Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2001 Regular Meeting REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER September 18, 2001 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:05 p.m., Tuesday, September 18, 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 presented by the Reverend Wright. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have a resolution? The Clerk: Yes, sir. RESOLUTION: Consider approval of a resolution condemning the cowardly and deadly actions of the terrorists events of September 11; and supporting the President of the United States, as he works with his national security team to defend against additional attacks, and find the perpetrators to bring them to justice . Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure? Mr. Shepard: I move for approval. Mr. Cheek: Second, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Mr. Cheek: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to take this moment to sing some praises for our local folks that are here. The Sheriff’s Department, Sheriff Strength responded 1 immediately and proactively to get security forces in place to work with FAA personnel at the airport, as well as secure the municipal building and our other assets. The Marshal’s Department, Steve Smith was quick to respond. Our Water Works Department inventoried our assets and took measures to secure those. Our Public Works and Recreation Departments all took proactive steps to be prepared should any event come to Augusta, and I must say I am very proud of them for those efforts. In times of emergency, it’s nice to know we have those kind of folks looking out for us. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I also would like to thank you and the business community for establishing the fund, the relief fund, of raising $1 million for the efforts of those who have been -- in the situation in New York and Washington, D.C. I think this is a vision part on our government here, and I think we are to be congratulated for that and I am urging all the citizens to participate in that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. Mr. Beard, I appreciate that. We’ve got mayors in about a dozen cities around Augusta who at this moment are out raising funds in their communities, and I have no doubt we will reach a million dollars by Monday. This is a very giving and very caring community. Anyone else? All in favor of the motion then, please vote aye. Mr. Mays and Mr. Bridges out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Bridges and Mr. Mays later join the meeting and ask that their votes be added to the support of the resolution. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, what I’d like to do is go to the addendum agenda, the revision for the presentation. We’d like to add that to the agenda today, the Disaster Medical Assistance Team presentation. ADDENDUM AGENDA: PRESENTATION: GA-4 Disaster Medical Assistance Team through the National Disaster Medical System and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to that? None heard, so we’ll proceed with that. We have a group of people in the Chambers with us today who are part of something called the Disaster Medical Assistance Team. And these people received a telephone call on September 11 while many of us were absorbing the news, what was 2 going on, what was actually the situation in New York and at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania, and we were reaching out to be close with those we knew and with our families, but these people you see here in the blue-and-white shirts are health care professionals in this community. These were receiving a telephone call to pack up and go and aid the people who had been harmed by these terrorists on September 11. Instead of moving closer to their families at this time, they were called to leave their families and go help people who truly had a greater need. We certainly appreciate your commitment and your devotion to serving on this Disaster Medical Assistance Team, and what we wanted to do today is recognize each one of you with a certificate of appreciation. (Mayor calls out names of Team members and presents certificate of appreciation.) (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Mayor: This is just another example of why we call Augusta a City of Character. Citizens like this. Thank you very much. Next item? The Clerk: PRESENTATION: Employee of the Month Mr. Robert Guy Augusta Recreation Department The Clerk: The Employee of the Month Selection Committee has selected Mr. Robert Guy with the Recreation and Parks Department as August Employee of the Month. Mr. Guy has worked for the City of Augusta for a little over a year. Mr. Guy is employed as a Groundskeeper I at Diamond Lakes Regional Park. He was nominated by his supervisor, Darrell Bennett, who gave the following reasons for his nomination: (reading) “Robert is a dedicated employee who works extra hours on his off time doing park projects. In addition to his jobs as Groundskeeper I, Robert has initiated several park improvement projects, and his dedication to the job is outstanding.” The Committee felt that based on Mr. Bennett’s recommendation and Mr. Guy’s attributes, he should be awarded Employee of the Month. Tom Back, Director of Recreation and Parks, states that (reading) “Robert takes pride in his work at Diamond Lakes Regional Park. To say he is a dependable employee would be an understatement. His multiple talents, which includes plumbing and carpentry skills, have saved the Department valuable time and financial resources that has had a major impact on this success of Diamond Lakes Regional Park. He is truly one of the MVP, Most Valuable Players, with the Recreation and Parks Department.” Congratulations, Mr. Guy. (A round of applause is given.) 3 The Clerk: DELEGATION: Augusta Recreation Mr. Tom Beck Re: 2002 Georgia Games Championships Mr. Beck: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, as you are aware in 1999 Augusta was the first city outside of Atlanta to host the Georgia Games Championships. the Championships ended up being one of the most successful events in Augusta’s history. Well, I’m here to report to you again, as you’re aware, that we’re hosting the 2002 Championships again. And we’re here to let you know that, that the committee is moving forward with this effort to make it the best Championships ever. What I’d like to do is introduce two people that you know very well, Barry White. Barry, of course, is with CVB and is a partner with us in this. As well as Ed Presnell. Ed? And Ed is with the Sports Council and is part of the Augusta Games Committee. And what I’d like to do now is to introduce to you the new Executive Director of the Georgia Games Commission to officially pass the flag of the Georgia Games Championships from Atlanta to the City of Augusta, and Mr. Mayor, if you could come down and join us down here for that. If you would, please welcome Mr. Eric [inaudible] with the Georgia Games Commission. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Tom. The Commission is very excited to come back to Augusta in 2002. For those who were here in ’99, it was a great opportunity for everyone in the State, and especially Augusta. For those, to put it into perspective, the Championships are larger than the Olympics. More sports, more athletes, more venues. Many people don’t understand that. And I’d like to take this opportunity, Mayor Young, to come on up and pass over the flag. This is our mascot, Spike. He represents all grass roots amateur sports across the state of Georgia. (A round of applause is given.) Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Eric. Thank you, Tom. We all have great memories of the Georgia Games that came to Augusta in 1999. Madame Clerk, let’s look at the revisions to the agenda and then we’ll move forward. The Clerk: Our addendum agenda, Item 1, 2 and 3. Item 4 has asked to be deleted from the addendum agenda. 4 ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA: 1. Acceptance of a Federal grant under Airport Improvement Program Project (AIP) Number 3-13-0011-22. The grant amount is $1,560,741. 2. Motion to approve contract with Interspace Airport Advertising, subject to approval of the Executive Director of Bush Field and Attorney. 3. Acceptance of a Federal grant under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for the acquisition of an Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Vehicle (ARFF). The grant amount is $586,621. 4. Motion to deny relief for failure to file timely for freeport exemption. Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding any of these items to the agenda today? Mr. Shepard: Could we add it to the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding these to the consent agenda? None heard, so Madame Clerk, we’ll include these with our consent agenda. The Clerk: Our Consent Agenda, which consists of items 1 through 39, including the three items on our addendum agenda. That’s items 1 through 39, including the three items on the addendum agenda. For the purpose of any objectors to our Planning petitions that are on our consent agenda, I will read the location and the requested petition. If there are any objectors, would you please signify your objection by raising your hand? PLANNING: 1. Z-01-57 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from R. Van Hudson, of behalf of A. Craig Temples, requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 122.22 feet east of the southeast corner of C & S Drive and Wrightsboro Road. (3346 Wrightsboro Road) DISTRICT 3 2. Z-01-58 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Pam C. Kitchens requesting a change of zone from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located on the northwest right-of- way line of Third Street, 63.83 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Telfair Street and Third Street. (505 Third Street) DISTRICT 1 3. Z-01-59 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carl P. Dowling, on behalf 5 of David and Terri Lucas, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 962 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Peach Orchard Road. (3791 Peach Orchard Road) DISTRICT 6 4. Z-01-61 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Daisy Vincent, on behalf of Rose Cales, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3B ( Multiple-family Residence) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road, 830 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Rosier Road intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road. (2342 Windsor Spring Road) DISTRICT 3 The Clerk: Are there any objections to those Planning petition requests? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: For the Alcohol petitions: 11. Motion to approve a request by Sun Knight to transfer the retail package Liquor License to be used in connection with Overpass Package Shop from 3745 Peach Orchard Rd. Suite C to 3745 Peach Orchard Rd. Suite D. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 17. Motion to approve a request by Steven R. Kinder for a Sunday Sales License to be used in connection with Sports Pub & Grill located at 1031 Ellis St. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) The Clerk: Are there any objections to those liquor applications? Mr. Mayor: None are noted, Madame Clerk. Gentlemen, your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda? Mr. Bridges: I move to approve. Mr. J. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Second. Would you like to pull any items before we vote on it? Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to pull item 22 just for some clarification, please. 6 Mr. Mayor: All right. Any other items, gentlemen? None heard. PLANNING: 1. Z-01-57 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from R. Van Hudson, of behalf of A. Craig Temples, requesting a change of zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) and B-2 (General Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the south right-of-way line of Wrightsboro Road, 122.22 feet east of the southeast corner of C & S Drive and Wrightsboro Road. (3346 Wrightsboro Road) DISTRICT 3 2. Z-01-58 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Pam C. Kitchens requesting a change of zone from Zone R-3C (Multiple-family Residence) to Zone P-1 (Professional) affecting property located on the northwest right-of- way line of Third Street, 63.83 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Telfair Street and Third Street. (505 Third Street) DISTRICT 1 3. Z-01-59 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Carl P. Dowling, on behalf of David and Terri Lucas, requesting a change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Peach Orchard Road, 962 feet southwest of the southwest corner of the intersection of Boykin Road and Peach Orchard Road. (3791 Peach Orchard Road) DISTRICT 6 4. Z-01-61 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Daisy Vincent, on behalf of Rose Cales, requesting a change of zone from Zone R-1A (One-family Residence) to Zone R-3B ( Multiple-family Residence) affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road, 830 feet, more or less, northeast of a point where the northeast right-of-way line of Rosier Road intersects with the southeast right-of-way line of Windsor Spring Road. (2342 Windsor Spring Road) DISTRICT 3 5. ZA-R-145 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to change Section 25-A PDR (Planned Development Riverfront) Zone to eliminate contradictory language regarding the review process. 6. FINAL PLAT – BAREFIELDS, SECTION TWO – S-616 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from Southern Partners, Inc., on behalf of Hubert Barefield requesting Final Plat approval for Barefields, Section Two. This property is located on Barefield Court, off of Barefield Drive. (Staff 7 Approved 9-5-2001) 7. FINAL PLAT – HOLLOW KEG, SECTION 4, PHASE 2 – S-586-II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Daniel P. Matheny, requesting Final Plat approval for Hollow Keg, Section 4, Phase 2. This property is located on Union Grove Circle, west of the intersection of Union Grove Circle (Staff Approved 9-5-2001) 8. FINAL PLAT – BOBBY JONES BUSINESS PARK, PHASE II-B – S-605-II – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from James G. Swift and Associates, on behalf of Bobby Jones Business Park Joint Venture, requesting Final Plat approval for Bobby Jones Business Park, Phase II-B. This property is located on Franke Industrial Drive, adjacent to Bobby Jones Business Park, Phase I. (Staff Approved 9-5-2001) 9. FINAL PLAT – AMBERLAKE ESTATES – PHASE III – S-610 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County Planning Commission to approve a petition from George L. Godman & Associates, on behalf of Amberlake Estates Development Company, requesting Final Plat approval for Amberlake Estates, Phase III. This property is located on Woodlake Drive, east of Ewart Court, adjacent to Amberlake Estates, Phase II, and Woodlake Subdivision. (Staff Approved 9-5-2001) PUBLIC SERVICES: 10. Motion to approve the recommendation of the Director of License & Inspections Department with an October 1, 2001 compliance date regarding taxi cab companies that are violating specific sections of the Taxicab Ordinance; with staff review of ordinance with recommendation (s) brought back for consideration at the second meeting in October. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 11. Motion to approve a request by Sun Knight to transfer the retail package Liquor License to be used in connection with Overpass Package Shop from 3745 Peach Orchard Rd. Suite C to 3745 Peach Orchard Rd. Suite D. District 6. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 13. Motion to approve a request by Amy J. Pollock for a Massage Therapist license to be used in connection with Hand Over Stress located at 3455 Wrightsboro Rd. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 14. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s grant applications to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for capital funds. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 15. Motion to approve the use of $5,000 from Augusta Public Transit’s contingency funds to pay the local share for the purchase of a vehicle for 8 Rural Transit. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 16. Motion to renew the 5311 Rural Transportation Grant between the Georgia Department of Transportation and Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) 17. Motion to approve a request by Steven R. Kinder for a Sunday Sales License to be used in connection with Sports Pub & Grill located at 1031 Ellis St. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 18. Motion to approve amending Year 2002 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG funds by redirecting $200,000 from the Housing Rehabilitation Program to Meadowbrook and McDuffie Woods Park Projects; and send the reminder of the Plan back to committee for further study. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 10, 2001) 19. Motion to approve a Subordination Agreement for Frances T. Kelly, 2014 Olive Road, Augusta, GA 30904. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 10, 2001) 20. Motion to approve bid award Paint Contract to Lowe’s for the Housing Rehabilitation Paint Improvements Program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 10, 2001) 21. Motion to approve a draw account not to exceed $30,500.00 for administrative expenses against Antioch Ministries 2000 HOME funds to assist with financial obstacles associated with Phase II of the Florence Street Revitalization Project. Antioch Ministries will reimburse the account $5,000.00 for each newly constructed house sold. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee September 10, 2001) PUBLIC SAFETY: 22. Deleted from consent agenda. FINANCE: 24. Motion to approve a request of funding for Capital Outlay Requests. (Approved by Finance Committee September 10, 2001) ENGINEERING SERVICES: 25. Motion to approve a Resolution to the Health Department supporting closure of a residential fishing pond at 2721 Willis Foreman Road enforcing the nuisance provision and a copy of said Resolution be forwarded to our U.S. Congressional Delegation. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 26. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95, Parcel 33, which is owned by Evelyn A. Wroten, for right-of-way on the Barton Chapel 9 Road Improvements Project, Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 27. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Cathy Bolin Ghann, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 3116 Whaley Road for a purchase price of $3,000.00: 0.05 acre, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 0.06 acre, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 28. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between University Health Care Foundation, Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a purchase price of $10,394.00: 8,564.77 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and 1,375.25 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 29. Motion to approve execution of Georgia Power Company’s Governmental Encroachment Agreement No. 30617 (Goshen-South Augusta 230kv Transmission Line). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 30. Motion to approve Contracts of Sale on 2919 Kipling Drive and 304 Avery Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 31. Motion to approve expenditure of an estimated $31,000 from Phase III SPLOST allocated for Municipal Building Renovations to remodel the Administrator’s Office. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) . 32. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #327-04-201812086) in the amount of $137,000.00 funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax, Phase III Recapture and authorize to let to bid the Adjusting Roadway Structures, Phase VI Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 33. Motion to approve a 3-year lease with Hutch Holdings, Inc. for 588 square feet of office space to be used as office space for the Coroner’s Office located at 360 Bay Street, Suite 450, Augusta, Georgia, at a rental of $603.58 per month and the Human Relations Commission Office for 1,599 square feet at a rental of $1,640.83 per month. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 34. Motion to approve Contracts of Sale on 1933 Rozella Road, 306 Avery Drive and 3626 Wrightsboro Road. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 35. Motion to approve the purchase of phases two, three and four of the existing computerized maintenance management software for the CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management System) Program. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee September 10, 2001) 10 APPOINTMENTS: 36. Motion to ratify the Legislative appointment of Mr. James Riles to the Sheriff’s Merit System Board to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Earl Rhodes. 37. Motion to ratify the Legislative appointment of Mr. Walter Thomas to the ARC Human Relations Commission to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Ben Crickenburger. 38. Motion to accept the resignation of Mr. Richard Muns from the Sheriff’s Merit Board effective November 30,2001 or upon the appointment of a replacement. PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS: 39. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on September 4, 2001. Addendum Item 1. Acceptance of a Federal grant under Airport Improvement Program Project (AIP) Number 3-13-0011-22. The grant amount is $1,560,741. Addendum Item 2. Motion to approve contract with Interspace Airport Advertising, subject to approval of the Executive Director of Bush Field and Attorney. Addendum Item 3. Acceptance of a Federal grant under the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) for the acquisition of an Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Vehicle (ARFF). The grant amount is $568,621. Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the consent agenda, then, minus item number 22, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 8-2. [Item 17] Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-16, 18-21, 23-39, Addendum Items 1-3] The Clerk: 22. Motion to approve Cellular One proposal submitted in response to RFP #01- 097, Consolidated Cellular Telephone and Pager Services for City of Augusta Information Technology. (Approved by Public Safety Committee September 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I have no problem with this. I just want 11 to get some clarification as of how many pagers and cell phones do we have, I guess, presently in our system that we would have to go to a service like this. I mean do we have that many cell phones and pagers? Mr. Hewett: Mr. Williams, we currently have 152 cellular users and 259 pager users. Mr. Williams: Are these users with cell and pager, you’re saying? And a pager, you’re saying? Are we talking about – Mr. Hewett: The largest majority of the 152 cellular users also have pagers. Also have pagers. Mr. Williams: That’s all, Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to get some clarification on that. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Any other questions? Do we have a motion? Mr. Bridges: I move for approval Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor then, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Could I – I apologize to the Commission and the guests that I was running late, but I was at a South Augusta Exchange Club meeting listening to Gen. Cavanaugh give a speech concerning Tuesday’s events. Could the record show that I vote in favor of the resolution that the Commission previously voted on? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir. Madame Clerk, if you’d make that notation. The Clerk: Yes sir. What about item 17? Mr. Bridges: And also against Sunday sales. Thank you for reminding me. The Clerk: Mr. Colclough? 12 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: The same, Mr. Mayor. I was going to do it when we came out of Legal and consolidate the request [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: You’d like to have your vote recorded as affirmative on that resolution? Mr. Mays: Of course. The Clerk: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Okay, the next item then is number 40? The Clerk: PUBLIC SERVICES: 40. Motion to approve a request by Hong Park for an on premise consumption Beer License to be used in connection with Pro Billiard located at 2609 Peach Orchard Road. District 2. Super District 9. (No recommendation from Public Services Committee September 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Is there a recommendation from the Inspection Department? I don’t know that all the Commissioners were here for the committee meeting. Mr. Speaker: This is a request from Mr. Hong Park for a beer license to be used in connection with Pro Billiard at 2609 Peach Orchard Road. And we do have all the necessary signatures and we recommend approval. Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Park? Mr. Speaker: Yes, sir, he’s here. Mr. Mayor: All right. Would the petitioner like to address the Commission or do you have a representative? Mr. Speaker: He has a representative. Mr. Mayor: All right. Give us your name and address for the record, please. Mr. Fleming: My name is Bill Fleming. I’m an attorney and I’m down here at 461 Greene Street. I know Mr. Park. He’s actually across the street in a little grocery store right across from us, and I think many of us may know him in the community. We 13 also have Ms. Vicki Turner here. She actually owns the property which Mr. Park just simply seeks to turn into a little pool hall, a billiard establishment with a couple of video games. She also owns other pieces of property in that location. We urge the Commission to strongly consider allowing him simply to have a beer license. I understand that he is going to sell some snacks, maybe some hot dogs, chips, things like that, and would like a beer license to accompany that in order to enhance his business a little bit. The business has been vacant for about four months. There’s a likelihood it may not rented or not be rented to such a good tenant as Mr. Park, so we strongly request that you consider his application at this time. Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any objectors? Any objectors here? None are noted. Gentlemen, y’all have any questions or motions or anything? Mr. Mays: I so move to approve, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? All in favor of the motion then, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough votes No. Motion carries 9-1. The Clerk: ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES: 41. Approve the implementation of HMO/POS (Point of Service) Health Insurance Plan; design a Flexible Spending account and a Vision Plan. (No recommendation from Administrative Services Committee September 10, 2001) Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, do you want to address this? Or Ms. Pelaez? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ll start if off and then have questions responded to. At your committee meeting, you asked us to take a look at the duplication of benefits clause that is absent from our current medical health insurance contract. Staff did do so. Originally we had thought that there was State law that prohibited it; however, after doing further research and talking to Blue Cross/Blue Shield we find that it is not, that it can be added to it. However, there is a price tag. We would have to pick up all of the co-pay on a secondary insurance claim where another primary would require a deductible or some type of a co-payment to it. So it will add – and I’m not sure how much – I’ll have to have staff give that information to you. But it would add to the cost of our current health care plan. In light of that additional expense, I would 14 recommend that we maintain our current coverage and approve the recommendation as submitted. I will ask Ms. Byrd-Pelaez to answer questions and give more details as to cost. Mr. Mayor: Ms. Pelaez, do you have anything you want to say before we open it up for questions? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir, and hopefully alleviate the questions that we had on the non-duplication clause in the last meeting. Mr. Kolb is correct. We did go back and speak with the administrator from the Blue Cross/Blue Shield organization, and he has stated that it is not the norm for organizations to delete the maintenance of benefits clause or the non-duplication clause, whichever term you choose to use. If we did do that, it basically would mean – let me give you an example so you can see – we throw the terms around and it’s kind of hard to understand with just using the terms. Let’s just say we had an employee that worked here and his wife works at Wal-Mart. He covers himself and his wife as a dependent under our coverage here, and she is covered at Wal-Mart under a PPO plan there as primary. Let’s say that the Wal-Mart PPO is the same as ours, 80/20 percent coverage. That employee at Wal-Mart decides that she’s going to go the doctor, they cover the 80%. If we decide to delete our maintenance benefit clause or a non-duplication clause, we would then pick up the other 20%. If we leave it as is, the way we have it right now, is since they have covered the 80% which is the maximum coverage under our PPO plan, that person would be responsible for the 20%. When we tried to decide how much this would cost, it’s very difficult to do because it really does depend on what percentage we would have to pick up under someone else’s plan. But we did some really quick figures and it would – if we just did it on the 80/20 example I gave you, based on our current costs this year, we would have to add another $1.2 million to our claims. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, any questions? Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, the facts also behind this is if the person working at Wal- Mart drops their insurance, then we would be left paying the entire 80%. All we’d be required to pick up would be the additional amount not carried by the primary carrier. Now that’s the way the language is structured in our Blue Cross/Blue Shield agreement at Savannah River, and I think we could do this. The question we must ask is (1) how many employees we have that have spouses that work for other people that have insurance, and I would imagine that’s probably in the 10% range or so. But (2), we need to ask ourselves are we willing to take our employees who make less than $20,000 a year and strap them with that 20%, which could be thousands and thousands of dollars. Now if they’re paying into an insurance program, it seems to me that that insurance program – be it county, city, or private entity – ought to cover them. And that is no more than we would have to pay if they gave up their medical insurance. So what do we need to do? We need to either pass this and make this amendment, or just encourage our employees 15 not to have medical coverage and then we can pay the whatever multi-million it is going to cost us to do it later. We need to help our employees. We’ve got many of them that are just barely above the poverty line, and that $8,000, ladies and gentlemen, is a lot of money to some people. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Ms. Pelaez, where would the rejected claims fund come from? Would it be from general revenue? Would it be from the general fund? If we didn’t have this clause, where would you get that money that you were talking about, from the quick figure? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Well, from the quick figure it would have to come from general fund unless we pass that cost on to the employee or we pick it up, and it would be very hard to budget for that because we don’t know what the bottom line figure would be to pass it on to the employee to pick it up, and if we picked it up it would have to come from the general fund. Mr. Shepard: And your recommendation again, and the Administrator’s recommendation, is to leave the language alone on the non-duplication clause? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. Mr. Shepard: Pass it as recommended? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. And if I could, in doing that what would happen under the POS plan, after the person reaches their maximum annual out-of-pocket, then it is covered at 100%, so the scenario that Commissioner Cheek gives, the person is covered under our medical plan entirely after that $1,000, then there is no other cost. And that we can budget for. However, if we are at 20% here, 40% there, that really becomes very difficult. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the recommendation of the Administrator and the Personnel Director. Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and a second. Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we send it back to committee. This is very, very serious. We’re talking about our employees, like Commissioner Cheek has said, that at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, when it comes to salaries. And one sickness, one trip to the hospital can ruin the 16 average family with their income, such as we got our employees making. And I’m in agreement, but I think we need to take it back to committee so we can kind of talk about this some more, we can look at it, maybe come up with another solution, maybe there is another avenue that we can take to try and work this thing out where it’s going to beneficial not only for this government but especially those people who [inaudible] in this government who keeping us afloat. Mr. Bridges: I second it. Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Bridges: Second, yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Cheek again? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, those calculations are based on what the insurance industry deems reasonable and customary fees paid for medical services rendered, which may be far less than the amount that the patient or the person on our insurance plan is required to pay. We have to look at this from the perspective of are we going to protect our employees, and if we’re so concerned about dollars, there is probably a couple of hundred thousand dollars to be saved by instituting a good safety program, because most of our injuries are mashed fingers and things in people’s eyes and slips, trips and falls and not climbing properly. And that’s a lot of money, probably about $250,000 that we could roll over into that, if we had a legitimate and decent safety program. So the money is there. We just need to do what is right and take care of our employees. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, if I recall from the committee meeting, I’d like to ask, isn’t there a time line on – I think there was reference to a time line on that and that we had to get this in? Mr. Mayor: Ms. Pelaez, do you have an answer? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: That’s correct. Mr. Beard: What is that? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: The time line basically begins next month, is when our open enrollment begins, and so if we delay it now that delays open enrollment. And if I could add one thing, I don’t want to seem as if the POS is the option here. If an employee doesn’t wish to enroll in the POS, they still have the HMO which that’s defined, that’s covered 100%, they just have the co-pay, and that’s still the same. So nothing is 17 changing for those employees that are in the HMO. It’s actually for those individuals who want to exercise a different choice than simply going to the same preferred provider. Mr. Beard: And what is the year plan for this? How many? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: This would only be for one year. Mr. Beard: And if it’s possible that if we need to do this, we could possibly look at something for the following year that would be – that you’d have adequate time? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: No, sir. This is actually the third year of a three-year contract, and at the end of this year, there will be no contract, so we essentially won’t have a carrier, and so the longer we wait to make the decision, then the – Mr. Beard: No, I’m talking about if we accept the plan that you have given to us. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Beard: Wouldn’t you have time – we’re talking about a year here – you would have time from now to look at something that would be more feasible and help maybe for us, the Commissioners are asking that we give more help to our employees, give the time to work the figures out, that kind of thing? That’s what I made reference to. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: Brenda, so what you’re saying is we need to vote today or will there be any effect, any fall-out from extending this past next month? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: There would be an effect because essentially we have to present this entire – the new plan design to the employees to give them a choice of whether or not they wish to stay in the HMO, and for those employees that are in the PPO now, they have to make the decision whether they want to go into POS or do they want to go in the HMO, so there are going to be a lot of questions that they’re going to have, and we only have a 30-day time frame to educate those employees and made those changes. Mr. Mayor: When does the current expire? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: The end of the year, December 31, 2001. Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s see, Mr. Kolb wanted to say something. 18 Mr. Kolb: Just two points, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I can appreciate the interest in improving our employees’ plight. But let me assure the Commission that the plans that they have currently and the plans that we are proposing now for continuation are excellent plans, and if they are typically of the best class of medical insurance that we can provide our employees or any other employees, that there may be. With the interest in improving employee benefits and in improving the plight of our employees, I would recommend to you, since the budget is already going to be difficult enough for us to deal with and find monies to pay for this and other programs that come along, that if there is a combination of benefits compensation that we can offer our employees, that we consider it at budget time as we begin to allocate our resources for those employee services. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: Ms. Pelaez, were we not self-insured at one time or what? I mean is that – Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Well, we’re partially self-insured. Mr. Williams: Partially self-insured? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: With this new plan, we would be completely self-insured, and that’s why we were saying we could better project the cost, which – insured, yes. Completely insured. And then we would not have any need for the stop loss coverage as we need now. Mr. Williams: I mean this is very, very serious. This is touching a lot of, a lot of lives in this government and the people in this city. And it’s something that I really want to support and want to do, but like everything else, it look like we wait until our back is again the wall, and I don’t understand this, but everything gets down to the wire where we have to do something and we impacting people’s lives and their welfare, and then we got to make a decision. And we make a decision not hastily because [inaudible] we have to because we’re up again the wall. If we don’t make this decision today, and we only have 30 days as you explained to implement this to the employees, explain to the employees, what other effect will it have if we not do it today? I mean you’re talking about the time frame for implementing it and getting the people aware of what we’re doing, but as far as pay, as far as coverage, as far as what? I mean would any other impact come into play? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Well, I guess that kind of depends on this body because if we send it back and we don’t answer the questions next time, and if there are changes that we need to make, then that keeps delaying the time and then we roll around to January and we have no carrier at all, so it really does depend on what questions need to be answered and whether or not they can be answered at this point in time or do we have to wait a 19 month or so down the road. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I think anybody who works with me knows, and the record states for itself, this government and one of the two older ones that this is a battle I’ve long had whenever we have dealt with insurance. And even with some things being absent, we’re a lot better off than we once were in terms of dealing with both health coverage and even life insurance coverage. But I think the key to dealing with any insurance coverage on a group this large is that you’ve got to have very serious negotiating room and time in order to make companies do certain things. Packages can be tailored to basically fit whatever program you want them to, if you’ve got enough options, (1) that are out there, and if you’ve got the time to do it in terms of seeking a competitive price. I do have to be a little bit lenient because I think we’ve taken on a new HR Director within the middle of this year, walking into the last year of insurance coverage; we’ve taken on a new Administrator within the last year. It probably aches in my craw that – and y’all know where I’m coming from with it – that I probably have got to deal with voting for the original motion. But I know where my Finance Chairman is coming from, and when we start talking about seven figures of money, we’ve got to be realistic in where we’re going with it. But what I would encourage very sincerely is that since this is the last year, and I don’t know whether I would be this receptive, Mr. Mayor, if we were talking about starting over and dealing with a three-year contract. I’d still be ready to send out for some pizza. We fight a little bit this afternoon. But I think in the last year what we’re looking at, I would encourage our Director to really seriously push them to the grind stone in terms of where we can best get if we’re going to in-house after this one year deal is over with, on to what we can get, whether it’s on a new three-year, two-year, whatever the deal might be. Because my experience with insurance companies is (1) we’re saddled with some language on the federal and state level that they’ve not been able to cure in Congress, they’ve not be able to cure it on the state level, so we certainly are not going to cure certain things in terms of the penalties that we are imposed upon on a local level. But I think if you have the time to deal with something that’s competitive, put it to them, and I mean even to a point that if we pass this, of letting them know that we want to deal with some other options that are there and don’t expect to be penalized for them. And that in the meantime we’re going to be seeking those other options, and if they end up with the best coverage, then we still might be stuck with them. But letting them know very much up front that we’re not displeased -- that we’re not pleased with that penalty phase of it, and you might even remind me that some folk who once were carriers and worked with us in terms of providing, they are no longer in the loop, because they would not cooperate in terms of health care choice for our employees. They are now gone. We have a new life insurance carrier that was not here some years ago. The old one is also gone because they were in the bull-headed phase of saying what they wouldn’t and couldn’t do. We sought other people, we negotiated, and we kicked them out. I think letting them know up front, and I’m being fair, cause this has been 20 dropped on you. This bomb in terms of dealing with this right now, and in terms of getting this straight. But I don’t think we have, in terms of the time frame, an option to be able to turn this around. If there is any way, and I want to ask this question, Mr. Mayor, if within the negotiating stage, say if we go ahead and pass, to get in place where we are covered, is there anything that prevents you all from still, just as we do in terms of contracts with anything else n there, of still continuing to negotiate from the standpoint that if they know they are going to be in a competitive basis, over the next contract haul, that you might be able to get them to do that add-on without some of the penalty phases that you are going to face with this one? Cause I don’t want to see us get November or December locked down dealing with budget and then we don’t have coverage in there. But I guess I’m just kind of to a point like that old riverboat gambler, I want to see you get the best that you get out of this deal. And I think we got to support the original motion, at least today, what’s there because we’re not going to have that other million dollars at this point in time to deal with it. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb raised his hand, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I think he’s got an answer to your question. Mr. Kolb: I guess the answer to your question is probably yes. But let me go more specific and to the point. The carrier that we finally selected, whatever we want, if we’re willing to pay for it I’m sure that they would provide it. The question is how expensive is that addition going to be? And let me bring some perspective to this issue. We have been negotiating with the current carrier and three others since February of this year. Our costs, as they looked at our experience, has already been jumped. We already know that January 1 under the current recommendation that we’re going to pay somewhere between $1.5 million to $2 million more per year based on what we came out of. We got benefits than we’ve had in the past. Our plan has improved. After we put the combinations together. And understand that no carrier will guarantee this price for three years. And in fact, they would want to further negotiate within the next three years, even if we could give them a three-year contract. I think that staff, even prior to Ms. Pelaez and myself being engaged in this process, has done as best job as they could in trying to negotiate the best possible deal for this municipality. Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: If I might, and I do support that, and that’s why this one vote of leniency is there, and I’m going to support the original motion, Mr. Administrator, that’s out there. But I also know in the language when you’re dealing with these companies to a point that when they prepare a package for you, they are also preparing it from the standpoint of what they have t pay out, and I think we should let them know that while we may be getting the best deal of the bunch that’s out there right now, that I guess in 21 plain, common sense terms, we ain’t stupid. We also know to a point that when they are only picking up the difference of the 20%, it’s nowhere near the neighborhood if they were dealing with a point of 80%. So the language in which they are writing it under actually indirectly does penalize us for what we are doing. We just don’t have anybody else to a point that’s maybe doing anything any better. And I can appreciate where y’all are negotiating from. But I do think, because we’ve gone down this road before, they changed languages to a point in that industry in some cases like lizards do in terms of what they land on. They can deal with being green today, brown tomorrow, yellow, depends on where they are. So that industry has a way, like any other strong business industry and strong lobbyists that run from D.C. to Atlanta all the way down to here, of protecting itself. So I’m going to support your proposal that’s out there, but I still think in terms of telling them what we expect and what we are going to look for and that we’ve got a new, aggressive Administrator on board, we’ve got a new HR Director, and we’re not going to necessarily stop with them of where we are. That’s the only thing I’m saying with it, and that’s how we cured the others that were on board. Because we even had folk, Mr. Mayor, who said that it was against their rules, they couldn’t write two checks, they couldn’t do assignments. Well, they’re no longer with us. We found somebody who could do those things. And I think you have to be able to strong-arm to a point of saying this is what we’re going to do. The other thing I would say to my two colleagues with the substitute motion is it may be a good time – we pay into two professional associations, ACCG and GMA. We are one of three consolidated governments in this State and our membership is more active than any of the other cities there. Athens Clarke, no offense to them, or Columbus Muscogee. Our participation is active. We’ve got board members on each one. It may be the time that we take this particular fight in terms of other groups that are there, because many of these companies don’t just to represent one entity. We’ve got 159 counties in Georgia and more cities and towns than we know how to count. That would be a good time to bring that to the association’s attention to a point of using that leverage of helping not just this government but other governments who have to insure their employees. And I think that gives us some time to do it, and maybe we could get more strength out of that leverage and unity than we can in trying to go it alone and trying to deal with us just as one county and dealing with it. But I have to support what’s there at this time. Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays. We have a substitute motion on the floor that in effect would cut off the discussion and send this back to committee, so let’s go ahead and dispose of that before we continue with the debate, because the debate may need to continue in committee rather than on the floor here today. We’ll call the question on the substitute motion from Commissioner Williams to send this back to committee. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Beard, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. 22 Motion fails 4-5-1. Mr. Mayor: So that takes us back to the original motion, which is to approve the recommendation. We had some people who wanted to speak to that. Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Cheek. Mr. Bridges: Brenda, explain to me what we’ve got now and the motion that’s on the floor, how that would change what we have now. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Okay. What we have now, there’s not going to be a change to the HMO. There will be a change to the PPO. And from the PPO it would convert to what we call a point of service, which is the major difference, as now there will be a co- pay, a standard co-pay, whereas under the PPO now there is no standard co-pay, depending on whatever specialist you’re going to you pay whatever price they deem for an office payment. There will be no in-network deductible, whereas now there is an in- network deductible. I think it’s – Mr. Bridges: It’s a what deductible? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: It’s a deductible, annual deductible that you have to pay prior, in addition to the 80%. Now there won’t be if you go in-network, which means that if you go to the doctors that we have deemed in-network providers, you will not have to pay a deductible. The other difference is – the main difference between the two now is on the out-of-network. The percentages are still the same. There is now a higher out-of-pocket on an out-of-network, which has gone up to $2,000 per person or $6,000 per family, which basically encourages you to go to your primary care physician to refer you to a doctor in network. Mr. Bridges: And why do you recommend that this motion be passed? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: I recommend this motion be passed mainly because over the past three years, PPO has increased double digit. And with the point of service, I know that we still provide to the employee the same amount of service, and actually they’re getting a better bargain because they know that there’s a standard co-pay that they will now pay and there’s no deductible. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a couple of quick questions. Are we going to do the sign-up as we did last year, where the representatives will come in and will take half a day with our employees signing up? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes and no. We’re going to do better this year than we did last 23 year. Last year, we actually had some individuals, some consultants that came in, and I was not happy, I came in at the end of that, I was not happy with the level of service that they provided. We will take as much time as possible. So that’s why I said yes and no. If it takes more than half a day, then we’ll take more than half a day. But it will be Augusta Richmond County employees providing the service because we best know about the benefits that we’re offering, not outside consultants. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just this observation: the insurance that we offer our employees is not a bad plan. It’s a good plan. The drug policy and some of the other benefits associated with it are a good plan. I do, however, see that there is room for improvement by eliminating this non-duplication clause, which I think is frankly a rip- off. But here again, we need to look at things like allowing the employees to roll over automatically if they do not want to change without having to go through the registration process. Those are hours of labor saved. Also, telephone registration could be done on their own time, which would also allow our employees time to be saved. And I guess my consideration is when we are so concerned about us paying more because of changing an insurance policy, and we’re very concerned about that additional monies, on the other hand we don’t seem to be very concerned about the fact that our employees may be a half a day or more across the board, all of our employees, away from their work site, doing something that could be easily done on the phone. And those are substantial dollars. I forget what it costs us to run this government every day, but you take that and multiply it times every employee, and that’s a lot of money. So there’s places we can save money other than taking it away from our employees’ benefits packages. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham and then Mr. Colclough. Mr. H. Brigham: Yes, that was my concern as far as employee enrollment. We have a chance of picking up more people this time or [inaudible]? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: You can’t really tell. I pretty much say that for the people that are in HMO, that are happy with HMO, the only reason why they would switch from HMO to this plan is because they’re wanting to exercise a choice other than their designated preferred provider. So I don’t really see a mass movement from HMO to PPO. However, there could be a movement now because of the thought processes of that if I go out of network there is a deductible, but 9 times out of 10, people stay within network. So I think the numbers pretty much will stay the same, and we could simply have someone call in and say move me to POS, I don’t need to see you, and then we can handle that with no problem. Mr. H. Brigham: [inaudible] Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. 24 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough? Mr. Colclough: How do – you say this is a point of service insurance? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. Mr. Colclough: That means that the individual have to see their primary physician to be referred for testing? Help me out? What is the difference between this point of service and HMO? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Right. Actually – you know how you have with the HMO, you’ve got to have a referral from your doctor to go to another doctor? It’s the same thing with the POS. However, if I don’t want to go through my PPO to go to a dermatologist, then I would have to pick up [inaudible]. Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Yes, sir. Mr. Colclough: But under the PPO, you don’t have to do that? Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: Under the PPO you don’t to do that, but you don’t have a set co-pay either. Mr. Colclough: But the fact is that if you also have to pay a certain amount of that deductible – say for instance, if I go to Prompt Care and I see a doctor there, I would only pay 10% of what that doctor charges for that visit, which is probably about eight bucks, but with the single point of service, you have to get your physician to make a referral for you. Say for instance if your physician is on Washington Road and you live in South Augusta and had an accident and had to get to Prompt Care, they’re not going to treat you until they get in touch with that physician. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: No, that’s not true. If it’s truly deemed an emergency-type situation, it would be paid. Mr. Colclough: Mr. Mayor, I took someone who had insurance who was having chest pains to Prompt Care. They wouldn’t treat him. I had to take him all the way downtown. Ms. Byrd-Pelaez: They didn’t deem it an emergency then. It would have to be deemed an emergency. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a – 25 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, the rules of the Commission allow a Commissioner to speak twice to an issue, in argument and rebuttal. This is the fourth time that you’ve wanted to speak on this. Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, somebody has got to advocate the employees. Mr. Mayor: Well, do it briefly, please. Mr. Cheek: Very briefly, I’d like to say that my wife broke her leg last July. Very seriously. Had to have emergency surgery. And SAS said they would not pay because she didn’t pre-approve the emergency surgery. That’s the kind of coverage we have. Mr. Mayor: All right. Call the question on the original motion, which is to approve the recommendation of the staff. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Mr. Colclough: I’m going to vote for it. We need it so I’m going to vote for it. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No. Mr. Mays not voting. Motion carries 7-2. HISTORIC PRESERVATION; 45. Consider appeals request from J. Andrew Tisdale, Attorney At Law on behalf of Mr. George D. Bonner regarding the denial of a certificate of appropriateness affecting property at 2128 Ansley Place West. Mr. Mayor: Are Mr. Tisdale and Mr. Bonner here? Are they here? The Clerk: Have you talked to them? Mr. Wall: I haven’t talked to them, no. Mr. Mayor: What do you – Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I’m ready to make a motion but I want to make sure it’s appropriate. Maybe check with our Attorney first. Mr. Mayor: Let’s check with our Attorney here and see what he recommends. The Clerk: [inaudible] notice [inaudible]. 26 Mr. Mayor: You said we did not notice him? Mr. Wall: Did not. Mr. Mayor: All right. So what we need to do is reschedule this for the next meeting. Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move that we reschedule this. Mr. Speaker: May I be heard, please, gentlemen? Mr. Mayor: Just a moment. A Commissioner is making a motion. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second to reschedule this. Do you want to speak in opposition to rescheduling? Mr. Speaker: No, sir. I thought that perhaps because we have a lot of property owners from that particular neighborhood that we might be able to make a record without you taking a vote today so that they would not have to come back out here out of their busy schedules. If y’all want us all to come back, we will. Mr. Mayor: I can appreciate that, but I think, in all fairness, that they would want to be here when the matter is heard and not have something read out in the minutes in their place. Would y’all prefer to come back in two weeks or do you want to be heard today and not speak in two weeks when the petitioner is here? Okay. And let me apologize to y’all. It was a clerical error on our part. We did not notify the petitioner that this had been scheduled for today, and we’ll see that he’s notified to be here at our next meeting, which will be the first Tuesday in October. The Clerk: October 4. Mr. Mayor: October 4. I’m sorry. The Clerk: At four. Mr. Mayor: What time? The Clerk: Four. Mr. Mayor: Four o’clock. October 4. 27 The Clerk: October 4 at four o’clock. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, we have those. Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: No, sir, that’s fine. We’ll keep those for the record. We’ll reschedule this. In fact, Madame Clerk, if you would, we’ll put it first on the agenda so we’ll take it up when we meet at four. So we have a motion on the floor to postpone this to our next meeting. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye. Again, we apologize for the miscommunication. Yes, sir? Mr. Speaker: [inaudible] out of town. I’d like to be on the record as opposing [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Speaker: We will not be here [inaudible]. Mr. Mayor: Appreciate that. Thank you. We’ll go back to the order of the day. Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Y’all are welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting if you’d like to. The Clerk: PUBLIC SAFETY: 42. Motion to approve purchase of one (1) Patches and Pumper Super Motor Used by Fire Safety Education Division of the Fire Department and to purchase one (1) Power Point Projection System to be used by the Fire Safety Education Division of the Fire Department. (No recommendation from Public Safety Committee September 10, 2001) Mr. Beard: I move for approval. Mr. Williams: Second. Mr. Mayor: We have a motion a second to approve. Chief Scott, you want to be heard on this? Or you want to take your chances? Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote aye. 28 Mr. Shepard votes No. Motion carries 9-1. The Clerk: FINANCE: 43. 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 meeting September 4, 2001) (Requested by Mayor Bob Young) Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, your pleasure? Mr. Cheek: I move to approve. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Mays and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Williams and Mr. Beard abstain. Motion fails 5-3-2. Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we can just put this item in the filing cabinet. We don’t need to bring it back again. Item number 44. The Clerk: APPOINTMENT: 44. Consider one of the following for appointment to the Sheriff’s Merit System Review Board: Mr. Tommy Boyles Mr. David M. "Chip" Barbee, Jr. Mr. James Kendricks Mr. Mayor: Are there any nominations? Mr. Bridges: I nominate Mr. Barbee. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Barbee is nominated. Any others? Mr. Beard: I nominate Mr. Kendricks 29 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kendricks is nominated. Any others? All right, we’ll take these nominations in the order they were made. All in favor of Mr. Chip Barbee, please vote aye. (Vote on Mr. Barbee) Mr. Beard, Mr. Cheek, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Colclough vote No. Mr. Mays abstains. Motion fails 4-5-1. Mr. Mayor: Next is Mr. James Kendricks. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, could I ask Ms. Bonner a question? Mr. Mayor: You certainly may. Mr. Kuhlke: Doesn’t Mr. Kendricks serve on some other board within the County? The Clerk: DFACS board. Mr. Kuhlke: DFACS board? The Clerk: Yes. Mr. Kuhlke: And don’t we have a rule that somebody is not supposed to serve on two? Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: We do have that rule and we’ve had situations where the Legislative Delegation has made appointments, even though a person may be already serving on a different board, and in essence it’s been my opinion there is nothing in the consolidation bill that specifies or gives us the authority to put qualifications upon whom the Legislative Delegation appoints. Now this situation is a little bit different because they have to submit three names to the Commission and you have the right to pick any one of the three names. But there is a rule that states that you should not serve on more than one board. Now you mentioned the DFACS board; I’m not sure whether -- I assume that’s a Legislative appointment there. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, all in favor then of the appointment of Mr. James Kendricks, please vote aye. 30 (Vote on Mr. Kendricks) Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Bridges vote No. Motion carries 7-3. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes? Mr. J. Brigham: Since we have a resignation by Mr. Muns earlier today on the consent agenda, I’d like to nominate Mr. Barbee to be the County Commission appointee to the Sheriff’s Merit Board. Mr. Mayor: The filling of that seat is not on the agenda today. It would take unanimous consent to add it to the agenda. Is there any objection to adding the appointment to that vacancy to the agenda? Mr. Beard: Yes, it is. Mr. Mayor: All right. So we’re not able to take that up today. Mr. J. Brigham: I believe the filling of seats isn’t designated by a seat, like any nomination, designated by filling vacancies on a board, not individual seats. I want a request to overrule the Chair. Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Wall? What’s your opinion? Mr. Wall: I would agree with the Mayor that this would require unanimous consent to be added. And if you are asking for the Commission to overrule it, it would take a motion to overrule the Chair on it and it would be up to the Commission to vote as to whether or not to overrule the ruling. Mr. Mayor: I think Mr. Brigham has made that motion. Is there a second to that motion? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: Motion has been made and seconded. All in favor of the motion -- Mr. Beard: What is the motion? Mr. Mayor: The motion is to overrule the Chair and allow the appointment to proceed. All in favor of that motion -- 31 Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Discussion period on the motion. Mr. Mayor: Go ahead. Mr. Mays: What I just wanted to ask just to clarification, even, let’s just say supposedly this motion passes, what in terms of the names, since this is a separate item, then are we following a process of three names being submitted or how are we doing it, because if we’re not then why do we have three names here on 44? I’m just trying to get some clarification as to where we’re going. I’m not really objecting to Jerry’s motion per se, but I’m just saying if we’re taking one, then do we need to do others? The Clerk: The three names comes from the Legislative Delegation. Under the Sheriff’s Merit Board, there are seven seats. Three appointed by the Commission. Three by the Delegation. And the Commission has one appointment where the Legislative Delegation submits three names and the Commission appoints from those three names. However, the three names that the Commission has on the Sheriff’s Merit Board, they are expired so eventually you’re going to be getting your notice to submit nominations to fill those vacancies. The three that -- Mr. Mays: Okay. So then we’re actually adding an item to the agenda? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mays: And we’re voting to overrule the Chair on an item which is not on the agenda today in terms of an add-on. And I’d have to stick with the ruling of the Chair, because I really think you’re getting parliamentary out of bounds for the Chair to recognize something that’s not there, and this is an add-on, and it shouldn’t be an objection to the Chair’s motion, it should be one to deal with an add-on, and an add-on should require unanimous consent. Because it is not there. So therefore I appeal back to Mr. Wall on the parliamentary ruling on behalf of the Chair of which he’s made, because it is not there and it’s not one to be added on. Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor? Mr. Mays: I’d just like to confuse it a little bit more, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor: I’m getting confused. Mr. Brigham? Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, item number 34 on the consent agenda is to accept 32 th the resignation of Richard Muns from the Sheriff’s Merit Board effective the 30 of this month or upon the appointment of a replacement. I submit the item is on the agenda. Mr. Mayor: Well, I would submit we’ve already voted on that item. So we’ve moved on. Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] also make an appointment. Mr. Mayor: We disposed of it in the consent agenda. But anyway, we have a motion on the floor to overrule the Chair. All in favor of overruling the Chair and proceeding with the appointment, that would be the effect of it, please vote aye. (Vote to overrule the Chair and allow the appointment to proceed) Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Mays, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No. Motion fails 4-6. Mr. Mayor: So the ruling of the Chair stands. Next item of business, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: ENGINEERING SERVICES: 46. Authorize CSRA Regional Development Center to prepare a Brownfields Job Training and Development Demonstration pilot Grant Application for the Augusta Area. Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, the city of Augusta, since it has a Brownfields grant for the assessment at Hyde Park is now eligible to apply for one of ten $200,000 grants for a job training program to be used in connection with a demonstration project. We’ve been working with the Brownfields commission, along with Augusta Tech. We’d be very interested in doing this. This is not a matching grant. It’s 100% federal money. $200,000. And we’d like to go ahead and apply for that. Mr. Williams: I so move. Mr. Cheek: Second. Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, please vote aye. Motion carries 10-0. 47. OTHER BUSINESS. 33 Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall? 48. LEGAL MEETING. Mr. Wall: I request a legal meeting for personnel, real estate and potential litigation. Mr. Shepard: So move for the purposes stated by the lawyer. Mr. Williams: Also, Mr. Mayor, I’d like to add personnel into legal meeting if possible. If not, we can discuss it under other business on the floor. Mr. Wall: I said personnel. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Shepard: It was part of the motion, Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams: Okay. Mr. Mayor: Do we have a second? Any objection to going into legal session to discuss the items? Mr. Kuhlke: Second. Mr. Mayor: All right then we will adjourn into the legal meeting. Motion carries 10-0. [LEGAL MEETING] 49. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act. Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion for the Mayor to sign the affidavit. Mr. Cheek: I so move. Mr. H. Brigham: Second. Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard. Will entertain a motion to adjourn. Motion and second. 34 Motion carries 10-0. Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek? Mr. Cheek: I just wanted to compliment the staff on the nice decorations in here. It really shows our patriotism. It’s just beautiful. Thank you. And also Saturday, 5 to 7, the softball game. The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Mayor: It sounds like a forfeit to me. 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 Augusta Richmond County Commission held on September 18, 2001. Clerk of Commission 35