HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-17-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
April 17, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:06 p.m., the Honorable
Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members 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 Hawkins.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
Acknowledge receipt of and express our thanks for a $20,000 grant from
Georgia Managers' Council, International Paper Company. The Grant will be
used in the urban forest program to replace trees removed from the Broad
Street corridor. Additionally, a portion of the funds will be used to develop an
education program about the urban forest for use in local schools.
Mr. Shepard: I move we receive this as information.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
RESOLUTIONS OF CONDOLENCES:
A. Ratify Resolution of condolence for the late Mr. James "Jim" Calvin,
Executive Director of the Georgia Municipal Association.
B. Resolution of condolence for the late Mr. Miller Meyer, former Director
of Richmond County Human Resources and License & Inspection
Departments.
Mr. Shepard: I move these be approved.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
PLANNING:
2
1. Z-01-19 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jim
Reeves, on behalf of Richard Boyd, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a church per Section 26-1(a) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on
the southwest corner of the intersection of Busbia Avenue and
Kissingbower Road. DISTRICT 5
2. Deleted from consent agenda.
3. Z-01-21 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with a condition that
the tower shall be monopole construction; a petition from E. Allen
Richardson, Jr., on behalf of Charles E. Willis, Jr., requesting a Special
Exception to establish a telecommunication tower per Section 28-A-6 of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Clark Road,
560 feet, more or less, west of the northwest corner of the intersection of
Clark Road and Mike Padgett Highway. DISTRICT 8
4. Planning petition deleted at the request of the Planning Commission.
(April 12, 2001)
5. Z-01-24 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with a condition that
an approved rear parking lot plan be implemented before a certificate of
occupancy is issued; a petition from Amy Keller Willis requesting a
change of zoning from Zone R-1A (Single-family Residential) to Zone P-1
(Professional) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of
Lumpkin Road, 110 feet east of the southeast corner of the intersection of
Shelby Drive and Lumpkin Road. (2442 Lumpkin Road) DISTRICT 8
6. Z-01-25 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Jerry
Howland requesting a change of zoning from Zone L-I (Light Industrial)
to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
southwest corner of the intersection of Broad Street and Perkins Street.
(1652, 1654, 1656, and 1658 Broad Street) DISTRICT 1
7. Deleted from consent agenda.
8. Z-01-27 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
David S. Wilkin, on behalf of Walter L. Shropshire, requesting a change
of zoning from Zone A (Agricultural) and Zone R-1 (Single-family
Residential) to Zone L-I (Light Industrial) affecting property located on
the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett Highway, 1,340 feet, more
or less, southeast of a point where the southeast right-of-way line of 4-H
Club Road intersects the southwest right-of-way line of Mike Padgett
Highway. DISTRICT 8
9. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition to consider amending
3
the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance: Section 2 (General
Definitions), Section 3 (Area and Setback Requirements), Section 4 (Off
Street Parking and Loading), Section 5 (Nonconforming Uses), Section 8
through 13 R-1 (One-family Residential) Zone, Section 14 R-MH
(Manufactured Home Residential), Section 15 R-2 (Two-family
Residential) Zone, Section 16 R-3A (Multiple-family Residential) Zone,
Section 17 R-3B (Multiple-family Residential) Zone, Section 18 R-3C
(Multiple-family Residential) Zone, Section 20 P-1 (Professional) Zone,
Section 21 B-1 (Neighborhood Business) Zone, Section 22 B-2 (General
Business) Zone, and Section 23 LI (Light Industrial) Zone. The proposed
changes include the following subjects: corrections for clarification,
removal of special setbacks reflecting completed transportation
improvements, modification of fence regulations in various zones,
modification of building setback regulations in multiple-family residential
zones, and the modification of permitted uses in P-1, B-1, and B-2 zones
.
FINANCE:
10. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 and the
wireless enhanced 911 charges. (Approved by Finance Committee April 9,
2001)
11. Deleted from consent agenda.
12. Motion to approve the request to allow Paine College and Gracewood
State School and Hospital to purchase two used Ford Crown Victorias for
one dollar each. (Approved by Finance Committee April 9, 2001)
13. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Crown Victoria Automobile
for the District Attorney from Bobby Jones of Augusta, Georgia for
$21,207.80 (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-135). (Approved by Finance
Committee April 9, 2001)
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Agricultural Tractor for
Utilities Department – Construction Division from Interstate Equipment
Company of Thomson, Georgia for $21,990.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-
058). (Approved by Finance Committee April 9, 2001)
15. Motion to approve the purchase of two (2) Air Compressors for Utilities –
Construction Division from United Rentals of Augusta, Georgia for
$11,050.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-059). (Approved by Finance
Committee April 9, 2001)
16. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Forklift for Utilities
Department – Raw Water Division from Dougherty Equipment Company
of Augusta, Georgia for $18,346.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-060).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 9, 2001)
17. Motion to approve the purchase of One (1) Agricultural Tractor for Bush
Field – Operations from Meeks Tractor of Louisville, Georgia for
$41,325.06 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-063). (Approved by Finance
Committee April 9, 2001)
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
4
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve the renewal of Public Official Liability Coverage.
(Approved by Administrative Services April 9, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES;
20. Deleted from consent agenda.
21. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Chapter 8-4, "Trees" to
clarify fence height, curbing in parking lots, counting handicap parking
spaces and also establishing protection for existing and planted trees.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
22. Motion to approve payment to University of Georgia Research
Foundation, Inc. Savannah River Ecology Laboratory for continuation of
aerial bird surveys since May, 2000 at $75,748.00 annually. (Funded by
Account No. 507043420-5212115/89644340-5212115) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
23. Motion to approve payment in the amount of $34,960.75 to Blair
Construction, Inc. for emergency repairs to the storm sewer line, sanitary
th
sewer line and roadway at a cave-in at 8 Street and Reynolds Street.
(Funded by Utilities Department Account No. 506043410-5222330 and
Public Works Account No. 323041110-296823081) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
24. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $57,635.00 to
Graves Environmental Services for additional work to be completed at
the wells located in the Spirit Creek basin (Funded Acct #
508043410/5425110). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
April 9, 2001)
25. Motion to approve Change Order #1 in the amount of $56,253.00 to Aqua
South Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the raw
water transmission mains vault and surge tank area. (Funded Acct #
508043410/5425110). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
April 9, 2001)
26. Motion to approve a proposal from Montgomery Watson in the amount of
$67,224.00 to provide professional services to include the analysis of the
Butler Creek interceptor at current and future conditions for analytical
results for the interceptor extension. (Funded by Account Number
509043420/5212115 80150126/5212115) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 9, 2001)
27. Motion to approve a proposal from ZEL Engineers, Inc. in the amount of
$267,595 to provide professional services on a project to Upgrade the Raw
Water Pumping Capabilities. (Funded by Account Number 509043410-
5212115/80110250-5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee April 9, 2001)
28. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement to W. R. Toole Engineers,
Inc. in the amount of $29,800 for engineering services to extend
5
improvements to Old Louisville Road. Approve Capital Project Budget
(CPB#323-04-296823516) Change Number Two in the amount of $29,800
to be funded from the One Percent Sales Tax, Phase I Recapture ($12,917)
and Phase II Recapture ($16,883). (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee April 9, 2001)
29. Motion to approve option to acquire 0.088 acres for a right-of-way and
2,249.90 sq. ft. for a temporary construction easement from H/S Southlo,
LLC, (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 222) for the sum of $28,031. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
31. Deleted from consent agenda.
32. Deleted from consent agenda.
33. Deleted from consent agenda.
34. Deleted from consent agenda.
35. Deleted from consent agenda.
36. Motion to authorize Public Works Department to choose an engineering
firm to conduct an emergency design to repair the existing spillway to
Courtney’s Detention Pond on Happy Road, and to negotiate with a
contractor to conduct the repairs and report back to next Engineering
Services Committee (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April
9, 2001)
37. Motion to approve adding the following language to the criteria for
Unpaved Roads as recommended by the Subcommittee"
For streets where
donation of right of way is not able to be obtained with the initial letting,
said streets will be delayed from their initial contract grouping and carried
forward to subsequent contracts, if the right of way is acquired by that
. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
time"
PUBLIC SAFETY:
38. Motion to approve the appointment of an Interim Fire Chief; and
authorize Human Resources to proceed with advertising for the
permanent position with the interim chief serving until the appointment
of a permanent Chief with a time certain of July 1, 2001. (Approved by
Public Safety Committee April 9, 2001)
39. Motion to approve Resolution reaffirming the necessity of the 911 and the
wireless enhanced 911 charges. (Approved by Public Safety Committee
April 9, 2001)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
40. Motion to approve a request by Lucy Gonzales-Romero for a massage
therapist license to be used in connection with Lucy Gonzales-Romero
Therapeutic Massage located at 601 Wheeler Executive Center. District 3.
Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 9, 2001)
6
41. Motion to approve an agreement for tennis professional services at
Newman Tennis Center with Mr. Michael Moody. (Approved by Public
Services Committee April 9, 2001)
42. Motion to approve Ordinance defining Arcade. (Approved by
Commission in meeting held April 3-second reading)
PETITION AND COMMUNICATIONS:
43. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 3, 2001.
Mr. Shepard: I move we approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
2. Z-01-20 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with a condition that
no additions to the existing structure nor any additional buildings can be
constructed; a petition from Coastal Piedmont properties, on behalf of the
estate of Frances M. Brown, requesting a Special Exception for a non-
profit club or lodge per Section 26-1(k) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on
the southwest right-of-way line of Dodge Lane, 940 feet, more or less,
north of the northwest corner of the intersection of Gordon Highway and
Dodge Lane. (1129 and 1135 Dodge Lane) DISTRICT 3
Mr. Kuhlke: I move it be approved.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
7. Z-01-26 - Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Augusta-Richmond County requesting a change of zoning from Zone R-
3B (Multiple-family Residential) to Zone R-1 (Single-family Residential)
affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Richmond Hill
Road, 150 feet, more or less, east of the southeast corner of the
intersection of Sutton Place and Richmond Hill Road. DISTRICT 6
Mr. Cheek: I move it be approved with the condition that the drainage
and utility easement along the common line between this property and the lots
fronting Sutton Place be placed equally on both properties.
7
Mr. Beard: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
11. Motion to authorize Fleet Management to sell six (6) excess Police vehicles
to Sandersville Police Department (5) and the City of Oconee (1).
(Approved by Finance Committee April 9, 2001)
Mr. Shepard: I move it be approved.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
18. Motion to approve the recommendations of the Finance Consultant
regarding budget amendment in the amount of $63,000. (Approved by
Finance Committee April 9, 2001)
Mr. Shepard: I move that we approve the budget amendment as outlined
by the Consultant in the amended amount of $66,592 with an adjustment of
$10,000 for juror fees for a final total of $76,592, that we release departments
who have met their 3½% budget cuts from the hiring freeze and that those
departments who have not reached their goals remain under the hiring freeze
with the Purchasing Department continuing to monitor their expenditures.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
20. Motion to approve recommendation to go into negotiations with
Montgomery Watson regarding design/build of new surface Water
Treatment Plant. (Funded by 2000 Bond Issue and 2002 Bond Issue -
Account Number to be assigned when fee is established). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
8
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] proposal [inaudible]?
Mr. Hicks: The firm that was recommended was not asked to give [inaudible]
proposals for anybody to review. They were asked to submit an abbreviated brochure
so that the Commission could see somewhat of their history, but they were not asked
to give an abbreviated proposal. We have copies of the proposal from each firm, but I
don’t have them with me. We have copies that I could furnish to the Commission.
Mr. Bridges: That was in the backup for the Engineering Services Committee,
Jerry, last week.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, the way I understand the motion is to enter into
negotiations but a final contract would have to come back to this Commission?
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. Any further questions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just want to ask one other question. Mr.
Kuhlke prompted the question in my mind. When we enter into negotiation with
intent to going into a contract to come back before us, is it not possible to talk with
both firms or another firm as well? I mean I’m a little confused. Max, can you
answer that for me? How can we do that?
Mr. Hicks: In a situation like this where you’ve got design and build -- Jim,
you might could address the negotiation part of it, but --
Mr. Wall: Well, the State Code which was amended to provide specifically
for design/build limits the -- you cannot play one contractor off against another, and
the method by which the bid specifications were drawn up were in compliance with
the Georgia Code which basically said we would select one and negotiate with them.
Now in the event that we do not reach an agreement that Max and his department
feels like that they can recommend, then yes, we could go to the other company and
negotiate with them.
Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess Mr. Wall probably had answered the question
in terms of where I was going to ask. I guess inasmuch as I brought it up in the
original meeting, which caused a delay in committee, and then I guess again at the
last committee meeting in reference to where we stood with the previous company.
And I appreciate him going back into that bit of history that unraveled that to make
9
sure we were going to be on a sound course, cause I think that’s very important.
Inasmuch as we’re not in legal and got it into this open situation, everybody, and I
guess I’m just getting this for the record so that I don’t miss it, everybody that was a
party to the previous agreement, Mr. Mayor, and I guess I’m asking this to Mr. Wall,
they have totally relinquished any and all claims, just as I guess I referred to it as a
divorce decree. Are they out of this picture with no claims at all on anything, even if
we follow the same scope, the same geographical line, the whole deal that we were
going to do before, are they totally out of the picture and will not claim one quarter
that we have to pay?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. And in fact, as originally drafted I had a provision in there
insofar as the plans are concerned, and their comment was those plans are eight, nine
years old. They would not be current standards. You have a copy of them anyhow.
We don’t want any obligation to have to furnish them to you. It confirms what was
agreed up back that is, that is that contract, their involvement is at an end.
Mr. Mays: And that’s the agreement you have from them that will be
incorporated into the record?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: That no ghost?
Mr. Wall: No ghost.
Mr. Mays: I wanted to make sure of that. The other question, Mr. Mayor, that
I’ve asked in those previous two meetings and it’s just for the official record of this
Commission inasmuch as there was an inquiry made in reference to the process, not a
threat of litigation so therefore we cannot deal with it in terms of it being legal or to
be able to do that in that manner, but are we clear then in terms of all of our ducks
being in a row, that our procurement process from day one, point one, everybody
starting at the same place, and that that’s intact, that that’s clear?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir. The bid documents were drawn up in compliance with
both our purchasing code as well as the State statute. The process that was used
complied with State statute, and with our purchasing code, the one company that you
have reference to called me at the direction of the purchasing director. I spoke with
them. They were emphatic that it was not a protest on their part, it was simply a
comment that they were asked to put in writing, which they did. And so yes, sir, I
have reviewed the process and it is in compliance with our code, as well as State law,
in my opinion.
Mr. Mays: I guess in that way of speaking, they dead, too, then; right?
Mr. Wall: They dead, too.
10
Mr. Mays: I just wanted to make sure where we are on that. I want, cause this
is about a lot of money, and when that happens and there is an inquiry into the
process, I’d rather for us to deal with it up front, above board, we’re not discussing it,
we’re clearing it up on eight floor, we’re not having to deal with it on the fourth floor,
and I made that statement in two different meetings and I’m making it for the official
record in here, that I don’t plan to spend the rest of this year down there dealing with
this. So I want to make sure we’re clear on where we’re going with it and that that
clears the integrity of the firm where we’re going in the process. That’s all my
questions.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I believe we have a motion on the floor. Any further
discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next items, items 30 through 35, relate to three
condemnations and three options.
30. Motion to authorize condemnation against New Generations Ministry and
Daycare, Inc. (Tax Map 95, Parcel 3.4). (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 9, 2001)
31. Motion to authorize condemnation against Charles Davis Savage and
Charles Savage, Jr. (Tax map 83, Parcel 6, Project Parcel 42). (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
32. Motion to authorize condemnation against Charles Tate, Sr. and Frances
M. Tate (Tax Map 83, Parcel 10, Project Parcel 204). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
33. Motion to approve option to acquire 0.024 acres for a right-of-way, 0.012
acres for a permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement and
2,202.23 sq. ft. for a temporary construction easement from Speedway
Super American, LLC (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 188.2 for the sum of
$10,947. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
34. Motion to approve option to acquire 0.30 acres for a right-of-way and
10,260.21 sq. ft. for a temporary construction easement from H/S Southlo,
LLC (Tax Map 122.1, Parcel 47.1) for the sum of $99,191. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
35. Motion to approve option to acquire 0.156 acres for a right-of-way and
5,045.83 sq. ft. for a temporary construction easement from James M.
Hull, III (Tax Map 110-3, Parcel 188.6) for the sum of $50,052.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you want to take these up all at once and
deal with them?
11
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We can take them all up at once.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: I’m just concerned that we’ve got some here that we’ve got the
condemnation on and then we got some here that we going to pay out some funds on,
and I’m trying to get an understanding. When you, in fact this says 0.024 acres, I
mean how much land is that? I mean what? I’m lost when it comes to that.
Mr. Mayor: Tiny little bit of land.
Mr. Williams: Tiny little bit.
Mr. Mayor: Enough to park your car, huh? Mr. Wall, can you address the
Commissioner’s concerns?
Mr. Wall: Well, 43,580 square feet. 43,560. 43,560 x that acreage would
give you --
Mr. Williams: I’m looking at item 33.
Mr. Wall: 33?
Mr. Williams: 33 is the item I’m looking at right now and I’m just trying to
figure out why we are condemning some properties but then we paying some folks for
what ain’t even considered property in my eyes. How did we arrive at that? How did
we come to that?
Mr. Wall: Well, we’re not involved in the negotiations leading up to the
condemnation. You have right-of-way acquisition people both within the -- well, that
assist Utilities that are in the Public Works department. You have now authorized the
hiring of an independent contractor to work with the Utilities department insofar as
acquiring those. They go out and meet with the property owners, they have -- they do
an appraisal of the property, they come up with what they believe is a fair market
value, the negotiate with the property owner, and then if they’re able to resolve it,
then they get an option exercise signed by the property owner and that is then
presented to the Commission if it for more than $10,000. If it is for less than $10,000,
then the Administrator can approve them. If they cannot get an agreement with a
property owner, then they will submit it to us generally with a recommendation. It
doesn’t always come with a recommendation. And then we look at it. If it’s a
situation where either they wont make a counter offer, which is sometimes the
situation, where they just simply say I don’t want the project, it’s not a question of
value, I’m not going to sign anything, then we’re left with no alternative but to
condemn. Or if they want a good bit more money than the appraised value that we
12
recommended. Now arguably there are some situations where you’re dealing with
small dollar amounts, and if you set a practice of giving in to the property owner --
let’s say that you offer $500 and they say I’m not going settle for a dime less than a
thousand, well, they need to have some explanation for that. If they’ve got a
reasonable explanation for it, and a reasonable basis for arguing that, then we’ll get
with Public Works and perhaps recommend that. However, if it’s just simply an
arbitrariness on their part that I want $1,000 then sometimes we’ll recommend
condemnation and the basis of that is if you, just because somebody says they want
something, if you pay that in every situation, then it will just lead to a situation where
everybody will hold out and they won’t get an appraisal, they won’t come up with any
basis for their value, and they’ll just demand some number. And then you’ve
defeated the process. Now 33 in particular, let me see what that is. You have, you’ll
see the letter from the, in this case, the director, making a recommendation. It’s to
approve an option. There are certain requirements that they wanted included in the
contract and we’re agreeable to that.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Wall, I understand your legal side of it there, and I’m just
thinking that, you know, I thought I would bring it to the attention of this board, this
Commission, that we need to look at things different in this perspective as well.
We’ve got some condemnations on some properties, but we got some properties, I
think 33 comes to 1,044 square foot of land. We talking about $10,957. We got one
even below that one that going to come to $99,191. But then we got people we going
to condemn and take their little property for, I mean if we going take it I’m sure they
would have took $500 for it rather than taking it and not get anything. I mean it just
don’t add up to me. It just don’t make any sense the way I’m looking at it. I just
think we need to look at those things differently.
Mr. Wall: This is done by the Public Works department, their right-of-way
acquisition people. They are skilled in looking at the values of adjoining pieces of
property, and just because -- the theory about real estate is location, location, location.
And that determines the value. And here you’ve got two different situations.
Mr. Williams: Well, I heard that theory, and they making everything but land
now. You can buy everything you want to but you can’t buy no more land.
Wherever land is [inaudible].
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we approve items 30 through 35.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
(Tape blank for some portion and then picks up as follows)
Mr. Mays: I guess what struck my eye on it, and I didn’t oppose it, I voted for
it in committee, but it was on one of my [inaudible] and it got passed I guess to a
point that [inaudible] settled that were dealing with Windsor Spring Road, but all the
ones [inaudible] Barton Chapel were condemnation projects. And I know [inaudible]
13
one area can just be harder to get a settlement on than another one, but if we’re
settling for larger dollars to a point where the offers were [inaudible] one figure and I
think one of them we may have even been to a point where we were you know about
$10,000 over what we had estimated we were settling it, but we had one of them
down in there to a point where we were at $300 and we were dealing with the
condemnation and I was just wondering to a point when you start paying or get into
argument about $300 to a point, at that point, Jim, do we spend more in the legal
realm to deal with the condemnation than we do in terms of going ahead and paying
out $300 to $400 you know and moving on with it? That was where I was coming
from with it, to a point of it being that low, to a point of legal costs attached with
dealing with condemnation, because you do have to pay, whether it’s the amount that
the person wants or not. Some figure, even when you condemn. It reaches some
point. That’s the only question I had with it.
Mr. Wall: Commissioner Mays, that’s a valid inquiry insofar as when does it
become more economical to pay the $300 versus condemn it? And I think there is no
firm answer to that. As I tried to outline in response to Commissioner Williams’
question, if that’s the first parcel along the roadway, you can bet that if you pay $300
more just because the property owner wants $300 more and doesn’t have an appraiser,
doesn’t have any basis for making that other than, you know, I just think I ought to be
paid $1,000 rather than $700, word is going to travel up and down that road. Short
term, yes, it would be more economical. Long term, I submit that it would probably
be more expensive to pay that $300 -- I hate to call it blackmail money, but that’s
almost what it is. Now if you’re at the tail end of a project and you’ve got a situation
where you’ve got one property holding out and you’ve got practically everybody else
under contract on that particular project, it probably makes sense to pay the $300
rather than getting into condemnation. So there’s no hard and firm rule. I think you
have to look at each one of those and make a decision, and we try to do that, and we
submit those to the Commission along with our recommendation if we recommended
condemnation. You may recall that there was one, and I don’t remember the
geographical area, but it was a small amount of money involved, but the property
owner just refused to give any basis for his opinion about the value and just held out
that this is what I want period, and all the appraisals that we had just showed that it
had a nominal value, and once we instituted the condemnation, they settled.
Sometimes they want to see if you will go to that effort, and I think on a long-term
basis it saves you money.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think it does put the attorney in a dilemma because you’ve got to
deal with them on a case-by-case basis, but as all you know, and in particular he
knows, I’m not a great steward of condemnation for some various reasons, but what I
guess in some of these, and maybe the flip side to part of that is that when you’re
14
dealing with small amounts of property, one thing that is clear, most people to a point
that on small amounts of property, when the burden of proof is on the property owner,
most people, unless they’re getting ready to deal with a dispute about a house or a
large piece of property, in most cases the average citizen usually does not have the
funds to deal with going out and hiring an appraiser to deal with fighting city hall, per
se. You say what it’s going to be worth and the cost that they end up incurring to do
that is going to be more than what they would get out of it, too, so when they come to
us and make the demand that’s in there, then they are somewhat limited to the point
that it’s like the burden of proof is there, they got to go out, they got to deal with all
the professional help that’s there, and you know we don’t leave them too many to deal
with cause we tie most of them up ourselves. So you know that’s the only thing I’d
say to that point. But I agree that it’s a dilemma that it puts us in. But I was just
concerned about it to the point that it looked as though one of the parcels that we were
dealing with was over the 20% amount or 15% amount when we dealt with the
difference of the $10,000 in terms of settling versus where we were condemning and
some fees attached to it. Maybe we might need to look at what it actually costs us at
some point, though, realistically to average out a case in litigation in terms of time
and a procedure, can take it through court and to do it in order to deal with a sidewalk.
And I still think that’s a valid argument at some point that we deal with that cause if it
costs us $1500 in time in order to do that, to make a point about $300, even the FBI or
[inaudible] gets a little common sense at some point and say hey, we spending too
much money just to prove a point just to deal with $200 to $300 and I still stand by
that.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to respond to what Mr.
Wall just said about we give the people an opportunity to negotiate a price and how
the price going escalate up and down the road with other taxpayers and citizens. But
look like to me on this other hand, these small pieces of property, I mean it done just
that. It escalated, I mean, kind of out of sight almost with price and so I guess that’s
the one [inaudible] way. I do want to look at how much money we spend on these
small pieces of property that may be in a key position where we really need to get in
there, but you talking about prices escalating when somebody has an opportunity to
offer it. If a man don’t want to sell a piece of property, he feel like it’s his, in my
mind I feel like you know, if I want $100,000 for it, it may not be worth but $2,000,
but if I feel that way, then you know, that’s my property. So I can understand both
sides. I don’t want to prolong it, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to vote against it but I
wanted to bring that point out.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll give you a chance to vote against it right now.
We’ll call the question on the motion. The motion is to approve items 30 through 35.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
15
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-1-1.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to our regular agenda, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
PLANNING:
44. Z-01-22 – Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to deny a petition from J. Noel
Schweers, III, on behalf of Georgia Power Company and William W.
Sheehan, requesting a Special Exception to establish a funeral home per
Section 26-1 (j) of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County affecting property located on the northwest right-of-
way line of Pleasant Home Road, 565 feet, more or less, northeast of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Davis Road and Pleasant Home
Road. DISTRICT 7
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Okay, just a moment. I’ll give you a
chance in a moment. First of all, Mr. Patty, would you -- sir, if you’ll have a seat,
we’ll call you up in just a minutes. Mr. Patty, if you would bring us up-to-date on
this, please?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This is the back part, the back quarter roughly of a seven
acre tract that the petitioner wanted to put a small funeral home on. Part of this
property is owned by Georgia Power Company. Excess property from a sub-station
they’ve got. This has got professional zoning and office development to the west and
the sub-station to the north, duplex housing basically to the east, and the Planning
Commission felt, the staff feels that we should follow the comprehensive plan which
says that commercial development in this location and similar locations should be
limited to a 500 foot radius from the center of the intersecting streets, and this is
clearly [inaudible] that and we found no compelling reason to go ahead the plan in
this case.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any objectors here? Any objectors? Please raise your
hands so we can get a count for the record.
Mr. Wall: Six.
Mr. Mayor: Six. Okay. Thank you. All right. If you’ll give us your name
and address for the record.
Ms. Schweers: My name is Noel Schweers and I’m an attorney at Hull,
Towill, Norman, Barrett & Salley here in Augusta. I represent the prospective
purchaser of this property that has proposed doing sort of a joint use development on
16
the parcel. The frontage property was going to be used for professional buildings.
The rear of the parcel was going to be used for a funeral home. My folks’ primary
interest was the funeral home, but the layout of the property was such that they
needed to develop it jointly. There were a substantial number of the neighbors that
objected. Our folks met with them and they thought that even though it was outside
the area of the comprehensive plan, that the nature of the neighborhood was such that
it was appropriate to extend the professional zoning as well as put a funeral home
here. The order that it came up in front of the Planning Commission was that the
funeral home special exception came first. It was denied after a lot of the neighbors
complained. The petition to get the zoning changed was immediately following, and
since our folks didn’t have an interest in continuing the project without the funeral
home and they felt like they’d concede to the wishes of the neighborhood, we
withdrew that portion of the petition. In talking to George Patty and Jim Long about
this current motion, we have elected to request that our petition be withdrawn without
prejudice. The reason we’d like to withdraw it without prejudice is there are some
limitations on the owner’s right to refile a zoning case. The current owner of the
primary portion of the property is an older gentleman, Mr. Sheehan, and the zoning
board, the zoning office, has conceded that the current zoning of R-1 is probably not
appropriate right along that category. They feel like some kind of residential use
would be appropriate and we don’t feel it’s appropriate to tie Mr. Sheehan’s hands,
since it was turned down, if he would like to find something that the neighborhood
would go forward with, so we would like to withdraw it at this time.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll consider that request. In order to form the record
today, are there any of the objectors who wanted to speak and have their comments on
the record? Okay, that’s fine.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we allow the petitioner to withdraw his petition
without prejudice.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we have a motion to allow them to withdraw the request
without prejudice, which has been seconded. Any discussion?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just from the parliamentarian standpoint, that [inaudible]?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mays: I didn’t think so in the withdrawal. I just wanted to make sure.
17
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
FINANCE:
45. Approve the lease of all vehicles purchased and received in Calendar Year
1999 and 2000 from sales tax funds (exhibit B) and 20 vehicles purchased
with Enterprise Funds in Calendar Year 2000 and 4 vehicles purchased in
Calendar Year 2000 from General Fund Activities (Exhibit C) in order to
meet the Augusta Commission lease obligation to the Georgia Municipal
Association.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, we didn’t quite know what to do with this in
Finance Committee, so we passed it on with no recommendation. One issue that I
think the Finance Committee wanted to hear some data on what the amount of penalty
imposed by the leasing organization, the GMA lease organization, for not doing this
request as requested. So I hope, Ron, that you’ll be able to speak to that because to
do nothing may cause a financial penalty. To recharacterize purchases as leases after
those purchases have been made sort of mystified the entire committee, so hopefully
you could set us straight today, Ron.
Mr. Crowden: First, if you would me just a minute. For the benefit of the
Commissioners that weren’t privy to the background information. GMA lease
program, Georgia Municipal Association, has a lease program that governments
participate in. In ’97 there were key figures in the departments that looked into this as
a program in which to upgrade, if you will, the resources such as vehicles, computers
and so forth and the capability to do that. When all the research was done, the
government entered into the program and obligated -- the Commission was obligated
to $14 million in leases over a period of three years. When I assumed responsibility as
the interim fleet manager, one of the first things that came to head was we got a GMA
lease program and we’re short of that and it’s due by the end of June. We looked at
what we had currently available that was under lease that we expected in before the
deadline and in carrying that all out, we found that we were short. Essentially we
were short in excess of $4 million of our obligation. We submitted additional P.O.’s
and I believe, if everything comes in as we have due dates in, that will be down to
$2.6 million we’re still short. Or $2.1 million we’re still short. Which means that at
the end of June or July we would start, we would be penalized by GMA for not
meeting our obligation, okay. The question was how much? How many dollars are
we talking about? We made a recommendation, and before I answer that question,
let me say we made a recommendation having talked at length with the GMA
18
representative. We have a course of action which we’re presenting to you, and that is
as recommended by GMA, we could back to our 1999 and 2000 year straight
purchases and put those on lease, and as soon as we got the money for that out of
Bank of New York, which would be the Bank of New York would buy that
equipment from us, put it on a lease, when they reimbursed us for that property, we
would buy that back, therefore we would reduce our -- we would minimize our loss
by one interest payment essentially. We didn’t have those figures for the Finance
Committee and that’s why the Finance Committee forwarded this without
recommendation, and I was asked to provide the figures. The figures will be -- the
interest payment on $2.1 million will be approximately $117,000. The penalties
against that amount is three times that amount. Those penalties will continue until we
reach our $14 million obligation, and based on our capital available for this year for
purchases, it may take two to three years to make that obligation. Our
recommendation is that we lease that which we purchased in ’99 and 2000. There
was a second question that says okay, who is going to pay the interest money? When
they established the GMA program, they established accounts because when we
borrow money we also make money, and that money is put into an account to draw
additional interest. Now if we do it right, which it was done, we’re drawing more
interest on that money which we’re making because we’re borrowing money, if that
makes sense, and we are making more money. Money to pay off this could be from
several accounts, but the big one would be, to look at, or the first one to look at,
would be the Internal Service Fund. So we would not have to charge the departments
back on this interest.
Mr. Shepard: Can I ask one more follow-up question?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Ron, is the choice then between
$117,000 charged to the Internal Service Fund and a $351,000 penalty on the other
hand that would have to be paid from the Internal Service Fund or some other fund?
Mr. Crowden: I’m not exactly sure. I haven’t had an opportunity to talk with
Donna about what accounts are available for that, but I do know, having talked with
Mary Grady just before the meeting, that there were several funds set up to support
GMA. One of those funds is making money on interest, and that would probably be
the one to look at.
Mr. Shepard: Let me just simplify my question, if that’s possible, for a
lawyer.
Mr. Crowden: I’m a history major, sir, I would appreciate it if you would do
that.
19
Mr. Shepard: I understand. So it’s a choice between $117,000 interest
payment payable and a $351,000 penalty?
Mr. Crowden: That is correct, sir. And again, I remind you that the penalty
payment will continue to accrue until such time as we meet that obligation.
Mr. Shepard: Then I’d make a motion that we follow the
recommendation to avoid the penalty and pay the interest.
Mr. Williams: Second. Further discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Let’s go to Commissioner Williams. You have some
expertise in vehicles so we’ll start here.
Mr. Williams: Just a little bit. Ron, my question is when will this contract be
over? When will we be able to do something?
Mr. Crowden: July, sir. That’s it.
Mr. Williams: This July?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir. The GMA contract runs out -- if we meet our
obligation. We will not be able to lease vehicles beyond July, let’s put it that way.
Whether we meet our obligation or not, we would have to enter into a new contract,
and that will be on somebody else’s watch. Not my watch.
Mr. Williams: And along with this lease, we also had money appropriated in
our budget for service on these leased vehicles; is that right?
Mr. Crowden: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Do you know off the top of your head roughly what kind of
money we’re talking about?
Mr. Crowden: In regards to what?
Mr. Williams: To service for [inaudible] or whoever is doing --
Mr. Crowden: Sir, those would be coming -- most of the maintenance on
those vehicles, since they’re new, are still under a contract clause, so it’s covered
under the contract of $3.1 million for our maintenance contract.
Mr. Williams: So that $3.1 million you’re saying is not in this lease thing?
20
Mr. Crowden: No, sir, it has nothing to do with that. Our maintenance
contract is in and of itself.
Mr. Williams: So that’s $3.1 million maintenance?
Mr. Crowden: That’s correct. There would be no changes to that.
Mr. Williams: $3.1 million. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick question. A little bit of
pecking on the calculator, at $24,000 for a Crown Victoria, that’s 87 Crown Victorias
we could have bought that we’re short now of meeting our obligation. Who did this
estimate? Are we in a position where we’re not going to repeat this mistake?
Mr. Crowden: As far as I know, we’re not in a position where we will. The
people that entered into or started the research, the research actually on the GMA
lease program, the City had entered into that in the early 90’s and it was a carryover
in consolidation. The people that did the initial research have long since been moved
on. I don’t know of any of the key players that were involved in that that are still with
this government, sir. They’ve all moved on.
Mr. Cheek: With the accuracy of their estimates, I’m glad they did.
Mr. Crowden: Well, that’s a difficulty because we’re trying to catch up to
what was started a long time ago, and if I sound like a history major and not an
accountant, it’s because I am, and it’s very difficult to understand the terminology of
the lease.
Mr. Cheek: Well, this is no reflection on you.
Mr. Crowden: I understand, sir. I don’t take any offense to that.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, one question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: Do we need to have that interest payment charged, Donna
Williams, to a specific fund, and if so, what? Internal Service?
21
Ms. Williams: Yes, sir, [inaudible].
Mr. Crowden: I believe it will be the Internal Service Fund that has the money
that we’re earning interest money on. And that should be the one that we charge it
back to.
Mr. ShepardThen I’d ask the
: Is that a yes to charge it to Internal Service?
motion be amended with the consent of the body to have that charged to the
Internal Service Fund.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion? None heard. The motion
be amended as stated. Call the question on the motion as amended. All in favor,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Crowden: And I thank you for not shooting the messenger.
Mr. Mayor: It’s still your watch for the time being.
Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
46. Communication from Laney-Walker Development Corporation regarding
an extension of the contract of J. E. Trowell Construction Company. (No
recommendation from Administrative Services Committee)
Mr. Wall: At the time of the Administrative Services Committee meeting, I
requested additional time. In my opinion, they can extend this contract and amend the
contract to allow them to use the same contractor. Currently they are working well
apparently with contractor to build houses. The request for bids did not have a
number of houses. It was a per square foot price that was being sought for 1200
square foot residences with these specifications, and the agreement between the City
and Laney-Walker did not have a fixed number of houses, so in my opinion it would
be appropriate to authorize and consent to Laney-Walker extending or amending the
contract which they have with Trowell to allow them to add additional contracts to the
existing -- additional houses to the contract that they have.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if everything is in order, I’d like to move
that we extend this contract.
22
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
47. Authorize Public Works and Engineering Department to award contract
to the low bidder in each of the sections bid for the Solid Waste Collection
contract. (No recommendation from Engineering Services Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we had some discussion about this at the last meeting.
Subsequent to that, I don’t know if anybody got a copy or not, but I was given a copy
of some business plans for some of the bidders, and I think you’ve gotten a sheet from
one of the bidders who was listed on the bid from CSRA Waste as a potential sub-
contractor, and he represents to us in his communication that he is not a potential sub-
contractor. There is also a work plan in here from Midland Service Corporation
which talks about a solid waste collection and disposal program in Augusta, Virginia.
Mr. Goins, I don’t know how clean some of this stuff is that we’ve got here today to
consider.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Drew, maybe you’ve got -- is there any additional information
you want to present to the Commission as a result of our meeting last week?
Mr. Goins: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: You need to come up here. See if anybody has any questions.
Mr. Goins: While I was not at the meeting last week, I did provide the
information that, to the best of my knowledge, was requested, and that was the work
plans for the three apparent low bid contractors that we were recommended the award
on.
Mr. Mayor: So your recommendation is go with the low bidder?
Mr. Goins: Yes. I have no reason not to recommend that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
23
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get to the Commission in just a moment, but I understand a
representative from one of the companies, BFI, that wanted to speak today. Would
you come up to the podium and give your name and address for the record, please?
Mr. Washington: My name is Jeff Washington. I was not one of the
successful bidders, but I wanted to make a comment on the proposal before you. It’s
my understanding, and it was a late entry into this deal, that this contract was going to
be -- one of the apparent low bidders intends to sub-contract out a greater percentage
than 50% of this contract to other haulers in the area, and I question how valid that
could be that this person is financial capable to do the contract if he’s not even taking
it upon himself to do the contract, and that it seems to be a more cozy relationship
amongst the haulers than should be available and would be outside of my reasoning to
speak with other haulers in such terms as seems to be the relationship I understand
that they’re taking upon themselves.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Cheek, did I see your hand up a
moment ago?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Just a quick question. Drew, we talked about
this before, but in reading the contract, we do have the ability to basically judge
whether a low bidder can in fact do the job when it is bid and either qualify or
disqualify him based on that. Can you tell me today that his will be successful and
the people that have the low bids are indeed able to do the work for what they’re
projecting?
Mr. Goins: What I can do is tell you the results of my research in previous
performance contracts with the City of Augusta. We did research and the existing
contractor does not have any -- we do not have any reason to believe that that contract
won’t be successful. While I do recognize that one of the apparently low bid
contractors is a relatively small company, and I do share the concerns that have been
expressed that he has the ability, we have to rely on past performance and the ability
for that contractor to obtain bonding. And if he’s able to demonstrate to the bonding
company that he has the capital assets, then I can’t find a reason not to award that
contract based on past performance and his ability to service a performance bond.
Mr. Cheek: All of that has been satisfied with the bonding and everything?
Mr. Goins: We have not requested the performance bond because we have not
attempted to award the contract. Until I’m granted permission to award the contract,
I’m not allowed to request that this individual provide me with performance bonds.
He is given ten days to provide performance bonds after notice of award, but I cannot
request performance bonds until you give me the authority to do so.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you.
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I wasn’t at the Engineering Services Committee. I
didn’t get all the information. I’m not clear on this and I don’t think at this point I
would be able to vote on this at this particular time. I do understand from most of the
Districts that most of the people are in favor of what we are trying to do here, and I do
understand that even in my District in east Augusta, we’ve had people there
recommending that they go on City Hall’s list. But I think that some of things that
I’ve heard recently that between the service providers and our government, I think I
would just need a little more time to review this. I don’t know how others feel but I
think it’s a point of contention here that I personally would need a little more time to
think on this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Drew, a bid bond was not required?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Bid bond was required and bid bond accompanied all of
the bids. But the bond I’m referring to now is the performance bond, which is a
performance of the contract once the contract is awarded.
Mr. Kuhlke: I understand that. But they did put up a bid bond?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Why was Hillcreek Subdivision and Hillcreek Meadows left off?
I guess it was Districts 7 and 3?
Mr. Goins: That was outside the limits. If you recall, the limit in the western
portion of the county was the Columbia County line and Bobby Jones Expressway,
and those are both outside that perimeter, if I’m not mistaken.
Mr. Kuhlke: Do we intend to look at that at a later date?
Mr. Goins: Any area can be added to a contract by change order once a
contract is in force, and in fact, there are certain areas that we’ve already had public
meetings. There is an area out in the Tobacco Road area that Mr. Cheek is familiar
with that they have requested once the contract is awarded that they be added, and
that was simply the lines based on the divisions of the Commissioner District lines.
Mr. Kuhlke: What’s the benefit of going to a county contract like this? What
benefit to the city and to the residents? What are we going to have? Because it looks
to me like you are bringing something to us that 50% of the people are going to like
and 50% of the people are not going to like.
25
Mr. Goins: Well, sir, based on the public meetings that were held, the public
comments --
Mr. Kuhlke: Bear in mind those public meetings were a drop in the bucket of
the number of people that are going to be served.
Mr. Goins: I understand that, but hopefully that was a representative sample
of the constituents, and the public meetings were overwhelming in favor of the
contract hauling. Other tangible benefits to a neighborhood, for example, is you only
have one garbage truck in that neighborhood servicing that area, so you don’t have
the trash bins out Monday through Friday, you only have them out there on a
particular days. Another benefit to the government would be that you don’t have the
truck traffic on those particular neighborhood streets. It’s reduced from any number
of haulers down to one hauler. Another benefit would be, for the customer, would be
right now our research indicates that the homeowner pays about $15 per month for a
two-day-per week pickup. That’s for household garbage. With the contract that
we’re suggesting, around $15, it’s a little more or a little less, gives you two-day-per-
week pickup, plus leaves and limbs, plus bulky wastes, plus recycling. So that’s
another benefit to the customer.
Mr. Mayor: And Bill, the fee they pay will be tax deductible, too, because it
will be a tax as opposed to a charge.
Mr. Kuhlke: I guess, Mr. Mayor, I have a little bit of a concern that you’ve
got one hauler in here, and I assume he’s going to sub to somebody, but if my math is
correct, they’re well over $6 million, the contract.
Mr. Goins: There’s no question that one contractor is getting the lion’s share
of the contract, and that is a function of the low bid process. That’s just the way it
turned out. And I recognize that there’s some apprehension on everyone’s part
because this is such a large amount of money to one company. But again, I’m bound
by the policies of the bid process and I can’t find a reason not to award that to the low
bidder. Now the Commission may recommend that we only award half of those
sections to the low bidder and the other to the rest of the low bidder. That’s your
prerogative.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard and then Mr.
Mays.
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I was a little concerned about the bid
process when it went out and the way it went out in reference to the old city that
already had pickup, was added in with the new area we’re trying to pick up, so I’m
really concerned about the -- not just the low bid but the other haulers. And there are
going to be some haulers that we going lose. There going to be some people that a
26
pick-up truck is out trying to do garbage pick-up, but we got a lot of haulers that got
equipment, three and four compact trucks and 18 to 25 employees, and I’m like Mr.
Beard, I’m not ready to vote on this right now because I need to look at how those
business that been in business in the county that’s been doing business for such a long
a time, whether it be swept in or swept out. And I think that, you know, we need to
if I could make that motion to postpone it for two weeks to give
postpone this, and
us an opportunity to look at some things.
We need this garbage pick up. We going
to get more for less in one respect, we would never be able to clean up our cities until
we get mandatory garbage pick up. Bulk waste and recycling is a plus for us, and I
think we need to go on with it. But at the same time, I think we need to look at our
haulers and see how they going, what role they going to play and if they are going to
play a role. We talk about adding on additional areas. Well, if we not careful we may
delete some people from those areas. And I just want to make sure before we decide,
I think we ought to do this maybe two weeks from today and it wouldn’t hurt us
to postpone it.
Mr. Kuhlke: I second the motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. The motion has been seconded for
purposes of discussion. Mr. Shepard is next, then Mr. Mays, then Mr. Bridges, and
Mr. Brigham.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Wall, I take it from the remarks of
the Mayor the private letter ruling we got was favorable that this could be --
Mr. Wall: No, we’ve not had that private letter [inaudible] back yet, insofar as
the [inaudible]. That has not been received.
Mr. Shepard: But we asked for it at least?
Mr. Wall: No, I don’t think it’s gone out yet.
Mr. Shepard: I was under the understanding that it was a deductible item. So
the answer is you don’t know?
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mayor: It is now in the urban services district, isn’t it, because it’s
included in your tax payment?
Mr. Wall: I don’t know how it’s handled in the urban [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Yeah.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible]
27
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir, it’s included in your tax bill.
Mr. Kuhlke: Is it a fee or is it --
Mr. Shepard: Well, it was a different answer than I anticipated, so the answer
is we don’t know. I know that the recommendation was revised in the book that said
we would award these contracts and have special tax districts set up. Can you, Teresa
or Jim, give us a feeling for an effective date of the tax districts and how much effort
would be required in setting up the districts when you have different haulers with
slightly different prices in each section? How would that process -- how are we going
to do that?
Mr. Wall: I think that the districts were laid out as part of the bid process, so it
would just be a process of taking those geographical bounds and incorporating those
into the ordinances.
Mr. Shepard: Well, wouldn’t we have to in order to fund these contracts pass
an ordinance?
Mr. Wall: To establish a tax district to set it up, yes.
Mr. Shepard: We’re not going to ask for a General Fund levy here out of
General Fund, so to fund the contract, we have got to have a financing source, is my
point. Shouldn’t this come -- I mean it seems a little maybe the cart before the horse
or horse before the cart -- I like the horse before the cart, but that we should have a
combination of the contracts and the financing vehicles before us at the same time,
because if we don’t have the financing by the tax districts, how are we going to fund
the contracts to the hauler?
Mr. Wall: Well, I understand your point. I guess from, I think from Public
Works’ standpoint, we need some direction as far as where we are going, because
we’ve extended the contract to sometime in August, and time is running out insofar as
our options without extending that contract further, which I don’t think anyone wants
to do, and so the idea was to get some direction from the Commission, then we can
proceed with awarding the contracts, bring before you the financing, the tax
ordinances, etc., and bring all that together at one time.
Mr. Shepard: If I could have one more question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Then within the two weeks that Mr. Williams has suggested,
could you bring the financing piece to us as well? It seems like to me you’ve got to
have them both. Maybe I’m missing something here, but if you approve the contract,
28
then the ordinance fails to impose the tax to pay the contract, we’re nowhere. You
agree?
Mr. Wall: I do. If you say we’re going to award the contracts, then the
contracts would be contingent upon the financing, obviously. But yes, we can have
those brought to you at the same time in two weeks.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor. Let me try to still be germane to the issue that
we’ve got on the floor and change the complexion of where we’re going a little bit.
Number one, I guess I am prepared to vote today. It’s so confusing that I’m really
prepared. I’m prepared to vote no on it, tell you to kick it back and start over where
you’re going. I don’t think we have a problem within the natural bid process of
where you’re going because what you put into the process is kind of like when you’re
preparing a soup. What you throw in it, that’s what you get, and I’m kind of amused
at people that have driven this thing to a point that now we don’t seem to be knowing
where we’re going. Well, when I played a part in trying to get this under control prior
to in the previous Public Works or Engineering Services meeting some time ago, that
was the reason why some of us argued so hard to just do the existing contract that we
had in the old urban services district. You’ve got to compare apples to apples,
oranges to oranges if you going to deal with this, cause, one, the city had a sanitation
department of which for economic reasons as such decided to deal with privatization.
Therefore it had a department in which they went into a contractual situation and had
those areas so defined from the urban services district. Now I’d be the first to say as
an old city resident of the old city that I think that this would be a very good thing in
terms of having that pick up if that is done properly. But let’s look at it from the real
standpoint of this. We’re talking about government over into private industry and
private business in a big time way, a real in-your-face situation of which we’ve not
really given the care and concern to all the players that might be in this particular
situation. Now everybody is concerned about the bid process that’s on the table. I’m
concerned about the one that wasn’t brought to the table. Let’s talk about that a little
bit. Everybody is not a fly-by-night operator with a pick-up truck and a piece of
canvas across the back of it. There are small business people who have made serious
investments on vehicles that work employees who depend upon those salaries that are
there, and while I agree that this would be a good thing for the community, I think
that we failed in an area that I thought we were going to go back to. I thought this
subject was dead to a point that we were going to take it back and do it right. What
I’m seeing today is that we only came back again in the same manner in which we
were headed before. We just delayed it. I don’t think the two week deal is going to
do you any good to really give a segment of the population that’s in business that
you’ve not as a city addressed at all. Now what we said with some of those mid-sized
haulers that are there in business to a point through our operations by us getting in the
29
business but not getting in the business because we’re dealing with it through private
industry. In essence, if you carve out the proposals so that you don’t have a situation
where they can legitimately compete, and I’m not talking about handing anything to
anybody, I’m not talking about setting aside anything to anybody, but I’m talking
about in terms of the whole [inaudible], being able to be put in a position I thought
that we were going to be able to utilize certain resources such as our own economic
development office, where we would be able to try and channel those folk to, to come
back with a plan, to see if they could even be on the same playing field. That to this
date, I don’t see where that’s been done at all, and to a point of where those people
would just simply disappear off the radar screen. As a small business owner, I can
sympathize with a lot of those folks. I’m not saying that you guarantee them
something or that you give them something, they automatically going to be there, but
I think when we start dealing with a take-over of sorts and then we hand it over into
the private business world and then business folk just disappear to a point then what
do we tell them, do they simply go bankrupt if there is no customer line out there,
who buys their equipment, who takes in their employees? I think the other segment
that this city has not even spoken to, nor provided a mechanism to deal with it, and
I’m not going to vote for it today, I wouldn’t vote for it two weeks from now, until
you bring that issue to the table and deal with it. Now I said this last week in
committee, now some of the folks that are able to compete, you know, and I’m not
being, you know, mean spirited when I say this, but quite frankly, in the bid process if
[inaudible] one portion of it down to 22 cents, which some people say is unrealistic,
some folks probably wouldn’t be squawking about it if they had been handed the bid
instead of the other one handed the bid. But the real folk in there where a lot of them
have not even been addressed, when we halted this thing, Mr. Goins, when we
stopped it at that point we said that there needed to be some mechanism to at least talk
to these folk and see where we were going. I thought that was what this was going to
get us back to doing. All of a sudden, we’re back with this same deal, basically that
we had before and I agree with my Super District partner that to a point when you
have a public hearing, to a point of getting totally involved in an industry, yes, if you
[inaudible] some of the folk [inaudible] we’re going to give you some better service,
this is going to improve what you got, if I’m sitting in there as John Q. Citizen I’m
going to be all for it, but I think all the details ought to be explained in there when
you’re talking about it. We still got some folk out here in the community that think
that there is going to be a free garbage service. Very much so. Calling every day,
wanting to know when is the garbage truck going to be in front of my door like it is in
the old city. There are people who really believe that when they read out what comes
forth from City government, and they don’t understand it as an average citizen. So if
you are saying we’re taking it over and we’re going to provide it for you, then they
feel this is a city service, but what in essence you’re doing, you are taking the city
service, contracting this whole county, dividing it up, taking a segment of the small
business and minority business population, knocking them totally out the box, not
even creating a mechanism to bring them to the table, and we sit here today and think
we can solve [inaudible] in two week. That will never happen. [inaudible] back
[inaudible] where we before. This is the same [inaudible], just on a different
30
[inaudible], as far as I’m concerned. And I was going to vote against it then. I vote
against it today. And if it comes back in the same manner, I may be the only person
that votes against it, but I’m going to do it that way until you tell me what happens to
some of those folks that are legitimate, that buy a business license, that employ other
folk who feed their families that are not in this process at all that we have totally
made no mechanism to bring them into the process. It’s not the bid process,
gentlemen, that we ought to be arguing about. It’s the process that we have used to
just totally ignore a small business segment of this community and try and bring this
to the table. Mr. Mayor, that’s the real issue that’s out there, and we’ve not done this.
We didn’t do it before. We’ve not done it now, and the thing about what we going to
come back in two weeks, the only thing I agree with Mr. Goins on is the fact that it’s
a legitimate low bid, and unless we kick it out and start over to a point of legitimizing
the process to see how it can be fair to small business people, then there’s something
you can do about the bid. You going to have to vote up or down on that bid. That’s
been followed. But we put the ingredients in the soup. We put it in. We mixed it.
We stirred it up. And it went through the process. It’s just the fact that there are
certain things in the soup we obviously didn’t want. And it’s back there again the
same way, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Let’s hear now from Commissioner
Bridges and then Commissioner Henry Brigham.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Mr. Mays on a couple of
points. I think if we bring it back in two weeks we’re not going to be any further
along than we are here today. There are a couple of issues that are out there and I
think Mr. Mays had very adequately raised one of the issues and that is the small
business owner that will possibly be placed out of business should this go through. I
think the second issue out there is in regard to the low bid. There seems to be a lot of
question of whether this gentleman can perform under that bid. Given my agreement
that in two weeks we’ll be no further along than we are today, I’m going to make a
substitute motion that we approve this matter as printed. I think where we’re really at
the low bid is if we’ve got concerns about this waste company being able to perform
the low bid, the way to move this along is to see if they can -- approve this issue, let
them move to the next step, which is the performance bond. If they can’t get the
performance bond, obviously they can’t perform and we’ll be back at the table again.
But this has been ongoing I think since October or November sometime of last year. I
think we need to move it on along to the next level, Mr. Mayor, and I just make the
motion that we approved this as printed.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Henry Brigham?
31
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I was thinking that the things that Mr. Mays said
and Mr. Bridges said, I kind of agree with them. However, all of the Districts have
not had their public hearings and I’m glad you’re having this argument today, because
when it does come out, some of the people want to know the answers to some of those
things, and this is what we are talking about. And I would not vote for it today. I
would hope that we would just leave it open at this particular time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Henry. Anybody else want to be heard from?
Mr. Cheek? Let me go to Mr. Brigham. He hasn’t spoken yet and then back to Mr.
Cheek.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, fellow Commissioners, I am supporting this. My
constituents have told me that they want this service, they’re willing to pay for this
service, they feel like this is a better service, and a service that the government can
perform. Also I don’t want to see us [inaudible] so therefore I’m very supportive of
using private contractors to perform this service. I believe in the long run that the
area that I represent will be better served with this service provided if this is what they
want. This is what they have told me they want. This is what I want to provide the
citizens that I represent.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The point I want to make is that in five
town hall meetings starting in December, this was overwhelmingly accepted,
somewhere in the 98-to-99 percentile range of all the attendees. We may wait for two
weeks, depending on how this vote goes, but I certainly don’t want to wait beyond
that. The citizens want this service. We need this service, and it’s time to move
forward with it.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead then and take a vote on the substitute
motion from Commissioner Bridges, which is to approve the awarding of the
contracts for solid waste collection. Mr. Shepard, you had a question?
Mr. Shepard: Let me ask this question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Shepard: To my colleague Mr. Bridges, if the Chair would permit. You
didn’t include in your motion subject to financing. My point is unresolved. We don’t
have the financing mechanism in place because if we pass this today and the tax
districts don’t pass, we are going to have contracts without a way to fund it. So I
don’t know that we’re in any better shape with that potential conflict between the
taxing ordinance which we don’t have and the contract. How do you propose to
resolve that?
32
Mr. Bridges: Would you like me to amend my motion to include that
language?
Mr. Shepard: I would like it to be included that we enter the contract subject
to financing, because if we don’t have the financing I don’t want to have to go back
and pass a general obligation tax to do what we’ve committed ourselves to do. Yes, I
think to.
Mr. Bridges: I’d have no objection to that and I’ll include that in the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to amending the motion?
Mr. Shepard: There would be no contracts unless we come up with a
financing plan through the districts. Is that right?
Mr. Mayor: Okay. No objection heard.
Mr. Mays: One objection, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: I’m going to lose so I might as well throw a monkey in the whole
wrench.
Mr. Mayor: Well, not really. All we’ll do is take a vote on the amendment,
then. All in favor of amending the motion to include making the provision subject to
financing, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, point of order. Can we do that in the middle of that
motion, from the parliamentarian, of two motions on the floor and the vote on the
amendment takes unanimous consent to change it?
Mr. Mayor: No, it doesn’t take unanimous consent to amend. It takes
majority.
Mr. Wall: It takes approval to amend the motion, yes. [inaudible] We can
amend the motion and the Mayor was [inaudible] so that the vote would not be
necessary.
Mr. Mays: Just asking the question.
Mr. Mayor: Trying to save some time.
Mr. Mays: Keep him doing his job.
33
Mr. Mayor: So that takes us to the substitute motion which has been amended
with the financing stipulation. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
To approve the contracts.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Mays, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to postpone
this for two weeks. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, item 48.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: As a point of clarification --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mays: On the minutes, and we don’t have to deal with this today, but I’m
going to request it. Out of the committee meeting when we went back and turned
down the proposal to go forth at that time and to deal with the existing contract and
the reference made to the small businesses that were in there, and now here we going
to deal back in two weeks in terms of the bid process. Is this City going to make any
attempt at all to deal with those folk who are so-called crying in the wilderness that do
operate legitimate businesses to a point where we have just spoken about the fact that
we are dealing with now $4.5 million in link deposit monies that serve as a catalyst to
help small businesses over in there in terms of some door for them to turn to to see if
they can be players in this process? Or is this just come back and iron out where
we’ve got in the contract as it exists? And I’m saying that in terms of those small
business folks that will call me. I just want to get an answer because I thought in the
motion when we turned it down that was part of what we were to do, and it was
recommended that in order to get that done that we get some city folk off their duffs
in order to refer these folk in order to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, that was not part of the motion today, but I think as a
Commissioner you certainly have the right to talk to the Public Works director and
34
ask the director to bring that information in concert with the administrator before this
Commission at the next meeting.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, with all due respect, the Public Works director is going
to do what we place in a vote on this floor. She is not the person in charge of what we
do. The buck stops with us. What I’m asking is is the City going to do anything in a
point of reality to see if these folk can get into a measure of being able to compete.
That’s what I’m asking and I don’t think that answer should come from the Public
Works director. I think it should come from the Mayor of the city and the ten
Commissioners in deciding that point. That’s how I [inaudible] the call, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: That was not part of the motion.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] direct to them.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along with the order of the day.
Mr. Mays: So I guess we ignore them then?
Mr. Mayor: You may interpret it any way you wish, Commissioner Mays.
Mr. Mays: Benign neglect has been known in the city, so I guess it continues.
Clerk:
48. Consider the appointment of eight (8) members to the Technical Advisory
Committee to work with Parsons Engineering on the Watershed
Assessment Project.
Mr. Cheek: I so move, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Are you referencing the communication that
we’ve been presented? There is one vacancy on here. Do we need to put a name with
this first appointment on here?
Clerk: Paine College?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Clerk: We have that name. We weren’t able to get it from Dr. Shirley Lewis
today, but she has the name. She provided it to us at the last Commission meeting. I
can’t remember who it was.
35
Mr. Hicks: I want to say it is a Dr. King or a Ms. King or something like that?
Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Hicks: If you want to pin it down to that much, I think everybody agreed
that the last name was King.
Clerk: King.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Hicks: I have one correction.
Mr. Mayor: You do? What is that, Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: Under forestry, it should be Mr. Jesse Townsend, not Ms. Jesse
Townsend.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Max, I wanted to ask you this question. I notice that we’ve got
on the Technical Advisory Committee Dr. Ralph Walker.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: And I’m crazy about Ralph, but I had submitted a name from
Augusta State, Dr. Bruce Saul, who is in the Biology Department.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: I don’t see any correlation between political science and
technical advisory committee on this thing.
Mr. Hicks: What we have is this. The doctor that you had recommended lives
in Columbia County. I called him last night, and he lives in Columbia County.
Mr. Kuhlke: I thought that wasn’t an issue. I thought you had asked that that
be waived.
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. No, sir. That was pointed out quite well that we needed
all the folks to come from Richmond County, so all of these folks are residents.
That’s the same way with Lori [inaudible], who is the planning director for the CSRA
Planning and Development. We would like for her, but she also is a resident of
Columbia County. So Dr. Walker was the closest thing that we could get to a planner
and person familiar with the local process.
36
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve these appointments and a second.
Are there any other nominations? None heard. We’ll go ahead and vote on these.
All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
49. Discuss Trees, Parks and Landscaping Department’s organization
chart/direct report. (Requested by Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham:
Mr. Mayor, I asked this to be put on the agenda. I think
refer this to the Engineering
[inaudible] today’s meeting we probably need to
Services Committee for review or organization, whether they need it for it to
come up under Public Works, and bring back a recommendation, and I make a
motion to that.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Just a quick -- if it’s going to be, I think it should be
appropriately referred to Engineering Services Committee, but I think one thing we
need to look at is the coordination between our Public Works and our Trees and
Landscape departments. I’ve been told many times that the median down the middle
of Greene Street is maintained by Trees and Landscape and the side walk areas with
the grass between the curb and the side walk being Public Works’ responsibility. Too
frequently we have a well-trimmed median right in front of this courthouse and trash
and other garbage piled up on the side streets, so I would when we address this we
address the coordination of these functions down this important corridor, down this
state highway. I mean it came into high relief for me when someone had carelessly
piled cut brush on the side of Greene Street during Masters Week, two blocks from
this courthouse, and I think we need to look at coordination of these services. I think
they do a good job, but we need to work together in a team effort on projects like
Greene Street and other corridors that exist throughout the west, the south, all parts of
this government. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
37
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I see this as an opportunity to eliminate a
department head position and roll this under Public Works. It’s a shame that we have,
as Commissioner Shepard said, one group cutting the median and one cutting the
sides. That seems to me to be duplication of effort, and this would be an opportunity
to streamline the operations and eliminate the extra chain of command personnel.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Any further discussion? All in favor of the
motion to refer this to Engineering Services, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
50. Appointment of Interim Fire Chief.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard:
Mr. Mayor, I think we all agree, and we’ve gone through this
before, that we need in the absence of our Fire Chief, Mr. Mack, we need someone
I’m going to recommend that we
down there in charge. We’ve done this before and
appoint Deputy Chief Scott as our Interim Fire Chief and also included in that
would be we have already asked the HR Director to start the process and she has
informed us within 90 days that she would have hopefully that person on board
and she will begin the advertisement process immediately after we finish this
vote today.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations for Interim Chief? Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I’d like to make a substitute motion to
nominate Chief Rogers for the Interim Fire Chief for the period until we do go out
and find a permanent Fire Chief for Augusta-Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? We have two nominations for
Interim Chief. We’ll vote on these in the order that they were nominated. The first
vote will be taken for Deputy Chief Carl Scott. All in favor of Chief Scott’s
appointment as Interim Chief, please vote aye.
(Vote on Chief Carl Scott)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Williams and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next item?
38
Clerk:
SUBCOMMITTEE RESCHEDULING OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS:
51. Consider recommendations from the RCM Subcommittee regarding the
rescheduling of committee meetings.
Clerk: The recommendation from that committee which met today at 1:30:
12:30 p.m. - Public Services Committee
1:00 p.m. - Administrative Services Committee
1:30 p.m. - Public Safety Committee
2:00 p.m. - Finance Committee
3:00 p.m. - Engineering Services Committee
Mr. Shepard: I would move this body adopt the recommendation of the
Rescheduling of Committees Sub-Committee.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham just told me he had to leave the Chambers,
but he has no objection as Chairman of moving the time of his Administrative
Services Committee. Discussion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Williams: Brief discussion, please.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Williams: The Chairman sit there and let them change and went through
this new format and I ain’t got no problem with it, but I just think that Finance ought
to be the first meeting we have rather than the fourth meeting we have, Mr. Chairman.
I mean I can’t change that but if you ain’t got the money you ain’t go nothing to go
on. We should have stayed where we was. You could have changed the time but
kept us first.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to say that means the other committees can’t do
anything until two o’clock.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Williams, we are trying to get along with our fellow
Commissioners. We can change it again if we have to.
Mr. Mayor: And this will be effective with the -- if it’s approved, effective the
second meeting in May.
39
Clerk: Second meeting in May.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Gentlemen, any further discussion? All in favor then of
setting the schedule for the committee meetings, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
52. Consider the appeal of Ms. Alice M. Shuford regarding the denial of her
petition from the Historic Preservation Commission for a Certificate of
Appropriateness affecting property at 1325 Milledge Road requesting to
cover the existing wood fascia and soffit with a vinyl or aluminum
product.
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Shuford here or someone? Are you going to represent
yourself today?
Ms. Shuford: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Very good. Give us your name and address for the record.
Ms. Shuford: My name is Alice M. Shuford. I’m a property owner at 1325
Milledge Road in Augusta, Georgia. My reasons for the appeal are the same as they
were before the Historic Preservation Commission. First of all, my house already has
siding on a portion of it, on the upper half, and I just wish to continue the siding on
the trim.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me just a minute. If we could have folks in the room --
okay. You may continue. Thank you.
Ms. Shuford: I’ve got siding on a portion of the top half of the house and
wanted to continue the siding on the trim and on the windows. Secondly, in my area
of Summerville, a number of homes both beside me, either side, and around in my
block and across the street have siding, either total siding or on the trim itself, and I
collected a petition of my neighbors, went door-to-door, asking them if that would be
a problem if I got siding, and they were all in agreement and had no problem getting
that. I understand and support what the Historic Preservation is trying to do.
However, I feel like what I’m trying to do is basically update the house with modern
materials. I have spent -- I have lived there 16 years and I have spent a significant
sum of money keeping up my house, both improving the interior and the exterior. I
am not trying to detract from the appearance. The guidelines for the Historic
40
Preservation association state that it is not consistent in appearance. It is consistent
with appearance. It’s as good looking as the wood. It is not covering up problems.
I’m not covering up rotten wood by any stretch because I want to maintain the value
of the place. I just simply, for me personally, it is material that -- it saves me from
painting every couple of years or having to hire someone to paint. If this will last
longer. And it looks, I feel like, as good as the painted material. And I live in a
neighborhood where there are any number of homes that already have siding. Now
I’ve been approved for storm windows and I have storm windows in the house and I
don’t see the difference between having storm windows [inaudible] or the vinyl
siding.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we allow this lady to
go forth with her plans.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we have a motion and a second. The Historic Preservation
Commission would like to be heard from, and I’ll recognize Mr. Pittman.
Mr. Pittman: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This issue has been brought up before,
as you recall, during the debate on [inaudible] Historic Preservation ordinance, this
issue was covered. Your Commission appointed a committee of citizens to review all
of the guidelines in the Summerville Historic District [inaudible] guidelines. The
review committee included two members of your Commission and approved those
guidelines, and I would respectfully submit to the Commission that it is important that
we maintain the guidelines for historic preservation so we can maintain the integrity
of this district. The National Historic Guidelines [inaudible] which in this case
applies to the use of wood to be simply replaced and painted. The two guidelines that
are already in the Summerville [inaudible] guidelines, as I said before, you have
already approved. So in essence you would be disapproving a major portion of the
historic guidelines that have been published as part of the ordinance, have been
published as part of the guidelines for the District. I would simply bring that to the
Commissioners’ attention.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Pittman, can I ask you a question, please?
Mr. Pittman: Yes.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’m looking at the recommendations that came back from the
citizens committee, and I don’t have one of the handbooks with me, but under the
building materials, paragraph C, siding expressingly following preservation brief #8,
41
and it says attachment, and I don’t have that, which permits the use of aluminum,
vinyl, [inaudible] plank, and other construction material in renovation projects in
specific conditions. Now can you tell me what that is?
Mr. Pittman: It’s very rare that that would be approved. It would normally
occur in a situation where we would make allowance for perhaps a piece of design
work or a piece of material. You could place an artificial piece where the original
piece could not be duplicated. [inaudible] original construction.
Mr. Kuhlke: My question is, and unfortunately, I think Steve Shepard and I, I
don’t know whether we were on the committee or we just had the committee formed,
but if she’s already got vinyl siding --
Mr. Pittman: Let me clarify that. The issue that Ms. Shuford raised about
having siding, according to the minutes of the meeting and according to what we
reviewed, her request was that she be allowed to replace rotten wood that was on
fascia and soffit boards. She further requested to install vinyl tamping at all the
windows and to replace vinyl siding on two dormers. The Commission did not
address the vinyl siding on those two dormers at all. To the best of our knowledge,
that’s the only place where she has vinyl siding. The vinyl siding that was on those
two dormers, since they were already present, there are numerous houses, well, not
numerous, there are some houses in Summerville we simply would say it was there
before, replace it. But the whole issue is not allowing any new synthetic or artificial
products to be placed on houses in Summerville simply because the ordinance
requires, as well as the guidelines require, that you pick a starting point to preserve
the neighborhood. And that’s the issue at hand.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Bill, to comment, I thought that the guidelines were reviewed by
that committee and that that committee which did include you and I was to send those
guidelines forth to the HPC for further review, and I think that one of the moving
forces of that committee was Ms. Gretchen Saunders, who I found out has moved out
of town and I don’t know what happened to the process, but my question for Mr.
Pittman is that given the state of the guidelines, is this portion of our backup materials
which states on page 88 of the preservation book, but it’s the last page of our
materials backing up item 52, it says that synthetic siding is not appropriate in the
district, in addition to changing the appearance of a historic building, synthetic siding
can make maintenance more difficult because it covers up potential problems that
could be more serious. Is that the state of the guidelines as they existed before the
Historic Preservation committee [inaudible] this case?
Mr. Pittman: Yes, sir. There were no changes to either the provisions
pertaining to synthetic siding or the provisions on pages 85 through 86 which pertain
to rehabilitation of wood [inaudible].
42
Mr. Shepard: And what was the vote of the Historic Preservation, the HPC?
Mr. Pittman: The vote in this case, as it has been in all such cases with use of
synthetic siding involved, was unanimous.
Mr. Shepard:
Well, Mr. Pittman, you recall because I think you were serving
your appointment at that time, but I think it was before some of our colleagues joined
the board, we had one of the largest -- and I know Lena was there -- it was in -- I can’t
remember what hall, what auditorium it was, but it was one of the largest public
hearings we’ve ever had, was held in the Third District, and I well remember it cause
I presided over it, and the Summerville Neighborhood, the neighbors, no matter what
our opinions were about historic preservation, and I think we did do that, but we also
had a clear consensus. I remember one of our colleagues saying we get the message
that the Summerville district supports the Historic Preservation District, and I don’t
want to go behind the HPC and relitigate or redetermine every case they have before
I’m going to make the substitute motion to sustain the HPC’s decision.
us, and so
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Beard, my parliamentarian, points out that would be a
substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: That’s correct. All right. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, after sitting on the
Commission, there are several things that I have learned if I buy a house I will or will
not do the next time I do that, and one thing is I don’t want to live in a historic district
cause I don’t want somebody tell me what I can and can’t do with my own house.
But there are certain guidelines, certain ordinances that are set up and are established,
people in those areas understand that, and I think at this point we’ve got to conform to
what we’ve established for those historic districts and ask the population there to
comply. I don’t think we can be making exceptions to the standards and ordinances
on an as-come basis. I think we just have to adhere to them and I am going to support
the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to address a couple of
issues. One is that I think this constituent mentioned that she’s been there for 16
years and that you’ve got storm windows on your house now. So those storm
windows have been added since you’ve been there; is that right?
Ms. Shuford: That’s correct.
43
Mr. Williams: And you do have some siding on there now?
Ms. Shuford: I do.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And the historic board did not object to the storm
windows which is changing from the regular windows [inaudible] I know. But I
mean was there an objection then? How did that come about?
Ms. Shuford: I put them on myself a number of years ago. [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: Well, you know, and I’m in agreement with Mr. Shepard, too,
and Commissioner Bridges as well, you can’t just change back and forth and back and
forth. But I mean after 16 years of being in this area in this home and you’ve got
siding already there and there are other homes in that area as well, you mentioned.
Ms. Shuford: Both homes beside me and the house across the street have
siding on [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: I’m going to still support my original motion, Mr. Mayor, but I
just feel [inaudible] quite different [inaudible] doing some work to it, [inaudible] but
after this constituent been there for some 16 years and done some work, whether it
pass or not I’m going to support you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just want to ask one question for the record. Mr. Pittman, you’re
saying that this clearly violates the ordinance that was created?
Mr. Pittman: There’s a couple of issues that I may address. First as to the
storm windows. The storm windows on this home never went before the Historic
Preservation Commission. Second, I think it’s important to point out to the
Commissioners that two dormer windows on this home have vinyl [inaudible] pieces
[inaudible]. I will assume before this petition was made to the Commission. Since
that is the case, then we did not address those two issues. That to us is just normal
maintenance on a home. The whole point of the preservation ordinance in
Summerville and as they pertain to Summerville [inaudible] guidelines in place for
Summerville is that from the point the ordinance was enacted forward, no synthetic
siding products would be used. That is a common provision for all historic
preservation districts across this country. Back during the preservation ordinance
debate, I made a point of researching that fact, just for my own clarification as a
member of the commission. I think it’s important to bring that up. The homes that
have siding on them now, that will have to be addressed as time goes by, and that
siding is needed to be replaced. We’ve not crossed that bridge yet. Does that answer
your question?
44
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] I think we cannot start deviating from an ordinance
that we have created. I think we open ourselves up to every time you look around we
going to have people down here that we have to deal with, and I think that it would be
advisable to stick with the ordinance and follow that.
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Flanagan wanted to say something, so let’s let him
come up to the microphone.
Mr. Flanagan: I’m Stewart Flanagan. 1117 Glenn Avenue. And I was
chairman of the committee who reviewed the design guidelines after the Butler Hall
meeting. And there were six people on the committee who attended regularly and
participated and it was unanimous that we adopt the [inaudible] on vinyl siding. And
as far as I know, to the best of my recollection, it Augusta it’s only been done one
time in this district, in the Summerville District, and that was on a house that burned
that all real deep [inaudible] siding that could not be replaced, couldn’t find the
boards. And that’s the only time that’s been approved. It’s very strict but the
committee felt like this [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: [inaudible] in front of you, and maybe you could clear something
up for me. How is it that some of these neighbors are allowed to have the siding? Is
it because they predated the --
Mr. Pittman: That’s the whole essence of the case, Commissioner.
Mr. Cheek: And that’s limited to just a few or are there quite a number of
houses?
Mr. Pittman: [inaudible] and most of them [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Bryan, would you like to speak? Give us your name and address
for the record, please.
Mr. Haltermann: My name is Bryan Haltermann, [inaudible] Road. I was the
past chairman of the Preservation Commission. I’ve been on the Commission for
eight years. [inaudible] we have never allowed vinyl siding on a house except for one
case, a burn case. The situation where people have siding on the houses actually the
problem, people don’t go through the Historic Preservation process, circumvent local
codes, and throw up siding. And so by approving this, I think you’re giving
encouragement to people who have already done that.
Mr. Mayor: Bryan, let me ask you one question, if I may. Do you make a
distinction between vinyl siding and vinyl that’s used for trim here? In the case here
she’s asking for a fascia and soffit as opposed to siding.
Mr. Haltermann: The guidelines don’t recommend either one.
45
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Haltermann: And again, we didn’t come up with the guidelines. You all,
the Commission, approved these guidelines and passed them.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Do y’all have anything further? We have a substitute
motion on the floor to sustain the action of the Historic Preservation Commission in
denying the certificate of appropriateness. All in favor of that motion, please vote
aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Next item.
Clerk: For the record, on item 48, the person’s name from Paine College will
be Ms. Linda James.
Mr. Mayor: Linda James.
Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS:
53. Consider appointments to the Board of Tax Assessor to fill the seats of
Mr. Tracy Williams, (District 9) and Mr. William B. Lee (District 10),
which will expire April 24, 2001.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to reappoint Mr. Williams and Mr. Lee. Any
other nominations?
Mr. J. Brigham: I move the nominations be closed.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’ll just go ahead and vote. All in favor of these two
nominations, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 9-0.
46
Clerk:
53A. Consider the appointment of Mr. Daniel W. Hamilton to the Local
Indigent Defense Tripartite Committee due to the expired term of Mr.
Duane Grice. (Approved by Columbia and Burke County Commissions)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any other nominations? None heard. All in
favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if I could be recognized on the issue of my pressing
the abstention button. For the record, Mr. Williams, Mr. Daniel Hamilton is one of
my law partners, therefore I will not vote on that. I do from time to time recognize
some of my colleagues here as my unofficial law partners, and I’m proud to do so.
Mr. Shepard abstains.
M. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 8-1.
Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
54. Discuss Memorandum of Understanding relating to the Savannah Bluff
Lock and Dam.
Mr. Cheek: I move it be approved.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 8-1.
ADMINISTRATOR:
55. Report from Interim Administrator regarding the televising of the
regular meetings of the Commission.
Mr. Cheek: I move that we adopt Option 2 as listed and refer this to the
Finance Committee for the designation of funding.
47
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Shepard and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Mr. H. Brigham and Mr. Beard out.
Motion carries 6-2.
56. Other business.
57. Legal meeting.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss litigation matters.
Mr. Shepard: I so move we go into legal meeting.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Beard and Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 8-2.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:55 - 5:30 P.M.]
58. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 7-0.
[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 17, 2001.
Clerk of Commission