HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2001 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER
November 7, 2001
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:02 p.m., Wednesday,
November 7, 2001, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. J. Brigham, Mays, Kuhlke, H. Brigham, Shepard, Beard,
Cheek, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Colclough, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; and Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Hawkins.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions?
The Clerk: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. We have a request per our addendum
agenda.
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Approve Maintenance Resolution with the Georgia Department of
Transportation for the realignment of the junction of Toucan Road and
Camilla Road on the Walton Way Extension/Davis Road Project.
2. Approve the Maintenance of Highways Agreement with the Georgia
Department of Transportation for sections of Walton Way Extension and
Davis Road on the Walton Way Extension/Davis Road Project.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding those two items? None heard, so we’ll add
those to the agenda, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: For the record, sir, Commissioner Colclough called and said he would
not be in attendance at today’s meeting due to an emergency.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITION:
Captain Richard Burts
Augusta Fire Department
1
RE: Recipient of the Augusta Exchange Club’s
Firefighter of the Year Award
The Clerk: Mr. Mayor. Captain Burts, would you please join -- and Chief Scott,
Chief Rogers. Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, Captain Burts was
nominated by Deputy Chief Mike Rogers to the Augusta Exchange Club for Firefighter
of the Year. Chief Rogers wrote, “Dear Mr. Stevens: I would like to thank your
organization for once again recognizing one of our employees for their outstanding work.
For his outstanding work in community relations and education over the last several
years, we would to recommend Captain Richard Burts as our Firefighter of the Year.
Captain Burts started a community recognition day for the senior citizens in his District
several years ago. It has now spread to a city-wide event. We feel that this has a positive
impact on relations between our department and the citizens of Augusta. Respectfully,
Michael Rogers, Deputy Chief of Technical Services.”
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Congratulations to you, Captain. I think all of us, at least since
th
September 11, have a renewed appreciation for the fine work done by our firefighters in
our city, and the example you set for all the rest of them is certainly one that most can
strive to achieve. Thank you very much. Congratulations.
The Clerk:
DELEGATION:
Ms. Laverne Gold
RE: The Georgia Early Learning Initiative
The Clerk: Ms. Laverne Gold will do the presentation on behalf of the Georgia
Early Learning Initiative. Ms. Gold.
Mr. Mayor: Good afternoon, Ms. Gold. It’s a pleasure to have you with us today.
Ms. Gold: Thank you. It’s a pleasure to be here to speak with you distinguished
gentlemen today on behalf of GELI, which is an organization that is called Georgia Early
Learning Initiative. And those letters stand for GELI. This organization got started in
1999 with the help of the Georgia United Way, the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, the
Governor’s Office, and a few other organizations, and particularly the Whitehead
Foundation. The purpose of it is to provide you with some connection between what
quality childcare is like, and how quality childcare has an everlasting effect on a child’s
life. Not just during the time when they are in daycare, but all through their life. And if
you would take a few minutes with me to just go through the handout that I’ve provided
for your today. I’d just liked to take a few more minutes to talk a little bit more about
that. All through the years, it has been very, very important that childcare has been an
instrumental part of our society. Even back as far as Truman, who once said that the best
way to give advice to children is to find out what they want and then advise them how to
2
do that. Our own Governor, as you will see, has a very special initiative for children, not
only small children but the older they get, the better he has emphasis for them. But he
has said that education is the ladder that enables our children to climb as high as their
dreams will lead them. So he is one that believes and truly believes that when you start
with early education and services, you will have a more productive citizen, you will have
less drop-out prevent, you’ll have less teenage pregnancy, you will have less people
being jailed if you start out with early childhood educational services. He himself has
recommended $6 million to this effort to GELI throughout the state of Georgia, although
Richmond County is not one of those counties that is currently receiving those funds.
And in addition to his recommendation of $6 million, there is $4.5 million additional that
has been provided to that organization by the Lucent Technologies and also by the Bank
of America. Research shows us that a child’s earliest learning, and a majority of his
learning, takes place between the age of zero and three. And that might be difficult for us
to learn. But out of our total education dollars that we currently provide for our system,
only five percent of our dollars go to early childhood education, and eight times that
much goes to support the children between the ages of six and 18. So you can see we’ve
got to kind of flip-flop. We need to put more dollars to the children at an earlier age. If
you look at the flier, the sheet that shows us about wise investments, we understand that
30% children are more likely to graduate from high school when they have good quality
early education and services, 50% are more likely to be employed, 50% are less likely to
be teen parents, and 40% are less likely to be jailed. So every dollar that we invest in
early childhood saves us $7 in welfare and prison costs. So investing in a child is a good
and wise decision to make. You might be asking yourselves what are some of the
statistics that contribute to Georgia being one of the highest-ranking in a lot of the
deficiencies with children. Georgia ranks [inaudible] among states in how it treats
ththth
children. Georgia ranks 40 in low birth rate babies, 45 in teen dropouts, 44 in single-
parent parents, and we’re among the top 25 states that have a high per capita rate. So
why are we not among the top 25 with the best indicators for early childhood learning?
Supporting the Georgia Early Learning Initiative is a good thing. You may be asking
yourself what can you do to make a difference. Well, historically we’ve found out that
child advocates are not always necessarily the right ones to make this appeal. So as
lawmakers, we’re asking you to be able to talk about GELI, the importance of it, join this
network, because this network is across the state of Georgia, going from Columbus and
Valdosta and Savannah, and it needs to be in Augusta and Richmond County as well.
You can become a dedicated GELI partner by contacting the office in Atlanta, through
the Governor’s Office, or directly through the GELI office in Atlanta, or through your
local United Way. We just ask you that you be a partner, that you take the time to read
the information that we’ve provided for you and the importance of what early childhood
education services is all about, and that you join the band wagon and be one of the next
counties to have GELI come to the area. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Ms. Gold. Any questions for Ms. Gold? Thank you very
much. Move ahead with the consent agenda.
The Clerk: Our consent agenda consists of items 1 through 51. That’s items
1 through 51. For the benefit of any objectors, I will read off the alcohol petitions,
3
and if there are any objectors to these petitions will you please signify your objection
by raising your hand?
3. Motion to approve a request by Subhash C. Sethi for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
Bhoomer’s Restaurant & Lounge located at 3023 Washington Road. There
will be Sunday Sales and a Dance Hall. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 29, 2001)
6. Motion to approve a request by Dan Troutman to transfer the on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License used in connection with Treybon
restaurant located at 520 Reynolds Street to 1285 Broad Street. There will
be a Dance Hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those petitions? Mr. Mayor, there is one
objection to item 6.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll pull item 6. Is there any objection to adding to the consent
agenda items 53, 54, 55 and 56?
The Clerk: 53?
Mr. Mayor: 53, 54, 55, and 56, as well as the two addendum agenda items. Any
objection to adding those to the consent agenda?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have some discussion on 53.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Okay. We’ll hold that one out. How about items 54, 55,
56 and addendum items 1 and 2? Any objection?
Mr. Bridges: Hold on just a minute, Mayor, with number 55.
Mr. Mayor: Okay.
Mr. Bridges: I have no objection.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, if you’ll go ahead and include 54, 55, 56 and
addendum items 1 and 2 on the consent agenda, please. Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure
with respect to the consent agenda?
Mr. Shepard: I’d like to pull items 40 and 41.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: With regard to item number 19, I would request that you add some
additional language. This is to approve a lease agreement between the Downtown
4
Development Authority and the County Board of Education for the Ninth Street Parking
Deck, as well as an agreement between the Downtown Development Authority and
Augusta extending the ground lease. Make the terms concurrent.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to adding and including that language in the motion
on that language? None is heard, Mr. Wall, so that language will be included.
Mr. Kuhlke: Pull number 16.
Mr. Mayor: Number 16 is pulled by Mr. Kuhlke.
Mr. Williams: Pull 9 and 10, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Numbers 9 and 10.
Mr. Williams: Also 34.
The Clerk: What number was that?
Mr. Williams: 9, 10 and 34.
The Clerk: 34.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ve got a question about number 42.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ll pull number 42. Any others? So we’ve pulled items
6, 9, 10, 16, 34, 40, 41, and 42.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, item 34, please.
Mr. Mayor: Item -- yes, Mr. Williams has already pulled that. Any others?
PLANNING:
1. 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) (Second reading – approved by the
Commission October 16, 2001)
2. AMENDMENT – SA-31 – An amendment to the Subdivision Regulations of
Augusta, Georgia to provide for additional information to be included on the
Development Plan. (Second reading – approved by the Commission October
16, 2001)
5
PUBLIC SERVICES:
3. Motion to approve a request by Subhash C. Sethi for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License to be used in connection with
Bhoomer’s Restaurant & Lounge located at 3023 Washington Road. There
will be Sunday Sales and a Dance Hall. District 7. Super District 10.
(Approved by Public Services Committee October 29, 2001)
4. Motion to approve a request by Nancy Leishman for a Massage Therapist
License to be used in connection with Rainforest Retreat located at 1867
Central Avenue. District 3. Super District 10. (Approved by Public Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
5. Motion to approve a request by Sharon Fairbrother for a Massage Therapist
License to be used in connection with Shaper’s located at 1064 Alexander
Drive. District 7. Super District 10. (Approved by the Public Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
6. Deleted from consent agenda.
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
7. Motion to approve the reprogramming of CDBG funds to accomplish the
demolition program. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee
October 29, 2001)
8. Motion to approve Resolution authorizing submission of Year 2002 Action
Plan for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Shelter
Grant (ESG) and HOME Investment Partnership Funds. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 29, 2001)
9. Deleted from consent agenda.
10. Deleted from consent agenda.
11. Motion to authorize payment of Mr. James Burton’s death benefits to the
legal representatives of his estate. (Approved by Administrative Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
12. Motion to authorize changing department’s name from ARC Animal Control
to Augusta Animal Services. Coordinate implementation of name change
with opening of new facility. (Approved by Public Safety Committee October
29, 2001)
FINANCE:
13. Motion to approve the refund of 1999 taxes paid in error in the amount of
$20.35 to Groves Suites, Account No. 1342782. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 29, 2001)
14. Motion to approve the acquisition of two (2) Single Axle Tractor Trucks for
Public Works - Maintenance Division from Mays International Trucks of
Augusta for $44,325.01 each (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-125) (Approved by
Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
6
15. Motion to approve the abatement of taxes on properties at 1129 Eighth
Street, 1141 Eighth Street, 839 Laney-Walker Blvd. and 1134 Summer
Street. (Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
16. Deleted from consent agenda.
17. Motion to approve payment of statements from Forest Hills Golf Club Grill
and Joseph A. Radecki in the total amount of $3,476.64. Funded from
Promotional Account. (Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Forklift for Public Works –
Traffic Engineering Division from Dougherty Equipment Company of
Augusta, Georgia for $18,346.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 01-060). (Approved
by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
19. Motion to approve extension of Lease Agreement between Augusta and the
Downtown Development Authority of the City of Augusta and to approve a
Lease Agreement between the Downtown Development Authority of the City
of Augusta and the County Board of Education of Richmond County for the
th
9 Street Parking Deck. (Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
20. Motion to approve execution of Contract for Technical Assistance between
Augusta, Georgia and Central Savannah River Area Regional Development
Center. (Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
21. Motion to approve amending Administrator’s contract to allow participation
in the ICMA-RC 401 retirement plan; Augusta’s contribution limited to
maximum amount allowed under 457 retirement plan. (Approved by Finance
Committee October 29, 2001)
22. Motion to approve the acquisition of Three (3) 15,000 GVW Crewcab Utility
Body Trucks for the Utilities Department – Construction Division from
Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for $40,331.65 each (Bid offer 01-
118). (Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
23. Motion to accept the proposal with VisiCraft Systems for a Tax Billing and
Collecting software application for the Tax Commissioner’s Office. Subject
to the approval of the Attorney. (Approved by Finance Committee October
29, 2001)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
24. Motion to approve award of contract to Alrich Electric Contracting Co. Inc.
to reroute electrical service for Fire Station #3. Contract is in the amount of
$11,200.00. This is the low bid. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
25. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3,
Parcel 134, which is owned by Willie L. Davis, for right-of-way on the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
26. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication and Road Resolution(s) submitted
by the Public Works and Engineering Department for Dolphin Way and
Spirit Creek Drive. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October
29, 2001)
7
27. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Wesley B.
Cummings, as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property for a
purchase price of $3,000.00: 1,054.29 square feet, more or less, of right-of-
way and 815.70 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
28. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 86-3,
Parcel 40, which is owned by Evelyn F. Hrabovsky, for right-of-way on the
Bungalow Road Improvement Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
29. Motion to approve to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 83,
Parcel 37.3, which is owned by Kukhui Tae Yu, Ki Cheul Yu and Man Pok
Tae, for right-of-way on the Barton Chapel Road Improvement Project,
Phase II. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
30. Motion to approve the Deed of Dedication, Maintenance Agreements, and
Road Resolution(s) submitted by the Engineering and Utilities Departments
for Barnett Crossing Subdivision, Section I. (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 29, 2001)
31. Motion to approve Change Order #3 to South Atlantic Construction for
additional work to be completed at the Little Spirit Creek Groundwater
Treatment Plant No. 3 Facility (Project W-3B.1). (Approved by Engineering
Services Committee October 29, 2001)
32. Motion to approve Change Order #3 to Blair Construction, Inc. for
additional work to be completed on the 18" Raw Water Main Conversion
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
33. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 322-04-292822678)
Change Number One in the amount of $860,000.00 to be funded from Special
One Percent Sales Tax Phase II on the Barton Chapel Road, Phase II
Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
34. Deleted from consent agenda
35. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-296823665)
Change Number Two in the amount of $70,900.00 to be funded from Special
One Percent Sales Tax Phase III on the Morgan Road Improvements Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
36. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 326-04-288811357)
Change Number One in the amount of $440,000.00 to be funded from Special
One Percent Sales Tax, Phase II. Also, authorize to let for bids the Raes
Creek, Section III Project. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 29, 2001)
37. Motion to authorize Public Works and Engineering to advertise for
engineering services a request for qualifications on the East Boundary
Drainage Improvements Project. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB
#324-04-201824117) in the amount of $1,167,000.00 to be funded from
Special One Percent Sales Tax Phase IV. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
38. Motion to authorize engineering services for the Augusta Richmond County
Drainage Improvements Phase I & Phase II Project with W. R. Toole, Inc. in
8
the amount of $169,850.00. Also approve Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-
04-201823101) for Phase I in the amount of $116,750.00 and Capital Project
Budget (CPB # 323-04-201823102) for Phase II in the amount of $53,100.00
to be funded from County Forces Grading and Drainage, Phase III (Acct.
No. 323-04-29823081). (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 29, 2001)
39. Motion to approve Supplemental Agreement to Cranston, Robertson &
Whitehurst, P.C. in the amount of $128,294.35 for engineering services to
convert existing plans to meet GDOT format requirements. Also approve
Capital Project Budget (CPB # 323-04-296823215) Change Number One in
the amount of $128,295.00 to be funded from Special One Percent Sales Tax
Phase III. Also approve the Local Government Project Agreement for the
Alexander Drive Improvements Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
40. Deleted from consent agenda.
41. Deleted from consent agenda.
42. Deleted from consent agenda.
43. Motion to approve Option I site selection for the new Raw Water Intake and
Surface Water Treatment Plant and request the authority to begin property
acquisitions on the selected sites. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
44. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Augusta Praise
Tabernacle Church, Inc., as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following
property for a purchase price of $1,500.00: 511.72 square feet, more or less,
of right-of-way; 522.05 square feet, more or less, of permanent drainage,
utility and maintenance easement; and 1,336.62 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
45. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 122-1, Parcel
102, which is owned by SED Peach Orchard, LLC, for a right-of-way in
connection with the Windsor Spring Road Improvement Project, more
particularly described as 4,452 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way and
2,697 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
46. Motion to approve Agreement between Augusta and ANIC for funding for
the Augusta Common Project. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
47. Motion to approve an Option for Right-of-Way between Trinity Manor, Inc.,
as owner, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property located at 2375
Barton Chapel Road for a purchase price of $590.00: 388.33 square feet,
more or less, of right-of-way and 5,011.46 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee October 29, 2001)
48. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 98-2, Parcel 24,
which is owned by James A. Burke and Thomas J. Busbee, for a right-of-way
in connection with the Bungalow Road Improvement Project, more
9
particularly described as 413.60 square feet, more or less, of right-of-way;
301.24 square feet, more or less, of permanent utility easement; and 1,028.21
square feet, more or less, of temporary construction easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
49. Motion to approve an Ordinance amending Augusta Richmond County Code
Section 3-5-86 so as to permit motorized carts on certain designated streets
under the conditions set forth, and for other purposes. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
50. Motion to approve a request from Hillcrest Baptist Church regarding the
waiver of Landfill tipping fees for the removal of the remains of L & M TV
Service Building located at 2455 Ridge Road. Subject to the approval of the
Attorney. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
51. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Commission
held October 16, 2001 and the Special Called meeting held October 22, 2001.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
54. Authorize the filing of a grant application for $25,000 under the Georgia
Quality Growth Grant Program.
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
55. Motion to approve the rescheduling of the December 4 regular meeting to
Monday, December 3, 2001. (National League of Cities Conference December
3-8, 2001)
ATTORNEY:
56. Approve agreement between Augusta, Georgia and the Richmond County
Board of Education establishing the BOE as fiscal agent for the Juvenile
Delinquency Prevention/Early Intervention Grant awarded by the Children
and Youth Coordinating Council for Augusta-Richmond County Community
Partnership for Children and Families, Inc.
Addendum Item 1. Approve Maintenance Resolution with the Georgia Department
of Transportation for the realignment of the junction of Toucan Road and Camilla
Road on the Walton Way Extension/Davis Road Project.
Addendum Item 2. Approve the Maintenance of Highways Agreement with the
Georgia Department of Transportation for sections of Walton Way Extension/Davis
Road Project.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll move approval for the consent agenda as read by the
Clerk and amended by the Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
10
Mr. Mayor: We have motion to approve the consent agenda. All in favor of that
motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Mays: The Clerk might record on item 47 that I abstain on that particular
item. Church membership.
The Clerk: Number 47, sir?
Mr. Mays: 47.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Bridges: I vote against Sunday sales on item 3.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays abstains.
Motion carries 8-0. [Item 47]
Mr. Bridges votes no on Sunday sales portion. [Item 3]
Motion carries 9-0. [Items 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, 17-33, 35-39, 43-46, 48-51, 54-56,
Addendum Items 1 and 2]
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead then with item number 6, which
will be the first one.
The Clerk:
6. Motion to approve a request by Dan Troutman to transfer the on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine License used in connection with Treybon
Restaurant located at 520 Reynolds Street to 1285 Broad Street. There will
be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Service
Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Walker, is this yours?
Mr. Walker: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Come up and tell us what we have here. Is there any reason not to do
it?
Mr. Walker: No, sir. It meets all requirements of License & Inspection and the
Sheriff’s Department. It’s a transfer from Reynolds Street to 1285 Broad Street, and it
meets all the requirements, and we recommended approval at the Committee meeting.
11
Mr. Mayor: Rev. Harris, I think you wanted to speak on this?
Mr. Harris: Mr. Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to stand in
opposition to the granting of this particular issue. In a conversation I had last Thursday
on another issue with the Mayor, he brought to my attention that this was an actual
license transfer that was in process and when it had come before the Public Services
Committee myself or no one from Curtis Baptist Church was in attendance at that. And
so it had been brought, of course, that we were okay with it. I quite frankly expressed to
him that we had not seen any posting of a sign stating that there was a public hearing on
this license and I was quickly reminded that because it was a transfer of license that it is
treated somewhat differently and it does not require the posting of the sign. As a result of
that, we don’t have a crowd here today from Curtis Baptist Church, but did want to come
to you this afternoon really on an issue of principle and stand and let you know of our
opposition to this transfer. And there’s just several reasons I would quickly state to you
that today we are in opposition to it. One is an issue of concern. The same concerns that
we had a year ago about this location and its close proximity to Curtis Baptist Church and
Curtis Baptist School are still the same. In fact, if anything, there are more students in
our school and there are more folks attending Curtis Baptist Church on a consistent basis
this time than there was a year ago when we stood before you to share the concern. So
we do have the concern of the safety issue, we have the concern of the traffic issue, drunk
th
driving potential there on 13 Street and Broad, and so we share those concerns. The
second reason that we come to stand today is because of an issue that we consider to be a
crisis of the system. Quite frankly, I’m here on a principle to you as Commissioners to
ask you to protect what I consider to be a responsibility and a right that you have. I still
stand amazed today that a year ago when we stood in these same chambers and you as
Commissioners voted not once, not twice, but three times a majority of this Commission
voted that it was not in the best interest of that restaurant to place a liquor license and a
dance hall that may very well be a lounge at that location. And yet your decision as
representatives of the people, elected by the people, could be overturned by the single hit
of a gavel by a judge who could practice in my estimation, and I think if you’re honest
with it, your estimation, a judicial activism, because there was no sign of discrimination
and laws in that opinion were brought into bear that quite frankly you know and I know
were not the intention of those laws, and when you took the stand 6-4, not once, not
twice, but three times, that because of a place where minors tend to congregate and
because of a saturation issue of alcohol already in that location, I personally think there’s
a crisis of the system. And to be honest, that’s also why I’m here today, because on
principle, as long as you’re the elected people of the body of mass citizens to vote
representing this body, then I think you need to protect that right. And if it was wrong
then, it’s wrong today. And that would be my third and final reason that I stand opposed
to it, is for consistency. And nothing has changed, again, except the fact that there are
more students at Curtis Baptist School and more attendance at our services at Curtis than
there were a year ago, and I just urge you to defeat this proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Rev. Harris. Mr. Wall, was it not at the instruction of the
Court that this license was granted?
12
Mr. Wall: That’s correct, it was.
Mr. Mayor: And that ruling would apply today, I assume, for the transfer of the
same license at the same location?
Mr. Wall: The same objections have been made today that were made then that
were urged before the Court, and the Court ruled against it. I think that that’s the
precedent as to that location.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen? Motion?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Kuhlke: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I -- Jim, could I enter into the record the same
objections that were made in the previous -- for the previous license as part of the record
here?
Mr. Wall: You could. I think that the petitioner, if he wanted to object, could in
fact object to that, and if he objected then you would need to restate them. I don’t know
whether the petitioner objects or not.
Mr. Troutman: No, sir, I would not object to him --
Mr. Bridges: If I could have those same reasonings that I expressed at that
meeting included as part of the record today.
Mr. Mayor: Further discussion? Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Troutman, can you tell me approximately what percentage
of food sales, of food sales?
Mr. Troutman: I can tell you what it was at the other restaurant. A little over
90% was food.
Mr. J. Brigham: That’s what I wanted to know here. Thank you.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
13
Mr. Shepard: This is the barbecue restaurant that was on Reynolds Street down
th
near 5?
Mr. Troutman: Yes, sir. It was within a block of St. Paul’s. We have never had
any problems with it whatsoever since we’ve been there.
Mr. Mayor: Anyone else? We have a motion to approve the transfer. All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
[Excerpt from Commission meeting of October 3, 2000 regarding criteria for denial of
the license:
Mr. Wall: There were two provisions that were utilized by the Public Services
Committee. Part of their motion is contained in Augusta Richmond County Code Section
6-2-65. And specifically, subparagraph five and nine. Paragraph five provides for the
number of licenses in the trading area as being one of the criteria that can be used to
consider whether or not to grant or to deny a license. And specifically it says the number
of licenses already granted for similar businesses in the trading area of the place for
which the license is sought. Subparagraph nine deals with congregation of minors and
says any circumstances which may cause minors to congregate in the vicinity of the
proposed location, even if the location meets the distance requirements set forth in
section 6-2-63 herein. I might also mention based upon one comment, there is a further
provision in subparagraph four dealing with locations, the location for which the license
th
is sought as to traffic congestion. There was a comment concerning 13 Street. That
would be further support as far as that intersection perhaps.]
Mr. Bridges and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion carries 7-2.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 9.
The Clerk:
9. Motion to approve an Ordinance requiring decals to be affixed to certain
motor vehicles owned or leased by Augusta, Georgia. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: I understand we did have a public hearing on this just prior to this
meeting.
14
Mr. Williams:I wanted
Yes, sir, we did. We did have a public hearing on this.
to make a motion that we deny any other vehicle besides the Mayor’s vehicle, the
Mayor’s car, for obvious reason that the Mayor’s car is being used for a lot of
business functions, not only during the day but in the evening after hours. I’d like
to make a motion that we approve not sealing the Mayor’s car but all the other city
vehicles.
Mr. Cheek: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Kuhlke: I want to make a substitute motion --
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: -- that we approve this with the exception of the Mayor and the
Administrator and the Airport Director.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll second it for discussion, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion that’s been duly seconded. Did you
have your hand up, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I did.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, please.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I walked in with the warden, and I noticed
he doesn’t have a sealed car. What about -- what are we trying to do here? Are we trying
to seal that one as well? All cars? What’s -- is there some reason that we’re in this
discussion? What cars are we trying to seal and which ones are we trying to leave off
sealing? Would the warden’s car also be sealed now under this ordinance?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, would you like to address that?
Mr. Williams: I would like to get Ms. Flournoy that we’re talking about sealing.
We’re not talking about every car, Mr. Mayor, but those cars that come under the
guidelines had been sealed before but they’re not sealed now. But I’d like for Ms.
Flournoy to -- maybe she can help us and give us some direction as to the cars she’s
talking about.
Ms. Flournoy: Okay. Under the Georgia law, a government entity is required to
decal all of its cars, and there is a exemption under the Georgia law that exempts law
enforcement and prosecution cars, and it is my position that the warden’s car would come
15
under the exemption of law enforcement so we wouldn’t have to specifically designate.
Any other cars that we would like to exempt from this decal requirement, we have to
specifically designate either by ordinance or resolution, and the requirement is that we
have a public hearing, also noticed seven days prior to that public hearing. And that
hearing as to the exemption for the Mayor’s car and the car assigned for the
transportation of the Administrator and the Executive Director of the Airport was held
today at 1:30. There were two objectors, and those were Commissioner Marion Williams
and Commissioner Andy Cheek, and basically they’re objecting to the exemption as to
the Administrator’s car and the Executive Director of the Airport, and there was also a
question regarding whether the notice included the exemption for the Executive Director
of the Airport, and at that hearing I indicated that Mr. Wall said that he felt that we were
within the requirements of the law since we had given notice of the public hearing. But it
is my recommendation to adopt an ordinance that excludes the Mayor’s car, a car
assigned for the transportation of the Administrator, and the Executive Director, and
basically for security reasons.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, it does.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, continue.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I disagree with the Airport
Director’s car. We did not advertise that. We did not really discuss that. It came up in
and Ms. Flournoy said she thought Mr. Wall had indicated it would be within the rights in
a legal realm to do that. But we did not post that for a legal notice for people to come
out. Second thing is the car that designed or was set aside for the Administrator or
Deputy Administrator -- the Administrator gets a car allowance. He does not have a car
set in that office for him. That car was pulled in, I think, if not a year ago to be assigned
th
to the 8 floor, where there would be a roster, be a list to be able to sign that car in and
out if somebody needed that car. The previous car before the new car that we have now
had that logo on it. And I don’t buy this deal about what happened on 9/11. What
happened 9/11 affected all of us. That’s no reason for us to think that we cannot or
should not do what the law has stated for us to do. We asked the general public to adhere
to the law, and if we are no better than they are, we ought to be do what the law has
prescribed for us. My last point is that the public hearing was on the Administrator’s car.
It was not on the car that was assigned in the Administrator’s office which I reiterate
again he gets a car allowance. He do not drive that car. But whatever reason, if that’s
going to be in violation, if that’s going to be a detriment to mankind or to livelihood, we
thinking that’s going to cause problems for this city for that car to be sealed, then what
about the cars that we do have already sealed? Then we need to go back, as Commission
Shepard said, we need to take that seal off all of them. I don’t understand why this is such
a big deal. This should have been resolved a long time ago. We are still procrastinating
over and over and over for nothing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
16
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m going to have to echo a lot of what
Commissioner Williams said. We resolved this a year ago when we said we would create
a pool car up here. I remember quite clearly the deer in the headlights look I got from
several staff members about how to establish a calendar with names where you could sign
out per hour the vehicle for government use. It’s a very simple concept. The truth is,
again, 99% of the people in this city drive their own car two and from work. We have
asked our employees to fill out exemptions that allow them to drive the car home in
special situations. We do not have a car assigned to a particular individual up here,
unless that hasn’t been followed through like many other things. But to use the security
as an excuse not to decal these cars is very thin. We have city employees that are driving
vehicles all over. The Airport Director is another good example. Not one airport director
was contacted, touched, held hostage or killed during 9/11. All the terrorist activities
took place on board the plane after it had taken off. To assume that Augusta’s airport is
under some tremendous threat at this point and this Director is going to be kidnapped and
Bush Field is going to be held hostage is ridiculous. These cars are government cars.
We’re not asking the staff to do anything different than we expect out of all the other
employees. These cars need to be decaled.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion, gentlemen?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going lose on this one, I guess, on both ends, but I
have to say this for the record. I find it quite ridiculous that we are in a security
argument, both pro and con, on what we’re dealing with about two or three cars and
decals, when I think what we really need to be talking about is when we resume talks
with the security committee that’s been put together. If we’re going to deal with security,
then let’s deal with that at that time, because I think that the bigger issue is, and it’s been
pointed out to the general public and anybody that caught the elevator and came up or
people in the stairwell to a point where we’ve got a lobby full of security equipment
that’s either gathering dust or a resting place for people to set a soda on when they’re
using the pay phone. And I think it’s real stupid to waste this time to get in a televised
meeting when we’re down there and need to be talking about protecting the outer
perimeter of this building, to deal with that security the taxpayers have paid money for.
To me, that’s a real issue, and I’m not going to vote on either one of them. Now if you
want to take up security, when it comes back, about what we’re going to deal with with
overall security, then I’ll consider the intelligent argument at that time. But I think that’s
our real crux of the issue. If we’re going to talk about security, then let’s deal with what
we’ve got down there, deal with this building, and quit, you know, creating an adult
cartoon show to a point that we get in these arguments about car decals, pro and con,
when we need to be finding out how we can protect this building, not just those that are
in the court parameters, but those who come into it period, and an argument I think has
been very badly put out to a point of what happens to folks who come to the court, we’ve
17
got people who are on every floor of this building, not just those that are dealing with the
court. And I think that’s where we need to be focusing that. This whole idea about the
pro or con of security, that can go back to that particular committee, but I think the two
things we need to be dealing with and spending time is appointing a point person. If it’s
going to be out of the Marshal’s Office, then let’s do that, and I think they do tie in to a
point because I do with agree with Steve in the point that if we’re going to look at these
cars, then let’s look at really what maybe does need to be undercover. And if something
is going to be undercover, that doesn’t need to be broadcast. That’s the dumbest thing in
the world to do anyway, if you’re going to have something undercover. So while y’all
are voting on this, I’m going to get me some water, and I’ll be back when you get through
with that particular issue. But I just wanted that added for the record. I think that’s
where our concentration needs to be, Mr. Mayor, on are we going to get that and protect
this building and deal with overall security. And I’m going to get me some water and I’ll
be back when y’all get through.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on the substitute motion? We’ll call the
question, then, on Mr. Kuhlke’s substitute motion. All in favor, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Any further discussion on
the original motion?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I want to make a substitute motion that we exempt the Mayor’s
car and the Airport Director’s car.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Brigham, you
want to speak to it?
Mr. J. Brigham: To me it makes perfectly logical sense. We’re doing it, we
always have done this with the Airport Director’s car in the past. That may not be a good
reason to do it, but it’s a perfect reason in my motion, and to use Mr. Cheek’s argument
that there was not airport directors killed on September 11, there were no Mayor’s killed
on September 11 that I know of. And I think that we ought to exempt both of those cars,
18
and I can use the argument that they are executives of very important facilities of this
government, and I stand with my motion the way I made it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, while I agree with some of the things my fellow
Commissioner has said, I need to remind everybody -- and you can talk to any aviation
board member -- that we had a difficult time retrieving the last car the last airport
administrator had. He had it beyond his term of employment. These are not personal
cars. These are important people, no doubt, but here again to use the 9/11 as an excuse is
not a good excuse. It’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. And simply to follow along with
that, gentlemen, we wouldn’t be here dealing with this today if our staff had followed
through on this, and it’s like the reverend said earlier, I’m going to stand on a matter of
principle. I am tired of us passing good legislation and it not been followed through.
Now that’s been the status quo for two years since I’ve sat on this Commission. It’s time
for a change. And I guess the thing you need to ask yourself is are you happy not having
the things you passed ignored? Or is it time to get on board and get these things? Now
when we pass it, then dad gum it, the employees follow through with it.
Mr. Mayor: Any other discussion? 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. Cheek and Mr. Williams vote No.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion fails 4-4.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion. Is there any further
discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, I’d like to have a roll call vote on this.
Mr. Mayor: We can certainly do that. We’ll call the question.
Mr. J. Brigham: If you’ll restate the original motion.
Mr. Mayor: If you will restate it and then we’ll have a roll call vote.
The Clerk: The original motion is just to exempt the Mayor’s car from the decal.
(Vote on original motion)
Roll Call Vote
Mr. Beard: Yes
Mr. Bridges: Yes
Mr. H. Brigham: Yes
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes
19
Mr. Cheek: Yes
Mr. Kuhlke: No
Mr. Mays: Out
Mr. Shepard: No
Mr. Williams: Yes
Motion carries 6-2.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along to item number 10.
The Clerk:
10. Motion to approve amending Administrator’s contract to allow participation
in the ICMA-RC 401 retirement plan; Augusta’s contribution limited to
maximum amount allowed under 457 retirement plan. (Approved by
Administrative Services Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I just needed some clarification. We talked
about this in committee. I got no problem with this, but I did want to find out about our
other employees and was there a factor that we can do something for our other employees
to get a better rate or better program for them as well. This is a contract that is less than
six months old, and I just wanted some clarification to find out was there anything we can
do for the other city employees that might be able to get them a better plan than what they
presently have. Mr. Wall, are you willing to address that?
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I don’t think this is germane to discussion on this
item.
Mr. Mayor: I’ll let the Attorney give a limited to it because we’re talking about
one specific contract and one specific employee, and your question really goes beyond
the scope of that, the issue that’s on the agenda. But I’ll let the Attorney give an answer
on that.
Mr. Wall: And I agree with the Mayor. I mean the question about what we do in
the pension for the rest of the employees is really a separate item for discussion, and I
think that needs to be put back on the agenda at some future time if that’s where you’re
going. But this is just an amendment to the existing contract with the Administrator.
Mr. Williams: And, Mr. Mayor, if I may. Mr. Wall, what you’re saying is that
you don’t think that the other employees which is still employees, I mean the
Administrator is under a contract but he’s an employee; right? So our other employees is
not even considered in the conversation? I’m not saying do anything. I mean I just like
to know --
20
Mr. Wall: I’m saying it can be discussed at a future time but it’s not relevant to
this discussion to the amendment to the Administrator’s contract.
Mr. Williams: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I move for approval.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve. Is there a second?
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? All in favor then please vote aye.
Mr. Mays out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us over to item number 16, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
16. Motion to approve the allocation of $400,000 from general fund contingency
for reallocation to realign the budget to reflect the level of expenditures.
(Approved by Finance Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to ask the Administrator what
prompted the request to go into the Contingency, and the second part of the question is
what is the Contingency balance if this is approved?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, what prompted the current
item that you have before you was several requests from various departments, including
the Solicitor’s Office, the Court, Civil Court, and a few other departments, because they
have run out of money in their budgets as a result of the 3-1/2% cut. And instead of
doing it piecemeal, department-by-department, we requested that we look at the entire
General Fund budget to determine whether or not we can find other areas where there
were savings, allocate those to those requests, and then if there still was a deficit, then we
would take the balance out of Contingency. We have done a review of that. We
submitted that report to the Finance Committee last week. Basically we’re in fairly good
shape with utilities causing a problem, some supply accounts causing a problem,
unexpected costs and high costs in natural gas, but it was also offset by unexpected lows
in actual gasoline. There was still a gap and so we took it out of Contingency, or
proposing to take it out of Contingency. Currently, you have about $700,000 in
Contingency. You have about $300,000 remaining after this action.
21
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay. One other question, Mr. Kolb. Do you anticipate having to
go back into the Contingency by the end of the year again?
Mr. Kolb: When it comes to the budgets and the unknown, I never say never.
However, we believe from a conservative point of view that we can get to the end of the
year by this action.
Mr. Kuhlke: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Our Finance chairman, Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Shepard: To respond, Bill, to your concerns, Ms. Williams prepared this
memorandum which is in the back-up which indicated we had some unexpected expenses
with electricity and natural gas. Then the Solicitor and the DA, I believe, were before the
Committee, and the Clerk of the Civil and Magistrate Court was also before the
Committee, and then we asked in the Committee that all those supply issues be
addressed, as Mr. Kolb said, city-wide, so I know Mr. Kolb never says never, but I don’t
think we’ll be going back into Contingency this year. The idea was to address it with one
action that was city-wide, so that’s why we asked him to do that. But we did have one
positive expense change in that the gasoline budget was not as high as we expected. It
was about a $100,000 economy there, if I’m reading that right, Ms. Williams?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Kolb, have all of the departments and
entities that have come back asking for money, do they have a defensible position as far
as having done everything they can to come in under budget or meet the budget
requirements before they ask for money?
Mr. Kolb: If you are asking me if they have spent all of their money out of a
particular account, then yes. If you’re asking me can I document each and every expense
and say it was justified, I can’t answer that.
Mr. Cheek: I guess that was the question. In your opinion did they ignore our
request or did they make a conscious effort to try to meet the 3-1/2% cut?
Mr. Kolb: I believe that they have made a conscious effort to meet the 3-1/2% for
the most part. There are some exceptions. However, I think that there has been a
concerted effort to try and meet those budget cuts that were dictated by the Commission.
It was just difficult. It’s very difficult to do.
Mr. Cheek: We’re counting on you to tweak those exception whenever you find
them. Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? Did we get a motion?
22
Mr. Shepard: I move approval.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? All in
favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. J. Brigham votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is item number 34.
The Clerk:
34. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB #323-04-201823371) Change
Number One in the amount of $2,713,000 to be funded from Special One
Percent Sales Tax Phase III on the Berkman’s Road Improvements Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Williams, you asked this be pulled.
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, thank you, sir. And the reason I asked for
this to be pulled is change order number one, I think it states. My question or my
problem, Mr. Mayor, is that when these change orders come in like this and we approve
them for such a large amount, does that not take money from other projects and other
areas that we are trying to do? I mean I’m looking at one side of town again, like always,
but it seems like when a change order of this magnitude comes in, something had to be
really, really wrong, and maybe our Public Works Director -- I see she’s standing --
maybe she can enlighten me as to what happened or why we are doing this. But that’s an
awful lot of money for a change order. I can’t see how we could have missed the mark,
and if that’s another project that we are starting up, that’s not the loop as far as other
businesses bidding on those projects in my mind.
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Smith, can you respond to the Commissioner’s concerns?
Ms. Smith: Yes, I can. This is denoted on the Berckman’s Road project as being
a -- you said item 34?
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Ms. Smith: Item number 34, if it written up in the caption, change number one,
there is an error in the caption. If you look at your back-up documentation, further back
on item 34, the caption is to approve capital project budget #321 etc., in the amount of
$2,713,000. This is a project that is in the Phase III sales tax that we are initiating at this
time.
23
Mr. Mayor: So you’re saying this is not a change order; this is the original
contract?
Ms. Smith: That is correct. It’s the original funding mechanism for this project.
Mr. Mayor: Does that clarify it?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor, but I can only go by what I see here, and that
says change order number one.
Ms. Smith: And I will offer to you my apologies for the information that showed
up in the agenda. The listing. But the back-up documentation itself does actually show it
as being an initial --
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and second. Mr. Williams, you had another
question?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I just wanted to ask while Ms. Smith is still standing
there. There are several other change orders number one in here as well. I didn’t pull
those. But is that the same thing, Ms. Smith, that maybe happened in those others?
Ms. Smith: No, sir, that is not the case. What you’re looking at on a number of
these projects is when we come before the Commission initially, typically to get projects
approved we will ask you to give us the money for the design activity and award the
engineering contract. We will then come back and ask for the remaining funds, and what
has happened on many on these is what we’re asking for, is either the remaining funds
where the initial funds were allocated, or it is where we’ve made it through design on
some of these and we’ve discovered that the construction funds are not adequate as far as
what was programmed back in 1996, and we’ve been able to get funds from DOT or
various other sources, but we’re asking that the rest of the money for the project now --
we get permission to go forward and to put a fence around that money for this specific
project.
Mr. Williams: Last question. Ms. Smith, do we have a way of finding out
whether or not local businesses are being used when we do a project this big? I guess
you have a record in your office of how many local businesses, how much money is
coming back in this town. I mean we spend a lot of money with outside funds, and that’s
fine, I got no problem with that, but I’m just asking the question. Do you have a way of
knowing if not this project had X amount of local business out of Augusta in it?
24
Ms. Smith: Right now the project that you’re approving, unless the design has
been done, there is no other activities that have been done on it, but yes, we have a record
of who the engineering firm is on all of our projects, as well as who the construction firm
is on all of our projects, and any of the subcontractors that they use.
Mr. Williams: Okay. That’s all.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion? We do have a motion on the floor. All in
favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 40.
The Clerk:
40. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to notify consulting
engineers of the selection results and proceed with negotiations to contract
for engineering services on the Highland Avenue Plant Upgrade Project.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Commissioner Shepard, you asked for this to be pulled.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted the Public Works Director, if she
could, to share with us how the ranking with the [inaudible] firms and whether this is a
spread between the people ranked, between the firms ranked, and also I’d like to express
concern that we shouldn’t negotiate with anybody until we acquire the area for the plant,
and I’ve got some serious questions in the next item -- and this is sort of -- 40 -- putting
the cart before the horse, before 41, because I don’t think we’ve held the proper public
hearings to determine that we can close Central Avenue. I think we’ve held certainly a
public hearing on decaling today, and that’s fine, but I think before we close a street we
have to go through certain procedures and I’ll let Mr. Wall correct me. We’ve not gone
through those procedures. If we don’t go through those procedures and we decide not to
close Central Avenue, then that’s going to affect what is designed and engineered up
there. So can you help me out with that?
Ms. Smith: Mr. Shepard, I delay that to either the Administrator or Mr. Goins, as
this is an Augusta Utilities activity.
Mr. Mayor: Do you want to respond to that, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: You wanted the Utilities Director, didn’t you?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, I’m sorry, I did. I should have asked for that.
Mr. Mayor: Are you going to respond?
25
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Goins will respond.
Mr. Shepard: That’s fine.
Mr. Goins: In the order of your questions, the first question was the selection
process of consulting engineers. The selection process that we used was initially there
was a short list of engineering firms that were interviewed by a selection committee.
Originally there were five firms that were selected to be interviewed. Two of the five
firms requested that they consolidate and be interviewed as one joint-venture team, so we
allowed that to happen. The listing that you see here is the order of ranking, which the
selection committee as a whole ranked the firms, and I’ll be glad to answer any specific
questions.
Mr. Shepard: Was there a point score established for each one of those, Mr.
Goins?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir, there was.
Mr. Shepard: Could you share those point score with us?
Mr. Goins: The total scores for Arcadis Geraghty & Miller was 79. Gannett
Fleming was 89.6. Jordan, Jones & Goulding was 75. And Zimmerman, Evans &
Leopold/Camp Dresser and McKee was 68.9.
Mr. Bridges: Could I have those rankings again, Drew?
Mr. Goins: The numerical ranking?
Mr. Bridges: Yes.
Mr. Goins: Arcadis Geraghty & Miller was 79. Gannett Fleming 89.6. JJ&G, or
Jordan, Jones & Goulding was 75. And Zimmerman, Evans & Leopold/Camp Dresser
and McKee 68.9.
Mr. Shepard: Is that a 100-point scale, Mr. Goins?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir, it is.
Mr. Shepard: What were the categories? Were there some disparities in
subcategories that resulted in maybe a -- I see a 20 point difference between the first and
the fourth.
Mr. Goins: The ranking disparity was over the entire interview process. I’m not
sure that I have the raw data with me on what the disparity was. I can give you the
rankings of the individual scores if you’d like me to, but I don’t have the raw data with
26
me as to who scored what on each specific point. I can give you the different questions
that were asked. For example, we asked for experience in similar projects. We asked for
the location of the design team and management staff, as well as the staff. We asked for
the procedure for deliverable approach. We asked for prospective technical approaches.
We asked for any sub-consultants that would be used, and then we also had a scoring for
the general quality of the presentation.
Mr. Shepard: Let me ask you this. In relation to this item and the next, Drew,
were the consulting engineers who were interviewed, were they told to assume that
Central Avenue would be available as part of the plant site, or does that enter into the
process?
Mr. Goins: The recommendation of the closing of Central Avenue is separate
from the selection of the engineer. We have a technical memorandum that is being
prepared by CH2MHILL and this is going to be used as the basis for design. The
consulting engineer that we are selecting has a set of guidelines that we are asking them
to design the plant by. It’s become apparent that -- and I’m getting into the next agenda
item -- that with the total build-out, that the space that we have on the campus is very
limited, and when we have to do yard piping up there as we expand our chemical
capabilities up there, we’re encroaching heavily on the right-of way. And so --
Mr. Shepard: Well --
Mr. Goins: Excuse me, go ahead.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Goins, I mean, does the availability of that right-of way for use
as a plant, does that bear -- my question is does that bear upon the selection of the --
Mr. Goins: No. No, sir.
Mr. Shepard: They can either work with that right-of way as part of that or
without it; am I correct?
Mr. Goins: That is correct.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Goins, do all four or five of these companies have offices in
Augusta?
Mr. Goins: Three firms. Two firms do, two firms do not.
Mr. Mayor: And are all five of these firms doing other work with the Public
Utilities Department?
Mr. Goins: Yes.
27
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I’d just to ask the question to Mr. Goins that with all these firms that
are involved, how would you deal with the capacity of each one of them to complete this
in a way that would be acceptable to this community?
Mr. Goins: That is one of the questions that we asked. We like to know the staff
resources that are available to each of these firms, and those are specifically some of the
questions that we asked and some of the information that we could get in the interview
process.
Mr. Beard: But you have not received that as of yet?
Mr. Goins: Oh, yes, sir, that was provided as part of the interview process.
Mr. Beard: And this is -- you made your selection on this basis?
Mr. Goins: That is one of the criteria, yes, sir.
Mr. Beard: What is -- was any criteria given to if any of these were hometown
people or having facilities in this county?
Mr. Goins: We --
Mr. Beard: Or do we take into consideration?
Mr. Goins: We do not give a specific score as to whether or not an engineering
company is local or not.
Mr. Beard: I guess my point that I’m getting at is that a lot of times I feel, and I
think we’ve expressed this, even with the purchasing of our vehicles, that a lot of times
we ought to give consideration that people are local, and if they’re all in the same
category or meeting the same requirements, it appears that we could -- we ought to give
some consideration to that, and I think that has been discussed by this Commission on a
number of bases. And I’m not saying that that is what y’all should have done at this
particular point. I don’t want to get into that. But I’m just saying that we have had those
type of discussions in the past.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. And we do ask specifically the question of where is your
design team and where is your staff? And I can’t say that it’s a yes or no toggle switch,
yes you will get or no you’re disqualified because you don’t have a local office, but that
is taken into consideration. We take into consideration the availability of the staff and the
timeliness in getting responses to questions and areas that need to be taken care of in a
timely fashion.
28
Mr. Beard: Well, I guess I’m just going to make a general statement here that as a
Commissioner, I do feel that we ought to look into that in the future or even at this point
or any point that we are dealing with high volume, that we’re going to put out, we ought
to -- I’m just thinking and now this is more to my fellow Commissioners than anything
else, because I think these are the people who pay the taxes here, they live in the
community and they offer us their services to the community, and I think, you know, we
ought to give that consideration. And I’m not saying anything to you about that, but I’m
saying this, I guess, more so to my fellow Commissioners.
Mr. Goins: Well, to add to that, the firm that we are recommending is a local
firm. They do have an office here in Augusta.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think Mr. Beard probably brings up a
good point as far points awarded for local people. We’ve discussed that over a six-year
period, and as of yet, we’ve always, in a straight bid, as an example, for vehicles we go
with the lowest bid, which has proven successful for us in the past. What the staff has
done here is, I think there seems to be concern about the procedure in which this was
done. This is normal, typical. Our Purchasing Department was involved in this process,
as far as interviewing, to ensure that everything was done in accordance with our
ordinances. This is the same, basically the same procedure that was followed when we
chose the firm to design/build our new water treatment plant for south Richmond. And I
think what maybe is throwing some confusion into this is normally a single firm would
be brought back, but what this request is for is to allow the staff to choose these based in
the order given here, which is the order ranked by the committee that was interviewing
the firms. And I think they’ve done a good job. I think the committee -- it’s not always
easy to rank these things, but during the interview process it’s the most effective and best
way to do it. And I think there was participation by different staff members, including
Commissioner Colclough who represented the Engineering Services Committee in that
thing. I think they are doing a good job and I’d like to see us go ahead and approve the
request that we have before us and I’d make that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve just received that. Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Mr. Mayor, I want to make one comment. Drew, while
you’re standing, I heard many things mentioned, many criterias for different things, but is
pricing the main thing? Is that our main --
29
Mr. Goins: No, sir. This selection process -- we try to interview the firms and we
decide on who is the best firm for this particular job. And then once we have ranked
these firms, then we enter into negotiations. If we can’t meet a successful negotiation
with the top-ranked firm, then we will go and negotiate with the second firm. That is the
reason why we ranked these in this order. Now let me say that all of the firms here are
excellent firms. The ranking is based on the design team that was presented in the
interview and how we felt like as a selection committee that team was presented would
meet the needs of this particular job. It’s unfortunate that all teams aren’t number one,
but the selection process for the best qualified for the particular job ends up being a
ranking of one, two, three, four, depending on the number of candidates that you
interview.
Mr. Williams: Okay, Drew, I want to make a last comment, and that is that
human nature plays a very important part when you interview firms or people as a whole,
but one may be number one this week and somebody else could be number one next
week, and I think y’all did a good job on what you’re doing. I wanted to know the fact of
how much, how low the bid come in, was that the main reasoning for hiring this firm,
whether they located in Augusta or not, whether they got the engineering set up in
Augusta, whether they, you know -- you can get into a lot of different aspects, but I think
-- you answered my question. I don’t need no answer. I just wanted to make that
comment. That’s all, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you. Mr. Mayor, I must admit I’ve been a little preoccupied
with a thing called election. I think three other Commissioners have been that way. And
I’m a little concerned in the selection spread that on a hundred point scale somebody has
got a B+ and somebody else has got an F and you say they’re both qualified, and that
may be applying an academic scale from school to something that doesn’t totally matter,
and I think they’re all excellent firms, but quite frankly I’d like a little more time to look
at this selection process, and I’m going to make the motion that we delay this until the
next Commission meeting and not take action on this item at this time.
Mr. Williams: Second that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Substitute motion is so noted. Mr. Jerry Brigham?
Mr. J. Brigham: I’ve been a little preoccupied, so I’m going to ask several
questions.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: First off, how many people were on the oversight committee that
made this selection?
Mr. Goins: There’s a total of five members on the Selection Committee.
30
Mr. J. Brigham: There were five members?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: Four of them staff members?
Mr. Goins: No, sir. Three were staff members. One was our project manager.
And then the other one was a member of the Commission.
Mr. J. Brigham: Did anybody tend to favor one, overly favor one contractor more
than another contractor? In other words, did somebody -- let me put it this way. Did
somebody give everybody say on one contractor 100 and everybody else 70’s that you
can tell or is there a wide --
Mr. Goins: No, sir.
Mr. J. Brigham: I haven’t seen the scores that I can remember, and I’m trying to
see if it’s fluctuating all over the place or if you’ve got an average of one way up here or
some down lower.
Mr. Goins: Well, I can provide the raw scores, if that was what the Commission
wants.
Mr. J. Brigham: I think that’s what the real question is up here, is how did they,
how were they rated by the individual people that were rating them?
Mr. Goins: Let me say this.
Mr. J. Brigham: [inaudible] average. I think that’s the real question among the
Commissioners.
Mr. Goins: Four out of the five raters rated the company that we’re
recommending as number one.
Mr. J. Brigham: Okay.
Mr. Goins: Okay. Then the second and third ranking were the same way, and
then it kind of gets jumbled up as you go on down.
Mr. Mayor: Which firm did that fifth person rates as number one?
Mr. Goins: Arcadis.
Mr. Mayor: So that was number two on your list today?
31
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. So you can see that the, you know, the selection committee,
you know, generally had the firms one and two.
Mr. Mayor: Obviously some of the Commission is unsettled about making a
decision today, so if indeed the substitute motion carries, Drew, I would ask if you would
to make available the scoring sheets to the Commissioners who desire to see those so
they can look at those evaluations themselves. Any further discussion on the substitute
motion to put this off until the next meeting?
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: I’m opposed to putting this off. This was on committee. I mean
everybody has seen the back-up and that type of thing. I can certainly sympathize with
somebody running for office, it does consume time, but nevertheless we have our duties.
This is a standard procedure. We’ve done this for the six years that I’ve been in here.
And there’s no -- I’m a little bit taken aback as to why the issue comes up now after six
year. I mean this is standard policy procedure, done by our standards, and we should
move on this. Water is a critical part of this community, regardless of the location, and I
think we need to move forward on this project, and I hope the Commission will agree.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Bridges. Mr. Henry Brigham?
Mr. H. Brigham: I tend to agree with Mr. Bridges. I had people running against
me in the race and I got to run [inaudible] life does go on, but I think we ought to move
forward.
Mr. Mayor: I know what that’s like, too, Mr. Brigham. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I, too, have to concur with two of my colleagues. This
needs to proceed unless there’s been some allegations of impropriety on someone’s part,
something unethical. It’s gone through the process. Being often criticized for micro-
managing, this seems to me like we’re delving into a process that is well established, and
unless there is some legitimate concerns as far as impropriety it needs to pass. It doesn’t
need to be delayed. And if those things, if there is impropriety or something unethical it
needs to be brought forth today, and we can deal with it. But this process has been well
proven. It’s fair. We need to move on and pass this.
Mr. Mayor: We’ll go ahead and call the question then on the substitute motion,
and that would have the effect of --
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: I’m sorry, Mr. Mays, I didn’t see your hand through Mr. Brigham’s
head there. Go ahead, I’m sorry.
32
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] I can kind of live with either way. I apologize for being
out of time [inaudible] and so the question that I probably would ask, and I’m saying this
mainly because if the substitute motion is not passed, I think that [inaudible] impropriety
but I think on one hand we’re ask to have to trust our professional folks. As
Commissioners, we don’t know what we’re building or how to build, so we’ve got to
have some trust factors in there in the people that we pay. I guess the only thing I would
be concerned about is two areas. One, when we do ranking systems, with the type of
money we’re spending, and I don’t think we’re building water and filter plants every day,
when you get maybe that far apart, 21 points or better than 20 points on the best and the
brightest, it puzzles me then do you not [inaudible] at the top, even the people at the
bottom. There’s something there to say you bring four firms to us, and then you get to an
interview process, my question is did you question the four best that you could find? If
they got that far apart. You know, usually I’m looking at the best performing. I’m
looking for everybody to kind of rank [inaudible] two to three points apart at a max. But
when it gets to be 20, maybe that’s not an issue for today, but then I kind of question the
decision making of you who maybe bring to the table as professionals. The second thing
is that unlike -- and it may be different in terms of the way the creek basins are laid out
and the engineering firms have worked through those and maybe in some cases y’all have
gone back in Public Works or Utilities to ask about a project and you sometimes select a
professional firm because say firm A has had the experience in terms of working in
Rocky Creek versus another firm who has worked in Rae’s Creek so therefore the
continuation may be with that particular firm. If there are any -- and I’m really asking
this, Mr. Mayor, from a green side -- are we -- when I ride by it I see where we’ve got
participation by one firm on here with what you’re doing on Central Avenue already. Is
any of that co-mingling or any of that in terms of any conflict or how is that done?
Because I’m looking at Central Avenue’s project, and I guess if we going to [inaudible],
we going to ask it [inaudible] because it puzzles me when [inaudible] you get on a trust
factor. I’m reading big names on the board and then you’re giving me low scores on one
hand, then I’m questioning not only maybe where we are today but then maybe what we
did yesterday. Or at those thing things apples and oranges?
Mr. Mayor: Can you answer that question for the Commissioner, Mr. Goins?
Mr. Mays: Where are we on that?
Mr. Goins: Well, in answer to your question of are we selecting from qualified
firms, we sent out approximately two years ago a request for qualifications for firms that
we were going to do business with. And that is the list that we short-listed from. The
firms that you see here indicate, well originally the five firms were the highest and best
firms that the staff qualified and that is the short list. There are many, many firms out
there that would like to work for us, but these are the five firms that we looked at the
qualifications and short-listed for the interview process. These by no means are not all
the firms that we could have asked. These are the most qualified firms that we felt like
that we could, that would do the best job for us. Now as to your question of the disparity
between the firms, I think that’s more [inaudible] that we’re having a base of 100 rather
33
than 10. If it was 10, two points off. If it’s 100, then that magnifies it into a 20 point
score. So I think that’s more relative of the scoring grid that we used rather than a one,
two, three, four. We chose 10, 20 and went on a base of 100 rather than a base of 10. So
the disparity is not of a great concern in my opinion.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Mays: My next question would be on the magnitude, and I don’t think this
has to be a total weigh-in, but just to the point of asking the questions, and maybe this is
something to the point that maybe needs to be included in that particular makeup would
be those particular list of questions that were asked in the interview process, if there is a
list. All four of these I assume have done plant work of this magnitude.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mays: Okay. Was there any disparity within those firms in terms of maybe
saying one has built one or two and one may have built 25 or 30?
Mr. Goins: That’s the kind of thing that we scored these firms on. One may have
had a little experience and one may have had a great deal more experience. And that is
what the scores reflect. That one particular firm may have done 15 or 25 [inaudible]
similar to ours, and other firms may have only done 4 or 5. So consequently, the firm
that did more of those [inaudible] bids got a higher score. Those are the types of things
that we flush out in the interview process.
Mr. Mays: But it would not be the only criteria?
Mr. Goins: No. Absolutely not.
Mr. Mays: And I think in fairness, Mr. Mayor, just for the record I’d want to say
that I hope that wouldn’t, because in some cases, you know, one firm may do 10
particular projects, another firm may do two, but if the one that does two does them in an
excellent way and the one who has done ten has got problems out of them, then that’s not
really a trade-off in the balance. Sometimes the bigger does not translate to better. So I
guess I’m just trying to find out what you maybe asked in that process, you know, that
went in there, Drew, that’s all. So it’s not an indictment on where you are with it, but I
only brought that up when you opened up and I saw where the rankings aligned, that big
of a gap in there, you know, was something wrong in that process, and I guess my last --
what you’re already doing on Central Avenue versus the new plant that’s [inaudible], in
that same context of where you kept that flow in terms of engineering firms, with this
being a different item, that totally separates then that area of any [inaudible] or conflict
from the standpoint of [inaudible] one set of folk on one project that you’ve got while at
the same time you’re fixing to proceed with another one.
34
Mr. Goins: Well, all the people that we deal with are professionals, and at any
one point in time one professional group can follow the excellent work of the previous
professional group that’s up there. Again, we chose this group and are recommending
this group based on the qualifications that they brought to the selection committee. And I
see now reason why that one professional group can’t follow the work of the previous
professional group.
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m going to see this and I’m going to close.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: And the only reason I brought that up was the fact, and I say we have
got to depend on you all, Drew, where you do things professionally and present them to
us. I guess -- and that’s why I was asking about the nature of the two different items.
Because so many times we are told professionally from the standpoint particularly in this
area of Public Works that you all make selections and you make continuous
recommendations on professional services based on the fact that one firm is familiar with
a particular road, so we’re not sending five engineering companies to go back and do the
same hole. I realize all of them are professionals, but we’ve been presented with this
over and over to a point that from the standpoint of having somebody to blame, we don’t
want the same folk to a point that one has done this, somebody else is doing somebody
else’s work and then we start asking if there is a flaw, if there is a question, that we get
into a finger-pointing contest. That was one of the reasons why that professionally you
all have over the years recommended that once you’ve made a decision professionally in
some areas, you at least continue in that scope to doing that way. That’s what pointed me
to ask this particular question. That was my reason.
Mr. Goins: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor which would --
Mr. Mays: Can I comment, Mr. Mayor, on how they -- the difference in arriving
on that?
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead, Drew, respond.
Mr. Mays: Cause I have to depend on him.
Mr. Goins: I understand that in some cases it’s important to have continuity. But
in other cases, particularly in this case, we are doing a total redesign, a total retrofit of
this facility. We are going to be -- well, I can’t say that we’re going from ground zero
because we have an existing facility up that that we are going to retrofit. But -- and we
did take into consideration the continuity by the firm that did present because they
obviously presented the fact that they have worked on that plant before. So that was
taken into consideration. And that’s really all I can say about that matter.
35
Mr. Mays: I’m satisfied with it, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Mays: If I’ve got some colleagues who need to delay, I can support it and
live with it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s move along with the substitute motion that would delay it to
our next meeting. All in favor of that motion, the substitute motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Cheek and Mr. Kuhlke vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us back to the original motion, which is to approve this
item. All in favor of the original motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Williams, Mr. J. Brigham and Mr. Shepard vote No.
Motion fails 5-4.
Mr. Mayor: So that pushes it to our next meeting. Next item is item number 41.
Madame Clerk?
The Clerk:
41. Motion to authorize the Augusta Utilities Department to proceed with the
permanent closure of Central Avenue from Highland Avenue to Iris Street.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, you asked this be pulled?
Mr. Shepard: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. I don’t think we can proceed with the
permanent closure of any street in the absence of a public hearing. If Utilities wants to
begin the public hearing process, there are a lot of stakeholders, particularly in the area of
the plant, that need to come to the table. I’ve heard from several business people up there
and I think the cost of closing Central Avenue may well include the cost of inverse
condemnation of several businesses up there that are located adjacent to the plant, and
there is a shopping center next to the plant in the immediate vicinity. There is a fire
station in the immediate vicinity. We’re talking about moving the fire station. So I think
there are a lot of data that has not yet been gathered, and to just come before this body
and say let’s start the process to permanently close the street, I think it’s out of order. If
they want to start a process to conduct the appropriate hearings with these stakeholders,
that’s another thing entirely, but I’d like Mr. Wall to comment on whether we can close a
street absent a public hearing.
36
Mr. Wall: Well, the statutory process calls for a public hearing. In the
committee, I understood Mr. Goins to emphasize the fact that this was simply to start that
process which would allow -- the process is you identify the stakeholders, the property
owners that have an interest, you have to run a public notice, and then you schedule a
public hearing, and then bring that matter before the Commission. So this would simply
initiate that process. I think the confusion is brought about by part of the back-up
material which talks about closing the street temporarily, and I would suggest that that
would not be appropriate to do because of the situation you have up there. You do have
the businesses that are dependent upon that. This was not brought, discussed to my
recollection at the committee meeting, and I’m not sure that you are really asking to close
it temporarily. And maybe Mr. Goins wants to comment, but that’s not what I
understood.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb had indicated he wanted to speak. George, did you want to
add something?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, I was going to say exactly what the Attorney said.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Drew, you want to respond?
Mr. Goins: As Mr. Wall indicated, and I apologize for the poorness of the agenda
item, I intended for this to reflect that we were going to start the process of the closing,
which does include public hearings and input from law enforcement and Public Safety
and the Fire Department and so forth and so on. As to the temporary closing versus the
permanent closing, we had the thought that we would be doing in the design process a lot
of digging in the street up there so that we would necessarily have to have that street
closed intermittently on a temporary process and then the street, if approved by the
Commission, could be closed on a permanent basis.
Mr. Mayor: Does that answer your question, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Well, yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. But I think we should have, like some
other colleagues, we should have truth in agenda item captioning here. I think if we want
to start the public hearing process with the stakeholders, let’s do that. But let’s not say
we’re going to close the street. The results of the public hearing process may indicate we
So if I would be in order, Mr. Mayor, I’d ask that we just start
don’t close the street.
the public hearing process for this project.
Mr. Mayor: Send this back to Committee?
we include all the
Mr. Shepard: I’m satisfied if we start the process and
stakeholders who are the residents around there, the business people around there,
and that all the alternatives, including non-closure, be considered.
I don’t believe
we’ve got to send that back to committee unless some of my colleagues think so.
Mr. Williams: Is that a motion, Mr. Shepard?
37
Mr. Shepard: Yes, that’s in the form of a motion, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Mayor: Motion. Do we have a second?
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Mr. Kuhlke had his hand up.
Mr. Kuhlke: I want to make a substitute motion after I hear from Drew. Drew, is
Central Avenue -- is that area needed for the plant expansion?
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: All of it?
Mr. Goins: I can’t tell you that all of it will be.
Mr. Kuhlke: On a permanent basis, I mean.
Mr. Goins: Yes, sir. Not from the full length of between Highland and
Iris Street, but there are certain facilities that are now encroaching very close the right-of-
way.
Mr. Kuhlke: I understand that.
Mr. Goins: And as we expand those, then the -- it’s very hard for us to
keep the integrity of the right-of-way. And if even one portion of it’s closed, then it
makes sense to close it from one block to the other. I can’t tell you that we’ll use that
entire right-of-way, but a significant portion around the chemical feed areas, where the
sedimentation basins are, we’re encroaching dangerously onto the right-of-way section.
Mr. Kuhlke: Well, I have a problem considering the businesses on Central
Avenue. I don’t know how that road has been open, but a long time. I know over 60
years. You’ve got banks up there, you got food service business, you’ve got a nursery,
you’ve got the fire station. I think -- I’m going to withdraw if I can. I haven’t made a
substitute motion because I think Commissioner Shepard’s motion is probably the think
that we need to do, but I can tell you this, you’re not going to get my vote, and I would
suggest that you start looking at some alternatives and I hope my colleagues will go along
with it.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Beard and then Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I guess this is to Drew. It seems like there’s
a little deceptiveness here that we’re entering into because we’re saying are we
permanently closing Central Avenue, are we going to close a part of it, are we going to
38
do away with this altogether? I don’t see how you are going to go people with a public
hearing with partial -- as I’ve heard it here today -- not fully knowing where we’re going
and what we’re going to do here. Because from one point here I thought that you were
going to do a partial of the street, but maybe I just misheard what you were saying.
Mr. Goins: I was attempting to answer Mr. Kuhlke’s question. He said are you
going to use all of the right-of-way, and my indication was that I can’t tell you that we’re
going to use all of the right-of-way from Highland Avenue to Iris Street, but we wouldn’t
want to close the street in mid-block so that someone would come down a dead-end street
and then be unable to turn around. That’s why I’m suggesting that we close from Iris
Street to Highland Avenue, which is one block of that street. And maybe that was where
it might have been a little confusing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, unless I’m convinced otherwise, Central Avenue runs
dangerously close to a large quantity of chlorine, not to mention the switching equipment
and a lot of the other support equipment that supplies 60% of this city’s water. That plant
has grown up in an area. It’s unfortunate that that has become a main thoroughfare.
Perhaps we can look at one-ways or some way to be creative in that area, but the truth is
the plant is continuing to grow, it’s continuing to be upgraded. There has been a mandate
from the people to get the water system in order. This is part of that process. We have
without any concern rerouted roads in other parts of this city that have impacted
businesses adversely without blinking an eye. I don’t want to see these businesses
affected adversely, but we have to have the city’s water system brought up to speed. I
remind you all, gentlemen, there are motors in that building that have been there since it
was built. They are still running. We need to improve the plant. This is the opportunity
to do it. It’s 60% of the water. If people have to be inconvenienced just a little bit to go
around that area, then that’s just the way it is. We had to close a reservoir, we went
through the same “woe is me” before we did it, but we had to close it anyway. What are
we going to need? Are we going again someone from the outside to tell us to close it?
We do need the public hearings and go through the process, but I think in the end, closing
Central Avenue is going to be the ultimate result if we do what needs to be done.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Just a comment, Mr. Mayor. Drew, when
y’all do these public meetings, and I’m going to support the motion to begin this process,
I hope two things you’ll consider, and that is to consult with the Sheriff’s Department as
far as expected traffic patterns for the different scenarios of closing Central Avenue, and
also look at making that a one-way street if that would be something that would work
with the Utilities Department, too. My concern is what Mr. Cheek has expressed. We
are going to wind up coming back here and looking at this same thing. But I hope there
is a way we can reach some conclusion that accommodates the people living in that area.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham and then Mr. Shepard.
39
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, part of my concern is we just discussed this on the
other side of the coin, and we were told that we would not necessarily be closing any of
Central Avenue. Now I’m going to support having the hearing, but I don’t think until we
select a design firm and tell them what to do, we don’t know whether we are going to
close it or not, or even use any --encroach any further on the right-of-way, and I think
that that’s where we are at right now, but I do think we need to have this hearing, I do
think we need to have the stakeholders involved, and I’m going to vote to do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to point out to Drew that, I think one
thing that the stakeholders, the business people in the area are interested in is the moving
of the chlorine tanks as a financial alternative, so I think you need to consider all of those
things so that we can -- that question is going to come up. I just give you the heads-up.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I make one other comment?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir, Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Bridges: Thank you. Mr. Brigham brought up a point that I think is a very
relevant point, and that is the design firm needs to have a voice in the recommendation
here because they may not need that road closed or they may need it, so I think we’ve got
to work with them, too, Drew, in that regard. That’s one reason I regret we didn’t move
forward today so at least they could be moving forward on this issue, which I think is a
more critical issue. But I think Mr. Brigham’s point is well -- should be well taken.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Are y’all ready to vote on the motion? Any more
discussion? Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: I was just to say that whatever information that he would bring to the
hearing, I think the less “ifs” that are brought there, it will be far more productive. And I
say that from the standpoint that on one hand we’re talking about not knowing what
we’re going to need. If I’m there and I’m one of those surrounding stakeholders and
asking that type of question, I think when you start off and have a hearing, I think if
people know what your real plans are, then they’re more inclined to either be objective or
supportive, if it’s for security, if it’s for expansion, if you know what you’re going to do
and how much space you’re going to take, then you can tell them what you’re going to
do. But if you’ve got a lot of “ifs” when you go there, then that’s going to turn into quite
frankly a [inaudible] and shouting session. And that’s just an observance.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. I think we’ve adequately discussed this. Do you have
something new to add, Mr. Cheek?
40
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’d just like to add that as far as I know, Augusta is the
only city that has a major thoroughfare through the middle of its water plant, and the
question we need to ask is everybody else dumb or are we?
Mr. Mayor: We call the question on the motion, and that is Mr. Shepard’s motion
to start the process with public hearings, etc. All in favor of that motion please vote aye.
Mr. Mays votes No.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Item number 42, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
42. Motion to approve Utilities Department to extend an offer of employment to
the selected candidate for Assistant Director - Finance and Administration in
the amount of $58,000.00. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
October 29, 2001)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Jerry Brigham, you asked that this be pulled?
Mr. J. Brigham: Yes. Mr. Mayor, I had a little birdie who I’m not going to
reveal suggest that the candidate that we hired or are in the process of hiring made a lot
more money than this and is in the process of while he’s accepted this job, he’s in the
process still of looking for employment. It’s my concern, if that’s the case, then why are
we doing this?
Mr. Hicks: Why are we going ahead and moving forward with this?
Mr. J. Brigham: Well, if the candidate has told us that he is going to continue to
seek employment, why are we going to raise the salary to the mid-point to try to bring
somebody on and then let that candidate still continue to search for a new job? If that’s
the case, this don’t make no sense to me.
Mr. Hicks: As with any other selection, this, too involved a process, insofar as
hiring an Assistant Director for Finance and Administration, and we sent out our
advertisements. Of course we had respond. We selected the top five. We interviewed
four of those. Four of them showed up. And of those that we interviewed, we had one
that wound up being the unanimous selection as the number one candidate. At that point,
we had our unanimous selection as the number one candidate. So then the next step is to
approach that person and indicate to them the range of salary that we can offer. It was in
the advertisement. It was in the information that the person had. But when the person
was contacted then and was informed about the salary that could be offered, the person
indicated that they were already making much than that. And they indicated that they
were well aware of the salary that was in the advertisement. But after discussion with the
person and giving them the opportunity to turn it down or stay with it, they indicated that
41
they would like to continue to be considered and that they would take the job. Now they
did indicate they would continue to look. However, they didn’t indicate that after they
were selected, after the Commission approves this, that they would continue to look after
that. They might. It has to do with human nature. They very well might do it.
Mr. Mayor: Have you thought about putting this person under contract, Mr.
Hicks?
Mr. Hicks: We could, or do whatever -- if --
Mr. Mayor: That would certainly keep somebody from leaving.
Mr. Hicks: Yes. Or if y’all wanted to reject it. We will just go out with the
process again. Right now we’re operating with an interim finance director. We really
have Tammy from Finance that’s working with us and also a young lady from Cherry,
Bekaert & Holland who is working. She really pulled the budget together and did an
excellent job. So with that we’re able to continue to operate. It is just that there are
certain areas that this person would have jurisdiction over that those financial people
cannot look at. We have a good customer service person. But in that regard,
Commissioner Brigham, the person did indicate that they would continue to look up until
the time this was approved. I didn’t get any indication they were going to keep on, but
human nature being what it is, you’d think, well, perhaps they will be looking for a job
where they can make more money. Because they said they were making substantially
more than this in the job that they just left. This is the most we could offer and feel like it
could be approved by the Commission.
Mr. J. Brigham: Mr. Mayor, I’ll make a motion that we approve it but I
want a contract for at least six months to a year attached to it.
Mr. Bridges: Second it.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. Any further discussion? All in favor of the
motion please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 52.
The Clerk:
52. Consider recommendations from the Security Committee regarding the
security plan for the Municipal Building.
Mr. Mayor: Who’s doing that? Steve, we all extend to you our congratulations
on your election, your full term as Marshal, and look forward to working with you.
42
Mr. Smith: Thank you. I think this came to the Commission without a
recommendation from committee. I think most Commissioners were present at our
presentation we had last week. Basically what we did was take the PowerPoint
presentation that we gave you last week, put it in written form, and submitted it to you
pretty much the way it is. Anybody have any questions? I didn’t have a chance to get
with Mr. Kolb this week. I think he was out of town the last part of the week, and I was
on the campaign trail the last couple of days, so we didn’t have a chance to really sit
down and discuss the finer details of this plan.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask exactly what we’re being asked to approve today.
Is that the number of staffing and budgeting as per the back-up in the agenda or is that
what the Commission is being asked to approve? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I’d just, based on what Steve has just told us, I’d like to make a
motion that we receive this as information and let Steve and Mr. Kolb get together and
then let the Administrator come back to us with a final recommendation since they hadn’t
had a chance to get together on the details and also I guess Jim might need to be involved
in that.
Mr. Mayor: Is there a second?
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, is it your intent that you
want to implement the security plan? If that is the case then I guess we’re looking at
some finer details of how we’re going to implement that.
Mr. Mayor: Well, I think that, too, and also you need to make some budget
adjustments because you’re hiring people, you’ve got to -- you may have to do some
classification work and things like that. Mr. Lee Beard?
Mr. Beard: I think that’s a good suggestion that we -- I would like to personally
see some more detailed outline of this, Steve, of this, than what we’re doing, what we’re
going to involve, and like you, I probably wasn’t paying too much attention last week
when the committee meeting was going on, and I really haven’t had the time to look into
this, and I think we do -- and it doesn’t mean that we don’t want the plan. I think the
point would be that we just want to make sure we know what we’re involved in from a
financial standpoint, and from a security standpoint, of what we need. I think y’all gave
an excellent presentation the other day when you did this, but I think we probably all
need a little refreshing at this time and some figures and some other things that we would
need at this point.
Mr. Smith: A couple of things I do want to add about that. The Mayor brought
up the use of contract personnel for this, and if you’ll notice in there that when we started
43
comparing full-time security personnel, not certified officers, but full-time security
personnel, as opposed to the part-time. We felt like if we went with part-time officers,
we wouldn’t have to pay the benefits, the benefit package for our officers, and the
contract personnel we would have to pay the agency, the private agency, which is about
$3.00, $3.25 an hour. So basically we would be getting their personnel at their surcharge
price of whatever we’re paying plus another $3.25.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Brigham and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. J. Brigham: I’m in support of receiving this as information, but I do believe
that we need to start immediately identifying people that work in this building with
picture ID and I would ask that we add an amendment to the motion to go on and start
this process as soon as practical, to go on and start implementing at least some of this
security process.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to amending the motion?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, I object to it.
Mr. Mayor: Well, then we’ll take a vote on it. There’s been a motion to amend
the motion to include the proceeding with the security ID’s, so all in favor of amending
the motion to include that, please vote aye.
(Vote to amend the motion)
Mr. Beard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. H. Brigham, Mr. Kuhlke and Mr. Williams vote No.
Motion fails 4-5.
Mr. Mayor: The amendment fails. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Congratulations, Mr. Marshal, and I know
you certainly accept my excuse that I was out campaigning, too. We have photographic
proof of at least one of your supporters and me out there. But anyway, that levity aside, I
think it would be helpful when you come back to identify the funding source, George, I
assume Contingency is where he will have to be increasing his budget. I can’t think of
anything right off the top of my head, but it would helpful to do that. And it looks like to
me that the first part is dependent on -- Phase I is dependent on Part II, which I think Mr.
Brigham, Jerry Brigham had a good point. The identification badges are a part and parcel
of utilizing your Phase I procedures. So it looks like Phase II is really Phase I, you’d get
your ID folks, and I think we’ve already got the machinery downstairs and the sooner we
can use it, the better. I understand Columbia County is having difficulty even getting the
machinery and I don’t know what that’s going to do to that new judicial facility, but I
would hope that we could have this back by the next meeting and let’s -- do you think we
could do that? Not committee cycle but you think we could do that, George?
Mr. Kolb: Next cycle?
44
Mr. Shepard: Yes, next full Commission. Could we have it to the next full
Commission?
Mr. Kolb: Next full Commission meeting?
Mr. Shepard: Yes.
Mr. Kolb: I think we could probably make that happen.
Mr. Shepard: Okay.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: I doubt -- once you have approved it, it will probably be in December,
we’ll have to go ahead and hire someone. We’ll probably just make it a part of next
year’s budget rather than come back for an amended budget. I don’t think we can
implement this before the first of the year.
Mr. Smith: I think Mr. Kolb is correct. We’ve got a situation where we’re going
to have to hire officers and train them on this equipment, so it’s going -- the longer we
put this off, this part off, the longer it’s going to be before we utilize that equipment as
well.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion then?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Well, people can use it to put their drinks on, as you pointed out.
Mr. Mays: [inaudible] but it’s beginning to get to be a real chore [inaudible]. I
mean we’re moving money around, we’re doing other things, I mean if we’re really
serious about this and support the Marshal, this is [inaudible] we have [inaudible] at some
point we’ve got to trust somebody in terms of moving, but I think to the point where this
is getting in there where we’ve got it sitting there, I hope it’s included in our plans for
insurance just in case somebody may decide to just walk into it, break your leg or twist
the ankle on the stuff we’ve got sitting in the middle of the floor out there. I wish we
would go ahead and get to that point. We probably need to do some other things. This
needs to be at some point acted on, or else we need to put some wheels on it and move it
out from down there. It’s getting to be just a joke. And I think that the gentleman that’s
before you -- there is some fine tuning that needs to be done, but to a point that if this is
45
going to be [inaudible] back and forth and meet and do this in terms of essential
[inaudible] of it, you’ve got an elected official there dealing with it, he has had some
experience to a point of bringing it before six or seven different Commissioners of a
consolidated government, let him act and go on and get this show moving.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Cheek.
Mr. Shepard: I was just going to ask the Mayor Pro Tem is that a substitute
motion to go ahead and act on this project?
Mr. Mays: Well, if we couldn’t get one passed, Steve, to get the ID badges done,
I don’t think we’re going to get one done -- maybe somebody else can make it and do it,
but I definitely think to a point, you know, we’ve got folks working in grocery stores and
other places that have ID badges. We have folks moving in and out of here that work,
you know, that come in, that’s at least something that you can go and get started on.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll take your -- I’ll make it in the form of a motion, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Cheek: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, we either have a security concern here or not. And the
bottom line on all this is let’s go ahead and wait till December and get the equipment in
and do this and do that, but we either have a security concern or we don’t. And if we --
in my opinion, this country is at a high state of security readiness. We are out at
Savannah River. This equipment is not -- it doesn’t require a brain surgeon to operate it.
You can run the conduit on a temporary basis, use flex conduit. You can get your theater
ropes and put those in there. We can go ahead and begin this process of security this
building, or we can wait for everybody to decide. Gentlemen, this stuff can be set up in
probably less than five hours. We can do that with in-house forces. Put you some lag
bolts in the floor, run you some power to it, it ain’t brain surgery. Why in the heck are
we putting this off? This really makes us look real intelligent. We really worked real
hard to get everything here, and it was such a grave emergency to get it here, but now
we’re going to let it sit? We’ve either got a security concern or we don’t. You are either
part of the deferment crowd or the progressive crowd. Decide.
Mr. Mayor: If it’s an issue of waiting to hire people, to train them to use the
equipment, I would submit that you could probably through some of the temp agencies
here, the security companies here, some people in the private sector to run it, until you
get your people hired to do it. So if you want to move ahead with it, there is really no
reason to delay. But then again if you want to wait and do it another way, then certainly
that’s an option. Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion from Mr.
Shepard?
Mr. Kuhlke: What is it?
46
Mr. Shepard: The substitute motion is to adopt the policy and do it. It’s
funded from Contingency.
Mr. Mayor: All right. All in favor of the substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Beard: I need a clarification.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Kuhlke: Can I ask a question? Who -- who -- what’s your question, Lee?
My question is --
Mr. Beard: It’s moot.
Mr. Cheek: Order of the day, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Just a moment, Mr. Kuhlke has a question.
Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to ask Mr. Shepard this question. The money that we
approve is $100,000-some-odd, was that just for the equipment? I mean don’t we have
money to put the equipment up, and if we had to do -- the vote’s over with, but I’m
asking the question. We approved, I think, $100,000 or $150,000 to buy the equipment.
Why aren’t we putting it up?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, let’s go ahead and complete the vote and then we’ll get
an answer. Do you want to vote or just be present on this one?
Mr. Kuhlke: I think I’ll just be present on this one.
Mr. Kuhlke abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I’ll ask Mr. Kolb if he knows what the balance of that account is. If
there is a balance we can simply transfer the money from that account to Contingency
and repay it.
Mr. Kolb: And that’s what we’ll do. This is an annualized cost. The last month
or so is not going to be that much. We’ll take it out of that.
Mr. Shepard: I think Mr. Kuhlke’s question was do we have -- it was an
unrestricted amount of money for security in the General Fund budget a couple of years
ago.
47
Mr. Kolb: I think that there was appropriated $125,000.
Mr. Shepard: $125,000.
Mr. Kolb: The equipment cost $86,000 and included installation and training. So
we still have that covered. The balance of the plan is in personnel costs and we can
probably cover it for the rest of the year with the balance that’s left in that account.
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, Rick was waving his hand back there and he may have
an answer to the question.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Acree? Mr. Acree, do you have some additional information
you can share with the Commission?
Mr. Acree: I stand to be corrected by Finance that when we submitted the budget
package at the beginning of the year there was $125,000 in the 2000 budget, and that was
for purchase of equipment. That money was supposed to be carried forward to purchase
the equipment. The actual budget for 2001 was $30,000 because the money appropriated
would not cover the cost of [inaudible] the equipment so there was no point in [inaudible]
and that’s part of the 3-1/2/% cuts. The money was moved back into that to allow for the
purchase of the equipment because the funds were not carried forward as they were
planned to be. I do not know the balance of that account at this particular point, but I
doubt it’s $100,000.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Acree, I’m aware of all of those issues, and we resolve them. The
Commission moved those monies into the 2001 budget. It was a technical error that was
made. That error was corrected. That money is in the account. So there is a balance that
can take care of this.
Mr. Mayor: Seeing that there was some issue with the money you can charge the
equipment back to SPLOST for the building, couldn’t you? Donna has the answer.
Ms. Williams: Mr. Kolb is correct. That was -- the $122,000 that was to be
carried forward initially was not. In addition to that, there was $30,000 that was
approved in the 2001 budget, so after the $122,000 carry forward, you had a little over
$150,000. $86,000 of that was spent on the equipment. So the balance of approximately
$65,000 - $70,000 is in that account. You can designate it for the cost of laying the
wires, conduits, the personnel for the rest of the year. That is available.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I’m just going to throw this out as part of Andy’s wish
list. I would sure like to see closed-circuit cameras at each one of these doors we have
listed as one way that we’re going to have people at. If there is extra money, I’d sure like
to see the committee put those in.
48
Mr. Mayor: Okay. I think we’ve exhausted this item. Mr. Mays, you have
something else to add?
Mr. Mays: This may be one --
Mr. Mayor: Would you pull your mike down so the recorder will get it, please?
Mr. Mays: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you.
Mr. Mays: I make a note under building improvements I need another mike. But
what I was going to ask with Jim and both Donna, if there is a question there, don’t we
still -- and I think you probably know where I’m thriving to get to -- in monies delayed
that were set aside to deal with improvements on this facility out of sales tax, are those
improvement itemized to a “T” to get us down to how many wall sockets, how many
different ceilings, how many other different things that are in there? And I guess what
I’m getting to, and to a point on equipment then, that if it’s a part of the building
improvement, then I think of no logical reason to a point of where you have security that
has to be added into a building. What I’m looking at is the fact that I know where you’re
out of in that category of money, but it seems to me you could deal with a reimbursable
cost that is there in sales tax that was set aside for municipal building improvements that
can be transferred over and paid back to the money you have used out to deal with the
equipment. That would then or should boost your monies back to be transferred back
over to deal with your money then on your training side, Mr. Mayor. I guess that’s the
question I’m asking. And Jim to a point, can’t that legally be done because we are not on
a one through nine floor saying what’s going to be done on every floor in terms of a piece
of equipment, a piece of furniture, what’s to be added or what’s to be taken away. So I
think you can technically do that and stay within the law. But he’s the lawyer, I just
wanted to ask you can’t you do that in terms of finding that scope of money to do that
with and that won’t put you in that kind of bind?
Mr. Wall: And I think your point is well taken that you’ve got SPLOST money
that could be used insofar as the installation of the equipment and the purpose of the
equipment, and as you say that would perhaps reimburse the funds such that the operating
cost would come out of the General Fund and replenish that money.
Mr. Mays: That’s what I was looking for, Mr. Mayor, a smaller amount to come
out of Contingency where we had a pocket sitting there and it wouldn’t be any better time
to make an improvement on a building with a necessity and I don’t believe you are going
to get a lawsuit to a point that will stand up or anybody want to represent somebody. The
first item of business in terms of improvements in a building would seem to be with any
logical person what you would deal with with security and with what’s come up. Since
it’s not spelled out per chair, per table, anything else would go in that amount.
49
Mr. Mayor: Thank you very much. We’ll move along now to item number 53,
Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
53. Motion to approve an ordinance authorizing the Sheriff to restrict parking in
and around the U.S. Courthouse to parking by permit issued by U.S. District
th
Court, to include south side of Telfair street, west side of 8 Street, Walker
Street, and east Ford Street and west Ford Street.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, you had a question on this one?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor. And I guess somebody from the Sheriff’s
Department will probably have to answer for me. I’m trying to figure out and from what
I heard about the parking permits, how could we initiate, how could we make sure that
only those people parking permits be parking in these areas if they’re there for whatever
reason?
Mr. Wall: I have talked with the Court concerning the plan, and the plan is if you
have Court business, then you would be issued a permit that would go on the dash of your
car, and signs would be put up on the parking places designating it as parking by permit
only. So if you were a juror, you would know to go get a parking permit from the Clerk’s
office. If you were a lawyer, you would have one to go there. If you were a witness, you
would be issued one through the Clerk’s office.
Mr. Williams: So those permits would be like in the windshield of those cars?
Mr. Wall: Yes. On the dash. On the dash.
Mr. Williams: I know Mr. Shepard wouldn’t keep his permit if he had one for the
day and somebody needed that parking place tomorrow, but what will we do in cases like
that?
Mr. Shepard: I wouldn’t even give it to you, Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: I understand.
Mr. Mayor: We’re not closing the street or restricting access. All you are doing
is controlling the parking over there?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct at this time.
Mr. Mayor: And that would be controlling it only during the hours of Court so
that parking would be available after hours for the church next door, the civic center, Bell
Auditorium, functions around there?
50
Mr. Wall: Yes. That is correct.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor? And that just throws another question in my mind. If
that’s just going to be for the Court, we haven’t had any -- I thought it was another
security issue. I mean we talked about cars being to this building, close to this building
and all this stuff, and I thought that’s how this came about.
Mr. Wall: It is. It is.
Mr. Williams: But after Court time, security issue leave, Jim?
Mr. Wall: Well, and I guess that depends. Yes. I mean the protection of the
people in the Court is who is the concern. It’s not protection necessarily of the building
itself. But I think that it would be up to the Court to designate the hours because I mean
many times Court may run to six or seven o’clock at night. I mean I think all of us, Mr.
Shepard and I have probably been over there at six and seven o’clock at night so it
happens.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I am against the permit thing that we’re requesting for
this. I would like to see us go ahead and block off the streets between the fountain and
the federal courthouse. We have a real inconsistency when we define minimum safe
distance for parking. I know at the back of this building you can back up to the back door
with a semi-truck within four feet of the door, and we have got to establish some
minimum distance that we’re going to maintain between the building and the cars. My
concern is here again how long will it take when somebody is parking without a permit
for us to check into it and get them towed away, where are they going to get their permits,
where are they going to park while they’re getting them? We need a minimum safe zone
around these buildings and establish that to allow in the event of something going wrong
or something happening that the effects would be minimized by that distance between the
building and whatever may be parked out there. That would make a really nice addition
to that fountain area and park, and I think it would be something similar eventually to the
squares you have in Savannah.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: I agree with Mr. Cheek, and long term the solution is to close off those
streets, and that will be brought forward. But just as the public hearing is required as part
of the other, this is the immediate solution, is to permit, also because you would not be
closing off the south side of Telfair or the west side of Eighth Street, and the Court said
that it had no -- I mean it wanted parking to be in those areas. So that was the reason that
the permit idea is there. Long term the solution would be to close off those streets, and I
agree with you 100%. But this would allow the permit parking, it would control it. The
U.S. District Court has its own security people. They will be patrolling it. If there is an
51
issue out there of a car, I promise you they’ll notify the Sheriff’s office. So it will be
almost self-policing from their standpoint.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Wall, this came to us on a recommendation from the Marshal’s
Service, which is in charge of protection of the Court; is that not correct?
Mr. Wall: I’m sure it came -- it came initially to the Clerk’s office through the
Marshal’s Service, direct from the Court.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: I move approval of the Ordinance as drawn by the law
department.
Mr. H. Brigham: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Do we need to waive a second reading on this?
Mr. Wall: I’d request that you waive the second reading.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll put that in the motion if the body will go along with it.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection to that? Okay, no objection to amending the motion.
All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Williams abstains.
Motion carries 8-1.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to item number 57.
57. Discuss Link Deposit Contracts. (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Mays)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I discussed this I think with several of you and went along
with the Attorney and the Administrator. What I mainly was trying to do was get us on a
timetable in terms of the contracts relating to our transferring of the monies in that
particular program so that the so-named institutions can go ahead and I don’t think it’s
going to prohibit them from working with person because they are kind of already doing
that. That’s not been a maximum condition, but those particular institutions go ahead and
work with firms, but I just wanted to kind of see where we were on that and how quickly
we could go ahead and speed that process up in terms of getting those firms that are
actively working with the program and since there were only two of them that bothered to
take up the time to want to participate, I think we should at least go ahead and try to
expedite this as quickly as possible and in terms of getting the contracts ready so that we
52
can go ahead and move these funds to those particular banks, and I believe that was both
First Bank and SunTrust. And that was my reason for adding that on.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Yes, Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Are we going to hear from anybody today? Because this has been
going on for some time and I will be the first to admit that I haven’t made a lot of those
meetings but I think we should have an update on that as where we are.
Mr. Wall: It’s in my list of things to do. I’ve drafted a contract, I’ve tried to get it
out, I’ve tried to beat all the deadlines and this is one that frankly snuck up on me and I’m
trying to get it out. I’m the one responsible for the fact that it --
Mr. Beard: Can we have a “when” timetable?
Mr. Wall: I hope to have one in a week to ten days.
Mr. Mayor: Any further discussion on that item?
Mr. Mays: Can we get that out as a maximum time, Mr. Wall, because we got
some people that’s [inaudible] and I think out of fairness, even though it’s an amount of
money that’s not being loaned directly, but in the spirit of what we’re doing and the
seminar we had the other morning, I think that’s kind of what brought it on. I was a little
bit disturbed cause people were there and they didn’t make an issue out of it, but I just
think that if they are going to work with those firms that come to them on that basis, then
we need to go ahead and make sure that this gets done, and that’s going to be done in a
period of seven to ten days then that’s fine. I have no problem with that. But that should
be our maximum time that we’re working on doing that because I know we’ve had
elections, we’ve had security, we’ve had to change a lot of things, but this is one that is
way past the time of it getting done, and if we can get that done in that period then I’m
fine with it. But I’m kind of like Richard Pryor and that tarantula, you’re going to see me
again in seven to ten days, I’m going to be back. I want to make sure that that’s our
maximum time to move it.
Mr. Mayor: When that paperwork is ready, why don’t you just copy
Commissioner Mays so he’ll know that it’s out there and ready. Commissioner
Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Like Commissioner Mays, I too was at
that same meeting and this has been some time and I understand Jim getting backlogged
and having a bunch of stuff on him. But at the same time, we got to consider when that
money stays wherever it is, that that entity that is using it, the interest of whatever is
being done there could have been still -- and Jim have to do this legally, I know, and with
his office I get my cohort, Mr. Shepard, who is an expert lawyer to do it, but it have to be
something done legally, I understand that. But in the spirit of time and how much time
it’s been already, I think that if we can get this done in ten days that would be a welcome
53
sight for us to go ahead and move. So many things we put out for [inaudible] to do, but
for whatever reason we let our backs get up against the wall and I just wanted to
comment cause I was at that same meeting. We had good participation. The seminar was
really good. Nobody complained. But people was asking questions and people was
interested and wanted to do something and they’re planning another one. I would invite
all of the Commissioners who is on this panel to come to that seminar to see how many
other people or citizens of Richmond County that want to get involved in business and do
some things with our government and try to come out of the shadows into the light.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you
58.LEGAL MEETING.
??
Discuss Personnel Matter.
??
Discuss Real Estate Matters.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, I believe you want to request an executive session this
afternoon?
Mr. Kolb: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: For discussion of?
Mr. Kolb: Personnel.
Mr. Mayor: Personnel? All right. Mr. Wall?
Mr. Kolb: And real estate.
Mr. Wall: And real estate, and I also have one litigation matter.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? We will go into executive session.
Motion carries 9-0.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:15 - 5:37 p.m.]
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Henry Brigham had to leave for a previous engagement.
59. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
54
Mr. Mayor: The Chair will entertain a motion to authorize the Chair to sign the
affidavit.
Mr. Beard: I so move.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any discussion? Any objection? I will sign the affidavit without
objection.
Mr. H. Brigham out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any item of business to be added to the agenda? Is there a
motion to adjourn? We’re adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on November 7, 2001.
Clerk of Commission
55