what Mr. Bridges just stated about what she’s making and how she decided to stay. And
I commend her for that. But if we don’t do the same things all the time, we going to end
up doing some stuff that don’t pan out for everybody. And I said it before and I’m not
afraid to say it again, that we have not been fair with the employees in this Augusta
Richmond County. To do this or these other positions that we come up with, there’s no
way that you can tell me that each one of these salaries was in line with what they would
have made someone else. I just can’t see how that coincidence. In fact that’s too much
of a coincidence to be a coincidence. All I’m saying is that if we got a HR person, she
gave us the recommendation on what we need to do. We got rules, if we going steer
away from those rules, then we need to throw those rules out and not use them at all, just
do what want to do, when we want to do it. I still say that HR had recommended 57
whatever, and I’m going to support that. I just don’t think it is right to give a $65,000 to
an assistant where this government had not be bringing out other employees along. Now
we going change everybody, we going open up a door and do for everybody, then yeah, I
50
can support that. But if we’re not, then we need to adhese to the direction of our HR
person.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Ms. Pelaez, I really applaud you quoting policy and you’re really
doing a fine job as our HR Director in that light. You made a comment earlier about the
fact that we just hired an assistant comptroller with, I guess, consistent qualifications --
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Cheek: -- to this person and that salary was comparable to what we’re asking
here, the $65,000?
Ms. Pelaez: Actually it’s more.
Mr. Cheek: So let me ask you this. In your opinion, what do you think the
average market value for the position would be if we hired somebody of comparable
skills for that position?
Ms. Pelaez: That would be hard to say without any information in front of me,
but I would say, knowing that we’ve gotten an individual in the department from outside
within the salary of 59, and that person was interested and has similar skills, I think that
our salary range up to the mid point is a good salary range. And we didn’t even have to
go the mid point for the particular person, which leads me to believe that our salary is
[inaudible] with the market.
Mr. Cheek: Are those -- now you said similar or some of the skills are the same
skills?
Ms. Pelaez: Same skills. They both have a CPA certification. This person came
from an internal auditing firm. And is dealing with this government’s budget, which is
just as vital as the --
Mr. Cheek: Before six months ago?
Ms. Pelaez: Actually, after six months ago.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Jerry Brigham?
51
Mr. J. Brigham: Ms. Pelaez, I would disagree that necessarily they have the same
skills. I think that you have an experience factor here that needs to be considered. CPA’s
are CPA’s. They have that certificate is the same as saying a lawyer’s a lawyer. And I
don’t necessarily think lawyers are lawyers or CPA’s are CPA’s, and I’m not a CPA, but
I do have an accounting background and I do understand skills that are required, and I’m
going to support Mr. Bridges’ motion.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a substitute motion on the floor, which
is to approve the recommendation of the department director, which is to set the salary at
$65,000. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams and Mr. H. Brigham vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to follow the
recommendation of the HR Director to set the salary at $57,440.89. Any further
discussion on the original motion? All in favor of the --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] in the numbers in there. On the other position that you
[inaudible], Ms. Pelaez, what were the numbers on that?
Ms. Pelaez: It’s a job grade 69.
Mr. Mays: No, I’m talking about the salary.
Ms. Pelaez: The salary? I want to say that it’s $55,000. $55,000. I’m almost
positive it’s $55,000.
Mr. Mays: It’s lower than where we’ve gone here?
Ms. Pelaez: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: I just wanted that for clarification.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
52
Ms. Pelaez: Actually it’s more than that. Let me take that back. Because it never
came to this Commission. So it’s $50,000 because it’s within the 10%.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. So we’ll call the question on the original motion.
All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair would like to point out that our policies provide for
changes to the policies. Policies and procedures may be changed by recommendation of
the Administrator to the Commission at any time conditions warrant such changes. And
in view of the sentiments discussed, Mr. Hornsby, by some of the Commissioners, I
would ask if you would review the promotion and lateral transfer policy that we have and
any changes that you deem appropriate, if you would please forward those to the
Administrative Services Committee for the Commission’s review. Thank you. The
Chair will declare a five minute recess and we’ll come back and continue with the
agenda.
(Brief recess)
Clerk:
51. Discuss the formation of Citizens Advisory Groups regarding Water
Assessment as requested by Parsons Engineering Science, Inc. (Referred
from Commission meeting of February 6, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham, you wanted item 51.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m in agreement with item 51. The only part that I
think we need to change is rather than saying neighborhood alliance, I think we ought to
say just neighborhoods, because I believe there are a number of neighborhoods that are
not members of a neighborhood alliance.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to approve with that?
Mr. J. Brigham: I move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on the item?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
53
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: They may not be members of the neighborhood alliance, but they
sure ought to be.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Mays, you have a question?
Mr. Mays: I was just going to ask [inaudible] as a point of clarification, how
many folk are on there?
Mr. Mayor: I think there’s three, right? Three neighborhoods? I’m going from
memory.
Mr. J. Brigham: I thought it was five.
Mr. Mayor: Five?
Mr. Colclough: You already appointed the advisory group?
Mr. Mayor: No, it’s what they recommended.
Mr. Colclough: Five members?
Mr. J. Brigham: No.
Mr. Mayor: 13 representatives. Let’s see. We have 13 people. Ten selected by
the Commissioners and then -- but they didn’t put it in the backup.
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: They did? So that would be --
Mr. J. Brigham: I thought they had 15.
Mr. Mayor: There are 15 members. If you add the Mayor, that’s one from each
Commissioner plus one from the Mayor, and then that would be two from neighborhood
associations.
Mr. Colclough: All right.
Mr. Mayor: But that would not preclude the Mayor or Commissioners from
appointing somebody representing neighborhood associations.
Mr. Colclough: Okay.
54
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion from Mr. Brigham, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, I believe, should be item 53.
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is that correct?
Clerk:
53. Discussion: Consider a request by Eric Reformado for a massage therapist
license to be used in connection with Serenity Spa located at 3435
Wrightsboro Road. District 3. Super District 10.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker, you’d like to be heard on this?
Mr. Walker: Give your name and address.
Mr. Reformado: Eric Reforado. 2101 Old Petersburg Road, Apartment F44.
Mr. Walker: This meets all the requirements of License & Inspection
Department. It has been approved by the Sheriff’s Department. We recommend
approval. He does have a certificate [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I just wondered was there any action in this regarding
the Public Services Committee, and if so, why not -- I don’t see that indicated here that it
tied up. Why is it --
55
Mr. Walker: It was our error. We mailed the letter to the wrong address.
Petersburg Road. And he didn’t get the information and he wasn’t here for the meeting
for that reason. It was our fault.
Mr. Shepard: And Mr. Jerry Brigham hinted on a point that I wanted to ask
about. What is the difference between the state and national certification? I think he
holds a state certification and was national certification eligible? Does that make a
difference?
Mr. Walker: He graduated from a school and it’s been approved by that school.
He has not applied for national.
Mr. Reformado: I applied for South Carolina.
Mr. Shepard: And that’s not accepted on this side of the river, I take it?
Mr. Walker: He meets all requirements for licensing.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Chair, that’s one of the questions the Sheriff advised me to
start asking several months.
Mr. Shepard: Can I yield those questions to you? You seem to know more about
this massage business than I do.
Mr. J. Brigham: I asked the Sheriff. The Sheriff’s okay. And I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Shepard: The Sheriff’s okay?
Mr. Mayor: Stewart, I had one question here, cause we seem to have three
different addresses. We’ve got an address -- well, I don’t know what the addresses are.
We’ve got an address on Wrightsboro Road, one in Columbia, South Carolina, and one in
Martinez.
Mr. Walker: When he applied for it, he was still living in Columbia. The
Wrightsboro Road address is where he’s going to be employed at.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Walker: And then he just moved to Petersburg Road.
Mr. Mayor: So West Columbia is not relevant?
Mr. Walker: No, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Okay. Did we have a motion for approval?
56
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9--0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, the next item is a carryover from our previous meeting.
ATTORNEY:
54. Motion to approve agreement with McLeods for settlement of claims for
sediment deposits in the pond by payment of the sum of $100,000.00 and
securing a covenant to run with the land waiving and releasing any claim
now, or in the future for any damage to the pond as a result of the
maintenance of Camp Angehele Road.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Bridges: Can we possibly talk about 54 in legal meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we can, if that’s your --
Mr. Bridges: Before we bring it out here on the floor. Is that okay, Harry?
Mr. Revell: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll just bypass that and come back to that, add that to
the legal session agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Item 55.
Mr. Revell:
55. Consider pay for performance contract for Air Service Development.
Mr. Jerry Brigham: I move approval.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a second. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll ask this, Mr. Mayor, of Mr. Revelle since he’s familiar with it, I
think. Is the source of the Commission’s pay to the promotional group, the professional
57
promotional group a surcharge on the tickets or just Bush Field’s general fund? Do we
know?
Mr. Revell: I don’t know.
Mr. Shepard: Do we know, Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You mean a new surcharge on the tickets?
Mr. Shepard: Well, this is -- let me get to my --
Mr. Mayor: I’m generally familiar with this and it would have required any new
charges placed on tickets. It would come from existing revenue.
Mr. Shepard: To be compensated at the rate of $3 per additional emplanement. I
guess that’s additional employees.
Mr. Mayor: No, additional passengers.
Mr. Shepard: Passengers, yes. But the source of the funds, it says funds available
in account not applicable, so where is the consultant going to get paid? I know Mr.
Revelle doesn’t have to think about this, but this lawyer always has to think about where
he’s going to get paid.
Mr. Revell: I’m looking at the financial impact. It says airport generates $12 per
enplaned passenger and the increase in revenue would be used to pay the consultant.
Mr. Shepard: So it would come from their budget?
Mr. Revell: [inaudible] and more emplacements there, there are more funds
generated to pay this contract. The more you generate, the more you have available to
pay.
Mr. Shepard: As long as it’s made clear we’re not obligating the general fund
here. That’s my point, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: It comes out of the enterprise funds.
Mr. Revell: Yes.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then please vote
aye.
58
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll take up 56 and 57 together. Might be able to
take care of those with one motion.
56. Motion to appeal Order in Judy Tyler v. Richmond County requiring
issuance of on-premises consumption license for sale of liquor, Sunday sales
and a dance hall permit.
57. Discuss the issuance of on premises consumption license for sale of liquor,
Sunday sales and a dance hall permit for Judy Tyler Off Broadway.
(Requested by Commissioner Mays)
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we issue an on premise consumption
license for the sale of liquor, Sunday sales and a dance hall permit to this
establishment.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion that we appeal the order.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All right. Mr. Williams seconded that. Gentlemen,
discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification and I’m going to support Mr. Beard’s
motion. But does it not need, since he made the one on the issuance, to also have it
maybe amended that we not appeal as well, if you’re --
Mr. Beard: I can amend it to that, Mr. Mays. No problem.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that amendment to the original
motion?
Mr. Bridges: Does that require Commission approval to change a motion when
it’s on the floor?
59
Mr. Mayor: Well, you’d have to amend it and you amend it with a majority vote.
So if there is only one objection, then the majority would not object amending it, so
rather than voting we just amend it.
Mr. Revell: Mr. Mayor, if I may clarify, I don’t think we legally can issue an
appeal. I don’t think you can do both. I think that second motion really is unnecessary.
Once it’s issued, we are estopped from appealing it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Oh, excuse me.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] in the issuance, then, do we move to an immediate
process?
Mr. Revell: Yes.
Mr. Mays: At that point?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Mays: So then it’s not a delay period in there on the issuance?
Mr. Revell: It would be immediate.
Mr. Mays: Okay. That’s what I wanted to make clear.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Irregardless of how this vote goes, I would
really like to make sure that this Commission follow up with requests to the different
departments within this city and other constitutional officers to improve the police
protection in that area, and to enhance the garbage collection on First Friday and other
high traffic nights. There are other issues that are much more pressing that this was first
put before us, but we really need to address these other things or all the businesses on
Broad Street are going to be in trouble. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: For a point of clarification, too. The Commission previously issued
an alcohol -- authorized an alcohol and beer license. Was that license ever picked up?
Mr. Walker: No, sir.
60
Mr. Mayor: All right. Does that need to be included in this motion, because the
motion just said on premise consumption for the sale of liquor, Sunday sales, and dance
hall permit. So do we need to add beer and wine to this, Mr. Revelle?
Mr. Revell: It would be -- the question on 56 is rather to appeal Judge Pickett’s
order, which required the Commission to issue the full license that was originally applied
for. And I think the issuance of that full license would preempt the beer and wine license
that the Commission earlier voted to approve. I’m not sure if that was beer and wine
only, if it was issued. I understand that it was not.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Walker: No license has yet been issued.
Mr. Mayor: But we don’t need to add that language to the motion then?
Mr. Revell: Well, 56 is dealing with whether to appeal the order.
Mr. Mayor: But we’re going with the motion.
Mr. Revell: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: We’re going with the motion that was made by Commissioner Beard
and I just want to make sure she gets everything she wanted.
Mr. Beard: The motion was her to have a on premise consumption license, liquor
license. If we have to include the beer and the wine in that, I will include it in with it.
Mr. Revell: I would cause that’s the license that was originally --
Mr. Beard: That was originally granted to them by this Commission anyway, so
that’s why I didn’t make it.
Mr. Mayor: But she never picked it up.
Mr. Beard: It wasn’t picked up?
Mr. Mayor: No. So it didn’t automatically renew for this year. Cause she didn’t
pick it up.
Mr. Beard: Okay. Well, I’ll just include both in there and that will take care of
everything.
Mr. Mayor: I just want to make sure she gets everything she wanted, if the
motion prevails. Any objection to adding that to the original motion? All right, we’ll call
61
the question on the substitute motion, which is to appeal the judge’s decision. All in
favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Shepard and Mr.
Colclough vote No.
Motion fails 2-7.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion fails and that takes us to the original motion. Any
further discussion? All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody want to make a notation for the record of Sunday sales on
that who voted for it? Okay. Nothing heard. Okay, item 58.
Clerk:
58. Other Business
??
Request Mayor to appoint committee to review ambulance service.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, you have the floor.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I request that you appoint a committee. I don’t care
how it’s made up and I’m willing to serve on it to review, since you asked that question
earlier, to review the ambulance service contract. I know our ambulance contract expires
in July and I think that we need to get busy with Commission work. I understand that the
I
Attorney is already doing some work on this and we’re getting close to some deadlines.
make a motion in that respect.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We do have a second to that. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Is he going to take the chairmanship, because I thought that a
committee had already been appointed from the -- either the Mayor or someone
appointed and you were asked to be the chairman of that and you refused. So my
question now, are you talking the chairmanship of that? Because the committee has
already been appointed, Jerry.
Mr. J. Brigham: I hadn’t seen a committee appointed.
Mr. Mayor: The Mayor has never appointed an ambulance committee.
62
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ve never seen an appointment. The last time I asked you about
it you said you hadn’t appointed.
Mr. Beard: I asked you and I’ve asked Steve, because you’re on it. You were on
it and Steve was on it. And Ulmer.
Mr. Bridges: You asked me and I asked that you ask somebody else.
Mr. J. Brigham: I think everybody said no. I was just trying to get it back up on
the front burner, Lee. I didn’t know where it was.
Mr. Beard: We just want you -- so you’re accepting the chairmanship. That’s
fine. We can go from there.
Mr. Mayor: So Mr. Beard, as I understand -- the Chair understands that a
committee has already been appointed by a committee; is that right?
Mr. Beard: Public Safety appointed the committee and Mr. Brigham is the one
who asked that the committee be appointed.
Mr. J. Brigham: I have never seen any correspondence since then. I apologize to
the Chair if the committee has already been appointed.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will rule that any motion on this item would be out of
order since such a committee already exists and Mr. Jerry Brigham is the chairman of it.
That fair enough? Next item.
Clerk:
??
Consider 5% cuts from Commission Accounts.
Clerk: I’ve given you, identified several accounts that could possibly implement
the cuts. Commissioner Shepard of Finance asked me to be a little aggressive and maybe
do a 5% budget cut, and I did that. And also I did a 3.5% budget cut. [inaudible]
different pages.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I move we adopt the 5% budget cuts.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
63
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Let me just make one comment, that local
Legislative, our lobbyist account, that’s a contract and we may have to make that up if we
cut that out. Because it’s a professional service. I just bring that to your attention.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Cheek: We should go through the same budgetary exercise that we’re asking
all our department heads and we’ll have to find it somewhere.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, really I think what Andy’s saying is true. We should.
But I mean to come up today and say and the first time -- let’s review it and see what we
can. There are several things out there that I think we can cut. But we must remember
that if we’re going to stay active in some of the organizations like GMA and others, their
dues are going up. What are we going to do and how are we going to do that? I don’t
think we’ve put enough thought into this. Where I agree with the concept, but I think
there should be a little more thought into this and not say that what I’ve just received is
an okay, and it may be, but to get it and look at it here -- I think we need a little time for
that. And that’s what I’m trying to say. But this does not mean that we don’t need to
either do a 5% or a 3-1/2% cut.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll recognize the Finance Chairman, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think we need to show some leadership and be
progressive with our cuts, as Ms. Bonner indicated, and Commissioner Beard, I didn’t
have a change to talk to you about this, but correct me if I’m wrong, Ms. Bonner, I think
because we were able to pay some of these memberships out of the 2000 budget, they can
be cut as herein indicated from the 2001 budget without impairing our memberships in
any of those organizations.
Clerk: We did that. We have not paid as of today the National League of Cities.
And last year we paid them around $9,000. [inaudible] increase so it will be around
$10,000. So that would free up that money. So we’ve actually already paid three of our
other memberships. [inaudible], ACCG and GMA. Already been paid out of 2000
budget.
Mr. Shepard: And I understand your concern, Mr. Beard. But I’d asked that of
the Clerk when she presented these, and she said we had already -- just like we did the
thing, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Mr. Mayor -- we did the same thing for him out of
the money we had available in the previous year’s budget. So we’re not -- and I think --
Lena, you’re fairly comfortable with these numbers as far as cutting them?
Clerk: Yes, sir. I checked with Finance and [inaudible].
64
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I agree with the 3-1/2% proposal that we’ve got here.
Just this past couple of days we was in Atlanta with some class with ACCG, and GMA
had been most helpful with some training that I think a lot of us have probably already
been certified in and continue to learn from. But I would hate to see us get to the point
where we can’t attend those types of things. Because when we go out and meet other
Commissioners and talk to other elected officials who have similar problems, I think
there’s a good learning source that we have and I learned a lot from just being able to
network with other Commissioners and I would hate to see us get to that point. I
expressed to Commissioner Cheek today about the class that we had on this week, and it
was great. Anybody who have not sit in on those need to have an opportunity to sit in.
So we ought to just be careful. I understand that we can’t do everything and it’s a lot of
going. My attorney friend, Mr. Shepard, takes the train, takes the bus, takes his van. I
don’t see how he manages to juggle what he does to get to these meetings. But I think he
will attest to that that there is some great visions and lessons to be learned from those
classes and stuff that we are taking when we do travel.
Mr. Mayor: Anything from anyone else? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I think the Clerk has done a good job in trying to go
through. If the dues question is settled to the point that we’ve got a cushion there, to
where we are not in danger, and that’s the question I want to ask, to a point that you
know we talked about the various meetings that we know some of us are going to attend.
If that is clear and if that’s done then I don’t have a problem with the 3-1/2% or the 5%,
but if it means coming back the Commission, start World War V, then I’ve got a problem
with it, because if that’s the case then maybe we need to look at everything. Let’s go into
gas, let’s look at other stuff that we deal with, that the Commission spends.
Clerk: No, sir, I checked with Finance to make sure on the dues that those dues
were in fact paid out of 2000 funding. So we do have a cushion in the membership dues
account to take that spending cut out of there.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the reason we pre-paid them, in anticipation of these cuts.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I know why we pre-paid them, but I always like to get it
on record, get it out, because if it don’t get on record, you don’t get it out, we get political
amnesia at certain times. And when it’s on the record, that way everybody goes by
what’s in the verbatim minutes. Now on the promotion account, that’s a small amount in
there, but when you say supplies, what does that entail that we’re taking out of there in
terms of supplies? Out of promotion?
65
Clerk: That account was identified for such things as office supplies. The
account really has $30,000. It was budgeted $30,000. In that account they had general
and office supplies, which was budgeted at $15,000 and special events at $14,000. We
encumbered a small amount in 2000 so I naturally assumed that since we only actually
encumbered $5,750 through last year, we’re going to save ground to take that particular
cut off of the office supply side. I’m holding the special event side.
Mr. Mays: And the reason I brought that up, Mr. Mayor, whether we be safe on it
or not, from the Commission side, I remember and I didn’t get a criticism from you, but I
remember putting on the agenda -- maybe some of the Commissioners that did -- but
when we started talking about -- well, when you were out frames for proclamations and
we put it on to have to buy some, because we were out of them and we had big events
and folks were getting them in a folder. I didn’t want us to be a point that we got so
cheesy that we ended up with national folk coming in to a city, and that’s why I asked for
special promotions, I didn’t want us to get to a point -- when I see promotions and I see
supplies, I just wanted to make sure there was a clarity that we had that.
Clerk: [inaudible] $30,000 and I’m proposing to cut $1,500 off of the $30,000.
Mr. Mays: Have no problem with that. I’m clear. I just wanted to know where
we’re going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I can support the 5%, but I do have a concern that
you have, and we’ve already signed a contract for $18,000. I don’t see how we can cut
that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, she received part of that payment last year and so this is
actually for a calendar year, and she’ll only get part of that, and it’s up to us whether we
renew her contract for the next session. And what figure that would be. And so we have
the potential to come up $900 short.
Mr. J. Brigham: We have.
Mr. Mayor: We have that potential.
Mr. J. Brigham: And we have [inaudible] $900 [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Of course you also have the potential of having a lot more left in
there if you don’t renew the contract.
Mr. J. Brigham: I just think that if we’ve got a contract, if we don’t find it
successful, I think we ought to leave that category alone. If we don’t find it successful, I
don’t mind cutting it. But my concern would be is if we’ve got a contract for $18,000
that we don’t cut, where we have already contracted, would be obligated for that money.
66
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: In addition, we’ve got some items coming up I the very near future,
th
like the 14 of March, that need to be funded from what I understand.
th
Mr. Mayor: On the 14 of March?
Mr. Hornsby: Isn’t that when it is?
Clerk: [inaudible].
Mr. Hornsby: Items for [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: No, that’s been canceled.
Clerk: That’s been canceled.
Mr. Hornsby: Okay. As long as y’all have got it covered.
Mr. Mayor: Yes. We’re cutting costs.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Mays: And I think where the Finance Chairman is coming from, and I can
agree with him, if we’ve asked for the 3.5% from everybody, even though we’re dealing
with a smaller amount of money, if we can do 5% to a point of where our percentage is
higher than anybody else’s, I think that’s a good image to have, and I think if we’re clear
on the cushion to do it, and if we’ve got enough over in the other account, I think we’re
only dealing $900 difference, if we got that in the other account, Ms. Bonner, if it’s still
out of our office is where we’re doing it, I think we can vote to, I think nobody would
vote not to honor a contract where [inaudible] $900. But I think if the Clerk, and I
always say that if the best clerk in America is satisfied with her 5%, I’m going to vote for
it.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mays, maybe I should have used that.
Clerk: [inaudible] but it was [inaudible] 5%. Now the local Legislative account
is our [inaudible] so it would be at the discretion of the Commission whether you want to
cut it and to [inaudible] as you did on the other [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
67
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I think you said a few minutes ago, and I think maybe
the point was not clear. Let me try to make it clear, that we funded the lobbyist part from
the 2000 budget, and this is money in the 2001 budget, and I think we’ve been generally
pleased with Ms. McRae’s job, but I think we ought to wait until after the session and
evaluate her but I think there is plenty of money here should we need to do that. But I
think we need to go ahead and cut the amount. Because just like all our departments are
feeling the cuts, I think the various accounts that we appropriate have got, as a
Commission as a body have got to feel the ax, too, and when we go back to these people
we can tell them we cut, we did what we asked you to do, and we did more than that.
Mr. Beard: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. So we’ll move ahead with the motion
to cut 5% from the Commission accounts as enumerated by the Clerk. All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
59. Consider bid award of contract to construct 18" Raw Water Main
Conversion Project. Funded by Account No.
509043410/542511080110160/5425110.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks here?
Mr. Speaker: He left.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor, I’m sorry. I should have included this in with
the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to approve this. Is there any
question about this? Mr. Hornsby will answer it or Mr. Bridges will. Nothing heard, so
we’ll go ahead and vote.
Mr. Colclough: Whoa.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry. I didn’t hear you.
Mr. Colclough: Just needed some clarification from my engineering chair down
there.
Mr. Mayor: Please, go ahead.
68
Mr. Colclough: Which water line is this, Mr. Chair?
Mr. Bridges: This is the 18” and the detail is in your backup that was given with
the transition center. The purpose in bringing it here rather than through the committee is
we’re losing three weeks, and they might not have got in touch with you, Mr. Colclough,
but I believe Andy and Willie were contacted concerning this project and the need to
bring it to this level as opposed to carrying it through the committee cause we lose three
weeks on it.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I need to find out how much money we
talking about?
Mr. Bridges: $540,000. And that’s low bid.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, this is -- I remember Mr. Hicks talking about this. This is
conversation of an existing pipe back to the former feed pipe back to raw water feed to
sterilized water for home use. This is a low pressure area that’s experienced low pressure
for a number of years, and I really think we should support it. Summer is coming.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes. I don’t want to hold up the project. I just need to know, Mr.
Bridges just said it came through to kind of alleviate some time. But have we went
through the proper changes necessary for the bids and everything else on this?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, all that’s been done. It’s just matter it did not get on the last
Engineering Services Committee so I had no objection to it coming straight and I believe
neither Willie nor Andy did, and I think at that time couldn’t get in touch with Richard,
so we polled the Engineering Services Committee.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anything further? All in favor of the motion then, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll take the addendum agenda item.
Clerk:
Addendum Item 1. A request from the CSRA Transitional Center, Inc. for a letter
of support from the Augusta Richmond County Commission regarding their
69
application for a grant from the Governor’s Children & Youth Coordinating
Council.
Mr. J. Brigham: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, vote aye.
Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: And that takes us to our legal meeting.
60. Legal Meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take up item 54. Is there any other item to add to the agenda
for the legal meeting? We’ll entertain a motion to go into executive session to discuss
item 54.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We’ll go into legal meeting without objection.
[LEGAL MEETING 5:03 - 5:43 P.M.]
61. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit?
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll sign it. Any other business to come before this Commission?
Any objection to adjourn? We are adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
70
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on February 21, 2001.
Clerk of Commission