HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-04-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
September 4, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Tuesday,
September 4, 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 Skelley.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Addendum Agenda:
Deletions from the agenda: Item C (Delegation Item)
DELEGATIONS:
A. Reverend H.K. McKnight
RE: The naming of the Harrisburg Community Park
(Requested by Mayor Young)
Mr. Beard: I move that the park be named after Coach A. L. Williams.
Mr. Mays: Second.
Motion carries 10-0.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Motion to approve the low bid meeting specifications for a five gang reel
mowing unit for the Augusta Municipal Golf Course from Turf Care
Products in the amount of $15,850.00. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 27, 2001)
2. Deleted from consent agenda
3.
Motion to approve a request by Bertie Elease Ashley to transfer the on
premise consumption Liquor & Beer license used in connection with Charlie
O’s located at 2182 Gordon Hwy. to 2320 Gordon Hwy. District 4. Super
District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2001)
4.
Motion to approve a request by Dan Perry for an extension on purchasing
the on premise consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in
2
connection with D’Timm’s Jazz Café located at 302 Sixth St. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2001)
5.
Motion to approve a request by Luciano Gardenas for a consumption on
premise Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Little
Mexico Restaurant located at 2579 Tobacco Rd. There will be Sunday sales.
District 4. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
27, 2001)
6.
Motion to approve a request by Sung H. Chang for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Time Saver Grocery located at
234 Boy Scout Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 27, 2001)
7.
Motion to approve a request by Robert M. Miskelly for a consumption on
premise Beer license to be used in connection with Arirrang Restaurant
located at 3008 Deans Bridge Rd. There will be Sunday sales. District 2.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2001)
8.
Motion to approve a request by Soon Malsch for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with K & J Co. located at 1377
Wrightsboro Rd. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 27, 2001)
9.
Motion to approve a request by John C. Sylvester for a retail package Beer
th
license to be used in connection with A & W One Stop #3 located at 306 13
St. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
10.
Motion to approve a request by Charlene Ford for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Pilot Travel Center #144 located
at 2975 Gun Club Rd. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 27, 2001)
11.
Motion to approve a request by C. H. McTeer for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with McTeer BP located at 4150
Windsor Spring Rd. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 27, 2001)
12.
Motion to approve amendment to Lease between Augusta, Georgia and
Augusta Arsenal Soccer Club, Inc. (Approved by Public Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
13. Deleted from consent agenda.
14. Deleted from consent agenda.
15.
Motion to approve the substitution of Year 2001 CDBG Augusta Mini
Theatre Project funds of $64,000 for Year 2002 CDBG-funded projects:
Girls Club ($19,000) and the Senior Center ($45,000). (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2001)
16. Deleted from consent agenda.
17.
Motion to approve an Ordinance providing for the demolition of certain
unsafe and uninhabitable properties in the East Augusta Neighborhood: 261
Japonica Avenue (District 1, Super District 9); Laney-Walker Neighborhood:
3
1127 Eleventh Street (District 1, Super District 9); West End Neighborhood:
135 Eve Street (rear building) (District 1, Super District 9); Turpin Hill
Neighborhood: 1207 Kent Street (District 2, Super District 9); Bethlehem
Neighborhood: 1751 Savannah Road (District 2, Super District 9) AND
ND
WAIVE 2 READING. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
18.
Motion to approve reclassification of Deputy – Non-certified (Salary Grade
41) to Security Guard (new title Salary Grade 37). Also approve
reclassification of Painter I position at the JLEC (Salary Grade 38) to
Maintenance Worker I (Salary Grade 38). (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee August 27, 2001)
19.
Motion to approve 3% cost-of-living increase for Augusta employees and
index salary ranges respectively. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee August 27, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
20. Motion to approve outsourcing the production of the filming of the
Commission regular meetings to Comcast at a cost of $1800 annually to
include the following: (Approved by Finance Committee August 27, 2001)
3 hours per meeting;
??
24 meetings per year
??
72 hours per year
??
Film subject to Opens Records
??
Law
FINANCE:
21. Motion to approve the purchase of tickets from the American Red Cross of
th
Augusta for the 84 Annual Meeting at a cost of $20 per person funded from
Commission Other Account. (Approved by Finance Committee August 27,
2001)
22. Motion to approve renewing current contract with Slavens Accounting &
Consulting Services for an additional 90 days on an "as needed basis" to
assist with ongoing projects. (Approved by Finance Committee August 27,
2001)
23. Motion to approve the adoption of a policy concerning the financial impact of
capital projects before funds are expended. (Approved by Finance
Committee August 27, 2001)
24. Deleted from consent agenda.
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Kukhui Tae Yu and
Ki Cheul Yu, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property
located at 2372 Barton Chapel Road for a purchase price of $2,500.00:
1,060.90 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way, 107.00 square feet, more
or less, of permanent drainage, utility and maintenance easement.
(Approved by Engineering ServicesCommittee August 27, 2001)
4
26. Motion to approve Change Order #2 in the amount of $112,363.09 to Blair
Construction, Inc. on the 18" Raw Water Main Conversion Project. (Funded
by Account Number 509043410-5425110/80110160-5425110) (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2001)
27. Motion to approve Change Order Number 1 in the amount of $20,000 to
realign the drainage ditch on Bill Berry’s property to address the inflow of
storm water into the sanitary sewer system and to address the drainage issue
with the property owner’s access. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 27, 2001)
28. Deleted from consent agenda.
29. Motion to approve Reimbursable Pipeline Adjust Agreement with Southern
Natural Gas Company in the amount of $171,457.00 funded from Special
One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II on the Bobby Jones Expressway @ S.R. 56
Additional Loop Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
30. Motion to approve County Contract for the Laney-Walker Boulevard
Reconstruction Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
31. Motion to authorize professional services for the Deans Bridge Road New
MSW Subtitle-D Landfill Permitting Project with Jordan, Jones & Goulding
in the amount of $454,607.00. Funds are available from Solid Waste Facility
Account No. 541-04-4210/54-12110. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 27, 2001)
32. Motion to approve a recommendation from the Railway Traffic Study
Subcommittee to purchase a fifth hydra switch funded from Phase IV
SPLOST. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 27, 2001)
33. Deleted from consent agenda.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
33A. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held Tuesday, August 21, 2001
APPOINTMENTS:
33B. Motion to approve the appointment of Mr. Ed Griffin to the Historic
Preservation Board representing District 6.
Mr. Beard: I move we approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Colclough vote No on Sunday sales portion. [Items 5, 7]
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1, 3-12, 15, 17-23, 25-27, 29-32, 33A-33B]
2.
Motion to approve the low bid meeting specifications for a tractor at the
Augusta Municipal Golf Course to Augusta Turf and Tractor in the amount
of $12,899.00. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 27, 2001)
5
Mr. Reed: (tape begins)…a three-year warranty, manufacturer warranty, and at
that particular time this company did not meet the specifications because they did not
honor the warranty, and we have not received as of this day any information from that
company. That’s why we went to the next lowest bid.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Reed, did you not receive a copy of a
warranty from C& W Equipment saying that the two-year warranty was what the
manufacturer gave but the owner himself would give another year’s warranty?
Mr. Reed: No, sir, I did not. We had a conversation on the phone. He told me
the third year was through his business. I told him the bid specs indicated manufacturer’s
warranty.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I guess that goes back to my question. Does it have to be a
manufacturer’s warranty, if you got a warranty? That’s all I’m asking. I’m not fighting
it, Mr. Mayor. I just want to know if we’re using our bid process and we’re talking about
low bid, we need to stay within those guidelines and do those things that we set out to do.
And he was the low bidder and if it’s a new piece of equipment with a warranty, it
doesn’t matter to me who gives the warranty. I was trying to find out initially was that a
regular part of the proceedings.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Do we have a motion on this item?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move approval
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: No further discussion? All in favor please vote aye.
Mr. Williams votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item 13.
The Clerk:
13. Motion to approve modification to salary classification and compensation
plan and adjust salaries of key level employees in accordance with the
proposed modifications with a pay-for-performance system established
with an effective date of January, 2002. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee August 27, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
6
Mr. Bridges:
Mr. Mayor, I think our staff has done a great job on this salary
study. They’ve put a lot of effort into it. I do have some concerns on this. I think it’s
a vast improvement of what we’ve got now. But there are some items in here I’ve got
concern with that in my mind might not be properly graded. I went over those with
the Administrator the other day. What I’d like to do is postpone this until -- and ask
the Administrator to bring these to analyze these various departments, see if he’s in
agreement with what changes he wants to make, and bring it back to us. I don’t think
that would be a hindrance, given that this is to be effective January 1, which is four
I’d like to make the motion that we postpone this issue and
months from now.
have the Administrator review it again and bring it back to us and would like
any comments he may have to say in regard to this item.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, would you like to respond?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. If possible, I’d also like
to talk about Item 41 during this discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask the Clerk to read the caption for item 41.
The Clerk:
41. Consider Administrator’s recommendation to hire Mr. Frederick Russell
to the position of Deputy Administrator at an annual salary of $95,000.00.
Mr. Mayor: All right, Mr. Kolb.
Mr. Kolb: I do not have a problem with tabling that. I would also postpone
the decision on the salary for the Deputy Administrator. I think both of these issues
have really been distorted in the public view. And it’s starting to deal with
personalities instead of just dealing with the issue of implementing what the
consolidated government was designed to be. The organizational structure was set up
in 1996 and we are consistent with that. I think that the main focus ought to be what
is an appropriate salary range for any of the executive managing team, including
Deputy Administrator. And I don’t think that focus has been there. I’d like an
opportunity at this time -- not at this time, but during this period of time while we’re
looking at all the executive salaries, to provide more information about what the
consolidated government was supposed to do in terms of implementation, where we
are with it today, the role of the Administrator and his office in that organization, and
then talk about what is the appropriate salary range to move Augusta where it ought
to be in the future. So with that, I would ask that the two be postponed.
7
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you’re asking us to pull item 41 also?
Mr. Kolb: That’s correct. Consistent with no action.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask if there is any objection to pulling item 41? Don’t
here any objection. We’ll take that off the agenda. [inaudible] discussion of item 13.
Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would like to see the language that will be used for
our personnel assessments and have included in there a development plan for
developing the employees throughout the following year after their annual
assessment. Basically get some understanding on an implementation for that, since
it’s not really been done in too much before.
Mr. Kolb: I guess I’m at a loss in terms of the development plan. Are you
talking about how we’re implementing the organizational structure or are you talking
about individual development plans?
Mr. Cheek: Well, included in the assessment would be a development plan,
agreed-upon goals for the coming year. That would be training or certain milestones
that we would expect our employees to achieve, where they’ll have a clear
understanding of where they need to development themselves to better serve the
community.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. What’s going to be percolating along
about the same time, in my opinion, is the 2002 budget. I appreciate the budget
preparation manual that’s been sent out that I got a copy of, but I think we need to
think about these adjustments, how they’re going to be funded in the context of the
budget. So the two processes seem to be parallel to me, George. I just wanted to lift
that up.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Commissioner Bridges’ motion to send this back,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next item.
The Clerk:
8
14. Motion to approve Year 2002 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG, ESG,
HOME funds and a letter written to recipients from the HND Director
with a response date of February 1, 2002 of their ability to use the funds
during the program year, and if not, may result in the reprogramming of
funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 27,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough: Yes, sir, we’re talking about reprogramming funds, and I look
over here and we have $760,000 in the Housing & Rehabilitation Program. There’s
two projects I need to get done over in District 4. Therefore, I’m going to make a
motion or recommendation that we pull $200,000 away from the $760,000 for two
projects I need to get done over in District 4.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to identify those projects?
Mr. Colclough: One is McDuffie Woods, and Meadowbrook Park.
Mr. Mayor: Second that motion?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask for a clarification. Just to clarify, are you making a
motion to approve the plan with this amendment?
Mr. Colclough: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Pull the $200,000?
Mr. Colclough: Exactly.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I don’t have a problem with what he’s trying to do, but I was
thinking we have the Director here and maybe -- I think instead of approving it now,
maybe we can take it to the Committee and deal with it in Committee and bring it
back to the body for that, if the Commission would -- I think that would be the proper
thing to do in this case, or either hear from the Director here, one or the other, so we
can all be kind of straight on this, as what we’re doing.
Mr. Mayor: We can ask Mr. Mack [inaudible] deadline.
9
Mr. Mack: The plan needs to be submitted to HUD by November 15, but we
have to go through a public comment period, which is a 30-day period, so we are right
on time.
Mr. Beard: So you’re saying -- I’m sorry.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve still got 2-1/2 months; is that correct?
Mr. Mack: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: So it’s got time to go back to Committee if that’s what the
Commission desires. I think that is a yes. Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: I don’t have a problem with it going back to Committee, Mr.
Mayor, if we can bring it back to the next meeting.
Mr. Beard: Yes. I just think that maybe the better thing to do is to do the
correct procedure, go through the Committee, and then bringing it back. And he’s
saying the funds are there that can be utilized for that, but I think we ought to follow
procedure and work it out.
Mr. Colclough: I can agree upon that.
Mr. Mayor: It will take a substitute motion, Mr. Beard, to take it back.
Mr. Beard: To take that back to the Administrative Services Committee,
I believe would be the correct Committee to do that, and bring it at the next
regular Commission meeting, which would be the next meeting of this month.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I assume this will include a [inaudible] Citizens
Advisory Committee review of that? Or just [inaudible]?
Mr. Mack: You want it to go back to the Citizens Advisory Committee?
Mr. J. Brigham: That’s what I’m asking.
Mr. Mack: It would take a called meeting.
Mr. Beard: That was the procedure, but I think you said you could handle all
that at the proper time to get this in.
10
Mr. Mack: We are running close.
Mr. Beard: I’m sure you can do it, Mr. Mack.
Mr. Mayor: It’s my understanding that the Citizens Advisory Committee has
already looked at this.
Mr. Colclough: It needs to go back to Administrative Services.
Mr. Mayor: And they made its recommendations to us, and now what we’re
doing is making the final determination. I don’t know that they have to look at
everything we do. Once they’ve done it, then it’s up to us to make the final decision.
Mr. Mack: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: It doesn’t have to go back to Citizens Advisory. [inaudible] final
decision. Is that correct?
Mr. Mack: That’s correct. Yes, sir.
Mr. Colclough: And Mr. Beard was saying going back to Administrative
Services Committee. Is that correct?
Mr. Beard: Yes. And report back here at the next regular Commission
meeting.
Mr. Colclough: I agree.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the substitute motion to send
it to Committee, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item 16.
The Clerk:
16. Motion to approve a salary increase for the Weed and Seed Director with
an effective date of January 1, 2002 and create an administrative position
to be funded through the 2001-2002 Weed and Seed Grant. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee August 27, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough?
11
Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I just attended a Weed and Seed conference in
Philadelphia, just came back. What we have, from what I’ve seen in Philadelphia,
what we have in Augusta in one of the best or the best Weed and Seed Directors that I
met at this conference. This young man is really doing a fantastic job over in Barton
Village. He’s even moved into the community where he works. I don’t see why we
I would
need to wait until 2002 to put this into effect when it’s come out of a grant.
make a substitute motion that we go ahead and approve this plan and
[sic]
approve it for the next pay period.
Mr. Beard: I second that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I think Rev. Hankerson brought this Committee; am
I correct? Could I have your comments on that?
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Hankerson, if you would come to the podium.
Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, sir. Yes. I met with the Steering Committee of
Weed and Seed’s initiative. And we all was in agreement that our Director was doing
a fantastic job in Barton Village for the Weed and Seed coverage area. And we also
recognize the fact that his salary was very underpaid. With conferences and things,
events that he’s attending and other colleagues that have the same position in other
cities, their salaries are much more than what he is making now with his Masters
degree level. He’s doing a very good job, and also he needs additional help in the
office. We have been waiting and have not gave him an assistant in the office so he’s
mainly maintaining the entire office, doing all the secretarial work and everything and
then doing his meetings, so we do not want to wait on this. We was expecting that
this would be done immediately because of the fact that the grant has already been
approved and the money’s there.
Mr. Mayor: Any questions or comments? Mr. Colclough?
Mr. Colclough: No, go ahead.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item 24.
The Clerk:
12
24. Motion to approve authorizing DMG Maximus to develop a cost
allocation plan for the City of Augusta. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 27, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in support of the plan. I think we
I want to make a substitute [sic] motion that
do need to do a development plan and
we find another source, another agency to do this rather than DMG Maximus.
Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: So it is your intent that we go through a procurement
process as we would for professional services.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve DMG
Maximus. I think this has got to be done hurriedly for next year’s budget, and I don’t
think we’ve got time to wait.
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Substitute motion which is to in effect approve what is in the
caption. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, based on the fact that Maximus employed business
associates of former county department heads in their last study, which in my opinion
th
polluted the results of that study, why is that we’re here at the 11 hour with only
Maximus as the company of choice?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, in answer to your
question, this is a special arrangement through ACCG. They have retained at a
significant discount this consultant to do it on behalf of their membership and pass
that discount on, so we’re not comfortable that if we go out for bids that we’re going
to get a better bid than the proposal that has been submitted by DMG. Second, as I
stated in the Committee meeting, DMG is probably the leader in this field in doing
cost allocation studies. This has nothing to do with the study that was done on
organizational efficiency. I can’t comment one way or another on that. For the past
four years, DMG has done cost [inaudible] studies and have done a very good job in
that area. Third, we are pretty late in the fiscal year and we need to get this study
done now prior to the end of the fiscal year. Going through the procurement process
13
is going to delay that and we should do it as quickly as we can in conjunction with the
budget.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I, too, agree the study needs to be done. I’m not here
to bash DMG in terms of their national recognition or what association they may
enjoy with the Association of County Commissioners. Because they have given our
Association a particular discounted rate, I think we’ve learned many things we’ve
done in the government that the cheaper way to do them may not always be the best
way to do them, and the bigger company may not always be the best one. We’ve got
some living proof around this county that those facts can be disputed. I think it needs
to be done, but what I think needs to be done in the interim is the fact that just as
though this one was not done in a procurement procedure, that by professional
services I think we can give the Administrator the right to negotiate with somebody
else. If procurement time is a problem, then there are other professional companies
that can be negotiated with and we can also see what price somebody is giving us. I
think you and I went through that procedure, Mr. Mayor, in terms of selecting a
particular professional firm in terms of selecting an Administrator when we brought
the current Administrator here. You know, we didn’t just select -- DMG was on
board then. And so I mean, they weren’t selected. So I mean that can dispute that.
The second thing is that I’m not going to deal with the current study that’s in place.
You’ve heard me make the comment many times I didn’t vote for them when they did
the last one because I had been in the old county government when they did the one
there with the Recreation and License inspection. We were told that License
inspection at the time was the greatest thing since apple pie. And when we found out,
we followed DMG’s study, we found out that we had more violations, more crooked
situations going on, more building code violations, than one any place, we stood out
in the nation. And we ran the Director off. But yet that study proved if we’d gone by
what they said. So I made that statement more than once. If you get bit by a snake
the first time, it may be the snake’s fault. You do it the second time, it’s your own
fault. I’m not going the third time with them, and I think if he wants to get it done,
then we need to find somebody else in America that can do it. I think it should be
th
done, yes, but I’m not at the 11 hours jacking up to decide on one company.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Williams: Commissioner Mays, I echo what you said, but I think our
process -- Mr. Mays, I’ve been preaching about doing the same thing all the time.
And it look like sometime we get out back against the wall, we want to do something
different. But when it come to this government, we need to keep the same practice all
the time. We got a history with this firm and it’s not that great, and that’s something
we think needs to be done but we need to do it differently. If we going to play ball,
let’s play ball with the same ball all the time. Let’s don’t change it when it
14
convenient for someone else and not convenient for us. We need to do it the same
way every time when it come to this government, and that’s my comment.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Kolb, I hate to saddle you with additional workload. I know
you’ve got enough on your hands. But I have to say from the very bottom of my
heart the methodology that was used in this personnel efficiency study is, in my
opinion, questionable and therefore any future work that they may do for us,
irregardless of their reputation, is also questionable in my opinion.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, if you look at the backup of our materials on the
second page, it says the alternative is that we not approve the plan and not do this
now, we risk not recovering costs sufficient costs in the General Fund, by those funds
receiving services, and I think it might be all well and good to bid this out in the
future for an RFQ, but I think we do have a time constraint here. We’ve been passed
out in this green book the budget preparation materials. The budget calendar is
ongoing. We’ve had a calendar in the Finance Committee this year that we’ve pretty
much followed trying to anticipate the budget scenario. Mr. Kolb is going to be hard
at work this fall on the budget. It’s going to be his first budget. He doesn’t yet have a
Finance Director aboard. We’ve just approved in the consent agenda that Al Slavens
continue in his “as needed” work for the preparation for the budget. And simply, we
can’t afford, gentlemen, to play around with our $90 million General Fund budget.
It’s going to be under enough pressure to it is from various sources from just natural
inflation, other items that we have to take on, people wanting raises, all these type
things. We need these cost allocations. We’re talking about a budget item of
$27,000. If we want to change horses, let’s not do so in the middle of the stream.
And I think let’s go ahead, not carry out a vendetta against DMG Maximus, but go
ahead and approve this time, and then if you want to change horses, let’s do it early
next year when we have plenty of time to go out with a appropriate RFQ and get
appropriate professional expertise now. But to do this now is just foolishness in the
middle of budget season. I won’t be part of it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I think my Finance Chairman and I agree on the fact that this needs
to be done, but I think also it will be just as foolish to head down a path with
somebody that the facts that they brought back to us have been questionable not only
one occasion, but on two occasions. You’re talking about a $27,000 item. They dealt
with a $65,000 item. In the 90’s they dealt with a $100,000-and-some in the
consolidation government. We paid them nearly $200,000. This is not a personal
15
bashing. This is looking out for the citizens in this community. $200,000+ in terms
of where we go with it. If they are questionable going in, then what are going to be
the questions going out? Now I raise the issue to a point that we do not have to delay
this in terms of procurement process. There is a way, and I think Mr. Wall can help
us to find that way. This can be done under the guise of professional services. It does
not have to be a hide-and-go-seek mission that the Administrator sends out, runs it
through Ms. Sams’ office, advertise it, and it takes months to do. The Mayor and I,
when we got ready to negotiate, it didn’t take us to reinvent the wheel, to find a
company to deal with a search firm. The Mayor did an excellent job in negotiating
those numbers. He carried them to that particular company, they brought it back to
us, we dealt with a service company, and I believe, Mr. Mayor, you wrapped it up in
less than 36 hours. So what I’m saying is there is a way that the numbers can be
negotiated. Now if nobody wants to do it, if there is no firm to deal with it that way,
then I buy what my Finance Chairman is saying in that manner, but I think we owe it
to folk inasmuch as not only their reputation, but ours, to a point of where they’ve
been, where they’ve taken it, because if you want to get the truth about the numbers --
it’s always been said numbers don’t lie, people lie. And if you’re not trusting the
confidence of what folks put in to bring back to you, and to say that’s factual, then I
don’t want to go out with voodoo economics going into a budget with somebody
going through and sitting down with a departmental person about what they think
may be correct. If it’s bad, I want to hear it’s bad. If it’s good, I want to hear it’s
good. I think we need to deal with a negotiated with somebody else, and I think there
are enough who do cost analysis work that between Mr. Kolb, Mr. Hornsby down on
that end, they can find somebody, Mr. Mayor, like we did. You did it in 36 hours and
found somebody to deal with the numbers. At least try to do it. And that’s where I’m
coming from. I’m not knocking that we need to do it in-house. I don’t think we can.
I think a professional firm needs to do it. But what comfort level are we going to
have if we are sitting here shaking and been in a deal with somebody twice before?
That’s the question that I am throwing out. I wouldn’t have confidence in the
numbers.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I believe it’s the same confidence level we had
with them this year, last year, and the year before since they’ve done all of them. If
I’m not mistaken, they’ve done it for the last four years. We certainly had confidence
enough in them to do the cost allocation studies for the last four years. I don’t see
why we can’t do it one more year.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Mays: If I might respond to that. I think my voting record will show I
warned against it, and we sat up here dealing with a budget last year that was
16
th
questionable and a point that we were down to the 11 hours, nobody took a
Christmas or New Year’s vacation, because we kept postponing every night because
we didn’t know what was legal we could put in, what wasn’t legal, and we sat here
playing and tossing numbers around. So that was a good indication as to maybe why
we do need to change.
Mr. Cheek: Amen.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I would not change horses in the middle of a stream if
that horse hadn’t taken us into such deep water or been a part of any kind of study in
the financial office of the past. We spent the last year recovering from Lord knows
what you want to call it, but we’ve had problems, we’ve recovered from it, we’re on
the road to success. I don’t see that mixing someone or a company or anybody else
that we have questions about into that mix again is a program for success. We need to
look at somebody else and continue the progress we’ve made with our finances and
keep going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much, Mr. Beard.
Mr. Beard: But I just want a clarification. I like what Mr. Mays has said. I
think that differs a little bit from the motion. If it does, I want to get that clarification
because we do want this to proceed on. So is that different from the motion? I would
like to include --
Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Williams’ motion called for the procurement process
but it didn’t define that process.
Mr. Beard: I just want to make clear we can move on this without going
through a 30-to-60 days --
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Sams is here. Maybe she could shed some light on that.
Ms. Sams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: The motion didn’t specify how to do it.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible] add that to his motion.
Mr. Williams: So moved.
17
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a substitute motion on the floor which is what
the caption says, to approve authorizing DMG Maximus to develop a cost allocation
plan. All in favor of that motion, the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough
vote No.
Motion fails 4-6.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion from Commissioner
Williams which would be to do in effect what, Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: It was to authorize that the study be developed through the
procurement process of professional services.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Will the maker of that motion accept an amendment to his body?
Mr. Mayor: It would be up to the body to accept the amendment. What would
your amendment be?
Mr. Mays: My amendment is that in the guise of his procurement process, that
it be done under the auspices of professional services, which then the Administrator
could deal with the same negotiations on this contract that he dealt with on the current
one that we just voted [inaudible], and that would give him the same authorization to
do it?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Williams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mays: You put it on at the end?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
The Clerk: Yes.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Well, I’m fine with it.
18
Mr. Mayor: It’s in the motion and it’s in the record. All in favor of the
original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 8-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 28, for Mr. Cheek.
The Clerk:
28. Motion to adopt the recommendations of the Comprehensive Energy Use
Subcommittee with an implementation date of January 1, 2002; and enlist
Georgia Power and Jefferson Electric to help develop a program for
Augusta Richmond County moving forward with a 2% target for energy
consumption reduction. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 27, 2001)
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a recommendation, or just in
addition to this, I’d like to recommend that we approve this but that we develop
a committee composed of a member from each department, be that a
department head or an appointee, and a committee chairman and we allow the
Administrator to select those persons and I’d like to volunteer to serve in any
capacity with that committee. Also at some
But this is a step in the right direction.
point in the future to get out financial subcommittee to look at any savings that’s
acquired through this, since this would be money spent if not conserved, would
be returned to the departments to allow them to use it for whatever capital
improvements or whatever they need it for.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second, okay. Mr. Kolb and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Kolb:
Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this is directed at
. In terms of having a member of every departmentould
Commissioner Cheek, w
you consider having a member of the various facilities that we have in the
organization? If you have a department, for example, one person for the
courthouse might not make a lot of sense, but a person representing each facility
might make more sense.
Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir.
Words from the wise.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Mr. Shepard?
19
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek, I want to thank you first for
the leadership shown on this Energy Committee. And just for the purposes of getting
this word out to the public, do you have any figure of anticipated savings yet for the
next fiscal year?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Shepard, thank you. We’ve had some calculations that will
bring us around $200,000-300,000, depending on rates. Of course, we all know that
the rates are going up daily on gas and electricity, and so this would, if nothing else,
perhaps offset the impact the rate increases will have on our future general fund.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 33, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
33. Motion to approve Change Order No. 4 for Mabus Construction
Company. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 27,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I remember this from
Committee and I need some more information, I think, on this. Is this not the
situation where the Engineering Services, I think it was [inaudible], who had made a
mistake, I think, somewhere in their calculations? Is this the same one, Mr. Wall?
th
Mr. Wall: No, that’s not this agenda item. This agenda item is 9 and
Fenwick Street. The Atlanta Gas. The agenda item that you have reference to is 26.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor. I’m sorry. I was thinking that was the one
here with the Engineering Services who had a [inaudible] in that area. This change
order for the amount -- it doesn’t show that. How much is this change order, Mr.
Wall?
Mr. Wall: Let me look at it. $351,000.
Mr. Williams: And this is change order number four, is that right?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
20
Mr. Williams: Can somebody --
Mr. Wall: Can I explain it to you?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir.
Mr. Wall: You will recall that [inaudible] this year, we were doing work and
there was also work being done by Atlanta Gas in the area of contamination. They
were attempting to do a jack and bore to put a sleeve in that would allow us to put our
pipe through that sleeve. Because of difficulties that were encountered, it was felt
that the best option was to allow Augusta to contract with Mavis Construction with
the understanding that Augusta would be reimbursed by Atlanta Gas Light Company
for the difference between the cost had Augusta been putting the line in
uncontaminated soil versus the cost that was being required as a result of working in a
contaminated area. That work has been done. This change order is in order to
authorize payment to Mabus and its subcontractor of that additional work. Atlanta
Gas has already made one reimbursement of approximately $294,000. They will give
the additional reimbursement of $319,000. This change order encompasses work for
which reimbursement will be given by Atlanta Gas.
Mr. Williams: So we have received the first payment on the reimbursement
and this is just a phase we are going through to get the other?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, since we missed our question on that last item, I want
to ask the Attorney a quick question. In the future, on change orders when mistakes
are made by engineering firms or contractors that we are not responsible for, can they
be held accountable for those mistakes?
Mr. Wall: Can they be held accountable? Yes. Now the fashion of that being
held accountable I guess is something that I would like address perhaps in legal
session. I had it as an item to be discussed in legal session and ask that it be
addressed there.
Mr. Cheek: I’m very concerned that we move toward the direction of where
we don’t bear the brunt of other people’s mistakes from now. We send a message
that you’re being paid to do a service, you do it right the first time.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on this item? Mr. Bridges?
21
Mr. Bridges: I move for approval on the item, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Motion and second. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to our regular agenda.
The Clerk:
PLANNING:
34. Z-01-35 – A request for concurrence with the decision of the Augusta-
Richmond County Planning Commission to approve with three conditions, 1)
the development will not exceed the 57 units shown on the original site plan,
2) allunits will be located outside of the 100 year flood plain, 3) all units will
be constructed for sale, not lease; a petition from TCA, LLC, on behalf of
Frederick F. Kennedy, Jr., requesting a change of zoning from Zone P-1
(Professional) to Zone R-1E (One-family Residential) affecting property
located on the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road, a distance of
302.0 feet, more or less, southeast of a point where the centerline of Rae’s
Creek intersects with the northeast right-of-way line of Boy Scout Road.
(Approximately 14.6 acres) DISTRICT 7 (Postponed from the July 3
Commission meeting)
Mr. Mayor: Is Mr. Patty here? George, it’s been two months since we’ve looked
at this. You want to bring us up-to-date and we’ll go from there.
Mr. Patty: It’s about a 14.6 acre tract. Approximately half of it is in the flood
plain, that the potential buyer wants to develop it for 57 condominiums. Only wants to
develop that portion that’s in the flood plain, that’s outside the flood plain, rather.
Agreeable to other conditions, other than those that have been stated. Has talked to
Public Works folks. He’s talked to the traffic engineer. I personally have been on the
site, have looked from where the entrance would be in both directions, and you’ve got
ample sight distance. The property is currently zoned Professional, P-1. Development
under the current zoning could have a lot more impact than what’s being proposed. If it
were not for that, I would not be standing here telling you to approve this. But given the
fact that it’s currently zoned Professional, the property is on the market, it’s going to be
developed, I think you need to approve it. That was the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Mayor: At the last meeting, there was some discussion about the developers
and the neighbors around there getting together and talking about this. Has any of that
22
happened? Is there a representative here from the developer and a representative from
the neighborhood that could talk to us? Okay. You’re here with the developers? Could
you give us your name and address for the record?
Mr. Belangia: Yes. Woody Belangia, 4269 Colony Square.
Mr. Mayor: Woody, you want to tell us and then we’ll hear from some of the
neighbors.
Mr. Belangia: Yes. We’re requesting this down zoning to develop 57 condos. I
understand because of the proximity to Rae’s Creek there is concern about flooding
downstream. However, you should know that the regulations within the Rae’s Creek
basin are more stringent. We’re required to retain the water outside the flood plain and
release it at a 90% of the predeveloped rate, so it will actually be an improvement over
what’s there right now. As Mr. Patty said, the traffic is really a non-issue, and I’ve
already spoken with Engineering and we think we have ample room to detain the water
and actually improve the situation there. We’re not planning to build within the flood
plain or disturb the flood plain at all. And we’ve got the possibility of working with the
City, handing over some of the significant greenbelt that we have that’s actually within
the flood area. So I think it’s a win. I used to live in the community that’s opposing it, in
the lowest house in the neighborhood, and never had a problem with flooding there. I
actually think we’re improving the situation. We’re not even adjacent neighbors. There
is a nursing home between us. And I think it’s a good use of the property and that’s why
I’m building there.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from some of the people in the neighborhood. Is there
someone who would like to speak? Come up and give us your name and address for the
record.
Mr. Cruse: Sam Cruse. Citizen, not lawyer, this time. I moved to Richmond
County two years ago from Columbia County, because my ex-wife was too close. And
when I moved into Briarcliff I was very specific in looking at that community. Of
course, Mr. Brigham’s wife is my son’s teacher, and he goes to Westside. Our little
community of 21 homes is very close. It’s not a traffic problem? Wrong. I was a state
trooper a long time before I was a lawyer. I travel Boy Scout every day. I don’t like to
go Alexander Drive because of what’s happened on Alexander Drive with those condos
that have been built. Little hills. Every time you top a hill. As far as the apartments,
we’ve been good neighbors with the apartments. But if you were to track the accidents at
those apartments which are between us and Skinner Mill, you’ll see there has been a
number of accidents right there. My concern is not necessarily the flood issue. My
concern is the traffic. My concern is the safety. When the auto repair shop -- I was there
when they built that. No problem there. CVS was going in. No problem there. But
when you start pouring 57 more families into that skinny area -- I don’t care how many
acres, and I know, I’ve seen the acreage, and I’ve seen the plans -- [inaudible] showed me
the plans. But the bottom line is it’s going to affect our neighborhood. It’s going to
affect our values. It’s going to affect our ability to raise our children there. We have a
23
quiet neighborhood on the other side of us. We have a quiet neighborhood below us. We
are vehemently opposed to it. And it’s not right for our community. I’m sorry. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. If you’ll give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Mr. Speaker: My name is Alfred [inaudible], Jr. I reside at 2717 Kipling Drive in
Briarcliff Subdivision. I’ll echo what Mr. Cruse has said. I have like a three-point
opposition. Number one was really the environmental issue, which Mr. Belangia said he
was going to take care of. I assume he’s got deep pockets to take care of the problems
that obviously Augusta has had with Rae’s Creek, and God knows if we’re going to have
any more. My concern is development, whether it be Mr. Belangia or anyone going into
the Rae’s Creek area and [inaudible] everything down. I haven’t seen too many
developers -- with no disrespect to anybody in this room -- can maintain the environment.
They go in, mow everything down. Augusta has had problems with Rae’s Creek.
You’ve bought houses in an area not too far from us, and I’m concerned with that issue.
And without belaboring the point, obviously what Mr. Cruse said, the traffic engineering
thing -- I think you will have a problem if you have 57 units or whatever, 60 units, you
had two cars. That’s a whole lot more traffic going on an S-curve. I don’t know what the
situation is for a right-of-way or traffic light. And last but not least, my last point is just
maintaining the continuity of the environment or the integrity. May I ask what’s the price
you plan on selling your condos?
Mr. Belangia: [inaudible] vary.
Mr. Mayor: Excuse me. Under the rules of the Commission, you address your
questions to the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: All right. Excuse me. My concern is the, last but not least, the
price. Our property values might anyway from $150,000 to $175,000 to $275,000, and
someone comes in there and builds single-family dwellings, you know, $79,000 -- the
integrity of the whole area doesn’t just quite jive. That’s my last concern, that whatever
will be put up there would kind of just throw our property values and just kind of disrupt
the continuity of the area. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Anybody else want to speak from the neighborhood.
Mr. Colclough: Over here, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, ma’am. Give us your name and address for the
record, and then --
Ms. Bowden: I’m Gloria Bowden. I live at 2719 Kipling Drive. And I also
[inaudible] would like very much for this not to be approved. As my neighbors, I would
like for you all to disapprove this. As they have said, we as taxpayers have already been
24
buying homes now. In a couple of years, after all this mess is going on down there, we
are going to come to somebody to replace our homes, because we can’t afford to
constantly keep building homes. After you have been in a home for 23 or 24 years, we
don’t expect it to go down Rae’s Creek, just because somebody wants to build 57 more
units over there. And actually, to tell you the truth, I think it should not ever have been
approved anyway. We’ve had such a heck of a time with Rae’s Creek. We don’t
constantly need any more problems on Rae’s Creek. It creates enough problems without
any more construction. Thank you very much.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Yes, ma’am, give us your name and your address.
Ms. Allen: I’m Virginia Allen. I live at 2916 Westchester Drive. Some of you
will remember I was the person that gave you the memo before, we discussed at the last
meeting, with several questions. I wanted to let you know that my concerns about
whether the flood plain map which the survey was done in the 70’s, was still adequate
based on changes to the creek bed, and the traffic concerns and the density concerns have
been answered. I’m certainly in favor of any building in that area being residential rather
than commercial, and I think the contractors have met all the questions that I had. Thank
you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anybody else like to be heard?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, I understand that our Public Works Director might be
able to shed a little bit of light on the development of this site. If we could, let’s hear
from her and then we’ll hear from Mr. Jerry Brigham. Ms. Smith?
Ms. Smith: Good afternoon. I have looked at the preliminary sketch that was
provided and have had some conversation about this particular development, not with the
developer but with staff. And the primary concern that we have, being that what we have
is a preliminary sketch, and that there will be some area of fill, though not directly within
the 100 year flood plain -- these units, actually when they are constructed are going to be
-- based on the sketch that I have -- somewhere in the neighborhood of two feet
horizontally outside, sitting beyond the flood plain, in the instance of some of them. Now
again, this is just the footprint that I’m looking at, but I wanted to give you the
perspective of how close they actually are to the 100 year flood plain. The other concern
that I have, and nothing has formally been submitted for us to look at as far as a sight
plan is concerned, but is going to be where the gentleman spoke to retention prior to -- as
relative to post-development versus pre-development. And there is no information on
here, nor is there any space for retention of any water that would need to be held on site,
unless they’re going to do underground retention or under the parking lot or something to
that effect. So we do have some concerns about the run-off issues and the detention
issues associated with what they are proposing out here. But again, there has not been a
formal submittal to Public Works that would provide that information, because we are in
the process of studying the rezoning.
25
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I was curious as to when -- I thought there was going to be a
public meeting with the neighbors, and I haven’t received any kind of notice of that. Did
that take place?
Mr. Kuhlke: If I can speak to that, Jerry, I called Alfred last week and offered to
you and myself and Mr. Krauss who represents the neighborhood, and I never had a call
back from him.
Mr. J. Brigham: I haven’t seen the plans, but based on what I’ve heard so far I’m
going to be inclined not to vote for this. Unless you want to postpone this, you’ve got an
opportunity to explain to me what you’re doing and convince Public Works Department
that this is a plan we need to proceed with, I am very inclined not to agree with that at
this point in time.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir?
Mr. Belangia: Yes, I understand what Public Works is saying. And a lot of it is
due to the provisional nature of that plot. It was basically just to show the footprints on
the property. It really doesn’t reflect accurately what’s going to happen to the dirt or
anything. Although I’m requesting 57 units there, I’m probably going to have to lose
four to make room for a retention pond. But we have decided there is adequate room for
a detention pond without disturbing the other part, so that was a significant part of her
objection. And you know, the dirt that is going to be excavated out of the detention pond
is going to raise the entire site. As far as flooding on our site, I wouldn’t build it if I
thought it was going to flood. It’s a problem for me if that happens.
Mr. J. Brigham: I understand about the 100 year flood plain and I understand
about the flooding on the site and I also understand we’ve had in the last six years two
500 year floods. That’s very uncommon, but I would expect that your site flooded at that
time. Now 100 year flood, I think we are prepared to handle a 100 year storm. I don’t
think we are prepared to handle much beyond a 100 year storm event, and I am very
concerned about developing the plain around where I know there is flooding, and this is
an area -- the green space is within the 100 year flood in the area you were trying to
develop in there, it would definitely be a no. I think we need to have a better
understanding of what you’re trying to do and a better footprint of what you’re trying to
do before we can approve anything. Plus, I think we’ve still got some concerns from the
neighbors that really haven’t been addressed as far as traffic. I am not -- in my opinion,
they haven’t been addressed as far as traffic.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
26
Mr. Kuhlke: I hear the neighbors saying they don’t want the development, but is
your preference to have professional or commercial development on that property over
residential? Because one of them is going to go there?
Mr. Cruse: With all due respect, we’ll deal with that when the time comes. As
far as meeting with the neighborhood, there has been no attempt to meet. My law office,
I have voicemail. My law office is in the book. I can arrange community meetings if the
developer wishes that. I’ve not been called about anything. But as far as development,
let’s see what future development will bring. As far as what this development brings, it’s
not acceptable to [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays and then Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, not to be redundant, I have checked down three items, and
they kind of looked like three items I checked down when this was here the last time.
But two of them we’ve already gone through. One, and I put on in reference to
neighborhood reference, and obviously that’s something that still needs to be done. The
staff reference was what was coming from Public Works, and I believe when we talked
about this last that even though this was a Planning item, it was sent back to deal with the
Public Works aspects of it, and I think it’s obvious that those things, even though you
can’t predict what’s going to happen, but even with what we were looking for to maybe
come back at this time, that’s not before us, I think, in terms of being able to make that
kind of decision. But one thing I’m a little curious about. I was curious about it then and
I’m still curious about it now. And I guess, Mr. Parry, this person goes to you all in
Planning. Was this the petitioner’s suggestion or the neighborhood suggestion or was
this the Planning Commission’s suggestion that these units be constructed for sale and
not for lease? Because my question then would be probably to our own Attorney. You
know, when did we get into the business of determining how a developer could deal with
the handling of his property? Because I think we have reached over into a serious gray
area that falls under none of our business. Now this is something that was worked out
and they preferred it or this is something they presented to y’all, or was this something
that y’all came as a compromise thinking that this would maybe promote say probably a
better buyer or such? I don’t know. I’m searching for an answer because I got a real
problem with where we are going here, because I stated my reason before and I’m going
to shut up to a point that if they are sold, then I agree with the petitioner. Yes, he would
have a problem if they flooded. But my problem is if they are sold and the money’s been
made, if they do flood he may be sympathetic, but it becomes our problem. Because then
they are homeowners at that point. They are down here before this Commission to get an
answer. So I guess I’m seeking now how did you all arrive at that particular situation?
Mr. Patty: Back when this type of alternative housing came into vogue back in
the 1980’s, the Planning Commission adopted some innovative zoning classifications,
and this is one of them. And what he’s sought to do is facilitate housing that’s not
apartments, it’s not traditional suburban single-family, but something in between. And in
order to make it somewhat compatible with the typical suburban development, it was one
of the conditions in the zoning classification that it would be constructed for sale. Now
27
obviously we can’t control whether after it’s constructed somebody rents it or buys it.
But that’s actually one of the requirements of the R-1E classifications is that it’s got to be
constructed for sale. That refers to building codes and things of that nature. Fire codes
and things of that nature. The Planning Commission for whatever reason chose to make
that a condition of this zoning. In reality, it was a requirement of the classification so it’s
really moot that it’s a requirement for this Commission.
Mr. Mays: That, I guess, answers my question, Mr. Mayor. If the zoning requires
it. But then I guess it does flip us back then to a condition of uncertainty, because if your
zoning requirement puts that in there that we’ve got to follow it, then it probably then is
more incumbent upon us then inasmuch as we are constantly -- this has been a high
priority item, I don’t have a vote on Rae’s Creek, but there are people on Rae’s Creek,
and I respect the process in terms of how we are having to go back in a really high area of
elevation that’s in this county, but yet absorbs a major portion of the water at a fast,
current flow. So if the zoning did that, then that answered my question there. I don’t
have a problem with that if that’s where it’s going. But then I think it puts more pressure
on us to make sure that it’s done properly. If you’ve got a zoning situation then that puts
us in the position then that once it’s done, we assume all the responsibility at that point.
So I don’t think -- I couldn’t really clearly to a point vote on this today from the
standpoint that what our Public Works folks have is preliminary and if we are locking
into a buy situation, because we just have gotten to the point where in that area we’ve got
more homes that are in question to be bought that are coming before us than we have the
money to buy. We can’t get enough grants to buy every house that’s up there, that comes
up to a point that when we add on the border, and we need to face that fact. And we are
putting out millions of dollars, we’ve put out plenty, and deservedly so, it’s a part of the
program. But I think at some point we have to say when does it become foolhardy or
cost effective, that if we’re going to keep adding and adding and adding and don’t know
where the water is going. And right now, I think we still are in the preliminary stage.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we postpone any
action on this and that we ask the developer to get with the neighborhood
association and arrange a meeting with Mr. Brigham and myself and maybe Teresa
and see if we can’t answer some of these questions.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Continue discussion or vote on the motion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Kuhlke saved me from most of the remarks I needed to make.
I appreciate that, but when it does come back I think we ought to have a definite,
enforceable condition as the green space, not something that says we may work with the
City. I mean we’ve been down the “may work with the City” road before. We’ve
sometimes snatched some issues back from that road, but if we’re going to talk about
making commitment to the green space in that area, Mr. Developer, I think we need to
have that as one of the expressed conditions. We’ve already gotten three, George, that’s
come up from the Planning Commission. This Commissioner would be particularly
28
interested in seeing a green space condition that, Mr. Wall, is enforceable. That may not
be possible but I think we should see something a green space when it comes back.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a couple -- a comment and a question. A comment, we’ve been
burned before by “may” and “shall” and so forth, and you know, we need to have these
things defined because Rae’s Creek is a serious problem and these concerns are serious
issues these neighbors have. A question for Mr. Patty, George, how long was this
originally zone and what was the original zoning on it?
Mr. Patty: Well, the current zoning, which is P-1 with condition that it be built
according to plan and filed was granted, I believe, in the early 1980’s. I don’t have that
information in the file other than what the current zoning, but it’s been a long time. I can
tell you that.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I have got to comment that this is déjà vu. Here again we
have another one of these properties that was zoned many, many years ago, left idle for
many, many years, and now after the community develops around it, you want to come in
and put something in that may not be appropriate to that community. We need to look at
all of our properties that have been zoned 10 and 20 and 30 years ago and at least require
them to have a community impact review of that zoning before they’re allowed to build.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor that would postpone this from action
today. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Number 35.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
35. Motion to approve the recommendation from the Deputy Administrator
regarding the renewal of the contract with Lobbyist Jean McRae at a cost of
$12,500 plus out of pocket expenses. (No action vote-Commission August 7,
2001 meeting) (Requested by Commissioner S. Shepard)
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams abstain.
29
Motion fails 5-3-2.
Mr. Mayor: So that’s a no action, right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All right. So we’ll see it again in two weeks. Next item. Number
36.
The Clerk:
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
36. Consider proposed guidelines for customer’s participation in the cost of
water and sewer construction projects. (No recommendation from
Engineering Service Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, is this yours?
Mr. Kolb: I will defer to my colleague, Mr. Wall.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I guess in a way there are a series of items here that all deal
with the same issue. Insofar as the first item is concerned, as far as guidelines
for customer’s participation in the cost, I would request that along with the
Administrator and Utilities Department Director that this be postponed. There is
another issue that is also being looked at and studied concurrently with this
issue, and that is we’ve got a situation where a developer is attempting to
develop in south Richmond County. The Fire Department has not approved the
plans because there is not sufficient water pressure at the fire hydrant or for a fire
hydrant, and so the Fire Department is looking at that issue. It may very well be
that the recommendation comes back that the developer has to put in a sufficient
water line so that there will be sufficient water pressure, or it may be that we will
give him a period of time in which to put water in. So I think that that issue needs
to be studied jointly with the Fire Department. I know the Fire Department is
already looking at the issue. We had a meeting about it a week or ten days ago,
and I think that issue needs to be looked at. So that’s the recommendation
30
insofar as number 36. Now if you want me to carry forward, the effect of that on
these others, I’ll be glad to discuss that.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll do that at the appropriate time. Is there any discussion
with respect to item 36?
Mr. Kuhlke: I move that we postpone.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? All in favor of postponing item 36, please
vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you want to take 37 and 38 together or are these
going to be separate?
Mr. Wall: I guess we need to take them separately unless they get joined
up again.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
37.
Discuss/reconsider cost sharing agreement regarding installation of water
line at New Zion Hill Baptist Church. (No recommendation from
Engineering Service Committee)
Mr. Wall: Insofar as the cost sharing agreement regarding the installation of
water at New Zion Hill Baptist Church, again this was a situation where the property
owner came to us, the improvements were for the sole benefit of that one piece of
property. An agreement was reached with that property owner. It has previously
been approved by the Commission. We recommend that you leave that agreement
alone. Again, he -- that church, not he -- that church is the only one to benefit from
those improvements. There was a cost participation agreement that was reached
between the church and the Utilities Department, and we see no reason to disturb that
arrangement and recommend that you receive this as information but let the
agreement stand and not change the agreement.
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to item 37? Mr.
Williams?
31
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we set a figure
on this.
Let me make my comment first of all. First of all, you know, we talked
about the price and the church did agree to pay a fee, and the fee that was given
was less than the original amount. But it would have cost the church the same
amount of money that they were being charged to put a 6” line down, and the
church paid for the City almost to do the 12” line, the 10” line, whatever size it is.
My point is that water line is going to continue on down Deans Bridge Road to
help our constituents and other people in that area. The church shouldn’t have to
pay that much. They agreed to pay. And they have not kicked too hard on the
price. I mean, it was less than what the original price was, but I think it’s unfair
to charge them the same amount of money that they would have put their own line
in for. It would have still cost them $14,000 to put their own 6” line in. So I hear
us saying that we pay the difference. But that line needs to be down there
anyway. We got not only the church but we got other properties and other lines
that we going to have to run that line down there eventually. And it’s just not fair
for us to charge them that amount. And I’m not going to sit here and vote for the
$14,000 to be passed on to them for the service. I believe they ought to pay
something, but they should not pay $14,000.
Mr. Mayor: What’s your motion then?
Mr. Williams: My motion is to charge the church $5,000 to run that line.
Mr. H. Brigham: I’d second that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Charge the church $5,000?
Mr. Williams: Right.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Further discussion? Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m in agreement with Jim on this. We don’t need to be
digging up old bones concerning issues that have been settled, that the church was in
agreement with, that the City was in agreement with. At the time it was consistent with
the policy that we’ve practiced in the past. We have to keep in mind that the church
asked for this line ahead of any scheduled plan that we had to place the line in, so we are
moving that particular project down Deans Bridge ahead of where it would have
normally come. I have a problem just throwing dollar amounts out there without any
back-up, too, as how the money was arrived at. But getting back to those issues that have
been settled in the past, I think we need to leave them alone. I see number 39 is on here,
too, regarding a sewer line, a cost-sharing agreement with that. Well, I mean, every one
of us in here can add something on that we’ve agreed to in the past, agreed to by both the
county and the third party, and I don’t think we need to get into an issue where we’ve got
constituents or businesses coming back to us wanting to be reimbursed, and that’s what
we’re getting into. I think we need to leave those issues that have been approved and
32
agreed on in the past alone, and we can move forward with any additional issues that may
not be agreed at this time or we may face in the future, and in regard to those we can do it
based on a policy that would be adopted in the future. But please, let’s just -- whatever
has been done in the past, let’s leave alone. So I make a motion that we accept this as
information.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Anyone else like to speak on this? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I understand what Commissioner Bridges
have said, Mr. Mayor, but let me explain something. Commissioner Cheek and I went
out to the church when it was first under the impression that they had to go and put this
line on their own property, they was told some $27,000 to put the line on their own
property. Less than a half a block away was a fire plug that the City owns that was on the
right-of-way that we came down from and Mr. Max Hicks is here, that we could have
done it in the first place. You talking about doing something in the beginning and not
explaining it, and that’s what happened in the very beginning. They was told some
$27,000 and they trying to figure out how in the world they can do it. To open up the
addition that they had did to that building. All I’m saying is that that line belongs to
Richmond County and goes down Deans Bridge Road to protect property and lives of
other people in that area. And it goes on all the way down Deans Bridge Road
eventually. I don’t think they should get the line but not paying anything, but I don’t
think the $14,000 is something that they pre-arranged to from the beginning. We went
ahead and put the line up, we came up with a price, nobody told them $14,000 before we
put the line in. We went back to figuring and the figures came out to $14,000. And I
didn’t agree with it then and I don’t agree with it now. I think they ought to pay. They
did ask for it. They need it. They asked for an exception to go in. We could not give
them that because of the life-threatening situation if they needed that. But I don’t think
they should have paid the entire same amount when they could have put their own 6” line
in and left the City out of it. So the City is really weak. The church helped the City.
[inaudible] the City didn’t help the church. And that’s not fair. We just got other
situations, Mr. Mayor, we got other situations that are worse off than that where we paid
to have other facilities done on private property than we did on our own right-of-way for
a [inaudible] group. And I just don’t think that’s right.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I wasn’t here for the Engineering Services Committee
meeting, but I’d like to see our Director, if he’s here, Mr. Hicks. I think that I heard
somewhere that you were working up some type of proposal for the churches and I was
just wondering if that had been perfected.
Mr. Hicks: Perhaps the one that you’re thinking about would have been the
guidelines that we were working on, because the New Zion Hill Baptist Church was one
that was decided previously, and insofar as the figure of $14,000, New Zion Hill did
33
agree to that figure. They were given, once the bids were received, they were taken to
them and as a matter of fact the comment was that if the Commission should not elect to
go with the $30,000-something total project, could they go ahead in the same right-of-
way that had been purchased and put in the 6” line along that road. That was one of the
reasons they came to the City in the first place, was the fact that the more expensive route
would have had it totally on their property and coming in the back, and it was a win-win
situation for everybody to keep it down the road. That way, we would own and operate
the water line. And the cost proposal that we were working under at that time was that
they would pay for a 6” line equivalent, so we took bids on both the 6” and the 10”, and
would only apply to New Zion Hill. That amount for the 6” line, it would have run from
the existing fire hydrant to the hydrant that was going to be placed along the driveway on
their property.
Mr. Beard: But aren’t we talking -- 37 and 38, aren’t they in the same
predicament? Aren’t we talking about basically the same thing? We’re talking about
churches and getting lines to them? We may have a difference in the footage there, but
you’re talking about the same principal applying. And my second point would be they
have not, no money has transpired yet at any place, has there?
Mr. Hicks: New Zion -- we paid the contractor. In other words, we went out with
the bids --
Mr. Beard: But the church people still owe us?
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Hicks: We just sent them one letter and then we dropped back. I said let’s
not send them any more until this gets settled because we were dealing with the church in
good faith and that’s all I’ll say.
Mr. Beard: But I think the problem here that most people are discussing and that
most Commissioners are concerned about, I guess, is that from what I’m understanding
here and I happen to have a lot of [inaudible] in this Engineering Services Committee,
because I’m not on that Committee, but it appears that [inaudible] serve everybody from
the same spoon here and since they are so closely related and we have not gone that far
into this, I think that makes the problem [inaudible]. If we’re going to give one church,
guidelines for one church, then I think we have two other positions on here because we
do have another item on here, I believe, in reference to the same thing, and I think that’s
it. And I thought maybe if you had worked out something for one of these churches, that
maybe could be applied to all.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do you have some light to shed on this?
34
Mr. Wall: Well, several observations I’d like to make. We do have a
recommendation on number 38 when we get to it. But insofar as number 37 is
concerned, the church is the only customer benefiting from this line being placed in there
at the present time. And it’s moving the project forward. Now the County is paying for
the difference in any increased size. Now the second observation, and that’s not the case
with number 38. Other customers potentially could benefit from it. So you know, they
may be eating from the same spoon ---
Mr. Beard: Are you saying there is nobody -- and I don’t know this area where
we’re talking about, but are you saying with number 37 where that church is there will be
no in-between [inaudible].
Mr. Wall: That’s right. The nursing home that is in between there is already
being serviced. They get no benefit from it. And the other point I would like to make is
be careful when you talk about a church. We cannot make a gratuity, whether it be a
church or anything else. And recognize that insofar as the school on Old Waynesboro
Road, and with other projects with the Board of Education, I mean we’ve entered into an
agreement, they’ve paid for the cost of the line, whether it be a 6” or 8” or whatever they
need, and then we pay for any incremental costs to move it to a 12” line or whatever.
And so the policy that we developed back on number 36 will be a policy that’s applicable
to all customers, and not just churches.
Mr. Beard: I’m not talking about, and I don’t think anybody up here is talking
about giving the church, but I’m talking about whatever policy that applies to one of
these should apply to the other, and I think getting into the same mode -- that’s what I’m
talking about.
Mr. Wall: And that’s the point is that with regard to the church in number 37, the
only customer benefiting from that insofar as the minimum line size is the church. The
incremental cost is being paid for by the County. And that’s the reason we’re
recommending that that decision stand.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll just refer to this as Mr. Hicks’ Utilities Faith Based Initiative
and leave it at that; all right? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Wall, is it not true that there is a day care center, a package
store, and a body shop less than 500 feet away from this same fire plug on Deans Bridge
Road that this is going to be an assistance to if they need that service? There is a day care
center, there is a package store, and a body shop less than 500 feet away from this same
fire plug. Now Commissioner Cheek and I walked this area and we stood there.
Mr. Wall: I can’t answer the question. I don’t know.
Mr. Mayor: Let Mr. Hicks try to answer it then.
35
Mr. Hicks: There are those, the adjacent property going south on Deans Bridge
Road as shown here doesn’t indicate a day care. I believe there was a day care next door.
When we were out there in the parking lot at New Zion Hill, I believe there was. Now
whether or not any addition to that day care would be within 500 feet of this hydrant, I
would actually have to see where their driveway was and where their proposed addition
would be before I could decide that, and I think the Fire Department would say the same
thing. Now as far as going any farther south than the day care center, it looks to me like
you’ve got at least 180 feet to the property corner and probably about another 60 feet, so
that would be 240 feet, so it couldn’t be any more than 260 feet around to wherever they
wanted to add on to. Otherwise, they would be out of the 500 foot strip. But I couldn’t
comment. There is a --
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Hicks. And all I was doing was trying to point out
there was another facility, another area that would be able to use this plug if there was a
necessary fire, and the day care center is even closer to the plug than the back of the
building, the annex that they put on. All I’m saying is that when the [inaudible] comes
and we need water, they shouldn’t have to pay for what the City should be doing anyway,
and I understand we went ahead and did this a little earlier. And we did other things, we
paved roads, we did side walks, we did stuff for folks who ain’t even here no more. But I
don’t think it’s right to penalize them for that amount of money. And they ought to pay
something. But that amount -- if the $5,000 I mentioned was not enough, maybe we can
get an alternative figure, but I still don’t believe they should pay $14,000 when they
could have put their own line in for the same price. And they helped us.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays has been patiently waiting to be heard, so the Chair will
recognize Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: I think they’ve about discussed most of it, Mr. Mayor. But there are
two points I’d like to make briefly. One, I debate a little bit with my good friend Mr.
Wall, to the tune that even though the plug may have been put in to deal with New Zion
Hill right now, I think we are all being very facetious if we think that from Wal-Mart
down to Captain D’s, already with existing businesses in between there, that go south of
New Zion Hill, businesses that are currently there and properties that are for sale, 2/3 of
that area already occupied and then the rest of it with for sale signs, and you’ve got
constantly things that are going up down there, that that’s going to stay vacant forever. I
tend to differ a little bit. I think that that is going to be of benefit to other people, other
than just the church that it’s going in, and that’s why I did want to see us mix the gratuity
issue. I think when you are paying, it’s not a give-away. I think the debate is about what
you pay. Now if you’re saying you are going to give me and do nothing, then I think
you’ve got a give-away. But I think if you’ve got a difference in the price, because
you’ve got a strip on a major highway, U.S. 1, Maine to Florida, that you’ve got where
you’ve got folks building on both sides of it. And I just think that if we are going to do, I
don’t know what’s going to happen with 38. I’m going to make a motion on 38, as I said
in Committee the other day. But I think to a point that if we are looking at the gratuity
issue coming up, I would think that we protect ourselves more of closely aligning the two
projects than we do putting them on opposite ends of the spectrum. So if you’ve got
36
possibly one of them, and maybe I’m dreaming [inaudible], Mr. Mayor, on 38, but if
you’ve put out the way you’re dealing with one $5,000 or $6,000 say in comparison to
what the next church will be dealing for a retention pond, a dry hydrant in that area, and
if we’re dealing with [inaudible] on a major thoroughfare as opposed to another situation
for less even though customers could tie on, the chances are that both of them are being
protected right now on 38. If they don’t have an imminent danger, then [inaudible] and
that was my argument. That’s why I don’t think you can separate any of this. You can’t
separate [inaudible] to a point that you’ve got folk that are locked into that area, that folk
may love the church, but they’re not going to love it to the point that if the church needs a
line that they going to come next door to the church and pay $1,200 or $2,000 because
the church [inaudible]. I think if you set a reasonable price and if you allow a payment to
be done, and then if you allow, you align them closely with the work that’s being done,
then I think you protect yourself on the gratuity because then you are charging a price.
But you don’t have one that’s way up here at $14,000 on its own property and you’ve got
another one that you may approve or something else. I think that gets us more out of line
than it does in terms of trying to separate them. Now it’s not a reimbursement, I think it’s
already been stated for the record, because no monies have been expended to pay on it.
So I think it’s [inaudible] still that we can deal with it. That’s all I want to say about
that. I do plan to make one on 38.
Mr. Mayor: All right, we’ll get to that, hopefully in just a moment. We have a
motion to receive as information item number 37. All in favor of that motion, please vote
aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Mays vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 5-4-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, and the Chair will rule that
the original motion includes reconsideration plus the funding for the church of $5,000.
We needed a motion to reconsider, so that’s why I’m ruling that that motion includes
reconsideration to expedite the discussion of this. All in favor of the original motion,
please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion to include reconsideration and funding)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 38. Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
38.
Motion to consider the Administrator and staff recommendation regarding a
pro-rated cost sharing agreement relating to a request for a fire
hydrant/water line from Calvary Deliverance Evangelistic Church at 844
37
Scott Nixon Memorial Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 28, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays, do you want to go ahead with your motion on this one?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to make a motion that we do the same
thing that we did in 37 with exception of it being that they be allowed to pay a down
payment of 20% on that particular amount and that if we go into that area with that
line program then they would be added on and come in at that time as a part of the
project and that the rest of it be spread out on a prorated basis. They have the
option of doing it in one lump sum or dealing with it on a 20% down and we prorate
the rest of it.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that. Do we have what the amount is?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] was it for a 60 month period or a 48 month period?
Mr. Hicks: Well, we really hadn’t -- I think the figure that was set of $5,000, it
used about a -- it’s really a five year period we’re talking about.
Mr. Mayor: Would be over 60 months. Okay. We have a motion, and it was
seconded.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ve got a question. You said $5,000. I thought it was $10,000.
You’re saying that Mr. Mays’ motion is [inaudible] for $5,000?
Mr. Hicks: The original, or the discussion that was generated at one time for the
cost sharing out in that area showed that if a participation of $10,000 was made, then the
materials would be covered in that period of time. Now when that discussion was going
on, it was pointed out across the street there is a place where another church is going to
want to go, and so why they shouldn’t that other church be assessed $5,000 if and when
they want to come, and then Calvary Deliverance be assessed $5,000 now if they want to
do it? So that’s where the difference between the $10,000 and the $5,000 came from.
Mr. Kuhlke: Let me, if I can, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Kuhlke: If you have a line in there and another church is built, and you go in
and say we’re going to assess you $5,000 to tie onto this line, isn’t that inconsistent with
anything we do in the County right now, if a line is already existing?
Mr. Hicks: The only size line that is going out there now is a 2” line, and so it’s
too small to provide fire protection. And this is what has raised the issue even, you
38
know, with those, Mr. Kuhlke. And so what we’re doing here would be more in line with
what was done just a moment ago for New Zion Hill Baptist. A figure would be set, at
which they would participate, and then we would proceed on with it.
Mr. Kuhlke: I know. That’s for the church that’s there now.
Mr. Hicks: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: But once you get that line in, and if a church builds across the street
and they want water service to tie into that line, I have a hard time thinking that you are
going to be able to assess them $5,000 to make up the difference.
Mr. Hicks: I have no quarrel with that comment. The Attorney would need to
answer that.
Mr. Kuhlke: I mean it’s totally inconsistent with anything we do.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: My motion, y’all can restate it to me, but I didn’t make a motion to
assess anybody anything down the road. My point that I was getting to was that my
motion contained the pro-ration period, contained a down payment, but what it says is
that if we start the development in there, and the line becomes a central product of that
road, then you do it like you do any other road where you go in and you put a bigger line,
in that you’re not really assessing anybody. They are not -- we’re not giving them
something, they are still paying as a small entity to get on and to get fire protection so
that it’s not a gratuity. Because when we figured this thing the other day going down that
road, the assessment they would get under the proposed plan that we didn’t bring out of
Committee, they would have been much better off for themselves if they could have got
51% of [inaudible], they wouldn’t have paid but $670. But the point being, that little
lady sitting back there in the pretty dress right there next to the camera, she got more
footage than the church has got, she probably would have paid $2,000 to add on to it, and
that was why I made the statement about folk loving the church. You may love it, but
you ain’t necessarily planning to take on $2,000 more responsibility because you got to
bring in fire protection next door. What I’m looking at is that we run lines into areas as
we deal with the [inaudible], then just wade down that list in doing it. But if you’ve got
one entity that’s fixing to be built further down in there, they going to start with larger
customers, larger water usage, and I thought that was what we were about in terms of
economic development of where you getting in. And that was my reason for trying to
deal with it on that [inaudible], they were going to have pay $5,000 or $6,000 to deal with
the dry hydrant, and to help them in that form of it, it would then enhance what you may
have in growth that is down there on property that’s still for sale. And that way we’re not
giving away anything. They are paying going in and then we develop and start in a large
way, then they come off that particular payment. As would we deal with anybody else,
39
where we wouldn’t be assessing anything. Because if it’s gets back like you just said,
and I think Bill is right, in terms of where somebody else may go [inaudible], they were
going in with zero. But we also go in with zero anywhere else where we’ve got
[inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, perhaps nobody else up here wants to hear the
recommendation of the Lawyer and the Administrator, but this Commissioner does. To
quote the predecessor in this seat, Mr. Zetterberg, he said from time to time -- I think the
seniors will remember -- he said I’m confused. Well, I’m certainly confused. If we have
postponed the policy, how can we extend anything? Jim would you tell us what your
recommendation is with regard to this item, please?
Mr. Wall: Well, our recommendation was not far removed from what Mr. Mays
said. We were going to recommend $5,000 and that is for equipment only, whereas 37
involves both equipment and labor, materials and labor. We were going to recommend
$5,000 to be pro rated, paid over a three-year period. His is a five-year period. The
reason for the difference was because in this instance, you had other users that were
going to potentially benefit in the section, and I hear what Mr. Mays is saying, but you
would have, in my opinion, you would have other users that were going to benefit in the
interim section, so therefore we were not charging the labor, except the materials, and
amortizing over a period of time.
Mr. Shepard: The difference is the longer amortization for Mr. Mays and a
shorter amortization for you; is that correct?
Mr. Wall: And considering -- well, considering only materials in 38, and
materials and labor in 37.
Mr. Shepard: Well, at what point are we going to be able to develop a policy so
we extend the line out I think to connect to the Columbia County water line, their service
at the county line, Max? I think there was some benefit that some of the Commissioners
raised to interconnect at that point with Columbia County for mutual aid purposes and
pressure purposes and that kind of thing, Max. Why would voting on this today help or
hinder that?
Mr. Hicks: It really would not hinder it. It would help it in that we would
probably go ahead. If we’re going to run as far as Calvary Deliverance Evangelistic
Church, then it really would be more prudent, I would think, if we got the money to go
ahead and run on out to the Columbia County line. It would be just a short distance out,
and you would only disturb that road one time. Then you’d have your major water line in
and be done with it. So that would be what we would anticipate doing. That would be
the most cost effective way to do it at this time. It would help in that that would be that
participation from Calvary Deliverance Evangelistic Church. This has been a searching
process on the part of all of us in trying to arrive at a method of assessing a participation
40
in costs with instances that were beyond what the Commission had adopted several years
ago, where we just had short water lines or short sewer lines, and where the Utilities
Department personnel would build those lines, and that way we would only charge for
material. There would be no labor costs because we pay our guys no matter what they’re
doing, and so we felt it only fair to charge for materials. Then when we got into these
longer lines, then we began to not have the time for our people to do it, and now we’re
trying to reach a way to equitably share the costs, and we -- I appreciate everyone who is
grappling and working with this. I really do. We want to extend the lines, we want to
use what money we do have in the most beneficial manner. There are obviously different
ways to do it. And I appreciate those of you who are grappling with trying to do it in the
most cost-effective way. And this is where we came up with the $5,000. It would be
cost for Calvary Deliverance to share in the material costs. As Mr. Kuhlke questioned,
previously we had said $10,000 if there is only going to be one participation, but then the
question arose, well, would that be fair to Calvary? So everybody is grappling with
what’s fair and what’s going to be the best use of the funds, and I appreciate it.
Mr. Shepard: One other question. How, if additional property owners in this area
of Calvary Deliverance wish to have water services, water service rather, what charge if
any will we make to them, how do we handle that in light of what we’re voting on today?
Mr. Hicks: The only comment I can make right now, Commissioner, is that the
only way to gauge that would be to go into a customer participation guideline as we have
discussed where you ask the owners along the property, and if 51% of them agree that
they would be requesting right now, then they would participate. Otherwise, if we build
the line and there is no policy yet adopted, then it would be up to the Commission to say
how you wanted to charge or not to charge or to assess or not to assess. But we would go
ahead and build the line of the proper size and the proper length to do what we wanted to
do. That’s the best answer I can give you right now. The only way to determine, I think,
accurately what you’re asking, Commissioner, would be to drop back to the policy and
with what Mr. Wall brought up, because y’all had asked that Mr. Wall, Mr. Kolb and I
discuss this, and in discussing it then Mr. Wall brought up this new wrinkle with another
subdivision in another area, and it just --
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, one more question. In the absence of policy, Jim, we
could do this on an ad hoc basis is what you’re basically saying?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m sort of like Mr. Shepard. It’s a little bit
confusing, all the different issues that have come out regarding a potential policy, Mount
Zion Church, and then this church on Scott Nixon. Basically, there’s another way out of
this. And of course the Attorney is not going to agree with me on this, and normally I
41
wouldn’t even be proposing it. But I think we’re getting into a situation -- when we come
back with a policy in the future, the policy is not going to be consistent with what we do
here today. It probably won’t be consistent with our past practices. And in the
meantime, while we’re discussing $4,000 and $5,000 and $14,000, these different
amounts out, pro rating this many years and that many years, what the church wants to do
is to expand their services. They already have water at the existing church. They are
trying to expand and add on. And they’ve run into a problem with our City ordinance
that requires certain fire hydrants, certain issues in that regard. In the past, these issues
have come before us where a business wanted to expand in an area that didn’t have fire
service. A flea market wanted to repair a burned out place, and they didn’t have the
proper distance from a fire hydrant. Mr. Mayor, I’m going to make a motion that we
waive the requirement for the fire hydrant and allow the church to go on and do their
expansion, and leave this building, construction of the line until the time that it’s been
determined by the staff. At that time, the line will be free to the church and they can
hook on then. But they’re in the mode they need to expand, they need to move on with
their building program. This will allow them to do that. It won’t cost them a dime. And
in the future, when the line is run there it will be free. So I make a substitute motion, Mr.
Mayor, that we waive the requirement of the fire hydrant and allow the church to go on
and build. I think this is consistent with some of the past practices, particularly the flea
market. There is probably more people go to the flea market than do attend church on
Sunday. And they do it on Sunday. And it’s open as many times as the church is during
the week. So I make that in the form of a motion. I see Jim’s hand going up. I know he
disagrees with me.
Mr. Mayor: Let me see if we can get a second to your motion.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it go get it on the floor for discussion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Motion to waive the requirement and it’s been seconded.
Mr. Wall, you want to be heard on this?
Mr. Wall: I have voiced me -- while I understand what you’re trying to do and
understand, but in my opinion the flea situation, you will recall that we went to great
lengths to ensure that I think 1-1/2 or 2 sides were open where people could get out. The
situations that we have granted waivers, the automobile parts, again one big room, easy
access, easy exit out of there, limited number of people, customers. The other, a service
station, again one big room, glass front, easy ingress and egress out of that facility. Here
you’re dealing with a church. You’ve got people that are in a concentrated area. You’re
dealing with a fellowship hall that even though they may not be cooking there, there are
meals there. You’ve got multiple rooms, multiple -- I don’t know how many rooms, but
Sunday school classrooms, I assume. A sanctuary. In my opinion, it is creating a
42
dangerous situation, and even though it may cost the government to run the water line out
there, that’s a far better alternative than putting people at risk.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I agree with Mr. Wall 100%. I think the
Fire Department would have a lot to speak about when it comes to giving that type of
situation. When you’re talking about one person’s life in a situation like that where you
may not never need the plug, it may sit there for hundreds of years and we hope that we
never use it for that type of event. But to give a waiver to a sanctuary, to a church, to a
large congregated effort of people in one area would be disastrous for us as a
government. We have people come in, and I remember the situation with the flea market,
and the position with the flea market they had all the other buildings in existence before,
them same buildings was easy access, as Mr. Wall has said, to come in and out of. It was
a situation that was there before the water line was ever thought about, the flea market
was there. And we allowed them to continue to rebuild back what they had already set
up. But to do that in a church situation, to give a waiver I think -- I don’t think our fire
Code, our Fire Department would sit back and not say anything about that. I don’t think
even as Commissioners we want to even consider a waiver as such.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see if you do want to grant a waiver. We have a
substitute motion that would allow a waiver for this construction. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Colclough, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard,
Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion fails 1-9.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion as proposed by
Commissioner Mays. Any further discussion on the original motion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I just need to know the difference between what Mr. Wall is
recommending is two years?
Mr. Wall: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item 39.
Mr. Wall: On number 39, the recommendation --
43
Mr. Mayor: Let the Clerk read the caption first.
The Clerk:
39. Discuss cost sharing agreement regarding installation of sewer line to
property of Barry Tarpley. (Requested by Commissioner S. Shepard)
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Number 39, the recommendation was going to be the same as number
37. But y’all chose to do something else on 37. But the recommendation is that this was
an agreement that was made with the property owner. The property owner is going to be
the one to benefit from this, and our recommendation is to let that agreement stand.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: In light of the Attorney’s recommendation and in light of our votes
in the previous two items, there is no agreement with this gentleman, Mr. Tarpley. Dr.
Tarpley actually is considering having to replace his septic tank and he either replaces his
septic tank or he does not. The benefit to the City will be one less septic tank, plus I
think, Max, if we extend the line to his residence on Vassar Drive, we’ll be in a position
to go down Aumond Road in the future.
Mr. Hicks: That’s right.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make the motion that we authorize the Attorney and the
Utilities Director and the Administrator to negotiate a participation agreement with Dr.
Tarpley in the amount of $11,000 which is what he’s willing to pay and let him have the
option to put down 20% or pay it all in a lump sum and extend the service to his property.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, do we need a reconsideration on this item?
Mr. Wall: Well, I need some clarification, because I was told -- I was of the
understanding that this had been approved, and Mr. Hicks I understand has a letter from
the Administrator’s office saying that it had been approved. Now I understand through
the Administrator that the Clerk’s office has said that it was not approved. So --
The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: We did. It was on an approval letter. It would clarify that whole
issue if it was just voted on today.
Mr. Mayor: So we’re not reconsidering it if it hasn’t been approved?
44
Mr. Wall: Well, if Mr. Hicks has an approval letter, you may want to reconsider.
Mr. Mayor: Would that be part of Mr. Shepard’s motion?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll make that part of my motion.
Mr. Mayor: We have some discussion on this. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I’m in support, Mr. Mayor. There is no question about that. But
my question is has this gone through Committee? I mean it’s on this agenda today but
has this gone through the regular channels?
Mr. Shepard: It had, Mr. Williams, and it was used as one of the illustrative
examples when this policy was before here, before this body several times before. That’s
how you’ve got this project cost recovery data as back-up in the present book. And it
seems like it did not go to Committee the last time, but it had been before the Committee
cause I remember Dr. Tarpley and his wife coming before Engineering Services probably
some 60 days ago.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got no problem, Mr. Shepard. I mean I want to support it, but
I think we need to run this through Committee. I’m going to make a substitute motion
that we send this back through the committee and run it through like we do a normal
process and then get it back to Commission.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to the substitute motion?
Mr. Mays: I’ll second that to get it on for discussion, because I think they are
trying to clear up something down here about whether or not we already got an approval
letter. And that may clear up everything we need to do, because I think it may already be
done.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Max, can you give me some background on this? Is this the one
where we were so concerned about moving in a big piece of equipment that we might
break the guy’s driveway, that type of thing?
Mr. Hicks: No, sir. This is the one where Dr. Tarpley had first appeared before
the Engineering Services Committee at the request of Commissioner Shepard and we had
discussed it with him. The Commission voted -- the Engineering Services Committee and
Commission then voted to proceed with having this line designed so that we could get a
more accurate cost estimate. We proceeded to do that and then once that cost estimate
was done, then the Commission voted to go ahead and go out for bids, which we did.
And we received bids on it. And this $11,000 was presented to the Commission at the
same day that the items for New Zion Hill came up for reconsideration and the day that
45
the Calvary Evangelistic Deliverance came up for consideration. And so then they were
sent on to the Commission and this item for Vassar Drive was left on the consent agenda
and we thought it was approved. I regret that I don’t have the letter with me. I’m sure I
could go down to -- well, those stairs right behind me -- I’d have to ask Sara to go down
and get a copy of that approval letter, but we do have a letter of approval for this project,
so it has already gone through Committee and Commission. It’s just there was some
misunderstanding about did the Commission approve it or not, and apparently there was
even that -- we had the letter on hand and we were ready to go and award it to the
contractor, and then we heard well, now wait a minute, we don’t think we approved it.
But it has gone through Committee and it has gone through Commission.
Mr. Mayor: All right. I’d like to recognize Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard:
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams and Mr. Mayor, maybe the way to
address this to determine what we have done, in fact, is to table this until the end of the
meeting, and that way the appropriate search could be done while we go on to other
agenda items, bring the matter back before the end of this meeting, and we’ll determine if
I make a motion to table, Mr. Mayor.
we voted on it properly or not. So
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Mays: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Motion to table takes precedence. All in favor of the motion,
please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges: Just a question, Mr. Mayor. Can you table a vote -- can we do that
and we’ve already got a motion and a substitute motion on the floor?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Those motions are still there but we will come back to those motions.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: I assume we’ve got some research going on so we’ve tabled this so
we can address this.
The Clerk:
40.
Update from Administrator and or Public Works Director on citizens’
concerns regarding the Solid Waste Collection Program
.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
46
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as of last week the only
thing I can say is that we are continuously improving the service.
Mr. Colclough: Speak up a little bit, Mr. Kolb. Can’t hear you on this end.
Mr. Kolb: As I was saying, based on last week’s assessment, all I can say is that
the service continues to improve. The number of complains that we have been receiving
has gone down considerably since the very first week that the program started, and it’s a
month old and I think that we’re approaching normal where we would have been if we
were still under the old program. There are still some isolated areas and we’re still
working on those, but I think the service is continuing to improve.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, thank you. Mr. Mayor, there are some citizens here
from the Forest Estates area that -- Ms. [inaudible] is here, Mr. [inaudible], if they wanted
to have a minute of our time, I hope that we would grant it to them. They’ve had some
problems out there with their hauler. This has been a repeated area. It may be isolated.
In Mr. Kolb’s mindset. But they wanted to bring some concerns to us about their
particular hauler in that area, and I ask you to indulge them with a minute or two.
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon. Welcome. Would you give us your name and
address for the record, please?
Ms. Speaker: [inaudible]. 1602 Fairwood Drive. I’m the president of Fairwood-
Forest Estates Neighborhood Association. Some of our people have complained about
the recycling program. That they’re not picking up the newspapers. I know that’s true in
my case. They told me to just simply put it in the household trash on Monday. I don’t
want to do that. I’m taking it over to the Fire Department like I did before. But some
people are really concerned about this. And we also think that -- there was a suggestion
in the paper this morning that it would be helpful if recycling, if there could be boxes or
containers for recyclable items that would be distributed.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s do this. I think Mr. Kolb is prepared to respond to the
recycling and then we can move on to the other concerns that you have. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: In recent weeks, there was a card that was given to each customer, and
the card showed the schedule of when the refuse would be picked up, when yard waste
would be picked up, when recycling would be picked up. There was also a tear-off to be
sent back to the hauler with a stamp on it. It was pre-stamped and pre-addressed, if you
wanted a recycling bin. Now over the past month, as we’ve been trying to catch up, there
really hasn’t been a full-fledged recycling program, but we are working on it. We will be
moving into that area. If you didn’t get the tear-off, all you have to do is call your hauler
and request them to drop you off a recycle container.
47
Mr. Mayor: Please step forward. Give us your name and address for the record,
please.
Mr. Speaker: Joe [inaudible], 2332 Idlewylde Drive. The other day on my
recycled paper, I had it out. Had a big plastic bag. The truck come by, they picked up
my neighbor’s directly across the street from me. The man walked within ten feet of
mine and kept right on going. I called Mr. Shepard, plus I called down to the place down
there wherever it is, and somebody finally come back and picked it up. But as far as us
finding out that we could get a recycle bin, never heard anything about it.
Mr. Kolb: I’m hearing a success story, that you were missed and they came back
to get you, as we have always promised all along.
Mr. Speaker: They came back and got me because I called them.
Mr. Kolb: Well, that’s good. That’s what we want you to do.
Mr. Speaker: But the man walked ten feet from it.
Mr. Kolb: Well, nevertheless, they picked it up within the 24 hours that they said
they would pick it up.
Mr. Speaker: Affirmative.
Mr. Kolb: Now if you would call your hauler and ask them to provide you with a
recycle bin, I’m sure that they will cooperate. In the future, if someone walks within ten
feet of your bag and they miss it, I would also suggest that you call your hauler because
they are supposed to respond within 24 hours.
Mr. Speaker: I had A-1 years ago, which is what I have now. And had to cancel
that because of the sorry service that I was getting. Now I got them back again and I’m
stuck with them.
Mr. Kolb: Sounds like you’re getting good service to me.
Mr. Mayor: Let me just say this. We’re not going to tolerate sorry service on the
part of the contractors we have picking up trash in this community, and we appreciate it
when citizens bring those defects in the system to our attention, because we do seriously
try to deal with those things very forthrightly and very quickly. And we appreciate your
coming here and sharing that with us today.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Shepard?
48
Mr. Shepard: Well, Mr. Mayor, I appreciate allowing these citizens to voice their
concerns before this body. I think that’s been one of the ways we’ve had to see that we
improve our service that is given by our haulers. But I think when we expand the service,
Andy Cheek, be it Fairington or be it any other service districts that we consider in the
contract in the future not an “all or nothing” rejection of the contract or threaten the
contract, but performance incentives related to the number of complaints. And if there
are a certain number of complaints, then there would be some sort of contractual penalty
off what payments are made to the haulers, and I just think that we need to have these
haulers’ full attention and we get that, I think, through their pocketbooks. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anyone else want to be heard on the trash? All right.
It’s a no action item so we’ll move on to the next item. Should be item number 42.
The Clerk:
APPOINTMENTS
42. Consider the following for reappointment/appointment to Development
Authority of Richmond County:
Members Term Appointment Expiration
Mr. Terry Elam 4-yr 6/03/97 6/03/2001
Mr. Walter Hornsby 4-yr 6/03/97 6/03/2001
Mr. Jack Widener 2/05/00 6/03/2001
(filled unexpired term of Monty Osteen)
Mr. Harrell Tiller 4-yr 6/03/97 6/03/2001
Sen. Charles Walker 4-yr 6/03/97 6/03/2001
NOMINATIONS
Ms. Peggy Golosky
Ms. Brenda Bonner
Mr. Michael Schepis
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, you see the five terms that are expiring, and we’ve got
eight people on the agenda. The Chair will be open to take nominations --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: -- for appointment to the Development Authority. Yes, Mr.
Williams? You spoke first.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I just wanted to move that we consider the names listed
on the agenda and close the nominations for those names.
Mr. Mayor: All right, you wanted to go with the eight names that are on the
agenda?
Mr. Williams: Right.
49
Mr. Mayor: All right. Do we have any other nominations? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to nominate Mr. George Kolb.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb’s name will be added. Anyone else? We have the eight
names on the agenda, plus Mr. Kolb’s. We have nine names. We vote on them in the
order they’re nominated, so we’ll start at the top of the list.
Mr. Kuhlke: My recommendation on Mr. Kolb is to replace Mr. Hornsby.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Wait a moment and see if we’re ready to vote. All right. Mr.
Wall, do you need to look something up or are we ready to vote?
Mr. Wall: Yes, there is a question about the County Administrator’s position.
Mr. Mayor: Why don’t we take up the other seats on here then and then come
back to that?
Mr. Wall: Well, if my recollection is correct, I don’t think that [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Well, I’ve got five seats and eight names. Nine names.
Mr. Wall: Okay.
The Clerk: Five seats.
Mr. Wall: Five seats. Okay. Excuse me.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll just skip over that one and vote on the others here. So the first
one on here, Madame Clerk, is Terry Elam. All in favor of Terry Elam, vote with your
green light.
(Vote on Terry Elam)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: And then we’ll skip down to Mr. Widener. All in favor of Mr.
Widener, vote with your green light, please.
(Vote on Jack Widener)
Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough abstain.
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Motion fails 4-4-2.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the next name, which is Harrell Tiller. Vote with
your green light if you favor the appointment of Mr. Tiller.
50
(Vote on Harrell Tiller)
Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Beard and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion fails 4-3-3.
Mr. Mayor: That brings us to Sen. Charles Walker. Vote with your green light
for Sen. Walker.
(Vote on Sen. Charles Walker)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us down to Ms. Peggy Golosky. Vote with your green
light for Ms. Golosky.
(Vote on Peggy Golosky)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Next is Ms. Brenda Bonner. Vote for Ms. Bonner with your green
light.
(Vote on Brenda Bonner)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 6-4.
Mr. Mayor: Next is Mr. Michael Schepis. Please vote yes with your green light.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, how many seats are we getting?
Mr. J. Brigham: You only got five.
The Clerk: After this vote, that’s it.
Mr. Mays: Okay. [inaudible]. I was looking for whether or not that was a
designated seat -- I was asking whether or not that was designated or not.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: It is not a designated seat. What the ordinance that created the
Development Authority said was that only one of whom may be an officer or employee
of the County, and I think by tradition or whatever they put somebody from the County
on there. But it’s not mandatory.
Mr. Mays: All right.
(Vote on Michael Schepis)
51
Mr. Bridges, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Bridges: What did I vote no on? I didn’t push a button.
The Clerk: You voted no on Mr. Schepis’ appointment to the Authority.
Mr. Bridges: Okay.
The Clerk: So appointments to the Development Authority of Richmond County
is Mr. Terry Elam, Sen. Walker, Ms. Golosky, Ms. Bonner, and Mr. Schepis.
Mr. Mayor: Item 43.
The Clerk:
43. Consider the following for appointment to seat (7) on the Downtown
Development Authority due to the resignation of Julian Osbon. (Requested
by Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
??
Mr. Phil Wahl, III
??
Dr. Charles Freeman
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham, you put this on here?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes, sir, I did, and I’d like to nominate Mr. Phil Wahl.
Mr. Mayor: Are there any other nominations? No other nominations are heard.
Do we need to as a formality go ahead and vote, I guess, on Mr. Wahl? All in favor of
Mr. Wahl, please vote with your green light.
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got a question on this. This is an open seat that’s available? Are
we going to be bumping these other folks?
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Cheek: Okay. Is this going to bump any of the other five?
The Clerk: No, this is the Downtown Development Authority.
Mr. Cheek: Got you.
(Vote on Phil Wahl)
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is number 44.
The Clerk:
52
OTHER BUSINESS:
44. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the October 2 regular meeting to
Thursday, October 4 at 2:00 P.M.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection?
Mr. Bridges: I object, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a conflict on that day.
Mr. Mayor: All right, let’s go ahead and vote then. We’d better vote on it.
The Clerk: Who seconded that?
Mr. Colclough: I did.
The Clerk: Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of moving the meting to October 4 at 2:00 o’clock,
please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make a substitute motion?
Mr. Mayor: I guess you can.
Mr. Bridges: Since it hasn’t been quite voted on.
Mr. Mayor: The voting hasn’t commenced.
Mr. Cheek: Almost commenced. Clear mine, Ms. Bonner, please.
Mr. Bridges: In order to accommodate in this case me, I’m happy to
accommodate those that are going to the ACCG, could we hold that meeting
beginning at 4:00 o’clock so I can make the meeting as well, on that day? And I
make that in the form of a motion, same day, just different time.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Four o’clock. Substitute motion is to meet at four o’clock
on October 4. All in favor of that, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Motion carries 10-0.
53
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I might make a suggestion, too. It might be a good day,
since we’re doing everything else different, including the time, to hold the meeting
somewhere out in the county.
Mr. Beard: Don’t push it.
Mr. Bridges: You say I’m pushing too hard, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke chairs the Site Selection Committee. Perhaps they could
pursue that, too. Item number 45, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
45. Select ACCG voting delegate for Joint ACCG/GMA Fall Conference
scheduled for September 30 through October 3, 2001.
Mr. Mayor: Nominations, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Yes, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I nominate a member of the ACCG Board, my colleague to my
left here, not always on my left, Jerry Brigham.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d like to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Kuhlke: Just kidding.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of Mr. Brigham then, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, I think that brings that to you. We still have an item on the
table. Have we finished that research or do we need to come back to that after the legal
meeting?
Mr. Shepard: I’d ask we do it after legal meeting.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll come back to it. Mr. Wall, your request for your
legal meeting?
54
Mr. Wall:
46. LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss real estate matters.
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation matters.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a motion to do such?
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor then, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Mays and Mr. Kuhlke not voting.
Motion carries 6-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:20 - 5:20 P.M.]
Mr. Mayor: All right, the last item of business is to revisit item number 39, which
we had tabled. We had two motions on the floor at the time we tabled it.
39. Discuss cost sharing agreement regarding installation of sewer line to
property of Barry Tarpley. (Requested by Commissioner S. Shepard)
Mr. J. Brigham: I move we take Item 39 off the table.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? Any objection? Item 39 is off the table. Madame
Clerk, you’re going to have to refresh my memory on the two motions we have.
The Clerk: The main motion by Mr. Shepard was to authorize the Attorney, the
Administrator and the Director to work out a cost sharing agreement with Mr. Tarpley for
the $11,000 with a 20% down payment.
Mr. Shepard:
Right. And I think I have a restated motion which will carry the
intent of the substitute motion as well. Is that right, Mr. Williams? I’ll state the motion
But the restated motion, Mr. Mayor, will be to
and then he can make a decision.
confirm the previous action of this Committee in reference to the Dr. Tarpley case
and give Dr. Tarpley the option to remit his $11,000 participation either in a lump
sum or in twelve equal installments.
Mr. Williams: So moved.
55
Mr. Mayor: Discussion?
Mr. Williams: I got one question.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: I got one question. The total amount. I mean we’re talking about
the $11,000 participation, but how much is the total amount? Jim, you got that?
Mr. Wall: $49,562.95.
Mr. Williams: $49,500. I just wanted to get that out there. That’s all the
questions I got.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of that motion then, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Cheek: I have one sports announcement, too.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let the Clerk publish the vote results.
Mr. Bridges votes No.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: We also need a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign the affidavit.
47. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. The Chair will recognize Mr. Cheek
for his sports announcement.
Mr. Cheek: Sports announcement is on September 22 from 5:00 to 7:00 we will
be taking on and defeating Columbia County at GreenJackets Stadium. This will
complete the game. They’ve requested that we start over from scratch. We’ll have to
discuss that among ourselves. But please plan to attend and participate. We’re working
on hockey for Commissioner Kuhlke next time.
56
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further business to come before the Commission?
Motion to adjourn? We’re 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 the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on September 4, 2001.
Clerk of Commission