HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-03-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
April 3, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, April 3,
2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Shepard, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; Walter Hornsby, Interim Administrator; and
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Hicks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we’ll go ahead and take up Item 1 first.
Clerk: Yes, sir. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Steve Shepard will not
be in attendance at today’s meeting. He is out of town.
Clerk:
SIGNING CEREMONY:
1. Motion to approve the employment contract for Mr. George Kolb for the
position of City Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, two weeks ago we unanimously voted to retain Mr. Kolb
as our next City Administrator. You asked the Mayor Pro Tem and the Mayor to work
with Mr. Wall and our Human Resources Director in negotiating a contract with Mr.
Kolb. We have done that and we have presented the results of that negotiation to you.
You’ve had it to look over over the weekend, and so today the Chair will entertain a
motion to approve the employment contract with Mr. George Kolb.
Mr. Cheek: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? None heard. All in favor, please vote with your
green light.
Motion carries 9-0.
2
Mr. Mayor: Based on your vote, I will the sign the contract right now. Mr.
George Kolb is with us today in the Chambers. Mr. Kolb, I’d like to congratulate you
and ask you to come up and join us, please.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: And certainly we’d like to introduce to the Augusta community, too,
George’s wife Sandy, who is seated in the back of the Chambers. Sandy, would you
stand up, please, so we can see you and recognize you?
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb’s contract calls for him to begin his services with Augusta
Richmond County on May 1. We certainly expect, though, to see you here from time to
time working on behalf of this government prior to that and meeting with our Department
Heads and Commissioners. Mr. Kolb has also indicated he’s going to be meeting with us
when we meet with the Amtrak officials in Washington on April 20. So we’re putting
him to work even before the official date. George, you want to turn a mike around there?
Is there anything you’d like to say to the Commission and to the folks in the Chamber
here?
Mr. Kolb: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I would just like to again thank the
Commission for their confidence in me, and I look forward to working with you and
service the community of Augusta. I think it will be a very good working relationship,
very good marriage, and I’m looking forward to it. Thank you again.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone on the Commission have any comments you’d
like to make at this time? Okay. Madame Clerk, we will proceed with the order of the
day.
Clerk: Want to start with the addendum agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and do that.
Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Regarding Item 55 (Lucy Craft Laney Museum) - The purchase of property on
behalf of the Lucy Craft Laney Museum.
DELETION FROM THE AGENDA:
Item 64-B regarding the appointment of Bertha Tanzymore to the Technical
Advisory Committee.
3
ADDITION TO THE AGENDA:
1. Report from Interim Administrator on televising Commission meetings.
(Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, let me just say that with respect to Item 64B, that was an
appointment to the Citizens Advisory Board and it was put down in error as an
appointment to the Technical Advisory Committee. We’re just cleaning that up. Any
questions or comments on the addendum agenda? Is there any objection to taking these
actions with respect to the agenda? None heard, so we’ll delete the one item and add the
other one.
Clerk: Our consent agenda, items 2 through 54. Want me to read the liquor
requests?
Mr. Mayor: Want to read those out?
Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Clerk: If there any objectors to the liquor application requests, would you
please signify your objection by the raising of your hand?
41. Motion to approve a request by Peter Shanks for an on premise consumption
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Sweet’s Party Place
located at 3520 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 2001)
42. Motion to approve a request by George Harrison for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Boll
Weevil Café & Sweetery located at #10 Ninth St. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 2001)
43. Motion to approve a request by Ayako Inaba for an on premise consumption
beer & wine license to be used in connection with Sasurai Restaurant located
at 1048 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
44. Motion to approve a request by Pyung Kwon for a retail package beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Lake Pantry located at 2177 Broad
St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 26, 2001)
Clerk: Are there any objections to those petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted.
FINANCE:
4
2. Motion to approve airfare in the amount of $329 each/total cost of $659
round trip for Mayor Pro Tem Willie Mays and Commissioner Steve
Shepard to attend Amtrak meeting, April 20 in Washington D.C. Funded
from Promotional Account. (Approved by Finance Committee March 26,
2001).
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
3. Motion to approve Resolution designating the week of April 16-April 22,
2001 in observance of National Community Development Week. (Approved
by Administrative Services Committee March 26, 2001)
4. Motion to approve Grant Agreements between the U.S. Department of
Housing & Urban Development (HUD) and Augusta Richmond County for
receipt of Year 2001 CDBG, ESG and HOME funds. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 26, 2001)
5. Motion to approve recommendation from the Attorney regarding
development of a policy concerning city employees accepting employment
with contractors performing work for city government. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 26, 2001)
6. Motion to approve consulting agreement for Marlene Willard to serve as an
independent contractor to assist the Riverwalk Special Events Office with
seeking sponsors, developing and promoting events. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 26, 2001)
7. Motion to approve disability retirement of Mr. Joey Young. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee March 26, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
8. Motion to approve option to acquire a right-of-way and temporary
construction easements from Carol Peterson Pryor (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel
188.4) for the sum of $15,801. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
9. Motion to approve a proposal from Johnson, Laschober and Associates in
the amount of $66,635.00 to provide professional services which includes
tank demolition documents, design of new 1MG elevated tank and services
during construction. (Funded by Account Number 5090434210/5212115
80110425/5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
26, 2001)
10. Motion to approve a proposal from Johnson, Laschober and Associates in
the amount of $85,935.00 to provide professional services which includes
design of new 2MG elevated storage tank and services during construction.
(Funded by Account Number 5090434210/5212115 80110105/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
11. Motion to approve Change Order #11 in the amount of $40,443.00 to Aqua
South Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the Water
Treatment Plant on Highland Avenue. (Funded by Acct. #
508043410/5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
26, 2001)
5
12. Motion to authorize to let for bids the Laney Walker Reconstruction Project.
Also approve Capital Project (CPB # 326-04-288811018) Change Number
Three in the amount of $3,026,000 to be funded from Special One Percent
Sales Tax, Phase III, Urban Recapture, ($2,096,925) GDOT funds ($500,000)
and CDBG ($429,075). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 26, 2001)
13. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $34,000.00 to ZEL
Engineers for additional engineering services completed on the Clearwell
Baffling and Re-piping Project. (Funded by Acct #508043410/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
14. Motion to approve transfer of Sponsorship of Augusta Canal Headgate &
Locks Rehabilitation TEA Project STP-000E(190), P.I. #271296 and
Memorandum of Understanding dated June 7, 1999 to Augusta Canal
Authority. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
15. Motion to approve proposal from James G. Swift and Associates in the
amount of $168,930 to prepare a design for the US Hwy 25 Sanitary Sewer
Extension including both the Gracewood and Bowlmaker Branch Extensions.
(Funded by Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150185-5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
16. Motion to approve a proposal from Southern Partners in the amount of
$21,920 to complete the design for the Horsepen Trunk Sewer. (Funded by
Account Number 509043420/5212115 80150175/5212115) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
17. Motion to approve a proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the
amount of $169,180.00 to provide professional services to include design of
sanitary sewer, design analysis of lift station modifications, redesign of the
existing force main, and environmental wetland delineation and permitting.
(Funded by Account Number 509043420/521211580150125/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
18. Motion to approve a proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the
amount of $104,800.00 to provide professional services to include design of a
20 inch water main which will service Ground Water Treatment Plant #3.
(Funded by Account Number 509043410/5212115 80110175/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
19. Motion to approve a proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the
amount of $166,150.00 to provide professional services to include the design
of a 20 inch water main which will service the proposed Ground Water
Treatment Plant #4. (Funded by Account Number 509043410/5212115
80110185/5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March
26, 2001)
20. Motion to approve a proposal from W. R. Toole Engineers, Inc. in the
amount of $265,850.00 to provide professional services to include design of
sanitary sewer, tie-ins to the proposed Butler Creek Interceptor, and
environmental wetland delineation and permitting. (Funded by Account
Number 509043420/5212115 80150130/5212115(Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 26, 2001)
6
21. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $45,000 to ZEL
Engineers for additional engineering services completed on the Mid-City
Sanitary Sewer Relief Project. (Funded by Acct #508043420/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
22. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $59,400 to Mabus
Construction Company for additional work to be completed on the Mid-City
Sanitary Sewer Relief Force Main Project. (Funded by Acct #508043420-
5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
23. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $12,861.43 to ZEL
Engineers for additional engineering services completed on the Groundwater
Treatment Plant No. 3 and 4 Project. (Funded by Acct #508043410/5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
24. Motion to approve a proposal from ZEL Engineers, Inc. in the amount of
$45,519 to provide professional services on the Auxiliary Pump Station
Improvement Project. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-
5212115/80170300-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 26, 2001)
25. Motion to approve a proposal from ZEL Engineers, Inc. in the amount of
$68,259 to provide professional services on the Raw Water Pump Station
Valve Vault Bypass Project. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-
5212115/80110300-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
March 26, 2001)
26. Motion to approve advertising for construction contract to extend a sanitary
sewer line in Vassar Drive from Lancaster Road to Aumond Road. (Funded
from Renewal and Extension if the project moves beyond the bid phase)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
27. Deleted from consent agenda.
28. Motion to authorize to let for bids the Bungalow Road Improvements
Project. Also, approve Capital Project Budget (CPB#323-04-299823595)
Change Number One in the amount of $2,177,000 for remainder of funds
programmed in Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III and Augusta
Utilities Bond in the amount of $2,068,000 and $200,000 respectively.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
29. Motion to approve sponsorship the "Sixth Annual Statewide Litter Cleanup
th
on April 14 and Keep Georgia Beautiful month to include Earth Day"
st
recognition on April 21 County-Wide. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
30. Motion to authorize the letting of Turknett Springs Detention Pond
Improvement for bid. Also approval of Capital Project Budget Change One
CPB#(327-04-296812007) in the amount of $441,000 funded from Special
One Per Cent Sales Tax, Phase III ($202,161), Special One Percent Sales Tax,
Phase II recapture ($38,839) and Augusta Utilities ($200,000). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
31. Motion to approve to authorize Public Works and Engineering Department
to extend an offer of employment to the selected candidate for the Pre-
7
Construction Engineer in the amount of $50,000. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee March 26, 2001)
32. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming E. Porter Alexander Camp No.
158 as custodians of the Confederate Powder Works Chimney. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
33. Motion to approve permit for pipe bridge encroachment between Augusta
and Augusta Energy LLC in conjunction with the construction of a co-
generation facility in Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
34. Motion to approve recommendations from Street Lighting Subcommittee to
establish a rate of 70 cents a front foot for commercial districts along arterial
and a rate of 32 cents a front foot for residential districts along arterial;
establish a suburban arterial street lighting district. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
35. Motion to approve in concept to supply gray water to SkyGen for use in
generating electric power. (Funding initially by SkyGen with reimbursement
from City via Credits for Sewer Service or from 2002 Bond Issue)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
36. Motion to approve Mutual Aid Agreement between Augusta Richmond
County Fire Department and fire departments in the surrounding areas.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 26, 2001)
37. Motion to authorize increasing animal return to owner fees and animal
disposal fees collected by the Department of Animal Control according to the
proposed schedule. Establish new adoption fees for species admitted
periodically to the shelter, but for which a fee has never been established.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 26, 2001)
38. Motion to approve the holding period of stray animals at the ARC animal
shelter from 5 days to 3 working days for animals impounded without
current owner identification. Those animals with current owner
identification would continue to be held five working days. A working day is
any day the shelter is open to the public. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee March 26, 2001)
39. Deleted from consent agenda.
40. Motion to approve the appropriation of $4,790 from the General Fund
Contingency to purchase a Net Gun and Radio Transmitting System to
improve recovery of tranquilized animals. Revenues collected from
increased fees will be used to reimburse General Fund Contingency.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 26, 2001)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
41. Motion to approve a request by Peter Shanks for an on premise consumption
liquor, beer & wine license to be used in connection with Sweet’s Party Place
located at 3520 Gordon Highway. There will be a dance hall. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 2001)
8
42. Motion to approve a request by George Harrison for an on premise
consumption beer & wine license to be used in connection with The Boll
Weevil Café & Sweetery located at #10 Ninth St. District 1. Super District 9.
(Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 2001)
43. Motion to approve a request by Ayako Inaba for an on premise consumption
beer & wine license to be used in connection with Sasurai Restaurant located
at 1048 Broad St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
44. Motion to approve a request by Pyung Kwon for a retail package beer &
wine license to be used in connection with Lake Pantry located at 2177 Broad
St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
March 26, 2001)
45. Motion to approve and award professional services for Brookfield West Park
to include master planning and Phase I architecture and engineering to Davis
Design Group in the amount of $53,000. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
46. Motion to approve and award professional services for McBean Park to
include master planning, architecture and engineering to Johnson,
Laschober & Associates in the amount of $75,000. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 26, 2001)
47. Motion to approve and award professional services for Sand Hills Park to
include master planning, architecture and engineering to W. R. Toole
Engineers, Inc. in the amount of $77,600. (Approved by Public Services
Committee March 26, 2001)
48. Motion to approve Ordinance defining Arcade. (Approved by Public
Services Committee March 26, 2001)
49. Motion to approve real estate sales contract with Richard Ransom for the
acquisition of 6.49 acres for $288,805 in connection with the Brookfield Park
Project. (Approved by Public Services Committee March 26, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
50. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held March 20, 2001.
APPOINTMENTS:
51. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. George W. Porter to the Augusta
Ports Authority representing District 7.
PLANNING:
52. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Title 7, Article 5 of the Augusta-
Richmond County Code to bring said article into compliance with minimum
requirements of the State of Georgia. (Second reading – approved by
Commission March 20, 2001)
DELINEATION OF RESPONSIBILITY SUBCOMMITTEE:
9
53. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend the Augusta-Richmond County
Code to add a new section; Augusta Richmond County Code Section 1-1-13,
provide limitations upon contact between the Mayor and Commissioners
with employees; to provide an effective date; and for other purposes.
(Second reading – approved by Commission March 20, 2001)
ATTORNEY:
54. Deleted from consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: With respect to the consent agenda, the Chair will entertain a motion
to approve.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, would you like to pull any items? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Item 54, please.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: 39, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Williams. That was --
Mr. Williams: 39.
Mr. Mayor: 39, okay. 54 for Mr. Bridges. Mr. Beard, do you have your hand
up?
Mr. Beard: No.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: 27.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, 47, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: 27.
Mr. Mayor: 27. I’m sorry. Mr. Mays?
10
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just for the purpose of clarification, I don’t need to pull on
2, but I think we’ve talked about my situation. I do plan to go but I’ll be on the ground
instead of in the air.
Mr. Mayor: You’re going to use your $329 to pay for gas, okay. All right.
Mr. Mays: I’ll be on ground transport.
Mr. Mayor: That will be fine. Anyone else? We have a motion to approve the
consent agenda, minus items 27, 39 and 54. All in favor, please vote with your green
light.
Mr. Mays: With one note, on the consent, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Which one is that?
Mr. Mays: That wasn’t pulled and I’ve already expressed my opinion on that and
I promise I’ll get you out of here at 3:30. That’s on 53. Let the record reflect that I’m
voting no again.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 8-1. [Item 53]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-26, 28-38, 40-52]
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move on into Item 27. Mr. Kuhlke, this is your item.
27. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to hire the Assistant
County Engineer, County Engineer, Assistant Director of Engineering and
Landfill Manager Positions at a salary not to exceed 10% above the midpoint
range; revise the salary grade for the Assistant Director and Director to
Grade 61 and 63 respectively to adequately reflect increases in position
requirements. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee March 26,
2001)
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I guess either Teresa or maybe Brenda would be able to
answer this question. Teresa, I see that on the Assistant Director of Engineering for the
Landfill position, that there is a recommendation that that salary not exceed 10% above
the midpoint range, and I’m -- can you tell me what the midpoint range and what 10%
above the midpoint range is?
Ms. Smith: For the Solid Waste Manager position or for each of the positions?
Mr. Kuhlke: For each of the positions.
11
Ms. Smith: For the Assistant County Engineer position, the midpoint range is
$47,259. Ten percent above would be $50,600. For the County Engineer position, ten
percent above the midpoint range would be $63,188. For the Assistant Director of
Engineering at a Grade 61, the midpoint range -- I’m sorry, 10% above midpoint would
be $76,808. And for the Landfill Manager, 10% above would be -- I’m sorry, 5% above
would be $60,000; 10% above would be $62,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay, and on --
Ms. Smith: I’m sorry. That’s an error. Ten percent above would be $61,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: $61,000? That’s Landfill?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir. On the Landfill, the entry is $38,000. The midpoint is
$49,000 and then the max is $61,000. So the midpoint on that one would be -- midpoint
plus ten percent would be $54,000. I apologize.
Mr. Kuhlke: My other question is that I believe that there’s a recommendation
there to amend the qualifications of the --
Ms. Smith: Assistant Director of Engineering, yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: That they could be an engineer in training rather than being a
Professional Engineer?
Ms. Smith: Actually, the current Assistant Director for Engineering, at a Grade
59 has no requirement for any certification at all. And so this will be a request to
increase the certification requirements to a minimum of engineering training with a
Professional Engineer preferred.
Mr. Kuhlke: I guess my concern on this thing is that -- and I’m quibbling about
having to be competitive in the marketplace. I understand that. But that we’re going into
one department and doing a number of reclassifications right now prior to our new
Administrator coming on board, and I think that there is some concern expressed on this
Commission that there needs to be -- we need to look very strongly at the way we are
handling salaries and classifications within the whole government. And would it be
terribly hindrance to you to put this off for a couple of weeks to let the new Administrator
take a look not only at this particular area, but a number of other areas within the
government that I think we probably need to pay some attention to?
Ms. Smith: Well, the issue here didn’t have as much to do with increasing
salaries as it did increasing the requirements for the position and requirement for
professional certification, which has not been the case for that position. If I’m not
mistaken, the Assistant Director that he filled actually did not have a requirement for
certification. As you’re aware, the County Engineer position is a position where you
have to have a Professional Engineering license in order to sign off on and perform the
12
duties that that position has in place. Subsequently, the supervising position for the
County Engineer doesn’t have any kind of certification requirement and that was the
purpose for increasing that, and I did talk with Ms. Pelaez about it, and I believe she left
some comments on this point about it because she was not going to be able to be here
today.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Ms. Smith: As for whether or not it would cause any problems with deferring the
presentation to the Commission, if you will recall, one of the things the Commission
committed to was to not have the Assistant Director for Engineering positions vacated by
its current -- the person that was currently in it, until we have a handle on moving
forward to have someone to backfill that slot, so I’m not sure if that would be a multiple
decision that you’re making, to hold that person in place for whatever period of time we
would delay making a decision and moving forward with advertising it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I just think that there are a number of things that we need to
look at from the standpoint of salary structure and so forth. I also think that we need to
make sure that we are consistent in what we do as far as upgrading classifications,
salaries and so forth, and I remember, I’ve talked to you about this. I guess that’s one of
my concerns. My other is that when you look at the Assistant County Engineer, and you
and I have had some discussions about this, to sign off on a development plan you have
to be a Professional Engineer by law, and if we have a County Engineer and we had the
same situation that we’ve got now where that County Engineer doesn’t have a
Professional Engineer backup behind him, then we’re not really improving our situation
in my estimation. And so I think -- I bring this up, don’t want to drag it out, but what I
would like to do, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we postpone this until the
first meeting in May, regular meeting in May to get the new Administrator to look at this,
Teresa, along with some other things and possibly come back to us with some
recommendations.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion on the floor. Is there a second to Mr. Kuhlke’s
motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham seconded the motion. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, while I think that the suggestion may be good, but I don’t
see it applying at this particular time. We’re talking about a month before the
Administrator gets out here, and I don’t see -- I don’t think he’s going to be working
during the interim there trying to figure out salary schedules at this time. And I think it’s
a little unfair at this point to consider delaying this when we made certain
recommendations, when Utilities came up, that certain things were going to happen and
now we’re saying delay it, and I agree with -- when I agree with him that we do need to
look at the structure of this and I think all of us have been trying to agree with him on
13
that. But to delay this is not the proper time now when there is a need and we just sat
here a couple of weeks ago and gave and decided that two of her people would be leaving
and I can imagine the bind that it’s put Public Works in at this point, and to me I think
it’s kind of unfair to even look at this at this time. I think we should consider it as a need
that is necessary to be activated at this time, and I think we should vote for that passage.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. The Chair would like to make an inquiry of
Ms. Smith. What effect would a delay have on advertising for these positions?
Ms. Smith: Some of these positions have already been advertised for. The
purpose of moving forward was to give the authority to hire without the time associated
with coming back to the Commission, and the only one that has affect on the change in
rate was where the change in requirement had been revised. There’s not a budget change.
There really isn’t a salary change because the people that are currently in these positions
were at compensation ranges that are within the 10% that I’m requesting. The Landfill
Manager’s current salary -- well, the salary that he was holding was above mid-range,
which means more than likely we’re going to be working within that same level to put
someone in.
Mr. Mayor: Well, do you anticipating tendering an offer for any of these
positions prior to the first meeting in May?
Ms. Smith: Hopefully, at least the Assistant County Engineer, at a minimum.
We’ve done our first round of interviews there. One of the things that we discovered in
doing those interviews is that the authority level that we had to make an offer fell far
below what the candidates were already making or were looking to be making. So we
went out -- we only had one that continued with interviews after we got into our
discussions about what the salary range was. And so we readvertised for that one. It
th
closes on the 10 but we’re hoping to finish that up before the end of this month.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m a little confused now. After I heard
about the salaries and Public Works, those two people that was moving or changing, will
this hold them or will this keep them where they are if this passes, what Mr. Kuhlke had
made a motion to do? Will that hold those people that have those positions until we do
something else? Is that what I’m hearing?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes.
Mr. Williams: That would hold those two people there? My next question was
that when we approved the salaries for the people to move, we did not go through this
searching. It was discussed and I remember mentioning that that was above and that was
a little far-fetched for Assistants’ salary to be coming up to -- I don’t remember what the
salary was but we tried to hold it within the range, within the percentage. I think we kind
of spinning our wheels. I think we kind of spinning our wheels in the same spot. We’re
14
not really getting anywhere to hold it. We not going to move those people. We do know
we need to look at salaries in all our departments. We talked about that, cause we’re
losing people fast. We got people that working in this government to get trained and end
up going somewhere else. But I think we need to go on with this and give her the
[inaudible] and let her at least recruit some people to come in so it won’t take us as long.
We got schedules we trying to meet, we got problems we trying to finish up, and I think
we need to go ahead and start the ball rolling. If this pass, that going to hold those two
people in her department until we get two more people, then I understand. That’s the
clarification point I wanted to me.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First I want to understand the motion that’s
on the floor. Bill, as I understand that, part of that motion is to hold these two people in
that position until it’s filled; is that right?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: Okay. Second thing. Teresa, does the Assistant County Engineer --
what was the 10% above the midpoint on that one that you gave us?
Ms. Smith: For the Assistant County Engineer?
Mr. Bridges: Yeah. I got $47,259. Is that right?
Ms. Smith: $47,259 is the midpoint.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Ms. Smith: 10% above would be $51,900.
Mr. Bridges: Tell me this. On the requirement for EIT certificate, what position
did that pertain to?
Ms. Smith: The addition of a requirement for an EIT?
Mr. Bridges: Well, the one that you were adjusting the requirements for.
Ms. Smith: That would be the Assistant Director for Engineering.
Mr. Bridges: All right. So he’s at $76,800; is that right? At 10% above
midpoint? Is that the right one? Yeah, I think that is. Assistant Director of Engineering.
Okay. Walter?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes, sir?
15
Mr. Bridges: What do we do now? I mean this 10% above midpoint, is that new?
What are we doing now?
Mr. Hornsby: The current procedure is that we can go 10% above the beginning
salary, and that’s where the problem is. We are really having problems in trying to fill
these positions at the beginning salary, even 10%. The lack and the span of time that
exists between the time that we can arrive at an agreeable amount with a candidate and
come back here and get it approved is really what’s [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: All right. But right now, the policy is 10% above the beginning
point, and I think that’s where the rub is with some people. The other point on this,
getting back to the requirement, Teresa, if that is the Assistant Director of Engineering,
and I’m trying to come up with something that would get this done today -- is it going to
be terribly -- I’d like to see that made he would have to have an EIT certificate rather than
-- I’m sorry, he would have to a PE. If you’re talking about $76,000 or thereabouts in
that range, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect him to have an engineering degree in that
position?
Ms. Smith: Well, the process that we had planned to utilize there was to, once we
get the packages in, is to separate those with EIT’s and those with Professional Engineer
license. The Professional Engineer’s license is preferred and that’s how we revised the
position descriptions to read. EIT required, ability to possess a PE is required; however,
the Professional Engineer’s license is highly desirable, and therefore we would review
those persons or those packages that had people with Professional Engineer’s license in
there first, and if by chance we had someone that is a Professional Engineer, the salary
range that we’re negotiating in would be such that we would be able to have discussions
with that person and bring them aboard in a timely fashion. However, if the candidate
only has an Engineering in Training certificate, they of course would not receive a salary
that would be commensurate with a person with Professional Engineer’s license. But
without having that latitude, quite frankly, with the entry level being -- currently for an
Assistant Director, we’re looking at $47,818. That’s the current entry level without
having the requirement for an EIT. I think Max would also be able to [inaudible] -- we’re
not even going to get any applications in. And if we do, and if we [inaudible] one of
those things, I’m going to borrow one of Mr. Mays’ quote, is if we’re looking for a
thoroughbred, we need to put the information out there to at least get the attention of
them, and it is not my intention to have the Public Works Department -- and I’m
sincerely hoping that the position will not be that we have to stop taking in development
plans because we don’t have a County Engineer or an Assistant Director at a level where
they can approve those plans as they come in. I hope we’re not going to get to that.
Mr. Bridges: In following up on that, the Assistant Director of Engineering is
$76,800, which is 10% above the midpoint. I realize that. Is that level 63 that you’re
trying to get to?
Ms. Smith: 61.
16
Mr. Bridges: 61? Okay. And here’s another question. As far as PE, you, Doug
and Drew, y’all have PE’s, is that right?
Ms. Smith: No, sir. Doug has a PE, I have a PE. Drew does not have a PE.
r. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we approve this
M
motion with the stipulation that we do 10% above beginning point as is the present
policy and that the Assistant Director of Engineering is required to have a PE. I
make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion seconded by Mr. Williams. Okay. Mr. Jerry
Brigham, you had your hand up?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor. Teresa, I’ve got a couple of questions.
You’re reorganizing your department, is the County Engineer [inaudible] the Assistant
Director?
Ms. Smith: Yes, he is.
Mr. J. Brigham: Since you’re doing the reorganization of the department,
[inaudible], move the County Engineer up [inaudible] and maybe [inaudible]? Does that
not make sense?
Ms. Smith: Actually, I’m not reorganizing the department.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] salaries [inaudible]?
Ms. Smith: Currently, the County Engineer position, as the position description
reads, is not required to have a Professional Engineer’s license. Nor does the Assistant
County Engineer -- I mean the Assistant Director for Engineering, and one of the things
that I’m attempting to do is to bring forward those certification requirements, and in order
for us to bring people in that have those certification requirements, according to Brenda,
if we increase the requirement, it justifies a recommendation for an increase in the grade
level.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Someone on staff has to be able to sign off on those plans. The
County Engineer himself personally does not have to have a license. If I’m not mistaken,
when we did not have a County Engineer in place, we used an outside consulting firm to
sign off on the development plans.
17
Mr. J. Brigham: We hired an outside consulting firm [inaudible]. I still think
we’re in the process of reorganizing this department, and I think if we’re going to
reorganize the department, I think we ought to [inaudible] the County Engineer and the
Assistant Director of Public Works [inaudible], I think that person [inaudible]. I think we
ought to also have several Assistants [inaudible]. I think they all ought to [inaudible].
Ms. Smith: Well, the Assistant Director for Engineering, that was the reason for
increasing the requirements for that position. They do have four sections that report to
them, including the County Engineer, the Traffic Engineer, the Pre-Construction
Engineer, and the Environmental Engineer. And so there is a myriad of activities beyond
just those that the County Engineer performs that the Assistant Director of Engineering is
responsible for, and that’s why we were looking to increase that certification and to bring
in someone that had a record of experience and to address those different sections.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We’ll go to Mr. Mays, and then we’ll revisit Mr. Beard
and Mr. Bridges wanted to say something.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to try not to break my promise. I told you we’d
get out of here by 3:30. But you got some misconceptions out here on the floor I think
needs straightening out a little bit. I’m tempted to probably cast my -- I think some
members of the media keep up with it a little better than me -- what would this be,
abstention number 76? I’m tempted to do that on the two motions that you got on the
floor. I’m include more to agree with the one that Mr. Kuhlke’s got simply from the
standpoint that I think if we’re going to delay, we ought to delay on the side of not
drumming down the position in terms of engineering, because if it’s importance in where
we are. Ms. Smith then, a total professional and a lady, quoted half of my statement
about the thoroughbred, and she was nice about doing it. The other part of that, all y’all
well know, along with the thoroughbred, gentlemen, also comes the part if you’re not
going to walk the same walk as the talk you deal with, then that’s when you start -- no
offense intended to anybody who applies -- but that’s when you inherit the jackasses.
And I think you’ve got a difference. You can start recruiting and if you want
thoroughbreds, then there’s some requirements to running the Kentucky Derby. You just
don’t have to have it pointed [inaudible]. If you’re going to get serious about making this
department a professional department, giving the Director there the tools in terms of
personnel, not only were we dealing with contract folk on the outside who even though
under contract, even though they were professional, thank God we’ve gotten away from
the point of a department regulating folk to a point people who were being regulated in
some cases making decisions. That needed to be separated. That at least has been
separated. You had a situation, and we were lucky enough, even more so, and Mr.
Brigham and I both were here, both the two Brighams, that what you had for a while
before the contract situation is that your Environmental Engineer, that you lost to the
neighboring county, was doing all the signing off on everything because that was the only
person out there you had in Public Works that you hired in this county that had a PE
behind their name, including at that time, no offense, the Director of Public Works. So
let’s clear that mud up first. So the lady is not asking for anything new, not asking for
anything to be reorganized. If you’re going to delay, I think what we may need to get in
18
some information -- and I don’t know, Mr. Hornsby, whether Ms. Pelaez has left any
information in reference to the point that we need to get out of the business of where we
are stuck in this midpoint situation versus entry level to get us, Mr. Bridges, where we
probably need to go in terms of Engineering. Because what you’re going to get at that
bottom level that you’re talking about 10% over that entry level, you’re not only not
going to get a PE, you’re not going to get an “E” of any kind at all. And you’re going to
be back to a point of situation, that’s why these Chambers get filled up with folk who
have been victims of everything and you name it, because the tail has been too long
wagging the dog in Richmond County in terms of Engineering, rather than the dog
professionally at the top in the department wagging the tail, and I think you’ve got to
correct that in terms of where you deal with it first on HR and then on the salary level.
But that’s the reason I can support where Bill wants to go, provided you are going to hold
the folk that she at least has there in place. Now maybe we need to hear from the Utilities
Director, because see now, all of these sudden [inaudible] risings were not discussed
when you start talking about you were going to move folk out of existing Public Works,
transfer them over to Utilities. You knew then that Public Works had to be staffed with
somebody. And when all the salaries out there were $67,500 rounded off with no
differential, that’s where this whole war started at. So let’s be honest about that. So now
if you’re going to keep everybody in place, then you probably need to know whether or
not Water Works can run Water Works, if you’re not going to give him the folk that he
needs. So I think you’ve got a lot of unanswered questions in there, but if you going to
move those folks and you’re already in the interview process of some of these people,
then a decision needs to be made to wither let the folk be done with where you’re going
to put them in terms of ranges to attract or else we just fooling ourselves. These $50,000
folks that you get that want to sign off on all these new homes and all this new
construction, what we need to be doing is changing some ordinances, Mr. Mayor. We’re
talking about writing theses ordinances to amend this and let folk out of contracts and
who can talk to who. We need to be changing some ordinances that we can correctively
reflect what needs to be done with these professional salaries. Now that’s the serious
business we need to be talking about writing something on, instead of some of this play
staff that we’re doing politically. Because at this point, you’ve got two departments now
and two motions that carry neither department anywhere. One’s put on old, the other one
is being set back. Where y’all going to go with it, I don’t know. But I don’t see a
progressive motion on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see where they’re going to go. We’ll hear from Mr. Beard and
then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Beard: I think, Mr. Mayor, that Mr. Mays has covered most of the stuff that I
was going to say. But I don’t see where either of the two motions on the floor would be
effective. And not to be redundant on some of the things he said, but it seems rather
strange that all of a sudden we come up with this, and I think we have a very good
recommendation from our Public Works Director, and yet we’re going to still -- as I look
back a few weeks ago, we were on a different side of this and talking about how these
people need to be moved. My concern now is just how much -- if we have to wait
another six weeks to finalize this and interview people, how much work are we going to
19
get out of the people who are presently there? It was decided two or three weeks ago that
they would make the transition over to Utilities. Now are they working in Utilities? Are
they working in both areas? And I just don’t see how we can continue to kind of go in
that direction of the way we’re going. One week we are for something. The next week
we are questioning it. And I think that neither one of the motions gets us where we want,
puts us where we want to be.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Teresa, the financing for the proposal here. Is that in the budget?
Do you have that designated and defined?
Ms. Smith: Actually, all of the funds that you’re looking at, the people in the
current positions, the compensation is within the range of what I’ve requested. There is
no change to the budget --
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Ms. Smith: -- for this particular proposal.
Mr. Bridges: And your department’s met the budget requirements as set forth, the
3-1/2%?
Ms. Smith: No, sir, we have not.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Ms. Smith: We have made a request to decrease the cost allocation and that has
not been approved.
Mr. Bridges: You’ve made a proposal for the 3-1/2%?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir, we have.
Mr. Bridges: All right.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I call for the vote on this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. I was just about to move ahead with that.
We’ll take up the substitute motion first. That was the one from Chairman Bridges to
approve the recommendation with 10% above the beginning salary and the Assistant
Director required to have a PE designation. All in favor of the substitute motion, please
vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays vote No.
20
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us now to item 39. Commissioner Williams, you asked
for that item?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor
Clerk:
39. Motion to approve termination of the contract with University Hospital and
Richmond County dated September 23, 1971 effective upon assignment of
contract between University Hospital and Rural Metro Ambulance Service.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee March 26, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we talked about this and I’m not understanding why
this contract will be coming to an end in July and why should we two or maybe three
months from that date dissolve this contract to let University Hospital out of it. I think tat
the end of July or whenever this contract is dissolved or come to an and, that would be a
perfect time to re-enter into another contract and to alleviate University Hospital. I don’t
understand why -- I mean what’s the rush? If we’ve been in this contract since ’71, why
should we? And when you’re talking about a legal, binding contract, and I don’t know
all the details of it, but why should we do this three months prior to the end? I mean it
been here since ’71. they certainly could stay in it until another 90 days.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can you respond to that, please/
Mr. Wall; Well, the termination of the contract with University Hospital would
be effective upon the assignment of the contact between University Hospital and Rural
Metro, which contemplates an extension of that contract through December 31. the sole
purpose of trying to extend that contract to December 31 is to give this Commission an
opportunity to look at all the options insofar as providing ambulance service and it was
the feeling of the staff that in order to adequately look at that issue, that we needed time
to do it, that it would be a rush job trying to get that in place by July 9 or July 8, when the
existing contract expires. And since we were proposing to extend the contract through
December 31, it was felt that University Hospital was an unnecessary player, an
unnecessary party to the negotiations, that had nothing at stake in the issue, and it just
seemed reasonable to us to recommend that University Hospital be removed from the mix
so that we could deal directly with Rural Metro, work out the terms of that, and decide
among ourselves, rather than involving University Hospital -- and when I say among
ourselves, I’m talking about you as Commissioners, with the input of the staff, as to how
you wanted to proceed with ambulance service beyond the end of this year.
Mr. Williams: But are you --
21
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Williams, I’ll come right back to you. I just want
to make sure that we understand this. You said this was a staff recommendation?
Mr. Wall: Staff recommendation.
Mr. Mayor: And does University Hospital concur with this?
Mr. Wall: Yes, they do.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My [inaudible] is that we going to have to
negotiate a new contract. But it may not be with Rural Metro. I mean there is other
ambulance services out there and if we can’t do it in 90 days, then I don’t think we can to
it in six months. My feeling is that at the end of July or July 8 I think you said was the
deadline, between now and then, we ought be able to negotiate with whatever other
ambulance service there is, and there are several others that we can talk to, but if we
extend the contract now, that’s going to automatically extend Rural Metro to another six
months, when we may be negotiating between now and July to get a contract not for just
six months but for the next 12 months or 24 or 48, whatever the length of the contract is.
I just don’t understand why we need to do this today. I don’t see the rationale for letting
any entity out of the contract until the contract is ended. If we going to negotiate a
contract in July, we need to start now to negotiating either with Rural Metro or whoever
the next service is to do a contract not for 6 months, for whatever the life of the contract
was before, and if it’s a yearly contract we need to do that. But I’m not for signing a
legal document letting anybody out of anything until we know the pros and cons and until
that time has come and at the end of that, I feel like we ought to then let whatever any
entity out that’s not a part and I was in the meeting and University Hospital said that they
kind of supervised or was on the Board, sort of to speak, but they didn’t any real input in
it. They contract with Rural Metro to provide ambulance service for the citizens of
Augusta and we was paying them. So I can understand them getting out of the loop. I
just don’t understand why they need to get out of the loop now and then extend a contract
until December and then try to do another contract. I just think if we going to do a
contract -- in fact, I’m going to make a motion, Mr. Mayor, that we deny this, that we
th
hold this contract until the time span of the contract, June 8 and then we’ll negotiate
between now and then for some ambulance service to provide that service for us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there a second to Mr. Williams’ motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Seconded by Mr. Cheek. Mr. Bridges, you had your hand
up?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, in regards to terminating the contract, what are the advantages
to the County to do this?
22
Mr. Wall: Well, we have been looking at it from the standpoint that we needed
until December in order to get the determination from the Commission as to whether or
not they wanted to move toward providing ambulance service through the Fire
Department, at what time they wanted to move toward providing ambulance service
through the Fire Department, to look at whether they wanted to negotiate with Rural
Metro, to look at whether we wanted to submit requests for qualifications, requests for
proposals, submit it for bids, etc., as to how the Commission wanted to proceed with
providing ambulance service on a long-term basis. And so the feeling was because of
really the late time period within which this was presented to the Commission to make a
decision, then in essence we needed six more months in order to study it and make an
informed decision about how to proceed. And so the sole purpose behind the action that
was recommended a couple of weeks ago in continuing the subsidy through December 31
was to allow Rural Metro to continue to provide ambulance service through December
31. The Commission approved that action. Now the question is how do we proceed with
choosing ambulance service? Do we involve University Hospital in that process, or do
we, through the Commission and the staff, embark on making a determination as far as
which was is the best way to proceed? And it’s our feeling that University Hospital is
really a third party to it, has no involvement, and we need to proceed through the
subcommittee that’s been formed, along with staff recommendations, the best way to
proceed with ambulance service. So leaving University Hospital in the midst beyond
June 8, or July 8 through December 31, there is no advantage to the County in my
opinion. And removing them from the mix, letting us contract directly with University
Hospital, is the best bet.
Mr. Bridges: You mean Rural Metro?
Mr. Wall: Rural Metro. I’m sorry. Rural Metro is the best bet because we’ve got
all the options open to us. We don’t have to ask University Hospital.
Mr. Bridges: Are we any more liable either way with University as it is, as
opposed to University not being in the contract? Are we more liable either way?
Mr. Wall: No. I mean, Rural Metro provides liability insurance. And so that
issue is covered. It’s a pass-through contract from University Hospital’s standpoint. So
the liability rests with us for Rural Metro’s involvement anyhow.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] University [inaudible] contract?
23
Mr. Wall: As it currently stands, the contract with University Hospital is an
annual, renewable contract. It automatically renews and has automatically renewed since
1971.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] on notice now [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: Unfortunately, the contract that was written in 1971 is poorly drafted,
and there is a 60-day right to terminate provision. It doesn’t say really when the contract
renews. The contract was entered into in September and there is some question about
what the actual renewal date of the contract is.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] I’m trying to get these people out of the mix. Tell
me what I’m needing to do. I think what I’m wanting to do is make a motion to put
University Hospital on notice as to whether or not we want to renew this contract. That’s
what I’m wanting to do, but I want some advice on [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Here is the situation. Y’all voted to extend the subsidy. Based upon
that motion, University Hospital is going to extend the contract with Rural Metro through
December 31. That was the intent of the action that was taken. And quite frankly, I think
we’re making more of an issue -- I mean if y’all tell us to leave University Hospital in
there, we’ll leave University Hospital in the mix. We’ll invite them to the meetings.
They’ll have input perhaps. They probably will just send somebody because they really
don’t care. But then we are going to have to ask University Hospital can we send our
requests for proposals. Suppose they say? Are we going to do it anyhow? We might do
it, but I just think it is -- it makes it cleaner and is just easier not to involve them. You
tell us we’ve got to involve them, if you want them at the table when we discuss with
whomever the various options, that’s fine. It’s just -- in my mind, we could invite
Doctors’ Hospital to the equation cause they’re going to have just as much input.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: What I’m asking for is a motion to terminate the existing 1971
contract with University Hospital effective upon assignment of the contract between
University and Rural Metro.
That puts us in the position of contracting directly with
Rural Metro. We can negotiate the terms of the extension, we can negotiate our future
course.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m going to make that motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a second to that motion. Mr. Mays, you’ve got your hand
up?
24
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m still trying to work on your 3:30.
Mr. Mayor: That’s your 3:30, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I’ve got enough minutes of this discussion from the Committee and
I’m not going to be redundant to any of those. I’d just like to say first that they be
transferred over for the reference point what I said as a non-Committee member of that
subcommittee that that be put on, on these minutes and that will clarify that. What I
would like to ask is a couple of questions, Mr. Wall, cause I think the Chairman is
searching for some direction here and I think all of us have the total same intention in
terms of wanting to do what’s best for the people of this city in providing service and
coverage. There may be some directions on how to get there. But one -- let me ask this
first question. I guess I’m going to get back to the question that Jim asks us a lot of time
and I’m going to ask this, Mr. Mayor, of the Attorney. Now we get caught in this thing
about gratuity and giving City and of putting City money in places whereby we have no
contract. Now you know, maybe what would have been clearer is that when we extended
a subsidy that would extend past the contract in July to go to the end of the year, maybe
an ordinance should have been drawn that paralleled the subsidy, because I think the only
thing, Mr. Mayor, that right now that we’re doing legally, is we’re covering our behinds
to deal with covering the subsidy. We’ve issued a subsidy -- Jim, I’m using your
language about gratuities, because you’ve often ruled that we can’t give away our money
unless we’re under some contract basis of what we’re doing. We’ve agreed to give
$300,000 at $50,000 a month, which does not start until past July 8. Now if the contract
expires on July 8, what you’re seeking now is to get a contract which runs us through
December, and we were never told at the point of time that when we extended the
subsidy, that it automatically opened up a window of a new contract per se, or are we
trying to cover ourselves now by issuing, eliminating the contract that we are under, and
extending one to cover the gratuity clause? Cause we got $300,000 out there that we are
giving away, and to a point technically after July 8 unless we have a contract, we’re not
under contract with anybody, we’re giving a subsidy then to a firm, and no offense to
them because I think they are a reputable firm, they give good service, but I think they
may be getting caught in the middle of something here that they didn’t ask for either.
And I think to the point that University introduced Rural Metro to us, they brought them
here to the table [inaudible]. You were the Attorney. You signed that part. You
represented us. And I think that we need to get straight now which comes first, the
chicken or the egg, and which comes first, the subsidy or an ordinance or a contract.
Because if we’re dealing with one where the money doesn’t start kicking in until after the
contract runs out, I think we ought to be more inclined to put them on notice that we plan
to terminate the contract, come July 8, and that in the meantime if you’ve got a willing
party which says it doesn’t want in partnership with us, it gives them the current subsidy
holder or the recipient of the subsidy which does not start until July the chance to act in
good faith in terms of what they’re going to do in terms of negotiating, it give us, Mr.
Mayor, the right as a City, we can talk to anybody that we want to, any time that we get
ready, on behalf of the citizens of this County. We do not have to ask anybody’s
permission in terms of where we go from this point with the contract or not being under
one. And I think that in terms helps to shorten the time, it gives Rural Metro an
25
opportunity to present and still talk with us, but it keeps the original player that’s there
that brought them here to us, who we had been in partnership for all those years to say,
hey, here’s the private [inaudible] that we’re not giving you, this is what’s going to be
your subsidy, this will be the end of the subsidy which will never come back to haunt you
again, and now we’re back in the same mode that we were three decades ago in 1971,
we’re in the ambulance business.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, did you want to respond to that, and then we’ll go to Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Wall: Let me go back to where we were the first of March. The contract
between University Hospital and Rural Metro had a provision in there where the contract,
Rural Metro had to give notice by -- I think it was March 8 -- of whether or not they were
going to extend the contract with University Hospital. Rural Metro had indicated in the
meetings and in the correspondence that had been written to the County that they were
not going to extend the contract with University Hospital unless they received a subsidy.
That subsidy was to be $50,000 per month. As a result of that, come July 9, the day after
the contract with Rural Metro would have expired because Rural Metro said they were
not going to extend the contract, Rural Metro would have been out of the ambulance
business, insofar as Richmond County is concerned. And they would not have been
providing ambulance service to the citizens through the contract with University
Hospital. So then the contract that we had was with University Hospital. University
Hospital was then in a position where they were obligated to provide ambulance service
to the citizens of Richmond County. That contract was a strictly-passthrough of the cost
to us. They would have had to either purchased a fleet of ambulances or contracted with
someone else to provide ambulance service, because our contract was with them. We had
the liability under that contract insofar as anything other than malpractice, professional
negligence as far as automobile liability is concerned, we had that responsibility. We had
the responsibility for maintaining the fleet. And so the cost was ours. University
Hospital and Rural Metro, in conjunction with us, agreed to extend the contract with
Rural Metro to December 31, if the Count would agree to subsidize that to the tune of
$50,000 per month. That’s the reason that we brought it to you. No, Mr. Mays, we’re
not trying to legitimate anything that we’ve done. What we’re saying is we’ve agree to
extend that contract. We’ve agree to provide the subsidy. University Hospital has agreed
to extend the contract with Rural Metro to December 31. Rural Metro has agreed to
accept that. So that is in place to carry those services through. The question insofar as
University Hospital is concerned is what future involvement do they have? Do we
involve them in the discussions as to what happens January 1, 2002? And again, I come
back, I think perhaps that issue has gotten blown out of proportion because if you tell us
you want them involved, that’s fine. It was just our feeling that it was cleaner for us to
deal directly with whomever the new ambulance service provider is going to be, rather
than having another subcontract where we have a contract with University and they in
turn subcontract with whoever the future provider is.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams?
26
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It sound like to me, Jim, that Rural Metro
have put pressure on -- I won’t use the word pressure. But Rural Metro have come back
and said that they wasn’t going to provide any more service unless there was a subsidy
for $50,000 and the hospital agreed or want us to agree to that. We been talking about
ambulance service for some time and we talked about the Fire Department going back
into it. But it sound like to me that we are being forced into a contract or made into a
contract with somebody that we hadn’t negotiated with. Rural Metro is calling the shots.
I mean that’s what it sound like to me when they made the offer to the hospital. So my
thing is, the reason I’m not in support of this is I can’t see why we want or even
University Hospital want to get out three months earlier than the deadline.
Mr. Wall: Nine months.
th
Mr. Williams: Nine months early. I think July, you said the 8 is when the
contract be renewed.
Mr. Wall: But again, University and Rural Metro are extending their contract
based on the subsidy to December 31.
Mr. Williams: Okay. But if we going to negotiate a contract and if Rural Metro
had told them they couldn’t operate or wouldn’t operate without this money, the county,
we should have had the opportunity to go out for bid or try and find another service.
Mr. Wall: I agree with you 100%.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand. But now if you agree with me, you wouldn’t
agree to go ahead and do this contract to try to have them locked in for six months.
Mr. Wall: How are we going to ask University Hospital to go out on bid?
Mr. Williams: University Hospital is not going out on bid. They was in this
meeting with us and they want out. And I understand that. I got no problem with letting
them out. All I’m saying is why we going to dissolve a contract, a legal document, for
whatever reason we going to have to negotiate this in July, so why don’t we just hold
this, why aren’t we out for bids, why aren’t we trying to recruit a service to come in here,
whoever it may be, to handle the ambulance service if they want out? I mean --
Mr. Mayor: Those are some of the issues that Mr. Jerry Brigham’s committee is
exploring.
Mr. Williams: And I’m on that committee, Mr. Mayor, and I was in the meeting
with University Hospital and they have no interest in it, they have no commitment to is,
they are just there. They are kind of put into something.
Mr. Mayor: Right. And the effect of Mr. Brigham’s motion, the substitute
motion that is on the floor will be to take them out of the process.
27
Mr. Williams: I understand. But before we take them out, my thing is why are
we taking them out? They been in there since ’71 and we going to take them out three
months before the contract ends in July. That scares me, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, Mr. Beard is on the Hospital Authority. Maybe he can clear up
some of this for us. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m not about to clear up anything. I was going to call for
a vote on this, Mr. Mayor. My problem, the thing that we have, I think we should expend
some of this energy on trying to find someone to take over the ambulance service after
December 8 and this is -- I mean December 31, and that’s what we should be working on.
It doesn’t matter with me. If they want to get out, they need to get out. They haven’t
been a player, and I’ve said this before. They haven’t been a player anyway, so I don’t
see why we are trying to hold them in. Let them go and let’s start working on something
more constructive as to what we’re going to do after this and putting some measures in
place to do that, and I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: The question is called on the substitute motion from Commissioner
Jerry Brigham, which in effect is the caption that’s in your agenda book. All in favor of
the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 54. Commissioner Bridges asked for that item.
54. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta Richmond County Code
Section 6-2-5 by adding new subparagraphs (c) and (d) to authorize the sale
of alcoholic beverages at the Golf Hall of Fame upon approval of the Sheriff
and License and Inspection Department. (Second reading - approved by
Commission March 20, 2001)
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, there was some discussion before about the proximity
to Springfield Church. Was the church contacted and made aware of this ordinance and
what was their response to that?
Mr. Strawser: Afternoon. Charlie Strawser, project director for the Georgia Golf
Hall of Fame. I did meet with Rev. Martin about 30 last Tuesday, as a matter of fact. He
understands what we’re doing over there. Rev. Martin, a very enjoyable meeting, a man
that’s very clear in his beliefs. He doesn’t drink ever, it doesn’t matter which day of the
week it is. But he also is very clear in saying that he didn’t feel it was his position or his
church’s position to interfere with what we might do. The end result of our meeting was
I agreed that we would try and be the best neighbor that we could, and he agreed that if
he ever had any problem with this, that he would call me personally and we would sit
28
down and talk about it. Since that time, we’ve already had one evening function out there
on the same night they were holding revival, and he didn’t call me. So I assume we were,
at least that night, good neighbors.
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion then, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Charlie.
Clerk:
55. Motion to approve the purchase of property located at 1115 Phillips adjacent
to the Lucy Craft Laney Museum in the amount of $16,600.00.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I move to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
56. Consider award of HND Neighborhood Grant to the Harrisburg
Neighborhood Association to assist them in their March 26 neighborhood
cleanup to cover landfill fees. (Requested by Commissioner Lee Beard)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I move for approval on that.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor please vote aye.
29
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Kuhlke: I asked Mr. Beard this. I was going up Broad Street the other day
and there were four dumpsters up there and it was horrible.
Mr. Beard: I agree with you, Mr. Kuhlke. And I think that -- I wasn’t going to
get into this, but we got it cleared up yesterday and they came in and they removed that.
I think we have to be very careful with these clean-ups from this point on. Clean &
Beautiful allowed those dumpsters to stay out there and you can -- I’ll say this for the
record -- you cannot allow dumpsters to stay overnight in those areas. Otherwise the
place that those dumpsters are located in, that place will become a dump and that is what
happened. Those dumpsters stayed out there from Wednesday, I believe, until Monday
afternoon, and you can’t allow that to happen. So from this point on, I think we ought to
be very careful about the clean-up situations and make sure they are monitored and the
requirement ought to be that those dumpsters be removed at the end of that particular day.
And if you don’t, you’re going to have that problem, and it was awful out there.
Mr. Mayor: It is a chronic problem, too, and we’ve discussed this, I know myself
over the last couple of years with Clean & Beautiful, that we’ve got to get the dumpsters
out as soon as the clean up is over. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, a solution to the dumpster dilemma which has haunted us
for years is the method we used to clean up neighborhoods utilizing our prison work
force and some of our Public works personnel. You don’t have to resegregate the waste
when it’s improperly placed in a dumpster, it saves labor and time, and they come
through and pick it up directly in front of the house, which eliminates a dumping site
within a neighborhood, and I urge the Commission to seriously consider that for future
cleanups. It works good. The citizens are happy with it. And it eliminates a dump and
additional work of having to resegregate the waste after it’s placed improperly in a
dumpster. That’s just for information, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Appreciate it.
57. Motion to approve closing of Goshen Industrial Blvd. (Deferred from the
March 20 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Item 57, this is something that Mr. Shepard has been shepherding.
Mr. Wall, do you have the status report on the quid pro quid or do we need to defer this
until the Rail Subcommittee Chairman is back with us?
Mr. Wall: The Rail Subcommittee Chairman has recommended that we proceed
with closing Goshen Industrial Boulevard. The hydro-switches, three out of the four,
30
were in as of last Thursday when I last spoke to him, and he is satisfied and asked that
this closing be approved consistent with the resolution that we adopted back in 1999.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: A second?
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I recognize the arguments for this. I’m going to
vote against the motion. It will impact several of my constituents in regards to going and
returning from work and cause them to use an alternate long route in some of their
travels. I just wanted that on the record as my purpose for voting against the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
58. Discuss the appointment of Interim Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is to discuss the appointment of the Interim Fire Chief.
I asked the Clerk to put this on the agenda today. We’ve received the resignation from
Chief Mack effective Friday of this week. We’re sorry to see him go. We certainly think
that he brought a lot to our Fire Department and we need to look ahead now that he’s
made the decision to leave and we need to take some appropriate action as to what will
happen with the Fire Department. The Chair will recognize Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m wondering if we could defer this to the Public
Safety Committee and be discussed Monday in that committee and then brought
back to the body with some recommendation?
Mr. Mayor: Absolutely.
Mr. Beard: And that could be in the form of a motion.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion and second to send this to Public Safety. Any
discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
31
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
59. Discuss the new proposed telephone area code for Augusta’s 706 region.
(Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible], go on record somehow or another saying
that we would like to retain area code 706 and also [inaudible]. I have not talked
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Is there any response?
Mr. Bridges: What do you want to do, Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] resolution --
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t you make a motion then that we -- [inaudible] see where
it goes?
Mr. J. Brigham: I move that we adopt a resolution to support retaining the
706 area code and our preference would be for seven-digit dialing.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on that motion? Mr. Kuhlke seconded that. All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard abstain.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, may I?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I just don’t know enough about what he’s talking about to vote one
way or the other. I really don’t know. I didn’t want to vote no on Mr. Brigham’s motion
so I abstain on it.
Mr. Mayor: I think the choice is that we keep the 706 and dial seven digits or we
share the area code with another area code and end up having to dial ten digits anytime
you want to make a local phone call.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, is there any --
32
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek’s hand up and then we’ll come to you, Mr. Mays. Go
ahead, Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just some brief commentary. My understanding of the
article is that there are adequate numbers available now that are unused for a period of
time that will allow us to do this, but there will be a need at some point in the future to
look at a ten-digit number, and we don’t need to close those door for the next couple of
years if we continue to grow.
Mr. Mayor: Sure. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m like Mr. Beard. I didn’t want to vote against Jerry’s
motion, either, since I lead this Commission in abstentions. I didn’t want to get another
one, but I think if there is some information that he wants to bring back or he wants a
representative of PSC to come and deal with us in some public fashion, you know, I
invite him to maybe entertaining doing that, but I think what’s going to be necessary is
that when they decide that with enough folk that we dial area code first, they going to do
that. And what we going to do, we either going to get a phone call out or we won’t get
one out. It won’t really be a hill of bean what we put forth on this Commission as a
resolution about what we think. And if you think it makes a difference, ask the counties
that are in Atlanta, in certain parts of the city, and they are dialing three different area
codes already. 404, 678 and 770. But if it’s something they can bring to us and share, I
think it would be the best thing. But we pass a resolution to tell them what to do about
area code, I mean, we got a real unforeseen power.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ve already approved the motion and so let’s move on to the
next item here. Item 60, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
60. Motion to approve the Georgia Municipal Association’s Articles of
Incorporation and Ballot. (Deferred from the March 20 Commission
meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
33
Clerk:
61. Consider request from Mr. Michael Milhaupt, First Centrum LLC for letter
of support for the proposed Phase III Augusta Spring Apartments projects.
Mr. Mayor: We had somebody here who wanted to speak to that.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor, as I understand it, Mr. Mulhaupt is here from First
Centrum and we’d asked that this be placed on the agenda. He has some material I
understand that is to be passed out, or which he might give to the Clerk for disbursement.
[inaudible] any questions you might have concerning this.
Mr. Mayor: This is where we’re just being asked to write one of those letters
saying that we support the project and there’s no financial liability on the part of the City
or anything like that. We’ve done these before, isn’t that correct.
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then -- Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, just for a point of information. Everything -- this letter in
terms of being clear to our [inaudible] as well as the impact that we have in terms of
Public Works in terms of where that’s being built in an area where we’ve got some
problems. Are those things straight? Are we the last stop on your wheel? Okay. And
I’m going to vote for it, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted -- and where the gentleman won’t think
I’m picking on him, I’m going to vote for your motion. But the last time I saw one of
these things, and the Commission didn’t want to ask what Planning thought, we built a
whole subdivision adjacent to Interstate 520 against every Planning rule in this County,
which said that no more residential growth should be built on the east Augusta side and
the only thing we needed was a support letter. HUD got it, we put it in, they are flat level
with the same elevation as a cemetery, and when the water runs out of one, it runs over
onto the other side, and we got stuck with it. And I’m not comparing that, but I just
wanted to make sure that it didn’t get to us first and had not been through our other
channels. That’s all. I can support where you’re coming from with it as long as those
things have been done.
Mr. Mayor: Isn’t there, at some point in the process for approval, that it has to be
approved by the County Engineer and the Traffic Engineer and so forth? Mr. Wall, I see
you nodding your head.
Mr. Wall: Site plan, development plan, all that goes through the normal process.
34
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, hold up a minute then. That gets me back into my
thought process then.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: Why are we acting on it first then if it needs to go to them? Maybe
they need to see it first and then come back to us to deal with it? This is how the other
one got started. We approved it and then it got [inaudible], and I don’t want to rain on
the parade of a good project, but I just think when we cast our decision on something
prior to our professional folk making a decision, then it seems to me that that’s --
[inaudible] hang-up in the site plan. Then we’ve consented to it. I’d much rather see our
folk do its sign-off on it and then when it comes back, we got -- he brings in his
presentation, we got a balance. We can ask our staff folk whether it’s in place, then we
make a decision.
Mr. Wall: I understand what you’re saying, and I acknowledge that’s what
happened with the last one. But the site plan and the other plans were brought through
the process and basically what you’re asking, being asked to do today is the concept of
these apartments out there in this area. You’re being asked to approve that in concept
only. The plans, I suspect, have not been developed, would not be developed until the
funding is in place, and then all of that would go through the normal processes.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’m so sorry, but this conversation resembles
another conversation Mr. Wall and I had. And I hate to get out your 3:30 deadline that I
said you’d get out on, but I’m just sorry, Mr. Mayor. Jim and I had this same thing we
dealt with east Augusta. Jim was sitting right where he’s sitting now. We started the
same process about a concept, Jim, and the next think you know we were in a mess down
there. The only thing I asked at that time, and the Commission, I was in the minority
then, I’ll probably be in a minority today, but we created a mess. Everything that we had
on a planning agenda said that should not be done. What I’m asking today is what does
Planning say in reference to it? You as the Attorney can’t tell me. If Planning is here to
make a statement on it, then let Planning speak. But when we get into these concepts,
Mr. Mayor, it gets us in trouble. And I just think that we ought to do the Planning part of
it, know what Planning says, get the report from staff, and this time, Jim, do it right.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go to Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make a motion that we approve this subject to
the review of the Planning Commission? Would that satisfy you, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mayor: The motion would be in order if you’d like to make it. Mr. Mays,
would that help you?
35
Mr. Mays: It always helps, Mr. Mayor, but subject to leads to consent. Why not
just do it right? Why not just follow the process that we put anybody else through? Let it
come to us in the normal flow, let it be there, we request the same thing. Is there some
deadline in terms I don’t want to block anything if you’ve got some grant money or a
loan.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from the gentleman.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] normal process. Everybody else has to deal with that.
Mr. Mayor: let’s hear from the gentleman and maybe he can give us some of that.
If you would give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Duprow: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor and members of Council. My name is
Jim Duprow. I’m Senior Vice President with First Centrum. I am here on behalf of Mike
Milhaupt, who is detained in Maryland. It is my understanding -- I’ve only been with the
company two days, so --
Mr. Mayor: Welcome.
Mr. Duprow: Mr. Mays, in response to trying to get out of here at 3:30, I’ll be as
quick as I possibly can. The petition in front of your or the request in front of you is for
our application for Georgia Housing Finance Authority Tax Credit Program. If we do not
receive the approval today of your [inaudible], our application won’t get funded, so it’s
basically as the Attorney has said. This is preliminary approval for us to begin to move
forward for our funding. From that point forward, we go through the natural process for
planning and water and sewer and storm water and everything else in the approval
process. I have brought a little brochure. I apologize for the crudeness of it, but at least it
gives you an executive summary of the project itself. This is the third phase of our
proposed development out there. The last page is a color drawing of one of our four-
story buildings. The buildings out in Augusta III will be three-story buildings, so use
your imagination a little bit [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sympathize with the gentleman and
what he’s proposing. But I need to ask a question. Why is it just coming to us today? I
mean you said if it don’t get approved by us today, then your funding will not be --
Mr. Duprow: This is just in the normal process of the application for approval.
Our applications are due April 16 and in our zeal for our approval process, our process
has always been to come through the City Council and then to move forward in the
application process.
Mr. Williams: But my question is why did it come so late? I mean you need this
th
today in order to make the 16 date; is that what you’re saying?
36
Mr. Duprow: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: So why didn’t it come before this day is my question to you.
Mr. Duprow: I believe we requested it a couple of weeks ago. To answer your
question --
Mr. Hornsby: This was the next regular meeting.
Mr. Duprow: That was your next regular meeting.
Mr. Williams: But it still came late.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Williams is asking why didn’t you send it in a month ago
or six weeks ago or something like that.
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Duprow: I wish I could answer that question for you.
Mr. Williams: My next statement is that I kind of agree with Mr. Mays, I’ve got a
constituent who had some plans at Planning & Zoning for 60 days for a barber shop and
they have not come back with that yet. We need to quit putting the wagon before the
horse. We need to do this thing right. I’ve got no problem with the project and I’m in
support of growth and everything that we can get here in this area. So it’s nothing against
the facility or your project at all, but I just think that a lot times we put our stamp on
something and that it tends to think, well, the Commission has done approved it so we got
to go ahead and do it, so they go ahead and do some things and we overlook some things.
That’s all I got to say.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, this is Phase III of a project that’s already out there.
Jim, this is not anything different than what we did a couple of weeks ago for 30901 over
in the Laney-Walker area where they were applying for tax credits prior to having any
plans whatsoever. And it seems to me that we can’t do -- we can’t go wrong in going
ahead and approving this so that he can apply for the tax credit. Otherwise, he’s going to
miss them and I don’t know when the next time comes up, but seems to me like it’s a
normal procedure that you go through.
Mr. Duprow: Mr. Mayor, if I could address Mr. Williams’ comment.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
37
Mr. Duprow: We are -- we’re not asking for anything other than just your
approval of the project itself, the development. We’re not asking for plan approval or
anything like that. Obviously that would all follow through. As you have said, you’re in
favor of our development. Then I would suggest that maybe you’re in favor of the
resolution for us to be able to go ahead and proceed with our development. It’s not
looking for anything other than just your approval, if you like what we’re planning to do
and you’re notifying the State that the City of Augusta is in favor of Phase III of the
[inaudible] development in Augusta.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor to approve this.
Mr. Bridges: I withdraw the motion.
Mr. Mayor: No, I thought we had a motion to approve -- you didn’t get a second?
Mr. Bridges: No, I didn’t get a second.
Mr. Mayor: There was an original motion to approve this. And you say you
didn’t get a second or you didn’t hear one?
Clerk: I didn’t hear one.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we had a second to that. Did we not?
Clerk: I didn’t hear one.
Mr. Mayor: I thought we had a second to the original motion.
Clerk: We did, to the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Bridges: My motion --
Mr. Mayor: That died for lack of second. So since we’ve got the original motion
on the floor, why don’t we take a vote on it. If we go in some other direction, we’ll deal
with that.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Commissioner Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I withdrew my motion. It sounds like going to Planning is going to
hold him up from getting his tax credits is what I’m hearing.
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Bridges: I mean they’re just looking at a concept thing.
38
Mr. Mayor: Let’s see where we go with the original motion and then we can deal
with it at that time if we don’t get anywhere.
Mr. Mays: A point of clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: And I’m looking for a way to vote for the gentleman’s motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: If it’s on his proposal to qualify for the tax credits, and tax credits
only, where we can get that part moving, that’s not -- I ain’t going to World War III with
him on that side of it. But if it can be included in that motion that we’re dealing with the
concept, dealing with the tax credits, but then combine that with the substitute motion
that we deal with both Planning and Zoning, and while he’s there I’d like to ask him a
question, is all your zoning intact in terms of where you’re dealing with that’s been done?
Mr. Duprow: Yes, sir. The property is currently zoned properly, yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Okay. And what I didn’t want to see you walking into is that you
mentioned some of the adjacent properties from the standpoint that we’ve had some
tremendous problems where not of your doing, but of a lot of green turning into concrete
and that excess runoff that’s in a lot of areas, get that point done with. Would you be in
agreement to such to a point that if that comes back and if our staff folk to a point see that
that’s a problem, then you also respect our decision at that point?
Mr. Deprow: Oh, absolutely. And when we submit our plans, it will be subject to
obviously your approval for all of the rainwater runoff and storm water, that type of
thing.
Mr. Mays: One suggestion I will make, cause it seems like y’all are in the master
building of doing these. While we -- what I’m looking at in terms of our housing
shortage period, in terms of that being a positive for this area, regardless of the age group
of it. I don’t want to hinder that. We need that type of thing to be done. But you know,
there needs to be some way that those of you as professionals who meet with folk who
make the decisions of putting the requirements on you, that [inaudible], I know you
haven’t been here but two days, a good suggestion would be -- and this might get you
promoted -- is if you take this back to a point that you don’t bring these things to us to a
point that it puts us in a position or any other government in a position to have to make
certain decisions where there are liable to be question marks. Because if we’ve been bit
once in some of these, then chances are you can be again. And I think where you can
[inaudible] have been good, and probably your track record of your folks helps you out.
39
Mr. Duprow: I appreciate it, Mr. Mays. I mean obviously, Mr. Mayor, I want to
get out of here just as quick as you can, and you do, too. All we’re doing is approving
the concept. Anything other than the fact that you folks are saying yes, we like what you
want to do and we support you in that.
Mr. Mays: But you understand that as hard enough to find a way to help you
today, that if it doesn’t come back that way, I try just as hard to keep you going any
further.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. Let’s move along. We’ve got a motion on the
floor. We’ll call the question. The Chair will call the question on the motion for the letter
of support for the proposed Phase III of Augusta Spring Apartment project. All in favor
of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Deprow: Thank you.
Clerk:
62. Discuss amending the Hotel/Motel Tax Ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, this is your subcommittee; right?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We met several times in trying to determine
and Mr. [inaudible] and I had the staff attorney to check into some funds. But it was --
we wanted to discuss about not amending and [inaudible] about changing some things. It
was made, point, I think it was Mr. Bridges or was it Mr. Kuhlke, made the point that
maybe we should try to extend some monies to the Augusta Museum for another month, I
think, or so, until we can resolve the financial situation we’ve got with how much money
we’ve got. But if we do that, I want to make it clear that if we do give any additional
money to the Augusta Museum, that that would be a draw down off of the money that
they would receive totally. I would hate to see them, hate to give them the impression
that whatever money they would get, if we decide to do that, that that would be that
money, then we’ll divide whatever money we go. We only have a limited amount of
money. With the Sports Council and two museums, we’re talking dividing this money
between. They need to know, they need some operating money, they said. They could
not operate with nothing. They got funds for the month of April, but they don’t have
anything for May. So I told them I was in agreement of extending it for the month of
May. I think $25,000 was the amount. Is that right, Mr. Kuhlke? And
Mr. Williams: I move that we advance the Augusta Museum $25,000 for the
month of May and that this be a draw down off of the money they would receive
totally. But whatever amount that they receive, I want it to be known, I want to
make it in the record that that would be a part of whatever money we divided, not
40
that we would come back and divide an additional amount of money, because that
would be unfair to the other entities that’s applying for the same money
.
Mr. Mayor: And you’ve made that in the form of a motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the museum has made a real effort to operate a lean staff
and facility. They operate raising money from the private sector, a very -- do a very good
job of that. It’s something that should be duplicated by our other agencies that are in that
position. But they need a bare minimum of $300,000 a year to operate. Other cities in
this state subsidize their museums, which, I might add, all museums, city museums in
every city in this country I’m sure are subsidized. None of them operate basically on the
money they take at the door or the grants. But other cities subsidize their museum of
history, which the Augusta Museum of History is for us, our historic trust for the entire
city, nearly a million dollars in some cases. At least twice as much as what we’re giving
to our museum. We need to keep the doors open. We need to keep this museum viable.
There are several other things to consider, but I hope that we will as a Commission
resolve ourselves to funding this museum throughout the year.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you wanted to speak to the motion?
Mr. Wall: Well, I just wanted to be sure we understood what the motion was and
carried it out. As the ordinance is currently written, only $100,000 has been included to
go directly to the museum during the year 2001. That’s $25,000 a month for the first four
months. If we extend it through May, then you’re exceeding the $100,000. That $25,000
would come out of the money that spills over, so to speak, under the CVB to be
reprogrammed. So if I’m understanding it, you’re asking that there be an additional
$25,000, it would come out of the money that would otherwise go to the CVB to be
reprogrammed, and then y’all would look insofar as whether you wanted to extend the
funding beyond May. Is that -- is that stated correctly?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Wall, that’s the overflow, that’s where the money is
going to come from. But I do want the stipulation put in that whatever money they get, if
they get $25,000 and we decide, because we only have a limited amount of money,
Commissioner Cheek said they need a bare minimum of $300,000. We only have
$300,000 to begin with. There is no way unless there is some money hidden somewhere
else that we don’t know about that we can give them $300,000. There just ain’t no way
to do that. We’ve got the Sports Council, the Laney Museum, and the Augusta Museum
to consider. And my thought was that we would put a cap of a five year term where we
41
can see what kind of grant programs or what kind of private funds or what kind of
donations they was getting from other entities to try and help them along. We understand
that they would never stand on their own and be totally self-sufficient, but at the same
time we’ve got to be -- we got to understand the Sports Council and there’s other
facilities in this city that people come to see other than the Augusta Museum. We’ve
been supporting the Augusta Museum for some twenty years now and it will never be
self-sufficient where it stands on its own. But whatever money that we get, whether it be
the over-spill you spoke of, we give them $25,000 and we end up splitting $300,000 three
ways, they already received $25,000 of that $100,000 if that’s what that it. So I want to
make that a part of the record so that they be under the impression of what we’re doing
and not expecting anything different from that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to support the motion that is on the floor
cause I think it solves an immediate problem for a couple of months. But I wanted to
speak to the original purpose of the motel-hotel money and that was to allow a
subcommittee of the CVB and the government and business leaders to distribute that
money to events that bring tourism to Augusta, being measured primarily by overnight
stays. That being the case, the Sports Council will be taken care of through that. That’s
where they should apply for the money, is the hotel-motel money because sports is the
primary even that generates overnight stays in this city, as opposed to any other. So that
will solve the sports events and Sports Council’s concerns in regards to money and their
application for that approximate -- that money that’s acquired through the motel-hotel
tax. That will leave us having to find the funding for the various museums that might be
proposed. My comment on this is, the reason I give that background, is I hope next year
we’ll use the one percent motel-hotel money for what it was originally intended. It was
not originally intended to fund museums to the tune of $300,000. I hope we will move
back to what it was originally supposed to be for and look to funding the Museum
through other sources if that need be. I really believe this year we’re probably going to
come back and hit the one percent to keep the Museum open, even after this motion, but
I’m going to support the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say that I talked with Barry Smith at the
CVB. I’ve talked with Tammy Stout. The money, the one percent money to the
different organizations, roughly $150,000 has already been committed for this year.
They have $300,000 set aside for the Augusta Museum for one more year. The Board of
the CVB, the Sports Council would have no problem if we amended the ordinance that
we presently have to extend the contract with the Museum for one more year. The
conversation that we had, as Mr. Williams has put on the floor, is to do it for one month.
Very frankly, we’re just fooling ourselves cause all we’re going to do is be back here in
another month. I don’t think Mr. Williams and I can find all the money we need to find
to do everything that needs to be done in 30 days. I’d like to make a substitute motion
that we amend the ordinance that was amended last year, Jim, I guess, and change the
42
date for calendar year 2000 to calendar year 2001, if I’m correct, and then that Mr.
Williams’ committee, that we earnestly begin to look at ways and at the organizations
that we want to try to help within this community but make it very clear that if we can’t
identify that money, that a year from now that we’re not going to be able to help the
Augusta Museum. So I’d make that in the form of a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it for point of discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: And Bill, as I understand your motion, it’s to fund the Museum,
take that $300,000, it goes to the Augusta Museum this year. Next year, that does not
happen. All of that $450,000 or whatever is distributed by the subcommittee of the CVB
for the one percent?
Mr. Kuhlke: Right.
Mr. Bridges: And that’s part of the motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Right. And that’s not going to hinder any of the organizations that
were on the list and have been funded for this year.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I disagree with that. I
understand Mr. Kuhlke’s motion, but I disagree wholeheartedly. This year was supposed
to be, like Mr. Kuhlke stated earlier, the Augusta Museum was supposed to receive
$100,000 and that was $25,000 for four months. Now we tend to stretch our hand again
and give them another $25,000 which would not give us thirty days because they are
funded for the month of April. But the month of May, which would give us 60 days to
try and find some monies to work with those other entities as well. I think we’re being
more than fair by doing that, but we’ve got the Sports Council, the Laney Museum, and a
lot of other probably groups out there with their hand out that needing some help. And if
we turn around the give the Museum $300,000 now, that’s going to be truly unfair. And I
can’t see how we as a council can sit and consider to vote for that. I think that if we
going to extend it, they knew from the year one when they got the $300,000 and the next
year they got $200,000 and this year, 2001, they were supposed to receive $100,000.
They have received $100,000 and here we are extending even more, another $25,000 for
the month of may. But we going to amend the contract, the resolution to do that, to give
them an additional $300,000? That’s just totally unfair. I just can’t see how we can even
think about that.
43
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? We’ll vote first on the substitute
motion. That’s Mr. Kuhlke’s motion to maintain the funding at $300,000 for this year
and this year only. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard vote No.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion fails 5-2-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion as made by Commissioner
Williams, and that would be for an additional $25,000 for the month of May, and that
$25,000 would be credited back to whatever total amount is awarded the Museum this
year, whatever subsequent time. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Colclough out.
Mr. Mays not voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: All right. That takes us to item 63.
Clerk:
63. Consider the appointment of Ms. Gloria Frazier and Mr. Jackson Usry to the
Community Service Board of East Central Georgia as recommended by the
Richmond County Board of Health.
??
Ms. Nita Mulherin (Requested by Commissioner J. Brigham)
??
Mr. Dan Temple (Requested by Commissioner J. Brigham)
Mr. Mayor: Do I understand we have two positions to fill on that Board, is that
correct? Okay. The Chair will recognize Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’ve just got a point of information. Do any of these --
which of these, I understand one of them does -- our ordinance says that you can’t serve
on two County boards at the same time. How many of these people presently serve on a
board, on a County board? Do we know that?
Clerk: Ms. Mulherin serves on the DFACS Board. Mr. Usry serves on the
Coliseum but he’s a Legislative appointment.
Mr. Bridges: So that would not hinder him from -- okay.
Clerk: And I’m not aware of Ms. Frazier on any board of Mr. Dan Temple.
Mr. Bridges: And all these people are Richmond County residents?
44
Clerk: To my knowledge, yes, sir, they all filled out [inaudible] questionnaires. I
believe they’re in your books.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Andy Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a motion that we appoint Gloria Frazier
and Jack Usry to these seats.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. These are nominations.
Mr. Cheek: I nominate those two.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I was going to do that nomination, but since he’s done it --
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] County boards?
Mr. Wall: You speaking about the Coliseum Authority?
Mr. J. Brigham: No, I am talking about DFACS Board.
Mr. Wall: Well, we have appointments to the DFACS Board, and as long as we
have the appointments, the practice has been that if we make the appointment we would
not appoint individuals to multiple boards.
Mr. J. Brigham: I nominate Dan Temple for Mr. Usry’s seat.
Mr. Bridges: What was the motion there?
Clerk: He [inaudible] Mr. Usry’s seat.
Mr. Bridges: Point of information, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: Are we voting for these as a group or are we voting for them
individually?
Mr. Mayor: We have two seats. So we vote on each seat separately.
Mr. Bridges: We vote on each individual for each seat then; is that right?
45
Mr. Mayor: We’ll vote on the first seat. The first seat is -- Ms. Frazier has been
nominated for the first seat and we have no other nominations for that seat. Then Mr.
Usry has been nominated for the second seat, and we have his name in nomination and
then Mr. Jerry Brigham put another name in nomination for that seat. Are there any other
nominations from the floor? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I abstain from voting on this
item.
Mr. Mayor: The record will reflect Mr. Colclough is abstaining from this item.
All right. No other nominations. So the Chair will declare that Ms. Frazier is selected for
the first seat since there is no opposition. We don’t need to vote, do we? Okay, so the
next one, then, we’ll take them in the order they were nominated. First name is Mr. Jack
Usry. If you vote with your green light, you’re voting for Mr. Usry. We need six votes
to confirm that election.
(Vote on Gloria Frazier)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion carries 8-0.
(Vote on Jack Usry)
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: So Ms. Frazier and Mr. Usry have been appointed to those seats.
Item 64.
Clerk:
64. Consider the appointment of five (5) members to the Technical Advisory
Committee to work with Parsons Engineering on the Watershed Assessment
Project.
??
Ms. Jackie Maryak (J. Brigham)
??
Ms. Bertha Tanzymore (Mayor Young)
Clerk: This has been increased to eight seats. Mr. Hicks had passed out a memo.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, did you want to speak to this?
Mr. Hicks: Yes. As you’re well aware, [inaudible] with U.S. Infrastructure is
here on behalf of the group that is really headed up by Parsons Environmental [inaudible]
to ask for the Citizens Advisory Group and the Technical Advisory Committee, and this
is for the Technical Advisory Committee in that there was a discussion -- not a
discussion, but there is really no set number of members. They had suggested five,
anywhere from five to eight members. And these names, these members were to be
46
appointed by the Commission acting as a unit, and so to [inaudible] that out, we had
asked Parsons Environmental [inaudible] to give us a list of those organizations from
which they would look for these folks to come. And they have sent such a list, and also
there have been some names put forth. And the list that you have in front of you shows
the organizations and groups. If there is not a name by that group, it doesn’t mean that
there hasn’t been a name submitted already. It means that the person has not yet been
contacted and said yes, we will be a part of it. Now one of the items that we need to
consider is do we want these people to be Richmond County residents? If we do, then
it’s going to change -- not change, but it will affect those names that we bring before you.
I say that in that one of the people that we first contacted was a representative from the
Forestry group, and we contacted Ms. Kathy Black, who I think [inaudible] our County
Forester for some number of years, and she said that recently there had been a District
Water Quality Specialist named for this area, and this was Mr. John Colberg, and she
[inaudible] to him, but Mr. Colberg lives in Thomson, Georgia. So that right away
brought up that situation. Do we want to strictly stick to folks within Richmond County?
So I’m sure we can fill these eight positions with people within Richmond County, but
Ms. Black [inaudible] to Mr. Colberg for that reason, in that he was the District Water
Quality person.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Booer lives in Columbia County, the Sierra Club.
Mr. Hicks: He does. I was going to bring up Mr. Sam Booer. He lives in
Columbia County and he would be for the Sierra Club. But we have, we can fill this, I’m
sure, if the desire is to have the positions be strictly from Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hicks, I’ll let the Commissioners speak for themselves, but I
think it’s been the intent of this Commission to appoint people who live in Richmond
County to these advisory boards that deal with issues that directly relate to Richmond
County, and certainly that would not preclude this Board or Parsons or anyone else from
discussing any of these issues with people who live outside of Richmond County. But as
far as membership on the Board, I think this Commission has made it clear time and time
again that they’re looking for people who live in Richmond County. Mr. Beard and then
Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I know the importance of this, but I fail to understand
with 180,000 - 200,000 people in this city, that we can’t find eight people who qualify for
four positions. And I think we’ve gone over this before and I think everybody should
understand from previous meetings that this is something that may not be in stone, but
this is something that we’ve already questioned, and I believe somewhere in the
ordinance we have said this. It may not be an ordinance, but just an understanding that
only people from this county would be considered for boards, and I think we ought to
adhere to that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Jim, is there an ordinance reflecting that in the situation like this?
47
Mr. Wall: Y’all did not adopt it as an ordinance. You did adopt it as a policy on
the advisory boards that you would appoint people from the county.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, here’s my thoughts on it. I’m not going to make a
motion. I just throw the thoughts out there. There’s two boards being created here. And
one is a citizens advisory board, which every one we get to appoint, so obviously they
come from our District. This is a technical advisory board which they are actually
looking for technical expertise and knowledge. Because already one part of that board is
local, is those people that are directly affected by it in Richmond County, I really don’t
have any problem with some of the technicians coming from another area or county that
have expertise in the area of watershed and water source assessment, and whichever way
we go with it, if a majority of the board feels like they do have to come from Richmond,
we probably need to find those people ourselves to put on, you know, in this position and
move on with it, because this is water we’re talking about. It’s the watershed assessment.
We’re a little bit behind with it already and we really need to move on with these
committees.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in agreement with Mr. Bridges, but at
the same time I think that we need to look around this city. We got some good, qualified
people all over this city. I think we could find some people that’s residents of Richmond
County to be on these boards and to have those credentials, those qualifications to make
good and sound judgment. I don’t think we should have somebody who is in another city
making decisions or either advising for positions or things happening in this city. I just, I
can’t support that.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, and then the Chair is going to try to make a suggestion.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] also I’d like to nominate Jackie Maryak [inaudible]
Southeastern National Science Center [inaudible] environment position and [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have three nominations for three positions on here.
The Chair was going to suggest that since we have a list now from Mr. Hicks with
specific areas of interest that perhaps we’d take these home with us and then come back
and everyone bring their nominations to the next meeting so we can vote to fill these,
unless the desire of this Commission is to move ahead and proceed with the elections. At
least some of these people have been nominated today.
Mr. Williams: I make a motion that in the form of a motion, Mr. Mayor,
that we take these home and try and bring back some names that we can select
from.
48
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. H. Brigham: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion to bring your list
back with your names next week and we’ll vote on them, next meeting rather, please vote
aye.
Mr. J. Brigham not voting.
Motion carries 7-0.
Mr. Mayor: And it would be helpful to the Clerk, too, if you would bring with
your list the talent bank forms for the people, as Ms. Bonner keeps those in the file.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Wall: The motion was to table this until the next meeting and I think it’s a
proper motion.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right. The next item is 65.
65. Discuss changing ordinance to allow Administrator to hire/fire personnel
reporting to that position. (Requested by Commissioner Ulmer Bridges)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, after discussing this with some of my fellow
Commissioners, and out of respect to our new Administrator coming in, we’d like to have
his input in that matter, so I make the motion that we place this on the first meeting of
May.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I make a substitute motion. Because you’re just
moving dates. I think the input of the Administrator is very vital, not only on
maybe this issue but every issue that he’s going to have to face. I think he’s going to
have to first deal with his own surroundings and evaluation in terms of his
administrative team, where that is, and of looking over every aspect of this city. I
49
don’t think we ought to deal with a time table in terms of coming back with one item
to ask where the Administrator is going to be on that. I think those items that he
should be given the point of whether you want to call it a honeymoon period, period
of digestion, or whatever it might be, to bring back those items to this Commission,
whether it be item 65 or any items that are not on there, and that’s my substitute
motion, and that we want to have input and have the Administrator’s input in it,
then we have the individual open door policy to go to the Administrator and to
discuss it, rather than to place this on as a due date for the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: So your motion in effect refers this item to the new Administrator?
Mr. Mays: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: I second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Henry Brigham, you have the floor.
Mr. H. Brigham: I tend to agree with Mr. Mays [inaudible] the first meeting, to
come back with something like this until he can study the situation and then come back.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Marion Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a point of clarification for me. I kind
of somewhat disagree with moving it to another date or even having it on the agenda
period. I think our Administrator coming in, he’s got a lot of stuff to deal with and I
think as Commissioners we ought to give him our 100% support for him to make
decisions on whether to hire or fire is one thing, but we as Commissioners should have
done some things ourselves and I think if we going to support our Administrator,
whatever he recommends, I don’t think he ought to be the man [inaudible]. I think that
the ten of us ought to be up here and be men about this job and do what is necessary. If
there is a problem and he recommends something, we need to support him in doing just
what he recommends. I don’t think we ought to put that burden on him. I ask the
question a lot of times what’s the difference between a manager and an administrator.
[inaudible] administrator, we had somebody in that position. But a manager in my eyes
was someone who did all the hiring and all the firing. We as elected officials on this
board should be able to handle something. I mean we shouldn’t put all of the weight off
on the Administrator. If he suggests, if he recommends something, we need to follow his
recommendation and we need to begin and do what we supposed to do.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: We shouldn’t have to have to even do that.
50
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll have a chance to hear from Mr. Kolb and hear his
recommendations in a couple of weeks here.
Mr. Beard: Call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that refers item 65 to our new
Administrator. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: We have one item on the addendum agenda for consideration. That’s
to receive the report from the Interim Administrator on televising the Commission
meetings.
Addendum Item 1: Report from the Interim Administrator regarding television
Commission meetings.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Chair, Mr. Mayor and Commission, we are currently in the
process of evaluating exactly what it is that you want. The individuals and the sections
that I had asked to work on this particular problem, that is the issue of television, they
have reviewed the contract of both cable services and it was an indication to me that they
felt as if Comcast would be the better contract to go with in providing this service. The
issues now are whether you want something to be panned around in here, whether there is
going to be fixed camera in which you show everything, and I had also asked that they
look into the possibility, if they going to pick up both the video and the audio feeds from
this area, that we could also do some streaming and go into the internet to be able to hear
those things. Currently there is a [inaudible], the individual had to go out of town, but I
think the [inaudible] will be forthcoming. And I’ll say this. I think it will be forthcoming
in a manner in which you will have a choice of which way you want to go and hopefully
along with the cost. As a side issue, we also indicated to them, and I think that it was
done, that [inaudible] look at the city of Columbus, who I understand also does
televising of their meetings and stuff. The idea also for informational purposes was
brought back. At times we might not be having a meeting and maybe you want one of
those meetings shown at certain times during the day that we would be able to allow that
particular feed out to utilize the other services within this government, to use that
particular feed out, such as your [inaudible] --
Mr. Mayor: Infomercial, is that what you’re talking about? No.
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: We’re just trying to get a meeting on there. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I would suggest that Mr. Hornsby bring back complete proposals to
us and let us select one.
51
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for that interim report, Mr. Hornsby. It’s quite
interesting. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] I’m understanding maybe from Mr. Hornsby, if we don’t
have a meeting there may be a block of time set aside for us to use?
Mr. Hornsby: [inaudible] a dedicated channel. This all is being explored. You
may have a dedicated channel in which we can use. If it’s a dedicated channel, then
anything in government can be shown, and I think it’s going to be a matter of
programming [inaudible] cost is.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to comment on this. Allow me to get out of the
traditional box. That would be an excellent idea for training, for safety, to have all of our
employees across the city accessible to maybe training information or something from
this City. Public information. Whenever we don’t use the channel, that would be an
excellent way for us to get information out to a lot of people.
Mr. Mayor: Those are some things Mr. Hornsby can explore and bring back the
cost associated with each of those. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m going to agree with Mr. Beard that Mr. Hornsby needs to
bring us a price for cable. I can understand what Commissioner Cheek has said about
training and being able to use that designated channel, but right now we’re talking about
there are certain segments or certain parts of this government that’s shown on the evening
news or maybe in the daily paper. But if we had a cable station that our constituents can
see the entire session that we have, it would be a great help to a lot of people who are not
able to get out there to see. And then the whole story rather than part of the story. I’m in
agreement again with Mr. Beard. If Mr. Hornsby can report back to us on our next
meeting as to some prices as to some [inaudible] whatever cable company that handles
this for us.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, and then we’ll --
Mr. Mays: Just two quick comments. One, I think, would be a good starting
point if we could just get a [inaudible] price on what was being done prior to it being
stopped, as to what the resumption of that would cost us, you know. And I know it was
not [inaudible] but I’m saying that if it was dropped to a point and the argument was that
we needed sponsorship to do it, then I think we need to get back to that maybe at least as
a starting point. Get a dollar figure on that. The second thing is while I think the
technical side of that is good and the Administrator is working with our Information folk
in doing that in terms of expanded things that go on there, that’s an excellent idea, but I
52
thought somewhere in the process, Mr. Mayor, that the Attorney was to explore where we
were in the franchise agreements where we were dealing with cable and the provisions in
there for public access and public service to see if there were provisions in there that this
could be a part of that in terms of where we signed on agreement with [inaudible]. I
thought that was something that was supposed to be part of that agreement to be brought
back in this talk that we were doing.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Wall is going to include that with Mr. Hornsby’s report.
Mr. Wall: I was asked to provide the information concerning the franchise
agreements to members and I did. That was my understanding of what I was supposed to
do, but I’ll be glad to get into it further.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] but I’m just saying when you explained it you talked about
the technical side and where they were and I didn’t hear anything in reference to the
agreement that we’re already in in which certain services are to be provided and whether
or not we can spell that out, whether certain other entities in the general public can spell
that out, where we stood from a legal position in terms of doing that.
Mr. Mayor: I think it’s important to note, too, that cable TV does charge by the
minute, so we need to be judicious about the time we spend in these meetings. Mr. Wall,
you have a couple of items?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] dog and pony show, Mr. Mayor, it might be the most
sponsored program in America. [inaudible]
Mr. Bridges:On Item 27, Lena
Point of parliamentary information, Mr. Mayor.
has pointed out to me I failed to clarify that part of my motion there should have
been for Doug and Drew to remain with Engineering and Public Words until such
time as those positions are filled. I failed to make that clear in the motion.
Mr. Mayor: I think the intent was clear, though.
Mr. Bridges: If there is no objection, I’d like that clarified and to be
considered part of that motion.
I don’t know how to do that parliamentary, Jim. That’s
why I’m asking for information.
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: I think the Commission has made it clear in earlier discussions of
these positions in Public Utilities that the folks from Public Works are not coming over
until their successors were hired.
Mr. Wall: My recommendation is that you make a motion at his time to deal with
that and vote that up or down in conjunction with Item 27.
53
Mr. Bridges: Could we add that item to the agenda then so that we could discuss?
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding that item to the agenda? None heard.
Mr. Bridges: And I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Williams: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, just a point of clarification. What is that date?
Mr. Bridges: Whenever those positions are filled in Public Works.
Mr. Mays: So the date is whenever?
Mr. Bridges: That’s right.
Mr. Bridges: And the mad rush, and I guess my question would be I’m not
[inaudible] Utilities Director to a point that I guess we’re back where we were six weeks
ago then on both departments? The folk that are there, they’re back in place in Public
Works and Max is to do what then? Is he to readvertise and find him some new
[inaudible] or wait [inaudible].
Mr. Bridges: [inaudible] this is strictly to protect Public Works.
Mr. Mays: My point, I think, maybe [inaudible] clear something then, because
they’re sharing two sets of folk indefinitely and the answer to my question was what date,
and he said whenever. You know.
Mr. Bridges: The heart of the motion is when those positions are filled in Public
Works.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair recognizes Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I’d like Mr. Hicks to explain, are these people doing work and I think
I asked this earlier. Are they [inaudible] doing work here?
Mr. Hicks: The main person who has been coming and looking into some things
over at the Utilities Department has been the Assistant Director over Engineering and
Construction. We have been including him in on some planning that we’re doing.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]?
Mr. Hicks: No. He’s not really engaged in doing any work.
54
Mr. Beard: He’s coming into Utilities and [inaudible] work?
Mr. Hicks: No. The only thing we’re involving him in is he will have a division
to run. So consequently we felt that he should be [inaudible] say-so I how that division is
made up and what goes on.
Mr. Beard: Who are we talking about?
Mr. Hicks: Mr. Cheek. Doug Cheek. So far as Mr. [inaudible] is concerned, we
hadn’t involved him in any of that yet because there hasn’t been any [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: But you are involving Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Hicks: Yes. Insofar as he’s not doing any work but he’s involved.
Mr. Beard: How can you say you’re involving him and he’s not doing any work?
Mr. Hicks: We’re involving him in the planning process but not in actually
carrying out the day-to-day work.
Mr. Beard: But he can’t be two places at one time, can he?
Mr. Hicks: He cannot.
Mr. Beard: So if he’s coming up there -- that answered my question at the
beginning, you’re doing dual work.
Mr. Hicks: I guess that gets into an opinion, Commissioner. I don’t call it dual
work. It’s rather just engaging him in something [inaudible] engage Mr. George Kolb. In
other words, Mr. Kolb is going to be managing and looking over portions of the city, all
of it really, so you’d like to have him involved in --
Mr. Beard: That’s what he’s hired for.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir. And insofar as Doug Cheek is concerned, he’s fulfilling his
duties in the Public Works Department. We have not taken him away from any of those
duties. The only thing we’ve involved him in is if there is certain organizational structure
that we’re going to do, certain persons, certain positions, we’ve involved him in those
considerations inasmuch as he’s going to be managing those folks. But that’s the only
involvement we’ve had. He still wears the Public Works hat.
Mr. Beard: I just think it’s wrong. I didn’t agree with the first motion that Mr.
Bridges made and I don’t quite agree, and this was the reason that I didn’t agree with it
because I know, it has been my understanding that these people were doing whatever you
want to call it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s dual work in the department, and I just don’t
think that’s fair to Public Works, and as I said earlier, you know, [inaudible] percent of
55
their time to Public Works, then what we’re doing up here is a farce and that’s what I
believe it to be because we’re not requiring them to do 100% and I don’t think you can
require them to do 100% of work in there.
Mr. Hicks: The amount of time that is involved with the Assistant Director over
Engineering and Construction was, I believe, 120 days and that was from, I think about a
month ago. So that would still leave three months for that position to be filled and I don’t
know whether the Director of Public Works thinks she can fill that position in three
months or not. And then insofar as the Assistant Director over Water Production, that
position had a [inaudible] delay --
Mr. Beard: Max, I think all of us understand with a P.E. it’s going to be very
difficult, the box that we’ve put her in, to achieve that goal. We all understand that up
here. So if we’re talking indefinite situations, Cheek and whatever the other fellow’s
name is, they be there for -- Drew Goins may be there forever because this is an
indefinite type thing we’re talking about. Until she can fill it. And we know we’ve put
her in the box where it’s going to be very difficult for her still.
Mr. Hicks: Perhaps I heard the motion wrong. All I heard was that those position
would have to be brought to the Commission if you were going to do anything other than
10% above the entry, and that those positions could be brought before the Commission --
Mr. Beard: I don’t think [inaudible] heard it right.
Mr. Hicks: I thought that was --
Mr. Beard: Attaching a P.E. onto it.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me hear the motion. Be re-read and then recognize
Chairman Bridges, then Mr. Cheeks, and then Mr. Colclough. In that order.
Clerk: [inaudible] with the stipulation of 10% above the entry level for the
Assistant Director and that that position be required to have a P.E. license. So it just
authorizes her to hire that position, 10% above the entry level.
Mr. Mays: Which is standard procedure at this point anyway. Commissioner
Bridges and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the only thing I want to
point out, all I’m trying to do here is to make sure hopefully those positions will be
fulfilled in line with the 120 and the 60 or 90 days, whatever it was originally. If we do
not -- if the Commission does not want to pass this motion, then what’s going to happen
is Doug and Drew will be over in Max’s department in a matter of 90 days, 120 days,
whatever the motion, the original motion was when we approved those salaries. And my
thinking was to, in order to protect Public Works, that it would be best that we hold them
in that position until such time as these positions are filled, but not deny them that
56
position in Utilities, in Max’s department, when the Public Works positions are filled. So
I would encourage you to support the motion to approve that.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mays. My concern is that we are not being realistic
in that we are not going to get a P.E. for the 10% above of the bottom line on that and
that we’re going to see another situation where we market this job and we don’t get very
many, if any, responses based on the salaried paid, the wage and the benefits package that
I’d like to make a substitute motion that we go back
we are allotting, and at this time,
and adopt the original recommendations made by the Director of Public Works.
Clerk: To reconsider item 27.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Move that we reconsider that item.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second for reconsideration on the item. I’m
going to first recognize Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: I just need to find out from Mack. You know, Mr. Cheek is
working for a department. Was that an agreement between you and the Director over in
Public Works?
Mr. Hicks: It would really get into how you interpret what the Commission’s
intent was. And if it’s the Commission’s intent that he not do anything in Utilities, then
we’ll certainly abide by that. We believed it was the Commission’s intent that he be fully
employed by Public Works and carry out all his functions there, however it was to be
transition period. I thought that was the language in the original motion some while
back, that there was to be a transition period. And in the transition period, while we were
working in Utilities to position ourselves for these folks to come over, he would still be
functioning in Public Works in his full capacity. That’s the way we interpreted transition.
And if that was an erroneous interpretation, then we certainly can just hold back and do
whatever the Commission wishes.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] getting old and my old age, but I don’t remember a
transition period. I remember a 120 day period, that they would transfer over to you. I
don’t remember a transition period [inaudible] like that. But my point was, just a simple
question, was there a mutual agreement between you and the other Director that this
gentleman would transition [inaudible]? I just ask the question.
Mr. Hicks: I would say yes. Ms. Smith would have to respond to that. I
interpreted it as a transition. Did you interpret that that same way?
57
Ms. Smith: Actually the transition that we discussed was, the way I recall it, it
didn’t have anything to do with a transition from -- of employees from the Public Works
Department to the Utilities Department. The purpose of the transition period was to give
an opportunity for the Assistant County Engineer to be hire and Mr. Cheek to have a time
period to turn over or transition those duties and responsibilities that he currently had to
that Assistant County Engineer person. The reason we went forward with the Assistant
County Engineer versus the County Engineer in that transition period is because the
advertisement for the Assistant County Engineer position was already in place, closed on
January 30, and we were going to be entering into the interview period. The interview
process. At that time. And we felt that we would be able to get that person on board in a
timely fashion. That’s part of what prompted this particular agenda item in the first
place, which was that had we had the authority to advertise the full range and move
forward with negotiating, we feel that we possibly could have had qualified candidates
that we would have been having discussions with, to have an Assistant County Engineer
in place as we speak. Unfortunately everyone that applied for or held out through the
interview process that was interested in the Assistant County Engineer position was
already at a salary level that was above midpoint. But I hadn’t had any conversation with
Mr. Hicks nor Mr. Cheek about him doing any actual work over in Utilities. Mr. Cheek
did make me aware that they were doing some interviewing over there and that because
Mr. Hicks had a limit to the number of engineering professionals on board that could
evaluate other engineers, that he was lending his expertise in that area, but I wasn’t
familiar with any plan or any other activities that were going on.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Let me ask this question. Mr. Wall, while we got two
departmental people here that work very well together and we got a lot of money that
they got to say grace over on top of both their plates, in terms of -- and I don’t know
what’s going to come from either one of these motions on the floor -- but is there
anything that, if there anything legal that legally prohibits about moving on with the
motion, in terms of what the original motion was [inaudible] Public Works Director? Do
we need to discuss that now, and if so, I think that our first order of business needs to be
so that they don’t get disrupted with where they are and gets them to some dealing point
where Max gets his folks, Ms. Smith is able to advertise, do we then need to be able to
fast track so that the HR Director, the new Administrator, the current Interim
Administrator go ahead and be able to bring us something that does change where we
deal with policy or change the ordinance in there so that it can be legally movable in
order to go in and expedite that, if the votes are there to pass that?
Mr. Wall: The simple answer is no, there’s nothing illegal about any of the
positions that you’re taking because -- and you’ve got a Public Works employee who is
doing work in the Utilities Department. If you had a reverse situation you might
conceivably have a problem if you were using bond money to pay one of the employees.
So you don’t have a legal problem from that standpoint. You do have a policy issue
insofar as the 10% above entry level, and in essence I gather the intent of the substitute
58
motion is to waive that policy insofar as these positions are concerned. But that, there’s
nothing illegal about any of the motions that are on the floor.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: So the motion is in order [inaudible]. What I was
suggesting before [inaudible] might be good, since this is going to be an ongoing issue
and needs to be put to rest at some point. If it’s going to be waived, then at some point,
gentlemen, while our HR director is working on this, and obviously she has [inaudible] to
do that. I think Walter, you and I had a discussion about this. [inaudible] Mr. Kolb have
input in there. I think maybe it might help if that motion because I don’t think we need to
go through this [inaudible]. We are circumventing policy per se. And I [inaudible] to a
point of where it’s brought up in terms of one [inaudible], and that’s [inaudible] in a
precarious position of being able to attract, whether it’s Max, Teresa or anybody else.
The Administrator is going to have that problem, too, in terms of being able to hire
[inaudible], bringing them on, if this is not soon resolved. And I think maybe that issue
needs to be brought to the table and possibly could even be fast-tracked in the motion
you’ve got to deal with [inaudible] today but at the same time, bring that one on to the
table quickly and deal with it. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: The only think that I want to point out associated with the motion is
that in Public Works when we were attempting to fill our [inaudible] Manager position, it
took us one year to get somebody in place. With Mr. Hicks moving forward with the
Assistant Director’s position, I believe his reorganization was approved in September,
and it was February before we got somebody in place. Considering that we were
attempting to deal with a short turnaround, the only purpose of the agenda item was to
decrease the approval time. It was not an intention to revise policies, to circumvent
policies, but a more efficient way to accomplish the task that was set out for Public
Works, and me as the Director of Public Works, which was to backfill those positions in
an expeditious manner to allow the Utilities Department to move forward with the
activities that the people being promoted into those positions would have, as well as to
not allow the activities of the Public Works Department to linger, because we were still
working on filling vacant positions. That was the only purpose. And we know from the
salaries, the compensation that the individuals have that the likelihood that we’re going to
be looking to hire someone at about that same range is there. We know that from the
information that Mr. Hicks brought recently. We know that from the activities that we
went through with the Assistant Director of Utilities, back before they organized, and
then in light of the fact that we added additional requirements to the Assistant Director
position, with those additional certifications and licensing comes additional
compensation. That was the only purpose is bringing that forward, which was because
the task was to do it in an expeditious manner and this was an opportunity to cut some
time out.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Hornsby and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mays and Commissioners, I think that I should -- I think
Public Works has done an extremely good job. The reason why we ask again that this
come forward and we be able to advertise it and go in at 10% above midpoint was to try
59
to reduce some of the workload that’s being done out there. I want to thank Teresa.
There has not been a replacement out there yet, even for her. But the thing is we’re
trying to move and move expediently in order to try to get her mission accomplished.
And I think that this is the reason it’s been prompting us to come forth and ask
permission to go to 10% above midpoint, and we thought it only fair [inaudible], they can
advertise at that point and they can get somebody in here to try to help the workload out.
That’s all I have to say.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mays, thank you. Gentlemen, I think we can prolong and put
this decision off like we’ve done a lot of things. But the fact is we’re going to get a
report back in a month, a week or whenever with the same thing, we cannot hire
somebody with a [inaudible] at 10% above the bottom of the range. I urge you to go
ahead today and let’s go ahead and adopt these recommendations from our Department
Head and move on to other issues.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to hear from Rev. Williams and Rev. Hicks and
we going to wrap it up.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Ms. Smith, the
two people you are going to replace are the two people that supposed to go over to Mr.
Hicks’ department?
Ms. Smith: Two of the people that are included in this agenda item, yes. Now we
also need to take into consideration that the Solid Waste Manager has resigned. He has
left. So in addition, that is also included in this agenda item.
Mr. Williams: Let me try to get to these first two.
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Now the two that we’re talking about now, one got a P.E. and one
does not, going over to Utilities.
Ms. Smith: Utilities, yes.
Mr. Williams: And the two people that you going to try and replace, we’re
talking about leaving this department and going to his department, one got a P.E. and one
don’t; right?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: And we talking about hiring one with a P.E. and one without;
right?
Ms. Smith: Well, based on Mr. Bridges’ motion, one with a P.E. and one with --
60
Mr. Williams: And we paying those people to come out of the department, one
with a P.E. and one without whatever that is. $65,000. Why don’t -- it just as important
to me to move water in front of somebody’s door as it is to get water to somebody’s
faucet, so why can’t we go ahead and get the same salary, we talking about a Assistant
Director, we talking about the same qualifications, why can’t we go ahead and do the
same thing that we doing in Utilities? Somebody? Anybody? If that what the hold-up is.
We keep saying we can’t get anybody for 10% over it, we move those people and we
went over 10%, why can’t we hire [inaudible] get somebody cause we going to have to
change it anyway? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, can I make a motion?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: No, sir. Any motion at this point other than an amendment
to one on the floor would be totally out of order and I’m going to recognize Rev. Hicks
and we going to move on to that substitute motion. First we got to deal with
reconsideration and it’s got to be voted up or down.
Mr. Hicks: Gentlemen, I can fully support what has been said thus far and that is
from our experience in trying to attract people with Professional Engineer certification as
well as a degree. You are really going to be looking in the $65,000 to $70,000 range, if
not a little more. This is what we run into, particularly if you go outside the city to hire.
The main difficulty we ran into was the fact that both of ours came from within and it
created some difficulty with policy. But I can fully support what Ms. Smith is saying,
and that is for her to be able to hire somebody with the qualifications that she wants,
you’re going to be looking at that range. And all she’s asking is that she be allowed to do
that without having to come back and go through the presentation again. And I can
support that. I mean I kind of wish I had taken that tack, but I didn’t and so here we are.
But that’s what we’re really looking at, is that Ms. Smith is going to be looking at folks in
the same range that we were looking at; it’s just that you’ll give her advance permission
to do it. I have no problem with that. Not in any sense. It will be good. It will shorten
the process by at least two to three weeks, because she will able to select the person and
then not have to come back. So I’m fully supportive of what she’s trying to do. And like
I say, it is a way to do it and it really will then let her get people in the range she’s
looking it. I just wish I had taken that approach.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: [inaudible] call for the motion. We need to get the
reconsideration motion voted on first, cause I think we going to move on to something
very quickly still dealing with the motion that’s on the floor. There being no discussion.
All in favor of the motion, do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same. For
reconsideration.
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Bridges and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Gentlemen, we’re at a point now of reconsideration.
[inaudible], I’m going to recognize both of them first. I’m going to go to the end up. He
had his hand up in the prior discussion. Mr. Colclough and then Mr. Jerry Brigham.
61
Mr. Colclough: Gentlemen, [inaudible], hire professional people to come in and
stick with this government for any period of time, we have to pay them. You’re not
going to get a person who goes to school for five years, [inaudible] as an engineer, and
come in and work for the kind of money we’re offering. If we are going to get some
professional people, we might as well as go ahead and give these people at least $70,000
to come in here. I would support that and I think if we’re going to [inaudible]
professional, cause we got all kind of professional people running away from here like
mice, and we got to do something to attract some people and keep people, and we have to
pay them and that’s just the bottom line to is. If we’re going to hire people [inaudible]
not have the credentials, then we can keep it at the $50,000 level. But if you’re going to
bring somebody in on the street and want to attract some good folk, I think we have to
pay them. [inaudible] two people over that was here $65,000 and we going outside
[inaudible] professional [inaudible] with license, we need to pay them at least $70,000.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] I think what we need to do is pay our Assistant
Directors [inaudible] in both Public Works and Utilities and get on with it. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: The [inaudible] recognize Mr. Beard, while we were talking
and during discussion, from [inaudible] our Attorney as well as the newly-elected
Administrator, I can’t dictate from the Chair, but I hope a motion will be forthcoming
that is inclusive to deal with this situation today but that allows the Administrator, in
conjunction with provisions that are in place, with a [inaudible] to be able to set forth
some standards, bring some proposed changes to us, that will not only deal with this
situation regarding this entry level versus midpoint, but also where I think every
Commissioner is interested that also feels that the penalty that some who work for us for
long years, and I’ve used the expression many times that some folk would be [inaudible]
if they just quit and reapply because of a situation that was there, that was one that some
had been penalized as well, so I think the Administrator has [inaudible] bring back to us
[inaudible] doing it and I would hope that we could get this situation down today, but I
think this would get us out of the point where the monkey is totally on the [inaudible]
different department head [inaudible], may look as though you’re pitting them one
against the other, give the Administrator that discretion along with HR to bring back their
proposal some way of remedying this and get that penalty [inaudible] off our back and be
able not just get to the point of waiving something that’s there but of being able to set a
policy that we can act on. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, I’m going to make a motion that we accept
the recommendation as printed in the book and that we also give our leeway to the
new Administrator to work with them and form some type of plan for future
development of salaries on a more adequate basis.
Mr. Williams: Second.
62
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. I think it goes toward solving two
particular issues. The one we’re dealing with today. [inaudible] Mr. Hicks’ department
[inaudible] and give the Administrator that leeway to be able to come back to us very
soon with some recommended changes to get us out of this [inaudible]. There’s a motion
and a second. Is there any discussion on that that is on the floor? If not, all in favor of
the motion will do so by the usual sign. Any opposed, the same.
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Where are we at now?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I recognize briefly Mr. Cheek. I want to get the
Administrator downstairs so he can shake hands with a few folks in this building and I
want to beat the employees out of here. Go ahead, Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, it’s just unconscionable for me to see us sit for
two weeks possibly without an Interim Fire Chief. I’d like to move that we reconsider
Item 58.
Mr. Williams: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There’s a motion. And a second. Let me ask a question
before I go ahead. Jim, are there any items you’ve got to bring us up on?
Mr. Wall: Two items. One might invoke a little discussion, the other would not.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Since Bob done gone, what kind of discussion is it?
[inaudible]. The floor recognizes Commissioner Jerry Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: I move we adjourn.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and a second for adjournment. Substitute motion
would take precedence. The Attorney has stated that the legal items can wait and the
motion and second for adjournment takes precedence, to be voted on up or down.
Mr. Beard: Call for the question.
Mr. Cheek: Point of clarification. What happened to the motion to reconsider?
63
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: He made a substitute motion for adjournment and that takes
precedence of that.
Mr. Cheek: Demonstrating a great deal of leadership today, gentlemen.
Mr. Beard: I called for the question, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem.
Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion for adjournment, do so by the
usual sign. The Chair votes the same.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
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 April 3, 2001.
Clerk of Commission