HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-07-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 7, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday,
August 7, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Colclough, J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard,
Beard, Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County
Commission.
Also Present: Vanessa Flournoy, Staff Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator and
Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Swinson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
INTRODUCTION:
Mr. Ken Kraemer
Executive Director
Augusta Regional Airport
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, recently the Aviation
Commission has embarked on a campaign to raise $500,000 for the Continental
Challenge to attract Continental Airlines to the city of Augusta and Bush Field. I am
very happy at this moment to announce that Augusta, Georgia will make a pledge of
$50,000 which should meet the $500,000 challenge grant. Now we’re about three or four
days of the end of the campaign, and we still want to exceed the $500,000, so those of
you who had decided that you wanted to pledge or were about to, we want you to
continue to do so, but we will guarantee that that fund will have $500,000 so that we can
make an offer to Continental and a challenge for them to come to Augusta. We really
want them to come, and this is our opportunity to join in partnership with the Aviation
Commission and the business community to make that happen. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Wilhelmi?
Ms. Wilhelmi: Thank all of you for that support. I’m happy to say we enjoyed
phenomenal cooperation from our city and local government. It absolutely will not
happen without all your support. Today you will be very pleased to know that we have
had our new airport commissioner on track for five days and he’s still here. I think he’s
going to be -- I sure hope he’s going to be here next week. If I may, can I please present
to you Mr. Ken Kraemer, formerly of Dubuque, Iowa, and now Executive Director of
Augusta Regional Airport.
(A round of applause is given.)
2
Mr. Kraemer: Good afternoon, Augusta Commission, Richmond County
Commission. It’s a pleasure to join you and to be on your staff. It’s an honor and a
privilege to be your new Airport Director. As Marcie has indicated, I’ve been here five
days, and it’s the equivalent of trying to take a sip of water through a fire hose. And I’ve
turned over a lot of stones over at the airport the past few days, and it’s just been very
exciting. Last Wednesday, August 1, was my first day on the job, and after a long,
exhausting day of learning names and uncovering some of these unturned stones at the
airport, I left the airport office at about 9 p.m. on Wednesday night, and on my way back
home I decided to stop for dinner at a Chinese restaurant. As I was eating dinner, I was
reflecting on all challenges that are ahead of us at the Augusta Regional Airport. It is
going to be quite a challenge and I was becoming a bit overwhelmed. But then when it
came time for the fortune cookie, I opened up the fortune cookie, and the fortune read,
“Don’t give up, the best is yet to come.’ And so I’d like that to be my mantra here for the
next few weeks. Don’t give up, the best is yet to come. And together with the Airport
Commission and the airport staff and the business community, as Mr. Kolb has alluded to
earlier, this community and this Airport Commission and this airport staff, we are going
to go the distance. We are going to work hard for you and make you proud. We’re going
to go the distance so that Augustans don’t have to go the distance to go to the Atlanta or
the Columbia airport. We’re going to keep those Augustans here in Augusta, flying from
the Augusta Regional Airport at Bush Field. So we’re going to go the distance and work
hard for you and make you proud of us and make the entire community proud of the
airport. We’re going to go the distance so Augusta don’t have to. Again, it’s an honor
and a privilege and I look forward to meeting all of us in the days and weeks to come.
Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Now we will call our meeting to order and I’d like to ask
the Rev. Dr. Gene Swinson, pastor of Graceway Baptist Church, to lead us in the
invocation and then our Commission Clerk, Lena Bonner, will lead us in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the flag. Dr. Swinson, if you would stay at the podium for just a moment,
we have a presentation for you.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Swinson.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated. Madame Clerk, do we have any
additions or deletions from the agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. We have a
request to add two items:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
3
1. Approve a recommendation from the Law Study Subcommittee to allow the
Administrator, Human Resources Director and the Attorney to make a
selection of a legal search firm to commence the process of employment of a
Primary Counsel. (Funded from lapsed salaries)
2. Resolution supporting the implementation of total quality management
concept within Augusta Richmond County organization. (Requested by
Commissioner Cheek)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding those two items?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I object to adding both items. There is not unanimous
consent.
Mr. Mayor: All right. There is not unanimous consent, so we will defer those
items. Madame Clerk, we’ll move ahead with the order of the day.
PRESENTATION:
Recommendations from Charter Committee
Mr. Bill Thompson, Chairman
The Clerk: A presentation, a recommendation from the Charter Committee, Mr.
Bill Thompson, Chairman.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, while Mr. Thompson is coming up, you furnished us
with a communication that was from the attorney, Mr. David Hudson, who wanted this
included with the report. Did you get a copy to put in the record?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: You do have one? Okay. Good. Mr. Thompson?
Mr. Thompson: Mr. Mayor, Augusta Richmond County Commissioners, it’s a
real pleasure to appear before you today. You have been provided with some materials,
included a cover letter from me as Chairman of the Charter Committee that was reviewed
by each of our members and approved, and what I would like to do is just highlight a few
of the points that are contained in that letter, and certainly any of us who are here today
will be available for any of your questions. Back in January of this year, you appointed
11 individuals to serve as a Citizens Advisory Committee for the purpose of drafting a
revised charter as stated in the motion that was made in your committee meeting. We
have operated as a Charter Committee and our members are listed below, and I’d like for
those people who are here, who are on our Committee, to just raise their hand as I call
their name, if they’re in attendance today. Marion Barnes, Nathaniel Charles, Barbara
Gordon, David Hudson, Sam Maguire, Mallory Millender, Quincy Robertson, Paul
Sanders, Jimmy Smith, and Rob Zetterberg. In addition, we were supported by the City
Attorney, Jim Wall. I want to compliment you on giving Jim to us to enable us to work
through a lot of the legal issues related to the charter. I really commend him for his
4
service, as well as the Chamber of Commerce providing administrative support, along
with my administrative assistant, Vera Kent. We met 13 times during a six month period.
Each meeting last about an hour-and-a-half, and then if you add the time that we spent
outside of those meetings, there was a considerable amount of effort put into this. The
issues that we looked out Commissioner and employee contact, quorums and abstentions,
ethical standards, mayoral powers, legal department, just to name a few. All the
recommendations that we passed were passed by unanimous vote of those who were
present. We were split on several issues, to include mayoral powers and administrative
powers, and we decided from the beginning that we would not be split along racial lines
on any votes that we had, and so those areas were areas we could not make any major
improvements on, except there were some minor improvements with regard to
administrative powers. The areas that we did pass unanimously by those present were #1,
increased personnel and purchasing authority for the City Administrator, #2, to provide
for the reelection of Commissioners after a two-year waiting period following service of
two four-year terms, #3, to provide for removal of a member of the Commission for
serious ethical violations, #4, to provide for a review of the charter every four years in a
non-election year, #5 and I think a very important one, was to provide for the
establishment of a community race relations committee of this Commission. That’s a
recommendation of our committee. #6, another important item, provide that the City
Attorney conduct mandatory ethics training for the Commissioners every two years. #7,
recommend that the current charter be redrafted so it includes the other local acts that
remain in effect for both the county and city prior to consolidation and then consolidated
into a revised and updated document, and #8, another very important issue, maintain
independent outside city-county attorney to coordinate the activities of the city’s legal
department. The committee, I think what one person stated, is we have an independent
auditor for the city, we should also have independent legal counsel as well. We also
endorsed ordinances that had already been passed by the city related to Commissioner-
employee contact and ethics and thought those had been very well drafted. I think that
what I would like to emphasize in our deliberations, some of the media reports could
have left the impression that our meetings were contentious. I think there is anybody on
our committee who would take exception to that. I think our meetings were very
positive, very professional. I commend all the people who have worked on our
committee for being very professional and listening to other people’s viewpoints. I know
I had a mindset going in, and I had a different mindset coming out, and I think probably
everybody on our committee would say the same thing. What I’d like to add is that race
relations came out as a huge, huge issue, out of this process. Some of that can be
legislated. Quite frankly, some of it cannot. The private sector is going to have to be a
partner in this process if we’re going to be successful. If we look at cities like Atlanta,
Greenville, just to name a couple, they’ve not allowed race issues to hold them back from
economic development, and we don’t think Augusta should that allow that to happen,
either. So that is a brief summation of about six months’ worth of work. We’ll be glad to
try to handle any questions you might have. And again, we just appreciate the
opportunity to have served in this way, and it was a very good experience and appreciate
you all appointing us.
5
Mr. Mayor: Bill, thank you very much, and let me also extend the thanks of the
Mayor and Commission to the members of the committee and the staff that supported
your work. This is a very important job. This is the first citizens group that has taken a
look at this consolidated government since that consolidation came about on January 1,
1996. The work you’ve done is important. The results will be digested both by this body
and I’m sure by the state Legislative Delegation and we’ll see if they can lead to new and
improved governance in Augusta Richmond County, and we appreciate the role that you
all have played in it. Do any of the Commissioners have any questions or comments?
Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Thompson, of the issues that you brought up and the changes to
be made, how many of these can be done by home rule and how many have to go back to
the Legislative Delegation?
Mr. Thompson: I know that Jim Wall looked at those issues. I’m going to defer
to him as I have many times. Let him help us with that.
Mr. Wall: The authority for the Administrator can be done under home rule. The
reelection of Commissioners as well as the removal I think probably have to be done,
certainly the first one has to be done by the Legislative Delegation, and I think the second
and the third item there likewise would have to be done by Legislative Delegation. The
fourth item could be done by home rule. The fifth one could actually be done by an
ordinance. It would not require home rule amendment but could be done by home rule,
as could number six. Seven is a recommendation. And eight is a recommendation.
Mr. Kuhlke: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? Anyone from your group, Mr. Thompson, wanted to
make any comments?
Mr. Thompson: Would anybody like to add anything?
Mr. Mayor: Again, thank you.
Mr. Thompson: We thank you very much.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: If it’s in order, I’d like to make a motion that we accept this
report as information but that we pass this report on to the Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
6
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next?
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Kinsey Total Car Care Inc.
Mr. Joseph B. Kinsey
RE: Police Protection
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kinsey, if you would be kind enough to give us your name and
address for the record.
Mr. Kinsey: My name is Joseph B. Kinsey. I live at 2203 Country Club Court,
Augusta, Georgia. I appreciate y’all’s time this morning. My concern is about the lack
of police protection in Richmond County. We all read the paper every day and see about
the motel robberies out on Washington Road, and things like that. We see where a group
of people go into an apartment complex and break into 18 cars and steal 18 CD players.
The list is endless, and there is no thing that I can see for the foreseeable future that is
going to make it any better unless we get these policemen back on the roads. I’ve taken
time in the last couple of weeks to stop and talk to some deputies out on patrol to see
what they average day is like and they go through. A year ago, these deputies were doing
13 and 15 calls per day, writing 13 and 15 per incident reports. Today the deputies are
doing 21 to 25 reports a day, incident report. He has no time to do anything but that. He
can’t ride a beat, he can’t check his homes, he can’t check his businesses, and the thieves
know this. So when they go in somewhere, they’re not worried about getting caught
because they know no deputy will be coming through an apartment complex or riding
through a business area to check it, cause they don’t have time to do it. I went down to
Jerry Saul’s office. There are approximately 75,000 taxable pieces of property in
Richmond County. If I remember my figures right, from the federal grants that we lost
and what the city has not put into the Sheriff’s Department, it was somewhere around
$4.5 million, and that’s why we had to pull these 70-something deputies off the road. If
these taxpayers would put $50 more into their tax bill each year and put it back in the
Sheriff’s Department, we’d be well ahead of the game. An ounce of prevention is worth
more than a pound of cure. In the last 60 days, I’ve had my home burglarized, I have
three automobiles stolen, I’ve had seven guns, over a thousand rounds of ammunition,
and I can’t tell you the tools and other equipment that’s been stolen from me. Last
Wednesday night, they tried to get in Andy Jordan’s bicycle shop. A month-and-a-half
ago, they hit Pratt-Dudley Builders Supply three weeks in a row. Each time taking stuff
from them. Before Stan’s Imports moved, he was hit twice a week for five weeks.
There’s no one around to check what’s going on. We’ve got to do something to help
Sheriff Strength get these deputies back on the road. That’s my concern, and my wish is
that we’ll find a way to get this $50 from every taxable property owner and put these
7
deputies back on there so we’ll have a safer place. And I think that’s about the extent of
what I have to say.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kinsey. We certainly appreciate your thoughtful and
well reasoned presentation to the Commission today. Like you and the other citizens of
Augusta Richmond County, this Commission is concerned about the safety, health and
welfare of the nearly 200,000 people who live in this community, and I’m sure that Mr.
Kolb is going to give serious consideration to what he can do to restore funding to the
Sheriff’s Department as he works on the budget for next year. None of us take this
lightly, I assure you of that. Anyone have any comments or questions? Anything further,
Mr. Kinsey?
Mr. Kinsey: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you for being with us. Thank you very much.
The Clerk: Under our consent agenda, items 1 through 50. Items 1 through
50. We have one alcohol petition. If there are any objectors to this petition, would
you please signify your objection by raising your hand?
5. Motion to approve a request by James C. Reames for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with Arirrang Restaurant located at 3008
Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to this petition? There are no objections, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. If we could add to the consent agenda item number 58.
That’s to accept a grant. Let’s go ahead and dispense with that, too, Madame Clark.
Gentlemen, with respect to the consent agenda, the Chair would just note before we start
pulling items that item number 30 and item number 42 would conflict. If you approve
item 42, then item 30 would be an exception to that, so we may want to pull that. Having
said that, what are you wishes with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve the consent agenda,
and I’d like number 30
pulled please.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: Second, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s pull item 30. Gentlemen?
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull 12, 16, 17 and 18, Mr. Mayor.
8
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams pulling 12, 16, 17 and 18. Gentlemen, any
others?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I pull 42, then, so we can discuss it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard, item number 42. Anyone else?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve a Transportation Enhancement Activity (TEA)
Agreement between the Georgia Department of Transportation and the
Augusta Richmond County Consolidated Government. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
Motion to approve the renewal of a work study agreement with Augusta
2.
State University for services at Newman Tennis Center. (Approved by
Public Services Committee July 30, 2001)
3. Motion to approve budget amendment for Augusta Regional Airport
Master Plan – Phase III in the amount of $385,000. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
4. Motion to approve Black & Veatch Work Authorization for professional
services during Phase III of the Augusta Regional Airport’s Master Plan
Study in the amount not to exceed $300,000. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
5. Motion to approve a request by James C. Reames for a Sunday sales
license to be used in connection with Arirrang Restaurant located at 3008
Deans Bridge Road. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
6.
Motion to approve a request by Jennifer Ellis for a Massage Therapist
License to be used in connection with Jennifer Ellis Massage located at 3624
J. Dewey Gray Circle, Ste. 308. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by
Public Services Committee July 30, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
7. Motion to approve a Tier #1 Façade Grant Application for 429 Walker
Street in the amount of $5,000 and 511 Courthouse Lane in the amount of
$4,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 30, 2001)
8. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $200,000 in Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) from ANIC to the Apple Valley Park
Project. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 30, 2001)
9. Motion to approve reclassification of positions in the Tax Commissioner’s
Office. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 30, 2001)
10.
Motion to approve Laney-Walker Development Corporation (LWDC) plan
for the construction of 5,000 sq. ft. of retail space and enter into a contract
designating LWDC as developer. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee July 30, 2001)
9
11. Motion to approve request from Augusta Richmond County Weed and Seed
Initiative for five (5) computer donations from Housing & Neighborhood
Development. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee July 30,
2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
12. Deleted from consent agenda.
13. Motion to ratify Commission’s letter of request to the Emergency
Management Council to open up the ambulance zoning for Richmond
County. (Approved by Public Safety Committee July 30, 2001)
FINANCE:
14. Motion to approve increase in compensation for Court Reporter for
Juvenile Court from $1,000.00 per month to $2,000.00 per month,
effective August 1, 2001. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
15. Motion to approve the return of the $200,000 recaptured SPLOST funds
from the Laney-Walker project to the Health Department to proceed with
the planning and design work on the South Augusta Project. (Approved
by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
16. Deleted from consent agenda.
17. Deleted from consent agenda.
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve a request from the CSRA Economic Opportunity
Authority, Inc. to purchase excess classroom type furnishings to support
the computer skills training program. (Approved by Finance Committee
July 30, 2001)
20.
Motion to approve refund of taxes in the amount of $808.61 to James E.
Callan. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
otion to approve requirement for temporary hire and funding to
21. M
replace Tara O’Neal, Administrative Assistant with the Emergency
Management Agency, during family medical leave. (Approved by
Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
22. Motion to approve the acquisition of six (6) 24,000 GVW Trailers for the
Public Works Department – Operations and Maintenance Division on the
existing lowest bid from Crosley Trailer Company of Starke, Florida for
$10,196.00 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 00-137). This price will be
honored until August 31, 2001. (Approved by Finance Committee July
30, 2001)
23. Motion to approve payment of invoice from Ruffin Flag Company in the
amount of $1,454.00 from the Promotional Account for the purchase of
City flags. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
24. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the Construction,
Production & Maintenance Workers Local Union No. 1137 for their
Annual Dinner Meeting, August 18. Funded from Commission Other
Account. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
10
25.
Motion to approve the purchase of a full-page ad in the 2001 "Family
Album" issue of the Georgia County Government magazine. Funded from
promotional account. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
26. Motion to approve condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 83, Parcel 206,
which is owned by Jean Smalley, for right-of-way on the Barton Chapel
Road Improvement Project, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 30, 2001)
27. Motion to accept counter-offer from Clyde T. Pilcher to acquire necessary
easement across property identified as Tax Map 19, Parcel 22 for $5,000.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
28. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 83, Parcel
202, which is owned by Frankie Hutto, for right-of-way on the Barton
Chapel Road Improvement Project, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
29.
Motion to accept Georgia Emergency Management (GEMA) and Federal
Emergency Management Agenda (FEMA) grant award in the amount of
$28,267. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
30. Deleted from consent agenda.
31. Motion to abandon Conway Court and authorize conveying to adjoining
property owner. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30,
2001)
32. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number Two (CPB
#327-04-296812007) in the amount of $138,110.00 funded from Special
One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recaptured Funds ($69,055.00) and
Augusta Utilities ($69,055.00). Also award the contract to the low bidder,
Mabus Brothers Construction, Inc. in the amount of $538,110.08 subject
to the receipt of signed contracts and the proper bonds on the Turknett
Springs Detention Pond Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 30, 2001)
33. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget Change Number One (CPB
#323-04-296823696) in the amount of $18,000.00 funded from One
Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture. Also approve Gas Main and
Pipeline Relocation Agreement with Atlanta Gas Light. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
34. Motion to approve award of contract to Mabus Brothers Construction
Company, Inc. in the amount of $1,965,350.58 for construction of the
Boykin Road Sewer Improvements. (Funded by Account Number
509043420-5425210/80150205-5425210) (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
35. Motion to approve award of contract to Blair Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $578,723.34 for construction of the Skinner Road Sanitary
Sewer Improvements. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-
11
5425210/80150060-5425210) (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 30, 2001)
36. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $160,000.00 to Stevenson
& Palmer Engineering, Inc. for providing investigative services for inflow
and infiltration reduction within the Rae’s Creek Basin. (To be funded
from Account Number 508043420-5212115). (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
37. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $10,365.28 to Aqua
South Construction, Inc. for additional work to be completed at the raw
water transmission mains vault and surge tank area. (Funded Acct. #
508043410/5425110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
30, 2001)
38. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $958,040.00 to Khafra
Engineering, Inc. for developing GIS base-maps of the existing Augusta
Water and Sewer Systems. (To be funded from Account Number
509043490-5212999/80190350-5212999) (Approved by Engineering
Service Committee July 30, 2001)
39. Motion to approve the bid award of the construction contract to the low
bidder for Phase I of the Rae’s Creek Interceptor Relief Sewer Project at
the full Commission meeting on August 7. (Construction to be funded
from Account Number 509043420-5425210/80160110-5425210) (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
40. Motion to approve funding in the estimated amount of $583,593 for the
improvements of water and sewer facilities within the boundaries of the
Georgia Department of Transportation project at the intersection of I-520
and State Route 56. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
30, 2001)
41. Motion to approve the funding to provide assistance to Nordahl &
Company, Inc. in the construction of a gravity sewer line that will relieve
an existing overloaded sanitary sewer lift station in the Pepperidge
Subdivision. (Construction to be funded from Account Number
508043420-5425210). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July
30, 2001)
42. Deleted from consent agenda.
43. Motion to approve changing the scope of services in ZEL Engineers’ existing
contract to proceed with Phase 3 of the wetlands treatment area project. This
project includes the modification of the design documents for the final three
wetland cells as well as adding several additional design and construction
phase services not included in their original contract. (Engineering to be
funded from Account Number 509043420-5212115/80180275-5212115)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
44. Motion to approve bid award of contract to Blair Construction, Inc. in the
amount of $49,562.95 for the construction of the Vassar Drive/Aumond Road
Sanitary Sewer Extension. (Funded by Account No. 507043420/5425210)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
12
45. Motion to approve Ordinance designating roadways to be approved for the
use of speed detection devices (and waive second reading). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee July 30, 2001)
46. Motion to approve designating Spring Grove Road as one-way going out and
install a "No Trucks" sign. (Approved by Engineering Service Committee
July 30, 2001)
47. Motion to approve adopting a Resolution requesting Georgia Department of
Transportation to give priority to installing a noise barrier at Glenn Hills
Drive and Bobby Jones Expressway. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee July 30, 2001)
48. Motion to approve the cutting/trimming of hedges on city’s right-of-way on
Waters Edge Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30,
2001)
PLANNING:
49. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
define the area designated at the Interstate Highway System and also clarify
off-premise sign spacing regulations at intersections. (Approved by
Commission July 18, 2001 - Second reading)
50. Request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to Section 24-HI (Heavy
Industrial) Zone of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-
Richmond County concerning the regulation of inert landfills. (Approved by
Commission July 18, 2001 - Second reading)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
July 18, 2001.
OTHER BUSINESS:
58. Motion to accept Improvement Grant Award - Mental Health Area for
Indigent Defense in the amount of $16,000.
Mr. Mayor: We’re ready to vote. We’ll go ahead and vote on the consent agenda
then, minus items 12, 16, 17, 18, 30 and 42. Mr. Beard, did you want to pull something?
Mr. Beard: No.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor, please vote aye. And this also includes item 58,
Madame Clark.
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, let it be known that I vote No on Sunday sales.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will reflect that Mr. Colclough votes No on Sunday sales.
13
The Clerk: Item 5.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to vote No on Sunday sales as well, and please
make note that I abstain on item number 33.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will so note and include in the record.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion carries 8-2. [Item 5]
Mr. Bridges abstains.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 33]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-4, 6-11, 13-15, 19-32, 34-41, 43-51, 58]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with item number 12.
The Clerk:
12. Motion to approve the closing of Reynolds St. at Eight Street with the
appropriate coordination by EMA and the approval of the Fire Department
st
and the Sheriff’s Office for the 21 Annual Arts in the Heart Festival.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee July 30, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just need some clarification. I have
some concerns from a business owner at Ninth and Reynolds there about the closing of
the street. If we close this, have we thought about the effect that it have on that business
or those businesses in that area? Would that be closed how far? I guess EMT or
somebody could help me out with that.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll see if somebody can help you with that. We don’t have
anybody from the Arts Council with us today.
The Clerk: Dave is responding.
Mr. Mayor: Dave, can you do that?
Mr. Cheek: For the record, Mr. Mayor, that should be EMA, not EMS.
Mr. Dlugolenski: I missed the question.
Mr. Williams: The question was, Dave, that I had a concern from a business
owner on Reynolds and Ninth, the corner. We talked about closing Eighth Street, at that
14
area down there. How would that affect this business? I just need some clarification is
all I want to do.
Mr. Dlugolenski: Well, basically what we will do is approximately two or three
weeks prior, we’ll go down and visit every single business owner down in that area and
tell them what’s going to be going on. We’re going to block off the street on Reynolds
Street between Seventh and Ninth Street, starting Saturday morning to Sunday night.
What we’ll do, is if patrons want to visit restaurants in that area, we’re going to let them
go down and park at the restaurant. So it should not affect their business. In fact, it
should help their businesses, with the 25,000-30,000 people that visit the Arts Festival
every single day.
Mr. Williams: Okay, but they will be allowed to go through and park? Because
their parking area is between Ninth and Eight Street there, so they will be allowed to
enter into the parking area, is that right?
Mr. Dlugolenski: Right. That’s what we did last year. If they said they were
going to visit a business down there, we let them go in and park at that business.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Do we have a motion to approve?
Mr. Cheek: A motion to approve.
Mr. Mayor: Second?
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, shall we take up 16, 17 and 18 together or
do you have something for each one of these?
Mr. Williams: Well, let’s take 16 and 17 together, Mr. Mayor. We can take them
all together. I just need to discuss this for a brief minute.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll allow the Clerk to read the captions and then we’ll discuss
them.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
The Clerk:
15
16. Motion to approve a request from the Sheriff of Johnson County
regarding the purchase of two patrol units from Augusta Richmond
County. (Approved by Finance Committee July 30, 2001)
17. Motion to approve a request from the City of Hephzibah regarding the
purchase of four excess vehicles (3 sedans and 1 compact pickup truck)
from the Augusta Commission. (Approved by Finance Committee July
30, 2001)
18. Motion to approve a request from the City of Blythe to purchase one
excess vehicle from the Augusta Commission. (Approved by Finance
Committee July 30, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My concern is, Mr. Mayor, is we look we
done set a precedent of selling our fleet, our used vehicles to other smaller cities. I got no
problem with trying to help the additional surrounding counties, but we selling these cars
at a price of I think $2,500 when those cars cost us $25,000-26,000. I don’t agree. We’re
talking about money for the Sheriff’s Department now. We are buying automobiles, look
like every year, seems like, and we need to cut back on the purchasing of so many cars
and keep some of these cars in our fleet. We talking about, we sold cars to Sandersville,
Georgia. Now I see Johnson County is coming aboard. And I wouldn’t be surprised if
every surrounding county would not do this. In fact, we may need to be looking at
Atlanta to buy their vehicles. But my think is we’re spending a lot of money for
automobile. We don’t have the Sheriff, we don’t have the necessary equipment for law
enforcement. We got to start to cut back somewhere. Either we going to have to take
that advice from the gentleman that stood before us a little while ago and tax each home
owner additional money for funds, or we’re going to have to change the way we been
doing business. We got one here that we supposed to sell a car for I think $1. I think
that’s the city of Blythe; is that right? Hephzibah. Blythe and Hephzibah. I got no
problem with helping surrounding counties, but we need to look at things differently. If
we don’t have the money but we keep transacting business or carrying it on like we got
plenty of money, now either we got it or we don’t. I’m not going to vote for this. I think
that’s wrong. If those cars are good enough to be used in Johnson County or
Sandersville, we ought to be using them in Richmond County. And I can’t support it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just also I’d like to add to what Commissioner Williams
said. These cars and vehicles will be given to these cities, and I’m sure if we researched
it we would find out that they put an additional 100,000-125,000 miles on them. We
have a tremendously large fleet for our Sheriff’s Department and our other departments,
and just on rough adding there is over $150,000 worth of vehicles here bought new that
we’ll go out and replace these with brand new ones, and as Commissioner Williams said,
we are either going to have to generate new revenue or find a different way of doing
business, and the truth is Augusta Richmond County doesn’t have a new funding source
identified at this time. We are going to have to find ways to cut costs, and that includes
16
the purchase of new vehicles and extend the life of this fleet. I’ve talked with many
people that are experts in vehicle maintenance and they all concur with what
Commissioner Williams and I have said several times. You can change a motor and
transmission out for $5,000-6,000 and a new car costs $25,000-27,0000. We seriously
need to look at this. These cars, I have personal friends that have former patrol cars.
They routinely get 200,000-250,000 miles out of these cars. Trading them in because
they have a lot of miles on them and selling them for a dollar, is not in the best interest of
this city. Otherwise, I support us helping these smaller cities, especially those that pay
taxes to Augusta Richmond County. I have to concur with Commissioner Williams. I
don’t think we’re on the right track by doing what we’re doing and I’m going to vote
against this.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Mays, did you have your hand up?
Mr. Mays: The only thing I was going to say, Mr. Mayor, I was glad that
Commissioner Cheek brought that out about those that are paying taxes in Richmond
County. One part about this, particularly on items 17 and 18, if we’re looking at a point
of where law enforcement need a boost, and particularly you’re talking about on the
southern end of the county, you know, we’re still sending tax bills to folk who live in
Blythe and folk who live in Hephzibah. They are still Richmond County citizens, even
though they may not be a part of the consolidated government of Augusta. They get a tax
bill. So actually we are under girding that law enforcement area in those deep southern
areas, so I would have to be in support I know of 17 and 18. I’ve said this over before we
even consolidated that the day we stop sending them a tax bill then we make argument
about it, but they are a part of Richmond County. And Mr. J. Brigham: Saul sends one
to them just like he does to everybody else, even though they’re not a part of the new
government, but they are still in Richmond County.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, in regards to the one going to
Johnson County, this is consistent with what we’ve done with surrounding counties in the
past, in the regard that we sell them these vehicles at their salvage value. In other words,
these vehicles have been declared salvage material and they will be sold at some sort of
auction by the county for an estimated amount of money, and that’s what we’re selling
them to Johnson County and these surrounding counties for. It’s consistent with what
we’ve done. We’ve asked our fleet manager to bring forward to us those items that when
they do reach the salvage point, and basically you have increasing costs, not just motor
and transmission, there are plenty of other costs, particularly with a modern car, that you
change the brakes out, it can hit you for $500-1,000 easy, so there are many other things
that can go wrong with the car other than the motor and the transmission. These cars
have reached the point, almost the point of declining return, and that’s why we’re selling
17
those. I think on 17 and 18, Mr. Mays makes a very good point. For a dollar, which is
what we’ve done in the past with Hephzibah and Blythe, as far as these vehicles, we’re
giving them these cars to in essence support our law enforcement. And I might add, there
is a lot of difference between what kind of vehicle you need to patrol Hephzibah and
what kind of vehicle you might need to patrol the city of Augusta or the rest of the
county, and they serve those needs in these small cities very well, and I make the motion
that we approve these three items.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Thank you. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Beard had his hand up first. I yield to Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to ask, on 16, I would like to ask the
fleet manager what would be the cost -- if this car was auctioned off, what would be the
cost normally that we would get for a car that is auctioned off in comparison to what we
are selling for? I think we said $2,500 or something like that. Is there a vast difference
when we are selling these cars to the surrounding counties and they being auctioned off?
The disparity there I would like to know.
Mr. Crowden: Ron Crowden, Fleet Manager. If I look to the 1999 auction, which
was the last auction we had, what the average price of one of the patrol units that were in
this type of shape was approximately $3,000 per vehicle at the auction. I’m averaging,
depending on the condition of the car, I’m averaging about $2,500 per car. Sometimes,
to Sandersville, I think the highest one was $2,700, if I recall, because the car was in
pretty good shape. So I wasn’t willing to just give it away. But the difference in these
type cars, sir, is going to average about a $500 lost, if you will, to the government from
what it brings at public auction.
Mr. Beard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We go through this every time in full
Commission, we go through this every time in Finance Committee on the issue of the
cars. And I really think it’s time that we, as part of the budgetary process -- I realize
George has just been here for a while, I think you said three months this weekend,
George -- that we try to formulate what does really cost this government the least. Is it
either keep and maintain these cars, which is what we hear advocated on a case-by-case,
car-by-car basis, or do we turn over and replace, which I think, if I recall one of the
earlier discussions we had on this record, George, was that one way of keeping the
maintenance costs down is you keep turning over the fleet, and we have a relatively new
fleet now, don’t we, Ron? I mean compared to what the old city used to ride around in
when Lee and I and Willie served on the City County? We had some pretty raggedy
18
vehicles. I know we still have a few, but I see a lot of newer vehicles that serve our
needs.
Mr. Crowden: Absolutely.
Mr. Shepard: I mean in terms of broad general policy. So I mean I’m going to
support Mr. Bridges’ motion, supported it in committee, but until we make a budgetary
decision between keep and maintain and turn over and replace, I think we just ought to
accept prevailing policy. And right now, the prevailing policy is turn over and replace.
Now could that policy be replaced by a better, more cost efficient policy? Well, sure, all
policies can be reexamined from time to time, gentleman, and I think the thing to do,
rather than bring this up on a case-by-case basis, let’s just look at it in the big numbers
what costs us less, either keep and maintain or turn over and replace, and shut up. That’s
all I’m going to say.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. The Chair would note, too, that the items
on the agenda are for the specific sale of vehicles to specific agencies. The policy is not
the issue here today, so let’s try to focus on these items in our discussion and debate. Mr.
Brigham, please, sir.
Mr. H. Brigham: I would just following up on what Mr. Shepard said. About
many cars do they have left in this pool that [inaudible]?
Mr. Crowden: Cars and trucks total light -- I have not brought forward the excess
list on the heavy equipment -- but in the light category of cars and trucks, there is
approximately 170 remaining from that which was approved. Before it was 197, I
believe, that the Commission approved as excess for sale at salvage, for sale at public
auction, so we still have about 175, if I’m not mistaken.
Mr. H. Brigham: These cars are not being used now at all?
Mr. Crowden: That’s correct, sir. These cars and trucks have been replaced with
vehicles which are currently in service with Augusta Richmond County. This was part of
that program which was approved by the Commission quite some time ago on a
replacement plan. It was locked in with the GMA lease program. All of that has expired.
I would like to bring it to the point that in the general fund activities which supports the
acquisition of police cars, in the year 2001 we have not bought one. In the year 2002,
from what I understand, I don’t expect to buy any others. There won’t be replacements
for 2002. So it’s going to be, it really is going to be a moot point, because if the general
fund money is not there to purchase those cars, I’m going to have to ask for the money to
maintain. So we’re going to roll from one program into another just purely by the fact
that the money is not available to support the acquisition as it had in the previous years.
And I think we’re going to see some significant costs.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
19
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I heard the word salvage, and when you
say the word salvage, people think of junk or something that you discarding. But there is
no [inaudible], there’s no mileage in this backup material to tell you about the cars that
we’re selling. I’m not opposed to helping our neighboring counties. I said that before
and I’m going to say it again. But I think we need to look at what we got. I heard Ron
said about in 2001 and 2002 he don’t propose to buy anything else. We can’t buy cars
because of the year, because it’s 2003 or whatever the year it is. If there is not a need to
replace these cars. We ordered these cars for a specific duty. These are heavy duty
equipment when it come in. These cars are not made last 100,000 miles. We have been
under agreement that we had to rotate some cars out and I understand that. But you got a
car we’re talking about selling for a dollar that our auto report came back saying that our
mileage wasn’t correct, we don’t know how many miles on it. It may not be but 50,000
on these cars. None of us have looked at them to know or to be able to visually see what
we getting rid of. Just because we been doing it in the past and doing it wrong, that don’t
mean we got to continue to do it wrong. Now any other Commissioner want to support
this, that’s their business, but I don’t think the taxpayers of Richmond County ought to
have to support buying and selling vehicles for little or nothing when we can do some
replacement type stuff to keep the vehicles goings. Now I don’t want to get into your
job, Ron, as the Fleet Manager, to do that, but you have been around enough to know that
we can replace a lot of these motors and transmissions, and I have not seen a case yet
where we replaced a car because the motor went out. We talk about the miles on the car.
Miles do not hurt a car. If it maintained. If the service has been done right, a lot of the
people in this room have got cars with over 100,000 miles on it and still running just as
good as it did when it had 100 miles on it. But we taking advantage of the taxpayers
when we spending money like that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I wish there was some way we
could take these as separate items.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a substitute motion?
Mr. Cheek: A substitute motion that we deal with these as separate items.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that?
Mr. Williams: I second it.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to say, too, that when we start comparing
fleet maintenance costs and cash return for sales and so forth, that we should look at the
General Services Administration, who manages the fleet for the federal government.
They return their vehicles with a lot less mileage on them to get a higher return on their
sale value. Again, these vehicles will be used for another 100-some-odd-thousand miles
when they go out. They are still patrol cars, which would usable in any part of this city.
The thing that we’ve got to do is the same thing -- look at the same thing our citizens are
20
going through. Gas is going up. Every other thing is going up. Many people are holding
on to their vehicles longer because they don’t have the capital to spend on a new vehicle,
and they’re not sure of the upcoming economic trends. We need to look and live like that
as a government, and certainly if we can save a thousand here and a thousand there,
sooner or later it adds up to millions. But if we never take on that endeavor, then we’re
going only look for the big ticket savings and really won’t save anything. It’s just my
concern that this is something that needs to be reviewed and we will continue to talk
about ways to save this government money, whether it’s a dollar or a million dollars,
from now on.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to separate these items and vote on
them separately. Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Is now the time for a motion to take them individually?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: I make a motion that we approve Item 16.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve item 16, with a second by Mr. Henry Brigham.
Any discussion on that? All in favor, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion with respect to number 17?
Mr. Bridges: Really we can do 17 and 18 together. I make a motion that we
approve 17 and 18.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor then, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
21
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the next item we’ll take up will be number 42.
Mr. Cheek: Number 30, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: 30? You want to do 42?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do 42 first.
Mr. Cheek: Okay.
The Clerk:
42. Motion to approve proposed guidelines for customer participation in the cost
of water and sewer construction projects. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee July 30, 2001)
??
Create a special assessment water district that would be for no longer
than five years.
??
Hold public hearing and approval would have to come from 51% of
the property owners.
??
Each property owner would be charged a cost-per-foot assessment.
??
In the event that the project is in a bond issue that comes along prior
to the special assessment being passed, then that special assessment
would be forgiven and the Utilities Department would be reimbursed
the remaining costs that they had to incur for the particular project.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d appreciate, and I know Max is not here, maybe
somebody is here for Max. I see Mr. Cheek, if he would walk us through these two
spreadsheets, one on the Vassar Drive project and one on the Calvary Deliverance
Evangelistic Church. They are trying to illustrate how this policy would work in both
instances. Since it’s always District politics up here, both of these are both in my District
and I’m sort of interested in both projects. So could you do that for us?
Mr. Doug Cheek: In conjunction with the Administrator, too, we would defer to
him cause he was involved greatly with the development of this, so it would probably be
best if he addressed your questions.
Mr. Shepard: George?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, member of the Commission, the information that you have
in your package does not really speak to the process of the proposal that is in your agenda
item. What this is really is the cost analysis that was used to determine what the actual
total cost would be charged to those two projects. Mr. Cheek can walk through that if
22
that’s what you want. If you want to talk about the policy itself, I’ll be more than happy
to walk through that and tell you how it works.
Mr. Shepard: Well, George, what I was trying to get at, the backup material on
the first page of item, agenda item 42, in the last paragraph on the page, it says attached
to the worksheets for currently pending projects as examples of this calculation. Is this an
example of the policy? That’s what I read it to be. If that’s not the case, how does the
backup material differ from the -- the backup material doesn’t illustrate the policy.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. The original policy that is in your packet tonight was
revised the day of the committee meeting, and we did not put the new one in except under
the agenda item itself.
Mr. Shepard: So there is no illustration in our material of how the policy works;
is that -- or is number 30 an illustration of it now?
Mr. Kolb: Number 30? Number 30 absolutely is an exception.
Mr. Shepard: Well, if it was, George, that would be a tall order for me to
understand.
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. Doug Cheek: If it helps, Mr. Shepard, I can briefly go through what you have
as backup, which was our previous attempt at trying to [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: If you would. It would help me.
Mr. Kolb: And then I can show you the --
Mr. Shepard: And please use the “keep it simple Steve method, “ if you would.
Mr. Doug Cheek: Based on the -- I’m looking at the Vassar Drive/Aumond Road
sanitary extensions --
Mr. Shepard: That’s good.
Mr. Doug Cheek: They’re pretty much identical. Basically we take an estimated
cost to conduct a project, we make an assumption that 50% of the cost of the project is
materials, and 50% is labor and et cetera. We try to recover 50%, which would the
materials. We try to base the recovery of those costs based on financial participation by
the property owners, along with potential revenues that the projected project would
generate. So in this particular instance, the material costs of -- let’s make it $50,000 for
the total project -- $25,000 would be 50% for materials. The financial participation by
property owner was $11,000. So we tried to recover $11,000 from the $25,000, roughly
$14,000, and we broke that out at 12% over eight years, would have been the numbers
23
that you see, unrecovered material costs. That’s the amount that we tried to get back to
us. That’s all we’re trying to recover, is material costs.
Mr. Shepard: So is material recovery -- you recover it in these increments down
at the bottom of the chart?
Mr. Doug Cheek: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: You have a total unrecovered of $7,500 on the numbers that you
put into the book?
Mr. Doug Cheek: 36 months. And as you go down, you see in between 96
months and 108 months it starts returning to a negative number, so basically the 12%
over eight years you would end up with 100% of your [inaudible].
Mr. Shepard: So it’s recovered in that interval where it goes negative?
Mr. Doug Cheek: That was the attempt. Any upgrades, which is not reflected in
this because in this particular instance we were not trying to upgrade, but any upgrades,
for instance the one you may talk about in item 30, the city, the Augusta Utilities
Department will definitely, anything above and beyond what is absolutely necessary for a
particular extension, Augusta Utilities Department would incur those costs.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any other comments? Any other questions? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. That “keep it simple, Steve” didn’t work for
me. I still don’t understanding anything. Maybe somebody else, Mr. Kolb, can help me
out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, can you help the Commissioner?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, if I can try and add to the
confusion. The attempt at the original policy that is in your packet was to look at a
recovery of the project costs over a certain period of time, given a certain rate of return
for inflation, etc. So for example, in the example of Vassar Drive, the project would have
recovered all of the costs expended in year eight. In year eight, we would have broken
even on the investment to put the line in, so there would be no cost recovery. And those
revenues would be based on the monthly utility bills attributable to the project. We
objected to that because the length of recovery was too long, and therefore we went back
to a shorter length of recovery through a special assessment, which is the current one that
you’re looking at as item number 42. Does that help kind of clarify it?
Mr. Williams: I understand the process a little better, but I need to know in my
mind -- we’re talking about the item 30 coming up next. And before I approve this, I
24
want to know how that relate to, money wise, to the agenda -- I mean to the item on the
agenda, item number 30. Cause I can’t, I don’t know the distance, I don’t know what the
cost is. You’re talking about 50%. I need to know all of those before I vote for this. To
say that’s going to be fair to whoever comes up, whether it’s item number 30 or another
one. I mean I need some other figures besides those that you’re telling me with Vassar.
Am I confusing you now? Do you understand what I’m staying, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Kolb: You’re right. The numbers are not on here. The new policy that is
item number 42 is based on a front foot cost of the project that would be assessed against
the property. The one that’s in your book is based on a -- how do I put it? -- it’s based on
usage basically.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, let me inquire while -- let me inquire. Do I understand
what you’re asking the Commission to do today is to adopt the policy, and the policy
would be handled administratively, and each one of these items wouldn’t have to come
before the Commission to be approved; is that correct?
Mr. Kolb: Well, you would have to approve it. You have to approve the special
assessment. What this is is a [inaudible], a proposed policy of how we would handle
future requests for extension. And we would have to come back to you with the church,
with the numbers, etc., if you adopt this policy tonight. So you don’t have the numbers.
It’s really just a procedure in how we handle these types of requests in the future.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute, Mr. Mays. Would the discussion of the item in a
Commission meeting then constitute what’s described here as a public hearing? Would
that be the same thing?
Mr. Kolb: No. Tonight? No, it would not. It would happen on each request that
was made for an extension of services to that particular property.
Mr. Mayor: So you’d have one public hearing and then you’d have the potential
for another hearing during the Commission meeting as you discussed the item?
Mr. Wall: A public hearing would be to educate the people along the way of
what’s coming and the impact.
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. And it would only be one public hearing, just as you
would have any other public hearings on any particular issues.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Commissioner Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if I might be able to clear up a little bit of it or maybe get
a motion out soon that might be pretty clear, because I think today it’s kind of hard to
separate item 30 from 42 because you’re going to have to deal with 30 in some manner.
Now we kind of joked in committee meeting that obviously the motion that got number
30 on the floor would get everybody’s attention because it contains a no cost provision.
25
So that’s kind of why we’re here with 30. That’s going to generate some discussion. So
it’s out here on the floor. But what I was trying to do before we got locked into a total
permanent policy on all of this, and if I might clear something that was confusing me in
reference to the policy as to how it would relate to these two, are actually the pro rated
ratios on construction costs and on total costs. Because if the participants -- and what I’m
looking at, in one case the participant pays $10,000 in one area and $11,000 in the other
one. But in terms of the total cost of construction, the one who pays $11,000 gets
$49,000 worth of construction. The one who pays $10,000 gets $27,000 worth of
construction. So you automatically have an imbalance in terms of pro ration. You also
have a situation where you’re dealing one with sanitary sewer and another one we’re
dealing with a line to be able to [inaudible]. So I think before you get into establishing a
permanent policy, that you may be safer with a reasonable case-by-case measure of
determining how you can help some of these areas. And what I kind of had in mind to
make at some point was to maybe deal with a -- not, a no-cost provision but of dealing
with a provision that could lessen the material costs, that would get the down payment
factor down so that it could be paid on a monthly basis at a reasonable cost, and I don’t
mind telling you I do plan to come back with the one that’s in my District because on
Deans Bridge Road we’ve got one there where they’re paying $14,000 if they ever start
to pay, and the problem I have with that is that it’s in a high commercial area, it’s been
there for a long time, we’ve got the most profitable business in America, in Wal-Mart, in
walking distance from that church, and you’re going to ask them to pay $14,000 on
Deans Bridge Road, on a major corridor. What I think [inaudible] is one, the dynamics
of the impact hitting. That hurts folks first. If you’re going to help them, maybe deal
with pro rating it to a point of where they pay a percentage fee of 10% or 20% at the most
down, then be able to put it on monthly, then if the project gets to that particular area,
then you can in turn rebate at that time, but I think it helps them to move on because they
are not dealing with the total cost up front. And so that’s where I, in talks both with Mr.
Wall and Mr. Hicks, in terms of trying to lessen this burden of a high down payment
[inaudible], and I had to, Mr. Mayor, kind of push 30 into 42 because if the policy gets
adopted first, then I think what we do on 30 may be in conflict if I make that type of
motion or something is done, because you are still looking for a large payment from these
property folks, whether you’re talking about the one who does it at $10,000 or the one
who does it at $11,000, and most of all, the one we are charging $14,000 on a six lane
highway. So I have a problem with moving in that area. I think we come out better and
in a more common sense mode moving with a case-by-case basis, evaluating them, and
then doing what you can to help them, but it doesn’t picture into the problem of where
you do it at no cost and then you open the flood gates for everybody to come down and
want it at no cost. They still are paying, but it’s in a reasonable manner and they are not
paying a high down payment.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The Chair recognizes Commissioner Jerry Brigham.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to attempt to tell you what I understand
and try to get confirmation from somebody as to what’s happening here.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
26
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Be ready to respond if you need to, please, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Kolb, what I understand, the way 42 is presented, that we
are requesting that we take 50% of the cost of the job and -- I don’t know that we’re
looking for all the 50%. That’s what I don’t understand. Is that the case or not the case?
Mr. Kolb: 51% participation of the property owners?
Mr. J. Brigham: No. I’m trying to figure out how we determine what the amount
of money is. I think that’s what we’re arguing about, is money. I don’t think we are
arguing about 51% participation.
Mr. Kolb: That’s what we were just discussing. And the hypothetical that I’m
coming up with, and I guess we need to think this through on how the special assessment
formula would work, but on the Vassar Drive property, the $49,000 --
Mr. J. Brigham: Let’s do it this way, Mr. Kolb. Let’s do it is easy numbers that I
can understand, and maybe I can help explain it if you’ll let me. If a project costs
$50,000, y’all have determined that the material cost is $25,000. Now the way I
understand and read 42 -- and you correct me if I’m wrong -- we’ll take that $25,000 and
we’ll divide it by -- we won’t take $25,000? What will we take?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] total project costs [inaudible].
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. So we’re going to take $50,000 -- okay, are we on share
cost in any of this? Yes or no?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. We would. If the project called for a larger main than is required
by the requesting property own.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. So the cost figure that we’re going to use is going to be
the minimum cost to extend services where there is no plan to extend services now? Is
that correct?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay. So if we put a 12” line, we’re only going to charge for a
6” line if that’s what’s requested?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: So we’re going to take the cost of that 6” line, we’re going to
divide it by five years and for everybody that lives along that line that participates in the
27
payment cost over a five year period of time, all necessarily at one time? Is it going to be
all at one time?
Mr. Kolb: Yes. Every property owner would have to pay at the same time.
Mr. J. Brigham: Up front?
Mr. Kolb: At the same time over the five year period.
Mr. J. Brigham: We’re not collecting for the 100% cost when we install it; we’re
looking at it over a 60 month period?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct.
Mr. J. Brigham: So if it was $6,000 that would be $100 a month? I’m guessing.
Plus interest or whatever, but approximately $100 a month?
Mr. Kolb: That’s fair enough.
Mr. J. Brigham: Now do I understand, am I understanding that this is what you
are wanting?
Mr. Kolb: That is what is being recommended as a policy; that’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, I must honestly say that the Chair still doesn’t quite
understand what we’re trying to do, and if I had to vote today, and I don’t get to vote, but
if I had to vote today I wouldn’t know what I was voting for, and I don’t know how the
other Commissioners feel, but we might want to sit on this for another two weeks and let
the administration get some information to us and some specific examples that would
show us what we’re being asked to vote for. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I so move that we do that
. I think that everybody should be
involved in the cost, I don’t have a problem with that. I think we should pay for what
we’re getting, but right now I’m a little confused, and I don’t think I can vote on this. So
I’d like to --
Mr. Mayor: Hold it for two weeks until the next meeting?
Mr. Beard: I think it would be better to go back to Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Back to Committee?
Mr. Beard: And let the Committee work it out and the Administrator bring
it to the Committee.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
28
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to do that. Any further discussion on that?
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: Certainty the area where you’re talking about the smaller pipe
and the bigger pipe going into it and we paying the total price, that needs to be certainly
explained how that’s going to work. Because I was concerned also.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Okay, we’ll bring an explanation of that back to you also.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion to send this back to
Engineering Services. All those in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 30. Madame Clerk, if you’ll read the caption.
The Clerk:
30. Motion to approve installing a waterline at Calvary Deliverance
Evangelistic Church at 844 Scott Nixon Memorial Drive at no cost to the
property owner. Funded by Account No. Renewal and Extension if a
project develops. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee July 30,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. It’s my motion in Committee that
brought this here at no cost to the property owner. In a well-written article by The
Spirit, I stated that I hoped everybody would ask me why I did that, and they have.
And as I mentioned to the citizens of this community that we are really concerned
about charging the little guys but we don’t collect a hundred thousand dollars that was
promised to this City and we don’t seem to have any motivation to do that. It just
amazes me, as it amazes the citizens of this community. We have citizens here that
are trying to move forward, they’ve been down here several times. Again, I wish we
would put as much energy into collecting what was promised to us as we do trying to
hold these other citizens’ feet to the fire on the cost and really actually price them out
of the project. But I want to make a motion, and I don’t want to open the floodgates,
and free is not an option for us. I would like to make a motion that we install the
water line at the church at a cost of $5,000 to them.
29
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays, and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Mays: Would the maker of the motion allow -- and we need a ruling
legally on it, but would the maker of that motion at least allow the opinion of them
being able to do a percentage on that down payment and spreading that amount out?
Mr. Cheek: Absolutely.
Mr. Williams: Second that, too.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Just minute. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Shepard
: Mr. Mayor, I said in the outset in the discussion of item 42 that
I thought it was important to treat both these cases at Vassar Drive and Calvary
Deliverance Evangelistic Church consistently, and I think the only way you can do
that is to send this back to Engineering Services as well and let the policy be the
same, whether they’re in one part of the community or another, and I think that also
goes to the church that Mr. Mays was referring to. I think that was Mt. Zion we voted
on where they’re participating. I think when people want to take their projects out of
time and have a way of accelerating them, then we should have accommodate them,
and I want to accommodate all three cases, but I want to do so consistently. And I
don’t think this is a consistent way of singling one out and passing it and hold the
So I’d make the
others back and then maybe go back and revisit Mt. Zion.
substitute motion that we also send this item number 30 back to Committee to be
considered along with item 42.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to send it back to Committee. Discussion,
gentlemen? Commissioner Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have to agree with Commissioner Shepard. We
need to be consistent, so why don’t we not charge, let them promise to pay us and
then not charge anybody or expect them to pay it? Just let them not sign the
document and then -- just like we did on Wrightsboro Road, and then they don’t have
to pay either? I mean if we’re going to be consistent, let’s be consistent with the very
smallest member of our community to the very largest. This allowing a dual system
30
to exist at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers of this County,
that we were promised, and then hold these people’s feet to the fire is inconsistent.
That’s the main inconsistency, and that’s the burr under my saddle. Why are we
inconsistent in that application of policy? If we’re going to get back to the roots, let’s
give everybody a freebie, let’s go ahead and run their projects ahead of schedule, let
them promise money and then not collect it. Let’s be consistent.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’ll echo what my brother, Andy
Cheek, has said. We’re talking about being consistent. I say all the time we always
play with the same ball. We play the same game but we change the ball. You can’t
bounce a lead ball. If we going to be consistent, we ought to do it all the time. We
have not been consistent before and I think this is before us now, we either go ahead
and vote it [inaudible]. I don’t understand how we can sit here as Commissioners and
think that everything is fair. We have areas that promise, where we have done work,
who we don’t say anything about, who we don’t address, we act like this never
happened. But then when small people, small efforts come in, we want to make it fair
then. We want to do everything fairly. It ain’t never been fair, and it’s time to start
doing it fair. And this is fair. We need to go ahead and pass this motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Well, you know, Mr. Mayor, maybe I’m missing something here,
and I might be, but I don’t have a problem with taking item 30 back. I think if we’re
going to look at the situation, let’s look at it, and you know, I don’t think, I don’t
know that much about the project out there, but I don’t think a couple of weeks is
going to make that much difference, and I think if we’re going to look at it, we ought
to look at all of it. I’m going to say that it really should go back to the Committee so
that whatever that is worked out would be in agreement with all of the people who are
asking for these variances at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have a substitute motion to send this back to the
Engineering Services Committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion caries 7-2-1.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
31
Mr. Williams: If we going to go back, and since we done voted to do that, are
we going to consider everybody, are we going to consider the Deans Bridge Road
project where they spent, the church spent some $14,000 out there? If we going back
now, let’s do it right. Let’s be fair, as Commissioner Shepard said, let’s do it right.
Would that include them, too?
Mr. Mayor: It would just include the item that was on the agenda today.
Deans Bridge Road is not on the agenda.
Mr. Williams: Well, we talking about being fair, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I understand.
Mr. Williams: That’s what Commissioner Shepard has said. If we going to be
fair, we need to include the $14,000 that the church is paying on Deans Bridge Road
as well.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, thank you. Madame Clerk, let’s move
ahead with the order of the day.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
52. Motion to approve the following recommendations from the Ambulance
Study Subcommittee:
??
Authorize Technical Committee to develop performance standards
for ambulance service RFP/contract.
??
Authorize the administrator to enter into negotiations with the
current ambulance provider up to a 2-year contract extension. (No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee July 30, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, was this your item? Or Mr. Jerry Brigham? Who
wants to take the lead on that?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, this is the item of the Ambulance Subcommittee.
I make the motion that we approve this item as presented.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? Commissioner Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I have a problem with the two-year contract. I think
that’s a little long, and if something can be worked out on that, we can move ahead on
that. I think we, in the Committee we authorized two of the items that were there, and
32
that’s what I would live with, but I cannot vote for this two-year contract. I think it’s
a little extensive.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to make a substitute motion?
Mr. Beard: No, I don’t want to make a motion at all on it. I’m not going to
support the two-year contract.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, it’s my understanding that
the administration had thought that the most appropriate time frame -- and I’d
appreciate George commenting on this -- was the two-year time to get this thing
transitioned, and if I’m incorrect -- I mean we didn’t arbitrarily assign two years, but
we were thinking this was the administrative smart thing to do. Am I forgetting
something in Committee, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: No. Commissioner Shepard, you are correct. We cannot write an
RFP any shorter than two or three months if we’re going to do a performance-based
type of contract. In addition to that, the standards that we establish need to be
established. We need to test them, we need to collect the data to make sure that
they’re the right ones and they’re appropriate for the Augusta region. It also requires
the EMS Council to open up the zone for additional competition, additional
ambulance services to come in and qualify in order to compete for the ambulance
contact. That process could take anywhere from six to 12 months, hopefully the
lesser of the -- it would be the six months instead of the 12 months, but it could take
longer than that. So I think to be safe, up to two-year contract would be safe and
appropriate for us to do a good job.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I do not agree with the two year
extension. We talked about this some months back when we had a meeting about
letting University Hospital and ambulance service and we all met about getting out of
the contract. We know in advance what we’re coming up. We have procrastinated
again, Mr. Mays, and not be able do what we’re supposed to do. We extended a six
month contract, if not longer, with this same service, and we’re talking about
negotiating with the current ambulance service and not negotiating with ambulance
service, but the current service. I don’t agree with that, and I don’t think that’s fair. I
I’m going to make a substitute motion that we send this back to
don’t --
Committee and we be able to maybe discuss this a little more with the
Administrator.
But I can’t agree with giving a two-year additional contract to the
current ambulance service, current provider we already have. We need to look at
some other sources, some other services.
33
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: A point of clarification. Would you send it to Public Safety or the
Ambulance Subcommittee, Commissioner Williams? Which Committee did you
want it referred it back to?
Mr. Williams: Public Safety, would be probably be -- I think Commissioner
Brigham, Bridges, Brigham done done all he can do; is that right, Jerry?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Williams, obviously you didn’t read the motion. The
motion said up to a two year contract. It did not say a two-year contract. It said -- this
was to give the Administrator some lead way and the ability to negotiate a contract.
As far as I’m concerned, we can tell him to do it in six months. I don’t think we can
do it then, but ya’ll -- you know --
Mr. Williams: We talking about send it back. You want it back to your
committee? I was going to send it to Public Safety but you want it back to your
committee?
Mr. J. Brigham: I don’t care.
Mr. Williams: Okay, send it back to Public Safety, Mr. Mayor. We’ll take it.
Mr. Mayor: To send it back to Public Safety. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: If it would help the Commission in their deliberation, it is my intent
to negotiate a full year contract with the ambulance service, and then the second year
hopefully we can have a cancellation time, say 30 days, 60 days, which we could get
out of the second year and implement the new service immediately.
Mr. Williams: But if we’re not careful, Mr. Mayor, if I may, if we’re not
careful you said up to -- and if we’re not careful and we approve this, it could be a
two year agreement.
Mr. Kolb: The agreement will have to come back to the Commission
regardless.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I think once we get it to Public Safety we’ll be able to
hash this out in there.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, two points. One a point of clarification on the item
and then a comment. And I guess probably because we have circulated the letter
which has been sent to the Council. It was actually three parts, I believe, and I stand
34
to be corrected, in the subcommittee in reference to the two items listed here, as well
as the opening up of the zone. Do we need to have that third item in here for
ratification purposes? Because if we move forward on it --
Mr. Mayor: We’ve already approved it in the consent agenda.
The Clerk: You ratified the request to open the zoning.
Mr. Mays: Uh-huh [yes].
The Clerk: It’s in the consent agenda.
Mr. Mays: I didn’t know if it needed to be in this part of the contract. Okay,
that’s fine. The point I wanted to make was that obviously some negotiation has gone
to be done. One thing about government, whatever time limit you put on something,
at the end of it, that’s what time limit government takes. If you say up to three years,
it takes up to two years, 11 months, and 29 days. This one will take one year, 11
months, and 29 days. Whatever you take on the maximum, that’s what it’s going to
be on. I would rather see the makers of either one of the motions authorize the
Administrator to be able to start negotiations, but really not confined to a time limit or
time extension, because if you are talking about going ahead with the contract and
then you say all right, we’re going to deal with this on a two year basis up to,
supposedly in the talks that you get into that provisions cannot be met or questioned
answered in a way which will be beneficial to this City, in the process of negotiating,
are we then going to be bound by this two-year period or what are we going to do?
I’d rather see them start talking about something, bring a proposal back to us, and
then we vote on it, without adding any two year constraints on this situation, because
when we start talking about two year constraints up to, we in essence -- and I’ve had
enough dialog about this and everybody knows where I stand on it -- I don’t have a
dog in the hunt with it, but I think we are going to be operating on a time period that
could take up to three-and-a-half years We have been talking about this one, we have
been talking about it all of this year, half of last year, and now a possibility of two
years to come. And I realize that my colleague to my left, Commissioner Brigham,
has done a good job with this Committee, put his heart into it. The Administrator
came on board late in it and is trying to really bring it up to speed, and I appreciate the
job Mr. Kolb has done. But I think there are some facts in here that you’ve got to be
considerate of, and those are historical facts. There are also questions that have to be
asked that we as Commissioners are having to answer in various Districts throughout
this county. And I think before you put a contract together, put a time limit on it that
says you can go up to, I would much rather see us talk about some things in a
negotiated stage, bring it back and say it’s moving fine or either it’s breaking down.
And then we know what we’ve got to do. But I think this leaves too much room for
comfort to a point of the only thing that we’re getting into is an advance subsidy, of
which we were promised we were not going to be into several months ago, we said at
the end of this year we were going to be ready to make a decision to move forward
35
and to deal with RFP’s. I think there are questions that have to be asked in the
negotiating process before you can set a deadline date on negotiations, and you don’t
know if it’s even going to be receptive to the parties that you’re asking it, and
especially if you’re only asking one party. And that’s a little bit unfair in a free
market system. I don’t think that’s quite correct. And as it stands, I have to vote for
the one to go back to Committee. I’d rather see us moving forward, but to see us
stuck out here and leave a time limit that I know we will take up, I mean that’s just a
fact of governmental logic. You put two years on it, it’s going to stand as one year,
11 months, 29 days. And then that’s when we’ll make a decision. Make it.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’m willing to amend my motion, if it’s
acceptable, to allow the Administrator to start negotiating an ambulance contract. I
think that’s the most important part of this process. I think that we’ve got to have an
ambulance contract come July 1 -- not July, but January 1 with somebody, and we got
to have a budget January 1 that we know what the cost is going to be in this contract,
and anything to send it back to the Committee and not allow the Administrator to
negotiate a contract will be to the detriment of this Commission and to this
community.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Parliamentarian. Can we amend an original
motion, Mr. Wall, before we dispose of the substitute motion?
Mr. Wall: I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: Can we amend the original motion before we dispose of the
substitute motion?
Mr. Wall: No. You need to deal with the substitute motion first.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. The Chair recognizes Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to rescind my motion to break that up,
cause the first part of the motion, the first part of this item, the RFP part, I think we
need to go ahead and do, but I wanted to send the, the authorizing the Administrator
to negotiate that part of it back to Public Safety.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ve got two parliamentary steps we need to do.
Number one, the Commissioner would like to withdrawn the motion, and he can do
that with unanimous consent of the Commission. And then he wants to restate a
substitute motion. Is there any objection to the Commissioner withdrawing his
substitute motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I object.
36
Mr. Mayor: None heard.
The Clerk: He did.
Mr. Kuhlke: I did.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke objects. We are going to deal with the motion that’s
on the floor, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: We’ll send the whole thing, Mr. Mayor, let it go like it is.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I wanted to ask this in parliamentary procedure. I know you can’t
do that in terms of withdrawing without unanimous consent, but just as we’ve
previously made amendment to a motion that’s on the floor, can’t it be amended
without unanimous consent?
Mr. Mayor: You can amend the motion.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible] amend the motion, you can vote on the amendment, yes.
Mr. Mayor: You can vote on an amendment, not unanimous, but majority
vote.
Mr. Mays: That’s what I was thinking. You did not have to have unanimous
to deal with an amendment.
Mr. Wall: No.
Mr. Mays: They are two different things.
Mr. Wall: Right.
Mr. Mays: Okay. So he can amend, but it has to be voted on.
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Wall: Would have to make a motion to amend it.
Mr. Mayor: But that’s not what was asked to be done, so that’s why we went
through what we did, Mr. Mays.
37
Mr. Mays: I understand what he asked, I’m just trying to give him the way he
needs to go if he wants to go there.
Mr. Beard: I would like to, if I can, amend that.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you can make an amendment to the substitute motion.
Mr. Beard: I would like to amend that substitute motion to the point that
we accept the first item there and the second item we delete the two year and put
the Administrator beginning the contractual agreement with the companies
involved and put a one-year stipulation on it.
Mr. J. Brigham: Let’s leave the stipulation off and I think we can probably get
a unanimous vote out of this. Leave the one year off. Negotiate.
Mr. Beard: We need some type of time line on there.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Beard, we all know we got to do one year, no matter
what.
Mr. Beard: What I’m trying to do, Jerry, is trying to move this thing forward.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m trying to, too, Lee. I was trying to see -- if he can get it
done in six months, I want him to get in six months.
Mr. Beard: Well, why not put this stipulation of one year there because he’s
going to start this now?
Mr. J. Brigham: Because he’s already told me he thinks it’s going to take two
years.
Mr. Beard: He doesn’t know that. So when we put the stipulation there, we
have the stipulation there, we move forward, and I call for the question.
Mr. Mayor: Wait a minute. We’ve got to amend the motion first, Mr. Beard.
I appreciate that. Let me try it this way. Is there any objection to the amendment as
stated for the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: No, Mr. Mayor, it’s not an objection, but I do want to ask the
maker of that amendment one question. That if that contractual negotiation breaks
down -- and you know where I’m coming from -- is that I don’t want to see us stuck
in a position of begging one firm. I think if the contractual negotiations break down,
we need to be prepared to come back and to deal with proper RPF’s in a competitive
society to provide ambulance service for this community. We don’t need to have one
horse show in this deal. We need to have --
38
Mr. Beard: I didn’t think we had -- when we send out RFP’s, are we sending
them out to [inaudible]?
Mr. Mays: No, sir, we’re only negotiating at this point with one company, that
one which is in existence. That will be the only one under either one of these motions
that the Administrator will be dealing with me. And I’m looking for a point that if
that’s not comfortable, if it breaks down, if those provisions cannot be met, if we ask
a city government, that I want to know where do we go from that point?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: There is more than one company here. We can go to the next
company.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, the point I am making is we are authorizing the
negotiation with the existing contractual companies that we have. There is no
provision that if the contract proposal breaks down that we come down and do
anything. I guess what I’m getting clear is do we just keep negotiating and
negotiating and negotiating. We can’t take the position of Nero. We can’t fiddle
while Rome burns. We got to get a contract with somebody. And if it breaks down, I
don’t want the city to be held hostage to a point that it looks like we can’t go
anywhere else. That’s the proper point of negotiation.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask Mr. Wall for a point of clarification.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] to the table with competitiveness.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, let me ask Mr. Wall for a clarification. The EMS
Council has only certified one ambulance service, to provide that service to us, so
there is nobody else to go to under the existing decision of the EMS Council; is that
not correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct. Until they --
Mr. Beard: Open up the zone.
Mr. Wall: [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: We’ve asked [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: Right.
39
Mr. Beard: Just for clarification, and I’m trying to figure out what Mr. Mays
is talking about. Because we have to go with the present company and negotiate with
them, and I’m going to have enough faith in the Administrator [inaudible] going right,
then he has to bring it back and we have to do something differently.
Mr. Mays: I just want to have that understanding, to a point that we do come
back [inaudible]. I can live with your motion.
Mr. Beard: We can add that to the motion, as far as I’m concerned.
Mr. Mays: It doesn’t even have to be in there, as long as we got the spirit of it,
that we’ll come back to it, because you know, I just want it to understand that we are
not opening RFP’s, we were negotiating with an existing contract holder at this point,
and that’s all that we are doing, so that I wanted a provision that if it breaks down,
that that negotiating doesn’t continue, we don’t continue to a give me mode of
continuing to subsidize. That we open it up and that’s where the competition comes
in there. And as far as the EMS Council, to a point, where we signed a letter
unanimously, from the Mayor of the second largest city in this state, and the other
Commissioners there, and I used the term, old folks used to say everybody’s got a
boss. I think somewhere in that point, I don’t think we’re going to get games played
by the Council if they need we need to have a decision made to a point that if we got
to search for other folk. And I just put the process there that we have more than one
hole to crawl in. That’s all I’m doing.
Mr. Beard: That’s fine with me.
Mr. Mays: And I support your motion.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, then Commissioner Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m confused here sure enough. I need to know
why are we going out for RFP if it states at the bottom the current ambulance provider
-- I mean I thought if we --
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, the way Mr. Kolb has established the procedure,
we’re going to enter into a contract -- this is like a bridge loan. We’re going to enter
into a contract with the current provider to provide the service while the technical
committee is developing the performance standards, the RFP is developed, the RFP is
put out on the street, and a provider is selected. We have to provide service during
that process and that is the intent of this plan that has come from the committee.
Mr. Williams: But the zone have been opened but you have not got a --
Mr. Mayor: No, sir. We have requested the zones be reopened.
40
Mr. Williams: We have requested.
Mr. Mayor: But that has not happened yet.
Mr. Williams: Do we know how long that will take?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you have any information on that?
Mr. Kolb: Opening up the zone and getting other ambulance services to
qualify could take anywhere from six to 12 months.
Mr. Williams: Could take six to 12.
Mr. Mayor: All of this will go on at the same time. Nothing is going to wait
on something else. We have got to keep the process moving.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m clear, Mr. Mayor. I don’t have anything else.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question.
Mr. Mayor: I’d already recognized Mr. Shepard. Let him speak, Mr. Kuhlke,
and then we’ll move forward.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke, if you’d beg my indulgence. I hate to ask the Clerk
what we’re now voting on, but I think I’ve got to. We have amended and we have
restated and we had the spirit of the motion. So that there can be truth in voting.
After looking in the paper on Sunday, I don’t even recognize myself, so I don’t
recognize this motion. So could you help me out, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Mr. Beard’s amendment was to authorize the technical committee
to develop the performance standards for the ambulance service RPF and to
authorized the Administrator to enter into negotiation with the current ambulance
provider for one year contractual period.
Mr. Mayor: All right. And the question has been called on the much-amended
motion. All in favor, please vote --
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: No, we didn’t need a motion because no one objected to the
amendment. There was no objection so there is no need to vote on the amendment.
All in favor of the amended substitute motion, please vote aye.
41
(Vote on substitute motion with amendment)
Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Mays vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. J. Brigham: George, when is that next technical committee meeting? Is it
Wednesday morning?
Mr. Kolb: Wednesday morning. Tomorrow morning at 8:30.
Mr. J. Brigham: Any Commissioner who would like to come sit in on that is
more than welcome.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Next item, number 53.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
53. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Deputy Administrator
regarding the renewal of the contract with Lobbyist Jean McRae at a cost
of $12,500 plus out of pocket expenses. (No recommendation Finance
Committee July 9, 2001, postponed from the Commission’s July 18
meeting)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second. Discussion, gentlemen? All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Mays and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
The Clerk:
54.
Motion to approve payment of outstanding invoices to State Department of
Human Resources for EBT Food Stamp Program issuance costs through
Department of Family and Children Services and to budget for current year
expenditures. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee July 30,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, for the benefit of those who were not in the committee
meting, please give us a brief summary of what this is about.
42
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we received a
communiqué from the Department of Family and Children Services asserting that
Augusta was delinquent in its payments to them for their share of the food stamp
program. Apparently in 1999, the process or the procedure for issuing food stamps
switched from a mailing process to an electronic debit card which would have to be
maintained also. At that time, it was asserted that the administrative costs would be
reduced but not eliminated. Also, after discussion the Commission, as I understand it,
it was determined that there was no requirement of the law to pay such cost for the
administration of the program and the Commission decided that it would not. As a
result of that, we racked up about $110,000 worth of back payments to DFACS for
our share of the cost of the food stamp program. We have been told that if we don’t
pay that the Governor will get involved, and we have also checked. A majority of the
counties in the state of Georgia are paying for the program, and therefore my
recommendation is that we pay for, pay the $110,000 and amend the budget to
continue to pay for it from now on. However, that is just my recommendation. You
have to decide what you want to do.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Kolb. Gentlemen? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. When this was - this was done in a
budget process, I think, like Mr. Kolb said, in 1999, and it came to our attention that
there’s no provision or law that says that a county has to pay a portion of this. This is
a State and federal project, and there’s no provision or no law or anything like that
that requires us to fund this project. Whereas it is true that most counties or maybe all
counties throughout the state give a portion to this fund, and we did it that time --
when that came to our attention, we pulled the items and did not fund that in the 2000
budget, as well as in 2001 budget. If the Governor gets involved -- and this is
something that DFACS was aware of at the time. In fact, they came down and spoke
to the issue, requesting us not to cut those funds. And so it’s not something that was
done in a vacuum or anything like that. If the Governor does get involved -- and their
concern was at that time, as I recall, was that hey, if y’all do it, then other counties
will start withholding funds as well. So these are issues that were out there. Like I
say, this was not done in a vacuum. Should the Governor get involved, I don’t think
he can require us to do something that’s not legally binding on us. I think the State
and federal projects should be funded by State and federal sources and not the county.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: You know, at this point, I think the government, especially
coming out of Atlanta, has been very good to the Augusta area. And I don’t think that
at this time we want to get into any type of verbal disagreement with them at this
time. They’ve been very supportive of us. I don’t see any reason why we should not
support this. Other counties are doing it. They’ve been doing it. And to me, it would
be better to keep that good rapport on the State level than to -- and plus, you have to
43
look at what this is and what it’s doing to our county and the assistance that it’s given
to the people of our county. And I think we have an obligation there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My question to Mr. Wall, and I can’t
remember if I asked it in Finance, but do we legally owe this as a debt, Mr. Wall, or is
it an obligation more in the nature of something we should do to lend assistance to the
State government since they will frequently give us grants? I’m looking for a -- are
we legally obligated to pay this money or is it a discretionary matter?
Mr. Wall: There is no statute that mandates payments; therefore, you are not
legally obligated according to all the research that we’ve done. And it’s more in the
discretionary area of something that you have to decide whether to pay or not.
Mr. Shepard: Well, when I send somebody a bill, Mr. Wall, it’s because --
presumably, there may be disagreement up here. As a professional, I’ve done
something. Now my client might not agree. But you have to do something to create a
legal debt. Why would we just get a -- and I appreciate Mr. Kolb’s use of the word
communiqué. Why would they just send us a communiqué? I mean I don’t think
they would be bluffing us. There must be some good faith reason that they would
have sent this message to us.
Mr. Wall: Well, in years past, and I can’t remember how far back, there were
contracts with DFACS where the county obligated itself to pay a portion of the
mailing costs. They came forward with a different method of delivering of the food
stamps and asked to participate in the costs. The prior contract for the mailing had
expired. Other counties throughout the State had apparently agreed to a change over,
and they asked us to participate in it and to share the costs. And we did for a period
of time and then in 1999 when the budget issue came up, we chose not to continue to
participate.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I remember this coming up a couple of years ago,
at least a year-and-a-half ago, when DFACS came over and talked to us about
participating. And they explained to us how many hundreds of thousands of dollars,
if not more, than we receive as a city in taxes through the food stamp system. And
whether we paid it or not, we still received those funds. That’s a plus to me, that from
what we’re paying and from what we receive in tax dollars from those people that use
those subsidies, and we all want to support, we all want to help. We just got through
helping a neighboring county with a car for a dollar, and helping is helping, I don’t
care how you look at it. And this is just the right thing to do. We are about doing
44
what’s right, I thought. We are the [inaudible] Augusta. We ought to want to fulfill
our obligations. There are a lot of things, and I won’t get Commissioner Cheek back
on that [inaudible] deal, but I think we ought to support this and we ought to do this
because it’s the right thing to do and we do benefit from it.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion from someone in the body. We
have no motion. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I would move that we look at taking care of the obligation,
well, can’t call it an obligation, pay the $100,000-something to DFACS.
Mr. Mayor: And amend the budget as Mr. Kolb --
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, and amend the budget as recommended by the
Administrator.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote for the motion. I would like to make a
couple of comments on it. I think since the maker of the motion [inaudible], and I can
live with that. What I’d like to maybe see us do, since the Administrator has been in
constant contact with the current DFACS Director, that we are getting close to getting
into our budget season now, and I hope that they would maintain the same contact
relationship, that we can stretch that time a little bit, in that it would help us. We were
just at a ground breaking, some of us, this morning, in terms of where the State was
adding jobs to this community. And we wonder sometimes, we get into the question of
why we don’t get certain things or we want to have all of the positive things but we don’t
want to live up to certain agreements. Sometimes everything is not in writing, everything
is not a law. We got money to the tune it will be going in three different parts of $30
million in economic development, that probably because of our Delegation, that we
wouldn’t be getting. We got a situation of wondering why some department location
went to Macon, why something are going to Chatham. Now we all have certain amounts
of political egos up here, and we ought to be political realists to the point that we ought
not get coy about playing certain games with State government to where we know how
relationships are built. Now that was one of Randy’s deals of hoping we could cut it.
What the young lady said at that time, Ms. Johnson, was that the service would still be
delivered. Now that brought music to a lot of folks’ ears because of finding out that they
were going to work and do it and wasn’t nothing be cut, that that was fine. But, you
know, I hate for us to always be the poster child of being different, the one city you can
pull up on the internet to a point of 159 counties, we locked into that [inaudible] that
won’t live with certain agreements unless they are by law. You know, I’m reminded of
something that Judge Benham, when he spoke to us at the Association of County
45
Commissioners banquet, said, that if you relied on the law for everything, you’d be
relaying on the lowest form, cause many times that’s when folk can’t get along and can’t
respect other agreements. And so I think to a point that you don’t want everything by law
when you’re looking for a dollar, when you’re looking for something special from the
State, if you’re looking for a particular amount to be done by a State department head, or
even to a point of where we are meeting with somebody this week to try and help us to
work in a situation. Those are the kind of things that aren’t always written by law, and I
just hope we remember that when we vote, that all of it’s not determined by a law per se.
Now if the Administrator has somewhat of an implied action that the Governor’s office
and his staff is looking at bringing that type of action, I just don’t think that’s a good
relationship that we ought to be proud to champion, to the point that 115 other places
might be doing it different, let’s be the one that stands out and test the case to see what
happens.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor
of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 55.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
55. Motion to approve the renewal of an operational agreement with 30901
Development Corp. to staff and operate the indoor recreation center at W. T.
Johnson Community Center. (Approved by Public Services Committee July
9, 2001, postponed from the Commission’s July 18 meeting)
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Further discussion? Mr. Williams, I think it’s
back today because you had some questions.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. I met with the 30901 and Mr. Beck and we worked out
some things, and Tom, if you’d come up and give us -- the background information is in
here but if you will, just kind of enlighten all the Commissioners on what we discussed
and what we plan to do with that W. T. Johnson.
Mr. Beck: I’ll do that. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, we did have
a fruitful meeting on July 26, after the last Commission meeting, to discuss how we can
better implement sports programs in that particular area. We’re now going to physically
register at Johnson Center, which we haven’t done in the past. We always used May Park
46
in the past. We’re going to do that now. We are going to include some important
information regarding other registration processes in our registration and on the forms
that I think will better indicate what we’re offering out there. We’ve got some good
marketing strategies, as you see in your backup information, that we’re going to use to
implement and get more participation there. Also what came out of the meeting was to
develop some ongoing swim lesson programs, and I think there is a some backup
information regarding that as well in there. So if there are any questions anyone may
have in that regard, I’d be glad to answer them.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? We have a motion on the -- yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I just wanted to respond to what Tom said. I really appreciate
what we come up with. We had a fruitful meeting, like you said, Tom, and I think we
need to look at maybe in the future -- we talked about the playing areas for the team. We
know they’re in a different zone, a different area, however you word that, but in order to
get some diversity all over this city, I would certainly like for you to just take a look at
how we can in the future arrange for some of those inner city children to be able to travel
a little bit, to give them some exposure, and not only that, but people on the outskirts to
be able to travel back in to the inner city, just to get some diversity so people can see how
the program is working all over, not just in one area.
Mr. Beck: We’ll be glad to look at that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I guess I would let down my fellow coaches if I didn’t
suggest to our Recreation Director that this may be the perfect opportunity to create an
upper and lower division with a competitive and instructional league where we could
play ball on the same field as Columbia County. So I just thought I’d offer that as a
future suggestion.
Mr. Mayor: I think, Mr. Cheek, you’re going to have an opportunity for us to
play Columbia County again in a couple of weeks, aren’t you?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, end of this month.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. All in favor of the motion to approve this operational
agreement, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 56.
The Clerk:
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
47
56. Select voting delegate for the 2001 Joint Georgia Municipal
Association/Association of County Commissioners Fall Conference
September 30 through October 3, 2001.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. Shepard: I nominate you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know if I’m going.
Mr. Kuhlke: You’ve got to.
Mr. Beard: You’ve got the vote.
Mr. Shepard: Well, you’ve always wanted to vote, like Mr. Beard said. We’re
trying to give you a vote. Lee and I’ve agree on this today, that’s about the only thing
we’ve agreed on.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the Mayor voting, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: At the conference.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENT:
57. Consider the following for reappointment to the Residential Care Facilities
for the Elderly Authority:
??
Ruth Crawford William R. Toole
??
Reimer Brinson Jeannette Cummings
??
Jeanette Cummings Tom Robertson
??
Justine Washington
Mr. Mays: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any other nominations? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a question. How long have these particular folks been on this
committee? Do we have any idea of that?
48
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk? They’ve been on there forever is what the Clerk
says.
Mr. Cheek: Just in the future -- I can support these nominations at this time,
but just in the future it would be nice if we could get some new blood on some of
these committees. After people have been on there for a long time, it’s been my
experience that they tend to get comfortable and attend meetings and just vote on
what’s handed to them, versus actually being actual participants in that authority.
The Clerk: Mr. Cheek, we do have one vacancy on here, so we could --
Mr. Kuhlke: I nominate Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek, you’ve been nominated.
Mr. Cheek: I have to decline due to scheduling, Mr. Mayor.
The Clerk: We do need to make one other appointment to this board. One
other one that had moved out of the county, so there is a vacancy that needs to be
added to this group.
Mr. Mayor: Would you like to add someone today or would you like to do
that at another time?
Mr. Beard: Let’s do it at a later date.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do it at a later date. So we have a motion to accept these
seven members for reappointment. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: You’ve approved item 58 in the consent agenda, so that brings us to
item 59.
59. LEGAL MEETING:
??
Discuss pending litigation
??
Discuss real estate.
Mr. Wall: I ask for a legal meeting to discuss pending litigation and also one
real estate matter.
Mr. Shepard: I so move for the purposes stated by the Attorney.
49
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We are moved into Legal.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING]
60. 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. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business? The Chair recognizes Mr. Henry
Brigham.
Mr. H. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, to reconsider [inaudible] considered earlier.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, which item is that that you’re asking the Commission
to reconsider?
Mr. H. Brigham: I make a motion to reconsider item 53.
Mr. Mayor: Is this the lobbyist?
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to reconsider item 53. Is there a second to that
motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to reconsider. Okay. Discussion? All in favor
of the motion to reconsider, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
50
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So the item is back on the floor. Gentlemen, what’s your
pleasure?
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: A motion to approve. It’s been seconded. Discussion? All in favor
of the motion to approve, please vote aye. I thought we’d already approved it.
Mr. Wall: You did, the motion to reconsider.
Mr. Mayor: And we’re reconsidering it now. The motion on the floor is to
approve it. Approve the item.
Mr. Bridges: To approve spending the $12,000 for the lobbyist.
Mr. Mayor: Right. If you don’t want to spend $12,000 on a lobbyist, vote no. If
you do want to spend it, vote yes.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any other business to come before the Commission?
Mr. Beard: Move to adjourn.
Mr. J. Brigham: That’s no action?
Mr. Mayor: No action. Any other business?
Mr. Bridges: Doesn’t the Attorney have an item, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Wall: No, well --
Mr. Mayor: Put it on the next meeting?
Mr. Wall: I was going to put it on the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll do it at the next meeting. All right, we’re adjourned
without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
51
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 7, 2001.
Clerk of Commission