Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-21-2002 Called Meeting CALLED MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBER June 21, 2002 Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 10:00 a.m., Friday, June 21, 2002, the Honorable Richard Colclough, Mayor Pro Tem, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Hankerson, Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Shepard, Beard, Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. Bob Young, Mayor, and Cheek, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission. Also Present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ladies and gentlemen, we are here today to get a presentation on our bond process. Madame Clerk? The Clerk: We have an addendum. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We also have and addendum? The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor pro Tem and members of the Commission, we have two addendum items to be added to our agenda today: ADDENDUM AGENDA: 1. Consider the approval of the Solid Waste Collection Phase II – Change Order #2. 2. Approve the 1001 Employee Pay Schedule dated August 1 to include longevity component. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee June 10, th 2002 and deferred from the Commission’s June 18 meeting) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Do we have a motion to add it? Mr. Beard: I so move to add. Mr. Shepard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second. Any discussion? Rev. Hankerson? Mr. Hankerson: I just got a couple of questions on that. This includes, I think, a majority of Steve’s district and mine. Is this the one? 1 The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Hankerson: Steve? I just want to make sure – Mr. Shepard: This is just the motion to add. This is just a motion to add. We’re not voting on it now. Mr. Hankerson: All right. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Bridges: The motion is to add both of these items? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Try the voting process again, gentlemen. Mr. Shepard: After four years, I should know how to do this. (Laughter) The Clerk: Mr. Hankerson, are you voting? To add these items to the agenda. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. The Clerk: The first item is a resolution approving the bond issue. 1. A RESOLUTION TO SPECIFY THE AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNTS OF AND RATES OF INTEREST THE AUGUSTA, GEORGIA WATER AND SEWERAGE REVENUE BONS, SERIES 2002 SHALL BEAR; TO SPECIFY THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT TO MATURE IN EACH YEAR, THE OPTIONAL REDEMPTION PROVISIONS AND THE MATURITIES OF THE SERIES 2002 BONDS, IF ANY, WHICH SHALL BE TERM BONDS SUBJECT TO MANDATORY REDEMPTION AND TO STATE THE PROVISIONS APPLICABLE THERETO; TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION AND DELIVERY OF A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE SERIES 2002 BONDS; TO PROVIDE FOR BOND INSURANCE AND DEBT SERVICE RESERVE INSURANCE; TO DESIGNATE THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ORIGINAL PURCHASER OF THE SERIES 2002 BONDS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE ISSUANCE AND DELIVERY OF THE SERIES 2002 BONDS; TO PROVIDE FOR THE USE OF PROCEEDS OF THE SERIES 2002 BONDS; TO RATIFY, REAFFIRM, AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT THE PARITY BOND RESOLUTION ADOPTED MAY 30, 2002, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SAID SERIES 2002 BONDS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 2 The Clerk: I will Attorney Wall continue with this. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: As you will recall, you previously adopted a resolution with a not to exceed number. The bonds were priced yesterday and Mark Widener is going to speak to that, but you have before you – hopefully everyone has a copy – Marion, have you got [inaudible]? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Wall: A supplemental resolution which sets forth the pricing. It also does a couple of other things. Let me cover while we can. It also authorizes, corrects, adopts a new engineering report where there was a clerical error made in one page on there. There was a failure to reference the repayment of the GEFA loan, and so we’re correcting that. Also allows the execution of the bond purchase agreement which will carry forward the pricing which was done yesterday, and also allows for a repurchase agreement – I’m sorry – what am I trying to think of? Provide a funding agreement where the construction funds and the monies that are being held can be invested until they are spent. And with that introduction, I’d ask Mark to talk about the pricing and then I can answer any further questions that you may have about the resolution. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Widener? Mr. Widener: I want to thank y’all very much for the opportunity to be here. This is the fun part of what we’ve been doing for the last about six or eight weeks. And I can tell you, based on the success of the two bond issues that we’ve been fortunate enough to with y’all on, and I think Max’s prayers are actually getting through, we had a great sale yesterday. As well as we did in 2000 with the interest rate, we actually did better, I say succeeded – when I say succeeded I mean we got a better interest rate yesterday on these bonds than we did in 2000. So it’s quite a sale. At this point of the year, we actually hit the market at nearly the low point. In fact, it even went higher yesterday after we committed to buy the bonds at the rates they were, and so much so we had several buyers walk away. But that’s our risk, not yours. We have committed to the interest rate. But the book in front of you, I don’t want to go over it page-by-page, but it’s intended just to give you a little bit of summary information on the bond issues themselves. Under tab 1 is a copy of preliminary official statement cover. This is the offering document that we actually used to sell the bonds. This has been distributed to a number of potential investors weeks ago. And this is what we use – we’ll have a final official statement that will be distributed at the end of next week that will actually set forth all the terms and conditions of the final bond issue. Under tab 2, this is probably the more important part of the book. You will remember the last time we were here, which was just a few weeks ago when you all authorized this preliminary bond resolution to allow us to go forward. We had given you this page exactly. There is nothing on this page that has changed. Intended to give you an idea of where the market was in time. At 3 the time, we anticipated an average rate of about 5.21, which is an incredible low. I thought we were stretching a little bit at the time to try and get to 5.21. As it turns out, yesterday we actually got a 5.02 average interest rate, which is about a 19 basis point differential in savings you got on the bond issues. We got lower rates by about 19 basis points. Now on $150 million for 30 days, that equates to probably about $4.5 million to $5 million in savings in interest that you all have because rates were lower yesterday than they were when we anticipated just a few weeks ago. In fact, if I were to show you where we were two months ago, you’d see that rates were probably 10 or 15 basis point above that, so there’s another $5 million. So you been lucky, rather than good, and I’d love to take credit for getting you to the market at the right time, but I think we just got lucky and hit it right. One other thing on this page that’s important is we did undertake a refinancing of the Georgia Environmental Facility Authority loans for 1996. There’s about $8 million in loans that we refinanced. That was a decision that was made by the finance staff to go forth based on the savings that were anticipated, which at the time were about $50,000 a year, about $547,000. In reality, because rates did come down so much, we ended up saving about $200,000 more than that. We saved about $790,000 on that loan, so it was great, it turned out to be much better than we had anticipated. The following page shows you how the bonds mature, what years they mature in, what rates we got yesterday. The important column there is the yield column. The yield column are the actual rates you’re paying on the bonds. You can see they range from a 1.45% in 2002, up to a 5.17% in 2032. So you’ve got a 30-year bond out there at a 5.17%. That would [inaudible] well against almost any bond issue that’s been done this year anywhere in the country. The next page is the sources and uses. This is very similar to what we showed you the last time we were here. The only difference is the bond par amount is down about $3 million or $4 million from what we anticipated. That is largely due to the lower interest costs on the issues. So it drove the par amount down some on the issue. The next page shows the – and if I’m going too fast, please slow me down. I recognize y’all have a lot to talk about today. Aggregate debt service, this gives you an idea that after the sale of the 2002 bonds, with the ’96-’97 bonds and your 2002 bonds and your 2002 bonds, what your overall debt service looks like. As I said before, the GEFA refunding, there’s a financing summary, we’re saving about $790,000, almost 9%, over 9% of the issue in savings. You will recall that typically on a refunding you’re looking for about 3% savings to justify the expense of undertaking the transaction. You were three times better than that, so it was a great opportunity. Under tab 3, what we’re attempting to show you here is just how good the market was in pricing. It is close but it doesn’t exactly give you an idea because we’re a little bit lagged here on the rate. If you look in the box up in the upper right hand corner, it shows recent history, about a year’s worth of history. The bottom shows about 20 years worth of history, but what you can see is where we priced, the rates were at the lowest they’ve been in the last 20 years or very near the lowest they’ve been. And if I were to have shown you the rate of yesterday, the black line that goes across the box in the upper right hand corner, we were below that, so you would see – it would put you down – the only time rates have been low in the last year were right after September 11 when the bond market was at its lowest because of the events that happened on September 11. Skipping a couple of pages, under tab 4, this is probably the most important part of the entire book. If you – and we’ve been through this before – if you buy a share of stock on the New York Stock Exchange, you know that 4 you’re getting a fair price for it because you’re paying the same thing that everybody else is paying for it out there. When you sell municipal bonds, you have no way of knowing if the rate was a good market rate. The only way that you know is if we compare that transaction that you had to another transaction that was very similar in the market about the same time. And so what we’ve done here, and I apologize for the small print, but it’s one way to get it on the page, is to compare the transactions that were [inaudible] this week, both in Florida. One is for Jacksonville, Florida, and it was actually a stronger credit because it was what they call a guaranteed entitlement, it was based on some taxes, versus yours was based on water and sewer revenues. It had a pretty similar structure to the bond issue that we sold. And to the right of it is one for Osceola County, Florida. It was also an infrastructure issue much like yours was, based on revenues of water and sewer system. But what you can see is, if you follow down the yield column of each of those, our transaction priced anywhere from right on top to as many as 10 to 15 basis points below the other two transactions that were in the market at the exact same time. That’s the only way you know that the rates you got were good market rates. There is no other way for you to know that. But if you look here, you did better than Jacksonville, Florida. Did better than Osceola County, Florida, which is Tallahassee. So you did better than any of these others that were out in the market at the same time. Typically, Florida prices better, meaning lower yields, than Georgia does because of the retiree part of the state. There are a lot of retirees in the state that like to buy tax-free bonds. Typically, Florida’s paper trade is better, usually five to ten basis points lower than Georgia’s. In this case, we priced better than Florida. Two things to do with it. Three things. One of them is the excellent credit rating that Augusta enjoys. The A2 and A+ that was given by Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, and recently confirmed. The second one is we hit the market at exactly the right time. We got lucky for it. But so did they. And the third one there has been dearth of paper in the state of Georgia. There has been very little bond issues in the state this year. So everybody that wanted Georgia paper was looking for a good bond issue. It turns out yesterday the bond issues that you sold, the long maturities are going to go into what’s called index bonds. They will be placed into an index. They priced so aggressively they will be placed into a municipal market index, which is a based of bonds that are in an entity. So it was quite a pricing. My job is to sell. I don’t want to oversell this, but I want you to understand exactly how good we did hit it yesterday, all of us together. The last part of it is under Appendix A. The marketing material – these are materials that we put together over the course of the last six weeks in an effort to market these bonds to potential investors. There is an article – a lot of you may have seen it, I hope – that was in the Augusta paper that was an advertisement for the issue, told you where to call, what the bonds were going to look like, when they were coming. Also, just miscellaneous information that was distributed throughout the A.G. Edwards system and SunTrust system to get these bonds sold for yesterday so that when they came, there was a ready and willing and receptive audience for the bonds. And then under B, just for each of your own edification to read, are the most recent ratings reports received from Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s, both confirming the A+ and A2 rating. I can tell you we did not receive an upgrade from Moody’s. I didn’t really anticipate us receiving one in the face of a $150 million bond issue, but I do think the stage has been set for the next time to try and get the rating upgraded to get it more in line with the S&P rating and the highest A rating category. With that, I’d ask if there are any questions. I’ll 5 be happy to try and answer. If not, again I think you ought to be proud that you got a great deal. Any questions? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Any questions from any of the Commissioners? Thank you. Mr. Widener: Thank y’all again for the opportunity. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall:I would ask that you adopt the If there are no questions, supplemental resolution, which you have a copy of before you, which authorizes the execution of the bond purchase agreement, corrects the engineering report, and also authorizes the bond purchase agreement for purchase of insurance and other things specified in the caption. Mr. Shepard: I so move as submitted by the Attorney. Mr. Bridges: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Motion and second on the floor. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion please signify by the sign of voting. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: For everyone’s benefit, if I can go through the rest of the schedule, we have a bond validation proceeding which will be on Tuesday morning, July 2. We then will have a pre-closing signing of the documents here in Augusta, and which all of you are invited. That will take place at the OMI training center out by the Messerly Waste Treatment Plant. That will be 10 o’clock in the morning on Tuesday, July 9. And then the pre-closing, insofar as review of documents by everyone concerned, will take place thth on the 10, with the funding to take place on the 11 of July. But the important thing I want everyone to be aware of is that there will be a pre-closing signing of the documents th on Tuesday, July 9, at the training center. And all of you are invited. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: What time again, Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: At 10 o’clock in the morning. 10 a.m. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item, Madame Clerk. The Clerk: Addendum Item 1. Consider the approval of the Solid Waste Collection Phase II – Change Order #2. 6 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who is going to address that? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, I’ll defer this to Ms. Teresa Smith, our Director of Public Works. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay. Ms. Smith? Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: I’d like to make a motion once she finishes her presentation, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Go ahead. Ms. Smith: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, members of the Commission, we have been receiving a number of calls from pockets of residents that are generally surrounded by the current solid waste collection contracts, and the calls have typically associated with the fact that they are areas that are not large enough to get haulers to come in and to provide them with service. There are five sections that have called with concerns. We have taken the information and rolled it into five areas that are contiguous or closest to our current service collection areas, and that’s the information that’s provided before you. The cover sheet of the information indicates that there is almost 800 households that are making the requests. However, we should point out that these areas are spread out across the county and that the numbers that are associated with those sections more closely reflect the isolated areas that we have been receiving calls from. So as we request that this be considered for a change order, we request that you take a look at it from the perspective of their being three different contracts that we are proposing to make changes to. They all simply are associated with solid waste collection. Mr. Beard: I have a question for Ms. Smith prior to the motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Go ahead. Mr. Beard: I’m going to support this, but I just need to know are all the people in this county receiving garbage pickup, and if not, and I’m sure maybe you can’t answer this, but it just appears to me that we, you know, we keep finding these pockets. Are we going to put this to rest today? I doubt if you can assure me of that. But I think we need to make sure that all of the citizens, and I know it’s not up to you to do this, but maybe there is something else we can do to assure that everybody is receiving. And I think under this proposal, everybody is supposed to be receiving that. Am I right in that? No? Ms. Smith: Actually, there are about 2,000 households in Richmond County that are not included in the contracts. A lot of those households are in the more sparsely- populated areas of the county. And what we have attempted to do is to respond to the more densely-populated areas where it would be cost effective for the persons providing the service to come in and to provide that service in a costly manner. So everybody is not included. I don’t think everybody is likely to be included in some of the furthest 7 stretches of the area, as evaluated by section, based on what the cost per section would be for providing that service. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Shepard? Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. First of all, I wanted to thank Ms. Smith and her department and the Administrator. I think we’ve had a smoother transition into this extension of service than we had last year. We’ve had thousands come in and we’re only dealing with less than a thousand here. There are problems and they’re around, and I think that Commissioner Hankerson and I have received the brunt of the calls because the areas that experience what we refer to as hauler abandonment have thrd occurred in the 5 and 3 Districts. And so this is an attempt to pick up those little spots around, and there’s one area that he and I share, Commissioner Hankerson and I share, probably the largest area – correct me if I’m wrong, Teresa, I think it’s section 11B on I would move that we accept the memorandum. So if it’s order, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, Change Order #2 as outlined on this memorandum prepared June 18 in your department by Ms. Bender and that we expand the solid waste district to include sections 9A, 11B, 13B, 14, 14B and 15B. Mr. Kuhlke: I’ll second it to get it on the floor. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second. We have discussion. First, Mr. Hankerson, Mr. Bridges and then Mr. Kuhlke. Mr. Hankerson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. I just want to make sure, because I have some areas that were inadvertently left out the last time, and to my surprise, my understanding that entire District 5, I want to make sure, cause sometimes on the maps little maps are not on here, but they’re included, and then sometimes they are not on here and they are not included. I just want to make sure that the entire District 5 will receive the service and then at that point I’m clear because I have Old Barton Chapel Road, has been calling and complaining, and also Old Highway #1. And then I want to ask the question about two subdivisions. Ms. Smith: All of the one that you have just named are included. Mr. Hankerson: Are included? So as long as entire District 5 is included, then I shouldn’t have nobody calling saying that they don’t have the service. I just wanted to make that kind of clear. Then I’ll vote for the motion. Ms. Smith: Well, let me clarify, if I can, that in identification of the service area, all of District 5, we’ll say, is not shaded in. There are some commercial areas of District 5 that have not been included as far as the service areas are concerned. However, all of the residential streets that are currently identified in our GIS system have been included in the service areas and will now be covered once this is completed. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Bridges? 8 Mr. Bridges: I’m probably asking the same question, Teresa, but if we were to look at a map and we were to color in the residential, all the residences from North Augusta down to the general vicinity of Tobacco Road, that would all be colored in now with this resolution; is that correct? In other words, all the residence – there are no more pockets of residential development with this in that area say north of Tobacco Road, just generally speaking? Just using that as a general stopping point? Ms. Smith: Don’t make me lie to you, Commissioner Bridges. I have not looked at the map to verify that every single-family residence from the river to Tobacco Road is now included. There may be some areas out off of – and maybe Commissioner Shepard help me, cause I don’t remember off the top of my head – Powell Mill Road, for instance, I don’t think is included, and that’s an area where it’s not as densely populated. But the more densely-populated area are included. Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, may I respond to that? She ask. Mr. Bridges, rd that’s correct. For example, in looking at the way we’re expanding it in the 3 District, we are taking in the area that’s basically beyond what we did last year, but it’s the most densely-populated area, and basically that lies along Belair Road. There will be, if the demand for it in the future, as it may well be, as there have been demands in the past, for an additional area in District 3, but to date, that’s not where I’ve not yet heard from. There are people that don’t want the service, there are people that want the service. So I’m trying to balance those two. There is a part of District 3 that yet remains outside the service district, but my philosophy has been to expand it where there are requests and demand and where there is a dense concentration of populated subdivisions. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Beard? Mr. Beard: I guess this is what I was trying to say at the beginning and really didn’t say it. Can we put any type – and I know we’re supposed to give service to people. But to me at some point we are going to have to stop this. I assume, with Ms. Smith, it’s taking up – I’d like to know just how much time is this taking up from you? Because I can just see this going on and on and on. It must be taking a tremendous amount of man hours and time on Public Works and everybody else, Finance and everybody else, and maybe I’m talking a little ahead, but it appears to me we, at some point, we need to cut this off. I know we did it, the first phase, we waited a year or so before we went into the second phase. But I just don’t see us doing this every, you know, a couple of times a month or every month, that we’re going to have to go back and add and we’re going to have Public Works to get into this and draw up a new map. Mr. Administrator, is there any such thing that we are going to cut this off at any particular time, to say that we are going to have to wait another year or whatever? Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Beard, that’s a very good question. And you’re right, it is taking up a tremendous amount of time, not only in the records office, but also at the landfill. I think that we probably have gotten the worst of this over. From my analysis, what seems to have occurred is that when we began June 1, we created a brand new 9 market, and the little pockets that you’re considering today came unprofitable for the private sector to carry. So without a garbage service, we began to hear from them, and I’m hoping that we’ve heard from everyone who has been put in this predicament by this market shift. And hopefully it will begin to taper off. But you’re right, it has eaten up a lot of time. We’re doing our best to try and take care of the bulk of the problem. We should see some relief hopefully in the next few weeks. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Wall? Mr. Wall: I am compelled to issue the same warning that I did a year ago. And that is that you have two districts that are being added to, 9A and 11B. Actually new districts. You’ve got 340 units in 280 units in the other. And my understanding is that there are at least three districts that have been bid that have approximately that number of units. And argument could be made by a potential bidder that they were precluded from bidding on these sections because it’s being done by way of a change order. I voiced that objection a year ago, and of course at that time there was a lot more total number. And of course it affected Mr. Cheek most of all because we wound up having to go out and rebid or bid the new sections. But I think that you have the same issue that could be raised this time. You do have the additional consideration this time that apparently a lot of these areas have been abandoned by service, and so you do not have private haulers who are willing to go in and service that. And so to that extent, there is perhaps a distinction. But I would ask the maker of the motion if y’all could vote on it to that having been said, add to the motion to amend the service districts, create the service districts, because it needs to be more than just the change order if y’all approve it, for tax purposes. Mr. Shepard: I’ll accept the amendment as recommended by the lawyer. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion on the issue? Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Boyles? Mr. Boyles: I just wanted to follow up a little on what Mr. Beard was saying. I was fortunate in the 7the District I inherited a complete District of garbage service, pickup service. So what happened in the other Districts? I mean were the Commissioners allowed to pick spots or service areas? Why is it still so spotty? If it’s a city-wide service, as I look back at the Fire Chief back there, we’ve got a city-wide fire service, and we went into the garbage business and we seem to be picking our spots. Mr. Beard: Long story, Mr. Boyles. I’ll talk to you about it. th Mr. Boyles: Let me just say again we were fortunate that the entire 7 District was covered. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: I’m going to let Rev. Williams talk. 10 Mr. Williams: I’m going to have to respond to what Commissioner Boyles has said down there. And that’s about the service. Everybody had an opportunity, Commissioner, before you came on, and some of us as Commissioners was reluctant to advise the Administrator or advise the Public Works to proceed in doing this. And now it’s like a snowball effect, everybody is catching on. So people are beginning to come on now. Commissioner Cheek and I wanted it in our Districts. Our people needed it bad. But I want to ask Jim a question. Jim, are you saying now that if we do anything we need to bid this out before we – is that? Mr. Wall: Well, the point I want to make is simply this. I think that someone could come in and challenge the fact that it was not bid. That’s the point I made a year ago. Now at that time, I don’t remember the numbers, but it was huge. 17,000 by the time it was all said and done, which was about half the total number, wasn’t it? Here you’ve got a much smaller overall group, but you have two sections that have 208 and 340, and we have some sections that were bid as a part of the bid process for both Phase I and Phase II, where you have roughly 300 units in a section that we bid. We did that for a reason. The concern was that some of the smaller haulers would not be able to bid on a thousand-unit section, and so it was designed that way so that some of the smaller haulers could in fact bid on these and get these. And so do I have a concern that someone could come in and challenge and say that these, too, should be bid? Yes, I do. But I also understand the need to give them service if they are not being serviced by private hauler. Mr. Williams: I just wanted to be clear on that, because I think that as our legal advisor, I think we ought to follow that. I wanted to make sure that what you’re saying, that we need to do it so we won’t have any ramifications coming back later on, coming back. Thank you. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Ms. Smith? Go ahead. Ms. Smith: I need to offer up an apology to the County Attorney for providing him with information based on my memory of the size of the units in the previous contracts. The previous contracts, the smallest service unit for Phase I, was 553 units. And the size of the units, that being the smaller, was pretty well derived by the fact that industry standards dictate that somewhere in the area of 600 to 800 homes can be picked up as being a route. And so that’s what those numbers were based on in Phase I. So the smallest unit, smallest service area in Phase I, as 553. In Phase II, we do have one area that is 296, or almost 300 service units, and that is where there were two smaller communities, one of which is at the very edge of Richmond County, at the Richmond County/Columbia County line, and that is simply as many homes as there were in that particular subdivision that came aboard. And so there is only one section that is around 300, but the other small section that we actually planned for was 553. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Kolb, you wanted to add? 11 Mr. Kolb: I think Mr. Williams did a much better job of summarizing the issue than I could, so I’ll pass. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and a second on the floor. If there is no further discussion, gentlemen, what is your pleasure? Mr. Mays out. Motion carries 8-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? Mr. Beard, you had something you wanted to discuss? Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. Beard: On the same line as the solid waste, we had appointed a committee to look into – at the last meeting. We’ve never appointed anyone to chair that committee. Would it be in order to – could we – on solid waste collection – appoint the chairperson? We needed someone to chair that committee. We didn’t appoint a chair at that time. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Who is on the committee there? The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Beard: And I was going to ask that maybe the Warden bring that committee together. For the record. And maybe the Clerk [inaudible]. Do we need a motion on that, Mr. Parliamentarian? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Need a motion to add. Mr. Kuhlke: I make a motion to add and approve. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion to add and approve. Mr. Beard: Second. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: And a second. Any discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes. Mr. Bridges: We went fishing down here. What’s the motion? The Clerk: The motion is to appoint the Warden as chairman of the subcommittee to evaluate the eviction and garbage process. 12 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: It’s time for y’all to come off the boat now. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: All in favor of the motion, please signify by the sign of voting. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] The Clerk: The motion is to appoint the Warden as chairman of the subcommittee to evaluate the eviction and garbage process. Mr. Mays: I don’t have any problem with the selection of chairman. I just didn’t know that was going to come up. I have no problem with it, but I’m going to say the same thing I said the other day [inaudible] name of it, the eviction subcommittee, but I just want to be very careful that [inaudible] still saying that, because there’s trash out from there are some folk not getting evicted under [inaudible] circumstances as there are evictions. Evictions is a small part of what we’re dealing with. So in doing that, if you’re going to cover evictions, that’s fine. But I want to make sure that we’re talking about [inaudible]. Trash. Mr. Beard: I think we’re clear. We got that. Motion carries 9-0. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Next item? The Clerk: Addendum Item 2. Approve the 2002 Employee Pay Schedule dated August 1 to include longevity component. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee th June 10, 2002 and deferred from the Commission’s June 18 meeting) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Whose is this? The Clerk: It was referred from our last [inaudible] meeting. Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Chairman, I move we approve the pay structure as outlined in the agenda. Mr. Boyles: I second that. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a motion and second on the floor. Any discussion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. 13 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams, and then Mr. Bridges. Mr. Williams: Commissioner Cheek had a motion on the floor, I think, Ms. Bonner, the last time, when we left, to look at Grade level 63 to 65, I think it was maybe through 65, to be deleted from that and approve the rest of them. That motion – The Clerk: [inaudible] Mr. Williams: I think I seconded that motion from Mr. Cheek. And what I’m hearing now is we going to vote to add all in there? Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: I think the question came up and we got an answer back about how much increase is that going to affect and what was that increase? How much was that? Mr. Kolb: One employee would receive approximately $16,000 to $17,000. Mr. Williams: Well, I’m still holding to the motion that Commissioner Cheek made and that I second that we freeze the 63, 64, 65. I can support the rest of it but I can’t support -- Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Are you making a substitute motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir. A substitute motion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: There is a substitute motion on the floor. Mr. Bridges: I’ll second it for purposes of discussion. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We have a second. Mr. Bridges? Mr. Bridges: George, what would that do to the structure? I mean in regards to freezing those three. I think last time you said that would just totally dismantle everything. What would it actually do? Mr. Kolb: It would put the salary schedule out of whack. As the other salary range would progress, these three would be stuck in limbo for the most part. But it can be done if that’s what you direct. But we would not recommend it. It would actually provide inequities in the personnel system, the compensation system. Mr. Bridges: The increase, I guess it’s level 63, you said affects one person. What percent increase would that be from his present salary to whatever he would get? What kind of percentage are we talking about? 14 Mr. Kolb: I’m being told it’s about 24%. Mr. Bridges: Okay. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further discussion on the substitute motion? Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Williams? Mr. Williams: First of all, I think this only be frozen for one year; is that right? Wouldn’t it be frozen one year then get back to normal or whatever? I don’t understand first of all how we got to this point anyway. How did we get to a 24%? Is that what you said? Mr. Kolb: Yes, sir. Mr. Williams: How, how, how, how did that happen? How did that get so astronomical? Mr. Kolb: I don’t know. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Can you answer that? Ms. Pelaez: Yes, I can explain it. I don’t particularly think you’ll like the answer, but here we go. Essentially what has happened, when we’ve gone out and looked at the market, the market states that deputy administrators around the state of Georgia and the other areas that we surveyed, this is the range in which they are being compensated. Essentially this person for the past – since 1997 – has not been compensated according to market, so therefore when you implement the new pay scale, according to market you are going to have a significant increase as a result of the inequity that has existed since 1997. Mr. Williams: You mean nobody address this since 1997? You saying that now it just come up and we just noticed it? Is that your department? I mean is that something that happened under your watch, Ms. Pelaez? Ms. Pelaez: No, sir, I was not the HR director in 1997. Mr. Williams: No, no, no, no, not ’97. But since you been there. I mean you talking about 1997, but since you been there and how long has that been? Two years? Ms. Pelaez: Well, since I’ve been here, we’ve been working on the salary structure. I am sure you can kind of all remember, I keep coming up here and we keep coming back and we’ve been trying to correct it but it hasn’t gotten approved yet. 15 Mr. Kolb: We have been working on this issue for more than a year. Mr. Williams: And we’ve got an employee – Mr. Mayor Pro Tem? We had – Sonny Reece came from downstairs and said he made a mistake back when he was grading some people and came back. You mean to tell me we got something been going from 1997 and nobody has approached it, nobody has even brought it to this Commission? In fact, that person ought to should have said something, but nobody has brought it to the Commission to say it was an injustice since 1997? Mr. Kolb: Mr. Williams, in 1997 you had a salary study that was done and adopted by this Commission. Since that time, it has not been maintained as it should have been, and over a year ago it came to your attention and the Commission so directed that we begin to look at market studies and attempt to adjust salaries so that we could improve our recruiting and retention. The last few weeks we have been presenting that to you. So we have taken steps to address it. Mr. Williams: Answer this question, then. We got two administrators, assistant administrators that Ms. Pelaez has mentioned. One is an inequity. Why is it just one of them then if that’s the pay scale, if that’s what we been paying, why is there two and not – I mean why is there one and not two? Mr. Kolb: One was brought in recently. You have one that’s been employed for I believe 11 years. The other one was just brought on board less than a year ago, and he was and is still out of market, but he was brought close to market. Mr. Williams: Excuse me one minute. Let me consult. (Laughter) Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: While you’re consulting, I’m going to go to Mr. Kuhlke. Go ahead. Mr. Kuhlke: I wanted to speak to what Mr. Williams is talking about. I think probably what we need to be honest about is that we need to be fair with the other deputy administrator. And we need to bring him to market. And that’s the only person we’re talking about in this situation, and we just sort of got ourselves in a box, but we can’t have two deputy administrators with the disparity that we have with the salary. So for that reason, I’m going to vote for the motion that’s made. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Mr. Mays? Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, thank you. I think Commissioner Kuhlke is absolutely right on what he said. But let me [inaudible]. I’m going to vote for Mr. Beard’s motion, the original motion that’s on the floor. But I think it’s healthy that Rev. Williams and Commissioner Bridges have elected to make the substitute motion, because this is where this needs to get cleared up at. And I was not going to say anything until we 16 started talking about 1997 references of the market place. Now we can say whatever salary study that we want to, that we propose, adopt, we can get figures from all around the southeast. But it means absolutely nothing unless you incorporate it, and that’s what you’re going by. I’m sure we have people up and down the scale. We’re probably going to have to deal with a different adjustment when we hire a director over in Housing and Neighborhood Development to stay within the confines of the [inaudible]. That’s how it works out. But this is not the only one. And I’m glad the gentlemen have the motion on the floor. I think it’s more really to deal with the discussion than where it is in a final settlement. Let’s cut the whole [inaudible] and I’m going to help you out a little bit, Ms. HR Director, because I know you’re presenting this in a genuine, harmless way. But now I’m not going to sit here and wear this 1997 [inaudible]. Now this whole thing did not just mess up. And this is not a reflection on you. But this didn’t just get messed up because we didn’t follow some market place in terms of keeping up. It’s a lot of folk, if you want to seriously compare the market place, it’s probably we’ve not kept up with, and maybe in terms of justifiable means, whether it’s been money or anything else. I say that because I said I would be very truthful about this, I would be very candid and upfront th with it. This now makes the 5 time I have addressed the issue. I addressed this particular issue in reference to the index category of the position of 63 in this system. I brought it up during budget time. I brought up during committee time twice. I brought it up during legal more times than I want to talk about. This is on this agenda to get this mess straightened out today because the Commission, that I did not vote with that group and since I did not participate in that vote, I have a right to voice that opinion about it. The Commission allowed the assistant to be hired during this process, and this is why it needs to be done for the record. We were so warned. I gave you my unsolicited, illegal, so-called, opinion, and y’all wanted to basically laugh, some of you. But you are riding this mule now because it wasn’t dealt with. It is not a ’97 mule here. This is a jackass situation that was created within the last year. This could have been dealt with. I knew coming on it was going to put this city in harm’s way. We should have dealt with it then and then one of three things – if you’ve got two people in a category, then you do one of three things. Either you have a reason to terminate, you may humanely find a reason to move or to transfer and elect to freeze a salary, or if necessary, [inaudible] demotion, you do it, or you create more positions with the same salary level before you bring anybody else on. So this is not a 1997 problem. I beg to differ. And that’s no offense against you, but I know you need that layer of protection to deal with it. But that ain’t 1997. This is right here and now of what’s being dealt with. So that’s why we are out here today correcting this mess, just as we’ve done other things that have not been handled properly, just as we’ve had to come out here on this Commission floor, change job descriptions to make them right, and I am tired of that kind of mess. Now this could have been settled, Mr. Administrator, had you dealt with this in the proper way when I brought this to the attention both privately and publicly before this Commission. Now I do enough, as I say many times, I do enough to get Willie in trouble. I don’t need help. And this one I’m not going to wear. This is not a 1997 problem. This one was created over the course of the fact of your coming in and not dealing with it properly. It was brought to your attention and warned basically from HR, from the Attorney’s office, and everything else that we had, to correct this problem. Now we are going to get it corrected today. Cause the buck does stop with this Commission in terms of dealing with it. But I 17 think the record ought to be set, first Mr. Beard as the maker of the motion, that we are not doing something that we are responsible for 1997, this is action that we were forewarned about and that we should have dealt with it, that has not been dealt with, and that’s why it ought to cleared [inaudible]. And no offense to you, Madame HR Director, for bringing that, but to a point, and I hope – you won’t get no reprimand – I’m the one that’s raising the hell about it – but it’s going to get clear as far as what the record states in reference to this. This is a year-and-some-old problem that I hope we can lay to rest, get the city out of a litigation process so that we can correct something that should have been corrected in the very first place. And if I had my druthers about it, and if it was a part of your motion, I would make it so that a letter would go over into the Administrator’s file for the way in which this whole thing has been handled. That’s not on the floor and it’s not a part of the motion. Therefore it won’t be in there, but it’s publicly stated and that’s where I am on the position of it. So I plan to vote for your motion, Mr. Beard, but I will not wear that ’97, that would not have been there had [inaudible]. That was one that the Administrator of this city should have handled. Mr. Kuhlke: Call the question. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Okay, gentlemen, we have a substitute motion on the floor. Anybody need the motion re-read? If not, all in favor of the substitute motion vote aye. Mr. Boyles: I’m not clear on the substitute motion. The Clerk: Mr. Boyles, the substitute motion is to freeze three pay grades, 63 through 65. Mr. Mays: [inaudible] The Clerk: Yes, sir, I heard you. (Vote on substitute motion) Mr. Beard, Mr. Colclough, Mr. Boyles, Mr. Kuhlke, Mr. Mays, Mr. Shepard and Mr. Hankerson vote No. Mr. Williams out. Motion fails 1-7. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: That takes us back to the original motion. The Clerk: Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Anybody need the original motion restated? All in favor of the original motion, please signify by the sign of voting. (Vote on original motion) Mr. Williams out. Motion carries 8-0. 18 Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: Is there any further business that we need to take care of in the chambers today, Madame Clerk? The Clerk: No, sir. Mr. Mayor Pro Tem: We will adjourn this meeting and reconvene back in the committee room. [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 Called Meeting of Augusta Richmond County Commission held on June 21, 2002. Clerk of Commission 19