HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-16-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
October 16, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:18 p.m., Tuesday, October
26, 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 Hicks.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
RECOGNITION:
Recognition and congratulations to Commissioner Henry Brigham for completing
and receiving "Certificate of Recognition" in association with the Association of
County Commissioner of Georgia (ACCG) and the University of Georgia’s Carl
Vinson Institute of Government Commissioners Training Program during the
October Joint Fall Conference.
PRESENTATION:
Employee of the Month for September
Deputy Blaise Dresser
Richmond County Sheriff’s Department
HISTORIC PRESERVATION:
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.
(TAPE STARTS HERE)
Mr. Tisdale: It’s very small and protected by both vegetation and a surrounding
wall. It should have led the Commission to have at least considered that this is an island
within the historic district that has no historic significance and therefore perhaps in this
one instance at least the standards of this book should be departed from. It’s been quite
an unfortunate experience, gentlemen of the Commission, for my clients, in the aftermath
of the meeting that was held now six or eight weeks ago, to see the reaction of many of
the neighbors to their both request for the COA as well as the intention that they have
harbored to appeal the decision of the Historic Preservation Commission. Many of the
neighbors and their relatives are here today. Many of the relatives do not live in that
1
area, in that neighborhood. But in effect, we believe that what happened was that the
Historic Preservation Commission has fallen prey to, in effect, turn their decision into an
act of historic preservation survivalship, regardless of how my clients may have played
the game.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s stick to the merits of the discussion.
Mr. Tisdale: Well, we would ask that this Commission would just simply
consider that this is a unique request within the historic district. We would ask you to
consider that we believe that this booklet does allow that Historic Commission some
discretion in making its decision, and we would humbly request that you would consider
overturning the decision the Commission has rendered related to the Bonners’ property.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Tisdale.
Mr. Tisdale: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Is there someone here representing the Historic Preservation
Commission?
Mr. Bush: Yes, Mr. Mayor. I’m George Bush. I’m the acting chairman of the
Historic Preservation Commission, and I would like to respond to the appellant in this
process. This home in Ansley Place West, is a small neighborhood, is not historic.
However, the guidelines clearly apply to this neighborhood. And the guidelines are very
specific in that regard. I believe, and I’d like to make part of the record, that each
Commissioner has received a copy of the petition with the appropriate guidelines. I
believe that those have been handed out prior. We -- this matter was heard in front of the
Historic Preservation Commission. It was duly considered. All sides were heard from,
the neighbors were heard from. And we made a unanimous decision rejecting their
application for a certificate. And in that regard, we do have some neighbors here today
that I would ask this Commission to listen to. The first neighbor is Mr. Wheeler, and he
resides at 2132 Ansley Place West, and we ask that he be heard.
Mr. Mayor: Let me do this, if we could, Mr. Bush. You probably have
something outlined that you want to do for us, but let’s hear the position of the
Commission and why you made the decision you did and then we’ll hear from the people
in the audience who want to speak.
Mr. Bush: Yes, sir. As the guidelines clearly show, the guidelines state that no
garages in this historic neighborhood or in the Summerville neighborhood should be
placed in front or past the center line of a home. The guidelines are very clear. This is
not an ambiguous criteria. And these neighbors, and based upon the aesthetic impact on
the neighborhood, was the reason why we based our decision. It would clearly interfere
with the neighbors, it would interfere with the integrity of this distinct little
neighborhood, Ansley Place West, and it clearly is going to interfere with the appearance
of that neighborhood. It’s going to have a negative impact on that neighborhood. It’s
2
going to have a negative impact on the neighbors. And this is what I wanted the
Commission to hear, the Commissioners to hear from is because I believe those that are
going to be impacted, you know, should be considered.
Mr. Mayor: But we’re here for an appeal. We’re going to hear from neighbors,
but the point is --
Mr. Bush: We’re asking that y’all --
Mr. Mayor: The appeal is from the decision of the Historic Preservation
Commission, the appeal is not from the opinions of the neighbors.
Mr. Bush: Absolutely. Absolutely. But we would like you to hear that. We’re
asking that you deny this appeal and uphold our decision rejecting their application. We
think that it was an appropriate decision. It was unanimous. And we believe it’s right
under the circumstances.
Mr. Mayor: Let me ask one question, then we’ll hear from some of the people in
the neighborhood. Has the Commission ever before allowed someone to do something
similar on their property, put a garage or carport in front of their home?
Mr. Bush: That’s an excellent question. I was going to let one of the neighbors
address that.
Mr. Mayor: Well?
Mr. Bush: This would create a very bad precedent in this particular
neighborhood. It is clear from the design of the neighborhood that if all of the homes
were to go ahead and have these garages put out in front of their house, extending
towards the driveway or the common driveway, the common roadway for all of these
homes, it would have a tremendously negative impact on all of the homes, and we would
certainly ask that y’all consider that fact, as well. It would create a bad precedent. And
to answer your question more directly, I cannot recall any decision allowing any home in
Summerville to build a garage with a building this close to the common causeway that
would impact the integrity of the neighborhood to such an extent.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from some of the neighbors. Let the Commissioners hear
from them and then we’ll open it up for questions by the Commissioners. Mr. Wheeler,
give us you name and address for the record, please.
Mr. Wheeler: My name is Greggs Wheeler. I live at 2132 Ansley Place West.
I’ve lived in Ansley Place since its initial development about 18 years ago. Ansley Place
is a small community as stated. We’ve taken great pride in being able to resolve our
differences throughout the years. It’s unfortunate we’ve come to an impasse on this
proposed garage. However, as a related matter, during the development stages, the
builder, Mr. Bill Loflin, and the first president of the covenant for Ansley Place,
3
expressed to me the concept of the community’s development. And it was based on the
traditional guidelines that garages would not be seen from the front of the houses. The
houses were designed on a small lot, they emphasized the patio, small area for shrubbery,
and a small parking area in the front. I addressed the issue of a garage for my own
interest. My wife and I, that was turn down promptly, that was not permitted in the
neighborhood. I think if you did drive up in the neighborhood and you pictured a 20’
extension coming out from the house toward the street, a house toward the street, as a
garage, I think you would automatically detect a discontinuity that would be less than
appealing for the benefit of the neighborhood. So with that in mind, we strongly request -
- I think I have given out a petition which shows nine signatures out of 13 that strongly
oppose this development, and with that in mind I would like to request that you oppose
the appeal.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Do we have some other neighbors that wanted to speak?
Yes, ma’am, if you would give us your name and your address for the record, please.
Come to the podium.
Ms. Manning: My name is Sally Manning, and I reside at 2133 Ansley Place
West. And what I’d like to say to you gentlemen is that we in the neighborhood value the
Summerville guidelines to maintain the integrity, aesthetically and historically, of our
neighborhood. And while it could be argued that we are not historic -- we aren’t, and no
one would argue that more than some of our other Summerville neighbors. Yet we feel
that those guidelines -- we respect the fact that they were passed under ordinance and
validated by an ordinance passed under your leadership, and we’d ask you to uphold
those guidelines because we clearly feel in this case it applies. Also, as Mr. Bush
indicated, we are extremely concerned about the precedent that this would set. We are
very close together. Our homes literally -- we’re not much further apart from our
neighbors than I stand tall -- what you would call I guess spitting distance. But we just
feel like if you build one garage and it breeds another, another, another, eventually we’re
going to look like the back alley way of an Atlanta suburb, and we don’t want to look like
that. So we ask you to play decline this request. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are there any other neighbors that desire to be heard? Mr.
Haltermann, you want to be heard on behalf of the Historic Preservation Commission?
Mr. Haltermann: My name is Bryan Haltermann, and I have been chairman of the
Commission. I just want to more fully answer the question that you asked before about
other projects, new house projects. And I can remember the last five or six years that we
have had five or six applications, new house projects. They have almost all by a single
builder. And in each one of those cases, we have followed the guidelines, because, as
George said, the guidelines apply to new construction, as well as existing houses, and we
have not allowed a new garage in front of a house, and in every one of the cases ?? very
satisfied and we went along with that guidelines, obeyed that guidelines.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Is there anything further? Do we have anyone else who
would like to speak? If you would give us your name and address for the record, please.
4
Ms. Garrison: My name is Helen Garrison, and I live at 2130 Ansley Place West.
I lived next door to the proposed garage, and it would really, you know, the view from
down from my house to Meigs Street it awfully pretty, and of course that would be taken
care of. But this is a tight little street and I think like Sally Manning pointed out, we just
live awfully close. It’s a unique little street. And we’re all real proud of it. And I think it
ought to stay as it is. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Cheek had his hand up first, Mr. Mayor. I yield to him.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:I’d like to make a
Mr. Shepard, we’re probably of the same mind.
motion that we deny the appeal.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second to deny the appeal. Discussion among the
Commissioners? Call the question on the motion. All in favor of denying this appeal,
please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Bush: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Tisdale: Gentleman, thank you for hearing our appeal.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to
the agenda today?
The Clerk:
Addendum Agenda:
1. Receive a report from the EMA Director regarding the recent Biological
Agent Threats. (Requested by Commissioner Lee Beard, Chairman, Public
Safety Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding this report to the agenda today?
None heard, so we will add that item. Let’s go ahead and move on to our consent
agenda.
5
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 41. That’s items
1 through 41. If there are any objectors to the planning petitions or the liquor
application, alcohol petitions, would you please signify your objection by raising
your hand? I will call the planning petitions under the consent agenda:
1. Z-01-62 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the development be
limited to 33 units; a petition by Capital Development Group, on behalf of
Richmond County Board of Education, requesting a Special Exception to
convert the former Houghton Grammar School into a twenty-nine (29) unit
apartment complex per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the
northeast right-of-way line of Greene Street, 170.64 feet west of the
northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Greene Street;
known as 333 Greene Street (Tax Map 47-2 Parcel 264) and contains 1.97
acres. DISTRICT 1
2. Z-01-63 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Re/Max of Augusta Inc., on
behalf of West Augusta Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a funeral home per Section 26-1 (j) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Davis Road, 433 feet, more or less, southwest of
the southeast corner of the intersection of Toucan Road and Davis Road;
known as 214 Davis Road (Tax Map 16 Parcel 32.1) and contains 8 acres.
DISTRICT 7
3. Z-01-64 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Remax of Augusta Inc., on
behalf of West Augusta Baptist Church, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-1(One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Davis Road,
433 feet, more or less, southwest of the southeast corner of the intersection of
Toucan Road and Davis Road; known as 214 Davis Road (Tax Map 16
Parcel 32.1) and contains 8 acres. DISTRICT 7
4. Z-01-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Shah, requesting a
change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 611 feet, more or less,
northeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Barton Chapel Road
and Gordon Highway; known as 2182 Gordon Highway (Tax Map 68 Parcel
22.2) and contains 1.81 acres. DISTRICT 3
5. Z-01-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bell Investment Company, on
behalf of William Fackler III and Gayle B. Hamrick, requesting a change of
zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge
6
Road, 393 feet, more or less, southwest of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Wheeless Road and Deans Bridge Road; known as 3015 Deans
Bridge Road (Tax Map 97-1 Parcel 51.2) and contains .31 acres. DISTRICT
5
6. Z-01-67 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Blanchard and Calhoun
Commercial Corp., on behalf of Chattooga Partners, LLP., requesting a
change of zone from R-1C (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property at 1920 Walton
Way (Tax Map 35-3 Parcel 413) and contains .77 acres. DISTRICT 1
7. Z-01-68 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Dozier, on behalf of
R.A. and Martha P. McElmurray, requesting a change of zone from Zone A
(Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (U.S. #1), 1,960 feet,
more or less, northeast of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of
Highway 88 intersects the southeast right-of-way of Deans Bridge Road (Tax
Map 223 Parcel 1.1) and contains approximately 12 acres. DISTRICT 6
12. Motion to approve a request by Margaret M. Lucas for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Big Iron
Saloon located at 548 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 8, 2001)
13. Motion to approve a request by Kapil D. Sethi for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Fusion Café
located at 1702 Jenkins Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 8, 2001)
14. Motion to approve a request by Sammy Bailey III for a retail package Beer
License to be used in connection with Bailey’s One Stop located at 711 Laney
Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objections to those planning or alcohol petitions?
Mr. Mayor: Any objectors present? None are noted, Madame Clerk.
PLANNING:
1. Z-01-62 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve with the condition that the development be
limited to 33 units; a petition by Capital Development Group, on behalf of
Richmond County Board of Education, requesting a Special Exception to
convert the former Houghton Grammar School into a twenty-nine (29) unit
apartment complex per Section 20-2 (b) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the
northeast right-of-way line of Greene Street, 170.64 feet west of the
northwest corner of the intersection of Third Street and Greene Street;
7
known as 333 Greene Street (Tax Map 47-2 Parcel 264) and contains 1.97
acres. DISTRICT 1
2. Z-01-63 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Re/Max of Augusta Inc., on
behalf of West Augusta Baptist Church, requesting a Special Exception to
establish a funeral home per Section 26-1 (j) of the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County affecting property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Davis Road, 433 feet, more or less, southwest of
the southeast corner of the intersection of Toucan Road and Davis Road;
known as 214 Davis Road (Tax Map 16 Parcel 32.1) and contains 8 acres.
DISTRICT 7
3. Z-01-64 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Remax of Augusta Inc., on
behalf of West Augusta Baptist Church, requesting a change of zone from
Zone R-1(One-family Residence) to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
affecting property located on the southeast right-of-way line of Davis Road,
433 feet, more or less, southwest of the southeast corner of the intersection of
Toucan Road and Davis Road; known as 214 Davis Road (Tax Map 16
Parcel 32.1) and contains 8 acres. DISTRICT 7
4. Z-01-65 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Nick Shah, requesting a
change of zone from Zone A (Agriculture) and B-1 (Neighborhood Business)
to Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property located on the
southeast right-of-way line of Gordon Highway, 611 feet, more or less,
northeast of the southeast corner of the intersection of Barton Chapel Road
and Gordon Highway; known as 2182 Gordon Highway (Tax Map 68 Parcel
22.2) and contains 1.81 acres. DISTRICT 3
5. Z-01-66 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Bell Investment Company, on
behalf of William Fackler III and Gayle B. Hamrick, requesting a change of
zone from Zone B-1 (Neighborhood Business) to Zone B-2 (General Business)
affecting property located on the northwest right-of-way line of Deans Bridge
Road, 393 feet, more or less, southwest of the northwest corner of the
intersection of Wheeless Road and Deans Bridge Road; known as 3015 Deans
Bridge Road (Tax Map 97-1 Parcel 51.2) and contains .31 acres. DISTRICT
5
6. Z-01-67 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by Blanchard and Calhoun
Commercial Corp., on behalf of Chattooga Partners, LLP., requesting a
change of zone from R-1C (One-family Residential) and B-1 (Neighborhood
Business) to B-1 (Neighborhood Business) affecting property at 1920 Walton
Way (Tax Map 35-3 Parcel 413) and contains .77 acres. DISTRICT 1
7. Pulled from consent agenda.
8. AMENDMENT – ZA-R-146 - An amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta, Georgia to correct wording to Section 17, (Height)
R-3B (Multiple-family Residential).
8
9. AMENDMENT – SA-31 – An amendment to the Subdivision Regulations of
Augusta, Georgia to provide for additional information to be included on the
Development Plan.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
10. Motion to approve and award Bid Item #01-128, new roofing system for W.
T. Johnson Center, to Modern Roofing for $49,430.00. (Approved by Public
Services Committee October 8, 2001)
11. Motion to approve bid award to low bidder Construction Perfected in the
amount of $83,757.00 for site development and the Lake Olmstead
Walk/Bike Trail Project. (Approved by Public Services Committee October
8, 2001)
12. Motion to approve a request by Margaret M. Lucas for an on premise
consumption Liquor & Beer License to be used in connection with Big Iron
Saloon located at 548 Broad Street. There will be a dance hall. District 1.
Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee October 8, 2001)
13. Motion to approve a request by Kapil D. Sethi for an on premise
consumption Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with Fusion Café
located at 1702 Jenkins Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by
Public Services Committee October 8, 2001)
14. Motion to approve a request by Sammy Bailey III for a retail package Beer
License to be used in connection with Bailey’s One Stop located at 711 Laney
Walker Blvd. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
15. Motion to approve amending Façade Grant award for 429 Walker Street
from $5,000 to $9,000 and 511 Courthouse Lane from $4,000 to $9,000
subject to the property owner getting revised quotes. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 8, 2001)
16. Motion to approve reprogramming of $10,000 from Hale House CDBG
Project # 20031 to Augusta Youth Center. (Approved by Administrative
Services Committee October 8, 2001)
17. Motion to approve in concept creating Rocky Creek Enterprise Zone.
(Approved by Administrative Services Committee October 8, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
18. Motion to approve the Purchase of Services Grant for juvenile offenders.
(Approved by Public Safety Committee October 8, 2001)
19. Motion to approve Wireless Phase I budget for reimbursement of recurring
and non-recurring costs for Cingular Wireless. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee October 8, 2001)
20. Motion to approve Wireless Phase I budget for reimbursement of recurring
and non-recurring costs for Southern Linc. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee October 8, 2001)
9
FINANCE:
21. Motion to approve in concept the creation of the Rocky Creek Enterprise
Zone. (Approved by Finance Committee October 8, 2001)
22. Motion to authorize the Administrator to expend funds for payment of
outstanding invoices for the Tax Commissioner’s Office. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 8, 2001)
23. Motion to authorize the Administrator to expend funds for payment of
outstanding invoices for the Civil and Magistrate Court. (Approved by
Finance Committee October 8, 2001)
24. Motion to authorize the Administrator to expend funds for payment of
outstanding invoices for the District Attorney’s Office. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 8, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
25. Motion to approve bid award of contract to G-Way Production Company,
Inc. in the amount of $14,850.00 for the construction and installation of
cashier/customer service workstation for City of Augusta Utilities
Department, Peach Orchard Road Branch. (Funded by Account Number
506-04-3210-5531110) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 8, 2001)
26. Motion to approve the final contract quantity adjustment for final payment
to the Rae’s Creek Wrightsboro Road Sanitary Sewer Extension (1996 Bond
Project S-12F). Funds are available in account 508043420/5425210.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
27. Pulled from consent agenda
28. Motion to approve additional funding for the adjustment of Augusta Utilities
water and sewer facilities within the boundaries of the Georgia Department
of Transportation project at the intersection of I-520 and State Road 56.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
29. Motion to approve authorizing condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 95,
Parcel 386.01, which is owned by Kwon Kim Enterprises, Inc., for right-of-
way on the Barton Chapel Road Improvements Project, Phase II. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
30. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Robert C. Mundy and
Rebecca P. Mundy, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia for the following
property located at 213 Tremont Way for a purchase price of $1,480.00: 0.13
acre, more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement and 0.20
acres, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
31. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for proposals on the Washington Road
Intersection Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget
(CPB #324-04-201824371) in the amount of $100,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
10
32. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for qualifications on the Belair Road
Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-
201823332) in the amount of $2,341,000.00 to be funded from Special One
Percent Sales Tax Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 8, 2001)
33. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for qualifications on the Marvin Griffin Road
Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-
296823603) in the amount of $3,467,000.00 to be funded from Special One
Percent Sales Tax Phase II ($2,091,400) and Phase III ($1,375,600).
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
34. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for proposals on the Wrightsboro Road
Widening, Phase I Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #324-
04-201824333) in the amount of $400,000.00 to be funded from Special One
Percent Sales Tax Phase IV. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 8, 2001)
35. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services for a request for qualifications on the Old Savannah
Road Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB
#323-04-296823521) in the amount of $1,096,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
36. Pulled from consent agenda.
37. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for proposals on the Downtown Traffic Signal
& Street Light Upgrades-A Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget
(CPB #324-04-201824110) in the amount of $300,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
38. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for proposals on the Downtown Traffic Signal
& Street Light Upgrades-B Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget
(CPB #324-04-201824115) in the amount of $200,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
39. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for qualifications on the Travis
Road/Plantation Road Drainage Improvements Section II Project. Also
approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-201823762) in the amount of
$2,361,000.00 to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase III.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 11, Parcel 168,
which is owned by James V. Shirer, Jr. and Ghann P. Shirer, for an
easement in connection with the Skinner Road Sewer Extension Project,
11
more particularly described as 0.06 acre, more or less, of permanent utility
and maintenance easement and 0.08 acre, more or less, of temporary
construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 8, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
41. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 4, 2001 and the Special Called meeting held October 8, 2001.
46. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the regular Tuesday, November 6
meeting to Wednesday, November 7, 2001 at 2:00 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:
50. Consider purchase of tickets fort he Annual CSRA Classic, Inc. Banquet to
be held October 18, 2001. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve the consent agenda, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. It’s been seconded. There was a question on
item number 36. Just to make sure we’ve got the right road on there. This says New
Savannah Road, and I think there was a question of whether that was actually Old
Savannah Road.
Mr. Mays: It ?? Old, but I think it needs to be pulled, Mr. Mayor. The Public
Works Director may want to speak to that.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. So we’ll pull item 36. Okay. Gentlemen? Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that the maker of the motion also include item
46, which is the rescheduling of our meeting, and item 50 for the purchase of the tickets,
and let the Clerk canvass the body for those who want to attend, like we’ve been doing
similar events.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding items 46 and 50 to the consent agenda?
Mr. Colclough: Are you adding or you pulling?
Mr. Mayor: Well, we’re adding those to the consent agenda. So we’re pulling
them from the regular agenda.
Mr. Colclough: All right.
12
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to putting them on the consent agenda? None heard.
Do you want to pull any additional items? We have number 36.
Mr. Colclough: I want to pull number 27 off the consent.
Mr. Mayor: 27?
Mr. Colclough: Right.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Number 7, please.
Mr. Mayor: Number 7? Okay. Any others? We have a motion to approve the
consent agenda, adding to that item 46 and item 50, and we’re pulling for discussion
items number 7, 27 and 36. All in favor of the consent agenda, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0. [Items 1-6, 8-26, 28-35, 37-41, 46, 50]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if we would, let’s take up that report from the EMA
Director, because I think the Sheriff is over for that, too, isn’t he?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Addendum Item 1: Receive a report from the EMA Director regarding the recent
Biological Agent Threats. (Requested by Commissioner Lee Beard, Chairman,
Public Safety Committee)
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go ahead and we’ll take that item and then we’ll go back to
these. Mr. Dlugolenski?
Mr. Dlugolenski: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, ladies and gentlemen,
my name is Dave Dlugolenski. I’m the Emergency Management Director here in
Augusta Richmond County. Since the attack on the World Trade Centers and
Washington, D.C., on 9/11, this county has received approximately 60 calls on suspicious
packages, envelopes, and other items. At this time, all those items have been tested. The
tests go to Atlanta and we have not received any positive results coming from the lab.
We take every call as a serious call. Every single call will have a response from the
Sheriff’s office. Once the Sheriff’s office arrives on the scene, a deputy, he will evaluate
the situation, conduct a preliminary investigation, and determine whether there is a
credible threat. If there is a credible threat, what that means there is a substance, and
based on information, the evidence has to be collected, the FBI notified, the Fire
Department notified, and the Haz-Mat team, along with EMS. What that means is that
the protocols are in place. It’s a unified approach, a coordinated response with all the
protocols. We’ve accomplished this over the past month. Right now, there are no known
threats against Augusta Richmond County. The threat level is very, very low.
13
Additionally, we have developed what is called a threat working group. This threat
working group is comprised of various members, law enforcement agencies throughout
the CSRA, to include EMA Directors, SRS, Vogtle, Corps of Engineers, Fort Gordon,
and DOD. Once we receive generalized information or threat information, it is quickly
disseminated from that group, the appropriate agencies, i.e., public safety. So
mechanisms are in place in terms of the coordination and communication on
disseminating important threat information. In addition to that, we recently just held
today a meeting with the medical community. Dr. Rumph, the Director of Public Health,
all the hospitals, EMS were represented. We discussed our medical preparedness and
what our plan is in case we have a widespread epidemic in terms of a chemical attack or a
bio attack. I can report to you that we are very well prepared for this situation. In
addition to that, we are planning monthly meetings to discuss protocols. The most
important thing I want to give out to the community and re-emphasize to the community
is to remain calm, be cautious, and be patient. Right now the threat of anthrax to this
community is very, very low. You have a higher risk of being involved in a car accident
than being affected by anthrax. So the threat here is very, very low. The key words are
be calm, be cautious, and above all, be patient. For myself -- the Sheriff just left -- Fire
Chief Carl Scott, and the Marshal and Brenda Pelaez are prepared to answer any of your
questions.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you asked for the report. Is there anything further you
wanted to hear?
Mr. Beard: No. There may be others that other Commissioners want to hear, Mr.
Mayor, but I think he’s answered most of the questions and explained it quite well, and
we’re just thankful for them being on top of the situation and we wanted the public to
know that they were on top of the situation that is developing and we have capable and
professional people to take care of that.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I wanted to take a quick opportunity -- in our meeting the
other day with the Board of Health, they complimented our Emergency Management
Director on the fine job he was doing and how well he was pulling things together in his
position, and they said to pass that on, so the job is done. Also, I would like to ask the
question -- on our deputies and other field responders, have they received adequate
training and do they have adequate equipment to handle potential bio hazards?
Mr. Dlugolenski: They have the adequate training. In fact, we discussed the
protocols with them in terms of how to handle the packaging of the material, especially
when it involves anthrax. There’s other biological agents out there, too, so there is a
danger of [inaudible] that we talked about at our meeting today. There’s one other item I
forgot to mention. The Public Health Department has established a hot line, in terms for
people to call if they have any questions about bio terrorism, about the agents, about the
symptoms, we have flu season coming right around the corner. I’ve got that number.
14
And I want to give that number out. In fact, there’s two numbers. It’s 1-888-307-6365.
And the other number is 1-888-667-4684. And I’ll publicize this in a press release.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? All right. Thank you for that report, Dave.
Madame Clerk, let’s go back to the agenda. Item number 7.
The Clerk:
7. Z-01-68 - A request for concurrence with the Augusta Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve a petition by William Dozier, on behalf of
R.A. and Martha P. McElmurray, requesting a change of zoning from Zone
A (Agriculture) to Zone B-2 (General Business) affecting property located on
the southeast right-of-way line of Deans Bridge Road (U.S #1), 1, 960 feet,
more or less, northeast of a point where the northwest right-of-way line of
Highway 88 intersects the southeast right-of-way of Deans Bridge Road (Tax
Map 223 Parcel 1.1) and contains approximately 12 acres. DISTRICT 6
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just a quick question on this. Do we have assurances from these
property owners that they’re going to do what they can to make this as aesthetically
pleasing as possible?
Mr. Patty: Not directly. This request came forward several months ago, and
initially it was going to be a Light Industrial request because what they actually wanted to
do was build whole structure, and initially there was going to be some outside storage and
materials and that sort of thing, and under our agreement with Blythe, we notified them
about the pending zoning case and they said that they did not want LI zoning in that
location and we felt, on the staff level, we felt it was inappropriate. We contacted the
agent for the property owner and they agreed to build a larger building that would not
require any outside storage and the B-2 zoning that they’re requesting would not allow
any outside activities other than the normal coming and going. So the zoning
classification offers that protection, but there are no conditions on the zoning as it’s
before you.
Mr. Cheek: No further questions; I move to approve.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve and second. Any further discussion? All in
favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item, Madame Clerk, is number 27.
15
The Clerk:
27. Motion to approve soliciting a Request for Qualifications (RFQs) for design
of a sanitary sewer collection system for the Ridge Forest Estates sewer
project. (Funded by Account Number 509043420-5212115/80150220-
5212115) (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 8, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Colclough.
Mr. Colclough:
Mr. Mayor, I had that pulled out. I was the one who wanted that
to go out for RFQs. After having some meetings with the folks out there, I feel that they
I want to make a motion that we allow the director to go
want the sewer lines, so
ahead and award the contract to Cranston, Robertson & Whitehurst and get this
job off the ground.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Discussion? All in favor of the
motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 36.
The Clerk:
36. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services for a request for qualifications on the New Savannah
Road Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB
#323-04-296823120) in the amount of $1,742,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase III. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 8, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I defer to Ms. Smith.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, you want to address this? We’re talking about Old
Savannah Road, not New Savannah Road; is that correct?
Ms. Smith: Actually the agenda item came forward for New Savannah Road,
because in the documentation from 1995, it is identified as being New Savannah Road.
When we consolidated, the termini was identified as being from Gordon Highway to
Sixth Avenue. New Savannah Road does not go from Gordon Highway to Sixth Avenue.
We went out yesterday and at the end of the week last week and took a look at the area,
and the New Savannah Road actually looks pretty good. However, there is a lot of work
16
that needs to be done on Old Savannah Road from Sixth Avenue to Nicholas Street.
There has already been some work done on Old Savannah Road from Gordon Highway
to Sixth Avenue, and we are proposing that we move forward with approving this project
as the Old Savannah Road/Twiggs Street Improvement, with the termini being from Sixth
Avenue to Nicholas Street, which is where the Twiggs Street Improvements have already
been done.
Mr. Mays: I make a motion that we approve it.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Motion and second. Is there any discussion? All in
favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Smith.
The Clerk: Shall we go to regular agenda?
Mr. Mayor: Regular agenda.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
43. Approve request from Fleet Management to remove SKE Services from
probation and renew the maintenance contract with SKE Services for one
additional year. (No recommendation from Finance Committee October 8,
2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I’d like to first of all address
a couple of issues that we had with that -- that I had, rather, as a Commissioner with Fleet
Management. We have not accused anyone of anything, but there are some things we
really need to look at. First of all, I requested some information and we don’t want to get
into all that, but I do need to mention this, Mr. Mayor. I’ve got a stack of information
here on this desk that I requested and you advised the Administrator to get with myself in
th
order that he would know exactly what I wanted. That was on our meeting on the 4 of
th
October. On the 5 of October, I had the Clerk to email him to tell him exactly what I
th
wanted. And in that process, on the 9, Mr. Crowden, Ron Crowden, brought that
information in. But when I walked into the Clerk’s office yesterday, there was a box of
this information here that with my weak back I was able to get it downstairs. And I really
think this was really lacking on our administrative part to go to this extreme. You
advised him to get with me to find out exactly what we wanted, and after we didn’t get
together, the next day I emailed him to get the information, which I did get, and it wasn’t
17
but two pages of information that I wanted. But -- and I brought that information just to
show the Commission the type of stuff I’m dealing with. No one can go through this
kind of stuff in one day anyway to try and sort it out. But I said all that to say that I want
to make a motion that we send this fleet service out for bid that we can get some qualified
bids back. They may be the best thing we’ve got going. I have no problem if they are the
best bidders. But we need to -- we’ve been in this contract for at least two years. They
have been on probation for a period of time. And I want to make a motion that we send it
out for bid so we can get some bids back in to determine whether we are or are not
getting the best bang for our buck. In my closing, I want to say that I checked with
Savannah, Macon, and Columbus. In Savannah, which has got two governments, a city
and a county government, they are paying like $2 million apiece. Macon, Athens Clarke
is paying $2.1 million. We are paying $3.5 million for the services. And I just think that
we can save the taxpayers some money if we look at this thing at another angle and try to
find out what we can to try and get some qualified people in to do that. So I’d like to
send a RFP out and have it back within 30 days that we can go ahead and do what we
need to do to try to help and save some money for this government.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Let me just ask, is somebody here
from Purchasing? Geri, the motion contains 30 days to get the RFPs in. Is that realistic,
Mr. Williams could get that in in 30 days, or do we need to look at a different time table
for that?
Ms. Sams: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: 30 days you can do that? Okay. Very good. Discussion? Mr.
Bridges, then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb, did we do some audits of this
company? There is obviously a reason for removing them from -- the recommendation to
remove them from probation and extend the contract. Can you give us a little
background in that?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Originally we awarded the contract to Baker SKE in January
of 1999. And you put them on probation a year later because they were not following the
contract, that they had not lived up to. So they were awarded an extension on their
contract and placed on probation. At that time, we also did an audit and verified that
there were some problems. Since that time, however, we have had caused another audit
conducted on the contract for the last two years. Well, actually the year 2000 and year to
date 2001, and that audit came back very good. There has been considerable
improvement in Fleet Management services that we’ve received from SKE. In fact, they
have been designated an ASE certified mechanic shop, which probably wouldn’t have
occurred under any other circumstance, and they’re the only municipal government that
we’re aware of in Georgia that has been so certified. My concern with -- well, in addition
to that, we have saved considerable dollars in our fleet maintenance program, and if I’m
18
not mistaken, it’s about a million dollars since we first started outsourcing this particular
contract. I might say that I have a problem with the recommendation. First of all, we
really don’t have time to sit down and analyze and prepare and RFP or an RFQ to solicit
firms, and there wouldn’t be a lot of time to evaluate it, since this contract would expire
December 31. Second, I see no reason to change now, because our costs are probably
comparable, if not better, than our competitors’. We put in your mailbox a comparison of
the communities in Georgia that have fleet maintenance, and Commission Williams
pointed out Savannah. But if you’ll note, their costs of $4.2 million includes the total
fleet of 1,200 persons. I have some additional here if anybody missed it. If you look at
Augusta, the total fleet is 2,500 cars and their cost is $3.4 million, if you’ll look in the
proposal for next year. So there is quite a difference in terms of the cost, and we believe
that it is in line with a good fleet maintenance program.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, based on the results of our audits, the
recommendation of the staff and a comparison with other cities, I make the motion
that we approve the request from Fleet Management to remove SKE Services from
the probation and renew the contract with them for an additional year.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second, then. Substitute motion. Mr. Shepard, any
discussion?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Bridges just made the motion I was going to make, for the
reasons I was going to make it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Further discussion? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I did receive a package with a question answered that I
guess Commission Williams had had earlier concerning a vehicle that a motor put in it.
Just for the record, I would like to state that the engine was replaced for about $2,000.
This is a short block and I guess the full installation and so forth, which does lend
credence to the fact that we can replace engines in these vehicles a lot cheaper than we
can buy vehicles, and it’s certainly something we need to consider in the future.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In light of what our Administrator has
said and I agree with him Savannah was paying $4 million for their fleet of cars and they
also got two different governments, they got a city side and a county side there, where
we’ve consolidated as one city. But the reason for my questioning and the reason for my
wanting to go out and bid, when you’re talking about $3 million we spending taxpayers’
money and this company has had this bid for I think two years, if not more. When you
talking about spending that much taxpayers’ money we ought to be trying to get the best
dollar, the best service for our dollars, when it comes to tax dollars. Now if you spend
your own personal money, then you decide to go somewhere and you deal with a
19
personal mechanic you light, that’s up to you. But I think as government official we
ought to try to do what’s right for the citizens of Richmond County. I’ve got in my hand
a document where I requested and I finally got it after going through a great ordeal, but I
did get it, where in a 1988 Ford F250 we reinstalled the engine. And I had Mr. Crowden
this morning to fax me a list of the cars we got for auction, that we going to auction off.
And just going down that list, I find that we’ve got ‘92, ‘93, ‘94 and some ‘95s that need
engines that we going to auction off. What I’m saying is, Mr. Mayor, is we need to have
a watch person, we need to have a gate keeper. We can’t spend the taxpayers’ dollars as
if it’s water. Now if you think a million dollars won’t affect this government, then I
stand to tell you that we’re wrong. We can save some money, and I’m not saying that
SKE should not come back. I’m thinking they ought to bid on it. If they’re the best thing
going, we’d be crazy not to go back with them. But I think we be even crazier not to put
it out for bid to give another company an opportunity to at least let us know what they
can do. Now we know what we’ve got. We don’t know what we can get, until we at
least put it out there for them. But if they’re the best thing going, like our Administrator
has said and some of our Commissioners have said, then they going to show back up at
the table. But it’s time out for doing things the old fashioned way. I keep saying we
don’t play ball all the time with the same ball. This is a government entity that we need
to bid out. We talking about being fair. We read our mission statement on our
committee meeting about doing the best service that we can for the citizens of Richmond
County. And that’s what we need to start doing. And I can’t see nothing wrong with
sending this out for bids. Purchasing says we can do it in 30 days. Now if somebody can
tell us more than what Purchasing told us, that’s her job and I’m sure she’s been doing it
quite some time and I rely on her. But if she say we can do it in 30 days, I got no
problem we can do it in 30 days. So Mr. Mayor, I’m pleading with you and these
Commission to let’s do the right thing for a change, let’s send this out for bid, and see
who we can get for service.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission. I don’t object to going
out to bids for fleet maintenance, but I’m not recommending it now because we don’t
have enough time. One Purchasing gives the RPF, the RFQ the specifications, yes, they
can do it in 30 days. However, the preparation time is going to take a considerable
amount of work and a considerable amount of digging to provide the records, to provide
the modus of how we want to operate the outsourcing. It would take us anywhere from
four to six months to make that preparation. So I would request that if you ask us to go to
bid that we extend this contract and give us a year to make it happen for the next contract
period.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes. Mr. Mayor, that’s kind of where I was going. We’ve looked at
the audits, and I realize the audits were not designed per se to deal with performance.
They were to deal with actual monies in terms of billing and whether or not those things
added up to the proper billing cycle. I think those things are there. But I agree, if we’re
20
going to deal with this, cause I’m uncomfortable with some things, but I’m also
uncomfortable with the timing of where we may be going with this. In order to do this,
one of my first questions would be, and maybe this has nothing to do, Mr. Mayor, with
the inventory or the performance of it, but since we’ve changed over to outsourcing this,
now with the third company, we’ve got employees that were involved from the very
beginning of the first changeover, went to the second one, are now in the third one. I
think you’ve got just a little bit more than just the normal RPF or RFQ that you’ve got to
look at when you deal with this because it’s going to have to be factored in. If you get a
better number on this, as to whether or not how those employees, even though they may
be in the private sector technically, but whether or not they’re going to be protected in
this process, whether we keep them, whether a new company keeps them or now, I think
there are some things in addition to just a normal RPF that would have to be looked at.
What I would hope, that on the substitute motion, if we’re going to get the contract,
would be to go ahead – do three things: one, to basically let the company know that
we’re going to be looking at in this coming year putting it out for bids, that’s the first one.
The second one would be to look deeply within the performance side, not so much of
what we’re being billed and what we’re paying out. Give you one brief example. One,
just to see whether or not we can get a tire changed cheaper than $37.50. Now I’m not
going to comment on that because I don’t want to be out of order. But I think in
performance, that’s what you need to be looking at. I did a little work on my own, just to
look at dealerships, Mr. Mayor. That kind of bothered me cause I thought it might have
been a fire truck or a dump trunk. But I think if we look that’s on a real small tire. I
didn’t have a dealer and I just bought four brand new vehicles. The highest one I got was
about $15. So I think when you look at what you’ve got in performance, you got to go
into what you’re paying for. That needs to be looked at in the course of this year. That
gives us some time to do that and it gives us some time to put them on notice. The third
and final thing, in all fairness to Ron, we got a safety side that’s being torn right now
personnel-wise to deal with this fleet situation. We are coming down in the budget
season as to a point where we are going to have to make a decision and I think that Mr.
Williams made a good point in terms of a gate keeper situation. We are going to have to
make a decision to a point that if we check this off, somebody needs to be responsible,
and I’m not so sure it’s humanly possible to put that type of task where you’ve got it right
now. You’ve got Ron answering to all the fleet [inaudible]. You still haven’t relieved
him on the side of what he’s there in his regular job description. And right now he’s
playing to Herculean duties the way you’ve got this whole thing going. So I think if
you’re going to do that, you need some time to really analyze if you’re going to put it out.
I think you are probably at a point of changing over, keeping it, but if you’re going to do,
do those things that the Administrator has recommended, that you give some time in
there. You can put a company on notice, as we do any company, whether it’s the last
year of a contract or it’s a one-year contract. People can know ahead of time, hey, you
know, they’re going to have to face scrutiny of coming back again, and at the same time
we’re going to be looking in depth at what we’re getting so we can honestly, when other
people make a proposal, that we know whether they are going, whether the current
company is bad, or whether we’re getting had on both ends or whether we got a good
deal on both ends. So I would just like to say if we’re going to approve this substitute
motion that maybe we can blend this to get a little bit out of this war of words than we are
21
to a point of where you can accomplish both on the floor at the same time of going ahead
and renewing it for a year, but at the same time dealing with a proper time to handle your
RFPs and that you get something back in six or seven months and that you have it
scheduled so that two to three months ahead of time and know that you’re going to stay
either with the same person that’s got it or you are going to go with somebody else. And
that will lay that issue hopefully to rest. That’s where I am on it.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion, which would
removed SKE Services from probation and renew the maintenance contract with SKE
Services for one additional year?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, clarification, please.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: In light of being in an election period, can we bind another
oncoming Commissioners, whoever he or she may be, with the binding of a contract of
such?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll call the question on the substitute motion. All in favor of the
substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Williams, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes Yes.
Motion carries 6-5.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s go ahead and take up 45 because that’s related
to that.
The Clerk:
45. Motion to receive as information the audit report from Baird & Company
regarding Fleet Management Contract between ARC and SKE, Inc. (No
recommendation from Finance Committee October 8, 2001)
Mr. Shepard: So move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion on this? Mr. Cheek?
22
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, due to the significant nature of the expenditures that we
have with our fleet, and if the numbers that I heard from Mr. Kolb are correct with that
total number of vehicles, that’s nearly one vehicle per employed individual in this city.
We’ve got to get a handle on this budget, this fleet budget and the operational costs. SKE
has brought our fleet forward light years ahead of where it was. Still, though, it’s
incumbent upon us to try to find ways to save money, and we’ve got to address the cost
of managing a fleet this size.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Motion to receive this as information. Yes,
Mr. Crowden?
Mr. Crowden: A point of clarification, sir. The 2,500 refers to the equipment list
that we have. That’s not all vehicles. That includes line trimmers, lawn mowers and so
forth, so I just wanted to bring that out.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, sir. I heard vehicles.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor the motion to receive the audit report as
information, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to item 44, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
44. Motion to retain Baird & Company as Internal Audit provider for the Fiscal
Year ending December 31, 2002. (No recommendation from Finance
Committee October 8, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure?
Mr. H. Brigham: I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, I want to make a substitute motion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Williams: I’d like to make a substitute motion that we send this out also for
bids as well. In February 2001, at a Commission meeting we talked about an in-house
23
audit firm to come in. We debated this and discussed it. I thing Commissioner Bridges
was the one who suggested we try to get together and do something. I was instructed to
get together with the Deputy Administrator, Mr. Hornsby, to come out with a job
description. And Ms. Pelaez or somebody here from Personnel, I’d like to know, Mr.
Mayor, what happened.
Mr. Mayor: Just a moment, Mr. Williams. You made a motion. Let’s get a
second to your motion before you debate it.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And in that particular meeting in March, we came back
with a job description for the in-house audit firm. And I’ve got a copy of that meeting
and a copy of that job description here. And if someone here from Personnel, I’d like to
know what happened and where we are with that. If we going to do anything, we need to
-- here again is another situation where we are up against the wall where we have not
done what we had said we was going to do at the beginning of the year, and now here it is
the end of the year and we are, we figured up, you know, we got to throw our hands up.
So if someone here from --
Mr. Mayor: Is Ms. Pelaez here? Mr. Kolb, are you familiar with this?
Mr. Kolb: No, I am not.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, you want to speak to that, Donna?
Ms. Speaker: The procedure normally would be the position would have to be
authorized, and I do not know if that occurred.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, can you shed some light?
Mr. Cheek: We interviewed for an internal auditor’s position. We sent it out.
We never did -- the person that we selected was from Florida. After assuring us she
would work for the salary, she turned around and craw fished on us, basically, and said
that she didn’t want to come. We never followed it up after that. It was an authorized
position, and we never went back out for additional bids or talked to our second person or
anything. And that’s the gist of it. And here again, we are contracting out service, you
know, I think this has been the same firm since consolidation doing this, and we have
24
tasked HR to get us an internal auditor, and then somewhere along the line the ball was
dropped.
Mr. Mayor: Well, the way the position is structured, this person works directly
for the Mayor and Commission, so it’s up to us to decide how we want to do this, what
direction we are going to take and if --
Mr. Cheek: We already decided that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, that’s something the Commission through its committee
structure can pursue. I think what happened was perhaps we abdicated some of our
responsibility and turned it over to the previous Administrator, and if he dropped the ball,
then we didn’t pick it up and continue to move.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’ve been hammered for over two years now about
picking up the ball other people should have carried, and when we turn things over to
staff, dad gum it, they need to handle it, and it doesn’t need to come to us to have to wet
nurse and hold hands. They need to follow through with what they’ve been tasked to do
by this elected body.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think we had a [inaudible] committee and it was established. I guess
we dropped the ball somewhere along the way. But we have an Assistant Administrator
there. He ought to be able to inform us what transpired there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: If I can, before he speaks, I just -- in your current budget for audit, the
audit position, there is no position authorized. You set aside $100,000 to retain an
auditing firm. So the position was never placed in the budget. So if you did do anything,
it would have to be in the next year’s budget. And let me point out that if you do bring an
auditor in house, it’s going to cost you a lot more than $100,000.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Hornsby, can you respond to the Commissioner’s inquiry on the
status of this?
Mr. Hornsby: If I’m not mistaken, the Audit Committee was the committee that
did the interviewing [inaudible] if I remember correctly. And I think whenever that
individual reneged on the proposition of coming here, there was nothing put forth by the
committee to go back out again and try to re-advertise or anything. But again, it’s going
to cost more than what we are paying now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham?
25
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, if I remember correctly, this Commission voted to
do several things. First off, I think we voted that we would prefer to have an in-house
auditor that was an employee of this government. Now I think that was a unanimous
vote. I think Ms. Bonner has got the minutes that shows that was a unanimous vote. In
addition to that, we also voted to go out for qualifications if we did an external audit. We
have never done that, and I think this Commission somewhere along the way -- I don’t
know who -- if we give directions, I don’t know who we got to give them to. We got a
unanimous vote. We obviously have given directions to somebody. I don’t know if it’s
staff or ourselves, but somewhere along the way, we’ve done something about at least
saying that we want an internal auditor that belongs on our staff or either that we want to
have a request for qualifications. Now, I’m still in support of either. I don’t think we’ll
hire somebody between now and the end of the year, but I do think we need to go out for
qualifications if we’re going to go through the bid process. We’ve awarded this contract
for several years without doing that. This may be the firm that gets it. I will feel fine
with that. But we have never put any kind of qualifications on this position or these
services.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Williams and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. History is being made every day. I was
telling Commissioner Cheek that it look like Commissioner Brigham and I going agree
one time. But we do see the same horse today, and I think that we up against the wall,
like always. We united Commission and voted to do some things, and we have not.
We’ve dropped the ball. We don’t know where the ball -- we been accused of
micromanaging when we tell or instruct, and now since we don’t instruct and hold them
by the hand as Commissioner Cheek just said, then nobody does anything. I just think
that we need to look at this seriously. If I need to amend my motion to put this company
on a month-to-month until we can go out for bids, if the seconder would do that, I got no
problem. I want to say again, too, I got no problem with the present audit firm who has
been doing our work, but we did back in February of 2001 make these decisions, but
nothing have been done. And if I need to amend my motion that award this contract to
them on a month-to-month until we can go out for bid, to be able to do -- to get someone
else or to give them an opportunity to bid. They may be the firm that come back. Like
Jerry, it doesn’t matter to me. But I think we can’t sit here and act like nothing happened.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, I think at this point, we should
go ahead and approve this motion to retain Baird for next year. Based on the back-up,
either party can terminate the agreement in a matter of 60 days with written notice. And
in the meantime, the Finance Committee could look at this item and see if we want to do
RFQs for an outside firm to do the work for us and bid it out and let Baird bid on it at that
time, or if we want to go out again and try and do that in-house. But I think at this point,
that’s not something we can determine. We wouldn’t have either decision made by April
of next year, and I think we need to just go ahead and approve this motion today and
resolve the other issue at a later date.
26
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and take up the substitute motion, and that is to send
this out for bids. With RFP, is that what we’re looking for? RFQ? All right. This would
be put it out RFQ. Request for qualifications. All in favor --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Let me just ask this of the makers of both motions.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: Since one is the deal with a company and one is the deal with the bids,
are we then by this motion reversing the thought process of where we were on doing it in-
house totally? This still gives a firm or a search for a firm, but I’m hearing an argument
of both motions what we didn’t do in terms of putting this in-house. Actually both
motions get away from the part of it being in-house. And I think if that’s -- and I can live
with either one of them -- but I think if that’s where we’re going, we need to state that,
and we don’t really need to get into argument any more about dealing with it in-house.
I’m clear on where we went on how we were dealing with it in-house. We got into a
situation where we just made through an escape through budget season, we started re-
arranging a lot of priorities, we were without an Administrator, we were without a
Director of Finance, we started dealing with those two things and started dealing with
that search and dealing with what was going to happen with an internal auditor or internal
audit department, went totally out the window. That’s really where it went. It’s just
totally disappeared. And so I’m just asking the question does that change the --
Mr. Mayor: To answer your question, Mr. Mays, the net effect of both motions
that are on the floor now would maintain contracting with an outside agency to do the
internal audit.
Mr. Mays: And my reason for asking that at this point is that we are entering into
a budget season. If we’re going to deal with contracts, then we don’t need to be
proposing personnel-wise on a money side since we know it’s going to be tight. Looking
at dealing with creating a department. That’s where I’m kind of searching for today.
Cause if you’re going to contract it, then drop the idea of dealing with [inaudible]. No
need of going through that. And propose that if you’re not going to go that way with it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mays, at least my perspective on it, my perspective is I’ve
always believed -- and I’ve said this the entire time -- that I think the internal auditor
ought to be an in-house employee. I will not back away from that position. I still feel
that way. As a matter of fact, I don’t believe we can hire somebody between now and
December and come up with any kind of budget figure or create a department.
27
Therefore, I’m willing to go out for contract to outsource this service. But I do believe
that we need to outsource the service, and I think we ought to put everybody on equal
footing. As for getting back to the hiring of the internal auditor, we’ve been without a
Finance Director for a year. We haven’t hired that person yet. And I don’t see how we
can do that. I’m not complaining. I’m concerned. I’m worried. I don’t know where
we’re going. I see budgets coming, and I don’t see a financial plan. But I am concerned
and I am going to do everything I can to keep this budget under control.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Andy Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First off, I find it very difficult to swallow
that we were interviewing somebody without any budget to pay them. We sat in there for
about two hours talking to them and offering them a job without any budget to pay for it.
That’s -- but to follow that up on our Finance Director and other things, if I performed on
my job and did not do what my boss had asked me to do, I would be demoted, rightfully
so, if not fired. The people of Augusta don’t expect anything less from the employees of
this city. There has to be more attention to detail. If we’re not following through on this,
which is a major position, then there’s probably the smoke where the fire’s at that we’re
not following through on these other positions, either. And it’s time to get this house in
order. Lord knows, if we sat in there for an hour or an hour-and-a-half -- and I know
several of you sat in there with me -- without a budget, is that a way to do business?
Mr. Wall: Can I clear that up?
Mr. Cheek: I wish somebody would. It’s clear as mud right now.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, you have the floor.
Mr. Wall: Well, I mean, the contract -- what Mr. Bridges alluded to -- the
contract had a 60-day termination provision in there. At the time the contract was
extended in year 1999, the process was established. Adopt the contract, go through the
interview process, and then you would -- the funds that were a part of this contract, if
somebody were hired, those monies would have simply been transferred over to the
budget for that department. But that was the idea. So I mean you didn’t budget for a
position that had not yet been hired, but the money was in the internal auditor’s contract
that ultimately would have been shifted over.
Mr. Cheek: And would there have been a balance after that or do we know?
Mr. Wall: Well, we don’t know what we would have hired. I mean there’s
always been a discussion about what you were going to have to pay to set up that office,
and it would have required a budget amendment to shift the monies, but it depended on
where you were in the year, what the person was hired for, how many people were hired,
etc.
28
Mr. Cheek: I’m just disturbed at the lack of order in all of this, and you know,
just until just recently we didn’t know how much money we had in the checking account
or in different accounts, and here again we didn’t have a budget and we were going to
hire somebody.
Mr. Wall: But you didn’t want to budget for a position that you didn’t --
Mr. Cheek: You do impact statements on how that position is going to impact
what you’ve already spent, and you do go through that planning phase of it. That’s strict
business practice.
Mr. Wall: And that was part -- but I mean you don’t budget for both a contract as
well as a position, unless you budget for half a year.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, it seems like this is a very simple procedure here that we
are finding ourselves in. In fact, it’s almost like the one that we just got through
discussing a few minutes ago. To me, the most simple thing would be is that -- and I
don’t care one way or the other which way it goes -- but it appears that we’ve got our
backs up against the wall, which we normally do. Why not just include somewhere in
one of these motions, and I don’t even know what the motion is by this time, or the
motions are. But it seems to me that include that, you know, you have a person here, an
auditor that’s working for you for the next year, as has been alluded to, there is a -- you
can deal with this in six months if either party is notified. And what you do is go out for
bids at that time. And in the motion put that you’re going out for bids during that interim,
and let this person continue to work. Because we can’t go without an auditor. We need
that person to do some things. We can’t hire one between now and January 1. So it
seems real simple. And do that and let’s go on with it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let’s go ahead and vote on the substitute motion, and that
would send this out for RFQ.
Mr. Jerry Brigham: I’d like to say one thing. The only thing, Lee, is I agree with
you. Except we’ve already done that once and we didn’t even do that. That’s my
problem.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we will ask the Finance Committee to follow up on this, then,
and see if there is some other direction the Commission wants to take. The substitute
motion --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: The Chair is calling the question --
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
29
Mr. Mayor: -- on the substitute motion, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, hold it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor --
Mr. Williams: Hold it, Mr. Mayor. Clarification, Mr. Mayor. I look to the lawyer
for a legal opinion on this. You called the for the question, right? Mr. Wall, help us out
again, now.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair has called the question to begin voting.
Mr. Wall: And there is an objection to the vote. If there is an unreadiness, then it
takes an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commission before a vote can be called. I
mean a call of the question is simply a motion. It’s a short-hand form of a motion to call
the vote.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair does not detect any unreadiness. We discussed --
Mr. Williams: If this is not unreadiness, Mr. Mayor, then I don’t what is. Now
what do I need to do? Do I need to stand up and raise my hand or what do I need to do?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, I don’t know what you can add to the discussion that
you haven’t already said. You made the original motion. We’re trying to dispose of the
substitute motion to get to your original motion.
Mr. Williams: Well, I had my hand up and tried to give my comments, Mr.
Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, if we’re going to talk about the rules, let’s do this, Mr.
Williams.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The rules of the Commission provide for Commissioners to speak on
two opportunities in debate.
Mr. Williams: And how many have you gave everybody?
Mr. Mayor: You have already had more than two opportunities on this issue.
Mr. Williams: No, sir. No, sir, I have not.
30
Mr. Mayor: The record will show that you have, Mr. Williams. I have
recognized you more than twice to discuss this agenda item. Now if we’re going to hold
to the rules, let’s hold to the rules.
Mr. Williams: Well, okay, let’s hold the rules and let’s hold them for everybody.
If you want to start keeping a count, then we’ll keep a count, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: If you want to go by the rules, we’ll go by the rules.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: That’s up to you. I try to be liberal in my interpretation and give
y’all the benefit of the doubt, but it’s time to move on this discussion and take up the
substitute motion and get on with the business of the day.
Mr. Williams: I think the rule is now we vote on whether we continue or not; is
that right, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Correct.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I’m ready to vote.
Mr. Mayor: You’re ready to vote on whether you continue the debate; is that it?
Mr. Williams: That’s right.
Mr. Colclough: [inaudible] substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Well, according to the Parliamentarian, Mr. Colclough, we have an
opportunity now to vote whether you want to continue the discussion.
Mr. Colclough: Oh.
Mr. Mayor: So if you’re in favor of continuing the discussion, then vote with
your green light. If not, you’ll sustain the word of the Chair and we’ll go ahead and vote
on the substitute motion. So you can either keep talking or vote.
(Vote to continue the discussion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Colclough abstains.
Motion fails 4-5-1.
Mr. Mayor: So what are Commissioner Williams’ option now?
31
Mr. Wall: As you phrased, the motion was whether or not to continue to vote, or
to continue talking. The actual motion was to call the vote. That’s what should have
been voted on. And it takes an affirmative --
Mr. Mayor: And there is no affirmative vote to do that.
Mr. Wall: Well, but you reversed the question. It is not whether to vote, but
whether to continue to talk, discuss. I would recommend that you go back to the question
and the proper motion that is on the floor, a motion to call the vote.
Mr. Kuhlke: So move.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Wall: And that needs to be voted on, and if there are six votes then you vote
on the substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We will vote according to the motion as stated by the
Parliamentarian then. There was a motion and a second to do that. So all in favor of the
motion as stated by the Attorney, please vote aye.
(Vote on motion to call the vote)
Motion caries 10-0.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I have the substitute motion re-read, or
understand it, please?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, you may.
The Clerk: The substitute motion is to go out for RFQ.
Mr. Colclough: What’s the original motion?
The Clerk: It’s to approve to retain Baird & Company as internal auditors for the
year ending December 31, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: So the substitute motion, the question is called on that. All in favor
of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Colclough vote No.
Motion ties 5-5.
The Mayor votes No.
Motion fails 5-6.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. The original motion is to --
32
The Clerk: Retain Baird & Company.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
The Clerk: For one year.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Cheek: I’ve got some discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that we’re probably in the position we are
right now because we put off and waited and we’ll do later. I think we probably do that
more than we do anything else in this city, and that’s why we keep repeating the same
damn mistakes.
Mr. H. Brigham: I call for the order of the day.
Mr. Mayor: The question is called on the original motion by Mr. Brigham.
That’s to approve the contract for one year; right?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: December 31, 2002. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Williams and Mr. Cheek vote No.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, would you please place on the next Finance
Committee agenda a discussion of the future of the internal audit function for this city?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll get that back on track.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor, if I could, the Director of Public Works has brought
to my attention item 36. For the record, we need to change the dollar amount. The
33
dollar amount for that project. I believe we have listed $1,742,000. That new
amount will be $2,060,000. That’s $2,060,000.
Mr. Kuhlke: Quick change order.
The Clerk: A quick one.
Mr. Bridges: What kind of motion do we need on that, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Wall: Motion to -- well, so we don’t have to add something, let’s have a
motion to reconsider and approve with new figures.
Mr. Bridges: So moved.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor, vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk: It’s unanimous to reconsider.
Mr. Mayor: Reconsider and approve.
The Clerk: And approve.
Mr. Mays: I so move again.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. If you’re in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is 47.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
47. Consider the nomination of Mr. Phil Wasson, Director of E-9-1-1 as Region
VI representative on the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Council East
Central Health District representing Augusta, Georgia. (Requested by the
Administrator and Commissioner Jerry Brigham)
Mr. Cheek: I so move.
34
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion.
Mr. Bridges: I seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion? All in favor of Mr. Wasson’s election, please vote aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
The Clerk:
ATTORNEY:
48. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending the Augusta-Richmond County
Code so as to add a new section 2-4-21; To establish the "Rocky Creek
Enterprise Zone"; to provide an effective date and for other purposes.
Mr. H. Brigham: I so move and --
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Wall: Question of whether y’all want to waive the second reading.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham is trying to finish his motion. Go ahead, Mr.
Henry.
Yes, I was going to ask that we waive the second reading.
Mr. H. Brigham:
Mr. Mayor: Okay. And was there a --
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Second. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion, please vote
aye.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: In connection with this, I’d like to report to the Commission today
that I had a telephone call from a real estate company in Florida which is now
representing the owner of the Regency Mall, which is in the Rocky Creek Enterprise
Zone, and they have substantially cut the asking price for the mall property, and they’re
aggressively trying to seek a buyer for it. He was quite pleased to know we were
considering this, and that might help make the property more saleable. We’ll see where
that goes. Okay, item number 49.
The Clerk:
35
APPOINTMENTS:
49. Consider the following for reappointment or appointment to three (3) seats
on the Sheriff’s Merit System Review Board:
MEMBERS
??
Carmie Bryant – current term expired
??
Thomas Perry – current term expired
??
Vacancy – due to the resignation of Richard Muns
NOMINATIONS
??
Marion Tappan
??
Stanley Hawes
??
David M. Hicks
??
Thomas E. "Ernie" Sizemore
Mr. Mayor: The floor will be open for nominations.
Mr. Bridges: Could I nominate David Hicks, please?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: David Hicks? All right. Mr. Marion Williams?
Mr. Williams: I nominate Mr. Marion Tappan.
Mr. Mayor: Marion Tappan? Okay. Any other nominations?
Mr. Beard: Stanley Hawes.
Mr. Mayor: Stanley Hawes: Okay. Any other nominations?
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to nominate Mr. Sizemore.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Are there any other nominations? None heard, so we’ll vote
on these in the order they were nominated. Madame Clerk, David Hicks was the first
one. Those in favor of Mr. Hicks.
(Vote on David Hicks)
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 9-1.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Next is Mr. Tappan.
(Vote on Marion Tappan)
Mr. J. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Mr. Beard abstains.
Motion carries 6-3-1.
36
Mr. Mayor: Next is Mr. Hawes.
(Vote on Stanley Hawes)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion carries 7-3.
Mr. Mayor: That completes the election and the three seats are filled. The next
item is number 51.
51. Legal Meeting
??
Discuss real estate matters. (Requested by Commissioner Williams)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I ask for a legal to talk about real estate matters.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, anything else for the legal session? Entertain a motion we go
into executive session to discuss real estate matters.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 3:45 p.m. - 4:05 p.m.]
52. 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: Motion to approve the affidavit. Seconded. Any objection? None
heard.
Motion carries 10-0.
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to adjourned.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
37
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 October 16, 2001.
Clerk of Commission
38