HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-21-2001 Regular Meeting (2)
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
August 21, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:00 p.m., Tuesday, August
21, 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: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Reverend Daughtry.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions from the
agenda?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request to add two items.
Addendum Agenda:
1. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Deputy Administrator
regarding the renewal of the contract with Lobbyist Jean McRae at a cost of
$12,5000 plus out-of-pocket expenses. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee July 9, 2001, postponed from the Commission’s July 18 meeting)
(Requested by the Mayor)
2. Motion to ratify emergency contract with Nordmann Contracting, Inc.
regarding the Courtney Pond Happy Road Detention Pond.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding either of those two items?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, there is an objection to adding number 1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any objection to item 2? All right, item 2 will be added to
the agenda.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to be heard number 1.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: Parliamentary procedure.
2
Mr. Mayor: Go right ahead.
Mr. Shepard: At the meeting, there was a no action vote last time, I think if you
refer to the minutes, so that number 1 should have properly been on this agenda anyway.
It should have carried forth from one meeting to the next, so I think it’s improperly -- not
listed on our agenda -- therefore, it shouldn’t be on the addendum agenda and should not
be added. It should be already on there, but it’s just there because it was properly carried
forward in our agenda book today. I’d ask for the Parliamentarian to rule on that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Well, while there was no action taken and therefore the matter
remained open, I guess I’ll have to defer to the Clerk. Typically what happens when
there is a matter such as that, some additional request, or the department head responsible
for the agenda item will indicate that they wish for the matter to be brought forward for
further consideration or they’ll simply take the no action as indication that they don’t
want to pursue it. So the normal process would have been for either the Deputy
Administrator in this case or for a Commissioner that was interested in the item to pursue
the process, and absent that I think it does take unanimous consent to add it to the agenda
at this point.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I’m going to ask that the Clerk put this item on the next
agenda, please.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Shepard: And I withdraw my comments, withhold them.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Shepard. Madame Clerk, if we’ll move ahead with
the presentations.
The Clerk:
PRESENTATIONS:
Marshal Steve Smith
RE: Certification of the Marshal’s Department
Law Enforcement Agency (Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Smith: Thank you, Ms. Bonner. Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, I’d like to call
on Mr. Richard Darby. He is the State Director of Law Enforcement Certification.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Darby, welcome.
Mr. Darby: Good afternoon, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. Let me
say it’s a pleasure to be in Augusta this afternoon. Thank you for inviting us over. I’d
3
like to start off, if I could, just by taking just a minute to tell you just a little bit about the
state certification program. Back in the early 1990’s, a group from the Georgia Chiefs
Association, the Sheriffs Association, County Commissioners Association, Georgia
Municipal Association, and the Department of Community Affairs got together and
decided that they needed to come up with a program to improve the efficiency and
operation of law enforcement agencies in Georgia. And over the next few years, they
worked on a program and came up with a hundred standards for a law enforcement
agency to meet in order to become certified. The first agencies became certified in 1997.
This program, like I said you have to meet now 104 standards in order to become
certified. The process is kind of long. It takes one to two years for most departments to
obtain their certification. They worked on these standards, which improves the efficiency
of their department in all areas of the department. Not only do they meet these standards
to improve their efficiency, it makes the employees of that department have a better place
to work. They understand more of what’s going on within their own department. And it
also gives the citizens a better department. The Richmond County Marshal’s Department
has worked a long time on this, and they have reached this goal. There’s over 700
agencies that do qualify for state certification in the state, but only 71 have met this
standard of excellence. So the Richmond County Marshal’s Office is in the upper ten
percent of the law enforcement agencies in the state. Marshal Smith, Lt. Teresa Dixon,
and the rest of the department have worked very hard on this. It not only took their hard
work but the support of y’all and also the citizens of this county. And it is my pleasure
today to give them their state certification, and I’d like for Marshal Steve Smith to come
forward so I could present him with the state certification.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I just want to say on behalf of the citizens of Augusta and
the members of the Marshal’s Department, I want to thank Mr. Darby for coming down.
I want to thank particularly Lt. Teresa Dixon for the many hours of hard work she did on
this. I think this shows a positive trend for our department and the direction we’re
headed. Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Steve. Next?
The Clerk:
PRESENTATION:
Augusta-Richmond County Employee of the Month
Mr. Mayor: Employee of the month.
The Clerk: Ms. Gloria L. Ricks. The employee of the month selection committee
has selected Ms. Gloria L. Ricks with the Human Relations Commission as the July
Employee of the Month. Ms. Ricks has worked for the City of Augusta for three years.
4
Ms. Ricks is employed as the Equal Employment Specialist, which entails receiving and
investigating charges of employee discrimination. She was nominated by the Department
Director, Frank Thomas, who gave the following reasons for her nomination: “Each
investigator is asked to close three federal charges per month. This employee
consistently meets her goal. During the past two months, we have been operating without
two investigators; one resigned, one was hospitalized. This employee, without having to
be asked, has demonstrated a team effort that must be mentioned. Without having been
asked, she informed that she was turning in six cases, and then this past month she turned
in eight cases. As she has assumed the case load of the Inspector Investigator who
resigned and has assumed other duties, as well, this employee deserves recognition. This
employee deserves recognition for her efforts. She is an asset not only to this
Department, but to Richmond County government as well.” The Committee felt that, on
Mr. Thomas’ recommendation and Ms. Riggs’ attributes, she should be awarded
Employee of the Month. Mr. Thomas further states: “The attitude of this Investigator
one of ‘I just want to do what I can to make sure that this department achieves its goals
and objectives.’” Congratulations, Ms. Ricks, July Employee of the Month.
(A round of applause is given.}
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations. Keep up the good work.
Ms. Ricks: Thank you.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Mr. Ernest Nicholson
1706 Susan Circle
RE: Conditions and concerns of neighborhood
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Nicholson, if you’d come to the podium and just give us your
address for the record, and then please go ahead.
Mr. Nicholson: Mr. Young, I’m here to discuss about this garbage collection. Me
and my neighbors live out here in South Augusta, Pine Heights Subdivision. I would like
to find out how the Commissioners came about wanting to charge us $200 for the
garbage collection. Most of my neighbors are elderly people and all that, and they live on
a fixed income, like I do. Me and my wife. We are raising an eight-year-old
granddaughter.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, could you explain to him how we arrived at the price
that’s being charged for the garbage collection.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, Mr. Nicholson. The
Augusta Richmond County Commission at their regular meeting considered awarding a
contract to three haulers who are actually picking up and taking over the garbage service
5
for the area. During that process, there were solid waste collection districts that were
created that would pay for this particular service. And the service was taking basically
the total cost, dividing it by the total number of units to be served within those districts,
and then that was turned into the special assessment cost, and that cost happens to be --
we equalized all of the districts, and that cost just happens to be $195 per year. And you
will receive that with your tax bill this fall.
Mr. Nicholson: The neighbors, the ones that don’t clean up the yard or stuff like
that, they going to make them clean up their yards, bag their leaves, whatever it is, and
put it in the dumpsters?
Mr. Kolb: That is separate from the program. We do have -- our License &
Inspection Department can assist you if you would like to file a complaint. I think I saw
Mr. Sherman, Rob Sherman, in the audience. If you’ll see that gentleman at the
conclusion of your discussion, he can handle your complaint on [inaudible].
Mr. Nicholson: [inaudible] 10 or 15 years, where I live. I’ve been here about 25
years. I tried to call Mr. Cheek on several occasions and discuss my problem. I don’t
know what he does for a living, but I cannot get him on the phone. I don’t know what it
is.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, did you want to respond?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Now this is over near Kings Grant?
Mr. Nicholson: Right off of Lumpkin Road, before you get to 56 on the railroad
track. Across from [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: This is on the right-hand side, the Pine Heights - Kings Grant?
Mr. Nicholson: Right.
Mr. Cheek: Okay. You were originally not scheduled to be part of that.
Mr. Nicholson: Sir?
Mr. Cheek: You were originally not scheduled to be part of the trash collection.
We made an attempt to get you added. We were basically told that that 17,000+ homes
that we would be adding to the service would have us in the court with BFI. Are you,
have you worked with John Manuel at all?
Mr. Nicholson: I’ve been from here to there, and everybody is telling to go here,
do this.
Mr. Cheek: No, no, I’m asking you -- the neighborhood president, who
incorporated your neighborhood, who is responsible for cleaning up the ducks and the
6
chickens and the drug houses and the different things that are in your neighborhood -- are
you familiar with him?
Mr. Nicholson: No, sir.
Mr. Cheek: Have you attended any of the neighborhood meetings, five of which
they’ve held? They’ve sent fliers out on every mailbox and everything? We are working
to clean your neighborhood up. We’ve been working since before December. We’ve
hauled out several cars, we’ve run off several drug folks. I would encourage you to
participate in your neighborhood association, and that being the best way to do it. As far
as your question about will the neighbors have to clean up their mess, yes, sir. In my
District, I see a lot of neighbors that have never cleaned up their homes. Since the trash
collection has come in, they have begun to clean up and everything. When they don’t
clean up, at that point that’s when code enforcement will be coming down on them with
both feet. I, too, share your desire to clean not only your neighborhood, but all of south
Augusta, and it’s happening. But we’ve been working in your neighborhood since before
December, and we’ve sent out probably about 500 fliers per event in both Kings Grant --
yes, sir, they have been -- they’re printed. John Manuel is the president. You are
currently permitted through the state as a legal neighborhood association, as a result of
those efforts. So my encouragement to you would be become more involved with some
of your neighbors. Y’all have a strong group of people that desire the same thing that
you do, and I’ll help you in any way I can. I work a regular job, but my home number is
796-0078.
Mr. Nicholson: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Well, it’s in the book, it’s been on radio, in front of God knows how
many people, it’s been out on 16,000 fliers over the last two years. So I’m available. And
as far as calls coming into me, I check all of them, and I answer as many as I can. If I
have missed you, I apologize.
Mr. Nicholson: This came about when I started trying to get the neighborhood
cleaned up. I went out and talked to people out there on [inaudible]. And Mr. Mathis
come out there to my house, and the first thing [inaudible] privacy fence. I had a 6’
privacy fence I got all the way around my house. The reason I got it up is cause
[inaudible] about five years ago. My wife suggested that I put it up. And Mr. Sherman
cannot tell me why I’ve got to cut it down to 4’, which I didn’t. I put a 6’ cyclone fence.
The reason he tells me about the [inaudible] they can’t see my yard. I said what’s the big
deal about that? He can back up, he can back up, he can [inaudible].
Mr. Cheek: City code stipulates that it can be 4’ and it has been something you
can see through, and that’s universal across the city. So you are in violation of City code.
Mr. Nicholson: How long has the code been in place?
7
Mr. Cheek: Lord knows. Ten, 20 years. I’m not real sure. Mr. Sherman can
answer that.
Mr. Sherman: I spoke to Mr. Nicholson. When the inspector went to his house --
the inspector went out there to meet with him and then go through the neighborhood and
look for code violations. When he arrived at his house, one of the first violations he
noticed was the fact that Mr. Nicholson’s fence was too tall. He told him that he could go
through the Appeals Board about a variance if he wanted to keep it at 6’. He did not
apply and so he was required to cut it down to 4’, and I think he removed it. The
inspectors have gone through the neighborhood. Several cases have gone to court,
several have been referred to the Public Works Department for clean-up. They’re
working in the neighborhood. I went through it the other day. Some of the yards are
overgrown. They may be 8”-10” but for the most part they’re working to keep it clean.
He keeps his nicer. I guess you could say manicures his yard, his lawn. We’re working
with him and I’ll be glad to meet with you, Mr. Nicholson, and go through the
neighborhood and look at any issues myself.
Mr. Cheek: There are two vacant homes that have been uninhabited for some
time that are beginning to be problems with people breaking in them at night over in the
neighborhood, and we’ll be watching that as well.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Nicholson, I appreciate you coming before the Commission
today. There doesn’t seem to be an issue for this Commission to consider today, but I
would encourage Mr. Kolb and staff to work with you to resolve some of these specific
neighborhood problems that you’ve brought to our attention. Is there anything you’d like
to add?
Mr. Nicholson: Well, I’ve got other things but [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Actually the Commission rules limit you to five minutes.
Mr. Nicholson: [inaudible] junk cars [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: If you’ll give those addresses to Mr. Kolb and the staff, they’ll work
with you on getting that cleaned up.
Mr. Cheek: And I’ll help you any way I can.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Madame Clerk, let’s move on to item 39.
We have quite a delegation here, and see if we can go ahead and dispense with that item.
The Clerk:
39. Z-01-49 - A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from
Randolph Frails, Esq., on behalf of James Alvin Lewis, requesting a Special
8
Exception in a B-2 (General Business) Zone to operate an adult
entertainment establishment per Section 22-2 (b) of the Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located
on the southwest right-of-way line of Damascus Road, 1,055 feet, more or
less, northwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Highland
Avenue and Damascus Road. (DISTRICT 5)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here today? Are there any objectors here today?
Would you raise your hand? We’ll get a count.
Mr. Wall: If y’all would keep your hands raised, I’d appreciate it.
Mr. Mayor: You can remain seated. That’s fine. Just raise your hand.
(32 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. You can put your hands down. Mr. Patty? Mr. Patty, if
you would give the background on this and your recommendation.
Mr. Patty: This property is currently B-2, General Business. And in order to
conduct adult entertainment activities on the property, in addition the B-2 zoning it would
have to have a Special Exception. The Zoning Ordinance has several objective criteria
that in order to apply to have an application considered for this type, you have to meet.
These are distance requirements from various types of facilities, parks, schools, churches,
libraries, single-family homes, things of that nature. This particular location did, in fact,
meet those objective criteria. And that meant that the applicant had a right to make the
application. He did, and the Planning Commission considered his application. There’s a
subjective criteria that gives you the right to approve or deny, even if it meets the
objective criteria, and that speaks about the sum total of the similar-type facilities.
Actually, I could read that to you. Mr. Wall’s got it here. I think that’s what your
decision boils down to, whether or not it conforms to the subjective criteria, and I’ll just
read that for you, if I may. [Reading] “Special Exception may be denied when there is
evidence that type and number of schools, churches, libraries, public or private
recreational facilities, residential developments in the vicinity and location of proposed
regulated use can cause minors to frequent the immediate area, even though there is
compliance with the minimum distances provided herein.” I asked the Planning
Commission at their pre-meeting to go out there and listen to both sides very carefully
and to try to decide whether the objectors -- and we had a pretty good idea who they’re
going to be -- whether their comments satisfied them that it would not comply with these
conditions and therefore be a public detriment, or whether the benefit to the property
owner, who did agree to do certain things to soften the impact of the use, such as begin
the operation at 9 o’clock at night in the summertime, 7 o’clock at night other times of
the year, not change the signage that’s currently on the property, no gaudy lighting or
signage or anything of that nature that would indicate the actual use of the property
beyond the name of the structure. Indicate, you know -- it’s conduct a balancing test that
you do on any zoning case, and compare the detriment to the community, to the benefit of
9
the property owner, and make a decision. And they did. And it was a split vote. And
they recommend approval.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to move that we deny the request for a special exception
based on the criteria within the ordinance.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Is there anyone here who is
representing the petitioner and would speak on behalf of the -- would anybody from the
opposition care to speak for the record today? Yes, ma’am, if you’ll come to the podium
here and give us your name and address for the record.
Ms. Greene: Good afternoon to the panel. Good afternoon, citizens. My name is
Pat Greene. I live at 527 Richmond Hill Road. I’m opposed to the petition for adult
entertainment for this club. I’ve done a lot of legwork and researching this. It is in a
neighborhood that houses a very large public complex for families, and these families are
on government assistance. There is a public recreation facility that has just been
established. There is also two public recreation golf course within the vicinity. Also, this
club, Chew Choo, is our number one club for violence in our young black adults. The
crime rate is basically tremendous in terms of no control, no respect for the children, and
no respect for the law here in Augusta. It is totally out of control. If statistics were to be
examined, the number of adult and young adult and teenage fightings, shootings,
stabbings occur more at this establishment than any other area of the city. I am totally
against adult entertainment. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any questions for the witness? Mr. Simon, give us your
name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Simon: Thank you. Paul Simon. 14 Highgate West, Augusta. I’m
appearing here as Chairman of Fore! Augusta Foundation. And as all of you remember
what Damascus Road used to be, and we’ve changed. You, the City, has spent a lot of
money up there on the Aquatics Center. The changes that you’ve made in the golf
course, the skate facility that you’ve just put up -- the skateboard facility that you’ve just
put up there -- and we spent about $3 million on the First Tee project. But more
important than that is we’ve got over 500 children who are part of our program. I don’t
know how many people come to the Aquatics Center, children, kids, but we see that as a
beginning. 500. Of that number, about 50% of that black and about 50% white. About
18% of those people are female. And we just don’t think this is an area, where we have
all of these kids, that we need to have an adult entertainment facility. So we oppose it for
that reason, and I hope you see it the same way. Thank you.
10
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone? Yes? Don, give us your name and address for
the record, please.
Mr. Grantham: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m Don Grantham at 808 Quail Court.
And I echo the feelings of Mr. Simon. I feel like that the City, and not only individuals,
has spent a lot of money on Damascus Road, trying to create a light industrial park in an
area up there in which we do have some tenants that are now there. They seem to be very
good tenants. I go that way to work myself every day. I feel like that with Aquinas
school, with Daniel Field, with the many young people’s facilities up there, the golf
courses, it’s just an area that we do not need contaminated. And that’s what this would
do to it. So I ask you, the Commissioners, to please vote against this petition. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else? Mr. Owens?
Mr. Owens: Brad Owens, 1562 Goshen Road. I’d like to thank Mr. Kuhlke for
making the motion to deny and Steve Shepard for seconding it, and I would ask all the
Commissioners to deny this based on the community standards. My nephews swim at the
natatorium over there, sometimes well after dark, so I don’t think that if you put a time
limit on it that’s going to help it, so I don’t think that that variance will work. I would
like to say that you have lots of children and family oriented things that. You have the
natatorium, which is the swim center there. You have the Patch, and you just spent a lot
of money putting a children’s course of there, so there’s more kids there. You’ve got a
church right around the corner. You have the skate park which will be open soon.
There’s Newman Tennis Center. There’s Aquinas High School. Not to mention right
over the hill there there is Forest Hills Golf Course, and I’ve played it, and there’s plenty
of children playing there all the time, all the way up to dark. So I would like to say that
based on what I just heard Mr. Patty read, I don’t seen any way any of you could possibly
vote for this, based on the number of children that are going to be around there and
family oriented material. That area just got cleared up. It’s been put on the right path,
it’s going in the right direction. I think this would be a step back. There’s plenty of
property available in the area downtown where they already have establishments like this.
If the person -- I am for small business, I’m a small business owner myself, and I want
everybody to be able to earn a living. And if you choose to make it this way, that’s fine.
But don’t do it where there’s children and where there’s families and where it’s going to
hurt what’s going on, the good things that are going on. I ask each and every one of you
to vote against this measure because it’s the right thing to do. Mr. Mayor, thanks.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kendrick? Give us your name and address for the
record, please.
Mr. Kendrick: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. My name is James Kendrick. I live at
3279 Hillwood Lane. To you and the Commissioners, I, too, stand before you to ask that
you vote against this measure. If we do it for no other reason, let’s do it for our children.
There are seemingly far too many influences, particularly those that are negative, that
enter their lives on a daily basis. They are having to make too many choices that are not
11
necessarily in their best interest. You have an opportunity to help us help them. I stand
before you today to ask that you do that. I’m a member of the Board of Directors of First
Tee, which, as Paul has said, will bring a great number of young folks in that vicinity.
Help us to help them. Please vote against this matter. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else? Sheriff?
Mr. Strength: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I, too, am here in opposition of this club.
I’ve been involved from the get-go here. I know we cannot come in here and get a vote
on morals, the way we feel, what’s right or wrong, but still I think morals has to play a
part in every decision we make. I am going to make a safety issue here, also. I assume
everybody knows where the existing club is on Damascus Road. And I’ve been up there
numerous times, especially on Friday and Saturday nights, where we have cars parked on
both shoulders of the road, we have cars parked in the middle of the street for a hundred
yards, nobody can pass either way, the congestion is absolutely -- it’s total bedlam up
there. Give you an incident of what happened. We had a cutting up there sometime
back. We couldn’t get an ambulance in there because of everybody in the middle of the
street, in cars, on both shoulders of the road. I have now had signs put up on one side of
the road -- “no parking” -- hoping to rectify this problem. Absolutely has not come close
to rectifying it. We’re up there with wreckers on the weekend, pulling cars left and right.
I don’t have the manpower to stay up there light that. You just have to go up there to see
it, to actually visualize what I’m saying. But I agree with probably 95% of the folks in
this room. We do not need that in Augusta. We’re trying to set standards here. I think
we’re going backwards by doing that if we vote for it, and I, as well as the Sheriff’s
Office, is definitely in opposition of granting this license. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Sheriff. Anyone else? Let me just say, I don’t have a
vote on this thing today, but I live closer to it than anyone who has spoken here today. I
live on Lake Forest Drive, and I’m opposed to it, and I would appreciate the Commission
sustaining the motion today to deny this. Any discussion, any debate, any comments?
Mr. Henry, you want to say something?
Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to move the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Henry.
Mr. H. Brigham: I was going to move the order of the day and we cast the votes.
Mr. Mayor: All right. The question has been called. The Chair rules we have
had adequate debate. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just for the purpose of fairness in the debate, because we’ve got one
case on this issue in reference to -- since we’ve brought a lot of things into this already --
in terms of current management of the club and the traffic that’s there. And it’s not an
item to be discussed today, but I really think that one thing that we may be overlooking is
the fact that whatever happens with this -- and I think obviously it’s going to be turned
12
down -- if there’s a major point of traffic congestion and cruising in that area, with two
mainstream nightclubs there on Damascus Road, then maybe our next point that we ought
to deal with is the fact that how are we going to eliminate what’s there? Because I mean
you’re dealing on the issue today where you may deal with it morally on adult
entertainment, but then again you’ve got two nightclubs, and you’ve got one that’s in
question that whether you provide the adult side of it or not the nightclub is still going to
be open. So I mean you’ve got that issue to still deal with. The other thing I was going
to ask, with the Zoning Board, that they’ve already been through with the variance and
that’s been denied, and which you have a case pending, Mr. Wall, right now on one side
of this in Superior Court -- what does that do for us today? Cause obviously it’s
incumbent upon the petitioner or the representative of the petitioner to represent
themselves in terms of being here. And I just wanted to know to a point of obviously one
case in court, do you move ahead, do you deal with it with the essence of time or moving
it later, or how does that deal with our case, obviously since we’re going to deal with
probably one case in court or two cases in court?
Mr. Wall: The case that has been filed is a result of a second petition that was
filed by Mr. Frails on behalf of his client. This dealt with a location on Deans Bridge
Road. It was requesting a variance from the distance requirements, I believe to a
residential residence, and that was turned down by the Board of Zoning Appeals. They
have filed an appeal. The result of that case would only affect that location. It would not
affect this Damascus Road location.
Mr. Mays: I guess what I’m looking at, Mr. Mayor, is the fact that you’ve got the
same owner in both locations, the petitioner. And make no mistake about it, this has
come before our Public Services Committee, and I sat in on that, and in fact, encouraged
that if a petition was going to be filed, that it be filed, quite frankly, on the Deans Bridge
Road location as opposed to the Damascus Road location. But it’s obviously something
that we’re going to deal with, whether it’s one case in court or whether we’re going to
deal with two cases in court. The other thing, Mr. Mayor, and I’m not going to take it
upon myself to -- that’s what you hire legal representatives for -- the petitioner is not
here, I can’t deal with where that’s coming from. I do think, for the record, we ought to
make note that we have a petition that’s contained in our book that’s in opposition to it,
as well as those that have raised their hands. I think in fairness for the record, we need to
ask, though, whether a petition is to be presented on behalf of people that may be living
in that area that may be in support of it, or that may be in the audience that are in support
of it. We polled the audience in terms of the opposition.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll take a poll now.
Mr. Mays: I’m just saying in terms of essence of [inaudible] both ways.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do that. And Mr. Brigham has asked us to move along with the
order of the day. Let’s have a show of hands of those who are in favor of this adult
entertainment establishment in this neighborhood. Keep your hand up so it gets counted.
The record will reflect that number.
13
(29 supporters noted)
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the motion from Mr. Kuhlke to deny
the approval of the petition. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s move on with our consent agenda then. For the
interest of those who are here, the petition was just denied. The request for the adult club
there has been turned down. Mr. Bridges, can we add item two on the addendum agenda
to the consent agenda? It’s a ratification.
Mr. Bridges: Which is item number two?
Mr. Mayor: The emergency --
Mr. Bridges: I don’t have a problem with that.
Mr. Mayor: Lena, if you’ll include that. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: We’ll move ahead with the consent agenda. We’ll take up the
consent agenda and add to the consent agenda item two on the addendum agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 37, including
item 2 on the addendum agenda. For the benefit of any objectors to the planning
petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand once the
petition is announced?
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-40 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Benjamin Allen, on behalf
of Eagle Home Rentals, L.L.P., requesting a Special Exception to establish a
church, including a pre-school and day care service, per Section 26-1 (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville
Road, 228 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of
McDuffie Road Extension and Milledgeville Road. (3373 Milledgeville Road)
(DISTRICT 3
)
2. Z-01-50 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Paul Dunbar, on behalf of
Eugene Woo, Jr., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1C (One-family
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located
14
th
on the southeast corner of the intersection of 15 Street and Dewitt Street.
(DISTRICT 5)
3. Z-01-51 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the developer will
improve Lund Street to city standards a petition from William R. Coleman
Jr., on behalf of Richard L. Clardy, requesting a change of zone from Zone
R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential)
affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Belair Road,
452 feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Lund
Street intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Belair Road. (DISTRICT
3)
4. Z-01-52 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. R. Toole Engineers, on
behalf of Tosco Marketing Co., requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located where the southwest right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road intersects
with the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road. (DISTRICT 8)
5. Z-01-53 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that any exterior storage
be buffered by a privacy fence from the view of passing motorists on
McElmurray Road and Peach Orchard Road a petition from John and
Sheila Weaver requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and
McElmurray Road. (DISTRICT 8)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions?
Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda, items 1 through 37, including item 2 on the
addendum agenda.
Mr. Beard: I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Do we have a second?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor, what’s your pleasure? Do you want to pull some items? Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, I’d like to pull 14, 18, 25, and I’d like to add 44 to the
consent agenda with the consent of the body. That’s the TQM Resolution, 44 is.
15
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding 44 to the consent agenda? None heard.
Any other items to pull from the consent agenda?
Mr. Kuhlke: What numbers?
Mr. Shepard: 14, 18 and 25.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull 20, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Can’t hear you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to pull item number 20 and 28.
Mr. Mayor: 20 and 28?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. And just to get some clarification, I’d like to have
number 12 as well, if I can.
Mr. Mayor: Number 12. All right. 12, 20 and 28 for Mr. Williams. Anyone else
like to pull something?
Mr. Bridges: Got a question, Mr. Mayor. Is number 9 -- aren’t we discussing that
on the regular agenda? Number 9 and 41, are those --
Mr. Mayor: It’s a different bid?
The Clerk: They’re different.
Mr. Bridges: Different bids? Okay, that’s fine.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So the body requested we pull 12, 14,18, 20, 25 and 28.
Any others?
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-40 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Benjamin Allen, on behalf
of Eagle Home Rentals, L.L.P., requesting a Special Exception to establish a
church, including a pre-school and day care service, per Section 26-1 (a) of
the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County
affecting property located on the north right-of-way line of Milledgeville
Road, 228 feet, more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of
McDuffie Road Extension and Milledgeville Road. (3373 Milledgeville Road)
(DISTRICT 3
)
2. Z-01-50 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from Paul Dunbar, on behalf of
Eugene Woo, Jr., requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1C (One-family
16
Residential) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located
th
on the southeast corner of the intersection of 15 Street and Dewitt Street.
(DISTRICT 5)
3. Z-01-51 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the developer will
improve Lund Street to city standards a petition from William R. Coleman
Jr., on behalf of Richard L. Clardy, requesting a change of zone from Zone
R-1A (One-family Residential) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential)
affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Belair Road,
452 feet northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Lund
Street intersects the northwest right-of-way line of Belair Road. (DISTRICT
3)
4. Z-01-52 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition from W. R. Toole Engineers, on
behalf of Tosco Marketing Co., requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located where the southwest right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road intersects
with the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road. (DISTRICT 8)
5. Z-01-53 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that any exterior storage
be buffered by a privacy fence from the view of passing motorists on
McElmurray Road and Peach Orchard Road a petition from John and
Sheila Weaver requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the
northeast corner of the intersection of Peach Orchard Road and
McElmurray Road. (DISTRICT 8)
PUBLIC SERVICES:
6. Motion to accept a Georgia DOT grant in the amount of $33,750.00 to seal
cracks in the apron and taxiways at the Daniel Field Airport. (Approved by
Public Services Committee August 13, 2001)
7. Motion to approve the renewal of an employment agreement with Mr.
Richard Hatfield, Newman Tennis Center Manager. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 13, 2001)
8. Motion to approve and award Bid Item #01-103, window and door
renovations to the Old Government House, to Continental Construction
Company for $27,819.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
13, 2001)
9. Motion to approve the low bid for uniform service from CINTAS submitted
on June 14, 2001. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 13, 2001)
10. Motion to approve the low bid for "Transit Parking Lot" from Mabus
Brothers Construction Company. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 13, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
17
11. Motion to deny a request from M. E. LaPan & Sons, Inc. Fire Apparatus for
a waiver to do business with Augusta Richmond County Government.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 13, 2001)
12. Deleted from consent agenda.
13. Motion to approve the reprogramming of $30,000 in Community
Development Block Grant funds for the construction of a passive park at the
corner of Eve and Broad Streets. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 13, 2001)
14. Deleted from consent agenda.
PUBLIC SAFETY:
15. Motion to approve information exchange agreement between Cingular
Wireless LLC and Augusta, Georgia to begin implementation of Wireless 911
Phase I service. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 13, 2001)
16. Motion to approve Wireless Phase I budget for reimbursement of recurring
and non-recurring costs for Triton PCS. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 13, 2001)
17. Motion to approve withdrawing city’s participation/involvement in the
collection/disbursement of funds received through the ARC Volunteers
donation account at the Department of Animal Control. (Approved by Public
Safety Committee August 13, 2001)
FINANCE COMMITTEE:
18. Deleted from consent agenda.
19. Motion to approve SPLOST Agreement with Historic Augusta Foundation in
the amount of $100,000.00. (Approved by Finance Committee August 13,
2001)
20. Deleted from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
21. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments
for Pepperidge Subdivision, Section 15, Phase Two. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
22. Motion to approve the Deeds of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements and
Road Resolutions submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments
for Kenmare Subdivision. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 13, 2001)
23. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95, Parcel 84,
which is owned by In Kyu Choi and Sung Sun Choi, for right-of-way on the
Barton Chapel Road Improvements Project, Phase II. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
24. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95, Parcel 84.1,
which is owned by In Kyu Choi and Sung Sun Choi, for right-of-way on the
Barton Chapel Road Improvements Project, Phase II. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
18
25. Deleted from consent agenda.
26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95, Parcels 26
and 386.02, which is owned by Young Soo Choe and Soon Ja Choe, for right-
of-way on the Barton Chapel Road Improvements Project, Phase II.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
27. Motion to approve adding a county maintained dirt road, Pye’s Court, to the
bottom of the Unpaved Road List. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 13, 2001)
28. Deleted from consent agenda.
29. Motion to approve a proposal in the amount of $85,500.00 to Johnson
Laschober & Associates, P.C. for providing investigative services for inflow
and infiltration reduction within Augusta. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee August 13, 2001)
30. Motion to approve Change Order No. 1 to the Rae’s Creek Wrightsboro
Road Sanitary Sewer Extension (1996 Bond Project S-12F) in the amount of
$73,000.00. Funds are available in account 508043420/5425210. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
31. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental
Encroachment Agreement Nos. 30456A and 30456B (Augusta Newsprint
Loop 230 KV). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 13,
2001)
32. Motion to approve amendment to Right-of-Way Encroachment Permit for
Qwest Virtual Private Network along an additional 8,753 feet of City streets
at a proposed fee of $5,000.00 per mile. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 13, 2001)
33. Motion to approve with preliminary design/engineering work necessary to tie
the 10 homes on Willis Foreman Road that were not connected to the existing
sewer line. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
34. Motion to approve recommendation from the Judicial Oversight Committee
to authorize Facilities Maintenance Manager to solicit Request for
Qualifications for a Programming Space Study to assess needs of the new
proposed Judicial Center and authorize expenditure of funds from Phase IV
Sales Tax for associated advertising cost. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 13, 2001)
35. Motion to approve a Sales Option Agreement between Ronald H. York and
Melrose P. York, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following
property located at 3006 Hampshire Drive for a purchase price of
$14,000.00: 1,065 square feet, more or less, and 1,482 square feet, more or
less, of right-of-way and 1,712 square feet, more or less, of permanent access
and maintenance easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 13, 2001)
36. Motion to approve that all cost-sharing arrangements with the City and
private individuals or other government entities will require executed
documents in place before work begins on any project(s). (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
19
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
37. Motion to approve minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission held
August 7, 2001.
Addendum Item 2: Motion to ratify emergency contract with Nordmann
Contracting, Inc. regarding the Courtney Pond Happy Road Detention Pond.
RESOLUTION:
44. Motion to approve Resolution in Support of Total Quality Management
(TQM) for Augusta, Georgia.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to approve the consent agenda, with
the addition of item 44 and the addition of item 2 from the addendum agenda. We
already have a motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-13, 15-17, 19, 21-24, 26-27, 29-37, 44, Addendum Item
2]
The Clerk:
12. Motion to approve the conversion of $1,000,000 in Year 2001 CDBG Funds
to HOME funds to assist the City in meeting its current HOME match
requirements and CDBG spend down ratio. The proposed conversion would
affect Year 2001 Community Development Block Grant Funds allocated to
the following projects: $500,000 awarded to the East Augusta Community
Development Corporation to support development activities associated with
the Lincoln Square Multi-Family Rehab Project and $500,000 awarded to
the 30901 Development Corporation to support Phase I of the Turpin Hill
Single-Family Developments. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 13, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of this, Mr. Mayor, but I
just want some clarification from Mr. Mack to make sure. We talked about this in
committee. I just want to make sure of what my concept is of what we’re doing. And I
think, Mr. Mack, if you could probably explain it to me one more time. We talked about
taking this money, and what we’re doing is moving money, is that right?
Mr. Mack: That’s correct. Basically all it is, Commissioner, is just a paper swap.
We’re just swapping CDBG money for HOME and vice versa, mainly because, number
one, CDBG money is time sensitive. And HUD likes for us to spend that money based
on a ratio. And the other thing that it’s going to do, it’s going to assist us with the match
that the city has to provide for the HOME Program.
20
Mr. Williams: Okay. Are we moving this money from these programs? I think
East Augusta and the 30901, I believe. Are we moving money, like you say, swapping
money right now to do something else with; is that right? Are we moving money, too?
Mr. Mack: We’re moving the two projects that you have, the 30901 Project,
which is a single-family construction program, and the Lincoln Square Project, which is a
multi-family rehab project, to our Housing Rehab. We’re just swapping money to our
Housing Rehab Program and putting the money from the House Rehab into that project.
Mainly because of the two issues that I just mentioned.
Mr. Williams: Okay, because of the time issue.
Mr. Mack: And the [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: And the [inaudible]. We’ll revert back to this later, we’ll swap the
money for these projects. I’m just trying to get an understanding. This money will go
back to these entities, to these non-profit agencies.
Mr. Mack: They will not lose any money.
Mr. Williams: I just wanted a clarification. That’s all I needed, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have a motion with respect to number 12?
Mr. Williams: I so move.
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. All in favor --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Just a point of clarification. Mr. Mack -- and I’m going to vote for
your motion -- but are we -- we worked the guidelines to a point that in the swapping of
the money, that the agencies that are receiving it can deal with the guidelines out of
different pot of money. There are no problems there, and if they are, will you all be
assisting them if those guidelines have to protect or there is some different parameters
that they have to deal with it with, and my reason for throwing that out, Mr. Mayor, is
we’ve done this before and that’s a [inaudible] and I’m concerned about the time span
ratio, but I want to make sure that the agencies that are receiving are equipped from
within to be able to deal with a change, and if there is something that is not foreseen, then
our office will be there to assist them and work through that.
Mr. Mack: No doubt about it.
21
Mr. Mays: That’s all I wanted to make sure of.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve on the floor. All in favor, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes, sir?
Mr. Mayor: If we could, the Sheriff’s time is valuable and I’d like to try to
accommodate him if we can. If we could move to item 41. He’s here for that item. If we
could dispose of that, and then he can go back on patrol.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
41. Discuss/approve bid award of Sheriff’s Department Uniforms. (No
recommendation from Public Safety Committee August 13, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you going to handle this or do you have a surrogate
here today?
Mr. Kolb: I will introduce the item. Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission,
you have before you essentially two options in which to award bids for Sheriff’s uniforms
for the next two years. In your packet over the weekend you received information
relative to the official bids that we received from this particular item. The
recommendation or the bid award indicated that Command should be awarded the
Section A of the bids, and that Sidney’s should be awarded Section B of the bids. As we
began to look closer at the bids, to me there was some confusion as to how this was
arrived at. And I looked at the [inaudible] and they became someone questionable. Then
we did a more in-depth analysis and look at the unit prices. And the unit prices is what I
gave you earlier for each items that is being bid. And the two bids, or the two
tabulations, somewhat differ from the official bid that was originally made. This bid has
been rejected at least once. I do not believe that rejecting this bid a second time is in the
best interest of the municipality. Therefore, I’m bringing it to the Commission for your
decision as to which want you want to bid this. My recommendation, and I believe the
Sheriff would concur with me, is to bid it on the basis of the unit prices, which is the
sheet that is attached, that was given to you earlier.
Mr. Mayor: So your recommendation, George, is to go with who in Section A
and who in Section B?
Mr. Kolb: Both Section A and B would be awarded to Sidney’s.
22
Mr. Kuhlke: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second to award the business to Sidney’s.
Sheriff, did you want to speak to this? These are your uniforms.
Mr. Strength: I’ll just take a second. I became concerned over the last couple of
months when nothing was being done on awarding this contract. The contract ran out the
st
31 of July. Therefore we have no contract. I have folks down there that can’t get pants
hemmed, we cannot order anything. I contacted Mr. Kolb, went up and talked to him,
voiced my concern with him, and asked him to please look at it and make a decision. All
I want is uniforms. Who gets the bid is up to you gentlemen. I do concur with what Mr.
Kolb said. I told him that day, look, make a decision for me, I will support that decision,
which I am.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else who would like to be heard? Mr. Beard
and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, maybe I’m a little confused on all of this, but as it was
discussed in the committee meeting, there’s an understanding that there was a little
problem here because it appears that either the Administrator and the Director had some
differences in what they, in who should receive this bid. And you know, I don’t
particularly care, I’m kind of like the Sheriff in the sense I know he needs the uniforms
and we need to make a decision today. But I think that decision should be made fair and
in consistency with what we’ve done and what has been worked out. I really don’t
support the Administrator in his suggestion on this, and I probably and the opposite on
this.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Mr. Beard, in committee we talked
about this to some extent, and I’m still not satisfied with the way the recommendation has
come forth. I would like to hear from Purchasing if I can, Ms. Sams. I got a couple of
questions I need to ask her.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams, if you’d come to the podium.
Mr. Williams: I think first of all I need to know whether or not is this the normal
way. Is this the same way we’ve been doing the bid process over the years?
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir. We have over the years. As the Sheriff has said, something
has to be done to get the Sheriff some uniforms. Where the disagreement comes is on the
bid tabulation sheet. Over the years, we have allowed vendors to bid a straight bid for
uniforms. We have not addressed the issue of surplus charges for the larger sizes. When
23
we look at the total overall ordering from the Sheriff’s Department and throughout the
City of Augusta, no department in the City of Augusta order bulk quantity. We order
uniforms by size. With me, I have purchase orders from 1998 to share with this
Commission so that they can see the way the Purchasing Department handles the
ordering of uniforms, so this is nothing new. In doing that, when we look at the way we
order uniforms, as opposed to the way we have been bidding uniforms, there is a
discrepancy in cost. You may see on a bid tabulation sheet $59 for a pair of pants. Well,
if that pair of pants is in a large size, that $59 now becomes $69. As it with Dillard’s, any
other store in the nation. The larger sizes, you pay just a little more for. When you look
at that bid tabulation sheet before you, gentlemen, you see numbers. And you see
numbers that say a larger size at X dollars. But what you don’t see is what size is it. A
department store doesn’t care how many your order. They ask you what size you need.
The Purchasing Department would like to see the bid tabulation sheet reflect all of its
purchase orders, which is what has been done in bid number 01-023. There was a
mandatory bid conference held. At that mandatory bid conference, both vendors were
present and the Sheriff’s Department. All three agreed with the way the bid
specifications read. The two vendors submitted bids to me, signed off. Signed, and I
have the original bids here if either vendor would like to look at it, to confirm that this is
their bid tabulation sheet. At that point, there was not a problem. We received bids. We
tabulated it according to the bid specification, based on the total weighted average. Its
purpose is to mirror all purchase order to be let by Augusta Richmond County. I have a
copy of a 1998 purchase order. This is a copy of 2001 purchase order. They all mirror
the bid tabulation sheet.
Mr. Williams: Ms. Sams, I’ve got a question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, what is your question?
Mr. Williams: My question is, Mr. Mayor, was there a meeting, was there a
conference, was there a gathering of the bidders with you to explain the process of how
and what was expected, Ms. Sams?
Ms. Sams: Excuse me?
Mr. Williams: Was there a bid meeting or conference -- and I think in our process
--
Mr. Mayor: She’s already said there was a bid conference.
Ms. Sams: Yes, sir, there was. There was a mandatory bid conference held, as a
matter of fact. Both vendors did appear, along with the Sheriff’s Department.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we award the
bid to Command for being the low bidder.
Mr. Mayor: On which items, A and B?
24
Mr. Williams: A and B.
Ms. Sams: Item A was recommended by the Purchasing Director to be awarded
to Command and Item B was recommended by the Department to be awarded to Sidney’s
Department Store.
Mr. Mayor: Just a minute. We have a motion on the floor. I’m trying to get a
second, Ms. Sams. Is there a second to Commissioner Williams’ motion?
Mr. Beard: There could be, Mr. Mayor, if he correct that to --
Mr. Williams: I’m trying to following Purchasing, Mr. Mayor, cause I think our
procedure ought to be the same all the time. We ought to do what we going to do and
right, so I need some clarification from Ms. Sams, your office, as the way your
recommendation is.
Ms. Sams: My recommendation is to award the bid Section A to Command
Uniform and Section B to Sidney’s Department Store based on weighted average as
spec’d in the specifications.
Mr. Williams: So moved, Mr. Mayor, if I can get a second.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion has been seconded. Mr. Cheek, you wanted to
speak?
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The thing that concerns me is that
we come to the floor on this issue. Our calculations, the math that we’re using to work
this stuff out, there should be no question. One is one, two is two and so forth. One pair
of extra large pants is X dollars at one vendor and X dollars at another vendor. My
concern is that we got all the way to the floor with this type of concern or debate or
whatever over the math that we’re using to do these calculations. At this point you have
math one way that says one person is low bidder and math the other way that says
another person is low bidder. I know we’re striving to come up to some uniform
standards, and that’s been something that Ms. Sams has been working on very hard, a
uniform standard of purchasing and methodology. But at this point, with this particular
bid, it’s just awfully confusing when you’re trying to make the right decision. And I
would just hope that in the future we would not get to the Commission floor with this
type of debate still in place, that these things would have been worked out long ago.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Mays?
25
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’ll yield to Jim, because I was probably going to ask him
a question.
Mr. Wall: I guess I would like to clarify perhaps something that Ms. Sams said,
because the question was asked whether or not this is the way we’ve always done it, and I
differ -- not sure how she interpreted the question but I would respond to that question
differently. Several years ago, we did break down the bid process into a Section A and a
Section B. There is no dispute about that process at this point. A lot of the arguments we
used to have concerning uniforms, and we’ve had arguments about Sheriff’s Department
uniforms for years. I think everybody probably is aware of that fact. The bids that are
before you are the not the first bids that came in for this year’s uniforms. The first ones,
the first bids that came in, it was my opinion that there was not a basis for making a
determination and they were sent back out. That methodology was different from this
methodology. This methodology is different than we’ve ever used before, so there has
been a different method for the last two bids that have gone out. Before what we did, we
bid it strictly on unit prices. One item, what is the cost of it, total up those single items
through the Section A, and whoever was the low bid would get that. The bids that went
out in December and subsequently the bids came in, had estimated quantities. But the
estimated quantities, it didn’t indicate whether the bid would be awarded based upon an
extension of those estimated quantities that would be purchased or whether it would be
based upon the unit prices. And depending upon how you interpreted the award, that’s
what you would come up with. As a result of that, there was discussion among several
Commissioners, Mr. Kolb, who I think had probably been on the job one day or certainly
less than a week, and I would included and Ms. Sams was included, and I believe the
Sheriff was there, concerning some type of weighted average. And the goal was to have
a weighted average process to award the bids, so that you would look from an historical
standpoint, look at the number of each sizes of the uniforms that were purchased, and
base it on that. That was not my recommendation. My recommendation was to go back
to the original process of which you looked at prices, and you don’t know how much, the
quantity of any item that you were going to use. But if you were going to do it on an
historical basis so that over a period of time you looked at that, then you would have
something to base it upon. The problem here is that this is not historical data. This is the
last purchase order that was issued as far as the quantities are concerned. According to
my review of the quantities that are down there, according to what I’ve been told by the
Purchasing Department. And so what you have is the last purchase order, those
quantities have been carried forward. When you look at the dollar amounts that are down
the list, you will see that only in three categories does Command have the lowest per item
cost. That’s in men’s trousers, women’s trousers, and then I believe it’s the emblems, the
third item. I think looking at that that you, based upon the historical data of the quantities
that have been ordered, you are going to save money by awarding the contract to
Sidney’s, and that is the basis, I think, of the Administrator’s recommendation, because
when you look down that list, recognize that only in the men’s trousers, the women’s
trousers and the emblems is Command the lowest, and because of the quantities from an
historical standpoint have been ordered in the other categories, the true lowest cost to the
government is going to be through ordering from Sidney’s under their pricing structure as
26
opposed to Command. And I think you need to have that benefit because I would have
answered the question differently if it had been asked of me.
Mr. Mayor: Did that answer your question, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: What I was going to ask, Mr. Mayor. Jim explained probably part of
what I was going to ask. My question gets to a point that I don’t know -- maybe this is
just going to be the day that we end up on court on half the things that we’re dealing with.
I have a real serious problem knowing a lot of agenda items -- we haven’t been sued
before, we’ve been sued, I’ve sued, I sued y’all. But you know the thing is, I guess I’m
still around so I consider myself coming out on top. But what bothered me about the bid
process of this -- and let me ask this question, and either Ms. Sams or Sheriff Strength
can answer me on this. Is there any stockpile of uniforms on an emergency basis that,
from either one of these companies, that can be purchased for those folks that are in need
right now, to deal with supplying their needs? And my basis for asking that question is
that I’m looking at the point of where this thing has been rejected, sent back, meeting
with both vendors, coming back now with some different guidelines. I got my
Administration with a recommendation, I got the Attorney over in it, I’ve got the
Purchasing Director over in it, and I certainly want to see our deputies have uniforms.
But this is quite confusion as the devil. He’s a little clearer probably than we are on this.
I like to see when bids come up to a point that we either can make a decision on where
the numbers are or make them on best bid or an equal situation. This one here, what I’m
hearing, is you deal with it one way you’re in Court because of one, you deal with it one
way you deal with the other vendor in Court, and you deal with splitting it then you’re
dealing with both of them over in Court. Probably what maybe needs to be determined if
there is not a clear cut way to deal with this whole vending process on these uniforms,
and my question for asking about where the surplus is, supply what you need, Sheriff,
from either one of them, we purchase them, and then let the Court make the decision in
terms of [inaudible], because I think you’re dealing with two different parameters. This
started off on a unit situation weighted one way. You are talking about now on over sizes
dealing with another way. And Mr. Mayor, quite frankly, to ask us to make that kind of
decision when I think it ought to have been resolved at the part when it was rejected or
when it was called back in, and the vendors sat back down, they should have had the
opportunity to sign off on one set of rules, come back with one set of numbers, and
whoever’s numbers were first at that point, that’s where the bid goes. But now I’m
hearing you are weighing this way, if you do the math another way, and that’s just not the
way to deal with a bid. And this Commissioner is not going to vote for it. I ain’t going
to vote for either of the motions that y’all have got out there. So [inaudible] list of 77
abstentions, you can count that one, too.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to continue to participate in the debate, though, Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: No, I’m through, Mr. Mayor. I’m out of it. [inaudible] light up cause
we’re going to give depositions on it any way.
27
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] looking at [inaudible] lawsuit.
Mr. Mayor: You through?
Mr. Mays: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m looking at motorcycle pants here, and I
see half a dozen different costs between the two vendors. If we continue to -- it’s my
understanding that we’ve massaged and calculated these things a couple of times -- that
lends the appearance to the public that we’re trying to adjust the bids and the outcome of
the bids to suit a particular vendor. Again, I would hope that we would go through this
process with a standardized process, which is what I believe we’re trying to get to in
Purchasing, and then follow through with it and not continually rehash and readjust
numbers. Being in the research field, I know that you can determine an outcome just
based on the amount of lead in your pencil when you’re doing your calculations. But
those are the type inconsistencies, and I would in favor of tabling this or postponing it
until we can get the smoke cleared on this, to actually who is the lowest bidder on the
uniforms that we are going to buy.
Mr. Mayor: You want to make a motion to table? That would take precedence.
Mr. Cheek: A motion to table, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Wall: You’re talking about carrying it to a future meeting or later in this
meeting?
Mr. Mayor: Later in this meeting.
Mr. Cheek: I don’t think we’re going to sort through the smoke right now. We’re
going to need a mighty large fan.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to postpone that?
Mr. Cheek: Motion to postpone.
Mr. Mays: Second is still there.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Kolb?
28
Mr. Kolb: We have one practical problem. That is, we are at the end of the
previous contract and are unable to order additional deputy uniforms, and so we need
something done today.
Mr. Mayor: How harmed will you be by a two week delay?
Mr. Strength: [inaudible] odd sizes. I know we have [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Can you get through two weeks, do you think, Sheriff?
Mr. Strength: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Isn’t there somewhere that we can do an emergency requisition for
specific items?
Ms. Sams: That was attempted but was unacceptable. I had tried that earlier.
Mr. Cheek: It’s just a shame.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to postpone. The discussion would have to go to the motion
to the postpone and not the merits of the bids. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Is it on the motion to postpone?
Mr. Williams: I want to contribute to that motion to postpone, but before I do I’d
like to say that I’ve been involved with this bid process, involved with these uniforms
since October 1, 1968, when the old Cullum’s was doing our bids and how that transpired
and all that. To this date, this government have been in trouble because our bid process
with other vendors who have bidded with us, there are still records showing right now
where we unfairly bidded and not followed our procurement, not following procedure.
All I’m saying is we can postpone from now till Jesus comes, but I’m going to stick to
whatever is right, and I think our Purchasing agent who has handled this department has
done a significant job for this government, not only in this process but all process. It’s
mighty unmindful of us to think that we can’t figure nickels and dimes.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Normally I would think it would be a good
idea to postpone this, but in this situation I think we’ve got all the information we need in
front of us. Basically we’ve got two methods of calculating. Whose the cheapest? We
got the weighted average on the estimates of what we may purchase and we’ve got the
unit cost, which will apply toward the actual items of purchase. So I think it’s just
29
basically a matter of which we deem as being the correct procedure, and I personally
think the unit cost method is always the safest and most economical way to go, and I
think that’s what we should do.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor to postpone this. Mr. Brigham, you
want to speak to the motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir. First of all, if it’s a motion to postpone, is that the same
as a motion to table, Mr. Wall, or does it take precedence?
Mr. Wall: Well, a motion to table would just carry it to the end of the meeting,
but a motion to postpone is in order and would be voted on first.
Mr. J. Brigham: All right. That’s the first question. I’m kind of like Mr. Bridges.
I might be responsible cause I sit in on one of them meetings to try to come up with a
solution to this problem. I wasn’t the only one sitting in. But it is a question of how you
massage numbers, and I thought we had consensus on what the numbers was on how we
were going to arrive at this weighted average, and I don’t see consensus. I’ve talked to
the Sheriff’s office and I have talked to the Purchasing Department in the last weeks, and
we’re at odds with ourselves on what the averages are. Given that, I guess the only way
we can go is based on the unit cost. The Sheriff, I understand you have some type of
inventory, and you can’t really, from what your department tells me, they can’t tell me
what’s in inventory.
Mr. Strength: [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: They say we’ve got a quartermaster and he’s got stock, but we
don’t know what we have.
Mr. Strength: [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: Right.
Mr. Strength: [inaudible]
Mr. J. Brigham: You have shortcomings. And from what I saw of the order
awhile ago, that number in this bid and this weighted average looks like the numbers that
I was looking at, the number of items requested in the last [inaudible], which was in
April. I talked with Ms. [inaudible] -- I’m sorry, Mary Ann, the old habits ring through.
I’m of the opinion that either we’ve got to postpone it or we’ve got to vote. I think we
need to go on and vote. I don’t think in two weeks we’ll be in any different situation that
we’re in today.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, and then we’ll call the question on the motion to
postpone.
30
Mr. Shepard: That was exactly what I wanted to do.
Mr. Mayor: The question is called on the motion to postpone. All in favor,
please vote aye.
(Vote on motion to postpone Item 41)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Williams, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us back to the substitute motion from Commissioner
Williams, to award Section A to Command and Section B to Sidney’s. Is there further
discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I just can’t escape the conclusion that all these
weighted averages are fuzzy math, and I think we need to do something that can be
defended when we do it, and that’s the actual cost per item method. We should support
the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? On the substitute motion, all in favor, please vote
aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion, which was to award Sections A
and B to Sidney’s. Is there any discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I think we’re setting ourselves up for a serious case, as Mr. Mays
said, with not only Jim but any other attorney we can find. I don’t think that’s fair. I
think we’ve been in trouble before with this same uniform situation with this government.
And I think we ought to be in court if we pass this motion to give that award to that
vendor. And I feel sorry for the people up here that approve that.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone have anything further to say? The Chair would just make an
observation, Mr. Kolb, that it’s really frustrating, at least to myself, and it may be to some
of the others, when the staff comes in here divided on a recommendation. And I think the
staff ought to have their internal discussions and the Administrator come before this
board with a staff recommendation that the staff buys into. They may, some of the staff
may not like the final decision, but Mr. Kolb is the final arbitrator to this group, and I
31
would encourage you, when you bring items before us, that your staff be behind you on
these things and not come up here with mixed messages that just further cloud the issue.
We’ll call the question on the original motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Williams votes No.
Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 6-1-3.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion passes and the business is awarded to Sidney’s. The
Clerk informs me we have quite a group of people in the chambers today for item number
38. So if we can move along with that, and then we’ll go back to our consent agenda
items. Madame Clerk, if you’ll call the caption on item 38.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
38. Z-01-48 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to deny a petition from Chenita Dallas requesting a
Special Exception for a Family Day Care Home per Section 26-1 (f) of the
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting
property located on the north right-of-way line of Crosscreek Road, 119 feet,
more or less, east of the northeast corner of the intersection of Barclay Street
and Crosscreek Road. (DISTRICT 4)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner with us today? Chenita Dallas here today? Okay,
are there any objectors here today for this item? Please raise your hand.
(3 objectors noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to give us the background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: This is a request for a family day care home in Woodlake. Family day
care homes are permitted to keep up to six children in a home. They’re essentially baby
sitting. We had a couple of objectors at our meeting and the recommendation
unanimously to deny.
Mr. Mayor: Do any of the objectors wish to be heard today? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I make a motion that we concur with the Planning
Commission and deny the petition.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to deny the petition. Did someone want to
speak? No? Any discussion? One last call for the petitioner. I’ll give her a chance to
32
speak if she’s here. Gentlemen, call the question on the motion. All in favor, please vote
aye.
Mr. Cheek: It is in favor of denying; right?
Mr. Mayor: The motion is to deny.
Mr. Shepard: So affirmative vote is deny?
Mr. Mayor: Right.
Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That should take us back to item 14.
The Clerk:
14. Motion to approve the salary above the mid-point for Deputy Administrator
at $95,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 13,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, recently I recruited, well,
advertised and recruited for the position of Deputy Administrator. This position would
oversee the public safety portfolio for the organization. I have completed my deliberation
over the individuals that applied for that position, and I have offered the position to Mr.
Fred Russell, and he as accepted conditioned upon receiving a salary of $95,000. The
current policy is that I can approve up to ten percent over the minimum entry level of the
range. This is above the mid-point but still within the salary range. It is something that is
consistent with his professional growth in his career, but it is not an exorbitant increase
over what he is currently or what he was formerly making, which was in the low 90’s.
Therefore I am requesting and recommending that you approve this salary for hiring Mr.
Fred Russell.
Mr. Mayor: And Mr. Kolb, this is related strictly to Mr. Russell and his
compensation and no other positions are involved in this?
Mr. Kolb: That is correct. This is the only one.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval. And I do that on the basis of that
from time to time, even when our former Administrator was here, we’d ask that he’d be
given some considerable help, and we never got around to it and it was never pushed, and
33
I think it’s time now to move forward on that. We have to think in terms of if we’re
going to get good people in here who the citizens expect to do a good job, we’re going to
have to pay those people, and I think this is a reasonable amount for the person that is
involved and that is my reason for making this motion at this time.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham seconds. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m somewhat confused. I support trying
to pay employees and we ought to pay people for doing good work, but I’m confused as
giving a Deputy Administrator to come in a salary of $95,000. We’ve got a situation
we’re looking at now of all our department heads and we talked about that. I mentioned
to Mr. Kolb about previous Deputy Administrator. I don’t know where that position falls
in here. I can’t support giving $95,000 to this particular person we’re looking at right
now or anybody else until we get some clarification of what we’re doing in our structure.
We talking about restructuring department heads. We brought department assistant
directors in the water department and paid them $65,000 a year and we got directors not
making $65,000. And if we going start this chain reaction, we need to start at the bottom.
We need to start with the people who working for this government, who keeping this
government together, who is doing the work of the government and not the people that is
in the office of government. I can’t support it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a substitute motion to postpone
on this recommendation.
I appreciate George needing the help, but also I appreciate the
possible salary avalanche this is going to cause in our government. If we think about
what’s happening outside of Atlanta tomorrow for a second session of the extraordinary
session, the Legislature is going to convene, and they have the opportunity in this session
to also pass local bills. I can well remember from when I first got on the Commission
one of the things we did was to increase one particular judicial officer. That resulted in a
wholesale increase of request, or increased requests through the Legislature, of all our
elected officials, and I just don’t think we can do this from a budgetary standpoint at this
, so I’m making this substitute motion to postpone so that we can consider all
time
these effects in a budgetary context and not in isolation.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to the motion to postpone. Any discussion on the
substitute motion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Yes. George, what is 10% above the minimum in this? How much
would that be? Or Brenda or whoever?
34
Mr. Kolb: I believe it’s approximately in the range of about $68,000-70,000.
Something like that.
Mr. Bridges: Is that right, Brenda?
Ms. Byrd-Peleaz: [inaudible]
Mr. Kolb: It’s approximately $70,000.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Jerry Brigham.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, sometimes deception can be a very blinding thing, but I
can see from one end of the room to the other. I guess when I came in in ’79 the first
thing I learned how to do was count, even when I used to get whipped 14-2. But I just
wanted to maybe defer to the Administrator from the standpoint that I don’t think this is
an item that is really going to be going anywhere, and I wonder whether or not in fairness
to him in trying to reorganize his end of the floor if maybe he wants to withdraw in terms
of being able to consult with other Commissioners from the standpoint of being able to
deal with this package, you know, at a later time.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my concerns have basically been said earlier. My
basic concerns are that we are going to start an avalanche of salary increases. In addition
to that, I feel like, and if I’m the only Commissioner, and I don’t think I am, and next
year’s budget is going to be a whole lot worse than this current year’s budget that we’re
in now. We already have lost a number of Sheriff’s deputies. We are dealing with
reduction in personnel in numerous areas, and everybody wants a raise. But to come up
with this substantial raise and to deal with the issues that we’ve got coming on our table, I
don’t see how we can do it at this time arbitrarily without having some kind of budgetary
input for next year or the following year.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I just want to express to Mr. Kolb -- he knows my
position as far as the new Deputy Administrator, and I’m all for that. I think we need it.
But we also were presented last committee meeting with a proposed review of the salary
structure that we have and it did not pass, we delayed that until our next committee
meeting. And I think it would be premature to go out and do this at this point, but we
ought to look at it after the salary review is completed. So I’m having -- I’ve got mixed
emotions. I want the position for the Administrator, but I can’t vote for it today at this
salary.
35
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll have to echo what Commissioner Kuhlke said. In the
original consolidation plan, it calls for three deputy directors. I know that one of the
problems we ran into in the past was overworking one individual and expecting them to
be all things to all people. I, too, support the deputy director position, at least two, to
help properly manage this government. If you follow current business practices, that type
of structure would be fairly common in most industries, and these are industries that are
lean and cost effective. But at this date, I cannot support the $95,000 until we do the
budget review as Commissioner Brigham suggested.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to ask one other question. I already stated I
was opposed, and the reason I was opposed. I’m like Commissioner Cheek and
Commissioner Kuhlke, I do support it, I think we need additional staff in there, and I
think we need people that is able to do the work. But my question is are there any other
benefits with this package of $95,000 we mentioned. We have not said anything else and
we’ve been sticking this car allowance in these, this car thing. I want to know is there
anything other in this package if this was approved, you know, at a later date and time,
George, to go with this?
Mr. Kolb: There would also be -- the only other addition would be some moving
allowance for the individual. Other than that, no. Mr. Mayor, if I may?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I would support a deferral, because apparently there is not enough
understanding in what this position accomplishes or how it fits in the organization. There
is also some confusion over the salary schedule that was submitted at the Finance
Committee. So either I can withdraw it or I would do a referral until the next meeting.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to postpone it, which would have the effect of
doing that. I don’t know --
Mr. Kolb: Or else withdraw it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, can he withdraw it?
Mr. Wall: Well, the Commission -- at this point, it belongs to the Commission
and so a postponement -- it would not go back on the agenda until somebody requests it,
either a Commissioner or Mr. Kolb, so it may have the same effect if it’s postponed.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
36
Mr. Shepard: I think the motion as stated achieves just what Mr. Kolb wants to
do. That’s why I said -- I’m sympathetic that he needs help, but I’m also concerned for
budgetary reasons and perception reasons and other reasons that we should not do this
today. So I think this has the effect of doing what you want, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question, then.
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be better if we just postponed it instead of
having to vote on this, so if I’m in order, Jim, at this point, I would move that we
postpone it.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to postpone it.
Mr. Shepard: That was my motion.
Mr. Mayor: The substitute motion.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Shepard: I’m just trying to follow my mentors in motion-making.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of postponing the item, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 18, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
18. Motion to approve a request from the Augusta Metro Chamber of
Commerce for property tax exemption. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 13, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you asked about this one.
Mr. Shepard: I did ask for this to be pulled. Mr. Mayor, I asked for this to be
pulled for technical reasons. The Attorney tells me we need to do a little tweaking in
terms of the language and use the language of waiver, so I’d ask the Attorney to state
the proper phrasing of this motion at this time.
Mr. Wall: It would be a motion to approve the request from the Augusta
Metro Chamber of Commerce to waive property taxes for calendar year 2001.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
37
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 20.
The Clerk:
20. Motion to approve the establishment of a lending opportunity program for
minority and women-owned Augusta businesses with First Bank of Georgia
(two-thirds deposit) and SunTrust Banks (one-third deposit) for a two-year
period. (Approved by Finance Committee August 13, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked for this to be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I needed some clarification. Language in
this book tells me that we was going to be actually lending that amount of money, using
that amount of money to extend loans, and I just needed some clarification from
somebody as to what we were actually doing, as far as the amount of money we’re
putting in.
Mr. Wall: If I may respond, I think the balance is incorrectly stated, and I think
that it is an error and incorrectly stated and not the way the link deposit program is
designed to work or should work. It says would provide a source of funds the institution
may use to provide loans. That is incorrect. The monies would not be loaned out. The
monies would simply be on deposit with the bank as an inducement for the bank to make
loans to small and minority businesses. Also, later it talks about the purpose of these
deposits is solely to provide the institution with a source of funding. That, likewise, is
incorrect. I mean it is not a source of funding. They will be loaning their own monies.
It’s just a deposit that would be at the bank, again as an inducement for them to make a
loan. So that needs to be corrected.
Mr. Williams: In the back-up, Mr. Mayor, it does [inaudible] link deposit on the
front part of this agenda item number 20, it does not state link deposit but this is the
same situation, same area we talked about with the [inaudible] before; is that right, Jim?
Mr. Wall: That is correct.
Mr. Mayor: I don’t know that that is correct, Jim, because when we first started
talking about this, this was going to be a program that would allow these small businesses
to borrow money collateralizing contracts with the City so that they could get some of
our business. And now this has grown into a small business loan program. I don’t -- I’m
not arguing against it, but we’ve really strayed far and apart from what we originally
talked about. What the Chair would feel comfortable with, and y’all can speak for
yourselves, I’d like to see a copy of the contract or the agreement that we’re going to
38
execute with the lending institution to see exactly what is going to happen, because there
is some ambiguity in the material that’s been presented to us today.
Mr. Wall: And we can do that. I mean I received the proposals that were
submitted by the lenders and there is no proposed agreement. I think it ought to be
followed up with a clear understanding of what the arrangements should be so that we
don’t wind up in the same situation that we are now, and that is that there is no historical
document to refer back to as far as exactly what the bank has agreed to do, and so if you
approve this, we will bring back -- or I would recommend that we bring back a firm
agreement outlining exactly what the process is, etc. Now, Mayor, I think this discussion
about whether it would apply only to businesses that contracted with the government or
whether it would apply to all small businesses, I mean that has been debated in committee
meetings, because I participated in some of that debate and raised the issue about which
one it was to apply to. You are correct, the old link deposit was directly linked to the
county contracts, and there was a provision where the checks would be made jointly to
the bank, as well as to the contractor. The proposals that we received did not have that
kind of detail in there. So there are a lot of details that are going to have to be worked
out, I think, as far as how the program actually operates.
Mr. Mayor: I think if the intent is to increase minority participation and
procurement of this government, that’s where the word link comes from. If there is some
connection between the money we have on deposit and the ability of institutions to
finance these minority companies to do business with us, using those contracts as
collateral.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I want to make one comment, please, while I’m able
to, and that is that I’m somewhat surprised, and almost shocked, at the financial
institutions of this government, of this city, to -- no more to come forward than have
come forth when we offered this program, to try and help build or motivate or help get
new businesses and small businesses started, no more than the two that we had to come
forth. I mean I’m really disappointed to have our monies and to have our funds in such
locations and such banking institutions, to have no more participation we had. I was
really disappointed to see no more interest in this community and in this government
from our financial institutions than what we saw. The point you made about the link
deposit, Mr. Mayor, is a point of having some document because one time we didn’t
know we had such a program. And we had to go through a round-the-barn situation even
to find out. But now that it’s here, now that it is, we do need some clarification, and
some wording to what it does affect and who it will help and will not help. And I think
that would be good if Jim could get that to us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, then Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, in light of the confusion over the word “lending,”
I would make the motion that we approve the deposit program with these two
institutions, First Bank and SunTrust, for the deposits to be made two-thirds to
First Bank and the remainder to SunTrust as an inducement for them to establish a
39
minority lending program that is linked to these deposits and that the appropriate
contracts be drawn up by our counsel and with the input of the Administrator and
then these contracts be brought back to this body through the Finance Committee
for approval.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Commissioner Shepard pretty much stated what I wanted to say. It
concerns me that we would vote to establish today without being able to vote in the future
on what the contents of that particular program were, so if we’re going to get the chance
to review it and vote on it, then I’m fine.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, [inaudible]. Let me say this. Since I go back, I guess
myself and Henry, as far as anybody on this program and I never forgot where the money
was, and I reminded everybody of that and I’m glad that we finally got the numbers
straight on it. But I want to make sure that when we do this, that we do it correctly, that
I’m equally as concerned about the number of participants we’ve got in there. One thing,
to set the record straight, I think of how we got from a county contract over to the general
population was that we were concerned in those meetings, not only about the link deposit
money, but where we deposited our monies period, and what the lending institutions
would do in their relationship to the Community Reinvestment Act. Not just the deposit
money. I think Steve’s motion achieves that, but I do want to ask my Finance chairman
to -- and maybe I just didn’t hear that in there -- in reference to the Administrator coming
back in it. I think that team that worked on that proposal, as well as the Administrator,
and the Attorney, because there is some legal language that’s in there, particularly with
the source of funds, that I think they need to work jointly work on and I don’t think we
have to reinvent the wheel to do it. I think it came come back in two weeks in order to do
it, but I think that the Attorney needs to be involved in this. Because when I read it, I
read conflicting statements even within that. So I think not only the contract in terms of
Jim’s looking at it, but in terms of making sure -- and my main concern was I knew, and
I’ve never advocated that we deal with the dispensing of funds in an illegal manner,
because we’ve got a source there that we cannot loan the money anyway. The source of
the money is sales tax, so we’re prohibited by law in doing that. And the worse thing that
can happen is that you end up getting the money in one of those banks, somebody walks
in with a loan, they disburse about half a million of it, then you’re in violation of the law.
So I think the Attorney needs to be involved in the contractual process all the way so that
when it comes back, the language is clear to the bank when it goes there so that if they
violate it, then they violate it. That’s it clear and we’ve signed off on it. So I think if
you’ll accept his being in there, I don’t think you’ll mind one attorney to another one
throwing him into that package.
40
Mr. Shepard: We’ll do it as a matter of professional courtesy, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: Okay, I’m glad you like it.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, any further discussion on the motion from Commissioner
Shepard? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, the Chair will declare a five minute recess so that we
can all stretch, and then we’ll come back and finish up.
(A recess was taken)
Mr. Mayor: We will reconvene, please. Mr. Wall, I’m going to call on you. At
this point, the Chair would like to revisit item number 39 for the purpose of allowing the
petitioner, Mr. Randolph Frails, who arrived in the Chamber late today, to make a
statement to enter it into the record. Mr. Wall, did you want to comment?
Mr. Wall: I would ask that the Commission allow him to put whatever he wants
to in the record to be considered in conjunction with item number --
Mr. Mayor: 39.
Mr. Wall: 39. He apparently was under the impression that this was -- that this
item was coming up at three o’clock, and for that reason was not present earlier.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Frails, if you’ll come to the podium, please, and give
us your name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Frails: My name is Randolph Frails. I live at 4659 Wellington Court in
Evans, Georgia 30809. I’m here on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. James Lewis, doing
business as [inaudible]. Mr. Lewis’ petition was item number 39 on the agenda. And
first of all, firstly let me say, and let me say it with quite a bit of conviction, it disturbs me
greatly that we did not get an opportunity to be heard. I’m certainly not going to try and
point a finger at the Commission or point a finger at the Mayor, but I’m sure that my
office received a notice and we found that notice odd, that we were supposed to be here at
three o’clock. We’ve subsequently checked that against the agenda item, which is
agenda item 39, which in our opinion made sense. We were supposed to be here at three
o’clock and we were here promptly at three. To move us ahead of the agenda and to
move us to number one, when the petitioner is not here and nor is his attorney here,
disturbs me. Certainly we cannot tell the Commission how to conduct their business.
They can conduct it in any way that they desire, but when the petitioner is not present,
nor is his lawyer not present, and then to go forward with an issue as serious as this, it
disturbs me. It give me an impression that the Commission had no intention of allowing
41
the petitioner to be properly heard and to fully discuss the issues. Finally, I’d like to get
to the petition. We filed the petition in earnestness, and we filed it in good faith. We
filed this petition with the intent of complying with the law. And that’s all we wanted the
Commission to do, was to comply with the law. The law specifically says that in order
for him to operate an adult entertainment establishment, he must be 1,250 feet from a
residential dwelling; 1,000 feet from any public library; 1,000 feet from any church,
shrine, chapel; 1,205 feet from a college campus; 1,000 feet from a school bus stop;
1,250 feet from any other regulated use. He meets those requirements. Certainly with us
not being present, we don’t know what the Commission hung their hat on, but we would
surmise to say you hung your hat on B-2, item 7, that a Special Exception may be denied
where there is evidence that the type and number of schools, churches, libraries, public
and private recreational facilities, and residential developments in the vicinity of the
location of proposed regulated use can cause minors to frequent the immediate area, even
though there is compliance with the minimum distance requirements. We suppose that
that’s what you hung your hat on. We put forth to the Commission that that particular
item, he even meets those requirements. Certainly there is no evidence that indicates that
minor frequent the Damascus Road location presently. There is no evidence that there
are schools or churches in the immediate vicinity. The nearest school, church is over half
a mile away. So he meets all the requirements. As to why you all disapproved his
request, we’re not absolutely certain. But we feel that he met the requirements, and we
feel that your decision today was arbitrary and capricious, violates his Constitutional
rights, and also violates his equal protection of rights, violates his rights under the
Georgia Constitution and violates his rights under the U.S. Constitution. With deep
regrets, we will have to take this a little bit farther. We certainly did not want to do that.
And we didn’t want to do that because earlier Mr. Lewis had filed a petition to locate his
club at the Deans Bridge Road location. He did that after much talk and discussion with
Zoning people and talk with individual Commissioners, hoping that that would be
approved. He was summarily denied for the Deans Bridge Road location. Consequently,
we’ve moved to the Damascus Road location that does meet the requirements. There has
been some talk that he needs to be downtown. Well, there are five clubs downtown, the
Discotheque, the Marine Room, the Fantasy’s, Joker’s, and Baby Dolls. All of those
clubs downtown do not meet the Special Exception requirement. All of them are within
1,250 feet of residential areas, they’re within 1,250 feet of churches, they’re within 1,250
feet of libraries. Certainly if the Commission feels that they have a bad law -- maybe the
law should be changed. Maybe that’s what the Commission should do. But to just
abrogate and not apply the law as is written, we feel like you’re violating his rights.
You’re violating the rights of an individual in deference to the rights of the entire
population, and it’s based primarily on moral and religious grounds, and it really has
nothing to do with law. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Frails, the Chair will just point out to you, just as a
matter of fact, that this Commission typically, where we have a lot of people here for an
item, will move them, will move the items on the agenda around to accommodate them.
And as far as your client not showing when the item was called, the same thing was true
with the item preceding that, item 38, which was take up later in the meeting and the
petitioner was not here for that. So your client has not been singled out today at all by
42
any deception of this body in the order in which we took up items on this agenda. It’s a
matter of practice, the way we do it that way. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I would also point out that the notice that was sent out by the Planning
and Zoning Commission did indicate that the meeting was going to be on August 21 at
two o’clock p.m. I would also point out that a lot of the supporters were here on your
behalf as well. But the notice did indicate two o’clock, and I will furnish a copy of that
to the Clerk and would ask that that be made a part of the record.
Mr. Mayor: And your statement will be made a part of the record of these
proceedings, too.
Mr. Frails: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. The Clerk advises me that we have some people who are
interested in item number 40. So if we can move to item number 40 and then return to
our consent agenda.
The Clerk:
40. Z-01-55 – A petition request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond
County Planning Commission to deny a petition from Dannie Mountain, on
behalf of Michael G. Toole, requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1
(Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property
located on the north right-of-way line of Lumpkin Road, 155.0 feet east of the
northeast corner of the intersection of Fleming Drive and Lumpkin Road.
(DISTRICT 2)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Is the petitioner, Mr. Toole, here? Are there
any objectors here? Please raise your hand.
(1 objector noted)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Patty, you want to bring us the background on this, please?
Mr. Patty: Yes, sir. This property is on the segment of Lumpkin Road between
Highway 25 and Richmond Hill on the north side. It’s currently zoned B-1. It’s a small,
old-type strip, small strip center. I believe it’s two store fronts. I’m trying to remember.
I looked at it over a month ago. But there are various businesses in there over the years,
and the petitioner wants to have B-2 zoning in order to have a wrecker operation in there.
He contends that it would only be an office, there wouldn’t be cars stored there. But I
think if you look at any such business in Augusta, I think the preponderance of the
evidence would be that those businesses generally end up having a lot of stored cars.
Unsightly. And this particular property is small. It probably has inadequate parking.
Parking -- you can barely turn around on the property without backing into Lumpkin
43
Road. It touches residential on the back and there is no other B-2 zoning in the area.
Staff of the Planning Commission feel that you should leave it B-1.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I move that we concur to deny.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 25.
The Clerk:
25. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 52, Parcel 490,
which is owned by Davis P. Walker, for an easement in connection with the
Wrightsboro Road/Sue Reynolds/Belair Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as follows: 0.575 acre, more or less, of permanent
utility easement and 0.571 acre, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, this is part of the project
that has been much discussed in the absence of our lawyer and Max Hicks about the
Sue Reynolds sewer extension, and it’s a part of the project which we don’t have
funded. I understand from Mr. Hicks that it is not necessary in order to serve the
school for us to condemn this land. In light of the criticism this body has received for
not following through and receiving two payments from two developers, I think
I’d make the substitute motion that we not condemn this property
$50,000 each,
and we just leave those landowners without service paid for by the public until
they come forward with their contributions.
Mr. J. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: The motion and second. Discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’d like to hear from Max from this. This is not to run the line
itself, Max? This is part of the original line to serve the school?
44
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. This is property that’s involved is on one of the two lines
that would run up to Belair Road.
Mr. Bridges: One of two legs?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Bridges: That’s all I needed to know. I support the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 28.
The Clerk:
28. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $314,577.52 to P. F.
Moon, Inc. on the Messerly Wastewater Treatment Plant Digester
Rehabilitation Project. (Funded by Account Number 508043420-5425210)
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 13, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I just need some clarification. This is Change Order
#2, this is $314,000. Max, can somebody tell me what Change Order #1 was and how
much was that?
Mr. Hicks: In the background data, you’ll notice that Change Order #1 was
brought forward, and it was for $895,000, and it included additional digester cleaning.
As you’ll remember, in that original discussion this involved four digesters. Those four
digesters were considerably full of inert solids. They were not operating as they should,
that is to digest the organic material. Those digesters have been totally reworked, and the
quantity of the inert solids that were in there greatly exceeded any estimate of what was
originally intended, so that’s where the most of this comes from. If you look at the back-
up data on the change order, item #11, material removal, digester cleaning is
$196,386.52. The remaining dollars of the $314,577 are in various other items that had
to be done in order to restore these digesters to their full operating condition.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Well, I heard an answer but that don’t -- that don’t help me very
much. But I appreciate what Max did. My question was about the change orders,
Change Order #2, with this magnitude, this amount of money, we’ve got to try in some
45
kind of way and get a handle on these change orders than what we’ve been doing, and I
understand that this is a huge job that they’re doing, Max, and I know that you’re trying
to do the best that you can. But we had a brief meeting at one o’clock today with a firm,
and we’re going to have to do something in order to pre-plan for all of the expense and all
of the things that we need to do and not have this pop us on us, cause it doesn’t look good
when this happens. Unless we’re making the change, then it tends to not really look good
for us. The history we have had for a long period of time. And I think if we can change
that perception of what we doing, then we’ll be able to save a lot of money, that’s all.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Hicks: We share that thought, also, Commissioner Williams, and if we were
to go into the background on this one, those digesters have not been cleaned in a number
of years and attempts were made to determine the depth of the inert solids that were in
those digesters and we were limited with the access from above in order to determine
that. We couldn’t just lift the top off and look at it and survey it because of the very
nature of what was in it. We share your thoughts and your concerns. This is one of those
that insofar, as the gentlemen stated, you do the best you can to try to determine the
condition of the materials that you’re going to be working with, but in some instances
you can’t seem to get at it, and this is one of them.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Hicks, what is the cost of a new digester?
Mr. Mayor: You might repeat that. Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Cheek: What is the cost of a new digester?
Mr. Hicks: Oh, it would be considerably more than what we spent here. The cost
of a new digester, to build a brand new one, we would have spent much more than what
we have to get these four digesters up and running. I couldn’t give you that exact figure.
Mr. Cheek: Wasn’t it a million dollars plus whatever we paid to begin with?
Mr. Hicks: Sir?
Mr. Cheek: Wasn’t it a million dollars plus what we paid to begin with?
Mr. Hicks: Yes.
Mr. Cheek: What’s the volume on those things?
Mr. Hicks: You know, I’m not prepared to answer that, either. You’ve got six
digesters that sit there along Highway 56 as you ride by the wastewater plant. I couldn’t
give you the volume on them right now. I’d have to go look at them. Look at the data.
46
Mr. Cheek: We may need to investigate, get the guys that built the waste tanks at
Savannah River to build them. I think that’s about the same price and they’re about 40
million gallons apiece. Seems to be cheaper. I don’t know, it just seems to be a lot of
money that we’re pouring into something that we can probably replace and bring it up to
state-of-the-art.
Mr. Hicks: I don’t know what the nature of those tanks are at Savannah River
Site. Now if you’re just building tanks primarily to contain waste, you can do that for
one price. These tanks have to have equipment in it to move the sludge around, to keep it
moving and heated, so that the organic material will oxidize and create methane gas. If
you go by the Wastewater Treatment Plant now, you’ll notice that the flame that’s on the
burner is always going now, it’s really a good, active flame, indicating that the digesters
are now doing their job. For years, there was no flame, there was no methane gas being
created in those digesters.
Mr. Cheek: I’m just seeing $314,00 plus $750,000 on change order #1, and then
whatever the original cost was -- it’s just a lot of money. And allowing these vendors to
say, oh, I make my best guess, you probably do a full volume calculation in worse case
and not have to come back for change orders and have money left over after the project.
That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any further discussion? We need a motion.
Mr. Bridges: A motion to approve.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. All those in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 42. This will be followed by 42A, so let’s
keep our discussion on 42 focused on the caption there and then we can discuss the
broader issues when we get to 42A. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
42. Motion to approve developing a Change Order to include the remainder of
Fairington and High Point Clark Estates in the Solid Waste Collection
Program with the approved subcontractor that already has half of
Fairington. (No recommendation from Engineering Services August 13,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, I think was one of yours.
47
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. What I’m here today to do is speak in favor of
those citizens that live in those neighborhoods. They were promised and planned on
trash collection since January of last year. Some staff members said it would be taken
care of after we voted to approve it. That was never done. As they predicted and feared,
it has caused mass confusion and there is trash all over the streets. The citizens in that
area still request the trash collection. They realize it would not be able to take place until
the first of the year. The other part of their request is that they have the same carrier in
there to avoid the confusion of more than one or two carriers. So I want to make a
motion at this point that we allow, and this is about 400 homes, that we allow a change
order to be created to award that portion of High Point Clark Estates and Fairington, the
remainder of Fairington to the existing carrier that has that route.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough seconds. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just need a little clarification here on this, like when it’s going to
start, and I assume he’s talking about in January?
Mr. Cheek: January, yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: And would it be starting with all the others? In fact, I have no
problem with the same carrier doing this, but I do have a little problem with if this is
going to give some special incentive to those people and just that group of people only,
and that would be my problem with this. Because I think we have other people in the
county who are having the same problem here as we have here. So why would we make
an exception here at this time to do this? And this was my thoughts in the committee
meeting, and it’s still my thoughts now. I just don’t see how we can make an exception.
But I think if we’re just go on line and say the same contractor will do that at that
particular time and not give them any special advantage over anybody else when the
bidding process is aired, I can kind of live with that. And that wasn’t clear, because I
think you left off a couple of things in your motion.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I hope that when we develop any change order,
or any extension of the service, we learn from some of the experiences we’ve had this
summer, and that’s going to be brought up in the next item. So I hope there’s been a
learning process and an improvement process. We’ve passed on the consent agenda the
total quality item that Mr. Cheek is very interested in. And I just hope we don’t repeat
the same mistake in this change order that we’ve seen come [inaudible] in this whole
service. So I just want that whole learning process incorporated into the change order.
48
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I can understand and
appreciate the motion that’s on the table, but I would strongly urge you not to approve or
begin the process of doing change orders. By the end of this month, we will be out on the
street again for new bids that would include these areas, those areas that were in the
original change order, and that also will start in January. We would like to add that
particularly community to those bid specifications and any others that you may have that
were not left out of the change orders or those areas that were proposed in the original
change orders.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: This is strictly intended not to give anybody any special treatment.
It’s just to allow them some consistency within their neighborhood to take place at the
first of the year with the rest of the bids.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges
: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have the concerns that Mr. Beard does
on this, and I do think that if you specify which carrier is going to get those homes at this
point, you give them a priority on that, I don’t think -- I think the citizens have a
legitimate concern. There were areas in my District that we thought they were in on the
original closing, too, and found out that we weren’t, so we tried to do a change order and
that didn’t work, either. And quite frankly, after seeing what I’ve seen, I don’t know that
they’re not the better off for it. But at any rate, I don’t think this is appropriate to do at
this time. The action is going to take place the first of the year. The staff will bring back
a recommendation to us who should get that and how it should go and I have all the
confidence they will use common sense and judgment in specifying these areas,
I would just make the motion that we
particularly those that have boundaries on it.
receive this as information.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to receive this as information. Is there a second to
the substitute motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second the motion. Considering what the Administrator said, I
don’t see the advantage of going ahead with something now when it’s going to coincide
with the first of the year anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I guess going back to what we dealt with when we opened
this meeting and we dealt with with pants and shirts, it doesn’t take a massive bid
challenge. And I guess I’m going to defer to the Attorney. But if we stop the change
order based on the fact that it would be in violation of Georgia law as it relates to the bid
process, that I’m going to ask the question to a point that where are we going, cause it
49
doesn’t take -- it can take 17,000 or 1,700 or 17. It doesn’t make a difference. If the
challenge is there, then you’re in violation. It doesn’t mean -- the number makes no
difference. So I think we stopped because we knew where we were with it. I think to re-
enter, as much as we want to do out of sympathy, puts us in the same position regardless
of the size or number. And I think you’ve got to deal with that. And you’ve just got to
hopefully be consistent. There are some neighborhoods that are going to end up in the
whole process when we do the whole county, that on a bid situation that are going to be
served in some cases by more than one person. That’s just the dynamics of that particular
profession, not a bid fault. So I think if we stop this based on the fear of where it was
taking us under Georgia law, then I think we need to stay on track with that and not re-
enter that motion.
Mr. Wall: For the record, I agree with Mr. Mays fully.
Mr. Mayor: You agree with your co-counsel.
Mr. Beard: For a change.
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams.
Mr. Shepard: A blue moon, Mr. Mays. A blue moon.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I sympathize and I agree with my brother
Commissioner, Mr. Cheek, in what he’s trying to do. But on the other hand, we got to
look at this thing and try to do what’s fair and what’s equitable and right for everybody.
Even some of those people now who have haulers who want to remain with that same
hauler. To try and do that it’s going to be a little farfetched in my mind. But I’m
thinking about what about those other areas who wanted to come in and maybe 500
people on the other side of the city, who if we do that for that area, on a special
exception, and I think the Administrator said we going to go out next month, end of this
month to start a process for the bid process. And I think we ought to bring everybody to
the table at that time to try and include those who can be and want to be brought in. But
if we do that now, if we accept the change order, if we do that then we going to be kind
of opening up a door, not for just one side but for anybody else that want to come in. If
we do it for one, we got to do it for another. I just think the fair thing to do is wait until
the end of the month and to go out for the bid that we have done already.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Motion to approve developing a change
order. It doesn’t put a change order in place. In fact, it wouldn’t take effect until the first
of the year. The reason this is timely at this point in time is because the people were
promised in January by this staff and this government that this would be handled and it
wasn’t handled. Timeliness is getting the project in and on time, not waiting until after
the fact. Here again, I’m having to tell these people you did all your work, you got all
your neighbors to sign up who want to be a part of this, but wait until after the fact and
50
we’ll take care of you again. Well, I’ll say this, damn it, I don’t believe it. We have
waited patiently in several areas. The follow-through wasn’t there. Now again these
people have asked a simple thing. We just passed $300,000 worth of change orders and
didn’t blink an eye over something that if it’s dug into probably could have been avoided,
and $700,000 before that. Let’s call apples apples and oranges oranges. If we’re going
to do away or address change orders and run scared in the night, then dad gum it, let’s do
it for all of them. These people have worked very hard for this trash collection service.
They asked a simple. They were promised by this government, and gentlemen, you
decide whose side you want to be on. You side with the side that’s shafted them or you
side with the side that gave them a chance and allowed them to have one thing that they
asked for after all of this time. I sometimes wonder if we forget who we’re serving. We
seem to give the contracts and change orders to these construction firms without blinking
an eye. But when 400 homes ask for something to maintain consistency and to reduce
confusion in their neighborhood, we go running willy-nilly in the night, oh, God, the
sky’s falling. I’m not waiting. The reason this is up here is because we ought to address
things before they get to the floor. We ought to have a ducks in a row before it’s time to
vote. That is the past habits of this government and I won’t be a part of it. My ducks are
going to be lined up beforehand. All I’m asking is to give these folks a chance,
something that they asked for. It’s not like they want sidewalks, water fountains and a
million other things. They just want the same carrier working their neighborhood. Now
if we’re going to be consistent and talk about the troubles and all that we’ve caused, I’m
sure that there are some other construction companies that after these change orders add
up to more than the total bid, high bid, would have a case in court, too. Gentlemen, I just
wish you would help these people. Don’t help me, don’t vote with me. Help these people
who have worked so hard, went door-to-door and made this program that people across
this city wanted. And just because everybody else drug around, scared to address it,
because of the last time when Mr. Oliver went out, don’t punish these people for failure
to take leadership. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Cheek. We have a motion on the floor to receive
this item as information. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Cheek, Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
The Clerk: The next item is 42A.
Mr. Kolb:
42A. Discuss citizens’ concerns regarding Solid Waste Collection Program.
(Requested by Commissioner Shepard)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you asked for this item.
51
Mr. Shepard: I did.
Mr. Mayor: Let me do this. Let me just turn the Chair over to you and you go
through this.
Mr. Shepard: It might turn into the Finance Committee.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I appreciate the opportunity to be heard. I
have a constituent who has come forward who felt so strongly about this that I’d like to
begin our presentation by hearing from her. This is an example of the kind of service that
we’re not getting from our haulers. It puts a face on the problem that we have. So before
I go further, I think it’s appropriate that we hear from a witness. Ms. Tina Hattaway is
here, from 1440 Spring Hill Terrace. Please come up and tell us what it is to receive or
not receive the kind of service that we’ve been promising to our folks since August 1.
Ms. Hattaway.
Ms. Hattaway: First of all, I would like to recognize Mr. Cheek and say how
wonderful it is for what he is trying to do. But nobody asked me if I wanted to change.
Were you upset with your service? Did you have good service? Did you have bad
service? Nobody seems to care. But I trusted our government to get somebody in to do
that job. I got zero service. Not only that, I got a demolition derby coming down there
that tears up our street. I called one of the gentlemen yesterday that was picking up the
trash and tried to talk to him and show him a piece of my property that has been totally
destroyed, and he said I was interfering with him doing his job. So he called his boss on
the radio, and I heard his boss when he called him. “She’s causing you a problem?
Leave.” And when you call CSRA, you get promises. I mean they will promise you the
moon. “We’ll get it tomorrow. We’ll pick that up tomorrow.” I asked yesterday the
gentleman that was down there picking up trash when are you going to get my yard
waste? “Well, today is Wednesday.” I said, “That’s not what I’m asking. It’s been a
month since it’s been picked up. When are you going to get it?” He said, “It won’t be
this Wednesday. They’ve got me by myself.” And I felt for him because he was driving
the truck, getting off the truck, getting the cans, dumping the cans, [inaudible], which he
had to turn around in, and could not drive the truck. We have had an overpass on Olive
Road totally destroyed and an individual hurt because he was handling equipment he
could not handle. It just is unsafe. It’s horrible. And you know, I don’t know what else
to say. I called Augusta Cares. I read an article. They don’t care. They do not care.
Augusta the Beautiful? I’ve called them. I’ve called Teresa Smith. I’ve called Mike
Green. And finally I called Mr. Shepard and he returned my call and I was just, oh, my
God, and then I called Mr. Beard and he returned my call, and I was just stunned, because
I never got a return call from anyone. And Mayor, I did try to call your office, but I got
to speak with Mr. [inaudible]. I’ve called so many times, and I know you’re busy and
your time is valuable. But mine is, too. [inaudible]. I don’t know what the answer is.
But I do know that we have a lot worse service than we had before we consolidated and
52
got this wonderful program that everybody who is actually getting service wants to talk
about. That’s all I’ve got to say. Hopefully we can get some help with something.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Didn’t have to even ask her any questions
like we do in court. But Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, it looks like the
problems are falling into some major areas. Missed pickups of regular trash, missed
pickups of yard waste, residents can’t get new cans from their haulers, they can’t get the
old cans picked up, they can’t get the haulers on the phone. That seems to be a major
problem. We’re all in this calling derby. People are calling Augusta Cares. They are
calling Public Works. Public Works is telling them to call the haulers. And the haulers
are putting people on hold. They’re putting them on voicemail. They’re busy. We’ve
got to stress to our haulers through Administration, George and Teresa, that these are
people, they’re customers and our constituents, and we’ve got to serve them. I wanted to
see the quality service initiative go in today, and it went through on the consent agenda,
and I was a supporter of that. It looks like to me that whatever name we’re using right
now, whether it’s quality service, getting it right the first time, zero defects, [inaudible],
it’s just a hollow, empty promise to people like Ms. Hattaway. I received, just like you
saw the sheaf of bid information that Geri used, I had a sheaf of complaints from people
coming in with these various problems. So what I want to see is this item kept on the
front burner of this Commission, of the Engineering Services Committee, because quite
frankly we have not fulfilled the promise of this service, and we have handed the nay
sayers of our community more ammunition to say that we as government and the haulers
that we have contracted for and with have not handled this matter in a competent
situation, and in a competent way. Now there have been some kudos and some
compliments on some of the haulers, and I appreciate that, and some service is going
well. But there are a lot of people out there that are residents and citizens of this
community that have an unfulfilled promise of trash pickup and we’re just seeming to
call everybody on the phone, but it may be that I’ll have to recruit some of my
Commissioners and I’ll have to introduce you to my pickup truck and we’ll go out and do
some of this ourselves. Because it seems like the haulers can’t do it. And I want that
message to come across loud and clear. I’ve said to the media that the haulers’ contracts
could be in jeopardy. I didn’t say that we were going to take away the contracts. But I
want to admonish the haulers and our Administration today that we strive that by the time
we come back here two weeks from now that we have met zero defects or these got
closer to zero defects in terms of getting out the cans, picking up the old cans, and just
making the trash pickups. These people were represented to us in a six month long
process as being competent to take these bids, that they were qualified to take these bids.
We were reassured by our Administration this summer that we could take this on August
1, that there might be some problems but there would be a smooth transition. There have
been 260 calls, Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, to Augusta Cares according to
Martha King, since August 3. All in trash. They’ve come in to the Administrator’s
office, and I know that I’ve gotten them, I know that other Commissioners have gotten
them. We need to keep this on the front burner and get it right. And we need to get it
right before we bid out any other areas, whether it’s a change order, whether it’s
53
increasing service territory, doubling it. Because we can’t really handle every citizen that
we’ve taken in already since August 1, and until we fulfill that promise to all our citizens,
Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, we shouldn’t do anything further. So let’s get it
right now with what we’ve got and then let’s expand this. Let’s learn from what we’ve
done and let’s keep this on the front burner so that the people thing we are going to
finally get something right in this community with respect to this trash service. Thank
you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Shepard, I empathize with you. And feel free, if there is
anything I can do to help, I will be more than happy to. But I would like to say that in my
District, Section 9 on the charts, that Metropolitan and A-1 are my primary carriers and
they’re doing a tremendous job. We have conferences on a regular basis to discuss
needs. Back and forth. We have developed a partnership for success. To quote many of
the people in the Mt. Vernon area, this is wonderful. You go out to Walton Acres,
Walton Farms, you go out on Tobacco Road, this is wonderful. If you go into areas
where there has been blight and people not cleaning up their yards, evictions have been
cleaned up. Many of the other things that have been left aside are being done. It may be
a question of the haulers. But as for my haulers and the job they’re doing it in our area,
the citizens thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I, too, have received calls, and I expected to get those
calls and I’ve tried to return those calls and tried to assure people we were going to have
a little problem the first week. We have not looked at all of the situations that were
involved. You know, I think you have to assess this situation as it develops. I was in a
meeting last week and Administration and Public Works Director, they had the haulers in
and they talked about the things that Mr. Shepard has just alluded to. And I think they
were telling the haulers, and I’m sure they were telling the haulers that what they had to
do, there were complaints coming in, and they’ve been working with those and I do
understand that they’re having meetings every week with the haulers. And I think that,
you know, we ought to understand that when we start talking about this. I heard
complaints wherein the previous haulers, we talked about a month -- I don’t think we’ve
been in this a month. But we talked about previous haulers. In that meeting they were
telling me that those haulers left the cans out there, they didn’t pick up the cans. So I
mean, you know, there are two sides to each situation and looks like we are just hearing
one side of it. But I agree that we can do a better job. We should do a better job for the
community, and I think we are working on that. And I think the way to handle that is to
let the Administrator and his staff work with the haulers and let’s ensure that the people
are getting the service that they are due. I heard some mention of just changing and
people didn’t want to change or whatever that was, but we went -- each Commissioner
went throughout his District and that District voted on the change that was to occur. So I
think everybody knew that, and giving people two to three weeks to effect this, you were
going to have to have some problems involved. We did this in a very short time, and yes,
54
there were some cans that were not delivered, but those people were out there trying to
get there because of the time-around time that we had in this. And I hope that this will
not deter us from going further in January because of the problems that we have, because
we’re doing it in time, we’re giving the people time, the haulers, the contractors to go in
and out. As I understand, the end of this month, and I think we have time to work it out.
So just because we’re having a few problems, I don’t think we should kill the whole
program.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like all the other Commissioners, I’ve
got several, several calls and I’ve tried to address them all. Some were complaints about
not getting cans and some said that neighbors had two cans. These are some of the
growing pains that we have since we started to do this. We as a Commission need to sit
back and look at what we have not done, and what I think we have not done, first of all,
constituents, our customers should not have to call the haulers anyway. They ought to
have a central number here. The hauler ought to answer to us. There have been cases
where I’ve talked to people where they called CSRA, and CSRA wanted them to call the
hauler, and the hauler said that’s not my responsibility, call back. And I think we ought
to take the blame for that. There should be a central number where they should call and
we ought to direct CSRA and he ought to direct that hauler, that company ought to direct
that hauler. Those are one of the growing pains, one of the things that I think you learn
that we shouldn’t have to even have the contact. The haulers who come by and put their
numbers on their cans, that gives people the impression that this is the person they need
to call. If the government, if we had trucks, as the old City had, you would call this
government if there was a problem. That would eliminate a lot of that. Another side of
this that I learned as a Commissioner is dealing with some of these haulers who’ve got
contracts with the -- subcontracts with the person that won the bid, and they’re not doing
all of the work. Well, I had complaints about the man picking up my household waste on
time. Every two days, he’d pick it up. But he don’t get the bulk waste. And I talked to
him about the bulk waste, and he said the bulk waste is not my responsibility. Somebody
else is supposed to come along and do that. Well, what we need to do in this government
is get with the bid winner, CSRA, and sit down and try to analyze or come up with who is
doing what and hold them accountable. There are some rocks that have been thrown into
the soup. There are cans that have not been picked up before. There are people who
didn’t want this process to work in the beginning. From day one, thought we didn’t
award the contract, in my mind, when the contracts should have been awarded. We
thought about lawsuits. We thought about rebidding. We as Commissioners need to take
the responsibility and understand we didn’t do all that we should have done. Well, that’s
human nature. That’s life. This is the best thing we ever could have done when we
merged our City and our county together. We was promised. We was promised. We
was in the midst of accepting that garbage was free, that the City was not paying for the
service and we thought that the county who merged with the City should get free garbage.
There’s nothing free. My point is since we got this program, Commissioner Cheek said
it, there are people that do things, clean up now, that’s never done it before. Maybe your
area don’t need to service. Maybe you would get along fine. But there are other areas
55
who wasn’t doing it, and if we leave those areas to do for themselves, that same negative
attitude, that same trash that’s sitting around those home going to eventually creep over
our entire city. This is the best thing that we could have done. But we going to have to
do some critiquing with our haulers, with our subcontractors. They going to have to
know that there is responsibility, that they’re getting paid for a service. These customers
that demand that service and we put the bulk waste in there, that’s anything we put out. I
seen people as I rode through this city unloading their back yards, as if it’s going to be
the only day, or Earth Day, for example, that the haulers going to get everything they got.
That’s not fair. This is a continuation. But I passed several residences where people was
unloading their garages, their storage houses, they’re putting everything on the street.
Then the hauler come along and if you give him a load by yourself, how can he get your
neighbor’s trash? So we all got to sit back. We all got to understand this is a growing
pain. This is something that we should have done years ago, but we’re at that point now,
Mr. Mayor, and I think if we just continue to work with our haulers and our contractors,
that we’ll be able to straighten this thing out and I don’t blame any resident. You have a
problem, you ought to be able to call somebody and get an answer. But you should not
have to call the contractor then the subcontractor, and not know who is going to pick your
stuff up or if your stuff is going to be picked up. And naturally the first week or two, I
expect chaos. Now, we ought to be winding down. And if you look at the number of
citizens that we’re serving versus the number of complaints we got, I think we are doing
pretty good. But there is still room for improvement. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Mayor, wanting to make a decision that’s studied and not a
I’m going to make a motion that we receive the citizens’ complaints as
hasty one,
information, that our Administrator be supported in his weekly meetings, and that
this matter stay on this agenda for the next meeting and let’s see if there has been
some real change in the behavior of the haulers and the responses to these citizens’
complaints.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ll second that if the maker of the motion will allow
us to have updates both at the Commission meetings and the Committee meetings.
Mr. Shepard: I will.
And Andy, if you’ll recall, I think I recall the Engineering
But I’ll certainly make
Services Committee already has it on the agenda for next week.
that part of this motion.
Mr. Cheek: We need to do it in two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: I would also suggest -- you don’t need to put this in your motion --
but the contractor is required to file a weekly report with our Public Works Department,
and I think it would be helpful, Ms. Smith, if you would send a copy of each one of those
reports each week to the Commissioners, put them in their mailbox so they can review
those reports. Let me just make a comment, too, since we’re probably all going to have
something to say about this. Certainly this is a clear case of customer -- no service if I
56
ever seen it, for those people who have been calling my office. In fact, we initiated these
contracts on August 3. I had an email yesterday from a gentleman, August 20, and his
trash has still not been picked up. Even at my home, I still have received no written
announcement of when my pickup days are. We were all supposed to get a notice back
before the contract went into effect. I had to call one of the haulers, when I could finally
get through, to find out when my pickup days were. We had some problems on Broad
Street the other day. I called a hauler who is not contracted to pick up in the Broad Street
area, to pick up the City cans on Broad Street. We couldn’t even get our own trash
picked up. To say that we were expecting chaos, Commissioner Williams, to me is just
totally not acceptable. If we’re expecting chaos, then we ought to have plans to deal with
it. We met with the haulers the week after the contracts went into effect, and I was really
surprised that the hauler who has the largest number of customers, 23,000 customers, had
only two incoming telephone lines in his business to take care of customer services the
first week. That’s totally unacceptable. And Mr. Kolb, I would admonish you that as
you put other bids out on the street that you include some customer service aspects in
those proposals and that whoever gets the business is ready to deal with the business,
cause certainly the Commission and Mayor have been getting the business for the last
two week. It’s just inexcusable in my way of thinking. It’s just not good customer
service the way this whole thing has been handled. And I applaud Mr. Shepard for
keeping the initiative on the front burner and I would look forward to receiving those
reports from the haulers. The Chair will recognize -- give us your name and address for
the record.
Ms. Hicks: My name is Catherine Sanders Hicks and I reside at 944 [inaudible]
Road in the subdivision of Bedford Heights, which is located between National Hills and
Lake Olmstead. I haven’t had a problem with getting in touch with my service, I haven’t
had a problem getting in touch with my Commissioner. My problem is simply,
gentlemen, that you guys have voted for us to have trucks with one man that come down,
and the trash can has to be three feet from the curb in order for the truck to be able to get
the trash cans. We don’t have curbs. We have three feet ditches on both sides of the
road, which are very narrow, as well our very narrow driveways. My trash is not getting
picked up, not because they’re not coming, not because Mr. Vance hasn’t been very
helpful in trying to work out the problem, but because you guys didn’t ride down through
the neighborhood and look at the kind of conditions we have before you decided what
kind of truck we needed. We need a two-man truck in my neighborhood, and it is my
understanding that that is up to y’all. I’m also representing three of my neighbors that
reside at 946, 948 and 952.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Commissioner Mays and then Commissioner Jerry
Brigham and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, if we might, and not changing the complexion of the
subject, but if we could really try and get to some solutions on this. Because one, I’ve
been in two different neighborhoods in the last four nights. I’ve got four Districts. I’ve
got probably the largest number of urban service folk, those that were formerly located in
the old City, as well as people, some of them that are new and some of them that are not
57
being served. So I’ve got all three bases of where I’m getting it from. Not only have I
had the calls, I’ve also had the walk-ins. I want to thank the Administrator for in some
cases allowing the hauler and making them go back out to get some of those, even after
hours, and of pursuing that on some cases where it had been out for a long period of time.
Now this Commissioner, I’m going to have to take issue a little bit with a few of things
that’s been said. I’ve been pretty patient when I’ve been in meetings cause I don’t think
that’s the place to dress down your staff folk, nor to deal with other Commissioners. This
is the place where you have a debate. This is the place where you seek the democracy.
But those things that I did warn about and I did ask about in terms of not getting into that
I told you so mode, but that we are already in that mode. When we dealt with this in the
committee and we stopped the action on the extension, I pleaded at that point to deal with
the renewal of the existing contract that was out there only. To do that. I thought I had
that nipped in the bud to a point of getting us back together in terms of doing it. Now
I’ve heard we put the contract out late. Well, that’s true, if we put the contract out late
then in fairness to the haulers, then we should have moved the implementation date up.
Argued about that. I also argued about the fact that we needed a backup plan for the
safety of some of these folk, for the simple reason that they were going to leave folks
stranded. If they knew they were not going to be in business and weren’t going to have
customers a month down the road, they were going to walk off and they were going to
leave. I said that was going to happen and it did happen. Now staffing. I’d like to take
up a little bit for Martha King. Because the Augusta Cares line, it does care, but you’ve
got to deal with the fact that we got one person over there next door. And I think, Mr.
Administrator, to a point of revamping your end of the hall, that whether this might be a
crisis period or not, that I think that we need to recognize the fact that she basically
receives calls, but it’s our job to make sure that those things get done that result in there.
That’s in operating mode of one person to deal with that. So in that little respect, she’s
caught. [inaudible] in doing that. But to get back to a staffing problem, I think what
needs to be done, and this needs to be done as early as next Engineering Services
Committee meeting, I think we need to look -- and I say this to the Administrator, I said it
in private and I’m saying it in public, only because I’ve said it in the neighborhoods
where I’ve been in. I think we need to do a complete inventory. If it’s already there,
fine, but I think we need to publicly report it. We need to say what staff levels,
companies who are dealing with contracts prior to coming on with new business, what
they’re at now. I think there needs to be an expectation mode of what they’re going to
need not only to do new business, but if they still need to hire other folk at this point in
time, whether it be personnel or equipment, a full reported documentation of that publicly
needs to be done. That is a must. We have people, and I mentioned urban service
district. [inaudible] who have already paid, who have already assessed, who have already
been taxed. I don’t want to sound prejudiced in this situation, but there were some people
who were already paying before we added anybody on. We’ve got to make sure that
existing folk are not disrupted any further than already been disrupted because we have
taken on new folk. That is not their problem. They are already taxed. They’ve already
been assessed. They pass that charged on them. So [inaudible] dealing with it right, I
asked, Mr. Mayor, after the first of the year when we had collected taxes, when we could
have properly gone into this, we may have been able to take on the 17,000 that are stuck
out there had we taken a common sense approach, realistically saying can we really do
58
this by August 1? Now we tried to play Superman and do it, and that just was not going
to happen. We are on the same team now. We’ve got to get it fixed. And we can’t deal
with the in-house criticizing. I can’t sit here and say that some things were not addressed,
cause I addressed them more than once in committee, I addressed them more than once
on this Commission floor, and I never affirmatively supported this in this manner. I’m
supportive of the program. It’s a good program. It can be excellent in the long run. But
it’s got to be implemented properly and that includes the timing of what you do. But I
say this, we’ve got to know if there is a staffing problem, if there has to be a change of
equipment, I think that needs to be put down and listed. That needs to be reported at our
next committee meeting, and when we ratify that two weeks from now, we need to know
on the existing contracts whether the one we’ve contracted with, they’re responsible for
their subs, well, we’re responsible for the program. We’re responsible for everybody. It
was let. When we decided to put it on a tax bill, it became our department. Not any
contractor’s department. It became our department. We ought to know how many folk
are working, how many are expected to be working, and if you’re short on some, then
how many do you have to hire and when in the hell are you going to hire them if they’re
short, cause I said in two weeks, and I see one of my good residents, Ms. [inaudible]
sitting there, I made the statement then, I make it on this floor. I said that night I was
getting it off my behind. Wherever it lands, I don’t really care. I just want to intend to
get it solved. And I still stand by that. I will work with the Commission. I’m going to
work with the Administrator, and our staffing folk. I think we are doing better, but I
think when we come back in committee next week, we should have those things lined out
on paper where they are, and we should basically only at that point be dealing with
isolated cases, and when we jump out there in a month or so to deal with another 17,000
then I think we need to do the same projections of staffing and I think we need to deal
with a realistic implementation date that is manageable by this government that we can
control to the best of our degree. And yes, it’s going to have kinks in it even then, but
they should be to a bare minimum of what we [inaudible], and I’m through with that
issue, Mr. Mayor. [inaudible] for the Commission. It’s one that we have out there. I’m
going to support it, make it work wholeheartedly, but I just cannot sit here and say --
there are some of those things I did not say. To say nobody thought of, I thought of them,
I said them, voiced them, and they’re a matter of record, and I said them over and over
and over again, and they’re on record.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Colclough.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, my main concern is that we have promised the
public that we would deliver a service on a date certain. We’re not doing that. We need
to improve that situation. There are -- I know that we are going to have problems in the
original implementation. We are now in week three. My phone calls have gone done. I
think the service is improving. I don’t know if it’s improving or people are just
completely fed up. But I know this -- I know it’s got to improve, I know that we’ve got
to deliver on the days that we say we’re going to be there we’ve got to be there. And I
think that that -- I’m not even going to get into the cans. I’m still having calls about cans
not being out. Not any particular route or vendor. I’m having those calls still. We need
to have a final date. We ought to be through this phase. I don’t how many people out
59
there that have given up on even getting cans. I think that that’s got to be done. We’ve
got to get our act together. We promised a service. We’ve got to deliver it. We’re going
to collect for it. We’re going to deliver it. And we need to be on time and on date, and I
am fully committed to figuring out a way to get that done without our vendor, our staff,
and our Commissioners. I think we can do it. As far as Augusta Cares not caring, I thing
Ms. King has done a Herculean task. I don’t know who nominates for Employee of the
Month, but I think she ought to be nominated because she’s the one person that’s going to
catch it all. Not just for each one of us, but for everybody’s District. She is the first
firing line. I think she’s done a real job. I know we can’t return every phone call. But I
know I’m returning phone calls and I thought I was in the trash business the last three
weeks. I’m returning mine. I’m not always there. I’m a one-man office and I’ve got one
phone, and you would be surprised at the number of calls I’ve gotten. But I’m doing my
part and I’m trying to see to it that my vendors are doing their part to deliver this service.
This is a service that we’ve got to do. We’ve got to do it on time. Our reputation is on
the line. This is a city that can do when it wants to do. And I know we’re [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir. Let’s hear from our Public Works Director, Ms. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, did you want to address the body?
Ms. Smith: Not necessarily. Only if the body is interested in what the Public
Works Directors has to say on behalf of the collection contracts and the status as to how
it’s going.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Colclough: What were you going to say, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough wanted to hear from Public Works.
Mr. Colclough: No, I relinquish to Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Mayor: You want to speak for her, George?
Mr. Kolb: No, I’m not going to speak for her. What I was going to say is that
we’ve listened intently. I think there are haulers in the audience, too. Let me put this in
perspective. This is Tuesday of the third week of this program. We did everything we
could in the short window to plan as much as we possibly could, working with the
haulers, putting contracts together, etc. It’s impossible for us to anticipate every situation
that comes up. But I can that at the beginning of this week, we have seen a marked
decrease in the number of complaints than we have in the first two weeks. And we will
continue to address situations like Ms. Hattaway had, because we’re understanding and
60
we’re getting close to isolating many of the problems that we experienced for the first
couple of weeks. Now I’d like to turn it over to Ms. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith: As for the -- there are just a couple of clarification. Public Works is
not telling people to call haulers. Public Works is accepting phone calls as they come in.
We are then, in turn, communicating directly with those haulers and faxing that
information. We’re also doing callbacks to people out in the area to try and find out
where problems exist. We certainly were not able to return phone calls at the rate we
were getting them last week and the previous week, which were somewhere between 300
and 600 calls a day, which is what we were taking in. However, what we were doing was
selective sampling and attempting to call people back. What we have found out in calling
people back is that about 50% of the people that we have made phone contact with have
indicated that in less than 72 hours, the issue that was raised had been addressed. We are
in the process and will continue to get cans out. In looking at the old contract, the old
contract was in existence for four years. Generally we put our cans for four years. It
really depended on what the situation was at the particular residence, whether or not
someone was moving in or out, whether or not there were additional homes being built,
and so to say that at any point during the next few weeks that we will have 100% of the
cans out would be a total fallacy. As far as getting the old cans in, we have sent a letter
out to the haulers in the area requiring that they have those cans picked up by the end of
this week or we would take action to get those old cans picked up. Because that is part of
what’s causing the confusion out there and we recognize that. Another thing is that there
are some areas where there were old cans. Those cans were purchased by one of the new
haulers, and those persons in those areas -- and we’ve started to meet with some of those
people to make sure that they understand that they will not be getting new cans. So that’s
where we’ve been getting a lot of the calls for new cans. We do indeed get a weekly
report from each of the haulers. Just so that you’re aware, this is the volume of
information and these are incomplete reports. But this is a volume of information that we
will be getting from the haulers. It was Public Works’ intention to take this information
and condense it and put it in a summary form prior to giving it out at the Engineering
Services Committee which is what was requested. However, we will certainly be happy
to provide you with raw data if indeed you’re interested in weeding through the volume
of information that we are getting. The only comment, and it has to do with the haulers
picking up everything that is put out at the curb and it being their responsibility to go
through. The contract does indicate that there are limits as to what the haulers are
required to pick up. Now over the past two weeks, we have been as much as is
reasonable going through and picking up everything that we see. Unfortunately, the
haulers are not allowed to work after dark. So when we reach a point on a particular
route, they’re going through and picking up everything, but they’re not working after
dark, and so in some instances it is the next route before they go back to pick up some of
those items, particularly when it concerns yard waste and bulk waste.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Henry.
61
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, just one incident. Mr. Frank Albert called me
today, knowing that this was going to be on the agenda. His carrier is Inland. Service
ththththth
started on the 6. The 9, 13, 16, and yesterday. His first pickup was on the 16.
Inland’s truck put into the alley next to his house yesterday, two men got out, and the
workers didn’t pick up any garbage whatsoever yesterday. So that’s just one incident.
Get these all the time. But I think there are a couple of things that need to be looked at.
And I don’t have the answer, but I’ve had an awful lot of calls from the elderly that are
having trouble moving the cans. Then there are problems where you have townhouses
where you have very little back yards, they are having to haul the garbage cans around, in
some cases having to go across a ditch to get it up on the road, and so these are two
things, George, that I’d like to point out to you that I think we need to look at. I know we
can’t solve it overnight. But they are problems. Real problems. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry?
Mr. H. Brigham: Certainly to add to that, we have some seniors that are still
having problems trying to get the cans to the street. And how they are going to address it,
I don’t know. I heard a little earlier that we cease with going forward, and I certainly
hope that would not happen. We ought to go forward as diligently as possible, to try to
have everything worked out by the first of the year if that’s when the bids are going to go
out, and that’s what I would support.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Henry. I might note, since there’s been some
discussion about finding the solution to some of our problems. Mr. Kolb and staff met
with the haulers two weeks ago tomorrow, and at the end of that meeting it was agreed
that the haulers would send out to every one of the customers a new schedule which had
additional contact information, so if the line was busy when you called you’d have a fax
number, email address, whatever. Different ways to get in touch with these haulers. That
was two weeks ago tomorrow. And I haven’t received one at my home yet and I don’t
know whether any of the Commissioners who live in a trash pickup District have
received one yet. But it just boggles my mind that we cannot get a simple flier out within
two weeks. That’s just indicative. Well, you’re holding up one back there, but did you
put them on the houses today while we were at work? It’s still taken two weeks. It
shouldn’t take two weeks to get a flier out. Those are the kind of problems that we’re
facing here. A door hanger or something like that.
Mr. Kolb: It was a calendar that had to be constructed and we had to make sure
that it had appropriate information.
Mr. Mayor: It shouldn’t take two weeks to put it together.
Ms. Speaker: I’d like to speak.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
62
Ms. Speaker: I work for Augusta Disposal. Your flier probably was delivered
today because you are a Tuesday-Friday pickup. These were also delayed. Yes, they met
two weeks ago. But due to changes, alterations, agreeing what was going to be put on
this flier, it was delayed all the way up to Friday at 3:36 p.m. to get these things printed.
They were picked up from the printer and distributed starting yesterday. So yours are
probably attached to your can, your back door, or your maid picked up, since you’re
picked up on Bransford Road. So it was probably delivered today. And the rest of the
haulers, the same way. There was a delay in agreeing what would be put on this so that
everybody would agree. The fliers from everybody are being put out this week.
Mr. Mayor: All right. It just seems we could reach agreement a lot more quickly
than two weeks.
Ms. Speaker: Yes, you’re right.
Mr. Mayor: It just seems to be indicative of some of the problems we’ve had.
And the problems have been significant.
Ms. Speaker: You’re right. The problems have been numerous. Nothing is going
unaddressed. It’s a word game, too, and everybody has to be careful what they put on the
flier, what they say to people, and how they say it to people. And this is why the fliers
are out late.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, then Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I want to just reiterate the fact that some of the things
Commissioner Brigham said we ought to do. Commissioner Jerry Brigham did. These
questions, whenever you go through a process you try to identify all the things you need
to address to begin with. These items were asked about in December and January to
staff. The answer came back repeatedly we will address those after we vote on it. They
never got addressed. The problem we have now is as much one of public education, of
what goes out where, how to put your cans in there, what can and can’t be picked up.
I’ve had calls from people who did not even know the government was consolidated.
And so you have to understand those are the types of things that you’re dealing with. I
encourage the Commissioners call over 796-5040, talk with the folks taking the phone
calls, ask them where the problem areas are in your District, and just take a drive-by on
the way home. Get to know your hauler. Talk to your hauler. If there’s a problem that
you have that’s immediate, that somebody is having a tizzy-fit over a trash can, call your
hauler. They will generally jump and go take the stuff over there and make sure it’s
handled. We have got to be agents for success within this and any other program. We
cannot sit back and point fingers at everybody. This is a program that we implemented,
inflicted upon the people of this city. We have to take ownership in is success. Take the
time to make the call. Ain’t nobody up here any busier than I am. Get to know your
haulers, the people that are responsible for taking care of your people. You’d be amazed
at how much more successful you will be. You will eliminate three or four lines of
63
bureaucracy and have a direct contact with these folks in order to get the problems solved
in a timely manner.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to say that
we talk about calling the haulers and I still disagree with that. I don’t think that our
constituents, our people ought to call any of the haulers. I think there ought to be
someone in this government. We talked about haulers only having two lines and you
can’t get to them. We only got one person and that’s Martha King who is in Augusta
Cares. She does care, she does a good job, but having that one person in this
government, you’re talking about a small business having two lines, I mean I think that’s
pretty good. I think that we need to have our Administrator to address that problem as far
as calls, but when you put these fliers out and you say this is your hauler, people think on
the old perception well, I’m paying this man and this is who I need to talk to. We
contracted with them. If there are some questions, if there are some things not done right,
we need to answer that. This government. I got a lot of calls. I tried to address all of
them. But we need to accept responsibility. If they’re not doing what they need to do,
we don’t need to call them. Y’all have accused Commissioner Cheek and especially
myself of micromanaging, now if you don’t think that’s micromanaging I want to know
what is. I think we need to set a base where the constituents in this town who have a
problem not only with garbage, but anything concerning government, they ought to be
able to call up. When you call the hauler and he says for any reason, and he could be
telling the truth or not, but he says that’s not my responsibility, then you got to turn
around and call somebody else, there ought to be a central number that we call that you
can get an answer or somebody will address that issue, where they will call someone.
And I heard Ms. Smith, who said they got extended hours, there’s someone there even
until seven o’clock at night; is that right?
Ms. Smith: That is correct.
Mr. Williams: To accept calls. But when you -- I don’t know who my hauler is
and some of those people that we said bought cans from other vendors, those cans or
numbers on those cans, we got people calling people who ain’t even picking up for us.
So we going to be confused with that. We need to have a central number where people
can call and have the question answered or have a serviced rendered if they are taxpayers.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, let me say this. And I got sent a memorandum from
the Economy Sanitation from our staff here that says we are going to pick up the waste
carts of the old carrier beginning at noon, or 12 p.m. on August 20. But this letter does
not say when the deadline is, so I would appreciate in light of what Ms. Smith said about
they had until Friday, Teresa, I think until they get their carts? Today at noon? It says
beginning at 12 noon and that’s when they’re supposed to have them all off the streets?
64
Okay. It’s unclear. It says the beginning of the period to pick it up [inaudible] end. Is
that right?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Shepard. To pick it up, after 12 o’clock. It’s beginning at 12
o’clock today. Yesterday. We were beginning to pick up cans that shouldn’t belong
there. Now it’s going to be a time-consuming process. Some of the haulers have
received the notice and have requested an extension, so I don’t know what the
arrangements are.
Mr. Shepard: Economy was one of those requesting an extension. So I just
wanted to speak as clearly as we can and as consistently as we can to these people.
Mr. Kolb: The notice -- you’re correct. They were to pick up beginning
yesterday after 12 o’clock. They were given until 12. I don’t know what has transpired
since this. Ms. Smith may know.
Mr. Shepard: I know Economy wanted an extension. They said they got their
notice Friday and wanted to have time to pick it up. So we’ve got all these problems of
people coming in here and we want them addressed.
Mr. Beard: I call for the question if Mr. Shepard is finished.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called. There certainly has been adequate
discussion of this issue. You want to restate the motion, Ms. Bonner? It’s been some
time.
Mr. Speaker: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, the question has been called on the motion. If I let one speak, I
want to give everybody and opportunity. When you call the question, that ends the
debate. We need to move ahead with our vote.
The Clerk: The motion was to receive as information and remain on the
Commission and committee agendas in two weeks.
Mr. Mayor: So the motion is on the floor. All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 43.
The Clerk:
LAW STUDY SUBCOMMITTEE:
65
43. Motion to 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)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: We’ve been on garbage so long, Mr. Mayor. Okay.
Mr. Mayor: This is yours.
Mr. Beard: Right. We approved this. The Law Study Subcommittee approved
this the last time we met. We were not able to get it on the Commissioners’ meeting, but
maybe I just need to say some things, Mr. Mayor, prior to making a motion on this for
approval.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Beard:
That you know, this is a thing that we’ve been working on for some
time. We were appointed to work on that as a subcommittee. We’ve come up with a
number of things I think the Commissioners agreed on. A lot of people think that there is
some undercurrent here wherein we are trying to do away with the present Counsel that
we have. I think we have a lot of respect for that Counsel and the contribution that he has
made to this government. This has no, you know, effect on him or what he’s doing. This
is what you directed us to do. And we were doing it. The only thing that is different here
is that when we got the recommendation back, when we went out for resumes for an
attorney, we didn’t get sufficient ones that we thought we could move on. We thought
we needed some help in this, and this is what we are asking today, that we get some help
in getting the type of attorney that’s going to be the primary attorney for this county and
for this city that we need. And we felt that in-house we could not get those type of
response that we’ve gotten in-house, not sufficient, therefore we went outside of the rim
and we are asking for some assistance. And that’s all that that is, and I think we need to
move on on this, because the time element is running out. We possibly have another
year, possibly another year-and-a-half to get this perfected, as you have authorized this
government to do. I mean the whole Commission has voted on this. It was a vote that
we agreed, that this is the path that we are going to follow, and we’re just carrying out
I move for approval on this.
your wishes here.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion, gentlemen? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to vote against this. I don’t think I voted for
the study committee either. It bothers me when the Grand Jury comes out and says we
ought to have an outside independent counsel. An independent group that was put
together studied this situation and said the most economical way for us to handle our law
66
situation was an outside independent counsel. And the charter committee came back and
said the same thing. So I don’t see why we’re going to do it anyway.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: And then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, we waited and waited, and like Commissioner Beard
has said, we have sent out for resumes and we didn’t get an adequate feedback or
adequate amount of applications. And if we keep waiting, we’re going to be against the
wall again and we’re going to say we’ve waited too late. And we really have waited too
late. We should have been past this point. This is something that we recognized early and
we addressed. As the council sat here, we voted on that, and the subcommittee have met
and did what we was asked to do. And I just think we need to go ahead and move
forward with this and try to get some application or some resumes in so we will have a
group to select from. And I think we shouldn’t procrastinate any longer with it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I wasn’t able to attend the last meeting of the Law
Subcommittee. I had asked that we look at a professional search firm and what I wanted
to know is how much is this going to cost and will their fee only be earned when we hire
somebody or do we have to pay them a fee no matter what we do? The financial backup
is not with the minutes of the meeting. Mr. Subcommittee Chairman, would you
enlighten me on that?
Mr. Beard: That was the point of establishing the Administrator and Human
Resource Director to look into this and make those determinations, and if need be to
bring it back to us. But we were giving them that opportunity to act in that stead. And
we had decided that from the finance point of view, that these would be funded from
lapsed salaries. And that we have ---
Mr. Shepard: My question is, is there a commitment to spend a specific dollar
amount now?
Mr. Beard: No, there was no cap on what we were going to spend, but I think,
Mr. Shepard, that they would bring a recommendation back to this body of the people
that they have selected to do the search for us. And that would be included. There was
no way at this time, because we are not involved with making a recommendation for a
search committee. That’s why we asked the Administrator and these other people to get
involved in this, and to make a selection on a search committee, and if it’s necessary for
us to approve that, and I’m sure it will be, we can do that. But we need to move forward
in that direction.
67
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Shepard, I’m looking at the minutes, and it says Mr. Kolb says
that the cost of that service would be 25%-30% of the first year’s salary.
Mr. Shepard: I understand that’s the contingent contract. I’m wondering, Mr.
Kuhlke, if we could, Mr. Mayor, do we have to pay that up front or do we only have to
put when we select a candidate that’s listed with that employment service? I haven’t had
to head hunt, Mr. Wall, but maybe you could -- other than for Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Mayor: I think Brenda can respond to that.
Ms. Byrd Peleaz: If I may, that actually is a choice that we have. We can either
make the choice of doing a contingent fee, or as we don’t pay them until they find us a
candidate. Or we can do a retained search where we pay them 1/3 in three period
increments, 1/3 when we make the selection to utilize their firm, 1/3 when they actually
bring us back a list of names, and 1/3 when we make the final decision as to the
candidate.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I think one of the things that concerns me most about the
Grand Jury and the charter committee is first the Grand Jury presentments of January last
where they commented on Commissioners’ directing the work activities of individuals
when they were ignorant of the fact that there are direct reports that report directly to the
Commission and Mayor. And I’m sure that’s not the only situation where they have
stepped out and made comments about this Commission’s behavior that were not
accurately researched and based more upon headlines than on factual information.
Secondly, the study that was presented before the charter committee was this “blue
ribbon” study done by people who were closely associated with existing government, and
probably if you had a merry-go-round with those who wanted to maintain the status quo
they’d be occupying some of the first seats. This is an important change for this city. I
think it’s unconscionable that we and the school board have individuals in the positions
for longer than 10 or 20 years in some cases, that are not elected. You talk about
independent. The truth is independent would be people who have the same guidelines,
operational protocol, and ethical governance that the Commissioners and the elected
officials have. I, too, have high confidence in Mr. Wall. He is a very intelligent man.
He’s diligent and does a good job for us. But philosophically, from my perspective, to
keep power in the hands of any individual for a long period of time that is not elected is
not at all what I believe this country is set up to be. And I support this motion, and I
think that we will get in the long run a better product, especially with Mr. Wall’s
assistance in directing these efforts.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, we have a motion on the floor to approve the
recommendation from the Law Study Subcommittee. All in favor of that motion, please
vote aye.
68
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: The next item should be item 45.
ATTORNEY:
45. Approve sale of reversionary interest in Widow’s Home, subject to
agreement on value.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Next item is number 46. Mr. Wall?
46. Legal meeting.
??
Discuss real estate matter.
Mr. Wall: I don’t have anything. I didn’t know whether I would or not.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Wall, it sounds real good, and I know what’s going to happen
now, but I had asked the Clerk to put a real estate matter for just a very brief
consideration. And it didn’t get on here. It’s not something that has to be done today. I’d
like
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Shepard: No, I think I had asked one of the other Clerks while you were out
of town.
Mr. Williams: I also got a real estate matter, too, Mr. Wall, and I think the Clerk
did send it over to your office. Is that right, Ms. Bonner? Did that get to Jim’s office?
The real estate mater.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: It’s 5:30.
69
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Beard is going to object to my adding a real estate
matter, but in that case, Madame Clerk, I’d like to have it on the next agenda that we
discuss a real estate matter in Legal.
Mr. Williams: Add mine, Ms. Bonner, as well. We need to discuss those two
issues.
The Clerk:
Mr. Mayor: Since we have no legal meeting we have no reason to take up item
47, which is approve the affidavit. The Chair will entertain a motion we adjourn. We are
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on August 21, 2001.
______________________________
Clerk of Commission