HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-01-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
May 1, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, May
1, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham,
Shepard, Beard, Cheek and Williams, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: George Kolb, Administrator; Jim Wall, Attorney; and Lena
Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Dunn.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the
agenda today?
Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. For the record, Commissioner Ulmer Bridges will
not be in attendance. We have a request to add two items as per our addendum
agenda:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
1. Approve the acquisition of Three (3) Ford F450 Crew Cab Utility Trucks
for the Augusta Richmond County Utilities Department - Construction
Division from Willoughby Ford of Thomson, Georgia for $122,332.50.
(Lowest bid on bid offer 00-175)
2. Ratify the following Legislative Delegation appointments:
George Sancken, Jr. - Riverfront Development Review Board
Calvin DeLoach - Sheriff’s Merit System Review Board
Frank Lawrence - Augusta Port Authority
Clerk: Item 1 is being added today because to meet the manufacturer’s
deadline for new models, that was requested by the Fleet Manager through the
Assistant Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Is there any objection to adding both of these items?
Deletion from the agenda:
Item 34.
2
Clerk: Delete item 34.
Mr. Mayor: Delete 34?
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] number 1.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Williams: You don’t have consent on item 1. I’ve got a slight problem
with that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Cheek: Me, too, Mr. Mayor, on number 1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any objection to adding item 2 and deleting 34? None
heard, so we will add item 2 and then delete item 34 from the agenda. Madame
Clerk, we’ll move ahead with our delegation.
Clerk:
INTRODUCTION:
Ms. Teresa Smith, Director of Public Works
RE: Ms. Sandra Grimes, Preconstruction Engineer
Ms. Smith: Mayor, Commissioners, employees, citizens of Richmond County,
I would like to introduce to you today our new preconstruction engineer, Ms. Sandra
Grimes. Ms. Grimes is a native of Denmark, South Carolina, and received her
engineering degree from South Carolina State. She comes to us with project
management experience in the areas of road ways, drainage, and facilities design.
She has worked with the Corps of Engineers and the National Weather Service. She
had asked me to indicate that she looks forward to doing business with Augusta
Richmond County, but I will give her an opportunity to say something.
Ms. Grimes: Thank you. As Teresa said, I am looking forward to working
with each of you. This is my third week here and if the last two weeks are any
indication of my time here, I’m in for a challenging ride, but I’m looking forward to
3
it. Again, thank you for the opportunity and I’m looking forward to doing great
things for the citizens of Augusta Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Grimes.
Clerk:
DELEGATIONS:
A. Mr. Willie Lee Jones
Walton Option for Independent Living, Inc.
RE: Transit Involvement Committee
Mr. Mayor: The podium is there to your left.
Mr. Jones: Commissioners, how are you today?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jones, if you’ll just give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Mr. Jones: Willie Lee Jones. My address is 1135 [inaudible], and my purpose
of being here today, Commissioners, November of 2000, I came to this committee to
ask the committee to start a transit board, but what I understand the Charter need to be
changed. Am I correct? Okay. And also Heyward Johnson mentioned that he was
going to start an [inaudible] committee. Now we are talking about the month of
November. And the pastor that just gave the prayer just a moment ago [inaudible]
serving people, and my purpose for being here, what happened to the [inaudible]
committee? Now what I understand, each Commissioner had each District,
[inaudible] districts, [inaudible] to generate some names and to forward those names
to Mr. Heyward Johnson. I haven’t heard anything about that. And I would like to
know if it’s possible what the body of Commissioners are doing for the people in this
area concerning transportation. Because we did have a voice and that’s my statement
to this body. I know it’s possible where someone come to the plate and tell the
citizens what you are going to do with this [inaudible] committee. Thank you very
much. I hope you have a good day.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Jones. Next?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Before Mr. Jones leaves, cause I know he usually -- I usually pass
him a lot on the southside and can catch his bus there. I call him movie star cause he
gets around pretty good. With it not be prudent that we hear from Mr. Johnson or
somebody in Transit because we [inaudible] for them. I know we had some
4
differences in the terminology of what the committee was going to be called and what
was about the Charter, and I think he was correct in that. But we did support this
going ahead and being pushed so that they could get -- and I think it was left at the
point that within their ridership of being able to primarily get people and supporters
for public transit, to get this thing off the ground and rolling. I would just like to hear
from Mr. Johnson on it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Johnson is here in the committee room. Mr. Johnson, could
you come in and respond to Commissioner Mays’ question?
Mr. Johnson: Mr. Mayor and Commission, as Mr. Jones said, it was approved
by you in November, and that the climate was that the Commission would provide me
with three names each and then I would in turn select one of those three names to be
selected for the [inaudible] committee and I sent out several reminders of that and as
of yet, I do not have enough people to be sent to me so I could select someone.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]?
Mr. Johnson: No, one person. Each one of you was asked to give me a list of
three names and I would select one out of the District of the Commissioners. The
board would actually be eleven individuals.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] because we [inaudible] not do it that day and I was
pushing to get that done and quite frankly, from the budget time to now and
everything else we’ve cropped up with, we’ve been through one hell of a situation
since November, but if you will go ahead and place that on Commissioner
Colclough’s committee for the next week to get those names in there so that we can
go ahead on it and get this darn thing off the ground and get it rolling. And do it
through that committee, because what I’m saying is with the number of items that we
deal with on committee, the ones that we’ve got today, 40 to 50 of them, if it’s not
[inaudible], bring it back to us and do it. But what I’m saying is this is the second or
third time he’s been [inaudible] and my thing before was that he ought to know better
from the standpoint of [inaudible] from the different [inaudible] in terms of a diverse
level, particularly where we were concerned about, particularly handicaps and I think
there were some other things [inaudible] talked about but go ahead and we move this
thing along.
Mr. Johnson: Yes, sir. I have sent out several reminders and I understood that
the Commission was in the midst of the budget and then everything else, but I did
send out several reminders of the fact that we were looking for those names. But I
will send out another reminder this week.
5
Mr. Mays: What I’m asking is that you not do it in a reminder, that you go
ahead and make an agenda item on it and we come prepared to do that and vote on it
and get it done. Let’s do it that way.
Mr. Johnson: It was already voted on.
Mr. Mays: No, I’m talking about the names. Get it established and then move
it on with it, and then at that point it’s your baby to deal with then.
Mr. Johnson: All right. No problem.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Before the Transportation Director leaves, I need to ask a
question. On our regular appointments, we usually give you a name that we feel like
of being able to serve on that board. When you’re talking about three names, if that’s
going to prolong the process, should we not just give you a name of someone that we
[inaudible] appointments as well? Rather than giving you three names to select from,
I mean that’s more work on you, Mr. Johnson, I believe, but would it not be more
feasible for us to give you a name of a person we want to serve, that we feel that
would serve on that board? And if that person doesn’t serve, then we can give you
someone else. But I think the three names may be, may give it a longer process, and
we’ve probably waited long enough on this already.
Mr. Mayor: We debated this last fall and the Commission decided, this
Commission voted that we would each send three names to Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Williams: I understand, Mr. Mayor, and we can’t get off the ground on
that. And my point is that if we can give him a name of someone rather than have
him go through that process.
Mr. Mayor: If you can’t think of but one name, then send him one name.
Mr. Williams: I can think of 20, Mr. Mayor. It wasn’t a point of how many I
can think of. I was saying that -- I was only trying to make a suggestion that if we
give him a name, we [inaudible] our appointment with one name. I was bringing up a
point. If we want three names, we can give him three. I just bring that point up.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Well, each Commissioner may do as he pleases with
this, but this will be on the agenda for the committee meeting next week and we’ll
take it up again then. The next delegation, Mr. Shanks. Mr. Peter Shanks. Mr.
Shanks not here?
6
Clerk: He indicated [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we refer it to committee then? Why don’t we do that
since he’s not here to plead his case?
Clerk: All right.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move along with the consent agenda.
Clerk: Consent agenda is item 1 through 26. That’s items 1 through 26.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any we need to read out today?
Clerk: No, sir. I don’t have any alcohol petitions and the planning item is a
second reading [inaudible] zoning ordinance.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent
agenda?
FINANCE:
1. Motion to approve a refund of 1999 taxes in the amount of $755.03 to G.
H. Cooper for overpayment of taxes on Map 56-4, Parcel 154. (Approved
by Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
2. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of
$310.09 to Dennis P. McBride, Sr. for overpayment of taxes on Map 97-4,
Parcel 298. (Approved by Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
3. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of
$310.06 to James E. Parker for overpayment of taxes on Map 180, Parcel
43.03. (Approved by Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
4. Motion to approve abatement of penalty in the amount of $575.17 for
property located at 2135 Cumming Road. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 25, 2001)
5. Motion to approve refund of 1998 and 1999 taxes in the amount of
$3,944.47 to Fred Calloway for overpayment of taxes on Map 51, Parcel
239. Subject to confirmation by the attorney. (Approved by Finance
Committee April 25, 2001)
6. Motion to approve renewal of contract with Slavens Accounting and
Consulting Services on an "as need basis" at a rate of $90. (Approved by
Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
7. Motion to approve investing in the Georgia Extended Asset Pool.
(Approved by Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
8. Motion to deny a request from the League of Women Voters regarding a
sponsorship of the Local Government Directory from the Promotion
Account. (Approved by Finance Committee April 25, 2001)
7
8A. Motion to approve holding the May 7 Finance Committee meeting at
Richmond Academy High School. (Approved by Finance Committee
April 25, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
9. Motion to abandon a portion of Browns Lane. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 25, 2001)
10. Motion to approve a proposal from PM&A Consulting Engineers in the
amount of $46,700.00 to provide professional services which includes
design of sanitary sewer connections to the existing sanitary sewer system
in a portion of the Rae’s Creek area. (Funded by Account Number
509043420/5212115 80150040/5212115) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 25, 2001)
11. Motion to approve a proposal from PM&A Consulting Engineers in the
amount of $30,200.00 to provide professional services which includes
design of sanitary sewer connections to the existing sanitary sewer system
in a portion of the Rocky Creek Basin. (Funded by Account Number
509043420/5212115 80150115/5212115) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee April 25, 2001)
12. Motion to approve the purchase of runners and shafting for #4 pump at
Raw Water Pumping Station in the amount of $160,000.00 from Thomas
Brothers Hydro, Inc. (Funded by Account 506043510-5425110)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee April 25, 2001)
13. Motion to approve salary for Land Acquisition Supervisor I, Utilities
Department, not to exceed mid range of Salary Grade 50. (Funded by
Account No. 509043490-5111110) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee April 25, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
14. Motion to approve changing the policy regarding voluntary surrender of
pet ownership to the shelter. Authorize the Department of Animal
Control to require payment for admission of unwanted pets to the shelter
according to the attached fee schedule. Authorize the department to offer
participation in a Pre-Admission Wellness Program. Please see attached
for detailed policy statement and program description. Authorize the
Department of Animal Control to require owners wishing to surrender
pets to animal control to do so at the shelter. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee April 25, 2001)
15. Motion to approve the submission of grant application to FEMA on
behalf of Augusta Fire Department with a departmental match of $71,700.
from Fire Department’s Contingency Account. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee April 25, 2001)
16. Motion to approve positions, reclassification and revised job descriptions
for the 9-1-1 Center funded from 9-1-1 collections. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee April 25, 2001)
8
17. Motion to approve of the and sign Maintenance Renewal Agreement with
TeamIA for the period covering February 1, 2001 – January 31, 2002.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee April 25, 2001)
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
19. Motion to approve a request by Chong Kim & Tom Ryan for a massage
therapist license to be used in connection with Our Place, L.L.P. located at
3319 Washington Road. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee April 25, 2001)
20. Motion to approve the maintenance in lieu of rent agreement between
Augusta Richmond County and DHR, Department of Family and
Children Services. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 25,
2001)
21. Motion to approve Mr. Dickey Boardman as Commissioner Kuhlke’s
(Super District 10) ‘Consumer Member’ appointee to the Construction
Advisory Board. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 25,
2001).
22. Deleted from consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
23. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held April 17, 2001.
PLANNING:
24. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to approve a petition to consider amending
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.
(Approved by the Commission April 17 – second reading)
25. Motion to approve Ordinances to amend Chapter 8-4, "Trees" to clarify
fence height, curbing in parking lots, counting handicap parking spaces
9
and also establishing protection for existing and planted trees. (Approved
by the Commission April 17 – second reading)
APPOINTMENT:
26. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Anthony M. Booker to the
Historic Preservation Commission representing District 2.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve.
Mr. Beard: I second.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, are there any items that you’d like to defer for
individual discussion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I wanted to add, if the maker of the motion would allow it, the
ratification of the Legislative Delegation appointment, the addition, agenda item 2.
Ratification.
Mr. Mayor: No objection heard on that.
Addendum Item 2. Ratify the following Legislative Delegation Appointments:
??
George Sancken, Jr. - Riverfront Development Review Board
??
Calvin DeLoach - Sheriff’s Merit System Review Board
??
Frank Lawrence - Augusta Port Authority
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Item 22 I would like to pull just for discussion anyway.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anybody else have an item they’d like to pull?
Mr. Cheek: Item 18, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Number 18. Okay. Anything else? All right, we have a motion
to approve the consent agenda, with the addition of Item 2 from the addendum
agenda, and minus items 18 and 22. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-17, 19-21, 23-26, Addendum Item #2.
Clerk:
10
18. Motion to approve the following costs associated with the implementation
of action plan regarding improving the intake process at the Animal Control
Shelter. (Approved by Public Safety Committee April 25, 2001)
??
“Kim” Couch Memorial Fund $50.00 - Adoption fees
??
Physical Monument $450.00 - Landfill
??
Purchase Computers $9,000 - Capital Budget
??
NACA Evaluation $3,950 - Professional Services
Administrator’s Budget
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to [inaudible], if [inaudible], mind, I have somewhat of a
problem with a physical monument unless it’s going to keep us out of court, and I’d
like to have a little explanation of the evaluation.
Dr. Bragdon: Sure. The reason for the physical monument is not only for Mr.
Couch, but I felt like this community as a whole has suffered on some level at the
number of problems that have occurred at the animal facility, and while I know and I
understand that we are not a private humane society, we are here to serve the needs of
this community, and not all the members of our community enjoy or support animal
causes, I think that we all feel very sad that we have these -- and we are forced to put
so many animals to sleep every year, and it’s just a gesture on my part to make the
community understand that while we know that this is a necessary evil, it is not
something that we find pleasant, that we do have to euthanize these animals every
year. And as far as the National Animal Control Association study, the National
Animal Control Association is a non-profit organization that provides these services
for communities across the country. Rather quickly, I have a newspaper here that is
produced on the national level by an animal welfare group called Animal People, and
back in January or February of this year they did make a comment that even in the
South, and they’re talking about euthanasia methods, even in the South where shelter
norms tend to lag, most shelters have quit gassing and they went on to talk about Jim
Larmer and all the problems we’ve had here in our community. And the reason I
bring this up is I would like part of the intent of having this study come in, these
people come in and do a study of our department, is to make sure that we are adhering
to national standards set by a professional organization. The National Animal Control
Association is made of professionals who work across the country in different animal
control organizations. Part of what they plan to do or provide for us is to evaluate
current deployment of resources, budget, equipment, facilities, and make suggestions
regarding productivity, to improve productivity, take a look at our enforcement
investigation procedures, which I think also directly result in productivity. If we are
able to enforce and investigate better, then potentially people will understand that
they have to be responsible and we could decrease the amount of money we’re
spending on animal control. Again, analysis of current field operations to suggest
improving productivity and efficiency, and analysis of adequacy of current levels of
11
office automation, going back to our computer system, examination of effectiveness
of community relations, talking about our programs and our volunteers. They have
performed 32 studies in the course of nine years. I did also look at the Humane
Society of the United States which performs similar studies. They wanted to charge
$8,000 for basically the same study. And again, 32 cities, primarily cities and
counties which have employed their services, and I think that was all I pretty much
had to say about them. I did want to say that I understand again that we are not a
private humane organization. We have started implementing volunteers. I’m very
conscious of the taxpayers’ money, and starting a week from this Sunday, we’ll
actually be formally scheduling volunteers to work unpaid at our county shelter every
Sunday from 1 to 5 and we hope to continue to expand that program.
Mr. Kuhlke: Will the study provide you any information that would be
beneficial for the new facility?
Dr. Bragdon: Yes. I’m very concerned about the new facility. I need to go
back and talk to the architect about operating costs as well as the actual cost of it, and
I think -- they also talked about this in the study, determining whether or not we’re
providing an adequate level of service and I think that they could help us establish --
because I am going to suggest that we possibly keep the old facility open and they
could help make some objective suggestions about whether or not that is necessary.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we approve this with
the exception of the physical monument.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Is there a second?
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second, okay. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion that we
approved this Item #18 as is stated in the book.
My rationale for that is that the
funding that was identified in committee meetings also I think this will help enhance
the services at the shelter and I know some of you say I have a problem with the
monument, but you have to understand the problem that the victims, the families went
through, and how they held in this situation, and I think this is a small thing that we
could do for them in return for what they went through. They are also to be
commended for [inaudible] and the method in which they handled this whole
situation, because it could have been much different, and I don’t think this monument
[inaudible] but for all animals that are there. That is the rationale for my motion.
Mr. Williams: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek?
12
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to piggy-back on what Commissioner Beard
said. I think this is an excellent direction to take. The monument, although on the
surface it may seem to some of us not to be necessary, it’s a physical reminder that we
have a problem and we’re euthanising thousands of dogs a year. There are a lot of
people in the population that take these critters near and dear to their hearts, and this
would be a sign to show to the public that this government is concerned about the
problem and will not let it go away until it’s solved.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Shepard: I didn’t, but I’ll say that I voted for this, Mr. Mayor, in
committee, and one thing that impressed me was the attitude of the complainant here
that they didn’t seek so much an award of anything but they did seek to have the
process constructively changed for all the citizens who encounter the animal control
process in the future. I think our Director correctly pointed out that we’re in the
business of animal control. The Director [inaudible] public health and safety. We
can walk the streets safely and we have disease better controlled in our community
because we control these animals, that we just have to do it. It’s a thankless job but
I’m going to sustain committee action and be consistent with my vote last week.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? There is a substitute motion to approve the
agenda as presented in the book. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 22, Madame Clerk.
Clerk:
22. Motion to approve an operational agreement with Summerville
Neighborhood Association to operate the Hickman Park Recreation
Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee April 25, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got no problem with the
Summerville Neighborhood Association. My problem comes with direct partnership
with different neighborhoods or different organizations and we are taking the brunt of
everything. We still support that building for its maintenance and all of the expense
of it. And in my mind, I think Rec should be handling those type situations. We got a
lot of small neighborhood programs and parks that we ought to be accepting those
volunteers and those people that come in and kind of help us, but then we partnership
13
with them and we turn it over and in some cases it has worked very well and some
cases it has not. But if we don’t get a handle on that, I’ve got at least two more that I
know of in my district that’s trying to in the process of doing the same type things.
And it becomes a problem with a lot of the neighborhood association people. A lot of
people in the neighborhood. I just think that we should not continue to partnership
and go into both type relationships. Sometimes there’s been some good in it, but in a
lot of cases there have not been. Especially when we still as a government, as Rec
take the responsibility for the building and their input just coming and running the
center so to speak, so I have this pulled because I wanted to voice that opinion. I
wanted to say I’m not against the neighborhood association. There have been some
that’s been good. But [inaudible] partnership and have not worked out, I think we got
a Rec Department that is second to none, and our Rec Department ought to be
handling those centers. We can’t focus just on the large areas, the large centers. The
small centers need our guidance, need our [inaudible] and I just think in my mind that
we ought not to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I was going to move that we sustain the
Committee’s action.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Mr. Beard, did you want to say
something?
Mr. Beard: I was going to make the motion.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: I have been advised that Mr. Peter Shanks, who desired to address
this Commission, has arrived. He was running a little late because he’s a postman.
Had to get the mail delivered first. So if he’s ready.
DELEGATION:
B. Mr. Peter Shanks
RE: Consider granting a special exception for the installation of automatic
sprinkler system for property located at 3520 Gordon Hwy
.
14
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon, Mr. Shanks. If you would come to the podium
and give us your name and address for the record, and then tell us what you want to
tell us.
Mr. Shanks: My name is Peter Shanks. My address is 3707 Gordon Highway.
That’s in Harlem. I’m requesting that the place of business that I’m planning to open
have an exception to policy for the electric sprinkler system, due to the fact that there
are no city or county water in that area, and this would be too costly for myself and
the owners to have the system installed. This system would cost roughly $158,000
and the building is not worth that, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Is Chief Scott here or someone from the Fire Department?
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]?
Mr. Shanks: Sir, this building has been there for over 40 years. Maybe some
of you have known it as, formerly known as the Hayloft.
Mr. Mayor: There he is out in the hall. What kind of business are you
opening?
Mr. Shanks: I’m opening a bar and lounge, sir.
Mr. Mayor: So people will be gathering inside the building?
Mr. Shanks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You hope in numbers?
Mr. Shanks: Well, yes, sir. Economically, yes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Chief Scott, if you could come to the podium. Are you
familiar with Mr. Shanks’ request?
Chief Scott: Well, I just got his request today. I wasn’t in here for his
presentation, but I can tell you this right here. The Fire Department is not in the
business to stop progress and we [inaudible] life safety and also [inaudible]
government. And we just have to enforce the fire safety code. We [inaudible] the
Fire Department recommendation for the sprinkler system and [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Mr. Mayor, I was talking with Mr. Shanks out in the hallway before
he came in and then I got detained so I likewise didn’t hear his presentation, but I
would request that you send this to the committee because there is some concern in
15
my mind, based upon the information that I’ve been furnished, and whether this is in
Columbia County or Richmond County, and Mr. Shanks says emphatically that it’s in
Richmond County; however, the highest number that we have in Richmond County is
3300 on that highway according to information, and this is beyond the race track. I
know the race track is in Columbia County, and so we need to do some further study
to find out exactly where this is.
Mr. Shanks: Sir, the building right next to that building is called the Hideaway
and its address, and it’s also past the Hayloft, and its address is 3165. Now I don’t
know how they came up with an even number on an odd-numbered side of the street.
Because all those buildings beside the race track, they’re also building another
building there that I think had to go through the same thing that I’m going through
now. It was requested by the Fire Department that this building have a sprinkler
system installed in it and for some reason they came and got an exception to the
policy, and it’s being built as an auto repair store. It’s right next, it’s less than 500
feet from my building.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will recognize Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: I’m going to move that this be brought to Public Safety
Committee on Monday.
Does that give everybody enough time to research this and
have him appear before Public Safety Committee and then we can go over all these
details then, that we’re talking about, and all of us can get a little more familiar with
what’s there.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Shanks: I would also like to say that I’ve already been approved by the
committee for my alcohol and beverages license right here in this same county, for
that same building. And that also has been investigated.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. We have a motion to send this to committee. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, while you were discussing that, I decided to catch
Stewart’s attention because I thought I remembered the name in terms of another
committee that we had acted on the license in reference to it, but naturally that would
not fall into the same play. But I thought I remembered was the name, whether it was
a different address or not, in terms of acting on the alcoholic beverage license. So I
think probably the geography is totally correct, but I don’t have a problem with it
going back to committee, but I think seriously the city had better develop some
policy. I hate to sound like the lone wolf on this, but I told you some weeks ago,
some months ago, Gordon Highway is going to start getting more and more requests
out there and we better [inaudible] what we waive, what we don’t waive, in terms of
setting a precedent on it. I think it does need to go back to committee and I think
16
probably we going to need to talk further in Legal about where we’re going with this,
because as I said when we waived the first one out there, and he’s absolutely correct, I
just came from Warren County a few minutes ago, and I passed that building that’s in
construction now, the parts place. It’s there. They’re building on it. It’s going up.
And his building is a stone’s throw from that building. So I mean this probably won’t
be the last one, so I think we just need to have some discussion about it because you
are fixing to get into -- we’ve already got a Pandora’s box on that side of Gordon
Highway, all the way out from the race track to the county line, and it’s going to be
on both sides of it.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a motion on the floor to send
this to committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shanks.
Mr. Shanks: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: This takes us to our regular agenda. Madame Clerk?
Clerk:
FINANCE:
27. Motion to approve Option #2 recommendation from the IT Department
regarding the televising of the regular meetings of the Commission subject
to the availability of funds from Promotional Account. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee Meeting April 25)
Clerk: I put in your books the balance on that account.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move we disapprove.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Williams: I make a substitute motion that we approve.
Mr. Cheek: I second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think a good healthy dose of sunlight in this meeting
would be a good thing, and I think televising it to the public where they can get the
17
rest of the story more so than what’s just printed in the local press or shown on the
five or six second sound bite would be a healthy thing, and this is something that we
owe the public. It’s their money. They need to be able to watch what we’re doing, to
be able to draw their own conclusions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to echo what Commissioner Cheek has said, Mr.
Mayor. I think the citizens of Richmond County, those who do work and those who
cannot get here would love to be able to see the actual meeting and actually what
really took place rather than getting a small segment or a small portion of it. We’re
not talking about a whole lot of money. We spend a lot of money in a lot of other
places doing a lot of other things in this government, but we sure ought to [inaudible]
and support this so we be able to video all of our meetings and our community will be
more abreast of what’s going on in our community, so we won’t have to meet as
councilmen or Commissioners so often to tell them what’s going on. A lot of time,
people don’t get information until we do call [inaudible] and some of us not able to do
that for our other work-related habits and work ethics. But I think if we go ahead and
approve this, it will be a great benefit to all the citizens of Richmond County, and I
think the people are really in support of this. I think we ought to go ahead and pass it.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I would hope that before we’d televise it we’d
consider better use of our existing electronic facilities, such as our web site. We’ve
never explored that option. And I would be reluctant to vote any money before we
televise until we put more effort into a web site based information system where we --
I recently had our minutes put on the web site on an issue that I felt needed to be put
there. I think we already put our agendas. But I would think that we would use the
web site first and then take a look at how effective that is in getting out the
information, than maybe spending this money. I think we are really duplicating the
efforts of the media here, which we don’t have the resources to do, and I just don’t
think we should go this far into any of this at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I do remember a discussion on streaming technology
that would allow us to television via web these meetings and that cost, if I remember
correctly, was many times what we’re asking to putting this on an annual basis. The
most widely used medium in this community is television. Most people are on some
form of cable or at least able to get the local channels. Probably a lot more people
have televisions than they do computers and this is the way to reach the most people,
and I think we ought to go with it.
18
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? We’ll go ahead and take a
vote on the substitute motion, which is to approve the agenda item. All in favor of
that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, I’d like to note that the public take
special attention at those that voted for sunlight in this meeting.
Clerk: Next item?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Clerk:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
28. Motion to approve additional $60,000 of façade funds for the building
th
located at 226-230 5 Street. (Deferred from Administrative Services
Committee April 9, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham is the chairman of that committee. So Mr.
Henry, I tell you what, since this is kind of your committee meeting, why don’t we
just turn these items over to you? Let me do that.
Mr. H. Brigham: What we would like to do or submit is that we did not have
an Administrative Services Committee meeting the other day. However, if there are
those that can be [inaudible] together, we would like to recommend it. If you want to
pull some out individually, we can do that. We can do it, pull it out, number 29 if
anybody wants to pull 29 out. And number 30. 31. 32. Number 33. 34. 35.
Mr. Mayor: 34 was deleted.
Mr. H. Brigham: 34 was deleted. Yes, that’s correct.
29. Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the Laney Walker Neighborhood:
819-821 Ninth Street, (District 1, Super District 9); South Augusta
Neighborhood: 104 Calvary Drive (District 2, Super District 9); and waive
nd
2 reading
.
19
31. Motion to approve an application for $500,000 from the One Georgia
Authority Equity Fund for the Augusta Commons.
32. Motion to approve proposed Funding Recapture Policy to assist Augusta
Richmond County to meet HUD’s regulatory standard.
33. Motion to approve recommendation from the Director recommending
approval to raise the individual project funding limit for the Housing &
Neighborhood Development Department Housing Rehabilitation
Program.
Mr. H. Brigham: So if I’m correct, we have three that was pulled; right?
Clerk: Yes, sir. Items 30, 35. Item 34 was deleted.
Mr. H. Brigham: Right.
Clerk: 30 and 35. Item 34 deleted.
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. H. Brigham: All those in favor, let it be known by the usual manner.
Mr. J. Brigham: On item 29, the only concern I have on that is funding. From
what I remember, we have no funds, do we, Mr. Brigham, at the present time? I don’t
mind approving the ordinance to take the buildings down, but I would like to know
we’re going to do it if we don’t have no funds to do it with.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] funds but limited funds [inaudible] biggest impact
for the dollar spent.
Mr. J. Brigham: So there is money available?
Mr. Speaker: There is [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: And once that’s gone, then what?
Mr. Speaker: Well, [inaudible].
Mr. H. Brigham: All those in favor, let it be known by the usual sign of
voting.
20
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. H. Brigham: Thank you.
34. Deleted from the agenda.
Clerk:
30. Consider Resolution in support of appointment of Citizens Committee to
make recommendations for reapportionment of the districts for the
Augusta Richmond County Commission and the Board of Education of
Richmond County. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Chairman, if I may address this. I had this put on the agenda.
Actually, I had it put on the committee agenda for committee discussion of this. If
you’ll recall, we met with the school board a couple of months ago and we discussed
with them about jointly reapportioning the school districts and the Commission
districts so that they would shadow each other and we wouldn’t confuse the voter any
more than we needed to. Subsequent to that meeting, the Charter Committee adopted
a resolution suggesting a mechanism to do this. They sent that over to me and I sent
it on to the Administrative Services Committee and that’s how it got on the agenda
today. At some point, we need to establish a process and get that process going to
apportion the Commission districts and I don’t know that we’re ready to do that
today. But what I did was send this over so we’d have an opportunity to have some
discussion and then get the process underway. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I am glad Mr. Mays pulled this. While I think
that obviously something like this needs to be done, I think ultimately it’s going to be
the Commission that makes the decision on what they want to present to the
Legislative Delegation. And rather than setting up another committee, which is going
to take some time and I question whether they would have the time to get the
information back to us to review by June 1 anyway, I’d like to make a motion that
rather than appoint a Citizens Committee that this Commission work as a Committee
of the Whole to come up with a reapportionment plan to present to the Legislative
Delegation.
Mr. Shepard: I second that motion.
Mr. H. Brigham: Motion and second. Ready for discussion. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, if I might bring -- I was not at the joint meeting that
was held. The Mayor and I did discuss this. It’s been several months ago. In
reference to reapportionment period in reference to City lines. And while I
[inaudible] sometimes we [inaudible] valuable resource we got and that being our
citizens [inaudible] many things, I agree with Bill on several points. One that this
21
one, quite frankly, we are going to have to end up biting that bullet and dealing with
that ourselves at some point. But I want to pause for a minute and ask just questions
before I may have to make a substitute motion. Are we looking at or is the intent of
the motion that is on the floor or even if we go back into the intent of the resolution, is
it to get lines drawn or suggested lines drawn for the election that’s being held in
November, or are we looking at future elections, starting with 2002? That would be
my first question.
Mr. Kuhlke: My answer to that is that we would begin immediately working
with the State authority that we would have to work with and to try to develop a plan
that would be approved by the Legislative Delegation and the Justice Department for
this year’s elections.
Mr. Mays: Then with -- well, Jim is shaking me off. I guess maybe I need to
hear from both these [inaudible] before I make a substitute motion.
Mr. Wall: Mr. Kuhlke, realistically if you go through the Legislative
Delegation, I don’t think there is time to do that, because number one, do not know
whether the Governor would call a special session to encompass the changes. Now
Augusta as a municipality has the right to do its own redistricting. However, current
the districts for the school board as well as for the Commission are the same districts,
and the Charter Committee, when it was looking at this, was insistent that those
districts should remain the same. Otherwise, you’re going to have voter confusion
insofar as who represents that citizen on the Board of Education and who represents
them on the Commission. And the rationale behind involving the Board of Education
was that they can only be redistricted through the General Assembly, and that would
have to occur next year in all probability. So the only way this Commission could do
it is if you did it as a municipality and worked with the Board of Education so that
hopefully you would come up with common districts and then this Commission could
do it insofar as Commission seats are concerned. It would be up to the General
Assembly as far as the Board of Education is concerned. And just from a time line
standpoint, there is a 60-day Justice pre-clearance. You have the qualifying
beginning on Monday, September10, so if you work back from that, really by June 1
or June 15 is the latest date that you want to be able to have districts that you could
submit to the Justice Department, and then you may or may not get pre-clearance in
advance of the qualifying period.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I still have the floor,I’d like to go ahead and
make a substitute motion
, inasmuch as Mr. Wall has pretty much answered what I
was going to ask him, inasmuch as by legal authority unless overturned in some way,
the Legislature would have the power to set the school board lines, with that being in
effect and with the possible confusion that changing lines in the municipal area could
cause, not knowing what lines they would draw next year, cause the whole
consolidated government was set up to mirror the Board of Education lines that were
in place, my motion would call for us working closely with our Delegation, but since
22
the Delegation and the State has the power, it has the expertise, they’ve done it
before, it may not be to everybody’s liking, but at least we know it can be done and
what needs to be done, I think this year puts us into a case where it would make
Florida look like a Sunday picnic in terms of absolute confusion, because folk would
really be in for a bind not knowing what would happen on next year, and people
already have gotten used to to where those lines are. They do have to be redrawn.
But I think we should work with them on the 2002 lines. Maybe I’m even -- this may
even sound politically suicidal for an incumbent to say, but I think for newcomers
who would actually be running for office, this would be a terrible dilemma to put
people in in terms of changing lines that obviously have to be changed that we cannot
So my motion would
humanly or in any way intelligently get in place by this fall.
call for the fact that we just maintain a relationship with the Legislative
Delegation, work with them on what lines are going to be drawn so that in next
year’s 2002 election the City lines and the Board of Education lines can be drawn
to coincide with each other just as they are now with the proportionate balance
as called for by law under the Justice Department and under Georgia law.
That’s my motion. The substitute.
Mr. Williams: I second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. H. Brigham: Motion and second to the substitute. Gentlemen, is there
any more discussion? All of those in favor of Mr. Mays’ motion, let it be known by
the usual sign of voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. H. Brigham: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve still got one more item.
Clerk:
35. Motion to approve the reprogramming of 2001 CDBG funds in the
amount of $25,000 for renovations to Jones Pool and $40,000 for
renovations to W. T. Johnson Community Center as recommended by
Citizens Advisory Committee at their April 16, 2001 meeting.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Chairman, I would kind of like to change
those figures around a little bit and ask that we consider the reprogramming of
the funds in the amount of $50,000 for the renovation of Jones Pool and $60,000
for the renovation of W.T. Johnson Community Center and $100,000 for
Doughty Park and direct the Director of HND to submit a recommendation at
the next Administrative Services on the use of available reprogramming of
23
CDBG funds for the purpose of the proposed Apple Valley Park and also direct
the Recreation Director to file a 202 application for CDBG funding for the Apple
Valley Park Project as well.
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. H. Brigham: Discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, sir?
Mr. J. Brigham: I didn’t know we were -- I thought we were receiving the
recommendation from the Citizens Committee. I didn’t know we were [inaudible].
Are we not receiving the recommendation from the Citizens Committee of Housing
and Neighborhood Development, or are we going to sit up here as a Commission and
direct what the results are?
Mr. Beard: Well, most of this was -- I think it has already been taken to the
Citizens Advisory Committee. Most of this has been. And it was a point of bringing
it back. And we can hear from the Director out there, if this is not possible, that this
can be done. [inaudible]?
Mr. Mack: The Citizens Advisory Committee made a recommendation for
Jones Pool and W.T. Johnson Center. One of the things that we all have to remember
is that these funds are budgeted and they are in line items and one of the things that
we have to understand is that we want to establish our priority in housing and then we
move into recreation, then we have to go back to the Citizens Advisory Committee,
that procedure, and then ask them to make a recommendation.
Mr. Beard: But this has already been recommended by the Citizens Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Mack: They recommended the Johnson Center and Jones Pool.
Mr. Beard: They recommended those. So why can’t we go back -- you mean
that we can’t make, ask you to submit this to the Citizens Advisory Committee?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir, you can.
Mr. Beard: And this is basically what we’re asking you to do, is get this to the
Advisory Committee. The others, we surely have to do that because you have to go
back for Apple Valley Park. We’re just asking you to go back and do that, and that is
a recommendation coming from, at this point, it’s coming from me. It would have
been coming from Administrative Services.
24
Mr. Mack: Okay. I don’t have a problem with that. I think the Apple Valley
situation is going to be checked out [inaudible]. They were something like 37.94%.
Mr. Beard: But when you did that, you had not completed the new figures in
there. And I think you were instructed at one time to go back and include the new
figures in there, weren’t you?
Mr. Mack: Department of Recreation and [inaudible] supposed to be working
on that.
Mr. Beard: So I’m thinking once you get this, then you have to get this before
we can go into Apple Valley Park anyway.
Mr. Mack: Have to have the numbers, yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: You would have to have the number and that’s all we’re asking
you to do here, is go and get those numbers, and if you can then you do it.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Kuhlke: Lee?
Mr. Williams: I couldn’t hear him.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think there is a little confusion here. And if these numbers
came up with the idea of combining them with recaptured money out of Phase III
Sales Tax, that came back from the Health Department, and what I hear Mr. Beard
requesting is that we are not touching or we’re not looking at what’s available out of
Phase III to supplement these funds coming out of Housing and Neighborhood
Development, but what you want to do is to fund everything out of Housing and
Neighborhood Development. I think this is stretching it a long way in taking money
out of that department it has designated for specific projects, and not necessarily
recreation projects. So I’ve got a real problem in directing the Director to go back
and rework this thing when it started off with something entirely different.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Kuhlke, weren’t we always talking about CDBG funds here
[inaudible]?
Mr. Kuhlke: As leverage. As leverage with sales tax funds, as well as I recall.
And now this is being pulled out of one bin and you want to go back to the bucket of
Housing and Neighborhood Development for all the funds, and I don’t think that’s
right.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman?
25
Mr. Beard: Yes?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, sir. Hopefully I can share a little light on this.
First of all, the Citizens Advisory board can only recommend what is presented to
them. They don’t make any recommendations of their own. Whatever list that they
are given that they are prioritized or however, they okay the list that they are given.
We was asked in the beginning to take $50,000 for Jones Pool, $100,000 for Doughty
Park, and I think $200,000 we looking at at Apple Valley area. Apple Valley area
didn’t fit. Now where the $25,000 got dropped down to in the beginning and
Doughty Park got dropped off the loop altogether and we added W.T. Johnson which
needs some work. But that’s how the whole scenario came in. We was asking for
$50,000 for Jones Pool. We was asking for $100,000 for Doughty Park through HND
to see what they could do with that. We talk about the recaptured money. We talk
about some money that maybe was left on the Board of health in that project that had.
But the Citizens Advisory Committee only vote on what they’re given. They don’t
have the liberty to say yes or no. When the lists are sent to them, they already been
prioritized. They don’t prioritize any list. So what we are voting on is what they seen
and what they approved but that’s what they was given. So I’m supporting Mr.
Beard’s motion again and I hope I shed some light on how this whole thing got in that
position anyway. Now how it got down to $25,000 from $50,000, how Doughty Park
got throwed out altogether, it was prioritized I guess through the head of Recreation
to put that way but it was sent out from this -- when it was sent out this body it was
sent out to affect Doughty Park, Jones Pool, and Apple Valley. But those other rec
parks got dropped off the list through the Rec Department.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: Just to comment on the actual chain of events as being on the
committee to oversee Housing and Neighborhood Development, Mr. Williams is
exactly right. The information is provided by the administrative staff. They vote on
it based on what’s given to them. And I would see rather than us calling Keven and
going through a lot of things behind the scenes, this is an attempt by this Commission
to discuss these things publicly where we ask him based on the will of the
Commission to look into these other parks and find funding for it. Now whether
that’s the purview of Housing and Neighborhood Development, I’ve long been an
advocate of providing recreational facilities and organized events to keep kids off the
street as a deterrent to crime, and I think that bears out in the fact. But the truth of the
matter is it’s right within our purview as Commissioners to make this policy decision
and it’s just a decision we need to make, whether we’re going to do it publicly or call
department heads behind the scenes. I’m for publicly acclaiming these things and see
if we can fund them, and I hope that we would use 2000 figures and not 1990 figures
when we look at this for Apple Valley. As far as recaptured money is concerned, the
one thing I will say is that we can put this out in an attempt to bring Commissioner
Williams and I into contest for these funds, but I will stick by my word as this
26
Commission did say that it would take care of his projects when we passed the sales
tax list, and another can of worms I’ll address another day is why in the world there is
only $200,000 available in recapture. If that’s all the money it sounds like that’s ever
been there then this Commission needs to be addressing why we haven’t seen more
money and why all the projects are spent at the maximum.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I’m not on the committee, I did -- we did part
of this in Public Services because we kind of have to stop a little bit because these
two committees are closely tied together as they relate to the projects there,
particularly in District 2. I do think there is a real argument that’s out there. I think
that what was presented to the citizens group, they acted on it based on what was
presented to them. However at the time of the presentation, gentlemen, as you all
well know, once it was discovered that, in all fairness to both HND and Rec, at the
time that it left those action being done by us, there was somewhat of a dilemma of
the $200,000 as to whether or not it was in one place or whether it was in two. We’ve
answered that question. We’ve identified it. It’s not trying to dictate to the Citizens
committee. They voted for what they had based on the fact that information we sent
initially would have provided a leveraging source. This is not robbing per se what’s
over in HND. If you had, for instance, double what’s going to HND’s whole budget,
compared to what you need to do in housing without any leveraging from financial
institutions, I mean, you still could do it. I mean we could let that [inaudible]. But I
think why we to support the motion that is out there is that this not a precedent setting
thing that we ask. It’s about trying to maximize money, getting something produced
for it so that every area of the city can share. Some areas are eligible. Some areas are
not. So then if the $200,000 in the Health Department can be stretched and help that
[inaudible] sales tax, that’s the place that it needs to be [inaudible]. That leaves us
then with no recapture at this time per se out of the sales tax. So then we have to go
back to the committee and let them understanding nothing was tried to be pulled over
them, it’s just the fact that that money is not there to deal with the leveraging amount.
And I think once the Commissioners had reference to Mr. Mack, when we talked a
few months earlier, is the fact, and I believe the Mayor asked the question, did we
have a sizeable amount of recaptured money there? The answer that came forward
was yes. Okay, what we’re only doing is [inaudible] the doorstep from the point that
we don’t have on that sales tax side. Now I don’t know what specific numbers were
before when we were doing budget argument [inaudible] sales tax [inaudible],
sometimes you have to be careful when you say yeah and it ain’t yeah. That
[inaudible] from being here a long time. I say that to any departmental head person.
But the fact is the we’re only asking that it go back to be presented and maybe some
of them can and some of them can’t. Two things in there Mr. Beard wants to do is
that we bring the new numbers up to date. The only thing we’re trying to do at Apple
Valley is not lose that project to the point that right now on ten year ago figures, it’s
not eligible. We’re just trying to keep it on the burner so that [inaudible] and take the
time to get the number and it does qualify then it can be brought back to be acted on.
27
That’s the only thing we’re trying to deal with with Apple Valley, gentlemen. And
then as far as setting a precedent of going over to Mr. Mack’s department, we just
[inaudible] East Augusta. Am I correct, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. [inaudible]? We
[inaudible], we saved sales tax money. We had people who worked with us down
there, Mr. Thomas and anybody else, who didn’t ask for sales tax money. Because
we had another eligible source. And I think the name of the game is using the money
[inaudible] before [inaudible] pocket it comes out. As long as it’s legal and you find
a means to do it. So one community can benefit by one source where they don’t
qualify and another community can benefit by money where they do qualify and you
get it done. That’s the name of the game. Because we have in one of these projects,
we got a [inaudible] that we take care of it. It’s got a [inaudible]. Now I hope he’s
back on the agenda cause we got a contractual agreement [inaudible]. We got to fix
it. We going to fix it whether we get the money out of Keven’s department, whether
we find some money in sales tax to deal with it, or whether we going to continue to
deal with it. It’s our building. We own it. [inaudible] we going to fix it. So
[inaudible] Citizens Advisory. I think that all the motion is saying is take it back to
them, let them know that the [inaudible] we set out was not necessarily correct at the
time and that’s not a fault of your department, Mr. Mack. It’s not a fault of anybody.
Rec or anywhere else. But it just needs to go back, be presented differently, let them
look at it, and I think once they know the parameters are different, [inaudible] low
and moderate income areas, so that’s not a problem. It’s not like you’re trying to
sneak something in [inaudible].
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: If the make of the motion would agree, I would like to add
McDuffie Woods and Meadowbrook in that motion, for Housing and Neighborhood
Development to look at. The Citizens Advisory Committee.
Mr. Speaker: Are you using recaptured funds?
Mr. Colclough: Any funds. Like Mr. Mayor says, any funds we have.
Mr. Beard: I was just wondering if we couldn’t come back at another time
with McDuffie Woods and the others cause, Mr. Colclough, because this has been
[inaudible].
Mr. Colclough: I’ll withdraw it.
Mr. Beard: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, we’re not trying to -- we’re just
asking the Director there to try to find a way of doing it. [inaudible] $200,000 that
can be utilized somewhere else. That’s the whole thing of this request for this matter.
And we wish that, you know, a lot of times we always find a way that we can’t do a
particular thing, and we’re just asking that you and the Recreation Director, if you put
28
in an application here, y’all work together real well, and that’s all we’re asking to do.
And I call for the question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. H. Brigham: All those in favor of the motion --
Mr. Shepard: I had one question.
Mr. H. Brigham: I’m sorry.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Chairman, could we indicate what the motion is? I’ve been
told it’s a simple remand or direction to the Citizens committee and Mr. Beard had a
lengthy motion. Madame Clerk, would you mind reading it back for my benefit, if for
no one else’s? Maybe Mr. Beard can read it, if he’s got it.
Clerk: The motion was to approve the reprogramming of the 2001 CDBG
funds in the amount of $50,000 for renovations to Jones Pool, $60,000 for renovation
of W.T. Johnson Community Center, $100,000 for Doughty Park and direct the
Director of Housing and Neighborhood to submit a recommendation at the next
Administrative Services on the use of available reprogramming of CDBG funds for
the purpose of the Apple Valley park and also direct the Recreation Director to file a
202 application for CDBG funding for the Apple Valley project.
Mr. Shepard: I don’t hear the language directing it going back to the Citizens
committee anywhere in there, Madame Clerk.
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: Are we sending this back, Lee, to the Citizens Advisory?
Mr. Beard: We can send this back.
I have no problem with that.
Mr. Shepard: Is that for the purposes in the motion? Is that the idea? You
want to send it back to the Citizens committee?
Mr. Beard: I think that it’s normal procedure that it goes through the Citizens
Advisory Committee and I have no problem with that. I’m going to leave that up to
the -- isn’t that the normal procedure, Mr. Mack?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir, I just want to clarify something. Now the Citizens
Advisory Committee made the recommendations for W.T. Johnson and Jones Pool.
Mr. Beard: We understand that. But we’re asking them to consider what’s in
the motion.
Mr. Mack: And those are the additional projects, is that correct?
29
Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: But the motion is to send it back to the Citizens review
committee, Lee, to examine it for the purposes that you’ve stated?
Mr. Beard: Yes. I have no problem with that.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Just for the record, in my opinion the action being requested
today is an amendment to the sales tax referendum that we had and these parks, and
submitting the burden to do these parks on Housing and Neighborhood Development
at the detriment of some other programs that really that department is set up for, and I
just want to mention that for the record.
Mr. H. Brigham: The question has been called. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a point of information. I didn’t hear any mention of us
linking this to sales tax at all and I don’t think there’s any legislative link whatsoever.
Mr. Kuhlke: None of these parks were on the list, Andy.
Mr. Cheek: On the sales tax list.
Mr. Kuhlke: On the sales tax.
Mr. Cheek: We’re not asking for sales tax money.
Mr. Kuhlke: I know that.
Mr. Cheek: So it’s not related. And further, I’d just like to say I don’t see this
kind of battle when we’re dealing with hotels and other things that benefits certain
areas. We need to take what we can and get it from the source that we can and put it
to work.
Mr. Beard: But I do believe Commissioner Kuhlke that at some point, and I
don’t remember exact time, that we told Commissioner Williams that we would, we
would work him in to that list. I think we all agreed to that and I don’t want to
belabor that because I think we can [inaudible], but I just wanted to make that point
that I think somewhere we did that and you know we need [inaudible] two other parks
and Jones Pool. And that’s been discussed over and over again. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. H. Brigham: Jerry?
30
Mr. J. Brigham: Just a point of inquiry. I want to know what changed last
week cause I was told last week that we had to link it with sales tax money to qualify
for HUD’s new [inaudible]. Has something changed in a week’s time? Cause if it is,
I certainly hadn’t been advised of it.
Mr. Mack: One of the criteria used in awarding the CDBG funds is whether or
not the funds are leveraged. The Citizens Advisory Committee likes for the funds to
be leveraged and not use CDBG funds as the only source of funds for a project.
Mr. Beard: Is that a HUD regulation?
Mr. Mack: No, that is not a HUD regulation.
Mr. Beard: That’s --
Mr. Mack: That is in the criteria we use for awarding CDBG funds.
Mr. J. Brigham: I thought that was what the debate was over last week in
committee.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, I do think it needs to be added for the record and
looking at the statement that went to Mr. Mack’s office that Citizens Advisory looked
at, that what’s set over in Mr. Beard’s motion. Nothing has been told that is untrue
but I think we need to know a little bit further about what went and the fact of the
matter is Citizens Advisory approved and sent over to us those items that were there,
but Rec in its presentation by letter, in Mr. Mack’s office that was sent over, every
one of the items that we’re talking about was on there. So it’s not a case of anybody
hiding anything. The original request when Recreation and Parks had on it and Mr.
Howard has got it, it’s about six different situations that’s on here. Every one of them
I believe is in the motion. We’ve got W.T. Johnson, Jones Pool, McDuffie Woods,
Apple Valley Park Project, Meadowbrook Park, and Doughty Park. That’s six items.
So this is no sneaky process that’s being done. This was the original list that was sent
from the very beginning by Rec and Parks. Now because Rec and Parks sent it
doesn’t mean that it’s going to be approved. It’s not like somebody is bringing
something new to the table. This [inaudible] I agree with Mr. Mack in part on what
the local may want to do in terms of whether you have leveraging or not. But some
projects have to be leveraged and I think you probably would agree in there
[inaudible] maybe if the project that we are helping somebody with may not be but
$10,000 or $15,000. If we doing something for $2 million to $3 million or say
$600,000 [inaudible] East View, then you’ve got maybe 40% to 50% of it coming out
of there. So it depends upon the nature of the project and how much it is. So I think
we got to consider all that in there. But nobody is sending them back something that
they have not seen before. What they will get in the motion, gentlemen, is what we in
31
the very beginning, the only thing that’s different is that they need to know we don’t
have a leveraging source. That’s the only thing that is different.
Mr. H. Brigham: That motion has been [inaudible]. I’m ready to call for the
question. All of those in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. H. Brigham: Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Move along with item 36.
Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERV ICES:
36. 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. (Deferred from April 17 Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you going to address this for us?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, today has been a busy
day, but as part of my morning, I spent a considerable amount of time looking at this
particular issue and based on my review, and for other reasons I will elaborate on, I
believe that the process and procedures for your purchasing for the bidding out of the
contracts has been appropriate. As I was saying, I believe the process and procedures
have been followed for the request on proposals for this particular bid. For that
reason alone, [inaudible]. However, there are a couple of other issues that we
addressed this morning that I believe the Commission had some concerns with. One
was working with the smaller contractors. What happens to them when they are
displaced by the awarding of these contracts? Each of you should have received a
letter that was addressed to the Mayor and Vice Mayor from the attorney representing
CSRA and they indicated that they would be willing to work with those contractors
and subcontract with them and they would continue their collection within the areas
that they’re working in now. I would recommend on that particular issue -- I talked to
Mr. Wall about it today at lunch -- that if they’re willing to ask for amendment to the
contract that we include that condition in the award. The second [inaudible] dealt
with the collection [inaudible] funding. There was a considerable amount of money --
I have a report that breaks it down -- that was owed to the landfill fund. I am -- I have
mixed feelings, I guess, about this. But the report as we looked at the details, about
67% of that amount that is over 90 days in arrears is owed from Augusta Richmond
County. In the other, there is some delinquent money. There is a major one that we
are implementing collection procedures on and that one will be paid because of a
business deal that was made by one of the large haulers. There’s about $15,000 that
32
was written off by the audit, so I think that we’re in good shape on our collections
report.
[TEXT OF LETTER FROM CSRA WASTE, INC.]
I represent CSRA Waste, Inc. regarding its bid to provide services on behalf of
the City of Augusta pursuant to the pending Solid Waste Collection Contract. CSRA
Waste was the low bidder for Sections I, IV, V, VII, VIII, IX and the Dumpster
Section. Following the receipt and tabulation of the bids, concerns were raised
regarding the potential effect the contracts would have on small haulers and carriers.
CSRA Waste would like to address the concerns raised in an attempt to finalize the
completion of the contracts in accordance with the low bids.
CSRA Waste is willing to enter into subcontracts with those small haulers who
were not successful bidders for any portions of the covered areas. To that end, CSRA
Waste has contacted the following small haulers and initiated discussions regarding
the best way to fully utilize their services under the proposed contracts.
A-1 Sanitation Delco Sanitation
Allied Environmental Service Hester Sanitation Company
Augusta Disposal & Recycling, Inc. Metropolitan Waste
Berry Smith Sanitation O & H Sanitation
Coleman Sanitation
The communications with the small haulers resulted in a commitment from
CSRA Waste to provide each small hauler with approved vehicles and equipment
suitable to complete solid waste collections in assigned area of responsibility
(determined after the final award of the contracts). This commitment will also enable
Augusta to upgrade and improve the level and quality of waste collection services
provided to taxpayers.
Additionally, information learned during the contacts with the small haulers
revealed that the majority of the small haulers are operating with only a single vehicle
and that the proposed subcontracts will result in a significant increase in their current
volume of business. CSRA Waste has received verbal assurances from the small
haulers that they are willing to enter into subcontracts with CSRA Waste to provide
solid waste collection services. Moreover, upon the final award of the contracts,
CSRA Waste will act to reduce the verbal assurances to writing in order to finalize
the commitment to the small haulers.
CSRA Waste requests the opportunity to meet with you to further discuss the
specifics of the proposed subcontracts, or to discuss any other concerns delaying the
finalization of the contracts for solid waste collections.
Very truly yours,
Edward J. Tarver
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Kolb, my question on this is, first I’ve got a little problem in
that the award is so concentrated to one organization and that concerns me a little bit.
33
But my main concern, I think, would be is you’re talking about a contract in the
millions of dollars and we’re talking about adding it to the tax bill, which comes --
which is not due until the end of the year. But if this contract were implemented at
the beginning of the year, how are we going to pay for this during that first year?
Mr. Kolb: That’s an issue I’ll let our illustrious Attorney answer.
Mr. Wall: Commissioner Shepard at the last meeting requested that we bring
forward a resolution. What you have, and I passed out before the meeting started,
was an example of a resolution, cause this resolution only deals with this one.
However, I have resolutions that are identical with the exception of the pricing
information as to each one of the Districts that is involved in the agenda item and
recommended. What this resolution would do is to create a special tax district and
service district, and as a part of that, each property owner, each unit that was
receiving curbside pickup, whether it be residence, business, profession, whatever,
would be added to the roll. And that would be added to the tax bill will it goes out.
Now assuming that this contract began in August, then that information would have to
be input into the computer, added on the bill as a lump sum item. It would not be
based upon millage. And then it would come due as the ad valorem taxes. Which
means that you would have to operate out of the general fund, reserves, land fill
funds. I’m not sure where the money would come from for the five month period
beginning August 1 through December 31. Because you probably would not receive
any significant collections until mid-December. You have the early payment date and
then you have the penalty date that is on December 15. So that would be potentially
be a cash draining, depending upon the cash flow. Now beginning January 1, 2002,
during the first six months, those would be added to the billings that would go out in
October and November on the tax bills, which means that you would have to have
enough cash flow to carry the garbage pickup until the tax bills go out and the monies
come in at the end of 2002. So I think the issue is where or not there is sufficient cash
reserves that would carry us from August through December 31, and then once that is
replenished, are there sufficient cash funds available in the year 2002 to carry you
until the bills go out in November, October and November, and I don’t know the
answer to that question as far as availability of funds.
Mr. Mayor: You could issue tax anticipation notes, couldn’t you, to cover
that, Mr. Wall? If you needed to, if you didn’t have the reserve?
Mr. Wall: I’m not certain of that, because one of the issues is whether or not
this is truly a tax, and we’re not going to know that until we get an answer back from
IRS, and I don’t know whether or not it would meet the criteria. It’s possible.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
34
Mr. Beard: There are two things, and Mr. Wall just threw something else into
the mix. I was wondering really how we’re doing it now, and I think you mentioned
that you had the resolution. But I think that also we have had these public hearings
throughout this county and I know in most of the districts, I think in all of the
Districts, that people have overwhelmingly sought to have this as a whole picking up
the waste picking up, so I think that, you know, we should be creative enough to find
some source to continue doing this, because this is a service that the people have
asked for and I think that it’s a service that they want and they desire and we should
do that to them. Going back to the original item 36, it appears that, you know, we
have a low bidder here and I know we can all question whether they can do the job, a
lot of it is going to one person, but I think that’s a matter of concern when we send it
out there, people going to bid on it, and I think if they get the bid they should have the
bid and they should perform, and then if they don’t perform then we have to look at it
at a different aspect of this. But I would hate to see us deny this today because we
haven’t worked out all the particulars and I think that I’m going to make a motion and
then I think we’ll have further on discussion on it, but I’m going to move at this time
that we do Item 36 with the stipulations and recommendations that the County
Administrator made in this, adding to item 36.
Mr. Mayor: Do the resolutions need to be incorporated in that motion, Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: They do. The funding. And I assume that you’re taking the
recommendation which would be sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 but not 10. And
then the dumpster section; is that correct?
Mr. Beard: I’m taking the recommendations that he made in this.
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: If that’s their recommendation, it’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor, for discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you. Mr. Mays and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I guess kind of like Garfield, a bunch of this
discussion resembles me so I’m going to go ahead and start. Don’t leave, Jim, cause I
got -- it’s not a punitive question but I’m going to need you to answer something for
me. Gentlemen, I think you all know how I feel about dealing with contracts that to a
certain extent are unanswered. I’ve had a long experience of fighting stuff once it’s
got out of the bond. Now I’m a strong Democrat on reapportionment. I’m going to
switch hats for just a minute for the purpose of playing devil’s advocate. Some say,
35
well, I probably came out of hell anyway so I’ll deal with that. But let me just say
this. I don’t have a problem with the bid process in terms of the way the vendors
responded. I think they responded to what we asked. I think everything that’s out
there is fair and above board. That I don’t have a problem with. The question I’ve
got is that, to Jim, I guess, first, Mr. Mayor, is that in the process how long are bid
numbers, are bid numbers in this case, good for? And I guess what I’m leading to is
the point that if we’ve got a clean bid that’s out there on what we’re doing, we’re
saying we got folk that are going to discuss things with the small haulers and putting
that into it. My hypothetical devil’s question one is that suppose they don’t agree?
That’s the first one. The second this is I don’t want to see, and I agree with the
Administrator, I don’t want to see it killed, and Lee, I’m supporting you on that part
of it. We got a little fork in the road a little bit from the standpoint, though, of nobody
has given me some numbers yet in terms of what it’s going to take for us to finance
this out of the county side. You say we were already doing this. There is a clear
distinction about what we did before. We had a department in the old city
government basically for financial reasons that was privatized. The taxing
mechanism was set up. The money was there. It was easy to do. You’re talking
about now taking this, making a department that you immediately privatize without
the funding source in place. I believe the last time I checked, we were under seven
figures in reserves. Now if we’ve got where we’re going to take it out of landfill, I’m
ready to listen to that, if you’ve got it out of Contingency, gentlemen, you’re going to
plug in to get it out of there, but before this Commissioner votes, and it may pass or
fail, I want to know, and I don’t want to rush it, I’d rather see us table and keep the
bids as they are, but come back with the funding source that’s in place. Because if
my attorney answers twice in one day I’m not sure, then I sure the hell ain’t sure. And
I want to know where we’re going with that. Because if we’ve got $900,000 it’s
going to cost us $600,000 over the next few months in Contingency, is it going to cost
us a half million, is it $200,000, is it $10? I need to know some numbers. And if
we’re not prepared to put the numbers out here today, then I think we ought to do
something that won’t kill the bid process but that can get us intelligently to a point
that if we are going to dip into Contingency or whatever we got in Landfill, if we’re
going to take it from there. And that’s what I wanted to throw on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We go to Mr. Williams and then Mr.
Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, people have been
promised ever since we merged this city and county together that we have garbage
pickup. That’s one of the main focus, the main topic that people talk about when we
consolidated our government, and I think it’s something that all the people want. We
th
had a meeting just on the 19 of last month, large turnout, people overwhelmingly
wanted and voted that night. We passed out some cards just to get some idea about
who was in favor of this. I understand Mr. Mays’ concern about the financing. We
need to know how we going to pay people cause we want to know whether or not
they going to pay us. But my thought in my mind is that the new part of this trash or
36
this solid waste pickup compared to the old part, now we’ve got an old city that’s
already paying our garbage collection coming in. This is not like a brand new
[inaudible] where we are starting all over from ground one. We don’t have pay
everything, I don’t think, now maybe my finance or my new Administrator can help
me out with that or maybe the Attorney. I think we got funds that’s coming in now
but been coming in for the last however many years we had this thing [inaudible] out.
We got some addition that we’re adding on to, but it’s not like we started a brand new
program here or brand new bid. We ought to have some funds that going help us
along the way until the addition that we added in kick in as well. Mr. Wall has a
resolution, we talked about some other things, but I think we need go ahead and give
the citizens what they need and what they deserve in order to get this community
cleaned up like it should be. This trash pickup is on the front burner of my
District. We would never be able to clean up this area until we get a way to haul and
move this stuff. The bids that going out, and if we rebid it, if we go out again, we
hold it up, we just going to be procrastinating. This is something we got to do. We
need to go on and do it. And I’m in 100% support and I hope the rest of the
Commissioners are, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I agree with Commissioner
Mays, and I think what we need to do here, and I also agree with Commissioner
Williams in that we need to implement this system, but what I don’t see is a clear way
that we’re going to finance it. I don’t think that we have a proven way yet to finance
this, particularly in any interim period that we may establish between when the
contract is set up and when it’s implemented. And I think that the other unresolved
question here about financing this is whether it’s federal tax deductible, and if it is
federally tax deductible, we’re going to enjoy a lot more support among our citizens
for implementing this than if it’s not. I think we’re going to invite a chaos and a
catastrophe if we approve something without the funding source. So I think it just
makes sense, I think the need is there but we need to have a definite plan in the works
here, we need to have a budget when we implement it, we need to have a cash flow
set up to accommodate the service. None of that can we do today. And so I’m going
to make the motion, Mr. Mays, that we do table this until we get all those questions
resolved. That will freeze the bidding process where it is and then come back with
one package and implement it in a prudent manner. Until we have an entire financing
package for this service, I am not comfortable with it. I’ll tell you that. And we just
finished, we just finished the budget and we had to appropriate $62,000 from
Contingency. We really don’t have it in our reserves and we don’t have it in our
Contingency to do this right now in anything other than a very precise way that we
program the coming on of the services and we match it to the funds availability, cause
right now we’re just saying we need it in vague terms, and I don’t disagree that we
don’t need it. We need it. But we have got to have a plan of how we get there from
point A to point B. We ain’t got it today, gentlemen. Thank you.
37
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Can I just piggy-back on what Steve’s talking about? I will
second -- Steve, you did make a motion, didn’t you?
Mr. Shepard: It was in the middle of all that diatribe.
Mr. Kuhlke: I thought I picked it up. But I second it.
Mr. Shepard: It was to table it. It’s a real clean motion.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: Postpone. I stand corrected.
Mr. Kuhlke: My other question in regard to that, and I know it wasn’t sold
this way. It was sold on the tax bill. But I talked with Mr. Wall about it today and it
appears to me if we are going to do this, it ought to be self-funding. And one of the
things that might be looked at is rather than doing it on the tax bill would be to do it
on the utility bills so that maybe it could be self funding as we go along. The other
thing is that we implemented about a year ago where we had done community clean
ups. And I’ll be interested to know are we going to continue to do that or once we
enter into a contract, whether that will be discontinued.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve
heard we need to pass then and then we’ll figure out the details. I could pay for my
trash collection for an entire year. The concern I have is the process here by which
we don’t figure out these major details in conjunction with going out for the bids and
everything else and have all this worked up when we come to vote on it. The truth is,
the way the government works is that we’ll have to pass this before actions will be
taken to make this happen. I would hope that we could develop these things and
parallel in the future major issues like that, but that’s not the government management
culture that we’re in. It’s got to change. These things should have come as a
package. They’re not major issues that were, minor issues that were hidden
somewhere that came up out of the blue. Financing and tax exempt status are things
that should have been worked out as a team, combining finance with public works in
the beginning. But the truth of the matter is I get three or four or five calls a night,
when are we going to do this? We can put it off and put it off and put it off, and I’m
sure next time since we’re going to work this in a linear fashion instead of parallel
fashion, that we will not be ready to go next time. There will be another issue that
crops up. We’ll continue to put this off. It’s time to go. The citizens want it. We’ll
find a funding source. We’ve got over three months to work this out I’m sure before it
can be implemented.
38
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, you know, I agree with a couple of my counterparts
up here that we do need a funding source. But I’m also like -- I’ve been sitting here
thinking. You know, you would think from the people in the audience, out there,
would think this is the first time that we have ever discussed this [inaudible] situation.
And we have been going at this for the last two or three months, I know, or better.
And I’m just wondering. I’m kind of like Mr. Cheek here now. You know, why
don’t we know at this point where the funding is going to be? Or where it’s coming
from or some idea? Because all of us been working on it or most of us been working
on it, and it looks like we should have something at this time. And you know, most
people out there, the haulers are waiting on us to make a decision and I’m just
wondering can any staff member out there, the Interim Administrator, or whoever,
can give us some idea of what has been put into this and what has been factored into
this, to give us some idea of where we are. Because to me, I know we need this
funding source, but it’s like we are starting all over again. When we send this back,
the next time I’m going to hear, you know, we’re going to hear we need to go back to
the bidding process. Go through the bid process. Now if we’re going to send this
back, we ought to approve something today, if nothing but the bidding [inaudible]
funding source we have. But I think we should make some effort to move forward
today on something and not wait two more months to find a funding source. Can
anybody out there, a staff member, help us?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby? Ms. Smith? Ms. Smith, while you’re up, if you
would address Commissioner Kuhlke’s question about the neighborhood clean ups,
too.
Ms. Smith: Well, I can start with the question about neighborhood clean ups.
With the expansion of the garbage contract, bulky weight as well as several other
services that are provided through the neighborhood cleanups, will be included for all
the persons that were receiving the service under the new contract. Therefore,
everything that they have had provided through Public Works, for instance, is
[inaudible] those cleanups. They essentially would be able to request that their
contractor pick up those items that they are placing on the right-of-way. There is a
stipulation in the contract so that if there is someone that is elderly or disabled and
they material that they cannot get to the curb, that requires that the contractor work
with those people so that those materials can also be picked up. And for the
community cleanups, the opportunity for those items to be disposed of would be
available through the new contract.
Mr. Kuhlke: [inaudible]
Ms. Smith: Well, what’s going to happen is right now we don’t have a
permission policy that is [inaudible] on community cleanups. The question becomes
39
for those areas that are not serviced by this contract, what would be the real
permission as far as neighborhood cleanups are concerned. So that will something
that will have to be brought back to the Commission. As for the funding, it’s kind of
like Mr. Beard said. There is a almost 50% of this contract that is currently covered
under our existing contract. But they’re not actually looking at $2 million that we
have to find funding for. The $2 million amount which is approximately the total
amount for the two year contract comes to about $5 million per year. Of that, for this
calendar year, we’d be looking at in the neighborhood of $1.5 million that would have
to be funded. For next calendar year, of that $5 million, we’d be looking at
approximately $3.6 million but there is not already a funding mechanism in place. I
have spoken with the landfill and have spoken with [inaudible] and have mentioned to
Jim but have not gotten verification as to whether or not funds from the landfill that
are set up in the [inaudible] account could be used to fund this contract until the
[inaudible] is put into place and is collected at the end of next year. It becomes even
less of an issue, gentlemen, if it is by chance added to the utility bill as it will become
a monthly collection instead of an annual collection and then we’re not looking at 18
months that we have to wait before we start to get [inaudible]. So those are the
options for two potential funding mechanisms, one being that it be added to utility
bills and we would start [inaudible] on the bill. The other being, depending on what
the County Attorney has said, to say about whether or not we can use those funds
[inaudible] opportunity, and those accounts are all managed by the landfill
department.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: Ms. Smith, what happens to the employees who provide the
services for the cleanup at this point, if this program is not continued?
Ms. Smith: Those employees don’t just do cleanup. Those employees are the
employees that do our right-of-way related activities, our grass cutting. They do
some mowing, the do ditch cleanups, they do vacant lot cleanups. I can assure you
that we have plenty of work for those employees to engage in if community clean up
activities are tapered down.
Mr. Colclough: That’s one of the questions. You mentioned that those
Districts that are not covered by this contract, will we be able to use those services for
cleanup, like we do now?
Ms. Smith: Well, that again is going to be a decision on the Commission and
you’re actually -- I’m getting ahead of myself a little bit.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have on the floor a motion from Commissioner
Shepard, the substitute motion, to postpone these items until the questions that he
raised today are answered and the funding mechanism is identified. We’ll call the
40
question on the substitute motion. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote
aye.
Mr. Mays: I want to vote, Mr. Mayor. I just need a clarification. I guess
when Jim was off there for a second, in the postponement, and maybe he answered it
but I just want to get it on the record, does that keep in place the bids that we’ve got
there until those items are firmly put in place in terms of the source of funding, and
those other kinks are worked out to bring back to us? I agree with Andy, it ought to
be done in one package, and I’m supportive of the service, but I’m not going to
piecemeal it. I’m just sorry.
Mr. Wall: There’s no reason to anticipate that they would withdraw the bid.
We’re actually beyond the time period but there is no reason to believe that they
would not honor the bid that’s been submitted.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion which is to approve the bids
and the resolutions, is that right?
Clerk: [inaudible] by the Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Right. Mr. Wall, you have a comment on the motion?
Mr. Wall: Yes. I guess I’m going to clarify one thing insofar as the
resolutions are concerned, because I think perhaps I misunderstood something in an
earlier conversation today. We are currently paying for the garbage collection within
the old urban services district based upon a millage rate. That millage rate would
then have to be calculated for an eight month period, seven month period of time, and
then you would have to change the method of collection for the balance of the four
months within the old Urban Services District. These resolutions as currently drafted
do not anticipate that calculation being made, and I don’t know to what extent the
election districts are wholly within or without the Urban Services District. And there
may have to be a refinement, and there probably will have to be a refinement of these
resolutions that I’ll have to bring back at the next meeting to account for that
difference. Because I was of the understanding that the service districts of the old
Urban Services area would continue to be funded by ad valorem and not on a per unit
basis, and apparently that’s not correct. All of it would be on a per unit basis.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I can understand what the Attorney is saying and I do realize we
do need a funding source. I’m with you on that. And the only thing I’d like to do is
41
maybe -- but I think we have to approve something now. And I’m trying to figure out
a way that we can approve the bids, pending on the amount of time we have to gather
that funding source, how long, you know.
Mr. Wall: If you approve the bid subject to a contract being presented at the
next Commission meeting together with the funding resolutions.
Mr. Beard: Okay. I think I--
Mr. Wall: That way, we can go through the stipulations that the Administrator
has put in place insofar as the subcontracts and we’ll know which subcontracts are in
place and have that contract together with the funding mechanism lined up.
Mr. Mayor: Are you trying to do this as a substitute motion? The original
motion is getting kind of convoluted with the stipulations. Would it be a little cleaner
if we entertained a substitute motion to do that, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It would be cleaner. Mr. Beard asked me what could be done, and
that was my suggestion.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m sorry, I was involved in conversation [inaudible] motion.
Mr. Wall: In response to Commissioner Beard’s question, my
recommendation at this point, if you want to pass something, is if you approve the bid
with instructions to bring back a contract with CSRA together with the subcontracts
that they have committed to enter into with the smaller haulers along with the funding
resolutions at the next Commission meeting.
Mr. Beard: You just mentioned one hauler.
Mr. Wall: Haulers.
Mr. Beard: Haulers. Okay.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ll make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to do that. That would be the
substitute motion. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I want to ask Mr. Wall one question.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
42
Mr. Mays: In the bid process, in the absence of any [inaudible] program or
small business program, can we on a bid that we award, and I’m like Andy now, I
want to get this today, I don’t want to hear it differently another day, can we dictate or
force any direction of subcontracting, once you approve a bid, who that person is to
contract with? That either ought to be yes or no. [inaudible] it gets back to my
argument on how this thing left the track from the very beginning. I need to know
whether we can legally do that or not.
Mr. Wall: You cannot -- it was not part of the bid specifications. However,
they have written a letter saying that they would enter into the contracts and so
therefore the motion that I have suggested would give you the opportunity to review
the contract to see whether or not they did in fact enter into the subcontracts that they
committed to do by letter. So before they would actually have a contract, they would
have to meet the obligations that they’ve set forth in the letter that would come back
before you for review.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Mr. Mayor, my next question would be then whether or not
we’re really not voting to approve the bid contract?
Mr. Wall: You’re approving the bid, the bid amount, and with instructions to
prepare the contract that follows the bid with the stipulations that the Administrator
has recommended.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s make a copy of this representation a part of
the record of the meeting today so there’s no question about it.
Mr. Mays: I guess that’s what I wanted to get out, that we don’t have one,
because I think under Georgia law you can’t dictate that in that manner to do that.
We have no requirements which has that and I think you’re looking at them across the
country getting struck down when you start trying to deviate from what’s there on the
bid process. That’s why I’m saying if this is going to be a volunteer thing to do --
this was why, Mr. Mayor, and I’m going to be back on record again and I’m going to
shut up, is that I thought in the Engineering Services Committee, when this thing was
killed, we instructed at the time that the small persons were to be contacted, it was to
go through License Inspection, this was to be done up front, not on the back side of
trying to get this done. Had that been done, it would have achieved what
Commissioner Cheek wanted to do. It would have involved everybody in the process.
They would have either been in it or out of it. It would have been on paper in terms
of who was subs, who were not, where this whole thing was going to be. And that
was the way that I thought we had constructed the language of the Engineering
Services Committee some, maybe 6 or 8 months ago, to do this in this manner. And
had they called those folk in, talked them in some agreement, and said hey, this is
what is fixing to go down, can you compete, can you not compete? I even mentioned
Mr. Mack’s office as a source of going there and see if you could bring those folks
43
under an umbrella to do that. Not in you award something and then you make it right.
Y’all do [inaudible].
Mr. Williams: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. The question has been called on
the substitute motion for Mr. Jerry Brigham. Anybody need the motion restated? All
in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on new substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. H. Brigham vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Vote fails 5-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to approve --
to award the contract to the low bidder. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just for the record, there was a three week extension
on the contract held before the closure to allow these small haulers to meet. They met
and were unable to come up with a consortium of sorts and meet the bonding
requirements. There were several other discussions held within that group. But a lot
of that was done before the bids were closed and that opportunity was made available,
whether it was successful or not. In a lot of cases I don’t think it was successful. But
that opportunity was afforded.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if we award the contract now on the original
motion, we will have to have Mr. Wall a funding source, will we not? I mean if we
agree to do something with somebody and we agree to the price, we lock ourselves
into this deal, we’ve got to come up with a funding source somehow; is that correct?
Which might mean an ad valorem tax increase, might mean whatever unless we -- it’s
our problem to find the funding source if we approve this motion; is that right?
Mr. Wall: Well, yes. Correct me, but I believe the original motion included
the resolutions that I’ve presented which would provide for an annual amount that
would be pro rated.
Mr. Shepard: I understand. But when you deal with these annual amounts,
you may have the gap periods involved of when the money comes on. So if you have
a gap period, you’ve got to look to the contingency fund or reserves to fund it or a tax
increase. So we really don’t have this worked out. I still submit we should not vote
on this today until we work out the financing and not guess about it or try to get it
done later. It can be done later and it would be a whole lot more sensible to it, so I’m
going to vote no on the original motion.
44
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Well, Mr. Mayor, we’ve tried to offer something in reference to a
funding source. I thought it was something we could agree to. But you know we
promised these people that we were going to do this, and I think we’re back in the
same place now, so I’m going to really, the message [inaudible] without a funding
source, I’m going to vote for it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m very much concerned about our
haulers and like Commissioners Mays said, those subcontracting, but I’m more
concerned about the people in this community and this city that need this service
very, very badly. They have been promised, they been waiting, they been hoping for
it. We hire a contractor or we hire some people to come in here to do work for us and
they do a change order for hundreds of thousands of dollars and we don’t know where
that funding come from, half the time we don’t know the change order coming back.
But I think it is something that we really need, and we really need to do it for the
citizens of this Richmond County and we ought to go on and support this. I, too, Mr.
Beard is going this original motion and hopefully the other Commissioners feel as
well that we need to go ahead and pass this and get this funding source, get this ball
out of the court and start the ball to rolling.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will call the question on the original motion, which is
to award the contracts and include the resolutions for the funding. All in favor --
Mr. Shepard: Roll call vote.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve had a request for a roll call vote, Madame Clerk.
(Vote on original motion)
Roll call vote:
Mr. Beard - Yes
Mr. H. Brigham - Yes
Mr. J. Brigham - No
Mr. Cheek - Yes
Mr. Colclough - Yes
Mr. Kuhlke - No
Mr. Mays - No
Mr. Shepard - No
Mr. Williams - Yes
The Mayor expresses his vote would be No.
Motion fails 5-5.
45
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to go on the
record to say that operating like this goes completely against my management styles
and philosophies. This should have hammered out, these details should have been
met and addressed months ago, for us to get to this point today, and for everybody
else sitting on this board not to see a problem with it, we are dooming us to repeat
these same mistakes in the future. We need to handle these things. They need to
come to the floor prepared. They need to encompass all of the stakeholders in a
particular issue, and it needs to come here as a completed item. To operate as we
have operated in the past is 1950’s management style. It’s inefficient. It’s ineffective.
And it’s just like somebody would do in Mayberry. It’s time to change the
management philosophy of this government. This is not the way to do business. It’s
not the way the Fortune 500 company does business, and anybody that is proud of this
probably can’t get a job somewhere else.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along, Madame Clerk, to the next item.
Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
37. Motion to approve a change order to the contract awarded to Continental
Construction, Inc., in the amount $13,920.85 for additional work
associated with the construction of the new Eastview Community Center.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen? Do we have a motion to approve?
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All those in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
38. Appointment Mr. Derek Vanover as Interim Director of the Trees and
Landscape Department and authorize increasing his salary 15% until the
new Trees and Landscape Director is appointed, with the salary increase
to be effective the beginning of next pay period.
46
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, the policy has been that we
[inaudible] interim person who is succeeding a person who has left the employ of the
company, and for that reason, Mr. Derek Vanover, who is well versed in that area, it
is my recommendation that we authorize him to be the interim director and as such
give him the 15% of his current salary as is stated in policy.
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Clerk: To be effective the beginning of the next pay period, Mr. Hornsby?
Mr. Hornsby: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to vote for the motion. I just wanted a clarification on
something. I’m in support of this. No problem. But are we making it until a new
director is selected or until a resolution is done in reference to the department?
Because in terms of that clarification because are you saying, I mean, you may have a
merged department situation to go somewhere else where there is not a director. I
mean should it be fair to resolve that or the selection of the director. [inaudible] may
not be a direction [inaudible] saying that you getting one that could lead to another
life time.
Mr. Hornsby: No. I have the actual agenda item itself. It says until the new
Trees and Landscape Director is appointed. The intent is as we go along with those
discussions [inaudible] how best to resolved or to organize this department. Until that
time, and if it’s reorganized, then of course you would have to look at the scenario of
the interim or director or whatever [inaudible].
Mr. Mays: I was just trying to get it clear, Mr. Mayor, whether it would work
both ways or whatever we needed to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We are voting. If you are voting in favor, please vote with your
green light.
Motion carries 9-0.
47
Clerk:
MAYOR:
39. Approve Resolution urging Congress to fund Rail Corridor Study and to
pass the High Speed Rail Investment Act. (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
40. Motion to approve compromise and settlement of condemnation case
against Jack D. Mason, Civil Action File No. 2000-RCCV-775 for
$510,000.00.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Members of the Commission, you will recall we had some
discussion about this in legal session earlier. And this is a recommendation that we
settle for $510,000.00. The Special Master awarded $478,000.00. However, that has
been appealed, and the testimony from the appraiser representing the land owner is
that the property is worth $550,000.00. This is 83.1 acres, and so we believe that the
settlement was reasonable and fair and recommend approval of it.
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: There’s a motion. Is there a second? Did we get a second? I
thought I heard somebody second it. Do we have a second on the motion to approve?
Mr. Mays: I’m going to second it to get it on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. I appreciate that. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: This didn’t come through committee, did it, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It did not come from committee. It was brought to the legal session
last meeting and there was not unanimous consent to bring it directly to the floor, and
so I brought it forward today.
48
Mr. Colclough: I’m going to make a motion that we send this to
Committee so that we can further discuss it.
This is quite a bit of money and I
know very little about it.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to send it to committee. Mr.
Shepard and then Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: I was going to ask Mr. Wall, his memory is better than mine, the
public purpose for these funds, maybe I didn’t see, my copy of the book didn’t have it
in, but what project is this we’re dealing with?
Mr. Wall: This is for the Diamond Lakes recreational project. Also Health
Department facility would be located out there. [inaudible] but it is for recreation and
the monies would come from the Recreation Department budget.
Mr. Shepard: Was this acquisition of land for facilities?
Mr. Wall: SPLOST. Yes.
Mr. Shepard: This is a SPLOST project?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Shepard: Phase III?
Mr. Wall: Phase IV.
Mr. Shepard: Phase IV? Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we discussed this at length in the past. We discussed
the land acquisition in legal sessions. This is the culmination of these negotiations for
us to move forward, progress in that area, in the Southeast it’s a source of pride for
the entire city, the regional park. We need to acquire this land space so we can move
on to other issues. We’ve debated this in the past. It has been discussed at length. I
implore my fellow Commissioners to please support it where we can move on.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with the facility as
a whole or what’s going on out there. I did not into legal and find ourselves still
discussing legal matters still on the floor. When it comes to this much money for land
49
acquisition for condemnation or for any other reason, I came back to those small
people who don’t have the money or don’t have the resources to stand against our
government and have to sell it for almost little or nothing. There’s no backup
material on this and I’m going to support Commissioner Kuhlke and Commissioner
Colclough and send it back to committee and I’d like to have some backup on exactly
what we’re doing. I know we doing some work at Diamond Lakes and I’m
supporting of that. But I just think that this is something that we should have talked
about not just in legal but you know in our committees, on the floor, so we all would
have had input some kind of way in this. Even though the funding is there, I can’t
support it right now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, I seconded the first motion to get it on
the floor, to get us to this point in some discussion. I’m going to respect my
Chairman, since I serve on his committee, to get it back to his committee and to
discuss this and I think what would be helpful, Mr. Wall, in terms of -- I think there’s
a clear history on this, Jim, that you can bring back and I think that probably maybe
for people that have come on this that will know the original situation of actually
taking a business to a point of where this is why it has taken this long. It’s not one
that just developed overnight, but for the respect of bringing it back to the committee
I will support my chairman on doing that, but I would want to note for the record, and
I say this for Mr. Williams, that my reason for hoping that we would get a settlement
in this case was that if Mr. Wall will bear out, I thought the condemnation of this
taking this place and it would have put this gentleman out of his business. So I’m
glad to see us to a point getting this here, but I think so that everybody can have a part
of reviewing it, I will support the Chairman wholeheartedly during this, cause this is
one that goes back to a point even before we consolidated this government, talking
about what we were going to do with that property out there, and even on this
particular piece of property. But I support the Chairman in terms of coming back to
Committee.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a substitute motion from the committee
Chairman to send this back to committee, so if there is no further discussion we’ll
take a vote on that. All in favor of the motion to send it to committee, please vote
aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Cheek and Mr. J. Brigham vote No.
Motion carries 6-3.
41. OTHER BUSINESS.
Mr. Mayor: We had disposed of the item on our addendum agenda. Mr. Wall,
do you have something for the legal session?
50
Mr. Wall: Yes.
LEGAL MEETING:
42. Discuss pending litigation.
Mr. Wall: I have litigation matters that we need to discuss, as well as I would
like to request real estate on there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion to go into legal session?
Mr. Shepard: I so move for the purposes stated by the lawyer, including
the real estate matter.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard, so the vote is unanimous and
we’ll go into legal session.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
43. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign
the affidavit.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have any items to add to the agenda?
Mr. Wall: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that you add to it the settlement of the
claim of Laura Walker for the sum of $30,592.83.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to add and approve?
51
Mr. Colclough: So moved.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Is there any objection? None heard. The vote is
unanimous.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, you have an announcement for the body?
Mr. Cheek: Just an announcement concerning the May 12 at 3 p.m. softball
game against Columbia County. We have commitments from the School Board for
Jeff Padgett, Ken Echols, Andrew Jefferson, Dr. Larke, Gene Sullivan. We have a
lady. We also have commitments from David Watkins, Sheriff Ronnie Strength, Tom
Beck and Danny Craig. depending on his daughter’s condition may or may not be
umpiring. So it’s looking good. We are going to play five outfielders. Columbia
County has been talking victory and so it’s going to be up to us to be there to show
them the other way. Everything looks good for that. It’s on and we’re working on a
lunch for afterwards.
Mr. Mayor: Any further business?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, real quick.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I ask you to remember our Finance Committee
members, we’re going to meet at the special time and a special place next Monday,
11:30 at the school, Richmond Academy. The media center, Academy of Richmond
County. We’re going to convene our meeting at 11:30. They have actually two
classes that are going to come in. Two periods of classes are going to come in. If
some of you would like to come beforehand, you’re welcome to do that. They have
some questions about the process, so when we complete our business, we’ll answer
questions. The second period class -- I’m going to try to get there a little after 11. So
if any of you others would like to come, we will convene our meeting at 11:30 and
then adjourn it when the agenda is completed. But it will be two periods.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
52
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 May 1, 2001.
Clerk of Commission